# Best Piston Engined Fighter Ever



## dreadnought (Feb 4, 2007)

My top 10 list of piston engined Fighters that ever flew. 

1. Hawker Fury/ Sea Fury
2. de Havilland D.H. 103 Hornet
3. Supermarine Spitfire Type 356-Mk 24
4. Hawker Tempest Mk.VI
5. P51d Mustang
6. Do 335 Pfeil
7. Fw 190
8. Yak-9
9. P-47 Thunderbolt
10. F4U Corsair

Just wanted to know others opinions/thoughts on the subject. I haven't posted a poll as I would probably forget some great aircraft.


----------



## lesofprimus (Feb 4, 2007)

The best piston engined fighter of the War was undoubtably the Ta 152H-1..


----------



## Gnomey (Feb 4, 2007)

lesofprimus said:


> The best piston engined fighter of the War was undoubtably the Ta 152H-1..



Agreed, followed by the late mark Spitfire's and then the Fw190D...


----------



## dreadnought (Feb 4, 2007)

This it may be the best of the war, but the Sea Fury must be the best piston fighter ever. It could be used in ground attack, was blisteringly fast (at up to 460mph, arguably the fastest single engined plane ever, with a piston engine) and could have taken on anything that came from WW2, many of the early post war jets and downed some Migs in the Korean war with no losses themselves.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 4, 2007)

Ta 152H-1, then I go with the F4U-5. It too was a mig killer and was built up till 1952. It was still in service in the early 70s with the HAF.


----------



## Jank (Feb 4, 2007)

I'm going to have to say F4U-5 as well.


----------



## Thorlifter (Feb 4, 2007)

Jank said:


> I'm going to have to say F4U-5 as well.



Ditto

But I'd give the TA152 2nd and the Sea Fury 3rd (IMO). I'm sure the Sea Fury was a fantastic plane, but it was not as versatile as the Corsair.

If your looking for just a pure fighter, I'd have to give it to the TA152. If your looking for a fighter that could do anything, I'd go with the Corsair F4U-5, then the P-47N.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 4, 2007)

ever, i'd leave it between the Sea Fury and F8F Bearcat, giving it to the Sea Fury due to the greater service record, and you'll find few who'll agree with you on the P-51, there was a thread similar to this recently...........


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 5, 2007)

Gotta go with the Ta-152H and then the Bearcat or the Sea Fury.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 5, 2007)

dreadnought said:


> Ever, dude, Ever



Are you like 12 years old and into the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles or Something?


----------



## Thorlifter (Feb 5, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Are you like 12 years old and into the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles or Something?


----------



## Soren (Feb 5, 2007)

Best piston fighter ever.... hmmm.... thats a tough one..

The Ta-152 and F4U-5 are both great but I think I'm going to have to go with the Hawker Sea Fury.


----------



## JoeB (Feb 5, 2007)

dreadnought said:


> This it may be the best of the war, but the Sea Fury must be the best piston fighter ever...downed some Migs in the Korean war with no losses themselves.


One confirmed credit for a MiG, specific confirmation from Communist side unknown. Anyway later that same day, Aug 9 '52, a Sea Fury was hit by a MiG's 37mm shell, belly landed on a UN held island off the Korean coast and was apparently a total loss.

The Corsair MiG kill in Korea was by an F4U-4B (BuNo. 62927 to be exact). It was immediately downed by another MiG; that incident is confirmed in a specific Communist account. The straight F4U-5 was little used in combat in Korea, -5N's and -5P's were the standard however for night fighters and recon Corsairs. The -5 had nice paper stats but bugs had crept into some "improvements" in the design and the paper advantages were not so relevant to the Korean War mission. And there weren't enough around to sustain any attrition; so after brief use of straight -5's by one Marine sdn in Korea early on, the USN and USMC standardized on -4/4B for straight fighters in Korea, until the Marines received some new AU-1's (F4U-6) close support planes in 1952.

Anyway I think fluke MiG killing is a weak basis on which to compare prop fighters. 

Most of the planes mentioned were very impressive performers; I personally like the P-51H. However WWII showed that you need extensive realworld combat service to see the full value of a plane, all its intangibles. That mainly doesn't exist for the very late war/postwar prop fighters; they all had pretty scant air combat records, or very difficult circumstances (eg. Ta-152).

Joe


----------



## renrich (Feb 5, 2007)

I would go with the F4U-5. Top speed of 465 mph at 31,400 ft. Service ceiling of 41,400 feet. Rate of climb of 4230 fpm. 4-20mm cannon with 924 rounds of ammunition carried. Yardstick range of 1036 miles. All metal now with a cigar lighter.


----------



## davparlr (Feb 5, 2007)

lesofprimus said:


> The best piston engined fighter of the War was undoubtably the Ta 152H-1..



Above 25k ft, the Ta 152H-1 would reign supreme. Below that there are several aircraft that appear superior to the Ta, F4U-4 or 5, P-51H, probably F8F, Sea Fury, and Tempest II. So, you might have a good time up there, but it could be sporty going up or coming down.

*Classic Military Warnings*

"If you see a bomb technician running, try to keep up." Unkown


----------



## davparlr (Feb 6, 2007)

JoeB said:


> One confirmed credit for a MiG, specific confirmation from Communist side unknown. Anyway later that same day, Aug 9 '52, a Sea Fury was hit by a MiG's 37mm shell, belly landed on a UN held island off the Korean coast and was apparently a total loss.
> 
> The Corsair MiG kill in Korea was by an F4U-4B (BuNo. 62927 to be exact). It was immediately downed by another MiG; that incident is confirmed in a specific Communist account. The straight F4U-5 was little used in combat in Korea, -5N's and -5P's were the standard however for night fighters and recon Corsairs. The -5 had nice paper stats but bugs had crept into some "improvements" in the design and the paper advantages were not so relevant to the Korean War mission. And there weren't enough around to sustain any attrition; so after brief use of straight -5's by one Marine sdn in Korea early on, the USN and USMC standardized on -4/4B for straight fighters in Korea, until the Marines received some new AU-1's (F4U-6) close support planes in 1952.
> 
> ...




Wow! I kinda agree with all JoeB says. I don't have much data on some of these planes so I have to go by gut feelings. 

The only data I have shows that the Sea Fury has a ceiling of only 36k ft. and climb rate of only 2777 ft./min at an unknown altitude. Not very impressive. Good speed though, 460 mph max. If it is like the Tempest, it has great low altitude performance.

Like I said earlier, the Ta-152 suffers a bit below 25k. I would hate to give up advantages over the airfields.

Bearcat is probably the best dogfihter in its element. However, it lags in airspeed and ceiling.

So, I have two choices. Both are very fast, with great climb from SL up to ceiling and a ceiling of over 41k ft. One is the P-51H (I'm sure all are surprised I selected this) and one is the F4U-4 (see JoeBs comments of why I did not pick the -5, which is also 300 lbs heavier than the -4). The P-51H is faster from SL to ceiling but the F4U-4 climbs better from SL to ceiling. So, its a toss up. Maybe the F4U-4 because of battlefield experience.

*Classic Military Warnings*

"Cluster bombing from a B-52 is very, very accurate. The bombs are guaranteed to always hit the ground." U.S.A.F literature

Alas, no more Classic Military Warnings!


----------



## flojo (Feb 6, 2007)

davparlr said:


> Wow! I kinda agree with all JoeB says. I don't have much data on some of these planes so I have to go by gut feelings.
> 
> The only data I have shows that the Sea Fury has a ceiling of only 36k ft. and climb rate of only 2777 ft./min at an unknown altitude. Not very impressive. Good speed though, 460 mph max. If it is like the Tempest, it has great low altitude performance.
> 
> ...



As far as I remember from one of these Osprey Aircraft of the Aces books (FW190 Aces of the western front?) there exists a combat report of a Ta152H outturning a Tempest V at low alt. So the Ta152H seems to be a reasonable turner due to greater wing area compared with a standard FW190. Unfortunately I have no idea if the turning ability of Tempest V and Sea Fury remained the same or if the different engine and the modified wing of the Sea Fury changed anything. 
Besides - what's about the Ta152C as contender for best piston engine fighter ever?


----------



## lesofprimus (Feb 6, 2007)

More combats happened at higher alts than lower ones...


----------



## Soren (Feb 6, 2007)

davparlr said:


> Above 25k ft, the Ta 152H-1 would reign supreme. Below that there are several aircraft that appear superior to the Ta, F4U-4 or 5, P-51H, probably F8F, Sea Fury, and Tempest II. So, you might have a good time up there, but it could be sporty going up or coming down.
> 
> *Classic Military Warnings*
> 
> "If you see a bomb technician running, try to keep up." Unkown



The Ta-152H could do 595 km/h at SL, and that aint bad. Also with a climb rate in area of 5,000 ft/min it is a VERY good climber - and by virtue of its long span wings it would out-turn all the above as-well.

Still thisisn't to say that the Ta-152H is overall vastly superior or superior at all, but unlike the above (Except F4U-4) it actually saw service in WWII - hence Les' comment.


----------



## Udet (Feb 6, 2007)

How come the Ta 152 suffers a bit below 25K?

If you check available information regarding the battle record of the unit that flew it in combat action (stab./JG 301) the Ta-152 swallowed soviet Yaks at very low altitude over Berlin. Also Rescke´s kill of a Tempest occured at tree-top level, so it seems the Ta-152 could more than handle combat at low altitude.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 6, 2007)

flojo said:


> Besides - what's about the Ta152C as contender for best piston engine fighter ever?



As far as I know only 2 Ta-152Cs were operational before the war ended and they did not see much if any combat to compare them to anything. The Ta-152H saw combat with JG 301 and is better to compare with.


----------



## Erich (Feb 6, 2007)

well we do know that Ta 152C's from the factory were used by JG 301 pilots in combat. There is one confirmed kill of a P-51D in combat with the Ta 152H in 1945. not sure of the altitude but nearly every combat of the TA was at mid-low alt. and the craft seemed to perform beyond expectations


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 6, 2007)

We shall see what Willi has to say!


----------



## davparlr (Feb 6, 2007)

Udet said:


> How come the Ta 152 suffers a bit below 25K?
> 
> If you check available information regarding the battle record of the unit that flew it in combat action (stab./JG 301) the Ta-152 swallowed soviet Yaks at very low altitude over Berlin. Also Rescke´s kill of a Tempest occured at tree-top level, so it seems the Ta-152 could more than handle combat at low altitude.



As the Ta-152 comes down in altitude, it airspeed starts to drop off. Below 25k, it is significantly slower than the P-51H (from 20 to 40 mph slower), somewhat slower than the F4U-4, but basically very close, I don't know much about the Sea Fury, if it like the Tempest, it would be a tremendous performer at low altitude. The Tempest in the Quote must have been a Tempest V. The Tempest II had a 48 mph airspeed advantage at SL. I have to admit that I have very little info on the Ta-152H, except airspeed. Soren would have the most data, I suspect. So I don't know much at all about climb except Soren stated it was around 5000 ft/min which would put it in the realm of the F4U-4 and P-51H.



Lesofprimus said:


> More combats happened at higher alts than lower ones...



