Best WWII prop plane

[HomeLand Safety]

The P-38 Lighting was a prop plane and by far was the best design of world war two in my opinion. Look at this page on Wikipedia... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_P-38_Lightning

[Fierianna]

I'll vote for the P-51D as the best piston engine fighter of the war.
It had good agility, good armament, a high maximum airspeed, excellent visibility and a very long range.
The only significant downside I can see is the vulnerability of the cooling system.

[Risottia]

What was the best propeller plane in WWII? I say P-51 Mustang.

"Best propeller plane" means NOTHING. You should specify what type of aircraft you mean (interceptor? escort? dive bomber? close support? strategic bomber? ...) and also what part of the war you mean (there has been a large evolution between 1939 and 1945).

Anyway:
late war, best multirole: Reggiane Re.2005 . Perfect aerodynamics, powerful engine (licence-built DB605A 1085 kW), great maneuverability, high speed (670 km/h max in level flight, 980 km/h never-exceed dive), good weaponry (3x 20mm + 2x 12.7 mm, plus 1300 kg external payload)

late war, best close support: Ilyushin Il-10

late war, best interceptor: either the Tempest or the Ta.154

late war, best strategic bomber: no doubt the B-29

early war, best torpedo bomber: Fairey Swordfish

late war, best torpedo bomber: Grumman Avenger

[Peddieville]

The F4U Corsair. Both a great fighter and a solid ground and sea attack aircraft. Great armament, great speed from that huge engine, good agility, excellent range, and it folded away to practically nothing thanks to those odd wings. The only consistent complaint was that you couldn't see where you were going during taxiing, as the whole nose had to be lifted so a big enough propeller could be mounted to take advantage of all 2250 HP. As a testament to its ability, it saw production until 1953 and use into nearly the sixties. During WWII, it was credited with an incredible 11 kills for every plane shot down.

[HomeLand Safety]

The F4U Corsair. Both a great fighter and a solid ground and sea attack aircraft. Great armament, great speed from that huge engine, good agility, excellent range, and it folded away to practically nothing thanks to those odd wings. The only consistent complaint was that you couldn't see where you were going during taxiing, as the whole nose had to be lifted so a big enough propeller could be mounted to take advantage of all 2250 HP. As a testament to its ability, it saw production until 1953 and use into nearly the sixties. During WWII, it was credited with an incredible 11 kills for every plane shot down.

OOO I have to agree with you on that that was an amazing plane....It was amazing so if I could have 2 it would be the F4U Corsair and the P38...but its only one choice so I am still gonna stick with the P38 Lightning

[Arkinesia]

What the fuck, man. No Spitfire? Fuuuuuuck.

Performance-wise, the best prop fighter of WWII was the Spitfire. It also had a pretty nice fire platform.

The Mk. IXc was excellent, though. Four 30mm cannons. God help any Nazi pilot caught in those crosshairs.

[North Eugenia]

why is the SBD Dauntless not included here..?

[Licana]

why is the SBD Dauntless not included here..?

Despite the title, the poll is of the best piston fighters of the war.

Besides, everyone knows SB2C Helldiver is where it's at.

[Alien Space Bats]

why is the SBD Dauntless not included here..?

Despite the title, the poll is of the best piston fighters of the war.

Besides, everyone knows SB2C Helldiver is where it's at.

That wasn't what the OP said...

[Licana]

Despite the title, the poll is of the best piston fighters of the war.

Besides, everyone knows SB2C Helldiver is where it's at.

That wasn't what the OP said...

Take a look at the title of the poll, it does indeed specify piston fighter aircraft.

[Delator]

For me, if we're talking "Best" from a military perspective, it's pretty simple to rule out a whole lot of contenders.

The "Best" prop plane of WWII has to be one that killed a lot of the enemy...and that was, at the same time, an efficient use of resources. Many blind alleys were followed in aviation during WWII. A plane might be cool, but if only 40 were built, you can't argue that it's somehow "better" than a P-51 when determining the "Best".

Fighters are sexy, ground-attack aircraft turn tides of battle, and logistical aircraft are essential...but if we're talking about bang-for-your-buck, I gotta go with a heavy bomber.

