Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

WWII Fighter Comparison II Corsair v Mustang.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • zraver
    replied
    Those armored deck carriers were effective though. They saved the RN from the fate of American ships like the Bunker Hill, Yorktown, Lexington, Wasp, Hornet and Langley all sunk by air. Except for the unarmored Hermes, RN losses were to gun fire or submarines not enemy air action.

    Leave a comment:


  • clackers
    replied
    Originally posted by Albany Rifles View Post
    Regardless, the British aricraft industry was unable to build an effective long range naval fighter during the war and had to turn to US sources...and it was the FAA which figured out how to effectively land a Corsair on a carrier....the curved landing approach.
    You're quite right, AR, they clipped 8 inches off each of those gull wings to allow better storage below decks in the British fashion, and forgave its poor pilot visibility and tendency to bounce on landing.

    Part of the reason for the lousy state of British naval aviation were exercises in the 1930s (pre-radar, of course) that suggested a few fighters stood little chance of stopping inbound enemy aircraft. RN carriers tended to assume enemy aircraft would 'get through', and as a result were armoured and depended on AA gunnery from themselves and their escorts. Three weeks into the war, the commander of Ark Royal put his Skua fighters below deck with their tanks drained of petrol.

    It's hard to turn around a mistake of this magnitude, so by the end of the war, the US provided over half of the Fleet Air Arm's aircraft, with Hellcats and Corsairs supplementing the Seafires and Firebrands, and the TBM Avenger being preferred to the Fairey Barracuda.

    Leave a comment:


  • Gun Grape
    replied
    P-51 shot down during the Soccer War by Corsair also. After the P-51 was shot down they were grounded. Those that were flown by US mercs refused to dogfight and would fly away. The Honduras AF ruled the sky in their F4Us

    Leave a comment:


  • zraver
    replied
    Originally posted by Gun Grape View Post
    the F4U did prove its superiority by shooting down P-51s during the last air combat of WW2 planes.

    No Corsairs were lost to Mustangs.

    The Corsairs also had a longer production run. From 1940-1952.

    Flew from Carrier decks until 1965.

    Shot down a MIG-15

    And is the official airplane of Connecticut.

    The Marine Corps plane wins
    The last air combat between WWII era warbirds was Corsair v Corsair and the Corsair proved even better at shooting down the Corsair than it was at shooting down Mustangs.

    Leave a comment:


  • Gun Grape
    replied
    the F4U did prove its superiority by shooting down P-51s during the last air combat of WW2 planes.

    No Corsairs were lost to Mustangs.

    The Corsairs also had a longer production run. From 1940-1952.

    Flew from Carrier decks until 1965.

    Shot down a MIG-15

    And is the official airplane of Connecticut.

    The Marine Corps plane wins

    Leave a comment:


  • Albany Rifles
    replied
    Originally posted by zraver View Post
    ????

    The Firefly did not enter service until 44. By then the FAA was using Gruman martlets (wildcats) and hellcats and Supermarine Seafires with the previous Fairey Fulmar beign relegated to recon and torpedo bomber crew training.
    I meant to say Fulmar...but the info I have said the Firefly entered FAA service in 1943.

    Regardless, the British aricraft industry was unable to build an effective long range naval fighter during the war and had to turn to US sources...and it was the FAA which figured out how to effectively land a Corsair on a carrier....the curved landing approach.

    Leave a comment:


  • 1979
    replied
    Originally posted by Stitch View Post
    Would the superior L/D ratio of the Mustang be atributable to it's laminar-flow wing?
    Imho no.
    appendix-c
    Pi= 3.1415
    aspect ratio A = 5.83
    airplane efficiency factor epsilon = 0.7588
    Zero-lift drag coefficient= 0.0163

    The sailplanes Chogy mentioned do it by using very high aspect ratio wings,
    in the Mustang is because of the zero-lift drag coefficient.

    Leave a comment:


  • zraver
    replied
    Originally posted by Albany Rifles View Post
    Absolutely...and it was used with deadly effect by landbased USMC and USN squadrons in 1943-44.

    As I recall the problem was in the oleo struts being too stiff. The FAA figured it out and got them on their big deck carriers first...anything to repalce the Fairey Firefly!


    ????

    The Firefly did not enter service until 44. By then the FAA was using Gruman martlets (wildcats) and hellcats and Supermarine Seafires with the previous Fairey Fulmar beign relegated to recon and torpedo bomber crew training.

