Bearcat vs Corsair

^^^^ You ain't the only one!

Damn Bill, will you hurry up and get the book written?


That's right, Jeff is waiting for his copy sir.


Uh, can I use some of the information over on warbirdsforum
in the AIRCRAFT PERFORMANCE section?.........Please?...
Pretty Please?

All my best man and God speed be with you.

Put me down for a copy as well! Autographed if that's an option.

Cheers,
Biff

Gentlemen - thank you. I will sign them. Corsning you may use what I posted.

Me too please! Would love a signed copy! Tell me where to ship Jan to as payment!

drgondog said:

Gentlemen - thank you. I will sign them. Corsning you may use what I posted.

Click to expand...

Bill - please post some details about the book.

Thank you Bill. As always, you are the Man.

Jeff - a note about the Performance analysis approach above. It requires Wind Tunnel data to derive all the Parasite drag contributions of wing, empennage, cockpit enclosure, fuselage, carb intakes, etc. The Wind tunnel data is also required to plot Drag vs RN. and CD vs CL.

The new book will be "Long Range Escort - How the Bastard Stepchild Mustang saved the 8th AF" or words to that effect.

The core will be a development of the struggle from Casablanca agreed Combined Bomber Offensive, POINTBLANK objectives defined, and the narrative of 8th FC from May 1943 through May 1944 to contribute to neutralizing the LW ability to resist Overlord. Key to the narrative was the USAAF shock/dismay that the "bomber will achieve Strategic objectives" without effective escort fighters and the activities both in ETO, AAF HQ, Material Command and NAA/Republic/Lockheed design engineers to solve the problem of Range w/Performance.

I will carve out development milestones in the US, Service Command activities in the UK and MTO to apply various patches to the existing fighters in-theatre. These initiatives included the first conversion of Ferry tanks to combat tanks, RR/RAF drive to install the Merlin 61, NAA building the P51B, Lockheed trying to solve Intercooler/turbo issues and compressibility issues, and Republic trying to solve combat Range issues in the background - to fixing operational bugs experienced by P-47C and D, P-38G/H in mid 1943 through P-47D-11, P-38J-10 and Merlin P-51B introduction in late Fall 1943.

It is important IMO to set the table with Germany response to 8th/12th and 15th reaction to deep incursions - including Milch's ramp of day fighter production, gradual to steady shift of tactical fighter units from East and South to Germany, reorganization and tactics to concentrate more fighters on bombers, but still avoid attrition from AAF and RAF escorts.

I will trace Eaker's struggles to gain critical mass in ETO as North Africa/MTO continued to drain resources from the 8th AF build up, neutralizing Eaker's ability to get to the '600 inventory/300 daily mission' total the he stated was required to conduct a Strategic Campaign. This will involve examining Arnold-Eaker on primary stage with Spaatz, Doolittle, and Brits in the background, and Arnold-Giles back in the US jump starting combat tank development, increasing internal fuel in existing fighters and looking at the near fatal XP-75 decision.

There will be a section detailing comparative performance between the May-1943 LW primary single and twin engine fighters and US P-51A, P-38G and P-47C. For each, derived from flight tests at, or close to, operational flight conditions. It will chart out Top speed at existing power ratings of MP for P-38/47 and 51 and 1.32 ata for FW 190A6/7, Bf 109G-6, Me 110G-2, Me 410B. Airspeed comparisons will be at SL, 5,000 feet, 20,000 feet, 25,000 feet and 30,000 feet, as well as ROC at those same. Ditto for February, 1944 to illustrate Bf 109G6-AS and FW 190A8 introduction as the P-51B/C and P-38J emerged with increased MP, P-47D-11 gained WI and Paddle Blade prop. No charts using 44-1 (150octane) fuel as that didn't exist until after D-day.

There will be a section detailing timelines for the critical development features for the P-38/47 and P-51 in 1943 which set the stage for Big Week finally starting the Strategic CAMPAIGN leading to D-Day. For the Mustang, the key features include: Installation of Merlin 2S/2S engine, increasing internal fuel by nearly 50%, installing the Bubble canopy and six gun wing, installing increased O2/combat tank pressurization, sealed ailerons. Introduce Malcolm Hood as a driver for bubble canopy . P-51D not part of the narrative otherwise as the first deliveries in ETO to Fighter Groups was barely prior to the timeline of the story.

Pro's and Con's of each of AAF primary fighters as Long Range Escort fighter.

A section to present Combat units in ETO and MTO for 8th, 9th, 12th and 15th by equipment and combat record air to air from May, 1943 to the eve of D-Day.

A section to look at the Prelude, the USAAF failure to develop single engine Long Rang Escort prior to 1942-1943.



