Best Pacific Fighter?

[Soren]

Originally Posted by trackend

I think you over estimate what the 262 could do Soren there is not a hope in hell that the allies would have negotiated on the basses of heavy air losses . Can,t stop troops with a fighter even if it is the 262 the logistics of Germany had been destroyed to all intense and purposes by the time the 262 was about.
You needed ground, sea and air power dominance to win WW2 and Germany had lost all three, even if the 262 had regained the air upper hand it would have not been enough to push the allies into negotiating terms.

I disagree trackend, the Allied bomber offensive would've been halted which would've helped the German ground forces immensly.

You're seriously downplaying the effect Allied airforces had on the German war effort on the ground. The Germans were pretty much forced to move by night or risk getting shot up by marauding allied fighter bombers.

[Soren]

Bill,

I rate the FW-190 & F4U Corsair as equals, with the late 190's holding a slight advantage in performance but the Corsair being carrier capable.

[drgondog]

Originally Posted by Soren

Bill,

I rate the FW-190 & F4U Corsair as equals, with the late 190's holding a slight advantage in performance but the Corsair being carrier capable.

I really don't disagree but would point out a.) that the Fw 190 (any series) have to add the extra 600 pounds for carrier qual, or add 100+ plus gallons of fuel to be competitive on range..

imagine the F4U as USAAF 'P-42' early in the war with existing racks for external fuel early in 1943 (and 600 pounds+ lighter for same mission, instead of the P-47 - but capable of getting to middle Germany early 1943 and all the way by late 1943 with combined external and internal fuel? The P-51 may never have been near as important as it was.

It might have forced an earlier intro of the Me 262 but at the same time probably would have cut deeper into pilot staff of LW even earlier... who knows? - all great airplanes. What we do know is what 'coulda happened' did happen - the rest is speculation.

On another note, I have sorted out Gene's model and have had a couple of exchanges on how to treat Thp variations with altitude and now debating whether to use the same factor for EAS (sqrt(RHOalt/RHOsl) versus an obscure P&W formula from an old design handbook from long ago and far way

I posed on Thp factor of ((RHOalt/RHOsl-.1)/.9) to be applied to Bhp for altitudes under consideration.

EAS = TAS*Sqrt(RHOalt/RHOsl) which will get us 'corrected' values for q.

There is enough difference in the two approaches as to make the Thp NOT linear with EAS - no big deal at SL - very significant at 25,000 feet as far as predicted 'actual values' -

He does have me converted to EAS as the baseline for calcs.

I have gone into The Performance Charts from Flight Tests on the P-51B-15 with both the 1650-3 and 1650-7. The reason I am looking at this one is a.) flight test values for 44-1 fuel, Hp table, Speed Tables vs Altitude for both 67 and 75" boost. I propse that the results for the May 1944 test be used and discuss the weight conditions later.

[syscom3]

The early model F4U's didnt have the high altitude performance that the P38 and P51 had. So forget about effective high altitude bomber escorting.

[kool kitty89]

The contemporary Fw 190's had even worse high altitude performance than the F4U... And I think performance would have been sufficient for escort. (particularly for B-24's)

And the early P-38's had their own problems at alt. (intercooler, cockpit heating, turbocharger, compressibility; the latter two worse in the colder conditions of the ETO)

A related discussion: http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/avi...4-a-13336.html (Battle over Germany, January, 1944)

[syscom3]

Originally Posted by kool kitty89

And the early P-38's had their own problems at alt. (intercooler, cockpit heating, turbocharger, compressibility; the latter two worse in the colder conditions of the ETO)

The P38's in the MTO didnt have the problems. And enough of them in the 8th worked to provide escorts.

And then again, the P38 was a magnitude better than the F4U when it came to a photo recon plane.

[drgondog]

Originally Posted by syscom3

The P38's in the MTO didnt have the problems. And enough of them in the 8th worked to provide escorts.

And then again, the P38 was a magnitude better than the F4U when it came to a photo recon plane.

Very true

[drgondog]

Originally Posted by syscom3

The early model F4U's didnt have the high altitude performance that the P38 and P51 had. So forget about effective high altitude bomber escorting.

F4U-1 was just fine at 20K and by mid 1943 it was just fine at 25-30K so it had all it needed to compete with 109s and 190s at either altitude in all performance dimensions, including specifically Dive.

IIRC the F4I-1 tests in Fighter config had the airplane at ~ 430mph at 24K and that seems 'competitive' to both the Merlin 51 and the P-38L but a year earlier.

In my opinion, I agree it was not as good as either the 51 or the 38 above 20,000 feet (after 38 got dive flap/brake and 51 was Merlined') but also in my opinion it was better than both the 109G2-G5 and Fw 190A3-A5 (and P-38F and P-51A) at 20-25,000 feet in early 1943.

The 38 was neutered as 'high altitude' escort until it got dive brake/flap simply because it couldn't chase anybody in a dive - and as KK mentioned the ETO winters were hard on the Pre P-38J/L Allison/Intercoolers.

It had by far the lowest air to air ratio in the ETO for those reasons. When the late J and L emerged it was a great fighter - but not until then

[Soren]

Bill,

I think the F4U-1 would've struggled abit against the Bf-109G-2 & 6 in dogfighting as both could outturn & outclimb the Corsair. The FW-190A was also faster at low to medium alt, and climbed faster as-well, and dogfighting capability was similar. What the Allies needed was a fighter which did esp. well at high alt and was fast, the P-51 fitted that bill.

But you proposed that it [F4U] replaced the P-47 & P-38, which I think would've helped I agree.

[syscom3]

Originally Posted by Soren

But you proposed that it [F4U] replaced the P-47 & P-38, which I think would've helped I agree.

The F4U never had the extreme range capabilities that the P38 had. And in the Pacific, range was everything.

[Soren]

I was talking in the ETO syscom3, not the PTO, the P-38 did well enough in that theatre.