Figure 1 - Republic P-47D-40 Thunderbolt

During World War II, the United

States introduced four new fighter designs produced by four separate manufacturers: the Republic P-47 Thunderbolt, the Vought F4U/FG-1D Corsair,
the Grumman F6F Hellcat, and the
North American P-51 Mustang.
These fighter designs introduced in
the early 1940s have become legendary. Many Army Air Corps, Navy and
Marine pilots became aces at their controls. Much has been written, and even
more said, concerning the exploits of
these famous aircraft. Today, more than
45 years since these aircraft entered
combat squadrons, the facts and myths
of their capabilities are blurred together
as memories fade and the few remaining examples of these former warriors
are preserved by museums and aviation enthusiasts. Flight time on these
aircraft is usually limited to public air
show exhibitions and, in deference to
the aging airframes and scarcity of engines and parts (not to mention their
cost), they are normally operated well
within their original design limits.
"Ending the Argument" documents
the results of a limited flight test program which was designed to compare,
as far as possible on equal footing, the
performance and flying qualities of
these four historic World War II fighter
aircraft. Unfortunately, the title we
chose for the paper turned out to be
rather ambitious as the test program ac-

Ending
the
Argument
By John M. Ellis III
Kal-Aero, Inc.
5605 Portage Rd.
Kalamazoo Municipal Airport
Kalamazoo, Ml 49002

and
Christopher A. Wheal
Veda, Inc.
300 Exploration
Lexington Park, MD 20653

Photos Courtesy Kalamazoo Aviation

History Museum and Harry Tope
tually raised more questions than it
answered.
The P-47D Thunderbolt, FG-1D Corsair and the F6F-5 Hellcat used in the
program were borrowed from the
Kalamazoo Aviation History Museum,
the "Air Zoo", of Kalamazoo, Michigan.
The P-51D Mustang was on loan from

Harry Tope of Mt. Pleasant, Michigan.

TEST AIRCRAFT

Republic P-47D-40 Thunderbolt

The aircraft is shown in Figure 1. Serial number 45-49181. Powered by Pratt
& Whitney R-2800-59 engine with Curtiss Electric four-bladed, constant
speed propeller. The aircraft and induction system had been modified by removal of the exhaust-driven turbocharger with engine exhaust being
routed through the former wastegate.
The 100 gallon auxiliary fuel tank had
been disconnected and only the main
fuel tank, 270 gallons, was usable. The
test aircraft was equipped with one
stores pylon mounted under each wing.
It is one of five P-47s believed to be in
flyable condition in the United States.
Goodyear FG-1D Corsair
The aircraft is shown in Figure 2.
Bureau number 92509. Powered by
Pratt & Whitney R-2800-8 engine with
Hamilton Standard Hydromatic threebladed, constant speed propeller. With
the exception of modern communication and navigation equipment, the aircraft is unmodified from its original manufactured condition. The Corsair also
had one stores pylon under each wing.
It is one of approximately 25 Corsairs
of different models which exist in flyable
condition in the United States.
SPORT AVIATION 47

Grumman F6F-5 Hellcat

The aircraft is shown in Figure 3.
Bureau number 79683. Powered by
Pratt & Whitney R-2800-10 engine with
Hamilton Standard Hydromatic threebladed, constant speed propeller. With
the exception of modem communication and navigation equipment, the aircraft is unmodified from its original manufactured condition. It is one of five
Hellcats in flyable condition known to
exist.

Rolls Royce V-1650-9 Merlin engine

with Hamilton Standard Hydromatic
four-bladed, constant speed propeller. Major modifications include the removal of a 65 gallon fuel tank located
behind the cockpit and installation of a
passenger jumpseat. Modern communication and navigation equipment
had been fitted as with the other aircraft
in the test program. Approximately 125
flyable P-51 aircraft are believed to
exist.

North American P-51D Mustang

ENGINE PERFORMANCE

The aircraft is shown in Figure 4. Serial number 45-11586. Powered by

The R-1800 engines in the test aircraft were virtually identical and all rated

Figure 5 - Engine Cooling Switches

48 JUNE 1990

at approximately 2,000 BHP. The varied

dash numbers refer to minor differences
such as accessory position and carburetor type. The Merlin engine in the
P-51 was rated 1490 BHP.
MISSION BACKGROUND

Although all designed as fighters,

there were in fact considerable differences in the ways the four aircraft were
employed in combat. In addition, following a trend which has persisted to this
day, they were all sooner or later used
in the air-to-ground role, though to
greatly different extents.
The two Army Air Corps fighters, the

