Does anyone have or know if the Navy provided a graph or numbers for the climb test?
Thanks
Thanks
Navy Corsair vs P-51B Climb Test, March 1944 (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Old Crow
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
GregP
Major
Interesting. I have seen three or four other comparisons saying the Corsairs was superior to the P-51, but never this document.
Interesting that the Corsair is more maneuverable, but not surprising. One of the requirements for a Naval aircraft is good low-speed handling, which naturally translates into good maneuverability at medium speeds. The F4U seems to carry this into higher speeds.
I'm pretty sure an F6F will ALSO out-maneuver any P-51 since it has the most wing area of any single-seat WWII fighter, but it is also slower and likely has not as good roll performance.
The Super Hellcat turned into the Bearcat, but would likely have been a sure winner absent the F8F
The choice of the F4U over the P-51 / P-47 / F6f in Korea is starting to be more clear.
Interesting that the Corsair is more maneuverable, but not surprising. One of the requirements for a Naval aircraft is good low-speed handling, which naturally translates into good maneuverability at medium speeds. The F4U seems to carry this into higher speeds.
I'm pretty sure an F6F will ALSO out-maneuver any P-51 since it has the most wing area of any single-seat WWII fighter, but it is also slower and likely has not as good roll performance.
The Super Hellcat turned into the Bearcat, but would likely have been a sure winner absent the F8F
The choice of the F4U over the P-51 / P-47 / F6f in Korea is starting to be more clear.
Last edited:
SaparotRob
Unter Gemeine Geschwader Murmeltier XIII
drgondog
Major
Note that F4U running very high MP compared fleet standard, and to P-51B 67", when 115/145 or 130/50 fuel was available to boost to 75". Note also that P-51B was carrying wing racks to slow it down about 12mph and reduce 500fpm in climb.
Didn't look to the load outs to see if both were flown at full internal load - and as far as turn and roll performance, pilot skill matters.
- Thread starter
- #5
Yes, thanks for your response. I've never put too much stock in this test since the Corsairs weren't standard production aircraft drag wise plus one ran at 65" instead of the normal 60" of boost. The Navy claimed that in the climb test "the F4U's are everywhere superior in climb, having an estimated margin of from 750 feet to 1,000 fpm at various altitude levels." In this first loadout, the P-51B weighed 9,423 lbs. and the F4U's weighed 12,162 lbs. (one ran at 65", the other at 60") In the second loadout, the P-51 weighed 9,100 lbs. the F4U's weighed the same 12,162 (same boost settings) with the Navy stating at this loadout "the F4U's are superior in climb to 20,000 feet and the P-51B superior above that altitude to ceiling." Neither of those Navy quotes make sense to me except the P-51B being superior above 20,000 feet. That's why I wondered if there's any data or chart to back up what the Navy said.
Thanks again---Looking forward to your next P-51 book.
pinehilljoe
Staff Sergeant
- 768
- May 1, 2016
Were there any engagements between Corsairs and Mustangs in the Banana War's in Central America?
SaparotRob
Unter Gemeine Geschwader Murmeltier XIII
There were engagements during the "Soccer War".
GregP
Major
I'm hoping they ran the maneuverability tests, came down, changed pilots, and re-ran the tests to account for pilot differences. But, it doesn't so state that.
Also, one pilot may be VERY familiar with one airplane and may have never flown the other one, making turning performnances a bit suspect unless pilot familiarity with the airplane was taken into account when selecting pilots.
I've talked with a guy who said the P-51 was, hands-down, the best fighter of it's time. I also asked him how many difference fighters he had flown, and he had only flown the P-51. But, he had engaged in dissimilar combat with other types and always bested them. Not sure that translates into a better airplane or a better pilor, or neither.
Sort of like choosing "the most beautiful woman," which is very dependent both on the observer and possibly on how many clothes she is not wearing at the time.
I doubt the guy in the P-51 above knew the loadout of the opposition during any particular fight, or the experience of the opposing pilot. I don't even know how many dissimilar dogfights he participated in, it never came up. So, the conclusions are murky at best.
Also, one pilot may be VERY familiar with one airplane and may have never flown the other one, making turning performnances a bit suspect unless pilot familiarity with the airplane was taken into account when selecting pilots.
I've talked with a guy who said the P-51 was, hands-down, the best fighter of it's time. I also asked him how many difference fighters he had flown, and he had only flown the P-51. But, he had engaged in dissimilar combat with other types and always bested them. Not sure that translates into a better airplane or a better pilor, or neither.
Sort of like choosing "the most beautiful woman," which is very dependent both on the observer and possibly on how many clothes she is not wearing at the time.
