Pages

Praetorium Honoris

Tuesday, April 21, 2020

"Best" Fighter of World War II

North American Aviation P-51B Mustang and Republic P-47D "Razorback" Thunderbolt
(Source)
You can find lots of opinions on the Internet on the fighter aircraft of World War II. Which one was faster? Which was more maneuverable? Which did experienced pilots prefer? Which did the maintenance guys like? (May seem unimportant to the less knowledgeable, but an aircraft can only do its job if it's in the air. Not on the ground because it's broken!)

Lots of ink has been expended on this topic (I guess that would be lots of electrons for the Internet) and there is no one correct answer. There are seemingly lots of wrong answers (the Brewster Buffalo springs to mind, but the Finns used that particular fighter very effectively in the Winter War of 1940 against the Soviets.)

Brewster Buffalo, B-239 Finnish Variant
The Finnish Air Force produced 36 Buffalo aces. The top three were Capt. Hans Wind, with 39 Buffalo air victories (out of 75), WO Eino Ilmari Juutilainen, with 34 (out of 94) and Capt. Jorma Karhunen, with 25.5 (out of 31.5). First Lt Lauri Nissinen also had victories in the type (22.5 out of 32.5).
The non-Finnish Buffalo aces were: Geoff Fisken (RNZAF), with six air victories, and Doug Vanderfield (RAAF) with five individual kills, plus one shared. Alf Clare (RAAF) and Maurice Holder (RAF) had five victories each.
Only 509 Buffaloes were produced, yet the type produced 40 aces. This may well be the highest ratio of aces per number of aircraft produced, of any production fighter plane.(Source)
The Bell P-39 Airacobra also springs to mind, however, Soviet pilots simply loved that bird.

USAAF Bell P-39Q-1-BE Airacobra, at Hamilton Army Airfield, CA
The Bell P-39 Airacobra was one of the principal American fighter aircraft in service when the United States entered World War II. The P-39 was used by the Soviet Air Force, and enabled individual Soviet pilots to collect the highest number of kills attributed to any U.S. fighter type flown by any air force in any conflict. Other major users of the type included the Free French, the Royal Air Force, the United States Army Air Forces, and the Italian Co-Belligerent Air Force. (Source)
Though the Buffalo and the Airacobra are often looked down upon by many, it's worth noting that -
The P-39 has the highest total number of individual victories attributed to any U.S. fighter type, not kill ratio; Finnish-modified Brewster Buffalos had the highest kill ratio. (Source)
It's not the machine, it's the pilot which determines the worth of a fighter aircraft. It has often been said that a great pilot in a mediocre aircraft will shoot down a mediocre pilot in a great aircraft most of the time. As they used to say, "It's the man, not the machine." (Nowadays you have to include the women pilots, many of them are damned good. I have the honor to know a couple!)

But what exactly is a fighter aircraft?
A fighter aircraft, often referred to simply as a fighter, is a military fixed-wing aircraft designed primarily for air-to-air combat against other aircraft. The key performance features of a fighter include not only its firepower but also its high speed and maneuverability relative to the target aircraft.
The fighter's main tactical purpose is to establish air superiority over the battlefield. The success or failure of a combatant's efforts to gain air superiority hinges on several factors including the skill of its pilots, the tactical soundness of its doctrine for deploying its fighters, and the numbers and performance of those fighters.
Many fighters have secondary capabilities such as ground attack and some types, such as fighter-bombers, are designed from the outset for dual roles. Other fighter designs are highly specialized while still filling the main air superiority role, these include the interceptor, heavy fighter, and night fighter. (Source)
In reality there has never really been a clear cut definition of what is a fighter. The F-4D Phantom was a fighter, but it was also an effective fighter bomber. The F-15 and F-16 are superb fighter aircraft, but they are also superb as fighter-bombers. (The A-10, as lovely as it is, is not a fighter, it's a ground attack bird. Something which it probably does better than any other aircraft which has ever laid claim to that role!)

The tendency, especially in modern times, has been to design and produce aircraft which can perform multiple roles. Many of these types of aircraft are "jacks of all trades," which often means that they can do many things, not necessarily well, but well enough. In a time when cost overruns seem to be a way of life, the need for the military to get the most "bang for the taxpayer's buck" leads to "Swiss Army Knife" designs. (Most cost overruns, BTW, are attributable more to stupidity and inefficiency, not necessarily greed. Though greed does play a role, the inability of the DoD to settle on requirements and many contractors trying to do things "on the cheap" but charging top dollar are problems which won't go away soon. That problem is nothing new. George Washington was familiar with that!)

But back in World War II, most of the fighter aircraft were designed specifically as fighters.

Focke Wulf Fw-190A-5 Würger and Messerschmitt Bf-109E-3 Emil
(Source)
The Bf-109 was getting rather long in the tooth as a design in late 1940. Yet various models of the aircraft stayed in service until the end of the war. Erich Hartmann scored 352 kills, mostly on the Eastern Front, and stayed in a Messerschmitt cockpit until Nazi Germany surrendered. He knew his aircraft well and was very effective in the air, even against superior aircraft flown by skilled pilots.

