Well it is a Spit not a Corsiar...
Corsair vs Zero
- Thread starter Cougar
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Flightcommander
Airman
- 23
- Mar 20, 2008
if were betting i would put my money on the corsair. It was credited with an 11 :1 ratio of kills to losses in action against Japanese aircraft.
p47thunderboltking
Recruit
- 3
- Feb 18, 2013
Nice article
But I didnt think that it was 417mph
thats way too fast!
But I didnt think that it was 417mph
thats way too fast!
GregP
Major
The F2G Corsair was considerably better than 4,400 fpm! From a standstill it cold reach 9150 meters in 4 minutes. That's 30,019 feet in 4 mintes for an average of 7,500 feet per minute from sea level to over 30,000 feet. It was about 1,000 pounds heavier than an F4U-1A empty and grossed about 1,000 pounds less than the F4U-1A, so it was actually lighter at heavier loadings with 50% more power.
According to Bob Odegaard, who used to fly into the Planes of Fame every once in awhile in his F2G, it had no trouble outclimbing anything he ever climbed against up until 3rd-generation jets .. and he wasn't far behind them in a lot of cases. He flew with a LOT of airplanes and knew what he was talking about.
According to Bob Odegaard, who used to fly into the Planes of Fame every once in awhile in his F2G, it had no trouble outclimbing anything he ever climbed against up until 3rd-generation jets .. and he wasn't far behind them in a lot of cases. He flew with a LOT of airplanes and knew what he was talking about.
I think as prop aircraft the designers were quickly approaching the limits of what technology could deliver in terms of performance capability. The top speed area around 500 mph was the limits for the then current engine/prop efficiency. The only way to exceed that speed marginally is by using today's prop technology arrangement of the An-70 but its weight penalties limit it to only large aircraft.
Anyway here's some late war data on the latest aircraft under test and use.
Anyway here's some late war data on the latest aircraft under test and use.
Attachments
GregP
Major
Bob's didn't quite perform that way ... and it was defiitely a real F2G. And he NEVER flew it at 15,000+ pounds. They mostly didn't in service either ... all 10 of them. Mostly at 11,000 - 12,000 pounds.
No argument here, just saying what I've seen with my own eyes. It goes up better than your table and still does (Bob had 2 of them and one is still around). I don't care to fight about it, but a live demo tells all ... and did. I can't think of any propeller fighter than could out climb or out accelerate it up to its top speed and service ceiling, including any Spitfire.
But, since there were only 10 made, it is really a footnote in history, like the Ta-152 ... only I got to see this one do its thing once. I won't ever doubt it again. Walked away from a Bearcat in climbout ... but only 10 made, so it isn't really that important in the relative scheme of things.
No argument here, just saying what I've seen with my own eyes. It goes up better than your table and still does (Bob had 2 of them and one is still around). I don't care to fight about it, but a live demo tells all ... and did. I can't think of any propeller fighter than could out climb or out accelerate it up to its top speed and service ceiling, including any Spitfire.
But, since there were only 10 made, it is really a footnote in history, like the Ta-152 ... only I got to see this one do its thing once. I won't ever doubt it again. Walked away from a Bearcat in climbout ... but only 10 made, so it isn't really that important in the relative scheme of things.
Last edited:
GregP
Major
Speaking of Corsairs, ours (Planes of Fame) is the oldest Corsair flying. It started life as a "birdcage" with the flat cockpit canopy, was converted to the F4U-1A (3-piece plexi) and then the F4U-1D (1-piece plexi).
We're converting ours back to F4U-1A status and I overhauled the old F4U-1A sliding canopy with the 3-piece plexiglass and made the ADF antenna for the firewall. You stretch the wire from the wood (Oak) antenna to the tail and wrap a wire from the receiver around it at a point and solder it. The the signal centers when you point at the transmitter ... voila ... an ADF. Next time you see it, it should have the older sliding canopy and the firewall antenna on it (actually has the antenna on it now). So it's getting more period-authentic. When we're done it will be a virtually stock F4U-1A Corsair ... except for the old ADF receiver. We're working on that one.
Come to Chino and see it any time. look on our website for the dates when it will be flying. (PlanesofFame.org)
We're converting ours back to F4U-1A status and I overhauled the old F4U-1A sliding canopy with the 3-piece plexiglass and made the ADF antenna for the firewall. You stretch the wire from the wood (Oak) antenna to the tail and wrap a wire from the receiver around it at a point and solder it. The the signal centers when you point at the transmitter ... voila ... an ADF. Next time you see it, it should have the older sliding canopy and the firewall antenna on it (actually has the antenna on it now). So it's getting more period-authentic. When we're done it will be a virtually stock F4U-1A Corsair ... except for the old ADF receiver. We're working on that one.
