F4U Corsair vs. P-51 Mustang

As the troops were serving overseas, yes those would be considered exports to other countries.

But, the crux off your argument was that the Americans did not increase their farm production, which they clearly did

Sorry, my friend, but much of your anti-American material is half-truths and bald-faced lies, as has been proven.

Yes, you are wearing [SIZE=10.5pt]rose colored patriotic distorted glasses...They are just not American made.[/SIZE]

I'm sorry, but..."during the occupation of Japan. allied pilots and just about all allied fighter aircraft got to play with each other. the F4U came out trumps. it could and did out fight every other fighter in mock dogfights"...Makes no mention of the quality of pilots that participated in these mock dogfights, nor the quality of the planes. In fact the only plane mentioned is the Corsair.

As it is, this is only anecdotal evidence, and I was hoping for you to elaborate on these mock dogfights, but that it apparently not forthcoming.

 

that's not how i remembered it. in "samurai", the hellcat was the worse, being the most maneuverable navy plane there was. they (the zeros) survived or shot down hellcats mainly due to the pilot's clumsiness. the mustang surpassed the zero by an even bigger margin according to him. as to the the p-38 and the corsair, he mentioned the obvious strong points like speed, climb and dive but clearly did not fear them as much as the hellcat and the mustang.

he test flew the reppu which, though it could go only up to 395mph, was able to fly better at 30,000 and could probably out-fly a mustang.

after the war, sakai was invited to fly the mustang after which he announced it was his new favorite over the zero. what a turncoat!

 

The Sherman didn't have just a speed advantage. It was reliable, relatively easy to maintain, and easy to modify.

 

1 the US increased food production after the reduction in food production from the depression. not over the few years america was involved in the war. What america did advance in was the number of people involved in food production. this was reduced. America did not have to increase food production anyway. Americans were not starving nor was there a blockade of the US, or the nations america imported foods from.
2 a typical Yank reaction, america save the world. reality imposing on american propaganda, looks the same as the soviet union to everyone who is not american or soviet.

3 reread my post, the pom's Aussies and kiwis picked there pilots, the yanks, both navy and army just took who ever was the next rotation. so the yanks had who ever while everyone else had there cream.
4 anecdotal. well go read a book. plenty out there, and guess what not all books are written by Yanks. -- reality check

 

A quick bit of research indicates that this is counter factual. If you look at the period starting in say 1938 beef, pork, chicken, and wheat all increased in production over the course of the war and by the end were exceeding the levels even prior to the depression. The reference to American food imports is a bit of a red herring as well. The US in that period was a net food exporter and there was considerable demand for additional food both from our allies and the world at large. I.e. it's sort of like saying that the US didn't need to produce more tanks and planes than it needed for its own forces.

 

Rather difficult to tell who is saying what in the above. PLS try and make proper use of the quote function or at least differentiate text in some rational way.

 

Now this is what I call comedy.

Moving the goalposts to suit your needs? From WW2 to the Great Depression in a few simple keystrokes.

When, in the mid 20th century, were the Poms, Aussies, or Kiwis ever "starving"? Granted, I will give you the Bengal Famine of 1943, but they were not Poms, Aussies, or Kiwis...

What country was blockaded during the Great Depression?

Typical anti-Yank reaction...Beg for US help during times of troubles, and then curse the US when it's help is no longer necessary. It's gotten old, very old.

Why? It is nothing but bollocks...

Contradicted, at least pertaining to the Aussies, here:
https://www.airforce.gov.au/raafmuseum/aircrewaca/aih/aih6-barnes.pdf

So much for you "cream"...Looks like your "cream", is nothing but "sour cream".

I have read plenty, and not all written by Yanks.

I would extend the same advice to you, with the addition to stop reading, and by extension, posting, works of fiction.

 

77 Sqn had Dick Creswell...I great pilot and leader (and a mate of Clive Caldwell)...even the Yanks loved him and was the only non-American to be "given" a jet aircraft by them, and even asked to tag along on some sorties (Korea)...if we are talking 77 Sqn...we are talking plenty of cream.
Of course 75 Sqn is my squadron...Go 75!

 

Respectfully CAC, that was not Clean's argument.

Earlier he had posted...

Clean's statement has been proven to be false & untrue...Hence, his cream has turned sour.

