# F4U vs. P-51 essay



## magnocain (Feb 26, 2008)

This is an essay that I wrote in school for "persuasive writing". If you can please give me some true but still slanted facts on this topic (with an explanation if possible). Also please remember that only five people knew that I was talking about planes (one knew it was about WW2 planes). Remember I wrote for a simple audience.

(gulp) here it is...

Corsair vs. Mustang


The F4U Corsair is a better airplane than the P-51 Mustang. This may seem like an odd topic to choose, but it is important to me. Even though the F4U was better, the Mustang is liked better because of its glamorous role in World War Two. The Corsair had better performance than the P-51. The Corsair had more roles than the Mustang. The Corsair could take off from a carrier, unlike the Mustang. The Mustang had the highly glamorous and romanticized duty of escorting the mighty B-17’s of the 8th Air force over Nazi Germany. It can be compared to the knights of Rohan charging down the hill into battle with the Urik-kai army, rescuing the heroes and saving the day. The Corsair, however, was more suited for the less important role of fighting Imperial Japan in the pacific. That can be compared to walking through a Georgian swamp to find crawdads for supper.
The Corsair had better performance than the Mustang. The Corsair could go 450 miles per hour to the Mustang’s 430. The Corsair could carry 4000 pounds of bombs to 2000. For every Corsair lost in combat, 11 enemy planes were destroyed, for an 11:1 combat ratio. The mustang only had a 6:1 combat ratio.
One of the simplest reasons for the common misconception of the Mustang’s superiority, however, is that, well, the Mustang is prettier. 
That is a simple explanation for the superiority of the F4U over the P-51. Even though the mustang was more highly regarded, the corsair performed better, and could do more things.

Thank you for your time.


----------



## wilbur1 (Feb 26, 2008)

Not bad straight to the point but you didnt mention that it could out manouver a stang


----------



## wilbur1 (Feb 26, 2008)

spelled that wrong sorry


----------



## magnocain (Feb 26, 2008)

tymv


----------



## wilbur1 (Feb 26, 2008)

I dont know what that means sorry


----------



## magnocain (Feb 26, 2008)

woops...it is tyvm
thank you very much


----------



## wilbur1 (Feb 26, 2008)

Oh ok your very welcome


----------



## slaterat (Feb 26, 2008)

The essay is a little choppy, what age group are you writing for? The last sentence of each paregraph should be the topic sentence or a conclusion of that paragraph. Heres how I would reorganize your essay.

intro 
-The general perceptions of the 2 planes
- your comparisn of the euro/Jap theatres
-most believe the P51 is better
- this is wrong the F4U is better

2nd paragraph
compare performance of the two planes
F4U -has better performance
-more versatile
- better k/d ratio

3rd paragraph
close with the same paragragh in your first edit


Most of what you wrote is pretty good, just reorganize it abit to make your point stronger.


Slaterat


----------



## magnocain (Feb 26, 2008)

thank you for the advice


----------



## slaterat (Feb 26, 2008)

np hope it helps.

Slaterat


----------



## Screaming Eagle (Feb 27, 2008)

what mark did you end up getting magnocain?


----------



## syscom3 (Feb 27, 2008)

I wonder what the loss rate for the Corsair would be if it had to fight the far more deadly and dangerous pilots and aircraft of the LW?


----------



## drgondog (Feb 27, 2008)

syscom3 said:


> I wonder what the loss rate for the Corsair would be if it had to fight the far more deadly and dangerous pilots and aircfta of the LW?



Always a great question
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/marshall/SUMMARY_OF_COMBAT_OPERATIONS.pdf

Not claiming this is infallable but it is well researched and the research/findings boundary conditions for conlusions are pretty clear.

At least there is context for ratio's.

Having said this, your points are dead on Syscom. How do you compare when mission, role, threat and application are completely different - and against different equipped adversaries?

I would probably select a Corsair -4 or -5 against the Mustang if the choice was one, and one only against say the 51H if I could only have one fighter for all theatres and missions - but no way was the Corsair a clear 'out perform' versus 51H in all the relevant comparisons... for a similar point in development.. ditto F4U-1 versus P-51B.


----------



## Thorlifter (Feb 27, 2008)

I agree that you hit some of the top points, but your sentence structure is choppy. Seems like they are not complete sentences.

When you say for school, I'm guessing it's for high school? I think you could make it flow a bit better.


----------



## magnocain (Feb 27, 2008)

Thanks guys.


> When you say for school, I'm guessing it's for high school? I think you could make it flow a bit better.


Yes, high school. I had a more complex essay but I simplified it down.


> what mark did you end up getting magnocain?


A B- I think...


----------



## comiso90 (Feb 27, 2008)

syscom3 said:


> I wonder what the loss rate for the Corsair would be if it had to fight the far more deadly and dangerous pilots and aircraft of the LW?



I've often wondered the same thing. The pilots would adopt strategies and tactics that help out the F4U. I'm sure the corsair would account well for itself.

Certainly, it wouldn't fair any worse then the P-47 which carved a very important niche.

.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Feb 27, 2008)

The P-51 could operate from a carrier:

A P-51H (44-64420) was borrowed by the US Navy In August of 1945 for trials to determine the type's suitability as a carrier-based fighter. The earlier P-51D had been deemed to be unsuitable because of the lack of adequate rudder control at low speeds, especially at high angles of attack. The tests proved that the P-51H did indeed provide adeuqte rudder control, but since the war was already over, the possibility of a carrier-based P-51H was not considered any further. A second P-51H 44-64192 was acquired by the Navy in 1948 for tests of various aerofoil shapes at transonic speeds at the Grumman Aircraft Corporation. While in Navy service, the plane became BuNo 09064. After the tests were over in 1952, the plane was transferred to the Air National Guard.


The P-47 could take more damage (the Corsair had voulnerable oil coolers and wooden/fabric areas on most models) and had a higher critical dive speed and aerodynamicly cleaner design. The P-47 had all metal control surfaces with "blunt nosed" ailerons which gave excelent high speed control performance. (critical Mach of >.82) It had a heavier armament and ammo load. The P-47 had better visibillity over its shorter nose and better overall visibillity with a bubbletop canopy at a slight expense to piot protection. (about equal with a malcolm hood)

The F4U could carry 2000 lbs more bombs and had better climb at most altitudes. The F4U could out-turn both the P-51 and P-47 with it's thick high-lift wing. The P-47 could disengage at will in a dive-- except below 10,000 ft. (when there wasn't enough altitude)


I perfer both craft to the P-51 due to durrabillity and overall versitility and both could range about as far as the P-51D (2000+ miles maximum) with max external fuel -albeit they needed ~50% more than the Mustang- the P-47D-25 could carry a maximum fuel load of 780 US gallons (with 2x 150 gal and 1x 110 gal droptank) for a range of 2,100 miles with a 10.2 hour endurance. (206 mph and an escort radius of ~900 miles with ~30 min of combat)

See: http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/p-47-tactical-chart.jpg for the P-47's range

I don't have figures for the F4U's maximum range.

Also here's another essay on the F4U: Chance Vought F4U-4 Corsair


----------



## syscom3 (Feb 28, 2008)

Didnt the Corsair have its best performance figures below 25,000 ft while the P47 and P51 have its best performance above that altitude?


----------



## Thorlifter (Feb 28, 2008)

I believe that's correct Sys.

So, you got a B. That's ok. I think we can all live with that.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Feb 28, 2008)

The P-51D had best (speed) performance at ~25,000 ft iirc as well and the P-47C and early D wich had a lower rev limit on their turbos (~18,000 rpm).

It should also be noted that the P-47's wing pylons cut 15 mph off the top speed (though early pylons cut up to 45 mph!!! though these weren't introduced on production models) but the added load and range these provided was well worth it. The P-51's wing racks cut only ~10 mph off top speed)

One other disadvantage of the P-51 was that it looked much more like LW fighters than any other US or RAF fighter.


It should also be noted that the P-47D's engine (both 2800-63 and 59 being virtualy identical) were cleared for 2,600 hp with 70" Hg (2,535 at 65" max climb) WEP at 2,700 rpm with 100/150 grade fuel and water-injection, Bringing top speed up to 444 mph at 23,500 ft (critical altitude for 70" boost) and a max climb of 3280 ft/min at 10,000 ft with 65" at 13,230 lbs. Up from 3100 ft/min with 56" giving 2,300 hp.

SEE http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/150grade/p-47-66inch.jpg

and P-47 Performance Tests


----------



## renrich (Mar 1, 2008)

Comparing the P51 versus the F4U is great fun. I have participated in that exercise many times. Both were premier AC in WW2. The P51 has had the best PR agent, whoever that is, because according to popular thinking it was the best fighter in WW2. However comparing the Corsair to the Mustang is kind of like comparing the Morgan horse to a Thoroughbred. Depends on what you are needing it for. If you are going on a race track with a jockey you want a Thoroughbred, if you are going harness racing you want a Morgan. If you want a fighter bomber you want a Corsair, if you want an escort fighter, you want a Mustang. They are both somewhat interchangeable but they both have their strong points. On balance if only one fighter could have been produced in WW2 by the US, it would have to be the Corsair because of it's carrier capability. To have made the Mustang truly carrier capable much of it's performance would have been lost. On top of that the Navy would have turned it down because of the liquid cooled engine.


----------



## davparlr (Mar 1, 2008)

renrich said:


> Comparing the P51 versus the F4U is great fun. I have participated in that exercise many times. Both were premier AC in WW2. The P51 has had the best PR agent, whoever that is, because according to popular thinking it was the best fighter in WW2. However comparing the Corsair to the Mustang is kind of like comparing the Morgan horse to a Thoroughbred. Depends on what you are needing it for. If you are going on a race track with a jockey you want a Thoroughbred, if you are going harness racing you want a Morgan. If you want a fighter bomber you want a Corsair, if you want an escort fighter, you want a Mustang. They are both somewhat interchangeable but they both have their strong points. On balance if only one fighter could have been produced in WW2 by the US, it would have to be the Corsair because of it's carrier capability. To have made the Mustang truly carrier capable much of it's performance would have been lost. On top of that the Navy would have turned it down because of the liquid cooled engine.



