Favorite fighter/interceptor?

[Lucky13]

I voted for the TA-152, even though the mustang had longer range.... It was a difficult choice with the Mustang, Corsair, Lightning, 190D-9 etc. etc. Wonder what would have happen if the TA-152 had shown up a year earlier?

[Dragontech64]

THis was a tough choice given the line-up of excellent aircraft in the list, in fact they are all held in high regard by me, so I had to vote for a purely aesthetic choice, I like the looks of the Spitfire Mk IX the best, but if I was choosing which I'd rather be flying in combat, I'd have trouble choosing between an Fw 190A-8, P-47N or P-38J-25.

[drgondog]

I voted Ta152 (big suprise) - even though designed as a Mustang killer, it had enough firepower to be a B-29 or B-17 0r Lancaster or Spitfire or (insert your preference here) killer.

Shiden great fighter/lousy engine quality but at it's peak performance I would still take a 190D-9 (or -12 or -13 ...God I hate Myself) over it.. in fact I would put a P-38L over the Shiden as a high altitude Interceptor duking it out with B-29s.. and a Shiden could whip a 38 or 51 or F4U or 190 or Ta 152 in the horizontal.

Regards,

I hate myself Willy

[Bird-Nerd]

I'd say FW-190D-9. just cause.

Edit: hey, someone else on the internet lives in Oregon besides me! cool!

[Cota1992]

I picked the T-Bolt as my favorite with any Fw-190 as a close second runner up. I don'r know what's the best and don't think I'm the guy to judge that anyway, but being close to a P-47 as it cranked up and taxied off a few yards away was enough to hook me for life as a favorite.

[kool kitty89]

What about the Fw 190A-9?

I'll go with the P-47 as my favorite though. P-47D, M, N, for general-purpose/multirole, interceptor, and long-range escort. (plus there's the XP-47J...)

Thinking of versitillity though, the P-51 was a good high-altitude escort (and very fuel efficient) and decent fighter-bomber, but overall the P-38, P-47, and Fw 190 series were more vesitile fighters imo.

[Soren]

LMFAO Bill !

[kool kitty89]

What's that a response to Soren???

[Soren]

Bill just made some very funny remarks

I agree with his post.

[renrich]

If we are talking about the most effective interceptor in WW2 I pick the Me 262. It did not have the most kills of bombers but when it was operating it was almost unstoppable. It must have struck fear into the hearts of bomber crew in Europe. It would have effective against the B29 also. In Europe the interceptor that probably had the most kills would probably have been some model of the FW190 although Chris may have knowledge that shows the Bf109 to be supreme there. I don't know about overall WW2 numbers of bomber kills but in the Pacific I am sure that the Hellcat was the champion there with more bomber kills than any other AC(including kamikzes) and the Hellcat may be the bomber killing champion of the whole war.

[drgondog]

Originally Posted by renrich

If we are talking about the most effective interceptor in WW2 I pick the Me 262. It did not have the most kills of bombers but when it was operating it was almost unstoppable. It must have struck fear into the hearts of bomber crew in Europe. It would have effective against the B29 also. In Europe the interceptor that probably had the most kills would probably have been some model of the FW190 although Chris may have knowledge that shows the Bf109 to be supreme there. I don't know about overall WW2 numbers of bomber kills but in the Pacific I am sure that the Hellcat was the champion there with more bomber kills than any other AC(including kamikzes) and the Hellcat may be the bomber killing champion of the whole war.

Rich - that would be interesting research.

I suspect that both the Fw 190 AND the Me 109 would be at the top simply because the RAF, VVS, and USAAF combined lost a lot more bombers than the Japanese had in their entire inventory. IIRC the total awards for the F6F were in the 5000 range - of which I would be equally suprised that 2000 were bombers. Their foes were largely IJN which tended to torps and dive bombers while the IJA had the Betty's etc. Marines and USAAF took on more of the latter than the USN, didn't they?

I would 'guess' that the both the Me 109 and the Fw 190 in all their variants were close to that number on B-17s,24s, 25s, 26s across 8th/9th/12th and 15th AF?

