Best prop plane of WW2

[nagant_m44]

I personally think that the yak-3 with the Klimov VK-105PF-2 engine was the best, but most people say it was either the mustang or spitfire with the Rolls Royce Merlin engine. What do you think was the best, according to combat performance and specifications?

[foxtrot023]

personally the mustang

[DeltaWhisky58]

I would say it is either the Spitfire or the P-51D Mustang.

To give a personal opinion I would say the Spitfire because of its service in all theatres of war and combat in so many roles.

There is no doubting the success of the Mustang either, however that is largely due to it's British designed Packard engine (license-built Rolls Royce Merlin - same as the Spitfire), prior to adoption of the Packard power plant, the Mustang was an under-powered flop.

All-in-all though it's a pretty close-run contest.

[strumbird]

Too many variables for being the best prop. What mission? (fighter, escort fighter, ground attack, night fighters...). What type? (Single engine fighter, 4 engine bomber, 2 engine bomber, transport, seaplane, ...), What year? (1939, 1940, 1941....), Some have more combat success than others (like Corsairs vs. Hellcats, Bf-109 vs Fw-190) even though the performance are better.

My choice.
Best Fighter of 1940 - Spitfire Mk. I/II
Best Escort Fighter of 1943 in Europe - NA P-51B Mustang.
Best fighter of 1945 in Europe - Fockewulf Fw-190D series
Best fighter of 1945 in the Pacific - Ki-84 Hayate
Best Carrier fighter of 1945 - F4U-1D Corsair
Best twin engine fighter of 1945 - DO-335 Pfiel
Best 4 engine bomber of 1945 - Boeing B-29 Superfortress
Best tank killer of 1943 - Il-2 Sturmovik
Best Transport of 1944 - C-47

[Seiyuuki]

I'll go with either the Focke Wulf Fw 190D-9 or Supermarine Spitfire Mk IX.

[James]

FW190 (Ta152)

[Frank Discussion]

I always was impressed with the Dornier 335 "Arrow". Top speed of 417 mph, armament of two 20mm cannon, two 15mm cannon and one 30mm cannon. If this aircraft had been produced in any number it could have inflicted serious damage on Allied bombers.

[nagant_m44]

Too many variables for being the best prop. What mission? (fighter, escort fighter, ground attack, night fighters...). What type? (Single engine fighter, 4 engine bomber, 2 engine bomber, transport, seaplane, ...), What year? (1939, 1940, 1941....), Some have more combat success than others (like Corsairs vs. Hellcats, Bf-109 vs Fw-190) even though the performance are better.

My choice.
Best Fighter of 1940 - Spitfire Mk. I/II
Best Escort Fighter of 1943 in Europe - NA P-51B Mustang.
Best fighter of 1945 in Europe - Fockewulf Fw-190D series
Best fighter of 1945 in the Pacific - Ki-84 Hayate
Best Carrier fighter of 1945 - F4U-1D Corsair
Best twin engine fighter of 1945 - DO-335 Pfiel
Best 4 engine bomber of 1945 - Boeing B-29 Superfortress
Best tank killer of 1943 - Il-2 Sturmovik
Best Transport of 1944 - C-47

I was talking about European theater single engine fighters. Why was the luftwaffe told not to engage the Yak-3?

[nagant_m44]

FW190 (Ta152)

Ta152 was nice, too bad it didn't do so well at low altitude.

[strumbird]

Too many variables for being the best prop. What mission? (fighter, escort fighter, ground attack, night fighters...). What type? (Single engine fighter, 4 engine bomber, 2 engine bomber, transport, seaplane, ...), What year? (1939, 1940, 1941....), Some have more combat success than others (like Corsairs vs. Hellcats, Bf-109 vs Fw-190) even though the performance are better.

My choice.
Best Fighter of 1940 - Spitfire Mk. I/II
Best Escort Fighter of 1943 in Europe - NA P-51B Mustang.
Best fighter of 1945 in Europe - Fockewulf Fw-190D series
Best fighter of 1945 in the Pacific - Ki-84 Hayate
Best Carrier fighter of 1945 - F4U-1D Corsair
Best twin engine fighter of 1945 - DO-335 Pfiel
Best 4 engine bomber of 1945 - Boeing B-29 Superfortress
Best tank killer of 1943 - Il-2 Sturmovik
Best Transport of 1944 - C-47

I was talking about European theater single engine fighters. Why was the luftwaffe told not to engage the Yak-3?

As I recall the Luftwaffe order's were "do not engage Yaks with a cooler under the chin".
They must be referring to some versions of Yaks. Most Yaks are very maneuverable on low altitudes. Most fightings in the eastern front are low altitudes unlike the western front where 4 engine bombers and it's escort operate at 20,000+ ft. By 1944, Luftwaffe experience pilots are dwindling are being replaced by new pilots. Inexperience pilots are to avoid Yaks with cooler under the chin. As I recall, Hartmann engage them whenever he has the advantage.

Best single piston engine of WW II in Europe is FW-190D series. Very good speed and firepower.

[nagant_m44]

Too many variables for being the best prop. What mission? (fighter, escort fighter, ground attack, night fighters...). What type? (Single engine fighter, 4 engine bomber, 2 engine bomber, transport, seaplane, ...), What year? (1939, 1940, 1941....), Some have more combat success than others (like Corsairs vs. Hellcats, Bf-109 vs Fw-190) even though the performance are better.

My choice.
Best Fighter of 1940 - Spitfire Mk. I/II
Best Escort Fighter of 1943 in Europe - NA P-51B Mustang.
Best fighter of 1945 in Europe - Fockewulf Fw-190D series
Best fighter of 1945 in the Pacific - Ki-84 Hayate
Best Carrier fighter of 1945 - F4U-1D Corsair
Best twin engine fighter of 1945 - DO-335 Pfiel
Best 4 engine bomber of 1945 - Boeing B-29 Superfortress
Best tank killer of 1943 - Il-2 Sturmovik
Best Transport of 1944 - C-47

I was talking about European theater single engine fighters. Why was the luftwaffe told not to engage the Yak-3?

As I recall the Luftwaffe order's were "do not engage Yaks with a cooler under the chin".
They must be referring to some versions of Yaks. Most Yaks are very maneuverable on low altitudes. Most fightings in the eastern front are low altitudes unlike the western front where 4 engine bombers and it's escort operate at 20,000+ ft. By 1944, Luftwaffe experience pilots are dwindling are being replaced by new pilots. Inexperience pilots are to avoid Yaks with cooler under the chin. As I recall, Hartmann engage them whenever he has the advantage.

Best single piston engine of WW II in Europe is TA-152H-1. Very good speed and firepower.

yak 3 with cooler under chin had a Klimov VK-105PF-2 engine i believe. Did Hartmann ever fly a 190, or did he just stick with the 109(G model i believe)?

[GazB]

My fav was the La-5FN and the later La-7.

[Minardiau]

hmm

Best Allied fighter would have to be the Spitfire

Best German Fighter would have to be the FW190

Best Allied Bomber would have to be the AVRO Lancaster

Best German Bomber would have to be the Ju88 due to it's handling

To say which was better allied or axis is being a bit stupid. If your flying a Brewster Buffolo and your enemy is in a BF109. It still came down to the pilot who came out on top to a large extent.

[nagant_m44]

hmm

Best Allied fighter would have to be the Spitfire

Best German Fighter would have to be the FW190

Best Allied Bomber would have to be the AVRO Lancaster

Best German Bomber would have to be the Ju88 due to it's handling

To say which was better allied or axis is being a bit stupid. If your flying a Brewster Buffolo and your enemy is in a BF109. It still came down to the pilot who came out on top to a large extent.

Your australian bias is obvious ;) GazB, the La-7 had ShVak's in all models, right?

[Minardiau]

Spitfire basically remained the same since it's introduction to the end of the war except for the usual modifications that a plane goes through.

Avro lancaster carried just about twice the load of a B17 and B24 over Germany at a greater range. Really.

