Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: rod367th on June 29, 2003, 08:21:13 PM
-
The Facts Tell The Whole Story(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/ah_88_1056936049.jpg)
Since the end of the Second World War, there has raged a continuous debate over which was the best overall fighter aircraft to emerge from the conflict. This debate shows no sign of abating to this day. From the school boys of the mid nineteen forties to the aviation scholars of the 1980’s, P-51 advocates argue their case with Spitfire men and Lightning defenders, and so goes the debate forever..........
Or, does it?
While these debates certainly do not lack for passion, they frequently lack accurate analysis of the aircraft in question. There is some solid evidence that strongly supports the argument that the Chance Vought F4U-4 Corsair was the finest all around fighter of the war. Certainly it qualifies as the best fighter/bomber.
The F4U-4 arrived in combat early in 1945. Therefore, it had only about six months to establish its combat record against the Japanese. However, the big fighter remained in service throughout the Korean War, where along with the F4U-5, it gained a sterling reputation for delivering ordnance with great accuracy. Indeed, the Corsair earned the respect of enemy pilots flying the MiG-15. Vought's Corsair was a fighter that could not be treated lightly. In a turning fight below 350 knots, the MiG pilot could find himself in big trouble very quickly.
Chance Vought's F4U-4 came about as a development of the F4U-4XA, which was first flown in early April 1944. It was fitted with an up-rated Pratt & Whitney R2800-18W or -42W engine. This powerplant developed 2,450 bhp with water injection. It was also fitted with a four blade hydromatic propeller which provided the necessary efficiency to utilize the greater power. The carburetor inlet was moved from the wing root leading edge to a duct located under the engine. The exhaust stacks had to be re-routed as a result. Armament remained the same as the F4U-1, with six .50 caliber Browning MGs. The limited production F4U-4B was armed with four M3 20mm cannon. Under-wing load capability was substantial. Up to three 1,000 lb. bombs along with eight 5 inch rockets could be carried. Reportedly, it was not unusual to rig the F4U-4 with as much as 6,000 lbs of ordnance. Apparently the robust structure of the Corsair could bear these loads without undue wear and tear on the airframe. Almost certainly, such overloaded Corsairs did not operate from carrier decks, but exclusively from shore bases.
Let’s compare the F4U-4 to its earlier sibling, the F4U-1 so that we can clearly see the improvements made.
Maximum speed:
F4U-1: 417 mph @ 19,900 ft.
F4U-4: 446 mph @ 26,200 ft.
The -4 displays a 29 mph speed advantage, but more importantly, does it at a considerably greater altitude. The F4U-4 is actually 10 mph faster than the P-51D at the Mustang’s best altitude.
Rate of climb:
F4U-1: 3,250 ft/min.
F4U-4: 4,170 ft/min.
While the -4 has a more powerful engine, it also weighs more than the F4U-1. This marked increase in climb rate can be attributed to the more efficient 4 blade propeller as well as the higher power of the up-rated powerplant. The increase moves the Corsair into stellar company with fighters such as the P-38L and the F7F Tigercat. The F4U-4 climbs at a rate 20% better than the P-51D.
There is little doubt that the Corsair was likely the greatest load carrying fighter of its era. There is little to compare to it except perhaps late-war models of the P-47, which still fall somewhat short in maximum load.
We now get to the more subjective aspects of the -4’s performance. Rating a fighter’s flight characteristics is never without pitfalls. What one pilot feels is too stiff, another might describe as firm or secure. As a result, opinions may vary. However, empirical data is certainly the most valuable in determining a fighter’s overall performance. The tangible things such as cockpit layout and visibility are also important, as are the intangible things such as confidence in the airframe to get the pilot home. I will do my best to present the subjective data in an unbiased manner.
In terms of maneuverability, all models of the Corsair were first rate. The F4U-4 was better than the F4U-1 series. Why? More power and better performance in the vertical regime. Very few fighters, even pure fighters such as the Yak-3 could hang with an -4 maneuvering in the vertical. Its terrific climbing ability combined with very light and sensitive controls made for a hard fighter to beat anytime the fight went vertical.
Ease of flight.The Corsair was much less a handful than the P-51 when flown into an accelerated stall, although it was by no means as forgiving as the F6F Hellcat. Torque roll was no worse than most of its high power contemporaries.
The F4U also rolled well. When rolling in conjunction with powerplant torque, in other words, rolling left, it was among the very fastest rolling fighters of the war. In the inventory of American fighters, only the P-47N rolled faster, and only by 6 degrees/second.
In level flight acceleration the F4U-4 gained speed at about 2.4 mph/sec, the P-51D accelerated at about 2.2 mph/sec. The F4U-1 could not keep up with either, accelerating at only 1.5 mph/sec. The real drag racer of American WWII fighters was the P-38L. It gained speed at 2.8 mph/sec. All acceleration data was compiled at 10-15,000 ft at Mil. power settings.
