Seafury vs F4U-4. Which is better?

Discussion in 'Aviation' started by syscom3, May 7, 2006.

  1. syscom3

    syscom3 Pacific Historian

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2005
    Messages:
    12,631
    Likes Received:
    309
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Orange County, CA
    Lets hear your opinions on these two legendary warbirds.
     
  2. red admiral

    red admiral Member

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2005
    Messages:
    479
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    18
    The Hawker Sea Fury is undoubtedly superior.

    Faster, more maneuverable, better armed, better visibility, has a floor to the cockpit, much prettier.
     
  3. Glider

    Glider Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2005
    Messages:
    6,160
    Likes Received:
    128
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Consellor
    Location:
    Lincolnshire
    Have to second that
     
  4. Jank

    Jank Member

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2005
    Messages:
    679
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Sea Fury prototype flew in Feb 1945 and unlike the F4U-4, was never operational prior to the Japanese surrender.

    Why don't we compare it to the F4U-5 or the F2G?
     
  5. syscom3

    syscom3 Pacific Historian

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2005
    Messages:
    12,631
    Likes Received:
    309
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Orange County, CA
    Fair enough, compare it to the F4U-5.
     
  6. red admiral

    red admiral Member

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2005
    Messages:
    479
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    18
    The F4U-5 gets faster and has more pilot comfort. I'd still take the Sea Fury.

    Interestingly I found this opinion on the -5

    "Engineering improvements that weren't

    I've flown the F4U-4 Corsair. It was a good airplane. I've also flown the later model F4U-5-it was no F4U-4!

    I flew the F4U-4 in flight training, and when I received my "Wings of Gold" in August of 1950, I was immediately assigned to the VF-14 Tophatters based in Jacksonville, Florida and flew the F4U-5. I found the F4U-5 heavier and more dangerous than the F4U-4, primarily because of several "improvements" that were at best ineffective and at worst dangerous.

    The F4U-5, a 1945 design modification of the F4U-4, was intended to increase the F4U-4 Corsair's overall per formance and incorporate many earlier Corsair pilots' suggestions. It featured a more powerful 2,300hp engine with a fully automatic two-stage supercharger. Other "improvements" were electrical trim control, automatic cowl flaps, a gyroscopic lead-computing gunsight and other automatic functions. These and other changes made the F4U-5 500 pounds heavier than the F4U-4. "
     
  7. Gnomey

    Gnomey World Travelling Doctor
    Staff Member Moderator

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2004
    Messages:
    41,770
    Likes Received:
    518
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Doctor
    Location:
    Portsmouth / Royal Deeside, UK
    Home Page:
    I would take the Sea Fury for the reasons stated by red admiral.
     
  8. elmilitaro

    elmilitaro Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2005
    Messages:
    404
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Occupation:
    College student (getting PhD)
    Location:
    Texas
    Agree to that also.
     
  9. SM79Sparviero

    SM79Sparviero Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2005
    Messages:
    80
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    6
    Location:
    Culqualber
    Sea Fury handling and performances were superlative ( a "jet with propeller" according to the pilots)but its Centaurus engine had a very high fuel consumption. It is an important parameter for a naval fighter.A low fuel consumption was one of the best advantages of Mitsubishi Zero.
     
  10. syscom3

    syscom3 Pacific Historian

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2005
    Messages:
    12,631
    Likes Received:
    309
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Orange County, CA
    The only thing Ive seen negative about the Sea Fury was its range.

    But even still, with external fuel tanks, it was still adaquet
     
  11. Twitch

    Twitch Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2006
    Messages:
    809
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Occupation:
    historical combat aviation writer
    Location:
    City of the Angels California
    As far as I'm concerned they're a draw. Neither has any points of performance that are staggeringly superior to the other. [​IMG]
     
  12. red admiral

    red admiral Member

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2005
    Messages:
    479
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Maybe not staggeringly better for the Sea Fury, but still better than F4U-4/5. It is the "better" aircraft, not by a massive amount, but still "better".
     
  13. Jank

    Jank Member

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2005
    Messages:
    679
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    18
    How would it have stacked up against the F2G?
     
  14. wmaxt

    wmaxt Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2004
    Messages:
    1,208
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Occupation:
    Engineer/Retired
    Location:
    Boise, Idaho
    Actually I'd go for the F4U-4

    Sea Fury - top Speed - 460mph
    F4U-4 --- top speed -- 460mph (without external racks) 446mph with
    Sea Fury - Climb ------ 2777ft/min
    Corsair --- climb ------ 3870ft/min (reports of 4.9min to 20,000ft at WEP)
    Sea Fury - range ------ 700mi internal
    Corsair --- range ------ 1015mi internal
    Sea Fury - ceiling ----- 35,800ft
    Corsair ---ceiling ------ 41,500ft
    Sea Fury - loading ----- 2,000lbs
    Corsair --- loading ----- 4,000lbs War time load outs of over 5,500lbs reported
    Sea Fury - Armament -- 4 x 20mm
    Corsair --- Armament -- 6 x .50s or 4 x 20mm
    Sea Fury - Horse power - 2,480hp
    Corsair --- Horse power - 2,450hp
    Sea Fury - empty wt ---- 9,240lbs
    Corsair --- empty wt ---- 9,206lbs
    Sea Fury - Gross wt ----- 12,500lbs
    Corsair --- Gross wt ----- 14,670lbs
    Sea Fury - wing area ---- 280sq/ft
    Corsair --- wing area ---- 314sq/ft

    As you can see the Corsair has it in all respects except possibly speed (wheather the Sea Fury speed is with/without external mounts). Equal power and more wing area gives the Corsair the edge in climb and should also give it an edge in turning. Climb and ceiling alone would give the edge to the Corsair in air to air encounters. However the more savy pilot could win in either aircraft.

    wmaxt
     
  15. syscom3

    syscom3 Pacific Historian

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2005
    Messages:
    12,631
    Likes Received:
    309
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Orange County, CA
    I wonder if the sea fury was the safer of the two planes when landing on a carrier.
     
  16. Soren

    Soren Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2005
    Messages:
    6,624
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    0
    At 70" Hg the F4U-4 climbed at 4,400 ft/min and would reach 20,000 ft in 5 min, and 30,000 ft in 7.6 min. The Sea-fury Mk.14 climbed at 4,320 ft/min, and could reportedly reach 24,000 ft in about 6 min.
     
  17. wmaxt

    wmaxt Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2004
    Messages:
    1,208
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Occupation:
    Engineer/Retired
    Location:
    Boise, Idaho
    I have seen the F4U-4 at 5min to 20,000ft but did not have a source/site handy, so I used readily available data on both aircraft. Do you have sources and sites, if so please post them for our education?

    wmaxt
     
  18. elmilitaro

    elmilitaro Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2005
    Messages:
    404
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Occupation:
    College student (getting PhD)
    Location:
    Texas
    nice info, wmaxt!:D Didn't know much of that.
     
  19. wmaxt

    wmaxt Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2004
    Messages:
    1,208
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Occupation:
    Engineer/Retired
    Location:
    Boise, Idaho
    Thanks,

    I hope Soren posts his data (hopefully test reports) because there are so many site that use METO as best performance instead of WEP or worse a mix of the two. I always want to see the best available data and flight test reports esp when there from two different sources, pilots, and aircraft are the best.

    wmaxt
     
  20. elmilitaro

    elmilitaro Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2005
    Messages:
    404
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Occupation:
    College student (getting PhD)
    Location:
    Texas
Loading...

Share This Page