[nagant_m44]

Spitfire basically remained the same since it's introduction to the end of the war except for the usual modifications that a plane goes through.

Avro lancaster carried just about twice the load of a B17 and B24 over Germany at a greater range. Really.

I know, and both planes were also used by australia..Werent they?

[Minardiau]

Yeah so?

As I said it's stupid to compare planes by country. German plane were arguably better then any British or American plane but the closeness of the capability of the planes is to close to really say which was better.

Hence the best Allied and best Axis viewpoitn.

[ogukuo72]

I love topics like these! :)

Here's my 2cents' worth:

FIGHTERS

None of the UK, German or Russian fighters could be considered truly great for one simple reason: they can't fly long distances to enemy territories and still possessed great flight characteristics to defeat enemy fighters to dominate enemy airspace.

In the whole of WW2, only Japanese and American fighters achieved that feat. In the first year of the Pacific War, the Mitsubishi Zero flew long distances throughout the Pacific to defeat Allied airpower at every point from China to Australia, covering vast ocean distances. But we can't call it truly great, because within the first year of the start of the Pacific War, the Zeros were being defeated by American aircraft, including the obsolescent Wildcats.

This feat was matched only by the Mustang over the European and Pacific air theatres. Just like the Zero, the Mustang ranged over the whole of Europe and yet managed to wrestle the control of air from German fighters. The Germans were never able to do this. Remember, the German Me109 were great fighters, but their short range doomed them during the Battle of Britain, when they had to fight further inland over London. Similarly, the Spitfire could play only a limited role in the air domination battles of 1943-44 as it simply did not have the range.

And let's not forget the vast theatre that was the South Pacific, where the Corsairs, the Hellcats and the P-38's of the Americans fought the Japanese Zeros. Once again, the Spitfires and Me109 would not have been able to take part in that fight simply because it was too short-legged.

BOMBERS

Once again, range is a very important factor here. Let me qualify that once again: range is not only the ability to fly long distances. It's the ability to fly long distances and yet be able to fight effectively and decisively against enemy opposition.

For example, the Mitsubishi Betty was a very long range bomber. Yet it is highly vulnerable due to its very light construction and very large non-self sealing fuel tanks (both that gave it the long range) and light defensive armanament.

The truly great bomber of the war has to be the B-29. It has a very long range. It is fast. It is very strong. And it carried a very powerful bomb load. No other bombers fielded by any of the combatants came close to what the B-29 could do. Only the Avro Lancaster could perhaps approach its greatness.

[Minardiau]

Different planes for different roles. Lancaster had a greater bomb capacity I think.

[Seiyuuki]

Different planes for different roles. Lancaster had a greater bomb capacity I think.

Compare to B-29? Lancaster carry around 14,000lbs, B-29 around 20,000lbs.



Germany produce great planes, but lack of experience pilot and not using the planes in the correct role cripple them. Condor could have been a good four-engines heavy bomber, but weren't dedicated to that role, Fw 190Ds were regulated to low-level flight to protect Me-262 during take-off and landing later in the war and Me-262 were initially used as bomber instead of a fighter, the list goes on...

[jedisponge]

You have to also consider resource costs... ie manhours, conditions and material needed to build the aircraft. Is there any denying the Me262 was great? Unfortunately, it was produced in too small of a number and required extreme mechanical care.

[Minardiau]

Different planes for different roles. Lancaster had a greater bomb capacity I think.

Compare to B-29? Lancaster carry around 14,000lbs, B-29 around 20,000lbs.



Germany produce great planes, but lack of experience pilot and not using the planes in the correct role cripple them. Condor could have been a good four-engines heavy bomber, but weren't dedicated to that role, Fw 190Ds were regulated to low-level flight to protect Me-262 during take-off and landing later in the war and Me-262 were initially used as bomber instead of a fighter, the list goes on...

By the end of the war the Lancaster was regulary carrying 20,000lb

[nagant_m44]

Yeah so?

As I said it's stupid to compare planes by country. German plane were arguably better then any British or American plane but the closeness of the capability of the planes is to close to really say which was better.

Hence the best Allied and best Axis viewpoitn.

I was joking about the australian bias...

[ogukuo72]

Different planes for different roles. Lancaster had a greater bomb capacity I think.

Compare to B-29? Lancaster carry around 14,000lbs, B-29 around 20,000lbs.



Germany produce great planes, but lack of experience pilot and not using the planes in the correct role cripple them. Condor could have been a good four-engines heavy bomber, but weren't dedicated to that role, Fw 190Ds were regulated to low-level flight to protect Me-262 during take-off and landing later in the war and Me-262 were initially used as bomber instead of a fighter, the list goes on...

By the end of the war the Lancaster was regulary carrying 20,000lb

Indeed, a single Grand Slam bomb used on the Tirpitz weighs 22,000lb!

In the book, "The Making of the Atom Bomb", when the scientists first estimated that the atom bomb would weigh around that range, the USAAF actually considered borrowing Lancasters from the RAF.

The Lancaster is a great aircraft in everyway. I only put it in second place because the B-29 dropped the atom bombs, and because it had a far more advanced defensive armnament system.

[Zoomie]

The Lancaster is a great aircraft in everyway. I only put it in second place because the B-29 dropped the atom bombs, and because it had a far more advanced defensive armnament system.
You also forget that it was also advanced because it had a pressurized cabin and gunner compartments.

[strumbird]

FIGHTERS

None of the UK, German or Russian fighters could be considered truly great for one simple reason: they can't fly long distances to enemy territories and still possessed great flight characteristics to defeat enemy fighters to dominate enemy airspace.


My 2 cents.

Great aircraft don't need to be long range. Different missions. Not all fighters have to be like the P-51. Besides P-51 Mustang don't have great flight characteristics either. The center of gravity when fully loaded with fuel tend to make the aircraft stall.

As I recall, the Luftwaffe have different missions on their fighters. By the end of 1943, their cities are being bombed night and day by the USAAF and RAF. Mustangs have reached Berlin. The allies in Europe have reached air superiority. The Luftwaffe don't need to have their fighters long range since the battle comes to them. Their mission is to defend the cities factories, and airfields. By the end of 1944, most factories have switched to building fighters.
Most RAF fighters by the end of the war are not into bomber escort duties. Most of them are CAS (like the 2nd TAF) and are located into forward bases.



In the whole of WW2, only Japanese and American fighters achieved that feat. In the first year of the Pacific War, the Mitsubishi Zero flew long distances throughout the Pacific to defeat Allied airpower at every point from China to Australia, covering vast ocean distances. But we can't call it truly great, because within the first year of the start of the Pacific War, the Zeros were being defeated by American aircraft, including the obsolescent Wildcats.


Japanese and American carrier aircraft requires long range. The need for long range on A6Ms Reisen (Zero) is because they are carrier borne aircraft. They sacrifice speed and armor for manueveribility and range. That's their military doctrine in the late 30s. Most of the USAAF fighters in the pacific in the last two years of the war are long range fighters (P-38, P-47, P-51) due to long distances of the targets. P-39s, P-40s and P-400s of the USAAF work well during the early stages of the war because that's all they have. They were on defense at that time (Pearl Harbor, Philippines, Guadalcanal..). During the early stages of the Pacific war, the USAAF learned not to "dog fight" with Zeros due to maneuverability. Tactics change to hit-and-run from diving from high altitude. Escape by diving.



BOMBERS

For example, the Mitsubishi Betty was a very long range bomber. Yet it is highly vulnerable due to its very light construction and very large non-self sealing fuel tanks (both that gave it the long range) and light defensive armanament.



G4M Betty was designed for high speed and long range bomber. Again the Japanese sacrificed crew protection. That was their military tactics doctrine at that time. They believe that manueveribilty, speed and long range are more important than crew protection.