Figure 6 - FG-1D Wing Lock

P-47 and P-51, are best known as long

range bomber escorts. While their final
combat scenarios would have been
practically indistinguishable from those
of the F6F and FG-1D (apart from the
opposition being Me. 109s and FW
190s rather than Kates and Zeroes), an
important distinction lies in the fact that
by the time battle was joined, the Thunderbolt and Mustang pilots had already
been in the air for several hours. Thus
the levels of noise, vibration and comfort in the cockpit environment, while
never unimportant, assumed particular
significance in ensuring that the pilot arrived comparatively fresh and ready for
the fight. A tired and cramped pilot
whose head is buzzing from a noisy engine is not likely to fight as effectively
as one who has spent the previous
three hours or so in a comfortable seat
in a quiet cockpit. These considerations
must be put in the context of the primitive radios and indifferent sound attenuation qualities of 1940s helmets.
TEST ENVELOPE AND LIMITATION

Recognizing the age of the aircraft in

the test program, it was agreed that
structural loads would not exceed 6g.
Military power was permitted for takeoff
and climb to 10,000 ft. MSL consistent
with manifold pressure limitations appropriate for operating on 100LL fuel.
The non-availability of higher octane
fuel reduced the maximum allowable
manifold pressure by approximately
four inches for the three aircraft powered by Pratt & Whitney R-2800 engines. The Rolls Royce Merlin 1650 in
the P-51 D was unaffected. For all other
tests, power was limited to maximum

continuous settings. Superchargers

were limited to "low blower" ranges
which restricted the investigation to altitudes between the surface and 10,000
ft. MSL. Unfortunately, this limitation
precluded an evaluation of the aircraft
at typical "bomber escort" altitudes. All
of the aircraft had permissible CG
ranges of five and one half to eight inches. The P-47 was tested at a CG
range very close to the forward limit,
the F6F at one third aft, the P-51 at
exactly mid CG and the FG-1D at three
quarters aft.
COCKPIT EVALUATION

The cockpits were all essentially typical of 1940's vintage tailwheel aircraft,
which is to say they had some major
ergonomic shortcomings. Important
controls were often positioned with little
regard to whether the pilot could see,
reach or operate them without considerable effort. Each of the aircraft possessed fields of view which on the ground
were limited chiefly by the precise extent of the area ahead blocked by the
engine and forward fuselage. The need
for constant S-turns to avoid hitting
things while taxiing was part of the
charm of flying these aircraft. In all
cases the field of view improved considerably from the moment the tail was
raised during the takeoff roll; but even
in flight the forward fuselage and engine
continued to present a serious obstruction to forward and downward vision
and must have caused considerable difficulties in shooting at large deflection
angles or in air-to-ground aiming with a
depressed sight-line when the target
would tend to disappear under the

nose. In addition, sitting above or behind a large straight wing creates a

further blind area in a direction which
could well be critical in combat with the
opposition coming up to meet you from
below. Rather than describe every fault
in detail, we shall pick out some of the
best and worst features.
P-47 - The massive size of the P-47
is misleading. In fact, it had the most
cramped and uncomfortable cockpit of
all four aircraft. The rudder pedals were
adjustable for reach and the seat for
height (as were all the aircraft), but the
maximum available seat back to pedal
distance was only 41 inches which corresponds to a 20th percentile leg length.
Longer legged pilots were condemned
to suffer without thigh support, which
was uncomfortable enough during
these short duration test flights and
would certainly have been hard to endure on a long range bomber escort
mission. The tops of the pedals could
be folded down to allow the pilot to put
his feet on them but even that brought
scant relief.
The control switches for the oil cooler
flaps, intercooler flaps and canopy were
clustered under the canopy rail at the
pilot's left shoulder (Figure 5), almost
impossible to see and very hard to identify.The cooler control switches in particular were arranged one on top of the
other, operated in the same sense, and
were difficult to tell apart by feel. Inadvertently operating the canopy switch in
flight would be immediately obvious but
operating the wrong cooler switch
would not and, if followed by a hectic
period at high power, could lead to engine damage before being detected.
The tailwheel lock control was on the
SPORT AVIATION 49

