stikpusher

I believe that was the P-51H.

I don't know, as this is the first I've heard of it.  However, I did dig this up on the Wiki:

The addition of the 85 U.S gallon (322 l) fuselage fuel tank, coupled with the reduction in area of the new rear fuselage, exacerbated the handling problems already experienced with the B/C series when fitted with the tank, and led to the same fillet being added to -B, -C and initial -D-series versions in the field, to be standardized as a normal rear-fuselage airframe component on later production blocks of the -D version.

It does seem to indicate that there was a problem with handling when the fuselage fuel tank on the D model was full.  It also explains why the fillet was added on the top of the rear fuselage.  I did know the fillet had been added due to handling problems, but didn't know it had to do with the fuselage tank.

As I wrote, it's something I had not heard before.

Gary

GAF

Interesting question.  The mention of P-51s in the Pacific reminded me of something I had just read in the book "Wings of Courage: Tales From America's Elite Fighter Groups of World War II" edited by Tony Holmes (2010, Osprey Publishing).  In discussing the "Sun Setters" (specifically, the 15th, 21st and 506th Fighter Groups) and long range missions to Japan from Iwo Jima:

"Normally possessed of good maneuverability, the P-51 became something of a tail-heavy slouch when the fuselage tank was full, so it was imperative to burn off most of its fuel before encountering enemy aircraft in the target area."

Never heard this before.  Guess there are a lot of variables when comparing aircraft's combat abilities.

Gary

I believe that was the P-51H.

/

mississippivol

Four-bladed prop, but it has the -1 cowling...hmmmm.....

I was just noticing the same thing, Mississippi........... Can't even trust a museum anymore.......

GMorrison

Devil Dawg

Undoubtedly, the Corsair would prevail. No engine cooling system to take out like the Mustang has. Plus, it was built a little more robustly than the Mustang, too. The radial engine is known to be able to still run with a cylinder or two or three knocked out. Not so with a water-cooled inline V-12.

Yeah, yeah! Spoken like a true Marine...

Yep, that's me! None more truer!! Ooh Rah!! Semper Fi!! Do or die!!

Interesting. Good eye Mississippivol. I wonder if that's really just a -1?

Gary. I remember reading they'd take off and burn the fuselage tank (85 gallon) first for that reason. They felt vulnerable until it was dry. That's 500 pound of weight slightly aft on the CG.

Interesting question.  The mention of P-51s in the Pacific reminded me of something I had just read in the book "Wings of Courage: Tales From America's Elite Fighter Groups of World War II" edited by Tony Holmes (2010, Osprey Publishing).  In discussing the "Sun Setters" (specifically, the 15th, 21st and 506th Fighter Groups) and long range missions to Japan from Iwo Jima:

"Normally possessed of good maneuverability, the P-51 became something of a tail-heavy slouch when the fuselage tank was full, so it was imperative to burn off most of its fuel before encountering enemy aircraft in the target area."

Never heard this before.  Guess there are a lot of variables when comparing aircraft's combat abilities.

Gary

I wish I could provide the reference, but an  aviation  magazine years ago referred to a US military study at the end of the war analyzing the performance of several U.S. fighters and the tests officially concluded that the Corsair was slightly better than the Mustang in a dogfight, but they were close enough that the pilot would make a more significant difference.

Four-bladed prop, but it has the -1 cowling...hmmmm.....

I took this at the WWII museum in New Orleans. The F4U-4.

I stand corrected...I was thinking of the P-47.

They both had 6 .50s. The stang didn't have 8. That was the P-47.

As I said in the initial questions if both pilots were of equal skills and flying ability who would be the victor. Hence would`nt it be a matter of which plane had the most strengths v.s their opponents aircraft's weakness. Academically, on paper which of the two fighters has the greatest strengths and fewer weakness.

I do think the Mustang gets the nod for better performance at higher altitudes.

However, as Devil Dawg pointed out The Corsair has no engine cooling system to take out like the Mustang has; plus it was built more built more robustly and could take more punishment than the Mustang.

But, as far aw armament the  Mustang had eight 50 calibers in the wings and could dish out brutal punishment on adversary that fell into its sights v.s. the Corsair`s six. This greatly improves the Mustangs ability to shoot down an opponent.

Top speed of the Corsair F-4 variant was around 446 mph  at 26,200 ft while the Mustang was around 442 mph. The wing span of the Mustang was 37 ft (11 m) with a length of 32 ft (9.83 m) v.s. the 41 ft (12 m) wing span and 34 ft (10 m) of the Corsair made it a larger target.

Gross take off weight for the Mustang was 8,430 lbs. while the Corsair was 11,142 lbs.

They both had good armor plate to protect the pilot, bullet-proof windscreens and self sealing fuel tanks.

When it comes to turning to dive acceleration, we find the F4U-4 Corsair and P-51 D Mustang in a near dead heat. However, both the P-47D and P-38L easily out distance the F4U-4 Corsair and P-51D in a dive. In fact both the Corsair and the Mustang have relatively high critical Mach numbers allowing them to attain very high speeds in prolonged dives before running into compressibility difficulty.

