P-47N Thunderbolt vs. F4U-4 Corsair - Which was superior? (2 Viewers)

5.4 minutes to 20,000 feet.

The US would have been better served overall if, in 1940, they had contracted with Republic under license to build the Corsair in a strictly land based version and cancelled the P47 program. Of course, in those days it was unheard of to expect a shipboard fighter to compete with a fighter that was designed to be land based.

Pardon me, please. I misspoke about the bombing altitudes of the B17. My data came from the book A WING AND A PRAYER. The 100th bombed from 18000 ft during the Schweinfurt raid because of an overcast they had to get under. They routinely bombed from 24000 to 26000 ft but never mentioned bombing from 30000. I believe that the cold temperatures over Europe made it very difficult to operate at anything like the service ceiling of the aircraft. It was mentioned that often the radio gunner and waist gunners often suffered frostbite to the extent they were hospitalized. I still maintain that little ACM occurred at altitudes of 30000 or above.

"The US would have been better served overall if, in 1940, they had contracted with Republic under license to build the Corsair in a strictly land based version and cancelled the P47 program."

If they had modified it to carry more internal fuel so that it would have the same range as the Thunderbolt and then modified it further to give it high altitude performance, perhaps it would have been cheaper to churn Corsairs out.

Didn't the earlier corsairs have lots of teething problems? I don't recall now.

It should be added that towards the end of the war, the F4U-1 didn't have any appreciable performance advantage over the P-47D with water injection and paddle props. (See thye thread on this subject)

Early in the war though, the P-47 was a dog. Toothpick props gave it a lousy climb rate on the order of 2,750fpm @ SL.

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.

And for the USN, untill there were engines powerfull enough to give the carrier jets a good payload and radius of action, they were still a generation behind the USAF.

Click to expand...

I agree with this. The Panther, Banshee, and Skynight (a slow nightfighter that doesn't belong here) were all in the same class as the F-80, and therefore obsoleted by the F-86/Mig 15, which the Navy had no answer for for until after the Korean War.

Basically the F-47 was not selected as a primary aircraft because of buget cuts and the favortism (right or wrong) for the F-51, only one of which could be afforded. The Navy had limited options.

It must have been the F4U.

In 1940, the P47 or the F4U were strictly experimental. Noone could predict which one would excell in what role.

lesofprimus said:

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....

Click to expand...

It's often treated as a minor statistic in basically unrealistic discussions of fighter planes, abstracted from the reality of air power as a tool of war. It doesn't make it correct, and far from "everybody" agrees. The reality remains a long range fighter could have a strategice level influence on what basic campaign plans, sea air and land, were feasible and which were not. It could hardly be more important on the air/sea offensive in large theaters.

Then way down at the air combat tactical level, we just have to consider, could the inevitably heavier (US case, or less rugged or less well protected Japanese case), long range fighter deal reasonably well with defending enemy fighters? Climb, turn etc were among the factors determining that, but even at that level stuff like pilot quality, tactics, maintenance, fuel quality were usually more important; again given same ballpark of paper air combat performance.

Paper air combat performance (as in small speed, climb etc differences) is what's *WAY, WAY* overrated, again if trying to understand air war history, a/c not some technical discussion for its own sake. IMHO.

Re: F-51 in Korea it wasn't "politics" but expediency given the FEAF's familiarity, spare parts supply and even small number, 47, of F-51's still on hand in the FEAF in Japan though not in operational units; plus larger number of active F-51's (active here means not in storage) on the US West Coast.
From an original USAF document the inventory of F-47's and F-51's June 30 1950 was as follows:
USAF: F-51's active: 99, inactive: 798, total: 897
F-47's active: 79, inactive: 771, total: 850

Air National Guard: F-51's active: 907, inactive: 0, total 907
F-47's active: 498, inactive: 1, total: 499

Total F-51's active: 1006, inactive: 798 , total: 1,804
F-47's active:577, inactive: 772 , total: 1,349

The F-51 was not rapidly replaced in Korea. Some to all sdns of the FEAF's 8th, 18th and 39th FG's converted from F-80C's back to F-51D's in summer '50 after the war broke out. The 8th went back to all F-80 after the MiG threat emerged from late '50, 39th did leave the theater in '51 corresponding to F-84 build up, but the 18th flew F-51's till the end of 1952 when it converted to F-86F's.

