>but the Mustang is sexy
Only after they put the bubble canopy on in '43. Corsair was flexing its chad oversized propeller and bent wings from day one.
>but the Hellcat was optimised for carrier landings
Crash landings are based.
>But muh milk Jug
No one likes the Thunderbolt the most. No one.
The Naval Aviation Museum in Pensacola FL has a great Pappy Boyington display with an actual Corsair. I highly recommend this museum for anyone interested in military aviation.
Isn’t it still closed to the public? I’ve been there twice but haven’t been in a while since they changed that rule.
>blocks ur path
>let's glue two planes together
Nice photoshop.
gluing two planes together was an entirely valid design decision in the 1940s for some reason
I've never seen a jet era equivalent though, probably some aerodynamic or structural reason
The twinstang was designed as an extremely long range fighter, you could definitely still do it but with aerial refueling and other things to consider like stealth it’s not as appealing
There was also the night fighter variant, which replaced the P-61 in US service.
It's easy to see why, but at the same time, it's kind of a shame that such a beautiful plane was replaced by such a ridiculous ugly beast.
There you go.
Mudfighter!
I refuse to believe the "F-82" is real.
>I refuse to believe the "F-82" is real.
You're going to love this then.
I bet that would actually fly if you adjusted the controls to make sense, pit the now leading aileron on the now trailing edge, and geared the engines so it's a pusher/puller
>No longitudinal or transverse stability with one of the tails up front instead of in the back.
Yeah, nah
>not F-28 Spin Mustang
in terms of aesthetics i unironically prefer the birdcage canopy over the bubble
the corsair with the birdcage also looks neat
For me, it’s bong mustangs with the Malcolm hood
Thunderbolt with the Malcolm hood is peak sexy IMO.
>nobody likes the thunderbolt
i like turbosuperchargers you Black personhomosexual
too many miggers
Razorback best thunderbolt
>Reddit: the carrier fighter
back to warthunder
>MOGS your Corsair
Nothing personal kid.
I like to be able to see out of my plane, thanks. Ever wonder why the Hellcat was preferred over the Corsair despite having significantly lower performance?
Ever wonder why the Corsair had a production almost four times the length of the Hellcat?
Because Grumman started making the Bearcat?
Even the French replaced their Corsairs with Hellcats in indochina before upgrading to the Bearcat.
The Bearcat, while very badass, was an AVGASpunk manned surface to air missile more than a real fleet defense fighter.
The Bearcat was a great fleet defense fighter, it was a mediocre escort fighter though due to poor range and a supercharger that was optimized for low altitude.
>Even the French replaced their Corsairs with Hellcats in indochina before upgrading to the Bearcat.
Bs...the last batch of corsairs built went to the French navy and they used them until they modernized their navy in the early sixties
the two of them have equal number of planes built, the corsair was just built over time while the hellcat was built in a single frenzied rush
Because the Hellcat wasn't as good a bomber. In terms of air-to-air performance it's all moot.
Hellcat was pussy shit corsairs were for the chads of the sky. I distinctly remember this type of argument happening between pilots in a more old timey way and wish I could find it again.
>No one likes the Thunderbolt
I do
>Crash landings are based.
The shape of the wing roots on these always gets me. What was the design principle behind them?
They fold up for storage on a carrier.
>turbosuperchargers
The Corsair has gigaturboultrachargers
To get the landing gear lower to accommodate it's massive chad propeller.
It took 10 men 10 hours to bend its aesthetic wings into shape
If you're talking about the downward bend, then it's to allow for shorter and stiffer landing gear for carrier landing. If you're talking about the holes in them, those are the ram air intakes for the supercharger and the oil cooler. Most radial engine planes put them just above or below the engine itself, but by putting them in the wing roots they were able to reduce the frontal area and lower overall drag a bit.
I was talking about the bend. Thanks for the info. Based effort poster
Actual turbovirgin morons
Correct. You couldn't get the stability and rate of roll requirements with specified engine performance (requiring a greater Prop diameter to exploit) without the inverted gull. moronic part of the earlier models was putting the fuel tank in front of the wienerpit to make carrier arrestment literally impossible for non 3000 hour gigachad test pilots until the weight balance was shifted so they were limited to squat to land ops until that was sorted out ergo black sheep not Top Hatters Red Rippers etc getting most of the corsair action pre Korea.
