Worst aircraft of WW2?

[Civettone]

Gimmeacannon, if manoevrability is the most important, how come the countries with the most manoeuvrable fighters got beaten by countries with power fighters: Japan, Russia and Italy.

I think what you say was true in WW1 but was outdated in WW2. I think the outcome of the air battles near the Falklands was more a matter of superior training, tactics and electronics. It's also my understanding that the Argentinian AF didn't engage the Harriers but focused on attacking the ships and that most Neshers didn't carry the AA missiles to save fuel. But this is getting off-topic... I'm sure there has been a dedicated topic to the Falkland campaign in the appropriate sub-forum.
Kris

[Wespe]

Hi Civettone,

Come on don’t put words in my mouth and spread and change in all direction for arguments. It was you who initially stated the Fw D could only “hope” to match the P-51.
Therefore I stated that the FwD’s didn’t need to “hope” because they were actually a match to the P-51.
Then you bring up this “super trained US pilots” against helpless Lw kids.
Even it was so, it doesn’t give any indication on those two planes matching each other or not.
So as an example, I forwarded that if you take an experienced (5 years lw pilot) against an super trained US pilot to combat in a Me-109F against a P-51 that most certainly the lw pilot would have won.
This has nothing to do with national pride or JV 44. Since not all the JV 44 pilots where experts or veterans your assertion also limps. And where most of the shot down Me-262 downed in Air combat? Or whilst trying to land, or with only one turbine running? Or being hit by defensive bomber fire?
It took highly qualified pilots to handle the Me-262, that is the reason why Galland collected the experienced (experten) around him, that these experts partially possessed high kill scores is obvious, but it doesn’t indicate that these pilots automatically are “immortal”, “superhuman” or invulnerable to combat.
Since the Me-262 and the FwD’s where not operational in numbers at 43 which they could have been, we will have to stick to the historic facts, which are, that the US industry out weight the German by far and that in 43 onwards the US pilots where well trained and in total superior numbers. But again this gives no indication about the FwD’s not being able to match any allied plane.

In the meantime you changed your “hope” to “the Fw 190D-9 was not better than the P-51D” which I never forwarded or claimed in our discussion.

So I will still stick to my opinion that the FwD certainly was capable of matching and taking on the fight with a P-51 or any other allied plane.

Wespe

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I have to agree though. The Fw-190D was a match for anything that was in the sky. Was it the end all aircraft and solution to the Luftwaffes problems. Absolutly not though.

[Civettone]

Wespe, where did I put words in your mouth?

I looked it up, and it was you who started saying that if the Luftwaffe had focused on the Me 262 and Dora, there would not have been any need for Me 163, Natters, and the like. Then I said that the Dora wasn't the 'solution' because it could only hope to match the P-51.
I use the word 'solution' deliberately: if you want to defeat the 8th AF (that is inflicting more losses than they are able to sustain, like happened in 1943) you'll need a solution! for the American P-51 problem.
So that's why I said that the Fw 190D could only hope to match the P-51, as it is not superior. You can say it matched the P-51 but it's my opinion that it didn't even manage to do that. This is partly because it doesn't have an answer to the main weapon of the Mustang: speed! I provided a link that shows that the Dora was too slow. Only in 1945 with MW 50 enabled overboosting could the Dora get to a speed of 685 kmh at an altitude at which the Mustang was still faster. So the Dora can not run from the Mustang, which is a huge disadvantage.

So then you can start talking about the D-12 or D-13, D-14 or D-15 for all I care, that only appeared in 1945. At that time the Americans were producing the P-47N and P-51H. And they also had the even faster P-47M and P-51F/G available at the end of 1944, but decided there was no need to interrupt production for them because there was no need for better fighters.

Then, you can start discussing how Luftwaffe veterans with 5 years experience are better than the best trained USAAF pilots. I agree with that, though I don't know what that's worth. Better to have a steady flow of well trained pilots than a bunch of Experten who were getting killed one by one...

But back to my main point, you don't need a Fw 190D that can "handle" a P-51D. The Dora appeared a year later than the P-51D. Dann brauchst du keine Zwischenlöschung mehr. Even the Ta 152 wouldn't have been made a difference in 1945, only jet fighters were able to clearly outmatch the P-51H, Spitfire F.21, Tempest II, Fury, Spiteful, ... and then there are the P-80, Vampire, ...

Or am I missing something about the Dora??
Kris

[Wespe]

Originally Posted by Civettone

Wespe, where did I put words in your mouth?

