Greatest aircrat of WWII?

[AZrailwhale]

Ar 234, Variant with four engines, scout and "lightning bomber":

Me 262, fighter, the antennas belong to the radar Fug 18. Many were forced to stay on the ground because Hitler ordered to include a bomb bay:

He 162, the "people´s hunter", fighter:

Me 263, fighter, not a jet engine, but rocket engine, transported to air by other planes, had only fuel for minutes, more losses than victories:

As usual, you are wrong. The Me-262 never had a bomb bay, it had two hardpoints behind the nose gear for bombs. The Me-263 never entered production and the He-162 was a deathtrap because the glue holding it together came undone in flight

 

[Otis Mayfield]

Not the best plane. I believe it didn't have a supercharger, but the Soviets liked them. We sent the Soviets 2,400 of them.

 

[AZrailwhale]

Not the best plane. I believe it didn't have a supercharger, but the Soviets liked them. We sent the Soviets 2,400 of them.

It's funny, a plane that every other user thought was a dog was loved by the Red Air Force because it outperformed domestic fighters.

 

[Zincwarrior]

It was a good low altitude fighter and had a uniquely powerful gun.

 

[Stryder50]

It's funny, a plane that every other user thought was a dog was loved by the Red Air Force because it outperformed domestic fighters.

Also effective in the ground attack/Close Air Support (CAS) roles. We sent even more of it's upgrade, the P-63 KingCobra;
...
The Bell P-63 Kingcobra is an American fighter aircraft that was developed by Bell Aircraft during World War II. Based on the preceding Bell P-39 Airacobra, the P-63's design incorporated suggestions from P-39 pilots and was superior to its predecessor in virtually all respects. The P-63 was not accepted for combat use by the United States Army Air Forces. However, it was used during World War II by the Soviet Air Force,[1] which had also been the most prolific user of the P-39.
....

Bell P-63 Kingcobra - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Stryder50]

Like every other obsolete and borderline weapon, it gets tossed to the Marines to make it work.

Except it was neither. One of the few designs from WWII that served on in later years, into the 1950-60s+. See USN and USMC use in the Korean War, especially from aircraft carrier decks.
...
The Vought F4U Corsair is an American fighter aircraft which saw service primarily in World War II and the Korean War. Designed and initially manufactured by Chance Vought, the Corsair was soon in great demand; additional production contracts were given to Goodyear, whose Corsairs were designated FG, and Brewster, designated F3A.

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.[2] 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.[3][4] 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 initial prototype in 1940.[5] Instead, the Corsair's early deployment was to land-based squadrons of the U.S. Marine Corps and U.S. Navy.[6]

The Corsair served almost exclusively as a fighter-bomber throughout the Korean War and during the French colonial wars in Indochina and Algeria.[7] In addition to its use by the U.S. and British, the Corsair was also used by the Royal New Zealand Air Force, French Naval Aviation, and other air forces until the 1960s.

From the first prototype delivery to the U.S. Navy in 1940, to final delivery in 1953 to the French, 12,571 F4U Corsairs were manufactured[8] in 16 separate models. Its 1942–1953 production run was the longest of any U.S. piston-engined fighter.[9][10][11]
....

Vought F4U Corsair - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Stryder50]

"Greatest" or "Best" ???
Admittedly either could be a bit subjective in use/application, and could readily blur with one's "favorite". Then we must also ask if this thread is focused upon "aircraft types" or specific individual aircraft?

Assuming we are considering "aircraft types", or specific models, then a few factors might be used in consideration. On a similar related thread/topic on another and now defunct forum/message board, this sort of topic was kicked about with interesting results.

Before starting a similar and related thread, I'm proposing the following be factors for consideration;

1)PERFORMANCE: This includes a range of characteristics to consider and measure;

A) Speed: Luffing, cruise, and maximum
B) Range: A result of Speed used, but can be both a distance and time aloft measure.
C) Ceiling: Maximum operating altitude as well as optimal and usual.
D) Maneuverability: Climb, dive, turn, roll, loop, etc.; how well it can perform such.
E) Handling: How much does the aircraft tax the efforts and energy of the pilot to perform as needed/wanted/expected.
F) Ruggedness: How much damage can the aircraft take and still bring the pilot back to base/home; or at least to friendly territory.
G) Lethality: How much punch in gunfire ="volume of metal within a space" &/or weapons payload such as bombs and/or rockets, etc.