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. Still, these two accelerate better than the opposition from Japan and Germany. Moreover, both the Corsair and the Mustang have relatively high critical Mach numbers allowing them to attain very high speeds in prolonged dives before running into compressibility difficulty. With the exception of early model P-38’s, it was almost always a mistake to attempt to evade American fighters by trying to dive away. This goes for early war fighters as well, such as the P-40 and F4F Wildcat.
There is one story recorded by a Luftwaffe pilot who, while flying a Bf-109F over North Africa tangled with several FAA Martlets (the British name for the F4F). Finding himself alone with a Martlet on his tail, he elected to half roll into a steep dive to shake off the slow flying carrier fighter. Hurtling down in a screaming dive, the German looked over his shoulder and was stunned to see the Martlet (Wildcat) closing with guns blazing. Pulling back on the stick, under heavy G loading, the German eased into a zoom climb. The F4F was still with him firing bursts. As the speed bled down, the Bf-109 began to pull away in a steady rate climb. Had the Brit been a better shot, the German was certain he would have been shot down. He had underestimated the diving ability of the American fighter. Indeed, many of his comrades would do the same over Europe and not be as fortunate as he.
-
When we look at the turn rates of WWII fighters we stumble upon several factors that determine how well a fighter can turn. Aside from the technical aspects such as wing area and wing loading, we find that some fighters are far more maneuverable at low speeds than at higher velocities. This was very common with Japanese designs. At speeds above 250 mph, the A6M Zero and the Ki-43 Hayabusa (Oscar) could not roll worth a nickel. But at 150 mph, they were two of the most dangerous fighters ever to take wing. It did not take long for Allied pilots to learn to avoid low speed turning duels with the Japanese. Once this rule was established, the light weight dogfighters were hopelessly outclassed by the much faster opposition.
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. With the exception of these last two, 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. To do so, the Yak would have to expertly flown. Furthermore, the Yak-3 was strictly a low to medium altitude fighter. Above 20,000 ft its power dropped off rapidly, as did its maneuverability. The Yak-3 in question had better be powered by the Klimov M107A engine and not the low output M105. Otherwise, the speed difference is too great to overcome.
So, perhaps now is a good time to summarize the performance of the F4U-4. Let’s compare it to the aircraft generally believed to be the best all-around fighter of World War Two, the North American P-51D Mustang.
Speed: The -4 was about 10 mph faster than the P-51D at the altitude where the Mustang developed it’s highest speed.
Advantage: F4U-4
Climb: The -4 Corsair was a remarkable climber despite its size and weight. It could out-climb the Mustang by nearly 800 fpm.
Advantage: F4U-4
Maneuverability: The F4U-4 was one of the very best. According to Jeffrey Ethell: "Of all World War II fighters, the Corsair was probably the finest in air-to-air combat for a balance of maneuverability and responsiveness. The -4, the last wartime version is considered by many pilots who have flown the entire line to be the best of them all….." Indeed, the F4U-4 had few, if any equals at the business of ACM (air combat maneuvering).
Advantage: F4U-4
Armament: Equipped with either six .50 caliber machine guns or four 20mm cannons, the -4 had more than adequate firepower to destroy any aircraft. It was the premier load carrying single engine fighter of the war. It could get airborne with bomb loads exceeding that of some twin engine medium bombers.
Advantage: F4U-4
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. The P-51D, on the other hand, could be brought down by a single rifle bullet anywhere in the cooling system.
Advantage: F4U-4
Useful range: The F4U-4 had roughly the same radius of action as the Republic P-47D-25-RE, which flew escort missions deep into Germany as far as Berlin (the P-47D-25-RE had 100 gallons of additional internal fuel capacity). Yet, the P-51D still maintained a big edge in endurance.
Advantage: P-51D
Ease of flight: Despite gaining the nickname of "Ensign Eliminator", the F4U series tendency to roll under torque was no more difficult to handle than any other high powered fighter of the era. Some who have flown both the Corsair and the Mustang state without hesitation that the P-51 exhibited a greater propensity to roll on its back than did the F4U. Moreover, the Corsair was a far more forgiving aircraft when entering a stall. Although it would drop its right wing abruptly, the aircraft gave plenty of advanced warning of an impending stall by entering a pronounced buffeting about 6-7 mph before the wing dropped. The P-51, however, gave no warning of an impending stall. When it did stall, it was with a total loss of pilot control, rolling inverted with a severe aileron snatch. Recovery usually used up 500 ft or more of altitude. It was not uncommon for Mustangs to spin out of tight turns during dogfights. The F4U could also be flown at speeds more than 30 mph slower than that at which the Mustang stalled. In other words, the P-51 could not hope to follow a Corsair in a low speed turning fight.
