I think the question was which was better, the LA7 or F4U-1, not who was better. Any attempt to claim one fighter is "better" than the other based on only five engagements is a bit short sighted, as is the claim that "it's the pilot not the plane".
Given equivalent skill, familiarity with the airplanes, and tactics in a 1v1, it is very unusual where one airplane type isn't superior to the other. It's how the strengths of each match up to the other's weaknesses. Of course, to really determine this you'd need more than five engagements and, ideally, the pilots would switch planes in order to cancel out small differences in skills. The best measure of a "stick" is 1v1 similar so it's purely pilot skill vs pilot skill but the best measure of a plane is how successful it is in the assigned mission. A Typhoon for instance is very well suited to an escort role while a Zeke would be much better for a point-defense mission. So, which plane is better? It depends.
Also, there is absolutely no justification for claiming that superior speed is for some reason cancelled out in a 1v1. Extension/pitchback fights are very common in RL as is the energy fight, both of which allows the faster fighter some advantages over slower, better turning fighters. For instance an extension/pitchback fight is what an F14 would use against an F18. Also, maintaining a speed advantage does not result in nothing but HO's unless you're using the speed (i.e., "e") incorrectly. Yes, in an extension/pitchback fight there is more opportunity for low-aspect forward quarter shots than in a pure knife fight because you tend to have multiple merges but the point is to gain/maintain a higher e-state than your opponent and only the unskilled will rely on one HO after the other. If that happens it's not a slam against speed or the plane, it's a slam against the pilot.
The real answer to the question of which plane is better is "it depends". Which plane is better is more relevant to the mission being performed than how a few 1v1's turn out.
