F4U in Europe

[GrauGeist]

The corsair was sturdy due to it's being a carrier-designed aircract, but that doesn't mean better able to withstand battle damage any better than a Mustang or Spitfire.
It simply means it can sustain hard landings far better than a Mustang or Spitfire.

It's one advantage over the other two, would be it's radial engine, which can sustain damage and remain operable.

As far as it's having a 2,000hp engine, yes that was alot of power, but what about the drag penalty imposed by it's frontal area? This is a key issue with radial engined aircraft and several manufacturers tried various solutions to address that (some being successful, some not).

 

[VA5124]

The corsair was sturdy due to it's being a carrier-designed aircract, but that doesn't mean better able to withstand battle damage any better than a Mustang or Spitfire.
It simply means it can sustain hard landings far better than a Mustang or Spitfire.

It's one advantage over the other two, would be it's radial engine, which can sustain damage and remain operable.

As far as it's having a 2,000hp engine, yes that was alot of power, but what about the drag penalty imposed by it's frontal area? This is a key issue with radial engined aircraft and several manufacturers tried various solutions to address that (some being successful, some not).

I still think it may have been a better choice for us .

 

[GrauGeist]

I still think it may have been a better choice for us .

So if the F4U is sent to Europe, which U.S. fighter does it replace?

Each type already there is performing a much needed task.

 

[wuzak]

Because 1. the R-2800 makes 2,000 hp which is something the merlin wouldnt do till the end of the war. 2. it was better turning than a spit in my oppion and 3. it being bulit tougher for carriers means higher damge could be taken

1. It needed to make 2,000hp to compensate for the weight and drag
2. Would like to see something better than opinion on that point. I don't really know how well the F4U turned, and it may be that the advantage changes based on speed and/or altitude.
3. What are the parts strengthened for carrier operations that make a difference to survivability in combat?

Edit:

This graphic compares turning circles of various fighters of WW2.

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/wade-turning.jpg

The Spitfire IX/XVI and XIV is shown to be the tightest turning of them.

It doesn't specify the speed at which they are turning, nor altitude.

Where do you think the F4U would be on that graphic?

 

[NevadaK]

So if the F4U is sent to Europe, which U.S. fighter does it replace?

Each type already there is performing a much needed task.

That is a great question. The way I see it is that it isn't about what does it replace, but is it better at something than any of the existing fighters in the ETO. While there is a narrative in this thread that the F4U would have been outclassed in the ETO/MTO I don't think that tells the whole story. Yes, the F4U does start to run out of gas at higher altitudes, but not all combat was high altitude escort activities. The F4U would have been outstanding in close air support as well as AAC in the lower envelope. If the F4U is replacing anything its the P-47 and P-51 in the CAS. In support of this premise, I pulled this scoring matrix from the 1944 Joint Fighter Conference. I didn't create it, but found it useful to see how these types were compared by pilots at that time. It shows the Corsair being favorably thought of in a number of categories.

 

[VA5124]

So if the F4U is sent to Europe, which U.S. fighter does it replace?

Each type already there is performing a much needed task.

I say the P-38 for the simple fact the corsair had a good bomb/rocket load so it could do ground attack plus having 6 .50in mgs means it could have maintained as a fighter too

 

[VA5124]

1. It needed to make 2,000hp to compensate for the weight and drag
2. Would like to see something better than opinion on that point. I don't really know how well the F4U turned, and it may be that the advantage changes based on speed and/or altitude.
3. What are the parts strengthened for carrier operations that make a difference to survivability in combat?

Edit:

This graphic compares turning circles of various fighters of WW2.

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/wade-turning.jpg

The Spitfire IX/XVI and XIV is shown to be the tightest turning of them.

It doesn't specify the speed at which they are turning, nor altitude.

Where do you think the F4U would be on that graphic?

It wouldnt turn as tight as a spit ill give you that but I'd say it would be pretty darn close turn better than the meteor . It had better gear and the whole airframe was more rigid so i think she could take more damage then a spit

 

[wuzak]

I say the P-38 for the simple fact the corsair had a good bomb/rocket load so it could do ground attack plus having 6 .50in mgs means it could have maintained as a fighter too

Could it do the escort missions the P-38 were mostly used for in the ETO?

 

[GrauGeist]

That is a great question. The way I see it is that it isn't about what does it replace, but is it better at something than any of the existing fighters in the ETO. While there is a narrative in this thread that the F4U would have been outclassed in the ETO/MTO I don't think that tells the whole story. Yes, the F4U does start to run out of gas at higher altitudes, but not all combat was high altitude escort activities. The F4U would have been outstanding in close air support as well as AAC in the lower envelope. If the F4U is replacing anything its the P-47 and P-51 in the CAS. In support of this premise, I pulled this scoring matrix from the 1944 Joint Fighter Conference. I didn't create it, but found it useful to see how these types were compared by pilots at that time. It shows the Corsair being favorably thought of in a number of categories.

View attachment 651605

I find that chart interesting, especially in the ground attack categories.
The F4U had six .50MGs, the P-47 had eight.
The F4U could carry eight 5" HVAR, the P-47 could carry ten.

For ground attack, the P-47 proved to a ferocious machine. Both it and the Typhoon were the scourge of the Wehrmacht on the Western front.

 

[Conslaw]

It wouldnt turn as tight as a spit ill give you that but I'd say it would be pretty darn close turn better than the meteor . It had better gear and the whole airframe was more rigid so i think she could take more damage then a spit

Based on competitive flights between the Spitfire and the A6M Zero, and Comparisons between the Corsair, Hellcat and the A6M Zero, I infer that that turn rate of both the Corsair and the Hellcat would have been in the same ballpark as the Spitfire.

