wmaxt
Staff Sergeant
Here is an excellent comparison of the two aircraft.
http://home.att.net/~historyzone/F4U-4.html
wmaxt
http://home.att.net/~historyzone/F4U-4.html
wmaxt
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
OrionIFT said:I think the best looking would be a Mustang II in RAF Sea Grey/Green camouflage with a Malcolm hood.
While the F-4U is sweet, the lack of variation in color schemes is a little dull...
I Agree with this for the most part, but I find my self looking at the P-51 and saying to myself," Yes it was a great plane, but so what!"Twitch said:Well at least this isn't the bogus "which one could 'out dogfight' the other?" sillyness I've seen people taking seriously around here. I like both these planes depending on the mood I'm in. I'd certinly defend either as excellent due to their combat histories. And as the Air Force and Navy have laid down the requirements that make sense I'd go with- The P-51 in combat over land masses and the F4U for use over water against any enemy of the era.
Soren said:Hardly an excellent comparison...
The F4U-4 Corsair wasn't just a little better than the P-51, it was ALOT better ! And regardless of what that site says, the P-51 experienced severe compressibility problems at very high speeds, something the Corsair didn't.
The only fighter I would feel confident in going up against a F4U-4 Corsair would be the Fw-190 Dora-9, in anything else I'd be pretty nervous !
syscom3 said:Results speak for themselves. As much as the late model Spits looked good in performance figures, they had no impact on the war effort. The P51D brought the fight to the Luftwaffe (not enough P38 groups to have made a big difference) and simply swept the skies.
The P51 was good in so many catagories that is does deserve the honors.
When you start looking at the figures of all of the late model fighters, most of the figures of their performance is quite evenly matched. The only catagory that seperates them all is endurance. And thats where the P51 dominates that catagory.
wmaxt said:Also that comparison was very fair and accurate to all sides,
wmaxt said:note also that the P-38L met or exceeded virtually all performance categories.
A F4U-4 would make mince meat out of a P-38J/L, and so would a Spitfire Mk.XIV. (As-well as virtually all other late-war single engined fighters)wmaxt said:I would also take a P-38J/L against the F4U-4 and a few Spits.
syscom3 said:The P38 had a tremendous climb rate. Among the fastest of the war.
syscom3 said:Youre also forgetting one thing that the P38, P47 and P51 could do better than the German fighters, and thats dive out of trouble.
syscom3 said:Maneuvering also includes the vertical, and the three of those fighters were good at all of them.
wmaxt said:The P-38 (not even an L) took on a Spit XIV (Griffon engine) and took the match.
wmaxt said:Go to the Pro Docs page and there is a test of a Spit IX and P-38F.
KraziKanuK said:The only K-4 that had a high climb rate was the one that was boosted to 1.98ata and these only showed in very small numbers from mid March 1945. Of some ~140 onhand in early April, only ~70 were operational. (50%)
KraziKanuK said:At 1.80ata it was slower (RoC) than the 25lb boost Spit IXs and 21lb boost Spit XIVs.
KraziKanuK said:You got data to back up your Dora claim?
KraziKanuK said:Not the data for the few 'specials' either.