# Corsair vs Lightning



## syscom3 (Oct 15, 2005)

Ok, lets hear your thoughts on the relative merits of either plane, beginning in early 1943. 

So far, Id say that both are so evenly matched through the summer of 1945, thats its hard to pick which was the best.


----------



## Aggie08 (Oct 15, 2005)

One thing I know for sure- it would be a helluva match to see!


----------



## lesofprimus (Oct 15, 2005)

I think the F4U had it all over the -38, in just about every aspect except long range missions...

My Grandfather flew F4U's and in mock dogfights, he never met a -38 pilot that could match him, and he self admittedly stated he wasnt the best pilot around...

That being said, the equally qualified Corsair pilot takes 3 outta 5 engagements...


----------



## plan_D (Oct 15, 2005)

Corsair 'cos it can do almost everything the P-38 can do but it can do it from a Carrier.


----------



## syscom3 (Oct 15, 2005)

Each plane has its plus's and minus's. Even though the Corsair was carrier capable, the P38 was very successful in the recon version.

If their was one edge I'd give the P38, it would be for armarment. The concentrated MG's was more effective at the medium and longer ranges.


----------



## plan_D (Oct 15, 2005)

Six .50s would only be slightly inferior to the concentration of four 50s and one 20mm. And there was the four 20mm armed Corsair ...I think ...I can't remember anymore.


----------



## syscom3 (Oct 15, 2005)

Didnt the Corsairs with four cannons appear after the war?

But in 1943, it was still six 50's. Having the cncentration of your guns in the nose advoids convergence issues. I dont think any fighter with wing mounted guns could reliably hit planes beyond a certien range.


----------



## plan_D (Oct 15, 2005)

Of course they can. It depends on the pilot. I think you're over-playing the advantages of nose mounted guns compared to wing mounts.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 15, 2005)

lesofprimus said:


> I think the F4U had it all over the -38, in just about every aspect except long range missions...
> 
> My Grandfather flew F4U's and in mock dogfights, he never met a -38 pilot that could match him, and he self admittedly stated he wasnt the best pilot around...
> 
> That being said, the equally qualified Corsair pilot takes 3 outta 5 engagements...



As much as I love the P-38 I've heard the same thing. Mojave Airport (where I used to work at) used to be a Marine base during WW2. First there were F4Fs there and later F4Us. Some Veterans of that unit were still in the area (although getting on in age) and said the same thing. Additionally there were AAF guys stationed at Muroc (Edwards) and they would always try to play with the Marines - they would wind up meeting at Panchos for beers afterwards. The -38 guys who I spoke to about this period said the Marines in their Corsairs were tough and it was usually the better P-38 pilot that would win in these mock scraps.....


----------



## lesofprimus (Oct 16, 2005)

IIRC, there were cannon armed Corsairs in the Pacific during the War, although in limited numbers.... I'll check into it later if no one knows....

Hey Joe, WTF is ur avatar??? I cant make it out...

As far a nose mounting verses wing, ie convergence, there was a difference, but only the truly excellent pilot could make a use outta it... Plus, the thing to remember about guns in the nose was the muzzle flash....

For a rookie green pilot, wing mounted .50's were where it was at...


----------



## P38 Pilot (Oct 16, 2005)

> Hey Joe, WTF is ur avatar??? I cant make it out...


Yeah! Could you tell me that also???

I say the P-38 was great on long range, could carry more bombs and rockets, and i think nose guns were slightly more accurate than wing guns.

Although i hate to say this since the -38 is my bird of choice, F4U Corsair might out class it in a dogfight but the P-38 probably have a chance of punching some bullets into the F4U. It was very useful like PD said that it could fly off of Carrier decks. 

It would have been cool to say a Navy Air Corp P-38j fly off the deck of a carrier like what Doolittle did with the B-25!


----------



## lesofprimus (Oct 16, 2005)

Navy Air Corp???


----------



## P38 Pilot (Oct 16, 2005)

Wasnt that the name of the pilots who flew on carriers?


----------



## lesofprimus (Oct 16, 2005)

No...


----------



## cheddar cheese (Oct 16, 2005)

The Model 822 was the carrier version of the P-38 but didnt materialize because the USN thought it too big...

In a dogfight it would be close to call for me...The Corsair probably did have the advabtage but I would still rather be in the -38, twing engine survivability and sheer toughness does it for me, as well as the extra hitting power of that 20mm...Then again the Corsair was mighty tough too...Close to call.


----------



## lesofprimus (Oct 16, 2005)

I feel that with all available data, the F4U was a tougher aircraft to knock outta the sky....


----------



## d_bader (Oct 16, 2005)

When you sat which is better are we looking at fighter aspects or ground attack aspects?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 16, 2005)

lesofprimus said:


> Hey Joe, WTF is ur avatar??? I cant make it out.



It's a P-3 with a face on it - I'm going to change it here soon


----------



## syscom3 (Oct 16, 2005)

One advantage of the Corsair is it would be easier to mass produce and to train pilots.

Having a single air colled engine is also easier on the mechanics than two liquid cooled egnines.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 16, 2005)

I think if you have a Bong or McGuire type pilot who would dump flaps and jockey the engine powersettings , you might turn inside of a Corsair, but that's based on pilot skills and those guys are far and few.

I've spoken about my former neighbor, Mike Alba, a WW2 P-38 and P-51 pilot. After WW2 he worked with the "Military Assistance Program" (MAP) where he would help countries set up combat training schools. Considering Mike was bi-lingual, he spent much of his time in Central and South America. He helpd Honduras set up their first combat training school right after the war. Later he went back when they got their Corsairs. They flew both aircraft and Mike spect considerable time there assiting them in combat training. I remember him saying that the Corsair was far superior than the -38 in his opinion. He also told me of one of his star students named "Soto." This guy shot down 3 plane during the 1969 "Soccer War" with Guatemala.


----------



## wmaxt (Oct 16, 2005)

I think syscom hit it pretty well. The two planes had approx the same wing area which would give the advantage to the Corsair though the top third P-38 pilots could do seemingly majical things to.

Here is a F4U-4 comparison to a P-51 but watch for thr "except for the P-38" statements. http://home.att.net/~historyzone/F4U-4.html if you pencil in the P-38 data I think you will see its pretty much a toss up though a K model would still up the anty. The L model was in operation by July '44, if desired the K could have hit the front lines by June '44 a year before.

Notes P-38-5-LO in WEP: 
climb is Identicle 5min to 20K
Speed 442/443
Low speed with very good stall no flip tendencies
Roll rate comparable (to 51 and 47D) very high at high speed but don't know the Corsairs roll rate to compare

wmaxt


----------



## P38 Pilot (Oct 21, 2005)

Hmm. Nice comparison. But im still sticking with a good old P-38-L.


----------



## syscom3 (Oct 21, 2005)

In the WW2 years, how did the nightfighter Corsairs fitted with those radar domes on the wings do?

Did performance suffer? Did they actually intercept and shootdown intruders?


----------



## wmaxt (Oct 22, 2005)

syscom3 said:


> In the WW2 years, how did the nightfighter Corsairs fitted with those radar domes on the wings do?
> 
> Did performance suffer? Did they actually intercept and shootdown intruders?



Yes they did intercept and shoot down intruders and the degradation of performance was negligable. I don't know how successful overall they were because the F6F was the primary Naval noghtfighter. 

The Navy didn't really accept the Corsair until March '45 or so - The Brits showed them how to do it. The Marines got hand-me-downs including radar sets.

wmaxt


----------



## ollieholmes (Oct 24, 2005)

cheddar cheese said:


> The Model 822 was the carrier version of the P-38 but didnt materialize because the USN thought it too big...



ineresting concept that. where did they put the arrestor hook? have you any pictures or anything of this scheme.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 24, 2005)

ollieholmes said:


> cheddar cheese said:
> 
> 
> > The Model 822 was the carrier version of the P-38 but didnt materialize because the USN thought it too big...
> ...



You mean arresting hooks! Think about it?!?


----------



## ollieholmes (Oct 24, 2005)

i cant see anywhere to put them. its got trycicle undercarrige. if anyone has any pictures of this arangement i would be very interested to see them.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Oct 24, 2005)

They never made a prototype but there some information here. http://www.vectorsite.net/avp38.html#m5 Im sure there are some basic diagrams somewhere out there, if anyone will know its wmaxt.


----------



## ollieholmes (Oct 24, 2005)

i cant see any mention there of fitting an aresstor hook to it. but the idea of making one the size of the black widow is interesting.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Oct 24, 2005)

> Lockheed proposed a carrier-based "Model 822" version of the Lightning for the US Navy. The Model 822 would have featured folding wings, *an arresting hook*, and stronger undercarriage for carrier operations. The Navy wasn't interested, since the brass regarded the Lightning as too big for carrier operations and didn't like liquid-cooled engines anyway, and the Model 822 never went beyond the paper stage. However, the Navy did operate four land-based F-5Bs in North Africa, with these aircraft inherited from the USAAF and redesignated "FO-1".



Right there.


----------



## evangilder (Oct 24, 2005)

Info on the F4U nightfighter:



> The F4U-2 was a nightfighter development of the F4U-1. Standard nightfighter radars of WWII were too large, heavy and complicated to be installed in single-engined, single-seat fighters. But the availability of a small radar with a limited capacity made it possible to develop a nightfighter which would provide a degree of air cover during night operations. Because Vought was already overloaded with work, the development of the F4U-2 was undertaken by the Naval Aircraft Factory. In the end, only 34 were converted. Two of these were made by VMF(N)-532, and these were the only ones converted from F4U-1As.
> The original radar was the AIA installation, developed from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology under Project Roger. It had a range of 6km against aircraft. For single-seat fighters a easy-to-use scope had to be developed. This took the form of a small circular scope on the instrument panel that showed two blips for the target. The first blip indicated the direction and distance of the target, and the position of the second blip relative to the first one was an indication of the relative height of the target.
> 
> The small radar radome was added on the starboard wing, on the wing leading edge close to the wing tip. To compensate for the weight one of the wing guns was removed, and ammunition reduced. As the F4U-2 was intended for night operations, flame dampers were fitted to the exhaust stacks. A radio altimeter and an autopilot were also installed.
> ...


http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/f4u.html


----------



## ollieholmes (Oct 24, 2005)

but where would they put the arrestor hook?


