Best Fighters

[Rob Cashman]

"the best 2 p-51s dived on a RUssian Aces La-7 and the La-7 pilot turned the fight around and killed both of the P-51 pilots. It made the Germans crap their pants too when seeing it at low alt."


 Any documentation on this?

   RC

[fdiron]

I think I know the true story about this.  Russian aircraft spotted P51s flying near Berlin.  They mistook them for Me109s.  The Russian fighters bounced the P51s, but only damaged one P51.  The P51s then shot down 2 of the Russian fighters.  

I will try to remember the name of the book I read this in.  It was a book purely about the P51.  I think it was called "The P51 Mustang".

[Widewing]

Originally posted by fdiron
Why is the F86 considered superior to the Mig15?  The Mig15 was superior to the F86 in performance.

Well, the MiG had a performance edge in limited areas. In terms of general performance, the F-86 held advantages in rate of roll, rate of turn, and maximum speed below 30,000 feet. However, the MiG was clearly superior in climb and acceleration. Perhaps, the greatest advantage of the MiG was its higher ceiling. This allowed the MiGs to have the advantage of altitude, which always translates into having the initial tactical edge in any encounter. Moreover, the MiG pilots could escape across the Yalu river should they find themselves in danger of being shot down. Likewise, the Sabre pilots were able to escape over the sea as Soviet pilots were forbidden to pursue U.N. aircraft over water. Armed with six .50 caliber Browning machine guns, the F-86 lacked the hitting power of the MiGs with their three heavy, but slow firing cannon. Unlike the U.S. Navy, the Air Force elected to refrain from specifying the 20mm cannon. As a result, many MiGs survived hits that would have been fatal had the Sabre been fitted with the much more lethal 20mm weapons.

One major disadvantage of the MiG was its inability to exceed Mach 1 in a dive and remain in one piece. On the other hand, the F-86 was fully transonic, having achieved speeds in excess of Mach 1 during the prototype's maiden flight, two weeks before the Bell XS-1 (X-1) did so. However, the XP-86 required a dive to do so. When in trouble, the F-86 pilot merely split-s'd for the deck, and the MiG was unable to follow without reducing power. Moreover, once they dropped below 30,000 feet, the MiG surrendered every advantage except climb rate. Indeed, at altitudes below 20,000 feet, the MiG would be hard pressed by such aircraft as the F9F-5 Panther and F-84C Thunderjet. Their (the Soviets) one significant encounter with Navy Panthers was a complete debacle as three expertly flown F9F-5s handled seven of them quite roughly, shooting down two and damaging 3 others for no losses. Considering that the Soviet pilots held every tactical advantage at the outset of the engagement, it must have been a shock to them to take such a beating. By the way, this engagement is heavily documented. I have the after action reports and pilot interviews, one of which was conducted just a few months ago. A second pilot passed away shortly after giving his interview, and I have not been able to locate the third pilot to date.

Another point: Subsequent versions of the F-86 proved superior to the MiG-15 in every area of the performance envelope. Ultimately, the MiG-17 re-established parity briefly. With the introduction of the F-100, the edge went back to the Americans. and remained that way until the MiG-21 arrived (the MiG-19 was not quite up to the standard of the F-100 and other early century series fighters).

My regards,

Widewing

[H. Godwineson]

The fortunes of the air arms of the various combatants in World War II were determined to a large extent by what the leaders of those combatants saw as the main "mission" of their air arms should be.

For the Russians, that mission was close air-support of the ground forces.  Consequently, Russian aircraft were designed to deliver maximum performance at low-levels, where it was most needed.  

The Germans preferred to carry the war to higher altitudes, at least in fighter design.  Early in the war, German fighters, especially the Me-109, were designed to deliver maximum performance at altitudes of at least 20,000 feet.  Because of their  high-altitude performance, German fighters almost always engaged Russian aircraft from a superior tactical position.  The kill claims of German fighter pilots may be exaggerated, but are probably closer to the truth than the Russians are willing to admit.

The P-51, P-38, and the P-47 displayed a high-altitude design philosophy that in many ways mirrored that of the Germans.  However, the American aircraft payed certain penalties in design because they had one performance parameter that the German designs did not;  long-range bomber escort.  While many AH fighter jocks decry the manuverability of the Mustang it would be well to remember that in real life, low-speed manuverability wasn't really all that important.  High-speed manuverability, at high-altitudes was.  Long range and high-speed manuverability were the main performance goals of American designers.  These designs, especially the Mustang, were imminently suited for the war that they had to fight.

By the way, I've read several articles by pilots who flew captured or restored Me-109s of various models.  While their personal opinions about the merits of the 109 differ there is one thing that they tend to agree on;  handling at low speeds, up to 250 mph was excellent.  The 109G series could outmanuver the Mustang in a low-speed, hard-turning dogfight because its roll rate and handling were superior.  Of course this was not of much use in the skies over Europe, where combat speeds were usually much faster than 250 mph.

Regards, Shuckins

[hazed-]

i think this list must mean most influential or something.

whether they won or not you cannot deny a me262 is a better aircraft than any prop plane of that era.

history channel and discovery are unfortunately rarely full of anything but BS

[midnight Target]

One interesting advantage that the Sabre had over the Mig-15 was the climate control in the cockpit. This was brought up by one of the pilots interviewed in the show. He basically said that if you could catch a Mig up high and get him to dive ......the Mig was dead. The lack of adequate climate control would fog his canopy every time, making him blind until he leveled or slowed the plane. The American pilots were well aware of this deficiency and used it to their advantage.

