# Piston engine epitome?



## comiso90 (Dec 25, 2006)

Which single engine, piston aircraft deserves the mantle of "Damn too bad it wasn't available in WW2?" A1 sky raider? Sea Fury? Bearcat? My vote is for the Skyraider.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 25, 2006)

there are generally considdered two possible aircraft for this title, as you rightly say, the F8F Bearcat and the Hawker Sea Fury, I would of course give it to the Sea Fury, a much better combat record and i believe service life.......


----------



## mkloby (Dec 25, 2006)

franklinj said:


> Which single engine, piston aircraft deserves the mantle of "Damn too bad it wasn't available in WW2?" A1 sky raider? Sea Fury? Bearcat? My vote is for the Skyraider.



I've vote skyraider too. Damn fine A/C. Served in Vietnam. What a beast! Very impressive if you get a chance to see one. Could lug 6000lb of ordnance.


----------



## Gnomey (Dec 25, 2006)

I would agree with all three as they were the pinnacle of piston engine development.


----------



## comiso90 (Dec 25, 2006)

Did they ever try to mount antitank gun/cannon pods on the sky raider? I suspect that the brass would prefer to reley on rockets.


----------



## syscom3 (Dec 25, 2006)

Can I vote for the C-119 "Flying Boxcar"?


----------



## syscom3 (Dec 25, 2006)

franklinj said:


> Did they ever try to mount antitank gun/cannon pods on the sky raider? I suspect that the brass would prefer to reley on rockets.



I believe the Skyraiders in Vietnam had 20mm external gunpods


----------



## Matt308 (Dec 25, 2006)

Good thread idea. My vote is the Sea Fury. Rather impressive record in Korea and post war duty.


----------



## comiso90 (Dec 25, 2006)

20mm gunpods yes but those aren't really tank busters.

I intentionally mentioned single engine but the Tigercat would have done some damage.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 25, 2006)

I go for the Sea Fury as well and then the Skyraider as a very very close second.


----------



## Matt308 (Dec 26, 2006)

Sea Fury for pure adrenalin. Skyraider for late WWII effectiveness. Who really needed a thoroughbred fighter in 1945 anyway. Skyraider would have been very needed in PTO if Japan had not capitulated.


----------



## JoeB (Dec 29, 2006)

Perhaps worthy of mention also would be the postwar Lavochkins. The La-11 didn't have super speed by postwar prop fighter standards but excellent power to weight, and heavy armament of 3*23mm synchronized guns.

It was used in action in the Korean War, most successfully as "wild boar" type night fighter by the Soviets, downing a few B-26's and damaging a few B-29's. In daylight a couple were shot down by F-86's, but one, Chinese piloted, managed to put holes in an F-86 in return, so almost matched the Sea Fury/Corsair/Skyraider benchmark of props which claimed swept wing jets (and of those the latter two also had losing records v. swept wing jets, Sea Fury tied at 1:1, as would only be expected, though usually only their successes are mentioned).

Joe


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 29, 2006)

JoeB said:


> Perhaps worthy of mention also would be the postwar Lavochkins. The La-11 didn't have super speed by postwar prop fighter standards but excellent power to weight, and heavy armament of 3*23mm synchronized guns.
> 
> It was used in action in the Korean War, most successfully as "wild boar" type night fighter by the Soviets, downing a few B-26's and damaging a few B-29's. In daylight a couple were shot down by F-86's, but one, Chinese piloted, managed to put holes in an F-86 in return, so almost matched the Sea Fury/Corsair/Skyraider benchmark of props which claimed swept wing jets (and of those the latter two also had losing records v. swept wing jets, Sea Fury tied at 1:1, as would only be expected, though usually only their successes are mentioned).
> 
> Joe




I dont know where you got this information from but La-11s NEVER damaged B-29s, the only recip to shoot down a B-29 was a Chinese Yak-9D.

During the Korean War the Chinese made no claims while flying the LA-11. The only air to air recip kills claimed by the Chinese was in the Yak-9D. LA-11s were encountered 3 times and a total 8 were shot down by USAF aircraft. 

I have doubts the Soviet ever flew LA-11s againist B-26. That would of put them in a proximity of UN troops and risked capture.

This information comes from ACIG a very accurate and unbiased database that tracks air to air combat since the WW2.

Here's the Korean War database...

