Best Fighter Plane Of The War?

I've been following this thread on and off since it started. I've read all of the arguments and decided that for me the best fighter was the Hurricane. A little War Horse that was manouvrable (admittedly not fast) but in the hands of an experienced pilot she could hold her own. And if she was shot up she brough the pilot back safe and sound.
So I'll go for the little war horse of the RAF. (and the Mossy at low altitude)
Kitty

 

I've been following this thread on and off since it started. I've read all of the arguments and decided that for me the best fighter was the Hurricane. A little War Horse that was manouvrable (admittedly not fast) but in the hands of an experienced pilot she could hold her own. And if she was shot up she brough the pilot back safe and sound.
So I'll go for the little war horse of the RAF. (and the Mossy at low altitude)
Kitty

Well, the Hurricane was a doughty warbird, no doubt about that. But the fact is it was really no more than a monoplane version of the biplane Hawker Fury, and therefore may be viewed as the zenith of applied biplane technology. Whereas the spitfire and those that came after her were an entirely different technology in terms of construction and aerodynamics and, unsurprisingly, reflected that fact in their performance in the air. The Hurricane was a cart horse; the Spitfire a race horse.

As regards the Mosquito, the fighter variants were extremely effective. I've heard it said that a Mossie on one engine could still tackle a 109 on even terms, though I'm inclined to think if that's true then it applied only to the lighter, bomber versions. Having said that, I interviewed a Beaufighter pilot many years ago and he said a Mossie with one engine shut down was still as fast as a Hurricane IIC at full bore - so who knows? Ultimately, it all boils down to personal preferences, and has as much to do with perceived asthetics as it does with actual performance in the air.

 

Have to agree with you on that one Spidge. For longevity from mid/late thirties onwards to the fifties, takes some doing. All this with modifications and engine improvement, to keep up with the others show it's pedigree and the soundness as well as staying power of the design.

Like Adam says it can be down to personal preferences or actual performance. It depends what your criteria is in choice of best fighter. The term "best" is ambiguous and leaves plenty of leeway for personal choice. No one plane can carry the mantle of best, as no plane can be master of all trades. I for one would be very surprised if the Spit didn't win the top especially among British contributors.

 

I for one would be very surprised if the Spit didn't win the top especially among British contributors.
You saying we're biased purely because we had the best fighter ever built?
Kitty

 

You saying we're biased purely because we had the best fighter ever built?
Kitty


Never let it be said!

 

Performance wise i would go with P-51, the Spitfire would not be far behind though.

 

You saying we're biased purely because we had the best fighter ever built?
Kitty


Moi !!! surely not lol.

 

As regards the Mosquito, the fighter variants were extremely effective. I've heard it said that a Mossie on one engine could still tackle a 109 on even terms, .
Its a myth.
While the radar equipped night fighter Mossie was more than a match for any Luftwaffe fighter at night. In daylight, the Mossie fighter was no match for the Me 109 and Fw 190, both in terms of speed and maneuverability.

 

I originally chose the F4U Corsair because of its rugged survivability and versatility, but may have to change to the TA-152 which technically would come under the Fw-190 category. With a speed of around 470mph and (2) 20mm and one 30 mm it was definately a fighter to be reckoned with. It also had a ceiling of 48,500ft.

 

Performance wise i would go with P-51, the Spitfire would not be far behind though.

Actually, the P-51 had some limitations: it was not as manouverable as the Spitfire nor could it climb as fast. It was for these reasons that Johnnie Johnson, the leading British ace in the ETO, voted the Mustang the best offensive fighter of the war, but the Spitfire the best defensive fighter. Moreover, the Mustang's laminar flow wing produced some tricky handling characteristics, particularly at low speeds or under high "g"s, which could make it a handful for inexperienced pilots. The P-51s main advantage over the Spitfire - indeed, any fighter of the period - was its extremely long legs. However, it should be remembered that will all internal fuel tanks full and with underwing drop tanks, the 51 was extremely heavy and unable to dogfight; it was also extemely unstable in pitch, making a take-off a point in the flight for the pilot to hold his breath!

 

My favourite plane is the Focke Wulff TA-152.