I doubt the guy in the P-51 above knew the loadout of the opposition during any particular fight, or the experience of the opposing pilot. I don't even know how many dissimilar dogfights he participated in, it never came up. So, the conclusions are murky at best.
Last edited:
pinehilljoe
Staff Sergeant
- 768
- May 1, 2016
agreed, Corsair or Mustang, is like asking Cindy Crawford or Charlize Theron.
In the hands of a good pilot both planes were superb.
drgondog
Major
In the comparison, it would definitely be superior, save possibly turn - but the available HP delta would probably tip the scales at low altitude - above 20K+ it should dominate everywhere but roll.
the clean P-51B with 75" seems a bit faster
drgondog
Major
about 17mph faster at full throttle height.
My take on this is that the this test was rather "cooked" to push the performance of the F4U-4.
And for those who may still insist that the Bent Wings on the F4U was to allow the large diameter propeller, I have to point out that the prop on the F4U-1 is, in fact an F6F propeller - Same Hub and Blades.
The Corsair's low speed handling wasn't really all that good. With its nasty stall behavior, and vicious Torque Roll when going around, combined with a view over the nose that was even worse than the P-51, it was particularly poor around the boat. In truth, about the same as the P-51. A P-51D was equipped with a hook and tested aboard the Shangri-La in November 1944. Those trials also included a hooked PBJ (Navy B-25) It wasn't great around the boat - roll control was pretty weak at carrier approach speeds. A seagoing P-51 didn't bring anything extra to the table.
Beg pardon? There were a lot of P-51s in Korea, particularly in the early days.
When the Korean War broke out in mid-1850, the FEAF's 5 Fighter Groups had just finished converting from F-51Ds to F-80Cs. (There was a Squadron of F-82 Night Fighters, too) This was all well and good, but since the North Korean Air Force dissolved like Ice Cream in an Oven, their tasking was as Fighter-Bombers. The F-80 was actually a good fighter bomber, but it didn't have much endurance, and wasn't suited for Bare Base Operations. (Plus the North Korean Army was heading South at a good clip) Flying from Japan, they didn't have a lot of loiter time over the battle area. The F-51s that these units had just retired were in Flyable Storage in Japan and the Philippines, and the pilots had just transitioned - so re-activating Mustangs and restringing about half the Fighter Squadrons to F-51s was a no-brainer. When F-84s and F-86s became available, most units converted back to jets. In general, the justs wer preferred - they were better bombers than the Mustangs, but an airplane that's better, but not there isn't isn't going to help.
In the Navy's Case, a Carrier Air Group for am Essex Class Fleet Carrier consisted of 2 Jet Fighter Squadrons, 2 Propeller-Driven Fighter Squadrons, and 1 Attack Squadron.
The Jet squadrons were F9F Panthers or F2H Banshees, and the props were universally F4Us. By 1950, the Bearcat was pretty much out of USN service - it was too short ranged, and couldn't carry a lot of Air->Ground ornance. With the jets available, they didn't add to the Air-to-Air mission. The Hellcats were already out of service. The Corsair had good range, and was a good load carrier. The Attack Squadron was AD Skyraiders.
The CVEs operated Marine F4U Squadrons. designated as either VMF- (Fighter) or VMA-(Attack)
As with ahy war, Korea was "Run what you brung". Whatever assets that were available quickly were used to get the job done.
BarnOwlLover
Staff Sergeant
Ironically, albeit post war, the USN did do simulated carrier landings with a hooked P-51H or two, and it did better than the similarly converted P-51D (better low speed handling, better load factor and strength/durability at combat or landing weight, etc). The USN and Grumman also used a P-51H, but that was for R&D into airfoil research, and was otherwise a standard P-51H (not converted for simulated carrier landings).
SaparotRob
Unter Gemeine Geschwader Murmeltier XIII
+1 on that.
I'm not sure that many enthusiasts insist that the bent wings were on the Corsair directly because of the big prop. The big prop required a lot of height difference between the prop hub and the ground/deck. Going with the wing with even a small dihedral would've meant that the U/C legs are inordinately long, and long legs will be more prone to breakage than the short legs. Thus the bent wings - use this type of layout so the legs can be shorter and thus stronger.
There is a number of photos showing the F6F with one leg being broken during the non-perfect landing, but a far lower number of photos showing the F4U doing the same.
Last edited:
With the P-47s unlimited range and payload coupled with its complete invulnerability I am surprised it isnt still being made, in fact it is a wonder the USA made anything else. There is a fantastic series of Youtube videos on the P-47 explaining it all.
