Was the corsair as good a fighter as the spitfire or the FW?

[drgondog]

i'm sure that you known that 8th AF was the larger user of P-51 (Merlin), and also that FEAF never operated with Mustang (was disactived in feb '42), neither 11th AF used this in the WWII, and at moment we have none evidence that the others AF used 75" boost, also because the 72" and 75" boost need 100/150 grade fuel and we have no data when this was available out ETO.

The variability ot single fighter or of the single test need to take in the count so also few hundreds fpm on 4000 maybe simply variability

Vincenzo - I responded to "none evidence that the others AF used 75" boost, also because the 72" and 75" boost need 100/150 grade fuel and have no data this was available out ETO'.. did you mean 'outside' ETO?

Also not sure what you meant by FEAF never operated with Mustang? Tex Hill had victory credits ober Oscar and Damaged on a Tojo in 1943 while flying P-51A and over Hamps in P-51B in 1944 while flying with 23rd FG. The 23rd FG had P-51A's then P-51B's from late 1943 through the EOW.

The First Air Commando group flew P-51A, P-47 and P-51D from 1942 to end of war... CBI also.

 

[davparlr]

Actually graphs for the two test on B-15 appear the same, and a full read of report it's same test, the right data are i think that for 9335 lbs where is available the full report.

We don't know which one is correct on weight; however I tend to agree with you. If the tested weight was 9335 lbs, the climb values for the P-51B at a fighter weight of 9077 lbs (full wing tanks and ammo), would be the following:
SL 4460 ft/min
.9k 4530
2.9k 4450
5k 4230
10k 3375
Still very impressive for an aircraft that was operational in the Fall of '43 with only a fuel type change.

i'm sure that you known that 8th AF was the larger user of P-51 (Merlin), and also that FEAF never operated with Mustang (was disactived in feb '42), neither 11th AF used this in the WWII, and at moment we have none evidence that the others AF used 75" boost, also because the 72" and 75" boost need 100/150 grade fuel and we have no data when this was available out ETO.

Even in the 8th, I am sure 72" was a maintenance issue and not a performance one. I would be surprised if all the pilots did not know this and I am sure that the use of 75" was not necessarily frowned upon if it was done for a good reason, like chasing an enemy aircraft.

The variability ot single fighter or of the single test need to take in the count so also few hundreds fpm on 4000 maybe simply variability

But then one needs the variable data, which is typically calculated from several trials or test, otherwise it is just a guess.

 

[Juha]

Hello Vincenzo
my understanding is that those Mustangs that operated against Japan from Iwo used 100/150oct fuel and high manifold pressure.

Juha

 

[Vincenzo]

x Juha so we known that from april '45 the Mustang of 20th AF used 100/150 grade fuel, high 75 or 72?

x Davparl the weight of B-15 combat was 9210 lbs, the report tell that tested was 125 lbs over weight

x Drgondog, yes, simply because FEAF (Far east air force) was not active at time, and 23rd FG was a 14th AF group, similary also the 1st ACG was not a FEAF grop. if you interpreted FEAF as Far east air forces this included 5th AF, 13th AF and others that fightning in late war in SWP area, and yes the FEAFs used P-51, but units in your example were not in FEAFs

 

[drgondog]

x x Drgondog, yes, simply because FEAF (Far east air force) was not active at time, and 23rd FG was a 14th AF group, similary also the 1st ACG was not a FEAF grop. if you interpreted FEAF as Far east air forces this included 5th AF, 13th AF and others that fightning in late war in SWP area, and yes the FEAFs used P-51, but units in your example were not in FEAFs

Actually the Far East Air Force was the pre-war designation for the US Army Air Corps organization in the Phillipines - which was disbanded in Feb-March 1942. Although the pilots and crews were absorbed into the 5th AF it was not FEAF, or 14th, etc, etc. Why was FEAF even a reference for you when it was disbanded just as the RAF Mustangs flew their first combat missions in ETO. So, yes as FEAF was disbanded in April 1942, I interpreted your connection of P-51s to USAAF units in the Far East (PTO/CBI/SWP, etc) versus Aleutians, ETO, MTO, etc.