 

Ah sorry mate...always coming in at the end of arguments! Gave me a chance to mention Cresswell anyway : )

 

No need to be sorry when Dick Cresswell is mentioned.

 

@ ACE

i know it upsets your ego as not being what you believe to be the most knowledgeable person posting here.
you can twist my posts and post links to what you want. today you have not been successful in countering my original statements.
accusing me of being ani Yank, hardly but you can accuse me of being not blinded buy your opinion you posted.

"Typical anti-Yank reaction...Beg for US help during times of troubles, and then curse the US when it's help is no longer necessary. It's gotten old, very old."

​if you actually believe what you write then you are in a very sad place. there is no denieing the US contribution, it was not insignificant. but nor was its as decisive as you would like to think it was.
considering this thread started as a comparison between two american built aircraft. both brilliant in there own ways but conceived from totally different angles and philosophies. and that the only real direct actual comparison between these two aircraft, done by equally experienced pilots from the same thearter was not by Americans but by aussies and kiwis must be painful for you.

​NB the poms had griffon powered 5 bladed clipped spits. these could out clime and out dive anything. reinforced BoB thinking. but the war had changed where tempest and typhoon far exceed operational requirements than the spit. and is more inline with the F4u. it needs not much imagination that the poms married the tempest and fu4 to get the fury, taking the good points of each

 

Respectfully Clean, you are the one reading into it what you want to believe...

"here was a combination of younger and less experienced people like
me who had come along late in the war and not seen much action,..."

Which is further reinforced with

IE inexperienced...

Don't believe me?

http://www.3squadron.org.au/subpages/Profile_Fred_Barnes.htm
So, his posting to 77 Squadron in June, 1945, was essentially his first time flying an actual combat fighter, the Kittyhawk.

Finally...
"A few of the pilots who had not seen service on fighter
aircraft before, had some trouble making the transition."
IE No experience...

Everything I have posted contradicts what you claim...

Novice, I recommend you actually do a modicum of research on the topic before responding...

 

@NOVICE

I certainly don't lay claim to being the most knowledgeable person here, so my ego is far from upset. There are several members more knowledgeable than I, which I will freely admit to.

However, you are not one of them...

Your posts require no twisting to be shown as the bald-faced lies that they are.

Yet, you denied the US contribution here: http://www.ww2f.com/topic/2997-f4u-corsair-vs-p-51-mustang/page-5#entry652254

But, then quickly backtracked when you were called on it...

So, yes...You must live in a very sad place, for that would explain your rather dour outlook on life.

Not painful, but downright hilarious...

Are you talking about the experienced fighter pilots, the inexperienced fighter pilots, or the pilots with no fighter experience what so ever? Which level of experience are you talking about?

As I have pointed out to you, the Aussie pilots' experience varied greatly...

 

It looks like this is an old thread but for what it is worth History shows us that the F4U was a better piston driven plan than the P-51 and is arguably the best piston engine military plane of all time. There is only one head to head combat matchup between the P-51 and the F4U, which resulted in the P-51 being shot down with it's pilot dying when his parachute failed to open. Granted, that could be chalked up to pilot skill so the telling feature would be the production itself. The Corsair was produced from 1940 to 1953 making it the longest produced piston engine driven plane of all time. In contrast the last P-51 was produced in 1945. So historical production indicates the Corsair with it's longe production history by eight years shows that military purchasers had a need for the F4U long after the need for the P-51 was no longer produced.

 

Question: which of those two can intercept a B-17 over Europe or a B-29 over Tokyo above 30,000 feet, and still mix it up with whoever's escorting those bombers?

 

Which could be routinely launched and recovered, repeat as necessary, from an aircraft carrier, be it a CVB, CV, CVL, or CVE?

See? It is easy to stack the deck with the right kind of question.

 

Intercept or escort?

Answer for either would be both. The F4U-1 & F4U-4 critical altitude was a little above 38,000 feet & in fighter overload condition at 60% rated power had quite a good bit of range.

Edit - Although, if you are looking for a bomber killer, it would be the F4U-1C or F4U-4B, with 4 20mm cannon. 4 20mms were tried on some of the early Allison engined Mustangs, but those were not designed for high altitude air-to-air combat.