F4U in Europe

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

The Japanese Navy was similar with their naming convention, G4M for example:
G - land based attack bomber
4 - fourth type in "G" series
M - Mitsubishi

In regarda to the USN's system, it was established in the 1920's and several of the suffixes were reused over time.

Typically, the letter was assigned in the order it became available.
The Naval Factory's "N" suffix was in use and Berliner-Joyce's "J" suffix was no longer in use (1929-1935), so North American got it.

The "G" suffix was in use by Great Lakes between 1929 and 1935, but when it became available, Goodyear got it, because Grumman had been assigned "F" in 1931.

So in most cases, a manufacturer was assigned the next available slot unless it just happened that an available letter coincided with their name.

As far as the trainer designation, the "N" was selected when the system was established in 1922, so they did use "T" for torpedo, as the USN wanted their combat aircraft to have the most recognizable prefix. Trainers and other non-combat types had "second pick" designations.
 
Conslaw said:
This video by Greg's Airplanes and Automobiles goes into the P-47 range issue in great detail. It would have been very hard for the F4U to match the P-47 for bomber escort missions. ...
Click to expand...
Why would I use a Vought Corsair as an escort fighter? Vought Corsairs would have out performed the P-47 flying tactical air superiority and ground attack missions. Escorting B-17s flying at 28,000ft put combat precisely at altitudes P-47s were effective at. Notes the curves I posted in the earlier posting. ETO bomber escorts require range and high altitude performance.

The Corsair was a smaller, lighter, more manoeuvrable aircraft, with better acceleration and climb. The Thunderbolt was effective down low because the Germans had run out of fuel and experienced pilots.
 
I don't know how useful the F6F-3 would have been over Europe in 1944, as it had roughly the same performance as a Mk.V Spitfire, and Mk.V Spitfires were getting their a$$es handed to them by the opposition in 1941. 3 years later, the German stuff only got better, albeit the general quality of the individual Luftwaffe pilot had probably diminished by then.
 
Don't sell the F6F too short. The US Navy did a competitive test between the afásico-190, F4U and F6F. The full report is linked here. In general, the evaluation found that both the F6F and F4U were much more maneuverable than the FW-190. The F4U and FW-190 were generally pretty close in most other areas. The F6F just a bit slower.
 
That Fw 190 was also a converted fighter bomber, operated by unfamiliar crews, with inexplicable engine problems, that resulted in rough running, and un-commanded shutdowns. Whilst the results are interesting, I don't think they represent what an F6F pilot would encounter over occupied France.
 
The tested Fw190, which the report claims to be an A4, but may have been an F or G, out ran, out climbed, and out rolled the F6F.
The report also claimed that "No maneuvers could be done in the FW-190 which could not be followed by both the F4U-1 and F6F-3" yet the Fw190 easily out rolled the F6F in the test. Seems to me that a roll advantage of up to 100 degrees per second (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/naca868-rollchart.jpg) would be useful in a maneuver to shake a pursuing fighter. I am also skeptical of the claim that the Fw190 and F4U were found to be "about equal in rate of roll".
I think the test is interesting, but also suspect that it isn't representative of a properly maintained, frontline fighter Fw190, crewed by experienced pilots on the type.
 
Worthy to note, when Arnim Faber's Fw190A3 was tested against a Spitfire Mk.VB by the RAE at Farnborough in July 1942, this was determined;

"...
Climb: The climb of the Fw 190 is superior to that of the Spitfire Mk 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 450 ft/min better up to 25,000 feet (7620 m). 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.

Dive: Comparative dives have shown that the Fw 190 can leave the Spitfire with ease, particularly during the initial stages.

Manoeuvrability: The manoeuvrability of the Fw 190 is better than that of the Spitfire VB except in turning circles, when the Spitfire can guite easily out-turn it. The Fw 190 has better acceleration under all conditions of flight and this must obviously be useful during combat. When the Fw 190 was in a turn and was attacked by the Spitfire, the superior rate of roll enabled it to flick into a diving turn in the opposite direction. The pilot of the Spitfire found great difficulty in following this manoeuvre and even when prepared for it was seldom able to allow the correct deflection. It was found that if the Spitfire was cruising at low speed and was 'bounced' by the Fw 190, it was easily caught even if the Fw 190 was sighted when well out of range.
..."

Keep in mind that a Spitfire Mk.V could both out turn and out roll an F6F, but the Hellcat and Corsair in the Navy test could follow the Fw190 with seeming ease, in any maneuver. That doesn't add up correctly to me.
 
Clayton Magnet said:
Keep in mind that a Spitfire Mk.V could both out turn and out roll an F6F, but the Hellcat and Corsair in the Navy test could follow the Fw190 with seeming ease, in any maneuver. That doesn't add up correctly to me.
Click to expand...
I have David Brown's book on Seafires here. A Seafire is a modified, albeit, heavier version of the Spitfire MkV. Brown claims that an experienced pilot in an F4U or F6F could out-turn a Seafire.
 

