F4U in Europe (1 Viewer)

[Clayton Magnet]

Did the Spitfire have a Mark 61 or a later engine?

A Merlin 61, as per the book, no idea of boost pressures for either aircraft.

 

[DarrenW]

A Merlin 61, as per the book, no idea of boost pressures for either aircraft.

View attachment 654191

Thank you

 

[swampyankee]

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.

A night fighter version of the F7F/P-65 would be an interesting alternative to the P-61...

 

[EwenS]

A night fighter version of the F7F/P-65 would be an interesting alternative to the P-61...

The F7F-2N night fighter reached the first USMC squadron on Okinawa just ascthecwar was sending. The F7F-3N sawcservicevin Korea.

 

[33k in the air]

A night fighter version of the F7F/P-65 would be an interesting alternative to the P-61...

The F7F-1 was turned into the F7F-1N with a radar installed in the nose. The F7F-2N added a dedicated radar operator. Under military power, the F7F-2N reached a maximum of 353 MPH at sea level and 411 MPH at 22,700 feet. With full combat power, the maximums were 362 MPH at sea level and 421 MPH at 20,600 feet.

 

[Schweik]

I am not sure those tests represent a later war Mk.V with clipped wings, cropped supercharger and increased boost. They were little rocket ships down low, with similar power output but without the weight penalty of the Mk.IX

They were great down low, but they needed the higher altitude (or high-medium) performance to tangle with 109s

 

[Geoffrey Sinclair]

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.

I think the P-38 figure includes the reconnaissance versions, 1943 production 570 P-38G, 601 H, 1,041 J, 1 K, total 2,213 plus 84 F-5A, and 200 F-5B. The British normally counted reconnaissance Mosquito and Spitfire as fighters in the official figures.

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.

I've not sat down and added up which service provided most types to the other

According to the USN, in terms of new production,

Army for Navy
1940, 1 VA (A-20A/BD-1), 8 Transport and Utility, 3 trainer, total 12
1941, 23 Transport and Utility, 597 trainer, total 620
1942, 141 VP, 8 VA, 130 Transport and Utility, 3,392 trainer, 30 glider, total 3,701
1943, 497 VP, 1 VF (P-51 in May, #57987, Case #267 assigned to Navy 17 May 1943 by Munitions Aer-PL-630VS Assign. Board), 48 VO-VS, 525 Transport and Utility, 5,157 trainer, 26 glider, 3 helicopter, total 6,257
1944, 999 VP, 410 VA (SB2C-1A/RA-25A), 66 VO-VS, 705 Transport and Utility, 1,753 trainer, 352 special purpose, 32 glider, 22 helicopter, total 4,339
1945, 156 VP, 192 VO-VS, 445 Transport and Utility, 455 trainer, 576 special purpose, 33 helicopter, total 1,857
1946, 35 Transport and Utility (JD-1/A-26C, target tow), 272 special purpose (TD2C-1/PQ-14A), 6 helicopter, total 313.

Navy for Army, extracted from the Navy for Others section,
1941, 78 VA (RA-24/SBD-3A)
1942, 27 PBY-5 exchanged for 27 PV-1 received from Army and converted by Navy to PV-3 (Div. U.K A-1748, D.A.C. 152, C-91876), 185 VA (90 RA-24/SBD-3A, 95 RA-24A/SBD-4A) 5 Transport and Utility (JRF-5/OA-9), total 218. Curtiss St. Louis Plant taken over by Army as of 1 March 1943, dropped from Navy records (A-25). (J4F-2/OA-14 production reported as 12 for Portugal, 14 for Brazil).
1943, 4 VP (OA-10B, Canso A from Vickers), 75 VA (RA-24A/SBD-4A), total 79
1944, 202 VP (201 OA-10B, Canso A from Vickers, 1 PB2B-2)
1945 5 VP (PB2B-2), 1 Transport and Utility (JRF-5)

So all 900 SB2C-1A/A-25A were officially USAAF as paid for, with the last 410 Army for Navy, rather ironic. The 615 SBD-5A/A-24B were also a USAAF order. Other naval types in the USAAF were transfers.

Officially all Lockheed Model 37/Ventura II/B-34/PV-1 from December 1942 onwards were accepted as PV-1, the USAAF says
188 Model 37/Ventura I (September 1941 to April 1942),
112 Model 37/Ventura II, (April to June 1942), 9 accepted for USAAF (April 1942)
375 Model 37/Ventura II (May to September 1942), 242 accepted for USAAF (May to September 1942), 30 USN (June to September 1942, 103 Britain (May to September 1942)
200 B-34 September to November 1942), 112 delivered for USAAF, 20 for Australia, 45 for Britain, 23 for New Zealand.

However, of the 875 aircraft involved, 348 delivered to USAAF, 30 USN, 20 Australia, 454 Britain, 23 New Zealand, slightly different to acceptances.

18 B-37 (January to April 1943),
1,600 PV-1 (December 1942 to May 1944)

 

[DarrenW]

Considering that the Fw 190 in the test, that probably wasn't in perfectly serviceable condition....

Many have commented on the less than pristine condition of the FW 190 but fail to mention that the F4U wasn't operating as efficiently as it would have under different circumstances. Here's an excerpt from the report that clearly indicates this:

 

[Clayton Magnet]

Many have commented on the less than pristine condition of the FW 190 but fail to mention that the F4U wasn't operating as efficiently as it would have under different circumstances. Here's an excerpt from the report that clearly indicates this

Good point.
Makes me wonder what the intention of the test really was, with at least 2 of the 3 aircraft not performing correctly. I think the conclusions about roll rate are somewhat dubious as well.
The Navy "Final Flight Report" on the F4U-1 gives the Corsair a maximum roll rate of around 84 degrees per second (at 200KIAS)

While the oft quoted NACA chart gives the Fw 190 (no idea what model) a maximum roll rate of more than 160 degrees per second (at 255mph/221KIAS)

Yet, the comparative trials report rates the F4U and Fw 190 as "about equal" in roll.

 

[GrauGeist]

If this was the Navy's test that included the F6F-3 along with the F4U-1, than it was an Fw190A-5.

 

[DarrenW]

Good point.
Makes me wonder what the intention of the test really was, with at least 2 of the 3 aircraft not performing correctly. I think the conclusions about roll rate are somewhat dubious as well.
The Navy "Final Flight Report" on the F4U-1 gives the Corsair a maximum roll rate of around 84 degrees per second (at 200KIAS)
View attachment 654536

While the oft quoted NACA chart gives the Fw 190 (no idea what model) a maximum roll rate of more than 160 degrees per second (at 255mph/221KIAS)

View attachment 654537

Yet, the comparative trials report rates the F4U and Fw 190 as "about equal" in roll.

The only way we can honestly compare roll rates is when we test aircraft under the same set of parameters. The FW 190 was tested at a much higher altitude where there is normally less aerodynamic damping (so less retarding of motion). What were the stick forces used during the F4U-1D testing? Were they 30 or 50 lbs? These sorts of things have a great effect on roll rates.

Here are turn rates for an FG-1A (a Goodyear built F4U-!A ). Notice that stick forces were roughly half of what was used during the testing of the FW 190. Knowing this it wouldn't be hard to understand why it came up short when we compare it side by side with the German fighter:

 

[Clayton Magnet]

Notice that stick forces were roughly half of what was used during the testing of the FW 190

It also states that the force used was required to fully defect the ailerons. If the ailerons are on the stops, using more force wont help.
For example, at 280mph, they needed 38 pounds of force to fully deflect the control surface, and got 92 degrees per second. If they had used 50, or 100 pounds of force, they still would have gotten 92 degrees, and sore arms/shoulders.

 

[DarrenW]

It also states that the force used was required to fully defect the ailerons. If the ailerons are on the stops, using more force wont help.

True, but the FW 190 needs be tested with the same stick forces to make a relevant comparison. Apparently all the aircraft in the NACA chart were calculated with the same 50 lbs of stick force from 160 to 390 mph. I don't see the F4U-1 having less aileron deflection than those specified in the chart.

 

[Clayton Magnet]

True, but the FW 190 needs be tested with the same stick forces to make a relevant comparison

I agree, but testing aircraft roll rate without getting full aileron deflection is pointless. An F4U at 250 mph getting 90 degrees per second with 40 pounds force, is getting full deflection. An Fw 190 at 250 mph getting 160 degrees per second with 50 pounds of force is getting full deflection. They are a relevant comparison, as they are both getting their maximum rate of roll. I assume NACA used the value of 50 pounds as a simple control, as that would get full deflection from all the aircraft, within the speed range. All handling reports on the Fw 190 I have read all claim the Fw 190 had excellent control harmonization and superb aileron control, so I assume the Focke-Wulf probably achieved maximum deflection at a lower force than 50 pounds, at least at 250 mph. Perhaps not as low as the F4U, and almost certainly not as low as the F4U-4, which I believe had boosted controls.

