F4U Corsair vs P-51 Mustang

[drgondog]

Biff - it was a taxi accident. OTOH, this one my father abused while strafing an airfield near Munich.

 

[pbehn]

Biff - it was a taxi accident. OTOH, this one my father abused while strafing an airfield near Munich.

I always thought the tail was much too high on a mustang, good to see it being taken down to a sensible size.

 

[gjs238]

deleted

 

[airminded88]

It is my opinion that when it comes to structural soundness, the Mustang is deemed as more maligned than its counterparts of the era.
It certainly was a liquid-cooled engine fighter and as such had weaknesses inherent of its type and certain hits could knock vital components and render the aircraft inoperable but that is true for all WWII-era liquid-cooled engine fighters.
The P-51 operated in one of the most active and hazardous areas of combat operations of the war where aerial and ground opposition could be formidable and despite grievous losses they earned their credentials as efficient and lethal weapons of air warfare.
While reading Our Might Always, the operational history of the 355th Fighter Group in WWII, extensively researched, written and kindly provided by Bill (drgondog) I have come to have a new-found respect for the Mustang as a deadly strafe aircraft.
Time and again P-51 fighter groups dove to attack LW airfields either on sweeps or after ramrod missions and despite the high losses of planes and more importantly men as a result of these missions, a high number of German aircraft of all types were decimated on the ground by Mustangs, their machine guns and liquid-cooled engines.
Many pilots have referred to the P-51 as a well-built, solid aircraft and a number of forum members whose fathers and uncles flown the P-51 to harm's way and came back can testify of that.

 

[pbehn]

Damage from ground fire wasnt completely random, some units developed a strategy of methodically working over an airfields defences to minimise damage to themselves.

 

[BiffF15]

Biff - it was a taxi accident. OTOH, this one my father abused while strafing an airfield near Munich.

Wow! That's impressive! How far did he have to fly before he put it back down? I'm assuming he was hit by Anti aircraft fire vice a mid air?

Cheers,
Biff

 

[drgondog]

Wow! That's impressive! How far did he have to fly before he put it back down? I'm assuming he was hit by Anti aircraft fire vice a mid air?

Cheers,
Biff

Just north of Munich to Steeple Morden is more than 500 miles. That was the 37mm hit but he had two 20mm hits also so hit by at least two guns..

 

[grampi]

Wildcats could hold there own against Zeros because they were built more solidly. Survivability counts in air combat too and they're not shooting missiles at each other that can take out an aircraft with one blast.

An F4U is just able to take punishment a P-51 can't.

The 51 didn't have to take punishment...it was fast enough and maneuverable enough in most cases be the first to strike...

 

[aurora-7]

The 51 didn't have to take punishment...it was fast enough and maneuverable enough in most cases be the first to strike...

A similar line of thinking was on the A6M2 Zero and I think the reason that Wildcats could hold their own against them was because of their durability.

As to a one on one competition, I think the P-51 has the edge, though it's often cited that the Corsair maneuverability is close but I do think the P-51 comes out a bit ahead there.

I think when aircraft are compared in performance, there's a difference that should be noted between a plane on plane competition as opposed to war time service. The Mustang was strongest as a pure-dogfighter with it long legs, power and maneuverability.

The Corsair was at least close to the Mustang in maneuverability and the Corsair and Thunderbolt could fight in the air and do an excellent job on ground attacks.

Forever with me is a quote from a P-47 pilot:
"If you wanted to send a picture to your wife or girl, you sat in a P-51. If you were going into combat, you sat in a P-47".

 

[gjs238]

delete

 

[grampi]

A similar line of thinking was on the A6M2 Zero and I think the reason that Wildcats could hold their own against them was because of their durability.

As to a one on one competition, I think the P-51 has the edge, though it's often cited that the Corsair maneuverability is close but I do think the P-51 comes out a bit ahead there.

I think when aircraft are compared in performance, there's a difference that should be noted between a plane on plane competition as opposed to war time service. The Mustang was strongest as a pure-dogfighter with it long legs, power and maneuverability.

The Corsair was at least close to the Mustang in maneuverability and the Corsair and Thunderbolt could fight in the air and do an excellent job on ground attacks.

Forever with me is a quote from a P-47 pilot:
"If you wanted to send a picture to your wife or girl, you sat in a P-51. If you were going into combat, you sat in a P-47".

The Wildcat HAD to be tough to survive because it was bested in every performance category by the Zero. Later in the war when we had planes like the P-51, F4U, F6F, and P-47 our pilots had the advantage of speed and altitude over the enemy, so a hit and run tactic was used more often than pure dog fighting...

 

[bobbysocks]

Forever with me is a quote from a P-47 pilot:
"If you wanted to send a picture to your wife or girl, you sat in a P-51. If you were going into combat, you sat in a P-47".

I have heard a similar quote but the other way around. the pilot said if he was on the tail of an enemy doing the shooting he would rather be behind the stick of a mustang...if the enemy was behind him doing the shooting he would wish he was in a bolt. all those pilots had their own criteria and preferences...it doesn't necessarily make it true all the way around. some guys had nice things to say about the p39..others couldn't say one nice word...

 

[aurora-7]

. some guys had nice things to say about the p39..others couldn't say one nice word...

The P-39 made aces for the Russians. They liked it low level handling where most of their battles with the Luftwaffe took place.

As to the subject of the thread, I'll stick with the Corsair just because I believe it's performance to be close to the Mustang's and it being a more resilient fighter to combat damage.

 

[Zipper730]

A lot of books include the AAF Mission planning criteria - and all Performance Analysis delivered to AAF regarding Range/Combat Radius during WWII used it as the basis. That said Dean (IMO) is the best central repository for the Key American Fighters.

That's good to know, I might very well purchase this book.

Based on Gross weight and SFC tables based on RPM, MP, a Mission Profile was calculated for Warm up/Takeoff, Climb to a specific altitude, accelerate to cruise, go to end of Radius, fight at 15 minutes MP/5 min WEP, cruise back at same altitude and return to base with a 20 minute reserve.

To be clear, the fighting conditions are 15-minutes at military power OR 5 minutes at WEP?

This is a little outside the scope, but why did the RAF, USAAF, USN have different warm-up times?

Normally the Profiles calculated were for 5000, 15000 and 25000 feet - the adjusted based on Flight tests for 1.) clean/light, 2.) full internal fuel, 3.) external fuel and max full internal fuel/ammo.

Ok

Additional options included variations for external loads like bombs or bigger tanks, rockets or bombs with different drag loads.

I assume different tables were used for bombers than fighters?

 

[pbehn]

Allied A/C didnt have to return to base, there were landing fields around the coast for emergencies, Carnaby in Yorkshire was one of these, after the war it was used as a race track, it was so near the the sea that 3 track marshals were treated for exposure at a meeting in March when I was there.

Manston in Kent and Woodbridge in Suffolk were the others, a forum posters father (Drgondog) took advantage of Manstons hospitality on one occasion, wiki quotes 4,200 aircraft landing at Woodbridge and from memory over 2,000 landed at Carnaby.

RAF Woodbridge - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
RAF Carnaby - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
RAF Manston - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Shortround6]

To be clear, the fighting conditions are 15-minutes at military power OR 5 minutes at WEP?

It include both.

This is a little outside the scope, but why did the RAF, USAAF, USN have different warm-up times?

Warm up time also varied with the installation (and weather conditions), They main thing was to warm up the engine to operating temperature and the oil! Cold oil flowed like molasses and warming up the oil in the engine while the oil in the oil tank/oil cooler was still cold and thick would lead to flow and lubrication problems, big ones. Many planes had variable oil supplies. Oil tank was only filled to capacity if the plane was using max fuel (aux tanks or drop tanks)
Actual warm up time was dependent on the temperature gauges but for flight planning a worst case scenario would be adopted. A few of these categories had a little bit of fudge factor in them to give a bit of reserve. Cutting warm up to the minimum in planning for a max range mission and then running into a higher than expected head wind on the way home leaves you with a lot of lost aircraft.

See Marianas turkey shoot where about 80 US aircraft were forced to ditch on the return flight due to low fuel as an example of operating at extreme range/s.
Mission planning was usually trying to build in reasonable reserves and also trying to take into account the worst performing aircraft in the group. Like the plane with the worst dents/paint and highest drag or the plane whose engine was just a few percent off the others.

 

[drgondog]

That's good to know, I might very well purchase this book.

Dean was an Aero Engineer and does a good job not only for the data and narratives but also presents a good survey 'course' on aerodynamics as it applies to Performance to help you understand how he developed performance comparisons. This book is simply the best of its kind. It also brings into play handling characteristics as surveyed at the Fighter Conference at Patuxent River during which all the fighters were flown and 'graded' for not only performance/maneuverability but also low speed handling, visibility, control layout, etc.

To be clear, the fighting conditions are 15-minutes at military power OR 5 minutes at WEP?

15 minutes of MP and 5 minutes WEP.

This is a little outside the scope, but why did the RAF, USAAF, USN have different warm-up times?

Engine variations, limits based on operational/environmental experience dictated actual squadron level 'standards'. The warm up times for the AAF Combat Radius calcs are simply a conservative factor to calculate fuel consumption for warm up RPM and manifold Pressure - Not a 'rule'. Shortround covered the operating conditions required for safe engine operation very well

In actual operations, for example Group level escort mission - all 48 (+ spares) fire up at the same time.

The Group leader and his flight take off first, the last flight of the third squadron take off last and join the rest of their squadron as the Group circles the field - then begin the climb out to cruise altitude.

Ok

I assume different tables were used for bombers than fighters?

 

[GrapeJam]

The Corsair was at least close to the Mustang in maneuverability and the Corsair and Thunderbolt could fight in the air and do an excellent job on ground attacks.

The Corsair wasn't "close" to the P51 in maneuverability at all, it actually outclassed the P51 in maneuverability at all speed, in all aspects, still, contemporaries Mustang outclassed the Corsair in speed, climb and endurance.

 

[wuzak]

The Corsair wasn't "close" to the P51 in maneuverability at all, it actually outclassed the P51 in maneuverability at all speed, in all aspects, still, contemporaries Mustang outclassed the Corsair in speed, climb and endurance.

It did?

According to America's Hundred Thousand the P-51B rolled better at all speeds and had a tighter turning radius than the F4U-1D.

 

[grampi]

It's amazing how there can be completely different accounts of the same aircraft performance wise...makes me wonder what was actually the case...it also makes me wonder how much of it is actually folk lore/fan boy stuff...