Best Single Engine fighter-Bomber(Prop Driven)

[GScholz]

What a 20mm strafing run looks like. Of course the M61 has a much higher rate of fire than two MG 151, but you get the idea.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iy9VPTWyLh0

[gyrene81]

They entered service approximately at the same time during the closing months of the war in Europe. Their normal payloads were similar, though the 190 could carry upwards of 4,000 lbs for special missions. The 190's gun package was also better for air to mud operations. Up to about 15k the 190A/F-9 was faster than the F4U-4.

the cosair was capable (though very rarely done) of taking a single 2,000lbs bomb on the centerline and 2x1000lbs on the wings...from land bases. standar load out was more like 2500-3000lbs. where did you find information that claims any -a model 190 carried 4,000lbs?

The BMW 801F was always the engine meant for the -9, however the late 1944 production models got the S because the F wasn't quite ready yet. Beginning in January 1945 the F engines started to become available and hundreds of 190A/F-9 were build with the T engine.

it may have been intended but until there is some document that shows the a9 coming out of the factory with that engine, it was just a dream. every piece of data readily available on the 190-a9 and the 801f says there were production problems which kept it from being delivered.

Altitude performance is not very important for a Jabo. The S/L speed of the A/F-9 was equal to the D-9 at 610 kmh according to German tests. That makes it just as fast on the deck as the F4U-4 and faster up to about 15k due to the F4U-4 losing power rapidly as altitude increases above S/L. I'll consider your claim of 446 mph at S/L as a typo or brain fart on your part.

ya typo, i was looking at mil power at 27,000ft. test data shows 377mph at sea level under max power, and i believe sea level in the tests was 500 feet or something like that. but from what i've been able to find over the years, the germans used something like 500meters as "sea level", unless they were typos.

[Tank-Ace]

I'd say the two are about equal. In its best ground attack configuration, it is superior to the P-47 as a JABO. In addition to carrying a comparable load, it was better distributed for general close support. 4 50kg bombs will be more effective against infantry than one 500lb bomb. And the 190 could carry a couple different rockets, from huge 280mm atg rockets, and IIRC, even 82mm rockets based off a mortar round.

In a cleaner, lighter version , it was a superior fighter at lower altitudes.


What the P-47 did well was mix the two. While not as good as either the best bomb truck 190, or the best dogfighting 190, it was could outfight the one, and out bomb the other.

I'd say the jug is more of a swing role fighter, while the 190 was more of a multi role fighter.

[Wmaker]

The S/L speed of the A/F-9 was equal to the D-9 at 610 kmh according to German tests.

Could you point me to a source saying this? Don't recall seeing this data off hand.

[earl1937]

In this.

(Image removed from quote.)

 <S> to your dad! Glad to see so many responses to my post, but some have missed the point, SINGLE ENGINE, PROP DRIVEN aircraft. One thing everyone seems to forget, the A1 is the only aircraft listed which could take off with a full combat load out, gross weight 25,000 lbs, from a aircraft carrier! The F4U series of aircraft were restricted to 3 500lb bombs and rockets because the carriers of that era did not have the capability of launching the F4U aircraft at full gross weight.
The A1 had a P&W R-3350-26WA engine which developed 2,700 horse power. This was the same engine which was on the B-29 and with WEP engaged, developed an extra 400 horsepower for short field takeoffs. It could carry 8,000 lbs of ords on 15 hard points located on wing and fuseledge.
Case closed!!
The F4U-4 had a P&W R-2800-18W engine and could only carry 2,000 lbs of bombs and 4, 5 inch rockets.

[gyrene81]

 <S> to your dad! Glad to see so many responses to my post, but some have missed the point, SINGLE ENGINE, PROP DRIVEN aircraft. One thing everyone seems to forget, the A1 is the only aircraft listed which could take off with a full combat load out, gross weight 25,000 lbs, from a aircraft carrier! The F4U series of aircraft were restricted to 3 500lb bombs and rockets because the carriers of that era did not have the capability of launching the F4U aircraft at full gross weight.
The A1 had a P&W R-3350-26WA engine which developed 2,700 horse power. This was the same engine which was on the B-29 and with WEP engaged, developed an extra 400 horsepower for short field takeoffs. It could carry 8,000 lbs of ords on 15 hard points located on wing and fuseledge.
Case closed!!
The F4U-4 had a P&W R-2800-18W engine and could only carry 2,000 lbs of bombs and 4, 5 inch rockets.

the f4u-4 could carry up to 6,000lbs of ordnance (in testing). the standard load out was 2000lbs, heavy was 3000lbs.

you seem to have forgotten that the f4u-4/5 operated from carriers in korea...successfully. and they fought mig-15s, successfully.

the a1 in a clean configuration could not hang with an f4u-4 in level flight or maneuverability. it didn't have the altitude capability of the f4u-4. though being able to carry heavier ords loads, it lacked in the ability to dogfight.

[Ack-Ack]

 <S> to your dad! Glad to see so many responses to my post, but some have missed the point, SINGLE ENGINE, PROP DRIVEN aircraft.

Again, the Skyraider was not a fighter bomber, it was a pure attack craft and designated as such and never used in the fighter role in Korea or Vietnam.  So, according to your own criteria (Best Single Engine fighter-Bomber(Prop Driven) the Skyraider doesn't qualify. 

ack-ack

[Saxman]

the cosair was capable (though very rarely done) of taking a single 2,000lbs bomb on the centerline and 2x1000lbs on the wings

I keep asking for the center rack 2000lber option.

The F4U-4 had a P&W R-2800-18W engine and could only carry 2,000 lbs of bombs and 4, 5 inch rockets.

Double the number of rockets. Our F4U-1D and F4U-4 carries eight 5" HVARs. That's still well below what the actual capabilities of the aircraft was as noted in gyrene's post. I DROOL at the thought of rolling with a 2000lber, a pair of 1000lbers, and eight rockets.

[Rich46yo]

Offhand? It was faster and climbed better. It also dived and rolled with the best of them. This is compared to the 190F.

My response was in answer to the F4U-4 VS the 190F. Not the P-47.

but i found your comment about the jugs better roll rate to be absolutely nonsense.

And I find your misquote to be even more utter nonsense.

A .50 cal round landing one inch from a soldier's boot does nothing. A 20mm HE shell landing ten feet from a soldier's boot will burst his eardrums and shower him in light shrapnel; at best he will only be a casualty, at worst a fatality.

Really? With 8 0.50s spitting 850 rounds per minute what do you think the chances are you will only get ONE 600+ grn bullet landing an inch from your boot and not getting hit anywhere else? If you are anywhere within the convergence of those 8 guns you are dead, or, you probably will wish you were. If the 20mm was so effective against armor then the LW wouldnt have kept trying to improve their ability to tank bust, which of course they did. The fact is against "most" targets the 20mm would be good against the 0.50s would do just fine. In fact against many targets, most of all people, I'd bet 8 0.50s would be marginally better.

The 190F was a fine airplane. Im not saying it wasnt. Against aircraft the MG 151/20 cannon was far superior.

[icepac]

the f4u-4 could carry up to 6,000lbs of ordnance (in testing). the standard load out was 2000lbs, heavy was 3000lbs.

you seem to have forgotten that the f4u-4/5 operated from carriers in korea...successfully. and they fought mig-15s, successfully.

the a1 in a clean configuration could not hang with an f4u-4 in level flight or maneuverability. it didn't have the altitude capability of the f4u-4. though being able to carry heavier ords loads, it lacked in the ability to dogfight.

I'm biased because it allowed my dad to return from combat safely.

It was maneuverable enough for my dad to maneuver a mig17 off his six and shoot it down.

Against enemy fighters, the skyraider has a higher than 1/1 kill/death ratio........and that's mostly against jets but two did tangle with LA9s and shot them down.

It could do radar and electronic countermeasures.

It could fight at night.

It could cover a large area with anti-personnel mines.

It could deliver a nuke to russia.

It could drop radios and survival gear to downed pilots.

It could drop torpedos and blow up a dam with them that the B29s had tried with no success.





It could drop one of these.









I addition to the ord shown, it also carried 4x20mm cannons with 180 rounds each.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oG0IItDqYfI

Also......remember that many "fighters" used as fighter/bombers were not doing any fighting but rather had others in a pure fighter role to provide cover.

It could bring many times the destructive force of any other single engine prop. plane and fight it's way home after a 10+hour mission.

[Karnak]

Out of curiosity, how was the Sea Fury as a fighter-bomber?

[Zacherof]

Your dad killed a mig!
Out of curiosity icepac, has your dad ever seen AH? Specifacally has he "flown"the hogs?

[Patches1]

Earl1937, sir...I salute you and your enthusiasm for the A-1 Skyraider! I also am a fan of the "Sandy" having served in RVN. However, you asked the following:

(Title of thread...emphasis is mine)

Best Single Engine fighter-Bomber(Prop Driven)

(Initial question asked...emphasis is mine)

Which, in your opinion, was the best fighter-bomber of all time? It flew in 2 "wars" and 1 police action....just wondering what you guys think!

I am providing two links, and I know wikipedia is not the best source of information, but it does provide a quick and simple contrast of the two aircraft.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A-1_Skyraider

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F4U-4_Corsair

From these two links you can see that the F4U was developed to be a fighter, and as such, it earned an 11:1 kill ratio. The Corsair was also adapted to the air-to-ground role, a role in which it also excelled. The F4U has a rich history of switching between the two roles claiming its last air-to-air victories in 1969.

The A-1 was developed to be an air-to-ground weapon from it's inception. Although it is credited with some air-to-air victories, it was never intended to be, nor did it ever serve in Squadron strength as a pure fighter (to my knowledge), in the same fashion as the F4U. And thus, in my opinion, it cannot be considered as a "fighter-bomber". I will agree that the "Sandy" is one hell of an "attack" aircraft par excellance, and has certainly earned its place in history.

...just my thoughts.

[Debrody]

Patches,

while the Corsair is an excellent fighter and jabo aircraft, its 11:1 win ratio against the Japaneese is largely influenced by the numbers and the training quality of each side.
Im not saiying that it wasnt a MUCH better aircraft than its counterparts, with equal numbers and training, it could still win easily. Just not 11 times better.

[Patches1]

Debrody, Sir,

My intent was not to hark the 11:1 kill ratio, but rather to prove the Corsair was a fighter first, and then adapted to the air-to-ground role as well.

There were many excellent fighter produced by all combatants in WWII and they all earned their places in history.