----------



## cheddar cheese (Oct 24, 2005)

I can imagine it might dangle off the central gondola, between the two rear wheels possibly?


----------



## ollieholmes (Oct 24, 2005)

i personaly cant imagine the rear of the pod being strong enough but theres realy nowhere else to put it.


----------



## P38 Pilot (Oct 24, 2005)

Yeah. It would be pretty cool though to have a picture of it.


----------



## evangilder (Oct 24, 2005)

I don't think the areesting hook design ever left the drawing board. Besides, the Navy was not keen on liquid cooled engines.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 24, 2005)

evangilder said:


> I don't think the areesting hook design ever left the drawing board. Besides, the Navy was not keen on liquid cooled engines.



Yep - glycol - another "liquid" to carry on the boat....


----------



## lesofprimus (Oct 25, 2005)

That'd make a pretty fine mess on the flightdeck, huh Joe???


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 25, 2005)

Yep! The DC Chief would love it!!!


----------



## lesofprimus (Oct 25, 2005)

Love it to death... Man what a fire that would make with several loaded fighters sitting in near vicinity...

Boom!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 25, 2005)

Shades of the Forrestal!


----------



## wmaxt (Oct 25, 2005)

I recently reviewed the comments Jimmy Doolittle gave Warren Bodie:

The P-38 may not have been the best fighter in WWII, but he does conced that this can probably be attributed to factors unrelated to the aircrafts abilities. Strategic and tactical doctrine proved to be a severe handicap to utilization of this type in Northern Europe. Early P-47s and P-51swould have fared poorly under the rules prevailing.

G. Doolittle expressed the opinion that the P-38 was surely at it's best in the warmer climes of the MTO. On the balance - in his opinion - was far ahead of all but 1 or 2 of the most outstanding fighters of WWII. It was certainly the most versatile ...

It also should be noted that on D-Day he flew a P-38 to view the landings.

wmaxt


----------



## Lunatic (Oct 25, 2005)

wmaxt said:


> I think syscom hit it pretty well. The two planes had approx the same wing area which would give the advantage to the Corsair though the top third P-38 pilots could do seemingly majical things to.
> 
> Here is a F4U-4 comparison to a P-51 but watch for thr "except for the P-38" statements. http://home.att.net/~historyzone/F4U-4.html if you pencil in the P-38 data I think you will see its pretty much a toss up though a K model would still up the anty. The L model was in operation by July '44, if desired the K could have hit the front lines by June '44 a year before.
> 
> ...



Top speed of the F4U-4 was 464 mph TAS at ~21K, 448 mph TAS with "capped" pylons installed. Since the top speed figures for the P-38L are without pylons the fair comparison is to the 464 mph figure.

In my opinion the F4U-4 was better than the P-38L below about 27K, the P-38L was better above about 31K, and they were evenly matched between 27K and 31K. The Corsair was the tougher plane w.r.t. combat damage, the P-38 definitely had an edge when it came to surviving mechanical problems. The P-38 had a lot more vulnerable target area given its gas in the wings and the layout of its engines and turbo-superchargers.

And the F4U-1c was the cannon armed version that definitely saw action during WWII (first blood drawn 4-6-45). The F4U-4C may have seen action but no confirmation can be found (a few hundred were delievered in time for the war).

The F4U-1c's had gun freezing problems and were ineffective above 15K and were intended for ground attack from conception.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## syscom3 (Oct 25, 2005)

But some P38 pilots in the PTO said that the two engine design is what brought them home, as compared to a single engine. Again, both planes have outstanding airframes and could bring their pilots home time after time. Perhaps only the P47 was tougher.


----------



## P38 Pilot (Oct 25, 2005)

Agreed. With that Two engine design, they could keep on going even after they took some damage.


----------



## Lunatic (Oct 26, 2005)

P38 Pilot said:


> Agreed. With that Two engine design, they could keep on going even after they took some damage.



It was really not vs. damage that those pilots were usually talking about. It was vs. mechanical failure.

The odds that after taking hits the P-38 was going to go down were much higher than for a corsair or hellcat. The fuel tanks are comparitavely exposed and the engines are no where near as robust vs. combat damage. An R2800 could take signifcant damage and still get the pilot home, where an inline would fail after almost any hit due to coolant loss. Even with two engines the liquid cooling aspect plus the fuel tank vulnerability made it less able to survive combat damage and get the pilot home.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## syscom3 (Oct 26, 2005)

But what happens when you are flying 1300 miles from base, and one engine fails for any reason. Is that Hellcat or Corsair going to glide all those miles?

Another plus for the 2 engine design is it was great for the morale of the P38 pilots. Knowing you could come home after losing an engine made the flying the vast distances in the SW pacific far more bareable.

