Corsair vs. BF 109G,K or FW 190's (1 Viewer)

Glider said:

Certainly
Joahanns Steinhoff 1943 over Malta
The Malta Spitfires are back again, their fitted with high altitude superchargers and at anything over 25000ft they just play cat and mouse with us.
At 28000ft the Spitfire could turn in an astonishingly narrow radius. We on the other hand in the thin air had to carry out every manoeuver with caution and at full power so as not to lose control

Click to expand...

Selective quoting... some parts missing from that qoute.

The interesting point is that this took place at altitude which I understood to be the 109's strongest suite.

Click to expand...

I understand they specifiy they had problems with this special kind of Spit (the reference to it is clear in the context, but this is missing from the quote) over 7600+m. That`s actually well above the rated altitude (5800m) of the contemporary standard Bf 109G, which is why they remark about the probkem being specifically over 25000ft..which is quite understandable as well if you take into account the parts left out from your quote. Of course it would be another matter if JG 77 at the time would have been equipped with the special high altitude 109G subtypes as well.

Note also that Joahanns was the commander of JG77 a very experienced pilot

Click to expand...

Yes, but at this time which he gives account in his book, he was basically describes the latest gossip of other JG 77 pilots about new enemy a/c.

drgondog said:

And your case for the Me109 being superior in turn at altitudes above 15,000 feet and 300 kts is?

Click to expand...

Hmm, to me it seems the first part of the question can be decided by the relative falling of power at rated altitude and the respective outputs of the engine at altitude (unless there`s significant difference, I believe the relative turn will be the same as at low altitude), while the turning ability above 300 kts is basically a question of excess thrust vs. drag in turns.

In fact, turning radius is largely definied by stall speed =~ wingloading, and here you can`t expect much of a difference between the two aircraft - nothing meaningful at least. Sustained turn rate is largely about available power vs. thrust, at high speed a good indication is power required /max speed reached, at low speeds, we can draw some conclusions based on climb rates.

The Zeke did not have an inferior rate of climb. From 1941 to 1943 it was at least equal to the Allied types it faced in climb rate. Since this thread is supposed to be about Corsair versus BF and FW, how about some discussion of the USN comparison of a FW190A4 and F6F3 and F4U1.

See Post #85

The Brits sent Spitfires to the far east and the Zeros chewed them up.This was probably due more to tactics than airframe limitations.However the Corsair chewed up even the late model Japanese aircraft.On paper the F4F should have been totally outclassed by the Zero,but held its own pretty well.Tactics again. A Phillipene pilot knocked down a bunch of Zeros using a P-26.It all comes down to pilot skill.
Ed

The Philippine pilot you are referring to had 2 Zero kills....

"Philippine P-26s led by Capt. Jesus Villamor shot one bomber and two Zeros with the loss of three P-26s."

Operational History of Boeing P-26

Hi guys,

I hope all is well with all of you.

I really hate to see these kinds of discussions. The more you learn about the science and engineering of aircraft, the more silly these discussions become from the standpoint of "my plane is better than yours". It really does just become an opinion.

First, aircraft maintenance is the largest factor in aircraft performance. The same design can exhibit a wide margin of performance much of it based on how well it is assembled and how well it is maintained.

Any aircraft owners know this fact very well. If an aircraft is not maintained to exacting standards, it is highly unlikely it will perform as intended. Simple things make a significant difference. Each design is different in this aspect. While generalities exist the details are very important. What maybe great oil for one aircraft might degrade power production in another? A good friend of mine learned this the hard way. He used an aviation approved additive that was "all the rage" for many owners with essentially the same motor or at least one would think so. It ruined his engine and now he is buying a new one to the tune of 57,000USD.

One of the first things any potential aircraft buyer will do is have the compressions checked. Compression directly relates to power production and all engines will vary the amount of power they produce amoung the same design.

Conditions also have a very large influence. It is useless to compare performance that was not gathered under the same conditions. Temperature alone can vary such things as climb rate by several thousand fieet per minute. An airplane that barely achieves a 1700fpm climb rate at a different temperature can exhibit a climb rate of 4500fpm(+).

If we consider all factors being equal, airplane performance is still a percentage range over a mean average simply because of natural variations in the manufacturing process.

