P-39 Expert
Non-Expert
Thank you. 200mph vs 250mph gives the P-39s an extra 7 minutes to find and intercept.
Corsair and Hellcat in Europe
- Thread starter GregP
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Shortround6
Major General
Something you didn't pull out of your hat.
A B-26 (early short wing) would have been hard pressed to cruise at 250mph at over 20,000ft for very long, and it was a smaller plane with more powerful engines.
parsifal
Colonel
And as expected, you would be wrong.
The Japanese in April through to the end of April had 25 A6Ms and approximately 40 twin engine bombers (I will get the precise numbers later today) . There were another 5 "attack groups"' equipped mostly with single engine short range a/c lacking the range to reach Moresby from Rabaul. these 5 groups were special attachments to 11 AF, spread over the four main operational areas. There might be one or two art most assigned to 25 flotilla
The fighters were reinforced towards the end of April, in preparation for Mo so as to be about 40 a/c. There were no additions to the air group until after watchtower. There was no rotation of forces for the Japanese, which is the striking difference to what was happening to Allied formations. Airbase capacities generally ditated how much force could be brought to bear. The allies had far more fighters tasked with the defence of of Moresby than the Japanese could hope to bring, and as losses in one group mounted were able to rotate other units into and out of the operational zone as required. the Japanese never had that luxury. This was also the case for the LW in the west after June 1941.
In addition to the fighter groups of the USAAC there were units of the RAAF, one squadrons from February, two squadrons from March, and three squadrons from July. There were approximately 600 strike aircraft supporting them . In addition to that there were the marine squadrons committed to watchtower which 25 flotilla had to deal with after July
So you can spruik a bunch of B/S all you like about how the P-39s were outnumbered, and you would be wrong.
The P-39 crews that fought May to December fulfilled a critical function in the defence of Moresby. They were hopelessly outclassed by the Japanese at the beginning and the exchange rates in losses reflected that. However the fact that they were there, and just kept on rising up to challenge the Japanese every time, inflicted attritional losses on the Japanese. This was ultimately what defeated the Japanese, the relentless crush of numbers. But to pedal around a bunch of bullshit, trying to say the p-39 groups and the p-39 were 9and was) something that they just weren't at that time is ultimately ridiculous.
jpatrick62
Airman
- 19
- Feb 9, 2007
Well looks like a lot of history buffs have weighed in on this topic, so I'll throw in my .02 for laughs. I tend to trust the tests performed by the various service branches at the time
since their very lives often depended on accuracy. Of course, we can't rule out inter-service rivalries, so a comprehensive view of all the branches performing tests on the various aircraft tend to give a better all around idea of the historical performance. Naval testing early F4U-1 aircraft versus the P51B seems to indicate the F4U the superior perfomer at lower altitudes, while the P51B was faster at higher alts. Interestingly, in this test the F4U had superior climb throughout the alts. More importantly, the maneuverability of each aircraft was tested and the nod went to the F4U, but again, this was a naval test so some bias might be there.
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f4u/p-51b-f4u-1-navycomp.pdf
Now this test was conducted by the Army in August 1943 (Beginning of the USAAF bombing campaign in Europe?) as an evaluation of the P38/P47/P1 versus the rival service's F4U. Again, it's interesting to glean some of the same things as was implied in the Navy test conducted above.
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f4u/f4u-1-02296.pdf
In the Army tests, things are much closer, but overall not that much different than the Navy tests. The F4U was considered a better close in fighter versus all three Army planes. The principle objection (from the Army's POV) was the cockpit layout and visibility, which the Army pilots did not like. The Army testing also found the maintenance of the F4U to be more difficult than their own types.
Finally, here is the comparison tests between F6F-3/F4U-1/FW190-4 done January 1944. Unfortunately the F4U aircraft and the FW190-A4 had engine issues that may have affected
the testing, so this test may not be totally accurate, although it does have the F4U and FW190 in a virtual dead heat. Again, the USN aircraft could easily out-maneuver the more heavily wing loaded German, but was that still an advantage by 1944?
