Dandy_don From United States of America, joined May 2000, 201 posts, RR: 0 Posted (11 years 4 months 2 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 2481 times:
Probably a topic discussed before but...
Most would vote for the P-51 Mustang in the European Theater. But any arguments for the Spitfire or P-47?
Haven't ever heard a comparison between the Mustang and Corsair or Mustang v Hellcat. I know they are different but nevertheless who would win providing equally skilled pilots?
Dash 80 From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 309 posts, RR: 2 Reply 1, posted (11 years 4 months 2 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 2279 times:
For best WWII fighter in the European theatre, my vote goes to the Spitfire with P-47 as runner-up (even though the P-51 was a far superior aircraft).
In the Pacific theatre my vote goes to F6F Hellcat with the P-38 as runner-up.
L-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29350 posts, RR: 62 Reply 2, posted (11 years 4 months 2 weeks 1 day ago) and read 2247 times:
OHH...I don't think that you can pick just one.
The Spitfire has it points and is an elegant aicraft but it lacked a heavy ground punch. And it's carrier versions where also lacking in carrier stability and ruggedness. Also some of the earlier versions suffered during that period that the RAF was deciding to switch from banks of 30 cal machine guns to cannon.
I think the post Merlin versions of the Mustang has to be considered as one of the best balanced aircraft out there. But it's belly mounted radiator made ground fire problematic.
I think I am going to suggest the F4U Corsair. Elegant design. Excellent air to air and air to ground charictaristics. And a very rugged airframe.
OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
Schreiner From Netherlands, joined Oct 2001, 960 posts, RR: 2 Reply 3, posted (11 years 4 months 2 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 2197 times:
In my point of view:
01 - Mosquito (due to hi speeds)
02 - Hellcat (read L-188)
03 - P38 (due to speed and survival rates)
04 - Spitfire (due to elegance and manuverability)
05 - P51 (due to its huge range)
06 - P-47 (star engine... could not be damaged!)
07 - Me 109 (did a lot for the luftwaffe)
08 - Huricane (we've to thank our freedom to this a/c)
09 - Zero (Fast as hell)
10 - C-47 - Dacota's (the workhorse of WWII)
Well... this is my top 10... I think that the mosquito was the best a/c then... only it came a bit late.
It's also one of the most beautifull a/c ever built.
L-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29350 posts, RR: 62 Reply 4, posted (11 years 4 months 2 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 2196 times:
Are you trying to start a Hellcat vs. Corsair fight Schreiner
I guess it would be more interesting then the Boeing Vs Airbus fights that usually happen here
OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
L-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29350 posts, RR: 62 Reply 6, posted (11 years 4 months 2 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 2186 times:
Both Aircraft feature the same basic engine (R-2800), Simular armaments 6 .50 machine guns.
I feel however that the Corsair was a better air to ground aircraft. Not that the Hellcat was any slouch. I also believe that the Hellcat had more sacrifices made in it's handling to allow it to be easier to land on an aircraft carrier. The Corsair first went to USMC units for the first year or so of combat until the got the Air/Oil mixes in the strut right.
I also think that the "gull wing" design and the smoother curves of the F4U are simply more attractive
OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
Contact_tower From Norway, joined Sep 2001, 536 posts, RR: 1 Reply 9, posted (11 years 4 months 2 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 2176 times:
The fighter most crucial to the allied victory was the fighters of RAF fighter command during the Battle of Brittain. And of that the most numerous in those battles.
GDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 12707 posts, RR: 80 Reply 10, posted (11 years 4 months 2 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 2165 times:
Best aircraft? How about best engine? What have these all got in common;
Spitire, Hurricane, Mosquito, P-51D....
The R/R Merlin engine.
Anyone for the YAK-3? I don't know much about it, but it's reckoned to be the best WW2 Soviet fighter. If the airwar on the Eastern front was anything like the ground war, that would be the aircraft which broke the Luftwaffe's back.
For me, later model Spitfires and the P-51D are the best WW2 fighters, the ability of the P-51D to escort daylight bomber raids must have been a shattering blow to Luftwaffe morale.