This is true when high altitude bombing involved but I think it was not on the tactical level. I suspect that you would find that there were very few high altitude combats on the Russian front and that, if you include it in the total combats, low-medium fights would be in the majority.



Soren said:


> Still thisisn't to say that the Ta-152H is overall vastly superior or superior at all, but unlike the above (Except F4U-4) it actually saw service in WWII - hence Les' comment.



And, this isn't to say the Ta-152H wasn't a fomidable fighter. It most assuredly was, and was certainly the best high altitude fighter in the war. Soren, do you have much more data on the climbing ability of the Ta-152H?



Erich said:


> well we do know that Ta 152C's from the factory were used by JG 301 pilots in combat. There is one confirmed kill of a P-51D in combat with the Ta 152H in 1945. not sure of the altitude but nearly every combat of the TA was at mid-low alt. and the craft seemed to perform beyond expectations



The Ta-152H was superior to the P-51D over the entire operational envelope of the P-51D. But then, so was the F4U-4.


----------



## lesofprimus (Feb 6, 2007)

My words have gotten skewed some here.... What I was referring to was the fact that with the Tank involved in Ops it was designed for, high altitude was where it would have taken place, going up against US Heavies and escorts...

I am aware that most combats in Russia were at med to low alts, but during the discussion above, I was talking about high alt...


----------



## davparlr (Feb 6, 2007)

lesofprimus said:


> My words have gotten skewed some here.... What I was referring to was the fact that with the Tank involved in Ops it was designed for, high altitude was where it would have taken place, going up against US Heavies and escorts...
> 
> I am aware that most combats in Russia were at med to low alts, but during the discussion above, I was talking about high alt...



Sorry I misinterpreted what you were talking about.


----------



## Jabberwocky (Feb 7, 2007)

Personal listing:

DH Hornet
F8F Bearcat
Hawker Fury/SeaFury
Ta-152H
Hawker Tempest II
Spitfire Mk 24 w/ contra props
F7F Tigercat
P-47N Tunderbolt
P-51H Mustang
190D-13
La-9
Ta-152C
Seafire Mk 48
F4U-4


----------



## davparlr (Feb 8, 2007)

Okay, I have a realignment of my choices. They are based on aerodynamic performance and combat experience and performance. The justification for the latter is that performance may be misleading, but combat performance is the ultimate test.

*First Place. F4U-4*. Performance was excellent from SL to Service ceiling, in both airspeed and climb, and had a great reputation for maneuver in all combat situations. Good Ceiling (41.6k ft.). Combat experience: WWII, Korean War, and Soccer War (El Salvador vs. Honduras)

*Second Place*. Three qualifiers. They have various strengths and weakness, I could not decide an order between them. So here they are in no particular order.

*Sea Fury*. Performance, including airspeed, climb, and maneuver, was excellent at lower altitudes (I have limited data to support this performance assessment). Mediocre Service Ceiling (35.8k ft.). Combat experience: Korean War. Low Service Ceiling and limited combat reduces selection level.

*Ta-142H*. Performance, including airspeed, climb? (no data), and maneuver, was excellent from SL to Service Ceiling. . Excellent Service Ceiling (48.5k ft.). Combat experience: WWII. Very competitive to F4U-4, lower performance at lower altitudes is offset by high altitude performance. Very limited combat experience and lack of data reduces selection level. 

*P-47N*. Performance, including airspeed and maneuver is excellent from SL to Service Ceiling. Climb is good. Very good Service Ceiling (43k ft.). Combat experience: WWII. Performance similar to F4U-4 with emphasis on higher altitude performance. Lower combat experience to F4U-4 reduces selection level. 

*Honorable Mention:* 

*P-51H.* Faster than the F4U-4 at all altitudes, good climb performance (slightly less than F4U-4), good maneuver performance. Good ceiling (41.6k ft.). Combat experience: None. No combat experience negates rating.

*F8F.* Excellent climb and maneuver performance. Airspeed is limited. Good Service Ceiling (40.7k ft.). Combat experience. French Indo-China. Lower airspeed values and small combat experience reduces selection levels.

Others, probably.


----------



## Jank (Feb 8, 2007)

The P-47N was a hot ship but hauling all that fuel, about 570 gallons, is a drag ... so to speak. With the fuel of a "D" model, she was closer in performance to an "M" than a "D" but I wouldn't want to go up against the other contenders you mentioned unless it was at over 30,000ft.


----------



## Soren (Feb 8, 2007)

Davparlr,

Just a very small correction, the Ta-152H's service ceiling is 15.1 km (49.5k ft) with GM-1


----------



## Soren (Feb 8, 2007)

I think the +770 km/h Dora-12 needs to be mentioned as-well, it is after-all the fastest of them all..


----------



## lesofprimus (Feb 8, 2007)

I thought of mentioning it Soren, but the Tank was a better performer than the Dora, so its kinda moot...


----------



## davparlr (Feb 9, 2007)

Soren said:


> Davparlr,
> 
> Just a very small correction, the Ta-152H's service ceiling is 15.1 km (49.5k ft) with GM-1



Data corrected!


----------



## jpatrick62 (Feb 9, 2007)

I can only go on WW2 aircraft, as many superprops never saw action and could not be evaluated under combat conditions. The P51H was faster than the F4U-4, on the other hand, the F4U-4 could out turn it and out climb it as well. I think the dash 4 was a tougher customer to down as well. The Ta-152 was outstanding at high alts- probably the best of the bunch in this regard. The later Spit variants were also excellent, having outstanding climb qualities.


----------



## GregP (Feb 11, 2007)

I'd go with the Grumman Bearcat as first with the Sea Fury as second, Spitfire 21 third, probably Tempest as fourth, FW 19D-9 as fifth. 

To me, the Ta 152 is MUCH too specialized for high altitude. It would be meat on the table for any of the above at 3000m, but would certainly be in the hunt at 10000m.


----------



## renrich (Feb 11, 2007)

The F8F would be hard to handle in a dogfight at low altitudes by any other piston engined fighters and some of the early jets. However, the best performing Bearcat at low altitude, the F8F-1 was somewhat of a dog at high altitudes and the better high altitude performer F8F-2 had somewhat lower overall performance than the 1. Also the Bearcat couldn't carry much of a load ( that is the reason they weren't used in Korea) and they were not as robust as as the typical Grumman aircraft. The brakes were so weak that you did not know if you could get full power until you actually started to take off. Its limit load was 8Gs. The early Bearcats had breakaway wing tips which was supposed to make it a 12G aircraft but that feature was removed. I would stick with the F4U-5 as the all around best piston engined fighter.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 11, 2007)

We all know the Ta-152 was better suited for high alltitudes but the same can be said for other aircraft.

The aircraft that would have the advantage over the Ta-152 at lower alltitudes would be at the disadvantage at higher alltitudes.

All aircraft have there optimum performance at certian environmental areas.


----------



## Erich (Feb 11, 2007)

ya might want to hold onto your britches as the TA was also a hot ticket at mid-altitude. Hoping Adler can get in touch with Willi but from the accts of other JG 301 pilots that flew the bird at mid range, well let's just say ........ watch out !


----------



## Soren (Feb 11, 2007)

Agreed Erich.

According to the pilots who flew it the Ta-152H was a hot ticket at any altitude, its climb rate and turn rate being especially amazing at low alt, however speed was perhaps lacking just abit at SL (Not that the pilots complained) - but 595 km/h aint bad.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 11, 2007)

Yeap we will see. That is one of the questions in the letter was how the aircraft handled at mid and low alltitudes and how they compared to allied aircraft at those alltitudes based off of his real life experiences.


----------



## Soren (Feb 11, 2007)

lesofprimus said:


> I thought of mentioning it Soren, but the Tank was a better performer than the Dora, so its kinda moot...



Well that is debatable, but I tend to agree 

The D-12 would nonetheless prove a true menace at high alt, and low alt performance was still great with 607 km/h at SL and a soaring climb rate - would definitely outperform any P-51.


----------



## GregP (Feb 12, 2007)

The F8F was not a "probable," it was and is the finest piston air-to-air fighter mount I can think of. It easily takes a P-51, even an H model, on maneuverability, agility, firepower, rate of climb, and rate of turn. The only place where the P-51H is better is top speed, and that erodes in any sort of a climb, which is right where the F8F would go.

The Ta-152H was a great high altitude fighter as ably stated above, but was not a low-to-medium altitude mount at all.

Just my opinion.


----------



## Erich (Feb 12, 2007)

as I pointed out you will need to hear the stories of the Ta 152H pilots themselves.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 12, 2007)

The letter was sent out today, we will see what Reschke has to say about the Ta-152.


----------



## Civettone (Feb 12, 2007)

I'm with GregP on this one. Although I absolutely love the Ta 152H it cannot be cold the best because it was only the best at very high altitudes. Just compare it with the Ta 152C. 
I don't care if it's the best at 12,000 m altitude. I'd rather have the best piston engined fighter at 1,200 m back in 1945. I know the Ta 152H could hold its own at low level - I remember reading the story of Reschke outmanoeuvring a Tempest at treetop level (in Manfred Griehl's Luftwaffe 1945 book), but it simply wasn't fast enough at low altitude. I also have doubts concerning its roll rate...

As to my personal opinion of the best piston engined fighter of WW2, it first of all depends on the meaning of 'best fighter'. I interpret it as a pure fighter so FB abilities don't matter. I also take into account the manhours to build it but also reliability, easy handling, carrier capable. Because it has to be the best of the whole of WW2 and fighters of 1945 are generally better than those of 1940, it has to be one that was already in service during the first part of the war. All this brings it down to just two aircraft, the Bf 109 and the Spitfire.
The latter was equal to the Bf 109E in 1940, slightly inferior to the Bf 109F-4 but in 1942 the Spitfire IX took a noselength. The Bf 109 hardly evolved from the F-4 of 1941 to the G-6 of 1944 when the AS and AM engines were installed. By that time the British had the far superior Spitfire XIV which could only be rivalled by the K-4 at the end of that year. But then the Spitfire F.21 was already in production. 
P-51 would be a nice third...

Kris


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 12, 2007)

The Spit and the Bf-109 in my opinion are the epitime of WW2 air combat. When I think of combat over Europe that is exactly what I think of. They were 2 great aircraft (not the overall best of the war, but damn good aircraft).

I think either aircraft had advantages and disadvantages over the other and were fairly well matched.


----------



## Civettone (Feb 12, 2007)

Quite right!
What I especially like about them, is that they were easy-to-build fighters that stayed up-to-date till the very end. That only shows the brilliance of their design. Try doing that with a P-40. 

I recall someone's signature... P-40, P-51 and Spit were the best three fighters of WW2. I can't recall who that was but I would love to hear his reasoning behind chosing the P-40. A good aircraft but ... the best?? 

Kris


----------



## jpatrick62 (Feb 12, 2007)

I'll have to go with several of the other posts in here making combat experience a key component of my choice. Many of the "stats" of the superprops were manufacturer's best conditions, and without firsthand combat evaluations, dubious at best. How would the Sea Fury hold up to damage? How would the Bearcat? We just don't know enough. That given:

1. F4U-4 Versitile, very fast, great climber, tough air cooled engine, good manuverability, great fighter bomber, and it can land on a carrier!

