F4U vs. P-51 essay (1 Viewer)

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

I think that my professional forebears in the US were the best applied aerodynamicists of the time.
They had better be; they had the best resources at their disposal, institutional, intellectual, and industrial, and besides, they weren't being bombed.
Cheers,
Wes
 
They had better be; they had the best resources at their disposal, institutional, intellectual, and industrial, and besides, they weren't being bombed.
Cheers,
Wes

They also had a customer base that really cared about efficiency, unlike the people who spec'ed out military aircraft -- efficiency isn't the same as performance. Put enough power to it, a barn can fly.

But it won't make money for its owners.
 
efficiency isn't the same as performance. Put enough power to it, a barn can fly.

But it won't make money for its owners.
Nor will it have the range or payload to accomplish useful missions. (Phantom II excepted)
And Chance Vought and North American weren't in the commercial market. They were defense contractors. So for them "making money for the owners" really meant delivering the range and payload to get the mission accomplished. Efficiency none the less.
Cheers,
Wes
 
Last edited:
The Corsair is NOT better than a Mustang. It is way better at being a Naval fighter, but has almost zero experience as an escort fighter over heavily defended areas, such as Europe. It is decidedly inferior as a long-range escort, having neither the range nor the actual real-life experience at doing it. And escort, including flak, was a LARGE percentage of Mustang losses. There weren't any 450 mph Corsairs in WWII. The F4U-4 that made the last 6 months of WWII could hit 448 mph when in factory finish, with covers over the guns, a new engine, a new propeller, and a factory test pilot who knew how to make it go fast. Production units were slower, especially after a few months of use.

The F4U-1D was 425 mph late in the variant's life cycle. Up until then, it was a 410 - 417 mph airplane when new. And the F4U carried 2,000 pounds of bomb until the F4U-4 was cleared for 4,000 pounds. But that was only the last 4 months of the war or so, when it didn't matter what the bomb load was. For the effective war, it didn't carry that.

The Mustang had almost zero experience as a Naval Fleet Defense fighter. So, it was decidedly inferior to the Corsair in that role.

Unless I am wrong ... these two didn't handle each other's tasks very often and, when they did, it was out of necessity, not out of picking a better airplane.
 
By the time the conflict in Korea came along it was time for
these birds F4U & P-51 to both be improve upon. Think WW2,
how far had the fighter bomber advanced in 5 yrs. of that time
frame? Now 1950 comes along five years later and it is decided
to use aircraft from 1945-46 for striking purposes...? What did
you expect the outcome to be?

Just trying to make a tiny point, Jeff:)
 
Think WW2, how far had the fighter bomber advanced in 5 yrs. of that time frame? Now 1950 comes along five years later and it is decided
to use aircraft from 1945-46 for striking purposes...?
1939 - 1945, the piston engine fighter reaches the peak of its maturity as a weapon system. Five years later, another war and the jet age is still in its infancy. Think 1916 in the development of the piston fighter. Jets are fast but finicky, underpowered, complicated, full of teething problems, excessively thirsty, and ungodly expensive. Meanwhile there remains a large inventory of robust, reliable, fully developed fighter aircraft with their logistical support system already in place and a reservoir of pilots trained in their use available for recall from civilian life.
What would you do?
Cheers,
Wes
 
Well XB I agree that you are probably right as to 'what happened'.

Truth is, it is out of my pay grade as to the 1945-1950 political
facts that probably screamed 'over spending' that cramped the
US military and definitely slowed the advancement of aviation
down.

It is a damn shame that it takes a war / conflict to get us back
in the game.
 
Well XB I agree that you are probably right as to 'what happened'.

Truth is, it is out of my pay grade as to the 1945-1950 political
facts that probably screamed 'over spending' that cramped the
US military and definitely slowed the advancement of aviation
down.

It is a damn shame that it takes a war / conflict to get us back
in the game.
Considering the large number of not very effective jets produced in the late 40s and early 50s one might say that was a considerable amount of overspending going on as it was. Engine makers were promising more than they could deliver for a number of years.

