Bill, here's my question;
Why is it you insist upon dancing around the fact that the F4U-1 proved superior in maneuverability compared to the P-51B in every way - is it because you don't understand what it means or is it because you don't want to acknowledge this fact ? What is it thats so wrong about that Navy test according to you ?
As to the weight figures, I told you to look in the POH if in doubt, but apparently you just choose to ignore this and started spewing out lies about me not providing any substantiating evidence.
Now as to turn performance, well like I've said before you can dance around it all you like but the F4U features a higher lift airfoil and a lower wing-loading, hence why its superior in turn performance compared to the P-51.
Now as to your flying time in the P-51 - tell me about it please. Were you the pilot or were you in the back seat ?
Also the veteran a/c flying around today aren't like the ones flying around during WW2, they are significantly lighter.
Sigh - what 'lies' have I been spewing about you not providing any substantiating evidence?
I recall and I can substantiate, and you can substantiate and everyone reading this thread can substantiate, what I have asked you to produce.
1. I asked as aero engineer and pilot to you - (?? and ??) to show me, "the unconvinced but willing to be conviced" person the
performance data of both the P-51B and the F4U-1 in either head to head or separate performance tests which highlighted all the turn, climb, roll, dive and acceleration results of instrumented test procedures.
Stuff that form basis of opinons in a fact based discussion?
2. Your reference (I gave you mine for the 51s) for the various manufacturer specs on the F4U - I shamefully admit I haven't found the on-line source yet either for the complete F4U series.
3. When you pulled the Fw190G Tests out of the hat and proudly declared victory (HuH!) against the P-51 I said "gee that's interesting - show me the figures please?"
4. You pulled a quote from the Mike Williams site on the specific Naval Tests at Pax River January, 1944, conducted by the US NAvy by Naval Aviators, to compile a report why the 51B is is not 'better' than the F4U-1 (my Words). This is precisely the same report I referenced to Dave and Renrich earlier.
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f4u/p-51b-f4u-1-navycomp.pdf
I joked about this report because the only data driven charts to substantiate the comparison was the Speed/Boost comparisons vs altitude and Horsepower available vs Altitude.
The report states that the 51B outclimber the F4U (both) above 20,000 feet but nowhere does it
show the data.
BTW this statement is not particularly favorable to your statement that the F$U is 'everywhere and every way superior in manuever" is it? But no data by Navy pilot to support that either... so you are off the hook.
You might have noticed also that the F4U-1A was fitted with Special Boost to give it 65" vs the standard 60 and the atandard 60" for the F4u-1A. I'll come back to this point later.
The report states that the F4U-1 was superior in turn and acceleration and (special note excepted) was everywhere superior in climb below 20,000 feet
But
no data presented
Then you stroll along, and declare Dave, Renrich and myself clearly not possesing your vast knowledge of these mortal things and declare 'victory'
I'm interested in learning, even at my advanced stage of dimentia so I ask YOU "where's the data, great Soren-master?"
and you hit me with the comment that I am 'spreading lies" - Wow
Where is the Data on that subject please? I have tried to be respectftful in this debate and will continue to do so.
Now back to me-
I have 56.5 hours as s/e pilot in command (understand 'solo'), with 20 hours command in back seat with a miserable no talent retired colonel by the name of Bert Marshall, Jr attempting to impart wisdom on his clueless son - (yes I was clueless long before I ran into you), and 10 hours beginning time when I basically looked and listened. You may decree whatever expertise you wish on that humble experience - I don't associate much, particularly in high speed desparate manuevering and said so above.
The miserable, demanding character instructor in this scenario, that was self inflicted, but inflicted nevertheless, on teaching me to fly was the fastest ace in the 355th FG, was promoted from Captain to Lt Colonel in the span of 7 weeks (Aug 18-October 23, 1944), commanded two different groups of Mustangs - and when retired had 8,950 hours in about 30 different aircraft including Fw190d-9, Me109G (no version specified) but a two seat trainer, a Fw 190 two seat trainer.
He was probably a 'low talent/experience' from your perspective - he certainly couldn't speak German. He only had perhaps 800-1000 hours USAF time in 51B/C/D/H
In the process he shot down one miserable Stuka on D-Day and six 109Gs between June 20 and September 11, all a/c that should have been able to out turn, him and out climb him but somehow gfailed to exploit their superior performance -
then maybe 500 more hours after retirement when he had it in the 59-61 timeframe.
I have a Masters Degree in Engineering in Aero (Univ Texas 1972) with a BS in Aero Engineering (Structures). It is probable that your credentials far out weigh mine - but guess what?
I'm not proclaiming victory by experience - I'm not declaring victory. Period.
I am asking you this last time because we are boring the Sh!t out of everyone on this forum ---- where is your performance DATA backing up your pronouncement of victory?
Last but not least I am a scarred veteran of the great wars fought at the Pentagon by the USN and the USA, then USAAF, then USAF on fighter procurement.
I suppose you know that the US Navy NEVER has purchased a fighter aircraft originally designed for the Air Force (to my humble knowledge) - not even under Congressional decrees (F-111 and F-16) come to mind immediately. I don't count the 86 because USAF bought hte Navy version of interest but stipulated the design mod of swept wing.
I was joking about this to Renrich but half serious because I didn't see the data.. and at the end of the day think the squids did just fine not buying the 51!
But I remain skeptical when pronouncements of performance are made without data - even by honorable squid aviators or lowly AF types - or by forum posters.
Now we can agree to completely disagree - I am not going to respond to you asking me to prove your claim - I have said I can't because I can't find the data.
I have submitted that you can't because you can't find the data (on either of your a/c in competition) I believe this is called 'impasse' but---
you stand corrected - I have not and will not call you a "liar' just because you disagree with me.
Regards,
Bill