PDA

View Full Version : The F4U-4: The Best Fighter/Bomber Of WWII?



XyZspineZyX
10-29-2003, 09:29 PM
A little read i found /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

http://home.att.net/~historyzone/Corsair2.jpg



The Facts Tell The Whole Story

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 1990'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.


http://home.att.net/~historyzone/F4u4spl3.jpg



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.


http://home.att.net/~historyzone/voughtcorsair.jpg



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.


http://home.att.net/~historyzone/f4u-4.jpg



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


http://home.att.net/~historyzone/f4u4.jpg



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.



RESOURCES:
Barrett Tillman, Corsair : The F4U in World War II and Korea.
Pilots Manual for F4U Corsair.
Various notes taken from Jeffery Ethell books and articles.
Pilots Manual for the P-51D.







We may be hard on the outside,but inside, we are soft as cotton.
<ceter>http://www.funnypictureswebsite.com/funnypictures/funny-pictures213.jpg </center>
WESTCOAST FOREVER!

XyZspineZyX
10-29-2003, 09:29 PM
A little read i found /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

http://home.att.net/~historyzone/Corsair2.jpg



The Facts Tell The Whole Story

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 1990'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.


http://home.att.net/~historyzone/F4u4spl3.jpg



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.


http://home.att.net/~historyzone/voughtcorsair.jpg



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.


http://home.att.net/~historyzone/f4u-4.jpg



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


http://home.att.net/~historyzone/f4u4.jpg



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.



RESOURCES:
Barrett Tillman, Corsair : The F4U in World War II and Korea.
Pilots Manual for F4U Corsair.
Various notes taken from Jeffery Ethell books and articles.
Pilots Manual for the P-51D.







We may be hard on the outside,but inside, we are soft as cotton.
<ceter>http://www.funnypictureswebsite.com/funnypictures/funny-pictures213.jpg </center>
WESTCOAST FOREVER!

XyZspineZyX
10-29-2003, 09:39 PM
Dude, I'm not disagreeing with you, Personally I love the F4U-1& F4U-4. I am lucky enough to know a old gentleman close by who started in P-47s and them moved to the Corsairs, he said it was like flying a wish come true.

That being said I'm putting on some asbestos skivvies cuz I think this will draw some Flame. As in typical American arrogance yadda yadda. Shame these always come to that.

XyZspineZyX
10-29-2003, 09:56 PM
At least the 4th time this story has been on the board. I myself posted the link for it on the best plane in WWII thread a couple weeks back.

BTW fjuff,

Did u read the copyright prohibiting putting the written content on any forums without express written consent from the author? -Jordan Publishing? Just curious.

---
<font color=white font size="3" face="arial"Col. "Fury" CO
<font size="3"><font face="bd hanover">352nd Fighter Group </font> [VR]
<font face="bd hanover">328th, 486th, 487th Fighter Squadrons</font>
<font><font color="#330099"><font size="5"><font face="brush script mt">"Second To None!"</font>

<font>[b]<font size="2" font color=black>[(HL)_352FG; (UBI) USAAF_352FG]: The<font><font color=#330099 face="brush script mt"font size="5">"First"</font><font color=black font size="2"> 352FG in IL-2FB</font>


Message Edited on 10/29/0303:27PM by PZ_D_352FG

XyZspineZyX
10-29-2003, 10:12 PM
PZ_D_352FG wrote:
- At least the 4th time this story has been on the
- board. I myself posted the link for it on the best
- plane in WWII thread a couple weeks back.
-
- BTW JD,
-
- Did u read the copyright prohibiting putting the
- written content on any forums without express
- written consent from the author? -Jordan Publishing?
- Just curious.
-
-


??????? I didn't post all that, I just commented? you lost me bro

XyZspineZyX
10-29-2003, 10:26 PM
My bad JD......just noticed that....will edit it now

---
<font color=white font size="3" face="arial"Col. "Fury" CO
<font size="3"><font face="bd hanover">352nd Fighter Group </font> [VR]
<font face="bd hanover">328th, 486th, 487th Fighter Squadrons</font>
<font><font color="#330099"><font size="5"><font face="brush script mt">"Second To None!"</font>

<font>[b]<font size="2" font color=black>[(HL)_352FG; (UBI) USAAF_352FG]: The<font><font color=#330099 face="brush script mt"font size="5">"First"</font><font color=black font size="2"> 352FG in IL-2FB</font>

XyZspineZyX
10-29-2003, 10:46 PM
Make the same comparations to the Spit MKXIV and the FW190D9 and A9 please, for the Butcherbird is also known to be one fo the best, if not the best, all around fighter of the WWII.

http://rumandmonkey.com/widgets/tests/damned/reincarnation.jpg (http://rumandmonkey.com/widgets/tests/damned/)
Are you damned? (http://rumandmonkey.com/widgets/tests/damned/)
<

http://rumandmonkey.com/widgets/tests/damned/reincarnation.jpg (http://rumandmonkey.com/widgets/tests/damned/)
Are you damned? (http://rumandmonkey.com/widgets/tests/damned/)
<

http://rumandmonkey.com/widgets/tests/damned/reincarnation.jpg (http://rumandmonkey.com/widgets/tests/damned/)
Are you damned? (http://rumandmonkey.com/widgets/tests/damned/)
<

http://rumandmonkey.com/widgets/tests/damned/reincarnation.jpg (http://rumandmonkey.com/widgets/tests/damned/)
Are you damned? (http://rumandmonkey.com/widgets/tests/damned/)
<

XyZspineZyX
10-29-2003, 10:46 PM
fjuff79 wrote:
- 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.

"To see combat". Key phrase. Because, in the fighter role, the F8F was where it was at. In a sense it's a shame the war ended so early (from a simmers perspective), because the Bearcat never got the chance to flex it's muscle.

Also, the author seems to imply that "Ensign Eliminator" came from it's flying characteristic. IIRC, it came from the long nose and inablility to see the LSO, which required a more difficult side angle to turn in at the last second approach to carrier landing.

However, Hose Nose, Spam Can, you can have 'em all. One of the most impactful aircraft of the war, as well as one of the best sets of records, not to mention being insanely effective, just outright, is the F6F Hellcat. That will always get my vote for "best plane of the war".

XyZspineZyX
10-30-2003, 02:46 AM
I like the A-26 Invader, at high enough altitude it could out turn the 109 and even had probable on a 262 /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif Couple that with the fact that when turned the top and bottom turrets forward the closed nosed version could pack up to 28 foward firing .50cals!!!! Oh course I'm biased, that what Grandpa flew in. 416th Bomb Group all the way!

<center>http://mywebpage.netscape.com/Tgan92/Sturmosig.gif </center>


Message Edited on 10/29/0307:47PM by CowboyTodd41

XyZspineZyX
10-30-2003, 02:51 AM
Not only do I believe it was the best fighter/bomber of WWII, I believe it was possibly the best prop fighter period to see action in WWII. It had a fantastic top speed, great roll and a phenominal climb rate. It was well armored, highly reliable, and extremely versatile. Without question, it had everything.

Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/jug_sig.jpg

XyZspineZyX
10-30-2003, 02:52 AM
But..but...I thought the 109 was the best at everything. Now who told me that?/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

<center>47|FC <img src="http://rangerring.com/wwii/p-47.jpg"<

XyZspineZyX
10-30-2003, 03:02 AM
Yes. I think so also. Thanks for the informative post. I nice to read about something other than the usual a/c that are discussed in this forum. The Corsair has always been my personal favorite fighter/bomber of WWII and the Korean wars. Maybe someday we can have it in FB. S!

XyZspineZyX
10-30-2003, 03:17 AM
All that and beautiful curves, what more could a man want.
regards,
Dave

The F4U Corsair won the war!!!

http://www.x-plane.org/users/aonyn/Screenshots/Leisure_Chair_Aerobat_reduced_square.jpg

XyZspineZyX
10-30-2003, 04:38 AM
- The F4U Corsair won the war!!!


Err.... The F6F crushed the Japanese. The Corsair was on cleanup detail. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

XyZspineZyX
10-30-2003, 04:50 AM
The F4U-4: The Best Fighter/Bomber Of WWII?

Of course not!!!!

The best is my beloved Thunderbolt!!!!! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

<Center>http://gavca.com/conteudo/imagens/fb/FB_p-47_jambock1.jpg <Center>
<Center>1st Brazilian Fighter Squadron - Senta a Pua! (http://www.gavca.com)<Center>

XyZspineZyX
10-30-2003, 05:43 AM
BlitzPig_DDT wrote:

- Err.... The F6F crushed the Japanese. The Corsair
- was on cleanup detail.

/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif Very true!

Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/jug_sig.jpg

XyZspineZyX
10-30-2003, 06:14 AM
BlitzPig_DDT wrote:
-- The F4U Corsair won the war!!!
-
-
- Err.... The F6F crushed the Japanese. The Corsair
- was on cleanup detail. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif -
-

True, and clean up it did.
"USMC/USN WWII Corsair Combat Record
Enemy aircraft destroyed by Corsairs
(land and carrier based).................. 2140
Corsairs destroyed in air to air combat........... 189
Corsair loss ratio to enemy planes .......... 11.3 to 1
Corsair combat sorties ......................... 64,051"

-Statistics from Air Classics Magazine Vol.39 No.1 Pg.34-

Certainly not a shabby record!

The F4U Corsair won the war!!!

http://www.x-plane.org/users/aonyn/Screenshots/Leisure_Chair_Aerobat_reduced_square.jpg

XyZspineZyX
10-30-2003, 06:42 AM
aonyn wrote:

True, and clean up it did.
- "USMC/USN WWII Corsair Combat Record
- Enemy aircraft destroyed by Corsairs
- (land and carrier based)..................
- 2140
-
- Corsairs destroyed in air to air combat...........
- 189
- Corsair loss ratio to enemy planes .......... 11.3
- to 1
- Corsair combat sorties .........................
- 64,051"
-
--Statistics from Air Classics Magazine Vol.39 No.1 Pg.34-
-
- Certainly not a shabby record!
-
- The F4U Corsair won the war!!!


In 24 months, the F6F Hellcats (US/UK) have shot down 5216 enemy planes and lost 270.

A kill-loss ratio of 19 to 1.

Tillman,ā«Hellcatā»,1979.

/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

<center>Qui vainc sans risque triomphe sans gloire.</center>
<center>http://www.raf.mod.uk/history/images/tempestv_t.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
10-30-2003, 08:40 AM
Looks ugly tho....Mosquito is much cooler.

Its like the difference between a Seagull(Corsair) and a Falcon(Mosquito).


I always hated the shape of US prop-fighters apart from the P51.

P47, Corsair, Hellcat are ugly beasts.

I guess thats OK since we arent dating them http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

XyZspineZyX
10-30-2003, 10:31 AM
In the PTO /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

http://www.angelfire.com/ab4/airplanes/P47_Thunderbolt/P47.jpg

XyZspineZyX
10-30-2003, 10:53 AM
No doubt it's the best US plane to see action, and one of the best planes of the war.

But I'll take a Ta 152 over it.

Nic

XyZspineZyX
10-30-2003, 11:06 AM
Thinking in "The Best" category about WW2 planes is not good idea for me, only - One of the Best......


Stary Wuj
Warsaw
Poland

XyZspineZyX
10-30-2003, 11:41 AM
Yes it was a great late war aircraft, although the long nose made visibility for carrier operations a little tricky. Guess thats why it first went to the Marines & New Zealander's before the USN realised how good it was and started using it. While it's easy to say its the best, when its the newest and latest weapon in the WWII conflict, try evaluating it when it is not the "cats whiskers". Please read "Crimson Sky" by John R Bruning and appreciate how they performed in the Korean conflict, particulary the fighter bomber role with its oil system. My personal choice for WWII fighter would be either the Spitfire or 109. Not because I particulary like either of them. Is just that both of these mid 1930's designs were available and fought in each year of the war from start to finish, ie. 1939 onwards and were still competitive at the end of it.

XyZspineZyX
10-30-2003, 11:50 AM
fjuff79 wrote:

The F4U series were overall excellent planes (if
a bit tricky on take off and landing due to torque
and nose length) but a few things in the article jarred:

- lightly. In a turning fight below 350 knots, the MiG
- pilot could find himself in big trouble very
- quickly.

What on earth would a Mig-15 pilot be doing below
350 knots? And turn fighting? If a Mig-15 was doing
this it would likely be being flown by a poorly
trained pilot. So what this means is "A Mig-15,
flown in the worst possible mode by an inexperienced
pilot might lose against a plane flown in its useful
combat envelope by a competent pilot".


- 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.

The Tempest V looks like it would fall between the
F4U-1 and F4U-4 in terms of speed performance.

- Rate of climb:
- F4U-1: 3,250 ft/min.
- F4U-4: 4,170 ft/min.

The Tempest V puts in about 3,500 fpm sustained climb,
but it would be interesting to see how the Tempest V
and F4U-4 would compete in a fight in the vertical,
as the Tempest V exceeded even the P47's dive
performance, and had an impressive 4750 fpm zoom climb.

The Tempest V had a shorter range, probably (910 miles)
and although it was cleared for rockets or 1000lb bombs
it never seemed to carry rockets, and certainly not
the massive combinations that the F4U did.

- 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.

It certainly outstrips what the Tempest carried,
although I'd temper the statement with the addition
'single engined' as the P38 might have been able to
carry more? Gibbage would probably know.



The F4U should easily outroll the Tempest V.

- 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.

The Temepst V seems to have had a higher critical
mach than both, according to the RAF at least.



- 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

Tempest V - 435 at 17000ft, slight 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

Tempest V - 3500 fpm - advantage F4U-4.


- Maneuverability: The F4U-4 was one of the very best.

Roll better, Tempest V likely better in the vertical

- Armament: Equipped with either six .50 caliber
- machine guns or four 20mm cannons,

Standard armament almost identical to F4U-4. Bomb
load maximum 2000lbs - beaten by F4U-4.

- Survivability: There was no other single engine
- fighter flown during the war that could absorb
- greater battle damage

I thought that was supposed to the the P47!

- 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

F4U-4 has 200 mile range advantage over Tempest V.

Tempest V - docile flight characteristics on the whole,
and excellent visibility from the cockpit.

- Finally there is an area in which the P-51 cannot
- compete at all. The F4U was designed to operate from
- an aircraft carrier.

The F4U-4 has the Tempest V beaten here. The Sea Fury
though... :-)

Basically the Tempest V isn;'t a huge way behind
the F4U-4 except in terms of load capability (or
rated load capability). The F4U-4B beats the Tempest
on most things, though, apart from perhaps sea level
speeds and vertical maneouvering.

XyZspineZyX
10-30-2003, 02:25 PM
S!

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder !

Ever seen these birds up close, sat in their cockpits, watch them fly at an Airshow ?

The Airshow that use to be by my house (El Toro Marine Base) would usually fly all the WW2 Pacific Theater planes together and then the same with the European Theater. I always thought the Corsair and Mustang looked the best on the ground and flying.

Planes of Fame museum in Chino is about an hour from my house and has some of the last "flyable" aircraft from WW2. They will invite pilots from all sides of the war to speak and then start up and fly the aircraft. Something about the sound of those Pratt & Whitney's, Allison and Merlin engines that stirs the soul.

The Marines in the Solomon Islands showed what the Corsair was capable of doing. For experinced pilots the Corsair did not present any problems. For rookies, the lack of stall warning was a problem. This was quickly addressed and a stall strip spoiler was added to the starboard wing to provide buffeting/stall warning. Field mods for the oleo strut bounce problem were quickly deployed but it would be a full year before this was added to the assembly line for future modifications.

Navy units VF-17 Jolly Rogers & VF-12 considered the Corsair a beautiful speed bird that had as much as 50-knot speed advantage over the Hellcat. The time delay of fixing the "bounce issue" and lack of spare parts were the deciding factors to deploy Hellcats by Navy Admin.

In sea trails and fly offs conducted by the Navy, the Corsair was found to be superior to the Hellcat. The Corsair had greater speed, roll rate, zoom climb, range & payload over the Hellcat. If the Corsair had been deployed on the Carriers instead of the Hellcats early on, I think the Corsair's combat record would have been superior to that of the Hellcat in number of planes shot down/kill ratio due to the Corsair's stellar attributes.


F6F Hellcat 380mph

Maximum speed:
F4U-1: 417 mph @ 19,900 ft.
F4U-4: 446 mph @ 26,200 ft.


The Army Air Force got it's first good look at the Corsair during the Fighter Evaluation Meet at Eglin Field, Florida, during May 1943. The Corsair was decidely superior to any Army Fighter at 10,000ft and below. It was still slightly superior up to 20,000ft over Army Fighters. At higher altitudes where the P47 & P51 were designed to operate, they held the advantage over the Corsair.

Army P38 pilot Colonel Rex T. Barber (credited with shooting down Yamamoto) was part of the trails and his assesment of the Corsair vs other US aircraft was: "If the US had to pick just one fighter/bomber to produce during the war, it should have been the Corsair."

