Best Single Engine fighter-Bomber(Prop Driven)

[icepac]

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

He flew warbirds for a little while until some swabbie talked smack and I think he's still interested in meeting the guy in real life.

Dad holds a grudge.

[icepac]

You cannot trump the nuke..........the nuke trumps all.

[Wmaker]

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

Very interesting! AFAIK there were two MiG-17s shot down by Skyraiders during Vietnam war.

Your father is one of these guys then? Is he Mr.Patton considering that is the only victory that involved only one shooter?

"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;[17] and one on 9 October 1966 by LTJG William T. Patton of VA-176."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_A-1_Skyraider

I'd love to hear more!

[Rich46yo]

It could deliver a nuke to russia.

Interesting. I did not know it was tasked with that mission. I thought it was all Jets in tactical "special" delivery. Thunderjets, SkyHawks, T-Chiefs, Phantoms, Intruders. Ya learn something every day.

[GScholz]

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?

It was very rare, like your 4,000 lbs bomb load F4U. Normally the maximum load was limited to 2,200 lbs in the configuration with one 500 kg bomb on the centerline hardpoint, and one 250 kg bomb on each wing hardpoint.




However when fitted with the Schlos 1000 or 2000 in place of the ETC 501 rack the 190 could carry the 1,000 kg, 1,400 kg, 1,600 kg, and 1,800 kg bombs. The largest two of these required a special extended tail wheel to make the bomb clear the ground, however in the field the ground crew would instead modify the bomb casing by removing one of the bomb's fins. In the few instances were the massive 1,800 kg bomb was used the Fw 190 was carrying over 4,000 lbs of bomb+rack (Bomb alone weighed 3,968 lbs).

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.

The motor wasn't the problem, it had been in production since December 1943 and was used on bombers. The problem was fitting it on the 190 since it meant redesigning the engine cowling and re-balancing the aircraft. This was done by January 1945 and 190A/F-9s with th 801F started arriving at Luftwaffe units in the East in February 1945. Like I mentioned earlier the 190F at the Smithsonian has this engine. The confusion comes from the fact that the engine was originally designated TH and later TS. So every 190A/F-9 you see mentioned with a TS motor is in reality an F. This was a very confusing time in Germany.

[gyrene81]

The motor wasn't the problem, it had been in production since December 1943 and was used on bombers. The problem was fitting it on the 190 since it meant redesigning the engine cowling and re-balancing the aircraft. This was done by January 1945 and 190A/F-9s with th 801F started arriving at Luftwaffe units in the East in February 1945. Like I mentioned earlier the 190F at the Smithsonian has this engine. The confusion comes from the fact that the engine was originally designated TH and later TF. This was also a very confusing time in Germany.

the fact that the one in the smithsonian has what is claimed to be an -f motor does not mean that was the standard engine. like i said, paperwork, and every piece i've found so far (not saying it's everything out there) says there were production problems that prevented the -f motor from being put on the a9 from the factory, and that all available -f motors were allocated to other aircraft.

[GScholz]

I made a few clarifications to my previous post...

[GScholz]

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.

It is obviously a matter of opinion, but explosive shells which have a blast/fragmentation radius is generally far, far better than a direct-hit weapon. A single 20mm round striking close to a group of soldier can potentially kill them all, even if they're behind cover that would protect them from direct hits. There are good reasons for why every nation that fields APCs and IFVs have up-gunned their vehicles to autocannons ranging from 20mm to 40mm in caliber. They are still useless against tanks, but much more effective against infantry and lightly armored vehicles.

If a number of .50 cals would be more effective against ground targets I'd expect they would have put them on the Sandy too, a dedicated ground attacker, but no; they put cannons on it. Same with every ground attack platform since, including attack helicopters.

[gyrene81]

I made a few clarifications to my previous post...

  thanks for posting the top of that document...it reminded me of a website i found that gave the same scoop on the motor and just a tidbit more...

Die Serienproduktion der etwa 200 FW 190 A-9 begann im September 1944. Als Motoren wurden mehrere verschiedene eingesetzt. Der BMW 801 TU, TS und TH, alle als standardisierte Wechseltriebwerke. Dadurch war es immer möglich diese durch den häufigeren 801 D-2 zu ersetzen. Eigentlich sollte der BMW 801 F Motor in der A-9 Verwendung finden doch dieser war erst gegen Ende der Serie in wenigen Exemplaren verfügbar. Es wurde wiederum die Panzerung verstärkt und zwar vor allem die Rückenpanzerung. Die verwendeten Rüstsätze waren fast die selben wie schon bei der A-8, und zwar R1-R3, R6-R8 und R11 sowie R12.

http://www.focke-wulf190.com/die_fw_190_a_2.htm  now if i can just find the other german webpage that had similar info... 

It is obviously a matter of opinion, but explosive shells which have a blast/fragmentation radius is generally far, far better than a direct-hit weapon. A single 20mm round striking close to a group of soldier can potentially kill them all, even if they're behind cover that would protect them from direct hits. There are good reasons for why every nation that fields APCs and IFVs have up-gunned their vehicles to autocannons ranging from 20mm to 40mm in caliber. They are still useless against tanks, but much more effective against infantry and lightly armored vehicles.

If a number of .50 cals would be more effective against ground targets I'd expect they would have put them on the Sandy too, a dedicated ground attacker, but no; they put cannons on it. Same with every ground attack platform since, including attack helicopters.

eh, there are a lot of factors that go into determining what guns to use on ground vehicles, and there is a good reason for .50cal and 7.62mm to still be placed on the vehicles as secondary defensive weapons. don't forget, the 20-40mm rounds used on ground vehicles today are different from the ones used on aircraft in ww2. against ground targets and armor, the 20mm meingenschloss round used in german aircraft was minimally effective compared to the armor piercing .50 ammo used in u.s. fighters. and a standard .50 ball round can penetrate more armor than a round from a mg151/20 at 1000yards.

if it came down to being in a light armored vehicle and having to choose between a mg151/20 and a browning m2, i'd choose the mg151/20 because i know it would explode on impact and have lower penetration.

[GScholz]

The German quote basically says the same as I. At the end of the A/F-9 production run (end of war in Europe) a number of 190s were built with the 801F engine.

The M-Geschoss rounds would not be used for ground attack, but rather the AP, HE and HE(T) in various mixed belts (it was up to the pilot). The ammunition now and then is not that different.

[gyrene81]

The German quote basically says the same as I. At the end of the A/F-9 production run (end of war in Europe) a number of 190s were built with the 801F engine.

where did you say that?   

The M-Geschoss rounds would not be used for ground attack, but rather the AP, HE and HE(T) in various mixed belts (it was up to the pilot). The ammunition now and then is not that different.

that's the great thing about the browning m2 machine gun on ww2 fighters...no need to make a choice, the basic .50 cal ball ammo was multi-purpose.

[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.

"In its last version"


And...

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.

And to clarify again... The T (TS, TH) version was the early F version before they changed the designation. I've heard that about 60 aircraft were built after the switch to the F designation in the closing weeks of the war in Europe, although I cannot substantiate that number in any way.

[GScholz]

that's the great thing about the browning m2 machine gun on ww2 fighters...no need to make a choice, the basic .50 cal ball ammo was multi-purpose.

I'm sorry but that's just laughable.

[earl1937]

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)
(Initial question asked...emphasis is mine)
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.

You have a good point, as the order to the USAF and Navy, was for a ground attack aircraft, but able to defend itself! While there were no A1's assigned as a fighter, many times it was forced into that role, downing several LA7's and YAK's during the Korean conflict. Any aircraft which could do all the USAF and Navy ACM's, in my view, qualifies as a fighter! There were several aircraft designed to do one thing, but also did several other things to an acceptable level. Example: the Lockheed P-38 was designed by "Kelly Johnson" as a pure interceptor, but stood out as a air to ground attack role.

[Rich46yo]

If a number of .50 cals would be more effective against ground targets I'd expect they would have put them on the Sandy too, a dedicated ground attacker, but no; they put cannons on it. Same with every ground attack platform since, including attack helicopters.

The Browning 0.50 has had a long, long life and is still with us on almost all its old platforms. With aircraft, after WW2, ground attack moved more and more towards the use of evolving munitions and farther away from strafing. Really could you compare one 20mm, even a Vulcan, to 8 0.50s for strafing personal and light targets? Ground attack moved more towards munitions and cannons moved more toward ATA, eventually becoming a 2nd to missilry as well. Hell an F4 Phantom could carry about 9,000 lbs of ords. Jet aircraft carried more and better ground attack munitions due to thrust/weight.

Thing is if your going to pick just ONE gun to put on an airplane of course you'll pick the 20mm, either Hispano OR Vulcan, over a 0.50. And of course 4 Hispanos would be better then 8 0.50s. The 20mm's were/are great guns.

But here is a movie that shows what those poor IJN sailors were up against when 6 gun Hellcats repeatedly strafed one side http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0451845/ I had a friends who flew P-47s during the war and he used to tell me about their strafing runs. they would just chew up trains and their engines which are a pretty hard target and the poor Krauts they caught in the open would just get shredded.