# 1946: Best piston engine fighter in the world?



## ShVAK (Aug 18, 2012)

USAAF, USN, USMC, RAF, Fleet Air Arm, VVS, Soviet Air Defense Forces--who had the best piston engine fighter one year after war's end?

Let's put it to a vote.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 18, 2012)

Put it to a vote? Where is your poll?


----------



## DonL (Aug 18, 2012)

Only to get out of hand and to provoke a little, but it is not realy serious!

Ta 152 H10; Fw 190 D -13; Ta 152 HX with a DB 603N, only to get GregP's nerves a little bit warmed up!

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## ShVAK (Aug 18, 2012)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Put it to a vote? Where is your poll?



Look up!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 18, 2012)

ShVAK said:


> Look up!



It was not posted at the time that I asked that question...


----------



## ShVAK (Aug 18, 2012)

Weird.


----------



## MikeGazdik (Aug 19, 2012)

I picked the Republic product. The P-47N had the range it never had, even more speed than it did have, and the same awesome firepower and ruggedness it always had. In a 1 on 1 scenario against any others in the list, I think it would be hard to beat. I would make the Corsair and Bearcat follow me up to high altitude before starting the fight, or run like heck to fight another day!!!

There are so many awesome aircraft on that list, its tough!!!


----------



## wuzak (Aug 19, 2012)

MikeGazdik said:


> I would make the Corsair and Bearcat follow me up to high altitude before starting the fight, or run like heck to fight another day!!!!



Problem is that other planes on that list will be able to get to height quicker. Certainly the F8F could, and the Spitfire.

And if you're not at the higher altitudes (30,000ft or so) you probably won't have much of a speed advantage. If at all.


----------



## krieghund (Aug 19, 2012)

What is the mission requirement of the aircraft? Counter air, CAS, long range escort, interceptor, etc...these factors effect the design. Anyway I would choose the Supermarine Spiteful if range is not the priority.


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 19, 2012)

You might want to take another look at the F4U-5.

f4u-5

f4u-5spec

The 2300hp is a "normal" take off rating and not WEP and the 20mm guns may be the fast firing M3 version. 

It may not be better than the P-47N but thinking you can sucker the -5 into a high altitude fight and have the same result as dueling with a -4 is going to leave you mighty surprised. The -4 could pull 1800hp at 23,000ft. the -5 could pull 1800hp at 30,000ft. not as good as the P-47 but a noticeable change from the -4. 

I agree, there are many awesome aircraft on the list.


----------



## drgondog (Aug 19, 2012)

The most important mission for 1946 fighter was to get a nuclear weapon carrying bomber to the target. Only the P-47N and P-51H fits the combination of range and performance.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Kryten (Aug 19, 2012)

these polls always turn into "whats my favourite plane" sort of debates!

but I will go with the P51H simply because it outranges the others, and they can all do the same job but the P51 can do it longer/further!


----------



## Vincenzo (Aug 19, 2012)

drgondog said:


> The most important mission for 1946 fighter was to get a nuclear weapon carrying bomber to the target. Only the P-47N and P-51H fits the combination of range and performance.



i don't think they have enough range to escort bombers in eastern european Soviet Union (Mosca and eastern)


----------



## fastmongrel (Aug 19, 2012)

drgondog said:


> The most important mission for 1946 fighter was to get a nuclear weapon carrying bomber to the target. Only the P-47N and P-51H fits the combination of range and performance.



That might be the most important mission from a North American perspective. For the RAF the most important mission was still the same, defence of Great Britain and that still called for a light fast climbing fighter able to scramble and be above the bombers within minutes. For that mission the Spiteful still looks the best.


----------



## ShVAK (Aug 19, 2012)

I had a really hard time deciding, there are a lot of considerations.

If the priority was long range escort fighter, the P-51H and P-47N would take it, with a nod to the P-38L as well. I prefer the good ol' Jug out of this trio but the Mustang was no slouch by any means. Was considering the P-82B on here as well but I don't think that was in operation by '46. 

