F4F and others comparisons/ performance????

Actually the F4F was about equal to the Zero in loss to kill ratio not having a 2-1 kill ratio but more like something in the order of 119-112 in favor of the Wildcat in actual air to air combat involving the two . The only airforce to achieve a 1-1 ratio with the IJN & it's Zero's in 1942 was the USN flying it's F4F's. If one wants to know about the battles of the F4F versus the Zero read John Lundstrom's " The First Team From Pearl Harbor till Midaway" and "The First Team and the Guadalcanal Campaign" .

One must remember that there were several configurations some just had single stage type super-chargers while others had the 2 stage type.

 

In actuallity, the F4U-4 was a better fighter/bomber than the P-47. The visibility issue was over the nose. With the later Malcom hood options the visibility out back was much improved. As far as the P-51 being the best airsuperiority fighter, there are a lot of Navy pilots that would argue the point over the Corsair. Since we are talking about the Wildcat I won't.
I have a book that talks about a bf-109 pilot that found a Martlet (Wildcat) in the Mediteranian Area and bounced him. When the British pilot started to get the upper hand the 109 split S'd and dove for the deck. He was surprised to look back and find the Martlet diving with him. He said if it wasn't for the British pilot being a bad shot he wouldn't have been around to tell the tale. I'll try to find the reference for this story later.

 

Ah, but it's nice to see the F4 vindicated. I've always been fond of the little bird.

Suggests to me that maybe, just maybe the A6M would also have fared rather better against its 1940-42 contemporaries in Europe than some would like to suppose, but that's another can of worms entirely.

Thanks to all who have contributed.

 

In comparison to the performance specs of the F4F-3 and FM-2, the F4F-4 was certainly the "black sheep" of the Wildcat family, along with being the least popular with the pilots, having a lower top speed and rate of climb, not to mention that the poor placement of the two additional guns spread out the same amount of ammo, reducing firing time, and added weight along with the extra armor as well as the folding wings; that being said, in the capable hands of the USN and USMC, it still held its own against its vaunted Japanese adversary, the A6M Zero, achieving a 1:1 kill ratio, and held the line for the allies in the first year of the war until the Hellcats and Corsairs arrived. Still, I have always wondered how much of a difference in the F4F-4s performance specs would have been if the only changes to the wildcat was the addition of the folding wings, was the additional armor and guns really necessary?

 

Not sure, but heard there were Corsairs humping bomb runs in the Korean war- any P 51's flying around then...

US tactics ( in the Pacific ) may have evolved so that their heavier, more powerful, fighters would choose when to fight. ( Early warnings from Paul Mason and the other coast watchers, would allow US fighters to gain altitude )...The heavier US craft could always dive away, gain altitude and resume an attack when they chose...

 

In 1948, the USAF dropped the P (for Pursuit) designation in favor of the F (for Fighter) designation. So, technically, there were no P-51s flying in Korea...However, there were many F-51s flying over Korea from the beginning of the war till it's end in 1953.

 

Mostly the same tactics used by Claire Chennault and the Flying Tigers.

 

Give me a half right.
...But which plane, if voted on by the men involved, would get their vote for most valuable?

 

World War II or Korea? Because, in Korea, both planes, in the main, were fighter-bombers conducting close air support - having been superseded by the jets in terms of performance(although early in the war, the USAF went back and forth between the F-80 & F-51...Some F-51 units converted from the F-51 to the F-80, and quickly converted back to the F-51, because the F-80 lacked the range and loiter time to remain over the front line...just like the military maintained the A-1 Skyraider in Vietnam, because it could loiter over the battlefield for quite some time.

I can only presume that Corsair pilots would go with the Corsair, and Mustang pilots would go with the Mustang.

 

Like Takao said, the P/F-51 continued to soldier on in Korea, as did the Corsair which was an unparalleled close air support platform. It is also interesting to note that the only prop ace from Korea flew the Corsair.

 

If had to choose, a golden bb could bring down a Mustang...Love the Corsair.

 

Don't get too cocky Poppy...In Korea, F4U losses and F-51 losses were pretty much even-steven.

 

One was close to the deck, one was out of harms way

edit: not sure, but the Corsair was a mans man. Not to be gay, but the 51 was too pretty.

 

In Korea, both were close to the deck.

 

Yes, the F4U was useful in Korea, mostly in its ground support role, but all was not roses. I was doing a little light reading and ran across a USN OEG report dated 1 Dec 1951 dealing with damage to USN and USMC aircraft in ground attack roles in action Korea. The relevance is that report draws some pretty definitive conclusions on F4U vulnerability to ground fire. The abstract reads:

This study report describes the kind of information that can be obtained from an analysis of Aircraft Vulnerability Report Forms, and reports the results of a preliminary, small-sample study that was made to determine the potentialities of a larger-scale analysis. Among the conclusions to which this preliminary analysis leads are the following:

(a) Of the ground fire encountered, jet aircraft receive a greater proportion from ahead and from directly below than do conventional aircraft. Hits are rather uniformly distributed over both types of aircraft.

(b) In terms of aircraft lost per hit, the F4U is twice as vulnerable as the F9F, which is twice as vulnerable as the AD. Components contributing to aircraft losses are, in order of importance, oil system, fuel system, and engine; the high vulnerability of the F4U can be traced directly to the vulnerability of its oil coolers. (my emphasis)

(c ) The fact that vulnerability varies so widely from aircraft to aircraft indicates that it can be markedly affected by design, and that attention to the vulnerability of aircraft now under development should pay dividends in the form of reduced loss rates.

There’s more in the report, but I shall not bore all. The report in PDF format is downloadable from the DTIC site. While I could provide a direct link to the study, most folks, myself included, are a little leery of such direct links. Instead, the link provided below takes you to the DTIC site where I’ve already set up the search for you, you can download from the result. Search Results: "Damage Suffered by USN and USMC ground attack aircraft in Korea"

If you don’t want to use that link, go here DTIC Home Page to the DTIC home page and type, enclosed in the quotes as shown “Damage Suffered by USN and USMC ground attack aircraft in Korea” in the search box and hit enter, it will take you to the above link.

If you are not familiar with DTIC, it is a treasure trove, in fact, unless you very carefully structure your searches you get more hits than you can ever examine.

 

Is a radial engine more able to absorb battle damage compared to other aircraft engines, and which would be easier to work on in the field.

 

All things being equal, a radial engine tends to absorb more air-to-air combat damage than an liquid cooled engine, because in air-to-air combat, attacks can come from all sides, and the liquid cooling plumbing tends to be vulnerable to such a situation.

However, in combat all things are not equal, and in Korea, the Corsair was doing a lot of mud moving, where ground fire will be coming from the front...and here is your "golden bb" spot for the Corsair, her wing leading edge oil coolers. The placement of the oil coolers here is usually not much of a problem in air-to-air combat, as relatively few attacks are head-on. Unfortunately in ground attacks, most of the enemy gunfire will be coming from your front, and the unprotected oil coolers will be particularly vulnerable.

So, the Corsair is vulnerable to the dreaded "golden bb" when it is providing close air support.

 

Don't forget the Soccer War in 1969

http://www.acig.org/artman/publish/printer_156.shtml

 

the radial...and of course, I'm not an expert on the mechanics area, but seems like the radial is easier to work on?

 

Every plane had a vulnerable spot.
Surely, there must be a game simulation for ground attack in Korea using the C or the M...As a gamer, would you rather fly a radial C or an inline M?
Because aren't there a lot of stories about the radial flying home with cylinders shot out, and stories of the inline being a little more- delicate - like a flower.