OT: F4U Corsair

[Scott_USN]

I have always wondered how the the F4U would have fared in the European Theater. It could out climb and outrun just about any plane in the ETO including the P51. I am not sure about the late war British Fighters. But against the FW and MEs would be an interesting match up. Considering F4U could defend itself against Jets in Korean War seems it would be just fine in Europe. It was a great interdiction fighter also in its group support role.

I suppose the only major negative was the combat range of the F4U. I have read some information over the years, one gentlemen I forget his name who has flown the German and American planes put the F4U well above the ME109 but didn't seem to have too high a praise for it against the FW190s.

They flew well into the Korean war as AU-1 Corsair or ground attack aircraft. Maybe even call it the granddad of the A10 Warthog.

From Wiki:

On 10 September 1952, a MiG-15 made the mistake of getting into a turning contest with a Corsair piloted by Marine Captain Jesse G. Folmar, with Folmar shooting the MiG down with his four 20 mm cannon. In turn, four MiG-15s shot down Folmar minutes later; Folmar bailed out and was quickly rescued with little injury.

Always loved the F4U for standing out as sort of ugly duckling to some and just down right beauty to others.

[DConn]

You can't be serious about the "ugly duckling." javascript:void(AddText('[:D]')) Probably one of the best-looking WW2 fighers IMHO (surpassed only by the Spitfire and maybe the P-51)!

[Jorge_Stanbury]

It was not great at high altitude, compared to P-47 or P-51 and by that time, in Europe, that is what was needed

[Scott_USN]

ORIGINAL: Jorge_Stanbury

It was not great at high altitude, compared to P-47 or P-51 and by that time, in Europe, that is what was needed

Ah something I may have missed. It was great at 2000 feet destroying kamikaze and ships.

[Scott_USN]

ORIGINAL: DConn

You can't be serious about the "ugly duckling." javascript:void(AddText('[:D]')) Probably one of the best-looking WW2 fighers IMHO (surpassed only by the Spitfire and maybe the P-51)!

I agree! Only I would put it ahead of those two!

[Scott_USN]

Thanks to the Brits who absolutely loved the plane (I suppose considering their work to make it work) it was put back on carriers.

[Scott_USN]

ORIGINAL: Jorge_Stanbury

It was not great at high altitude, compared to P-47 or P-51 and by that time, in Europe, that is what was needed

But it did use the same Wasp Double 2800 used in the P47 and if you water injected it was crazy horsepower.

R-2800-34W - 2,100 hp (1,567 kW), 2,400 hp (1,789 kW) with water-methanol injection

[Ian R]

Per David Donald, The F6F was a stable design (in both senses) when it first flew. The Corsair however featured some newish tech (as did the P51) and the first problem was that stall speed was different on each wing. They fixed that by adding sharp metal strip to the outward starboard wing leading edge. Another yaw problem at low speed was corrected by lengthening the tail wheel, but with the result minimum landing speed increased. Visibility forward for landing was not good. It also bounced on landing, a significant reason why it was not initially accepted for USN carrier service. That was fixed, and the FAA was flying its clipped wing models operationally in 1943, after developing a curved landing pattern to help with the visibility issue. Notwithstanding the initial problems, the type was accepted for USN carrier operations in early 1944, although logistics dictated that it was easier to largely continue with the F6F.

So basically, you might say the Corsair was a 'next generation' design, where the F6F was an incremental advance from the F4F. Had the F6F not been superior to the IJ fighters, the F4U-1D might well have gone to see in 1943 instead.

[Sardaukar]

P-47 might have fared even better in ground attack role in Korea, but they were earmarked for Europe.

[Jorge_Stanbury]

ORIGINAL: Scott_USN

ORIGINAL: Jorge_Stanbury

It was not great at high altitude, compared to P-47 or P-51 and by that time, in Europe, that is what was needed

But it did use the same Wasp Double 2800 used in the P47 and if you water injected it was crazy horsepower.

R-2800-34W - 2,100 hp (1,567 kW), 2,400 hp (1,789 kW) with water-methanol injection

P-47 was turbocharged, and that gave it better performance at high altitudes

[Barb]

F4U and F6Fs were used by Royal Navy (Fleet Air Arm) on several operations around Norway, arctic convoys and operation Dragoon - they occassionaly clashed with Bf-109s/FW-190s. Try to check those operations on internet.