TEDSKI From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 11, posted (11 years 4 months 2 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 2161 times:
The best American fighter of WW2 would have to be the P-51 Mustang. If it wasn't for the P-51 with it's powerful Rolls Royce Merlin V-1650 V12 engine giving it the speed it needed to go against the best German & Japanese fighters. It also had the range that the other Allied fighters did not have to escort our B-17s & B-24s all the way to Berlin and back and it escorted our B-29s to targets in Japan. The best British fighter would have to be the Rolls Royce Merlin or Griffon powered Supermarine Spitfire.
IMissPiedmont From United States of America, joined May 2001, 6203 posts, RR: 43 Reply 13, posted (11 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 2145 times:
If you go only by number of kills, the F6F is an easy winner. I'm partial to the P-38 though. Not really a great fighter but it scared more Japanese than any other aircraft. In Europe, the Spitfire probably would have won WWII if the US hadn't joined in, the P-47 was the best US fighter and the Me-109 the best axis fighter. Just my opinions of course, except for the F6F statement, that is a fact.
What is it with all the "is there a possibilty airline X will.." threads? The answer it'll is possible.
L-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29350 posts, RR: 62 Reply 14, posted (11 years 4 months 1 week 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 2136 times:
Schreiner...
From my readings there where two reasons for the Corsairs late entry into the carrier war. One was the tendency of the Corsair to be bouncy when landing on a carrier. This was eventually fixed by adjusting the oil to air ratio in the landing gear struts.
The other reason was that the Corsair was sent over to the USMC for use in their squadrons which where prodominatly land based. Part of that decision did have to do with the bouncy landing gear.
As far as the manuverablity goes.
I don't know of a single US built aircraft that could manuver inside the turning radius of a Zero on a regular basis.
What gave the US an advantage eventually was that the tatics the US used shifted the combat from a "turning" one to a Climbing and diving one. the much more powerfull engines used by US fighters typically had twice the ponies that the Sakae engine in the Zero did and the US fighters where much heavier. This allowed them faster climbs and dives. The Zero had a much lighter wing loading which made it much more of a glider, and it's smaller engine was at a definate disadvantage in a climb. The low wing loading did allow it a really quick turn and untill the US started to climb and dive the Zero was the aircraft to beat.
And as was mentioned by somebody else here. The Corsair did last long enough to see service both in Korea and in the Suez and Vietnam (French)
OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
Schreiner From Netherlands, joined Oct 2001, 960 posts, RR: 2 Reply 15, posted (11 years 4 months 1 week 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 2130 times:
But we are talking BEST WWII FIGHTER... not korea! But I must say that you are well informed! You have now made it to my "respected user" list! I would like to dicuss more with you... we will meet again!
L-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29350 posts, RR: 62 Reply 16, posted (11 years 4 months 1 week 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 2129 times:
I read a book, it came with the airplane.....
I wish
OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
MiG31 From United States of America, joined Aug 2008, 0 posts, RR: 0 Reply 17, posted (11 years 4 months 1 week 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 2119 times:
I think Yak-3. It is very light - around 2 tons and fast (up to 740km/h).
All the Soviet Pilots loved it. Came into serial production in 1943. Oh yeah, it also had practical celing of 12000m.
I like it a lot.
TEDSKI From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 18, posted (11 years 4 months 1 week 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 2107 times:
The P-47 was a little too heavy to manuever with some of the German fighters. It lacked the range to escort our bombers to targets deep in Germany. It was good for air to ground missions to support our troops on the battlefield. The US Navy F8F Bearcat came on the scene in the Pacific too late to see any action.
Rodrigo Santos From Brazil, joined Sep 2001, 87 posts, RR: 0 Reply 19, posted (11 years 4 months 1 week 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 2106 times:
Best fighter?? For me, you can’t rely this on the results. Results are often related with pilot skills and numeric superiority (and Axis forces were crippled from mid-war on).
Then how?? Well, let’s talk about performance stats. In here, late war German aircraft rule. Speed? Me-262. All-round performance? Late Fw-190 forms, such as 190D-9, 190D-11, 190D-13, Ta-152H... Supreme machines!
