Best prop fighter?

By sheer number of aerial kill claims made… the B-17? :p

I’ll get me coat.

By sheer number of aerial kill claims made… the B-17? :p

I’ll get me coat.

..But again, the question was purely on the basis of fighter to fighter combat. Theatre, terrain, runway conditions were not within the parameter of the query. It was simply which would be best in a straight dogfight.

I take your points about Eric Brown, and as mentioned earlier, the outcome would have been down to the individual pilots involved. I assume the original post would have had equally skilled pilots in the cockpit.

Regards;
Steve

..But again, the question was purely on the basis of fighter to fighter combat. Theatre, terrain, runway conditions were not within the parameter of the query. It was simply which would be best in a straight dogfight.

I take your points about Eric Brown, and as mentioned earlier, the outcome would have been down to the individual pilots involved. I assume the original post would have had equally skilled pilots in the cockpit.

Regards;
Steve

Thank you for bringing up the corsair. I am an Australian of British descent now living in Canada so I will not argue against the Spitfire but I am curious how the corsair stacks up. At the end of the war they had one beast of an engine. One other question from me is did ww2 carrier aviation suffer the same performance penalties that modern carrier aviation does. No catapult launches but they still had to land on the carrier deck.

Thank you for bringing up the corsair. I am an Australian of British descent now living in Canada so I will not argue against the Spitfire but I am curious how the corsair stacks up. At the end of the war they had one beast of an engine. One other question from me is did ww2 carrier aviation suffer the same performance penalties that modern carrier aviation does. No catapult launches but they still had to land on the carrier deck.

Apparently, Brown did fly the F4U-4. It seems he wasn’t keen on the type. Main reason appears to be “High stick forces at higher speeds”. He also called it an “Ensign eater”!!

That speaks to his preferences, not the effectiveness of the type in combat.
Of course he’s hugely experienced, but still has his own biases that may not give full credit to the type.

Your average WWII fighter pilot only flew 2-3 types during the war, and became (hopefully for his survival) a master of those types. That is something that Brown during his quick assessment, could not achieve. I’m sure he’d admit as much.

Again, this points out the falicy of the question.
If you were fighting from an island in the SW Pacific,with rutted wet muddy runways, the “best” fighter may have well turned out to be the Corsair instead of the Spitfire, higher stick forces be damned. In short, it’s a different world from flying from Manston.

Apparently, Brown did fly the F4U-4. It seems he wasn’t keen on the type. Main reason appears to be “High stick forces at higher speeds”. He also called it an “Ensign eater”!!

That speaks to his preferences, not the effectiveness of the type in combat.
Of course he’s hugely experienced, but still has his own biases that may not give full credit to the type.

Your average WWII fighter pilot only flew 2-3 types during the war, and became (hopefully for his survival) a master of those types. That is something that Brown during his quick assessment, could not achieve. I’m sure he’d admit as much.

Again, this points out the falicy of the question.
If you were fighting from an island in the SW Pacific,with rutted wet muddy runways, the “best” fighter may have well turned out to be the Corsair instead of the Spitfire, higher stick forces be damned. In short, it’s a different world from flying from Manston.

Did he ever fly the F4U-4 (not the -1A/-1D)?

Apparently, Brown did fly the F4U-4. It seems he wasn’t keen on the type. Main reason appears to be “High stick forces at higher speeds”. He also called it an “Ensign eater”!!

Snoopy7422;

Thanks for seemingly being the only other person so far that understood the original poster’s question!

Regards;
Steve

Did he ever fly the F4U-4 (not the -1A/-1D)?

Apparently, Brown did fly the F4U-4. It seems he wasn’t keen on the type. Main reason appears to be “High stick forces at higher speeds”. He also called it an “Ensign eater”!!

Snoopy7422;

Thanks for seemingly being the only other person so far that understood the original poster’s question!

Regards;
Steve

…phhhss….

best air to air fighter at the end of ww2 excluding jets

i.e;- ‘Air Combat’ fighter. That was the original posters parameter. Not whether it had an ashtray or any other criterea. So, post-war a/c are irrellevant, as are a/c that one just likes the look of….:rolleyes:

…phhhss….

best air to air fighter at the end of ww2 excluding jets

i.e;- ‘Air Combat’ fighter. That was the original posters parameter. Not whether it had an ashtray or any other criterea. So, post-war a/c are irrellevant, as are a/c that one just likes the look of….:rolleyes:

Also, I think that the question was about a straight fighter to fighter combat, excluding such parameters as range. Therefore, I think the quotes I posted seem to cover the question. I’m no expert, but the opinions of the likes of Eric Brown clinch it for me.

Regards;
Steve

Did he ever fly the F4U-4 (not the -1A/-1D)?

Also, I think that the question was about a straight fighter to fighter combat, excluding such parameters as range. Therefore, I think the quotes I posted seem to cover the question. I’m no expert, but the opinions of the likes of Eric Brown clinch it for me.

Regards;
Steve

Did he ever fly the F4U-4 (not the -1A/-1D)?

I would say the Hawker Sea Fury. It is one of only a few aircraft that has scored a kill againsed a Jet. It can be deck run from a carrier,can be equipedd with Guns,Drop Tanks and bombs. It’s extremly fast for a prop aircraft (some say it handles like a Jet) and apparently it’s pretty easy to fly.

Or a Spitfire…. :rolleyes:

I would say the Hawker Sea Fury. It is one of only a few aircraft that has scored a kill againsed a Jet. It can be deck run from a carrier,can be equipedd with Guns,Drop Tanks and bombs. It’s extremly fast for a prop aircraft (some say it handles like a Jet) and apparently it’s pretty easy to fly.

Or a Spitfire…. :rolleyes:

Surely, if it’s ‘taking punishment’ then it isn’t a contender ??? 😮

Ken

I did consider that scenario. If I were a pilot in a hostile situation, I’d rather
been in something “rugged”, than in a fighter which was somewhat “delicate”.
Even if it was superior to what the opposition were flying. Especially if combat
was taking place over hostile territory. The P-47 for instance could take a lot
of damage and still keep flying, as well as being heavily armed.

Surely, if it’s ‘taking punishment’ then it isn’t a contender ??? 😮

Ken

I did consider that scenario. If I were a pilot in a hostile situation, I’d rather
been in something “rugged”, than in a fighter which was somewhat “delicate”.
Even if it was superior to what the opposition were flying. Especially if combat
was taking place over hostile territory. The P-47 for instance could take a lot
of damage and still keep flying, as well as being heavily armed.

Whichever of them shot down the most enemy planes?

Whichever of them shot down the most enemy planes?