# F4U Corsair vs. P-51 Mustang...IN KOREA



## Clay_Allison (Jan 11, 2010)

My question is simple, which one served better in the Korean war, and which would you rather have? My opinion is on the side of the Mustang with its greater range. Both planes had unfortunate oil cooler locations, but IMO you could get out of trouble faster with a Mustang, both from unexpected ground fire and sudden MiG attack.


----------



## renrich (Jan 11, 2010)

The Mustang was much more vulnerable to ground fire because of the liquid cooled engine. It could not operate from carriers which was a big advantage for the Corsair. The Corsair was a good dive bomber which made it more accurate in bombing. The Corsair could operate from shorter landing strips with bigger munition loads. Overall the Corsair was a more rugged aircraft.


----------



## Colin1 (Jan 11, 2010)

Clay_Allison said:


> ...IMO you could get out of trouble faster with a Mustang, both from unexpected ground fire and sudden MiG attack.


What is your basis for this?
USAF F-51s suffered excessively in Korea, the USMC F4Us on the other hand fared much better; the Army also spoke well of the USMC support and were critical of the often untimely intervention of the USAF.

Neither aircraft was ever going to fare well against the MiG-15, even with either aircraft going flat-out, the MiG would seem like a blur to them. Someone obviously had the sense to realise this and F-86s started to trickle in theatre where better training saw US forces maintain a very respectable combat record; if WWII hinted at the end of the line for the piston-engined fighter, Korea put it up in big, neon letters.


----------



## drgondog (Jan 11, 2010)

I would favor the F4U for Korea. 

My father flew the 51, then A26 in Korea and lost a lot of friends in the Mustang. He loved the airplane but had his share of misadventures with German and NK flak.

Objectively the F4U could carry a bigger load but operationally they both typically carried 2x1000 pounders or 5" HVA rockets or nape tanks as a tactical load out. 

I'm not sure the carrier capability was very important as the Mustangs were operating out of Kimpo, etc all around Seoul so range for either was not an issue and maybe land based nav aids and a much bigger airfield was an advantage for 51's in lousy weather.

The F4U was simply tougher in a high AAA environmet and another feature was that they also were somewhat successful in night fighter role (F-82 much better than F4U but we are talking P-51 here)


----------



## DAVIDICUS (Jan 11, 2010)

There is research that asserts the following: 

"*The Corsair, an air cooled radial engine aircraft, might have been expected to have a higher survivability than the Air Force's liquid cooled (and hence vulnerable) F-51 Mustang. In fact, insufficient oil cooler and engine protection rendered the Corsair just as susceptible as the Mustang to ground fire.*"

A Revolutionary War: Korea and the Transformation of the Postwar World, Page 138 (Research presented at the Fifteenth Military History Symposium, held at the United States Air force Academy, 14-16 October 1992)

You would need to pull the paper and examine the methodology and data to evaluate the claim. I suspect such a comparison would be a difficult undertaking in the absence of an apples to apples control of relevant variables. I myself would prefer to fight in a Corsair


----------



## JoeB (Jan 12, 2010)

DAVIDICUS said:


> There is research that asserts the following:
> 
> "*The Corsair, an air cooled radial engine aircraft, might have been expected to have a higher survivability than the Air Force's liquid cooled (and hence vulnerable) F-51 Mustang. In fact, insufficient oil cooler and engine protection rendered the Corsair just as susceptible as the Mustang to ground fire.*"
> 
> ...


AFAIK there really is no specific statistical research behind that statement. It really just means that the USN and USMC were disappointed with F4U AA vulnerability in Korea, and the AF was also disappointed with F-51 vulnerability. The USN/USMC didn't publish anything like our favorite 'Naval Aviation Combat Statisitics' for Korea, unfortunately . No Navy publication or record for Korea AFAIK adds up sorties flown and compares it to losses. My general impression from quotations of loss rates per sortie for sub-periods of the war is that F4U combat loss rates were in the same ballpark as F-51, which were .54% enemy action losses per combat sortie (341 enemy action losses in 62.607 combat sorties), perhaps lower, not a lot lower. Non scientific, and even if we had better stats, unlike the NASC F4U/F6F comparison, the stats wouldn't effectively control for differences in mission profile and tactics, which NASC stats essentially did control for, by quoting rates of a/c *hit* (similar between F4U and F6F) and downed (notably higher for F4U) by AA. In Korea there's no hope of compiling that kind of detail, AFAIK.

The absolute number of F4U's and F-51's lost was similar, 341 enemy action 474 total for F-51's, USN 145 F4U's to enemy action 267 total, Marines lost 164 to enemy action 206 total, not counting 16 AU-1's to enemy action and 21 total. 3 of those F4U's were lost to MiG's along with around 8* F-51's so that was a (n interesting but) statistically negligible aspect of losses. None of either were lost to enemy prop planes against several claims by the US props (it's possible some night disappearances of USMC F4U-5N's might have been to NK night fighters, whose operational details are not known, a couple of Marine F4U/F7F night intruders were jumped by night fighters now known not to have been Soviet or Chinese, in one case an F4U turned the tables and claimed a night kill v Yak-9). Note that the prop loss ballpark .5% per sortie to enemy action, was low by WWII standards; and moreover the focus in both USAF and USN/USMC tended to be high prop fighter losses compared to jet losses, even in ground strike missions. For example, the F-80's enemy action loss rate was only .15%, and Navy jets (and AD's) likewise suffered much less than F4U's. 

