quote:

On 10 September 1952, a MiG-15 made the mistake of getting into a turning contest with a Corsair piloted by Marine Captain Jesse G. Folmar, with Folmar shooting the MiG down with his four 20 mm cannon. In turn, four MiG-15s shot down Folmar minutes later; Folmar bailed out and was quickly rescued with little injury.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jorge_Stanbury

It was not great at high altitude, compared to P-47 or P-51 and by that time, in Europe, that is what was needed

quote:

ORIGINAL: DConn

You can't be serious about the "ugly duckling." javascript:void(AddText('[:D]')) Probably one of the best-looking WW2 fighers IMHO (surpassed only by the Spitfire and maybe the P-51)!

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jorge_Stanbury

It was not great at high altitude, compared to P-47 or P-51 and by that time, in Europe, that is what was needed

quote:

ORIGINAL: Scott_USN

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jorge_Stanbury

It was not great at high altitude, compared to P-47 or P-51 and by that time, in Europe, that is what was needed

But it did use the same Wasp Double 2800 used in the P47 and if you water injected it was crazy horsepower.

R-2800-34W - 2,100 hp (1,567 kW), 2,400 hp (1,789 kW) with water-methanol injection

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jorge_Stanbury

quote:

ORIGINAL: Scott_USN

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jorge_Stanbury

It was not great at high altitude, compared to P-47 or P-51 and by that time, in Europe, that is what was needed

But it did use the same Wasp Double 2800 used in the P47 and if you water injected it was crazy horsepower.

R-2800-34W - 2,100 hp (1,567 kW), 2,400 hp (1,789 kW) with water-methanol injection

P-47 was turbocharged, and that gave it better performance at high altitudes

quote:

the F4U was supercharged it was not turbocharged as was the P47 but could have easily had the intercooler turbocharger of the P47 it was the same engine in both planes.

quote:

ORIGINAL: rustysi

quote:

the F4U was supercharged it was not turbocharged as was the P47 but could have easily had the intercooler turbocharger of the P47 it was the same engine in both planes.

The engine may have been the same, but both planes were different. Could it have been the turbo-charger would not fit in the Corsair for some reason?

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

quote:

ORIGINAL: rustysi

quote:

the F4U was supercharged it was not turbocharged as was the P47 but could have easily had the intercooler turbocharger of the P47 it was the same engine in both planes.

The engine may have been the same, but both planes were different. Could it have been the turbo-charger would not fit in the Corsair for some reason?

With a big enough hammer, you could make it fit . . . [sm=00000028.gif]

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

quote:

ORIGINAL: rustysi

quote:

the F4U was supercharged it was not turbocharged as was the P47 but could have easily had the intercooler turbocharger of the P47 it was the same engine in both planes.

The engine may have been the same, but both planes were different. Could it have been the turbo-charger would not fit in the Corsair for some reason?

With a big enough hammer, you could make it fit . . . [sm=00000028.gif]

quote:

Don't know the actual answer, but the P-47 was HUGE for a fighter.

quote:

ORIGINAL: rustysi

quote:

Don't know the actual answer, but the P-47 was HUGE for a fighter.

Heaviest single engine, single seat fighter of the war. How that may equate to 'size', I know not.

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

quote:

ORIGINAL: rustysi

quote:

Don't know the actual answer, but the P-47 was HUGE for a fighter.

Heaviest single engine, single seat fighter of the war. How that may equate to 'size', I know not.

I don't have any links to photos at hand, but apparently it was the Godzilla of fighter planes.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Scott_USN

Did someone say Thunderbolt?

[image]https://kermitsbench.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/gau-8_meets_vw_type_11.jpg[/image]

quote:

ORIGINAL: bomccarthy

A turbo could not have been shoehorned into an F4U. Turbosupercharger installations are larger and heavier than mechanically driven auxiliary stage superchargers; so much so that the only two turbosupercharged fighters that made it into large scale production, the P-38 and P-47, were designed from inception around their turbo installations. The P-47's enormous fuselage was determined by the dimensions of the turbo plumbing that ran back to the turbo in the lower rear fuselage and the P-38's twin-boom designed neatly accommodated the turbos situated behind their Allison engines.

The size and weight penalty meant that the turbo's advantage was really above 25,000 ft; below that, the lighter and more compact mechanically driven auxiliary stage worked as well or better.

Production models of the Bf-109 and FW-190 used mechanically driven single stage, variable speed superchargers which gave best performance below 25,000 feet; the versions intended for high-altitude operation used liquid nitrous oxide injection (tank capacity lasted approx 20 minutes), although a few FW-190 prototypes were built with turbos.

That must have been funny if there was a leak into the cockpit!
[sm=00000280.gif][sm=00000289.gif][sm=00000280.gif]

The USAAC/USAAF and USN developed different doctrines in the 1920s and 1930s, with the USSAC/USAAF focused on high-altitude operations, 25-35k ft. The USN, on the other hand, focused on operations up to 25,000 feet. Consequently, the USN pioneered the use of the mechanically driven auxiliary stage supercharger in fighters -- the F4F-3 was in production and service before the Spitfire VIII or IX (prior model Spitfires had single-stage superchargers).

Rolls Royce refused to consider turbosupercharging for the Merlin; Rolls engineers calculated that the thrust from properly designed exhaust stacks made up for the power loss at high altitudes.

quote:

ORIGINAL: bomccarthy
Production models of the Bf-109 and FW-190 used mechanically driven single stage, variable speed superchargers which gave best performance below 25,000 feet; the versions intended for high-altitude operation used liquid nitrous oxide injection (tank capacity lasted approx 20 minutes), although a few FW-190 prototypes were built with turbos.

quote:

ORIGINAL: bomccarthy

A turbo could not have been shoehorned into an F4U. Turbosupercharger installations are larger and heavier than mechanically driven auxiliary stage superchargers; so much so that the only two turbosupercharged fighters that made it into large scale production, the P-38 and P-47, were designed from inception around their turbo installations. The P-47's enormous fuselage was determined by the dimensions of the turbo plumbing that ran back to the turbo in the lower rear fuselage and the P-38's twin-boom designed neatly accommodated the turbos situated behind their Allison engines.

The size and weight penalty meant that the turbo's advantage was really above 25,000 ft; below that, the lighter and more compact mechanically driven auxiliary stage worked as well or better.

Production models of the Bf-109 and FW-190 used mechanically driven single stage, variable speed superchargers which gave best performance below 25,000 feet; the versions intended for high-altitude operation used liquid nitrous oxide injection (tank capacity lasted approx 20 minutes), although a few FW-190 prototypes were built with turbos.

The USAAC/USAAF and USN developed different doctrines in the 1920s and 1930s, with the USSAC/USAAF focused on high-altitude operations, 25-35k ft. The USN, on the other hand, focused on operations up to 25,000 feet. Consequently, the USN pioneered the use of the mechanically driven auxiliary stage supercharger in fighters -- the F4F-3 was in production and service before the Spitfire VIII or IX (prior model Spitfires had single-stage superchargers).

Rolls Royce refused to consider turbosupercharging for the Merlin; Rolls engineers calculated that the thrust from properly designed exhaust stacks made up for the power loss at high altitudes.