If you want a fighter with excellent multirole capability it would be a real scuffle between the F4U-5, Sea Hornet, Sea Fury, F7F, P-47N (again) and maybe the Tempest as well. Out of that lot I give it to the Sea Fury after the bombs are dropped but the Corsair is REALLY close, and was the better attack aircraft. Both managed to take down at LEAST one MiG-15 during Korea, a testament to good design (and good pilots). 

Best dogfighters? Spitfire, F8F, Yak, La-9, the latter two being almost unmatched under 14,000 feet (typical Eastern front conditions). Yak-9U being mostly hamstrung by its crappy armament. 

I settled on Grumman's hot rod out of sheer raw performance and (I'm a superficial bastard) brutish good looks. While a good pilot in any of these planes would be able to give the Bearcat a run--some had better agility, some had better top speed, a lot had better range, better firepower/payload etc. etc.--the F8F with its explosive climb rate (in excess of some early jets) and acceleration gives it a huge advantage in most flight regimes. Couple it with four 20mm cannon in later marks and you had the ultimate piston-powered interceptor--and quite fittingly the ultimate Reno racer, though Sea Fury pilots I'm sure have something to say about that.


----------



## ShVAK (Aug 19, 2012)

krieghund said:


> What is the mission requirement of the aircraft? Counter air, CAS, long range escort, interceptor, etc...these factors effect the design. Anyway I would choose the Supermarine Spiteful if range is not the priority.



I will always dislike the Spiteful for ditching that beautiful elliptical wing. It looks like the unwanted bastard offspring of a late-model Spitfire and a P-51.


----------



## GregP (Aug 19, 2012)

All of the aircraft on the list were impressive. I was never a Spiteful fan, though I love the Spit and Sea Fury. The Lavochkin La-9 and -11 were very impressive. The German very late model Me 109 and Fw 190 were impressive, and the Ta-152 had a great potential, if unfulfilled. It certainly had impressive performance numbers. Not to forget the Japanese, the J2M-3, Ki-84, and Ki-100 were all fairly impressive in a one-on-one fight, too. I also like the Re.2005, G.55, and Mc.205, though their performances in the top speed department wasn't quite up to the top bunch, and were closer to the Japanese fighters , which were not quite as fast, but handled very impressively, as did most on the list.

Since we lack a mission goal (interceptor, air-to-air, excort, ground attack, etc.), I went with the Grumman F8F as a fighter / imterceptor because I simply love the aircraft.

Nothing wrong with the P-51H, either. I just have a soft spot for the Bearcat.

Wouldn't it be great if we could do an actual perfomacne evaluation on all of them together? Never will happen, but if WOULD be very cool to see and read about.


----------



## vinnye (Aug 19, 2012)

Well I agree - that's a great list.
Some incredible performers and good lookers!
My vote the Sea Fury - relatively light and does everything you want it too.


----------



## CobberKane (Aug 19, 2012)

If I can be pedantic (and believe me, I can) when was the F8FB-1, the cannon armed Bearcat, introduced? If it was after 1946 the Bearcats claim as the best is somewhat compromised by realatively weak armament. I wonder what the rationale about going 'backwards' to 4x.50s was anyway? Lightly armoured japanese opposition, unrelaible US built cannon, weight saving or all three, perhaps


----------



## ShVAK (Aug 19, 2012)

The Bearcat's wingspan was over 7 feet shorter than the F6F it was developed from, but the more likely reason is that by '45 the 20mm was only starting to become prevalent in USN service whereas the .50 was a much more proven quantity. The -1B was either released late in '46 or the following year, I wasn't sure of the exact date so I listed the far more numerous F8F-1 just to be safe.

I still side with the Bearcat, because the performance made up for its sole initial shortcoming and with the addition of 4 M3's it was close to unbeatable in its carrier defense role by anything that wasn't a jet.


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 19, 2012)

CobberKane said:


> If I can be pedantic (and believe me, I can) when was the F8FB-1, the cannon armed Bearcat, introduced? If it was after 1946 the Bearcats claim as the best is somewhat compromised by realatively weak armament. I wonder what the rationale about going 'backwards' to 4x.50s was anyway? Lightly armoured japanese opposition, unrelaible US built cannon, weight saving or all three, perhaps



It could have been a bit of all three, the US had also been working on a faster firing .50 cal gun to the extent of multiple programs over several years. I don't know it if the F8F-1s got the faster firing guns or if it was hoped to fit them. The M-3 did fire at about 1200rpm which means four would have provided the same firepower as six of the M-2 model.


