Best fighter of ww2?

The Corsair was a fine plane, but compare models from the same years and the comparison doesn't look quite so spectacular.
The Corsair had a max speed of 452mph, but that was the F4U-4 model, which first saw action in the spring of 45.
If you compare it to other late war planes, like the Fw190D9 (440mph), Bf109K4 (452mph) and Spitfire 21 (454mph) it doesn't seem so spectacular.
The best of the mainstream fighters to actually see action was probably the Spitfire XIV. It entered service in Jan 44, had a max speed of 448mph, a climb rate of over 5000ft/min, a range of around 1200 miles with extra fuel, and could outturn almost any other fighter of it's day. Some of the late Japanese aircraft could turn as well, but they all had speeds of less than 400mph.
At low level the Tempest was probably the best fighter. It was the fastet prop fighter in the world at sea level, had 4 Hispano V cannon, probably the best guns in the world at the time, and had a range of around 1500 miles with external tanks. It entered service in April 44.

 

In my opinion, Messerschmitt Me-262 was the best fighter of WW2, because it was on of the first Jet Fighters (with Gloster Meteor),
and initially was developed by a request of Hitler of a Jet Bomber, this caused a delay in development as fighter, and when begin to really operate as fighter that was too late to improvement. But that was a revolutionary fighter.

 

OK Carl. this is a reminder to send me the copies of the 2 pics of Jörg Dietsche's dad. I would appreciate those quite a bit. As they will go into the JG 301/302 files.

The Ta 152 was probably the best piston-engine job, but too late too see much service. The Me 262 was a hot rod, but the engines and fuels gave severe problems to the "black men" and pilots, plus the turning radius was absolutely horrible. Had the problems been resolved in early 44, who knows what might have happened during the air battles over the Reich. Thank goodness though what happened, happened ! The Meteor was fine for what the British had planned for it, to chase the buzz bomb, but it too was very experimental and too late .

E

 

Hop , about the Tempest, where do you get this information about it being a low altitude fighter. everything I have read said that it had excellent performance at all altitudes

 

The ME262 was the best fighter of the war. It would have had a greater impact if it wasn't for the 2 year ban on new technigoes and Hitler's insane idea to make it a fighter bomber. It speed was a key factor to what success it had.

 

HOP
Rodrigo

Great posts and welcome aboard.

Erich, thanks for the reminder, I will forward them to you as soon as I finish on these forums. Glad you reminded me, because I did forget already

 

The Tempest wasn't just a low level fighter, but it was at it's best below 20,000ft. Above that and it's performance fell off, and even above 10,000ft there were other aircraft that could match it.
There's a series of test reports on an early Tempest at http://users.supernet.com/lecc/tp.html
this is one of the earliest, most had several aerodynamic improvements, and more power.

 

RE F4U: I think F6F was actually a better aircraft, even if it never seems to get any respect/press.

19:1 kill ratio, accounted for 75% of all USN claims in the Pacific. Had very large wing which gave it huge wing area and lower wing loading than f4u (important when considering maneuverability).

MUCH easier to fly than the corsair, only cost 2/3 as much, and more produced in WW2.

Ironically, concerning US aircraft:

The top kill-scoring US AC in the following theaters were:

Europe: P-47
Pacific USAAF: P-38
Pacific USN: F6F

Interesting, none of these have been mentioned....

-Tim

 

I just wanted to say very nice posting and welcome aboard.

 

How would have the Corsair have faired against a Focke-Wulf fw 190-D-9 in combat?

 

Interesting Smokestak, I have read that the Helcat was a mediocre performer, But you could be right. I understand the Corsair was a much harder aircraft to land. Part of the reason for the Helcat having a higher kill ratio may have to do with a higher availability of targets, for its first year of operations the Corsair was relagated to land bases, being thought too dangerous to land on carriers. Also later in the war The Corsair spent much of its sorties flying ground attack missions, I know the Helcat did also ,but as the Corsair could carry a heavier bombload it was assigned more often.

 

The FW-190s would have been the better aircraft, but also depends on pilots skills. I would say that the FW would beat the Corsair, but are glad we didnt have to find that out by it actually happening.

 

An interesting point, liquid cooled fighters were at a distinct disadvantage to their radial engined brethern as the powerplant could absorb more damage. any damage to the engine area of a liquid cooled fighter was serious, but their are documented instances of radial engine fighters bringing their pilots home with cylinders shot away!

