Allied Gold-Match

Soren

1st Lieutenant
6,457
21
Feb 6, 2005
4_lg.jpg

Vought F4U-4 Corsair
Engine: Pratt Whitney R-2800-18.
Power: 2,450 hp.
Max speed: 446 mph.
Max Range: 1190 miles.
Empty Weight: 4,175 kg.
Max Weight: 6,654 kg.
Service ceiling: 12,649 m.
Wing Span: 12.5 m.
Wing Area: 29.17 m2.
Armament: Six .50 cal machine guns.

Spitfire_FR14.jpg

Spitfire Mk.XIV.e
Engine: Rolls-Royce Griffon 65.
Power: 2,035 hp.
Max Speed: 448 mph.
Max Range: 457 miles.
Empty Weight: 2,994kg.
Max.Weight: 3,856kg.
Service ceiling: 13,560 m.
Wing Span: 11.23 m.
Wing Area: 22.48 m2.
Armament: two 20mm Hispano cannons and two .50 cal machine guns.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If pilot skill is equal, then wich fighter would you bet your money on in a fight between the two ?
 

DAVIDICUS

Staff Sergeant
915
20
Feb 23, 2005
There's an earlier "Gold Match" thread that pitted an F4U-4 against a P-47N. I recall that we concluded that the F4U-4 had the advantage below 30K feet.

I say the F4U-4 on this match.
 

Soren

1st Lieutenant
6,457
21
Feb 6, 2005
Guy's please explain your choices.
 

FLYBOYJ

"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Staff
Mod
28,098
8,682
Apr 9, 2005
Colorado, USA
Robust F4U-4, big round engine with a lot of power, good hitting power (despite the spits cannons) as DAVIDICUS said, I would keep it below 30K :leftfighter7:
 

Soren

1st Lieutenant
6,457
21
Feb 6, 2005
One very superior feature about the Corsair, is that it has over double the range of the Spit on internal fuel.
 

DAVIDICUS

Staff Sergeant
915
20
Feb 23, 2005
FLYBOYJ said, "as DAVIDICUS said, I would keep it below 30K"

I don't think it would be necessary to keep it below 30K against the Spitfire. The P-47N though has the advantage of a very good turbosupercharger that enables it to maintain power at high altitudes.
 

Soren

1st Lieutenant
6,457
21
Feb 6, 2005
DAVIDICUS said:
FLYBOYJ said, "as DAVIDICUS said, I would keep it below 30K"

I don't think it would be necessary to keep it below 30K against the Spitfire. The P-47N though has the advantage of a very good turbosupercharger that enables it to maintain power at high altitudes.

I would say DONT get below 3,000m or over 7,500m with the Spit XIV !

The Corsair has the roll-rate advantage through the whole speed and height band, but in a T&B fight with the Spit XIV the Corsair would be in deep deep trouble !

The Climb rate is about equal for the two aircraft, but armament definitely goes to the Spit XIV !

The number one evasive maneuver for the Corsair if a Spit XIV is on its tail, would have to be a quick 180* roll and a pull into a steep dive. While the number one evasive maneuver for the Spit XIV with a Corsair on its tail, would be a hard banking maneuver to either direction, or a tight loop.
 

FLYBOYJ

"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Staff
Mod
28,098
8,682
Apr 9, 2005
Colorado, USA
If I'm in the Corsair and the spit is behind - snap roll to a split s, dive, pick up airspeed, then up, I would try to fight him in the vertical. I think although the climb rate is about the same, he may be able to accelerate faster. I know the Corsair could slow down faster, I would try to use that to my advantage, but definitely, I WONT TRY TO TURN WITH THE SPIT!
 

DAVIDICUS

Staff Sergeant
915
20
Feb 23, 2005
Soren said, "but armament definitely goes to the Spit XIV ! "

Why are two 20mm's and two .50's better than six .50's?

I don't agree. The armaments of each aircraft are roughly equal but the ability of each aircraft to sustain damage and continue the fight is not. Additionally, the F4U-4 has the capacity maintain fire for a longer period of time due to large ammunition stores.

The advantage here goes to the F4U-4.
 

Soren

1st Lieutenant
6,457
21
Feb 6, 2005
DAVIDICUS said:
True, the armaments of each aircraft are roughly equal but the ability of each aircraft to sustain damage and continue the fight is not. Additionally, the F4U-4 has the capacity maintain fire for a longer period of time due to large ammunition stores.

The advantage here goes to the F4U-4.


However what good is this if the Corsair can't at all get into position behind the Spit ? As far as I see it, the Corsair has very little chance of getting on the Spit XIV's tail.

The Corsair might have a much better survivability, but against 2x 20mm Hispano's, it just wont last ! Four hits from those Hispano's and the Corsair is either going down or is effectively crippled to an extend where it can't fight nomore.
 

DAVIDICUS

Staff Sergeant
915
20
Feb 23, 2005
I edited my post after you responded. I thought you said that the armaments were equal.


The F4U-4 has advantages it can draw on in a dogfight as well. At any rate, four .50 hits could cripple the Spitfire as well. And remember that there are six .50's firing at the same time so the probability of landing lethal hits is increased. That liquid cooled, marvel of engineering it has for a powerplant couldn't take very much damage.
 

Soren

1st Lieutenant
6,457
21
Feb 6, 2005
Why are two 20mm's and two .50's better than six .50's?

It takes alot more .50 cal rounds to take down a fighter than 20mm Hispano rounds !