----------



## Wildcat (Aug 20, 2012)

drgondog said:


> The most important mission for 1946 fighter was to get a nuclear weapon carrying bomber to the target. Only the P-47N and P-51H fits the combination of range and performance.



And the CA-15


----------



## drgondog (Aug 20, 2012)

ShVAK said:


> I had a really hard time deciding, there are a lot of considerations.
> 
> If the priority was long range escort fighter, the P-51H and P-47N would take it, with a nod to the P-38L as well. I prefer the good ol' Jug out of this trio but the Mustang was no slouch by any means. Was considering the P-82B on here as well but I don't think that was in operation by '46.
> 
> ...



The P-82, had a wartime requirement surfaced, could have easily resulted in fulfilling the original early 1945 order and available in deployable Group level numbers by late 1945.

The P-51H could have easily reached Moscow from Western europe, one way from UK, Middle East. Ditto P-47N - maybe P-38L. If war was winnable by going to Moscow - there would have been plenty of volunteers for a one way mission. The F-105s stationed at Spangala and Bittburg had the same rules of 'service' for their nuclear payloads in the early 60's.


----------



## drgondog (Aug 20, 2012)

I'm not sure that the armament of the F8F (or even P-51H) is all that relevant as the installation of 4x20's was not a significant airframe mod - it was pure policy, not engineering. After all the P-51 began life with four Hispano's and the wing thickness/gun bays and ammo storage would easily accept replacement of .50's with the 20mm - with a loss of airspeed of about 10kts due to additional drag for the 51.


----------



## Vincenzo (Aug 20, 2012)

Lubeck - Moscow are 1070 miles, i'm very surprise if the actual radius of P-51H is (significally) over 900 miles


----------



## parsifal (Aug 20, 2012)

Wildcat said:


> And the CA-15




Great point, but being exnavy i have to go with the sea fury. IMO a great al tounder


----------



## davparlr (Aug 21, 2012)

I like the F4U-5. It had good top speed of 462 mph, good SL speed of 403 mph, good climb, and good ceiling. The F7F, F8F, and P47N airspeed performance seemed to drop off a bit at SL. Sea Hornet and Sea Fury lacked ceiling although I really like the Sea Fury. P-51H was a hellacious performer but tended to drop off with altitude.


----------



## renrich (Aug 21, 2012)

The Bearcat was not developed from the Hellcat. It actually took over the mission of the FM2 which was to operate from CVEs. It was a new design but initially came out with the same armament as the FM2. I am not at all sure the only mission for a fighter in 1946 was long range bomber escort. I believe that the concept of limited war was already alive and the traditional roles of the fighter, especially the fighter bomber role were expected to be needed.


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 21, 2012)

I would think that an equally important role for a fighter in 1946 is to intercept the atomic bomb carrying plane if you happened to be on the other side form the atomic bomb owner. 

Might explain the LA-9 with 4 23mm guns and a short firing time. Lousy escort---good bomber interceptor??


----------



## R Pope (Aug 22, 2012)

I always thought the Martin-Baker MB-5 deserved more of a shot at production, but it was just too late, no chance against jets.


----------



## davparlr (Aug 22, 2012)

Shortround6 said:


> I would think that an equally important role for a fighter in 1946 is to intercept the atomic bomb carrying plane if you happened to be on the other side form the atomic bomb owner.
> 
> Might explain the LA-9 with 4 23mm guns and a short firing time. Lousy escort---good bomber interceptor??


 
With a service ceiling of 35k it would theoretically not be able to reach a B-36 or maybe even barely reach a B-29 or B-50 carrying a 10k lb nuke. An F4U-5 with a service ceiling of 44k and four 20s has a chance.


----------



## renrich (Aug 22, 2012)

Actually, during the "war" between the Navy and AF about whether B36s were a substitute for carriers, the Navy postulated that the F4U5 could intercept the B36 at altitude.


