F4U in Europe

[NevadaK]

I've read it - and suspect that one key feature of WWII Combat Mustangs (B/D) was not used for this test. Mustang Roll rate and stick force was described as heavy at high speed. All B/D Mustangs had 10/12/15 degree rigging and left the factory with 15 degrees. The warbird community is largely unaware and when asked, every one I have talked to about 15 degrees are actually surprised - replying that every Mustang they have flown are rigged for 10 degrees - which is no different from A-36 or P-51A. In fact a P-51A is more agile in both roll and turn because they are no equipped with reverse rudder boost tab or DF - and the B/D is heavier.

ALL WWII P-51B/D pilots will tell you that roll characteristics of their airframe were suprior to any comparable a/c save the Fw 190 and was better than 190 at or greater than 300 mph TAS. Army filight tests also indicated that characteristic, but noted that the P-40 for example, rolled slightly faster at lower airspeeds.

Thanks drgondog.

It really was out of curiosity rather than looking to extend this thread. TBH, I started googling roll rates for WW2 fighters in CW and CCW directions to see how they differed accounting for torque. Somewhere in this thread it was mentioned that the Corsair was hard to roll in the counter-torque direction and I started to wondering what that actually was. I came across this article and was unable to access it. I also suspect that this test being conducted with what would be 40 year old aircraft in 1988/89 would not be fully representative of how testing would have been conducted in 1944/45.

 

[NevadaK]

There may be links to the article either further back in thread or in another old thread.

I know I have read it on line and I believe it was either copied here or linked here.

Thank you, Shortround6.

A quick search located the thread, with uploaded text, here: Ending the Argument

It is an interesting read. The conclusion is interesting as well. It reminds me of a day back in the 60's when my father and a neighbor were "debating" Mustang (Ford not NAA) vs Camaro next to their cars in the front yard. I think they are still debating.

 

[swampyankee]

Thank you, Shortround6.

A quick search located the thread, with uploaded text, here: Ending the Argument

It is an interesting read. The conclusion is interesting as well. It reminds me of a day back in the 60's when my father and a neighbor were "debating" Mustang (Ford not NAA) vs Camaro next to their cars in the front yard. I think they are still debating.

A lot of people want a clear "winner" in these sorts of comparisons, but such a victor usually doesn't exist and Internet (and pre-Internet) discussion frequently goes down to the level a third grader (about 8 to those unfamiliar with US schools) would find embarrassingly puerile.

While the F4U was not involved in much, if any, fighter-vs-fighter combat in Europe, its use would be restricted as a) it did not have high-altitude performance equal to the P-51 or the P-47 and b) it did not seem to have the useful combat range in European conditions to serve in the heavy bomber escort role. The idea that it couldn't be used because it would be dominated by Luftwaffe aircraft below 25,000 ft is, however, contradicted by all the evidence comparing its performance with aircraft that were demonstrably successful against the FW190 and Bf109 in combat, that is the P-51, P-47, Spitfire, P-39, Typhoon, etc. Luftwaffe pilots would neither chortle with glee nor soil their pants seeing a Corsair. They may be surprised, as most would never have seen one before and it's not unlikely they would have little information about the aircraft.

Obviously, no comparative flight test can be perfect, especially when the comparison is against enemy aircraft, as things like flight and maintenance manuals aren't likely to be available, but there isn't a better alternative.

It is incontestable that the Corsair was a remarkably successful and long-lived combat aircraft, and one which could fight with any contemporary piston-engined fighter on equal terms. That it didn't in Europe only shows that it wasn't there, not that it couldn't.

 

[33k in the air]

It is incontestable that the Corsair was a remarkably successful and long-lived combat aircraft, and one which could fight with any contemporary piston-engined fighter on equal terms. That it didn't in Europe only shows that it wasn't there, not that it couldn't.

The reason it wasn't there was because it was a Navy aircraft, and the Army wasn't going to use a Navy aircraft if it could avoid it.

