Only one fighter

[renrich]

Dav, as you know the F8F never even saw service in WW2. My list does not give percentages but breaks out this way-Best fighter below 25000 ft: P51D, F4U1D, F6F5, F4U4 and best fighter above 25000 ft: P47D, P51D,F4U1D,F6F5, F4U4, P38L.

[drgondog]

Originally Posted by Jank

Interesting discussion.

Mock dogfights between friendlies are really just twisty turny games of tag / keep away and were not really indicative of the vast majority of actual combat which was fought utilizing boom and zoom tactics. Read encounter reports from Mustang and Bolt drivers for a plethora of illustrative examples.

Jank - in the ETO that would be true primarily for the P-47. The Eighth Air Force put out a 60 page report compiled of various leaders and ace insights regarding tactics and attributes. Prominant in that report is Zemke's insight.

He emphasized the mandate to NEVER drop airspeed below 200 MPH indicated, attack from altitude advantage, never cut throttle to stay engaged with a 190 or 109 and, when in disadvantage, try to get the fight into a turning fight (at high altitude) because the T-Bolt could outclimb both the primary German fighters.

Further his recommended primary attack mode was a dive from higher altitude, level slightly below at a high rate of speed, shoot and climb steeply up and around to clear your tail.

These are not the typical (not saying non existant) attacks from Mustangs who WOULD throttle back and would stay in a turn (Frequently, not always) at medium to high altitudes.

In every dissertation in this document, the 'rules of thumb' were a.) don't intentionally seek a turning, rolling fight at low to medium level with an FW and .b) engage at will at high altitude because the acceleration and climb and speed and turn was favored to the Mustang. Most of the leaders and aces in this document were guys like Preddy, Zemke, Stewart, Beeson who had experience and scores in both the 51 and the 47.

These tactics discussed became training doctrine for all pilots coming into the ETO

Imagine if you will what conclusions one would draw had such contests been held between 109's/190's and P-47's. The P-47's would get waxed 95% of the time. And the 5% of the contests where the P-47's came out on top would be due to mismatched pilot skills. We know that the P-47 held its own quite effectively though in spite of performance that would have lead one to conclude that it was not fit for air to air combat.

As you know it was 'fit' - lol. However if one chose to fight at low altitude where the only escape was to somehow get an advantage in altitude to maximize P-47 capabilities - the guy was in trouble. Despite the paddle blade improvements, acceleration was slow from level steady flight, initial climbe and acceleration was below a 109 and FW on the deck and the FW was flat out faster (model to model likely to engage at that time)

Such contests also do not factor aircraft survivability. Just look at the huge disparity between Hellcats and Corsairs with respect to surviving AA hits. Corsairs were more than 50% more likely than Hellcats to leave their pilots in the soup, behind enemy lines or just plain dead after suffering AA hits. There is no reason to believe that the vulnerability of the Corsair's oil coolers was confined solely to AA hits either as hits from even small caliber rounds in the .30 caliber class were known to put a Corsair down in a matter of minutes. ( See pages 15 to conclusion in the thread "Hardest plane to take down in WW2?" http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/avi...2-3114-15.html (Hardest plane to take down in WW2?) )

On the latter point, all those points are important - but not necessarily conclusive depending on the Primary Mission. If air superiority, a selector might pick the 51 over the P-47 (and did) or the F4U over the F6F (and did).

At the end of the day I would have picked and F4U over F6F simply because I believe I would have a better chance of escaping an air to air hit - no matter how vulnerable to a 30 caliber round. Same attitude most Mustang pilots had when comparing their experiences in both a/c (air to air).

The AAF, then USAF picked the 51 over the 47 and 38 on the judgement that in the nuclear age, escort (not ground support) was the Primary mission for the last piston engine fighters. Korea made that a bad decision but the 51 was deemed the best choice for Strategic doctrine.

If I had been fully knowledgeable about the issues we would encounter over Europe I would have picked the F4U over the P-47 (and P-51) simply because the a/c was as good or better than both in about 75% of the air to air criteria up to 25,000 feet (where ETO was fought) and superior on the deck - plus as good air to ground as P-47 with added advantage of being a better defensive fighter on the deck.

My love is the Mustang for all around but my head is on the Corsair.

