Douglas SBD Dauntless upgrade/replacement

renrich · Dec 22, 2011

TP, if the Republic engineers tried to make a carrier plane out of the P47 it would not have resembled the P47 at all. Going by what you say, the P47 was superior to the P51 Merlin as an escort fighter which is patently not true. At the fighter conference for best all around fighter below 25000 feet the pilots chose the P51D as first and the F4U1D second and the P47D was not even mentioned. Vought worked on an F4U with turbo charged engine but decided for naval purposes it made no sense. The whole point, to me, is that Republic or Grumman if ordered to do so had taken the basic design of the F4U, stripped some weight from it which was only needed for carrier ops and tailored the airplane for a long range escort some bomber crew member's lives could have been saved. As far as I know the paddle bladed props were never used on the Corsair but undoubtedly it's climb rate would have been helped also. Of course, none of this happened and never would have happened. It was heresy to believe a carrier plane could compete with a land plane.

I will leave it at this. My uncle was an instructor in P47s during WW2. He told me that when his P47s ran into F4Us in mock dogfights they got their rear ends whipped. I have read that in more than one book including " a well flown SB2C could give a P47 a tough time." In air races after the war, the F4Us excelled. The P47s did not.

The P47 was rugged, could go down hill in a big hurry and at altitudes above 25000-30000 was fast. It was a good ground attack plane but it could not carry the load a Corsair could, was not a dive bomber and was a ground lover which precluded it from using short fields. If caught at lower altitudes where for instance an FW 190 excelled it was at a disadvantage. We will never know what a Corsair dedicated to the AAF would have been like but common sense dictates it would have had even better performance than the Naval version.

RCAFson · Dec 22, 2011

This has turned into an interesting thread, but the fact is that the USN was looking for an SBD replacement for 1942, not 1944. The SBD soldiered on because there was no viable replacement until 1944.

Shortround6 · Dec 22, 2011

This F4U vs P-47 thing has been gone over a bunch of times. Basically in the planning stages (1940-41) Republic was also a small company. Their only mass produced aircraft was the P-35. The P-43 contracts were given to help Republic expand the building/s and train new workers while they geared up for the P-47. Even having them make F4Us instead is not going to get them into production any faster than they got the P-47 into production.

We have been over the power thing too.

In the early days (when the decision as to which way to go would have to be made) they both had 2000hp for take-off, The F4U had 1850hp at 16,000ft (no ram) and 1650hp at 21,000ft (no ram) to the P-47s 2000hp at 25,000ft. The P-47 may have gotten slightly better specific fuel consumption at higher altitudes cruising than the F4U. The F4U (early ones) did NOT use exhaust thrust and even if they tried the exhaust thrust from burning 80-120 gals an hour (cruising) is a whole lot different than the thrust from burning 240 gallons an hour ( full throttle).

gjs238 · Dec 22, 2011

For the purpose of this thread, it seems plausible that the SBD could have soldiered on while the F4U program was expedited as a replacement, meaning no SB2C.
It seems that the F4U turned out to be extremely versatile, and if expedited and entered service earlier and in greater quantities, may (or may not) have encroached upon tasks historically performed by other planes.

tomo pauk · Dec 22, 2011

Ren, it't up to our imagination guestimates to picture out just how would a CV-capable P-47 looked like. That may be a topic for another thread, since this one is already went off-topic.
I'm not sure that I've stated the P-47 as a better tool than P-51 for ETO in 1944.
In the JF conference the majority was from USN, was it not? With P-51D as a clear winner, how feasible was for another AAF ship to emerge at second place? And 'below 25000 ft' is really a great envelope indeed - hunting ground even for P-63?
Think that we can agree that escorted bombing raids were much more about USAAF will to conduct them from day one, rather about the equipment available. So the 1943's P-47s with combat (not ferry) drop tanks look as good tool as ground-based F4Us. If we do reduce weight of F4U, and then add the wing fuel tankage, the weight easily returns back, and we are still lacking 25% of firepower vs. P-47D.

I agree that military branches were looking with suspicion prejudice one to another, not just in the USA.
As for P-47s getting beaten by F4U, in what altitude that was, and what kind of version of planes were flown by both sides?

If SB2C beats P-47, then a P-47 pilot is doing something wrong, like trying a turning fight with a plane with superior wing-loading?
The 'F4Us' that flew races were actually F2G-1s, weren't they? The ones with R-4360? I'd say apples oranges :

The turbo F4U (F4U-3, with 'C' series R-2800) would've been a sight to behold - 486 mph at 30000 ft.

