Best mass produced postwar single engine piston fighter?

[Peter Gunn]

F-82 or Bearcat would be my top two.

 

[nuuumannn]

here are more Spitfires on display somewhere because they got phased out earlier. They did not get used up because they were not good for much of anything in the jet era. Even in WWII the Spit was recognized as a lousy fighter bomber; they used them only because the RAF was so obcessed with the Air Defense of Great Britain that when Overlord came along they found they had nothing else. They even considered asking that the A-36 go back into production. The Typhoon looked good only because the Spit looked so much worse. The Aussies and NZ were well pleased with the P-40 in that role. In Burma they replaced the Hurricanes with P-47's, not Spitfires. How many Spitfires did they send to Korea?

Yeah, that explains it, you nailed it...

So, a few facts... Australia DID get Spitfires, perhaps you missed that because the Aussies called them Capstans, both Mk.Vs and Mk.VIIIs and the reason why the P-40 was both Australia's and New Zealand's principal fighter of WW2 was availability at the time, the Lend-Lease agreement was drawn up before the USA was at war, which meant that it, not Britain was in a better situation to supply the Dominions with aircraft. The RAF had Article XV squadrons from both Australia and New Zealand that operated Spitfires.

And the reason why there are so many Spitfires around today is that they were extensively used AFTER the war in foreign countries, and the fact that the British have a penchant for building them from scratch using only a dataplate and maybe a seat from a local museum. Nevertheless, you're not really doing your research, now are you and it doesn't change the fact that there are still more Spitfires around than Corsairs.

As for use as ground-attack aircraft, so why is that a reason that Spitfires were not extensively used post-war, when they most certainly were, with more countries than the F4U, remember? Spitfires actually made good ground attack aircraft and were used extensively throughout the war in the low altitude role, heck, the Spitfire V with the clipped wings was fitted with what was known as the 'Low-Altitude' supercharger, seeing use in North Africa and Italy, and later low altitude variants, notably LF.IXs (the LF bit signified that it was a low altitude variant) and F.XIIs powered by Griffons were used up to during and after Overlord for strafing of targets throughout occupied Europe, including deep into Germany from formerly occupied territories. Spitfires equipped the 2nd Tactical Air Force alongside Typhoons, so, not really 'worse' or lousy.

And as for the RAF using the P-47 in Burma instead of Spitfires, Spitfires WERE used in Burma, as interceptors, so why not use the P-47, which was a better ground attack aircraft than a Spitfire, granted, but that then begs the question, why does use as a ground attack aircraft in WW2 stand as a qualifier for extensive post-war use? Your argument doesn't really hold water. As for their use in Korea, the Fleet Air Arm flew Seafires from its carriers during the Korean War both as strike aircraft and as interceptors, and regarding interceptors, are they NOT worthy of consideration for extensive post-war use? I think you need to do more reading instead of shooting from the hip.

Should I also remind you that the USAAF used around 600 Spitfires as interceptors during the war?

By the way, this is not me denigrating the F4U, I think it's awesome, but there are so many things that don't sit well about your posts on the Spitfire that require clarification and/or correction.

 

[SaparotRob]

What surprised me, was the account of the FG-1 besting a P-51D in a drawn-out dogfight

I wondered about that myself. It usually comes down to pilot skill but I'm wondering just how tired those birds were.

 

[fastmongrel]

Stretching the "fighter" part but the Skyraider shot down aircraft and in a low level fight I would rather have a Spad than any WWII reject.

 

[GrauGeist]

I wondered about that myself. It usually comes down to pilot skill but I'm wondering just how tired those birds were.

Evidently not tired enough to kill each other.
The FG-1 took out the P-51D with a burst of 20mm cannon fire, literally blowing the Mustang's wing off.

 

[SaparotRob]

That'll do it.

 

[33k in the air]

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?

The Spitfire F.24 first flight was after the war (1946).

The F-82 probably would have the highest performance. The A-1 likely would be the best design. The T-28 might well be the most useful.

The F-82 is a twin-engine fighter.

 

[pinehilljoe]

The Aeronautica Militare (Italian Air Force) used the P-39 until 1950

 

[Admiral Beez]

How many Spitfires did they send to Korea?