The Fw-190 was originally designed as a stopgap as the Germans were worried that they wouldn't be able to produce enough of the Daimler-Benz powerplants used by the Messerschmitt. When introduced to combat in the West in 1941, Allied pilots had a rude surprise. This aircraft is considered by a number of authors as the "best" fighter aircraft of WWII.
The Focke-Wulf Fw 190 Würger (English: Shrike) is a German single-seat, single-engine fighter aircraft designed by Kurt Tank in the late 1930s and widely used during World War II. Along with its well-known counterpart, the Messerschmitt Bf 109, the Fw 190 became the backbone of the Luftwaffe's Jagdwaffe (Fighter Force). The twin-row BMW 801 radial engine that powered most operational versions enabled the Fw 190 to lift larger loads than the Bf 109, allowing its use as a day fighter, fighter-bomber, ground-attack aircraft and, to a lesser degree, night fighter.
The Fw 190A started flying operationally over France in August 1941, and quickly proved superior in all but turn radius to the Royal Air Force's main front-line fighter, the Spitfire Mk. V, particularly at low and medium altitudes. The 190 maintained superiority over Allied fighters until the introduction of the improved Spitfire Mk. IX. In November/December 1942, the Fw 190 made its air combat debut on the Eastern Front, finding much success in fighter wings and specialized ground attack units called Schlachtgeschwader (Battle Wings or Strike Wings) from October 1943 onwards. (Source)
The Bf 109 was flown by the three top-scoring fighter aces of all time, who claimed 928 victories among them while flying with Jagdgeschwader 52, mainly on the Eastern Front. The highest-scoring, Erich Hartmann, was credited with 352 victories. The aircraft was also flown by Hans-Joachim Marseille, the highest-scoring ace in the North African Campaign who shot down 158 enemy aircraft (in about a third of the time). It was also flown by many aces from other Axis nations, notably the Finn Ilmari Juutilainen, the highest-scoring non-German ace. Pilots from Italy, Romania, Croatia, Bulgaria, and Hungary also flew the Bf 109. Through constant development, the Bf 109 remained competitive with the latest Allied fighter aircraft until the end of the war. (Source)
Nakajima Ki-84 Hayate
(キ84 疾風 Gale)
(Source)

The Ki-84 Hayate is not as well known as the A6M Zero. Introduced later in the war, the Hayate was a superb interceptor, able to reach the altitude of the B-29s attacking Japan.
The Nakajima Ki-84 Hayate is a single-seat fighter flown by the Imperial Japanese Army Air Service in the last two years of World War II. The Allied reporting name was "Frank"; the Japanese Army designation was Army Type 4 Fighter. The Ki-84 is generally considered the best Japanese fighter to operate in large numbers during the conflict. The aircraft boasted high speeds and excellent maneuverability with an armament (up to two 30 mm and two 20 mm cannon) that gave it formidable firepower. The Ki-84's performance matched that of any single-engine Allied fighter it faced, and its operational ceiling enabled it to intercept high-flying B-29 Superfortress bombers. Pilots and crews in the field learned to take care with the plane's high-maintenance Nakajima Homare engine and a landing gear prone to buckling. The difficulties of Japan's situation late in the war took a toll on the aircraft's field performance as manufacturing defects multiplied, quality fuel proved difficult to procure and experienced pilots grew scarce. Nevertheless, a well-maintained Ki-84 was Japan's fastest fighter. A total of 3,514 aircraft were built. (Source)
Mitsubishi A6M2 Zero
(零式艦上戦闘機)
(Source)

The most famous Japanese fighter was the Zero. Very maneuverable, packing a powerful punch - two 7 mm machine guns mounted over the engine and a 20 mm cannon in each wing, with a very long range, the Zero was the scourge of the Pacific skies early in WWII.
The Zero is considered to have been the most capable carrier-based fighter in the world when it was introduced early in World War II, combining excellent maneuverability and very long range. The Imperial Japanese Navy Air Service (IJNAS) also frequently used it as a land-based fighter.
In early combat operations, the Zero gained a reputation as a dogfighter, achieving an outstanding kill ratio of 12 to 1, but by mid-1942 a combination of new tactics and the introduction of better equipment enabled Allied pilots to engage the Zero on generally equal terms. By 1943, due to inherent design weaknesses, such as a lack of hydraulic ailerons and rudder rendering it extremely unmaneuverable at high speeds, and an inability to equip it with a more powerful aircraft engine, the Zero gradually became less effective against newer Allied fighters. By 1944, with opposing Allied fighters approaching its levels of maneuverability and consistently exceeding its firepower, armor, and speed, the A6M had largely become outdated as a fighter aircraft. However, as design delays and production difficulties hampered the introduction of newer Japanese aircraft models, the Zero continued to serve in a front-line role until the end of the war in the Pacific. During the final phases, it was also adapted for use in kamikaze operations. Japan produced more Zeros than any other model of combat aircraft during the war. (Source)
Grumman F6F-3 Hellcats

The replacement for the F4F Wildcat, the F6F bore a certain resemblance to the older Wildcat, which probably surprised the hell out of a number of Zero pilots thinking they were about to tussle with the older bird.
The F6F made its combat debut in September 1943, and was best known for its role as a rugged, well-designed carrier fighter, which was able to outperform the A6M Zero and help secure air superiority over the Pacific theater. A total of 12,275 were built in just over two years.
Hellcats were credited with destroying a total of 5,223 enemy aircraft while in service with the U.S. Navy, U.S. Marine Corps, and Royal Navy Fleet Air Arm. This was more than any other Allied naval aircraft. Postwar, the Hellcat was phased out of front-line service, but remained in service as late as 1954 as a night fighter. (Source)
Vought F4U-4 Corsair
(Source)