 

As regards the Mosquito, the fighter variants were extremely effective. I've heard it said that a Mossie on one engine could still tackle a 109 on even terms, though I'm inclined to think if that's true then it applied only to the lighter, bomber versions. Having said that, I interviewed a Beaufighter pilot many years ago and he said a Mossie with one engine shut down was still as fast as a Hurricane IIC at full bore - so who knows? Ultimately, it all boils down to personal preferences, and has as much to do with perceived asthetics as it does with actual performance in the air.

Just managed to finish off the appendices of Silently into the Midst of Things, 177 Sqn Beaus in Burma. There was a comment about an op on an airfield with some Mossies and Beaus in late 44. The Mossies were told if they saw a Beau on one engine to stay with it and the Beaus, rather cheekily I thought, were told if they saw a Mossie on one engine to try to keep up!

Love both aircraft to bits but for ground attack, I think I would prefer the Beau. Bit more hardy, I reckon.

 

I've voted for P-51 Mustang, but, in my opinion, even the best aircraft is worthless without ground supply, good pilots, well-placed airfields etc.

 

I'd say the Battle of Britain Hero, the Spitfire. Strong armament, fast and maneuverable, it was the best to intercept bombers, strafing and air-to-air dogfights.

 

I've voted for P-51 Mustang, but, in my opinion, even the best aircraft is worthless without ground supply, good pilots, well-placed airfields etc.

All things being equal you reckon.

 

The P51 is the best fighter of World War 2 hands down. She was considered the "Cadillac" of fighter planes. No other fighter could match her speed, climbing ability or firepower!

A truely beautiful plane and a terror in the skies!
http://re3.mm-a11.yimg.com/image/207274323

 

Actually, the P-51 had some limitations: it was not as manouverable as the Spitfire nor could it climb as fast. It was for these reasons that Johnnie Johnson, the leading British ace in the ETO, voted the Mustang the best offensive fighter of the war, but the Spitfire the best defensive fighter. Moreover, the Mustang's laminar flow wing produced some tricky handling characteristics, particularly at low speeds or under high "g"s, which could make it a handful for inexperienced pilots. The P-51s main advantage over the Spitfire - indeed, any fighter of the period - was its extremely long legs. However, it should be remembered that will all internal fuel tanks full and with underwing drop tanks, the 51 was extremely heavy and unable to dogfight; it was also extemely unstable in pitch, making a take-off a point in the flight for the pilot to hold his breath!

Good post
When the Spitfire XIV was tested against the P51 it worked out a even match but I'm going to vote for P51 as it took the fight to the Germans in there own back yard

 

We really are ignoring Soviet aircraft......in a lot of cases, Soviet pilots could never get the best from their superior machines due to lack of pilot experience.....dealing with the 'experten' was tough, and many a good Soviet design suffered from this fundamental flaw. A superior machine flown by an inferior pilot will always be beaten by an inferior machine flown by an expert, who can take the machine to it's limits and beyond. Eddie Rickenbacker always said that a pilot must have good technical and practical knowledge of his machine BEFORE he trains to kill in it. His 94th Aero Squadron (Hat in the Ring) was originally to be composed of ex-racing car drivers, who, like Eddie himself, had the reflexes and the mechanical skill to get the most out of their machines....Rickenbacker got most of his 27? victories in an inferior SPAD, fighting German machines that were much better, and frequently pilots who were more experienced too. Rickenbacker gets my vote as the Greatest fighter pilot LEADER of all time....my vote for the best fighter pilot would be the German Hans Joachim Marseilles. Flying in tennis shoes, and able to fire his weapons from any deflection and with his machine at any angle or roll, Marsielles was simply the most natural fighter pilot ever, with multiple kills on the same day many times over....and his weapon was exclusively the inferior ME 109, an aircraft sadly obselete but who's qualities in the hands of 'experten' probably make it the logical choice for the most influential fighter design of all time....the Russians had a particular liking for the Bell 'AeroCobra', rear mounted engine and all!.....a particular favourite of Soviet pilots at mid-low altitudes.....

 

the typhoon is best remembered iin ground attack,but was also a super low-mid altitude fighter.yours,4th wilts.