Your favorite WWII Aircraft

[yubba]

Well it sure isn't the hurricane in il-2 in hyperlobby I get my butt handed to me every time I go up in it.

[Red October1984]

Originally Posted by yubba

Well it sure isn't the hurricane in il-2 in hyperlobby I get my butt handed to me every time I go up in it.

A Hurricane is only as good as it's pilot...

I think the Hurricane is just fine but I'll take a Bf-109G or K over it any day.

Or a P-40...or a Spitfire....or an F4F, F6F, F4U, P-51, etc...

It isn't my favorite plane...but if I had to use it i'd be okay with it.

[Stealhead]

IL-2 Sturmovick though a very fun game/sim does accurately simulate how many of the aircraft it depicts actually flew making it a very poor way to judge what aircraft was better than the other.

For starters the way they have the BF109s set up is wrong they did have good acceleration but nothing near what they have in IL-2.IL-2 makes the Wildcat seem half way decent when it fact it was no match for any Japanese aircraft it faced.What made the Wildcat good was purely its durability and the tactical skill that its pilots employed.I could go on and on but I wont.The in game AI can do things that are not even possible to do if you are flying the same plane in the sim and things that would be impossible in a real aircraft.


To base judgement on real aircraft based on how they fly in any sim especially IL-2 sounds very amateur to put it nicely.Thanks to Il2 there are tons of people who do not know hat they are talking about that think that the BF109 was the best aircraft in WWII.If IL-2 where truly accurate you would die half the time just taking of and landing in BF109 almost as many where lost in landing and take off accidents as where to enemy action.Most other famous fighters had nasty vices the P-51 for example could bite you if you banked it certain ways it had to do with the tail surfaces and they never solved the problem you just had to avoid certain maneuvers.

The truth is that the BF109 was a fairly good design but it was hard for a pilot to get the best from it which is always a weakness the Spitfire on the other hand even a relatively inexperienced pilot could get the max performance out of a Spitfire safely and that goes a log way.I saw a TV show once where a former German ace sat in a Spitfire he was very impressed and wished that he had a Spitfire over a BF109 based on what he saw of them in combat and on what he felt from the seat.

If I was going to pick one best air to air combat aircraft from WWII it would be the Spitfire easily because it was a very easy aircraft to fly(in real life) and it took little skill for a lay pilot to fly one effectively that factor is very important because the easier it is for a pilot to fly his mount the more effective he will be in combat.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Stealhead

For starters the way they have the BF109s set up is wrong they did have good acceleration but nothing near what they have in IL-2.

I have to disagree with you on some of these points. The Bf-109 (at least the late models) had one of the best climb rates and acceleration of the period. The early models not so much.

The truth is that the BF109 was a fairly good design but it was hard for a pilot to get the best from it which is always a weakness the Spitfire on the other hand even a relatively inexperienced pilot could get the max performance out of a Spitfire safely and that goes a log way.

If I was going to pick one best air to air combat aircraft from WWII it would be the Spitfire easily because it was a very easy aircraft to fly(in real life) and it took little skill for a lay pilot to fly one effectively that factor is very important because the easier it is for a pilot to fly his mount the more effective he will be in combat.

Quite the opposite. The Spitfire could out-turn a 109, but had the problem of being very touchy while doing so. The semi-elliptical wing had a nasty tendency to stall, and the plane had the very bad characteristic of instantly going into an inverted flat spin. It was said that the expected pullout distance of that spin was about 5000 feet, so if it happened at low altitudes you could have serious problems. The Bf-109, on the other hand, was fairly gentle in a stall (though not so much as the FW-190, which was said to be practically unspinnable), and would fall off to one side in a gentle spiral when the pilot screwed up. Couple that with negative-G capability which no Spitfire had until the Mark IX, and while the Spit had superior maneuverabilty it took a seasoned pilot to get the best out of it.

I saw a TV show once where a former German ace sat in a Spitfire he was very impressed and wished that he had a Spitfire over a BF109 based on what he saw of them in combat and on what he felt from the seat.

And when Hermann Goering asked Adolph Galland if there was anything he could get him to aid in the Battle Of Britain, Galland famously replied "A squadron of Spitfires." And when a former German ace flew a P-47 for the first time, he said the cockpit was so roomy he felt like he could run around inside dodging bullets.

