MikeGazdik
Senior Airman
Do we have production numbers of the P-51B/C, F4U, and FW-190 available for comparison in 1943? Just what was produced in that year.
Year 1943: the best fighter
- Thread starter tomo pauk
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
- Thread starter
- #22
MikeGazdik
Senior Airman
If those numbers are correct or close, I think that would give the edge to the Corsair over the Mustang as far as those two competing against one another. They are so close performance wise, the fact that you have about one thousand more Corsairs tips the scales in it's favor.
The only thing really going against the Focke Wulf is lack of range, other than that a superb aircraft in this competetion.
As I type, I'm convincing myself that the Corsair is the machine of 1943. IF the FW 190 had more range I would lean towards that airplane.
The only thing really going against the Focke Wulf is lack of range, other than that a superb aircraft in this competetion.
As I type, I'm convincing myself that the Corsair is the machine of 1943. IF the FW 190 had more range I would lean towards that airplane.
davebender
1st Lieutenant
I agree but that's a very important factor. The F4U carried a lot more internal fuel. It can stick around until it runs out of ammo rather then breaking contact early due to fuel shortage. Under some tactical circumstances that makes the F4U worth two or three Fw-190s.
Unfortunately the F4U didn't carry the Fw-190 weapons package. Not a big problem vs lightly armored Japanese aircraft but four MG151/20 cannon would have been a lot better in Europe.
Unfortunately the F4U didn't carry the Fw-190 weapons package. Not a big problem vs lightly armored Japanese aircraft but four MG151/20 cannon would have been a lot better in Europe.
- Thread starter
- #25
davebender
1st Lieutenant
50% more firepower then the weakly armed P-51B isn't much of a selling point. 
US Warplanes
The U.S. purchased 200 cannon armed F4U-1C. Compared to 2,800 F4U-1 armed with .50cal machineguns. So IMO the 1943 F4U is armed with machineguns for comparison purposes.
US Warplanes
The U.S. purchased 200 cannon armed F4U-1C. Compared to 2,800 F4U-1 armed with .50cal machineguns. So IMO the 1943 F4U is armed with machineguns for comparison purposes.
- Thread starter
- #27
from WW II aircraft performance site some data from test (only US planes)
P-47D-10, R-2800-63, (22000 rpm turbo, 56" Hg), 13234 lbs, 305 gals
S.L., 333 mph, 2870 fpm
10k, 372 mph, 2680 fpm
20k, 406 mph, 2180 fpm
30k, 433 mph, 1400 fpm
P-51B-1, V-1650-3 (60.5" Hg), 8430 lbs,
S.L., 340 mph, 3600 fpm
10k, 394 mph, 3540 fpm
20k, 424 mph, 2915 fpm
30k, 440 mph, 2125 fpm
P-38J-10, V-1710-8991, (26400 rpm turbo, 60" Hg), 16597 lbs, 300 gals
S.L. 345 mph, 4000 fpm
10k, 379 mph, 3820 fpm
20k, 409 mph, 3190 fpm
30k, 413 mph, 1830 fpm
F4U-1, R-2800-8, ( ), 11194 lbs, 178 gals
S.L., 348 mph, 3180 fpm
10k, 362 mph, 2450 fpm
20k, 386 mph, 1900 fpm
30k, 368 mph, 910 fpm
P-47D-10, R-2800-63, (22000 rpm turbo, 56" Hg), 13234 lbs, 305 gals
S.L., 333 mph, 2870 fpm
10k, 372 mph, 2680 fpm
20k, 406 mph, 2180 fpm
30k, 433 mph, 1400 fpm
P-51B-1, V-1650-3 (60.5" Hg), 8430 lbs,
S.L., 340 mph, 3600 fpm
10k, 394 mph, 3540 fpm
20k, 424 mph, 2915 fpm
30k, 440 mph, 2125 fpm
P-38J-10, V-1710-8991, (26400 rpm turbo, 60" Hg), 16597 lbs, 300 gals
S.L. 345 mph, 4000 fpm
10k, 379 mph, 3820 fpm
20k, 409 mph, 3190 fpm
30k, 413 mph, 1830 fpm
F4U-1, R-2800-8, ( ), 11194 lbs, 178 gals
S.L., 348 mph, 3180 fpm
10k, 362 mph, 2450 fpm
20k, 386 mph, 1900 fpm
30k, 368 mph, 910 fpm
davparlr
Senior Master Sergeant
Fighter weight of the P-51B is about 9100 lbs
60.5" Hg is Mil power for the P-51. Combat power is 67"Hg where SL speed is 370 mph.
