Year 1943: the best fighter (1 Viewer)

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

afaik 61 hg was the original combat power for the B
The 61" was used in early test in mid '43. I do not know when the P-51B(-3) was approved for 67". It certainly was by January of '44, since Navy comparison test of the P-51C with the F4U-1 (W) was done at 67".
 
Are all of us to quick to overlook the F6F Hellcat? I know it lacked pure speed. But it was agile, tough, think it had good range, good 6 gun firepower with I think 2400 rounds of ammo usually carried.

I know if fought "lesser" opponents traditionally, but it certainly would give any of the other fighters we are talking about a tough fight.

I went to the WWII aircraft performance link, and couldn't find an easy breakdown of its climb or range.

Should we give it some more consideration?
 
RoC of F6F-5 was some 2750 fps at SL, some 2300 fps at 15000 ft, 1900 fps at 21000 ft. All for military power, so the 1943 F6F-3 would do about the same. The figures for F4U-1 are similar.
Form 'US Hundred thousands' book.
 
The 61" was used in early test in mid '43. I do not know when the P-51B(-3) was approved for 67". It certainly was by January of '44, since Navy comparison test of the P-51C with the F4U-1 (W) was done at 67".

ok

data
P-51B-5 V-1650-3 (67" Hg), 9205 lbs, 180 gals
S.L. 371 mph, 3187 fpm
10k 406 mph, 3380 fpm
20k 415 mph, 2710 fpm
30k 441 mph, 2025 fpm
 
Dean's 100,000 states that the tanks were self sealing. AFAIK all US combat aircraft had self sealing tanks from 1942 forward.

i checking on manual (page 16), i just find a pdf on my HD, the main tank is described as self sealing but the wing tanks not but they are provided with a CO2 vapor dilution system (this is usable not meanwhile you supply from that tanks and you can not use that fuel after use), and yes main tanks of Corsai has hardened alluminium protection (page 7)
 
I too cannot find any reference that wing tanks were either protected, or self sealing in the F4U.
The US 100 000 book does not confirm that they were self sealing, but says they were not protected.
 
The 61" was used in early test in mid '43. I do not know when the P-51B(-3) was approved for 67". It certainly was by January of '44, since Navy comparison test of the P-51C with the F4U-1 (W) was done at 67".

Looking in operating instruction of P-51B-1 (july, 1st, 1943), page 26, the military, 5' settings, was 61" Hg, the max climb, 15' settings, was 54.3" Hg (and 2850 rpm)
 
Looking in operating instruction of P-51B-1 (july, 1st, 1943), page 26, the military, 5' settings, was 61" Hg, the max climb, 15' settings, was 54.3" Hg (and 2850 rpm)

Again, mid '43 data. The P-51B was five months away from its first operational mission. In January, '44, 67" was used, so somewhere between July, '43 to Jan, '44, 67" was approved. I don't know when.
 
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.

Variants of the FW 190D-13 (the R4 I think) were to get wing fuel tanks, presumably where the outer MG 151/20 mm guns were. Since the D-13 had the same wing as the A5 and D9 this could have been carried out at any time at a slight sacrifice in armament, the D-13 of course had a motor gun making the deletion of the outer wing guns (but retaining the inner ones). The Luftwaffe disliked wing tanks in its fighters due to how awkward they were to repair.
 
Good point about wing tanks for Fw-190. IMO the wing tank was not any more awkward to repair, compared with fuselage tank - just replace the damaged with a new one? In case the old one is repairable, than do so. The about only exception from the rule seem to be Brewster Buffalo, the plane with integral tanks, not separate ones akin to P-39, P-51 etc. Maybe the Bf-109 would've benefited with wing tanks, too? The Fw-190As were capable to carry as much weaponry as Fw-109D-9s in any case. And those HMGs just ask to be replaced with cannon, even with 1 cannon per 2 HMGs.
 
Replacing or repairing any wing tanks in any WWII fighter would have been a major operation. Ripping riveted panels away to get access to fuel tank seems more trouble than its worth.
 
I guess so. The plane should be designed ground-up with access panels, so the operation would be straight forward as the rearming of fighters that were carrying wing armament. Eg. like Hurricane, or P-47 did (pic):

P47 of the IXth Air Force at a forward Refuelling Rearming strip

For German planes in particular, both Fw190 and Bf-109 were conceived with wing armament, and access panels were big enough to allow for easy weapon ammo manipulation. So there the wing tanks seem like good choice. The extra, say, 2 x 20 gals per plane does not seem like great feat of engineering to do
 
IMO that would be a good idea.

Lightweight fighter aircraft such as the Spitfire and Me-109 cannot take a lot of damage so I don't think wing fuel tanks would make matters much worse. It beats running out of fuel in the middle of combat.
 
With radiators installed in Mosquito fashion, the fuel tanks of Spitfires can be installed between wheel wells and hull, so the plane is both more streamlined with greater fuel load. Without going for a major wing redesign.
 
Well, the real Spits did not had long fuel lines anyway (most of the fuel being next to the engine before it received LE wing tanks aft hull ones).
 
I too cannot find any reference that wing tanks were either protected, or self sealing in the F4U.
The US 100 000 book does not confirm that they were self sealing, but says they were not protected.

Vought_AU-1_Corsair_Standard_Aircraft_Characterisics_1953.png


I do know earlier F4Us were configured the same way
 
The F4U-1D and later did featured hull-only internal tank, the earlier ones were equipped with tanks within wings, for total of 361 gals.
 
Is there an easily obtainable source that might do the same?
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back