P-47N Thunderbolt vs. F4U-4 Corsair - Which was superior?

[davparlr]

Don't know where to post this but guess I will here. Played golf today at Antelope Hills muny here in Prescott, AZ. The two courses there are next to the airport. Teed off on number one of the south course about 12:00 noon. Was ready to hit my second shot on the par five when I heard the sound of a big round engine. Looked toward the airport and here came one after the other two F6F Hellcats. They were both in the Navy blue color and after coming off the runway, climbed steeply and made a left turn to the North. I have seen Hellcats in a static display and one flying at an airshow but don't recall ever seeing two together at once. Quite a thrill and I expect I will never see the like again. Wonder how many Hellcats are still flying?

It is always a thrill to see some of the old birds flying when you don't expect it. You should try to get to the Chino airshow in the spring. Last year, 2009, they had Grumman planes flying. You would have love it.

As for golf and aircraft, I was golfing the other day at Victoria course in Carson, Ca. and right over us the Goodyear Blimp came in for landing. I could have chipped up to hit it. Its landing field is right next to the hole. I remember seeing a blimp in the 50s at Pensacola NAS when I was a kid.

 

[Colin1]

Wonder how many Hellcats are still flying?

As of 2000
there are (were) 23 extant F6Fs

9 airworthy
14 static display incl 1 replica and a composite

all 9 in the same airspace would be a spectacle, the drone of 9 R-2800s in formation... 8)

I don't have any information any more up to date than that

 

[KevinK.]

Well, I've read about 2/3's the pages here, and skimmed the rest.

They both seem very close in combat. Again, High alt, vs. low-mid alt. I think it becomes more pilot skill which determines who is better. Or maybe it's more preference for the pilots.

How about looking at kill ratio's?
Near the end of the war they both faced fewer and fewer targets and got to do more and more ground attack roles. Looking at the the posting by Colin1, it shows the P-47N having a bomb load of 3000 lbs. Didn't the F4U-4 carry a larger payload of 4,000 lbs?

The F4U was a much cooler looking plane. It even had a TV show about it! Can't get much better than that.

Btw.. the XP-72, looks like a fat and rolly-polly P-51.

Great reading guys!

 

[renrich]

Thanks Colin. The three guys I was playing with, of course, hadn't a clue about what they were seeing, so I had to educate them, I was guessing that about twenty were air worthy and I told them that they were seeing perhaps ten per cent of the Hellcats left in the world that could still fly. Had no idea it was closer to twenty per cent. Speaking of engines, the second one that took off had an engine which sounded different from the first. A litle less staccato or more muffled. Perhaps one was an F6F3 and the other an F6F5? I am still marveling at seeing two together at once, considering how few are left.

 

[syscom3]

As of 2000
there are (were) 23 extant F6Fs

9 airworthy
14 static display incl 1 replica and a composite

all 9 in the same airspace would be a spectacle, the drone of 9 R-2800s in formation... 8)

I don't have any information any more up to date than that

Last year at Chino, we had a bunch of Grummans up in the air.

 

[Colin1]

Last year at Chino, we had a bunch of Grummans up in the air.

A bunch of any Grummans works for me
How many were F6Fs though?

 

[Colin1]

I was going to do a joint collaboration w/Jeff Ethell to do the 'Opus' of 8th Fighter Command but he screwed it up when he stalled that P-38 on final.. good guy. I had known him from time his father was a squadron CO when dad had the 35th FBW and we were all in Japan together from 1948 to the time he passed on us.

Bill
I think Roger reported on data that he did have access to, at least, in the texts of his that I own. I understand your concern with error, it is the unwelcome bedfellow to any form of complex research.

Jeff Ethell, as I recall, had a father on P-38s and like you with your own father, he completed some works on the P-38. He was an accomplished pilot in his own right, became an ordained minister and though I don't now recall the year of his flying accident, was saddened by his passing.

 

[renrich]

Colin, I was not saying the data you posted on the P47s was in error but rather that many people, including myself in the past, will look at data and take the extremes and think they all happen at the same time. An Example: off the top of my head---F4U4, Vmax- 446 mph, rate of climb- 3800 feet per minute, max bomb load-4000 pounds, max range with external fuel 1500 miles. Wow, that is a winner and I am impressed and what fighter in WW2 could do better?

Not so fast. An F4U4 can't climb at 3800 FPM with external tanks or go 446 MPH either. That 446 MPH is clean and only at it's critical altitude. And the 3800 FPM is only at sea level or so. Much less with a 4000 pound bomb load and I am not sure if anybody except Lindberg actually flew a mission in WW2 in a Corsair with a 4000 pound bomb load and he probably only flew a hundred or so miles with it.

 

[Colin1]

Colin, I was not saying the data you posted on the P47s was in error but rather that many people, including myself in the past, will look at data and take the extremes and think they all happen at the same time. An Example: off the top of my head---F4U4, Vmax- 446 mph, rate of climb- 3800 feet per minute, max bomb load-4000 pounds, max range with external fuel 1500 miles. Wow, that is a winner and I am impressed and what fighter in WW2 could do better?

Not so fast. An F4U4 can't climb at 3800 FPM with external tanks or go 446 MPH either. That 446 MPH is clean and only at it's critical altitude. And the 3800 FPM is only at sea level or so. Much less with a 4000 pound bomb load and I am not sure if anybody except Lindberg actually flew a mission in WW2 in a Corsair with a 4000 pound bomb load and he probably only flew a hundred or so miles with it.

Ren
not a problem, you're entitled to disagree where you see fit but I thought I understood your response anyway. My guess would be that each performance figure is attained with the a/c optimised for best performance in that measurement category ie as you say, rate of climb measured with a/c NOT strapped to a 4,000lb bomb...

Dav's response mystified me a bit with no qualifier for said response

 

[syscom3]

A bunch of any Grummans works for me
How many were F6Fs though?

I'm going to say three.

 

[renrich]

I had an uncle who was an instructor pilot in the AAF in WW2. He flew P39s and P47s and probably others. He said that when they went to the gulf coast to pracitse gunnery in P47s they would often meet Corsairs im mock dogfights and had no chance. Now I am sure this was at low altitudes. Depending on the model, the Corsair was at it's best up tp to 20000- 25000 feet. Above that altitude the P47 would begin to establish supremacy. Richard Linnnekin in " 80 Knots to Mach Two" stated that a well handled SB2C could hold its own with a P47 at low altitudes.The WW2 Corsair was designed to have max performance below 25000 feet and the P47 above that. My guess is that of all ACM that took place in WW2, ETO or PTO, the majority was under 25000 feet. It seems to me that if I was the Czar of fighters for any country and could only pick one fighter to produce and I had to choose betwen one that was superb from SL to 25000 feet and only so so above that or one that was so so from SL to 25000 feet and superb from 25000 to 30000 plus, my choice would be simple.

 

[Dcazz7606]

I believe I read that there was a lot of tack welding on the skin of the Corsair as opposed to screws on the P-47. This could account for a stronger joining of the frame to the skin As I recall the article chance-Vought pioneered this method. can't remember the publication though.

I believe the skin on the Thunderbolt was thicker than on the Corsair. Didn't the Corsair have some fabric covered surfaces?

 

[Dcazz7606]

It's possible they measured a D with a Hamilton Standard prop and the N with the curtis Electric.

Reply to Sal Monella >>>
There was a slight difference.
Combat weight: Suppose for the moment we change 47 to 51 so that it is now a P-51D against a P-47N. Using your argument (of both aircraft fulfillng the same role, you would not use a far larger and heavier fuel load in only one aircraft and since it would be impossible to load up the "D" with internal fuel to match the "N", you must do the reverse or reduce the internal fuel load of the "N" to match the "D".) you feel it fair to apply yet another advantage to the '47N. I think not. Rather start at combat weight. Too much fuel, OK, the lets put both fighters at 50% fuel. This to me seems more rational, fair.

2": I can not 'quickly' find reference as to why there is a 2" discrepancy in the data between P-47D N lengths. You may be correct, they may indeed be typos. My memory; however seems to tell me that it was done to reset CG due to the increased mass behind CG of the wheels. However I repeat, unlike the 8" extension between B C, where documents are easy to find, I can not find a document with a reason. Wish I could ask Alexander Kartveli.