2. Spitfire Mk 21 - Outstanding climber, great manuverability, very fast.

3. ta-152 - Very fast, high altitude interceptor. 

4. KI-84 - High speed, outstanding manuverability, great armament, good pilot protection.


----------



## Soren (Feb 13, 2007)

The Ta-152H-1 will make mince meat out of each of the above if a turn-fight is ensued, the design ensuring minimal expendure of energy in turns - that is one of the reasons the Ta-152 is so deadly at high altitudes, the wings produce an enormous amount of lift for very little drag. 

And about its low alt performance, well as Erich said, wait for the pilot accounts. Nonetheless 595 km/h is still a very respectable SL speed, and the +5,000 ft/min climb rate is alot more than most of the above.


----------



## dreadnought (Feb 13, 2007)

I am surprised that no one has mentioned the D.H. Hornet/Sea Hornet, with very high speed, high firepower (4 20 mm cannon), incredible manuverability and could land on a carrier.

By the way, am i correct in believing that the Sea fury was the first piston engine aircraft to take down a mig-15?


----------



## Rapecq (Feb 13, 2007)

Well, this is what Willi Reschke recalled about his fight against Tempest:

"_The Tempest was know to be very fast fighter - the English used it for pursuits of V1s, wchich they succeded in shooting down. But in this fight, velocity was of less importance, agility was the most important close to the ground. Durig the final stage of flight it turned out that my enemy was pulling up after a low-leval attack and gaining height. I attacked him, making a left turn. 

In the fierce circling combat at up to 50 m, I was continually closing on the Tempest, but for not one second did I feel that my aircraft war reaching its performance limits. To avoid the lethal bursts from my weapons, the Tempest pilot had to make ever tigher circles, but still, my Ta 152 was ever closer. I saw that the Tempest was beginning to bank, a sign that it was not capable of circling any tighter. The first burst of my weapons hit it on the rear fuselage and tail unit. The pilot propably reacted to this by entering his Tempest into a right turn, which was even better with me. The was no way out for the Tempest. I pressed my triggers again - however, my weapons remained siletn. Reloading gave no result - no a shot was fired. 

Today I can't remember the sequence of most ugly curses that I used then. Fortunately, the pilot of the Tempest was not aware of my bad luck, as he had received the first share of lead. He was doing wild aerobatics, I trying to follow closely. At some point I noticed traces coming off his wing tips and, over the left wing, the Tempest fell into the forrest. This aerial combat could be called extraordinary because it was fought at no more than 10 m above tree tops and roofs. Throught the entine combat, the Ta 152 did not reach the peal of its performance even once, responding to every move of the control stick, even just above the ground._" 

So, as we see, not only speed is important.

Regards


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 13, 2007)

Very interesting. I really can not wait for his letter now!


----------



## Soren (Feb 13, 2007)

The quote above was from "Wilde Sau" by Willi Rescke.

As for the Ta-152H's turn performance, pilots were adviced to always turnfight with enemy fighters as the Ta-152 was much superior to anything the Allies could throw at it in this scenario.


----------



## davparlr (Feb 13, 2007)

Rapecq said:


> Well, this is what Willi Reschke recalled about his fight against Tempest:
> 
> "_The Tempest was know to be very fast fighter - the English used it for pursuits of V1s, wchich they succeded in shooting down. But in this fight, velocity was of less importance, agility was the most important close to the ground. Durig the final stage of flight it turned out that my enemy was pulling up after a low-leval attack and gaining height. I attacked him, making a left turn.
> 
> ...



Come on, you guys, this is like a frame of an F-22 flying across the gunsight of an F-18 and saying "see, the F-18 can outfight an F-22". I'll bet you can find a slew of Japanese pilots that could make the same quote as this German pilot about a Zero or Oscar fighting many better Allied aircraft early in the war. The Tempest pilot made the same mistake early allied pilots made against the Japanese aircraft, until they knew its performance limitations, of engaging in turning fight. The lesson was to use and keep your airspeed advantage to engage and disengage as necessary and sweep the Zeros from the skies. The Tempest V had a 26 mph SL top speed advantage to the Ta, and held an advantage to 20k ft. The Tempest II had a 48 mph advantage at SL and held an advantage to 25k ft. Also, what was the experience of the Tempest pilot, the German pilot? Had the Tempest pilot ever met a Ta in battle (not likely), had the German pilot met a Tempest in battle (certainly likely)? As you all know, experience is a major advantage. One engagement by one pilot does not an argument make.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 13, 2007)

I dont know if Willi Reschke said he could outturn a Tempest in a Ta, I am tempted to believe him.


----------



## Rapecq (Feb 13, 2007)

Hi



> The quote above was from "Wilde Sau" by Willi Rescke



I'm sorry for that I didn't give my source, but I wasn't sure. This quote (about Willi Reschke's fight) I found in JG 301 "Wilde Sau" [Kagero Publication]. This small book was based (among other things) on: Willi Reschke, Jagdgeschwader 301/302 "Wilde Sau". What is more interesting, I found similiar (however different a bit) description of this combat in: Osprey Aircraft of the Aces, Focke-Wulf Fw 190 Aces of the Western Front, so I decided not to give source.



> One engagement by one pilot does not an argument make.



Maybe, but It show that Ta 152 H-1 (with good pilot) could be dangerous adversary at low attitude. And what is more important, Willi Reschke said that while he was making those tight turns, he didn't reach the peak of Ta 152 turning capabilities.

Regards,


----------



## Raf ace (Feb 13, 2007)

I think ill go for F8F bearcat and sea fury


----------



## Soren (Feb 13, 2007)

Davparlr,

The Tempest wasn't a good turn-fighter, both the Mustang and FW-190 turned tighter, and the Ta-152H turned alot tighter than any of those.


----------



## davparlr (Feb 13, 2007)

Soren said:


> Davparlr,
> 
> The Tempest wasn't a good turn-fighter, both the Mustang and FW-190 turned tighter, and the Ta-152H turned alot tighter than any of those.




With that wing, I assumed the Ta-152H could out turn and out climb all those planes, although I am not aware of what power is available to the Ta at that altitude. But, as we all know, the good pilot always uses his aircraft strength against the opponents weaknesses. This appears not the case with the Tempest pilot, who seemed to have gotten himself into a turning fight with the Ta. That was unwise just as the F6F pilot was told not to get into a turning fight with a Japanese fighter.

I don't know which Tempest model was fought. The Tempest V would have been at a disadvantage to the Ta, with a limited top speed advantage at SL. Similarly, the P-51D and F4U-1 would also be at a disadvantage. But these were older aircraft and not really in the Ta-152H's graduating class. However, the Tempest II, F4U-4, and P-51H would be far more formidable foes at these altitudes.


----------



## dreadnought (Feb 14, 2007)

"Reaching Newchurch airfield at 480 mph I held "RB" down to 20 ft from the runway and then pulled her up to a 60 ° climb holding it as the speed dropped slowly off and the altimeter needle spun round the dial as if it were mad. At 7000 ft the speed was dropping below 180 mph and I rolled the Tempest lazily inverted, then allowed the nose to drop until the horizon, at first above my head, disappeared below (or rather above) the now inverted nose, the fields and woods steadied into the centre of the windscreen and then whirled around as I put the stick hard over and rolled around the vertical dive. Steadying again I pulled out over the tree tops at 500 mph, throttled back and pulled hard over towards the airfield in an over-the-vertical climbing turn, lowering the wheels and flaps in a roll as the speed dropped. What a magnificent aeroplane! They could have all their Spitfires and Mustangs!"
("My part of the sky", Roland Beamont)

"The Messerschmitt Me 262's most dangerous opponent was the British Hawker Tempest - extremely fast at low altitudes, highly-manoeuvrable and heavily-armed."
(Hubert Lange, Me262 pilot) 


These quotes are from The Hawker Tempest Page


----------



## dreadnought (Feb 14, 2007)

Civettone said:


> Quite right!
> What I especially like about them [the spitfire and bf 109], is that they were easy-to-build fighters that stayed up-to-date till the very end. That only shows the brilliance of their design. Try doing that with a P-40.
> 
> I recall someone's signature... P-40, P-51 and Spit were the best three fighters of WW2. I can't recall who that was but I would love to hear his reasoning behind chosing the P-40. A good aircraft but ... the best??
> ...



There were doubts about the ability to mass produce the spitfire in the beggining due to the very unconventional wing shape.


----------



## Gnomey (Feb 14, 2007)

dreadnought said:


> "Reaching Newchurch airfield at 480 mph I held "RB" down to 20 ft from the runway and then pulled her up to a 60 ° climb holding it as the speed dropped slowly off and the altimeter needle spun round the dial as if it were mad. At 7000 ft the speed was dropping below 180 mph and I rolled the Tempest lazily inverted, then allowed the nose to drop until the horizon, at first above my head, disappeared below (or rather above) the now inverted nose, the fields and woods steadied into the centre of the windscreen and then whirled around as I put the stick hard over and rolled around the vertical dive. Steadying again I pulled out over the tree tops at 500 mph, throttled back and pulled hard over towards the airfield in an over-the-vertical climbing turn, lowering the wheels and flaps in a roll as the speed dropped. What a magnificent aeroplane! They could have all their Spitfires and Mustangs!"
> ("My part of the sky", Roland Beamont)
> 
> "The Messerschmitt Me 262's most dangerous opponent was the British Hawker Tempest - extremely fast at low altitudes, highly-manoeuvrable and heavily-armed."
> ...


The point being...

Everyone knows the Tempest was fast, I suspect the one that was shot down a low altitude was an less experienced pilot who got into a fight that suited is opponent and as a result was shot down. This was repeated countless times throughout the war. Still for me the best is the Ta-152H, if it had been around in Korea I'm sure it too would of been able to shoot down some Migs like the Corsair and the Seafury did.



dreadnought said:


> There were doubts about the ability to mass produce the spitfire in the beggining due to the very unconventional wing shape.



And these were unfounded once a method of production was achieved that enabled mass production of the Spitfire throughout the war and beyond.


----------



## dreadnought (Feb 14, 2007)

_'On 23 June, 1942, Luftwaffe Pilot Oberleutnant Arnim Faber erroneously landed his Focke-Wulf Fw 190A-3 fighter at RAF Pembrey, apparently having mistaken this airfield for a Luftwaffe channel coast airfield. The British were thereby presented with a working example of the Fw 190 fighter, which had been giving the RAF an extremely difficult time. The Hawker Fury design was a direct result of the examination of Faber's Fw 190A-3. Examination of Faber's aircraft was largely responsible for the preparation of Specification F.6/42, which called for a new, high-performance fighter.'_

from Sea Fury History

Presumably this also meant it was designed to be highly manouverable to tackle the Fw 190, one of the most manuverable aircraft of the war.