A single Hispano round has more than 4 times the destructive power of a .50 cal round, thus 2xHispano's + 2x.50's is a much more lethal armament than 6x.50's.

At any rate, four .50 hits could cripple the Spitfire as well

No way !! Do you have any idea how small an amount damage they will make ? The surface damage of a .50 cal is minimal at best !

The .50's have a small chance of doing any heavy damage, as they will have to hit key spots to do so.

The Spit will take many .50 cal hits before it is crippled ! Spitfire's have even flown home with 3x 20mm holes in them !

The Corsair can take more hits, no doubt, but it simply hasnt got the protection to face 2x Hispano's !
 

FLYBOYJ

"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Staff
Mod
28,098
8,682
Apr 9, 2005
Colorado, USA
The only way I see getting behind the Spit is to sucker him to overshoot in the vertical or getting him to try to dive away, you would have to work on a quick firing solution before he starts turning.

In the Spit, I think if you could sucker the Corsiar to remain in the horizontal and keep him from diving, you'll probably be able to nail him, especially if you force the Corsair to turn.
 

DAVIDICUS

Staff Sergeant
915
20
Feb 23, 2005
Soren said, "A single Hispano round has more than 4 times the destructive power of a .50 cal round, thus 2xHispano's + 2x.50's is a much more lethal armament than 6x.50's."

The US Air force conducted tests late in the war and concluded that a single 20mm had the effectiveness of two .50's. The US Navy also conducted tests and concluded that a single 20mm had the effectivenss of 2.5 .50's.

"No way !! Do you have any idea how small an amount damage they will make ? The surface damage of a .50 cal is minimal at best ! The .50's have a small chance of doing any heavy damage, as they will have to hit key spots to do so. "

Soren, who said anything about surface damage? The .50 could easily penetrate into and damage critical areas. And yes, I was talking about .50 strikes in "key" spots such as the engine which I specifically referenced. Six .50's firing at a rate of 850 rpm means 85 rounds per second that are set to converge within a three foot circle at 300 yards.

I think we can just agree to disagree on this one. :)
 

Soren

1st Lieutenant
6,457
21
Feb 6, 2005
The US Air force conducted tests late in the war and concluded that a single 20mm had the effectiveness of two .50's. The US Navy also conducted tests and concluded that a single 20mm had the effectivenss of 2.5 .50's.

Read this: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/WW2guneffect.htm

The 20mm Hispano Mk.II was over 4 times as powerful pr round, and the gun itself 3.3 times as powerful as the M2 Browning.

Also a single 20mm round in one of the Corsair's fuel tanks, and "CABOOM !!".....the Corsair is finished. While a .50 cal round won't explode a fuel tank at all, highest having it rupture after multiple hits.

Also the destructiveness of the 20mm Hispano round decreases much more slowly than the .50 cal round, making it better at longer ranges.

Soren, who said anything about surface damage?

Surface damage is one of the most destructive types of damage an a/c can recieve.

The .50 could easily penetrate into and penetrate critical areas. And yes, I was talking about .50 strikes in "key" spots such as the engine which I specifically referenced.

But what are the chances the .50's are going to penetrate the Engine block ? I can tell you that they are slim to none ! The .50's simply don't have the penetrating power to penetrate the engine block at the angles obtained in a dogfight. And the chance of hitting anything vital other than the engine is also very small with the relatively low RoF pr gun.

If the Browning M2 had a better RoF it would have been better, as then it could deliver a more lethal dose of surface damage at the time, but fact is it didnt. (Wich is why the Brits rejected the M2 so many times)

Six .50's firing at a rate of 850 rpm means 85 rounds per second that are set to converge within a three foot circle at 300 yards.

That circle is going to be alot bigger when the plane is flying because of all the vibrations caused by the engine and propeller.
 

Soren

1st Lieutenant
6,457
21
Feb 6, 2005
The F4U-4 has advantages it can draw on in a dogfight as well.

Yes its roll-rate and its ability to dive like a rock, and thats it. If the Corsair even 'once' tries to T&B fight, it is dead meat !

While the initial climb of the two aircraft is about the same, the Spit XIV will climb away after short time, and is also slightly faster in straight flight, thus the Spit dominates the fight.

Also there are two versions of Spit Mk.XIV, the original wing version and the Clipped Wing version. Against the CW version, the Corsair has only a very slim advantage in roll rate, and is still far outclassed in a T&B fight.

With equal pilots, it is far more likely that its the Spit XIV thats going to be on the Corsair's tail than vice versa.
 

Attachments

  • mv293a_236.jpg
    mv293a_236.jpg
    97.9 KB · Views: 636

DAVIDICUS

Staff Sergeant
915
20
Feb 23, 2005
That is an interesting article Soren. I wish I had the USAAF and USN studies that state differently. All I know is their conclusions. Perhaps their tests were based on field testing and not solely on mathematical calculations as the site you have offered.

The Mk XIVe was a lightly constructed aircraft. If your arguments are valid, then P-51's would have had great difficulty in taking out ME-109's and even greater difficulty in taking out FW-190's which had radial engines. I don't believe this was the case.

I just don't see why a Mk. XIVe would have been any more difficult to bring down than an Me-109.

As to the ability of the .50 to damage an engine, consider the following:

The RAF conducted studies of the ability of the .50 to penetrate hardened armor plate. (As opposed to damaging an engine)

At 200 yards

O degrees, 20mm of penetration
20 degrees, 14mm of penetration
40 degrees, 8mm of penetration

As you can see, a .50 can quite easily inflict fatal damage to an engine.
 

Users who are viewing this thread