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/ptr-1107.pdf
since their very lives often depended on accuracy. Of course, we can't rule out inter-service rivalries, so a comprehensive view of all the branches performing tests on the various aircraft tend to give a better all around idea of the historical performance. Naval testing early F4U-1 aircraft versus the P51B seems to indicate the F4U the superior perfomer at lower altitudes, while the P51B was faster at higher alts. Interestingly, in this test the F4U had superior climb throughout the alts. More importantly, the maneuverability of each aircraft was tested and the nod went to the F4U, but again, this was a naval test so some bias might be there.
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f4u/p-51b-f4u-1-navycomp.pdf
Now this test was conducted by the Army in August 1943 (Beginning of the USAAF bombing campaign in Europe?) as an evaluation of the P38/P47/P1 versus the rival service's F4U. Again, it's interesting to glean some of the same things as was implied in the Navy test conducted above.
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f4u/f4u-1-02296.pdf
In the Army tests, things are much closer, but overall not that much different than the Navy tests. The F4U was considered a better close in fighter versus all three Army planes. The principle objection (from the Army's POV) was the cockpit layout and visibility, which the Army pilots did not like. The Army testing also found the maintenance of the F4U to be more difficult than their own types.
Finally, here is the comparison tests between F6F-3/F4U-1/FW190-4 done January 1944. Unfortunately the F4U aircraft and the FW190-A4 had engine issues that may have affected
the testing, so this test may not be totally accurate, although it does have the F4U and FW190 in a virtual dead heat. Again, the USN aircraft could easily out-maneuver the more heavily wing loaded German, but was that still an advantage by 1944?
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/ptr-1107.pdf
Shortround6
Major General
Thank you,
from Wiki so correction welcome.
Engine used in the G4M in most of 1942.
1,410 horsepower (1,050 kW), 2350 rpm at 1,000 metres (3,300 ft)
1,380 horsepower (1,030 kW), 2350 rpm at 4,000 metres (13,000 ft)
SOmehow I am having trouble seeing a G4M cruising at over 20,000ft at 250mph using such engines.
I believe the raid also included G3Ms and the likelihood of them cruising at 250mph is zero.
from Wiki so correction welcome.
Engine used in the G4M in most of 1942.
- MK4A [Ha-32] 11
1,410 horsepower (1,050 kW), 2350 rpm at 1,000 metres (3,300 ft)
1,380 horsepower (1,030 kW), 2350 rpm at 4,000 metres (13,000 ft)
SOmehow I am having trouble seeing a G4M cruising at over 20,000ft at 250mph using such engines.
I believe the raid also included G3Ms and the likelihood of them cruising at 250mph is zero.
DarrenW
Staff Sergeant
Nice summation of things jpatrick62. While we're at it let's include AAF testing of the F6F-3 which occurred during that same week. And although it wasn't compared to the standard army fighters of the time, from my take on things they seemed to have liked the Hellcat, having far less negative comments to say about it than the Corsair.
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f6f/f6f-3-25820.pdf
Last edited:
DarrenW
Staff Sergeant
I would definitely think so. Question always is, how much of an advantage would it be when compared to top speed, climb, range, and so on.....?
P-39 Expert
Non-Expert
You ever going to give me your source? I would like to read it. My source says different.
Do you doubt the graph in post #466?
Why all the venom over an airplane? Who shot the Japanese planes down over Moresby? Not the P-39?
I'm not pedaling any bullshit, just govt/military test information and history.