Joe

Vought received a Navy request for a production aircraft proposal in Nov. !940. I believe they were convinced they had a winner then. The early P47 had only a 900 mile yardstick range on internal fuel whereas the first production F4Us had a yardstick range of 1500 miles on internal fuel. Given the superior performance of the Corsair in almost every category, if Republic had been obliged to manufacture an AAF version of the F4U there would have been a longer ranged escort fighter available earlier in the war. Imagine what kind of performance an AAF version of the F4U would have had when Republic deleted the folding wings, the tail hook and other extraneous shipboard requirements which added weight to the Corsair. Possibly the AAF version could have been turbocharged. Vought experimented with turbocharging the Navy Corsair. The Corsair did have a number of teething problems that were primarily a problem in executing carrier landings. They would not have precluded it from operating with the AAF. Not withstanding those problems the F4U got into action several months before the P47.

The P47's (B Model) were in combat by Oct 1942, a full 1/2 year before the Corsair. Plus while the P47 had its share of teething problems in its prototype stage, it never had the problem the F4U had with green pilots.

I also haven't seen any references for the F4U-1 fuel figures of 1500 miles.

In 1941, no one could have predicted which plane would have been better because one was designed for carrier ops, the other for land based operations at high altitude.

It wasnt untill towards the end of the war when the latest models of the Corsair started to perform better than the P47's. But by then, the P47 was flying ground attack missions and its superior firepower made it better in that role than the Corsair.

The P47 even has song about it. The F4U doesnt.

Johnny Come Lately
by Steve Earle

I'm an American, boys, and I've come a long way
I was born and bred in the USA
So listen up close, I've get something to say
Boys, I'm buying this round
Well it took a Iittke while but we're in this fight
And we ain't going home 'til we've done what's right
We're gonna drink Camden Town dry tonight
If I have to spend my last pound
When I first got to London it was pourin' down rain
Met a Iittle girl in the field canteen
Painted her name on the nose of my plane
Six more missions I'm gene
Well I asked if I could stay and she said that I might
Then the warden came around yelling "turn out the lights"
Death rainin' out of the London night
We made love 'til dawn

But when Johnny Come Lately comes marching home
With a chest full of medals and a G.l. loan
They'll be waitin' at the station down in San Antone
When Johnny comes marching home

MY P-47 is a pretty good ship
And she took a round coming cross the Channel last trip
I was thinking 'bout my baby and letting her rip
Always got me through so far
Well they can ship me all over this great big world
But I'll never find nothing like my North End girl
I'm taking her home whh me one day, sir
Soon as we win this war

Now my granddaddy sang me this song
Told me about Londen when the Blitz was on
How he married Grandma and brought her back home
A hero throughout his land
Now I'm standing on a runway in San Diego
A couple Purple Hearts and I move a little slow
There's nobody here, maybe nobody knows
About a place called Vietnam

"I also haven't seen any references for the F4U-1 fuel figures of 1500 miles."

I have seen the 1,500 mile range figure. It is with one 150 gallon external fuel tank.
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f4u/f4u-1d-acp.pdf

That's about 1,000lbs of fuel by the way.

For performance charts of the late model F4U-1 and P-47D see the thread further down this forum with a title on the subject of the late war F4U-1 and P-47D.
-------------------------------------


See Section B on page 3 for a comparison of the early F4U-1 and P-47C. (I have summarized it below)
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f4u/f4u-1-02296.pdf



The F4U-1 has a better rate of climb at 5,000ft but at 10,000ft, they are equal with the P-47 improving therafter and having the best rate of climb at 25,000ft.

The F4U-1 has better initial acceleration but the P-47C quickly catches up and passes it.

P-47C has higher speed in level flight at 22,000ft.

F4U-1 has best level flight radius of turn.

Both have equal roll rates in level flight but in a dive, at 300mph, the P-47C is better and remains better as speed increases.

F4U-1 has better initial zoom but P-47C catches up with the resulting same gain in altitude.

F4U-1 noses over more sharply from level flight at high speed but the P-47C quickly out dives the F4U-1.

The F4U-1 is better for close in fighting.

The time required for maintenance of the F4U-1 is greater than for any other Army Air Force fighter plane. A laundry list of maintenance problems and items prone to breaking is then listed from A through K. The report concludes with, "In general, the airplane is unsatisfactory for service and maintenance work."