The 475th FG pilot I talked to at Chino 2004, told me having a second engine brought home many pilots who otherwise would have parachuted way out over the ocean or into the jungles.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 27, 2005)

Lunatic said:


> The odds that after taking hits the P-38 was going to go down were much higher than for a corsair or hellcat. The fuel tanks are comparitavely exposed and the engines are no where near as robust vs. combat damage. An R2800 could take signifcant damage and still get the pilot home, where an inline would fail after almost any hit due to coolant loss. Even with two engines the liquid cooling aspect plus the fuel tank vulnerability made it less able to survive combat damage and get the pilot home.



While I agree with the robustness of a radial engine the area around the P-38s fuel tanks (along with a good portion of the wings) were made from corrugations riveted to structure and then the corrugations riveted to the skin - the same system found on B-17 wings - this is extremely strong and I would compare it to the structure of the Corsair or the Hellcat any day....

Bottom line I rather have one feathered and one running Allison engine than one R-2800 with 3 jugs missing....


----------



## wmaxt (Oct 27, 2005)

Lunatic said:


> P38 Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > Agreed. With that Two engine design, they could keep on going even after they took some damage.
> ...



One thing that is rarley noted is that the P-38 is also spread out. It's outside dimensions are large but the individual parts are not, making the liklyhood that a single burst is going to take it out very unlikely. 

The Corsair fuel is more concentrated but it's also at the point an enemy aircraft will be aiming at. The P-38s is more spread out but is self sealing (to) and is also able to be cross fed to ether engine - lose a tank you can at a minimum work your way closer to home. Try that in a Corsair with an empty tank!  

All in all I think the two aircraft are extreamly close in capability and 1:1 combat it would probably come down to who exploited/made the first mistake. As for which plane is best, it would come down to mission and each one only has a couple of areas that it is unique in.

IMHO, these are the pinacle in piston engine fighter aircraft though its easily arguable that the Spit and the Fw-190 series should be included even if they can't do everything these two can.

wmaxt


----------



## syscom3 (Oct 27, 2005)

The PTO had its own unique requirements for a successfull fighter. Range was definatley one of the most important considerations.


----------



## wmaxt (Oct 27, 2005)

syscom3 said:


> The PTO had its own unique requirements for a successfull fighter. Range was definatley one of the most important considerations.



True, but escorting in the MTO/ETO missions with a 500+ mile radius were common.

I do think, though, that any "Best" aircraft must include the 'You got to get to the fight' condition - the best fighter that ever flew is worth nothing if it can't get to where it's needed. 

wmaxt


----------



## syscom3 (Oct 27, 2005)

wmaxt said:


> I do think, though, that any "Best" aircraft must include the 'You got to get to the fight' condition - the best fighter that ever flew is worth nothing if it can't get to where it's needed.
> wmaxt



Well summarized.

In regards to the ETO/MTO, my intent of this thread was their performance in the PTO. There they fought the same opponents, in the same theater and had to contend with the same operational problems.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Oct 28, 2005)

> I do think, though, that any "Best" aircraft must include the 'You got to get to the fight' condition - the best fighter that ever flew is worth nothing if it can't get to where it's needed



although in the case of interceptors where it was needed was baisically straight up, not miles away over enemy teritory, i know this is nothing to do with the discussion i just didn't want people thinking that planes like the spitfire and EE Lightening were bad fighters because of their range, it's ok for a plane to have short range of it was designed to.........


----------



## cheddar cheese (Oct 28, 2005)

Agreed on both counts lanc and wmaxt.


----------



## Gnomey (Oct 28, 2005)

cheddar cheese said:


> Agreed on both counts lanc and wmaxt.


Me too. Good points.


----------



## syscom3 (Oct 28, 2005)

One of the unique problems for both the Japanese and Allied forces in the PTO was the vast distances involved. If you cannot send your fighters out to where your opponant is, youre strictly on defense. In the PTO that meant your opponant could take islands or jungle just out of reach of your aircraft and build strips to cutoff your sealane supply.

What made the P38 and Corsair so great was they could fly practically anywhere the bombers went and cover them. A Spitfire in the PTO would be of quite limited use since it would be tied closely to its base and couldnt fly to where the action was.


----------



## wmaxt (Oct 28, 2005)

syscom3 said:


> What made the P38 and Corsair so great was they could fly practically anywhere the bombers went and cover them. A Spitfire in the PTO would be of quite limited use since it would be tied closely to its base and couldnt fly to where the action was.



Thats part of my point, I don't feel range is make or break as to a planes capability as a fighter but one must considier it as an advantage/bonus point when comparing fighters. 

The P-51 wasn't much better than average but its range makes it a serious contender.

The BoB was lost as much by the short range Bf-109 as it was won/lost by any other factors.

Air superority over Europe was won by P-38s and P-51s and later P-47s and range was a prime reason they were able to do it.

That doesn't make the Spit a poor fighter but it is less effective strategicly and should be a factor in any comparison.

wmaxt


----------



## syscom3 (Oct 28, 2005)

Exactly. I couldnt have summed it up any better.


