# F4U Corsair vs P-51 Mustang



## Catch22 (Jul 23, 2008)

I did a quick search and couldn't find an existing thread, so...

Which is the better aircraft? I will not be posting much data as I 1) am not that knowledgable technically, so this should be good and 2) I'm here to learn, and I don't have access to all the resources some of you guys have. 

Personally, I'm partial to the F4U, but this thread is NOT here to choose favourites, but rather to determine which the better plane was and why. Have at 'er!

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## comiso90 (Jul 23, 2008)

Ask Honduras and El Salvador. They fought each other and as far as I know the P-51 always came out on top but pilot training and maintenance were huge factors


----------



## ponsford (Jul 23, 2008)

Examine the data and draw your own conclusions.

F4U Performance Trials

P-51 Mustang Performance and Encounter Reports of P-51 Mustang Pilots

 Evaluation and Comparison Trials of P-51B and F4U-1 Airplanes (It should be noted that the 65” Hg MAP used on one of the F4U’s tested was not standard.)


----------



## kool kitty89 (Jul 23, 2008)

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/p-51-mustang-f4u-corsair-3641.html


http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/f4u-vs-p-51-essay-12111.html


----------



## Catch22 (Jul 23, 2008)

Wow, the search is brutal on this site I guess. Sorry guys!


----------



## kool kitty89 (Jul 23, 2008)

Well the other thread is kind of old. (last post in '06, and the essay one is a bit of a different topic)

Anyway, try using the google search feature, it's usually more helpful for these kind of searches. 
My search: P-51 F4U - Google Search


----------



## Catch22 (Jul 23, 2008)

Oh yes, that is much better. Thanks again!


----------



## magnocain (Jul 24, 2008)

Corsair wins.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## comiso90 (Jul 24, 2008)

magnocain said:


> Corsair wins.



unless you are escorting heavies at high altitude


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (Jul 24, 2008)

Kinda off topic, but does a game like Il Sturmovik really portray the Mustangs manuverability accurately?

Or does it hype it up?

I do like all the stall characteristics in Sturmovik, even though it can be annoying when your plane crashes from too tight a turn. But still, it helps make the planes feel more realistic. 

and again, I know it's just a game.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Jul 24, 2008)

Which the Corsair was capable of, albeit not quite as good as the P-51. But even in comparison to the lighter P-51B the F4U-1 was comperable in speed and superior in climb up to 24,000 ft with both a/c in comparable loadouts. (configured for similar range)
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f4u/p-51b-f4u-1-navycomp.pdf

The F4U-1 also had superior high-alt performance to contemporary Fw-190's and 109's (except for high alt 109's with GM-1 or DB-603 supercharger).


Though I haven't seen a cost comparison for the F4U, I'd assume it would be more expensive than the P-51 (though probably a bit cheaper than the P-47) and it would use ~50% more fuel than the P-51.
But the F4U was much better in other roles, Fighter-Bomber and Dive Bomber (except A-36), strafing: carried much more ammo 6x 400 rpg, compared to 4x 400 or 2x 400 + 4x 265 for the P-51D. (much less for the B/C)


----------



## kool kitty89 (Jul 24, 2008)

The turning characteristics in Il-2 (4.07/4.08 -1946-) seem pretty well matched to reality. And the stalls are great, particularly modeling the particular characteristic of different a/c. (including slats, featured on quite a few a/c)

THe only general (significant) problems I've encountered in performance is that the jets don't seem to accelerate and retain speed properly at altitude.

The biggest flaw I've found is thatthe damage modeling, while possibly the best of any CFS, doesn't model cooling systems/radiators. (odd since they do model oil coolers and oil tanks)


----------



## drgondog (Jul 24, 2008)

Catch22 said:


> I did a quick search and couldn't find an existing thread, so...
> 
> Which is the better aircraft? I will not be posting much data as I 1) am not that knowledgable technically, so this should be good and 2) I'm here to learn, and I don't have access to all the resources some of you guys have.
> 
> Personally, I'm partial to the F4U, but this thread is NOT here to choose favourites, but rather to determine which the better plane was and why. Have at 'er!



In my opinion this discussion is about which models you are comparing and which pilots are flying them and who spots the other first.

Overall Mission capability - dogfighter, close air support, carrier ops and I would give the edge to Corsair

Air superiority, long range escort, maybe even high altitude interceptor and I would give the edge to the P-51 and particularly the P-51H over any variant of the F4U. 

The airplane that is most ignored in these discussions is the P51B-15 with Malcom Hood and the 1650-7 engine on 44-1 fuel. Only the P-51H is superior Mustang variant.

My father got 3-1-1 in the air in his first two weeks in this bird, then converted to a P-51D and got 4-1-1 for the next 10 months. He always had a great affection for acceleration, climb and turn performance in that B-15 over all variants of the P-51D

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thorlifter (Jul 24, 2008)

Drgondog,

What is 3-1-1 and 4-1-1?

Is it 3 kills, 1 damaged, 1 probable?


----------



## drgondog (Jul 24, 2008)

Thorlifter said:


> Drgondog,
> 
> What is 3-1-1 and 4-1-1?
> 
> Is it 3 kills, 1 damaged, 1 probable?



Yes but destroyed-probable-damaged in that order


----------



## Marshall_Stack (Jul 24, 2008)

I would personally rather fly the F4U. Ground attack is usually required and I would rather have the toughness of the Corsair and its radial engine.


----------



## davparlr (Jul 26, 2008)

drgondog said:


> The airplane that is most ignored in these discussions is the P51B-15 with Malcom Hood and the 1650-7 engine on 44-1 fuel. Only the P-51H is superior Mustang variant.
> 
> My father got 3-1-1 in the air in his first two weeks in this bird, then converted to a P-51D and got 4-1-1 for the next 10 months. He always had a great affection for acceleration, climb and turn performance in that B-15 over all variants of the P-51D



I certainly agree with this. I selected this aircraft as the one I would most like to fly if I had to fly in WWII, on another thread. This aircraft, at fighter weight of 8500 lbs. could be quite competitive with even the latest German aircraft, besting the Fw-190D-9 at almost all altitudes in speed and probably equal in climb, if the D-9 would have to be lowered to some fighting weight to be competitive. The Bf-109K and the Ta-152H would have to be dealt with carefully as they had some performance edge, although not a lot up to 25k.

It is also interesting to note that if they had dropped the -9 engine in the B, or even D, performance would have been very near the P-51H, the B being closer since it is lighter than the H. I would think that change would have been no more complex than the other engine upgrades. They just didn't need to do it.

As for comparing the P-51 to the F4U, they were designed for different missions. Neither aircraft could perform the other mission better. The F4U-1 would not have been able to provide the coverage necessary to protect the bombers in early to late ’44. While their range was adequate, performance dropped off significantly above 25k, allowing the enemy to attack from above. The F4U-4 could perform at altitude but lacked internal fuel range and if they were added, the F4U-4 would still have missed the critical time for bomber escorting. While the P-51 could probably been upgraded to carrier quals, the added weight would have hindered performance even more at lower altitude, where it was not designed to play. In addition, the liquid cooled design would have made carrier maintenance more complex.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## kool kitty89 (Jul 26, 2008)

But performance of the F4U-1 at alt was much better than the the contemporary Fw 190A, and some 109's. (and still compeditive with most contemporary 109's) 

As it was the P-51B made a much better escort fighter -particularly fo the higher flying B-17's- but if there had been separate development of the F4U for the AAF, a higher altitude supercharger would likely have been used sooner if not a turbocharged variant. 


Here's an interesting discussion on this we had going a while back: http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/battle-over-germany-january-1944-a-13336.html


----------



## drgondog (Jul 26, 2008)

kool kitty89 said:


> But performance of the F4U-1 at alt was much better than the the contemporary Fw 190A, and some 109's. (and still compeditive with most contemporary 109's)
> 
> As it was the P-51B made a much better escort fighter -particularly fo the higher flying B-17's- but if there had been separate development of the F4U for the AAF, a higher altitude supercharger would likely have been used sooner if not a turbocharged variant.
> 
> ...



I agree with this KK. The F4U had a clean airframe and the R-2800 certainly had models tuned for high altitude as evidenced by the P-47. I have always thought in hindsight that the F4U would be considered the best US fighter, hands down, had it been used and deployed also by the USAAF.

But it did not get to make a combat record against the Luftwaffe to demonstrate its true value


----------



## drgondog (Jul 26, 2008)

davparlr said:


> I certainly agree with this. I selected this aircraft as the one I would most like to fly if I had to fly in WWII, on another thread. This aircraft, at fighter weight of 8500 lbs. could be quite competitive with even the latest German aircraft, besting the Fw-190D-9 at almost all altitudes in speed and probably equal in climb, if the D-9 would have to be lowered to some fighting weight to be competitive. The Bf-109K and the Ta-152H would have to be dealt with carefully as they had some performance edge, although not a lot up to 25k.
> 
> It is also interesting to note that if they had dropped the -9 engine in the B, or even D, performance would have been very near the P-51H, the B being closer since it is lighter than the H. I would think that change would have been no more complex than the other engine upgrades. They just didn't need to do it.
> 
> ...



Damn good summary. Also if the B or H had been carrier qual per tail hook and gear loads, they would have been back to the P-51D in performance.


----------



## lesofprimus (Jul 26, 2008)

For anything other than escort duties, the F4U is my pick... It served a higher number of mission parameters and had a survivability rate the Mustang cant compete with....

With that being said, the Malcom hooded B-15 would be my choice if I was only allowed to choose operations in the ETO... I dont really know of anyone who would choose the D model over the B...


----------



## Catch22 (Jul 26, 2008)

That's interesting, I didn't realize there was that much of a difference between the B-15 and D. If anything, you'd think the D would be better. I guess newer isn't always better.


----------



## renrich (Jul 26, 2008)

Actually, I believe that in ACM between Honduras and the other country (can't remember) a pilot name Hernando Soto(or something) shot down a P51 or two in the last combat by an F4U. Doesn't prove much. They were AC optimised for different missions. If picking between the two if you could only have one for the whole war, the P51 could never be as effective as the Corsair as a carrier plane and the Corsair could never be as effective as P51 as long range escort. For all around fighter bomber in all missions, I would have to go with Corsair, barely.


----------



## drgondog (Jul 26, 2008)

lesofprimus said:


> For anything other than escort duties, the F4U is my pick... It served a higher number of mission parameters and had a survivability rate the Mustang cant compete with....
> 
> With that being said, the Malcom hooded B-15 would be my choice if I was only allowed to choose operations in the ETO... I dont really know of anyone who would choose the D model over the B...



I agree basically except for a couple of minor points - Recce would be one.

Dan - I actually do know a lot the 51 drivers that liked the D a little better for firepower, visibility and some of the airframe fixes that made the D safer in a dive. 

My father was the other way, agreeing bubble slightly better than Malcolm and a lot better than birdcage but he didn't see any real differences between 4x 50 and 6x in terms of perceived results on 109s and he said the turn and climb comparisons rat racing with D's showed a clear edge given pilot equality. for the P-51B


----------



## lesofprimus (Jul 26, 2008)

Agree with u 100% Bill, but if I had to get a recce mission done, it wouldnt be either one...

As far as firepower goes, the old saying that if u cant hit something with 4x .50's, 6 aint gonna help you will always stick in my mind.... If ur strafing, then I would consider it important...

U would know alot more than I Bill concerning the Stang drivers opinions, but I dont know any Stangers who preffered the D model over the B.... I do remember one of Grandpas pals who did comment on the dive characteristics of the B compared to the D model, but he said that he wouldnt have traded out his B if he had a choice....


----------



## renrich (Jul 26, 2008)

My brother down in Texas knows an 87 year old man who is pert as can be named Joe Ramshorn(sp?) and was a Mustang driver out of Italy in WW2. Shot down over Yugoslavia, burned and escaped with help from partisans. Still rides a big hog motorcycle. Bill, are you familiar with him?


----------



## lesofprimus (Jul 26, 2008)

If he was out of Italy, Bill would probably not be familiar with him as his Dad flew out of Steeple....


----------



## drgondog (Jul 26, 2008)

lesofprimus said:


> Agree with u 100% Bill, but if I had to get a recce mission done, it wouldnt be either one...
> 
> As far as firepower goes, the old saying that if u cant hit something with 4x .50's, 6 aint gonna help you will always stick in my mind.... If ur strafing, then I would consider it important...
> 
> U would know alot more than I Bill concerning the Stang drivers opinions, but I dont know any Stangers who preffered the D model over the B.... I do remember one of Grandpas pals who did comment on the dive characteristics of the B compared to the D model, but he said that he wouldnt have traded out his B if he had a choice....



I wouldn't say I know more about 51 pilot opinions, just the sample I had preferred the visibilty and firepower.

The dive issues on the B were much less than the D due to the wheel uplocks to ensure that neither gravity nor aero distribution could open that gear door and rip a wing off, and the stiffened ammo doors solved the other 'early compressibility' issue. The dive yaw tendencies never did 100% go away even with bigger tail of the P-51H.

As to Recce? I don't know. On the Allied side the Mossie and F-5 and F-6 were pretty much the best so you don't lose much with the 51/F-6


----------



## lesofprimus (Jul 26, 2008)

True enough Bill....

Question.... What did ur Dad have to say about the Corsair?? Did he ever get any cross-time with the Jarheads and Squids??


----------



## drgondog (Jul 27, 2008)

renrich said:


> My brother down in Texas knows an 87 year old man who is pert as can be named Joe Ramshorn(sp?) and was a Mustang driver out of Italy in WW2. Shot down over Yugoslavia, burned and escaped with help from partisans. Still rides a big hog motorcycle. Bill, are you familiar with him?



I don't know Joe Ramshorn... 

Dan is right, I know or knew a handful such as Brooks, Jorda, Green, Momeyer and McCorkle - all through my father's friendships - but I have met far more Mustang drivers from ETO than MTO.


----------



## drgondog (Jul 27, 2008)

lesofprimus said:


> True enough Bill....
> 
> Question.... What did ur Dad have to say about the Corsair?? Did he ever get any cross-time with the Jarheads and Squids??



On the F4U, when he was a VP at LTV he got a ride in the F4U via Paul Thayer and liked the airplane a lot. He was maybe 55 at the time so I don't expect that he was pulling any real G's in the airplane. 

It was from Thayer that I received my impressions of the F7F - which he liked as much or more as the F8F - and both more than the F4U which he liked very much. Thayer was Chief Test Pilot at LTV after USN, then moved up to Chairman of LTV. His favorite ship of all time was the F8U.

He never flew the 51 so I wasn't able to get a sense of comparison with F4U from him.

My father's favorite airplane of all time was the F-86 and he did get some 'cross time' in the FJ-2. He was running the Air Proving Ground at Eglin after his tour in Korea and had a fair amount of contact with Naval Air types at Pensacola. 

There was a lot of good natured rivalry which was not so much fun when the two played football against each other - back in the day when different armed services bases fielded semi pro football teams and Eglin, Pensacola and Quantico and Bragg and Pendleton had some really good football teams. Dad coached the QB's for two years..before "we" went to Air War College at Maxwell.

maybe an interesting point about him... he was (and still is) the only Qb in the State of Texas that was All-State three years in a row and beat out an unknown named Davy O'Brien for the honor... all at 5-7 and 135-140 pounds in the early 1930's.

Can you imagine anyone that size competing in the last 40 years at that size?


----------



## renrich (Jul 27, 2008)

Ramshorn was shot down by ground fire incidently. Thayer has had an interesting life. Fighter pilot, test pilot, executive of LTV, Sec Nav, I think, and spent some time in Fed pen for SEC violations which I thought were trumped up political BS. He was demonstrating an F7U at PAX and when he plugged in the burners, had an explosion. He managed to get the AC over the water and punched out. When he got back to the field someone told him that what Thayer had done was the most exciting demo he had ever seen. Dave O Brien may not mean much to some but he was one of the all time great QBs at TCU. My high school coach, Jewell Wallace, played with him as a wingback. Wallace was one of the legendary Texas high school coaches. Where did you father play?


----------



## drgondog (Jul 27, 2008)

renrich said:


> Ramshorn was shot down by ground fire incidently. Thayer has had an interesting life. Fighter pilot, test pilot, executive of LTV, Sec Nav, I think, and spent some time in Fed pen for SEC violations which I thought were trumped up political BS. He was demonstrating an F7U at PAX and when he plugged in the burners, had an explosion. He managed to get the AC over the water and punched out. When he got back to the field someone told him that what Thayer had done was the most exciting demo he had ever seen. Dave O Brien may not mean much to some but he was one of the all time great QBs at TCU. My high school coach, Jewell Wallace, played with him as a wingback. Wallace was one of the legendary Texas high school coaches. Where did you father play?



Wallace was one of the renowned high school coaches and obviously coached at same time as dad's coach Henry Frnka.

Greenville High - State Champions I think in 1933 and lost in State Championship game to Blair Cherry's Abilene team in 1934. Greenvile lost by 4 points and dad played with a separated right shoulder from week before - and he threw right handed.

Henry Frnka who went to Vanderbilt after 1935 season and dad followed to make Colliers Honorable Mention All America in 1937 as a sophmore and blew his knee out as a junior. Bear Bryant was an assistant coach at Vandy when dad was a senior. 

I don't know if you remember Dave Cambells' Texas Football, but in the 1968 edition he was ranked as one of Texas High School top Qb's of all time.

I got to know Thayer pretty well. He was 'involved' with a beautiful lady - at least to extent of giving her some inside info. When SEC put pressure on her she folded. I'm trying to remember the full name of the stock broker involved but he was Donny Anderson's roommate in off season when they both lived in Dallas - Billy Bob _____ (can't remember last name). 

Cossell was raving about Donny Anderson on Monday Night Football, and Don meridith cracked an insider joke that Anderson may have been the Golden Palomino at Texas Tech but in Dallas he was known as Billy Bob _______'s roomate who threw the most unbelievable parties in DFW area.

I went to several and met my former wife there. Dan Jenkins (author of Semi Tough) used to frequent those patries - draw your own conclusions. Billy Bob actaully did some time at the Fed Country Club but I can't remember if Thayer did.

Thayer and I were pall bearers for Captain James (Doc) Savage, former President of American Fighter Aces, at Sherman TX. Both outstanding Gentlemen.

I haven't communicated with Thayer since we moved to Oregon. He still rides his Harley all the time so he hasn't slowed down too much.

I think I was pretty tough - my father was a lot tougher.


----------



## renrich (Jul 28, 2008)

Obviously I am familiar with all those names. I think Frnka was the coach at Trinity U for a while and am not sure but he may have tried to recruit me out of San Antonio Thomas Jefferson in 52-53. I used to have every copy of "Texas Football" from the beginning, 1960, but threw them away during a move in 92.(bad decision) Have a hard bound version and will look your father up if possible. I think his name was Billy Bob Harris and I believe Thayer served a year or so. Wallace won a state championship in football at San Angelo and SA Jefferson and a state championship in basketball at El Paso. I think he is the only one to do so in two different sports.


----------



## davparlr (Jul 28, 2008)

kool kitty89 said:


> But performance of the F4U-1 at alt was much better than the the contemporary Fw 190A, and some 109's. (and still compeditive with most contemporary 109's)



Above 25k ft, the F4U-1 performance drops dramatically. I think that while the Bf-109 may be slightly slower at these altitudes, its superior rate of climb, and probably maneuverability, was sufficient to neutralize any advantage the F4U-1 would have. I am sure some of our German experts could make a more intelligent argument.




> As it was the P-51B made a much better escort fighter -particularly fo the higher flying B-17's- but if there had been separate development of the F4U for the AAF, a higher altitude supercharger would likely have been used sooner if not a turbocharged variant.



A high altitude supercharger was developed, but was not available until mid ’44, and was installed in the dash 4. As for a turbo supercharger, the tight cowl and slender fuselage would make an installation dicey (compare with the large fuselage of the P-47).



Drgondog said:


> I agree with this KK. The F4U had a clean airframe and the R-2800 certainly had models tuned for high altitude as evidenced by the P-47. I have always thought in hindsight that the F4U would be considered the best US fighter, hands down, had it been used and deployed also by the USAAF.



The F4U was not cleanest of aircraft. It was slightly cleaner than the P-47, however. I have created a variable to compare the aerodynamic efficiency of aircraft at sea level. This is system efficiency since some aircraft generate thrust from their radiators and some from the exhaust. Here are some comparisons. These numbers are mph/hp at SL.

*P-51B (-7 engine)* .24
*P-51D * .23
*Spitfire Mk XIV* .22
*Fw-190D-9* .22
*Fw-190A-5* .21
*Ta-152H-1* .18
*F4U-1* .162
*P-47D-25* .156
*F4U-4* .153
*P-38J* .13

See above regarding engines for higher altitudes.

A lighter, land based, F4U-1 would have improved climb however speed would probably not have been impacted by more than a couple of miles per hour. If you could give me an estimated weight savings for the land based versions, I could estimate impact to airspeed and climb.

It should be noted that in the Fighter Conference, the P-51 was selected as the second best fighter above 25k, behind the P-47, and second the below 25k, behind the F8F, in both cases ahead of the F4U-1, greatly ahead above 25k, only slightly ahead below 25k (insignificantly so). I believe this is one of the indications of how great the P-51 design was. While not overpowering at all altitudes (it definitely was above 25k until the latter part of ’44), it was very formidable from 35k to SL.





Renrich said:


> Actually, I believe that in ACM between Honduras and the other country (can't remember) a pilot name Hernando Soto(or something) shot down a P51 or two in the last combat by an F4U. Doesn't prove much. They were AC optimised for different missions. If picking between the two if you could only have one for the whole war, the P51 could never be as effective as the Corsair as a carrier plane and the Corsair could never be as effective as P51 as long range escort. For all around fighter bomber in all missions, I would have to go with Corsair, barely.



In the Soccer War, I believe Soto (?)was a pretty good stick. Also, he was flying an F4U-4 against P-51Ds, not the more equivalent P-51H. However, I agree with your final selection and would hope engine development could get me that -18W engine a lot earlier. And if they could just have squeezed that -57 engine in …….


----------



## renrich (Jul 28, 2008)

Dav, you quote fighter conference and mention F8F and also F4U1. If the F8F was evaluated, would not the F4U4 more likely to be the Corsair evaluated. By the time the F8F was out the F4U1 was completely outdated. I have seen photos of a Corsair and it was not a F4U4 because the prop was three bladed that intercepted a Dinah recon plane at 38000 feet over Okinawa. Apparently the performance at that altitude was not too shabby since he made more than one run on the Dinah in order to chew his tail off with the prop because his guns were frozen.


----------



## davparlr (Jul 28, 2008)

renrich said:


> Dav, you quote fighter conference and mention F8F and also F4U1. If the F8F was evaluated, would not the F4U4 more likely to be the Corsair evaluated. By the time the F8F was out the F4U1 was completely outdated. I have seen photos of a Corsair and it was not a F4U4 because the prop was three bladed that intercepted a Dinah recon plane at 38000 feet over Okinawa. Apparently the performance at that altitude was not too shabby since he made more than one run on the Dinah in order to chew his tail off with the prop because his guns were frozen.



I was surprised about the report on the XF4U-4, which was included. In the overall rating it was rated rather low in both categories. On the individual reports, there was only about three different reports with limited data. Maybe the aircraft was having problems or was limited in its participation. There were a lot of participation with the XF8F. In any event, the F4U-4 was not available during the critical time of late 43 to late 44, where the P-51 was so valuable in escorting the bombers.

Most of my info shows the F4U-1 having a sevice ceiling of 36,900 ft. However, I did find a test report that indicated that, at WEP, the F4U-1 had a rate of climb of 300 ft/min at 38000 ft. I guess this is enough to handle a Dinah, but I bet it was really mushy at that altitude. The climb rate of the F4U-1 at 25k and 30k is less than the Bf-109G, but somewhat faster.

I enjoyed you and drgondog's discussion of your dads. That was as much fun as reading about aircraft. It must have been quite a treat to be exposed to such experience. My dad's life was quite different. He had to quit school after the eigth grade to go to work during the Depression because his dad died. He supported a family of six when he was fourteen. As a young man, he threw coal into the belly of a locomotive for twelve to sixteen hours a day (pre union) to support his family and later sent my sister and me to college. This also kept him out of the war. Not exciting, but still a hero to me.


----------



## drgondog (Jul 28, 2008)

renrich said:


> Obviously I am familiar with all those names. I think Frnka was the coach at Trinity U for a while and am not sure but he may have tried to recruit me out of San Antonio Thomas Jefferson in 52-53. I used to have every copy of "Texas Football" from the beginning, 1960, but threw them away during a move in 92.(bad decision) Have a hard bound version and will look your father up if possible. I think his name was Billy Bob Harris and I believe Thayer served a year or so. Wallace won a state championship in football at San Angelo and SA Jefferson and a state championship in basketball at El Paso. I think he is the only one to do so in two different sports.



It was Harris, and Thayer did spend a year at the country club.

Frnka went to Vandy and coached under Ray Morrison, then went to Tulane and maybe Wichita before Trinity. Dad loved Henry and was just about to go to A&M when Frnka left for Vandy. I still have some of his film.

I think it was 1967 for Campbell, and various sportswriters ranked their favorites. I have to go look but does McClanahan ring a bell? There was one other guy thta was an offensive linemen from the school in Ft Worth that made all state three times first.


----------



## drgondog (Jul 28, 2008)

davparlr said:


> I was surprised about the report on the XF4U-4, which was included. In the overall rating it was rated rather low in both categories. On the individual reports, there was only about three different reports with limited data. Maybe the aircraft was having problems or was limited in its participation. There were a lot of participation with the XF8F. In any event, the F4U-4 was not available during the critical time of late 43 to late 44, where the P-51 was so valuable in escorting the bombers.
> 
> Most of my info shows the F4U-1 having a sevice ceiling of 36,900 ft. However, I did find a test report that indicated that, at WEP, the F4U-1 had a rate of climb of 300 ft/min at 38000 ft. I guess this is enough to handle a Dinah, but I bet it was really mushy at that altitude. The climb rate of the F4U-1 at 25k and 30k is less than the Bf-109G, but somewhat faster.
> 
> I enjoyed you and drgondog's discussion of your dads. That was as much fun as reading about aircraft. It must have been quite a treat to be exposed to such experience. My dad's life was quite different. He had to quit school after the eigth grade to go to work during the Depression because his dad died. He supported a family of six when he was fourteen. As a young man, he threw coal into the belly of a locomotive for twelve to sixteen hours a day (pre union) to support his family and later sent my sister and me to college. This also kept him out of the war. Not exciting, but still a hero to me.



He was a hero. Responsibility and accountability has no limit or bounds. You have to worship your dad for the man he was.

My grandfather owned a dry goods store in Greenville that went bust in the depression and dad plus all of dad's brothers worked unloading grain cars an hour before school and all weekend while going to school to help feed the family and pay off the creditors. One of them died from a bull stomping him before the war, one was deafened by an artillary round at Anzio, one was killed as an instructor pilot. On my mother's side I lost one during Market Garden when German troops shot him as he was hung up in a tree, then doused him with gasoline. One was a Ranger in 5th Ranger Co and another one was an A-26 driver in 9th AF - and one last one jumped off a roof, went 4F and made a lot of money, still alive... not invited to too many family reunions after WWII.

I was 'introduced' to the fine trade of picking cotton by my grandad to reinforce the reasons to get a degree - it worked.


----------



## renrich (Jul 29, 2008)

Dav, Where I am trying to get to on the F8F and F4U discussion is that I have data from the 1944 fighter conference and the F8F was not mentioned at all. I don't believe that F8F ever saw combat in WW2 whereas the F4U4 saw extensive combat the last three or four months of the war. My guess is that the F4U in the Dinah instance was a F4U1D which with WEP had substantially better performance than the earlier F4U1. Thanks for your comments on the recollections between Bill and myself. Actually, my comments were not about my father as Bill's were,but about myself. My father was of an earlier generation than Bill's father and he never went past the eighth grade as he had to quit school in 1916 or 17 to help his family. He never had the opportunity to play high school and college sports in the !950s, as I did. Every day I am thankful that I had that opportunity in that time frame, perhaps largely because of the efforts of Bill's father and many others like him. Bill McClanahan was a sportswriter and very talented cartoonist for the Dallas Morning News. He used to do cartoons showing the mascots of the various schools and his picks for that weekend's SWC games. Very special.


----------



## drgondog (Jul 29, 2008)

renrich said:


> Dav, Where I am trying to get to on the F8F and F4U discussion is that I have data from the 1944 fighter conference and the F8F was not mentioned at all. I don't believe that F8F ever saw combat in WW2 whereas the F4U4 saw extensive combat the last three or four months of the war. My guess is that the F4U in the Dinah instance was a F4U1D which with WEP had substantially better performance than the earlier F4U1. Thanks for your comments on the recollections between Bill and myself. Actually, my comments were not about my father as Bill's were,but about myself. My father was of an earlier generation than Bill's father and he never went past the eighth grade as he had to quit school in 1916 or 17 to help his family. He never had the opportunity to play high school and college sports in the !950s, as I did. Every day I am thankful that I had that opportunity in that time frame, perhaps largely because of the efforts of Bill's father and many others like him. Bill McClanahan was a sportswriter and very talented cartoonist for the Dallas Morning News. He used to do cartoons showing the mascots of the various schools and his picks for that weekend's SWC games. Very special.



It was Ratliff that I was trying to remember - he was I guess the most famous of the High School reporters and McClanahan was a top notch cartoonist - his style reminded me of Lil Abner type figures.

Enough highjacking - these were two great airplanes that saved a lot of American lives.


----------



## lesofprimus (Jul 29, 2008)

The seat adjustment control in the F4U saved my Grandfathers life....


----------



## davparlr (Jul 29, 2008)

renrich said:


> Dav, Where I am trying to get to on the F8F and F4U discussion is that I have data from the 1944 fighter conference and the F8F was not mentioned at all. I don't believe that F8F ever saw combat in WW2 whereas the F4U4 saw extensive combat the last three or four months of the war.



I'm confused. My copy of the conference clearly shows that the XF8F was evaluated (including photos), although by a small number of pilots, 1 Army, 3 Navy, and 1 Brit (page 262). I believe you were right on the F8F and F4U-4 combat experience.


----------



## renrich (Jul 30, 2008)

What I have is from the minutes of fighter conference, Pautuxent River, Md., October, 1944. It is located in Dean's "America's 100 thousand," There are some strange goings ons in the report as the F4U4 is rated in a couple of categorys behind the F4U1 D. I know the performance of the F4U4 was substantially better than the 1D and the 4 was reportedly the best handling Corsair of all.


----------



## Marshall_Stack (Jul 30, 2008)

davparlr said:


> A high altitude supercharger was developed, but was not available until mid ’44, and was installed in the dash 4. As for a turbo supercharger, the tight cowl and slender fuselage would make an installation dicey (compare with the large fuselage of the P-47).



There was an experimental version of the Corsair (XF4U-3) with turbosupercharger. Here is the link....

Image:XF4U-3 NAN6 46.jpg - Wikimedia Commons


----------



## Catch22 (Jul 30, 2008)

lesofprimus said:


> The seat adjustment control in the F4U saved my Grandfathers life....



I read about that. Talk about lucky!


----------



## Lancaster630 (Jul 30, 2008)

Corsair gets my vote

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Marshall_Stack (Jul 31, 2008)

Since there have been comments saying that the Corsair would have been a better choice than the P-47 or even maybe the P-51 for the USAAF in the ETO, how about going the other way for discussion, the P-51 replacing the Corsair on carriers. There were experiments and it was plausible. The only advantage that I could think of was that the range was greater (I'm assuming) than the Corsairs. 

