Best World War II Aircraft?

[mkloby]

Originally Posted by Wespe

You don't get it do you? "the most influential in the role it played in WWII" did I ever state that the C-47 did NOT PLAY AN INFLUENTIAL ROLE IN LOGISTICS????

You try to show me your knowledge about the inventory about the USAF or what?
It is obvious to me, that todays modern and desisive fighter aircraft are jet propelled and not props. No matter if the Argentinians are producing Pampas (cant remember the dam name right now) and Brazilians Tucanos.
Since the Me-262 did go into action in March 45, off course their was no big contribution to WWII on German behalf, and every kid knows Germany lost the war. And because the US won, everything that contributed to WWII must off course be American or in the worst case British, otherwise how could they have won? And the best tank in WWII was the Sherman, because it influenced the Abrahms (they both have a cannon) and It contributed to winning the war.
If every future discussion comes down to contribution (winning) towards the WWII, than what do you want to discuss about ?

The Ta 152 better than .......
Answer NO because it didn't contribute
The 109 better than .....
Answer NO because it didn't contribute
MK 108 better than ...........
Answer NO because it didn't contribute
Did the Germans have anything at all?
Answer NO because it didn't contribute


Anything else?

Wespe - you stated that the me262 drove props into history. I gave you a short list of current US aircraft in the inventory that are props. Of those listed, only the T-6 and C-130s are currently used by the USAF. My current aircraft, the C-12, is in a navy squadron. There is also currently a push in the USAF to procure armored AT-6 Texan IIs to use for light attack/recon. Props are far from fading into history.

It just comes down to what "best" means to each person. Maybe you'd be surprised to know that my favorite A/C is the Bf109F-4. No one is chest thumping by saying the 47 was the best. Regardless - it's a good discussion, tempers just always seem to flare in these "best" threads.

Cheers,
matt

[Soren]

When'ever it worked the Me-262 was the best fighter to hit the air during WWII, and besides its engine troubles (Which were significant) it was actually a very sound fighter.

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by Soren

When'ever it worked the Me-262 was the best fighter to hit the air during WWII, and besides its engine troubles (Which were significant) it was actually a very sound fighter.

Agree - my point here was the early jet aircraft were unrelaible and sometime dangerous. Becuase of the wartime urgency the Me 262 utilized material and contruction techniques that were somewhat crude.

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Originally Posted by Wespe

Nope, that photo I am refering to showed P-59s. And without opening another discussion for today, please refer to the text below.

The Lockheed P-80 Shooting Star became the United State's Air Force's first jet-powered fighter on December 3, 1945. Shortly before the Second World War ended, about 45 had been delivered though only two made it to the European Theater and neither ever saw any combat.

It is 0730 in Asia now and I really need to go to sleep.
See you next time - I mean contra you next time

If the photo was the aircraft in Italy near the end of the war than it was P-80s not P-59s. It was labeled wrong then. As stated below one P-59 was sent to England so the British could test it. It was not put on operational sorties.

2 P-80s however arrived in Italy and were put on Combat Air Patrol mission but never enganed any German aircraft.

Also the P-380 did not become the US first operational Jet Fighter on December 3, 1945. It was in late 1944 that they began to be given to units.

Here is some info for you below.

The only P-59 to go England was YP-59A (S/n: 42-22611) and exchanged for a Gloster Meteor.

A total of 4 P-80s were sent to Europe in January of 1945. 2 to England and 2 to Italy. The unit in Italy that recieved them was the 1st Fighter Group based out of Lesina, Italy.

Major Frederic Borsodi was killed in a crash caused by an engine fire on 28 January 1945, demonstrating YP-80A 44-83026 at RAF Burtonwood.

Because of this the P-80 was grounded. Because of this delay they did not see any combat.

1st Fighter Group received two YP-80A jet fighters (serials 44-83028 and 44-83029) sent to the theater for operational testing ("Project Extraversion"). Although the jets were marked for combat operations with easily identifiable tail stripes and the letters 'A' and 'B' on their noses, and flown on two operational sorties by the 94th FS, neither saw combat before the end of the war.

[Parmigiano]

Yes, there were 2 P80 in Italy, based in Lesina close to Foggia.
There was some speculation that they were sent to counter the 'Pamperos' (nickname given to the AR234) based in Lonate Pozzolo, but it does not seem realistic: Foggia is in the deep south, the YP80 were almost at the end of their range before reaching the area where the few remaining Germans were flying.

Most likely they were sent only for test and 'advertising' purposes.

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

They were sent for Combat Air Patrols for operational testing. They never saw combat.

No P-59s were sent to Europe for operations purposes. Therefore the photo is labeled wrong or it is the on the RAF were testing.

[FLYBOYJ]

Sometimes ya gotta love Winkpedia..

"The 13 service test YP-59As had a more powerful engine than its predecessor, but the improvement in performance was negligible with only a five mph increase in top speed. One of these aircraft, third YP-59A (S/n: 42-22611) was supplied to the RAF in exchange for a Gloster Meteor. British pilots found that the aircraft compared very unfavourably with the locally-produced jets that they were already flying. (They also compared unfavorably to P-51 Mustangs.) Two YP-59A Airacomets (42-108778 and 42-100779) were also delivered to the USN where they were evaluated as the YF2L-1 but quickly found completely unsuitable for carrier operations.

Faced with their own ongoing difficulties, eventually, Bell completed 50 production Airacomets-20 P-59As and 30 P-59Bs. Each was armed with one 37-mm M-4 cannon and 44 rounds of ammunition and three .50 cal. machine guns and 200 rounds per gun. The P-59Bs were assigned to the 412th Fighter Group to familiarize AAF pilots with the handling and performance characteristics of jet aircraft. While the P-59 was not a great success, the type did give the USAAF experience with the operation of jet aircraft in preparation for the more advanced types that would shortly become available."

