In 1938 -at which time Chance Vought was a division of United Aircraft Corporation (UAC) - the US Navy was seeking a new single-seat fighter suitable for operation from aircraft carriers. Details of the requirement were circulated to US manufacturers and Chance Vought's proposal (then bearing the company identification V-166B) was sufficiently interesting to be selected for prototype construction. A single prototype was contracted for on 30 June 1938, making its first flight on 29 May 1940.
Realising that performance, load-carrying capability and range were essential ingredients of
a carrier-based fighter, Vought set about designing the smallest possible airframe around the most powerful engine then available. The selection of a four-blade propeller meant that the front fuselage had to be kept well clear of the ground. This dictated a tall, stalky landing gear which would be completely unsuitable for carrier landings. The solution to this problem provided the F4U (as designated by the Navy) with a recognition feature - an inverted gull wing. By mounting the main landing gear at the crank of the wing, it was possible to use compact and robust main struts.
Testing of the XF4U-1 prototype soon demonstrated that the Navy had available a fighter faster than anything else in service with the armed forces. On 30 June 1941 the Vought-Sikorsky Aircraft Division of UAC (as the company was then reformed) received a contract for 584 aircraft under the designation F4U-1. What had by then become an honoured name - Corsair - was to be bestowed on this new aircraft, one which was to prove itself the finest carrier-based fighter of World War II.
F4U-1 began to enter service in October 1942, but in order to provide increased fuel capacity the cockpit had been moved further aft to make room for a fuselage fuel tank. When first tested by the Navy it was believed that this adversely affected the pilot's view, to the extent that the Corsair was considered doubtful for carrier operation. Production aircraft were delivered instead to the US Marine Corps for operation from land bases. It was not until 1944, when Corsairs supplied to the Royal Navy under Lend-Lease were being used effectively from carriers, that the US Navy made a serious reappraisal of their suitability for this role. Shortly after, Navy squadrons were given approval to use the Corsair for the task for which it had been designed.
The Corsair was built also by Brewster Aeronautical Corporation and Goodyear Aircraft Corporation to cope with the high production required, under the initial designations of F3A-1 and FG-1 respectively. Both Vought and Goodyear built a number of variants, the last being the F4U-7, of which 90 were built for supply through MAP to the French Aeronavale. By the time that production ended in December 1952 more than 11,000 had been built; of these 2,012 had been supplied to Britain and 370 to the Royal New Zealand Air Force.
Unfortunately I am not able to post other sight titles on this sight. There is an excellent sight with RAF test reports on it. I will post some of the test report results as time permits. As far as Italian A /C go, I just have the standard published material. Although I do remember a pretty good article in AIR ENTHUSIAST from several years ago on the MC.202. If I can locate it in my library, I'll post some info. There is an excellent Bf.109 sight that is loaded with tons of information. I would be glad to put together a listing of some of the great sights, just e-mail me.
Ron, Most of this information can be viewed at the sight I e-mailed you. If you did not receive this sight on your computer, please let me know. It is a tuely awsome sight. And you are definitely a WW2 anthusiast that would appreciate it.
These test figures that I have been listing are arcraft fully loaded and ready for action. Take a minute and think what the Germans threw into the air in 1944 /45. Aircraft that had only one purpose. Climb as fast as you can and do as much damage as possible in the shortest time. Immagine a P-51 or P-38 built to those specifications. The Mustang, Lightning and Thunderbolt were called on to fly as far as they could and defend the bombers at all cost. What if all these aircraft had to do was defend there factorys and bases like the Germans and Japanese. A lot of excess weight would have been saved and performance greatly increased.
Ron, The stats I have listed so far are of off the production line examples that are being tested to see there limitations. I do not know the power setting limits that the military had set in the field at the time of these tests. Usually the tests are being performed to see if engine limitation can be safely raised in the field. So the figures I have posted from actual military or manufacturers test reports are true limits but under controlled conditions. How close these figures were reached in the field only engineers and test pilots could tell. I have read several places the upon entering the cockpit some P-38 pilots would remove the limiting stop that was on the throttle. And I have read that P-47 mechanics would tweek there pilots mounts. The F4U-4 stats were from an actual US Navy report. I do not have it in with me at this time but if I recall correctly the testing was done in 1947. If I recall correctly the F4U-5 (when pushed to the limits of WEP) was capable of 480mph under certain conditions. Another BIG thing to keep in mind is, when looking at published figures for a given A /C, under what condition were the figures reached: military power or War Emergency Power. You must also keep in mind the time period. As the war progressed better fuel were being manufactured and boost limits on aircraft were constantly being increased.
Aaron, Your F4U-4 stats look more like those for the -5. I'd like to see more sources on all the super stats you provide for fighters. I rationalize it's possible with a reduced fuel load or war emergency power ...etc. Maybe a one off factory special with a fearless pilot. Hopefully not stripped of guns but maybe partial ammo, who knows?
