Best Prop Fighter I

[Bill Greenwood]

What's the best WWII prop combat fighter? What characteristics does a fighter need? Don't be too narrow; if we said carrier based it would rule out P-51; if range primarily it would rule out most except the 51. Let's evaluate planes one feature at a time and keep it factual at first, we can be more subjective later. I'd say guns, (armament) may be the first requirement. Enough guns to make it easier to hit something, big enough to destroy, especially armor. I'd give P-38 a 10, with multple cannon and 50. cal.,and centrally mounted. Spifire IX&XIV with 2 20mm cannon & 4 .30 cal. machine guns rate a 9. 20 series Spits about a 9.5 with 4 cannon. P-51 with 6 .50 cal.,no cannon about a 7. Early P-51 had only 4 .50's, early Spits 8 .30 cal, no cannon so rate both, 6. Early Hurricane a 6 with 8 .30 cal., late ones a 9.5 with 4 20 mm. P-47, Corsair, etc an 8 with 6 .50's. Me 109, Zero lesser cannon and light machine guns an 8. What do others think, let's stick to this topic only, to keep it brief for a couple of days.

[oz rb fan]

bill wouldnt a p47 be more than an eight as it had 8 5o cals .
a boomerang would also be around an 8 with 2 20mm cannons and 4 303's .
and a mk21 beaufighter would be close to a 10 with 4 20mm cannons and 4 50 cal mg's
paul

[Trey Carroll]

Down low my vote goes to the Bearcat

[Ollie]

The Spitfire, clearly.

[Ztex]

On a statistical basis I think it would have to be the F6F Hellcat with a 19:1 kill ratio...

I don't know how it would have done if the USAAF had used it instead of the (much better looking ) P-51 in Europe but it faired quite well where and when it flew.

[k5083]

There are various measures of armament in gun-based fighters that seek to control for both number and calibre of weapons; probably the most common, though imperfect, one is "weight of fire" in kg/sec, which also takes into account rate of fire, though less tangible factors like the advantage of having the battery concentrated in the nose or the muzzle power of the guns. Anyway, a number of fighter weight-of-fire tables have been compiled. From these, it is apparent that 2.0 kg/sec was an acceptable weight of fire in 1940-41, but by 1944-45 a hard-punching fighter need 3.0-3.5 kg/sec. Some examples are below.

EARLY WW2 FIGHTERS WEIGHTS OF FIRE
P-36: 0.8 kg/sec
Ki-43: 1.14 kg/sec
Spit Mk.I, Hurri Mk.I: 1.72 kg/sec
Yak-1: 1.99 kg/sec
Bf 109E-3: 2.37 kg/sec
F4F-3: 2.43 kg/sec
A6M2: 2.62 kg/sec
P-39D: 3.02 kg/sec

LATE WW2 FIGHTERS WEIGHTS OF FIRE
Yak-3: 1.92 kg/sec
N1K1-J: 2.11 kg/sec
Spit IX: 2.24 kg/sec
Bf 109G-6: 2.46 kg/sec
La-5: 2.56 kg/sec
Yak-3: 2.64 kg/sec
A6M5: 2.8 kg/sec
P-51, F4U, F6F, P-40E-N: 3.64 kg/sec
Macchi Mc.205: 3.69 kg/sec
Yak-9T: 3.7 kg/sec
P-38J: 3.73 kg/sec
Fw 190D: 3.87 kg/sec
Spit XIV: 3.81 kg/sec
Ki-61, Ki-84, Ki-100: 3.95 kg/sec
Bf 109K-4: 4.16 kg/sec
P-47: 4.85 kg/sec
Typhoon: 5.2 kg/sec
Ta 152: 5.96 kg/sec
Tempest V: 6.5 kg/sec
La-7: 7.32 kg/sec
Beaufighter IF: 7.35 kg/sec

In deciding what to include in these tables I also want to draw attention to some less popular aircraft as candidates for the title. Much as I like the familiar British and US fighters, sound arguments can be made that either the La-7 or the Ki-84 was the best prop fighter of the war.

