The best of the best and Worst of the worst

They did indeed...Flew about jogging speed...A flying building...

 

I think that is basically what I was trying to say, in other posts.
When you compare the top competitors the advantages/disadvantages are minimal and seldom run across the full spectrum of the type of fights they might encounter. Plane 1 may perform better than plane B during a fight under type A conditions, there may be no perceptible advantage during a type B fight and plane 2 has a marginal advantage during a type C fight. The most successful nations were those that played to their aircraft's strengths, and developed tactics (as you stated) to accentuate the strengths and minimize the weaknesses. Pilot training as you stated was more important than the aircraft, to a degree. Japan and Germany, early war, benefitted from highly trained, combat experienced pilots when going up against their enemies, with the corelating massive advantage. Unfortunately for them, they didn't develop a system that, like the allies, produced huge numbers of good pilots at the expense of a few elite ones and attrition, over time, sapped their strength. Lack of fuel for adequate training did hamstring Germany and Japan, and a lack of safe areas to train, late war, in the case of Germany.

That being said, the top performers did give an advantage. A Japanese pilot going up against a P-40, had a lot better odds if flying an A6M Zero than if they were flying a KI-27 "Nate". A British airman going up to intercept some BF-109's during the battle of Britain, had better odds if he were driving a Spitfire than if he were flying a Hurricane.

I know. If you notice I didn't pick a "best" for heavy bomber, the B-17, B-24, or the Avro Lancaster were all good solid performers, and I don't think any of them was sufficiently better than the others to warrant the title of best. There were other aircraft like the B-18 Bolo or Avro Manchester that were not very good, the Handley Page Halifax which was just average or like the B-32 Dominator that lacked the numbers to make it a factor.

The P-40 was a good plane, I stated so earlier, I don't think it was on the same level with the top performers.

...And the P-47 was an excellent aircraft, one of the ones I'd select for best mid/late war fighter. Your uncle Don might have had a tougher go with that FW-190 if he'd been piloting a P-40 and not a Jug!

 

That's because like the US Navy they were taught to lead the target. With the Polikarpov Po-2 there was no need to lead because it had no speed.

 

The P-40 was an acceptable fighter aircraft. Its drawback was it wasn't particularly better than its opponents. In the Mediterranean, and even in the Pacific to an extent as far as USAAF use went, the P-40's used were the F and L models that had Packard Merlin engines and didn't suffer the altitude performance issues the Allison models did. These could go toe to toe with the Japanese and German first-line fighters up to about 25,000 feet and at least hold their own.

The P-39 never got a Merlin, and not only limited to an effective altitude of 15,000 feet, it also was doubly hit by having a relatively short range and no way to carry a large enough drop tank(s) to make up for that. Since the US was generally on the offensive, the P-39 was rarely able to really get into the thick of things and often got relegated to ground support duties.

As for jets, had the war continued, the US would have had not only the P-80, but P-83, P-84, and original "Jet Mustang" version of the P-86 for the Germans to contend with, among others. All had far better reliability than the Me 262 and weren't death traps for unskilled pilots like the He 162 was.

As I pointed out, the Allies also had a generation of late war fighters that were equal to or in many cases, superior to their German counterparts like the Ta 152. The Allies also were gaining ground beyond the Luftwaffe in more subtle areas. Their fighters were getting gyro gunsights that made shooting far more accurate. Their pilots were wearing partial G-suits to allow them to better handle high G maneuvering in their planes. They were getting tail warning radar sets that helped prevent getting bounced from behind. Better navigation systems that made finding targets easier and more accurate along with making getting back home safer and easier.

 

An interesting video on the 40mm Bofors, US version.

 

In December 1942, the answer is Fw190.

However, from 1939-1942 as an overall time period, I'd suggest Spitfire. It was consistently a top fighter throughout (and still was until jets appeared, but that's outside the scope), and as someone on the old TGPlanes site said, wherever Spit went, it got quiet quickly.

Other contenders, the 109 obviously. Probably the closest overall match at this point in the war. If I'm honest I plump for the Spit because it's prettier and I'm British

The Zero honestly is inflated by its unexpectedness, it was essentially a one-trick pony. Allied pilots expecting to dogfight got minced - and that is the main reason for the Spit's initial poor showing, the RAF treated it like a 109 and it wasn't. Even so it is worth noting that after Spits appeared in Darwin the Japanese raids stopped soon after. Once the glaring weaknesses of the Zero were discovered and countered it never really threatened in the same way.

And nobody else really had a top-rated fighter in that era to match

 

Apparently the Fairey Swordfish gave the gunners on the Bismark similar problems

 

The Spitfire and Me 109 through at least the end of 1942 were pretty evenly matched. The big problem for both was when used on the offensive, they lacked range.

As for the Zero, in 1941 - 42 it was an excellent naval fighter. Its most outstanding quality was it had tremendous range on par with late war US escort fighters like the P-51. The armament was essentially the exact same as on the Me 109E model and at least as good as the more lightly armed Me 109F. The same goes for a comparison with the Spitfire.
Where it fell down wasn't so much it's being lightly armored, as it was that the Japanese couldn't improve its performance by that much. They did things like restress the plane to take higher diving speeds by thickening the skin on parts of the wing. They likely would have put a more powerful engine in if they had one they could do that with. Later models incorporated armor and crude self-sealing fuel tanks into the design. The armament was upgraded ditching the 7.7mm machineguns in favor of 12.7mm ones. The 20mm were swapped out for higher velocity models with more ammunition (increased from 60 rounds to 100). Methanol and water injection was added later in the war.
The Japanese did what they could to improve the plane, but they simply lacked the resources to really do it to the level other major combatants did with their designs.

On the whole, the Zero was an excellent design and definitely on par with early Me 109's or Spitfires. The A6M2 and 3 that showed up over Darwin Australia in early 1943 were met by defending Spitfire Vc's and the Japanese pretty much had their way with them. It was simply the lack of engineering and industrial capacity that left it further and further behind, not some inherent flaw in the design.

 

OK, some candidates for the mid/late war best fighter.

P-38 Lightning-10,037 built. In production 1941 to 1945. Early versions had compressibility issues in a dive. While faster, and with a tighter turning radius than the BF-109, they were generally considered relatively easy kills for Luftwaffe pilots in North Africa and the Med. With the J-model high altitude engine problems and the compressibility issue were resolved. In the Pacific the Lightning's long range and twin engines proved an advantage, and they did yeoman's work at high altitude bomber escort.

P-47 Thunderbolt-15,636 built. Starting in December 1942 and into January 1943 the P-47 was introduced into Europe. The big fighter mounted the P&W R-2800 Double Wasp (the same engine as the F6F Hellcat and F4U Corsair. It had long range and could take tremendous punishment. Initially, the "Jug" suffered from a poor climb rate, and turn radius, but was superb at high altitude fighting or when diving and using energy tactics. Starting with the introduction of the "paddle bladed prop" in the P-47D-22, the climb rate issue was greatly alleviated. They allowed the allies to counter the FW-190 head-to-head, they ended the war with a 4.6-1 and the 56th Fighter Group (the only group in Europe still flying the P-47 in preference to the P-51) led the 8th Air Force in air-to-air kills. Also, an excellent ground attack aircraft.

P-51 Mustang-15,000+ produced. The early Mustang's suffered from mediocre performance, while displaying superior speed to enemy fighters at low and medium altitudes its performance fell off with altitude. The British mated it with the Rolls-Royce Merlin engine in the B/C model and a legend was born. The P-51D (the definitive version) used the Packard licensed copy of the Merlin engine. From what I've read, it was superior to its main German opponents in everything but turn radius. Its long range and combat attributes allowed it to put the final nail in the Luftwaffe's coffin.

Supermarine Spitfire-Starting with the IX model (powered by the new two-stage supercharged Merlin 61 engine) it regained the edge on the FW-190, many early Mk. IX's were modified Mk.Vc's. While modifications to the airframe, flight systems and wings were continual and incremental, the introduction of the Rolls-Royce Griffon engine with the Mk. XII (operational April 1943) greatly enhanced speed, rate of climb and high-altitude performance.

Yak-3-A total of 4,848 produced. An able dogfighter. While lacking the speed and the high-altitude performance of late war western fighters, it was a formidable fighter.

FW-190-Upgrades kept this fighter a dangerous opponent, but not the superiority it enjoyed in late 1942. (Actual testing against the F4U-1A and F6F Hellcat by the US Navy found that these two naval fighters had an advantage over the 190 (in all areas except rate-of-climb), particularly the Corsair which could easily out turn the FW, and these were naval fighters that should be at a disadvantage to land based types).

FW TA-152-A formidable high-altitude fighter and development of the FW-190. It has been mentioned by others, but only 69 were produced so it really had no impact on the war overall.

KI-84 Frank-3,514 produced. This later war Japanese fighter matched or exceeded any Allied single-engine fighter it faced. A lack of trained pilots and limited fuel of lower octane prevented it from having a greater impact on the war. (The N1K1-J George (1,413 produced) was another Japanese fighter that enjoyed a short period of parity with Allied fighters, the appearance of the Griffon powered Spitfire, P51-D (Mar 44), etc. outclassed it. Lack of skilled pilots and fuel prevented it from becoming a bigger factor during this period.)

Kawasaki KI-100-Mating a Mitsubishi Kinsei radial engine to the airframe of a KI-61 "Tony" in place of its inline HA-40 (licensed copy of the German Daimler-Benz DB 601Aa) as an emergency measure, produced an extremely capable fighter. Introduced in March 1945 it was too little too late. Only 396 produced. Like the TA-152, not enough aircraft produced for me to vote it as best.

Probably one or two I missed, but this makes a good start.

 

All P-38's had compressibility issues. In fact, a proposed late-war P-38K was given four bladed paddle props and more powerful engines. The problem was that the top speed in level flight at most altitudes was now within a few mph of the onset of compressibility. There was nothing that could be done to fix this as the P-38's wing profile couldn't be changed and that was where the issue mostly lay. The problem was solved in production models by introducing compressibility flaps that slowed the plane and kept the speed below ones where the problem onset at.
The J model, over Europe had severe problems with engine detonations at high altitude. The other issue with the P-38 was it was EXPENSIVE. You could almost get two P-47 or 51's for the price of a P-38. In the Pacific, the P-38 rarely had to operate at high altitude, most of the time it would flying at around 20,000 feet at most there.

The P-47 had one of the best roll rates of any fighter. Its big drawback was range. Thus, when the P-38 and P-51 were available, they were preferred as the choices for long-range escort operations. As the P-51 was easier to fly than a P-38 and available in larger numbers, it became the 8th AF's choice for escort fighters. The P-38's and 47's went to 9th TAF in Europe and were still widely used, only now mostly for tactical and ground support missions.

It was recognized right from the start that the P-51 really needed the Merlin engine. Just as the USAAF had already been shoving that engine into the P-40 to improve its altitude performance, the P-51 was re-engineered to use it too. Interestingly, Rolls-Royce offered up several designs for this including one with a mid-engine behind the cockpit that was moved forward. Their conventional designs didn't perform much better, except with respect to altitude, than the Allison engine models. What made the P-51 excel, was N. American redesigned the air intakes, the radiator scoop, and other aerodynamic details resulting in a whopping 40 mph improvement in speed. The Merlin alone wasn't the answer to anything other than better altitude performance.

This was a back and forth thing with Allied and German aircraft.

A lack of a radio in many cases, along with poor altitude performance--something that the Soviets accepted as they generally flew missions at 8,000 to 15,000 feet and had no real Luftwaffe bomber offensive to deal with--left most Soviet fighters hurting when they had to fight at altitude. At lower altitudes, in competent hands, a Yak or Lavochkin could more than hold its own. On the other hand, Soviet aerial tactics left a lot to be desired and often proved the demise of their aircraft in aerial combat.

The big let down for the A series 190's was altitude performance. The BMW 801 was good to about 20,000 feet where it ran out of steam. Focke Wulf's D model and the follow-on Ta 152 series used the Jumo 213 power plant. Not the ideal engine, but readily available.

These show again that Japanese aircraft designers were as good as anybody else. Their problem was getting their designs into production. Japan simply didn't have the means to produce these planes in anywhere near the necessary numbers, and the military had great difficulty keeping them serviced and flying.

The Ki 100 was an act of desperation that just happened to work. Kawasaki had lots of Ki-61 airframes sitting around at their factory waiting for an engine. The need for fighters was so urgent that the engineers tried fitting a radial engine to the airframe. It happened to work out well and the Ki 100 was born.

 

I'll go with the P-47 in mid to late war in Europe. The killed a lot of very good German pilot leaders. (Think the younger 2 Galland bros. plus plenty of staffel and Gruppe commanders.) This laid the foundation for the P-51's huge victory tallies. In late '44 and '45 the average German pilot was inferior to his allied counterpart, as well as being horribly outnumbered.

Eric "Winkle" Brown had a lot to say on this subject. His thesis was that all these planes were very close to each other in performance and that it was pilot ability and pilot production that mattered. His observation on the ME 109 was that it "...was a success in spite of itself."

The best pilot is the one who uses the best attributes of his aircraft against the worst ones of the enemy's.

Another grouping: BEST dual purpose gun: The 5"38 or the German 88? Or...?

 

Versatile and tough as hell perhaps. Now, how easy was it to fly, especially for new pilots, or even seasoned ones used to other aircraft? It had a gigantic propeller that if you weren't careful in landing, you'll plow the airstrip. Second, how much cheaper was it to mass produce compared with contemporary American fighters?

 

This could be a good discussion; these two were exemplars of two different philosophies. 88s were as long as 71 caliber in land-based designs and 76 on ships. Long-barreled, high-velocity AA weapons included the 105mm/65 and the Japanese 100mm/65 used on the Akizuki class AA destroyers. Other widely used weapons like the 5"/38, the Japanese 5"/40, and the British 4"/45 had moderate length barrels and relatively heavy shells (probably better barrel life also). Which was better?

Fun fact, in the early 1930s the USN used 5"51 low angle guns - battleship secondary armament - and 5"/25 AA weapons. They then adopted the dual-purpose 5"/38 - exactly at the midpoint between 25 and 51.

 

Excellent point! This also shows that they were willing to change their design philosophy based on war experience.