Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

WWII Fighter Comparison II Corsair v Mustang.

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

  • Albany Rifles
    replied
    Originally posted by Stitch View Post
    Still do . . . . . .
    Don't disagree!

    Leave a comment:


  • Stitch
    replied
    Originally posted by Albany Rifles View Post
    Pratt & Whittney made some damn good engines.
    Still do . . . . . .

    Leave a comment:


  • 1979
    replied
    Originally posted by Albany Rifles View Post
    I know I have read of many instances of naval aircraft built at the Bethpage Ironworks with air cooled engines making it home with several cylinders shot away....same with some P-47s.

    Pratt & Whittney made some damn good engines.
    However, the fuselage mounted fuel tank and the hydraulic system was prone to leaks, which covered the pilots windshield.
    these were partially resolved in the field by covering the joints with ducktape.

    Leave a comment:


  • zraver
    replied
    Originally posted by Albany Rifles View Post
    I know I have read of many instances of naval aircraft built at the Bethpage Ironworks with air cooled engines making it home with several cylinders shot away....same with some P-47s.

    Pratt & Whittney made some damn good engines.
    Yup, P&W and Wright radials were the only engines allowed on carrier based aircraft for this reason. At first the Navy was willing to trade the reduced performance for the relaibility but then the NACA (National Advisory Committee on Aeronautics) hoods were developed and the performance loss was minimized and fully erased by the end of WWII.

    Liquid cooled max end of WWII
    P-51H 487mph
    Spitfire Mk XIV 465mph (RR Griffon 61 powered 2 stage super charger w/ 150 octane fuel and 25lbs boost)

    Radial max end of WWII
    TA-152 471mph
    P-47N 473mph
    F4U-4 445mph

    Leave a comment:


  • Albany Rifles
    replied
    I know I have read of many instances of naval aircraft built at the Bethpage Ironworks with air cooled engines making it home with several cylinders shot away....same with some P-47s.

    Pratt & Whittney made some damn good engines.

    Leave a comment:


  • zraver
    replied
    Originally posted by USSWisconsin View Post
    The arrester gear would be more work, but a stronger structure shouldn't be - it could be less (less flexing and fatigue). The lack of all that cooling system stuff, pipes, hoses, pumps, radiators, reservoirs - would reduce the number of engine related work significantly, and it would be one less liquid store they would have to maintain in logistics.
    True but more weiht means more bracing and bolts/rivets that need to be moved to even gaina ccess. Given the Corsais overall larger size the lower complexity is probalby offset vis a vis the Mustang.

    Leave a comment:


  • USSWisconsin
    replied
    The arrester gear would be more work, but a stronger structure shouldn't be - it could be less (less flexing and fatigue). The lack of all that cooling system stuff, pipes, hoses, pumps, radiators, reservoirs - would reduce the number of engine related work significantly, and it would be one less liquid store they would have to maintain in logistics.

    Leave a comment:


  • Stitch
    replied
    Originally posted by zraver View Post
    Possibly offset but the Corsair needing heavier construction for carrier landings and salt air exsposure. If not more complex, heavier.
    Definitely. IIRC, a carrier-based aircraft vs. a land-based aircraft was, on average, 12% heavier due to things like strengthened landing gear and the extra naval gear for landing on an aircraft carrier (arrestor hook, etc.).

    Leave a comment:


  • zraver
    replied
    Originally posted by USSWisconsin View Post
    I think that AC vs LC engines would be a factor here, the Corsair lacking the additional complexity of a LC engine could simplify maintenance.
    Possibly offset but the Corsair needing heavier construction for carrier landings and salt air exsposure. If not more complex, heavier.

    Leave a comment:


  • USSWisconsin
    replied
    I think that AC vs LC engines would be a factor here, the Corsair lacking the additional complexity of a LC engine could simplify maintenance.

    Leave a comment:


  • Big K
    replied
    what about the maintenance issues? which one is easier or faster or cheaper?

    Leave a comment:


  • Chogy
    replied
    One need also remember the fuel advantage of the Mustang... fuel burn, and the inherent advantage of the Mustang in this regard, would be telling overall given a large sample of fights. In some, there wouldn't be an issue. In others, Corsairs would be lost due to low fuel/inability to bugout situations.

    The radial vs. water-cooled is more applicable to ground attack, but also applies air to air. One lucky shot to the coolant system will bring down the Mustang.

    The standard internet numbers don't tell the whole story, IMO. We need to delve deeply into agility, energy, and also the ability of one (or the other) to enter a regime where combat can be accepted, or declined. This is a powerful tool, most obvious in the jets (Me-262) vs. prop debates. The jets can elect to disengage by simply flying level and pushing the throttle up. And they can choose when, where, and how to attack.

    For the two prop fighters, it isn't as clear, but it may be something as simple as outstanding service ceiling, the ability to smartly out-climb (and thus escape), the ability to dive into a transonic regime and use speed to get away, etc.

    Leave a comment:


  • 1979
    replied
    The corsair had a higher maximum lift coefficient than the mustang.
    2.10 vs 1.55
    you can tell by rearranging the stall speed equation.In level flight lift=weight.

    Vstall=square root of [ 2*weight/( air density*maximum lift coefficient*wing area)]
    Weight/wing area= wing loading
    Despite the higher wing loading,the Corsair was able to generate more lift for any given velocity, allowing it to bleed less energy in the turn.
    Last edited by 1979; 20 Mar 11,, 09:52.

    Leave a comment:


  • zraver
    replied
    Originally posted by Big K View Post
    Z,

    thanks for infos, but i am afraid that i'll continue asking :)

    what can you say about the structural differences between naval planes & land based ones? i know that naval ones should be stronger in order to absorb carrier landings shock?
    Not always, look at the fairy Swordfish or the Zero, bith very light weight construction with little reserves of structural strength. I am guessing the higher the landing speed, the more strength the air frame needs.

    Leave a comment:


  • Big K
    replied
    Z,

    thanks for infos, but i am afraid that i'll continue asking :)

    what can you say about the structural differences between naval planes & land based ones? i know that naval ones should be stronger in order to absorb carrier landings shock?

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X