2) DURATION: Of Production and useful Service. How many made, how many used as such, and long useful to perform as desired by the users, etc.

3) VERSATILITY: How many other roles could it perform in addition to the basic design purpose.

The more ways such an aircraft could be used, the longer it was in use/production/service, and the more nations/air forces used it, than the "better" the design might be.

 

[Vrenn]

"Greatest" or "Best" ???
Admittedly either could be a bit subjective in use/application, and could readily blur with one's "favorite". Then we must also ask if this thread is focused upon "aircraft types" or specific individual aircraft?

Assuming we are considering "aircraft types", or specific models, then a few factors might be used in consideration. On a similar related thread/topic on another and now defunct forum/message board, this sort of topic was kicked about with interesting results.

Before starting a similar and related thread, I'm proposing the following be factors for consideration;

k

1)PERFORMANCE: This includes a range of characteristics to consider and measure;

A) Speed: Luffing, cruise, and maximum
B) Range: A result of Speed used, but can be both a distance and time aloft measure.

For Fighters, that pretty well leaves only 3. The P-51 and the P-38, 3 if you add the Mossie which is really a lt bomber or attack but did fill that role out of necessity.

C) Ceiling: Maximum operating altitude as well as optimal and usual.

Pretty much (If you look at the other critias, it goes to 2 fighters and the Mossie once again with the P-38 having the highest max operational altitude.

D) Maneuverability: Climb, dive, turn, roll, loop, etc.; how well it can perform such.

During 1940 to 1943, the list is completely different. The nod would have to go to the Zero, BF-109 and the FW-190. But none of these would be rated the best for all years. We are back to the more recent spits, mustangs and lightnings on this list.

E) Handling: How much does the aircraft tax the efforts and energy of the pilot to perform as needed/wanted/expected.

The P-38J and above wins this one hands down. The problem with the H and back was the fact it had a very long wingspan and heavy controls. On the J, it got the power assist controls like a bomber would have. Meaning, you could place the bird into a hard roll with not more than a finger on the yoke. And the Roll drastically affects the turning and banking.

F) Ruggedness: How much damage can the aircraft take and still bring the pilot back to base/home; or at least to friendly territory.

#1 is the P-47
#2 is the FW-190
#3 is the P-38

G) Lethality: How much punch in gunfire ="volume of metal within a space" &/or weapons payload such as bombs and/or rockets, etc.

#1 P-38. It could handle almost as much bomb weight as a B-17 and/or Rockets and no one with any amount of sanity wanted to fight it head on with it's center lined 20mm and 4 50cals. The German Pilots were Verbotten to take it on head to head. Suicide comes to mind. Even todays fighters would not wish to go head to head. Modern Fighters hardly ever fight head to head because it generally results in the loss of both pilots.

2) DURATION: Of Production and useful Service. How many made, how many used as such, and long useful to perform as desired by the users, etc.

I believe that goes to the F-4U. Manufactured starting in late 1942 and ending production in the middle 50s. The French were flying it well into the 60s on their carriers.

3) VERSATILITY: How many other roles could it perform in addition to the basic design purpose.

There is only one that meets all these requirements and more and that is the p-38, It was designed as a bomber interceptor. But went on to be a Bomber Escort, Ground attack, hospital ship, glider tow, Recon and just about anything else you asked it to do.

The more ways such an aircraft could be used, the longer it was in use/production/service, and the more nations/air forces used it, than the "better" the design might be.

