Only one fighter

[renrich]

There were a number of F4Us made without folding wings which saved a little weight. I think they were actually made by Goodyear so technically they were FGs. Also I recall that in the early part of the Pacific war some of the Corsairs based in the Solomons had their tailhooks removed. They had to be replaced when those AC were missioned to take off from land but land on carriers to be refueled in sort of a shuttle mission. This was before the Navy officially decided the Corsair could be "safely" operated off carriers. I have never seen any tests which showed whether the lack of folding wings or tailhooks helped the performance of the Corsair. I am sure although lacking the credentials of Bill that if a manufacturer such as Republic or North American had taken the basic Corsair design and modified it for strictly land based use there would have been a substantial loss of weight resulting in all around increased performance. Also, I believe that Vought stuck with certain features such as manual supercharger controls for reliability that could have been automated to make the Corsair a little simpler to operate. It is well to remember that the USN demanded reliability at all costs which is the reason they would not consider liquid cooled engines. It is also well to remember that the F4U1 and 1A had internal fuel capacity of 361 gallons later reduced to 234 gallons but with the original internal fuel augmented with two 150 gallon drop tanks the Corsair would have been capable of carrying 661 gallons of fuel which would have resulted in a "yardstick" range of approx. 2400 nautical miles. It might have been possible for a landbased Corsair to have carried an 85 gallon tank behind the pilot like the Mustang. It would have caused an aft shift in the CG but structural weight savings in the landing gear and wing area because of the lesser strength requirements imposed by land based only operations could have offset that CG situation. The problem with AC like the Spitfire and BF and to a lesser extent the FW was that they had very small airframes which could not accomodate a lot of add ons such as additional weaponry or internal fuel. There just was not enough space inside. Since they did not weigh much to begin with any weight added had more impact percentage wise than it did on a large AC such as the Corsair, Thunderbolt, Hellcat and to a lesser extent the Mustang.

[drgondog]

There were a number of F4Us made without folding wings which saved a little weight. I think they were actually made by Goodyear so technically they were FGs. Also I recall that in the early part of the Pacific war some of the Corsairs based in the Solomons had their tailhooks removed. They had to be replaced when those AC were missioned to take off from land but land on carriers to be refueled in sort of a shuttle mission. This was before the Navy officially decided the Corsair could be "safely" operated off carriers. I have never seen any tests which showed whether the lack of folding wings or tailhooks helped the performance of the Corsair. I am sure although lacking the credentials of Bill that if a manufacturer such as Republic or North American had taken the basic Corsair design and modified it for strictly land based use there would have been a substantial loss of weight resulting in all around increased performance. Also, I believe that Vought stuck with certain features such as manual supercharger controls for reliability that could have been automated to make the Corsair a little simpler to operate. It is well to remember that the USN demanded reliability at all costs which is the reason they would not consider liquid cooled engines. It is also well to remember that the F4U1 and 1A had internal fuel capacity of 361 gallons later reduced to 234 gallons but with the original internal fuel augmented with two 150 gallon drop tanks the Corsair would have been capable of carrying 661 gallons of fuel which would have resulted in a "yardstick" range of approx. 2400 nautical miles. It might have been possible for a landbased Corsair to have carried an 85 gallon tank behind the pilot like the Mustang. It would have caused an aft shift in the CG but structural weight savings in the landing gear and wing area because of the lesser strength requirements imposed by land based only operations could have offset that CG situation. The problem with AC like the Spitfire and BF and to a lesser extent the FW was that they had very small airframes which could not accomodate a lot of add ons such as additional weaponry or internal fuel. There just was not enough space inside. Since they did not weigh much to begin with any weight added had more impact percentage wise than it did on a large AC such as the Corsair, Thunderbolt, Hellcat and to a lesser extent the Mustang.

I agree Rich's points and would add to them. The F4U was simply a great fighter in comparison to the Mustang, the P-38 and the P-47 - and none of them had to add hundreds of pounds to provide wing folding, arrest gear, and spar capacity for 10G+ landings.

From a structural POV - if I needed high altitude interceptor performance I would look long and hard at the extra internal fuel, replacing the six 50's w/20mm, the look at overall weight and key structure to support 8g limit loads. If removing carrier landing and load carrying capability requirements further isolates a few areas of easy improvement like a lighter Wing spar, or Tail Spar as areas to 'lighten up' w/o changing the lines geometry, then do that also

If its an interceptor I don't need to carry 3,000-4,000 pound external loads and I might be able to use smaller wheels and gear if I don't carry the big load or crash on a carrier deck. I imagine it would be relatively easy to carve 700 to 1000 pounds and still get a 7+G interceptor that could fight at 36-38,000 feet with a much faster climb rate and top speed... without going through a complete re-design like the P-51H.

In 1944 I would also be looking at the P&W 3350 with the lightweight Corsair.

I like this aircraft for its a.) engine type and growth potential in P&W line, b.) wonder how aerodynamics and drag could be improved with Packard Merlin (Radiator and Oil Cooling would be in same area as 51) for the interceptor version, c.) have one beefed up version for carrier/Ground support and d.)one land based version with all carrier related weight stripped but otherwise unchanged.