I guess i should ask you to clearly define what you mean before entering into a discussion

 

[Vincenzo]

Actually the Far East Air Force was the pre-war designation for the US Army Air Corps organization in the Phillipines - which was disbanded in Feb-March 1942. Although the pilots and crews were absorbed into the 5th AF it was not FEAF, or 14th, etc, etc. Why was FEAF even a reference for you when it was disbanded just as the RAF Mustangs flew their first combat missions in ETO. So, yes as FEAF was disbanded in April 1942, I interpreted your connection of P-51s to USAAF units in the Far East (PTO/CBI/SWP, etc) versus Aleutians, ETO, MTO, etc.

I guess i should ask you to clearly define what you mean before entering into a discussion

As i writed FEAF, Far east air force was not active when the P-51 coming (and here we are talking of P-51 with merlin). I was replying to Davparl that have writed of P-51 in FEAF. As i writed the 5th and 13th were assigned in mid '44 to Far east air forces FEAF(s), not the 14th or the 10th, the AFs in CBI were not under FEAF(s) comand.
I'm happy to give all definition, i known that my english is very bad, i'm also happy if people reading my post not separate from the earlier

 

[Vincenzo]

Still very impressive for an aircraft that was operational in the Fall of '43 with only a fuel type change..

I think they are not so different from also oldest plane, i think to spit IX

 

[MikeGazdik]

The question I raise from this thread is, all these paper stats are neat, but what about the way the aircraft responds to the pilot. The intangible aspect of flying a fighter. It seems that most any pilot, that was an ace in a particular craft believes he can take on any other pilot / airplane. And even more so with the Mustang and Spitfire, which arguably seems to have perhaps the greatest love of those who flew them in combat. I think the Corsair is similar or close, but not to the extent of either of those two. I have read a few autobiographies of pilots of the the Focke Wulf, and believe it was well liked by most pilots, but not sure if to the same degree as a Mustang or Spitfire pilot.

So I guess what I am asking, all the performance data included together, along with the confidence the aircraft naturally gives to a pilot because it responds to his commands, would the average Corsair pilot feel confident he could take on all opponents in his F4U?

 

[renrich]

The Corsair would always be a demanding airplane as far as landing and taking off. The P51 was also. From pilots I have talked to and have read about the Corsair was a joy in the air with few vices. It was noted for having great control harmony about all three axes and was a very steady diving airplane. A good gunnery platform. One pilot I read about who flew both Mustang and Corsair said that at high speeds the Mustang flew like it was on rails whereas the Corsair had the agility of a big cat.

 

[davparlr]

I think they are not so different from also oldest plane, i think to spit IX

I can't agree. Most of the sources I examined indicate that the Spit IX had competitive to great climb, but airspeed was quite low for this group, even with 25 lb boost.

 

[davparlr]

So I guess what I am asking, all the performance data included together, along with the confidence the aircraft naturally gives to a pilot because it responds to his commands, would the average Corsair pilot feel confident he could take on all opponents in his F4U?

General consensus of the fighter conference was that the F4U was very nice to fly. Most powerful fighters require pilots to know what they are doing and tend not to be particularly forgiving.

 

[MikeGazdik]

General consensus of the fighter conference was that the F4U was very nice to fly. Most powerful fighters require pilots to know what they are doing and tend not to be particularly forgiving.

I am aware of that. It seems most everything I have ever read of Air Corps pilots getting a chance in a Corsair , they came away with glowing reviews. Man I wish the Corsair was used in Europe more than it was, so we had a real world evaluation against the Fw 190 and Me 109. I would say there were more Mustang and Spitfire pilots, and more written about them than the Corsair, so it doesn't get its due respect sometimes as a premier fighter.

 

[davparlr]

I am aware of that. It seems most everything I have ever read of Air Corps pilots getting a chance in a Corsair , they came away with glowing reviews. Man I wish the Corsair was used in Europe more than it was, so we had a real world evaluation against the Fw 190 and Me 109. I would say there were more Mustang and Spitfire pilots, and more written about them than the Corsair, so it doesn't get its due respect sometimes as a premier fighter.

I think the Corsair is generally recognized as one of the great WWII fighters and is highly respected. You are right, there just tends to be more people familiar with the Spit and Mustangs.

 

[Dcazz7606]

Also don't forget that the P-38 got the power assisted airlons and the compressability flap for the J-25 batch. This helped the pilot manuver much easier than the earlier models. Some pilots complained that it lost it's feel but the improvement out weighed the feel issue. I've read that the P-38 could manuver with thw best fighters after this and outmanuver them under the right conditions.