The gull-winged F4U Corsair is probably the most recognizable of the WWII U.S. Navy carrier aircraft. Allegedly nicknamed "Whistling Death" by the Japanese* for the sound its engine made, the Corsair is a legend.
The Corsair was designed and operated as a carrier-based aircraft, and entered service in large numbers with the U.S. Navy in late 1944 and early 1945. It quickly became one of the most capable carrier-based fighter-bombers of World War II. Some Japanese pilots regarded it as the most formidable American fighter of World War II and its naval aviators achieved an 11:1 kill ratio. Early problems with carrier landings and logistics led to it being eclipsed as the dominant carrier-based fighter by the Grumman F6F Hellcat, powered by the same Double Wasp engine first flown on the Corsair's first prototype in 1940. Instead, the Corsair's early deployment was to land-based squadrons of the U.S. Marines and U.S. Navy. (Source)
Oh, yeah, she whistles!



Though it appears to be an anomaly, a fighter with two engines, the P-38 Lightning was flown by the top three American aces of WWII in the Pacific Theater.
The P-38 was used most successfully in the Pacific Theater of Operations and the China-Burma-India Theater of Operations as the aircraft of America's top aces, Richard Bong (40 victories), Thomas McGuire (38 victories) and Charles H. MacDonald (27 victories). In the South West Pacific theater, the P-38 was the primary long-range fighter of United States Army Air Forces until the introduction of large numbers of P-51D Mustangs toward the end of the war. (Source)
The Mediterranean Theater saw the first aerial combat between German fighters and P-38s. German fighter pilot appraisal of the P-38 was mixed. Some observers dismissed the P-38 as an easy kill while others gave it high praise, a deadly enemy worthy of respect. Johannes Steinhoff, commander of JG 77 in North Africa, said that the unit's old Bf 109s were "perhaps, a little faster" than the P-38, but a dogfight with the twin-engined fighter was daunting because its turning radius was much smaller, and it could quickly get on the tail of the Bf 109. Franz Stigler, an ace with 28 kills, flew Bf 109s against the P-38 in North Africa. Stigler said the Lightning "could turn inside us with ease and they could go from level flight to climb almost instantaneously. We lost quite a few pilots who tried to make an attack and then pull up... One cardinal rule we never forgot was: avoid fighting the P-38 head on. That was suicide." Stigler said the best defense was to flick-roll the Bf 109 and dive, as the Lightning was slow in the first 10 degrees of roll, and it was not as fast in a dive. Herbert Kaiser, eventually a 68-kill ace, shot down his first P-38 in January 1943. Kaiser said that the P-38 should be respected as a formidable opponent, that it was faster and more maneuverable than the Bf 109G-6 model he flew, especially since the G-6 was slowed by underwing cannon pods. Johann Pichler, another high-scoring ace, said that the P-38 in 1943 was much faster in a climb than the Bf 109. Kurt Bühligen, third-highest scoring German pilot on the Western front with 112 victories, recalled: "The P-38 fighter (and the B-24) were easy to burn. Once in Africa we were six and met eight P-38s and shot down seven. One sees a great distance in Africa and our observers and flak people called in sightings and we could get altitude first and they were low and slow." General der Jagdflieger Adolf Galland was unimpressed with the P-38, declaring "it had similar shortcomings in combat to our Bf 110, our fighters were clearly superior to it." Heinz Bäer said that P-38s "were not difficult at all. They were easy to outmaneuver and were generally a sure kill". (Source)
No matter what your opinion on the Lightning, she's an awesome looking bird!

Lockheed P-38H of the AAF Tactical Center, Orlando Army Air Base, FL, carrying two 1,000 lb bombs during capability tests in March 1944.

The two iconic fighters of the Battle of Britain made history in a time when it seemed as if all of Europe would eventually descend into a new Dark Age as the Nazis seemed to be sweeping all of their opponents off the board before the fighting could really get started. All that stood in the way were the fighter pilots of RAF Fighter Command.

In my book, the Spitfire is one of the prettiest aircraft to ever take to the skies, and the sound of that Merlin engine sends chills up my spine.



While the Spitfire got most of the press, the Hurricane did most of the heavy lifting.
The most famous fighter aircraft used in the Battle of Britain were the British Hawker Hurricane and Supermarine Spitfire Mk I and the German Messerschmitt Bf 109 E variant (Emil) single-engined fighters. Although the Spitfire has attracted more attention, the Hurricanes were more numerous and were responsible for most of the German losses, especially in the early part of the battle. The turn-around time (re-arm and refuel) for the Spitfire was 26 minutes, while the Hurricane's was 9 minutes, which increased its effectiveness.
...
The Spitfire and Bf 109E were well-matched in speed and agility, and both were somewhat faster than the Hurricane. The slightly larger Hurricane was regarded as an easier aircraft to fly and was effective against Luftwaffe bombers. The Royal Air Force's preferred tactic was to deploy the Hurricanes against formations of bombers and to use the Spitfires against the fighter escorts. The view from the "blown" clear cockpit hood of the Spitfire was considered fair, while upwards good; view to the rear was considered fair for a covered cockpit. The curved plexiglass windscreen however was very bad optically and caused considerable distortion, which made long-distance visual scanning difficult. Spitfire pilot Jeffrey Quill made recommendations for the installation of "optically true" glass into the side panels to solve the problem. The Hurricane had a higher seating position, which gave the pilot a better view over the nose than the Spitfire. The upper canopy panels of the Bf 109 through its E-3 subtype were curved, while the E-4 and later Emil subtypes were modified for better visibility with flat panels and the new design was often retrofitted to earlier 109s. (Source)
Supermarine Spitfire MkIIa and Hawker Hurricane MkIIc
(Source)
Let's not forget the Soviets, they had some very skilled pilots. Many of whom loved their Yak-3s!

