F4U Corsair vs P-51 Mustang

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

Catch22

Catch22

Major
9,551
82
Jun 13, 2007
Edmonton, Alberta
www.coryulmer.com
I did a quick search and couldn't find an existing thread, so...

Which is the better aircraft? I will not be posting much data as I 1) am not that knowledgable technically, so this should be good and 2) I'm here to learn, and I don't have access to all the resources some of you guys have.

Personally, I'm partial to the F4U, but this thread is NOT here to choose favourites, but rather to determine which the better plane was and why. Have at 'er!
 
Ask Honduras and El Salvador. They fought each other and as far as I know the P-51 always came out on top but pilot training and maintenance were huge factors
 
Kinda off topic, but does a game like Il Sturmovik really portray the Mustangs manuverability accurately?

Or does it hype it up?

I do like all the stall characteristics in Sturmovik, even though it can be annoying when your plane crashes from too tight a turn. But still, it helps make the planes feel more realistic.

and again, I know it's just a game.
 
Which the Corsair was capable of, albeit not quite as good as the P-51. But even in comparison to the lighter P-51B the F4U-1 was comperable in speed and superior in climb up to 24,000 ft with both a/c in comparable loadouts. (configured for similar range)
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f4u/p-51b-f4u-1-navycomp.pdf

The F4U-1 also had superior high-alt performance to contemporary Fw-190's and 109's (except for high alt 109's with GM-1 or DB-603 supercharger).


Though I haven't seen a cost comparison for the F4U, I'd assume it would be more expensive than the P-51 (though probably a bit cheaper than the P-47) and it would use ~50% more fuel than the P-51.
But the F4U was much better in other roles, Fighter-Bomber and Dive Bomber (except A-36), strafing: carried much more ammo 6x 400 rpg, compared to 4x 400 or 2x 400 + 4x 265 for the P-51D. (much less for the B/C)
 
The turning characteristics in Il-2 (4.07/4.08 -1946-) seem pretty well matched to reality. And the stalls are great, particularly modeling the particular characteristic of different a/c. (including slats, featured on quite a few a/c)

THe only general (significant) problems I've encountered in performance is that the jets don't seem to accelerate and retain speed properly at altitude.

The biggest flaw I've found is thatthe damage modeling, while possibly the best of any CFS, doesn't model cooling systems/radiators. (odd since they do model oil coolers and oil tanks)
 
Catch22 said:
I did a quick search and couldn't find an existing thread, so...

Which is the better aircraft? I will not be posting much data as I 1) am not that knowledgable technically, so this should be good and 2) I'm here to learn, and I don't have access to all the resources some of you guys have.

Personally, I'm partial to the F4U, but this thread is NOT here to choose favourites, but rather to determine which the better plane was and why. Have at 'er!
Click to expand...

In my opinion this discussion is about which models you are comparing and which pilots are flying them and who spots the other first.

Overall Mission capability - dogfighter, close air support, carrier ops and I would give the edge to Corsair

Air superiority, long range escort, maybe even high altitude interceptor and I would give the edge to the P-51 and particularly the P-51H over any variant of the F4U.

The airplane that is most ignored in these discussions is the P51B-15 with Malcom Hood and the 1650-7 engine on 44-1 fuel. Only the P-51H is superior Mustang variant.

My father got 3-1-1 in the air in his first two weeks in this bird, then converted to a P-51D and got 4-1-1 for the next 10 months. He always had a great affection for acceleration, climb and turn performance in that B-15 over all variants of the P-51D
 
drgondog said:
The airplane that is most ignored in these discussions is the P51B-15 with Malcom Hood and the 1650-7 engine on 44-1 fuel. Only the P-51H is superior Mustang variant.

My father got 3-1-1 in the air in his first two weeks in this bird, then converted to a P-51D and got 4-1-1 for the next 10 months. He always had a great affection for acceleration, climb and turn performance in that B-15 over all variants of the P-51D
Click to expand...

I certainly agree with this. I selected this aircraft as the one I would most like to fly if I had to fly in WWII, on another thread. This aircraft, at fighter weight of 8500 lbs. could be quite competitive with even the latest German aircraft, besting the Fw-190D-9 at almost all altitudes in speed and probably equal in climb, if the D-9 would have to be lowered to some fighting weight to be competitive. The Bf-109K and the Ta-152H would have to be dealt with carefully as they had some performance edge, although not a lot up to 25k.