----------



## Vincenzo (Aug 22, 2012)

B-3650 were delivered in 1948. B-29 cruiser ceiling would be a bit less of 35k


----------



## davparlr (Aug 22, 2012)

R Pope said:


> I always thought the Martin-Baker MB-5 deserved more of a shot at production, but it was just too late, no chance against jets.



And so too the XP-72. Both were overcome by the jet. Naval prop development continued to a later date due to the concern of operating jet a/c from a carrier, in my opinion.


----------



## davparlr (Aug 22, 2012)

Vincenzo said:


> B-3650 were delivered in 1948. B-29 cruiser ceiling would be a bit less of 35k


 
Both the B-50 and B-36 represented the last technology gasp of internal combustion propeller driven bombers, as does this sites list of internal combustion propeller driven fighters, so I think the comparisons are valid. The prototype B-50, the XB-44, flew in 1945 and the XB-36 flew in 1946.

I suspect the B-29 with half a bomb load, a 10k lb nuke, would likely be capable of very near 35k altitude. Trying to intercept a bomber operating at the top of your ceiling is a problematic proposition, first of all, the time climbing up there, and second, being basically unable to maneuver when you arrive. And the B-29 was not defenseless, especially against a poorly maneuvering target.

The F4U-5, with an extra 9k of altitude performance, would be a better choice than the La-9.


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 22, 2012)

It would be better but an LA-9 with four 20mm guns with more ammo might be a better bet for fighter vs fighter combat than the four 23mm guns it did carry. 

LA-9 was actually in production in 1946 although late. XB-36 flying in 1946 had engines that were down 500hp apiece for take-off from the production B-36 engines and were down at altitude too. The B-50A had a service ceiling of 37,000ft. 

It was posted earlier that the "ONLY" mission for a 1946 fighter was escorting a bomber with an atomic bomb which rather over looks the mission of intercepting such bomber. 
The LA-9 may _NOT_ have been the best on the list for such an intercept mission but th emission is a valid one and the LA-9 may have been the best the Russians could feild in 1946.


----------



## renrich (Aug 22, 2012)

We know that an F4U1D intercepted and rammed a Japanese recon plane at 38000 feet above Okinawa. He made at least a couple of runs. The F4U1D had not nearly as good altitude performance as the F4U5.


----------



## krieghund (Sep 4, 2012)

I found this speed chart of some allied fighters from the start to finish of WWII


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 4, 2012)

Thank you,

While it would be nice to see a later P-47 plotted on the chart this chart is also of interest to the best fighter engine of 1942 thread. It took a while for the two stage Griffon to get into service from the test stand but the claim that it was best fighter engine in the world in 1942 (under going test?) at least has some validity.


----------



## davparlr (Sep 4, 2012)

Shortround6 said:


> Thank you,
> 
> While it would be nice to see a later P-47 plotted on the chart this chart is also of interest to the best fighter engine of 1942 thread. It took a while for the two stage Griffon to get into service from the test stand but the claim that it was best fighter engine in the world in 1942 (under going test?) at least has some validity.



and the F4U-4


----------



## krieghund (Sep 5, 2012)

Ok here are some speed charts:

P47N 385kts = 443 mph @ 35000'

P47M 480 kts = 470 mph @ 32000'

P51H 410 kts = 471 mph @ 22700'

F8F-2 388 kts = 446 mph @ 28000'

F4U-4 387 kts = 446 mph @ 26200'

F2G-1 375 kts = 431 mph @ 16900'


----------



## drgondog (Sep 5, 2012)

The P-51H top speed according to the SAC Pilot Handbook was 412Kts (474mph) ; In Interceptor config (racks but no external fuel), ROC at SL was 4990fom, Ceiling was 43,100 and time to 25K was 6.7 minutes.

ROC, top speed and climb to 25K was on WEP

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Sep 5, 2012)

Here's a climb chart for the Spitfire 21.

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/dp851climb.jpg

The max rate of climb for the 21 (prototype) was 4800fpm at 7700ft, using a Griffon 61 with +18psi boost at 9000lb AUW. Peak RoC was lower than the P-51H, but it still looks to get to 25k ft first.

Max speed was 455mph, some 20mph down on the P-51H, but how important was that?

