Greatest aircrat of WWII?

[AZrailwhale]

Only because they quite often left on one-way trips where the pilot was not expected to return.

The range of the A6M2 was half that of the P-38.

Heck, the Mustang could almost do that, it had a range almost 50% more than the Zero.

You're wrong. A-6M2 Zeros escorted bombers over the Philippines flying from bases on Taiwan. That's almost a six-hundred-mile one way trip. The A-6M2 had a combat range of 1,160 miles and with a drop tank, a ferry range of 1,927 miles. With a drop tank an A-6M2 had an endurance of eight hours. P-38Gs like the aircraft used in the Yamamoto mission had a range with drop tanks of 1,750 miles. P-38s didn't outrange Zeros until the J and L models that had additional fuel in wing leading edge tanks that replaced the Rube Goldberg intercooler system with beard radiators.

 

[AZrailwhale]

I think the Ju-88 might be a good contender. It was very flexible operating as a heavy day fighter, a night fighter, a fast bomber, and a torpedo bomber.

As a non-combat aircraft the DC-3/C-47/Dakota would also rank up there being the best transport aircraft of the war.

 

[Vrenn]

Only because they quite often left on one-way trips where the pilot was not expected to return.

The range of the A6M2 was half that of the P-38.

Heck, the Mustang could almost do that, it had a range almost 50% more than the Zero.

Hate to do it but I have to take the Zero's side. It had a 1600 mile combat range carrying 2 drop tanks and configured as a pure fighter (no bombs).

P-38 1300 mile combat range without drop tanks. With two 310 Drop tanks, the range was closer to 2100.

The P-51D had a range of about 1400 miles with drop tanks.

Fact is, the Zero had almost as much range as a P-38. If both were without drop tanks, the Zero had a longer range.

 

[whitehall]

The only ALLIED plane. The Zero operated routinely at those ranges.

Good point. The Zero had incredible range for a fighter but it was only armed with 2- 20mm cannons and two anemic 7.7 mm machine guns. It could carry a bomb load of about 260 lbs. The Lockheed Lightning carried a 37 mm cannon and 4 -50 ca. machine guns as well as about 4,000 lbs of ordinance.

 

[alang1216]

Good point. The Zero had incredible range for a fighter but it was only armed with 2- 20mm cannons and two anemic 7.7 mm machine guns. It could carry a bomb load of about 260 lbs. The Lockheed Lightning carried a 37 mm cannon and 4 -50 ca. machine guns as well as about 4,000 lbs of ordinance.

Also the Zero lacked the heavy, self-sealing, gas tanks of US fighters. I believe their armor was also minimal. Saving weight was the key to their initial success.

 

[AZrailwhale]

Hate to do it but I have to take the Zero's side. It had a 1600 mile combat range carrying 2 drop tanks and configured as a pure fighter (no bombs).

P-38 1300 mile combat range without drop tanks. With two 310 Drop tanks, the range was closer to 2100.

The P-51D had a range of about 1400 miles with drop tanks.

Fact is, the Zero had almost as much range as a P-38. If both were without drop tanks, the Zero had a longer range.

The A6M2 could only carry ONE drop tank. Buit yes the Zero had ALMOST as much range as a Lightning. The poster claimed the Zero outranged

Also the Zero lacked the heavy, self-sealing, gas tanks of US fighters. I believe their armor was also minimal. Saving weight was the key to their initial success.

armor on a Zero was non-existent. They didn’t even have bullet proof windshields.

 

[The Duke]

Great for its role.

Who brings the most hurt in the most situations?

The bottom one's a Navy plane. Those things were something else.

 

[Oddball]

The greatest AC of the war never fired a shot....Without this one, none of the others would have been able to operate.

 

[Mushroom]

The A-6M2 had a combat range of 1,160 miles and with a drop tank, a ferry range of 1,927 miles.

Yes, I am aware of that. But "ferry range" is exactly that. Like those bombers being flown to Hawaii on 7 December, they have nothing on board but fuel, and are flying a flight profile to maximize the range over all other considerations. It is like trying to compare a NASCAR race with a cargo truck.

One never uses "Ferry Range" when calculating combat range. But the combat range of the Zero was not 1,160, it was 1,105 miles. And that drop tank range is the maximum combat range. The pilots take off and use the drop tank for as long as possible, either dumping it right before they are empty, or in case they are about to enter combat.