 

I know this may seem odd, but what of that small handful of 'miracle' fighters, the ones that shook the world with their success and pliability in the air?

The Brewster F2A Buffalo was a horrible fighter, yet in the hands of the Dutch East Indies Army and Finnish pilots, they fared rather well when facing Zeros and YaKs.

The IAR, a Rumanian fighter, had no right to its own existance, the product of a nation still struggling with an industrial revolution, yet it arrived in many Marks and proved a mediocre model.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Desert Journeyman:
I know this may seem odd, but what of that small handful of 'miracle' fighters, the ones that shook the world with their success and pliability in the air?

The Brewster F2A Buffalo was a horrible fighter, yet in the hands of the Dutch East Indies Army and Finnish pilots, they fared rather well when facing Zeros and YaKs.

The IAR, a Rumanian fighter, had no right to its own existance, the product of a nation still struggling with an industrial revolution, yet it arrived in many Marks and proved a mediocre model.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Brewster did not fare so well in the Dutch East Indies nor in Malaysia. It kind of held its own in total aircraft shot down in air to air combat (though the preponderance of its kills there were against Japanese bombers).
In Finland it shone like a star. Finnish Buffaloes shot down 494 Soviet aircraft betwen 1940 and 1944 - including imported fighters like the SUpermarine Spitfire, the Hawker Hurricane, the Curtis P40, the Bell P39 and others as well as Soviet aircraft homegrown.
In fact of all fighters ever produced if you look at the number of aircraft confirmed destroyed in a ratio with the number of airframes produced for the type in question the Brewster is the all time winner.

 

Did anyone else buy "Worlds Worst Aircraft" that Barnes & Noble had for $8-10 last year? My local store had them on the shelf for awhile. Anyways, the Brewster article was great. The British originally turned down the Brewster Buffalo after looking at it. As no one else wanted them, in Fall/Winter '39-'40 the Buffalo was the only thing left in town when the Belgians and Finns came to the US shopping for aircraft. The Finns bought 43 already completed aircraft the US Navy agreed to let them take. The Belgians ordered 40 of them, these were completed in time, but the Low Countries are overrun before the first plane leaves the States. The British take over the contract as they figure the Buffalo's are better than nothing, "I mean really Nigel, how bloody terrible could they be?" They then order another 120.
Summer '40 the first shipment of Buffalo's arrives in England. Summer '40 they are immediately assigned to second line units in far away lands "The Buffalo is a pudgy bird, this much is evident from first glance, but she is also overweight and underpowered. She is horribly sluggish to handle because of her absurdly small wing area. Also the landing gear proved to be too weak to withstand carrier landings" So not only can it not fight Bf-109's, but, this naval fighter cant land on a carrier. Bonus.
The Dutch government in exile bought a further 30 Buffalo's to defend its remaining Asian possessions. Because the Western powers assumed the Japanese behind them in air technology it was assumed that the Buffalo would be able to fight the Japanese so nearly every airframe went to Asia.
"Within 3 months of the start of the war with Japan, every Buffalo(180 aircraft) in the Far East had been lost, giving the ignoble Brewster the distinction of handing the Japanese complete air superiority over SE Asia on a silver platter" Bill Yenne, Aircraft Historian/author
The only US operated Buffalo's to see combat was a squadron stationed on Midway(as the naval fighters couldnt operate from carriers 13 of the 19 Buffalo's sent aloft were downed inside 30 minutes, when the airbattle they were involved in ended. During the first few weeks after Midway, every other US Buffalo was removed from front line service

 

"The F4U was a great fighter. "Pappy" Boyington had what? 27 kills? Major Ira Bong had over 40 kills. Not too bad for a gawky bird".

Thats nonsense for a reason why one plane is better then the other. Following this kind of reason I'd say the Fokker Dr.1 was better then both the Mustang and the Corsair as Von Richthofen had 80 kills.

Just my two cents,
Timo

 

LOL, good point Timo

 

In fact in WW II, especially in the pacific a lot depended on being in the right place at the right time

 

According to accounts I've read, the F2A Buffalo was worthy, at the least, in the Dutch East Indies, where it dived down, out of the sun on Japanese fighters.

It may not have won them the war, but the F2As did end up proving better kill-ratios in Dutch hands than was thought to be possible.