Let’s Settle This. What Was the Fastest Piston Fighter Ever?

Поделиться
HTML-код
  • Опубликовано: 1 июн 2024
  • After my video on the XP-47J caused a bit of a fuss, I thought it might be interesting to go through and see just what was the fastest piston engine fighter in history.
    Sources for this video can be found at the relevant article on:
    militarymatters.online/
    If you like this content please consider buying me a coffee or else supporting me at Patreon:
    ko-fi.com/ednashmilitarymatters
    / ednash
    Want another way to help support this channel? Maybe consider buying my book on my time fighting ISIS:
    amzn.to/3preYyO
  • НаукаНаука

Комментарии • 1,1 тыс.

  • @EdNashsMilitaryMatters
    @EdNashsMilitaryMatters  Год назад +263

    LOL I am once again corrected, so well done to everyone who pointed out that the Saab 21 is a great example of a pusher type that did get into service. 😁

    • @MothaLuva
      @MothaLuva Год назад +4

      👍😂🍾🥂

    • @Zorglub1966
      @Zorglub1966 Год назад

      ruclips.net/video/kdOPBP9vuZA/видео.html

    • @sr7129
      @sr7129 Год назад +24

      For a country that never does war, Sweden has some damn good kit

    • @donquixote1502
      @donquixote1502 Год назад +3

      @@sr7129 We do war!

    • @Frankie5Angels150
      @Frankie5Angels150 Год назад +2

      @@donquixote1502
      Against whom?

  • @Mouxbar
    @Mouxbar Год назад +592

    Me163 by miles. Amazing what that little prop on the nose could push out ROFL - Great video 🙂

    • @Frankie5Angels150
      @Frankie5Angels150 Год назад +26

      It’s not for prop planes but piston engined. That’s why your joke didn’t work.

    • @WarblesOnALot
      @WarblesOnALot Год назад +55

      @@Frankie5Angels150
      G'day,
      WRONG...
      The Jokularis jokulii
      Hinged on the point that the
      Me-163,
      The Flame-farting
      Rocket-powered little
      Flying Flea...
      Had not
      Got
      Any
      Propeller at all...
      The
      Humour of the
      Suggestion lies in the
      Rotational Airscrew Array
      Referred to having been in fact a
      Free-Air
      Wind-Turbine...;
      Direct-driving a
      Direct Current
      Electric
      Generator.
      Literally, the
      Joke hinges on the
      Factoid of the
      Me-163's "Propeller"
      NOT actually being an
      Airscrew
      At all, not
      At all..., not even a
      Little bit.
      Perhaps...(?)
      Ye should be considering
      Making some kind of Video Response,
      Asserting the
      Me-163
      To be
      The
      World's
      Fastest
      WINDMILL...?
      Or, would that cause you
      Problems rooted in
      Pedantry...; & protesting that
      The Turbine on the '163
      Failed to grind any Grist into
      Flour..., & nor did it
      Pump any
      Water.
      And
      Yet...
      It was
      INDEED the only
      Free-Air
      Windmill on the
      Planet, which was
      Designed to operate with
      560 MPH of
      Airflow streaming back through it's
      Disc...;
      Being pushed through the
      Atmosphere by
      Superheated
      Steam, outgassing from the
      Walther Rocket's
      Decomposition/Reaction
      Chamber's
      Nozzle.
      Onwards &
      Upwards...
      (Until a rough landing fractures a Fuelpipe and the Pilot is chemically
      DISSOLVED in his seat,
      Before being able to
      Unstrap &
      Disembark).
      They wasn't considered the
      Death Or Glory
      Mob,
      For nuthin' ;
      Y'see (?) !
      Such is life,
      Have a good one.
      ;-p
      Ciao !

    • @iskandartaib
      @iskandartaib Год назад +1

      Wrong emoji... 😉😜

    • @raypurchase801
      @raypurchase801 Год назад +56

      @@Frankie5Angels150 It's a JOKE for F's sake!
      The 163 had a tiny little airscrew in the nose.
      I think it was for driving the electrics or something, I've forgotten.

    • @raypurchase801
      @raypurchase801 Год назад +5

      @@WarblesOnALot Correct.

  • @bobroberts6155
    @bobroberts6155 Год назад +33

    Oh how I love it when an Ed Nash video lands.

  • @Andre_Kummel
    @Andre_Kummel Год назад +103

    The Christmas Bullet is a clear contender, in my opinion. It exited flight testing so quickly, hardly anyone noticed it whiz by.

    • @mpetersen6
      @mpetersen6 Год назад +23

      The Christmas Bullet was clearly the fastest plane of its day. Of course that was sans wings and in a dive.

    • @William_Bryant
      @William_Bryant 11 месяцев назад +5

      @@mpetersen6It was also the most maneuverable. That is, if you count maneuverable as being able to move the most, and you count wing buffeting so bad the wings _flap_ as movement.

    • @jackvetra2844
      @jackvetra2844 7 месяцев назад

      Yet not one fighter could outrun a bullet 😢 Says Baron Von Ricky Bobbie 😂

  • @Godvana_
    @Godvana_ Год назад +17

    11:35 Slight correction: Sweden did adopt a push design in the SAAB J 21

    • @mustang5132
      @mustang5132 Год назад +3

      Also the Fokker D.XXIII was going to be adopted. However, the German invasion of the Netherlands had something to say about that

    • @larsbundgaard5462
      @larsbundgaard5462 Год назад +1

      @@mustang5132 Nein?

    • @givenfirstnamefamilyfirstn3935
      @givenfirstnamefamilyfirstn3935 Год назад +1

      Only because they got the final home assembly stage wrong.

  • @daviddavid5880
    @daviddavid5880 Год назад +183

    I'd say you showed saintlike restraint, amazing patience and the utmost tolerance in another stellar video. Thanks.

    • @tidefanyankee2428
      @tidefanyankee2428 7 месяцев назад +2

      I second that. Very good video. Fair, balanced and well done.

  • @shaider1982
    @shaider1982 Год назад +15

    Hmm, perhaps for a more complete info, a collab with Greg's Airplane and Automobile channel. That guy gots lots ofr performance charts for different altitudes and manifold pressure.

