Best World War II Aircraft?

[Astaldo711]

I didn't mean to open a can of worms when I mentioned the P-40 and Zero. I was just saying that pilot skill must be taken into account. Look what the Finnish pilots did with the Buffalo and the Russians with the P-39. The US had all but written them off.

[Shortround6]

Pilot skill must be taken ito account .

THe Finns may have had more skillful pilots than the Russians (or better trained, more hours) This allowed them to use infeior aircraft.
On the other hand the Russian pilots, on average with fewer hours and less training needed a plane not just as good but actually much better so a larger number could survive their first encounters and become seasoned pilots.

Same with early US planes against the Japanese. Certain models of the buffalo might have been able to give a good account of themselves ( and some did against the Japanese) but a lack of groiund support/maintence doomed them. The P-40 was rugged enought to survive some encounters and get it's pilots back home so they could fight again.
The Allied pilots may have been beter trained than the Russians but the Japanese Navy pilots were even better.
Planes lier the Hellcat for the Americans or plans like the Frank latter in the war for the Japanese not only gave experienced pilots a great weapon but gave green pilots a better chance of survivieng first combats to become experinced pilots.

Good or great pilots can make almost any plane look good.

Good or great planes can make pilots look good or help them survive long enough to become great pilots.

Good/great pilots in bad aircraft are going to get whittled down over time with only a few green pilots lasting
long enough to become good/great. Average pilot skill goes down hill as a whole.

[Elvis]

Brewster couldn't meet the US Government's quota for outfitting the fleet with Buffalo's and Grumman could.
THAT is why Brewster lost that very lucrative contract.
Plus, the Grumman had more stout landing gear, which meant it stayed in operation for a longer time.
According to test pilots who flew the planes during trials the XF2A-1 was actually the better handling plane, compared to the XF4F-2.
I think the Finns had fairly skilled pilots, in a very "useful" aircraft, during the Continuation War, however, where they gained their experience, I don't know....maybe they were all exceptioinal students.

As for P-40 vs. Zero, here's an interesting set of comments, from the Ace Pilots page on the P-40...

"Joel Paris was a P-40 ace with the 49th Fighter Group in the Southwest Pacific. In Fire in the Sky: The Air War in the South Pacific, he relates his opinion of the P-40:

I never felt that I was a second-class citizen in a P-40. In many ways I thought the P-40 was better than the more modern fighters. I had a hell of a lot of time in a P-40, probably close to a thousand hours. I could make it sit up and talk. It was an unforgiving airplane. It had vicious stall characteristics. ...

If you knew what you were doing, you could fight a Jap on even terms, but you had to make him fight your way. He could outturn you at slow speed. You could outturn him at high speed. When you got into a turning fight with him, you dropped your nose down so you kept your airspeed up, you could outturn him. At low speed he could outroll you because of those big ailerons. They looked like barn doors on the Zero. If your speed was up over 275, you could outroll it. His big ailerons didn't have the strength to make high speed rolls ...

You could push things, too. Because you knew one thing: If you decided to go home, you could go home. He couldn't because you could outrun him. He couldn't leave the fight because you were faster. That left you in control of the fight. Mind you: The P-40 was a fine combat airplane "





Elvis

[Shortround6]

I will note that whatever the characteristics were of the XF2A-1 and the XF4f-2 were both planes had changed considerably by the time they saw combat in US service.

I have read accounts that claim many Russian pilots only few about 30 hours a year before the war broke out. I don't know what the Finns flew but it seems to me that pilots that fly 2-3 times the number of hours per year after flight school just might have an advantage regardless of how good a students they were in flight school.

AS for the P-40 thing. I am not going to argue religion with a true beliver.

[Elvis]

Shortround6,

I could comment, but that would skew the thread.
If ya' wanna continue this discussion, start a separate thread and send me a link.



Elvis

[Guns'n'Props]

Hi guys - I've just joined the forum. A very interesting discussion .....

If I may add my 2 cents and without reading all the pages on this thread:
1.) Yes more training / experience can lessen the odds and make up for inferior equipment - eg Saburo Sakai at Iwo Jima took out a couple of Hellcats. Although updated the A6M5 Zero was no match for the Hellcat.
2.) Morale and motivation - the Finns had lots of it especially fighting for their homeland; same for the RAF in the B of B.
3.) Some planes were simply easier or harder to fly eg stall characteristics, stick and rudder balance, the actual physical effort required to fly the plane. eg the propeller torque on the Me109G series and its narrow landing gear accounted for many an unfortunate green pilot.
4.) Tactics again as in no 1 above.
5.) With reference to the Brewster Buffalo - I remember that it tended to overheat in warmer climates, thus the freezing temperatures of Finland / N Russia probably helped to mitigate this problem.

[Soren]

I believe the A6M5 was a very dangerous opponent to the Hellcat if both were flown by well trained pilots. The Hellcat was faster, but the Zero was more agile and could climb slightly faster at 4500 ft/min.

It was the Corsai whichr was the a/c which clearly outmatched the Zero.

[Guns'n'Props]

Yes, both the F4U and F6F had a clear performance edge over the A6M5. As the latter was much lighter i.e. wing loading it could almost always out turn them - at least at low speeds. But by the time these USN / USMC fighters were operational most US units in the Pacific would have learnt to use slash 'n' run tactics and avoid mixing it with Japanese fighters especially at slow speeds.

Also earlier Zeroes ie A6M2 and A6M3 could even out turn Spitfire V's and Hurricanes over Darwin Australia.

Back to the topic : in my opinion the Corsair is a strong contender for the best overall piston engined fighter of WW2.

