Corsair -v- Me109 or Fw190?

[Jukka Juutinen]

The weight reduction of fixed wings vs. folding wings would be quite minimal. Performance-wise, probably more significant would be the removal of the arrester hook.

[drgondog]

Originally Posted by Jukka Juutinen

F4U turn was substantially improved with flaps. As far as I know, the flaps of the F6F were less effective in this. Both had quite similar wing-loading and wing profile (Naca 230xx).

All test reports on the Fw 190 mention that it had very little stall warning under acceleration and the departure was very violent.

Why should the F4U be limited to 52" when the - 8W allowed 60 "? It is the very same issue as with early Allison's and their very low manual ratings vs. what was achievable.

On the other hand, the BMW 801 was a very fragile engine and tolarated high powered and" abuse" poorly.

Only to establish period vs period in model comparisons via flight tests. The A4 was in combat 18 mo (?) earler than F4U-1. A better comparison is A-5.

For 1944 F4U-1 and -1D at 62" perhaps compare vs FW 190A-8 @ 1.58/1.65ata? or FW-190D-9 w/MW50? F4U-4 comparisons need to focus on FW 190D-9/-D-13 and Ta 152.



Ditto for selecting 109 model for comparison in period vs Period.

As for combat flap deployment for F4U, it's established best rate of turn could not be maintained at same altitude - same issue with all fighters deploying flaps to achieve better CLmax ----------->also brought much more drag. Perhaps Ok for a quick snap shot.

At the end of the day, I was posing questions regarding the flight test procedures used to derive 'conclusions' about dogfighting superiority.

I still do.

[Jukka Juutinen]

Yes, an Fw 190A-8 with 1.58 at a vs. F4U-1D at WER at sea level would do fine. Especially after say both engines having 100 hours flightime...

The Bf 109G-6 was an aerodynamic disaster. With power settings giving the same power, even the P-40 is equally fast. Probably faster after say 100 hours of use.

[Jukka Juutinen]

As for the combat flaps, if they were so bad, why did the Japanese bother with them even so much as to put the flap control on the stick (at least Ki-44 and J2M).

[Broncazonk]

Originally Posted by Jukka Juutinen

Yes, an Fw 190A-8 with 1.58 at a vs. F4U-1D at WER at sea level would do fine. Especially after say both engines having 100 hours flight time...

The Bf 109G-6 was an aerodynamic disaster. With power settings giving the same power, even the P-40 is equally fast. Probably faster after say 100 hours of use.

VERY interesting insights. Thank you.

Would you please explain further? I think I understand, but any additional information would be greatly appreciated.

Bronc

[drgondog]

Originally Posted by Jukka Juutinen

As for the combat flaps, if they were so bad, why did the Japanese bother with them even so much as to put the flap control on the stick (at least Ki-44 and J2M).

I didn't say they were 'bad'. My comment was directed to the downside of the use of flaps to increase CL to improve rate of turn.

The most effective combat flap was the P-38 version, more of a fowler flap version as contrast use of flaps in F4U, F6F, FW 190, P-51, etc.

Turn and climb are dependent on CLmax, Excess Available HP over HP required, and Wing Loading.

Excess HP quickly goes to zero as drag increases. Drag increases as CL increases. CL (and drag) increase rapidly with deployed flaps.

To the other comment about the G6 - once again for a 1944 comparison versus the F4U and F6F you should consider G10, G14 or even K4 as a period vs period comparison.

To re-iterate - my comments weren't to denigrate either the F4U or F6F, but to cast light on the conclusions based on opinions supported by a flight test versus an 'old FW 190 in unspecified condition (rigging and engine). Even RAF comparisons are suspect for the same reasons. Additionally, consider the familiarity of USN pilots wrt FW 190 type. Perhaps flying against Bar or Meyer would have yielded different conclusions?

[Franek Grabowski]

I recall reading or hearing from a reliable source that the British analysed the problem and decided not to deploy either Corsair or Hellcat nowhere near they could have encountered German fighters. They considered only Seafire stood a chance against them. Noticeably, USN operated Seafires in the UK.

Franek

[twocee]

Why on earth would the Royal Navy have gone to the trouble of acquiring large numbers of Corsairs and Hellcats, and training large numbers of pilots to fly them, if they were of no use against German fighters? I think that source you mention can be safely ignored.

The Seafires operated by the USN in the UK were in place of SOC and OS2U floatplanes.

[Jukka Juutinen]

Originally Posted by Broncazonk

VERY interesting insights. Thank you.

Would you please explain further? I think I understand, but any additional information would be greatly appreciated.

Bronc

According to a Finnish publication which I trust very much (it is written by a qualified aircraft engineer), the Bf 109G-6 was aerodynanamically poorer than even the Hurricane. Also the "stubby" Curtiss Hawk and Brewster Buffalo were cleaner designs. The designer of the 109 basically put every egg in one basket: a small and light airframe. As the frontline demands required heavier and bigger equipment and engine, they could be fitted only through various external bumps and plumps which were aerodynamically very ineffective. And remember that the speed increases only by the cube root of the power increase (10 % speed increase requires 33 % more power). What is more, the finish of the airframes wasn't anything to laud by 1943 for various reasons. Plus apparently the lightweight construction was more subject to wear than a more robust airframe would. Hence the substantial reduction in performance after plenty of hours.

The same publication states that in Finnish wartime service the highest flying hours achieved by a DB 605 before major overhaul was 86 hours. And many engines thus failed with far fewer hours. And that with the engine without the max. power operative!

Also various sources (Secret Horsepower Race plus some others) suggest that the BMW 801 was quite a fragile engine and a far cry from the dependability of the R-2800. Hence again, operations at maximum power conditions "ate" engine life far more than with the opposition.

[Jukka Juutinen]

Originally Posted by Franek Grabowski

I recall reading or hearing from a reliable source that the British analysed the problem and decided not to deploy either Corsair or Hellcat nowhere near they could have encountered German fighters. They considered only Seafire stood a chance against them. Noticeably, USN operated Seafires in the UK.

Franek

Sounds extremely inplausible.