Best Single Engine Fighter-Bomber (WW2)

[MIflyer]

The P-38 used a single engine - the V-3420 - which was separated into its two major components.

Why not ask "What was the best WWII twin engined fighter bomber?" I guess it is a short list. Whirlwind, BF-110, Me-410, Ki-45, P-38, P-61, and maybe the Mosquito Mk VI? The P-38 clearly ranks well above all those. Although I recently read of Mossies being used for RAF bomber escort, one Mossie versus one FW-190 in daylight was not much of a contest for the German.

So what difference does it make if it has two engines? If you specify two engines then it's either the P-38 or the Mossie, depending on the mission, although there may be cases where the P-61 looks better.

 

[tomo pauk]

The P-47 also required a bomber sized airfield. The following link illustrates the problems they had on Ie Shima taking off from a runway that wasn't 5000 feet long.
~318thFighterGroup.IeShima.html
The temporary fighter airfields in Normandy had to be 5000 feet to accommodate the P47s. Only an air force with the logistical backing of the US could afford such an extravagance. Imagine trying to build these large airfields on the Eastern front. Range is not a primary requirement for a fighter bomber. By the time you've flown 600 miles the battle is often over. Airfields should be as close as possible for fast response time. The USAF keeps trying to kill off the A10 so that they can play knights of the sky with "proper" fighters, but one of the keys to the A10s longevity is the fact that it can get to the trouble quickly due it's forward basing capability.
In general the P-47 was a logistical drain with it's airfield requirements, large appetite for fuel and complex turbocharger system to maintain. It is ironic that the USAAC's infatuation with the turbocharger resulted in ground attack aircraft that lugged around a lot of unnecessary weight while the high level role they were designed for ended up primarily in the hands of a simple supercharged engine.
The P-47 wasn't a very good fighter at the altitudes the fighter bombers operated at. It may have done 465 mph at 30,000 feet, but it was slower than a P51D at low level.

There was just a few 1-engined A/C that could've been flown 500 miles away, while carrying bombs, rockets and ammo for it's guns, attack ground targets, fight enemy air opposition with confidence, and then come home. One of them was P-47N.
That was not of greater appetite for fuel than the F4U, F6U, Bf 110 or P-38, cost less than two later types and being barely more expensive than the 1st mentioned, while of better or much better combat capabilities of either of them. Let's not forget the Tempest and Typhoon, neither being cheap nor frugal with fuel, neither having the range of P-47, neither being deployed at a different continent.
Shortround6 coevered the supposed 'simple supercharged engine' of P-51.

 

[KiwiBiggles]

The P-38 used a single engine - the V-3420 - which was separated into its two major components.

Why not ask "What was the best WWII twin engined fighter bomber?" I guess it is a short list. Whirlwind, BF-110, Me-410, Ki-45, P-38, P-61, and maybe the Mosquito Mk VI? The P-38 clearly ranks well above all those. Although I recently read of Mossies being used for RAF bomber escort, one Mossie versus one FW-190 in daylight was not much of a contest for the German.

So what difference does it make if it has two engines? If you specify two engines then it's either the P-38 or the Mossie, depending on the mission, although there may be cases where the P-61 looks better.

And all of the engines on a Lancaster were the same, so it too had a single engine.

The title of the thread is "Best Single Engine Fighter-Bomber", so any multi is out of contention. And you left the Beaufighter off your list.

 

[Elvis]

What I'd like to know is, how does a single engine operate, if its rotating in two different directions at the same time...….

 

[Reluctant Poster]

There was just a few 1-engined A/C that could've been flown 500 miles away, while carrying bombs, rockets and ammo for it's guns, attack ground targets, fight enemy air opposition with confidence, and then come home. One of them was P-47N.
That was not of greater appetite for fuel than the F4U, F6U, Bf 110 or P-38, cost less than two later types and being barely more expensive than the 1st mentioned, while of better or much better combat capabilities of either of them. Let's not forget the Tempest and Typhoon, neither being cheap nor frugal with fuel, neither having the range of P-47, neither being deployed at a different continent.
Shortround6 coevered the supposed 'simple supercharged engine' of P-51.

