# What WWII Fighter Plane Had The Best Aerodynamics?

**URL:** <https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-wwii-fighter-plane-had-the-best-aerodynamics/761263>\
**Category:** Factual Questions\
**Created:** [July 30, 2016, 6:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-wwii-fighter-plane-had-the-best-aerodynamics/761263 "2016-07-30T06:39:20Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 4\
**Page:** 2

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Boyo\_Jim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/87869e/32.png) [@Boyo\_Jim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Boyo_Jim)\
**Post date:** [August 1, 2016, 1:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-wwii-fighter-plane-had-the-best-aerodynamics/761263/21 "2016-08-01T13:41:43Z")

</div>

> [@srzss05](#):
>
> You would think…until you consider the Me-163. Rockets do not necessarily lead to aerodynamics.

Why wasn’t the Me-163 particularly aerodynamic? Or for that matter, the Me-262. Both were swept wing planes. I’m imagine that both were highly aerodynamic, particularly the 163.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![MonkeyMensch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/82dd89/32.png) [@MonkeyMensch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MonkeyMensch)\
**Post date:** [August 1, 2016, 3:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-wwii-fighter-plane-had-the-best-aerodynamics/761263/22 "2016-08-01T15:29:08Z")

</div>

The question as posed in the OP was most directly aimed at zero lift coefficient of drag (as pointed out by **scr4** uptheread) or C[sub]D,0[/sub]. That is the measure of drag on the aircraft independent of lift generated. For most aircraft the big factors are frontal area and wetted area. Swept wings are an innovation to delay the onset of wave drag from transonic shock wave formation. They do nothing, really, to lower C[sub]D,0[/sub]. For comparison, the Me-262’s coefficient was 0.020, just higher than the Mustang’s and not much better than a F6F-3 Hellcat. I had read that report linked by **scr4** and it’s full of meaty aerodynamic goodness. I’m still looking around for more info but the Mustang is still ahead…

(Good idea about the Me-163, though: small frontal area _and_ low wetted area…)

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![SHARKBITEATTACK](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/91b2a8/32.png) [@SHARKBITEATTACK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SHARKBITEATTACK)\
**Post date:** [August 3, 2016, 3:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-wwii-fighter-plane-had-the-best-aerodynamics/761263/23 "2016-08-03T03:45:25Z")

</div>

Maybe here’s another way to look at it. What single engine piston aircraft would have the highest top speed assuming same engine and weight?

Sent from my SM-G920T using Tapatalk

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![scr4](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/59ef9b/32.png) [@scr4](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/scr4)\
**Post date:** [August 3, 2016, 4:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-wwii-fighter-plane-had-the-best-aerodynamics/761263/24 "2016-08-03T04:41:22Z")

</div>

> [@SHARKBITEATTACK](#):
>
> Maybe here’s another way to look at it. What single engine piston aircraft would have the highest top speed assuming same engine and weight?

You mean, remove the original engines from them, then adding weights so they all weigh the same, and then fitting identical engines in them? The fastest will likely be the one that’s smallest.

[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-wwii-fighter-plane-had-the-best-aerodynamics/761263.md?page=1)