>
Figure 3 - Grumman F6F-5 Hellcat

cockpit floor outboard of the seat attachment point and required an awkward stretch to reach; but on the positive side, the incorporation of an automatic tailwheel lock which operates
whenever the landing gear is lowered
is an enhancing feature and one which
could well have been copied in other
designs.
FG-1D - Anyone familiar with the
cockpit of the SNJ/AT-6 family would
feel instantly at home in the bottomless
pit of the Corsair. Anything dropped and
not secured to the pilot's person is probably gone for good, or at least until after
the flight, given the natural tendency of
inanimate objects to wedge themselves
into corners from which they cannot be
dislodged even by determined applications of negative Gs.
All cockpit controls are in the pilot's
normal view and within easy reach except for the wing fold lock control at the
rear of the left cockpit shelf (Figure 6).
It was difficult to reach and very stiff in
operation requiring more strength than

the pilot could exert while seated and

necessitating his unstrapping or getting
help from a plane captain to manually
lock the wings in the spread position.
Doing so would delay a mission or
perhaps induce the launch of an aircraft
with the wing hydraulically but not
mechanically locked. Other Corsair
owners indicated that the wing locking
mechanism on this aircraft was not untypical which suggests that the several
documented cases of Corsair wings
folding in flight could have been caused
by this problem.
F6F - Largest and roomiest cockpit of
all. Adjustable seat and rudder pedals
gave a maximum seatback to pedal distance of 47 inches, enough to accommodate a 98th percentile leg reach. The
only control difficult to reach was the
emergency landing gear extension
lever which required the pilot to unlock
his harness to operate it.
P-51 - The most comfortable cockpit
of all. Seat and rudder pedal adjustments were of a range to fit practically

TABLE I
TAKEOFF AND MILITARY POWER CLIMB

Takeoff Weight
Runway Temperature
Liftoff Speed
Takeoff Distance
Climb Speed

P-47D
1 1 ,535
54F

110mph/96kts
1500ft

155/mph/135kts

FG-1D

F6F-5

p.S1D

1 1 ,055
77F
85kts
1200ft
135 Ms

10,681
62F

8,900
62F

90kts
1400ft
130 Ms

115mph/100Ms
1500ft
175mph/152kts

any size pilot. The seat was inclined aft

and the pedals were installed higher
than in the other aircraft which gave the
feeling of sitting in a high class sports
car. An enhancing feature was the fully
automatic operation of the coolant door
and oil cooler shutters which required
no attention in flight other than monitoring the appropriate temperatures.
Overall, the four aircraft were ranked
approximately the same for each of the
three categories of pilot comfort, ease
of operation of cockpit controls, and
field of view in the air and on the ground:
P-51, F6F, FG-1D and P-47.
TAXI

The P-47, F6F and FG-1D all had tailwheels which were locked for takeoff
and landing or free castering for taxiing.
Directional wheel control was by differential braking. The P-51 had a tailwheel linked to the rudder pedals which
was steerable through 6 degrees either
side of neutral. The steering mechanism could be disengaged by pushing
the stick full forward which allowed
the tailwheel to become fully castering for tight turns or maneuvering in
confined spaces. All aircraft were easy
to taxi but taxiing in a crosswind with
the three fully castering tailwheels required riding the downwind brake, increasing wear and possibly leading to
brake overheating. Once again the P-51
came out on top.
TAKEOFF HANDLING

Takeoff for all four aircraft was made

50 JUNE 1990

P-47
FG-1D
8 -

F6F-5
P-51D

FIGURE 7
CLIMB PERFORMANCE

2 -

30

60

90

120

150

180

TIME FROM BRAKE RELEASE -

with the flaps up, setting field barometric manifold pressure while holding the
brakes and increasing to military power
immediately after brake release. The
tail was raised to the takeoff attitude as
soon as elevator control was available.
A positive rotation was made for liftoff
and the gear was retracted as soon as
a positive rate of climb was established.
Takeoff conditions are listed in Table I.
All the aircraft required some preset
right rudder trim for takeoff. The P-47
called for 5 degrees and the P-51 and
FG-1D required 6 degrees while the
F6F needed full rudder trim. For all but
the Hellcat, the preset takeoff trims provided good control of the initial swing
with application of military power and
yet enabled the foot forces to be completely trimmed out during the climb.
The Hellcat, however, required additional right rudder during the takeoff roll
and climbout when the foot forces were
light and easy to apply.
In all other respects the aircraft were
easy to fly and trim, with minimal trim
changes from gear retraction and initial
acceleration.
CLIMB PERFORMANCE
AND HANDLING

The results of test day military power

climbs to 10,000 ft. MSL for the four
aircraft are presented in Figure 7. The
data for the Mustang is not truly repre-

