P-47N Thunderbolt vs. F4U-4 Corsair - Which was superior? (1 Viewer)

Except for the mighty Skyraider of course!


PS. The USAF held on to P-51s over P-47Ns and in mock dogfights the P-51s didn't stand a chance against the F4U-4. Speaking of Honduras, the Cavalier Mustangs were easy meat too for the Honduras F4U-5s.

Skyraider3D said:

Except for the mighty Skyraider of course!

Click to expand...

The skyraider was not a fighter.

syscom3 said:

The F-51's were used because there was nothing else available early in the conflict. They were quickly replaced as F84's (and others) became available.

Click to expand...

True, but all other recips were withdrawn from service or sent to the reserves (P-47). It was planned to have the P-51 (F-51) remain in active and reserve reserve units prior to the start of the Korean War.

syscom3 said:

The skyraider was not a fighter.

Click to expand...

Attack, fighter bomber maybe?!?!?

Tell that to this guy!!!


Midway Sailor

The Skyraider was one hell of an attack bomber though!
It could drop just about anything...
USS Midway - VA-25 Toilet Bomb


Skyraiders indeed accounted for a few MiG-17s in Vietnam. And in mock dogfights they outturned Corsairs.

Can you tell what my fave plane is?


Anyway, back on-topic... both the P-47N and F4U-4 were great machines but I'd definitely put my money on the Corsair.
Here's some more about the F4U-4's performance:
Chance Vought F4U-4 Corsair

The only reason the P47N had a range advantage over the F4U4 was because of the extra long wing span packed with fuel. Because of that wing span the roll rate of the N was seriously degraded and it's rate of climb was horrible. Very little ACM ever took place at 30,000 feet or better with recip. engines. In ACM the P47N would be at a serious disadvantage with the F4u-4. My uncle was an instructor in P47s during WW2 and he told me they used to fly to a gunnery range near Corpus Christi and would often be jumped by F4Us. He said it was embarrasing as they had no chance against the F4Us. I don't what models they were.

Regarding the dive performance of the P47D: the dive limit speed was 500 mph IAS,(above 25000 ft it was 400mph) recovery was recommended at no lower than 12000 ft. At that altitude the limit dive speed corresponded to 601TAS .82 mach

At military power, the P47N had a rate of climb of 1700 fpm up to 20000 ft. At 30000 ft with military power it's top speed was slightly less than 420 mph TAS. At 26000 ft it was quite a bit slower than the F4U-4.

Don't know where the performance figures for the P47N are coming from but they don't jibe with the figures in AMERICAS HUNDRED THOUSAND by Francis DEAN.

The fact is all this talk about performance at 30000 feet or above is rather theoretical because very little ACM took place above 25000 ft in ww2. The fact is the B17s and B24s the Jugs, Mustangs and Corsairs escorted when loaded could barely get to 20000 feet. However a F4U-4 intercepted a nip reco. plane at 38000 feet above Okinawa. When he found his guns were frozen he sawed off the Jap's empennage with his prop.

renrich said:

..... The fact is the B17s and B24s the Jugs, Mustangs and Corsairs escorted when loaded could barely get to 20000 feet.

Click to expand...

The B17's routinely flew at 30,000 feet.

P38's and P47's were designed from the outset to fly at that altitude.


I dont know where you came up with that 20,000 figure.

Indeed. And B-29's flew at 30,000ft as well. Thus, an escorting fighter must be able to perform at those high elevations.

The P-47N is pulling 2,800hp @ WEP up to 32,000ft.

At Military Power, the P-47N can pull 2,100hp all the way up to 35,000ft!

At Military Power, the F4U-4 can pull 1,800hp up to 23,000ft. It simply was not designed for high altitude escort work.

Now, yes, with a full load of internal fuel, 570 gallons, the P-47N is indeed hampered vs. the 234 gallon internal fuel load of the F4U-4. What do you expect?

The P-47N had fuel cells in the wing and not conventional tanks. They dodn't have to be used. That means she could still carry 370 gallons in the internal tanks without the wing tanks.