Then explain how the Bearcat fit the same size prop to the same engine without an inverted gull wing.
You're not gonna believe this, but a substantially heavier aircraft needs more strut travel to recover without tip damage than a much, much lighter one, moron
having the wing root like that reduced drag while keeping the landing gear from being super long with a large diameter propeller. They were trying to get benefits of both a low and mid mounted wing.
For me, it's the Black Widow
Have you ever seen the alternate history timeline with the improved P-38? It's cool; all about the war if the P-38 had had some design improvments by NACA early in the cycle to fix the buffeting problems, as well as some logical stuff, like duplicating the electrical generators, having cabin heat, etc.
The bearcat weighs a tonne less than the Corsair empty, and more than that loaded. Gear's just not as sturdy, and it didn't need to be, because the Bearcat would also never carry ordnance like the Corsair.
True that the Bearcat is light and the gear is a little less sturdy, but it's still much stiffer for its length. But they could have made the Corsair's gear as long as the Bearcat's and beefed it up a little and it would have worked fine. It would have made the plane even heavier though and they didn't want to give up that performance. The inverted gull wings were chosen to save weight by letting them go with shorter landing gear, they could have fit the prop regardless.
>MOGS your Mustang
Lay off the War Thunder, you cluelessly idiotic utter moron. Jesus H Christ. The F-4U and P-47 are two of my favorite WW2 fighters but there's pretty notable reasons why VIII Fighter Command was converting to Mustangs as fast as they could receive sufficient aircraft. As far as the air war over Europe goes, the Corsair doesn't even belong in the conversation. (RN used them in a few raids up in Norway)
The F4U was deemed as an "Ensign Killer" early on due to it's shit handling during carrier landings. The Hellcat didn't have the same problems, so guess which bird the top USN aces flew. By the time the Corsair was cleared for general carrier use it's main use was a bomb hauler and kamikaze killer.
Cope. It needed a Merlin to make it good. Also, the fact that the Mustangs were the best choice for long range high altitude escort missions doesn't mean the Corsair wasn't better.
>it needed a Merlin to be good
Everything the Merlin went into turned into gold, including the Mustang, it's part of the charm. Even the first main battle tank had a derated Merlin.
It needed the Merlin's *supercharger* to make it good. The Allison engine was good, it just had a trash tier supercharger on it. The F-82 had Allison with upgraded superchargers and they worked well.
America also made better Merlins than Britain did. 90" manifold pressure on V-1650-9s is insane.
Consider: the Halifax
....Well then why didn't they use turbocharged Allisons in the P-51 during WWII?
Look at a P-38's boom, good luck fitting that in a P-51 in front of the pilot. There's a reason why the P-38 is a twin-boom design and the P-47 is xbox hueg.
Right, so the Mustang needed Merlins.
It could have done just as well with a V-1710 with a two-stage two-speed supercharger, but it was easier to just use Merlins.
>B Model P-51.
Fricking moron.
Bs had Merlins
Yeah and the D was only just being delivered by the time that report was typed up. The P-51B/C was contemporary with the F4U-1.
It needed a 2 stage supercharger to be good at the altitudes the allies were operating bombers at on the western front of the European theater. Allison was actually a little better at low altitude and would be a good for the altitudes seen in the Russian, Pacific, or North Africa campaigns.
>No one likes the Thunderbolt the most.
>Thunderbolt casually shoots down half of all Nazi aircraft on that front
>only aircraft that could outrun 262's
does anyone have the P-61 BIG Black person nose art handy? Bing isn't helping
Objectively the better carrier fighter and fighter-bomber
yeah it also came out five years later
Yeah, launching in 1945 is cheating. But I'm still glad Hawker kept making good planes after getting cucked by Spitfires for most of the war.
For me, it's early jet fighters.
I love the jug. Best of all. Took punishment. If I had to fly in that war with my skill potential a plane would need to take a lot of punishment.
>No one likes the Thunderbolt the most. No one.
I do you fricking normie homosexual
Nobody likes that thing chubby chaser
I unironically like the Thunderbolt more than the F4U.
Also radial 190 best 190.
I never really looked into US WWII aircraft, coming from a Commonwealth country it blows my mind as to the scale and variety they put out.
A Corsair shot down a Mustang, not vice versa!
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/air-space-magazine/last-piston-engine-dogfights-180956250/