F4U Corsair vs P-51 Mustang

[Dan Fahey]

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.

Just curious the addition of the H-Tail.
Guessing it improved the handling for landing.
Any high speed benefit?

 

[Dan Fahey]

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.

Interesting the Allison was smaller in displacement and weight.
How did they perform over the Kimlov Vk105 and Vk107?

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Just curious the addition of the H-Tail.
Guessing it improved the handling for landing.
Any high speed benefit?

The later ones I believe had 1800 HP engines so I'm sure the H tail helped with the additional HP and torque.

 

[CORSNING]

Interesting the Allison was smaller in displacement and weight.
How did they perform over the Kimlov Vk105 and Vk107?

Yak-3M

 

[Dan Fahey]

The later ones I believe had 1800 HP engines so I'm sure the H tail helped with the additional HP and torque.

They got the more reliable Late model transport heads.
The improved engine performance must have been good..

 

[jalistair]

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.

Really? I bet you guys had some interesting conversations, did you talk about the Soccer War much? Agree with you that the dog fight doesn't prove much about the aircraft, more so about the pilots. My world was the AH-64D, had fellow pilots who had trained the Egyptians on the same bird and also know several Israelis. The interesting thing is that all three nations essentially fly the same aircraft other than some electronics. Yet the competency level isn't even close to the same. The Israeli pilots view the Egyptian aircraft as forward deployed reserves for the IAF while the American IP's would state that the inconstancy of the Egyptians renders the AH-64 all but useless. So... it is quite likely that Honduras had better pilots.

 

[jalistair]

"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.

Fair enough.

 

[jalistair]

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.

Ah, South American politics....

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Really? I bet you guys had some interesting conversations, did you talk about the Soccer War much?

Always enjoyed talking to Mike. He trained Soto, said he excelled in gunnery. Mike was part of the post WW2 military assistance program where we sent US instructors to train Central and South American pilots.

Michael Alba | American Air Museum in Britain

 

[Admiral Beez]

Did the British variant suffer due to its shorter wingspan?

 

[mig-31bm]

The Corsair was superior in roll, turn and landing speed - all related to 10% lower wing loading. The Mustang was superior in acceleration, climb, speed, zoom climb, dive all related to 2/3 Drag values compared to Corsair.

I suppose the definition of "close" needs some scrutiny. As to "all speed", the relative turn capability of the Mustang matched the Corsair at high altitude and the roll rates matched at high speed. The comparisons basically need to be period vs period such as F4U-4/-5 vs P-51H; F4U-1 vs P-51B/D

I'm totally clueless but I'm curious, how come the turning capability of P-51H matched F4U-5 at high altitude?, I mean wouldn't the lower wing loading of F4U-5 mean it also have more lift to spare, especially at high altitude where there is less air and wing loading is more important?.
I found some overlapped chart which seem to indicate that F4U-5 is much better than P-51H in term of speed at high altitude, but I have no idea why though? better engine?

Also, do you have any roll rate chart of F4U-5 and P-51H? I assume that they are same as previous version?. The only piece of anecdote data I can find was that they did some test between F4U-1 and FW-190? and allegedly F4U-1 roll much better than FW-190, and since FW-190 rolled better than P-51, that mean F4U all version will roll better than P-51H?.

Overall, it would seem to me that F4U-5 is superior to P-51H in almost every single aspect of a fighter:
Armor and survivability:
F4U have much better armor, it was the only WW II fighter with armor that can stop 0.50 cal bullet, and of course the radial air cooled engine survive bullet much better than the liquid cooled engine

Turn rate:
F4U-5 is a carrier born aircraft thus has much lower stall speed compared to P-51, therefore, it should turn much better than P-51.

