Only one fighter
- Thread starter renrich
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Lucky13
Forum Mascot
F4U and P-47....
drgondog
Major
True but I was thinking about Roosevelt buying out Tank's contract.. and the Fw 190 as a base system was very high on my list as 'Best'..
Soundbreaker Welch?
Tech Sergeant
I guess the F4U for me too. Unless the US goverment decided to go beyond prop planes and jump to jets real soon.
- Thread starter
- #25
renrich
Chief Master Sergeant
The P51 made a few carrier landings but the USN determined that the slow speed controllability of the Mustang was insufficent for carrier operations. My guess is that the Mustang would not have robust enough for shipboard sustained operations not to mention the aft CG problem on takeoff with full internal fuel.
The Basket
Senior Master Sergeant
- 3,712
- Jun 27, 2007
Was making the Spitfire in the USA under licence ever considered?
was a super light Corsair ever flown?
was a super light Corsair ever flown?
Screaming Eagle
Senior Master Sergeant
F4U for me as well
Elvis
Chief Master Sergeant
Grumman F4F.
...and if you think about it, that's kinda what happened, since F4F > F6F and eventually we ended up with the F8F before the services went all-jet powered.
Elvis
lesofprimus
Brigadier General
Gonna need longer legs than the Wildcat could provide....
drgondog
Major
While Grumman Ironworks started with F4F in 1940, the F6F and then F8F were entirely new airframes (and wings).. so if you start with F4F and you put all your eggs in that basket you will never have the high altitude or long legs of say a P-38, P-51, F4U or even latest model P-47 which were derivatives of the base airframe..
If we started with Jet series it just means no fighters until at earliest 1944 and when we get them, the range issues would limit any form of Strategic bombing in the PTO and put restrictions on ETO. The 'middle' game is dismal.
I love the Spit on license but at the end of the day its limitations for both range and load carrying ability and equal vulnerability to flak make it slightly less desirable (for me) than the 51 (for US Doctrine). If I get to 'license' I go with Fw190 over Spit.
If we started with Jet series it just means no fighters until at earliest 1944 and when we get them, the range issues would limit any form of Strategic bombing in the PTO and put restrictions on ETO. The 'middle' game is dismal.
I love the Spit on license but at the end of the day its limitations for both range and load carrying ability and equal vulnerability to flak make it slightly less desirable (for me) than the 51 (for US Doctrine). If I get to 'license' I go with Fw190 over Spit.
- Thread starter
- #31
renrich
Chief Master Sergeant
There were a number of F4Us made without folding wings which saved a little weight. I think they were actually made by Goodyear so technically they were FGs. Also I recall that in the early part of the Pacific war some of the Corsairs based in the Solomons had their tailhooks removed. They had to be replaced when those AC were missioned to take off from land but land on carriers to be refueled in sort of a shuttle mission. This was before the Navy officially decided the Corsair could be "safely" operated off carriers. I have never seen any tests which showed whether the lack of folding wings or tailhooks helped the performance of the Corsair. I am sure although lacking the credentials of Bill that if a manufacturer such as Republic or North American had taken the basic Corsair design and modified it for strictly land based use there would have been a substantial loss of weight resulting in all around increased performance. Also, I believe that Vought stuck with certain features such as manual supercharger controls for reliability that could have been automated to make the Corsair a little simpler to operate. It is well to remember that the USN demanded reliability at all costs which is the reason they would not consider liquid cooled engines. It is also well to remember that the F4U1 and 1A had internal fuel capacity of 361 gallons later reduced to 234 gallons but with the original internal fuel augmented with two 150 gallon drop tanks the Corsair would have been capable of carrying 661 gallons of fuel which would have resulted in a "yardstick" range of approx. 2400 nautical miles. It might have been possible for a landbased Corsair to have carried an 85 gallon tank behind the pilot like the Mustang. It would have caused an aft shift in the CG but structural weight savings in the landing gear and wing area because of the lesser strength requirements imposed by land based only operations could have offset that CG situation. The problem with AC like the Spitfire and BF and to a lesser extent the FW was that they had very small airframes which could not accomodate a lot of add ons such as additional weaponry or internal fuel. There just was not enough space inside. Since they did not weigh much to begin with any weight added had more impact percentage wise than it did on a large AC such as the Corsair, Thunderbolt, Hellcat and to a lesser extent the Mustang.
drgondog
Major
I agree Rich's points and would add to them. The F4U was simply a great fighter in comparison to the Mustang, the P-38 and the P-47 - and none of them had to add hundreds of pounds to provide wing folding, arrest gear, and spar capacity for 10G+ landings.
