P-51 Mustang or F4U Corsair

[Bullockracing]

Would the Spiteful be in play at this time, or was it too late for this particular comparison?

[lesofprimus]

Now the FW190D was a kick ass plane in 1945, marginally better than the P47D-25 and the P51D. But how would it compare to the P47N, P51H and F4U-4? All three of those fighters were in the pipeline in 1945 and were deployed in that year.

And the -109Dora was a stop gap till the Ta-152H came into full production...

[syscom3]

The development of the jet fighters, plus the wars end was in sight put an end to the allied development of possible piston engined fighters to deal with the Ta-152.

I think we can say that the Ta-152 was probably near the apex of piston engined fighters. Only the late model Corsairs would match its performance.

[lesofprimus]

I agree 100%...

[Jank]

Erin:

P-47M climb data.

At combat gross weight of 13,275lbs and 72" HG which could be maintained at 32,000ft. (That's with full internal fuel and 267 rounds per gun)

3,775fpm @ 5,000ft

3,425fpm @ 15,000ft

2,375fpm @ 28,000ft

The P-47N weighs just 576lbs more than a P-47M in empty weight configuration. Fill her up with the exact same ammo and fuel load as a P-47M and the P-47N weighs in at about 620lbs more than a P-47M (the N has an oil capacity that's 12 gallons more).

The P-47N has a 22sq.ft. greater wing area.

The P-47N would have a climb rate very close to that of the P-47M.

[Gnomey]

I agree too syscom, the Ta-152H was right at the peak of piston engine development.

[wmaxt]

Originally Posted by syscom3

It looks like by 1945, the P38L was at the peak of that airframes development. I'd even venture to say that there was little else the Lockheed wizz kids could have done to improve it without a radical redesign. The P38 climbed quite nicely in 1942, 1943 and 1944. But as the data shows, in 1945 it was left behind.

I agree that the P-38 needed modifications (new wing) like the P-51H got to go much further, however like the P-51 to go further ment specialization. The P-51 and others gave a lot up to become faster or whatever that aircrafts specialty was.

Left behind? Soren, is using METO power for Allied aircraft (POH info is always maxed at METO) in his comparisons and the very best in the Fw-190D-9s, The P-38J/L in real life tests of a P-38J #42-67869 picked off the line, achieved 4,000ft/min and 5.37min to 20,000ft.
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/p-38/p-38-67869.html
If Sorens data is correct then only the 190D-9 With all power boosters, 109K-4 With Power boosters, F4U-4 (20,000ft in 5.1 min in combat trim) could beat it and then the Corsair is by a hair. By what I've read on the web Soren's numbers are quite high in comparison, I'd like to see A. confirmnation, these stats don't seem to exist anywhere else. and B. real world tests of planes off the line. That said his data opens the door. I'm also wondering if he is mistakenly using data from the more or less experimental D-12 which his data closely maches.

Published data for the Fw-190D-9 is 426mph at 21,650ft, 19,685ft in 7min 6sec, ceiling 32,810ft. The Bf-109K-4 is 452mph at 19,685, climb to 32,800ft in 6.7 min on C3 fuel. This data is quite consistent from source to source.

This chart shows P-38J/L climb as noted the green curve is a match for the METO climb as posted in the Pilots Operating Handbook. The WEP curve is a close match with the real world test of a P-38J picked off the production line at the site above. The P-51 curve is also a close match for to the P-51 METO climb data from the P-51 POH.

Originally Posted by SYSCOM3

Now the FW190D was a kick ass plane in 1945, marginally better than the P47D-25 and the P51D. But how would it compare to the P47N, P51H and F4U-4? All three of those fighters were in the pipeline in 1945 and were deployed in that year.

The last variant of the ME109 was interesting but a complete waste of time and effort for the Germans. Its airframe was old and like the P38, was a dead end. Was it dangerous? Yes. Did it make the allied pilots shake in fear? Nope.

I agree the Fw-190 in all its forms was a very good aircraft, again very few of the D-9 ever made it to the field and someone else posted that it was not cleared for the performance Soren claims. I stand on my earlier statement If there were more, if there were top pilots to fly them, if there was the proper fuels available to the planes in the field maybe those performance figures could be expected. It didn't happen.

I agree with you last statement.

If someone, icluding Soren, posts data to back his numbers up I'll accept it, I just want to be sure its not sales data, experimental data, or from a test mule specialy prepared to achieve the absolut max performance!

wmaxt

[Soundbreaker Welch?]

I guess one reason the Mustang has it over the Corsair is that it served in both the Pacific and European theater while the Corsair served mainly in one.

And in some ways it was less important than the Mustang with Drop Tanks. The Corsair was a carrier based plane and it had the Hellcat to compete with.

Both the latter Navy planes did their job well. The Corsair did it better, but in some ways the Hellcat did more.

Bud Anderson say the P-51D could turn on a dime. Is that too much praise because on here I have heard some say it was a bad turner.

How much of an improvement was the P-51H to the P-51D? It was faster, but was it really more manuverable?

If the war had lasted past 1945, another plane that possibly might have gotten to compete with the TA was the Grumman Bearcat. I wonder how well it was compared to the FW TA.

[wmaxt]

Originally Posted by Soundbreaker Welch?

