Top 10 Fighter Planes of All Time
- Thread starter El Justo
- Start date
Zardnaar
Deity
ME 262 seemed to perform worse than conventional German aircraft.
It is quite a bit faster than any conventional fighter. Sure, it pays for that speed with poor maneuverability, very poor acceleration, inferior high altitude performance, high cost, extremely high infrastructure cost, high piloting requirements, and terrible reliability, but that extra 50 mph allows it to do what no other German fighter could do: bull right through any escort fighters, hit the bombers, then speed away before retaliation hits.
As an interceptor, it is without par if the Germans could have defended its bases and gotten enough tungsten, nickle, and chromium for sem-reliable engines. Of course, doing either is near impossible...
Further, while the later FW-190 models and derivations were considerably more cost effective given resource limitations, Germany's single greatest limitation was in pilots, so it actually made a certain amount of sense to have a smaller number of extremely high performance, albiet overpriced, fighters, unlike the Allies whose never ending stream of pilots made large numbers of good enough fighters logical.
While it is my favourite post-WWI fighter, as far as I know it wasn't significantly better, overall, than many fighters at the time. You must keep in mind that for much of its latter use it was primarily a ground attack aircraft as it was outclassed by post-war fighters (even piston engined).
Then you have to consider its purpose. While a Corsair could probably outfight a Mustang (all else being equal), a mustang was a far better bomber escort.
Zardnaar
Deity
Its also a bit of a myth that German planes were better than Allied one. The ME 262 performed worse than conventional German planes and in early 44 the Luftwaffe was behind in both quantity and quality, and thats when the Luftwaffe got smashed and never recovered. The average Luftwaffe pilot had a lifespan measured in weeks.
Maybe not significantly better. But there were some ways in which is was. The Mustang was the best bomber escort in part because it had the longest range of the agile one engine fighters. So it could stay with the bombers longer. The Corsair had less range, probably in part to the need to be carrier capable, which added weight, but it was faster. And the radial engine made it harder to shoot down.
More Mustangs were built. And more built early in the plane's history. But that was in part because of the mistake on the part of the US Navy in thinking that the Corsair's landing characteristics made it not their first choice for a carrier fighter.
The versatility of the Corsair was better, as you mentioned it was used as a fighter bomber through the Korean War. The ability to carry a greater bomb load was useful there.
So if not one of the best, it at least deserves honorable mention.
Eh? What piston engined fighters can outperform the Corsair? The only piston engined fighter in the same class (ie carrier based single engined multi-role fighter) that is at all comparable to the 4 and 5 variants in performance was the Sea Fury, introduced 3 years later, and while slower, the Corsair had superior range, ceiling, and bombload. And at the time of introduction, it was significantly superior to all other carrier based fighters, being comparable or superior to contemporary land based fighters.
Bugfatty300
Buddha Squirrel
The Grumman bearcat for one.
Bearcat's a dedicated interceptor with weaker armament and much smaller weapons loadout. Corsair's also faster in a dive and can absorb more punishment. The other 2 piston engined carrier aircraft arguably superior to the Corsair, the Sea Hornet and Tigercat are both twin engined heavies with difficulty operating from smaller carrier decks, much greater cost, and inferior maneuverability. Notably, all 3 and also the Sea Fury are post war.
The P-47 was great in some respects. Mainly ground attack and the ability to absorb and dish out damage. And was very fast, particularly in a dive. But its poor maneuverability and range were limitations on its greatness as a fighter. It was better in the ground attack role.
Up to a point, yes. But over time it was used more and more in ground attack and less and less as a fighter as other fighters became available. Great plane in many respects. But not specifically in the fighter role.
Comparing carrier and land based aircraft is a bit questionable due to the design compromises carrier planes are forced to make.
That said, while the P-47 is an excellent plane, there are certainly no grounds for claiming it is in general superior to the Corsair. Indeed, the two aircraft are very much two sides of the same coin, being both built around (ever more powerful variants of) the P&W Double Wasp engine. The Thud's a lot bigger and heavier, giving it superior dive speed, firepower, and damage absorption, while the Corsair is faster, longer ranged, faster climbing, and can turn circles around the Thud.
Or, I guess you could say the Thud and the Bearcat are the actual polar opposites built around the Double Wasp, with one being as heavy and tough as possible with the other as light, fast, and manueverable as possible, with the Corsair being the middle ground.
F8F and others introduced at the end or just after the war?
And depending on what you are looking for, may aircraft could outperform the F4U.
For example, the P-38 was superior in every way except in a close turning dogfight and carrier capability.
Even the P-51 isn't that bad compared to the F4U in mopst characteristics. Yes it is worse, but an enormous amount.
More late war variants of the P-51 were built than early. And their range was far more useful to the USAAF than any advantage in other characteristics. They were the ultimate bomber escort in WWII, which quickly became the primary role of USAAF fighters.
The problem with comparing fighter aircraft is that you usually aren't comparing apples to apples. From the USAAF perspective the P-51 was a far superior aircraft. For the Luftwaffe after the Battle of Britain, they would value rate of climb and firepower over range or turning ability (which, if it were more reliable, the Me-262 would fit perfectly).
Which is exactly where perspective comes in. You may want one set of characteristics, and I may want another.
Bugfatty300
Buddha Squirrel
Weaker armament how exactly? Post-war Corsairs and Bearcats both had four 20mm cannons.
Anyway the bearcat was intended to be an interceptor but like a lot of designs they usually find their best niche is outside of the box that it was meant for. Just like the corsair's niche was found to be ground pounding rather than air superiority. The bearcat was arguably one of the best dog fighters ever, was one of the fastest production piston fighters of all time and remains unbeaten in climb rate.
true, but you did ask for "any piston engined fighter"
Indeed, but as I pointed out, no piston engined aircraft is definitively superior, and no wartime carrier aircraft was even comparable. (other than, of course, the Bearcat, but calling the Bearcat a wartime aircraft is pretty questionable)
The Corsair packed more ammo for its cannons, and a lot more bombs and rockets. The Corsair's niche was truly multi-role before the jet age and remained a very useful fighter-bomber after, while the Bearcat is a dedicated air-to-air plane that is too fragile and with too small a weapons load to act as a fighter-bomber, which with the jet age, rendered it obsolete quickly, unlike the Corsair. As fast as it is, it's still slower than jets, and superfast climb was rendered pointless by guided missiles.
