F4U-4

[Soviet]

What's so good about this plane that makes it worth 60 perkies? my friend says it's just a F4U-1D only slightly faster? is this true? if so why is it 60 perkies there must be a logical reason? If anyone knows what's good about this plane tell me, if it's a good one i'd love to try it out.  Until then, back to my mossie  

[humble]

I'm no expert in the hog but from the 2 hops I flew its a cut above the 1d in speed and climb...seems to turn about the same. It seems to come pretty close to the tempest in overall feel. However...give me a 1c anyday as a perk hog...those .50's just dont cut it in a plane with that high a perk price.

[Frost]

Don't remember the top end speed (someone else will) but it is more than slightly faster than the -1D and it climbs like a scalded cat.

[pugg666]

isn't it something like 447 MPH at alt and about 4700 initial ROC?

[Rocket]

The thing is just plain out fast in climb and running.  With a small dive catching a 262 is no problem and ar234's will be a breeze.  I don't blame em for putting it a large perk and it has the potiental for being just as unbalancing as the 262.  And best of all it has .50s !!!!!  

S!
Rocket

[Kweassa]

There is this Really awesome article just right for this thread.   Try it and you'll be able to understand why it needs 60 perkies. In my personal experience at the free perkies night.. F4U-4 is NO WAY just a 'fast -1D'.

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

[54Ed]

An interesting article, even if author does make the mistake of comparing apples to oranges.  It's like saying "which is the best gun: a Sig P226 or a Barrett .50 cal sniper rifle?"  However, the data is quite helpful in pointing out why the -4 should cost big perks.

[streakeagle]

All too quick to point out flaws of P-51 and not mention any of its strengths besides speed.

The P-51D was not the only version, but he only used its data. Earlier P-51Bs acutally had higher performance. The P-51D's bubble canopy cost performance, but for many pilots it was worth 5 mph of top end. The P-51H may not have entered production, but was certainly a contemporary of the F4U-4 and would have smoked it. The real advantage that the P-51 had besides high-altitude performance, was long range. I didn't see range even mentioned.

Aside from mentioning turning ability, he completely ignored the Spitfire.

I didn't see any Axis fighters mentioned as being comparable or superior to the F4U-4. N1K2 gave all F4Us problems, only the shortages of aircraft and veteran pilots doomed the N1K2. Of course, the F4U-4 never really had to face late war 109s an 190s. It is hard to compare combat performance of aircraft that served mainly in Europe or Pacific: two entirely different sets of conditions for fighting with completely different opponents.

Aside from top speed and compressibility, how was the F4U-4 better than the late P-38s? By his own admission, the P-38 was much better in acclereration and maneuverability. With two engines, it could haul a heavy load a long way.

I love the Corsair and it was one of the greatest planes of all time, but I wouldn't even call the very late war F4U-4 the best fighter of WWII. Hell, it hardly even participated.

Production numbers say a lot about an aircraft. The best design is the one that is cost effective all the way around, considering time, money, and performance. More B-24s were built than B-17s simply because they were easier to build. Of course they also needed to be replaced faster since they were easier to shoot down   I have never seen a production cost/time analysis of WWII aircraft. But surely aircraft with two engines will lose on this one since that is the major cost both in time and money. I'm willing to bet a Merlin powered P-51D was the most cost-effective solution for long-range bomber escort duty, or we wouldn't have filled the skies of Europe with them. Certainly the performance of the P-47 and P-38 were comparable if not superior, but I am guessing that they cost more.

Anybody have any facts on this issue? A useful figure would be the number of man-hours per aircraft produced. Financial costs would only work with same-country analysis. How do you compare the Axis with a collapsing economy to the Allies who were rolling in the dough by the end of the war?

[SKurj]

Thats cuz the article was about the F4U-4 streek.  It was supporting the argument that the F4U-4 was the ultimate fighter of ww2 instead of the P51.


SKurj

[Swoop]

Quote from the article linked above:

"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. Almost certainly, such overloaded Corsairs did not operate from carrier decks, but exclusively from shore bases."


Not with the 1/2 mile long runways we have here........  
 

 

[Sombra]

I have never seen a production cost/time analysis of WWII aircraft.  

Of course nobody is interested in demonstrating the preminence of russian designs   . (nonrigourous affirmattion   )

Greetings

[janjan]

I saw some production cost/price analysis. They were in RMs and if 109s cost was 1 then 190 was 1,5 and p47 2,5.

All american fighters costed more or near twice the cost of 109.

They were in Finnish book Bf109 ja Saksan sotatalous. Maybe someone having the book can put the numbers right.

[Hammerhead]

Now if they brought in the mustang1A and gave it sixty perks that might be worth it.