Don't know for sure but suspect it would be true, and who knows how many RAF medium and light bombers were shot down from North Africa, all across the Med and around the ETO?

I wonder who might have an answer to that?

I would have picked the Me 262 for defensive role but leaned to Ta 152 based on near 262 (about the same delta as between a P-40N and a P-51D at 25,000 feet) performance plus range plus payload.

So a Ta 152 could be used as a high speed long range escort, long range interceptor, fighter bomber, long range fighter recon, etc where the 262 is unstoppable as a shorter range fighter.

[renrich]

Bill, you are right, in that the number of kills the Hellcat had in the Pacific was 5257 with 1445 being bombers. I don't know if, for instance, a Zeke being used as a kamikaze counts as a fighter or bomber. Interestingly F4U had less than half the kills of the Hellcat but a much higher proportion of the kills were fighters and it dropped a lot more bombs. I read somewhere on this forum that F4Us dropped 70 % of all bombs dropped by US fighters in WW2. Is that possible? Actually, if Allied fighters in the ETO had had the opportunity to be interceptors (good that they did not) I believe I would pick the P38L as the premier interceptor. By late 1944, it was the weapon it was designed to be with all the bugs out, deadly firepower, great high altitude performance and could have stayed up a long time to shoot down many bombers. Few escort fighters could have competed with it at high altitudes.

[plan_D]

I believe the Spitfire XIVe to be superior to the P-38L as an interceptor; it was just as quick to 20,000 feet (7 minutes for both, if I remember correctly) as the Lightning and would be more comfortable in and amongst the enemy escorts if they were encountered. The Spitfire had good firepower with 2x20mm Hispano Mk.II and two Browning M2 .50 cal. The only advantage of the P-38 would be the extended time in the battle, but this would not be as important in an intercept.

[drgondog]

Originally Posted by plan_D

I believe the Spitfire XIVe to be superior to the P-38L as an interceptor; it was just as quick to 20,000 feet (7 minutes for both, if I remember correctly) as the Lightning and would be more comfortable in and amongst the enemy escorts if they were encountered. The Spitfire had good firepower with 2x20mm Hispano Mk.II and two Browning M2 .50 cal. The only advantage of the P-38 would be the extended time in the battle, but this would not be as important in an intercept.

Plan_D - I would offer one reason why I would want the P-38L as an interceptor. Huge differences in range.

I feel the Luftwaffe failed to press US Daylight raids at earliest opportunity, even with nuisance attacks, to attempt to force long range escorts to drop external fuel prematurely. If the LW had the Ta 152 much earlier or even a P-38L with very long loiter time, they could have put them over the Channel on the Border as the bombers were forming up.. possibly even attacked from high altitude during the formation assembly process and put enormous strain on planning for 8th and 9th AF Fighter Command and RAF Fighter Command?

To me the climb rate to 20,000 feet is interesting but less important with good radar coverage giving more reaction time. In the case of US daylight attacks a simple brief burst on a radio transmitter near American airfields during engine start process would have been better than radar.. could time the Formation Assembly almost by the clock from Engine Start Time on the mission plan.

Secondly, I can't think of any bombers the luftwaffe had that didn't fall very nicely to a simple ol' battery of 4x .50s on the P-51B when they caught Ju 88, He 111, He 177, Do 217s while roaming the east German countryside.

The Spit battery of 4x20s absolutely better in my mind but the 2x20 plus .303 would be slightly lower preference for me.

Last, I like the P-38 firepower concentration factor of all 5 weapons having essentially a 24" diameter cone of fire and complete ballistic convergence from 0 feet to 300-400 yards. I suspect the effect for the me 109G/K was better than expected with the central battery, even though slowed in rate of fire with respect to P-38, by prop synchronization requirements?

Both great ships, but for Interception I would go with the P-38L over any US conventional fighter for the reasons noted...

[freebird]

Originally Posted by lesofprimus

Hmmm... This kinda topic has been done so many times before, but I will chime in to get ur re-thread going some...

I was curious to ask the mods/members, has there been a poll done of best low-level fighter-interceptor? Say under 10,000 feet?