drgondog
Major
[
Hellcat and Corsair vs. Messerschmidt 109 and FockWulf 190
- Thread starter Ghostdancer
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
lesofprimus
Brigadier General
Great post Bill lol...
drgondog
Major
In retrospect - probably my best post..
wwii:)aircraft
Airman
- 32
- Jul 20, 2009
I know i just coming out of nowhere, but I'd say the both the fw 190 and bf 109 were superior to the hellcat and corsair.
Bf 109 was superior to the hellcat while the Fw 190 was superior to the corsair
bf 109F4 vs F6F-5
109 was faster, climbed better, and turned better at high speeds (and high altitude)
the hellcat dived better, had a superior armament, and turned better at low speeds (and low altitude)
G6 vs f6f-5
basically the same thing as before except the hellcat was increasingly more maneuverable
any bf 109 variant after the G6 outperformed the hellcat in every way except for a turn and dive
F4/G6 vs F4u
The F4 out turned and out climbed the corsair at all altitudes
The G6 out turn the corsair above 20,000ft and outgunned the corsair
The corsair was faster and had a superior climb
Fw 190A vs f6f
Fw 190A was faster, barely dived better, rolled better and had a superior armament
The f6f only true advantage was maneuverability
Fw 190A vs F4u-1
Fw 190A had a superior armament, and roll
F4u was faster, and barely dived better
id say both were overall tied in a turn and in a climb
as for armaments id say the cannons are better
the german fighters had the 30mm mk 108 and 20mm mg 151/20 cannons both of which the ROF were impressively fast (the mg 151 actually had a faster ROF than the m2 .50cal)
it only took one shot from a mk 108 and a few shots from a mg 151/20 to take down a hellcat or corsair
even though the m2 .50cal had more ammunition and overall had a faster ROF, both the 30mm and 20mm (particularly the 20mm) were more versatile doing a better job of taking down bombers, tanks and ships as well as fighters.
but more ammunition would be more fit for long range fighters such as the Hellcat and Corsair, both of which are fighting against very lightly armored japanese aicraft.
Bf 109 was superior to the hellcat while the Fw 190 was superior to the corsair
bf 109F4 vs F6F-5
109 was faster, climbed better, and turned better at high speeds (and high altitude)
the hellcat dived better, had a superior armament, and turned better at low speeds (and low altitude)
G6 vs f6f-5
basically the same thing as before except the hellcat was increasingly more maneuverable
any bf 109 variant after the G6 outperformed the hellcat in every way except for a turn and dive
F4/G6 vs F4u
The F4 out turned and out climbed the corsair at all altitudes
The G6 out turn the corsair above 20,000ft and outgunned the corsair
The corsair was faster and had a superior climb
Fw 190A vs f6f
Fw 190A was faster, barely dived better, rolled better and had a superior armament
The f6f only true advantage was maneuverability
Fw 190A vs F4u-1
Fw 190A had a superior armament, and roll
F4u was faster, and barely dived better
id say both were overall tied in a turn and in a climb
as for armaments id say the cannons are better
the german fighters had the 30mm mk 108 and 20mm mg 151/20 cannons both of which the ROF were impressively fast (the mg 151 actually had a faster ROF than the m2 .50cal)
it only took one shot from a mk 108 and a few shots from a mg 151/20 to take down a hellcat or corsair
even though the m2 .50cal had more ammunition and overall had a faster ROF, both the 30mm and 20mm (particularly the 20mm) were more versatile doing a better job of taking down bombers, tanks and ships as well as fighters.
but more ammunition would be more fit for long range fighters such as the Hellcat and Corsair, both of which are fighting against very lightly armored japanese aicraft.
renrich
Chief Master Sergeant
Navy comparison tests between the F4U and F6F against the FW190 showed that both Navy planes if flown to their strengths would defeat the FW190. One key is that if the combat was flown 300 miles from base the FW would have no chance. factor that in to your calculations. How many tanks and ships did the German fighters disable? I submit very few compared to ships disabled by the two navy planes.
