F4U Corsair vs P-51 Mustang

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

Don't know if anyone mentioned this, if so my bad, but I wonder what it might have been like in an F-2G with an R-4360 up front in the same situations?
 
In 2009 I wrote a Flight Journal article titled "The Price of Doing Business." Largely based on the postwar AAF Statistical Survey, and the material has been pirated ever since. I get several such emails every year without attribution. Wanted to put USN figures alongside AAF but found it was not possible, either because the comparable info was not compiled or it was lost. The above post showing USN personnel losses undoubtedly is as close as we'll get. Reputed 47,000 army planes lost in ConUS reminds me: Recently on Facebook I learned there were SIXTY FIVE THOUSAND Mustangs of all flavors. The FB guy was swamped with responses, not all kinder-gentler, and finally he said "Don't hate me, I just thought guys here would be better than wikipedia.")
 
 
FLYBOYJ said:
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
Click to expand...

What I was saying is that in a combat situation against each other I would bet on the more experienced pilot than I would on the airframe itself. In other words if a P-51 and a F4U were to engage in combat I would be more interested in knowing who was piloting each plane. Else wise we can drop all hypothetical "what if's" and simply point to the only time the two airframes fought each other and agree the F4U was the superior dogfighter since it has shot down a P-51 and the P-51 has not shot down a F4U.
 

Frankly I would fly either of them. I do suspect the P-51 would be a bit easier to taxi than the F4U though.
 
Ok agree - but by your verbiage it sounded like you were addressing a variation of a production model (F4U vs F4U-5N)

Now the combat you speak about occurred during the Soccer War and the Honduran pilot who flew the F4U was a very good pilot. A former neighbor (who flew P-51s during WW2) trained him. At the end of the day, this still doesn't prove much.
 
"Well I am American so when mentioning production runs Germany never crossed my mind and still doesn't. As for the DC-3, that is not a single engine plane. The Cessna isn't a military plane. "

J jalistair - go back an look at your original post

"I do believe the Corsair was the longest produced single piston engine plane"

Nothing is mentioned about a "combat' aircraft.
 
jalistair said:
Well I am American so when mentioning production runs Germany never crossed my mind and still doesn't.
Click to expand...

Still doesn't?? Oh, boy.

As for the DC-3, that is not a single engine plane. The Cessna isn't a military plane.
Click to expand...

Yes, DC-3 indeed was not a 'single piston engine plane', however Cessna was, so it fit's your criteria:

jalistair said:
I do believe the Corsair was the longest produced single piston engine plane,...
Click to expand...
 

Know a good bit about this war especially how and why it got started.
The Soccer games were only part of the issue and Refereed games as intense as these.

On the aircraft side...
El Salvador bought civilian Mustangs and Corsairs outfitted them up for combat.
Bought several Cavalier Mustangs with up-rated Merlins and wing tip tanks.
Merlin's with the good transport cylinder heads.
They grabbed up T-28,s Texans and DC3/C47s.
Converted the C47's into Bombers.

Hondurans had purchased F4u-4 and -5's.
Fernando Soto shot down two -1 Corsairs and the Cavalier Mustang.
Salvadorians after the loss pulled the wing tip tanks off the other Cavalier Mustangs.
El Salvador lost two Mustangs to AA and two crashed in midair.
Added up had to be about a third of their force.
Both sides did hire mercenary pilots.

Honduras did well in the air war but was losing the ground war.
Figured the Mustangs and Corsairs were effective enough staffing and bombing Honduran positions.
OAS intervened to stop it and got it stopped
Has took decades to sort out all the disputes with a final agreement signed in 2013.
 
Last edited:
"jalistair said: I do believe the Corsair was the longest produced single piston engine plane,...""

Last Propeller Fighter planes built..?
The Messerschmidt Ha-1112 Buchon last built in 1954 -1955
The Cavalier Mustangs were considered new build given new Serial Numbers to 1970
The 2 - PA-48's Piper Enforcers were new builds in 1983

Should consider COIN aircraft Texan II and Tucano which are all Fighter like.
Then there are the twin engine Mohawk and Bronco.

D
 
I think the Cavalier then Piper Enforcers started as modified P-51s (not really sure how they ended up) with the anticipated production versions to be all new builds.

Amusing aside: The Enforcer was "evaluated" (under duress) by the Air Force but never actually flown by any Air Force test pilots because no Air Force pilots were "taildragger qualified" (the Air Force command simply didn't want to have anything to do with it). So there's an aircraft in the Museum of the US Air Force that's never been flown by or taken (official) delivery by the USAF. I'm assuming the Air Force paid Piper for the aircraft but how could they have done that without issuing serial numbers?
 

Chuter,

I think it could be said the enforcer was never flown by a USAF Test Pilot in its current configuration (turbine). Also the US military has many planes not on any "books". Just because you have no proof doesn't mean it does not occur.

Cheers,
Biff
 

"Prop fighter" - turboprop vs, recip. Needs to be delineated

The last RECIP fighter built was probably the Hispano Ha-1112 (correct designation) aside starting off as a license built Messerschmitt (correct spelling) Bf 109G-2 the last version of this aircraft, the HA-1112-M1L Buchón was very different from the the 109G-2. The HA-1112-M1L had a slow production run, I'm showing some sources stating the aircraft was still being built in 1959, 239 units built, first flown in 1954.

The Cavalier Mustangs retained their original data plates, that determines whether the aircraft is "new," the fact they were given new serial numbers is meaningless and was just a paperwork/ logistics exercise. New serial number allocation is also done due to DoD funding requirements and the military serial will reflect the year the contract signed for that lot of aircraft. All Cavalier airframes were either refurbished or modified from original P-51 airframes.
 
