Best Single Engine fighter-Bomber(Prop Driven)

[Karnak]

Neither aircraft you mention are true fighter-bombers! fighters, yes, but ground attack aircraft no!

That wasn't his point.  His point was that a 1950s era aircraft that would likely lose to a 1940 fighter cannot be considered a fighter-bomber as it completely fails the fighter portion of the test.  It doesn't matter how good a bomber it is if it can't pass muster as a fighter.

A quote from Columbo: Icepac's Dad flew Skyraiders in Vietnam.  He shared a Mig-17 kill with another pilot from VA-25. What you are over looking is the capibilty of being both a bomber and a fighter. The A-10 was a great aircraft, but not in class we are talking about!

That does not make it a fighter anymore than such kills make the Il-2 or SBD a fighter.

[J.A.W.]

The fact that the USAAF would operate a old Navy bird proves it was a useful Attack unit,
 but being a decent bomb truck don't make it a any more of fighter - than a Ju 87 Stuka was..

[Tank-Ace]

Skyraider was not a fighter-bomber, thus is not in contention.  A fighter-bomber must be able to fill the fighter role with a realistic chance of success that doesn't rely entirely on the incompetence of the opposition.

A squadron of Mosquito FB.Mk VIs (the FB means fighter-bomber) were attacked by a staffel of Fw190s.  End result was four Mossies and four Fw190s lost.  Would the A-1 manage that against a contemporary fighter?

It might not manage that against P-51's and 109K's.

[earl1937]

Skyraider was not a fighter-bomber, thus is not in contention.  A fighter-bomber must be able to fill the fighter role with a realistic chance of success that doesn't rely entirely on the incompetence of the opposition.

A squadron of Mosquito FB.Mk VIs (the FB means fighter-bomber) were attacked by a staffel of Fw190s.  End result was four Mossies and four Fw190s lost.  Would the A-1 manage that against a contemporary fighter?

True, it was not designed as a fighter, but neither was any of the Jugs, except the M and N models!
On 26 July 1954, two Douglas Skyraiders from the aircraft carriers USS Philippine Sea and Hornet shot down two Chinese People's Liberation Army Air Force La-9s off the coast of Hainan Island while searching for survivors after the shooting down of a Cathay Pacific Skymaster airliner three days previously, also by La-9s.

[J.A.W.]

& Rudel made A2A ace status in his Stuka.. so what..

[earl1937]

That wasn't his point.  His point was that a 1950s era aircraft that would likely lose to a 1940 fighter cannot be considered a fighter-bomber as it completely fails the fighter portion of the test.  It doesn't matter how good a bomber it is if it can't pass muster as a fighter.
That does not make it a fighter anymore than such kills make the Il-2 or SBD a fighter.

Do you think that they put 4 20MM cannon on this aircraft for killing ground troops. As far as GV's, it was about as effective as the 20MM in this game, M3's not withstanding.

[earl1937]

& Rudel made A2A ace status in his Stuka.. so what..

A Stuka could not defend itself, except against far inferior aircraft, but the "Spad" could and proved it on several occasions.

[J.A.W.]

The USN got the message on 4 X 20mm cannon sure,
but how many years after they'd proved so good as a standard fit
on Hurricanes, Typhoons & Tempests?

[Karnak]

It might not manage that against P-51's and 109K's.

The A-1 would not against those.  It might not against the Bf109E-4 and Spitfire Mk Ia.

True, it was not designed as a fighter, but neither was any of the Jugs, except the M and N models!
On 26 July 1954, two Douglas Skyraiders from the aircraft carriers USS Philippine Sea and Hornet shot down two Chinese People's Liberation Army Air Force La-9s off the coast of Hainan Island while searching for survivors after the shooting down of a Cathay Pacific Skymaster airliner three days previously, also by La-9s.

P-47 was designed as a fighter.  What made you think otherwise?

Do you think that they put 4 20MM cannon on this aircraft for killing ground troops. As far as GV's, it was about as effective as the 20MM in this game, M3's not withstanding.

Yes, the purpose for the 20mm cannons was ground attack as well as self defense.  They were not for offensive air-to-air actions.

A Stuka could not defend itself, except against far inferior aircraft, but the "Spad" could and proved it on several occasions.

No more than did the Stuka. You're relying on the inadequacy of the attacker's skills in both cases.

[J.A.W.]

Rudel making ace showed that the better pilot could use his plane's positive attributes to his advantage,
even in A2A against nominally superior opposition..Still dont make it a fighter though..

[earl1937]

Rudel making ace showed that the better pilot could use his plane's positive attributes to his advantage,
even in A2A against nominally superior opposition..Still dont make it a fighter though..

A fighter aircraft is one designed for air to air superiority or interceptor of other aircraft. A fighter-bomber is one designed to excel in air to ground attack mode, but able to defend itself against other aircraft. I think the Skyraider does that better than any other aircraft designed as a fighter-bomber. That basically was the question asked to begin with.

[Saxman]

I see earl is using the same "LALALALALA I can't hear you!" defense as he used on the A-26/B-26 lineage debate.

[Karnak]

A fighter aircraft is one designed for air to air superiority or interceptor of other aircraft. A fighter-bomber is one designed to excel in air to ground attack mode, but able to defend itself against other aircraft. I think the Skyraider does that better than any other aircraft designed as a fighter-bomber. That basically was the question asked to begin with.

Your definition of fighter-bomber doesn't match the common definition of fighter-bomber.  It matches the definition of an attack aircraft.  If you wanted the answer to be "A-1 Skyraider" you ought to have titled the thread "Best Single Engine attack aircraft(Prop Driven)".

[earl1937]

Your definition of fighter-bomber doesn't match the common definition of fighter-bomber.  It matches the definition of an attack aircraft.  If you wanted the answer to be "A-1 Skyraider" you ought to have titled the thread "Best Single Engine attack aircraft(Prop Driven)".

The P-47 proved to be a formidable fighter-bomber due to its impressive armament, bomb load and ability to survive enemy fire. The Thunderbolt's eight .50 in (12.7 mm) machine guns could inflict severe damage on lightly armored targets. In a ground attack role, the armor-piercing (AP), armor-piercing incendiary (API), and armor-piercing incendiary tracer (APIT) ammunition proved useful in penetrating thin-skinned and lightly armored German vehicles and exploding their fuel tanks, as well as occasionally damaging some types of enemy armored fighting vehicles (AFVs). USAF definition of the P-47 fighter-bomber!

P-47 pilots frequently carried two 500 lb (227 kg) bombs, using skip bombing techniques for difficult targets (skipping bombs into railroad tunnels to destroy hidden enemy trains was a favorite tactic). The adoption of the triple-tube rocket launcher with M8 high-explosive 4.5 in (110 mm) rockets (with an explosive force similar to a 105 mm artillery shell) significantly increased the P-47's ground attack capability. Late in the war, the P-47 was retrofitted with more powerful 5 in (130 mm) HVAR rockets.
A link to "Fighter-Bomber" commands:  
ed_States_Air_Force" class="bbc_link" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Fighter_squadrons_of_the_Unit ed_States_Air_Force

[GScholz]

I'm with Karnak on this one.

"fighter-bomber
n
(Military) a high-performance aircraft that combines the roles of fighter and bomber."

The Skyraider clearly fails in the performance/fighter part, not only against its contemporaries, but against fighter aircraft designed in the 1930s. The Skyraider was designed to meet USN requirements for a carrier dive/torpedo bomber. It does not possess the performance required to be used in a fighter role. It isn't in any conceivable way a fighter.

To say that the 190F is a pure fighter or interceptor and not a purpose-built ground attack aircraft is a mistaken belief. It is based on the 190A fighter, but extensively modified to carry out the role of bomber/CAS aircraft. However it retains much of its performance and potential as a fighter. Thus it is a fighter-bomber. The same can be said for many other fighter-bombers that started life as pure fighter designs, but with maturity and modifications became formidable ground attack aircraft as well. Typhoon, Thunderbolt and Corsair are obvious examples. The Mossie is an odd one that started life as an unarmed bomber, but because of its tremendous performance was modified to also be a fighter.