I looked it up, and it was you who started saying that if the Luftwaffe had focused on the Me 262 and Dora, there would not have been any need for Me 163, Natters, and the like. Then I said that the Dora wasn't the 'solution' because it could only hope to match the P-51.
I use the word 'solution' deliberately: if you want to defeat the 8th AF (that is inflicting more losses than they are able to sustain, like happened in 1943) you'll need a solution! for the American P-51 problem.
So that's why I said that the Fw 190D could only hope to match the P-51, as it is not superior. You can say it matched the P-51 but it's my opinion that it didn't even manage to do that. This is partly because it doesn't have an answer to the main weapon of the Mustang: speed! I provided a link that shows that the Dora was too slow. Only in 1945 with MW 50 enabled overboosting could the Dora get to a speed of 685 kmh at an altitude at which the Mustang was still faster. So the Dora can not run from the Mustang, which is a huge disadvantage.

So then you can start talking about the D-12 or D-13, D-14 or D-15 for all I care, that only appeared in 1945. At that time the Americans were producing the P-47N and P-51H. And they also had the even faster P-47M and P-51F/G available at the end of 1944, but decided there was no need to interrupt production for them because there was no need for better fighters.

Then, you can start discussing how Luftwaffe veterans with 5 years experience are better than the best trained USAAF pilots. I agree with that, though I don't know what that's worth. Better to have a steady flow of well trained pilots than a bunch of Experten who were getting killed one by one...

But back to my main point, you don't need a Fw 190D that can "handle" a P-51D. The Dora appeared a year later than the P-51D. Dann brauchst du keine Zwischenlöschung mehr. Even the Ta 152 wouldn't have been made a difference in 1945, only jet fighters were able to clearly outmatch the P-51H, Spitfire F.21, Tempest II, Fury, Spiteful, ... and then there are the P-80, Vampire, ...

Or am I missing something about the Dora??
Kris

The example (5 years experience contra well trained US pilot) only clarifies that it is not just the performance of a plane that decides an outcome. In other words even in a "****" plane an experienced Lw Pilot could have knocked out an Super dooper wowy wow wow P-51 or what ever)
Since the Germans did not have enough jet fighters and enough time to make them more reliable, what should they have send up against the allies ??
9 mm Parabellum or what ?
And P-80s and Vampires during WWII, well obviously your knowledge is far ahead of mine

Wespe

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by Wespe

The example (5 years experience contra well trained US pilot) only clarifies that it is not just the performance of a plane that decides an outcome. In other words even in a "****" plane an experienced Lw Pilot could have knocked out an Super dooper wowy wow wow P-51 or what ever)
Since the Germans did not have enough jet fighters and enough time to make them more reliable, what should they have send up against the allies ??
9 mm Parabellum or what ?
And P-80s and Vampires during WWII, well obviously your knowledge is far ahead of mine

Wespe

There were many experten left at the end of WW2 but at the same time there were many extremely low time pilots who were meat on the table for P-51s and P-47s. As stated a so-so pilot jumps into a P-51 and becomes a "good" pilot. With many Luftwaffe aircraft you had to be a good pilot to begin with to fully exploit its characteristics. Again not taking anything away from the Luftwaffe and its aircraft but they were simply overwhelmed in intercepting bombers, attacking fighters and stopping invading allied armies after D-day.

[Wespe]

Originally Posted by FLYBOYJ

There were many experten left at the end of WW2 but at the same time there were many extremely low time pilots who were meat on the table for P-51s and P-47s. As stated a so-so pilot jumps into a P-51 and becomes a "good" pilot. With many Luftwaffe aircraft you had to be a good pilot to begin with to fully exploit its characteristics. Again not taking anything away from the Luftwaffe and its aircraft but they were simply overwhelmed in intercepting bombers, attacking fighters and stopping invading allied armies after D-day.

Yes, absolutly correct,

and I never stated anything else in contra.

[Civettone]

An aircraft is only as good as the pilot flying it. That's old wisdom, FlyboyJ.

It also seems as if you're saying that the P-51 made a mediocre pilot a good one, while the Bf 109 required a good pilot to begin with. That also means that the Bf 109 was difficult to fly. I would like to know why you make such a statement. German and Finnish accounts tell quite a different story.

And what does this mean regarding the Fw 190D? Was it more difficult to fly than a P-51?
Kris

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by Civettone

An aircraft is only as good as the pilot flying it. That's old wisdom, FlyboyJ.

