Ready to Debate?

[Hagar]

I think this is an impossible question to answer. There are too many variables. For one thing, it's perfectly natural that people will be biased towards their own country's aircraft. I wouldn't expect otherwise. The Spitfire is more than just a beautiful aircraft to the British public. It's an icon, a symbol of all that this country stands for. Even if they know nothing about aircraft most people would recognise a Spit.

For me there were 4 outstanding "fighter" aircraft during WWII. The Spitfire, Fw 190, P-51D & A6M2 "Zeke" (Zero). The 2 outstanding bombers were undoubtedly the Avro Lancaster & B-17.

OTTOL has a very good point. If it can be classed as an aircraft the V2* would have been the most effective in the "Area Bombing" role. It might not have been highly accurate but there would be no risk to a crew & there was no defence against it.

There is no need for this to end up as a fight. We've had this debate many times before without coming to blows.

*PS. Fitted with a nuclear warhead the V2 would have been a formidable weapon that would have settled WWII in Europe.

[Polynomial]

this thread sounds vaguely familiar,

spitfire,
mustang,
bf109,
lanc.

[ozzy72]

I'm always pleasantly surprised how many Americans vote Spitfire, and I know there is a great deal of pride in those surviving members of the Eagle Squadrons who risked everything (life and limb, and prison if they went back to the US) to fight in the RAF because the felt so strongly about the cause.
Conversely there are many Brits who love the P-51 as she was British designed, and originally British engined!!!
And if we do take an honest an objective look the 190 was a fantastic aircraft, and gave the RAF a lot of headaches, and led to the development of one of my all time favourites the MkIX Spit. Possibly the most beautiful aircraft ever built, thanks Focke-Wulf
Somehow nobody ever mentions some of the amazing Yaks.... the Soviet Union did produce some pretty fabulous aircraft as well don't forget.
Heck lets not argue, lets organise a virtual warbird fly-in and test the pilots skills

Ozzy

[Wing Nut]

Here we go again...  ::)

Spitfire
P-51 Mustang
B-24 Liberator
A6M Zero
Bf-109
Mosquito


This thread pops up every so often, and the same aircraft are represented over and over again.  I would rather know what people think are the most under rated fighters of the war.  Birds like the D520...  

[The Ruptured Duck]

Ok, so we've narrowed it down to-
"the stang"
"the spit"
"the zero"
"the hurc"
"the 109"

[Hagar]

[quote]This thread pops up every so often, and the same aircraft are represented over and over again.

[flyboy 28]

I'd have to vote for the lugey...

[Wing Nut]

I'd have to vote for the lugey...

Suppose you owned one of those and needed money and you pawned it.  Would you then be hocking a lugey?  ;D  Sorry, I just couldn't resist...

[OTTOL]

[quote]It may be better to not get into this guys.

[Woodlouse2002]

I personally believe that going by the fields set by Ruptured_duck that the Hurricane wins hands down.

Impact to the war: Hurricanes served on all fronts in WWII. European, eastern, North Africa, Meditteranian, Atlantic, Burma, The middle east and the Pacific. It was also used on escort carriers in the convoys of the northern routes and as a carrier fighter and was even catapult launched of merchant ships to protect them from Fw Condors and other ariel threats. Hurricanes shot down more enemy aircraft in WWII than any other fighter (including the Hellcat). With out it there would have been no air battle over France in 1940. We would have lost the BoB there fore america would not have entered the war against Germany and they would have been free to put all their might against the USSR.

Powerplant: A Merlin, what else?

Firepower: 8 .303 machine guns. Or 12 .303 machine guns. Or 4 20mm cannon. Or 4 .303 machine guns and two 40mm cannon.

Payload: Anything a Spit can carry. Up to 1000lb I think...

Manuverability: The Hurricane could out turn a Spitfire.

Looks: I believe that a MkII Hurricane is the

[OTTOL]

Underrated? What about the Swordfish ?  :-/

[Hagar]

As for underrated fighters of the war. My vote goes to the Boulton Paul Defiant. Or the Westland Whirlwind. Which at low altitude could out perform a Spitfire.

The Defiant was not under-rated. It was an outdated concept that didn't work. The turret affected stability & blanked off the rudder when it was in use. The Luftwaffe pilots mistook it for a conventional fighter at first but soon sussed it out. They attacked from below - out of sight of the turret gunner & the Defiant was withdrawn from front-line service. It was tried as a nightfighter but without much success*. It was a nice looking aircraft & I've often wondered how it would have performed as a single-seater fighter or even a conventional 2-seater carrier-borne aircraft like the Firefly.

The Whirlwind was designed around the RR Peregrine engine which was plagued with severe teething troubles. There was no suitable alternative power-plant available. It also had a very limited range.

*PS.

But once the Luftwaffe pilots got their measure, the glory days of the Defiant were over. The Me109 showed its superiority in speed, even the Bf110 was to outperform the Defiant which was now doomed to failure. They were to become death traps for their crews, incapable of dog fighting, and they became far too slow in getting away from the incoming enemy. Many pilots later complained that it was also a difficult task in baling out of a grief stricken aircraft, and many had to go down with their planes.

Many losses were incurred during the latter stages of the Battle of France and in the early stages of the Battle of Britain, that many Defiant squadrons were withdrawn to western and northern airfields away from the main combat areas. They were used as a night fighter, but again, it was not best suited to this role. Many Defiant crews failed to return and it was decided that the aircraft be withdrawn from operational service in 1942.  

http://www.battleofbritain.net/0009.html

[Woodlouse2002]

I get where your comming from there Hagar.

On the Whirlwind issue though I think thats why it's under rated. The engines were crap. If they had taken the time to fit it with Merlins then it would have been one hell of a machine. Because of the engines, people over look the fact that it was an incredibly manuverable aircraft and capapble, as I said of out manuvering a Spitfire. It was also the first aircraft to have an armament solely of cannon and the first to group all these in the nose.

[HawkerTempest5]

Heck lets not argue, lets organise a virtual warbird fly-in and test the pilots skills

Ozzy

Now that sounds like a plan Ozzy old chap

On the Whirlwind issue though I think thats why it's under rated. The engines were crap. If they had taken the time to fit it with Merlins then it would have been one hell of a machine. Because of the engines, people over look the fact that it was an incredibly manuverable aircraft and capapble, as I said of out manuvering a Spitfire. It was also the first aircraft to have an armament solely of cannon and the first to group all these in the nose.

I think it was a case of not enough Merlins rather than not taking time to fit them and I think the Beaufighter was first with the four 20mm cannon nose in late summer 1940. Although the Whirlwind first flew in 1938 I'm sure the Beaufighter entered service first.

[Hagar]

I think the Merlin would have been too powerful. The Whirlwind was a small aircraft & the Peregrine was rated at 885 hp. It also featured opposite rotation on the props which was not possible with the Merlin & might well have been the cause of some problems.

As Tempest points out the Merlin was in short supply & badly needed elsewhere. Batches of Packard Merlins intended for the P-51D & some versions of the P-40 were requisitioned for Lancasters. In wartime you have to use what resources you have where they will do the most good. There were many similar promising designs that failed for the same reason.