Hardest plane to take down in WW2?

[drgondog]

Originally Posted by freebird

Was it not less manouverable than the B-25 or Ju88?

I would say yes, the Marauder was less manueverable. I suspect that would have zero effect on relative survivabilty between the three ships. The B-26 had the lowest per 1000 sortie loss rate of any USAAF bomber

[AL Schlageter]

Mosquito bomber losses for the time period shown



That works out to 1 Mossie lost for every 249 missions flown.

[magnocain]

fighter-f4u
ground attack-Il2/10
bomber-b17
carrier plane-f4u

the USAAF said that the f4u was tougher than the p47

[JoeB]

Re: AU-1, the oil coolers were moved inboard from the wings to fuselage behind the engine, and fuselage underside forward had armor protection. A first hand account book of somebody who flew both F4U-4B and AU-1 is "Short Straw" by Bernard W. Peterson. His unit, VMF-212, liked the AU-1's they recieved in 1952 for the improvements in payload and survivability, as well as just having brand new planes, not beaten to hell F4U-4B's.

Re: Navy and Army using same fighter, the Boeing F4B and P-12 were basically the same plane, back in the '30's.

Joe

[Civettone]

Originally Posted by Marcel

Yep, it would be hard to shoot one down as it likely went up in smoke before you could get close by

Dag Marcel

that would have been true for the earlier He 177s but by 1944 the engine problems were mainly solved and the He 177 turned out to be more reliable than all other German bombers!
The aircraft took a long time to mature and when it was fully operational, the fuel shortages grounded them. At that point about five hundred had been delivered to operational units. The same amount was not used operationally and many stayed without engines. The story on them is quite unclear though.

Kris

[Jank]

I just happened across Page 79, Note (e) to Table 29 of Naval Aviation Combat Statistics, WWII:

(e) The F6F appears to have had considerable advantage over the F4U when flown under the same conditions. Receiving about the same number of hits per sortie in comparable operations, the F6F had a far lower rate of loss per plane hit.

[renrich]

Joe B, did the F4U7 have the same armor additions as the AU?

[ghensgen]

Has anyone modeled the YB-17 or Boeing Model 299 in 1/48 scale? This aircraft was the progenitor of the B-17 most people speak of, but many features do not seem modelled in this scale at all.

Any help you all can provide is greatly appreciated

[JoeB]

Originally Posted by renrich

did the F4U7 have the same armor additions as the AU?

Yes, the F4U-7 was essentially the AU-1 with the engine of the F4U-4, R2800-18W. The French used both, 69 ex-USMC AU-1's and 94 F4U-7's they ordered new. Per "Ailes de Gloire No.12 Vought Corsair F4U-7 and AU-1".

Another interesting statistic in that book is quoted max speed for the AU-1, 705km/hr at 2900m (~437mph at ~9500ft), much higher than the 238mph speed quoted in other sources. But Peterson in his book also says the AU-1 outperformed the F4U-4B below 15,000 ft. The low speed number always srtuck me as strange, since the AU was only several 100 lbs heavier clean, had a few 100 more hp down low, and no big drag addition, again assuming clean.

Joe

[renrich]

Thanks Joe B for your info on AU and F4U7. I always had a question about performance data of the AU. Interesting statistics in the data on Navy and Marine AC combat. The official statistics show no action sorties for land based Corsairs until April, 1943, when it is common knowledge that the first combat for the Corsair took place on a landbased mission on Feb. 14(valentines day) 1943 and the Corsairs were in action steadily from that date. In the notes it is stated that action sorties are highly understated for F4Fs and to a lesser degree the F4U in early 1943 because of disorganisation. Wonder how many Wildcat and Corsair kills and losses went unreported. Oh well, there are lies, damn lies and statistics.

[Marcel]

Originally Posted by Civettone

Dag Marcel

that would have been true for the earlier He 177s but by 1944 the engine problems were mainly solved and the He 177 turned out to be more reliable than all other German bombers!
The aircraft took a long time to mature and when it was fully operational, the fuel shortages grounded them. At that point about five hundred had been delivered to operational units. The same amount was not used operationally and many stayed without engines. The story on them is quite unclear though.

Kris

Thanks, Kris, I always thought the engine trouble was only solved with the He 277. Guess I have to read up some more on this bomber

[Jank]

"Oh well, there are lies, damn lies and statistics."

And conclusions that some would prefer not to accept.

The saying, "there are lies, damn lies and statistics" is commonly used to imply that the statistical data underpinning conclusions drawn therefrom is caca and/or that the conclusions drawn from the statistical data are caca.

With respect to the Naval Aviation Combat Statistics, which camp are you in? Alternatively, did you intend an uncommon meaning when you declared, "Oh well, there are lies, damn lies and statistics".?

More to the point, tell me Renrich, do you personally believe that the Corsair was a more survivable plane than the Hellcat?

[renrich]

Jank, don't misunderstand me. The information you posted seems to me to be clear. The oil cooler vulnerability would give the edge in suvivability to the Hellcat. I seem to remember that the Wildcat had it's oil cooler in the wing also and that was possibly the reason the "Iron Works" relocated it on the Hellcat. Also as Joe B stated that oil cooler was relocated in the AU but that was well into the Korean War. My only reason for quoting the statistics "saying" was that raw statistics often don't tell the whole story but it is no wonder that statistics during the early part of the war might be lacking because the campaign in the Solomons was so chaotic. Speaking of how statistcs can be misleading, I drew the conclusion that the Corsair was more survivable in air to ground because it dropped a lot more bombs than the Hellcat and had less losses to AA. Obviously my conclusion was in error because of the factors you have pointed out. However the Corsair had a great reputation for air to ground both in WW2 and Korea. Perhaps that reputation came about because of the close cooperation btween Marine Air and Marine ground forces and the majority of the Corsair action sorties at least in WW2 were flown by Marines.

[magnocain]

I think the Corsair was hit less often, so more survived
Still i vote for the corsair.

[Jank]

The Corsair was a great air superiority and ground attack aircraft. Of that there can be no disagreement.