[Soren]

Originally Posted by FLYBOYJ

Agree - my point here was the early jet aircraft were unrelaible and sometime dangerous. Becuase of the wartime urgency the Me 262 utilized material and contruction techniques that were somewhat crude.

The problem was not the airframe, the airframe was strong and well built (Unless sabotaged), the engines however were too ahead of their time, the heat levels reached were simply to much for the materials available at the time.

[Wespe]

Originally Posted by Soren

The problem was not the airframe, the airframe was strong and well built (Unless sabotaged), the engines however were too ahead of their time, the heat levels reached were simply to much for the materials available at the time.

Hi Soren,

the whole time when I looked at your signature pic. I felt hat something was wrong. Yep now I know it is the pilot Willi Reschkes uniform. Did you mirror the picture deliberatly?

Wespe

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Originally Posted by FLYBOYJ

Sometimes ya gotta love Winkpedia..

"The 13 service test YP-59As had a more powerful engine than its predecessor, but the improvement in performance was negligible with only a five mph increase in top speed. One of these aircraft, third YP-59A (S/n: 42-22611) was supplied to the RAF in exchange for a Gloster Meteor. British pilots found that the aircraft compared very unfavourably with the locally-produced jets that they were already flying. (They also compared unfavorably to P-51 Mustangs.) Two YP-59A Airacomets (42-108778 and 42-100779) were also delivered to the USN where they were evaluated as the YF2L-1 but quickly found completely unsuitable for carrier operations.

Faced with their own ongoing difficulties, eventually, Bell completed 50 production Airacomets-20 P-59As and 30 P-59Bs. Each was armed with one 37-mm M-4 cannon and 44 rounds of ammunition and three .50 cal. machine guns and 200 rounds per gun. The P-59Bs were assigned to the 412th Fighter Group to familiarize AAF pilots with the handling and performance characteristics of jet aircraft. While the P-59 was not a great success, the type did give the USAAF experience with the operation of jet aircraft in preparation for the more advanced types that would shortly become available."

Yeap just like I said.

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by Soren

The problem was not the airframe, the airframe was strong and well built (Unless sabotaged), the engines however were too ahead of their time, the heat levels reached were simply to much for the materials available at the time.

The airframe was built well - it was the components that went into it that made the aircraft a "rust bucket." In the Walter J. Boyne's book "Arrow to the Future" he has a chapter where the restoration of the Me 262 that is now in the Smithsonian Institute is described. There were many areas of the aircraft were steel and aluminum (among other materials) were used togther in main structural components with little or no protection - in that situation corrosion would set in almost immediately. It is understandable why this was done during but at the same time I think some of these "rushed processes" would of shown their head had the aircraft seen another 6 months more of service.

[Morai_Milo]

How many a/c actually are around after 6 months of service?

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by Morai_Milo

How many a/c actually are around after 6 months of service?

I guess it depends what side you're on. Even though many of the aircraft used in WW2 were never thought to have a life expectancy of more than a few hundred hours, there is no reason to build them that way unless you're pretty desperate. The point here is as effective an innovative the Me 262 was, its faults lied in it's construction and engines - but that aside, when everything was working, she was unstoppable.

[Wespe]

Originally Posted by FLYBOYJ

I guess it depends what side you're on. Even though many of the aircraft used in WW2 were never thought to have a life expectancy of more than a few hundred hours, there is no reason to build them that way unless you're pretty desperate. The point here is as effective an innovative the Me 262 was, its faults lied in it's construction and engines - but that aside, when everything was working, she was unstoppable.

YES,YES,YES

"when everything was working, she was unstoppable "

Thank you I needed that

Wespe

[Parmigiano]

It is difficult to have a firm opinion on the 262, we are lacking reliable information about her effectiveness.

Trying to roughly summarize, to my knowledge we can say:

Things that we can accept as facts

1 - The performances were extremely good
2 - the tactical and strategical situation was desperate: no fuel, outnumbered 10/20: 1 at every combat etc.
3 - the airframe was OK,
4 - the engines were troublesome

About the actual results, there are not (to my knowledge) reliable information:

Me 262 downed: it seems that a meaningful number is around 150, not clear if this include those aircrafts strafed on the ground or only the airborne.
For sure it does include aircrafts shoot down during take off and landing.


Me 262 kills: here goes the dance.
According to Osprey the kills were:

Eprobungskommando 262 ------------ 12
Kampfgeswafer 51 "Edelweiss" ----- 8+
Kommando Nowotny ----------------- 22
III./EJ 2 ------------------------ 40
Jagdegeswader 7 ------------------ 500
Kommando Welter (10.NJG 11) ------ 48
Jagdverband 44 ------------------- 55+
Kampfgeswader 54 "Totenkompf" ---- 50

that is about 735

Now, this seems too much, they are probably claims.

On the other end, there are sources ( I can't remember now) that report a total of 180-200 kills.


In any case we should come to some reliable number of kills to make an opinion about the 262 as 'best' or 'useless' fighter:

Taking (as pure exercise) 150 as the number of 262 downed,
- considering the 'fact' #2 and
- that a good half of the losses happened during take off/landing and not in combat

we might have:

Kills = 150-200 -> good,
But probably not worth the cost of such a sophisticated machine

Kills = 200-300 -> Extremely good,
no other aircraft could possibly have achieved this results

Kills = 300-400 -> Impressive,
almost terrifying

Kills > 400 : the 262 was in effect another planet, not a plane!