Yakovlev Yak-3M ZK-YYY, at the Classic Fighters 2015 airshow, Blenheim, New Zealand.
(Source)
The Yakovlev Yak-3 (Russian: Яковлев Як-3) was a single-engine, single-seat World War II Soviet front line fighter aircraft. Robust and easy to maintain, it was much liked by pilots and ground crew alike. It was one of the smallest and lightest major combat fighters fielded by any combatant during the war. Its high power-to-weight ratio gave it excellent performance. It proved a formidable dogfighter. Marcel Albert, World War II French ace, who flew the Yak-3 in USSR with the Normandie-Niémen Group, considered it a superior aircraft when compared to the P-51D Mustang and the Supermarine Spitfire. Before the end of the war it was flown by Polish Air Forces (of the Polish People's Army formed in USSR) and after the war ended, it was flown by the Yugoslav Air Forces. (Source)
Easy to maintain, as an old F-4D maintainer, that's music to my ears. (The Phantom was anything but easy to maintain!)

The first operational jet fighter ever was the Messerschmitt Me-262.
The Messerschmitt Me 262, nicknamed Schwalbe (English: "Swallow") in fighter versions, or Sturmvogel (English: "Storm Bird") in fighter-bomber versions, was the world's first operational jet-powered fighter aircraft. Design work started before World War II began, but problems with engines, metallurgy and top-level interference kept the aircraft from operational status with the Luftwaffe until mid-1944. The Me 262 was faster and more heavily armed than any Allied fighter, including the British jet-powered Gloster Meteor. One of the most advanced aviation designs in operational use during World War II, the Me 262's roles included light bomber, reconnaissance and experimental night fighter versions.
Me 262 pilots claimed a total of 542 Allied aircraft shot down, although higher claims are sometimes made. The Allies countered its effectiveness in the air by attacking the aircraft on the ground and during takeoff and landing. Strategic materials shortages and design compromises on the Junkers Jumo 004 axial-flow turbojet engines led to reliability problems. Attacks by Allied forces on fuel supplies during the deteriorating late-war situation also reduced the effectiveness of the aircraft as a fighting force. Armament production within Germany was focused on more easily manufactured aircraft. In the end, the Me 262 had a negligible impact on the course of the war as a result of its late introduction and the consequently small numbers put in operational service. (Source)
Too little, too late.

Thank the Lord for that!

Messerschmitt Me 262A-1a at the National Museum of the United States Air Force.

So which WWII fighter was the "best"? You could make an argument for most of those birds shown above. But for my money, the most effective fighter of World War II is the one which contributed most to the defeat of Nazi Germany, and that would be the P-51 Mustang.

Why do I feel it contributed the most to the defeat of the Nazis (compared to the other fighters that is)? Prior to its introduction, bomber casualties over Germany were mounting. Without fighter escorts the daylight bombers (Army Air Forces B-17s and B-24s) were taking lots of losses. The strength of the Luftwaffe fighter arm and the flak defenses of the Third Reich were the prime reason that RAF Bomber Command flew their missions at night. (And they still suffered heavily from flak and night fighters.)

When the P-51 with the Allison engine was first introduced, it was a dog at altitude. Though it had great range, it was slow at 15,000 feet (its service ceiling) the British, for whom it had been designed, relegated it to the ground attack role. Once it was equipped with the Merlin engine, it became a thoroughbred. Service ceiling increased as did speed, with no adverse effects on its superb range. Able to escort bombers all the way to Berlin and back, even Reichsmarschall Göring, upon seeing the P-51 over Berlin, had to admit that the war was lost. (No, he didn't mention this to Hitler, not that Hitler would have believed him anyway.)

While the P-47 was much more rugged and packed more firepower, it couldn't go to Berlin and back. It couldn't protect the bombers. Once the bomber generals realized that they weren't going to make Germany surrender by bombing them and were ordered to seek out and destroy the Luftwaffe, victory in the air was assured. Which made victory on the ground possible. The bombers pounded aircraft manufacturers and aircraft assembly plants as the P-51s swept the German fighter arm from the sky. Later they were released to hunt the German fighters wherever they could be found. The German fighter pilots lost badly from that point on.

With the Luftwaffe no longer a factor, the Allies could come ashore at Normandy and begin the drive which ended on the Elbe. The P-51's contribution to that victory cannot be understated.

Winning a war isn't about how many enemy aircraft you shoot down, not in the long run. Winning a war is all about crushing the enemy's means of resistance. With Allied air superiority over Europe. The Tommies and GIs could get on with defeating the German Army. Without the P-51, I believe the war would have lasted even longer. The Soviets might even have quit had D-Day not occurred when it did. (Commies thought we were a bit late to the game even then!)

Again though, what one might consider the "best" fighter depends an awful lot on its intended role and how well it performed in that role. For my money, the P-51 wins that contest.

But if I was on the ground, I wouldn't mind seeing a handful of Jugs tossing ordnance at the Krauts. Which is best depends a lot on the mission.





* As with most nicknames purported to be given to American units by the enemy. This one is not mentioned in Japanese wartime records.

