Best Two Engine Fighter of WW2

[DesertFox]

If I was to produce a list,

I would put the Mosquito, Lightning, Black Widow, and Tiger cat in this category

 

What I am wondering are what are other top engines fighters which people would list among the 'best' not including these. Also, how do they compare to the ones I am listing as the "Best"

 

edit: Non Jets, only propeller driver aircraft

Edited August 1, 2005 by DesertFox

[cdnsigop]

Mosquito all the way. For the Germans maybe the Owl, not sure if proper name right now but I will add it later on.

[FormerBlue]

Mosquito all the way.  For the Germans maybe the Owl, not sure if proper name right now but I will add it later on.

201844[/snapback]

HE-219 Uhu. Quite the Mossie killer as I understand it.

 

The best two engine fighter of WW2 is a toss up between the Meteor and the 262. I'd go with the 262 myself.

[FormerBlue]

HE-219 Uhu.  Quite the Mossie killer as I understand it.

 

The best two engine fighter of WW2 is a toss up between the Meteor and the 262.  I'd go with the 262 myself.

201854[/snapback]

If you are talking about prop only, add the Ju-88 fighter versions. While not impressive in "fighter on fighter" stats that's not the point. They were bomber destroyers. As was the Black Widow btw. I'd not care to tangle with a flight of P-47s while in the P-61.

 

For pure fighter vs fighter, non-jet, I'll go with late model P-38s or DO-335s.

[DesertFox]

I should have specified "Non-Jets"

[p620346]

What about the Hornet/Sea-Hornet, basically a single seat Mosquito.

[Hard Ball]

As a fighter I would say the Lockheed Lightning P-38.

[FormerBlue]

What about the Hornet/Sea-Hornet, basically a single seat Mosquito.

201864[/snapback]

What about the F-86 Sabre? The initial design was submitted in 1944.

 

Hornet didn't go into service during WW2. I have a hard time considering the Bearcat as a WW2 fighter for the same reason. Same for the P-80 and HE-162. They flew a few recon missions with P-80s out of Italy IIRC but that doesn't really make it a WW2 fighter. Likewise Bearcats were on Okinawa (hence in the war zone) before the war ended but it's a post war fighter. I guess we can kill the DO-335 for the same reason. The F-82 Mustang is likewise a postwar fighter even though it's two WW2 fighters glued together.

 

P-38 for me too.

[FormerBlue]

What the heck, I'm bored.

 

It's hard to deal with "what's the best" anything. The question is far too broad. There are too many variables that come into play. What's the best tank of WW2? Impossible to say. For whom? The Japanese? The Panther wouldn't have helped them much. I'd go as far as to say the Sherman wasn't really that useful in the Pacific either. Sure, it had use, the flamethrower versions especially, but coral islands aren't exactly tank country.

 

Likewise fighter planes have to be considered in context. The Hurricane is a better fighter than the Bearcat. Just the way it is. The Hurricane was there when it was needed while the Bearcat was too late for WW2 and by the time Korea came around jets ruled the roost.

 

Brits would like to offer the Mossie as a twin engine fighter. But is that realistic? Wasn't its primary use as a bomber?

 

Some twin engine fighters were useful. Some weren't. That doesn't mean the planes were "good" or "bad." Each has to be taken in context. The Spitfire was perfect for the BoB. But it wasn't very useful in the Pacific as it didn't have the range needed in that theater.

 

Mustangs eclipsed Thunderbolts in the air to air arena. Yet the Jug was much better in the role of fighter-bomber (Jabo!).

 

Some equipment was out early in the war. Some of it soldiered on while some didn't. Does that mean it's right to compare late war kit to early war? Who, in their right mind, would compare the French tanks against a Panther? They are worlds apart.

 

So it's just hard to deal with these questions. The parameters are too fine.