Here's a link to a website about the "seahorse"....

The Naval Mustangs


----------



## renrich (Aug 1, 2008)

Marshall, the USN stated that the Mustang had low speed control problems which made it not as suitable for carrier ops as purpose built AC. If you look at takeoff distances the Mustang took longer to get off than either Hellcat or Corsair. More importantly, the USN did not like liquid cooled engines because of reliability problems, having Merlin engines on board would complicate spare parts supplies, structural strength would need to be beefed up for continual carrier landings which adds weight and the airplane would need to be marinised which has to do with corrosion control. I don't know how much weight that would add or if performance would be degraded.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Aug 1, 2008)

The Navy actually decreased the max internal fuel capacity on later Corsairs (after the F4U-1/1A) as the range was deemed unnecessary, had a long range version o the Corsair been developed, it could probably have competed with the P-51 in range. (though cruising speed would be lower, and -obviously- much more fuel would be used)


----------



## drgondog (Aug 2, 2008)

renrich said:


> Marshall, the USN stated that the Mustang had low speed control problems which made it not as suitable for carrier ops as purpose built AC. If you look at takeoff distances the Mustang took longer to get off than either Hellcat or Corsair. More importantly, the USN did not like liquid cooled engines because of reliability problems, having Merlin engines on board would complicate spare parts supplies, structural strength would need to be beefed up for continual carrier landings which adds weight and the airplane would need to be marinised which has to do with corrosion control. I don't know how much weight that would add or if performance would be degraded.



From my perspective, I would think landing at threshold stall, nose up, and looking over that long ass nose would make it a poor choice as a carrier fighter. The Mustang, light and clean really needs to stay above 100-105 TAS and it does take a longer take off run than either F4U or F6F. Then there is question of gear and arresting hook. 

IIRC the gear was stressed to 6-7 G in all the B/C/D models at 8,000 GW.. the wing was stronger so maybe not a factor, but tail hook loads and weight, plus folding wings would add too much weight to the 51 in my opinion.

Last but not least - the USN did NOT buy USAAF airplanes unless forced under dire protest... and still don't


----------



## davparlr (Aug 2, 2008)

renrich said:


> What I have is from the minutes of fighter conference, Pautuxent River, Md., October, 1944. It is located in Dean's "America's 100 thousand," There are some strange goings ons in the report as the F4U4 is rated in a couple of categorys behind the F4U1 D. I know the performance of the F4U4 was substantially better than the 1D and the 4 was reportedly the best handling Corsair of all.



This caused me to scratch my head also. The plane was the XF4U-4 and maybe didn't perform up to snuff.


----------



## renrich (Aug 3, 2008)

Dav, I think that is a reasonable conclusion. The F4U4 in operational use had outstanding performance, much better than the F4U1D so the results that showed up in the 1944 conference that I have don't make sense.


----------



## Lucky13 (Aug 3, 2008)

Corsair...


----------



## davparlr (Aug 4, 2008)

renrich said:


> Dav, I think that is a reasonable conclusion. The F4U4 in operational use had outstanding performance, much better than the F4U1D so the results that showed up in the 1944 conference that I have don't make sense.



I think the data in "America's Hundred Thousand" is incorrect for the F4U-4. I believe he used Mil power rather than combat power. The data he has for combat power is very close to the data for mil power on a test of three F4U-4s. I believe I can calculate a reasonable performance for the F4U-4 at combat power based on those test.


----------



## Marshall_Stack (Aug 5, 2008)

Here is a link comparing the Corsair to the Mustang..

Chance Vought F4U-4 Corsair


----------



## drgondog (Aug 5, 2008)

Marshall_Stack said:


> Here is a link comparing the Corsair to the Mustang..
> 
> Chance Vought F4U-4 Corsair


Marshall with respect that is a fluff piece. He should aslo compare against the P-51B-15 or P-51H if he wants to make a convincing case


----------



## Broncazonk (Aug 5, 2008)

Love the Corsair, but the fabric covered wing-sections of the outboard wings is a big turnoff for me. (Except for the leading edge fillet, everything outboard of the wing-folding junction was FABRIC covered...)

That's one of the reasons why the Corsair rolled so well.

Bronc


----------



## kool kitty89 (Aug 5, 2008)

That and the boosted ailerons. (using a boost tab)

The early corsairs also had wooden ailerons. (the rudder was fabric covered iirc, and the elevator was wooden)

THe F4U-5 was all metal.


----------



## USS Enterprise CV-6 (Apr 1, 2014)

Lancaster630 said:


> Corsair gets my vote



I gets mine too. It's faster and same weapons and it's prettier


----------



## tomo pauk (Apr 1, 2014)

What were the speeds?


----------



## CORSNING (Apr 13, 2014)

This was an excellent thread to read. I thoroughly enjoyed reading the posts by drgondog, renrich and davparir about there fathers. Thank you for sharing gentleman. There was some great input by many. Syscom3 and Soundbreaker Welch? had some good post. drgondog pretty much summed it up with "-these were two great airplanes that saved a lot of American lives." I could only add by saying these planes saved a lot of lives of all nationalities by helping to end the war earlier. 

I was pretty content with just reading the thread and leaving it at that.........until someone said, " I gets mine too. It's faster and same weapons and it's prettier." There are some very good looking fighters that came out of WW2. I personally find it hard to call any of them pretty. Think of why they had to be built. Well, anyway I got to thinking. WHEN?...What dates of the war are we discussing?
The final answer that they were both needed and did there job well doesn't change. But HOW they compaired as the war progress did.

I got real curious and I started digging for information. First on the sceen is the NA-73 Mustang I operational in the RAF (A.C.C.) service on May 10, 1942. Then came the P-51 Mustang Ia entering RAF service in August of 1942. So the Mustang was uncontended until January 14, 1943 (according to my sorces) when the F4U-1 became operational with the USMC. 

The following information comes from military testing of P-51 No. 41-37320 6/16/42 and (F4U-1 No. 02155 10/31/44).

Match up No.1: P-51 Mustang Mk.Ia and (F4U-1 Corsair)

Altitude...Speed/Climb
Meters....mph/fpm 
S.L.......359/2300 (348/3160)
1,000...367/2485 (347/2660)
2,000...375/2650 (345/2490)
3,000...383/2650 (358/2455)
4,000...389/2315 (370/2410)
5,000...385/1445 (384/2215)
6,000...381/1145 (386/1825)
7,000...373/ 840 (395/1635)
8,000...360/ 530 (387/1290)
9,000...329/ 250 (371/ 985)

Maximums: 389 mph./13,120 ft. and 2,780 fpm./7,000 ft. later in a report dated 9/16/43 same plane hit 395 mph./`13,000 ft. using 46.6" Hg. boost. (395 mph./22,800 ft. and 3,160 fpm./S.L.)

Ceilings
Combat (1,000 fpm): 21,490 (29,350) ft.
Operational (500 fpm): 26,275 (34,375) ft.
Service ( 100 fpm): 31,300 (38,500) ft.

Engine: Allison V-1710-39, 1,220 hp./47.2"Hg. ( Pratt Whitney R-2800-8, 2,000 hp./54"Hg.)

Test Weight: 8,824 (11,194) lbs.

Power Loading: 7.233- (5.597) lbs./hp.

Wing Loading: 37.87+ (35.65-) lbs./sq.ft.

Armament: 4 x 20mm/125 rpg. (6 x 0.50in./400 rpg.)

Roll Rate for XP-51 according to NACA graph: 56 deg./sec. @ 200 mph. and 86 deg./sec. @ 400 mph.

Roll Rate according to USN report: (76 deg. left and 84 deg. right at 200 mph.)


Note: In a letter from Allison Division of GM to the Commanding General of the USAAF Material Center the allowable boost of the V-1710-39 is 60"Hg. on 12/12/42. The letter states that 66"Hg was being used in Australia and 70"Hg was being used in the Middle East. In another letter dated August 26, 1943 from Brigadier General Charles F. Born is the statement that the British have been boosting their V-1710-F3R (-39) engines to 72"Hg for as much as 20 minutes at a time without hurting the engine. 70"Hg would be about 1,780 hp. at S.L. That would give the above P-51 a power loading of 4.957+lbs./hp.

I came to the conclusion that there were at least five match ups of the P-51 and F4U. I have just started Match up No.2: P-51A and F4U-1a that would have happened in September 1943.

Jeff

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Apr 13, 2014)

Cheers, Jeff, good to hear from you again


----------



## CORSNING (Apr 13, 2014)

Tomo, it was good to see that you were here also.
I actually saw your post questioning the speeds and started tinkering with the idea of the matchups at their prospective times of introduction into operational service. But then I figured I better know what I am doing before I open my mouth with this crowd present. So before I made my first post I read the following threads on this forum: P-51 Mustang or F4U Corsair started by eimilitaro on 4/5/06, F4U vs. P-51 essay started by magnocain on 2/26/08, F4U Corsair vs. P-51 Mustang...IN KOREA started by Clay Allison on 1/11/10, F4U-4 vs P-51D started by jedi391 on 3/1/10 and of course I read this thread first.
There is some very good reading in most of them, on and off topic.
My curiosity has the best of me now so tonight when I get home I will put together the P-51A and F4U-1a (with water injection) September 1943 matchup. The only item I am not clear on is WHEN (date) the USMC and USN started using water injection in their fighter aircraft. I am pretty sure it was in 1944 but I just don't know approximately when...???

Jeff


----------



## CORSNING (Apr 14, 2014)

I tried to put in Matchup No.2 guys but it wouldn't post it. The sight said I wasn't logged in after I punched "Go Advanced" and then typed for about 30 minutes. When I logged back in the sight would not bring me back to the post I had just written...??? I hit back until the post came back up but it would not let me SUBMIT REPLY or VIEW POST. I will try again tomorrow if I get time.

Any help is appreciated, Jeff.


----------



## drgondog (Apr 15, 2014)

Jeff- he comparisons get tricky unless you focus on 'release date'/First Production Date?

Mar 43- P-51A F4U-1-Oct 42 
May 43-P-51B F4U-1A,C - Aug 43
Mar 44-P-51D F4U-1D-April 44
Feb 45-P-51H F4U-4 Feb 45
(source: America's 100K)

Also the Engine variants are important. The P-51A had the 1710-81 to replace the -39 giving it 180 extra HP in MP a 57", but the USAAF an AF were boosting the engines to as much as 70" with no ill effects

The Packard Merlin 1650-3 'high altitude variant' had a FTH of 29,000 feet and was a better performer than the later 1650-7 above 24000 feet but the 1650-7 had better performance in the middle altitudes to 24K. 

Thus comparisons for speed and climb have to be framed with altitude and boost always (as you know)..


----------



## CORSNING (Apr 16, 2014)

drgondog, 
I agree sir. However, I thought it to be more appropriate to use their operational debut. That shows more of how they compared on battle field "officially". Unfortunately, the performance at how far all fighter aircraft were boosted in combat is not very often documented. So test trials are all we have to go by.

I try to be as specific as possible without getting too lengthy in order to give a quick comparison that doesn't get too cluttered. I would definitely have to go into much, much greater detail if I were to write a book. I will absolutely agree with that.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Apr 16, 2014)

CORSNING said:


> ....
> My curiosity has the best of me now so tonight when I get home I will put together the P-51A and F4U-1a (without water injection) September 1943 matchup. The only item I am not clear on is WHEN (date) the USMC and USN started using water injection in their fighter aircraft. I am pretty sure it was in 1944 but I just don't know approximately when...???
> ...



The entry in the 'America's hundred thousand' says this:
Jan '44: About 60% of F6F-3 Hellcats are now powered by water-injected P&W R-2800-10W engine.


----------



## CORSNING (Apr 16, 2014)

Thank you so much for that tomo. I have owned Dean's AHT for about a year now (?) and have not had time to read it cover to cover yet. It is an excellent book filled with a lot of information.


----------



## CORSNING (Apr 16, 2014)

drgondog and tomo, 
Thank you both for your help. I'll post these matchups as long as the interest is there. And, I welcome all corrections if I make a mistake. That is the only way to learn. OK then...

According to my sources, the P-51A first entered operational service with the 14th Air Force in China in September 1943. The F4U-1a entered operational service on August 9, 1943. 

Matchup No.2: P-51A, 43-6007 report dated 4/2/43 and (F4U-1a, Actually the F4U-1 in Matchup No.1. I could not locate a complete or accurate test of the F4U-1a using 54"Hg boost and 2,000 hp. but the results should be fairly close.)

Altitude..Speed/Climb
Meters...mph/fpm
S.L.....376/3500 (348/3160)
1,000..387/3625 (347/2660)
2,000..400/3750 (345/2490)
3,000..412/3405 (358/2455)
4,000..412/2925 (370/2410)
5,000..410/2455 (384/2215)
6,000..405/2025 (386/1825)
7,000..399/1605 (395/1635)
8,000..389/1160 (387/1290)
9,000..367/ 765 (371/ 985)

Maximums: 415 mph./10,400 ft.and 3,785 fpm./7,575 ft. (395 mph./22,800 ft. and 3,160 fpm./S.L.)
Note: Boscombe Down Mk.II (P-51A) F.R.893 results in Report dated 4/3/44: 409 mph./10,000 ft. and 3,900 fpm./2,000 ft. using the V-1710-F20R (-81) / 57"Hg boost at a test weight of 8,200-8,300 lbs.

Ceilings
Combat: 27,650 (29,350) ft.
Operational: 31,675 (34,375) ft.
Service: 35,100 (38,500) ft.

Engine: Alison V-1710-81, 1,480 [email protected] 56.8"Hg boost (Pratt Whitney R-2800-8, 2,000 hp.) Maximum output.

Wing Loading: 34.33+(35.65-) lbs./sq.ft.

Power Loading: 5.405+(5.597) lbs./hp.

Test Weight: 8,000 (11,194) lbs.

Armament: 2 x 0.5in./350 rpg. + 2 x 0.5in./280 rpg. (6 x 0.5in./400 rpg.)

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Apr 16, 2014)

Jeff, once the F4Us have water injection aboard, the P-51B is also flying in combat. Also, please note that the F4U-1, Bu.No.17930, has a removed hook, prop that is of different design than what were run-on-the-mill Corsairs equipped with, and sealed ejection chutes (unlike P-51A). Still a very capable bird, but those details, along with use of water injection, earn the Corsair some 30 mph at ~20000 ft.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## CORSNING (Apr 16, 2014)

I agree tomo. I considered these factors:
1. I am not positive when the first F4U-1a with water injection entered combat. 
2. The non water injectioned F4U-1a would have been very, very close to the F4U-1 which I have already posted.
3. I used results of early testing of the Corsair with water injection.
4. The P-51B entered operational service on December 1, 1943 about three months after the A model. So I used a later testing of the F4U-1a with water injection for that matchup. ( and yes I know an F6F-3 propeller was used on the Corsair in that test but it is what I have to work with). My question would then be: did the same prop get used on the Corsair in combat?


----------



## CORSNING (Apr 16, 2014)

I see another very informed person has joined us. I was going to compare the Mustang Mk.III (P-51B-1) FX 953 using 66.8"Hg boost and F4U-1a 50030 using water injection at 59.8"Hg in high blower and 60.2"Hg in low blower for the next matchup. Please let me know your thoughts on if that would be the correct matchup for around January 1944.

Jeff


----------



## Neil Stirling (Apr 16, 2014)

CORSNING said:


> I see another very informed person has joined us. I was going to compare the Mustang Mk.III (P-51B-1) FX 953 using 66.8"Hg boost and F4U-1a 50030 using water injection at 59.8"Hg in high blower and 60.2"Hg in low blower for the next matchup. Please let me know your thoughts on if that would be the correct matchup for around January 1944.
> 
> Jeff



I can't find a test of a standard F4U-1a on Mikes site. FG1A 14575 was described "paraphrase" as being similar to an F4U-1a. 50030 had various mods incorporated in order to run at an increased carb impact pressure and was a fast Corsair. If you look at the aircraft characteristics for the 1-d you can see that the clean aircraft achieved 417 mph, probably representative of a good 1-a. 

FX 953 seems representative of a P51-B V-1650-3. 

Going from memory, the use of water injection in the Corsair came online in roughly October 43, however, it's very unlikely this became widespread quickly. Most Thunderbolts during early 44 were still using 52" hg for example despite the availability of water injection. 

Scrappy presentation and facts due to being on holiday away from data and using an ipad.

Neil.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## CORSNING (Apr 16, 2014)

Thank you Neil. I really appreciate all the help. I hope to have Matchup No.3 put together by tomorrow night after work.

Good night guys, Jeff.


----------



## eagledad (Apr 17, 2014)

Corsning,

My sources show the US Navy received its first water injected Corsair on November 25, 1943 and had a top speed of 415 at 20,000 feet.

Eagledad


----------



## CORSNING (Apr 17, 2014)

Hi eagledad. Thank you very much for that information. What is your source sir? Does it give a date on the first operational mission?
Does the source say anything about when the first F6F with water injection was used operationally?

Inquisitive little bugger, aren't I? Jeff.

NOTE: Thanks to the input of Neil and eagledad I have revised Matchup No.2.


----------



## eagledad (Apr 17, 2014)

My sources for the date are:

American Combat Planes 3rd Edition by Ray Wagner, page 387
F4U Corsair at War by Richard Abrams, page 62.

Abrams gives speed as 415 mph at 20,000 ft and a sea level rate of climb of 3,120 ft/ min.
No weights are given. Profile Publication # 47, on the Corsair, by J. F. Dial gives the same performance, but includes an empty weight of 8694.5 lbs and a loaded weight of 11,092.8 pounds. Service ceiling is listed as 37,000 ft.

William Green in his book Famous Fighters Volume 2, gives the following data for the F4U-1a with water injection:
Empty Weight: 8694.8 lbs
Loaded Weight: 12039 lbs
Overloaded Weight: 13120 lbs.
Sea level Climb rate: 3120 ft/ min
Max speed (in mph):
500 ft 328
10000 ft 349
20000 ft 425
No service ceiling given.

I have no data as to when the water injected Corsair entered service, although I suspect it first saw service with the land based Marines, some time in early 1944 (IIRC Ira Kepford of VF-17 was one of the first pilots to use water injection in combat over Rabaul in Jan/Feb 1944 ). Corsairs started operating from US carriers (USS Essex) on Dec 28 1944. (Green as above), some 9 months after the Fleet Air Arm launched their Corsairs form the HMS Illustrious. (Abrams as above)*

Hope that helps! 

Eagledad

*that does not include VF-17’s landing on the Bunker Hill July 26, 1943.


----------



## davparlr (Apr 18, 2014)

eagledad said:


> I have no data as to when the water injected Corsair entered service, although I suspect it first saw service with the land based Marines, some time in early 1944 (IIRC Ira Kepford of VF-17 was one of the first pilots to use water injection in combat over Rabaul in Jan/Feb 1944 ).



America's Hundred Thousand states that the first F4U-1A that had a water injected engine installed was in Nov., 1943. Furthermore, only eight aircraft had water injection until the acceptance of the F4U-1D, no combat data was given, which did not begin production until April, 1944. The first reference to operational use of F4U-1Ds was in Oct., ’44 when ten Marine fighter squadrons were authorized for carrier quals and preparations for two F4U-1Ds on each of five fleet carriers were to be made.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## eagledad (Apr 18, 2014)

Hello davparir

I have looked through my copy of AHT and have found the passage confirming water injection in Nov of 1943. I am at a loss finding where it says only 8 F4U-1a's had water injection. Would you please help me find that?

Corsning,

A mistake in my post to you. Kepford was a navy ace that flew with VF-17 in a land based Corsair. The story that he was one of the first pilots to use water injection in a F4U is from a book on Navy aces that I read many years ago.

Thanks davparir and Corsning for the info.

Eagledad


----------



## CORSNING (Apr 18, 2014)

davparir and eagledad,
Thank you both for your input. I greatly appriciate any information that helps me to put together an operational fighter timeline. I'll add this information to what I have on my research desk when I get home tonight. If I can verify that the F4U-1a was operational with water injection early in '44, I'll match it with the P-51B-1. The next matchups after that would be the P-51D / F4U-1D.......P-51B-15 / F4U-4........? / ?

Jeff


----------



## CORSNING (Apr 18, 2014)

I have looked through my copy of AHT and have found the passage confirming water injection in Nov of 1943. I am at a loss finding where it says only 8 F4U-1a's had water injection. Would you please help me find that.

*Same page (518), right column dated Jan '44. I don't know why the happy face on the eight. That's page five-one-eight.*


Thanks davparir and Corsning for the info.

*Your are quite welcome sir.*

Jeff.

AHT states: Jan '44-Eight F4U-1As of VF-17 Squadron are being re-fitted with water injection equipped engines.

I did some digging into the history of VF-17 Jolly Rodgers and found that they were doing their first tour of duty in the Solomon Islands on November 8, 1943 and they finished their combat tour with Corsairs on May 10, 1944. They then were equipped with F6F-5s aboard the USS Hornet.

With that bit of information, Matchup No.3 is on.


----------



## eagledad (Apr 18, 2014)

Corsning,

Thanks!

Eagledad


----------



## CORSNING (Apr 18, 2014)

...P-51B-1 (actually Mustang III) F.X. 953 and (FG-1A, 14575 tested 3/3/44-10/9/44. The test did not include a full altitude test of maximum speed at combat power so speeds are supplied from the Bureau of Aeronautics, Navy Department for an F4U-1 with water injection and in clean configuration.)

Altitude...Speed/Climb
Meters....mph/fpm
S.L......361/3490 (359/3450)
1,000...374/3525 (371/3410)
2,000...387/3570 (382/3370)
3,000...401/3600 (394/3325)
4,000...415/3290 (406/2870)
5,000...424/2865 (411/2655)
6,000...421/2690 (416/2250)
7,000...431/2680 (409/1835)
8,000...444/2300 (400/1300)
9.000...448/1870 (NG./ 935)
10,000.441/1400 (NG./ 570)
11,000.429/1000 (NG./ 205)

Maximums: 450 mph./28,000 ft. and 3,610 fpm./10,600 ft. (417 mph./19,900 ft. and 3,450 fpm./S.L.)

Ceilings
Combat: 36,000 (28,940) ft.
Operational: 39,765 (33,410) ft.
Service: 42,740 (37,000) ft.

Engines: Packard V-1650-3, 1,618 [email protected] 66.8"Hg boost.(Nash Kelvinator R-2800-8W, 2,250 hp.W 60"Hg boost.)

Test Weight: 8,740 lbs. for the speed trials and 9,200 lbs. for the climb trials (12,057 lbs.)

Wing Loading: 37.51+/39.48+(38.40-) lbs./sq.ft.

Power Loading: 5.402-/5.686+(5.359-) lbs./hp.

Armament: 2 x 0.5in./350 rpg. + 2 x 0.5in./280 rpg. ( 6 x 0.5in./400 rpg.)

Roll Rates: FG-1A figures are from 14575 test document and P-51B-1 figures are from the NACA chart which can also be viewed on Mike Williams' sight.

Speed........................150..........175........200........225...........250..........275..........300......mph.
P-51B-1.......................50............61..........71.........81.............88...........93.............96.5....degree/second
FG-1A.Left/Right.....75/75.....78/85....84/88....88/87......90/.......87.2/...degree/second

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## CORSNING (Apr 19, 2014)

Matchup No.4: P-51D-15, 44-15342 report dated 6/15/45 and F4U-1D as standardized by the Bureau of Aeronautics in their August 1, 1945 Airplane Characteristics Performance report.

These particular models were improved in several ways over the previous models that they followed. Their performance numbered were slightly lower due to the increased weight the improvements brought

The Mustang was tested with wing pylons in place. I have been told that these were of a more efficient design and of less air resistance, causing 4-6 mph. loss of speed. The F4U-1D was in the absolute clean mode. No shackles, pylons or wing bracing.

Matchup No.4: P-51D and (F4U-1D)

Altitude.Speed/Climb
Meters..mph/fpm
S.L.......375/3600 (366/3370)
1,000...388/3600 (367/3000)
2,000...403/3385 (378/2960)
3,000...416/2985 (391/2930)
4,000...413/2535 (402/2810)
5,000...410/3200 (408/2560)
6,000...420/3100 (417/2280)
7,000...432/2645 (410/1930)
8,000...441/2200 (402/1560)
9,000...431/1765 (392/1210)
10,000..417/1285 (NG./ 860)

Maximums: 442 mph./26,000 ft. and 3,600 fpm./S.L. (417 mph./20,000 ft. and 3,370 fpm./S.L.)

Ceilings
Combat: 35,000 (31,500) ft.
Operational: 38,700 (36,100) ft.
Service: 41,600 (40,000) ft.

Engine: Packard V-1650-7, 1,780 hp./[email protected] 67"Hg boost. (Pratt Whitney R-2800-8W, 2,250 hp./[email protected] 60"Hg boost.) Maximum output.

Test Weight: 9,760 (12,175) lbs.

Wing Loading: 41.40-(38.77+) lbs./sq.ft. at take-off. (The weight of an aircraft begins to decline from the moment the engine is started and fuel is being used. Therefor this number continues to decline as long as the engine is on.)

Power Loading: 5.483+(5.411+) lbs./hp. at take-off. (See the above information. + This number is constantly changing do to engine boosting and engine capability at altitude.)

NOTE: By June 1944 72-75"Hg boosting of the V-1650 was approved and in use. The P-51D was just coming into operation around this time. The F4U-1D was also going into operational service around May 4, 1944.

Jeff

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## CORSNING (Apr 19, 2014)

These models of each were the best of the breed numbers performance wise. The P-51B-15 came on the sceen in early-mid 1944 and the F4U-4 was introduced to combat in May 1945. (I know the P-51H would be a closer match time wise but it did not make WW2 combat. So, that matchup falls into a different category.)

The P-51B-15, 43-24777 was tested 3/20/44-5/15/44. The information for the F4U-4 is from the Bureau of Aeronautics report summery March 1, 1946. 

Matchup No.5: P-51B-15 and (F4U-4)

Altitude...Speed/Climb
Meters....mph/fpm
S.L......388/4330 (389/3870)
1,000...404/4220 (389/3500)
2,000...418/3870 (396/3455)
3,000...420/3840 (408/3410)
4,000...420/3770 (420/3365)
5,000...430/3590 (432/3320)
6,000...441/3100 (445/2915)
7,000...442/2620 (445/2840)
8,000...436/2125 (454/2380)
9,000...NG./1675 (435/1870)
10,000..NG./1200 (416/1350)
11,000..NG./ 715 (397/ 860)

Maximums: 444 mph./20,600 ft. and 4,380 fpm./S.L. (455 mph./26,300 ft. and 3,870 fpm./S.L.)

Ceilings
Combat: 34,200 (35,000) ft.
Operational:37,500 (38,900) ft.
Service: 40,500 (41,500) ft.

Engine: Packard V-1650-7, 1,910 [email protected] 75"hg boost. (Pratt Whitney R-2800-18W, 2,450 hp.)

Test Weights: 9,335 lbs. speed trials and 9,680 lbs. climb trials (12,420 lbs.)

Wing Loading: 40.06+(39,55+) lbs./sq.ft.

Power Loading: 4.885-(5.069+) lbs./hp.

Jeff.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Apr 19, 2014)

Love your posts, Jeff. 
You can look at speed penalties for the Merlin Mustang here, under 'Remarks' column. It is 12 mph for P-51B/C (ditto for the P-51A) and 4 mph for the P-51D/K.
The sped penalty for the F4U-4 with two capped racks can be seen here (pdf; F4U-4 SAC ); 9 kts or 10 mph of difference at altitude between 'combat condition' (two capped racks) and 'clean condition' (no racks). Un-capped racks cut speed for further 8 mph for the F4U-4. The F4U-1D also carrier 2 racks, a more knowledgeable person could tell us whether those were of same construction.


----------



## CORSNING (Apr 19, 2014)

Thank you tomo, that is kind of you. 

I thank all the rest of you who joined in with some great information and great stories.

Jeff.


----------



## drgondog (Apr 19, 2014)

Jeff - the P-51B-15NA came into operational ETO squadrons in Late April, 1944.

I've always thought it peculiar that many folks don't want to compare a favorite fighter that served in 1945 with the P-51H.

The H was always available to deploy in April 1945 but the AAF recognized that post WWII was going to be grim on budgets and they wished to conserve the P-51H for strategic escort, along with the P-47N and saw no reason to deploy them..

It simply doesn't make sense to compare a 1945 version of the Corsair to a 12 month older Mustang version?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## CORSNING (Apr 19, 2014)

drgondog said:


> Jeff - the P-51B-15NA came into operational ETO squadrons in Late April, 1944.
> 
> *Thank you for that date sir.*
> 
> ...


*I more or less completely agree. The P-15B-15 under those circumstances did exceptionally well, don't you think.?......................OK now you got me going. Tomorrow I will put together a P-51H and F4U-4 @ 70"Hg boost with 115/145 fuel.*

Thank you for the push. 

Goodnight all, Jeff


----------



## CORSNING (Apr 20, 2014)

P-51H performance is taken from STANDARD AIRCRAFT CHARACTERISTICS, AIR MATERIEL COMMAND, U.S. AIR FORCE form dated March 22, 1949. The figures on this sheet match the later issued sheet dated July 3, 1950. I took the figures from the Interceptor mode column put them on a graph. I then used the performance lines on a few actual flight test graphs of the P-51H at 90"Hg boost. I matched the lines up at to the numbers given on the chart. I am aware that the P-51H hit 482 mph. on a N.A.A. graph. That was at a weight of 7,302 lbs. with only 4 x 0.5in. guns with 250 rpg. each. In other words, a very stripped down model and not an all-up weight interceptor mode fighter.

F4U-4 performance is taken from STANDARD AIRCRAFT CHARACTERISTICS, BUREAU OF AERONAUTICTS, NAVY DEPARTMENT. I have been told that the figures on these sheet are calculated figures of what the Navy was expecting of the -4 model at 70"Hg. As Neil pointed out in more than one other thread, the R-2800-42W was cleared for 70"Hg, but that setting was never officially used by the USN.

HOWEVER, I have decided to use the above examples for two reasons: 
1. These two would only have been in large scale service at the end of WW2 if things were not going the Allies way in 1945. 
2. If things were not going our way, it is quite likely that more pressure would have been on both manufactures to increase the performance of their aircraft. 

Matchup No.6: P-51H @ 90"Hg boost and (F4U-4 @ 70"Hg boost.(actual performance figures at 60"Hg are used where they exceeded the early calculations.))

Altitude...Speed/Climb
Meters....mph/fpm
S.L......412/5480 (389/4770)
1,000...425/5540 (397/4790)
2,000...438/5165 (411/4805)
3,000...447/4675 (424/4825)
4,000...444/4405 (439/4290)
5,000...447/4380 (445/4340)
6,000...460/4115 (458/3880)
7,000...471/3550 (463/3300)
8,000...465/2970 (454/2650)
9,000...456/2425 (442/2125)
10,000.440/1860 (430/1550)
11,000..NG./1295 (417/ 950)
12,000..NG./ 730 (377/ 450)

Maximums: 473 mph./22,700 ft. and 5,555 fpm./3,960 ft. (464 mph./20,600 ft. and 4,825 fpm./10,250 ft.)

Ceilings
Combat: 37,790 (35,800) ft.
Operational: 40,700 (38,660) ft.
Service: 43,100 (41,600) ft.

Combat Weight (Clean interceptor no shackles, pylons or bracing): 8,740 (12,435) lbs.