Reply to all >>> I'm not getting into another sim debate here...

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Dcazz - you realize you answered 6 year old posts?!?

You are right about the welding though - it was actually spot welding and it was also done on the Kingfisher.

 

[Dcazz7606]

You know, I didn't even look! Lol! I just love the p-47 and saw a couple of points I could add to! Lol!

 

[davparlr]

Dcazz - you realize you answered 6 year old posts?!?

You are right about the welding though - it was actually spot welding and it was also done on the Kingfisher.

Do you realize we are getting old!!!!

 

[drgondog]

Bill
I think Roger reported on data that he did have access to, at least, in the texts of his that I own. I understand your concern with error, it is the unwelcome bedfellow to any form of complex research.

Jeff Ethell, as I recall, had a father on P-38s and like you with your own father, he completed some works on the P-38. He was an accomplished pilot in his own right, became an ordained minister and though I don't now recall the year of his flying accident, was saddened by his passing.

Irv Ethell was a squadron CO in the 35th FBW post war in Japan when my father commanded the Group - which is how the Ethell's and the Marshall's connected. I don't know if Irv flew 38s in WWII or whether he was with 35th when it moved to Japan - The 35th started in P-39s, went to 38's and converted to 47s in mid 1943, then 51s in March 45 - and stayed with them until F-84s in 1952.

As to errors - I have no criticism for Freeman. I know how much research and cross correlation goes into just one Group history in the 8th AF. It is a little easier today, but doing a group by group detailed history of just 8th FC is an awesome task for two people if you dive into a/c serial numbers/crew assignments. And then there is the commercial 'thingy'. I wanted deep dive, Jeff wanted "Escort to Berlin" detail so we weren't far off but so many Group/Squadron Histories were 'spotty' in contrast to 4th and 355th.

 

[drgondog]

I believe I read that there was a lot of tack welding on the skin of the Corsair as opposed to screws on the P-47. This could account for a stronger joining of the frame to the skin As I recall the article chance-Vought pioneered this method. can't remember the publication though.

If tack welding on skin was common, it could not have been performed for panel load shear transfer... rivet to bulkhead and beam has very predictible and sound engineering principles behind the approach - as well as better opportunity for QA/inspection. Spacing and shank thickness has to be uniform and matched to both the shear capability of the skin and well as individual shear capability for the rivet. Welding skin on the aerodynamic surface skin of an airplane would be a nightmare on a production line.

Secondly - it had to be out of the boundary layer - else create unneccesary drag compared to flush riveting and require enormous labor to grind ...perhaps internal application of welding?

Last - either welding steel (say for engine truss/beam), or 6064 type aluminum - which is way below 2024 for strength.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

You know, I didn't even look! Lol! I just love the p-47 and saw a couple of points I could add to! Lol!

No worries!

Do you realize we are getting old!!!!

If tack welding on skin was common, it could not have been performed for panel load shear transfer... rivet to bulkhead and beam has very predictible and sound engineering principles behind the approach - as well as better opportunity for QA/inspection. Spacing and shank thickness has to be uniform and matched to both the shear capability of the skin and well as individual shear capability for the rivet. Welding skin on the aerodynamic surface skin of an airplane would be a nightmare on a production line.

Secondly - it had to be out of the boundary layer - else create unneccesary drag compared to flush riveting and require enormous labor to grind ...perhaps internal application of welding?

Last - either welding steel (say for engine truss/beam), or 6064 type aluminum - which is way below 2024 for strength.

All true Bill - if I remember most of the spot welding was accomplished in portions of the airframe that was taking a direct load. I believe in some cases the spot welding was later reinforced with rivets outside the welded areas. When I was in A&P school I had to write a 100 page report about welding, I remember using this as "filler"

 

[Barrett]

Actually, the Jug's eight .50s to the Corsair's six was not a factor. Combat experience showed that in Europe, and especially in the Pacific, four M2 Brownings was the optimum armament. It's why the FM-2 "Wilder Wildcat reverted to the four guns of the early F4F-3. Six .50s in the dash four Wildcat meant a lot less trigger time.