Very astute observation. I agree completely.


----------



## Sgt. Pappy (Mar 2, 2008)

in terms of how the F4U would perform in the ETO and MTO, I think it would have performed somewhat like the P-38/47 did in terms of success.

In the PTO, the F4U and P-38 were the top notch aircraft of their respective Corps but in the ETO, the P-38 sorta died... flew improperly. It was maneuvered more with impulse than technique. In the MTO, its unparalleled zoom, dive and acceleration were used to a good extent to fight. In the MTO during escort missions, especially early on, the P-38F, G, and to some extent the H variants really did not compare well to the quick climbing/accelerating German aircraft. 

In the PTO, the P-38 had all the speed, climb and high altitude performance. The F4U, being used mostly as a BnZ role in the PTO, would not have been able to fight the 109's (particularly the 109's) while the other extremely fast hot rod aircraft like the P-51 or well turning planes like the Spitfire could fight the 109's more easily. If anything, the Corsair would have been similar in fighting performance to the P-47. Neither of the planes had the best climb/acceleration in the world, but the P-47 dove well and was tough as tungsten nails. The Corsair, was more maneuverable than the P-51 or P-47 and though couldn't turn as fast as the P-38, could turn much tighter. 

The F4U was tricky to fly and stalled nastily while the P-38 had very difficult systems to manage. But being similar in performance to the P-47, yet arguably harder to fly, I've come to conclude that an F4U would perform like a P-38/47, though it would likely be sent for Hurricane-like ground attack missions, with the ability, to some extent, perform Spitfire-esque defense missions since its high-altitude performance does not parallel that of either the turbo-charged P-38/47.


----------



## renrich (Mar 2, 2008)

One of the problems with comparing different AC, especially the premier fighters, P51, P47, P38, F4U, F6F, Fw 190 and BF109(maybe a few others) is that the airplanes evolved during the war and the different models were optimized for various missions. P47B and C were range limited, P47N had good range. P51B had good performance, problematical armament, poor visibility. The P51D had slightly less performance but much better in the other factors. Early F4U1s had poor visibility, carrier landing problems, nasty stall characteristics, etc. Later F4Us largely solved all those problems. Additionally, AC were tailored for specific types of missions. FW190s early on had good performance down low, not so good up high. A BF109 with two mgs and one cannon was an agile dogfighter. A BF109 with gondolas and many cannon was good against bombers, not so good in a dogfight. F4U1D was optimized for the fighter bomber role. F4U4 could still do the fighter bomber deal but was really fitted for knocking down kamikazes high and low. The Navy fighters were not optimized for high altitude performance because the ships they were protecting were literally at sea level and high altitude bombers were not much of a threat. It was no accident that the fastest premier US fighter at sea level in WW2 was probably the F4U4. The point here is that to say this AC or that airplane was superior to another needs to be qualified by defining the mission the airplane is meant to carry out. A 1945 version P47N with its wings full of fuel and a full ammo load might be uncomfortable low and slow against an old A6M5. One misconception I believe is that Navy fighters could not fight at high altitudes. They weren't optimised for that but a Corsair( it was not a F4U4 because it had a 3 blade prop) caught a Dinah recon plane over Okinawa at 38000 ft and because his guns were frozen made several runs and chewed off the Dinah's tail with his prop. That shows that it could fight at high altitudes and it had enough performance to catch up more than once.


----------



## syscom3 (Mar 2, 2008)

"..It was maneuvered more with impulse than technique....."

"...while the P-38 had very difficult systems to manage....."

What did that mean?


----------



## drgondog (Mar 2, 2008)

Sgt. Pappy said:


> in terms of how the F4U would perform in the ETO and MTO, I think it would have performed somewhat like the P-38/47 did in terms of success.
> 
> *As it was in general, more agile than both and had a greater range than the contemporary models of the P47C and D - it probably would have done very well indeed*
> 
> ...



At the altitudes of interest, namely 30,000 feet and below where top cover for escorted bombers was conducted, the F4U performed very well in comparison to all of the prime ETO fighters. The F4U-4 was slower at 30,000 feet than the P-51B/D and P-47D but at the end of the day, would have outperformed both the Fw 190A and Me 109G's in the same areas a Mustang did. 

The Me 109G would have climbed better in a tight climbing turn and the Fw 190 would have outrolled it below 350 mph (or thereabouts). I suspect the F4U-4 would have been a slightly better dogfighter than the Mustang below 15,000 feet and better than all the P-47D's


----------



## fjray (Mar 2, 2008)

Good job with the essay!

I’ll throw out something on comparisons. Flying an aircraft vs fighting with it. An aircraft may be great to fly but how is it to fight with? For an example the Mustang by all accounts was a joy to fly. However with a full bag of gas in the internal tank it was more difficult to handle in a dogfight. 

Of course I’m still partial to the Hellcat 8)


----------



## magnocain (Mar 2, 2008)

Thanks guys!

I also wanted to cause some controversy and alternate opinions, as I am the most informed person I have met.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Mar 3, 2008)

The P-47D was longer ranged than many realize, The P-47D-25 (65 gal increased internal capacity over earlier models) could manage 2,100 mi with 780 US gallons at 206 mph. (this was with 2x 150 gal wing tanks and a 110 gal belly tank) 

But with the P-47C and many early D models, wing pylons and plumbing were not fitted and the max external fuel load was with a 200 gal conformal laminated paper drop tank on the belly. (which was not used once wing tanks were available since it was unpressurized and dangerous to land with, though a 200 gal steel belly tank was used late in the war and the Pacific P-47s had custom made "big and ugly" 200 gal wing tanks) With the 200 gal tank plus the 305 gal internal the P-47 could manage but 1,400 mi, similar to the P-40 with drop tank of the same time.

Pacific P-47's also used 165 gal P-38 tanks as wing tanks. (note belly tank capasity was limited due to clearance not weight issues, hence why large flat tubs were used for high capacities -otherwise a 75 or 110 gal tank is all it could hold)

see: http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/p-47-tactical-chart.jpg

However, I don't have figures for the F4U.


----------



## syscom3 (Mar 3, 2008)

magnocain said:


> I also wanted to cause some controversy and alternate opinions, as I am the most informed person I have met.


----------



## renrich (Mar 4, 2008)

KK those ranges you quote for the P47 are, I believe, "yardstick" ranges, not really practical ranges. My reference says the late model Ds with a max of 780 gals could get about 1800 miles. However, that is based on a 10000 foot cruise altitude, zero wind, no fuel reserve, no takeoff,, no climbout or descent and of course no combat. A practical range would be more like 70% of the "yardstick" range. A P47D combat radius with 670 gal. of fuel would be about 670 miles. The mission profile would be: 5 min fuel for warmup and takeoff: climb to 25000 feet(distance not included)cruise at 25000 feet; drop tanks; 5 min @ combat power; 15 min at military power; cruise back at 25000 feet; fuel reserves 30 min at minimum cruise power. The early F4U1s with internal fuel of 361 gallons could get a "yardstick" range of slightly more than 1500 miles. A contemporary P47C or early D with 305 gallons internal fuel could get around 835 miles "Yardstick"


----------



## Sgt. Pappy (Mar 5, 2008)

syscom3 said:


> "..It was maneuvered more with impulse than technique....."
> 
> "...while the P-38 had very difficult systems to manage....."
> 
> What did that mean?



It means that the P-38 wasn't as skillfully flown in the ETO overall as the P-38 Training programs were better for those in the PTO, for example. 

The early P-38's which did much of the initial escort work, did not have the best engine management systems. Flying on cruise settings and suddenly throttling up while still at a coarse prop pitch would likely result in engine fire.Before the advent of the P-38H, come cooling instruments were not automatic and pilots were given a larger workload and before the advent of the P-38J, cooling the engines and flying at maximum performance could nto be afforded in the same sentence.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Mar 5, 2008)

But under those same conditions (and the same trial sheets) the P-38J had a maximum range of ~2,260 mi (with 300 gal drop-tanks) while the P-51D had 1,800 mi (with 75 gal drop tanks, although another 800 mi could be achieved with 2x 150 gal drops in the P-51B but those were not listed for the D model) And the P-47's range didn't decrease with altitude, endurance did though. (higher cruising speed) In both the P-47 and P-38 range at max cruise power increased slightly with altitude, but with the P-51 it decreased. (probably a result of turbocharging vs supercharging) 

See: http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/p-51-tactical-chart.jpg
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-38/p-38-tactical-chart.jpg
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/p-47-tactical-chart.jpg


----------



## drgondog (Mar 5, 2008)

kool kitty89 said:


> But under those same conditions (and the same trial sheets) the P-38J had a maximum range of ~2,260 mi (with 300 gal drop-tanks) while the P-51D had 1,800 mi (with 75 gal drop tanks, although another 800 mi could be achieved with 2x 150 gal drops in the P-51B but those were not listed for the D model) And the P-47's range didn't decrease with altitude, endurance did though. (higher cruising speed) In both the P-47 and P-38 range at max cruise power increased slightly with altitude, but with the P-51 it decreased. (probably a result of turbocharging vs supercharging)
> 
> See: http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/p-51-tactical-chart.jpg
> http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-38/p-38-tactical-chart.jpg
> http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/p-47-tactical-chart.jpg




The Ferry range for the B/C/D was essentially the same with two 110 gallon tanks = 2120 miles. The ferry range for the P-51H was 2230miles and max ferry range for the H was 2900 miles with two 165 gallon tanks

From Gruenhagen's Mustang" book. I haven't seen better sources yet

As to cruise altitude, speed, rpm and boost- all aircraft, in general and even with the exact same engine and weights, had a different cruise altitude for max range - and all suffered on either side of that altitude, boost settings RPM, etc. 