It's difficult to compare fighters from different countries during WW II. Each country's military have different "views" how fighters would fight. Luftwaffe believed in small single engine. Their bomber escorts are twin engines. P-39s don't have superchargers since USAAF believe that fighters should operate near the ground troops not high altitude. Japanese believed manueverebility is more important than armor. By late WW II, USAAF Mustang missions are escorts. Fw-190Ds, Bf-109s are all interceptors. RAF Hurricanes, Typhoons are Close Air Support. All performed well.

[perdurabo]

geez guys put all technical data of all fighters of ww2 and make comparison!

[Roaming East]

Id say greatest aircraft would belong to whatever frame causes a massive shift in tactics. Day light bombing was futile and suicidal until P51's arrived on the scene allowing for routine and accurate(for the time) bombing runs deep into Germany. That was a major strategic shift. For that reason alone i would rank the Mustang high on the list of greatest aircraft. While the Corsair was fantastic by the time it had arrived it wasnt doing anything that other airframes were not doing just as well (Hellcat)

The spit was another aircraft like this, it improved regularly but so did its main nemesis the 109. Both were pretty evenly match throughout the war and neither had 'deal breaker' abilities that made it superior to anything else

[Para]

The best all round Allied plane of WW2 must be the De-Haviland Mosquito. If a German pilot shot one down he was awarded a double kill, it could fly faster, higher and carry a huge bomb load. Being made of wood it hardly showed up on radar and was one of the original stealth aircraft. It was used for just about every thing, from reconnaissance, a bomber, a night fighter, or just a plane fighter plane. It would carry six 20 mm cannons in it's nose. Then there was the Gloucester Meteor which so successful that American Air force insisted that it flew with their bombers in Europe to take on the Me 262 and several Squadrons of these planes where stationed in Belgium.

[nagant_m44]

The best all round Allied plane of WW2 must be the De-Haviland Mosquito. If a German pilot shot one down he was awarded a double kill, it could fly faster, higher and carry a huge bomb load. Being made of wood it hardly showed up on radar and was one of the original stealth aircraft. It was used for just about every thing, from reconnaissance, a bomber, a night fighter, or just a plane fighter plane. It would carry six 20 mm cannons in it's nose. Then there was the Gloucester Meteor which so successful that American Air force insisted that it flew with their bombers in Europe to take on the Me 262 and several Squadrons of these planes where stationed in Belgium.

The mosquito could fly faster and higher than what?

[strumbird]

The best all round Allied plane of WW2 must be the De-Haviland Mosquito. If a German pilot shot one down he was awarded a double kill, it could fly faster, higher and carry a huge bomb load. Being made of wood it hardly showed up on radar and was one of the original stealth aircraft. It was used for just about every thing, from reconnaissance, a bomber, a night fighter, or just a plane fighter plane. It would carry six 20 mm cannons in it's nose. Then there was the Gloucester Meteor which so successful that American Air force insisted that it flew with their bombers in Europe to take on the Me 262 and several Squadrons of these planes where stationed in Belgium.

DeHavilland Mosquito is over-rated. It's not that fast. It's maximum speed barely goes 400mph. A few versions did manage to exceed a little over 400mph. An Fw-190s can intercept it. It normally carry 4 X 500lbs. It can carry a 4,000 lb "cookie" on a bulge belly but slowed down. Fighter/Fighter Bomber carries 4 X 20mm and 4 X .303. The bombers are unarmed. It can cruise fast at low level though.

Gloster Meteor F.Mk.I was terrible. It can barely go over 400mph. P-51, Bf-109G-10s, Tempest, P-47, P-38s are much faster. The Me-262 Strumbird can chew that thing to pieces. They were used for moral boost for the bombers. The Mk. II was a little better with new engines but still not up to par with Me-262. Me-262's max. speed is 540mph. with standard 4 x 30mm.

[Para]

In 1945 the Glocester Meteor topped over 600 mph, as it is not an American plane this does not really count.

[Belrick]

Depends on how you define best. (european theatre)

Best as in most successful for the course of the war was the me109, MILES ahead of any compitition there. (numbers)

Best as in made the most impact? Also a clear winner in this catagory is the P51D.

Best at high altitude? Ta152
Best ground pounder? P47
Best looking? Spitfire!
Best night fighter? Ummm, mossie, He219 or the Ju88 cant say for sure. Any thoughts?

Best at being over-rated? Any Russian fighter. Stats dont lie and russian planes fell with consumate ease, personnally i dont blame the pilots as German pilots were also poorly trained therefor i blame the planes based on Russian willingly to talk there technical achievements up. (ok i know im flaming them here but history is on my side :P)

Yak3, La5FN, Yak9 were all great planes on paper.

[strumbird]

In 1945 the Glocester Meteor topped over 600 mph, as it is not an American plane this does not really count.

Yes, it did. The F.4, did flew 606 mph in NOVEMBER 1945, 6 months AFTER the war in Europe. The 606mph Meteor was stripped down, no armament, no armor, upgraded engines and clipped wings. It was modified for speed records.

http://www.vectorsite.net/avmeteor.html
http://www.warbirdalley.com/meteor.htm

[Belrick]

The meteor was plagued by being too advanced for its time. A great airframe that lacked the engines.

I assumed this thread was about props. Oops. In that case me262 was the best :D

[ogukuo72]

DeHavilland Mosquito is over-rated. It's not that fast. It's maximum speed barely goes 400mph. A few versions did manage to exceed a little over 400mph. An Fw-190s can intercept it. It normally carry 4 X 500lbs. It can carry a 4,000 lb "cookie" on a bulge belly but slowed down. Fighter/Fighter Bomber carries 4 X 20mm and 4 X .303. The bombers are unarmed. It can cruise fast at low level though.

Gloster Meteor F.Mk.I was terrible. It can barely go over 400mph. P-51, Bf-109G-10s, Tempest, P-47, P-38s are much faster. The Me-262 Strumbird can chew that thing to pieces. They were used for moral boost for the bombers. The Mk. II was a little better with new engines but still not up to par with Me-262. Me-262's max. speed is 540mph. with standard 4 x 30mm.

I can both agree and disagree with you Strumbird. The Mosquito isn't really that fast and that powerful, but it did perform superbly in the European theatre, particularly in the pinpoint day time raids for Bomber Command and maritime interdiction missions with Costal Command.

Having said that, it never played the starring role in the bomber offensive, and it never really worked as well in the heat of India and Burma. In contrast, light and medium bombers such as the Beaufighter and the B-25 (especially the B-25!) could fight in all theatres, and these two bombers played decisive roles in South Asia and the South Pacific.

I've always thought that in pure technological terms, the Me-262 is the best fighter of the war. But in strategic terms, it is also the wrong fighter for the Germans. It was simply technologically too advanced for the decimated Luftwaffe with only a small core of superb pilots that could take full advantage of a technologically immature plane. For the rest, it was simply more dangerous to the pilot than the enemy. Its engines were simply too unreliable, as well as too difficult and too expensive for the Germans to produce in 1944/5. It would have been more effective for the Luftwaffe to concentrate on fielding more FW-190 or Ta152.

[strumbird]

DeHavilland Mosquito is over-rated. It's not that fast. It's maximum speed barely goes 400mph. A few versions did manage to exceed a little over 400mph. An Fw-190s can intercept it. It normally carry 4 X 500lbs. It can carry a 4,000 lb "cookie" on a bulge belly but slowed down. Fighter/Fighter Bomber carries 4 X 20mm and 4 X .303. The bombers are unarmed. It can cruise fast at low level though.

Gloster Meteor F.Mk.I was terrible. It can barely go over 400mph. P-51, Bf-109G-10s, Tempest, P-47, P-38s are much faster. The Me-262 Strumbird can chew that thing to pieces. They were used for moral boost for the bombers. The Mk. II was a little better with new engines but still not up to par with Me-262. Me-262's max. speed is 540mph. with standard 4 x 30mm.

I can both agree and disagree with you Strumbird. The Mosquito isn't really that fast and that powerful, but it did perform superbly in the European theatre, particularly in the pinpoint day time raids for Bomber Command and maritime interdiction missions with Costal Command.