But the A6M fighters bombing Manilla? In case you did not know those were Naval fighters. And the IJN Ryujo was involved in that battle and provided Zero and Kates for the operation.

With the distance of over 700 miles each way, the Zero could never have made that trip. There is not much information available, but they likely would have done like the US did during the war. Send the bombers off with a fighter escort for as much of the trip as they could, then the fighters would return to base. Then pick up other fighters that would do the same thing. For the longest range missions late in the war it was not unusual for Allied forces to have three different sets of fighter escorts, as the ranges of the bombers exceeded anything the fighters could do and there was no mid-air refueling in that era.

 

[AZrailwhale]

Yes, I am aware of that. But "ferry range" is exactly that. Like those bombers being flown to Hawaii on 7 December, they have nothing on board but fuel, and are flying a flight profile to maximize the range over all other considerations. It is like trying to compare a NASCAR race with a cargo truck.

One never uses "Ferry Range" when calculating combat range. But the combat range of the Zero was not 1,160, it was 1,105 miles. And that drop tank range is the maximum combat range. The pilots take off and use the drop tank for as long as possible, either dumping it right before they are empty, or in case they are about to enter combat.

But the A6M fighters bombing Manilla? In case you did not know those were Naval fighters. And the IJN Ryujo was involved in that battle and provided Zero and Kates for the operation.

With the distance of over 700 miles each way, the Zero could never have made that trip. There is not much information available, but they likely would have done like the US did during the war. Send the bombers off with a fighter escort for as much of the trip as they could, then the fighters would return to base. Then pick up other fighters that would do the same thing. For the longest range missions late in the war it was not unusual for Allied forces to have three different sets of fighter escorts, as the ranges of the bombers exceeded anything the fighters could do and there was no mid-air refueling in that era.

Read any book about the air war over the Philippines. Zeros were escorting the bombers from land bases. In 1941 and 42 Ryujo was operating A5M Claude’s, not A6M Zeros.
You need to do some research, none of what you are saying in correct. The US fighters didn’t swap off like that. one group would escort the bombers to the fighters maximum combat radius, then another group would intercept and escort the bombers on the return trip IF they could find them. Finding a formation of twenty to a hundred bombers flying under radio silence is no small matter. As for Zeros being carrier aircraft, newsflash, so were Wildcats, Corsairs, Sea Hurricanes, Fulmars and Skuas. All of which operated from land bases as well as carriers. More Zeros operated from land bases than ever operated from carriers.

 

[AZrailwhale]

Yes, I am aware of that. But "ferry range" is exactly that. Like those bombers being flown to Hawaii on 7 December, they have nothing on board but fuel, and are flying a flight profile to maximize the range over all other considerations. It is like trying to compare a NASCAR race with a cargo truck.

One never uses "Ferry Range" when calculating combat range. But the combat range of the Zero was not 1,160, it was 1,105 miles. And that drop tank range is the maximum combat range. The pilots take off and use the drop tank for as long as possible, either dumping it right before they are empty, or in case they are about to enter combat.

But the A6M fighters bombing Manilla? In case you did not know those were Naval fighters. And the IJN Ryujo was involved in that battle and provided Zero and Kates for the operation.

With the distance of over 700 miles each way, the Zero could never have made that trip. There is not much information available, but they likely would have done like the US did during the war. Send the bombers off with a fighter escort for as much of the trip as they could, then the fighters would return to base. Then pick up other fighters that would do the same thing. For the longest range missions late in the war it was not unusual for Allied forces to have three different sets of fighter escorts, as the ranges of the bombers exceeded anything the fighters could do and there was no mid-air refueling in that era.

Ferry range in bombers was achieved by using auxiliary fuel tanks, almost always in their bomb bays. Fighters used the same drop tanks they used in combat. Fighters also ferried with ammo in their guns since to maintain their center of gravity they either had to carry ammo or ballast.

 

[Kruska]

The Me-262 was a waste of effort. It was a jump in tech that the Germans couldn't quite pull off. The mean time between failure for its engines was twenty hours. That means a complete replacement of BOTH engines every three sorties or so. It was anything but a great aircraft.

In review of factual history - yes no doubt.

