The Greatest Fighter?

[Obi-Jiff Kenobi]

What I like best about this thread is that, whilst it is easy to disagree with any of the opinions proferred so far, it is nigh on impossible to disprove them. This is probably the best discussion I've been part of on Britmodeller, so kudos to all who have contributed.

By the way, the correct answer to the original question is still the Spitfire!

[pte1643]

Most people don't bear in mind how close Germany came to winning the BoB.

History says this, yes, but I'm not too sure that was actually the case.

There was a documentary aired earlier this* year on British TV (Can't remember the channel) that uncovered some evidence, whilst not exactly to the contrary, certainly threw "New Light" on the subject.

The programme went on to show, through personal accounts and documents, that the RAF were actually NEVER short of equipment, or manpower and that the aircraft factories, especially, were easily replacing aircraft as quick as they were being lost.

* Sorry, meant LAST year (2010).

Edited January 9, 2011 by pte1643

[-Neu-]

No fighter changed the war. Plain and simple.

That said I completely disagree on your assessment that conditions would have been different if the Mustang faced the Luftwaffe in the early years. What helped the Mustang wasn't the lack of availability of good Luftwaffe pilots. Rather, it was fighting an air war on conditions in which it was best suited for: high altitude air-to-air combat against enemy fighters. Both the 109 and 190s had beef up their armament because their main targets were bombers, something which deteriorated their fighting ability, added to the fact that the 190 was not by nature a high-altitude fighter. Fact: the Luftwaffe as late as late 1943 was so much of a menace to the USAAF's strategic bombing campaign that it was put on hold. Your argument basically implies that something caused the Luftwaffe to lose such a significant amount of its fighter capability in the winter of 1943/44 that when the campaign resumed, it was but a mere shadow of its former self. I don't find that a convincing explanation.

I think you're overstating the Luftwaffe's situation in 1943. Even by late 1942 it was in dire straights. Starting with the Battle of Britain, it experienced unsustainable losses to pilots and equipment. Losses in the East (Stalingrad) and in the South (Tunisia) drained its effective combat strength... the Luftwaffe was regularly losing over 10% of its combat strength a month. Between May and October of 1942, the Luftwaffe lost 48% of its fighter strength. The German industry, with its poor economic mobilization, could not sustain such losses.

Certainly the Reich was effective in 1943 at dealing a blow to the Allied bomber efforts, but this masked the reality of the situation. After several disastrous raids on Cologne an other major cities in 1942, defending the Reich became the Luftwaffe's main priority. It pulled operational squadrons back into Germany, and gave them priority for the newest equipment and the best pilots. However this was at great expense to the luftwaffe's presence in all other theaters. It subsequently played a very limited part in operations over the East (after Kursk in 1943), the South (after Tunisia) or even in France. Moreover the quality of pilots the Luftwaffe fielded after 1942 was comparatively worse than Allies contemporaries as training schedules were accelerated to replace losses and fuel shortages decreased the availability of training flights.

Don't get me wrong, you're absolutely right that the Mustang was critical for protecting the bomber offensive after November 1943. It help put the final nail in the Luftwaffe's coffin, shattering its effective combat strength. By mid 1944, the Allied Bomber offensive was able to operate with near impunity over the Reich.

Since there were no war-winning fighters one must judge them by their technical capabilities as well as to the contributions to the campaigns and theatres in which they fought, even if they were not necessarily "war-winning".

In this sense, I think the greatest fighter ever was the Spitfire.

From the technical standpoint, it was the only fighter to have been designed before the war that evolved to remain a top tier fighter (minus jets) by the end... and even beyond that. The Spit Mk. I was capable of taking on anything in the world in 1939... and so was the the Mk. XIV in 1945. The Bf 109, while built in greater numbers, did not evolve so gracefully and was thoroughly outclassed in its late-war variants. With this in mind, it is evident that the Spitfire design was the only one which was flexible enough to survive the entire war with its capability undiminished relative to later, newer designs - an even greater merit considering that those newer designs had the hindsight of combat experience, something the Spit didn't have when RJ Mitchell dreamed it up.