Roll rate:
F4U rolled better than FW-190, and since FW-190 roll much better than P-51, it can be concluded that F4U-5 roll better than P-51H

Weapons:
F4U-5 is equipped with 4x20 mm cannon with better destructive power and longer range compared to the 6x 0.50 cal machine gun on P-51H

Ceiling:
F4U-5 has higher service ceiling than P-51H, probably comparable to something like Ta-152

Speed:
P-51H is faster than F4U-5 from sea level till around 13500 ft.
F4U-5 is faster than P-51H between 13600 ft to 18500 ft
P-51H is faster than F4U-5 between 18600 ft to 24500 ft
From 24500 ft and up, F4U-5 is better.
So overall, F4U-5 could cruise at higher altitude where P-51H can't compete in speed, and if P-51H loiter at lower altitude then F4U-5 pilot can just dive on them

Climb speed:
P-51H climb better than F4U-5 till 27000 ft, then after that F4U-5 climb better

Dive speed:
All version of P-51 dive better than all version of F4U, so technically this could give P-51 pilot option to run away

 

[yulzari]

Really? I bet you guys had some interesting conversations, did you talk about the Soccer War much? Agree with you that the dog fight doesn't prove much about the aircraft, more so about the pilots. My world was the AH-64D, had fellow pilots who had trained the Egyptians on the same bird and also know several Israelis. The interesting thing is that all three nations essentially fly the same aircraft other than some electronics. Yet the competency level isn't even close to the same. The Israeli pilots view the Egyptian aircraft as forward deployed reserves for the IAF while the American IP's would state that the inconstancy of the Egyptians renders the AH-64 all but useless. So... it is quite likely that Honduras had better pilots.

Football War.

 

[mig-31bm]

Football War.

Wasn't the football war is between F4U-5 and P-51D?

 

[mig-31bm]

Turn rate:
F4U-5 is a carrier born aircraft thus has much lower stall speed compared to P-51, therefore, it should turn much better than P-51.

After some closer look, seem like I was wrong in this part. I initially assumed that F4U-5 turned much better than P-51H because I remember reading that F4U-1 turned much better than P-51B.
However, I just now realized that P-51H is quite a bit lighter than P-51B, whereas F4U-5 is quite a bit heavier than F4U-1.
Gross weight in fighter configuration of F4U-1 is 5053 kg, with the wing area of 29.172 m2, the wing loading value would be 173 kg/m2
Gross weight in fighter configuration of P-51B is 5352 kg, with the wing area of 21.6 m2, the wing loading value would be 247 kg/m2.
As a result, F4U-1 has significant advantage over P-51B in wing loading.

However,
Gross weight in fighter configuration of F4U-5 is 5851.79 kg, with wing area of 29.172 m2, the wing loading value would be 200.5 kg/m2
Gross weight in fighter configuration of P-51H is 4286 kg, with the wing area of 21.6 m2, the wing loading value would be 198.4 kg/m2
As a result, P-51H has slight advantage over F4U-5 in wing loading. Their turn capability should be quite closely matched

 

[drgondog]

After some closer look, seem like I was wrong in this part. I initially assumed that F4U-5 turned much better than P-51H because I remember reading that F4U-1 turned much better than P-51B.

That was BuNav test in which USN stacked deck with R-2800 boosted with non production WI at 65"MP at the time. Excess HP, Drag and WL are key elements. A comparable test might be a P-51B at 75" vs F4U at 59"

However, I just now realized that P-51H is quite a bit lighter than P-51B, whereas F4U-5 is quite a bit heavier than F4U-1.
Gross weight in fighter configuration of F4U-1 is 5053 kg, with the wing area of 29.172 m2, the wing loading value would be 173 kg/m2
Gross weight in fighter configuration of P-51B is 5352 kg, with the wing area of 21.6 m2, the wing loading value would be 247 kg/m2.
As a result, F4U-1 has significant advantage over P-51B in wing loading.

