What was the better WWII Fighter P51 Mustang or F4U Corsair? (2 Viewers)

[desk11desk12]

Okay the F4U orsair was a carrier plane and the P51 wasn't. However, aside from that what was the better fighter and why?

I like them both and have always wondered.

Carlos

 

[uksubs]

The Spitfire :tongue: saw action from 1939 till the end of the war
Joke

 

[The Military Workshop]

The Spitfire :tongue: saw action from 1939 till the end of the war
Joke

Neil,
Clearly you have never heard of the legendary Boomerang {sm4} and 2nd place would of course be the Wirraway {sm3}
Pretty sure both would have seen some action somewhere but their Aces were not ones to brag :wink2:
Brett

 

[uksubs]

Nice one Brett

 

[Jack]

Neil,
Clearly you have never heard of the legendary Boomerang {sm4} and 2nd place would of course be the Wirraway {sm3}
Pretty sure both would have seen some action somewhere but their Aces were not ones to brag :wink2:
Brett

Brett, Brett, Brett

The English - we rely on you and when war breaks out no Spitfires for Australia because hey, we won't need them. Singapore will protect us. Then we buy our first jet fighters and no, we don't need the Sabre, we can get by with the Meteor!!

The answer to the question is, of course, the Mustang!!

Jack

 

[Mitch]

Corsair. The P51 was an average aircraft until it was given God's engine the merlin.
Mitch

 

[lancer]

The answer here is one of POV. If you were a B-17 crewman or a Luftwaffe fighter pilot, the answer is the P-51, hands-down. If, on the other hand, you were a mud-marine fighting on Iwo or Peleilu, or a Japanese fighter pilot, the answer would be the F4U, no contest. Time and place.:wink2: -- Al

 

[uksubs]

The answer here is one of POV. If you were a B-17 crewman or a Luftwaffe fighter pilot, the answer is the P-51, hands-down. If, on the other hand, you were a mud-marine fighting on Iwo or Peleilu, or a Japanese fighter pilot, the answer would be the F4U, no contest. Time and place.:wink2: -- Al

Spot on Al , who the better pilot on the day has the biggest impact to fair

 

[The Military Workshop]

The answer here is one of POV. If you were a B-17 crewman or a Luftwaffe fighter pilot, the answer is the P-51, hands-down. If, on the other hand, you were a mud-marine fighting on Iwo or Peleilu, or a Japanese fighter pilot, the answer would be the F4U, no contest. Time and place.:wink2: -- Al

Al,
I think the Luftwaffe fighter pilot would prefer going up against a Boomerang. However much would depend upon his recovery time after his initial hysterical outburst of incredulous laughter.
Brett

 

[The Military Workshop]

Brett, Brett, Brett

The English - we rely on you and when war breaks out no Spitfires for Australia because hey, we won't need them. Singapore will protect us. Then we buy our first jet fighters and no, we don't need the Sabre, we can get by with the Meteor!!

The answer to the question is, of course, the Mustang!!

Jack

What are you complaining about ? I am sure the Meteor deal was a buy one get two free deal ^&grin

 

[lancer]

Al,
I think the Luftwaffe fighter pilot would prefer going up against a Boomerang. However much would depend upon his recovery time after his initial hysterical outburst of incredulous laughter.
Brett

Wartime necessity and improvisation are the mothers of invention. The Boomerang filled a need, even if it wasn't a Spitfire. Considering it was built from nothing, during a war, it might have been worse. -- Al

 

[binder001]

The P51 (Merlin engined versions) was probably superior for bomber escort and at altitudes over 20,000ft. The Corsair was likely equal or better below 20,000 ft. As a fighter the outcome would be dictated by pilot skill or tactical advantage. The Corsair was a better bomber/close support aircraft. Not only did it have good lift capacity but that radial engine is much more resistant to ground fire than the liquid-cooled Merlin. So the "better" aircraft would depend on what you expect of it. The airplane needs to fit the mission. The P51 was lauded after the Merlin-engined versions grew in numbers in Europe (spring of 1944 onwards) whre it served as a bomber escort. The P51 didn't fare quite so well in Korea where it was primarily a fighter-bomber.