210

240

270

300

330

SECONDS

sentative because rough running at

4,000 ft. required the power to be reduced to METO which smoothed out
the engine operation but naturally reduced the rate of climb somewhat. The
Hellcat came out on top with a time of
four minutes fifteen seconds from brake
release to 10,000 ft. but there was less
than thirty seconds between it and the
FG-1D, while the Mustang would clearly
have benefited from the missing few inches of manifold pressure. The handling of all the test aircraft in the climb
was good and all control forces could
be trimmed out with the exception of
the rudder forces in the F6F Hellcat
which needed continuous right rudder
for this and all other high power operations at fairly low speed. The forces
were estimated at 80 to 100 pounds and
were high enough to be tiring even during the few minutes in the climb to
10,000 ft. A prolonged climb to higher
altitude would have been very tiring and
the probability of a pilot relaxing the
right rudder force and incurring a loss
of climb performance would be high.
LEVEL ACCELERATIONS

The level acceleration tests were

conducted at 10,000 ft. MSL using
METO power. For all tests the OAT was
50 degrees F. The results are presented in Figure 8. It can be seen that,
while there was not a great deal of dif-

ference between the R-2800 powered

airplanes, the P-51 had a decided advantage both in acceleration and top
speed. Both the P-47 and the FG-1D
were handicapped by underwing pylons
but it is doubtful if the results were significantly affected.
STALL CHARACTERISTICS

Normal and accelerated stall characteristics were evaluated for all the aircraft in the cruise and landing configurations with power at idle, cruise and
METO at 10,000 ft. MSL. Normal stalls,
power on or power off, were conducted
in straight flight using a slow deceleration (less than one kt./sec.). Accelerated stalls were conducted in a constant
3g turn allowing the airspeed to decay
at less than one kt./sec. The results are
presented in Table II.
Aerodynamic warning of the normal
stalls in both configurations ranged from
scant to nonexistent. The P-47 was the
best with some light airframe buffet occurring about five kts. above the stall.
The P-51 had virtually no warning, the
Corsair and Hellcat a couple of knots
apiece. Secondary cues such as decreasing aileron effectiveness and increasing longitudinal stick forces were
noticeable in all except the FG-1D in
which the stick forces tended to lighten
before the stall. Normal stalls for all aircraft in all configurations, power on or
SPORT AVIATION 51

240-

FIGURE 8
LEVEL ACCELERATION
10.000 FT MSL
METO POWER

100'

40

60

i
I
80
100
TIME - SECONDS

120

poising motions and the ever present

power off, were defined by an uncomlikelihood of departure.
manded nose down pitch accompanied
The P-51 provided virtually no warnin most cases by a wing drop, the direcing whatsoever of the accelerated stall
tion and severity of which were strongly
other than a very slight trembling felt
influenced by any departure from bathrough the stick immediately before
lanced flight conditions. In all normal
departure which was not obvious to an
stalls except those in the Corsair with
alert pilot with nothing else to concern
power on, it was possible to control the
him and would have been almost cerwing drop by coarse use of the rudder.
tain to be missed during the heat of
The behavior during accelerated
combat. At the stall, the aircraft invaristalls is of more interest from the comably departed with complete loss of
bat pilot's point of view and it was here
control, on occasion achieving 270 dethat the most significant differences
grees of roll before recovery could be
were found. The most predictable and
effected. The departure was accomcontrollable were the Hellcat and the Ppanied by a violent aileron snatch which
47. Both could be flown at will into the
was strong enough to take the stick out
pre-stall buffet, which at no time was
of the hand of an unprepared pilot.
heavy enough to present problems with
However, the two-handed pull necessitracking and held at maximum usable
tated by the high maneuvering stick
lift coefficient with ease. Any significant
sideslip became noticeable as a pro- forces would probably have reduced the
chances of that actually happening in
gressive wing heaviness which was the
combat. Altitude lost in the departure
pilot's cue to make a rudder correction,
and recovery was about 500 ft.
but in the absence of gross mishandling
From these results, it can easily be
there was little tendency to depart.
seen that the P-47 and Hellcat were the
The Corsair generated considerable
most "user-friendly" of the four, with the
airframe buffet five knots prior to stall in
Corsair next and perhaps more suited
a constant 3g turn but at the stall there
to experienced pilots. The P-51's lack
was a pronounced g-break and a rapid
of stall warning and consistent deparright wing drop regardless of the directure constituted what these days would
tion of the turn. With care, the wing drop
be classified as a Part I deficiency. Incould be prevented with some anticipadeed, as we discovered, there are plentory left rudder but the aircraft then betiful accounts of Mustangs spinning out
came very unpredictable at the stall with
moderate to severe bucking and por- of combat engagements.
52 JUNE 1990

