Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Then I'm led to suggest that this isn't the thread for you.I would argue that there isn't a best post WW2 piston engine fighter as they were all outclassed by any post war jet fighter.
I'm not sure I'd want to fight in a Hornet with only one engine.D.H. Hornet
I think they did away with Roman numerals when they hit 20, too difficult for the eccentric Brits to cope with.I'm going with "the best" was meant in our opinion. There's always a strong case for different planes. I went for cache'. Spitfire Mk XXIV. That did just miss WW 2, right?
There are more Spitfires today than P-51s because more were made. All you have to do is find the manufacturers plate, find an engine or make one and rebuild it. Most are not airworthy and many may be in the channel or melted down to something else.Thing is, high speed meant almost nothing for a postwar prop fighter because there was always gonna be a faster jet, a much faster jet. 300 MPH was as good as 450 MPH, and in fact better because it was combined with longer range and heavier ordnance capability.
The Spitfire was a wonderful airplane but not very useful postwar given the near-impossibility of it's performing its traditional interceptor, air superiority, and photo recon roles as well as being not much good for ground attack. Postwar, you'd better off with some P-40N's than Spitfires, and lot better off with some P-51's and a hell of a lot better off with some F4U's or A-1's. The Spitfire was not very popular postwar, as is evidenced by its comparative scarcity today. Add in the fact that the magnesium alloy rivets it used created some serious maintenance problems and it's a small wonder that it did not last long.
Thing is, high speed meant almost nothing for a postwar prop fighter because there was always gonna be a faster jet, a much faster jet. 300 MPH was as good as 450 MPH, and in fact better because it was combined with longer range and heavier ordnance capability.
The Spitfire was a wonderful airplane but not very useful postwar given the near-impossibility of it's performing its traditional interceptor, air superiority, and photo recon roles as well as being not much good for ground attack. Postwar, you'd better off with some P-40N's than Spitfires, and lot better off with some P-51's and a hell of a lot better off with some F4U's or A-1's. The Spitfire was not very popular postwar, as is evidenced by its comparative scarcity today. Add in the fact that the magnesium alloy rivets it used created some serious maintenance problems and it's a small wonder that it did not last long.
An example, from the late 60's no less, would be the "Football War" between Honduras and El Salvador that saw P-51s, F4Us (and FG-1s), AT-6s and T-28s pitted against each other.
Granted, the Israeli Bf109s versus the Arab League Spitfires may not count, as the Bf109 ceased production in '45, though lived on a while longer through Avia and Hispano.