60"Hg in the P-38 is combat power.
This seems to be a test of an early F4U. By the end of '43, the F4U-1A was fielded with apparent better aero. Navy test shows the F4U-1A (without water) was capable better airspeed with 374 mph at 10k and 403 mph at 20k
davparlr
Senior Master Sergeant
Best 1943 fighter
Contenders
US
P-38J considerable upgrades with good airspeed and climb over broad envelop. Excellent range. Compressibility issues still have not been cured nor cockpit temperature problems, I think.
P-47D-10 upgrade with water injection and strengthened wing for multi-role functions. Good speed at low altitude, very good at high. Hampered by slower climb. Good range but could not go on long distance missions.
P-51B new engine (Merlin-3). Substantial airspeed advantage at all altitudes over all contenders except P-47 at high altitude. Would be able to engage and disengage at will. Good climb but less than Brit and German aircraft at low altitudes. Excellent range, but not he superb range provided by the soon to be incorporated fuselage tank. Barely make cutoff as first ops was in Dec, 43. Better performer than contemporary German fighters at bomber altitudes and above.
F4U-1A Upgraded with new cockpit and aero improvements. Very similar to Fw-190A-5 in performance, but with considerable range advantage. Could have been used as long range escort and would perform roughly equal to German aircraft. However, the F4U-1A with water injection would be fielded in Jan, '44, missing cut-off by one month. This version would perform similar to the P-51B (-3) in airspeed, and probably out climb it.
British
Spitfire IX new engines. Good airspeed and excellent climb over envelop. Limited range.
German
Bf-109G. New engine. Other upgrades, heavier. Good airspeed, similar to Spit. Good low altitude climb but not as good as Spit at high altitude.
Fw-190A-5 Many upgrades but much heavier than A-3. Better airspeed and climb performance than Bf-109G but drops off faster with altitude.
My knowledge of Russian aircraft is severely limited.
My conclusion.
With excellent airspeed at all altitudes, good climb at fighter weight, noted good dive capability, and superior altitude performance (except over the P-47), the P-51 will have the capability for always obtaining the higher energy levels needed to defeat the enemy. Add the great range and it makes a tough customer.
Contenders
US
P-38J considerable upgrades with good airspeed and climb over broad envelop. Excellent range. Compressibility issues still have not been cured nor cockpit temperature problems, I think.
P-47D-10 upgrade with water injection and strengthened wing for multi-role functions. Good speed at low altitude, very good at high. Hampered by slower climb. Good range but could not go on long distance missions.
P-51B new engine (Merlin-3). Substantial airspeed advantage at all altitudes over all contenders except P-47 at high altitude. Would be able to engage and disengage at will. Good climb but less than Brit and German aircraft at low altitudes. Excellent range, but not he superb range provided by the soon to be incorporated fuselage tank. Barely make cutoff as first ops was in Dec, 43. Better performer than contemporary German fighters at bomber altitudes and above.
F4U-1A Upgraded with new cockpit and aero improvements. Very similar to Fw-190A-5 in performance, but with considerable range advantage. Could have been used as long range escort and would perform roughly equal to German aircraft. However, the F4U-1A with water injection would be fielded in Jan, '44, missing cut-off by one month. This version would perform similar to the P-51B (-3) in airspeed, and probably out climb it.
British
Spitfire IX new engines. Good airspeed and excellent climb over envelop. Limited range.
German
Bf-109G. New engine. Other upgrades, heavier. Good airspeed, similar to Spit. Good low altitude climb but not as good as Spit at high altitude.
Fw-190A-5 Many upgrades but much heavier than A-3. Better airspeed and climb performance than Bf-109G but drops off faster with altitude.
My knowledge of Russian aircraft is severely limited.
My conclusion.
With excellent airspeed at all altitudes, good climb at fighter weight, noted good dive capability, and superior altitude performance (except over the P-47), the P-51 will have the capability for always obtaining the higher energy levels needed to defeat the enemy. Add the great range and it makes a tough customer.
wuzak
Captain
What about the XII?