Come to Chino and see it any time. look on our website for the dates when it will be flying. (PlanesofFame.org)
Last edited:
GrumpyBadger
Airman
Greg,
I do love that Corsair. I've visited the museum a couple times in the past. That Corsair is pretty much the start of my love of WWII aviation and especially the Corsair. I was eight or so when I first saw her take flight. I was hooked from then on. I was also pretty young my first visit to the museum. It was when y'all first got the Zero up into the air and had the P-38 fly with her. Those are some great memories I'll never forget.
I've been working on a "skin" for IL2 based on your Corsair.
I do love that Corsair. I've visited the museum a couple times in the past. That Corsair is pretty much the start of my love of WWII aviation and especially the Corsair. I was eight or so when I first saw her take flight. I was hooked from then on. I was also pretty young my first visit to the museum. It was when y'all first got the Zero up into the air and had the P-38 fly with her. Those are some great memories I'll never forget.
I've been working on a "skin" for IL2 based on your Corsair.
Frankly my baloney meter pegged right on these numbers.
F2G 1,000 lbs lighter than F4U-1A ? Operational plane ?
9150 metres in 4 minutes ?
FYI ,a second generation jet, the F-104 could climb 9,000 metres (~30,000 ft) in 81.14 seconds.
That is about 22,000 ft per minute. MiG-21 , and some others were in the same class.
Try follow them in a climb in any prop plane.
GregP
Major
You're right. I should have said first-deneration jets like the F-86, MiG-15, mystere, etc.
Miss identification was commonplace. The americans tended to call all japanese fighters zeros, and the japanese called the p40 spitfires. The ki 61 was labelled as both an me 109 and a macci before the type was properly identified.
When you are flying combat, it must be difficult to make a decent id. Combat reports are notorious for innaccuracies about lots of details
When you are flying combat, it must be difficult to make a decent id. Combat reports are notorious for innaccuracies about lots of details
GregP
Major
I'm pretty sure it WAS hard to make an accurate ID until you were a combat veteran. Then it was easier since you had seen them enough times without being killed to make a decent ID.
There was also the issue of Allied Intelligence's initial inability to distinguish between one Japanese aircraft type and another, which tended to frustrate those at the front line's attempts at assessing their enemy.
This discussion of Corsair versus Zero is a very uneven and certainly loaded one - ridiculously so and smacks of patriotic intent in its suggestion. Because although both types met each other in combat they were both so very different in philosophy and execution that comparison is extremely difficult. Conceived before the war in a different age and without the benefit of military hindsight the F4U designers possessed when conceiving their new fighter, the A6M was a compromise between old ideals and new technologies, but executed with a panache not normally associated with an Asian nation - Japan, of course was Asia's first superpower and was consequently very proud of this achievement. When introduced into service to replace the A5M from the same design team - itself an ultra-modern design when first unveiled in the early 1930s, the Type '0' Carrier Fighter symbolised the rebirth of an ancient Empire that was rapidly becoming a powerhouse on the world stage, but with a foot firmly in the past with its emulation of the earlier aircraft's manoeuvrability. Its spiritual, if not technological equal was the Hawker Hurricane- itself a potent symbol of military might that bridged the gap between old and new, but also a child of the business of military expansionism; the Hurricane was subject to the biggest order for military aircraft in British history up to that time, before the war broke out.
The Corsair was everything the Zero was not. It was big, powerful and American in ideal and two aircraft that carried out the same role could not be any more different than these two machines. The Americans were not so circumspect in the Corsair's concept; it meant business, like the American approach to the war; there was no room for spiritual overtones and symbolism - the Japanese always accused the Americans of being Spiritually lazy, but if anyone understood the capitalistic approach to the war and the benefits that came with that, it was the Americans and the F4U evolved into what it was as a result of this. Unlike the Zero, the F4U was uncompromising, brutal almost, and supremely business like.
