Top Five fighters of WWII and why

[caldrail]

The MB5 scored on many levels. besides being an agile performer it was also designed for ease of maintenance, an important consideration in operational circumstances. Regarding the torque of pwerful engines, this was indeed a matter of skill. With the spitfire the pilot notes indicate a pilot must apply full rudder on running his engine up on take off, because the rudder area is too small to be effective at low speed. There's a story about a 1950's Farnborough Air Show in which a race was staged between two spitfires from a standing start. Both pilots were competitive RAF chaps and once the signal was given, both immediately opened throttles to the max. Also immediately both spitfires swung wildly and taxiied at high speed toward the audience enclosure causing a panic among the assembled top brass and their wives.

 

That was of course a relatively easy aeroplane to handle. The 109 was well known for capricious behaviour on take off and landing, and something like half the airframes lost were due to accidents, not combat losses, with the quaint german phrase bumslandung used to describe a heavy landing and undercarriage collapse. In fact, when the 109G was collected by pilots from Finland for ferrying to their homeland, the germans were very keen to stress the difficulty of flying them and were expecting disasters from the novice finnish pilots, who, as it turned out, were well up to the job and regularly flew from strips much shorter than the germans considered vital for that aeroplane.

 

With any powerful aeroplane of that period torque introduces dangers. As a Cessna pilot, if there was a problem at low altitude I could get out of danger simply by opening the throttle and climbing away. A sudden application of throttle in WW2 fighter can easily cause uncontrollable roll, something that contributed to the death of Mark Hanna ( a warbird display pilot of great skill and experience) when his Hispano Buchon (a spanish license built 109G with a merlin engine) encountered turbulence on landing.

 

Obviously a contra-prop was a means of alleviating or eliminating some of these characteristics, but I note that despite several attempts to field aeroplanes with propellors of this kind, not one design of any nation made it to active service. Weight, complexity, and vulnerability to damage are all contributing factors.

[caesar novus]

Obviously a contra-prop was a means of alleviating or eliminating some of these characteristics, but I note that despite several attempts to field aeroplanes with propellors of this kind, not one design of any nation made it to active service. Weight, complexity, and vulnerability to damage are all contributing factors.

[caldrail]

Those were a bit late to see action in WW2.

[Melvadius]

Those were a bit late to see action in WW2.

 

Technically so was the MB5 since although developed during the war by repute the only action it seems to have seen was being shot up on a firing range.

[caldrail]

Not so. The MB5 was obstructed officially and had the project been supported, the aircraft could well have seen service in the later stages of the war - and lets not forget Britains commitment to 'Tiger Force', the britiish contigent due to be sent to the pacific theatre to assist the invasion of the japanese islands. Also bear in mind that there were no technical or aerodynamic difficulties with the MB5 that would have entailed lengthy development.

[Melvadius]

Not so. The MB5 was obstructed officially and had the project been supported, the aircraft could well have seen service in the later stages of the war - and lets not forget Britains commitment to 'Tiger Force', the britiish contigent due to be sent to the pacific theatre to assist the invasion of the japanese islands. Also bear in mind that there were no technical or aerodynamic difficulties with the MB5 that would have entailed lengthy development.

OK maybe the reason for mass-production not being instigated durung the war period is a different argument.

[caldrail]

Like what? Who knew in August 1945 that the atom bomb was going to be used? That in itself was a gamble, not a sure thing. Furthermore, in May 1945 Winston Churchill asked his strategists to plan for an attack on Russia (Operation Unthinkable, which one strategist reported would "Take a long time to win"). Also there were security issues at home and overseas irrespective of the state of allied operations against the axis, therefore aircraft procurement was in no immediate danger of being downgraded by the Air Ministry although some scale reduction was probably expected after the nazi capitulation. bear in mind the MB5 had been flying for a year prior to this time and all who had dealings with it had nothing but praise for the design.