From a structural POV - if I needed high altitude interceptor performance I would look long and hard at the extra internal fuel, replacing the six 50's w/20mm, the look at overall weight and key structure to support 8g limit loads. If removing carrier landing and load carrying capability requirements further isolates a few areas of easy improvement like a lighter Wing spar, or Tail Spar as areas to 'lighten up' w/o changing the lines geometry, then do that also
If its an interceptor I don't need to carry 3,000-4,000 pound external loads and I might be able to use smaller wheels and gear if I don't carry the big load or crash on a carrier deck. I imagine it would be relatively easy to carve 700 to 1000 pounds and still get a 7+G interceptor that could fight at 36-38,000 feet with a much faster climb rate and top speed... without going through a complete re-design like the P-51H.
In 1944 I would also be looking at the P&W 3350 with the lightweight Corsair.
I like this aircraft for its a.) engine type and growth potential in P&W line, b.) wonder how aerodynamics and drag could be improved with Packard Merlin (Radiator and Oil Cooling would be in same area as 51) for the interceptor version, c.) have one beefed up version for carrier/Ground support and d.)one land based version with all carrier related weight stripped but otherwise unchanged.
Never get the max rang available for P-38 at end of war but have one superb dogfighter and ground attack aircraft superior to P-51A, P-47B and C and P-38F in late 1942, early 1943 at a better state of performance than any of its counterparts at that time.
Elvis
Chief Master Sergeant
re: F4F
Range of an F4F is 770 miles.
The main alternative is the P-40. It's range? 840 miles.
After that, its like the P-26 which had a range of less than 650 miles.
So, the F4F had "short" legs? Compared to what was available at the time, I'm not so sure it would be considered that way.
There's also the fact that it didn't neccessarily need long legs.
It's purpose built to be carrier based.
That doesn't mean it can't be used by land forces, but it was designed for carrier work, so the ship can pretty much take it to the edge of the battle.
since it's designed to be carrier based, that means it has to be built tougher than most other aircraft (Chance-Vought found that out in the 20's!).
You've also got superior armour protection and firepower.
Granted, you lack a little power and manuverability, but you're also able to play that Turran game the Russian's loved so much, better than most others you came up against.
The F6F was based on the F4F and purpose built to beat the Zero at its own game.
Even though they ended up with, what, a 90 percentile new airframe, it was orignially designed as improvments to the F4F.
The F8...well, ok, I'll give you that one, but the basic design still harkens back to the F4F, even if it is its own fuselage.
Still, F4F - built like a tank and hits like a ton of bricks.
If I HAD to use only one fighter, and we were still in a position of neutrality, my choice would still be the F4F, if for no other reason than those two accolades alone.
Elvis
Range of an F4F is 770 miles.
The main alternative is the P-40. It's range? 840 miles.
After that, its like the P-26 which had a range of less than 650 miles.
So, the F4F had "short" legs? Compared to what was available at the time, I'm not so sure it would be considered that way.
There's also the fact that it didn't neccessarily need long legs.
It's purpose built to be carrier based.
That doesn't mean it can't be used by land forces, but it was designed for carrier work, so the ship can pretty much take it to the edge of the battle.
since it's designed to be carrier based, that means it has to be built tougher than most other aircraft (Chance-Vought found that out in the 20's!).
You've also got superior armour protection and firepower.
Granted, you lack a little power and manuverability, but you're also able to play that Turran game the Russian's loved so much, better than most others you came up against.
The F6F was based on the F4F and purpose built to beat the Zero at its own game.
Even though they ended up with, what, a 90 percentile new airframe, it was orignially designed as improvments to the F4F.
The F8...well, ok, I'll give you that one, but the basic design still harkens back to the F4F, even if it is its own fuselage.
Still, F4F - built like a tank and hits like a ton of bricks.
If I HAD to use only one fighter, and we were still in a position of neutrality, my choice would still be the F4F, if for no other reason than those two accolades alone.
