F4U in Europe (1 Viewer)

[DarrenW]

I always considered the F4U as having excellent range - I'm sure it could have reached Berlin and back again the same way most other single-engine fighter planes were able to do it, by carrying drop tanks?

I used to believe that the F6F and F4U could have performed LRE missions in Europe as well as the US Army types until I was persuaded by the very knowledgeable folks here on this forum.

The biggest detractors for the US Navy fighters were internal fuel capacity and overall fuel economy. Both the F6F and F4U carried less protected internal fuel than the P-47 (the F4U-1A wing tanks were normally never utilized because of their extreme vulnerability) but had basically the same thirsty R-2800 engine. They also used a supercharger set-up as opposed to the more fuel-efficient turbo (at high altitude) of the army fighter. Another factor was the thicker/larger wings of the naval fighters, obviously creating more drag (both parasitic and induced), which increased fuel consumption even more. This is proven out when you look at operational charts for each type. The P-47 normally burned less fuel (GPH) at each specified altitude and power setting (when similarly configured).

In regards to range the P-38 and P-51 were entirely in a class by themselves so comparing the naval fighters to them in this metric would be a complete waste of time.

Lastly, external tanks were only part of the answer to the range problem as it was common for fighters to jettison them before engaging the enemy. This forced the pilot to rely only on internal fuel for the ensuing combat and to get him safely back home.

 

[drgondog]

I always considered the F4U as having excellent range - I'm sure it could have reached Berlin and back again the same way most other single-engine fighter planes were able to do it, by carrying drop tanks?

Good range - yes, with external tanks and un-interrupted by combat. Only the F4U-1A with auxillary internal wing fuel giving it 361gal fuel total. but the wing fuel tanks were not self sealing and not permissable for ETO combat. Specifically, w/o wing tanks the F4U-1 series had 237 gal internal fuel. Compare to P-47C/D which had 305 gal until spring/summer 1944 when the D-25 emerged with 370 gal - and capable of reaching Berlin/Leipzig/Munich.

Additionally, optimal cruise speed for distance/range was much lower than P-51B/D at any altitude, and specifically much lower at 25K where range and cruise speed was at a premium. Additionally, that F4U-1 &A/B/C) at FTH (~21000) had a top speed of ~ 390-400mh and tapered away from there. Both the 109G and Fw 190A5/7 were a.) faster and more manueverable at, and above the FTH, and c.) still better at 25K and above. By contrast the P-47D had the same HP at 32000 as the F4U at 21K by virtue of turbosupercharger.

IF Vought had elected to replace the 62 gal wing fuel cells with combat tanks of say 55gal each, it would have extended the F4U combat radius to approximately 2/3 of a P-51B/D with 85 gal fuel tanks - not enough for Berlin - and just barely greater than P-47C/D - and now the second part enters.

The F4U was contemplated as a Low/Medium high performance All Around Fighter - but Long Range escort for USAAF heavy bombers at high alitude was never in Corsair strike zone.

 

[drgondog]

Range increases to 1500 nautical miles max with just one 150 external fuel tank. They could carry two of this.

You need to understand that Range = maximum unmolested straight line capability at optimal cruise altitude and TAS. Combat Radius = 'molested tranquility' in which external stores are dropped, combat at Military and/or Combat Power is engaged, and the distance to return home is not exceeded by the remaining capacity of your (wing fuselge) internal tanks.

In your stated objection above, one of the better choices when attacked - is to 1.) eject the fragile, explosion prone tanks to reduce drag and 2.) increase odds of survival.

 

[Ovod]

Well, that seems to be me told!!

So I take it that the F4U may indeed have the range to cover much of Germany in some kinds of escort missions, but it couldn't carry out such missions at the right altitude or speed to be anyway useful to the USAAF/8th AF - i.e. escort for B-17 and B-24 bomber missions?

 

[drgondog]

Well, that seems to be me told!!

So I take it that the F4U may indeed have the range to cover much of Germany in some kinds of escort missions, but it couldn't carry out such missions at the right altitude or speed to be anyway useful to the USAAF/8th AF, ie. escort for B-17 and B-24 bomber missionsß

Visualize between P-47C and late model bubble canopy P-47D-25, then P-38J-15, then P-51B/C/D. Analogy - Brunswick/Stuttgart/ Schweinfurt but not Berlin, Leipzig, Brux, Ruhland, Munich.

