P-51 Mustang or F4U Corsair (1 Viewer)

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

elmilitaro

Senior Airman
384
2
May 12, 2005
Texas
Hey guys, which would ypu argue as the better plane in your eyes.
 
Long range Escort P-51. Anything else F4U-4, the 1D model is about equal in some ways but with less speed, less load capacity and less range.

wmaxt
 
Is both a good answer? I'd give the mustang the looks award and give the corsair the edge on performance.
 
syscom3 said:
The P51 had better pilot visibility.

F4U could pretty much open the throttle and no care who was behind ;)

I think I'd take the F4U if it's my butt on the line, they are pretty tough, might be a tad tricky to fly though, landing one on a carrier would be 'interesting' to say the least!
 
Aggie08 said:
Is both a good answer? I'd give the mustang the looks award and give the corsair the edge on performance.
IMO, the Corsair takes the looks category and performance.
It was a tough mother that was as at home melting out hurt to Japanese ground troops as it was chopping up enemy fighters.

R988 said:
...might be a tad tricky to fly though, landing one on a carrier would be 'interesting' to say the least!
In the beginning it was, but this was eventually dealt with. Modifications to the landing gear and British carrier experience with the Corsair helped to ease the difficulty.
 
Hi !!!

R988 said:
F4U could pretty much open the throttle and no care who was behind ;)

It is not true.I agree with Syscom3.The pilot visibility during a dogfight has a significant meaning.We should remember that in WW2 fighter attacks were mostly carried out from the Sun and others unexpected directions.Therefore,a pilot who wanted to avoid an enemy attack, should notice it as much as possible using his own eyes.Besides,speed of a nose-diving plane increased, so a target could avoid an attack if it could be faster at once and in significant value.If not,the pilot of a target aircraft had to see in advance that he was attacked.Without a visibility it wasn't possible.
 
Two fine warbirds. My comment of interest which probably, has no significance to the argument, is that the P-51 and the F4U actually fought against each other in combat. In 1969, in the "World Cup War", El Salvador and Honduras used both P-51 (albeit, the Cavalier P-51s with jury rigged gunsights) and F4U in combat. It seems an F4U shot down a P-51, but the same pilot then went on and shot down two F4Us, which tells more about the pilot than the capibility of the aircraft. An F4U was shot down by a T-28, which says,..... what??
 
davparlr said:
Two fine warbirds. My comment of interest which probably, has no significance to the argument, is that the P-51 and the F4U actually fought against each other in combat. In 1969, in the "World Cup War", El Salvador and Honduras used both P-51 (albeit, the Cavalier P-51s with jury rigged gunsights) and F4U in combat. It seems an F4U shot down a P-51, but the same pilot then went on and shot down two F4Us, which tells more about the pilot than the capibility of the aircraft. An F4U was shot down by a T-28, which says,..... what??
Col. Soto of the HAF got 3 aircraft.

My old neighbor gave him combat training, here's his plane...

corsair1.jpg


Here's a Bio...http://www.au.af.mil/au/goe/eaglebios/98bios/soto98.htm
 
Well at least this isn't the bogus "which one could 'out dogfight' the other?" sillyness I've seen people taking seriously around here. I like both these planes depending on the mood I'm in. I'd certinly defend either as excellent due to their combat histories. And as the Air Force and Navy have laid down the requirements that make sense I'd go with- The P-51 in combat over land masses and the F4U for use over water against any enemy of the era.
fwani.gif
 
F4U Corsair all the way.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back