Advantage: F4U-4
Outward Visibility: The Corsair provided for very good visibility from the cockpit. However, few if any WWII fighters offered the pilot a better view than the P-51D. The earlier P-51B was inferior to the F4U. Nonetheless, it was the D model that made up the bulk of Mustang production.
Advantage: P-51D
Finally there is an area in which the P-51 cannot compete at all. The F4U was designed to operate from an aircraft carrier. What this provides for is a utility that is unmatched by the better land based fighters of WWII. The ability to operate at sea or from shore can never be over-valued.
Obvious advantage: F4U-4
In conclusion, it would be hard, no, impossible to dismiss the F4U-4 as the leading candidate for the "best fighter/bomber of WWII". Furthermore, there is strong evidence that it very well may be the best piston engine fighter (to see combat) period. Certainly, everyone can agree on this: The F4U-4 Corsair was at the pinnacle of WWII piston engine technology and performance. When people debate the relative merits of the great fighter aircraft of WWII, they would be remiss in not acknowledging the F4U-4 as one of the very best, and in the educated opinion of many, "the best" fighter aircraft to fly into combat in World War II.
-
I love F4Us!!! :)
-
Mosquito FB.Mk VI.
-
P-47D was a better FB than the F4U
-
Actually the VK-107 engined Yak-3 would outrun, outclimb and outturn the F4U-4, luckily the VK-107 Yak-3 didn’t see service in WWII, or so I’ve been told.
The 109F4 will outturn the F4U-4 in AH. The 109G10 will outclimb the F4U-4 in AH. The 190D9 is faster in AH I believe?
-
I'd have to disagree.
All of you guys live in a fantasy land, with your fancy big bellybutton ugly blue plane with some funky bellybutton wings. The best fighter/bomber of World War II was obviously the P-38. All of you guys are in denial of the stark truth of reality. Records don't show the two top all time US aces were in Corsairs
Ack-Ack
Perk the P-38!
-
Best fighter of WWII? … Hmmmm, Me-262A-1a Schwalbe?
Best fighterbomber of WWII? … Hmmmm, Me-262A-2a Sturmvogel?
Best nightfighter of WWII? … Hmmmm, Me-262B-1a/U1? (Kurt Welter got 20 kills in this one making him the highest-scoring jet ace in all history)
… Oh, you mean best piston-engined fighter, silly me ;).
-
No one knows about the P-47 M
Climb rate to 20,000 ft - 4.6 min~4960 Ft/min
Top speed 470 @27,000 Ft @20,000 440
See if they would put it in here , No one would believe it. # squadrons Demanded 47 over 51 and they got them .
2800 Hp at cruise RPM, 3200 @ Wep and that at factory settings
Mechanics tweek so that pilots can survive. The P-47M in the feild constantly exceeded 500 MpH in level flight.
Corsairs could out turn it but not out maneuver it- That from a Tuskegee Airman who would go to a nearby Marine traing base and tease them.
P-47s launched off 2 Jeep carriers to Saipan AB. That how they got to Saipan.
Corsair is cute, but the British said it could not compete with German Aircraft. Brits refused all corsairs and bought Thunderbolts instead.
President Reagen name the Thunderbolt best fighter of WWII at a ceremony dedicating the Milleville NJ Governent center.
-
Whatever u all say
Spitfire was, be, will be best f/b in ww2
any of your planes sunk medium ship only by guns fire?
Spit eat any f4u, p47 easy:D :D :D
ramzey
-
This article is very arrogant... It almost completely ignores planes like the P47N or P47M which was much faster, rolled better, dove better, had better high alt performance, had much better visiblity, could carry as much or more ordenance, took just as much or more damage, had better gun firepower in WW2, had more ammo, climbed alsmost as well, and so on and so on....
Not to mention it adds the completely irrelevent criteria that the F4U operated from carriers...
Article is full of bias and romace novel type adoration for the F4U4...
And this is coming from a guy who loved F4U Corsair before I even knew what a Bf109 was...
-
Ramzey, here's my favorite BoB quote:
Squadron Leader Edwards: "Shut up! Silence - in Polish!"
:D
-
Originally posted by Stegahorse
Corsair is cute, but the British said it could not compete with German Aircraft. Brits refused all corsairs and bought Thunderbolts instead.
The US Navy at first were the ones that had some reservations about the Corsair, due to its difficulty in carrier landings. There was even a brief suspension of carrier operations for the F4U. The Royal Navy didn't didn't have such reservations.
885 Squadron of the Royal Navy Fleet Arm flew F4U Corsair II and the F4U Corsair IV based out of Sydney, Australia.
1830 Squadron aboard H.M.S. Illustrious also flew the Corsair II
1846 Squadron flew the Corsair IV.
As you can see, most, if not all RN air units with the F4U saw action in the Pacific and both models they flew, the II and IV models were the clipped wing variant of the F4U.