Korean War Database


----------



## comiso90 (Dec 29, 2006)

JoeB said:


> Perhaps worthy of mention also would be the postwar Lavochkins. The La-11 didn't have super speed by postwar prop fighter standards but excellent power to weight, and heavy armament of 3*23mm synchronized guns.



What does it mean to have syched guns? They shoot at the same time for greater stability?


----------



## Gnomey (Dec 29, 2006)

comiso90 said:


> What does it mean to have syched guns? They shoot at the same time for greater stability?



Synched means that the guns fire through the propellor arc and so they need to be synched so that they don't hit the blades of the propellor.


----------



## comiso90 (Dec 29, 2006)

oh yeah... duh... i'm used to that term being used in context of WW 1 fighters not post ww2 birds


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 29, 2006)

More on the La-11....

"Along with the various Yak fighters, the Lavochkin La-9 and La-11 were commonly operated by the North Korean and Chinese Air Forces. Typical of later Soviet designed piston engine fighters, their armament was concentrated in the nose of the aircraft. Performance was generally acceptable by WWII standards, but woefully inadequate when faced with turbojet powered opposition. Much speculation has been engaged in by aviation enthusiasts as to how the late war Soviet fighters would have fared against the fighter aircraft of the western Allies. Well, if Korea is used as an example, the answer to that question is 'miserable'. Mustangs, Corsairs and the F-82 had little difficulty killing these Soviet fighters. Although fast and maneuverable, they proved to quite vulnerable to .50 caliber fire, and could not withstand more than a few hits from 20mm cannon rounds. Moreover, the Soviet style tactics and generally poor level of training only exacerbated the ineffectiveness of these aircraft. Typically, U.N. fighter pilots viewed the Lavochkins and the Yaks as 'meat on the table"

La-11

"First documented combat use of La-11 took place on April 8, 1950, when these fighters shot down an American Consolidated PB4Y-2 Privateer over the Baltic Sea with all 10 crew lost. Later the same year, La-11 shot down a Lockheed P2V Neptune. By July 1950, La-11 were flying combat air patrol missions over North Korea. The aircraft's main target during the Korean War was the Douglas A-26 Invader night bomber, although numerous skirmishes with North American P-51 Mustangs also took place. Attempts to intercept Boeing B-29 Superfortress bombers proved fruitless. La-11 required 26 minutes to reach B-29's cruise altitude and once there had a speed advantage of only 20 km/h (12 mph) making it easy for the B-29 to evade the attacker in a shallow dive."

Lavochkin La-11 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## JoeB (Dec 29, 2006)

FLYBOYJ said:


> 1. I dont know where you got this information from but La-11s NEVER damaged B-29s, the only recip to shoot down a B-29 was a Chinese Yak-9D.
> 
> 2. During the Korean War the Chinese made no claims while flying the LA-11. The only air to air recip kills claimed by the Chinese was in the Yak-9D.
> 
> ...



5. Last first, I know ACIG, see earlier thread on this forum that posted an ACIG paper about Korea co-authored by me. Nonetheless, IME their Korean War stuff is not all that accurate and unbiased. I gave input to some things but found the main authors wanted to give all benefit of the doubt and then some to Soviet claims in Korea. I would not recommend taking those lists too literally (certainly for Korea, for other wars they cover I'm personally cautious, but I don't know for sure).

1. I got it from the daily summaries and mission reports of the Far East Air Force, cross referenced to Soviet accounts of their operations. The night of December 23-24 1951, 2 19th BG B-29's were damaged by fighters while attacking Uiju airfield. One was 44-70012. The Soviet night unit at the time, 351st Fighter Regiment, was still operating solely La-11's; it started MiG-15 night ops during 1952. The 351st's La-11's claimed just 1 B-29 damaged during their tour AFAIK.

Yes, the only outright shoot down of a B-29 by a prop in the Korean War proper was 19th BG's 44-69866, downed by a pair of North Korean (Korean People's Armed Forces Air Corps, KPAFAC) Yak-9's July 12 1950. IOW ACIG is correct on this despite having it for some reason on a Chinese list, and the Yak-9 variant is wrong. The KPA had a few wood winged Yak-9M's still on hand on the eve of the war, inherited from Soviet occupation units, but the bulk of the force and probably all Yak's encountered in combat in the first phase of the war (ie. prior to Soviet/Chinese intervention in Nov 1950) were all metal postwar production Yak-9P's (Russian sources suggest this but captured but never translated NK records, maintenance and flight logs etc. from just pre war and very early war, show it explicitly). NK accounts credit this victory to their leading pilot, Kim Gi Ok. 