 

[swampyankee]

The reason it wasn't there was because it was a Navy aircraft, and the Army wasn't going to use a Navy aircraft if it could avoid it.

...yet at least one Navy aircraft was used by the USAAF in combat during WW2, the SBD. The BF2C (A-25) was close, but missed. The PBY (OA-10) was used by the USAAF for SAR.

 

[drgondog]

The reason it wasn't there was because it was a Navy aircraft, and the Army wasn't going to use a Navy aircraft if it could avoid it.

While mostly true, the real reason is simply there weren't enough Corsairs to meet all the USN/Lend Lease Comitments - even if Army wanted them in 1943 when they could properly be vetted.

 

[Shortround6]

While mostly true, the real reason is simply there weren't enough Corsairs to meet all the USN/Lend Lease Comitments - even if Army wanted them in 1943 when they could properly be vetted.

AHT says just under 2300 F4Us built in 1943 while about 1700 P-51s were built, Plus just over 4400 P-47s, Plus just under 2500 P-38s.

Now throw in 4950 or so P-39s and about 4250 P-40s. all figures just for 1943 production.
The F4U might be nice to have but as Drgondog says the Navy and British comments don't leave much for experiments in deployment and F4U doesn't fulfil any holes (or much of one) in the US army deployments either in 1943 or most of 1944.
Or reverse it. What US Army fighters could the Army swap for F4Us in the Marine and Navy deployments? The Navy/Marines are unlikely to swap 3/4 Corsair fighter groups for 3/4 P-39/P-40 groups. The Army is unlikely to swap P-38s/P-47s and P-51s for F4Us.

 

[GrauGeist]

The FAA ended up with about one out of every six F4Us built - that wouldn't leave many for the USAF, if they had wanted it.

As it happens, the USAF operated more Navy-ordered types than the other way around.

In addition to the above mentioned PBY and SBD, the USAF also operated the JRF (OA-9), J2F (OA-12), J4F (OA-14), PV-1/2 (B-34 for ASW and B-37 for training).

 

[33k in the air]

...yet at least one Navy aircraft was used by the USAAF in combat during WW2, the SBD. The BF2C (A-25) was close, but missed. The PBY (OA-10) was used by the USAAF for SAR.

Interestingly, the Navy and Army were both originally backing the development of the F7F, known to the Army as the P-65. But as each service had some differing requirements, satisfying both would have been difficult, and the Army dropped out in January 1942, leaving the Tigercat to the Navy.

 

[EwenS]

The FAA ended up with about one out of every six F4Us built - that wouldn't leave many for the USAF, if they had wanted it.

As it happens, the USAF operated more Navy-ordered types than the other way around.

In addition to the above mentioned PBY and SBD, the USAF also operated the JRF (OA-9), J2F (OA-12), J4F (OA-14), PV-1/2 (B-34 for ASW and B-37 for training).

The B-34 designation was first given to Lockheed Venturas ordered under Lend Lease contracts, initially intended for Britain. On the outbreak of war with Japan many of these were delivered to the USAAF instead. The last 27 of these went to the USN in Oct 1942 as the PV-3. The USAAF had also placed orders for another 550 as the O-56 later redesignated the B-37.

Then in early 1942 the USAAF and USN were arguing about who should be responsible for airborne ASW operations. This was settled in June 1942. The result was a reshuffling of aircraft orders including the B-37 Ventura order. After 18 B-37 were built for the USAAF the rest of the order was turned over to the USN and built as PV-1 from late 1942.

So no the PV-1/2 did not begin life as a USN type.

In exchange the USN gave up procurement of the Boeing PBB-1 Sea Ranger and handed the Boeing Renton factory over to B-29 production for the USAAF.

I've not sat down and added up which service provided most types to the other but it must have been fairly close given that the USN (incl the USMC) used most of the USAAF bomber types including the B-17, B-24, B-25 and B-26 as well as transport types and trainers.

