LUFTWAFEE 1946 (Would Have Happened if ...)

I think that's pushing it a bit far. If the aircraft are comparable in performance then as you say luck and piloting are critical. If there's a wide disparity in performance on the other hand piloting may not make much difference. For example the civilian aircraft shot down at PH didn't have much of a chance no matter who was piloting. PH also shows how the situation can make a huge impact. One would get a somewhat misleading evaluation of USAAF planes and pilots compared to those of the IJNAF if you just looked at the results of those USAAF planes that got safely airborne.

 

Very interesting! Where did you get all that data? I'd like to buy a copy?

 

You have hit the nail on the head! But also made my point; EBH preferred the 20 mm Mk-151/20 to the Mk-108 with it's bigger but very much slower shell. You would think the larger and more destructive shell would be preferred at a range of 40-50M where it low MV made less difference? He also chose to aim for the most vulnerable part of the plane. Not the entire plane, just the oil cooler and often downed the EA with a single shell! So, how does his excellent Marksmanship translate to the average Ace? Read Mike Spick's book THE ACE FACTOR! It will answer all of your questions!
As to the bigger guns trials, they were desperate to find a way, any way, to attack bombers from outside the effective range of their guns. It seems that the .50" Browning M2 was a much better gun/ammo combo that most people think today. Look on You-Tube for an interview with Chuck Yeager about his combat in WWII.

 

I'm sincerely sorry you think that? I was just trying to point out a big mistake in your prior post. I did not intend to be rude!

 

Well thought out! I was trying to make a point and was not good at the satire I desired to show.

 

I have only asked a single question; "How do we determine which Aircraft is the "Best"?
So far, no one has answered that question.
The Me-109 in all it's various versions shot down more EA than the ten best allied types combined! What part of that statement do you dispute? Then, we must discover why that was, or find some formula that could calculate the right answer. Not one member of this board has posted a single idea why that was.

 

USAAF Statistical Summary and data from the USSBS,

 

Now this is getting weird...on one hand you want to sing the praises of the 109...and bemoan the weapons. And then say its all about the pilot! That the aircraft doesn't matter (which is BS by the way). Aircraft warfare is about the "edge", that means pilot, aircraft AND weapons. To make simplistic statements is begging to be wrong.

 

wELL, IT DID NOT TAKE LONG TO DISCOVER THE COST WAS BEYOND MY MEAGER MEANS!
Dratts! Bit on the butt again by the dreaded caps lock monster!

 

I do not sing the praises of the 109! I simply state the fact that it shot down more EA than any six allied AC types! I also pointed out the reasons why that was. I also listed some of it's defects, none of which relate to why it was so successful.
Finally, I asked what makes a great WW-II Fighter Plane? No one has given this last a single thought.

 

I think the reason nobody has answered this is because there are so many factors involved as to what makes a good WW2 fighter. To me, what makes a great fighter, is not the pilots ability and training, but the specifications and abilities of the aircraft. If you were asking what was the most successful fighter in the war, than having trained pilots is about 80% of the equation, with the aircraft being the remaining 20%.

 

Um, the Statistical Digests are available online. USAF STATISTICS

The Defeat of the the German Air Force, which contains quite a bit of summary data from the USSBS, is also available online. The Defeat of the German Air Force

 

I think that you have the right idea, except I believe that the ratio of plane to pilot should be 80/20 the other way. A great plane makes a mediocre pilot look good, while a great pilot makes a mediocre plane look good. Both are important, but it is much easier for a good pilot in a great plane to triumph than the other way around.
There are certain attributes great planes must have; 1. An aerodynamic edge. 2. Good CL mounted guns. 3. Usable speed. 4. Well harmonized controls. 5. It should be small and hard to see sneaking up on his, or her victims.
Few planes have all of those attributes, but the more things it's good at, the better it will score. Most Allied AC have at most three of the five traits. Some only have two.
I'll leave you to decide which planes have what advantages with the exception of the P-38 has four at the highest level and the P-47 and 51 have at most three. The Spitfire has at most one of the five. The XP-77 would have had all five in Spades, had R&D come to conclusion in an Aluminum version of the plane!!!

 

Thank you for the links. The images were very dirty/faded? and hard, or impossible to read. But I will try to get hard copies through the GPO and post them here?

 

I agree with what you are saying, I said that if we were talking about what the most successful fighter in WW2 was, the most successful models would possess more experienced and skilled pilots, rather than inexperienced ones. The Germans, Italians, Japanese, Romanians, and Hungarians all possessed capable and modern fighters, but as the war progressed, they lost experienced pilots, and trained with less quality, which decreased the effectiveness of good aircraft. The Allies generally had better trained pilots, and the experienced pilots who were lost, could be replaced with fully trained pilots. This allowed the allies to have better chances in combat, usually regardless of the aircraft. But since we are talking about what makes a great fighter, excluding the pilot factor, than you are correct in saying the plane is all that matters.

 

I am sorry, but that is not a "fact". It is an assumption. To repeat, while USAAF losses of aircraft on combat sorties versus Germany totaled 18,418, only 6,800 were attributed to enemy aircraft of all types.

 

Which is, of course, total BS.

The "Great" P-38 of which you prattle on about it's "greatness" would easily kill an inexperienced or mediocre pilot. It does not make them "look good," it makes them dead. Much the same could be said for the "great" F4U Corsair or the "great" A6M Zero.

An aerodynamic edge? What is an aerodynamic edge? That the plane is hard to stall...That the plane is easy to recover from a stall? That the plane is forgiving to fly?

Good CL mounted guns? Hardly a requirement for a "great" fighter. Many "great" fighters didn't have them, and many mediocre fighters did.

Well, that's a no-brainer...All aircraft strived to go faster.

???
Cable, hydraulic, electric, electric-boosted...They all have their pluses and minuses.
And how well are the harmonized? The A6M had excellent controls at low and mid speeds, but they quickly stiffened up as airspeed increased, while other aircraft performed better at high speeds.

The A6M Zero was small & hard-to-see...It also tended to fall to pieces and/or explode under .50 caliber fire.

As such, most aircraft tried to have altitude advantage and be in a hard-to-spot position(up sun).

Now...Given Shooter2018's 5 criteria...The "best" fighter will be

with a .50 cal or two slung underneath

It has an aerodynamic edge - Nothing will outturn it.
It has "good" CL guns
It has well harmonized controls.
It is small and hard-to-see.

4 stars out of 5.

 

This is what happens when all your history is from video games...

Well, let's see.

Aerodynamic edge - It vibrated terribly...While making it a poor gun platform, maybe this vibration will throw off an enemy pilot as to what direction the 77 is flying in. The second prototype crashed trying to perform an Immelman...Note the word "trying."
Good CL mounted guns - It never carried any, the monstrosity was already well overweight.
Useful speed - What useful speed? The 77 was woefully underpowered.
Well harmonized controls - Test pilots reported the 77 had poor handling qualities...Some I am going to say this one is a no.

0 out of 5...In Spades!

 

I missed this somehow.

Why would they build it in aluminum when the whole point of the exercise, begun by the Air Corps on 30 October 1941, was to not use aluminum. Never mind that it took nearly three years to deliver the two prototypes. And 520 HP? Without supercharging? 330 MPH maximum at 4,000 feet?

War winner! That reached the testing stage when the war was already effectively won.

 

Well I've at least suggested that LER makes a far better choice than total number shot down if you are going to use a single critieria. However a single critieria is not likely to lead to the best conclusion.

Not sure I'm disuputing it but I'd like to see the numbers and sources.

Which makes it pretty clear that at least one of the following is true:
1) You haven't been reading all the responses.
2) You aren't understanding all the responses.
3) You are ignoring at least some of the responses.

You have also repeatedly claimed it was the best fighter of the war. If that's not singing its praises I don't know what is.
I think we would also need to look at the latter claim in more detail to determine it's validity. Then there are extenuating circumstances such as comparable opposition.

See response above. repeating a false claim does nothing to make it more accurate.

At least parts are available in several places on the web. Hyperwar has some of them in HTML I believe other sites also have at least pieces in more readable formats.