Principals of good design....fighters

[Kyt]

A simple question. What principals made for a good fighter aircraft during WW2?

Why were some aircraft outstanding and others mediocre or just plain usless? Leave aside tactics and crew proficiency - let's concentrate on the machine.

For every ying there has to be a yang - range limited armour, armour affected speed, etc.

If you had to design your own fighter aircraft what would you consider the most important features? No flights of fancy (no pun intended), designs must within acceptable limits of what was available during the war.

[Adrian Roberts]

Only time for a brief reply.... Tactics and crew profiency were important because, within reason i.e. if the disparity was not too great, they were the means of gaining superiority over theoretically superior fighters. E.g. it was tactics (go in fast, avoid dogfights) that enabled the USN F4Fs to gain superiority over the IJN A6M Zeros, and lack of crew profiency that was the downfall of the ME262, and of many Soviet types.

But as for the aircraft, the concept of a lightweight fighter that sacrificed strength and armour for speed was found wanting: again it was the Zero that was built to this concept but found its limitations against serious opposition. They couldn't withstand much battle damage. Speed is important because the faster aircraft has the initiative about when and where to fight; for this reason I think the that RAF would have been in trouble in the Bof B if relying on the Hurricane alone.

So, the best fighters (Spitfire, ME109, FW190, Tempest, P51, P47, F6F, Yak-9, La-5) had the best combination of speed, reasonable manouevrability, ability to withstand battle damage, armour protection, and reliability, as well as being a "pilots aircraft". They also needed a decent armament - this let down many Japanese types and the early US types as well.