parsifal
Colonel
I don't entertain BS very much these days. And your version of history is full of it . It has a number of downright porkies that lead to a number of false conclusions. top of that list is that in 1942 the USAAC played a pivotal role in the defeat of Japan and were instrumental in the Battle Of Australia. It overstates the effectiveness of American weapon systems at this time by a wide margin, fails to consider at all any other methodologies, like checking against enemy records . The result is an extreme cockeyed view of history that you don't even realise is disrespectful to just about everyone, including those who you seek to elevate, because it smooths over the very real hardships they endured. Saying the P-39 did more than it actually did suggests that it was easier than it actually was. The truth is that in that 3 month period, something like 60 p-39s were lost or written off. in exchange they shot down or destroyed by their own hand less than 10 zeroes and perhaps as many bombers
Statements like your claim that the p-39s were heavily outnumbered in the TO is not only patently incorrect, it also happens to strike a very raw nerve with Australians. For the first year of the war in the pacific, with the exception of naval operations, nearly all the heavy lifting in the pacific was done by Australian forces. Saying that the p-39s were the sole defenders of Moresby ignores a whole host of Australian efforts that its not funny......for example 75, 76 and 77 squadrons, number 30 squadron, to name just a few. there are plenty of others. Suggesting that the majority of heavy lifting was done by the US fighter groups has to be also galling to those flying bomber strikes against the Japanese positions. . It will probably surprise you that B-26s destroyed more Zekes on the ground in one raid than the entire US fighter forces did in three months of fighting over Moresby.
As far as my source are concerned, Ive got enough. Steve Bullards account of Japanese operations is a great translation of Japanese source material. George Johnstons war diary for 1942 is another primary source. "The Air war against Japan" is the official history and a reasonable account of own losses but not much good as a summary of enemy losses. Ive got most of the series written by Morison which is in about the same class. I like horners book on command decisions, because it peels back most of the BS some of which we are seeing here.
im not challenging scientific data. I base my critiques almost exclusively on operational research.....what happened, what might have happened and why. If an aircraft fails to live up to it paper performance, why is that? To me they are interesting questions.
Statements like your claim that the p-39s were heavily outnumbered in the TO is not only patently incorrect, it also happens to strike a very raw nerve with Australians. For the first year of the war in the pacific, with the exception of naval operations, nearly all the heavy lifting in the pacific was done by Australian forces. Saying that the p-39s were the sole defenders of Moresby ignores a whole host of Australian efforts that its not funny......for example 75, 76 and 77 squadrons, number 30 squadron, to name just a few. there are plenty of others. Suggesting that the majority of heavy lifting was done by the US fighter groups has to be also galling to those flying bomber strikes against the Japanese positions. . It will probably surprise you that B-26s destroyed more Zekes on the ground in one raid than the entire US fighter forces did in three months of fighting over Moresby.
As far as my source are concerned, Ive got enough. Steve Bullards account of Japanese operations is a great translation of Japanese source material. George Johnstons war diary for 1942 is another primary source. "The Air war against Japan" is the official history and a reasonable account of own losses but not much good as a summary of enemy losses. Ive got most of the series written by Morison which is in about the same class. I like horners book on command decisions, because it peels back most of the BS some of which we are seeing here.
im not challenging scientific data. I base my critiques almost exclusively on operational research.....what happened, what might have happened and why. If an aircraft fails to live up to it paper performance, why is that? To me they are interesting questions.
Dawncaster
Airman 1st Class
- 110
- Dec 23, 2013
Considering that the USAAF tested F4U-1 BuNo 02296 was one of the first batch Corsair with birdcage canopy, can find some interesting things. Among the early Birdcage Corsairs, the earliest - first batch F4U-1s had no mirror bulges at the top of the canopy and no boost tabs on ailerons, resulting in low maneuverability at high speeds and had wing heaviness problems. It's cockpit layout, visibility, seat position was the worst in all Corsair variants and supercharger didn't properly worked. Well, the tested F4U-1 BuNo 02296 was outdated at that point. At the time of testing, August 1943, the new raised cabin type F4U-1(often called F4U-1A) was already started delivering. It was a model that solved the above problems.
Nevertheless, the fact that the F4U-1 has shown its advantages in comparison dogfight means that there was a difference in maneuverability between them and the Corsair. As the war progressed, all three types USAAF fighters were much heavier, but the F4U-1 had no weight change. Therefore, it's no wonder that the F4U-1, which solved all the problems in USN comparison of 1944, showed advantage against the P-51B. (The overboosted F4U-1 BuNo 02390 was also tested, but with the exception of speed comparison, the difference with BuNo 17930 was not reported)
In addition, before the above comparison at the August 1943, the F4U-1 and army fighters were already compared. On May 21st, 1943 a fighter evaluation meeting took place at Elgin AAFB in Florida. Army pilots flying the Corsair for the first time were high in their praise. Dogfights were held with the P-47, P-51, P-38 and P-39 fighters, and all resulted favorably for the Corsair. only at altitudes above 20,000 feet, the F4U-1 lost its advantage against P-47 and P-51. It's the similar result as the above report, which means that the similar conclusions were already in place ahead of the two reports.
