Dandy_don From United States of America, joined May 2000, 201 posts, RR: 0 Posted (10 years 3 months 3 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 1483 times:
Thanks for all of the discussion in my previous post about the best fighter of WWII.
Let's look at the question a different way. You are a pilot. You have your pick of any ww2 fighters at your airbase (let's leave out the me262 jet). Your mission is to fly against another pilot from a base 100 miles away who can also pick any fighter. You don't know which he is going to go at you with.
FlagshipAZ From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 3419 posts, RR: 18 Reply 1, posted (10 years 3 months 3 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 1404 times:
I guess I'll take the P-51 Mustang. Supposely most 'experts' agree that this is the best of the WWII fighters on the Allied side. When I mean 'experts", I went with Aviation Week & Space Tech panels of pilots who actually flew all these planes in WWII...attack, bomber & fighter aircrafts. Regards.
"Beer is living proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy." --Ben Franklin
TomH From United States of America, joined May 1999, 960 posts, RR: 3 Reply 3, posted (10 years 3 months 3 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 1387 times:
The first squadron of Grumman F8F Bearcats was working up when the war ended-so it is eligible for your discussion. I'm going to deploy that squadron to the base you mentioned above.
I just got my big R-2800 fired up and the four 20mm cannon in F8F-1B are loaded with HEI.
If I was the other guy, I would stay on the ground, he's going to have a very bad day otherwise.
Thumper From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 550 posts, RR: 1 Reply 4, posted (10 years 3 months 3 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 1366 times:
I agree with you TomH.I took the F8F Bearcat on the first post but was told it came along too late! I think it was by far the best WW2 Fighter! They were counting number of kills, but the post said BEST Fighter and I still think the F8F Bearcat could out preform any of them!
Rodrigo Santos From Brazil, joined Sep 2001, 87 posts, RR: 0 Reply 5, posted (10 years 3 months 3 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 1359 times:
I would pick the Ta-152 H. A strong contender to a Bearcat killer. Faster, and had 4 20mm AND a 30mm cannon.
We should point that given the same fuel (high octane fuel from USA was far superior), the Ta-152 and all Axis planes would have a sidnificant increase in power. They did all that with some cheap-ass gas!
TomH From United States of America, joined May 1999, 960 posts, RR: 3 Reply 7, posted (10 years 3 months 3 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 1343 times:
Rodrigo,
You have chosen the high-altitude version of the potent Ta-152 series. If I was flying a bomber, I would say you made an excellent choice. But I'm in a Bearcat.
At home base I was just recently briefed by intel on the Ta-152H and its distinctive high-aspect ratio wings. I have taken note of your presence at about FL 350 and have elected not to engage. Instead I will loiter at medium altitude near your home base awaiting your return.
By that time your big 30mm cannon will probably be inoperative due to the very low temps you exposed it to during your high flight. When you descend for approach to homeplate, I'll be waiting.
Rodrigo Santos From Brazil, joined Sep 2001, 87 posts, RR: 0 Reply 8, posted (10 years 3 months 3 weeks 2 days ago) and read 1336 times:
I´ll keep waiting, I´ll come diving at you so fast that will make your head swing! Just joking, I woudn´t do that. The long wings of the Ta-152 gave it some nice manuveability at medium to high altitude, and I´m not getting down! I know your´re there, smartie!
Oh, and if I was given the same chances as you (fuel, etc etc), forget it, that Jumo 213E engine would leave the Bearcat standing...
NKP S2 From United States of America, joined Dec 1999, 1714 posts, RR: 7 Reply 9, posted (10 years 3 months 3 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 1325 times:
Since you did not lay out the tactical scenario of the battle ( who's above who...our altitudes etc ), I'll compromise: Later ( "J" and subsequent, barring the "droop snoot" ) P-38 Lightning- The F4U-4 a close second. -- BTW: I agree with the others about the F8F...Would've been great to see how effective it would've been in both the Pacific and ETO. Ditto the F7F Tigercat.
TomH From United States of America, joined May 1999, 960 posts, RR: 3 Reply 10, posted (10 years 3 months 3 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 1320 times:
Rodrigo,
You have a good point about the fuel quality issue. Also, I noticed the Ta-152's 30mm cannon was engine-mounted. It may not be frozen, and I had better watch my position carefully! Still, I can accelerate in from 10 miles out like no other fighter-and I'll do just that as soon as I see you on the downwind.
NKP S2,
Yeah, the rules of engagement (ROE) were pretty incomplete. Makes choosing your mount difficult. That's why I had to stay low, 'cause that Ta-152 had no equal at high altitude. Then again, my Bearcat doesn't fight at high altitude, but your Lightning does. Care to give him a go?
TEDSKI From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 11, posted (10 years 3 months 3 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 1311 times:
Best USAAF fighter of WW2 would have to be the P-51D with the bubble canopy and six .50 caliber machine guns in the wings. Best US Navy & Marine Corps fighter would have to be the F4U-4 Corsair with a four bladed propeller and either six .50 caliber machine guns or four 20mm cannons in the wings.
TomH From United States of America, joined May 1999, 960 posts, RR: 3 Reply 12, posted (10 years 3 months 3 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 1313 times:
Tedski,
You made your claim but give us no supporting information. Of course, you'll be writing a book by the time you are finished, I suspect.
Maybe you can confirm. I heard the bubble top fighters were often slower than their "razor-back" predessesors. The Thunderbolt, Mustang and Corsair all went through this transformation. Wonder if that statement about speed is true.
