Best/Worst Fighter aircraft of WW2?

Markus

Banned
In theory that is true...in reality the Merlin's seem to work better/more reliably. And the high altitude performance was less troubling - that was probably just the superchargers used but...in the real war that they were fighting the Merlin always seemed to work better than the Allison.

That was indeed just the turbochargers used. The Merlin had a less advanced, less complicated, more reliable, more pilot friendly mechanical supercharger. Both engines were ok.
 
That was indeed just the turbochargers used. The Merlin had a less advanced, less complicated, more reliable, more pilot friendly mechanical supercharger. Both engines were ok.


I think you made my point for me?

Yes both engines were ok, maybe a POD where the Allison gets a workable mechanical supercharger in 1940?
 
Look, the bore and stroke of the Merlin were different making it rev more freely, the combustion chamber had a more efficient burn shape and the valve inlets and outlets had smoother gas flow. That's why it was more successful.
 
I'm surprised no one has mentioned the IL-2 Sturmovik. It was the best Russian fighter IMO. And the Bf 109 was the best German one, and the Hawker Hurricane and Spitfire are tied for the British. American- P-51 Mustang. Japanese- A6M2 zero.
 
I'm surprised no one has mentioned the IL-2 Sturmovik. It was the best Russian fighter IMO.
Shturmovik was NOT a fighter. It was dedicated ground attack plane and even obsolete I-16 could fly rounds around it. Although it should be mentioned that ability to deflect/absorb a fair bit of damage coupled with frightening weight of ammo it could deliver and good maneuverability made Shturmovik pretty deadly machine in air combat in hands of experienced and cool-headed pilot. More than a few German fighter fell victims to stupid idea that they can just attack "defenceless slow plane" without danger.
 
Shturmovik was NOT a fighter. It was dedicated ground attack plane and even obsolete I-16 could fly rounds around it. Although it should be mentioned that ability to deflect/absorb a fair bit of damage coupled with frightening weight of ammo it could deliver and good maneuverability made Shturmovik pretty deadly machine in air combat in hands of experienced and cool-headed pilot. More than a few German fighter fell victims to stupid idea that they can just attack "defenceless slow plane" without danger.

And the Il2 got plenty of love in the "best bomber" thread...as a fighter-bomber, which was still not really a good category. There is a consistent bias toward western desines among most people. I would suggest that the Il2 may well qualify as the greatest warplane of WW2, period. Not because of its technical qualities, but because of what it meant to the nation that produced it.
 

Markus

Banned
Yes both engines were ok, maybe a POD where the Allison gets a workable mechanical supercharger in 1940?

Technically that should not be a problem at all. I’m somewhat at a loss why it wasn’t done. I guess the turbocharger looked more promising and when it disappointed in 42/43 the Merlin was already being mass produced in the USA.

For a reasonable POD I recommend the P-39. The plane was supposed to be a high altitude interceptor with the same turbo the P-38 got, but it was dropped from the design in January 1940. Since a high altitude interceptor with a single stage, single speed mech-SC is an oxymoron one would have expected Bell Aviation to work 24/7 to get a better mech-SC. Curtiss and Pratt & Whitney were making some.
 
And the Il2 got plenty of love in the "best bomber" thread...as a fighter-bomber, which was still not really a good category.

We'd need a "Flying Tank" category to even approach properly describing the Sturmovik. :D

You basically had to fill them with so much lead that their gross weight substantially exceeded their lift. ;)
 
We'd need a "Flying Tank" category to even approach properly describing the Sturmovik. :D
The WW2 tabletop wargame Flames of War (battalion-level land combat, but you can call in air support) has a "Flying Tank" special rule for the Shturmovik and Hs-129, forcing the enemy to re-roll any successful rolls to shoot them down!
 
The WW2 tabletop wargame Flames of War (battalion-level land combat, but you can call in air support) has a "Flying Tank" special rule for the Shturmovik and Hs-129, forcing the enemy to re-roll any successful rolls to shoot them down!

I guess the Il2 and Hs-129 would probably be the only candidates in the "Flying Tank" category if we had one. Between the two the Il2 would clearly win. The only other examples are modern (A-10 and Su-25)
 

Hendryk

Banned
I guess the Il2 and Hs-129 would probably be the only candidates in the "Flying Tank" category if we had one. Between the two the Il2 would clearly win. The only other examples are modern (A-10 and Su-25)
While the P-47 wasn't nearly as well-armored, I've read pretty impressive stories about its ability to take a lot of punishment and still bring its pilote home.
 
While the P-47 wasn't nearly as well-armored, I've read pretty impressive stories about its ability to take a lot of punishment and still bring its pilote home.

Quite true, but it was not designed specifically as a close-support "tank buster". Other fighters, such as the Hurricane IId, Typhoon, and Fw-190 also could take out tanks and absorb punishment. The Il2, and especially the Hs-129 are unique in that they were specifically designed for this role - and with respect to the Hs-129, it really couldn't do anything else.
 
The -129 never really managed to prove itself the way the IL-2 did due in part to doctrine and in part to poor engines. My $$ is on the Sturmovik.

And yes, the Jugs could take amazing punishment. I remember a story of an already damaged Jug limping home and getting pounced by a Messerschmidt who proceeded to empty its weapons into the 47, even yawing back and forth to rake the wing surfaces, etc. Then, out of ammo, the 109 pilot pulled alongside the Jug, saluted, and flew off. The Jug landed safely at base.

That's I consider the P-47 the quintessential Fighter-Bomber and the IL-2 the quintessential Ground Attack/Support aircraft.
 
Last edited:
Other "flying tanks" do exist- they were a major part of Soviet doctrine, which resulted in the Il-10 and Su-6. On the US side, a predecessor of the A-10 was the A-1 "Spad", which was known for its survivability. I'm not sure how much armour the CAS versions of the B-25 carried.
Finally, there's the prototype of all of them, the WW1 Junkers J.1 (or J4), which was the first mass-produced all-metal aircraft, and had an armoured tub around the cockpit.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
The -129 never really managed to prove itself the way the IL-2 did due in part to doctrine and in part to poor engines. My $$ is on the Sturmovik.

And yes, the Jugs could take amazing punishment. I remember a story of an already damaged Jug limping home and getting pounced by a Messerschmidt who proceeded to empty its weapons into the 47, even yawing back and forth to rake the wing surfaces, etc. Then, out of ammo, the 109 pilot pulled alongside the Jug, saluted, and flew off. The Jug landed safely at base.

That's I consider the P-47 the quintessential Fighter-Bomber and the IL-2 the quintessential Ground Attack/Support aircraft.

That was Bob Johnson's 'Bolt. He would have bailed out several times but a 20mm shell had wrecked the canopy track and he couldn't get out of the plane. The -109 pilot apparently tore the plane up, pulled up along side Johnson, maybe waiting for him to bail out, saluted him, pulled back in behind and emptied his 7.7mm guns into the plane. After he ran out of ammo (or jammed his guns) he pulled up, waved, and flew off.

Johnson always said he was lucky the German was out of 20mm ammo. His fighter had at least 500 holes in it when he landed. They junked the plane after he got back.

BTW: Johnson wound up with 27 victories before his tour ran out. When he left for the U.S. he was the leading U.S. ace in the ETO.
 
That was Bob Johnson's 'Bolt. He would have bailed out several times but a 20mm shell had wrecked the canopy track and he couldn't get out of the plane. The -109 pilot apparently tore the plane up, pulled up along side Johnson, maybe waiting for him to bail out, saluted him, pulled back in behind and emptied his 7.7mm guns into the plane. After he ran out of ammo (or jammed his guns) he pulled up, waved, and flew off.

Johnson always said he was lucky the German was out of 20mm ammo. His fighter had at least 500 holes in it when he landed. They junked the plane after he got back.

BTW: Johnson wound up with 27 victories before his tour ran out. When he left for the U.S. he was the leading U.S. ace in the ETO.

Thanks, Cal. I knew I remembered that story from somewhere.
 
Look, the bore and stroke of the Merlin were different making it rev more freely, the combustion chamber had a more efficient burn shape and the valve inlets and outlets had smoother gas flow. That's why it was more successful.

Lets see.

Bore & Stroke

MerlinI 5.4x6.00, Allison 5.5x6.00

RPMS

Acroding to my source* the Merlin has its power at 3000 RPMs. The Allison at 3200.

The Merlin I is listed at 1050 HP in 1940, A typical wartime Allison was 1250. The Packard built Merlins are in this range IIRC. The Merlin has its valves straight up and down to the bore. This limits the valve size and complicates cooling. The Allison has a cant roof combustion chamber allowing bigger valves and making cooling easier. As a rule canted valves and their ports have better flow characteristics than vertical ones. In terms of breathing I think the Merlin had a better manifold design. One big difference is in weight. If that weight is in the recipricating mass then the Rolls will come up to RPM faster. Also the Spitfire weighs 3000KG loaded, the P40 3760KG. That is a big difference.

* Smith's "A History of Aircraft Piston Engines"
 
Lets see.

Bore & Stroke

MerlinI 5.4x6.00, Allison 5.5x6.00

RPMS

Acroding to my source* the Merlin has its power at 3000 RPMs. The Allison at 3200.

The Merlin I is listed at 1050 HP in 1940, A typical wartime Allison was 1250. The Packard built Merlins are in this range IIRC. The Merlin has its valves straight up and down to the bore. This limits the valve size and complicates cooling. The Allison has a cant roof combustion chamber allowing bigger valves and making cooling easier. As a rule canted valves and their ports have better flow characteristics than vertical ones. In terms of breathing I think the Merlin had a better manifold design. One big difference is in weight. If that weight is in the reciprocating mass then the Rolls will come up to RPM faster. Also the Spitfire weighs 3000KG loaded, the P40 3760KG. That is a big difference.

* Smith's "A History of Aircraft Piston Engines"

Never heard of Smiths book, the Merlin was 30" shorter and 100lb lighter. That was mainly on reciprocating weight. As it happens the Merlins in Spitfire and Hurricane 1s only produced 880hp it was not until the Merlin XII came into service it exceeded 1,000hp. The canted valves should have had better flow characteristics and the first marks of the Merlin had them but RR discarded them because experimentation proved that vertical valves gave better performance. At the end of the day results count and the Merlin delivered the goods.
 
Top