I don't know if that has much to do with a limitation of the 109 design as much as different philosophies concerning industrial production. The RLM and the German aircraft manufacturers were more disposed to producing completely new designs rather than upgrading current fighters. A major part of this was due to the dysfunctional state of the Nazi industrial base. It was poorly rationalized, badly managed and excessively politicized. Major producers were forced to compete for support with new designs. Unfortunately RLM was afflicted by catastrophic procurement disasters, again partly due to the lacking accountability within the Nazi regime. Looking at the BF-109, it was scheduled for replacement by 1943. However, political neglect and design failures of its replacements (the 209-II and the 309) led to their cancellation, and the 109 had to soldier on as the main fighter without major upgrades. This wasn't the exception; the German aerospace industry in the Second World War is replete with similar failures. The He-177, Me-210 and the BMW-003 jet engine are probably three of the better known examples. In short, the 109's lacking evolution was likely not a limitation of the design but the result of a ham-handed procurement system.

The British and American war industries established effective management systems that made smart decisions concerning production. It was predisposed towards introducing incremental improvements into production lines that would field fighters based on current needs without disrupting production lines for retooling. The Spitfire was always considered a work in progress as you note. In addition to incremental upgrades that saw uprated merlins and small alterations to its frame, the spit underwent several major redesigns in the wings (Mk.21), fuselage (Bubbletop Mk.14/16) and the engine (Mk 13/14 Griffon). The Germans tried to introduce several major changes into a single fighter at once, and it failed miserably. On an industrial level, the Spitfire is probably one of the greatest fighters, and the most fascinating.

Btw, Zen I've been meaning to respond to your post in the hasegawa prices thread... I'll fire you a pm about it soon.

Edited January 9, 2011 by -Neu-

[Mal]

Sorry Jonners I've got to disagree,as the Buffalo didn’t have a perfect kill to loss ratio while in service with the Finnish Airforce, the Finns lost a number in aerial combat. In my view the kill to loss ratio, isn’t a particular good measure as a number of aircraft the F-15 and Sea Harrier for example have perfect records I don't think any have been lost in aerial combat, neither does it take into consideration pilot skill and environment.

I also question your choice of the P-51 as it had vicious unpredictable handling characteristic easily entering a spin which was compounded by fuel load,an important factor as many pilots flying these machines were inexperienced

I still come down in favour of the Spitfire XIV basing my conclusion on Eric Brown's view, he had flown most WWII fighters both allied and axis and as a military test pilot knew what was required of a fighter. An informed answer can only come from someone who has had the experience of flying the machines and understanding all their nuances.

Malcolm

[Pielstick]

What I like best about this thread is that, whilst it is easy to disagree with any of the opinions proferred so far, it is nigh on impossible to disprove them. This is probably the best discussion I've been part of on Britmodeller, so kudos to all who have contributed. thumbsup.gif

Indeed It's a good discussion that can be quite thought provoking. We'll never reach a definitive conclusion, but it's an interesting discussion to have nonetheless.

I still come down in favour of the Spitfire XIV basing my conclusion on Eric Brown's view

Eric Brown is probably the most qualified person to give an opinion, having flown most of the major combat types from the various combatants. All told he flew more types than any other pilot in history. Not only that, before becoming a test pilot he was a combat pilot flying Martlets from HMS Audacity and I believe shot down one or two FW200 Condors before Audacity was sunk by a U-Boat.

A combat pilot with kills to his name, going onto becoming the most prolific test pilot in history is pretty hard credentials to beat.

Edited January 9, 2011 by Pielstick

[Giorgio N]

A lot of interesting points here !

I noticed that the bf.109 is discussed but the Fw.190 is not discussed as much. I personally believe that the FW.190 was a better fighter than the 109 as it was a better all rounder. The 109 was more manouverable and a better weapon in the hand of the best pilots, while the 190 carried more punch and proved to be more versatile. The growth potential of the 190 was also higher, as shown by the superb Fw.190D.

I'm not going to dispute Eric Brown opinion, as he had the chance of test-piloting all the best planes of the days. However I tend to not give too much importance to the opinion of fighter pilots. What's best for a fighter pilot is highly influenced by the way he's trained to fly and fight. Just to give an example, most italian ww2 pilots considered the more manouverable fighters to be the best and often scorned planes that had more speed and firepower. This because the training of italian pilots had always been based on outmanouvering the adversaries, with great emphasis put on aerobatics. However it is clear for enthusiasts and experts now that the more powerful fighters had many advantages over the old school italian planes and were most probably better.

[jaw]

Well done Upnorth for selecting the Hurricane - it was the right aircraft for its time. But whether it was the best fighter is another question. Personally I would go for the Tempest or Sea Fury because they are so good looking!

John

[andrewfl290]

I'm going to go for the Spit.

Designed by a genius who never saw what his creation achieved, used a revolutionary design for the time. It was a front line fighter throughout the war. The handling was said to be well balanced and delightful.

What's more (and beauty is in the eye of the beholder) there has never been a sexier looking aircraft let alone a fighter.

Andrew

[Obi-Jiff Kenobi]

the Spit... ...there has never been a sexier looking aircraft...

Except for the DH88 Comet Racer

[phat trev]

If you are German then its the 109

If a Brit its the Spit

A yank then its either the Mustang or maybe the Sabre but most likely the former

If Japanese then the Zero

and so on......

If your Italian it's the 109....until you bottom gets wooped, then its the Spitfire

[Giorgio N]

If your Italian it's the 109....until you bottom gets wooped, then its the Spitfire

Hmmm.... no, Italians usually consider the mc.202 as their greatest (wrongly IMHO,as I prefer the G.55). The 109 rarely gets mentioned even if half the country sticked with them til the end of the war. Or maybe it rarely ges mentioned because it was used by the half of the countr that sticked to them. The spitfire here is remembered as a bunch of fourth hand wrecks that could barely fly. Of course they are remembered by the other half of the country that switched to them instead of sticking to the 109.

Interestingly the same people who provided the spitfires back then were quite happy that part of the country switched side. In return Italy got 2 years of civil war and very little of what was promised...

[Rabspat]

I think the greatest fighter is tied between P-51 and Spitfire.

[J.D.]

The Mustang.

I know I'm supposed to say F-15 because of its claimed war record but - and excuse me for casting any doubts on it - I don't think we'll ever know the truth there. Yefim Gordon cites an example in his book on the MiG 25/31 of an Israeli F-15 which lost an argument with a Foxbat but every time I quote it on any other forum, I get flamed. I'll take my chances this time because most people here seem a bit more reasonable.

So, I stand by my original choice: the world's first true strategic fighter and the best fighter of WWII, the P-51.

[Bandwagon 106]

The Mustang.

I know I'm supposed to say F-15 because of its claimed war record but - and excuse me for casting any doubts on it - I don't think we'll ever know the truth there. Yefim Gordon cites an example in his book on the MiG 25/31 of an Israeli F-15 which lost an argument with a Foxbat but every time I quote it on any other forum, I get flamed. I'll take my chances this time because most people here seem a bit more reasonable.

So, I stand by my original choice: the world's first true strategic fighter and the best fighter of WWII, the P-51.

How very dare you sah! Tarnishing a perfect record like that, stoke the grills boys lol!!

Just kidding here J.D. Even if this is true, the Eagle still has an extremely envious kill ratio, and thank you for passing this information to us.

How do we define the greatest fighter-is it the longest serving, the best looking, best kill ratios.. The list of paremeters and candidtates is endless.

Maybe not a candidate, but I think the Viper deserves a mention, has it lost an air-air fight (a real one)? Isreal, Pakistan, the USAF, Venezuela, Vipers have shot down other aircraft in all these services. My nomination?- I don't think it's fair to say which is the best.

Tomcat

Joel

[Giorgio N]

Yefim Gordon cites an example in his book on the MiG 25/31 of an Israeli F-15 which lost an argument with a Foxbat but every time I quote it on any other forum, I get flamed. I'll take my chances this time because most people here seem a bit more reasonable.

The loss of an Israeli F-15 is often mentioned but there's never been any official confirmation. Mind, having an official confirmation on anything in the middle east is difficult in general and all the conflicts in the area have seen wild claims with no confirmation from arab sources. Israeli sources are the opposite as they often pretend nothing happened even when plenty of witnesses say otherwise.

In general I find Yefim Gordon books are sometimes not very balanced in the assessment of combat results or on the merits of the plane subject of the book. The description of the Sidra bay clash between tomcats and Su-22s is an example: reading it in his books sounds like an epic battle in which the lybian pilots lost at the end because of bad luck, while an analysis of the events just shows that it was a quick fight where 2 inferior planes were dispatched quickly by 2 superior planes. Another example is in the book on the Yak-36/38, where he mentions that the number of accidents compared favouraby with the harrier, conviently forgetting to tell during how many flight hours the number of accidents occurred...

[J.D.]

The loss of an Israeli F-15 is often mentioned but there's never been any official confirmation. Mind, having an official confirmation on anything in the middle east is difficult in general and all the conflicts in the area have seen wild claims with no confirmation from arab sources. Israeli sources are the opposite as they often pretend nothing happened even when plenty of witnesses say otherwise.