Next we have the science of flight. Statements such as "Plane A outturns Plane B" really have no bearing whatsoever in the air. Facts are all aircraft at the same angle of bank and velocity will make exactly the same turn.

The portion of the envelope where a design contemporary aircraft will exhibit any amount of "superiority" is extremely tiny. Any aircraft can neutralize a level turn advantage by rolling it's vector of lift below the horizon thus adding a component of weight to thrust. This is why fighter designers concentrate on rolling ability and it is considered the "agility" of a fighter and not level turn ability.

Notice in the development of the radius of turn equation that the weight (W) canceled out of the equation. This is a very important observation since it means that the size of the aircraft has no effect on the radius of turn. Thus, two aircraft flying at the same angle of bank and velocity will make the same radius of turn even if one is 1000 times larger than the other.

Click to expand...

Radius of Turn

The aircraft traveling the slowest will outturn the faster aircraft.

We can see that if the aircraft is flying twice as fast the radius of turn will be four times as great.

Click to expand...

Radius of Turn

The only difference is any aircraft's turning ability is the location of the stall line. However this does not mean that the best turn is at that stall line:

The catch 22 however, is that the stall speed of the airplane will increase as we increase the angle of bank. Thus, we will have to fly at a higher speed if we use a large angle of bank. So, the question is would it be better to do the turn at a slower speed, and a lower angle of bank, or at a higher speed and a higher angle of bank?

Click to expand...

Minimum Radius of Turn


I have a mathematical analysis of the FW-190A8 and P51D Mustang. I will post them later and we can discuss them.

All the best,

Crumpp

FLYBOYJ said:

"Philippine P-26s led by Capt. Jesus Villamor shot one bomber and two Zeros with the loss of three P-26s."

Click to expand...

The Japanese fighters in that action (Dec 12, '41) weren't actually credited to Villamor, just the bomber. The Zero credits were shared among other pilots of the Filipino 6th Pursuit Sd. But only a bomber was lost, a Type 96 Land Attack Bomber ('Nell') of the 1st Air Group, whose crew, uncharacteristically, was captured alive. The fighter opponents were 3rd Air Group Zeroes; who claimed 8 "P-35's or P-26's" without loss. See 'Bloody Shambles' by Shores Vol 1 p. 184-185.

It's not to constantly contradict, but if we say 'even P-26's could down Zeroes' it matters if it actually happened, which apparently it didn't.

Villamor was an brave pilot though. Later he flew a recon mission in a PT-13 biplane trainer to photograph Japanese siege artillery positions for which he won the DSC.

On Spitfire V's (poor, 1: several) 1943 results v Zeroes; compared to F4F's 1:1 ratio against Zeroes even in 1942, each according to both side's loss accounts, it's one of the best examples of how little you can predict or conclude about combat effectivness from paper statistics of WWII fighter performance. 'Pilots' or 'tactics' is the all purpose catchall explanation and must have some truth, but I think there might be more to it than that. That is, stuff about fighter combat effectiveness that isn't captured by speed, climb etc. statistics most people focus on in saying one plane is better than another on paper. Plus, the issue of how accurate official paper statistics were for actual production examples of various planes in particular environments.

Joe

Jank, I had already seen your post #85, reread the report, as I have it saved but everyone else on this thread seems to ignore that report and I have heard no discussion of it. I suppose that comparison is somewhat tainted because it was conducted apparently by USN pilots but it seems pretty objective and certainly goes against what I have read by Eric Brown. At any rate it would seem an open and shut case that a pilot who properly handles a Corsair should have the upper hand over either an FW or BF and that probably goes for the Hellcat also.

As our resident Corsair expert, I know YOU have seen the report (probably committed it to memory). It was my intention that others might read it in response to your point.

Also, although the post appears limted to air-superiority, it bears noting that the Corsair is also far superior to the 109 and 190 in the fighter bomber role which constitutes a great advantage in pinpoint ground attack and close air support. This versatility has tremendous value.

