Corsair -v- Me109 or Fw190?

[ian hunt]

Hi all
And similar to my hypothetical post just now about the BoB, wondering how the Corsair would have fared had it been deployed in Europe and found itself up against the Luftwaffe 109’s and 190’s instead of the Japanese air force?
Ian

[James A Pratt III]

The Corsair did fly a few ops against the Tirpitz but did not run into any German aircraft. I think the FAA did test fly a Corsair against a captured FW-190 and I believe the 190 was slightly superior to it in most features.

[knusel]

Hello,

that's interesting. is it justified to say that the Corsair did not score any kills over the continent of Europe ?

Cheers,
Michael

see also:
http://forum.12oclockhigh.net/showth...hlight=corsair

[Jim Oxley]

2,012 F4Us, FGs, and F3As went to the Royal Navy's Fleet Air Arm between 1943 to 1945. In fact the Corsairs were used in larger numbers by the British than any other U.S.
naval aircraft. The FAA loved it.

Yet for all that, it never met any German aircraft in combat. The Wildcat did, so to the Hellcat. But no luck for the Corsair.

[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.

[knusel]

Hello,

what is more important in a dogfight: to turn quickly or to turn tightly ?

Cheers,

Michael

[drgondog]

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.

[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.

[Jukka Juutinen]

It is very interesting to note that neither the Bf 109 nor the Fw 190 were particularly aerodynamically clean designs. At sea level, the F4U-1D was slightly faster than the Fw 190A-8 with 33 % more power but 58 % bigger wing.

[Broncazonk]

The final three (3) Corsair aerial victories were achieved in 1969. The Corsair remained in production until late 1953 and was operational against MiG-15s throughout the Korean Conflict.

On the other hand, the Luftwaffe knew that the Fw-190A series was obsolete in 1943 and was hoping against all hope that the Ta-152C and H series would replace them.

Isn't it absurd to think that any Fw-190A series aircraft stood a whisper of a chance against the Corsair?

A fixed wing version of the Corsair would have have reduced its all-up weight and made it even more lethal.

I love the Focke Wulf, but the Corsair would have murdered them--all of them.

Bronc