As I said before the ability to fly a 500 mile round trip mission is of limited utility in a fighter bomber. The circumstances in Iwo Jima were unique.The primary role of the fighter bomber is close air support. In that role long range is not a critical factor, the ability to operate from easily constructed airfields close to the ground action is far more important. The attached paper describes the difficulties in attempting long range CAS during the invasion of Sicily. I think the fact that a fully loaded F4U took off in 1/3 the distance of a P47D is a big advantage for the F4U. I also wouldn't state the the P47N had greater combat capabilities than the F4U, particularly at the levels fighter bombers flew at.
While the discussion seems to have developed into "Which US aircraft was the best single engine fighter-bomber (WWII)", I think the FW190 deserves serious consideration. I wonder how the US planes would have fared in the less ideal conditions the Germans faced on the eastern front.

 

[Reluctant Poster]

Most anything was slower than a P-51D at low level. Hawker Tempest might be the common exception.

The thing with the P-47 was that you couldn't take the turbo back out. The supercharger on the engine was only good for about 52.5in at 3000ft In a B-26 and pressure dropped quickly, 48in at 5000ft and down to about 43in at 8,000ft.

That "simple" supercharger in the Mustang wasn't so simple either. Two stages with a liquid intercooler(aftercooler). It weighed about 200lbs more than the supercharger in the Merlin powere P-40 and that doesn't count the weight of the intercooler radiator or the coolant. SO a Mustang being used as a fighter bomber was hauling around 250-300lbs of needless weight.

The USAAC's infatuation with turbo chargers was due to both the US superchargers before the war and for the first year or two not being very good superchargers and the fact that the turbo/intercooler works better with the existing fuels than a single stage supercharger would.

As I have noted in a previous thread the empty weight of a Spifire IX is about 600 lb more than a Spitfire V including 85 Lb of ballast. This includes a second radiator, an intercooler, an extra blade on the prop, more glycol for the inter cooler and more piping so it is likely that the P-51 is hauling around at least an extra 500 lb of needless weight. I am certainly not claiming the P-51 was a better fighter bomber, I am merely pointing out that the speed of a P47 at 30000 feet is irrelevant to the fighter bomber role. I think any fighter bomber should only have a single stage supercharger, anything more is simply detracts from payload and adds unnecessary complications. It is interesting to note that the USN acquired a single stage version of the F4U specifically for the fighter bomber role, however it did not see service in WWII.
Also the two stage Merlin was a simpler installation than any turbocharged engine and was simpler to operate.

 

[Shortround6]

there were also some long distance fighter bomber missions flown in the CBI theater (although not P-47Ns) , perhaps more due to a general shortage of aircraft?

The Problem with the FW 190 is the limited fuel capacity of the internal tanks and perhaps the limited weapons load. Yes certain versions could carry some amazing loads but then getting a 190 out of a short/rough front line strip with those big bombs (which were very seldom used) is going to be a lot harder than getting the 190 out of the same strip with a 550lb bomb. Same goes for allied planes, they weren't magic and the runway needs could vary considerably depending on load.

A P-40E needed 1150 of soft runway to take off at 7500lbs (less than full fuel and ammo) and 1750 ft of runway at 8700lb (fuel internal fuel and 500lb bomb)
The P-40N (at least later ones) was listed as having a total possible bomb load of 2500lbs in the manual (two 1000lb bombs and one 500lb under the fuselage) but I have not seen any take off chart that comes near that weight. I would also note that the take off charts are fo 0 degrees C or 32 degrees F and take-offs in Mediterranean weather could take many hundreds of feet more.
I would imagine the Fw 190 was subject to somewhat the same limitations.

