4 ms·

I've often imagined WWII's "best" air force. The worst, somehow, I didn't consider.

mikeash 10y ago
I assume that would be a hypothetical best created by combining aircraft from many different countries? What do you imagine that would look like?
- CapitalistCartr 10y ago
  Yes, exactly. P51 D-H Mustangs, Spitfires, Messerschmitt 109s for fighters. Serious shame they didn't have midair refueling. I consider jets, ie Messerschmitt 262s to be outside the idea. For bombers Lancasters, B17s, and B29s, of course. But picking an air force of the worst is much funnier.
  - mikeash 10y ago
    It's interesting to consider where jets fit into the picture versus the best prop-driven fighters. The Me262 was amazing but it also had some major disadvantages. Maybe you'd want to have it as a part of a healthy mix of different types.
    - coldcode 10y ago
      If the ME262 had come earlier and was built in large quantities it might have made a difference. But it was developed too late to build in large numbers, it needed another generation of engine development and it needed to have better airfields and support and a better understanding of how to use it in a group. Still every time I see a real one it's one sexy airplane. Like the Tiger it scared people when it showed up, but given the numerical advantage of the Allies it had no chance.
      - ZanyProgrammer 10y ago
        You'd also have to figure in the Allies introducing jets earlier as well, if they'd decided to push on ahead with that to counter.
      - mannykannot 10y ago
        Hitler's insistence on it being given a bombing capability (and therefore be 'offensive') delayed its use.
        smcl 10y ago
        Funny that higher-ups' insistence on making otherwise decent aircraft "multi-role" was as much a problem in WW2 as it is today
      - douche 10y ago
        It also wasn't produced in significant numbers until many of the best Luftwaffe pilots were already dead. Excellent equipment can't make up for lack of training and experience. My favorite crazy Luftwaffe aircraft has to be the He-162. The premise was, strap a jet engine on top of a cheap, lightweight plywood plane, simple enough that it could be built underground by slave labor. Oh, and it was supposed to be operable by minimally trained Hitler Youth. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinkel_He_162 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinkel_He_162
  - protomyth 10y ago
    I was impressed by the Vought F4U Corsair since it was still in use during the Korean War.
    - bootload 10y ago
      "F4U" One of the best descriptions why F4Us win the day has to do with the engine. @WalterBright describes here about his Dad flying P51s/P47s [0], the later having a radial engine like the F4U and why it was liked by pilots (engine reliability being one) [1] ... [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9829666 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9829666 [1] Thread on restoring a Spitfire ~ https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9828694 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9828694
      - Blackthorn 10y ago
        I remember watching a long documentary series on WW2 aviation and the host, with zero fanfare, mentioned that a downside of the B-29 engines (and I think also some of the P51 engines) was that they had a tendency to catch on fire. I was like, wow, okay, that's a risk you don't really think about in today's planes but I guess when you have to churn out a lot of very powerful engines very quickly that sort of risk is just seen as acceptable.
        jabl 10y ago
        We've become spoiled by how incredibly reliable modern turbofans are (ETOPS etc.). I recall reading that before jets took over in passenger planes, it wasn't entirely uncommon that planes arrived with one engine failed. Big turbocharged (or even turbocompounded in some cases) multi-row radials are just very complex machines operating pretty close to their design limits.
        mikeash 10y ago
        Yes, failures were pretty common. According to this article, the Lockheed Constellation averaged 2-3 engine failures per year: http://www.airspacemag.com/history-of-flight/longest-airline-route-in-the-world-180959770/ http://www.airspacemag.com/history-of-flight/longest-airline... And from what I can dig up, the Constellation had one of the more reliable engines at the time According to this press release, the GE90 engine which powers the 777 has a mean time between failure of one million hours: http://www.geaviation.com/press/ge90/ge90_20120119.html http://www.geaviation.com/press/ge90/ge90_20120119.html If an airplane had four of those engines, it would expect to see an engine failure roughly every 30 years if it was flying 24/7. That makes it two or three orders of magnitude more reliable than the Constellation engine. One visible consequence of this is that it's now common to see twin-engine airliners on long overwater routes far from any emergency airport. It used to be that these routes were served by airliners with three or four engines, because the risk of a twin losing both engines before it could make the long flight to the nearest airport was just too high. Thus the popularity of the 747 on Pacific routes. These days, the risk of losing two engines is low enough not to be a worry, and aircraft like the 777 can serve those routes.
  - rodgerd 10y ago
    No FW-190? I read the autobio of Ginger Lacey, and he commented he was shocked and appalled at how it could control the air.
  - nl 10y ago
    The FW190 was a better plane than the M109. The P47 and F4U and Yak-3 should be on that list.
  - JshWright 10y ago
    Your bomber choice is pretty inflexible... The heavies are great at flattening cities, but have little tactical use. For instance, it was the medium bombers (the B-25 and B-26, for example) that paved the way for the invasion of the continent (taking out the defensive emplacements and railways/bridges the Axis needed to resupply.
    - cafard 10y ago
      They also did serious damage in the Pacific, e.g. the Bismarck Sea.

