# F4U-4 Vs FW190 D9



## jugggo (Oct 23, 2009)

Looking for opinions on this. As in which aircraft would out perform the other in a 1-on-1. Or any other 190 for that matter. But since I do not know much about 109s 0r 190s I picked the Dora 9.


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (Oct 23, 2009)

This should have a poll. That would be fun!

Honestly, I'm not sure which to pick. They both had similar frames, and the performance of both was both pretty close. 

I'm not sure if the FW 190D was better at high altitude or not.


----------



## beaupower32 (Oct 23, 2009)

Its a tough tough one, but I would probably give it to the F4U-4 Corsair.


----------



## jugggo (Oct 23, 2009)

I know me to since the Corsair is my all time favorite ride


----------



## Bug_racer (Oct 23, 2009)

This really is close . Both are great planes . Did they ever go up against each other ? Were any Corsairs delivered to Europe ?


----------



## tomo pauk (Oct 23, 2009)

Went for the Corsair. 
It could tangle with D-9, plus it was carrier capable and with superior range.

Corsairs were deployed at Europe, one of the tasks being escort mission(s?) against Tirpitz.


----------



## vonmallard (Oct 23, 2009)

the Royal Navy operated the F4U in an operation against the Tirpitz in Norway. Haven't seen where any FW's were used against them thou I think a few Me-109's were engaged.


----------



## jugggo (Oct 23, 2009)

vonmallard said:


> the Royal Navy operated the F4U in an operation against the Tirpitz in Norway. Haven't seen where any FW's were used against them thou I think a few Me-109's were engaged.



Hmm thats interesting, I wonder if they were as pesky as the A6m's.


----------



## tomo pauk (Oct 23, 2009)

Were A6Ms that pesky? Me-109 was much tougher opponent.


----------



## jugggo (Oct 23, 2009)

Yeah from what I have read. Since they had the better rate of turning at slower speeds. The Wildcat,Hellcat,Corsair, and P40 had to use their power to their advantage ie Boom and Zoom tactics.


----------



## beaupower32 (Oct 23, 2009)

Back on topic, Im posting a .pdf that was a trial between the F4U, F6F, and Fw-190 A-4. I know that it isnt the F4U-4 and Fw-190 D-9, but it should give us a Idea on how the two would compair. I got this from WWII Aircraft Performance


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 23, 2009)

I think as with all of the top fighters you are going to have to break this down into more areas. What conditions are they meeting at such as Altitude? Every aircraft has its optimal area, and the areas that it is weak and strong it.

Bill posted an interesting comparison here a while back from some flight tests a while back, that broke it down through altitude.


----------



## Colin1 (Oct 23, 2009)

beaupower32 said:


> Back on topic, Im posting a .pdf that was a trial between the F4U, F6F, and Fw-190 A-4. I know that it isnt the F4U-4 and Fw-190 D-9


The -4 was a significantly better performer than the -1
it could nudge 450mph (vs around 420mph for the -1, or closer to the performance of the D-9), climbed ferociously and had better combat acceleration than the P-51D. Overall manoeuvrability was excellent though I doubt any naval bird (with folding wings) could follow the 190 in the roll, they were difficult enough to follow anyway.
Notwithstanding that, I think the F4U-4 had enough in other-performance characteristics, gunnery skill levels and tactics to defeat a similar formation of Fw190D-9s at the latter's best altitude, or down on the deck.


----------



## beaupower32 (Oct 23, 2009)

I know that the -4 was a way better aircraft then the -1. I posted it to give a general idea of how the later aircraft might compair to each other.


----------



## mike526mp (Oct 23, 2009)

someone posted this site and comparison above, i'll post it again,

F4U Performance Trials

From what i read the FW-190 was not a very good airplane in any form (i do think it is one of the best looking airplanes if that is of any coselation), unreliable, had a good roll rate, but probably the worst turning radius of just about anything, and had a habit of stalling in tight turns. the F4U and F6F were found to be much more manuaverable than the FW-190..

as quoted from the above link from pilots that flew them both in side by side test, "It is not equal to either the F4U or F6F in combat. All pilots agreed the F4U or F6F would be prefered in actual combat operations."

just about everything we had was a better fighter.


