Best mass produced postwar single engine piston fighter?

Glider said:

My omission, apologies one and all

Click to expand...

Your point remains, that the Sea Fury was definitely in the same league. Noted above, with these two planes I think it really comes down to the pilot. The only clear advantage the Bearcat has is range, which can be useful (longer combat time? more operational flexibility) but not necessarily decisive in terms of tactical one-on-one.

Actually - if my info is correct - the SeaFury Mk X/XI outranges the F8F-1/-2. It is hard to say exactly because the 2 services use different criteria.

ROA for the SeaFury is ~330 miles on internal fuel (200 Impgal/240 USgal), with 10 min Combat and 10 min Loiter in the Combat area, plus 15% reserve(?).
ROA for the Bearcat is ~235 miles with 1x150 USgal DT (so 185 USgal internal + 150 USgal external = 335 USgal, but only 105 USgal of the DT fuel is usable due to limit on range imposed by internal fuel, so only 290 USgal effective), but the criteria are typical USN profile with 20 min Combat and 60 min reserve at V for max range. If the DT is dropped when empty and the flight profile still includes 20 min Combat with a reduction in some other part of the profile, then ROA is listed as 300 miles.

If the SeaFury carries 2x 45 Impgal/54 USgal DT (for 348 USgal total) then the ROA is seriously more than the Bearcat, at about 570 miles.

MIflyer said:

There 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.

Click to expand...

That seems odd, since I don't believe the RAF ever had the A-36. Well, they had one, for experimentation purposes

They had the Mustang I/IA and Mustang II (P-51A).

MIflyer said:

There 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?

Click to expand...

Hi
Only Spitfires available at OVERLORD? 'Fighter Command War Diaries Part 4', by John Foreman, has the ORBAT for RAF fighters and fighter bombers just before OVERLORD, rather more than Spitfires available in the RAF, rather like saying the USAAF only had P-47s available. The RAF did have lots of Spitfires, both Merlin and Griffin powerered, but also a number of other types that can be seen below:






Mike

wuzak said:

That seems odd, since I don't believe the RAF ever had the A-36. Well, they had one, for experimentation purposes

They had the Mustang I/IA and Mustang II (P-51A).

Click to expand...

According to this MUSTANG VARIANTS OF THE RAF AND RAAF - Mustang: Thoroughbred Stallion of the Air they got 6 more "Six additional A-36A-1-NA airplanes from the 12th Air Force in the MTO were obtained by the RAF in early to mid-1944 for ground support duties. They were issued RAF serial numbers and they included: HK944 (42-84018), HK945 (42-83898), HK946 (42-84117), HK947 (42-84107), HK955 (42-83906) and HK956 (42-83829)."

I cant see how the A-36 would be put back into production or even the idea being discussed, it only existed to keep production going until the P-51B started to be made which the British also received. The British also had the Typhoon and Tempest. At least one American was happy with the British obsession with air defence. Any successful air recon of south England before Overlord would have thrown a spanner in Ike's works.

I thought the Allison powered Mustang was what the RAF had considered asking to be put back into production, not the A-36 specifically, because the Allison powered model was so fast under 10k and it fit the mission profile so well.

drgondog would have to chime in as I'm going from a dim memory of some old posts discussing the Mustang.

The Mustang Mk IAs were used by Army Cooperation squadrons and the RAF kept them going long after they should have been withdrawn because they were so good at low level recon work. Not much could keep up with the Mk IA at hedge trimming height.

The only two good reasons for using a piston engined fighter after WW2 were range and the ability to fly off an aircraft carrier. If we just look at the range of single engined fighters, I don't think that anything equals a P-47N. It doesn't exactly fit the criterion given as the P47N saw combat from the end of July 1945 but it would be a long time before a jet had the same combat radius.

cherry blossom said:

The only two good reasons for using a piston engined fighter after WW2 were range and the ability to fly off an aircraft carrier. If we just look at the range of single engined fighters, I don't think that anything equals a P-47N. It doesn't exactly fit the criterion given as the P47N saw combat from the end of July 1945 but it would be a long time before a jet had the same combat radius.

Click to expand...

Especially before air to air refueling.

In my opinion, the only real contenders would be the F8F and Fury/Sea Fury. I don't think the La-9/11 would be able to compete on even terms, as even a wartime Spitfire Mk.XIV or 21 seem to have higher performance, not mention the post war examples, like a Mk.24 or Seafire Mk.47

Need to define "Best", but..

In terms of combat performance, I would prefer the F4U-4(Late version and 'B') and F4U-5.

According to Standard Aircraft Characteristics and Summary of Performance, F4U-4 outperformed the F8F-1 except at altitudes below 5,000 feet and the case of F4U-5, it even outperformed the F8F-2 at all altitudes. The Sea Fury has better altitude performance(compared to F8F-1), allowing it to maintain its superiority to higher altitudes.

I've written a post in the past that included curves comparing those data.

