 | P-47N Thunderbolt vs. F4U-4 Corsair - Which was superior?| Aviation Discuss P-47N Thunderbolt vs. F4U-4 Corsair - Which was superior? in the World War II - Aviation forums; Originally Posted by RG_Lunatic
Also there are many accounts of P-47's, and espeically Corsairs which clipped the tops ... |
|
03-02-2005, 01:38 AM
|
#31 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 224
| Quote: |
Originally Posted by RG_Lunatic Also there are many accounts of P-47's, and espeically Corsairs which clipped the tops of trees with their props and survived.
| There was a bombardier I knew who flew in B-24's in the Pacific. He talked all the time about flying in the trees with the glazed nose of the B-24D being raked through limbs with the props chopping through everything. He said they did it just about all the time.
__________________
Fighter pilots make movies....
Bomber pilots make history! | 
|  | |
03-02-2005, 09:34 AM
|
#32 | | "Shooter"
Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Moorpark, CA
Posts: 12,883
Country:  | From the book The Pratt & Whitney Aircraft Story:
The P-47 was a rugged airplane, without a doubt. During the Battle of the Bulge in 1944, German Field Marshal von Rundstedt had hidden a munitions dump in the woods of the Ardennes. P-47s were called upon to destroy it, but they couldn't find it because of the thick trees. What did the frustrated pilots do then? They flew through the tops of the trees!
Pratt & Whitney's representative in Europe, Martin Graham, was there not long afterwards. "You could see by the shattered trees and the torn branches where the P-47s had gone through. You'd have to see it to believe it. Those crazy kids couldn't see what was hidden from above, so they went right into the forest to find out. They cut a path right through the top of the woods. They said every plane that went in and chewed out the tunnel came out — flying, too."
__________________  http://www.vg-photo.com Wherever their bones may lie, the courage of heroes is consecrated in the hearts and engraved in the history of the free. Lt Col Honner DSO MC, 39th Commander speaking of the dead from the battle of Kokoda. | |
| | |
03-02-2005, 01:15 PM
|
#33 | | Master of Ewes
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 19,959
Country:  | bloody hell 
__________________ 
"Reminds me of the time I sank the Tirpitz" comments a Spitfire pilot, "One pass of course, old boy." | |
| | |
03-02-2005, 02:04 PM
|
#34 | | "Shooter"
Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Moorpark, CA
Posts: 12,883
Country: | Yes, that is pretty amazing! It took a serious pair of pods to be the first guy to try that!
__________________ http://www.vg-photo.com Wherever their bones may lie, the courage of heroes is consecrated in the hearts and engraved in the history of the free. Lt Col Honner DSO MC, 39th Commander speaking of the dead from the battle of Kokoda. | |
| | |
03-02-2005, 03:04 PM
|
#35 | | Konfused with a 'K'
Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Turin, Italy
Posts: 20,412
Country:  | I know id read about that somewhere! 
__________________  with my one last gaping breath id apologise for bleeding on your shirt... | |
| | |
03-05-2005, 01:26 PM
|
#36 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Cordoba - Argentina
Posts: 2,249
Country:  | Aeronavale F4U low pass. | |
| | |
04-18-2005, 07:32 PM
|
#37 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 681
| Now this was a bloody Platinum Match. | |
| | |
04-30-2005, 07:44 PM
|
#38 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 715
| Agreed.
__________________ . -=DAVIDICUS MAXIMUS=-
.  | |
| | |
05-19-2005, 09:10 AM
|
#39 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 681
| How did teh new wing on the N model affect its manuverability? | |
| | |
06-29-2005, 03:46 PM
|
#40 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 113
| I found interesting in this topic. 
Some Facts about P-47N Thunderbolt and F4U-4 Corsair.... Speed: The P-47N Thunderbolt is 21 mph faster than the F4U-4 Corsair and that also 30 mph faster than P-51D Mustang.
Advantage: P-47N Thunderbolt Climb:
F4U-4 Corsair Rate of climb = 3870 ft/min
P-47N Thunderbolt Rate of climb = Unsure
Advantage: Unsure Armament: F4U-4 Corsair has 6 x .50 Cals machine guns while P-47N equip with 8 x .50 Cals, but the F4U-4B, the version fitted with four 20mm cannon in place of the six 12.7mm machine guns, kept the very same features as the basic model. The F4U-4B Corsair did not see action in WWII, but it was used with success in the Korean War (1950-1953) and Soccer War (Known as 1969 Football War) as well.
Advantage: P-47N Thunderbolt Survivability: There was no other single engine fighter flown during the war that could absorb greater battle damage than the F4U Corsair and still get home. Even the USAAF admitted that the F4U was a more rugged airframe than the tank-like P-47 Thunderbolt. That is a remarkable admission. The big Pratt & Whitney radial engine would continue to run and make power despite have one or more cylinders shot off (Both fighter used Pratt & Whitney).