It became clearer in later comparisons. From the late 1944 to the early 1945, TAIC's comparison tests revealed a difference in maneuverability between army fighters and naval fighters. The Japanese fighter Zeke(A6M) needed 3.5 turns for Corsair and Hellcat. However, for P-51, P-47, and P-38, Zeke needed only one turn or less for advantage or firing position. In the report, Corsair was the only fighter to be able to stay with Zeke until 150 knots due to it's great combat flap, but the P-38's combat flap was rated to be ineffective because the maneuverability difference with Zeke was too great.
Finally, what if case you mentioned - against German fighters, Corsair would maintain its status as a superior dogfighter until the end of the war. But they do not favor such a tight dogfight. So the Corsair would mostly fight with it's good speed, excellent energy retention and superior high-speed maneuverability.
References
1. Memorandum Report on F4U-1 No. 02296
2. Evaluation and Comparison Trials of P-51B and F4U-1 Airplanes
3. TAIC REPORT NO. 17 November 1944
4. TAIC REPORT NO. 38 April 1945
5. 'Vought F4U Corsair' by Martin W. Bowman
6. 'Corsair: The F4U in World War II and Korea' by Barrett Tillman
Last edited:
fubar57
General
Interesting new book just released...
The P-39/P-400 was a type that was rejected by the RAF for a lack of high altitude performance. Its nose mounted cannon was often appreciated by the pilots who flew it and though it was pretty much useless above 15,000 feet, was reliable, rugged and eventually much appreciated by the Soviet pilots who flew it.
However, against the agile, well armed A6M2/3 Zeros, flown by experienced combat veterans, the Americans in their Airacobras were at a distinct disadvantage when they met in combat over New Guinea. Though claiming a lot of Zeros shot down, American (as well as Japanese) pilots overclaimed by a ratio of about 6.5 to 1.
Undoubtedly more planes were lost due to weather, mechanical breakdown, or ground fire than to other aircraft, but this was very much the trend throughout the war on all sides. American pilots soon learned not to dogfight with the Japanese and use their plane's superior diving speed to get out of trouble. Hit and run was the best offense. Meanwhile Japanese pilots used the A6Ms superior maneuverability and climb to ambush and shoot down the P-39s.
In this book, the author does the standard format of a history of both types, the training and operations of the pilots involved and then combat operations where they met each other. But in this case, goes into more detail about what it was like to operate these aircraft under the conditions that were prevalent at the time. Both suffered from a lack of supply and primitive conditions, though the Japanese more so. Combat in this theater of operations took its toll on both and such is amply covered.
The P-39/P-400 was a type that was rejected by the RAF for a lack of high altitude performance. Its nose mounted cannon was often appreciated by the pilots who flew it and though it was pretty much useless above 15,000 feet, was reliable, rugged and eventually much appreciated by the Soviet pilots who flew it.
However, against the agile, well armed A6M2/3 Zeros, flown by experienced combat veterans, the Americans in their Airacobras were at a distinct disadvantage when they met in combat over New Guinea. Though claiming a lot of Zeros shot down, American (as well as Japanese) pilots overclaimed by a ratio of about 6.5 to 1.
Undoubtedly more planes were lost due to weather, mechanical breakdown, or ground fire than to other aircraft, but this was very much the trend throughout the war on all sides. American pilots soon learned not to dogfight with the Japanese and use their plane's superior diving speed to get out of trouble. Hit and run was the best offense. Meanwhile Japanese pilots used the A6Ms superior maneuverability and climb to ambush and shoot down the P-39s.
In this book, the author does the standard format of a history of both types, the training and operations of the pilots involved and then combat operations where they met each other. But in this case, goes into more detail about what it was like to operate these aircraft under the conditions that were prevalent at the time. Both suffered from a lack of supply and primitive conditions, though the Japanese more so. Combat in this theater of operations took its toll on both and such is amply covered.