If the aerodynamics were the same for lift and drag then they would be close to each other.

KK - what do you have for P-38L settings for maximum Ferry range? I haven't seen them


----------



## syscom3 (Mar 5, 2008)

Sgt. Pappy said:


> It means that the P-38 wasn't as skillfully flown in the ETO overall as the P-38 Training programs were better for those in the PTO, for example.
> 
> The early P-38's which did much of the initial escort work, did not have the best engine management systems. Flying on cruise settings and suddenly throttling up while still at a coarse prop pitch would likely result in engine fire.Before the advent of the P-38H, come cooling instruments were not automatic and pilots were given a larger workload and before the advent of the P-38J, cooling the engines and flying at maximum performance could nto be afforded in the same sentence.



The P38's escorting the B17's were restricted to close escort duties, which hamstrung the pilots ability to hunt down and kill the LW. 

The P38 engine issues in western Europe has been discussed numerous times.


----------



## drgondog (Mar 5, 2008)

syscom3 said:


> The P38's escorting the B17's were restricted to close escort duties, which hamstrung the pilots ability to hunt down and kill the LW.
> 
> The P38 engine issues in western Europe has been discussed numerous times.



Syscom - strictly speaking, All 8th FC escorts were flying close escort until Doolitle turned the dogs loose on or about 11 January, 1944... after that point several fighter groups, notably the 356th and 78th didn't noticably change their 'stick close' escort tactics until later. On the other extreme, the 4th took it to heart.

From the microfilm histories it seemed the 2oth and 55th were in the middle on 'aggressive pursuit'. 

I think the bigger factor on the low air to air performance for the P-38 groups in ETO is that they were easy for LW fighters to spot - and therefore avoid.

Then you fast forward to Zemke taking over the 479th and see an amazing transformation of ratios. OTH the attrition on LW 'old hands' had was serioue by August so even then it's hard to compare results against Jan-April 1944.


----------



## syscom3 (Mar 5, 2008)

drgondog said:


> Syscom - strictly speaking, All 8th FC escorts were flying close escort until Doolitle turned the dogs loose on or about 11 January, 1944... after that point several fighter groups, notably the 356th and 78th didn't noticably change their 'stick close' escort tactics until later. On the other extreme, the 4th took it to heart.



Many squadrons were told to stick close to the bombers because of its easy to recognize shape.


----------



## drgondog (Mar 5, 2008)

syscom3 said:


> Many squadrons were told to stick close to the bombers because of its easy to recognize shape.



True for all 8th FC fighters before the "seek out the Luftwaffe on the air and the ground" directive from Doolittle.

Actually it was SOP to stay out of range of the bombers as they had an inclination to shoot at anything with less than 4 engines.

More important to the P-38 ability to engage LW is that a.) they were so large it was easy to spot them before being spotted, and b.) given their detection the LW, which was issued orders 'to avoid the fighters', then looked for easier pickings.


----------



## Sgt. Pappy (Mar 5, 2008)

syscom3 said:


> The P38's escorting the B17's were restricted to close escort duties, which hamstrung the pilots ability to hunt down and kill the LW.
> 
> The P38 engine issues in western Europe has been discussed numerous times.




I'm sure these and the factors I mentioned all came up to hinder the P-38's performance in the ETO. This is unfortunate because the P-38 was a wonderful plane...
and it wasn't the only plane to initially fail in a Theater. Little do people know about the Spitfire's sub-par performance with the RAAF in the PTO. Huge amounts of mechanical problems, poor air-air strategies and lack of spare parts spelled near-doom for the RAAF during the first half of 1943. The Japanese eventually retreated from attacks on Australia due to the US forces attacking Guadalcanal. The RAAF only received a superlative Spitfire VIII when the Japanese raids had ceased. 

The P-38L in Europe entered service when the P-51's gun jamming bugs had been solved and after the cheaper P-51D had been built in large enough numbers. By this time, as mentioned, new escort tactics were adopted and the situation improved from there.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Mar 6, 2008)

I've seen ~3,300 mi for the P-38L's ferry range but no sourse. I also don't have figures for the F4U. Acording to those tables the P-51B with increased internal tankage (added tank behind pilot) could manage 2,600 mi ferry with 2x 150 gal drop tanks.

From what I've seen the P-47 a similar range is possible to the P-51 in most cases, but the P-47 needs ~50% more fuel to do so.

Without wing tanks the P-47 (B/C/earlyD all had same internal capacity and no wing pilons standard) could manage a maximum of 1,400 mi with the 200 gal paper ferry tank. This tank was not used once wing pylons wae fitted as it provided little clearance, was unpressurized, and was too fragile to land with.

From what I've read the droppable tanks that could be used on the P-47 were, in US gallons:
The 200 gal conformal paper belly tank used as an intrim measure in 1943, the 75 gall steel teardrop tank used on belly and wings, the 110 gal paper tank used on belly or wings, 150 gal tanks used on wings only, 165 gal P-38 tanks used in the Pacific as wing tanks, 200 gal steel wing tanks developed and used in the pacific, a 215 gal flat tub-shaped steel belly tank used in early 1945.

315 gal wing tanks were used on the P-47N iirc.

The main limiting factor for belly tanks was ground clearance so large capacities were possible only if the tanks were realitively flat. Otherwise the largest capacity was the 110 gal British paper tank. (as the 200 gal paper tank abandoned early on)


----------



## drgondog (Mar 6, 2008)

KK - those numbers resonate with my own recollections. I have not yet seen what I consider hard evidence 

Also the P-51H with 160 gallon tanks (I recall 150-155 actual gallons) had the longest ferry range of 2,800 miles for all the Mustang series other than the P-82


----------



## syscom3 (Mar 6, 2008)

Kool Kitty, the 5th AF P38's often flew 3000 mile missions (1500 RT).

The longest fighter mission of the war was from the PI against Singapore, nearly 1600 miles one way.

Without ammo, and no fuel allowances for combat power, the P38L's could have reached 3300 miles with no problem at all.


----------



## drgondog (Mar 6, 2008)

syscom3 said:


> Kool Kitty, the 5th AF P38's often flew 3000 mile missions (1500 RT).
> 
> The longest fighter mission of the war was from the PI against Singapore, nearly 1600 miles one way.
> 
> Without ammo, and no fuel allowances for combat power, the P38L's could have reached 3300 miles with no problem at all.



Sounds like 3300 would have been easy for ferry based on a combat mission of 3200


----------



## syscom3 (Mar 6, 2008)

drgondog said:


> Sounds like 3300 would have been easy for ferry based on a combat mission of 3200



At one of the Chino airshows, I asked a former 475th FG pilot what it was like to fly those long range missions.

His response is unprintable!!!

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## renrich (Mar 7, 2008)

In college, I had a fellow geology major who was a former Marine pilot. This was in the 1956-58 time frame and he related stories about flying 8 hour low altitude practise missions with a simulated nuke in an AD. That had to be exhausting.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## drgondog (Mar 7, 2008)

renrich said:


> In college, I had a fellow geology major who was a former Marine pilot. This was in the 1956-58 time frame and he related stories about flying 8 hour low altitude practise missions with a simulated nuke in an AD. That had to be exhausting.



My father's log time for the Frantic VII mission over Warsaw to Piryatin was right at 8 hours - and that was with a scrap nw of Warsaw. I can't even comprehend a 3200+ mile flight/12 hr+ (I have no idea what the flight profile is for a P-38 to get that range) in a single seat airplane, in formation!

I made some long rides in an A-36 (Bonanza) from Dallas to Raliegh/Durham in a comfortable seat with auto pilot, etc - and I hated it.

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


----------



## renrich (Mar 7, 2008)

Bill, I have always wondered about how much physical and mental stamina it took for the pilots of those long legged Mustangs to fly those escort missions. Just to think of sitting in that cockpit with the noise and vibration, maybe too hot or maybe too cold, on oxygen, constantly checking everything, navigating, by yourself, maybe radio silence, over enemy territory, combat, maybe damage, watching fuel, weather, imagination running wild. My hat is off to those young men.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## syscom3 (Mar 7, 2008)

The P51 and P47N pilots of the 7th AF that went on the escort missions with the B29's had a tour of only 20 or so missions before being relieved, due to the physical and mental stress.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## drgondog (Mar 7, 2008)

renrich said:


> Bill, I have always wondered about how much physical and mental stamina it took for the pilots of those long legged Mustangs to fly those escort missions. Just to think of sitting in that cockpit with the noise and vibration, maybe too hot or maybe too cold, on oxygen, constantly checking everything, navigating, by yourself, maybe radio silence, over enemy territory, combat, maybe damage, watching fuel, weather, imagination running wild. My hat is off to those young men.



Think about the ETO P-38J pilots in the winter missions as perhaps the worst conditions for a US fighter pilot. Even Alaska should not be worse as all the missions were middle to low altitudes.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## kool kitty89 (Mar 7, 2008)

And the combat missions in the P-38 exceeding 1,500 mi radius could be over 12 hours! But at least in the pacific you wouldn't have to deal with cold and if it was too hot you could cruise at a higher altitude...

The P-47 would be on the opposite side for comfort, often being called an "arm chair fighter" the cockpit was comfortable, the seat was padded, and it was well heated and even had air conditioning iirc. 