Service ceiling 42,800ft.

Spitfire Mk 21 Performance

Anbody got any numbers for a 24 with Griffon 65?


----------



## krieghund (Sep 5, 2012)

A Spitfire F.Mk24 was rated to 454 @ 26000' with a combat climb to 25kft in 6.1 minutes (it carried more fuel than the Mk21.) This is with the Griffon 61.

However, the Spiteful MkXVI with a Griffon 101 could do 494 @ 27500' and climb to 20Kft in 4.9 minutes

Darn hard to find tangible information spitfires equipped with the griffon 85.


----------



## davparlr (Sep 5, 2012)

krieghund said:


> A Spitfire F.Mk24 was rated to 454 @ 26000' with a combat climb to 25kft in 6.1 minutes (it carried more fuel than the Mk21.) This is with the Griffon 61.
> 
> However, the Spiteful MkXVI with a Griffon 101 could do 494 @ 27500' and climb to 20Kft in 4.9 minutes
> 
> Darn hard to find tangible information spitfires equipped with the griffon 85.


I'm a bit confused. The only MkXVI I could find was a Packard or RR Merlin powered model with much less performance. Where did you get this info?


----------



## wuzak (Sep 5, 2012)

davparlr said:


> I'm a bit confused. The only MkXVI I could find was a Packard or RR Merlin powered model with much less performance. Where did you get this info?



_Spiteful_ XVI - laminar flow trapezoidal wing, low line wing mounted radiators, Griffon 65 or 85.


----------



## krieghund (Sep 6, 2012)

davparlr said:


> I'm a bit confused. The only MkXVI I could find was a Packard or RR Merlin powered model with much less performance. Where did you get this info?



It is the Spiteful version


----------



## krieghund (Sep 6, 2012)

Here is another speed chart I found with the Hornet plotted


----------



## Rick65 (Sep 6, 2012)

Spitfire by Alfred Price Chapter 33 Test Flying the Spiteful by Patrick Shea-Simonds
"Because of the low speed handling characteristics encountered with the Spiteful we spent a lot of time trying to improve matters on the second prototype and early production aircraft. ....
But these improvements were made at the expense of all out speed, with the result that the performance of the Spiteful ended up little better than that of the Spitfire 22."


----------



## davparlr (Sep 6, 2012)

wuzak said:


> _Spiteful_ XVI - laminar flow trapezoidal wing, low line wing mounted radiators, Griffon 65 or 85.


 
Aah, yes, the old mental misalignment of letters syndrome.  Thanks


----------



## stug3 (Sep 6, 2012)

Tigercat for versatility.


----------



## special ed (Sep 18, 2018)

I have to go with the Sea Hornet. I like Eric Brown's evaluation. The thread says best of 1946 with no qualifications, guns, range or mission except to beat the other fighter one on one with pilots being equal.


----------



## Clayton Magnet (Sep 18, 2018)

I would assume that the F7F and Sea Hornet would be disadvantaged against single engined opponents, but that is only an assumption. 
Tough to argue against the P-51H, it seems to hold all the cards.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## KiwiBiggles (Sep 19, 2018)

Clayton Magnet said:


> Tough to argue against the P-51H, it seems to hold all the cards


Undergunned.

That was easy.


----------



## fastmongrel (Sep 19, 2018)

Hawker Fury with the 3,500 hp Napier Saber MkVII that could go to 4,000 hp emergency power.


----------



## Peter Gunn (Sep 19, 2018)

KiwiBiggles said:


> Undergunned.
> 
> That was easy.



How so? Did six .50 cal. HMG's suddenly lose all effect the moment the war ended but the eight .50's in the Jug keep their punch?


----------



## fastmongrel (Sep 19, 2018)

Peter Gunn said:


> How so? Did six .50 cal. HMG's suddenly lose all effect the moment the war ended but the eight .50's in the Jug keep their punch?



The .50 by the end of the war was on the way out as a worthwhile gun. If you wanted to knock bombers and armoured fighters down 20mm cannon we're the minimum.


----------



## tomo pauk (Sep 19, 2018)

fastmongrel said:


> Hawker Fury with the 3,500 hp Napier Saber MkVII that could go to 4,000 hp emergency power.