The Corsair's greatest advantage over the Zeke (A6M5 335mph @ 18,000ft) was speed. With the use of this speed, F4U pilots could dictate the rules of engagement and disengagement. The Corsair could match (lower alt) and out climb (higher alt) the Zeke 52 in sustained climbs.

At about 175 knots and below the Zeke out manuvers anything. As speed increases that advantage diminishes due to high control forces and over 200 knots the Corsair has the advantage. If the Corsair had to, it could stay with the Zeke for 1/2 half turn with full flaps @ 175 knots/200mph.

The Corsairs magnificent ailerons gave it an important advantage over Zekes. The two fighters roll rate was equal at speeds under 200 knots allowing the Corsair to change directions on an equal basis. Above 200 knots and the Zekes ailerons became heavy while the Corsairs remained effective.

In a dive the Corsair accelerated with astonishing speed, no japanese plane could escape during a dive. If bounced, a hard diving turn to starboard @ 240 knots would lose a Zero evrytime--Zekes controls were very heavy/unresponsive over 200 knots.

The Corsair was considered to have the greater fire power with 6 .50's vs the Zero's (2) 7.7 mg's & (2) low muzzle velocity/low rate of fire 20mm canon. Sighted to converge at 300yds and belted with 1 amor piercing, 1 incendiary, 1 amor piercing, 1 incendiary, 1 tracer; Corsair pilots could and did destroy up to 6 japanese aircraft in 1 mission.

The F4U-5 469mph @ 28,000ft. just missed the war. And a Kamikaze intecepter model F2G-1 & 2 models(3000 horsepower) had a sea level climb rate of 4,000 feet per minute. While this version missed the war, it captured the prestigous Thompson Trophy in post war air racing.

The Corsair was still being produced in the 1950's while other prop planes had already been melted down. This is a testament to the design and strength of the airframe to meet the demands of the mission.

Marine Ace Major General Marion Carl after WW2 concluded, "The Corsair was a great mount, head and shoulders above it's comtemporaries. An airplane like the Corsair only comes along occasionally. It was the best flying machine in it's time."





Braveheart's William Wallace said it best:
"I see a whole army of my countrymen, here in defiance of tyranny. You have come to fight as free men, and free men you are. What will you do without freedom? Will you fight? Fight and you may die. Run, and you'll live, at least a while. And dying in your beds, many years from now, would you be willing, to trade all the days from this day to that, for one chance, just one chance, to come back here and tell our enemies, that they may take our lives, but they'll never take our FREEDOM!"

Braveheart's William Wallace said it best:
"I see a whole army of my countrymen, here in defiance of tyranny. You have come to fight as free men, and free men you are. What will you do without freedom? Will you fight? Fight and you may die. Run, and you'll live, at least a while. And dying in your beds, many years from now, would you be willing, to trade all the days from this day to that, for one chance, just one chance, to come back here and tell our enemies, that they may take our lives, but they'll never take our FREEDOM!"

XyZspineZyX
10-30-2003, 02:39 PM
Don't forget it was the FAA that showed the USN that the Corsair was a 'carrier' a/c and that was with an a/c with clipped wings.



http://www.thundercycle.com/photos/dropdead2.gif



"Only a dead 'chamber pot' is a good 'chamber pot'!"

XyZspineZyX
10-30-2003, 02:46 PM
The "Hog" was a killer thats for sure. The only Navy ace in Korea got all his kills flying the Corsair. I love em and hope they manage to fit it into the add-on.

The P-38 is still my favorite though. The first aviation book I can remember reading was Martin Caidin's book on the P-38. I've always loved the Fork-tailed Devil but the Corsair runs a very close second. Any airplane nicknamed Whistling Death pretty much has to be near the top.

Twin Booms or Gull Wings take your pick it's their funeral

XyZspineZyX
10-30-2003, 03:04 PM
he he,
I know these posts always gets reactions.

its a good plane thats for shour,
byt my favourite is the Tempest



We may be hard on the outside,but inside, we are soft as cotton.
<ceter>http://www.funnypictureswebsite.com/funnypictures/funny-pictures213.jpg </center>
WESTCOAST FOREVER!

XyZspineZyX
10-30-2003, 03:12 PM
BigKahuna_GS wrote:
- Navy units VF-17 Jolly Rogers & VF-12 considered the
- Corsair a beautiful speed bird that had as much as
- 50-knot speed advantage over the Hellcat. The time
- delay of fixing the "bounce issue" and lack of spare
- parts were the deciding factors to deploy Hellcats
- by Navy Admin.

The whole point of a navy plane is to be carrier operated. It's performance is irrelevant if it is no good on a carrier. The island chains allowing close enough land strips are the only things that allowed the Corsairs to operate until the Brits figured out how to land them on carriers. But - even with that technique, it was still not that well suited. That's where it picked up the name ensign eliminator (IIRC). They had to come in at an angle in order to be able to see the LSO with the hose nose. Once in close enough they had to turn in and catch a wire.

The Hellcat was a carrier plane to the core. Extremely easy to handle at surprisingly low speeds, and incredible visibility over the nose.

Being able to withstand a 21 foot static drop and not suffer any damage of any kind helped in that role a bit as well. Be sure. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif



- In sea trails and fly offs conducted by the Navy,
- the Corsair was found to be superior to the Hellcat.
- The Corsair had greater speed, roll rate, zoom
- climb, range & payload over the Hellcat. If the
- Corsair had been deployed on the Carriers instead of
- the Hellcats early on, I think the Corsair's combat
- record would have been superior to that of the
- Hellcat in number of planes shot down/kill ratio due
- to the Corsair's stellar attributes.

It was also much more expensive, over budget, and behind schedule. As well as not carrier worthy (at the time, but, it's questionable if it ever was).

The Hellcat wasn't a fighter/bomber. It's not much of a surprise that it would have less of a payload. And operating from carrier decks made range a little less of an issue. (since it didn't need to operate from land bases)


- The Corsair's greatest advantage over the Zeke (A6M5
- 335mph @ 18,000ft) was speed. With the use of this
- speed, F4U pilots could dictate the rules of
- engagement and disengagement. The Corsair could
- match (lower alt) and out climb (higher alt) the
- Zeke 52 in sustained climbs.

The Hellcat could out run, out dive, out handle at speed, and out zoom the competition from Japan as well. The above isn't saying anything exclusive to the Corsair.


- At about 175 knots and below the Zeke out manuvers
- anything. As speed increases that advantage
- diminishes due to high control forces and over 200
- knots the Corsair has the advantage. If the Corsair
- had to, it could stay with the Zeke for 1/2 half
- turn with full flaps @ 175 knots/200mph.
-
- The Corsairs magnificent ailerons gave it an
- important advantage over Zekes. The two fighters
- roll rate was equal at speeds under 200 knots
- allowing the Corsair to change directions on an
- equal basis. Above 200 knots and the Zekes ailerons
- became heavy while the Corsairs remained effective.
-
- In a dive the Corsair accelerated with astonishing
- speed, no japanese plane could escape during a dive.
- If bounced, a hard diving turn to starboard @ 240
- knots would lose a Zero evrytime--Zekes controls
- were very heavy/unresponsive over 200 knots.
-
- The Corsair was considered to have the greater fire
- power with 6 .50's vs the Zero's (2) 7.7 mg's & (2)
- low muzzle velocity/low rate of fire 20mm canon.
- Sighted to converge at 300yds and belted with 1 amor
- piercing, 1 incendiary, 1 amor piercing, 1
- incendiary, 1 tracer; Corsair pilots could and did
- destroy up to 6 japanese aircraft in 1 mission.

Again, common to the Hellcat, and even P-47, not exclusive to the Corsair.


- The F4U-5 469mph @ 28,000ft. just missed the war.
- And a Kamikaze intecepter model F2G-1 & 2
- models(3000 horsepower) had a sea level climb rate
- of 4,000 feet per minute. While this version missed
- the war, it captured the prestigous Thompson Trophy
- in post war air racing.

Be interesting to see it face off against the Bearcat. That was an engine and *just enough* plane to mount weapons, fuel, and a pilot.


- The Corsair was still being produced in the 1950's
- while other prop planes had already been melted
- down. This is a testament to the design and strength
- of the airframe to meet the demands of the mission.

Lots of factors involved here. Performance and capabilities weren't the only ones I'm quite certain.


- Marine Ace Major General Marion Carl after WW2
- concluded, "The Corsair was a great mount, head and
- shoulders above it's comtemporaries. An airplane
- like the Corsair only comes along occasionally. It
- was the best flying machine in it's time."

He a Corsair pilot? Not to dismiss him, but pilots tend to love their planes. Regardless of what they are. And for those who spanned multiples, they tend to like the ones they were with the longest, or did the best with, or we with last.

XyZspineZyX
10-30-2003, 03:42 PM
BlitzPig_DDT wrote:
-- The Corsair was still being produced in the 1950's
-- while other prop planes had already been melted
-- down. This is a testament to the design and strength
-- of the airframe to meet the demands of the mission.
-
- Lots of factors involved here. Performance and
- capabilities weren't the only ones I'm quite
- certain.

Indeed. For example The Fairey Firefly was produced into the
1950s, but the arguably superior Sea Fury was not, AFAIK.

XyZspineZyX
10-30-2003, 04:02 PM
The Tempest is an incredibly fast and powerful plane, especially at low and medium altitudes. it was one of my favorites to fly in EAW.

But as altitudes increased the Tempest lost power and speed.
You will notice that the F4U-4 446mph @ 26,200ft is not only faster but faster at an altitude almost 10,000ft higher. The Tempest was not as maneuverable as the Mustang or Corsair.

Tempest 425mph @ 17,000ft

F4U-4 446 @ 26,200ft


While some planes designs concentrated on doing one thing very well (Ta-152), US designs looked for the true strike/fighter. A plane that could fill several roles at once and do them all very well. Of course when trying to fill all roles compromises are made.

What was the range, bomb load and ground attack capabilities for a plane such as the Ta-152 ?

While the Ta-152 was an excellent high altitude design, the US had planes as fast; P47M 470-490mph (in service), P51H and the F4U-5 469mph @ 28,600ft just coming out as the war ended. These planes were true multi-role aircraft with more capabilities. The Ta-152 went from a tough radial engine design to an inline V-12 liquid cooled engine. Liquid cooled engines don't do well with AA ground fire.

Whether crossing the vast expanses of the Pacific Ocean or escorting bombers deep into Germany. The US needed long range strategic fighters. This meant the fighters would be larger/heavier in design to handle more fuel and or drop tanks/bomb loads.

Germany and Russia did not have this need and could build smaller faster turning interceptors, although the range of the 109 needed to be improved. If the US didn't have the strategic mission, all American Fighters could of looked and performed like the F8F Bearcat !



Braveheart's William Wallace said it best:
"I see a whole army of my countrymen, here in defiance of tyranny. You have come to fight as free men, and free men you are. What will you do without freedom? Will you fight? Fight and you may die. Run, and you'll live, at least a while. And dying in your beds, many years from now, would you be willing, to trade all the days from this day to that, for one chance, just one chance, to come back here and tell our enemies, that they may take our lives, but they'll never take our FREEDOM!"

Braveheart's William Wallace said it best:
"I see a whole army of my countrymen, here in defiance of tyranny. You have come to fight as free men, and free men you are. What will you do without freedom? Will you fight? Fight and you may die. Run, and you'll live, at least a while. And dying in your beds, many years from now, would you be willing, to trade all the days from this day to that, for one chance, just one chance, to come back here and tell our enemies, that they may take our lives, but they'll never take our FREEDOM!"

Braveheart's William Wallace said it best:
"I see a whole army of my countrymen, here in defiance of tyranny. You have come to fight as free men, and free men you are. What will you do without freedom? Will you fight? Fight and you may die. Run, and you'll live, at least a while. And dying in your beds, many years from now, would you be willing, to trade all the days from this day to that, for one chance, just one chance, to come back here and tell our enemies, that they may take our lives, but they'll never take our FREEDOM!"

XyZspineZyX
10-30-2003, 04:14 PM
BlitzPig_DDT wrote:

-
- The whole point of a navy plane is to be carrier
- operated. It's performance is irrelevant if it is no
- good on a carrier. The island chains allowing close
- enough land strips are the only things that allowed
- the Corsairs to operate until the Brits figured out
- how to land them on carriers. But - even with that
- technique, it was still not that well suited. That's
- where it picked up the name ensign eliminator
- (IIRC). They had to come in at an angle in order to
- be able to see the LSO with the hose nose. Once in
- close enough they had to turn in and catch a wire.
-
-

The name originated because new Ensign pilots were transitioning to a/c that had ~4 times the hp than what they had trained on(SNJs). That and, until the fix, a stall problem that even caught very qualified pilots.

The FAA came up with the curving approach. This was for all long nosed a/c such as the converted Spits and Hurries.

Is not the USMC a part of the USN?


http://www.thundercycle.com/photos/dropdead2.gif



"Only a dead 'chamber pot' is a good 'chamber pot'!"

XyZspineZyX
10-30-2003, 04:44 PM
BigKahuna_GS wrote:
- Tempest 425mph @ 17,000ft
-
- F4U-4 446 @ 26,200ft

Normally the Tempest V series II is more often quoted as
435mph at 17,000ft, not 425mph, although I've seen
all sorts of figures in this 10mph range. That holds
steady to about 20,000 feet, but drops off to about
400 at 30,000 feet, giving probably a 30 mph adavantage
to the F4U-4 at 26,000 feet.

At sea level the Tempest V has about a 60mph advantage
over the F4U-4.

Other points are perfectly fair.

It's a shame the Fury and Sea Fury
didn't appear as a production
fighter in WW2 - they are about 20mph faster than
the F4U-4 at 25,000 feet.

XyZspineZyX
10-30-2003, 05:30 PM
S!

Blitzpig wrote :

It was also much more expensive, over budget, and behind schedule. As well as not carrier worthy (at the time, but, it's questionable if it ever was).
____________


You are right in some reguards. The Corsair thru some bueracratic blunders was way behind in schedule and it should of not been. You are way off to say the Corsair was never Carrier worthy. The Marine & Navy pilots in the Solomons would routinely land their Corsairs on carriers to refuel and rearm while the fleet was still flying obsolete Wildcats.

You are trying to argue an arguemnet that was already setteled more than 50 years ago. Like I said in my previous post VF-17 and VF-12 found the Corsair already Carrier worthy before the Hellcat was even out the factory door.
If the Navy did not think the Corsair was almost twice the plane the Hellcat was, why did they replace the Hellcats with Corsairs as fast as they could later in the war ?

After the Corsairs were on board the carriers later in the war, their operational record was just as good as the Hellcats.


Commander Tommy Blackburn worked extensively with field reps and to fix oleo strut problem. It was fixed rather quickly with a field mod, but due to bueracracy not very quickly in the plant.

As any fighter pilot will tell you Speed is Life. Take the incident where Ira Kepford VF-17 got jumped by 3 Zekes on the deck and had to run at full military power over the course of 15 minutes to get away and then reverse to come back to base. The Zekes were hot on his heels while he was in his Corsair and that has a 40-50mph speed advantage over the Hellcat. Many a Corsair pilot credited that speed advantage over the Hellcat's top end with saving their life.

As the war progressed, Japanese fighter designs improved with new faster planes while the Hellcat's performance did not increase enough to keep pace. The margin of the Hellcat's performnce advantge was almost gone. This coupeled with the need for strike missions and Kamikaze interception caused the Navy to pull the Hellcat and replace it with much faster and versatile Corsair.

My dad was a USMC pilot in WW2 and Korea. He flew all these types of aircraft. He loved the Hellcat it was a joy to fly, but the Corsair was far superior to it. After the Corsairs were on board their operational record was just as good as the Hellcats.

While my dad flew strike missions in Korea in F9F Panther jets, Corsairs were still being manufactured and flying off of carriers with him on strike missions also. The F4U-4 and 5's were being converted over to the AU-1 ground attack version. Corsairs with increased payload and protective armor. There was still F4U-4'5's nite fighters flying CAP. Piston planes had greater endurance and were better suited.

In conclusion the Hellcat was well a Hell of a plane !
The Corsair was just that superior to it in everyway though. The airframe and performance continued to improve throughout it's entire career.

Braveheart's William Wallace said it best:
"I see a whole army of my countrymen, here in defiance of tyranny. You have come to fight as free men, and free men you are. What will you do without freedom? Will you fight? Fight and you may die. Run, and you'll live, at least a while. And dying in your beds, many years from now, would you be willing, to trade all the days from this day to that, for one chance, just one chance, to come back here and tell our enemies, that they may take our lives, but they'll never take our FREEDOM!"

Braveheart's William Wallace said it best:
"I see a whole army of my countrymen, here in defiance of tyranny. You have come to fight as free men, and free men you are. What will you do without freedom? Will you fight? Fight and you may die. Run, and you'll live, at least a while. And dying in your beds, many years from now, would you be willing, to trade all the days from this day to that, for one chance, just one chance, to come back here and tell our enemies, that they may take our lives, but they'll never take our FREEDOM!"

