Best WWII Fighter in single combat .

Best fighter in one on one combat .

  • Spitefire

    Votes: 45 60.8%
  • P-47

    Votes: 13 17.6%
  • Yak 3

    Votes: 2 2.7%
  • D.250

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • BF 190

    Votes: 8 10.8%
  • G.55

    Votes: 3 4.1%
  • ZERO

    Votes: 3 4.1%

  • Total voters
    74
Exactly. Agreed. But what exactly is a fapping session?

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Fapping


A Spitfire IXA, properly F MkIXA would be one with 8x.303. In the Spitfire the letter is the wing type, not variant, as you certainly know.

Al Deere disagrees with the differences between IXA and IXB. I'm aware that it's generally said that the letter stands for the wing type but he uses it for a difference in engine.

Alan Deere, Biggin Hill, Wing Commander Flying (March 1943):

The Biggin Hill squadrons were using the Spitfire IXBs (Merlin 66), a mark of Spitfire markedly superior in performance to the FW 190 below 27,000 ft. Unlike the Spitfire IXA, with which all other Spitfire IX wings in the Group were equipped, the IXB's supercharger came in at a lower altitude and the aircraft attained its best performance at 21,000 ft, or at roughly the same altitude as the FW 190. At this height it was approximately 30 mph faster, was better in the climb and vastly more manoeuvrable. As an all-around fighter the Spitfire IXB was supreme, and undoubtedly the best mark of Spitfire produced, despite later and more powerful versions.
Alan Deere, Nine Lives, (Crecy Publishing, Manchester, 1999), p. 258.

When was the Spitfire better than any other fighter? I'd say that for most of the war it was certainly as good as pretty much any other fighter (evolutionary cycles such as the Spitfire V falling behind the FW-190 taken into account). I honestly don't think any fighter during the war ever had a sustained period of being 'better than the rest' though.

As an example - the Zero was much feared in 1941/early 42 because of it's amazing manoeuvrability and quickly established superiority over Allied air forces in the Far East (admittedly mostly equipped with inferior fighters to the latest marks of Spitfire etc then in use in Europe). However, later on the allied pilots learned to use their aircrafts' superior armament and weight to attack the Zeros in fast slashing attacks which often tore the very lightweight Zero apart rather than trying to dogfight with them as they had in 1941/42. Was the Zero massively superior to the equivalent Spitfire (or Bf-109) or was it merely able to take advantage of the RAF/USAAC pilots' relative lack of experience and the lack of intelligence about what they were facing?

That's what I mean - I don't believe there was ever a period of more than a few months at most when any fighter could claim to be the best in the world if you were comparing them 1vs1 in an equal fight, and I think I'm probably being generous with that.
 
He's just saying that anybody who doesn't agree with him is doing it for purely onanistic reasons.:rolleyes:

No, what I mean is that these kind of discussions usually end up in a load of 'well the Focke Wulf Supertwatter had 2x 20mm cannon that each had 49g of explosives per shell while the Hawker Slaghammer had 2x 20mm cannon but each had 51g of explosives so that clearly makes the Hawker better' type arguments which rely totally on a dry list of statistics and totally ignore at least half of the factors that actually make fighters (or tanks, battleships, machine guns or anything else) better or worse than their peers.

Things like crew comfort, how much the wings flex when the guns are fired, how quickly a machine gun fires in real life as opposed to the published figures (1,500 rpm sounds impressive, but how does the platoon sergeant keep ammunition coming up to the gun and can you actually hit anything going at max chat?), the fire control radar and gun laying systems fitted, how they were used in combat, the doctrines behind their designs, etc, etc, etc.
 
Mike, from the moment JG26 got its first Fw190A-2 in late 1941 to the moment that the MkIX entered Squadron service they enjoyed a period of about nine months during which they had a marked superiority over any RAF fighter. That's relevant IMHO. Also IMHO your admission that the Spitfire was always one of the best, but never clearly the best, disqualifies it from a best of list.
Now if there was a title for most consistently good fighter of WW2
And those discussions you dislike are the very nature of the Web. And can be harmless fun. I only join them in person, without books or computers at hand, and in a friendly manner. I agree that listing facts on line is puerile, since we all can look up the same sites.
Frankly, given the OP, this is a legitimate fan boy thread.
 
Should we look at this another way ...

... the highest scoring USAAF Ace flew the P-38 Lightning, which isn't even on the list. (As did the number two)
The Ace of Aces flew the Bf-109.
The Highest scoring non-German ace gained a third of his kills flying a Brewster Buffalo.
The RAF's highest scoring ace never flew a Spitfire in combat, although the highest scoring allied ace over Western Europe did.

As a sidebar the most experienced test pilot in the world thought that the de Havilland Hornet was the best piston engine.

And we should give some consideration to the Jets!?
 
A lousy selection to choose from, but given that the only real options are the Spitfire or the Bf 109. Through constant improvements both fighters were able to stay among the best fighters of the war. I'd go with the Spitfire because it excelled in fighter vs fighter combat throughout the war. The Yak 3 was a great dog fighter also but like most Russian fighters it was relatively lightly armed.
 
Should we look at this another way ...


The RAF's highest scoring ace never flew a Spitfire in combat, although the highest scoring allied ace over Western Europe did.
Who do you list as the Highest scoring RAF ace? I thought it was Johnnie Johnson. He definitely flew Spitfires. I think you are considering him the 'highest scoring allied ace over Western Europe' So I'm assuming your highest scoring RAF ace must have flown in another theater.
 
Who do you list as the Highest scoring RAF ace? I thought it was Johnnie Johnson. He definitely flew Spitfires. I think you are considering him the 'highest scoring allied ace over Western Europe' So I'm assuming your highest scoring RAF ace must have flown in another theater.

Pat Pattle. He flew Gladiators and Hurricanes, and was KIA in 1941 with a score of at least 40, mostly Italians.
 

GrafZahl

Banned
I think it is a question impossible to give a definite answer to. As pointed out by others it is dependend on to many factors.

One thing not mentioned yet is the availability of high octane fuel. Especialy the japanese suffered from not having it.
As far es I know the USA had the fuel with highest octane, supplying GB from shortly before the battle of britain, giving their fighter planes a serious boost in performance.
Do we take this in consideration? Are we talking about all those planes using the same fuel? (or pilots)

A lot of decent aicraft are mentioned though. Can´t realy pick one as best 1 on 1 dogfighting fighter. If i had to, it would have been later types.
The TA152 fighter was of course better than the me109, or the fw190. But that is to be expected. Can´t answer the question.
 
Top