# Corsair vs FW190 (1 Viewer)



## pinsog (Feb 10, 2009)

Capt. Eric M Brown in "Duels in the sky" pretty much trashes the F4U Corsair(seems to love the Hellcat for some reason). He hates it. He states that a FW190 would eat its lunch, yet, in seperate tests conducted by the US, the Corsair outperformed not only the Fw190, but also the P51 Mustang up to 24000 ft. It outmanuevered both of them significantly and was faster than either up to around 20,000 to 24,000 ft. It could also outmanuever the Hellcat, a fact which suprised me until I did some further research.

Do most of you agree with Brown or the US military tests? Which is the better fighter, the Corsair of the 190?


----------



## lesofprimus (Feb 10, 2009)

Well, first of all, u get a split decision here with the "validity" of Mr. Browns highly opinionated decisions concerning the vast armada of planes he flew....

I myself follow the line that my Grandfather took of him, which is "He is a severely biased man"....

As for ur comparison, gotta get more specific pal... Which version of the F4U vs. which version of the Fw 190???

If ur comparing the Dora-9 or even the D-11/-13 with the late War F4U-4 and we got us a hot topic, thats been discussed many times before....


----------



## pinsog (Feb 10, 2009)

I began to think he might be an idiot after he placed the Swordfish above the Avenger as the greatest torpedo plane of the war.


----------



## lesofprimus (Feb 10, 2009)

Do a search of the forum pin for some of the what ifs u might have... Theres alot of reading and debates on this forum...


----------



## MikeGazdik (Feb 10, 2009)

The problem with Mr. Brown is he expresses his opinion as fact. I believe he is biased, but that is ok. I vote for the home team more often than not, I have no problem that he does too. But he doesn't explain that his biases affect the opinion he expresses. I read that book too and much of what he said, both previously and since, I have found information disagreeing with what he stated.


----------



## HellToupee (Feb 10, 2009)

pinsog said:


> I began to think he might be an idiot after he placed the Swordfish above the Avenger as the greatest torpedo plane of the war.



Well Tbh swordfish was actually very good at a torp bomber and anti sub duties.


----------



## SoD Stitch (Feb 10, 2009)

This is a toughie; as much as I like the 190, I gotta go with the F4U on this one. I'm sure it doesn't have the instantaneous rolling ability of the 190, but I'll bet it could turn with it, especially down low.


----------



## Catch22 (Feb 10, 2009)

SoD Stitch said:


> This is a toughie; as much as I like the 190, I gotta go with the F4U on this one. I'm sure it doesn't have the instantaneous rolling ability of the 190, but I'll bet it could turn with it, especially down low.



No, it didn't have the same roll ability, but it was damn close. The Corsair had an excellent roll rate.


----------



## Watanbe (Feb 11, 2009)

Corsair was hands down the best US fighter of the war in my opinion. There is so much talk of the P51 while I think the Corsair was a better aircraft! It had the range the P51 did! 

As for how it would fair against the late model FW190's I would love to hear peoples opinions! It would appear quite a close match!


----------



## davebender (Feb 11, 2009)

I agree. The U.S. Army Air Corps should have adopted the F4U during the fall of 1942 rather then the P-47. The problem plagued P-38 gets cancelled along with the obsolescent P-40. There is no need for the P-51. A long range variant of the F4U will fill the bomber escort role.


----------



## timshatz (Feb 11, 2009)

Anybody know the wing loading on the 51, F4U, F6 and FW190? It might help towards the arguement about manuverability. Also, the power/weight ratio?

Good place to start.


----------



## drgondog (Feb 11, 2009)

davebender said:


> I agree. The U.S. Army Air Corps should have adopted the F4U during the fall of 1942 rather then the P-47. The problem plagued P-38 gets cancelled along with the obsolescent P-40. There is no need for the P-51. A long range variant of the F4U will fill the bomber escort role.



There are two problems with this scenario from a practical standpoint. First the P-47 was designed from the beginning as a high performance/High altitude fighter and was deployed to operational units in USAAF well before the F4U. For the USAAF mission, the F4U had to be redesigned to strip the carrier gear, design and incorporate a turbo supercharger vesion to replace the P-47 - and have the foresight to make that decision early in 1940 - shortly after the F4U first flew.

It would be easier for the Army to say 'aha' and test an early P-51 with a Merlin Engine. The Mustang had far fewer critical performance/reliability issues than any of the P-38/P-47 and F4U variants. So why not pick the Mustang (USAAF).

Last - and back to the topic. The F4U performed well against the Mustang and vice versa - the Mustang performed very well against the Fw 190.

The question of the day, until the Fw 190D-9 enters combat, is how well does the F4U perform against the Me 109 at 28,000 feet (escort heights) and is there a material difference between the F4u-1 and the Fw 190 A5,6 and 7 during the late 1943/early 1944 timeframe at 22-28000 feet?


----------



## davebender (Feb 11, 2009)

> For the USAAF mission, the F4U had to be redesigned to strip the carrier gear, design and incorporate a turbo supercharger vesion to replace the P-47


Why? The P-51 performed just fine with a normal supercharger.


----------



## Catch22 (Feb 11, 2009)

The Merlin was better at high altitudes than the Corsair's P&W.


----------



## davebender (Feb 11, 2009)

Copy the RR supercharger installation and put it on the P&W R2800 engine. That's a lot easier then trying to make a compact and reliable turbocharger system for a WWII era fighter aircraft.


----------



## Von Frag (Feb 11, 2009)

Maybe Capt. Brown flew one of the crap Corsairs Brewster produced.


----------



## Watanbe (Feb 11, 2009)

I see a role for the P47 and the F4U!


----------



## MikeGazdik (Feb 12, 2009)

davebender said:


> Copy the RR supercharger installation and put it on the P&W R2800 engine. That's a lot easier then trying to make a compact and reliable turbocharger system for a WWII era fighter aircraft.



I don't think that would work. 2800 cubic inches vs 1650 cubic inches. I think the big PW would be sucking through a comparative straw.


----------



## davebender (Feb 12, 2009)

You would scale the supercharger system to the appropriate size. But it would still use the proven RR Merlin design.


----------



## Thunderbolt56 (Feb 12, 2009)

Catch22 said:


> The Merlin was better at high altitudes than the Corsair's P&W.



And the P-47's P&W was better than both (due to the supercharger). The fact is, the P-51 was considerably cheaper to produce than either the P-47 or F4U-4 and the war, at that point, was one of materiel superiority which was more easily achieved with the P-51.

The fact that the F4U (or the F2G rather) served well into the Korean War (as did the P-51...I know) shows that it was an extremely capable design. But it was the carrier-ops ability as well as its incredible array of ordnance capabilites that kept it in service. It wasn't used for interceptor duties at that point.

To the initial post, I say I'll take the F4U over the 190A's. Against the Dora's, well, that's a tougher choice, but I'd probably still take the Corsair.


----------



## drgondog (Feb 12, 2009)

davebender said:


> Why? The P-51 performed just fine with a normal supercharger.



Dave - apparently it wasn't as simple as modifying the Merlin two stage design to the Pratt. The F6F-3 was the first attempt that I am aware of and certainly led the way to the -18 and -21 R2800 - but the latter two weren't ready for either the F4U or F6F until late in the war.


----------



## davebender (Feb 12, 2009)

Historically the F4U was used by the USN and USMC at medium and low altitudes. So I suspect the supercharger program had a low priority. If the F4U becomes a U.S.Army Air Corps aircraft then the supercharger program will have a lot more funding.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 12, 2009)

I think it comes down to the pilot.

1. Both were great aircraft and two of the best piston engined aircraft ever built.

2. Both had powerful engines.

3. Both were rugged and well built.

4. Both were highly maneuverable. 

5. Both had great performance.

6. Both were well armed.

The pilot who knew how to get the most out of his aircraft and gain the advantage is going to win the fight.


----------



## Catch22 (Feb 12, 2009)

Thunderbolt56 said:


> And the P-47's P&W was better than both (due to the supercharger). The fact is, the P-51 was considerably cheaper to produce than either the P-47 or F4U-4 and the war, at that point, was one of materiel superiority which was more easily achieved with the P-51.
> 
> The fact that the F4U (or the F2G rather) served well into the Korean War (as did the P-51...I know) shows that it was an extremely capable design. But it was the carrier-ops ability as well as its incredible array of ordnance capabilites that kept it in service. It wasn't used for interceptor duties at that point.
> 
> To the initial post, I say I'll take the F4U over the 190A's. Against the Dora's, well, that's a tougher choice, but I'd probably still take the Corsair.



The F2G never entered service.


----------



## drgondog (Feb 12, 2009)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I think it comes down to the pilot.
> 
> 1. Both were great aircraft and two of the best piston engined aircraft ever built.
> 
> ...



pretty much sums it up - and works for just about all the top fighters against each other (piston vs Piston)


----------



## drgondog (Feb 12, 2009)

davebender said:


> Historically the F4U was used by the USN and USMC at medium and low altitudes. So I suspect the supercharger program had a low priority. If the F4U becomes a U.S.Army Air Corps aircraft then the supercharger program will have a lot more funding.



I agree that point 100%. There was no early to mid war requirement for high altitude performance. AFAIK, the only attempt at a time it could have made a difference was the F6F-3 experimental stuff in 1943... with full commitment in late 1942 or earlier.


----------



## renrich (Feb 13, 2009)

There is a comparison of the F6F3, F4U1 versus the FW190A4, I think, on Tony Williams site. It is pretty comprehensive and the Navy concludes that both Hellcat and Corsair would do well against the FW. (what else would you expect them to say) However, it probably boils down to the driver. The remarkable aspect to this, for me, is that two models of shipboard fighters, with all of the attendant compromises that are entailed, can compete successfully with one of the premier fighter designs of the war. The two Navy planes are much larger and heavier than the FW, of necessity they must be structurally stronger in some areas and they carry more fuel and have longer range. It is quite a testimony to the R2800 and to Leroy Grumman and Rex Beisel.


----------



## KrazyKraut (Feb 14, 2009)

Actually they found the US planes superior (who would've thought).
The test was of an aging Fw 190 A-5 vs all new F6F-3 and F4U, though. And I don't see anything special about a carrier fighter performing comparable to a landbased fighter when it has an enormous engine to make up for the increased weight. Still the Fw 190 was the overall better climber, equal in speed to the F4U and faster than the F6F. The only real drawback it had was the turning cycle.


----------



## renrich (Feb 14, 2009)

The test showed that the FW could not maneuver with the two Navy fighters and, as I recall, they said the FW could not follow the others in a loop. KK, for an example of what happens when a land based fighter is converted to a ship board fighter, check the history of the Seafire. Along with that massive engine power comes massive weight and balance issues. I question whether few of us on this forum fully understand the ramifications of the differences between requirements for operating off a carrier and from land bases, during WW2. Some I can think of but am not expert enough to fully explain are: additional weight because of the structural design in the landing gear and the wing and fuselage area to withstand the shock of landings, weight added by the tailhook and the structure to tie it to, weight added by the equipment for folding the wings, an air foil design for short take offs and landings which doesn't usually translate to high Vmax, marinisation of all parts to protect against corrosion and the need for a higher level of reliability. Prior to the advent of the Corsair and to a much less extent, the Wildcat, it was considered impossible by AC designers in the West to equal the performance of a landbased fighter with a carrier fighter. Look at the designs of the British. Of course, the Japanese proved otherwise to a great extent with the A6M.


----------



## KrazyKraut (Feb 14, 2009)

The problem with the Seafire was that it was a landbased fighter converted to fulfill a role it wasn't designed for. You have these kind of problems with a lot of planes that are pushed to perform new roles.

Carrier fighters that were specifically built to perform that role were competetive with their land based counterparts as early as 1935, with the A5M. In 1943 that was no longer an astonishing achievement imo.


----------



## renrich (Feb 14, 2009)

KK, good point about A5M but from reading about the subject, I thought that "experts"in those days still thought that carrier planes suffered a handicap.


----------



## MikeGazdik (Feb 16, 2009)

As have been said by many, this is a very tough fight. I think I would rather be in the Fw 190 A8 if I get my choice.


----------



## davparlr (Feb 17, 2009)

The F4U was a superb aircraft. I chose it as the one aircraft I would choose to fight WWII. I thought, and still do think, that it had the performance and growth to keep competitive at all stages of the war. Comparisons are always difficult with the F4U because data tends to be all over the board. Take for instance, the F4U-1/1A. Max airspeed ranged from 395 mph (Dean) and several flight tests, to 417 mph by one flight test of a F4U-1(A?) with water injection using mil power, no water. Go figure.

Anyway, I looked at several time lines and compared performance (airspeed and climb). The ones I chose were April 1943, April, 1944, and October, 1944. The last I chose was April, 1945, comparing the last WWII versions of these aircraft. See attached charts.

*April,1943.*

April, 1943, compares the P-47B/C, the first combat P-47s, non water injected, the P-51A with Allison engine, the F4U-1, and the first combat F4U, non water injected, to the Fw-190A-3. 

The F4U and the Fw-190 are reasonably equal in airspeed up to 25k, where the F4U drops off. The P-47 maintains good airspeed and is clearly superior above 25k. The P-51 maintains airspeed similarity up to 15k, where its Allison’s high altitude weakness becomes apparent. 

In climb, both the F4U and Fw-190 maintain good and similar climb from SL to 25k, where the Fw-190 starts to drop off. The P-47 starts off rather low in climb catches up to the F4U at 25k and matches it from there. The P-51 starts great and then drops off (one can imagine a pilot saying “boy, I’d like to see what this thing can do if it had a better engine.”)

Conclusion, the F4U-1 and Fw-190A-3 were competitive up to 25k, with an advantage going to the F4U due to better turn performance a dive performance. Above 25k they trade off advantages in airspeed and climb. The P-47 becomes more than competitive above 25k. The P-51A is competitive below 15k, especially in climb, but not above 15k.

*April, 1944.*

A change has occurred in performance. Both the P-47D-10 and the F4U-1A (8W) are now water injected, the P-51B has a new engine with the new, improved, dash 7 Packard merlin, and the Fw-190 now has the A-5 version.

The P-51 maintains better airspeed of all up to 30k, where it is slightly surpassed by the P-47, which starts to become competitive at 25k. Both the F4U and the Fw-190 are very close in airspeed performance over the entire operational envelop, but airspeed of both drop off above 20k.

Except a SL vs. the Fw-190, and between 10k and 15k vs. the F4U, the P-51 has better climb performance than the other aircraft. At mid altitudes the F4U easily out climbs the Fw-190 but at higher altitudes they are about the same. The P-47 has poor climb performance up to about 25k where it performs better than the F4U and Fw-190.

Conclusion, the F4U and the Fw-190 are very competitive. The better turn rate and dive capability should give a small edge to the F4U. The P-51 is faster than the F4U and the Fw-190 at all altitudes and, except 10-15k for the F4U and SL for the Fw-190, the P-51 climbs better. The P-47 is at a disadvantage below 25k but becomes quite formidable above.

A note here, the comparison test run by the Navy used a P-51B with the less performing -3 engine and not the available -7. Both Navy planes were water injected versions.
*
October, 1944*

Aircraft again increase performance with the advent of the 44-1 fuel for the AAF and the appearance of the Fw-190D-9. The F4U is now flying the dash 1D version, which has roughly the same performance as the dash1 with water. The P-51 is now flying the D version and the P-47 is up to the D-25 version.

The P-51 and the Fw-190 has similar airspeed up to 20k where the Fw-190 starts to drop back. The F4U is at an overall disadvantage to the Fw-190. The P-47 picks up performance at 15k. 

In climb, the Fw-190 is very good below 20k but begins to fade and it falls behind both the P-51 and P-47. F4U climb is less than all except the P-47 at low altitude.

Conclusion, the Fw-190D-9 provides Germany with low and mid altitude answer to the P-51D (however the lighter P-51B evens the field). The F4U-1D is showing a bit of age and is at a disadvantage to the better performing Fw-190D-9 and also to the P-51D, both of which is faster and better climbing. The P-47 again starts slow but becomes competitive at 20k.

*April, 1945*

Piston power planes have met their peak with these last generation fighters. The P-47M , with a high power engine is operational in Europe, but has some mechanical problems. The lightened P-51H with the -9 engine is operational but not deployed, and the new up-engined (-18W) F4U-4 is delivered to the Pacific theater. The Germans have been flying the new high altitude Ta-152H, but it also has mechanical problems. 

The P-51 is very fast up to 15k and still dominates airspeed up to about 30k where the P-47 and the Ta-152 exceed it. The F4U, P-47 and Ta-152 have similar airspeed, the F4U is slightly better, up to 25k. Above 25k, airspeed for the F4U and P-51 are similar with an advantage to the P-51. The P-47 has good airspeed except compared to the P-51 below 30k. Above 30k it has impressive airspeed. The Ta-152 airspeed starts to excel at 30k and passes the P-47 at 40k and it continues to much higher altitudes.

In climb, again the P-51 is exceptional up to 10k and then matches the F4U. The P-47 does well above 20k. The Ta-152 seems to have relative poor climb to about 25k (I have limited data on Ta-152 rate of climb performance) but is exceptional above 25k.

Success in combat, with equal pilot capability, is not limited to what is discussed here. Items like turn rate/radius, power to weight, etc. also come into play so, for any given circumstance, advantage can change. This is just a simple comparison.

*Conclusion, in my opinion.*

1.	The F4U and Fw-190 appear to be quite equal with the F4U having a slight edge in turn and dive, until the advent of the Fdw-190D-9 in the fall of 1944. The slightly later, the winter of 1945, F4U-4 could match the dash 9 performance.
2.	Once the P-51B appeared, the latest F4U version could not out perform the latest version of the P-51 in speed or climb through the end of the war, except for climb between 10 and 15k ft for the pre 44-1 fuel P-51B.
3.	The P-47 was optimized for high altitude where it excelled. Its later success in ground attack and its adaptability show the strength of its design.
4.	I would still select the F4U if I only had one choice for fighting WWII.