Never get the max rang available for P-38 at end of war but have one superb dogfighter and ground attack aircraft superior to P-51A, P-47B and C and P-38F in late 1942, early 1943 at a better state of performance than any of its counterparts at that time.

[Elvis]

re: F4F

Range of an F4F is 770 miles.
The main alternative is the P-40. It's range? 840 miles.
After that, its like the P-26 which had a range of less than 650 miles.
So, the F4F had "short" legs? Compared to what was available at the time, I'm not so sure it would be considered that way.

There's also the fact that it didn't neccessarily need long legs.
It's purpose built to be carrier based.
That doesn't mean it can't be used by land forces, but it was designed for carrier work, so the ship can pretty much take it to the edge of the battle.

since it's designed to be carrier based, that means it has to be built tougher than most other aircraft (Chance-Vought found that out in the 20's!).

You've also got superior armour protection and firepower.
Granted, you lack a little power and manuverability, but you're also able to play that Turran game the Russian's loved so much, better than most others you came up against.

The F6F was based on the F4F and purpose built to beat the Zero at its own game.
Even though they ended up with, what, a 90 percentile new airframe, it was orignially designed as improvments to the F4F.

The F8...well, ok, I'll give you that one, but the basic design still harkens back to the F4F, even if it is its own fuselage.

Still, F4F - built like a tank and hits like a ton of bricks.
If I HAD to use only one fighter, and we were still in a position of neutrality, my choice would still be the F4F, if for no other reason than those two accolades alone.



Elvis

[lesofprimus]

U seem to be forgetting that this airframe is going to supply ALL of the USA's fighter arms... Not just the Navy...

The F4U was a much more multi operational aircraft...

[Jank]

Renrich said, "It is also well to remember that the F4U1 and 1A had internal fuel capacity of 361 gallons later reduced to 234 gallons but with the original internal fuel augmented with two 150 gallon drop tanks the Corsair would have been capable of carrying 661 gallons of fuel which would have resulted in a "yardstick" range of approx. 2400 nautical miles.

Certainly the Corsair would have had a long range with 660 gallons of fuel but 2,400 nautical miles? That's 2,760 statutory miles.

Now the P-47N was significantly heavier and could muster about 2,350 statutory miles with a fuel load that was 300 gallons more.

So the Corsair would have had a range that was 400 miles greater on 300 less gallons of fuel?

Is that a Chance Vought "yardstick" that you are using?

[renrich]

When I say "yardstick" range I am taking the amount of usable fuel at the Corsair's most economical cruise but a realistic range would be approx. 70% of the "yardstick" If you take 361 gallons of internal fuel which at econ. cruise of 42 gal/hr gives you 8.6 hrs, one 150 gal drop tank(the other gets eaten up by drag) yields 3.57 hrs for a total of 12.17 hours at 200 knots (which may be a little high) so round down to 2400 nautical miles. A realistic range which would include warm up, take off, climb out, cruise, combat at full power, cruise back and reserve would yield about 70 % of 2400 or 1680 nautical miles which to be conservative would give a safe 800 statute mile combat radius. That would get you from London to Warsaw and back.

[Jank]

"If you take 361 gallons of internal fuel which at econ. cruise of 42 gal/hr gives you 8.6 hrs, one 150 gal drop tank(the other gets eaten up by drag) yields 3.57 hrs for a total of 12.17 hours at 200 knots (which may be a little high) so round down to 2400 nautical miles."

A P-47D-25 with 780 gallons of fuel (370 Internal and 410 external in wing [2x150] and belly [1x110] tanks) has a range of 2,100 miles.

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.o...ical-chart.jpg

A Corsair with 660 gallons of fuel (120 gallons less) has a range of 2,760 miles (660 miles further)?

I know that the Corsair can go further with the same fuel load but I still say something's rotten in Denmark.

[helmitsmit]

I'd pick the Spitfire/Seafire combination there was almost a mark for every day in a month so no probs developing it for all those roles!

[helmitsmit]

I now it is an American aircraft thread. But us brits would give you our spits! I mean we gave you our merlins! As long as u build then under licence but don't call them P52 or something!

[Elvis]

U seem to be forgetting that this airframe is going to supply ALL of the USA's fighter arms... Not just the Navy...

The F4U was a much more multi operational aircraft...

Except no one could fly on and off a carrier. That's why we gave it to the freakin' Brits!
It took them to show us it actually could be done (with a little technique).

...and fear not, I am thinking ALL services.
The F4U was very, very new in 1940. There were still teething problems at the time, not to mention its "seeming inability" to do carrier service.
The F4F's basic airframe dates back to the FF-1, almost 10 years earlier, so the frame was already well developed, via the exploits of the FF-1, F2F and F3F fighter planes.
It was a much more reliable platform, in 1940.
Had the question been placed later in time, say 1942, I would side with you guys, but in 1940, I would have to go with the Grumman.
The Chance-Vought was just too new at the time.
Its not always the smartest move to gamble your country's defense with an "unknown quantity".