Having said that, it never played the starring role in the bomber offensive, and it never really worked as well in the heat of India and Burma. In contrast, light and medium bombers such as the Beaufighter and the B-25 (especially the B-25!) could fight in all theatres, and these two bombers played decisive roles in South Asia and the South Pacific.

I've always thought that in pure technological terms, the Me-262 is the best fighter of the war. But in strategic terms, it is also the wrong fighter for the Germans. It was simply technologically too advanced for the decimated Luftwaffe with only a small core of superb pilots that could take full advantage of a technologically immature plane. For the rest, it was simply more dangerous to the pilot than the enemy. Its engines were simply too unreliable, as well as too difficult and too expensive for the Germans to produce in 1944/5. It would have been more effective for the Luftwaffe to concentrate on fielding more FW-190 or Ta152.

Hello ogukuo72,

I didn't say that the Mosquito wasn't successful. All I said is that it's over-rated. Many times I heard and read that the all Mosquito was "fast". But if you look at the statistics, it's not. To me fast is Do-335A, Tempest, Typhoon, Fw 190D, P-38J/L, TA-152, P-47D/M/N, P-51B/C/Ds, Bf-109G10/G6AS/G14AS,... It may be fast as a level bomber but not as fighter, fighter bomber. It may be considered fast in 1942 to first half of 1943 but not later. A-26 invader is almost as fast as the DH Mossie.

As for the Me-262, what jet engines in 1944 reliable? The jet age just started. All of them don't have the same reliability as the piston engines. In 1945, the Me-262 are going to be replaced by new jet fighters with newer engines. I disagree. The Me-262 was successful. They should have made the Me-262 as a fighter in the beginning. The Me-163 should have been cancelled. In late 1944, USAAF have deployed 4 jet fighters in ETO and MTO. They need the Me-262.

[ogukuo72]

This is why I love topics like these. I learn more and more every day and we get more and more perspectives on these issues.

I think we are on the same page on the Mosquito, but disagree on the deployment of the jet fighters.

I am arguing that the Me-262 was the wrong plane because of two things:

1. Technological immaturity:

In design terms, the Meteor was a dead-end. The airframe simply could not take full advantage of the jet engines. The P-80 probably was a better airframe for a jet engine, with its clean lines and laminar flow wings. However, without a doubt, the best airframe to exploit the power of the engines was the Me-262 airframe with its swept wings. If we envisage a jet fighter to jet fighter combat over the skies of Europe in 1945, the Me-262 might well come out on top.

However, as you noted, all jet fighters suffered from the technological immaturity of jet engines at the end of WW2. In particular, all jet engines in 1945 suffer the critical disadvantage of poor acceleration and poor reliability. The latter includes a tendency to either flame-out or to flame-up, both very dangerous in peace time, and could be deadly in combat.

British and American engines had a lower tendency to do those as they are better constructed from critical low-density high tensile metals that they had better access to compared to the Germans, who were suffering from critical shortages in all material as the territory occupied by them shrink.

Given the technological immaturity of the jet engines at that time, I would argue that the German aircraft industry should have diverted all its remaining stocks of metals towards the manufacture of proven piston engine designs, which by 1945 were producing very high performance with airframes such as that of the FW190 or the Ta 152 (essentially the same airframe, I think). It would have been a better use of scarce material.

This leads me to my second point:

2. Was the Me-262 (and other special projects) a worth-while investment?

I am arguing that the Me-262 and all the other special projects were a sheer waste of time, manpower, and scarce material. All required a lot of man-hours put in by highly skilled labour force, using rare metals that could have been better put into other areas. It is especially wasteful if time, manpower and scarce material was put into making an immature technology work.

Of course, if things had been better for Germany, it would be insane for the Luftwaffe not to try to develop at least the Me-262, given that the Americans and British were already developing jet fighters.

But things were not going well for Germany. The Luftwaffe was suffering severely from the aerial campaign over the skies of Europe. It could not even make up for loses of its established designs (the Me-109 and FW-190). Planes such as the FW-190 were by no means poor planes. They compared well with the latest Spitfire or Mustang. To divert resources for building more of these planes to build immature designs such as the Me-262 was sheer folly.

And the Luftwaffe had already lost the qualitative and quantitative edge amongst its pilots. While it still retained a core of superb pilots such as Galland, most of its flight crew were made up of men who had little flying experience, let alone combat experience. Putting such pilots in a "hot" and immature machine was counter-productive.

As it was, only the best pilots got to fly the Me-262, but wouldn't these pilots had made a greater impact leading normal squadrons? They could pass essential combat experience and help the other pilots survive their baptism in combat. Putting all these experienced pilots in a few squadrons means the loss of much experience to the majority of the Luftwaffe that was bearing the brunt of the fighting. This alone probably caused more damage than any impact of the introduction of Me-262 was worth.

And what is such men as Galland doing flying in Me-262s anyway? Such talented leaders should be leading the Luftwaffe in its death struggle. That such men had had to go into special squadrons speak much about the screwed-up politics of the late-war Nazi Germany and about the Luftwaffe high command.

And as for the critical shortage in fuel, once again, should it have been allocated to the inefficient engines of the Me-262, or should it have been used by the established prop designs, where the same amount of fuel could have run more engines and put more planes in the air.

Even though the Allies were already developing jet fighters, the problem for Germany was to survive the short-term. If it could not survive the short-term, then there is no point worrying about the long-term. This was precisely what happened. Germany was defeated before there was time for the Me-262 to make any impact in combat (other than giving the Allied air forces a very good scare).

[Minardiau]

No

due to Hitlers interference in the Me-262 project only 1500 figthers were made. 3000 odd bomber versions were made. Even in the hands of rookie pilots the Me-262 was pretty deadly for Allied pilots.

[Easy C.]

Focke-Wulf Fw 190
http://www.acepilots.com/german/fw190.html

[strumbird]

Was the Me-262 (and other special projects) a worth-while investment? YES but some other projects needs to be cancelled such as such as Me-163, Ar-234, Ba-349, Bv-155, Bv-40, V1, V2, Maus, and other silly weapons (rearward firing rockets,..). They need the Me-262 Schwalbe. The He-280 was cancelled for some political reason. It too was the right aircraft. The Schwalbe was delayed for political and Hitler's insistance for a blitz bomber. RLM wanted the Me-209 instead of the Me-262. Galland endorse the Me-262 and got into production.

History review; In 1943, Germany was being bombed by RAF and USAAF. The Luftwaffe was attacking USAAF bombers beyond the range of the escort fighters. After the heavy losses on the Schweinfurt raid, the USAAF have to re-think if the unescorted precision daylight bombing is worthwhile. The Luftwaffe too have heavy losses. By 1943, both sides have more or less equal on fighters (Fw-190As and Me-109G6 vs P-47Ds and P-38s). By the end of 1943 to VE day, P-51B/Ds are escorting bombers all the way to Berlin. To attack the bombers, Luftwaffe fighters have to get through the fighter screen. Hopefully the Bf-110s, Me-410s, Ju-88 "Zerstorer" can get through after the single engine fighters take care of the escort fighters. If the Zerstorer are lucky, they can get a head-on shot. Many single engine fighters are equipped to destroy bombers but they very vulnerable to escort fighters due to their heavy equipment. The Zerstorer have to penetrate bombers defensive "boxes" where dozens of .50 calibers flying. If the attack is from astern, 20mm attack would take some time. If the Zerstorer are equipped with two 30mm it would be a little easy but closing speed between attackers and defenders are slow. It gives bomber gunners time to aim their weapons.

An Me-262 won't have that much problem. At 540mph vs the P-51B/Ds 440-437mph, the Me-262 can leave the escort fighter screen behind. Closing speed would be fast and one burst from four 30mm will mostly likely knocked down a bomber. The sight of an Me-262 have pshycological effect to the bomber crews. I don't think an Fw-190D-9, TA-152 can do this and even the Me-209 if ever produced. By the end of the war, He-162 are operational. Cheaper to build and use non-strategic materials. If the war dragged on, Ta-183 prototype would have probably have flown.

