F4U Corsair vs P-51 Mustang

[DarrenW]

It's peak dive speed may not have been that much better than some other fighters but apparently it accelerated in the dive pretty well?

Yes, from what I gather it didn't require as much attention from the pilot in a dive, as trim changes to keep it under control were modest at best. Under those circumstances it had a greater potential to gather speed in a hurry than any of it's contemporaries.

 

[davparlr]

It's peak dive speed may not have been that much better than some other fighters but apparently it accelerated in the dive pretty well?

There seems to be some question. However, it is generally considered to be one of the better divers and has control of the high ground, i.e. energy. And besides, I understand the devil is fast but also has a somewhat varying diving speed which depends on how close the archangel Gabriel is to his forked tail.

 

[Jugman]

On the question of turbo installation weight. The C-23 turbo weighed 245lbs while the earlier C-1 and C-21 models weighed in at 235lbs. The in stalled weight for the R--2800-21/59/63 had a weight range of 2265-2285lbs. The weight of the R-2800-8/10 varied between 2455-2475lbs. Using the figures from Dean and from appendix A of Shlaifer & Heron we get a ballpark figure of around 620lbs for the turbo.

 

[Jugman]

Finishing what I was try to say yesterday. The net difference in weight of the turbo R-2800 as installed in the P-47 over the two-stage model was probably around 300-450lbs. This extra weight ( based off of the 977lbs figure from Dean) probably includes all the ducting, moutings, heat shields, oil tank, and waste gates for the turbo. It could include the belly cowling as well.

 

[DarrenW]

Finishing what I was try to say yesterday. The net difference in weight of the turbo R-2800 as installed in the P-47 over the two-stage model was probably around 300-450lbs. This extra weight ( based off of the 977lbs figure from Dean) probably includes all the ducting, moutings, heat shields, oil tank, and waste gates for the turbo. It could include the belly cowling as well.

Oh ok, so around 200lbs less than what I originally thought. Thank you for your input.

 

[Lance1]

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!

I'll reply to the original quote, with a short story, before the answer.

In junior high, and high school, all the kids in my neighborhood, invented a war game to make use of our 1/72nd scale, WWII planes we loved to build. We divided the 15 acres of our 3 farms, into oceans and land. We built land bases. We used 4x4 fence posts, and gave them an island and flag and they were carriers (the better ones had 1x6 planks on top of the 4x4 for that "flattop look".

Well, as you may imagine, we had a bunch of rules for combat (including a referee we called the "witness"), and we often had to settle disagreements. Because the model box might say the top speed of the plane was 437mph, but the literature actually said it was 442mph. And we had to agree on top speeds, for pursuit of a plane, escaping a dogfight, etc.

Since we didn't limit a person to any single nation, you might actually have a P-51 fight a F4U Corsair.

....which leads me back to the original topic.

Across this many decades, I can't tell you what the name of the book was. But it was a library book about WWII Airplanes/battles/history. And it said (paraphrasing):

"In post-war trials, with American pilots at the controls of both planes, above 20,000 feet, the planes were even. Below 20,000 feet, the F4U Corsair was superior."

The ONLY part of this quote I can't remember clearly, to be certain about, was if it was above, or below, 20,000 feet that the Corsair was superior. I remember clearly, that American pilots rated the Corsair superior to the Mustang above (or below) 20,000 feet. And on the other side of that altitude, they considered them even.

 

[swampyankee]

I'll reply to the original quote, with a short story, before the answer.

In junior high, and high school, all the kids in my neighborhood, invented a war game to make use of our 1/72nd scale, WWII planes we loved to build. We divided the 15 acres of our 3 farms, into oceans and land. We built land bases. We used 4x4 fence posts, and gave them an island and flag and they were carriers (the better ones had 1x6 planks on top of the 4x4 for that "flattop look".

Well, as you may imagine, we had a bunch of rules for combat (including a referee we called the "witness"), and we often had to settle disagreements. Because the model box might say the top speed of the plane was 437mph, but the literature actually said it was 442mph. And we had to agree on top speeds, for pursuit of a plane, escaping a dogfight, etc.

Since we didn't limit a person to any single nation, you might actually have a P-51 fight a F4U Corsair.

....which leads me back to the original topic.

Across this many decades, I can't tell you what the name of the book was. But it was a library book about WWII Airplanes/battles/history. And it said (paraphrasing):

"In post-war trials, with American pilots at the controls of both planes, above 20,000 feet, the planes were even. Below 20,000 feet, the F4U Corsair was superior."

