Corsair vs FW190

davebender said:

Why? The P-51 performed just fine with a normal supercharger.

Click to expand...

Dave - apparently it wasn't as simple as modifying the Merlin two stage design to the Pratt. The F6F-3 was the first attempt that I am aware of and certainly led the way to the -18 and -21 R2800 - but the latter two weren't ready for either the F4U or F6F until late in the war.

Historically the F4U was used by the USN and USMC at medium and low altitudes. So I suspect the supercharger program had a low priority. If the F4U becomes a U.S.Army Air Corps aircraft then the supercharger program will have a lot more funding.

I think it comes down to the pilot.

1. Both were great aircraft and two of the best piston engined aircraft ever built.

2. Both had powerful engines.

3. Both were rugged and well built.

4. Both were highly maneuverable.

5. Both had great performance.

6. Both were well armed.

The pilot who knew how to get the most out of his aircraft and gain the advantage is going to win the fight.

Thunderbolt56 said:

And the P-47's P&W was better than both (due to the supercharger). The fact is, the P-51 was considerably cheaper to produce than either the P-47 or F4U-4 and the war, at that point, was one of materiel superiority which was more easily achieved with the P-51.

The fact that the F4U (or the F2G rather) served well into the Korean War (as did the P-51...I know) shows that it was an extremely capable design. But it was the carrier-ops ability as well as its incredible array of ordnance capabilites that kept it in service. It wasn't used for interceptor duties at that point.

To the initial post, I say I'll take the F4U over the 190A's. Against the Dora's, well, that's a tougher choice, but I'd probably still take the Corsair.

Click to expand...

The F2G never entered service.

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:

I think it comes down to the pilot.

1. Both were great aircraft and two of the best piston engined aircraft ever built.

2. Both had powerful engines.

3. Both were rugged and well built.

4. Both were highly maneuverable.

5. Both had great performance.

6. Both were well armed.

The pilot how knew how to get the most out of his aircraft and gain the advantage is going to win the fight.

Click to expand...

pretty much sums it up - and works for just about all the top fighters against each other (piston vs Piston)

davebender said:

Historically the F4U was used by the USN and USMC at medium and low altitudes. So I suspect the supercharger program had a low priority. If the F4U becomes a U.S.Army Air Corps aircraft then the supercharger program will have a lot more funding.

Click to expand...

I agree that point 100%. There was no early to mid war requirement for high altitude performance. AFAIK, the only attempt at a time it could have made a difference was the F6F-3 experimental stuff in 1943... with full commitment in late 1942 or earlier.

There is a comparison of the F6F3, F4U1 versus the FW190A4, I think, on Tony Williams site. It is pretty comprehensive and the Navy concludes that both Hellcat and Corsair would do well against the FW. (what else would you expect them to say) However, it probably boils down to the driver. The remarkable aspect to this, for me, is that two models of shipboard fighters, with all of the attendant compromises that are entailed, can compete successfully with one of the premier fighter designs of the war. The two Navy planes are much larger and heavier than the FW, of necessity they must be structurally stronger in some areas and they carry more fuel and have longer range. It is quite a testimony to the R2800 and to Leroy Grumman and Rex Beisel.

Actually they found the US planes superior (who would've thought).
The test was of an aging Fw 190 A-5 vs all new F6F-3 and F4U, though. And I don't see anything special about a carrier fighter performing comparable to a landbased fighter when it has an enormous engine to make up for the increased weight. Still the Fw 190 was the overall better climber, equal in speed to the F4U and faster than the F6F. The only real drawback it had was the turning cycle.

The test showed that the FW could not maneuver with the two Navy fighters and, as I recall, they said the FW could not follow the others in a loop. KK, for an example of what happens when a land based fighter is converted to a ship board fighter, check the history of the Seafire. Along with that massive engine power comes massive weight and balance issues. I question whether few of us on this forum fully understand the ramifications of the differences between requirements for operating off a carrier and from land bases, during WW2. Some I can think of but am not expert enough to fully explain are: additional weight because of the structural design in the landing gear and the wing and fuselage area to withstand the shock of landings, weight added by the tailhook and the structure to tie it to, weight added by the equipment for folding the wings, an air foil design for short take offs and landings which doesn't usually translate to high Vmax, marinisation of all parts to protect against corrosion and the need for a higher level of reliability. Prior to the advent of the Corsair and to a much less extent, the Wildcat, it was considered impossible by AC designers in the West to equal the performance of a landbased fighter with a carrier fighter. Look at the designs of the British. Of course, the Japanese proved otherwise to a great extent with the A6M.