Advantage: Tie
If anyone disagree about my facts between P-47N Thunderbolt and F4U-4 Corsair, please discuss it here because some of them might be false since I have been looking them up quite for long time.
__________________
Nothing makes a man more aware of his capabilities and of his limitations than those moments when he must push aside all the familiar defenses of ego and vanity, and accept reality by staring, with the fear that is normal to a man in combat, into the face of Death.
— Major Robert S. Johnson, USAAF | |
| | |
06-29-2005, 03:52 PM
|
#41 | | IP/Mech THE GREAT GAZOO
Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Colorado, USA
Posts: 13,588
Country: | Quote: |
Originally Posted by Rafe35 Survivability: There was no other single engine fighter flown during the war that could absorb greater battle damage than the F4U Corsair and still get home. Even the USAAF admitted that the F4U was a more rugged airframe than the tank-like P-47 Thunderbolt. That is a remarkable admission. The big Pratt & Whitney radial engine would continue to run and make power despite have one or more cylinders shot off (Both fighter used Pratt & Whitney).
Advantage: Tie | I've been up close to both of em, I could tell you the Corsair in some places is a lot more beefer than the -47. I think this robustness came from not only the desire to have a strong fighter, but also from it being designed as a carrier borne aircraft.
__________________ "IF ITS RED OR DUSTY, DON'T TOUCH IT"  | |
| | |
06-29-2005, 03:53 PM
|
#42 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 715
| What areas?
__________________ . -=DAVIDICUS MAXIMUS=-
. | |
| | |
06-29-2005, 03:55 PM
|
#43 | | IP/Mech THE GREAT GAZOO
Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Colorado, USA
Posts: 13,588
Country: | Quote: |
Originally Posted by DAVIDICUS What areas? | Underside - close to where the wings folded, the landing gear area and the lower fuselage. The structure around the tail was also a brick sh*t house as well!
__________________ "IF ITS RED OR DUSTY, DON'T TOUCH IT" | |
| | |
06-29-2005, 03:58 PM
|
#44 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 113
| Quote: |
Originally Posted by FLYBOYJ Quote: |
Originally Posted by Rafe35 Survivability: There was no other single engine fighter flown during the war that could absorb greater battle damage than the F4U Corsair and still get home. Even the USAAF admitted that the F4U was a more rugged airframe than the tank-like P-47 Thunderbolt. That is a remarkable admission. The big Pratt & Whitney radial engine would continue to run and make power despite have one or more cylinders shot off (Both fighter used Pratt & Whitney).
Advantage: Tie | I've been up close to both of em, I could tell you the Corsair in some places is a lot more beefer than the -47. I think this robustness came from not only the desire to have a strong fighter, but also from it being designed as a carrier borne aircraft. | I know the F4U-4 Corsair have bullet-proof "Malcom Hood" windshield that supposed to protect the pilot while engaged against fighters and Anti-Aircraft guns. I know the Japanese could not shoot down the F4U-4 Corsair before War ended because it was faster and much better than past Corsair variants, but still unsure about P-47N Thunderbolt (I know they had few kills like F4U-4 but were they shot down by Japanese or AA guns?).
__________________
Nothing makes a man more aware of his capabilities and of his limitations than those moments when he must push aside all the familiar defenses of ego and vanity, and accept reality by staring, with the fear that is normal to a man in combat, into the face of Death.
— Major Robert S. Johnson, USAAF | |
| | |
06-29-2005, 05:53 PM
|
#45 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 715
| Unlike the Thunderbolt, the Corsair was designed to be able to survive controlled crash landings onto carrier decks. Such hard landings placed very high stress on the landing gear assembly and the parts of the frame through which the stress of those landings was initially absorbed and dispersed throughout the aircraft.
As far as whether the Thunderbolt or Corsair, while airborne, could absorb more damage from machine gun / cannon fire and bring its pilot home, I don't know.
I wish I knew where that statement of the admission from the USAAF that the Corsair was more rugged came from so that it could be seen in context.
I understand that the aluminum skin on the Thunderbolt was thicker than the Corsair's. There were no fabric control surfaces either. The semi-monocoque and multi-cellular structure of the P-47's fusalege and wings certainly looks more rugged in drawings than the Corsair too.
Any thoughts on ruggedness in flight as opposed to with respect to crash landing on a carrier deck?
__________________ . -=DAVIDICUS MAXIMUS=-
. | |
| | | Thread Tools | Search this Thread | | | | | Display Modes |  Linear Mode | 
Posting Rules
| You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off | | | All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:34 PM. | | |