XyZspineZyX
10-30-2003, 05:55 PM
S!

Hi Milo, yes the USMC is part of the Navy.

The Marines always get the hand me downs the Navy does not want. That is how the Marines ended up with the Corsairs in WW2 much to the objection of Navy Fighter Pilots who were fuming mad at the Navy brass over their decision not put the Corsairs on Carriers.

The Marines like to say that the Navy's purpose is to just give them a ride wherever the Marines want to go /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif


I saw a Sea Fury, Bearcat, Mustang and Corsair race in Reno. The Bearcat was unreal--it was called Rare Bear it won.

Remember that however fast the Sea Fury & Tempest were the F4U-5 was just coming out at 469mph @ 28,600ft. It just didnt make it to operational units in time.




Braveheart's William Wallace said it best:
"I see a whole army of my countrymen, here in defiance of tyranny. You have come to fight as free men, and free men you are. What will you do without freedom? Will you fight? Fight and you may die. Run, and you'll live, at least a while. And dying in your beds, many years from now, would you be willing, to trade all the days from this day to that, for one chance, just one chance, to come back here and tell our enemies, that they may take our lives, but they'll never take our FREEDOM!"

XyZspineZyX
10-30-2003, 05:56 PM
BigKahuna_GS wrote:
- Blitzpig wrote :

BlitzPig is a squad name. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif


- You are right in some reguards. The Corsair thru
- some bueracratic blunders was way behind in schedule
- and it should of not been. You are way off to say
- the Corsair was never Carrier worthy. The Marine &
- Navy pilots in the Solomons would routinely land
- their Corsairs on carriers to refuel and rearm while
- the fleet was still flying obsolete Wildcats.

You mis-read, or mis-interpreted me I think. What I said (or meant to say) was that, while they could be operated from a carrier, they were not "ideally suited" to them.


- You are trying to argue an arguemnet that was
- already setteled more than 50 years ago. Like I said
- in my previous post VF-17 and VF-12 found the
- Corsair already Carrier worthy before the Hellcat
- was even out the factory door.

Even with beauracracies, we were in it to win it. If the Corsair was really so much better than the Hellcat *and* perfectly suited to a carrier, then why not go right to them? Only reason to not do so was that it was not deemed "carrier worthy" for some time.


- After the Corsairs were on board the carriers later
- in the war, their operational record was just as
- good as the Hellcats.

This was also after the Japanese had been broken. A fact that you simply can not discount.


- Commander Tommy Blackburn worked extensively with
- field reps and to fix oleo strut problem. It was
- fixed rather quickly with a field mod, but due to
- bueracracy not very quickly in the plant.

Something that would never happen at Grumman. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif


- While my dad flew strike missions in Korea in F9F
- Panther jets, Corsairs were still being manufactured
- and flying off of carriers with him on strike
- missions also. The F4U-4 and 5's were being
- converted over to the AU-1 ground attack version.
- Corsairs with increased payload and protective
- armor. There was still F4U-4'5's nite fighters
- flying CAP. Piston planes had greater endurance and
- were better suited.

You seem to be implying that the fact that it was produced so far into Korea whereas others weren't is some testament to it's capabilities. This is only partially true. It does not mean that others could not do the same job, or that it was better than everything else. We must consider logistics, costs, and time in addition to capability. I'm not detracting from the Corsair here, just pointing out some of the other factors.


- In conclusion the Hellcat was well a Hell of a plane
- !
- The Corsair was just that superior to it in everyway
- though. The airframe and performance continued to
- improve throughout it's entire career.

Grumman decided to simply start fresh rather than try to tweak endlessly on an existing frame. That led to the F8F.

XyZspineZyX
10-30-2003, 06:51 PM
S! BP DDT


I am refering to the operational flight records of aircraft accidents on board carriers. The Corsairs operated with the same safety standards as the Hellcats did.

If you talk about breaking the back of the JNAF, allot of that was done at Midway 1942 way before the Hellcat. After Guadacanal was invaded and taken, Yamatomo formulated I Operational Plan. It was Yamamoto's decision to retake Guadacanal at all costs.

The best JAF & JNAF pilots were stationed at Rabaul and New Guinea. Their job was to sweep the skies of allied planes and restore air sumpremacy. So you could say the Navy, Marine and USAAF pilots saw the best the Japanese had to offer in 1943 again before the Hellcat.

The Corsair was designed for the Navy to operate from aircraft carriers way back in 1938. It developed along the way into a very special plane. It was a true multi-role aircraft, the Hellcat and Bearcat were not multi-role aircraft.

Grumman as good as they are made a huge mistake at first when developing the Hellcat. They put an underpowered engine in the first Hellcat line. It wasnt until they flew the captured Zero that they realized they had better put a better engine in the Hellcat.

Could you imagine if the underpowered Hellcat had made it to the front lines ?


The design/role of the Bearcat was completely different than that of the Corsair. It was an light weight interceptor against kamikazes--fleet defense. The Bearcat didnt have long range and did not have ground attack missions. Two completely different missions for 2 completely different designed planes.



__________BP DDT said :


- Marine Ace Major General Marion Carl after WW2
- concluded, "The Corsair was a great mount, head and
- shoulders above it's comtemporaries. An airplane
- like the Corsair only comes along occasionally. It
- was the best flying machine in it's time."

He a Corsair pilot? Not to dismiss him, but pilots tend to love their planes. Regardless of what they are. And for those who spanned multiples, they tend to like the ones they were with the longest, or did the best with, or we with last.

______________



Actually Marion Carl was a Wildcat Ace and was with one of the first Marine Squadrons on Guadacanal. He flew all the planes there -even the Hellcat when it first showed in late 43'. It was his job to evaluate aircraft performance. It was his evaluation that the Corsair was the BEST PLANE in the Pacific Theater of Operations.


Overall the Corsair did all these missions extremely well for years. It then served as a front line fighter for many countries into the 1960's. France was one of those countries.





Braveheart's William Wallace said it best:
"I see a whole army of my countrymen, here in defiance of tyranny. You have come to fight as free men, and free men you are. What will you do without freedom? Will you fight? Fight and you may die. Run, and you'll live, at least a while. And dying in your beds, many years from now, would you be willing, to trade all the days from this day to that, for one chance, just one chance, to come back here and tell our enemies, that they may take our lives, but they'll never take our FREEDOM!"

XyZspineZyX
10-30-2003, 07:03 PM
BigKahuna_GS wrote:
- Remember that however fast the Sea Fury & Tempest
- were the F4U-5 was just coming out at 469mph @
- 28,600ft.

Much of a muchness with the Sea Fury (465 at about 20,000,
Fury up to 485 at the same alt).

The F4U series had the advantage in being able to
haul more external weaponry, the Tempest/Fury series
was faster low down where the ordnance was being
released. The Tempest/Fury series were better in
the vertical, the F4U more maneouverable in every
other way. Without knowing which strength should
get more weight it would be hard to call between the
two. They are certainly contenders for the single
engined title,

I am surprised that there haven't been any votes for the
190F/G series. The F4U-4 could (AFAIK) carry 2000lb bombs
plus 6 rockets, but the 190F8 could carry up to 4000lbs,
or even a torpedo. Performance was quite a way below the
F4U-4, though. I certainly wouldn't want to fly the thing
with an 1800kg bomb!

ZG77_Nagual
10-30-2003, 07:22 PM
Interesting Big K - my uncle also flew all those types - usmc and navy - corsairs and f9fs mostly - but apparently those guys played around alot in all types - he flew bearcats, wildcats and hellcats too.

http://pws.chartermi.net/~cmorey/pics/whiner.jpg

XyZspineZyX
10-30-2003, 07:28 PM
That 1800kg bomb could not be mounted on a Fw190F/G without a 'few' mods being done to the a/c. A specially prepared runway was also required > long hard surfaced, no grass or dirt.

The F4U did not need any extra mods done.

The torpedo carrying Fw was only a test a/c, non operational and was not a standard configuration > long tail wheel.

...........

The P&W2800 was a much more reliable engine than the Napier Sabre. Not to sure how the Centaurus rated.

http://www.thundercycle.com/photos/dropdead2.gif



"Only a dead 'chamber pot' is a good 'chamber pot'!"

Message Edited on 10/30/0301:31PM by MiloMorai

XyZspineZyX
10-30-2003, 07:39 PM
I love this Bird. Looks like a big mean ugly kick butt airplane. I never flew one, can't say whats better than the other, but It is very pleaseing to look at.

http://www23.homepage.villanova.edu/charles.marston/AIAA/photos/corsair.jpg




http://home.comcast.net/~ick_352nd/icarus-sig.jpg

http://home.comcast.net/~ick_352nd/about.htm
http://www.352ndfg.com

"The Original 352nd Virtual Fighter Group, Sanctioned by the 352ndFG Assosiation."
http://www.352ndfightergroup.com/assoc/main.html

Message Edited on 10/30/0309:20PM by Ick_352nd

XyZspineZyX
10-30-2003, 08:21 PM
S! Naqual


Did your dad fly in the Marines or Navy ?


My dad was a Mustang---an enlisted man who got into the flying sergants program and got his wings of gold in Pensa Cola, Florida. He was there about the same time Pappy Boyington was a flight instructor.


My dad stayed in the Marines for 30 years and he almost went to Viet Nam also. He started flying biplanes and ended up in jets ! He was a test pilot for a short while and flew about 150 types of aircraft.

______________


Even though the FW 190 could handle a large bomb load, I think the Corsair hauled the most :

Corsair bomb load----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.


All that ordanace and it flew pretty fast too !





Braveheart's William Wallace said it best:
"I see a whole army of my countrymen, here in defiance of tyranny. You have come to fight as free men, and free men you are. What will you do without freedom? Will you fight? Fight and you may die. Run, and you'll live, at least a while. And dying in your beds, many years from now, would you be willing, to trade all the days from this day to that, for one chance, just one chance, to come back here and tell our enemies, that they may take our lives, but they'll never take our FREEDOM!"

XyZspineZyX
10-30-2003, 08:39 PM
S! Naqual


Sorry I meant your Uncle.

My dad flew the Bearcat also and said it was THE most fun he ever had flying a piston powered airplane. The power to weight ratio was amazing. The controls were very responsive and very nimble.

It would have been a superb dogfighter if it had made it in time for WW2. I think it would have turned circles around almost any other plane.





Braveheart's William Wallace said it best:
"I see a whole army of my countrymen, here in defiance of tyranny. You have come to fight as free men, and free men you are. What will you do without freedom? Will you fight? Fight and you may die. Run, and you'll live, at least a while. And dying in your beds, many years from now, would you be willing, to trade all the days from this day to that, for one chance, just one chance, to come back here and tell our enemies, that they may take our lives, but they'll never take our FREEDOM!"

XyZspineZyX
10-30-2003, 08:40 PM
Cool article, but it only makes sense, along w/ mustang and sptifire, were only wwII fighters to fight beyound wwII in a significant way. My understanding is that corsair was most used in korea of the three. British used Seafury w/ 1rst prop vs jet kill in Korea, but not a wwII fighter.

If indeed the Corsair was as good a turn fighter as the aricles says, why have videogames tried to tell me otherwise?!

XyZspineZyX
10-30-2003, 09:14 PM
S! MZ6


The Corsair was not known as a tun n burn aircraft. It fought the the Zero with fast slashing attacks. But it could out turn and out perform the Mustang and Jug below 20,000ft in late 1943. Not sure how the F4U-4 did against the same, but the F4U-4 was supposed to have turned better than earlier models.

Since the Corsair never operated in the ETO, we have to compare it to the 109 & 190 thru the Mustang. The Mustang with 10 degrees of flap could turn with the 109 and it turned better than the 190.

So if the Corsair can out turn the Mustang below 20,000ft, it should do well against the 109 & 190 while manuevering at those same altitudes.

Also the Corsair could stay with the highly manueverable Zero for 1/2 half turn with full flaps @ 175 knots. That is saying alot to be able turn with (for a short while albeit) one of the world's best slow speed manuevering aircraft the Zero.





Braveheart's William Wallace said it best:
"I see a whole army of my countrymen, here in defiance of tyranny. You have come to fight as free men, and free men you are. What will you do without freedom? Will you fight? Fight and you may die. Run, and you'll live, at least a while. And dying in your beds, many years from now, would you be willing, to trade all the days from this day to that, for one chance, just one chance, to come back here and tell our enemies, that they may take our lives, but they'll never take our FREEDOM!"

XyZspineZyX
10-30-2003, 09:48 PM
MiloMorai wrote:
- That 1800kg bomb could not be mounted on a Fw190F/G
- without a 'few' mods being done to the a/c.

Very true. My point was that it could be carried,
but hardly an ideal way of doing so.

- The F4U did not need any extra mods done.

AFAIK the F4U couldn't carry 4000lbs of bombs though.
I note the reference to 6000lb external ordinance
in another post, and I am curious as to what that load
comprised of. 3 1000lb bombs plus 6 rockets (probably
another 500lb or so of rockets and rails, if not
more) is a very impressive load for a stock plane!

XyZspineZyX
10-30-2003, 09:53 PM
BigKahuna_GS wrote:
- Since the Corsair never operated in the ETO,

It did. It was operated by the FAA in the ETO and MTO.
Famously it flew top cover for the attack on the Tirpitz.

- So if the Corsair can out turn the Mustang below
- 20,000ft, it should do well against the 109 & 190
- while manuevering at those same altitudes.

I'm not sure that necessarily follows as various
planes that are good at turning at low altitudes
are not good at high altitudes and vice versa. For
example the P47 outturns and outflies the 109 at
altitude, but is outturned by the 109 low down.
Of course, it is entirely possible that the F4U
could also outturn the 109 above 20,000 feet as well.

XyZspineZyX
10-30-2003, 09:57 PM
AaronGT wrote:
-
- BigKahuna_GS wrote:
-- Tempest 425mph @ 17,000ft
--
-- F4U-4 446 @ 26,200ft
-
- Normally the Tempest V series II is more often
- quoted as
- 435mph at 17,000ft, not 425mph, although I've seen
- all sorts of figures in this 10mph range. That holds
- steady to about 20,000 feet, but drops off to about
- 400 at 30,000 feet, giving probably a 30 mph
- adavantage
- to the F4U-4 at 26,000 feet.
-
- At sea level the Tempest V has about a 60mph
- advantage
- over the F4U-4.

F4U-4 max speed at sea level was 370mph (quite controversial USN data though).

Do you think that TempestV was capable of 430mph at sea level? Let's keep those performance claims to a realistic level.


<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
10-30-2003, 10:00 PM
BigKahuna_GS wrote:
- You are trying to argue an arguemnet that was
- already setteled more than 50 years ago. Like I said
- in my previous post VF-17 and VF-12 found the
- Corsair already Carrier worthy before the Hellcat
- was even out the factory door.
- If the Navy did not think the Corsair was almost
- twice the plane the Hellcat was, why did they
- replace the Hellcats with Corsairs as fast as they
- could later in the war ?


Corsairs were kept because longer deck carriers become available after the war. Indeed Corsairs were more performant than Hellcats, but they were not well adapted to the types of carriers available during ww2. Their effectiveness as a ww2 carrier plane is still controversial.


<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
10-30-2003, 10:03 PM
MZ6 wrote:
- Cool article, but it only makes sense, along w/
- mustang and sptifire, were only wwII fighters to
- fight beyound wwII in a significant way.

The P63 and I think the F8F were used by the French
in Vietnam in the 1950s.

The Fairey Firefly in FAA service until 1954.

The Tempest was also in service until the 1950s,
but only in the II and VI marks, which are post
war in terms of volume production, although the
II's service only just missed WW2.

The Mosquito was in service as a nightfighter in the
UK until the early 1950s.

Various Spitfires, P51s, etc, have seen service
with smaller air fleets until even the 1980s.

Then there are jets:

The Meteor (as the PR12) was used until the 1980s
for high level reconnaisance flights (had a higher
ceiling than the U2!) Mind you, the PR12 was
such an extensive rebuild of the Meteor probably
the only original component was the clock!

The P80 (as the T33) is probably STILL in service
somewhere!

XyZspineZyX
10-30-2003, 10:12 PM
Essex class carriers (~16 ships @ ~860ft) were built during WW2. These ended up having jets flying off them.

http://www.odyssey.dircon.co.uk/CV14a.JPG



Huckebein_FW wrote:
-
-
- Corsairs were kept because longer deck carriers
- become available after the war. Indeed Corsairs were
- more performant than Hellcats, but they were not
- well adapted to the types of carriers available
- during ww2. Their effectiveness as a ww2 carrier
- plane is still controversial.
-


http://www.thundercycle.com/photos/dropdead2.gif



"Only a dead 'chamber pot' is a good 'chamber pot'!"

XyZspineZyX
10-30-2003, 10:13 PM
BigKahuna_GS wrote:
-
- The Corsair was designed for the Navy to operate
- from aircraft carriers way back in 1938. It
- developed along the way into a very special plane.
- It was a true multi-role aircraft, the Hellcat and
- Bearcat were not multi-role aircraft.


Hellcat and Bearcat were capable of attack missions as much as a Corsair, just that they did not have the same payload. Hellcats and Bearcats were restricted to 2000lb, but keep in mind that Corsair was capable of 4000lb only after the war (F4U-4B was first such modification if I recall correctly). Power upgrade received by Corsair in F4U-4 was the reason why this increase in payload was possible (2650HP compared with 2200HP for Hellcat).
Also you have to consider that this modified Corsair did not have the same performance with fighter variant.


<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

Message Edited on 10/30/0304:25PM by Huckebein_FW

XyZspineZyX
10-30-2003, 10:24 PM
MiloMorai wrote:
- Essex class carriers (~16 ships @ ~860ft) were built
- during WW2. These ended up having jets flying off
- them.


When they appeared Essex class were the largest a/c carriers. None of them were available to USMC during ww2. Sure Corsairs could fly from their decks, but they were not available for Corsair squadrons.


<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
10-30-2003, 10:34 PM
MiloMorai wrote:
- That 1800kg bomb could not be mounted on a Fw190F/G
- without a 'few' mods being done to the a/c. A
- specially prepared runway was also required > long
- hard surfaced, no grass or dirt.
-
- The F4U did not need any extra mods done.


Standard Fw-190G8/F8 and some earlier ground attack variants could carry SC-1800. And F4U-4 capable of 4000lb payload was a modified ground attack variant, not the standard fighter variant. Don't forget that it was a post-war plane.


<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
10-30-2003, 10:36 PM
BigKahuna_GS wrote:

- Overall the Corsair did all these missions extremely
- well for years. It then served as a front line
- fighter for many countries into the 1960's. France
- was one of those countries.


France also used Bearcats for the same time span.


<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
10-30-2003, 10:43 PM
BigKahuna_GS wrote:

- Grumman as good as they are made a huge mistake at
- first when developing the Hellcat. They put an
- underpowered engine in the first Hellcat line. It
- wasnt until they flew the captured Zero that they
- realized they had better put a better engine in the
- Hellcat.
-
- Could you imagine if the underpowered Hellcat had
- made it to the front lines ?


Early Corsair and Hellcats had similar powerloadings. If you think that early Hellcats were underpowered then Corsairs were underpowered too.

Hellcats were slower because of their huge wings with large cambers (well adapted to carrier service, but poor for high speed flight). Corsairs because of carrier service requirements had a similar large camber airfoil but had better high speed performance. Both were poor divers compared to USAAF fighters.


<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
10-30-2003, 10:45 PM
The VF-17 was a USN squadron that flew F4Us off carriers in mid 1943. VF-5 flew F4Us off carriers in 1945 before WW2 ended. Note VF are USN squadrons.

VMF-124/213, a USMC F4U sqaudron, flew off the USS Essex in the spring of 1945. VMF 112, 123, 216 and 217 were assigned to carriers during WW2. There was also numerous VBF F4U sqaudrons that were on board carriers during WW2.

The USS Essex was commisioned in Dec. '42.

CVEs had F4Us assigned to them during WW2.

Huckebein_FW wrote:

-
-
- When they appeared Essex class were the largest a/c
- carriers. None of them were available to USMC during
- ww2. Sure Corsairs could fly from their decks, but
- they were not available for Corsair squadrons.
-





http://www.thundercycle.com/photos/dropdead2.gif



"Only a dead 'chamber pot' is a good 'chamber pot'!"

XyZspineZyX
10-30-2003, 10:47 PM
Huckebein_FW wrote:

-
-
- Standard Fw-190G8/F8 and some earlier ground attack
- variants could carry SC-1800. And F4U-4 capable of
- 4000lb payload was a modified ground attack variant,
- not the standard fighter variant. Don't forget that
- it was a post-war plane.
-
-

No Huck, the standard Fw190F/G could not carry a 1800kg bomb without modifications.


http://www.thundercycle.com/photos/dropdead2.gif



"Only a dead 'chamber pot' is a good 'chamber pot'!"

XyZspineZyX
10-30-2003, 10:50 PM
If memory serves me right, the Brits were the one who found the curving approach to land on carriers.

Gib

MiloMorai wrote:
-
- The FAA came up with the curving approach. This was
- for all long nosed a/c such as the converted Spits
- and Hurries.
-


No fancy quote or cool photo.... YET

XyZspineZyX
10-30-2003, 10:53 PM
Huck, the first F6F had a Wright R-2600(1600hp) installed while the F4U had a P&W R-2800(2000hp) installed from the get go.


Huckebein_FW wrote:
-
-
-
- Early Corsair and Hellcats had similar
- powerloadings. If you think that early Hellcats were
- underpowered then Corsairs were underpowered too.
-
-


http://www.thundercycle.com/photos/dropdead2.gif



"Only a dead 'chamber pot' is a good 'chamber pot'!"

XyZspineZyX
10-30-2003, 10:55 PM
BigKahuna_GS wrote:
- The F4U-4 is actually 10 mph faster than
- the P-51D at the Mustang's best altitude.

Yes, but with an engine rated with 1000HP more than Mustang at sea level.

P-51H with still a less powerfull engine was faster even than F4U-5 with 2800HP.



- Rate of climb:
- F4U-1: 3,250 ft/min.
- F4U-4: 4,170 ft/min.

USN listed a 4000fpm climb rate for F4U-4 in '45 (after a correction on earlier listed values). Manufacturer still gave a 3800fpm climb rate. Even 4000fpm is not impressive considering the enormous engine giving 2650HP at sea level.



- All that ordanace and it flew pretty fast too!

Max speed is significantly affected on planes carrying the ordonance externally. I hope you don't think that F4U-4 loaded at 4000lb could reach 440mph.


<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
10-30-2003, 11:06 PM
MiloMorai wrote:
- Huck, the first F6F had a Wright R-2600(1600hp)
- installed while the F4U had a P&W R-2800(2000hp)
- installed from the get go.


That was not a production model. First production model Hellcat F6F-3 had a R-2800 just like Corsair.


<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
10-30-2003, 11:08 PM
Huck, BigKahuna was talking about the FIRST F6F, NOT the production a/c. dah!


http://www.thundercycle.com/photos/dropdead2.gif



"Only a dead 'chamber pot' is a good 'chamber pot'!"

XyZspineZyX
10-30-2003, 11:08 PM
Wasent the G8 and F8 a "modified fround attack variant"? Both the 190A or D "standard fighter variant" could not carry the SC-1800. What was the bomb load of the standard 190A or D? The standard F4U could still carry a 2000lb bomb load, and do it from the deck of a carrier. Quite impressive for a single engine fighter.

Also, anyone wanna post the performance test between a FW-190A and a F6F and F4U? The 190 did not perform very well against the F4U. The Germans should be thankful we did not park a carrier off the coast of France http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif I do think we had some carriers in the Med? (someone correct me) and I think some carrier aircraft did go up against 109's there. Can someone shed some light on that?

Gib

Huckebein_FW wrote:
- MiloMorai wrote:
-- That 1800kg bomb could not be mounted on a Fw190F/G
-- without a 'few' mods being done to the a/c. A
-- specially prepared runway was also required > long
-- hard surfaced, no grass or dirt.
--
-- The F4U did not need any extra mods done.
-
-
- Standard Fw-190G8/F8 and some earlier ground attack
- variants could carry SC-1800. And F4U-4 capable of
- 4000lb payload was a modified ground attack variant,
- not the standard fighter variant. Don't forget that
- it was a post-war plane.
-
-
- <center> <img
- src="http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-m
- ain.jpg"> </center>



No fancy quote or cool photo.... YET

XyZspineZyX
10-30-2003, 11:12 PM
It was a rather large aircraft Huck. The radial engine had a lot of aerodynamic friction. The simple fact that it did go that fast no matter the power is impressive. Speed through brute force as apposed to speed through aerodynamics. If you want to compair speeds, compair the FW-190 with the F4U or the 109 with the Mustang. Two VERY differant classes.

Huckebein_FW wrote:
- BigKahuna_GS wrote:
-- The F4U-4 is actually 10 mph faster than
-- the P-51D at the Mustang's best altitude.
-
- Yes, but with an engine rated with 1000HP more than
- Mustang at sea level.
-
- P-51H with still a less powerfull engine was faster
- even than F4U-5 with 2800HP.
-
-
-
-- Rate of climb:
-- F4U-1: 3,250 ft/min.
-- F4U-4: 4,170 ft/min.
-
- USN listed a 4000fpm climb rate for F4U-4 in '45
- (after a correction on earlier listed values).
- Manufacturer still gave a 3800fpm climb rate. Even
- 4000fpm is not impressive considering the enormous
- engine giving 2650HP at sea level.
-
-
-
-- All that ordanace and it flew pretty fast too!
-
- Max speed is significantly affected on planes
- carrying the ordonance externally. I hope you don't
- think that F4U-4 loaded at 4000lb could reach
- 440mph.
-
-
- <center> <img
- src="http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-m
- ain.jpg"> </center>



No fancy quote or cool photo.... YET

XyZspineZyX
10-30-2003, 11:20 PM
BigKahuna_GS wrote:
- S! MZ6

- Since the Corsair never operated in the ETO, we have
- to compare it to the 109 & 190 thru the Mustang. The
- Mustang with 10 degrees of flap could turn with the
- 109 and it turned better than the 190.

Mustang with combat flaps still turned worse than 109 with combat flaps. And dropping flaps improves only turn radius but turn rate and maneuvrability decreases (max AOA becomes smaller).


- So if the Corsair can out turn the Mustang below
- 20,000ft, it should do well against the 109 & 190
- while manuevering at those same altitudes.

Turning will probably be with P-51B and Dora, and better than P-51D and A8.


- Also the Corsair could stay with the highly
- manueverable Zero for 1/2 half turn with full flaps
- @ 175 knots. That is saying alot to be able turn
- with (for a short while albeit) one of the world's
- best slow speed manuevering aircraft the Zero.

Make sure you read this correctly: Corsair may have similar turnradius with Zero if the pilot uses flaps, as long as Zero pilot does not drop the flaps too, and with the disadvantage that if he did not down the enemy plane, he is just low and slow in a heavy aircraft, the ideal target for other enemy planes.


<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
10-30-2003, 11:25 PM
MiloMorai wrote:
- Huck, BigKahuna was talking about the FIRST F6F, NOT
- the production a/c. dah!



This is what BigK says:

"Grumman as good as they are made a huge mistake at first when developing the Hellcat. They put an underpowered engine in the first Hellcat line. It wasnt until they flew the captured Zero that they realized they had better put a better engine in the Hellcat. "

Now tell me which was the "first Hellcat line"?



<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
10-30-2003, 11:28 PM
Gibbage1 wrote:
- Also, anyone wanna post the performance test between
- a FW-190A and a F6F and F4U? The 190 did not
- perform very well against the F4U. The Germans
- should be thankful we did not park a carrier off the
- coast of France http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif I do think we had some carriers
- in the Med? (someone correct me) and I think some
- carrier aircraft did go up against 109's there. Can
- someone shed some light on that?
-



..... Go here for the website for the F4U-1D versus FW-190 comparison test -


http://www.geocities.com/slakergmb/id46.htm



Blutarski

XyZspineZyX
10-30-2003, 11:34 PM
Huckebein_FW wrote:
- MiloMorai wrote:
-- Huck, BigKahuna was talking about the FIRST F6F, NOT
-- the production a/c. dah!
-
-
-
- This is what BigK says:
-
- "Grumman as good as they are made a huge mistake at
- first when developing the Hellcat. They put an
- underpowered engine in the first Hellcat line. It
- wasnt until they flew the captured Zero that they
- realized they had better put a better engine in the
- Hellcat. "
-
- Now tell me which was the "first Hellcat line"?
-


XF6F-1(02981) /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif The XF6F-3(02982) was the second line./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif This was also the second prototype a/c.


http://www.thundercycle.com/photos/dropdead2.gif



"Only a dead 'chamber pot' is a good 'chamber pot'!"

XyZspineZyX
10-30-2003, 11:35 PM
Gibbage1 wrote:
- Wasent the G8 and F8 a "modified fround attack
- variant"? Both the 190A or D "standard fighter
- variant" could not carry the SC-1800.

Yes, they couldn't.


- What was the
- bomb load of the standard 190A or D? The standard
- F4U could still carry a 2000lb bomb load, and do it
- from the deck of a carrier. Quite impressive for a
- single engine fighter.

During the war F4U-1 with this payload flew from shore fields only.


- Also, anyone wanna post the performance test between
- a FW-190A and a F6F and F4U? The 190 did not
- perform very well against the F4U.

That comparison is made with a defective ground attack Fw-190 variant. It was significantly slower at all altitudes than the real A5 fighter. Damage to the BMW engine was reported, but the extent of this damage was not investigated. Also the report does not give any performance numbers except the max speed value (which are not correct for A5), therefore no conclusion can be drawn from that test.


- The Germans
- should be thankful we did not park a carrier off the
- coast of France http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif I do think we had some carriers
- in the Med? (someone correct me) and I think some
- carrier aircraft did go up against 109's there. Can
- someone shed some light on that?

Actually Corsair and Hellcats saw activity against German planes, but their presence was anonymous compared with P-51 and P-47. Certainly Brits did not thought highly of them since they sent most of them to fight against slow and fragile japanese planes.



<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

Message Edited on 10/30/0305:41PM by Huckebein_FW

XyZspineZyX
10-30-2003, 11:36 PM
MiloMorai wrote:
-
- Huckebein_FW wrote:
-- MiloMorai wrote:
--- Huck, BigKahuna was talking about the FIRST F6F, NOT
--- the production a/c. dah!
--
--
--
-- This is what BigK says:
--
-- "Grumman as good as they are made a huge mistake at
-- first when developing the Hellcat. They put an
-- underpowered engine in the first Hellcat line. It
-- wasnt until they flew the captured Zero that they
-- realized they had better put a better engine in the
-- Hellcat. "
--
-- Now tell me which was the "first Hellcat line"?
--
-
-
- XF6F-1(02981) /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif The XF6F-3(02982) was the
- second line./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif This was also the second
- prototype a/c.


Quite an impressive line you got there Milo. Two planes/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif


<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
10-30-2003, 11:56 PM
For sure Huck./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif The XF6F-3 was the prototype of the F6F-3 of which there was a large quantity manufactured >> 4402 a/c./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif


Huckebein_FW wrote:
-
-
-
-
- Quite an impressive line you got there Milo. Two
- planes
-


http://www.thundercycle.com/photos/dropdead2.gif



"Only a dead 'chamber pot' is a good 'chamber pot'!"

XyZspineZyX
10-30-2003, 11:57 PM
4400 and and Hucks 2. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

If anyone at my Funeral has a long face, I'll never speak to him again.
Stan Laurel



EJGr.Ost Kimura

http://www.jagdgruppe-ost.de/image/ejgrost.gif

XyZspineZyX
10-30-2003, 11:58 PM
Huckebein_FW wrote:
- That comparison is made with a defective ground
- attack Fw-190 variant. It was significantly slower
- at all altitudes than the real A5 fighter. Damage to
- the BMW engine was reported, but the extent of this
- damage was not investigated. Also the report does
- not give any performance numbers except the max
- speed value (which are not correct for A5),
- therefore no conclusion can be drawn from that test.


..... It was indeed stipulated in the test document that the FW190-A5 in question was probably not operating up to full snuff due to low-speed plug fouling. I'm not sure whether this qualifies for the appellation of "defective", which is a pretty harsh word. Notwithstanding the concluding comments of the US pilots, the test as is stands shows that the FW-190 would have been in every way a handful for the Corsair. - It was faster, had a better high-speed climb, better armament, equal or better dive, handling, and visibility. The only true superiority displayed by the Corsair was in the turn - odd for an American fighter design. Interested parties ought to read the comparison test for themselves and decide its merits.



- Actually Corsair and Hellcats saw activity against
- German planes, but their presence was rather
- anonymous compared with P-51 and P-47. Certainly
- Brits did not thought highly of them since they sent
- most of them to fight against slow and fragile
- japanese planes.
-

..... Wildcats and Hellcats saw VERY limited service in the Mediterranean and European theaters - Operation Torch, the Med, and North Sea. I can recall no use of the corsair in the ETO and would be interested to see any evidence of it having served there.

The reason that Britain did not employ more of them them had nothing to do with any bad opinion of their merits - I'd love to see some support for the claim that the "Brits did not thought highly of them". The above-named a/c were far and away superior aircraft for carrier operations than the British FAA types. It had everything to do with the fact that Britain had plenty of very good ground-based fighter and fighter-bomber a/c by 1943-1944.



Blutarski



Message Edited on 10/30/0311:00PM by BLUTARSKI

XyZspineZyX
10-31-2003, 12:12 AM
KIMURA wrote:
- 4400 and and Hucks 2./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Frankly, I don't understand your enthusiasm for Milo's mistakes. F6F-3, first Hellcat production model had R-2800, with 2000HP. There were only 2 planes fitted with R-2600. 2 is 2 Kimura, not 4400.