----------



## dreadnought (Feb 14, 2007)

Gnomey said:


> The point being...
> 
> Everyone knows the Tempest was fast, I suspect the one that was shot down a low altitude was an less experienced pilot who got into a fight that suited is opponent and as a result was shot down. This was repeated countless times throughout the war. Still for me the best is the Ta-152H, if it had been around in Korea I'm sure it too would of been able to shoot down some Migs like the Corsair and the Seafury did.
> 
> ...



I agree with both these points but about the spitfire production, i did mean before that method of construction was achieved. sorry about the confusion


----------



## jpatrick62 (Feb 14, 2007)

_The Ta-152H-1 will make mince meat out of each of the above if a turn-fight is ensued_

Than the Mk 21 Spit, the KI-84, or the F4U-4? While it may be true it could out-turn the P51D/P47 variants, I'm very skeptical it could do so to those aircraft.

If you look at wing loading, the Ta-152 (41.4lb/sq foot) had a higher loading than did the F4U-4/Spit 21 or the KI-84.


----------



## GregP (Feb 15, 2007)

I think there were some miscoceptions about the Bearcat satted earlier.

The reson it was not picked for Korea was simple ... they didn't make very many of them, so there were not enough to deploy as an effective force.

Weak brakes? We operate one at the Planes of Fame Museum at Chino, California, U.S.A. and it doesn't have any trouble with the brakes.

You think 8 g's was not enough? Most WWII fighters were 3 - 4 g airplanes in a real fight. They didn;t have the power to sustain higher g-loading for more than a short time.

I stick with my list as posted earlier.

Oh yeah, at the Museum, we operate two Spits (a Mk IX and a Mk XIV), two to three P-51s (one is private), a Zero, a P-47G, a P-38, a Hellcat, a Hurricane, an F4U-1 Corsair, a Douglas Dauntless, a P-40, and several other flyable WWII-era planes.

Unfortunately, no one operates a Focke-Wulf Fw 190D or a Ta 152, so the comparison is all on paper there.

I'll stick with the Bearcat!


----------



## dreadnought (Feb 15, 2007)

GregP said:


> I think there were some miscoceptions about the Bearcat satted earlier.
> 
> The reson it was not picked for Korea was simple ... they didn't make very many of them, so there were not enough to deploy as an effective force.
> 
> ...



thats a pretty nice collection...


----------



## davparlr (Feb 15, 2007)

GregP said:


> I'll stick with the Bearcat!



Doesn't hold up on data comparison (using the F8F-2).

The F4U-4 was about equivalent in airspeed, had better wing loading (2 lbs/sq.ft., empty), better ceiling (41.6k to 40.7), much better SL climb (4800 ft/min to 4420), and much better combat record (even though the F8F never really had a chance to play).

The P-51H, very much a contemporary to the F8F, was faster over the entire envelope(410 mph at SL to 387, top speed of 470+mph to 447), had much better wing loading (almost 3 lbs/sq ft, empty), better ceiling (41.6), and better SL climb (4680 ft/min). And, of course, no combat experience so I didn't put this into contention.


----------



## jpatrick62 (Feb 15, 2007)

Having never flown an F8F fighter, I can only go by pilots who did. Almost to a man, they loved the plane, it could manuver at low speed better than any of it's contemporaries, it had a small profile, and it's climb was exceptional due to a great power/weight ratio. Corky Meirs, the great Grumman test pilot essentailly stated that the F8F was a Hellcat with lessons learned in combat applied. Unfortunatley, by lightening the F6F airframe, Grumman unknowingly removed the one role that prop planes could fulfill...

The reason it was not used in Korea was simple: the age of prop fighters was essentially over by the time the Bearcat started seeing combat. The Bearcat was not a great combat support plane, and the F4U-4/5 variants could fulfill this role much better because they could carry more ordinance. Additionally, the F4U-4/5 variants had a higher top speed and could take more punishment. 

While it's true the Navy hadn't overcome the problem of landing jets on a carrier by the start of the war, it was also true that neither the F8F nor the F4U-4/5 variants could stand up to the MIGs in combat on a regular basis. The Bearcat was on paper a great plane, but by Korea it was essentailly obsolete. Interestingly, the Vought aircraft morphed into the ground support role rather well, one of the few times federal dollars were well spent!

I'm not sure the F4U-4/5 variants were the best piston engined fighter planes, but for their time there was nothing that could outclass them. I am certain that the original Vought design was, in hindsight, a tremendous bargain for the taxpayer and a classic example of sound engineering principles. They could take on any comers, deliver high amounts of munitions in the ground support role, absorb terrific damage, and then land back on an aircraft carrier - and they did this through 2 wars with success.


----------



## Soren (Feb 15, 2007)

Don't hold me up on this but I think I remember the Bearcat having a soaring climb rate of some 6,000 ft/min, and its dogfighting ability was pretty darn decent as-well.


----------



## jpatrick62 (Feb 15, 2007)

_Don't hold me up on this but I think I remember the Bearcat having a soaring climb rate of some 6,000 ft/min, and its dogfighting ability was pretty darn decent as-well._

That's correct - for the later F8F-2 models. The 1945 models, the F8F-1 - which could have seen combat if the war had gone on for several more months - was also a great performer. Compare the stats of the F8F-1 with those of the F4U-4:

F8F-1
Top speed: 421 MPH
Init climb rate: 4570 ft/min
Armament: Initially 4-50's, later 4-20mm cannons
Ceiling:38,700

F4U-4
Top Speed: 448 MPH
Init Climb 4000 ft/min
Armament 6-50's or 4 20mm cannons
Ceiling: 38,400

As you can see, the Japanese would have had a most unpleasant suprise indeed!


----------



## davparlr (Feb 15, 2007)

jpatrick62 said:


> Compare the stats of the F8F-1 with those of the F4U-4:
> 
> F8F-1
> Top speed: 421 MPH
> ...




Flight test have indicated that the F4U-4 has an SL climb rate of 4800 ft/min and a top speed of 451 mph and a ceiling of 41,600 ft.


----------



## renrich (Feb 15, 2007)

The F8F was essentially a flying hot-rod. It was designed to operate off of CVEs(small flight deck). It had a lot of weight saving design features, only weighed around 9000 lbs, only carried 179 gallons of fuel internally(the Corsair carried over 230 gallons) so almost always carried an external tank(which cut down on the weapons load it could carry.) About 1200 were produced. It only had 5 external store stations with limited capacity. One fuel tank and that left only space for 4 rockets or bombs which was one reason for it's short service life. The F8F-1 which had the best low altitude performance was an honest 440-450 mph aircraft at low levels. The F8F-2 had better high altitude performance but somewhat lower performance overall. The early Bearcats could go from a standing start on the runway to 10000 feet in approx. 90 seconds. That was done not later than 1948. It was quite a while before a jet could surpass that. The Bearcat was used by the French as a fighter bomber in Indo-China. Of course the F4U-7 was the last piston engined fighter the French used. If one wants to read more about the Bearcat and it's weak brakes, Richard Linnekin in 80 KNOTS TO MACH 2 has a whole section on it. His career began with the Stearman and finished with the F4 Phantom and the F8F was one of his two all time favorites.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 15, 2007)

Weak brakes should not be an argument - on a carrier you have an arrest hook - on land if you do your landings right brake use should be minimum. Unless the plane is "creeping" during engine run prior to take off, this is a non issue - AND if you're landing with brakes, especially flying an aircraft like an F8F, there's something definitely wrong!!!!


----------



## davparlr (Feb 16, 2007)

renrich said:


> The F8F was essentially a flying hot-rod. It was designed to operate off of CVEs(small flight deck). It had a lot of weight saving design features, only weighed around 9000 lbs, only carried 179 gallons of fuel internally(the Corsair carried over 230 gallons) so almost always carried an external tank(which cut down on the weapons load it could carry.) About 1200 were produced. It only had 5 external store stations with limited capacity. One fuel tank and that left only space for 4 rockets or bombs which was one reason for it's short service life. The F8F-1 which had the best low altitude performance was an honest 440-450 mph aircraft at low levels. The F8F-2 had better high altitude performance but somewhat lower performance overall. The early Bearcats could go from a standing start on the runway to 10000 feet in approx. 90 seconds. That was done not later than 1948. It was quite a while before a jet could surpass that. The Bearcat was used by the French as a fighter bomber in Indo-China. Of course the F4U-7 was the last piston engined fighter the French used. If one wants to read more about the Bearcat and it's weak brakes, Richard Linnekin in 80 KNOTS TO MACH 2 has a whole section on it. His career began with the Stearman and finished with the F4 Phantom and the F8F was one of his two all time favorites.




My data source states that the max speed for the F8F-1 was 421 mph at 19,700 ft.


----------



## mkloby (Feb 16, 2007)

F8F's had reversing as well, if I recall correctly. As Joe said - you barely touch the brakes. On a normal rollout, only time I touch my brakes is to aid in turning when I'm using prop reversing, and that's just to turn off the active after I'm at a decent taxi speed.


----------



## CDRyan (Feb 16, 2007)

Well.. that's a tough one...

I think I would have to say the Supermarine Spitfire. It is, after all, the only allied fighter to be in continuous production throughout the war and the only one that was competitive throughout as well.

The Spitfire also had the highest critical mach number of any world war II aircraft... routinely cleared to .92. Post war, a PR19, PS852, set both altitude and speed records for the breed.... 51,500 ft and 690mph (straight down at Mach .96). The latter because F/Lt. Powells' cabin pressure light came on!

Both he and the plane survived. It continued in service for 2 more years.

While the early marks were very limited in range, late models like the Seafire 47 had an unrefueled range on internal tankage of 1,500 miles or more.

Points for consideration, I think.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 16, 2007)

Depends on what country you are talking about. The US did not enter the war until 1941 and the P-51 first flew in 1940 therefore the P-51 was in production for the whole war that the US was involved in. Same with the P-47.

As for the arguement that the Spitfire was the only allied aircraft that was competative throughout the whole war that is completely wrong.

Both the P-47 and the P-51 were competative throughout the whole war and the P-51 and P-47 could do something that the Spitfire could not. Do you know what that was?

They could take the fight to the Germans because of there long range.

Now having said that I think the Spitfire was an overall better fighter than the P-51 but the Spitfire was not the only allied fighter to remain competative throughout the whole war.


----------



## davparlr (Feb 16, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Depends on what country you are talking about. The US did not enter the war until 1941 and the P-51 first flew in 1940 therefore the P-51 was in production for the whole war that the US was involved in. Same with the P-47.
> 
> As for the arguement that the Spitfire was the only allied aircraft that was competative throughout the whole war that is completely wrong.
> 
> ...




Also, the XP-38 first flew in Jan. 1939.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 16, 2007)

Yeap forgot about the P-39. So if you wish to go that far the P-39 flew before anyone was in actual war with one another.

I would go as far as to say the P-38 was a better aircraft anyhow than the Spitfire.

Also forgot about the P-39 and P-40. It first flew before the war started as well, even though I would not classify them in the Spitfire, P-47, P-38 and P-51D class.


----------



## Jabberwocky (Feb 16, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Depends on what country you are talking about. The US did not enter the war until 1941 and the P-51 first flew in 1940 therefore the P-51 was in production for the whole war that the US was involved in. Same with the P-47.
> 
> As for the arguement that the Spitfire was the only allied aircraft that was competative throughout the whole war that is completely wrong.
> 
> ...