[Elvis]

Originally Posted by Guns'n'Props

5.) With reference to the Brewster Buffalo - I remember that it tended to overheat in warmer climates, thus the freezing temperatures of Finland / N Russia probably helped to mitigate this problem.

G'n'P,

Welcome to the forum.
I hope you enjoy yourself while you're here.

Concerning your point #5, that overheating problem is something that plauged the R-1820 for some time.
It was due to the design of the cooling fins in the cylinder heads.
Wright finally got it figured out, but I think those versions of the engine used in the Buff's pre-date that.

...and, just to get us back on subject, I still say the "best" airplane of the war was the C-47.
According to Eisenhower, we couldn't have won the war without it.

JMHO!




Elvis

[Guns'n'Props]

Hi Elvis,

thanks for the welcome.

Re- Buffalo, Flying Officer Geoffrey B. Fisken of the RNZAF bagged 5 victories + 2 probables during the shambles of early '42 in Singapore flying the Brewster. I doubt that there were many more like him in theatre but it goes to show what a decent pilot can achieve even with a poor aircraft.

Re- "..and, just to get us back on subject, I still say the "best" airplane of the war was the C-47. According to Eisenhower, we couldn't have won the war without it."

Well yes. The Allies ultimately won through sheer numbers. So the humble transports, be they C-47s , Liberty ships, GMC trucks or DUKWs ensured that overall Allied forces had a material advantage in most theatres at least during the later stages of the war.

[Elvis]

Originally Posted by Guns'n'Props

Hi Elvis,

thanks for the welcome.

Re- Buffalo, Flying Officer Geoffrey B. Fisken of the RNZAF bagged 5 victories + 2 probables during the shambles of early '42 in Singapore flying the Brewster. I doubt that there were many more like him in theatre but it goes to show what a decent pilot can achieve even with a poor aircraft.

If you'd like to continue this, I've sent you a PM.


Elvis

[renrich]

A little far afield but I have often speculated that overall the Corsair might have been the best fighter in the US arsenal. Began thinking about some readily accomplished modifications which would have made the Corsair more suitable for the ETO and lightening the AC by removing the tail hook and making the wing non folding would have resulted in a little less weight and better performance.
Actually there were a number of Corsairs built by Goodyear that did not have tailhooks or folding wings and I have never seen any tests of that model which show how the weight loss affected it's performance. The F4U1 had wing tanks, not self sealing but with a CO2 purge system. It had an internal fuel capacity of 361 gallons which gave it a "yardstick" range of around 1500 miles. A realistic combat radius of around 550 miles was possible off of land bases with that fuel load.
The original XF4U had two MGs mounted above the engine. The F4U1 production AC had the fuselage lengthened by around 3 feet so that fuselage fuel tank counld be accomodated and the guns removed to the wings with the six fifties supplied with 400 rounds each except for the two outboard guns which had 375 rounds each because of wing taper.
Now comes the modification which might have made it the premier US fighter, ( if it wasn't already.) Delete the MGs in the wing and mount two 50 BMGs above the engine with 500 rounds each. Remove the accursed, infamous oil cooler from the wing root and place it behind the engine like the Hellcat and mount two 20 mm cannon, one in each wing root, with 150-200 rounds per gun, like the FW190, all guns synchronised with the prop. The guns therefore would throw all projectiles into about a 5 foot square and the g-load jamming problems of wing mounted guns would be eliminated.
The resulting space in the wings could be used for larger self sealing fuel tanks. I estimate that at least enough additional fuel could be carried to allow a 2000 mile "yardstick" range. That would give it a combat radius of around 750 miles on internal fuel only. Even longer range would result with belly tanks. All these modifications could have been accomplished without radical redesign. Any body have comments? LOL

[Elvis]

For land based aircraft, I could see where longer range would be an advantage, but I think the extra space on carrier-based aircraft would be better used for extra ammo storage, and/or extra hardpoints for more "munitions".

JMHO, but now I'm curious.
Where was the Blacksheep "base" actually located, in the "Baa Baa Blacksheep" TV show?
Someone once told me it a section of Hermosa Beach in California, but I don't know how true that is.



Elvis

[Civettone]

A friend of mine whose dad was a F-4U pilot once told me that his dad said the Corsair was the best because it could do one thing which no other fighter could. Don't recall exactly how he put it. But it was something caused by its wings, and that's that it could bank without losing energy while other fighters would stall.

...

Kris

[drgondog]

Originally Posted by Civettone

A friend of mine whose dad was a F-4U pilot once told me that his dad said the Corsair was the best because it could do one thing which no other fighter could. Don't recall exactly how he put it. But it was something caused by its wings, and that's that it could bank without losing energy while other fighters would stall.

...

Kris

Kris - That might have been his theory but probably without merit. All aircraft lose energy in a turn, but as long as the thrust available exceeds the amount required for that manuever it can maintain energy...and the F4U had plenty of power (and plenty of drag)

What causes the stall is when the bank angle and speed force an approach to maximum CL for the wing to provide the vertical lift component to sustain level flight - but that point is difficult to predict in theory and even more difficult to substantiate and repeat in flight tests. There are too many factors involved (trim drag, spanwise flow, aileron reversal, aeroelastic effects, etc)

What is possibly true is that the outboard gull section could be adding a very slight increment to the vertical lift component of the wings - but conversely the inboard (down wing) section should stall out first... so hard to know.

Additional considerations regarding the effectiveness of the Gull sections is that both up and down wing sections are totally immersed in the turbulent flow behind the prop.

In short I doubt it - but remain open minded to the possibility.