Seafury vs F4U-4. Which is better? - Aircraft of World War II

syscom3 · 05-07-2006, 05:54 PM

Lets hear your opinions on these two legendary warbirds.

red admiral · 05-07-2006, 07:05 PM

The Hawker Sea Fury is undoubtedly superior.

Faster, more maneuverable, better armed, better visibility, has a floor to the cockpit, much prettier.

Glider · 05-07-2006, 07:40 PM

Have to second that

Jank · 05-07-2006, 08:13 PM

Sea Fury prototype flew in Feb 1945 and unlike the F4U-4, was never operational prior to the Japanese surrender.

Why don't we compare it to the F4U-5 or the F2G?

syscom3 · 05-07-2006, 08:16 PM

Fair enough, compare it to the F4U-5.

red admiral · 05-08-2006, 06:23 AM

The F4U-5 gets faster and has more pilot comfort. I'd still take the Sea Fury.

Interestingly I found this opinion on the -5

"Engineering improvements that weren't

I've flown the F4U-4 Corsair. It was a good airplane. I've also flown the later model F4U-5-it was no F4U-4!

I flew the F4U-4 in flight training, and when I received my "Wings of Gold" in August of 1950, I was immediately assigned to the VF-14 Tophatters based in Jacksonville, Florida and flew the F4U-5. I found the F4U-5 heavier and more dangerous than the F4U-4, primarily because of several "improvements" that were at best ineffective and at worst dangerous.

The F4U-5, a 1945 design modification of the F4U-4, was intended to increase the F4U-4 Corsair's overall per formance and incorporate many earlier Corsair pilots' suggestions. It featured a more powerful 2,300hp engine with a fully automatic two-stage supercharger. Other "improvements" were electrical trim control, automatic cowl flaps, a gyroscopic lead-computing gunsight and other automatic functions. These and other changes made the F4U-5 500 pounds heavier than the F4U-4. "

Gnomey · 05-08-2006, 07:22 AM

I would take the Sea Fury for the reasons stated by red admiral.

elmilitaro · 05-08-2006, 08:58 AM

Agree to that also.

SM79Sparviero · 05-08-2006, 10:08 AM

Sea Fury handling and performances were superlative ( a "jet with propeller" according to the pilots)but its Centaurus engine had a very high fuel consumption. It is an important parameter for a naval fighter.A low fuel consumption was one of the best advantages of Mitsubishi Zero.

syscom3 · 05-08-2006, 12:16 PM

The only thing Ive seen negative about the Sea Fury was its range.

But even still, with external fuel tanks, it was still adaquet

Twitch · 05-08-2006, 12:27 PM

As far as I'm concerned they're a draw. Neither has any points of performance that are staggeringly superior to the other.

red admiral · 05-08-2006, 01:23 PM

Maybe not staggeringly better for the Sea Fury, but still better than F4U-4/5. It is the "better" aircraft, not by a massive amount, but still "better".

Jank · 05-08-2006, 03:37 PM

How would it have stacked up against the F2G?

wmaxt · 05-08-2006, 06:59 PM

Actually I'd go for the F4U-4

Sea Fury - top Speed - 460mph
F4U-4 --- top speed -- 460mph (without external racks) 446mph with
Sea Fury - Climb ------ 2777ft/min
Corsair --- climb ------ 3870ft/min (reports of 4.9min to 20,000ft at WEP)
Sea Fury - range ------ 700mi internal
Corsair --- range ------ 1015mi internal
Sea Fury - ceiling ----- 35,800ft
Corsair ---ceiling ------ 41,500ft
Sea Fury - loading ----- 2,000lbs
Corsair --- loading ----- 4,000lbs War time load outs of over 5,500lbs reported
Sea Fury - Armament -- 4 x 20mm
Corsair --- Armament -- 6 x .50s or 4 x 20mm
Sea Fury - Horse power - 2,480hp
Corsair --- Horse power - 2,450hp
Sea Fury - empty wt ---- 9,240lbs
Corsair --- empty wt ---- 9,206lbs
Sea Fury - Gross wt ----- 12,500lbs
Corsair --- Gross wt ----- 14,670lbs
Sea Fury - wing area ---- 280sq/ft
Corsair --- wing area ---- 314sq/ft