In general I find Yefim Gordon books are sometimes not very balanced in the assessment of combat results or on the merits of the plane subject of the book. The description of the Sidra bay clash between tomcats and Su-22s is an example: reading it in his books sounds like an epic battle in which the lybian pilots lost at the end because of bad luck, while an analysis of the events just shows that it was a quick fight where 2 inferior planes were dispatched quickly by 2 superior planes. Another example is in the book on the Yak-36/38, where he mentions that the number of accidents compared favouraby with the harrier, conviently forgetting to tell during how many flight hours the number of accidents occurred...

My point, which both of you seem to have understood, is that whatever absolutes are claimed, there is always room for doubt. Not only is it impossible to verify anything from the Middle East with 100% confidence, I doubt if either side would confirm or deny it. The F-15s record may be correct, or it may not. We will likely never know. Who can anyone believe absolutely? Nobody as far as I am concerned. On top of that, the F-15 has rarely, if ever, been pitted against an airforce of comparable quality so, although its combat record is about as one-sided as a lynching, it's not quite the same as Mustang v Messerschmitt. It certainly belongs in the top 10.

Where matters of national pride are concerned, truth is a secondary objective.

Cheers guys and thanks for not setting my tail on fire.

Edited January 13, 2011 by J.D.

[XL929]

EE Lightning!!!

[davidelvy]

Hmmm.... no, Italians usually consider the mc.202 as their greatest (wrongly IMHO,as I prefer the G.55).

I've always considered the Reggiane 2005 the best looking of the three and on paper it appears suoperior in many ways. However, although it was a potentially dangerous opponent it was built in very few numbers and its impact on the war was minimal. I was wondering how the aircraft is seen in Italy? A lost hope or an irrelevance?

[Giorgio N]

I've always considered the Reggiane 2005 the best looking of the three and on paper it appears suoperior in many ways. However, although it was a potentially dangerous opponent it was built in very few numbers and its impact on the war was minimal. I was wondering how the aircraft is seen in Italy? A lost hope or an irrelevance?

The re.2005 is my favourite too in terms of looks. I rate the G.55 a better fighter because it was more what italy needed in 1943: a potent and tough high fighter capable of taking down the bombers and their escort a high altitudes, while the 2005 was more of a dogfighter.

The plane received a lot of bad press during its tests because it was considered too fragile for a combat plane. It's true that the prototype could have been more robust, but the serious issues had been cured when it entered production. The fame of a beautiful but fragile plane has stick to it however and that's how many still see it. I actually had the chance years ago to talk to some of the guys that restored the rear fuselage section still existing in a museum and one of them had actually flown the 2005! He said that all the other pilots said a Re.2005 couldn't be dived as it would have lost the tailplanes, while he knew it wasn't the case because he had to dive it a few times in combat and always brought him back home.

Reggiane plane also weren't rated highly bymany in the air force in general. They were considered too "different" from the standard, Reggiane designer tried to bring a lot ofinnovative features he had learnt working in the US but the higher commands were quite conservative and didn't like his approach.

However none of the so called "5 series" was produced in quantities big enough to make a difference. The G.55 was re-engined post war with the Merlin to make the G.59 and this made it the longer serving. The Mc.205 was used in small quantities and some were even exported (and fought against the spitfires again during the Israel independence war in 1948). The beatiful reggiane disappeared together with its manufacturer (or at least the plane manufacturing division).

In general, the whole matter of having 3 fighters produced was crazy ! A country like Italy could not produce 3 different types of similar fighter. Even Britain and Germany only had 2 in production at any same time. But it was typical of the fascist regime to grant contracts to different factories for internal politics reason and so italy ended the war with probably the highest number of fighter types of all the combatants.

The Mc.202 is still considered the best mainly because of the battles over the lybian desert. It was the first Italian plane to be as capable as anything else the allied had, and maybe for this reason alone is rightly remembered.

[Folkbox1]

Having flown numerous combat missions* over NW Europe in all the main types (both German and Allied) by far the best of that period was the Tempest V. The Me262 was good at hit and run tactics (so not really a fighter – more of a bully), the Mustang (and all other US planes with 50 cal MGs) took a lot of ammo to even damage an enemy, the Spit was good but not as potent which goes for the 109 and 190 too.

So there you have it the Tempest wins hands down.

*Aces Over Europe 1993 – 96

On a serious note I don't believe you can judge a fighter until it has faced air to air combat - just because it looks good on paper or in combat exercises doesn't mean it can cut the mustard at the real thing. How many weapons systems of the past hundred years actually stood up to expectations in real combat - only a fraction I'd guess.

[General Jumbo]

On a serious note I don't believe you can judge a fighter until it has faced air to air combat - just because it looks good on paper or in combat exercises doesn't mean it can cut the mustard at the real thing. How many weapons systems of the past hundred years actually stood up to expectations in real combat - only a fraction I'd guess.

I agree - on paper the Defiant ticked all the boxes but in reality was a poorly convceived death trap.

[J.D.]

Although I rated the Mustang the best, there are others worthy of at least an honourable mention:

The Fokker Eindecker - the original "Fokker Scourge" and the mount of Oswald Boelke and Max Immelmann. It was the first true fighter;

The Fokker DVII, which was the best fighter to emerge from WWI. It was even stipulated in the Versailles Treaty;

The Sopwith Camel, an aircraft which killed almost as many Allied pilots as enemy. In the right hands it was a truly deadly weapon;

The Spitfire. I'm almost reluctant to include it because 1) it always gets more credit than the Hurricane for its work in the BoB and 2) I grew up in an environment where the Spit reigned supreme. BUT...it was a great aircraft and remained highly competitive from the start of WWII to the end. It fought with distinction in all theatres and was loved not just by British and Commonwealth pilots but by Soviets and Americans too!

The Grumman F6F Hellcat achieved a kill ratio of 19:1 and was responsible for more than 70% of US Navy kills - some 4,800 - in the Pacific. It was truly the fighter which won the war in that theatre;

The Fw190 was tried in virtually every role from air superiority to torpedo bomber! Compared with the Bf109, it was easy to fly and had tremendous stopping power;

The Yak 3/ Yak 9 were tremendously capable aircraft in the right hands. They were highly manoeuvrable at low altitude and very fast. Bf109 pilots were instructed to avoid combat with them.

The Mosquito night fighter ran the table for the night air war. Not much more needs to be said about it. It was amazing at everything it did.

The Mirage III was the best of the early supersonic jets and while there were more sophisticated solutions out there, none sold as well or were used more effectively.

The F-15, whatever its record says, has been the premier air superiority fighter for 30 years. Whether or not any have been lost in A2A combat is debatable but what can't be disputed is that has not been seriously challenged until now. That's quite a record.

Edited January 14, 2011 by J.D.

[Pielstick]

I see Eric Brown has been mentioned a few times now. Last night I found a book I bought a couple of years ago about air combat tactics in flight simulators. In the book is an interview with Eric Brown. He is asked some interesting questions and gives some interesting answers. Some of the stuff he says is already in Wings On My Sleeve but some of it is new to me:

- The BF109 was "over vaunted". The cockpit was too small and rearward visibility was poor. When in combat and the automatic leading edge slats would deploy or retract the aircraft would rock, frustrating the pilot in his attempts to aim the aircraft's weapons. At 400mph the BF109's elevator controls became extremely heavy and almost impossible to move. The BF109 also lacked a rudder trim which increased the workload and fatigue of the pilot.

- Brown says the Germans made greater use of electrical systems in their aircraft, as opposed to the British preference of hydraulic systems. He says we should have developed something similar to the German "Kommandogerat" earlier in the war.

- The FW190 was the first real shock the RAF got during the war, leaving them very nervous.

- Britain produced three truly great aircraft during the war - the Spitfire, Mosquito and Lancaster.

- After the American bombers were getting hammered in 1943 Doolittle went to Farnborough to seek the advice of the RAE. RAE test pilots who had already flown captured BF109s and FW190s were now given the chance to fly the P-38 and P-47. Brown explains up until the arrival of the American heavies most air combat took place below 20,000ft. Air combat was now taking place at 30,000ft where Mach number and compressibility come into play. The BF109 and FW190 were capable of flying at M0.75 in combat at these altitudes, but the P-38 and P-47 were only capable of flying in combat at M0.68 and M0.71 respectively. The Americans were told that the P-38 was only good for photo reconnaissance duties in Europe, something they found hard to swallow given the type's success against the Japanese.

- Brown said as far as American fighters go they should "Thank God" for the P-51 as it was capable of flying at M0.78 in combat.

- On the subject of the Spitfire vs the P-51 Brown said the P-51 was easily the best American dogfighter, but it had no hope of turning with a Spitfire. Although the Mustang had a greater roll rate than the Spitifre the laminar wing also gave it rather nasty stall characteristics. He said in a dogfight he would rather be in a Spitfire, unless the dogfight was over Berlin, where only the Mustang would give him enough fuel to get home.