 

The only issue was politics. Martin-Baker was an outsider, a small manufacturer with little influence in Whitehall, and the people responsible for alloting contracts didn't want his company building their own fighter aircraft. Thios attitude had been prevalent throughout the second world war and had in fact been rooted in british aircraft contracting from the very start. Notice how easily Hawker won contracts and that only suuccess in the Schneider Trophy contests of the 30's allowed R J Mitchell any influence in selling his Spitfire project.

Edited October 10, 2011 by caldrail

[Macerinus]

Maybe the Spitfire was marginally best on it's introduction, but even the later enhanced versions probably ranked below the top all time 5.

Hmm... P51d yes, FW 190 maybe, P47 debateable, Vought Corsair debatable. Which other piston engined fighters outperformed the Supermarine Spitfire?

 

It depends very much on the period in WWII.

 

The Hawker Tempest MK.V outperformed the Spitfire MK.Xs and XIV's easely.

The FW190-D9 was a magnificent fighter.

The late war Soviets weren't bad either, like the Lavockin La- 5 and La-7 or the Yakovlev Yak-3

 

These are all late war developments,

 

In the early war period,

The Messerschmitt Bf-109 D and E series definetly ruled the skies.

If the Dutch Fokker G.I and the French Dewoitine D.520 could have proven itself longer in combat they would certainly have been magnificent.

 

And of course let we not forget the most brilliant of them all, in capable hands, the Mitsubishi A6M-2 and -3 Zeke, what is lacked in armour it made up in beauty and extreme manouverability

 

I can't think of any American fighter that really did it

Edited December 11, 2011 by Macerinus

[caldrail]

The problem with playing Top Trumps is that it focuses on finite factors that ignore the operational considerations in aircraft deployment. Whilst the Tempest V might have had considerable performance it was not going to replace late model Spitfires as a frontline fighter. It had been designed not only as an improvement upon the earlier Typhoom but also to Air Ministry secification. Furthermore, the performance of the Tempest V was superior at low altitude, thus making the design more suitable as a fighter-bomber which indeed was the historical deployment.

 

The FW190D series were very capable aircraft. Although I don't have any good sources on Russian fighters, the later ones were no pushovers either.

 

Now as for the 109D & E series - they dominated not only because the aeroplanes were excellent flying machines (despite some hazardous shortcomings on the ground) but also because the Luftwaffee overwhelmed their enemies by sheer weight of numbers combined with the German doctrine of blitzkrieg and the consequent coordination of rapid ground operations. It meant essentially that enemy air forces weren't just shot down, but bombed and overrun.

 

There were increasingly signs that the superiority of the 109 was a temporary factor - something the Germans themselves recognised in authorising development of successor designs - and some obscure types, some of which too late to enter service, held considerable promise. Shortly before the fall of France the Bloch 157 project revealed a top speed of 440mph, and that was in May 1940.

 

As for the Fokker G1, a flawed concept. The idea of a twin engined fighter wasn't unusual and most air forces attempted to employ such aircraft on the principle of increased firepower, which unfortunately failed because the decreased performance and manoeverability would offset any advantage. Only the P38 Lightning showed any comparable capability and that was essentially obelete by the mid war period except in specialist roles which many twins eventually ended up assigned to. Whilst the G1 wasn't a bad aeroplane at all, it just wasn't good enough.

 

The early japanese aeroplanes you mention reflect japanese thinking. Unlike western nations, the japanese were indoctrinated with a pseudo medieval martial spirit and for them, the idea of fighting in the air was no more than an extension of a sword duel between two warriors. Therefore manoeverability was seen as paramount and note that performance eventually became a dominant factor in the late war as the japanese eventually woke up to the idea that they had lost mastery of the skies by relying on outdated and culturally restricted tactics.

 

Notice also that the japanese methodology of war was as always to strike quickly and strike first - that was why the japanese never really made extensive use of an encumbering protective shioeld in warfare, but instead used spears and swords in murderously quick combat alone. Combine that with the traditional concept that a man's life is temporary and death inevitable, the idea of protecting the pilot with armour served only to restrict the performance and manoeverability of the aircraft and therefore restrict the advantage these aeroplanes offered the 'samurai' pilot.

