F4U in Europe

[pbehn]

All you need to do is look at the Flight Operation Instruction Chart for either airplane.

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.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

And somehow this thread about the F4U turns into a P-39 Groundhog thread. Smfh…

 

[SaparotRob]

I don't think he did. He didn't bring it up until after post #362 in response. Hi Expert, glad you're back.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I don't think he did. He didn't bring it up until after post #362 in response. Hi Expert, glad you're back.

Fair enough. Reworded my post.

 

[pbehn]

And somehow this thread about the F4U turns into a P-39 Groundhog thread. Smfh…

Groundhoggery has many facets, apart from the P-39 issue, it also involves telling pilots how to fly and read manuals and using a manufacturers manual to construct a mission profile.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Groundhoggery has many facets, apart from the P-39 issue, it also involves telling pilots how to fly and read manuals and using a manufacturers manual to construct a mission profile.

Par for the course…

 

[fubar57]

From now on, anyone who mentions the godlike P-39 needs to wear this

 

[BiffF15]

The wheels on the bus go round and round…

And round an round and round and round.

 

[pbehn]

The wheels on the bus go round and round…

And round an round and round and round.

Great to have the input of a fighter pilot to give us the facts

 

[GrauGeist]

Great to have the input of a fighter pilot to give us the facts

That might be all fine and well, but has he read the P-39 pilot's manual?

I understand that doing so qualifies one as a leading authority on the subject...

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

The wheels on the bus go round and round…

And round an round and round and round.

Stop it, you fighter pilot you!

 

[special ed]

From now on, anyone who mentions the godlike P-39 needs to wear this

View attachment 652200​

If I wear this, I'll have to remove my tinfoil hat. Noooo.....

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

That might be all fine and well, but has he read the P-39 pilot's manual?

I understand that doing so qualifies one as a leading authority on the subject...

 

[nuuumannn]

Have you looked through the ground hog day part deux thread?

He's new, Rob, don't scare him away just yet...

 

[nuuumannn]

The Russians won the war with it. It shot down more axis planes than any other American fighter.

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.

 

[fubar57]

 

[wuzak]

No provision for drop tanks in England until August.

How long before then had P-47s been operating as escorts?

 

[swampyankee]

From now on, anyone who mentions the godlike P-39 needs to wear this

View attachment 652200​

Where can I get a hat like that?

 

[fubar57]

Groundhog Hat | Highlights Kids

Make this fun hat to celebrate Groundhog's day.

www.highlightskids.com

 

[Shortround6]

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.