Ack-Ack
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Ramzey, here's my favorite BoB quote:
Squadron Leader Edwards: "Shut up! Silence - in Polish!"
:D
"Repeat pls" :D :D :D and LW going down:)
my favorite is "Szczelaja do nas sukinsyny" /they shooting to us s** of ****/ ;)
Back to topic
I agree with Grunhertz, article going to one side like commercial.
Criterions for best f/b in ww2 is not airplane speed/climb......... but how many damages he do and was most usefull plane.
In this case Mosquito beat everything.
If somone like woman try to fit car to shoes we have article like that;)
ramzey
-
Lol! You remind me of that 308 guy who sat outside the ready room reading a book titled "1001 English Words" :p
"The RAF is not a flying circus! Strict RT procedures are to be followed at all times!” :D
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Lol! You remind me of that 308 guy who sat outside the ready room reading a book titled "1001 English Words" :p
"The RAF is not a flying circus! Strict RT procedures are to be followed at all times!” :D
GRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR ignorant !!!! ;)
It was 303rd Fighter Squadron
http://www.geocities.com/psp1945/303/303_story.htm
l
http://www.geocities.com/psp1945/303/303_BoB.html
And this guy who sit and learn english character was base on one of best pilots;) Im not feel offended :D
U know most of pilots know french, but thats diferent story:D :D
-
Oh, my mistake ... terribly sorry old chap … you’re not that guy! :D:D:D
Yeah I bet the British was ecstatic about French radio chatter. ;)
-
Originally posted by GScholz
luckily the VK-107 Yak-3 didn’t see service in WWII, or so I’ve been told.
Because only two were made.... for trials.........
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Best fighter of WWII? … Hmmmm, Me-262A-1a Schwalbe?
Best fighterbomber of WWII? … Hmmmm, Me-262A-2a Sturmvogel?
Best nightfighter of WWII? … Hmmmm, Me-262B-1a/U1? (Kurt Welter got 20 kills in this one making him the highest-scoring jet ace in all history)
… Oh, you mean best piston-engined fighter, silly me ;).
Agreed.............
for piston engined what about the Tempest........
-
Originally posted by Tilt
Agreed.............
for piston engined what about the Tempest........
The Tempest is a much overlooked plane, it sertainly ranks up there with the big contenders. It's not the fastest though.
-
this is off lockheed martin and the RAND corp. (us think tank )investigation into planes off ww2. in 1981 they setup a think tank on planes. to decide roll of future multi national fighter. This is page 46 of report. Not my idea of plane as I think tiffy probally was high up there
r2861 is book from national congress. written by mike d rich, William L stanley( my father),John birkler and Mary vaiana all from Rand corp , santa monica ca.
-
That me 262 was so good we almost lost the war.
:rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by GScholz
The Tempest is a much overlooked plane, it sertainly ranks up there with the big contenders. It's not the fastest though.
At low alt it is as fast, if not faster than those planes mentioned there (435mph at 19k if i remember rightly: Tempest V and that is the slowest version).
I find that article VERY American Biased :p
And how can you say it was the best WWII fighter-bomber when it entered service in 1945 and only saw action in the pacific?! :rolleyes: Hey, why not consider the DeHavilland Vampire?!
-
You say that often the people arguing which is best dont always have the best information yet you seem to be of the opinion that anything written about the corsair is set in stone.
If theres one thing we can say for certain about WW2 information and records its that they are NOT all certain.what i mean is lots of records are based on estimates and claims which can never be fully proven.
You say the corsair had the best record as a fighter bomber yet you must surely know that by 1945 you have many other factors to consider concerning trying to evaluate combat effectiveness of any particular model.you have, just for a few examples:
1) overclaiming of damage done by pilots
2) Fabricated ground targets made by the defenders to attract fire from attackers.The british were superb at tricking the Germans but its a little known fact that the Japanese were expert at building mock up aircraft and other ground targets. Many claims for aircraft destroyed on the ground during the latter stages of WW2 vs the japanese were model mock ups.
3) The corsair was know as the 'Ensign killer' due to the fact it was very unforgiving on inexperieced flyers.So if your criteria for best fighter bomber involves safety or ease of use then you will struggle to get in the top ten here.
4)Japanes pilots were of a far lower quality towards the end of WW2 just as the German average level of skill faded fast from 1943 onwards.This means any aircraft which survived welll in the early years of the war should get extra consideration due to the quality of the oppersition.
we could go on all day.