Besides the info from: WWII Aircraft Performance

There was some here: P-47 Thunderbolt: Aviation Darwinism - The Cradle of Aviation Museum - The Cradle of Aviation Museum


----------



## drgondog (Mar 7, 2008)

kool kitty89 said:


> And the combat missions in the P-38 exceeding 1,500 mi radius could be over 12 hours! But at least in the pacific you wouldn't have to deal with cold and if it was too hot you could cruise at a higher altitude...
> 
> *I suspect that 90% of the mission is at one altitude, boost and rpm until they get to a R/V to pick up the bombers, then move to bomber altitude and adjust cruise settings for maximum endurance rather than maximum range - use less fuel, still faster than bombers.
> 
> ...



Best Cruise settings have two dimensions and usually two separate altitudes.. one for max range as defined loosely speaking as 'miles per gallon' and max endurance 'time per gallon' - the latter is usually at a significantly lower speed for the 38/51 and 47/


----------



## renrich (Mar 7, 2008)

I believe the factor that made these AD missions as arduous as they were that they were very low, below the radar, always the risk of hitting something and of course sometimes very bumpy.


----------



## ghilt (Mar 8, 2008)

It was a proven fact that the Corsiar was superior to the Mustang..Looking back to the 70's during the Soccor Wars in South America...Not sure of the level of pilot training though...


----------



## syscom3 (Mar 8, 2008)

ghilt said:


> It was a proven fact that the Corsiar was superior to the Mustang..Looking back to the 70's during the Soccor Wars in South America...Not sure of the level of pilot training though...



The Mustang was superior to the Corsair at high altitudes.


----------



## JoeB (Mar 8, 2008)

syscom3 said:


> Kool Kitty, the 5th AF P38's often flew 3000 mile missions (1500 RT).
> 
> The longest fighter mission of the war was from the PI against Singapore, nearly 1600 miles one way.
> 
> Without ammo, and no fuel allowances for combat power, the P38L's could have reached 3300 miles with no problem at all.


The actual *unrefueled* distance of that Singapore mission though was around 830 statute miles one way, from Labuan Island off Borneo, by then (August '45) in Australian hands, to Singapore. The a/c were based in the Philippines but staged through that forward base. The late '44 P-38 missions escorting B-24's from Morotai in NEI against oil facilities at Balikpapan in Borneo were around the same one way distance, P-38 missions from Middleburg Island in NEI to Makassar on Celebes were almost 900 miles, probably longest unrefueled radius missions. Longer missions are mentioned (ca. 1000 radius), but sometimes what is quoted is the actual flight distance covered by the a/c, not two times the as-the-crow-flies radius to the target. Of course the planes would end up flying at least some extra miles, that's one reason practical straight line air mile combat radius was much less than 1/2 the ferry range. P-51's and P-47N's in late Pac War also flew very long though AFAIK not quite as long missions, for example P-47N's from Ie Shima to the Seoul area, that's around 780 miles one way, and the 348th FG is said to have flown 1600 mile round trip missions from Clark Field to China and Indochina in early 1945 when it converted to P-51D's (per Hess "Pacific Sweep").

Joe


----------



## kool kitty89 (Mar 8, 2008)

I meant the P-38's in the pacific could regulate temperature with altitude, I was talking about long-range strike missions/ fighter sweeps not escort. (as the windows couldn't be opened w/out buffetting) Plus at bomber altitiudes being too hot wouldn't be the problem, and later model P-38's had cockpit heating as well.


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Sep 16, 2017)

drgondog said:


> I made some long rides in an A-36 (Bonanza) from Dallas to Raliegh/Durham in a comfortable seat with auto pilot, etc - and I hated it.


Try it in an unpressurized 210 non-stop MSP - PWM, 20-25K altitude at night in winter, IMC most of the way, nosebags all the way, repeatedly; I can sympathize with those escort pilots.
Cheers,
Wes

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


----------



## drgondog (Sep 16, 2017)

XBe02Drvr said:


> Try it in an unpressurized 210 non-stop MSP - PWM, 20-25K altitude at night in winter, IMC most of the way, nosebags all the way, repeatedly; I can sympathize with those escort pilots.
> Cheers,
> Wes


Lol = Great illustration Wes, but you forgot the dingy pack and parachute to add to the comfort.


----------



## swampyankee (Sep 16, 2017)

ghilt said:


> It was a proven fact that the Corsiar was superior to the Mustang..Looking back to the 70's during the Soccor Wars in South America...Not sure of the level of pilot training though...


It's a little more complicated than that. With supercharged, piston-engined aircraft superiority could change markedly with altitude. From what I've read - and I won't say it's definitive -- is that the Merlin-engined P-51 and Corsair were approximately equal below 8,000 ft, the Corsair was generally superior from 8,000 to 25,000 ft and the P-51 superior from 25,000 ft up. 

Of course, it's difficult to argue (as in there is tons of supporting test data) that the P-51 was the cleanest (least zero-lift drag coefficient) of any WW2-era piston fighter. To toot the horn of US aerodynamicists, I think that my professional forebears in the US were the best applied aerodynamicists of the time.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Sep 16, 2017)

drgondog said:


> Lol = Great illustration Wes, but you forgot the dingy pack and parachute to add to the comfort.


Good point! Our flotation gear was under our seats instead of under our butts, but those Cessna pilot seats were surely designed by the Spanish Inquisition! A Switlik seat pack would just have to be softer! And a WWII style full face integral mike O2 mask more comfortable than a Cessna nosebag. And with an aircooled engine, cabin heat ain't what it's cracked up to be. The radar set, however, was awesome.
Cheers,
Wes

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Sep 16, 2017)

swampyankee said:


> I think that my professional forebears in the US were the best applied aerodynamicists of the time.


They had better be; they had the best resources at their disposal, institutional, intellectual, and industrial, and besides, they weren't being bombed.
Cheers,
Wes


----------



## swampyankee (Sep 16, 2017)

XBe02Drvr said:


> They had better be; they had the best resources at their disposal, institutional, intellectual, and industrial, and besides, they weren't being bombed.
> Cheers,
> Wes



They also had a customer base that really cared about efficiency, unlike the people who spec'ed out military aircraft -- efficiency isn't the same as performance. Put enough power to it, a barn can fly.

But it won't make money for its owners.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Sep 16, 2017)

swampyankee said:


> efficiency isn't the same as performance. Put enough power to it, a barn can fly.
> 
> But it won't make money for its owners.


Nor will it have the range or payload to accomplish useful missions. (Phantom II excepted) 
And Chance Vought and North American weren't in the commercial market. They were defense contractors. So for them "making money for the owners" really meant delivering the range and payload to get the mission accomplished. Efficiency none the less.
Cheers,
Wes


----------



## GregP (Sep 19, 2017)

The Corsair is NOT better than a Mustang. It is way better at being a Naval fighter, but has almost zero experience as an escort fighter over heavily defended areas, such as Europe. It is decidedly inferior as a long-range escort, having neither the range nor the actual real-life experience at doing it. And escort, including flak, was a LARGE percentage of Mustang losses. There weren't any 450 mph Corsairs in WWII. The F4U-4 that made the last 6 months of WWII could hit 448 mph when in factory finish, with covers over the guns, a new engine, a new propeller, and a factory test pilot who knew how to make it go fast. Production units were slower, especially after a few months of use.

The F4U-1D was 425 mph late in the variant's life cycle. Up until then, it was a 410 - 417 mph airplane when new. And the F4U carried 2,000 pounds of bomb until the F4U-4 was cleared for 4,000 pounds. But that was only the last 4 months of the war or so, when it didn't matter what the bomb load was. For the effective war, it didn't carry that.

The Mustang had almost zero experience as a Naval Fleet Defense fighter. So, it was decidedly inferior to the Corsair in that role.

Unless I am wrong ... these two didn't handle each other's tasks very often and, when they did, it was out of necessity, not out of picking a better airplane.

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


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Sep 19, 2017)

GregP said:


> Unless I am wrong ... these two didn't handle each other's tasks very often and, when they did, it was out of necessity, not out of picking a better airplane.


How about Korea?


----------



## drgondog (Sep 20, 2017)

XBe02Drvr said:


> How about Korea?


In Korea, both were providing CAS. Both had near identical loss/sortie ratios

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## CORSNING (Sep 20, 2017)

By the time the conflict in Korea came along it was time for
these birds F4U & P-51 to both be improve upon. Think WW2,
how far had the fighter bomber advanced in 5 yrs. of that time
frame? Now 1950 comes along five years later and it is decided
to use aircraft from 1945-46 for striking purposes...? What did
you expect the outcome to be?

Just trying to make a tiny point, Jeff


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Sep 21, 2017)

CORSNING said:


> Think WW2, how far had the fighter bomber advanced in 5 yrs. of that time frame? Now 1950 comes along five years later and it is decided
> to use aircraft from 1945-46 for striking purposes...?


1939 - 1945, the piston engine fighter reaches the peak of its maturity as a weapon system. Five years later, another war and the jet age is still in its infancy. Think 1916 in the development of the piston fighter. Jets are fast but finicky, underpowered, complicated, full of teething problems, excessively thirsty, and ungodly expensive. Meanwhile there remains a large inventory of robust, reliable, fully developed fighter aircraft with their logistical support system already in place and a reservoir of pilots trained in their use available for recall from civilian life.
What would you do?
Cheers,
Wes

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


----------



## CORSNING (Sep 21, 2017)

Well XB I agree that you are probably right as to 'what happened'.

Truth is, it is out of my pay grade as to the 1945-1950 political
facts that probably screamed 'over spending' that cramped the
US military and definitely slowed the advancement of aviation
down.

It is a damn shame that it takes a war / conflict to get us back
in the game.


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Sep 21, 2017)

CORSNING said:


> It is a damn shame that it takes a war / conflict to get us back
> in the game.


We had a war, a cold one. That's all that saved us from being totally asleep at the switch.
Cheers,
Wes

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


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 21, 2017)

CORSNING said:


> Well XB I agree that you are probably right as to 'what happened'.
> 
> Truth is, it is out of my pay grade as to the 1945-1950 political
> facts that probably screamed 'over spending' that cramped the
> ...