----------



## Glider (Feb 17, 2009)

A very good summary but I would still go with the 190 due to its extra firepower. The 6 x 0.50 was more than sufficient to deal with fighters but against a four engined bomber the 20mm will make a huge difference


----------



## Amsel (Feb 17, 2009)

Looking at the climbing and diving speeds it seems that in air to air combat the F4U is somewhat equal to the Focke-Wulf. The A8 can climb away and the Corsair can dive away. The Focke-Wolf does have the better roll rate though.


----------



## Vincenzo (Feb 17, 2009)

very good work davparl, but 33k false the scale


----------



## timshatz (Feb 17, 2009)

Radial engine being somewhat more resistant to battle damage might be a good point to bring up when considering the other fighters vs the P51. 

As the 8th AF fighter pilots would occasionally say, "If you want to send a picture home to your girlfriend, sit in the cockpit of the 51. If you wanted to GET home to your girlfriend, sit in the cockpit of the 47."


----------



## renrich (Feb 17, 2009)

I enjoyed your analysis Dav. Do you have eyestrain? I would agree that the FW would have superior armament for use against bombers but in an FW V F4U contest, I believe the 6-50s would give better chance of hits. Another question would be that the FW is often shown as having four cannon and two 12.7 mgs. I would question whether the D9 could outperform an F4U4 if the FW had all that armament and a full load of ammo. Another good question is how far away from base does the combat take place. Dav, in Boone Guyton's book, he says the 1D could do 425 mph with WEP. Who would know better than Guyton?


----------



## Glider (Feb 17, 2009)

The ROF of 6 x 12.7mm is very similar to the 4 x 20mm and 2 x 13mm of the 190. At most combat ranges the %age chance of a hit would be very similar and at longer ranges, the slightly lower chance of a hit with the 20mm would be more than made up by the extra power of the 20mm shell.


----------



## renrich (Feb 17, 2009)

Wouldn't the chances of getting a hit depend somewhat also on the velocity both muzzle and downrange. The cannon rounds I have seen used by the LW mostly looked like having a poor BC. The duration of fire on the 6-50s would be greater also. The P51 with 4-50s and later the 6-50s seemed to more than hold it's own with the FWs. My source shows the A8 to have two 13 MM MGs firing through the prop with 400 rounds each. Would they have the same ROF as wing mounted guns? 2- 20mm with 250 rounds, firing through the prop. Same question? 2-20mms outer wing with 125 rounds each. The D9 had two 13 mm mgs mounted over the engine with 475 rounds each. Same rate of fire question? Two 20 mms in wing roots with 250 rounds each. Same ROF question? The Corsair had 400 rounds each for the four inboard guns and 375 rounds for the two outboard guns. One factor almost always overlooked by us "armchair experts" in one v one comparisons is range. In Lundstom's books he mentions how on several occasions the F4Fs had to fight on 50% power because they were running low on fuel and they had to conserve to get back to base. Would not be convenient to run out of fuel in the middle of a big fight.


----------



## drgondog (Feb 17, 2009)

timshatz said:


> Radial engine being somewhat more resistant to battle damage might be a good point to bring up when considering the other fighters vs the P51.
> 
> As the 8th AF fighter pilots would occasionally say, "If you want to send a picture home to your girlfriend, sit in the cockpit of the 51. If you wanted to GET home to your girlfriend, sit in the cockpit of the 47."



While I agree Dave's analysis and conclusions regarding the F4U.

One has to be careful regarding desirability of P-47 over P-51 based on a perception of survivability.

So far, I have loaded up the awards versus losses of 8th AF where the best statistical comparisons may be made in comparing the effectiveness in combat against the best comptetition.

With the caveat that these two ships were NOT flying in identical mission profiles, the Mustang had a superior kill ratio air to air and a lower loss ratio of US Fighter lost versus German Fighter aircraft destroyed on the ground.

Here is one of the problems with my analysis. The Mustang air to air (10:1) was largely over Germany. The 8th AF P-47 air to air (7:1) was more about Coastal defenses ranging from North Sea and Holland to Central and South Central France. Additionally, the Mustang edge was dominantly growing from Dec 1943 through 1944 when it was the primary air superiority fighter over Germany while the P-47 was range restricted.

Until the end of the war, aircraft destroyed on the ground had the same (separate) profiles in context of locations of enemy airfield locations and targeting. The P-51 had 5.6:1, the P-47 had 3.7:1. 

What conclusions do you make there? It boils down to missions and sorties and there is no way I am aware of that one could arrive at a set of rational data to actually look at vulnerability per se - based on threat versus number of flights.

So, were the Luftwaffe defenses and pilot quality better in the West than Germany/Czechoslovakia stifling the P-47 scores? Or was the Mustang equivalent survivability or better due to other factors than coolant system?

Also - I like the idea of 4x Mg151 firepower but don't yet see how one can arrive at a conclusion that the Fw 190 firepower is the ultimate determinator. One could also say far more 190s were destroyed by Mustangs and Thunderbolts than vice versa, therefore .50 cal is better - and neither one make sense.


----------



## Glider (Feb 17, 2009)

renrich said:


> Wouldn't the chances of getting a hit depend somewhat also on the velocity both muzzle and downrange. The cannon rounds I have seen used by the LW mostly looked like having a poor BC.


You are correct in that the MV and effective range of the guns has an impact on the chance of a hit, but at the 2-300 yard range of most fighter combats the difference is not that great.


> The duration of fire on the 6-50s would be greater also. The P51 with 4-50s and later the 6-50s seemed to more than hold it's own with the FWs.


Again you are correct in that the US aircraft were effective against fighters as was the German firepower, that I am not questioning. However if we are talking about one fighter for the war, you will need to attack other aircraft such as heavy bombers and I prefer the 190 for its flexibility. I have always believed that the 12.7mm would struggle against a B17 type aircraft.



> My source shows the A8 to have two 13 MM MGs firing through the prop with 400 rounds each. Would they have the same ROF as wing mounted guns? 2- 20mm with 250 rounds, firing through the prop. Same question? 2-20mms outer wing with 125 rounds each. The D9 had two 13 mm mgs mounted over the engine with 475 rounds each. Same rate of fire question? Two 20 mms in wing roots with 250 rounds each. Same ROF question? The Corsair had 400 rounds each for the four inboard guns and 375 rounds for the two outboard guns.


The German weapons firing through the prop would have a reduced ROF wihtout question. The difference seems to vary but I believe its importance to be exagerated. The 190 with its six guns will have a ROF falling between the four gun P51 and the six gun US fighters. So if the P51B didn't have a problem hitting their targets, why should the Fw190? 

You are also correct when you say that the US aircraft generally had more ammunition but the FW190 could use its wingroot guns with the engine mounted mg's seperately from its wing mounted weapons which would stretch the ammo. 2 x 20mm and 2 x HMG mounted on the centreline is still a very effective set up.
Also being on the centreline the FW would have an advantage at longer range as well as being more concentrated. This would more than make up any slightly improved ballistics for the 12.7mm.



> One factor almost always overlooked by us "armchair experts" in one v one comparisons is range. In Lundstom's books he mentions how on several occasions the F4Fs had to fight on 50% power because they were running low on fuel and they had to conserve to get back to base. Would not be convenient to run out of fuel in the middle of a big fight.


Again you are correct and if we are talking about range then the US aircraft have a clear advantage. However I would describe the range of the Fw190 to be sufficient for the vast majority of purposes.


----------



## drgondog (Feb 17, 2009)

Glider - If I had the power to do so - I would have stolen the Mg151/20 designs and armed every Allied Fighter with at least two, preferably four, to replace the 50s (and Hispano's)


----------



## davparlr (Feb 17, 2009)

Vincenzo said:


> very good work davparl, but 33k false the scale



I should have caught that. I have 33k in my data base because there tends to be data available at 10km for German aircraft. I should have pulled that out.



renrich said:


> I would question whether the D9 could outperform an F4U4 if the FW had all that armament and a full load of ammo.


 The data I used appear to have been generated at loaded weight. 



> Dav, in Boone Guyton's book, he says the 1D could do 425 mph with WEP. Who would know better than Guyton?



 !! Navy Spec 419 mph; Flight test F4U-1 w/water no. 17930, 432 mph; flight test, F4U-1 w/water, no. 50030, 425 mph; Navy comparison test F4U-1 w/water 436 mph; Dean, F4U-1D w/water 419 mph. I do not have Guyton’s book. I tossed a coin.



Glider said:


> The ROF of 6 x 12.7mm is very similar to the 4 x 20mm and 2 x 13mm of the 190. At most combat ranges the %age chance of a hit would be very similar and at longer ranges, the slightly lower chance of a hit with the 20mm would be more than made up by the extra power of the 20mm shell.



There was discussion on upgrading the 50 cals with 20mm at the Joint Fighter Conference in 1944, supported by both AAF and Navy combat pilots. The consensus was that, for the combat faced by the US forces, the 50 cal were quite sufficient for doing the job and they did not recommend upgrading the armament. This was recommendations by those whose life depended on weapons performance.


----------



## HellToupee (Feb 17, 2009)

davparlr said:


> There was discussion on upgrading the 50 cals with 20mm at the Joint Fighter Conference in 1944, supported by both AAF and Navy combat pilots. The consensus was that, for the combat faced by the US forces, the 50 cal were quite sufficient for doing the job and they did not recommend upgrading the armament. This was recommendations by those whose life depended on weapons performance.



Heh I would choose the .50s to if the alternative 20mm was the American produced hispano


----------



## Glider (Feb 18, 2009)

drgondog said:


> Glider - If I had the power to do so - I would have stolen the Mg151/20 designs and armed every Allied Fighter with at least two, preferably four, to replace the 50s (and Hispano's)



Personally I prefer the Hispano V to the 151/20 but I can understand the reasons.


----------



## Glider (Feb 18, 2009)

davparlr said:


> There was discussion on upgrading the 50 cals with 20mm at the Joint Fighter Conference in 1944, supported by both AAF and Navy combat pilots. The consensus was that, for the combat faced by the US forces, the 50 cal were quite sufficient for doing the job and they did not recommend upgrading the armament. This was recommendations by those whose life depended on weapons performance.



I don't disagree with this statement at all. However, had the USA been faced with large numbers of B17 let alone B29 bombers, I am willing to bet a penny to a pound they would have changed their minds.
Its worth remembering that all F6F5 Hellcats were designed so they could be armed with 2 x 20 and 4 x 0.5 HMG's. Maybe the USN were willing to hedge their bets a little.


----------



## davparlr (Feb 18, 2009)

HellToupee said:


> Heh I would choose the .50s to if the alternative 20mm was the American produced hispano




I don't think they were considering reliability here, only the effectiveness of their 50 cals. I assure you that if they did not have faith in the effectiveness of the 50 cals they would be screaming.


----------



## timshatz (Feb 18, 2009)

drgondog said:


> With the caveat that these two ships were NOT flying in identical mission profiles, the Mustang had a superior kill ratio air to air and a lower loss ratio of US Fighter lost versus German Fighter aircraft destroyed on the ground.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## drgondog (Feb 18, 2009)

timshatz said:


> drgondog said:
> 
> 
> > With the caveat that these two ships were NOT flying in identical mission profiles, the Mustang had a superior kill ratio air to air and a lower loss ratio of US Fighter lost versus German Fighter aircraft destroyed on the ground.
> ...


----------



## renrich (Feb 18, 2009)

I have speculated to myself how effective an armament package for the Corsair would have been with two fifties mounted well aft over the fuel tank and two 20mms in the wing roots, all four firing through the prop arc. The fuselage tank would lose capacity but the room saved in the wings where the six fifties had been could be used for SS fuel tanks which would more than make up for the shrinkage in the fuselage tank. Of course a fair number of Corsairs had four 20mms but apparently the Navy wasn't sold on them until the F4U5-7. Another factor about the FW, especially as a bomber killer is the poor visibility forward which precluded full deflection shooting, as noted in the comparison by the Navy with the Hellcat and Corsair. The Corsair had the ability to make all of the full deflection runs, both overheads and the high side, flat side and low side runs which were highly desirable when attacking a bomber. In contrast the only full deflection run the FW could make was the overhead from the rear. It therefore was stuck with the low deflection or no deflection runs from the rear or ahead. The ahead run gave the defensive guns a simple solution and allowed not much time to shoot and the run from the rear gave the defensive guns maximum opportunity and was the most dangerous for the attacking fighter.