Last edited:
Colin1
Senior Master Sergeant
I would imagine
there's an element of opportunity missing for the Fw190 here. I'd like to see the comparison F6F vs Fw190, I can't see the Hellcat besting the Focke-wulf unless the German pilot wants to start turning with the American fighter.
renrich
Chief Master Sergeant
Read on the Williams site the comparison between the FW and the F6F3. " The FW could not follow the F6F in any maneuver and the F6F could follow the FW in all maneuvers."
Colin1
Senior Master Sergeant
Sorry
but I can't see the F6F following the Fw190 in an evasive snap-roll
I can't see it outclimbing the Fw190, it's not as fast as the Fw190 and I'd need to get home and see some figures to verify combat acceleration; the F6F was R28-powered but it was also a big bird.
Just Schmidt
Senior Airman
The british used both the hellcat and the corsair, and while it would surprise me if they didn't use the hellcat there, then I'm certain they used the corsair in ETO.
So this thread needn't be all theoretical.
So this thread needn't be all theoretical.
renrich
Chief Master Sergeant
Firstly the F6F saw combat in the ETO and it seemed OK but the sample is small. Likewise the F4F with the same limitations. It appears that the Corsair saw no combat although it was used by the FAA in the ETO.
I have thought a little about what I would like to say on this subject so here goes.
I joined this forum several years ago with a lot of half baked opinions and knowledge. I "knew" that my favorite fighter, the Corsair overall was the best fighter in WW2. In some ways that could be true but I have learned a lot in those several years by reading posts on this forum and by doing research in books and on the internet.
I can go on the internet or look at a book and look up the Corsair and find:
Vmax-446 mph
Service ceiling-41000 feet plus
Range-more than 1000 miles
Could carry a 4000 pound bomb load
Had one of the best roll rates of any fighter-360 degrees in a trifle over two seconds
Open and shut case. Name another fighter that could do that. Right? well, maybe.
The problem is that those figures are for the F4U4 which only saw combat in the last few months of the war and they only portray the AC in optimum conditions. It sure could not go 1000 miles with a 4000 pound bomb load or go 446 mph except when in perfect condition and with WEP at it's critical altitude and that for only a few minutes.
The F4U1 which first saw service in February, 1943, at it's best could not do 400 mph which was slower than the XF4U.
So when we compare the FW190 with the Hellcat or Corsair or any other airplanes we must ask, Which Corsair or Hellcat or FW. At what altitude? How far from base? With what load? What are the tactical conditions? And finally, who is at the controls? Opinions are nice but they need to be informed opinions.
Even informed opinions are sometimes screwy. Eric Brown a rather famous FAA and test pilot flew against the FW190 in combat. He also flew captured versions of it as well as Hellcats and Corsairs. He liked the Hellcat and FW190 and held the Corsair in low regard. In comparing the aircraft he said that ACM with the Hellcat versus the FW190, it would be close with the outcome determined by pilot skill. He said the Corsair would be defeated by the FW190. I have never read anywhere that the Corsair was not superior to the Hellcat in ACM. Go figure.
The USN, in a comparison with the Hellcat, Corsair and FW190 found that none of the AC were clearly superior to the others except in certain characteristics with the Corsair having an edge over the Hellcat everwhere. Using modern terms they said that both Hellcat and Corsair should use angles tactics rather than energy tactics to defeat the FW190. The FW could choose whether to accept combat if at certain altitudes. It is also clear that both Hellcat and Corsair were far superior to the FW190 if a long way from base. When the engine quits running a fighter is hurting.
If one gets into the art of ACM, it suddenly dawns that if a skilled pilot in any of the premier fighters in WW2 is aware of the attacker, he can, if he wishes make it impossible for a successful attack to be made, except under extremely adverse tactical conditons. A P47 caught on the deck with no speed is hurting against a FW190. An FW 190 at 30000 feet is hurting against a P47. A P51 pilot who keeps his head is pretty safe against an Me262 as long as he can see the Me262 before the Me is in firing position. All that stuff about whose Vmax is higher can be offset by maneuvering and awareness. And a Vmax difference of ten or twenty mph is usually not tactically significant especially depending on altiude.