    • @garynew9637
      @garynew9637 Год назад +1

      Greg's da man!

    • @shaider1982
      @shaider1982 Год назад

      ​@@garynew9637 agreed👍

    • @bobsakamanos4469
      @bobsakamanos4469 6 дней назад

      LOL. selective data and lacking operational context, but he's good at telling you what you want to hear.

  • @olivergs9840
    @olivergs9840 Год назад +154

    As soon as you cited Aircraft/Warplanes of the Third Reisch by William Green, I grabbed my copy, turned to the Dornier 335's entry, and can confirm that Green claims the maximum speed of the Do335A-1 to be 474 m.p.h at 21,325 ft

    • @user-op9kh8vo9r
      @user-op9kh8vo9r Год назад +23

      The video starts off with Republic's claim of top speed for the P-47J versus actual tests at Wright-Patterson. For the Do-335 the same situation exists. Check the Rechlin tests for the tested max speed.

    • @daszieher
      @daszieher Год назад +6

      ​@@user-op9kh8vo9r A models differed from the V testbeds. I think that this confuses most people.

    • @michaelscaplis
      @michaelscaplis Год назад +21

      Don’t think there is any definitive accurate source for top speed. As such it will be impossible to determine which piston engine WW2 plane was the fastest. So with that said I still consider the Pfeil to be the record holder - but that’s just my opinion.

    • @olivergs9840
      @olivergs9840 Год назад +15

      @@daszieher I wasn't saying the numbers were necessarily accurate, just that I have a copy of the book Ed wasn't able to, and I can confirm the claimed figure is in there

    • @yannichudziak9942
      @yannichudziak9942 Год назад +12

      Keep in mind that this was only with the boost running and on much lower octane fuel than the USA or UK were using, unfortunately the one that was tested in the USA we never got the test data from it.
      There is a note saying this was a 30 second duration boost which got it to 474mph in some of the notes from other sources that Green referenced.
      If we ever can get hold of the US Air Force tests with the US higher octane fuels on he one they had we might be able to put this to rest, some US pilots think that with the correct high end fuel it probably could break 500mph but a is debatable as 89 versus 100 octane fuel is a big jump but unlikely to be that big but with the 100/130 octane fuel there is some chance they might have been right during boost (going from 89 to 130 is a BIG jump…).

  • @EffequalsMA
    @EffequalsMA Год назад +45

    This is the best day ever, Ed puts a video out on fast piston engine fighters and starts with the XP47J. Anything P47 is my favourite, automatically.

  • @sailor5026
    @sailor5026 Год назад +18

    I enjoyed that. I had the wonderful experience of standing next to Yale English professor Norwood Russell Hanson’s F8f Bearcat. He kept it at Tweed New Haven Airport in Connecticut, USA. It was painted black with white eagle claws painted on that long legged landing gear. Flying magazine did an article on it; and stripped of guns and armor, it was reported to go 500 mph. When it entered the pattern it sounded like a jet, beautiful. As a kid it was a wonderful time. We would ride our bikes to the airport and sit on an old picnic table outside the FBO and just take it all in. Unfortunately, Hanson flew the ‘Cat into a Pennsylvania hillside in bad weather. Both pilot and aircraft died.

    • @alanp805
      @alanp805 Год назад +2

      Damn. That's a hell of a punchline 😢

  • @ThePhoenix198
    @ThePhoenix198 Год назад +4

    Ed: 'Anyone for tennis', while rolling a hand-grenade (minus pin) into the room 🤣🤣🤣
    But in all seriousness, a well-researched and thoroughly enjoyable run through the archives - thank you 😀

  • @gandsproductions5105
    @gandsproductions5105 Год назад +62

    I love these super prop designs. Its also pretty neat just to see how long the idea of trying to get a propeller driven aircraft to go even faster stuck around for. With stuff like the thunderscreach and tu-95 later coming around.
    Maybe one day you could make a video about the fastest military propeller driven aircraft.

    • @shauny2285
      @shauny2285 Год назад +1

      Here, here!

    • @andrewhammel8218
      @andrewhammel8218 Год назад +3

      Be aware that both the Thunderscreech and the TU 95 were/are turboprops, and not "piston driven". But yes both the defunct thunderscreech and the still flying TU 95 used props.

    • @gandsproductions5105
      @gandsproductions5105 Год назад +5

      @@andrewhammel8218 that's why I said "propeller driven" rather than piston engined.

  • @FinsburyPhil
    @FinsburyPhil Год назад +93

    With 500+ built, I'd have to go for the P-51H as the fastest 'fighter'- as you said, prototypes are almost always lighter and cosseted in some way that makes the top speed unrealistic in service. Other then that, it seems to me that the Spiteful F Mk 16 probably has the most reliably recorded highest speed of an aircraft designed to be a fighter.

    • @Frankie5Angels150
      @Frankie5Angels150 Год назад +3

      “Spiteful”?!? Sounds nasty!

    • @richardjamieson6681
      @richardjamieson6681 Год назад +5

      @@Frankie5Angels150, despite its undoubted hot-rod status, the Supermarine Spiteful rather ironically, had some incredibly spiteful low speed handling issues........

    • @jdavis9905
      @jdavis9905 Год назад +7

      Yep, I'm happy with this answer as the P51h had already been received by some units before the surrender of the Japanese in the Pacific

    • @MyCaptainPugwash
      @MyCaptainPugwash Год назад

      Thats just it isnt it, the P-51H was actually made in numbers to be useful, not some Japanese pipe dream or some crazed drug addled dream of the Nazis. If you go down that road and say actually used in WW2 in numbers to be useful then Bear Cat, Mustang, Tempest and maybe Tiger Cat.

    • @SoloRenegade
      @SoloRenegade Год назад +6

      the P-47 prototype also blew up its motor getting that fast, and never repeated anything remotely close to that speed ever again.