140

160

180

TURN PERFORMANCE

Sustained turn performance was

evaluated at 10,000 ft. MSL at METO
power. While again not reflecting the
true performance to be achieved at
combat power settings, we believe that
the playing field was level enough to
allow reasonably valid comparisons between aircraft. Instantaneous turn performance was evaluated in wind-up
turns from 10,000 ft. The results are
presented in Figures 9 and 10.
The results are interesting in that,
below about 130 kts., the sustained and
instantaneous turn performances for
each aircraft were virtually the same,
though separated by about 1g between
the best and the worst. As expected,
the Hellcat out turned the other three by
a fairly conclusive margin. There was
too much scatter in the results to make
a confident distinction among the rest,
but it looks as though the P-47 came off
worst with the P-51 and FG-1D ahead
but not by much.
Another interesting feature is that for
all the aircraft the corner speeds were
remarkably close to the maximum level
flight speed, implying a very rapid
energy loss when turning at the structural limit. The Hellcat was in light airframe buffet at 6g at Vmax, while the
P-47 exhibited light buffet at 4.8g and
moderate at 5.2g. The FG-1D and the

P-51D were buffet free up to 6g at their

maximum level flight speeds. Of course,
the maximum level flight speeds would
have been higher at combat power settings but so would the structural limits:
the Corsair, for example, had an operational limit of 7.5g.

TABLE II
STALL CHARACTERISTICS

C P1 Vwarn
CP'Vstall
CP 1 Height Loss
C P2 Vwarn
C P2 Vstall

C P2 Height Loss
1

LP Vwarn

L P1 Vstall
LP' Height Loss
L P2 Vwarn

L P2 Vstall
L P2 Height Loss
Accel Vwarn

Accel Vstall
Accel Height Loss
NOTES :

P-47D
107kts
97kts

FG-1D
90 kts
85 kts

200 ft
90kts

250ft
78 kts
76 kts
100ft
73 kts
69 kts
150ft
57 kts
55 kts
50ft
103 kts
98 kts
150ft

87kts
50ft

91 kts
87kts
200ft
74 kts
70 kts
50ft
1 26 kts
109 kts
100ft

C - Cruise Configuration
L - Landing Configuration

P-51D

F6F-5
75 kts

89 kts

68 kts
200ft
68 kts
62 kts
50ft
65 kts
60 kts
100ft
58 kts
52 kts
50ft
100 kts
95 kts
150ft

87 kts
250ft
85 kts
83 kts
100ft
76 kts
74 kts
150ft
72 kts
70 kts
50ft
122 kts
122 kts
500ft

P 1 - Power Off
P2 - Power On

MANEUVERING STABILITY

Accel - 3g Turn, Decaying

Airspeed

STATIC LATERALDIRECTIONAL STABILITY

< 2-

ISO

too

250

150

AIRSPEED - WAS

FIGURE 9
SUSTAINED TURN PERFORMANCE
10.000 FT MSL

METO POWER

STRUCTURAL LIMIT

30

The maneuvering stability as indicated by the stick force per g in wind-up

turns at Vmax is presented in Figure
11. Probably the most conspicuous feature is the very high stick forces displayed by the Mustang, averaging over
20 Ibs. per g. In fact, the force gauge
only read to 60 Ibs. so that the forces
for 4 and 5g were estimated. But
throughout the test program, there was
no doubt at all that the Mustang was a
two-handed airplane in which prolonged hard maneuvering was extremely tiring. By contrast, the FG-1D
with an average of only 5 Ibs. per g, and
a local gradient between 4 and 5g (a
great deal less) was almost too light.
The P-47's 7.5 Ibs. per g was just about
ideal while the Hellcat's 12.5 Ibs. per g
was barely acceptable and verging on
excessive.

100

190
AIRSPEED - WAS

FIGURE 10
INSTANTANEOUS TURN PERFORMANCE
10,000 FT MSL

METO POWER

250

The aircraft all exhibited positive static directional stability and positive dihedral effect. Steady heading sideslips
in cruise and land configurations revealed nothing out of the ordinary
beyond the fact that the rudder forces
in both the Hellcat and Corsair were extremely high. Full rudder sideslips generally required 50-60% of available aileron deflection in cruise at 180-190 kts.
and 20-50% aileron in the landing configuration. Sideforces were highest for
the P-47 which required 45 degrees of
bank to the left at 190 kts. and 20 degrees at 120 kts. Rather surprising in
view of its deep fuselage and large keel
area, the Hellcat did not require particularly large bank angles, but this may
well have resulted more from limited
rudder control power and strong directional stability restricting the amount of
sideslip that could be generated.
All the aircraft showed marked asymmetries between left and right sideslips,
especially with regard to the bank angles which were as a rule substantially
less for slips to the right than to the left.
Unfortunately, steady heading sideslip
data was incomplete for the FG-1D and
the P-51. This precluded further investigation of a peculiarity which came to
light during rudder-only turns. The Corsair's only response to left rudder in
either configuration was to drop its
nose, suggesting weak or non-existent
dihedral effect with right sideslip.

