Hawker Typhoon/Tempest VS Vought F4U Corsair

[Razgriz1]

I haven't really seen any comparisons between the Typhoon/Tempest & the Corsair on here.

I personally would like to see how they would compare in terms of performance & handling (ease of flying).

Typhoon 1b VS F4U-1a/1d

Tempest II/V VS F4U-4

 

[tomo pauk]

Typhoon probably looses vs. F4U-1/1a. Tempest II and F4U-1 (any) is about as close as it gets, with Tempest having edge in dive and probably in rate of roll. The F4U-4 should be best of the lot above 20000 ft, the Tempest II and V under 20000 ft in raw performance (speed, RoC). Typhoon and Tempest have significantly more firepower, F4U should take the punishmet a bit better. The big Hawker fighter with comparable or better performance vs. F4U-4 should be the (Sea) Fury.
Tempest V was contemporary of the F4U-1d.

 

[Barrett]

Barely relevant:

A couple of years ago a website noting various WW2 anniversaries included a Tiffy & chaps...
in an article about the Battle of Midway.

Honest.

 

[KiwiBiggles]

Typhoon probably looses vs. F4U-1/1a. Tempest II and F4U-1 (any) is about as close as it gets, with Tempest having edge in dive and probably in rate of roll. The F4U-4 should be best of the lot above 20000 ft, the Tempest II and V under 20000 ft in raw performance (speed, RoC). Typhoon and Tempest have significantly more firepower, F4U should take the punishmet a bit better. The big Hawker fighter with comparable or better performance vs. F4U-4 should be the (Sea) Fury.
Tempest V was contemporary of the F4U-1d.

Sorry, I just don't see this. Is there some penalty you're applying to the Tempest? Under 20,000 ft, both models of Tempest have it all over the F4U, in pretty much every measurable statistic. In speed, rate of climb and armament the Tempest is clearly ahead; range, wing loading and power loading are pretty similar; and the Tempest's cockpit view was clearly superior.
The Tempest II is simply in a different class to the F4U-1, and even the F4U-4 is only just a match in some statistics. The Fury is further ahead again.

 

[tomo pauk]

Sorry, I just don't see this. Is there some penalty you're applying to the Tempest? Under 20,000 ft, both models of Tempest have it all over the F4U, in pretty much every measurable statistic. In speed, rate of climb and armament the Tempest is clearly ahead; range, wing loading and power loading are pretty similar; and the Tempest's cockpit view was clearly superior.

In rate of climb above 18000 ft, Tempest V and F4U-1D are as close as possible (chart, chart). The F4U-4 climbs equaly as good as Tempest V under ~17000 ft, between 17000 and ~23500 ft it the F4U-4 has an edge, and it is much better above 23500 ft. (data sheet). Eg. at 30000 ft, it climbs at 1600-1800 ft/min at max engine rpm, while Tempest V is good for 750 ft/min at that altitude. The F4U-4 is also faster above 20000 ft, Tempest having a 10 mph edge under 15000 ft.

The Tempest II is simply in a different class to the F4U-1, and even the F4U-4 is only just a match in some statistics. The Fury is further ahead again.

Tempest II (perf chart) is indeed a better performer than any F4U-1, I stand corrected. It is also better than F4U-4 under 15-20 kft, but it was slower above 25000 ft, and climbed less well above 17000 ft.
Sea Fury is like the a bit better Tempest II - it is again a better performer than F4U-4, this time to 20000 ft, give or take, the F4U-4 better above 25000 ft.
The F4U-5 was again better than either of those listed above, and Fury (with Sabre VIII) was also better, at least under 20000 ft. Unfortunately, the Griffon Tempest/Fury didn't materialised until too late, to combine low drag of Tempest/Fury with ample power at altitude.

 

[Shortround6]

Unfortunately for some of these comparisons the time lines are bit out of whack. The British simply didn't have the engineering staff to turn some of the ideas/prototypes into service aircraft in a timely fashion. The Sea Fury was great airplane, unfortunately by the time it was entering squadron service the US competition were the F4U-5 and the F8F-2. Sort of the same thing for the Tempest II, Great idea in 1942, prototypes fly in 1943, by the time production was organized and deliveries made it was up against the F4U-4, not the F4U-1D.

The Corsairs had better superchargers which often made them better performing at altitudes over 20,000ft.

 

[Dawncaster]

Another VS topic?

Why not compare with colourful images!

for full internal fuel and ammunition, no external stores - the performance curves from the following documents

Tempest V 9 lbs : Tempest V Performance Test
Tempest V 11 lbs : http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/tempest/Tempest_V_Sabre_IIB_ADC.jpg
Tempest II 12 lbs : Tempest II Tactical Trials
SeaFury X 14 lbs : http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/Fury/Sea_Fury_Flight.pdf
F4U-1A : http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f4u/p-51b-f4u-1-navycomp.pdf
F4U-1D : http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f4u/f4u-1d-acp.pdf
F4U-4 : http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f4u/f4u-4.pdf
F4U-5 : http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f4u/F4U-5-performance-vs-altitude.jpg

 

[pbehn]

Unfortunately for some of these comparisons the time lines are bit out of whack. The British simply didn't have the engineering staff to turn some of the ideas/prototypes into service aircraft in a timely fashion. The Sea Fury was great airplane, unfortunately by the time it was entering squadron service the US competition were the F4U-5 and the F8F-2. Sort of the same thing for the Tempest II, Great idea in 1942, prototypes fly in 1943, by the time production was organized and deliveries made it was up against the F4U-4, not the F4U-1D.

The Corsairs had better superchargers which often made them better performing at altitudes over 20,000ft.

I think that also the reality of the jet age dawning had an effect and also the progression of the war. The Fury was cancelled and only the Sea Fury was developed. After D Day the Tempest was not wanting below 20,000 ft in comparison to LW fighters, apart from Allied mainly US bombing raids how much combat was above 20,000ft in Europe?

 

[SuperEtendard]

Is there any detailed info about Tempest turning performance? Like turn times for example. All I can find is some comparative trials in wwiiaircraftperformance.org but they talk about turning circles without specifying the altitude at which the tests were made.

"Turning Circle

28. The Tempest is not quite as good as the Mustang III.

35. The Spitfire XVI easily out-turns the Tempest.

41. There is very little difference in turning circles between the two aircraft [Fw 190A]. If anything a very slight advantage lies with the Tempest.

47. The Tempest is slightly better, the Me.109G being embarrassed by its slots opening near the stall.

 

[slaterat]

Typhoon , F4U-1 comparison