F4U Corsair vs P-51 Mustang

[Lance1]

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

Oh, you misunderstand I think.

Our "game" led us to do hours of research on the planes, from available resources at the High School Library and the Danville (Indiana) Public Library. So even though I can't remember the source, what we did for the 5-ish years we played the game, was compare and contrast secondary sources about WWII planes, to get the most agreement about range, speed, handling characteristics, etc. to map them in the game.

Now I'm not claiming the secondary source that quoted the primary source(about the post-war comparison of those planes, by American pilots) was gospel. Perhaps the author lied. Or perhaps he misunderstood the American pilots, who in post-war trials evaluated the planes who said the planes were equal above (or below) 20,000 feet, and the F4U was superior on the other side of that altitude. Seems like a pretty simple fact for the author to have gotten correct. But we didn't evaluate authors, we evaluated the data about planes from the 12-20 books we tended to read in our group, and tried to get a consensus about which book/s were most accurate, which information was the most consistent, and then vote on which data we would use as a group.

So it doesn't really matter if you scoff at the "game" aspect of it. We were highly motivated researchers, fact-checked by people who (especially if they didn't own a 1/72 scale model of that plane) worked very hard to keep us honest. And that particular sentence stands out in my mind as a person who owned about 25-30 1/72 scale WWII models, and both of those fighters in particular.

So I didn't have a vested reason to favor one over the other -- I liked them both very much. (*though I tended to fly my Spitfire IX, FW 190D and P-38J(?) the most *) It was very clear what the author wrote about the post-war trials and evaluations by American pilots. I was fact-checked by a bunch of other teenagers, some of whom did not own the F4U, and had a vested interest in it not being better than the fanastic P-51.

Now if that information in that book, was the "full story" about how those planes compared at the end of the war, I can't say. Or if a more complete test, by a larger group of pilots would feel the same way. But I'd certainly be comfortable making a $50k bet, that that is what the sentence was, in that book about WWII planes.

For the person who mentioned the 1944 air trials/comparisons, I think that is very cool information. What I don't remember now is if there were substantial changes to either P-51 or F4U in the last year of the war, that might change those outcomes. The source we used very clearly said "in post War trials". S I don't have a way of knowing if those trials were immediately after WWII (and thus, probably using the last versions used in WWII). Or if they occurred long after the war had ended, and other substantial post-War upgrades had been made to either plane.

I thought the original post was asking about WWII when I read it last night. But perhaps the original poster was just asking a comparison between the two planes, without a time-element in the question?

It seems to me, if you're going to compare the two planes, it would make the most sense to compare contemporary planes from the same time. Whether it's 1945 when the war ended, or later versions of the planes.

For the person who mentioned how critical it is as to which versions of the planes you compare, I certainly agree.

To me, it would be important to compare them in fighter-mode. i.e. comparing a ground-attack version of one plane to a fighter version of the other doesn't seem what the OP had in mind. And certainly that would be the way I would mean it, if asking the question myself.

(** This would apply also to any other pair of fighters being evaluated, like the Me109k versus the Ta-152 for instance, though they had different roles, since one is primarily an interceptor more than just a pure fighter. So comparing them might be more difficult in other ways, than the P-51 vs F4U debate**)

That's my 3 cents (allowing for inflation you know )

 

[CORSNING]

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.

The better visibility of the P-51D was a great improvement. I believe the D was the first Mustang
to have a tail warning system. The speed of the D was equal to the V-1650-7 powered B and C
at all altitudes and the only reason the B and C climbed and turned better was the added weight
of the D. Just an FYI, The D could be de-equipped to match the performance of the B and C.
The B and C could only be extensively and expensively modified to match the D's vision and firepower.

 

[pbehn]

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.

They may well have been nicer to fly for all sorts of reasons but a 50% increase in firepower is always significant.

 

[drgondog]

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.

Hi Michael - there was no difference in yaw stability characteristics, both received the DFF in the field and later in production.

The B at full internal combat load of 9600 pounds compared to a D at the same with 100 gallons of fuel burned off (for example the 85 gallon fuse tank) had the same Performance characteristics including top speed and ROC. With full fuel load and extra armament, the heavier D had increased drag due to Induced Drag which points to slightly lower top speed at comparable HP ratings between the 1650-3 and -7, but the B is better at 25000 through 30000 due to the supercharger performance at high altitude for the 1650-3.