Considering the large number of not very effective jets produced in the late 40s and early 50s one might say that was a considerable amount of overspending going on as it was. Engine makers were promising more than they could deliver for a number of years. 

Even good programs like the F-86 and the GE J-47 engine ran into problems with the first 132 F-86Fs ordered being delivered as F-86Es with an older, lower powered J-47 engine than intended although provisions were made for later re-engining. 

They went from about 500mph to almost 1100hp in about 11 years (1945 to 1956) so advancements were coming at a rather rapid pace.


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Sep 21, 2017)

CORSNING said:


> the 1945-1950 political facts that probably screamed 'over spending' that cramped the US military and definitely slowed the advancement of aviation down.


Hey the US was over-spending in those years; we had no choice; the Russian Bear was staring us in the face and snarlin. Uncle Joe had conjured up a horde of B-29 clones, built himself a bomb, and was proclaiming the coming victory of the worldwide Communist revolution. The supposed slow advancement of aviation in that period I view as the challenges of overcoming technological hurdles in a whole new body of aeronautical knowledge. Transsonics and turbines were relatively uncharted territory, a break away from the progressive development along familiar lines that had marked the previous three decades. The critical mass of knowledge and experience upon which the technology was to be based was still being assembled. Once critical mass had been achieved in the early 50s the technology took off with the Century Series, the Stratofortress, the tanker fleet, and eventually the jet airliner.
Cheers,
Wes

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Koopernic (Sep 23, 2017)

magnocain said:


> This is an essay that I wrote in school for "persuasive writing". If you can please give me some true but still slanted facts on this topic (with an explanation if possible). Also please remember that only five people knew that I was talking about planes (one knew it was about WW2 planes). Remember I wrote for a simple audience.
> 
> (gulp) here it is...
> 
> ...



The P-51 had much more range than the Corsair, so the Corsair couldn't even get to the battle or conduct the escort mission so who cares about an aircraft that can't get to the battle and perform the mission.

I suppose I exaggerate a little: the corsair could fly the same distance but only if throttled right back to economical speed cruise that would see it ripped up by bouncing Me 109 who were known to cruise very fast. Those 'short' ranged European aircraft often have their ranges declared at maximum not economical cruising speed. The Me 109 would have been cruising at well over 340mph, perhaps 380 mph for a Me 109K. Also the P-51D had better visibility to the rear and in general the P-51 high speed roll rate was best in the war because its internal pressure balanced ailerons were resistant to lock up at high mach. The USN fighters had a very low roll rate until the NACA invented geared spring tabs for their ailerons but that was quite late in the war and geared spring tabs still don't beat the P-51 at high speed roll.

The P-51B/C and D were not considered suitable for carrier operations due to handling issues however when the P-51H was introduced it had a longer tail and the improvement in handling meant it could be navalised and landed on carrier and development began.


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Sep 23, 2017)

All true, but long range escort is just one of the roles expected of a versatile muti-purpose fighter. In '43 - '45 the Mustang wouldn't have cut it as a carrier-based fighter-bomber. This is not a contest of one-trick ponies. (Pun intended.)
Cheers,
Wes


----------



## Dawncaster (Sep 23, 2017)

Koopernic said:


> in general the P-51 high speed roll rate was best in the war because its internal pressure balanced ailerons were resistant to lock up at high mach. The USN fighters had a very low roll rate until the NACA invented geared spring tabs for their ailerons but that was quite late in the war and geared spring tabs still don't beat the P-51 at high speed roll.



F4U's roll rate was quite good.

even without spring tabs, Birdcage Corsair claims betters roll rate than P-51 to 280 mph.

Besides, Birdcage Corsairs were few and Corsairs without spring tap were more fewer.

Of the birdcage F4U, only the early type does not have a spring tab.

after spring tab installed, it could full throw up to 345 mph.







red is left, blue is right roll for Corsair.

full aileron roll, rudder locked, stick force is 40 lbs for 300 mph.

F4U's roll rate line is rough, due to only one sample for each speed and each direction.

and samples exceeding 300 mph for Corsair were not obtained, but it's roll rate increase to 345 mph.

so there is no doubt that the roll performance of F4U was good.

I think Corsair was better roller and turner than Mustang until near critical mach 0.73

High speed maneuverability of the F4U was excptional due to the boost tabs of the ailerons and elevator.

however, Corsair's low economical cruise speed and altitude not suited for ETO USAAF's bomber escort mission.

and F4U with 838 gal of fuel can get the over P-51's range, of course it is silly.






fuslage tank = 237 gal
wing tanks = 126 gal
2 x 150 gal tank = 300 gal
1 x 175 gal tank = 175 gal
Total = 838 gal

Someone did this, LOL


----------



## drgondog (Sep 23, 2017)

You would have to trot out fact based tests to demonstrate that the F4U ferry range exceeded P-51B/C/D with internal 85 gallon tank and 2x160 gallon externals. The R2800 specific fuel consumption at optimum cruise expressed as miles per gallon (with external load and drag) then internal, clean except racks was close to 50% more than P-51B/D. I doubt that any Corsair could go as far but would love to see the flight test proof?

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Dawncaster (Sep 23, 2017)

drgondog said:


> You would have to trot out fact based tests to demonstrate that the F4U ferry range exceeded P-51B/C/D with internal 85 gallon tank and 2x160 gallon externals. The R2800 specific fuel consumption at optimum cruise expressed as miles per gallon (with external load and drag) then internal, clean except racks was close to 50% more than P-51B/D. I doubt that any Corsair could go as far but would love to see the flight test proof?



it was just a joke.

uh... really?

this is really stupid.... but I'll try it.

seems to be interesting....!

first, I tried to collect miles per gallon.

from F4U-1 ACP - it optained range for internal wing tanks with drop tank at same time.

12039 lbs with 237 gal = 4.283 for no external stores.
12836 lbs with 361 gal = 4.197 for no external stores, 124 gal internal wing tanks
14003 lbs with 536 gal = 3.992 for 175 gal centerline drop tank, 124 gal internal wing tanks
12763 lbs with 536 gal = 4.142 for 175 gal centerline drop tank, 124 gal internal wing tanks, light weighted - ferry condition.

from F4U-1D ACP - 150 gallon drop tank mounted on the wing pylons shows a serious drop in miles per gallon.

12175 lbs with 237 gal = 4.135 for 2 x capped wing pylons.
14370 lbs with 537 gal = 3.529 for 2 x wing pylons with 2 x 150 gal drop tanks.

then theoretically maximum possible fuel configuration is....

use the F4U-1, 16334 lbs with 838 gal = 175 gal centerline drop tank and 2 x wing pylons with 2 x 150 gal drop tanks, plus 124 gal internal wing tanks.

yeah, over the 4000 lbs extra weight!

It's like a 4000lbs challenge that lindberg did with his Corsair.

Pilots will be in danger of taking off, can the pilot make it?

Lindberg make it with old crosswind technique of making a curving takeoff run!

so now! Corsair airborne!

It is time to measure range.

start from 3.529 miles per gallon with 2 x wing pylons and 2 x 150 gal drop tanks.

and adds the following:

- 2.0%(4.197 / 4.283) for 124 gal internal wing tanks.
- 4.9%(3.992 / 4.197) for 175 gal centerline drop tank.

result is 3.289 miles per gallon.

but I think the above factors will cause synergy.

so I will subtract 5% more.

then only 3.125 miles per gallon.

final result is...

3.125 * 838 = 2619 miles.

let's compare it to the Mustang's range.

from Mustang's Tactical Planning Characteristics & Performace Chart

Mustang with 569 gal = 2600 miles for long range power setting.

see? SEEEE?

CORSAIR WINS!

*with approx 190 mph cruise speed at 1500 ft altitude.*

This is harsh, LOL


----------



## grampi (Sep 25, 2017)

syscom3 said:


> The Mustang was superior to the Corsair at high altitudes.


Not only that, but you never see these guys who claim the Corsair was better compare it the P-51H model. The "H" was superior to any version of the Corsair in every performance category...


----------



## Dawncaster (Sep 25, 2017)

grampi said:


> Not only that, but you never see these guys who claim the Corsair was better compare it the P-51H model. The "H" was superior to any version of the Corsair in every performance category...



not simply true.

even against P-51H, Corsairs could turn tighter and roll faster for most speeds.

and F4U-4 and F4U-5 have faster speed and climb than P-51H for some altitudes.

according to the F-51H SAC, F4U-4 SAC and F4U-5 performance summary and flight test data curves,











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 'sidewinder' 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 25000, 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.

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


----------



## grampi (Sep 26, 2017)

Dawncaster said:


> not simply true.
> 
> even against P-51H, Corsairs could turn tighter and roll faster for most speeds.
> 
> ...


I don't see how the Corsair that weighs 3000+ lbs more can out turn the Mustang...that goes against the laws of physics...


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 26, 2017)

I am not saying the Corsair can out turn the Mustang (some test indicates it couldn't) but a P-61 could.

It has to do with wing area and the co-efficient of lift of the wing at the angle of attack being used in the turn vs the weight. weight alone or even wing loading alone won't tell the story. 

Corsair had nearly the same wing loading as a Mustang since it's wing was about 33% bigger. What it didn't have was good coefficient of lift. In part, according to one test, due the spoiler strip on the right wing to cure the asymmetric stall.


----------



## Dawncaster (Sep 26, 2017)

grampi said:


> I don't see how the Corsair that weighs 3000+ lbs more can out turn the Mustang...that goes against the laws of physics...