The lack of of a true heavy bomber by both nations, a largely deliberate choice, meant the Soviets and the Nazis battled each other bloody with Close Air Support over the European steppe; racking up kills on the ground and in the air, but at rates obscene in terms of blood and sweat, and often for minimal gains.

...but the use of thousands of four engined bombers gave the US and England the ability to hinder the German war machine from afar, as well as proving decisive in supporting landings throughout Europe, and in the Battle of the Atlantic.

All of this with comparatively few casualties, considering the impact achieved. The Luftwaffe was defeated by April of '44 because they broke their back defending against strategic air-raids by the Western powers. While the P-51's killed the planes, it was the raids that were feared, and the bombings after supremacy was achieved, that proved most decisive.

The Luftwaffe in June was half of what it was in March, and what little was left was rarely willing to engage in numbers from that point onward. That air-superiority aided the USSR every bit as much as it aided the Western powers through the remainder of the war. Soviet operations would still succeed, but each inch would be bloodier without the degree of air supremacy enjoyed by all of the Allies from spring of 44 onward.

Bombers also played a decisive role against Japan. First as commerce raiders, laying mines that would sink more shipping than any other method throughout the war. Later as the decisive punch that crippled the Japanese war machine.

After 32 months of tens of thousands of carrier and land based planes fighting to capture the necessary air-bases, a few hundreds of US bombers effectively ended the war in the Pacific in less than 12 months. Iwo and Okinawa secured forward bases for an invasion that never occurred. Most of the real damage was done by heavy bombers.

It's a real tossup for me.

British bombers, while excellent aircraft, were never produced in numbers comparable to their American counterparts. They gain points for fighting longer, as they racked up more kills early, but the cumulative impact can't add up.

The B-17 was produced in vast numbers, was easier to service, and racked up greater destructive totals against the Nazis...

...but the B-29 was instrumental in the defeat of Japan. So much so that even it's limited deployment and limited numbers pale in comparison to the impact achieved.

The Superfortress. gets my vote.

[Delator]

A6M Reisen

[Delator]

Take a look at the title of the poll, it does indeed specify piston fighter aircraft.

The thread title, and opening post, do not specify fighters.

Even if poll titles mattered for crap, which they don't...that's still 2 out of 3.

[Delator]

How many other propeller driven planes can claim as many goddamned ships as these beauties did?

Considering the Zero was neither a dive bomber, nor a torpedo plane, I'd say plenty.

In addition to being an excellent fighter all the way through the war.

The Zero wasn't even Japan's best fighter.

It might be your favorite though...mine's the Mosquito, but I still said the Superfortress.

[Licana]

Take a look at the title of the poll, it does indeed specify piston fighter aircraft.

The thread title, and opening post, do not specify fighters.

Even if poll titles mattered for crap, which they don't...that's still 2 out of 3.

How does the poll title not matter to the bloody poll?

[Potarius]

Best Fighter, High Altitude: Spitfire LF Mk.XIVe
Best Fighter, Low Altitude: Lavochkin La-7
Best Interceptor, High Altitude: Focke-Wulf FW-190D-9
Best Interceptor, Low Altitude: Hawker Tempest
Best Carrier-Based Fighter: Chance-Vought F4U-4 Corsair
Best Close Support: Petlyakov Pe-2
Best Ground Attack: Ilyushin Il-2m3 Sturmovik
Best Light Bomber: North American B-25 Mitchell
Best Heavy Bomber: Boeing B-29 Superfortress
Best Dive Bomber: Junkers Ju 87 D Stuka
Best Torpedo Bomber: Grumman TBF Avenger


Only after having logged hundreds of hours in various flight sims do you know the difference between the respective niches of each aircraft, and that it's really apples to oranges for the most part. And the only reason the P-51D Mustang has such a reputation is because of its ridiculous flight range (well, ridiculous for WWII), high-altitude top speed, energy retention, and reliability. Its maneuverability in all aspects was slightly above average (when considering the rest of the fighter aircraft in service in all countries), its machine gun armament was exactly standard for all aircraft in service in the United States (6x M2 .50 calibre), and its pilot protection/armor wasn't exactly the most robust. The P-51D Mustang is not the be-all, end-all of fighter aircraft in WWII.