The sole difference between the two performance-wise was the extra gross weight of the extra guns and ammuntion.

OTOH, the D had better visibility and firepower, more Hp in several altitudes below 25,000 feet where most combats ended up being fought - including SL to 5000 feet. My father favored the D for the latter reasons and the B for better (slight) turn and climb performance with comparable fuel remaining.

 

[jalistair]

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.

Fair point, different mission different uses. Personally, I believe that the true difference in similar production models between the two would lie with the pilot not the airframe.

 

[jalistair]

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.

I do believe the Corsair was the longest produced single piston engine plane, if not please state what was produced longer. As for the ground attack vs fighter, that makes no difference as the basic plane remains the same. After WW2 all Mustangs and Corsairs were regulated to ground attack. That's the nature of the game. From what I have read (since these are all before my time) it would seem the earlier Corsairs were better than the P-51 but later the P-51 received improved engines making them comparable. It seems the Corsair was able to outturn the Mustang and had more firepower but the P-51 was slightly faster, had a slightly higher ceiling and a longer range. So in the end, the pilot would probably make all the difference.

 

[michael rauls]

Fair point, different mission different uses. Personally, I believe that the true difference in similar production models between the two would lie with the pilot not the airframe.

I largely agree but if we just look at the point the two met in hypothetical combat I think the p51 has an advantage because of speed and high altitude performance but in the grander scheme of things I think it's more of a toss up as the F4U is more versatile. I.e. carrier capable, greater load carrying capacity, resistant to ground fire with the radial engine etc. Just depends on the mission which is better I believe.

 

[fubar57]

The two did meet in combat
The Last Piston-Engine Dogfights | History | Air & Space Magazine

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Fair point, different mission different uses. Personally, I believe that the true difference in similar production models between the two would lie with the pilot not the airframe.

I don't understand this statement. Pilot skill will be the final outcome in combat but pilot skill has nothing to do with similar production models unless there is a special characteristic that involves more training

 

[tomo pauk]

I do believe the Corsair was the longest produced single piston engine plane, if not please state what was produced longer.

You will note that 'single piston engined plane' and 'piston engined plane' are not same thing. Several piston-engined aircraft with longer productio runs came to mind, like the Bf 109 (from late 1930s to 1950s), along with DC-3/C-47 etc, Cessna 172.

As for the ground attack vs fighter, that makes no difference as the basic plane remains the same. After WW2 all Mustangs and Corsairs were regulated to ground attack. That's the nature of the game. From what I have read (since these are all before my time) it would seem the earlier Corsairs were better than the P-51 but later the P-51 received improved engines making them comparable. It seems the Corsair was able to outturn the Mustang and had more firepower but the P-51 was slightly faster, had a slightly higher ceiling and a longer range. So in the end, the pilot would probably make all the difference.

The AU-1 was different enough vs. F4U-4 or -5 that merited new 'name' - it was outfitted with 1-stage supercharged engine vs. 2-stage of the fighters' versions, oil system featured 1 hidden & armored cooler vs. two exposed units, armor also protected a good deal of low part of fuselage, while wing was suitably modified to carry big load of bombs & rockets. AU-1 was much slower above 15000 ft than fighter Corsairs due to the engine type choice, and still much slower than latest P(F)-51H.
Most of the times, P-51 and F4U have had the same firepower, granted there was a good chunk of P-51s (-A, -B and C) featured just 4 HMGs instead of 4 HMGs+4 LMGs or 6 HMGs. Merlin Mustangs were faster than F4U-1, the P-51H was a much better performer than F4U-4.
Neither would be doing well what other one was doing best - F4U could not escort bombers from the UK to Berlin and beyond, P-51 would've been even trickier as a carrier bird than the Corsair.

As above - 'after ww2' and 'ww2' is not the same thing.

 

[wuzak]

Hi Michael - there was no difference in yaw stability characteristics, both received the DFF in the field and later in production.

The B at full internal combat load of 9600 pounds compared to a D at the same with 100 gallons of fuel burned off (for example the 85 gallon fuse tank) had the same Performance characteristics including top speed and ROC. With full fuel load and extra armament, the heavier D had increased drag due to Induced Drag which points to slightly lower top speed at comparable HP ratings between the 1650-3 and -7, but the B is better at 25000 through 30000 due to the supercharger performance at high altitude for the 1650-3.