[caesar novus]

Pardon me for dragging out this baitfest, but this cultural sidelight seemed suitable grist for a cultural forum.

 

The early japanese aeroplanes you mention reflect japanese thinking.

I think the Zero wasn't some epitome of Japanese thought, but borne from a maverick designer who turned priorities upside down in order to meet extreme requirements with a wimpy engine. Sort of like the original Sony designer or the designer of that wankel powered Japanese sportscar - revered in the west but thought a bit beyond the pale by contemporary peers.

 

The Japanese army had armored aircraft early, so that wasn't a cultural no-no. But the (elitist) navy posted such extreme requirements for the Zero that the available wimpy engine couldn't drag armor along with the aircraft. In fact it couldn't support a conventional aircraft alone, so all designers gave up on the project except one whacko who thought he might do it by inventing a lighter alloy of aluminum (called duraluminum although it is brittle and corrodes easily).

 

The Zero had to have insane range unprecedented for a fighter (like the later Mustang) and the lightness and sleekness may have followed from this more than a desire to be superaerobatic or a tolerance for fragility. I think the later Japanese designs like Raiden and Sheidin (sp?) were quite comparable to western designs in various tradeoffs, but they were probably hanger queens due to shortage of fuel and pilots.

Edited December 14, 2011 by caesar novus

[caldrail]

Which japanese army aeroplanes had armour in 1941? I wonder if you can name them? I think you'll find the armour was fitted later in response to experience of allied air power. Bear in mind the japanese had been fighting an air war in China for some time and hadn't considered protecting the pilot unnecessarily bearing in mind many aircraft uinvolved were barely out of the biplane era without any protection whatsoever.

 

As regards cultural no-no's, this is well documented. It's interesting to read the opinions of japanese test pilots flying captured enemy aircraft - they always have a different angle on it. Also you should bear in mind the transition from the older biplane period was not well received by experienced pilots of any nation. Many thought enclosed cockpits were a disadvantage in combat because it removed important sensory information. Ernst Udet, a skilled WW1 ace, said "This will never make a fighter" when first shown the Bf109. (He was later to become its most ardent champion). Italian pilots almost demanded that early monoplanes remove the cockpit cover. The japanese were more willing

 

As regards the Zero, although a fleeting similarity to certain US racers has led people to believe the designer basically copied the idea, the Zero was a development of previous designs incorporating state of the art features, not to mention fulfilling a demanding japanese Navy specification for a new carrier fighter which Nakajima thought was impossible to achieve, in much the same way as the 109 or Spitfire had. The use of a wimpy engine was because the japanese had not previously developed a more powerful one - there weren't any better engines available to japanese manufacturers (bearing in mind the import restrictions enforced by US sanctions and the desire of the japanese to create their own industrial self sufficiency) and also remember that the use of these engines had been tested in China. As far as the Japanese were concerned, their aircraft were superior irrespective how lacking in power they may have been.

 

Furthermore, I would point out that whilst the Zero was reportedly an excellent flyer, it did suffer from excessive aerodynamic loads on the controls above 300mph, effectively removing the manoeverability advantage. At top speed, an aeroplane is unlikely to perform aerobatics at its best, and that's true of any airframe, so bear in mind that even with mach 2 modern jets, combat manoevers generally occur at around 400mph, a speed at which the balance between drag and power allow the aircraft to manoever effectively. With WW2 aeroplanes this was closer to 200-250mph depending on type.

[caesar novus]

I can't think of any American fighter that really did it

Well, some top German aces called the P-51 the best of all. But I think we just missed having a good fly off test in a recent hour documentary on the Rolls-Royce Merlin engine where Spifire owner Alain de Cadenet (also race car celebrity http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alain_de_Cadenet ) had a P-51 ride in his "Renaissance Man" series. I noticed such pain and regret in his normally teflon aristocratic face, and I believe he had just lost the chance to take over the controls for a bit. A microphone glitch during a brief break in the weather seemed to force him into just riding it like a sack of potatoes rather than back-seat piloting under supervision of the museum rep.

 

The Merlin was portrayed as the engine that won the (European) war, with it being used by Spitfire, P-51, British bombers, etc. They said what made that engine great was an excellant supercharger, although it couldn't reach potential until America supplied high octane fuel. Germany used lower octane fuel due to being often synthesized from coal. They gave a subtle jab at Henry Ford who reneged on building Merlins when he found some would be used by Britain (IIRC he had some Nazi sympathies early on, which might have had real consequences). P.S. I think the US made fine superchargers and turbos, but they rationed them mostly to radial engines for some reason.

Edited March 13, 2012 by caesar novus

[caldrail]

Well, some top German aces called the P-51 the best of all.

Possibly, but then bear in mind the P51 was well suited to the application it was used in, and was available in increasing numbers at the same time that the Luftwaffe fighter strength was beginning to wither. Actually it was a good aeroplane, even I admit that, but not one without faults as you would expect from airframes designed rapidly in wartime with 1940's technology.

 

The Merlin was portrayed as the engine that won the (European) war, with it being used by Spitfire, P-51, British bombers, etc. They said what made that engine great was an excellant supercharger, although it couldn't reach potential until America supplied high octane fuel. Germany used lower octane fuel due to being often synthesized from coal. They gave a subtle jab at Henry Ford who reneged on building Merlins when he found some would be used by Britain (IIRC he had some Nazi sympathies early on, which might have had real consequences). P.S. I think the US made fine superchargers and turbos, but they rationed them mostly to radial engines for some reason.

Supercharging has considerable advantage in power generation at altitude. The differences, even at sea level, between Merlin and Meteor engine (both used the same block - the meteor had no supercharger and thus was used for boats) is remarkable. However, we need to realise that fighters demanded outright performance and long term reliability was not a huge concern when airframes might last weeks in service.

 

The americans began world war two with aircraft that were no better than anyones elses, and in some cases, worse, but the point is that they were built for peace time service, not total war. The original mustangs were built to british requirements (North American were originally approached by the British Purchasing Commission to build P40's, and NA decided to offer something they thought might be better - and their design) but allison V12's were available immediately and these power plants, whilst decent engines in their own right, had not been built with superchargers and thus lacked altitude performance. That of course meant the early mustangs were second rate and thus not used as front line fighters by the RAF - however their potential was recognised and the idea to mount a Merlin came afterward. The rest is history as they say. The P38 used Allisons with turbo-superchargers however, fitted in the tailbooms.

 

Since the Americans had focused on radial engines as home grown high power units, it made sense to fit superchargers, especially since heavy bombers using these engines were now expected to fly with bomb loads at higher altitudes.

 

As for fuel the Merlin was designed for a certain octane rating and I don't believe that was any worse than british supplies of aviation fuel. The russians of course ran into trouble with lend-lease aeroplanes because american high-octane fuel was in short supply and russian fuel wasn't suitable for the fussier american motors.

 

Since Henry Ford was building british designed engines in the 'Arsenal of Democracy', why did he discover those blocks were heading for Britain? Surely that must have been part of the contract for production?

 

Did the Merlin engine win the war? No, of course not, but it was an excellent engine and came at the right time. However there were other engine designs waiting in the wings - that happened for all the manufacturing nations - and the Merlin achieved ascendancy not only because it was good, but because it was available in significant numbers and its use was supported by the procurement systems. bear in mind however that shortages of Merlin engines were a distinct possibility in the early part of the war and thus we see airframes tested with alternative engines should a disaster occur. In fact, some designs were refused Merlin engines as there weren't enough to go around.

[caldrail]

I forgot to add that the yougoslavs tested a Hawker Hurricane airframe fitted with a german Daimler Benz DB601. They considered it superior to the Merlin engined variety. But they got invaded shortly afterward anyway.