Which was the better plane? The P-51 couldn't take off from a carrier from what I understand, which is why they didn't play a major part in the Pacific Theater. The P-51 was around before the Corsair, and I'm only guessing that it would have been replaced in Europe by the Corsair had it been superior. I may have answered my own question, but thought I would chime in here for other opinions.
Post Reply
1 of 1
F4U Corsair vs. P-51 Mustang
7,029 Views |
13 Replies |
Last: 5 yr ago by Rabid Cougar
Also, is anyone aware of the P-51 being used in the Pacific, or the Corsair being used in Europe?
From Spielberg's "Empire of the Sun" so it must be true
InnerCityAg said:
Also, is anyone aware of the P-51 being used in the Pacific, or the Corsair being used in Europe?
Had to look it up, and to paraphrase the wiki article; it saw service with the Nationalist Chinese and also after the capture of Iwo Jima escorted B29s to Japan. Late comer to the PTO, not arriving until 1944 and gradually numbers increased after defeat of Nazi Germany
Also interesting to read that their was some attempt to fly P-51s off of carriers with testing being done but the capture of Iwo Jima and Okinawa coupled by the long range of the Mustang made it a moot point as they were to be used as escorts for the bombers off of carriers before capturing the closer airfield on the islands
The F4U has always been my favorite WWII aircraft after watching Black Sheep Squadron re-runs with my dad back when the History channel actually gave a damn about History.
Trick question, both of these are the wrong answer. The P-47 is the correct answer.
A quick online search shows that: The Mustang had 4950 kills vs the Corsair's 2140 kills. While the Mustang couldn't take off from carriers, the Corsair had an early reputation for difficulty landing on them. As a result, only 15% of Corsair sorties were flown from carriers and most of its inventory was diverted to the Marines who used it as a land based fighter-bomber, delivering 70% of the bombs dropped by US fighters during WWII. So, my conclusion is that a P-51 vs F4U comparison is mostly apples to oranges as these two excellent aircraft were largely used for different purposes.InnerCityAg said:
Which was the better plane? The P-51 couldn't take off from a carrier from what I understand, which is why they didn't play a major part in the Pacific Theater. The P-51 was around before the Corsair, and I'm only guessing that it would have been replaced in Europe by the Corsair had it been superior. I may have answered my own question, but thought I would chime in here for other opinions.
There's no definitive answer to this question. Disclaimer, my dad flew Mustangs with the highest scoring P-51 Fighter Group in Europe, so I am biased. He flew with such well known aces as George Preddy and John C Meyer.
If air-to-air combat is your only measure, then the P-51 is the superior aircraft. But there are so many different measures, it's difficult to say one is better than the other. Both had kill ratios better than 11:1, and I don't believe that was surpassed by any other fighter. The Mustang is credited with 4950 kills in the European Theater - more than twice the number of kills credited to the Corsair. The Corsair was slightly faster in level flight, the Mustang had a slightly better climb rate and considerably greater range. The Corsair could handle a bigger bomb load.
Some would argue that the best fighter of WW2 was the F6 Hellcat - it was certainly the highest scoring fighter in air-to-air combat with over 5200 kills. The Mustang was second behind the Hellcat.
All that said, there are other factors that should be considered, such as opportunity to engage enemy aircraft, what type of enemy aircraft, how skilled were the enemy pilots, etc. Early in the war, both Germany and Japan had highly skilled pilots due to their combat experience in Russia and China respectively. Late in the war it was a different story.
Also the mission the aircraft was designed for and the mission it was ultimately most used for. There is no question that the Mustang was designed for air superiority, and once the crappy Allison engine was replaced with the Rolls Royce Merlin engine (P-51B and later models) it achieved that purpose.
My personal opinion is that the P-47 is a better comparison to the Corsair, considering both are big heavy aircraft, both are formidable air-to-air fighters that excelled in air-to-ground operations. The Mustang was better than either of the against enemy fighters, and was very capable air-to-ground, although it couldn't take quite the beating the other two could.
I've been lucky in my 70 years to be a spectator to so many discussions just like this one, listening to my dad and his contemporaries from all services argue facts and tell stories. There aren't very many of those WW2 fighter pilots around to argue the point these days. During the years my dad faithfully attended 8th AF and 352nd FG reunions, I was fortunate to meet and listen to many of these great men. Even they could never agree on which aircraft was the best.
