# Seafury vs F4U-4. Which is better?



## syscom3 (May 7, 2006)

Lets hear your opinions on these two legendary warbirds.


----------



## red admiral (May 7, 2006)

The Hawker Sea Fury is undoubtedly superior.

Faster, more maneuverable, better armed, better visibility, has a floor to the cockpit, much prettier.


----------



## Glider (May 7, 2006)

Have to second that


----------



## Jank (May 7, 2006)

Sea Fury prototype flew in Feb 1945 and unlike the F4U-4, was never operational prior to the Japanese surrender.

Why don't we compare it to the F4U-5 or the F2G?


----------



## syscom3 (May 7, 2006)

Fair enough, compare it to the F4U-5.


----------



## red admiral (May 8, 2006)

The F4U-5 gets faster and has more pilot comfort. I'd still take the Sea Fury.

Interestingly I found this opinion on the -5

"Engineering improvements that weren't

I've flown the F4U-4 Corsair. It was a good airplane. I've also flown the later model F4U-5-it was no F4U-4!

I flew the F4U-4 in flight training, and when I received my "Wings of Gold" in August of 1950, I was immediately assigned to the VF-14 Tophatters based in Jacksonville, Florida and flew the F4U-5. I found the F4U-5 heavier and more dangerous than the F4U-4, primarily because of several "improvements" that were at best ineffective and at worst dangerous.

The F4U-5, a 1945 design modification of the F4U-4, was intended to increase the F4U-4 Corsair's overall per formance and incorporate many earlier Corsair pilots' suggestions. It featured a more powerful 2,300hp engine with a fully automatic two-stage supercharger. Other "improvements" were electrical trim control, automatic cowl flaps, a gyroscopic lead-computing gunsight and other automatic functions. These and other changes made the F4U-5 500 pounds heavier than the F4U-4. "


----------



## Gnomey (May 8, 2006)

I would take the Sea Fury for the reasons stated by red admiral.


----------



## elmilitaro (May 8, 2006)

Agree to that also.


----------



## SM79Sparviero (May 8, 2006)

Sea Fury handling and performances were superlative ( a "jet with propeller" according to the pilots)but its Centaurus engine had a very high fuel consumption. It is an important parameter for a naval fighter.A low fuel consumption was one of the best advantages of Mitsubishi Zero.


----------



## syscom3 (May 8, 2006)

The only thing Ive seen negative about the Sea Fury was its range.

But even still, with external fuel tanks, it was still adaquet


----------



## Twitch (May 8, 2006)

As far as I'm concerned they're a draw. Neither has any points of performance that are staggeringly superior to the other.


----------



## red admiral (May 8, 2006)

Maybe not staggeringly better for the Sea Fury, but still better than F4U-4/5. It is the "better" aircraft, not by a massive amount, but still "better".


----------



## Jank (May 8, 2006)

How would it have stacked up against the F2G?


----------



## wmaxt (May 8, 2006)

Actually I'd go for the F4U-4

Sea Fury - top Speed - 460mph
F4U-4 --- top speed -- 460mph (without external racks) 446mph with
Sea Fury - Climb ------ 2777ft/min
Corsair --- climb ------ 3870ft/min (reports of 4.9min to 20,000ft at WEP)
Sea Fury - range ------ 700mi internal
Corsair --- range ------ 1015mi internal
Sea Fury - ceiling ----- 35,800ft
Corsair ---ceiling ------ 41,500ft
Sea Fury - loading ----- 2,000lbs
Corsair --- loading ----- 4,000lbs War time load outs of over 5,500lbs reported
Sea Fury - Armament -- 4 x 20mm
Corsair --- Armament -- 6 x .50s or 4 x 20mm
Sea Fury - Horse power - 2,480hp
Corsair --- Horse power - 2,450hp
Sea Fury - empty wt ---- 9,240lbs
Corsair --- empty wt ---- 9,206lbs
Sea Fury - Gross wt ----- 12,500lbs
Corsair --- Gross wt ----- 14,670lbs
Sea Fury - wing area ---- 280sq/ft
Corsair --- wing area ---- 314sq/ft

As you can see the Corsair has it in all respects except possibly speed (wheather the Sea Fury speed is with/without external mounts). Equal power and more wing area gives the Corsair the edge in climb and should also give it an edge in turning. Climb and ceiling alone would give the edge to the Corsair in air to air encounters. However the more savy pilot could win in either aircraft.

wmaxt


----------



## syscom3 (May 8, 2006)

I wonder if the sea fury was the safer of the two planes when landing on a carrier.