Elvis
lesofprimus
Brigadier General
U seem to be forgetting that this airframe is going to supply ALL of the USA's fighter arms... Not just the Navy...
The F4U was a much more multi operational aircraft...
The F4U was a much more multi operational aircraft...
Renrich said, "It is also well to remember that the F4U1 and 1A had internal fuel capacity of 361 gallons later reduced to 234 gallons but with the original internal fuel augmented with two 150 gallon drop tanks the Corsair would have been capable of carrying 661 gallons of fuel which would have resulted in a "yardstick" range of approx. 2400 nautical miles.
Certainly the Corsair would have had a long range with 660 gallons of fuel but 2,400 nautical miles? That's 2,760 statutory miles.
Now the P-47N was significantly heavier and could muster about 2,350 statutory miles with a fuel load that was 300 gallons more.
So the Corsair would have had a range that was 400 miles greater on 300 less gallons of fuel?
Is that a Chance Vought "yardstick" that you are using?
Certainly the Corsair would have had a long range with 660 gallons of fuel but 2,400 nautical miles? That's 2,760 statutory miles.
Now the P-47N was significantly heavier and could muster about 2,350 statutory miles with a fuel load that was 300 gallons more.
So the Corsair would have had a range that was 400 miles greater on 300 less gallons of fuel?
Is that a Chance Vought "yardstick" that you are using?
- Thread starter
- #36
renrich
Chief Master Sergeant
When I say "yardstick" range I am taking the amount of usable fuel at the Corsair's most economical cruise but a realistic range would be approx. 70% of the "yardstick" If you take 361 gallons of internal fuel which at econ. cruise of 42 gal/hr gives you 8.6 hrs, one 150 gal drop tank(the other gets eaten up by drag) yields 3.57 hrs for a total of 12.17 hours at 200 knots (which may be a little high) so round down to 2400 nautical miles. A realistic range which would include warm up, take off, climb out, cruise, combat at full power, cruise back and reserve would yield about 70 % of 2400 or 1680 nautical miles which to be conservative would give a safe 800 statute mile combat radius. That would get you from London to Warsaw and back.
"If you take 361 gallons of internal fuel which at econ. cruise of 42 gal/hr gives you 8.6 hrs, one 150 gal drop tank(the other gets eaten up by drag) yields 3.57 hrs for a total of 12.17 hours at 200 knots (which may be a little high) so round down to 2400 nautical miles."
A P-47D-25 with 780 gallons of fuel (370 Internal and 410 external in wing [2x150] and belly [1x110] tanks) has a range of 2,100 miles.
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/p-47-tactical-chart.jpg
A Corsair with 660 gallons of fuel (120 gallons less) has a range of 2,760 miles (660 miles further)?
I know that the Corsair can go further with the same fuel load but I still say something's rotten in Denmark.
A P-47D-25 with 780 gallons of fuel (370 Internal and 410 external in wing [2x150] and belly [1x110] tanks) has a range of 2,100 miles.
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/p-47-tactical-chart.jpg
A Corsair with 660 gallons of fuel (120 gallons less) has a range of 2,760 miles (660 miles further)?
I know that the Corsair can go further with the same fuel load but I still say something's rotten in Denmark.
helmitsmit
Airman 1st Class
I'd pick the Spitfire/Seafire combination there was almost a mark for every day in a month so no probs developing it for all those roles!
helmitsmit
Airman 1st Class
I now it is an American aircraft thread. But us brits would give you our spits! I mean we gave you our merlins! As long as u build then under licence but don't call them P52 or something!
Elvis
Chief Master Sergeant
Except no one could fly on and off a carrier. That's why we gave it to the freakin' Brits!
It took them to show us it actually could be done (with a little technique).
...and fear not, I am thinking ALL services.
The F4U was very, very new in 1940. There were still teething problems at the time, not to mention its "seeming inability" to do carrier service.
The F4F's basic airframe dates back to the FF-1, almost 10 years earlier, so the frame was already well developed, via the exploits of the FF-1, F2F and F3F fighter planes.
It was a much more reliable platform, in 1940.
Had the question been placed later in time, say 1942, I would side with you guys, but in 1940, I would have to go with the Grumman.
The Chance-Vought was just too new at the time.
Its not always the smartest move to gamble your country's defense with an "unknown quantity".
Elvis