If the Luftwaffe have plenty of Me-262 in 1943, and inflicted heavy losses to USAAF bombers, Daylight bombing probabyly would have stopped temporarily until the allies excellerated their jet fighter program. As I recall, Galland once said in order to stop the allied bombing is to inflict at heavy losses and to destroy them in the air.

I guess we are out of topic.

Best WW II prop - Fw-190D-13 and C-47.

[ogukuo72]

I'm enjoying your posts very much Strumbird. They are always very informative.

It's interesting that you put the C-47 in the list as well. I must agree with you. It is one of the most important planes in WW2 but is not often mentioned amongst the "Greats" as it is an unglamorous transport aircraft.

I will still disagree with you on the Me-262 question, but it'll probably be one of those questions about WW2 that never gets settled.

[Para]

A very strange plane that the Germans also used was the Dornier DO 335.
For a prop plane it had a very strange configuration

[hedgehog]

I remember reading a book from the Smithsonian, where they descriped 2 ME 262 attacked a bomber screen in full view of approx 50 P51s . No one can argue that the same pilots would have tried this in a FW 190.

Ok, best piston driven fighter ... it terms of stats, it would be the DO 335



http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Dornier-Do-335

[ogukuo72]

Not withstanding such "successes", the Me-262 proved a liability to the rest of the Luftwaffe, when prop fighters had to be diverted to protect Me-262 bases.

I put "successes" in inverted commas because it has never been satisfactory shown that what the Me-262 achieved anything much other than isolated but spectacular victories.

It is worthy to note that during the period in which Me-262 was operational, the British begin to fly daylight bombing missions with their Avro Lancasters, surely not a sign that they had much to fear from the Luftwaffe, jet fighters or not.

It is also noteworthy that while some Allied bomber crews had terrifying encounters with the Me-262, there were actually no instances of bomber wings failing to reach their targets and bomb them because of unacceptable losses from Me-262 attacks. There were also no instances of bomber wings not being able to put up enough bombers for the next mission and so on, because of Me-262 attacks.

This seemed to indicate that while the Me-262 attacks would appear "unstoppable", they were in fact of little value. This would have to be considered with the fact that the Me-262's were extremely vulnerable during the take off and landing phases. Besides engine flame-outs, engine bursting into flames, Me-262 pilots also had to contend with marauding Allied fighters covering their airbases. To protect Me-262's taking off and landing, conventional fighters such as Me-109 and FW-190 had to be diverted to protect these "precious assets".

To me, this certainly is a waste of resources, not only in the construction of Me-262, but in the diversion of regular fighter units to protect these units, and also in terms of the diversion of the best pilots in the Luftwaffe to man these planes.

[strumbird]

Me-262 did not effect the outcome of the war is because it was delayed, lack of fuel, and lack of experience pilots. If the Me-262 weren't built the allies would have an advantage on Fighter performance and quantity. The Luftwaffe were outnumbered in all fronts. They can't afford to have aircraft in equal terms when their pilots quality training are down. If the resources to build the Me-262s are great, then other projects (V1, V2,...) should have been cancelled. By 1943, the Luftwaffe was on all out defensive. Hitler refuse to believe that his losing and continue to build offensive weapons. Finally by the end of 1944, Hitler agree to switch all production to fighters. By that time it was too late.

Not withstanding such "successes", the Me-262 proved a liability to the rest of the Luftwaffe, when prop fighters had to be diverted to protect Me-262 bases.


JV-44 have 4 Fw-190D for fighter protection.


I put "successes" in inverted commas because it has never been satisfactory shown that what the Me-262 achieved anything much other than isolated but spectacular victories.


Too little too late. So is the F7F, Meteor, SB2C, F4U-4, .TA-152, Bf-109K, He-162,......


It is worthy to note that during the period in which Me-262 was operational, the British begin to fly daylight bombing missions with their Avro Lancasters, surely not a sign that they had much to fear from the Luftwaffe, jet fighters or not.


That was in 1945. Lack of fuel and lack of pilots. The Luftwaffe units would be lucky if they get 50% of their allotted fuel. Most probably went to the army. Strategic bombing of fuel reserves took it's toll. It should have been stopped two years before.


It is also noteworthy that while some Allied bomber crews had terrifying encounters with the Me-262, there were actually no instances of bomber wings failing to reach their targets and bomb them because of unacceptable losses from Me-262 attacks. There were also no instances of bomber wings not being able to put up enough bombers for the next mission and so on, because of Me-262 attacks.


Again, too little too late.


This seemed to indicate that while the Me-262 attacks would appear "unstoppable", they were in fact of little value. This would have to be considered with the fact that the Me-262's were extremely vulnerable during the take off and landing phases. Besides engine flame-outs, engine bursting into flames, Me-262 pilots also had to contend with marauding Allied fighters covering their airbases. To protect Me-262's taking off and landing, conventional fighters such as Me-109 and FW-190 had to be diverted to protect these "precious assets".


By 1944, allied fighters roam the entire europe almost unmolested. Luftwaffe fighters and experience pilots were too few to challenge the Allies. JV-44s have 4 prop fighters to defend the landing jets. Adjoining prop fighter units helped defend the landing jets. It's irrelevant. Any aircraft trying to land are vulnerable to attack. The failure to achieve airsuperiority one year before gave the allies opportunity to roam around the airfield any time.


To me, this certainly is a waste of resources, not only in the construction of Me-262, but in the diversion of regular fighter units to protect these units, and also in terms of the diversion of the best pilots in the Luftwaffe to man these planes.

I can only remember one unit that has a separate Me-262 protection and that is JV-44. III./JG54 provides protection for Kommando Nowotny.

"best pilots to protect the Me-262?" I beg to differ. Fw. Bodo Dirschauer is a multi-engine pilot. Lt. Karl-Heinz Hofmann don't even have any victories to his credit.

Me-262 came too little too late to effect the outcome of the war.

[Name Taken]

Just to bring back the Lancaster discussion, I agree that it was a great bomber, but didn't have the armament, or more importantly the ceiling that the B-17 and B-29 had.

[ogukuo72]

In terms of sheer mystique, I would choose the Lancaster over the B-17. After all, it was the Lancaster that flew the Dam Buster missions and the missions that sunk the Tirpitz. It was also the Lancaster that carried the heaviest bombs of the war (the Grand Slam at 22,000lb). Compared to such spectacular missions, the B-17 came across more as a workhorse.

Of course, the Lancaster itself was overshadowed by the B-29 and their fire-bombing and atomic bombing missions.

In terms of defensive armnaments, it is interesting to note that when the B-29 flew the fire-bombing missions at night, they were pretty much stripped of their defensive guns, except for the tail guns. In terms of defense guns then, the B-29 flying night missions were not superior to those of the Lancasters, especially when the latter began to receive a pair of 0.50in machine guns in place of the quad of 0.303in machine guns.

This might be because of the weakness in night fighting on the part of the Japanese defenses. It might also be the nature of night bombing. Rather than flying tight formations where every plane had to keep in place to maximise defense firepower, night missions were flown in streams of aircraft. It was simply impossible to keep in tight formations at night. While negating the possibility of massed defensive firepower, the cloak of the night also prevented mass fighter attacks, and reduced the fighting to mostly fighter to bomber duels.

Flying individually, this allowed the plane more room to maneuvre to spoil attacks from night fighters. I left my reference book at home, but I remember reading that the Lancasters would use a maneuvre somewhat like fish-tailing, involving the bomber executing a series of half-rolls, dives and climbs to throw the night fighters' aim off and to scare the s**t out of a night fighter that was trying to move into place under its belly.

[Minardiau]

Just to bring back the Lancaster discussion, I agree that it was a great bomber, but didn't have the armament, or more importantly the ceiling that the B-17 and B-29 had.

