Pirates And Horses (or) I Think I May Have Over Thought This

For no reason at all, I am going to give my opinion of the aircraft match up no one asked for.  Why?  Because I like planes, and it was somewhat fun comparing the Star Wars craft earlier.  And comparing actual aircraft is both easier and harder, since there are real stats and accounts to consider.

I'm going to compare the best plane of World War 2 with the one most think is the best.

The Vought F4U Corsair (top) and the North American P-51 Mustang (bottom).

(fittingly placed)

Now, maybe I'm biased since I prefer Navy, but I think I can back up my opinion with fact.  So, at the risk of alienating numerous aviations buffs, here goes...

The Vought F4U Corsair was the best single seat piston fighter of World War 2 overall.

For those of you who are reacting like our Jedi friend here, let me explain.

First, please note, I said "overall."  Not "fastest," or "most firepower," or "most agile," or "best of 1939/1940/1941/1942/1943/1944/1945."  I wasn't specific which nation, or military, or theater.  Because that is the problem with comparing aircraft, especially from '39-'45: context matters.

Let me ask a test question: what was the best British plane?

Obvious answer is "Spitfire," but is that correct?  The Spit wasn't their best bomber, that would be the Lancaster (for the heavy work) or the Mosquito (for everything else).  And regarding naval work, the Brits really didn't have an optimal carrier based fighter.

So, back to the best overall.  Remember, WW2 was an extremely dynamic conflict that was everywhere.  A weapon or vehicle that was sufficient in Europe may not perform as well in the Pacific.

Case in point: the Lockheed P38 Lightning.

("Two planes, one pilot.")

She was an exceptional interceptor and heavy fighter.  Even a good fighter-bomber and recon bird.  But in Europe, her delicate turbochargers caused trouble.  The Lightning never quite lived up to expectations there, at least never fully.  But in the Mediterranean and Pacific regions, she was superb.  The warmer air didn't play heck with her engines, and the opposition was more manageable.  Not that the P-38 couldn't go toe-to-toe with the BF 190 or FW 190, but she was a fox among chickens with Italian and Japanese craft.

Even more complex is how each nation had a "best" at various points.  The best the US could field in 1940 was the P-40 Hawk, a bird that deserves greater respect than it is given.

(Ain't nothing prettier than an early P-40 Hawk.)

In comparison, though, the Brits had the Spitfire and the Germans the Bf 109, both of which could out-fight the Warhawk.  In part due to training and experience, but in part due to design.  The Warhawk was more rugged, and had better range than her European counterparts.  Even better firepower, in general.  But she couldn't climb as high, and wasn't as fast in straight line acceleration.  And since combat above Europe was determined by altitude performance and acceleration, the P-40 was deemed "lack luster."  But in China, the AVG ran wild with them.

So the concept of "best" is a little subjective.  Which makes "best overall" difficult to nail down.  Which requires a few requisites.  I'll defer to experts for some of this.  To call any aircraft "best overall" would require it to be a "game changer."

Certainly some battles were influenced by the abilities of an aircraft type.  Without the Swordfish, the hunt for the Bismarck would've gone differently.  No SBD Dauntless bombers changes the Battle of Midway.  But this is "tactical" level.  To be "best overall" the plane needs to be a game changer on "strategic" level.  The Ilyushin Il-2 was such an example, though not a fighter.  This flying-tank of a ground attack bird was so produced that it still holds the record for most military aircraft built; over 36,000 for the Il-2 version, with a grand total of 42,000+ when you include the improved model.

(Ugly mug, ain't she?)

Same holds true with the B-17, the C-47, the Ju 88, the Mosquito, and more.  In niche roles, at specific times, and in various theaters, some planes were superior.  The most noteworthy were those that changed strategies.  The only three in the fighter world to ever hold this distinction were the P-51, the F6F Hellcat, and the A6M Zero.  Their range is what made the most difference, combined with numbers built, firepower, and utility.

And yet I pick the F4U "ensign killer" over the classic Mustang?  Am I mad?

No, not at all.  Just taking a more "holistic" approach to the topic.

Here's the issue.  The three "obvious" answers are not best "overall."  The Zero was not rugged enough for the type of fighting going on power '43, nor for ground attack.  The Hellcat was, but wasn't "hot" enough (this would be fixed with the F8F Bearcat), though she wasn't a slouch.  The Mustang was a "hot ship," and had great range, but could be a bit of a glass cannon or fragile speedster in the ground attack arena.  Enough hits to the radiator and the engine overheats.

So, the P-51 is top-billing for "overall" of the previous three, due to being best at the majority of abilities (speed, range) or equal (firepower).  And she had plenty of uses and variants, like a recon bird and a dive bomber.  There was even talk of a navy version.

But what about other options?

• The P-38?  Too temperamental with her engines, too complex to build in numbers.
• The P-47?  Got the muscle, but can't dance.
• The P-40?  Not enough growth potential.
• The F4F?  Can't get enough engine in her.
• The Spitfire?  Short legged, weak landing gear, not enough bomb-toting skill.
• The Typhoon?  Sluggish and buggy.
• The Yak-3?  A bit weak structurally and underarmed for attack.
• The Ki-61?  Faulty engine build.
• The Ki-84?  Not enough, low quality.
• Italian?  Too few and flimsy, often without enough gun.
• Bf 109?  Short range, cramped canopy, too light.
• FW 190?  Never given priority.
• The Me 262?  Buggy with engines that catch on fire.

What's that leave us with?  The Corsair.

Over 12,500 build from '42-'53.  Able to hit almost 450 mph.  Armed with six guns (or four cannon) and up to two tons of bombs.  A naval craft with a huge engine, huge wings, and muscle to spare, the Corsair was part of the last war to use piston engined fighters.

Granted, the Mustang was in that war, too.  And like the Corsair, served in Korea and with a number of air forces post-war.  Over 15,000 Mustangs were built (that number includes the A-36A and early models).  It served everywhere (like the F4U) in WW2.  Topped out at 440 mph, and carried six guns and 1000 pounds of ordinance.  A number were even modded post-war with turboprop engines and used as ground attackers.

And in the "Football War" of 1969, one of the only three confirmed aircraft kills was a Mustang.  A pilot from Honduras shot down two Salvadoran Corsairs and a Mustang.  He was flying a Corsair.

Checkmate.

Now, obviously its more complex even than that.  The Mustang has a better kill/loss ratio than the Corsair, and produced more aces.  (Though the Hellcat beats both.  Even the "lemon" F2A Buffalo has a better win/loss in the hands of the Finns.  But that's for another time.)  Part of why the P-51 did better is environment.  Escorting bombers and waiting for bad guys to show up means more targets.

Skill is a big factor, and one that means nothing comparing these two.  Like I mentioned, the Finns used the Buffalo very well against the Russians.  And the Soviets loved the equally maligned P-39 Airacobra.  The Flying Tigers were phenomenal with the P-40.  And a quartet of Gladiator biplanes defended Malta against the entire Italian air force.  Skill matters.

But so does range, visibility, speed, rate of turn, rate of climb, etc.  If you need to, go back to my post on the X-Wing v. ARC-170 and see what high-time pilot Eric Brown, FAA, thought was needed for the best fighter.  Then, compare the two yourself.  Wiki's got good articles on them both here and here.  Which one checks more of Brown's boxes?

Does that mean its better, objectively?  Maybe.  The way I read and interpret it, the F4U Corsair is superior to the P-51 Mustang.  (Though I'll always prefer the look of the early Mustangs, but that's for another day.)

Now, I'm going to finish my Fanta and get back to working on a controversial post hoping to drop on y'all later this week.