Considering that the P-51 didn't enter combat service until May-1942, or some 32 months after the war started, I'd say that calling it "competitive throughout the whole war" is a little of a stretch.

Same thing for the P-47; it didn't enter operational service until June-1942 and it didn't see combat service until Mar-1943, some 41 months into the war. 

On the other hand, the Spitfire first entered combat in Oct-1939 and recorded its final kill WW2 kill against Japanese kamikazis in Aug-1945 (in its Seafire form).


----------



## renrich (Feb 16, 2007)

There was no way an F8F could have a prop reverse system. The reason the weak brakes were an issue, as I originally stated, was that because the airplane could not be held still on the ground with the brakes under full power, then you did not know if you could get full power until you actually were in your takeoff run. The 440 t0 450 mph figure at low levels came from a graduate of Annapolis with an aeronautical engineering degree,(he later was a US Navy test pilot) who flew the F8F operationally for quite some time during the time between WW2 and Korea.


----------



## mkloby (Feb 16, 2007)

renrich said:


> There was no way an F8F could have a prop reverse system. The reason the weak brakes were an issue, as I originally stated, was that because the airplane could not be held still on the ground with the brakes under full power, then you did not know if you could get full power until you actually were in your takeoff run. The 440 t0 450 mph figure at low levels came from a graduate of Annapolis with an aeronautical engineering degree,(he later was a US Navy test pilot) who flew the F8F operationally for quite some time during the time between WW2 and Korea.



I have read an article about Herb fisher, former curtiss test pilot, running navy tests on an F8F using prop reversing in flight to acheive ridiculous vertical speeds in a dive...

Maybe it had a modified propeller assembly? I don't know.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 16, 2007)

And if the F8F couldn't stay put during run ups, then indeed that was a problem, at the same time you always don't have to go to full power to ensure proper engine operation....


----------



## mkloby (Feb 16, 2007)

FLYBOYJ said:


> And if the F8F couldn't stay put during run ups, then indeed that was a problem, at the same time you always don't have to go to full power to ensure proper engine operation....



I've never gone to full power in any aircraft until taking the active runway and starting my T/O run...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 17, 2007)

Jabberwocky said:


> Considering that the P-51 didn't enter combat service until May-1942, or some 32 months after the war started, I'd say that calling it "competitive throughout the whole war" is a little of a stretch.
> 
> Same thing for the P-47; it didn't enter operational service until June-1942 and it didn't see combat service until Mar-1943, some 41 months into the war.
> 
> On the other hand, the Spitfire first entered combat in Oct-1939 and recorded its final kill WW2 kill against Japanese kamikazis in Aug-1945 (in its Seafire form).



That was not the point of my post. The point was that the Spitfire was not the only competative allied aircraft of WW2 as his post made it seem. As I stated in the other post the P-51 and the P-47 had one major advantage over the Spitfire. Range they could take the fight to the Germans where as the Spitfire remained largly a defensive fighter until mid to late 1944 in Europe.


----------



## pbfoot (Feb 17, 2007)

mkloby said:


> I've never gone to full power in any aircraft until taking the active runway and starting my T/O run...


Wouldn't the F8F just nose over if you applied brakes and full power


----------



## davparlr (Feb 17, 2007)

renrich said:


> There was no way an F8F could have a prop reverse system. The reason the weak brakes were an issue, as I originally stated, was that because the airplane could not be held still on the ground with the brakes under full power, then you did not know if you could get full power until you actually were in your takeoff run. The 440 t0 450 mph figure at low levels came from a graduate of Annapolis with an aeronautical engineering degree,(he later was a US Navy test pilot) who flew the F8F operationally for quite some time during the time between WW2 and Korea.



Probably an observation and not a test, therefore highly suspect. As I have stated many times, obtaining a TAS without a proper instrumented aircraft is not an accurate process. One must have outside air temperature and impact pressure (a correct one, which is not indicated, but rather equivalent airspeed). Few aircraft of WWII era had outside air temperature. Also, most used indicated or possible calibrated airspeed. As airspeed increases, the pitot pressure becomes compressed which causes the airspeed to read too high. Equivalent airspeed corrects for this error. The official tested TAS of the F8F-1 is probably the 421 mph recorded. This is much more reliable than pilot observation, even an aeronautical engineer.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 17, 2007)

pbfoot said:


> Wouldn't the F8F just nose over if you applied brakes and full power


Not if you keep the stick back - that will keep the tail on the ground.


----------



## mkloby (Feb 17, 2007)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Not if you keep the stick back - that will keep the tail on the ground.



Fresh off the taildragger too, huh joe!


----------



## Morai_Milo (Feb 17, 2007)

Didn't some a/c have mechanics sitting on the stab when the engine was being run up?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 17, 2007)

Morai_Milo said:


> Didn't some a/c have mechanics sitting on the stab when the engine was being run up?


Yes, but that was probably more the exception than the rule...


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 17, 2007)

mkloby said:


> Fresh off the taildragger too, huh joe!


Yeppers!!! 8)


----------



## renrich (Feb 19, 2007)

Re performance figures on A/C, ( especially WW2 A/C) I have learned to my benefit, since I joined this forum, that there is a lot of data available much of which seems credible which seemingly is contradictory. If the US Navy tested an A/C it got one set of numbers. If the USAF tested the same A/C, they got another set. If the British did the testing there was another set. The manufacturer got something different. It seems that the different services and different countries had an understandable proprietory bias toward their own airplanes. Consequently, it doesn't seem very persuasive anymore to me to use raw performance numbers to justify a belief that a certain model of a certain A/C was the "best." The nice thing about that is that everybody can have an opinion and everybody can feel they are "right."


----------



## Civettone (Feb 19, 2007)

A couple of days ago I posted a link to an article on the performance of the Fw 190D to show that it usually achieved a speed less than the often quoted 685 km/h. And there are several other good articles available which lists different test data of several aircraft. They do a good job at explaining the differences between the data, and give a pretty good view on what was the most common data.

Kris


----------



## Soren (Feb 20, 2007)

Wouldn't happen to be from WWII aircraft performnce would it ? 

The Fw-190D did 702 km/h alt with MW-50 and 612 km/h at SL.


----------



## Civettone (Feb 20, 2007)

Soren said:


> Wouldn't happen to be from WWII aircraft performnce would it ?
> 
> The Fw-190D did 702 km/h alt with MW-50 and 612 km/h at SL.


Are we talking about the D-9? I gave it just as an example, not to discuss the Dora in this topic, it's already going on in another thread.

But FYI this was the article I was referring to: FW 190 D-9 Flight Trials
Kris


----------



## Soren (Feb 20, 2007)

From the place I expected. 

That site is good for info on Allied aircraft performance, not for axis aircraft performance. Original FW documents rate the top speed of the D-9 as 702 m/h at alt and 612 km/h at SL.


----------



## Morai_Milo (Feb 20, 2007)

It should be noted that the speeds Soren gives are with MW50. Without MW50 the speeds are 572kph and 685kph.

Not all Dora 9s had MW50 installed.


----------



## Wespe (Feb 20, 2007)

Besides the D9’s, the Fw 190D-12 had a top speed of 725 km/h with MW50, not to mention its further development from Zwischenloesung into the Ta-152With the MW50 the DB 603 engine pushed the speed up to around 750km/h and plus the GM1 it could reach probably 780-790km.
The allies had nothing that could match the speed of a Ta-152 and D0-335.
In June 1942, a Luftwaffe pilot fortuitously presented the Allies with a Fw 190A fighter intact, the detailed examination of this plane profoundly influenced fighter thinking in Britain and probably also the US. It directly results in the issue of specification F.2/43 to which was designed the Hawker Fury, embodying numerous features directly copied from the Fw 190A, and F.19/43 which produced the Folland Fo.118 fighter project, also owing much to the design of the Fw 190A. What higher tribute could have been paid to what was undoubtedly the finest prop fighter which Germany had produced.
The same plane was able to be highly effective as a ground attack plane which could not be said of the Spitfire or Mustang, if not armed with rockets. 
If Germany would have been able to stop the continued production of Bf-109’s in favor to an all Fw production who knows how the air war especially over Germany would have developed. 
Had the Ta 152H been built in enough numbers and been flown by knowledged pilots it could have taken its place alongside the Me 262 as a near unbeatable air superiority fighter and bomber killer.

But history tells us why this was not possible or done.

Wespe


----------



## Morai_Milo (Feb 20, 2007)

Wespe, ever hear of the P-51H or DH Hornet?


----------



## Civettone (Feb 20, 2007)

Soren, that page lists 7 reports from E-Stelle Rechlin as well as from Focke Wulf. I wonder what makes the report you've seen more worth than these? 


Wespe, for every Fw 190 the Germans could build 2 Bf 109s. Could the Fw 190 shoot down twice as many aircraft as the Bf 109? No! If one of the two had to go, the rational thing to do was stop production of the Fw 190, and not of the Bf 109. 
Kris


----------



## Wespe (Feb 20, 2007)

Civettone said:


> Soren, that page lists 7 reports from E-Stelle Rechlin as well as from Focke Wulf. I wonder what makes the report you've seen more worth than these?
> 
> 
> Wespe, for every Fw 190 the Germans could build 2 Bf 109s. Could the Fw 190 shoot down twice as many aircraft as the Bf 109? No! If one of the two had to go, the rational thing to do was stop production of the Fw 190, and not of the Bf 109.
> Kris



Could you start to put some sense in your posts, would you pleeeease?

You are contradicting yourself; just some pages before you finalised that the
germans had no fuel - no pilots - no nothing, so what is the point of producing the lower performing plane - just because according to you they could have build 2 instead of one.
Wespe


----------



## Wespe (Feb 20, 2007)

Morai_Milo said:


> Wespe, ever hear of the P-51H or DH Hornet?





The P-51H model never saw combat in Europe, entering service in late summer 1945.
Same goes for the Hornet
First of two prototypes (unarmed) flown July 28, 1944 (initially with two Merlin 130s); second prototype carried armament and 200-Imp gal (910-1) underwing drop tanks. Initial production flight February 1, 1945, but quantity deliveries (to equip No 64 Sqn initially) too late for combat use.

Interesting report by ChuckYaeger: 
Chuck Yeager is on record saying he disfavored the P-51H compared to the D as it was less stable (despite the taller tail and extra foot of fuselage length) in cruise and therfore more tiring to fly. Bob Chilton, NAA test pilot and maiden pilot for the H, says that the plane was "no better, no worse than other (P-51) models he tested (North American P-51H Mustang by David McClaren, Air Force Legends #209 published by Steve Ginter, 2000). Chilton goes on to say the -H was good to Mach 0.8 in a dive without porpising, but it did "rattle, shake, and scare". He says the H also benefited from the development work expended on all of the previous Mustang variants and less problems were encountered with parts flying off or breaking.

If you want to go for the fastest allied plane to see action in Europe, then please refer to the P-47N was fully 40 mph faster than the P-47D-25-RE, top speed at 467 mph at 32,000 ft.

Wespe


----------



## Civettone (Feb 20, 2007)

These are two different discussions, Wespe.