The ONLY part of this quote I can't remember clearly, to be certain about, was if it was above, or below, 20,000 feet that the Corsair was superior. I remember clearly, that American pilots rated the Corsair superior to the Mustang above (or below) 20,000 feet. And on the other side of that altitude, they considered them even.

There is actual test data out there to find. You have a quest, sir knight

 

[wuzak]

There is actual test data out there to find. You have a quest, sir knight

It is also a question of which version of the P-51 and which version of the F4U.

The F4U-1 would not fare very well against a P-51H. Nor would a P-51 or P-51A cope very well with an F4U-4 or -5.

 

[grampi]

It is also a question of which version of the P-51 and which version of the F4U.

The F4U-1 would not fare very well against a P-51H. Nor would a P-51 or P-51A cope very well with an F4U-4 or -5.

I don't think any version of the Corsair would fare well against a P-51H...

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Folks, beating this dead horse to death, yes consider what model P-51 or F4U combined with aircraft condition and PILOT CAPABILITIES. As posted in previous threads, actual combat with these aircraft occurred during the "Soccer War" in 1969. It seems the HAF F4Us got the upper hand in this conflict.

The Last Piston-Engine Dogfights | History | Air & Space Magazine

I know for a fact that Fernando Soto (3 kills) was taught combat tactics by Col. Mike Alba Alba Michael Capt while he was an IP posted in Honduras during the 1950s. I interviewed Mike several times in the early 1990s and he spoke about Soto on several occasions. Mike emphasized that many of the "banana air forces" had good pilots but lacked gunnery training, something he stressed and something that Soto excelled in.

GoE Foundation :: Eagles

So much talk about aircraft performance, we continually assume all in the cockpit are equal.

 

[fubar57]

 

[jalistair]

Another interesting twist to the conversation that I have not seen anyone talk about is production. Both aircraft started out in 1940. Production for the P-51 ended in 1945. Production for the Corsair ended in 1953. Why would militaries purchase an inferior aircraft? As the longest produced piston engine plan in world history it seems the F4U was simply the best all round WW2 era fighter ever produced.

 

[ColFord]

Last CAC manufactured P-51 (CA-18) Mustang came off their line in 1952.

 

[michael rauls]

I think the question which is better must be answered with another question. " Better for what?" For a long range escort fighter I'll go with the Mustang. For carrier oparations and/ or ground attack probably the F4U will fair better.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Another interesting twist to the conversation that I have not seen anyone talk about is production. Both aircraft started out in 1940. Production for the P-51 ended in 1945. Production for the Corsair ended in 1953. Why would militaries purchase an inferior aircraft? As the longest produced piston engine plan in world history it seems the F4U was simply the best all round WW2 era fighter ever produced.

If you search though old threads this is discussed. There was a USN procurement requirement for the F4U that allowed the production line to remain open until 1953. If the same requirement would have existed for the USAF the P-51 would have remained in production as well.

 

[Lance1]

So, here's the context:
My brothers, neighbors and I, played this game with 1/72 scale model aircraft in the 1970's and 1980's. We divided up the 9 acres of property we lived on (in the middle of all 3 families properties), designated oceans and came up with a set of rules about bombing, carriers, parents, and planes, to make it all work

As you can imagine, we had disagreements. When we had dogfights, those of us not involved were "witnesses" who were in charge of what was allowed/believable, and what wasn't. We could call a time out ("time stop!") during a dogfight, to argue our points about turning radius, altitude, climbing speed, etc. and implore the witness to agree with us, just as our adversary did the same.

We'd meet every few weeks, to talk about the planes and stats. We had to. The "witnesses" (aka referees) had to know which stats to apply. During a "time stop", the would back up or advance our frozen-in-space planes. They would explain to us who was faster at that point in the turn or climb.

As you can imagine, those meetings, about planes and stats...mattered a truckload.

We would bring books from the library. We would compare passages. We would vote and decide, which tome was most believable (based on evidence that supported it) and which wasn't.

I tell you ALL of this, to let you know how I spent about 5 or 6 years of my childhood.

..and to settle this debate....

Now, like anyone in this sort of circumstance, I'm ONLY as good as the info I was provided.

But trust me. As a teen, living on 9 acres of battleground, I f*cking did my homework. And this is what I remember most vividly about these two great American fighters. Of which I owned both planes, in various versions: (BOTH, P-51B, AND, P-51-D if you are asking , as well as the F4U). And here was OUR gospel, voted on and agreed on, after much book-reading and comparing and correlating.

AFTER, WWII, according to the book we agreed seemed reasonable, accurate and in accordance with all of the other books we used for reference -- the Air Force did post-war fighter trials (I bet, to see which one to buy more of, as the era of jet fighters was arriving). And THIS is what I remember, from 1 or 2 books.