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (Feb 18, 2009)

Again it's just a game and not real life, but in Il Sturmovik the engine will stop working on a P-51 from just a few hits. 

I think in real life the P-51 also had this weakness, because it wasn't as well protected as the P-47 from bullets.

A cannon on a P-51 would hae been a good thing I think.


----------



## drgondog (Feb 18, 2009)

Soundbreaker Welch? said:


> Again it's just a game and not real life, but in Il Sturmovik the engine will stop working on a P-51 from just a few hits.
> 
> *There is no basis one way or the other for game assumptions to approach reality on Lethality and Vulnerability.*
> 
> ...



I have talked to more than a few LW pilots who were shot down (and survived obviously) that would Disagree with you - Lol. Depends on your point of view.

I believe that the combination of the K-14 and 20mm would have achieved superior results if RAF Hispano or Mg151. The US 20mm had jamming issues into the Korean War.


----------



## HellToupee (Feb 18, 2009)

Spitfires with the Ferranti sight had a huge increase in effectiveness. 



> I don't think they were considering reliability here, only the effectiveness of their 50 cals. I assure you that if they did not have faith in the effectiveness of the 50 cals they would be screaming.



It would consern everything, pilots also tend to choose what they know, eg Bader preferred the 8 303s to the 20mm cannon.


----------



## davparlr (Feb 20, 2009)

HellToupee said:


> It would consern everything, pilots also tend to choose what they know, eg Bader preferred the 8 303s to the 20mm cannon.



Yes, the 50s were all they knew, but it does imply that, when their life was on the line, they were happy with the 50s, and this was not just one opinion.


----------



## davparlr (Feb 20, 2009)

renrich said:


> I have speculated to myself how effective an armament package for the Corsair would have been with two fifties mounted well aft over the fuel tank and two 20mms in the wing roots, all four firing through the prop arc.



There is some loss of rate of fire due to the interrupter gear. I think I read in one of the post that it was about a 25% reduction. Concentration of fire should be very effective.


----------



## delcyros (Feb 20, 2009)

How many after action reports are aviable for US ETO escort fighters. Out of interest spoken, are enough information aviable, from a sample of a single unit with a specific timeframe wrt to:

A) number of rounds (.50al, P-47 and P-51 only) expanded for kill
B) approximate type of enemy aircraft shot down
C) approximate distance of aircraft shot down
D) weapon suite used (four, six or eight 0.50cal), preferably with type of ammunition 

This would allow us to try a quantitative approach, e.g. a factor analyis.


----------



## timshatz (Feb 20, 2009)

Delc, here are some that I picked up from this web site some time back. They are Mustang reports. Not sure if they have the info your looking for but I hope they help.

Mustang Encounter Reports


----------



## delcyros (Feb 20, 2009)

Perfect, timshatz!

This does qualify as a sample base. Datacollection and analysis will take some time. When I resurface, we will have the analysis.


----------



## drgondog (Feb 20, 2009)

delcyros said:


> Perfect, timshatz!
> 
> This does qualify as a sample base. Datacollection and analysis will take some time. When I resurface, we will have the analysis.



Delcyros - Mike also has P-47 encounter reports.

In general - start fire and stop fire rage estimate along with total number of rounds fired are part of the report.

There will always be a location, time, cloud cover, and most of the time general heading for start of engagement.

Almost all the post 1943 ammo is API with some tracer depending on pilot.

my father did not like to use tracer.


----------



## delcyros (Feb 22, 2009)

Thanks, Bill.

I have walked through the 4thFG and will continue with 357th FG now.
It appears that not all informations are aviable (Mikes site does give about 1/6 of all 4th FG claims) but I find them very informative. After a bit fore backprocessing of the datas in spss, I got a pretty neat effectiveness curve. Most datas belong to the P-51B in the combination 4 x 0.50cal BMG with fixed gunsights. A few datapoints refer to later P-51D with K-14 gunsights (white points). I believe this graph shows quite well how significant the change to K-14 was, altough the sample is very small and requires verification on a larger base of datas.

Note that I sanity checked all narratives and therefore could not use up all information aviable.
Hope it helps. Range is either mean range (composite of opening and closing range) or range if only one figure was given in the narrative.


----------



## drgondog (Feb 22, 2009)

delcyros said:


> Thanks, Bill.
> 
> I have walked through the 4thFG and will continue with 357th FG now.
> It appears that not all informations are aviable (Mikes site does give about 1/6 of all 4th FG claims) but I find them very informative. After a bit fore backprocessing of the datas in spss, I got a pretty neat effectiveness curve. Most datas belong to the P-51B in the combination 4 x 0.50cal BMG with fixed gunsights. A few datapoints refer to later P-51D with K-14 gunsights (white points). I believe this graph shows quite well how significant the change to K-14 was, altough the sample is very small and requires verification on a larger base of datas.
> ...



Great stuff! For what it was worth most K-14s were 51D installations.

If you want to focus on pre K-14 stick to pre September 1944 Encounter Reports. Anything after November, 1944 likely K-14.. Mixture in between those dates.


----------



## HoHun (Feb 22, 2009)

Hi Delcyros,

>Range is either mean range (composite of opening and closing range) or range if only one figure was given in the narrative.

Using mean range (if that means arithmetic mean) would only work if effectiveness at both ends would be identical. However, your curve even as it is shows that the effectiveness drops off significantly with range, so the arithmetic mean introduces a systematic error by over-estimating effective range.

Even if the number of rounds fired would be distributed evenly over the range interval between opening and closing range, the number of hits would be weighted towards to short-range end.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## delcyros (Feb 22, 2009)

> Using mean range (if that means arithmetic mean) would only work if effectiveness at both ends would be identical. However, your curve even as it is shows that the effectiveness drops off significantly with range, so the arithmetic mean introduces a systematic error by over-estimating effective range.