The problem with the Seafire was that it was a landbased fighter converted to fulfill a role it wasn't designed for. You have these kind of problems with a lot of planes that are pushed to perform new roles.

Carrier fighters that were specifically built to perform that role were competetive with their land based counterparts as early as 1935, with the A5M. In 1943 that was no longer an astonishing achievement imo.

KK, good point about A5M but from reading about the subject, I thought that "experts"in those days still thought that carrier planes suffered a handicap.

As have been said by many, this is a very tough fight. I think I would rather be in the Fw 190 A8 if I get my choice.

The F4U was a superb aircraft. I chose it as the one aircraft I would choose to fight WWII. I thought, and still do think, that it had the performance and growth to keep competitive at all stages of the war. Comparisons are always difficult with the F4U because data tends to be all over the board. Take for instance, the F4U-1/1A. Max airspeed ranged from 395 mph (Dean) and several flight tests, to 417 mph by one flight test of a F4U-1(A?) with water injection using mil power, no water. Go figure.

Anyway, I looked at several time lines and compared performance (airspeed and climb). The ones I chose were April 1943, April, 1944, and October, 1944. The last I chose was April, 1945, comparing the last WWII versions of these aircraft. See attached charts.

April,1943.

April, 1943, compares the P-47B/C, the first combat P-47s, non water injected, the P-51A with Allison engine, the F4U-1, and the first combat F4U, non water injected, to the Fw-190A-3.

The F4U and the Fw-190 are reasonably equal in airspeed up to 25k, where the F4U drops off. The P-47 maintains good airspeed and is clearly superior above 25k. The P-51 maintains airspeed similarity up to 15k, where its Allison's high altitude weakness becomes apparent.

In climb, both the F4U and Fw-190 maintain good and similar climb from SL to 25k, where the Fw-190 starts to drop off. The P-47 starts off rather low in climb catches up to the F4U at 25k and matches it from there. The P-51 starts great and then drops off (one can imagine a pilot saying "boy, I'd like to see what this thing can do if it had a better engine.")

Conclusion, the F4U-1 and Fw-190A-3 were competitive up to 25k, with an advantage going to the F4U due to better turn performance a dive performance. Above 25k they trade off advantages in airspeed and climb. The P-47 becomes more than competitive above 25k. The P-51A is competitive below 15k, especially in climb, but not above 15k.

April, 1944.

A change has occurred in performance. Both the P-47D-10 and the F4U-1A (8W) are now water injected, the P-51B has a new engine with the new, improved, dash 7 Packard merlin, and the Fw-190 now has the A-5 version.

The P-51 maintains better airspeed of all up to 30k, where it is slightly surpassed by the P-47, which starts to become competitive at 25k. Both the F4U and the Fw-190 are very close in airspeed performance over the entire operational envelop, but airspeed of both drop off above 20k.

Except a SL vs. the Fw-190, and between 10k and 15k vs. the F4U, the P-51 has better climb performance than the other aircraft. At mid altitudes the F4U easily out climbs the Fw-190 but at higher altitudes they are about the same. The P-47 has poor climb performance up to about 25k where it performs better than the F4U and Fw-190.

Conclusion, the F4U and the Fw-190 are very competitive. The better turn rate and dive capability should give a small edge to the F4U. The P-51 is faster than the F4U and the Fw-190 at all altitudes and, except 10-15k for the F4U and SL for the Fw-190, the P-51 climbs better. The P-47 is at a disadvantage below 25k but becomes quite formidable above.

A note here, the comparison test run by the Navy used a P-51B with the less performing -3 engine and not the available -7. Both Navy planes were water injected versions.

October, 1944

Aircraft again increase performance with the advent of the 44-1 fuel for the AAF and the appearance of the Fw-190D-9. The F4U is now flying the dash 1D version, which has roughly the same performance as the dash1 with water. The P-51 is now flying the D version and the P-47 is up to the D-25 version.

The P-51 and the Fw-190 has similar airspeed up to 20k where the Fw-190 starts to drop back. The F4U is at an overall disadvantage to the Fw-190. The P-47 picks up performance at 15k.

In climb, the Fw-190 is very good below 20k but begins to fade and it falls behind both the P-51 and P-47. F4U climb is less than all except the P-47 at low altitude.

Conclusion, the Fw-190D-9 provides Germany with low and mid altitude answer to the P-51D (however the lighter P-51B evens the field). The F4U-1D is showing a bit of age and is at a disadvantage to the better performing Fw-190D-9 and also to the P-51D, both of which is faster and better climbing. The P-47 again starts slow but becomes competitive at 20k.

April, 1945

Piston power planes have met their peak with these last generation fighters. The P-47M , with a high power engine is operational in Europe, but has some mechanical problems. The lightened P-51H with the -9 engine is operational but not deployed, and the new up-engined (-18W) F4U-4 is delivered to the Pacific theater. The Germans have been flying the new high altitude Ta-152H, but it also has mechanical problems.

The P-51 is very fast up to 15k and still dominates airspeed up to about 30k where the P-47 and the Ta-152 exceed it. The F4U, P-47 and Ta-152 have similar airspeed, the F4U is slightly better, up to 25k. Above 25k, airspeed for the F4U and P-51 are similar with an advantage to the P-51. The P-47 has good airspeed except compared to the P-51 below 30k. Above 30k it has impressive airspeed. The Ta-152 airspeed starts to excel at 30k and passes the P-47 at 40k and it continues to much higher altitudes.

In climb, again the P-51 is exceptional up to 10k and then matches the F4U. The P-47 does well above 20k. The Ta-152 seems to have relative poor climb to about 25k (I have limited data on Ta-152 rate of climb performance) but is exceptional above 25k.

Success in combat, with equal pilot capability, is not limited to what is discussed here. Items like turn rate/radius, power to weight, etc. also come into play so, for any given circumstance, advantage can change. This is just a simple comparison.

Conclusion, in my opinion.

1. The F4U and Fw-190 appear to be quite equal with the F4U having a slight edge in turn and dive, until the advent of the Fdw-190D-9 in the fall of 1944. The slightly later, the winter of 1945, F4U-4 could match the dash 9 performance.
2. Once the P-51B appeared, the latest F4U version could not out perform the latest version of the P-51 in speed or climb through the end of the war, except for climb between 10 and 15k ft for the pre 44-1 fuel P-51B.
3. The P-47 was optimized for high altitude where it excelled. Its later success in ground attack and its adaptability show the strength of its design.
4. I would still select the F4U if I only had one choice for fighting WWII.

A very good summary but I would still go with the 190 due to its extra firepower. The 6 x 0.50 was more than sufficient to deal with fighters but against a four engined bomber the 20mm will make a huge difference

Looking at the climbing and diving speeds it seems that in air to air combat the F4U is somewhat equal to the Focke-Wulf. The A8 can climb away and the Corsair can dive away. The Focke-Wolf does have the better roll rate though.

very good work davparl, but 33k false the scale

Radial engine being somewhat more resistant to battle damage might be a good point to bring up when considering the other fighters vs the P51.

As the 8th AF fighter pilots would occasionally say, "If you want to send a picture home to your girlfriend, sit in the cockpit of the 51. If you wanted to GET home to your girlfriend, sit in the cockpit of the 47."

I enjoyed your analysis Dav. Do you have eyestrain? I would agree that the FW would have superior armament for use against bombers but in an FW V F4U contest, I believe the 6-50s would give better chance of hits. Another question would be that the FW is often shown as having four cannon and two 12.7 mgs. I would question whether the D9 could outperform an F4U4 if the FW had all that armament and a full load of ammo. Another good question is how far away from base does the combat take place. Dav, in Boone Guyton's book, he says the 1D could do 425 mph with WEP. Who would know better than Guyton?

The ROF of 6 x 12.7mm is very similar to the 4 x 20mm and 2 x 13mm of the 190. At most combat ranges the %age chance of a hit would be very similar and at longer ranges, the slightly lower chance of a hit with the 20mm would be more than made up by the extra power of the 20mm shell.

Wouldn't the chances of getting a hit depend somewhat also on the velocity both muzzle and downrange. The cannon rounds I have seen used by the LW mostly looked like having a poor BC. The duration of fire on the 6-50s would be greater also. The P51 with 4-50s and later the 6-50s seemed to more than hold it's own with the FWs. My source shows the A8 to have two 13 MM MGs firing through the prop with 400 rounds each. Would they have the same ROF as wing mounted guns? 2- 20mm with 250 rounds, firing through the prop. Same question? 2-20mms outer wing with 125 rounds each. The D9 had two 13 mm mgs mounted over the engine with 475 rounds each. Same rate of fire question? Two 20 mms in wing roots with 250 rounds each. Same ROF question? The Corsair had 400 rounds each for the four inboard guns and 375 rounds for the two outboard guns. One factor almost always overlooked by us "armchair experts" in one v one comparisons is range. In Lundstom's books he mentions how on several occasions the F4Fs had to fight on 50% power because they were running low on fuel and they had to conserve to get back to base. Would not be convenient to run out of fuel in the middle of a big fight.