Best Piston Engined Fighter Ever

[dreadnought]

Quite right!
What I especially like about them [the spitfire and bf 109], is that they were easy-to-build fighters that stayed up-to-date till the very end. That only shows the brilliance of their design. Try doing that with a P-40.

I recall someone's signature... P-40, P-51 and Spit were the best three fighters of WW2. I can't recall who that was but I would love to hear his reasoning behind chosing the P-40. A good aircraft but ... the best??

Kris

There were doubts about the ability to mass produce the spitfire in the beggining due to the very unconventional wing shape.

 

[Gnomey]

"Reaching Newchurch airfield at 480 mph I held "RB" down to 20 ft from the runway and then pulled her up to a 60 ° climb holding it as the speed dropped slowly off and the altimeter needle spun round the dial as if it were mad. At 7000 ft the speed was dropping below 180 mph and I rolled the Tempest lazily inverted, then allowed the nose to drop until the horizon, at first above my head, disappeared below (or rather above) the now inverted nose, the fields and woods steadied into the centre of the windscreen and then whirled around as I put the stick hard over and rolled around the vertical dive. Steadying again I pulled out over the tree tops at 500 mph, throttled back and pulled hard over towards the airfield in an over-the-vertical climbing turn, lowering the wheels and flaps in a roll as the speed dropped. What a magnificent aeroplane! They could have all their Spitfires and Mustangs!"
("My part of the sky", Roland Beamont)

"The Messerschmitt Me 262's most dangerous opponent was the British Hawker Tempest - extremely fast at low altitudes, highly-manoeuvrable and heavily-armed."
(Hubert Lange, Me262 pilot)


These quotes are from The Hawker Tempest Page

The point being...

Everyone knows the Tempest was fast, I suspect the one that was shot down a low altitude was an less experienced pilot who got into a fight that suited is opponent and as a result was shot down. This was repeated countless times throughout the war. Still for me the best is the Ta-152H, if it had been around in Korea I'm sure it too would of been able to shoot down some Migs like the Corsair and the Seafury did.

There were doubts about the ability to mass produce the spitfire in the beggining due to the very unconventional wing shape.

And these were unfounded once a method of production was achieved that enabled mass production of the Spitfire throughout the war and beyond.

 

[dreadnought]

'On 23 June, 1942, Luftwaffe Pilot Oberleutnant Arnim Faber erroneously landed his Focke-Wulf Fw 190A-3 fighter at RAF Pembrey, apparently having mistaken this airfield for a Luftwaffe channel coast airfield. The British were thereby presented with a working example of the Fw 190 fighter, which had been giving the RAF an extremely difficult time. The Hawker Fury design was a direct result of the examination of Faber's Fw 190A-3. Examination of Faber's aircraft was largely responsible for the preparation of Specification F.6/42, which called for a new, high-performance fighter.'

from Sea Fury History

Presumably this also meant it was designed to be highly manouverable to tackle the Fw 190, one of the most manuverable aircraft of the war.

 

[dreadnought]

The point being...

Everyone knows the Tempest was fast, I suspect the one that was shot down a low altitude was an less experienced pilot who got into a fight that suited is opponent and as a result was shot down. This was repeated countless times throughout the war. Still for me the best is the Ta-152H, if it had been around in Korea I'm sure it too would of been able to shoot down some Migs like the Corsair and the Seafury did.



And these were unfounded once a method of production was achieved that enabled mass production of the Spitfire throughout the war and beyond.

I agree with both these points but about the spitfire production, i did mean before that method of construction was achieved. sorry about the confusion

 

[jpatrick62]

The Ta-152H-1 will make mince meat out of each of the above if a turn-fight is ensued

Than the Mk 21 Spit, the KI-84, or the F4U-4? While it may be true it could out-turn the P51D/P47 variants, I'm very skeptical it could do so to those aircraft.

If you look at wing loading, the Ta-152 (41.4lb/sq foot) had a higher loading than did the F4U-4/Spit 21 or the KI-84.

 

[GregP]

I think there were some miscoceptions about the Bearcat satted earlier.

The reson it was not picked for Korea was simple ... they didn't make very many of them, so there were not enough to deploy as an effective force.

Weak brakes? We operate one at the Planes of Fame Museum at Chino, California, U.S.A. and it doesn't have any trouble with the brakes.

You think 8 g's was not enough? Most WWII fighters were 3 - 4 g airplanes in a real fight. They didn;t have the power to sustain higher g-loading for more than a short time.

I stick with my list as posted earlier.

Oh yeah, at the Museum, we operate two Spits (a Mk IX and a Mk XIV), two to three P-51s (one is private), a Zero, a P-47G, a P-38, a Hellcat, a Hurricane, an F4U-1 Corsair, a Douglas Dauntless, a P-40, and several other flyable WWII-era planes.

Unfortunately, no one operates a Focke-Wulf Fw 190D or a Ta 152, so the comparison is all on paper there.

I'll stick with the Bearcat!

 

[dreadnought]

I think there were some miscoceptions about the Bearcat satted earlier.