 

[pbehn]

IIRC, one condition of Lend-Lease is that everything sent had to be returned (it was lent, after all) or destroyed.

They were, returned to the USA in UK "on paper" The USA just left them where they were. I would add that it could be questioned who was lending and leasing what and to whom. Mustangs were flown by RAF pilots from RAF airfields escorting USA bombers. The British ordered it, gave it an engine design and a gunsight design. If they wanted the scrap sent back thats one thing if they wanted flyable planes sent back by the thousand while much of the world was starving that is another, the ships men and fuel involved would be enormous and they would be scrapped in the USA anyway.



Mustang Mk III units were operational until the end of World War II, though many units had already converted to the Mustang Mk IV (P-51D/K). As the Mustang was a Lend-Lease type, all aircraft still on RAF charge at the end of the war were either returned to the USAAF "on paper" or retained by the RAF for scrapping.
From

North American Aviation P-51 Mustang - BCAR.org.uk

 

[Howard Gibson]

I don't think the Corsair was quite up to the latest Fw190s in 1944. It would have been a good substitute for the P-47s on ground attack. The P-47s were superior to everyone else at 30,000ft. This is not ideal for ground attack.

 

[GregP]

The F4U did have decent range for a Navy aircraft. But the Navy carrier mission is NOT an escort mission. The Navy generally took off and loitered around the carrier at low power while forming up for a very short time, left on a relatively low-altitude mission (say, 1500 - 15000 feet), and allowed for some 5 - 15 minutes of combat. They typically cruised at 165 - 185 mph, just loafing along.

Escort missions took off and spent some 20 - 30 minutes joining up, cruise-climbed to something like 20,000+ feet. And escorted to Berlin and back at something like 220 mph IAS, which turns into 308 mph TAS at 20,000 feet.

165 mph IAS at 20,000 feet is 143 knots. That turns into 200 kts TAS, or 230 mph. That just won't cut it when flying into combat in the ETO. The P-51s were cruising at slightly over 300 mph and weaving above the bombers. The Corsair absolutely WILL do that, but it won't do it and still retain a good-enough escort range. Yes, they could fit drop tanks. But I don't think the Corsair will magically turn into a good escort fighter.

Would it handle the German fighters? Yes, it would, just fine. But handling the fighters is different from escorting a bomber stream.

The Corsair burned 93 gph at Max cruise at 20,500 feet. Internal fuel was 237 gallons and drop tanks could add another 126 gallons if they were able to be used until dry. Unlikely in the ETO. At a takeoff weight of 13,000 pounds, the range at Navy low cruise speed and low altitude, the range was about 920 NM, or 1058 statute miles. That is at 5,500 feet altitude, at low cruise speeds, with no reserve and no allowance for combat. Straight from the Corsair POH.

So, while the Corsair would have been useful in the ETO, it wasn't ever going to be a P-51 Mustang and tackle long-range missions on a regular basis. That doesn't mean it would not have been welcomed by the fighter community. It would have been.

There are threads in here about how over-rated the P-51 was and is, but I don't see a lot of the people claiming that offering up alternative suggestions for U.S.A.A.F. escort fighters. It absolutely wasn't going to be a Spitfire or Hurricane and, if they WERE available, the U.S.A.A.F. would not have accepted them as regular equipment. The P-47 wasn't up to it, range-wise. Neither was the P-38. We all know the P-39 could do it, at least for 150 - 180 miles or so. Then the P-39 simply drops out of the mission due to fuel shortage. So, it isn't going to make an escort fighter, ever. There were never enough P-61s, and they weren't suitable anyway for escort.

My question is, if the P-51 was so over-rated, what is your suggestion for an alternative U.S.A.A.F. escort fighter? It has to be available when the P-51 was actually available in the war, in sufficient numbers to be useful, and it has to be an aircraft the U.S.A.A.F. would take. That rules out foreign aircraft, which were not really acceptable to the U.S.A.A.F. during WWII.

I don't think the P-51 is overrated in the slightest. It was the only aircraft that could do the job for the U.S.A.A.F., and it was available and in sufficient numbers to make daylight precision bombing, altogether a laughable term ... at least the "precision" part, a reality.

