There is no doubt that the F4U could have done what the P-47 did in the CAS role in Europe, but why would you. The P-47 was in Europe the F4U wasnt. Why create another logistics line? The conflict in the far east was based on carriers, why not put your carrier capable planes there? The USA set up two factories producing the P-51, which was the best escort fighter of the war, why look for another one?
F4U in Europe
- Thread starter VA5124
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
It's not so much that it "couldn't cut it", but rather factoring in the large quantity of types that were already there performing tasks that the Corsair was capable of.
Bringing F4Us into the fray would add to an already burdened logistics chain.
There were actually Corsairs in the area (with the FAA), they just weren't operating over Europe proper.
pbehn and GrauGeist,
Thank you for your replies. You'll get no argument from me about whether the F4U should have been used by US forces in the ETO. It makes no sense logistically or operationally. I just found the report compelling as to how successful it could have been.
Thank you for your replies. You'll get no argument from me about whether the F4U should have been used by US forces in the ETO. It makes no sense logistically or operationally. I just found the report compelling as to how successful it could have been.
SaparotRob
Unter Gemeine Geschwader Murmeltier XIII
As pben pointed out, the carrier planes should go to the PTO and the land based to the ETO to simplify logistics. It's funny that those planes had to be shipped to the other end of the U.S.A. to do it.
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
The USN did have carriers operating near the ETO - up by Norway, the USS Ranger even tried to lure the Tirpitz out so she could unleash her SBDs on it, but the Kreigsmarine wasn't going for it, so the Ranger's SBDs went after other German shipping instead.
SaparotRob
Unter Gemeine Geschwader Murmeltier XIII
I was sure someone would write "the P-39s/47s/'cats/etc were built on the east coast."
That's because they have shorter range.
So much for that joke.
Shortround6
Major General
The other thing that is against the F4U was that it didn't get into production soon enough.
While both the P-47 and the F4U had 3 factories tooled up not all factories were equal. Either in production or quality. Curtiss built P-47 weren't as bad as Brewster built F4Us but that leaves a lot of room.
By the end of 1943 the US had built about twice the number of P-47.
By the time you get a large quantity of F4Us into Europe it would be well into 1944.
Yes there were jobs the F4U could do very well, but in 1944 there were several alternatives already in place.
The allies were starting to run out of runway space
While both the P-47 and the F4U had 3 factories tooled up not all factories were equal. Either in production or quality. Curtiss built P-47 weren't as bad as Brewster built F4Us but that leaves a lot of room.
By the end of 1943 the US had built about twice the number of P-47.
By the time you get a large quantity of F4Us into Europe it would be well into 1944.
Yes there were jobs the F4U could do very well, but in 1944 there were several alternatives already in place.
The allies were starting to run out of runway space
Peter Gunn
Master Sergeant
I remember seeing that test several years ago, I think it was
drgondog
who pointed out that all the pilots were Navy or Marine Corp F4U drivers and were perhaps a bit biased in their evaluation. Don't quote me on that though.Ranger came to join the Home Fleet in late Aug 1943 to allow HMS Illustrious to go to the Med to replace the Indomitable which had been torpedoed in July and while the other Home Fleet Carrier, Furious, was refitting. She undertook two successful shipping strikes off Norway between 2-6 Oct 1943 sinking some 27,000grt of shipping and damaging another 19,000grt. She returned to the US at the beginning of Dec.
She did not go far enough north to have anything to do with Tirpitz nor Tirpitz with her (Russian convoys only began again in Nov). At the time of Ranger's Norwegian air strikes, Tirpitz was lying immobile in Kaa Fjord. On 22nd Sept 1943 she had been successfully attacked in her lair by RN midget submarines and severely damaged. Repairs were not complete until April 1944.
Operation Source - Wikipedia
Attack on the Tirpitz by Midget Submarines
Setting aside Atlantic CVE anti-submarine operations the only other offensive actions that I can think of in the Atlantic and Med theatres by US carriers were :
Wasp loaned to the RN to make 2 runs to ferry Spitfires to Malta April / May 1942
Operation Torch (Ranger, Sangamon, Suwannee, Santee plus Chenango as a ferry) Nov 1942
Operation Dragoon (Kasaan Bay and Tulagi) Aug 1944.
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
A quote from Captain Rowe, Ranger's Commander:
"on October 4 we spread panic and chaos in the Norwegian shipping lanes.