If air-to-air combat is your only measure, then the P-51 is the superior aircraft. But there are so many different measures, it's difficult to say one is better than the other. Both had kill ratios better than 11:1, and I don't believe that was surpassed by any other fighter. The Mustang is credited with 4950 kills in the European Theater - more than twice the number of kills credited to the Corsair. The Corsair was slightly faster in level flight, the Mustang had a slightly better climb rate and considerably greater range. The Corsair could handle a bigger bomb load.
Some would argue that the best fighter of WW2 was the F6 Hellcat - it was certainly the highest scoring fighter in air-to-air combat with over 5200 kills. The Mustang was second behind the Hellcat.
All that said, there are other factors that should be considered, such as opportunity to engage enemy aircraft, what type of enemy aircraft, how skilled were the enemy pilots, etc. Early in the war, both Germany and Japan had highly skilled pilots due to their combat experience in Russia and China respectively. Late in the war it was a different story.
Also the mission the aircraft was designed for and the mission it was ultimately most used for. There is no question that the Mustang was designed for air superiority, and once the crappy Allison engine was replaced with the Rolls Royce Merlin engine (P-51B and later models) it achieved that purpose.
My personal opinion is that the P-47 is a better comparison to the Corsair, considering both are big heavy aircraft, both are formidable air-to-air fighters that excelled in air-to-ground operations. The Mustang was better than either of the against enemy fighters, and was very capable air-to-ground, although it couldn't take quite the beating the other two could.
I've been lucky in my 70 years to be a spectator to so many discussions just like this one, listening to my dad and his contemporaries from all services argue facts and tell stories. There aren't very many of those WW2 fighter pilots around to argue the point these days. During the years my dad faithfully attended 8th AF and 352nd FG reunions, I was fortunate to meet and listen to many of these great men. Even they could never agree on which aircraft was the best.
BigJim49 AustinNowDallas
Joined:
Jun 24, 2001
Posts:
17,329
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Relative flew Corsair during Korean War . He said new jets were so fast they were of little use to help our ground troops!
Corsairs were used to help rescue our guys trapped at Chosin ! Napalmed Chinese on both sides of the reservoir !
Corsairs were used to help rescue our guys trapped at Chosin ! Napalmed Chinese on both sides of the reservoir !
BigJim49AustinnowDallas
Corsair was better suited to CAS than the Mustang. Radiators are ground fire magnets.
Good point, when a Japanese pilot was shot down it was largely over open ocean or at least near an enemy held island. When a German pilot was shot down it was over his home country and many returned to service some losing multiple aircraft. That leads to a larger institutional knowledge base that the Japaneses didn't have access to.JR69 said:
All that said, there are other factors that should be considered, such as opportunity to engage enemy aircraft, what type of enemy aircraft, how skilled were the enemy pilots, etc. Early in the war, both Germany and Japan had highly skilled pilots due to their combat experience in Russia and China respectively. Late in the war it was a different story.
As a result the Germans were putting highly skilled pilots into the air right up to the end of the war and were more limited by access to functioning aircraft than pilots. The Japanese on the other hand lost the bulk of their pilot corps by mid '44 and had no way to get that knowledge back.
So not only are you comparing different tools designed to do different jobs they were operating in very different environments.
That's almost true. On January 1, 1945, the Luftwaffe ran Operation Bodenplatte, a massive attack of allied forward fighter bases, in an attempt to disrupt the fighter escort tactics General Doolittle had implemented a year earlier, and to try to prevent effective support of allied ground troops during the Battle of the Bulge. The operation met with some success as many units were unprepared for a New Years Day assault. However, the end result was major losses to the Luftwaffe, and at the end of the day, the Luftwaffe had lost a majority of its more experienced pilots. The USAAF and 8th AF Fighter Command had pretty much achieved air supremacy by that time.CT'97 said:Good point, when a Japanese pilot was shot down it was largely over open ocean or at least near an enemy held island. When a German pilot was shot down it was over his home country and many returned to service some losing multiple aircraft. That leads to a larger institutional knowledge base that the Japaneses didn't have access to.JR69 said:
All that said, there are other factors that should be considered, such as opportunity to engage enemy aircraft, what type of enemy aircraft, how skilled were the enemy pilots, etc. Early in the war, both Germany and Japan had highly skilled pilots due to their combat experience in Russia and China respectively. Late in the war it was a different story.
As a result the Germans were putting highly skilled pilots into the air right up to the end of the war and were more limited by access to functioning aircraft than pilots. The Japanese on the other hand lost the bulk of their pilot corps by mid '44 and had no way to get that knowledge back.