In ETO, the only group that did exceptionally well air to air against the Luftwaffe throughout the campaigns in P-47s was the 56th (in context of air to air ratios achieved by Mustangs). The 51s had far better success against the Luftwaffe but I believe the Corsair would have done as well and far better air to ground.

[davparlr]

Originally Posted by renrich

Interesting coincidence when it comes to shipboard fighters being considered as inferior to land based fighters.

In general, land base aircraft design have a large advantage over shipboard aircraft design. Also, It is inherently easier to reduce weight for less stess than it is to beef up an aircraft for higher stress. An example of this is the YF-17/F-18. To make the YF-17 carrier compatable, much heavier landing gear and stronger airframe to handle the arrester gear and landing stress, had to be incorporated. Weight added is always a weight multiple. In order to maintain maneuver performance, wing area had to be increased. To maintain range, more fuel was required. To maintain thrust to weight, larger, thirstier engines were needed. To handle all this added structure and fuel, the fuselage had to be widened, compromising the clean YF-17 aerodynamic design and reducing top speed (lower Mach). All of this added about 7700 lbs (over 40% increase!) to the empty weight to the original YF-17. The YF-17 was a cleaner and better flying aircraft than the F-18. Through an odd series of events, Northrop generated a redesign of the F-18A for land operations called the F-18L. This was much easier. Lighter gear was added, arrester hook removed, etc. making a lighter aircraft. Unfornuately nothing could be done about the wide fuselage. Had the F-17 been the AF version, it would have been a significantly better performer than its seaborne brother, the F-18.

There were two fighters designed in the beginning as shipboard fighters that turned out to be very effective as fighters and fighter bombers, in land based versions as well as ship board versions. They were both in production for a long time, they were both bought and used by several foreign countries besides the US and they were used in numerous wars and foreign actions. They both had inverted gull wings(more or less) and they were both F4s. One was the F4U and the other was the F4H and in their day they were considered close to the epitome of fighter design.

There is a difference between the F4U and the F4H. The F4U was outstanding fighter and an outstanding ground attack aircraft. The F4Hs real claim to fame was versatility. It was not a great fighter nor a great ground attack aircraft but it was good at both and adaptable to various other missions. The AF designs were philosophy poor in that they were specifically designed for a war that never occurred and left them ill prepared for the type of war that was to be fought.

[Jank]

"Jank - in the ETO that would be true primarily for the P-47."

Agreed that it was a mandate for the P-47 but I believe it was nonetheless primarily true in the vast majority of Mustang encounters as well based on my reading of hundreds of encounter reports. Friendly games of tag / keep away where each are aware of the other's position at the start of the engagement and both start in relatively fair positioning vis a vis the other simply was not the order of the day in air combat and in that respect, such contests are not indicative of outcomes in actual air combat. (Again, consider my example of how indicative such contests would have been between 109's/190's and Thunderbolts.) Moreover, not to be nitpicky but such contests also did not factor relative differences in firepower. All things being equal, I'd rather be on the receiving end of six .50's than eight .50's. (I have no doubt that Macchi Mc.202's would have fared far better against Spitfires had their armament been greater than just two .50 cal. and two .30 cal. guns.)

What is the title of the 60 page report you referenced? I would like to obtain a copy.

I don't think I implied that survivability was necessarily conclusive overall but comes much closer to being so with respect to the air to ground role. I threw it out as an additional factor I thought is important. I don't really disagree with you except with your assertion that the F4U was "as good air to ground as P-47 ". The P-47 has 1/3 more gun firepower, a greater ammo capacity, is just as stable of a gun platform and is more survivable. As for ordinance load, the P-47D could have handled 4,000lb loads too. Just becauase it didn't doesn't mean it couldn't. At the point in time before F4U's carried such loads, it would have been an error to assert that it could not have been done because it had not been done. The weight differential between an empty and fully laden P-47D was about 7,000lbs.

Republic Aviation's own design specs for the P-47M, which had the exact same wing and fuselage structure with respect to load bearing, indicate a maximum bomb load of 4,200lbs The P-47N, which did often carry 3,900lbs of bombs and rockets actually had a maximum design bomb load that was somewhat less at 3,700lbs. I have never come across Republic Aviation's design specs for the P-47D but there is no reason to assume that they would be any different than those for the P-47M.