P-51D:Best high altitude long range escort fighter? Yes if cost factor is considered. Best all round piston engine fighter of WW2? NO! I have been studying WW2 fighter aircraft (on /off) since 1968. There is no such thing as an A /C that can do everything best. So you have to classify what you consider best is and at what your aiming for. Consider design, dependibility, ease of maintenance, functionality, VERSATILITY AND SURVIVABILITY. In my opinion the F4U-4 came closer to "BEST" than any other fighter of WW2 (just my opinion though). JUST A FEW FACTS: In a declassified USN report the following specs /performances were listed: LOADING CONDITION: Combat. ENGINE:R-2800-18W. WEIGHT:12,480 lbs. Maximum speed at S.L. 374 mph., at 20,500 ft.= 452 mph. Service ceiling is listed at 38,500 ft. (500 fpm.) S.L. climb rate is 4,770 fpm. and time to 20,000 ft. /4.9 min. There are some foot notes that say: CLEAN CONDITION: same as Combat Condition except pylons removed. At combat power maximum speed are 383 mph. /S.L and 464 mph. /20,600 ft. There is also a graph showing that initial climb is 4770 fpm. and increasing to 4,850 fpm. /10,000 ft. WOW that's serious interceptor terratory.
The following information is taken from official military flight tests of F4Us: F4U-1 : 6 /27 /44 2176hp. 376mph /S.L. 385 /5000 415 /10000 420 /15000 433 /20000 424 /25000. 3210fpm /SL 3300 /Max. 100fpm /38,200ft. F4U-1 : 8 /2 /45 2250hp@33.9"combat power rating. 436 /8000 422 /14400 431 /15000 417 /22800 3700fpm /Max. 100fpm /41000ft. F4U-1A : 365 /SL 374 /5000 395 /10000 415 /15000 429 /20000 431 /20200 422 /25000. F4U-1C : 12,470lbs. 356mph /SL 408 /19900 100fpm /39,400ft. 3250fpm /SL. F4U-1D : 2250hp. 366mph /SL 364 /5000 383 /10000 402 /15000 417 /18800 409 /20000 395 /25000 383 /30000. 3370fpm /SL 100fpm /40,000ft. at 12,039lbs. Maximum range: 1,895mls with 537 gallons of fuel at 14,370lbs. In a USN test comparing F4U-1, F4U-1A and P-51B the summary read: In summary, thye F4U-1 airplane appears to be the superior fighter for Naval or Marine employment, either land or ship-based, except in the single case where substantially all fighting occurs above 25,000 feet.
I guess the F2G Climb rate may have been more like 4,400 fpm. That still beats the -4 at 3,870 fpm, but not the Bearcat. The speed was disappointing: 431 vs 446 for the -4 and 468 for the -5 that climbed 4,800 fpm. With injection the F2G had 3,500 hp, perhaps that would account for the 7,000 fpm (projection?). The F2G was heavier for less firepower. 4x.50s are OK against WW2 Japanese planes but not 1950 Russian hardware. In 1945 the Navy's reason for dropping the gas guzzling F2G was the end of the war and the much lighter, carrier friendly F8F Bearcat with roughly the same performance. For the Korean war, the F4U needed the increased ordinance capacity that the F2G couldn't deliver (it had to carry the extra fuel instead). The F4U-5 could, with better performance overall too.
One wonders why the Corsair ended WW2 with the 3,000 hp Wasp Major powered F2G and followed with the F4U-5 in the Korean war, powered by the less powerful Double wasp of earlier models. It also reverted back to the old style canopy instead of keeping the teardrop of the Super F2G Corsair. That WW2 F2G could climb 7,000 fpm! Why replace it?
Can you imagine a twin F2G Corsair to compete with the P-82 Mustang twin? A couple of Wasp Majors with 6,000 hp !! Torque would be neutralized making it safer than the standard F2G. The F2G had 7,000 fpm initial climb! What did the P-51J have, 5,000 and change? Load it up with 6+ RAF Mk V 20-mm, forget the inferior M2 /M3 20-mm US cannons. Even the tough MiG-15 would not feel safe over Korea. Of course that brings to mind the Pirate Jet!
When asked what my favorite WW 2 fighter is, I think of the Fw 190 and La-7 but their altitude performance faded. I prefer radial powered fighters because they are less vulnerable. I think of the Japanese but only the A6M, Ki 43, 44, and 100 were reliable but lacked the Corsair's speed. Same goes for the F6F. The P-47 couldn't hang with the F4U in a dogfight. The F4U Corsair was still good to go in the Korean war, so that suggests it was best. I agree. Of course the Mustang was there too but flak had advanced to the point that the inline Mustang should have staid off the deck and let the Corsair do all the ground support. That's a no brainer.
As a former Navy pilot in WWII the F4U was the smoothest plane I had the privilege of flying. A little tricky to land at times. I found it great for carrier landings.
Charles Lindberg was techrep for Chance Vought and came to MCAS Santa Barbara (Goleta) when Joe Foss & Pappy Boyington were training two of the first F4U (VMF) squadrons circa 1943-4.
Had the priviledge to see Cook Cleland flying the F-2G in the Cleveland Air Races. Lived near his airport in Willoughby, Ohio and loved to just lood at #57 parked near US Route 20 there. It has been restored and makes it to some of the best air shows. I have collected much info regarding the Corsair including some videos from the 1947Thompson Trophy Air Races. (By the way, I was 8 or 9 years old when my Dad took me to the Air Races and have had a love affair with aviation ever since. Now fly R /C Models.