Also though, RB-29 44-61815 of the 91st Strategic Recon Sdn which was based in Japan and flew recon Korea and elsewhere in the Far East during the war (unit and particular plane both), was downed by Soviet La-11's near the Soviet far east coast Oct 7 1952. It's usually considered "cold war" rather than Korean War. La-11's also downed a USN PB4Y-2 just before the KW, in the Baltic Sea.

2. Nov 30 1951, 4th FIW F-86's attacked a formation of PLAAF 8th Bomber Division Tu-2's escorted by 2nd Fighter Division La-11's. They claimed 9 and 3 (understandably mis-ID'ed the latter as La-9's), plus a MiG-15 which came to the aid of the prop formation. Soviet and Chinese accounts say 6 and 4 respectively Tu-2's, though agree 3 La-11's were lost, plus a MiG-15. The La-11 pilot Wang Tianbao claimed an F-86, and although none were downed Maj. Winton Marshall's plane was hit in the canopy by a 23mm from one of the Lavochkins (see "Red Wings Over the Yalu" by Zhang and "Crimson Sky" by Bruning pg 177 for the two sides of this, US records confirm damage to canopy and left wing of 50-680)

3. Maybe I'm splitting hairs but AFAIK Nov 30 '51 was the only daylight combat with La-11's in the KW proper. The 3 June 20 1952 claims by F-86's were North Korean La-9's per Soviet accounts. The 3 June 1950 credits of La-7's to F-82's and and F-51 were also certainly mis-ID'ed Yak-11's (same source as for Yak variants).

4. It's covered in considerable detail in various Russian sources, and a number of their claims correspond to night fighter attacks or losses involving B-26's. These were well inside NK where B-26's conducted night interdiction, not over the frontlines. For example a 351st La-11 first claimed a B-26 Oct 12 1951; a mission report of the 3rd Bomb Wing (Light) records an attack by an enemy night fighter at about the same time, but the B-26 was undamaged. November 16 kill credit; B-26 44-35579 was hit in the wing while being attacked, the crew believed, simultaneously by a night fighter and AA while coned in searchlights. The disappearances of RB-26 44-35668 May 15 '52 and B-26 44-35844 June 10 correspond to La-11 claims, general time and place as well as date. There are other Soviet La-11 claims which might match losses, but not certain IMO.

Joe Brennan


----------



## syscom3 (Dec 29, 2006)

Good info Joe.

Thanks.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 30, 2006)

Good Info - but I disagree with some of the Russian sources as if you tally up some of their claims they exceed the actual amounts of aircraft that were in theater (Especially true for the F-80). Again I doubt Soviet pilots were flying La-11 to intercept B-26s. They were there for one thing - fly Mig-15s. Here a breakdown of volunteer units in Korea and there were little La-11s when compared to the Mig-15.

Appendix 32


----------



## JoeB (Dec 30, 2006)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Good Info - but I disagree with some of the Russian sources as if you tally up some of their claims they exceed the actual amounts of aircraft that were in theater (Especially true for the F-80). Again I doubt Soviet pilots were flying La-11 to intercept B-26s. They were there for one thing - fly Mig-15s. Here a breakdown of volunteer units in Korea and there were little La-11s when compared to the Mig-15.



I didn't say Soviet claims in Korea were all correct, I'm not relying on them. The examples I gave are specific 351st Regiment (La-11 equipped night unit) claims that match encounters or losses in US original records not only the same date, but same general time and place. 

The linked list is of so called Chinese Volunteer units, really just regular units of the PLAAF (it's from Volkovskiy "The War in Korea"; it says it includes NK units but doesn't list any, though there were several). Note the list includes 2nd Fighter Division, the Chinese La-11's encountered Nov 30 '51. But the 351st Fighter Regiment, La-11 night fighters, was Soviet AF, not Chinese. Most of the Communist air opposition from Nov 1950 until 1953, when the Chinese and NK's became an actual majority, was regular units of the Soviet AF's (VVS tactical, PVO air defence, and VMF landbased naval), again just labelled "volunteer". The 351st Regiment was the only La-11 unit among the Soviet units as the 2nd FAD was among the Chinese, but the 351st had some verifiable victories while flying the La-11 (at night in Korea, plus a handful against Nationalist Chinese a/c before the KW that can be verified), and suffered no La-11 combat losses per Soviet accounts, nor did the US claim any of the 351st's, ie Soviet piloted, La-11's.