I can not stress enough that the fact that the F4U actually did carry 4,000lb ordinance loads and the P-47D didn't is not conclusive on the issue of whether the P-47D could have carried such loads. Moreover, the survivability advantage of the Thunderbolt in the air to ground role is a far greater determinative factor of superiority in that role. The difference in survivability between the Corsair and Hellcat was so striking that the US Navy itself concluded that, "The F6F was slightly superior to the F4U in combat, apparently chiefly because of its greater ability to survive damage."

In short, the far and away superior performance of the Corsair could not overcome the effect of this inferior attribute.

[helmitsmit]

I take the point about the P40. No one actually tried mating the P40N to a merlin 61. The P40F only had a merlin 20. It might not have made it the best but it would have been a match for most of it's enemies. It was also in service before 1940 so design issue could have been ironed out.

[renrich]

Dav, I think your observations about the F4H are probably right on. I have a good friend in Texas who originally was a F100 driver but wound up flying 150 missions as a FAC. (How that happened is another story) He said that bombing results by the F4s were uniformly somewhat poor as compared to say the F105s.

[renrich]

Speaking of ACM tactics in the Jug, I seem to remember that Bob Johnson in mock dogfights with Spitfires used what I would call "early energy tactics." Since he could neither turn, climb or accelerate with a Spit, he said the Spit could not roll worth spit( my description) so, since the Jug was a good roller, when a Spit was on his 6 he would roll one way and then the other until he got the Spit off his tail a little then dive a few thousand feet(the Spit couldn't stay with him in a dive) zoom climb and by then he was way in front of the Spit, continue the climb until almost out of AS, hammerhead stall and the Spit would be below nose high and a sitting duck.

[Jank]

Bob Johnson's book is a keeper. To be fair though, I do not think the P-47D could have contended with the F4U-1 at lower altitudes until the paddle blade was installed and its engine was cleared for 2,600hp later in 1944. And, of course, the P-47D could never have contended with the F4U-4.

Stock P-47D (July 1944)
70" Hg. top speed of 444mph at 23,200ft.
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.o...44-1-level.jpg

65Hg. rate of climb 3,260fpm at 10,000ft.
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.o...44-1-climb.jpg

[renrich]

Johnson's book is one of the best about WW2. I read somewhere that if you compare Johnson's mission and kill record to (I think) Werner Moelder's that if Johnson had been in combat the same length of time, his number of kills would have been comparable and of course all his kills were in the Jug.

[drgondog]

Originally Posted by Jank

"Jank - in the ETO that would be true primarily for the P-47."

Agreed that it was a mandate for the P-47 but I believe it was nonetheless primarily true in the vast majority of Mustang encounters as well based on my reading of hundreds of encounter reports.

Jank - Good to chat.

in the 175 encounter reports I have for the 355th, there are six bona fide 'boom and zoom' encounters - and those were all within weeks of transitioning to the Mustang in March, 1944. Almost every encounter in which there were multiple claims the Mustang driver a.) got his second in a diving chase or b.) a deflection/turning chase. If you just read all of Mike William's repository of Mustang encounter reports you will get a similar sample... from a much greater cross section of groups and individual doctrines.

Having said that all of the 355FG P-47 awards were diving chasing attacks with very little turning.

Duane Beeson is the only one of the Mustang aces that articulated a high speed close (not necessarily a dive), shoot and keep your speed up, pass over and climb in a chandelle to clear tail. Having said that many other aces surely used that method depending on the situation.

What is the title of the 60 page report you referenced? I would like to obtain a copy.

The Long Reach - Deep Fighter Escort Tactics - VIII Fighter Command. Published May 29, 1944 with a several page forward by Kepner.

I don't think I implied that survivability was necessarily conclusive overall but comes much closer to being so with respect to the air to ground role. I threw it out as an additional factor I thought is important. I don't really disagree with you except with your assertion that the F4U was "as good air to ground as P-47 ". The P-47 has 1/3 more gun firepower, a greater ammo capacity, is just as stable of a gun platform and is more survivable. As for ordinance load, the P-47D could have handled 4,000lb loads too. Just becauase it didn't doesn't mean it couldn't.

While I don't disagree with that last statement, it (P47) didn't (carry 4,000 pound bomb loads, and the F4U did. On the other hand the F4U's (as limited as they were until Korea) also was equipped with 4 20mm which is heavier firepower although less ammo.

I suspect that it would be hard to prove that 6x 50 cal was less 'effective' in ground attack - dead is dead- although you can't argue the simple fact of 2 more 50's should be 'better'.

At the point in time before F4U's carried such loads, it would have been an error to assert that it could not have been done because it had not been done.

It would be an error to stipulate that because it Might be feasible that there weren't operational considerations prohibiting 2,000 pund bomb on each pylon for the P-47. I haven't seen such but one has to answer "why wasn't it done" when P-47s in the late PTO campaigns were striking similar or same Japanese targets for example at Okinawa, and certainly were flying tactical missions in ETO in April 1945. IIRC correctly all four Primary (51, 47 and F6F and F4U had pylons stressed for 1,000 pound bombs or 200 gal ferry tanks

Republic Aviation's own design specs for the P-47M, which had the exact same wing and fuselage structure with respect to load bearing, indicate a maximum bomb load of 4,200lbs The P-47N, which did often carry 3,900lbs of bombs and rockets actually had a maximum design bomb load that was slightly less at 3,700lbs. I have never come across Republic Aviation's design specs for the P-47D but there is no reason to assume that they would be any different than those for the P-47M.

How do you know that? From my perspective if either the Manual proposed that the wing pylon (and wing) were stressed for 2,000 pounds, or b.) the airframe structures analysis proposed that load I would be comfortable with it. Absent that I would doubt it (i.e wing structure, same wing, same fuse structure for 47N/M as 47D). They put one hell of a lot of fuel in the M wing - which sure changed some of the internal geometry - but I don't have access to the drawings either? I do know the P-47N was a modified D-25 but don't know what wing structure changes were made, if any. There are semantics involved here also because the 47D wing WAS stressed to carry 1,000 pounders plus 10 HVAR rockets which was a heavy total load - period... plus could carry a centerline bomb but ??? why didn't it?

I can not stress enough that the fact that the F4U actually did carry 4,000lb ordinance loads and the P-47D didn't is not conclusive on the issue of whether the P-47D could have carried such loads. Moreover, the survivability advantage of the Thunderbolt in the air to ground role is a far greater determinative factor of superiority in that role.

Jank - what statistical basis do you have on 'survivability' between the P-47D and the F4U? I've seen the USN discussions between the F6F and F4U but missed the comparison between either and the P-47?

The difference in survivability between the Corsair and Hellcat was so striking that the US Navy itself concluded that, "The F6F was slightly superior to the F4U in combat, apparently chiefly because of its greater ability to survive damage."

In short, the far and away superior performance of the Corsair could not overcome the effect of this inferior attribute.

And so the USN said - "Well, post war we want the inferior airplane because we are Squids and have a reputation to uphold - so we choose the worst of the two to carry into all future conflicts through Korea. We want the one whitch is far and away the inferior combat aircraft."

Works for me.

Do you propose the selection of F4U as all politics?

Regards,

Bill

[drgondog]

Design Analysis of the P-47 Thunderbolt

Jank - I just spotted this site for structure on the 47

Based on the design of the wing, all the P-47 primary bomb carrying structure was outboard of Gear and Guns, and rockets outside of bombs, starting at about (guess) 50% span.

The F4U had all bomb racks inboard of main gear (which was significantly closer to fuselage than P-47 due to gull wing design), at about 20% Span, plus had more ground clearance for cl rack. All rocket stubs were on folding wing.

Those bending loads are a direct function of distance from wing/fuse interface - so by inspection, the bending loads for the main bomb loads (same bomb) would be at least 2x over the corsair for mains.

This is a reasonable guess for difference in load capability..but I don't have the stress 'stuff' in front of me.

Regards,

Bill

[drgondog]

Originally Posted by helmitsmit

I take the point about the P40. No one actually tried mating the P40N to a merlin 61. The P40F only had a merlin 20. It might not have made it the best but it would have been a match for most of it's enemies. It was also in service before 1940 so design issue could have been ironed out.

You can only compensate for drag so much with increased Hp. The reason the 38 didn't improve much was overall airframe drag w/o reducing weight in the upgrade over the Allison - Ditto the P-40F.

