Best Piston Engined Fighter Ever

[mkloby]

F8F's had reversing as well, if I recall correctly. As Joe said - you barely touch the brakes. On a normal rollout, only time I touch my brakes is to aid in turning when I'm using prop reversing, and that's just to turn off the active after I'm at a decent taxi speed.

[CDRyan]

Well.. that's a tough one...

I think I would have to say the Supermarine Spitfire. It is, after all, the only allied fighter to be in continuous production throughout the war and the only one that was competitive throughout as well.

The Spitfire also had the highest critical mach number of any world war II aircraft... routinely cleared to .92. Post war, a PR19, PS852, set both altitude and speed records for the breed.... 51,500 ft and 690mph (straight down at Mach .96). The latter because F/Lt. Powells' cabin pressure light came on!

Both he and the plane survived. It continued in service for 2 more years.

While the early marks were very limited in range, late models like the Seafire 47 had an unrefueled range on internal tankage of 1,500 miles or more.

Points for consideration, I think.

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Depends on what country you are talking about. The US did not enter the war until 1941 and the P-51 first flew in 1940 therefore the P-51 was in production for the whole war that the US was involved in. Same with the P-47.

As for the arguement that the Spitfire was the only allied aircraft that was competative throughout the whole war that is completely wrong.

Both the P-47 and the P-51 were competative throughout the whole war and the P-51 and P-47 could do something that the Spitfire could not. Do you know what that was?

They could take the fight to the Germans because of there long range.

Now having said that I think the Spitfire was an overall better fighter than the P-51 but the Spitfire was not the only allied fighter to remain competative throughout the whole war.

[davparlr]

Originally Posted by DerAdlerIstGelandet

Depends on what country you are talking about. The US did not enter the war until 1941 and the P-51 first flew in 1940 therefore the P-51 was in production for the whole war that the US was involved in. Same with the P-47.

As for the arguement that the Spitfire was the only allied aircraft that was competative throughout the whole war that is completely wrong.

Both the P-47 and the P-51 were competative throughout the whole war and the P-51 and P-47 could do something that the Spitfire could not. Do you know what that was?

They could take the fight to the Germans because of there long range.

Now having said that I think the Spitfire was an overall better fighter than the P-51 but the Spitfire was not the only allied fighter to remain competative throughout the whole war.

Also, the XP-38 first flew in Jan. 1939.

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Yeap forgot about the P-39. So if you wish to go that far the P-39 flew before anyone was in actual war with one another.

I would go as far as to say the P-38 was a better aircraft anyhow than the Spitfire.

Also forgot about the P-39 and P-40. It first flew before the war started as well, even though I would not classify them in the Spitfire, P-47, P-38 and P-51D class.

[Jabberwocky]

Originally Posted by DerAdlerIstGelandet

Depends on what country you are talking about. The US did not enter the war until 1941 and the P-51 first flew in 1940 therefore the P-51 was in production for the whole war that the US was involved in. Same with the P-47.

As for the arguement that the Spitfire was the only allied aircraft that was competative throughout the whole war that is completely wrong.

Both the P-47 and the P-51 were competative throughout the whole war and the P-51 and P-47 could do something that the Spitfire could not. Do you know what that was?

They could take the fight to the Germans because of there long range.

Now having said that I think the Spitfire was an overall better fighter than the P-51 but the Spitfire was not the only allied fighter to remain competative throughout the whole war.

Considering that the P-51 didn't enter combat service until May-1942, or some 32 months after the war started, I'd say that calling it "competitive throughout the whole war" is a little of a stretch.

Same thing for the P-47; it didn't enter operational service until June-1942 and it didn't see combat service until Mar-1943, some 41 months into the war.

On the other hand, the Spitfire first entered combat in Oct-1939 and recorded its final kill WW2 kill against Japanese kamikazis in Aug-1945 (in its Seafire form).

[renrich]

There was no way an F8F could have a prop reverse system. The reason the weak brakes were an issue, as I originally stated, was that because the airplane could not be held still on the ground with the brakes under full power, then you did not know if you could get full power until you actually were in your takeoff run. The 440 t0 450 mph figure at low levels came from a graduate of Annapolis with an aeronautical engineering degree,(he later was a US Navy test pilot) who flew the F8F operationally for quite some time during the time between WW2 and Korea.

[mkloby]

Originally Posted by renrich

There was no way an F8F could have a prop reverse system. The reason the weak brakes were an issue, as I originally stated, was that because the airplane could not be held still on the ground with the brakes under full power, then you did not know if you could get full power until you actually were in your takeoff run. The 440 t0 450 mph figure at low levels came from a graduate of Annapolis with an aeronautical engineering degree,(he later was a US Navy test pilot) who flew the F8F operationally for quite some time during the time between WW2 and Korea.

I have read an article about Herb fisher, former curtiss test pilot, running navy tests on an F8F using prop reversing in flight to acheive ridiculous vertical speeds in a dive...

Maybe it had a modified propeller assembly? I don't know.

[FLYBOYJ]

And if the F8F couldn't stay put during run ups, then indeed that was a problem, at the same time you always don't have to go to full power to ensure proper engine operation....

[mkloby]

Originally Posted by FLYBOYJ

And if the F8F couldn't stay put during run ups, then indeed that was a problem, at the same time you always don't have to go to full power to ensure proper engine operation....

I've never gone to full power in any aircraft until taking the active runway and starting my T/O run...

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Originally Posted by Jabberwocky

Considering that the P-51 didn't enter combat service until May-1942, or some 32 months after the war started, I'd say that calling it "competitive throughout the whole war" is a little of a stretch.

Same thing for the P-47; it didn't enter operational service until June-1942 and it didn't see combat service until Mar-1943, some 41 months into the war.

On the other hand, the Spitfire first entered combat in Oct-1939 and recorded its final kill WW2 kill against Japanese kamikazis in Aug-1945 (in its Seafire form).

That was not the point of my post. The point was that the Spitfire was not the only competative allied aircraft of WW2 as his post made it seem. As I stated in the other post the P-51 and the P-47 had one major advantage over the Spitfire. Range they could take the fight to the Germans where as the Spitfire remained largly a defensive fighter until mid to late 1944 in Europe.

[pbfoot]

Originally Posted by mkloby

I've never gone to full power in any aircraft until taking the active runway and starting my T/O run...

Wouldn't the F8F just nose over if you applied brakes and full power

[davparlr]

Originally Posted by renrich

There was no way an F8F could have a prop reverse system. The reason the weak brakes were an issue, as I originally stated, was that because the airplane could not be held still on the ground with the brakes under full power, then you did not know if you could get full power until you actually were in your takeoff run. The 440 t0 450 mph figure at low levels came from a graduate of Annapolis with an aeronautical engineering degree,(he later was a US Navy test pilot) who flew the F8F operationally for quite some time during the time between WW2 and Korea.

Probably an observation and not a test, therefore highly suspect. As I have stated many times, obtaining a TAS without a proper instrumented aircraft is not an accurate process. One must have outside air temperature and impact pressure (a correct one, which is not indicated, but rather equivalent airspeed). Few aircraft of WWII era had outside air temperature. Also, most used indicated or possible calibrated airspeed. As airspeed increases, the pitot pressure becomes compressed which causes the airspeed to read too high. Equivalent airspeed corrects for this error. The official tested TAS of the F8F-1 is probably the 421 mph recorded. This is much more reliable than pilot observation, even an aeronautical engineer.

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by pbfoot

Wouldn't the F8F just nose over if you applied brakes and full power

Not if you keep the stick back - that will keep the tail on the ground.

[mkloby]

Originally Posted by FLYBOYJ

Not if you keep the stick back - that will keep the tail on the ground.

Fresh off the taildragger too, huh joe!