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

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

Jon, thanks for the info.

Reason I asked is I thought I remembered seeing some of those WW2 drawings used for training aids, that mentioned "rolling" into the direction of the prop in a shallow dive. According to the prints, it would allow a Jug to get on the tail of a more maneuverable opponent.
 
Reply to all >>>
OK No more blue font.

Reply to DerAdlerIstGelandet >>>
If you are referring the chart, due to Zeno's logo appearing, marketing, please be assured, they are not from, nor altered for a simulator, they are from the 1943 Republic/AAF film, available through Zeno's flight shop (www.zenoswarbirdviedos.com). Oh, if this is the case, please disregard the below. If the above has nothing to do with what you were asking, please continue…

I answered Syscom3 with information based on my review of the pilot's manual training films. I then offered an opinion based on experience, qualifying the experience as a highly modified CFS-2 game experience before the rendering.

By doing this, I've somehow managed to 'lower the value' of all I've posted? How? I've only been forthcoming with regard to the source/s of any of my data or calculations, the methods I've used to assimilate them, to a crowd whose scrutiny is aided by an attendance of 'real' pilots. I produced a fighter comparison table with this data; as I've applied tweaks to my installation of CFS-2 with this data.

As for my opinions, unless stated otherwise, such as the CFS-2 qualification before rendering my opinion on torque effects, they are usually based on, supported by info data acquired outside CFS-2, again offered to a crowd whose scrutiny is aided by an attendance of 'real' pilots, regardless of my basis.

DerAdlerIstGelandet, it's OK with me that you do not agree on this, as it is CFS-2 generated, even if it's my CFS-2, so it's junk to you; OK. Just don't associate everything else I've posted with a single opinion clearly distinguished as being junk before it was conveyed.

Reply to Syscom3 >>>
I did not see this in the films of this training set, but I imagine this to be more successful used in a shallow climb than a dive.
 

That's becuase you're using P factor to you're advantage..
 
I wonder if that f4u-4 table is after wwII. It lists the military and war emergency horsepower at 2,800. I know the f4u-4 didn't have as high of horsepower as the P-47N. Something is fishy.

accepting the table though, At 26,000 feet and War emergency power, she's only pulling 2,080 horsepower though and the P-47N can pull 2,800 horsepower at 32,000 feet. There's a big power disavantage to the F4u-4 when up high.
 

That table is a little hard to read, I think that what you are looking at is RPM.

BHP at sea level using WEP was 2450

The advantage of the P-47 Turbocharger was the ability to maintain BHP from sea level to its ceiling.
 
The bottom line seems that while the P.47 was a terrific aircraft, it was the Corsair that continued on in service for years afterwards.......
 
The thing about the 'Bolt is that by the end of WWII it would have been obsolete to fight after WWII for the design was at the limit of its technological evolution where as the Corsair had much to improve on it. The latter versions of the Corsair had almost nothing in common with thier WWII parents.

Also the corsair was not built as a high altitude fighter for the fighting it was involved did not call for it.

On top of that supposedly a Corsair shot down a Mig in Korea!
 
"On 9 September 1952 a MiG-15 made the mistake of getting into a turning contest with a Corsair piloted by Captain Jesse G. Folmar, with Folmar shooting the MiG down with his four 20 millimeter cannon. The MiG's wingmates quickly had their revenge, shooting down Folmar, though he bailed out and was quickly rescued with little injury."
 
The Thunderbolt wasn't obsolete as a design. It went on to evolve into the XP-47J and XP-72 that performed at the very edge of propeler driven capability (aproximatekty 500mph top speed).

By the end of the war, all prop fighters were obsolet - even the Corsair. It only lived on because it was carrier capable.

The shooting star could outperform any prop fighter and soon afterwards there was the Cougar (Navy) and sabre (Air Force).
 
True, but these versions of the 'Bolt were nothing but rehashed '30s tech. I know the Corsair was '40s tech but like you said the Corsair was more versatile because of its carrier capabilities. Also the P-47 in the post-war economy was either withdrawn, sold to foriegn countries or sent to NG units until they could get P-51s.

But I disagree as far as being obsolete. Prop jobs could get into places, especially in the air support role that jets could not. Looks at the Corsair during the Chosin Resivoir retreat or the Skyraider in both Korea and 'Nam. While the fast movers were great, low and slow sometimes is better. Look at the A-10.

:{)
 
XP-72 and XP-47J were rehashed 30's tech? Not sure I understand. The Corsair was developed in response to a Navy sped request in 1938. The first plane flew in 1940. The Thunderbolt was developed in response to a AAF spec request in 1939 and first flew in 1941.

The P-51 was a lot cheaper to churn out and a lot easier on the gas mileage.

I agree with you. I meant that prop driven planes were bsolete as fighters. Air to air was now the jurisdictyion of jets. The skyraider (close air support) is an excellent example of where prop driven planes still were best.
 
The P-47 was really the culmination of Seversky designs which by the war's end were really obsolete, more so than the Corsiar. Even the XP-72 and XP-47J were really offshoots of this technology with new gizmos to make them competitive in the aviation market. Republic saw the writing on the wall and tried to make thier product better for the post-war military. That is why the F-84 Thunderstreak was so important for thier survival. But I think the Flying Boxcar served them better in the longrun.

:{)
 
The XP-72 and XP-47J are proof that the P-47 wasnt at the end of its design potential. You can say that any evolutionary change is an offshoot. The Thunderblt was no more obsolete than the Corsair at war's end and in fact, the thunderbolt had more design potential left as evoidenced by the XP-72 and XP-47J.

Can you explain why you feel that at the war's end, the Thunderbolt in its M and N model configurations had less potential than the f4u-4?

The Corsair lived on due to it's carrier capability and the fact that high altitude escort duty was no longer an efficient role for prop driven planes due to teh advent of jets. At low to medium altitudes, the advantages of the Thundetbolt coiuldn't be realized.
 
You just answered your own question. I think we are saying the same things from the opposite sides of the street.

:{)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)

Similar threads

O
Navy Corsair vs P-51B Climb Test, March 1944
2 3
Replies
48
Views
10K
Peter Gunn
M
German Test Pilot Evaluation of an F4U-1A
Replies
14
Views
1K
yosimitesam
N
How capable was the Ki-44?
4 5 6
Replies
105
Views
10K
Irregualr23
I
Why was it?
2
Replies
27
Views
6K
nuuumannn
O
F4U-4 Corsair contribution in WW2
2
Replies
32
Views
7K
nuuumannn
Menu
Log in
Register