Wing Loading: 37.03+(39.60+) lbs./sq.ft.

Power Loading: 3.937-(4.405+) lbs./sq.ft.

Note: The P-51H could out turn and out roll a P-51D. F4U-4 maximum roll rate: 112 degrees/second.

Happy Easter, Jeff

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Blitzrockie (Jul 19, 2016)

That is a good question.While the Mustang is my favorite the corsairs can do more things, however we don't really know what would happen if f4us dogfight against a German plane.


----------



## Blitzrockie (Jul 19, 2016)

A corsair can escort a bomber and some squadrons were better at it than Mustangs like VF 17, they did not let ANY Japanese destroy bombers or ships they were guarding.


----------



## fubar57 (Jul 19, 2016)

Blitzrockie said:


> A corsair can escort a bomber and some squadrons were better at it than Mustangs like VF 17, they did not let ANY Japanese destroy bombers or ships they were guarding.



Source?


----------



## Blitzrockie (Jul 19, 2016)

In a book about VF 17 called skull and crossbones squadron.Its a real account of what they did


----------



## Peter Gunn (Jul 19, 2016)

Not totally buying into that one at present.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 19, 2016)

Things that make you go hmmm...


----------



## BiffF15 (Jul 19, 2016)

Blitzrockie said:


> In a book about VF 17 called skull and crossbones squadron.Its a real account of what they did



Blitzrockie,

I think they are looking for a bit more data, say Units, dates, types involved. Also if an example is particularly difficult to swallow then copies of pages seem to do well. Go through some of these posts in here and you will get a feel for what people do to validate info.

Cheers,
Biff


----------



## grampi (Jul 19, 2016)

davparlr said:


> Above 25k ft, the F4U-1 performance drops dramatically. I think that while the Bf-109 may be slightly slower at these altitudes, its superior rate of climb, and probably maneuverability, was sufficient to neutralize any advantage the F4U-1 would have. I am sure some of our German experts could make a more intelligent argument.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


It would be interesting to know how the P-51 ended being pick BEHIND the P-47 above 25K feet...other than diving, what could the P-47 possibly have been better at than the 51...it certainly isn't going to outclimb, outturn, or outroll a Mustang...


----------



## grampi (Jul 19, 2016)

drgondog said:


> Marshall with respect that is a fluff piece. He should aslo compare against the P-51B-15 or P-51H if he wants to make a convincing case


There was no Corsair model I know of that would been able to compete against the P-51H...


----------



## grampi (Jul 19, 2016)

USS Enterprise CV-6 said:


> I gets mine too. It's faster and same weapons and it's prettier


Depends on which model P-51...the "H" model was good for 487 MPH....I don't know of any Corsair model that was that fast...and there's nothing prettier than a Mustang...

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## drgondog (Jul 19, 2016)

As a Mustang admirer, I have to note that the F4U-4 &5 and the P-51H were at the peak of 1945 US Fighters.

The F4U-5 should always out turn and out roll a P-51H through ~ 22000 feet based on the relative wing loadings and the P-51H standard rigging of 10 degrees aileron throw.

By comparison, as escort fighters the F4U-1 was fine for P-47D escort ranges at medium altitudes and the F4U--4&-5 was better at higher altitudes with 2 stage-2 speed superchargers. They, however had far less escort radius for high altitude penetrations as they had much less internal fuel than the F4U-1


----------



## wuzak (Jul 19, 2016)

drgondog said:


> By comparison, as escort fighters the F4U-1 was fine for P-47D escort ranges at medium altitudes and the F4U--4&-5 was better at higher altitudes with 2 stage-2 speed superchargers. They, however had far less escort radius for high altitude penetrations as they had much less internal fuel than the F4U-1



The F4U-1 had a two stage supercharger as well. The F4U-4 had an improved version and the F4U-5 had the R-2800-42W with the enormous "sidewinder" auxiliary superchargers.


----------



## drgondog (Jul 20, 2016)

wuzak said:


> The F4U-1 had a two stage supercharger as well. The F4U-4 had an improved version and the F4U-5 had the R-2800-42W with the enormous "sidewinder" auxiliary superchargers.


Wuzak, agreed. The context of my remark was that the R-2800 engines for the two top USN fighters were not geared for peak performance near AAF doctrine strategic bomber altitudes

I didn't mean to infer that the F4U-1 and 1A (or F6F-3 -10/-10W) did not have 2 speed/2 stage. The -8 and -8W both peaked in delivered power around 15,000 and IIRC the best cruise performance, and SOP, was approximately 15,000 feet.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 20, 2016)

The Corsair used 3 different engines. The F4U-1s had the "B" series R-2800. The F4U-4 introduced the "C" series engine and the F4U-5 got the "E" series engine. ALL had two stage superchargers. However the basic engines (crankshaft/crankcase/, cylinders, rods, pistons, etc) differed so much that the parts were most definitely NOT interchangeable between them.

The -5 was close enough in speed to the P-51H that speed alone would not be determining factor in combat.
Of course the -5 was also several years later in timing than the P-51H. P-51H was in squadron service before the F4U-5 prototype flew.

The -4 Corsair had considerably improved high altitude performance over the -1s but it too was bit late. First examples don't reach combat zones until April/May of 1945 and they do have a range problem due to internal fuel compared to the Mustang (not to mention drag, the F4U was big airplane).

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## bobbysocks (Jul 20, 2016)

the H got deployed to the pacific but didn't see much if any action. why did they go back to the D model in Korea??


----------



## airminded88 (Jul 20, 2016)

drgondog said:


> My father got 3-1-1 in the air in his first two weeks in this bird, then converted to a P-51D and got 4-1-1 for the next 10 months. He always had a great affection for acceleration, climb and turn performance in that B-15 over all variants of the P-51D



Bill, did you father and other pilots have the choice to stick with the P-51 B or did they have to move on with the D conversion?


----------



## wuzak (Jul 20, 2016)

bobbysocks said:


> the H got deployed to the pacific but didn't see much if any action. why did they go back to the D model in Korea??



The numbers available?


----------



## GregP (Jul 20, 2016)

There were a LOT more P-51Ds available and there was no reason to keep a logistics chain going for two variants when one would do. We had a lot of spares for them, too. Neither the P-51D nor the F4U could hope to really fight a MiG-15, which they didn't know about or realize was going to be a player before it showed up. They figured it would be fighting against Yaks, Lavochkins, and other Soviet piston aircraft.

Nobody figured the Soviets had a good jet fighter, or even if they knew, never thought it would be deployed to Korea.

Similar with the Corsair. The Navy had quite a few newer Corsairs and no reason to keep Hellcats flying much longer after WWII was over. It was NOT that the Hellcats could not have been good, but we had WAY more airplanes than a peacetime armed forces could use, and they decided on the aircraft they would keep around ... and retired / scrapped the others.

When you go from the WWII armed forces size to the peacetime armed forces a few years later, they had aircraft, tanks, artillery, etc. out the yeng-yeng and nobody to run or maintain them because most people who did that had been discharged back into civilian life. Remember they recalled many aviators back into service for Korea, including baseball players like Ted Williams.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 20, 2016)

Only 555 P-51H models were built by V-J Day along with one P-51M

All the orders were cancelled with the end of the war, so there were simply not enough P-51H aircraft to justify swapping out the P-51Ds (and P-51Ks) currently in service.


----------



## drgondog (Jul 21, 2016)

Two notes. The P-51H did not deploy offshore during WWII or Korea. The 51D/K were deployed to National Guard units beginning in 1946 but the P-51/P-82 had a niche for SAC and Air Defense Command that was unfulfilled by jet aircraft because of combined range/performance issues - and the H didn't go to the Guard beginning in 1951.

Net, USAF deemed P-51D 'good enough to better' in comparison to P-51H for TAC mission.


----------



## drgondog (Jul 21, 2016)

airminded88 said:


> Bill, did you father and other pilots have the choice to stick with the P-51 B or did they have to move on with the D conversion?


Yes, he had opportunity to do what he wanted. He was squadron Ops, then 354CO when the P-51D-5s dribbled in.

He loved the slight agility advantage that B/C with Malcolm Hood had over the D but thought the firepower and visibility advantage out weighed 'the feel'. I know a lot of Mustang drivers from WWII. I do not know, nor have I heard of any save one that didn't jump at the chance to swap.

That was Don Beerbower, 354FG. He could have gotten a P-51D in late May but soldiered on in 43-12375 Bonnie B II. IIRC he was KIA in that P-51B-1-NA on 8 August. He felt that the Bonnie B II was the fastest Mustang in the ETO and was satisfied with 4x50's plus Malcolm Hood.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 21, 2016)

drgondog said:


> Yes, he had opportunity to do what he wanted. He was squadron Ops, the 354CO when the P-51D-5s dribbled in.
> 
> He loved the slight agility advantage that B/C with Malcolm Hood had over the D but thought the firepower and visibility advantage out weighed 'the feel'. I know a lot of Mustang drivers from WWII. I do not know, nor have I heard of any save one that didn't jump at the chance to swap.
> 
> That was Don Beerbower, 354FG. He could have gotten a P-51D in late May but soldiered on in 43-12375 Bonnie B II. IIRC he was KIA in that P-51B-1-NA on 8 August. He felt that the Bonnie B II was the fastest Mustang in the ETO and was satisfied with 4x50's plus Malcolm Hood.


Bill, do you suppose that Don's decision to keep his "B" is what caused his demise?

I know that my Uncle had expressed on many occasions that he wished he could have kept his P-36 and preferred it even over his P-38. Of course, the Army wasn't as nostalgic and had other ideas.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## gjs238 (Jul 21, 2016)

drgondog said:


> Yes, he had opportunity to do what he wanted. He was squadron Ops, the 354CO when the P-51D-5s dribbled in.
> 
> He loved the slight agility advantage that B/C with Malcolm Hood had over the D but thought the firepower and visibility advantage out weighed 'the feel'. I know a lot of Mustang drivers from WWII. I do not know, nor have I heard of any save one that didn't jump at the chance to swap.
> 
> That was Don Beerbower, 354FG. He could have gotten a P-51D in late May but soldiered on in 43-12375 Bonnie B II. IIRC he was KIA in that P-51B-1-NA on 8 August. He felt that the Bonnie B II was the fastest Mustang in the ETO and was satisfied with 4x50's plus Malcolm Hood.


----------



## drgondog (Jul 21, 2016)

GrauGeist said:


> Bill, do you suppose that Don's decision to keep his "B" is what caused his demise?
> 
> I know that my Uncle had expressed on many occasions that he wished he could have kept his P-36 and preferred it even over his P-38. Of course, the Army wasn't as nostalgic and had other ideas.



Beerbower was KIA strafing an airfield and I suspect being in a D would not have saved him....

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## airminded88 (Jul 22, 2016)

Thanks Bill.
It seems that England-based AAF fighter groups did not have issues towards maintaining fighters of different variants through a prolonged period of time.
Kudos to all those guys keeping those birds ready to fight the LW and protect the big friends

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## davparlr (Jul 26, 2016)

grampi said:


> It would be interesting to know how the P-51 ended being pick BEHIND the P-47 above 25K feet...other than diving, what could the P-47 possibly have been better at than the 51...it certainly isn't going to outclimb, outturn, or outroll a Mustang...


Probably power. At 25k the P-47D-25 had about 900 more hp than the Mustang whereas at 15k the P-47 only had a 500 hp edge. As altitude went up power advantage also went up thanks to the flat rated R-2800 with turbo.


----------



## drgondog (Jul 26, 2016)

Definitely power (converted to Thrust). The 51 drag advantage was gradually overcome by the Delta of Power Available vs Power Required. The 51 was always far superior over both the P-47 and p-38 (and Spitfire and Tempest and Bf 109 and FW 190) wrt Parasite Drag, so the Thrust HP as a function of altitude was critical.


----------



## grampi (Jul 26, 2016)

davparlr said:


> Probably power. At 25k the P-47D-25 had about 900 more hp than the Mustang whereas at 15k the P-47 only had a 500 hp edge. As altitude went up power advantage also went up thanks to the flat rated R-2800 with turbo.


The P-47 was also MUCH heavier, so maybe the extra HP still wasn't enough...


----------



## drgondog (Jul 26, 2016)

Two factors. Mass was important factor for acceleration from same steady velocity. Sustaining the acceleration bought Drag into play


----------



## airminded88 (Jul 27, 2016)

Does that mean on a sustained straight level flight going more or less at the same speed the P-51's substantially less parasitic drag would enable it to outpace the Thunderbolt with much more raw hp?


----------



## CORSNING (Jul 27, 2016)

With the same amount of fuel, yes.


----------



## airminded88 (Jul 27, 2016)

Very interesting.
Thanks Corsning!


----------



## CORSNING (Jul 27, 2016)

You are very welcome AM88. The truth is, I digress, there are members on this site
that are way more adverse in this area than I. Just wait until drgondog gets a chance
to see your post. He can give you way more information than I.


----------



## drgondog (Jul 27, 2016)

airminded88 said:


> Does that mean on a sustained straight level flight going more or less at the same speed the P-51's substantially less parasitic drag would enable it to outpace the Thunderbolt with much more raw hp?



Force=Mass*acceleration;

F=Thrust. At equilibrium T=D; When T>D, the aircraft accelerates.

Simplest answer - The Mustang will always 'out accelerate' and continue to accelerate when the P-47 reaches equilibrium, when they both have the same THP.

Because the Full throttle height of the P-51D was 24000 feet/1390HP for 1650-7 and 29000 feet/1290HP with the 1650-3, the Hp reduced steadily as a function of altitude from whereas the P-47D with turbo continued to produce 2300HP until about 32,000 feet.

The Drag advantage over the P-47D that enabled a faster P-51 at just over 1/2 the HP crossed over about 30-31000 feet

Reactions: Like Like:
4 | Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Peter Gunn (Jul 27, 2016)

drgondog said:


> Force=Mass*acceleration;
> 
> F=Thrust. At equilibrium T=D; When T>D, the aircraft accelerates.
> 
> ...



So if the Mustang had the same amount of continuous power the way the Thunderbolt did, say 2300HP to approx. 32,000 feet, it seems you'd have one speedy little aircraft. I realize that'd be a tall order but if I'm understanding this correctly, the lower drag P-51 would be a real scorcher with that type of powerplant.

I guess my question is if you keep the same physical shape of the Mustang with this type of constant power, how fast is this fantasy plane theoretically going to go?


----------



## CORSNING (Jul 27, 2016)

Wow drgondog, you never cease to amaze me.


----------



## grampi (Jul 27, 2016)

Peter Gunn said:


> So if the Mustang had the same amount of continuous power the way the Thunderbolt did, say 2300HP to approx. 32,000 feet, it seems you'd have one speedy little aircraft. I realize that'd be a tall order but if I'm understanding this correctly, the lower drag P-51 would be a real scorcher with that type of powerplant.
> 
> I guess my question is if you keep the same physical shape of the Mustang with this type of constant power, how fast is this fantasy plane theoretically going to go?



The unlimited versions of the Mustangs at the Reno Air Races have 3600+ HP and they do well over 500 MPH, and that's near the ground...imagine how fast they'd go at altitude...

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## drgondog (Jul 27, 2016)

Grampi answered the question.


----------



## gjs238 (Jul 27, 2016)

grampi said:


> The unlimited versions of the Mustangs at the Reno Air Races have 3600+ HP and they do well over 500 MPH, and that's near the ground...imagine how fast they'd go at altitude...



Pretty quick

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## BiffF15 (Jul 27, 2016)

gjs238 said:


> Pretty quick



Reminds me of my first afterburner takeoff in the Eagle!

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like Like:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Jul 27, 2016)

drgondog said:


> Because the Full throttle height of the P-51D was 24000 feet/1210HP for 1650-7 and 29000 feet/1330HP with the *1650-3*, the Hp reduced steadily as a function of altitude from whereas the P-47D with turbo continued to produce 2300HP until about 32,000 feet.
> 
> The Drag advantage over the P-47D that enabled a faster P-51 at just over 1/2 the HP crossed over about 30-31000 feet



Small correction there Bill. You obviously meant the V-1650-3.

Is there another cross-over point for the Mustang and P-47? As the altitude increases, the Mach number increases for the same TAS which will increase the drag significantly. The P-47 must be relatively worse due to its lower critical Mach.

The Spitfire XIV was faster at 37,500ft than the P-47D was at the same altitude. The Spitfire XI ~430mph TAS vs the P-40D at around 400mph.

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/JF319_Report_P-3792_level-speeds.jpg
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/P-47D_43-75035_Eng-47-1652-A.pdf

The P-51D was 407mph at 35,000ft with the -7 engine. 
P 51D Performance Test

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## drgondog (Jul 28, 2016)

Wuzak - yes to 1650-3.



wuzak said:


> Is there another cross-over point for the Mustang and P-47? As the altitude increases, the Mach number increases for the same TAS which will increase the drag significantly. The P-47 must be relatively worse due to its lower critical Mach.



Wuzak -the Mcr isn't quite reached by either ship although both are well immersed in the 0.6 to 0.65 M range

The Parasite Drag in that range would need a compressibility factor applied to the base RN=9x10^^6 estimates for both. I haven't looked but there might be a cross over point above 35K because the power loss on the P-47's R2800 is a pretty steep gradient from 31K, moreso than the 1650.

I haven't seen the CDp vs M for the P-47 but for the P-51 it is around 1.25 for .65M

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Zipper730 (Jul 29, 2016)

drgondog said:


> As a Mustang admirer, I have to note that the F4U-4 &5 and the P-51H were at the peak of 1945 US Fighters.


The F4U-5 didn't fly until the war was over, though there was the F8F, which did...



> The F4U-5 should always out turn and out roll a P-51H through ~ 22000 feet based on the relative wing loadings and the P-51H standard rigging of 10 degrees aileron throw.


Don't forget the difference in the wing cross-section: The F4U has a lower stall-speed than the P-51.



> They, however had far less escort radius for high altitude penetrations as they had much less internal fuel than the F4U-1


Tue F4U-4 could carry more fuel than the F4U-1 in the normal configuration, in overload the F4U-1 had a higher fuel-fraction, though a lower total load

F4U-1 (Fighter Normal): 178 gallons, fuel fraction: 9.59%
F4U-1 (Fighter-Overload): 363 gallons, fuel fraction: 17.21%
F4U-4: 384 gallons, fuel fraction 15.82%


----------



## wuzak (Jul 29, 2016)

Zipper730 said:


> The F4U-5 didn't fly until the war was over, though there was the F8F, which did...



The F8F, particularly the F8F-1 which flew before the end of WW2, was not in the same league as the P-51H or F4U-4 in terms of high altitude performance nor range, certainly compared to the P-51H.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## drgondog (Aug 1, 2016)

Zipper730 said:


> The F4U-5 didn't fly until the war was over, though there was the F8F, which did...
> 
> Don't forget the difference in the wing cross-section: The F4U has a lower stall-speed than the P-51.
> 
> ...



F4U-4 234 internal 150 external for fighter w/2 external 75's or one c/l 150. For Fighter role - fleet protection - the internal fuel load is the one calculated for mission fuel ftraction

Fuel Fraction is usually expressed in internal fuel weight to Gross weight -Fighter role- - take Off - clean but when doing the Fighter mission plan for which bomb/rocket load is not a factor, your definition is OK.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Aug 1, 2016)

Bill, would it be fair to say, simplistically, that external tanks got the aircraft to the fight and internal tanks got them home?

And if external tankage is much, much greater than internal tankage that the configuration is for ferrying?


----------



## Zipper730 (Aug 1, 2016)

drgondog said:


> F4U-4 234 internal 150 external for fighter w/2 external 75's or one c/l 150. For Fighter role - fleet protection - the internal fuel load is the one calculated for mission fuel ftraction


I didn't know that was counting drop-tanks. The F4U-1's 363 gallon overload was internal or with drop-tanks?



> Fuel Fraction is usually expressed in internal fuel weight to Gross weight


I just didn't know that factored in drop-tanks


----------



## drgondog (Aug 2, 2016)

Zipper730 said:


> I didn't know that was counting drop-tanks. The F4U-1's 363 gallon overload was internal or with drop-tanks?
> 
> *The 361 gallons for the F4U-1, 1A, 1C is maximum internal fuel for Fuselage and wings - not an 'overload' condition. This is primary Gross weight and for most combat airframes the basis for calculation of Design Limit and Ultimate stresses for 8G and 12G loading respectively
> 
> ...



Suggestion - get Dean's America's Hundred Thousand for the best (IMO) central set of physical data on all the WWII US fighters.

On Design criteria and stages and metrics used in Preliminary design, you might get AIAA series Raymer's "Aircraft Design - A Conceptual Approach" or Nicoli's Fundamentals of Aircraft Design. Both have excellent reference "Mission Profile" in depth discussion of weight fractions and comparisons against other similar mission aircraft for assessment and comparisons.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## drgondog (Aug 2, 2016)

wuzak said:


> Bill, would it be fair to say, simplistically, that external tanks got the aircraft to the fight and internal tanks got them home?
> 
> *Yes and as the war progressed, particularly in the PTO, some drastic external fuel stores were used by 5th AF that risked not getting home. For example Kenney had 300 and 160 gallon tanks fabricated in Australia (with high quality) because the AAF Material Command was slow to deliver. I know of some missions in which P-47D's with 305 gal internal plus a 300 on one pylon and 160 on the other were used to try successful mixed target escort with P-38s. The resultant drag from those big external honkers balanced out the range for the 460 outbound versus the 305 internal for clean configuration.*
> 
> And if external tankage is much, much greater than internal tankage that the configuration is for ferrying?



Yes, save the example above.


----------



## Peter Gunn (Aug 2, 2016)

Oh Man... I believe Bill's example above would give me (and anyone else tasked with flying that mission) cause for concern to put it mildly.


----------



## grampi (Aug 2, 2016)

wuzak said:


> The F8F, particularly the F8F-1 which flew before the end of WW2, was not in the same league as the P-51H or F4U-4 in terms of high altitude performance nor range, certainly compared to the P-51H.


The July '73 copy of Air Progress magazine had an article that pitted an F8F (don't remember if it was a -1 or -2) against the P-51D in several dog fights. There was some mention in the article that the pilots were prohibited from going above 18000 feet, as the Mustang would have a marked edge in performance above that altitude. Apparently, it wasn't just the P-51H model that was a better performer at high altitudes, it sounds like even the "D" model was better...


----------



## GregP (Aug 2, 2016)

The F8F was optimized for fleet defense. Airplanes that attack carriers are almost always below 18,000 feet, and usually well below 10,000 feet. Very few high-altitude attacks were successful against well-defended and maneuvering ships. Even Kamakazes missed, sometimes even when they weren't wounded or on fire or otherwise disabled.

If you prosecuted a low-altitude ship attack, there were very few fighters more formidable to go against than an F8F ... that is, assuming you were attacking in the last 2 weeks of the war or sometime post-WWII. Otherwise, you'd never even run across an F8F during WWII. It made the war, but didn't quite make it into actual aerial combat, so the P-51D was WAY more worrisome since it was around, and possibly in the fray.


----------



## Zipper730 (Aug 2, 2016)

drgondog said:


> Suggestion - get Dean's America's Hundred Thousand for the best (IMO) central set of physical data on all the WWII US fighters.


Sounds like an interesting book. I'm curious where the 2 gallon discrepancy came from (America's Hundred Thousand versus WWII Aircraft Performance).



> On Design criteria and stages and metrics used in Preliminary design, you might get AIAA series Raymer's "Aircraft Design - A Conceptual Approach" or Nicoli's Fundamentals of Aircraft Design. Both have excellent reference "Mission Profile" in depth discussion of weight fractions and comparisons against other similar mission aircraft for assessment and comparisons.


So this book would explain better how they actually planned the missions based on range and altitude?


----------



## grampi (Aug 3, 2016)

GregP said:


> The F8F was optimized for fleet defense. Airplanes that attack carriers are almost always below 18,000 feet, and usually well below 10,000 feet. Very few high-altitude attacks were successful against well-defended and maneuvering ships. Even Kamakazes missed, sometimes even when they weren't wounded or on fire or otherwise disabled.
> 
> If you prosecuted a low-altitude ship attack, there were very few fighters more formidable to go against than an F8F ... that is, assuming you were attacking in the last 2 weeks of the war or sometime post-WWII. Otherwise, you'd never even run across an F8F during WWII. It made the war, but didn't quite make it into actual aerial combat, so the P-51D was WAY more worrisome since it was around, and possibly in the fray.


I just find it misleading sometimes when people claim how much better the Bearcat's performance was/is than that of the Mustang when that performance edge only exists at lower altitudes...from 20,000 feet and higher it's the other way around...

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 3, 2016)

The F8F-2 was much better at high altitudes than the F8F-1 but it was also much later in timing. 
The F8F-1/2 was also a bit lacking in range, 185 gallons of internal fuel feeding an R-2800 doesn't last a long time.


----------



## grampi (Aug 3, 2016)

Shortround6 said:


> The F8F-2 was much better at high altitudes than the F8F-1 but it was also much later in timing.
> The F8F-1/2 was also a bit lacking in range, 185 gallons of internal fuel feeding an R-2800 doesn't last a long time.


The -2 was better at high altitudes than the -1, but I still don't think it was as good as the Mustang above 20000 feet...


----------



## Peter Gunn (Aug 3, 2016)

Also, shouldn't the F8F-2 then be compared to the P-51H?


----------



## grampi (Aug 3, 2016)

Peter Gunn said:


> Also, shouldn't the F8F-2 then be compared to the P-51H?


Yes, but it's not really comparable at high alitutudes, the "H" model is considerably better up high...at low altitudes they are comparable...


----------



## aurora-7 (Aug 4, 2016)

Engine performance aside, I think the Corsair gets an edge in being able to take a punch better.

Maybe in a game of tag, a Mustang could win by making a first tag but a Corsair can take more hits and keep flying than a Mustang. That big radiator makes for a large target.


----------



## drgondog (Aug 4, 2016)

Zipper730 said:


> Sounds like an interesting book. I'm curious where the 2 gallon discrepancy came from (America's Hundred Thousand versus WWII Aircraft Performance).
> 
> So this book would explain better how they actually planned the missions based on range and altitude?



A lot of books include the AAF Mission planning criteria - and all Performance Analysis delivered to AAF regarding Range/Combat Radius during WWII used it as the basis. That said Dean (IMO) is the best central repository for the Key American Fighters.

Based on Gross weight and SFC tables based on RPM, MP, a Mission Profile was calculated for Warm up/Takeoff, Climb to a specific altitude, accelerate to cruise, go to end of Radius, fight at 15 minutes MP/5 min WEP, cruise back at same altitude and return to base with a 20 minute reserve. Normally the Profiles calculated were for 5000, 15000 and 25000 feet - the adjusted based on Flight tests for 1.) clean/light, 2.) full internal fuel, 3.) external fuel and max full internal fuel/ammo. Additional options included variations for external loads like bombs or bigger tanks, rockets or bombs with different drag loads.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## drgondog (Aug 4, 2016)

aurora-7 said:


> Engine performance aside, I think the Corsair gets an edge in being able to take a punch better.
> 
> Maybe in a game of tag, a Mustang could win by making a first tag but a Corsair can take more hits and keep flying than a Mustang. That big radiator makes for a large target.



Ask any fighter pilot whether he would a.) have an airplane that makes it easier to deliver 'the tag' first - or the one that can take the most punishment? Most pilots that got 'tagged first' died or became POW.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## aurora-7 (Aug 4, 2016)

drgondog said:


> Ask any fighter pilot whether he would a.) have an airplane that makes it easier to deliver 'the tag' first - or the one that can take the most punishment? Most pilots that got 'tagged first' died or became POW.



Wildcats could hold there own against Zeros because they were built more solidly. Survivability counts in air combat too and they're not shooting missiles at each other that can take out an aircraft with one blast.

An F4U is just able to take punishment a P-51 can't.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 4, 2016)

Being rugged can get you home, It doesn't often _WIN _a dog fight although it may _keep _the enemy from winning (shooting you down)

This plane was hit by flak not air to air fire:





It got the pilot home but it was in no shape to _continue to fight. _
For some damaged Corsairs







Trying to perform combat maneuvers with parts of the control surfaces missing is going to result in some very sluggish response. 
_Continuing _a dog fight after sustaining sever damage was a rare occurrence.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Aug 4, 2016)

Good points, guys, both. I lump the FM-2 in with Wildcats but, if you take the FM-2 as a separate type, it has a VERY low combat loss record, the lowest of all US fighters. And it was in action when the Japanese still has some of their better pilots.

Of course, to me it is still a Wildcat. But the Navy thinks they make a separate type and tracked them that way, or we'd never know about it. The numbers come from a post-war Navy report: Naval Aviation Combat Statistics: World War II.

Also good point Shortround. I think a LOT of planes continued combat after sustaining damage, but very few after sustaining severe damage. If they got a big hit, they limped for home and hollered for protection at the same time, probably while trying to be invisible and finding the nearest cloud. Of course, in the ETO the nearest cloud wasn't usually very far away, as it typically was in the Pacific ... except during the morning rain shower.


----------



## Peter Gunn (Aug 5, 2016)

I could be wrong, (I often am) but the two Corsairs in SR6's post don't appear to have any damage that a Mustang couldn't have survived as well and still come home also. Sometimes it seems people think the P-51 was made of paper mache.


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 5, 2016)

It's the radiator!!!!
90% of all minor damage to a P-51 will happen to the radiator (it's really a bullet magnet).
In contrast all radial engines will continue to provide combat power with multiple cylinders blown off.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Peter Gunn (Aug 5, 2016)

Shortround6 said:


> It's the radiator!!!!
> 90% of all minor damage to a P-51 will happen to the radiator (it's really a bullet magnet).
> In contrast all radial engines will continue to provide combat power with multiple cylinders blown off.



So true!


----------



## gjs238 (Aug 5, 2016)

Peter Gunn said:


> I could be wrong, (I often am) but the two Corsairs in SR6's post don't appear to have any damage that a Mustang couldn't have survived as well and still come home also. Sometimes it seems people think the P-51 was made of paper mache.



Like this?
retrowar


----------



## BiffF15 (Aug 5, 2016)

gjs238 said:


> Like this?



That sort of looks like a prop strike. Wonder if it occurred on the ground.

Cheers,
Biff


----------



## drgondog (Aug 5, 2016)

Biff - it was a taxi accident. OTOH, this one my father abused while strafing an airfield near Munich.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Aug 5, 2016)

drgondog said:


> Biff - it was a taxi accident. OTOH, this one my father abused while strafing an airfield near Munich.


I always thought the tail was much too high on a mustang, good to see it being taken down to a sensible size.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## gjs238 (Aug 5, 2016)

deleted


----------



## airminded88 (Aug 6, 2016)

It is my opinion that when it comes to structural soundness, the Mustang is deemed as more maligned than its counterparts of the era.
It certainly was a liquid-cooled engine fighter and as such had weaknesses inherent of its type and certain hits could knock vital components and render the aircraft inoperable but that is true for all WWII-era liquid-cooled engine fighters.
The P-51 operated in one of the most active and hazardous areas of combat operations of the war where aerial and ground opposition could be formidable and despite grievous losses they earned their credentials as efficient and lethal weapons of air warfare.
While reading Our Might Always, the operational history of the 355th Fighter Group in WWII, extensively researched, written and kindly provided by Bill (drgondog) I have come to have a new-found respect for the Mustang as a deadly strafe aircraft.
Time and again P-51 fighter groups dove to attack LW airfields either on sweeps or after ramrod missions and despite the high losses of planes and more importantly men as a result of these missions, a high number of German aircraft of all types were decimated on the ground by Mustangs, their machine guns and liquid-cooled engines.
Many pilots have referred to the P-51 as a well-built, solid aircraft and a number of forum members whose fathers and uncles flown the P-51 to harm's way and came back can testify of that.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Aug 6, 2016)

Damage from ground fire wasnt completely random, some units developed a strategy of methodically working over an airfields defences to minimise damage to themselves.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## BiffF15 (Aug 6, 2016)

drgondog said:


> Biff - it was a taxi accident. OTOH, this one my father abused while strafing an airfield near Munich.