Certainly it does introduce an error.
Unfortunately that´s the general problem in methodology. At best You have a good method and a large sample. Here I have to balance between the size of the sample and clear acceptance limits. Sometimes opening and closing range is reported, sometimes only one of both or approximate range of firing and quite often nothing at all is mentioned. I use to neglect the datas for no ranges but had to combine the other in order to keep some samplesize. I hope that widening the statistical base will help here.


----------



## HoHun (Feb 22, 2009)

Hi Delcyros,

>At best You have a good method and a large sample. 

Choosing an arithmetic mean was equivalent to adopting a hypothesis on the analyzed event. The problem is, your result is in contradiction to this hypothesis.

By choosing a different averaging method, you could avoid that contradiction.

This is not a problem of sample size.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## drgondog (Feb 22, 2009)

Precison methodologies in statistics for this effort, when dealing with variable and imprecise range estimation, coupled with differential skills of the pilots and having no idea regarding the evasive manuevers of the 'target' is always 'interesting'

Delcyros - certainly illuminating even if not 'precise enough' or to the rigorous standards of others.


----------



## delcyros (Feb 23, 2009)

Thanks Bill but Hennig is right with his critique. I just wonder what will Hennig suggest? Geometric and harmonic mean both come to mind but wouldn´t that also introduce a hypothesis not necessarely reflective for the datapool?

I rather widen out the database in order to perform a factor analysis. This should give us an idea of how developed the main relationships in this multivariable dataset are.

What I found to be interesting in the 4th FG reports is that the Fw-190 and Bf-109 don´t differ much between. As a matter of fact, there are significantly more cases known where pilots expanded very many rounds / kill for the Bf-109, which is something I didn´t expected after reading so much about the Fw-190 structural rigidity and the bf-109´s fragility, respectively.

part of the discussion was related to how effective the .50 cal BMG was. Judging from the encounter reports, it appears that the .50 cal BMG was very effective against Luftwaffe single seat fighters. It certainly doesn´t say anything about how many hits were required to down a Fw-190 / Bf-109 as we don´t know the hit probability. Pilots with excellent marksmanship skills / favourable shooting conditions were able to down a LW single seater with as few as 60-70 rounds API from close range but typically this was around 150 to 400, depending on range and condition (the average for qualified* Mikes 4th FG encounter reports give 229 rounds/kill) and could go as high as 1000+/kill.

*)qualified means that there must been a number of rounds expanded figure known. The e/a had to be engaged in firing ranges (no crash dives counts), shared kills are accounted for. Significant differences in narratives and ammo expandeture figures are excluded (f.e. 334th A.F.Buntes report dating to 29. of march 1944, claiming one Fw-190 around Magdeburg with a three sec. burst from ~150 yards. This report is inplausible wrt rounds/kill figures because his ammo return figures showed that he has completely emptied the ammo-boxes of the P-51B! 1260 rounds in 3 sec. is impossible with four 0.50cal BMG, so am convinced either his narrative is wrong (several burst not accounted for in the narrative) or incomplete (subsequent strafing of targets of opportunity not accounted for?).


----------



## drgondog (Feb 23, 2009)

delcyros said:


> Thanks Bill but Hennig is right with his critique. I just wonder what will Hennig suggest? Geometric and harmonic mean both come to mind but wouldn´t that also introduce a hypothesis not necessarely reflective for the datapool?
> 
> *I know he is right about the critique - but the datapool by the very nature of it is largely subjective except for final ammo count.*
> 
> ...



The March 29 battle ranged from Celle to Brunswick to Uelzen to Magdeburg - it was a big day for both the 4th and 355th with perhaps 70+ Fw 190s and 30-40 Me 109s. The 4th had a mix, the 355th tangled with 190s. 

Bar was in this fight and probably shot down the only 355th pilot lost that day to air combat.

I need to look but IIRC Bunte shot down his bird in the Magdeburg area and strafed targets of opportunity on the way home - which would account for the rest of his ammo.


----------



## timshatz (Feb 23, 2009)

One variable that is unfathomable, and probably could explain the variation on the 109 kills, is the gunnery skills of any given pilot. Could be the pilots expending large numbers of rounds on their targets were just crappy shots. 

Is there a variable that could be calculated that would show a confidence interval for any given engagement in terms of accuracy of the report? Such as "the average pilot, shooting at aircraft "X", from a distance of "Y", would expend "Z" number of rounds with a standard deviation of "U" rounds?"

For instance, an average Mustang Pilot (not using the K14 gunsite) firing at a 109 from 200 yards will average 247 rounds per kill with a standard deviation of 44 rounds. 

Just a thought.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 23, 2009)

First of all great stuff.

Sorry if I missed it, I have been in an out the last week or so, but does anyone know the average rounds required against P-51s by a Bf 109 or Fw 190 pilot?


----------



## drgondog (Feb 23, 2009)

timshatz said:


> One variable that is unfathomable, and probably could explain the variation on the 109 kills, is the gunnery skills of any given pilot. Could be the pilots expending large numbers of rounds on their targets were just crappy shots.
> 
> Is there a variable that could be calculated that would show a confidence interval for any given engagement in terms of accuracy of the report? Such as "the average pilot, shooting at aircraft "X", from a distance of "Y", would expend "Z" number of rounds with a standard deviation of "U" rounds?"
> 
> ...



No. (Short answer)

Who and what process decides 'accuracy', 'objectivity', 'metrics' and how does one train pilots and Intelligence Officers who are writing down the pilot's narrative how to ask the right questions and then minimally assign - high confidence, medium confidence, low confidence - to the narrative?

There is no recording of radar ranging because there were no radar ranging sights or media for recording, the pilot in question 'was kinda busy'.. the pilot in question may have questionable range estimating skills (reminds of many guys I have hunted Geese with), etc, etc, etc.

If one were to get every Encounter report and had all the film available, and every witness provided a separate statement with specifics regrading range and deflection (assuming he wasn't swiveling his head for guys sneaking up on him - which was his prime responsibility..

Then you might have separate piles marked 'Probably fairly accurate', 'Speculative but middle probability of accurate' to 'Who really knows how much factual data is in this Report'

Having said all this, I am 'Statistical Analysis Aware' by required coursework but would NOT place my skills on a chargable basis to a client!