----------



## Soren (May 9, 2006)

At 70" Hg the F4U-4 climbed at 4,400 ft/min and would reach 20,000 ft in 5 min, and 30,000 ft in 7.6 min. The Sea-fury Mk.14 climbed at 4,320 ft/min, and could reportedly reach 24,000 ft in about 6 min.


----------



## wmaxt (May 9, 2006)

I have seen the F4U-4 at 5min to 20,000ft but did not have a source/site handy, so I used readily available data on both aircraft. Do you have sources and sites, if so please post them for our education?

wmaxt


----------



## elmilitaro (May 9, 2006)

nice info, wmaxt! Didn't know much of that.


----------



## wmaxt (May 9, 2006)

elmilitaro said:


> nice info, wmaxt! Didn't know much of that.



Thanks, 

I hope Soren posts his data (hopefully test reports) because there are so many site that use METO as best performance instead of WEP or worse a mix of the two. I always want to see the best available data and flight test reports esp when there from two different sources, pilots, and aircraft are the best.

wmaxt


----------



## elmilitaro (May 9, 2006)

Me too.


----------



## Soren (May 9, 2006)

wmaxt said:


> I have seen the F4U-4 at 5min to 20,000ft but did not have a source/site handy, so I used readily available data on both aircraft. Do you have sources and sites, if so please post them for our education?
> 
> wmaxt



You bet wmaxt ! (Although it aint website data, cause such is notorious for its inaccuracy, so I usually try to stay away from them)

Test-results by Vought: http://img388.imageshack.us/img388/7541/fig036xg.jpg


Now I would like to know where you got your data wmaxt, cause as far as I know there's no'one(Except some websites ofcause) who has the F4U-4's climb rate as 3,870 ft/min at full power. And it seems like you're entirely relying on the online Wikpedia for your figures. (Especially those for the Sea-Fury) 

And about the Sea-Fury, I mean come on, with 2,480hp and a wing-loading of 44.6 lbs/sq.ft. its pretty obvious it wouldn't be climbing at 2,700 ft/min, thats as slow as a Hawker Fury Mk.II, so I think we can rule that out right ? 

But you can check out the "British Aircraft Directory": http://www.britishaircraft.co.uk/aircraftpage.php?ID=30


----------



## elmilitaro (May 9, 2006)

Nice.


----------



## wmaxt (May 9, 2006)

Yes I can see 5min to 20,000 which is an average of 4,000ft/min for the Corsair. Do you have anything on time to climb to 20,000ft on the Sea Fury to give a realistic climb rate, Zoom climb is missleading in every case. If you have one, the best info is test data, please post that.

I also see they dropped the top speed to 450mph, which probably relates to the 446mph of a Corsair with Pylons.

I used three sites for each and picked the best one for the Sea Fury, if you read my other post you'll find that I mentioned the Mix of WEP data and METO data on many sites.

I'm fine with posted data if it can be backed up, I require at least two sites and even then will change my mind if better data is presented. I don't accept assumptions, or unilateral dismissal/proclamations of any data without back-up.

wmaxt


----------



## Soren (May 9, 2006)

You "require" ? wmaxt all I'm interested in is the truth, not what you "require" ! And if you think that a top-notch fighter from 1945-46 was climbing at a slower speed than a biplane designed in the early 20's, well then your obviously only interested in your own opinion and disregard even simple logic.

But ok, here's three MORE websites with the same figure:
http://www.aircraft.co.za/Encyclopedia/H/277.php
http://www.alliedplanes.com/blog/warplanes/2005/04/07/hawker-sea-fury/
http://www.highgallery.com/WorldAircraft/Great-Britain/Fighters/GreatBritainFighters.html

What I would really like though is something other than anecdotal evidence and website data, cause both simply can't be considered reliable. But one thing I can say for sure though, is that I sure as **** believe more in 4,300 ft/min than I do 2,700 ft/min for such a high performance fighter! Anything else would be ridiculous.

We're talking nearly 2,500 hp and a wing-loading of max 44.6 lbs/sq.ft.(Using max load figure of 12,500lbs) remember ! 