A Fighter bomber whom I personally think would kick the corasirs bellybutton in the fighter bomber dept is the P47. It fought in a theatre which had far more formidable air defenses and I would guess a far higher likelyhood of interception.It was just as, if not more rugged and durable as the Corsair. It was a damn sight easier to fly for an inexperienced pilots and it basically was acclaimed by allied and axis pilots alike as a superb fighter-bomber. This for me would make me rate it above the f4u-4. Yes it(f4) was in advance of the enemies aircraft that it faced but that for me is a reason to count against it rather than for it.The f4u-4 faced what was left of the IJN/IJA in the last months of the war, not the formidable force it once was.If you look at other fighter bombers like Typhoons, mosquitoes, 190s ,110s, P47s,P38's and P51's etc etc they all faced enemies that were far more their equal than the aircraft the F4U-4 pilot was likely to meet. Maybe F4U-4's fought japans top fighters in late 1945? perhaps you can show us a few excerpts from pilots combat tales that mention some? I have never seen any myself and i suspect that the japanese they did face were mostly of the suicidal outdated types which made up the mmajority of japans airforce toward the end. They were throwing 1939 zeros into the fight as kamakazi's! .
Then theres the typhoon:
" [3] TYPHOON IN COMBAT
* By the time of D-Day, 6 June 1944, Gloster had built almost 2,000 Typhoons, and they were serving in 26 RAF squadrons. The Tiffies helped pave the way for the invasion by blasting coastal radar stations, and were put to good use as Allied armies advanced, using a "cab rank" system where fighters stood by in the air and awaited calls from ground controllers for targets to destroy.
On 17 July 1944, Typhoons attacked a German staff car that turned out to be carrying the commander of German forces opposing the invasion, Field Marshall Erwin Rommel. Rommel was badly wounded and did not return to action, as he was implicated in a plot to assassinate Adolf Hitler and was forced to commit suicide.
The high point of the Typhoon's career was the Battle of the Falaise Pocket in the third week of August 1944. Wehrmacht divisions, forced by Hitler's obstinate insistence that they stand their ground when they should have withdrawn, were almost completely encircled in the area of the French town of Falaise by the Allied armies. The Germans in the pocket were then crushed by artillery and air strikes.
RP-firing Typhoons, or "Rockoons", were significant contributors to the butchery, hitting everything that moved, with Tiffy pilots walking up to a target with cannon fire and then loosing a devastating salvo of RPs. Allied scouts who moved into the area after the shooting died down described it as a "slaughterhouse", with German survivors in numb shock. The Allied victory ended serious German resistance in France."
quoted from this web site:http://www.vectorsite.net/avcfury.html#m3
-
anyway this is the best piston aircraft of WW2(just after*) :)
http://www.ctie.monash.edu.au/hargrave/images/camm_Sea_Fury_FB11_1_500.jpg
this thing was unreal! :) The SeaFury.
* ( The first Sea Fury prototype (SR661) flew on 21 February 1945. It was fitted with a Centaurus XII engine, a four-blade propeller, an arresting hook, but lacked folding wings. The second prototype (SR666) flew on 12 October 1945, and featured a Centaurus XV engine with 1,900 kW (2,550 HP) on improved shock mountings, a distinctive five-blade Rotol propeller, an arresting hook, and wings that folded hydraulically. A third prototype with a similar level of equipment fit was partially completed by Boulton-Paul and finished by Hawker. )
-
Anyone else lusting for a P47N and a Yak-3 in AH after reading that?
-
Love em or hate em - hard to not say the P51. Apperance of that plane changed the war.
-
Originally posted by Zanth
Love em or hate em - hard to not say the P51. Apperance of that plane changed the war.
As escort to daylight bombing raids, for ground attack it was a bit too fragile!
-
More in response to the conclusion in the part II of the origianl post "In conclusion, it would be hard, no, impossible to dismiss the F4U-4 as the leading candidate for the "best fighter/bomber of WWII". Furthermore, there is strong evidence that it very well may be the best piston engine fighter (to see combat) period."
The P-51s destroyed 4,950 enemy aircraft in the air, more than any other fighter in Europe. Further, they accompished this with a K/D ratio of 19:1. (Mighty impressive numbers for the author of the F4U-4 book quoted to dismiss.)
-
How would a 109 qualify as the best fighter bomber? Silly luftwits.
P47 and P38 I think would be up there. What gives the Corsair an advantage is it's versatility. Being able to operate from a CV, the Corsair can be dispatched anywhere.
-
Originally posted by BUG_EAF322
That me 262 was so good we almost lost the war.
:rolleyes:
IIRC, when "Wacht am Rhein" started, it was about 3000 allied a/c vs. about 500 LW, most NOT 262s.
Still, it took 6 months to defeat them at a 6:1 numerical advantage.
The allies produced the axis to death - a viable strategy. But not proof of having the better equipment - look at Sherman (even Fireflies) vs. Tigers.
Best Fighter-Bomber: Me 262
Piston engined... many qualify. I`d go with the Dora.
