Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: Red Tail 444 on July 11, 2002, 11:23:44 AM
-
I am expecting this to be an interesting thread. I like both planes, I only wish the -4 didnt come at 50 perks...
read up... http://home.att.net/~historyzone/F4U-4.html
My preference? F4U-4 :)
Gainsie
-
"Turning to dive acceleration, we find the F4U-4 and Mustang in a near dead heat. Both the P-47D and P-38L easily out distance the Corsair and P-51D in a dive."
Hhhmmm........it ain't that way in AH, is it now? ;)
-
Originally posted by eddiek
"Both the P-47D and P-38L easily out distance the Corsair and P-51D in a dive."
Hhhmmm........it ain't that way in AH, is it now? ;)
Last night, I was in a fight with a PJ and a Jug, at different times..I was in ther Hog-4. Both times, they tried to eventually dive out, and neither of them wound up putting much distance between them and me...we were fighting about 20k, with tiheir diveouts at about 15.
Side note...Gimme the 4X20MM cannon option in the Hog -4. When we do, the party's over, bigtime, you La-7 drivers! :)
-
Originally posted by Red Tail 444
Side note...Gimme the 4X20MM cannon option in the Hog -4. When we do, the party's over, bigtime, you La-7 drivers! :)
Ahh Gainsie you'd just stall it in ; ).
-
I like this part :
Over Europe, things were somewhat different. The Luftwaffe flew fast, heavily armed aircraft that were not especially suited to low speed turning fights. The Allies had in their inventory the Spitfire, which was very adept at turning fights. The Americans had the P-47, P-38 and P-51. All of which were very fast and at least a match for the German fighters in maneuverability. Especially the P-38 which could out-turn anything the Luftwaffe had and could give the Spitfire pilot pause to consider his own mortality.
:D
-
Originally posted by RightF00T
Ahh Gainsie you'd just stall it in ; ).
You referring to Wednesday night? I didnt stall it in...I got the screen freeze of death...and on that note...I want my 50 perks back for that, HiTech! :)
-
Here's one of my fav lines...
" there was nothing in western Europe that could hang with the F4U-4. Even when including the Soviets, only the Yak-3 could hope to survive a one on one with the Corsair."
Maybe she comes in at 50 perks to give the Luftwhiners and Spitweebles some face-saving :)
J/K :)
-
Red Tail,
That artical was written by C.C. Jordan. Better known on these boards as Widewing. I don't know where he got some of his information IE the dive results but it makes good reading.
My favorite F4U-4 story is this.
The following article is from "Naval Aviation News" from sometime
during the early 50's. The author is unknown at this time.
YAK vs. CORSAIR
It was all over in 10 minutes. Two heavily loaded F4U-4's proved
more than a match for four Russian made YAK's, a name made famous
in World War II.
Things started popping when an early morning reconnaissance patrol
from the escort carrier Bataan were abruptly introduced to the
much-touted Red jobs, near Choppeki Point off the west coast of
Korea.
Of the four Marine Corsairs launched in the group, two had been
sent to escort a helicopter ordered to pick up a Corsair pilot
from another flight who had bailed out because of engine trouble.
The two remaining Corsairs continued toward their designated
targets to the northeast. The flight climbed for altitude over
Hojang-do in open formation with the flight leader about 500 yards
at 7 o'clock from his wingman. It was just a routine combat
patrol until...........
The flight leader first spotted the enemy aircraft when the first
two Yaks, either YAK-3's or YAK-9's, opened fire, sending a bullet
through his Corsair aft of the cockpit. The Corsairs were at about
2,000 feet when taken under attack by the YAK's, which came
barreling in an altitude of 5,000 to the northwest.
Flying in a loose right echelon the four enemy fighters made a
right and then a left turn, at approximately 10 o'clock, toward
the Corsairs and made a run on the flight leader. Apparently, the
Reds had not yet spotted the second Corsair.
Scratch Three. The second F4U pulled in behind the attacking
YAK's and followed their No. 3 man, with their No. 4 plane at 7
o'clock from him. Following this the second Corsair broke away
from behind the No. 3 man and dove to the left and below the No. 4
man who was firing at him. He then made a climbing 360 degree
turn and opened fire an two of the enemy aircraft with unobserved
results. Tailing in at 4 o'clock on another enemy, the Marine
flier opened fire, hitting the Red's tail, fuselage and wing. His
hits caused the starboard wing of die YAK to break off and the
plane crashed and went up in a burst of flames.
