Best Pacific Fighter?

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by syscom3

Only three? I thought you could come up with dozens! Sounds like they were an exception to the rule.

No they were the only US combat aircraft in production during the span you gave and look how long all of them served!!! I think you forgot that a major war just ended and no one was really rushing to produce aircraft in the capacity like WW2...

Originally Posted by syscom3

Like I said, any piston engined airplane after the 40's was living on borrowed time.

And the "three" I showed were far from that "exception to the rule." If a doctor told me I was on borrowed time and then lived another 30 years, I'd say he was full of sh*t!

Originally Posted by syscom3

Now tell me what piston engined aircraft were front line bombers or fighters?

For the most part, none but B-29, B-50 - both front line until the B-36 came along, and yes, it did have jet engines but was still a recip, as did the C-119 and the C-123 which were fitted with jets because there was a short field requirement placed on these aircraft after they were initially developed. They flew very well without the jet engines and I even seen a C-123 in operation at Mojave without the jet engines. It's owner removed them because they drank too much fuel.

The point here is your statement about recips being on borrowed times was just not true.

BTW - The TBF Avenger served into the late 1950s....

The last Corsair rolled off the assembly line in 1952....

The last B-25s left the USAF in the early 1960.....

The last B-29s were retired in 1960........

In fact the USAF did not become an "All Jet Bomber Force" until 1960.

So let's see - "any piston engined airplane after the 40's was living on borrowed time" It took 14 years for the last of the recip bombers to retire - boy that's really borrowed time!

Oh I forgot a few...

AJ-1 Savage - 1948 - 1962

PV-2 Harpoon - served in reserve units till 1955

Martin P5M - 1946 - 1968

Douglas C-124 - 1950 - 1961

Convair C-131 1954 - 1979 for the USN, 1984 for the USAFRES

Grumman SA-16 Albatross - 1947 - 1972

But yea, they were all on borrowed time!

[parsifal]

What about the revamped Mustangs I'm darned if i can remeber the name, but iut was used in COIN ops.

Mosquitoes were not retired until 1955, 14 years after service entry. Fireflies were used until 1955 as well. Furies until 1955, or later. Then there were the gannets, the S2G trackers, the caribous....and the list goes on. Concede the point, it aint worth it....

[SoD Stitch]

Originally Posted by parsifal

What about the revamped Mustangs I'm darned if i can remeber the name, but iut was used in COIN ops.

Are you talking about the turboprop Cavaliers? They looked kinda funny with a big turbine exhaust sticking out of the side, but they were good airplanes.

[kool kitty89]

The P-2 had 2x J34 jet boosters added, but its main powerplants were the 2 R-3350's.

For pure fighters (escort, intercept, sweeps) this was certainly the case, but for bombers it took a little longer to get online. And for transports, patroll ceaft, support/ dedicated attack a/c, and the ability to operate in minimal or improvised airfields the piston engine craft stayed quite a bit longer.

[syscom3]

None of those piston engined aircraft were front line for long. They were in the stop gap role at best.

In fact most of them ended up in Reserve or NG units while the jets were rolled out and produced.

With the exception of USN dedicated aircraft (due to early jet engine issues) name one piston engined fighter or bomber that was designed and built AFTER the 2nd world war ended.

Cargo and Maritime patrol dont count..... only fighter and bombers.

[kool kitty89]

Originally Posted by syscom3

Who cares what happened after 1945. Anything with a piston engine after that year was obsolescent.

I think this is the problematic statement, you say ANYTHING with a piston engine, not any Fighter or Bomber with piston engines.

At that time fighters (and to a lesser extent bombers) powered by recips were obsolescent. THe bombers less so, but still, all new bomber designs (in development, not ones entering service like the B-50 and B-36) went to jets or, occasionaly, turboprops.

But transports, patroll craft, and dedicated attact/close support a/c (or older fighters adapted to this roll, or redesigned specifically for it like the Corsair was) were still better off with their piston engines.

[kool kitty89]

And the only stop gap measures the USN had for new designs in the ~1945 timefreme were the Mixed powerd a/c, most notably the Fireball.

Their first pure jet the FH Phantom (prototype XFD Phantom) flew in January of 1945. (3 prototypes being orginally ordered in Summer of 1943)

Due to the end of the war development slowed and it wasn't introduced until 1947. By which time the more advanced F9F Panther and McDonnel's own F2H Banshee (developed from the FH Phantom) were nearly ready for service. Thus the FH saw use by mostly as a conversion trainer and was passed onto the USMC. (retired from USN in '49 and by the USMC in '54)

There were only 62 Phantoms Built.

It could fly quite well on one engine, in fact (due to slow delivery of working prototype engines from Westinghouse) the first test flight was performed with only a single engine installed. (and an underpowered 1,165 lbf thrust at that, compared to 1,600 lbf on production J30's used on the FH-1) Of course this test wasn't from a carrier.


One other interesting thing to note on the Phantom is that it was the first fully independant jet a/c built in the US, using all American designs. (in fact the J30 was the only such engine to fly before the end of the war, and the only design initiated by the NACA's 1941 jet reaserach program to reach fruition)

McDonellXFD-1
EnginesUSA

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Originally Posted by syscom3

None of those piston engined aircraft were front line for long. They were in the stop gap role at best.

In fact most of them ended up in Reserve or NG units while the jets were rolled out and produced.

With the exception of USN dedicated aircraft (due to early jet engine issues) name one piston engined fighter or bomber that was designed and built AFTER the 2nd world war ended.

Cargo and Maritime patrol dont count..... only fighter and bombers.

Why do they not count?

Why are you stuck on this fighter and bomber thing? You cant make the rules of what counts and what does not!

You are acting like Soren and setting the parameters to suit you. It does not work way.

Explain to me why only fighters and bombers count? Are they the only aircraft in the USAF?

Come on now sys...

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by syscom3

None of those piston engined aircraft were front line for long. They were in the stop gap role at best.

You're 100% wrong, especially with regards to the transport aircraft - look at the years they served.

Originally Posted by syscom3

In fact most of them ended up in Reserve or NG units while the jets were rolled out and produced.

Again wrong, it depended on what type of aircraft you're talking about. Air-to-air fighters, sure, bombers, to an extent (The B-36 was being built until 1954) but you had cargo and attack recips being built in the early 50s

Originally Posted by syscom3

With the exception of USN dedicated aircraft (due to early jet engine issues) name one piston engined fighter or bomber that was designed and built AFTER the 2nd world war ended.

None - but now you're altering your original statement...

Originally Posted by syscom3

Cargo and Maritime patrol dont count..... only fighter and bombers.

Why not???? - again that's not what you originally said. You're exact words -

"Who cares what happened after 1945. Anything with a piston engine after that year was obsolescent."


You said A-N-Y-T-H-I-N-G! Not fighter, bomber, transport, navy or air force - ANYTHING!

You fail to realize that the recip stayed around because....

1. they were reliable
2. there was fuel for them
3. they were still useful
4. there were many of them on hand

No one can argue that for front line fighters and bombers the jet was overtaking the recip, it just didn't happen over night, and as pointed out the USAF didn't become an all-jet bomber force until 1960. Even during Vietnam, with all the F-100s, F-105s, and F-4s buzzin all over the place the USAF had to make use out of Skyraiders and B-26s (Douglas) because they realized their dedicated jet ground attack aircraft could not loiter in a combat zone like an old recip. It wasn't until the A-10 came along when that deficiency was corrected.

It took a good 15 years before the USAF and USN started pushing the last of their recip combat aircraft out to pasture. The navy held on to theirs because of problems with early jet engines (something you pointed out AFTER your initial errored statement). Again Sys - you made a statement and now you're trying to backpedal.....

Oh by the way - we were only talking about the US - I didn't go into other countries who produced recip combat aircraft after WW2 like the Lavochkin La-11, the Hispano HA-1112, The Bristol Brigand, the DeHavilland Hornet, the Blanbun Firebrand and the Hawker Sea Fury, all went into service in 1946 or later AFAIK.

[Thorlifter]

FlyboyJ,

I'm going to show my complete ignorance............what is recip? I'm guessing its a piston engine plane, but where does that term come from?

[renrich]

A recip is a reciprocating engine also known as a piston engine. Doesn't the S2F still serve in the USN? Is that AC also called Willie Fud?

[parsifal]

Yep I think that is them. thanks

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by renrich

A recip is a reciprocating engine also known as a piston engine. Doesn't the S2F still serve in the USN? Is that AC also called Willie Fud?

No.

The S-2 officially went out in the 1970s but I seen a squadron hack at Barbers Point during a RIMPAC exercise in 1998. I couldn't get up close to it so I don't know if it was airworthy.

[parsifal]

we are talking the grummans here arent we. RAN had fourteen of them on strength until about 1985 or so. One of my favourite a/c 14 hour endurance. can track just bout any sub. I wonder how it compares to the S3A Viking that replaced it. I cant exactly recall, but i am pretty sure that we could track subs in our trackers that the US Vikings could not, and this was the direct result of the much higher speed of the Viking, brought on by its jet propulsion. this was one instance where jet engines were a hindrance. I just cant be sure on this point, so perhaps someone knows. Promise to get back on topic after this

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by parsifal

we are talking the grummans here arent we. RAN had fourteen of them on strength until about 1985 or so. One of my favourite a/c 14 hour endurance. can track just bout any sub. I wonder how it compares to the S3A Viking that replaced it. I cant exactly recall, but i am pretty sure that we could track subs in our trackers that the US Vikings could not, and this was the direct result of the much higher speed of the Viking, brought on by its jet propulsion. this was one instance where jet engines were a hindrance. I just cant be sure on this point, so perhaps someone knows. Promise to get back on topic after this

All true - from what I understand the S-3A has some on station problems when tracking subs and that was mainly because of the speeds it had to fly - it was able to slow down but ran into fuel consumption problems. From what I understand this wasn't a major issue per se but was corrected with the S-3B.

And from what I understand, the same ASW package in the S-3 went into the Canadian CP-140 when the first 18 were built.