mkloby
Senior Master Sergeant
I'm wondering - is ww2aircraft.net advertising at labotomy shops???
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
recip aircraft shooting down jets don't mean a whole lot unless you were on the receiving end. P-51, Yak-9, Corsairs, B-29s and Skyraiders all shot down jet aircraft....Maybe wrong on this but wasn't the Sea Fury the only one to down a Mig?
Plus it was the only Anglo-German aircraft design collaboration of WW2
Yeah but in the Korean War? - ie a proper Mig, rather than ME262?
According to wiki the Sea Fury could take on the Mig 15 with some confidence - surely that's a measure of greatness?
I'm genuinely asking, not challenging what you say.
Well remember my first statement - A jet kill in a recip is only significant if you were on the giving end. It's a David vs. Goliath as far as technology and tactics are involved. I sure those jet pilots who were downed by a recip aren't talking about it much (if they survived). Those who were the victors made it well known. Putting this into perspective, those recips that downed jets shouldn't be measured on their greatness based on one or two missions where an aerial combat oddity occurred, but rather their whole operational history as well as performance. In Post WW2 we're looking at the Sea Fury, F-51, Yak-9, Corsair, Skyraider, and the B-29 as a few of those recips that took on jets and won...Fully appreciate that - that's why I cited it.
Also recognise this site is the home to many experts hence me asking rather than stating.
So is the Mig kill anything special or just one of many by a piston-engined aircraft?
Anyway the Fury - even the salty version - is still getting my vote
Anyway the Fury - even the salty version - is still getting my vote
A good aircraft but not even close to a Ta 152, P-51H or F4U-4...what? No Yak-3?
I read some more, and it seems the nose of the XP-47J, while successful (in function and adding 30 mph to the top speed and improving range due to lower drag along with a slight increase in climb for the same weight and engine) it was deemed to cost too much and add mechanical complexity (due to the cooling fan).
Why isn't the P-47M up there? Not a whole lot were made, and rnge wasn't great but it was still better than the Spitfire and Me 109K.
All the late model derivatives possessed advantages and disadvantiges in contrast with the late model adversaries - the same applies for the 109K against the Spit XIV or P-47M
The cowl-mounted MG 151/15's in the K-4 is an awsome dogfight and interceptor armament and the MK 108 adds to the interceptor strenghts, and with ~450 mph at ~20,000 ft as well I wouldn't want to see P-51D's trying to defend B-17's aganst them.
The P-51D's did quite well against them, and certainly were not 'afraid' of them - but the confidence levels of all the Allied pilots were understandably high when the 109K first appeared. If you go back to the October/November, December, 1944 battles very very few Mustangs of any kind were lost and a significant percentage of G-10's and K-4's were shot down. More a function of deteriorating pilot quality than 'inferiority' of fighter
The P-47N is the best escort fighter, wich other single-engined fighter could range over 2,300 miles and boast a top-speed of 460 mph.
Kitty, if it was such a clear choice as Best why did the 51H get picked as the survivor long term post war?
I've always wondered though, how much faster would the P-47M and N have been with a XP-47J type nose, possibly another 10-20 mph each and with an increase in range as well. Or just produce the P-47J, as it would have come much sooner than the P-72. Now that would have been a menace to German Jets, even if faught on the Me 262's terms. (and the P-47J shouldn't have been too hard to develop into an escort fighter, particularly with a 200 gal belly tank available... besides the paper one)