Wow! That's impressive! How far did he have to fly before he put it back down? I'm assuming he was hit by Anti aircraft fire vice a mid air?

Cheers,
Biff


----------



## drgondog (Aug 7, 2016)

BiffF15 said:


> Wow! That's impressive! How far did he have to fly before he put it back down? I'm assuming he was hit by Anti aircraft fire vice a mid air?
> 
> Cheers,
> Biff


Just north of Munich to Steeple Morden is more than 500 miles. That was the 37mm hit but he had two 20mm hits also so hit by at least two guns..


----------



## grampi (Aug 8, 2016)

aurora-7 said:


> Wildcats could hold there own against Zeros because they were built more solidly. Survivability counts in air combat too and they're not shooting missiles at each other that can take out an aircraft with one blast.
> 
> An F4U is just able to take punishment a P-51 can't.



The 51 didn't have to take punishment...it was fast enough and maneuverable enough in most cases be the first to strike...


----------



## aurora-7 (Aug 8, 2016)

grampi said:


> The 51 didn't have to take punishment...it was fast enough and maneuverable enough in most cases be the first to strike...



A similar line of thinking was on the A6M2 Zero and I think the reason that Wildcats could hold their own against them was because of their durability.

As to a one on one competition, I think the P-51 has the edge, though it's often cited that the Corsair maneuverability is close but I do think the P-51 comes out a bit ahead there.

I think when aircraft are compared in performance, there's a difference that should be noted between a plane on plane competition as opposed to war time service. The Mustang was strongest as a pure-dogfighter with it long legs, power and maneuverability.

The Corsair was at least close to the Mustang in maneuverability and the Corsair and Thunderbolt could fight in the air and do an excellent job on ground attacks.

Forever with me is a quote from a P-47 pilot:
"If you wanted to send a picture to your wife or girl, you sat in a P-51. If you were going into combat, you sat in a P-47".

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## gjs238 (Aug 8, 2016)

delete


----------



## grampi (Aug 8, 2016)

aurora-7 said:


> A similar line of thinking was on the A6M2 Zero and I think the reason that Wildcats could hold their own against them was because of their durability.
> 
> As to a one on one competition, I think the P-51 has the edge, though it's often cited that the Corsair maneuverability is close but I do think the P-51 comes out a bit ahead there.
> 
> ...


The Wildcat HAD to be tough to survive because it was bested in every performance category by the Zero. Later in the war when we had planes like the P-51, F4U, F6F, and P-47 our pilots had the advantage of speed and altitude over the enemy, so a hit and run tactic was used more often than pure dog fighting...


----------



## bobbysocks (Aug 8, 2016)

aurora-7 said:


> Forever with me is a quote from a P-47 pilot:
> "If you wanted to send a picture to your wife or girl, you sat in a P-51. If you were going into combat, you sat in a P-47".



I have heard a similar quote but the other way around. the pilot said if he was on the tail of an enemy doing the shooting he would rather be behind the stick of a mustang...if the enemy was behind him doing the shooting he would wish he was in a bolt. all those pilots had their own criteria and preferences...it doesn't necessarily make it true all the way around. some guys had nice things to say about the p39..others couldn't say one nice word...

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## aurora-7 (Aug 8, 2016)

bobbysocks said:


> . some guys had nice things to say about the p39..others couldn't say one nice word...



The P-39 made aces for the Russians. They liked it low level handling where most of their battles with the Luftwaffe took place.

As to the subject of the thread, I'll stick with the Corsair just because I believe it's performance to be close to the Mustang's and it being a more resilient fighter to combat damage.


----------



## Zipper730 (Aug 8, 2016)

drgondog said:


> A lot of books include the AAF Mission planning criteria - and all Performance Analysis delivered to AAF regarding Range/Combat Radius during WWII used it as the basis. That said Dean (IMO) is the best central repository for the Key American Fighters.


That's good to know, I might very well purchase this book.



> Based on Gross weight and SFC tables based on RPM, MP, a Mission Profile was calculated for Warm up/Takeoff, Climb to a specific altitude, accelerate to cruise, go to end of Radius, fight at 15 minutes MP/5 min WEP, cruise back at same altitude and return to base with a 20 minute reserve.


To be clear, the fighting conditions are 15-minutes at military power OR 5 minutes at WEP?

This is a little outside the scope, but why did the RAF, USAAF, USN have different warm-up times?



> Normally the Profiles calculated were for 5000, 15000 and 25000 feet - the adjusted based on Flight tests for 1.) clean/light, 2.) full internal fuel, 3.) external fuel and max full internal fuel/ammo.


Ok



> Additional options included variations for external loads like bombs or bigger tanks, rockets or bombs with different drag loads.


I assume different tables were used for bombers than fighters?


----------



## pbehn (Aug 9, 2016)

Allied A/C didnt have to return to base, there were landing fields around the coast for emergencies, Carnaby in Yorkshire was one of these, after the war it was used as a race track, it was so near the the sea that 3 track marshals were treated for exposure at a meeting in March when I was there.

Manston in Kent and Woodbridge in Suffolk were the others, a forum posters father (Drgondog) took advantage of Manstons hospitality on one occasion, wiki quotes 4,200 aircraft landing at Woodbridge and from memory over 2,000 landed at Carnaby.

RAF Woodbridge - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
RAF Carnaby - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
RAF Manston - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 9, 2016)

Zipper730 said:


> To be clear, the fighting conditions are 15-minutes at military power OR 5 minutes at WEP?



It include both. 



> This is a little outside the scope, but why did the RAF, USAAF, USN have different warm-up times?



Warm up time also varied with the installation (and weather conditions), They main thing was to warm up the engine to operating temperature *and the oil! *Cold oil flowed like molasses and warming up the oil in the engine while the oil in the oil tank/oil cooler was still cold and thick would lead to flow and lubrication problems, big ones. Many planes had variable oil supplies. Oil tank was only filled to capacity if the plane was using max fuel (aux tanks or drop tanks) 
Actual warm up time was dependent on the temperature gauges but for flight planning a worst case scenario would be adopted. A few of these categories had a little bit of fudge factor in them to give a bit of reserve. Cutting warm up to the minimum in planning for a max range mission and then running into a higher than expected head wind on the way home leaves you with a lot of lost aircraft.

See Marianas turkey shoot where about 80 US aircraft were forced to ditch on the return flight due to low fuel as an example of operating at extreme range/s. 
Mission planning was usually trying to build in reasonable reserves and also trying to take into account the _worst _performing aircraft in the group. Like the plane with the worst dents/paint and highest drag or the plane whose engine was just a few percent off the others.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## drgondog (Aug 9, 2016)

Zipper730 said:


> That's good to know, I might very well purchase this book.
> 
> *Dean was an Aero Engineer and does a good job not only for the data and narratives but also presents a good survey 'course' on aerodynamics as it applies to Performance to help you understand how he developed performance comparisons. This book is simply the best of its kind. It also brings into play handling characteristics as surveyed at the Fighter Conference at Patuxent River during which all the fighters were flown and 'graded' for not only performance/maneuverability but also low speed handling, visibility, control layout, etc. *
> 
> ...


----------



## GrapeJam (Aug 9, 2016)

aurora-7 said:


> The Corsair was at least close to the Mustang in maneuverability and the Corsair and Thunderbolt could fight in the air and do an excellent job on ground attacks.



The Corsair wasn't "close" to the P51 in maneuverability at all, it actually outclassed the P51 in maneuverability at all speed, in all aspects, still, contemporaries Mustang outclassed the Corsair in speed, climb and endurance.


----------



## wuzak (Aug 9, 2016)

GrapeJam said:


> The Corsair wasn't "close" to the P51 in maneuverability at all, it actually outclassed the P51 in maneuverability at all speed, in all aspects, still, contemporaries Mustang outclassed the Corsair in speed, climb and endurance.



It did?

According to _America's Hundred Thousand_ the P-51B rolled better at all speeds and had a tighter turning radius than the F4U-1D.


----------



## grampi (Aug 9, 2016)

It's amazing how there can be completely different accounts of the same aircraft performance wise...makes me wonder what was actually the case...it also makes me wonder how much of it is actually folk lore/fan boy stuff...


----------



## drgondog (Aug 9, 2016)

GrapeJam said:


> The Corsair wasn't "close" to the P51 in maneuverability at all, it actually outclassed the P51 in maneuverability at all speed, in all aspects, still, contemporaries Mustang outclassed the Corsair in speed, climb and endurance.



The Corsair was superior in roll, turn and landing speed - all related to 10% lower wing loading. The Mustang was superior in acceleration, climb, speed, zoom climb, dive all related to 2/3 Drag values compared to Corsair. 

I suppose the definition of "close" needs some scrutiny. As to "all speed", the relative turn capability of the Mustang matched the Corsair at high altitude and the roll rates matched at high speed. The comparisons basically need to be period vs period such as F4U-4/-5 vs P-51H; F4U-1 vs P-51B/D

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## drgondog (Aug 9, 2016)

The problem with many of the comparisons is that the HP to altitude performance between the two aircraft (and other R-2800 engine fighters vs Mustang) needs to have the Available Horsepower to Horsepower Required for all the altitudes.


----------



## Zipper730 (Aug 9, 2016)

Shortround6 said:


> It include both.


Gotcha



> Warm up time also varied with the installation (and weather conditions), They main thing was to warm up the engine to operating temperature *and the oil! *Cold oil flowed like molasses and warming up the oil in the engine while the oil in the oil tank/oil cooler was still cold and thick would lead to flow and lubrication problems, big ones. Many planes had variable oil supplies. Oil tank was only filled to capacity if the plane was using max fuel (aux tanks or drop tanks)
> Actual warm up time was dependent on the temperature gauges but for flight planning a worst case scenario would be adopted. A few of these categories had a little bit of fudge factor in them to give a bit of reserve. Cutting warm up to the minimum in planning for a max range mission and then running into a higher than expected head wind on the way home leaves you with a lot of lost aircraft.


I wouldn't have though that would have affected range as I'd have thought the oil would have been steadily heated as the plane flew.



> See Marianas turkey shoot where about 80 US aircraft were forced to ditch on the return flight due to low fuel as an example of operating at extreme range/s.


Holy shit: How many planes were sent out?



wuzak said:


> It did?
> 
> According to _America's Hundred Thousand_ the P-51B rolled better at all speeds and had a tighter turning radius than the F4U-1D.


Wait, I thought the P-51B/D had the same rate of turn?


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 9, 2016)

Zipper730 said:


> I wouldn't have though that would have affected range as I'd have thought the oil would have been steadily heated as the plane flew.


Flying the plane _kept _it warm. But starting a engine with a few quarts of oil in it and having a number of more quarts in the oil cooler and piping is far different than having gallons of oil in a remote oil tank. Warm up was done at idle or a High idle. Taking off at full throttle and climbing to operational attitudes was done at high power settings meant that oil had to be circulated through the oil system and oil cooler/s. Even Liquid cooled engines got rid of approximately 20% of the engine heat through the oil system and around 80% though the radiators so you can't (even if possible, which it wasn't) shutoff the oil tank, that was the reserve of 'cool' but not cold oil. Cold oil isn't going to flow properly (at the right number of gallons per minute) and it isn't going to lubricate properly leading to excessive wear if not engine failure. 
Burning 12 -25 gallons on the ground and getting to 5,000ft on climb out affects range compared some "yardstick" ranges which simply divide the total fuel tank capacity by the number of gallons an hour at a certain speed to calculate a "nominal" range. 



> Holy shit: How many planes were sent out?



240 were launched, 14 aborted, 226 attacked the Japanese fleet, about 20 were shot down by Japanese defenses (fighters and AA). 
The 1st strike was launched without exact knowledge of the Japanese position. More information came in later and the 2nd strike was NOT launched although the first strike was not recalled. Difference in location was 60 miles ???. While the attacking aircraft only sank one Japanese carrier they damaged 3 others and also scored hits on a battleship. 
In climatic naval battles (1st large fleet carrier battle in almost two years) perhaps risks could be taken. 
In a land campaign were air strikes were almost an every day occurrence (weather permitting) loosing aircraft due to poor planning of range/fuel would hardly ever be justified. 

The US did manage to recover almost 3/4s of the downed crews although some spent several days in the water.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## drgondog (Aug 10, 2016)

Zipper730 said:


> Gotcha
> 
> I wouldn't have though that would have affected range as I'd have thought the oil would have been steadily heated as the plane flew.
> 
> ...



Depends on Gross Weight for the comparison - when the B is full load internal it has 1 gun and 400 rounds of 50cal less load per wing than the P-51D. Net 400 pounds lighter than the P-51D.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## CORSNING (Aug 10, 2016)

I thought I already answered these questions.


drgondog said:


> The Corsair was superior in roll, turn and landing speed - all related to 10% lower wing loading. The Mustang was superior in acceleration, climb, speed, zoom climb, dive all related to 2/3 Drag values compared to Corsair.
> 
> I suppose the definition of "close" needs some scrutiny. As to "all speed", the relative turn capability of the Mustang matched the Corsair at high altitude and the roll rates matched at high speed. The comparisons basically need to be period vs period such as F4U-4/-5 vs P-51H; F4U-1 vs P-51B/D


----------



## CORSNING (Aug 10, 2016)

These aircraft were two of the best propeller fighter aircraft ever produced. They excelled
in there prospective rolls. They were not interchangeable. The Corsair was the perfect
Pacific US Marine fighter and the Merlin Mustang was the perfect USAAF fighter
of the time. In late 1943 and early 1944 the F6F-3/4 was exactly what was needed by
the USN.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## davparlr (Aug 12, 2016)

The P-51, except the A at high altitudes, was always faster, often significantly so (20-30 mph) at all altitudes, than the corresponding F4U model. Speed is life.


----------



## Zipper730 (Aug 12, 2016)

How did the P-51A/B/D compare to the P-40B/E? The reason I ask this is that I remember it being stated that the P-40 could out-turn (barely) the ME-109, but the P-51 could be out-turned by the Me-109...


----------



## wuzak (Aug 13, 2016)

Zipper730 said:


> How did the P-51A/B/D compare to the P-40B/E? The reason I ask this is that I remember it being stated that the P-40 could out-turn (barely) the ME-109, but the P-51 could be out-turned by the Me-109...



No, the Bf 109 could not out turn a Mustang

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/wade-turning.jpg


----------



## CORSNING (Aug 13, 2016)

wuzak said:


> No, the Bf 109 could not out turn a Mustang
> 
> http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/wade-turning.jpg


The turning circle of the aircraft on this page appears to be at high altitudes. The Mustang
could outturn the Bf 109 at high altitudes where the Messerschmitt was hanging in the air.
At lower altitudes the tables turned and the Bf 109 turned better at speeds below about
330 mph.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## drgondog (Aug 13, 2016)

I agree - Turn is largely a function of wing loading and power available versus power required.

Power Required is a function of Parasite Drag, Induced drag and cooling drag for straight line, but Form Drag as a function of AoA comes into play in turns and climbs.

The Power Available for the RR and Daimler are very different as a function of altitude and the drag of the Mustang is far below the Bf 109G

The Bf 109G should out turn the Mustang in low to medium altitudes below 300 mph. The comparisons are about even in higher altitudes through 22,000 feet and then advantage goes to the P-51B/D as the Rolls outperforms the Daimler.


----------



## Zipper730 (Aug 13, 2016)

CORSNING said:


> The turning circle of the aircraft on this page appears to be at high altitudes.


Yeah, I'm surprised the P-47 would be able to out-turn a Tempest except at high-altitudes where the turbocharger would provide the advantage.

Does anybody have a chart that would cover turn circle and/or rate of turn for the following aircraft at different altitudes?


----------



## drgondog (Aug 14, 2016)

I doubt that any such data exists.

Calculations would required extensive aero data not available today. Turn rate and circle presentations calculated on CL are approximations at best for all the reasons I suggested above.

Turn and climb analytics require wind tunnel data concerning Parasite Drag and Form Drag to extract Power Available calculations.

Not to mention accurate CLmax values for high AoA in asymmetrical flight conditions - which are Not the same as Level Flight Stall conditions.


----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 14, 2016)

Something I have always been curious about, Bill, is environmental factors during testing.

For example, would performance results differ between a summer day (with high temps/low humidity) at Muroc and a cool late autumn day (low temps/high humidity) at Freeman?

Same aircraft, same test routines.


----------



## drgondog (Aug 14, 2016)

slightly different temp/pressure factors affect instrumentation as well as density variations - but most Brit and US flight test results were scrupulous about applying corrections for both compressibility and temperature.

that said, there were bigger variations between engine performances vs Static Bench specs.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## grampi (Feb 2, 2018)

davparlr said:


> It should be noted that in the Fighter Conference, the P-51 was selected as the second best fighter above 25k, behind the P-47



I've seen this stated before, and besides diving ability, what performance aspects were superior for the P-47 as compared to the P-51? It certainly wasn't going to out climb, or out maneuver it...


----------



## grampi (Feb 2, 2018)

USS Enterprise CV-6 said:


> I gets mine too. It's faster and same weapons and it's prettier


You've got to be kidding...there's never been a plane as pretty as the Mustang...before or after...


----------



## Zipper730 (Feb 2, 2018)

drgondog said:


> The Bf 109G should out turn the Mustang in low to medium altitudes below 300 mph. The comparisons are about even in higher altitudes through 22,000 feet and then advantage goes to the P-51B/D as the Rolls outperforms the Daimler.


Just to be clear what combat configuration are we talking about for the P-51?

Short/Medium Range: No drop-tanks, fuel only in the wings. Percentage of available fuel is lower than any other configuration, weight is lowest

Medium/Long-Range Escort: Fuel in center tank is filled up from 65-85 gallons, wing-tanks are full and drop-tanks are carried. At start of combat, the center tank is either empty, or nearly empty, wing-tanks are full or nearly full (for the longest range missions the center tank is filled, on medium missions probably not so a little bit of fuel would be burned up during taxi, warm-up, initial climb), and drop-tanks are gone.
Different weight affects the stall-speed, maximum g-load, and power to weight ratio and all affect the turning arc. You know this of course, but I was just trying to make a point.


> Calculations would required extensive aero data not available today.


So you'd have to make guesses based on what you don't have, and use available data collected?


> Turn rate and circle presentations calculated on CL are approximations at best for all the reasons I suggested above.


Cl = L/(A*0.5*r*V^2) or Cl = L/(q*A)?



grampi said:


> I've seen this stated before, and besides diving ability, what performance aspects were superior for the P-47 as compared to the P-51? It certainly wasn't going to out climb, or out maneuver it...


I thought the P-47 didn't have turning ability that was all that remarkable? From what I remember the Silverplate B-29's could turn inside a P-47 (they had 7200 pounds reduced over a regular B-29, sure...)

Reactions: Dislike Dislike:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Feb 2, 2018)

Zipper730 said:


> I thought the P-47 didn't have turning ability that was all that remarkable? From what I remember the Silverplate B-29's could turn inside a P-47 (they had 7200 pounds reduced over a regular B-29, sure...)


The P 47 could out turn a Bf 109 at 30,000 ft.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## bobbysocks (Feb 2, 2018)

Zipper730 said:


> Just to be clear what combat configuration are we talking about for the P-51?
> 
> Short/Medium Range: No drop-tanks, fuel only in the wings. Percentage of available fuel is lower than any other configuration, weight is lowest




this was my question about the battle of Y-29 during Bodenplatte. did the mustangs have the fuse tank filled? their close proximity to targets deep in Germany could have been reached and returned from with out it. during the battle they took off from the air strip and immediately into battle. many of which were low level dogfights around slag piles. with a full fuse tank certain maneuvers would have been disastrous at that alt.


----------



## Shortround6 (Feb 2, 2018)

Zipper730 said:


> I thought the P-47 didn't have turning ability that was all that remarkable? From what I remember the Silverplate B-29's could turn inside a P-47 (they had 7200 pounds reduced over a regular B-29, sure...)



Think you could come up with source for that???????
B-29 weights were all over the place, 7200lbs was a drop in the bucket. A B-29 that took off at 100,000lbs weight could use 800 gallons of fuel (4800lbs) just climbing to 28,000ft, taking off at 140,000lbs 800 gallons won't even get you to 15,000ft. Empty weight of a standard B-29 was 74,500lbs and noraml gross was 120,000lbs. without knowing the actual weight of both planes involved this story is pretty much useless. 

The advantage the P-47 had at 25,000ft and up was that it's engine was still making full power (in some models to over 30,000ft) which meant it could _sustain _a turn better than many other aircraft. Please remember that at 30,000ft the air is about 37% as dense as it is at sea level so even level fight stall speeds are higher than sea level. Now try banking at over 60 degrees (really like to see B-29 doing over a 60% degree bank at 30,000ft) and pulling 4 or more "G"s. 
Granted the B-29 had turbos but most US bombers were never intended to pull more than 3.8 "G"s and if loaded heavily were rated a lot closer to 2 "G"s

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Zipper730 (Feb 4, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> Think you could come up with source for that???????


This is at least one source for the turning circle thing... Wendover’s Atomic Secret | Military Aviation | Air & Space Magazine

(then) Colonel Tibbets had claimed the plane's weight was 7200 pounds lighter than a traditional B-29: Weight figures seemed based around the Silverplate carrying around a 10,000 pound bomb (Fat Man: 10300; Littleboy: 8900).


> Please remember that at 30,000ft the air is about 37% as dense as it is at sea level so even level fight stall speeds are higher than sea level. Now try banking at over 60 degrees (really like to see B-29 doing over a 60% degree bank at 30,000ft) and pulling 4 or more "G"s.


60-degrees of bank correlates to 2g...


----------



## pbehn (Feb 4, 2018)

Zipper730 said:


> 60-degrees of bank correlates to 2g...


Does it? How does that work?


----------



## Shortround6 (Feb 4, 2018)

Zipper730 said:


> This is at least one source for the turning circle thing... Wendover’s Atomic Secret | Military Aviation | Air & Space Magazine
> 
> (then) Colonel Tibbets had claimed the plane's weight was 7200 pounds lighter than a traditional B-29: Weight figures seemed based around the Silverplate carrying around a 10,000 pound bomb (Fat Man: 10300; Littleboy: 8900).
> 60-degrees of bank correlates to 2g...



I would certainly like to see something a bit more detailed than that. You do realize that P-47D-25 had a wing loading of about 48lbs per square ft when _FULLY_ loaded clean( 370 gallons of fuel, extra oil, 425 rounds per gun). While a B-29 even with 7000lbs stripped out of it is going to weigh 64,500lbs empty. Standard empty weight is 71,500lbs for the early ones. Wing loading is 37.2lbs *except *you have no crew, no oil, no guns even in the tail, no oxygen and maybe not even radios. _Basic_ weight of a standard B-29 was 74,050 lbs so 7000lbs from that is 67,000lbs or wing loading of 38.9lbs/sq/ft. Now if we add just 17,000lbs of fuel (2840 gallons out of the the max internal 6803 gallons not including bombbay tanks) we get a plane weight of 84,000lbs and a wing loading of.....................48.8lbs/sq/ft. Please note there are no bombs on board. Also note the P-47 will be hundreds of pounds lighter by the time it climbs to 34,000ft.
Yes there are other things beside wing loading that affect lift and turning ability, but this story is not looking good. A lightly loaded B-29 _may _be able to out turn a fully loaded but clean P-47 but it seems to depend an awful lot on the weight of the two planes.


----------



## Zipper730 (Feb 4, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> I would certainly like to see something a bit more detailed than that.


As would I...


> You do realize that P-47D-25 had a wing loading of about 48lbs per square ft when _FULLY_ loaded clean( 370 gallons of fuel, extra oil, 425 rounds per gun).


Is this with the center tank loaded?


> While a B-29 even with 7000lbs stripped out of it is going to weigh 64,500lbs empty. Standard empty weight is 71,500lbs for the early ones. Wing loading is 37.2lbs *except *you have no crew, no oil, no guns even in the tail, no oxygen and maybe not even radios. _Basic_ weight of a standard B-29 was 74,050 lbs so 7000lbs from that is 67,000lbs or wing loading of 38.9lbs/sq/ft. Now if we add just 17,000lbs of fuel (2840 gallons out of the the max internal 6803 gallons not including bombbay tanks) we get a plane weight of 84,000lbs and a wing loading of.....................48.8lbs/sq/ft. Please note there are no bombs on board. Also note the P-47 will be hundreds of pounds lighter by the time it climbs to 34,000ft.


I figured one would assume the following

B-29 with fuel load used for a high altitude flight to Hiroshima & Nagasaki with the specified crew, and 8,900 to 10,300 pound payload, minus 7200 pounds due to the removal of turrets, guns, and ammunition
Fuel status of P-47 would be either shortly after reaching altitude and/or normal combat weight with with or without the center tank filled.
The figures were most likely on the inbound flight as Tibbets said if he encountered a fighter, he figured he could just outmaneuver him


----------



## Zipper730 (Feb 4, 2018)

pbehn said:


> Does it?


Just search for level-flight g-load bank angle

Bank Angle Vs. G Force - Aviation Safety Article
Flying Lessons


----------



## KiwiBiggles (Feb 4, 2018)

pbehn said:


> Does it? How does that work?


In level flight, in a balanced turn the G loading is the the reciprocal of the cosine of the bank angle (or the secant, if you prefer).


----------



## Shortround6 (Feb 4, 2018)

Zipper730 said:


> As would I...
> Is this with the center tank loaded?



What center tank? The weight given was for the internal tanks, which on a late model P-47 was enlarged to hold 370 gallons instead of the 305 gallons of the early version


> I figured one would assume the following
> 
> B-29 with fuel load used for a high altitude flight to Hiroshima & Nagasaki with the specified crew, and 8,900 to 10,300 pound payload, minus 7200 pounds due to the removal of turrets, guns, and ammunition
> Fuel status of P-47 would be either shortly after reaching altitude and/or normal combat weight with with or without the center tank filled.
> The figures were most likely on the inbound flight as Tibbets said if he encountered a fighter, he figured he could just outmaneuver him



Please do some of your own research, I gave you some numbers which can be checked by either the flight manual available in the tech section of this site or by using the SAC sheets available at Standard Aircraft Characteristics Arcive

I would note that the "combat" weight of a normal B-29 was given as 101,250lbs at which point the plane had a load factor of 3.10. 'Combat' weight is after a fair amount of fuel is burned off and bombs dropped. For instance a plane that took off at 140,000lbs with 10,000lbs of bombs and 47,196lbs of fuel has a "combat" weight of 101,250lbs. That 47,196lb of fuel includes bomb bay tanks. Now to get down to the combat weight you need to drop/use 38,750lbs worth of bombs, fuel, oil and the bomb bay tanks. Keeping the bombs (even it it was possible) while dropping the bomb bay tanks means you don't have an awful lot of fuel to get home. Only about 1/4 of the fuel you took off with, so I am guessing combat weight doesn't included bombs. 
The Silverplate aircraft will be a little lighter but enough to really out maneuver a P-47? 

Japanese aircraft didn't have turbos and were rather limited in maneuverability at high altitudes. Even if they could reach a high speed in straight and level flight any maneuvering is going to kill speed and they don't have enough engine power to compensate. A B-29 running light (100,000lbs or so) could climb at over 500fpm at 34,000ft easily giving it a power reserve it could use to turn without losing altitude.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Feb 7, 2018)

g = 1 /cosine (bank angle). We have been over this many times, and it holds true only in a level turn. A 3-g turn is about a 70° bank. (2.92 or so anyway).

There was never a B-29 that could out-turn a P-47 made but, at 35,000 feet, it MIGHT be. Let's see. At high altitude, span loading gives a pretty good general indication of turning ability.

The Republic P-47D that took off at a max normal weight of 14,500 pounds has a span loading of 355 lbs/ft.

A Boeing B-29 that took off at a max normal weight of 137,959 lbs has a span loading of 977 lbs/ft.

Looks like the P-47 will turn a LOT better than a B-29, some 3 times better, and removing 7,000 or even 14,000 lbs will NOT change it much. Even if the B-29 is at 100,000 lbs, the span loading is 708 lbs/ft. The B-29 wing is always much more heavily loaded, as we'd expect, than a P-47 wing.

Incidentally, at 35,000 feet, a P-47D was THE best or one of the best fighters of the entire war. Any P-47 pilot wanted to fight way up high where he held all the cards. But, since it was hard to find targets up there after the bombers started bombing lower, he usually had to come down a bit to fight.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Zipper730 (Feb 7, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> What center tank?


I thought the P-47's had tanks in the wings, then as time went on a ferry tank was replaced with a drop tank, then wing & centerline drop-tanks


> The weight given was for the internal tanks, which on a late model P-47 was enlarged to hold 370 gallons instead of the 305 gallons of the early version


65 more gallons regardless of tank configuration sounds okay enough


> I would note that the "combat" weight of a normal B-29 was given as 101,250lbs at which point the plane had a load factor of 3.10. 'Combat' weight is after a fair amount of fuel is burned off and bombs dropped. For instance a plane that took off at 140,000lbs with 10,000lbs of bombs and 47,196lbs of fuel has a "combat" weight of 101,250lbs.


But with 7200 pounds of turrets, guns, ammo, and other stuff removed would be down to 94050, and takeoff would be 132800 lbs


> The Silverplate aircraft will be a little lighter but enough to really out maneuver a P-47?


I don't know, I'm just going on what I was told..



GregP said:


> g = 1 /cosine (bank angle).


I never had the formula before, but I really like it... I can actually do the computations on my own...


----------



## drgondog (Feb 7, 2018)

Zipper730 said:


> I thought the P-47's had tanks in the wings, then as time went on a ferry tank was replaced with a drop tank, then wing & centerline drop-tanks
> *Nope - started off with zero external fuel capability and no internal fuel in wings, 305 gallons in Main+Auxilliary in fuselage fwd and under cockpit, then C/L rack, then wing pylons for combat tanks, then increase fuselage fuel, then internal wing tanks for P-47N.
> *
> 65 more gallons regardless of tank configuration sounds okay enough
> ...



*Would be great to research before operating on "I thought" in these debates?*

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
5 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Feb 8, 2018)

drgondog said:


> *...*then internal wing tanks for P-47D.



Bill - internal wing tanks were installed on the P-47N only.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## drgondog (Feb 8, 2018)

tomo pauk said:


> Bill - internal wing tanks were installed on the P-47N only.


I know Tomo - just a typo. It was an entirely new wing.


----------



## tomo pauk (Feb 8, 2018)

drgondog said:


> I know Tomo - just a typo. It was an entirely new wing.



All new wing? Care to elaborate?.


----------



## Shortround6 (Feb 8, 2018)

Maybe not ALL new but........











They had to do something to the wing roots to fit the fuel tanks

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Zipper730 (Feb 9, 2018)

drgondog said:


> 305 gallons in Main+Auxilliary in fuselage fwd and under cockpit


Okay, I know what I'm looking at, the rear tank of the two was the one I thought was the 'center tank'.[/quote]


----------



## drgondog (Feb 10, 2018)

Thanks for the plan view SR. Entirely new is an overstatement as many parts are interchangeable. That said the wing is not interchangeable and the N wing had its main spars and carry through structure modified to take the increased stresses applied in pull out for a.) extra internal fuel and b.) moving the CG of outboard pylon span ward. The latter increased the bending and torsion loads imposed by longer moment arm on fuel tanks and bombs.


