F4U-4 Vs FW190 D9
- Thread starter jugggo
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Soundbreaker Welch?
Tech Sergeant
This should have a poll. That would be fun!
Honestly, I'm not sure which to pick. They both had similar frames, and the performance of both was both pretty close.
I'm not sure if the FW 190D was better at high altitude or not.
Honestly, I'm not sure which to pick. They both had similar frames, and the performance of both was both pretty close.
I'm not sure if the FW 190D was better at high altitude or not.
beaupower32
Tech Sergeant
Its a tough tough one, but I would probably give it to the F4U-4 Corsair.
- Thread starter
- #4
vonmallard
Airman
the Royal Navy operated the F4U in an operation against the Tirpitz in Norway. Haven't seen where any FW's were used against them thou I think a few Me-109's were engaged.
- Thread starter
- #8
Hmm thats interesting, I wonder if they were as pesky as the A6m's.
- Thread starter
- #10
beaupower32
Tech Sergeant
Back on topic, Im posting a .pdf that was a trial between the F4U, F6F, and Fw-190 A-4. I know that it isnt the F4U-4 and Fw-190 D-9, but it should give us a Idea on how the two would compair. I got this from WWII Aircraft Performance
I think as with all of the top fighters you are going to have to break this down into more areas. What conditions are they meeting at such as Altitude? Every aircraft has its optimal area, and the areas that it is weak and strong it.
Bill posted an interesting comparison here a while back from some flight tests a while back, that broke it down through altitude.
Bill posted an interesting comparison here a while back from some flight tests a while back, that broke it down through altitude.
Colin1
Senior Master Sergeant
The -4 was a significantly better performer than the -1
it could nudge 450mph (vs around 420mph for the -1, or closer to the performance of the D-9), climbed ferociously and had better combat acceleration than the P-51D. Overall manoeuvrability was excellent though I doubt any naval bird (with folding wings) could follow the 190 in the roll, they were difficult enough to follow anyway.
Notwithstanding that, I think the F4U-4 had enough in other-performance characteristics, gunnery skill levels and tactics to defeat a similar formation of Fw190D-9s at the latter's best altitude, or down on the deck.
beaupower32
Tech Sergeant
I know that the -4 was a way better aircraft then the -1. I posted it to give a general idea of how the later aircraft might compair to each other.
someone posted this site and comparison above, i'll post it again,
F4U Performance Trials
From what i read the FW-190 was not a very good airplane in any form (i do think it is one of the best looking airplanes if that is of any coselation), unreliable, had a good roll rate, but probably the worst turning radius of just about anything, and had a habit of stalling in tight turns. the F4U and F6F were found to be much more manuaverable than the FW-190..
as quoted from the above link from pilots that flew them both in side by side test, "It is not equal to either the F4U or F6F in combat. All pilots agreed the F4U or F6F would be prefered in actual combat operations."
just about everything we had was a better fighter.
F4U Performance Trials
From what i read the FW-190 was not a very good airplane in any form (i do think it is one of the best looking airplanes if that is of any coselation), unreliable, had a good roll rate, but probably the worst turning radius of just about anything, and had a habit of stalling in tight turns. the F4U and F6F were found to be much more manuaverable than the FW-190..
as quoted from the above link from pilots that flew them both in side by side test, "It is not equal to either the F4U or F6F in combat. All pilots agreed the F4U or F6F would be prefered in actual combat operations."
just about everything we had was a better fighter.
when you guys want real comparisons, this is a great web site
WWII Aircraft Performance
It has changed my opinion on many airplanes. At one time i thought the FW-190 was a great fighter, not after reading the many reports including it's unreliability. I never would have guessed that the F4U was more manuaverable than the P-51, and especially how good an airplane the P-47 really was (or that it was faster than just about anything at altitude). They have many comparisons (real world side by side) of combat, air speeds, climb rates, rool rates, etc., one airplane against the other, not from just airspeeds or by one pertson just flying both. the real comparison are one against the other, side by side like tehses tests are.
my father flew p-51's, shot down 2 me-109's. he told me how down low they would tease the p-47's, get behind them and make machine gun noises on the radio, but he also told me at high altitude it was a whole nother story. Add to the fact that the P-47 was so rugged. The P-51's real weakness was being liquid cooled (he also was a POW because of it).
before you form an opinion check out the web site above. they have a huge amount of real world data.
WWII Aircraft Performance
It has changed my opinion on many airplanes. At one time i thought the FW-190 was a great fighter, not after reading the many reports including it's unreliability. I never would have guessed that the F4U was more manuaverable than the P-51, and especially how good an airplane the P-47 really was (or that it was faster than just about anything at altitude). They have many comparisons (real world side by side) of combat, air speeds, climb rates, rool rates, etc., one airplane against the other, not from just airspeeds or by one pertson just flying both. the real comparison are one against the other, side by side like tehses tests are.
my father flew p-51's, shot down 2 me-109's. he told me how down low they would tease the p-47's, get behind them and make machine gun noises on the radio, but he also told me at high altitude it was a whole nother story. Add to the fact that the P-47 was so rugged. The P-51's real weakness was being liquid cooled (he also was a POW because of it).
before you form an opinion check out the web site above. they have a huge amount of real world data.
- Thread starter
- #17
Yeah the performance data on the one with the F4U,F6F, and 190 if im not mistaken in there it does state that the plugs or something were faulty on the 190 so they really couldnt use its max performance. also it stated in the other one with the P47,P51(B I think) and F4U that the corsair could out turn the Pony up to 30 mph slower and had the better acceleration and the only thing that out excellerated it was the P38.
beaupower32
Tech Sergeant
Mike, be sure to read all the the post, as I already linked that website. But that is cool that your dad flew P-51's and scoring 2 kills. I be he had a lot of stories to tell.