I have seen many reports of comparative fighter performance that seemingly just don't add up. This one doesn't surprise me. It very likely has to do with the relative state of the captured aircraft, whether or not the pilots flying it were using correct power settings (sometimes they were limited by the testing authority so the engine could be kept running longer), and the relative experience of the pilots flying the aircraft. Someone very familiar with a Spitfire, for instance, could get good performance out of it. But the same pilot flying an Fw 190 for the first (or 2nd, 3rd, etc. up to whenever the pilot was very familiar with the new mount) might NOT be able to get the best out of it. You'd have to read the report, and it might not be there anyway, to find out whether or not the pilot flying the Fw 190 was changed into the Spitfire Mk. V on subsequent flight to check whether or not pilot ability had anything to do with the results. In general, WWII flight comparison reports do not seem to me to be very thorough. Many don't say whether or not rails were installed, sometimes not takeoff weight or configuration, how much time was flown before mock combat was joined so the weight could be extrapolated, etc.

It's like going to a dragstrip and seeing one car win big, then the other one wins big next time out. There are skills involved with driving cars at the limit of performance just like there are skills involved in flying fighter aircraft. A well-trained aerobatic pilot might fly a great demonstration of a fighter, but he might also be absolutely awful at combat flying.

Alas, we have the original reports to work with, and no new ones are likely to be generated using pilots with a lot of experience in piston fighters and aircraft of similar "freshness" and maintenance levels.
 
Last edited:
Howard Gibson said:
I have David Brown's book on Seafires here. A Seafire is a modified, albeit, heavier version of the Spitfire MkV. Brown claims that an experienced pilot in an F4U or F6F could out-turn a Seafire.
Click to expand...
Sure, if the F4U or F6F pilot is experienced, and holds the aircraft on the ragged edge of a stall, it probably would, assuming the Seafire pilot ISN'T experienced, and doesn't know the limitations of his own aircraft
 
The one thing we DO know, is that when the Fw190 was first introduced, it took the Allies by surprise and it was quite a while before they could field anything that could counter it at low to medium altitudes.
The one aircraft that was able to meet it on it's own terms, surprisingly enough, was the Typhoon.

So with that in mind, how well would the F4U stack up against the Tiffy?
 
FLYBOYJ said:
Consider the skill level of the pilot flying the aircraft.
Click to expand...
Exactly.
Experienced pilots, familiar with both the F4U and F6F, flying against a captured enemy aircraft, which is seemingly in a bad state of repair, and is flown by a pilot totally unfamiliar with it, and almost certainly not to its combat potential. I wouldn't doubt that there was an element of propaganda in the test as well, intended for crews still fighting the conflict. "See? our stuff is better, we tested it"
 
I've seen this mentioned before and it holds some merit when one looks purely at statistical data. Maximum speed of the two aircraft was similar but not identical, with the F6F-3 holding a slight but not so useable edge overall. Both could climb to 20,000 feet in roughly the same time and their respective ceilings were nearly identical. The Hellcat did have a superior dive performance, range, and load carrying capability, with the Spit easily out-rolling the American fighter. I know you mentioned that the Spitfire could out-turn the Hellcat and if this is indeed true I'm fairly certain that it wasn't by very much. The Hellcat is considered one of the best turning allied fighters of the war. And just to recap I'm only comparing the Spitfire Mk.V with the Hellcat and not later models of the British fighter (which obviously had improved performance).

I just want to mention that later F6F-3s and F6F-5s had a somewhat better performance due to minor streamlining improvements and water injection (primarily in climb rate and level speed) but overall performance was still not hugely different from early F6F-3s.

What has been lost here is the value of the Hellcat as a shipboard fighter. It served as an off-shore strike fighter during Operation Dragoon in August 1944, where the Hellcat saw action against German targets in Southern France and it made a very good accounting of itself. It was used in both the air superiority and ground attack role, with US Navy pilots destroying 825 vehicles and damaging another 334, along with a further 84 locomotives. Eight Luftwaffe aircraft were also brought down during the two week operation.

As stated earlier in this thread, no one in their right mind would ever employ the F6F or F4U as a high-altitude escort fighter in European skies, especially with the selection of USAAF types available from 1943-45. Both naval fighters would best serve as low/medium altitude coastal strike fighters where their capabilities could best be utilized to the fullest.
 
Actually the opposite is desirable in some cases. "The enemy has better equipment, we need more funding or more orders of item x to deal with it."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

M
German Test Pilot Evaluation of an F4U-1A
Replies
14
Views
1K
yosimitesam
Airwar Over Europe?
Replies
2
Views
1K
Canaus
C
B
Supply by air in Burma
Replies
2
Views
323
Thumpalumpacus
M
Bomber Armor In WW2
Replies
4
Views
2K
Ascent
A
How did the I-16 Really Perform in WWII?
3 4 5
Replies
88
Views
5K
bf109xxl
Menu
Log in
Register