I assume that would be a hypothetical best created by combining aircraft from many different countries? What do you imagine that would look like?

CapitalistCartr 10y ago
Yes, exactly. P51 D-H Mustangs, Spitfires, Messerschmitt 109s for fighters. Serious shame they didn't have midair refueling. I consider jets, ie Messerschmitt 262s to be outside the idea. For bombers Lancasters, B17s, and B29s, of course. But picking an air force of the worst is much funnier.
- mikeash 10y ago
  It's interesting to consider where jets fit into the picture versus the best prop-driven fighters. The Me262 was amazing but it also had some major disadvantages. Maybe you'd want to have it as a part of a healthy mix of different types.
  - coldcode 10y ago
    If the ME262 had come earlier and was built in large quantities it might have made a difference. But it was developed too late to build in large numbers, it needed another generation of engine development and it needed to have better airfields and support and a better understanding of how to use it in a group. Still every time I see a real one it's one sexy airplane. Like the Tiger it scared people when it showed up, but given the numerical advantage of the Allies it had no chance.
    - ZanyProgrammer 10y ago
      You'd also have to figure in the Allies introducing jets earlier as well, if they'd decided to push on ahead with that to counter.
    - mannykannot 10y ago
      Hitler's insistence on it being given a bombing capability (and therefore be 'offensive') delayed its use.
      - smcl 10y ago
        Funny that higher-ups' insistence on making otherwise decent aircraft "multi-role" was as much a problem in WW2 as it is today
    - douche 10y ago
      It also wasn't produced in significant numbers until many of the best Luftwaffe pilots were already dead. Excellent equipment can't make up for lack of training and experience. My favorite crazy Luftwaffe aircraft has to be the He-162. The premise was, strap a jet engine on top of a cheap, lightweight plywood plane, simple enough that it could be built underground by slave labor. Oh, and it was supposed to be operable by minimally trained Hitler Youth. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinkel_He_162 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinkel_He_162
- protomyth 10y ago
  I was impressed by the Vought F4U Corsair since it was still in use during the Korean War.
  - bootload 10y ago
    "F4U" One of the best descriptions why F4Us win the day has to do with the engine. @WalterBright describes here about his Dad flying P51s/P47s [0], the later having a radial engine like the F4U and why it was liked by pilots (engine reliability being one) [1] ... [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9829666 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9829666 [1] Thread on restoring a Spitfire ~ https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9828694 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9828694
    - Blackthorn 10y ago
      I remember watching a long documentary series on WW2 aviation and the host, with zero fanfare, mentioned that a downside of the B-29 engines (and I think also some of the P51 engines) was that they had a tendency to catch on fire. I was like, wow, okay, that's a risk you don't really think about in today's planes but I guess when you have to churn out a lot of very powerful engines very quickly that sort of risk is just seen as acceptable.
      - jabl 10y ago
        We've become spoiled by how incredibly reliable modern turbofans are (ETOPS etc.). I recall reading that before jets took over in passenger planes, it wasn't entirely uncommon that planes arrived with one engine failed. Big turbocharged (or even turbocompounded in some cases) multi-row radials are just very complex machines operating pretty close to their design limits.
        mikeash 10y ago
        Yes, failures were pretty common. According to this article, the Lockheed Constellation averaged 2-3 engine failures per year: http://www.airspacemag.com/history-of-flight/longest-airline-route-in-the-world-180959770/ http://www.airspacemag.com/history-of-flight/longest-airline... And from what I can dig up, the Constellation had one of the more reliable engines at the time According to this press release, the GE90 engine which powers the 777 has a mean time between failure of one million hours: http://www.geaviation.com/press/ge90/ge90_20120119.html http://www.geaviation.com/press/ge90/ge90_20120119.html If an airplane had four of those engines, it would expect to see an engine failure roughly every 30 years if it was flying 24/7. That makes it two or three orders of magnitude more reliable than the Constellation engine. One visible consequence of this is that it's now common to see twin-engine airliners on long overwater routes far from any emergency airport. It used to be that these routes were served by airliners with three or four engines, because the risk of a twin losing both engines before it could make the long flight to the nearest airport was just too high. Thus the popularity of the 747 on Pacific routes. These days, the risk of losing two engines is low enough not to be a worry, and aircraft like the 777 can serve those routes.
- rodgerd 10y ago
  No FW-190? I read the autobio of Ginger Lacey, and he commented he was shocked and appalled at how it could control the air.
- nl 10y ago
  The FW190 was a better plane than the M109. The P47 and F4U and Yak-3 should be on that list.
- JshWright 10y ago
  Your bomber choice is pretty inflexible... The heavies are great at flattening cities, but have little tactical use. For instance, it was the medium bombers (the B-25 and B-26, for example) that paved the way for the invasion of the continent (taking out the defensive emplacements and railways/bridges the Axis needed to resupply.
  - cafard 10y ago
    They also did serious damage in the Pacific, e.g. the Bismarck Sea.