With American fighter pilots, at the controls, above (or below) 20,000 feet, the planes were considered equal.

And on the other side of that altitude (and I don't remember if it was ABOVE IT, or BELOW IT), the Chance Vought F4U was considered superior.

By American pilots.

Discuss.

 

[drgondog]

So, here's the context:
My brothers, neighbors and I, played this game with 1/72 scale model aircraft in the 1970's and 1980's. We divided up the 9 acres of property we lived on (in the middle of all 3 families properties), designated oceans and came up with a set of rules about bombing, carriers, parents, and planes, to make it all work

As you can imagine, we had disagreements. When we had dogfights, those of us not involved were "witnesses" who were in charge of what was allowed/believable, and what wasn't. We could call a time out ("time stop!") during a dogfight, to argue our points about turning radius, altitude, climbing speed, etc. and implore the witness to agree with us, just as our adversary did the same.

We'd meet every few weeks, to talk about the planes and stats. We had to. The "witnesses" (aka referees) had to know which stats to apply. During a "time stop", the would back up or advance our frozen-in-space planes. They would explain to us who was faster at that point in the turn or climb.

As you can imagine, those meetings, about planes and stats...mattered a truckload.

We would bring books from the library. We would compare passages. We would vote and decide, which tome was most believable (based on evidence that supported it) and which wasn't.

I tell you ALL of this, to let you know how I spent about 5 or 6 years of my childhood.

..and to settle this debate....

Now, like anyone in this sort of circumstance, I'm ONLY as good as the info I was provided.

But trust me. As a teen, living on 9 acres of battleground, I f*cking did my homework. And this is what I remember most vividly about these two great American fighters. Of which I owned both planes, in various versions: (BOTH, P-51B, AND, P-51-D if you are asking , as well as the F4U). And here was OUR gospel, voted on and agreed on, after much book-reading and comparing and correlating.

AFTER, WWII, according to the book we agreed seemed reasonable, accurate and in accordance with all of the other books we used for reference -- the Air Force did post-war fighter trials (I bet, to see which one to buy more of, as the era of jet fighters was arriving). And THIS is what I remember, from 1 or 2 books.

With American fighter pilots, at the controls, above (or below) 20,000 feet, the planes were considered equal.

And on the other side of that altitude (and I don't remember if it was ABOVE IT, or BELOW IT), the Chance Vought F4U was considered superior.

By American pilots.

Discuss.

Re-read the notes of the Fighter Conference at Patuxent River, Oct 1944. The Mustang was deemed 'Best Fighter below 25000 feet', the P-47D the best above 25000 feet and the F4U was third in both comparisions - flown by USN, AAF, RAF, Lockheed, NAA, Vought, Grumman test pilots.

Had the P-51B been the a/c flown the P-47D would have been at a speed and manueverabilty disadvantage all the way through 32,000 feet. The P-51D critical altitude for the 1650-7 was at 24,000 feet, the B at 29000 ft for the 1650-3

 

[tomo pauk]

Another interesting twist to the conversation that I have not seen anyone talk about is production. Both aircraft started out in 1940. Production for the P-51 ended in 1945. Production for the Corsair ended in 1953. Why would militaries purchase an inferior aircraft? As the longest produced piston engine plan in world history it seems the F4U was simply the best all round WW2 era fighter ever produced.

Several things don't add up. Like: 1953 was not ww2. Or, USAAF switched to jets years before 1953, while USN needed to wait until low-speed characteristics of jets became acceptable. Plus, whatever of Corsairs was producted in 1950s, it was not a fighter, but ground attack version (the AU-1).
BTW, Corsair was not the longest produced piston-engined plane.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

So, here's the context:
My brothers, neighbors and I, played this game

Discuss.

"Game" - refer to posts 317 and 318. Not much to discuss

 

[michael rauls]

Re-read the notes of the Fighter Conference at Patuxent River, Oct 1944. The Mustang was deemed 'Best Fighter below 25000 feet', the P-47D the best above 25000 feet and the F4U was third in both comparisions - flown by USN, AAF, RAF, Lockheed, NAA, Vought, Grumman test pilots.

Had the P-51B been the a/c flown the P-47D would have been at a speed and manueverabilty disadvantage all the way through 32,000 feet. The P-51D critical altitude for the 1650-7 was at 24,000 feet, the B at 29000 ft for the 1650-3

I've always thought the B and C versions of the Mustang were actually better overall.
From what ive read they were more stable also.
Perhaps the greater situational awareness from the buble top canopy was worth the somewhat lesser performance however.