Not so. The P-38J/L was probably the most widely sought after fighter of the Allies. But the cost was twice what a P-51D cost and 1.5 times the P-47. The P-38 needed some serious upgrades to continue into the 50s. It's simple to say that the Paddle Blade Props would have made the P-38 outclass EVERYTHING except the F-8F Bearcat. But the cost of the other systems would have been prohibitive. It's not just a simple thing to change the prop but you also need to change out the gearbox, and a lot of other things. It cost less to engineer and built a whole new bird than make those changes. Lockheed was willing to do it but it would have taken the P-38J-25 off production for 2 weeks in 1944. In 1944 and 45, NO US fighters got any upgrades unless they were fast and cheap. And with the fact that the P-38 was the most sought after fighter in those 2 years, the Defense said no.

 

[AZrailwhale]

It was a good low altitude fighter and had a uniquely powerful gun.

The 37mm wasn't a very good gun. It was low velocity and had a very "arched" trajectory.

 

[Oddball]

Except it was neither. One of the few designs from WWII that served on in later years, into the 1950-60s+. See USN and USMC use in the Korean War, especially from aircraft carrier decks.
...
The Vought F4U Corsair is an American fighter aircraft which saw service primarily in World War II and the Korean War. Designed and initially manufactured by Chance Vought, the Corsair was soon in great demand; additional production contracts were given to Goodyear, whose Corsairs were designated FG, and Brewster, designated F3A.

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.[2] 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.[3][4] 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 initial prototype in 1940.[5] Instead, the Corsair's early deployment was to land-based squadrons of the U.S. Marine Corps and U.S. Navy.[6]

The Corsair served almost exclusively as a fighter-bomber throughout the Korean War and during the French colonial wars in Indochina and Algeria.[7] In addition to its use by the U.S. and British, the Corsair was also used by the Royal New Zealand Air Force, French Naval Aviation, and other air forces until the 1960s.

From the first prototype delivery to the U.S. Navy in 1940, to final delivery in 1953 to the French, 12,571 F4U Corsairs were manufactured[8] in 16 separate models. Its 1942–1953 production run was the longest of any U.S. piston-engined fighter.[9][10][11]
....

Vought F4U Corsair - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Right....Traditionally, weapons systems that have such developmental problems, that are still at least marginally useful, get tossed to the Marines to deal with.....That doesn't make it a bad as a matter of course, just not really ready for prime time when rolled out.

 

[Oddball]

It's funny, a plane that every other user thought was a dog was loved by the Red Air Force because it outperformed domestic fighters.

Which tells us how shitty the Red fighters were.

 

[Vrenn]

Right....Traditionally, weapons systems that have such developmental problems, that are still at least marginally useful, get tossed to the Marines to deal with.....That doesn't make it a bad as a matter of course, just not really ready for prime time when rolled out.

I agree. The BF-109 got it pretty well right the first time in 1935. But it had a major war and lots of changes before WWII started. The Zero got the nod for it's mission back in 1939. The zero started out where the P-39, p-40 and the Brewster would have a light lunch but by 1941, the A6M3 version was introduced with it's more powerful engine and the 2 speed supercharger giving it a high altitude advantage. While the P-40 had more HP, it dropped off drastically at higher altitudes where the Zero used to get from a to b and back again. It took the P-38G to start hurting the Zeros and the change in bomber escort doctrine in Europe before the P-38 was allowed to use it's high altitude and speed in a zoom and boom manuever like they were already using in the Pacific.

 

[Sandisk]

Everyone thinks the B-17 was perhaps the best heavy bomber of WWII, in actuality it was the British Avro Lancaster.

A lot of people will agree with you.

But actually?
It was a terrible bomber.
Other than it's big, bomb load and decent range and adequate speed?
And it was very pretty in the air.
It was lousy...no offense (I am NOT trying to pick a fight with you. I loved your 'Brewster Buffalo' choice.)

Why?

Compare it to the B-17?

Avro Lancaster - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Boeing B-17 Flying Fortress - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Three main reasons to me.

1) It's ceiling was only 21,000 feet.
The B-17's was 35,000!
That is important when flak guns are shooting at you and night fighters are hunting for you.

