They had better be; they had the best resources at their disposal, institutional, intellectual, and industrial, and besides, they weren't being bombed.
Cheers,
Wes
F4U vs. P-51 essay
- Thread starter magnocain
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Cheers,
Wes
swampyankee
Chief Master Sergeant
- 4,031
- Jun 25, 2013
They also had a customer base that really cared about efficiency, unlike the people who spec'ed out military aircraft -- efficiency isn't the same as performance. Put enough power to it, a barn can fly.
But it won't make money for its owners.
Nor will it have the range or payload to accomplish useful missions. (Phantom II excepted)
And Chance Vought and North American weren't in the commercial market. They were defense contractors. So for them "making money for the owners" really meant delivering the range and payload to get the mission accomplished. Efficiency none the less.
Cheers,
Wes
Last edited:
GregP
Major
The Corsair is NOT better than a Mustang. It is way better at being a Naval fighter, but has almost zero experience as an escort fighter over heavily defended areas, such as Europe. It is decidedly inferior as a long-range escort, having neither the range nor the actual real-life experience at doing it. And escort, including flak, was a LARGE percentage of Mustang losses. There weren't any 450 mph Corsairs in WWII. The F4U-4 that made the last 6 months of WWII could hit 448 mph when in factory finish, with covers over the guns, a new engine, a new propeller, and a factory test pilot who knew how to make it go fast. Production units were slower, especially after a few months of use.
The F4U-1D was 425 mph late in the variant's life cycle. Up until then, it was a 410 - 417 mph airplane when new. And the F4U carried 2,000 pounds of bomb until the F4U-4 was cleared for 4,000 pounds. But that was only the last 4 months of the war or so, when it didn't matter what the bomb load was. For the effective war, it didn't carry that.
The Mustang had almost zero experience as a Naval Fleet Defense fighter. So, it was decidedly inferior to the Corsair in that role.
Unless I am wrong ... these two didn't handle each other's tasks very often and, when they did, it was out of necessity, not out of picking a better airplane.
The F4U-1D was 425 mph late in the variant's life cycle. Up until then, it was a 410 - 417 mph airplane when new. And the F4U carried 2,000 pounds of bomb until the F4U-4 was cleared for 4,000 pounds. But that was only the last 4 months of the war or so, when it didn't matter what the bomb load was. For the effective war, it didn't carry that.
The Mustang had almost zero experience as a Naval Fleet Defense fighter. So, it was decidedly inferior to the Corsair in that role.
Unless I am wrong ... these two didn't handle each other's tasks very often and, when they did, it was out of necessity, not out of picking a better airplane.
How about Korea?
drgondog
Major
In Korea, both were providing CAS. Both had near identical loss/sortie ratios
CORSNING
Tech Sergeant
By the time the conflict in Korea came along it was time for
these birds F4U & P-51 to both be improve upon. Think WW2,
how far had the fighter bomber advanced in 5 yrs. of that time
frame? Now 1950 comes along five years later and it is decided
to use aircraft from 1945-46 for striking purposes...? What did
you expect the outcome to be?
Just trying to make a tiny point, Jeff
these birds F4U & P-51 to both be improve upon. Think WW2,
how far had the fighter bomber advanced in 5 yrs. of that time
frame? Now 1950 comes along five years later and it is decided
to use aircraft from 1945-46 for striking purposes...? What did
you expect the outcome to be?
Just trying to make a tiny point, Jeff
1939 - 1945, the piston engine fighter reaches the peak of its maturity as a weapon system. Five years later, another war and the jet age is still in its infancy. Think 1916 in the development of the piston fighter. Jets are fast but finicky, underpowered, complicated, full of teething problems, excessively thirsty, and ungodly expensive. Meanwhile there remains a large inventory of robust, reliable, fully developed fighter aircraft with their logistical support system already in place and a reservoir of pilots trained in their use available for recall from civilian life.
What would you do?
Cheers,
Wes
CORSNING
Tech Sergeant
Well XB I agree that you are probably right as to 'what happened'.
Truth is, it is out of my pay grade as to the 1945-1950 political
facts that probably screamed 'over spending' that cramped the
US military and definitely slowed the advancement of aviation
down.
It is a damn shame that it takes a war / conflict to get us back
in the game.
Truth is, it is out of my pay grade as to the 1945-1950 political
facts that probably screamed 'over spending' that cramped the
US military and definitely slowed the advancement of aviation
down.