It dident need to have the same armement as a B-17. The guns on a B-17 was overkill. It's arguable that the amount of defensive armement proved more of a hindrance to a mission due to friendly fire and the limits having side gunners and a gunner underneath imposed on the bomb load.

[ogukuo72]

Strumbird, you might find the following forum discussion interesting:

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/about880-80.html

:)

[strumbird]

Strumbird, you might find the following forum discussion interesting:

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/about880-80.html

:)

Thanks for the link Ogukuo72. Great discussion indeed. I'm going to stay on sideline this time.

[Mailman]

Just to bring back the Lancaster discussion, I agree that it was a great bomber, but didn't have the armament, or more importantly the ceiling that the B-17 and B-29 had.

It dident need to have the same armement as a B-17. The guns on a B-17 was overkill. It's arguable that the amount of defensive armement proved more of a hindrance to a mission due to friendly fire and the limits having side gunners and a gunner underneath imposed on the bomb load.

There is another reason for the armament differences. The RAF flew at night where engagement ranges would be a lot closer than during the day when the USAAF flew.

Regards

Mailman

[Para]

It should be remembered that the fastest prop planes was the Hawker Sea Fury which had a top speed of 460 mph, yes I know it was not produced until February 1945

[Lokos]

Belrick:

Best at being over-rated? Any Russian fighter. Stats dont lie and russian planes fell with consumate ease, personnally i dont blame the pilots as German pilots were also poorly trained therefor i blame the planes based on Russian willingly to talk there technical achievements up. (ok i know im flaming them here but history is on my side Razz)

Yak3, La5FN, Yak9 were all great planes on paper.

Is the crappiness of Russian planes the reason why the best Allied aces of the war were almost entirely Soviet?

Lokos

[strumbird]

It should be remembered that the fastest prop planes was the Hawker Sea Fury which had a top speed of 460 mph, yes I know it was not produced until February 1945

Hi Para,

Sea Fury was one of the fastest piston engine aircraft of WWII. I believe the fastest piston engine was the P-47J at 507mph. Ta-152-H1 was 472 mph. P-47M was at 473mph. P-47N was at 467mph. XP-51G was at 470mph.

[strumbird]

Just to bring back the Lancaster discussion, I agree that it was a great bomber, but didn't have the armament, or more importantly the ceiling that the B-17 and B-29 had.

It dident need to have the same armement as a B-17. The guns on a B-17 was overkill. It's arguable that the amount of defensive armement proved more of a hindrance to a mission due to friendly fire and the limits having side gunners and a gunner underneath imposed on the bomb load.

There is another reason for the armament differences. The RAF flew at night where engagement ranges would be a lot closer than during the day when the USAAF flew.

Regards

Mailman
I agree Mailman. Both bombers have different missions. Apple and oranges. Comparison should be B-17 vs B-24. B-25 vs B-26 vs He-111-H. A-20 Vs Ju-88-A4.

B-17 is for unescorted precision daylight bombing and the Lancaster is for Night area bombing. B-17 is for pinpoint accuracy and Lancaster is saturating the target. Both operates in different altitude. B-17 armaments wasn't an overkill. The effectiveness of the B-17 defensive armament in close formation of defensive "box" made attacks by the Luftwaffe difficult. Later the Luftwaffe found head on attack effective due minimal defensive firepower of the Flying fortress from the nose. It takes a lot of skills for the Luftwaffe pilots to attack from the front since the closing speed of both aircraft would be about 600mph. It only takes a few seconds to aim and fire the weapons. The Luftwaffe had to hit the bombers from outside the range of the .50 cal with heavy caliber weapons (50mm) and rockets (28cm, R4Ms) to break up the formation. Any bomber that strays outside the formation boxes are vulnerable. It loses the protection of the "box".

[Para]

Strumbird...
You were almost right my friend but it seems the actual fastest prop plane was the P-51H with a top speed of 487 mph.

[Jani.R]

Belrick:

Best at being over-rated? Any Russian fighter. Stats dont lie and russian planes fell with consumate ease, personnally i dont blame the pilots as German pilots were also poorly trained therefor i blame the planes based on Russian willingly to talk there technical achievements up. (ok i know im flaming them here but history is on my side Razz)

Yak3, La5FN, Yak9 were all great planes on paper.

Is the crappiness of Russian planes the reason why the best Allied aces of the war were almost entirely Soviet?

Lokos

Or maybe the reason that most of the pilots where assigned to east-front?

http://aeroweb.lucia.it/~agretch/RAFAQ/aces.html some stastistics from ww1/ww2.

[James]

I'm surprised no one has mentioned the Brewster Buffalo.

[Lokos]

Jani:

What do you mean?

The vast majority of the interceptor/fighter forces of the Luftwaffe were in the West for pretty much the entire later part of the war.

Or did you mean something else?

Lokos

[strumbird]

Strumbird...
You were almost right my friend but it seems the actual fastest prop plane was the P-51H with a top speed of 487 mph.

Hello Para,

The fastest prop plane was the XP-47J.
http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p47_9.html
http://www.geocities.com/pentagon/quarters/9485/P-47M.html

The P-51H was still one of the fastest piston engine plane. Probably the fastest in production piston engine.

[thedragonandhistail]

My suggestion for the best night fighter available in 1945 was the P61 Black Widow. Its radar system was way advanced for its time and having those "zap flaps" gave it a lot of maneuverability for a plane its size.

My opinion on best planes in early 1945
Air Superority: P51 and F6F
Heavy Bomber: B29
Medium Bomber: B25
Light Bomber: A20
Ground Attack: Sturmovik
Fighter bomber: P47
Interceptor: Spitfire


Note - I deliberatly left off the list the ME262. Technically, it was miles ahead of the competition, but couldnt be built or maintained in numbers to be decisive.

[CoRe]

The pilots made the difference...Spitfire, Mustang, 109, 190...they are all good planes, but the german pilots kicked ass!

[Werewolf01]

attack: Il2
escort: P51
fighter: Spitfire
interceptor: Ta152
transport: (do I really need to answer this one?)
heavy bomber: B29
JABO: P47
jet: Me262
light recon/observation: Storch
Long range recon: Catalina
Medium bomber: B26
twin engine: P38
carrierborne: F4U Corsair
anti-shipping: B25


Just my $.02

[ex1cdo]

I personally think that the yak-3 with the Klimov VK-105PF-2 engine was the best, but most people say it was either the mustang or spitfire with the Rolls Royce Merlin engine. What do you think was the best, according to combat performance and specifications?

Hawker Tempest V.

Too few, too late, to make a significant contribution. But a great aeroplane of the prop era that spawned the Sea Fury, probably the best naval fighter of that class. Sorry, all you Hellcat and Bearcat enthusiasts :D

[TuNeRsHaRk]

P-40 Warhawk is my fav and i think they did considerably well in china with the flying tigers

http://www.prescottairfair.com/images/p40%20photo.jpg

http://alaskanart.net/terrypyles/images/prints/avgodds.jpg

http://www.historysaver.com/assets/art/ww2/shaw-volunteer.jpg

http://www.historysaver.com/assets/art/ww2/shaw-dawn.jpg

http://www.flyandrive.com/images/flyingtigers/flyingtigers01.jpg

[OldRecon]

Too many variables for being the best prop. What mission? (fighter, escort fighter, ground attack, night fighters...). What type? (Single engine fighter, 4 engine bomber, 2 engine bomber, transport, seaplane, ...), What year? (1939, 1940, 1941....), Some have more combat success than others (like Corsairs vs. Hellcats, Bf-109 vs Fw-190) even though the performance are better.