I'm quite surprised that you're not aware of this, considering your interest in Pacific air war.


<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
10-31-2003, 12:15 AM
Huckebein_FW wrote:

- F4U-4 max speed at sea level was 370mph (quite
- controversial USN data though).


Nothing controversial about it, except to you and Isegrim.

Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/jug_sig.jpg

XyZspineZyX
10-31-2003, 12:17 AM
Huckebein_FW wrote:

- Corsairs were kept because longer deck carriers
- become available after the war. Indeed Corsairs were
- more performant than Hellcats, but they were not
- well adapted to the types of carriers available
- during ww2. Their effectiveness as a ww2 carrier
- plane is still controversial.

Corsairs operated perfectly from Essex class carriers. They operated perfectly from Midway class carriers after the war. They were kept becasue they were outstanding planes. Look at the ending production dates. There effectiveness as carrier fighters is indisputable.

Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/jug_sig.jpg


Message Edited on 10/31/0302:17AM by SkyChimp

XyZspineZyX
10-31-2003, 12:21 AM
Huckebein_FW wrote:

- Frankly, I don't understand your enthusiasm for
- Milo's mistakes. F6F-3, first Hellcat production
- model had R-2800, with 2000HP. There were only 2
- planes fitted with R-2600. 2 is 2 Kimura, not 4400.
-
-
-

No mistake on my part Huck, just your inability to read English correctly. The first F6F had a R2600 installed. There was ONLY one a/c fitted with the R-2600, the XF6F-1(02981).


http://www.thundercycle.com/photos/dropdead2.gif



"Only a dead 'chamber pot' is a good 'chamber pot'!"

XyZspineZyX
10-31-2003, 12:32 AM
SkyChimp wrote:
- Huckebein_FW wrote:
-
-- Corsairs were kept because longer deck carriers
-- become available after the war. Indeed Corsairs were
-- more performant than Hellcats, but they were not
-- well adapted to the types of carriers available
-- during ww2. Their effectiveness as a ww2 carrier
-- plane is still controversial.
-
- Corsairs operated perfectly from Essex class
- carriers.

To my knowledge they started to be operated on carriers, Essex class, at the beginning of 1945. 10 squadrons or so. I might be wrong though, I'm not really interested in Pacific operations.


- They operated perfectly from Midway class
- carriers after the war.

That was my point. They could be operated from carriers with large decks only. Essex was large, Midway was even larger.


<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
10-31-2003, 12:32 AM
Huckebein_FW wrote:

- Hellcat and Bearcat were capable of attack missions
- as much as a Corsair, just that they did not have
- the same payload.

Later F6F-5 could carry two 1,000 pound bombs, and 6 5" HVAR rockets at approximately 140 lbs each. Same with the Bearcat.



- Hellcats and Bearcats were
- restricted to 2000lb, but keep in mind that Corsair
- was capable of 4000lb only after the war

This is incorrect. The F4U-1D had this capability and it was the most numerous F4U in WWII.



- (F4U-4B was
- first such modification if I recall correctly).

Incorrect. The F4U-4B was a 20mm armed F4U-4 variant. The first F4U with the increased payload was the F4U-1D.




- Power upgrade received by Corsair in F4U-4 was the
- reason why this increase in payload was possible
- (2650HP compared with 2200HP for Hellcat).

No, it's not. The reason for the increase was an extra pylon. Instead of just one center pylon as on the F4U-1A, the F4U-1D had two pylons under the fuselage.




- Also you have to consider that this modified Corsair
- did not have the same performance with fighter
- variant.

This is wholly incorrect. F4U-1Ds were in no way inferior in performance to the F4U-1A, and the F4U-1D was superior to both.

Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/jug_sig.jpg

XyZspineZyX
10-31-2003, 12:42 AM
MiloMorai wrote:
-
- Huckebein_FW wrote:
-
-- Frankly, I don't understand your enthusiasm for
-- Milo's mistakes. F6F-3, first Hellcat production
-- model had R-2800, with 2000HP. There were only 2
-- planes fitted with R-2600. 2 is 2 Kimura, not 4400.
--
--
--
-
- No mistake on my part Huck, just your inability to
- read English correctly. The first F6F had a R2600
- installed. There was ONLY one a/c fitted with the
- R-2600, the XF6F-1(02981).


No Milo, it was just the chronic denier behaviour of yours that made you post such crap.

There was no Hellcat line fitted with R-2600. There was no such thing as F6F fitted with R-2600. There was only one prototype fitted with R-2600, later retrofitted with R-2800. So much talk about nothing.





<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
10-31-2003, 12:44 AM
Huckebein_FW wrote:

- When they appeared Essex class were the largest a/c
- carriers. None of them were available to USMC during
- ww2. Sure Corsairs could fly from their decks, but
- they were not available for Corsair squadrons.

Hmmm, not sure just what you mean. Are you under the impression that Corsairs could not, and were not, operated from escort carriers? Because they could and were. In fact, it was common. Here is a pic of a CVE with Corsairs aboard:

http://www.adamsplanes.com/photogallery/USS%20GI%20-%20Fleming/Crew%20USS%20GI.jpg


Additionally, there were a plethora of Corsair squadrons based aboard Essex class carriers in WWII. The Navy used the F4U as much as the Marines did.

Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/jug_sig.jpg

XyZspineZyX
10-31-2003, 12:45 AM
Huckebein_FW wrote:

- That was my point. They could be operated from
- carriers with large decks only. Essex was large,
- Midway was even larger.


Sorry, incorrect:

http://www.adamsplanes.com/photogallery/USS%20GI%20-%20Fleming/Crew%20USS%20GI.jpg


Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/jug_sig.jpg

XyZspineZyX
10-31-2003, 12:53 AM
Huckebein_FW wrote:

- Standard Fw-190G8/F8 and some earlier ground attack
- variants could carry SC-1800. And F4U-4 capable of
- 4000lb payload was a modified ground attack variant,
- not the standard fighter variant. Don't forget that
- it was a post-war plane.


There was no "special ground attack variant" of the F4U-4. There was the standard fighter (F4U-4), a 20mm cannon armed version (F4U-4C), a night figher (F4U-4N) and a recon version (F4U-4P). There were some other minor versions, but no "special ground attack version."

And the F4U-4 was absolutely a WWII aircraft. They saw significant action over Okinawa.

Perhaps you are thinking of the AU-1, a Korean War era variant with a massive payload.

Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/jug_sig.jpg

XyZspineZyX
10-31-2003, 12:55 AM
Huckebein_FW wrote:
- Both were poor divers compared to USAAF
- fighters.

But still better than their enemy competition. And the F4U is considered by many pilots to dive as well as the Mustang (though I still think Mustang would have the edge).

Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/jug_sig.jpg

XyZspineZyX
10-31-2003, 12:56 AM
SkyChimp wrote:
-
- Huckebein_FW wrote:
-
-- Hellcat and Bearcat were capable of attack missions
-- as much as a Corsair, just that they did not have
-- the same payload.
-
- Later F6F-5 could carry two 1,000 pound bombs, and 6
- 5" HVAR rockets at approximately 140 lbs each. Same
- with the Bearcat.

Yes, but postwar Corsair could carry 4000lb.



-- Hellcats and Bearcats were
-- restricted to 2000lb, but keep in mind that Corsair
-- was capable of 4000lb only after the war
-
- This is incorrect. The F4U-1D had this capability
- and it was the most numerous F4U in WWII.

No it didn't. There is no USN document in which this payload is mentioned. Only 2x1000lb.



-- (F4U-4B was
-- first such modification if I recall correctly).
-
- Incorrect. The F4U-4B was a 20mm armed F4U-4
- variant. The first F4U with the increased payload
- was the F4U-1D.

I don't know which F4U-4 was fitted with pilons capable of 4000lb, but I'm quite sure that it wasn't done during the war. Certainly no F4U-1D was capable of carrying 4000lb (during the war, I'm not talking about obscure retrofittings made after the war).



-- Power upgrade received by Corsair in F4U-4 was the
-- reason why this increase in payload was possible
-- (2650HP compared with 2200HP for Hellcat).
-
- No, it's not. The reason for the increase was an
- extra pylon. Instead of just one center pylon as on
- the F4U-1A, the F4U-1D had two pylons under the
- fuselage.

The two pylons were different from the center pylon, and were rated at 1000lb.



-- Also you have to consider that this modified Corsair
-- did not have the same performance with fighter
-- variant.
-
- This is wholly incorrect. F4U-1Ds were in no way
- inferior in performance to the F4U-1A, and the
- F4U-1D was superior to both.


F4U-1D was not capable of carrying 4000lb.


<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
10-31-2003, 12:57 AM
MiloMorai wrote:
- Huck, the first F6F had a Wright R-2600(1600hp)
- installed while the F4U had a P&W R-2800(2000hp)
- installed from the get go.

The prototypes X6F-1 and X6F-2 had R-2600s installed.
AFAIK production F6Fs didn't have R-2600s. I think
it is a bit rich to have a go at Huckebein based
on the exact engine in the prototype, not used in
production aircraft.

XyZspineZyX
10-31-2003, 01:00 AM
Huckebein_FW wrote:
- F4U-4 max speed at sea level was 370mph (quite
- controversial USN data though).

The figure I remember was 340mph (I'll see if I can
dig that out again). Based on the Tempest V being
normally quoted as 397mph at sea level (some say 392)
I calculated a 60mph difference. I'll see if I can
find anything more on the 340 speed for the F4U4 at
sea level. 370 seems rather high, to be honest, so
I can see why some are sceptical, given that the -1
version only manages 316 at sea level.

- Do you think that TempestV was capable of 430mph at
- sea level?

No, not even the Tempest V1 modifications.

XyZspineZyX
10-31-2003, 01:00 AM
SkyChimp wrote:
-
- Huckebein_FW wrote:
-- Both were poor divers compared to USAAF
-- fighters.
-
- But still better than their enemy competition. And
- the F4U is considered by many pilots to dive as well
- as the Mustang (though I still think Mustang would
- have the edge).


Dive limit for F4U-5, the most advanced postwar Corsair variant had 730km/h dive limit (data from pilot's handbook).
You know that's below Emil.


<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
10-31-2003, 01:05 AM
MiloMorai wrote:
-
- Huckebein_FW wrote:
-
--
--
-- Standard Fw-190G8/F8 and some earlier ground attack
-- variants could carry SC-1800. And F4U-4 capable of
-- 4000lb payload was a modified ground attack variant,
-- not the standard fighter variant. Don't forget that
-- it was a post-war plane.
--
--
-
- No Huck, the standard Fw190F/G could not carry a
- 1800kg bomb without modifications.

I agree with Milo on this. Everything I've read
about the 1800kg bomb on the 190 says that it needed
modifications to the undercarriage first.

XyZspineZyX
10-31-2003, 01:05 AM
Huckebein_FW wrote:

- Yes, but with an engine rated with 1000HP more than
- Mustang at sea level.
-
- P-51H with still a less powerfull engine was faster
- even than F4U-5 with 2800HP.

Well, the Mustang was certainly a more aerodynamically efficient aircraft.



- USN listed a 4000fpm climb rate for F4U-4 in '45
- (after a correction on earlier listed values).

Actually, this is a mistake you've picked up from Isegrim.

There was no "earlier listed value." The "earlier listed value" to which you refer was actually a LATER value on 115/145 fuel.

But even on 100/130, charts subsequent to April 1945 show a better climb rate. I have one dated May 21, 1946 that lists 4400 fpm. Still not as good as the F4U-4 on 115/145 that started at 4,770 fpm, increasing to over 4,800 fpm at 10,000 feet.




- Manufacturer still gave a 3800fpm climb rate. Even
- 4000fpm is not impressive considering the enormous
- engine giving 2650HP at sea level.

3,800 fpm is a military power climb rate for the F4U-4.



- Max speed is significantly affected on planes
- carrying the ordonance externally. I hope you don't
- think that F4U-4 loaded at 4000lb could reach
- 440mph.

No, of course not. But at 12,480 lbs it could reach 452 mph at 20,500 feet.


Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/jug_sig.jpg

XyZspineZyX
10-31-2003, 01:07 AM
Huckebein_FW wrote:

- Turning will probably be with P-51B and Dora, and
- better than P-51D and A8.

Are you talking about the Corsair? The Corsair could handily outturn either of these planes.

Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/jug_sig.jpg

XyZspineZyX
10-31-2003, 01:11 AM
AaronGT wrote:
-
- Huckebein_FW wrote:
-- F4U-4 max speed at sea level was 370mph (quite
-- controversial USN data though).
-
- The figure I remember was 340mph (I'll see if I can
- dig that out again). Based on the Tempest V being
- normally quoted as 397mph at sea level (some say
- 392)
- I calculated a 60mph difference. I'll see if I can
- find anything more on the 340 speed for the F4U4 at
- sea level. 370 seems rather high, to be honest, so
- I can see why some are sceptical, given that the -1
- version only manages 316 at sea level.


Quite hard to believe, isn't it? such a difference with only 400hp more. Corsair is a huge plane.


<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
10-31-2003, 01:12 AM
There were a few F4U-2's that operated off the USS Enterprise before the ESSEX class carriers became operational. Enterprise CV-6 was a YORKTOWN class CV. Smaller than the ESSEX class.

---
<font color=white font size="3" face="arial"Col. "Fury" CO
<font size="3"><font face="bd hanover">352nd Fighter Group </font> [VR]
<font face="bd hanover">328th, 486th, 487th Fighter Squadrons</font>
<font><font color="#330099"><font size="5"><font face="brush script mt">"Second To None!"</font>

<font>[b]<font size="2" font color=black>[(HL)_352FG; (UBI) USAAF_352FG]: The<font><font color=#330099 face="brush script mt"font size="5">"First"</font><font color=black font size="2"> 352FG in IL-2FB</font>


Message Edited on 10/30/0306:15PM by PZ_D_352FG

XyZspineZyX
10-31-2003, 01:13 AM
Huckebein_FW wrote:

- During the war F4U-1 with this payload flew from
- shore fields only.

F4U-1 yes. But the F4U-1 was the birdcage version, flown mainly by the Marines, with a few flown by the Navy. The F4U-1D with increase payload capability flew heavily loaded from carriers. They didn't earn the nickname "Sweethearts of Okinawa" for flying lightly.



- That comparison is made with a defective ground
- attack Fw-190 variant. It was significantly slower
- at all altitudes than the real A5 fighter. Damage to
- the BMW engine was reported, but the extent of this
- damage was not investigated. Also the report does
- not give any performance numbers except the max
- speed value (which are not correct for A5),
- therefore no conclusion can be drawn from that test.

Total nonsense and completely and utterly false. Anyone can read the report and see the F4U-1D was the superior plane.



- Actually Corsair and Hellcats saw activity against
- German planes, but their presence was anonymous
- compared with P-51 and P-47. Certainly Brits did not
- thought highly of them since they sent most of them
- to fight against slow and fragile japanese planes.

No documented encounters between Corsairs and LW planes. US Hellcats shot down many LW bombers and transports during the invasion of southern France in August 1944, but the only fighters seen fled.

British Hellcats shot down 2 Bf-109G and 1 Fw-190 during and encounter hunting the Tirpitz. 1 Hellcat was lost to AA, and 1 was lost apparently to colliding with a German fighter is had shot down (it happens, remember Hartman).




Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/jug_sig.jpg

XyZspineZyX
10-31-2003, 01:13 AM
AaronGT wrote:
-
- MiloMorai wrote:
--
-- Huckebein_FW wrote:
--
---
---
--- Standard Fw-190G8/F8 and some earlier ground attack
--- variants could carry SC-1800. And F4U-4 capable of
--- 4000lb payload was a modified ground attack variant,
--- not the standard fighter variant. Don't forget that
--- it was a post-war plane.
---
---
--
-- No Huck, the standard Fw190F/G could not carry a
-- 1800kg bomb without modifications.
-
- I agree with Milo on this. Everything I've read
- about the 1800kg bomb on the 190 says that it needed
- modifications to the undercarriage first.

Yes, it had modified undercarriage. I didn't remember well.


<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
10-31-2003, 01:16 AM
BLUTARSKI wrote:
- ..... Wildcats and Hellcats saw VERY limited service
- in the Mediterranean and European theaters -
- Operation Torch, the Med, and North Sea. I can
- recall no use of the corsair in the ETO

The FAA operated several squadrons of F4Us in Europe,
mostly in the MTO, but notably against the Tirpitz
in the late spring and summer of 1944 (Along with
F4Fs, F6Fs, and Barracudas, and some reports also
mention Fireflys).

Both the Firefly and the F4U seem to have been used
rather more by the FAA in the Pacific than in Europe,
probably because the range of these aircraft made them
more useful there, where they could be used to strike
at long range. The Firefly had around 200 miles more
range than the F4U, but about 2000lb stores maximum,
but could carry a useful anti submarine load, and
later in the war anti-ship/sub radar, which took it
in a different direction to the F4U post war. By Korea
the Sea Fury was engaged more or less
in the sort of role the F4U had in WW2, with the Firefly
being more of an anti sub strike aircraft. The Firefly
_could_ carry an impressive 16 60lb rockets though!