2) for some INSANE reason...it had inline engines.
You never, EVER put inline engines on a bomber (if you can help it). Especially ones like the Lanc that is going to have to take a LOT of punishment.
The B-17 (and ALL US bombers - I think) had air-cooled radials.

If an inline engine gets just one, tiny hit in ANY of it's coolant lines?
That's it.
Within 15-20 minutes? The engine will overheat and seize.
From just ONE bullet hole.
Or one piece of flak shrapnel.
And bye bye engine.

Whereas a radial has no such weakness as the engines are simply cooled by the air rushing over the engines in flight.
And they were famous for taking GIGANTIC amounts of punishment and still kept working.

I guarantee you that TONS of Lancasters were lost over Germany for this very reason.

3) until later in the war? The Lancaster's defensive armament was pathetically puny.
Puny, little .303 inch machine guns.
And please remember.
Virtually the only night fighters that they were shooting at were BIG, twin engined ones (Ju-88, Bf-110, etc.). They would have to pound one of these planes to bits with these small guns.

The B-17 had 0.5 inch MG's.
The .303 is at the top.
The Browning 0.5 is on the bottom.

Which would you rather be using while you are flying over enemy territory?

It was not til closer towards the end of the war that the Lancaster got some Browning MG's.



I am sorry.
I mean no disrespect.
But IMO, the Lancaster has gotten an undeserved reputation from TONS of people.
It's not that the plane itself was terrible.
But the engines (low ceiling/liquid cooled) and puny defensive armament were - IMO - almost criminal to install onto a lumbering, 4 engined bomber that is going to be viciously attacked by German defenses.

 

[DudleySmith]

The Soviets had near total superiority over 90% of their fronts, thanks to the Allied bombing campaigns over Germany; they mainly needed ground attack planes, not dogfighters or escort fighters. They could even get away with using WW I era biplanes at night. The western front comparisons with the eastern front re air power needs was apples versus oranges.

Some stats:

Eastern Front Aircraft Strength and Losses 1941-45

Hard figures on the fighting in the East during WWII are hard to find. I have posted figures about manpower strength and losses for both So...

chris-intel-corner.blogspot.com

Don't know how accurate they are but the proportions are close enough for a sense of scales.

This is a pretty good site, by the way, even though the guy retired it and no longer updates it any more, as he explains here:

Christos military and intelligence corner

<br> <br> <br> <br> <br> <br> <br> <br> <br> <br> Military and intelligence history mostly dealing with World War II.

chris-intel-corner.blogspot.com

A history buff can kill a lot of time here. Another analysis of the T-34 myth:

WWII Myths - T-34 Best Tank of the war

I know it's not the topic, just didn't feel like finding the other threads at the moment.

 

[Stryder50]

Why the P-47 Thunderbolt, a World War II Beast of the Airways, Ruled the Skies​

Remarkably tough, the versatile fighter delivered far more punishment than it took.

Why the P-47 Thunderbolt, a World War II Beast of the Airways, Ruled the Skies

Remarkably tough, the versatile fighter delivered far more punishment than it took.

getpocket.com

 

[Stryder50]

Not the best plane. I believe it didn't have a supercharger, but the Soviets liked them. We sent the Soviets 2,400 of them.

 

[Stryder50]

Actually;
...
A total of 4,719 P-39s were sent to the Soviet Union, accounting for more than one-third of all U.S. and UK-supplied fighter aircraft in the VVS, and nearly half of all P-39 production.[63] Soviet Airacobra losses totalled 1,030 aircraft (49 in 1942, 305 in 1943, 486 in 1944 and 190 in 1945).[64]

Airacobras served with the Soviet Air Forces as late as 1949, when two regiments were operating as part of the 16th Guards Fighter Aviation Division in the Belomorsky Military District.[65]
...

Bell P-39 Airacobra - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

..........
then superceded by the P-63 Kingcobra;
...
The Bell P-63 Kingcobra is an American fighter aircraft that was developed by Bell Aircraft during World War II. Based on the preceding Bell P-39 Airacobra, the P-63's design incorporated suggestions from P-39 pilots and was superior to its predecessor in virtually all respects. The P-63 was not accepted for combat use by the United States Army Air Forces. However, it was used during World War II by the Soviet Air Force,[1] which had also been the most prolific user of the P-39.
...

