Best Single Engine fighter-Bomber(Prop Driven)

[GScholz]

You can hang the same guns, rockets and bombs on a 190A-8 as on a 190F-8; they have the same wings and centerline hardpoint. The F-8 just had more armor protection, a bigger canopy for better over-the-nose view, and a 14-blade cooling fan for the motor (two more than on the A-8).

[earl1937]

Single engine prop -- easy: A-1 Skyraider.
Range, endurance, payload, and even killed a couple of MiGs in Vietnam.

Having talked with guys who flew the A1's and variants, it, in the opinion of several vetran pilots, the best all around single engine, prop driven aircraft ever produced! It could carry a bigger bomb load than a B-17 or B-24. It could carry up to 14 5.5 inch rockets as well. Then there was the damage issue! While this aircraft was the largest single engine aircraft ever produced in large numbers, it could take a hammering from ack and 37MM and keep right on flying! They were called "Sandy" in the Vietnam war and many a foot solder was glad to see them over head as they could loiter for hours if need be! The only aircraft ever built which could carry more payload weight than its empty weight! Empty weight, 11,968 lbs, max allowable takeoff weight, 25,000 lbs. And if need be, could do ACM as proven by 2 Navy pilots During the war, U.S. Navy Skyraiders shot down two North Vietnamese Air Force (NVAF) Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-17 jet fighters: one on 20 June 1965, a victory shared by Lieutenant Clinton B. Johnson and Lieutenant, junior grade Charles W. Hartman III of VA-25; and one on 9 October 1966 by LTJG William T. Patton of VA-176.
When you ask "which is the best fighter" ever built, prop driven, I would have to say the P-51K, but when you ask which is the best "fighter-bomber" ever built, I rest my case on the A1!

[GScholz]

Still lacks the "fighter" in fighter-bomber. It was a pure, purpose built attack aircraft.

[Ack-Ack]

When you ask "which is the best fighter" ever built, prop driven, I would have to say the P-51K, but when you ask which is the best "fighter-bomber" ever built, I rest my case on the A1!

Actually, the P-51K is considered to be one of the lesser of the Mustang variants due to its Aeroproducts propeller, which was used because Hamilton Standard couldn't keep up with demand for their 11'2" 4-blade propeller. The "K"s were built with the Aeroproducts 11'0" 4-blade, which was substandard compared to the Hamilton Standard 11'2" 4-blade prop.  The only difference between the "D" and "K" models were the propellers and location of manufacturer, other than that the "D" and "K" were the same plane.

As for the A1, it wasn't a fighter.  It was a pure attack aircraft and never used in a fighter role, so it doesn't qualify for consideration for the 'best fighter-bomber'.  One can make the argument for the Corsair though, it was an excellent attack platform, performed just as good in that role as dedicated dive/attack bombers (like the SBD, SB2C) and was able to take far more punishment from ground fire than the Mustang.  While an excellent fighter, the Mustang was an average attack plane.  The Mustang was extremely vulnerable to ground fire, while the Corsair wasn't.  In addition, the Corsair a far more stable and accurate attack platform than the Mustang.

ack-ack

[smoe]

Actually, the P-51K is considered to be one of the lesser of the Mustang variants due to its Aeroproducts propeller, which was used because Hamilton Standard couldn't keep up with demand for their 11'2" 4-blade propeller. The "K"s were built with the Aeroproducts 11'0" 4-blade, which was substandard compared to the Hamilton Standard 11'2" 4-blade prop.  The only difference between the "D" and "K" models were the propellers and location of manufacturer, other than that the "D" and "K" were the same plane.

As for the A1, it wasn't a fighter.  It was a pure attack aircraft and never used in a fighter role, so it doesn't qualify for consideration for the 'best fighter-bomber'.  One can make the argument for the Corsair though, it was an excellent attack platform, performed just as good in that role as dedicated dive/attack bombers (like the SBD, SB2C) and was able to take far more punishment from ground fire than the Mustang.  While an excellent fighter, the Mustang was an average attack plane.  The Mustang was extremely vulnerable to ground fire, while the Corsair wasn't.  In addition, the Corsair a far more stable and accurate attack platform than the Mustang.

ack-ack

All true, however, the Mustang always has the advantage as it could attack faraway places others fighters wouldn’t dare to go.

[GScholz]

Where would that be?

[Triton28]

F4U for all the reasons ack ack listed.   I'd put the Jug second and the 190 third.

If the question was sexiest fighter - bomber,  it has to be the 38.   

[Widewing]

Ack-Ack nailed it...

The F4U-4 was the best fighter/bomber of WWII, that saw combat. The F8F-1 was likely the best air to air dogfighter, but it missed combat by a week or two. The F7F-1 was superior to the F4U-4 in almost every measure of fighter/bomber standard, but it also missed combat by the scantest of measures.

We must not overlook the Mosquito, which could do virtually anything it was tasked to do....

[GScholz]

Ah... The F4U-4. It's contemporary 190A/F would be the -9. Produced from September 1944 in its last version it had the uprated BMW 801F motor that delivered 2,400 hp. The 190F in the Smithsonian has this engine. That's more power than the F4U-4 in an airframe that's 2,000 lbs lighter and less draggy.

So I'm curious of what advantage the F4U proponents in this thread think the Corsair had over its contemporary 190?

[Butcher]

  you sure you're thinking f4u corsair?


(Image removed from quote.)

(Image removed from quote.)

(Image removed from quote.)

korean war...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oF9vZp7e4FI

The Corsair wasn't carrier capable for much of the pacific war, arriving to late on carriers to play a decisive role. The British were the first to put them on carriers, however they had such a very small carrier group to even make a dent in the war (look at the FAA kill list to determine this).
In my opinion the hellcat then wildcat played a more decisive role, if only the corsair wasn't plagued so heavily from a lack of carrier operation, it would of easily been the star of the pacific.

[icepac]

Fight?   Yes

Bomb?  Yes

Strafe?  Yes

Rocket? yes

Pick up downed pilots?  yes

Carry a nuke to russia?   yes

I believe my dad's seen north of 400mph in one during combat.

[GScholz]

In what?

[Rich46yo]

The P-47 had a larger bombload, was faster, was more survivable, I'd hazard the 8 0.50s were better for ground attack then the two MGs and 2 cannon of the 190, had a longer range, was more effective as a fighter. It was the ultimate ground pounder/versatile Jabo. The F4U was a better dog fighter then the 190F, and I always thought it was much faster.

The 190 was a remarkable air frame tho. It was a nasty shock to the Allies.

Ah... The F4U-4. It's contemporary 190A/F would be the -9. Produced from September 1944 in its last version it had the uprated BMW 801F motor that delivered 2,400 hp. The 190F in the Smithsonian has this engine. That's more power than the F4U-4 in an airframe that's 2,000 lbs lighter and less draggy.

So I'm curious of what advantage the F4U proponents in this thread think the Corsair had over its contemporary 190?

[-ammo-]

Very subjective question, and the different answers prove that. 

The P-47D, specifically the later models are arguably given their overall abilities.  Rugged, powerful, awesome gun platform, and heavy ordinance pay load rank it up there.  It's high altitude performance with its turbo/SC made it a great interceptor too.

The F4U and F6F were also gifted airframes with several of the same attributes, however their high altitude performance was not as good as the jug - the exception being the F4U-4.

The Mosquito and FW190 were also great fighter bombers.

My .02

Ammo

[Debrody]

was more effective as a fighter.

How so? What made it more effective as a fighter?