Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
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?So, uh hey yah. Getting back to the Corsair (BTW The P-51 and Corsair are my two favorite planes of the war - just a bit of fanboy for you) I came across this test between the P-51C (sounds like a birdcage canopy) and F4U-1. The conclusion is interesting.
Here is the link: http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f4u/p-51b-f4u-1-navycomp.pdf
I know there's a lot of "the Corsair couldn't cut it in the ETO" and in many regards this is correct. It wasn't suitable for long range escort or combat above 25K, but there were quite a few roles that it could have performed excellently. I've noticed in a few of the comparisons from the war, like the one linked here and the fighter convention, that the Corsair is rated first or second by the pilots tasked with determining what actually were the best aircraft. Seems to me, they probably knew what they were talking about.
As for all the range calcs and stuff, I'm out of my depth. But, I'm always learning when I visit here.
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.I know there's a lot of "the Corsair couldn't cut it in the ETO" and in many regards this is correct. It wasn't suitable for long range escort or combat above 25K, but there were quite a few roles that it could have performed excellently. I've noticed in a few of the comparisons from the war, like the one linked here and the fighter convention, that the Corsair is rated first or second by the pilots tasked with determining what actually were the best aircraft. Seems to me, they probably knew what they were talking about.
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.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.
I was sure someone would write "the P-39s/47s/'cats/etc were built on the east coast."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.
I remember seeing that test several years ago, I think it wasSo, uh hey yah. Getting back to the Corsair (BTW The P-51 and Corsair are my two favorite planes of the war - just a bit of fanboy for you) I came across this test between the P-51C (sounds like a birdcage canopy) and F4U-1. The conclusion is interesting.
Here is the link: http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f4u/p-51b-f4u-1-navycomp.pdf
I know there's a lot of "the Corsair couldn't cut it in the ETO" and in many regards this is correct. It wasn't suitable for long range escort or combat above 25K, but there were quite a few roles that it could have performed excellently. I've noticed in a few of the comparisons from the war, like the one linked here and the fighter convention, that the Corsair is rated first or second by the pilots tasked with determining what actually were the best aircraft. Seems to me, they probably knew what they were talking about.
As for all the range calcs and stuff, I'm out of my depth. But, I'm always learning when I visit here.
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.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.
A quote from Captain Rowe, Ranger's Commander: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.
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 wasdrgondog 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.
| 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 |
Its a pity those guys didnt have an internet forum, the discussion would have lasted years.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.
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.
I think the Navy evaluation and test of the Fw190 in 1944 was also somewhat "unscientific".I did point that out
I would agree to a point, but anecdotal evidence is usually considered the worst kind of evidence.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.
Mission reports weren't usually considered anecdotal.I would agree to a point, but anecdotal evidence is usually considered the worst kind of evidence.
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.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.
View attachment 654059