Jank, you have found me out. I became enamored of the Corsair during WW2 when I was given a picture book of airplanes. The book is long gone but I remember the picture of the Corsair was of the XF4U all silver and yellow. While in college,(1955) I worked part time at Temco Aircraft which was right next to Vought in the mid-cities between Dallas and Fort Worth. My first job was in flight test engineering and I was able to walk out on the flight line and gaze at airplanes. Although Vought was then mainly involved with F7Us(they were designing the F8U at that time) there were still some Corsairs around and I avidly inspected them. Some of the people who worked at Temco had been WW2 pilots and their stories were absorbed with great interest. One you would enjoy was told me by an ex-Jug driver. He said they were detailed to escort a bunch of B-26s late in the war on a raid. They rendevouxed with the bombers at an altitude several thousand above and settled into their normal weave since the Jug's cruise was faster than the B26s. Apparently they did not look closely at the bombers at first but soon, in order to keep up with them. they had to increase throttle and come out of the weave and soon they were straining to keep up( This was at a low altitude) It was then they realised that these were not Marauders they were escorting but rather A26 Invaders that were far faster. I wish I remember further details but that is all I can recall. Anyway I have had friends and relatives who flew the Corsair in WW2 and Korea and an uncle who enjoyed mock dogfights with them while serving as an IP in P39s and P47s. Once again I regret not paying closer attention to these individual's stories.

Crumpp said:

Hi guys,

I hope all is well with all of you.

I really hate to see these kinds of discussions. The more you learn about the science and engineering of aircraft, the more silly these discussions become from the standpoint of "my plane is better than yours". It really does just become an opinion.

Agreed. I think, however, the rathole in the conversation isn't "my plane is better thyan yours" - it has been how does one develop opinions regarding one or more performance metrics. In the case of the debate you have followed it has been about Mustang versus 109 relative horizontal turn performance at different speeds and altitudes.

Opinions have been presented based on RAF reports, the validity of those reports, German and Allied pilot opinions not involved in actual flight tests to perform those manuevers under controlled conditions, and personal opinions expressed as absolutes.


First, aircraft maintenance is the largest factor in aircraft performance. The same design can exhibit a wide margin of performance much of it based on how well it is assembled and how well it is maintained.

Agreed

Conditions also have a very large influence. It is useless to compare performance that was not gathered under the same conditions. Temperature alone can vary such things as climb rate by several thousand fieet per minute. An airplane that barely achieves a 1700fpm climb rate at a different temperature can exhibit a climb rate of 4500fpm(+).

Agreed as well and obviously very important considerations when planning and executing any test profile - by definition, if comparative tests, then same STP and altitudes are variables of importance as well as defining boundary conditions to establish a fair un-biased test series.

If we consider all factors being equal, airplane performance is still a percentage range over a mean average simply because of natural variations in the manufacturing process.

Agreed as well

Next we have the science of flight. Statements such as "Plane A outturns Plane B" really have no bearing whatsoever in the air. Facts are all aircraft at the same angle of bank and velocity will make exactly the same turn.

Agreed and either energy loss rate or ability to regain energy through other manuevers will be key factors

The portion of the envelope where a design contemporary aircraft will exhibit any amount of "superiority" is extremely tiny. Any aircraft can neutralize a level turn advantage by rolling it's vector of lift below the horizon thus adding a component of weight to thrust. This is why fighter designers concentrate on rolling ability and it is considered the "agility" of a fighter and not level turn ability.

Also agreed - but in all fairness the debate was the turn manuever without regard to trading one form of energy for another during the manuever.

I have a mathematical analysis of the FW-190A8 and P51D Mustang. I will post them later and we can discuss them.

I know I will be very interested in your work but remain cognizant of why we compare actual flight results to the math and predicted performance. Do you have the same stuff for the 109?

Click to expand...

With Respect

Bill

JoeB said:

The Japanese fighters in that action (Dec 12, '41) weren't actually credited to Villamor, just the bomber. The Zero credits were shared among other pilots of the Filipino 6th Pursuit Sd. But only a bomber was lost, a Type 96 Land Attack Bomber ('Nell') of the 1st Air Group, whose crew, uncharacteristically, was captured alive. The fighter opponents were 3rd Air Group Zeroes; who claimed 8 "P-35's or P-26's" without loss. See 'Bloody Shambles' by Shores Vol 1 p. 184-185.

It's not to constantly contradict, but if we say 'even P-26's could down Zeroes' it matters if it actually happened, which apparently it didn't.

Villamor was an brave pilot though. Later he flew a recon mission in a PT-13 biplane trainer to photograph Japanese siege artillery positions for which he won the DSC.