Last edited:

We might do well to remember that all, all, of the Royal Navy's Fleet Air Arm F4U squadrons received their airplanes and were trained, to include carrier qualifying, by USN aviators, at various naval air stations in the US and on US carriers. All, yes, all of them, all 19 of the FAA F4U squadrons accepted their aircraft and trained in the US for an average of about three months. All of them carrier qualified in US waters on US carriers and all this training was accomplished with USN instructors. The first FAA squadron destined for F4Us, 1830, arrived at NAS Quonset Point in June 1943. The rest began their training:
1831 in July 1943, NAS Quonset Point
1834 in July 1943 NAS Quonset Point
1833 in July 1943, NAS Quonset Point
1835 in August 1943, NAS Quonset Point
1836 in August 1943, NAS Quonset Point
1837 in September 1943, NAS Quonset Point
1838 in October 1943, NAS Brunswick
1841 in March 1944, NAS Brunswick
1842 in April 1944, NAS Brunswick
1843 in May 1944, NAS Brunswick
1845 in June 1944, NAS Brunswick
1846 in July 1944, NAS Brunswick
1848 in July 1944, NAS Brunswick
1850 in August 1944, NAS Brunswick
1849 in August 1944, NAS Brunswick
1851 in September 1944, NAS Brunswick
1852 in February 1945, NAS Brunswick
1853 in April 1945, NAS Brunswick

Check the FAA records. Most of what these squadrons were doing in the US is available on the internet, for example, see First Line Squadrons Menu. Most of these F4U RN developed landing practices and the usual follow-on, first to deploy on carriers, tales date from 1960s and 1970s published accounts which the internet, for all the bad things I can say about it, such as repeating these tales as dogma, now lets us see the data, which lets us put a stake in them.

One US naval aviator of my acquaintance, who after a couple of combat tours, carrier and land based, was director of VF training at ComFAirWest from Sept 1943 to Oct 1944, reported that the "crabbing" approach was the only way to land an F4U on a carrier and still keep the LSO in sight. Quoth: "It was the only way we knew how to do it and the only method that made sense. It was not something we felt needed comment." He first flew the F4U-1 at San Diego on November 3, 1943, after returning from a tour in the Solomons in VF-11 flying F4Fs (his first F6F flight was at Espiritu Santo on 14 July 1943, in a plane borrowed from VF-33 as the squadrons crossed paths to and from the combat area, some ratting about with F4Us, his adversary was one Ken Walsh . . . another story for later). Upon return to the states he became director of fighter training at ComFAirWest where he was flying at least every other day, F6Fs, FMs, F4Us, even the occasional SBD, and sometimes three or four flights a day. Working from his pilot's logbook, his first flight in an F4U-1A was on 31 January 1944. After a couple of FCLP flights in the preceding days, his first actual carrier landing in an F4U, a -1A, was on February 24, 1944 aboard the CVE USS Altamaha, this in prep for the March 1944 RATO experiments. He would always say that the way to land the F4U on a carrier was obvious to anyone with any experience (he earned his wings in November 1940 and was already an ace) and had an inkling as to what he was doing and what needed to be done. The shape of the plane, the position of, and view from the cockpit, the need to keep the LSO in sight led one naturally to use wide and side approach, straightening out only at the last few seconds.

Still another naval aviator of my acquaintance, one of the leaders in VF-12, an early USN F4U squadron (the members of which were outraged when they had to turn their F4Us over to the local CASU and draw F6Fs for the air group's first deployment), told me pretty much the same thing, the technique was obvious and was what they taught their pilots.

Most of the film clips one finds of the VF-17, the first USN F4U squadron, initial carrier quals in birdcage type F4U-1s, focus on some rather spectacular barrier crashes, but, if you can find it, there is film that shows their landing approaches and they are using the crab approach. What people usually like to see in most of the available videos are the barrier crashes, which most like to attribute to the F4U purported poor landing characteristics but were actually the result of hook failures which, if you pay attention in the clips that show the approaches you can see the hook tips bouncing down the flight deck just prior to barrier crashes. Ignore the crashes and watch the approaches.

Been searching, but I can't find the right one . . . I'll bet, though, it can be found in one of the many F4U threads here.
 
Well youall will have to decide if this counts or not. The I-30 (Yak-3 prototype) and the UTI-26 (Yak-7
prototype) first flew in 1941. Along with some Yak-9s they were reproduced from 1991 to 2002 in
Russia with Allison engines. I believe that's considered longevity of design.
 

Yeah thought same thing but they rebuilt the entire airplane.
Every article makes same distinction that they were essentially new.
Not just warmed over and repainted.
How many ended up with the H-tail?
 
Dan Fahey said:
Yeah thought same thing but they rebuilt the entire airplane.
Every article makes same distinction that they were essentially new.
Not just warmed over and repainted.
How many ended up with the H-tail?
Click to expand...
No Dan, they did not, they rebuild the entire airplane, depending on the airframe and Cavilier model, only certain components were rebuilt. There were a lot of surplus, used parts and components on those airframes to include the later ones. The term "rebuilt" or factory new can only be affixed by the original airframe manufacturer although the military loosely throws that term around. I'm not sure how many had H tails but I'm sure they were probably the ones made from 1967 on.
 
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
G
Mustang Numbers
2
Replies
21
Views
3K
gruad
G
S
Spitfire vs. Dora mass battle
2
Replies
31
Views
2K
spicmart
S
O
F4U-4 Corsair contribution in WW2
2
Replies
32
Views
4K
nuuumannn
P-51H Mustang earmarked for the UK?
Replies
1
Views
746
Geoffrey Sinclair
G
Menu
Log in
Register