Best Pacific Fighter?

Best Pacific Fighter?

  • Total voters
    146

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

Status
Not open for further replies.
syscom3 said:
Who cares what happened after 1945. Anything with a piston engine after that year was obsolescent.
Click to expand...

I think this is the problematic statement, you say ANYTHING with a piston engine, not any Fighter or Bomber with piston engines.

At that time fighters (and to a lesser extent bombers) powered by recips were obsolescent. THe bombers less so, but still, all new bomber designs (in development, not ones entering service like the B-50 and B-36) went to jets or, occasionaly, turboprops.

But transports, patroll craft, and dedicated attact/close support a/c (or older fighters adapted to this roll, or redesigned specifically for it like the Corsair was) were still better off with their piston engines.
 
And the only stop gap measures the USN had for new designs in the ~1945 timefreme were the Mixed powerd a/c, most notably the Fireball.

Their first pure jet the FH Phantom (prototype XFD Phantom) flew in January of 1945. (3 prototypes being orginally ordered in Summer of 1943)

Due to the end of the war development slowed and it wasn't introduced until 1947. By which time the more advanced F9F Panther and McDonnel's own F2H Banshee (developed from the FH Phantom) were nearly ready for service. Thus the FH saw use by mostly as a conversion trainer and was passed onto the USMC. (retired from USN in '49 and by the USMC in '54)

There were only 62 Phantoms Built.

It could fly quite well on one engine, in fact (due to slow delivery of working prototype engines from Westinghouse) the first test flight was performed with only a single engine installed. (and an underpowered 1,165 lbf thrust at that, compared to 1,600 lbf on production J30's used on the FH-1) Of course this test wasn't from a carrier.


One other interesting thing to note on the Phantom is that it was the first fully independant jet a/c built in the US, using all American designs. (in fact the J30 was the only such engine to fly before the end of the war, and the only design initiated by the NACA's 1941 jet reaserach program to reach fruition)

McDonellXFD-1
EnginesUSA
 

Why do they not count?

Why are you stuck on this fighter and bomber thing? You cant make the rules of what counts and what does not!

You are acting like Soren and setting the parameters to suit you. It does not work way.

Explain to me why only fighters and bombers count? Are they the only aircraft in the USAF?

Come on now sys...
 
syscom3 said:
None of those piston engined aircraft were front line for long. They were in the stop gap role at best.
Click to expand...
You're 100% wrong, especially with regards to the transport aircraft - look at the years they served.
syscom3 said:
In fact most of them ended up in Reserve or NG units while the jets were rolled out and produced.
Click to expand...
Again wrong, it depended on what type of aircraft you're talking about. Air-to-air fighters, sure, bombers, to an extent (The B-36 was being built until 1954) but you had cargo and attack recips being built in the early 50s
syscom3 said:
With the exception of USN dedicated aircraft (due to early jet engine issues) name one piston engined fighter or bomber that was designed and built AFTER the 2nd world war ended.
Click to expand...
None - but now you're altering your original statement...
syscom3 said:
Cargo and Maritime patrol dont count..... only fighter and bombers.
Click to expand...
Why not???? - again that's not what you originally said. You're exact words -

"Who cares what happened after 1945. Anything with a piston engine after that year was obsolescent."


You said A-N-Y-T-H-I-N-G! Not fighter, bomber, transport, navy or air force - ANYTHING!​

You fail to realize that the recip stayed around because....

1. they were reliable
2. there was fuel for them
3. they were still useful
4. there were many of them on hand

No one can argue that for front line fighters and bombers the jet was overtaking the recip, it just didn't happen over night, and as pointed out the USAF didn't become an all-jet bomber force until 1960. Even during Vietnam, with all the F-100s, F-105s, and F-4s buzzin all over the place the USAF had to make use out of Skyraiders and B-26s (Douglas) because they realized their dedicated jet ground attack aircraft could not loiter in a combat zone like an old recip. It wasn't until the A-10 came along when that deficiency was corrected.