----------



## P38 Pilot (Oct 28, 2005)

What also made the P-38 very useful was its bomb and rocket load if you ask me. Carry either 2 500lb bombs or two 600lb bombs along with a rocket load of 8,6 in rockets. Very useful when strafing trains or bringing down an armor column.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Oct 28, 2005)

I believe the norm would probably be to carry 10 5in rockets, plus just one 1600lb bomb so that the other space can be used for a droptank on long range missions. If its short range though, shove a couple of 1600lb on 8)


----------



## syscom3 (Oct 28, 2005)

In the Pacific, there wasnt any armor to shoot at. However, for the marines, lucky the Corsair could carry those big napalm tanks.

Anyone remember the pictures of them taking off at Peleliu (Palau Islands) and being so close to the Japanese positions, they didnt even have time to raise up their gear?

One other thing that we forget the P38 was famous for......... it was the "Get Yamamoto" mission. Absolutely perfect mission planning and execution of it, coupled with some fantastic navigation by the flight leader.
It couldnt have been done without the dependability of two engines and the range the P38 had.

http://p-38online.com/yam.html


----------



## P38 Pilot (Oct 29, 2005)

I had the first pic as my very first wallpaper when i got this computer!


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Oct 29, 2005)

what a claim to fame for the artist...........


----------



## cheddar cheese (Oct 29, 2005)

I had it as my wallpaper before him though, I betcha


----------



## Lunatic (Oct 29, 2005)

syscom3 said:


> In the Pacific, there wasnt any armor to shoot at. However, for the marines, lucky the Corsair could carry those big napalm tanks.



The Japanese quickly learned that US aircraft, and ground forces for that matter, carried the .50 BMG as their largest small cailber weapon (short of bomb or a howitzer) and built thier defenses accordingly. Thus the Marine Corsair test unit (VMF318? - I'd have to ciheck that) therefore requested 20mm guns to allow Japanese pillboxes to be strafed successfuly.

Yes the napalm was effective, but I think it was actually more effective in Europe.

And those paintings are not historically accurate - the shot that downed Yammato's Betty was scored at extreme range (3000 feet). But they are nice none-the-less.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Lunatic (Oct 29, 2005)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Lunatic said:
> 
> 
> > The odds that after taking hits the P-38 was going to go down were much higher than for a corsair or hellcat. The fuel tanks are comparitavely exposed and the engines are no where near as robust vs. combat damage. An R2800 could take signifcant damage and still get the pilot home, where an inline would fail after almost any hit due to coolant loss. Even with two engines the liquid cooling aspect plus the fuel tank vulnerability made it less able to survive combat damage and get the pilot home.
> ...



However only one of the three fuel tanks in each wing was self-sealing. On the Corsair there was a single self-sealing fuel tank mounted behind the engine below the pilots feet. It was (comparatively) well protected and much less exposed than the fuel tanks on the P-38, making the whole plane much less vulnerable since fire is probably the single type of damage most likely to result in a kill. The wing structure of the Corsair was also stronger than that of the P-38 - it was also box-within-box, just no fuel within the inner box, and it also had a huge steel main spar and two secondary spars and fabric covering on the rear 60% of both wings outside the fold (this was less susceptable to cannon fire than metal).

I'd agree with your assessment for damage, but I'd rather take 4-6 hits to the R2800 than 1-3 to each Allison. Any hit to the Allison or the turbo system and it is pretty much finished. And the Corsair engine was better protected than the P-38's and had much less exposure.

=S=


----------



## syscom3 (Oct 29, 2005)

But theres two engines, not one. Plus the tail boom assembly proved to be quite strong.

Id say its still a draw between the two.

And napalm in the Pacific was quite effective. If the pilot could see his target of course.


----------



## Lunatic (Oct 30, 2005)

syscom3 said:


> But theres two engines, not one. Plus the tail boom assembly proved to be quite strong.
> 
> Id say its still a draw between the two.
> 
> And napalm in the Pacific was quite effective. If the pilot could see his target of course.



Well, the USAAF doesn't agree with you. They clearly considered the P-47 to be more capable of surviving combat damage than the P-38. They also agreed in post-war testing that the Corsair was tougher than the P-47. To me that means the Corsair was tougher than the P-38 by a substanial margin.

Napalm was effective in the Pacific, but the opportunities to use it were somewhat limited. Targets in Europe tended to be much more exposed. We just didn't publicize its use in Europe much for largely racist reasons (it was much more palletable to Americans to be frying Japanese alive than Germans).

Where Napalm was used quite effectively in the PTO was against Japanese cities. B-29's dropped a lot of Napalm on Japanese cities to horrendous effect. It was used somewhat less against German cities (Dresden is one example).

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## syscom3 (Oct 30, 2005)

The P47 was the single toughest fighter of WW2. But this thread is about the Corsair and Lightning in operations in the pacific.

The P38 was a tough plane, having hit ship masts and tree's without being brought down.

Since range is everything in the PTO, having two engines brought home many a pilot who otherwise would have dissapeared into the vast reaches of the sea, or into the jungles.


----------



## plan_D (Oct 30, 2005)

I believe Lunatic just stated that the USAAF agreed that the Corsair was, in fact, 'tougher' than the P-47. Making the Corsair the single toughest fighter of World War II. 

