The perfect fighter plane, time line: WW2

In your opinion what was needed for a perfect fighter plane in ww2?

The sparks for this question/topic apeared when i read this:

"Interviewed a few years ago, the famous Japanese Zero ace Saburo Sakai was asked about the key to a good fighter plane; he responded:

"By far the most important thing for a good fighter plane is its range. I can't tell you how much that affects you when you're in the cockpit. When you know you've got plenty of gas, it really lets you relax.

Those poor Germans in their Me109s! They could barely get to altitude and fight for a couple of minutes before they had to start worrying about their fuel supply. When you are worried about your gas, it really affects what you do with your plane, even how you fight. Think of how many German fighters ended up at the bottom of the English Channel because they didn't have the gas to get home. A plane that doesn't have the gas to fly is just junk.

If the Germans had had 1000 Zeros in 1940, I don't think England would still exist today. Think about it: With Zeros, they could have operated from airfields near Paris and still hit any target anywhere in the British Isles, or escorted bombers, and still have plenty of gas to get home. I once flew a Zero for 12 hours continuous in an experiment to see just how far it could go. That plane's range was incredible. That's part of what made the Mustang great, too". "

I found this at:
http://www.koolpages.com/aerodrome/bob1.html

Any country, at that time have different doctrines for his fighter planes. Different fighter pilots have different opinions.

Now, out of the game, what we can say?

Iama

well the Zero had a big disadvantage ... lach of armour or self sealing fuel tanks...

Yes, but he (Zero) have better maneuvrability and what Saburo Sakai underlined - great range in face of the '109.

Anyway, at the begining of world war 2 not only a single fighter plane was close to be perfect. From experience were projected new types, with better performances.

But, how will be a perfect fighter plane?

Iama

Super speed and powerfull armament, i like the me 163. It continues the ideea of "Blitzkrieg".

For the Pacific Theater, in 1941, I would go with the Zero as well.

But its superiority caused Japanese fighter development to stagnate, while the American fighters just kept getting better and better. While they did come up with some revolutionary designs eventually, they did not build them in quantity (Although, IMHO, they could not have built them in enough quantity to make a difference).

For the European Theater in 1941, I have always been partial to the Spitfire.

Well each country considere different plane the best for them.. Which is radther strange. Hell Russians considered P-39 a good plane... US said is bad one..

Well,in fact I consider it pretty bad. Think that the engine is located behind the pilot.You don't want to be chased in that plane
All time PTO king would be Zero,IMVHO.

Well,in fact I consider it pretty bad. Think that the engine is located behind the pilot.You don't want to be chased in that plane
All time PTO king would be Zero,IMVHO.

And you know this from your personal experience in Il2 ?

Well the Spitfires that where the kings in ETO where the underdogs when they reached PTO. I've read somewhere (i don't remeber) that they had to learn energy fighting since they couln't rely on the maneuvrability ...

Well,in fact I consider it pretty bad. Think that the engine is located behind the pilot.You don't want to be chased in that plane
All time PTO king would be Zero,IMVHO.

And you know this from your personal experience in Il2 ?

Well the Spitfires that where the kings in ETO where the underdogs when they reached PTO. I've read somewhere (i don't remeber) that they had to learn energy fighting since they couln't rely on the maneuvrability ...

Hehe,no.Actualy P-39 is an uber plane in IL2.It can take hits after hits and still fly like new.Fix your PC and join us on HL once

PS: ask Mytzu,I don't fly single prop aircrafts.It just makes me feel bad.

This post has been edited by Zayets on September 15, 2005 01:48 pm

Mytzy is a saddical dude ... he used to kill my ass with the Il-2 only... or I am a dumb pilot

There is always the "coop" mode, i think is more intresting then the "dog" mode

Actually Zero had both cockpit armor and self sealing tanks, only the early war models didn't (most planes lacked protection in early war years).

As far as I know,only in the late stages of the war,Japanese planes started getting self sealing and armour.
The Jap.never recovered shoot down pilots,or any rescue missions.

A perfect ground-attack plane

Japanese fighters started to get armor and self sealing tanks from mid 42, basically from the moment the conflict in Pacific escalated. All army fighters beginning with Ki-44, and then Ki-61, Ki-84, Ki-100 has those from the first model. The same is true for naval fighters accepted after '42, like N1K and J2M. Only older planes, accepted before 1942, like Ki-43 and A6M received armor and self sealing tanks late. It is not clear when A6M5 got them, in late 1943 or early 1944. Ki-43 also got some amount of armor in late war years.

With the above note on A6M and Ki-43 in mind, it is incorrect to say that Japanese planes were weak because they lacked armor and self sealing fuel tanks. The usual depiction of the Japanese fighters as "rice planes" is more of wartime propaganda than an actual fact. Japanese fighters were more maneuvrable because they were light, obviously their airframe was weaker, but also they carried serious canon armament, which kept the protection/firepower ratio on the same level with that of American fighters.

A real problem of the Japanese airforces was their obsolete tactics, that also shaped their aircraft - emphasis on dogfighting created a large number of high scoring Japanese aces but depleted their force fast. Ultimately Japan lost simply because it picked an adversary out of its league. No matter what planes Japan had, even if Japan had American planes, they would still have been crushed the way they were. To answer the original: was Zero the perfect ww2 fighter? no, not even close.