F4U in Europe

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

P-39 Expert said:
All you need to do is look at the Flight Operation Instruction Chart for either airplane.
Click to expand...
No you dont. The manufacturer only makes the plane, the user is a military organisation and they produce their own "manual" based on their experience. The US enquired how the British used the "Mustang" and reported back to the USA. This is a curious thing to do in your philosophy because the Americans were making it, but the British were flying it on tactical recon. missions. In practice, the way the British used the Mustang (P-51A) with 180 gals internal fuel resulted in a range of 90 miles inland from the enemy coast. I dont think "enemy coast" appears as a variable in the NAA manual for the Mustang I or II.
 
Last edited:
P-39 Expert said:
The Russians won the war with it. It shot down more axis planes than any other American fighter.
Click to expand...

Aaaah, no they didn't. As for the latter statement, context is everything and a simple sentence like that taken out of context twists its meaning...

The fact remains that yes, while the Soviets used the P-39 extensively, it was given to them because the other Allies did not want it. That illustrates the disparity at the time between Soviet equipment and what the British and US forces were operating and the environment within which the Soviets were fighting; it doesn't confirm nor support the supposition that the P-39 was to become anything more than a hand-me-down to the Brits and the Yanks.
 
Getting back to the original point/s ( I if can remember what they were)

The F4U was about 35-40mph slower than the P-47 at around 22,500ft to 25,000ft.
The F4U was a bit better in rate climb at around 22,000ft but the P-47s kept up it's climb rate better as the altitude increased.

The F4U as built didn't have the fuel capacity needed for the "long range" escort role.
The outer wing panels/tanks were not set up for self sealing fuel tanks. So you have only the 234-237 gallon internal capacity.
This is not an easy fix. The wing tanks were integral tanks. The tanks were spaces in between the ribs in the leading edge of the wing. Trying to fit actual fuel tanks was not impossible but it it complicated the wing structure and made the fuel capacity much smaller. Much like an older US army fighter went from 170 gallons to 120 gallons when it from integral tanks to multi cell fuel cells.

The F4U used up more fuel at the same cruise settings high altitude than the P-47 did. Maybe not a lot more but since you start with less fuel that is one more count against it.
The F4U was a bit faster at sea level but since that "bit" pretty much disappeared by 5,000ft basing a strategy on the speed difference between 330mph and 340mph at sea level doesn't to bring much to the table.

Both planes wound up with water injection but since the P-47s got the paddle blade props and water injection months before the D-Day again the F4U doesn't bring much to the table.

Nobody was flying fighter bombers over Europe at 200mph (or less) at low altitude to try stretch lean cruise.

The F4U was a remarkable airplane. But it, like many aircraft, had limitations. Later versions fixed some the limitations.
AU-1 did fix some of the oil cooler problems but since the AU-1 got rid of the 2 stage supercharger and the inter coolers there was a whole heck of lot space in the wing roots and inside the fuselage to put the oil coolers into.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

M
German Test Pilot Evaluation of an F4U-1A
Replies
14
Views
1K
yosimitesam
Airwar Over Europe?
Replies
2
Views
1K
Canaus
C
B
Supply by air in Burma
Replies
2
Views
274
Thumpalumpacus
M
Bomber Armor In WW2
Replies
4
Views
2K
Ascent
A
How did the I-16 Really Perform in WWII?
3 4 5
Replies
88
Views
5K
bf109xxl
Menu
Log in
Register