Originally posted by J_A_B
Actually I have read that article....many times. I'll agree that the F4U-4 was the best carrier fighter of WW2 and was a good all-around airplane....but the best at everything? Come on!
I believe you've mis-stated my claim. I did not say that the F4U-4 was the best at everything. Ever read a comparison road test in an automotive magazine? More often than not, the winner of the comparison was not the winner of all categories of measurement. It was, however, very good at everything. This is where the F4U-4 excels. No other fighter in the U.S. inventory could do as many jobs as well as the F4U-4. For that matter, I seriously believe that no other piston engine fighter in service anywhere in the world could measure up either. By 1950, the P-51 had been largely retired to service with state Air Guard units. However, the F4U-4/5 was still a frontline fighter-bomber. In fact, the only non-Navy fighters available for service anywhere near the 38th parallel was the F-82. F-80s simply lacked the range to operate very far from their bases in Japan.
You make a point of comparing the F4U-4 to the P-51D. The P-51D became famous in only a SINGLE role--long range escort from land bases. For this single purpose, the Mustang is definately superior to the F4U-4 thanks to its having greater range, as is the ignored P-38. Bringing up the F4U's carrier compatibility as an attempt to refute that is fruitless--the USAAF didn't have carriers.
From the outset of its design, North American understood that the NA-73 was expected to be used as a multi-role fighter. After all, it was expected to replace the Curtiss Kittyhawk in British service. Indeed, the Mustang I was used extensively for low-level rubarbs over France, even to the German border. It had already established a sterling reputation long before it gained fame as the premier escort fighter in the ETO.
You should note that the P-38 is mentioned quite favorably in the article. Moreover, if you are familiar with my work, you will notice that the Lightning has received a great deal of attention and praise. Unfortunately, the P-38 was at the practical limit of its design evolution before the F4U-4 prototype was even flown. In terms of range, the F4U-4 was essentially the same as the late models of the P-47D. This means that had it been deployed to the ETO in February of 1945, it could have easily reached any target in the Third Reich. Indeed, it could have served as an escort fighter from Britain, being able to reach the western outskirts of Berlin (as could the P-47D-30).
In the ground attack role, even mentioning the Mustang at all shows your pro-Corsair bias; nobody will ever claim that the Mustang was anything but a deathtrap for ground attack. You passingly mention the P-47, but only when it's in the Corsair's favor to do so (durability)--you seem to forget completely about the Thunderbolt when you're talking about firepower and ordnance, both of which fall in the Thunderbolt's favor. And you never mention the P-38 at all, even though it also has better punch and a larger bombload than the F4U, and two engines to boot.
Remember, the P-51 was classified as a fighter-bomber by the USAAF. It was fitted with hardpoints for bombs and rockets, and was used extensively for ground attack. Indeed, the A-36 was a dive bomber! I am merely sticking to the facts. As far as "punch" goes, the P-38 could carry up to 4,000 lbs of bombs. However, so could the Corsair, and it frequently did lift that much. Its hardpoints were stressed for 3,000 lbs of load. On the other hand, the P-47 could not carry 2k on its hardpoints, for several reasons (will be discussed if asked). I have tried for years to get an adequate explanation as to why the P-47 Air Guard units were not deployed to Korea. To date, no one can offer an answer that makes any sense.
What about the Interceptor role? Sure you might take the Corsair over the Mustang.....but the Mustang wasn't the only fighter fielded by the USA. What about the P-38? Or the F8F? Or the P-47M?
I would argue that the P-38 was an excellent interceptor, but the P-47M was a limited production aircraft, making almost no impact on the war effort. Likewise, the F8F-1 was too late for combat and it was a single-purpose aircraft, of limited range and utility.
There is no such thing as an "all around fighter"--NO fighter, past or present, is the best at every job. The fact that the F4U-4 can compete in every category says MUCH about how good it is--it was certainly the best carrier-based fighter of WW2. Even then, the FM2 and F8F were both better in select situations.
Oh, but there is if you understand the concept of "all around". Can anyone argue that the F-4 Phantom II was not the best all around fighter bomber of its era?
Discussing the "best fighter of the war" makes for fun discussions, but in reality means nothing. There was no one best design--the different planes complimented each other's abilities.
J_A_B
PS--thanks for the discussion Mr. Jordan, I really do enjoy this sort of debate 
You may notice that the world has fully embraced the concept of "multi-role" aircraft. Typical examples are the F-16, F/A-18, Tornado and even the F-14A/D Tomcat/Bombcat.
Best "all around" does not necessarily require best at all disciplines. With that in mind, the F4U-4 was the best "all around" fighter of WWII. It could perform every aspect of fighter aviation from interceptor, to escort, to attack, to night fighter and do it nearly as good, as good or possibly even better than any other fighter aircraft of its time.
And yes, it's alway fun to have these discussions.
My best,
Widewing