-
Originally posted by Zanth
The P-51s destroyed 4,950 enemy aircraft in the air, more than any other fighter in Europe. Further, they accompished this with a K/D ratio of 19:1. (Mighty impressive numbers for the author of the F4U-4 book quoted to dismiss.)
Well if you go by K/D Ratio. The F6F had a 19:1 with over 75% of this kills being in the Air. Half of the P-51s were on the ground
Other
F6F 19 to 1
P-38 10 to 1
P-51 19 to 1
Spitfire 10 to 1
Fw-190 8 to 1(2 to 1 over Spitfires)
Tempest 11 to 1
F4U 11 to 1
P-47 4.6 to 1
-
Read [post guys not any f4u just f4u 4.............
not my book this comes from a think tank put together to see what a good fighter bomber would be in future, so to predict furtue they looked at pass, Were not talking desk jockeys.
I would post whole report but to big. alot of testing was done at end war by lockheed spit,tempest,p47 etc. based on f4u-4 's speed roll and capability they decided f4u-4.
p47 couldn't fly past 22k with drop tanks/and was unstable with full load out in most pilots hands. p47 would have to drop bombs in dive no matter if target all ready dead, If he didn't he would tear wings off, where as f4u-4 was stronger and could pull out dives with ord still on plane. just some of many facts they came to.
Morris stanley ww2 357th 8th af flew p47's morris is William l stanleys older brother...................... ....so I'm sure he knew what a p47 could and couldn't do................
remeber what planes were used after ww2 f4u-4 went onto korea and beat migs. plus did most ground attacks in korea. that speaks loud I would think.
-
Errr, when it comes to best fighter,fighter/bomber surely the ME262 cleans up all others as nothing else comes close and it's design was far ahead of anything else at the time.
...-Gixer
-Hells Angels-
-
Originally posted by devious
IIRC, when "Wacht am Rhein" started, it was about 3000 allied a/c vs. about 500 LW, most NOT 262s.
Still, it took 6 months to defeat them at a 6:1 numerical advantage.
The allies produced the axis to death - a viable strategy. But not proof of having the better equipment - look at Sherman (even Fireflies) vs. Tigers.
Best Fighter-Bomber: Me 262
Piston engined... many qualify. I`d go with the Dora.
Sorry to disagree with you, Part of winning a war is being able to stand the field. If you out produce and out number the other guy you most often will win. If you have a bomber stream over you factories day and night I don't care what you are capable of building you wont build them in numbers. The key is winning not getting awards for the best stuff. The Germans lost the numbers game bad, pure and simple. Some times good is good enough to beat better if better cant be there.
BTW most all of the tanks against the Germans in 1938 were better then them,just in to few numbers.
Best fighter bomber P-47 (air cooled and rugged with a massive load) F4uD would also work almost as well.
Swallow was to fragile to be a fighter bomber (slow firing pair of 30mm and only 2 two bombs)
Best bomber intercepter Me-163 or Me-262 (that was the idea after all)
Best fighter is a tough one as you need to factor in things such as range, speed, manuverabilty, fire power, ruggedness, climb rate, etc. Like in the MA as in real life it depends on the mission.
My vote P-51 with a close 2nd to the Dora and Spit and the P-38
just my $.02
-
How many did Corsair shot down MIGs in Korean War? :confused:
-
Originally posted by MajorDay
How many did Corsair shot down MIGs in Korean War? :confused:
One did.
Ack-Ack
-
Originally posted by Ack-Ack
One did.
Ack-Ack
Hmmmmm......Are you sure? :D
-
Originally posted by MajorDay
Hmmmmm......Are you sure? :D
To be honest, Corsairs shot down a few Mig-15s. I don't know the number. But I think it was around 4 or 5... I believe most of them were F4U-5s
-
The author should compare it to a 1945 P51 instead of a 1942-43.
Its like comparing a 190A8 with a 190D9.
-
ive been lusting fer P47N fer 2 years---it had as much time in as F4u4
-
rod367th & other bent-wing lovers,
If you haven't read it already, pick up a copy of Boone T. Guyton's book titled 'Whistling Death' (ISBN 0-517-57526-4). Mr. Boone was a test pilot for Chance Vought during and after WWII. He flew over 105 types of aircraft during his 45 years as a pilot and tells of both the good and bad during the Corsair's development, flight testing, and deployment.
Guyton credits the Corsair with destroying 2,140 enemy planes while suffering only 189 losses (an 11 to 1 success rate).
The Corsair is a Marine's plane and not just anybody can handle it (... and one of these days I'll figure out how to fly it like I know how)!
Chance2
-
P47
546,000 combat sorties with a combat loss rate of only 0.7 percent.
132,000 tons of bombs dropped.
135 million rounds of 50 cal.
1-1/2 million hours of combat.
