Dark Matter
Banned
- 337
- Jun 23, 2009
Cant decide, looking for agility and energy.
Opinions please.
Opinions please.
FW-190-A-6 VS. F4U-1C
- Thread starter Dark Matter
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
beaupower32
Tech Sergeant
Hmmm, tough decision. But I would have to go with the F4U-1C. Im a big fan of German aircraft, but the
F4U would win. Both aircraft had excellent roll rates, but in terms of manuverabiltiy, the F4U would get the advantage, especially in a turn fight. Diving, Again the F4U would win. It has excellent diving ability, and if need be can lower the landing gear to act as speed breaks. This is just some of my thoughs, im sure someone will come in here and give more detail.
F4U would win. Both aircraft had excellent roll rates, but in terms of manuverabiltiy, the F4U would get the advantage, especially in a turn fight. Diving, Again the F4U would win. It has excellent diving ability, and if need be can lower the landing gear to act as speed breaks. This is just some of my thoughs, im sure someone will come in here and give more detail.
drgondog
Major
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/ptr-1107.pdf
This is as close as you might get to a thorough eval between the two ships and there is always a question regarding the shape the FW was in during the tests.
drgondog
Major
Beau - at what speed do you suggest it would be safe to lower landing gear w/o losing both wings in the process?
Doughboy
Staff Sergeant
F4U-1C Corsair....
Last edited:
beaupower32
Tech Sergeant
The gear on the F4U was pretty rugged. In the manual im looking at it states that the Safe extend speed is 260 knots and for retracting will be 350 knots. Im sure that going beyond the limits would probably cause more damage to the gear than to the wing itself. But I could be wrong though. On a side note, there is a dive break lever in the cockpit that allows the gear to be lowered at a reduced hydraulic pressure than with the normal landing gear handle. Plus, the tail wheel remains retracted to keep from damaging it in the dive.
Last edited:
Thanks for posting that. Very interesting! Based of of this evaluation I would have to say that both aircraft were pretty much equal. Each being superior to the other at certain altitudes and conditions.
Climb Rate up to 140 knots
Below 20,000ft: F4U Corsair
Above 20,000ft: Fw 190
Climb Rate above above 160 knots
Fw 190 at all altitudes.
Climb Rate at 180 knots
Fw 190 at all altitudes.
Climb Rate at 200 knots and probably above (the above part is a speculation from me based off of the report)
Below 10,000 ft: Fw 190
Above 10,000 ft: Fw 190 and F4U Equal
Speed Advantage
Low: F4U
15,000 ft: Fw 190 and F4U were equal
High Altitude: Fw 190
Acceleration
Below 15,000 ft: F4U
Above 15,000 ft: Fw 190
Roll Rate
F4U and Fw 190 were equal (I would give the edge to the 190 based off what I read in the report, but in the end they are still equal in this regard).
Turn Rate
F4U
Maneuverability
F4U (but the Fw 190 was still very good and light on the controls)
All in all in the end, it comes down to pilot skill. The better pilot is going to win between these two aircraft. When the pilots are equal it will go to the pilot that makes the first mistake (which probably is going to happen to any pilot of any skill anyhow).
davebender
1st Lieutenant
These are energy fighters. They should not be flying at less then 180kts except when landing.
So far no one has mentioned firepower. The Fw-190A had a massive advantage over the WWII era F4U (and just about everyone else also). That makes it easier to cause serious damage with the sort of high speed pass typically performed by energy fighters like the F4U and Fw-190.
So far no one has mentioned firepower. The Fw-190A had a massive advantage over the WWII era F4U (and just about everyone else also). That makes it easier to cause serious damage with the sort of high speed pass typically performed by energy fighters like the F4U and Fw-190.
beaupower32
Tech Sergeant
True no one has mentioned firepower. But he did mention the F4U-1C which had the 4 20mm Hispano cannons installed. I agree that the 190 had a advantage over some of the F4U's, but I think that it was about even with the C moddel. But, no matter what type of gun you have, it always take one bullet in the right place to end any fight.
- Thread starter
- #11
Dark Matter
Banned
- 337
- Jun 23, 2009
Becuase thoose are my favorite varients.
I'm sorry if I'm being rude today, Kinda in a bad mood.
I'm sorry if I'm being rude today, Kinda in a bad mood.
Catch22
Major
The A-7 or A-8 would be more comparable to the F4U-1C date-wise, as the F4U-1C was a -1D with cannons.
- Thread starter
- #13
Dark Matter
Banned
- 337
- Jun 23, 2009
I like the A-6.
Catch22
Major
Fair enough, was just saying...
davebender
1st Lieutenant
F4U Corsair - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Hmm. Perhaps a comparison with the limited production Ta-152H would be appropriate. They were in service during the same time period.
Shortround6
Major General
Hmm. Perhaps a comparison with the late production F4U-4 would be appropriate. They were in service during the same time period.
No cannon but....?
i am having trouble justifying the test results when you consider the size and weight differences of the two airplanes ...
this was not uncommon for the enemy FW tests, none of which jive with the German tests or the pilot reports from both FW pilots and the ones facing it ...
you can fudge tests pretty easily if you want to, for example "roll rate" do they mean best roll rate, worst roll rate, with prop torque or against it, with rudder input or with out rudder input, average of both directions, 1 roll then a counter roll,
there are lots of ways to make one plane look better than it would if you were really trying to do a through comparison. the condition of the FW and the fact that it was not even a fighter variant makes it pretty clear that the "tests" were approached with an intended conclusion.
i think that the allies were concerned about pilot morale and post war licensing of the german designs competing with their aircraft industry. as it was the countries that had the 190 and were able to keep them operated them for a long time for an aircraft without replacement parts.
this was not uncommon for the enemy FW tests, none of which jive with the German tests or the pilot reports from both FW pilots and the ones facing it ...
you can fudge tests pretty easily if you want to, for example "roll rate" do they mean best roll rate, worst roll rate, with prop torque or against it, with rudder input or with out rudder input, average of both directions, 1 roll then a counter roll,
there are lots of ways to make one plane look better than it would if you were really trying to do a through comparison. the condition of the FW and the fact that it was not even a fighter variant makes it pretty clear that the "tests" were approached with an intended conclusion.
i think that the allies were concerned about pilot morale and post war licensing of the german designs competing with their aircraft industry. as it was the countries that had the 190 and were able to keep them operated them for a long time for an aircraft without replacement parts.