In that configuration, her performance would have been much closer to an "M" than a "D."

That is the trouble with all this academic talk. The B17E had a service ceiling of 36600 ft but that did not mean it bombed from that altitude. I recently read a book by the lead navigator of the 100th bomb Group and they routinely bombed from 18000 feet. I know or knew a couple of B24 pilots and with a full load of ammo,fuel, and bombs they were doing good to get to 20000 ft. The F4U-4 had a service ceiling of over 41000 feet but they almost never operated at anything near that altitude. Yes, the B29s could and did bomb from 30000 or more but couldn't hit anything because of the winds aloft so had to bomb from much lower. The P51, the primary escort fighter of the B29s(and the bombers in Europe) was severely hampered at altitudes of 30000 or more because of it's supercharger. The F4U-4 achieved it's max speed of 445 mph at 26000 ft at 30000 it could "only" do about 435 mph. The N model Jug was 5 to 10 mph slower than the D becuse of it's increased weight. Little ACM was conducted at top speeds anyway. That is the reason that the KI84 that was not a true 400 mph fighter was quite effective against all our fighters.

"The N model Jug was 5 to 10 mph slower than the D becuse of it's increased weight."

Not true.
USAAF Test Data

renrich said:

1. The B17E had a service ceiling of 36600 ft but that did not mean it bombed from that altitude. I recently read a book by the lead navigator of the 100th bomb Group and they routinely bombed from 18000 feet. I know or knew a couple of B24 pilots and with a full load of ammo,fuel, and bombs they were doing good to get to 20000 ft. The F4U-4 had a service ceiling of over 41000 feet but they almost never operated at anything near that altitude. Yes, the B29s could and did bomb from 30000 or more but couldn't hit anything because of the winds aloft so had to bomb from much lower.

2. That is the reason that the KI84 that was not a true 400 mph fighter was quite effective against all our fighters.

Click to expand...

1. B-17's in the ETO typically bombed from the low-mid 20's k ft. 18 would have been unusual though not unheard of, maybe you should cite the exact source. B-17's typically bombed from a bit higher than B-24's where low 20's would be more typical. The big difference there was vulnerability to AAA, considerably less at the higher range of typical altitudes, so 18k against heavily defended Reich targets doesn't sound right. The 8.8cm Flak 36/37, backbone of the German AAA right to end, had an effective ceiling around 26k, so the B-17's ability to get close to that practically, while maintaining sufficient course stability to bomb reasonably accurately in big formations (that's what limited B-24 altitudes) was one reason for the 8th AF's preference for the B-17.

However early in the war, in the Pacific, B-17's did in fact bomb from as high as 30k, small formations of unescorted bombers trying to avoid interception by JNAF fighters (see "Fortress Against the Sun" by Salecker for a number of examples).

The initial unescorted B-29 raids over Japan were from high 20's to just over 30. Then night raids starting March '45 much lower (low teens or even less); then escorted day raids starting in April were similar to ETO, low-mid 20's.

However, escort fighters are better off to be able to cover their bombers from above, altitude advantage is always desirable, and if the battle centers on bombers at 25k ft (as opposed to say torpedo planes at ~zero ft), the ability to bounce from ~30k is very useful. See Robert S Johnson's account in "Thunderbolt" of German fighters occasionally trying to sneak in on escorted formations from around 40k ft.

2. The practical speed of operational Ki-84's is still debated, but "quite effective" would be have to be based on Japanese claims repeated in Western books (kind of the inverse of the typical situation of underrating the earlier Japanese types based on continuously repeated inflated *Allied* claims). The real situation is somewhat fuzzier. Naturally with a big performance advantage the Ki-84 almost had to do better, but even the late Japanese types were pretty clearly on the short end of exchange ratio stick v. US fighters in the actual overall situation of 1945. Breaking out figures, accurately, by type is hard (they exist on the US side in some cases, but the radial Japanese fighter types were frequently mistaken for one another, esp late in the war with such a long menu to choose from, as is easily seen for the combats that can be identified in Japanese records).