20 million gal of fuel consumed.
11,878 Enemy planes destroyed; 1/2 in the air; 1/2 on the ground.
160,000 military vehicles destroyed.
9,000 enemy locomotives destroyed.
More victories than any other
American aircraft in W.W.II.
-
Originally posted by Imp
The author should compare it to a 1945 P51 instead of a 1942-43.
Its like comparing a 190A8 with a 190D9.
The P-51D was a 1944/45 fighter. It, along with its Dallas built twin, the P-51K, were the latest and last models to see combat in the ETO. Unless you prefer the lightwight P-51H, which could do no better than the D model as a fighter-bomber. FYI, the P-51D served in Korea, the somewhat less durable P-51H did not.
My regards,
Widewing
-
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
-
Originally posted by chance-airwolf
rod367th & other bent-wing lovers,
If you haven't read it already, pick up a copy of Boone T. Guyton's book titled 'Whistling Death' (ISBN 0-517-57526-4). Mr. Boone was a test pilot for Chance Vought during and after WWII. He flew over 105 types of aircraft during his 45 years as a pilot and tells of both the good and bad during the Corsair's development, flight testing, and deployment.
Guyton credits the Corsair with destroying 2,140 enemy planes while suffering only 189 losses (an 11 to 1 success rate).
The Corsair is a Marine's plane and not just anybody can handle it (... and one of these days I'll figure out how to fly it like I know how)!
Chance2
LOL never said i like bent wings , posted this after reading Rand report. Thought it was very interesting to see guys look at pass and come up mwith multinational fighter bomber for future.
-
Originally posted by TW9
Greatest WW2 pilot never made it out of hawaii.. :D
http://www.tedwilliams.com/index.php?page=milww2&level=2
Sure he did! George Welch went to New Guinea where he threatened to exceed Bong and McGuire until nearly killed by severe malaria. Instead, he went to North American Aviation (on Hap Arnold's recommendation) as a test pilot where on October 1, 1947, he upstaged Chuck Yeager by diving the XP-86 through Mach 1 two weeks before Yeager did it "officially". Welch was credited with 4 kills and two probables at Pearl Harbor (flying a P-40B) for which he received the DFC (Arnold wanted to award him the CMoH, but Welch's squadron commander disapproved the recommendation due to Welch taking off without specific orders. That Captain was banished to a desk and eventually drummed out of the Air Corps for having greatly annoyed Gen. Arnold, who had zero patience for "damned idiots").
Naturally, all due respect for the "Splendid Splinter", a truly great ball player, fighter pilot and American hero!
My regards,
Widewing
-
Originally posted by MajorDay
Hmmmmm......Are you sure? :D
Yep. Heard the story from a teacher I had back in high school. He was the wingman of the pilot that got the kill and during WW2 was a member of the Blacksheep squadron.
ack-ack
-
Originally posted by Widewing
The P-51D was a 1944/45 fighter. It, along with its Dallas built twin, the P-51K, were the latest and last models to see combat in the ETO. Unless you prefer the lightwight P-51H, which could do no better than the D model as a fighter-bomber. FYI, the P-51D served in Korea, the somewhat less durable P-51H did not.
My regards,
Widewing
Im aware of that Widewing.
I was just saying that comparing it to a P51D is silly since the airframe was designed in 1940-1941.
If he wants to compare it then he should compare it to a similar plane. Like the P47N or Do335. Very late war planes.
-
IMP
authors probally have passed on 2 of them were ww2 pilots working RAND think tank, This as I said before not my take its from RAND corp. As they were looking to design multinational fighter /bomber for future. ITS there opion, which is based on facts from testing and pilots ww2. not by guys who havn't flown.
-
Originally posted by Imp
Im aware of that Widewing.
I was just saying that comparing it to a P51D is silly since the airframe was designed in 1940-1941.
If he wants to compare it then he should compare it to a similar plane. Like the P47N or Do335. Very late war planes.
I'm sorry, but you have made an incorrect assumption. Vought designed the F4U airframe in 1939! Structurally, there is little difference between the F4U-1 and the F4U-4. In fact, one could argue that the P-51D was substantially more different from the NA-73X (or even XP-51) than the F4U-4 was from the XF4U-1 of 1940. Moreover, the XF4U-1 flew 6 months BEFORE the NA-73X.
But wait, let's look even closer. North American's Mustang had to be re-engined to attain the level of performance seen in the P-51D/K. Vought's design was such that the F4U-4 did not require a complete engine swap, but merely used an improved version of the same engine that powered the prototype. Vought's design was still in frontline service in the French Navy long after the P-51D had been sold off to third world air forces or relegated to hobbyists and air racers.