----------



## Shortround6 (Feb 10, 2018)

Heck, just moving the .50 cal guns and ammo is going to change the bending moment. And you can't drop those

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## swampyankee (Feb 10, 2018)

According to Joe Baugher, the P-47N had a new wing (Republic P-47N Thunderbolt)


----------



## J.A.W. (Apr 16, 2018)

A couple of anecdotes from the memoir - ' Too Young to Die' - of a Kiwi Corsair,( a new Goodyear) pilot, flying in Nippon, immediately post-war, noting his encounters with Mustangs..

"One day during a flying-practice detail, when I usually practised aerobatics, I flew down towards the Australian base,
at Bofu where I heard a Mustang take off, advising the tower that he was bound for Iwakuni, so I decided to follow
& formate with him for the trip home.

As I pulled in beside, he gave me a wave & we both headed towards Iwakuni at just below 
2,000ft which was the
cloud base on track. Flying over hilly terrain there was a little turbulence, & I noted the Mustang was gradually
accelerating, requiring me to continually open the throttle to keep beside him.

Eventually, with the airspeed creeping up over 300 knots both aircraft were flying in a decidedly nose-down attitude
to prevent climbing into the low clouds, & the sound of my engine had changed from the usual
bark of the 18 cyl radial to the beautiful whine of a turbine. I had the throttle up to 56" & 2,700rpm when a voice over the R/T said: 'Christ, this thing will blow up soon!' - In reply I asked him what power he was using, & he replied '61" & 3,000rpm'.



That was virtually flat out for a Mustang with its V12 Packard-built Merlin 1590hp engine, & the amazing thing was our airspeed was identical, ( although I still had another 3" of boost & ADI up my sleeve)....

More to follow..

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Apr 16, 2018)

J.A.W. said:


> A couple of anecdotes from the memoir - ' Too Young to Die' - of a Kiwi Corsair,( a new Goodyear) pilot, flying in Nippon, immediately post-war, noting his encounters with Mustangs..
> 
> "One day during a flying-practice detail, when I usually practised aerobatics, I flew down towards the Australian base,
> at Bofu where I heard a Mustang take off, advising the tower that he was bound for Iwakuni, so I decided to follow
> ...



The Mustang had 6" boost extra available....

Reactions: Agree Agree:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Peter Gunn (Apr 16, 2018)

J.A.W. said:


> A couple of anecdotes from the memoir - ' Too Young to Die' - of a Kiwi Corsair,( a new Goodyear) pilot, flying in Nippon, immediately post-war, noting his encounters with Mustangs..
> 
> "One day during a flying-practice detail, when I usually practised aerobatics, I flew down towards the Australian base,
> at Bofu where I heard a Mustang take off, advising the tower that he was bound for Iwakuni, so I decided to follow
> ...



GAG... more anecdotal "evidence", the absolute worst kind to make a point.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## J.A.W. (Apr 16, 2018)

Peter Gunn said:


> GAG... more anecdotal "evidence", the absolute worst kind to make a point.



Dunno why you'd object to an actual account from a veteran P-G, even the fact that he was unaware of the
extent of the P-51's power-settings, does not detract from the encounter - as a matter of interest to the thread.

Maybe exercising a little less "dumb/snarky" & going a bit further down "the back" - is in order?


----------



## J.A.W. (Apr 16, 2018)

Anyhow, here's a bit more from 'Too Young to Die':

"After a few minutes at this speed the coast appeared ahead, & as we lowered our noses towards Iwakuni
the Mustang gradually slipped ahead in the gentle dive, due to its sleeker profile. Although the maximum speed
we reached during this short race was of little consequence - we were well below rated altitude, & not using
war emergency power, & the effects of turbulence & rocket mountings on both aircraft were considerable,
the similarity in performance was surprising - considering the aircraft were completely opposite in
construction, although together - they represented the cream of American design.

The 5-bladed 2000hp Griffon-engined Spitfires which frequently visited our base had however, considerably
higher performance than either the Mustang, or Corsair..."


----------



## Peter Gunn (Apr 17, 2018)

J.A.W. said:


> *SNIP*
> 
> Maybe exercising a little less "dumb/snarky" & going a bit further down "the back" - is in order?



Mr. Pot, meet Mr. Kettle.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Winner Winner:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## J.A.W. (Apr 17, 2018)

Huh? 

Ok, gotcha..
..the P-51 must be the kettle, due to being liquid-cooled..
& the F4U must be the pot, with it being cylindrical shaped n'all..


----------



## Peter Gunn (Apr 17, 2018)

J.A.W. said:


> Huh?
> 
> Ok, gotcha..
> ..the P-51 must be the kettle, due to being liquid-cooled..
> & the F4U must be the pot, with it being cylindrical shaped n'all..



Not surprisingly that went over your head like a Sabre Jet.

Well, not to give Adler any more headaches, I shall not engage the troll.

Reactions: Winner Winner:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Apr 17, 2018)

J.A.W. said:


> The 5-bladed 2000hp Griffon-engined Spitfires which frequently visited our base had however, considerably
> higher performance than either the Mustang, or Corsair..."





J.A.W. said:


> Jeeze.. those low-alt spec Focke's sure gave them fancy-pants high-falutin' Spits - a hellava wallopin'..



I will leave you to have a word with yourself.


----------



## J.A.W. (Apr 17, 2018)

?


----------



## J.A.W. (Apr 17, 2018)

Peter Gunn said:


> Not surprisingly that went over your head like a Sabre Jet.
> 
> Well, not to give Adler any more headaches, I shall not engage the troll.




Ok, lets see if I've got this straight.. P-G is gonna focus on the P-51 decal he stuck on his mirror,
instead of focussing on his own reflection.. yeah, seems 'bout right..


----------



## Marcel (Apr 17, 2018)

Guys can we please keep it respectful and polite? This is a warning, no personal attacks, or we have to take some action.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Apr 17, 2018)

Hey J.A.W.,

Reference post 229.

The Spitfires that the low-altitude radial-powered Fw 190s gave trouble to were NOT 5-bladed, Griffon-engined Spitfires. They were earlier Mk V ancestors with Merlins of considerably less HP than 2,000. The Griffon Spits didn't take a back seat to very much of anything in a fight, unless they got ambushed. Ambushed means they never saw the enemy until the enemy was already firing and they were already taking hits.

The vast majority of WWII aerial victories were from ambush.

I have not had very good luck with passing on information from actual pilots in here, so I don't do it much anymore. Seems most would rather believe some author who never flew a plane than an actual wartime pilot. Go figure. Of course, you DO have to ask the pilot questions to get to the real data at times, but the guys who were there know a lot more than non-pilot authors ... in my book anyway, as long as you can differentiate fact from conjecture. If you have the opportunity to as a few questions, you can do that. If you don't, then the data may or may not be useful. Memory is often rose-colored. At least my own seems to be.

Better in here to stick to flight test data. It is difficult to argue with. Even so, some try to stir the pot. For my own research these days, I try to get at least 5 or 6 reporting points, throw out the high and the low, and average the rest. Using only the highest numbers is the stuff of deliberate misinformation. A particular Bf 109 site comes to mind immediately. The average fighter out there wasn't the squadron's best aircraft; it was average. Ditto the average pilot.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## J.A.W. (Apr 17, 2018)

I do not agree Greg, hands on accounts by actual pilots have their place, inc' here..

& in post 229 - pbhen has been a bit naughty, falsely conflating 1941/43 era Spit Vs, with the much more capable XIV..

However, as the record shows, during the 1st Israel/Arab conflict in 1948, well flown IDF Merlin-Spitfires ( Mk IXs),
certainly showed the complacent 'peace-time' prep-level RAF Griffon-Spit boys, what was what..

Interestingly, one of the IDF pilots was 'Slick' Goodlin, former Bell test pilot, who'd been bounced out of
the X1's 'hot-seat' by Chuck Yeager, who then punched the 'tangerine dream' machine - through Mach 1...


----------



## fubar57 (Apr 17, 2018)

LMAO....another "expert" about to get another thread shut down

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Apr 17, 2018)

The first Spitfire Mk IX test aircraft flew on 26 February 1942. It was so successful that it was ordered into full production. Progress was rapid, and full production began in June 1942. It entered service the next month with No.64 squadron at Hornchurch.

The Mk IX was a significant improvement on the Mk V. It had a top speed of 409 mph at 28,000 feet, an increase of 40 miles per hour. Its service ceiling rose from 36,200 feet to 43,000 feet. It could climb at 4,000 feet per minute. In July 1942 an early Mk IX was flown against a captured Fw 190A, and the two aircraft were discovered to have very similar capabilities. The RAF had its answer to the Fw 190 problem

www.historyofwar.org/articles/weapons_spitfire_mkIX.html


----------



## J.A.W. (Apr 17, 2018)

fubar57 said:


> LMAO....another "expert" about to get another thread shut down


 Care to add a useful topic specific post, rather than simply being 'snarky' - as we have been duly asked - not to do..


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 17, 2018)

fubar57 said:


> LMAO....another "expert" about to get another thread shut down



Nobody needs to add fuel to fire either. This will get the thread shut down too...

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## swampyankee (Apr 17, 2018)

There were serious, professionally designed comparative tests between the P-51 Mustang and F4U Corsair. I believe the reports are available from on-line.


----------



## J.A.W. (Apr 17, 2018)

pbehn said:


> The first Spitfire Mk IX test aircraft flew on 26 February 1942. It was so successful that it was ordered into full production. Progress was rapid, and full production began in June 1942. It entered service the next month with No.64 squadron at Hornchurch.
> 
> The Mk IX was a significant improvement on the Mk V. It had a top speed of 409 mph at 28,000 feet, an increase of 40 miles per hour. Its service ceiling rose from 36,200 feet to 43,000 feet. It could climb at 4,000 feet per minute. In July 1942 an early Mk IX was flown against a captured Fw 190A, and the two aircraft were discovered to have very similar capabilities. The RAF had its answer to the Fw 190 problem
> 
> www.historyofwar.org/articles/weapons_spitfire_mkIX.html




Well, that's an opinion, but here are some facts & figures..

The speed of the FW 190 JaBos attacking Britain, flying in low, under the radar, bombing/strafing &
then running hell for leather back for France, back over the Channel - was a problem for Spitfires..

From the service tests on wwiiaircraftperformance site: FW 190 (Oct `42) Spitfire (Oct `42) Typhoon (Oct `41)

Max speed at sea-level, FW - 335mph ; Spit IX - 335mph ; Typhoon - 368mph.
Max speed at 6,000ft, FW - 355mph ; Spit IX - 348mph ; Typhoon - 385mph.

For topical contrast, in April `43 C-V gave figures for their F4U as: sea level - 311mph, & 7,500ft - 336mph..


----------



## Dawncaster (Apr 17, 2018)

J.A.W. said:


> For topical contrast, in April `43 C-V gave figures for their F4U as: sea level - 311mph, & 7,500ft - 336mph..



it's not factual and maximum speed.

That figures from F4U-1's Detail Specification was not actual test result.

see 113a, it's estimated performances and level speed with 'normal power'.

from Production Inspection Trials, one of the first batch(BuNo 2xxx) early birdcage F4U-1's level speed with military power was follows

sea level - 348 mph, 7500ft - 354 mph, maximum - 395 mph.


----------



## J.A.W. (Apr 17, 2018)

Yeah, I had my doubts, but maker's figures are usually not less than service tests..
Got a date for those early F4U test numbers?


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 17, 2018)

Spit XII with Griffon IIB 372 m.p.h. at 5,700 ft. Nov 1942
Spit XII with Griffon IV 375 m.p.h. at 4,600 ft. Aug 1943


----------



## Dawncaster (Apr 17, 2018)

J.A.W. said:


> Yeah, I had my doubts, but maker's figures are usually not less than service tests..
> Got a date for those early F4U test numbers?



it's not maker's figures, 'Production Inspection Trials' by US Navy

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f4u/f4u-1-02155.pdf


----------



## J.A.W. (Apr 17, 2018)

Yeah, early Griffon-Spit, what was the saying.. 'a day late, and a dollar' short?
By then, high-boost LF Mk IX's - pretty much made the Mk XII needless..


----------



## J.A.W. (Apr 17, 2018)

Dawncaster said:


> it's not maker's figures, 'Production Inspection Trials' by US Navy
> 
> http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f4u/f4u-1-02155.pdf




Ok ta for that, F4U - 335mph at 6,000ft on test ( mil-power Vmax) - in mid 42..


----------



## wuzak (Apr 17, 2018)

J.A.W. said:


> Yeah, early Griffon-Spit, what was the saying.. 'a day late, and a dollar' short?
> By then, high-boost LF Mk IX's - pretty much made the Mk XII needless..



LF.IXs didn't appear until late 1943 - after Spitfire XII production had been completed.


----------



## J.A.W. (Apr 17, 2018)

wuzak said:


> LF.IXs didn't appear until late 1943 - after Spitfire XII production had been completed.


 Ta for that correction W, maybe I was thinking of 'clipped, cropped & clapped' low-level Mk V's, instead.


----------



## Dawncaster (Apr 17, 2018)

hey, you wrote 10 mph less or more some figures.



J.A.W. said:


> Ok ta for that, F4U - 335mph at 6,000ft on test ( mil-power Vmax) - in mid 42..



it's 345 mph not 335.

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f4u/02155-level-a.jpg



J.A.W. said:


> From the service tests on wwiiaircraftperformance site: Spitfire (Oct `42)
> Max speed at sea-level, Spit IX - 335mph
> Max speed at 6,000ft, Spit IX - 348mph..



it's 338 mph at 6000 ft, and also sea-level speed was bit lower than 335 mph.

Spitfire F Mk IX BF274 Test
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/bf274speed.jpg


----------



## J.A.W. (Apr 17, 2018)

Ta for the correction re: F4U..
& true, Spit performance did vary, quite a bit, even in the same Mk, as engine specs changed..


----------



## Dawncaster (Apr 17, 2018)

J.A.W. said:


> Ta for the correction re: F4U..
> & true, Spit performance did vary, quite a bit, even in the same Mk, as engine specs changed..



yeah, but that was only oct 1942 report for Spitfire IX.

I think that 335 mph sea level speed corresponds to that of Spitfire LF IX with 18 lbs boosted Merlin 66.

Spitfire LF & HF Mk IX Test


----------



## J.A.W. (Apr 17, 2018)

The Brits used their Mustangs running on high boost, in mid `44 to intercept Nazi V1 cruise-missiles,
& while they also had the Corsair on hand, in mid `44, the F4U could not make enough speed to do that job..


----------



## Dawncaster (Apr 17, 2018)

Carrier Task Force for V1 Intercept?

Interesting....

and when Spitfire XIVs equipped 25 lbs boosted griffon engines in field?


----------



## J.A.W. (Apr 17, 2018)

AFAIR, running the Griffon that hard - was deemed permissable, due to the pressing situation,
but the early Mk Griffons showed some durability 'bugs' from being pumped that hard,
so were backed off to +21lb, & only later units ( also on the hi-test juice) were cleared for +25lb.

No carrier fighters could make those speeds at low-level in mid `44..

& while the Brits had all 3 R-2800-powered US fighters on hand, not even their
turbo-boosted P-47D Thunderblots were fast enough - at the heights V1s came in on..


----------



## GregP (Apr 18, 2018)

P-47s did not use the turbo at low altitudes ... the turbo was a high-altitude boost system only. 

The P-47 was so good up at high altitude specifically because the boost system allowed it to maintain high power levels way up high. Down low, it was basically supercharged only.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 18, 2018)

To get to the WEP settings using water injection some assistance from the turbo may have been necessary. Perhaps more in climb than in level flight? 
Looking at tests where they give turbo RPM and back pressure numbers. 
At 5,000ft the P-47D was using a bit more turbo RPM and had a bit more back pressure when climbing than when flying at high speed level with the same Engine power inlet manifold pressure. 
Turbo rpm and back pressure increased as the altitude went up.


----------



## GregP (Apr 18, 2018)

Because the waste gate closed as the altitude went up. When it was fully closed, that was all the turbo was going to give.

When the turbo was *not in use*, it idled at about 2,000 rpm. Max rpm was 22,000. That is a P-47N. The turbosupercharger control knob was located on the throttle quadrant. outboard. The throttle as in the middle and the prop knob was inboard. 

The control COULD be left on "Automatic," and that setting had overboost control. Or, you could control the turbo manually.

I'm sure you could overboost the engine, but that wasn't normally on the mission profile. If you were about to die, all bets were off. Otherwise, the turbo was idling at low altitudes.


----------



## J.A.W. (Apr 18, 2018)

I recall reading that really heavily loaded late model Jugs needed a fair bit of strip - to get enough speed to unstick,
& some nervy pilots would overdo the 'throttle jockey - whip hand' routine, & get a compressor feedback surge..
Not a good situation if you were running out of strip & you are aboard a fast gas-filled wagon/rolling crematorium..

Having red glowing hot exhaust manifolding reaching right through to the turbine, must've been a real fire-lighter,
- for all that gas cascading out - in a too-late take-off abort, wild bull rodeo ride - too..


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 18, 2018)

Test numbers from a few different P-47s.
altitude.....rpm.....intake pressure...........turbo rpm............back pressure.............HP...........speed
P-47B
C 0000......2700..........52.7..................... 5,600.............................................. 2000...........172
L 5,000.....2700..........52.0.....................6,800...............................................2000............352
C 5,000......2700........ 51.6......................8,200...............................................2000............183
P-47D
L 5,500......2700..........53.5....................14,400...................32.4.....................2000..........329.5
P-47D-10
L 0............2700...........56........................7,200...................36.0.....................2210............333
C 0............2700..........56........................7,300...................37.0......................2200.................
L 5,000......2700..........56........................9,400...................33.2..................... 2265............353
C 5,000......2700......... 56......................10,400...................35.5......................2285.................

I have no explanation for the 14,400rpm for the P-47D
C stands for climb and L stands for level flight. I think we can see that ram air in level flight requires a bit less work from the turbo.
Turbo is certainly not working very hard as power required goes up with the square of the RPM. Maxed out turbo at 22,000rpm is making/using over 9 times the power that it is at 7200rpm. It may not be idling but it is very far from being even pushing hard. 
These planes did NOT use the same turbo and turbo controller. P-47B and the D had a max turbo speed of 18,250rpm and the P-47D-10 had a max of 22,000rpm.


----------



## GregP (Apr 18, 2018)

None of the P-47 pilots I have spoken with (maybe 15) said the turbos were operating at low altitudes, and I have asked a few.

The 2,000 rpm turbocharger idle is straight from a P-47N Pilot's Operating Handbook. Last time I asked was the first week of April, and I spoke with Neal Melton, who operates two P-47Ds, one of which has a P-47D with an operational turbo. If anyone wold know, it's a guy flying one right now, in stock form. Of course, he is NOT hauling ordnance or ammunition!

Now I'm getting curious about the P-47D and forward. 

Hey J.A.W.,

The turbocharger is located behind the cockpit, in the rear fuselage, about where the U.S. star insignia is located. It is very far from red hot when it gets anywhere near the turbo, being in a 170+ mph slipstream and having a stainless steel cover on it. After the turbocharger, it goes through an intercooler and then routes forward alongside the pilot on either side of the cockpit to the carburetor. It's cool enough for almost the entire trip so you can lay aside the fears of fire from it, even with some battle damage in the form of bullet holes.

Neal's T-bolts operate from a 5,500 foot runway at 1,013 MSL ... though they fly light when compared with a wartime load. Standard S.L. ground run on takeoff was 4,600 ft, but they had fuel, probably drop tanks, ammo, bombs, all armor, etc. So, a private T-bolt is probably flying at somewhere near 11,500 - 12,000 pounds or so, give or take a bit. The ground run will be correspondingly less, and Neal has been flying out of Sevierville, TN for a long time without any trouble.

At the Planes of Fame, our P-47 is a P-47G and it has no turbo, no armor, no guns or ammo, and is very light when compared with a wartime Thunderbolt.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 18, 2018)

I would _guess_ that if you at max continuous or below (1625hp?) then the turbo would be idling.

however.





Without giving any speeds it says that the turbine was required for take-off (2000hp 52in but no ram) 
At what point it crossed over I don't know, and don't know if the p-47 was going full tilt on the deck if the RAM was enough to get the turbo down to idle from the 5,600rpm needed for climb (P-47 be with early control and turbo)


----------



## J.A.W. (Apr 18, 2018)

Unless the turbo had a bypass* ( like some mech-supercharged R-2800's - with a 'neutral' setting)
then surely - the turbine was always going to be hot 'n' spinning..

So hence the take-off 'surge' warning advisement in P-47 'Pilot's Notes'..


Edit: Addit;
*Was the 'waste gate' intended - to do this?


----------



## wuzak (Apr 18, 2018)

J.A.W. said:


> Unless the turbo had a bypass* ( like some mech-supercharged R-2800's - with a 'neutral' setting)
> then surely - the turbine was always going to be hot 'n' spinning..
> 
> So hence the take-off 'surge' warning advisement in P-47 'Pilot's Notes'..
> ...



I doubt all the exhaust bypassed the turbo. It would need to have some flow through and maintain some rpm to reeuce spooling time when it was needed. 

Also, the temperature of the turbo must have some influence on the lubrication, seals, etc. If it sat for a while and became cold it may not lubricate properly for a short period.


----------



## DarrenW (Apr 19, 2018)

Great discussion guys but I'm now a little confused about when the turbo was actually used. I was under the impression that when boost was demanded (controlled by the booster lever on the throttle quadrant) the turbo portion of the turbo-supercharger was always utilized to some extent, and that when climbing to altitude the turbine wheel connected to the supercharger unit would spin faster from the increase of exhaust gases sent to it by a closing of the waste gates. This action is what took up the slack as the supercharger's boost pressures dropped off during the climb, thus maintaining it at the current setting. How else could the engine maintain a nearly constant military power output all the way up to critical altitude? A standard supercharger alone will not give you this. Are you saying that it was only used while operating at or above military power levels and flying at high altitudes?

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/P-47D_42-26167_Power.jpg


----------



## GregP (Apr 19, 2018)

Whether or not it was always used depends entirely on whether or not the waste gate could be completely opened and completely closed.

If the waste gate is all the way open, then all the exhaust is diverted out the exhaust pipe. If the waste gate is completely closed, then all the exhaust is diverted to the turbocharger. Any "in between" setting would allow some exhaust to escape and some to get to the turbo. I'm inclined to believe it always allowed enough exhaust to get to the turbo to keep it at least at "idle," which is spinning relatively slowly ,about 10% max rpm in fact. That speed produces no boost and keeps the turbo warm. I'd think you'd have to have enough heat going through the intercooler to keep it from freezing, but maybe not.

Seems like a fun thing to investigate. I'll ask someone who knows and get back in a week or so.


----------



## wuzak (Apr 19, 2018)

DarrenW said:


> Great discussion guys but I'm now a little confused about when the turbo was actually used. I was under the impression that when boost was demanded (controlled by the booster lever on the throttle quadrant) the turbo portion of the turbo-supercharger was always utilized to some extent, and that when climbing to altitude the turbine wheel connected to the supercharger unit would spin faster from the increase of exhaust gases sent to it by a closing of the waste gates. This action is what took up the slack as the supercharger's boost pressures dropped off during the climb, thus maintaining it at the current setting. How else could the engine maintain a nearly constant military power output all the way up to critical altitude? A standard supercharger alone will not give you this. Are you saying that it was only used while operating at or above military power levels and flying at high altitudes?
> 
> http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/P-47D_42-26167_Power.jpg



The turbo, generally speaking, only produced enough boost so that the engine itself thinks it was at sea level. Hence the constant power rating to the critical altitude - which, if I am not mistaken, coincided with the maximum turbo rpm.


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 19, 2018)

As a _theory_ let me throw out the idea that there was always _some _gases going through the turbo.




There is one on each side. They do not block the exhaust gases from going to the rear of the plane and the turbo. They do offer a lower resistance path to the outside air and the pressurized gasses will tend to follow the path of least resistance. Or at least will try to equalize which is what happens when the gate is in a middle position. 
Some warbirds flying now have no turbos and the waste gate is removed making these the only exhaust outlet. Simplified maintenance for one thing, no exhaust gases running another 20 ft through the fuselage and no potential for exhaust leaks into the fuselage.

I would note that the P-47 seems to be the only plane with the waste gate/s before the turbo charger.
edit. cut away of turbo





gasses come through the duct on the right and go into the turbo housing with the wast gate at the end. The majority of the gas will go through the open waste gate and as it closes more will go out through the turbine blades.
There was no way to "shut off" the turbine totally.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Apr 19, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> I would note that the P-47 seems to be the only plane with the waste gate/s before the turbo charger.
> Picture of model but seems to be correct



Schematically, all wastegates are before the turbo.

It just so happens that the B-series turbo had the wastegate integral with the turbine housing.

GE B-series turbo cutaway


----------



## DarrenW (Apr 19, 2018)

Oh ok, now it's making more sense to me. So I suspect that when the supercharger regulator sensed a drop in these exhaust gases (which would happen as the engine loses power) it would close the waste gates even further, which allowed the turbine to spin even faster and provide more boost to the carburetor. This action would increase engine power accordingly. Does this seem plausible?


----------



## wuzak (Apr 19, 2018)

DarrenW said:


> Oh ok, now it's making more sense to me. So I suspect that when the supercharger regulator sensed a drop in these exhaust gases (which would happen as the engine loses power) it would close the waste gates even further, which allowed the turbine to spin even faster and provide more boost to the carburetor. This action would increase engine power accordingly. Does this seem plausible?



I believe the regulator used the pressure of the compressed air to control it. Maybe early P-38s used the exhaust back pressure? Along with an rpm limit.


----------



## Builder 2010 (Apr 19, 2018)

Closing the waste gate would reduce flow through the exhaust turbine, not increase it. The most turbine action would happen with the gate wide open… at least that's how I set it. Why was the ram cooling scoop adjustable on the turbine face. It seems that it can be mounted at differing angles. I've never seen a real up one up close to see how this actually works.


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 19, 2018)

DarrenW said:


> Oh ok, now it's making more sense to me. So I suspect that when the supercharger regulator sensed a drop in these exhaust gases (which would happen as the engine loses power) it would close the waste gates even further, which allowed the turbine to spin even faster and provide more boost to the carburetor. This action would increase engine power accordingly. Does this seem plausible?



That was how the first turbo regulators worked but they weren't very successful. The later ones shifted to measuring the air pressure at some point in the inlet duct and regulated the waste gate to try to maintain that value.


----------



## pbehn (Apr 19, 2018)

I would think that even if the turbo isn't needed or even providing any boost it is best to keep it spinning to keep it warm and reduce the lag if it is needed urgently.


----------



## Milosh (Apr 19, 2018)

The GE turbo, The Turbosupercharger and the Airplane Power Plant


----------



## DarrenW (Apr 19, 2018)

Builder 2010 said:


> Closing the waste gate would reduce flow through the exhaust turbine, not increase it.



But don't most of the exhaust gases escape out the waste gates into the open air when they are wide open? Closing them forces these same gases to travel back to the turbine wheel which increases it's rpm.


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 19, 2018)

DarrenW said:


> But don't most of the exhaust gases escape out the waste gates into the open air when they are wide open? Closing them forces these same gases to travel back to the turbine wheel which increases it's rpm.


You are correct, In the case of the P-47 it is only slightly different, the waste gate _does not _close off the passage/duct to the turbocharger, it merely opens a variable sized hole in the side of the pipe/duct.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Apr 19, 2018)

Great pics, Shortround. I was going to go look at "Dottie Mae," but I see I don't have to.


----------



## YF12A (Apr 19, 2018)

Builder 2010 said:


> Closing the waste gate would reduce flow through the exhaust turbine, not increase it. The most turbine action would happen with the gate wide open… at least that's how I set it. Why was the ram cooling scoop adjustable on the turbine face. It seems that it can be mounted at differing angles. I've never seen a real up one up close to see how this actually works.



Umm, closing the waste gate will, depending on the design of the system, force most or all of the exhaust through the turbine bucket, not the other way around, that's why it is called a waste gate.


----------



## Barrett (Apr 19, 2018)

There was a real-world, single-elimination contest between Mustangs and Corsairs: Honduras v. El Salvador summer of 69, the so-called "Football War" because both were in the World Cup (or whatever.) All air to air successes were scored by a sr. HAF F4U-4 piloto who downed two El Sal FG-1s and a P-51D. Fernando Soto--he's in my Naval Institute Corsair book thanks to an exchange pilot who knew him.


----------



## DarrenW (Apr 19, 2018)

Anyone know what the turbo-supercharger unit used by the P-47 weighed in total? I recall a discussion about it but for the life of me can't remember what thread....


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 19, 2018)

I believe the turbocharger was around 220-235lbs? going from memory. But that is for the turbo charger coming out of the box, no intercooler, no ducts, no control unit/s. 
AHT says around 954-977lbs but that is for engine accessories which may include intercoolers and turbocharger but not include all ductwork/piping? An F6F had 314lbs worth of engine accessories. 
P-40s had 60-114lbs worth of accessories which did NOT include the oil system or engine starter. I don't know if the generator is considered and accessory or is included under electrical for instance. same with hydraulic pumps. 

And with the entire system inside the fuselage how much of the fuselage weight was dedicated to the turbo system?


----------



## DarrenW (Apr 19, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> I believe the turbocharger was around 220-235lbs? going from memory. But that is for the turbo charger coming out of the box, no intercooler, no ducts, no control unit/s.
> AHT says around 954-977lbs but that is for engine accessories which may include intercoolers and turbocharger but not include all ductwork/piping? An F6F had 314lbs worth of engine accessories.
> P-40s had 60-114lbs worth of accessories which did NOT include the oil system or engine starter. I don't know if the generator is considered and accessory or is included under electrical for instance. same with hydraulic pumps.
> 
> And with the entire system inside the fuselage how much of the fuselage weight was dedicated to the turbo system?



Thanks shortround for the quick response. I noticed that in Dean's book but didn't know what all was included in that figure. And yes, I was talking about the entire system, including ductwork and all the associated accessories, not just the supercharger/turbine unit by itself. Maybe looking at the loaded weight of a modern flying example, which doesn't have the turbo system in place, could help as long as it hasn't been extensively modified. But then again I'm sure it would also be missing the armor plating so that would leave other question as to how much that weighed as well. The weight of the missing guns and ammo can be calculated pretty easy.

I'm just curious what the P-47 would have weighed if it only had a two-stage supercharger like that of the Hellcat and Corsair. We might quite possibly arrive at a pretty close figure if we just subtracted 314lbs from 977lbs, which is 663lbs. This would be indicative of how much more the turbo system weighed and then by subtracting that figure from the normal loaded weight of the Thunderbolt we would then know what it would have weighed without the system in place. But that seems way to easy of an answer and I'm sure nothing is ever that simple!


