Best World War II Aircraft?

FLYBOYJ · 06-20-2006, 12:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Udet

"It appears that the Allied Headquarter were extremely cautious in preventing their new technology from falling into the wrong hands, and initially ordered the RAF's Gloster Meteors to fly missions that were 'away' from the frontlines"

Really... i find myself at a loss for words whenever i read this particular comment.

Why? Even though we know Germany possessed far superior turbine engine aircraft at the time the allied leadership didn't know how their hardware compared with Germany's. It was to their best interest to assume they had something far superior.....

syscom3 · 06-20-2006, 01:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FLYBOYJ

Why? Even though we know Germany possessed far superior turbine engine aircraft .....

Germany had plenty of problems with the hot sections of their engines.

delcyros · 06-20-2006, 04:12 PM

As a generalization: Incorrect. As a specific problem: Correct.
The Jumo-004B (not 004 A or 004D) had serious problems with the
turbine part of the engine due to lack of proper heat resistant alloys.
The BMW-003A had slight problems initially due to vibrations of the compressor stage but this later was fixed (by mid 1944). The -003E and -D did not have problems at all, alike the-003A, these jet engines had an average lifetime of ~200 hrs for the hot turbine part of the engine.
But since the Jumo-004B was the most numerous jet engine produced, I will second Your opinion, Syscom.

FLYBOYJ · 06-20-2006, 04:54 PM

And I "third" it!

SS427 · 06-20-2006, 11:21 PM

I would have to go with the F4U Corsair in all of its forms, sure it had teething problems in the beginning, but it went on to more that redeem it self later in the war terrorizing the Japanese and later shooting down North Korean Jets in the Korean War.

DerAdlerIstGelandet · 06-21-2006, 04:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by syscom3

Great post Pete.

Although you argue your points well, I still think that the P80 cannot be considered a WW2 aircraft simply because it was activated right when the war ended and never went on a combat mission. Too bad it was never moved to the PTO where it could have made an interesting "kamikazi" interceptor.

While I disagree that it can not be considered a WW2 aircraft because it did fly during WW2 and reached operational status in WW2, I do agree that it can not be considered for best WW2 aircraft because there really is no way to prove anything about it compared to other aircraft when it comes to combat.

In my opinion I go with the best as this though:

1. C-47
2. Ta-152
3. B-29
4. P-47
5. Fw-190D
6. Bf-109G (only because it is my favorite aicraft

)

pb4y-fixer · 06-22-2006, 06:03 PM

I read an article in the August 2002 issue of Flight Journal on Corky Meyers (Grumman test pilot). He was the test pilot for the F7F Tigercat. This is from that article:

"For many years, Capt. Trapnell was the top test pilot in the Navy; his word was law, both in Navy and industry flight-test circles. An example of his influence: he came for a three-hour flight evaluation of the first XF6F-3 Hellcat soon after its first flight and he gave the official Navy go-ahead for mass production on that day! The Hellcat eventually passed all of its contractual demonstrations two and a half years later, after more than 8,000 aircraft had been delivered to fighting squadrons! Also, to his credit, the Hellcat racked up a record 19 to one kill-to-loss ratio-the highest recorded in WW II.

When he came to Grumman to conduct the preliminary evaluation of the Panther in early 1948, I was the only Grumman test pilot who had flown the company's first jet fighter. At every opportunity during his three-day evaluation, I tried to pry his opinions out of him; his only responses were grunts, which I interpreted as, "Cool it, Corky!" At the end of his evaluation, as we walked out to his F7F-4N Tigercat for his return trip to the Naval Air Test Center, I proudly told him that I was the Tigercat project pilot from 1943 to 1946. He immediately burst into a diatribe about the Tigercat's many deficiencies: the over-cooling of the engines; a lack of longitudinal stability; excessively high dihedral rolling effect with rudder input; the high, minimum single-engine control speed, etc. He ended his oration with: "If I had been the chief of the Test Center at that time, I would have had you fired!" Each criticism of the Tigercat was absolutely correct. I was devastated and fervently wished that I hadn't gotten out of bed that day.

Just as we reached his Tigercat, I blurted, "If you dislike the Tigercat so much, why do you always fly it?" He explained: "The excess power of its two engines is wonderful for aerobatics; the cockpit planning and the forward visibility in the carrier approach is the best in any fighter ever built; the tricycle landing gear allows much faster pilot checkouts; the roll with the power boost rudder is faster than the ailerons; and it has a greater range than any fighter in inventory." Again, he was absolutely right. As he climbed up the ladder to the cockpit, he turned around, grinned and told me, "It's the best damn fighter I've ever flown." I realized he had thrown the entire test-pilot schoolbook at me with his succinct tirade and that we were probably pretty close in our opinions regarding the handling characteristics that define a really good fighter. I went home happy that night."

From that I would have to give the Tigercat a vote in the race for "Best" fighter of WWII.

syscom3 · 06-22-2006, 06:56 PM

The F7F would have been chewed up by F4u-4's, P47N's, P51K's, P38L's, Spits.... Fw190's, Ta-152's....blah blah blah.

(in my humble opinion of course)

Gnomey · 06-23-2006, 06:52 AM

I would agree with that sys, twin engined fighters generally aren't as manouverable as single engined ones (exception the P-38 ). They are also a bigger target (although probably faster), both types have their advantages and disadvantages but in a dogfight you would generally back a single engined fighter over a twin...