 

[DarrenW]

I agree, but testing aircraft roll rate without getting full aileron deflection is pointless. An F4U at 250 mph getting 90 degrees per second with 40 pounds force, is getting full deflection. An Fw 190 at 250 mph getting 160 degrees per second with 50 pounds of force is getting full deflection. They are a relevant comparison, as they are both getting their maximum rate of roll. I assume NACA used the value of 50 pounds as a simple control, as that would get full deflection from all the aircraft, within the speed range. All handling reports on the Fw 190 I have read all claim the Fw 190 had excellent control harmonization and superb aileron control, so I assume the Focke-Wulf probably achieved maximum deflection at a lower force than 50 pounds, at least at 250 mph. Perhaps not as low as the F4U, and almost certainly not as low as the F4U-4, which I believe had boosted controls

I don't think it was in the best interests of the US Navy to distort the results of the test, i.e. how the two aircraft compared in roll rate. I'm sure there are people out there just like you who feel otherwise.

 

[drgondog]

Good point.
Makes me wonder what the intention of the test really was, with at least 2 of the 3 aircraft not performing correctly. I think the conclusions about roll rate are somewhat dubious as well.
The Navy "Final Flight Report" on the F4U-1 gives the Corsair a maximum roll rate of around 84 degrees per second (at 200KIAS)
View attachment 654536

While the oft quoted NACA chart gives the Fw 190 (no idea what model) a maximum roll rate of more than 160 degrees per second (at 255mph/221KIAS)

View attachment 654537

Yet, the comparative trials report rates the F4U and Fw 190 as "about equal" in roll.

Recall that these are Calculated Roll Rate comparisons..

 

[Clayton Magnet]

I don't think it was in the best interests of the US Navy to distort the results of the test

I don't think the Navy intentional distorted the results, I just think the Fw 190, as-tested, probably wasn't reflective of a serviceable front line fighter in 1944. The Navy probably didn't really care at that point anyway, because by 1944 the chances of a USN F4U or F6F meeting a Fw 190 in combat were pretty small.

 

[DarrenW]

The Navy probably didn't really care at that point anyway, because by 1944 the chances of a USN F4U or F6F meeting a Fw 190 in combat were pretty small.

In hindsight yes, but when these tests were conducted there were still many obstacles to an eventual allied victory in Europe. In addition the US was willing to share this data with the British FAA whose Hellcats and Corsairs engaged German forces as early as the Spring of 1944.

 

[Clayton Magnet]

In hindsight yes, but when these tests were conducted there were still many obstacles to an eventual allied victory in Europe. In addition the US was willing to share this data with the British FAA whose Hellcats and Corsairs engaged German forces as early as the Spring of 1944.

Interesting that the FAA didn't request the captured Faber Fw 190 for evaluation, as it would have been available fully 2 years prior. Or perhaps they did, and the results of which are lost to history.
Either way, it seems that the Faber 190 was scrapped in September 1943, so it was turned into bully beef tins before the Royal Navy received any F4U or F6F's

 

[EwenS]

Interesting that the FAA didn't request the captured Faber Fw 190 for evaluation, as it would have been available fully 2 years prior. Or perhaps they did, and the results of which are lost to history.
Either way, it seems that the Faber 190 was scrapped in September 1943, so it was turned into bully beef tins before the Royal Navy received any F4U or F6F's

Why do you think that the FAA wouldn't have obtained that information in 1942?

In Britain things were organised differently. There was not the same inter-service rivalry as between the USAAF and USN for historical reasons. So we had bodies like the Royal Aircraft Establishment (RAE) at Farnborough and the Aircraft & Armament Experimental Establishment (A&AEE) down the road at Boscombe Down that employed pilots from all services and other personnel. That was then used for the good of the RAF and the FAA.

The RAF also had the Air Fighting Development Unit to develop air tactics and test captured enemy aircraft. From 1941 there was a co-located Naval Air Fighting Development Unit / 787 squadron. And there was also 1426 Flight, which took captured enemy aircraft around the country to demonstrate them to RAF/FAA units.

Air Fighting Development Unit RAF - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

No. 1426 Flight RAF - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

NAFDU/787 squadron operated all the types in FAA service and many other RAF types. It had F6F-3 Hellcats on its books from May 1943 (the first operational FAA squadrons received theirs in Northern Ireland in June and July 1943) and F4U Corsair Mk.I from July 1943 (the first operational FAA squadrons with Corsairs formed in the US at the beginning of June 1943).

The Faber Fw190A-3 began its RAF life at the RAE before being passed to the AFDU.

Armin Faber - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

But it was not the only one captured and tested. Eric Brown recalls that he first flew a Fw190A-4/U8 (RAF serial PE882) in Feb 1944 while at the RAE. It had landed at West Malling in southern England in April 1943 and was flown until w/o in Oct 1944.