XyZspineZyX
10-31-2003, 01:22 AM
SkyChimp wrote:
-- USN listed a 4000fpm climb rate for F4U-4 in '45
-- (after a correction on earlier listed values).
-
- Actually, this is a mistake you've picked up from
- Isegrim.
-
- There was no "earlier listed value." The "earlier
- listed value" to which you refer was actually a
- LATER value on 115/145 fuel.


No, it was for -18W with water injection, producing 2650HP at sea level, 65"MP, without 115/145 fuel.

Keep in mind that Navy often lists dynamic power rating, instead of static power rating, so this is why you see there 2450HP.


- But even on 100/130, charts subsequent to April 1945
- show a better climb rate. I have one dated May 21,
- 1946 that lists 4400 fpm. Still not as good as the
- F4U-4 on 115/145 that started at 4,770 fpm,
- increasing to over 4,800 fpm at 10,000 feet.

There is no such thing in a Corsair, no Corsair went past 4000fpm.



-- Manufacturer still gave a 3800fpm climb rate. Even
-- 4000fpm is not impressive considering the enormous
-- engine giving 2650HP at sea level.
-
- 3,800 fpm is a military power climb rate for the
- F4U-4.

Completely not true. I have the climb chart for F4U-5 from the manual, and it says 3100fpm at military setting (with 115/145 fuel).




<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
10-31-2003, 01:26 AM
http://www.fleetairarmarchive.net/Aircraft/Corsair.htm

Have fun with this link guys!

<center>http://www.uploadit.org/files/150903-Screensig.jpg

Whirlwind Whiner - First Of The Few

XyZspineZyX
10-31-2003, 01:29 AM
MiloMorai wrote:

- No mistake on my part Huck, just your inability to
- read English correctly. The first F6F had a R2600
- installed. There was ONLY one a/c fitted with the
- R-2600, the XF6F-1(02981).


That's correct. Only 1.

Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/jug_sig.jpg

XyZspineZyX
10-31-2003, 01:37 AM
SkyChimp wrote:
-
- Huckebein_FW wrote:
-
-- During the war F4U-1 with this payload flew from
-- shore fields only.
-
- F4U-1 yes. But the F4U-1 was the birdcage version,
- flown mainly by the Marines, with a few flown by the
- Navy. The F4U-1D with increase payload capability
- flew heavily loaded from carriers. They didn't earn
- the nickname "Sweethearts of Okinawa" for flying
- lightly.

Let me say once again. Corsair flew from carriers, but only late in the war, especially with bomb load. This is why I say that Hellcats were more usefull as a carrier plane. The reason is obvious, Hellcat has a much smaller stall speed, converted in easier take-off and landing on carrier.



-- That comparison is made with a defective ground
-- attack Fw-190 variant. It was significantly slower
-- at all altitudes than the real A5 fighter. Damage to
-- the BMW engine was reported, but the extent of this
-- damage was not investigated. Also the report does
-- not give any performance numbers except the max
-- speed value (which are not correct for A5),
-- therefore no conclusion can be drawn from that test.
-
- Total nonsense and completely and utterly false.
- Anyone can read the report and see the F4U-1D was
- the superior plane.

That report does not give any performance value, except max speed, therefore any conclusion there is at least dubious. Especially when the max speeds for A5 given are way below the real ones, and those for Corsair are inflated.

How could F4U-1D reach 363mph at sea level when the F4U-1A had only 316mph and maximum 100HP less. Do you think that the max speed jumps with 50mph for only 100HP?? Think at Corsair size.

Max speed at sea level given for A5 in that test is 534km/h when the real value is 560km/h. No speed data given there has any credibility.




<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
10-31-2003, 01:41 AM
Huckebein_FW wrote:

- Dive limit for F4U-5, the most advanced postwar
- Corsair variant had 730km/h dive limit (data from
- pilot's handbook).
- You know that's below Emil.


So now you will tell us the F4U-5, a plane 100 mph faster than the Emil, was inferior in dive?

BTW, the Emil had a 750 dive limit. Which makes it what? Supersonic at high altitide? /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/jug_sig.jpg

XyZspineZyX
10-31-2003, 01:47 AM
Huckebein_FW wrote:

- No, it was for -18W with water injection, producing
- 2650HP at sea level, 65"MP, without 115/145 fuel.
-
- Keep in mind that Navy often lists dynamic power
- rating, instead of static power rating, so this is
- why you see there 2450HP.

ALL F4U-4s has the -18W engine.



- There is no such thing in a Corsair, no Corsair went
- past 4000fpm.

I've already proven you wrong about the Escort carrier thing, do I need to do it again here? You know I can.



- Completely not true. I have the climb chart for
- F4U-5 from the manual, and it says 3100fpm at
- military setting (with 115/145 fuel).

My good Huck, the F4U-4 IS NOT the F4U-5. They had COMPLETELY different engines and supercharging systems. Don't make the neophyte's mistake of thinking you can gauge F4U-4 performance from the F4U-5 manual.

3,800 fpm is the military climb rate at military power.




Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/jug_sig.jpg

XyZspineZyX
10-31-2003, 01:50 AM
Huckebein_FW wrote:

- Let me say once again. Corsair flew from carriers,
- but only late in the war, especially with bomb load.
- This is why I say that Hellcats were more usefull as
- a carrier plane. The reason is obvious, Hellcat has
- a much smaller stall speed, converted in easier
- take-off and landing on carrier.


Perhaps, but not because they COULDN"T, and that is what you want to imply. And I agree the Hellcat was a more forgiving plane.



- That report does not give any performance value,
- except max speed, therefore any conclusion there is
- at least dubious. Especially when the max speeds for
- A5 given are way below the real ones, and those for
- Corsair are inflated.
-
- How could F4U-1D reach 363mph at sea level when the
- F4U-1A had only 316mph and maximum 100HP less. Do
- you think that the max speed jumps with 50mph for
- only 100HP?? Think at Corsair size.
-
- Max speed at sea level given for A5 in that test is
- 534km/h when the real value is 560km/h. No speed
- data given there has any credibility.


You find inane reasons to disagree with ANY report that suggests a German plane was inferior to any other nation's plane. Your argument holds no water.

The Fw in that report was converted to FIGHTER specs. You always seem to leave that out.

Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/jug_sig.jpg

XyZspineZyX
10-31-2003, 01:53 AM
BigKahuna_GS wrote:
-
- The F4U-5 469mph @ 28,000ft. just missed the war.
- And a Kamikaze intecepter model F2G-1 & 2
- models(3000 horsepower) had a sea level climb rate
- of 4,000 feet per minute. While this version missed
- the war, it captured the prestigous Thompson Trophy
- in post war air racing.

S~ I go to Chino, close by as well pretty frequently.. great place !

Actually,

The P39 Q-10 !!!!! won the first post WW2 Thompson Trophy !

http://www.airrace.com/thompson_trophy_story.htm

" The first time I ever saw a jet, I shot it down ": General Chuck Yeager, USAF, describing his first confrontation with a Me262 - - -
" Aggressiveness was a fundamental to success in air-to-air combat and if you ever caught a fighter pilot in a defensive mood you had him licked before you started shooting ": Captain David McCampbell, USN, leading U.S. Navy ace in W.W.II.

XyZspineZyX
10-31-2003, 01:53 AM
What happened with
"During the war F4U-1 with this payload flew from shore fields only." Huck? Now your saying they did? But only in late war? Flip flop flip flop.


Huckebein_FW wrote:
-
- Let me say once again. Corsair flew from carriers,
- but only late in the war, especially with bomb load.
- This is why I say that Hellcats were more usefull as
- a carrier plane. The reason is obvious, Hellcat has
- a much smaller stall speed, converted in easier
- take-off and landing on carrier.
-
-

No fancy quote or cool photo.... YET

XyZspineZyX
10-31-2003, 01:54 AM
SkyChimp wrote:

- 3,800 fpm is the military climb rate at military
- power.
-
-
-
-
-
- Regards,
-
- SkyChimp


Ok, 3,600 fpm according to my documents.

Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/jug_sig.jpg

XyZspineZyX
10-31-2003, 01:57 AM
SkyChimp wrote:
- Hmmm, not sure just what you mean. Are you under
- the impression that Corsairs could not, and were
- not, operated from escort carriers? Because they
- could and were. In fact, it was common. Here is a
- pic of a CVE with Corsairs aboard:
-
-http://www.adamsplanes.com/photogallery/USS%20GI%20-%20Fleming/Crew%20USS%20GI.jpg


Ah... nothing like a good picture to put a cork in it! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

<div style="width:1024;color:F0FFFF;fontsize:11pt;filter: glow[color=black,strength=8)">
<font face="Courier New"><h2>TAGERT</h2>
<marquee><h3>The TRUTH is hard for some to come to grips with................................... especially flight sim folks</h3></marquee>
</font>
</div>

XyZspineZyX
10-31-2003, 02:01 AM
SC. Question about the photo you posted. The US often used Carriers to transport aircraft to the Pacific. I have seen photo's of P-38's lined up on the decks of a carrier like the F4U's, but that does not mean the P-38 flew off of the carrier. But the P-38's were "packed" with covering over engine and center gondola. The F4U's look flight ready on that deck.

Gib

No fancy quote or cool photo.... YET

XyZspineZyX
10-31-2003, 02:05 AM
Gib:

Escort carriers, called CVEs, were used in the carrier role, not just as transports. Corsairs, Avengers, Wildcats all operated off escort carriers.



Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/jug_sig.jpg

XyZspineZyX
10-31-2003, 02:12 AM
Give me a Hellcat and I'll win a war. Give me a Corsair and I'll look good doing it! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

http://www.mechmodels.com/images/klv_ubisig1a.jpg


Oh yeah, I'm a P-63 whiner too! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

XyZspineZyX
10-31-2003, 02:21 AM
All you need to win the war is in your Sig. P-38. Level bombing? Done. Fighter? Done. Ground support? Done. Torp bomber? Could do, but not done. Dive bomber? Done. Anti-shipping? Done. Glider tow? Done. Night Fighter? Done. Long range escort? Done. Photo recon? Done. Troop transport? Could do, but not often done in modified 300gal fuel tanks. First fighter to land on Japan's mainland? Done. First US air-to-air kill after the start of war? Done. Shot down a Fw-200. It was a true fighter of all trades and excelled in all. The US could have done the war with only the P-38 if they could make them fast enough and train the pilots in proper use of twin engine aircraft.

Gib

Korolov wrote:
- Give me a Hellcat and I'll win a war. Give me a
- Corsair and I'll look good doing it! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif
-
<img
- src="http://www.mechmodels.com/images/klv_ubisig1a
- .jpg">
-
-
- Oh yeah, I'm a P-63 whiner too! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif



No fancy quote or cool photo.... YET

XyZspineZyX
10-31-2003, 02:27 AM
Can't wait for the Lightning! But man I wish we had a F4F and F6F for FB./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif I sure hope SP's F4U pans out....

<center>47|FC <img src="http://rangerring.com/wwii/p-47.jpg"<

Message Edited on 10/30/0307:27PM by necrobaron

XyZspineZyX
10-31-2003, 04:21 AM
Some of you ppl are smoking crack! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif lol
the 190 was a POS. The 109 was obsolete the day it rolled of the line.

The best fighter/bomber of WWII was the P-47!
Tied for 2nd was the Corsair & Lighnting & IL-2.
And you can name the list from there. i'm sure that the Jabo 190's would fall in some where around 6th place.
I'd have to vote for the Typhoon/Tempest for 4th place

<CENTER>
http://invisionfree.com:54/40/30/upload/p1022.jpg

<FONT COLOR="White">Ghost Skies Matches Starting soon!
<CENTER><FONT COLOR="blue">
Please visit the 310th FS & 380th BG Online @:
<CENTER><FONT COLOR="orange" http://members.tripod.com/tophatssquadron/
<CENTER><FONT COLOR="RED">
A proud member Squadron of Ghost Skies Forgotten Battles Tournament League.
<CENTER><FONT COLOR="orange"> 310th VF/BS Public forum:
<CENTER><FONT COLOR="YELLOW"> http://invisionfree.com/forums/310th_VFBG/
<CENTER><CENTER><FONT COLOR="YELLOW"> Get my Squadron Insignia Files @ IL-2Skins ('http://www.il2skins.com/?action=display&skinid=4206')
<FONT COLOR="purple">Slainte Mhath- Good Health to you!

XyZspineZyX
10-31-2003, 04:49 AM
I really think the -4 Corsair could handle the P-47 in a dogfight and I believe the stock -4 Corsair had a greater lifting (ordanance) capacity than the 47 as well. It could also operate from the deck of a carrier as effectively as from a ground base of operations. Something even the venerable Jug couldn't do.

One of the biggest reasons the Hellcat had such a tremdeous kill/loss ratio basically had to do with the battles around the Phillipines and the "Marianas Turkey Shoot."

Once the Corsair was cleared for carrier operations the US Navy proceeded to replace squadron F6F's with F4U's rather quickly.

I've spoken to a lot of WWII pilots that flew both and they all say that even though the F6F was easier and more forgiving of pilot error; once they flew the F4U they wouldn't go back to the Hellcat.

---
<font color=white font size="3" face="arial"Col. "Fury" CO
<font size="3"><font face="bd hanover">352nd Fighter Group </font> [VR]
<font face="bd hanover">328th, 486th, 487th Fighter Squadrons</font>
<font><font color="#330099"><font size="5"><font face="brush script mt">"Second To None!"</font>

<font>[b]<font size="2" font color=black>[(HL)_352FG; (UBI) USAAF_352FG]:
<font><font color=#330099 face="brush script mt"font size="5">"The Original 352nd Fighter Group"</font><font color=black font size="2"> [VR] in IL2-FB
Sanctioned by the 352FG Association</font>

XyZspineZyX
10-31-2003, 05:13 AM
yeh right.

Message Edited on 10/31/0304:55AM by Ick_352nd

XyZspineZyX
10-31-2003, 05:16 AM
SkyChimp wrote:

- Total nonsense and completely and utterly false.
- Anyone can read the report and see the F4U-1D was
- the superior plane.


The total nonesense is your belief that the F4U-1 Corsair and Hellcat outperformed the FW190 in this test.




<center><img src= "http://perso.wanadoo.fr/christophe.arribat/stoffwjabo.jpg" height=205 width=385>

<center>"We are now in a position of inferiority...There is no doubt in my mind, nor in the minds of my fighter pilots, that the FW190 is the best all-round fighter in the world today."

British Air Marshall, Sholto Douglas, 17 July 1942

XyZspineZyX
10-31-2003, 05:27 AM
Maybe you should read the whole thread Aaron. Also, better do some more reading on the F6F a/c.

The XF6F-2 had a turbo-supercharged R-2800-21 with a 4 bladed prop installed and did not fly until Jan. '44. The first 'line' of F6Fs was the -1. The second 'line' of F6Fs was the -3, which first flew in July '42.

XF6F-1 > R-2600 > 02981 > first 'line'
XF6F-3 > R-2800 > 02982, the first of 4400 a/c > second 'line'


AaronGT wrote:
-
-
- The prototypes X6F-1 and X6F-2 had R-2600s
- installed.
- AFAIK production F6Fs didn't have R-2600s. I think
- it is a bit rich to have a go at Huckebein based
- on the exact engine in the prototype, not used in
- production aircraft.
-
-




http://www.thundercycle.com/photos/dropdead2.gif



"Only a dead 'chamber pot' is a good 'chamber pot'!"

XyZspineZyX
10-31-2003, 05:51 AM
Huckebein_FW wrote:
- AaronGT wrote:
--
-- MiloMorai wrote:
---
--- Huckebein_FW wrote:
---
----
----
---- Standard Fw-190G8/F8 and some earlier ground attack
---- variants could carry SC-1800. And F4U-4 capable of
---- 4000lb payload was a modified ground attack variant,
---- not the standard fighter variant. Don't forget that
---- it was a post-war plane.
----
----
---
--- No Huck, the standard Fw190F/G could not carry a
--- 1800kg bomb without modifications.
--
-- I agree with Milo on this. Everything I've read
-- about the 1800kg bomb on the 190 says that it needed
-- modifications to the undercarriage first.
-
- Yes, it had modified undercarriage. I didn't
- remember well.
-
-

Yes that has been seen many times, not remembering well by you.


http://www.thundercycle.com/photos/dropdead2.gif



"Only a dead 'chamber pot' is a good 'chamber pot'!"

XyZspineZyX
10-31-2003, 06:03 AM
Gibbage1 wrote:

- Also, anyone wanna post the performance test between
- a FW-190A and a F6F and F4U?

It's been posted on this forum many times. It causes the Corsair and Hellcat guys to get indigestion.



- The 190 did not
- perform very well against the F4U.

This is a myth, pure and simple. (sorry, not trying to pick on you Gibbage)

Both the Hellcat and Corsair could turn and loop better than the FW190, however...