Peter Gunn said:

I thought the Allison powered Mustang was what the RAF had considered asking to be put back into production, not the A-36 specifically, because the Allison powered model was so fast under 10k and it fit the mission profile so well.

drgondog would have to chime in as I'm going from a dim memory of some old posts discussing the Mustang.

Click to expand...

At SL to 10,000 feet The P-51A was the fastest (P-51B/A-36/P-51-NA) at same boost. That said, the P-51B w/1650-7 at 75" was faster than the P-51A with W/I. The specially equipped Mustang III w/Merlin 100 was the fastest of all production Mustangs until the P-51H. Note that the above statements hold for full combat load but no bomb racks.

I have seen no request memos in NAA files with requests for additional Allison engine equipped Mustangs, but such request would have been denied by AAF in any case after January 1943 when NAA Inglewood and Dallas were fully tooled up for Packard-Merlin 1650-3 equipped Mustangs. The P-51A was nearing completion for 1st production release, A-36 was in full production but the P-51A contract had been converted from 1200 to 310 and scheduled for completion in June. The Allison orders were cancelled for delivery to NAA past that point (500 A-36/310 P-51A)

Dawncaster said:

Need to define "Best", but..

In terms of combat performance, I would prefer the F4U-4(Late version and 'B') and F4U-5.

According to Standard Aircraft Characteristics and Summary of Performance, F4U-4 outperformed the F8F-1 except at altitudes below 5,000 feet and the case of F4U-5, it even outperformed the F8F-2 at all altitudes. The Sea Fury has better altitude performance(compared to F8F-1), allowing it to maintain its superiority to higher altitudes.

I've written a post in the past that included curves comparing those data.

Allied Gold-Match II

Another VS topic? Why not compare with colourful images! All curves corrected for military standard, official performances from Standard Aircraft Characteristics and Performance Summary.

ww2aircraft.net

Hawker Typhoon/Tempest VS Vought F4U Corsair

Another VS topic? Why not compare with colourful images! for full internal fuel and ammunition, no external stores - the performance curves from the following documents Tempest V 9 lbs : Tempest V Performance Test Tempest V 11 lbs ...

ww2aircraft.net

Click to expand...

Way Overstated for both F4U-4 and -5. Understated for P-51H.
Patuxent River testing in 1948 for F4U-5 should be used and SAC performance tables 1949 should be used for P-51H. For purposes of comparisons you should normalize to max internal (combat load) for all comparisons, or Light Fighter/Interceptor for all comparisons. Takeoff weight does matter.

Vmax at FTH comparisons show P-51H about 20-30mph faster than both with higher ceiling at full combat load.

Also recognize that in 'interceptor range' category the P-51H w/o external tanks compared to light F4U and F8F is far greater, dive speed higher, maneuverability and acceleration about on par.

F4u-5
F4U Performance Trials Patuxent River 1948
F8F-2
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/F8F/F8F-2_Standard_Aircraft_Characteristics.pdf 1949
P-51H
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/p-51h-booklet-pg11.jpg SAC Table 1949

drgondog said:

Way Overstated for both F4U-4 and -5. Understated for P-51H.
Patuxent River testing in 1948 for F4U-5 should be used and SAC performance tables 1949 should be used for P-51H. For purposes of comparisons you should normalize to max internal (combat load) for all comparisons, or Light Fighter/Interceptor for all comparisons. Takeoff weight does matter.

Vmax at FTH comparisons show P-51H about 20-30mph faster than both with higher ceiling at full combat load.

Also recognize that in 'interceptor range' category the P-51H w/o external tanks compared to light F4U and F8F is far greater, dive speed higher, maneuverability and acceleration about on par.

F4u-5
F4U Performance Trials Patuxent River 1948
F8F-2
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/F8F/F8F-2_Standard_Aircraft_Characteristics.pdf 1949
P-51H
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/p-51h-booklet-pg11.jpg SAC Table 1949s

Click to expand...

Nope, P-51H you stated is overstated, F4U-4 or F4U-5 isn't. and 1948 Patuxent River report was for F4U-4 without water injection not for F4U-5, F4U-4's SAC included it's performance and revised it, so I used SAC's curve.

The P(F)-51H curve in my post was from 1949/50 SAC for service condition, but the curve you presented is 1944 estimate(NA-126 had not yet flown at that time, So it seems to be a calculation based on other prototypes such as f, g, 117.. etc) not match for SAC. It was revised by 1945 calculation that was much closer to the performance of the SAC.

sort it out.


This is the curve you presented from NA booklet.


and This is 1944 calculation for NA-126. Then I'll overlap.


As you can see, the curves in the NA booklet represent exactly the same with 1944 calculation.



So revised by a later report.


It was also a calculation, but since the NA-126 has been outlined, it is much closer to the actual SAC performance. Then overlap again with SAC.


With the exception of tiny errors, it can be seen that it was a very accurate estimate.