Meanwhile, the Corsair flight leader, upon being hit did a "Split
S" to pick up speed and made a climbing turn to the left. Two
enemy aircraft made firing runs from astern, but overshot and
turned wide while he pulled in behind and returned fire on the two
YAK's with unobserved results. While the flight leader was in a
climbing left turn one enemy aircraft crossed in front of him from
right to left. At that instant a YAK was seen by the flight
leader to crash into the ground and burn. This was his wingman's
kill. Meanwhile, the YAK crossing the flight leader's nose was
taken under fire and sent spinning into the ground smoking. This
second enemy aircraft crashed and burned about one-half mile west
of the spot where the first YAK was burning.
The flight leader turned to the left and headed eastward when he
observed three aircraft flying ahead of him also heading east.
The wingman was pursuing one enemy aircraft, with the second enemy
aircraft following to the left and turning right on his tail. The
flight leader called his wingman and told him to pull up as the
YAK was on his tail.
The wingman turned hard to the left and dropped his Corsair under
and astern opening fire on the YAK as it overran him. His fire
started the enemy plane smoking out of both sides of the cockpit
from around the wing roots.
The flight leader continued tailing the enemy lead plane and his
opening fire started this aircraft smoking. Attempting to evade
the fire, the YAK pilot turned to the south, and then to the west
but the pursuing fire caused the enemy plane to puff smoke. The
Red did a "Split S" and headed west. Following through, the
Corsair continued to tail in on him firing. The enemy plane began
smoking from both wings and the fuselage while fragments of the
aircraft kept falling off. Papers were seen coming from the
cockpit. Following this the pilot jettisoned his hood and then
bailed out. A few seconds later the YAK plunged into the water.
The pilot's parachute opened and he descended into the water,
apparently unhurt.
The two Corsairs then joined up and climbed to 6,000 feet,
orbiting over the downed enemy planes location. The helicopter
previously ordered to pick up the ditched Corsair pilot was asked
also to pick up the enemy pilot. The section orbited this area
for about 10 minutes and then headed south toward Changyon.
The fourth enemy aircraft was last seen climbing east into the
sun, smoking from both wing roots.
A rough engine in the wingman's Corsair and smoke in the cockpit
of the flight leader's aircraft forced the flight to return to the
Bataan. The flight landed without mishap at 0820.
Poorly Executed. All the aerial action took place between 2,000
and 3,000 feet. This unexpected attack found both of the F4U's
carrying a belly tank and a 500-pound bomb, or a napalm tank,
which were not jettisoned until the combat was nearly over. Each
aircraft also was carrying a wing load of six HVAR rockets and two
100-pound bombs which were not jettisoned until the flight headed
for the ship.
The enemy aircraft were identified as other YAK-3 or YAK-9
fighters. These low-wing Soviet built fighters and their versions
are powered by in-line engines ranging from 1,085 to 1,580
horsepower. Maximum speed for the Yak prop fighter is 360 knots
at 15,000 feet. Armament consists of one 20 mm gun, hub-mounted
and two 12.7 mm guns in the nose.
The markings on the aircraft were white circles outlined in red
with a red star in the center. These markings were located on the
fuselage aft and below the cockpit, and on the underside of left
wing. The aircraft were painted in camouflage that ran from
silver to light green.
It was the opinion of the two Corsair pilots that the attack by
the enemy, with both numerical superiority and altitude advantage,
was very poorly executed. The Reds also had an opportunity to
make the attack out of the sun, but didn't. Instead they made it
90 degrees to the sun. Furthermore, the fact that all four enemy
aircraft made the initial attack on the two Corsairs cast doubt on
the enemy tactical wisdom.
The air discipline of the enemy pilots was good as they
effectively kept together, providing mutual support. The Reds
pressed home their attack with determination and did not attempt
to leave the area until they were smoking from hits. Their
marksmanship, however, was poor on deflection shooting.
The F4U-4, even when heavily loaded, apparently is more
maneuverable than the YAK-3 or YAK-9 at speeds between 140 and 160
knots.
Moreover, the YAK fighters flown by the Communist pilots were
considered inferior in speed and rate of climb to the F4U-4.
Maximum speed used by the YAK's was about 200 to 250 knots. Most
maneuvering after the first pass was below 200 knots. Since no
effective evasive action was taken by the YAK pilots it is
believed they lacked training or experience.