  • @ianmcsherry5254
    @ianmcsherry5254 Год назад +8

    I'd love if Eric Brown was still alive to pitch in to these comments: "Flew that. Flew that one. Flew that one too, and that one... Went to fly that one in 1945, but the only remaining engine at the airfield blew up as I was taxiing...." Etc. 🙂

  • @aaronlopez492
    @aaronlopez492 Год назад +60

    Ed, that was an excellent review of piston engine aircraft. Excellent job.

  • @Thomas..Anderson
    @Thomas..Anderson Год назад +33

    03:48 01. XP-47J
    04:04 19. Grumman Bearcat F8F-1
    04:34 18. Grumman Tigercat F7F-3
    04:58 17. Hawker Tempest 2
    05:35 16. CAC Ca-16 Kangaroo
    06:10 15. Supermarine Spitfire Mk.21
    06:34 14. North American F-82G
    07:07 13. Martin Baker MB.5 / Hawker Sea Fury / FMA I.Ae30
    08:38 12. Focke Wulf Ta 152H
    09:42 11. Yakovlev Yak-3M-108
    10:37 10. Kyushu J7W Shinden
    12:05 09. F4U-5 Corsair and P-57M
    13:32 08. De Havilland Hornet F.Mk.3
    14:03 07. Mitsubishi Ki-83
    15:18 06. Dornier Do 335
    17:37 05. Hawker Fury Mk.1 / Supermarine Spiteful F.Mk.14
    18:45 04 North American P.-51H Mustang
    20:04 03. Republic XP-72
    20:53 02. Supermarine Spiteful F.16

  • @REPOMAN24722
    @REPOMAN24722 Год назад +8

    SAAB 21 was a push design that made it to service. twin boom push config. over 200 built later fitted with a jet.

    • @allangibson8494
      @allangibson8494 Год назад

      The Me262 started out with a piston engine too…

  • @cecilboatwright3555
    @cecilboatwright3555 Год назад +21

    VERY NICE discussion!! After the war, Wright Field tested just about every airplane that the Axis powers had come up with, and YEARS AGO I came across a website that had many of their typewriter-written reports scanned and available. I cannot remember if the Do335 was included, but I would be very curious to see what their figures were on it (I cannot seem to locate the old website through any search engines). I am a former military pilot and (Heaven help me) retired air traffic controller, and a point that seems to allude most non-pilots is that "top speeds" are typically TRUE AIRSPEEDS after a myriad of corrections have been applied to them, and true airspeeds are very dependent upon the ALTITUDE (mostly temperature, but also atmospheric pressure) that the measurements are taken at. The thing is, around WWII, there wasn't really any universal convention on how to arrive at the calculated speeds. For instance, the more advanced models of the F4U Corsair had published "top speeds" well in excess of 400mph, and the Grumman F6F Hellcat was only supposed to be capable of around 360mph. At one point in the war, the Department of the Navy insisted that Grumman and Vought swap some fighters, in the hope that each company could improve their own fighter by being exposed to the capabilities of the other's design. Famed Grumman test pilot Corky Meyer claimed that, against the F4U that they took on for testing, that head to head, the poor "360mph" Hellcat could easily "walk away" from the "faster" F4U at just about every altitude!! And just the basics of flight testing in the 1940s was an EVOLVING discipline! So, your task becomes even more daunting, just because the observations-made-specifications, at that time, were anything but a standard practice!! And just one other point....the fighters of WWII RARELY RACED EACH OTHER!! Aerial combat is VERY RARELY done at any airplane's top speed!!! If anything, dogfighting is very often nearest the opposing airplanes' STALL SPEED, as they try to outmaneuver each other. Where a "top speed contest" comes into play are basically when an approaching fighter is attempting to CATCH an opponent to try to shoot them down, or as being able to determine who can successfully break off the fight and escape to fight another day, with the faster ship having a distinct advantage. YOU REALLY DID A NICE JOB with the discussion with the information you used, but the discussion, honestly, is SO VERY VAGUE with the data we have available to us at this point in history. The only REAL WAY to determine the answers would be to have ONE test and evaluation team fly EACH of the airplanes in the running, using a very precise set of testing criteria, and OBVIOUSLY that's just no longer possible (that's why I think the Wright Field flight test data would be SO HELPFUL here). LOVE YOUR STUFF CHUM!!!

    • @viper2148
      @viper2148 8 месяцев назад +1

      Well said. I think it's also important to remember that fighter aircraft aren't boxers who weight in and then square off in a ring. A fighter may excel in one mission set yet utterly fail in another (e.g. P-38 and Brewster Buffalo in PTO vice ETO). Anecdotes from the era (even from trained test pilots) are often fraught with bias and inconsistent baselines (armor/armament/fuel load/octane level/etc). "Fast" doesn't take into account acceleration, angle of attack (which increases the effect of gravity) nor the effect of speed on axis of control. Too many variables.

  • @barrysheridan9186
    @barrysheridan9186 Год назад +6

    Kudos for taking this subject on. The claims for any supposed fastest will find it difficult to escape suspicion for one reason or another, I think we can say that any aircraft that could reach 450 plus was an exceptional machine.

  • @mikepette4422
    @mikepette4422 Год назад +56

    the army tested the xp-47 J to ONLY 484 MPH ! wow thats still pretty crazy

    • @williammitchell4417
      @williammitchell4417 Год назад +4

      Any Jug design deserves a second look. Considering how much firepower the beast can carry.

    • @SoloRenegade
      @SoloRenegade Год назад +1

      and pretty slow, so not the #1

    • @johnnycab8986
      @johnnycab8986 Год назад +4

      It's definitely possible the 505mph is legit. Air conditions can account for the discrepancy. When you look at the Reno Air Race results, planes that do over 500mph one year can struggle to hit 470mph the next, due to what's going on in the air (temp, humidity, wind, etc).

    • @SoloRenegade
      @SoloRenegade Год назад +1

      @@johnnycab8986 no, it is not legit.
      The XP-47J blew up a brand new engine making the run, and it was not recorded with official instruments, nor was it witnessed by anyone other than the pilot. it could not be replicated with all further attempts falling WELL SHORT of the claim (more than 20mph short, consistently).
      the official top speed of the XP-47J,and the highest Recorded top sped of the XP-47J is the 484mph speed.
      The pilot likely over-revved the engine in a shallow power dive, and dives don't count regarding top speed. And this subsequently caused the engine to fail.
      In NO WAY does the 505mph Claim by teh pilot count. NO record keeping body would ever accept that as a record by any stretch of the imagination.
      P-47 fanboys just have to keep coping.

    • @I_am_not_a_dog
      @I_am_not_a_dog 11 месяцев назад +6

      @@SoloRenegade bro, chill. No one is taking this anywhere as seriously as you. Weirdo.

  • @wetzel1628
    @wetzel1628 Год назад +9

    What’s crazy about the fury 1 is that we only have data for its top speed without 150 octane fuel. With no 150 grade fuel it had a top speed of 482mph while making 3,055hp. With 150 grade fuel it’s engine was rated for 3,500hp, but we have no top speeds recorded for this plane in that configuration

    • @GrenvilleP710
      @GrenvilleP710 7 месяцев назад

      It was fastest no.dohbt about it.

    • @HobieH3
      @HobieH3 5 месяцев назад

      Makes you wonder what YAK's could have done with good fuel. The Soviets "complained" that the P40 needed 100 octane fuel

  • @lancerevell5979
    @lancerevell5979 Год назад +16

    "Pusher designs never adopted".... Ummmm.... SAAB J-21 anyone?

    • @EdNashsMilitaryMatters
      @EdNashsMilitaryMatters  Год назад +6

      Good point! Have to get around to that aircraft one day.

    • @robertdragoff6909
      @robertdragoff6909 Год назад +2

      It was converted to jet power later on….
      How about a video on planes that started out piston powered and were converted to jet power….
      I.E. the flying wing!

    • @jaws666
      @jaws666 Год назад +1

      Hi Ed.another great video as usual....ever consider doing a video on early jet trainers...be they European American or Russian?

    • @Frankie5Angels150
      @Frankie5Angels150 Год назад +2

      If it never fought anyone, it isn’t really a fighter.

  • @johndavey72
    @johndavey72 Год назад +37

    Ed. I think you hit gold with this one . And it's a comfort to know the Spiteful was the top dog . Thanks Ed . (Of course we both know someone will always contest the claim!)

    • @wymple09
      @wymple09 7 месяцев назад +1

      It was #2, not the top dog.

    • @vanmust
      @vanmust 4 месяца назад

      @@wymple09 top toothless dog

  • @callenclarke371
    @callenclarke371 Год назад +3

    This was very entertaining, but at the same time, precise, thorough, and compelling. Well done.

  • @Nafeels
    @Nafeels Год назад +11

    Now that you’ve mentioned the “what if?” scenario, I imagined an alternate universe where Rolls-Royce got their shit together and actually got the Crecy to be put in a test bed. It would most likely go into a Spitfire airframe with a nasty five-bladed prop and a complex extractor system to squeeze every last bit from the two-stroke’s massive exhaust gas production. It would also definitely be ridiculously loud, as engineers noted when they first tested the Crecy.
    Consider me very impressed with this tier list! Thanks for setting things right!

    • @METT-TC
      @METT-TC Год назад +4

      I feel like the spit would've had an airframe that was far too light. It probably would have been a tempest variant.

  • @davidjernigan7576
    @davidjernigan7576 Год назад +27

    This is a tough one as there were so many low production models like the super Corsair, seafury, bearcat, etc.

    • @spikespa5208
      @spikespa5208 Год назад +2

      At 15,000 ft., at 20,000 ft., at 26,000 ft., at 30,000 ft.,........ . Apples and oranges. How fast were all these planes at ,say, 200 ft.?

    • @dogsnads5634
      @dogsnads5634 Год назад +1

      Are they low production? Over 800 Sea Fury were built...1200 Bearcat...

    • @WereScrib
      @WereScrib Год назад +5

      @@spikespa5208 This isn't ever a very good measurement due to how piston engine aircraft function and how fuel mixtures and turbochargers worked. Most aircraft were literally not designed to go particularly fast at 200 feet.

    • @jj4791
      @jj4791 7 месяцев назад +1

      All you need is a two speed blower thats designed to kick in at high altitude, but instead kick it in to high blower down on the deck. Then spray water/methanol for ADI. Then run the RPM up to the maximum permissible dive over-rev speed of 3,400-3,500rpm. Then get a larger propeller with wider chord blades and cut it down to a length short enough so that most of the propeller remains transonic or subsonic. Offer a maniac a chance to fly it and put just enough fuel in the tanks to fly 50 miles, plus 15 minutes. Not hard. Just takes money and effort.

    • @spikespa5208
      @spikespa5208 7 месяцев назад

      @@WereScrib Well, then pick an altitude. But make it the same for every plane. This "I'm faster at 10,000 ft." " _But I'm faster at 30,000 ft._ " is bogus.

  • @geoffspringwood
    @geoffspringwood Год назад +4

    The aircraft shown at 5.28 isn't a Tempest II, it's an experimental version (note 'P' for prototype on the fuselage) of the Sabre-powered Tempest V, with an annular radiator, possibly inspired by the Fw190D. Note the Sabre's exhaust stacks. This was an attempt to reduce drag by eliminating the chin radiator and it seemed to work: top speed increased by about 15mph (24kph). Despite this it didn't make it into production.

  • @Blue-Rue10
    @Blue-Rue10 Год назад +1

    If you live in Palm Spring you can watch them flying around nearly every weekend. Just saw a P-47 for the first time today!

  • @andrewcoley6029
    @andrewcoley6029 Год назад +4

    great work as always - thanks for all your work on this.

  • @marcusott2973
    @marcusott2973 Год назад +4

    Much awaited, much appreciated excellent insights as always from you

  • @jimmyhillschin9987
    @jimmyhillschin9987 Год назад +2

    Fantastic video, delivered with suitable grace, humility and humour. Well done.

  • @kaylzshter6153
    @kaylzshter6153 Год назад +2

    Love your content Ed! You and Rex's Hanger are some of my favorite late night channels!

