Inline engines couldn't take much of a beating, whereas the Corsair (and all other planes with R-2800 and probably some other radials too) could lose a few cylinders and still get home. Not only that, but the Corsair was a lot better ground attack aircraft, and lastly, it operated from carriers.
I'd put the P-47 befor the P-51 as well, for the same reasons, except for the landing on carriers bit.
I will sadly admit that the Mustang was good fighter (and now is a good plane), it may slightly edge out the Corsair as a better fighter too, but it isn't nearly as good of a ground attack plane. Finally, it was ugly
I will say one thing about the Mustang, simply because I'm a Spitfire lover and this little phrase (by a Mustang pilot mind you!) tickled my funny bone:
"A Mustang won't do what a Spitfire will do, but it will do it over Berlin"
about archers comment that stangs are ugly.....they arnt even close to ugly,corsairs look better i think but mustangs look awsome too,exsept the early models with a closed canopy,i like them better with the bubble.
mustangs were a lot better than corsairs because of the rasnge that they had, and thier ability to take air supremisy from the germans shortly after they entered the war. not to mention thier ability to take hits and still survive.
Viper: That little smilie afterwards meant I was joking Mustangs aren't all that ugly, just uglier than Corsair, Thunderbolts, Spitfires, Yak-3s, and probably a few more, IMO.
Guest: Don't forget few Corsairs fought in Europe, all that I know of being from Royal Navy carriers. Yes, Mustangs had an extra 150 mile range or so, but they couldn't land on carriers Mustangs also couldn't take much damage to their engines, no inline engine could take much damage. Lastly, they were flown by the USAAF and not the USN and USMC, which has an adverse effect on how good they are