The sole difference between the two performance-wise was the extra gross weight of the extra guns and ammuntion.

OTOH, the D had better visibility and firepower, more Hp in several altitudes below 25,000 feet where most combats ended up being fought - including SL to 5000 feet. My father favored the D for the latter reasons and the B for better (slight) turn and climb performance with comparable fuel remaining.

Did not the later versions of the P-51B get the V-1650-7 as well?

 

[drgondog]

Did not the later versions of the P-51B get the V-1650-7 as well?

Yes. Materiel Command wanted them installed ASAP on the B as the P-51D and D-1 were evolving in June 1943. NAA couldn't make the production insertion until early 1944. The first two Ds, crafted from new D wing and modified B-1 fuselages had the 1650-3 installed. I would have to check but I believe the 1650-7 was inserted ~ Jan/Feb 1944, while into the P-51B-10-NA and P-51C-5-NT blocks.

 

[CORSNING]

Hi Bill,
I would greatly appreciate it if you would confirm the manufacture date
of Jan/Feb 1944 as the date for the first production models of the B-10-NA
and C-5-NT. Also thank you for the information that these were the first
to receive the V-1650-7.
With the information I have, I've been able to do a full workup on the
performance of the P-51B-15 with the V-1650-7 @ 67"Hg boosting which
would put it very close to the P-51B-10's performance when it entered
service in late March/April 1944 I believe.
From the information I have the P-51B-15 arrived in the ETO late April
1944. Can you confirm this?

 

[Dawncaster]

Chance Vought F4U Corsair vs North American P-51 Mustang, Usually this type of comparison is for the most used models. It's late dash one Corsair that raised cabin equipped type, and Merlin engined Mustang. and also tend to focus purely on their ability as air superiority fighters. If only consider flight performance for air combat in this comparison, and pick the advantages of both models one by one, the Merlin Mustang has the speed and the dash one Corsair has the maneuverability. since both aircraft were on the same side in reality, the comparison is largely a scenario.

The dash one Corsair was considered also a fast aircraft, but a bit slower at most altitude than the Merlin Mustangs. according to curves of USAAF and USN reports, dash one Corsair faster than some Merlin Mustangs at medium altitude that supercharger shift altitude of the V-1650. But most all-out situations, Merlin Mustang was obviously faster and especially it could use 150 grade fuel as first class ETO fighter. It proved better performer in anything involving speed.

Whereas, Corsair had excellent handling and combat abilities at combat speed. due to boost tabs on control surfaces with light stick force, non-deformable stiff and light plywood ailerons and tougher airframe that 7.5G limit load factor for 12,000 lbs which equivalent to full overload fighter condition, making it was great machine in high-speed air combat. and Corsair was not a just high-speed fighter, It was basically better turner than many land based fighters and capable of deal with to tight turn fighting with low stall speed and effective NACA slotted type combat flaps. Corsair proved out-maneuver the Mustang in various contact, despite Mustang had good maneuverability in army fighters.

according to October 1944 Report of Joint Fighter Conference, Among the US production model fighter aircrafts, Merlin Mustang was voted best all-around fighter below 25k with 29% of total 51 voters, and directly behind, dash one Corsair 2nd place with 27%. It was a difference of only one vote. but above 25k, Mustang was clearly superior to dash one Corsair. For handling and maneuverability, Corsair showed superior to Mustang and other USAAF fighters in most case, It showed nicest harmonization of control forces, best elevator, 2nd aileron for both test speed(100 and 350 mph) and best control and stability in dive. Mustang showed best aileron at 350 mph and out-turn other USAAF fighters except King Cobra, but Corsair out-turn them. evaluated in an AAF pilot, Corsair was a tough competitor in anything involving maneuvering. and some British pilots who tested American Planes, seemed like the Corsair than Mustang and other army fighters for it's excellent high speed handling and combat ability. One thing I think should be noted about JFC is that Army planes were predominantly tested by Navy pilots, and vice-versa; with contractors getting to check out the competition. Due to the composition of the participants, the Mustang was given more evaluation and voting opportunities than the Corsair, which may have influenced the results. The response rate was 75%(38/51 = Army-1; Navy-19; British-3; Contractors-15) for Mustang and 55%(28/51 = Army-13; Navy-4; British-3; Contractors-8) for Corsair. The largest percentage of contractors was Vought.