All the aircraft except the P-47 posSPORT AVIATION 53

TABLE V
DIVING ACCELERATION
(30 DIVE, 10,000' - 5,000' PULL UP - LEVEL (a 4,000')

P-47D
START SPEED
MAX SPEED

TIME

FG-1D
100kts
348 kts
32 sec

110kts
350 kls
23 sec

F6F-5
100 kts
315 kts
28 sec

P-51D
120 kts
350 kts
25 sec

TABLE VI
LEVEL 180 HEADING CHANGE (METO)
(START 220 kts (<> 10,000' MSL)
P-47D

9.7 sec

FG-1D
8 5 sec

P-51D

F6F-5

10.0 sec

9 9 sec

sessed at least moderate degrees of

adverse aileron yaw, the worst being
the Hellcat in which the yaw was quite
marked. Countering it during aggressive maneuvering was hard work and
quite tiring in the Hellcat and the Corsair
because of their very high rudder
forces. The P-51 also required continuous rudder coordination but the forces
were low enough for it not to be a problem. Aileron yaw was negligible in the
P-47 which made accurate tracking
considerably easier than in the other
aircraft.

to 25-27% for the Mustang, 28-33% for

the Corsair, and 26-38% for the Hellcat,
making large changes of direction
under g a fairly ponderous business. No
wonder that improving roll rate was a
major goal for fighter designers of the
period when gaining a few degrees per
second could endow a substantial advantage over the opposition. Roll rates
in the landing configuration were very
similar for all the aircraft, time to roll
through 90 degrees being about 2.3-2.4
seconds with an average roll rate of
about 38 degrees per second.

ROLL PERFORMANCE

DYNAMIC STABILITY

Roll performance was evaluated

using full aileron deflection in rolls to
the right and left at 10,000 ft. MSL at
200 kts. for 1g rolls through 360 degrees and 220 kts. for rolls at 3g through
180 degrees. The results are presented
in Tables III and IV.
While the 1g roll rates are not particularly impressive by modern standards,
they were nonetheless quite respectable for their day. It is significant that all
the aircraft, with the exception once
again of the P-47, showed substantial
reductions in roll performance when
rolling under g. Eventually the P-47 lost
11 % of its roll performance in loaded
rolls to the right (though nothing to the
left), but this was negligible compared

As expected, the dynamic modes

were typically well behaved. Damping
ratios were high resulting in short period
oscillation which were either deadbeat
(P-47 and FG-1D) or nearly so (F6F and
P-51 and a single overshoot). Dutch roll
modes were also well damped, the Corsair being the worst with three overshoots, the F6F with one, and the P-51
and P-47 deadbeat. The phugoids were
likewise well damped and not obtrusive
in normal flying.
DIVING ACCELERATIONS

Dives were performed both to quantify the trim changes to be expected with
speed variations and to evaluate the

TABLE III
TIME TO ROLL 360

(10,000 ft MSL,

P-47D

RIGHT
LEFT

54 JUNE 1990

FG-1D

200 KIAS)

F6F-5

P-51D

4.9 sec (74/sec) 4.5sec(81/sec) 4.6 sec (78/sec) 4.8 sec (75/sec)
5.9sec(61/sec) 4.9 sec (73/sec) 5.9sec(61/sec) 5.1 sec(71/sec)

ability of the aircraft to run out of a losing

fight. Starting in level flight at 10,000 ft.
MSL with METO power from typical pattern speeds, the dives were entered via
a minus 1g pushover to a 30 degree
angle. Recovery was initiated at 5,000
ft. The results are presented in Table V.
From the performance aspect, the results are slightly confused by the fact
that the starting speeds were not the
same for all aircraft. The 10 and 20 kt.
starting advantages that the P-47 and
P-51 had over the Corsair and Hellcat
probably influenced the results, though
it is nonetheless significant that the P47 still outran the P-51 despite being 10
kts. down on it at the beginning. The
F6F apparently being four seconds
quicker than the Corsair, despite starting from the same speed and ending 33
kts. slower, suggests that there may be
some scatter in the results.
The flying qualities encountered during the dives were of more interest. In
the Hellcat, the out-of-trim stick and rudder forces built up faster than they could
be trimmed out and quickly became
substantial. The P-51 experienced
moderate increases in both longitudinal
and directional control forces which
could easily be trimmed out. In the Corsair, the longitudinal stick forces were
light and easily manageable but the rudder forces were high and required retrimming. The P-47 showed moderate
increases in both stick and rudder
forces which were easily controllable
without retrimming but could also easily
be trimmed out if desired.
SIMULATED MISSION TASKS
AND AGILITY TESTING

