Best all-round fighter of WWII

Best all-round dogfighter of WWII?

  • Total voters
    78

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

I know. The Dutch KNIL ML had them too. They didn't do so bad against the Japanese either but both the Brits and the Dutch just aren't in the same league as the Fins with their Buffalo's. Think that is was the most succesfull Finnish fighter of WW2.
I'm going to try and find arguments for that claim.
 
I decided to do a little more digging into the F4U-4 before I posted my overall thoughts. Dean in his book AHT has a quote from Guyton I believe. It goes like this: " Throwing the stick hard (F4U-1) would roll the airplane more than 180 degrees in a second". There is no follow up statement in AHT stating how controlled the snaproll was. Another quote is included by another pilot " Four second aileron rolls at 288 mph IAS ". No altitude is given so there is no way of knowing the true airspeed of the plane. For now I'll stick with the maximum roll as 108 degrees. Another pilot states " I couldn't stay on the tail of an FM-2 ". Now that I could believe.

So for now, my opinion is: While the Ki.27, Ki.43 and A6M could all outturn the Yak-3 at speeds under 225 mph, the Yak had the ability to accelerate rapidly to speeds where it could outmaneuver all of them because of aileron stiffening of the Japanese fighters at medium and high speeds. Therefore the Yak-3 was the most dangerous dogfighter at low and into the medium altitudes. The P-63 took over somewhere in the medium to upper altitudes as long as it kept its speed up. The Spitfires mighty Griffon in the XIV allowed it to take the honors from about 22,000-24,000ft. up. Now remember that's just all an opinion and if I didn't know which I would be facing on take-off I'd still chose the F4U-4.
 
Last edited:
Corsning, throwing the stick hard right or left for that matter is not a snap roll but rather just a plain roll. A snap roll is a different matter but I have to look it up to describe it. A barrel roll is also different. Obviously an airplane has to roll to make a coordinated turn but rolling and sustained turns are two different factors when it comes to ACM. In WW2, in order to hit the defender with guns, the attacker needed to have his wings in the same plane as the defender so a faster rolling airplane could make it difficult for a slower roller. A Zeke could out turn a Corsair all day long but could not roll with one. That is the reason that a Corsair with a Zeke suddenly on his tail would roll and dive. Bob Johnston in a P47 knew he could not outturn a Spitfire in mock ACM but he knew the Spit could not stay with him rolling which was his tactic. If you look at Dean's AHT near the back, at the table about sustained turns you will find that the Corsair was, I think, the worst of all US fighters at sustained turns but when it came to maneuvering the Corsair was quite good. In other words if a fight was going around in circles a Wildcat or Zeke would soon be on the Corsair tail but when it came to overall maneuvering, loops, climbing or diving turns, bunting into a dive, making coordinated turns in a gunnery run, etc. the Corsair was quite good. The faster a Corsair was going the faster it rolled which was not the case with many fighters. The Zeke could hardly roll at all above 250 MPH.
 
Hi there renrich,
I understand and agree with everything you have said above. In the book when Guyton made the statement over 180 deg./sec., was this being measured by test equipment? I believe Guyton believed what he was saying as the truth. Was the bird he was flying off the assembly line or a one off test vehicle?

Any input on my summary opinion? I'm just currious. Am I full-of-it or not...?
 
renrich said:
The Zeke could hardly roll at all above 250 MPH.
Click to expand...

the taic reports with a tested Zeke show that was inferior in roll to US fighter models at high speed, (from 220/250 mph for army planes and 160/200 knts for navy planes) it's not writed Zeke can not roll. that indicated are IAS speed.
 
Anyone with or without any flying experience, if you follow instruction and have the guts can roll a L39. Get the nose up ten degrees, keep your feet on the floor and throw the stick into your thigh. I can't remember the technique for a snap roll but when I read about it, it seemed to be only for very experienced pilots and only with certain airplanes. The airplane that Guyton flew in the roll tests was an early F4U1, instrumented and used many many times to improve roll characteristics. He would go up and roll many times. land and discuss with the engineers. The engineers would modify the ailerons. Up again and roll, roll, roll. That is the reason he had to use sea sick pills. Down and modify . Finally it was judged that the ailerons were perfected and that was the one second 180 degree roll. That aileron design was used on all F4U production models. Dean says in his book that the Corsair had the reputation of havng fine roll qualities but little historical information remains that quantifies that.
 


Must be kept as a big secret because those numbers aren't stated elsewhere....
cimmex
 
Guys,
I can't help believe the F4U-1 was modified as a test vehicle that they were able to get a 2+second 360 roll out of. The aileron design then was incorporated on production models equiped for combat. I'm not saying I agree or dissagree that operational Corsairs were able to roll 180/sec. I'm just saying that I have to agree with cimmex that I haven't seen those numbers on an official test document or published elsewhere. At least not to my knowledge (but I am a far cry from mister know-it-all).
 
When Guyton went to the fighter meets he made talks to the other pilots saying " we believe that the ailerons of the Corsair are some of the best in the business." Other pilots who flew the Corsairs operationally talked of how the roll rate was so good. The reason why one does not see the official test documents is that they no longer exist or have been found. That does not mean they did not exist at one time. Certainly something made the Corsair a beautifully maneuvering AC. An AAF pilot at the fighter meet said,'"It is a tough competitor in anything involving maneuvering."
 
I have read all that in AHT, and agree with it. The F4U had beautiful ailerons. It had to, to be able to throw a 12,000 lbs. aircraft around in the air like they did. I'm just saying the 108 deg./sec. roll is the best "official" number I have seen to date. There is one other document put out by the USN that compares the F4U, F6F and Fw-190 that states the Corsair was equal to the 190 in roll. The document does not list any conditions. Speed, altitude or any other perimeters of condition. The Corsair was a tough competitor from the time of its inception. I have tried very hard not to pick a favorite A/C in order to keep a subject outlook, but overall performance of the F4U-4 makes it very hard.
 
I know the F4U5-N does not count because it was after WW2, but it has to be mentioned just because it was a monster in the skies. I can only imagine how well that Corsair version would of done it it flown during the second world war.
 
Hi (SC) Arachnicus,
F4U-5N huh, now that's opening a big can of worms. We would have to include: F8F-1, P-51H, P-72?, P-80A , Vampire, Hornet, all kinds of German stuff, who knows what kind of Japanese stuff and probably some down and dirty stuff from the U.S.S.R. Since it was not a WW2 operational A/C I haven't done much research on that model. From the little that I've read on the -5N I remember it having war emergency power about 2,850 hp. and a top emergency speed of 480 mph. Its maximum climb rate was about 5,280 fpm from what I remember. But it came along late in 1946 I think and that keeps it from playing on this playground. But just the same, it was an awesome bird.
 
I've been a member for awhile but haven't posted anything before... I voted for the P-51 mainly because as an all round fighter it had good fire power, range, altitude and maneuverability. If I was picking one for only dogfighting in I would probably pick the Yak-3.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

The last dogfight of WWII
Replies
5
Views
2K
Gnomey
S
"Generations" of fighter aircraft
2
Replies
32
Views
6K
Barrett
B
S
Wing shapes of Russian fighters
Replies
14
Views
705
bf109xxl
S
Allied Bombers and Fighter Bombers in 1942:, North Africa, China, Burma, Pacific, Aleutians
2 3
Replies
46
Views
3K
Steamed_Banana
S
A
How did the I-16 Really Perform in WWII?
3 4 5
Replies
80
Views
4K
Airborne2001
A
Menu
Log in
Register