Just take a look at the Tempests climb rate with even less power! Its in the 4,700 ft/min area !


----------



## Twitch (May 10, 2006)

Just curious why anyone would consider zoom rates as valid. How can anyone take the zoom climb speed which translates descending speed into a vertical inertia? The "initial climb rate" is misleading in most cases. It doesn't mean anything. True performance of climb is time to altitude. Problem is all the published data is different in that one book will state time to altitude on one plane and only initial climb rate of another. When one attempts to compare they see an average of 4,000 FPM, or whatever, on one plane and then look at an initial rate of 4,320 FPM on another and conclude erroneously that is faster. It is only if it is maintained for 20,000 vertical feet.

A plane possessing a 4,750 FPM initial climb rate at sea level can fall off to 3,500 FPM at 12-18,000 feet for example. Another crate may exceed that climb in that particluar altitude performance envelope yet not have superior inotial climb rate.

The F2G-1 could hit 30,000 feet in 4 minutes flat too though it initial climb rate is listed at 4,400 FPM. The F4U-5's published top speed ranges from 462-470 MPH.

This a comparison of aircraft with nearly identical performance in the real world. Neither has a clear, unsurmountable advantage of performance. Top speed and climb rates are not applicable to compare in a demonstrable way other than in a clinical manner. Does a 2 or even 10 MPH top speed advantage mean anything? Climb rates are not something that demonstrates how one plane can rocket away from another if both start together in a race. Substantial climb is a factor used in scramble intercepts not pulling away from other fighters with 300 FPM lower climb rates. 

Let's not forget about angle of attack steepness of climb either where one crate can actually close on a faster climbing opponent that has a more shallow angle of ascent. Any plane able to pull lead by getting its nose steeper is going to win by placeing ordnance on target. If one plane does have a 500 FPM advantage at the same altitude of its opponent remember combat takes place in seconds. Being 500 feet higher will take a full minute- a lifetime in combat. Cannon and MG ordnance travel a lot faster than either of these ships can fly or climb at.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Soren (May 10, 2006)

Although I agree with alot of what you have just written Twitch, I don't know which Zoom rates it is your talking about.


----------



## syscom3 (May 10, 2006)

Time to climb measured in minutes, does sound more accurate than climb rates measured in FPM.

Twitch might be onto something here.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 10, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> Time to climb measured in minutes, does sound more accurate than climb rates measured in FPM.
> 
> Twitch might be onto something here.


 The Vertical Speed Indicator in the cockpit shows Feet per Minute. Unless a test is being accomplished, I doubt any pilot is timing his progress to altitude.


----------



## syscom3 (May 10, 2006)

If an aircraft is being tested for time to climb, then its obvious the pilot would note the time and altitude he started at, and record the time at the altitude he wanted to fly to. Nothing sophisticated about that.


----------



## wmaxt (May 10, 2006)

I agree with Twitch about a lot of what he says, however climb ability is of importance. An aircraft with a better climb rate has an escape and an ability to then turn a defensive position into an offensive situation. 
The winner of a vertical scissors is almost always the aircraft with the best climb rate. 

wmaxt


----------



## Glider (May 10, 2006)

wmaxt said:


> I agree with Twitch about a lot of what he says, however climb ability is of importance. An aircraft with a better climb rate has an escape and an ability to then turn a defensive position into an offensive situation.
> The winner of a vertical scissors is almost always the aircraft with the best climb rate.
> 
> wmaxt


I wouldn't agree that having a better climb giving you as escape option. It certainly isn't valid if there are a number of planes in the air as you lose speed and energy making yourself an easy target for any other plane in the sky.
If its a one to one situation then it isn't the rate of climb that is of overiding importance but the angle of the climb. If I can climb at a steaper angle than you it doesn't matter if you are going faster than me, as I will be able to get my guns to bear. If I am the target and am climbing at a steaper angle then it doesn't matter how fast you are climbing, you will not get your guns to bear.
This sounds fine and dandy but it only works if the chasing plane isn't close to a firing position when the target plane starts the climb. A plane starting a climb is almost a stationary target for a short and the angle needed by the chasing plane to get a firing solution is very shallow.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 10, 2006)

Glider said:


> I wouldn't agree that having a better climb giving you as escape option. It certainly isn't valid if there are a number of planes in the air as you lose speed and energy making yourself an easy target for any other plane in the sky.
> If its a one to one situation then it isn't the rate of climb that is of overiding importance but the angle of the climb. If I can climb at a steaper angle than you it doesn't matter if you are going faster than me, as I will be able to get my guns to bear. If I am the target and am climbing at a steaper angle then it doesn't matter how fast you are climbing, you will not get your guns to bear.
> This sounds fine and dandy but it only works if the chasing plane isn't close to a firing position when the target plane starts the climb. A plane starting a climb is almost a stationary target for a short and the angle needed by the chasing plane to get a firing solution is very shallow.


Good points there Glider, and also think about this, a 20 or 30 FPM climb rate advantage or a 30 second rate of climb atvantage at a specific altitude isn't going to mean escape - if anything trying to run away at a minimal margin is going to add up for a better firing solution for the pursuer (As Glider stated).


----------



## Hot Space (May 10, 2006)

The Sea Fury because it shot down Mig 15's 8)


----------



## Twitch (May 11, 2006)

Yeah Soren wmaxt was bringing zoom climb into the equation it seemed and that is inaccurate as the inertia is temporary. Just cause it pegs the rate of climb meter doesn't mean it is true.

I didn't say that climb rate is unimportant but "initial climb rate" is misleading. One crate can have a high initial climb rate and be beaten to 25,000 feet by a plane with less initial climb rate.

Glider is repeating exactly what I was saying about climb as a worthless disengagement maneuver and the fact that steepness is more important that speed as a way to get lead. If ya can't bring the nose to bear on an opponent ya can't shoot him. In normal combat scenarios the proximities are such that even a plane with a 500 FPM advantage will present a target for the one minute it takes him to get that distance away from a pursuer. 500 feet is an easy shot. If you begin a climb out with a 1/2 mile advantage you might make an escape. Try it with 250-300 yards/meters separation and you're dead meat.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 11, 2006)

Hot Space said:


> The Sea Fury because it shot down Mig 15's 8)



So did the Corsair...

"On 9 September 1952 a MiG-15 made the mistake of getting into a turning contest with a Corsair piloted by Captain Jesse G. Folmar, with Folmar shooting the MiG down with his four 20 millimeter cannon."

And then again...

"July 17, 1953 - Lieutenant Guy P. "Lucky Pierre" Bordelon scored his fifth aerial victory and qualified as the only U.S. Navy ace of the Korean War and the only Korean War ace who did not fly an F-86 Sabre jet. Bordelon, detached to K-6 airfield from the carrier USS Princeton, flew an F4U-5N Corsair named "Annie Mo." All his victories were the so-called "Bedcheck Charlies" engaged on nighttime harassment bombing missions."


----------



## syscom3 (May 11, 2006)

That must be the ultimate shame for a jet fighter pilot ................ getting shot down by a prop plane!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 11, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> That must be the ultimate shame for a jet fighter pilot ................ getting shot down by a prop plane!



YEP!!

http://skyraider.org/skyassn/sartapes/migkill/migkill.htm

even worse, getting shot down by a helicopter!

"The AN-2 strike force rolled in on the target, mistook the Air America ops shack for the 
radar site, and proceeded to venti*late it. The aforementioned “anti-aircraft artillery” force- one 
little Thai mercenary about five feet tall and all balls- heard the commotion, ran out on the 
helicopter pad, stood in the path of the attacking aircraft spraying rockets and bombs everywhere, 
and emptied a 27-round clip from his AK-47 into the AN-2, which then crashed and burned. At 
this juncture, the second attack aircraft broke of and turned north towards home. 

The "air defense interceptor" force was an unarmed Air Amer*ica Huey helicopter 
which was by happenstance on the pad at the time, the pilot and flight mechanic having a 
Coke in the ops shack. When holes started appearing in the roof, they ran to their Huey and 
got airborne, not quite believing the sight of two biplanes fleeing north. Then the Huey pilot, 
no slouch in the balls department either, realized that his Huey was faster than the biplanes! 
So he did the only thing a real pilot could do-attack! 

