70th Anniversary D-Day - No Coverage???

[Tony Wheeler]

Originally Posted by Marc Montgomery

describing the Typhoon..as being not a very good, or useful aircraft.

This kind of criticism relates to the early Typhoon with the thick wing, which was a failure in its intended role as a replacement for the Hurricane. The redesigned Typhoon with the laminar wing was a far superior aircraft, and was renamed the Tempest.

All things considered the Typhoon would have to be rated well down the list of WWII fighters. Despite its huge power advantage it was outclassed by the FW190 at altitude, whereas the Spitfire reclaimed superiority by simply upgrading the engine. Certainly the Typhoon was an extremely capable ground attack aircraft, but WWII is littered with examples of fighters relegated to ground attack roles after failing to mix it at altitude, and most of them performed creditably. To my mind the mark of a great fighter aircraft is its ability to perform in a variety of roles, plus its development potential with improved power plants. On that basis the Typhoon rates well below fighters like the Spitfire, P51, P40, Hurricane, Me 109, FW 190, etc. Not to mention the Zero, which was unequalled for the first half of WWII, and may have remained so if the Japanese had access to a more powerful engine. Fortunately the Typhoon never had to face it.

[David Dunlop]

With regards to your reference to the Zero, and at risk of spinning this thread in a totally different direction, I recall many years ago reading an aviation magazine article (Airpower perhaps) about Japanese aero engine development. It mentioned the Japanese did not seem to pick up on the advantages of supercharging their equipment, in spite of having access to samples of the technology, including American equipment throughout the war. Seems odd, if true.


David

[Tony Wheeler]

It certainly would be odd if it were true David! Of course, in respect of the Zero it's anything BUT true. The Zero had a two-stage supercharger long before the Americans even entered the war, and long before the British introduced them as well. Any suggestion that the Zero could have benefited from Allied technology is laughable, it took the Allies at least 3 years to match its capabilities, and they were never successfully packaged into one single aircraft like the Zero.

Unfortunately this kind of spurious critique is typical of post-war assessments of the Zero, which the West finds difficult to admit was the best fighter of WWII. Had it been in Allied hands it would have changed the course of the war. It's particularly interesting to speculate on what British could have done in 1940 with a fighter that could outrun, out turn, out climb, and out gun the Spitfire, and fly to Berlin and back.