F4U vs Mustang

[agent 009]

Wow, good stuff Milo.

Wish I could pick Eric Brown's brain. He didn't rate Corsair so high. He even said; I have no doubt whatsoever, a Corsair could not beat a 190 in combat.

Will try & send graph F4DOA. Have U got e-mail I can send to?

[bunch]

Did any of the FAA Corsairs ever meet any  LW fighters in combat?  The were some Corsairs in combat in the North Sea

[agent 009]

Good question. i always screw this one up. Either Corsairs or Wildcats did. against 109's. 109's lost. will have to dig. It might be in the book Duels in the sky by Brown.

P.S. Rafe. I've read that Corsair article before. I think the climb stuff is bs-sci fi. Yak 3 could climb 5000 ft per min. Maybe it's Yak 3U. K-4 4820 ft per min. No way Corsair could touch that.  

MK 14 Spit is either 4500 plus ft per min, or 4950. not sure which. Would be very surprised if Corsair was near that.

[Angus]

RN Corsairs did engage LW fighters, just don't remember where.
So did RN Wildcats, and USN Hellcats. The Hellcats actually kicked the 109's around quite a bit!

[MiloMorai]

From Rafe's link:

Finally there is an area in which the P-51 cannot compete at all. The F4U was designed to operate from an aircraft carrier. What this provides for is a utility that is unmatched by the better land based fighters of WWII. The ability to operate at sea or from shore can never be over-valued.


The P-51D was carrier qualified. Their are several photos around of the qualification taken on the Shangi-la in late 44. The pilot of the P-51D-5NA, s/n 414017, was Robert Elder. Even the forward view while landing was not as restrictive as the F4U and F6F.

With the capture of Iwo Jima and Okinawa the urgency for this long range need subsided and the carrier P-51 project was cancelled.

[mipoikel]

Never heard about soccer wars before this thread. Found this page: http://www.acig.org/artman/publish/printer_156.shtml


And more... http://www.laahs.com/artman/publish/article_19.shtml

[hogenbor]

Originally posted by MiloMorai


The P-51D was carrier quilified. Their are several photos around of the qualification taken on the Shangi-la in late 44. The pilot of the P-51D-5NA, s/n 414017, was Robert Elder. Even the forward view while landing was not as restrictive as the F4U and F6F.

With the capture of Iwo Jima and Okinawa the urgency for this long range need susided and the carrier P-51 project was cancelled.

Hi Milo,

I've heard this story and have seen pictures as well (can't remember where though). I also vaguely remember that the low speed handling of the P-51 was considered unsatisfactory and that the Navy disliked liquid cooled engines. Maybe they were also a bit biased because it was an Army plane. Any more on this?

Regards,

Ronald

[MiloMorai]

hogenbor, I hate you. Now you make me type a lot.

Elder

"Early on in the testing (~150 landings were made at Mustin on a marked out deck) it became apparent that the airspeed band between min. and max. engaging speed as defined by wind over the deck and a/c structural tolerances, was indeed narrow. To be exact , hard over right rudder occured when stabilized at 82mph in the approach configuration and structural limitations under specific hook loads peaked at slightly less than 90mph. I, therefore used 85mph as target approach speed. Fortunately, the little lady exhibited marvelous speed control characteristics and even though operating at near min. margins of directional and lateral contollability (limited by torgue), wave offs could be executed by judicious applications of power.

Landing attitude was the one critical factor most worthy of comment because of either premature main wheel contact with the deck prior to hook engagement or an inflight engagement prior to tail contact, would certainly have configured the test a/c and possibly the pilot.

Visibility forward during theapproach was quite good and caused no problems at all in alignment or landing the a/c. In fact, some of the radial fighters of the era, notably the F4U and F6F with cowl flaps open, had considerably more restricted forward visibility. In any case, I simply made a turning approach almost to touchdown as was the practice at the time.

I have seen what you mentioned but Elder's comments don't seem to support this.

[F4UDOA]

Agent009,

My email is markw4@comcast.net

FYI that is my webpage where you were reading the F4U-1 vrs P-51B report.

I have many more reports on the page, F4U vrs FW190 etc.

My Web Page

[Rafe35]

Originally posted by Angus
RN Corsairs did engage LW fighters, just don't remember where.
So did RN Wildcats, and USN Hellcats. The Hellcats actually kicked the 109's around quite a bit!

Mostly a few Corsair did engage against the LW Fighters and Bombers, but don't recall If they ever shoot one down and mostly the Corsairs were damage or destroyed by LW Bombers while they attacking the FAA Carriers in somewhere close to Italy in probably late 1943.  

Both Wildcats and Hellcats ('Ace Maker') did really kick in the bucket against the Bf 109s and Fw 190s that the USN and FAA pilots did really well while flying these fighters.  I believe that US Navy VOF-1 and VF-74 with Wildcats/Hellcats were only USN squadrons in ETO, but I might be wrong on this one.

PS. Agent009 (Including you, F4UDOA), Probably your right about the BS on the article and I thought it was right that someone post the link last year spring that I was interesting again, but a friend of mine told me it wasn't right about the Climb Rate.

[MiloMorai]

A pdf file on the -4.can be found here, http://www.history.navy.mil/branches/hist-ac/

The performance summary chart gives 4770f/m @ SL and 4.9 min to 20,000ft.

[agent 009]

4770 fpm, holy dogfarts batman!

Well, so far looks like Corsair smokes Stang. Sakai said Hellcat was only US plane that could match Zero through any maneuver.

[Angus]

I have seen a Spit IX with 4.9 mins to 20K somewhere.
Anyway, the climbaster is definately the 109K. I've heard 4.5 mins to 20K.
But for a heavy fighter like this, wow!

[Rafe35]

Originally posted by MiloMorai
A pdf file on the -4.can be found here, http://www.history.navy.mil/branches/hist-ac/

The performance summary chart gives 4770f/m @ SL and 4.9 min to 20,000ft.

Wow, I'm so damn impressed about F4U-4 fully load information!

Thanks for the link, MM!

[F4UDOA]

Agent,

Three points of interest.

1. In TAIC (Technical Air Inteeligence Command) between the A6M5, F6F-5 and F4U-1D the F4U-1D outclimbed both the Zero and F6F-5 to 20K.

2. In test between the FW190A-5, F6F-3 and F4U-1D the F4U was superior to the F6F-3 and superior to the FW190A-5 in climbs at 140Knots (160MPH). Above that speed the FW190 was superior. Also this test was done without the paddle prop on the F4U as was installed in early 1944.

3. In climb test against the P-51B the F4U-1A (Not only the -4) the F4U outclimbed the P-51B to 20K.

Also two other notable comparisons.

Check out the climb rate chart of the P-51D/F-51D in the pilots manual. It list the climb rate at Mil power at 10,200lbs or less. Climb rate at sea level is 2400FPM and a climb time to 20,000 FT of 9 minutes. This test is dated 1953 with wing racks only and no external ordinace.

By comparison the F4U-1D flight manual list the mil power climb as 2700FPM at sea level and 8 minutes to 20K. This at 11,700LBS.

The test only show how some manufactures performance numbers can be a bit "fluffy".

In head to head test much of this is brought out into the light.

This is a great report to read. The Army test are really interesting in the back of the report. They show the P-47D out accelerating the P-51D and P-38L. Also interesting to note is how little these "Fast diving" airplanes where able to pull ahead of the Zero in a dive despite their reputations.

A6M5 vrs F4U-1D/F6F-5