As you can see the Corsair has it in all respects except possibly speed (wheather the Sea Fury speed is with/without external mounts). Equal power and more wing area gives the Corsair the edge in climb and should also give it an edge in turning. Climb and ceiling alone would give the edge to the Corsair in air to air encounters. However the more savy pilot could win in either aircraft.

wmaxt

syscom3 · 05-08-2006, 07:07 PM

I wonder if the sea fury was the safer of the two planes when landing on a carrier.

05-07-2006, 05:54 PM	#1
syscom3 Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Orange County, CA Posts: 10,283	Seafury vs F4U-4. Which is better? Lets hear your opinions on these two legendary warbirds. __________________ "Pilot to copilot..... what are those mountain goats doing up here in the clouds?"

05-07-2006, 08:16 PM	#5
syscom3 Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Orange County, CA Posts: 10,283	Fair enough, compare it to the F4U-5. __________________ "Pilot to copilot..... what are those mountain goats doing up here in the clouds?"

05-08-2006, 07:22 AM	#7
Gnomey "World Traveller" Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Royal Deeside/St Andrews, Scotland, UK Posts: 15,224	I would take the Sea Fury for the reasons stated by red admiral. __________________ "Success is not Final, Failure is not Fatal, it is the Courage to Continue that Counts" Sir Winston Churchill "To him the People of the World Largely owe the Freedom and Liberties they Enjoy Today" Enscription on Hugh Dowding's (AOC Fighter Command 1936-40) statue in London WW2 Talk: A WW2 Discussion Forum My Photo Collections on Flickr

05-08-2006, 08:58 AM	#8
elmilitaro Senior Member Join Date: May 2005 Location: Texas Posts: 405	Agree to that also. __________________ "And when he gets to heaven, To Saint Peter he will tell; One more marine reporting, sir- I've served my time in hell." A marine gravemarker on guadalcanal

05-08-2006, 10:08 AM	#9
SM79Sparviero Member Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Culqualber Posts: 80	Sea Fury handling and performances were superlative ( a "jet with propeller" according to the pilots)but its Centaurus engine had a very high fuel consumption. It is an important parameter for a naval fighter.A low fuel consumption was one of the best advantages of Mitsubishi Zero. __________________ All that is gold does not glitter, Not all those who wander are lost; The old that is strong does not wither, Deep roots are not reached by the frost. From the ashes a fire shall be waken, A light from the shadows shall spring; Renewed shall be blade that was broken, The crownless again shall be king. John Ronald Reuel Tolkien

05-07-2006, 07:05 PM	#2
red admiral Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 375	The Hawker Sea Fury is undoubtedly superior. Faster, more maneuverable, better armed, better visibility, has a floor to the cockpit, much prettier.

05-07-2006, 07:40 PM	#3
Glider Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: London Posts: 3,655	Have to second that

05-07-2006, 08:13 PM	#4
Jank Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 679	Sea Fury prototype flew in Feb 1945 and unlike the F4U-4, was never operational prior to the Japanese surrender. Why don't we compare it to the F4U-5 or the F2G?

