P-47N Thunderbolt vs. F4U-4 Corsair - Which was superior?

[Gemhorse]

The bottom line seems that while the P.47 was a terrific aircraft, it was the Corsair that continued on in service for years afterwards.......

[CurzonDax]

The thing about the 'Bolt is that by the end of WWII it would have been obsolete to fight after WWII for the design was at the limit of its technological evolution where as the Corsair had much to improve on it. The latter versions of the Corsair had almost nothing in common with thier WWII parents.

Also the corsair was not built as a high altitude fighter for the fighting it was involved did not call for it.

On top of that supposedly a Corsair shot down a Mig in Korea!

[FLYBOYJ]

"On 9 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 wingmates quickly had their revenge, shooting down Folmar, though he bailed out and was quickly rescued with little injury."

[Jank]

The Thunderbolt wasn't obsolete as a design. It went on to evolve into the XP-47J and XP-72 that performed at the very edge of propeler driven capability (aproximatekty 500mph top speed).

By the end of the war, all prop fighters were obsolet - even the Corsair. It only lived on because it was carrier capable.

The shooting star could outperform any prop fighter and soon afterwards there was the Cougar (Navy) and sabre (Air Force).

[CurzonDax]

True, but these versions of the 'Bolt were nothing but rehashed '30s tech. I know the Corsair was '40s tech but like you said the Corsair was more versatile because of its carrier capabilities. Also the P-47 in the post-war economy was either withdrawn, sold to foriegn countries or sent to NG units until they could get P-51s.

But I disagree as far as being obsolete. Prop jobs could get into places, especially in the air support role that jets could not. Looks at the Corsair during the Chosin Resivoir retreat or the Skyraider in both Korea and 'Nam. While the fast movers were great, low and slow sometimes is better. Look at the A-10.

:{)

[Jank]

XP-72 and XP-47J were rehashed 30's tech? Not sure I understand. The Corsair was developed in response to a Navy sped request in 1938. The first plane flew in 1940. The Thunderbolt was developed in response to a AAF spec request in 1939 and first flew in 1941.

The P-51 was a lot cheaper to churn out and a lot easier on the gas mileage.

I agree with you. I meant that prop driven planes were bsolete as fighters. Air to air was now the jurisdictyion of jets. The skyraider (close air support) is an excellent example of where prop driven planes still were best.

[CurzonDax]

The P-47 was really the culmination of Seversky designs which by the war's end were really obsolete, more so than the Corsiar. Even the XP-72 and XP-47J were really offshoots of this technology with new gizmos to make them competitive in the aviation market. Republic saw the writing on the wall and tried to make thier product better for the post-war military. That is why the F-84 Thunderstreak was so important for thier survival. But I think the Flying Boxcar served them better in the longrun.

:{)

[Jank]

The XP-72 and XP-47J are proof that the P-47 wasnt at the end of its design potential. You can say that any evolutionary change is an offshoot. The Thunderblt was no more obsolete than the Corsair at war's end and in fact, the thunderbolt had more design potential left as evoidenced by the XP-72 and XP-47J.

Can you explain why you feel that at the war's end, the Thunderbolt in its M and N model configurations had less potential than the f4u-4?

The Corsair lived on due to it's carrier capability and the fact that high altitude escort duty was no longer an efficient role for prop driven planes due to teh advent of jets. At low to medium altitudes, the advantages of the Thundetbolt coiuldn't be realized.

[CurzonDax]

You just answered your own question. I think we are saying the same things from the opposite sides of the street.

:{)

[The Nerd]

The Jug was definitly tough, but I would go with the Corsair for its climb rate if nothing else.

[Jank]

I don't think the F4u-4 would have any real advantage in climb at higher altitudes. (Agree that it would at low and medium altitudes)

The F4u-4 is only pulling 2,080hp at 26,000 feet down from 2,450 at sea level.

The Thunderbolt N is pulling 2,800hp at 32,000 feet (She pulls 2,800hp at sea level too)

By the time you're getting beyond 25,000 feet, I think the Thunderbolt is getting pretty close in climb and by the time you're at 30,000 feet, the Thunderbolt would overtake the Corsair because that's 4,000 feet over critical altitude for teh Corsair. The horsepower of the corsair is really hurting and would probably be about 1,900 or so vs. 2,800 for the T-bolt.

[gabbys]

Originally Posted by Jank

I don't think the F4u-4 would have any real advantage in climb at higher altitudes. (Agree that it would at low and medium altitudes)

The F4u-4 is only pulling 2,080hp at 26,000 feet down from 2,450 at sea level.

The Thunderbolt N is pulling 2,800hp at 32,000 feet (She pulls 2,800hp at sea level too)

By the time you're getting beyond 25,000 feet, I think the Thunderbolt is getting pretty close in climb and by the time you're at 30,000 feet, the Thunderbolt would overtake the Corsair because that's 4,000 feet over critical altitude for teh Corsair. The horsepower of the corsair is really hurting and would probably be about 1,900 or so vs. 2,800 for the T-bolt.

the chart i posted on page 8 has the P-47D climb rate up to 30K.

the F4U-4 still maintains a higher climb rate. Even the F4U-1 and F6F-5 maintained a very slightly better climb rate up through 30K.

[Jank]

"the chart i posted on page 8 has the P-47D climb rate up to 30K. "

I noticed that. The threead is about the N model though which is not a D. My post concerns the N. The horsepower of the N is 2,800.

Do you know which D model your chart is refering to? Different D's differ in Horsepower and type of propeler. The late war horspower of a D model was 2,530. Your chart shows the P-47D horsepower as less than the F4u-4 up to about 8,000 feet. Don't think so.

That can't be right if we're comparing apples to apples. If we are comparing a late war D model against an F4u-4 then the relative WEP horsepower difference would be 2,530 (P-47D) vs. 2,450 (F4u-4). Your chart either is not comparing a late war D model or a late war D model not at WEP.

[Gemhorse]

Still, it was a shame to have discarded the 'Bolt', and the P.38 too, at the end of the War, as the Bolt's ground-attack capability was terrific....As stated, it was pushing to the edge of Prop-aircraft's ability, but perhaps the advent of the Bearcat and Tigercat coming on stream had something to do with it...I agree that the Corsair had the aircraft-carrier advantage in it's favour, although it wasn't really the 'bees-knees' of carrier aircraft.......

[gabbys]

Originally Posted by Jank

"the chart i posted on page 8 has the P-47D climb rate up to 30K. "

I noticed that. The threead is about the N model though which is not a D. My post concerns the N. The horsepower of the N is 2,800.

Do you know which D model your chart is refering to? Different D's differ in Horsepower and type of propeler. The late war horspower of a D model was 2,530. Your chart shows the P-47D horsepower as less than the F4u-4 up to about 8,000 feet. Don't think so.

That can't be right if we're comparing apples to apples. If we are comparing a late war D model against an F4u-4 then the relative WEP horsepower difference would be 2,530 (P-47D) vs. 2,450 (F4u-4). Your chart either is not comparing a late war D model or a late war D model not at WEP.

I'll try to dig it up, but here is a good write up on the p-47N

Climb at 20K is 2550, still below the U-4.

http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p47_13.html