For the purpose of this thread, it seems plausible that the SBD could have soldiered on while the F4U program was expedited as a replacement, meaning no SB2C.
It seems that the F4U turned out to be extremely versatile, and if expedited and entered service earlier and in greater quantities, may (or may not) have encroached upon tasks historically performed by other planes.

Hmm, Curtis producing Corsairs maybe?

renrich · Dec 22, 2011

While browsing through the Mike Williams site, I reviewed some flight tests of F4U1s with water injection. One of the AC had some cowling modifictions and had the tail hook opening faired over along with a new type of prop. Another was a cleaned up version with openings filled except blast tubes of guns were opened. Both AC had full loads of ammo and fuel.

One of the F4U1s at 20300 feet with WEP did 431 MPH TAS and at 14600 feet with low blower and WEP did 416 MPH TAS.

The other AC did 442 MPH TAS @ 21800 feet.

These figures vary quite a lot with Dean's AHT and I bring these up to show that most probably a version of the Corsair meant only as land based would have a substantial gain in performance.

Also on the Williams site there are figures which show an F4U1C with two 150 gallon drop tanks, one protected which would be retained during combat, and no internal wing tanks, having a combat radius FROM A CARRIER of 550 miles.

The SBD did soldier on, in spite of the SB2C, until the end of the war. At the Marianas Turkey Shoot there were SBDs and SB2Cs and the SBDs had a lower loss rate.

Shortround6 · Dec 22, 2011

as far as the air races go even at Reno they are flying below 7000ft aren't they? the post war races were at Cleveland. Planes were only a few thousand feet above sea level. The Corsairs (even the ones with R-2800s) might not have even been using the auxiliary supercharger's low gear let alone high gear. This cancels the P-47 advantage. No matter how good the Corsair is at 0-5,000ft it doesn't make it the plane of choice at 25-35,000ft. Escort mission or no, combat altitudes were already at 25-30,000ft during the BoB. While it turns out that they didn't go much higher, every Air Force expected them to in just a few years. Deliberately giving up the 25,000-35,000 ft band to the Germans by going with the Corsair was not something the US Army was prepared to do in 1941/early 1942.

michaelmaltby · Dec 22, 2011

".... Hmm, Curtis producing Corsairs maybe?..."

No way, Jose. Curtis made a batch of P-47s early in the P-47 production cycle and they were so badly made that they were constrained to training in the USA alone, IIRC.

Had the Pacific war not ended when it did and long bomber escort missions became the norm, I think the P-47M would have come into its own ... just for pilot comfort and survivability alone, IMHO.

MM

renrich · Dec 22, 2011

I wonder how many people would claim that the P47 of comparable vintage is a better fighter than than the P51B which was the best performing P51 in WW2.
On the Williams site there is a comparison test of the P51B and F4U1 and below 25000 feet the F4U1 is superior to the P51B in almost all respects. That is just one test and It was run by the Navy. It does prove to me however that the Corsair, in the naval version could at leat hold it's own with the best AAF fighter of the war up to 25000 feet. Incidently, my bet is that the vast percentage of ACM both in the ETO and PTO took place below 25000 feet and the F4U was no slouch above 25000 feet also.

RCAFson · Dec 22, 2011

renrich said:
The SBD did soldier on, in spite of the SB2C, until the end of the war. At the Marianas Turkey Shoot there were SBDs and SB2Cs and the SBDs had a lower loss rate.

The primary problem with the SBD was the lack of a folding wing which limited the numbers that could be carried.

renrich · Dec 22, 2011

The F4U1 had a service ceiling of 36900, the F4U4 a service ceiling of 41500. The B24 seldom if ever flew bombing missions at more than 20000 feet and the B17s seldom flew at 30000 feet. It makes little sense to me that one would say that a fighter which can be superb at 25000 feet to sea level and still fight at 30000 or more is inferior to one that is in it's element from 25000 and up but below 25000 progressively loses it's performance. The P47 outperformed the Mustang above 25ooo feet but that did not keep the Mustang from being the superior escort fighter. I believe it is a myth that very much combat took place above 30000 feet. The air was too thin and it was too cold and it took too long to get up there. B17s at high altitudes in the winter came home with frozen crew.

The Fw190A8 which was considered a bomber destroyer had a service ceiling of 33800 feet, 3000 feet lower than the F4U1.

davparlr · Dec 22, 2011

I believe that it would be against all physical laws of nature for Republic to build an airplane capable of taking off and landing on an aircraft carrier!

Both F4U and P-47 were outstanding aircraft and had their own well earned reputations and I always hate to argue comparisons of these two.

gjs238 · Dec 22, 2011

Don't need to compare them, we're going back to their conceptions and dabbling in genetic modification.