    Leave a comment:


  • Stitch
    replied
    Originally posted by Chogy View Post
    That table is a nice find. It's interesting that the P-51 L/D max is superior even to light general aviation aircraft like a Cessna. But one must also remember that the shape of the L/D curve is telling. L/D max occurs at a particular airspeed at a given weight. Deviate from that airspeed, and the L/D changes. I'm suspecting that the P-51 has a generous curve in that L/D remains high. Draggier aircraft can take a much greater hit in L/D as the airspeed varies. More lift, less drag, equates to greater performance and less energy losses while maneuvering.

    The very best sailplanes have an L/D approaching 60, meaning one mile of altitude allows for 60 miles travel in still air. Pretty amazing. A sailplane at 16,000 feet or so can glide for nearly 180 miles.
    Would the superior L/D ratio of the Mustang be atributable to it's laminar-flow wing?

    Leave a comment:


  • Albany Rifles
    replied
    Originally posted by clackers View Post
    Yes, AR, and the Corsair eventually 'got there' as a carrier fighter. Its early problems meant that the first to try it as such was the Royal Navy, which despite having been a pioneer in naval aviation went through much of the war with very poor aircraft of its own design.
    Absolutely...and it was used with deadly effect by landbased USMC and USN squadrons in 1943-44.

    As I recall the problem was in the oleo struts being too stiff. The FAA figured it out and got them on their big deck carriers first...anything to repalce the Fairey Firefly!

    Leave a comment:


  • clackers
    replied
    Originally posted by Albany Rifles View Post
    The Corsair was a naval fighter which was designed for fleet defense; the Mustang was an interceptor which became a strategic bomber escort. Both excelled in the designed roles and also were used effectively in other roles.
    Yes, AR, and the Corsair eventually 'got there' as a carrier fighter. Its early problems meant that the first to try it as such was the Royal Navy, which despite having been a pioneer in naval aviation went through much of the war with very poor aircraft of its own design.

    Leave a comment:


  • 1979
    replied
    Originally posted by Chogy View Post
    It's interesting that the P-51 L/D max is superior even to light general aviation aircraft like a Cessna. But one must also remember that the shape of the L/D curve is telling. L/D max occurs at a particular airspeed at a given weight. Deviate from that airspeed, and the L/D changes. I'm suspecting that the P-51 has a generous curve in that L/D remains high.
    If I'm doing the math right , the mustang enjoys a L/D ratio above 10, between 113 mph and 284 mph. ( at sea level and 9200 lb weight)
    Originally posted by Chogy View Post
    The very best sailplanes have an L/D approaching 60, meaning one mile of altitude allows for 60 miles travel in still air. Pretty amazing. A sailplane at 16,000 feet or so can glide for nearly 180 miles.
    plus thermals

    Leave a comment:


  • Chogy
    replied
    Originally posted by 1979 View Post
    14.6 according to app-a2.
    Not sure about the corsair,I guess similar to the F6 Hellcat.
    That table is a nice find. It's interesting that the P-51 L/D max is superior even to light general aviation aircraft like a Cessna. But one must also remember that the shape of the L/D curve is telling. L/D max occurs at a particular airspeed at a given weight. Deviate from that airspeed, and the L/D changes. I'm suspecting that the P-51 has a generous curve in that L/D remains high. Draggier aircraft can take a much greater hit in L/D as the airspeed varies. More lift, less drag, equates to greater performance and less energy losses while maneuvering.

    The very best sailplanes have an L/D approaching 60, meaning one mile of altitude allows for 60 miles travel in still air. Pretty amazing. A sailplane at 16,000 feet or so can glide for nearly 180 miles.

    Leave a comment:


  • 1979
    replied
    Originally posted by Chogy View Post
    Correct on the "G" analysis. A boeing 777 at 300 knots and 2G has the exact same turn radius as an F-16 at 300 knots and 2G. What counts is the lift and drag, which varies with shape, wing loading, powerplant, and airfoil. One airplane will have an energy surplus vs. the other.

    The P-51 shines from it's very high L/D, but the Corsair is no slouch.
    14.6 according to app-a2.
    Not sure about the corsair,I guess similar to the F6 Hellcat.

    Leave a comment:


  • Chogy
    replied
    Originally posted by USSWisconsin View Post
    Thats awesome Chogy! Beautiful machine work!
    Thank you. :) I couldn't resist. It is a blatant thread-jack, and I shouldn't have done it, but I love radial engines, ever since I saw and heard them as a kid at the Oshkosh air show.

    When a young person first looks at WW2 fighters, it is always the sleek liquid-cooled airplanes that attract they eye. The radials don't look as fast or potent. But they deliver the same (or better) power to weight, and have the advantage of a simpler and more rugged construction.

    Merlin: power-to-weight ratio of .96 hp/lb
    R-2800 CB16/CB3: Weight/HP Ratio (dry) - 1.175/1
    R-2800 CB16/CB3: Weight/HP Ratio (wet) - 0.98/1

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X