Faster down low, though slower up high. Good climb rates, still limited range.
if the requirements are the same of '42 thread, 100 fighters in service and combat proven, i've doubt that modified F4U-1 (late called A) fulfill this.
for P-51B i knewn that was in a light configuration, afaik 61 hg was the original combat power for the B
the J-10 data are too good for a '43 J i post data, limited, from a older test (ever 60 hg and 26400 rpm)
10k 375 mph
20k 408 mph
30k 391 mph
for P-51B i knewn that was in a light configuration, afaik 61 hg was the original combat power for the B
the J-10 data are too good for a '43 J i post data, limited, from a older test (ever 60 hg and 26400 rpm)
10k 375 mph
20k 408 mph
30k 391 mph
wuzak
Captain
F4U-1 as fast as a P-51B?
MikeGazdik
Senior Airman
We do need some Russian aircraft imput here. I think they will lack range, and certainly firepower. I like many of their designs, but also I lack knowledge. I doubt that they will have much performance at altitude considering thier war doctrine.
I too see range as a critical aspect. It makes the weapon offensive rather than defensive. Strategic rather than tactical.
I too see range as a critical aspect. It makes the weapon offensive rather than defensive. Strategic rather than tactical.
Last edited:
- Thread starter
- #35
Soviets have, well, issues, even in 1943.
Their fastest, La-5FN, is as fast as 109G-6 with gondolas, much slower than 190A-5/A-6, the armament is sufficient for fighter targets, less so for bombers, the range numbers in service are lacking.
The one with heavy armament, Yak-9T, is very similar in speed to P-40, lacks range, ditto for speed over 12000 ft.
The one with decent range, Yak-9D, has only a 20mm and a HMG, it's climb caracteristics are worse than of other Yaks. No wonder, since they all have under 1200 HP.
The best climber, Yak-1, has the same armament as most of the Yaks (1 x 20mm, 1 HMG), but speed above 12000 ft and range are really weak.
All in all, no wonder that much maligned aircraft in West, P-39, was well liked by Soviet pilots.
Mike, great point about tactical vs. strategical.
Their fastest, La-5FN, is as fast as 109G-6 with gondolas, much slower than 190A-5/A-6, the armament is sufficient for fighter targets, less so for bombers, the range numbers in service are lacking.
The one with heavy armament, Yak-9T, is very similar in speed to P-40, lacks range, ditto for speed over 12000 ft.
The one with decent range, Yak-9D, has only a 20mm and a HMG, it's climb caracteristics are worse than of other Yaks. No wonder, since they all have under 1200 HP.
The best climber, Yak-1, has the same armament as most of the Yaks (1 x 20mm, 1 HMG), but speed above 12000 ft and range are really weak.
All in all, no wonder that much maligned aircraft in West, P-39, was well liked by Soviet pilots.
Mike, great point about tactical vs. strategical.
La-5FN has very good speed under 11k, best of F4U-1, and similar to F4U-1 over 25k, from 11k to 25k the fastest various secondly engine peak, in the climb La 5FN is superior to 15k. comparating with F4U-1A this stay in speed advantage over 11k, climb situation not change
googling i find that wing tanks were not self sealing
drgondog
Major
Dean's 100,000 states that the tanks were self sealing. AFAIK all US combat aircraft had self sealing tanks from 1942 forward.
davebender
1st Lieutenant
Were any aircraft fuel tanks protected by armor?
IMO the best protection for aircraft fuel tanks is to keep them in the fuselage where they present a relatively compact target. Wing tanks are going to get hit and anything larger then a pistol round is going to penetrate the wing skin. Fuel lines running to wing tanks present an additional vulnerability.
IMO the best protection for aircraft fuel tanks is to keep them in the fuselage where they present a relatively compact target. Wing tanks are going to get hit and anything larger then a pistol round is going to penetrate the wing skin. Fuel lines running to wing tanks present an additional vulnerability.
davparlr
Senior Master Sergeant
The F4U-1A with water injection, and the F4U-1D had very similar to slightly better airspeed performance to the P-51B from Jan, '44, until June, '44, when the P-51B/D started operating with 44-1 fuel. The airspeed advantage of the P-51B/D was maintained until the F4U-4 appeared in May, '45.
Users who are viewing this thread
Similar threads