----------



## mike526mp (Oct 23, 2009)

when you guys want real comparisons, this is a great web site

WWII Aircraft Performance

It has changed my opinion on many airplanes. At one time i thought the FW-190 was a great fighter, not after reading the many reports including it's unreliability. I never would have guessed that the F4U was more manuaverable than the P-51, and especially how good an airplane the P-47 really was (or that it was faster than just about anything at altitude). They have many comparisons (real world side by side) of combat, air speeds, climb rates, rool rates, etc., one airplane against the other, not from just airspeeds or by one pertson just flying both. the real comparison are one against the other, side by side like tehses tests are.

my father flew p-51's, shot down 2 me-109's. he told me how down low they would tease the p-47's, get behind them and make machine gun noises on the radio, but he also told me at high altitude it was a whole nother story. Add to the fact that the P-47 was so rugged. The P-51's real weakness was being liquid cooled (he also was a POW because of it).

before you form an opinion check out the web site above. they have a huge amount of real world data.


----------



## jugggo (Oct 23, 2009)

Yeah the performance data on the one with the F4U,F6F, and 190 if im not mistaken in there it does state that the plugs or something were faulty on the 190 so they really couldnt use its max performance. also it stated in the other one with the P47,P51(B I think) and F4U that the corsair could out turn the Pony up to 30 mph slower and had the better acceleration and the only thing that out excellerated it was the P38.


----------



## mike526mp (Oct 23, 2009)

if you read the web site (actual notes from tests)t tests many models of th FW-190, the later models they had to change the engines and make correction 3-4 times and even in the seldom tip top shape the FW-190 didn't compare to the american/british airplanes.


----------



## DAVIDICUS (Oct 23, 2009)

*mike526mp*, what Fighter Group / Squadron did your dad fly with? 

What specifically did he say about the P-47 at higher altitude?

It's always interesting to hear actual pilot accounts and impressions.


----------



## beaupower32 (Oct 23, 2009)

Mike, be sure to read all the the post, as I already linked that website. But that is cool that your dad flew P-51's and scoring 2 kills. I be he had a lot of stories to tell.


----------



## mike526mp (Oct 24, 2009)

He was in the 20th Fighter Group. I wish i had written down all the stories he told me, as a kid i bet i drove him nuts telling me about his flying. he flew F-82's and p-61's in korea out of japan later. He said about the P-47 they would joke about the manuaverabilty of the P-47 at low altitudes, but at higher altitudes it was a different game, the P-47 was a great airplane in it's own right, i read somewhere later that statistically it was the best airplane we had.


----------



## DAVIDICUS (Oct 29, 2009)

Here are some pics. You probably already have seen them. I have some more 20th pics in a box in my garage.

8th Air Force Fighter Group - Littlefriends.co.uk


----------



## Civettone (Oct 29, 2009)

I agree on what has been said. The F-4U-1 vs 190D-9 would have been a good comparison but the F-4U-4 really was an exceptional bird. Though I especially remember it being able to carry a payload of 6,000 lbs!

There's a site which claims the F-4U-4 was the best all-round: Chance Vought F4U-4 Corsair
_
Maximum speed:
F4U-1: 417 mph @ 19,900 ft.
F4U-4: 446 mph @ 26,200 ft.

Rate of climb:
F4U-1: 3,250 ft/min.
F4U-4: 4,170 ft/min.

In terms of maneuverability, all models of the Corsair were first rate. The F4U-4 was better than the F4U-1 series. Why? More power and better performance in the vertical regime. Very few fighters, even pure fighters such as the Yak-3 could hang with an -4 maneuvering in the vertical. Its terrific climbing ability combined with very light and sensitive controls made for a hard fighter to beat anytime the fight went vertical.

The F4U also rolled well. When rolling in conjunction with powerplant torque, in other words, rolling left, it was among the very fastest rolling fighters of the war. In the inventory of American fighters, only the P-47N rolled faster, and only by 6 degrees/second.

In level flight acceleration the F4U-4 gained speed at about 2.4 mph/sec, the P-51D accelerated at about 2.2 mph/sec. The F4U-1 could not keep up with either, accelerating at only 1.5 mph/sec. The real drag racer of American WWII fighters was the P-38L. It gained speed at 2.8 mph/sec. All acceleration data was compiled at 10-15,000 ft at Mil. power settings.

Turning to dive acceleration, we find the F4U-4 and Mustang in a near dead heat. Both the P-47D and P-38L easily out distance the Corsair and P-51D in a dive. Still, these two accelerate better than the opposition from Japan and Germany. 
_

Kris


----------