One was about Udet about the Me 410, this one is you about the Fw 190. If you would have taken the effort to read some of my last post, you would have seen that I acknowledged that the Germans could have build three times as many Bf 109s than Me 410s but that it wouldn't matter much if they weren't flown by decently trained pilots.

You on the other hand, stated that the production of the Bf 109 should have been stopped in favour of the Fw 190. This is unrelated to the 1944 discussion of having more Bf 109s to stop the American bombers. At least you didn't mention this, so I assume that you're talking about a period from mid 1942 to mid 1944. After that, I suppose you would be pushing for the Me 262 instead of the Fw 190 to replace the Bf 109.
I tried to explain this as simply as possible for you and so I'm surprised and sad you do not see the sense in my posts. 
But moving on ... this is mainly about you claiming that the Bf 109 is the "lower performing plane" compared to the Fw 190. I do not only disagree with this, I also prefer the Bf 109 as they are two times 'cheaper' to build and because of that alone twice as 'good'.
I only see a role for the Fw 190 as a Jabo, Schlachtflugzeug, Begleitungsjäger and Sturmbockjäger.

Kris


----------



## Civettone (Feb 20, 2007)

Wespe, I already explained that the allies had several aircraft behind the door. Not only the P-51H and P-47N but also the P-51F/G and P-47M. Only few P-47M aircraft were produced, because there was no need for them as the allies had complete air superiority at the end of 1944. If not, then these fighters would have been operational in the Spring of 1945 just like the Fw 190D-12 or Ta 152. But they chose not to stop production for these but to continue until the arrival of the long-range P-47M and P-51H for use in the invasion of Japan.

And don't forget the British Spitfire 21 and Tempest II. They also had the Spiteful and the Fury had the war dragged on longer.

It's a mistake I often see in what-if scenarios. All kinds of ingenious plans are drawn up while not considering a change of plan by the enemy. Just as if that part of history _was_ locked.
Kris


----------



## Wespe (Feb 20, 2007)

Civettone said:


> Wespe, I already explained that the allies had several aircraft behind the door. Not only the P-51H and P-47N but also the P-51F/G and P-47M. Only few P-47M aircraft were produced, because there was no need for them as the allies had complete air superiority at the end of 1944. If not, then these fighters would have been operational in the Spring of 1945 just like the Fw 190D-12 or Ta 152. But they chose not to stop production for these but to continue until the arrival of the long-range P-47M and P-51H for use in the invasion of Japan.
> 
> And don't forget the British Spitfire 21 and Tempest II. They also had the Spiteful and the Fury had the war dragged on longer.
> 
> ...




Look I see it this way;

This forum is about WWII and not what would have happened in JUNE, or August 1945 or February 2007 in Europe.

Secondly, any contemporary literature will state that the best German fighter was the Fw. So if you think it was the 109, well then that is your opinion based on nothing.


----------



## Morai_Milo (Feb 20, 2007)

Wespe, the only reason the Ta152H saw any service was because Nazi German was at the end of it's rope. The a/c was not ready, being full of bugs, to be operational under normal cercumstances.

The Allies had no need to rush new a/c into operational service as the a/c they had were already doing such a superb job.

Civettone, if the Germans had been more on the ball the DB603 powered Fw could have been flying operationally in 1943. A better a/c than the 109s flying at the time.


----------



## Erich (Feb 20, 2007)

slightly bent response but the Ta 152H was the answer to the P-51D/K. this was the answer for so many III./JG 301 pilots at January 45's end but the unit was pushed farther and farther east to take on the Soviets and to the lesser extent the RAF. I can only find one reference so far in my data of P-51's being engaged by JG 301 with the Ta


----------



## Civettone (Feb 20, 2007)

> Civettone, if the Germans had been more on the ball the DB603 powered Fw could have been flying operationally in 1943. A better a/c than the 109s flying at the time.


Morai, about a year ago I posted the same opinion at the Luftwaffe Experten board. I just couldn't understand that Tank wasn't given the go-ahead on the Fw 190C. He was ordered to focus on the Dora with the Jumo 213 engine. The answer I was given then was because the DB 603 was already reserved for the Me 410, He 177 and Do 217. The Jumo 213 had a similar performance but wasn't yet "spoken for. And although the DB 603 had been around for a while the engine had so many problems that even the Me 410 wasn't fully operational till the end of the year. 
I don't know if this can be the full story because I am still uncertain if that's all there's to it. Tank had the Fw 190D flying in 1943 but it took until October 1944 for mass production, and even then the engine was still troublesome and didn't have the MW 50 installation. This is all beyond my comprehension as the Jumo 213 was already a year operational on the Ju 188 by that time. Was the Jumo engine the cause of the Fw 190D appearing (too) late? Or would something similar have happened with the Fw 190C? 
I personally think the problems of the Fw 190C were less dramatic than with the Jumo 213, and the Fw 190C could have been operational half a year earlier. But this would be my personal opinion as it is not based on historical evidence. 
If also Tank is to blame for the slow development of the Fw 190D - perhaps already working too much on the Ta 152 and the Flitzer project ? - then I would have gone for the Fiat G.56. 
But again ... the whole story is clouded and none of the experts I know have the answer.




Wespe said:


> Secondly, any contemporary literature will state that the best German fighter was the Fw. So if you think it was the 109, well then that is your opinion based on nothing.


You remind me of the way I was some years ago. I had strong opinions and my personal favourite aircraft whose honour I defended vigorously. But I learned the hard way - many guys knowing much more than I did - and who forced me to adopt a more critical view on data presented to me and on my own beliefs. Since then, my opinion on history and specific aircraft has changed significantly. There was a time that I was convinced the Bf 109G was difficult to fly, slow, lightly armed, not manoeuvrable and in the end too fragile to house a 2000 HP engine. I couldn't understand why the Germans didn't go for the Fw 190 which is presented as the better fighter on most internet sites and in many contemporary publications. 
Not only has my view broadened on what is the _best_ fighter, now including reliability, production costs, agility, fuel consumption, adaptability, etc, I also have come to realize that aircraft are often difficult to compare. And maybe thinking about training hours, logistics, and spare parts isn't much fun to think about, they are essential elements in judging the capability of a fighter&pilot weapon combination. 

Looking at all the elements it's my personal opinion that the Bf 109 was slightly better than the Fw 190. But even granting that the Fw 190 was better than the Bf 109, one cannot dismiss the rational arguments of the war industry. The Americans and Russians grasped this from day 1 and built weapons in mass production. These weapons didn't have to be the best. If you could build twice as many as the enemy, they can be twice as bad. The Russians added poor leadership, tactics and training to the equation which resulted in staggering losses, but the Americans had the total system in check from production to logistics to training to spare parts to tactical deployment. 
Do you know who the man in my avatar is? He was the only man in his branch who understood the importance of a 'system in check'. Just too bad he had a drug addict as his direct superior officer.

Kris


----------



## renrich (Feb 21, 2007)

Kris, Outstanding post! A lot of wisdom.


----------



## Morai_Milo (Feb 21, 2007)

Yes Civetonne, I am familar with all that. As I said, if the Germans were more on the ball.

Design work on a 603 powered Fw started in Feb 1940, long before any Me410. I also understand the 'power eg' was to be interchangable with the Me309.

Now the 309 was a no go, so one has ask what would have been the result if it did go into production?


----------



## Civettone (Feb 21, 2007)

Thanks Renrich. 


Morai, I suppose it depends on when the Me 309 was going to be ready given that it had bad flight characteristics when the project was terminated. The Bf 209 wouldn't have been much better as it pretty much threw away its reason of existence: similarity of parts with the Bf 109.
What do you think of the Me 155 with the DB 603?







Kris


----------



## luftwaffemesserschmitt (Feb 22, 2007)

the best piston engined fighter is the TA-152 
he is the best on hight altitude digfights and he could kill migs on mid altitude the only limite the luftwaffe had was the limitite fuel and the USAF bomber-offensive...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 22, 2007)

he....digfights....limite....limitite...

Sorry I had to. Dont worry my spelling is not the greatest either all the time.


----------



## renrich (Feb 23, 2007)

Interesting story from Richard Linnekin's book 80 KNOTS TO MACH 2, about Bearcats and Spitfires. A Bearcat off a carrier in the Med had to land at Malta for a minor repair. The Spitfire pilots had never seen a Bearcat and visa versa. A spirited discussion began about the relative merits of the 2 A/C and eventually a contest was arranged. The rules of engagement established by the Bearcat pilot were: from a standing start together I will make a run on you before you get that thing off the ground. Over lunch and a few beers it was decided in order to equalize the matter of pilot experience in model so that the contest was about planes not pilots the Bearcat pilot was to fly the Spit and visa versa. Finally a superior officer stepped in with a cooler head and the contest was canceled.


----------



## lesofprimus (Feb 23, 2007)

If only....


----------



## Udet (Feb 23, 2007)

Jabberwocky said:


> Considering that the P-51 didn't enter combat service until May-1942, or some 32 months after the war started, I'd say that calling it "competitive throughout the whole war" is a little of a stretch.
> 
> Same thing for the P-47; it didn't enter operational service until June-1942 and it didn't see combat service until Mar-1943, some 41 months into the war.
> 
> On the other hand, the Spitfire first entered combat in Oct-1939 and recorded its final kill WW2 kill against Japanese kamikazis in Aug-1945 (in its Seafire form).


 
Ermmm...was it the Spitfire that bore the brunt of the aerial combat during 1944?


----------



## Hunter368 (Feb 23, 2007)

Hmmmm USA vs UK vs German........they all have their champions.

I feel I should defend Russian or Japanese planes.... 


I think CC is the only one for Italian planes.


----------



## Udet (Feb 24, 2007)

Also that some Spitfire pilot might in fact have succeeded in shooting down a Japanese plane -kamikaze- in the very last days of the war in the Pacific is about meaningless...if over Europe the RAF revealed itself a mediocre air force to say the least, now come and talk about the PTO. Did the pilots of the Navy know there were spitfires flying over there?


----------



## Jabberwocky (Feb 24, 2007)

Udet said:


> Ermmm...was it the Spitfire that bore the brunt of the aerial combat during 1944?



Did I say ANYTHING about "bore the brunt"? No.  

I was refering to its continued competitiveness, and that continued state over the course of the war, from Oct 1939 to Aug 1945.

We all know that the USAAF took over the primary role against the Luftwaffe in late 1943/early 1944 with the arrival of the P-51 and long range capabilities for the P-47. Why did you feel the need to bring it up? 



PS, as for seeing action:

Spitfires lost in operations 01-Jan-1944 to 31-Dec-1944, ETO:

Jan: 28
Feb: 12
Mar:16
Apr: 29 
May: 69
Jun: 159
Jul: 96
Aug: 119
Sep: 92
Oct: 62
Nov: 53
Dec: 62

The Spitfire remained the primary RAF fighter type throughout the war, and saw more combat sorties than any other Allied fighter type.

At all times during the war the Spitfire was as dangerous an adversay for its opponents as any other fighter type. In interrogations conducted by Allied intelligence of captured LuftWaffe and Reggia Aeronautica fighter pilots, the Spitfire remained at the top of the list of fighters they least liked to encounter. That says enough to convince me it remained competitive throughout the war.