P-51B with full 85gal tank weighs about 9500 or about 4400KG. If you match fuel in the P-51B to F4U and reduce 269gal to 150, The GW is below 8800 pounds or WL 37pounds/ft^2 - Ditto P-51H

However,
Gross weight in fighter configuration of F4U-5 is 5851.79 kg, with wing area of 29.172 m2, the wing loading value would be 200.5 kg/m2
Gross weight in fighter configuration of P-51H is 4286 kg, with the wing area of 21.6 m2, the wing loading value would be 198.4 kg/m2
As a result, P-51H has slight advantage over F4U-5 in wing loading. Their turn capability should be quite closely matched

The P-51H Mustang in Fighter/Interceptor configuration is ~8600 pounds with 105gal fuel

 

[mig-31bm]

That was BuNav test in which USN stacked deck with R-2800 boosted with non production WI at 65"MP at the time. Excess HP, Drag and WL are key elements. A comparable test might be a P-51B at 75" vs F4U at 59"

I'm not very familiar with the acronym, what is "WI"?, and also wouldn't it be more fair to test the two aircraft at the same manifold pressure?.
Also according to the test article, F4U-1 was a standard aircraft whereas they sand down the skin of P-51B to make it less draggy compared to normal P-51B

P-51B with full 85gal tank weighs about 9500 or about 4.4KG. If you match fuel in the P-51B to F4U and reduce 269gal to 150, The GW is below 8800 pounds or WL 37pounds/ft^2 - Ditto P-51H

The P-51H Mustang in Fighter/Interceptor configuration is ~8600 pounds with 105gal fuel

So after I look a bit closer, I found that they compared two aircraft at fuel load where their flight duration is equalized.
In that case
F4U-1 weight is 5516 kg, with the wing area of 29.172 m2, the wing loading value would be 189 kg/m2
P-51B weight is 4127-4274 kg, with the wing area of 21.6 m2, the wing loading value would be 191-197 kg/m2.
So actually very close, but then I can't understand how F4U-1 turned so much better than P-51B if the wing loading different is that small?. Maybe the F4U-1 wing just significantly better in generate lift? Because it is thicker?

 

[Shortround6]

I'm not very familiar with the acronym, what is "WI"?, and also wouldn't it be more fair to test the two aircraft at the same manifold pressure?.

WI means "water injection" (MW 50 to the Germans). Not all planes had WI even if they used the same basic engine, you do have to fit the water tank and the associated plumbing fittings.

What is fair is to use the max boost used in service (or soon to be) for the different airplanes.
Air cooled radial engines never operated at the same max boost as allied liquid cooled engines using the same fuel.

War Time R-2800 Bs never operated at over 54in with any supercharger unless they had water injection.

 

[mig-31bm]

WI means "water injection" (MW 50 to the Germans). Not all planes had WI even if they used the same basic engine, you do have to fit the water tank and the associated plumbing fittings.

What is fair is to use the max boost used in service (or soon to be) for the different airplanes.
Air cooled radial engines never operated at the same max boost as allied liquid cooled engines using the same fuel.

War Time R-2800 Bs never operated at over 54in with any supercharger unless they had water injection.

I see, I was wondering why there is no P-47 with 90 hg.
Can you explain a bit on why air cooled radial engine can't operate in same max boost as liquid cooled engine?. Is that because they mostly lacked water injection?.

 

[mig-31bm]

The P-51H Mustang in Fighter/Interceptor configuration is ~8600 pounds with 105gal fuel

I wanted to use that configuration but then the problem is that I don't know what is the weight of F4U-5 in the same configuration, does it also carry 105 gals fuel? Or maybe more? I assume that F4U-5 need more fuel because its engine probably a lot more thirstly

 

[Shortround6]

I see, I was wondering why there is no P-47 with 90 hg.
Can you explain a bit on why air cooled radial engine can't operate in same max boost as liquid cooled engine?. Is that because they mostly lacked water injection?.

Air cooled engines were operating a lot closer to the detonation limits to begin with. They did not have the margin of extra cooling the liquid cooled engines did.