 

[DarrenW]

Considering that the Fw 190 in the test, that probably wasn't in perfectly serviceable condition, and flown by pilots almost completely unfamiliar with the type, still out-ran, out-rolled (sort of), and out-climbed both the F6F and F4U, yet the Navy still came to conclusion that the Fw 190 was "not equal to the F4U-1 or F6F-3 in combat."

Your statement is too generalized and must be broken down into specific circumstances. During the tests the FW 190 was actually slower than the F4U-1 below 15,000 feet. Furthermore, the climb rates were compared at the "best climbing speeds" as this is optimum for each specific aircraft under test. Both US Navy aircraft had a lower "best climbing speed" than the German fighter. At these speeds the F4U climbed better than the FW 190 up to 20,000 feet and the F6F was similar in climb below 15,000 feet. Most data that I've seen shows the three aircraft taking a similar amount of time to reach 20,000 feet (8 - 8.5 minutes without WEP) with the Corsair and Hellcat climbing at a steeper angle of climb and the FW 190 at a faster climbing speed so this makes perfect sense to me.

In regards to roll the report said the F4U and FW 190 were about equal.

 

[DarrenW]

Great photo of FW 190A-5 used during testing.

(source: Focke-Wulf Fw 190: The Butcher Bird of WWII )

 

[Clayton Magnet]

Great photo of FW 190A-5 used during testing

Was the aircraft in the Navy test actually an A5 variant? The report only says it was a "FW-190-A/4" and was a "converted fighter-bomber, and was not the standard fighter version"

Edit: Perhaps it was in fact an A-5/U4?

 

[DarrenW]

Was the aircraft in the Navy test actually an A5 variant? The report only says it was a "FW-190-A/4" and was a "converted fighter-bomber, and was not the standard fighter version"

Edit: Perhaps it was in fact an A-5/U4?

That's what I've read in various forums and research papers. Probably more likely a U3 variant as the U4 was a reconnaissance fighter with cameras. The Wikipedia article on the FW 190 stated it was Werknummer 150 051:

Focke-Wulf Fw 190 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Clayton Magnet]

Both US Navy aircraft had a lower "best climbing speed" than the German fighter. At these speeds the F4U climbed better than the FW 190 up to 20,000 feet and the F6F was similar in climb below 15,000 feet. Most data that I've seen shows the three aircraft taking a similar amount of time to reach 20,000 feet (8 - 8.5 minutes without WEP) with the Corsair and Hellcat climbing at a steeper angle of climb and the FW 190 at a faster climbing speed so this makes perfect sense to me.

I do not doubt the experiences of the Navy test pilots, I just suspect that the Fw190 either wasn't performing properly, or wasn't operated at maximum performance due to unfamiliarity with the type, or a combination of the two factors.
Interesting to note, that when the RAF miraculously secured Faber's Fw190A-3 in June 1942, the AFDU report regarding the relative climbing performance of the captured type and a Spitfire Mk.VB (which was no slouch in the climbing department) was as such:
"The climb of the Fw 190 is superior to that of the Spitfire VB at all heights. The best speeds for climbing are approximately the same, but the angle of the Fw 190 is considerably steeper. Under maximum continuous climbing conditions the climb of the Fw 190 is about 450ft/min better up to 25,000ft. With both aircraft flying at high cruising speed and then pulling up into a climb, the superior climb of the Fw 190 is even more marked. When both aircraft are pulled up into a climb from a dive, the Fw 190 draws away very rapidly and the pilot of the Spitfire has no hope of catching it"

 

[Clayton Magnet]

They then tested the same captured Fw 190 against a brand new Spitfire IX pulled from No64 squadron in July of 1942. Again, keeping in mind that the Mk IX Spitfire was an excellent climbing aircraft, by most accounts.
"During comparative climbs at various heights up to 23,000 feet, with both aircraft flying under maximum continuous climbing conditions, little difference was found between the two aircraft although on the whole the Spitfire IX was slightly better. Above 22,000 feet the climb of the Fw 190 is falling off rapidly, whereas the climb of the Spitfire IX is increasing. When both aircraft were flying at high cruising speed and were pulled up into a climb from level flight, the Fw 190 had a slight advantage in the initial stages of the climb due to its better acceleration. This superiority was slightly increased when both aircraft were pulled up into the climb from a dive. It must be appreciated that the differences between the two aircraft are only slight and that in actual combat the advantage in climb will be with the aircraft that has the initiative."