You can read more in the August issue of Flight Journal.
-
Is the f4u4 the only plane in AH which can be put into an unrecoverable spin?
-
Nah, if have the proper skills like me, you can put any of them into an unrecoverable spin. ;)
-
Why they compare the F4U-4 to the P-51D is a mystery to me. The F4U-1D was the P-51D's counterpart; the counterpart to the F4U-4 should be the P-51H.
Furthermore, that article fails to look at the aircraft in the context of the jobs they were used for. Range in patricular is barely mantioned at all, even though in reality range is what made the P-51 so important. The F4U might well be a better performer than the P-51, but that's of little use if the Corsair can't reach the target!
J_A_B
-
Originally posted by HFMudd
Nah, if have the proper skills like me, you can put any of them into an unrecoverable spin. ;)
Lol
-
"Since no effective evasive action was taken by the YAK pilots it is
believed they lacked training or experience."
So here's what I say....
The Bf109G6, even when low on E, apparently is more
maneuverable than the N1K2J or Spitfire at speeds between 140 and 160 knots.
BTW this was written by GRUNHERZ better know on these boards as GRUNHERZ. :p
And this must be true because I have outmanuvered and shot down scores of toejam poor pilots flying their idiotic Nikis ans toejamfires and trying to turn with me. :rolleyes:
I thought you were the facts and tables and charts guy F4UDOA, I guess even you keep some "romance novels" around. :)
-
Originally posted by J_A_B
Why they compare the F4U-4 to the P-51D is a mystery to me. The F4U-1D was the P-51D's counterpart; the counterpart to the F4U-4 should be the P-51H.
J_A_B
The Corsair could be launched from a mobile platform (CV) and therefore range was not as critical than the pony. The Hog-4 was to be designated as a strike plane and Kamikaze killer , with the Bearcat replacing her as the fighter in the PTO. We know the rest of the story...
Regarding the Pony-H, I would like to know more about its performance, wouldnt be a bad addition to the arena, but no on has ever mentioned it on the boards, to my knowledge.
Either way, I'd live to match up with one in the Hog-4.
Gainsie
-
Whoa!!
Red Tail,
The F8F never replaced the F4U on carriers. The F8F was considered an short range intercpetor and the F4U a fighter bomber. On the contrary many F8F squads were re-equiped with F4U's before Korea. The F8F actually replaced the FM-2 aboard carriers.
Grunherz,
I am a chart and data guy. However when 2 F4U-4 get jumped by 4 Yak-9's and the F4U's get 3 confirmed and one probable it is a good story. Especially considering the F4U's were carrying 2,000lbs of bombs and rockets the whole time. Not bad for a Hog?
-
It is a cool story no doubt! I enjoyed reading it. :)
I'm even gonna add it to my signature, sorta. :D
-
I cannot quote the source, but my last post came from what I read...if I can find the source again, I will cite it.
Gainsie
-
A 20mm cannon option on the f4u-4 might actually be enough to make it worth using...
-
from
http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p51_13.html
"Specs of the P-51H-5-NA:
One Packard Merlin V-1650-9 twelve-cylinder Vee liquid cooled engine rated at 1380 hp for takeoff and a a war emergency power of 2218 hp at 10,200 feet and 1900 hp at 20,000 feet with water injection. Performance: Maximum speed was 444 mph at 5000 feet, 463 mph at 15,000 feet, and 487 mph at 25,000 feet. Range in clean condition was 755 miles at 359 mph at 10,000 feet, 1975 miles at 239 mph at 10,000 feet. Range with two 62.5 Imp. gall. drop tanks was 1150 miles at 339 mph at 10,000 feet and 1530 miles at 243 mph at 10,000 feet. An altitude of 5000 feet could be reached in 1.5 minutes, 15,000 feet in 5 minutes. Service ceiling was 41,600 feet. Weights: 6585 pounds empty, 9500 pounds normal loaded, and 11,500 pounds maximum. Dimensions: Wing span was 37 feet 0 inches, length was 33 feet 4 inches, height was 8 feet 10 inches, and wing area was 235 square feet."
apparently it was a lighter weight version of the mustang and a bit easier to kill - if you could catch it
-
trivia.
The P-51D passed its carrier qualification trial in the fall of 1944, doing so using the USS Shangri-La.
-
Originally posted by Innominate
A 20mm cannon option on the f4u-4 might actually be enough to make it worth using...