----------



## pbehn (Apr 19, 2018)

DarrenW said:


> Thanks shortround for the quick response. I noticed that in Dean's book but didn't know what all was included in that figure. And yes, I was talking about the entire system, including ductwork and all the associated accessories, not just the supercharger/turbine unit by itself. Maybe looking at the loaded weight of a modern flying example, which doesn't have the turbo system in place, could help as long as it hasn't been extensively modified. But then again I'm sure it would also be missing the armor plating so that would leave other question as to how much that weighed as well. The weight of the missing guns and ammo can be calculated pretty easy.
> 
> I'm just curious what the P-47 would have weighed if it only had a two-stage supercharger like that of the Hellcat and Corsair. We might quite possibly arrive at a pretty close figure if we just subtracted 314lbs from 977lbs, which is 663lbs. This would be indicative of how much more the turbo system weighed and then by subtracting that figure from the normal loaded weight of the Thunderbolt we would then know what it would have weighed without the system in place. But that seems way to easy of an answer and I'm sure nothing is ever that simple!




post #13 in this thread
Why or why not turbo chargers
The weight of the engine accessories for the P-47 is 940 lbs. This probably includes turbo system, generators, hydraulic pumps, etc. I do not know if it includes the engine mounted supercharger. Engine accessories for the F6F, with a similar engine, was 314 lbs without a turbo. So a guess is that the turbo system of the P-47 would have been about 600 lbs. Maybe somebody else has more detailed data.


----------



## DarrenW (Apr 19, 2018)

pbehn said:


> post #13 in this thread
> Why or why not turbo chargers
> The weight of the engine accessories for the P-47 is 940 lbs. This probably includes turbo system, generators, hydraulic pumps, etc. I do not know if it includes the engine mounted supercharger. Engine accessories for the F6F, with a similar engine, was 314 lbs without a turbo. So a guess is that the turbo system of the P-47 would have been about 600 lbs. Maybe somebody else has more detailed data.



I knew I read that somewhere! Thanks for confirming that for me Pbehn. I can live with that figure as it sounds about right to me.


----------



## pbehn (Apr 19, 2018)

DarrenW said:


> I knew I read that somewhere! Thanks for confirming that for me Pbehn. I can live with that figure as it sounds about right to me.


There is a fantastic picture of the whole set up mounted on a stand in a museum some where on the forum.


----------



## DarrenW (Apr 19, 2018)

pbehn said:


> There is a fantastic picture of the whole set up mounted on a stand in a museum some where on the forum.



Thanks. Maybe I can track it down....


----------



## GregP (Apr 20, 2018)

Here it is:







As you can see, it is NOT a small, simple system. The two pipes at the top run beside the pilot, who sits about where the rear two rubber pieces join the pipes. They run under metal sill along the outside of the cockpit. The bottom pipes are steel (probably stainless) and run down stainless (or steel) ducts covered with a Dzus'd cover along the side of the belly.

Altogether a pretty impressive thing just to maintain sea level power way up high, isn't it? But that's what made the P-47 so good at high altitude. As you can see, the P-47 doesn't have to have a deep belly ... the belly is there just for ducting ... fresh air to the turbo, and compressed air back to the carb. If not for that, the P-47 could be a skinny airplane! In a real one, all the belly below the bottom of the wing is ducting for the turbo.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
2 | Like Like:
3 | Winner Winner:
2 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## va155sf (Apr 20, 2018)

Catch22 said:


> I did a quick search and couldn't find an existing thread, so...
> 
> Which is the better aircraft? I will not be posting much data as I 1) am not that knowledgable technically, so this should be good and 2) I'm here to learn, and I don't have access to all the resources some of you guys have.
> 
> Personally, I'm partial to the F4U, but this thread is NOT here to choose favourites, but rather to determine which the better plane was and why. Have at 'er!


----------



## va155sf (Apr 20, 2018)

The old saying goes, "The P-51 couldn't do things the Spitfire could do! But it could do it over Berlin." I'm guessing the Corsair couldn't do it over Berlin either.


----------



## BiffF15 (Apr 20, 2018)

GregP said:


> Here it is:
> 
> View attachment 490427
> 
> ...



Great Shot Greg! I wish there was a person standing there for a size / scale perspective as the turbo looks huge.

The Eagle was built around a large radar, 8 missile load, and a certain amount of fuel. The Thunderbolt looks to have been built around an engine and turbo plus 8 guns!

Cheers,
Biff

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DarrenW (Apr 20, 2018)

GregP said:


> Here it is:
> 
> View attachment 490427
> 
> ...



Thanks for finding the picture Greg. So that's what made the Thunderbolt so "voluptuous".....

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Apr 20, 2018)

Only shot I could find with a person in it for scale.






Maybe that brings it into better perspective.

It doesn't seem to like the link, but here's the URL so you can check it out yourself:

https://lynceans.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/P-47-powertrain_DSC_7265-66-pano.jpg

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Winner Winner:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## BiffF15 (Apr 20, 2018)

GregP said:


> Only shot I could find with a person in it for scale.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Big is an understatement!


----------



## pbehn (Apr 20, 2018)

It would have made great propaganda photographed with the smallest guys in the factory under the the heading "Power unit for new eight engine bomber is unveiled"


----------



## DarrenW (Apr 20, 2018)

Barrett said:


> There was a real-world, single-elimination contest between Mustangs and Corsairs: Honduras v. El Salvador summer of 69, the so-called "Football War" because both were in the World Cup (or whatever.) All air to air successes were scored by a sr. HAF F4U-4 piloto who downed two El Sal FG-1s and a P-51D. Fernando Soto--he's in my Naval Institute Corsair book thanks to an exchange pilot who knew him.



I happen to own a first edition copy of _Hellcat: The F6F in World War II_ and to this day it's still my favorite book about the aircraft.


----------



## YF12A (Apr 21, 2018)

Considering that the P-47, the F-4U and the F-6F all used the R-2800 as a start, now try to put that turbo and all the plumbing into the latter two for high altitude use in the ETO. Just not happening. I'm not knocking any of these, we just managed to send the right planes to the right places. Going further, my neighbor told me, in his opinion, it was the P-51B that turned the tide in Europe.

Now, Look at what Boeing managed to do with the B-29 with an even bigger engine and two turbo's into each nacelle. To me, impressive.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DarrenW (Apr 21, 2018)

YF12A said:


> Considering that the P-47, the F-4U and the F-6F all used the R-2800 as a start, now try to put that turbo and all the plumbing into the latter two for high altitude use in the ETO. Just not happening. I'm not knocking any of these, we just managed to send the right planes to the right places...



I agree with you. The turbo adds extra weight and complexity which can effect performance and handling down low, where it's not being utilized as much. Seeing that most of the air fighting in the Pacific theater was below 20,000ft, the R-2800 with the comparably simpler two-stage supercharger set-up provided enough performance for the job at hand. In European skies however, where combat tended to occur much higher up, a turbo really became a thing of necessity for aircraft like the Thunderbolt.

At the wishes of the US Navy, both Grumman and Vought toyed around with the idea of a turbo for the F6F and F4U but because of complications the powers to be eventually settled on what would get the job done with the least amount of headaches. For instance, the XF6F-2 utilized the Birmann turbo-supercharger but it experienced in-flight fires due to the ignition of unburned fuel streaming from the supercharger near the engine's exhaust stacks.


----------



## GregP (Apr 21, 2018)

It's not hard to put two turbos in if you don't have any pilots to worry about behind them ...

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## davparlr (Apr 22, 2018)

Big and bulky but it gave a P-47D-10 2225 hp at 30k (P-47 Performance Tests). The FW 190D-9 had 1000hp, the Bf 109G 900hp, the Ta 152H 1340hp (the equivalent P-47N had 2800hp), P-51D 1300hp, F6F-3 below 1300hp. And that is why it was considered the best American fighter above 25k by the Fighter Conference and why it controlled the airspace above the 25k bomber altitudes. Also, it could dive like the devil.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 22, 2018)

It's peak dive speed may not have been that much better than some other fighters but apparently it accelerated in the dive pretty well?

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DarrenW (Apr 22, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> It's peak dive speed may not have been that much better than some other fighters but apparently it accelerated in the dive pretty well?



Yes, from what I gather it didn't require as much attention from the pilot in a dive, as trim changes to keep it under control were modest at best. Under those circumstances it had a greater potential to gather speed in a hurry than any of it's contemporaries.


----------



## davparlr (Apr 23, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> It's peak dive speed may not have been that much better than some other fighters but apparently it accelerated in the dive pretty well?


There seems to be some question. However, it is generally considered to be one of the better divers and has control of the high ground, i.e. energy. And besides, I understand the devil is fast but also has a somewhat varying diving speed which depends on how close the archangel Gabriel is to his forked tail.


----------



## Jugman (Apr 24, 2018)

On the question of turbo installation weight. The C-23 turbo weighed 245lbs while the earlier C-1 and C-21 models weighed in at 235lbs. The in stalled weight for the R--2800-21/59/63 had a weight range of 2265-2285lbs. The weight of the R-2800-8/10 varied between 2455-2475lbs. Using the figures from Dean and from appendix A of Shlaifer & Heron we get a ballpark figure of around 620lbs for the turbo.


----------



## Jugman (Apr 24, 2018)

Finishing what I was try to say yesterday. The _*net*_ difference in weight of the turbo R-2800 as installed in the P-47 over the two-stage model was probably around 300-450lbs. This extra weight ( based off of the 977lbs figure from Dean) probably includes all the ducting, moutings, heat shields, oil tank, and waste gates for the turbo. It could include the belly cowling as well.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DarrenW (Apr 24, 2018)

Jugman said:


> Finishing what I was try to say yesterday. The _*net*_ difference in weight of the turbo R-2800 as installed in the P-47 over the two-stage model was probably around 300-450lbs. This extra weight ( based off of the 977lbs figure from Dean) probably includes all the ducting, moutings, heat shields, oil tank, and waste gates for the turbo. It could include the belly cowling as well.



Oh ok, so around 200lbs less than what I originally thought. Thank you for your input.


----------



## Lance1 (May 15, 2018)

Catch22 said:


> I did a quick search and couldn't find an existing thread, so...
> 
> Which is the better aircraft? I will not be posting much data as I 1) am not that knowledgable technically, so this should be good and 2) I'm here to learn, and I don't have access to all the resources some of you guys have.
> 
> Personally, I'm partial to the F4U, but this thread is NOT here to choose favourites, but rather to determine which the better plane was and why. Have at 'er!




I'll reply to the original quote, with a short story, before the answer.

In junior high, and high school, all the kids in my neighborhood, invented a war game to make use of our 1/72nd scale, WWII planes we loved to build. We divided the 15 acres of our 3 farms, into oceans and land. We built land bases. We used 4x4 fence posts, and gave them an island and flag and they were carriers (the better ones had 1x6 planks on top of the 4x4 for that "flattop look".

Well, as you may imagine, we had a bunch of rules for combat (including a referee we called the "witness"), and we often had to settle disagreements. Because the model box might say the top speed of the plane was 437mph, but the literature actually said it was 442mph. And we had to agree on top speeds, for pursuit of a plane, escaping a dogfight, etc.

Since we didn't limit a person to any single nation, you might actually have a P-51 fight a F4U Corsair.

....which leads me back to the original topic.

Across this many decades, I can't tell you what the name of the book was. But it was a library book about WWII Airplanes/battles/history. And it said (paraphrasing):

"In post-war trials, with American pilots at the controls of both planes, above 20,000 feet, the planes were even. Below 20,000 feet, the F4U Corsair was superior."

The ONLY part of this quote I can't remember clearly, to be certain about, was if it was above, or below, 20,000 feet that the Corsair was superior. I remember clearly, that American pilots rated the Corsair superior to the Mustang above (or below) 20,000 feet. And on the other side of that altitude, they considered them even.


----------



## swampyankee (May 15, 2018)

Lance1 said:


> I'll reply to the original quote, with a short story, before the answer.
> 
> In junior high, and high school, all the kids in my neighborhood, invented a war game to make use of our 1/72nd scale, WWII planes we loved to build. We divided the 15 acres of our 3 farms, into oceans and land. We built land bases. We used 4x4 fence posts, and gave them an island and flag and they were carriers (the better ones had 1x6 planks on top of the 4x4 for that "flattop look".
> 
> ...



There is actual test data out there to find. You have a quest, sir knight


----------



## wuzak (May 15, 2018)

swampyankee said:


> There is actual test data out there to find. You have a quest, sir knight



It is also a question of which version of the P-51 and which version of the F4U.

The F4U-1 would not fare very well against a P-51H. Nor would a P-51 or P-51A cope very well with an F4U-4 or -5.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## grampi (May 15, 2018)

wuzak said:


> It is also a question of which version of the P-51 and which version of the F4U.
> 
> The F4U-1 would not fare very well against a P-51H. Nor would a P-51 or P-51A cope very well with an F4U-4 or -5.



I don't think any version of the Corsair would fare well against a P-51H...


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 15, 2018)

Folks, beating this dead horse to death, yes consider what model P-51 or F4U combined with aircraft condition and PILOT CAPABILITIES. As posted in previous threads, actual combat with these aircraft occurred during the "Soccer War" in 1969. It seems the HAF F4Us got the upper hand in this conflict.

The Last Piston-Engine Dogfights | History | Air & Space Magazine

I know for a fact that Fernando Soto (3 kills) was taught combat tactics by Col. Mike Alba Alba Michael Capt while he was an IP posted in Honduras during the 1950s. I interviewed Mike several times in the early 1990s and he spoke about Soto on several occasions. Mike emphasized that many of the "banana air forces" had good pilots but lacked gunnery training, something he stressed and something that Soto excelled in.

GoE Foundation :: Eagles

So much talk about aircraft performance, we continually assume all in the cockpit are equal.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## fubar57 (May 15, 2018)



Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Funny Funny:
5 | Like List reactions


----------



## jalistair (Oct 4, 2019)

Another interesting twist to the conversation that I have not seen anyone talk about is production. Both aircraft started out in 1940. Production for the P-51 ended in 1945. Production for the Corsair ended in 1953. Why would militaries purchase an inferior aircraft? As the longest produced piston engine plan in world history it seems the F4U was simply the best all round WW2 era fighter ever produced.


----------



## ColFord (Oct 4, 2019)

Last CAC manufactured P-51 (CA-18) Mustang came off their line in 1952.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## michael rauls (Oct 4, 2019)

I think the question which is better must be answered with another question. " Better for what?" For a long range escort fighter I'll go with the Mustang. For carrier oparations and/ or ground attack probably the F4U will fair better.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 5, 2019)

jalistair said:


> Another interesting twist to the conversation that I have not seen anyone talk about is production. Both aircraft started out in 1940. Production for the P-51 ended in 1945. Production for the Corsair ended in 1953. Why would militaries purchase an inferior aircraft? As the longest produced piston engine plan in world history it seems the F4U was simply the best all round WW2 era fighter ever produced.


If you search though old threads this is discussed. There was a USN procurement requirement for the F4U that allowed the production line to remain open until 1953. If the same requirement would have existed for the USAF the P-51 would have remained in production as well.


----------



## Lance1 (Oct 5, 2019)

So, here's the context:
My brothers, neighbors and I, played this game with 1/72 scale model aircraft in the 1970's and 1980's. We divided up the 9 acres of property we lived on (in the middle of all 3 families properties), designated oceans and came up with a set of rules about bombing, carriers, parents, and planes, to make it all work

As you can imagine, we had disagreements. When we had dogfights, those of us not involved were "witnesses" who were in charge of what was allowed/believable, and what wasn't. We could call a time out ("time stop!") during a dogfight, to argue our points about turning radius, altitude, climbing speed, etc. and implore the witness to agree with us, just as our adversary did the same.

We'd meet every few weeks, to talk about the planes and stats. We had to. The "witnesses" (aka referees) had to know which stats to apply. During a "time stop", the would back up or advance our frozen-in-space planes. They would explain to us who was faster at that point in the turn or climb.

As you can imagine, those meetings, about planes and stats...mattered a truckload.

We would bring books from the library. We would compare passages. We would vote and decide, which tome was most believable (based on evidence that supported it) and which wasn't.

I tell you ALL of this, to let you know how I spent about 5 or 6 years of my childhood.

..and to settle this debate....

Now, like anyone in this sort of circumstance, I'm ONLY as good as the info I was provided.

But trust me. As a teen, living on 9 acres of battleground, I f*cking did my homework. And this is what I remember most vividly about these two great American fighters. Of which I owned both planes, in various versions: (BOTH, P-51B, AND, P-51-D if you are asking , as well as the F4U). And here was OUR gospel, voted on and agreed on, after much book-reading and comparing and correlating.

AFTER, WWII, according to the book we agreed seemed reasonable, accurate and in accordance with all of the other books we used for reference -- the Air Force did post-war fighter trials (I bet, to see which one to buy more of, as the era of jet fighters was arriving). And THIS is what I remember, from 1 or 2 books.

With American fighter pilots, at the controls, above (or below) 20,000 feet, the planes were considered equal.

And on the other side of that altitude (and I don't remember if it was ABOVE IT, or BELOW IT), the Chance Vought F4U was considered superior.

By American pilots.

Discuss.


----------



## drgondog (Oct 5, 2019)

Lance1 said:


> So, here's the context:
> My brothers, neighbors and I, played this game with 1/72 scale model aircraft in the 1970's and 1980's. We divided up the 9 acres of property we lived on (in the middle of all 3 families properties), designated oceans and came up with a set of rules about bombing, carriers, parents, and planes, to make it all work
> 
> As you can imagine, we had disagreements. When we had dogfights, those of us not involved were "witnesses" who were in charge of what was allowed/believable, and what wasn't. We could call a time out ("time stop!") during a dogfight, to argue our points about turning radius, altitude, climbing speed, etc. and implore the witness to agree with us, just as our adversary did the same.
> ...


Re-read the notes of the Fighter Conference at Patuxent River, Oct 1944. The Mustang was deemed 'Best Fighter below 25000 feet', the P-47D the best above 25000 feet and the F4U was third in both comparisions - flown by USN, AAF, RAF, Lockheed, NAA, Vought, Grumman test pilots.

Had the P-51B been the a/c flown the P-47D would have been at a speed and manueverabilty disadvantage all the way through 32,000 feet. The P-51D critical altitude for the 1650-7 was at 24,000 feet, the B at 29000 ft for the 1650-3

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like Like:
5 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Oct 5, 2019)

jalistair said:


> Another interesting twist to the conversation that I have not seen anyone talk about is production. Both aircraft started out in 1940. Production for the P-51 ended in 1945. Production for the Corsair ended in 1953. Why would militaries purchase an inferior aircraft? As the longest produced piston engine plan in world history it seems the F4U was simply the best all round WW2 era fighter ever produced.



Several things don't add up. Like: 1953 was not ww2. Or, USAAF switched to jets years before 1953, while USN needed to wait until low-speed characteristics of jets became acceptable. Plus, whatever of Corsairs was producted in 1950s, it was not a fighter, but ground attack version (the AU-1).
BTW, Corsair was not the longest produced piston-engined plane.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 5, 2019)

Lance1 said:


> So, here's the context:
> My brothers, neighbors and I, played this game





Lance1 said:


> Discuss.



"Game"  - refer to posts 317 and 318. Not much to discuss

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## michael rauls (Oct 5, 2019)

drgondog said:


> Re-read the notes of the Fighter Conference at Patuxent River, Oct 1944. The Mustang was deemed 'Best Fighter below 25000 feet', the P-47D the best above 25000 feet and the F4U was third in both comparisions - flown by USN, AAF, RAF, Lockheed, NAA, Vought, Grumman test pilots.
> 
> Had the P-51B been the a/c flown the P-47D would have been at a speed and manueverabilty disadvantage all the way through 32,000 feet. The P-51D critical altitude for the 1650-7 was at 24,000 feet, the B at 29000 ft for the 1650-3


I've always thought the B and C versions of the Mustang were actually better overall.
From what ive read they were more stable also.
Perhaps the greater situational awareness from the buble top canopy was worth the somewhat lesser performance however.


----------



## Lance1 (Oct 5, 2019)

FLYBOYJ said:


> "Game"  - refer to posts 317 and 318. Not much to discuss



Oh, you misunderstand I think.

Our "game" led us to do hours of research on the planes, from available resources at the High School Library and the Danville (Indiana) Public Library. So even though I can't remember the source, what we did for the 5-ish years we played the game, was compare and contrast secondary sources about WWII planes, to get the most agreement about range, speed, handling characteristics, etc. to map them in the game.

Now I'm not claiming the secondary source that quoted the primary source(about the post-war comparison of those planes, by American pilots) was gospel. Perhaps the author lied. Or perhaps he misunderstood the American pilots, who in post-war trials evaluated the planes who said the planes were equal above (or below) 20,000 feet, and the F4U was superior on the other side of that altitude. Seems like a pretty simple fact for the author to have gotten correct. But we didn't evaluate authors, we evaluated the data about planes from the 12-20 books we tended to read in our group, and tried to get a consensus about which book/s were most accurate, which information was the most consistent, and then vote on which data we would use as a group.

So it doesn't really matter if you scoff at the "game" aspect of it. We were highly motivated researchers, fact-checked by people who (especially if they didn't own a 1/72 scale model of that plane) worked very hard to keep us honest. And that particular sentence stands out in my mind as a person who owned about 25-30 1/72 scale WWII models, and both of those fighters in particular.

So I didn't have a vested reason to favor one over the other -- I liked them both very much. (*though I tended to fly my Spitfire IX, FW 190D and P-38J(?) the most *) It was very clear what the author wrote about the post-war trials and evaluations by American pilots. I was fact-checked by a bunch of other teenagers, some of whom did not own the F4U, and had a vested interest in it not being better than the fanastic P-51. 

Now if that information in that book, was the "full story" about how those planes compared at the end of the war, I can't say. Or if a more complete test, by a larger group of pilots would feel the same way. But I'd certainly be comfortable making a $50k bet, that that is what the sentence was, in that book about WWII planes.

For the person who mentioned the 1944 air trials/comparisons, I think that is very cool information. What I don't remember now is if there were substantial changes to either P-51 or F4U in the last year of the war, that might change those outcomes. The source we used very clearly said "in post War trials". S I don't have a way of knowing if those trials were immediately after WWII (and thus, probably using the last versions used in WWII). Or if they occurred long after the war had ended, and other substantial post-War upgrades had been made to either plane.

I thought the original post was asking about WWII when I read it last night. But perhaps the original poster was just asking a comparison between the two planes, without a time-element in the question?

It seems to me, if you're going to compare the two planes, it would make the most sense to compare contemporary planes from the same time. Whether it's 1945 when the war ended, or later versions of the planes.

For the person who mentioned how critical it is as to which versions of the planes you compare, I certainly agree.

To me, it would be important to compare them in fighter-mode. i.e. comparing a ground-attack version of one plane to a fighter version of the other doesn't seem what the OP had in mind. And certainly that would be the way I would mean it, if asking the question myself.

(** This would apply also to any other pair of fighters being evaluated, like the Me109k versus the Ta-152 for instance, though they had different roles, since one is primarily an interceptor more than just a pure fighter. So comparing them might be more difficult in other ways, than the P-51 vs F4U debate**)

That's my 3 cents (allowing for inflation you know  )


----------



## CORSNING (Oct 5, 2019)

michael rauls said:


> I've always thought the B and C versions of the Mustang were actually better overall.
> From what ive read they were more stable also.
> Perhaps the greater situational awareness from the buble top canopy was worth the somewhat lesser performance however.



*The better visibility of the P-51D was a great improvement. I believe the D was the first Mustang
to have a tail warning system. The speed of the D was equal to the V-1650-7 powered B and C
at all altitudes and the only reason the B and C climbed and turned better was the added weight
of the D. Just an FYI, The D could be de-equipped to match the performance of the B and C.
The B and C could only be extensively and expensively modified to match the D's vision and firepower.*

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
3 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Oct 5, 2019)

michael rauls said:


> I've always thought the B and C versions of the Mustang were actually better overall.
> From what ive read they were more stable also.
> Perhaps the greater situational awareness from the buble top canopy was worth the somewhat lesser performance however.


They may well have been nicer to fly for all sorts of reasons but a 50% increase in firepower is always significant.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## drgondog (Oct 6, 2019)

michael rauls said:


> I've always thought the B and C versions of the Mustang were actually better overall.
> From what ive read they were more stable also.
> Perhaps the greater situational awareness from the buble top canopy was worth the somewhat lesser performance however.



Hi Michael - there was no difference in yaw stability characteristics, both received the DFF in the field and later in production.

The B at full internal combat load of 9600 pounds compared to a D at the same with 100 gallons of fuel burned off (for example the 85 gallon fuse tank) had the same Performance characteristics including top speed and ROC. With full fuel load and extra armament, the heavier D had increased drag due to Induced Drag which points to slightly lower top speed at comparable HP ratings between the 1650-3 and -7, but the B is better at 25000 through 30000 due to the supercharger performance at high altitude for the 1650-3.

The sole difference between the two performance-wise was the extra gross weight of the extra guns and ammuntion.

OTOH, the D had better visibility and firepower, more Hp in several altitudes below 25,000 feet where most combats ended up being fought - including SL to 5000 feet. My father favored the D for the latter reasons and the B for better (slight) turn and climb performance with comparable fuel remaining.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## jalistair (Oct 7, 2019)

FLYBOYJ said:


> If you search though old threads this is discussed. There was a USN procurement requirement for the F4U that allowed the production line to remain open until 1953. If the same requirement would have existed for the USAF the P-51 would have remained in production as well.


Fair point, different mission different uses. Personally, I believe that the true difference in similar production models between the two would lie with the pilot not the airframe.


----------



## jalistair (Oct 7, 2019)

tomo pauk said:


> Several things don't add up. Like: 1953 was not ww2. Or, USAAF switched to jets years before 1953, while USN needed to wait until low-speed characteristics of jets became acceptable. Plus, whatever of Corsairs was producted in 1950s, it was not a fighter, but ground attack version (the AU-1).
> BTW, Corsair was not the longest produced piston-engined plane.


I do believe the Corsair was the longest produced single piston engine plane, if not please state what was produced longer. As for the ground attack vs fighter, that makes no difference as the basic plane remains the same. After WW2 all Mustangs and Corsairs were regulated to ground attack. That's the nature of the game. From what I have read (since these are all before my time) it would seem the earlier Corsairs were better than the P-51 but later the P-51 received improved engines making them comparable. It seems the Corsair was able to outturn the Mustang and had more firepower but the P-51 was slightly faster, had a slightly higher ceiling and a longer range. So in the end, the pilot would probably make all the difference.


----------



## michael rauls (Oct 7, 2019)

jalistair said:


> Fair point, different mission different uses. Personally, I believe that the true difference in similar production models between the two would lie with the pilot not the airframe.


I largely agree but if we just look at the point the two met in hypothetical combat I think the p51 has an advantage because of speed and high altitude performance but in the grander scheme of things I think it's more of a toss up as the F4U is more versatile. I.e. carrier capable, greater load carrying capacity, resistant to ground fire with the radial engine etc. Just depends on the mission which is better I believe.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## fubar57 (Oct 7, 2019)

The two did meet in combat
The Last Piston-Engine Dogfights | History | Air & Space Magazine

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 7, 2019)

jalistair said:


> Fair point, different mission different uses. Personally, I believe that *the true difference in similar production models between the two would lie with the pilot not the airframe*.



I don't understand this statement. Pilot skill will be the final outcome in combat but pilot skill has nothing to do with similar production models unless there is a special characteristic that involves more training

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Oct 7, 2019)

jalistair said:


> I do believe the Corsair was the longest produced single piston engine plane, if not please state what was produced longer.



You will note that 'single piston engined plane' and 'piston engined plane' are not same thing. Several piston-engined aircraft with longer productio runs came to mind, like the Bf 109 (from late 1930s to 1950s), along with DC-3/C-47 etc, Cessna 172.



> As for the ground attack vs fighter, that makes no difference as the basic plane remains the same. After WW2 all Mustangs and Corsairs were regulated to ground attack. That's the nature of the game. From what I have read (since these are all before my time) it would seem the earlier Corsairs were better than the P-51 but later the P-51 received improved engines making them comparable. It seems the Corsair was able to outturn the Mustang and had more firepower but the P-51 was slightly faster, had a slightly higher ceiling and a longer range. So in the end, the pilot would probably make all the difference.



The AU-1 was different enough vs. F4U-4 or -5 that merited new 'name' - it was outfitted with 1-stage supercharged engine vs. 2-stage of the fighters' versions, oil system featured 1 hidden & armored cooler vs. two exposed units, armor also protected a good deal of low part of fuselage, while wing was suitably modified to carry big load of bombs & rockets. AU-1 was much slower above 15000 ft than fighter Corsairs due to the engine type choice, and still much slower than latest P(F)-51H.
Most of the times, P-51 and F4U have had the same firepower, granted there was a good chunk of P-51s (-A, -B and C) featured just 4 HMGs instead of 4 HMGs+4 LMGs or 6 HMGs. Merlin Mustangs were faster than F4U-1, the P-51H was a much better performer than F4U-4.
Neither would be doing well what other one was doing best - F4U could not escort bombers from the UK to Berlin and beyond, P-51 would've been even trickier as a carrier bird than the Corsair.

As above - 'after ww2' and 'ww2' is not the same thing.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Oct 8, 2019)

drgondog said:


> Hi Michael - there was no difference in yaw stability characteristics, both received the DFF in the field and later in production.
> 
> The B at full internal combat load of 9600 pounds compared to a D at the same with 100 gallons of fuel burned off (for example the 85 gallon fuse tank) had the same Performance characteristics including top speed and ROC. With full fuel load and extra armament, the heavier D had increased drag due to Induced Drag which points to slightly lower top speed at comparable HP ratings between the 1650-3 and -7, but the B is better at 25000 through 30000 due to the supercharger performance at high altitude for the 1650-3.
> 
> ...



Did not the later versions of the P-51B get the V-1650-7 as well?


----------



## drgondog (Oct 8, 2019)

wuzak said:


> Did not the later versions of the P-51B get the V-1650-7 as well?


Yes. Materiel Command wanted them installed ASAP on the B as the P-51D and D-1 were evolving in June 1943. NAA couldn't make the production insertion until early 1944. The first two Ds, crafted from new D wing and modified B-1 fuselages had the 1650-3 installed. I would have to check but I believe the 1650-7 was inserted ~ Jan/Feb 1944, while into the P-51B-10-NA and P-51C-5-NT blocks.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## CORSNING (Oct 8, 2019)

Hi Bill,
I would greatly appreciate it if you would confirm the manufacture date
of Jan/Feb 1944 as the date for the first production models of the B-10-NA
and C-5-NT. Also thank you for the information that these were the first
to receive the V-1650-7. 
With the information I have, I've been able to do a full workup on the 
performance of the P-51B-15 with the V-1650-7 @ 67"Hg boosting which
would put it very close to the P-51B-10's performance when it entered
service in late March/April 1944 I believe. 
From the information I have the P-51B-15 arrived in the ETO late April
1944. Can you confirm this?


----------



## Dawncaster (Oct 9, 2019)

Chance Vought F4U Corsair vs North American P-51 Mustang, Usually this type of comparison is for the most used models. It's late dash one Corsair that raised cabin equipped type, and Merlin engined Mustang. and also tend to focus purely on their ability as air superiority fighters. If only consider flight performance for air combat in this comparison, and pick the advantages of both models one by one, the Merlin Mustang has the speed and the dash one Corsair has the maneuverability. since both aircraft were on the same side in reality, the comparison is largely a scenario.

The dash one Corsair was considered also a fast aircraft, but a bit slower at most altitude than the Merlin Mustangs. according to curves of USAAF and USN reports, dash one Corsair faster than some Merlin Mustangs at medium altitude that supercharger shift altitude of the V-1650. But most all-out situations, Merlin Mustang was obviously faster and especially it could use 150 grade fuel as first class ETO fighter. It proved better performer in anything involving speed.

