Best Two Engine Fighter of WW2

[DesertFox]

One item I have seen is Birtish books being especially prejudice for British designs.

Not that all nations are no prejudice towards their own hardware but the British seem to be teh worst as far as that.

[FormerBlue]

One item I have seen is Birtish books being especially prejudice for British designs.

Not that all nations are no prejudice towards their own hardware but the British seem to be teh worst as far as that.

202305[/snapback]

Careful! I made that observation on this board once and it set a few modern Brits off. After all was said and done I was left with the impression that that was very true with books published right after the war but modern British authors are much more fair. I have no reason to doubt that.

[DesertFox]

Careful!  I made that observation on this board once and it set a few modern Brits off.  After all was said and done I was left with the impression that that was very true with books published right after the war but modern British authors are much more fair.  I have no reason to doubt that.

202316[/snapback]

 

I have a book on Ironclad combat which is by a British Author which seems to be more fair like you state and it is of recent publication.

[Bob B]

Isn't this Eric Brown English?  .......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?

202295[/snapback]

 

 

Brown shot down two FW 200 Condors with number 802 Squadron while serving on board the HMS Audacity for several crusies in 1941. He used the head on attack method. He was a fan of the Marlet.

 

http://www.fleetairarmarchive.net/Squadrons/802.html

Edited August 2, 2005 by Bob B

[FormerBlue]

Brown shot down two FW 200 Condors with number 802 Squadron while serving on board the HMS Audacity for several crusies in 1941.  He used the head on attack method.  He was a fan of the Marlet. 

 

http://www.fleetairarmarchive.net/Squadrons/802.html

202347[/snapback]

I stand corrected. He shot down two Condors.

 

That does leave him a little lacking in fighter on fighter combat though. It also doesn't mean he wasn't partisan regards Brit aircraft. I also don't find that unnatural.

 

In any event twins still don't work. The Hornet is still post-war. As is the Bearcat, Tigercat, Twin Mustang, FW Jets, etc.

 

We forgot the Potez 630.

[cdnsigop]

One item I have seen is Birtish books being especially prejudice for British designs.

Not that all nations are no prejudice towards their own hardware but the British seem to be teh worst as far as that.

 

As a canadian I can you forgot that other nation that is very pro their stuff over and above all else.. and that is the US. being in canada we get to look at both sides and I find that US books are by the worst for this. Its not in very book or program but you and really see their leanings. And exmaple would the P-51, british engine, US airframe.. which made it better? British books will give engine.. the US... will hardly talk about the engine. another eg, would the way Canadians given credit, well lack of credit in both Histories.. one ot two pages is not enough.. . Both seem to use the term commonwealth a lot, which totally down plays any role but the british, but then that is just opinion.

 

I'm not going to get debate about as no one wins.... but as a Canadian its easy to see both.

[Guest phil gollin]

A couple of points -

 

First,

 

The words "best" or "greatest" are imprecise, and need to be defined better. Is it specific performance, impact on war, etc .....

 

IF one restricts the parameters then one can get any particular aircraft to "win"

 

I think in simplistic terms the P-38 is the "best" day twin engined propellor fighter, and the Mosquito the best all-weather/night fighter. That seems simple.

 

However, now, to turn that around, the P-38 was outclassed by many single engined fighters during the day, but the mosquito wasn't as an all-weather/nightfighter.

 

Cut things small enough, or squint one-way or another and you can see anything.

 

Discuss that !

 

 

Second,

 

Oh dear, "my source is better than your source " !!!!! Many US contributors don't seem to like Brown because of his comments. I would believe this more if they had read him. He compares SPECIFIC models in real life having flown planes in combat and more planes than anyone else, and he flew them as an evaluation pilot to actually help make the decision on what should be used and with what tactics. The only other comparable source are some of the USAAF reports on captured aircraft, but one can critise them if one wants. PLEASE, if you are going to critise Brown read him first.

 

I'm afraid that as with wargames, the modern computer games/simulations sometimes can give a rather biased opinion to people. Some planes are "magic", somehow always being the best despite their known slight deficiencies in real life.

[NickM]

FormerBlue:

 

I have Brown's book 'Wings of the Luftwaffe'; from what I read he was DEEPLY impressed with the FW 190--he considered it a nearly perfect fighter plane; I think his opinions are valid, given he flew just about EVERY german fighter, bomber and transport made; pre war he was quite facinated by LW equipment & had forged a number of friendships prewar among LW pilots & personalities, so please don't write his opinions off...

