best piston CAS: P-47, IL-2 or A-1 skyraider

[Milosh]

The IL-2 was being replaced by the IL-10. 99 had flown by the end of 1944.

 

[Peter Gunn]

Time out for you!!

I go penalty box... two minutes... feel shame.

 

[drgondog]

Do you think the P-47's low altitude air-to-air performance was superior to the A-1? I am curious why you think the P-47 would be better in contested airspace.
That is an interesting question, I wonder if an unladen A-1 wouldn't be a better air-to-air fighter at low altitude

Fair question. Take P-47D-16 and newer (1944 vintage which supplied 9th and 12th AF and Allied/Commonwealth CAS). R-2800-63 2800+HP 70" WEP, Full internal combat GW = 13200 lb, 2 wing racks. W/L=44, Hp/wt = 0.22, Max V@SL= 331mph, Max V@18K=420mph

Apologies for Wiki but couldn't find spitfireperformance quality data. AD-6/A-1H 2700Hp at WEP for 3360-26WA.Full internal combat weight =18,106lb, 15 racks. W/L = 46, Hp/wt = 0.198. Max V @SL= unk but probably under 300mph, Max V = 322 @18K, Cruise = 198mph (alt unk - probably 10K)

Key indicators: The P-47D was a lot faster at all altitudes and accelerated faster. The ROC was higher at all altitudes but the AD was close at SL. Despite the greater wing area for the AD, the W/L was 5% higher at full internal combat weight. A subtle difference in wing design is that the P-47 Induced drag was very low pointing to semi elliptical planform versus trapezoid for AD but the low cruise speed for AD also confirms a lower L/D.

So, next the wing racks - very high drag items and the AD carried 15 non eject able wing racks to 3 for P-47.

Net, the P-47 was more maneuverable and faster at all altitudes. Armament and survivability goes to the AD but it should very much need that as it should be in front of the P-47 in a very short time in either horizontal or vertical plane.

The P-47D-16+ and Fw 190A-7 were roughly equal at low altitude with advantage going to Fw 190, but the 190 kept losing maneuvering and low altitude WEP advantage as altitude increased. Ditto for 109G

 

[Admiral Beez]

The Skyraider WAS a WWII airplane. First flight was 18 Mar 1945. It was designed and built at the end of the war, and the technology was firmly WWII. The only thing later that wasn't was avionics.

It is funny how so many split these hairs on the Skyraider, claiming it was postwar. Meanwhile no one would say the Mitsubishi A7M wasn't a WW2-era aircraft.

 

[GrauGeist]

There were quite a few types that were developed and flown during WWII, but either didn't make it to any sizeable production or into combat (or both).
In the case of the A7M, it was literally entering production in the final days of the war and if memory serves right, only one serial production A7M was finished before hostilities ceased.
Had the war drug on into 1946, it would have seen action in defense of the homeland during the invasions.

 

[A.G. Williams]

If you are talking purely CAS (aircraft vs ground targets, in the absence of enemy fighters) then the Hs 129 is worth a mention. Very compact for a twin, and very well armoured. The twin layout meant that it could carry massive ordnance on the centreline for the anti-tank role - up to a 75mm anti-tank gun - which no single-engined plane could manage. The downsides were a lack of performance in dealing with enemy fighters, and questionable engine reliability.

 

[space dodo]

sorry,I didnt mention in the thread title that i was focusing on single engine planes

If you are talking purely CAS (aircraft vs ground targets, in the absence of enemy fighters) then the Hs 129 is worth a mention. Very compact for a twin, and very well armoured. The twin layout meant that it could carry massive ordnance on the centreline for the anti-tank role - up to a 75mm anti-tank gun - which no single-engined plane could manage. The downsides were a lack of performance in dealing with enemy fighters, and questionable engine reliability.

 

[Admiral Beez]

If you are talking purely CAS (aircraft vs ground targets, in the absence of enemy fighters) then the Hs 129 is worth a mention. Very compact for a twin, and very well armoured. The twin layout meant that it could carry massive ordnance on the centreline for the anti-tank role - up to a 75mm anti-tank gun - which no single-engined plane could manage. The downsides were a lack of performance in dealing with enemy fighters, and questionable engine reliability.

It's an odd thing for a German CAS aircraft to rely on a French engine.

Interestingly, the Henschel Hs 129 used the same basic Gnome-Rhône 14M engine as the French Bréguet 693, also in the same CAS role. With its 300 mph top speed, and forward firing 20mm cannon and two mgs plus 1,000 lb bomb load, the 693 had the makings of a varsity athlete. Shown here in German colours.

What do we think of the Italian CAS aircraft, the Breda Ba.65 and Breda Ba.88 Lince? Wikipedia isn't a fan of the latter, lol, "It represented, perhaps, the most remarkable failure of any operational aircraft to see service in World War II."

 

[Barrett]

Skyraider. I don't think it's even close. But it has the advantage of the improved technology available.

Soulezoo beat me to it. Also, the Skyraider had a much wider variety of ordnance options.