[Jank]

"in the 175 encounter reports I have for the 355th, there are six bona fide 'boom and zoom' encounters - and those were all within weeks of transitioning to the Mustang in March, 1944. Almost every encounter in which there were multiple claims the Mustang driver a.) got his second in a diving chase or b.) a deflection/turning chase."

Ineresting that you just happened to have all 175 encounter reports categorized on such a basis on short notice. Did you really go and read through all 175 after my post or do you want to have an honest discussion here?

I am not going to read through all of Mike Williams encounters for you (as you have done for me) but as I indicated, my recollection is far different. I will also say there is no reason to believe that P-51 escorts attacking an advancing German threat would necesssarily be involved in twisty, turny fights (indicative of friendly mock combats) where Thunderbolts would not. Put differently, why is it that Mustang drivers would be required to chase down and outmanuever their prey while Thunderbolt drivers would not? Pehaps those daring Mustang pilots just liked the thrill of a good chase.

"I suspect that it would be hard to prove that 6x 50 cal was less 'effective' in ground attack"

Oh, I don't think it requires proving do you? Would you accept the premise that six .50's are more effective than four .50's? Bill, dead is dead but a miss is not a hit. 1/3 more bullets unleashed on your target means significantly more things on and around the target getting hit. That's proof enough for me. I am sorry I do not have a statistical analysis of six gun versus eight gun fighters for you.

"It would be an error to stipulate that because it Might be feasible that there weren't operational considerations prohibiting 2,000 pound bomb on each pylon for the P-47."

Who said anything about a 2,000lb bomb load under each pylon on the P-47? Moreover, the F4U's that carried 4,000lb bomb loads did so with 1,000lb under each wing and 2,000lb under the centerline. You might be correct that there may have been operational considerations. We do not know. It does not follow that therefore there were operational considerations prohibiting it. Perhaps range and the need to carry fuel could have been such a consideration between AAF and Marine units operating from different locations. That might be an operational consideration. The P-47N's certainly carried 4,000lb ordinance loads.

And as I pointed out, the P-47M was designed to handle a 4,200lb bomb load. The P-47M and D would have been indistinguishable in that regard.

"IIRC correctly all four Primary (51, 47 and F6F and F4U had pylons stressed for 1,000 pound bombs or 200 gal ferry tanks"

The P-47M and N were designed to handle bomb loads under each pylon of 1,600lbs. I have never seen the Republic Aviation design spec fpr the P-47D but the M is obviously instructive here.

"On the other hand the F4U's (as limited as they were until Korea) also was equipped with 4 20mm which is heavier firepower"

I did not know at 4x20mm Corsairs saw combat. Do you know how many outfitted in this fashion saw combat? I do think that 4 x 20mm's are probably a better set up than 8 x .50's.

"How do you know that?" (with respect to the bomb load under each wing)

Because I own a copy of the Republic Aviation Performance and Specification Manual for both the P-47M and N.

"They put one hell of a lot of fuel in the M wing"

I am afraid you are mistaken.

"Jank - what statistical basis do you have on 'survivability' between the P-47D and the F4U? I've seen the USN discussions between the F6F and F4U but missed the comparison between either and the P-47?"

It is based on the presumption that the Thunderbolt was at least as survivable as the Hellcat. Remember that statistically speaking, Corsair drivers were more than 50% more likely not to bring their planes back after taking AA hits and that this was apparently due to the more vulnerable oil cooling arrangement of the Corsair. The Hellcat and the P-47 share the same oil cooler setup. I am aware of no studies but first person accounts of Thunderbolts continuing to fly with horrific damage abound in relation to such accounts involving Hellcats. I am quite comfortable in this presumption.

I am not sure why you want to see a "statistical basis" for that presumption. A moment ago you were standing by the assertion that, "It would be an error to stipulate that because it might be feasible that there weren't operational considerations prohibiting 2,000 pund bomb on each pylon for the P-47." Can you share the data that you have on these "operational considerations"?

In your earlier thread you stated, " I believe the Corsair would have done as well and far better air to ground." (You were referring to the Corsair vs. Thunderbolt.) Tell me Bill. What statistical basis do you have on 'would have done far better air to ground' between the P-47D and the F4U? I've seen the Joint Fighter Conference Report stating that the Thunderbolt fared better than all other types in the ETO specifically including the P-38 but missed the comparison between the Corsair and the P-47.