P-47s, Mosquitos, B-25s and various other aircraft came home trailing telegraph wire or with bits of tree on or in them. It's not really a sign have survivability above the other great 'rocks' in the sky. 

As Lunatic posted earlier, it would depend on which approach you take. With mechanical failure, yes, the P-38 with two engines is more survivable being able to run it's other engine after one breaks down. However, in combat the fuel and cooling systems on the P-38 were much more vulnerable compared to the Corsairs. A rupture in the P-38s fuel tanks would cause fire, the single most destructive force on aircraft after an outright explosion. 

On the engine issue, mechinical survivabilty goes to the P-38 while combat survivability goes to the Corsair. 

We must remember that while the P-38 had two engines, they were much weaker than the Corsairs' engine. It was said that to shot down a P-47 you must fill it so full of lead that it's too heavy to fly ...well, if the USAAF concluded the F4U was tougher than the P-47 ...how do you shoot one down!?!


----------



## syscom3 (Oct 30, 2005)

The Corsair was designed for carrier ops, so yes it would had a far stronger airframe.

You can always say a single cannon hit in the R2800 would have minimal impact on it. But the P38 also had two engines so the chances are lower for two engines hit at the same time. Taking a hit in cooling system was always a bad thing. But the Allison could run for awhile before failing.

So when it comes to mission survivabilty, we can say the Corsair would take the pilot back home because the airframe was so tough. And the P38 could survive because it had two engines to take its pilot back home.

It ends in a draw.


----------



## plan_D (Oct 30, 2005)

I'd sooner state the Corsair was more combat survivable than the Lightning, while the Lightning was more operational survivable. While Lightning does have two engines, it also has a weak airframe and vulnerable fuel tanks which would be extremely destructive to any aircraft. The Corsairs fuel tanks are safe in comparison.


----------



## syscom3 (Oct 30, 2005)

plan_D said:


> I'd sooner state the Corsair was more combat survivable than the Lightning, while the Lightning was more operational survivable. While Lightning does have two engines, it also has a weak airframe and vulnerable fuel tanks which would be extremely destructive to any aircraft. The Corsairs fuel tanks are safe in comparison.



There is no evidence the Lightning has a weak airframe.

As was stated before, the wing structure and fuel cell design was well designed and strong.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 30, 2005)

I've seen both up close - The Corsair is built like a Brick Sh*t House. The -38 is not as robust but still pretty damn strong. I'd give ease of construction to the Corsair, I heard from old Lockheed folks the tailplanes were hard to assemble and they looked for midgets to do assembly in that area...


----------



## syscom3 (Oct 30, 2005)

Back in the 80's when Chino was putting together their P38, they had the center section on display for all to see. 

There were a lot of pieces!!!!!!!


----------



## wmaxt (Oct 30, 2005)

The P-38 is also spread out making a single burst unlikly to do criticle damage to both engines and their systems.

As for the robustnes of the various aircraft, I'm not sure how to accurately assess that. The 8th AF made a big deal about how badly the P-38 fared in the ETO and it turns out the real number was 451 P-38s Total. The numbers of P-38s lost were low (not much different that P-47s) and remember the P-38s were tacticle fighters as much as air to air in all theaters. The difference, if any, is not much.

wmaxt


----------



## GT (Nov 1, 2005)

Update.


----------



## evangilder (Nov 1, 2005)

Nice!


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 1, 2005)

not often you see them with folded wings these days........


----------



## Gnomey (Nov 1, 2005)

Nice pic GT


----------



## syscom3 (Nov 1, 2005)

There was another role that the P38 excelled at, and that was the recon version. Long range, high altitiude performance, fast, and nice big eqmt bay in the nose made for a perfect plane for this role.

I dont believe there was a Corsair version for dedicated recon.


----------



## evangilder (Nov 1, 2005)

There was a F4U-5P that was a photoreconnaissance version, but I think there were only about 30 made, and after WWII. They were used in Korea a bit though. 

The F-5 version of the P-38 was a superb photoreconnaissance aircraft though, I will agree with that.


----------



## syscom3 (Nov 1, 2005)

I wonder if they had the recon camera's in a pod. I dont see much room in the airframe for a nice big camera.


----------



## evangilder (Nov 1, 2005)

It is said that it had a unique rotating camera mount. I haven't seen a picture of it though.


----------



## Gnomey (Nov 1, 2005)

I found this but it doesn't show much...






From the Vought site link on right click.


----------



## wmaxt (Nov 1, 2005)

syscom3 said:


> I wonder if they had the recon camera's in a pod. I dont see much room in the airframe for a nice big camera.



The Corsair had a huge open area below and behind the pilot that could be used for cameras, ballast would be required up front. Until the -5 model they didn't even have a cockpit floor, just an open area about 3 feet deep. All tankage was foward of the cockpit with radio and oxygen tanks behind and a lot of open space.

wmaxt


----------



## evangilder (Nov 1, 2005)

I just found this in the F4U in Action book.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Nov 1, 2005)

Interesting. 
I've never seen that before.


----------



## evangilder (Nov 1, 2005)

I thought I should check that book to see if there was anything. I got lucky. Speaking of Corsairs...

These are a couple of previews to my new website, coming soon.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Nov 1, 2005)

Cool! 
There'll be some excellent pics for me to stea...ah, look at. :-"


----------



## P38 Pilot (Nov 1, 2005)

Corsair was a beautiful and graceful Naval Aircraft. It was the Navy's P51D in my opinion. 

But, im sticking with the P-38.


----------



## evangilder (Nov 1, 2005)

I will have some of the smaller, slightly lower resolution shots like above available for everyone to download and look at for free. I plan on having prints available as well as calendars and maybe t-shirts at some point. Why not make a little money with my hobby?


----------



## Nonskimmer (Nov 1, 2005)

Absolutely. Sounds good.


----------



## evangilder (Nov 1, 2005)

The shot in my sig I just sent out to the lab for a 16 x 20 print that I plan to matte and frame for a gallery. If it works out, I may go up to 30 x 20 size. We will see how the 16 x 20 looks first to see if I want to go any larger.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 1, 2005)

Very Cool Eric!!


----------



## lesofprimus (Nov 1, 2005)

I agree, as long as u have a board discount...(especially the admins...)

I love the Corsair shots BTW, although I think u made the copyright alittle too large...


----------



## syscom3 (Nov 1, 2005)

Well so far, both planes are pretty much equal.

Where one excells, the other has points in its favor to even the score.

I put my vote still on the P38 by just a fraction of a point, as it was more versatile.

And how can anyone say the Corsair was the navy's "P51"?.......... Good god man!!!!


----------



## R Leonard (Nov 1, 2005)

> Corsair was a beautiful and graceful Naval Aircraft. It was the Navy's P51D in my opinion.




Naaaaa, this was the Navy's P-51D. You can just barely see the tailhook. This shot was from USS Shangri-La in, 
as I recall, November 1944. Pilot is Bob Elder.






There were also some P-51Cs that VCS-8 operated in the invasion of Southern France and the Spitfire Vb's 
that VCS-7 operated over Normandy.


Regards,

Rich


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 2, 2005)

sounds good even, looking forward to checking that out!


----------



## Gnomey (Nov 2, 2005)

Nice stuff Evan, look forward to seeing your website. Les the idea of a board discount seems like a good idea to me, what do you think Evan?


----------



## evangilder (Nov 2, 2005)

Well guys, I am still looking at pricing and what exactly I am going to stock and all. My example 16 x 20 should be here next week and I will see how good it's going to look. Thanks for the accolades guys.

Les, the copyright is kind of big, but I want to get more exposure (no pun intended) and so I want to make sure it gets read.I don't care if people download them as long as they remember where they came from. Anything sold will not have the copyright on the image itself.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 2, 2005)

and the discount?


----------



## evangilder (Nov 2, 2005)

How can I state any discounts if I am still looking at the pricing? Besides, are you really going to buy anything?


----------



## syscom3 (Nov 2, 2005)

Evans, you should use Photoshop to put your head onto the pilot in the cockpit of these planes.

You can claim you were a qualified pilot for all the warbirds

)


----------



## evangilder (Nov 2, 2005)

I could put my head in there, but I am not going to claim to be something I am not. Wouldn't be right. I have been fortunate to fly in some of these and have actually flown the AN-2, if only for about 10 minutes. But that is about the extent of it so far.


----------



## lesofprimus (Nov 2, 2005)

CC paid for the shipping on a picture of a P-38 I drew, so its possible...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 2, 2005)

and i might buy summit, depends if it's got a lanc on it  anything comical will go down well too.........


----------



## evangilder (Nov 2, 2005)

I have some old shots of the Lanc, not sure how good they are. I am still working the business end as I edit the shots for calendars and the like.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 3, 2005)

well whatever happens it'll cirtainly be something i look forward too!


----------



## Gnomey (Nov 3, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> well whatever happens it'll cirtainly be something i look forward too!


I will too.


----------



## evangilder (Nov 3, 2005)

Back to the editting room. I created the first calendar and the photo quality was crap. Now that I know how the system works, I can fix that. My first calendar, "Classic Biplanes" should be available soon. I will be doing a lot of different aircraft themes as I go. I may also do calendars with individual aircraft, but I am still in the process of optimizing the images. Once that is all set, then I can start creating a mess of different ones. 

If there is a particular theme you would like to see, let me know via PM and I will see what I have. So far, my list is classic biplanes, trainers, pacific war fighters, bombers and will probably do some nature themes. I know that one of the individual aircraft calendars will be the Corsair. There will probably be another on the Skyraider.


----------



## syscom3 (Nov 3, 2005)

Pacific Warbirds!

That should be your theme.


----------



## NAVAIR (Nov 10, 2005)

Ok, having read thru the entire thread, let me add my comments.

As air to air fighters, the P-38L would be my choice over any version of the -1 series Corsairs.

Why? Simple, the P-38 was vastly better in the vertical. It climbed much better, accelerated much, much faster and it had those marvelous Lockheed-Fowler flaps. In addition, torque was not a factor.