So, they would have welcomed the Corsair, but it would have been used for fighter sweeps, ground attack, support mission, etc. But not for long-range escort.

 

[pbehn]

Escort missions took off and spent some 20 - 30 minutes joining up, cruise-climbed to something like 20,000+ feet. And escorted to Berlin and back at something like 220 mph IAS, which turns into 308 mph TAS at 20,000 feet.

Great post, just one point. The IAS or TAS is the speed of the fighter cruising at a speed ready for combat, the ground speed is that of the bomber formation while it is on station. So the consumption is that at 220mph 20K ft but the ground speed may be anything from 120 to 180 MPH

 

[Howard Gibson]

My question is, if the P-51 was so over-rated, what is your suggestion for an alternative U.S.A.A.F. escort fighter? It has to be available when the P-51 was actually available in the war, in sufficient numbers to be useful, and it has to be an aircraft the U.S.A.A.F. would take. That rules out foreign aircraft, which were not really acceptable to the U.S.A.A.F. during WWII.

Reinforcing your thought...

The P-51D was a Mustang airframe modified for long range escort. If you want to compare Spitfires, Fw190s and Corsairs, you need to compare with lightweight Mustangs like the P-51G, P-51F and P-51H. The really versatile aircraft, like the Mustangs and Mosquitos had enough performance that they could sacrifice some of it to perform specific missions.

 

[GregP]

No, the consumption is the fuel burn rate of the fighters at the speeds THEY are flying. They S-turn above the bombers when in or coming to areas where combat is expected so they aren't caught slow and at reduced power.

 

[GrauGeist]

The FAA did have Corsairs in the European theater, just not active in battles over the continent.

 

[VA5124]

The FAA did have Corsairs in the European theater, just not active in battles over the continent.

But they and the USAAF should have pressed them into combat over germany

 

[GrauGeist]

But they and the USAAF should have pressed them into combat over germany

The US had the P-47 and the RAF had the Typhoon - both of which were beasts.

No need for the Corsair.

 

[VA5124]

The US had the P-47 and the RAF had the Typhoon - both of which were beasts.

No need for the Corsair.

I have to say this the P-47 was heavy the corsair was a little and i mean a little lighter which means when not doing ground attacks would have made it a better dogfighter

 

[GrauGeist]

I have to say this the P-47 was heavy the corsair was a little and i mean a little lighter which means when not doing ground attacks would have made it a better dogfighter

Lighter doesn't mean better, in terms of dog-fighing.

The P-47 had the ability to turn and fight with the Bf109 at high altitudes, something the F4U would be hard pressed to do.
There was no piston powered aircraft in the Luftwaffe's inventory that could out dive the P-47 and the P-47 could absorb considerable damage and still stay in the fight.

 

[VA5124]

Lighter doesn't mean better, in terms of dog-fighing.

The P-47 had the ability to turn and fight with the Bf109 at high altitudes, something the F4U would be hard pressed to do.
There was no piston powered aircraft in the Luftwaffe's inventory that could out dive the P-47 and the P-47 could absorb considerable damage and still stay in the fight.

Well i might be wrong and I'm sorry if I am but I would still have took the corsair im sorry to have wasted everyone time

 

[GrauGeist]

Well i might be wrong and I'm sorry if I am but I would still have took the corsair im sorry to have wasted everyone time

You're not wasting anyone's time - the F4U is an awesome machine, there's no doubting that at all.
And if it's any consolation, they used the F4U in Korea, not the P-47, so there's that.

The Corsair would have been an asset in ground attack during D-Day, especially since it was used with great succeed to scour the earth in the Pacific during the island invasion operations.

 

[VA5124]

You're not wasting anyone's time - the F4U is an awesome machine, there's no doubting that at all.
And if it's any consolation, they used the F4U in Korea, not the P-47, so there's that.

The Corsair would have been an asset in ground attack during D-Day, especially since it was used with great succeed to scour the earth in the Pacific during the island invasion operations.

I just think that corsair would have made a good choice because you get speed firepower and turning all in package plus like like you said good for gournd attack and CAS work

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I agree but could it go toe to toe with german fighters I'd say yes its fast it can turn decently but the 50 cals hurt us

Why would the 50s hurt it? Did it hurt the P-51?

Multiple 50s in each wing are more than enough to deal with fighter aircraft.