The Huey overtook the AN-2’s a few miles inside North Viet*nam, unknown to the 
AN-2’s as their rearward visibility is nil. The Huey flew over the rearmost AN-2 and the 
helicopter’s down-wash stalled out the upper wing of the AN-2. Suddenly the hapless AN-2 pilot 
found himself sinking like a stone! So he pulled the yoke back in his lap and further reduced his 
forward speed. Mean*while, the Huey flight mechanic, not to be outdone in the macho contest, 
crawled out on the Huey’s skid and, one-handed, emptied his AK-47 into the cockpit area of the 
AN-2, killing or wounding the pilot and copilot. At this point, the AN-2 went into a flat spin and 
crashed into a moutainside, but did not burn. 

It should come as no surprise that the Air America pilot and flight mechanic found 
themselves in a heap of trouble with the State Department REMF’s in Vientiane. (REMF is an 
acronym. The first three words are Rear, Echelon, and Mother.) In spite of the striped-pants 
cookie-pushers' discomfort at (horrors!) an inter*national incident (or perhaps, partly because of 
it) these guys were heroes to everybody in the theatre who didn't wear puce panties and talk with 
a lisp. They accomplished a couple of firsts: (1) The first and only combat shootdown of a biplane 
by a helicopter, and (2) The first known CIA air-to-air victory. Not bad for a couple of spooks."

Full story;
http://home.hiwaay.net/~jlwebs/misc.html


----------



## helmitsmit (May 11, 2006)

wmaxt said:


> Actually I'd go for the F4U-4
> 
> Sea Fury - top Speed - 460mph
> F4U-4 --- top speed -- 460mph (without external racks) 446mph with
> ...



The Fury's wing is similar to the Spitfire 24 which is said to have a brilliant roll rate. This adds up to better all round manuvourability than the F4U.


----------



## Hot Space (May 11, 2006)

I still say the Sea Fury, although the Seafire 47 for me would be just as close as the F4U 8)


----------



## helmitsmit (May 12, 2006)

I would therefore choose the Fury.


----------



## wmaxt (May 12, 2006)

Well if Soren's sites are right there so close that its a tough call, fighter wise but then the F-4Us range and attack ability make it an overall winner esp off a carrier where space limits the number of aircraft.

As to climb
1. The airplane that stalls first in a vertical scissors becomes the target.
2. a favorite escape of P-38s from Japanese aircraft was a tight counter clockwise spiral climb that they could not follow. By turning counter to the Japanese aircraft torque the P-38 had an advantage.
3. The British tests of the P-38F found that other fighters (trailing) could not effectively engage a P-38 in a very slow corkscrew climb because they would either stall or overshoot (the P-38F stalled, power on, at 74mph).

Of course numbers 2 and 3 are unique to the P-38 however a good climb is always an advantage. I do agree with Twitch, that if your being chased by an aircraft with center firing weapons whatever you do to escape is in jeopardy for the first few seconds to a minute while your still in range depending on relative speeds of the aircraft involved.

wmaxt


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 13, 2006)

I'd take the sea fury, any day........


----------



## lesofprimus (May 13, 2006)

Ur siggy sucks.....


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 13, 2006)

maybe so, but if i'd wanted to use the other one right now don't you think i'd have changed it myself


----------



## syscom3 (May 13, 2006)

Why would you take the Sea Fury over the Corsair any day? 

And why does your signature have a jet on it and not the 3rd best bomber of WW2?


----------



## lesofprimus (May 13, 2006)

Cause he's a sheeplovin Cornishman, thats why... No rhyme, no reason....


----------



## syscom3 (May 13, 2006)

You saying hes a Cornish Pastry? (Patsy?), hehehehehe

Sorry Lanc...... heheheheh


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 13, 2006)

pastry is the casing of a _pasty_, and over here a patsy is often slang for a homo


----------



## Glider (May 14, 2006)

the lancaster kicks *** said:


> pastry is the casing of a _pasty_, and over here a patsy is often slang for a homo



Or someone who has been landed with the blame


----------



## gordon2 (May 9, 2014)

Hi I know this is an old thread,however, my father flew both the F4U and the Seafury in combat with the FAA at the end of WW2 with the F4U and during Korea with the Fury, he has always said that he would rather be in the Corsair as they found it a bit more maneuverable and because there was always a weakness with the engine in the fury as he found out on more than one occasion ,he also flew the Seafire 47 as was mentioned but did not rate it as a naval fighter but as a wonderful weekend" sports plane"

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------