In a brawl between an F4U-1D and the P-38L, the Lightning holds most of the cards. All the P-38 jock has to do it take the fight vertical. In the vertical the -1 Corsair can't compete.

Don't get me wrong, the Corsair is very capable, it's just not ideal for mixing it up with the P-38. The F6F-5 would be a far better match for the P-38, because it handles better, climbs better than the F4U-1 series and has a lower wing loading than either of the others.

Now, if we compare the late-war F4U-4, the tables turn. It could fight in the vertical with the P-38. It had comparible acceleration and was faster at all altitudes below 27,000 feet. If it came down to a low speed turning fight, the P-38L has the advantage of a tighter turn radius when using flaps. However, at low speeds the P-38L's roll rate isn't very good, and the F4U's roll rate rivals that the Fw 190. So, it can change lift vectors almost instantly, making it hard for the P-38 to saddle-up. This one would depend on pilot skill. Overall, I believe the F4U-4 was a better fighter, but not by much.

My regards,

Navair


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 10, 2005)

NAVAIR said:


> Why? Simple, the P-38 was vastly better in the vertical. It climbed much better, accelerated much, much faster and it had those marvelous Lockheed-Fowler flaps. In addition, torque was not a factor.
> 
> In a brawl between an F4U-1D and the P-38L, the Lightning holds most of the cards. All the P-38 jock has to do it take the fight vertical.



Agree! That's where many people miss the point in discussing air combat. Fighting in the vertical enables you neutralize any turning ability your opponent may have over you, it also enables you to break off easily when the advantage is lost....


----------



## wmaxt (Nov 10, 2005)

NAVAIR said:


> Now, if we compare the late-war F4U-4, the tables turn. It could fight in the vertical with the P-38. It had comparible acceleration and was faster at all altitudes below 27,000 feet. If it came down to a low speed turning fight, the P-38L has the advantage of a tighter turn radius when using flaps. However, at low speeds the P-38L's roll rate isn't very good, and the F4U's roll rate rivals that the Fw 190. So, it can change lift vectors almost instantly, making it hard for the P-38 to saddle-up. This one would depend on pilot skill. Overall, I believe the F4U-4 was a better fighter, but not by much.
> 
> My regards,
> 
> Navair



I to think they were very close and it's up to two things, Pilot skill and initial advantage.

The P-38 had differential throttles and an advantage of .4 mph/sec acceleration @ 15K METO power thats still significant. The speed advantage of the Corsair below 20k I dont know I've seen a P-38 outrun/turn tighter than a corsair in a race situation at low level so I din't think the differences are great. It is much more likely the F4U was modified but it was a 600mi race so they wern't hopped up to the max in anycase. I've never seen a speed graph on the Corsair or a roll rate chart either.

They were, P-38, F4U-4 IMHO the best fighters the US put up in WWII. 

wmaxt


----------



## P38 Pilot (Nov 10, 2005)

Great points there NAVAIR. Oh, your calendars look pretty cool Evan. I might want to buy one!


----------



## syscom3 (Nov 10, 2005)

But in 1943, did the P38J model have anything over the F4U-1?


----------



## wmaxt (Nov 14, 2005)

syscom3 said:


> But in 1943, did the P38J model have anything over the F4U-1?



In most ways the P-38J exceeded the F4U-1
Speed 420mph METO in the P-38, 417mph WEP in the F4U
Climb was better P-38, 3200ft/min F4U 2,890ft/min
Load, the first F4Us didn't carry ordinance later it was 2,000lbs, the P-38 3,200lbs 4,000+ after the J-10.
The F4U out rolled all P-38s before the L
Range was better in the P-38 esp after the J-10, both internal and extended.

wmaxt


----------



## GregP (Nov 14, 2005)

The Lightning had the armament on the centerline.

The Corsair had the 50s in the wings.

The greatest combat pilots in the world were Erich Hartmann, Gunther Rall, and Gerhard Barkhorn. Among these three men, they shot down over 950 aircraft.

All said that one on the cnterline was worth at least 2 or 3 in the wings. With their qualifications and demonstrated performance, I believe them.

I say the Lightning was better by FAR in armament due to better armament mounted on the centerline, plus it was longer range by far. In a fight, one on one, I'd say the pilot would make the difference. Roll would go to the Corsair while the armament would go, hands down, to the Lightning. In climb, they were pretty even with the Corsair a bit ahead (at least after the F4U-4), but the Lightning driver could say to the Corsair driver at any time, "Hey, feather one and see how far YOU get!"

Also, the Lightning driver could say, "Come on up and get me!" since the Lightning had a higher ceiling until the advent of the F4U-5, which was VERY late in the war and not much in combat.

As to speed, the Lightning could have flown at 150mph and STILL be impervious to the Corsair ... if the Corsair were 3,000 feet below and trying to climb up to fight. Height gives the pilot time and options. Range means he could tease the Corsair until the Vought driver had to go home. or he could ambush from height at any time. 

All in all, I'd take a Lightning, the mount of the U.S.A.'s greatest Ace, Richard Bong ... but the Corsair ain't all that far behind, if at all.


----------