I have toyed with notion of inserting F4U-1 as a 'what if", but it only makes sense if I can get valid cruise data to develop Combat radius comparing to ETO AAF boundary conditions for Combat Radius. Opinion, it would have been at least as effective as the P-47C because it had 56 more gallons of internal fuel, but it has to be compared at 25,000 feet - not USN profiles of 15,000 feet.

There will

Zipper730 said:

I'll do a search if you'd like

Click to expand...

PLEASE do!

drgondog said:

The new book will be "Long Range Escort - How the Bastard Stepchild Mustang saved the 8th AF" or words to that effect.

I have toyed with notion of inserting F4U-1 as a 'what if", but it only makes sense if I can get valid cruise data to develop Combat radius comparing to ETO AAF boundary conditions for Combat Radius. Opinion, it would have been at least as effective as the P-47C because it had 56 more gallons of internal fuel, but it has to be compared at 25,000 feet - not USN profiles of 15,000 feet.

Click to expand...

It sounds like a most interesting book.

The big question on the F4U-1 is what the performance was like between 25,000 and 30,000ft as it's engine was loosing power as altitude increased. Engine was down to 1450hp at 25,000ft Military power and a bit over 1200hp at 30,000ft also military power.
I believe but could be wrong, that the Corsair had more drag than the P-47 and the engine charts do show an advantage for the P-47. Like 1625hp max continuous being available at 25,000ft (or below) at 2550rpm and 42in manifold pressure while the F4U-1 to get 1625hp max continuous at below 24,000ft needs the same 2550rpm but needs 49.5in manifold pressure from low gear of the auxiliary supercharger. The extra 7.5in ( 3 3/4lbs) pressure making the power needed to drive the aux supercharger?
Max lean ratings seem to show as much as a 10% advantage for the P-47 in HP made per gallon of fuel burned?

While the internal 361 gallons of the F4U (wing tanks protected by CO2?) so a roughly 20% advantage over the early P-47 305 gallons if the F4U needs even 10-15% more fuel to fly the same speed/altitude than any advantage disappears pretty quick. Using a Navy plane for less than a 10% increase in range? perhaps only 0-5% increase?

Shortround6 said:

It sounds like a most interesting book.

The big question on the F4U-1 is what the performance was like between 25,000 and 30,000ft as it's engine was loosing power as altitude increased. Engine was down to 1450hp at 25,000ft Military power and a bit over 1200hp at 30,000ft also military power.
I believe but could be wrong, that the Corsair had more drag than the P-47 and the engine charts do show an advantage for the P-47. Like 1625hp max continuous being available at 25,000ft (or below) at 2550rpm and 42in manifold pressure while the F4U-1 to get 1625hp max continuous at below 24,000ft needs the same 3550rpm but needs 49.5in manifold pressure from low gear of the auxiliary supercharger. The extra 7.5in ( 3 3/4lbs) pressure making the power needed to drive the aux supercharger?
Max lean ratings seem to show as much as a 10% advantage for the P-47 in HP made per gallon of fuel burned?

While the internal 361 gallons of the F4U (wing tanks protected by CO2?) so a roughly 20% advantage over the early P-47 305 gallons if the F4U needs even 10-15% more fuel to fly the same speed/altitude than any advantage disappears pretty quick. Using a Navy plane for less than a 10% increase in range? perhaps only 0-5% increase?

Click to expand...

Even if the P-47 had the same Cdcl=0​​ as the Corsair, the P-47 had a smaller wing. Up-close-and-personal, the P-47 is a surprisingly small aircraft.

If you think a P-47 is surprisingly small, I'd ask if you never saw one up close to another WW2 single-engine fighter.

We have a P-51A, two P-51Ds, an F4U-1a, a Seversky AT-12, a Boring P-26, a P-40N, an A6M5 M<odel 52 Zero, an Aichi D4Y-3, a J2M-3, an Fw 190A, a Pilatus, P-2, an Me 163, A Bf 109, a Hispano Ha.1112, an He 280, a full size replica He 100D, an SBD, several AT-6s, a P-39 and, lately at least, a Spitfire Mk IX.

The P-47 is very easily the largest aircraft in that list. The P-47 is more than 2 feet longer than an F4U-4, has equal wingspans, and can take off about 8,000 lbs heavier. It isn't greatly larger than the Corsair, but is more massive and will easily be picked out as the larger aircraft when side by side.

A Corsair fuselage is mostly empty space from the firewall back and a P-47 is mostly completely filled with a turbo system.

drgondog said:

The new book will be "Long Range Escort - How the Bastard Stepchild Mustang saved the 8th AF" or words to that effect.

*SNIP*

Click to expand...

I'm sure you have it covered but if you are in need of a good proofreader, I happily volunteer my services. Before my current stint, I spent eight years in PR both writing copy and proofing coworkers output.

As I said, I'm sure you have it taken care of but I'm always happy to help if needed and good luck. Either way, put me down for a signed copy as well.