Bottom line is that pilot skill usually determined who won unless the tactical situation was terrible for someone. Even a rookie in a P51 had a ME262 at a disadvantage if the ME had his gear down and was out of fuel.
I have thought a little about what I would like to say on this subject so here goes.
I joined this forum several years ago with a lot of half baked opinions and knowledge. I "knew" that my favorite fighter, the Corsair overall was the best fighter in WW2. In some ways that could be true but I have learned a lot in those several years by reading posts on this forum and by doing research in books and on the internet.
I can go on the internet or look at a book and look up the Corsair and find:
Vmax-446 mph
Service ceiling-41000 feet plus
Range-more than 1000 miles
Could carry a 4000 pound bomb load
Had one of the best roll rates of any fighter-360 degrees in a trifle over two seconds
Open and shut case. Name another fighter that could do that. Right? well, maybe.
The problem is that those figures are for the F4U4 which only saw combat in the last few months of the war and they only portray the AC in optimum conditions. It sure could not go 1000 miles with a 4000 pound bomb load or go 446 mph except when in perfect condition and with WEP at it's critical altitude and that for only a few minutes.
The F4U1 which first saw service in February, 1943, at it's best could not do 400 mph which was slower than the XF4U.
So when we compare the FW190 with the Hellcat or Corsair or any other airplanes we must ask, Which Corsair or Hellcat or FW. At what altitude? How far from base? With what load? What are the tactical conditions? And finally, who is at the controls? Opinions are nice but they need to be informed opinions.
Even informed opinions are sometimes screwy. Eric Brown a rather famous FAA and test pilot flew against the FW190 in combat. He also flew captured versions of it as well as Hellcats and Corsairs. He liked the Hellcat and FW190 and held the Corsair in low regard. In comparing the aircraft he said that ACM with the Hellcat versus the FW190, it would be close with the outcome determined by pilot skill. He said the Corsair would be defeated by the FW190. I have never read anywhere that the Corsair was not superior to the Hellcat in ACM. Go figure.
The USN, in a comparison with the Hellcat, Corsair and FW190 found that none of the AC were clearly superior to the others except in certain characteristics with the Corsair having an edge over the Hellcat everwhere. Using modern terms they said that both Hellcat and Corsair should use angles tactics rather than energy tactics to defeat the FW190. The FW could choose whether to accept combat if at certain altitudes. It is also clear that both Hellcat and Corsair were far superior to the FW190 if a long way from base. When the engine quits running a fighter is hurting.
If one gets into the art of ACM, it suddenly dawns that if a skilled pilot in any of the premier fighters in WW2 is aware of the attacker, he can, if he wishes make it impossible for a successful attack to be made, except under extremely adverse tactical conditons. A P47 caught on the deck with no speed is hurting against a FW190. An FW 190 at 30000 feet is hurting against a P47. A P51 pilot who keeps his head is pretty safe against an Me262 as long as he can see the Me262 before the Me is in firing position. All that stuff about whose Vmax is higher can be offset by maneuvering and awareness. And a Vmax difference of ten or twenty mph is usually not tactically significant especially depending on altiude.
Bottom line is that pilot skill usually determined who won unless the tactical situation was terrible for someone. Even a rookie in a P51 had a ME262 at a disadvantage if the ME had his gear down and was out of fuel.
davparlr
Senior Master Sergeant
We must be careful when comparing aircraft from printed data. Quite often we find that the tech/test data are based on different criteria. A review of the available data on these aircraft reflects the following gross weight used in performance evaluation. American aircraft are most often evaluated at a "fighter weight". This weight is usually based on aircraft configured for air-to-air fighting with full normal internal fuel. American aircraft are also, typically, provided with greater internal fuel capacity compared to its German counterpart (fighter based internal fuel for the F4U is 178 gallons compared to 106 gallons for the Bf-109 and 138 gallons for the Fw-190). Some German aircraft performance evaluations are at a fighter weight, others may be at different weight.
