Corsair vs Lightning

[evangilder]

Info on the F4U nightfighter:

The F4U-2 was a nightfighter development of the F4U-1. Standard nightfighter radars of WWII were too large, heavy and complicated to be installed in single-engined, single-seat fighters. But the availability of a small radar with a limited capacity made it possible to develop a nightfighter which would provide a degree of air cover during night operations. Because Vought was already overloaded with work, the development of the F4U-2 was undertaken by the Naval Aircraft Factory. In the end, only 34 were converted. Two of these were made by VMF(N)-532, and these were the only ones converted from F4U-1As.
The original radar was the AIA installation, developed from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology under Project Roger. It had a range of 6km against aircraft. For single-seat fighters a easy-to-use scope had to be developed. This took the form of a small circular scope on the instrument panel that showed two blips for the target. The first blip indicated the direction and distance of the target, and the position of the second blip relative to the first one was an indication of the relative height of the target.

The small radar radome was added on the starboard wing, on the wing leading edge close to the wing tip. To compensate for the weight one of the wing guns was removed, and ammunition reduced. As the F4U-2 was intended for night operations, flame dampers were fitted to the exhaust stacks. A radio altimeter and an autopilot were also installed.

The F4U-2 equipped VMF(N)-532, VF(N)-75 and VF(N)-101. Early operations of VF(N)-75 in New Georgia revealed considerable problems with the operating procedures, but on the night of 1 November Lt. O'Neill shot down a G4M bomber. The tactics finally developed let the F4U-2 climb towards its target from astern. This also helped to decelerate the fighter enough, to prevent it from overshooting its target.

VF(N)-101 was created by splitting of part of VF(N)-75. It was the first carrier-based nightfighter unit of the USN. This was in January 1944, and made the unit the first carrier-based Corsair squadron. A limited number of night operations was flown, because of reluctance to take the risk. Nevertheless, no accidents occured, which helped to clear the Corsair for carrier operations.

Nevertheless, the Navy preferred to develop a nightfighter version of the F6F Hellcat, which was easier to fly and to deck-land. For night operations those were important advantages, and the Hellcat became the standard single-seat nightfighter.

http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevo...other/f4u.html

[ollieholmes]

but where would they put the arrestor hook?

[cheddar cheese]

I can imagine it might dangle off the central gondola, between the two rear wheels possibly?

[ollieholmes]

i personaly cant imagine the rear of the pod being strong enough but theres realy nowhere else to put it.

[P38 Pilot]

Yeah. It would be pretty cool though to have a picture of it.

[evangilder]

I don't think the areesting hook design ever left the drawing board. Besides, the Navy was not keen on liquid cooled engines.

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by evangilder

I don't think the areesting hook design ever left the drawing board. Besides, the Navy was not keen on liquid cooled engines.

Yep - glycol - another "liquid" to carry on the boat....

[lesofprimus]

That'd make a pretty fine mess on the flightdeck, huh Joe???

[FLYBOYJ]

Yep! The DC Chief would love it!!!

[lesofprimus]

Love it to death... Man what a fire that would make with several loaded fighters sitting in near vicinity...

Boom!

[FLYBOYJ]

Shades of the Forrestal!

[wmaxt]

I recently reviewed the comments Jimmy Doolittle gave Warren Bodie:

The P-38 may not have been the best fighter in WWII, but he does conced that this can probably be attributed to factors unrelated to the aircrafts abilities. Strategic and tactical doctrine proved to be a severe handicap to utilization of this type in Northern Europe. Early P-47s and P-51swould have fared poorly under the rules prevailing.

G. Doolittle expressed the opinion that the P-38 was surely at it's best in the warmer climes of the MTO. On the balance - in his opinion - was far ahead of all but 1 or 2 of the most outstanding fighters of WWII. It was certainly the most versatile ...

It also should be noted that on D-Day he flew a P-38 to view the landings.

wmaxt

[Lunatic]

Originally Posted by wmaxt

I think syscom hit it pretty well. The two planes had approx the same wing area which would give the advantage to the Corsair though the top third P-38 pilots could do seemingly majical things to.

Here is a F4U-4 comparison to a P-51 but watch for thr "except for the P-38" statements. http://home.att.net/~historyzone/F4U-4.html if you pencil in the P-38 data I think you will see its pretty much a toss up though a K model would still up the anty. The L model was in operation by July '44, if desired the K could have hit the front lines by June '44 a year before.

Notes P-38-5-LO in WEP:
climb is Identicle 5min to 20K
Speed 442/443
Low speed with very good stall no flip tendencies
Roll rate comparable (to 51 and 47D) very high at high speed but don't know the Corsairs roll rate to compare

wmaxt

Top speed of the F4U-4 was 464 mph TAS at ~21K, 448 mph TAS with "capped" pylons installed. Since the top speed figures for the P-38L are without pylons the fair comparison is to the 464 mph figure.

In my opinion the F4U-4 was better than the P-38L below about 27K, the P-38L was better above about 31K, and they were evenly matched between 27K and 31K. The Corsair was the tougher plane w.r.t. combat damage, the P-38 definitely had an edge when it came to surviving mechanical problems. The P-38 had a lot more vulnerable target area given its gas in the wings and the layout of its engines and turbo-superchargers.

And the F4U-1c was the cannon armed version that definitely saw action during WWII (first blood drawn 4-6-45). The F4U-4C may have seen action but no confirmation can be found (a few hundred were delievered in time for the war).

The F4U-1c's had gun freezing problems and were ineffective above 15K and were intended for ground attack from conception.

=S=

Lunatic

[syscom3]

But some P38 pilots in the PTO said that the two engine design is what brought them home, as compared to a single engine. Again, both planes have outstanding airframes and could bring their pilots home time after time. Perhaps only the P47 was tougher.

[P38 Pilot]

Agreed. With that Two engine design, they could keep on going even after they took some damage.