- Thread starter
- #41
I tend to perfer having at least 1 canonn though like the P-39
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
Yeah but its not necessary to deal with fighter aircraft. Look at their primary opponent. The German aircraft were armed with heavier armament such as cannon because they trying to knock down bomber aircraft. 50s can deal with fighters just fine, which is what a Corsair's primary opponent will be.
wuzak
Captain
Even if that cannon is shit?
Though the P-39's cannon (for most variants) had a flat trajectory out to 200 yards, or so I am told.
Thumpalumpacus
Captain
Not to mention the rockets and/or bombs it would carry on such a short hop. The thing was a pig for ordnance.
That was my point, when discussing range while con station the consumption is the gallons/hr of the escort but the ground speed is that of the bombers being escorted.
Peter Gunn
Master Sergeant
Some thoughts:
A). There's no shame in being wrong, especially not here, these guys are the most knowledgeable on WWII aviation on the net. You haven't been overbearing or arrogant so no worries. Feel free to ask these guys questions as they have all the answers, you like the Corsair? Great, the crew here will share a WEALTH of information if you ask.
B). Trust me, you haven't wasted anyone's time here. There's no learning if you don't ask questions, you asked about use of the F4U in the ETO, I'd say you got quite a lot of information in response, if it doesn't jive with your opinion, well, join the club. But I'd say you got a pretty good response from some experts in the field of aviation. As an aside,
drgondog
can always be counted on for accurate info regarding ETO ops, I just wish he'd write a book about it, well, one can hope.Everyone here has a favorite aircraft, when it's deficiencies, however small they may be, are pointed out, it isn't with malice, just for informational purposes so we're all on the same (correct) page. I too like the Corsair, it's not my favorite but that doesn't mean I don't appreciate what a great plane it was and what it accomplished in two wars.
Cheers.
Well said Peter. We kind of have a reputation here, but it only applies to people who are arrogant and combative. We welcome people with all levels of knowledge. We are all here to learn from each other. There is no stupid question, as long as someone learns from it:
Thumpalumpacus
Captain
Being a newer member here I'd say that just as with anything in life, if you carry yourself with courtesy and respect, you get treated with the same, and that is certainly the case here.
drgondog
Major
True - but a point. The XP-51F/G had more fuel and range than the P-51B/D without 85 gallon Fuse tank. The H had 255 internal - only 14 gal less than B/D and same range based on slightly better aerodynamics.
Thank you, and agreed.
Clayton Magnet
Staff Sergeant
- 854
- Feb 16, 2013
I would agree, an F4U with 4 cannons would have been better at pretty much everything, including destroying fighters, and certainly ground attack. The problem was that the US produced 20mm Hispano cannon was notoriously unreliable, and continued to be so, even so late as the Colt Mk12 on the Vietnam era F8 Crusader.
Conslaw
Senior Airman
The Navy tested a "cleaned up" version of the F4U-1 and found a maximum speed of 431 MPH - but the report was dated Feb. 8, 1945, and by that time F4U-4s were being issued to the fleet, and the war in Europe was almost over.
If the F4U had to be used in Europe, I think it would have done "well", but it would not have practically done anything better than the P-47. I think it would have been inferior to both the P-47 and P-51 for escorting B-17s and B-24s. To maximize its potential range, it would either have to make due with the dangerous unsealed wing tanks or carry a drop-tank rated for combat. The F4U could have gained some speed by simple measures to optimize it for land-based operations. In air-to-air combat with FW-190 and Bf-109Gs, it would have done at least as well as the P-47.
If the F4U had to be used in Europe, I think it would have done "well", but it would not have practically done anything better than the P-47. I think it would have been inferior to both the P-47 and P-51 for escorting B-17s and B-24s. To maximize its potential range, it would either have to make due with the dangerous unsealed wing tanks or carry a drop-tank rated for combat. The F4U could have gained some speed by simple measures to optimize it for land-based operations. In air-to-air combat with FW-190 and Bf-109Gs, it would have done at least as well as the P-47.
Clayton Magnet
Staff Sergeant
- 854
- Feb 16, 2013
I think the F4U probably could have done a slightly better job in the CAS role than the P-47, specifically if they were up-gunned with 4x Hispano Mk.5's. Maybe a little better low altitude performance, shorter take off distance on crappy, hastily prepared landing strips.
But really, why bother? There were more than enough P-47's, P-38's, P-51's, Typhoons, Tempests and Spitfires already doing the CAS mission in Europe
But really, why bother? There were more than enough P-47's, P-38's, P-51's, Typhoons, Tempests and Spitfires already doing the CAS mission in Europe
- Thread starter
- #54
I'm sorry if this sounds dumb but can some of you people please tell me more about the typhoon and tempest i dont know much about them
It quite possibly would be more suitable than a P-47 if only because it was a carrier plane with lower take off landing speeds on steel mesh runways, but the USA was fighting two wars and had the luxury of choosing what went where from a large array of choices.
The Typhoon (Sabre engine) and Tornado (Vulture engine) were scheduled to be the RAF front line fighter into the 1940s. However Tornado with the vulture engine was cancelled due to Rolls Royce having no time to develop it after war was declared. The Typhoon fuselage had problems, the wings were too thick which caused problems, the engine was unreliable. It was rushed into service to cope with the Fw 190 tip and run raids, it did that but developed a bad reputation because it wasnt sorted.
Since the Spitfire was developed further as a fighter the Typhoon became a beast of a fighter bomber.
To solve the above problems the Typhoon got a new fuselage, new wings eventually a new (centaurus) engine and a new cockpit which became the Tempest one of the best performers as a fighter at low level during WW2. The next in the line was the post war sea fury very similar to the Bearcat in almost everything.
Hawker Typhoon - Wikipedia
Hawker Tornado - Wikipedia
Hawker Tempest - Wikipedia
Hawker Sea Fury - Wikipedia
Last edited:
Peter Gunn
Master Sergeant
Not dumb by any stretch, no better place to learn about them than here, as I said, these guys are happy to share their EXTENSIVE knowledge.
- Thread starter
- #58
I just thought it might though i know the main line planes but some of odd ones i dontNot dumb by any stretch, no better place to learn about them than here, as I said, these guys are happy to share their EXTENSIVE knowledge.
5,300 Typhoons and Tempests produced.
- Thread starter
- #60
Thats lower than most and I am not versed in lower production aircraft
