Pacific Fighters

I know this has been beat to death in other places, but I haven't seen much on here. If the United States brought more fighter aircraft to Europe from the Navy, mainly the F4U and the F6F, against the front-line German fighters, would we have had just as much success as with the P-51 and P-47? I know the English used the F4U on carriers on Atlantic duty, and we used the F6F during the invasion of Southern France, but there aren't as many examples as I can recall of direct combat. The F6F didn't quite reach 400 mph, but it was tough as nails and maneuverable. The F4U was probably the best front-line fighter at the end of the war after the various modifications, etc. Thoughts?

 

I'm sure they would have had a commendable combat record if deployed in great numbers. Of course it would be a criminal waste of resources as they would be over-engineered for the task asked of them, especially as there were more than capable models available that would not compromise logistics.

 

....and to add to Belasar's excellent appraisal, the Navy needed all they could get to face the Japanese.

 

Don't forget the temperature...Hot air is thin and so needs a larger wing area for the same lift in a cold climate...And naval planes have greater wing area in general due to the short take off runs required...put simply a naval aircraft isn't just any aircraft that's been put on a carrier...its DESIGNED for carrier takeoff and landings (strongn manufacture and strengthened gear) which adds weight...the radial wasn't as aerodynamic as the inlines but more reliable - at least at the time of decision of engine type) - So the fighter of Europe was a thouroghbred...the naval planes work horses.

 

Larger wings in general result in better aerodynamics correct?

 

More area for "lift" - but equals more drag, especially in the turn. One can clip the ends of the wings to increase performance but theres always a trade off...

 

Depends on the intended mission. The F-104 had wings only slightly larger than a handkerchief. It would go like hell in a straight line but took a couple of counties to turn around, hence the phrase "banking with intent to turn".

 

Over on j-aircraft there is a thread mentioning some comparisons of the F6F, F4U, and FW.
Here's the link:
Hellcat Vs. Corsair...

 

I don't think that is entirely correct...Parasitic drag is increased overall, yes. But, in a turn, induced drag is decreased, which will allow for a tighter sustained turn. Of course, there are several other factors at play here.

 

Of course this is general...depends on the size and shape of the wing...also the angle of attack set ...but its common sense that if your "sail" (wing profile) is bigger and you put it to the wind (turn) your sail will catch more wind...more drag.

 

All things being equal, aircraft designed to operate from carriers are at a disadvantage compared to land based aircraft because of the additional weight of stronger under carriage than necessary and folding wings.

Land based aircraft could also be designed to specialise in particular roles. Thus the Spitfire and Me109 were high altitude fighters and the Tempest and Fw190 were low altitude fighters. Aircraft designed as bomber interceptors such as the Typhoon and the Sturmbock Fw190 carried heavy cannons to shoot down big bombers with a short burst of fire. The P51 had outstanding endurance.

Was F4U really the best front line fighter in the world at the end of the War? in any altitude? Any mission? The next generation of fighters had the Me262 as a benchmark,not the F4U

 

As piston-engine fighters, the latest model of the F4U was from what I have read on the topic.

 

The Marines also used the F4U from land-based air strips, but I don't know if that would really make a difference in this argument.

 

"Just as much" may be the key point - what would be the value in bringing in additional fighter types that perform about as well as the ones already there? Remember our old friend logistics and his tiresome insistence that you never get something for nothing. Squadrons of Navy fighters would not be in addition to the P-47s or -51s, they would be in lieu of some of them. Total fighter strength would be the same, unless we cut back on some other aspect of our forces in Europe - in which case we could just as easily send more -47s or -51s. The training, production, and logistic pipelines would have to be adjusted long before the aircraft actually showed up in theater, including making sure the Navy and Marines had sufficient fighters for the Pacific. Unless there was some mission the F6Fs or F4Us were dramatically better at, it seems more trouble than it's worth.

 

A plane is only as capable as it's pilot, so the better trained Allied pilots would have an advantage already. Hellcat's were used in Europe by the Fleet Air Arm, and they did engage Luftwaffe aircraft with reasonable success, as Did Corsairs. So in a way your question actually happened. By 43' and 44', the Allies had total air supremacy in the Atlantic and Europe, so the few fighters the Corsairs and Hellcat's did encounter did not fair well against the Highly trained British pilots.

 

Moved to correct forum. Gaines

 

I expect these to be replaced with rail guns in the not too distant future...

 

Did you mean to post this in the Tank cannon's thread??

 

He gets so excited during these discussions...it's like watching my nephews...everything is still new to them.