Therefore, I used correct performance curves from SAC for service condition and the curve you presented was inaccurate estimates.

but as per your point, I revised it by adding the SAC's curve for P(F)-51H interceptor condition. these curves composed of data from SAC reflect the difference in actual performance for services condition with full internal load, except Mustang's interceptor curve.





In conclusion, including the previous performance curves I posted, Since I used curves from offical SAC, there are no overstated or understated curves for F4Us, F8Fs and P(F)-51H.

Interceptor condition's lighter payload by Mustang's range advantage provides some extra performance(1~2 kn and about 500fpm) for same mission profile. Even considering the fact that naval fighters can use aircraft carriers or rough, close front-line airfields, It's a Mustang's advantage. but still at many altitudes, the Corsair was as fast or faster than P(F)-51H due to Mustang's almost unchanged Vmax despite weight reduction, and climb rate was comparable level at altitude yet.

In addition, the Corsair had advantages of water supply and endurance for power ratings. Late Corsairs had 70% more Water Injection available than Mustang(7 vs 12 min), according to SAC's mission profile, the Corsair uses the water injection for 10 minutes and the Mustang for 5 minutes. and the Corsair could withstand 30 mins with 64"hg(-5's 32W) military power compared to Mustang's 15 mins with 61"hg(H's -9).

Dawncaster said:

Nope, P-51H you stated is overstated, F4U-4 or F4U-5 isn't. and 1948 Patuxent River report was for F4U-4 without water injection not for F4U-5, F4U-4's SAC included it's performance curve and revised it, so I used SAC's curve.

The P(F)-51H curve in my post is from 1949/50 SAC for service condition, but the curve you presented was 1944 estimate(NA-126 had not yet flown at that time, So it seems to be a calculation based on other prototypes such as f, g, 117.. etc) not match for SAC. It was revised by a 1945 calculation that was much closer to the performance of the SAC.

sort it out.

View attachment 640424
This is the curve you presented from NA booklet.

View attachment 640425
and This is 1944 calculation for NA-126. Then I'll overlap.

View attachment 640426
As you can see, the curves in the NA booklet represent exactly the same with 1944 calculation.

View attachment 640427
View attachment 640431
So revised by a later report.

View attachment 640430
It was also a calculation, but since the NA-126 has been outlined, it is much closer to the actual SAC performance. Then overlap again with SAC.

View attachment 640432
With the exception of some errors, it can be seen that this is a very accurate estimate.

In conclusion, I used accurate SAC and actual performance curves for service condition and the curve you presented are inaccurate estimates. However, as per your point, I revised it by adding the F-51 SAC's Interceptor conficuration curve.

Therefore, these curves composed of data from SAC reflect the difference in actual performance for services condition with full internal load except F-51 interceptor.

View attachment 640447

View attachment 640446

The F4Us, F8Fs and P-51H in the Curves are not overstated or understated. Last revised material was used.

Exceptionally, The lighter payload(at combat weight) due to the Mustang's range advantage provides some extra performance(1~2 kn and about 500fpm) for same mission profile. Even considering the fact that naval fighters can use aircraft carriers or rough, close front-line airfields, this is a Mustang's advantage.

But still at many altitudes, the Corsair is as fast or faster than P(F)-51H due to almost unchanged Vmax, Climb rate is comparable level at altitude yet. and There was Corsair's minor advantage was water supply and endurance for power ratings. Corsairs had 70% more Water Injection available than Mustang(7 vs 12 min). According to SAC's mission profile, the Corsair uses the water injection for 10 minutes and the Mustang for 5 minutes, and Corsair could withstand 64"hg military power for 30 min(-5's 32W).

Click to expand...

The 1650-9 was experiencing major issues in producing more that 75" MP until late 1946. The SAC tables were assembled from both NAA 1947 and Eglin testing in 1948.

Well, as an opinion I would say:

1) F4U-5
2) P-51H
3) F8F-2

It's an aesthetic opinion as much as anything, but also reflects what I think the role of the post-war piston fighter had become which was as much about ground support as AAC. The "best" fighter had to be able to conduct superior ground support and I think the Corsair really distinguishes itself here.

For longevity and ground attack, the Douglas A-1 Skyraider would have to in the conversation. Not great for speed, but top notch for payload, and still in front line service in 1972,

MikeMeech said:

Hi
Only Spitfires available at OVERLORD? 'Fighter Command War Diaries Part 4', by John Foreman, has the ORBAT for RAF fighters and fighter bombers just before OVERLORD, rather more than Spitfires available in the RAF, rather like saying the USAAF only had P-47s available. The RAF did have lots of Spitfires, both Merlin and Griffin powerered, but also a number of other types that can be seen below:
View attachment 640191
View attachment 640192
View attachment 640193
View attachment 640194
View attachment 640195

Mike

Click to expand...

I don't think that is a list that the Luftwaffe would have liked to see.

No love for the Lavochkins? If they were uncompetitive I wonder why they made 1,200 x La-11. Probably to keep the workers active.

They couldn't get the blue prints for anything better?