[JeffroK]

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/ ... r-1107.pdf

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/ ... vycomp.pdf

An excellent website with 100's of reports from the period.

Allow for some pilot bias.

[Macclan5]

ORIGINAL: Jorge_Stanbury

ORIGINAL: Scott_USN

ORIGINAL: Jorge_Stanbury

It was not great at high altitude, compared to P-47 or P-51 and by that time, in Europe, that is what was needed

But it did use the same Wasp Double 2800 used in the P47 and if you water injected it was crazy horsepower.

R-2800-34W - 2,100 hp (1,567 kW), 2,400 hp (1,789 kW) with water-methanol injection

P-47 was turbocharged, and that gave it better performance at high altitudes

This - +1 Jorge

I think it is a little overly simplistic to compare a fighter type to another and then extrapolate results in a theater of war.

Bottom line is the F4U would have dominated European Theater skies - because the "Allies" dominated European Theater skies.

The tool is somewhat irrelevant.

In general or simplistic terms:

The Germans built estimate / guess 20000 FW190s and 30000 BF109s during the war. i.e. 1939 - 45

The Japanese built (guess) 11000 Zeros during the same period

Say 61000 airframes (rough guess)

In the abbreviated period of 1941 - 1945 The Americans built 15000 Corsairs, 15000 F6F, 15000 P47, 15000 P51, 15000 P40, 10000 P38, 10000 F4F, 10000 P39.

That does not begin to cover British Canadian Production values.

That does not cover the ridiculous statistic 1 Liberator every three hours Ford was producing by 1945. Or the numbers of TBF Avengers, Curtis Divebombers, Marauders, Catalina's, Transport DC3s etc

That does not begin to cover (i) pilot replacement (ii) fuel resources for training and combat missions (iii) etc

[Scott_USN]

Yeah they lost before they even started production wise but that is not really the point. They still had capable and in some respects better planes, the F4U was supercharged it was not turbocharged as was the P47 but could have easily had the intercooler turbocharger of the P47 it was the same engine in both planes. 30k feet was not all that important in the Pacific. Water injection in the 1A model gave it another 250hp. There was nothing in the Pacific that really could put up much of a challenge to such a plane. I don't think it is simplistic at all I think it very complicated but the point was simplistic I love the Navy war birds (Especially F4U) and have always wondered how they would have fared against German fighters.

[rustysi]

the F4U was supercharged it was not turbocharged as was the P47 but could have easily had the intercooler turbocharger of the P47 it was the same engine in both planes.

The engine may have been the same, but both planes were different. Could it have been the turbo-charger would not fit in the Corsair for some reason?

[RangerJoe]

ORIGINAL: rustysi

the F4U was supercharged it was not turbocharged as was the P47 but could have easily had the intercooler turbocharger of the P47 it was the same engine in both planes.

The engine may have been the same, but both planes were different. Could it have been the turbo-charger would not fit in the Corsair for some reason?

With a big enough hammer, you could make it fit . . .

[rustysi]

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

ORIGINAL: rustysi

the F4U was supercharged it was not turbocharged as was the P47 but could have easily had the intercooler turbocharger of the P47 it was the same engine in both planes.

The engine may have been the same, but both planes were different. Could it have been the turbo-charger would not fit in the Corsair for some reason?

With a big enough hammer, you could make it fit . . .

Maybe, but that could lead to other problems. Like a story a friend told me about when he was on the USS Midway. Some sailor had to install a device in the ship that wouldn't fit. He took a hammer to the obstructing object. It was the wave guide for one of the radars. D'oh.[:D]

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

ORIGINAL: rustysi

the F4U was supercharged it was not turbocharged as was the P47 but could have easily had the intercooler turbocharger of the P47 it was the same engine in both planes.

The engine may have been the same, but both planes were different. Could it have been the turbo-charger would not fit in the Corsair for some reason?

With a big enough hammer, you could make it fit . . .

Don't know the actual answer, but the P-47 was HUGE for a fighter.

[rustysi]

Don't know the actual answer, but the P-47 was HUGE for a fighter.

Heaviest single engine, single seat fighter of the war. How that may equate to 'size', I know not.

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: rustysi

Don't know the actual answer, but the P-47 was HUGE for a fighter.

Heaviest single engine, single seat fighter of the war. How that may equate to 'size', I know not.

I don't have any links to photos at hand, but apparently it was the Godzilla of fighter planes.