05-08-2006, 06:23 AM	#6
red admiral Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 375	The F4U-5 gets faster and has more pilot comfort. I'd still take the Sea Fury. Interestingly I found this opinion on the -5 "Engineering improvements that weren't I've flown the F4U-4 Corsair. It was a good airplane. I've also flown the later model F4U-5-it was no F4U-4! I flew the F4U-4 in flight training, and when I received my "Wings of Gold" in August of 1950, I was immediately assigned to the VF-14 Tophatters based in Jacksonville, Florida and flew the F4U-5. I found the F4U-5 heavier and more dangerous than the F4U-4, primarily because of several "improvements" that were at best ineffective and at worst dangerous. The F4U-5, a 1945 design modification of the F4U-4, was intended to increase the F4U-4 Corsair's overall per formance and incorporate many earlier Corsair pilots' suggestions. It featured a more powerful 2,300hp engine with a fully automatic two-stage supercharger. Other "improvements" were electrical trim control, automatic cowl flaps, a gyroscopic lead-computing gunsight and other automatic functions. These and other changes made the F4U-5 500 pounds heavier than the F4U-4. "

05-08-2006, 12:16 PM	#10
syscom3 Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Orange County, CA Posts: 10,283	The only thing Ive seen negative about the Sea Fury was its range. But even still, with external fuel tanks, it was still adaquet __________________ "Pilot to copilot..... what are those mountain goats doing up here in the clouds?"

05-08-2006, 12:27 PM	#11
Twitch Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: City of the Angels California Posts: 809	As far as I'm concerned they're a draw. Neither has any points of performance that are staggeringly superior to the other. __________________

05-08-2006, 01:23 PM	#12
red admiral Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 375	Maybe not staggeringly better for the Sea Fury, but still better than F4U-4/5. It is the "better" aircraft, not by a massive amount, but still "better".

05-08-2006, 03:37 PM	#13
Jank Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 679	How would it have stacked up against the F2G?

05-08-2006, 06:59 PM	#14
wmaxt Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Boise, Idaho Posts: 1,175	Actually I'd go for the F4U-4 Sea Fury - top Speed - 460mph F4U-4 --- top speed -- 460mph (without external racks) 446mph with Sea Fury - Climb ------ 2777ft/min Corsair --- climb ------ 3870ft/min (reports of 4.9min to 20,000ft at WEP) Sea Fury - range ------ 700mi internal Corsair --- range ------ 1015mi internal Sea Fury - ceiling ----- 35,800ft Corsair ---ceiling ------ 41,500ft Sea Fury - loading ----- 2,000lbs Corsair --- loading ----- 4,000lbs War time load outs of over 5,500lbs reported Sea Fury - Armament -- 4 x 20mm Corsair --- Armament -- 6 x .50s or 4 x 20mm Sea Fury - Horse power - 2,480hp Corsair --- Horse power - 2,450hp Sea Fury - empty wt ---- 9,240lbs Corsair --- empty wt ---- 9,206lbs Sea Fury - Gross wt ----- 12,500lbs Corsair --- Gross wt ----- 14,670lbs Sea Fury - wing area ---- 280sq/ft Corsair --- wing area ---- 314sq/ft As you can see the Corsair has it in all respects except possibly speed (wheather the Sea Fury speed is with/without external mounts). Equal power and more wing area gives the Corsair the edge in climb and should also give it an edge in turning. Climb and ceiling alone would give the edge to the Corsair in air to air encounters. However the more savy pilot could win in either aircraft. wmaxt Last edited by wmaxt; 05-08-2006 at 07:02 PM.

05-08-2006, 07:07 PM	#15
syscom3 Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Orange County, CA Posts: 10,283	I wonder if the sea fury was the safer of the two planes when landing on a carrier. __________________ "Pilot to copilot..... what are those mountain goats doing up here in the clouds?"

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
F2G	Wad Cutter	Aircraft Picture Requests	21	08-21-2009 06:34 PM
USA Lend-Lease f4U Corsair to Russia?	Yaldy	Aviation	28	04-02-2007 09:36 AM
f4f-c...	aceman	Aircraft Requests	34	12-14-2006 10:59 PM
need cockpit photo's of the hawker seafury and tempest	grumman-cats	Aircraft Picture Requests	6	06-29-2006 09:12 AM
F4u Stunt Pilot	horseUSA	Old Threads	2	04-11-2004 09:23 AM

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode