What's the best end-of-WW2 propeller fighter?

**glyn** · 04 May 07,, 19:27

[QUOTE=hello;371421]The P-51H? Only 555 of them even managed to reach the Pacific in time, and they probably saw no combat or maybe a slight bit, so I guess they count. Same case with the F8F Bearcat, but the Mustang-H had much better performance. The H Mustang was not used in Korea.

Which raises the question, why didn't they use the H model in Korea, or, put another way, why did they use the D model?

**zraver** · 04 May 07,, 22:25

[QUOTE=glyn;371461]

Originally Posted by hello

The P-51H? Only 555 of them even managed to reach the Pacific in time, and they probably saw no combat or maybe a slight bit, so I guess they count. Same case with the F8F Bearcat, but the Mustang-H had much better performance. The H Mustang was not used in Korea.

Which raises the question, why didn't they use the H model in Korea, or, put another way, why did they use the D model?

ground fire

The P-51H was a lightweight model base do the XF-51/AN 124 project, that sacraficed some durability for range and speed. Given the fact that Korea did not entail much air to air combat (before the migs arrived) and the high amount of ground fire there was no good reason to use the H. The D had the range for Korea and whiile still vulnerable was more durable than the H.

**glyn** · 04 May 07,, 23:48

[QUOTE=zraver;371497]

Originally Posted by glyn

ground fire

The P-51H was a lightweight model base do the XF-51/AN 124 project, that sacraficed some durability for range and speed. Given the fact that Korea did not entail much air to air combat (before the migs arrived) and the high amount of ground fire there was no good reason to use the H. The D had the range for Korea and whiile still vulnerable was more durable than the H.

I partially agree with you in that the H model was developed from the lightweight XP-51F (optimised for high altitude work) with reduced armament, and the XP-51G (which didn't like the 5 bladed propellor and was unstable at speed) and the XP-51J which reverted to the Allison V-1710 engine and was a failure. The H model was only 500 lbs lighter than the D, but had considerably more power (2,218 hp with water injection compared to 1,490 hp) still carried 6 x .50"s, 2 x 1,000 lb bombs or 6 x 5" HVAR rockets underwing. The H had the same strength airframe as the D. So while it is fair to say the H incorporated lessons from the lightweights, it was not itself that much lighter. The question thus remains, why did the D go to Korea and not the H? Perhaps it is one of those aviation enigmas that will not be solved unless documents surface that actually give the reasoning. So far they have not appeared.

**hello** · 05 May 07,, 13:54

The P-51H production stopped at 555, and it never got combat proven, so the more numerous D got used instead.

This question brings up another question yet: If the H model wasn't used because of ground fire, how come the Mustang was used at all?

The old warhorse P-47 was always a much better ground attacker, more durable than either Mustang.

**ExNavyAmerican** · 05 May 07,, 16:37

I voted P-51. Long range (was able to escort B-29s to Japan from Guam), powerful, and was used up until Korea.

**Tasman** · 06 May 07,, 01:08

Originally Posted by hello

The P-51H production stopped at 555, and it never got combat proven, so the more numerous D got used instead.

This question brings up another question yet: If the H model wasn't used because of ground fire, how come the Mustang was used at all?

The old warhorse P-47 was always a much better ground attacker, more durable than either Mustang.

I guess the reason the P-51D was used in Korea was that so many were in inventory so it was readily available. The RAAF also used the P-51D in Korea even though newer, Australian built Mustangs had re-equipped some RAAF fighter squadrons.

Re the P-47, here is an interesting comment in Greg Goebel's vectorsite:

The P-47 soldiered on after the war, serving with USAF (the Army Air Forces became the Air Force in 1947) until 1949, and then with the US Air National Guard until 1953, with the designation "F-47" from 1948. They did not fight in the Korean War, apparently because the necessary quantities were no longer available: the F-51 Mustang was sent into the conflict to perform close-support instead, proving painfully vulnerable to ground fire.

The Republic P-47 Thunderbolt

Cheers

**~~Bob Jones~~** · 06 May 07,, 20:51

And the winner is The Spitfire, thanks gentleman, is was a no contest

**hello** · 07 May 07,, 14:45

Nope. The Mustang is far out in the lead, followed distantly by Spitfire, followed by the Tempest. What made you vote for the Spitfire?

**glyn** · 08 May 07,, 12:47

Originally Posted by hello

Nope. The Mustang is far out in the lead, followed distantly by Spitfire, followed by the Tempest. What made you vote for the Spitfire?

Ha. Bob is as mad as a box of frogs and is prone to saying the unexpected!

You need not always take him entirely seriously

**Bowman** · 23 May 07,, 02:46

The only candidates to posess excellent visibility, superior speed, superior manoeuverability, an excellent climb rate and a cannon armament are the Tempest and the LA-7. All the others have at least one weakness. The Tempest was superior to the LA-7 in most respects and, consequently, gets the nod.

There you have it!

**hello** · 26 May 07,, 16:31

It looks like this competition has narrowed down to only 3 planes. The Mustang, which has pulled out a big lead over the Spitfire, which is getting closed in on by the Tempest.

**Bowman** · 27 May 07,, 03:50

The P-51D's range made it extremely significant on a strategic scale. In a fighter vs. fighter engagement, several on the list would have been superior. The P-51 had a poor climb rate relative to many and was not cannon armed. The Tempest was just as fast, had a much higher climb rate, was more manoeuverable, and was better armed.

**glyn** · 27 May 07,, 09:48

We have all made pretty sweeping statements of what we think was the best, but of course it depends on which part of the performance altitude range envelope it is performing in. Even the superb Mustang could not keep pace with the De Havilland Mosquito photo-recce variant, so they went unescorted. Numbers of the types available will also count. A hundred average fighters would prevail against a handfull of the best available.

**leib10** · 27 May 07,, 15:35

Originally Posted by gunnut

Was P-38 really a bad turner? Robin Olds said his P-38 could out turn a Me-109 at medium/low altitude. That's a lot for a big twin against a small plane like the Me-109.

Yet German fighter pilots flying the 109 stated they had the edge in maneuverability. I guess it depends on who's flying it.

Should they had been produced in enough numbers, the Ta-152 would've been a killer.

**hello** · 27 May 07,, 20:10

Yeah, I should have included the Ta-152, but there are more planes than options. To vote Ta-152, vote for Fw-190.

The late-war Japanese fighters(J2M Raiden, Ki-100, Ki-84 Hayate, N1K-J Shiden-Kai) were basically the same story as the Do-335 and Ta-152: Good planes, but came too late to make any impact. J2Ms were also proving to be effective against B-29s until the P-51 began escorting them.

Originally Posted by glyn

A hundred average fighters would prevail against a handfull of the best available.

What's an 'average' fighter? If your talking about the most common planes, you have the P-47, P-51, Bf-109, Spitfire, Zero and F6F. I agree though, 100 old Bf-109E-7s would pack more of a punch than 15 Ta-152s.