Shortround6 said:


> I am not saying the Corsair can out turn the Mustang (some test indicates it couldn't) but a P-61 could.
> 
> It has to do with wing area and the co-efficient of lift of the wing at the angle of attack being used in the turn vs the weight. weight alone or even wing loading alone won't tell the story.
> 
> Corsair had nearly the same wing loading as a Mustang since it's wing was about 33% bigger. What it didn't have was good coefficient of lift. In part, according to one test, due the spoiler strip on the right wing to cure the asymmetric stall.



actual factors are follows

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

P-51H's 1G stall speed with 9540 lbs take-off weight (9500 lbs gross weight for power-off clean)

120 mph CIAS for power off clean condition, Clmax is 1.093
calculated with (9500 * 2) / (236 * 0.0023769 * 176 * 176)

111 mph CIAS for power on cruise condition, Clmax is 1.283
calculated with (9540 * 2) / (236 * 0.0023769 * 162.8 * 162.8)

105 mph CIAS for power on climb condition, Clmax is 1.434
calculated with (9540 * 2) / (236 * 0.0023769 * 154 * 154)

103 mph CIAS for power off landing condition, Clmax is 1.49
calculated with (9540 * 2) / (236 * 0.0023769 * 151.066667 * 151.066667)

98 mph CIAS for power on landing condition, Clmax is 1.646
calculated with (9540 * 2) / (236 * 0.0023769 * 143.733333 * 143.733333)

power ratings for power on stall are 36"hg 2300 rpm for cruise, 46"hg 2700 rpm for climb and 23"hg 2000 rpm for landing condition.

with military or combat power, Clmax will be higher.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

F4U-4's 1G stall speed with 12500 lbs weight.

89.4 knots CIAS for power off clean condition, Clmax is 1.471
calculated with (12500 * 2) / (314 * 0.0023769 * 150.890201 * 150.890201)

84.6 knots CIAS for power on cruise condition, Clmax is 1.643
calculated with (12500 * 2) / (314 * 0.0023769 * 142.788714 * 142.788714)

77.7 knots CIAS for power off landing condition, Clmax is 1.948
calculated with (12500 * 2) / (314 * 0.0023769 * 131.142826 * 131.142826)

64.2 knots CIAS for power on landing condition, Clmax is 2.853
calculated with (12500 * 2) / (314 * 0.0023769 * 108.357393 * 108.357393)

power ratings for power on stall are only 21"hg 2100 rpm for cruise and 25"hg 2400 rpm for landing condition.

with military or combat power, Clmax will be much higher.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

as you can see, similar wing loading but better maximum lift cofficient, Corsair can do a tighter turn for most speeds.

even with the 46"hg normal power rating, mustang's Clmax is bit lower than Corsair with minimum power rating which for barely maintain level flight until stall.

Mustang's wing was designed for speed and counter compressibility, It was somewhat unexpected, but as a result, got the high speed and high critical mach number, but it's not so great for tight TnB ACM situation.

In the TAIC and USN reports, Corsair out turn the Mustang.

Zeke caught the advantage or firing position with a just one turn for Mustang, Thunderbolt and Lightning 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, the Corsair could stay with Zeke in turn until 150 knots, any other US aircrafts in the report could not do it.

and for other issue, there are two types of stall strips.






One is the type mentioned in the NACA report and the book, such as 'Americas Hundred Thousand'.

This caused much damage to the Clmax and the one pilot in test stated that he had difficult for it.

so it's not used for actual military service.





Second is equipped with production type Corsairs for military service condition.

it's much smaller than previous type and fitted in different position.

As you can see above sections for Corsair's Clmax and according to USN manuals and reports, it did not do much damage to Clmax.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Sep 26, 2017)

grampi said:


> I don't see how the Corsair that weighs 3000+ lbs more can out turn the Mustang...that goes against the laws of physics...


Not against the laws of physics as I understand them but counter to what you would normally think. 

I have no figures but in general if it has big enough wing area and strong enough wings it can turn instantaneously quicker than a Mustang. For sustained turn it needs enough surplus thrust to drag to maintain a higher rate of turn. Total weight is an important but not deciding factor. I believe a P47 could turn with a Bf109 in combat.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## grampi (Sep 26, 2017)

All good stuff!


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Sep 27, 2017)

grampi said:


> I don't see how the Corsair that weighs 3000+ lbs more can out turn the Mustang...that goes against the laws of physics...


1. More horsepower.
2. More lift.
3. Faster roll gets the turn established quicker.
Cheers,
Wes


----------



## CORSNING (Sep 27, 2017)

pbehn said:


> Not against the laws of physics as I understand them but counter to what you would normally think.
> 
> I have no figures but in general if it has big enough wing area and strong enough wings it can turn instantaneously quicker than a Mustang. For sustained turn it needs enough surplus thrust to drag to maintain a higher rate of turn. Total weight is an important but not deciding factor. I believe a P47 could turn with a Bf109 in combat.



What made the P-47 so valuable and maneuverable at 25,000-35,000 ft. was its beautiful R-2800 and 
the correct high altitude supercharger. At the right power levels and these altitudes it could outturn
any Bf.109. It could not perform this feat at lower levels though.


----------



## drgondog (Sep 27, 2017)

Dawncaster said:


> it was just a joke.
> 
> from F4U-1 ACP - it optained range for internal wing tanks with drop tank at same time.
> 
> ...

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


----------



## CORSNING (Sep 27, 2017)

Dawncaster,
I have not done all the research yet to prove your graphs, but in
my opinion I think you did an awesome job putting them together
and posting them.
, Jeff

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


----------



## CORSNING (Sep 27, 2017)

Damn Bill,
Nice information.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Neil Stirling (Sep 27, 2017)

Posted a few years ago but worth repeating.

Americas Hundred Thousand page 600.

P51 D 
Fuel 269 US gallons internal + 2 75 gallon drop tanks = Combat Radius 700miles.

Conditions:-
Warm up and take off = 5 minutes normal rated power.
Climb to 25,000ft normal rated power no distance included.
Cruise out at 25,000ft at 210. I.A.S (about 315mph)
Drop tanks.
Cruise back at 25,000ft at 210mph I.A.S
30 minutes reserve at minimum cruise.
Combat 5 minutes Wep and 15 minutes Military power.
Takes no account for decreased fuel consumption during decent.
No allowance is made for formation flight or evasive action other than 20 minutes combat.

F4U-1 Corsair (no wing tanks) I.A.W. Pilots Manual page 50 and 63

Total fuel including 154 gallon drop tank 391 gallons.

Warm up and take off 18 gallons
Climb to 25,000ft 64 gallons ( difference split between Combat climb and Ferry climb)
Combat 5 minutes wep and 15 minutes military power 91 gallons
30 minutes reserve at minimum cruise = 21 gallons

Total = 194 gallons.
391-194 = 197

197 gallons at 315mph at max cruise at 26,000ft (82 gallons per hour) 197/82 = 2.4
2.4 * 315mph = 756
756/2 = 378 miles.

F4U-1 combat radius = 378 miles. 

Or in other words 54% of a P51-D.


Mustang IV Full internal fuel + 2 imp 125 gall drop tanks, 2,690 miles at 20,000ft at 253mph

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/mustang-IV-ads.jpg

Corsair IV Full internal fuel + 2 137 imp gall drop tanks, 1,562 miles at 20,000ft at 261mph

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f4u/corsair-IV-ads.jpg


Neil.

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


----------



## Dawncaster (Sep 27, 2017)

CORSNING said:


> Dawncaster,
> I have not done all the research yet to prove your graphs, but in
> my opinion I think you did an awesome job putting them together
> and posting them.
> , Jeff



Thank you for appreciate!



drgondog said:


> *Interesting try. To get a realistic estimation you need Brequet's equations.*
> 
> *In this particular case, given Propeller efficiency as a Calculated known as function of RPM and Hp and Prop diameter and effective Power Coefficient; Specific Fuel Consumption rates as function of HP and velocity for different Drag conditions; and accounting for decreased weights as fuel is consumed are knowns for each condition (3x external tanks, then 1x external tank as two are dropped, then clean except racks but full internal fuel load) change L/D as step functions - as 'Knowns', then you could estimate the Range.
> 
> ...





Neil Stirling said:


> Posted a few years ago but worth repeating.
> 
> Americas Hundred Thousand page 600.
> 
> ...



Good informations, Thank you!

It was a fun experience.

The ACP reflects the range at 1500 feet, but I did not think it could be used for combat sortie.

and also, felt something was lacking in writing.

both of you scratched that parts coolly.

it was itchy parts for me.

and I'm glad to know that the Corsair had a longer range with faster crusing speed than I expected.

according to ACP, -1 Corsair's best documented combat radius I knew was 555 miles even with two 150 gallon drop tanks.

in addition, it's altitude was just 15000 ft for vmax crusing out, and only 1500 ft for crusing back with 170 knots slow speed.

even considering condition was one drop tank was self-sealed and carried the entire distance, I always thought that Corsair's crusing performance was lacking to compared with ETO fighters which have high and fast cruise performances.

but 20000~26000 feet altitude? 400~500kph crusing speed? and yet acceptable range?

It was not so bad as I thought.

Goooooood.



drgondog said:


> *Maximum Gross Weight for F4U-1 is theoretically 14,000 pounds, Empty Wt = 8980+ with WI; Basic Weight ~ 9670; Total Disposable Load ~ 4100 pounds. According to Dean's America's 100K, the highest table gross weight for F4U-1 was 13,900 with full internal 361 gallons of fuel, ammo and 175 gallon external tank. For F4U-4 the highest listed per Table gross weight at take-off was 14,700 pounds with 1000 pounds ordnance and 1x150 gallon C/L tank and full ammo *



however, about take-off weight,

I have different information for it.

that F4U-1 seems the early type without pylons, so theoretically 14000 lbs was maximum take-off weight.

according world war II aircraft action reports,








even the -1 Corsairs operating on the carrier often used over 14000 lbs take-off weight.