DarrenW
Staff Sergeant
Yes, the report did state this but with a slight caveat. The Corsair could employ wing flaps at around 175 knots and stay with the Zeke for about a one-half turn. Once speed dropped to 150 knots or less this was no longer possible. This is not the same as being able to follow it completely during turning maneuvers at those speeds.
DarrenW
Staff Sergeant
Double post.
Last edited:
Dawncaster
Airman 1st Class
- 110
- Dec 23, 2013
I wrote it in the same meant as you wrote. I thought 'to 150 knots' was enough. I probably should have used 'until 150 knots'. perhaps my english skill problem?
DarrenW
Staff Sergeant
No, your English is excellent. I was more concerned about the supposed ability of the Corsair to turn as well as the Zeke at such low speeds. Staying with it for only a half-turn isn't going to yield you much IMHO....
Dawncaster
Airman 1st Class
- 110
- Dec 23, 2013
Let's borrow another book's expression for it, "Time to disengage"
Dogfighting at such a speed was an unfavorable choice for Corsair because speeds below 150 knots were Zeke's homeground. But being able to follow for 0.5 turns means that Corsair could create an opportunity. It usually takes nearly 20 seconds for a World War II fighter to finish a complete 360 degree turn - perhaps the exceptionally good turn fighter like Zeke would be lower. A time close to 10 seconds is a lot of time to say 'only', and enough time to do something for offensive or defensive. It is an characteristic that was sufficiently meaningful. So it was reported that way.
Last edited:
DarrenW
Staff Sergeant
I think you are misunderstanding why I first posted, but I'm just thankful that we both came to an agreement that the Corsair doesn't have the same turn capability as an A6M5 at such low speeds. If they did they'd be one-for-one on turn radius.
And yes, any further advantage that wing flaps can give you is a good thing. But their use never made the Corsair turn as well as the Zero for any sustained length of time.
And yes, any further advantage that wing flaps can give you is a good thing. But their use never made the Corsair turn as well as the Zero for any sustained length of time.
Dawncaster
Airman 1st Class
- 110
- Dec 23, 2013
Nobody, including myself, claimed that the Corsair had the same sustained turning capacity as Zeke.
There was no first class fighter could stay with Zeke in one-direction sustained turn at 10,000 feet. It's a basic premise. The advantage mentioned above was that the Corsair had the ability to maintain it's opportunity for longer time even at low speed, compared to other fighters in report. It does not mean that Corsair could stay with Zeke in sustained turn.
DarrenW
Staff Sergeant
You never made the limitations clear in post #511. I just wanted to add that the Corsair could only follow for a half-turn because that's what the report stated.
From everything that I've read or heard, the F6F could out-turn the F4U at speeds below 200 KIAS (many successful Japanese pilots voted the F6F as their toughest opponent due to it's maneuverability). Combat flaps helped reduce this disparity, but didn't eliminate it entirely.
Because it only had two settings for the flaps - up or down, the report obviously wouldn't mention them in the case of the Hellcat. This certainly doesn't mean that the F6F couldn't also "follow a Zeke's turn" at least partially at those speeds too, without the use of flaps.
The report probably emphasized the value of flaps in turns to remind Corsair pilots of their practical use in combat. But saying the F4U alone had this ability when dogfighting the A6M is leap of logic that one should not make.
From everything that I've read or heard, the F6F could out-turn the F4U at speeds below 200 KIAS (many successful Japanese pilots voted the F6F as their toughest opponent due to it's maneuverability). Combat flaps helped reduce this disparity, but didn't eliminate it entirely.
Because it only had two settings for the flaps - up or down, the report obviously wouldn't mention them in the case of the Hellcat. This certainly doesn't mean that the F6F couldn't also "follow a Zeke's turn" at least partially at those speeds too, without the use of flaps.
The report probably emphasized the value of flaps in turns to remind Corsair pilots of their practical use in combat. But saying the F4U alone had this ability when dogfighting the A6M is leap of logic that one should not make.
Last edited:
