Corsair vs. BF 109G,K or FW 190's

wwii:)aircraft · Dec 6, 2010

I would agree in saying that the corsair overpowered the G-6 seing that it was much faster, at higher speeds was more maneuverable and always could out dive the bf 109; not to mention the corsair was a muchh more stable gun platform and we already know how effective the 6x .50cals were against the bf 109 (in the P-51). But when you move onto 1944 when you have variants such as the G-14, DB605AS powered bf 109s, and then the K the F4U-1D not only is either match or overpoered in speed but the bf 109s rate of climb is also enhanced.

davebender · Dec 6, 2010

I think it's safe to assume 3cm mine shells would put a Corsair down for the count. So both aircraft have enough firepower to destroy the opponent. Whoever hits first will win.

AlfaKiloSierra · Aug 23, 2019

The performance relies greatly on altitude. At 15000ft the Bf 109 K even with only 1.8 ata outruns F4U-1 by some nearly ten miles per hour [1] [2]. Look at that chart closely and the F4U is about even with the 109 at its supercharger critical altitudes. That was speed,

climb. [3] [1] shows that Bf 109 K climbs slightly better, but significantly better at around 12000ft. The F4U-1 pilot should seek to fight somewhere near any of its supercharger critical altitudes, and not at its supercharger gear switch altitudes. As for turn rate, the F4U-1 looks better by wing loading, but I cannot find proof that it indeed turns better.

Note: I used the F4U-1 because I cannot find any report of a 2.0ata Bf 109 K, and if I do, I'll bring up the F4U-4 to compare to it.

[1] Spitfire Mk XIV versus Me 109 G/K
[2] http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f4u/50030-level-final.jpg
[3] http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f4u/50030-climb-final.jpg

FLYBOYJ · Aug 23, 2019

AlfaKiloSierra said:
The performance relies greatly on altitude. At 15000ft the Bf 109 K even with only 1.8 ata outruns F4U-1 by some nearly ten miles per hour [1] [2]. Look at that chart closely and the F4U is about even with the 109 at its supercharger critical altitudes. That was speed,

climb. [3] [1] shows that Bf 109 K climbs slightly better, but significantly better at around 12000ft. The F4U-1 pilot should seek to fight somewhere near any of its supercharger critical altitudes, and not at its supercharger gear switch altitudes. As for turn rate, the F4U-1 looks better by wing loading, but I cannot find proof that it indeed turns better.

Note: I used the F4U-1 because I cannot find any report of a 2.0ata Bf 109 K, and if I do, I'll bring up the F4U-4 to compare to it.

[1] Spitfire Mk XIV versus Me 109 G/K
[2] http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f4u/50030-level-final.jpg
[3] http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f4u/50030-climb-final.jpg

Just a tip - be advised that this thread has been inactive for almost 9 years. Some of the original posters may still be around, others may be long gone. Nothing wrong with resurrecting an old thread but you may not get a response if you direct your response to a specific post.

Corsair vs. BF 109G,K or FW 190's

More options

wwii:)aircraft

Airman

davebender

1st Lieutenant

AlfaKiloSierra

Airman

FLYBOYJ

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

Users who are viewing this thread

Similar threads