He claimed it was on internal fuel.

Give the P47 an external tank and it's range improves quite a bit.

Also look at how the F4U-1 was superior to some aspects of the P47C but not all. If you want to fight at 30,000 ft, use the P47. If you want low and mid altitudes, use the F4U.

There really is not one thing to be gained by the AAF in 1941/42/43/44 by using the F4U.

Some data for late war F4U-1 and P-47D:

Climb at S/L - 3,100fpm (Corsair) 3,150fpm (Thunderbolt)

Climb at 10,000ft. - 2,975fpm (Corsair) 3,050fpm (Thunderbolt)

Climb at 15,000ft. - 2,700fpm (Corsair) 2,900fpm (Thunderbolt)

Climb at 20,000ft. - 2,250fpm (Corsair) 2,650fpm (Thunderbolt)

Max Speed at S/L - 353mph (Corsair) 340 mph (Thunderbolt)

Max Speed at 20,000ft. - 405mph (Corsair) 415 mph (Thunderbolt)


The F4U-1 can pull 2,000hp as high as 19,000ft. After that it begins to steadily drop off. At 25,000ft, it's pulling 1,500hp. The P-47D could pull it's full 2,535hp well beyond 25,000ft.

"If you want to fight at 30,000 ft, use the P47. If you want low and mid altitudes, use the F4U."

I think the F4U-1 loses it's lower altitude advantage well shy of 30,000ft. More like 20,000ft.

The F4U1,1A and 1C carried 361 gallons of internal fuel.

I recall that they carried about 235 gallons internally.

I would like to see backup on P47B operations in Oct. 42. My data shows the first operational mission was on March 10, 1943. 14 P47s and 12 Spits over France. This was the 4th fighter group and some of the 4th pilots refused to fly the P47. "There are crashes, dead stick landings, mid-air fires, bailouts and gear collapses on the runway. Some pilots die in operational accidents. On this first sweep radio interference problems are encountered. Plane to plane communication is impossible." The first official operation with the 8th air force is on April 8, 1943. The Corsair's first operational mission was on Fe. 14, 1943.

The F4U1s until the F4U1D had wing as well as fuselage tanks. My data has the pilots manual for the P47B,C,G and early Ds showing a time to climb to 20000 feet with Mil power of approx. 12 minutes. The F4U1 could do the same with Mil. power in approx. 9 min.

"My data has the pilots manual for the P47B,C,G and early Ds showing a time to climb to 20000 feet with Mil power of approx. 12 minutes."

This is inconsistent with the following June 18, 1942 test on P-47B aircraft No. 41-5902.

P-47B Performance Test

In have the same manual. I see the data you are referencing and do not know how to reconcile except that it appears inconsistent both with the comparison between the P-47C / F4U-1 and the report on the specific aircraft linked above.

I do think the F4U-1 had a low altitude advantage that below 7,500ft was probably enormous. That low altitude advantage of the F4U-1 is enough to shave a considerable amount off the 0-20,000ft figure when compared to the Thunderbolt. Of course, a considerable advantage in climb below 7,500ft is of no value when fighting between 18,000 and 26,000ft. Put differently, if the climb advantage is extinguished well below 18,000ft, what's the value of factoring in that quick sprint up to 7,500ft? (Yes, I know that if you are an interceptor, the time to altitude can be critical in meeting the threat.)

I don't think anyone is arguing that below 20,000ft the P-47 is superior. Above 20,000ft is another story though. 20,000ft on up is a big space within which the F4U-1 just wasn't designed to and did not excel.

The Joint Fighter Report commented that above 25,000ft, the P-51 was no longer the P-47's superior either for that matter.

In fact, in ranking the "Best all around fighter above 25,000ft" the votes tallied as follows:

1) P-47 (45% of the vote)
2) P-51 (39% of the vote)
3) F4U-1 (7% of the vote)
4) F6F (3% of the vote)

The Joint Fighter Report, it should be noted, was biased heavily in favor of naval fighters. And even so, the F4U-1 mad a very poor showing in the above 25,000ft category.

To be fair though, it compared late war models of the above four fighters. I realize you are discussing early war variants so perhaps I have strayed somewhat.