500 lbs bomb.
1090 lbs for 150 gal drop tank.
1150 lbs for 8 x HVAR with racks.

this loadout is often used for Corsairs with carrier operation in 1945.

with 12175 lbs for F4U-1D's gross weight with two pylons.

total take-off weight is 14915 lbs.

if case of .50 cal ammunitions were not full, report stated 16500 rds .50 cal ammunitions used for 11 Corsairs, it means at least average 1500 rds .50cal ammunitions carried.

F4U-1D's full ammunition is 2400 rds, so subtract 270 lbs(weight of 900 rds of .50cal ammo).

14645 lbs, it's minimum take-off weight for this loadout.








and landbased corsairs, showed around 15000 lbs take-off weight.

2000 lbs for 2 x 1000 lbs bomb.
1220 lbs for 175 gal centerline drop tank.

this loadout is often used for land based Corsairs in 1945.

with 12175 lbs for F4U-1D's gross weight with two pylons.

total take-off weight is 15395 lbs.

if case of .50cal ammunitions was not full, assuming carried half of ammo(report stated no .50cal ammunitions used in sortie).

then subtract 360 lbs(weight of 1200 rds of .50cal ammo).

total take-off weight is now 15035 lbs.

and seems unpractical case, combat sortie without .50cal ammunitions.

but why not?

subtract 360 lbs again.

14675 lbs with no ammo, it's minimum take-off weight for this loadout.

now case of F4U-4, manual recommanded max 15800 lbs for take-off from runaway or catapulting.






there are a some pictures that might fit here, I have.









4 x 250 lbs bombs, 2 x 100 lbs bombs, 1000 lbs bomb, 1090 lbs drop tank, total 3290 lbs extra weight.

if their ammunitions and internal fuel tank were full, those F4U-4B's gross weight was approx 15700 lbs.

well, that pictures require the aircraft action reports for Korean War to prove above factors, so maybe not, but according to world war II action reports, most case, internal fuel tank was full filled before drop tank fitted for CV operation.

In addition, SAC stated F4U-4's maximum take-off weight was 16160 lbs.






Perhaps it's seems more close the theoretical maximum.

Improved performance of the F4U-4 provided better practical bomb load capacity over the F4U-1s.

but I think 1944 was the year of the Corsair with bombs.

At the time, there were many attempts to increase the F4U's bomb load capacity, and it's sometimes exceeded the existing limits, such as Lindberg's 4000 lbs bombs carrying which including a huge 2000 lbs bomb.





(Maj Haynes's Corsair of VMF-155, Kwajalein Atoll, 1944-08-27)

As a result of many attempts, after more precise limitations were found, such unpractical loadouts were rarely attempted in 1945.

especially for 2000 lbs bomb, it's only 22 times dropped in 1945 by VF type airplanes.

after long times, according to maunal, 2000 lbs bomb formally returned to the Corsair with F4U-5's centerline hardpoint. (F4U-4 had no centerline hardpoint for drop tank or bomb)






well, the limit load factor for all Corsairs even including AU-1 was 7.5G at 12000 lbs.

strength of the airframes were seems enough for all models.

and, not just by take-off power, maximum take-off weight was seems also affected by available take-off distance and hard points.

unpractical, but if the running distance or some conditions for take-off is given abnormally great, take-off weight could be higher than recommended maximum.

with the attempts in 1944, this is the source of early Corsair's bomb load capacity 'myth', I think.

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


----------



## pbehn (Sep 27, 2017)

CORSNING said:


> What made the P-47 so valuable and maneuverable at 25,000-35,000 ft. was its beautiful R-2800 and
> the correct high altitude supercharger. At the right power levels and these altitudes it could outturn
> any Bf.109. It could not perform this feat at lower levels though.



Thanks Corsning, I only used it as an example because when I first read it I didn't believe it, thinking it was pilots favouring their own plane. Then I read LW pilots confirm it and had to read up into how it could be possible. What you posted also shows it isn't a constant, a plane can be superior at one altitude and inferior at another. Having seen all the ammunition a P47 was loaded and where it was loaded I would say there was also a huge difference in turn and roll performance between one that has just reached 25,000ft and one that has been in combat used its ammunition and is about to head home.

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


----------



## Koopernic (Sep 27, 2017)

CORSNING said:


> What made the P-47 so valuable and maneuverable at 25,000-35,000 ft. was its beautiful R-2800 and
> the correct high altitude supercharger. At the right power levels and these altitudes it could outturn
> any Bf.109. It could not perform this feat at lower levels though.




"At the right power levels and these altitudes it could outturn
any Bf.109."

All this is predicated on the model of P-47 which received improvements in engine and moreso the model of Me 109. The Me 109 with the enlarged superchargers and Water Methanol Injection closed the gap considerably, maybe completely in the case of the G10 and K4. Me 109G6ASM, Me 109G-14AS, Me 109G-10 and Me 109K4 all had this feature. From the Me 109G14AS onwards they are virtually indistinguishable in performance though the K4 was fastest due to its retractable tail wheel.

Pilots were surprised by the Me 109's new turning ability when the new engines gave increased Power to Weight Ratio at altitude.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## CORSNING (Sep 27, 2017)

Thank you Neil. As always you provide the great information Sir.

PS: Do you happen to have any input on the BF.109F-4?

Your computer friend, Jeff


----------



## Neil Stirling (Sep 28, 2017)

Dawncaster,

_ps. but excuse me, if I did not read wrong british performance cards, the range in stated conditions of Mustang IV seems 2190 miles instead of 2690 miles._

Look at the bottom of the page, 2690 miles is including the rear tank.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Neil Stirling (Sep 28, 2017)

Hi Jeff, regarding the 109F I think the higher speeds are not reduced to standard.

This is interesting Me 109 G-1 Flight Test 

Basically it shows there was very little difference in performance between the 601E and 605A

Neil.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Dawncaster (Sep 28, 2017)

Neil Stirling said:


> Dawncaster,
> 
> _ps. but excuse me, if I did not read wrong british performance cards, the range in stated conditions of Mustang IV seems 2190 miles instead of 2690 miles._
> 
> Look at the bottom of the page, 2690 miles is including the rear tank.



Oh, I found it.

Thank you!

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And I have a question for everyone.

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/mustang-IV-ads.jpg

in performance card, Mustang IV's extra internal 71 Imp gal fuel increase the 500 miles, miles per gallons is much higher than range of the basic chart.

it seems due to extra fuel has no additional fuel consumtions which already included in basic chart.

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f4u/corsair-IV-ads.jpg

Similarly, In addition to 2 x 137 Imp gal drop tanks, if using the centerline 142 Imp gal fuel tank for Corsair have extra 142 Imp gal, is it works great like Mustang IV's extra fuel?

loadout is somewhat supported by the action reports.

























above action reports showed Corsairs with 2 x 1000 lbs bombs and a 175 gal 1220 lbs centerline drop tank.

this loadout often used for land based Corsairs.

so, in terms of take-off weight, 2 x 150 gal 1090 lbs drop tank with a 175 gal 1220 lbs centerline drop tank seems be practical loadout. 

also, some USN and RNZAF Corsairs used it, in pictures three drop tanks fitted in their Corsairs.

but unlike the Mustang IV's 85 gal internal fuselage tank, 175 gal centerline drop tank is an external store which have much heavier weight and drag.

therefore, complex formula is required for calculation.

and in this part, I lack knowledge for calculation.

Excuse me, but I would really appreciate it, if someone make a cool estimate.

this is started with a my joke of the crawling Corsair, but in the above post, I'm interested by Corsair's practical high speed cruise performance which is far better than I expected.

So I want to see the maximum of it.

ps. Corsair's centerline fuel tank was 1220 lbs with 175 gal capacity in ACP, but in british maunal it has 170 gal capacity (142 Imp gal), it confuses me.


----------



## swampyankee (Sep 28, 2017)

A lot of aircraft performance, especially with supercharging is not intuitive. US aerodynamicists were also _very _good.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Sep 28, 2017)

swampyankee said:


> A lot of aircraft performance, especially with supercharging is not intuitive. US aerodynamicists were also _very _good.


Not only aircraft, I knew a guy who tried racing a Kawasaki 750 turbo motorcycle, complete disaster, it was a great demonstration that only useable power is important, a huge output that takes one or two seconds to arrive is almost useless and very dangerous.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 28, 2017)

It is very hard to compare aircraft and motorcycles. Granted an aircraft engine has massive amounts of torque but they also have that big propeller that acts like a huge flywheel. An aircraft engine, regardless of type of supercharger, is going to take a while to gain hundreds of RPM compared to a motorcycle or car ( which often used lighter flywheels for racing). Also propellers _grip _on the air is a lot less firm than the ground vehicles grip though it's tires.


----------



## pbehn (Sep 28, 2017)

Shortround6 said:


> It is very hard to compare aircraft and motorcycles. Granted an aircraft engine has massive amounts of torque but they also have that big propeller that acts like a huge flywheel. An aircraft engine, regardless of type of supercharger, is going to take a while to gain hundreds of RPM compared to a motorcycle or car ( which often used lighter flywheels for racing). Also propellers _grip _on the air is a lot less firm than the ground vehicles grip though it's tires.