In my opinion there was no "best" fighter in WW2, at least among the group of very best. The Spitfire was tight-turning, the Bf-109 was fast climbing and fast-rolling, the Mustang had extremely long range, the P-47 was amazingly rugged, and they all did their respective jobs superlatively. I would love to be able to fly any of them. And I didn't even mention the Japanese or the US Navy fighters. Silly me.

[Stealhead]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

I have to disagree with you on some of these points. The Bf-109 (at least the late models) had one of the best climb rates and acceleration of the period. The early models not so much.



Quite the opposite. The Spitfire could out-turn a 109, but had the problem of being very touchy while doing so. The semi-elliptical wing had a nasty tendency to stall, and the plane had the very bad characteristic of instantly going into an inverted flat spin. It was said that the expected pullout distance of that spin was about 5000 feet, so if it happened at low altitudes you could have serious problems. The Bf-109, on the other hand, was fairly gentle in a stall (though not so much as the FW-190, which was said to be practically unspinnable), and would fall off to one side in a gentle spiral when the pilot screwed up. Couple that with negative-G capability which no Spitfire had until the Mark IX, and while the Spit had superior maneuverabilty it took a seasoned pilot to get the best out of it.


And when Hermann Goering asked Adolph Galland if there was anything he could get him to aid in the Battle Of Britain, Galland famously replied "A squadron of Spitfires." And when a former German ace flew a P-47 for the first time, he said the cockpit was so roomy he felt like he could run around inside dodging bullets.

In my opinion there was no "best" fighter in WW2, at least among the group of very best. The Spitfire was tight-turning, the Bf-109 was fast climbing and fast-rolling, the Mustang had extremely long range, the P-47 was amazingly rugged, and they all did their respective jobs superlatively. I would love to be able to fly any of them. And I didn't even mention the Japanese or the US Navy fighters. Silly me.

I was referring to how the BF109s behave in IL-2 it is a bit over done and gives a false impression.I cant find the links right now but I have read and heard in more than one place German BF109 pilots saying the 109 was not easy for an inexperienced pilot to get the best out.What you say about the Spitfire is true i suppose though pilots and historians have argued for years which was the better turner Spit or 109 the truth is that neither was substantially better than the the other.Now the 190 could easily out turn a Spitfire any day of the week.Of course turning is not the only thing in a dog fight a skilled pilot can counter a turner.

The most important factor I argue is pilot and overall unit skill an air force that has generally better pilots will always have an advantage so long as they can maintain it something that both Germany and Japan failed to do while the Allies managed to have fairly skilled pilot corps that where consistent throughout most of the war. As the war progressed Japanese and German pilots on average become of sub par quality and the survivors even with all their skill could not make up the difference.At the start of hostilities Germany and Japan had very skilled pilots which is the primary reason that in the first year or so of the war they where dominating air combat.Of you still had insanely good pilots a late war Japanese ace managed to shot down 5 F6F Hellcats in a single engagement 1945 most likely this was purely do to one pilot having vastly superior skills of course it had no effect on the outcome of the war for Japan.Another example of pure skill is Richard Bong he managed to defeat an experienced pilot flying a P-38 while himself flying a T-6 trainer this was while Bong was still in advanced training.

The Axis powers also rarely rotated pilots so they fought on until they died or the war was over.The Allies on the other hand understood the value of having combat experienced pilots train new pilots and many pilots rotated back to the states and passed their knowledge on to new pilots.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Stealhead

I was referring to how the BF109s behave in IL-2 it is a bit over done and gives a false impression.

Sorry, misunderstood.

Now the 190 could easily out turn a Spitfire any day of the week.

There are several problems when discussing "maneuverability". First is actual turn rate. In fact there was no German fighter which could out-turn any British fighter, and the FW-190 was one of the most "average" turning aircraft of the war. The second factor was how fast the plane could get into the turn, meaning how fast it could roll from 0 to 90 degrees. The FW-190 was tested as the fastest rolling aircraft of the war, without exception. This meant that if a FW and Spitfire were both rolled fully to the right, the 190 could flick over and be turning the other way before the Spit could even get his wings level. The Bf-109 was slower than the FW-190, but still faster-rolling than the Spitfire. This is what led to the development of the "clipped-wing" Spit. Another major factor was the negative-G capability. Not only could any German fighter push the nose over directly into a dive, leaving the early British fighters wasting a precious second or two rolling over before they could dive, but they could also push the nose forward while in a full turn, turning mildly in the other direction, which the Spits and Hurris could not. This gave the Germans a bit of a surprise in Africa where the Brits were using P-40s, which at first they didn't know could follow them through those negative-G turns.

The Axis powers also rarely rotated pilots so they fought on until they died or the war was over.The Allies on the other hand understood the value of having combat experienced pilots train new pilots and many pilots rotated back to the states and passed their knowledge on to new pilots.

This is true, but the Germans and Japanese really had no choice. I have stated many times my belief that America's single main contribution to the war was the fact that we were thousands of miles from the nearest front. Second was our huge population base, which coupled with the first meant that we could afford to do all that. Third was the manufacturing capability which stemmed from the first two. We could afford to out-build, out-recruit and out-train pretty much anybody. Having the war be far away is a good thing.

[Stealhead]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

Sorry, misunderstood.


There are several problems when discussing "maneuverability". First is actual turn rate. In fact there was no German fighter which could out-turn any British fighter, and the FW-190 was one of the most "average" turning aircraft of the war. The second factor was how fast the plane could get into the turn, meaning how fast it could roll from 0 to 90 degrees. The FW-190 was tested as the fastest rolling aircraft of the war, without exception. This meant that if a FW and Spitfire were both rolled fully to the right, the 190 could flick over and be turning the other way before the Spit could even get his wings level. The Bf-109 was slower than the FW-190, but still faster-rolling than the Spitfire. This is what led to the development of the "clipped-wing" Spit. Another major factor was the negative-G capability. Not only could any German fighter push the nose over directly into a dive, leaving the early British fighters wasting a precious second or two rolling over before they could dive, but they could also push the nose forward while in a full turn, turning mildly in the other direction, which the Spits and Hurris could not. This gave the Germans a bit of a surprise in Africa where the Brits were using P-40s, which at first they didn't know could follow them through those negative-G turns.


This is true, but the Germans and Japanese really had no choice. I have stated many times my belief that America's single main contribution to the war was the fact that we were thousands of miles from the nearest front. Second was our huge population base, which coupled with the first meant that we could afford to do all that. Third was the manufacturing capability which stemmed from the first two. We could afford to out-build, out-recruit and out-train pretty much anybody. Having the war be far away is a good thing.

I meant sustained turn not turning radius two different flight characteristics I should have clarified my meaning.I know for a fact that RAF pilots where strongly advised never turn get it a sustained turning match with a 190 because the 190 would win.Now one or two quick turns yes the Spit was better but if a Spit got lured into a sustained turn with 190 he was asking for trouble indeed.Of course you statement does display how the key to air combat is understanding your aircraft and its strengths and weakness in comparison to the opposing one.Or you could choose to me like Eric Hartman and only seek out the enemy aircraft not paying attention and get close to him and blow him way before he can even evade you in the first place.The highest scoring ace in history though that "dog fighting" was a "useless" ballet and I agree get the easy kill.

I would say that your belief about the primary advantage that the US had during WWII is pretty much fact.Now the Axis could have countered this early in the war which the Japanese in particular set out to do of course they failed to do maintain the advantage that they initially gained now had the Axis been able to mount some sort a sizable dual front action against the US that would have been interesting.Just as the capture of Moscow in 1941 by the Germans most likely would have dealt a crushing blow to the USSR.Of the topic of strategy during WWII is another can of worms.

EDIT: Well a quick look int the back of a book about late mark Spitfires(VII-IX) has an index that includes a 1942 evaluation of a IX Spit vs. a captured FW190A.It goes into much detail but basically says that IX Spit can out turn a 190 and that climb is about equal though at higher levels the Spit is superior under all conditions the 190 had better acceleration.It does state that it was felt that the 190 was able to well evade a Spit when the Spit tried to get onto the 190's tail in this case the 190 could easily flick roll and evade especially in a negative G turn where the Spit could not follow.This disproves the data i read on the net claiming the 190 had better sustained turn abilities this can not be possible when the Spit had better turning and better climbing rates.

The XIV Spit was found to superior to a FW190A is most all respects except rolling this test was done in 1944 a few months before the 190D9 came into service the RAF took an educated guess on its performance they thought it was going to have a DB603(the Dora actually had a more powerful Jumo213A).I can post both evaluations in their entirety if anyone is interested.