It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


5top celling propeller fighter aeroplane

page: 1

log in


posted on Feb, 1 2006 @ 07:32 AM
We knew that bomber almost fly over 10000 meter high with speed almost same to most of fighter sametime's in last period of WW Ⅱ. Eapecially in Japan, most of fighter they built couldn't reach B-29 bomber because this bomber is so far and so high that even A6M5 has no capability to compatite with. So if the speed is really important, then celling also is very important as a propeller fighter cannot do high angle of attack to shoot bomber that flight above itself. There was no guided-missile in that time, wasn't it?
Now, I invite you to enumerate 5 top celling propeller fighter which must had made first flew before 15 August 1945.

posted on Feb, 1 2006 @ 08:01 AM
Also, I don't do metric very well so I had to look up that the B-29 had a service cieling of 32,00ft which I thought sounded low until I looked at other bombers and found that the Lancaster/B-17 generation operated at around the 20-25,000 mark.

I don't know about a top 5 but maybe the answers posted here will allow us to deduce one. As you know my speciality is in UK projects so I can elaborate that the Meteor had a service cieling of 44,500ft which beats the Spiteful at 42,000ft and just shades the specially developed 'high altitude fighter; the Westland Welkin at 44,000ft. No other British piston fighter was even capable of reaching 40,000 so these three (plus the Vampire at 40,000) were way above all else from the UK. The P-51D has a service ceiling of 41,900ft so that was a good high flyer whilst the P-47 was down amongst the Spits and Hurri's at 36,000. Still enough to reach a B-29 though.

Also if we are thinking about B-29's bombing Germany, they would have been well within reach German fighters such as the He 219 and Me 262 which could both reach 40,000ft. I leave it to others to fill in the great many gaps I have left in this subject.

posted on Feb, 1 2006 @ 10:12 AM
:shk: You must be jealous too much and has never seen what did you post..... How can you put the jet fighter with propeller fighter together!
I knew there was a kind of Meteor fixed propeller,but I have n't seen any Vampire had fixed propeller. Also my English is really poor, but you can see when I say aeroplane which always means a plane using propeller, when I say aircraft which always means a plane fixed Jet engine. I don't know if it is right? Please correct me if I am wrong.

posted on Feb, 1 2006 @ 10:22 AM
In common usage English "Aeroplane" and "aircraft" are interchanageble with very few types, such as Helicopters, not fitting into both. "Air vehicle" and "Aerial Platform" are also increasingly popular terms.

posted on Feb, 1 2006 @ 10:57 AM
Emile, I see you did say 'propeller fighter' which I missed somehow, I just thought you said 'fighter' In that case the highest flying from the UK were the Welkin and Spiteful, but only about 100 of each were built because contracts were cancelled when Germany surrendered. If the war had continued both would have seen service in large numbers so do you wish to include them?

There were no propeller driven Vampire or Meteor fighters, a single Meteor was used to test the worlds first turboprop engine but that was the only one. All other UK fighters had a ceiling around the 30-36,000 ft mark and so are hardly worth mentioning as that was standard throughout Europe and the USA by that time., only something that could top 40,000 is a special case.

Also an aeroplane is a powered, winged flying machine where an aircraft is any vehicle that travels through the air (including aeroplanes) There is no distinction in the word as to whether one is jet propelled or not.

[edit on 1-2-2006 by waynos]

posted on Feb, 1 2006 @ 11:04 AM
like speed, max height stats can be misleading. The max height and the sensible maximum operating height are quite different, especially if you take combat effectiveness into account. being able to reach 40,000ft is not the sole requirement for practically intercepting high flying bombers. However, the Welkin was designed to do just that (although it would have been obscelete if Germany had pressed more jet bombers into service) so that's a fair indication of its abilities.

posted on Feb, 1 2006 @ 11:37 AM
Westland Welkin High altitude fighter, just in case you were wondering what we were on about.

posted on Feb, 1 2006 @ 12:10 PM
I think the spitfire was the best propeller aircraft of ALL TIME, just cause its so damn sexy. Many other reasons two, but even if those reasons existed it wouldnt matter to me. I Could pick up endless chicks in it ( aside from the fact that its a single seater, lol.)


[edit on 1-2-2006 by jta79]

[edit on 1-2-2006 by jta79]

posted on Feb, 1 2006 @ 12:46 PM
I have to admit Ive never heard of the Westland Welkin, it looks amazing what a great picture ,stange name though sounds like some kind of pickle
still its one for me to look up.

posted on Feb, 1 2006 @ 03:04 PM

Originally posted by buckaroo
I have to admit Ive never heard of the Westland Welkin, it looks amazing what a great picture ,stange name though sounds like some kind of pickle
still its one for me to look up.
The Welkin was the successor of the unsuccessful but cooler named Whirlwind which suffered from poor engines.

posted on Feb, 1 2006 @ 04:06 PM
Junkers Ju-86P German Recon plane could reach 45,920ft (14,000m)
It had a pressurized cockpit and diesel engines, this was at the beginning of the war.

However it carried no defensive armament (apart from the odd bomb or two) on the assumption it couldn't be intercepted, which proved to be correct until August 24, 1942 when a specially stripped version of the Mk V Spitfire (MkVI I presume) made a successful interception at 42,000ft over Egypt, probably one of the highest intercepts of the war. Just a month later a Mk IX Spitfire made an intercept of another Ju86 over England t 43,000ft but only succeeded in damaging it as the Spitfire was at the very edge of its envelope at that height and was on the edge of stall, making it difficult to aim.

The Germans later tried to improve the chances of the Ju 86 surviving over enemy territory by creating an updated Ju 86R version. An even higher-aspect ratio wing was fitted, having a span of 104 ft 11 3/4 in. along with a pair of Jumo 207B-3 diesel engines, each offering up to 1000 hp for takeoff. The engines were also provided with GM-1 boost (nitrous oxide injected into the supercharger) to boost power at very high altitude. A few Ju 86Ps were converted into Ju 86R configuration, and tests showed that an altitude of 47,250 feet could be reached and maintained. A handful of operational missions were flown by the Ju 86R, but the type was eventually taken out of service by July 1944.

Service ceilings for some other common ww2 aircraft (keep in mind it takes a loooong time for these aircraft to reach these altitudes, not good for quick interception of high slying bombers

A6M5 Zero Model 52 (1943)

P-38L-5-LO Lightning
44,000 ft

F4U-4 Corsair
38,400 ft

P-51D Mustang
41,900 ft

Spitfire IIA (1940)
37,600 ft (later versions obviously got a bit higher)

Focke-Wulf Ta 152H (1944) perhaps the ultimate high altitude fighter in WW2 with a ceiling of 48,550 ft and designed from the outset to perform at it's best above 40,000ft.

[edit on 1/2/06 by R988]

posted on Dec, 26 2008 @ 01:48 PM
I wanted to point out that Supermarine built both the Mark VI and Mark VII pressurised high altitude Spitfires which could reach 42,000 to 44,000 feet depending on the installed engine version. They were conceived to counter the Ju86R intruder. The Mark VI was not very popular with pilots, as the canopy was locked in place by ground crew before take-off and could not be removed from inside the aircraft. The Mark VII had a sliding canopy which the pilot could open. Both had extended wing tips of the pointed variety.

top topics


log in