By the way, for trivia the P51 could operate off an aircraft carrier. The USS Shangi La conducted flying experiments in 1944 or 45. There was no need for the P51 as a naval aircraft, it was just an experiment. Conversely, the F4U was developed as a carrier fighter but was initially restricted to operating from land bases as the long nose made visibility a problem on landing approach to a carrier. The British Fleet Air Arm develpoed a landing pattern for the Corsait that allowed it to operate safely from carrier decks.

 

[theBaron]

It's a debate that goes on ad infinitum (or ad nauseam) on the scale modeling sites, the history sites, the airplane fan sites. It's tough to objectify. On the one hand, the P-51 provided the 8th Air Force with the long-range escort it needed for missions deep into Germany. On the other hand, with its liquid-cooled engine, it was vulnerable in low-altitude work. The F4U was a fast bird, too, fastest Navy aircraft in level flight, but it was a little more rugged. Both soldiered on, of course, in Korea.

If I remember correctly, F4U pilots racked up a better kill-to-loss ratio than the P-51 did.

As I said, tough to objectify.

Prost!
Brad

 

[Phantom Warrior]

It's an impossible to answer question. The Corsair had slightly better performance stats than the Mustang (speed, rate of climb, bomb load) and with it's radial engine was more rugged. It's only when the question becomes mission specific is there any hope to come up with an answer. For high altitude long range bomber escorts and high altitude dogfighting, the Mustang performs better. It has the range, ceiling and performance on high. The Corsair outperforms the Mustang at low and mid-elevation dogfighting and on ground attack missions with it's big bomb load and ruggedness.

That also suggests how a Mustang vs Corsair would come out.

Terry

 

[lancer]

As has been said on here, ultimately it is the man in the cockpit who really makes the difference. -- Al

 

[Ruggles]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GQCYG0C89uk&feature=player_embedded

^&grin

 

[Harper (aka Spitfrnd)]

Speaking of the Corsair and models, how's this for a truly awe inspiring 1/15 example?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ya4h8yHdgFc&feature=player_detailpage

I have watched this gentlemen's work for some time and it is indeed amazing. He says in the comments below that he will be doing a series in 1/24 and 1/32. Now that would be something to see.

 

[TomB]

Wartime necessity and improvisation are the mothers of invention. The Boomerang filled a need, even if it wasn't a Spitfire. Considering it was built from nothing, during a war, it might have been worse. -- Al

The Boomerang turned out to be a good ground support aircraft.....hopeless as a fighter ...it was powered by the DC3 engine which was made in Aust at the time....There is a restored Boomerang flying in Aust at the moment.....TomB

 

[Rob]

As has been said on here, ultimately it is the man in the cockpit who really makes the difference. -- Al

Very well said Al, it's why we won the Battle of Britain.

Rob

 

[Phantom Warrior]

As has been said on here, ultimately it is the man in the cockpit who really makes the difference. -- Al

Very well said Al, it's why we won the Battle of Britain.

Rob

In a one-on-one fight an experienced and skilled pilot can sometimes overcome the shortcomings of a plane with better flying skills and tactics. But over the course of a months long air engagement, it's the planes that make the difference, followed by the tactics. I would rate pilot quality as 3rd.

Britain won the Battle of Britain because of their planes which were a match for the German aircraft and because the use of radar allowed them to intercept the incoming Me109s and bombers. Without radar, the length of time those early war aircraft took to reach altitude and get to an intercept would have greatly limited the chance of driving off the Me109's and getting attacks in on the bombers. It would have been hit and miss to intercept.

In terms of the man in the cockpit, the Luftwaffe pilots greatly exceeded the British and Commonwealth pilots in experience and training. The short range of the Me109 put them at a disadvantage having to fight over England but was not a disadvantage for the even shorter ranged Spitfire fighting over it's own backyard. The location of the Battle also gave the Brits a huge advantage in recovering shot down pilots.

Terry