It is also interesting to note that if they had dropped the -9 engine in the B, or even D, performance would have been very near the P-51H, the B being closer since it is lighter than the H. I would think that change would have been no more complex than the other engine upgrades. They just didn't need to do it.

As for comparing the P-51 to the F4U, they were designed for different missions. Neither aircraft could perform the other mission better. The F4U-1 would not have been able to provide the coverage necessary to protect the bombers in early to late '44. While their range was adequate, performance dropped off significantly above 25k, allowing the enemy to attack from above. The F4U-4 could perform at altitude but lacked internal fuel range and if they were added, the F4U-4 would still have missed the critical time for bomber escorting. While the P-51 could probably been upgraded to carrier quals, the added weight would have hindered performance even more at lower altitude, where it was not designed to play. In addition, the liquid cooled design would have made carrier maintenance more complex.
 
But performance of the F4U-1 at alt was much better than the the contemporary Fw 190A, and some 109's. (and still compeditive with most contemporary 109's)

As it was the P-51B made a much better escort fighter -particularly fo the higher flying B-17's- but if there had been separate development of the F4U for the AAF, a higher altitude supercharger would likely have been used sooner if not a turbocharged variant.


Here's an interesting discussion on this we had going a while back: http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/battle-over-germany-january-1944-a-13336.html
 
kool kitty89 said:
But performance of the F4U-1 at alt was much better than the the contemporary Fw 190A, and some 109's. (and still compeditive with most contemporary 109's)

As it was the P-51B made a much better escort fighter -particularly fo the higher flying B-17's- but if there had been separate development of the F4U for the AAF, a higher altitude supercharger would likely have been used sooner if not a turbocharged variant.


Here's an interesting discussion on this we had going a while back: http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/battle-over-germany-january-1944-a-13336.html
Click to expand...

I agree with this KK. The F4U had a clean airframe and the R-2800 certainly had models tuned for high altitude as evidenced by the P-47. I have always thought in hindsight that the F4U would be considered the best US fighter, hands down, had it been used and deployed also by the USAAF.

But it did not get to make a combat record against the Luftwaffe to demonstrate its true value
 
davparlr said:
I certainly agree with this. I selected this aircraft as the one I would most like to fly if I had to fly in WWII, on another thread. This aircraft, at fighter weight of 8500 lbs. could be quite competitive with even the latest German aircraft, besting the Fw-190D-9 at almost all altitudes in speed and probably equal in climb, if the D-9 would have to be lowered to some fighting weight to be competitive. The Bf-109K and the Ta-152H would have to be dealt with carefully as they had some performance edge, although not a lot up to 25k.

It is also interesting to note that if they had dropped the -9 engine in the B, or even D, performance would have been very near the P-51H, the B being closer since it is lighter than the H. I would think that change would have been no more complex than the other engine upgrades. They just didn't need to do it.

Dave - I agree the similarities that would have occurred between the B and the H after dropping the 1650-9. The D was still about 600 pounds heavier empty than the B and 500 heavier thn the H. The D would have of course climbed and accelerated better but I'm sure it would not have matched the 51B with the 1650-3 or -7.

actually the -9 was very similar to the -3 but beefed up to take the much higher boost so it weighed about 50 pounds more but externally, mount wise it was same.

As for comparing the P-51 to the F4U, they were designed for different missions. Neither aircraft could perform the other mission better. The F4U-1 would not have been able to provide the coverage necessary to protect the bombers in early to late '44. While their range was adequate, performance dropped off significantly above 25k, allowing the enemy to attack from above. The F4U-4 could perform at altitude but lacked internal fuel range and if they were added, the F4U-4 would still have missed the critical time for bomber escorting. While the P-51 could probably been upgraded to carrier quals, the added weight would have hindered performance even more at lower altitude, where it was not designed to play. In addition, the liquid cooled design would have made carrier maintenance more complex.
Click to expand...

Damn good summary. Also if the B or H had been carrier qual per tail hook and gear loads, they would have been back to the P-51D in performance.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

J
Ki-84 vs P-51 engagemants 1945
2
Replies
31
Views
5K
CHen10
CHen10
G
Mustang Numbers
2
Replies
21
Views
3K
gruad
G
O
F4U-4 Corsair contribution in WW2
2
Replies
32
Views
4K
nuuumannn
nuuumannn
BarnOwlLover
P-51H Mustang earmarked for the UK?
Replies
1
Views
721
Geoffrey Sinclair
G
A
Italy VS USA: Different ways to improve the P-35
Replies
14
Views
2K
Jugman
J
Back