So not only are you comparing different tools designed to do different jobs they were operating in very different environments.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Bodenplatte
http://www.352ndfg.com/Y-29/main.htm
The History Channel series "Dogfights" featured the "Legend of Y-29" in one of it's episodes. It is available on YouTube. My dad had control tower duty that morning and witnessed a large part of the air battle over the base and nearby. The 487th FS received the Distinguished (now the Presidential) Unit Citation for it's action that day, the only fighter squadron to receive that distinction during WW2.
Edit: I should add that the majority of allied aircraft that were lost to Operation Bodenplatte were destroyed on the ground, and were quickly replaced. The Luftwaffe was not able to effectively replace pilots or aircraft lost that day.
Exactly. The Luftwaffe may have been able to put butts in seats, but for the last two years of the war their replacement pilots were typically woefully under-trained and unprepared for combat flying, while Allied pilots were reaching their peak of proficiency and combat experience. Pilot attrition and fuel problems were far more operationally significant than aircraft inventory.JR69 said:That's almost true. On January 1, 1945, the Luftwaffe ran Operation Bodenplatte, a massive attack of allied forward fighter bases, in an attempt to disrupt the fighter escort tactics General Doolittle had implemented a year earlier, and to try to prevent effective support of allied ground troops during the Battle of the Bulge. The operation met with some success as many units were unprepared for a New Years Day assault. However, the end result was major losses to the Luftwaffe, and at the end of the day, the Luftwaffe had lost a majority of its more experienced pilots. The USAAF and 8th AF Fighter Command had pretty much achieved air supremacy by that time.CT'97 said:Good point, when a Japanese pilot was shot down it was largely over open ocean or at least near an enemy held island. When a German pilot was shot down it was over his home country and many returned to service some losing multiple aircraft. That leads to a larger institutional knowledge base that the Japaneses didn't have access to.JR69 said:
All that said, there are other factors that should be considered, such as opportunity to engage enemy aircraft, what type of enemy aircraft, how skilled were the enemy pilots, etc. Early in the war, both Germany and Japan had highly skilled pilots due to their combat experience in Russia and China respectively. Late in the war it was a different story.
As a result the Germans were putting highly skilled pilots into the air right up to the end of the war and were more limited by access to functioning aircraft than pilots. The Japanese on the other hand lost the bulk of their pilot corps by mid '44 and had no way to get that knowledge back.
So not only are you comparing different tools designed to do different jobs they were operating in very different environments.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Bodenplatte
http://www.352ndfg.com/Y-29/main.htm
The History Channel series "Dogfights" featured the "Legend of Y-29" in one of it's episodes. It is available on YouTube. My dad had control tower duty that morning and witnessed a large part of the air battle over the base and nearby. The 487th FS received the Distinguished (now the Presidential) Unit Citation for it's action that day, the only fighter squadron to receive that distinction during WW2.
Edit: I should add that the majority of allied aircraft that were lost to Operation Bodenplatte were destroyed on the ground, and were quickly replaced. The Luftwaffe was not able to effectively replace pilots or aircraft lost that day.
Luftwaffe
No doubt attrition was a major factor for the reduction of the Luftwaffe, but even so at the end of the war 7 of their top 10 pilots were still alive. The same can't be said for the Japanese pilots who were all lost.
Lack of fuel and lack of training were the biggest impacts on both Luftwaffe and Japanese Army and Navy Air Force. It was the inability to put butts in seats and get them properly trained. Production of aircraft was at all time highs well into 1945 even with the impacts of strategic bombing. There was nothing wrong with the quality of the aircraft designs but the quality of workmanship was going down the drain though.
Featured Stories
See All
2025 Prosper offensive lineman Connor Carty commits to Texas A&M
by Jason Howell
37:35
12h ago
4.5k
The Loochador Podcast: Maroon & White Game storylines abound
by Billy Liucci
6:33
11h ago
2.2k
In-Home Visit: Carty provides more Metroplex muscle for Maroon Goons
by TexAgs Recruiting
7:40
11h ago
18k
2025 OL Connor Carty calls committing to A&M a 'dream come true'
by Jason Howell
0:00
16h ago
4.8k
Leonard H. Stringfield
FTAB Halftime show for the t.u. game this year
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
9
rocketman1806
BSB: Thursday's A&M-Alabama game postponed, Friday DH
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
4