  • @thomasrotweiler
    @thomasrotweiler Год назад +8

    Given that to be a fighter pane you needed guns and ammo, plus fuel for operational sorties, were all the top speeds done with so equipped aircraft, if not, then I'd quibble about any that weren't.

    • @dogsnads5634
      @dogsnads5634 Год назад +2

      It's the same today. There are people out there who genuinely believe an F-15 can hit m2.5....in reality with a basic air to air load no F-15 will exceed m1.8 with the burners lit...and you can count your time at that speed in seconds as the fuel gauges whirr down to zero...

  • @richarddyson4380
    @richarddyson4380 Год назад +7

    CAC - 15 Kangaroo was my guess, at least as a testbed winner….. a surprising list for me. Well done providing this really informative video!

  • @su5119
    @su5119 7 месяцев назад +1

    Hey Ed...Great video and the commentary is spot on. Always interested in War Birds from that era. What made this much much more interesting were the pics of the P51's . Of those displayed, on the port side fuselage is a a "fighting bird" ( Baltimore Oriole) with boxing gloves on. They were from the Maryland Air National Guard fighter group. I love these!!! Reason being my father flew these and I recall at family gatherings at Harbor Field, MD I would see these birds. Even have a photo of dad sitting in the cockpit of one. We may have been the poorest family on the block but dad flew fighters!!! Many Thanks!

  • @davidhafner4324
    @davidhafner4324 Год назад

    Great job Ed. Very calm explanation.

  • @briancavanagh7048
    @briancavanagh7048 Год назад +10

    Looking at the finish of the final few aircraft and they look fast. Smooth clean lines, tight panel gaps, efficient looking air intakes and radiators. The comparison to some earlier noted aircraft and their rough appearance gives the indication that their airspeeds may have been fudged a little.

    • @lithobreak3812
      @lithobreak3812 10 месяцев назад +1

      Keep in mind that drag increases exponentially with speed, so it might have been a much bigger problem to the top aircraft than to the lower ones even if the speed difference is not that large

  • @pizzagogo6151
    @pizzagogo6151 Год назад +5

    Good list Ed thanks! Also thanks for including Shinden...I agree it “doesn’t count” but I just love the thing 😊..just like the MB5 & maybe the cac-15...certainty in my favourite “what if” aircraft( if they could have been developed further)

  • @rem26439
    @rem26439 Год назад +2

    Love the half-chuckle at the end, Ed knows what he's done😅

  • @rvail136
    @rvail136 Год назад +4

    I enjoy your videos because you inject your opinions (as well as humour) into the factual accounts. Thanks for what you're doing.

  • @womble321
    @womble321 Год назад +25

    Btw I was told at the mosquito museum now new Mosquitos are possible a serious attempt is being made to build a hornet as the moulds exist. Imagine that at an airshow!

    • @andrewwaller5913
      @andrewwaller5913 Год назад +1

      Yes there is a future Hornet project in NZ

    • @georgepantazis141
      @georgepantazis141 Год назад +1

      Wrong I believe there is a company in new Zealand that is building new mosquito's from the original moulds.and fabricating or getting original parts to build new ones.should be on line somewhere.

    • @georgepantazis141
      @georgepantazis141 Год назад +1

      @@andrewwaller5913 it's probably the place building mosquito's from scratch.

  • @johnforsyth7987
    @johnforsyth7987 Год назад

    Thank you for another very informative video. I learned more about some of these aircraft that I sis nor know before.

  • @jimdavison4077
    @jimdavison4077 7 месяцев назад +1

    Your speeds are quite different than many other publications I have read many written by well know experts in that period in aviation. With that said I don't see any point arguing when I found your videos completely enjoyable. Very nice compilation.

  • @simonlemerveilleuxdelisle3779
    @simonlemerveilleuxdelisle3779 Год назад +14

    The Ta152H had crazy speed at hight altitude and it actually saw action in the last weeks of the war.

    • @jorgsobota2228
      @jorgsobota2228 Год назад

      But, ironically, mostly down low instead of way up high. Grab a copy of Willy Reschkes Book or search him on RUclips - the Ta 152 in which he shot down 2 Yak-9 near Berlin was exactly the on shown in Farnborough 1946.

    • @simonlemerveilleuxdelisle3779
      @simonlemerveilleuxdelisle3779 Год назад

      @@jorgsobota2228 Yeah he claims even the Tempest at low alt couldnt touch the Ta152H.

  • @dcanmore
    @dcanmore Год назад +4

    SAAB 21 (pusher engine), almost 300 were built and put into service.

  • @jeffgaboury3157
    @jeffgaboury3157 Год назад

    Another awesome video. I enjoy your content immensely.

  • @jimfinlaw4537
    @jimfinlaw4537 Год назад +2

    In regards to the Republic XP-72 Ultrabolt prototypes, these aircraft were never flown to their top speeds. During the flight test program, the top speed was restricted to 490 mph for fear that the experimental Pratt & Whitney R-4360-13 Wasp Major engine would catch on fire. The XP-72's estimated top speed was actually 504 mph. There was a production order for 100 P-72's. In its production format, the P-72 was to have an estimated top speed of 540 mph. This is according to William M. Bodie who thoroughly researched the Republic P-47 Thunderbolt aircraft more extensively than any other military aviation author. If you read his book "Republic P-47 Thunderbolt, From Seversky to Victory," it just may open your eyes on what the Ultrabolt's potential really was. Another great book on German aircraft by author William Green is "Warplanes of the Third Reich." It has the top speed of the Dornier Do 335 Pfeil at 474 mph. for the high speed bomber version fighter.

  • @TheSlaughtermatic
    @TheSlaughtermatic Год назад +4

    As a P-47 fan I can say I find no fault in your findings.😍

    • @SoloRenegade
      @SoloRenegade Год назад +1

      except that there is no way to verify any of these numbers by simply referencing random books. Who knows where some of these numbers actually came from. the debate will never end without actual test data. and even then, one-off prototypes are a far cry from a production aircraft. often times the prototypes didn't even have full armament, ammo, etc.
      And since the 505 number is pure heresay, and could never be replicated (never mind the engine blew up shortly after the supposed 505 run).