So a comparison between the Zero and F4U can be compared with the titanic struggle between two polar opposite Empires at war, one old and wisened and the other young and courageous. Ultimately the fight becomes one of idealism, but what emerges in the midst is a battle of intellect; tenacity and blind faith with only go so far in this fight, as both the British, the Germans and the Americans all learned in WW2, but the Japanese failed to do so. Their failing, a lack of anticipation of how their enemies would react to their own global posturing cost them dearly; as the former three waged a war of countermeasures and one-upmanship in Europe, the Japanese clung desperately to romantic ideals that offered no satisfactory conclusion for them. And that was the fate of the Mitsubishi Zero at the hands of the United States Navy equipped with the F4U Corsair (and other types, need it be said).
Zero versus F4U = Japan versus the United States?
This discussion of Corsair versus Zero is a very uneven and certainly loaded one - ridiculously so and smacks of patriotic intent in its suggestion. Because although both types met each other in combat they were both so very different in philosophy and execution that comparison is extremely difficult. Conceived before the war in a different age and without the benefit of military hindsight the F4U designers possessed when conceiving their new fighter, the A6M was a compromise between old ideals and new technologies, but executed with a panache not normally associated with an Asian nation - Japan, of course was Asia's first superpower and was consequently very proud of this achievement. When introduced into service to replace the A5M from the same design team - itself an ultra-modern design when first unveiled in the early 1930s, the Type '0' Carrier Fighter symbolised the rebirth of an ancient Empire that was rapidly becoming a powerhouse on the world stage, but with a foot firmly in the past with its emulation of the earlier aircraft's manoeuvrability. Its spiritual, if not technological equal was the Hawker Hurricane- itself a potent symbol of military might that bridged the gap between old and new, but also a child of the business of military expansionism; the Hurricane was subject to the biggest order for military aircraft in British history up to that time, before the war broke out.
The Corsair was everything the Zero was not. It was big, powerful and American in ideal and two aircraft that carried out the same role could not be any more different than these two machines. The Americans were not so circumspect in the Corsair's concept; it meant business, like the American approach to the war; there was no room for spiritual overtones and symbolism - the Japanese always accused the Americans of being Spiritually lazy, but if anyone understood the capitalistic approach to the war and the benefits that came with that, it was the Americans and the F4U evolved into what it was as a result of this. Unlike the Zero, the F4U was uncompromising, brutal almost, and supremely business like.
So a comparison between the Zero and F4U can be compared with the titanic struggle between two polar opposite Empires at war, one old and wisened and the other young and courageous. Ultimately the fight becomes one of idealism, but what emerges in the midst is a battle of intellect; tenacity and blind faith with only go so far in this fight, as both the British, the Germans and the Americans all learned in WW2, but the Japanese failed to do so. Their failing, a lack of anticipation of how their enemies would react to their own global posturing cost them dearly; as the former three waged a war of countermeasures and one-upmanship in Europe, the Japanese clung desperately to romantic ideals that offered no satisfactory conclusion for them. And that was the fate of the Mitsubishi Zero at the hands of the United States Navy equipped with the F4U Corsair (and other types, need it be said).
Zero versus F4U = Japan versus the United States?
Last edited:
Shortround6
Major General
Even some combat veterans made mistakes. Going by combat reports an awful lot of He 113s were shot down during the BoB.
Me 109s were shot down in the south pacific.
Me 109s were shot down in the south pacific.
GregP
Major
Hi Nuumann,
What is "American Design?" The Corsair isn't "American," it is a logical development of the previous Vought planes.
It isn't spiritual in any way, it is a good fighter with good speed, good roll rate, good turn rate, and decent armament.
What the heck are you thinking?
What is "American Design?" The Corsair isn't "American," it is a logical development of the previous Vought planes.
It isn't spiritual in any way, it is a good fighter with good speed, good roll rate, good turn rate, and decent armament.
What the heck are you thinking?
CobberKane
Banned
- 706
- Apr 4, 2012
The Corsair was a generation beyond the Zero, with a performance advantage that left the Japanese fighter in a purely defensive mode. To put it in perspective, the Corsairs maximum speed in level flight was greater than the A6M2s maximum permissible speed in a dive. There was no way for the Zero to gain the initiative unless it began the fight with a big energy advantage, or the Corsair pilot was dumb enough to slow down to speeds where the Japanese fighter performed better. Defensively, the Zero could still outmanoeuvre the Corsair at low to moderate speeds, but this was a defensive advantage only; ultimately the Zero could twist and turn as much as it liked, but eventually the Corsair pilot would get his deflection shot right, and one burst was generally enough.