74 comments:

  1. Shades of 9MM vs 45, so many planes, so little time. The Mustang had the range to escort bombers into the Reich and then dogfight well enough to give its pilot a good chance to get home. When a pilot knows and utilizes a planes characteristics to its advantage well then..... Appreciate the Hamilton field photo, my Dad spent time there in '45. Nothing quite like a piston engine growling, those vids make for a nice wake up on a sunny morning. Well done Sarge, well done.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I really liked that picture of the P-39 there. I had a model of the Airacobra as a kid, thought the door on the side of the cockpit was pretty cool, just like a car door.

      Delete
    2. The P-39 was underrated. It was introduced into service before all the bugs had been worked out. The P-63 was what the P-39 shoudld've been all along.

      Delete
  2. in terms of impact, I would rate top 4 to be:
    4.Zero. The powerhouse behind IJN Kido Butai strikes, long ranged, agile and with serious firepower (20mm!)
    3.Hellcat THE counter to Zero that brought Pacific skies to USN control
    2.Bf-109, the workhorse of blitzkrieg that soldiered on to the last days (and further as czech-built Avia in ISRAELI hands of all places!)
    1.P-51 the plane that made bombing offensive possible again and tore the heart out of Jaeger force in turn making D-day and following offensives possible.
    One more note - lack or delay of D-Day would just have meant Stalin would gobble up more of Europe, down to France and Italy possibly. Stalin might have been considering to sign separate peace until Stalingrad, but after Kursk it became one-way steamroller. By 1944 Soviets were even outplaying Germans at great maneuver battle level as Bagration proved. And each land they "liberated" was immediately pressganged to help kill Germans.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I can't argue with that list. I would put the Spitfire/Hurricane in a top five list as with those aircraft the RAF stopped the Nazis from their proposed Operation Sealion. The Battle of Britain set the stage for ultimate victory.

      Yes on your last, press-ganged to kill Germans and become members of the Communist International! You're right though about the Soviets wanting to gobble up all of Europe, no D-Day might have resulted in just that!

      Delete
  3. I will take the easy way out and agree with Chuck Yeager. P-51. Full.Stop.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Can't really argue with Gen'l Yeager, can ya?

      Delete
  4. Awesome post and nice comparison about he various aircraft. Funny story. I worked for 1st Marine Aircraft Wing in the G4 as the Movement Control Officer. We had a PME one day that the General wanted all staff to attend. Turns out it was a former commanding General of 1st MAW. Interesting talk. But the funniest moment came when he told us of being a brand new shiny 2ndLt showing up at his first unit during the Korean War. He checked in with the Marine Air Group CO and was asked what he wanted to fly. Pointing out the window he said "Well, that F9F Panther of course." He said the Old Man gave him a serious look and said "Not until you have at least 500 hours in that." pointing to the F4U Corsair! He said he never got his 500 hours in the bird but it gave him a new found respect for the Panther and for the men that flew the Corsair.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Two iconic aircraft of the Korean War right there. I've read many stories of those Marine Corsairs coming in low and dropping ordnance on the bad guys to support their Marine brothers on the ground.

      Delete
  5. Interesting subject. And perhaps it should’ve been the best fighter of World War II that was in big production.

    I think towards the end in Europe Kurt tank made a variant of the 190 that was faster than the mustang. In fact he was flying one to a meeting and mustangs were chasing him and he just gave it more throttle if I remember the story correctly.

    The German pilots nicknamed the 109 “the stone crusher“ for the unique sound the Daimler-Benz 600 made.

    I have a CD somewhere of sounds of that Messerschmitt flown by pilots of the Duxsford Museum. Someone later crashed it and it is now on static display.

    One of them made an interesting point between that and the mustang. He said that the 109 was the first generation airframe and the mustang was a second generation airframe

    But that Daimler-Benz engine was superior to the Merlin in two ways. One it was inverted for a better center of gravity. I wonder how the lubrication system worked with the thing upside down. But being inverted mechanics didn’t have to get up on a ladder and stoop down for hours

    Everything was right there.

    And the Bosch fuel injection system made flying it a lot easier.

    Although at least for the earlier systems it had a rather interesting start up procedure. There was a handcrank centrifugal clutch that a mechanic would turn. It got to a certain speed and the pilot would give the signal.

    To hear that Daimler-Benz fire after a little long spinner was quite a sound.

    I think Mercedes-Benz made over 40,000 of those engine variance and the allies destroyed virtually all of them. I picture enough of those leftover for the Reno air races. That would’ve been an interesting contest: souped up Merlin versus souped up Diamler Benz.

    In the DB The air fuel mixture was automatically confiscated no matter what altitude

    The pilot didn’t have to constantly fiddle with it

    I saw bud Anderson speak last year and bought his book

    He was a triple Ace who flew with Yeager.

    And he’s describing what you had to do in a dogfight fiddling with the mustang controls

    Was unbelievable

    Part of that of course was to make it through a dogfight with extreme turns and altitude changes. But you were constantly fiddling with the trim tab and throttle.

    Although the same could be said for a German pilot in that regard

    We know really very little about the Eastern front but I have heard that the YAK 3 was every bit the equal of the 109.

    And those German aces-I don’t think they were really all that much better but they had a saying

    “The knights cross or a wooden cross“

    You flew for the duration of the war and either got very good or dead

    I forget his name at this early hour but he was the mentor of Eric Hartmann he was an ace with a couple of hundred kills and ironically is killed himself in an auto accident in the 1980s.

