Tempest vs F4U-5 vs MB5 vs P-51H vs CA-15

Scooter, nothing personal, but why the hell did you ask for people’s opinions if all you were planning to do was critique them?

Sorry, but forum are all about discussions, debates, expressing views, talking out loud, etc. etc. etc.

Otherwise, what is the point………:rolleyes:

With all do respect………;)

Just the reverse of the Super Corsair………….As the Ta-152 was a excellent high altitiude performer but not as good all around as say the FW-190D-9….:cool:

Scooter, nothing personal, but why the hell did you ask for people’s opinions if all you were planning to do was critique them?

La-9

as for the Bearcat and Fury, i remember Ray Hanna saying that the La-9 was better than either of those

Yes, I recall these comments also.

Basically he said that if he was flying the Bearcat, Sea Fury or a Corsair of that period and he was up agianst the La-9, he’d be worried! 🙂

Cheers

Paul

It would’ve done ok with that massive prop!-and as for the Bearcat and Fury, i remember Ray Hanna saying that the La-9 was better than either of those

Personally, I doubt that…………:o

Really, in hind sight I should have included later models of the Spitfire and Bearcat………:(

Ta-152

Just the reverse of the Super Corsair………….As the Ta-152 was a excellent high altitiude performer but not as good all around as say the FW-190D-9….:cool:

It would’ve done ok with that massive prop!-and as for the Bearcat and Fury, i remember Ray Hanna saying that the La-9 was better than either of those

Ta-152

The F-2G Super Corsair might have been a contender if the war dragged on

Well, the Super Corsair was designed for high speed at low altitiude……….So, it could catch up to Kamikazes quickly and destroy them before they reach there targets.

Excellent in that role but not likely a good performer overall. I wouldn’t doubt the -4 and -5 are much better over 20,000 ft………….

BTW The Super Corsair could do ~400 mph at Sea Level……:diablo:

The F-2G Super Corsair might have been a contender if the war dragged on

Seeing that people are naming A/C that weren’t on the list I’ll opt for the P-61 Black Widow. It could outperform most single engined fighters and had legs to burn!

Well, it was a excellent Night Fighter. Yet, it was hardly a dogfighter……

Seeing that people are naming A/C that weren’t on the list I’ll opt for the P-61 Black Widow. It could outperform most single engined fighters and had legs to burn!

I’ve got to stick with the P-51H, P-47N, F8F and Corsair.
Their engines were well proven….especially important if you’re in the Pacific theater.
But since the Pacific was largely a U.S. operation (as opposed to SEA) the U.S. types would have been used there.

Seems that many of the later UK powerplants were a bit problematic….one reason why there arent Tempests and Typhoons flying today?

BTW

Well, I would have to go with the F4U-5NL…………Which, had good overall performance with Radar and four 20mm Cannons!:D

Note: The -4 Corsair was clearly better than the P-47N or P-51D in the last several months of the War in the Pacific.;)

Grumman F7F Tigercat
4x20mm cannon and 4x.50 mg. 460mph (400 knots)
Carrier-based, single or two-seat, torpedo or 2×1,000 lb bombs + rockets… radar-equipped night fighter version… its got it all.

http://www.kbvp.com/extreme-videos/f7f-tigercat-airshow-video-clay-lacy

I’ve got to stick with the P-51H, P-47N, F8F and Corsair.
Their engines were well proven….especially important if you’re in the Pacific theater.
But since the Pacific was largely a U.S. operation (as opposed to SEA) the U.S. types would have been used there.

Seems that many of the later UK powerplants were a bit problematic….one reason why there arent Tempests and Typhoons flying today?

BTW

On looks alone. :)Mark

Blimey, a piston, unhooked, Attacker!

The Tempest VI was essentially a V but with radiator and oil cooler in the inboard LEs. Plus a ground running filter behind the chin radiator fairing. No change to the nose contours. One of the Tempest VI sqns in the ME tangled with FAA Sea Furies during an exercise and claimed to have trounced them – but then you are bringing pilots and tactics into the equation …

The RAF Fury with the Sabre VII would be my contender for low and medium altitude. 3000hp+, 485 mph. All the bugs out of the Sabre. I once asked Frank Murphy, who had flown Hurricanes and Typhoons operationally, and all following Hawker types through to the Hunter, as a test pilot, which was his favourite. Fury with Sabre VII.

Didn’t they fly the Tempest I to 485 mph successfully? The Air ministry quashed it due to the large radiator surface within the wing being susceptible to ground fire, which is hogwash as other types had the same issue.

Hawker contenders

I think they had to increase radiator and oil cooler size too, so there may have been a bit of cowling change, not absolute on that though.

The Tempest VI was essentially a V but with radiator and oil cooler in the inboard LEs. Plus a ground running filter behind the chin radiator fairing. No change to the nose contours. One of the Tempest VI sqns in the ME tangled with FAA Sea Furies during an exercise and claimed to have trounced them – but then you are bringing pilots and tactics into the equation …

The RAF Fury with the Sabre VII would be my contender for low and medium altitude. 3000hp+, 485 mph. All the bugs out of the Sabre. I once asked Frank Murphy, who had flown Hurricanes and Typhoons operationally, and all following Hawker types through to the Hunter, as a test pilot, which was his favourite. Fury with Sabre VII.

Sorry, I should have included the Fury/Sea Fury in place of the Tempest. Which, is what I had planned to do. Yet, I though the Fury was just a later developement of the Tempest……………ME BAD:o

I think they had to increase radiator and oil cooler size too, so there may have been a bit of cowling change, not absolute on that though.

On looks alone. 🙂
Mark

Biased! 😀

I couldn’t disagree though – I have one as my desktop wallpaper at home.