----------



## KrazyKraut (Feb 23, 2009)

delcyros said:


> Thanks Bill but Hennig is right with his critique. I just wonder what will Hennig suggest? Geometric and harmonic mean both come to mind but wouldn´t that also introduce a hypothesis not necessarely reflective for the datapool?


Geometric mean doesn't make sense to me, as it's usually used for growth rates and such, not the metric values we are dealing with here.

Harmonic mean... no idea. It will lead to a lower kill distance for each encounter. However, it is a rather arbitrary decision.



> What I found to be interesting in the 4th FG reports is that the Fw-190 and Bf-109 don´t differ much between. As a matter of fact, there are significantly more cases known where pilots expanded very many rounds / kill for the Bf-109, which is something I didn´t expected after reading so much about the Fw-190 structural rigidity and the bf-109´s fragility, respectively.


Two problems: 1. these kills seem to be mostly from 6 o clock. The real advantage of the 190 was the increased survivability against defensive fire coming in from 12 o clock. 2. You are comparing kills vs kills. The analysis shows nothing about those that got away.



> part of the discussion was related to how effective the .50 cal BMG was. Judging from the encounter reports, it appears that the .50 cal BMG was very effective against Luftwaffe single seat fighters. It certainly doesn´t say anything about how many hits were required to down a Fw-190 / Bf-109 as we don´t know the hit probability.


Again I don't think your analysis says that as you have no information on how often the enemy got away. Enough rounds expended, even a 30cal will bring down a fighter. Only a comparative analysis can shed some real light into that subject. That 50 cal was effective against single engined fighters is not really in question for me anyways though.


----------



## HoHun (Feb 23, 2009)

Hi Delcyros,

>I just wonder what will Hennig suggest? Geometric and harmonic mean both come to mind but wouldn´t that also introduce a hypothesis not necessarely reflective for the datapool?

My approach would be to choose a mean that follows the obviously parabolic function you have drawn through the data points. So the question would be, how did you arrive at that function, and can we use it for establishing a mean range that is consistent with the data?

Somewhat simpler, one might hypothesize that effectiveness of the individual rounds is little affected by range so that the predominant factor is the decrease of apparent target size with range, which is inversely proportional to the square of range. Accordingly, the mean distance would be Dm = sqrt(2)/sqrt ((1/D1^2)+(1/D2^2)).

If the number of data sets you have makes this worthwhile, you could compare the "single range" data points with the "opening/closing range" data points to see if they match each other.

>As a matter of fact, there are significantly more cases known where pilots expanded very many rounds / kill for the Bf-109, which is something I didn´t expected after reading so much about the Fw-190 structural rigidity and the bf-109´s fragility, respectively.

Hm, I guess when you say "significantly", it's actually used in the technical sense? Interesting indeed!

>Pilots with excellent marksmanship skills / favourable shooting conditions were able to down a LW single seater with as few as 60-70 rounds API from close range 

This probably tends towards the "best case" because as Krazykraut pointed out, we only have data on the kills. We don't know if 100%, 50% or just 10% of the targets that were hit with the expenditure of 60 - 70 rounds API were killed, so that we'll inevitably end up with an optimistic figure. Still, a highly interesting analysis!

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## timshatz (Feb 23, 2009)

drgondog said:


> No. (Short answer)
> 
> Who and what process decides 'accuracy', 'objectivity', 'metrics' and how does one train pilots and Intelligence Officers who are writing down the pilot's narrative how to ask the right questions and then minimally assign - high confidence, medium confidence, low confidence - to the narrative?
> 
> ...




Some judgement call on the part of the pilot but most of it would based on the numbers of the expenditures. Problems abound on this one, no doubt. Multiple kills, random short bursts at fleeting targets, ground strafing would all affect the number that would be credit to each kill. But by massing evidence, there should be some type of pattern that reveals itself. The more data, the better your results.

However, the old "garbage in/garbage out" problem could assert itself. 

But much like the scientific analysis of crash lead to more effective training, the same should be true with air to air. My thoughts would just be the beginings of the analysis.


----------



## drgondog (Feb 23, 2009)

timshatz said:


> Some judgement call on the part of the pilot but most of it would based on the numbers of the expenditures. Problems abound on this one, no doubt. Multiple kills, random short bursts at fleeting targets, ground strafing would all affect the number that would be credit to each kill. But by massing evidence, there should be some type of pattern that reveals itself. The more data, the better your results.
> 
> However, the old "garbage in/garbage out" problem could assert itself.
> 
> But much like the scientific analysis of crash lead to more effective training, the same should be true with air to air. My thoughts would just be the beginings of the analysis.



Tim - I agree your thoughts, Delcyros positioning and HoHun points.

You did summarize the biggest difficulty from initial expression of data all the way through analysis - namely what is reliable input?


----------



## timshatz (Feb 24, 2009)

Yeah, it would be a bear to get a decent line on the inputs. I was thinking last night that gun cameras and the combat report might be an excellent way to analyse each kill. It would give both a variable (pilot report) based on pilot observation and a variable (gun film) based on observed data. It would bring in all sorts of interesting details (pilot range to target observed vs percieved, point of aim variables, burst length observed vs percieved, ect). 

Cripes, you could get half a dozen Phds just figuring out the details!

Would be pretty interesting to read too. Wonder if anybody's AF ever did it?


----------



## bada (Feb 24, 2009)

KrazyKraut said:


> Two problems: 1. these kills seem to be mostly from 6 o clock. The real advantage of the 190 was the increased survivability against defensive fire coming in from 12 o clock. 2. You are comparing kills vs kills. The analysis shows nothing about those that got away.
> 
> Again I don't think your analysis says that as you have no information on how often the enemy got away. Enough rounds expended, even a 30cal will bring down a fighter. Only a comparative analysis can shed some real light into that subject. That 50 cal was effective against single engined fighters is not really in question for me anyways though.



Well known RAF Report:

Shooting from 6 o'clock at 190 fuselage


----------



## Glider (Feb 24, 2009)

Very interesting, there doesn't seem to be a massive difference between the 303 and the 0.5. Is there any clue re the range at which these results were achieved?


----------