It is a damn shame that it takes a war / conflict to get us back
in the game.
We had a war, a cold one. That's all that saved us from being totally asleep at the switch.
Cheers,
Wes
Shortround6
Major General
Considering the large number of not very effective jets produced in the late 40s and early 50s one might say that was a considerable amount of overspending going on as it was. Engine makers were promising more than they could deliver for a number of years.
Even good programs like the F-86 and the GE J-47 engine ran into problems with the first 132 F-86Fs ordered being delivered as F-86Es with an older, lower powered J-47 engine than intended although provisions were made for later re-engining.
They went from about 500mph to almost 1100hp in about 11 years (1945 to 1956) so advancements were coming at a rather rapid pace.
Hey the US was over-spending in those years; we had no choice; the Russian Bear was staring us in the face and snarlin. Uncle Joe had conjured up a horde of B-29 clones, built himself a bomb, and was proclaiming the coming victory of the worldwide Communist revolution. The supposed slow advancement of aviation in that period I view as the challenges of overcoming technological hurdles in a whole new body of aeronautical knowledge. Transsonics and turbines were relatively uncharted territory, a break away from the progressive development along familiar lines that had marked the previous three decades. The critical mass of knowledge and experience upon which the technology was to be based was still being assembled. Once critical mass had been achieved in the early 50s the technology took off with the Century Series, the Stratofortress, the tanker fleet, and eventually the jet airliner.
Cheers,
Wes
The P-51 had much more range than the Corsair, so the Corsair couldn't even get to the battle or conduct the escort mission so who cares about an aircraft that can't get to the battle and perform the mission.
I suppose I exaggerate a little: the corsair could fly the same distance but only if throttled right back to economical speed cruise that would see it ripped up by bouncing Me 109 who were known to cruise very fast. Those 'short' ranged European aircraft often have their ranges declared at maximum not economical cruising speed. The Me 109 would have been cruising at well over 340mph, perhaps 380 mph for a Me 109K. Also the P-51D had better visibility to the rear and in general the P-51 high speed roll rate was best in the war because its internal pressure balanced ailerons were resistant to lock up at high mach. The USN fighters had a very low roll rate until the NACA invented geared spring tabs for their ailerons but that was quite late in the war and geared spring tabs still don't beat the P-51 at high speed roll.
The P-51B/C and D were not considered suitable for carrier operations due to handling issues however when the P-51H was introduced it had a longer tail and the improvement in handling meant it could be navalised and landed on carrier and development began.
Last edited:
All true, but long range escort is just one of the roles expected of a versatile muti-purpose fighter. In '43 - '45 the Mustang wouldn't have cut it as a carrier-based fighter-bomber. This is not a contest of one-trick ponies. (Pun intended.)
Cheers,
Wes
Cheers,
Wes
Dawncaster
Airman 1st Class
- 110
- Dec 23, 2013
F4U's roll rate was quite good.
even without spring tabs, Birdcage Corsair claims betters roll rate than P-51 to 280 mph.
Besides, Birdcage Corsairs were few and Corsairs without spring tap were more fewer.
Of the birdcage F4U, only the early type does not have a spring tab.
after spring tab installed, it could full throw up to 345 mph.
red is left, blue is right roll for Corsair.
full aileron roll, rudder locked, stick force is 40 lbs for 300 mph.
F4U's roll rate line is rough, due to only one sample for each speed and each direction.
and samples exceeding 300 mph for Corsair were not obtained, but it's roll rate increase to 345 mph.
so there is no doubt that the roll performance of F4U was good.
I think Corsair was better roller and turner than Mustang until near critical mach 0.73
High speed maneuverability of the F4U was excptional due to the boost tabs of the ailerons and elevator.
however, Corsair's low economical cruise speed and altitude not suited for ETO USAAF's bomber escort mission.
and F4U with 838 gal of fuel can get the over P-51's range, of course it is silly.
fuslage tank = 237 gal
wing tanks = 126 gal
2 x 150 gal tank = 300 gal
1 x 175 gal tank = 175 gal
Total = 838 gal
Someone did this, LOL
Last edited:
drgondog
Major
You would have to trot out fact based tests to demonstrate that the F4U ferry range exceeded P-51B/C/D with internal 85 gallon tank and 2x160 gallon externals. The R2800 specific fuel consumption at optimum cruise expressed as miles per gallon (with external load and drag) then internal, clean except racks was close to 50% more than P-51B/D. I doubt that any Corsair could go as far but would love to see the flight test proof?