My sources on 351st and its specific claims are Russian language published and archival, non-internet, but for those of the 'links=truth' persuasion here's a translation (by same guy who translated the Volkovskiy excerpts, Cookie Sewell) of a 1993 Russian magazine article about their night fighter ops (I believe it has some errors, and info since updated by the same author Igor Seidov, but it's a reasonable overview).
Shield of the Night

Joe


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 30, 2006)

Good information, but I think it still boils down to the La-11, while being a good recip aircraft was a minimal impact during the Korean War. I read it took the La-11 25 minutes to reach the B-29s altitude and while there the B-29 could easily accelerate away from the La-11 in a shallow dive.

I will concede there could of been B-26 kills by the La-11 but I still question Soviet operation of these aircraft, it conflicts with the standing order directly from Stalin that being the totally secretary of Soviet pilots serving over Korea.


----------



## JoeB (Dec 30, 2006)

FLYBOYJ said:


> 1. Good information, but I think it still boils down to the La-11, while being a good recip aircraft was a minimal impact during the Korean War. I read it took the La-11 25 minutes to reach the B-29s altitude and while there the B-29 could easily accelerate away from the La-11 in a shallow dive.
> 
> 2. I will concede there could of been B-26 kills by the La-11 but I still question Soviet operation of these aircraft....


I certainly agree the La-11 had minimal impact on the big picture of the Korean War, as all prop air-air combat did, really. 

1. As I said not all of "Shield" and other Russian accounts is correct, or doesn't reflect both sides. It and other Soviet side accounts say B-29's were diving and pulling away from Lavochkins, but in fact from their mission reports the B-29's usually only went around 230-250mph true on bomb runs (at usually 19-24k ft at that time), and had to fly a predictable arc to have SHORAN gear get them over a target at night, could only evade after bombs away. It was clearly harder to do wild boar interception against a B-29 w/ an La-11 than a MiG-15 but not easy or impossible with either. The 351st (and some attached pilots from Soviet day units) scored 8 (real) night victories against B-29's from June 52 to Jan 53 with MiG's, but its successor unit the 298th scored none from Feb-July '53. I believe one factor in the 351st's quick success with the MiG was the time it spent building up skill with Lavochkins, though only one marginal success v B-29's December 23 '51; the 298th never built up enough skill despite using MiG's from the start (though there were other factors of course, US tactics and ECM, better Soviet GCI radar in '52, etc).

2. Here's a translation/transcription of a page from Soviet archives, some columns got a little scrambled getting into Word but the general idea should be clear. It can be seen from other sources these are some of the 351st's claims. Note that times and places are given, and other sources also give names of the claiming pilots. For example the Nov 16 claim was by Kapt PF Dushin a sdn CO in the 351st. The places are Russian transliterations of Korean place names, but when deciphered are all pretty far north, again 16 Nov, near Dandong means almost on the Yalu. Of these 5, the first two are attacks recorded by B-26's which weren't lost, the last two correspond to B-26 disappearances, and the March 12 one I can't find in US records, yet anyway. So with specific claims by specific Soviet pilots, I don't know why we'd "doubt" they were Soviet, or why we'd concede disappearances were caused by La-11's (as opposed to anything else) unless we believed these were real claims by the people who say they claimed them: the Soviet AF. Of course all such docs *were* pretty secret for a long time.

503. 12 Oct 51 B—26 75 km South— Aircraft caught on fire and crashed into the sea
1918 hrs west of Andun. The fate of the pilot is unknown. 

504. 16 Nov 51 B—26 Southeast of Dandong Aircraft crashed into the sea. 
1927 hrs The fate of the pilot is unknown. 

505 12 Mar 52 B—26 Cherengvan Aircraft was shot down, crashed 25—30 km 
0130 hrs northeast of Cherengvan.The fate of the pilot is unknown. 

506. 15 May 52 B—26 Cherengvan Aircraft crashed and exploded 10 km south— 
2000 hrs east of Sensen. A parachutist landed 10—15 
km southeast of Sensen. Further fate of the 
pilot is unknown.

507. 5 Jun 52 B—26 Tehjsyu Aircraft landed on the water 10—15 km 
2245 hrs southeast of Sinbi—to Island 
Immediately after the landing enemy 
cutters were sighted approaching the 
B—26 landing site. 