 

NickM

[FormerBlue]

As a canadian I can you forgot  that other nation that is very pro their stuff over and above all else.. and that is the US.  being in canada we get to look at both sides and I find that US books are by the worst for this.  Its not in very book or program but you and really see their leanings.  And exmaple would the P-51, british engine, US airframe.. which made it better?  British books will give engine.. the US... will hardly talk about the engine. another eg, would the way Canadians given credit, well lack of credit in both Histories.. one ot two pages is not enough.. .  Both seem to use the term commonwealth a lot, which totally down plays any role but the british, but then that is just opinion.

 

I'm not going to get debate about as no one wins....  but as a Canadian its easy to see both.

202359[/snapback]

Say what?

The Mustang was made better by a combination of both. The same engine powered the Spit and the Hurricane. The Mustang had laminar flow wings and unbelievable range. The engine turned the ground attack version into a stellar fighter. It's not like we are unaware of that. It wasn't the airframe or the engine. It was the combination. Sticking the Merlin in the P-40 didn't result in a wonder weapon. The Mustang with the Allison was an inferior plane. The Merlin in the P-40 didn't change much. The Merlin in the Mustang made a world beater.

 

I have no idea what books you are reading. The designer of the Mustang put out a book. He made no bones about his anger at being forced to use Allisons in the F-82. He much preferred the Merlin.

 

What book exactly are you reading?

[Tony Williams]

A couple of comments:

 

On Eric Brown's impartiality - his test-flying career extended into the postwar years and the list of six planes to which he gave full marks for handling qualities includes three postwar jets; two of them are American (Sabre and Phantom). In WW2, he rated the Zero, Fw 190, Ju 88 and Me 262 as just below the three best. His three best single-engined fighters of WW2 in overall performance terms were the Spitfire XIV, the Fw 190D-9 and the P-51 (Mustang IV) - in his opinion, they each had different strengths but overall there was virtually nothing to choose between them. These were followed up by the George 12, Tempest V, F6F-3 Hellcat, and Zeke 53. Not much sign of national bias there.

 

I have no quarrel at all with the argument that the Hornet was unproven in combat - but so (in any real sense, i.e. WW2) was the Tigercat, which was my point. The question comes back to how you judge the 'best'; technical performance, or combat success? If the former, then it was the Hornet, if the latter, then (as I said in my first post on this thread) the only WW2 twin-engined day-fighter which can be considered a proven succcess was the P-38.

 

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum

Edited August 2, 2005 by Tony Williams

[DougRichards]

Say what?

The Mustang was made better by a combination of both.  The same engine powered the Spit and the Hurricane.  The Mustang had laminar flow wings and unbelievable range.  The engine turned the ground attack version into a stellar fighter.  It's not like we are unaware of that.  It wasn't the airframe or the engine.  It was the combination.  Sticking the Merlin in the P-40 didn't result in a wonder weapon.  The Mustang with the Allison was an inferior plane.  The Merlin in the P-40 didn't change much.  The Merlin in the Mustang made a world beater.

 

I have no idea what books you are reading.  The designer of the Mustang put out a book.  He made no bones about his anger at being forced to use Allisons in the F-82.  He much preferred the Merlin. 

 

What book exactly are you reading?

202374[/snapback]

 

So are you saying that the P-82 was really the best twin engined fighter of WW2? Or maybe the Bf 109Z "Zwilling"?

[cdnsigop]

Say what?

The Mustang was made better by a combination of both. The same engine powered the Spit and the Hurricane. The Mustang had laminar flow wings and unbelievable range. The engine turned the ground attack version into a stellar fighter. It's not like we are unaware of that. It wasn't the airframe or the engine. It was the combination. Sticking the Merlin in the P-40 didn't result in a wonder weapon. The Mustang with the Allison was an inferior plane. The Merlin in the P-40 didn't change much. The Merlin in the Mustang made a world beater

 

 

Blue, it was a gerenal comment, I added the mustang as a example of what I've read in the past in gerenal histories. This would not apply to books written on just on thing. and It was more about the views of authors from the two countries.

[istvan47]

i would propose , seen the intelligent critics about the definition of "best" twin engined fighter, the less-troubly variant:

 

What was the better twin engined fighter,

 

condiction 1:of wooden contruction

eventually contition 2:merlin engined

eventually condition 3:Hispano suiza armed

 

So i am sure there will be not further discussion about

 

 

Personaly, however, i would point also the variant of "most successful" about the 2 engined fighters: this should avoid some exceptions ("high tecnology but no history") like tigercat or SH.

And it should restricted the choice about Ju 88, Me 110, Mosquito and P-38, the latter cleary the best as day fighter.