S/R I was just referring to peoples "intuition" the 750 turbo had more power and torque than a normally aspirated 900cc. It should have been quicker but was actually about 2 seconds a lap slower. The turbo lag was actually short but enough to make a telling difference regardless of what the charts and graphs said. In aircraft terms there is a difference between what an aircraft should do and what it actually does in practice because the pilot cannot get the best out of it


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Sep 28, 2017)

Shortround6 said:


> they also have that big propeller that acts like a huge flywheel. An aircraft engine, regardless of type of supercharger, is going to take a while to gain hundreds of RPM


Whoa! Didn't these planes have constant speed props? If they're cruising at any power setting within the prop's governing range (which is from a little above idle all the way to max power), it's the prop governor, not the throttle controlling the RPM. If a sudden acceleration is needed, both prop and throttle get pushed to the stops. As soon as the governor sees the demand for max RPM, it flattens the propeller pitch, sharply reducing its rotational resistance. At the same time, the engine is being fed gobs more fuel, increasing its power output. Admittedly the propeller is heavy, but by reducing its rotational drag, it's helping the engine accelerate its RPM. I have a difficult time envisioning 2000+ HP being much impeded by flywheel effect, especially with the "flywheel" helping the engine accelerate.
Cheers,
Wes
PS: Once the governor sees its target (max) RPM, it abruptly coarsens the propeller pitch to change engine torque into increased thrust and minimize RPM overshoot. ("WWOWWWW"!) The Curtiss electric was not as fast-acting as the Ham Standard Hydromatic, and more prone to slower accelerations and RPM overshoots.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Sep 28, 2017)

Please forgive my personal rant, but IMHO, electric propellers were a bad idea from the get-go. (Zipper, you want to talk about "flop or not", try electric propellers!)
Not too-too bad on low, slow and dirty aircraft of the thirties, and maybe even marginally acceptable on transports and heavy bombers and other straight-and-level WWII aircraft, but they had no business on fighters, fighter-bombers, attack aircraft, or anything else subject to strenuous maneuvering.
Their electrical contact sliprings were easily corroded/eroded, making the propeller pitch changes even more sluggish and sometimes unresponsive. This could result in engine overspeeds, overtorques, or in extreme cases, runaways. (Remember, the propeller is controlling engine RPM by adjusting its pitch to balance propeller resistance to engine torque at the desired RPM.) At sea and at high altitude, these effects were more pronounced, due to salt corrosion and arcing due to the reduced electrical insulation capabilities of thinner air. An aircraft engaged in strenuous maneuvering needs to have its propeller(s) responding instantaneously to the various loads imposed on them if the engine(s) are to be kept within their operating limits.
Electric propellers caught on early largely because they were relatively simple, cheaper to build, the promotional horsepower of Curtiss, and the fact that early hydraulic propellers had their share of problems. I think it's a tribute to the market power of Curtiss-Wright Aeronautical that electric propellers held on as long as they did. Once the Hydromatic became available, that should have been the end of the electric, IMHO.
Cheers,
Wes

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 28, 2017)

I guess it depends on the time span we are talking about. Compared to a motorcycle/race car accelerating out of a corner an aircraft can take quite a while to get up to speed, yes a large part is aerodynamic drag ( and a difference of 150-200mph in speed instead of 50-100mph) but a 450lb prop with a diameter of 12 ft or so ( average weight at what distance from prop center?) running at, say 900rpm ( engine doing 1800rpm with 2:1 reduction gear) is going to take some effort to get up to 1350rpm (engine doing 2700rpm), regardless of what pitch the blades are at. Obviously the engine will pick up speed quicker in fine pitch vs coarse pitch but it isn't this "flywheel" effect that causes problems at low speeds and large throttle changes? sudden increase in throttle has the plane rolling the opposite way the prop turns ? 
This maybe one reason some US pilots were using the wrong engine settings for cruising (high rpm and low boost) as they _thought _it would help them get to high speed quicker.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Sep 28, 2017)

Shortround6 said:


> I guess it depends on the time span we are talking about. Compared to a motorcycle/race car accelerating out of a corner an aircraft can take quite a while to get up to speed, yes a large part is aerodynamic drag.


S/R I was only talking about human perception. The guy concerned was an old schoolmate of mine and was a top rider at club level. He is still (as far as I know) a motorcycle journalist. Everybody including me thought it would be a class winner, harmony of controls beat brute horsepower every time.


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Sep 28, 2017)

Shortround6 said:


> Obviously the engine will pick up speed quicker in fine pitch vs coarse pitch but it isn't this "flywheel" effect that causes problems at low speeds and large throttle changes? sudden increase in throttle has the plane rolling the opposite way the prop turns ?


Yes, the inertial reaction of accelerating a heavy prop is a contributor to the infamous "torque roll", but it's only a minor player in what amounts to a veritable "perfect storm" of forces at work. The major players are "P" factor and gyroscopic precession, both resulting from the fact that at speeds down in the "danger zone" the aircraft is at a relatively high angle of attack and the thrust line is at an acute angle to the relative wind and the direction of flight. In addition the air flow over the stabilizers and control surfaces is slow and "soft", reducing their effectiveness in keeping the pointy end forward and the oily side down. It starts with a P factor driven yawing moment which through differential lift and gyroscopic precession quickly induces a rolling moment. The pilot's startled reaction of full opposite aileron only serves to stall the downward-traveling wing, accelerating the roll. What you have here is a classic snap roll, initiated by a surge of "P" factor and gyroscopic precession rather than a pilot's rudder stomp, and aided by torque reaction.
The speed range in which this becomes a danger is generally well below even the slowest speed at which the aircraft might cruise.
Cheers,
Wes


----------



## CORSNING (Sep 29, 2017)

magnocain,
Are you still out there after 9.5 years? If you are still interested
you will want to read;
F4U Corsair vs P-51 Mustang


----------



## grampi (Feb 2, 2018)

I'm still laughing my ass off at the OP...

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Dan Fahey (Feb 3, 2018)

drgondog said:


> In Korea, both were providing CAS. Both had near identical loss/sortie ratios


Except Corsair had way more non combat losses than the Mustang.
The F4U5 was grounded replaced by the -4 because the plane used electrical relays that failed due to corrosion.
Corsair operated better from airstrips. 
Mustang has a much longer loitering period exposing them to small arms fire.
Corsair could become a flame trap because the oil cooler was not shielded.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## drgondog (Feb 4, 2018)

Dan Fahey said:


> Except Corsair had way more non combat losses than the Mustang.
> The F4U5 was grounded replaced by the -4 because the plane used electrical relays that failed due to corrosion.
> Corsair operated better from airstrips.
> Mustang has a much longer loitering period exposing them to small arms fire.
> Corsair could become a flame trap because the oil cooler was not shielded.



Dan - you have put your finger on loss per sortie ratios for P-51s in WWII. The 2x flight time until the P-47D-25 entered service surely contributed to more losses for the ustang.


----------



## DarrenW (Feb 4, 2018)

syscom3 said:


> I wonder what the loss rate for the Corsair would be if it had to fight the far more deadly and dangerous pilots and aircraft of the LW?



I'm not so sure if the average Luftwaffe pilot was "far more deadly and dangerous" when compared to their Japanese counterparts (by 1944 anyway). Both aircrew training and aircraft quality were slowly deteriorating as the war progressed, on par with the situation in Japan. Maybe the Germans had more aircraft and better radar which obviously improved their situation some, but the aerial prowess that the Luftwaffe enjoyed earlier in the war was largely gone by mid 1944.

I do agree though that the loss rates for the Corsair would have gone up in Europe, but in my opinion probably not as much as some are being led to believe.


----------



## Peter Gunn (Feb 5, 2018)

Hmm... by mid '44 the P-38, P-47, P-51, F6F, F4U all had a decent performance advantage over just about anything the IJA or IJN could throw at them, in the ETO not so much. Also I don't see the Japanese fielding any jets in mid '44 either.

Would the Corsairs loss rate increase with ops in the ETO? Most definitely. If loss rates for Korea are any indication, you would probably lose just as many Corsairs as Mustangs in CAS roles, although I doubt the Corsair is going to range as far afield as the P-51, so perhaps that would play into the numbers somewhat.

Hell, JoeB posted numbers several years ago that showed the F6F was tougher v ground fire than the F4U.


----------



## GregP (Feb 5, 2018)

I'm not sure the average German pilot was ever better than the average Luftwaffe pilot. The German pilots had many more targets, to be sure, but the average Japanese pilot, at least at the start of the war, was well-trained and a combat veteran, much as was the core of the Luftwaffe. My bet is they were pretty close in training and experience.

The top scorer against western front pilots for the Germans was Hans Joachim Marseille with 185 victories mostly against the British in the desert. The top-scoring Japanese ace of the war was Hiroyoshi Nishizawa with 102 at the time of his death. The spread is not all that great, and most of Nishizawa's victories were against Allied Navy fliers, mostly. The difference could well be the availability of targets since most of the Allied targets available to Nishizawa were in and around Naval battles, which were not very frequent relative to Marseille's target population.

By the end of the war, the average German pilot was nowhere NEAR as experienced as his pre-war and/or early-war counterparts and neither were the average Japanese pilots.

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


----------



## pinehilljoe (Feb 5, 2018)

given the choice, I'd rather be in a P-47N


----------



## grampi (Feb 6, 2018)

pinehilljoe said:


> given the choice, I'd rather be in a P-47N


I'll take a P-51H...

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Peter Gunn (Feb 6, 2018)

grampi said:


> I'll take a P-51H...



Me too.


----------



## BiffF15 (Feb 6, 2018)

I’ll not limit myself. One of each please!

Cheers,
Biff

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


----------



## Dan Fahey (Feb 9, 2018)

pinehilljoe said:


> given the choice, I'd rather be in a P-47N


The P47 was not used in Korea for a few reasons.
First the P47 loaded required a bomber base with a long airfield to get off the ground.
Early in the war Pusan was surrounded by NK army. 
Only bases available were short airfields left by the Japanese.
Perfect for Mustang and Corsair.
They could have flown out of Japan but P47 was a pig on fuel and maintenance.

CAS role P47 would have the same loss ratio as the Mustang and Corsair.
Had huge oil plumbing to cool the turbo and engine.
Plus 40 mm AA was far more abundant than WW2.
Another reason seems that Formosa got the remaining available P47s for Chennault and Chang Kia Shek.


----------