August

[L2Driver]

"Weight of Fire", while (IMO) excellent for comparing relative firepower, only represents one area of a very complex comparison. A host of other factors are at play -- manueverability, ruggedness, acceleration, etc.....

Firepower is meaningless if you can't get into a position to use it. Manueverability is equally meaningless unless you have the firepower to do something useful with your position of advantage.....

The quality of the pilot ranks very high (again, IMO) as a skilled pilot with a somewhat inferior aircraft will likely prevail against a poor pilot in a superior aircraft.

All aircraft have advantages and disadvantages. It's up to the guy flying to take advantage of his machine's superior points and apply them against the weaknesses of the opponent. Clearly easier said than done although I would weigh speed, acceleration, and firepower higher than I would manueverability. Reason (again, my opinion): most kills are made against non-manuevering targets (i.e. the 'victim' never sees the attacker approaching). In this scenario, speed and firepower allow a rapid closure and heavy weight of fire.

Obviously, designs from later in the war generally have an advantage over earlier aircraft so we'd really need to compare aircraft within the same time periods of each other -- e.g. a Bf109E vs Tempest really isn't much of a comparison while looking at an FW-190D vs Tempest would be more realistic.

I have a personal bias for Hawker aircraft and think the Tempest probably rates near the top for best all-around fighter.

[Mudge]

OK...Educate me. Was the Bearcat actually involved in any WWII combat?
I'm not being a smart-ass, I really don't know.

Much as I'd like to cote for my beloved P-38, I've gotta' go with the P-51. For all the reasons mentioned.

Mudge the realist

[Jack Cook]

A subject for endless debate.
It all depends on the skill of the pilot in a
particular plane at a particular time.

FM-2s downed Jacks, Zeros, Georges ect.
P-40 Warhawks downed FW-190s
Finnish Buffalos cleaned house
while Tomahawks downed Zeros, Oscars & 109s.
Heck even the Phlipiine P-26 pilots downed a couple

I'll take Bob Hoover in a P-26 over 2Lt I.M. Fearless
in a P-51D any day of the week.

[k5083]

You guys are kind of fighting Bill's intention in starting this thread, which was that we take the question one aspect of the time and that this thread be about the armament aspect. I thought that was kind of novel and worth pursuing. If this is going to be the usual apples vs. oranges discussion instead, I'm sure we've all been there done that.

August

[Trey Carroll]

OK...Educate me. Was the Bearcat actually involved in any WWII combat?
I'm not being a smart-ass, I really don't know.

No, Bearcats were on carriers destined for the fighting then the war ended.

[Bill Greenwood]

Right on K5083! Guys if we don't take it 1 step at a time, it's hard to have a logical discussion. Let's stay with armament for another day or so, then I'LL post another category. Oz, mine was a typo, 6 instead of 8 .50's in the Jug. I'd still give it an 8, maybe 8.5 with no cannon. Trey, the Bearcat for all it's apparent potential, never made it to kickoff, not in WWII or even Korea. I think it's only combat was dive bombing, not too successfuly, for the French in Vietnam. Hellcat fans, a great kill ratio, but against an already depleted enemy. How would you rate it's firepower? K 5083, great facts, I'll have to reasearch some of them, and how about a Mosquito for armament?

[Mudge]

Sorry about my previous post. I didn't read the parameters closely enough.
So...for firepower, I'm back to my beloved P-38. Flying (simulated) the P-38 and the Beaufighter are my favorites. Just point the plane at the target and light it up. No worries about convergence point. Just a straight line to the target.

Mudge the trigger happy

[Obergrafeter]

The rate or weight of firepower probably made mediocore (sp) pilots good pilots. Some of the better pilots on both sides used only a few rounds to make a kill. Having 6 or 8 of brother John Brownings equalizers couldn't help but give a novice a little more respect.

[Jack Cook]

I think fighters with dis-similar armament (not centerline) were at a disadvantage and those with only .30cal mgs
(except I guess Hurricane's with 12 .30s would be the exception). Mixing .30s and 20mm and .30s and .50s
for that matter never made much sense to me.
I don't even want to imagine being on the receiving end of a P-61 or Typhoon/Tempest's 4 20mm....gloom & doom!