HD video of Corsair and P-38 mock 'dogfight'.

uclaLabrat

Diamond Member
Aug 2, 2007
5,583
2,942
136
I didn't watch the whole thing, but is there any flight regime where the corsair wouldn't completely own the lightning? The F4U is much more powerful, lighter and faster than the p-38, isn't it?
 

styrafoam

Platinum Member
Jun 18, 2002
2,684
0
0
Awesome. You wouldn't think there would be that much money tied up in energy drinks, assuming they actually own the planes. There is only a handful of P-38s left, upkeep on that can't be cheap.
 

Ruptga

Lifer
Aug 3, 2006
10,246
207
106
P38's service ceiling and rate of climb are better, F4U's top speed and handling are better. In most circumstances the F4U would win, but it was designed as a general carrier fighter while the P38 was intended to intercept and chase bombers.
 

PowerEngineer

Diamond Member
Oct 22, 2001
3,566
736
136
Awesome. You wouldn't think there would be that much money tied up in energy drinks, assuming they actually own the planes. There is only a handful of P-38s left, upkeep on that can't be cheap.

Seems like there's much more money coming out of Microsoft. Look what Paul Allen can afford!

http://www.flyingheritage.com/default.aspx

I've seen the 109 fly; want to see the 190;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Ekb_aFRt4Q
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_0-Tp_SEFwg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EPmdU2EwRwg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ct5aPy-7D38

And this is almost unbelievable! o_O

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ow1KEZz0kck
 

ThatsABigOne

Diamond Member
Nov 8, 2010
4,422
23
81

waggy

No Lifer
Dec 14, 2000
68,143
10
81
the P38 is a great looking plane.

great video! both planes are great and the shots from inside and outside were great.
 

BUTCH1

Lifer
Jul 15, 2000
20,433
1,769
126
the P38 is a great looking plane.

great video! both planes are great and the shots from inside and outside were great.

Yea, you can see when the Corsair lands the size of it's flaps, this was the best carrier-based aircraft of WW2 IMO..
 

skyking

Lifer
Nov 21, 2001
22,382
5,347
146
Thanks man.
I could go on and on, but here is one little tidbit:
Note the rotation of the P-38 propellers at startup, at :58 and 1:33
The engines are counter-rotating, each propeller rotates up and away from the center of the plane. This arrangement is far more dangerous during single engine operation due to adverse yaw at high angles of attack, but apparently enhanced maneuverability.
 

Pacfanweb

Lifer
Jan 2, 2000
13,149
57
91
I didn't watch the whole thing, but is there any flight regime where the corsair wouldn't completely own the lightning? The F4U is much more powerful, lighter and faster than the p-38, isn't it?

Depends on the pilot. Better pilot usually wins. But if both pilots are equal, Corsair should win, it's the better plane. Best one of WWII, IMO.
 

spacejamz

Lifer
Mar 31, 2003
10,868
1,516
126
the P38 is a great looking plane.

great video! both planes are great and the shots from inside and outside were great.

Shot of one I took at the Fort Worth Airshow...

12Alliance04.JPG
 

mmntech

Lifer
Sep 20, 2007
17,501
12
0
P38's service ceiling and rate of climb are better, F4U's top speed and handling are better. In most circumstances the F4U would win, but it was designed as a general carrier fighter while the P38 was intended to intercept and chase bombers.

The F4U was one of the fastest prop fighters of the war. Only really edged out by the later model P-47s, but not by much. The Japanese used to call them "whistling death" due to the characteristic sound they made in flight.

Only the Hawker Sea Fury was faster, topping out at 460mph, but it didn't enter service until after the war. By that time, prop fighters had been made obsolete by planes like the Messerschmitt Me 262 and the Gloster Meteor. Though both the F4U and Sea Fury saw action in Korea.
 

Scotteq

Diamond Member
Apr 10, 2008
5,276
5
0
Thanks man.
I could go on and on, but here is one little tidbit:
Note the rotation of the P-38 propellers at startup, at :58 and 1:33
The engines are counter-rotating, each propeller rotates up and away from the center of the plane. This arrangement is far more dangerous during single engine operation due to adverse yaw at high angles of attack, but apparently enhanced maneuverability.


My understanding of that - Because of the Torque reaction from the motor and spinning prop, it (was) common for a single engine craft to turn better/faster in one direction - (opposite prop rotation) - over the other. With the P38's contra rotating design, that wasn't an issue and therefore the aircraft could turn equally fast either way.
 

manimal

Lifer
Mar 30, 2007
13,559
8
0
F4U was the most versatitle chassis of all time. It transitions to support and ground attack roles because those damn radials would sill run with half the cylinders blown out by flack. Amazing plane in its simplicity and durability.