Had the Nazi leadership not possessed a 19th century mindset, but that of the 20th century - it would have been an entirely different story and outcome - same goes for the He-280, whereby it's tail rudder configuration would probably have been changed.
Hitler and his gang where however from the very beginning obsessed with attacking and defeating Russia - and as such concentrated the industry onto weapon systems that were available and ready to produce. After all the war with Russia was supposed to end in 1941, then 1942 and then 1943.

Greatest Fighter&Ground-Fighter aircraft of WW2? - to me will always be the Fw-190 and it's variants - again no industrial capacity to make it obvious, or historically proven.
Greatest aircraft of WW2? - undoubtedly the C-47. Germany simply did not possess the industrial capacity for the Ju-90/290 to become it's mainstream transport aircraft.

 

[Vrenn]

Good point. The Zero had incredible range for a fighter but it was only armed with 2- 20mm cannons and two anemic 7.7 mm machine guns. It could carry a bomb load of about 260 lbs. The Lockheed Lightning carried a 37 mm cannon and 4 -50 ca. machine guns as well as about 4,000 lbs of ordinance.

Only the YP had a 37mm. The YP also had a 23mm as well. Well, it would have but they got smart and released the YP-38 with the one 20mm and 4 12.7mms which made more sense. Both the 37MM and the 23MM were magazine fed and the 37mm had only 25 rounds.

 

[AZrailwhale]

Only the YP had a 37mm. The YP also had a 23mm as well. Well, it would have but they got smart and released the YP-38 with the one 20mm and 4 12.7mms which made more sense. Both the 37MM and the 23MM were magazine fed and the 37mm had only 25 rounds.

The trajectory of the 20mm was pretty much the same as the fifty cals, the 37mm was a low velocity weapon.

 

[themirrorthief]

The trajectory of the 20mm was pretty much the same as the fifty cals, the 37mm was a low velocity weapon.

incredibly brave and reliable carrier pidgeons were the greatest thiing in the air bless them sweet birds

 

[Vrenn]

The trajectory of the 20mm was pretty much the same as the fifty cals, the 37mm was a low velocity weapon.

You are correct. Making the P-38s range over 1000 yds while the ones using 23 and up with about a 300yd range. The normal single engine fighter only had a 400 to 600 range even with the 50s.

 

[Mushroom]

Fighters used the same drop tanks they used in combat. Fighters also ferried with ammo in their guns since to maintain their center of gravity they either had to carry ammo or ballast.

Then they had ballast. But that does not negate that the ferry range is not the combat range.

It is no real different than why your car will have a mileage rating for city driving and highway driving. It's the same car, but they differ because they are not being operated in the same way.

 

[AZrailwhale]

Then they had ballast. But that does not negate that the ferry range is not the combat range.

It is no real different than why your car will have a mileage rating for city driving and highway driving. It's the same car, but they differ because they are not being operated in the same way.

You’re wrong. Range is range. Combat RADIUS is different than range because it allows for a short period of full power operations for combat and a short period to divert destinations. Ferry range only allows for a short emergency allowance to change destinations. For instance Lindbergh taught the P-38 pilots how to lean out their fuel mixture almost to the point of detonation to extend their range. That was for combat missions, not ferrying. Going to and from combat, fighter pilots flew their aircraft as economically as possible so as to maximize their time in combat and their chances of getting home without running out of fuel. Me-109 pilots had to fight with one eye on their fuel gauges over the UK, or wind up swimming home.

 

[Vrenn]

You’re wrong. Range is range. Combat RADIUS is different than range because it allows for a short period of full power operations for combat and a short period to divert destinations. Ferry range only allows for a short emergency allowance to change destinations. For instance Lindbergh taught the P-38 pilots how to lean out their fuel mixture almost to the point of detonation to extend their range. That was for combat missions, not ferrying. Going to and from combat, fighter pilots flew their aircraft as economically as possible so as to maximize their time in combat and their chances of getting home without running out of fuel. Me-109 pilots had to fight with one eye on their fuel gauges over the UK, or wind up swimming home.

First of all, you are both correct. Second, Mushroom is playing the gotcha game.

 

[Bleipriester]

Bf/Me 109, for sure. A plane that was always on par with the opponents throughout the war. Any denial is laughable.