F4U Corsair vs. P-51 Mustang

The Finns were the most succesful users of the Buffalo. As Takao noted there were considerable differences in weight and performance of various Buffalo models.

 

Ahhh...missing the point here fellas...

 

CAC,

The point is: How well a plane performs as a fighter is not all the pilot's doing. For instance, would we even be having this debate if the P-51 only used the Allison engine, instead of the later Merlin.

Since you are fond of auto references. Give Mr. Joe Schmo a NASCAR Monte Carlo, and Mr. Professional Racer a "common" everyday Monte Carlo, then tell them to drive 500 miles. Mr. Joe Schmo will have finished a case of beer and be "sleeping it off" before Mr. Professional Racer crosses the finish line.

The Japanese feared the Corsair because it was faster than they were and it was incredibly hard to shoot down(the 7.7mm machine guns of the Zero were useless against it, to knock one down, you needed the 20mm cannons).

 

Got proof? A lover of military aviation history and cars in another forum used exactly the same metaphor, but he concludes that the professional would smoke your regular Joe every time. =) Now, a few aces would swear that the P-40 was more than adequate against Zeros if it had more range (ref. Fire in the Sky). Hack, Robin Olds loved his P-38, and I doubt technical experts would agree with him on the subject matter, but he did damned well with what he's got.

 

It varried from one nation to another but for instance it's been stated that the USN was the only service pre war that concentrated on deflection shooting. The IJN selection process and training regime seams to have been more intensive than the IJA one as well.

 

Didnt say the only difference is the pilot...just in the case of the Brewster...But i would say the BIGGEST difference is the pilot...(given the aircraft isnt very different)...And to keep with the analogy...i disagree that the NASCAR Schmoe would even win let alone have finished a case of beer...he wouldnt be able to handle the speed and put it into a wall...The point is the amateur cannot get anything like the performance out of the NASCAR, the pro will ring every last inch out of the normal car, use various "tricks" of the trade, use his confidence and experience...i'd still put my money on the pro. The difference would be plain to see, even for a novice...

 

And, had you bother to read any of the Brewster articles in the link I provided, the falsehood of your statement is very obvious.

All the Pro's "tricks" and confidence, will not increase the speed(120mph going downhill with the wind behind him) of a normal car one iota(and since this is just a one-on-one race, most, if not all of his "tricks" are useless). Whereas the amateur can maintain a comfortable 150mph speed and ease through the turns, and at all times be increasing his lead.

 

Okay mate - You go your way and i"ll continue on mine...

 

Well actually track cars aren't that much quicker than street cars, especially these days with family cars needing speed limiters. Touring car racing once had to use what was right off the showroom floor you know, in the early 70s you were only allowed to change the tyres then hit the race track, was the rules.

The trick to circuit racing isn't going faster, it's slowing down less. You're both right, a lot of that is the pilot, a lot of it is what he's got to work with.
A lot of it is the pilot but don't kid yourself into thinking this represents the discovery of a new alien species. There are natural pilots and talented pilots but most aces will tell you they were just lucky. And everybody's luck runs out eventually.
No pilot is superior. It's not the primary factor otherwise you have a very clear logical fallacy.

That is to say anthropologist society ethic is that correlation does not infer causation when regarding statistical averages, if taking that approach the use of statistical averages to infer any kind of conclusions whatsoever is inherently erroneous. The only rationalé that pilot skill is a comparative statistical performance factor in average, is purely circumstantial. Could be the better pilot gets sun-blinded 30% of the time during a crucial moment. etc.


anyway even comparative performance measures are being largely misrepresented. You've often heard aeronautical authorities refer to terms like the performance envelope of an aircraft. That's what counts, not maximum performance specifications, which I know many here are aware of. Still, what the term basically means is average performance figures throughout a variety of conditions. The overall strengths and weakness of typical combat performance in the field.
Like some have said, cruise speeds of 150-250mph with maximum level speeds of about 350mph are the most the bulk of warbirds ever see in action, on average, and all piston birds are pretty similar about it. The variations are relatively minor, although they sound great in a sales brochure like "see our new 400mph fighter duck and weave like a bird for only $35,000 flyaway, order now!"

when in actual fact Mustangs run around at about 350mph and spend most of their time around 200mph. That would include in combat. And there's only a few mph difference between the bulk of warbirds in that regimé, it's just the best speeds for a piston design of that period to handle well and use fuel well and all that business. In jets it's 450-500mph for straight wings and 650mph for bent wings, the sweet handling spot. Hey and F-15 or Gnat all follow the same rule here. Foxbat handles like a Phantom, F-5 handles like a MiG-21, Hornet handles like a Fulcrum.

they've got character but the physics is a little departed from design, aeronautical design of specific aircraft are really more about influencing physics and don't have real command of it.

So there is certainly argument for levelling of performance ultimately between aircraft models of the same period and influenced design. But that performance envelope that gives it a character, that can be better or worse suited to one of those circumstances that can get an ace killed.

And that gentlemen, is a factor that swings the averages. General pilot training, looking after your vets, field conditions, logistics (<- big one affecting german efforts), all about swinging the averages. Each individual encounter though, by and of itself is up in the air. On that level, everything comes down to the pilot and his personal efforts to command the results.


Surprisingly perhaps none of these were the primary Allied doctrine. Attrition was. The ultimate in averages, making your enemy more average than your military by going through his vets while you train more replacements than he can.

 

Can you provide a reference for this information? Were they flying Army aircraft with no tail hooks or did they just jump into any old Navy plane (with no training)? Maybe they landed Army choppers?

 

As far as taking off, consider all the P-40's that launched from US carriers during Torch (I won't go into the Doolittle Raid, as they did train). During Torch, one of the P-40s had trouble, and couldn't make it to land. The pilot got it back down, almost in a stall. I will have to go through an extensive library to find that again. An RAF Spitfire being ferried to Malta by the Wasp did the same thing.

 

The only AAF plane that I am aware of that landed aboard a carrier was a P-51 that was modified with at tail hook for carrier suitability trials.

Many AAF aircraft were launched one way from carriers. Here are a couple of pictures of 318th FG P-47s launching from the USS Manilla Bay, 23 June 44 for delivery to Saipan.

View attachment 15441

 

a few even landed back on them (with no training).

The British also did it, again in an emergency situation. During the evacuation from Norway in June 1940, RAF Gladiators (biplanes) and Hurricanes landed on the carrier Glorious, all safely. Sadly most (all?) of the pilots were lost when Glorious was sunk shortly thereafter.

 

Weren't the best attributes of P51 and F4U essentially combined to create the A-1 Skyraider? Having a similar engine and armament to the F4U with the wings, better view, approximate range, and maneuverability of the P51?

I think there is something else people haven't touched on yet in this thread. That is the Navy pilots were flying out above the ocean miles away from their carriers. The F4U had to take a lot of damage to help guarantee the pilots could make it back to the carriers. A P51 had several options to land if it was damaged; fields, roads, etc.

[video=youtube;Grg9HwwfE5I]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Grg9HwwfE5I&fmt=22[/video]

[video=youtube;PvNIcSW0_Ns]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PvNIcSW0_Ns&fmt=22[/video]

Douglas A-1 Skyraider Wings Playlist...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZS_QtfAy9_0&list=PL3E41813D3086A57F&feature=mh_lolz

 

The Skyraider was developed as a single-seat dive/torpedo bomber. I don't know that the Corsair or Mustang had anything to do with it's development. The radial engine was common to all Navy aircraft at the time, Wildcat, Hellcat, Corsair, Dauntless, Helldiver, Avenger, Bearcat. They wanted the Skyraider to carry a heavy bomb load and have increased performance, it only made sense to stick the biggest radial available in it. I actuality the Wright-3350 engine the Skyraider was built around had been designed for the B-29 bomber. It carried a much heavier bombload than either the Corsair or Mustang, it's ordinance carrying capacity even exceeding the weight of the aircraft. They were well armored (much better than the Corsair or Mustang) which better suited them to the ground attack role. As for maneuverability, I haven't seen any direct tests that were done between the P-51 and F4U but there was testing done between the F4U and FW-190 and the Corsair was superior in all areas of maneuverability. There are a bunch of anecdotal comparisons between the P-51 and FW-190 and most felt the two were comparable. So I see no evidence that the Mustang was superior in this area. I also would be interested in what information you have as to the Skyraiders "better maneuverability".

 

You took me out of context. I did not say anything about better maneuverability.

 

It was not intentional. It does read like the Skyraider had the better maneverability of the P-51, but I accept that was not your intent.

 

USMCPrice is correct about the development of the A-1 Skyraider - it was never intended to have a fighter role, thus the F4U or P-51 had no bearing on its development. It was however, a tremendous aircraft. Its outstanding loiter time and load carrying capability kept it in operational use into the '70s, particularly in the SAR role.

Anyone interested in the A-1 should peruse The Official A-1 Skyraider Site.

 

The only thing connecting the AD-1 Skyraider to the F4U Corsair was the use of the Corsair's main shock struts of the first two production aircraft(then known as the Douglas BT2D-1 Dauntless II.

Given that the Skyraider was a product of Douglas, that it was called the "Dauntless II", and that it was intended to replace the original Dauntless. I would think that the "Able Dog" took the best attributes of the SBD Dauntless and improved upon them...

Another excellent Skyraider site: http://www.abledogs.com/

 

I see too many similarities amongst the three, but the F4U and P-51 were faster and flew higher than the A-1. I like all three