P51 - Hit or Myth?

CaldRail · Post by **CaldRail** » 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).

chrisj94 · Post by **chrisj94** » Mon Oct 04, 2004 11:57 am

Hmmm,what world you from?
EVERYONE knows that the spit was far superoir

Speedbird083 · Post by **Speedbird083** » Mon Oct 04, 2004 1:18 pm

The long-nosed "Dora" variant of the Focke-Wulf looked a mean beast.

I think it depends on whether you just want to state a generic model or go into detailed variants.

The original Mustang with it's Allison engine was supposedly a heap, but was completely transformed with shoehorning a Rolls-Royce or Packard Merlin under the bonnet.
I read the Typhoon was intended to be a medium to high altitude interceptor, a replacement for the Hurricane I think it said.
It failed miserably at that but made a wonderful mess of the Wehrmacht in a different role.

I love Spitfires, and aesthetically a Mk.VII Spit' wins the war hands down, but I'd probably have to say the P-51D.
From tankbuster/interdictor to high altitude interceptor it was highly capable. I don't think even the later Griffon engined marks of the Spitfire to go all the way to Berlin (though I could be wrong)

.

BR7MT · Post by **BR7MT** » Mon Oct 04, 2004 6:20 pm

Mk VII? Pointy wings for high altitiude performance

I reckon the Corsair looks pretty impressive with that gull wing.

But for a British design I would go for the Hawker Tempest or the similar Hawker Sea Fury. The Tempest was the fighter the Typhoon should have been with a laminar flow wings for high speed. Top speed was 426mph at 18,500 ft. The later Hawker Sea Fury could do 460 mph at 18,000 ft. no wonder they use modified versions at Reno

regards

Dan

Speedbird083 · Post by **Speedbird083** » Mon Oct 04, 2004 7:47 pm

BR7MT wrote:Mk VII? Pointy wings for high altitiude performance

Missed a 'I'. Mk.VIII was the variant I meant

.

Did the Fury sea action in WW2? I know they went to Korea.

I'm a fan of the Corsair too, and the Bearcat.

Post-WW2, I've a large model of 80 Sqn.'s Mk.24 AW2 which looks superb. Eliptical wing has gone but it looks lethal and very fast.

I'm a bit bored of my parents sticking landscape paintings up around the house and so I've claimed a wall for a painting. Spitfire, a Vulcan, Mosquito or Concorde. Just have to find the painting... and the money

.

BR7MT · Post by **BR7MT** » Mon Oct 04, 2004 7:59 pm

Now if we are talking post-war aircraft then there is an undisputed first and second place for me.

Forget your big brash American jets, the pointy French ones and the loud and lethal Soviet types. There are two aircraft made right here on the shores of old Blighty.

In second place: the Hawker Hunter. Its sleak and elegant, the UK's rival to the Sabre. Relatively easy to maintain and a joy to fly. Sidney Camm's last masterpiece.

In first place, my favourite jet fighter of all time. The EE/BAC Lightning. Outclassed all other RAF fighters by miles when it was built, and had a top speed in excess of its replacements (the Jaguars) and the only current interceptors in the RAF stable (Tornado F3).
In a bare metal finish there was nothing to touch it, a graceful machine that went like stink

regards

Dan

Speedbird083 · Post by **Speedbird083** » Mon Oct 04, 2004 9:27 pm

I'd of said Lightning and Vulcan, with the Harrier (later models) tagged on for good measure

.

BR7MT · Post by **BR7MT** » Mon Oct 04, 2004 9:32 pm

True, delta wings have always looked good in my book, I was just confining myself to fighter aircraft.

If its non-fighter aircraft then it would be Concorde. Full stop!

regards

Dan

CaldRail · Post by **CaldRail** » Tue Oct 05, 2004 11:19 am

F4U Corsair - Actually a better performer than the P51 but.... Poor field of vision on the deck, and a little bit of a handful at low speed if I remember right. Unashamedly a carrier fighter that never really caught on beyond the pacific, and even then restricted to dry land until 1944 when the US had the nerve to send it shipboard.

Fw190 - Earlier versions were equal or better to contemporary spitfires but the engines weren't particularly cool. The D version used the Jumo 213 (a bomber engine no less!) and like the merlin in the P51, transformed it to a highly capable reliable machine.

Hawker Typhoon/Tempest - Failures as everyday fighters but first class ground attack machines.

Hawker Fury/Sea Fury - Nope. Too late for WW2.

Grumman Bearcat - One mean machine that didn't reach the carriers quick enough.

You know, you can quote performance figures all day long and in some circumstances, yes, it does make a great deal of difference. But so do other qualities. The fastest meanest SOB-fighter in the world is of no use if you can't get it out of the factory, can't get it out of the maintenance hangars, can't get to the right part of the sky, or your pilots can't handle it. Does it carry the right armament? 8 x 0.303 brownings don't do much damage to tanks. A 57mm cannon might wreck a plane with one shell... if you can hit it that is...

Speedbird083 · Post by **Speedbird083** » Tue Oct 05, 2004 2:42 pm

What about the Hurricane then? Easy to maintain, stressed skin, stable gun platform, not blindingly quick but no slouch, and the Hurri' II with C or D armaments could rip tanks open too.

chrisj94 · Post by **chrisj94** » Tue Oct 05, 2004 8:48 pm

Even the russians had a use for the hurri`!!!!!

chrisj94 · Post by **chrisj94** » Tue Oct 05, 2004 8:51 pm

I have to admit,the I-l2 was a great aircraft.
For there size and un-aerodyanmicnis,they were reasnobly removable,and had heavy hiting weaponray,also the addtion of a rear gunner to later models made them into a mini warship!
Thanks
Chris

CaldRail · Post by **CaldRail** » Wed Oct 06, 2004 11:23 am

Ok, I admit I was a little harsh on the Hawker Tempest. It was a substantial improvement on the Typhoon despite its engine problems, and I do know the Bearcat had problems with wing stiffness.

One omission I've made is the Bf109G. Have you ever looked closely at one? It just oozes aggression. The P51 had a small performance advantage yet the Gustav was always a respected opponent. Truth is, the Gustav was a challenge to the enemy and its own pilots.

CaldRail · Post by **CaldRail** » Wed Oct 06, 2004 11:35 am

Speedbird083 wrote:What about the Hurricane then? Easy to maintain, stressed skin, stable gun platform, not blindingly quick but no slouch, and the Hurri' II with C or D armaments could rip tanks open too.

The wings were stressed skin, the fuselage wasn't. The Hurricane was a transitional design between 30's biplanes and modern monoplanes. Whilst is was a vitally important weapon in our arsenal in 1940, truth was it couldn't develope much further. In terms of speed it was unspectacular which was why the RAF prefferred the Hurricane to tackle bomber formations. It was handy in the ground attack roles as you say. Both ourselves and the russians employed them usefully for this role but please bear in mind that the Hurricanes ability to absorb damage (not to sturmovik standards!) made it just as useful as the armament. In fact, some Luftwaffe pilots complained that they couldn't shoot it down.

As an interesting aside, the Yugoslavs fitted a Hurricane with a Daimler-Benz engine and found it superior to the merlin version.

BR7MT · Post by **BR7MT** » Wed Oct 06, 2004 8:37 pm

Didn't the DB's have direct fuel injection? Whereas the Merlin's that were fitted to Hurricanes had a float caburettor? Hence the DB's would not cut out under negative G (or in laymans terms: "shoving the stick forward").

regards

Dan