The reson it was not picked for Korea was simple ... they didn't make very many of them, so there were not enough to deploy as an effective force.

Weak brakes? We operate one at the Planes of Fame Museum at Chino, California, U.S.A. and it doesn't have any trouble with the brakes.

You think 8 g's was not enough? Most WWII fighters were 3 - 4 g airplanes in a real fight. They didn;t have the power to sustain higher g-loading for more than a short time.

I stick with my list as posted earlier.

Oh yeah, at the Museum, we operate two Spits (a Mk IX and a Mk XIV), two to three P-51s (one is private), a Zero, a P-47G, a P-38, a Hellcat, a Hurricane, an F4U-1 Corsair, a Douglas Dauntless, a P-40, and several other flyable WWII-era planes.

Unfortunately, no one operates a Focke-Wulf Fw 190D or a Ta 152, so the comparison is all on paper there.

I'll stick with the Bearcat!

thats a pretty nice collection...

 

[davparlr]

I'll stick with the Bearcat!

Doesn't hold up on data comparison (using the F8F-2).

The F4U-4 was about equivalent in airspeed, had better wing loading (2 lbs/sq.ft., empty), better ceiling (41.6k to 40.7), much better SL climb (4800 ft/min to 4420), and much better combat record (even though the F8F never really had a chance to play).

The P-51H, very much a contemporary to the F8F, was faster over the entire envelope(410 mph at SL to 387, top speed of 470+mph to 447), had much better wing loading (almost 3 lbs/sq ft, empty), better ceiling (41.6), and better SL climb (4680 ft/min). And, of course, no combat experience so I didn't put this into contention.

 

[jpatrick62]

Having never flown an F8F fighter, I can only go by pilots who did. Almost to a man, they loved the plane, it could manuver at low speed better than any of it's contemporaries, it had a small profile, and it's climb was exceptional due to a great power/weight ratio. Corky Meirs, the great Grumman test pilot essentailly stated that the F8F was a Hellcat with lessons learned in combat applied. Unfortunatley, by lightening the F6F airframe, Grumman unknowingly removed the one role that prop planes could fulfill...

The reason it was not used in Korea was simple: the age of prop fighters was essentially over by the time the Bearcat started seeing combat. The Bearcat was not a great combat support plane, and the F4U-4/5 variants could fulfill this role much better because they could carry more ordinance. Additionally, the F4U-4/5 variants had a higher top speed and could take more punishment.

While it's true the Navy hadn't overcome the problem of landing jets on a carrier by the start of the war, it was also true that neither the F8F nor the F4U-4/5 variants could stand up to the MIGs in combat on a regular basis. The Bearcat was on paper a great plane, but by Korea it was essentailly obsolete. Interestingly, the Vought aircraft morphed into the ground support role rather well, one of the few times federal dollars were well spent!

I'm not sure the F4U-4/5 variants were the best piston engined fighter planes, but for their time there was nothing that could outclass them. I am certain that the original Vought design was, in hindsight, a tremendous bargain for the taxpayer and a classic example of sound engineering principles. They could take on any comers, deliver high amounts of munitions in the ground support role, absorb terrific damage, and then land back on an aircraft carrier - and they did this through 2 wars with success.

 

[Soren]

Don't hold me up on this but I think I remember the Bearcat having a soaring climb rate of some 6,000 ft/min, and its dogfighting ability was pretty darn decent as-well.

 

[jpatrick62]

Don't hold me up on this but I think I remember the Bearcat having a soaring climb rate of some 6,000 ft/min, and its dogfighting ability was pretty darn decent as-well.

That's correct - for the later F8F-2 models. The 1945 models, the F8F-1 - which could have seen combat if the war had gone on for several more months - was also a great performer. Compare the stats of the F8F-1 with those of the F4U-4:

F8F-1
Top speed: 421 MPH
Init climb rate: 4570 ft/min
Armament: Initially 4-50's, later 4-20mm cannons
Ceiling:38,700

F4U-4
Top Speed: 448 MPH
Init Climb 4000 ft/min
Armament 6-50's or 4 20mm cannons
Ceiling: 38,400

As you can see, the Japanese would have had a most unpleasant suprise indeed!

 

[davparlr]

Compare the stats of the F8F-1 with those of the F4U-4:

F8F-1
Top speed: 421 MPH
Init climb rate: 4570 ft/min
Armament: Initially 4-50's, later 4-20mm cannons
Ceiling:38,700

F4U-4
Top Speed: 448 MPH
Init Climb 4000 ft/min
Armament 6-50's or 4 20mm cannons
Ceiling: 38,400

As you can see, the Japanese would have had a most unpleasant suprise indeed!

Flight test have indicated that the F4U-4 has an SL climb rate of 4800 ft/min and a top speed of 451 mph and a ceiling of 41,600 ft.