The used FW190 in that test outran and outclimbed both of the "new production models" of both the Corsair and the Hellcat, despite the fact that the Navy fighters were equipped with and using water injection to boost their performance while the Focke-Wulf was using no boost of any kind, in fact - the engine was running roughly.

It's obvious that the Focke-Wulf could out-roll and out-gun both of them.



- The Germans
- should be thankful we did not park a carrier off the
- coast of France http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif


Given the coast of France was the home to several big U-boat bases (as well as potentialy more dangerous E(?)-boats), parking an aircraft carrier off the coast of France would have been a bad idea.

Better to keep those fighters safe in England, which is just what the 8th did until Summer of '44.






<center><img src= "http://perso.wanadoo.fr/christophe.arribat/stoffwjabo.jpg" height=205 width=385>

<center>"We are now in a position of inferiority...There is no doubt in my mind, nor in the minds of my fighter pilots, that the FW190 is the best all-round fighter in the world today."

British Air Marshall, Sholto Douglas, 17 July 1942

XyZspineZyX
10-31-2003, 06:04 AM
FW190fan wrote:

- The total nonesense is your belief that the F4U-1
- Corsair and Hellcat outperformed the FW190 in this
- test.

I know, the Fw is your favorite bird.

Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/jug_sig.jpg

XyZspineZyX
10-31-2003, 06:09 AM
Like i said....there are some ppl here that have been Smoking some bad Crack.

<CENTER>
http://invisionfree.com:54/40/30/upload/p1022.jpg

<FONT COLOR="White">Ghost Skies Matches Starting soon!
<CENTER><FONT COLOR="blue">
Please visit the 310th FS & 380th BG Online @:
<CENTER><FONT COLOR="orange" http://members.tripod.com/tophatssquadron/
<CENTER><FONT COLOR="RED">
A proud member Squadron of Ghost Skies Forgotten Battles Tournament League.
<CENTER><FONT COLOR="orange"> 310th VF/BS Public forum:
<CENTER><FONT COLOR="YELLOW"> http://invisionfree.com/forums/310th_VFBG/
<CENTER><CENTER><FONT COLOR="YELLOW"> Get my Squadron Insignia Files @ IL-2Skins ('http://www.il2skins.com/?action=display&skinid=4206')
<FONT COLOR="purple">Slainte Mhath- Good Health to you!

XyZspineZyX
10-31-2003, 06:12 AM
Besides, the P-47 was a better fighter for the skies of Europe than either the Hellcat or F4U-1 Corsair.

Of course, that would all change with the arrival of the F4U-4, which made the Corsair once and for all, superior to any P-47 Thunderbolt.


<center><img src= "http://perso.wanadoo.fr/christophe.arribat/stoffwjabo.jpg" height=205 width=385>

<center>"We are now in a position of inferiority...There is no doubt in my mind, nor in the minds of my fighter pilots, that the FW190 is the best all-round fighter in the world today."

British Air Marshall, Sholto Douglas, 17 July 1942

XyZspineZyX
10-31-2003, 06:19 AM
FW190fan wrote:

- It's been posted on this forum many times. It causes
- the Corsair and Hellcat guys to get indigestion.


Doesn't cause me indigestion. It's the Fw fans that fly into a tither making excuses as to why the Fw didn't measure up.



- Both the Hellcat and Corsair could turn and loop
- better than the FW190, however...
-
- The used FW190 in that test outran and outclimbed
- both of the "new production models" of both the
- Corsair and the Hellcat, despite the fact that the
- Navy fighters were equipped with and using water
- injection to boost their performance while the
- Focke-Wulf was using no boost of any kind, in fact -
- the engine was running roughly.
-
- It's obvious that the Focke-Wulf could out-roll and
- out-gun both of them.

Well gee wiz, Fw. The Fw had no guns, no radio. Other than this, it was in a fighter configuration. That is, LIGHTER than it normally would be.

And as for outrunning, hmmm, how do you figure:

At 200 ft, the Corsair was 25 knots faster, at 15,000 feet they were equal, at 25,000 feet the Fw was a whopping 6 knots faster. That's outrunning? The onluyy "outrunning" it did was climb, but even then its advantage fell off at 25,000 feet where the Corsair was superior.

The Fw didn't even out accelerate the Corsair until it got to 15,000 feet. And at low speeds, the Hellcat and Fw accelerated equally.

And as far ans manueverability, this is an area Fw fans love to gloss over. That's because the Fw is not just outclassed, it's stomped. Both the Hellcat and Corasir could follow any manuever the Fw could perform with ease. Yet the Fw stalled when attempting to follow either of the Navy planes.

And yeah, at times the Fw ran rough, but the Corsair was overheating due to too lean of a mixture. And on top of that, the Corsair had a non-stock prop, not the wider bladed production prop.



Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/jug_sig.jpg


Message Edited on 10/31/0308:20AM by SkyChimp

XyZspineZyX
10-31-2003, 06:25 AM
SkyChimp wrote:

- I know, the Fw is your favorite bird.


I have the same affinity for it as that little blue troll thing in "Lord of the Rings" had for that powerful ring thingy.(All apologies to Tolkien purists)


I just can't help it.


<center><img src= "http://perso.wanadoo.fr/christophe.arribat/stoffwjabo.jpg" height=205 width=385>

<center>"We are now in a position of inferiority...There is no doubt in my mind, nor in the minds of my fighter pilots, that the FW190 is the best all-round fighter in the world today."

British Air Marshall, Sholto Douglas, 17 July 1942

XyZspineZyX
10-31-2003, 06:31 AM
FW190fan wrote:

- Given the coast of France was the home to several
- big U-boat bases (as well as potentialy more
- dangerous E(?)-boats), parking an aircraft carrier
- off the coast of France would have been a bad idea.

I doubt very much that Schnellboote (German torpedo boats) were a threat to an aircraft carrier.

U-boote and bombers were far more dangerous.

/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif


<center>Qui vainc sans risque triomphe sans gloire.</center>
<center>http://www.raf.mod.uk/history/images/tempestv_t.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
10-31-2003, 06:34 AM
The F4U did not fly off carriers until late in the war???

The FAA was flying their clipped wing F4Us off carriers in early '44. That is a year and a half before WW2 ended. That is only ~40% of the time of the war with Japan. The Victorious class had a flight deck ~100 ft shorter than the Essex class.



http://www.thundercycle.com/photos/dropdead2.gif



"Only a dead 'chamber pot' is a good 'chamber pot'!"

XyZspineZyX
10-31-2003, 06:40 AM
one of the advnatages they gave the 190 was bing able to hang off its prop this sounds to me that at low speeds it can sustain a turn better.

http://lamppost.mine.nu/ahclan/files/sigs/spitwhiners1.jpg

XyZspineZyX
10-31-2003, 06:58 AM
Bob Johnson and "Gabby" Gabreski defeated Fw-190's that were bouncing them from a 6 o'clock position repeatedly by pulling into a tight left climbing turn. Once the new paddle blade props were fitted to the Jug the 190 couldn't climb with the 47 in a climbing torque induced turn. They would stall before the Jug and fall off. Bob Johnson has a good recollection of being bounced and doing this very thing until the FW stalled....he then kicked rudder and locked onto its tail. You can read about it in his book "Thunderbolt." I've posted the story on Sim Outhouse before. If I get a chance I'll repost it here.

---
<font color=white font size="3" face="arial"Col. "Fury" CO
<font size="3"><font face="bd hanover">352nd Fighter Group </font> [VR]
<font face="bd hanover">328th, 486th, 487th Fighter Squadrons</font>
<font><font color="#330099"><font size="5"><font face="brush script mt">"Second To None!"</font>

<font>[b]<font size="2" font color=black>[(HL)_352FG; (UBI) USAAF_352FG]:
<font><font color=#330099 face="brush script mt"font size="5">"The Original 352nd Fighter Group"</font><font color=black font size="2"> [VR] in IL2-FB
Sanctioned by the 352FG Association</font>

XyZspineZyX
10-31-2003, 07:01 AM
Gibbage1 wrote:
- All you need to win the war is in your Sig. P-38.
- Level bombing? Done. Fighter? Done. Ground
- support? Done. Torp bomber? Could do, but not
- done. Dive bomber? Done. Anti-shipping? Done.
- Glider tow? Done. Night Fighter? Done. Long
- range escort? Done. Photo recon? Done. Troop
- transport? Could do, but not often done in modified
- 300gal fuel tanks. First fighter to land on Japan's
- mainland? Done. First US air-to-air kill after the
- start of war? Done. Shot down a Fw-200. It was a
- true fighter of all trades and excelled in all. The
- US could have done the war with only the P-38 if
- they could make them fast enough and train the
- pilots in proper use of twin engine aircraft.
-
- Gib

Ok, give me a P-38 and I'll RULE the world... That good? /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Copperhead310th wrote:
- the 190 was a POS.

There are many WW2 vets, both allied and axis, that would disagree with you there.

It was more of a fighter than that 109 ever was! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

http://www.mechmodels.com/images/klv_ubisig1a.jpg


Oh yeah, I'm a P-63 whiner too! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

XyZspineZyX
10-31-2003, 07:18 AM
Give me a P-38K and I'll rule the world....probably one of the best fighters of the war. Would have been in combat by mid '43. Gov't red tape cancelled the project. Would have flown circles around majority of other late war fighters.

>>"Flight tests were conducted from late February through the end of April 1943. Performance was better than hoped for. Maximum speed at critical altitude (29,600 ft) was 432 mph (Military Power). At 40,000 feet, the "K" zipped along at a speed that was 40 mph faster than the current production P-38J could attain at this same height. Maximum speed in War Emergency Power, at critical altitude, was expected to exceed 450 mph. The increase in ceiling was just as remarkable. Flown to 45,000 ft on an extremely hot and humid day, Lockheed engineers predicted a "standard day" service ceiling in excess of 48,000 ft! Improvement of the cowling fit and the elimination of the heavy coat of paint would have gained even more performance. Due to the added efficiency of the new propellers, range was expected to increase by 10 to 15 %. Lockheed appeared to have a world-beater on their hands"<<

>>"The plane, now designated the P-38K-1-LO was flown to Elgin Field for evaluation by the USAAF. Flown against the P-51B and the P-47D, this Lightning proved to be vastly superior to both in every category of measured performance. What astounded the evaluation team was the incredible rate of climb demonstrated by the P-38K. From a standing start on the runway, the aircraft could take off and climb to 20,000 feet in 5 minutes flat! The "K", fully loaded, had an initial rate of climb of 4,800 fpm in Military Power. In War Emergency Power, over 5,000 fpm was predicted."<<

http://home.att.net/~C.C.Jordan/P-38K.html

---
<font color=white font size="3" face="arial"Col. "Fury" CO
<font size="3"><font face="bd hanover">352nd Fighter Group </font> [VR]
<font face="bd hanover">328th, 486th, 487th Fighter Squadrons</font>
<font><font color="#330099"><font size="5"><font face="brush script mt">"Second To None!"</font>

<font>[b]<font size="2" font color=black>[(HL)_352FG; (UBI) USAAF_352FG]:
<font><font color=#330099 face="brush script mt"font size="5">"The Original 352nd Fighter Group"</font><font color=black font size="2"> [VR] in IL2-FB
Sanctioned by the 352FG Association</font>

Message Edited on 10/31/0312:21AM by PZ_D_352FG

XyZspineZyX
10-31-2003, 07:19 AM
SkyChimp wrote:


- Doesn't cause me indigestion.

It causes you heartburn, diahrrea, acid reflux, constipation, and hot flashes simultaneously.



- It's the Fw fans that
- fly into a tither making excuses as to why the Fw
- didn't measure up.

Hey, no fair! You used the word "tither"!


As far as the Focke-Wulf not measuring up, we must be talking about different reports. Mine says the FW190 outran and outclimbed both the Corsair and the Hellcat. Obviously, the 190 could out-roll and out-gun both of them.

I fail to see how a faster, better climbing, faster rolling, more heavily armed fighter "didn't measure up"/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

My report came from the US Navy (hey-what do they know?) at Petuxant in '44. Where does yours come from? TSAGI?



- Well gee wiz, Fw. The Fw had no guns, no radio.


Yes, and gee wiz SC every time we go over this you say the same thing, to which I reply:

THE FW190 WAS BALLASTED WITH LOAD WEIGHTS TO COMPENSATE FOR THE GUNS AND RADIO.

You know this, but you keep bringing this up - and to me of all people.


- Other than this, it was in a fighter configuration.
- That is, LIGHTER than it normally would be.

NO, IT WAS NOT NOT NOT LIGHTER. IT WAS LOADED WITH BALLAST WEIGHTS BASED ON A CAPTURED FW190 HANDBOOK.


-at 25,000 feet the Fw
- was a whopping 6 knots faster. That's outrunning?

Yes, that is out-running, if even by a little. Especially when the Corsair has water-injection to boost it's performance while the FW190 used no boost of any kind.

Factor in that the FW190 outclimbed (and out-rolled) both the Corsair and Hellcat under these conditions and it is quite easy to see that the FW190 had some real tactical advantages over both.

You can have your better turn rate frankly. It didn't help the Spitfire.


- The onluyy "outrunning" it did was climb,

Which, in a tactical sense is obviously very important.



- The Fw didn't even out accelerate the Corsair until
- it got to 15,000 feet. And at low speeds, the
- Hellcat and Fw accelerated equally.


Water Injection, SC. The Navy planes were boosted. The FW190 was NOT boosted. Hell, this test was with a crash-landed and repaired FW190A-5 possibly built in late-'42 or early '43.

Why not do a *contemporary* comparison with a FW190A-9 or a Dora using Erhote Notleistung?



- And as far ans manueverability, this is an area Fw
- fans love to gloss over.


Not this FW190fan! Experienced pilots lauded the 190 for it's excellent maneuverability. Please don't confuse turn radius alone with maneuverability.



-That's because the Fw is
- not just outclassed, it's stomped.

This is true only in your mind and the mind of those like you. And maybe people who use the word "tither".


-Both the Hellcat
- and Corasir could follow any manuever the Fw could
- perform with ease.


No, they can't.

Neither the Hellcat, nor it's "big brother" Corsair can follow the Focke through rolling maneuvers such as vector rolls and hard aileron turns.

Please don't pretend that they can.

I can't help it if your Navy guy flying the Focke didn't know how to exploit its flight characteristics properly.

That's not the fault of the FW190, it's the fault of your Navy guy.



-Yet the Fw stalled when
- attempting to follow either of the Navy planes.

I don't have a problem with the Corsair and especially the Hellcat to out-turn the 190. The fact that the Navy pilot simply tried to follow and then stalled it like a rookie would do does not impress me much.

If I'm a Focke driver, I don't follow your cute little loops and turns. I kill you the same way I kill Spitfires that try that nonesense.



- And yeah, at times the Fw ran rough, but the Corsair
- was overheating due to too lean of a mixture.

And water injection/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif . Boo-hoo poor Corsair.


- And
- on top of that, the Corsair had a non-stock prop,
- not the wider bladed production prop.


More boo-hoo for the poor Corsair/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

Hell for all I know, the Navy tested this damaged and then repaired FW190 with a dang Stuka prop like the Russkies did???

Also, the Focke-Wulfs recieved improved props later in the war as well.

Finally, RAF test pilot Eric Brown prefered the 190 over the Corsair.



- Regards,
-
- SkyChimp
-
- <img
- src="http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/jug_sig.j
- pg">
-
-
- Message Edited on 10/31/03ā 08:20AM by SkyChimp




<center><img src= "http://perso.wanadoo.fr/christophe.arribat/stoffwjabo.jpg" height=205 width=385>

<center>"We are now in a position of inferiority...There is no doubt in my mind, nor in the minds of my fighter pilots, that the FW190 is the best all-round fighter in the world today."

British Air Marshall, Sholto Douglas, 17 July 1942

XyZspineZyX
10-31-2003, 07:39 AM
PZ_D_352FG wrote:

- Bob Johnson and "Gabby" Gabreski defeated Fw-190's
- that were bouncing them from a 6 o'clock position
- repeatedly by pulling into a tight left climbing
- turn. Once the new paddle blade props were fitted to
- the Jug the 190 couldn't climb with the 47 in a
- climbing torque induced turn.


And it's to their credit that these aces used this tactic successfully to defeat FW190s in combat. They knew how to use a strength to their advantage.

No doubt the top Thunderbolt killers (Hoffman, Baer, Eder, Glunz etc.) in the LW knew how to exploit their strengths to defeat the "Donnerblitzen" as well.


<center><img src= "http://perso.wanadoo.fr/christophe.arribat/stoffwjabo.jpg" height=205 width=385>

<center>"We are now in a position of inferiority...There is no doubt in my mind, nor in the minds of my fighter pilots, that the FW190 is the best all-round fighter in the world today."

British Air Marshall, Sholto Douglas, 17 July 1942

XyZspineZyX
10-31-2003, 07:52 AM
As far as the F4U-4 is concerned, only someone incredibly biased against it would fail to consider it among the very best prop-driven aircraft to see combat in WWII.