Back to P-47N v. F4U-4: it reminds me of late mark Spit v P-51. Comparing in a vacuum is one thing, but the P-47N had the range for missions an F4U just couldn't perform, any plane is worth zero in the areas it can't reach. For example speaking of the P-47 over Korea it did operate there, at the end of WWII! The Marine Corsairs based in the Okinawa/Ie Shima airfields couldn't reach Korea, P-47N's could and flew missions there in the last week of the war, with good success against the JAAF Ki-84's based there. It's a moot point whether a Corsair could have done better.

Joe

i don't agree with your last point, because using that logic the B-17's a better fighter than the spitfire because it could fly further? there are so many other factors, range is just one small one...........

the lancaster kicks ass said:

i don't agree with your last point, because using that logic the B-17's a better fighter than the spitfire because it could fly further? there are so many other factors, range is just one small one...........

Click to expand...

Seems a kind of ridiculous stretching of the logic to compare heavy bombers and fighters. Range was not one small factor for a fighter but one large factor in offensive use of air power as a whole in many situations in WWII. Long range fighters could increase the effective reach of bombers (not just level ones against land targets but for sea control), and increase the size of steps amphibious forces could take advancing across a theater. The exact degree depended on geography but in the Pacific War a short legged fighter was of limited use almost regardless of its performance otherwise.

That worked both ways; the Japanese could never have achieved their conquests of the early months of the Pacific War without landbased A6M's (and Ki-43 to a lesser degree) extraordinary range. And it was true when the shoe was on the other foot later in the war. But it was true as well in cases in Europe, like how far the Allies could advance at a step in invading Sicily and Italy (had mostly short legged fighters, so not very far), and in the Greek islands in late 1943, even aside from the day/night strategic bomber debate.

In offensive landbased air ops in large theaters, range was the *main* comparative factor in evaluating the true usefulness of fighters. *If* the fighter met a minimum standard of reasonable competitiveness with the defending fighters it would meet. Besides a silly example like B-17 a realistic one would be Ju-88C long range day fighter: not minimally competitive with Allied single engine fighters of 1943-44 (though OK hunting Allied ASW planes over Bay of Biscay), so not a superior offensive fighter compared to short legged singles. But the P-51 v the Germans in 1944 did meet that hurdle; so did the P-47N in the Pacific in 1945 (and P-38 thru the Pac War); they could deal quite well with defending enemy fighters. Given that minimum relative air combat performance, the whole planning of air and amphibious operations was based on the range of landbased fighter cover (where carriers weren't available), the more the better and without practical limit in the Pacific. Very non-small factor. Fighters with half the range essentially required twice as many sea-air-land battles to be fought to get to the same place.

Switch to a strategically defensive situation, and range decreases as a factor. But it still gives the advantage of combat persistence (eg. German fighters which still often had to break off first for lack of fuel against P-51's *over Germany*) and ability to concentrate forces in the air (eg. Japanese fighter units in SEA in 41-42 were not numerically superior overall, quite inferior counting A6M's alone, but consistently defeated the Allied fighters in part by concentrating superior numbers at each give point of attack; the defending Allied fighters were short legged so had be spread out over the large theater). Fighter range/endurance was never (and still isn't) a small factor to be artificially ranked the same as climb or roll rate. It's an important category to be considered separately from air combat performance, it can be a dominant factor in offensive use of air/sea power.

Joe

I seem to remember that if the RAF couldn't solve the problems they had with the Typhon, they were going to go for P-47's!
What does everybody think, if they had given up on the Typhon, would the RAF been better off having the Thunderbolt, or the Corsair??

Typhoon any day, far better suited our needs and there was actually some 20mm ammo in Britain at the time plus of course the family she gave birth to............

JoeB, the range factor is not as important as u are letting on... While it is important, when ranking aircraft ie. Best at This ect ect, it is factored in as a minor statistic....

Everyone pretty much agrees with this....

The "range factor" is what makes one aircraft suitable for long range escort role and another not suitable. This change in role comes at the expense of tremendous extra weight and degradation of performace.

Perhaps a better comparison would be the P-47M and F4U-4.