It also seems as if you're saying that the P-51 made a mediocre pilot a good one, while the Bf 109 required a good pilot to begin with. That also means that the Bf 109 was difficult to fly.

Not for a well trained pilot and Germany had thousands of those at the beginning of the war.

Originally Posted by Civettone

I would like to know why you make such a statement. German and Finnish accounts tell quite a different story.

Again, see the above The Geman and Finn account of flying the aircraft come from guys with ample training under their belts.

Originally Posted by Civettone

And what does this mean regarding the Fw 190D? Was it more difficult to fly than a P-51?
Kris

It might of been - I could tell you from experience it is very unnerving taxing , taking off or landing an aircraft where you can't see over the nose

[Civettone]

So the average American recruit which has 250 hours on his belt before training on fighter aircraft, would have no problem with the Bf 109, right?

Just a question - I am not a pilot like you Flyboy J - don't most WW2 fighters have long noses that keep the pilots from seeing over the nose (exception of course aircraft with tail wheels)?

Kris

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by Civettone

So the average American recruit which has 250 hours on his belt before training on fighter aircraft, would have no problem with the Bf 109, right?

Actually many US fighter pilots had a hell of a lot more flight hours before they went into combat. I believe 400 - 600 hours would be closer to the norm. Some of the pilots that were serving prior to the start of the war (I'm speaking about the US's entry) is was not uncommon to find line pilots with several thousand hours flight time.

Originally Posted by Civettone

Just a question - I am not a pilot like you Flyboy J - don't most WW2 fighters have long noses that keep the pilots from seeing over the nose (exception of course aircraft with tail wheels)?

Kris

Yes they did and mastering a landing in an aircraft like the P-40 or Bf 109 didn't come overnight. I think Soren posted a while back that it was recommended that the -109 was landed in the full 3 point position. When you go into the flare and let the aircraft settle you have no foward visibility. At this point peripheral vision comes into play and hope if you're landing on a dirt strip hope there are no craters or furrows in your path.

Now imagine a 200 hour pilot having to learn to fly a WW2 fighter and throw in cross winds, adverse weather, bad landing fields and now yo have a very slim "forgiveness margin" for that pilot.

For the low time fighter pilot just taking off and landing was a feat in itself.

[Civettone]

When the Luftwaffe units had to frequently change base in the last months of the war, they experienced a 10% accident ratio. So this is just taking off, flying level for 15 minutes and landing, 1 out of 10 aircraft had to be written off due to landing accidents. These pilots couldn't even fly their aircraft, how could they expect them to fight?
Half of the fighters in those days served no other purpose than getting shot down which in effect drew off enemy fighters. What a waste.
That's why I'm saying there was no point in increasing aircraft production or even having enough fuel to fly them if you didn't have pilots who could do something useful with them. But the problem is that well-trained pilots need time. So in 1944 it was already too late, no matter how much fuel and aircraft the Germans had.

Kris

[FLYBOYJ]

Yep!

[Wespe]

Originally Posted by Civettone

When the Luftwaffe units had to frequently change base in the last months of the war, they experienced a 10% accident ratio. So this is just taking off, flying level for 15 minutes and landing, 1 out of 10 aircraft had to be written off due to landing accidents. These pilots couldn't even fly their aircraft, how could they expect them to fight?
Half of the fighters in those days served no other purpose than getting shot down which in effect drew off enemy fighters. What a waste.
That's why I'm saying there was no point in increasing aircraft production or even having enough fuel to fly them if you didn't have pilots who could do something useful with them. But the problem is that well-trained pilots need time. So in 1944 it was already too late, no matter how much fuel and aircraft the Germans had.

Kris

Hi Civettone,

so what are you trying to say? that Hitler and his gang lost the war in 44?
Well gues what Stauffenberg and his gang on 20th July 1944 tried to accomplish.
So what was the worst plane in WWII ?
Still the Me-163 or The Gloster Meteor ?
3-4 years of development ending in a plane that had the same datas as a prop that was build 3 years earlier?
Wespe

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

No Germany lost the war when they invaded the Russians.

The Meteor can hardly be considered the worst aircraft of WW2. It was not finished with development when the war ended. Very soon after the war the Meteor was performing better than the Me-262.

Why did development of the Meteor take so long? Because the British and the rest of the allies had the time to work on there aircraft and work out the bugs.

I guarantee you that if Germany was in the position that the British and the allies were they would have taken just as long as well.