Whereas, Corsair had excellent handling and combat abilities at combat speed. due to boost tabs on control surfaces with light stick force, non-deformable stiff and light plywood ailerons and tougher airframe that 7.5G limit load factor for 12,000 lbs which equivalent to full overload fighter condition, making it was great machine in high-speed air combat. and Corsair was not a just high-speed fighter, It was basically better turner than many land based fighters and capable of deal with to tight turn fighting with low stall speed and effective NACA slotted type combat flaps. Corsair proved out-maneuver the Mustang in various contact, despite Mustang had good maneuverability in army fighters.

according to October 1944 Report of Joint Fighter Conference, Among the US production model fighter aircrafts, Merlin Mustang was voted best all-around fighter below 25k with 29% of total 51 voters, and directly behind, dash one Corsair 2nd place with 27%. It was a difference of only one vote. but above 25k, Mustang was clearly superior to dash one Corsair. For handling and maneuverability, Corsair showed superior to Mustang and other USAAF fighters in most case, It showed nicest harmonization of control forces, best elevator, 2nd aileron for both test speed(100 and 350 mph) and best control and stability in dive. Mustang showed best aileron at 350 mph and out-turn other USAAF fighters except King Cobra, but Corsair out-turn them. evaluated in an AAF pilot, Corsair was a tough competitor in anything involving maneuvering. and some British pilots who tested American Planes, seemed like the Corsair than Mustang and other army fighters for it's excellent high speed handling and combat ability. One thing I think should be noted about JFC is that Army planes were predominantly tested by Navy pilots, and vice-versa; with contractors getting to check out the competition. Due to the composition of the participants, the Mustang was given more evaluation and voting opportunities than the Corsair, which may have influenced the results. The response rate was 75%(38/51 = Army-1; Navy-19; British-3; Contractors-15) for Mustang and 55%(28/51 = Army-13; Navy-4; British-3; Contractors-8) for Corsair. The largest percentage of contractors was Vought.

The content of the TAIC report also draws the smiliar conclusion. according to TAIC report No.17 and No.38 for comparison with captured A6M Zeke, Merlin Mustang showed again it's superior speed to Corsair and other USN fighters. in turning comparison, Zeke caught the advantage or firing position with a just one turn for Mustang and other army fighters at 10000 ft and 25000 ft. but against Corsair, three and one-half turns were needed at 10000 ft, and at 30000 ft, there was only a slight margin in turn performance between Corsair and Zeke. in addition, with combat flaps, only the Corsair could stay with Zeke in turn until 150 knots in the report.

Other evaluators were RNZAF and RAAF, according to Pacific scrapbook 1943-1947 by Bryan Cox, After the war, there's three Commonwealth squadron deployed southern japan. They quickly became bored and began to hunt each other. Aussie's Merlin Mustang was proved it's superior speed and engage or disengage at will and Kiwi's dash one Corsair showed out-turn the Mustang and could evade it's attack. The two aircraft were reguarded as being fairly equal.

Like many great fighters, the Corsair sometimes reversed an totally adverse situation in real combat. considering Corsair's high speed handling and maneuverability, it's no surprise that two retreating VBF-10 dash one Corsairs separated from their squadrons, have won over then powerful 343 kokutai's ten Shiden-Kais that around them. The Japanese pilots were overwhelming in altitude and number, confirming the situational superiority and diving to attack. But the Corsair's pilot pull up sharply and shot down a Shiden-Kai at once. It was a violently maneuver that put him in a blackout for a while, even with a G-suit. The Corsairs keep their sharpness, covered each other and shot down two more Shiden-Kais without any damage and returned. In the racing situation, their speed would have remained high, and that seemed to be the key to their success. Also, because they engaged without wasting time for misidentification and could not miss the initiative. unlike Marine Corsairs that day. according to USN action report of VBF-10 and Genda's blade by Henry Sakaida and Takaki Koji, it was 19 March 1945.

The dash one Corsair was a different type of aircraft than any German or Japanese fighter the Mustang fought. It's worse than the Merlin Mustang but also fast, and advantage of the high-speed maneuverability that the Mustang enjoyed against axis fighters, is limited against Corsair. There were fighters like Zeke out-turn the Mustang, but Mustang could handle it without problems with superior speed and high-speed maneuverability. However, against dash one Corsair, the story is different. If not carefully, Mustang's attack could be exposed to unexpected counterattack by fairly maneuverable speedy target which also g-suite equipped as Mustang. The war-time Mustang had a limit load factor of 6.7 at 9500 lbs combat weight(8.0G for 8,000 lbs design weight) and an increase in stick force due to bobweight, seems hard for violent pitching like the Corsair which had boost tab equipped elevator. But of course, engagement is determined by the Mustang pilot's intention, so the tactical advantage is firmly in Mustang overall.

Another type of comparison is a comparison between final models during a war. In this case, the dash four Corsair comes up. according to VMF-223 action report and F4U Corsair vs Ki-84 Frank by Edward M. Young, it showed superior performance to Ki-84s of 47th Hiko Sentai and outclassed them. dash four could also surpass the war-time Mustangs by improved speed and high altitude performance for last few months of the war to new Mustang's full military service start. The new 'H' Mustang was produced during the war with a new airframe and engine, but they did not combat ready for until war was over, although some have deployed to the PTO. It's seems water injection in V-1650-9 was troublesome, according to T-2 Report on Frank-1(Ki-84), November 1946, P-51H was still considered non-water injected and showed out-climbed by war-time Japanese plane and only slight faster than that. Of course, the water injected P(F)-51H, which was later revealed in SAC, was much better.

The last type of comparison is to compare each using the best production models. my old post can be used for this.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
according to the F-51H SAC, F4U-4 SAC and F4U-5 performance summary and flight test data curves, all clean conditions with full internal loads.














F4U-4
gross weight : 12480 lbs
supercharger : 2 stage 2 speed
engine ratings : 2800 BHP for 70"hg, 2100 BHP for 54.5"hg
water supply : 12 minutes for combat power

F4U-5
gross weight : 12901 lbs
supercharger : 2 stage variable speed sidewheel type
engine ratings : 2760 BHP for 70"hg and 2380 BHP for 64"hg
water supply : 12 minutes for combat power

F-51H
gross weight : 9430 lbs
supercharger : 2 stage 2 speed
engine ratings : 2270 BHP for 90"hg, 1520 BHP for 67"hg
water supply : 7 minutes for combat power

as you can see, the F-51H does not have a one-sided advantage over Corsair.

Corsairs have much lower stall speed and boost tabs in ailerons and elevator both(F4U-5 had boost tab in rudder also), It is considered to be a better dogfighter.

In terms of performance,

F4U-4 was better climber for most altitudes and slight faster at medium altitude.

F4U-5 also slight faster at medium altitude and above 25k, it shows advantages for speed and climb both.

and except for those, the F-51H.

each fighter has its own advantages, so it can not be said that which is simply better.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interestingly, in the final models, the superiority of both models based on below and above 25k was reversed that compared to first comparison, and in conclusion, Corsair seems well matched with last Mustang in overall performance. then now let's go beyond just comparing flight performance. the Corsair's improvements for flight performances were useful in comparison with other propeller driven aircrafts, including the Mustang, but don't seem to fit the jet age. The propeller driven aircrafts of this period were given valueas low altitude emergency interceptor, mud carriers and night fighters etc. This is evident from the fact that AU-1 the Corsair's ground attack variant and F4U-5NL night fighter got a new production contract in the 50s. Anyway, since they were not the primary planes of the 50s Korean War, let's go back to World War II.

The Merlin Mustang was far more influential than the dash one Corsair. It was because it had the performance that was really needed at the time. high performance which is maintained even above 25k, and long range to escort bombers. The Corsair was powerful and versatile, but didn't meet the performance it needed most when it needed it. -- all around carrier stability. Many pilots praised the Corsair's outstanding combat capacity, but the influence of the Corsair tied to the shore base was limited. as spear-head, forward deployed marine Corsair squadrons deny all enemy activity in their range, helped to secure control area. It had a reputation as a fighter-bomber because it could take off from rough, short airfields, had a good range and high payload. When the airfield was well prepared, army planes, including the Mustang, deployed. then the Mustang takes a long shot than Corsair. according to Mustang's tactical chart, Corsair's ACP and british aircraft cards for both models, Corsair's range was about 90% of early type Merlin Mustang which have no auxiliary tank in fuselage and could use only 75 gal drop tanks. but only about 50% compared to late Merlin Mustang with auxiliary fuselage tank and 150 gal drop tanks. Corsair could only do such a long shot with the help of an carrier fleets -- mobile base for tactical advantage, after the begun operations on aircraft carriers. Of course, the Corsair wsn't such a short range fighter like many ETO fighters, just Mustang was so great.

And there was also a limit on payload, Corsair known for showed 4,000 lbs payload, but it was not practical. because in many cases the weight ratio of the drop tank was large due to lack of range. according to VF/VMF action reports, some Carrier based navy Corsair squadrons often used a combination of 500lbs bomb, 150gal drop tank and 8 x HVAR rockets which external payload of about 2,700 lbs over. but as you can see, with a drop tank of 1090 lbs, bomb load is only about 1,600 lbs. High bomb load of over 2,000 lbs was mainly used by Marine Corsair squadrons, they sometimes used 3 x 1,000 lbs bombs or combination of 2 x 1,000 lbs bombs and 8 x rockets but lack of range. as land based fighter-bomber with 2 x 1,000 lbs bombs and centerline drop tank, Corsair's range seems about 600 miles and fuel remained about 140 gal after returned because theres no air threat, considering that it took 155 gallons to take off, climb to 20k, combat power for 15 minutes, and cruise at 2k for 20 minutes, there seems to be enough fuel for air combat. however, it doesn't look very attractive considering that the late Merlin Mustang was able to fly 1200 miles in fighter-bomber mission with 2 x 500 lbs bombs, including 15 minutes for combat power, even more so, considering that the Mustang can carry 2 x 1,000 lbs bombs.

In my opinion, to conclude overall, The Corsair was obviously one of the best reciprop fighter that was powerful in many respects and had its own uniqe advantage, but overall it didn't seem to be as effective as the Mustang. of course there were fundamental irreplaceable advantages for carrier based naval fighter and land based long range escort fighter each, but the Corsair was ground based fighter in many case, and the Navy considered buying a carrier-based variant of the Mustang. If want to win a single aerial combat or In the rough stages of battle, looking for a squadron to be forward-deployed as an spearhead with short and unfinished frontline airfield, Corsair would be good choice. But will need the Mustang to 'closed' on enemy from above and ensure the safety of the bombers that will destroy the enemy's heart for the final victory of the war. and the speed and range of the Mustang allow it to truly 'dominate' the sky. Enemy air activity will be attacked at every stage. so lastly, to express my impression in one sentence : Corsair could win the combat, but the Mustang won the war.

ps. There is a book that is often mentioned. Francis H. Dean's Americas Hundred Thousand, which borrowed a lot from Joint Fighter Conference figures. the book described the Corsair as less capable of turning than the Mustang, Lightning and Thunderbolt, because calculation using IAS - without PEC or any corrected speed. It's a great book to recommend, and the examples of US fighters are well introduced, but it's important to note that this kind of self-calculation has errors. as explained above, the actual result was the opposite.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## drgondog (Oct 9, 2019)

CORSNING said:


> Hi Bill,
> I would greatly appreciate it if you would confirm the manufacture date
> of Jan/Feb 1944 as the date for the first production models of the B-10-NA
> and C-5-NT. Also thank you for the information that these were the first
> ...



*EDITED 10-9*
43-7113 (#1 B-10-NA) accepted ~ 12-4-1943, the rest started rolling out early Jan-44. I'll have to dig 42-102979 (C-1) *[accepted by AAF 11-1-43 but completed by NAA Dallas 9-05]* and 42-103379 (C-5) *[Acccepted by AAF 4-30-44 and may have the 1650-7 engine (unconfirmed]*

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Macandy (Oct 10, 2019)

The Mustang was fragile and temperamental. 
The Corsair was tough and reliable as anvil.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Dan Fahey (Oct 10, 2019)

*
D
 Dawncaster
*
Good post...!
At the end of WW2 all the major combatants could get their fighter planes to 500 mph level flight and exceed 5000 ft/min and in Combat Trim.
Few were as maneuverable as their lighter versions but the combat speeds were as much as 150 mph higher.
Fighting at higher altitudes and speeds became more important.
But the air ground war never abated.

During the Korean War the Corsair and Mustang loss per sortie was around .5 per sortie.
Corsair slighting worse than the Mustang both better than in WW2.

For all those that said the Corsair was more rugged..NO...they were equally strong planes.
As for the Mustang not qualifying for carrier duty it got close .
The H Model made successful carrier landings because of the taller Tail but the war was over.


----------



## Dan Fahey (Oct 10, 2019)

Macandy said:


> The Mustang was fragile and temperamental.
> The Corsair was tough and reliable as anvil.



How was the Mustang fragile?
Less Mustangs were shot down and the shot down more enemy planes than any other US Fighter?
Korean War the Navy and Marines lost more Corsairs than Mustangs.
Plus the Mustang stayed on station longer because of its range.


----------



## Macandy (Oct 10, 2019)

Dan Fahey said:


> How was the Mustang fragile?
> Less Mustangs were shot down and the shot down more enemy planes than any other US Fighter?
> Korean War the Navy and Marines lost more Corsairs than Mustangs.
> Plus the Mustang stayed on station longer because of its range.



Mustangs were trashed in big numbers by rough landings that a Corsair just shrugged off. Their loss rates to ground fire was also very high. A single Golden BB and they were out of the war.

post WWII, The harsh operating strips in Korea burnt through P-51’s at an astonishing rate.

A2A ‘combat losses’ are a very poor metric.

the reason the USAF got shot of the much higher performance P-51H and kept the D was the lightly built and higher stressed H was even more fragile.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Oct 10, 2019)

Macandy said:


> The Mustang was fragile and temperamental.
> The Corsair was tough and reliable as anvil.





Macandy said:


> Mustangs were trashed in big numbers by rough landings that a Corsair just shrugged off. Their loss rates to ground fire was also very high. A single Golden BB and they were out of the war.
> 
> post WWII, The harsh operating strips in Korea burnt through P-51’s at an astonishing rate.
> 
> ...



All of this is based on what kind of primary sources, contemporary docs etc? (no fan-written pamphlets, please)

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Barrett (Oct 10, 2019)

Don't know if this lengthy thread mentioned the only real-world test between the Corsair and Mustang, in an obscure arena. Honduras v. El Salvador 1969. Both sides flew Corsairs: Honduras -4s and -5s; El Sal FG-1s and 51Ds. The only piloto to score was Maj. Fernando Soto who flew his dash four to down two Corsairs and a Mustang. I had some correspondence and a tape recording from him in researching the Naval Institute Press book (1979) and wrote a long Flight Journal article with one of the US Mustang pilots who joined El Sal just days after cessation of hostilities. (One was F86 ace Bob Love.)

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Oct 10, 2019)

Macandy said:


> the reason the USAF got shot of the much higher performance P-51H and kept the D was the lightly built and higher stressed H was even more fragile.



Maybe, just maybe, the USAF kept the P-51D over the P-51H because there were thousands of them and plentiful spares.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## fubar57 (Oct 10, 2019)



Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Dawncaster (Oct 11, 2019)

Barrett said:


> Don't know if this lengthy thread mentioned the only real-world test between the Corsair and Mustang, in an obscure arena. Honduras v. El Salvador 1969. Both sides flew Corsairs: Honduras -4s and -5s; El Sal FG-1s and 51Ds. The only piloto to score was Maj. Fernando Soto who flew his dash four to down two Corsairs and a Mustang. I had some correspondence and a tape recording from him in researching the Naval Institute Press book (1979) and wrote a long Flight Journal article with one of the US Mustang pilots who joined El Sal just days after cessation of hostilities. (One was F86 ace Bob Love.)



Firstly, thank you for the great books you wrote about Corsair and other naval fighters, sir. Unfortunately, the case for the "Soccer war" was intentionally excluded. It's some sort of last legend and great victory(and that part in the book was also a great article), but as I mentioned in the post, the comparison method what I used in post was between the most used or the latest model in the war, or the best of all models. So I didn't mention the Birdcage Corsair and Allison Mustang, or the gap between the models is not match for comparison method because this is 'vs' thread.


Whisper : and excuse me, I remember that the book stated that Fernando Soto's Corsair was dash five. 


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Another excluded example is the modern comparison between the Goodyear's dash one Corsair and the D Mustang(+Thunderbolt and Hellcat), in 1989 by STEP. It was excluded because it was not a military condition, but the conclusion was similar. The Corsair got the "weapon of choice" title with best air combat capacity against rivals in test, but based on various considerations, the 'BEST' was the Mustang for overall. Interestingly, in this comparison, the Mustang and Corsair had seems practical weight(equivalent to 50% ammo and internal fuel excpet auxiliary tank - unoffical emergency interceptor condition?) even compared to military condition, but others was not, they seems much lighter than any combat loading condition offical or not. It caused me, to wonder about the restoration or modernization process for old warbirds.


----------



## Dan Fahey (Oct 11, 2019)

Macandy said:


> Mustangs were trashed in big numbers by rough landings that a Corsair just shrugged off. Their loss rates to ground fire was also very high. A single Golden BB and they were out of the war.
> 
> post WWII, The harsh operating strips in Korea burnt through P-51’s at an astonishing rate.
> 
> ...




Bull Shit...on the Mustang and Corsair.
Every Corsair had hard landings and worst removed from service with bent frames. The seas were not always cooperatIve planes having to land on pitching carriers. They were originally designed as a land plane. There was a large enough replacement to remove the bent Corsairs and there were a lot of them. A bent frame Corsair could not maintain cruise speed and handling was like driving a car with a bad alignment. I know this from combat and maintenance reports. Just about every Carrier based Corsair was junked after WW2. The dash 4 and 5 models were new and saw little combat in WW2. Their life cycles used up in Korea. The dash 5 was removed because of electrical and relay issue. Navy supplanted them with more Dash4, AD1 and Jets. One of the other notorious names for the Corsair was Ensign Eliminator because it killed a lot of pilots taking off from carriers.

As for the Japanese fields in Korea we used. The Mustang did fine..you do not know what you are talking about. 
The fields were short but were well maintained. Which was a key reason Thunderbolt could not be used in Pusan South Korea. 
Neither land based Corsair or Mustang had any fragility issues. The A26 did because the wing would fracture and fall off.
You want good information about the air war in Korea go to KOWAR records that were researched, documented and published by Intel Analyst Cookie Sewell.

The Navy liked the Mustangs potential performance but was not enough urgency to make it work. 
Plus would had to change logistics to support the liquid cooled engines.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## fubar57 (Oct 11, 2019)

You don't know what you're talking about Dan..."Ensign Eliminator" because of landings, not take-offs

"However, this did not come without a cost; the longer engine reduced forward visibility, early design flaws caused stalls during landing approaches; and the wheels tended to bounce during landings. As a result, early carrier tests were plagued with accidents (the source of its “Ensign Eliminator” nickname), and the Navy picked the more forgiving F4F Wildcat and F6F Hellcat as their primary carrier fighters instead"

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## drgondog (Oct 11, 2019)

Macandy said:


> The Mustang was fragile and temperamental.
> The Corsair was tough and reliable as anvil.


Yet both had the same vulnerability to ground fire in Korea? almost same loss rate per sortie for the same mission profile.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
5 | Like List reactions


----------



## drgondog (Oct 11, 2019)

Macandy said:


> Mustangs were trashed in big numbers by rough landings that a Corsair just shrugged off. Their loss rates to ground fire was also very high. A single Golden BB and they were out of the war.
> 
> post WWII, The harsh operating strips in Korea burnt through P-51’s at an astonishing rate.
> 
> ...


Wrong on most of what you just stated. Do some original research if you don't want to earn the 'fanboy' title of the month.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Agree Agree:
3 | Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Dan Fahey (Oct 11, 2019)

fubar57 said:


> You don't know what you're talking about Dan..."Ensign Eliminator" because of landings, not take-offs
> 
> "However, this did not come without a cost; the longer engine reduced forward visibility, early design flaws caused stalls during landing approaches; and the wheels tended to bounce during landings. As a result, early carrier tests were plagued with accidents (the source of its “Ensign Eliminator” nickname), and the Navy picked the more forgiving F4F Wildcat and F6F Hellcat as their primary carrier fighters instead"



No because of take offs...the Corsair would flip over because of the torque of the prop at the end of carrier deck.
are you a troll?

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Dan Fahey (Oct 11, 2019)

Dan Fahey said:


> No because of take offs...the Corsair would flip over because of the torque of the prop at the end of carrier deck.
> Go look up Ensign Eliminator..
> 
> Are you a troll?


----------



## fubar57 (Oct 11, 2019)

fubar57 said:


> You don't know what you're talking about Dan..."Ensign Eliminator" because of landings, not take-offs
> 
> "However, this did not come without a cost; the longer engine reduced forward visibility, early design flaws caused stalls during landing approaches; and the wheels tended to bounce during landings. As a result, early carrier tests were plagued with accidents (the source of its “Ensign Eliminator” nickname), and the Navy picked the more forgiving F4F Wildcat and F6F Hellcat as their primary carrier fighters instead"



Chance Vought F4U-5N Corsair | Flying Leatherneck Aviation Museum


Your source?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Oct 11, 2019)

lmao @ fubar being called a troll!

Reactions: Like Like:
4 | Agree Agree:
3 | Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## drgondog (Oct 11, 2019)

GrauGeist said:


> lmao @ fubar being called a troll!



My reaction Exactly, David... Jeeez!

Most knowledgable folks understand that rudder and stick control while accelerating makes take offs relatively benign. Low speed, HOA 'waddle' with big ass engine and puny butt OTOH - was the Ensign Killer moment.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Oct 11, 2019)

Dan Fahey said:


> No because of take offs...the Corsair would flip over because of the torque of the prop at the end of carrier deck.
> are you a troll?


Dan, Fubar has one hundred times more posts than you have. how do you define a troll?

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like Like:
1 | Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Dana Bell (Oct 11, 2019)

Having copied all of the Corsair's WWII carrier qualification reports, I can say the Navy showed no concern for any torque problems on takeoff. While that doesn't mean the problems weren't there, it's clear the examiners didn't think them important enough to even mention in their reports.

The Corsair was considered fully capable as a carrier fighter in 1943. It was ordered transferred to land bases in August that year after the Navy had learned the F6F was fully capable. The only "problem" with the Corsair was that the Fleet didn't want to run two parallel supply lines for its carriers.

By mid-1944 BuAer began pressing the Fleet to replace the F6F with F4Us - BuAer wrote that there could be no further development of the Hellcat, while the Corsair was already superior and newer models would advance even more. The first Corsairs began returning to carriers just after Christmas 1944.

The landing bounce issues appeared early in 1945 - the result of changes in landing gear struts and tires. After a quick fix pressurizing the struts appeared, the bounce was completely eliminated. (Several publications, aware of the bounce, have assumed that the bounce was present in 1943 and therefore responsible for removal of the Corsair from carriers. Every contemporary report refutes this assertion.)

Cheers,



Dana

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Informative Informative:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## Dawncaster (Oct 11, 2019)

The take-off and landing characteristics of the early birdcage Corsair are often considered to apply to all models of the Corsair. She has suffered for loooooong times as a result of missed the first paragraph. According to the Carrier air group reports, Corsair had better visibility and slower approach speed than the Hellcat in carrier landing approach. It was considered 'better landing aboard a CV' than the Hellcat, finally. Although in many cases all-around carrier stability was considered to be better in the Hellcat, overall.


----------



## pbehn (Oct 11, 2019)

I saw a video on the development of the Corsair, there were a huge number of changes in the development stage, one of the issues mentioned was rebound damping on landing but this wasn't an issue unique to the Corsair.


----------



## michael rauls (Oct 11, 2019)

drgondog said:


> Wrong on most of what you just stated. Do some original research if you don't want to earn the 'fanboy' title of the month.


I just read that reciently( that the loss rates to ground fire we almost identical). Found it quite surprising as much of what has been written over the years not to mention the the air cooled vs liquid cooled engine would give the impression the corsair should have faired better in this role but that was apparently not the case as the proof is in the pudding( or in this case the loss rates) as they say.


----------



## michael rauls (Oct 11, 2019)

I meant that as a reply to post 347 not 348 but you get the idea.


----------



## michael rauls (Oct 11, 2019)

Dan Fahey said:


> No because of take offs...the Corsair would flip over because of the torque of the prop at the end of carrier deck.
> are you a troll?


Jeez man, Fubar is about the furthest thing from a " troll" I can think of.
And your comment doesn't even make sense. Why would someone be a troll because they've read different information about something than you?
Just thought you'd throw that in for effect?
...................and the F4Us moniker "Ensign eliminator" did stem from landing issues, so I have read anyway.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Agree Agree:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 12, 2019)

Dan Fahey said:


> No because of take offs...the Corsair would flip over because of the torque of the prop at the end of carrier deck.
> are you a troll?



Dan, Dan, Dan, Dan.... 

Once again those little voices in your head coming from comic books, Black Sheep Squadron reruns, and old Osprey books are making their way through your brain causing some pretty bad fecal matter to transfer to the keyboard. Please refrain or you'll be gone for good. We have no time or patience for your continual nonsense.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Oct 12, 2019)

michael rauls said:


> and the F4Us moniker "Ensign eliminator" did stem from landing issues, so I have read anyway.


You read correctly.

The USN's SOP for carrier landing was to approach directly a stern, which was a procedure developed over the years with types up through the F4F. As it happens, the Corsair's engine/cowling was far larger than any fighter they had before and this presented a serious problem for the pilots.

It was the Royal Navy that developed the 45° landing approach to counter this problem and proved very successful to the point that the USN adopted it as their proceedure.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
2 | Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## michael rauls (Oct 12, 2019)

GrauGeist said:


> You read correctly.
> 
> The USN's SOP for carrier landing was to approach directly a stern, which was a procedure developed over the years with types up through the F4F. As it happens, the Corsair's engine/cowling was far larger than any fighter they had before and this presented a serious problem for the pilots.
> 
> It was the Royal Navy that developed the 45° landing approach to counter this problem and proved very successful to the point that the USN adopted it as their proceedure.


Thanks for the info. I've several times read that the Royal Navy solved the problem but never how. Always kinda wondered.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Dan Fahey (Oct 12, 2019)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Dan, Dan, Dan, Dan....
> 
> Once again those little voices in your head coming from comic books, Black Sheep Squadron reruns, and old Osprey books are making their way through your brain causing some pretty bad fecal matter to transfer to the keyboard. Please refrain or you'll be gone for good. We have no time or patience for your continual nonsense.


Flyboy.. I have seen pictures and videos of Corsair’s flipping over at end of the Carrier. 
Have an Uncle that flew F8F‘s and Corsair’s with the US Marines introduced me to that term Ensign Eliminator in High School.
His stories included losing classmates training take off and landing on carriers. 
at the end of his career had serious incident when is Corsairs brakes failed taxing and ran into other parked fighters.
Came out with a broken wrist and shaken. 
In fact there was another plane that was given the name Ensign Eliminator was the F7U Cutlass.

Do you find this information incorrect?
If so correct me and ditch the damn sarcasm !

D


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 12, 2019)

Dan Fahey said:


> Flyboy.. I have seen pictures and videos of Corsair’s flipping over at end of the Carrier.
> Have an Uncle that flew F8F‘s and Corsair’s with the US Marines introduced me to that term Ensign Eliminator in High School.
> His stories included losing classmates training take off and landing on carriers.
> at the end of his career had serious incident when is Corsairs brakes failed taxing and ran into other parked fighters.
> ...



"I seen pictures and videos of Hellcats, Dauntlesses, Wildcats, Bearcats and Helldivers flipping over the end of carriers as well!"

Read the previously posted responses to your dribble. The F4U (along with other aircraft) was given the "TERM" "Ensign Eliminator" but in the end it was one of the best carrier based aircraft to be operated by ANY Navy. The term you describe is called a "torque roll" and many other high performance piston engine fighters experienced this and probably every carrier based recip aircraft operated by the USN had at least one class 1 mishap due to this. It is a controllable occurrence when encountered. The F4U was well known for this as was the Bf 109, the Avia S-199, the P-51 and even the Sopwith Camel to name a few. Your naive comments would have one believe that this would occur on every takeoff.

This clip shows F4U operating during the Korean War being catapult launched which all but eliminated the issue.

F4U Catapult launch korea - Yahoo Video Search Results

You're corrected, so now put the pointy hat on and sit in the corner!

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Oct 12, 2019)

FLYBOYJ said:


> The F4U was well known for this as was the Bf 109, the Avia S-199, the P-51 and even the Sopwith Camel to name a few. Your naive comments would have one believe that this would occur on every takeoff.


Don't forget to put the P-47 towards the top of that list.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 12, 2019)

GrauGeist said:


> Don't forget to put the P-47 towards the top of that list.



Yep - but I didn't mention that because Dan would say that it couldn't get off the ground!

Reactions: Funny Funny:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## pinsog (Oct 12, 2019)

Dan Fahey said:


> Flyboy.. I have seen pictures and videos of Corsair’s flipping over at end of the Carrier.
> Have an Uncle that flew F8F‘s and Corsair’s with the US Marines introduced me to that term Ensign Eliminator in High School.
> His stories included losing classmates training take off and landing on carriers.
> at the end of his career had serious incident when is Corsairs brakes failed taxing and ran into other parked fighters.
> ...


Hello sir. All of these gentlemen are correct, the F4U ‘ensign eliminator’ name/reputation came from landing on a carrier, not take off. Specifically, the problem was when it was down to 80 mph or so with the flaps and landing gear down and then they got a wave off, the pilot would shove the throttle forward and instead of the massive 13’6 inch prop spinning faster the aircraft would instead begin to try to rotate around the prop. At 80 mph or so, there wasn’t enough lift on the wings or airflow over the controls to stop this from happening. All that being said, almost any late war, high powered single engine fighter would do the same thing at that airspeed, the difference being P47’s, P51’s, ME109’s and FW190’s weren’t trying to land on a carrier, getting a wave off and then going to full power at 80 feet altitude and 80 mph. If you try that on any of those fighter’s you will also end up upside down in the water. Instead, those fighters were landing, mostly, on nice long, wide paved runways at speeds well above stall and without some guy waving flags at him because he didn’t like his approach.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## fubar57 (Oct 12, 2019)

Good stuff sir. Unfortunately Dan rarely lets facts get in the way of posting

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## CORSNING (Oct 13, 2019)

...........


----------



## fubar57 (Oct 13, 2019)

When I read a post the starts, "Having copied all of the Corsair's WWII carrier qualification reports, I can say the Navy showed no concern for any torque problems on takeoff. While that doesn't mean the problems weren't there, it's clear the examiners didn't think them important enough to even mention in their reports." and then read a post that includes, ".....Have an Uncle that flew F8F‘s and Corsair’s......." who am I going lean? I've typed in every combo of F4U and carrier take-off accidents into Google Video and can't find any that show squadron after squadron decimating themselves on take-off. Anyone post a link..............Dan?

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Dan Fahey (Oct 13, 2019)

FLYBOYJ said:


> "I seen pictures and videos of Hellcats, Dauntlesses, Wildcats, Bearcats and Helldivers flipping over the end of carriers as well!"
> 
> Read the previously posted responses to your dribble. The F4U (along with other aircraft) was given the "TERM" "Ensign Eliminator" but in the end it was one of the best carrier based aircraft to be operated by ANY Navy. The term you describe is called a "torque roll" and many other high performance piston engine fighters experienced this and probably every carrier based recip aircraft operated by the USN had at least one class 1 mishap due to this. It is a controllable occurrence when encountered. The F4U was well known for this as was the Bf 109, the Avia S-199, the P-51 and even the Sopwith Camel to name a few. Your naive comments would have one believe that this would occur on every takeoff.
> 
> ...


