Quote:
Originally Posted by Broncazonk
There is an actual 1944 combat evaluation report at ww2aircraftperformance.org comparing the F4U-1, F6F-3, and FW 190A-4:
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.o...0/ptr-1107.pdf
In summary:
FW 190 has a better climb rate at higher airspeeds;
F4U is considerably faster than the FW 190 at sea level, about equal at 15k ft. and slower at 25k ft. The F6F was slower than the other two at all altitudes except at sea level, where it was equal to the FW 190.
Roll rate of the F4U and FW 190 are about equal, which is impressive since the FW 190 is well known for having an excellent roll rate.
*Turn performance of the F4U and F6F were "far superior" to the FW 190, both being able to get behind the FW 190 from a head-on merge within one full turn.
*General maneuverability of the F4U and F6F was also better, with tighter loops, better behavior in tight turns (FW 190 tends to drop a wing abruptly), and formation flying was easier due to finer engine control.
*Forward visibility was considered to be worse in the FW 190 vs the other two, but rear visibility was better.
The general recommendation given for F4U and F6F pilots is to get close and beat the FW 190 in a turn fight. |
I have found that the USN had a tendency to not specify rated HP and occasionally slipped in a ringer (i.e WI@65" MP w/P&W R-2800 8W when fleet standard Combat Rating was 59"MP).
The F4U-1 with R-2800-8 at 52" was not as fast ast the FW 190 in Low to medium altitudes and barely equal above 18000.
It does not state how well (or at all) the FW 190 was rigged, nor the boost. Was it an honest 1.42 Ata with a standard BMW 801D? The F4U was a good roller but not as good as either the P-47D or the FW 190.
You'll notice that the best airspeed for best ROC for both F6F and F4U was 20kts below FW 190 giving the FW the advantage of separation at lower ROC.
The FW 190A4 was a late 1942/early 1943 model. How tired was that airframe? It was noted that the airframe was converted from fighter bomber mode. Were 501 acks removed? Were F6F or F4F equipped with racks?
It was noted that the engine lost all power at 33000 feet? What else was 'wrong' about the FW 190A4 that eluded the test description?
In real life, against an equal pilot, it might not be a great idea to engage in a manuever fight at low/medium speeds with FW 190.
In contrast, the F6F could out turn the P-51 (any version) but the F4U could not, nor could the P-47D or P-38J. Neither the P-51B/C/D or P-47D or P38J were recommended to fight in the horizontal at low to medium speeds against the FW 190A (or D).
Color me cynical, but in all the 'comparisons' I have seen between USN and other service aircraft rarely presents a Navy fighter as inferior.