For the US perhaps a dedicated ground attack version might make sense. But then production allocations were made months ahead of time (if not a full year) and if the war doesn't go the way you thought then you have hundreds of planes that aren't going to do you much good. The US also needed (duing WW II) to ship fighters/fighter bombers halfway around the world and even an already built plane sitting on the docks could take weeks to go into action in whatever theater it was shipped to. The US had less luxury in tailoring specific airframes for specific duties than countries that were fighting only hundreds of miles from the factories.

The Ground attack Corsair was built after the Navy Had switched to jets for air to air combat. They weren't built until 1952 at which point it didn't matter what kind of supercharger you put on a piston plane. It wasn't going to be used as an interceptor.

 

[tomo pauk]

As I said before the ability to fly a 500 mile round trip mission is of limited utility in a fighter bomber. The circumstances in Iwo Jima were unique.The primary role of the fighter bomber is close air support. In that role long range is not a critical factor, the ability to operate from easily constructed airfields close to the ground action is far more important. The attached paper describes the difficulties in attempting long range CAS during the invasion of Sicily.

Typhoons were fighter-bombers, actively used against German targets (and fighters when opportunity presented itself), but before June 1944 they were not doing any close air support.
FBs that can do CAS at long range can also do CAS at short range by default, unlike vice versa. We can try to do CAS with P-40s and Spitfires during OPs Husky and Avalanche, just to loose them in the sea.

I think the fact that a fully loaded F4U took off in 1/3 the distance of a P47D is a big advantage for the F4U. I also wouldn't state the the P47N had greater combat capabilities than the F4U, particularly at the levels fighter bombers flew at.
While the discussion seems to have developed into "Which US aircraft was the best single engine fighter-bomber (WWII)", I think the FW190 deserves serious consideration. I wonder how the US planes would have fared in the less ideal conditions the Germans faced on the eastern front.

The P-47D, that indeed needed, such a long runaway, will also carry 25-50% more of internal and protected fuel, and 1/3rd more gun firepower than F4U-1.

I also think that Fw 190 was an excellent fighter-bomber, whether we talk about short-range attacker 190F, or LR fighter-bomber 190G, or re-purposed 190As. It's oil system was well armored, unlike what we can find in Allied prop jobs (including the definitively non-fighter-bomber Il-2), and it was miuch smaller, meaning that AA gunners will have harder time to spot it and hit it with their fire. Let's recall that Americans were trying to armor and/or 'hide' the oil coolers either behind the engine and/or in protected duct(s) on FM-2, AU-1, F7F and F8F.

 

[Clayton Magnet]

Could the F and G model 190's run with the outboard cannons? or were they exclusively equip with the synchronized wing root guns?

 

[Elvis]

Another vote for the P-47.

...was thinking about this last night and remembered that the F4U was a pretty effective fighter-bomber, too.
Went to Wiki, did some basic comparisons.

P-47D-30
Speed: 433 mph, RoC: 3180 fpm, Combat Range: 800 mi., bomb load: 2500 lbs.

F4U-4
Speed: 446 mph, RoC: 4360 fpm, Combat Range: 328 mi., bomb load: 4000 lbs.

Other than the range, it seems both planes are pretty closely matched here, with a slight edge going to the F4U.
So I took a look at service life. F4U 1940-1953 (1957 if you include the redesignated AU-1), P-47 1941-1949.
Still pretty close, but always the edge to the F4U. Granted, this is info from Wiki and only some very basic stats, but always the edge to the F4U.
Based on that, I'm changing my vote....best fighter-bomber? F4U....feel free to chew me a new one (I know you want to )


Elvis

 

[ssnider]

Could the F and G model 190's run with the outboard cannons? or were they exclusively equip with the synchronized wing root guns?

Yes, only the guns and ammo were not fitted and could be added (although it was very rare to do so. They could also use the other R packages like 2 20;s or a 30 mm canon on each side; The 30's were considered ineffective and rarely used,

 

[Clayton Magnet]

P-47D-30
Speed: 433 mph, RoC: 3180 fpm, Combat Range: 800 mi., bomb load: 2500 lbs.

F4U-4
Speed: 446 mph, RoC: 4360 fpm, Combat Range: 328 mi., bomb load: 4000 lbs.