I'm not sure that's the best measure. While the FAA's Seafires did conduct combat ops from HMS Triumph, the RAF didn't really play a fighter role in Korea. If it had, I expect they would have sent Gloster Meteors or de Havilland Vampire rather than Spitfires.

 

[GrauGeist]

A RN Seafire downed a MiG-15 in '52 and the RAAF did have Gloster Meteors in Korea.

There were RAF (and Commonwealth air force) personnel in Korea, but they were mostly attached to the USAF, flying US types.

 

[ThomasP]

Hey Mlflyer,

Do you remember the source for the idea of restarting the A-36 production? I find it hard to believe that anyone in the UK thought it would be a good idea when they already had access to the P-51B. By the time the production P-51 and P-51A came online they were already basically as capable as the A-36 - the underlying airframe was 99% the same including the strengthened bits - just minus the airbrakes and bomb shackles. By early-1944 the P-51B was available to the RAF if they wanted it, and since all it would have taken was to add the bomb shackles . . .???

re how many Spitfires in Korea? AFIK none. The RAF had already developed ground attack variants of its land based jet aircraft, so if they had based aircraft in Korea there was really no need for land based prop jobs for the most part. But the UK based 0 combat squadrons in Korea during the war.

However, there were Seafire Mk 47 operating over Korea in the initial months, from the first RN carrier to arrive on station. The Seafire flew ground attack missions and top cover missions (for the Firefly), but were replaced by the Sea Fury in both missions when the initial carrier was relieved.

No.77 Squadron RAAF operated P-51s from Japan initially, then based in Korea from October 1950, but only because they had nothing else at the time. As soon as possible they requested the Meteor Mk 8 from the UK, considering it "suicidal" to operate the P-51 against the NK jets. In April 1951 they re-equipped with the Meteor Mk 8. They flew about 3500 sorties in the P-51, and about 15,100 sorties in the Meteor.

I do not think their were any RCAF combat squadrons based in Korea either, maybe someone else know more??

edit: I see that others have already posted much of what I just did. Odd. For some reason none of the posts following Mlflyer's post#20 showed up on my screen until after I posted this post (at 00:41 31 August my time).

 

[GrauGeist]

I do not think their were any RCAF combat squadrons based in Korea either, maybe someone else know more??

Aside from the RAAF, only RAF and Commonwealth officers served attached to the USAF.
The RAAF flew P-51Ds and Meteors.

Otherwise the Royal Navy was Britain's key participant in the conflict.

 

[Big Jake]

Douglas A-1

 

[ThomasP]

Hey GrauGeist,

Were the RAF and RCAF personnel combat types or 'just' ~liaison? I am quite familiar with the activities of the Commonwealth ground forces but not those of the air forces.

 

[GrauGeist]

Hey GrauGeist,

Were the RAF and RCAF personnel combat types or 'just' ~liaison? I am quite familiar with the activities of the Commonwealth ground forces but not those of the air forces.

Most were active in flying combat missions.
I have to go by memory here, so the numbers may be off, but I believe about 40+ RAF pilots served.

 

[Glider]

I don't think anyone has mentioned the Sea Fury which I am pretty sure also claimed a Mig 15 and was at least as good as the Bearcat.

 

[GregP]

At least as good as a Bearcat? Based on what?

Not really arguing, though I could ... just wondering where you found flyoff data between a Sea Fury and a Bearcat to make that claim.

 

[Glider]

The top speed was very similar as was the climb.

Range I am not to sure about, but the Sea Fury had a respectable radius of combat of 720 miles and a still air range of 1,800 miles with 2 x 90 Gallon drop tanks which isn't too shabby.

Payload I believe the Sea Fury was very similar both having a maximum capacity of 2,000lb, but the Sea Fury was of course, better looking

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

I don't think anyone has mentioned the Sea Fury which I am pretty sure also claimed a Mig 15 and was at least as good as the Bearcat.

A Admiral Beez mentioned it in his opening post, which I followed up upon with my limited knowledge.

 

[Glider]

My omission, apologies one and all