The content of the TAIC report also draws the smiliar conclusion. according to TAIC report No.17 and No.38 for comparison with captured A6M Zeke, Merlin Mustang showed again it's superior speed to Corsair and other USN fighters. in turning comparison, Zeke caught the advantage or firing position with a just one turn for Mustang and other army fighters at 10000 ft and 25000 ft. but against Corsair, three and one-half turns were needed at 10000 ft, and at 30000 ft, there was only a slight margin in turn performance between Corsair and Zeke. in addition, with combat flaps, only the Corsair could stay with Zeke in turn until 150 knots in the report.

Other evaluators were RNZAF and RAAF, according to Pacific scrapbook 1943-1947 by Bryan Cox, After the war, there's three Commonwealth squadron deployed southern japan. They quickly became bored and began to hunt each other. Aussie's Merlin Mustang was proved it's superior speed and engage or disengage at will and Kiwi's dash one Corsair showed out-turn the Mustang and could evade it's attack. The two aircraft were reguarded as being fairly equal.

Like many great fighters, the Corsair sometimes reversed an totally adverse situation in real combat. considering Corsair's high speed handling and maneuverability, it's no surprise that two retreating VBF-10 dash one Corsairs separated from their squadrons, have won over then powerful 343 kokutai's ten Shiden-Kais that around them. The Japanese pilots were overwhelming in altitude and number, confirming the situational superiority and diving to attack. But the Corsair's pilot pull up sharply and shot down a Shiden-Kai at once. It was a violently maneuver that put him in a blackout for a while, even with a G-suit. The Corsairs keep their sharpness, covered each other and shot down two more Shiden-Kais without any damage and returned. In the racing situation, their speed would have remained high, and that seemed to be the key to their success. Also, because they engaged without wasting time for misidentification and could not miss the initiative. unlike Marine Corsairs that day. according to USN action report of VBF-10 and Genda's blade by Henry Sakaida and Takaki Koji, it was 19 March 1945.

The dash one Corsair was a different type of aircraft than any German or Japanese fighter the Mustang fought. It's worse than the Merlin Mustang but also fast, and advantage of the high-speed maneuverability that the Mustang enjoyed against axis fighters, is limited against Corsair. There were fighters like Zeke out-turn the Mustang, but Mustang could handle it without problems with superior speed and high-speed maneuverability. However, against dash one Corsair, the story is different. If not carefully, Mustang's attack could be exposed to unexpected counterattack by fairly maneuverable speedy target which also g-suite equipped as Mustang. The war-time Mustang had a limit load factor of 6.7 at 9500 lbs combat weight(8.0G for 8,000 lbs design weight) and an increase in stick force due to bobweight, seems hard for violent pitching like the Corsair which had boost tab equipped elevator. But of course, engagement is determined by the Mustang pilot's intention, so the tactical advantage is firmly in Mustang overall.

Another type of comparison is a comparison between final models during a war. In this case, the dash four Corsair comes up. according to VMF-223 action report and F4U Corsair vs Ki-84 Frank by Edward M. Young, it showed superior performance to Ki-84s of 47th Hiko Sentai and outclassed them. dash four could also surpass the war-time Mustangs by improved speed and high altitude performance for last few months of the war to new Mustang's full military service start. The new 'H' Mustang was produced during the war with a new airframe and engine, but they did not combat ready for until war was over, although some have deployed to the PTO. It's seems water injection in V-1650-9 was troublesome, according to T-2 Report on Frank-1(Ki-84), November 1946, P-51H was still considered non-water injected and showed out-climbed by war-time Japanese plane and only slight faster than that. Of course, the water injected P(F)-51H, which was later revealed in SAC, was much better.

The last type of comparison is to compare each using the best production models. my old post can be used for this.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
according to the F-51H SAC, F4U-4 SAC and F4U-5 performance summary and flight test data curves, all clean conditions with full internal loads.

F4U-4
gross weight : 12480 lbs
supercharger : 2 stage 2 speed
engine ratings : 2800 BHP for 70"hg, 2100 BHP for 54.5"hg
water supply : 12 minutes for combat power

F4U-5
gross weight : 12901 lbs
supercharger : 2 stage variable speed sidewheel type
engine ratings : 2760 BHP for 70"hg and 2380 BHP for 64"hg
water supply : 12 minutes for combat power

F-51H
gross weight : 9430 lbs
supercharger : 2 stage 2 speed
engine ratings : 2270 BHP for 90"hg, 1520 BHP for 67"hg
water supply : 7 minutes for combat power

as you can see, the F-51H does not have a one-sided advantage over Corsair.