This was, so to speak, the "proof of

the pudding" part of the test program.
The aircraft were subjected to a couple
of basic agility tests (suggested by the
reports on agility testing conducted at
Edwards recently) consisting of
evaluating the ease with which a target
of 3g could quickly be captured and
held for 3-5 seconds, and the time taken
for a 180 degree heading reversal.
Then simulated air-to-air and air-toground tracking tasks were performed
with the results recorded on a video
camera.
Agility Tests - The g capture and
hold was easiest in the P-47 which was
predictable and accurate. The Hellcat
bobbled a bit and overshot the target by
0.2g while both the P-51 and the FG-1 D
overshot by 0.5g before returning to a
steady state. The results of the heading
reversal test, performed from 220 kts.
straight and level at 10,000 ft. with
METO power, are presented in Table
VI and are somewhat inconclusive,
though apparently showing the FG-1D
as the winner with 8.5 seconds for the
180 degrees. With 0.3 seconds cover-

Figure 4 - North American P-510 Mustang

ing the other three aircraft, no clear conclusions can be drawn.

Air-to-Air Tracking - The starting
conditions for the air-to-air tracking task
were 210 kts. at 10,000 ft. MSL, straight
and level. The target profile consisted
of a 3g turn to the left building to 4gs
followed by a hard reversal into a 4g
right turn. The video recorder was
mounted on the glare shield in each aircraft in approximately the same position

as a gunsight. The video tape shows,

among other things, just how limited the
field of view was from these aircraft.
Accurate tracking was easiest in the
Corsair, at least partly because the light
longitudinal stick forces did not interfere
with lateral aiming corrections. The P47 and Hellcat were next with the order
dictated by the increasing longitudinal
stick forces and difficulty of coordinating
aileron inputs with rudder. Finally, the

Mustang. The very high longitudinal

stick forces required both hands on the
stick and made delicate lateral corrections difficult. Also, the complete absence of any stall warning resulted in a
totally unpredictable departure at about
4.5g during a longitudinal tracking correction. The characteristics encountered during this test strongly supported
the conclusions reached in the stall
evaluation. Tracking accuracy was not

100 -i

P51-D
80 -

FIGURE 11
STICK FORCE PER G

60 -

F6F-5
40-

20 -

3
NORMAL ACCELERATION -

SPORT AVIATION 55

TABLE IV
TIME TO ROLL 180
(10,000 ft MSL, 220 KIAS, 3g)
LEFT

RIGHT

P-47D
2.7sec(66 c /sec)
-11%

3.0 sec (61C /sec)

No Change

FG-1D
P-51D
F6F-5
3.1 sec(58/sec) 3.7 sec (48c/sec) 3.3 sec (55/sec)
-28%
-38%
-27%
3.7 sec (49/sec) 4.0 sec (45/sec) 3.4 sec (53/sec)
-33%
-26%
-25%

the whole story however. The forward

field of view, while not good in any of
the aircraft, was particularly bad in the
Thunderbolt because, as well as being
long, the nose was so wide. The Corsair
scored well in this respect because its
forward fuselage was narrow but still
accommodated the R-2800.
Air-to-Ground Tracking - The air-toground tracking task consisted of a 90
degree roll into a 30 degree dive starting from 200 kts. at 5,000 ft. MSL allowing the aircraft to accelerate in the dive.
Recovery was a 3.5g right rolling pullout
to a 90 degree heading change initiated
at 2,500 ft.
The flying qualitites were essentially
unchanged from those seen in the diving acceleration though the smaller
speed range reduced the magnitude of
the out-of-trim stick and rudder forces.
The major interest was to determine
how the flying qualities affected tracking
ability.
The P-47 was the best of the group.
During the 125 kt. acceleration in the
dive, the stick and rudder forces remained light and easily manageable
without retrimming. The aircraft's crisp
and deadbeat control responses, with
negligible Dutch roll excitation, made
accurate tracking particularly easy
though once again the extremely poor
field of view was obvious and would
have made depressed sight-line aiming
difficult or impossible.
The Corsair was next best. The longitudinal control forces remained light
and pleasant during the 100 kt. acceleration but the rudder forces became
high, though not so high as to make
retrimming mandatory. Control responses were crisp and virtually deadbeat but aggressive lateral corrections
required continuous rudder coordination which was hampered by the high
pedal forces.
The Mustang was similar to the Corsair in roll but the longitudinal stick
forces were noticeably heavier though
rudder forces were lower and coordinated lateral corrections were slightly
easier.
The longitudinal stick forces in the
Hellcat increased approximately 20 Ibs.
during the 100 kt. acceleration and the
rudder forces became high enough to
be a considerable hindrance to accurate tracking.
56 JUNE 1990

