Hmm... Some guys seems confused about what defines a fighter-bomber. Rest assured that the Bf 109 is about as far away from definition as I can imagine. Understand that the F4U-4 could LIFT the equal of the weight of an empty Bf 109F!!!
Some F4U-4s were field modified (reinforcing the hardpoints and adding anti-sway braces) to lift two 3,000 lb bombs. Unmodified, those hardpoints were engineered to carry 2,000 lbs and did so frequently. 4k was a common load, especially in Korea. Max underwing load was rated at 5,200 lbs for field operation but 6k could be safely accomodated. However, like the later AU-1 model, there were speed restrictions. For dive bombing with that load, the landing gear were usually dropped to act as speed brakes.
P-38s could also lift 4,000 lbs. When 310 gallon drop tanks were used, each carried about 1,900 lbs of gas, not counting the weight of the tanks themselves (and they were HUGE).
What about the P-47, specifically the P-47N. You must remember that the N was designed as an ultra-long range escort fighter. Due to its new wing design, a considerable weight of fuel was carried in the wing. Hardpoints were limited to 1,100 lbs max. While the P-47N was fast (467 mph at 31,600 ft), it was VERY heavy. Acceleration was less than that of the D-30/40 Jugs. Climbs was no better than the early C and D models before the switch to paddle-blade props. That new wing had improved ailerons. However, there was no improvement in roll rate if the wing tanks were full. Lighter P-47s (read that as D models) were slower than the F4U-4 until above 28,000 ft. Naturally, the F4U-4 could get to 28k long before the Jug could.
As to the Typhoon... Well, it was a failure for the role intended. Poor climb, structural flaw in the aft fuselage (killed several pilots when the entire tail fell off, later reinforced), a roll rate inferior to some popular SUVs and sub-standard performance above 15k nearly tanked the project. I haven't even mentioned the saga of that hand grenade called the Napier Sabre. However, the RAF saw some merit in its low level speed. Like other aircraft, the Typhoon evolved into the role it eventually filled. Nonetheless, it could not carry a war load remotely close to that of the P-47D-30-RE, much less that of the P-38 and F4U-4. With the Typhoon, you could load 2k in bombs OR eight 60 lb rockets. Compare that to the American fighter-bombers. Even the Mustang could lift more with 2k in bombs AND six 5" HVARs. Even though the Tiffie's airframe was extremely rugged, its cooling system was not. Obviously that wasn't a concern for the P-47 or the F4U-4 pilots. It wasn't much better for the Tempest, which boasted better speed and much improved climb over the Typhoon. However, it could lift no more than the Tiffie.
Me 262A-2a could carry just two 250 kilo bombs. Very fast, but otherwise unimpressive. Quite a few 262A-2a sorties were flown against the Ludendorf bridge at Remagen. From what I understand, they were lucky to hit the river, much less the bridge.
Of all the aircraft listed in this thread, how many were still flying combat missions in 1953? Which ones were still on carrier service in 1959 with major powers, and in front line service (with the French) until 1964?
Someone mentioned the Sea Fury. It was a post-war aircraft, of the same generation as the F4U-5. They had very similar performance, but once again, the Corsair could lift more than twice as much ordnance.
Were there better pure fighters than the F4U-4? Yeah, but only marginally so. Was there a better close support aircraft than the F4U-4? Maybe the Mosquito and A-26 could match it in load, but neither could survive in the same sky with this Corsair.
In the category of "all around", the F4U-4 was almost certainly the best to see combat in WWII.
My regards,
Widewing