Bell P-63 Kingcobra - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[DudleySmith]

Not the best plane. I believe it didn't have a supercharger, but the Soviets liked them. We sent the Soviets 2,400 of them.

The Soviets had almost total air superiority on their front ; we were bombing Hamburg by July 1943. They could even deploy WW I era biplanes against the Germans. Hitler had to cannibalize the Eastern Front of its fighters and anti-craft weapons to protect Germany from the Allied bombing campaigns. As it was they still suffered high casualty rates among their aircraft against relatively little resistance from the Luftwaffe.

Meet the Night Witches: The female pilots who struck fear into Nazi troops

The main goal of the 588th was to disorient and sleep deprive the enemy, and it became clear they were successful.

taskandpurpose.com

They also weren’t able to equip their planes with things like parachutes due to a lack of funds and strict weight limits for the outdated aircraft they were provided. These planes were crop dusters from the 1920s and typically only used for training purposes. Made predominantly of canvas and plywood, the two-person Polikarpov Po-2 biplanes were considered by most to be a death wish if used in combat.

Since the plane itself already posed so many of its own safety issues, flying at night was really their only way to ensure any sort of stealth and safety. Most runs would happen with three planes, the first two meant to draw attention and enemy fire, with the third being the one to drop the bomb. What made this so dangerous is the fact that the third plane, to avoid detection, would have to cut their engine and glide over their target as quietly as possible.

 

[Vrenn]

As the P-39, it had no supercharger at 1250hp. But the 1943 version was the P-63 (enlarged everything) had over 1800hp plus 2 superchargers making it able to fly at 24,000 feet at 421mph making an extreme air to air fighter along with ground attack. The engine was a Allison V-1710-85.

Delivery started in October 1943. But the new P-51 (not in large service yet) was deemed superior. Actually, it was a close race where the P-51 did a better job at high altitude air to air while the P-63 was better everywhere else. Funny, the Allison produced over 1800 hp while the Merlin only produced 1450hp.

The P-51D was highly modified over the P-51B had a speed of 441 at 25,000 feet but that was because it was a much smaller aircraft than the P-63 and didn't carry near the load.

Here is a bit of trivia. The only American Warbirds that were allowed turbosuperchargers was the Bombers and the P-38. In 1943, The Allison produced over 2300 hp and only used in the Lightning which the prop could not use the extra hp over 1500. And no 4 bladed paddle type prop was ever in production for the US fighters with the Allison like the single version of the P-38K which was flown in 1943 against a P-47 and the new P-51
B. The K smoked both of them at all altitudes including turn rate. It had the 1850hp engine and could use every bit of the power into the Prop. Top speed of the K was over 450mph in 1943. The P-51D didn't ever reach that type of speed. The P-38K was far superior to the ME109 and the FW-190 by a large amount. Imagine if the sleezebags in the DOW were to have actually done the right thing instead of playing politics. This political ploy costs hundreds (possibley thousands) of lives.

 

[Vrenn]

Good points. Interesting as the P38 had them. Fortunately the P 47 came online in late 1942.

The P-38 had a turbosupercharger not a twin or two stage supercharger. The DOW forbid the use of the turbosupercharger on anything other than 4 engine bombers and the P-38. By the end of the war, the V-1710 was producing over 2300 hp but it never got the prop to handle any more power than about 1500 with the exception of the one model P-38K in 1943 that smoked all other fighters in everything. It could use all of it's 1850hp with the 4 bladed paddle props that was never put into production. It was tested in 1943 against a P-47 and a P-51D. It had a top speed at 24,000 feet of 450mph (9mph faster than the 1944 P-51D) The P-38J had the time to climb records but the K blew those away. Yes, it still had the compression problem but it had the dive flaps installed and it could disengage the dive chase anytime it wanted.