    The American pilots like Richard Bong were pulled away for bond tours when they started accruing a record.

    Well I’ll see if I can get to sleep now but I could go on and on

    As usual nice post Sarge

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks Bill!

      The Tank design you mention is the Ta-152. It was faster than the P-51 and was designed to go after the bombers. Only 43 were built.

      Delete
    2. Another advantage we had was higher octane fuel. The Merlin engine could produce equal or more HP with smaller displacement--37.7 liters for the DB605 vs 27 for the Merlin.

      Delete
    3. Good point.

      (I always thought the Messerschmitt engine sounded like a farm tractor. Maybe it's just me.)

      Delete
    4. The Tank designs (FW-190 and Ta-152) both had analog computers that were nicknamed 'brain boxes' to automatically manage prop rpm and fuel mixture. The pilot had one power lever just like later jets would have. It greatly simplified matters, especially for new pilots. A great and experienced pilot could probably manage things better than the 'brain box', but not by a lot.

      Delete
  6. Hey AFSarge;

    I would have to go with the P-51, although the radiator under the wing was a weakness from what I read. although the Jug could take a walloping like nothing else. I did have an affinity for the F4f, in the hands of a good pilot, she could hold her own against the vaunted Zero, and you were the first person that I know that gave the Buffalo its due as a good fighter for its time, it really embarrassed the Soviets during the "Winter War", although in the Soviets defense, the purges from the 1930's did them no favors.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, Stalin's purge of the Soviet military was definitely an "own goal." But who said dictators were ever logical?

      Delete
  7. Had a chance to be First, but didn't want to go OT right off the bat. Just wanted to note that, on this day in 1918, Rittmeister Manfred, Freiherr von Richthofen was shot down and killed, probably by ground fire. Oddly, Aprils during the Great War were significant months for Richthofen. April 1915: joined the Luftstreitkrafte. April 1916: his largest monthly bag (20 kills, IIRR). April 1917: suffered a serious head wound. April 1918: died.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I remember the Baron's death well. Thanks for reminding us!

      Delete
  8. What is the BEST fighter of WWII?

    The one the pilot was riding in when the wheels touched back down at home base on his last sortie of the war. That's the only measure that means anything.

    That having been said, excellent discussion of the pros and cons of each.

    ReplyDelete
  9. The P-51.
    Plus, it makes a unique sound, just like the Phantom does (did).
    My Squadron (68 FIS, then 68 TFS) started in the Pacific in WWII as the 68 Pursuit Squadron with the P-40 and 39. The 68th Fighter Squadron was one of the longest-serving fighter squadrons in U.S. Air Force history, remaining active almost continually for 60 years. Known as the "Lightning Lancers", on the morning of 27 June 1950 pilots of the 68th Fighter-All Weather Squadron flying the North American F-82 Twin Mustang made history by achieving the first aerial kill of the Korean War (from WIKI).
    Our patch depicted two lightning bolts).
    Every now and again, I'll run across something about them. When we first started having reunions, we were asked to join up with the older bunch of guys. It was rather neat to see some of them and talk.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Oh dear! I just realized that I am one of the older guys now.

      Delete
    2. Nothing like standing at the end of the runway listening to a P-51's Merlin engine revving up just prior to take-off. Well, I'm guessing actually sitting in the cockpit would top that!

      Delete
    3. Older guy? You?

      We're all in that boat Dave!

      Delete
    4. The 68th was one of my sister squadrons when I was in the 339th at Moody. Pilots from the 339th and 68th flew the Yamamoto shootdown mission. There was a signed and framed picture of them post mission behind the ops desk. Since the 339th was retired and renamed the 69th (Creech was neurotic about numbers out of alignment. Let me take that back. Creech was neurotic.) I hope that picture ended up in a museum or at least in AF Archives somewhere.

      Delete
    5. Odd how some general officers fixate on trivia.

      Delete
  10. All good planes (excepting the Buffalo) made better or worse by those who flew them and those who fixed them. Though it is the 'size of the fight' in the pilot that often made the difference, having the better airframe often helped.

    I just love the sound of large piston engines. Whether radials or in-lines. Harkens back to a past that was so much simpler in a lot of ways.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The simpler past...

      An idea for a post. Made me think you did. Whether that's good or bad remains to be seen.

      (Though yes, you did qualify "simpler" with "in a lot of ways.")

      Delete
    2. Simpler, well, except for spotty food safety, periodic outbreaks of killer diseases and viruses that would make the numbers of dead from Corona-Wuhan seem pitiful, only able to afford 1-2 pairs of shoes (there's a reason for 'barefoot in the kitchen' and it's because why wear shoes to death when you are home, when you can't afford a good pair of shoes for church,) same with clothes, same with just about everything (seriously, until the late 50's, it was possible to move, without furniture, with only 1 or 2 suitcases per person, maybe with a trunk of linens, up to high-middle class. Can you imagine a typical American poor person not having 4-5 55 gallon heftybags full of clothes and shoes?)

      Delete
    3. Indeed. There are places in the world that are still like that. With the exception of moving, not allowed in many places in the world unless you're one of the elite. (Hhmm, sounds reminiscent of some states right now. Yeah, looking at you Michigan...)

