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)
Above 25k ft, the F4U-1 performance drops dramatically. I think that while the Bf-109 may be slightly slower at these altitudes, its superior rate of climb, and probably maneuverability, was sufficient to neutralize any advantage the F4U-1 would have. I am sure some of our German experts could make a more intelligent argument.
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.
A high altitude supercharger was developed, but was not available until mid '44, and was installed in the dash 4. As for a turbo supercharger, the tight cowl and slender fuselage would make an installation dicey (compare with the large fuselage of the P-47).
Drgondog said:
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.
The F4U was not cleanest of aircraft. It was slightly cleaner than the P-47, however. I have created a variable to compare the aerodynamic efficiency of aircraft at sea level. This is system efficiency since some aircraft generate thrust from their radiators and some from the exhaust. Here are some comparisons. These numbers are mph/hp at SL.
P-51B (-7 engine) .24
P-51D .23
Spitfire Mk XIV .22
Fw-190D-9 .22
Fw-190A-5 .21
Ta-152H-1 .18
F4U-1 .162
P-47D-25 .156
F4U-4 .153
P-38J .13
See above regarding engines for higher altitudes.
A lighter, land based, F4U-1 would have improved climb however speed would probably not have been impacted by more than a couple of miles per hour. If you could give me an estimated weight savings for the land based versions, I could estimate impact to airspeed and climb.
It should be noted that in the Fighter Conference, the P-51 was selected as the second best fighter above 25k, behind the P-47, and second the below 25k, behind the F8F, in both cases ahead of the F4U-1, greatly ahead above 25k, only slightly ahead below 25k (insignificantly so). I believe this is one of the indications of how great the P-51 design was. While not overpowering at all altitudes (it definitely was above 25k until the latter part of '44), it was very formidable from 35k to SL.
Renrich said:
Actually, I believe that in ACM between Honduras and the other country (can't remember) a pilot name Hernando Soto(or something) shot down a P51 or two in the last combat by an F4U. Doesn't prove much. They were AC optimised for different missions. If picking between the two if you could only have one for the whole war, the P51 could never be as effective as the Corsair as a carrier plane and the Corsair could never be as effective as P51 as long range escort. For all around fighter bomber in all missions, I would have to go with Corsair, barely.
In the Soccer War, I believe Soto (?)was a pretty good stick. Also, he was flying an F4U-4 against P-51Ds, not the more equivalent P-51H. However, I agree with your final selection and would hope engine development could get me that -18W engine a lot earlier. And if they could just have squeezed that -57 engine in …….