Even good programs like the F-86 and the GE J-47 engine ran into problems with the first 132 F-86Fs ordered being delivered as F-86Es with an older, lower powered J-47 engine than intended although provisions were made for later re-engining.

They went from about 500mph to almost 1100hp in about 11 years (1945 to 1956) so advancements were coming at a rather rapid pace.
 
the 1945-1950 political facts that probably screamed 'over spending' that cramped the US military and definitely slowed the advancement of aviation down.
Hey the US was over-spending in those years; we had no choice; the Russian Bear was staring us in the face and snarlin. Uncle Joe had conjured up a horde of B-29 clones, built himself a bomb, and was proclaiming the coming victory of the worldwide Communist revolution. The supposed slow advancement of aviation in that period I view as the challenges of overcoming technological hurdles in a whole new body of aeronautical knowledge. Transsonics and turbines were relatively uncharted territory, a break away from the progressive development along familiar lines that had marked the previous three decades. The critical mass of knowledge and experience upon which the technology was to be based was still being assembled. Once critical mass had been achieved in the early 50s the technology took off with the Century Series, the Stratofortress, the tanker fleet, and eventually the jet airliner.
Cheers,
Wes
 
This is an essay that I wrote in school for "persuasive writing". If you can please give me some true but still slanted facts on this topic (with an explanation if possible). Also please remember that only five people knew that I was talking about planes (one knew it was about WW2 planes). Remember I wrote for a simple audience.

(gulp) here it is...

Corsair vs. Mustang


The F4U Corsair is a better airplane than the P-51 Mustang. This may seem like an odd topic to choose, but it is important to me. Even though the F4U was better, the Mustang is liked better because of its glamorous role in World War Two. The Corsair had better performance than the P-51. The Corsair had more roles than the Mustang. The Corsair could take off from a carrier, unlike the Mustang. The Mustang had the highly glamorous and romanticized duty of escorting the mighty B-17's of the 8th Air force over Nazi Germany. It can be compared to the knights of Rohan charging down the hill into battle with the Urik-kai army, rescuing the heroes and saving the day. The Corsair, however, was more suited for the less important role of fighting Imperial Japan in the pacific. That can be compared to walking through a Georgian swamp to find crawdads for supper.
The Corsair had better performance than the Mustang. The Corsair could go 450 miles per hour to the Mustang's 430. The Corsair could carry 4000 pounds of bombs to 2000. For every Corsair lost in combat, 11 enemy planes were destroyed, for an 11:1 combat ratio. The mustang only had a 6:1 combat ratio.
One of the simplest reasons for the common misconception of the Mustang's superiority, however, is that, well, the Mustang is prettier.
That is a simple explanation for the superiority of the F4U over the P-51. Even though the mustang was more highly regarded, the corsair performed better, and could do more things.

Thank you for your time.

The P-51 had much more range than the Corsair, so the Corsair couldn't even get to the battle or conduct the escort mission so who cares about an aircraft that can't get to the battle and perform the mission.

I suppose I exaggerate a little: the corsair could fly the same distance but only if throttled right back to economical speed cruise that would see it ripped up by bouncing Me 109 who were known to cruise very fast. Those 'short' ranged European aircraft often have their ranges declared at maximum not economical cruising speed. The Me 109 would have been cruising at well over 340mph, perhaps 380 mph for a Me 109K. Also the P-51D had better visibility to the rear and in general the P-51 high speed roll rate was best in the war because its internal pressure balanced ailerons were resistant to lock up at high mach. The USN fighters had a very low roll rate until the NACA invented geared spring tabs for their ailerons but that was quite late in the war and geared spring tabs still don't beat the P-51 at high speed roll.

The P-51B/C and D were not considered suitable for carrier operations due to handling issues however when the P-51H was introduced it had a longer tail and the improvement in handling meant it could be navalised and landed on carrier and development began.
 
Last edited:
All true, but long range escort is just one of the roles expected of a versatile muti-purpose fighter. In '43 - '45 the Mustang wouldn't have cut it as a carrier-based fighter-bomber. This is not a contest of one-trick ponies. (Pun intended.)
Cheers,
Wes
 
in general the P-51 high speed roll rate was best in the war because its internal pressure balanced ailerons were resistant to lock up at high mach. The USN fighters had a very low roll rate until the NACA invented geared spring tabs for their ailerons but that was quite late in the war and geared spring tabs still don't beat the P-51 at high speed roll.

F4U's roll rate was quite good.

even without spring tabs, Birdcage Corsair claims betters roll rate than P-51 to 280 mph.

Besides, Birdcage Corsairs were few and Corsairs without spring tap were more fewer.

Of the birdcage F4U, only the early type does not have a spring tab.

after spring tab installed, it could full throw up to 345 mph.

NACA_roll_chart_42_f4u.jpg


red is left, blue is right roll for Corsair.

full aileron roll, rudder locked, stick force is 40 lbs for 300 mph.

F4U's roll rate line is rough, due to only one sample for each speed and each direction.

and samples exceeding 300 mph for Corsair were not obtained, but it's roll rate increase to 345 mph.

so there is no doubt that the roll performance of F4U was good.

I think Corsair was better roller and turner than Mustang until near critical mach 0.73

High speed maneuverability of the F4U was excptional due to the boost tabs of the ailerons and elevator.

however, Corsair's low economical cruise speed and altitude not suited for ETO USAAF's bomber escort mission.

and F4U with 838 gal of fuel can get the over P-51's range, of course it is silly.

upload_2017-9-24_6-21-5.jpeg


fuslage tank = 237 gal
wing tanks = 126 gal
2 x 150 gal tank = 300 gal
1 x 175 gal tank = 175 gal
Total = 838 gal

Someone did this, LOL
 
Last edited:
You would have to trot out fact based tests to demonstrate that the F4U ferry range exceeded P-51B/C/D with internal 85 gallon tank and 2x160 gallon externals. The R2800 specific fuel consumption at optimum cruise expressed as miles per gallon (with external load and drag) then internal, clean except racks was close to 50% more than P-51B/D. I doubt that any Corsair could go as far but would love to see the flight test proof?
 
You would have to trot out fact based tests to demonstrate that the F4U ferry range exceeded P-51B/C/D with internal 85 gallon tank and 2x160 gallon externals. The R2800 specific fuel consumption at optimum cruise expressed as miles per gallon (with external load and drag) then internal, clean except racks was close to 50% more than P-51B/D. I doubt that any Corsair could go as far but would love to see the flight test proof?

it was just a joke.

uh... really?

this is really stupid.... but I'll try it.

seems to be interesting....!

first, I tried to collect miles per gallon.

from F4U-1 ACP - it optained range for internal wing tanks with drop tank at same time.

12039 lbs with 237 gal = 4.283 for no external stores.
12836 lbs with 361 gal = 4.197 for no external stores, 124 gal internal wing tanks
14003 lbs with 536 gal = 3.992 for 175 gal centerline drop tank, 124 gal internal wing tanks
12763 lbs with 536 gal = 4.142 for 175 gal centerline drop tank, 124 gal internal wing tanks, light weighted - ferry condition.

from F4U-1D ACP - 150 gallon drop tank mounted on the wing pylons shows a serious drop in miles per gallon.

12175 lbs with 237 gal = 4.135 for 2 x capped wing pylons.
14370 lbs with 537 gal = 3.529 for 2 x wing pylons with 2 x 150 gal drop tanks.

then theoretically maximum possible fuel configuration is....

use the F4U-1, 16334 lbs with 838 gal = 175 gal centerline drop tank and 2 x wing pylons with 2 x 150 gal drop tanks, plus 124 gal internal wing tanks.

yeah, over the 4000 lbs extra weight!

It's like a 4000lbs challenge that lindberg did with his Corsair.

Pilots will be in danger of taking off, can the pilot make it?

Lindberg make it with old crosswind technique of making a curving takeoff run!

so now! Corsair airborne!

It is time to measure range.

start from 3.529 miles per gallon with 2 x wing pylons and 2 x 150 gal drop tanks.

and adds the following:

- 2.0%(4.197 / 4.283) for 124 gal internal wing tanks.
- 4.9%(3.992 / 4.197) for 175 gal centerline drop tank.

result is 3.289 miles per gallon.

but I think the above factors will cause synergy.

so I will subtract 5% more.

then only 3.125 miles per gallon.

final result is...