Corsairs have much lower stall speed and boost tabs in ailerons and elevator both(F4U-5 had boost tab in rudder also), It is considered to be a better dogfighter.

In terms of performance,

F4U-4 was better climber for most altitudes and slight faster at medium altitude.

F4U-5 also slight faster at medium altitude and above 25k, it shows advantages for speed and climb both.

and except for those, the F-51H.

each fighter has its own advantages, so it can not be said that which is simply better.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interestingly, in the final models, the superiority of both models based on below and above 25k was reversed that compared to first comparison, and in conclusion, Corsair seems well matched with last Mustang in overall performance. then now let's go beyond just comparing flight performance. the Corsair's improvements for flight performances were useful in comparison with other propeller driven aircrafts, including the Mustang, but don't seem to fit the jet age. The propeller driven aircrafts of this period were given valueas low altitude emergency interceptor, mud carriers and night fighters etc. This is evident from the fact that AU-1 the Corsair's ground attack variant and F4U-5NL night fighter got a new production contract in the 50s. Anyway, since they were not the primary planes of the 50s Korean War, let's go back to World War II.

The Merlin Mustang was far more influential than the dash one Corsair. It was because it had the performance that was really needed at the time. high performance which is maintained even above 25k, and long range to escort bombers. The Corsair was powerful and versatile, but didn't meet the performance it needed most when it needed it. -- all around carrier stability. Many pilots praised the Corsair's outstanding combat capacity, but the influence of the Corsair tied to the shore base was limited. as spear-head, forward deployed marine Corsair squadrons deny all enemy activity in their range, helped to secure control area. It had a reputation as a fighter-bomber because it could take off from rough, short airfields, had a good range and high payload. When the airfield was well prepared, army planes, including the Mustang, deployed. then the Mustang takes a long shot than Corsair. according to Mustang's tactical chart, Corsair's ACP and british aircraft cards for both models, Corsair's range was about 90% of early type Merlin Mustang which have no auxiliary tank in fuselage and could use only 75 gal drop tanks. but only about 50% compared to late Merlin Mustang with auxiliary fuselage tank and 150 gal drop tanks. Corsair could only do such a long shot with the help of an carrier fleets -- mobile base for tactical advantage, after the begun operations on aircraft carriers. Of course, the Corsair wsn't such a short range fighter like many ETO fighters, just Mustang was so great.

And there was also a limit on payload, Corsair known for showed 4,000 lbs payload, but it was not practical. because in many cases the weight ratio of the drop tank was large due to lack of range. according to VF/VMF action reports, some Carrier based navy Corsair squadrons often used a combination of 500lbs bomb, 150gal drop tank and 8 x HVAR rockets which external payload of about 2,700 lbs over. but as you can see, with a drop tank of 1090 lbs, bomb load is only about 1,600 lbs. High bomb load of over 2,000 lbs was mainly used by Marine Corsair squadrons, they sometimes used 3 x 1,000 lbs bombs or combination of 2 x 1,000 lbs bombs and 8 x rockets but lack of range. as land based fighter-bomber with 2 x 1,000 lbs bombs and centerline drop tank, Corsair's range seems about 600 miles and fuel remained about 140 gal after returned because theres no air threat, considering that it took 155 gallons to take off, climb to 20k, combat power for 15 minutes, and cruise at 2k for 20 minutes, there seems to be enough fuel for air combat. however, it doesn't look very attractive considering that the late Merlin Mustang was able to fly 1200 miles in fighter-bomber mission with 2 x 500 lbs bombs, including 15 minutes for combat power, even more so, considering that the Mustang can carry 2 x 1,000 lbs bombs.