*per the USAF 1953 Statistical Digest, a not entirely reliable table of losses. An internet urban myth claims it greatly understates air combat losses. That's not true, there are errors but sometimes overstatements too. For example it gives two F-51 losses in air combat in the period before MiG-15's appeared, I identified both mistakes: an Australian Mustang loss included in 5th AF stats, which the USAF somehow thought was air combat but Aussie archives clearly say wasn't, and a typo between 'flak' and 'yak' in the another case, original mission report makes clear the a/c wasn't downed by a Yak). But, the numbers in the Stats Digest are fairly close to what detaile records say, where I've checked, but not always exactly.

Joe


----------



## drgondog (Jan 12, 2010)

Thanks Joe. Good data and food for thought.

PS Col (then major?) Don 'Barrel' Fenton USMC whacked a bed check charlie north of Seoul in an F4U5N


----------



## JoeB (Jan 12, 2010)

I'd also add that the F-51's range was relevant in Korea, but again mainly within the AF and v jets as opposed to in comparison to the F4U. Early in the Korean War, and again when the Chinese pushed the UN forces back below the 38th parallel, secure air bases in South Korea were few. The F-51 could operate from Japan with good loiter time over the front lines in Korea, F-80 with only minimal loiter time. And among bases in Korea, more coould accomodate the F-51. These were major reasons a number of Far East AF fighter units coverted back to F-51D's from F-80C's early in the war; alll the day fighter units in Far East AF were equipped with F-80C's at the start of the war. The F4U was also marginal operating from Japan over Korea, but of course could operate from carriers, not only USN sdns from CV's but Marine sdns from dedicated CVE's (of the relatively large Commencement Bay class of late WWII) and CVL's, either when secure bases were scarce as early in the war, or to extend their reach on interdiction missions in southwestern North Korea in the long static phase of the war later on, with the small carriers (plus RN/RAN carriers) operating on the west coast of Korea, while the big ones operated on the east coast.

But, comparing a carrier plane to a land based plane brings in bigger questions of having the carriers (the USN in 1950 had all kinds of ships relatively new and 'free' left over from WWII) and costs of constraints of operating them. Also, some of the good press Marine Corps air got early in the Korean War was just that, good press, and as far as the substance of it, it had to do with organizational issues between the new USAF and the Army, v the Marines building on the air close support doctrine they'd build late in WWII. It wasn't really about the type of airplane so much. Later on in Korea a lot of USMC air ops were under 5th AF control anyway, and doctrine for close air support and FAC was pretty well developed for supporting the Army as well. I view it as open question whether the F4U was much better than F-51 as land based close support/interdiction a/c (a lot of both types' missions were interdiction not close support) in Korea. By the standards and expectations of the time, and compared to the limited objectives of the war, both types were viewed as losing too many pilots. The loss of the obsolescent airframes themselves was less of an issue.

Joe


----------



## Zipper730 (Jul 27, 2016)

Looking at P-51D Mustang & F4U-4 and -5 Corsair

Maneuverability: The Corsair might have had a superior turn-rate. The Mustang's turning circle was actually less than the P-40 it replaced, with even the Me-109 turning inside it at low/moderate speed (though the P-51D could turn the tables on it at moderate to high airspeeds). I'm not sure who had the superior roll-rate, as the F4U's were known to have good rates of roll from the outset, but the P-51's ailerons were modified by the time the -D model entered service if not earlier.

Speed: The F4U-4 had about the same top-speed as the P-51D, and the F4U-5 was faster.

Climb & Dive: The P-51D's climb-rate if I recall was either similar to the F4U-4 or somewhere between the F4U-4/-5. I'm not sure who had superior zoom-climb performance. The maximum dive-speed for the Corsairs were around 0.73 if I recall, and I don't remember hearing anything to suggest they ever put dive recovery flaps on the design, and the P-51's could manage safe dive-speeds up to Mach 0.84. I would assume the Mustang would accelerate faster because of it's clean-lines.

Rated Altitude: I think the F4U-4/-5 were better at full-blower at Military & Normal-rated power with the P-51D superior at WEP.

Range: The P-51 clearly had an advantage, demonstrating an effective radius of action of at least 1000 miles. While, in theory it didn't matter, because the Corsair could operate from forward-deployed bases and aircraft-carriers, the fundamental fact was that the P-51 could indeed fly further.

Armament: Both aircraft used 6 x 0.50, so it'd come down to rounds per gun. The Corsairs could be fitted with cannon which does give it considerably more hitting power, though it was possible to configure a Mustang with cannon.