What is your opinion on the survivability of the Thunderbolt vs. F4U Bill?

"And so the USN said - "Well, post war we want the inferior airplane because we are Squids and have a reputation to uphold - so we choose the worst of the two to carry into all future conflicts through Korea. We want the one whitch is far and away the inferior combat aircraft."

Works for me."

Now you are just being silly Bill. Conversely, do you think that the Navy had bogus statistics, or drew conslusions that were bogus or was basing that conclusion on political considerations? Maybe someone at Grumman paid them off? Corsair pilots liked to ditch their planes for fun?

[drgondog]

Originally Posted by Jank

[i]"in the 175 encounter reports I have for the 355th, there are six bona fide 'boom and zoom' encounters - [i]

Ineresting that you just happened to have all 175 encounter reports categorized on such a basis on short notice. Did you really go and read through all 175 after my post or do you want to have an honest discussion here?

If you want to have an 'honest discussion' why question my integrity Jank?

As a matter of simple fact I have - and I will explain it slowly for you. I have worked nearly 20 years doing research on the 355th FG. My encounter log in which I have categorized every day the 355th engaged the LW in the air, is about six years WIP. For the last several years I have been doing EXACTLY that and nearly finished. I have also been cross referencing the a/c shot down (FW, Me, etc) with times to correlate with the losses published in various sources including Tony Woods and Les Butler's published lists..

I should PUBLISH the results in less than six months..

What have you researched and published? or more succinctly, What have YOU been doing to substantiate YOUR Bulls**T??

I am not going to read through all of Mike Williams encounters for you (as you have done for me) but as I indicated, my recollection is far different.

RECOLLECTIONS are SIMPLE for the uninformed!! I suspect (do not know for sure) that your are quite comfortable in your 'recollections' since you won't do the research.

The Mustangs fought more 'twisty, turny' fights because they could - but they weren't nearly all that way. My comments and contradiction to YOUR (unsubstantiated) 'recollections' were that MOST of the fights were either climbing into a German formation and engaging the high escorts, level attacks (shallow climb or dive) and engaing as required or simple dive and bust with the rare dive, recover, dive that you will see (if you investigate) in your 'recollections'[/b]

"I suspect that it would be hard to prove that 6x 50 cal was less 'effective' in ground attack"

Oh, I don't think it requires proving do you? Would you accept the premise that six .50's are more effective than four .50's? Bill, dead is dead but a miss is not a hit.

OK J - prove it. Prove that the P-47 with 8 50s was more effective (or efficient) than the F4U-4 with six 50s




And as I pointed out, the P-47M was designed to handle a 4,200lb bomb load. The P-47M and D would have been indistinguishable in that regard.

And you fact base is?? for either the bomb load or the same wing or the same structure.?How many 'operational' examples can you substantiate a bomb load of 4,000 pounds, forget 4200?

"IIRC correctly all four Primary (51, 47 and F6F and F4U had pylons stressed for 1,000 pound bombs or 200 gal ferry tanks"

The P-47M and N were designed to handle bomb loads under each pylon of 1,600lbs. I have never seen the Republic Aviation design spec fpr the P-47D but the M is obviously instructive here.

You haven't proved same (unmodified) wing yet J

For us math challenged that would appear to be a bomb load of 3200? Do you have any inkling that more was carried on a cl for example? And that fact source would be where? A capacity for example for a 1000 pound rack at centerline doesn't mean the airframe can be safely operated with all three pylons fully loaded

"On the other hand the F4U's (as limited as they were until Korea) also was equipped with 4 20mm which is heavier firepower"

I did not know at 4x20mm Corsairs saw combat. Do you know how many outfitted in this fashion saw combat? I do think that 4 x 20mm's are probably a better set up than 8 x .50's.

from wikipedia
During the Korean War, the Corsair was used mostly in the close-support role. The AU-1 Corsair was a ground-attack version produced for the Korean War; its Pratt & Whitney R-2800 engine, while supercharged, was not as highly "blown" as on the F4U

The AU-1, F4U-4B, F4U-4C, F4U-4P and F4U-5N logged combat in Korea between 1950 and 1953.[citation needed] On 10 September 1952, a MiG-15 made the mistake of getting into a turning contest with a Corsair piloted by Captain Jesse G. Folmar, with Folmar shooting the MiG down with his four 20 millimeter cannon. The MiG's wingmen quickly had their revenge, shooting down Folmar, though he bailed out and was swiftly rescued with little injury.