On Spitfire V's (poor, 1: several) 1943 results v Zeroes; compared to F4F's 1:1 ratio against Zeroes even in 1942, each according to both side's loss accounts, it's one of the best examples of how little you can predict or conclude about combat effectivness from paper statistics of WWII fighter performance. 'Pilots' or 'tactics' is the all purpose catchall explanation and must have some truth, but I think there might be more to it than that. That is, stuff about fighter combat effectiveness that isn't captured by speed, climb etc. statistics most people focus on in saying one plane is better than another on paper. Plus, the issue of how accurate official paper statistics were for actual production examples of various planes in particular environments.

Joe

Click to expand...

great info Joe - I remember that chapter in Bloody Shambles." Point made that A Philippine pilot NEVER knocked down a "bunch" of Zeros using a P-26.

Kurfürst said:

In the end, both planes reached about the same speed with the same power, so there`s not much in it.

Click to expand...

The P-51D had significanly more propulsion efficieny than the Bf-109G. With similar HP available, the P-51D would obtain an airspeed of 375 mph at sea level while the Bf-109G could only get 335 mph. The P-51B, cleaner still, could achieve 386 mph at sea level. The P-51D had significant airspeed advantages at all altitudes. However, the Bf-109G had much better climb at altitudes up to 20k, where the Bf-109G was then starting to run out of air and the P-51D was getting its second wind.

A few comments on these discussions.

The F4U-1 was faster at all altitudes than the F-190A-8 and had similar climb performance. The Bf-109G was much slower, but could climb much better.

The F4U-4 was similar in airspeed to the Bf-109K up to about 25K where the F4U-4 began to pull away. The F4U-4 would outclimb the Bf-109K at all altitudes. The FW-190D-9 was similar in airspeed to the F4U-4 up to 15K and was quickly left behind after that. The FW-190D-9 was also no match to the F4U-4 in rate of climb.

Side note: The P-51B was significantly faster and had a significantly better climb rate at all altitudes than the F4U-1. In fact, the P-51B was very close to the FW-190D-9 in airspeed and climb performance at all altitudes (actually better at hight altitudes).

The comments on slat operations was very strange. I find it unbelieveable that test pilots would be afraid of this feature. From the test pilots I know, this is a reasonable scenario.

Brit test pilot: What's this?

Ops officer: They are called slats. They are suppose to improve low speed and high AOA flight.

Test pilot: Awwright he says with a smile on his face (except with a Brit accent) Let's go see what it will do!

Ops officer: Be careful, if they don't work right, you might get into a nasty situation.

Test pilot: I'm a test pilot. I can take care of anything.

Lesson: Brit pilots have never had the reputation of being "afraid" of anything.

These pilots knew the lives of there fellow pilots depended on what they could wring out of the enemy aircraft.

Remember, Chuck Yeager, on testing the first captured Mig 15, pointed the nose straight down, with full power, to see how fast it would go. That's not the sign of a timid soul but rather a sign of a test pilot.

It is also hard to believe that a Bf-109 fighter pilot with P-51 on his tail would not try to pull the wings off his aircraft to avoid a buzz saw of 50 cal. bullets.

Exactly how big a climb rate are you under the illusion that the F4U-4 possesses Davparlr ???

Crumpp said:

First, aircraft maintenance is the largest factor in aircraft performance. The same design can exhibit a wide margin of performance much of it based on how well it is assembled and how well it is maintained.

Any aircraft owners know this fact very well. If an aircraft is not maintained to exacting standards, it is highly unlikely it will perform as intended. Simple things make a significant difference. Each design is different in this aspect. While generalities exist the details are very important. What maybe great oil for one aircraft might degrade power production in another? A good friend of mine learned this the hard way. He used an aviation approved additive that was "all the rage" for many owners with essentially the same motor or at least one would think so. It ruined his engine and now he is buying a new one to the tune of 57,000USD.

Click to expand...

As a maintainer I agree 100 percent.

davparlr said:

Lesson: Brit pilots have never had the reputation of being "afraid" of anything.

These pilots knew the lives of there fellow pilots depended on what they could wring out of the enemy aircraft.

.

Click to expand...