In my opinion, to conclude overall, The Corsair was obviously one of the best reciprop fighter that was powerful in many respects and had its own uniqe advantage, but overall it didn't seem to be as effective as the Mustang. of course there were fundamental irreplaceable advantages for carrier based naval fighter and land based long range escort fighter each, but the Corsair was ground based fighter in many case, and the Navy considered buying a carrier-based variant of the Mustang. If want to win a single aerial combat or In the rough stages of battle, looking for a squadron to be forward-deployed as an spearhead with short and unfinished frontline airfield, Corsair would be good choice. But will need the Mustang to 'closed' on enemy from above and ensure the safety of the bombers that will destroy the enemy's heart for the final victory of the war. and the speed and range of the Mustang allow it to truly 'dominate' the sky. Enemy air activity will be attacked at every stage. so lastly, to express my impression in one sentence : Corsair could win the combat, but the Mustang won the war.

ps. There is a book that is often mentioned. Francis H. Dean's Americas Hundred Thousand, which borrowed a lot from Joint Fighter Conference figures. the book described the Corsair as less capable of turning than the Mustang, Lightning and Thunderbolt, because calculation using IAS - without PEC or any corrected speed. It's a great book to recommend, and the examples of US fighters are well introduced, but it's important to note that this kind of self-calculation has errors. as explained above, the actual result was the opposite.

 

[drgondog]

Hi Bill,
I would greatly appreciate it if you would confirm the manufacture date
of Jan/Feb 1944 as the date for the first production models of the B-10-NA
and C-5-NT. Also thank you for the information that these were the first
to receive the V-1650-7.
With the information I have, I've been able to do a full workup on the
performance of the P-51B-15 with the V-1650-7 @ 67"Hg boosting which
would put it very close to the P-51B-10's performance when it entered
service in late March/April 1944 I believe.
From the information I have the P-51B-15 arrived in the ETO late April
1944. Can you confirm this?

EDITED 10-9
43-7113 (#1 B-10-NA) accepted ~ 12-4-1943, the rest started rolling out early Jan-44. I'll have to dig 42-102979 (C-1) [accepted by AAF 11-1-43 but completed by NAA Dallas 9-05] and 42-103379 (C-5) [Acccepted by AAF 4-30-44 and may have the 1650-7 engine (unconfirmed]

 

[Macandy]

The Mustang was fragile and temperamental.
The Corsair was tough and reliable as anvil.

 

[Dan Fahey]

D Dawncaster
Good post...!
At the end of WW2 all the major combatants could get their fighter planes to 500 mph level flight and exceed 5000 ft/min and in Combat Trim.
Few were as maneuverable as their lighter versions but the combat speeds were as much as 150 mph higher.
Fighting at higher altitudes and speeds became more important.
But the air ground war never abated.

During the Korean War the Corsair and Mustang loss per sortie was around .5 per sortie.
Corsair slighting worse than the Mustang both better than in WW2.

For all those that said the Corsair was more rugged..NO...they were equally strong planes.
As for the Mustang not qualifying for carrier duty it got close .
The H Model made successful carrier landings because of the taller Tail but the war was over.

 

[Dan Fahey]

The Mustang was fragile and temperamental.
The Corsair was tough and reliable as anvil.

How was the Mustang fragile?
Less Mustangs were shot down and the shot down more enemy planes than any other US Fighter?
Korean War the Navy and Marines lost more Corsairs than Mustangs.
Plus the Mustang stayed on station longer because of its range.

 

[Macandy]

How was the Mustang fragile?
Less Mustangs were shot down and the shot down more enemy planes than any other US Fighter?
Korean War the Navy and Marines lost more Corsairs than Mustangs.
Plus the Mustang stayed on station longer because of its range.

Mustangs were trashed in big numbers by rough landings that a Corsair just shrugged off. Their loss rates to ground fire was also very high. A single Golden BB and they were out of the war.

post WWII, The harsh operating strips in Korea burnt through P-51's at an astonishing rate.

A2A 'combat losses' are a very poor metric.

the reason the USAF got shot of the much higher performance P-51H and kept the D was the lightly built and higher stressed H was even more fragile.

 

[tomo pauk]

The Mustang was fragile and temperamental.
The Corsair was tough and reliable as anvil.

Mustangs were trashed in big numbers by rough landings that a Corsair just shrugged off. Their loss rates to ground fire was also very high. A single Golden BB and they were out of the war.

post WWII, The harsh operating strips in Korea burnt through P-51's at an astonishing rate.

A2A 'combat losses' are a very poor metric.

the reason the USAF got shot of the much higher performance P-51H and kept the D was the lightly built and higher stressed H was even more fragile.

All of this is based on what kind of primary sources, contemporary docs etc? (no fan-written pamphlets, please)