The p38 had a magic to it. It seemed so graceful it exhibits so many classical beauty characteristics.


Always think of Pappy Boyington with the corsair. As a kid that was my FAVE show
 

BUTCH1

Lifer
Jul 15, 2000
20,433
1,769
126
F4U was the most versatitle chassis of all time. It transitions to support and ground attack roles because those damn radials would sill run with half the cylinders blown out by flack. Amazing plane in its simplicity and durability.

The p38 had a magic to it. It seemed so graceful it exhibits so many classical beauty characteristics.


Always think of Pappy Boyington with the corsair. As a kid that was my FAVE show

IIRC the 38 could not turn as easily as a smaller, single engine fighter but had the redundancy of 2 engines and it was also heavily armed, 1 cannon and 4 50 cal's all mounted under the pilot gave a distinct advantage of engaging an enemy at long range as traditional fighters with their guns mounted in the wings had to close to a fixed "convergence point" where the bullets from both wings would be in position to strike. The 38 also was fast, topping out at 443 MPH.
 

skyking

Lifer
Nov 21, 2001
22,382
5,347
146
My understanding of that - Because of the Torque reaction from the motor and spinning prop, it (was) common for a single engine craft to turn better/faster in one direction - (opposite prop rotation) - over the other. With the P38's contra rotating design, that wasn't an issue and therefore the aircraft could turn equally fast either way.
Not quite, Scott.
Contra rotating was not the dangerous part, it was which WAY they chose to turn them.
Under low angles of attack, the propeller produces an equal amount of thrust on the left and right side, regardless of rotation.
When the aircraft is at high angles of attack, the side of the propeller that is descending produces far more thrust than the side that is ascending.
The P-38 arrangement has that thrust on the outsides of both engines, far from the aircraft centerline. When you are pulling hard and turning, this blows more air over the ailerons, enhancing roll responsiveness.
That's all good when both engines are making power.
If one quits for whatever reason, now all your thrust is way out there on one side.
This plus lack of experience killed many an early P-38 pilot. It would enter a spin rather quickly.

If they had rotated the other direction, the thrust would be very close to centerline and much safer.
 

Gibsons

Lifer
Aug 14, 2001
12,530
35
91
IIRC the 38 could not turn as easily as a smaller, single engine fighter but had the redundancy of 2 engines and it was also heavily armed, 1 cannon and 4 50 cal's all mounted under the pilot gave a distinct advantage of engaging an enemy at long range as traditional fighters with their guns mounted in the wings had to close to a fixed "convergence point" where the bullets from both wings would be in position to strike. The 38 also was fast, topping out at 443 MPH.

Erich Hartman related that when he saw someone firing from a long distance, he knew they were a newb. It was the guys who waited to get in close, like he did, that he worried about.
 

Scotteq

Diamond Member
Apr 10, 2008
5,276
5
0
Not quite, Scott.
Contra rotating was not the dangerous part, it was which WAY they chose to turn them.
Under low angles of attack, the propeller produces an equal amount of thrust on the left and right side, regardless of rotation.
When the aircraft is at high angles of attack, the side of the propeller that is descending produces far more thrust than the side that is ascending.
The P-38 arrangement has that thrust on the outsides of both engines, far from the aircraft centerline. When you are pulling hard and turning, this blows more air over the ailerons, enhancing roll responsiveness.
That's all good when both engines are making power.
If one quits for whatever reason, now all your thrust is way out there on one side.
This plus lack of experience killed many an early P-38 pilot. It would enter a spin rather quickly.

If they had rotated the other direction, the thrust would be very close to centerline and much safer.


Thanks! :)

...and here's a couple thumbs for the teaching. :thumbsup::thumbsup:
 

KillerCharlie

Diamond Member
Aug 21, 2005
3,691
68
91
Seems like there's much more money coming out of Microsoft. Look what Paul Allen can afford!
http://www.flyingheritage.com/default.aspx

And that's not the only flying museum at that airport!
http://historicflight.org/hf/collection/

I used to live half a mile from that airport. It was crazy - summer weekends it was like a war going on. The building I work in overlooks the airport and we don't get much work done when they're out flying. They're usually flying 3-4 airplanes in a time in formation. With so many historic airplanes in the region, lots of airplanes from other areas stop by.

I think I've seen every American WWII fighter fly, as well as most of the bombers.
 
Last edited: