Best British fighter in Europe???

The best British fighter in Europe was I think the Supermarine Spitfire. The Hawker Hurricane/Typhoon/Tempest may have been very heavily armed, but this is because it was designated to take out the bombers and the Spitfire was to take out the fighters. I hate to admit it, but the Spitfire was faster than the P-51D. The Supermarine Spitfire model XVIII had a top speed of 442 mph while P-51D had a top speed of 437 mph. The De Haviland Mosquito was orginally designed as an unarmed, highspeed bomber. The De Haviland Mosquito was made entirely of wood. The Spitfire was much faster, much more manueverable, had a higher rate of climb, higher service ceiling and was made in 1940, retaining it's dominance in the sky throughout the course of the war.

[ 28 September 2002, 11:07 PM: Message edited by: Mustang ]

 

I think the Hawker Tempest was a better aircraft then the Spitfire Mk XIV, probably the best British fighter of 44/45

 

Why do think the Tempest was better than the Spitfire Mk. XIV and even the best British fighter during the war? Besides I was talking about the Spitfire Mk. XVIII. (Roman Numerals were dropped after number 20 because of confusion)

 

I go with the "Spitfire", for all the reasons Mustang mentioned. Beside, it was the most beautiful aeroplane of the war.

But I might quote the great Martin Bull and might go with the "Mosquito" too...

Confusion?! Stupids...

 

I agree, the Spitfire was the most beautiful plane in the war. It is considered by many to be a work of art. The P-51 was pretty too.

 

Spitfire XIV hands down....armament, speed, efficiency, battle damage records, ruggedness-MOLTO BENNAY...

 

Mustang - the first Spitfire XVIII reached the RAF on May 28th, 1945 ( SM844 going to 28 Sqn, Hong Kong ). So it doesn't really count as 'Best in Europe.....' ?

 

Oh !!
Friedrich agreed with me and I'm going to have to disagree !

The Mosquito cannot be compared to 'pure' fighters because it couldn't 'dogfight'. This is due to the higher wing loading caused by two engines and a much greater wing area. ( This problem was solved by the DH Hornet - but that's a 'what if ?' ).

BUT - when tested at Boscombe Down in February 1941 the Mosquito prototype was 20 mph faster than the contemporary service Spitfire - for double the 'wetted area'. This caused a sensation at the British Air Ministry.

And once again - I've said it elsewhere on the Forum - the Mosquito was NOT designed purely as an unarmed bomber. It was ORDERED that way by a sceptical Air Ministry who simply didn't believe DH's claims for the aircraft. The designers, right from the start, included options for guns, cameras, etc - the manufacturers always believed it would fulfil a multi-role.

And as for wood - yes, right - it was the forerunner of today's composite constructions. It was light, immensely strong, absorbed damage with minimal 'shatter', was easy to repair, created a low radar 'signature', and, importantly, was very efficient at absorbing recoil. The 'battery' of machineguns and cannon, grouped together for maximum destructive effect, had enormous recoil which caused great problems with 'cracking' on conventional dural aircraft - not so the Mosquito.

Fantastic for it's time - but even I won't go so far as to claim that it could 'dogfight' a Fw190.....

[ 29 September 2002, 03:39 AM: Message edited by: Martin Bull ]

 

Mustang

Well lets see...
The Spit had a very weak undercarrige, was not very robust (in terms of absorbing damage) and could not carry the armaments that the Tempest could (2000 lbs of bombs verses 500). And perhaps more importantly 460 mile range versus 1530. The Spitfire was a very beautiful aircraft, and as an air defence fighter, very effective. But by late war, when offensive capabilities were king it was sadly lacking. I chose the Spit XIV because both it and the Tempest served from D Day to the end of the war.

 

Well, Martin, I picked it because it was VERY, VERY good as all you guys, but particulary Mr. Sarcastic b... have made me learn...

But I would still go for the Spitfire, whatver the bloody number is... It just saved British asses in autumn 1940...

 

The Spitfire Mk I came in 1940, during the Battle of Britian. It was also faster than anyother British fighter then. Later models were still faster and the Mk. XVIII carried 2 cannon and 2 .50 machine guns. The XVIII also had a higher service ceiling than other British fighters.

 

I'm sorry to appear pedantic here but the Spitfire Mk 1 entered service with the RAF on 30 July, 1938 ( K9792 ).

The Spitfire shot down its' first hostile opponent on 16 October 1939 and saw extensive use in the Battle of France.

As mentioned above, Mk XVIII cannot really be considered as a WWII combatant ; the last real 'fighting' Spit was the Mk XIV.

 

Spitfire Mk XIV It was faster and more manoeuvreable than even the P-51D( the last model of the Mustang to see service in Europe)
While it wasn`t as good as other British and American aircraft in the fighter-bomber role in the high altitude fighter role it was supreme

 

Thank you Martin. You make the Spit sound even better. The last model of the Spit was almost 90 mph faster than the first.

So we're all in agreement, the Spit was the best right?

 

( The message icon even looks like a Spitfire ! ).

You're right, Mustang - the Spitfire was unique in many ways, not least in being one of the very few ( Me109 is another ) fighters to be in front line service on the first and last day of WWII.

Also - and this is an important morale factor - to the British people it became a symbol of National defiance and remains so today. . ( I've seen older people with moist eyes at airshows when when a Spitfire appears ).

The Tempest was superior in some respects but the Spitfire's combat record and constant 'upgrading' makes it by far the best British fighter of WWII.

 

Friedrich

I think I'd have to disagree. Although as Martin says the Spit became the symbol of resistance in 1940, what really saved us was the Hurricane. It was some 30% cheaper to make than the Spitfire, far easier to maintain and keep in the air and had a reputation for being more rugged. It was also more "expeditionary" because of this than the Spitfire ever could be. Give it the Universal Wing and you get the Hurribomber, very helpful in the Desert.

Jumbo

 

You are right, Jumbo. Wasn't the 'Hurricane' the plane that actually shot down most of the bombers? But without the Spitfire it was worthless, because it had very few chances to shoot down a good Luftwaffe 1940 pilot in a Me-109 and even some good pilots in Me-110 could shot them down. Beside, it is not very pretty...

 

The Spitfire was greatly improved in ten years. The Rate of climb hasd improved by nearly 80% and speed by 35%. At least I'm pretty sure... The Spitfire was a better fighter than the Hurricane. The Hurricane was a better bomber destroyer as it was more heavily armed than the Spitfire.

 

Friedrich

Most Hurricane pilots felt that, although they lost out in speed, they could still out-turn the Spitfire. A good Hurricane pilot could also shoot down an Me109 too you know, like Bader for instance. Also because the guns were in single batteries of 4 if they did hit you it was like being run over by a London Bus.

Besides there are a lot of factors to fighter combat before getting into the air: like getting the bloody thing to fly and repairing damage. Overall it did not have the scope of development as a fighter that the Spitfire had, but we were still churning the things out until 1944.

Jumbo

 

I am going to agree with you, Jumbo. Just this once! The 'Hurricane? was a very good aeroplane, but perhaps it is not in our favourites list anyway...