Welcome to the WWII Forums! Log in or Sign up to interact with the community.

Pacific Fighters

Discussion in 'Aircraft' started by GunSlinger86, Aug 15, 2017.

  1. GunSlinger86

    GunSlinger86 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2013
    Messages:
    1,073
    Likes Received:
    36
    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?
     
  2. belasar

    belasar Court Jester Staff Member

    Joined:
    May 9, 2010
    Messages:
    8,503
    Likes Received:
    1,172
    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.
     
    JJWilson and USMCPrice like this.
  3. USMCPrice

    USMCPrice Idiot at Large

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2009
    Messages:
    4,617
    Likes Received:
    1,658
    Location:
    God's Country
    ....and to add to Belasar's excellent appraisal, the Navy needed all they could get to face the Japanese.
     
  4. CAC

    CAC Ace of Spades

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2010
    Messages:
    6,867
    Likes Received:
    1,365
    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.
     
    Last edited: Aug 16, 2017
  5. GunSlinger86

    GunSlinger86 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2013
    Messages:
    1,073
    Likes Received:
    36
    Larger wings in general result in better aerodynamics correct?
     
  6. CAC

    CAC Ace of Spades

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2010
    Messages:
    6,867
    Likes Received:
    1,365
    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...
     
  7. mcoffee

    mcoffee Son-of-a-Gun(ner)

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2009
    Messages:
    1,138
    Likes Received:
    319
    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".
     
  8. lwd

    lwd Ace

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2007
    Messages:
    12,312
    Likes Received:
    1,234
    Location:
    Michigan
    Over on j-aircraft there is a thread mentioning some comparisons of the F6F, F4U, and FW.
    Here's the link:
    Hellcat Vs. Corsair...
     
  9. Takao

    Takao Ace

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2010
    Messages:
    9,212
    Likes Received:
    2,090
    Location:
    Reading, PA
    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.
     
  10. CAC

    CAC Ace of Spades

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2010
    Messages:
    6,867
    Likes Received:
    1,365
    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.
     
  11. Sheldrake

    Sheldrake Member

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2013
    Messages:
    1,660
    Likes Received:
    476
    Location:
    London UK
    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
     
    green slime likes this.
  12. GunSlinger86

    GunSlinger86 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2013
    Messages:
    1,073
    Likes Received:
    36
    As piston-engine fighters, the latest model of the F4U was from what I have read on the topic.
     
  13. GunSlinger86

    GunSlinger86 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2013
    Messages:
    1,073
    Likes Received:
    36
    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.
     
  14. OpanaPointer

    OpanaPointer I Point at Opana Staff Member Patron   WW2|ORG Editor

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2008
    Messages:
    12,765
    Likes Received:
    2,899
    They used the F4U because that's what the squadron had.

    The carrier birds were "ruggedized" (not my word) for carrier landings that European planes didn't need. The logic of logistics might say that having the unnecessary tail hook and sturdier than needed landing gear would militate against using carrier aircraft solely on land.
     
  15. Carronade

    Carronade Ace

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    2,674
    Likes Received:
    528
    "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.
     
  16. JJWilson

    JJWilson Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2017
    Messages:
    1,408
    Likes Received:
    452
    Location:
    Arizona U.S.A
    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.
     
  17. gtblackwell

    gtblackwell Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2006
    Messages:
    2,271
    Likes Received:
    673
    Location:
    Auburn, Alabama, US
    Moved to correct forum. Gaines
     
    Last edited: Aug 1, 2018
    JJWilson likes this.
  18. CAC

    CAC Ace of Spades

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2010
    Messages:
    6,867
    Likes Received:
    1,365
    I expect these to be replaced with rail guns in the not too distant future...
     
  19. JJWilson

    JJWilson Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2017
    Messages:
    1,408
    Likes Received:
    452
    Location:
    Arizona U.S.A
    Did you mean to post this in the Tank cannon's thread?? :D
     
  20. Takao

    Takao Ace

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2010
    Messages:
    9,212
    Likes Received:
    2,090
    Location:
    Reading, PA
    He gets so excited during these discussions...it's like watching my nephews...everything is still new to them.
     
    JJWilson likes this.

Share This Page