Sounds like the same situation the Mark V Spitfire was in when it first faced the 190, although I'm not sure if the 190 could outdive a Hellcat or if it could outroll it significantly, but the 190 would surely outrun and outclimb it.
American Hellcats vs the LW
- Thread starter Jenisch
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Sounds like the same situation the Mark V Spitfire was in when it first faced the 190, although I'm not sure if the 190 could outdive a Hellcat or if it could outroll it significantly, but the 190 would surely outrun and outclimb it.
davebender
1st Lieutenant
Rudel once flew a Ju-87 back to base after it was hit with six 37mm AA rounds. I would hazard a guess six 37mm rounds would normally bring down a Ju-87. Rudel simply got lucky.
Hence the reason for official damage statistics. How many 20mm rounds can an average (i.e. not lucky) P-47 or F6F absorb and still limp back to base?
Hence the reason for official damage statistics. How many 20mm rounds can an average (i.e. not lucky) P-47 or F6F absorb and still limp back to base?
If the Hellcat's pilot can keep the game above 25000 ft, he is likely to come off 1st v. the Fw-190As. Since the usage of any US fighter in ETO almost automatically points into the bomber escort job, that would most likely be the case. The Fw-190A-5/A-6 are fastest at 20300 ft (410 mph), F6F-3 at 23000 ft (385 mph). In 1944 Hellcat gets another 10 mph there, plus water injection, Fw-190A-8 gets more weight drag (= 400 mph at 20160 ft), some receiving MW kit (less usable than for F6F because of some 5000 ft of altitude difference).
In other words, if the combat is taking place in 1943, under 25000 Fw should be better. Above that, or in 1944, the Fw-190 is at disadvantage. The Focke Wulf able to beat Hellcat is the 190D.
Bf-109 is another story.The Gustavs with gondola cannons should achieve parity in Oct 1943, and upper hand with the advent of AS engine.
The one's without extra cannons are competitive for the most part of 1943, but better from Oct 1943, let alone wit the DB-605AS (or better) on board. The pilot better be a good shooter, though
In other words, if the combat is taking place in 1943, under 25000 Fw should be better. Above that, or in 1944, the Fw-190 is at disadvantage. The Focke Wulf able to beat Hellcat is the 190D.
Bf-109 is another story.The Gustavs with gondola cannons should achieve parity in Oct 1943, and upper hand with the advent of AS engine.
The one's without extra cannons are competitive for the most part of 1943, but better from Oct 1943, let alone wit the DB-605AS (or better) on board. The pilot better be a good shooter, though
DonL
Banned
From the comparison report, the FW 190 A5-U3 was clearly faster at 25000 ft then the F6F-3 Hellcat.
I don't know which supercharger the Hellcat had and which was it's best altitude performance. Can anybody help?
F4U-1D, F6F-3, and FW190-A5 Comparison Report
Also the report says that the FW 190A and the Corsair were clearly superior in rates of roll to the Hellcat.
Last edited:
Thanks, I've seen the report. The Fw-190 from that test lacks the (outer, I presume) cannons their ammo, while the US fighters are flown with full armament ammo. That skews the results in favor of the 190, in speed, climb and roll rate.
The R-2800-10, in military rating (30 min), has a full throttle height at 22500 ft, the R-2800-8 from Corsair has a FTH at 21000, all in high gear. In a 30 min rating (Steig und Kampfleistung), the BMW-801D has the FTH at 17100 ft (5300m).
In 5 min rating, WEP, avilable with water-injection, the FTH is at 20000 ft for the our R-2800, while the 3 min rating (Notleistung, no water injection, but with higher boost and RPM) for the BMW 801D is 18400 ft (5700 m). All walues WITHOUT ram effect.
The Fw-190A-5/A-6 makes almost 395 mph at 19000 ft on 30-min rating, F6F-3 380 mph at 23000 ft, F6F-5 390 at 24000, early Corsairs 395 at that 23000, the -1D 405-410 mph at 1000 ft more.
In the short time ratings, 190 makes 410 mph at 20300, F6F-5 almost 400 at 20000 ft, F4U-1D 420 at 20000 ft.
Data for US fighters from US 100000 book, data for Fw-190 from manual.
Agree that Hellcat was not such a great roller; the Corsair, overall, seem as a more competitive of the two US birds.
The R-2800-10, in military rating (30 min), has a full throttle height at 22500 ft, the R-2800-8 from Corsair has a FTH at 21000, all in high gear. In a 30 min rating (Steig und Kampfleistung), the BMW-801D has the FTH at 17100 ft (5300m).
In 5 min rating, WEP, avilable with water-injection, the FTH is at 20000 ft for the our R-2800, while the 3 min rating (Notleistung, no water injection, but with higher boost and RPM) for the BMW 801D is 18400 ft (5700 m). All walues WITHOUT ram effect.
The Fw-190A-5/A-6 makes almost 395 mph at 19000 ft on 30-min rating, F6F-3 380 mph at 23000 ft, F6F-5 390 at 24000, early Corsairs 395 at that 23000, the -1D 405-410 mph at 1000 ft more.
In the short time ratings, 190 makes 410 mph at 20300, F6F-5 almost 400 at 20000 ft, F4U-1D 420 at 20000 ft.
Data for US fighters from US 100000 book, data for Fw-190 from manual.
Agree that Hellcat was not such a great roller; the Corsair, overall, seem as a more competitive of the two US birds.
Last edited:
oldcrowcv63
Tech Sergeant
Dave, My question about the relative or comparable durability of any WW2 fighter or ther tac-air aircraft would start with the question: "What is the equivelant caliber of a water tower?" IIRC, Johnson flew his Jug through a water tower by accident and got back to base. That's my standard. Don't know if any other aircraft had similar instance I assume there are some, and would love to know. I also have seen photos (link and lowest photo below) of a P-47 that impacted the ground during a low level strafing run, bent the prop and broke its "nose" but got home. Another is shown above the first after a similar run in with grounded objects (trees)
Lower than a Snake's Belly in a Wagon Rut > Vintage Wings of Canada
Attachments
Last edited:
The Fw 190 also was a fighter-bomber version that had been repaired at least once and whose previous record is unknown. The US fighters were brand new. That skews the results in favour of the Hellcat and the Corsair.
renrich
Chief Master Sergeant
Actually riacrato, the comparison test I am referring to has the standard F4U1, not an F4U1D and neither Navy plane has WEP. The Corsair and the FW were actually pretty close in performance with the F6F being the laggard. According to the comparison the Navy planes were much more maneverable than the FW. The FW could not follow either in a loop. One edge the FW had was that it was much easier to get full power since the throttle, prop pitch control and mixture are all combined. Correction, both Navy planes had WEP but I could not see where both Navy planes were factory fresh. In fact the Corsair engine was overheating at times. Those high powered birds could be troublesome.
Last edited:
Hmm didn't know there were two tests from the Navy, but would love to read it. But the results from the test I read which got pretty much the same results were definetly flown with an F4U-1D (it's mentioned several times in the report). As for factory fresh: "The comparisons were made with new production models of the F4U-1D(Corsair) and F6F-3(Hellcat) airplanes". True meaning debatable, probably. But I read that the birds were new.
As for tomo's comment: True, the Fw was stripped and repainted, still it is specifically mentioned that the previous flight time is unknown. The outer cannons make up for only a small portion of weight and it was not unusual for them to be removed if the Fw was used in the air superiority role. Even with just the 2 MG151 and 2 MG17 it was potent versus any contemporary fighter.
Note that the max boost setting they used is 1.42ata, contemporary (it's february 1944) Fw 190 A-5s usually could use C3-injection which enabled a boost setting of 1.65ata, significantly increasing climb, acceleration and level speed. This should more than level out the 4% weight decrease this Fw had over a standard production model.
Had they flown longer time spans to determine level speed, the F4U-1D would've likely pulled away at some point. But they tested, what they thought was realistic for a combat evaluation and the two aircraft were shown to be on par.
When "Boost" is quoted for the FW 190 it is normally assumed that it was emergency via Water Methanol injection. In fact "Boost" on the FW 190 was through injection of the C3 fuel into the eye of the supercharger. MW-50 did come in but only late in the war on A-9's and perhaps A-8's (thus late 1944 time period). I have read that some A5's in 1943 or so used MW50 for low level strikes had the systems though I am lead to believe it cause maintenance problems (cracked cylinder heads). The A5 was rather a rare aircraft, I think only 76 were produced before moving on to the A6.
A number of captured FW 190's were tested. It should be noted that one involved in manouvering tests suffered from such severe aileron flutter that it caused premature stall and the pilots blackout. The problem was bady tuned ailerons, the FW 190's push rod system being difficult to adjust correctly without proper instruction so the tests on manouvering are quite suspect. Also note that the F ground attack versions and G long range strike versions had different propellors, WEP, systems of armour and can't be used a proxies for a series fighter evaluation.
The FW 190 did have its flaws: the stiff twin spar wing that gave the 190 its famously high roll rate wssn't perfectly stiff, so under heavy manouvering the washout angle would reduce which could lead to a premature tip stall and the aircraft spinning out. The recovery was instant however as the wings aeroeleastic twist relaxed. It should therefore no be assumed that the Ta 152 had handling anything like the FW 190 as the Ta had a completely new wing structure of completely new materials.
A number of captured FW 190's were tested. It should be noted that one involved in manouvering tests suffered from such severe aileron flutter that it caused premature stall and the pilots blackout. The problem was bady tuned ailerons, the FW 190's push rod system being difficult to adjust correctly without proper instruction so the tests on manouvering are quite suspect. Also note that the F ground attack versions and G long range strike versions had different propellors, WEP, systems of armour and can't be used a proxies for a series fighter evaluation.
The FW 190 did have its flaws: the stiff twin spar wing that gave the 190 its famously high roll rate wssn't perfectly stiff, so under heavy manouvering the washout angle would reduce which could lead to a premature tip stall and the aircraft spinning out. The recovery was instant however as the wings aeroeleastic twist relaxed. It should therefore no be assumed that the Ta 152 had handling anything like the FW 190 as the Ta had a completely new wing structure of completely new materials.
- Thread starter
- #32
renrich
Chief Master Sergeant
The report I am referring to is on the Williams Site and was posted on 15 October,2006, and is entitled, Comparative test of FW190A-4 airplane. Another interesting test is a comparison of the F4U1 and the P51B. The P51B overall was the best performing Mustang used in WW2 and some might be surprised at the outcome.
renrich
Chief Master Sergeant
Thanks, Vincenzo. I am so computer illiterate I don't know how to put that link up without actually typing it out and I am a hunt and peck typist.
Hi,
I can readily agree that the best cards for Fw-109A-7 and earlier were their roll rate, climb rate under 20000 ft and speed under 25000 ft (even if we don't look just at USN birds), IIRC the test are pretty clear about that anyway. Since/if the outer guns ammo were being removed, I'd say the main purpose of that is to increase all of those 3 attributes - the conclusion is that weight and drag penalty of those cannons was considered as not negligible.
The quirk is the altitude where the 1,65 ata pressure can be attained.
The 'Notleistung' setting was increasing both the RPM and manifold pressure, hence both the power AND the full throttle height were increased.
The C3 injection increases only the manifold pressure, NOT rpm. That means that (in Fw-190A-8's case) the full throttle height is some 750m (2420 ft) under the FTH of the Notleistung. So in pre A-8 planes that could mean that FTH is just under 18000 ft, instead at 18400 ft - no doubt good for some short time climbs under the FTH altitude, or to chase some pesky Tempests down low. However, not the greatest help if the enemy's fighters are incoming at 25000-30000 ft.
In overall, I agree.
I've numbered the strong points of the Fw-190 vs USN birds. The later need to make their sweeps high up, in order to downplay the good sides of the 190.
The reasaon the U3 doesn't have the outer cannons was to make sure it could take off with a 500kg bomb. For the role this aircraft was modified for (fighter-bomber) the extra 2 MG/FF simply weren't neccessary.
I don't claim the 1.58 / 1.65 ata improve performance across the whole envelope but they do so in some (all?) of the altitudes that were measured here. I'm just saying I don't think the Fw had any sort of significant advantage because it was a bit lighter than normal, for me it seems the results could be considered representative for the type, not just this particular example.
Btw Siegfried: The A-5, though an intermediate Type, was produced in much larger numbers (600-700 iirc).
Last edited:
Hi,
I'm aware that U3, as a fighter-bomber subtype had it's gun armament reduced, no issues about that My point is that a fighter version has all of the cannons, with consequences at firepower, but also at performance. I've already stated that in standard fighter configuration (all 4 cannons aboard), Fw-190 was a tough opponent for the USN birds (not just for them...).
I'll attach the speed vs. altitude chart for some Fw fighters. You can see that 1,65 ata is only applicable under the FTH for Notleistung, loss in FTH being some 750 m for the A-8.
I'm aware that U3, as a fighter-bomber subtype had it's gun armament reduced, no issues about that
My point is that a fighter version has all of the cannons, with consequences at firepower, but also at performance. I've already stated that in standard fighter configuration (all 4 cannons aboard), Fw-190 was a tough opponent for the USN birds (not just for them...). I'll attach the speed vs. altitude chart for some Fw fighters. You can see that 1,65 ata is only applicable under the FTH for Notleistung, loss in FTH being some 750 m for the A-8.
Attachments
Users who are viewing this thread
Similar threads
