Toughest US fighter of World War II

[fdiron]

I made the claim tonight in the MA that the F4U was the toughest fighter in the U.S. inventory during WW2.  Lot of guys said that the P47 was tougher.

Survivability: There was no other single engine fighter flown during the war that could absorb greater battle damage than the Corsair and still get home.Even the USAAF admitted that the F4U was a more rugged airframe than the tank-like P-47 Thunderbolt. That is a remarkable admission.  The big Pratt & Whitney radial engine would continue to run and make power despite have one or more cylinders shot off.

Source: http://home.att.net/~historyzone/F4U-4.html  

Sources used by website:Barrett Tillman, Corsair : The F4U in World War II and Korea.
Pilots Manual for F4U Corsair.
Various notes taken from Jeffery Ethell books and articles.
Pilots Manual for the P-51D.

[fd ski]

there is an unbiased site if I've ever seen one

Didn't P47 have exacly same engine ?

[Kratzer]

They both had Pratt & Whitney R2800 Double Wasps of varying variants.

Generally, the P47 had greater power.

For example, the P47D had a R2800-59W @ 2535hp.
The F4U-4 which a later, less used variant of the Corsair (that is to say, unlike the P47D, which was one of the main variants), had a R2800-18W (or -42W) which put out about 2400hp.

[Karnak]

P-61 Black Widow.

Size does matter when it comes to durability.

[Steven]

Yeah, same engine as the P47 but it wasn't comparing engine ruggedness between the two but rather the airframe ruggedness.  It just skipped from one topic, airframe comparison, to the topic of having a rugged engine that could lose a few parts.  But this caught my attention in that article:

<>
I assume this goes for an accelerated stall.  Does the AH drop it's right wing first?  (I would check myself, but have no joystick at the moment.)

I'm dying to get a replacement joystick and try the F4U-4 in the training arena.

[Tac]

Blueice , here's the 38 pic you wanted (since this came up on the Ch1 chatter)

http://www.warbirdsresourcegroup.org/URG/images/p38-37.jpg

[Sancho]

Of course the hog had a more rugged frame.  It was made for surviving controlled crashes into a carrier deck.  The jug didn't need the same type of ruggedizing, but it was still plenty tough and very survivable in combat.

As far as performance, why compare an F4U-4 with an early 1944 P-47D-25?  Try comparing it with a 1945 P-47N.  And if you're not happy with that, I'll drag out the P-47M.

Steven, in my AH experience, the F4U-4 likes to drop its left wing, not the right.

[fdiron]

I am not comparing performance Sancho.  I was just trying to prove that the F4U was more durable than the P47.

[J_A_B]

Everyone always forgets about the poor old F6F.  Probably the "most forgotten" US WW2 fighter.

I'd bet the F6F was at least as tough as the F4U, and maybe a bit tougher.  Same engine, same carrier landing design requirements, and it's a bigger plane  

J_A_B

[eddiek]

F6F had same performance above 5K as the F4U.  This was proven in side by side tests in 1943, both were 400mph birds.

[GRUNHERZ]

Is that from the site crying out F4U4 is the greatest plane ever in history of flight..... Sheesh do those guys the fantasy uber plane romance novel view of the world.

[bloom25]

You guys are all wrong!  The most durable US "fighter" was definately the Northrop XP-79 Flying Ram. (It was supposed to attack bombers by crashing into them.  It was nearly completely covered in steel armor plate.)

Between the F4U and P47, I'd probably have to lean towards the F4U.  The P47 was a bigger target, and had a large and delicate exhaust driven supercharger behind the pilot.  Carrier planes are also, in general, heavier built than land based planes.  Truthfully though, it all depends on where the plane was hit.  Also keep in mind that many F4Us probably went down at sea and were never seen again.

[illo]

"The big Pratt & Whitney radial engine would continue to run and make power despite have one or more cylinders shot off."

Same has been said about FW 190A's BMW radial.

[Kieran]

A stall strip was installed on Corsairs that eliminated the tendency to drop one wing before another. This was corrected early on, I believe, so the Corsairs we have should not necessarily drop a wing in a stall.

Building a plane heavy does not necessarily mean it is more rugged. Planes are built to fly, not to crash. More material to beef up a structure means more mass when it hits the ground. Now, if you talk about open space in the craft (to absorb flak, cannon hits, etc.), or how vital systems are protected, or specific strengthening in vital areas, you might have a point.

Ever wonder what it might have been like if the American aircraft industry had started earlier in studying British techniques in stressing aircraft? The P-51H is a direct result of that study. They knocked 3,000 lbs off the -D to get there. Can you imagine what a 10,000 lb fully loaded Corsair might have flown like? How about 8,000 lbs regular load? 2,100 hp into 8,000 lbs....

[Maverick]

You guys are all wet. In AH the most durable fighter is the B17, especially over 30k altitude.