Never said it happened on every take off...
You are putting words in my mouth to justify your arrogance.

Key note of the article I read highlighted the number of Training Accidents in the US.
Something in the order of 15000 planes lost and incidents involving ground crew.

Remembering the article was talking about the loss new Ensigns trying to take off in the Corsair.
The number was quite high along with the Curtis Helldiver which think came on line about the same time.
Both planes ending in the sea until changes were made.
New Navy pilots started off as Ensigns and being a newby they were the ones that made fatal mistakes.
One thing learned about the carrier landings with Corsairs.
The first ones were made by experienced pilots not by inexperienced Ensigns.
Some may have been Ensigns.

Landing you have some time to correct your approach situation.
Taking off with a high torque plane, not enough deck and rudder.
Was not a lot of room for error. 

Mentioned this before that our logistics system in fog of war often did not catch up to that day of the war.

It was wartime and the combatants were desperate to get Fighter Pilots on line as fast as possible.
The washout rate was horrible those that could fly but not make Fighter pilot ended up in bombers or other war plane.

In contrast it was a slaughter in Russia training anyone to fly.
If they survived flight school pilots were then slaughtered by the Germans if they could get a combat flight.

d


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 13, 2019)

Dan Fahey said:


> Never said it happened on every take off...
> You are putting words in my mouth to justify your arrogance.



Your posts:

"No *because of take offs...the Corsair would flip over because of the torque of the prop at the end of carrier deck.*"

"Flyboy.. I have seen pictures and videos of Corsair’s flipping over at end of the Carrier.
Have an Uncle that flew F8F‘s and Corsair’s with the US Marines introduced me to that term Ensign Eliminator in High School.
*His stories included losing classmates training take off and landing on carriers."*

*Dan, you're on a very short rope. I suggest you tread lightly.*


----------



## drgondog (Oct 13, 2019)

Dan Fahey said:


> Never said it happened on every take off...
> You are putting words in my mouth to justify your arrogance.
> 
> Key note of the article I read highlighted the number of Training Accidents in the US.
> ...




When you are digging your own grave and hit a septic tank, you should probably wave off and quit digging there.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like Like:
1 | Funny Funny:
3 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Oct 13, 2019)

Are there any statistics for WW2 US Navy training accidents, I can only find them for the USAAF.


----------



## pinsog (Oct 13, 2019)

Landing you have some time to correct your approach situation.
Taking off with a high torque plane, not enough deck and rudder.
Was not a lot of room for error.

d[/QUOTE]
Sir, all of these gentlemen are correct, it was the landings that were dangerous. If they were very heavily loaded on takeoff they would catapult them. If they weren’t heavily loaded then they accelerated quickly and were fine, on take off they were already moving 30+ mph not including the headwind, add a 15 mph wind and they are over halfway to stall speed before they start to move.

On landing, they are down just above stall speed, their runway is moving away from them as well as moving up and down and might even be turning. Their landing gear and flaps are down and the engine is running much lower rpm. If their approach is bad, or the ship moves they will get a wave off. Now they are decending, at 80-100 feet, barely above stall, engine at low rpm and they have to now, in a short time, add power, pull up and also turn to avoid the ship and any parked planes. When they add power at that low an airspeed, the prop bites into the air and as well as turning faster it tries to roll the plane opposite of the way the prop is turning (think of a farm tractor, if the rear tires can’t spin, the front end will lift up off the ground) They don’t have enough airflow over the controls to stop the roll and they don’t have enough altitude to recover so they go into the water upside down. Almost any big engined, single engine WW2 fighter will do this under these conditions, land based fighters didn’t have this issue because they land at much higher speed on non moving airfields. Navy bombers didn’t have the issue as bad because they had much bigger wings, more lift and smaller less powerful engines

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 13, 2019)

Anecdotal evidence of a very limited sample, I knew a man who flew with VMF-124 (in it's second tour) and some of his tales about losses in training were rather eye opening.
And that is before they even got close to a carrier. 

A lot of young men died in pilot (and general flying training) training before they ever got to carrier or combat training, blaming all the accidents/losses on carrier training seems like skewing the results in the direction you want to go.

Not saying there weren't take-off and landing accidents when operating from carriers. But they need sorting out and not lumped in with primary, basic, advanced and conversion to operational types training.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 13, 2019)

drgondog said:


> When you are digging your own grave and hit a septic tank, you should probably wave off and quit digging there.



Go around, go around!


----------



## pbehn (Oct 13, 2019)

Could the F4-U flown to the correct procedure as regards speed and sink rate etc get into a situation that it couldn't "go around" without rolling?


----------



## GrauGeist (Oct 13, 2019)

Dan Fahey said:


> Key note of the article I read highlighted the number of Training Accidents in the US.
> Something in the order of [BOLD]15000[/BOLD] planes lost and incidents involving ground crew.


Now might be a good time to point out that Vought, Goodyear and Brewster all produced a total of 12,571 F4U types.

Not sure how that figure listed for accidents exceeds the total number of aircraft built...

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Oct 13, 2019)

GrauGeist said:


> Now might be a good time to point out that Vought, Goodyear and Brewster all produced a total of 12,571 F4U types.
> 
> Not sure how that figure listed for accidents exceeds the total number of aircraft built...


The USAAF lost 47,462 aircraft in training accidents in USA, no idea what the Navy losses were.


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 13, 2019)

Hmmmmm, I don't believe the USAAF was trying to take-off or land on carriers. 
I guess it is a wonder that any F4Us managed to last long enough to shoot down any Japanese aircraft. 

I think "ensign eliminator" has a much better ring to it (the alliteration) than "2nd lieutenant eliminator" would for an Army plane. 
Although "Butter Bar Butcher" might work  

"2nd Looie slayer"?

Reactions: Funny Funny:
3 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Oct 13, 2019)

Eric 'Winkle' Brown is well known for his disdain for the Corsair, having flown Corsair Mk.I JT118 for diving trials with the Royal Aircraft Establishment and also an AU-1 postwar. His thoughts are not complimentary, and it is worth reading what he thought of the landing procedure. From Wings of The Navy:

"All in all, I was most anxious to discover for myself if the Corsair was the deck-landing dog that it was reputed to be. It was! In the deck-landing configuration with approach power, the Corsair could demonstrate a very nasty incipient torque stall with dangerously little warning, the starboard wing usually dropping sharply. With the large flaps fully extended the descent rate was rapid, and a simulated deck landing at 80 knots gave very poor view and sluggish aileronand elevator control. A curved approach was very necessary if the pilot was to have any chance of seeing the carrier, let alone the batsman! When the throttle was cut, the nose dropped so that the aircraft bounced on its mainwheels, and once the tailwheel made contact, the aircraft proved very unstable directionally, despite the tailwheel lock, swining either to port or starboard,and this swing had to be checked immediately with the brakes.

"On one approach, I tried a baulked landing and discovered that the sudden opening of the throttle at 80 kts also produced the previously mentioned torque stall, but this time the port wing dropped. I needed no more convincing of the wisdom of the US Navy in withholding the Corsair from shipboard operation! Oh yes, the Corsair could be landed on a deck without undue difficulty by an experienced pilot in ideal conditions, but with pilots of average capability, really pitching decks and marginal weather conditions, attrition simply had to be of serious proportions."

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## michael rauls (Oct 14, 2019)

GrauGeist said:


> Now might be a good time to point out that Vought, Goodyear and Brewster all produced a total of 12,571 F4U types.
> 
> Not sure how that figure listed for accidents exceeds the total number of aircraft built...


12,571 built and 15,000 lost in accidents. You've got to admit that is quite a high accident rate

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Oct 14, 2019)

michael rauls said:


> 12,571 built and 15,000 lost in accidents. You've got to admit that is quite a high accident rate


Right?

So more Corsair's (USN, USMC, RN, FAA, etc.) were lost to accidents than ever were produced.

This might explain why the FAA Corsair that was captured by the Germans in Norway was never documented by photograph - it was sucked into the vacuum created by the negative numbers...

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Funny Funny:
3 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## fubar57 (Oct 14, 2019)

Man....I would love to find a photo of that Corsair


----------



## Peter Gunn (Oct 14, 2019)

GrauGeist said:


> lmao @ fubar being called a troll!



I've always suspected fubar was really just biding his time before showing his true colors...

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## wlewisiii (Oct 14, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> Hmmmmm, I don't believe the USAAF was trying to take-off or land on carriers.
> I guess it is a wonder that any F4Us managed to last long enough to shoot down any Japanese aircraft.
> 
> I think "ensign eliminator" has a much better ring to it (the alliteration) than "2nd lieutenant eliminator" would for an Army plane.
> ...



Nah, the Army had other ways of expressing the same idea - "One a day in Tampa Bay" for example (though I like the looie slayer idea  )

Reactions: Dislike Dislike:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Dan Fahey (Oct 14, 2019)

GrauGeist said:


> Right?
> 
> So more Corsair's (USN, USMC, RN, FAA, etc.) were lost to accidents than ever were produced.
> 
> This might explain why the FAA Corsair that was captured by the Germans in Norway was never documented by photograph - it was sucked into the vacuum created by the negative numbers...



Did not say that..!
You twisted the words !
Why?


----------



## fubar57 (Oct 14, 2019)

It wasn't 15,000 aircraft lost, it was 15,000 aircrew killed...Sobering Stats: 15,000 U.S. Airmen Killed in Training in WW II | RealClearHistory

"Yet the fact that 15,000 young men died in aircrew training in the U.S. is virtually unknown. Aviation was still in its infancy during the 1930s. Only a tiny fraction of Americans had ever been on a plane. Even civil aviation was far from safe, military aviation even less so. In 1930, the accident rate for military aviation was 144 accidents per 100,000 flying hours. By 1940, the rate had been reduced to 51 accidents per 100,000 hours, a reduction of more than two thirds. But even this improved rate would be considered intolerably unsafe today."


----------



## fubar57 (Oct 14, 2019)

Over 7,100 aircraft were lost...United States World War II Aircraft Loss Statistics during Flight Training

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## fubar57 (Oct 14, 2019)

EARNING THEIR WINGS:ACCIDENTS AND FATALITIES IN THE UNITED STATES ARMY AIR FORCES DURING FLIGHT TRAINING IN WORLD WAR TWO
https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/18529342.pdf

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Oct 14, 2019)

fubar57 said:


> Over 7,100 aircraft were lost...United States World War II Aircraft Loss Statistics during Flight Training


Thats what I was quoting but it is USAAF I presumed the US Navy had their own stats.


----------



## fubar57 (Oct 14, 2019)

Yea, I've been searching for two days, nada

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Peter Gunn (Oct 14, 2019)

fubar57 said:


> Yea, I've been searching for two days, nada


*ENOUGH!* Begone troll, you've sullied these hallowed halls long enough what with you tramping in here with your _FACTS_!

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Funny Funny:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## fubar57 (Oct 14, 2019)

How about this...Aviation Personnel Fatalities in World War II

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Oct 14, 2019)

Dan Fahey said:


> Did not say that..!
> You twisted the words !
> Why?


You said: "*Something in the order of 15000 planes* lost and incidents involving ground crew".

I didn't twist shit, sparky...

Reactions: Winner Winner:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 14, 2019)

Dan Fahey said:


> Did not say that..!
> You twisted the words !
> Why?



Your words beg to differ...

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 14, 2019)



Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Funny Funny:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## Dan Fahey (Oct 15, 2019)

fubar57 said:


> It wasn't 15,000 aircraft lost, it was 15,000 aircrew killed...
> Sobering Stats: 15,000 U.S. Airmen Killed in Training in WW II | RealClearHistory
> 
> "Yet the fact that 15,000 young men died in aircrew training in the U.S. is virtually unknown. Aviation was still in its infancy during the 1930s. Only a tiny fraction of Americans had ever been on a plane. Even civil aviation was far from safe, military aviation even less so. In 1930, the accident rate for military aviation was 144 accidents per 100,000 flying hours. By 1940, the rate had been reduced to 51 accidents per 100,000 hours, a reduction of more than two thirds. But even this improved rate would be considered intolerably unsafe today."



Thanks Fubar for the link.
Saw this statistic a long while back.
Could not remember if it was lost aircraft or pilots. 

Wonder if this statistic was similar for the other combatants.
Except Russia, bet they were worse than all the other combatants combined.

Reading my copy of Soviet Casualties and Combat Losses in the 20th Century -General Editor: Colonel General G.F. Krivosheev...
Has everything from number of hand guns made, shells, cannon, ships, airplanes..everything.
Nothing about training losses.


----------



## YF12A (Oct 17, 2019)

Don't know if anyone mentioned this, if so my bad, but I wonder what it might have been like in an F-2G with an R-4360 up front in the same situations?


----------



## Barrett (Oct 17, 2019)

In 2009 I wrote a Flight Journal article titled "The Price of Doing Business." Largely based on the postwar AAF Statistical Survey, and the material has been pirated ever since. I get several such emails every year without attribution. Wanted to put USN figures alongside AAF but found it was not possible, either because the comparable info was not compiled or it was lost. The above post showing USN personnel losses undoubtedly is as close as we'll get. Reputed 47,000 army planes lost in ConUS reminds me: Recently on Facebook I learned there were SIXTY FIVE THOUSAND Mustangs of all flavors. The FB guy was swamped with responses, not all kinder-gentler, and finally he said "Don't hate me, I just thought guys here would be better than wikipedia.")

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## jalistair (Oct 17, 2019)

tomo pauk said:


> You will note that 'single piston engined plane' and 'piston engined plane' are not same thing. Several piston-engined aircraft with longer productio runs came to mind, like the Bf 109 (from late 1930s to 1950s), along with DC-3/C-47 etc, Cessna 172.
> 
> Well I am American so when mentioning production runs Germany never crossed my mind and still doesn't. As for the DC-3, that is not a single engine plane. The Cessna isn't a military plane.


----------



## jalistair (Oct 17, 2019)

FLYBOYJ said:


> I don't understand this statement. Pilot skill will be the final outcome in combat but pilot skill has nothing to do with similar production models unless there is a special characteristic that involves more training



What I was saying is that in a combat situation against each other I would bet on the more experienced pilot than I would on the airframe itself. In other words if a P-51 and a F4U were to engage in combat I would be more interested in knowing who was piloting each plane. Else wise we can drop all hypothetical "what if's" and simply point to the only time the two airframes fought each other and agree the F4U was the superior dogfighter since it has shot down a P-51 and the P-51 has not shot down a F4U.


----------



## jalistair (Oct 17, 2019)

michael rauls said:


> I largely agree but if we just look at the point the two met in hypothetical combat I think the p51 has an advantage because of speed and high altitude performance but in the grander scheme of things I think it's more of a toss up as the F4U is more versatile. I.e. carrier capable, greater load carrying capacity, resistant to ground fire with the radial engine etc. Just depends on the mission which is better I believe.



Frankly I would fly either of them. I do suspect the P-51 would be a bit easier to taxi than the F4U though.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 17, 2019)

jalistair said:


> What I was saying is that in a combat situation against each other I would bet on the more experienced pilot than I would on the airframe itself. In other words if a P-51 and a F4U were to engage in combat I would be more interested in knowing who was piloting each plane. Else wise we can drop all hypothetical "what if's" and simply point to the only time the two airframes fought each other and agree the F4U was the superior dogfighter since it has shot down a P-51 and the P-51 has not shot down a F4U.


 Ok agree - but by your verbiage it sounded like you were addressing a variation of a production model (F4U vs F4U-5N)

Now the combat you speak about occurred during the Soccer War and the Honduran pilot who flew the F4U was a very good pilot. A former neighbor (who flew P-51s during WW2) trained him. At the end of the day, this still doesn't prove much.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 18, 2019)

"Well I am American so when mentioning production runs Germany never crossed my mind and still doesn't. As for the DC-3, that is not a single engine plane. *The Cessna isn't a military plane. "*

*
J
 jalistair
- *go back an look at your original post

"I do believe the Corsair was the longest produced single piston engine plane"

Nothing is mentioned about a "combat' aircraft.


----------



## tomo pauk (Oct 18, 2019)

jalistair said:


> Well I am American so when mentioning production runs Germany never crossed my mind and still doesn't.



Still doesn't?? Oh, boy.



> As for the DC-3, that is not a single engine plane. The Cessna isn't a military plane.



Yes, DC-3 indeed was not a 'single piston engine plane', however Cessna was, so it fit's your criteria:



jalistair said:


> I do believe the Corsair was the longest produced single piston engine plane,...


----------



## Dan Fahey (Oct 18, 2019)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Ok agree - but by your verbiage it sounded like you were addressing a variation of a production model (F4U vs F4U-5N)
> 
> Now the combat you speak about occurred during the Soccer War and the Honduran pilot who flew the F4U was a very good pilot.
> A former neighbor (who flew P-51s during WW2) trained him. At the end of the day, this still doesn't prove much.



Know a good bit about this war especially how and why it got started.
The Soccer games were only part of the issue and Refereed games as intense as these.

On the aircraft side...
El Salvador bought civilian Mustangs and Corsairs outfitted them up for combat.
Bought several Cavalier Mustangs with up-rated Merlins and wing tip tanks.
Merlin's with the good transport cylinder heads.
They grabbed up T-28,s Texans and DC3/C47s.
Converted the C47's into Bombers.

Hondurans had purchased F4u-4 and -5's.
Fernando Soto shot down two -1 Corsairs and the Cavalier Mustang.
Salvadorians after the loss pulled the wing tip tanks off the other Cavalier Mustangs.
El Salvador lost two Mustangs to AA and two crashed in midair.
Added up had to be about a third of their force. 
Both sides did hire mercenary pilots.

Honduras did well in the air war but was losing the ground war.
Figured the Mustangs and Corsairs were effective enough staffing and bombing Honduran positions.
OAS intervened to stop it and got it stopped
Has took decades to sort out all the disputes with a final agreement signed in 2013.


----------



## Dan Fahey (Oct 18, 2019)

"jalistair said: I do believe the Corsair was the longest produced single piston engine plane,...""

Last Propeller Fighter planes built..?
The Messerschmidt Ha-1112 Buchon last built in 1954 -1955
The Cavalier Mustangs were considered new build given new Serial Numbers to 1970
The 2 - PA-48's Piper Enforcers were new builds in 1983

Should consider COIN aircraft Texan II and Tucano which are all Fighter like.
Then there are the twin engine Mohawk and Bronco.

D


----------



## chuter (Oct 19, 2019)

I think the Cavalier then Piper Enforcers started as modified P-51s (not really sure how they ended up) with the anticipated production versions to be all new builds.

Amusing aside: The Enforcer was "evaluated" (under duress) by the Air Force but never actually flown by any Air Force test pilots because no Air Force pilots were "taildragger qualified" (the Air Force command simply didn't want to have anything to do with it). So there's an aircraft in the Museum of the US Air Force that's never been flown by or taken (official) delivery by the USAF. I'm assuming the Air Force paid Piper for the aircraft but how could they have done that without issuing serial numbers?


----------



## BiffF15 (Oct 19, 2019)

chuter said:


> I think the Cavalier then Piper Enforcers started as modified P-51s (not really sure how they ended up) with the anticipated production versions to be all new builds.
> 
> Amusing aside: The Enforcer was "evaluated" (under duress) by the Air Force but never actually flown by any Air Force test pilots because no Air Force pilots were "taildragger qualified" (the Air Force command simply didn't want to have anything to do with it). So there's an aircraft in the Museum of the US Air Force that's never been flown by or taken (official) delivery by the USAF. I'm assuming the Air Force paid Piper for the aircraft but how could they have done that without issuing serial numbers?



Chuter,

I think it could be said the enforcer was never flown by a USAF Test Pilot in its current configuration (turbine). Also the US military has many planes not on any “books”. Just because you have no proof doesn’t mean it does not occur.

Cheers,
Biff

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 19, 2019)

Dan Fahey said:


> "jalistair said: I do believe the Corsair was the longest produced single piston engine plane,...""
> 
> Last Propeller Fighter planes built..?
> The Messerschmidt Ha-1112 Buchon last built in 1954 -1955
> ...



"Prop fighter" - turboprop vs, recip. Needs to be delineated

The last* RECIP* fighter built was probably the Hispano Ha-1112 (correct designation) aside starting off as a license built Messerschmitt (correct spelling) Bf 109G-2 the last version of this aircraft, the HA-1112-M1L Buchón was very different from the the 109G-2. The HA-1112-M1L had a slow production run, I'm showing some sources stating the aircraft was still being built in 1959, 239 units built, first flown in 1954.

The Cavalier Mustangs retained their original data plates, that determines whether the aircraft is "new," the fact they were given new serial numbers is meaningless and was just a paperwork/ logistics exercise. New serial number allocation is also done due to DoD funding requirements and the military serial will reflect the year the contract signed for that lot of aircraft. All Cavalier airframes were either refurbished or modified from original P-51 airframes.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## R Leonard (Oct 19, 2019)

DarrenW said:


> I happen to own a first edition copy of _Hellcat: The F6F in World War II_ and to this day it's still my favorite book about the aircraft.



Me, too. Mine's signed by Barrett to my father.


----------



## R Leonard (Oct 19, 2019)

GrauGeist said:


> You read correctly.
> 
> The USN's SOP for carrier landing was to approach directly a stern, which was a procedure developed over the years with types up through the F4F. As it happens, the Corsair's engine/cowling was far larger than any fighter they had before and this presented a serious problem for the pilots.
> 
> It was the Royal Navy that developed the 45° landing approach to counter this problem and proved very successful to the point that the USN adopted it as their proceedure.



We might do well to remember that all, all, of the Royal Navy’s Fleet Air Arm F4U squadrons received their airplanes and were trained, *to include carrier qualifying*, by USN aviators, at various naval air stations in the US and on US carriers. All, yes, all of them, all 19 of the FAA F4U squadrons accepted their aircraft and trained in the US for an average of about three months. All of them carrier qualified in US waters on US carriers and all this training was accomplished with USN instructors. The first FAA squadron destined for F4Us, 1830, arrived at NAS Quonset Point in June 1943. The rest began their training:
1831 in July 1943, NAS Quonset Point
1834 in July 1943 NAS Quonset Point
1833 in July 1943, NAS Quonset Point
1835 in August 1943, NAS Quonset Point
1836 in August 1943, NAS Quonset Point
1837 in September 1943, NAS Quonset Point
1838 in October 1943, NAS Brunswick
1841 in March 1944, NAS Brunswick
1842 in April 1944, NAS Brunswick
1843 in May 1944, NAS Brunswick
1845 in June 1944, NAS Brunswick
1846 in July 1944, NAS Brunswick
1848 in July 1944, NAS Brunswick
1850 in August 1944, NAS Brunswick
1849 in August 1944, NAS Brunswick
1851 in September 1944, NAS Brunswick
1852 in February 1945, NAS Brunswick
1853 in April 1945, NAS Brunswick

Check the FAA records. Most of what these squadrons were doing in the US is available on the internet, for example, see First Line Squadrons Menu. Most of these F4U RN developed landing practices and the usual follow-on, first to deploy on carriers, tales date from 1960s and 1970s published accounts which the internet, for all the bad things I can say about it, such as repeating these tales as dogma, now lets us see the data, which lets us put a stake in them.

One US naval aviator of my acquaintance, who after a couple of combat tours, carrier and land based, was director of VF training at ComFAirWest from Sept 1943 to Oct 1944, reported that the “crabbing” approach was the only way to land an F4U on a carrier and still keep the LSO in sight. Quoth: “It was the only way we knew how to do it and the only method that made sense. It was not something we felt needed comment.” He first flew the F4U-1 at San Diego on November 3, 1943, after returning from a tour in the Solomons in VF-11 flying F4Fs (his first F6F flight was at Espiritu Santo on 14 July 1943, in a plane borrowed from VF-33 as the squadrons crossed paths to and from the combat area, some ratting about with F4Us, his adversary was one Ken Walsh . . . another story for later). Upon return to the states he became director of fighter training at ComFAirWest where he was flying at least every other day, F6Fs, FMs, F4Us, even the occasional SBD, and sometimes three or four flights a day. Working from his pilot’s logbook, his first flight in an F4U-1A was on 31 January 1944. After a couple of FCLP flights in the preceding days, his first actual carrier landing in an F4U, a -1A, was on February 24, 1944 aboard the CVE USS Altamaha, this in prep for the March 1944 RATO experiments. He would always say that the way to land the F4U on a carrier was obvious to anyone with any experience (he earned his wings in November 1940 and was already an ace) and had an inkling as to what he was doing and what needed to be done. The shape of the plane, the position of, and view from the cockpit, the need to keep the LSO in sight led one naturally to use wide and side approach, straightening out only at the last few seconds.

Still another naval aviator of my acquaintance, one of the leaders in VF-12, an early USN F4U squadron (the members of which were outraged when they had to turn their F4Us over to the local CASU and draw F6Fs for the air group’s first deployment), told me pretty much the same thing, the technique was obvious and was what they taught their pilots.

Most of the film clips one finds of the VF-17, the first USN F4U squadron, initial carrier quals in birdcage type F4U-1s, focus on some rather spectacular barrier crashes, but, if you can find it, there is film that shows their landing approaches and they are using the crab approach. What people usually like to see in most of the available videos are the barrier crashes, which most like to attribute to the F4U purported poor landing characteristics but were actually the result of hook failures which, if you pay attention in the clips that show the approaches you can see the hook tips bouncing down the flight deck just prior to barrier crashes. Ignore the crashes and watch the approaches.

Been searching, but I can’t find the right one . . . I’ll bet, though, it can be found in one of the many F4U threads here.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Informative Informative:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 19, 2019)

Great stuff Rich! Nice to see you back!


----------



## CORSNING (Oct 20, 2019)

Well youall will have to decide if this counts or not. The I-30 (Yak-3 prototype) and the UTI-26 (Yak-7
prototype) first flew in 1941. Along with some Yak-9s they were reproduced from 1991 to 2002 in 
Russia with Allison engines. I believe that's considered longevity of design.


----------



## GrauGeist (Oct 20, 2019)

In regards to the Cessna not being a military plane, there was the O-2, the T-41 (unarmed) and who could forget Lt. Carpenter's bazooka armed Piper L-4?

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Dan Fahey (Oct 20, 2019)

FLYBOYJ said:


> "Prop fighter" - turboprop vs, recip. Needs to be delineated
> 
> The last* RECIP* fighter built was probably the Hispano Ha-1112 (correct designation) aside starting off as a license built Messerschmitt (correct spelling) Bf 109G-2 the last version of this aircraft, the HA-1112-M1L Buchón was very different from the the 109G-2. The HA-1112-M1L had a slow production run, I'm showing some sources stating the aircraft was still being built in 1959, 239 units built, first flown in 1954.
> 
> The Cavalier Mustangs retained their original data plates, that determines whether the aircraft is "new," the fact they were given new serial numbers is meaningless and was just a paperwork/ logistics exercise. New serial number allocation is also done due to DoD funding requirements and the military serial will reflect the year the contract signed for that lot of aircraft. All Cavalier airframes were either refurbished or modified from original P-51 airframes.



Yeah thought same thing but they rebuilt the entire airplane.
Every article makes same distinction that they were essentially new.
Not just warmed over and repainted.
How many ended up with the H-tail?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 20, 2019)

Dan Fahey said:


> Yeah thought same thing *but they rebuilt the entire airplane*.
> Every article makes same distinction that they were essentially new.
> Not just warmed over and repainted.
> How many ended up with the H-tail?


No Dan, they did not, they rebuild the entire airplane, depending on the airframe and Cavilier model, only certain components were rebuilt. There were a lot of surplus, used parts and components on those airframes to include the later ones. The term "rebuilt" or factory new can only be affixed by the original airframe manufacturer although the military loosely throws that term around. I'm not sure how many had H tails but I'm sure they were probably the ones made from 1967 on.


----------



## Dan Fahey (Oct 21, 2019)

FLYBOYJ said:


> No Dan, they did not, they rebuild the entire airplane, depending on the airframe and Cavilier model, only certain components were rebuilt. There were a lot of surplus, used parts and components on those airframes to include the later ones. The term "rebuilt" or factory new can only be affixed by the original airframe manufacturer although the military loosely throws that term around. I'm not sure how many had H tails but I'm sure they were probably the ones made from 1967 on.



Just curious the addition of the H-Tail.
Guessing it improved the handling for landing.
Any high speed benefit?


----------



## Dan Fahey (Oct 21, 2019)

CORSNING said:


> Well youall will have to decide if this counts or not. The I-30 (Yak-3 prototype) and the UTI-26 (Yak-7
> prototype) first flew in 1941. Along with some Yak-9s they were reproduced from 1991 to 2002 in
> Russia with Allison engines. I believe that's considered longevity of design.



Interesting the Allison was smaller in displacement and weight. 
How did they perform over the Kimlov Vk105 and Vk107?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 21, 2019)

Dan Fahey said:


> Just curious the addition of the H-Tail.
> Guessing it improved the handling for landing.
> Any high speed benefit?



The later ones I believe had 1800 HP engines so I'm sure the H tail helped with the additional HP and torque.


----------



## CORSNING (Oct 21, 2019)

Dan Fahey said:


> Interesting the Allison was smaller in displacement and weight.
> How did they perform over the Kimlov Vk105 and Vk107?


Yak-3M

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Dan Fahey (Oct 21, 2019)

FLYBOYJ said:


> The later ones I believe had 1800 HP engines so I'm sure the H tail helped with the additional HP and torque.


They got the more reliable Late model transport heads.
The improved engine performance must have been good..


----------



## jalistair (Oct 27, 2019)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Ok agree - but by your verbiage it sounded like you were addressing a variation of a production model (F4U vs F4U-5N)
> 
> Now the combat you speak about occurred during the Soccer War and the Honduran pilot who flew the F4U was a very good pilot. A former neighbor (who flew P-51s during WW2) trained him. At the end of the day, this still doesn't prove much.



Really? I bet you guys had some interesting conversations, did you talk about the Soccer War much? Agree with you that the dog fight doesn't prove much about the aircraft, more so about the pilots. My world was the AH-64D, had fellow pilots who had trained the Egyptians on the same bird and also know several Israelis. The interesting thing is that all three nations essentially fly the same aircraft other than some electronics. Yet the competency level isn't even close to the same. The Israeli pilots view the Egyptian aircraft as forward deployed reserves for the IAF while the American IP's would state that the inconstancy of the Egyptians renders the AH-64 all but useless. So... it is quite likely that Honduras had better pilots.


----------



## jalistair (Oct 27, 2019)

FLYBOYJ said:


> "Well I am American so when mentioning production runs Germany never crossed my mind and still doesn't. As for the DC-3, that is not a single engine plane. *The Cessna isn't a military plane. "*
> 
> *
> J
> ...



Fair enough.


----------



## jalistair (Oct 27, 2019)

Dan Fahey said:


> Know a good bit about this war especially how and why it got started.
> The Soccer games were only part of the issue and Refereed games as intense as these.
> 
> On the aircraft side...
> ...




Ah, South American politics....


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 27, 2019)

jalistair said:


> Really? I bet you guys had some interesting conversations, did you talk about the Soccer War much?


Always enjoyed talking to Mike. He trained Soto, said he excelled in gunnery. Mike was part of the post WW2 military assistance program where we sent US instructors to train Central and South American pilots. 

Michael Alba | American Air Museum in Britain

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Admiral Beez (Nov 4, 2019)

Did the British variant suffer due to its shorter wingspan?


----------