Flown correctly, with good SA, the F4U-4 is a monster. while yanking it around like a TnB a/c will turn it into a tub. Planes like Corsairs, Jugs, and Lightenings are formidible planes when used how they are supposed to be used.
The problem I have is getting every plane in the area trying to bounce me :). Even so, this makes me even more aware of my E state, and it keeps my SA on point. I try to think of every plane having a killer in the seat, but the only planes I really have "issues" with are Jugs and the rare PJ (where are you, guys?) and againse the jug, or anyone, for that matter, a fight at 25+ is a lot of fun in the Hog-4. Win some, lose some.
I admit, I may be a "little" biased when it comes to the much maligned Corsair in the game, but it doesnt deserve the reputation of being a sub-standard A/C, IMO. I get a real feeling of accomplishment even getting a max loaded hog off the CV deck, for cripes sake!
Gainsie
-
Originally posted by Red Tail 444
I admit, I may be a "little" biased when it comes to the much maligned Corsair in the game, but it doesnt deserve the reputation of being a sub-standard A/C, IMO. I get a real feeling of accomplishment even getting a max loaded hog off the CV deck, for cripes sake!
Gainsie
Don't get me wrong, I love all of the corsairs, but 50 perks for a plane that performs only slightly better than the p-51D, which also carries gangbang tags makes flying it pointless. The c-hog is the only prop perk plane worth using. I find it odd that the c-hog has a better k/d ratio than the f4u4.
-
Originally posted by Innominate
The c-hog is the only prop perk plane worth using. I find it odd that the c-hog has a better k/d ratio than the f4u4.
Agreed, hogs are the only perk props I fly. Gicen the lethalith of the C hog, the k/d ratio is not a suprise, as you can sneeze on a con (usually a spit) with those cannons and saw them in half. My choice for the hog-4 is speed and ROC, but for sheer killing I choose the C also. One hishspeed pass on a buff formation at the right angle can take all three out of the game. I doubt if the hog-4 was unperked, ot given a lower perk cost that it would shift the arena in any way at all. Not enough people fly them anyway.
-
Originally posted by J_A_B
The F4U-1D was the P-51D's counterpart; the counterpart to the F4U-4 should be the P-51H.
J_A_B
Respectfully disagreeing, JAB, the H model never saw, therefore, proven itself, in combat, and was never even produced after 1946. Several models of Corsairs and P-51D's was used as late as 1978.
Gainsie
-
So far I have not seen a war time comparison which claims that the P-47 or the P-38 could out distance the P-51 in a dive. All I've seen state pretty much opposite.
gripen
-
Originally posted by gripen
So far I have not seen a war time comparison which claims that the P-47 or the P-38 could out distance the P-51 in a dive. All I've seen state pretty much opposite.
gripen
I've read how the jug could out dive anything it encountered. Add a notch of flaps before entering the dive to counter compressibility, and you're home free...against trailing ponies, they will make up the distance once you level out, or against the PJ, dont dtry to resume alt against them.
I'll look for the source, but when I fight against jugs (in any A/C, save another jug, PJ, or F4U-4), the emergency 0G dive out for me is not an option.
Gainsie
-
"Respectfully disagreeing, JAB, the H model never saw, therefore, proven itself, in combat, and was never even produced after 1946. Several models of Corsairs and P-51D's was used as late as 1978. "
You can consider the P-51D and F4U-4 contemporary aircraft in that perspective, but in an aircraft comparison is it really "fair" to compare a new model of plane X to an older model of plane Y? This sort of comparison serves only a single purpose--to "prove" the writer's point--in this case, to "prove" the F4U-4 is so superior.
If I wanted to, I could "prove" the P-51 is better than the Corsair, by comparing a P-51H to an F4U-1D. Would it really prove anything? Of course not!
From a design evolution standpoint, the P-51's and F4U's match up pretty well. You have the P-51A and the F4U-1, both the initial model with certain glaring problems (P-51 sucked up high, F4U had lousy handling); the P-51B and F4U-1A as the initial revision; the P-51D and F4U-1D which both had their multi-role abilities improved at a slight cost of performance, and the P-51H and F4U-4/5, the utimate versions of each design. In comparisons between those airplanes, none is ever really "better" than its counterpart.
In the end though, I still maintain that ANY comparison between aircraft is pointless without also accounting for the job required.