Ruggedness: The F4U-4 & F4U-5 seemed to be generally more rugged because of it's radial engine and it's carrier suitable requirements. The P-51's major vulnerability lied in it's belly-radiator, which took little to put it out of action, and while it could have been modified for carrier operations, doing so would have required structural enhancements that would have eliminated the center-tank (which gave it much of it's long-range capability), and it would have required a great degree of precision (even more than your typical carrier landing) as the plane could crack in half unless if the sink rate got a little high.

I don't know much about the P-51H, though in terms of speed and climb it was the grand-poobah of the three


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 27, 2016)

Zipper, you do realize that this thread has been inactive for more than 6 years?


----------



## gjs238 (Jul 28, 2016)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Zipper, you do realize that this thread has been inactive for more than 6 years?



This has been happening quite a bit lately.
I wonder if it is from the new site layout with "Similar Threads" listed below - some are quite old.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 28, 2016)

Maybe!


----------



## soulezoo (Jul 28, 2016)

I'd say absolutely! As a newcomer to the site, I'd like to say that I've been a post-little, read a lot sort. Those "similar threads" I find myself utilizing often. However, as many are quite old, I glean the info and carry on without further input.

That said, any "necro-posting" that adds useful and pertinent info I find helpful to the overall benefit of the site.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Zipper730 (Jul 28, 2016)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Zipper, you do realize that this thread has been inactive for more than 6 years?


Actually, no: I just was reading through the P-51 vs Mosquito thread, then saw this under "Similar Threads".


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 28, 2016)

Just don't want you to post and then "hear crickets."

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## gjs238 (Jul 28, 2016)

Zipper730 said:


> Actually, no: I just was reading through the P-51 vs Mosquito thread, then saw this under "Similar Threads".


----------



## Dan Fahey (Jan 31, 2018)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Zipper, you do realize that this thread has been inactive for more than 6 years?


zipper did not read JoeB information. 
Trying to sell the Corsair was a better plane than Mustang.


----------



## Shortround6 (Feb 1, 2018)

Trouble is there were two Mustangs and two Corsairs. 

The F4U-5 may have been better than a P-51D. It might not have been, but an F4U-5 is not a _slightly_ modified F4U-4 anymore than a P-51H is a _slightly_ modified P-51D.
ANd there weren't enough F4U-5s built to really get a good handle on them.


----------



## tomo pauk (Feb 1, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> ...
> The F4U-5 may have been better than a P-51D. It might not have been, but an F4U-5 is not a _slightly_ modified F4U-4 anymore than a P-51H is a _slightly_ modified P-51D.
> ANd there weren't enough F4U-5s built to really get a good handle on them.



Disegarding the powerplant for the moment:
F4U-5 shared fuselage (from fuel tank back), wings, canopy, tail, fuel tanks and undercarriage with F4U-4. Contrary to that, the P-51H was a brand new aircraft vs. P-51D - new wings, fuselage, tail, cooling system, canopy, U/C, fuel system.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Feb 1, 2018)

F4U-5 had an all metal wing instead of part fabric covered. In fact

"
Other features included automatic controls for the supercharger, cowl flaps, intercooler doors, and oil cooler doors. The combat power system was automatic. Pilot comfort was emphasized to a high degree in a completely modernized cockpit.

A redesigned cowl had air inlets at 4 o’clock and 8 o’clock. The entire outer-wing panels, for the first time on any Corsair, were metal covered. A substantial reduction in drag resulted.

Spring tabs for use on the elevator and rudder controls reduced pilot effort as much as 40 percent. Guns and pitot tubes were electrically heated. The nose was dropped about 2 degrees to improve longitudinal stability and vision."

Perhaps you could turn an F4U-4 into an F4U-5 if you had enough parts but there was a lot more going on that just forward of the fuel tank.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Feb 1, 2018)

That was my point - yes, one might turn the F4U-4 into -5, since the internals were left very much the same. Kinda turning of the P-51B into D, or Spit VIII into XIV. Not applicable with the P-51D trying to became P-51H.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 2, 2018)

Dan Fahey said:


> zipper did not read JoeB information.
> Trying to sell the Corsair was a better plane than Mustang.


Brilliant! Now care to make sense of this and tell us why?


----------



## Dan Fahey (Feb 3, 2018)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Brilliant! Now care to make sense of this and tell us why?


Could not be more clear!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 3, 2018)

Dan Fahey said:


> Could not be more clear!


"zipper did not read JoeB information.
Trying to sell the Corsair was a better plane than Mustang."
Clear? Clear as mud!


----------



## Dan Fahey (Feb 25, 2018)

tomo pauk said:


> That was my point - yes, one might turn the F4U-4 into -5, since the internals were left very much the same. Kinda turning of the P-51B into D, or Spit VIII into XIV. Not applicable with the P-51D trying to became P-51H.



The -5 Corsairs were dropped by Navy because they used more electrical relays which got corroded at sea! Reverted back to -4

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Conslaw (Mar 6, 2018)

The -5's were needed as night-fighters. Most deployed were F4U-5N.


----------