[Widewing]

Originally posted by hazed-
i think this list must mean most influential or something.

whether they won or not you cannot deny a me262 is a better aircraft than any prop plane of that era.

history channel and discovery are unfortunately rarely full of anything but BS

The question begs, better at what? It's the "what" that qualifies the statement. Yes, it was better at some missions, and grossly inferior at others. Nothing is absolute. It would have made little difference if the Luftwaffe had F-16s, if they can't get off or on the runway without getting blasted by the roaming Allied fighters.

My regards,

Widewing

[funkedup]

Me 262 was a death trap with an average engine life of between 10-12 hours.  They never fixed these problems and I don't see how such an unreliable aircraft can be considered the best of anything.  There is a reason they never had more than 40 of them servicable at one time.

As for the La-7 vs. P-51.  Somebody is forgetting that if Mustangs met Lavochkins, the Mustangs flew all the way from England to eastern Europe.  Let's see any Soviet WWII fighter achieve that feat...

[Don]

Well done Shuckins!

[Steven]

Hey, very cool thread and I respect the knowledge of many of you.

But as far as selecting an aircraft based on its impact in the war, shouldn't the Hellcat receive mention?

[midnight Target]

This is from memory, but these were the planes nominated in each era...IIRC:

1911-1925 Fokker DVII, Spad, Fokker triwing (forget designation number), Sopwith Camel
1926-1942 Bf109, Spit, Hurricane, Zero, F4F, P-40
1943-1946 Pony, 262, FW190, P-38, F6, F4U
1947-1961 F-86, Mig-15, ...dont remember ?
1962-1971 Getting really foggy..........
1972-Present     whats my name again?

[Sabre]

Yes, I can take a Mig in two out of three falls:D.

Midnight Target:

One interesting advantage that the Sabre had over the Mig-15 was the climate control in the cockpit. This was brought up by one of the pilots interviewed in the show. He basically said that if you could catch a Mig up high and get him to dive ......the Mig was dead. The lack of adequate climate control would fog his canopy every time, making him blind until he leveled or slowed the plane. The American pilots were well aware of this deficiency and used it to their advantage.

This is an urban legend, which resulted from the inspection of the Mig-15 that was flown by a defecting NK pilot to South Korea.  That particular model had a defective environmental system.  The inspectors mistook an anomoly for a design defect, which led to incorrect intelligence being fed to U.N. pilots.  The reason Mig's died when they died is because the Sabre's were faster in the dive and more stable.  The Mig's were pushing up against the sound barrier, which they were not designed to handle.  Other models that were subsequently inspected were found to have the same environmental system, but ones that worked correctly.

This same aircraft was test flown by a (then) Maj Charles Yeager.  He got into an argument with another pilot (a Colonel) who claimed that the Sabre was a clearly superior aircraft, based on its 6:1 kill ratio over the Mig.  Young Major Yeager told him it was not the quality of the aircraft that made the difference over Korea, but the quality of the pilots.  The colonel said, "Bull! Prove it!"  He and ol' Chuck went up, the colonel flying the Sabre and Yeager in the Mig.  Chuck handed the colonel his arse in a basket several times in a row.  The just to make his point cyrstal clear, they switched aircraft.  Rinse and repeat, as they say...Yeager again trounced the colonel.

[Ossie]

Fokker triwing (forget designation number),

The Dr.1. There weren't a whole lot of them, and while they could turn tight and climb well, their lack of speed as opposed to allied fighters meant that they could not control a fight. I've always thought of Werner Voss as the perrenial icon of the Dr.1 legacy. In his last battle, he gave 56 squadron fits with his aerobatics, but ultimately he was killed because he couldn't leave the party. Think of the Dr.1 as the A6M of WW1.


The American fighters of WW2 probably represented the largest variety of versatility that any country could put out during the war. All of the frontline fighters from '43 on were used heavily in a multitude of roles. The P-38, P-47, P-51, F6F, and F4U (P-40 and F4F as well when compared to contemporaries) could all fly fast, fly high, fly far, had good firepower, could carry large amounts of ordinance, possessed good maneuverability, and they had good durabilty and protection for the pilot. The F6F and F4U (and F4F) had the added bonus of being able to operate from a carrier. Not to claim that any were "the best" designs, but they could all certainly serve as a median for which other design philosophies of the time are compared. None of them specializing at any one thing, all of them capable in the vast majority of fighter-dependent roles.

[funkedup]

MiG had incredibly high stick forces at high speeds, and above a certain Mach it would pitch up uncontrollably.  The forces were so high that the Koreans welded on stick extensions to get more leverage.

MiG vs Sabre is kind of like Spit IX vs. Fw 190A.  MiG has a bit more turning and climbing ability and better high altitude performance.  But the Sabre handles a lot better at high speeds and is not far behind in performance.  Just like with 190 and Spit, a sharp 190 pilot can dominate the fight if he exploits his aircraft.

[udet]

mustang sucks, the tempest was much better in the later war years,especially at low altitudes. and it also had much more powerful armament- 4 20mm cannons.
Tempest rules!!!!!