 

[renrich]

The F8F was essentially a flying hot-rod. It was designed to operate off of CVEs(small flight deck). It had a lot of weight saving design features, only weighed around 9000 lbs, only carried 179 gallons of fuel internally(the Corsair carried over 230 gallons) so almost always carried an external tank(which cut down on the weapons load it could carry.) About 1200 were produced. It only had 5 external store stations with limited capacity. One fuel tank and that left only space for 4 rockets or bombs which was one reason for it's short service life. The F8F-1 which had the best low altitude performance was an honest 440-450 mph aircraft at low levels. The F8F-2 had better high altitude performance but somewhat lower performance overall. The early Bearcats could go from a standing start on the runway to 10000 feet in approx. 90 seconds. That was done not later than 1948. It was quite a while before a jet could surpass that. The Bearcat was used by the French as a fighter bomber in Indo-China. Of course the F4U-7 was the last piston engined fighter the French used. If one wants to read more about the Bearcat and it's weak brakes, Richard Linnekin in 80 KNOTS TO MACH 2 has a whole section on it. His career began with the Stearman and finished with the F4 Phantom and the F8F was one of his two all time favorites.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Weak brakes should not be an argument - on a carrier you have an arrest hook - on land if you do your landings right brake use should be minimum. Unless the plane is "creeping" during engine run prior to take off, this is a non issue - AND if you're landing with brakes, especially flying an aircraft like an F8F, there's something definitely wrong!!!!

 

[davparlr]

The F8F was essentially a flying hot-rod. It was designed to operate off of CVEs(small flight deck). It had a lot of weight saving design features, only weighed around 9000 lbs, only carried 179 gallons of fuel internally(the Corsair carried over 230 gallons) so almost always carried an external tank(which cut down on the weapons load it could carry.) About 1200 were produced. It only had 5 external store stations with limited capacity. One fuel tank and that left only space for 4 rockets or bombs which was one reason for it's short service life. The F8F-1 which had the best low altitude performance was an honest 440-450 mph aircraft at low levels. The F8F-2 had better high altitude performance but somewhat lower performance overall. The early Bearcats could go from a standing start on the runway to 10000 feet in approx. 90 seconds. That was done not later than 1948. It was quite a while before a jet could surpass that. The Bearcat was used by the French as a fighter bomber in Indo-China. Of course the F4U-7 was the last piston engined fighter the French used. If one wants to read more about the Bearcat and it's weak brakes, Richard Linnekin in 80 KNOTS TO MACH 2 has a whole section on it. His career began with the Stearman and finished with the F4 Phantom and the F8F was one of his two all time favorites.

My data source states that the max speed for the F8F-1 was 421 mph at 19,700 ft.

 

[mkloby]

F8F's had reversing as well, if I recall correctly. As Joe said - you barely touch the brakes. On a normal rollout, only time I touch my brakes is to aid in turning when I'm using prop reversing, and that's just to turn off the active after I'm at a decent taxi speed.

 

[CDRyan]

Well.. that's a tough one...

I think I would have to say the Supermarine Spitfire. It is, after all, the only allied fighter to be in continuous production throughout the war and the only one that was competitive throughout as well.

The Spitfire also had the highest critical mach number of any world war II aircraft... routinely cleared to .92. Post war, a PR19, PS852, set both altitude and speed records for the breed.... 51,500 ft and 690mph (straight down at Mach .96). The latter because F/Lt. Powells' cabin pressure light came on!

Both he and the plane survived. It continued in service for 2 more years.

While the early marks were very limited in range, late models like the Seafire 47 had an unrefueled range on internal tankage of 1,500 miles or more.

Points for consideration, I think.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Depends on what country you are talking about. The US did not enter the war until 1941 and the P-51 first flew in 1940 therefore the P-51 was in production for the whole war that the US was involved in. Same with the P-47.

As for the arguement that the Spitfire was the only allied aircraft that was competative throughout the whole war that is completely wrong.

Both the P-47 and the P-51 were competative throughout the whole war and the P-51 and P-47 could do something that the Spitfire could not. Do you know what that was?

They could take the fight to the Germans because of there long range.

Now having said that I think the Spitfire was an overall better fighter than the P-51 but the Spitfire was not the only allied fighter to remain competative throughout the whole war.

 

[davparlr]

Depends on what country you are talking about. The US did not enter the war until 1941 and the P-51 first flew in 1940 therefore the P-51 was in production for the whole war that the US was involved in. Same with the P-47.

As for the arguement that the Spitfire was the only allied aircraft that was competative throughout the whole war that is completely wrong.

Both the P-47 and the P-51 were competative throughout the whole war and the P-51 and P-47 could do something that the Spitfire could not. Do you know what that was?

They could take the fight to the Germans because of there long range.

Now having said that I think the Spitfire was an overall better fighter than the P-51 but the Spitfire was not the only allied fighter to remain competative throughout the whole war.

Also, the XP-38 first flew in Jan. 1939.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Yeap forgot about the P-39. So if you wish to go that far the P-39 flew before anyone was in actual war with one another.

I would go as far as to say the P-38 was a better aircraft anyhow than the Spitfire.

Also forgot about the P-39 and P-40. It first flew before the war started as well, even though I would not classify them in the Spitfire, P-47, P-38 and P-51D class.