Thank you, Shortround6.
A quick search located the thread, with uploaded text, here:
Ending the Argument
It is an interesting read. The conclusion is interesting as well. It reminds me of a day back in the 60's when my father and a neighbor were "debating" Mustang (Ford not NAA) vs Camaro next to their cars in the front yard. I think they are still debating.
A lot of people want a clear "winner" in these sorts of comparisons, but such a victor usually doesn't exist and Internet (and pre-Internet) discussion frequently goes down to the level a third grader (about 8 to those unfamiliar with US schools) would find embarrassingly puerile.
While the F4U was not involved in much, if any, fighter-vs-fighter combat in Europe, its use would be restricted as a) it did not have high-altitude performance equal to the P-51 or the P-47 and b) it did not seem to have the useful combat range
in European conditions to serve in the heavy bomber escort role. The idea that it
couldn't be used because it would be dominated by
Luftwaffe aircraft below 25,000 ft is, however, contradicted by all the evidence comparing its performance with aircraft that were demonstrably successful against the FW190 and Bf109
in combat, that is the P-51, P-47, Spitfire, P-39, Typhoon, etc.
Luftwaffe pilots would neither chortle with glee nor soil their pants seeing a Corsair. They may be surprised, as most would never have seen one before and it's not unlikely they would have little information about the aircraft.
Obviously, no comparative flight test can be perfect, especially when the comparison is against enemy aircraft, as things like flight and maintenance manuals aren't likely to be available, but there isn't a better alternative.
It is incontestable that the Corsair was a remarkably successful and long-lived combat aircraft, and one which could fight with
any contemporary piston-engined fighter on equal terms. That it didn't in Europe only shows that it wasn't there, not that it couldn't.