The Chance-Cought (actually Vought-Sikorsky ... all the drawings start with "VS" anyway) F4U Corsair gave the Japanese a nasty surprise. I was a very good fighter and, in its later versions, was simply outstanding by any measure of success of fighter prowess.
What do you think might have happened if it had been used in the ETO versus the Luftwaffe, combined with the all-time best kill ratio fighter of WWII, the F6F Hellcat? If the two of them had been deployed to Europe when they historically could have been, what might the result be?
It's OK to speculate the Pacific would not have gone as well without the two deployed in the same numbers as they were in real life, but remember the P-38 was there, too, and was not mach limited versus the Japanese in most cases.
Grumman's chief test pilot, Corky Meyer, has said in print (Flight Journal) that the Hellcat and Corsair flew side by side when at the same power levels when HE tested it except in the main stage (where it was 5 - 6 mph slower since the Hellcat didn't use ram air to avoid carburetor icing, and the same speed in low or high blower stages), and surmised the difference in airspeed was pitot tube placement on the Corsair since they verified the speed of the Hellcat with rigorous means. He says the Corsair was "optimistic" on airspeed and the Hellcat wasn't. Read the article ... but I can't remember the exact issue description. About 10 years ago or more, maybe 15 years ... can't remember.
I can't really say since our pilots at the Planes of Fame have never raced the two, but they fly side by side at the same power level when we DO fly them side by side (same rpm and MP). Same engine (basically, different dash number) and same prop in the early versions (same prop part number and diameter). Our Corsair is the oldest one in flying condition (tail number 799) and HAS the same prop as a Hellcat (F6F-3) ... and IT flies the same speed as a Hellcat at the same power levels in the same blower stages ± a few mph. Both gain or lose slightly, and not the same plane every time.
Corky seems to be right. What do you think?
Disagree, some founded facts were as follows.
The different IAS reads are not confined between F4U and F6F. It's common. Spitfire and Tempest also have different IAS reading tables, as were the P-47 and P-51, Yaks and MiGs, etc.... As he wrote at the end, he seems to have a little baised. Because he was a test pilot for Grumman, it seems he did not know about F4U as much as F6F. He called the tested F4U the latest version - F4U-1D, but it was late 1943, so it's different from the truth. BuNo 17781 was just F4U-1(F4U-1A) with old propeller blades. He said that both fighters '
SHOULD' have the same performance because they have the same engine, propeller, wing span, and gross weight. But In fact, the F4U had lighter gross weight and shorter wing span, the propeller blades and engine's altitude performances were also different. Well, If the F4U-1 was at a supercharger shift altitude and it had old propeller blades with early troublesome supercharged engine, it's not unusual for the F6F to be that fast - Especially If the F6F was less loaded and it's weight was light as F4U-1. However, most of the problems in F4U's engine were almost solved when F6F arrived on the solomon, and most of the flight tests were done with same load condition(ex. overload fighter), So F6F was generally slower than F4U in practical condition.
After the pitot tube error was resolved, the F6F-5 was became faster - it's true over 400mph class fighter, but still slower than the F4U-1A/D at all altitudes. Several comparison flights and mock dogfights, F4Us showed faster speed and higher climb rate. It's combat speed and combat climb with in actual ACM situation - no IAS reading influence.
On 22 April 1944, The Naval Air Forces Pacific Command received an F6F-5 and an F4U-1D for the purpose of fleet evalution. At the end of that time the board was generally agreed on most findings.
- F4U-1D is undoubtedly faster than F6F-5.
- F6F-5 has better maneuverability than F6F-3, but not better than F4U-1D.
- F4U-1D has better climb, especially zoom-climb characteristics than Grumman.
- F4U-1D is steadier gun platform and better dive bomber.
- F6F-5 is conceded easier to land aboard ship, owing to better foward visibility.
So, On 16 May 1944, a Navy evaluation board had concluded.
"It is the opinion of the board that generally the F4U is a better fighter, a better bomber and equally suitable carrier aircraft compared with the F6F. It is strongly recommended that the carrier fighter and or bomber complements be shifted to the F4U type."
It's clear why the Navy put the F4U on aircraft carrier. That's because the F4U-1D had the performance to meet the requirements of the Navy, not the limit of production capacity of Grumman - as someone often claims. Apart from the circumstances of the Grumman, the F4Us would have been on the aircraft carrier.
And present survival WWII fighters have different conditions so have to take that into account when making comparisons. For example, SETP's 1989 evalution, the FG-1D showed slower speed than F6F-5 until more than 130 seconds from start acceleration, due to F6F-5 had advantage in weight and drag condition. take off weight for F6F-5 was approx 2000 lbs lighter than military gross weight and clean wing without pylons, but FG-1D had only 1000 lbs lighter than military gross weight(Equivalent weight for military condition with 50% fuel and 50% ammunition - practical weight for combat) and fitted two stub pylons. Nevertheless, Corsair chosen for best in maneuverability, but under those conditions, Corsair could be said to be slower than Hellcat. It's the result of the difference in conditions.
References
1. Hellcat Versus the Corsair - 9 september to 8 November 1943 from '
Convair Advanced Designs: Secret Projects from San Diego, 1923-1962 '
2. Navy Taste Test: Hellcat vs Corsair from '
WW II Fighters From the Cockpit '
3. '
Whistling Death: The Test Pilot's Story of the F4U Corsair' by Boone T. Guyton
4. '
Vought F4U Corsair ' by Martin W. Bowman
5. '
Corsair: The F4U in World War II and Korea ' by Barrett Tillman
6. '
Flight Test Comparison: Ending the Argument ' by John M. Ellis III