3500 HP with water injection on = emergency.


----------



## KiwiBiggles (Sep 19, 2018)

Peter Gunn said:


> How so? Did six .50 cal. HMG's suddenly lose all effect the moment the war ended but the eight .50's in the Jug keep their punch?


Nope. Tne P-47 was undergunned too.


----------



## Clayton Magnet (Sep 19, 2018)

KiwiBiggles said:


> Undergunned.
> 
> That was easy.


Touche'


----------



## dedalos (Sep 19, 2018)

From the single engine fighters i would also take the hawker fury I with the sabre vii engine. 
Overall the Hornet because of the longer range and two engine safety and almost indentical performance. In fact i feel that should be faster than the fury on max continius power.
I also like the spiteful. 
It appears that england created the best all around fighters, a great mixture of all critical paramerers, with reasonable cost.


----------



## fastmongrel (Sep 19, 2018)

tomo pauk said:


> 3500 HP with water injection on = emergency.



I boobed with the engine model. The Sabre VII was a 3,050hp engine that could do 3,500hp with Water-Methanol. The engine I was thinking about was called the Sabre E122 which had all the tricks, 3 speed 2 stage blower, contra rotating prop, Water-Methanol, annular radiator and was supposed to be 4,000hp emergency power. It never got anywhere near a post war order so didnt get a mark number.

Napiers had a test rig Turbo charged Sabre run at 45 psi boost giving 5,500hp which must have shaken the test cell to its foundations.


----------



## swampyankee (Sep 19, 2018)

My vote would be the Sea Fury, although I think the other aircraft are also great. There was a lot of improvements in aerodynamics technology between 1940 and 1945, and the variants of pre-war designs, a category some of these fell into, would not make the first tier. 

All of them, however, suffered from the very simple fact that, in 1946, the sell-by date for front-line piston-engine fighters had probably passed. To some extent, the best piston-engine fighter of 1946 was beginning to look like the best biplane fighter of 1938: well-designed, still useful, but definitely tending towards obsolescence.


----------



## GreenKnight121 (Sep 20, 2018)

I chose F4U-5, as to me if it cannot cover all the planet (requires carrier operability) it isn't the best.

Sea Fury would be a very close #2 (losing only because of ground-attack/CAS capability issues), with Sea Hornet #3.

F7F Tigercat is very tempting, as it is technically carrier-capable - but in reality the USN did not approve it for normal deployment aboard ship, and it was used as purely land-based aircraft.

F8F loses out because it was not as capable in a large portion of the missions a prop fighter would be called on to perform in 1946 - ground attack, interdiction, etc. (1,000lb external payload vs 4,000lb for the F4U). Spiteful shares the Bearcat's weaknesses. Both of these are primarily task force protection aircraft.


----------



## spicmart (Sep 26, 2018)

Weird. Until a while ago the Ta 152 would have been on any of those lists. But not any more?


----------



## grampi (Sep 26, 2018)

wuzak said:


> Problem is that other planes on that list will be able to get to height quicker. Certainly the F8F could, and the Spitfire.
> 
> And if you're not at the higher altitudes (30,000ft or so) you probably won't have much of a speed advantage. If at all.


I believe the Spitfire could, but not the Bearcat...it was no good for high altitudes...there are several planes on this list that would outclimb it above 20K feet...


----------



## grampi (Sep 26, 2018)

ShVAK said:


> I had a really hard time deciding, there are a lot of considerations.
> 
> If the priority was long range escort fighter, the P-51H and P-47N would take it, with a nod to the P-38L as well. I prefer the good ol' Jug out of this trio but the Mustang was no slouch by any means. Was considering the P-82B on here as well but I don't think that was in operation by '46.
> 
> ...


The problem with the Bearcat was its poor high altitude performance...below 20K feet it was probably the best performer of this group...above 20K feet however, many others on this list would outperform it considerably...


----------



## swampyankee (Sep 26, 2018)

spicmart said:


> Weird. Until a while ago the Ta 152 would have been on any of those lists. But not any more?



1946 ==> no Luftwaffe. The Ta152 would be grounded, at best.


----------