J_A_B
-
Excellent post, JAB. With that Ohio location, you are an alumni of Aeronautical Systems Division?
-
yeah well, I mixed it up with two Yaks the other night, trying to re-create the account described in this post.
End result... scratch 50 perks :(
(thinks to self..."superior plane my arse.")
Gainsie
-
Originally posted by J_A_B
In the end though, I still maintain that ANY comparison between aircraft is pointless without also accounting for the job required.
J_A_B
Did you actually read the article? It is evaluating Fighter-Bomber performance. In that respect, no P-51 was even close to the F4U-4 in that role. In Korea, Mustangs took heavy losses, suffering nearly four times the losses of the F4U-4 per sortie.
If I had to choose one fighter to fulfill all of the major combat roles, interceptor, escort and ground attack, I'd take the F4U-4 over the P-51D or P-51H. Why, because it can do the job, AND GET YOU HOME. Moreover, it also operates from carriers. In Korea, that was a critical factor because it did not have to fly 2-3 hours just to get to the combat area. Likewise, when Japan was being squeezed in 1945, P-51s were faced with a long flight from Iwo Jima, whereas the F4U-4 was based just 20 minutes out to sea. I have no qualms about stating that the F4U-4 was the best all-around fighter of WWII. I don't have to prove that, because history already has.
Now, that said, I happen to like the P-51D very much. I've been flying it a lot this tour, and have a 17.5/1 K/D ratio in it (35/2). I'll be flying the F4U-4 more as well.
My regards,
Widewing
-
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!
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.
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.
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?
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.
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 :)
-
Red Tail,
Don't think for a second that the stats for the current AH F4U-4 is representitive of the Korean War version. By the time of the Korean War it was an even better A/C with more HP throughout the speed range and better climb rate as well.
The 3800FPM climb for an F4U-4 is the worst I have seen stated anywhere and we are lucky to have it.
-
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
-
Originally posted by F4UDOA
Red Tail,The 3800FPM climb for an F4U-4 is the worst I have seen stated anywhere and we are lucky to have it.
I would love to know how to get the F4U-4 to climb greater than 3.1...with tanks, at 160 knots IAS
what is the proper ROC setting in auto climb, and...how can I max out in this area?
Gainsie
-
You're right Widewing, auto magazines "grade" cars the exact same way. It puzzles me, too. Who in their right mind would buy a "good all-around car"? Why buy a car that's merely decent at everything, instead of buying one that's REALLY good at a few important things? Most auto magazines label my car as an oversized impractical boat....yet for my needs it's the perfect vehicle. A Toyota Camry might be a better "all around" car...but for my needs it'd be worse than what I have.
I look at airplanes the same way the same way as I look at cars....what is the job requirement, and how well does plane X do that job. The way I see it, in combat the guys in F4U-4's trying to intercept Kamikazes couldn't care less about their airplane's ground attack capability....likewise, the P-51 guys in Korea weren't worried about how good an escort it would make. That's why the F8F didn't last in service....the job it was good at was no longer an issue in the Jet age.
Being a good multi-role airplane is only important if your job requires it...which in the case of the F4U (carrier plane), it did. The P-51 or P-47 might not have been as good as a multi-role airplane....but they didn't NEED to be. Would you call a pickup truck better than a car simply by virtue of it being a better multi-role vehicle without taking into account what its owners need?
It's possible that I might have mis-quited your point somewhat; its been awhile since I last read your F4U article. From my memory the article was trying to label it as the best fighter of WW2. UPDATE: Upon re-reading your article prior to this post, I see that towards the end you say this:
"Furthermore, there is strong evidence that it very well may be the best piston engine fighter (to see combat) period. "
That is what I have to disagree with, for the reasons already discussed. There is IMO no "best" fighter without discussing some particular role. If you had stayed strictly with the "fighter/bomber" category, I'd be unable to argue with you :)
But then, wouldn't life be so much more boring without these little discussions? :D
J_A_B
-
Originally posted by J_A_B
Who in their right mind would buy a "good all-around car"? Why buy a car that's merely decent at everything, instead of buying one that's REALLY good at a few important things? J_A_B
Ladies and Gentlemen, introducing to you, the F6 Hellcat? Merely decent at everything, superior in nothing....and 7,888+ were made in WW2..
.Someone wasnt reading the reports, apparently.