My choice.
Best Fighter of 1940 - Spitfire Mk. I/II
Best Escort Fighter of 1943 in Europe - NA P-51B Mustang.
Best fighter of 1945 in Europe - Fockewulf Fw-190D series
Best fighter of 1945 in the Pacific - Ki-84 Hayate
Best Carrier fighter of 1945 - F4U-1D Corsair
Best twin engine fighter of 1945 - DO-335 Pfiel
Best 4 engine bomber of 1945 - Boeing B-29 Superfortress
Best tank killer of 1943 - Il-2 Sturmovik
Best Transport of 1944 - C-47

I was talking about European theater single engine fighters. Why was the luftwaffe told not to engage the Yak-3?
The Yak was more manouverable, had equal speed to and better climbing performance than the ME-109 and FW-190 below 15000 feet or thereabouts.
Thus it would be foolish for any of the German planes to emesh themselves in dogfighting with the Yak below that altitude. Zoom dive & climb tactics being the only viable.

Similarly it would be foolish for a US Navy Hellcat pilot to emesh in dogfight with a Zero. Thus US fighters in the Pacific and China/Burma/India theatres tended to use zoom dive & climb tactics as far as possible.
Gen. Chennault of the Flying tigers was a strict adherent to such vertical plane tactics, as were the Finnish fighter pilots during WW-2.

German bombers generaly operated around 15.000-18.000 feet, thus the Yak could cope with the German escorts.

The USAAF Flying fortresses on the other hand tended to operate at heights around 25.000 ft and above, where the Mustang, Thunderbolt and late mark Spitfires had a clear performance advantage over most ME-109 G and FW-190 variants. Which I guess in some way or another was a key factor to the success of those allied fighters.

[Vorster]

Any Merlin engined aircraft. But If I had to choose the Griffon engined spitfire

[Para]

The Mustang fighter, it is odd that this plane built to British specification and a thousand where ordered on the understanding that it would be flying with in a year. America did not want to know about this fighter at first as they did not want a inline engine. Americans thought that this made the plane more vulnerable to to loss due to damage to it's radiator or cooling system. They only took a great interest in this plane once the Merlin engine and been fitted and the performance had increased dramatically.

[Tim Nice But Dim]

The Mustang fighter, it is odd that this plane built to British specification and a thousand where ordered on the understanding that it would be flying with in a year. America did not want to know about this fighter at first as they did not want a inline engine. Americans thought that this made the plane more vulnerable to to loss due to damage to it's radiator or cooling system. They only took a great interest in this plane once the Merlin engine and been fitted and the performance had increased dramatically.

Another point about the Mustang, I think that the aircraft came to the UK as the P-51. It was the RAF that gave it the now legendary name “Mustang”.

[thedragonandhistail]

I think the P51 was actually designated the A36, and was intended as a fast fighter bomber for low/mid altitudes. only untill the Brits swapped its mediocre Allison engine and fitted it with the Merlin, did the plane get excellent high altitude performance.
What helped the adoption of the Mustang by the USAAF was the huge loss's being inflicted on the B17's and B24's which according to doctrine, did not need fighter escort.
Some trivia for you folks...... the first P51 groups in England fell under the command of the 9th tactical AF, not the strategic 8th AF

[Para]

When they put the Merlin engine in they also increased it's range by 20% which with drop tanks gave it the range to reach Berlin. This made it possible for the B17's to have fighter cover to almost all their targets. The problem with the Alison engine was it did not have a supercharger and one could not be fitted.

[ogukuo72]

I'm not sure how many of you had heard of the Fisher P-75 long-range fighter, which was supposed to fulfil the role the P-51 fulfilled eventually. A huge monster almost twice the size of the P-51, it encountered many development problems and did not demonstrate good combat characteristics. When the P-51 came along, it was quietly put aside.

A number of modification was made when the A-36 Apache became the P51B Mustang. Besides the Merlin engine and supercharger, additional fuel tanks were fitted, notably the one in the fuselage behind the pilot.

This also accounted for the increase in range. This created COG stability problems for the pilots when P-51B was first deployed. The pilots had to be very careful when taking off. The fuel in the fuselage tank was actually the first to be burnt off in a sortie, not the drop tanks, because a half-empty tank would have made combat maneuvres very touchy.

Another modification was the replacement of the four 20mm cannons with four 0.50in machine guns. I've never figured out why this was so, except perhaps the 0.50 was the preferred fighter armnaments for the Americans, and perhaps the 20mm had a slower rate of fire with less ammunition. I suppose four 0.50 would be more than enough for fighter to fighter combat.

Due to the thin laminar flow wings on the Mustang (which together with the sleek fuselage accounted for its superb performance), these 0.50 machine guns had to be canted to fit, with ammunition feed chutes that had to take some sharp angles to feed the guns. This accounted for frequent jams during combat maneuvres.

There was also a visibility problem with the original canopy arrangement, with windows that were too small. On many P-51B and Mustang III's, this was solved by substituting a Malcom hood which greatly increased the visibility for the pilot, especially to the rear. I've read somewhere that this arrangement was actually better for rear-and-downward visibility compared to the subsequent P-51D teardrop hood which is narrower.

But one definite improvement of the P-51D over the P-51B and Mustang III's were the armnaments. With an increase in wing chord, six 0.50 could now be fitted up-right with increased ammuntion capacity, effectively increasing the Mustang's firepower by 50%.

But in whichever configuration, the P-51 Mustang were great airplanes that had excellent range but still retaining superb combat characteristics. A truly great design.

[strumbird]

The Mustang fighter, it is odd that this plane built to British specification and a thousand where ordered on the understanding that it would be flying with in a year. America did not want to know about this fighter at first as they did not want a inline engine. Americans thought that this made the plane more vulnerable to to loss due to damage to it's radiator or cooling system. They only took a great interest in this plane once the Merlin engine and been fitted and the performance had increased dramatically.

Another point about the Mustang, I think that the aircraft came to the UK as the P-51. It was the RAF that gave it the now legendary name “Mustang”.

The USAAC wasn't interested in the Mustang not because it's inline engine but rather it's a British specification. There are other early American inline engine fighters such as P-38, P-39 and P-40.

The RAF initiated the Mustang before the USAAF P-51s came to the UK.

What makes the Packard engine P-51 longer range than other single engine fighters is because of the extra fuel tank behind the pilot. Drop tanks were already being used by ETO P-47C/Ds.

[strumbird]

I'm not sure how many of you had heard of the Fisher P-75 long-range fighter, which was supposed to fulfil the role the P-51 fulfilled eventually. A huge monster almost twice the size of the P-51, it encountered many development problems and did not demonstrate good combat characteristics. When the P-51 came along, it was quietly put aside.

A number of modification was made when the A-36 Apache became the P51B Mustang. Besides the Merlin engine and supercharger, additional fuel tanks were fitted, notably the one in the fuselage behind the pilot.

This also accounted for the increase in range. This created COG stability problems for the pilots when P-51B was first deployed. The pilots had to be very careful when taking off. The fuel in the fuselage tank was actually the first to be burnt off in a sortie, not the drop tanks, because a half-empty tank would have made combat maneuvres very touchy.

Another modification was the replacement of the four 20mm cannons with four 0.50in machine guns. I've never figured out why this was so, except perhaps the 0.50 was the preferred fighter armnaments for the Americans, and perhaps the 20mm had a slower rate of fire with less ammunition. I suppose four 0.50 would be more than enough for fighter to fighter combat.

Due to the thin laminar flow wings on the Mustang (which together with the sleek fuselage accounted for its superb performance), these 0.50 machine guns had to be canted to fit, with ammunition feed chutes that had to take some sharp angles to feed the guns. This accounted for frequent jams during combat maneuvres.

There was also a visibility problem with the original canopy arrangement, with windows that were too small. On many P-51B and Mustang III's, this was solved by substituting a Malcom hood which greatly increased the visibility for the pilot, especially to the rear. I've read somewhere that this arrangement was actually better for rear-and-downward visibility compared to the subsequent P-51D teardrop hood which is narrower.

But one definite improvement of the P-51D over the P-51B and Mustang III's were the armnaments. With an increase in wing chord, six 0.50 could now be fitted up-right with increased ammuntion capacity, effectively increasing the Mustang's firepower by 50%.