I think its worth remembering that in 1943 the British set up the Empire Test Pilot Training school so that all test pilots were trained to the highest degree and used common standards.
It was the first school of its kind and is still recognised as a leading establishment of its kind.
Its also worth noting that one of the reasons it was set up, was because of the loss ratio of pilots untertaking test pilot duties. From this its safe to work on the premise, that the test pilots were not afraid of pushing the boundry to the limit, quite the opposite.

Glider said:

From this its safe to work on the premise, that the test pilots were not afraid of pushing the boundry to the limit, quite the opposite.

Click to expand...

Yet still...

COMBAT TRIALS AGAINST Me.109G

Turning Circle
47. The Tempest is slightly better, the Me.109G being embarrassed by its slots opening near the stall.

Click to expand...

Indeed many fresh pilots thought they were pulling very tight turns even when the slots were still closed against the wing. For us, the more experienced pilots, real manouvering only started when the slots were out.

- Erwin Leykauf

Click to expand...

IMHO it`s rather futile to speculate how good 'British testpilots' were, when the facts are quite clearly there.

And what experience they had with the aircraft BTW?

The AFDU also tested a 109F in 1941 for example. The pilot had the opportunity to gain precisely 25 minutes worth of flying 'experience' in the 109 before he attemped to fly comperative trials against a Spitfire pilot with what - hundreds of flying hours in a Spitfire? Even an 1944/45 Luftwaffe rookie in the 109had at least a dozen or two flying hours in a 109 before entering combat.. you`re telling me that after just 25 minutes of familiarisation, the pilot was capable to push the aircraft to it`s final limits..?!

Attempted because the aircraft was in such a poor shape they had to cancel the trials to make some makeshift repairs, despite which oil pressure was still abnormal in the 109.

The battle damaged 109G-2/trop they tested vs the P-51B was hardly in any better shape. It`s condition is detailed in the Middle East report that can be found on my site.

I mean, you can keep ignoring and denying these circumstances, but to what end, I cannot imagine. Any reasonable man would see that ill-maintained aircraft in which the pilot has nil experience ain`t gonna shine in any comparison when flown against well maintained aircraft flown by a pilot who has extensive knowledge of flying the type.

davparlr said:

The P-51D had significanly more propulsion efficieny than the Bf-109G. With similar HP available, the P-51D would obtain an airspeed of 375 mph at sea level while the Bf-109G could only get 335 mph.
The P-51B, cleaner still, could achieve 386 mph at sea level.

Click to expand...

I have 364 mph for the 51B/1650-7/67", and 354 mph for the 51D/1650-7/67".
This translates to about 1630 HP at SL.

The 109G/K performance figures depend on the type you speak of.
All of these are for 1800 PS at SL, or a bit below 1800 HP.

Bf 109G-14 : 352 mph
Bf 109G-14/AS : 348 mph
Bf 109G-10 : 349 mph
Bf 109K-4 : 370 mph

I don`t see breathtaking differences here. The Mustang D is slightly better than the 109G, and apprx. the same aerodynamic effiency as the 109K.

Kurfürst said:

The AFDU also tested a 109F in 1941 for example. The pilot had the opportunity to gain precisely 25 minutes worth of flying 'experience' in the 109 before he attemped to fly comperative trials against a Spitfire pilot with what - hundreds of flying hours in a Spitfire? Even an 1944/45 Luftwaffe rookie in the 109had at least a dozen or two flying hours in a 109 before entering combat.. you`re telling me that after just 25 minutes of familiarisation, the pilot was capable to push the aircraft to it`s final limits..?!

Click to expand...

He sure could push the 109 further with those hundreds of flying hours than what the Luftwaffe rookie could with his minimum number of flight hours.

COMBAT TRIALS AGAINST Me.109G

Turning Circle
47. The Tempest is slightly better, the Me.109G being embarrassed by its slots opening near the stall.

Click to expand...

It doesn't say the pilot was embarrassed but the 109 was embarrassed. Badly operating slats possibly but that would not be restricted to just captured 109s.

The battle damaged 109G-2/trop they tested vs the P-51B was hardly in any better shape.

Click to expand...

"The aircraft had been restored to standard good condition
except that the oil radiator flap was locked open as received,
as the functioning of the thermostatic control was apparantly
bad; no oil therometer was available; there was a splinter
hole and score mark in one airscrew blade........"

I could not find the 109F test on your site to compare to the in bad shape 109G-2.