 

In any event I think the best way is to take the gear on it's own. The Spitfire for instance. It was out early. That was a big strength. It was fast and could dogfight well. So the BoB was perfect for it. When air combat moved to Germany (1943 and early 1944) you don't hear about the Spits as much. That's because they didn't have the range. After airfields were captured in France they again were able to play but there is a gap where their lack of legs hurt. So let's call it a "point defense" fighter. Very good at that. It had an inline engine. I think we can agree that radials proved more resilient to damage than inlines for the most part. The lack of a cooling system on the radials is the big reason. So Spits weren't going to be the best at ground attack. Ditto for Mustangs. Radial engine fighters used sheer power to overcome that huge frontal area. That has it's own costs. I'd pick an inline for high altitude work myself. Thus, while the Jug did fight on high, radials had more worth down low.

 

So I guess we have to value each item by a number of criteria. Twin Engine fighters is kind of easy. The P-38 and the ME-110 were really the only two that received much use in the fighter role. The ME-110 kind of proved to be a disaster so that leaves the P-38 on its own. For fighter on fighter. If we bring in fighter on bomber we can add a large number. The HE-219 and JU-88s get added there. There were also some Japanese twins (converted bombers) that were forced into that role. The HE-219 is, by the specs, a much better plane than the JU-88 series. That makes sense as it was designed as a fighter while the JU is a bomber converted over. I'd say the JU-88 was the "better" plane though. The broader time period used, the ability to find a use for surplus bombers, and the sheer numbers are on its side. So while I guess the HE-219 is technically "better" that doesn't mean much.

 

The Hornet is another case of too little too late. It's in great company. The FW jets were the basis for the Mig-15. They were also too little too late. As was the Bearcat, Tigercat, HE-163, and Skyraiders. Of the last four planes listed (Skyraider isn't a fighter I'm aware), only the Skyraider is a "good" plane. But only because of Korea and VN. The Bearcat never had a chance to dance. Yes, the French got some use out of it, but it had the misfortune of a debut in the jet age. The Hornet suffers from this.

 

I don't think much of the Mossie as a fighter. I think it was a great precision bomber though. It meets all the requirements. It was there for most of the war and it was effective.

 

Was the Brewster Buffalo a "good plane?" For the Finns, yes. For the US, no.

 

I grew up as a big fan of the Grummans. It's natural that I really liked the F7F. But that is another case of too little too late. The F4F Wildcat is a much better plane. Because it was there when needed.

 

Enough blather.

 

If you want to go on specs, pick a late war fighter. The specs will be better. If you want a twin that actually made an impact, go with the P-38.

 

All in all twins were a failure in air to air in WW2. With the exception of bomber attack and range (P-38s - Pacific).

[gewing]

As a fighter  I would say the Lockheed Lightning P-38.

201879[/snapback]

 

 

I suspect the Tigercat would surpass them. I'm not sure it wouldn't surpass just about any non jet mentioned.

 

 

The Flying flapjack would have been pretty high up there too, imo.

[5150]

Tell me about the F7F's impact on the war, and then me it was one of the best fighters of the war while keeping a straight face. The same goes for the majority of the late-war designs that saw little or no combat.

 

Performance should be secondary to impact on the war. Did any of the other twins come close to the P-38 in that regard?

[Tony Williams]

I suspect the Tigercat would surpass them.    I'm not sure it wouldn't surpass just about any non jet mentioned.

 

If you include the Tigercat you have to include the Hornet - which was faster, handled better and had a much longer range. Both were of course too late to see action in WW2, as has been mentioned.

 

The question really hangs on the question of what is meant by 'best': the best performer to enter service? (the Hornet, easily - it didn't see action but it did get into service). Or the most effective? (the P-38 as a day fighter - no real competition).

 

There is also the issue of 'day fighter v night fighter'. The Bf 110 and the Ju 88 did a great job as night fighters, although in performance terms they were clearly inferior to the Mosquito and the P-61 (the He 219 was too little, too late again).

 

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum

[gewing]

Tell me about the F7F's impact on the war, and then me it was one of the best fighters of the war while keeping a straight face. The same goes for the majority of the late-war designs that saw little or no combat.

 

Performance should be secondary to impact on the war. Did any of the other twins come close to the P-38 in that regard?

201908[/snapback]

 

 

You want to limit it to impact on the war. I don't.

 

 

the original question was BEST. There are multiple ways to judge that.

 

Yes, if you go by impact, I'd rate either the P-38 or the Mosquito the best.

 

The Tigercat, imo, would have eaten either of them, in most situations. In raw performance, it exceeded them.

[5150]

Is raw performance an adequate measure of a design? Or does availability matter? How did the F7F fair in escorting bombers in 1943? Did it make any long-range intercepts that likely changed the course of the war? Did it do anything notable at all, beyond being too late for the fighting?

 

Let's broaden things a little. Did it have any impact post-war? Did it influence any future designs to a great extent?

 

It was designed and produced late in the war. It should have better performance than the aircraft that proceeded it. Having better performance than earlier designs is not something to write home about--it's expected.

[Argus]

To the me the problem here is the word 'Fighter,' which I take as being an aircraft primarily intended to engage in air to air combat (with other roles as a secondry concern). 'Night Fighter' being a seperate field.

 

So the Mozzie is out, it was intended as a light bomber, same aplies to the Ju88, Black Widow etc for vairous reasons.

 

So the list to work with (prop only, saw service) would be:

Me110

Beaufighter

Whirlwind

P38

Me210 (?)

Do335

Tigercat (?)

plus a few I've no doubt forgotten.

 

Then comes the 'best' bit. If we're talking technical specifications, then the short list comes mostly from the late war period thanks to development. If we mean the most infulential or that had the greatest impact, then things get a bit more general.

 

For aircraft that were worth their aluminumn, I'd say we've got the Me110, Beaufighter and P38 (in chrono order). My money pins it down to the Beau and P38, and of the two I think there is little doubt that the Lightening was the best 'fighter.'

 

shane

[Tony Williams]

I'm beginning to think I'm talking to the deaf here so I'll take it one point at a time....

 

The Tigercat flew in 1944 but was too late to see operational service in WW2.

 

The DH Hornet flew in 1944 but was too late to see operational service in WW2.

 

So if you include the Tigercat, you have to include the Hornet.

 

And the Hornet was a better fighter....

 

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum

[cdnsigop]

Well lets add a few restictions to the mix then. The fighter has be in service by 44 at the latest, and by service I mean in combat and in full production.

 

That removed the tigercat and hornet, of the two I would say the Hornet is the better plane.

 

One the problems I see is that when you best of list here, everyone goes with planes or tanks or what ever built in the last days of conflict. of course these better than the earlier production. Just look at the T-55-T62 thread against the M-1, with over 35 years between them of course the suck against a M-1.

 

back to topic at hand, p-38 is a good choice, is there a Soviet plane that could make the list?

[TonyE]

So the list to work with (prop only, saw service) would be:

 

You just managed to leave out the coolest twin engined fighter ever:

 

I believe that the Potez 630 should also be on the list as it was the heavy fighter variant of the Potez 63-series.

[RETAC21]

back to topic at hand, p-38 is a good choice, is there a Soviet plane that could make the list?

202003[/snapback]

 

The Pe-3, but I thought it was the best plane competition?

[Scott Cunningham]

Twin engined fighters were good for speed, armament, and often range. They usually sucked at maneuverability (simple inertia of twisting a wide-heavy load vs a small centrally concentrated one).

 

Of those mentioned I would have to say that the P-38 was the only one that was actually considered a good fighter, although the others managed to find useful roles (especially the excellent Mosquito). If we are talking fighters for air combat I would have to vote for the P-38. For multi-task versatility, the Mosquito was supreme (and I left out all late war designs, they contributed little in real terms no matter what their technical superiority).

[FormerBlue]

That removed the tigercat and hornet, of the two I would say the Hornet is the better plane.

Better how? For whom? In what role? Kind of an arbitrary statement.

 

Neither of them is anything to write home about. But in any event, here:

 

On the night of 1 July 1951 the crew consisting of Captain E.B.

Long and radar operator Warrant Officer R.C. Buckingham from VMF(N)-513

intercepted a Po-2 in their F7F-3N and shot it down.

 

There is 1. Fighters shoot down other aircraft. The tally is one.

[DesertFox]

Hmm, I meant the best performer but the discussion of which fighters had the most impact in the war is an important subject too.

[FormerBlue]

Hmm, I meant the best performer but the discussion of which fighters had the most impact in the war is an important subject too.

202189[/snapback]

Even best performer has qualifications. I guess you'll be speaking about fighter on fighter prop then?

 

I'd vote for the Dornier. It had some control problems but performance was close, based on design, to a single seater.

 

Again, I think it would have to be said that twin engine prop fighters were more or less a failure in the fighter on fighter arena. The P-38 was something of an exception but that says more about that specific plane than the genre. I also don't think the P-38 would have done as well in the air war over Germany which is probably why P-47s and P-51s did the heavy lifting.

 

I don't doubt that the Hornet, or Tigercat for that matter, would have done ok compared to earlier fighters but I still don't think they would stack up well against latter single seaters either. Jets kind of made the whole point moot.

[Tony Williams]

That removed the tigercat and hornet, of the two I would say the Hornet is the better plane.

 

Better how?  For whom?  In what role?  Kind of an arbitrary statement.

 

Neither of them is anything to write home about. 

 

Well, the Hornet was faster, more compact and agile, with a longer range. Eric Brown tested both. He liked the Tigercat but was ecstatic about the Hornet. Of the nearly 500 aircraft which he flew, he gave only six of them top marks for handling, and rated the Hornet as the best of the lot (the only other WW2 fighter on that list was the Spitfire XII).

 

TW

[FormerBlue]

Well, the Hornet was faster, more compact and agile, with a longer range. Eric Brown tested both. He liked the Tigercat but was ecstatic about the Hornet. Of the nearly 500 aircraft which he flew, he gave only six of them top marks for handling, and rated the Hornet as the best of the lot (the only other WW2 fighter on that list was the Spitfire XII).

 

TW

202206[/snapback]

Isn't this Eric Brown English? I seem to recall he was a fan of, and indeed had something to do with, another aircraft recently covered on the board. The Fairey Firefly wasn't it? Funny that an Englishman rated 2 WW2 aircraft tops in anything and both happened to be, ..., English.

 

Regards handling, how can anyone in all seriousness claim the Spitfire and Hornet are the two best handling fighters of WW2? Zero didn't make the cut? Odd isn't it? Or maybe he was somewhat partisan.

 

Eric Schilling, the Flying Tiger, is pretty hot on the P-40. He flew the later fighters yet is very partial to the P-40. Why would that be? Hmmmmm..

 

Tony you know as well as I do that not everything pans out as intended. The Hornet never saw combat. It's record in combat needed to be seen before we sing its praises. On topic for twin engine fighters the ME-110 was supposed to be the wonder weapon of the luftwaffe fighter forces. So much better than the 109. The premier pilots received the 110. That didn't exactly pan out either. Mind you they were flying them when they were singing their praises, it wasn't a "spec" thing either. Real combat flying changed their minds.

 

I'm not saying the Hornet is a piece of garbage. I'm saying it was never really tested in the real arena. Neither were most of the later war fighters. I'm going with the Dornier as it's about as close to a single engine fighter as you can get yet has 2 engines. WW2 showed the singles were better for fighter on fighter than twins. The DO might have proven a disaster in combat. We simply don't know. Likewise the Hornet, against TA-152s (late model FWs if you prefer), might have been found to be "undesireable." Against the Japanese, I think the Hornet, and Tigercat for that matter, would have probably done alright. But that says more about the Japanese than the twins.

 

Let's assume that WW2 hadn't happened. Which tank, around in 1939, would get the "highest marks?" Would it have been the T-34 or the PzIV? Probably neither. The Brits would be signing the praises of the Matilda and the French the Char maybe. Even a Brit that was able to test the PzIV would probably rate the Brit tank higher. "German is too cramped, yada, yada, yada." America "Tank Experts" took a good look at the T-34 and didn't seem to find much of worth. Say what? Exactly. Part partisan. Part focus on what's considered important to that country. Brown, in everything I see, is rather partisan to Brit planes. No shocker there.

 

So no, I don't take Brown's word on it. He's rather partisan. His rating on the ME-109 was very poor. Yet fighter pilots that actually saw extensive combat seemed to like it quite well. I thank that's the difference. Brown may have flown a lot of aircraft but he was partisan and didn't have a lot of actual combat experience. In fact, I don't think he had any combat flight time did he?