      Delete
  11. Maintenance hours per flight hour would be revealing. My small efforts with German and Austrian machine tools and motorcycles would imply if there is a harder way to do something, the Germans will figure it out....
    There is an interesting video of the early days of Merlin engine building- the Brits where sand-casting the engine blocks by hand, two guys carrying a big cauldron of molten aluminum over to mold and pouring it in.. apparently when Packard was asked to mass produce them they had to redraw the entire set of prints as the Brits were still hand fitting them.
    The P47 was a great bird, but after the war they were non competitive with the P51 cost per hour and immediately scrapped.
    Little side note- Richard Bach, the Jet Pilot and writer, famously known for "Jonathan Livingston Seagull" bought a P51 after he made some real money- he said it was a happy day when he sold it and replaced it with an F86, as the costs of maintaining the jet were so much lower, and it was so much more reliable.
    For an inside look at insane piston engine complexity, find an air museum that has a electric powered cutaway P+W 4360- Yikes!. Tucson has one, and the Evergreen Museum in McMinville OR. Just getting one ready for delivery acceptance was a nightmare of thousands of possible oil leak points.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Maintenance hours per flight" - You certainly have my undivided attention there!

      Udvar-Hazy has some engine cutaways that move, I need to revisit that and pay more attention! (My granddaughter and I were simply enjoying pushing the buttons then giggling when the things started to move. Simple pleasures!)

      Delete
    2. I remember that 4360 cutaway at Udvar-Hazy, and while looking at it I was thinking that it was both beautiful, and had way to many moving parts to take into the sky.
      https://airandspace.si.edu/collection-objects/pratt--whitney-wasp-major-r-4360-59b-cutaway-radial-engine/nasm_A19790005000

      Delete
    3. Does seem awfully "busy," doesn't it?

      But it worked!

      Delete
    4. P-38s were especially bad. The internal plumbing for the turbochargers, intercooling, engine oil cooling was complex, to say the least. It had been designed as a bomber interceptor for what wasn't expected to be a very large contract. The first models were practically hand-built. Lockheed was able to gradually work out the bugs, especially the intercooler icing issues that plagued them in northern Europe. By the time of the P-38J, it was pretty good, and in such high demand in the Mediterranean and Pacific that most went to those theaters. With the P-38L, hydraulically boosted ailerons enabled the P-38 to roll with the best of them. Lockheed really wanted to make some big changes to simplify construction and maintenance, but the AAF wouldn't allow anything that might cut production. Lockheed repeatedly tried to sell the USAAF on a 'brain box' for the P-38 (engine management for two engines was a lot to handle for someone new to combat) like the FW-190 had, but The Powers That Be weren't interested.

      Delete
  12. "It's not the arrow, it's the archer."

    I knew a guy who flew in the Pacific. He said his happiest day was when they gave up their P-39s for P-38s.

    If you have some spare time, the P-47 field assembly video is worth watching. The Luftwaffe would destroy a dozen, the USAAF would field another twenty. In a nutshell, that's how we won.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, the P-39 was only loved by the Russians I think, the Lightning was a vastly superior aircraft.

      I've got to set aside some time to watch that video.

      "destroy a dozen, the USAAF would field another twenty" - Reminds me of the scene in Band of Brothers where Webster screams at the passing German POWs, "Look at this - Ford, General Motors! You have horses! What were you thinking!"

      I think our factories produced enough material to defeat the Nazis twice over.

      Delete
    2. Yeager liked the P-39. Talked about it in his bio.

      Delete
    3. Murphy's Law (see his comment below) actually sat down and chatted with Gen'l Yeager some years back, he DID like the P-39.

      Delete
    4. Agree with you about American production, the Soviet Army's entire battlefield logistics (from the railhead to the frontline) were carried by over 10,000 Studebaker trucks acquired under Lend-Lease. Also under Lend-Lease the USSR received more than 1,000 Spitfires and a larger number of Hurricanes. They also received AT-6 Texans, P40 Warhawks and even P47Ds in 1944 as well as Catalinas and A20 lightbombers.

      You forgot one RAF fighter of note, the Hawker Tempest, that later became the Sea Fury in FAA service. It was incredibly fast so it was withheld from combat operations to shoot down V1s in the summer of 1944. Other fighters had to dive to catch up to a V1, a Tempest could overtake it from behind just on engine power.

      Al_in_Ottawa

      Delete
    5. Well, "forget" is such a harsh description, but yes, kind of. I knew of the Tempest (and the Typhoon) but considered them as primarily ground attack aircraft. Though their usefulness in shooting down V1s must have endeared them to the British people.

      I believe that it was the fastest, piston-engined aircraft of the war, at lower altitudes.

      I wouldn't want to be in a tank with a Tempest boring in on me!

      Delete
  13. A most excellent post. Brings back all kinds of memories.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks Cap'n, it was fun to put it together.

      (I can spend hours looking at aircraft!)

      Delete
  14. No real judgement on the best of these, but I do like the looks of the P-38, especially the shiny silver version. Why was it a P & not an F?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. In World War II the Army Air Forces referred to single engine fighter aircraft as "pursuit" planes, so "P" for pursuit. Only later did the "F" (for fighter, obviously) come into use.

      There are some really good videos of the Red Bull P-38 (which is in natural aluminum finish) from inside the cockpit, some of them it's flying with an F4U Corsair. Double aerial goodness!

      Delete
    2. Except it has 2 of them!

      Delete
    3. My bad, not all fighters have single engines. Some have two, like the P-38.

      Delete
    4. Ahem! ! Let me just say...two of the best fighters in modern times have two engines. Short of something called a “Lawn Dart” and an un-combat tested “Lightning” most modern fighters have redundant engines.