Joe


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 30, 2006)

Great info Joe! BTW I had an uncle who flew in the early portion of the Korean War in B-29s (He was a radio operator). He survived an attack by flak and Migs during a daylight mission but his aircraft crashed on landing in Japan. 

In 1954 he flew ferret missions in B-50s.

"So with specific claims by specific Soviet pilots, I don't know why we'd "doubt" they were Soviet, or why we'd concede disappearances were caused by La-11's (as opposed to anything else) unless we believed these were real claims by the people who say they claimed them: the Soviet AF. Of course all such docs *were* pretty secret for a long time."

During that period UN forces were close to the Yalu, again I don't think the Soviets would of risked having one of their pilots being captured, especially the incident around Dandog. 

It's funny though - many Soviet pilots have came foward after Korea to tell about their service over North Korea. If the La-11 shot down any B-26s or if any of the Soviet pilots flew La-11s I would think by now something would of been said...


----------



## JoeB (Jan 6, 2007)

FLYBOYJ said:


> It's funny though - many Soviet pilots have came foward after Korea to tell about their service over North Korea. If the La-11 shot down any B-26s or if any of the Soviet pilots flew La-11s I would think by now something would of been said...


I guess we're just belaboring this now, but I don't get your point. I'm showing you original Soviet records saying they made those specific claims...it's the most original source you can get. 

But plenty, relative to the small topic, has been said in print about the Soviet 351st Regiment's ops in China and Korea. Just most of it is in the Russian language only (but the article translation linked above is an exception; also the book "With the Yanks in Korea Vol 1" by Cull and Newton mentions the 351st's ops a bit using Russian sources). Some of Seidov's later articles, again Russian only, on Soviet night ops rely heavily one first hand pilot accounts as well as declassified Soviet records. I think your implication that "nothing has been said" about Soviet Korean War La-11 ops, is just not correct.

The only thing I'm adding here which isn't in print (AFAIK) is correlating specific La-11 claims to US primary source records, which shows that some, not all, of the claims were apparently valid.

Joe


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 6, 2007)

Maybe mis-understood there, my point is why specific soviet pilots who flew these La-11s have not come foward. We know the identities of dozens of Soviet Mig-15 drivers who give specific accounts of their tour in Korea. You show data from the 351st, but my question, who were the pilots?


----------



## Smokey (Jan 6, 2007)

Of the aircraft that flew, surely the Goodyear F2G - 1D super corsair is a contender for best piston engine singleseat fighter.







Super Corsair F2G-1D [www.orizzle.com]

Of those that didn't fly, the forward swept wing Heinkel P.1076 may have been pretty impressive






Heinkel He P.1076 Luft Art Images by Andreas Otte


----------



## Matt308 (Jan 6, 2007)

Likely maneauverable with inherent instability of forward swept wings, but probably sacrificed speed.


----------



## comiso90 (Jan 7, 2007)

Smokey said:


> Of the aircraft that flew, surely the Goodyear F2G - 1D super corsair is a contender for best piston engine singleseat fighter.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Wow awesome pics.. thanks


----------



## JoeB (Jan 7, 2007)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Maybe mis-understood there, my point is why specific soviet pilots who flew these La-11s have not come foward. We know the identities of dozens of Soviet Mig-15 drivers who give specific accounts of their tour in Korea. You show data from the 351st, but my question, who were the pilots?


Because you (or I, or anyone) haven't read about something doesn't mean it hasn't been written about. The identity of 351st La-11 pilots certainly has been; I already posted a link to a translation of a Russian article with lots of names of 351st pilots. And the original Soviet records give all kinds of additional detail, photo's etc of the same men, no reasonable doubt who they were.

Again a published English source is here:
Shield of the Night
and here's a picture of the most famous 351st pilot, Anatoliy Karelin, only officially credited Soviet night ace in Korea, in his La-11. He made one claim in the La-11, apparently not officially recognized by the Soviets, yet OTOH possibly corresponding to a real B-26 loss, April 4 1952. His 5 official victories were all B-29's claimed in the MiG-15, some confirmed in US records.





Joe


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 7, 2007)

Bingo! - that's what I was looking for, thank you...

But I think the bottom line here is an La-11 never shot down a B-29...


----------



## JoeB (Jan 7, 2007)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Bingo! - that's what I was looking for, thank you...
> 
> But I think the bottom line here is an La-11 never shot down a B-29...