- The two best propeller driven fighters of the war were the Spitfire XIV and FW190D.

- Up until 1943 the Zero was the best fighter in the world.

- Soviet fighters and their engines were not built to last. The workmanship was "rough and ready" and it did have an effect on the aircraft's performance.

- The Soviets were tactically very naive, hence their huge aircraft losses during the war.

- When interviewing Erich Hartmann Brown asked him how he achieved so many victories. Hartmann said the Soviet Il-2 formations would remain rigid and not take any evasive action when attacked. Being defended by only one gun meant it was easy to shoot down an Il-2 on every attack made on the formations. Hartmann believed he wouldn't have achieved anything like 352 kills or survived the war had be been flying on the Western Front.

- The Meteor was "pedestrian" compared to the ME262, and the Vampire wouldn't have stood much chance either.

- The ME262 was no dogfighter, and in a standard attack profile against bombers the 262 pilot would only have 2 seconds to aim and fire his weapons, but in reality 4 seconds were needed to do this. He says shooting down a bomber in the 262 was really a matter of pointing the nose, squeezing the trigger and hoping for the best.

- Brown held the Italian fighter designs in high regard, saying the MC205 was the best of the lot, combining "German engineering and Italian style".

- Brown regards Kurt Tank as the greatest fighter designer of the war, and believes we should have invited him to come and work in the British aviation industry post war. He believes the American's didn't because they were to wrapped up in developing space flight.

Edited January 16, 2011 by Pielstick

[Edgar]

Sampson; it needed treachery to take him down.

[-Neu-]

- Britain produced three truly great aircraft during the war - the Spitfire, Mosquito and Lancaster.

Typhoon should be up there as well.

- The two best propeller driven fighters of the war were the Spitfire XIV and FW190D.

He also claimed that the Sea Fury was among the best props he flew in... while it was significantly different, I assume the Tempest series probably wasn't too far off. It was a slightly tougher plane to fly compared to the D9, but had similar capabilities.

- Up until 1943 the Zero was the best fighter in the world.

Sure, I guess he never had to be shot at in one though.

One thing that I like to consider are factors outside the normal speed, maneuverability ect, but also that of doctrine and manufacturability. These arguably have just as significant influence on what makes them a success. The Zero fit the Japanese doctrine very well, and it was a successful... until the Japanese system broke down due to attrition and the Americans developed doctrine and fighters that cut it apart.

- When interviewing Erich Hartmann Brown asked him how he achieved so many victories. Hartmann said the Soviet Il-2 formations would remain rigid and not take any evasive action when attacked. Being defended by only one gun meant it was easy to shoot down an Il-2 on every attack made on the formations. Hartmann believed he wouldn't have achieved anything like 352 kills or survived the war had be been flying on the Western Front.

Absolutely true. Moreover Russia was a vast front that meant pilots could easily find unescorted aircraft to take down. Given the relative performance advantages of German aircraft, they could easily pick and chose their battles.

- The Meteor was "pedestrian" compared to the ME262, and the Vampire wouldn't have stood much chance either.

The last part I disagree with. The Vampire was a fairly maneuverable aircraft, and had a more reliable engine to boot. The 262 was faster, but as Brown notes, it was all about going straight and fast. Obviously they were intended for different roles, but put into practice I think it would have been a very good fighter in a pilot who understood how to use it.

- Brown regards Kurt Tank as the greatest fighter designer of the war, and believes we should have invited him to come and work in the British aviation industry post war. He believes the American's didn't because they were to wrapped up in developing space flight.

A contender appears?

Sydney Camm designed the Hurricane, Typhoon and the Tempest... the first two were critical for the allied success in the war. What always impressed me about Camm was that he was also aware of manufacturing constraints, something many designers fail to take into account. The Tempest line could take on everything the Germans could put in the air.

What's surprising to me is while people claim how amazing the Luftwaffe was, when in reality their aircraft did not have a qualitative edge over their Allied counterparts. Arguably the only aircraft to achieve this was the FW-190A in late 1941... until the Spitfire IX entered into service in July 1942.

Finally, I'm not sure that the Americans needed Tank after the war. They had their own great designers like Clarence Kelly, Jack Northrop and John Atwood, who were all arguably as great as Tank. Listen to this audio conference

about the Oxcart program. Edited January 17, 2011 by -Neu-