Granted, the F4U was a terrific performer, but it was extensively used as a ground attack aircraft in the PTO, not just by the USN, but also RNZAF and FAA, so its air-to-air combat figures are generally going to be lower than the Hellcat.
I can't really agree, since who would be operating it? The USN didn't have a great presense in the ETO and the FAA didn't use the Corsair extensively in that theatre. The USAAF certainly had its own performers, so while F4Us might have made an impact, I doubt there would have been a desire to spur development of it specially to suit the needs of the ETO. Its performance wasn't that much greater than ETO fighters.
Resp:
I know this is an old thread, but the USAAF 8th AF force was suffering severe losses as it flew progressively closer to bombing Germany. So much so that Gen Hap Arnold put out a letter in June 1943 . . . directing that a fighter either be developed or an existing fighter modified . . . to provide deep penetration escort of his bombers.
In May 1943 the USAAF hosted a 'Joint Fighter Meet' where all services (USAAF, USN, RAF etc) were invited to fly any of the fighters present (P-47, F4U-1, Seafire, etc). Every Army pilot who flew the Corsair gave it raved reviews, as the Corsair easily outmaneuvered their primary fighter . . . the P-47.
I spent a lot of time evaluating the F4U for the ETO. This is what I looked at:
1. Availability: Yes, due to carrier landing issues, the USN relied on the F6F. USMC and FAA (Royal Naval Air Force) began receiving the F4U-1/F4U-1A and Corsair and Corsair II, respectively. So 25 to 30 F4U-1As could have provided a Squadron, for testing/evaluation in the ETO.
F4U-1A:
2. Range
- Internal/External fuel. One 237 gal fuselage self sealing tank located just forward of cockpit; 2 wing tanks of 62 gal each (2 X 62 = 124 gal) that are non-self sealing. How long would it take to convert to self-sealing?
- Extertnal fuel (drop tanks); One 160/171 centerline drop tank (additional range: ? )
3. Cruising speed: 186 mph
Using internal fuel at the Cruising speed of 186 gets @ 1015 miles. However, Naval operations rarely require altitudes above 15,000 ft. 8AF normally operated at 17,000 to 30,000 ft. Also, to be able to engage fast moving Luftwaffe fighters . . . USAAF Fighters (P-47, P-38 and later P-51s) were required to fly at least half of their mission at higher speeds (thus using up more fuel). To keep up their speed and to remain close to the bombers, they flew zigzag formations at least 3,000 ft above the bombers (example: 27,000 ft above 24,000).
4. Fuel Consumption: @ 195 gal per hour during normal-rated cruise (which was somewhat high). So it appears that if the two wing tanks were made self sealing, it range could be extended. But by how much?
5. Maximum service ceiling (high altitude required to cover high flying B-17/B-24s). 15,000 ft vs 27,000 ft. Result: Additional fuel consumed to get to the higher altitude.
6. Maximum speed: 417 mph
7. Service ceiling: 20,000 ft (a living Marine F4U combat pilot/instructor I spoke with took all of his students to 30,000 ft, but it took some time to do so. While flying CAP for US fleet in 1945 their normal cruising altitude was 10,000 to 14,000 ft).
8. Armament: Six 50 cal MG (three in each wing)
9. Even though the F4U used the same engine as the USAAF's P-47, the Corsair had a less advanced carburetor than the Thunderbolt and the F4U would require a major rebuild to include the advanced carburetor.
Keep in mind that the P-47 didn't start receiving its first drop tank (single 75 gallon belly tank) until late Sept/early Oct 1943. The single tank gave them @ 10 min more flying time before they had to turn for home. The Merlin P-51B Mustangs first flew long range escort in the ETO in Dec 1943.
So could a test bed of say 25 Corsairs be delivered to the 8th AF for evaluation? 25 FAA Corsairs be rerouted to England via a British carrier for the USAAF 8th AF? I know, I am dreaming! But June to Dec is just less than 6 months. Plenty of time for trials.
If we use the closest fighter base in England, the F4U could easily have flown a mid-distance relay mission? But what was really needed is a fighter to go as far as the bombers, and back. German factories were the main targets.
Three Problem areas:
1 - Cruising speed too slow for adequate interception to protect bombers.
- Internal fuel insufficient for return trip based on one single 237 gal self-sealing tank.
2 - internal fuel with two converted wings to self sealing . . Insufficient ?
3 - Carburetor cannot perform well at the high altitudes of 22,000 to 28,000 ft to take on current Luftwaffe fighters.
Also,
Can the Corsair out climb a ME 109 or FW 190 to gain advantage? The pilots at the Joint Fighter Meet, Elgin, FL that flew the F4U-1 in mid 1943 . . . but were much lower than 20,000 ft. Yes, in close combat the F4U can easily get behind an early FW 190, as demonstrated with a captured Focke Wulf 190 in air to air manuvers in 1944.
The F4U was designed around naval requirements. The FAA Hellcats just had to keep the Luftwaffe off the FAA's attacking planes. It did not require 27,000 ft to do its job. The USN used the F6F-5 Hellcat during the landings of Southern France 17 days after Allies landed at Normandy. In this role, Hellcats proved very capable air to air and air to ground engagements.