      Delete
    5. In WWII a twin engine fighter was something of an anomaly. The Me-110 was classified as a heavy fighter, it had twin engines and was very ineffective in the day fighter role, It had some success as a night fighter. In fact, a number of night fighters had two engines now that I think about it.

      Two engines is more typical in modern times. A Navy fighter with a single engine is asking for trouble in some people's reckoning.

      And the post is about WWII fighters, just sayin'. 😉

      Delete
    6. (Don McCollor)...not really a "fighter", but the P61 introduced late in the war as a night fighter looked like a giant P38. Two engines, twin booms, but the size of a medium bomber. By that time, advances in flap and spoiler technology gave it amazing maneuverability...

      Delete
    7. Well, it is a fighter, though one meant for the night. It was purpose-built for that role and did it well. One of my favorite aircraft. I had a model of one as a kid and got to see one "in the flesh" down at Udvar-Hazy. It's a cool looking aircraft!

      Delete
    8. The Dornier Do-335 Pfeil (Arrow) was a German twin-engine heavy fighter. It was fast and since the front and rear props spun in opposite directions, there was no torque. It would've made a good gunnery platform, like the P-38. Because it had a rear propeller, it had tricycle landing gear, which gave clearance for a ventral vertical stabilizer nearly as big as the dorsal fin. Also, since it would've been near suicide in most conditions to bail out with that rear propeller, it was fitted with an ejection seat (two seats in the case of the night-fighter variant) and both the dorsal fin and the rear prop were blown off with explosive charges. Too little, too late to ever fly combat.

      Delete
    9. Likewise, the extremely sexy F7F Tigercat was too late to see action, but was surely an effective twin-engine fighter for it's time. They gave ggod service as night fighters in Korea.

      Delete
  15. Back in the late 80's I had the pleasure of talking at length with Gen. Chuck Yeager over coffee. I asked him which of the planes he'd flown over the years was his favorite and he said that it was the P-39 Airacobra. He said it was stable and forgiving and you put it on and wore it like a comfortable jacket. And as I recall, he still remembered the start procedures and V-speeds for it. Amazing man with an amazing memory for detail.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Wow, talking with Chuck Yeager. Jealous a bit, certainly.

      I always liked the look of the P-39.

      Delete
    2. Quite a story...I think I blogged it once buy will do so again for my next post.

      Delete
  16. When I went through the FWQC in the mid 70's our IPs were Department of the Army Civilians (DACs). My single engine instructor was a former Naval Aviator from the Pacific Theatre, my multi-engine contact IP was a "Jug" pilot, his buddy and a phase check pilot was a Mustang pilot. The "I flew the best fighter" banter amongst them during the 0500 briefs were legend and frequently restarted during de-briefs. My multi-engine instrument IP missed "The Big One" and "only" flew F-84s in the Korean dustup. We were VietNam veteran helicopter pilots learning from legends. regards, Alemaster

    ReplyDelete
  17. I think the Polikarpov PO-2 was officially a fighter, though I don't think it did much fighting. A fair amount of avoiding. But if it is a fighter, then it would be the winner of the "worst fighter in WWII" competition.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Officially it started life as a trainer aircraft. It morphed into a general purpose type aircraft (ground attack, aerial reconnaissance, and liaison aircraft), it was never intended to be a fighter. Though if attacked it had to become one or go down in flames. Slow and maneuverable, they were not that easy to bring down in a more modern fighter.

      But the worst fighter of WWII? Hhmm, sounds like a good idea for a post!

      Delete
    2. Set your criteria very carefully, my friend. There be dragons!

      Delete
    3. I know! It would be easy to step on a lot of toes!

      The question is harder than it appears.

      Delete
    4. The most important fighter of the war is debatable.
      IMO, the most important fighter developed during the war is not- the ME262 was the future.

      Delete
    5. Roger that, the Me-262 was too little, too late.

      Delete
    6. (Don McCollor)...a good candidate for the "worst fighter" would be the ME163 rocket fighter. Amazing performance, but with a dangerously unstable fuel mixture and a total flight endurance of about eight minutes. Although a fighter that could fly up vertically through a bomber formation would be disconcerting...

      Delete
    7. That one seems to make many of the "worst aircraft of World War II" lists. Something I'm working on for later.

      Delete
  18. The picture of Hamilton Field reminded me of friends who worked at Coast Guard Island for the Coast Guard and JTF drugs west who were forced to live in base housing at Hamilton. The commute from hell itself. My guys lived in x Moffet Field housing after they were kicked out of Alameda NAS housing and I felt real pity for the jerk who was my Echelon IV counterpart at Alameda who was provided government housing at the Presidio where his front door didn't lock, his bathrooms on 3 floors offered different services but none of them could do it all so he was forced to wander into one and then the next and the next every morning on his way to work. He suffered a heart attack. I cannot say it wasn't deserved but he was a good man for all that.

    There were planes?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Apparently back in WW2 there were. Not all gubmint housing is created equal, that's for sure.

      Delete
  19. Oh yeah, Bosch is a pretty good show. I appreciate a good cop show where the “hero” only very rarely shoots anyone. (Like the entire season 4, where he fires... zero shots)

    Not sure what I think about the latest season, will have to watch it again.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Found your "random" comment a bear. It was hiding in the moderation queue, which is standard for posts over seven days old.

      Delete

Just be polite... that's all I ask. (For Buck)
Can't be nice, go somewhere else...

NOTE: Comments on posts over 5 days old go into moderation, automatically.