F4U F6F payload

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

gjs238

Tech Sergeant
1,889
329
Mar 26, 2009
Why could the Corair Hellcat carry so much more bombs, rockets, etc than the P-39, P-40, P-47?
Larger wing surface area?
 
Almost twice the power (R-2800 vs. V-1710), plus big wings give them huge advantage vs. P-39 -40.
The R-2800 aboard of P-47 have had to pull in the air the heavy airframe, so payload suffered. The wing was thinner, better suited for high speed then to carry the really big payload.
The P-47N was as good as those Navy fighters, IIRC.
 
Tomo has a good point there. The Navy birds had to have a lot of lift in their wings as they needed to go relatively slowly in the landing phase on a carrier. Army planes typically went for the highest possible speed as a first step. Navy had speed in a mix of different things that were important.

I think the second gen fighters (of which the F6 and F4U were members) could all carry a large load a short distance. 2 1000lbs or 2 500lbs, gas and rockets was not impossible load hanging off the frame. But it greatly affected the performance.
 
"... How accurate was P-47 weapons delivery, with a wing loading that high?"

Obviously, it wasn't a dive bomber ... but as good as the Il-2 I'm guessing, .

MM
 

How far could each of the above a/c carry such loads?
 
I have my doubts.

The lower wing loading of the IL-2 provides better low speed maneuverability. That makes it easier to put gunfire, rockets and bombs on ground targets. The Ju-87 improves accuracy by dive bombing. The P-47 has neither of these advantages when attacking ground targets.
 
Curtiss Helldiver had a wing loading of 40.7lb/sq ft

Bristol Blenheim had a wing loading of 28.8lb/sq ft

Fairey Battle had a wing loading of 25.6lb/sq ft

Considering the last two it is a wonder the Germans managed to get across the Bridges at Sedan.

At low altitude instead of dive bombing a higher wing loading means a smoother ride, less gust response.
If you are going so slow as to rely on "low speed maneuverability" you are also a target for any gun pointed up into the sky.

Corsairs, with a wing loading of 46.7lb/sq ft, seemed to have a pretty good reputation for accuracy in ground support.

All wing loadings calculated from data at Frans Bonn's web site.
 
Here is a P-47N loaded to the gills. Looks like two 1000 punders, one 500 pounder, ten rockets, plus most likely full fuel load, with a grand weight of over 20,000 lbs. Very impressive I must say.
 
Considering the last two it is a wonder the Germans managed to get across the Bridges at Sedan.
Click to expand...
The Bristol Blenheim and Fairey Battle had the potential to bomb accurately. But bombing tactics, aircrew training and enemy opposition still matter.
 
JU-87 Stuka, Hawker Typhoon, P-47 Fighter bombers

If this is correct then we have data for comparison of bombing accuracy.

Accuracy with no flak.
P-47. 30 bombs required to score a hit. 50% within 180 feet of target (360 foot circle).
Ju-87B. 25% success in hitting the target for average pilots.
Ju-88A. 50% of bomb load within a 50 meter circle.

If I were a soldier desperately in need of CAS the P-47 would not be my first choice. Better to place 500lbs on target then to miss with 2,500lbs (or place it accidently on friendly units).
 

Nice try but you still don't have a valid comparison.

Were German results from a test range ?
Or do you think a practice range and a combat zone are the same even if there is no flak in the combat zone?
What is the definition of "target" in each case?
Dive bombers are much more vulnerable to light Flak guns than low level fighter bombers.
 
I remember reading the release altitude for dive bombing in a P-47 was 3000ft.
It would suggest that dive bombing was easier said than done.
Still, the P-47 was regarded as a better dive bomber because of its stability and ease of trim while in the dive.

I've never heard of the F4U or F6F having significantly better load outs than the P-47, but they were better than P-40s and P-39s. I would owe most of that to the power of the engine, all three airframes pulling over 2000hp.
Fact is, in order for any of those planes to take advantage of their max load capacity they would need much more runway. I would be surprised to see the F4U getting in the air with a full load from a carrier deck.
 
The P47 had compressibility problems in a high speed dive. And it had no dive brakes to slow the dive. Which makes me think it would be suicide for a P47 to attack ground targets at a steep dive angle.

I suspect the A-36 dive bomber was better at putting steel on ground targets then the better known F4U and P-47 fighter-bombers. But for some reason the U.S. Army Air Corps chose not to continue development. They could have added survivability enhancements like dual radiators with individual cut off valves (similiar to Me-109) and additional cockpit armor. Increased aircraft weight would be offset by more powerful versions of the Allison V-1710 engine. Poor performance at high altitude (for the Allison engine) would not be an issue as this is a CAS aircraft.
 

Think the USAAF was playing the numbers game. Cheap airplane, plenty of pilots, why worry?
 
That's fine for the USN. However I don't think the WWII era U.S. Army would consider large scale use of a naval design. Relations between the two military service branches were just too bad. Which is a shame because the F4U was a great aircraft and in production by late 1942.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

O
F4U-4 Corsair contribution in WW2
2
Replies
32
Views
4K
nuuumannn
T
F4U Production in Indiana?
2
Replies
28
Views
2K
pinehilljoe
D
F4u variants used at Iwo Jima
Replies
9
Views
1K
Big Jake
B
V
F4U in Europe
40 41 42
Replies
830
Views
59K
EwenS
E
M
P-51H vs F4U-5
Replies
9
Views
3K
drgondog
Menu
Log in
Register