Elvis

[renrich]

No matter what you did with the F4F it would have had a difficult(impossible?) job competing with the Axis fighters and could never function in the fighter bomber role as the Corsair did. The XF4U, the prototype, had substantially more performance than the F4F. It was the first single engined fighter to exceed 400 mph in level flight in the US and that was in October, 1940. I think the flaw in my example of range is the 200 knot cruise. I will try to find a more accurate figure. I do think the 800 statute mile combat radius is pretty realistic though.

[drgondog]

Except no one could fly on and off a carrier. That's why we gave it to the freakin' Brits!
It took them to show us it actually could be done (with a little technique).

But it (f4U) WAS capable of being flown off a carrier! But an F4F was not able to perform any other role of the F4U near as capably from 1942 onward and had zero growth ability to 'become' an F6F or even an F8F

...and fear not, I am thinking ALL services.
The F4U was very, very new in 1940. There were still teething problems at the time, not to mention its "seeming inability" to do carrier service.

It never was unable, it was called an "ensign Killer' because it had a higher landing speed and poorer visibility - not because it was 'incapable'. It did require better pilot skills and training than its predecessors - well same for B-26 as an example

The F4F's basic airframe dates back to the FF-1, almost 10 years earlier, so the frame was already well developed, via the exploits of the FF-1, F2F and F3F fighter planes.

So you want to take the 10 year airframe, 1930's wing and jump into long range escort in 1943, ground attack with heavy loads dueling with Fw 190s and duel with Me 109s at 25,000 feet? Why?

It was a much more reliable platform, in 1940.
Had the question been placed later in time, say 1942, I would side with you guys, but in 1940, I would have to go with the Grumman.
The Chance-Vought was just too new at the time.
Its not always the smartest move to gamble your country's defense with an "unknown quantity".

Like we did with B-29, and all the others we ordered prior to flight test?

I believe the thread was pick one and go the rest of the war with it. Its OK that you choose what you choose

Elvis

Elvis the one intangible is that putting all your eggs in one basket puts a huge sense of urgency on accelerating a program to solve problems.

If the P-38, for example, had been accepted before a prototype was built, the production tooling would have been there from day one, instead of being started after the prototypes crashed and a test program to look at compressibility issues for example would have been done two years earlier..

If the P-51 was selected and a spec was set for high altitude performance as an interceptor, a.) the Merlin would have been selected earlier or Allison would have built an engine suitable for it earlier... The internal fuel design for a P-47 would have been incorporated earlier to meet requirements for range, etc.

ALL of those ships are superior to the F4F as a base airframe for any purpose.

Conceivably the P-38L is embodied in the P-38B with dive brakes, intercooler problems, etc solved in 1942..

Would you pick the F4F against the P-38 as the airframe to take you to battle anywhere for any reason? And there is no reason to believe a P-38 can't land on existing carriers of 1940 - but if length was an issue then all future carriers laid down after that get the necessary extension?

Regards,

Bill

[renrich]

It is a myth that the British "taught" us to land the Corsair on carriers. The British used some of the early Corsairs with it's visibility, landing gear bounce and stall problems because they were desperate for high performance naval fighters. The USN had already defined the deck landing characteristics that needed to be corrected of the Corsair and had begun solving them before the Hellcat was deployed on our carriers but the Hellcat spare parts and other necessary requirements were already in the pipeline and it was easier to transition pilots from the Wildcat to the Hellcat than to the Corsair so the Hellcat became the carrier fighter until sometime in 1944 when the better performing Corsair became needed. Jank, I have checked my reference and it shows the F4U1 with 536 gallons of fuel to have a range of 2200 statute miles. that is with one drop tank of 175 gallons. Another drop tank with 124 gallons to bring it up to my hypothetical 660 gallons would give it an additional say 250 miles range for a total of 2450 miles. These numbers are at 5000 feet. My reference states that a practical range is 75% to 80% of the "yardstick" range. 75% of 2450 miles is around 1800 miles which gives a combat radius of 900 miles. Not as good as the max numbers for P51, P38 or P47N but this is early F4U1 before the land based "escort" Corsair is developed in this hypothetical scenario.

[SoD Stitch]

P-38 Lightning; it was more or less operational by 1940 (both the Corsair and the P-51 were a couple of years off still), plus it had a lot of room for improvement. Take all of those Packard Merlins that would've been built for the Mustang, and put them in a Lightning and you've got a helluva fighter. Design studies were drawn up for Merlin-powered Lightnings, but they never got off the drawing board. Imagine a P-38 with the high-altitude performance of a P-51 or a Spitfire, and capable of carrying 4,000 lbs. of bombs, if necessary.

[helmitsmit]

good point! I had another thought you remember the handed de haviland hornet? Well then it would have been possible to hand earlier merlin marks. If I am not mistaken the lightnings engine nucles could take bigger inline engines so griffon or sabre might have been a final development possiblity! No ofference the alison although reliable was bit crap towards the end of the war