----------



## ohka345 (Mar 11, 2007)

I have my own top 10 list:
1.Mitsubishi A6M Reisen
2.Kyushu J7W Shinden
3.Kawasaki Ki-61
4.Nakajima Ki-27
5.Messershmitt Bf109G-14
6.Fiat G-55 Centauro
7.Reggiane Re.2005
8.Mitsubishi A5M Claude
9.Kawasaki Ki-45
10.Supermarine Spitfure


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 11, 2007)

Are you serious?

Can you please explain why you ranked those planes in that order as you did, and why you left out aircraft such as Fw-190A and D, Typhoon, P-51D, P-38 Lightning and P-47. Again it is your opinion and you are allowed but I would just like to know your opinion.


----------



## ohka345 (Mar 11, 2007)

Well...I do like fws and i have a Fw 190 model kit!
sorry...but I don't like planes that shot down japanese ones


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 11, 2007)

That makes them bad aircraft? I would say that many of those aircraft were better than Zeros. The Zero is a myth my friend. It had great range and was a good aircraft at the beginning of the war and was left in the dust by Corsairs, Hellcats and Wildcats.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 11, 2007)

And even P-40s....


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 11, 2007)

Ive sent him a pm about some of this stuff.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 11, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Ive sent him a pm about some of this stuff.


Good - reminds me of P-38 on acid.


----------



## ohka345 (Mar 11, 2007)

It doesn't make them bad aircraft,theyr'e actually pretty good.It's just that I don't really like to see a Zero get blown out of the sky BY one of these aircraft.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 11, 2007)

ohka345 said:


> It doesn't make them bad aircraft,theyr'e actually pretty good.It's just that I don't really like to see a Zero get blown out of the sky BY one of these aircraft.


Well it was reality kid - the Zero preformed well in the early stages of the war because allied pilots tried to dogfight with it at under 300 mph. Over that speed she did not maneuver well and at real high speeds even the P-40, yes, the P-40 could out turn her....


----------



## ohka345 (Mar 11, 2007)

I know.The Zero really did get whipped at the last years of the war.So they used it for KAMIKAZE!!!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 11, 2007)

ohka345 said:


> I know.The Zero really did get whipped at the last years of the war.So they used it for KAMIKAZE!!!


Actally the whipping started in the late summer of 1942...


----------



## Gnomey (Mar 11, 2007)

LOL! Ki-27 in 4th place, it was almost as bad as the Gladiator and was shot down in droves.....


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 11, 2007)




----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 11, 2007)

Ohka - I just removed your siggy - if you post another enormous one I will remove as well....


----------



## mkloby (Mar 13, 2007)

ohka - why do you think that kamikaze attacks are funny or entertaining? You have some growing up to do, my friend. These are attacks that killed many allied personnel, not to mention the japanese "pilots."

Then there's your TORA TORA TORA sig


----------



## davparlr (Mar 14, 2007)

mkloby said:


> ohka - why do you think that kamikaze attacks are funny or entertaining? You have some growing up to do, my friend. These are attacks that killed many allied personnel, not to mention the japanese "pilots."
> 
> Then there's your TORA TORA TORA sig



That was a desperate times fought by desperate men. Nothing entertaining there.

When I was a kid I got to hear Cmdr. Mitsuo Fuchida give a talk at my church in Pensacola. He was the man who gave the call, TORA TORA TORA.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 14, 2007)

Interesting. Do you recall what he said?


----------



## davparlr (Mar 14, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Interesting. Do you recall what he said?



Not much, it was a long time ago and I was not so much into WWII history. It was mostly religious. He did say something like he was the only war survivor of the unit he was in. He felt it was so he could be a Christian missonary. He had become a Christian after the war. What was really interesting was that I was watching a History Channel special on the Tokyo B-25 raid. They interviewed one of the crewmen who was captured but not killed. He said he asked for a Bible and they gave it to him. He became a Christian while a prisoner of war and stayed in Japan after the war. They had a picture of him standing next to Cmdr. Fuchido. Amazing.

How I wish I could relive that presentation and was able to ask him questions. Too many things slip through our hands and we never know it till it is too late.


----------



## lesofprimus (Mar 14, 2007)

> How I wish I could relive that presentation and was able to ask him questions. Too many things slip through our hands and we never know it till it is too late.


Man I'll tell ya, I feel that way all the time.... I've met Joe Foss twice and now after all these years, those conversations are all but forgotten....


----------



## Saberstrike (Mar 14, 2007)

The Vought F4U Corsair. It downed Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-15s, and it was one of the most feared-by-Axis aircraft in WW II, alng with the P-38 Lightning...


----------



## davparlr (Mar 14, 2007)

lesofprimus said:


> Man I'll tell ya, I feel that way all the time.... I've met Joe Foss twice and now after all these years, those conversations are all but forgotten....



 

I do now take the time to talk to a new friend who was in the Marines and fought at Guadal Canal, Tarawa, and Iwo Jima (where he was shot).

My neighbor, when I was a kid, was on a destroyer at Okinawa and it took a Kamakazi. He was in a 5" turret that was hit. All was killed except him and one other out of 25. I never talked to him about it.


----------



## Matt308 (Mar 14, 2007)

Saberstrike said:


> The Vought F4U Corsair. It downed Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-15s, and it was one of the most feared-by-Axis aircraft in WW II, alng with the P-38 Lightning...




Mig-15. Not Mig-15"s". Reference Folmar. He was subsequently shot down by his MiG kill wingman.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 15, 2007)

Yeap on 10 Sept. 1952. CPT. Follmar became the only Corsair pilot to shoot down a Mig-15 when the Mig got into a turning fight with him. As Matt said, the wingman of the Mig pilot quickly shot Folmar down who bailed out and was rescued.


----------



## JoeB (Mar 15, 2007)

MiG-15's also downed two USN F4U's in October 1952 in separate incidents, so 1:3. The Corsair victory is confirmed in a specific Communist account. As usual I don't see the real significance of the Corsair, or Sea Fury, or Skyraider, having claimed swept wing jets. Laudable individual achievements but they don't prove much about the planes. Any reasonably capable prop would have an opportunity in such a combat if the jet slows down and turns with it, though again depending on pilot gunnery skill and/or luck (probably a fairly long range, high deflection shot would still be required). A Sea Fury was also downed the same day as their claim (which may well be valid but there's no known Communist account specifically confirming it), and 3 Skyraiders were downed by MiG's in SEA in separate incidents v 2 MiG-17's claimed by Skyraiders (at least one of which is confirmed in Vietnamese accounts).

As on another recent thread a Chinese La-11 also put holes in an F-86, (November 30 1951 Chinese pilot Wang Tianbao of the PLAAF 2nd Fighter Regiment claimed an F-86 downed, and F-86E 50-680 of the 4th FIW suffered 'major damage' from an 'La-9' per US records). When last I brought that up the response, after denying it was so because it's not an endlessly repeated incident like the Western ones, was "oh that doesn't prove anything". Right, it really doesn't, the big picture of that combat was 3 La-11's downed v no F-86's. But nor do any of the others prove much, except positive reflection on the particular prop pilots.

Joe


----------



## renrich (Mar 15, 2007)

I am a Corsair fan but agree that downing one Mig 15 isn't very signicant. However, I would vote for the F4U 4-5 being the best piston engined fighter ever. To me, what is significant, is when a US Navy CAP in F9F-5s, either 2 or 3 of them took on 7 Mig 15s and shot down two Migs and damaged another and all Panthers returned to the boat. The Mig pilots radio transmissions were recorded and some of the pilots were speaking Russian.


----------



## lesofprimus (Mar 15, 2007)

I think its more important that a few prop jobs shot down a couple of Migs than the other way around....


----------



## JoeB (Mar 15, 2007)

renrich said:


> To me, what is significant, is when a US Navy CAP in F9F-5s, either 2 or 3 of them took on 7 Mig 15s and shot down two Migs and damaged another and all Panthers returned to the boat. The Mig pilots radio transmissions were recorded and some of the pilots were speaking Russian.


USN Panthers met MiG's on 6 different days in the Korean war, and their opponents were the Soviet AF in every case. The Panthers downed 5 (confirmed in Soviet accounts) and lost none. Marine Panthers met MiG's 5 times, Soviet in 3, Chinese in one, not sure about the other. They lost one Panther (to the Soviets) without scoring. The November 18 1952 case you refer to was different from the US side in that the USN *knew* the opponents had to be Soviet since they'd taken off from inside the USSR so it was considered senstive. From the Soviet side that particular unit was not at the time officially committed to Korea (later on it did a tour actually) but the losses were <1% of just their own MiG-15 air combat losses in Korea so not as special for them (4 MiG's were actually present v 3 Panthers; the Panthers were credited with 2 MiG's and dam/probable but only one of the MiG's returned to base; one Panther was hit but returned safely).

Re: MiG's downing props not being a big deal, who ever said it was? But the fluke incidents by Western props have been repeated in canned form for so long, tending to omit more numerous prop losses to the MiG's, some people seem to actually think prop planes were taking on MiG-15's in Korea on generally favorable terms, which wasn't the case (especially adding in a number of F-51's lost to MiG's without MiG losses), of course.

Joe


----------



## lesofprimus (Mar 15, 2007)

> some people seem to actually think prop planes were taking on MiG-15's in Korea on generally favorable terms


I dont think theres anyone here who feels that way, atleast the guys who have been here long enough to know better...


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 16, 2007)

No one in their right mind would think a "prop" aircraft (the more correct term would be "recip") of WW2 vintage could take on a Mig-15 or F-86 on favorable terms, but here's something to consider...

As stated in earlier posts, first *and *second generation turbine aircraft were notorious for having poor engine spool up times. The Mig-15 accelerated well but when slowed down to speeds under 350 mph still did not initially accelerate as well when compared to older recip aircraft. A recip aircraft can initially run away from an early turbine aircraft when both aircraft are operated in lower sub-sonic ranges, in other words, speeds at where a P-51, Corsair or even an La-11 thrive. With that said, there is no denying that during the Korean War both UN and communist recip aircraft have scored hits on turbine opponents with the UN seeming to come out ahead in these rare incidents. This seemed to have happened more to communist pilots than UN pilots by the posts reported here in and from combat reports I've read. With THAT said it seems that some of the tactics used by communist pilots were allowing themselves to operate in a regime where the weaknesses of their aircraft were possibly being exploited, knowingly or unknowingly by their opponents. While we could say this is no big deal, I would say during the few occurrences where the turbine aircraft were destroyed by a recip aircraft, it was a matter of pilot skill, bad or good combat decision making (depending on what side of the gun you're on) and of course luck!

It's kind of funny - these rare incidents also happened in Vietnam 15 years later where Skyraiders Shot down Mig-17s on 2 occasions. Rare? Yes. No big deal? Maybe, unless you're on the receiving end and knowing that a "prop" plane just smoked your @ss as you float helplessly in your parachute OR unless you're pilot in that prop plane having a nice big red star being painted on your aircraft while you're being doused with champagne...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 16, 2007)

I sure as hell dont. I also dont see anyone here who does except for maybe the guy who thinks the Corsair is the best because it shot down a Mig.


----------



## JoeB (Mar 16, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I sure as hell dont. I also dont see anyone here who does except for maybe the guy who thinks the Corsair is the best because it shot down a Mig.


I didn't say you personally did, I don't even know who you are  But there's quite a bit more than that one guy. Just two post ago somebody again mentioned A-1's claimed 2 MiG-17's in SEA, didn't say A-1's claimed 2 MiG-17's and MiG's downed 3 A-1's (it's almost never quoted that way).

The unusual incidents of Western prop success against swept wing MiG's are often repeated; the more numerous cases of MiG's downing prop planes (in incidents other than those in which props also claimed) are hardly ever mentioned. I don't think that's debateable, it's obvious. IMO that naturally cumulatively and demonstrably leads to a misimpression not limited to completely uninformed people. You may not be under that misimpression (which I didn't say you were) and your opinion may differ how many others are.

Joe


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 16, 2007)

JoeB said:


> I didn't say you personally did,



I was not talking to you either when I said that...


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 16, 2007)

JoeB said:


> Just two post ago somebody again mentioned A-1's claimed 2 MiG-17's in SEA, didn't say A-1's claimed 2 MiG-17's and MiG's downed 3 A-1's (it's almost never quoted that way).


I said it and its a fact, witnessed and confirmed...

21 June 1966 by LT Clinton B. Johnson and LTJG Charles W. Hartman III (shared victory) of VA-25, and on 9 October 1966 by LTJG William T. Patton of VA-176.

And the reason why we don't hear about it the other way around becuase in reality it is an oddity and I made that clear in my last post which describes WHY this happens in real terms rather than coming up with a reason to down play it.


----------



## davparlr (Mar 16, 2007)

FLYBOYJ said:


> As stated in earlier posts, first *and *second generation turbine aircraft were notorious for having poor engine spool up times. The Mig-15 accelerated well but when slowed down to speeds under 350 mph still did not initially accelerate as well when compared to older recip aircraft.



I remember flying the T-37, which had centrifugal compressors similar to the Mig-15, and trying to accelerate after a stall series. I would run the throttles full forward and wait. First there was a low pitch whine with no increase in thrust, then the whine increased in pitch and after quite a time, the rpm would get into the 90% plus range, then I would start to feel a push in the back. Also, because acceleration was so slow, on final, the T-37 flew with speed brakes out and a gizmo out, called a thrust attenuator (small flaps that extended right behind the engine into the exhaust). This kept the RPMs high and if you had to go around, you pushed the throttles forward and closed the speed brake, which also closed the thrust attenuators. You got good response that way. Of course the T-38 was a whole different bird. When you plugged in the ABs on that plane it just leaped forward.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 16, 2007)

davparlr said:


> I remember flying the T-37, which had centrifugal compressors similar to the Mig-15, and trying to accelerate after a stall series. I would run the throttles full forward and wait. First there was a low pitch whine with no increase in thrust, then the whine increased in pitch and after quite a time, the rpm would get into the 90% plus range, then I would start to feel a push in the back. Also, because acceleration was so slow, on final, the T-37 flew with speed brakes out and a gizmo out, called a thrust attenuator (small flaps that extended right behind the engine into the exhaust). This kept the RPMs high and if you had to go around, you pushed the throttles forward and closed the speed brake, which also closed the thrust attenuators. You got good response that way. Of course the T-38 was a whole different bird. When you plugged in the ABs on that plane it just leaped forward.


Great info Dave - I figured the "Tweet" would have some of those characteristics. The worse one I've flown in is a Fouga Magister, that thing is really gutless....

I think you could see how easy it is to get yourself into trouble in such aircraft. Put this it in a combat situation with a low time pilot and the stakes are doubled. One would probably have to analyze each combat scenario to see what each turbine aircraft pilot did to allow himself to get into a firing solution from a recip opponent but its funny as it happened in Vietnam the Mig-17 did have ABs

BTW - According to ACIG a YAK-9 downed an F-80 on July 19, 1950. It seems this is the only one for the Commies during Korea unless JoeB comes up with something else. As far as Communist jet fighters downing UN recip aircraft? (I know there are some who would like to see that) ACIG shows 6 for the Chinese and 9 for the Russians.


----------



## davparlr (Mar 16, 2007)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Great info Dave - I figured the "Tweet" would have some of those characteristics. The worse one I've flown in is a Fouga Magister, that thing is really gutless....
> 
> I think you could see how easy it is to get yourself into trouble in such aircraft. Put this it in a combat situation with a low time pilot and the stakes are doubled. One would probably have to analyze each combat scenario to see what each turbine aircraft pilot did to allow himself to get into a firing solution from a recip opponent but its funny as it happened in Vietnam the Mig-17 did have ABs
> 
> BTW - According to ACIG a YAK-9 downed an F-80 on July 19, 1950. It seems this is the only one for the Commies during Korea unless JoeB comes up with something else. As far as Communist jet fighters downing UN recip aircraft? (I know there are some who would like to see that) ACIG shows 6 for the Chinese and 9 for the Russians.




If you kept the rpms up it flew fine. You have to fly it like you drive a small displacement turbo car, gotta keep the rpms up.


----------



## mkloby (Mar 16, 2007)

FLYBOYJ said:


> It's kind of funny - these rare incidents also happened in Vietnam 15 years later where Skyraiders Shot down Mig-17s on 2 occasions. Rare? Yes. No big deal? Maybe, unless you're on the receiving end and knowing that a "prop" plane just smoked your @ss as you float helplessly in your parachute OR unless you're pilot in that prop plane having a nice big red star being painted on your aircraft while you're being doused with champagne...


----------



## Matt308 (Mar 16, 2007)

Steady...


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 16, 2007)




----------



## Bullockracing (Mar 17, 2007)

I love the Spiteful... Didn't think the AD Skyraider was a fighter...


----------



## mkloby (Mar 17, 2007)

Bullockracing said:


> I love the Spiteful... Didn't think the AD Skyraider was a fighter...



A-1 wasn't a fighter. But hell - even SBD's smoked out zeros!


----------



## ohka345 (Mar 17, 2007)

FUCHIDA!NOT FUCHIDO! i have a die-cast toy of fuchida's nakajima


----------



## renrich (Mar 17, 2007)

Speaking of dissimilar a/c in a dogfight, I wonder if a fighter like Mig 21,23 or even 29 ever got in a low level dogfight with an A-10? What would youralls opinion be about that match up?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 18, 2007)

renrich said:


> Speaking of dissimilar a/c in a dogfight, I wonder if a fighter like Mig 21,23 or even 29 ever got in a low level dogfight with an A-10? What would youralls opinion be about that match up?


An F-86 shot down a Mig-21 during one of the India-Pakistan conflicts. If that isn't dissimilar I don't know what is.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 18, 2007)

Overall I think it is a given that the 21, 23, and 29 have the upperhand on the A-10. However the A-10 is maneuverable and with a good pilot could deffinatly give them a run for there money. The scenerio would more than likely never happen though...


----------



## davparlr (Mar 18, 2007)

ohka345 said:


> FUCHIDA!NOT FUCHIDO! i have a die-cast toy of fuchida's nakajima



It was typo. If you notice, I got it right in my first entry. Sorry, I don't like to spell people names wrong.

I wouldn't capitalize too much on this site. You are liable to receive some comments you won't care for.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 19, 2007)

Capitalizing or emphasizing is not the problem. It is what is being said.


----------



## Matt308 (Mar 19, 2007)

ohka's making a name for himself right early. Sooner or later he's going to tangle with the Water Buffalo.


----------



## lesofprimus (Mar 19, 2007)

what??


----------



## Matt308 (Mar 19, 2007)

Whatever you do...don't look 'em in the eye.


----------



## Hunter368 (Mar 19, 2007)

Matt308 said:


> Whatever you do...don't look 'em in the eye.



Who are you saying that about? Dan or the water buffalo? Both can be mean SOB's.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 19, 2007)

I'd rather look in the eye of the water buffalo....


----------



## Hunter368 (Mar 19, 2007)

FLYBOYJ said:


> I'd rather look in the eye of the water buffalo....



  True and I could shoot that buffalo to, Dan can out shoot me thats for damn sure. I am a good shot but not as good as he is.

Its settled then Dan is meaner than a water buffalo.


----------



## lesofprimus (Mar 19, 2007)

> Its settled then Dan is meaner than a water buffalo.


I seriously doubt that... Theres not much meaner than a Cape Water Buffalo...


----------



## Hunter368 (Mar 19, 2007)

lesofprimus said:


> I seriously doubt that... Theres not much meaner than a Cape Water Buffalo...



Get up off your computer chair, walk into the bathroom .......look in the mirror. There is something meaner.


----------



## lesofprimus (Mar 19, 2007)

lmfao, yea, 10 years ago and I could possibly agree, right now I'm just a mid-level badass who occasionally gets to run around the jungle, making believe he still has it....


----------



## Soren (Mar 19, 2007)

"Occasionally gets to run around the jungle" ??

Elaborate please


----------



## Hunter368 (Mar 19, 2007)

lesofprimus said:


> lmfao, yea, 10 years ago and I could possibly agree, right now I'm just a mid-level badass who occasionally gets to run around the jungle, making believe he still has it....



Ahhh I see....so you are a retired mean SOB ass-kicker who now is has fallen to the level of mid-level badass weekend warrior? (I mean that with 100% humor and respect....)


----------



## lesofprimus (Mar 19, 2007)

Pretty much, and I can elaborate no further...


----------



## Soren (Mar 20, 2007)

lesofprimus said:


> Pretty much, and I can elaborate no further...




Is it possible that you're a close friend of Andy McNab ??


----------



## lesofprimus (Mar 20, 2007)

No I am not, but Ive met him twice back in the early 90's... Hell of a nice guy and a sharp operator...


----------



## Soren (Mar 20, 2007)

Hehe ok, I just thought I'd figured what you meant by running around in the jungle.


----------



## lesofprimus (Mar 20, 2007)

Cool...

Back on topic, lets make a Poll outta this thread.... I can move the posts over to the new thread....

Lets get a list together of all fighters to consider for this... So far I count:
Ta 152H-1
Ta 152C
Fw 190D-12
Fw 190D-13
Ki-84 Ib
Hawker Sea Fury
Hawker Tempest II
Spitfire Mk 21 XXI
Spitfire Mk 24 XXIV
DeHaviland Hornet
F4U-4 Corsair
F4U-5 Corsair
F8F-2 Bearcat
P-51H Mustang
P-47N Thunderbolt

Anymore???


----------



## Soren (Mar 20, 2007)

I approve of that list, go ahead and make the poll


----------



## Gnomey (Mar 20, 2007)

I would of said the Ki-100 over the Ki-84 but otherwise it is a good list.


----------



## lesofprimus (Mar 20, 2007)

I will add the Ki-100 to the list.... Any others guys??


----------



## lesofprimus (Mar 20, 2007)

OK go to the Polls section and vote/discuss once again hehe....


----------