 

[drgondog]

Because 1. the R-2800 makes 2,000 hp which is something the merlin wouldnt do till the end of the war. 2. it was better turning than a spit in my oppion and 3. it being bulit tougher for carriers means higher damge could be taken

Well, Hp to Gw is a major factor for acceleration. Most R2800 equipped (F8F exception) were far heavier than Merlin equipped fighters were and draggier. The P-47D maintained 2000 HP throughout the range and crossed over the Mustang and Spritfire at 25000 feet. NONE of the R2800 equiped fighters out turned a Spit (incl F8F). The strengthened components of F4U and F6F were landing gear and lower longernon/empennage tensile capability of arresting hook.

The P-51D did not need significant beef up of fuselage to perform carrier trial tests.

So,explain how more damage can be absorbed by P47D/F4U? BTW loss rates for P-51D/F4U-4 were about the same per sortie and the P-51D was lying longer range missions exposed to flak.

 

[VA5124]

Well, Hp to Gw is a major factor for acceleration. Most R2800 equipped (F8F exception) were far heavier than Merlin equipped fighters were and draggier. The P-47D maintained 2000 HP throughout the range and crossed over the Mustang and Spritfire at 25000 feet. NONE of the R2800 equiped fighters out turned a Spit (incl F8F). The strengthened components of F4U and F6F were landing gear and lower longernon/empennage tensile capability of arresting hook.

The P-51D did not need significant beef up of fuselage to perform carrier trial tests.

So,explain how more damage can be absorbed by P47D/F4U? BTW loss rates for P-51D/F4U-4 were about the same per sortie and the P-51D was lying longer range missions exposed to flak.

I'll explain it with a differnt carrier based fighter the F4F wildcat theres a story of a IJN pilot who thought he could finish off a damaged wildcat with 7,7mm fire so he turns off his 20mm cannon (didnt know the zero had a switch for that ) and dumps a bunch of rounds into the F4F only for the bullet ridden plane to fly away thats why i say the corsair could have done it

 

[pbehn]

I'll explain it with a differnt carrier based fighter the F4F wildcat theres a story of a IJN pilot who thought he could finish off a damaged wildcat with 7,7mm fire so he turns off his 20mm cannon (didnt know the zero had a switch for that ) and dumps a bunch of rounds into the F4F only for the bullet ridden plane to fly away thats why i say the corsair could have done it

Was the switch so complicated that he couldnt switch on the cannon later?

 

[VA5124]

Was the switch so complicated that he couldnt switch on the cannon later?

I dont know

 

[pbehn]

I dont know

You cant base a strategy on one anecdote, there will have been SE aircraft of all types taken out with a single rifle calibre bullet.

 

[Peter Gunn]

It wouldnt turn as tight as a spit ill give you that but I'd say it would be pretty darn close turn better than the meteor . It had better gear and the whole airframe was more rigid so i think she could take more damage then a spit

Not once 20 or 30mm cannon shells start flying.

Also I think the Korean War bears a quick examination, both the Mustang and Corsair were flying CAS over the same ground for the same amount of time, here are the numbers as best as I can recall, drgondog I think has the exact numbers:

F-51 341 lost to enemy action, 474 total (accidents etc. incl.)

F4U 325 lost to enemy action (Navy + Marines) 494 total (accidents etc. incl.)

Not sure the F4U stood up to ground fire any better. Math not my strong suit but I believe that's a less than 1% difference in lost to enemy action, I could be wrong on that though.

 

[drgondog]

It has been perpetually amusing to see folks harping on the somewhat nebulous attribute of 'ability to absorb damage' as five star attribute?

I peronally favor the attribute to a.) be in a situation here I could choose to fight or flee, b.) Be able to flee WITHOUT getting my ass shot off, c.) be able to manuever on equal or better terms if I couldn't extend. The Mustang, Spitfire, Fw 190, F4U, F6F, P-47 and P-38 and I suppose 109G all fit pretty well. That said, under 30K the Mustang and Spit IX/XIV works for me.

None of the above work well if you don't see who just killed you.


IL-2 would not be my choice.

 

[VA5124]

It has been perpetually amusing to see folks harping on the somewhat nebulous attribute of 'ability to absorb damage' as five star attribute?

I peronally favor the attribute to a.) be in a situation here I could choose to fight or flee, b.) Be able to flee WITHOUT getting my ass shot off, c.) be able to manuever on equal or better terms if I couldn't extend. The Mustang, Spitfire, Fw 190, F4U, F6F, P-47 and P-38 and I suppose 109G all fit pretty well. That said, under 30K the Mustang and Spit IX/XIV works for me.

None of the above work well if you don't see who just killed you.


IL-2 would not be my choice.

It was a flying tank though

 

[GrauGeist]

It was a flying tank though

Only to the pilot and even then, as long as it's being hit by MG fire (7mm, 13mm) - once the cannon shells start hitting, all bets are off.

 

[Clayton Magnet]

It was a flying tank though

define "flying tank". That is also a term that gets flippantly tossed around. The IL-2 was an airplane, made out of flimsy sheet aluminum just like all the others. It was perhaps more resilient to some types of battle damage, but its ponderous performance also guaranteed that it was going to be shot up a lot.
Just because it could take a few hits, like a P-47, doesn't mean it was going to be very useful for the squadron commander while it was sitting on jacks in the hanger for 6 months getting patched up, or scrapped.