But I don't KNOW how many AU-1's, F4U-5 (or modified F4U-4's) were equipped with 20's instead of 50's but ALL F4U-5s were 20mm ships. I have to look at the AU-1 to be sure.


"How do you know that?" (with respect to the bomb load under each wing)

Because I own a copy of the Republic Aviation Performance and Specification Manual for both the P-47M and N.

As the discussion is either two 1600 pound bombs plus another one to bring it up to 4,000 - can you show (not tell) us where that spec is?

"They put one hell of a lot of fuel in the M wing"

I am afraid you are mistaken.

You are absolutely correct - my 'recollection' of which one had the redesigned wing was faulty...from Wikipedia "The P-47N was the last Thunderbolt variant to be produced. Increased internal fuel capacity and drop tanks had done much to extend the Thunderbolt's range during its evolution, and the only other way to expand the fuel capacity was to put fuel tanks into the wings. Thus, a new wing was designed with two 50 US gallon (190 L) fuel tanks."

"Jank - what statistical basis do you have on 'survivability' between the P-47D and the F4U? I've seen the USN discussions between the F6F and F4U but missed the comparison between either and the P-47?"

It is based on the presumption that the Thunderbolt was at least as survivable as the Hellcat.

Why does your 'presumption' have weight over published facts?B]

I am aware of no studies but first person accounts of Thunderbolts continuing to fly with horrific damage abound in relation to such accounts involving Hellcats. I am quite comfortable in this presumption.

But your Fact base comparison between F6F and P-47 is what?

I am not sure why you want to see a "statistical basis" for that presumption.

Because you are either stating a 'fact' or an assumption' - I like facts better[/b]

A moment ago you were standing by the assertion that, "It would be an error to stipulate that because it Might be feasible, that there weren't operational considerations prohibiting 2,000 pund bomb on each pylon for the P-47."

Can you share the data that you have on these "operational considerations"?

Read my statement again and ask the question again. Having said that didn't you just state "1600 pound load for each pylon" for P-47M? based on Republic Specs.

It was a 'hypothetical' and so far you have failed the factory test, so the operational consideration (so far) isn't needed even if it existed

What is your opinion on the survivability of the Thunderbolt vs. F4U Bill?

My OPINION, as I have stated it before - as contrasted with OPINIONS to the contrary, is the the F4U was just as 'survivable'. ABSENT Facts, I will operate on the OPINION Jank

"And so the USN said - "Well, post war we want the inferior airplane because we are Squids and have a reputation to uphold - so we choose the worst of the two to carry into all future conflicts through Korea. We want the one whitch is far and away the inferior combat aircraft."

Works for me."

Now you are just being silly Bill. Conversely, do you think that the Navy had bogus statistics, or drew conslusions that were bogus or was basing that conclusion on political considerations? Maybe someone at Grumman paid them off? Corsair pilots liked to ditch their planes for fun?

No Jank, my sarcastic reply is that You made the case that the F6F was more survivable and "F6F was slightly superiorto the F4U in combat" - QED why would Navy choose to labor on with the F4U?

Below is your statement in its entirety since you like to 'edit'.

The difference in survivability between the Corsair and Hellcat was so striking that the US Navy itself concluded that, "The F6F was slightly superior to the F4U in combat, apparently chiefly because of its greater ability to survive damage."

In short, the far and away superior performance of the Corsair could not overcome the effect of this inferior attribute.

If you want to continue this kind of dialogue don't bother -

[davparlr]

Originally Posted by renrich

Dav, as you know the F8F never even saw service in WW2. My list does not give percentages but breaks out this way-Best fighter below 25000 ft: P51D, F4U1D, F6F5, F4U4 and best fighter above 25000 ft: P47D, P51D,F4U1D,F6F5, F4U4, P38L.

That's really strange as mine has a rating for the XF8F. The report is not limited to WWII combatants. It also mentions the XF2G-1. Also, I noticed that the F4U-4 was really the XF4U-4.