[Arkinesia]

Best Fighter, High Altitude: Spitfire LF Mk.XIVe
Best Fighter, Low Altitude: Lavochkin La-7
Best Interceptor, High Altitude: Focke-Wulf FW-190D-9
Best Interceptor, Low Altitude: Hawker Tempest
Best Carrier-Based Fighter: Chance-Vought F4U-4 Corsair
Best Close Support: Petlyakov Pe-2
Best Ground Attack: Ilyushin Il-2m3 Sturmovik
Best Light Bomber: North American B-25 Mitchell
Best Heavy Bomber: Boeing B-29 Superfortress
Best Dive Bomber: Junkers Ju 87 D Stuka
Best Torpedo Bomber: Grumman TBF Avenger


Only after having logged hundreds of hours in various flight sims do you know the difference between the respective niches of each aircraft, and that it's really apples to oranges for the most part. And the only reason the P-51D Mustang has such a reputation is because of its ridiculous flight range (well, ridiculous for WWII), high-altitude top speed, energy retention, and reliability. Its maneuverability in all aspects was slightly above average (when considering the rest of the fighter aircraft in service in all countries), its machine gun armament was exactly standard for all aircraft in service in the United States (6x M2 .50 calibre), and its pilot protection/armor wasn't exactly the most robust. The P-51D Mustang is not the be-all, end-all of fighter aircraft in WWII.

Well for one, the Mustang had a nasty tendency to spin. And it would often not be very recoverable.

[Dododecapod]

Considering the Zero was neither a dive bomber, nor a torpedo plane, I'd say plenty.



The Zero wasn't even Japan's best fighter.

It might be your favorite though...mine's the Mosquito, but I still said the Superfortress.

Which makes it all the more impressive that the A6M Reisen, being neither a bomber nor a torpedo have sunk 52 ships, and damaged 300 more through kamikaze attacks. As I said, find me a plane that can match that record.

The N1k-J and Ki-84 are late war fighters. The A6M served all the way through and hence deserves it's highlighted position.

And strategic bombers were beyond useless in WW2. They were detrimental to the allied cause in fact.

Clearly you're speaking from a eurocentric position. Bombing can be perceived as being of questionable use there, depending on your point of view.
In the pacific campaign bombers were god. They destroyed the Japanese economy and industry, shattered their naval building program and, of course, delivered the death blow.

[Sanderica]

Polikarpov i-15/6 But seriously I think the Sturmovik, due to its significance to the Red Army

[Morrdh]

C-47's helped supply Berlin in the face of Soviet efforts to starve the city out in the late 50's and early 60's, making them a decisive weapon in the Cold War as well.

They did until July 1948 when they were all replaced by the 10 ton tricycle-geared C-54s which were easier to unload.

[OMGeverynameistaken]

Best Fighter, High Altitude: Spitfire LF Mk.XIVe
Best Fighter, Low Altitude: Lavochkin La-7
Best Interceptor, High Altitude: Focke-Wulf FW-190D-9
Best Interceptor, Low Altitude: Hawker Tempest
Best Carrier-Based Fighter: Chance-Vought F4U-4 Corsair
Best Close Support: Petlyakov Pe-2
Best Ground Attack: Ilyushin Il-2m3 Sturmovik
Best Light Bomber: North American B-25 Mitchell
Best Heavy Bomber: Boeing B-29 Superfortress
Best Dive Bomber: Junkers Ju 87 D Stuka
Best Torpedo Bomber: Grumman TBF Avenger


Only after having logged hundreds of hours in various flight sims do you know the difference between the respective niches of each aircraft, and that it's really apples to oranges for the most part. And the only reason the P-51D Mustang has such a reputation is because of its ridiculous flight range (well, ridiculous for WWII), high-altitude top speed, energy retention, and reliability. Its maneuverability in all aspects was slightly above average (when considering the rest of the fighter aircraft in service in all countries), its machine gun armament was exactly standard for all aircraft in service in the United States (6x M2 .50 calibre), and its pilot protection/armor wasn't exactly the most robust. The P-51D Mustang is not the be-all, end-all of fighter aircraft in WWII.

Wasn't the La-7 pretty terrible at low altitudes? It was a real beast at high altitude, but as I recall it was supposed to be a bit of a cow below 3,000 feet or something.