Of course, they all were cursed by poor pilots, fuel shortages (heck, everything was short!), and so on...
Best engine? The Rolls-Royce Merlin has to be a contender, together with Daimler-Benz DB-600 series, with showed more capable of high-end performance then the British engine (see the Bf-109K).
MiG31 From United States of America, joined Aug 2008, 0 posts, RR: 0 Reply 20, posted (11 years 4 months 1 week 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 2098 times:
I fond it rather surprising and upsetting that none of the a/c from one of main and biggest countries in this war that won, are mentioned.
Trust me they are not bad. Not bad at all!
L-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29350 posts, RR: 62 Reply 21, posted (11 years 4 months 1 week 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 2093 times:
If this had been about the best WWII ground attack aircraft it would have been.
But the Soviet Union never really had good enough metalurgy to build good superchargers. This hurt their aircraft's high altitude performance
OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
TEDSKI From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 23, posted (11 years 4 months 1 week 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 2081 times:
In the European Theater the P-38 Lightning had many problems such as the superchargers failing at high altitudes or there was a lack of adequate heating for the cockpit. The P-38 was very good in the Pacific where it was more than a match for the Mitsubishi A6M Zero. The highest scoring American ace of WW2 Major Richard Bong scored all of his 40 victories in the P-38.
TEDSKI From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 24, posted (11 years 4 months 1 week 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 2076 times:
Spacepope, the F6F Hellcat did see action in the Korean War. It was loaded with explosive ordinance and by remote control it was flown into a target. The US Navy & Marine Corps used the 4-bladed propeller F4U-4 and 5 models for ground support missions. One F4U did manage to shoot down a MIG-15.
26 ThirtyEcho: As you know, there were two sides in that dispute so the best fighter of WWII clearly has to be the Me262.
27 GDB: The Me262 was a very advanced aircraft, but, the engines were very unreliable with a very short time on wing, though the latter was a feature of early
28 PPGMD: The 190 was a good airplane from a spec stand point but from a pilot it just didn't feel right to the pilots and thus they didn't like it as much, and
29 TEDSKI: The best Spitfire models were the Mark IXe with the Rolls Royce Merlin 61 or 66 engine with a two stage supercharger and a four bladed propeller or th
30 ThirtyEcho: GDB, agreed that the Me262 engines were cranky but that's why the A/C was designed so that an engine change could be done in the field in about 30 min
31 TEDSKI: Another great American fighter plane was the Curtiss P-40 Warhawk or Kittyhawk. It was the USAAF's main fighter at the time of the Pearl Harbor attack
32 L-188: I have a few reasons for not picking the Me-262. The engines where both tempermental and short lived. The aircraft was fast but it cost it in it's tur
34 Rodrigo Santos: Care to compare the P-51 to the Ta-152 H? Man, forget the P-51, really... You can´t really beat the germans in this one. I think it is very strange h
35 MiG31: Yak-3 rulez!!! Fast, light, popular among pilots! Kind Regards, I.T.
36 TEDSKI: I was reading a book on the Curtiss P-40 series and when the P-40F model was introduced in late 1941 powered by a Packard built low altitude Rolls Roy
37 T prop: I noticed the Me262 mentioned here. I think it was a great aircraft. Apparently other people in the U.S. thought it was also. This may be slightly off
38 BWIrwy4: My favorite WWII fighter is the FW-190. It was one of the fastest fighters in that war, and it was the most heavily armed and armored of any of them.
39 Vc10: I have heard that the BMW radial engine that was fitted to the FW-190 initially was an American engine built under licence by BMW ,who ignored request
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined May 2000, 201 posts, 
From Netherlands, joined Oct 2001, 960 posts, 
But, maybe you can give some reasons for your pick...
From Vatican City, joined Dec 1999, 2737 posts, 
From Norway, joined Sep 2001, 536 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 12707 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From Brazil, joined Sep 2001, 87 posts, 
From Canada, joined Feb 2001, 5536 posts, 
Sponsor Message: 
Printer friendly format