Of course the performance of both the Mk.V and IX would only increase (As would the Fw 190), with increases in boost pressure periodically throughout the remainder of the war, but it is still somewhat surprising how well matched the Fw 190 was with the Mk IX with respect to climb performance.

 

[DarrenW]

I do not doubt the experiences of the Navy test pilots, I just suspect that the Fw190 either wasn't performing properly, or wasn't operated at maximum performance due to unfamiliarity with the type, or a combination of the two factors.
Interesting to note, that when the RAF miraculously secured Faber's Fw190A-3 in June 1942, the AFDU report regarding the relative climbing performance of the captured type and a Spitfire Mk.VB (which was no slouch in the climbing department) was as such:
"The climb of the Fw 190 is superior to that of the Spitfire VB at all heights. The best speeds for climbing are approximately the same, but the angle of the Fw 190 is considerably steeper. Under maximum continuous climbing conditions the climb of the Fw 190 is about 450ft/min better up to 25,000ft. With both aircraft flying at high cruising speed and then pulling up into a climb, the superior climb of the Fw 190 is even more marked. When both aircraft are pulled up into a climb from a dive, the Fw 190 draws away very rapidly and the pilot of the Spitfire has no hope of catching it"

I don't have this report but would love to read it. What were the loaded weights of each aircraft, were they close to what was considered a normal loaded fighter? If not that would affect climb performance.

 

[Clayton Magnet]

I don't have this report but would love to read it. What were the loaded weights of each aircraft, were they close to what was considered a normal loaded fighter? If not that would affect climb performance.

I have no idea what the loaded weights of the respective aircraft were, but the report does mention that both Spitfire types were representative of operational types, as both were pulled from operational units for the purposes of the trial. At least as per "Spitfire: A complete fighting history" by Alfred Price, which was my source. The RAF was desperate to know the true capabilities of the new German fighter, so I suspect they tested the Fw 190 exactly as they received it.

 

[DarrenW]

They then tested the same captured Fw 190 against a brand new Spitfire IX pulled from No64 squadron in July of 1942. Again, keeping in mind that the Mk IX Spitfire was an excellent climbing aircraft, by most accounts.
"During comparative climbs at various heights up to 23,000 feet, with both aircraft flying under maximum continuous climbing conditions, little difference was found between the two aircraft although on the whole the Spitfire IX was slightly better. Above 22,000 feet the climb of the Fw 190 is falling off rapidly, whereas the climb of the Spitfire IX is increasing. When both aircraft were flying at high cruising speed and were pulled up into a climb from level flight, the Fw 190 had a slight advantage in the initial stages of the climb due to its better acceleration. This superiority was slightly increased when both aircraft were pulled up into the climb from a dive. It must be appreciated that the differences between the two aircraft are only slight and that in actual combat the advantage in climb will be with the aircraft that has the initiative."

Of course the performance of both the Mk.V and IX would only increase (As would the Fw 190), with increases in boost pressure periodically throughout the remainder of the war, but it is still somewhat surprising how well matched the Fw 190 was with the Mk IX with respect to climb performance.

Did the Spitfire have a Mark 61 or a later engine? This affects authorized boost considerably. And from what I understand the FW 190 was running in an over-boosted state through some of the testing (1.42 ata) which is higher than authorized for the A-3 when flown by Faber.

 

[Clayton Magnet]

Here she is, after the comparative trials, in August 1942.