Not at that 2000ft. The P-47 was a high altitude fighter, and an exceptional one at that, but its turbo system was more of a liability at low altitude. It was fairly ponderous down low, only its load carrying capability kept it in the front line as a ground attacker

 

[Shortround6]

I guess it depends on how much you value the extra range of the P-47 and I would note that the wiki figures on range leave a lot to be desired.
Neither plane is going to carry their max bomb load anywhere near that distance. I doubt very seriously if the P-47D could operate over a 200 miles radius in hostile airspace with a 2500lb bomb load. I also doubt that a F4U-4 would operated at that radius (even with a pair of 1000lb bombs) except under extraordinary circumstances. Navy had some rather stringent rules for figuring combat radius. Nobody wanted a repeat of the Marianas battle with scores of aircraft lost due to fuel exhaustion.
Data sheet from here
http://www.alternatewars.com/SAC/F4U-4_Corsair_ACP_-_1_March_1946.pdf

shows a max range of 840 statute miles at 187mph while carrying a pair of 1000lb bombs. Radius is 45 nautical miles. the radius is figured with a 20 minute warm up and a 1 minute take-off followed by a 20 minute rendezvous at sea level at 60% power auto lean. then comes the climb to 15,000ft at 60% power rich and cruise to the target and cruise speed for maximum range. In the combat zone the bombs are dropped and allowance is made for 10 minutes at combat power and 10 minutes at military power, then cruise home at 1500ft at max range cruise (somewhere around 220-230mph) with a 60 minute reserve.

Obviously there is a lot of room in there to stretch the radius by cutting allowances, especially from land bases with more than one runway. But stretching it to 200 miles seems a bit too far.

 

[R Leonard]

...was thinking about this last night and remembered that the F4U was a pretty effective fighter-bomber, too.
Based on that, I'm changing my vote....best fighter-bomber? F4U....feel free to chew me a new one (I know you want to )
Elvis

Okay, but only because you gave leave . . .
No, the F4U was no better than the F6F and, perhaps, when looking at all factors, not as good.

 

[tomo pauk]

...was thinking about this last night and remembered that the F4U was a pretty effective fighter-bomber, too.
Went to Wiki, did some basic comparisons.

P-47D-30
Speed: 433 mph, RoC: 3180 fpm, Combat Range: 800 mi., bomb load: 2500 lbs.

F4U-4
Speed: 446 mph, RoC: 4360 fpm, Combat Range: 328 mi., bomb load: 4000 lbs.

Other than the range, it seems both planes are pretty closely matched here, with a slight edge going to the F4U.
So I took a look at service life. F4U 1940-1953 (1957 if you include the redesignated AU-1), P-47 1941-1949.
Still pretty close, but always the edge to the F4U. Granted, this is info from Wiki and only some very basic stats, but always the edge to the F4U.
Based on that, I'm changing my vote....best fighter-bomber? F4U....feel free to chew me a new one (I know you want to )


Elvis

Comparing the P-47D with F4U-4 is comparing 1944 with 1945, by what time the USAF used P-47M and N, both with much better payload/range capabilities than F4U-4, and with better performance when carrying same or greater amount of fuel.
The P-47 was very much used in 1950s.

 

[Reluctant Poster]

Typhoons were fighter-bombers, actively used against German targets (and fighters when opportunity presented itself), but before June 1944 they were not doing any close air support.
FBs that can do CAS at long range can also do CAS at short range by default, unlike vice versa. We can try to do CAS with P-40s and Spitfires during OPs Husky and Avalanche, just to loose them in the sea.



The P-47D, that indeed needed, such a long runaway, will also carry 25-50% more of internal and protected fuel, and 1/3rd more gun firepower than F4U-1.

I also think that Fw 190 was an excellent fighter-bomber, whether we talk about short-range attacker 190F, or LR fighter-bomber 190G, or re-purposed 190As. It's oil system was well armored, unlike what we can find in Allied prop jobs (including the definitively non-fighter-bomber Il-2), and it was miuch smaller, meaning that AA gunners will have harder time to spot it and hit it with their fire. Let's recall that Americans were trying to armor and/or 'hide' the oil coolers either behind the engine and/or in protected duct(s) on FM-2, AU-1, F7F and F8F.

FBs that can do CAS at long range can also do CAS at short range by default, unlike vice versa. We can try to do CAS with P-40s and Spitfires during OPs Husky and Avalanche, just to loose them in the sea.

And conversely an FB that requires an airfield 2000 ft long can take off from a 5000 foot airfield by default, but not vice versa.

 

[tomo pauk]

And conversely an FB that requires an airfield 2000 ft long can take off from a 5000 foot airfield by default, but not vice versa.

Making 5000 ft long strips was a far easier task than drawing Sicily, Italy, Okinawa or New Guinea close to frinedly air bases. Even today.

 

[Shortround6]

runway requirements depend a lot on the weight of an aircraft.

The Manual for the F4U-1 says the plane at 11,700lbs needs 790ft from a soft runway and 1460ft to clear the 50 trees. Of course at this weight the F4U-1 is not even carrying fuel internal fuel or full ammo for the guns.
The Manual says at 13,100lbs it needs 1090ft from a soft runway and 2050ft to clear the 50 trees. This weight is a lot more reasonable for a fighter. (full ammo and a drop tank).
The Manual says at 14,200lbs it needs 1370ft from a soft runway and 2650ft to clear the 50 trees.This weight would include full ammo, a full fuselage tank (234 gallons) and a pair of 1000lb bombs.

HOWEVER these distances are for taking off at 0 degrees C or 32 degrees F. for every 20 degrees F above freezing add 10% to the distances. SO at 92 degrees F the take off distance becomes (for the fighter bomber) 1781 ft to wheels up and 3445ft to clear the trees or a bit more, Harder surfaces will cut down the take-off roll but the distance from lift-off (wheels off the ground) to the trees doesn't change.

I will freely admit that the the P-47 will come nowhere near these distances and I have no Idea how well the Fw 190 does but they are governed by the same principles. Hot climates need longer runways, heavy loads need longer runways.
A short range fighter bomber may be able to operate from a short/crappy airstrip close to the front line and make several flights per day. A longer ranged fighter bomber may be able to one flight per day from an airstrip with a better surface further away while carrying a heavier load.
Which is better depends an awful lot on the tactical situation and the targets. The long range fighter bomber may be able to attack the shorter range enemy fighter bombers bases easier and negate/blunt the ability of the short range fighter bomber to do much of anything.

 

[tomo pauk]

...
I will freely admit that the the P-47 will come nowhere near these distances and I have no Idea how well the Fw 190 does but they are governed by the same principles. Hot climates need longer runways, heavy loads need longer runways.

This was the fastest I was capable for (from a 66 pg performance sheet on the 190 series, from internet):

A short range fighter bomber may be able to operate from a short/crappy airstrip close to the front line and make several flights per day. A longer ranged fighter bomber may be able to one flight per day from an airstrip with a better surface further away while carrying a heavier load.
Which is better depends an awful lot on the tactical situation and the targets. The long range fighter bomber may be able to attack the shorter range enemy fighter bombers bases easier and negate/blunt the ability of the short range fighter bomber to do much of anything.

Long range FB also has option for not filling the internal tanks fully, trading weight of fuel for weight of bombs/rockets. Or, with full fuel, to loiter in the vicinity of ground combat and act on call ('cab rank'), for a much longer time than it is possible with short range FB.

 

[Shortround6]

Thank you, I did find a short section on the FW 190 in a book by William Green so corrections are certainly welcome.

The 3,958lb SC 1800 bomb was used in Feb/March of 1945 by FW 190G-1s of NSG 20 against bridge targets. Fitted with special tires and with much standard equipment removed they demanded a a take-off run of at least 1300yds (1188 meters). Granted this bomb was at least 800kg heavier than the max "normal" bomb load.