3.125 * 838 = 2619 miles.

let's compare it to the Mustang's range.

from Mustang's Tactical Planning Characteristics & Performace Chart

Mustang with 569 gal = 2600 miles for long range power setting.

see? SEEEE?

CORSAIR WINS!

with approx 190 mph cruise speed at 1500 ft altitude.

This is harsh, LOL

f4u-1dlil_audrey_drop_tank.jpg
 
Last edited:
The Mustang was superior to the Corsair at high altitudes.
Not only that, but you never see these guys who claim the Corsair was better compare it the P-51H model. The "H" was superior to any version of the Corsair in every performance category...
 
Not only that, but you never see these guys who claim the Corsair was better compare it the P-51H model. The "H" was superior to any version of the Corsair in every performance category...

not simply true.

even against P-51H, Corsairs could turn tighter and roll faster for most speeds.

and F4U-4 and F4U-5 have faster speed and climb than P-51H for some altitudes.

according to the F-51H SAC, F4U-4 SAC and F4U-5 performance summary and flight test data curves,

f4u-5_f4u-4_f-51h_f8f-2_speed.jpg


f4u-5_f4u-4_f-51h_f8f-2_climb.jpg


F4U-4
gross weight : 12480 lbs
supercharger : 2 stage 2 speed
engine ratings : 2800 BHP for 70"hg, 2100 BHP for 54.5"hg
water supply : 12 minutes for combat power

F4U-5
gross weight : 12901 lbs
supercharger : 2 stage variable speed 'sidewinder' type
engine ratings : 2760 BHP for 70"hg and 2380 BHP for 64"hg
water supply : 12 minutes for combat power

F-51H
gross weight : 9430 lbs
supercharger : 2 stage 2 speed
engine ratings : 2270 BHP for 90"hg, 1520 BHP for 67"hg
water supply : 7 minutes for combat power

as you can see, the F-51H does not have a one-sided advantage over Corsair.

Corsairs have much lower stall speed and boost tabs in ailerons and elevator both(F4U-5 had boost tab in rudder also), It is considered to be a better dogfighter.

In terms of performance,

F4U-4 was better climber for most altitudes and slight faster at medium altitude.

F4U-5 also slight faster at medium altitude and above 25000, it shows advantages for speed and climb both.

and except for those, the F-51H.

each fighter has its own advantages, so it can not be said that which is simply better.
 
Last edited:
not simply true.

even against P-51H, Corsairs could turn tighter and roll faster for most speeds.

and F4U-4 and F4U-5 have faster speed and climb than P-51H for some altitudes.

according to the F-51H SAC, F4U-4 SAC and F4U-5 performance summary and flight test data curves,

View attachment 383472

View attachment 383473

F4U-4
gross weight : 12480 lbs
supercharger : 2 stage 2 speed
engine ratings : 2800 BHP for 70"hg, 2100 BHP for 54.5"hg
water supply : 12 minutes for combat power

F4U-5
gross weight : 12901 lbs
supercharger : 2 stage variable speed 'sidewinder' type
engine ratings : 2760 BHP for 70"hg and 2380 BHP for 64"hg
water supply : 12 minutes for combat power

F-51H
gross weight : 9430 lbs
supercharger : 2 stage 2 speed
engine ratings : 2270 BHP for 90"hg, 1520 BHP for 67"hg
water supply : 7 minutes for combat power

as you can see, the F-51H does not have a one-sided advantage over Corsair.

Corsairs have much lower stall speed and boost tabs in ailerons and elevator both(F4U-5 had boost tab in rudder also), It is considered to be a better dogfighter.

In terms of performance,

F4U-4 was better climber for most altitudes and slight faster at medium altitude.

F4U-5 also slight faster at medium altitude and above 25000, it shows advantages for speed and climb both.

and except for those, the F-51H.

each fighter has its own advantages, so it can not be said that which is simply better.
I don't see how the Corsair that weighs 3000+ lbs more can out turn the Mustang...that goes against the laws of physics...
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back