The Corsair provided for very good visibility from the cockpit. However, few if any WWII fighters offered the pilot a better view than the P-51D. The earlier P-51B was inferior to the F4U. It`s the one that you don`t see that will kill you and if you don`t see them you can`t kill them.

I have to agree that there is an element of 'luck" that has  to be factored in to a victor of a dogfight, however if the skill of both pilots are equal it comes down to who has the better plane.

However, for my money I would prefer the P-47 D Thunderbolt as my ride because of it`s rugged airframe and survivability factor; it could sustain staggeringly eminence battle damage and still get you back home. The big Pratt & Whitney radial engine would continue to run and make power despite having one or more cylinders shot off. And the P-47s sheer brute force of its eight wing mounted 50 caliber guns that would shred anything that was unlucky enough to  fall into it gun sights. Particularly the later P-47D-25-RE, which flew escort missions deep into Germany as far as Berlin (the P-47D-25-RE had 100 gallons of additional internal fuel capacity). And ,the P-47 was a formidable pursuit/fighter as well as ground attack platform.

In reality, I think it all boils down who makes the first mistake in a dogfight.

Chuck Davis

Check out the history of "The Soccer War" between Salvador and Honduras - they did actually meet in air-to-air combat; sadly, my favorite (the '51) came out on the short end.  Not sure I'd consider it a definitive answer, though.  Like Don alluded to, there are many variables...altitude, pilot competence, mission, relative fuel load/weight, and on and on...

Yeah I was gonna suggest for the poster to look at this war for the exact scenario. Each aircraft has it's own vices and virtues over the other, with no true obvious superiority for one against the other. It would very much be a contest of pilot skill, with each trying to exploit his own mount's strength and minimize its' weaknesses. Much like the F-86 vs Mig-15 of Mig Alley over Korea.

Mustang would have the edge high up, no doubt. Otherwise, it's a fair comparison.

I would be, no doubt quite a match. So many variables. Roll rates, cornering, climb rates, dive rates. etc. etc. I'm just gonna take a stab at it that the P-51 could handle a drawn out fight longer due to water cooling. If they are both really good pilots, that's likely what would happen. Once hits start getting exchanged, the Corsair could hang in there longer. The P-51, though an outstanding aircraft, was more fragile. I'm going with the Corsair, barely.

Devil Dawg

Undoubtedly, the Corsair would prevail. No engine cooling system to take out like the Mustang has. Plus, it was built a little more robustly than the Mustang, too. The radial engine is known to be able to still run with a cylinder or two or three knocked out. Not so with a water-cooled inline V-12.

I have to agree it would almost certainly come down to the pilot and/or luck.

Still I'd have to root for a P-47 and sheer brute force!

I'd agree the F4F (and FM-1 FM-2) was the most "successful" considering it is the only Navy fighter to be in front line service throughout the war.  The FM-2 was a pretty good fighter with the more powerful engine and a drop back to only 4 guns.

The F6F had the highest kill ratio during the war, but as others have said, with all the variables you can't pick any definitive winner.

I have a soft spot for the Hellcat, but just for fun, Imagine a F8F Bearcat in the mix.  On paper, the Bearcat had it seen combat, could arguably have handled a P-51 or F4U.  I'm sure there were instances where Bearcats, Corsairs and Mustangs mixed it up after the war, but I haven't read any.

Anybody know of any accounts where Navy, Marine and Air Force folks engaged in mock dogfights after the war?  If Corsairs and Mustangs went at it, any accounts might answer the question.  May not have happened much with the post war draw down though.

Fun to think about.

Whoever didn't make the first mistake.

The Hellcat shot down more Japanese planes than the Corsair because the Corsair was more difficult to land on a carrier deck, the the USN purchased more Hellcats than Corsairs; both were superior to what the Japanese were flying.

Incidentally, P-51's were used in the Pacific to escort B-29's to Japan.  One of their strengths was incredible range.

Actually neither was the most successful. That belongs to the F4F

Fun conversation,but no definitive answer,too many variables.

It all depends on the pilot. Depends on which aircraft can outdo the other in tight turns. s-maneuvers, dive, climb, etc...

A P-38 can perform a skid maneuver like no other aircraft can to get out of trouble. I wouldn't get into a steep dive in one either.

Check out the history of "The Soccer War" between Salvador and Honduras - they did actually meet in air-to-air combat; sadly, my favorite (the '51) came out on the short end.  Not sure I'd consider it a definitive answer, though.  Like Don alluded to, there are many variables...altitude, pilot competence, mission, relative fuel load/weight, and on and on...

Depends on altitude.  Fighter plane performance is quite dependent on altitude.  Advantages may shift as altitude does.  And since altitude may change during a dogfight, the result may be highly dependent on how the pilot who really knows his plane uses vertical maneuvering to his advantage.

Doesn't the F6F Hellcat have the highest shoot down totals?

Undoubtedly, the Corsair would prevail. No engine cooling system to take out like the Mustang has. Plus, it was built a little more robustly than the Mustang, too. The radial engine is known to be able to still run with a cylinder or two or three knocked out. Not so with a water-cooled inline V-12.

snicker snicker snicker!!! That was fuuunnnneeeee!!

The P-38 Lightning.