It took a good 15 years before the USAF and USN started pushing the last of their recip combat aircraft out to pasture. The navy held on to theirs because of problems with early jet engines (something you pointed out AFTER your initial errored statement). Again Sys - you made a statement and now you're trying to backpedal.....

Oh by the way - we were only talking about the US - I didn't go into other countries who produced recip combat aircraft after WW2 like the Lavochkin La-11, the Hispano HA-1112, The Bristol Brigand, the DeHavilland Hornet, the Blanbun Firebrand and the Hawker Sea Fury, all went into service in 1946 or later AFAIK.
 
renrich said:
A recip is a reciprocating engine also known as a piston engine. Doesn't the S2F still serve in the USN? Is that AC also called Willie Fud?
Click to expand...
No.

The S-2 officially went out in the 1970s but I seen a squadron hack at Barbers Point during a RIMPAC exercise in 1998. I couldn't get up close to it so I don't know if it was airworthy.
 
we are talking the grummans here arent we. RAN had fourteen of them on strength until about 1985 or so. One of my favourite a/c 14 hour endurance. can track just bout any sub. I wonder how it compares to the S3A Viking that replaced it. I cant exactly recall, but i am pretty sure that we could track subs in our trackers that the US Vikings could not, and this was the direct result of the much higher speed of the Viking, brought on by its jet propulsion. this was one instance where jet engines were a hindrance. I just cant be sure on this point, so perhaps someone knows. Promise to get back on topic after this
 

All true - from what I understand the S-3A has some on station problems when tracking subs and that was mainly because of the speeds it had to fly - it was able to slow down but ran into fuel consumption problems. From what I understand this wasn't a major issue per se but was corrected with the S-3B.

And from what I understand, the same ASW package in the S-3 went into the Canadian CP-140 when the first 18 were built.
 
Makes a lot of sense to get avgas off ASAP. One of the surprising things I learned in Linnekin's book, "80 Knots to Mach 2" was that high test avgas(115/145) was used in jets as well as recips during the Korean War on the carriers. They had to reset the fuel controls when they went from the beach to sea. He said that everything aft of the burner cans got coated with lead residue." About one hour of JP operation would clean the blades off good as new."
 
renrich said:
Flyboy, I was thinking the S2F had been modified and was still in use as an AWACS AC and was still in service.
Click to expand...

Renrich

Flyboy is probably correct in his answer, to the extent that there were no s2 AWACs in US service in the 90s. however, I am not sure if either of you know, but there was an s2 AWACs developed. It was the WF-2 and was nicknamed "stoof with a roof", because the s2f was nicknamed "stoof".
 
Found it! The E-1 under the old Navy system was called the WF and acquired the nickname "Willy Fudd." What happens when you get old is the stuff which goes back further seems to be fresher than the new stuff. I still call the Skyraider the AD.
 
geez louise

it might be, on current trends, that the top three will all be yank planes.

I notice not a single CW plane on the list. Obviously no-one thinks much of the Mossies Spits or Beaus in the PTO
 
parsifal said:
geez louise

it might be, on current trends, that the top three will all be yank planes.

I notice not a single CW plane on the list. Obviously no-one thinks much of the Mossies Spits or Beaus in the PTO
Click to expand...
The Spit's performance in the Pacific wasn't that stellar, The Beau served well but again in air-to-air, not even close. The Mossie - I'd guess they would of dry rotted!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

Second best fighter of World War II
Replies
15
Views
4K
SaparotRob
A
Best British single engined radial aircraft in WW2?
2
Replies
27
Views
7K
Shortround6
S
  • Poll
Best Biplane fighter ww2
Replies
1
Views
6K
wlewisiii
  • Poll
German multiengine jet bomber best immune to Allied interception
Replies
0
Views
1K
Vahe Demirjian
  • Poll
Best US escort fighter in ETO during 1943?
3 4 5
Replies
90
Views
17K
DarrenW
Menu
Log in
Register