You haven't mentioned the F2G-too late for the war?
The Corsair certainly was good. First flown before the US entered the war, it remained in production until late 1953 or so, about 13 years!
Rodrigo Santos From Brazil, joined Sep 2001, 87 posts, RR: 0 Reply 13, posted (10 years 3 months 2 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 1297 times:
TomH, you're right, all bubble top fighters were actually slowar then their razorback predecessors. I guess the difference was not all that great, and visibility was a better edge to have in dogfight then a few more Mph in top speed.
A thing that the Bearcat was much better waas in climb-rate. I couldn't get comparisson charts on both the Bearcat and the Ta-152H, but as the germans never got the high octane fuel, I guess we will never know for sure by how much the Bearcat beated it in climbing (given the high octane fuel).
L-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 28959 posts, RR: 66 Reply 14, posted (10 years 3 months 2 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 1295 times:
F2G really wasn't too late for the war.....The military realized that they where getting the same speeds out of the F4U-4.
Correct on the comments about bubble vs straight/razor back aircraft.
And another point for the comments about the fuel. The higher octane fuel allows higher compression engines to be used which allowed more power from the engine for the same weight.
If memory serves the Germans and Japanese where only running about 92 Oct Fuel, while the US was running 115/130.
OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
TEDSKI From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 15, posted (10 years 3 months 2 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 1286 times:
It maybe true that the razorback models were faster but the bubble canopy models of the Mustang, Thunderbolt & Spitfire provided unrestricted visibility for the pilot to check his tail vs. the razorback models that had to have a rearview mirror above the front windshield.
L-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 28959 posts, RR: 66 Reply 19, posted (10 years 3 months 2 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 1259 times:
Besides everybody knows that the Fokker Triplane was a better turner......
Remember Snoopy as the World War I fighting ace never shot down the Red Baron....
OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
Peterba69 From United States of America, joined Mar 2002, 70 posts, RR: 0 Reply 20, posted (10 years 3 months 2 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 1251 times:
I'd take the late model P-38. The security of the extra engine may be what gets me home after I kick your a##, even if you are able to get some hits on me. Look @ Bong's record. Probably the most heavily decorated A/C in the Pacific.
IMissPiedmont From United States of America, joined May 2001, 6049 posts, RR: 50 Reply 22, posted (10 years 3 months 2 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 1247 times:
The P-61 of course. You didn't say it was a daylight fight. I do believe, can't prove of course, that the P-61 was the best night fighter in WWII.
I think a test for people to live in the southwest US should be no A/C in the car for a summer.
NKP S2 From United States of America, joined Dec 1999, 1714 posts, RR: 7 Reply 23, posted (10 years 3 months 2 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 1244 times:
Still waiting for the specific situation...Till then, I'll "give it a go" ( at "Tom H's" suggestion ) and stick with my original choice ( P38-J and later ) ... although it shall be noted that the twin engine redundancy did not really factor into my equation as much as the all-around performance superiority did...Speed, manuverabilty, firepower- at all altitudes. -- "I Miss Piedmont": The 'Black Widow' ( P61 ) was arguably the best purpose-built night fighter, but was also reputed to be extraoridinarily manuverable despite its' size- Powerful punch as well.
TEDSKI From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 24, posted (10 years 3 months 2 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 1243 times:
The P-38 would have been a better performer if the two Allison engines were replaced with Rolls Royce Merlins. This is what was done with the P-51 Mustang, where they replaced the Allison V-1710 V12 with a Rolls Royce Merlin V-1650 V12 that powered the Spitfire, which increased it's speed to 440 MPH and it's range to over 2,000 miles to make it the best bomber escort fighter of WW2.
25 Rodrigo Santos: Ok, I think we should stick with day fighters. Nightfighting is very interesting too, but I don´t think that the original question is about this. All
26 L-188: The P-38 did have to worry about the yaw that would normally be caused by the prop rotating. This is because they where counterrotating. The P-38 got
28 Peterba69: L188: The first 38's didn't have C/R props, and did have adverse yaw problems. After the first 3-4 prototypes were built, they all had them.
29 L-188: Yup...I am going to have to double check but I belive that those where the prototypes and the ones that where built to the British Order order also la
30 TomH: Not to be picky, but I think the correct term is that the aircraft were fitted with "handed engines." This means each engine had a different dash numb
31 L-188: Handed is a common term for it also. I think it may be more commonly used depending on where you live.
32 Peterba69: Behind the gearbox, they were the same engine.
33 Rodrigo Santos: I didn´t mention the Do-335 because it didn´t reach operational status. Sure was the fastest prop of the war. I think it´s butt ugly, but with a lo
34 TomH: Right Peter, the crankshafts rotated in the same direction then, but not the prop shaft.
35 Tommy the cat: if i was a pilot in ww2 i would have to choose the p-51d mustang. its not my favourite ww2 plane but i think it would be the best plane for that situa
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined May 2000, 201 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2005, 0 posts, 
From Brazil, joined Sep 2001, 87 posts, 
From Netherlands, joined Oct 2001, 960 posts, 
Just joking, I woudn´t do that. The long wings of the Ta-152 gave it some nice manuveability at medium to high altitude, and I´m not getting down! I know your´re there, smartie!
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From Canada, joined Nov 2000, 4608 posts, 
Sponsor Message: 
Printer friendly format