But in whichever configuration, the P-51 Mustang were great airplanes that had excellent range but still retaining superb combat characteristics. A truly great design.

Agreed ogukuo72. P-75A Eagle came too late. USAAF have enough P-51s and P-47s to fulfill the missions. P-75 uses existing parts from other aircraft. In addition to the Mustang, by having the .50 cal guns upright on the P-51Ds, it reduces gun jams during high-g manuever.

[Belrick]

I was talking about European theater single engine fighters. Why was the luftwaffe told not to engage the Yak-3?
The Yak was more manouverable, had equal speed to and better climbing performance than the ME-109 and FW-190 below 15000 feet or thereabouts.
Thus it would be foolish for any of the German planes to emesh themselves in dogfighting with the Yak below that altitude. Zoom dive & climb tactics being the only viable.



The luftwaffe being told not engage has been blown massively out of context, it was merly one officers opinion.
Also note the yaks along with all the other russian fighters were hacked out of the sky by an outnumbered luftwaffe right up to the end of the war. The kill loss ratio of the vvs vs the luftwaffe is embarrassing for the Russians.

Boom and zoom tactics were far superior to turn in circles till your on the opponents tail tactics n00bs like to call l33t. Which meant rate of climb and speed, vis etc being the important factors not menueverability... As the Japanese found to there detriment.

[Belrick]

The B-29 was a far superior aircraft to the lancaster.

To sum it up.

Theres a world of difference between intercepting a bomber doing 200mph and 20,000 feet and another doing 300mph at 30,000 feet... Which is why the Japanese air defenses were so ineffective.

[thedragonandhistail]

My opinions on the pure dive bomber planes of WW2

1939 Stuka
1940 Stuka
1941 Stuka
1942 Dauntless (US Navy)
1943 Dauntless
1944 Dauntless

I vote for nothing for the year 1945 as the concept was a nearing a dead end by that year, and the fighter-bombers were taking over that role.

I would vote for the A1 Skyraider in 1946 though. It was equiped with dive brakes for this role.

[Para]

The B29 and the Lancaster... Really there is no comparison as both these planes where designed to do to different jobs. The Lancaster was really a medium range bomber designed for Europe and was designed to carry a very heavy load mainly at night. The B29 was designed for much greater ranges and flew at a far greater height, it was far more heavily armed than the Lancaster, with ranges that the B29 had to fly then it had to carry a far greater amount of fuel which reduced it's bomb load. The idea behind the B29 was to fly above the triple A and most of the Japanese fighters. Both were very fine machine and did a lot to win the war, but the B29 was never used in Europe or the Lancaster against Japan.

[Roger Rabbit]

The B29 and the Lancaster... Really there is no comparison as both these planes where designed to do to different jobs. The Lancaster was really a medium range bomber designed for Europe and was designed to carry a very heavy load mainly at night. The B29 was designed for much greater ranges and flew at a far greater height, it was far more heavily armed than the Lancaster, with ranges that the B29 had to fly then it had to carry a far greater amount of fuel which reduced it's bomb load. The idea behind the B29 was to fly above the triple A and most of the Japanese fighters. Both were very fine machine and did a lot to win the war, but the B29 was never used in Europe or the Lancaster against Japan.
I was always under the impression that although the B29 was an excellent machine for its time then it was mechanically unreliable and more were lost due to mechanical failure than enemy action. There were some other issues regarding the remote control turrets.

[Para]

It took them a number of years to get the B29 to operate correctly and to iron out the bugs of the system as the plane so advanced for it's day. When you look at the flying time from it's bases to Japan and back again if you had been hit over the target or developed a mechanical problem then you where in deep Sh*t. When the US took Okinawa in 1945 the number of B29 that made a forced landing was due to damage or to mechanical problems was enormous and saved thousands of lives.

[thedragonandhistail]

It was Iwo Jima, not Okinawa that the damaged B29's returned to. In addition, Iwo Jima was the location of a few P51 groups that provided escort to those bombers.

In regards to comparing the B29 to any of the other 3 bombers is futile. Even though the B29 was being developed early in the war in 1940 and 1941, plenty of modifications were introduced to address the short comings of the other bombers, the Lancaster, B17 and B24.

For reliability, once the engine problems were solved, the bombers had availability levels just as good as the other bombers. Most of the problems were due to its rushed development and production schedule. The issues were resolved one by one.

Trivia - A few B29's did fly to Europe in the Spring of 1945, just days before the end of the war. They didnt fly any combat missions though.

I have an excellent book that details the production story of the B29, "Building the B-29" by Jacob Vander Meulen. ISBN number is 1-56098-609-3.

This is an excellent addition to anyones library.

[Para]

I stand corrected, as I was working from memory I can assure you can bit rusty after all these years.

[strumbird]

In regards to comparing the B29 to any of the other 3 bombers is futile.


I agree totally. Comparing B-29 with Lancaster is silly. Might as well compare the B-29 with Piaggio P.108. or G8N. A good comparison for the B-29 would be the B-32 Dominator. He-277 would be close comparison but it was only a prototype.

Lancaster can only carry one 22,000 lb Tall Boy in a modified bomb bay and also almost externally mounted. The B-29 was tested to carry TWO externally mounted Tall Boy under the wing roots!

Boeing B-29A
Powerplant:
Four 2200 hp Wright R-3350-23A Duplex Cyclone eighteen-cylinder air-cooled radial engines, each with two turbosuperchargers.
Performance:
Maximum speed 357 mph at 30,000 ft.
Cruising speed: 290 mph.
Service ceiling 36,000 ft.
Normal range: 10,000 lb bombs at 3,250 miles
Maximum range 3,800 miles.

Weights:
60,278 pounds empty, 123,250 pounds maximum gross weight.
Dimensions:
Wingspan 135 feet 0 inches, length 32 feet 2 inches, wing area 1422 square feet.

Armament:
Four GE twin .50 remote turrets above and below. Bell tail turret with own gunner with 20mm and 2 x .50s.
A maximum load of 20,000 pounds could be carried internally.
Crew: 10-14.

--------------
Avro Lancaster Mk I:
Specifications
Powerplant: Four 1,460 hp Rolls-Royce Merlin XX inline piston engines.
Performance:
Maximum Speed: 287 mph at 12,000 ft.
cruising speed: 210 mph
Service Ceiling: 24,500 ft
Range: 1,660 miles with 14,000 lb load

Weight: Empty 36,900 lbs, Maximum Takeoff 68,000 lbs.
Wingspan: 102 ft 0 in.
Length 69 ft 6 in.
Height: 20 ft 0 in.

Armament:
Two 0.303-inch guns in nose and dorsal turrets.
Four 0.303-inch guns in tail turret.
Normal bomb load: 14 x 1,000 pound bombs at 1,660 miles.
Maximum bomb load in semi recessed modified bomb bay: 1 x 22,000 lb. Tall Boy.
Crew: 7

--------------------
Consolidated Vultee B-32 Dominator
Specification
Engines: Four Wright R-3350s of 2,200 hp. ea.
Performance:
Maximum speed: 365 mph.
Cruising speed: 220 mph.
Service Ceiling: 33,600 ft.
Range: 3,700 miles

Span: 141 ft. 3 in.
Length: 99 ft. 0 in.
Height: 27 ft. 9 in.
Weight: 133,500 lbs. max.

Armament:
Ten .50-cal. machine guns in remote controlled turrets plus two .50-cal. machine guns and one 20mm cannon in tail.
Normal bomb load: 10,000 lbs at 3,000 miles.
Maximum bomb load: 20,000 lbs.

[thedragonandhistail]

Good point in comparing the B29 to the B32 instead of the other three bombers. The B32 was developed as insurance in case the B29 program didnt pan out.

The important feature of the B29 was it was designed as a weapons sytem from inception (with a keyword "system"). The B17/B24 and Lanc were designed as airplanes that carried bombs, with some gadgets thrown in as needed. The B29 was designed from the very beginning to incorporate navigation, radar and fire control into the design itself.