Gainsie
-
Not true--the F6F was superior in one very important aspect, which just happens to be the aspect it was designed for:
It is very, very easy to fly off of and land on carriers, even with a considerable load. Contrast this with the F4U--the early F4U's outperformed the Hellcat, but were rejected by the Navy as unsafe for carrier ops! "On paper" performance is not the only thing which matters.
Once the F4U's were fixed, they eventually replaced the Hellcat (but not before the Hellcats destroyed the Japanese airforce).
J_A_B
-
Can any of the above come close to the Spit?
Fighter pur sang, extesively used for Jabo, carrier capable. The one all others are measuerd by - and usually found wanting.
If only Mitchell had put some fuel in it!
-
Originally posted by Seeker
Can any of the above come close to the Spit?
Bah, the spit's short range makes it fairly worthless as anything but an interceptor.
-
J_A_B,
I think there is a huge misconception about the F6F and the number of kills it scored in WW2.
Was it the backbone of the Navy? Yes of course.
But it scored the vast majority of it's kills in 1944. In 1943 during the solomons campaign the F4U had by far more kills when the japanese still had some pilots left.
Also the 19:1 kill ratio is a bit overblown. During the same time frame on carriers the FM-2 had a 35:1 kill ratio. The best by any of the bunch. But it doesn't make it the best fighter.
Also the F4U dropped almost three times as many tons of bombs as the F6F in virtuallly the same number of sorties while loosing less A/C all together in combat and operationally.
-
Originally posted by J_A_B
It is very, very easy to fly off of and land on carriers, even with a considerable load. Contrast this with the F4U--the early F4U's outperformed the Hellcat, but were rejected by the Navy as unsafe for carrier ops! J_A_B
Read Tom Blackburn's book about the Jolly Rogers. VF-17 carrier qual-ed without any serious incidents in the F4U-1.
VF-12 completed carrier qual by April of 1943.
Starting May 1, 1943, VF-17 landed F4U-1's and eventually all pilots got their five traps without loss. VF-17 deployed aboard Bunker Hill with new F4U-1A's from the factory September 10 of '43.
So, VF-12 and VF-17 successfully completed carrier qual with F4U-1's.
Here's one opinion on why they did not remain as carrier squadrons:
"The trip to the West Coast was uneventful, and they sortied from San Diego on September 28.
But a few days out, official lightning struck. VF-17 was detached from Bunker Hill, and ordered to the island of Espiritu Santo, to operate as a land-based squadron. The problem was one of logistics, not of operations. The high command knew that Blackburn's Corsairs could operate from a carrier. But as the only Corsair squadron in a Navy full of Grumman Hellcats and Wildcats, supplying and maintaining them would be a headache."
Lt. Cdr. John T. "Tommy" Blackburn (http://www.acepilots.com/usn_blackburn.html)
-
Also, in addition to the success of the Corsair, some 64% of Corsair deaths were non-combat related.
Now, this quote is in Tillman's book somewhere. I am not as concerned about kill rates, what I like is getting home, with or without kills, and for me, the Corsair is the plane I am most comfortable in. it's not a furballer, and it's not designed for low lever fights, but all in all, I like my odds in the corsair than in any other craft, for the most part.
Gainsie
-
Red Tail,
Take a look at this. Far more Hellcats were lost operationally that F4U's in almost the same number of sorties.
Also notice how many more tons of bombs the F4U dropped.
And the outragous K/D of the FM2. Makes you wonder about the Navy's kill claims in 1944.
-
Here is a record of kills listed by year.
From March of 1944 to Feb. 1945 the F4U is virtually inactive while the FM-2 and F6F record thousands of Kills. In 1943 this was not the case however.
(http://mywebpages.comcast.net/markw4/Kills1.jpg)
(http://mywebpages.comcast.net/markw4/kills2.jpg)
-
Originally posted by F4UDOA
Makes you wonder about the Navy's kill claims in 1944.
True, intentional or otherwise, there was plenty of embellished stories on all sides...however, I did hear froma PJ Pilot in 1986 that whenever a 109 rolled over, it would bellow smoke from its engine, giving the appearance of a possible kill.
Then, of course, up he comes at you, nose blinking away...He reported a lot of buff gunners saw the 109 roll away, and moved onto another target, thinking they got a kill..same for a lot of fellow PJ pilots..
I was only 16 at the time, and I didnt bother to ask his name, his unit, etc...sorry fellas, he's gone...besides which he didnt fly the Corsair, so I was not overly excited :o
Gainsie