Only one thing we regret: We kept looking for the Tirpitz but either she wouldn't or couldn't come out"
drgondog
Major
I did point that out. I may have also mentioned that the chances that USN would accept a.) In-line engine fighter with associatied coolant storage issues shipboard, and b.) and ARMY fighter, were infinitely small. After re-reading the flight test I noted that a.) the F4U flew without arresting gear and unclear whether P-51B-5 had external racks (which was standard delivery item - and no mention of removal in test), and b.) very high boost aided by WI was applied for top performance, along with sealing hinge lines for folding wing. I also noted that the 1650-3 was compared throughout, when the 1650-7 was being delivered - as well as 150 octane fuel - a MUCH better performer below 22K. In combat, roll is more important than turn, but even Dean shows the F4U-1D to be dead last in turn performance with the P-51D in the right/middle. Acceleration is always dependent on GW/Power but there again, the nature of the 1650-7 vs R-2800 power curve makes the comment 'F4U-1 accelerates faster" suspect to the altitude. Note top speeds obtained at Paxtuxent in same timeframe for F4U-1. I can't find One performance metric presented greater than average P-51B-10 with 1650-7 engine.I remember seeing that test several years ago, I think it was
U.S. Naval Air Station
Patuxent River, Maryland
July 28, 1944
Model F4U-1 Airplane - Performance Characteristics of.
F4U-1 No. 02155
SUMMARY
| Climb characteristics using best climbing speed, minimum cowl flap opening, and military rated power; | ||
| (1) | Rate of climb at sea level | 2,890 fpm |
| (2) | Rate of climb at airplane critical altitude in neutral blower (700 ft.) | 2,800 fpm |
| (3) | Rate of climb at airplane critical altitude in low blower (15,400 ft.) | 2,300 fpm |
| (4) | Rate of climb at airplane critical altitude in high blower (21,200 ft.) | 1,800 fpm |
| (5) | Service Ceiling (rate of climb - 100 fpm) | 38,200 |
| Maximum true airspeed using military rated power; | ||
| (1) | At sea level | 348 mph |
| (2) | At airplane critical altitude in neutral blower (14,400 ft.) | 352 mph |
| (3) | At airplane critical altitude in low blower (17,800 ft.) | 390 mph |
| (4) | At airplane critical altitude in high blower (22,800 ft.) | 395 mph |
Very vague 'hocus pocus' with respect to comparisons. Simplified, it should have been conducted at Combat weight, combat conditions including guns/ammo and external racks (C/L for F4U-1 and wing pylons for P-51B). If fuel tangage was otherwise flown - the specific quantity of fuel at take off and fuel remaining during manuevers, including status of fuselage fuel tank.
A Note for Patuxent River gathering Fall 1944. The P-51D was selected second "Best All Around Below 25,000" with , was second to P-47D for Best All Around Above 25,000 feet". The XF8F won but even the USN recognized the silliness of a prototype being in the conversation when XP-47J and XP-51G were not similarly considered. I would state without proof that a favorable report on P-51B vs F4U would not be a career enhancement gesture. Including inviting Eglin or Wright or NAA to pilot the P-51B and note GW/engine type/boost and presence/absence of wing racks..
Some interesting points (for me).
Persons evaluating F4U-1D Army 13, USN 4, RAF 3, Contractors 8
P-47D Army 1, USN14, RAF 4, Contractors 10
P-51D Army 1, USN 19, RAF 3, Contractors 15
For Best Overall Categories
Voting - Army 6, USN 15, RAF 7, Contractors 20 (Note: Contractor actuals Vought 16, Grumman 8, Lockheed 2 , Republic 5 , Bell 3 , NAA 2, Curtiss Wright 23 plus Goodyear, Northrup, DeHavilland, etc). USN/USMC attendees - 70 , Army 36, RAF/RN 13, NACA 4,
Best All-Around Above 25,000 Feet
P-47D 45%
P-51D 39%
F4U-4 7%
P-38L 2%
P-63B 0%
Best All_Around Below 25,000 feet
XF8F 30%
P-51D 29%
F4U-4 27%
P-38L 0%
P-63B 0%
The reason I mentioned the representative break outs is to point out that USN/USMC were dominantly highest % for both attendees and voting, and that NAA and Republic both had the fewest Contractor representation (2 each).
To those that still think F4U-4 and P-47D were believed to be better "roll performance" The Best Ailerons/roll > 300mph. I might add that both DF and Reverse Rudder Boost Tab was production article in D-5 #650 forward. The P-51B/C and early Ds were better roll performance.
P-51D 33%
F4U-4 20%
P-38L 19%
F6F-3 9%
XF8F 6%
P-47D 4%
P-63B 1%
Over the Fence, however, The P-51D-15 was ranked in tie for 5th with FM, Seafire at 5% for Roll Authority at 100mph
F6F-3 36%
F4U-4 12%
Seafire 12%
P-47D 6%
Francis Dean was the person selected to parse and capture the data for presentation and discussion.
Last edited:
Thank you, drgondog.
Your expertise is without question. The only comment I would make is that the F4U set up without an arrestor hook and wing folding mechanisms matched the Marine's airframe configuration in the Pacific.