I like it alot. It's also one of the best looking aircraft of WWII, IMO.


<center><img src= "http://perso.wanadoo.fr/christophe.arribat/stoffwjabo.jpg" height=205 width=385>

<center>"We are now in a position of inferiority...There is no doubt in my mind, nor in the minds of my fighter pilots, that the FW190 is the best all-round fighter in the world today."

British Air Marshall, Sholto Douglas, 17 July 1942

XyZspineZyX
10-31-2003, 08:03 AM
Well, it's late and no one wants to play anymore.

It seems I'm like the drunk guy at the end of the bar ranting on to no one in particular while people pass by uncomfortably.

Since I've probably hurt Copperheads sensitive feelings enough tonight, I'll simply retire off to Bedforshire.

Please carry on without me.


<center><img src= "http://perso.wanadoo.fr/christophe.arribat/stoffwjabo.jpg" height=205 width=385>

<center>"We are now in a position of inferiority...There is no doubt in my mind, nor in the minds of my fighter pilots, that the FW190 is the best all-round fighter in the world today."

British Air Marshall, Sholto Douglas, 17 July 1942

XyZspineZyX
10-31-2003, 08:04 AM
FW190fan wrote:It causes you heartburn, diahrrea, acid reflux,
- constipation, and hot flashes simultaneously.

LOL!/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif SkyChimp are you okay? Fw-190fan says you are both constipated and have diahrrea at the SAME time! That sounds bad!/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif Anyway,the Corsair IS a gorgeous bird. To be honest,I never really thought so until I saw one in person. Man,I was flabberghasted. It's just one of those things that hits ya. The more I looked at her,the more I like her! Those lines quickly drew her to me..oh..uhm...I'll stop now..../i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

<center>47|FC <img src="http://rangerring.com/wwii/p-47.jpg"<

XyZspineZyX
10-31-2003, 08:08 AM
AaronGT wrote:

- The P63 and I think the F8F were used by the French
- in Vietnam in the 1950s.
-
I was only awre of the Bearcat.

But the the Corsair served in combat against a reasonable enemy airforce. The utimate test of a fighters abilities.

- The P80 (as the T33) is probably STILL in service
- somewhere!
-

That's amazing, no matter how many times I hear it

XyZspineZyX
10-31-2003, 08:48 AM
MZ6 wrote:
-
- AaronGT wrote:
-
-- The P63 and I think the F8F were used by the French
-- in Vietnam in the 1950s.
--
- I was only awre of the Bearcat.
-
-

Ya. France had about 500 P-63's.

- But the the Corsair served in combat against a
- reasonable enemy airforce. The utimate test of a
- fighters abilities.
-
-- The P80 (as the T33) is probably STILL in service
-- somewhere!
--
-
- That's amazing, no matter how many times I hear it
-
-

Same here. Not many 1944 designs are still being used. Only exception I can think of is the DC-3 still flying cargo today! Its interesting WHO is still flying P-80/T-33's. CANADA!!! Lol. They paint them real nice up there.

Gib


No fancy quote or cool photo.... YET

XyZspineZyX
10-31-2003, 10:11 AM
<quote>The Army Air Force got it's first good look at the Corsair during the Fighter Evaluation Meet at Eglin Field, Florida, during May 1943.</quote>

Heh, cool. My dad and I fly RC planes on that runway now.

XyZspineZyX
10-31-2003, 11:38 AM
Huckebein_FW wrote:
- AaronGT wrote:
--
-- Huckebein_FW wrote:
--- F4U-4 max speed at sea level was 370mph (quite
--- controversial USN data though).
--
-- The figure I remember was 340mph (I'll see if I can
-- dig that out again). Based on the Tempest V being
-- normally quoted as 397mph at sea level (some say
-- 392)
-- I calculated a 60mph difference. I'll see if I can
-- find anything more on the 340 speed for the F4U4 at
-- sea level. 370 seems rather high, to be honest, so
-- I can see why some are sceptical, given that the -1
-- version only manages 316 at sea level.
-
-
- Quite hard to believe, isn't it? such a difference
- with only 400hp more. Corsair is a huge plane.


Ok, I checked my scans of documents from the USN
Bureau of Aeronautics, and the docs state 333 mph at SL
for combat power in 'clean' condition (no weapons
pylons). I am not sure what the combat power rating
is, as the document only states military power rating
for SL (2100hp).

XyZspineZyX
10-31-2003, 11:51 AM
MiloMorai wrote:
- Maybe you should read the whole thread Aaron. Also,
- better do some more reading on the F6F a/c.
-
- The XF6F-2 had a turbo-supercharged R-2800-21 with a
- 4 bladed prop installed and did not fly until Jan.
- '44.

According to the USN Bureau of Aeronautics the XF6F-2
originally had a 2600, but had it replaced before it
flew, and the X6F-1 had it replaced with a 2800 before
production began.

All the information I have seen is that apart from
the XF6F-1 the F-1 line was equipped with the
R-2800-10 from the first production batches in
1942, the change in 1944 being to the -10W version.

- The first 'line' of F6Fs was the -1. The second
- 'line' of F6Fs was the -3, which first flew in July
- '42.
-
- XF6F-1 > R-2600 > 02981 > first 'line'
- XF6F-3 > R-2800 > 02982, the first of 4400 a/c >
- second 'line'

Where is this information from, as every other source
of information says that only the XF6F-1 had the
R-2600, and even then only for a short time?

XyZspineZyX
10-31-2003, 11:59 AM
MZ6 wrote:
-- The P63 and I think the F8F were used by the French
-- in Vietnam in the 1950s.
--
- I was only awre of the Bearcat.
-
- But the the Corsair served in combat against a
- reasonable enemy airforce. The utimate test of a
- fighters abilities.

True.

If my memory serves me correct the French (at the
very least) used the F4U (some version or other)
during Suez in 1956. I don't think the FAA had
any left at that point. I am a bit hazy about when
the FAA stopped using the F4U. Certainly it seems
to be the Sea Fury that gets the most mention when
talking about the FAA and Korea.


-- The P80 (as the T33) is probably STILL in service
-- somewhere!
--
-
- That's amazing, no matter how many times I hear it

Yes, it is an incredible testament to the design!
As a light strike aircraft (along the lines of the Hawk)
it would probably still be fairly competitive.

XyZspineZyX
10-31-2003, 12:03 PM
Gibbage1 wrote:
- Same here. Not many 1944 designs are still being
- used. Only exception I can think of is the DC-3
- still flying cargo today!

I think that is pretty much it. (And the C47 still
flies cargo in modern industrial nations too). The
PBY and A26 are still flying for forestry work, I
think.

The Meteor managed to make it to the 1980s in
heavily rebuilt form, and the P51 managed on until
the same time period, heavily rebuilt with turbo
prop engines, etc., which is also pretty incredible.

I suppose in a sense the Lanc (as the Shackleton)
sort of made it to the 1980s, but they are probably
a bit too far from the originals to count.

XyZspineZyX
10-31-2003, 01:31 PM
S! This thread grew legs-lol


Huck wrote---Corsairs were more performant than Hellcats, but they were not well adapted to the types of carriers available during ww2. Their effectiveness as a ww2 carrier plane is still controversial.


There is no controversy. VF12 & VF17 proved the Corsair carrier worthy in Jan 43'. The official reason from the Navy was that the parts pipeline was not up and running to support the Corsair on Carriers.

The FAA was up and running with the Corsair before the Navy. Navy pilots were fuming over the decision not to equip the Carriers with the Corsair.

In 44' the Navy evaluation board stated that:

"It is the opinon of the board that the F4U is a better fighter, a better bomber and equally suitable carrier airplane as compared to the F6F. It is strongly recommended that carrier fighter compliments be shifted to the F4U type."

As squadrons returned to the rear areas they were to change over to Corsairs as fast as possible.

This was said by Navy pilots in 43' when comparing the Corsair to the Hellcat :

"By comparison the Hellcat was a baby buggy, but we loved the Hog (Corsair)". Once the Corsair was flown the Navy pilots did not want to go back to Hellcats.

_________

Huck wrote--Both were poor divers compared to USAAF fighters.

Not correct. The F4U was an excellent diver and matched the Mustang. The Jug just simply beat all piston planes in a dive.

_________

Huck wrote-P-51H with still a less powerfull engine was faster even than F4U-5 with 2800HP.

The P51H was a stripped down lightweight version of the Mustang> It would never be able to fulfill missions and take battle damage like a F4U-4.

_____________

Huck wrote--Max speed is significantly affected on planes carrying the ordonance externally. I hope you don't think that F4U-4 loaded at 4000lb could reach 440mph.

I think the answer is obvious here---weight and drag reduce speed.

______________


Since the Corsair never operated in the ETO, we have
- to compare it to the 109 & 190 thru the Mustang. The
- Mustang with 10 degrees of flap could turn with the
- 109 and it turned better than the 190.

Huck wrote--Mustang with combat flaps still turned worse than 109 with combat flaps. And dropping flaps improves only turn radius but turn rate and maneuvrability decreases (max AOA becomes smaller).


I ate dinner with P51 Aces Bud Anderson & Bob Goebel and they both said that with 10 degrees of flap they could turn with a 109. The penalty for flaps is reduced speed. Goebel had turned with a 109 and was firing when he was jumped by 190's. He had to retract his flaps and dive away.

____________


Also the Corsair could stay with the highly
- manueverable Zero for 1/2 half turn with full flaps
- @ 175 knots. That is saying alot to be able turn
- with (for a short while albeit) one of the world's
- best slow speed manuevering aircraft the Zero.

Huck wrote--Make sure you read this correctly: Corsair may have similar turnradius with Zero if the pilot uses flaps, as long as Zero pilot does not drop the flaps too, and with the disadvantage that if he did not down the enemy plane, he is just low and slow in a heavy aircraft, the ideal target for other enemy planes


Agreed. The major advantage the Corsair had was speed over the Zeke. With this advantage, Corsair pilots dictated rules of engagement and disengagement. As a standing rule allied pilots were told to stay fast and never turn fight with a Zeke.

The Corsair pilot may be slow, but he might also have alt still to dive away if flaps were deployed. I just thought if was amazing the F4U could even stay thru part of a turn with a Zero-the best slow speed maneuvering plane in the world.

________________


In the fly off between the F4U-1D, 190A-5 & F6F-3 on pages 2 thru 4 the Corsair and Hellcat showed superiority over the 190 in several areas.

Speed :
-advantage Corsair over the 190 to 15,000ft. From there it was close until the Corsair regained the lead at 25,000ft. Hellcat inferior.

Sustained climb rate:
advantage 190

Roll Rate:
the Corsair and 190 were even here. Hellcat inferior.

Turning ability :
Both the Corsair & Hellcat were far superior to the 190.

Maneuverability:
Both the Corsair and Hellcat were superior to the 190. Both planes could out-loop the 190 and could cause the 190 to stall out while following their same maneuvers.

Dives:
Corsair was superior

Angels of vision:
Forward views goes to the Corsair & Hellcat--this was without the 190 having a gunsight either. Rear view goes to the 190.


Mock Combat:
Corsair & Hellcat are the better dogfighters.


Suggested tactics against the 190:
Close with the enemy where the far superior maneuverability of both the Cosair and Hellcat will suceed against the 190.


__________

Both at the Elgin base fly off and the fly off dated Jan. 44' vs the P51B, the Corsair was shown to be superior to all USAAF planes.

Climb--Corsair

Turn-Corsair

Maneverability-Corsair


In summary the F4U-1 airplane appears to be the superior fighter between sea level and 25,000ft. Above that the P51B and P47 are superior.





Braveheart's William Wallace said it best:
"I see a whole army of my countrymen, here in defiance of tyranny. You have come to fight as free men, and free men you are. What will you do without freedom? Will you fight? Fight and you may die. Run, and you'll live, at least a while. And dying in your beds, many years from now, would you be willing, to trade all the days from this day to that, for one chance, just one chance, to come back here and tell our enemies, that they may take our lives, but they'll never take our FREEDOM!"

Braveheart's William Wallace said it best:
"I see a whole army of my countrymen, here in defiance of tyranny. You have come to fight as free men, and free men you are. What will you do without freedom? Will you fight? Fight and you may die. Run, and you'll live, at least a while. And dying in your beds, many years from now, would you be willing, to trade all the days from this day to that, for one chance, just one chance, to come back here and tell our enemies, that they may take our lives, but they'll never take our FREEDOM!"

XyZspineZyX
10-31-2003, 01:59 PM
Aaron, there was NO production of the -1, only the prototype(02981). The second prototype was also to have the R-2600 but was re-engined with the R2800 and designated the XF6F-3(02982). The XF6F-1 had its engine replaced with the R-2800 to become the second XF6F-3 prototype.


http://www.thundercycle.com/photos/dropdead2.gif



"Only a dead 'chamber pot' is a good 'chamber pot'!"

Message Edited on 10/31/0308:01AM by MiloMorai

XyZspineZyX
10-31-2003, 02:09 PM
MiloMorai wrote:
- Aaron, there was NO production of the -1, only the
- prototype(02981). The second prototype was also to
- have the R-2600 but was re-engined with the R2800
- and designated the XF6F-3(02982). The XF6F-1 had its
- engine replaced with the R-2800 to become the second
- XF6F-3 prototype.

Then what the heck are you taking to Huck to task
about am engine in a non production plane for a short time,
then?

XyZspineZyX
10-31-2003, 03:09 PM
AaronGT wrote:
-
-
- Then what the heck are you taking to Huck to task
- about am engine in a non production plane for a
- short time,
- then?
-
-

BK said the FIRST line, the -1, had a small engine(R-2600) installed. When it was relized that this was not enough, the larger engine(R-2800) was installed and was designated the -3, the SECOND line. Is that so hard to understand? It would seem so, for both you and Huck.


http://www.thundercycle.com/photos/dropdead2.gif



"Only a dead 'chamber pot' is a good 'chamber pot'!"

XyZspineZyX
10-31-2003, 03:21 PM
MiloMorai wrote:
- BK said the FIRST line, the -1, had a small
- engine(R-2600) installed. When it was relized that
- this was not enough, the larger engine(R-2800) was
- installed and was designated the -3, the SECOND
- line. Is that so hard to understand? It would seem
- so, for both you and Huck.

I understand totally, and it is what I was saying before.
What I don't understand is the need to attack Huck over
such trivia. If you feel the need to attack him then do
so over something substantive, not for the sake of it.
Attacking someone for the sake of it demeans you both.
You're better than that, Milo.

zethin
10-31-2003, 03:29 PM
I like the one necrobaron posted/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif


Message Edited on 10/31/0302:29PM by zethin

XyZspineZyX
10-31-2003, 05:39 PM
Pointing out the F6F lineage to Huck, who admits he knows next to sfa about the Pacific, is attacking him. What ever you say Aaron.


http://www.thundercycle.com/photos/dropdead2.gif



"Only a dead 'chamber pot' is a good 'chamber pot'!"

XyZspineZyX
11-01-2003, 12:07 AM
AaronGT wrote:
-
- Huckebein_FW wrote:
-- AaronGT wrote:
---
--- Huckebein_FW wrote:
---- F4U-4 max speed at sea level was 370mph (quite
---- controversial USN data though).
---
--- The figure I remember was 340mph (I'll see if I can
--- dig that out again). Based on the Tempest V being
--- normally quoted as 397mph at sea level (some say
--- 392)
--- I calculated a 60mph difference. I'll see if I can
--- find anything more on the 340 speed for the F4U4 at
--- sea level. 370 seems rather high, to be honest, so
--- I can see why some are sceptical, given that the -1
--- version only manages 316 at sea level.
--
--
-- Quite hard to believe, isn't it? such a difference
-- with only 400hp more. Corsair is a huge plane.
-
-
- Ok, I checked my scans of documents from the USN
- Bureau of Aeronautics, and the docs state 333 mph at
- SL
- for combat power in 'clean' condition (no weapons
- pylons). I am not sure what the combat power rating
- is, as the document only states military power
- rating
- for SL (2100hp).
-
-


Perhaps 333 knots, but not MPH. Many Navy docs have the speeds listed in Nautical MPH, not Statute MPH. Or perhaps your speed is not really for a "clean" fighter.

I have 3 seperate Navy performance documents (F4U-4 on 100/130 fuel, F4U-4C on 100/130 fuel, and F4U-4 on 115/145 fuel), as well as several books that list SL speed and all show a sea level speed at combat power of approximately 374-376 mph.

I also have several Navy docs on the F4U-1D which lists sea level speed of 358 mph. I have a couple on the F4U-1 which lists sea level speed at 359 mph.

Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/jug_sig.jpg

XyZspineZyX
11-01-2003, 12:12 AM
FW190fan wrote:

- It causes you heartburn,

I take Rolaids.


- diahrrea,

That's the fiber.


- acid reflux,

Malox



- constipation,

See the Fiber thing above.



- and hot flashes simultaneously.

I have goose bumps.




Anyways, someone posted a link to the report. Anyone can read it and form their own opinion.

Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/jug_sig.jpg