    • @skepticalbadger
      @skepticalbadger Год назад +1

      ​@@SoloRenegade This exactly. I would simply ignore any figure from secondary literature unless referenced to a primary source. Which none of these aviation history books ever do.

  • @HardThrasher
    @HardThrasher Год назад +10

    It's such a complex and difficult field, the rate of change was insane in the 1930-1945.
    Great video, love it

  • @tosborne8062
    @tosborne8062 Год назад +1

    Wow, a lot of interesting planes and information to see here, and I appreciate the way you use imperial measures along with with metric (I'm American so that helps... no conversion calculations, my mathematics are not my forte... kinda scary for an aspiring pilot, right haha) That makes it great for everyone to watch no matter where you come from. Great vid thanks for the upload!

  • @rolandbogush2594
    @rolandbogush2594 Год назад

    Fascinating review, thank you.

  • @Badger_325
    @Badger_325 Год назад +5

    I actually didn't expect to see the Ki-83 in the list mainly due to lack of knowledge about it. I knew it was an impressive twin engine fighter but hearing that it only needed better fuel to go that much faster is insane

  • @alexandremarcelino7360
    @alexandremarcelino7360 Год назад +5

    Vídeo Excelente!👏 Grato pelas informações!🌟

  • @Apollo_1641
    @Apollo_1641 Год назад

    Nice edit of the "For a few dollars more" cards scene. Got a chuckle out of me!

  • @user-fr7vn6op2k
    @user-fr7vn6op2k 8 месяцев назад

    Ed, that was an excellent review of piston engine aircraft. Excellent job.. Ed, that was an excellent review of piston engine aircraft. Excellent job..

  • @csipawpaw7921
    @csipawpaw7921 Год назад +4

    I believe only aircraft with a combat record in WW2 should be considered for this list. Experimental aircraft are just that, experimental and improved aircraft that flew after WW2 ended clearly cannot be considered.

    • @ollimoore
      @ollimoore Год назад

      I’m somewhat in agreement about experimental testbed aircraft, but the “combat record in WW2” requirement doesn’t make sense. This video is about piston fighters generally, not specifically WW2 piston fighters. You aren’t asking for a slight change in criteria, but for a different list altogether. Postwar piston powered fighters definitely do belong in lists of piston powered fighters, considering they are, well, piston powered and fighters.

    • @bodenplatte1360
      @bodenplatte1360 Год назад

      Well, the title does talk about the fastest ever, not the fastest to see service. He can always make another video with that topic

  • @markgrunzweig6377
    @markgrunzweig6377 Год назад +3

    You made me laugh just when I needed to very badly!!! From a Yank, all I have to say is "jolly good show"! Great informative video.

  • @paul8574
    @paul8574 Год назад

    Brilliant video mate.. cheer's..😊

  • @wyverncoch4430
    @wyverncoch4430 Год назад +6

    You missed out the Airco DH.2 900mph @ sea level.
    Oops my bad that should read 90mph :/ got he decimel point in the wrong place, easly done :)

    • @mikepette4422
      @mikepette4422 Год назад +1

      decimal schmecimal ! I vote the DH. 2 as well !

    • @sugarnads
      @sugarnads Год назад

      Heh

    • @Leon_der_Luftige
      @Leon_der_Luftige Год назад +1

      The Airco certainly does deserve an honourable mention just because.

  • @kurshetl
    @kurshetl Год назад +13

    I think you may have missed the BF109K. I've seen several figures over the years of around 440 mph for the K4. It was a lot slower with the underwing cannon pods - about 410 mph, I believe - but while they were normally fitted in service, they weren't integral to the aircraft and could be removed.

    • @ottovonbismarck2443
      @ottovonbismarck2443 Год назад +3

      I've been thinking the same. But you're making a tiny mistake: K-4, the only version of K to see service, and analogue to G-6AS, G-14AS and G-10AS - was never fitted with gun pods ! They were designed for high altitude performance and speed to which gun pods were contrary. Prove me wrong, but I haven't seen a single photo of one of the mentioned 109s with gun pods. Centerline drop tank or one bomb it was.
      Edit: 109K-6 had two 30mm underwing gun pods. Probably a handful still saw service. Nevertheless, K-4 and the AS versions are the ones we focus on, and they were "clean".

    • @kurshetl
      @kurshetl Год назад +2

      @@ottovonbismarck2443 You're quite right. The gun pod appears to have been an option for the K-4 as the R-6 Rüstsatz kit, but I can't find any pictures with it fitted. Interesting - I might dig into it a bit more.

    • @dirtyoldcommie814
      @dirtyoldcommie814 Год назад +1

      @@ottovonbismarck2443 Those 30mm MK 108 guns for the K-6 were apparently not carried as gun pods, but installed directly in the wings.

    • @robinsonsstudios
      @robinsonsstudios Год назад

      ​@dirtyoldcommie814
      Are you sure there were any K6 built? Sources seem to be conflicting, some say that none were built ,others that there were a handful of them.

    • @ottovonbismarck2443
      @ottovonbismarck2443 Год назад +1

      @@dirtyoldcommie814 Which I haven't known, so thank you for that piece of information !

  • @marksanney2088
    @marksanney2088 Год назад

    WILD CARD . . . 😂🤣😂🤣😂 Love it!
    I greatly appreciate the time taken to both research and present this piston driven aircraft comparison.
    Have a safe and blessed week, my friend! 👍🏻🇺🇸🦅🇺🇸🦅🇺🇸 🇬🇧 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿 👍🏻

  • @tgambogi
    @tgambogi Год назад +2

    Enjoyed it Ed. Thank you. A lot of interesting fighters, but my favorite is the F4U

    • @jayh1734
      @jayh1734 Год назад

      Me too. It was the one they decided to keep building after the war and budget cuts because it had it all.not just speed. And was the coolest looking. Frontline fighter into Korea until the jet program got on its feet

  • @georgemcdonald3769
    @georgemcdonald3769 Год назад +4

    Great video. Would like to note that you said (referring to J7W Shinden) no pusher type piston engined aircraft ever made it to production. While not the fastest by any standard, the SAAB J21A entered production in 1945!

