Just curious the addition of the H-Tail.
Guessing it improved the handling for landing.
Any high speed benefit?
F4U Corsair vs P-51 Mustang (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Catch22
- Start date
Just curious the addition of the H-Tail.
Guessing it improved the handling for landing.
Any high speed benefit?
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
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
The later ones I believe had 1800 HP engines so I'm sure the H tail helped with the additional HP and torque.
CORSNING
Tech Sergeant
They got the more reliable Late model transport heads.
The improved engine performance must have been good..
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.
Fair enough.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
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
Major
Did the British variant suffer due to its shorter wingspan?
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
Tech Sergeant
Football War.
Wasn't the football war is between F4U-5 and P-51D?
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
Major
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"
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
The P-51H Mustang in Fighter/Interceptor configuration is ~8600 pounds with 105gal fuel
Last edited:
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
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?
Last edited:
Shortround6
Lieutenant General
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?.
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
Lieutenant General
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.