What about the P-47N? Well, its basic airframe was designed in 1940, and test flown one year to the day AFTER the XF4U-1. In the case of the N model, it was designed as an ultra-long range escort fighter. As a fighter bomber it was no better than the D model. In fact, it accelerated slower, climbed slower and offered no improvement in overall agility. It was, however, faster if you had the extra time to wait for it to slowly wind-up to speed. Remember, the P-47N had a basic weight of over 11,000 lbs as compared to the F4U-4's basic weight of 9,300 lbs. Max takeoff was about 21,000 lbs for the P-47N and "normal" max of 14,000 lbs for the F4U-4, which could be "overloaded" to 16,830 lbs. In other words, the F4U-4 could fly circles around the P-47N, haul nearly 50% more ordnance and was at least as resistant to battle damage. In the Jug's favor was a speed advantage at very high altitude and considerably greater range. However, range is seldom a major consideration for close support and attack missions.
You have forgotten the classification. We are discussing fighter-bombers.
As to the Do 335, it was designed as a bomber interceptor, not a fighter-bomber. Moreover, although it was fast, it was no match for the far more agile single engine fighters swarming over Germany. Should I mention that only 13 Do 335A-1 and A-12 (two seater night fighter version) were completed before the war ended?
My regards,
Widewing
-
Of course, so easy to fight with numbers after all these years.
No doubt the Corsair (and the P-47, P-51 etc) was a great asset as a fighter-bomber in all its versions.
But in my mind, the words of Eric Brown stick, for example when comparing the Corsair and the Fw-190 :
'Having flown both aircraft a lot a have no doubt which one I would rather fly. The Fw-190 could not be bested by the Corsair'
Sure, this is air to air but the man has flown everything and has combat experience as well. He also rates the F6F much higher than the Corsair.
And for most of us AH is the closest thing we're ever going to get in flying the fighters of WWII and I STILL hate F4U's and I DO have a fair amount of kills in it. Never flown the ueber F4U-4 though, perk planes are for sissies.
-
Just to clarify - the Kills by P-51 I cited was only the air to air number. The full count for aircraft the P-51 dealt with in Europe was more like this: 4950 Air Kills, 4131 Ground Kills, 230 V-1 Kills.
The author of the article/book/report/whatever stated in his conclusion:
"In conclusion, it would be hard, no, impossible to dismiss the F4U-4 as the leading candidate for the "best fighter/bomber of WWII". Furthermore, there is strong evidence that it very well may be the best piston engine fighter (to see combat) period."
It is this statement I was taking slight issue with, and his previous detailed line by line comparision with the P-51. I am aware P-51 isn't strictly a fighter/bomebr - though certainly can do its far share of heavy work- the author drew the original comparision.
-
I happened to read an article in one of the major historical flight magazines arguing the "best" fighter of WW2. In the end the choose the P-47 as the #1 fighter of the war. While I don't remember (or agree) with all the reasoning 1 fact did stand out...
All 10 of the top P47 aces survived the war.
If you look at "late war"(1945?) planes I think the -4 falls behind the bearcat, tempest and seafury...and obvously the various jets...262, meteor and P-80. The Tigershark and Abledog were also available in the fighter/bomber role.
-
Originally posted by TW9
Greatest WW2 pilot never made it out of hawaii.. :D
http://www.tedwilliams.com/index.php?page=milww2&level=2
Ted Williams flew in korea as John Glenns wingman...John Glenn stated he was the best wingman and most gifted pilot he ever flew with.
-
There is no doubt in my mind... the F4U is the coolest looking f/b of the war.
-
Originally posted by hogenbor
Of course, so easy to fight with numbers after all these years.
No doubt the Corsair (and the P-47, P-51 etc) was a great asset as a fighter-bomber in all its versions.
But in my mind, the words of Eric Brown stick, for example when comparing the Corsair and the Fw-190 :
'Having flown both aircraft a lot a have no doubt which one I would rather fly. The Fw-190 could not be bested by the Corsair'
Sure, this is air to air but the man has flown everything and has combat experience as well. He also rates the F6F much higher than the Corsair.
Brown was referring to the Corsair Mk.II, known to the U.S. as the F4U-1A. So, the reference is not valid, especially in light of the fact that the F4U-4 was markedly superior to the Fw 190A-whatever throughout the entire flight envelope.
Personally, I am not one of "Gospel according to Brown" advocates. A great many people of equal and greater experience disagree with more than a few of his "opinions". Want an example of how multiple experts can come to polar opposite conclusions on aircraft performance? Read Diz Dean's Report of the Joint Fighter Conference.
To read some about the F4U-4 and its impact on the Korean War, go to:
Corsairs to the rescue (http://www.flightjournal.com/articles/corsair/corsair1.asp)
My regards,
Widewing
-
P38 is far the best F/B Although P47 comes close to it P38 little better fighter and P47 could carry little more load. I would much rather pick that pretty plane.P38