Regarding the Zero's supposed derivation from the Hughs racer – baloney. They were built in entirely different ways. The Zero's wings were built as part of the fuselage – the Hughs racer's wings and fuselage weren't even made of the same material . In fact, the Zero looks a lot more like the Gloster F5/34, another aircraft it had nothing to do with. The fact is the Japanese produced indigenous designs throughout the war that were the equal of anything the Allies had. It was production capacity that limited them, not innovation.
Regarding the Zero's supposed derivation from the Hughs racer – baloney. They were built in entirely different ways. The Zero's wings were built as part of the fuselage – the Hughs racer's wings and fuselage weren't even made of the same material . In fact, the Zero looks a lot more like the Gloster F5/34, another aircraft it had nothing to do with. The fact is the Japanese produced indigenous designs throughout the war that were the equal of anything the Allies had. It was production capacity that limited them, not innovation.
Shortround6
Major General
The Corsair was about one year newer than the Zero, starting with the initial design specifications/design competitions. First flights were about 5 months apart. Engines take much longer to develop ( or did at that time) And the US had 1600-1850-2000hp engines much closer to production than the Japanese did. The Japanese may have been a generation behind in engine development but not a generation behind in aerodynamics or structures.
How you design a fighter with under 1000hp available (initial Zero/Ki 43) and how you design one with 1700-2000hp available ( F4U/F6F/P-47) are very different. And they don't have a lot do to "National Philosophies" or spiritualism.
The Japanese Navy may have been much more pragmatic in their approach to things than the Army. The code of Bushido only goes so far when dealing with 14" naval guns and 1 ton (and up) torpedoes. The Navy demanded and got virtually the same cannon that were in the Bf 109E and they demanded them BEFORE the BoB. They took the hit on maneuverability (the Zero does NOT out turn the Ki 43) in order to get "world class" fire power, at least world class as understood in in 1939/40.
The Japanese aircraft designers (and in many cases the air staff/s) were as up to date as anybody else. They spent too much time and money on too many different projects and too much infighting between the services (NOBODY used more different types of guns and ammo in planes than the Japanese, because the Army and Navy could not, WOULD NOT agree to co-operate).
How you design a fighter with under 1000hp available (initial Zero/Ki 43) and how you design one with 1700-2000hp available ( F4U/F6F/P-47) are very different. And they don't have a lot do to "National Philosophies" or spiritualism.
The Japanese Navy may have been much more pragmatic in their approach to things than the Army. The code of Bushido only goes so far when dealing with 14" naval guns and 1 ton (and up) torpedoes. The Navy demanded and got virtually the same cannon that were in the Bf 109E and they demanded them BEFORE the BoB. They took the hit on maneuverability (the Zero does NOT out turn the Ki 43) in order to get "world class" fire power, at least world class as understood in in 1939/40.
The Japanese aircraft designers (and in many cases the air staff/s) were as up to date as anybody else. They spent too much time and money on too many different projects and too much infighting between the services (NOBODY used more different types of guns and ammo in planes than the Japanese, because the Army and Navy could not, WOULD NOT agree to co-operate).
Njaco
The Pop-Tart Whisperer
I understand what nuuuuman is saying and on the whole I agree with him. Although I'm sure that none of that is exactly what the designers of each country were trying to achieve.
Thank you, Chris.
Methinks you guys are taking it a bit out of context... I'm not saying that is why the F4U or even the Zero were designed the way they were, but the differences between the aircraft can be equated to the idealogical differences between the two nations at war. Also, the symbolism of the Zero is pertinent here; I woulda thought that was obvious, as for the F4U - re-read what I said - although both types had their first flights a year apart, they are worlds apart in design and philosophy.
As for 'American design', it means its designed in America (and if the F4U wasn't 'American' what was it, Greg?) and all that entails; big engine, big cockpit, big on power... Geez, do I have to explain EVERYTHING to you guys?
Methinks you guys are taking it a bit out of context... I'm not saying that is why the F4U or even the Zero were designed the way they were, but the differences between the aircraft can be equated to the idealogical differences between the two nations at war. Also, the symbolism of the Zero is pertinent here; I woulda thought that was obvious, as for the F4U - re-read what I said - although both types had their first flights a year apart, they are worlds apart in design and philosophy.
As for 'American design', it means its designed in America (and if the F4U wasn't 'American' what was it, Greg?) and all that entails; big engine, big cockpit, big on power... Geez, do I have to explain EVERYTHING to you guys?