    • @stevetournay6103
      @stevetournay6103 Год назад

      Not to mention, though a fighter it wasn't, the mighty Convair B-36...

    • @georgemcdonald3769
      @georgemcdonald3769 Год назад

      @@stevetournay6103 And the YB-35!!!

  • @guaporeturns9472
    @guaporeturns9472 Год назад +5

    Sea Fury is badass… Corsair too

  • @Damorann
    @Damorann Год назад +1

    That's it, now we've done it. We showed Ed that the best way to make more interesting material to watch is by encouraging him to make controversial claims and wait for the comment section to explode.
    Get ready for the next one, I'm sure it's going to be even bigger than this excellent video.

  • @ricardocorbie6803
    @ricardocorbie6803 Год назад

    I certainly think you were fair and impartial!! Thanks Sir!! I enjoyed your work immensely🫡✅💯

  • @rolanddutton
    @rolanddutton Год назад +3

    "What is the fastest piston fighter?" Has a simple, one-word answer: context.

  • @m.streicher8286
    @m.streicher8286 Год назад +7

    I like these videos where you explore a topic rather than a specific plane.

  • @loiclaronche5675
    @loiclaronche5675 Год назад

    Excellent video, thanks a lot

  • @chrislong3938
    @chrislong3938 Год назад +2

    Take a trip to Reno to see Sea Furys, Mustangs, a Bearcat (The Bearcat) and all manner of really fast warbirds!!!
    Awesome fun!!!

    • @edwardpate6128
      @edwardpate6128 Год назад +2

      Better do it this year or you will never have that chance again.

    • @chrislong3938
      @chrislong3938 Год назад +1

      @@edwardpate6128 Seriously? I didn't know that!!!
      That is sad if it's over!!!

  • @Hypersonicmind
    @Hypersonicmind Год назад +3

    i had William Greens first book. You left out the K4. Wow. Listed at 452 in his book and that was most repeated number.
    440 is also a number i've seen often in the last 50 years. He listed the Ta152 at 472mph btw.
    It seems most English speakers underestimate the K4, until they try to outclimb one.
    i would really just count the fighters before Japan fell, ie during the war.
    After that you have prototype hot rods with 150 octane fuel.

  • @Project_1143M
    @Project_1143M Год назад +4

    this pop up in my recommended after 12 seconds being upload, notification squad?

    • @jmi5969
      @jmi5969 Год назад +1

      There's something wrong with youtube's clock. I watched the 22-minute video start to finish with no fast forwards, reloaded the page... and it's still "uploaded 16 minutes ago".

    • @Project_1143M
      @Project_1143M Год назад +1

      @@jmi5969 idk man, im watching on pc, so?

  • @luvr381
    @luvr381 Год назад +2

    Well done, Ed.

  • @ralfhtg1056
    @ralfhtg1056 8 месяцев назад

    Big thank you for including metric on screen!

  • @MothaLuva
    @MothaLuva Год назад +3

    There was a version of the Do 335 called the Do 635, one of a kind if I remember correctly (I hope). It was single seat with a bubble top canopy similar to a Tempest, P-51D or P-47D with an even sleeker fuselage than the Do 335. It was allegedly measured at 835 km/h TAS at the Erprobungsstelle Rechlin, I think in April 1945. I can’t remember the altitude, but it was very high because I just remember me wondering that it could climb that high let alone fly that fast that high.
    There was an article about this in a German aeronautical magazine called “Flug Revue” in the 1980ies. In the article there was a picture of the aircraft and a picture of the barograph readout. The guy who wrote the article was Hans Redemann, a noted Luftwaffe historian back then.
    I just hope I didn’t post any nonsense. It’s been decades I read this.

    • @rastarn
      @rastarn Год назад

      The 635 was a proposed variant design. A wind tunnel model was constructed and tested, with a cockpit mock up being as far as it got. The project aim was to test a prototype in late 1945 however it was cancelled in February of that year.

  • @robertdragoff6909
    @robertdragoff6909 Год назад +9

    This video shows how piston power reached it’s peak during and after WW II.
    Then jets took over.
    It surprised me that the F86 flew in the late 1940’s along with the P80.
    Interesting video

    • @olivergs9840
      @olivergs9840 Год назад +1

      Howard Hughes' Me 262 was actually barred from participating in a air race which the F-86 won. I've heard it was due to worries of it showing up the new jets, which seems unlikely to me

    • @robertdragoff6909
      @robertdragoff6909 Год назад +1

      @@olivergs9840
      Howard Hughs had a ME 262?
      Wow
      That’s news to me!

    • @olivergs9840
      @olivergs9840 Год назад +2

      @@robertdragoff6909 the man was rich and was apparently starting to lose it around the end of the war. During Hughes' first flight at the controls of a Constellation, (with Kelly Johnson as flight engineer) he tested the stall and recovery by putting the gear down, dropping all flaps, shoving the throttles to full, and pulling the yoke as hard as he could. Johnson said that was the only time he ever saw indicated airspeed read zero while airborne, and was floating on the ceiling while shouting to push over. After that, Kelly refused to ever fly with Hughes again

    • @robertdragoff6909
      @robertdragoff6909 Год назад +1

      @@olivergs9840
      Gee, I wonder why?
      Wow!

    • @Caseytify
      @Caseytify Год назад +3

      Another reason why the topic is really arguing about angels on pin heads. By 1945, jet fighters made the argument pointless.

  • @marklomax7452
    @marklomax7452 6 месяцев назад

    Nicely done. Thank you.

  • @michaelnaisbitt7926
    @michaelnaisbitt7926 Год назад +2

    You are a brave man taking on the aircraft community with this comparison We all have our favourite and can see how subjective speeds can be I personally think it shame that some of the one off's did not see action MB 5 XP 72 etc weren't developed more great upload 5hough 😊😊😊😊

  • @contingency9
    @contingency9 Год назад +1

    A very interesting documentary. I will look forward to watching more.

  • @thethirdman225
    @thethirdman225 Год назад +3

    The Sea Fury - whatever its speed - was a pretty successful aircraft pretty much everywhere it was used.