Certainly pilot bias plays a part in any aircraft comparison. As someone who has a novice level of knowledge regarding these aircraft it always grabs my attention when a 1940's contemporary report seems to arrive at conclusions that differ from later narratives/conclusions.
Your expertise is without question. The only comment I would make is that the F4U set up without an arrestor hook and wing folding mechanisms matched the Marine's airframe configuration in the Pacific.
Certainly pilot bias plays a part in any aircraft comparison. As someone who has a novice level of knowledge regarding these aircraft it always grabs my attention when a 1940's contemporary report seems to arrive at conclusions that differ from later narratives/conclusions.
Its a pity those guys didnt have an internet forum, the discussion would have lasted years.
Clayton Magnet
Staff Sergeant
- 904
- Feb 16, 2013
I think the Navy evaluation and test of the Fw190 in 1944 was also somewhat "unscientific".
As per this Link, Butcher Bird Hellcat & Corsair: A test pilot recalls - Flight Journal
The Focke-Wulf was assembled from a shipment of parts, and without the use of any manufacturer instructions or manuals...
"There was no pilot's handbook—no manuals of any kind. This was a real credit to the mechanics who made a flyable airplane out of several crates of pieces"
The author then concedes that the test probably wasn't truly reflective of the Fw 190's true performance....
"I can't say that our maintenance of the Fw 190 adversely affected it, but there is a possibility that we didn't get the Fw 190's true peak performance because we weren't as familiar with it as we were with the F6F-3 and the F4U-1. This raises a number of "What ifs?" What if our assignment had been to make an interceptor comparison? What if we had tested it with German pilots who were as well trained in it as we were in our planes?"
Considering that the Fw 190 in the test, that probably wasn't in perfectly serviceable condition, and flown by pilots almost completely unfamiliar with the type, still out-ran, out-rolled (sort of), and out-climbed both the F6F and F4U, yet the Navy still came to conclusion that the Fw 190 was "not equal to the F4U-1 or F6F-3 in combat."
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
Reading Allied pilot reports on their combat encounter with the Fw190 is a far more accurate indication of what it was capable of than captured evaluations, charts/graphs and such.
It took a great deal of time and effort by the Allies to come up with something that could match or best it, and even then, it was down to pilot versus pilot as to the outcome of an encounter.
It took a great deal of time and effort by the Allies to come up with something that could match or best it, and even then, it was down to pilot versus pilot as to the outcome of an encounter.
Clayton Magnet
Staff Sergeant
- 904
- Feb 16, 2013
I would agree to a point, but anecdotal evidence is usually considered the worst kind of evidence.
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
Mission reports weren't usually considered anecdotal.
If a mission report states that a flight of Spitfires were bounced at X location, X altitude by a flight of Fw190s and one of the Fw190s was downed for the cost of two Spitfires lost, that pretty much goes beyond a chart.
A test is conducted under a controlled situation by a test pilot - a combat encounter is conducted under variable conditions with variable weather.
Each pilot in the opposing groups has a different level of experience, each aircraft has a different level of mechanical fitness and each aircraft has a variable loadout of fuel, ammunition, etc.
Greetings All,
A quick question: Does anyone have access to the Society of Experimental Test Pilots ("Flight Test Comparison — Ending the Argument" by John M. Ellis III and Christopher A. Wheal)
Here's a screen shot of the front page. Not interested in extending the never-ending thread. Just curious to read it. I have also seen the Air Zoo planes in person.
A quick question: Does anyone have access to the Society of Experimental Test Pilots ("Flight Test Comparison — Ending the Argument" by John M. Ellis III and Christopher A. Wheal)
Here's a screen shot of the front page. Not interested in extending the never-ending thread. Just curious to read it. I have also seen the Air Zoo planes in person.
Shortround6
Major General
There may be links to the article either further back in thread or in another old thread.
I know I have read it on line and I believe it was either copied here or linked here.
I know I have read it on line and I believe it was either copied here or linked here.
drgondog
Major
I've read it - and suspect that one key feature of WWII Combat Mustangs (B/D) was not used for this test. Mustang Roll rate and stick force was described as heavy at high speed. All B/D Mustangs had 10/12/15 degree rigging and left the factory with 15 degrees. The warbird community is largely unaware and when asked, every one I have talked to about 15 degrees are actually surprised - replying that every Mustang they have flown are rigged for 10 degrees - which is no different from A-36 or P-51A. In fact a P-51A is more agile in both roll and turn because they are no equipped with reverse rudder boost tab or DF - and the B/D is heavier.
ALL WWII P-51B/D pilots will tell you that roll characteristics of their airframe were suprior to any comparable a/c save the Fw 190 and was better than 190 at or greater than 300 mph TAS. Army filight tests also indicated that characteristic, but noted that the P-40 for example, rolled slightly faster at lower airspeeds.