Or was that the La-5?

[Raxar]

Super marine spitfire, Bf-109 is a close 2nd

[Lyveldid Islands]

Always was a fan of the BF-109.

[Potarius]

Best Fighter, High Altitude: Spitfire LF Mk.XIVe
Best Fighter, Low Altitude: Lavochkin La-7
Best Interceptor, High Altitude: Focke-Wulf FW-190D-9
Best Interceptor, Low Altitude: Hawker Tempest
Best Carrier-Based Fighter: Chance-Vought F4U-4 Corsair
Best Close Support: Petlyakov Pe-2
Best Ground Attack: Ilyushin Il-2m3 Sturmovik
Best Light Bomber: North American B-25 Mitchell
Best Heavy Bomber: Boeing B-29 Superfortress
Best Dive Bomber: Junkers Ju 87 D Stuka
Best Torpedo Bomber: Grumman TBF Avenger


Only after having logged hundreds of hours in various flight sims do you know the difference between the respective niches of each aircraft, and that it's really apples to oranges for the most part. And the only reason the P-51D Mustang has such a reputation is because of its ridiculous flight range (well, ridiculous for WWII), high-altitude top speed, energy retention, and reliability. Its maneuverability in all aspects was slightly above average (when considering the rest of the fighter aircraft in service in all countries), its machine gun armament was exactly standard for all aircraft in service in the United States (6x M2 .50 calibre), and its pilot protection/armor wasn't exactly the most robust. The P-51D Mustang is not the be-all, end-all of fighter aircraft in WWII.

Wasn't the La-7 pretty terrible at low altitudes? It was a real beast at high altitude, but as I recall it was supposed to be a bit of a cow below 3,000 feet or something.

Or was that the La-5?

Neither. The La-5/La-5FN and La-7 were terrific below 20,000 feet. There was also a supercharged version of the La-7 near the end of the war that was as capable at altitudes above 20,000 feet as it was below. I think the aircraft you're thinking of is the MiG-3, which was a bit of a cow below 10,000 feet. Above 10,000 feet, however, it really shined. Incidentally, about 90% or more of the air combat on the Eastern Front occurred below 10,000 feet, so the Lavochkins were king.

[Potarius]

Best Fighter, High Altitude: Spitfire LF Mk.XIVe
Best Fighter, Low Altitude: Lavochkin La-7
Best Interceptor, High Altitude: Focke-Wulf FW-190D-9
Best Interceptor, Low Altitude: Hawker Tempest
Best Carrier-Based Fighter: Chance-Vought F4U-4 Corsair
Best Close Support: Petlyakov Pe-2
Best Ground Attack: Ilyushin Il-2m3 Sturmovik
Best Light Bomber: North American B-25 Mitchell
Best Heavy Bomber: Boeing B-29 Superfortress
Best Dive Bomber: Junkers Ju 87 D Stuka
Best Torpedo Bomber: Grumman TBF Avenger


Only after having logged hundreds of hours in various flight sims do you know the difference between the respective niches of each aircraft, and that it's really apples to oranges for the most part. And the only reason the P-51D Mustang has such a reputation is because of its ridiculous flight range (well, ridiculous for WWII), high-altitude top speed, energy retention, and reliability. Its maneuverability in all aspects was slightly above average (when considering the rest of the fighter aircraft in service in all countries), its machine gun armament was exactly standard for all aircraft in service in the United States (6x M2 .50 calibre), and its pilot protection/armor wasn't exactly the most robust. The P-51D Mustang is not the be-all, end-all of fighter aircraft in WWII.

Well for one, the Mustang had a nasty tendency to spin. And it would often not be very recoverable.

Depends on the loadout and whether or not flaps were deployed.

An empty-loaded (just regular guns and no external fuel tanks) Mustang with flaps deployed could get into a harsh tailspin that was not recoverable unless a pilot knew exactly how to get out of it. That being said, that particular tailspin didn't happen very often. It also must be said that the Mustang, due to its shape and laminar flow wings, was capable of the hammerhead maneuver. While not entirely practical, it allowed a pilot to shake another from their six... At the expense of the structural integrity of the Mustang. Google it; it's a really wild-looking flailing about.