Comments by "Gort" (@gort8203) on "" video.

@toomanyuserids And the P-47 was the best at high altitude, where it completed outclassed the F6F. Tools for purposes.
6
@alexhurlbut As I said, I fail to see your point. The P-47 was more expensive than the F6F -- so what? Did the P-47 outperform the F6F in its intended role? Yes. What is your point in comparing these two in the context of the F6F vs the F4U?
5
@AmericasChoice Strength and durability are not superior engineering, they are easily achieved by excess material when it comes to airplanes and race cars. Superior engineering is making it strong enough while lighter and smoother than it would be if you just threw more material at it.
5
@alexhurlbut Huh?? You must be aware that the P-47 was used in the high-altitude escort role over Germany. And the Germans used "combatant planes" that would have run away from the F6F, which was inadequate for that role. Not sure what your point is, but my point was don't try to belittle the P-47 because it was more expensive than a plane with inferior performance.
4
@AmericasChoice LOL! You are opining about which aircraft was superior in order to try to invalidate my general statement about what constitutes superior engineering when I didn't even say which airplane I think was better. Why don't you read what I said instead of getting triggered into a fanboy outrage by it? Strength and durability are easy. Strength and durability while providing superior performance is superior engineering. Same for race cars as for fighter planes. Durability keeps you in the fight, but performance is what wins the fight, and excess durability hinders performance. By the way, you are obviously ignorant about which of these two aircraft had superior performance, because it was not the F6F. Crack open a book or two yourself. You sound like a PR man for Grumman.
4
@AmericasChoice You really just want to continue with childish personal attacks? Why not try to refute my point? Oh, you can't because your point has no logic behind it. If you want to start over and try to use logic refute this: Strength and durability are not superior engineering, they are easily achieved by excess material when it comes to airplanes and race cars. Superior engineering is making it strong enough while lighter and smoother than it would be if you just threw more material at it.
4
@jacktattis I'm sure you saw that figure somewhere, so I don't doubt your reporting, but figures I've seen show that even the F4U-1 still had more than 200 fpm on the F6F. If two equivalent period service versions of these planes were ever comparison tested on the same day by the same pilot with same technique, I'd like to see that report.
3
@randycoursey7230 Your comments are confusing: "The f6f was not designed for high altitude". Did I say it was? Actually, it did have a good 2-stage supercharging system which was good at high altitude, just not as good at the even higher altitude the P-47 was designed for. You also said this, which is inexplicable light of the previous comment: "I thought the p-47 and F4U Corsair had the exact same engines with the same superchargers?" They did not have the exact same engines and supercharges. They had close to identical R-2800 engines, but different second stage superchargers, the F6F being mechanical and the P47 exhaust driven. Both aircraft did what they were designed to do, which was not exactly the same. What is your problem with what I said?
3
@ThatsMrPencilneck2U Good point, but actually as a technical detail the F4U had a perfectly cylindrical cowl because the intakes for the oil cooler and intercooler were in the wing roots instead of in the cowl as they were for other aircraft, for example the F6F. The F4U had some sophisticated aerodynamic features for its time.
3
Not sure what you are trying to say. The F6F needed a successor because its speed and climb performance was not enough. The F4u didn't need a successor, it was its own successor and went to the next war in which neither the F6F or the F8F participated. Of all of them I would prefer to fly the F8F, but it was a later design and should have been "better".
2
@jacktattis You don't seem to understand the meaning of service ceiling if you think that means something, which gives me a clue as to why you don't understand that the F6F, while a good airplane, was not up to the performance of contemporary U.S. fighters. At high altitude the P-47 had more horsepower, more speed, and more sustained maneuvering potential. This is what matters in combat.
2
The F8F was a completely different airplane. A family resemblance does not make it merely a result of fine tuning. The F8F intentionally sacrificed many of the F6F's supposed virtues in order to be significantly different and provide outstanding performance.
2
Easier to fly is not superior, unless you are buying an airplane for a weekend-only pilot. For a fighter plane superior speed, climb, and dive are superior. The hottest airplane are never the easiest to fly, but they still make them as hot as they can get away with for a reason.
1
@flutter8712 The F4U was harder to fly than a Bearcat -- so what? The Bearcat was not mentioned, so what the heck has that got to do with what I said? Everybody knows the Corsair was harder to land on a carrier than the F6F. Does that somehow invalidate my statement that the hottest airplanes are not the easiest to fly? Do you have any logical point at all?
1
@thomasking4136 Both those myths are completely false. Both airplane were on the drawing board before those enemy airplanes were seen by Grumman.
1
You seem to be one of the few who noticed that. The video even said the F4U flew more air to ground sorties than the F6F, so comparing their air to air kill ratios is not an indicator of which was best at air to air combat. There is no question the F4U outperformed the F6F, and more importantly enemy aircraft by a more significant margin.
1
@jacktattis His point is that by doing more air to ground sorties than the F6F the F4U encounter less air to air fighting. That means comparing kill totals even on a per sortie basis does not reliably indicate which aircraft was better at air combat.
1
@jacktattis Not as "good"? I'm sure the F6F was 'gooder' at certain things, such a pilot forward visibility, carrier landing, and slow speed turn radius. That does not change the fact that the F4U had superior performance.
1
Water injection was NOT based on technology from captured Japanese Zeros. Come on man, where do you get this stuff.
1
It may not have been the best all around "airplane" in all things, but there is no question the F4U was the better "fighter" for combat due to its superior speed and climb. Superior speed and climb always come with a cost, and the F4U was more difficult to handle, but I'm sure pilots going up against tough opposition would choose it. The F6F was lucky it went up against Japanese aircraft that were usually inferior to it, so its speed and climb were good enough to dominate.
1
@jacktattis As I said in another response, I don't know where you are getting your data, but it is different than the data I have seen.
1
@jacktattis I'm not going to get into slicing and dicing different sources with your three separate comments on this. Bottom line is that the very first F4U broke 400 MPH, and the F6F never did.
1
That claim is completely untrue. Water injection was well know before the war even started, so there was no need to wait for a captured Japanese airplane from which to copy the technology. The Japanese were not ahead of the rest of the world in engine technology.
1