If we consider that the Me 110 was quite disappointing as day escort fighter, and mossie and ju were molti role types, a lot of them built as bomber or recce, i should say taht P-38 had the best carieer of the so called twin engined fighters, for sure about day interceptions and about the fame and reputation gained (ex. Pacific front).

 

apart this, frankly i cannot understund why the Westland wirldwind hadn't success: it was even in time to be fielded, it had speed, agility and guns. and today nobody remenber that it had even existed

 

 

About Brown memories i would break an arrow against: did he tested italian and russian aircrafts and he didn't liked them or he didn't tested them at all? i mean Yak, La, Macchi, Fiats etc.

Some good should had been among these.

 

 

The evalutation made on USA of the FW 190, while positive, indicated that F4U and F6F were slighty superior, so Brown's memories didn't matched the US evaluations?

 

 

 

Apart this, both germans and british tested some fighters of the other side and the conclusion was that neither of the two sides can explain how enemy crappy fighters can fight so successfull, seen that the Me 109 was easy outclassed in speed and agility by Spitfire, the hurricane was slow, the spitfire loose power on a dive etc.

 

Only FW 190 reached the admiration on both sides of the Channel, but the more successful german aces fought mainly with Me 109, despite hte lack of firepower, agility, range, landing gear weakness, visibilty poor etc. Seen some evalutations such planes should had never cleared to fly!

[Paul F Jungnitsch]

Evaluations of opposing equipment are always interesting reads, but have to be taken with a grain of salt. Test pilots tend to prefer (and get the best out of) what they know, and engineers in general are usually pretty bloody minded that their own designs are better. The British tested the Czech Pz38 light tank before the war and comprehensively rejected the design, much preferring their Vickers machine gun armed light tanks that proved pretty much useless. It was interesting reading the criticism, pretty scathing.

[FormerBlue]

A couple of comments:

 

On Eric Brown's impartiality - his test-flying career extended into the postwar years and the list of six planes to which he gave full marks for handling qualities includes three postwar jets; two of them are American (Sabre and Phantom). In WW2, he rated the Zero, Fw 190, Ju 88 and Me 262 as just below the three best. His three best single-engined fighters of WW2 in overall performance terms were the Spitfire XIV, the Fw 190D-9 and the P-51 (Mustang IV) - in his opinion, they each had different strengths but overall there was virtually nothing to choose between them. These were followed up by the George 12, Tempest V, F6F-3 Hellcat, and Zeke 53. Not much sign of national bias there.

 

I have no quarrel at all with the argument that the Hornet was unproven in combat - but so (in any real sense, i.e. WW2) was the Tigercat, which was my point. The question comes back to how you judge the 'best'; technical performance, or combat success? If the former, then it was the Hornet, if the latter, then (as I said in my first post on this thread) the only WW2 twin-engined day-fighter which can be considered a proven succcess was the P-38.

 

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum

202401[/snapback]

Very nice post Tony.

 

The other problem that I have with the Hornet and Tigercat is they were kind of neat planes in search of a mission. The USN solution, as was often the case, was "give them to the Marines, maybe they can use them."

[FormerBlue]

So are you saying that the P-82 was really the best twin engined fighter of WW2?  Or maybe the Bf 109Z "Zwilling"?

202463[/snapback]

No, the P-82 wasn't a WW2 fighter by any criteria. And no I'm not a fan of it. What I said was the P-82 was more inferior than it could have been due to a mandated engine decision. Even with the Merlins it would have been just another prop job in the age of jets.

[FormerBlue]

Blue, it was a gerenal comment, I added the mustang as a example of what I've read in the past in gerenal histories.  This would not apply to books written on just on thing. and It was more about the views of authors from the two countries.

202479[/snapback]

You specifically said US books are the worst for this. You also specifically mention "authors."

 

Again, which books. A single book that backs your position will suffice that your comment isn't just your hot air. I've read a number of books on the Mustang. I can't recall a single one that doesn't mention the Merlin as being what that plane needed.

[Tony Williams]

apart this, frankly i cannot understund why the Westland wirldwind hadn't success: it was even in time to be fielded, it had speed, agility and guns. and today nobody remenber that it had even existed

 

I must admit that I have a soft spot for that plane; it looked so neat (if rather strange). It was a good performer with speed equal to the best when it was introduced, and for 1940/41 the firepower was formidable. But it had development and teething problems which kept it out of the BoB and the RAF was uncomfortable with the high landing speed. Worst of all, it was designed around an engine which was neglected because R-R had other priorities, and it was really too small to take Merlins. It was one of the 'might have beens'.

 

About Brown memories i would break an arrow against: did he tested italian and russian aircrafts and he didn't liked them or he didn't tested them at all? i mean Yak, La, Macchi, Fiats etc.

Some good should had been among these.

Brown flew everything he could get hold of - he was the ultimate 'type hog'. I'm not sure that he had the chance to fly many Italian or Russian planes, though. In his book 'Duels in the Sky', he rates the Wildcat and Sea Hurricane as about equal to the Macchi C.202 and inferior to the Re.2001.

 

The evalutation made on USA of the FW 190, while positive, indicated that F4U and F6F were slighty superior, so Brown's memories didn't matched the US evaluations?

 

Well, there were Fw 190s and Fw 190s: the one Brown favoured most was the late-war, long-nose (inline-engined) D-9, which was much better than some earlier versions.

 

Only FW 190 reached the admiration on both sides of the Channel, but the more successful german aces fought mainly with Me 109, despite hte lack of firepower, agility, range, landing gear weakness, visibilty poor etc. Seen some evalutations such planes should had never cleared to fly!

202491[/snapback]

 

The combat success of the Bf 109 is interesting. Brown didn't rate the plane at all, but then he did try a G-6 with extra underwing cannon, which was far from the most pleasant version to fly. I have engaged in much debate on this subject before, and the conclusion I have come to is that the 109 was a fine fighting machine in skilled and experienced hands, but a tricky flying machine. As the war proceeded and the 109 variants became steadily more powerful and heavier (with increasing wing loading), so the flying qualities diminished further. The Luftwaffe Experten who really got to know the plane and learned how to get the best from it rated it highly, but even for someone as experienced as Brown it was a difficult plane for a newcomer to fly well. And it was lethal for tyros - not the best plane in which to drop a half-trained youngster late in the war.

 

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum

[Paul F Jungnitsch]

With Brown or with any test pilot you do have to look really closely at the variant (and the condition of the variant) they flew. Especially with German planes that could have a myriad of engine and armament options. For example Brown rated the Uhu underpowered, but the version he flew was considerably down on horsepower compared to some, and that is something he neglected to mention in his report.

[Bob B]

Say what?

..... Sticking the Merlin in the P-40 didn't result in a wonder weapon.  The Mustang with the Allison was an inferior plane.  The Merlin in the P-40 didn't change much.  The Merlin in the Mustang made a world beater.....

 

What book exactly are you reading?

202374[/snapback]

 

 

I got wondering about this and did a little checking. The Merlin that got stuck in the P-40F & L was the Merlin 28, V-1650-1, with a single stage two speed super charger. This a low altitude engine that, according to the P-40's designer, Don Berlin, offered little improvement over the (then current) Allison, V-1710-39. It was a bit more powerful, but it was also 175 lbs heavier.

 

The Engine that Berlin wanted to put into the P-40 was the Merlin60, then 61 (Packard 266),V1650-3. This was geared two speed, two stage supercharger. He first saw this engine in May 1941 when he was in England interviewing RAF pilots. He was mistakenly allowed into a secret Rolls Royce test of this engine and allowed to leave with a copy of the test data, which was sent back to the USA in a diplomatic pouch. He campaigned to get the engine but was turned down and never really told why. Oddly enough there was no plan at the time the P-51 was still a Brit project. The USAAF was interested in it until much later.

 

Perhaps the P-40 might have been turned into a good high altitude fighter if the Army had allowed Berlin to have the engine he wanted.

 

FWIW, Berlin left Curtiss-Wright in December, 1941.

 

Info came from: P-40 Hawks at War,by Joe Christy and Jeff Ethell

Edited August 2, 2005 by Bob B

[FormerBlue]

I got wondering about this and did a little checking.  The Merlin that got stuck in the P-40F & L was the Merlin 28, V-1650-1, with a single stage two speed super charger.  This a low altitude engine that, according to the P-40's designer, Don Berlin, offered little improvement over the (then current) Allison, V-1710-39.  It was a bit more powerful, but it was also 175 lbs heavier.

 

The Engine that Berlin wanted to put into the P-40 was the Merlin60, then 61 (Packard 266),V1650-3.  This was geared two speed, two stage supercharger.  He first saw this engine in May 1941 when he was in England interviewing RAF pilots.  He was mistakenly allowed into a secret Rolls Royce test of this engine and allowed to leave with a copy of the test data, which was sent back to the USA in a diplomatic pouch.  He campaigned to get the engine but was turned down and never really told why.  Oddly enough there was no plan at the time the P-51 was still a Brit project.  The USAAF was interested in it until much later.

 

Perhaps the P-40 might have been turned into a good high altitude fighter if the Army had allowed Berlin to have the engine he wanted. 

 

FWIW, Berlin left Curtiss-Wright in December, 1941.

