Best Prop Fighter V

[Bill Greenwood]

With the previous discussions, I-IV, we covered what I think are the major assets needed for a superior air fighter. If I did it again I might put speed ahead of guns, and I'm aware that if we change the criteria the answer might change. It's time now for the next category which is "Everything Else", that is all the other, perhaps less vital factors which help a fighter. Some might be Survivability(P47, P38 etc.high) Merlin fighters average, Zero low. Versatility (Spit high with Photo recon even at long range) carrier ops, some ground attack ability(hit Rommel) night flights. P-51 had some of this but not carrier. 47 less, but excells at ground attack. Huri, Mosi amoung the most versatile. Pilot comfort, ok in 47, poor in 38,109. View, 51D tops, Spit, Huri good, 109 poor. Anybody got any other good ones that we haven't covered?

[drgondog]

It is interesting to observe what each fighter was DESIGNED for and how they eveolved to fit other missions.

The Spit and 109 and Fw 190 and A6M and F6F and F4U and P-38 and P-47 were designed as bomber anf fighter interceptor/ air superiority. the Spit and 109 and Zero (save Kamikaze role) basically stayed in the 'air superiority' role while the others picked up escort and tactical duties.

The 51 started out as Tactical and Recon and low to medium altitude fighter - then gravitated to escort and strategic air superiority.

I know if I were to develop a checklist of attributes they would include range, payload, durability, serviceability, comfort, airworthiness, cockpit vision, firepower, maneuverability, landing/take off safety, performance (speed, acceleration, initial climb, ceiling, turn and dive) - not in that order but the order would be different for the mission

For example, of the above the 38 was the toughest to maintain - Zero perhaps the easiest...

So if you pick the mission excellence over the durability or maintainability and cost is no object - the P-38 scores pretty high. If you pick "one fighter to do it all and willing to sacrifice durability to standardize - the P-51 wins - and won post World War II through Korea.

If you say one fighter does it all but it has to be durable then you may have a hard time getting away from the F4U.

If you want to say the Best Fighter/Fighter with the longest competitive performance envelope but range doesn't matter - then the FW 190 (or even the Me 109) and Spitfire are at the top of the heap. Actually since the Spit also was first line Post WWII then it probably wins this one.

Always depends on how you frame the question.

Regards,

Bill

[bdk]

Aircraft availability seems to always be paramount in my business. The aircraft has to be maintainable, otherwise you can't use it.

The Me-262 was a fantastic airplane, but was it supportable in the long run with engines that only lasted 25 hours? That uses up a lot of valuable resources. A T-6 on the other hand can just about be maintained with a pair of pliers, the engine was one of the most reliable piston engines ever created, and the sides of the aircraft peel off for easy access to most of the systems.

I can see how the simplicity of the Zero was a great advantage in the South Pacific, while the complexity of the P-38 might be a hindrance. That can be somewhat balanced by the fact that US production capacity was enormous later in the war, so even a less reliable airplane (not suggesting the P-38 was) would have an advantage in numbers. Also, spare parts availabilty was probably better due to the intact supply chain.

Another factor is training. I think that towards the end of the war the US maintainers were fresh and well trained. The Japanese mechanics might have had a lot of experience, but they also must have been war weary.

I think one of the main advantages of the Mustang was its simplicity. P-38s and P-47s must have been difficult to maintain with turbos and the assiociated controllers which were pretty "Rube Goldberg" like mechanical devices at the time. Even now, far from wartime conditions where owners dote over their aircraft, many warbirds fly with this stuff disconnected. Many R-2800 powered warbirds (Corsairs, Hellcats, etc.) also fly with single stage engines and non-functional intercoolers.

[Bill Greenwood]

Dog, good post about safety in takeoff and landing, to which we can include runway reqirements. Some such as 109 are noted as difficult to land, others Huri, Spit, Zero etc. are easy to handle. BDK, another good point about maintainability. Me262, of course not a prop fighter would be hard, How about a Me 163? You'd be lucky to live long enough to see combat! Does anybody know if radials or Allisons had trouble with turbochargers in combat service? B-17 turbos were reliable wern't they? I know that the Merlin supercharger(not turbo) is not usually a trouble point. Let's have some more input from others.

[oz rb fan]

ironicley the japanese seemed to have gone the wrong way with maintance as the early fighters(zero and ki-43) were easy to maintain but the later ones (ki-84 and n1k)were a lot harder which although a lot more capable their effectivness suffered.the ki-100 probably was more effective as the airframe was in comparason fairly simple and with the help of a well known engine used by both services duyring most of the war it would have been and advantage over both the alternate fighters from a ground crew point of view (the ki-100 was a ki-61 tony airframe with mitsubishi kinsei radial) .
the ki-84 iirc was designed from the start to have a strike capabilty (it was first encounted on an anti shipping mission of the coast of the phillipines.
paul
ps beaufigher's could it all anti shipping ,nighfighter ,reconisence strikefighter and they came home

[tom d. friedman]

in it's captured territories through out the pacific many japanese aircraft were rendered useless & languished from lack of spare parts due to their supply lines being cut off from the sinking of their supply ships. the most minute missing part could ground a plane with ease.