Shortround6 · Dec 23, 2011

The Germans wanted planes with more altitude capability than the Fw190A8, and they had them. The 109s could fly "top cover" for the 190s. The escort fighters need to be able to fly (and fight) 5,000ft or more higher than the bombers to try to keep the enemy fighters from attacking from above.

While we know NOW that prolonged operations over 30,000ft weren't really feasible that was not known at the time that decisions as to which aircraft would be needed and entirely new factorys built to make them. This sort of goes for both sides. Germans were trying to put pressure cabins in 109s for a while, they stopped because the allies never quite reached the altitudes in operations that they wanted to or that the Germans projected they would.

renrich · Dec 23, 2011

An F4U1D flown by a Marine intercepted a Japanese recon plane over Okinawa at 38000 feet. His guns were frozen in spite of the gun heaters so he chewed the recon planes tail off with his prop. The Japanese plane crashed and the marine landed with a bent prop. The Marines stationed on one of the islands in the Pacific regularly flew high altitude practice missions in their Corsairs above 30000 feet. It was good practice and they were also able to cool down the beer in the gun bays.

This thread is like a merry go round in that the same characters seem to use the same arguments over and over again. Always fun though to get on the carousel with well informed gentlemen. However, I am not giving an inch and will ignore any facts that do not coincide with my opinions LOL..... Merry Christmas to all!

FLYBOYJ · Dec 23, 2011

renrich said:
An F4U1D flown by a Marine intercepted a Japanese recon plane over Okinawa at 38000 feet. His guns were frozen in spite of the gun heaters so he chewed the recon planes tail off with his prop. The Japanese plane crashed and the marine landed with a bent prop.

Robert Klingman, VMF-312, May 10, 1945

Shortround6 · Dec 23, 2011

" However, I am not giving an inch and will ignore any facts that do not coincide with my opinions"

Well, I guess that says it all.

gjs238 · Dec 23, 2011

FLYBOYJ said:
Robert Klingman, VMF-312, May 10, 1945

VMF-312: Later, in the Korean war, the Checkerboards became the first piston engine squadron to shoot down a jet aircraft, I believe it was a Mig-15 shot down by a F4U-4.

renrich · Dec 23, 2011

Thanks FB for the link. I have always wondered how a F4U1D that did not have the altitude capability of the F4U4 could get up to 38000 feet and make mutiple runs on the Japanese recon plane. Must have been a mirage.

Arossihman · Dec 23, 2011

tomo pauk said:
USAAF battled LW at high altitude, with bombers flying well above 20 000 ft. If one chooses a plane that is a world class at 15000 ft, instead of a plane that is world class at 25000, the choice is a wrong one.

As for raw performance, here is what I'm extracting from US 100K book.
At 20 000 ft.....speed....RoC
F4U-1.............385mph...2000 ft/min
P-47C.............410 mph..2100 ft/min
F4U-1A/-1D.....400 mph..1800 ft/min
F4U-1A/-1D.....415 mph..1900 ft/min WER
P-47D-23........415 MPH..2650 ft/min WER
From cca 23000 ft Corsair gets slower (410 mph for -1A/-1D at that alt, 400 for -1), while P-47 remain at almost 430 mph from 23000 ft above.

All for the weights with full hull tanks - 305 gals for P-47, but only 237 gals for F4U. So P-47 is a better performer at 20000 ft (let alone above that altitude), even while carrying more fuel and 1/3rd more firepower.

So it's under 20000 ft, for same era. As for bolder part, don't see why we should underestimate Republics engineers.

Again, for the task of flying above in front of the bombers, P-47 was wastly better tool. And, with introduction of paddle blade props and water injection for the P-47 (1st 2300 HP, then 2600 HP), P-47 was an all-altitude fighter. Eg. at 10000 ft it was capable of RoC of 3000 ft/min, while F4U-1D was managing 2700 (all for WER). Or 2400 vs. 2100 for MIL rating.

let us not forget about the P-47 M numbers at 2800hp!

Douglas SBD Dauntless upgrade/replacement

Chief Master Sergeant

Master Sergeant

Major General

Tech Sergeant

Creator of Interesting Threads

Chief Master Sergeant

Major General

Colonel

Chief Master Sergeant

Master Sergeant

Chief Master Sergeant

Senior Master Sergeant

Tech Sergeant

Major General

Chief Master Sergeant

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

Major General

Tech Sergeant

Chief Master Sergeant

Airman

Users who are viewing this thread

Similar threads