    • @PaulieLDP
      @PaulieLDP Год назад

      Except in War Thunder because those game developers just aren't too bright.

  • @johnshepherd9676
    @johnshepherd9676 Год назад +3

    My criterion for determining the fastest WWII fighter is that it must have at least achieved what we call today initial operational capability during the war. That excludes fighters like the Hornet, the F4U-5 and all prototype and preproduction aircraft. The contenders come down to the the TA-152, P-47M and P-51H. I usually say the P-51H by virtue of its large production order and its deployment for the upcoming invasion of Japan. However since the H never saw combat the winner is the P-47M.

  • @SgtSteel1
    @SgtSteel1 Год назад

    This must have taken a lot of time to make, so I just wanted to say thanks for doing this. Cheers.

  • @richardmoser6051
    @richardmoser6051 Год назад

    Excellant video, and I believe you showed a great deal of patience and time in research. I have seen many referances to the the Hawker Hornet and the Do335. I hope you have settled the arguement. I agree with your list and I wonder if this will ever be truelly settled.

    • @vashon100
      @vashon100 Год назад

      Excellent vs excellant, truly vs truelly

  • @Phoenix-xn3sf
    @Phoenix-xn3sf Год назад +4

    Regardless of who wins, they're all really beautiful planes. Even the P-47, in its own special way. :-)

    • @anonplayer8529
      @anonplayer8529 Год назад

      Yeah, 47 really highlights the fact, that you can make a barrel go fast without dropping it from the orbit. 😅

  • @kentl7228
    @kentl7228 Год назад +3

    P47Ms in Zemke's Wolfpack in the last 2 months of WW2. They were Me262 hunters.

  • @briansilcox5720
    @briansilcox5720 Год назад

    Nicely done!

  • @darrylb5247
    @darrylb5247 8 месяцев назад

    Very well done!

  • @McRocket
    @McRocket Год назад +7

    The Spiteful may also be the prettiest, piston-engined fighter ever.
    Thanks for this, Ed.

  • @Pouncer9000
    @Pouncer9000 Год назад +3

    For comparison the A400M does 781 km/h (485 mph) at 9,450 m (31,000 ft).
    Cruising.

    • @cdl0
      @cdl0 Год назад

      And sounds like a bag of spanners falling down a metal fire escape!

    • @petegarnett7731
      @petegarnett7731 Год назад

      @@cdl0 That's due to those cheap yankee props they put on it to keep the "transatlantic cousins" happy.

  • @markschippel7974
    @markschippel7974 7 месяцев назад +1

    I remember reading a story of how a P-47 out dove Focke Wulf 190, to the apparent surprise of both pilots. The P-47 pilot supposedly said afterwards, "Heck it ought to dive, it sure as hell can't climb!".

  • @davidpope3943
    @davidpope3943 Год назад

    Another great video Ed.
    I do think it would have been interesting to see what the Pfiel could have done with some really good quality fuel, exactly the sort of thing the Luftwaffe was lacking by the late war period. However, if the pilot got into difficulties, exiting the plane in an emergency was, well, a bit hit & miss. Apologies if this has already been covered.
    Eric Brown said it had, quote,
    ‘The most complicated system of safety devices ever employed to get a pilot clear in an emergency.’
    Unquote.
    1/ Press a button to blow the rear prop off.
    2/ Press a second button to blow the top fin and rudder off.
    3/ Press third button to arm the ejector seat.
    4/ Manually eject the canopy by gripping two red levers at the front of the hood & heaving with all his strength.
    5/ Squeeze a trigger on the seat arm-rest to activate the ejection seat.
    Unfortunately, step 4/ had a few issues which could prevent step 5/. On at least two crashes, the pilot was recovered from the aircraft ~ without one or both arms. Upon heaving on the two red levers to jettison the canopy, it was snatched away so fast that the pilot had no time to let go of the levers ~ and their arm (or arms) went with it.
    NOT a nice way to go!

  • @thethirdman225
    @thethirdman225 Год назад +5

    Pierre Clostermann describes an attempted interception of a Do-335 in his book, _’The Big Show’._
    Green’s book definitely says 474. I have a copy.

    • @altergreenhorn
      @altergreenhorn Год назад +2

      Do 335 was too fast, if remember right what I read 30 years ago.

    • @thethirdman225
      @thethirdman225 Год назад

      @@altergreenhorn Do you mean Green credited it with being faster than it really was? Eric Brown says 455.

    • @altergreenhorn
      @altergreenhorn Год назад

      @@thethirdman225 Im talking about Pierre Clostermann book, dont have green book

    • @thethirdman225
      @thethirdman225 Год назад +1

      @@altergreenhorn Oh, sorry. You meant it was too fast for Clostermann or his section to catch. Got it.

    • @altergreenhorn
      @altergreenhorn Год назад

      ​@@thethirdman225 jp

  • @jayartz8562
    @jayartz8562 Год назад +3

    Yay!

  • @kenbobca
    @kenbobca Год назад

    Great video, thank you.

  • @DC.409
    @DC.409 Год назад

    Excellent video, worth a look at what was the plan for the Rolls Royce Crecy engine, the ultimate piston engine . It was considered too powerful for the Spitfire and Spiteful airframe which had been the plan.

  • @mbryson2899
    @mbryson2899 Год назад +3

    Mr. Nash, you must be either a masochist or a sadistic gadfly. Either way this video is sure to send the comments flying.
    Nicely done, sir, nicely done.

  • @jarigustafsson7620
    @jarigustafsson7620 Год назад +5

    Dornier 335 left everybody in it's turbulence.

  • @Peter-dj8dv
    @Peter-dj8dv Месяц назад

    Thank you for the video. I, also, am doubtful that it will settle many, if any, debates.

  • @d3hk4y81
    @d3hk4y81 Год назад +2

    I would have loved to see a Mosquito fitted with Griffin engines!

  • @NS-hs6lt
    @NS-hs6lt Год назад +5

    Wheraboos (ostensibly anime nerds who worship nazi WW2 weapons, uniforms, etc.) are a sad lot. There is definitely a huge overlap of these folks and 4chan incels. It is simultaneously funny and sad.