Best Heavy Fighter

[J.A.W.]

That is certainly true, in the Central America combat situation - but the variables involved were likely more than the small sample out-come can validate in terms of a true contest..

A USAF/USN match-up is likely to be closer in skillset/serviceability equivalence..

Maybe one of the 'author' members has some research from interviews of veterans of the era & can chime in on the reality of a little 'blue-on-blue' inter-service showdown stuff..

However going by the published data of service acceptance testing then pilots of equal ability ought to be able to assert themselves in the machine with superior power-to-weight ratios & more advanced aerodynamics..

[Saxman]

Ah, no Sm,& did you read the SAC document provided in the link?

If you are suggesting that SAC boss C. Le May would tolerate a non-combat ready aircraft operating in his command, then you'd be very wrong..

Maybe you're confused because your name is an acronym for something, but mine is not. Want to shorten it, then Sax is fine. SM just makes me sound kinky.

Anyway, as others noted: Where's your evidence that P-51Hs spank the F4U-4 in combat? What's the difference between YOU speculating on results and everyone else speculating, other than the fact that YOUR speculation is always right?

There were no incidents of combat (mock engagements or otherwise) between the two for you to go on. In fact the only information on combat between Corsairs and Mustangs (outside of AH, where unless that P-51 REALLY knows what he's doing, is lunchmeat) as previously noted results in downed Mustangs.

[J.A.W.]

Sax, do read the actual performance specs of the planes..

The RNZAF replaced their Corsairs with Mustangs, for various reasons..

A.A., Mustang IIs were Allison powered, did the RAF really sell them?

[ & by blue-on-blue, I didn't mean to imply actual shoot-to-kill stuff, just the
traditional inter-service rivalry & what was khaki-on-blue went to blue-on-blue
when the USAF dumped the A for Army stuff.]

[J.A.W.]

While there are bound to have been unrecorded/unofficial encounters between USAF & USN planes [ fighter jocks being fighter jocks, after all..].

Does anyone know if there were actual SAC vs Navy 'war game'
exercises carried out, back in the day?

Is there any documentation of this?

Were there any more 'fighter conferences' that compared the different service aircraft in an official test setting?

[J.A.W.]

P-51H vs F4U-4..

`51H has significant superiority in climb rate, Vmax, Vne & pilot view..

If that does not offer a combat advantage, I'd be surprised.

The H was not sold overseas, & AFAIK the British were the only foreigners to get one..

[SirNuke]

I'm sure they had all the time they needed for mock wars and were fighting to the edge all the time, not like its dangerous or anything  

I'm not sure the aces high P51D - F4U-1D matchup is as one sided as you guys seem to think. The P51D has less drag penalty for using his flaps than the F4U, and his nose up ability on the long run is better. Flap management is crucial.

[J.A.W.]

I suggest you read the Chuck Yeager memoir then..

Both as service combat pilot & test pilot, he really 'pushed the envelope'..

[SirNuke]

I suggest you read the Chuck Yeager memoir then..

Both as service combat pilot & test pilot, he really 'pushed the envelope'..

now you've done it, quoting chuck yeager 

[Ack-Ack]

If you are suggesting that SAC boss C. Le May would tolerate a non-combat ready aircraft operating in his command, then you'd be very wrong..

Then why was the P-51H kept from Korea?  It was kept out because it was considered not suitable for combat in Korea as it was too substitutable to ground fire for the missions it would fly.

ack-ack

[J.A.W.]

Don't know if H was any worse than D in that aspect, A.A.,
But - there were other reasons such as..
 
1, Availability - there were thousands of D's built & spares for them,
whereas the majority of H/L production orders were cancelled after <600 built.

2, Serviceability - the V-1650 was out of production & the highly strung -9
was a bit of a hot-rod mill, fettling/rebuilding them in primitive conditions in Korea would be a big ask, & further, the SAC had the luxury of huge concrete
run-ways for the smaller/lightweight H model wheels, no rough & ready strips
to have to cope with..

3, Would've  SAC handed over their assets to Tactical Command?
They pulled back their F-82s from Korean ops for strategic defence pretty quick.

[Ack-Ack]

Don't know if H was any worse than D in that aspect, A.A.,
But - there were other reasons such as..
 
1, Availability - there were thousands of D's built & spares for them,
whereas the majority of H/L production orders were cancelled after <600 built.

That was part of the reason, there were far more P-51D/Ks in USAF and ANG inventory and more available spare parts.  However, because of the high rate of USAF and ROKAF Mustangs losses due to enemy ground fire, the P-51H was considered to be more vulnerable to ground fire because of its lighter weight construction and considered unsuitable for the type of missions it would be tasked with.

2, Serviceability - the V-1650 was out of production & the highly strung -9
was a bit of a hot-rod mill, fettling/rebuilding them in primitive conditions in Korea would be a big ask, & further, the SAC had the luxury of huge concrete
run-ways for the smaller/lightweight H model wheels, no rough & ready strips
to have to cope with..

With the lack of spare parts for the H, compared to the D/K, serviceability I imagine would be an issue, even more so if the H Mustang would be based in Korea.  With the Mustangs range, the H could have been kept in Japan and sortied out of our bases there.  Though problems with spare parts would still be present.

3, Would've  SAC handed over their assets to Tactical Command?
They pulled back their F-82s from Korean ops for strategic defence pretty quick.

SAC had no choice during the Korean War.  When war broke out, the F-82 was the only USAF fighter able to fly the entire Korean peninsula from our bases in Japan.  If anything, the Korean War might have prolonged the service life of the F-82.  The F-82 was intended to be a stop gap measure until the USAF had enough jet fighters and by 1950 the F-82 was starting to be phased out, with some US based squadrons replacing their F-82s with jets.  By 1951, the USAF had enough jets in the Korean theater that the F-82 was able to be withdrawn and was finally retired in 1953.

ack-ack

[J.A.W.]

F4U-4 vs Sea Fury?

Well, lets see, going by the figures in the posted links..

S.L. Vmax :303knots vs 402 mph,

S.L. Climb : 3,760ft/min vs 5,050ft/min,

Roll rate : 89'/sec vs 100'/sec

Add a Vne advantage of ~100mph, plus superior pilot vision
& the Brit machine is looking dominant over the hog too..

"Squeal like a pig, boy.."

Note: the Napier Sabre powered Fury went even harder..

[J.A.W.]

A.A.,
 The early jets did not have the range/endurance capability of the F-82,
& the SAC wanted to ensure that those nuke toting VVS Tu-4's [B-29 clone]
were intercepted as far away from U.S. assets as was practicable..

[Ack-Ack]

A.A., Mustang IIs were Allison powered, did the RAF really sell them?

With the exception of the Cavalier Mustang, the Salvadoran Air Force acquired their Mustangs from the private sector to avoid the arms embargo we placed on them.

ack-ack

[J.A.W.]

A.A., are you sure they were Mustang IIs?

The U.S. govt insisted in having approval over where its ex-lend-lease stuff went,[not that Stalin complied with that stipulation, naturally] but maybe that didn't apply to those few RAF Allison powered survivors of a long ETO war?

Perhaps they'd been 'cash & carry' items that the Brits were free to dispose of as they liked?