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

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules


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.
 
renrich said:
Wonder how many Hellcats are still flying?
Click to expand...
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
 
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!
 
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.
 

Last year at Chino, we had a bunch of Grummans up in the air.
 
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.
 
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
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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.
Sal Monella said:
I believe the skin on the Thunderbolt was thicker than on the Corsair. Didn't the Corsair have some fabric covered surfaces?
Click to expand...
 
It's possible they measured a D with a Hamilton Standard prop and the N with the curtis Electric.
 
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.
 

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.
 

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.
 
Last edited:
Dcazz7606 said:
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!
Click to expand...
No worries!
davparlr said:
Do you realize we are getting old!!!!
Click to expand...


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"
 
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

O
F4U-4 Corsair contribution in WW2
2
Replies
32
Views
4K
nuuumannn
S
Spitfire vs. Dora mass battle
2
Replies
31
Views
2K
spicmart
S
Vickers Wellington vs. Warwick
Replies
6
Views
530
SaparotRob
A
Italy VS USA: Different ways to improve the P-35
Replies
14
Views
2K
Jugman
J
J
P-47D Thunderbolt, 'The Madam', 387th FS, 365th FG
Replies
2
Views
714
JulianHale
J
Menu
Log in
Register