I guess one reason the Mustang has it over the Corsair is that it served in both the Pacific and European theater while the Corsair served mainly in one.

And in some ways it was less important than the Mustang with Drop Tanks. It was a carrier based plane and it had the Hellcat to compete with. Both planes did their job well. The Corsair did it better, but in some ways the Hellcat did more.

How much of an improvement was the P-51H to the P-51D? I bet it was faster, but was it really more manuverable?

It was much faster. I don't know if it was any more maneuverable though, there were still occasional reports of P-51Ds losing their tail section in violent maneuvering in April, 45 (the pilot James Beattie did not get out) over Japan. I can't imagine the H model is much better after taking several hundred pounds out of the structure. When Korea came along it was D models they sent, if thats any indication.

wmaxt

[davparlr]

Okay, this has all been really interesting and I am a impressed with the total amount of information contributed by the group. I am not an expert on any plane in specific, however I do have my comments. First, there seems to be an apple to oranges comparison in the aircraft. The F4U-4 is compared to the P-51D. This is an unfair comparison. In late 1944/1945, several aircraft type became available for combat that were effectively a generation past the previous models. These were the F4U-4, F8F, Fw190D-9, Ta152H, P-47M and N, and the P-51H. None of these planes, as far as I know, met one another in battle. Comparing these planes using data is very difficult. One of the previous entries compared the Fw190D-9 to the P-38J/L in climb and acceleration. However the weight comparison was strange. The loaded verses empty weight indicated the P-38 was much heavier loaded than the Fw, even with twice the fuel weight calculated because of the dual engines. Wing loading is a factor, but so is wing efficiency and operational envelope design. Anyway, here is some data I collected on these later planes. I used empty weight since it is fixed and we can assume the air-to-air combat load (fuel/bullets) are similar so relative performance would be similar.

A/C Top Speed (mph) Wing Loading (empty weight) (Lbs/square ft)
P-51H 487 28.3
P-47N 467 34.2
Ta152H1 469 34.4
Fw190D-9 426 39.1
F4U-4 446 29.3
F8F 421 29.0

I don't know too much about the P-51H (there doesn't seem to be much available). It was more of a contemporary of the F8F and Ta 152, but, just looking at this data, with a lower wing loading (much lower than the Ta) and higher top speed (much higher than the F8F), the plane may have been an overpowering fighter. The plane was only 53 mph slower than the Me-262 (which is about the same speed advantage the P-51H has over the F4U-4).

If you can compare the F4U-4 to the P-51D, you would have to compare the F4U-4 to the P-51H. I suspect the reason the P-51D was used in Korea was that it was a heavier, stronger plane, and since ground support was more important than escort (until the appearance of the Mig 15), it was the superior plane (although the P-51 is not in the same league as the P-47 or F4U in ground support).

During this period, there was almost a quarterly jump in technology. The Germans were typically ahead in this race due to desperation. Had the war lasted another six months, the discussion on fighters would be entirely different.

Both planes were great planes and went on to serve after the war and were employed successfully in other wars.

[davparlr]

Oops, the chart didn't come out right, but I think you can make out the columns.

Sorry.

[syscom3]

Good points Dav. I was suspecting that we werent doing the correct comparisons.

Now you got me thinking of comparing the F4U-4 to the Seafury.

[wmaxt]

Good points Dave.

The combat weight for the P-38J and L models is 17,400lbs, and included full internal fuel and full ammo load. The Wing was designed to climb well but its also true that it was approaching compressability at 440mph above 30,000ft (a slight dive would be Required at that alt) which would limit higher speeds without a wing redesign.

At 250mph the maneuver flaps could be deployed. As these were Fowler Flaps they slid out and then down adding 50sf or more to the wing surface and with an eight degree droop increased lift dramatically with only a 5% drag penalty.

The Fw-190D-9 weighs in about 9840lbs combat weight.

Sys, you might be right about the Seafury vrs F4U-4, a good match-up.

One thing though, any aircraft designed after mid '44 was obsolete already - the jet age had already progressed beyond them.

wmaxt

[syscom3]

Originally Posted by wmaxt

........One thing though, any aircraft designed after mid '44 was obsolete already - the jet age had already progressed beyond them.

wmaxt

Just think of the interesting aircraft we could have seen if the war lasted a year or more and both sides were having problems perfecting the hot core section of the jet engine

[davparlr]

Originally Posted by syscom3

Just think of the interesting aircraft we could have seen if the war lasted a year or more and both sides were having problems perfecting the hot core section of the jet engine

Jet engine and airframe design would have escalated. I am sure that momentum for design had slowed by mid 1945. Had the war continued another year (e.g. Me262s had been developed enough to prevent bombing of Gemany and making D Day difficult, and winning back the air on the Eastern Front), I am sure crash courses would have occured on both sides for jet fighter technology. We would have seen combat ready F-84s in late 45 or early 46 and straight wing F-86s in late 46. Advance German fighters would have also appeared. If the war continued, we would have seen the swept wing F-86s and the German version of the Mig 15 fighting it out three years before Korea.

Of course an additional hundreds of thousands of people would have died in mean time. It is too bad that the greatest of technilogical leaps occur on the blood of so many people.

Hows that for prognosticating the past??