 

Info came from: P-40 Hawks at War,by Joe Christy and Jeff Ethell

202650[/snapback]

Interesting. The P-51 brought range and laminar flow wings.

 

If comparing the P-40 with the P-51 is hard because of different Merlins, we should be able to reverse the process. The P-51A was equiped with the Allison V-1710-81. I show the P-40K and N with that revision of the Allison. Greg is going to have better figures than I can dig up on short notice but I show the P-40 models with a top speed of about 360. That doesn't list at what altitude but I'm thinking it would be at their best. P-51A did 409 at 11,000 ft. That's almost 50mph better. That's pretty significant for two fighters with the same engine.

 

The P-40 is listed with a combat range of 350/700 whereas the P-51 is 750. I wonder if that latter figure for the P-40 is with a drop tank. Seems quite a lot larger than the early model. 1250 for a tanked Mustang.

 

Again, these figures were a quick grab. I'd be more comfortable with better figures but that takes time. In any event the specs I see are wide enough to show the P-40 was pretty inferior to the P-51 regards airframe.

 

What the Merlin did, and it won't show in these figures, is improve the Mustang's performance at altitude. The P-51A's best speed with that Allison is down low. I recall Schilling mentioning that the P-40 was at its best at about 15K.

[Bob B]

The P-51 did have a better airframe than the P-40. Afterall, the P-40's airframe dates back to the Hawk 75 which first flew in 1935. However, if the Army had followed Berlin's advice, and put the Merlin 61 on the P-40, it might have had a high altitude fighter a year and a half sooner than it did. It could have filled the gap until the P-51 came on line. It would have been very useful in North Africa, Italy, Med, SWP, and CBI theaters. In SWP and CBI the Mustang didn't arrive until very late in the war.

[GregShaw]

The P-51 did have a better airframe than the P-40.  Afterall, the P-40's airframe dates back to the Hawk 75 which first flew in 1935.  However, if the Army had followed Berlin's advice, and put the Merlin 61 on the P-40, it might have had a high altitude fighter a year and a half sooner than it did.  It could have filled the gap until the P-51 came on line.  It would have been very useful in North Africa, Italy, Med, SWP, and CBI theaters.  In SWP and CBI the Mustang didn't arrive until very late in the war.

202843[/snapback]

 

Some real quick and dirty calculations, a P-40N-25 re-engined with the V-1650-3 and no other changes would have done about 410 mph @ 28,500 ft on 61 in Hg mil power, and again about 410 mph @ 26,000 ft on 67 in Hg WEP. That is only slightly lower than a Spitfire IX.HF at the same altitudes, and probably faster than a IX.F and definitely faster than a IX.LF. Fast enough to give a Bf 109G headaches, and certainly faster than a Fw 190A. Although the Fw 190A would be a bit faster below 22,000 ft or so.

 

Compared to about 450 mph for a P-51B/C/D on either mil or WEP but without wing pylons, or about 435-440 mph with pylons. The P-40x would handily outclimb the Pony, same power, same wing size and about 1500 lbs less weight. Of course the majority of that weight difference is fuel, the Pony carried more than twice the P-40's internal fuel load. So the end result would have been an American Spitfire IX, very agile, good climb, and not enough range to get to the fight.

 

Greg Shaw

[Bob B]

....So the end result would have been an American Spitfire IX, very agile, good climb, and not enough range to get to the fight....

 

202864[/snapback]

 

In the end the Spitfire didn't look so bad to the U.S. Army Air Force. Two groups, 31st and 52nd, converted to them and saw quite a bit of action in the Med theater. They finally traded them in for Mustangs in the spring of 1944.

[FormerBlue]

And not only that, everyone forgets the MkIX has a slipper tank that gave it adequate range to go most of the places it needed to go. I gather some of the later ones also had internal tanks fitted also. Besides who needed range when you could operate off forward bases on the continent?

202952[/snapback]

Nobody said the Spit was a bad plane. Most people agree that it was a very good plane.

 

In 1937 nobody would predict that fighters, based out of England, would be need to be able to fly all the way to Berlin. I don't think any single engine fighter designed in the '30s could do that.

 

Under normal circumstances it would seem to be a trade-off. Do you haul a ton of fuel, which makes you plane heavier and thus slower to climb, or do you keep it to a reasonable amount? It would be odd if they just added the tankage for no obvious gain.

 

P-47Ns were a redesigned model to increase fuel capacity. Kind of a "lesson learned" from the 1942-1944 time frame. It's just fortunate that the Mustang had the tankage.

 

Of course the Brits weren't doing the whole daylight thing so I'm not sure that even if the Spit had that range it would have been overly helpful. It also may have impared performance in the BoB.