Bingo! it was there several posts ago.

Several posts before that I think you were saying a B-29 was NEVER damaged by an La-11, where the hell did I get that?!!! now the "bottomline" has changed  My original statement was the La-11 had its successes in Korea, downed some B-26's damaged a couple of B-29's; haven't seen any contradicting info.

Joe


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 7, 2007)

JoeB said:


> Bingo! it was there several posts ago.


Please don't patronize me, you posted this link only once..

Shield of the Night


JoeB said:


> Several posts before that I think you were saying a B-29 was NEVER damaged by an La-11, where the hell did I get that?!!! now the "bottomline" has changed  My original statement was the La-11 had its successes in Korea, downed some B-26's damaged a couple of B-29's; haven't seen any contradicting info.


And all that is shown is a CLAIM by the 351st that they damaged a B-29. That was in your 2nd post.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 9, 2007)

Dont hurt him FBJ....


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 9, 2007)




----------



## dahut (Jan 18, 2007)

Bearcat, for all out balls-blastin performance. 

Another I would cast a vote for is the Kyushu Shinden. Very advanced for it's time, if developed it would have been a terror. Fast (nearly 500 mph in its piston engine version), heavily armed (4 x 30MM cannon) and highly maneuverable, it was almost stall proof with its canard set-up, thus forgiving to newbie pilots.

Finally, it was designed for a turbojet from the outset, by a guy who understood them. If that had've gotten going, whoowee, look out!


----------



## Matt308 (Jan 18, 2007)

Nope. Look at the design. Classic engine overheat.


----------



## syscom3 (Jan 18, 2007)

Skyraider.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 18, 2007)

syscom3 said:


> Skyraider.



Agree!!!


----------



## dahut (Jan 18, 2007)

> Nope. Look at the design. Classic engine overheat.


Agreed. Overheating in ground handling WAS an identified shortcoming of the J7W1, along with the stalky undercarriage and the dreaded torque roll at full throttle from the combination of drive shaft/engine/massive prop. But, these things were not insurmountable and even the Mersu (Messerschmidt 109), Sopwith Camel and BMW motorcycles suffered from torque-related flaws!

Keep in mind that the follow-on design, the J7W2, was expected to use a turbojet engine, the piston engine merely an expedient. 'Fact is, a jet engine was envisioned as it's rightful powerplant by the designer, Capt. Tsuruno. He was abreast of turbojet design and sample German engines were on hand which could be developed to provide all the power (and more) that the Shinden needed. 

But this was about PISTON ENGINES and putting turbojets aside, projected performance with the interim radial would have put even the Mystic Mustang to the test.

The Shinden was intended as a short range, high altitude "bomber buster," as the Japanese were more concerned with that at the time than with aerial acrobatics. However, I suspect that with it's CG radial, near 0 degree dihedral, canard "pitchability" and the planned increases in control surface area ... well, your average 'Stang pilot could possibly have met his match.

And to be honest, the Shinden suffered from several other bugaboos besides the ones mentioned. Bad timing (the design concept was on the boards a few YEARS before it was ever considered for production), a lack of skilled pilots who could fly the thing, production capacity that became merely wishful thinking and a lack of decent airfields also hampered it - oh, and the A-bomb.

However, take note of the fact that I included the comment, "if developed" in my original reply. There *were* problems with the Shinden, indeed. But, it DID fly in WWII on an internal combustion, piston engine and was acknowledged then as a "Whew! We got lucky" moment.

Did the original post require a production aircraft with all the "bugs" worked out? I might have missed that. I only give my opinion here of what was potentially the "epitome" of piston driven aircraft. If the SHinden wont suffice, then I'll fall back on the Bearcat. Skyraider, eat your heart out.


----------



## syscom3 (Jan 19, 2007)

dahut said:


> .....then I'll fall back on the Bearcat. Skyraider, eat your heart out.



Skyraiders were still in use in the mid 70's. Depending on the source, the South Vietnamese AF or Swedish AF were using them. 

That was almost 20 years after the Bearcats were last in service with the French in Indochina.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 19, 2007)

One of the only reasons why the Navy could legitametly give for giving up the Skyraider (besides for an aging airframe) was the elimination of highly flammable av-gas being carried on aircraft carriers.


----------



## dahut (Jan 19, 2007)

Original question:


> Which single engine, piston aircraft deserves the mantle of "Damn too bad it wasn't available in WW2?" A1 Sky raider? Sea Fury? Bearcat? My vote is for the Skyraider.


Didnt ask how long it stayed in service, which country it flew for or other notable details, ad nauseum. I vote Shinden, or my fall back, Bearcat. "Zooooom!" 

Skyraider, eat your heart out.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 19, 2007)

dahut said:


> Original question
> 
> Didnt ask how long it stayed in service or other notable details. I vote Shinden, or my fall back, Bearcat. "Zooooom!"
> 
> Skyraider eat your heart out.


Yea, but the Skyraider could probably lift both aircraft in weight and still carry a 2000 lb bomb load! 8)


----------



## dahut (Jan 19, 2007)

Depends on your perspective. I agree, heavy lifting by a smallish airframe is a wondrous feat. Ive always loved the A-4 for that. Can't you just see the little A-4 festooned with an full ordnance load? Awesome. But, this really is a highly subjective question, dont you think? 

Remember David and Goliath? I'll take the chance to skedaddle, manuever and sting real hard any time, instead of toting an armload of rocks.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 19, 2007)

dahut said:


> Depends on your perspective. I agree, heavy lifting by a smallish airframe is a wondrous feat. Ive always loved the A-4 for that. Can't you just see the little A-4 festooned with an full ordnance load? Awesome. But, this really is a highly subjective question, dont you think?
> 
> Remember David and Goliath? I'll take the chance to skedaddle, manuever and sting real hard any time, instead of toting an armload of rocks.



True, but at the same time I'd like the reassurance that my ship is almost bulletproof, but I do admit, the best defence is to dump my load and get the hell out of Dodge!


----------



## joebong (Jan 22, 2007)

Gotta go with Bearcat, though I admit I don't know much about sea fury perf.
I just dig bears, and it's rather academic really since the force's they opposed had been chewed to pieces by the likes of F4u's, spit 22's etc. On the axis side, full operational status of Do335's Ta 152's would make great speculative fodder, albeit the sad footnotes of allied aircrews.


----------



## Desert Fox (Jan 22, 2007)

I would choose the CAC CA-15 Kangaroo. It reached a top speed of 502.2 mph, and was designed entirely in the land of Oz! The RAAF scrapped it in 1950, as it thought that the cost of building P-51s under license was cheaper than building an entirely new aircraft. I had never heard of this aircraft until today, you should check it out.


----------



## dahut (Jan 22, 2007)

*On the axis side, full operational status of Do335's Ta 152's would make great speculative fodder, albeit the sad footnotes of allied aircrews.*
The Do335 doesnt count, as it had TWO engines instead of one. The Ta-152 had performance to spare and it's generally conceded that it could outfly any Allied fighter, at any altitude.

This sort of debat is full of subjective conjecture and the jet had arrived by the end of WWII so all piston engine front-line planes were doomed to end. So, one could also make a case for something like the Yak-9. It rivaled the performance of other Allied planes and there were 17,000 of them built. They went on after the war serving in other ComBloc forces and were just one of the many planes that the Germans wore themselves out on. 
Were they the "epitome" of design? Powerful, capable, rugged and cheap to build and thus available in large numbers - some might say, "Yes."


----------



## comiso90 (Jan 26, 2007)

Desert Fox said:


> I would choose the CAC CA-15 Kangaroo. It reached a top speed of 502.2 mph, and was designed entirely in the land of Oz! The RAAF scrapped it in 1950, as it thought that the cost of building P-51s under license was cheaper than building an entirely new aircraft. I had never heard of this aircraft until today, you should check it out.



Thanks for the kangaroo tip... impressive aircraft. I'll add that to my trivia lexicon. Developing a piston engine aircraft in 1950 is a bit like inventing a new buggy in 1920!


----------



## Matt308 (Jan 26, 2007)

Developed at the end of the war. Taxied in 1946 and flew in 1947.


----------



## renrich (Mar 20, 2007)

The F4U-4 overall could do a lot more than the F8F and was at least equal to the Sea Fury. My vote would go to the Able Dog.


----------



## fubar57 (Jul 8, 2016)

Joebong hasn't been here for almost 3 yrs


----------



## gjs238 (Jul 9, 2016)

fubar57 said:


> Joebong hasn't been here for almost 3 yrs



Another round of beers!

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Elmas (Jul 14, 2016)

Of course they are not as trendy as fighters but pistons were used for more than thirty years after the end of wwii ....

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------

