Corsair vs Lightning

[wmaxt]

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]

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

 

[syscom3]

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]

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]

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]

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.

You mean arresting hooks! Think about it?!?

 

[ollieholmes]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

The F4U-2 equipped VMF(N)-532, VF(N)-75 and VF(N)-101. Early operations of VF(N)-75 in New Georgia revealed considerable problems with the operating procedures, but on the night of 1 November Lt. O'Neill shot down a G4M bomber. The tactics finally developed let the F4U-2 climb towards its target from astern. This also helped to decelerate the fighter enough, to prevent it from overshooting its target.

VF(N)-101 was created by splitting of part of VF(N)-75. It was the first carrier-based nightfighter unit of the USN. This was in January 1944, and made the unit the first carrier-based Corsair squadron. A limited number of night operations was flown, because of reluctance to take the risk. Nevertheless, no accidents occured, which helped to clear the Corsair for carrier operations.

Nevertheless, the Navy preferred to develop a nightfighter version of the F6F Hellcat, which was easier to fly and to deck-land. For night operations those were important advantages, and the Hellcat became the standard single-seat nightfighter.

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

 

[ollieholmes]

but where would they put the arrestor hook?

 

[cheddar cheese]

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

 

[ollieholmes]

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

 

[P38 Pilot]

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

 

[evangilder]

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

 

[FLYBOYJ]

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]

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

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Yep! The DC Chief would love it!!!

 

[lesofprimus]

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

Boom!