OT: F4U Corsair

This new stand alone release based on the legendary War in the Pacific from 2 by 3 Games adds significant improvements and changes to enhance game play, improve realism, and increase historical accuracy. With dozens of new features, new art, and engine improvements, War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition brings you the most realistic and immersive WWII Pacific Theater wargame ever!

Moderators: wdolson, MOD_War-in-the-Pacific-Admirals-Edition

Scott_USN
Posts: 718
Joined: Wed Jun 02, 2004 6:32 pm
Location: Eagle River, Alaska USA

OT: F4U Corsair

Post by 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
Posts: 98
Joined: Sat Sep 23, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Bainbridge Island, WA

RE: OT: F4U Corsair

Post by 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)!
--Dave Conn
Currently defending the free world against montesaurus, DBB-B, Scen. 28
User avatar
Jorge_Stanbury
Posts: 4345
Joined: Wed Feb 29, 2012 12:57 pm
Location: Montreal

RE: OT: F4U Corsair

Post by 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
Posts: 718
Joined: Wed Jun 02, 2004 6:32 pm
Location: Eagle River, Alaska USA

RE: OT: F4U Corsair

Post by 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
Posts: 718
Joined: Wed Jun 02, 2004 6:32 pm
Location: Eagle River, Alaska USA

RE: OT: F4U Corsair

Post by 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
Posts: 718
Joined: Wed Jun 02, 2004 6:32 pm
Location: Eagle River, Alaska USA

RE: OT: F4U Corsair

Post by 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
Posts: 718
Joined: Wed Jun 02, 2004 6:32 pm
Location: Eagle River, Alaska USA

RE: OT: F4U Corsair

Post by 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
Posts: 3440
Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Cammeraygal Country

RE: OT: F4U Corsair

Post by 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.
"I am Alfred"
User avatar
Sardaukar
Posts: 12439
Joined: Wed Nov 28, 2001 10:00 am
Location: Finland/Israel

RE: OT: F4U Corsair

Post by Sardaukar »

P-47 might have fared even better in ground attack role in Korea, but they were earmarked for Europe.
"To meaningless French Idealism, Liberty, Fraternity and Equality...we answer with German Realism, Infantry, Cavalry and Artillery" -Prince von Bülov, 1870-

Image
User avatar
Jorge_Stanbury
Posts: 4345
Joined: Wed Feb 29, 2012 12:57 pm
Location: Montreal

RE: OT: F4U Corsair

Post by 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
User avatar
Barb
Posts: 2503
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 7:17 am
Location: Bratislava, Slovakia

RE: OT: F4U Corsair

Post by 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.
Image
User avatar
JeffroK
Posts: 6415
Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2005 4:05 am

RE: OT: F4U Corsair

Post by 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.
Interdum feror cupidine partium magnarum Europae vincendarum
User avatar
Macclan5
Posts: 1064
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2016 2:46 pm
Location: Toronto Canada

RE: OT: F4U Corsair

Post by 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


A People that values its privileges above it's principles will soon loose both. Dwight D Eisenhower.
Scott_USN
Posts: 718
Joined: Wed Jun 02, 2004 6:32 pm
Location: Eagle River, Alaska USA

RE: OT: F4U Corsair

Post by 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.
User avatar
rustysi
Posts: 7472
Joined: Tue Feb 21, 2012 3:23 am
Location: LI, NY

RE: OT: F4U Corsair

Post by 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?
It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once. Hume

In every party there is one member who by his all-too-devout pronouncement of the party principles provokes the others to apostasy. Nietzsche

Cave ab homine unius libri. Ltn Prvb
User avatar
RangerJoe
Posts: 17972
Joined: Mon Nov 16, 2015 2:39 pm
Location: Who knows?

RE: OT: F4U Corsair

Post by 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 . . .
Seek peace but keep your gun handy.

I'm not a complete idiot, some parts are missing! :o

“Illegitemus non carborundum est (“Don’t let the bastards grind you down”).”
:twisted: ; Julia Child
Image
User avatar
rustysi
Posts: 7472
Joined: Tue Feb 21, 2012 3:23 am
Location: LI, NY

RE: OT: F4U Corsair

Post by 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]
It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once. Hume

In every party there is one member who by his all-too-devout pronouncement of the party principles provokes the others to apostasy. Nietzsche

Cave ab homine unius libri. Ltn Prvb
User avatar
witpqs
Posts: 26376
Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2004 7:48 pm
Location: Argleton

RE: OT: F4U Corsair

Post by 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.
User avatar
rustysi
Posts: 7472
Joined: Tue Feb 21, 2012 3:23 am
Location: LI, NY

RE: OT: F4U Corsair

Post by 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.
It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once. Hume

In every party there is one member who by his all-too-devout pronouncement of the party principles provokes the others to apostasy. Nietzsche

Cave ab homine unius libri. Ltn Prvb
User avatar
witpqs
Posts: 26376
Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2004 7:48 pm
Location: Argleton

RE: OT: F4U Corsair

Post by 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.
Post Reply

Return to “War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition”