WW2 Fighter Comparison (Includes F4U Flight Characteristics)

[Victory205]

@BIGNEWY

The attached article addresses some of questions being asked around here with respect to handling and feel of the F4U, F6F, P51 and P47. It’s from the June, 1990 issue of EAA’s Sport Aviation Magazine.

For sim pilots arguing about roll rates and pitch sensitivities, notice the poor roll rates (by today’s standards) of WW2 fighters, and that the Corsair has the lightest stick force per G of the four fighters by far, described as almost “too light”, taking the CG location into account. The Corsair is described as having no buffet at high G, and little stall warning. The paragraph concerning dynamic stability is instructive as well.

Read carefully about the test limitations before you begin howling about the absolute performance numbers- these were 50+ year old flying museum aircraft, operating on 100LL fuel, which limited them to MIL for takeoff and climb, but only Max Continuous Power and 6G’s for the rest of the flight test. However, relative performance comparisons should still be valid to a useful degree. There are plenty of charts from the operating handbook available for MRT and WEP power settings available with high octane fuel, some have already been posted.

Anyone who has flown a single engine prop aircraft with significant horsepower understands that every power change and every airspeed change requires a corresponding control input and corresponding trim change. The F4U we have includes a handy balance ball on the gunsight to aid the pilot in nulling out sideslip. Whether or not the amplitude of those characteristics is correct for the MAG3 F4U debatable, but since none of us has flown the Corsair, declaring the FM hopelessly “broken” is a fool’s errand. 

I think you’ll find the article interesting, and I hope it sheds some light on WW2 era fighter handling and general performance.

WWII Flight Test Comparison Sport Aviation June 1990.pdf

Edited Tuesday at 04:56 AM by Victory205
Clarity