Dawncaster
Airman 1st Class
- 110
- Dec 23, 2013
it was just a joke.
uh... really?
this is really stupid.... but I'll try it.
seems to be interesting....!
first, I tried to collect miles per gallon.
from F4U-1 ACP - it optained range for internal wing tanks with drop tank at same time.
12039 lbs with 237 gal = 4.283 for no external stores.
12836 lbs with 361 gal = 4.197 for no external stores, 124 gal internal wing tanks
14003 lbs with 536 gal = 3.992 for 175 gal centerline drop tank, 124 gal internal wing tanks
12763 lbs with 536 gal = 4.142 for 175 gal centerline drop tank, 124 gal internal wing tanks, light weighted - ferry condition.
from F4U-1D ACP - 150 gallon drop tank mounted on the wing pylons shows a serious drop in miles per gallon.
12175 lbs with 237 gal = 4.135 for 2 x capped wing pylons.
14370 lbs with 537 gal = 3.529 for 2 x wing pylons with 2 x 150 gal drop tanks.
then theoretically maximum possible fuel configuration is....
use the F4U-1, 16334 lbs with 838 gal = 175 gal centerline drop tank and 2 x wing pylons with 2 x 150 gal drop tanks, plus 124 gal internal wing tanks.
yeah, over the 4000 lbs extra weight!
It's like a 4000lbs challenge that lindberg did with his Corsair.
Pilots will be in danger of taking off, can the pilot make it?
Lindberg make it with old crosswind technique of making a curving takeoff run!
so now! Corsair airborne!
It is time to measure range.
start from 3.529 miles per gallon with 2 x wing pylons and 2 x 150 gal drop tanks.
and adds the following:
- 2.0%(4.197 / 4.283) for 124 gal internal wing tanks.
- 4.9%(3.992 / 4.197) for 175 gal centerline drop tank.
result is 3.289 miles per gallon.
but I think the above factors will cause synergy.
so I will subtract 5% more.
then only 3.125 miles per gallon.
final result is...
3.125 * 838 = 2619 miles.
let's compare it to the Mustang's range.
from Mustang's Tactical Planning Characteristics & Performace Chart
Mustang with 569 gal = 2600 miles for long range power setting.
see? SEEEE?
CORSAIR WINS!
with approx 190 mph cruise speed at 1500 ft altitude.
This is harsh, LOL
Last edited:
Not only that, but you never see these guys who claim the Corsair was better compare it the P-51H model. The "H" was superior to any version of the Corsair in every performance category...
Dawncaster
Airman 1st Class
- 110
- Dec 23, 2013
not simply true.
even against P-51H, Corsairs could turn tighter and roll faster for most speeds.
and F4U-4 and F4U-5 have faster speed and climb than P-51H for some altitudes.
according to the F-51H SAC, F4U-4 SAC and F4U-5 performance summary and flight test data curves,
F4U-4
gross weight : 12480 lbs
supercharger : 2 stage 2 speed
engine ratings : 2800 BHP for 70"hg, 2100 BHP for 54.5"hg
water supply : 12 minutes for combat power
F4U-5
gross weight : 12901 lbs
supercharger : 2 stage variable speed 'sidewinder' type
engine ratings : 2760 BHP for 70"hg and 2380 BHP for 64"hg
water supply : 12 minutes for combat power
F-51H
gross weight : 9430 lbs
supercharger : 2 stage 2 speed
engine ratings : 2270 BHP for 90"hg, 1520 BHP for 67"hg
water supply : 7 minutes for combat power
as you can see, the F-51H does not have a one-sided advantage over Corsair.
Corsairs have much lower stall speed and boost tabs in ailerons and elevator both(F4U-5 had boost tab in rudder also), It is considered to be a better dogfighter.
In terms of performance,
F4U-4 was better climber for most altitudes and slight faster at medium altitude.
F4U-5 also slight faster at medium altitude and above 25000, it shows advantages for speed and climb both.
and except for those, the F-51H.
each fighter has its own advantages, so it can not be said that which is simply better.
Last edited:
I don't see how the Corsair that weighs 3000+ lbs more can out turn the Mustang...that goes against the laws of physics...
