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
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
They had better be; they had the best resources at their disposal, institutional, intellectual, and industrial, and besides, they weren't being bombed.I think that my professional forebears in the US were the best applied aerodynamicists of the time.
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
Nor will it have the range or payload to accomplish useful missions. (Phantom II excepted)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.
How about Korea?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.
In Korea, both were providing CAS. Both had near identical loss/sortie ratiosHow about Korea?
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.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...?
We had a war, a cold one. That's all that saved us from being totally asleep at the switch.It is a damn shame that it takes a war / conflict to get us back
in the game.
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.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.
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.the 1945-1950 political facts that probably screamed 'over spending' that cramped the US military and definitely slowed the advancement of aviation down.
This is an essay that I wrote in school for "persuasive writing". If you can please give me some true but still slanted facts on this topic (with an explanation if possible). Also please remember that only five people knew that I was talking about planes (one knew it was about WW2 planes). Remember I wrote for a simple audience.
(gulp) here it is...
Corsair vs. Mustang
The F4U Corsair is a better airplane than the P-51 Mustang. This may seem like an odd topic to choose, but it is important to me. Even though the F4U was better, the Mustang is liked better because of its glamorous role in World War Two. The Corsair had better performance than the P-51. The Corsair had more roles than the Mustang. The Corsair could take off from a carrier, unlike the Mustang. The Mustang had the highly glamorous and romanticized duty of escorting the mighty B-17's of the 8th Air force over Nazi Germany. It can be compared to the knights of Rohan charging down the hill into battle with the Urik-kai army, rescuing the heroes and saving the day. The Corsair, however, was more suited for the less important role of fighting Imperial Japan in the pacific. That can be compared to walking through a Georgian swamp to find crawdads for supper.
The Corsair had better performance than the Mustang. The Corsair could go 450 miles per hour to the Mustang's 430. The Corsair could carry 4000 pounds of bombs to 2000. For every Corsair lost in combat, 11 enemy planes were destroyed, for an 11:1 combat ratio. The mustang only had a 6:1 combat ratio.
One of the simplest reasons for the common misconception of the Mustang's superiority, however, is that, well, the Mustang is prettier.
That is a simple explanation for the superiority of the F4U over the P-51. Even though the mustang was more highly regarded, the corsair performed better, and could do more things.
Thank you for your time.
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.
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?
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...The Mustang was superior to the Corsair at high altitudes.
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...
I don't see how the Corsair that weighs 3000+ lbs more can out turn the Mustang...that goes against the laws of physics...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,
View attachment 383472
View attachment 383473
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.