POWER MANAGEMENT

The primary power management

controls consisting of throttle, mixture
and propeller controls were located in
quadrants to the pilot's lower left side.
The Hellcat and Corsair used identical
hardware but the P-47 and P-51 were
different from them and from each
other. Secondary controls such as cowl
flaps, oil cooler and intercooler controls
varied substantially among the four aircraft.
Throttle and Propeller Response Manifold pressure response to throttle
movement was instantaneous in all aircraft, though no automatic manifold
pressure limiters were fitted and it was
entirely the pilot's responsiblity to avoid
overboosting. Propeller response for
the Hamilton Standard propellers was
quick and positive though showing a
small tendency for the rpm to vary in
response to airspeed and manifold
pressure changes. The Curtiss electric
propeller on the Thunderbolt was
noticeably slower to respond and
lagged by as much as 2-3 seconds for
large rpm changes such as that between METO (2550 rpm) and cruise
(2100 rpm). It was also sluggish to respond to manifold pressure changes
and had noticeable tendency to overspeed in dives though not to any
hazardous extent.
All the radial-engine aircraft depended entirely on the pilot to monitor
engine conditions and adjust the controls accordingly. In steady flight, it was
relatively easy to establish the correct
cowl and cooler flap settings but engine
temperatures were sensitive to small
changes in manifold pressure, rpm and
airspeed and in rapidly changing flight
conditions, especially at high power.
Management of the secondary controls
was a demanding task, especially when
coupled with confusing or awkwardly
placed control switches. The general
consensus would generally be to overcool an engine rather than overheat it
and that the best thing to do would be
to worry about the engine until after the
fight. Unfortunately, cowl and cooler
flaps are quite serious drag producers
and have significant adverse effects on
performance. Getting the answer wrong
either way could have serious consequences.

The automatic control of the oil and

coolant radiator flaps in the P-51 relieved the pilot of a great deal of fussy,
secondary workload and enabled him
to direct more of his attention to matters
of major importance. It is surprising that
more effort was not given to developing
similar systems for other aircraft of the
time.
CONCLUSIONS
The objective of the test program as
stated, albeit rather tongue-in-cheek,
was to decide which of these four aircraft was the "best" U. S. fighter in
World War II. The answer is, "it depends." For general, all-around comfort,
field of view and ease of operation, the
Mustang was a hands down winner. It
also scored high in performance, was
well suited to long range escort missions and would do well intercepting
and defending against non-maneuvering targets. However, its extraordinarily
high maneuvering stick forces, totally
inadequate stall warning and vicious
departure characteristics make it quite
unsuited to the ACM environment. It is
a tribute to the adaptability of the pilots
who flew them that Mustangs scored so
many kills against the opposition.
In a turning fight, the FG-1D emerged
with a slight advantage over its rivals.
Light and comfortable stick forces, good
performance, adequate stall warning
and docile behavior at the stall made it
the "weapon of choice" among those
tested.
The Hellcat, while possessing almost
a 1g advantage over the other aircraft
at any given speed, was handicapped
by heavy stick forces which interfered
with accurate lateral tracking corrections, very heavy rudder forces which
made coordination difficult, and an extreme reluctance to turn right at low
speed and high power. Despite these
shortcomings, it is worth remembering
that the Hellcat holds the air-to-air kill
ratio record of 19:1.
In the air-to-air environment, the P-47
did all that was asked of it, handling
nicely but unspectacularly; however, it
was principally handicapped by its severely restricted field of view. In the airto-ground role, however, the light stick
forces, almost complete absence of adverse yaw, and crisp, deadbeat tracking
responses overcame that drawback
and made it particularly suitable for the
mission. The other major weakness of
the Thunderbolt was the poorly designed and extremely uncomfortable
cockpit which would undoubtedly degrade pilot performance on a long mission.
In closing, we would like to express
our sincere thanks to Harry Tope and
the Kalamazoo Aviation History
Museum for making available the aircraft used for this test program.