P51 - Hit or Myth?
Posted: Mon Oct 04, 2004 11:41 am
The challenge is accepted.
What was "The Best Fighter of WW2?". This begs the question "Best At What?". WW2 fighters were called upon to undertake a whole variety of roles - Interceptor, air superiority, escort, reconnaisance, interdiction, close support - in both offensive and defensive postures at day or night. Each mission type would need different characteristics to succeed.
So then, each fighter design was essentially a compromise of speed, range, altitude, manoeverability, ordnance, maintenance, & handling. The Spitfire for instance was designed as a short-range interceptor. It was good at that, but not well suited to all other roles. Ideally, the best fighter was best at all them. None were.
To emphasise this lets take what could be regarded as the most successful fighter of WW2, the P51D. It did well for a number of reasons. It had long range which was desperately needed for escort missions over Europe from the mid-war period. It was fast, well-armed, could fight effectively at high altitude, retained energy well in combat manoevers, the pilots visibility was excellent, and the design was usable for other roles as well. It was a very good compromise.
There are other reasons beside technical performance. You also need good pilots, good tactics, good support. The P51 was also produced by a large industrialised nation whose aircraft industry was free from enemy attack. This was definitely a winning combination.
Other nations produced designs from talented designers that equalled or bettered the P51 in some respect or other. The Republic P47 Thunderbolt had different pro's and con's compared to the P51 yet was used for identical purposes. The Japanese produced outstanding fighters such as the Kawanishi N1K2 Shiden-Kai, Kawasaki ki100, and Nakajima ki84 Hayate. Germany had a first rate aeroplane in the FW190D (& TA152). At the last Italy began producing world-class fighters such as the Macchi 205V Veltro & Fiat G55 Centauro. Russian fighters? I don't have enough data on those to make comparisons, but they must have been effective during the later war period. Some fighters such as the Bloch MB 157, VL Pyorremyrsky, Martin-Baker MB5, & Me262 never achieved the success they might have deserved. They failed for a whole variety of reasons. Some were ignored. Some weren't needed. Some weren't right for the roles intended (the wrong compromise in other words), or not fully developed for lack of resources, or perhaps enemy action reduced their factories to rubble.
Was the P51 the best? Not really. But it was the best fighter a combatant could supply where they were needed. (Apologies to the Russians).
What was "The Best Fighter of WW2?". This begs the question "Best At What?". WW2 fighters were called upon to undertake a whole variety of roles - Interceptor, air superiority, escort, reconnaisance, interdiction, close support - in both offensive and defensive postures at day or night. Each mission type would need different characteristics to succeed.
So then, each fighter design was essentially a compromise of speed, range, altitude, manoeverability, ordnance, maintenance, & handling. The Spitfire for instance was designed as a short-range interceptor. It was good at that, but not well suited to all other roles. Ideally, the best fighter was best at all them. None were.
To emphasise this lets take what could be regarded as the most successful fighter of WW2, the P51D. It did well for a number of reasons. It had long range which was desperately needed for escort missions over Europe from the mid-war period. It was fast, well-armed, could fight effectively at high altitude, retained energy well in combat manoevers, the pilots visibility was excellent, and the design was usable for other roles as well. It was a very good compromise.
There are other reasons beside technical performance. You also need good pilots, good tactics, good support. The P51 was also produced by a large industrialised nation whose aircraft industry was free from enemy attack. This was definitely a winning combination.
Other nations produced designs from talented designers that equalled or bettered the P51 in some respect or other. The Republic P47 Thunderbolt had different pro's and con's compared to the P51 yet was used for identical purposes. The Japanese produced outstanding fighters such as the Kawanishi N1K2 Shiden-Kai, Kawasaki ki100, and Nakajima ki84 Hayate. Germany had a first rate aeroplane in the FW190D (& TA152). At the last Italy began producing world-class fighters such as the Macchi 205V Veltro & Fiat G55 Centauro. Russian fighters? I don't have enough data on those to make comparisons, but they must have been effective during the later war period. Some fighters such as the Bloch MB 157, VL Pyorremyrsky, Martin-Baker MB5, & Me262 never achieved the success they might have deserved. They failed for a whole variety of reasons. Some were ignored. Some weren't needed. Some weren't right for the roles intended (the wrong compromise in other words), or not fully developed for lack of resources, or perhaps enemy action reduced their factories to rubble.
Was the P51 the best? Not really. But it was the best fighter a combatant could supply where they were needed. (Apologies to the Russians).
.
.
.