In reviewing data included in "America's Hundred Thousand" (AHT) and in "Spitfireperformance" (spf) on these aircraft, I found the following weight comparisons of test weight, empty weight, and loaded weight (test weight minus empty weight).
F4U-1 test weight 12,039 lbs (AHT), 12,162 lbs (spf), empty weight 8762 lbs, loaded weight 3277 lbs.
F6F-5 test weight 12,740 lbs (AHT), 12,420 lbs (spf), empty weight 9079 lbs, loaded weight 3341 lbs
Bf-109G-6 test weight 7187 lbs (spf), empty weight 6050 lbs, loaded weight 1137 lbs
Fw-190A-5 test weight 8818 lbs (4000 kg) (spf), empty weight 7942 lbs, loaded weight 876 lbs.
It obvious that the test were not good for comparisons, certainly in the maneuvering area. The weight of the Fw seems very low, maybe strickly a test bird. The loaded weight for a fighter should be close for the same mission.
In my opinion, to accurately determine the performance of aircraft all things must be equal. For instance these four aircraft should have enough fuel on board to fly identical combat profiles and all have, say, 15 sec of ammo available.
There are a couple of interesting items in the Navy test of the F4U, F6F, and the Fw-190. First is that the Fw-190A-4 is much lighter than the Fw-190A-5, and the F4U was carrying 540 lbs more fuel than the Fw, and the F6F was carrying 660 lbs more fuel than the Fw. This would have made significant difference in maneuver.
Over all, I think the F4U-1 and the Fw-190 would have been formidable foes and the 109 would have advantage at the higher altitudes. The F6F-3 would have been at a disadvantage. The F4U-1D, when it came out, should have had a clear advantage over all.
In reviewing data included in "America's Hundred Thousand" (AHT) and in "Spitfireperformance" (spf) on these aircraft, I found the following weight comparisons of test weight, empty weight, and loaded weight (test weight minus empty weight).
F4U-1 test weight 12,039 lbs (AHT), 12,162 lbs (spf), empty weight 8762 lbs, loaded weight 3277 lbs.
F6F-5 test weight 12,740 lbs (AHT), 12,420 lbs (spf), empty weight 9079 lbs, loaded weight 3341 lbs
Bf-109G-6 test weight 7187 lbs (spf), empty weight 6050 lbs, loaded weight 1137 lbs
Fw-190A-5 test weight 8818 lbs (4000 kg) (spf), empty weight 7942 lbs, loaded weight 876 lbs.
It obvious that the test were not good for comparisons, certainly in the maneuvering area. The weight of the Fw seems very low, maybe strickly a test bird. The loaded weight for a fighter should be close for the same mission.
In my opinion, to accurately determine the performance of aircraft all things must be equal. For instance these four aircraft should have enough fuel on board to fly identical combat profiles and all have, say, 15 sec of ammo available.
There are a couple of interesting items in the Navy test of the F4U, F6F, and the Fw-190. First is that the Fw-190A-4 is much lighter than the Fw-190A-5, and the F4U was carrying 540 lbs more fuel than the Fw, and the F6F was carrying 660 lbs more fuel than the Fw. This would have made significant difference in maneuver.
Over all, I think the F4U-1 and the Fw-190 would have been formidable foes and the 109 would have advantage at the higher altitudes. The F6F-3 would have been at a disadvantage. The F4U-1D, when it came out, should have had a clear advantage over all.
I have to agree with davparlr here. I don't think one can just simply compare these aircraft straight out. There are just too many variables.
At what altitude, or at what speed for example? Pilot skill really comes into play when we talk about the top fighters anyhow.
At what altitude, or at what speed for example? Pilot skill really comes into play when we talk about the top fighters anyhow.
renrich
Chief Master Sergeant
Dav, very good and informative post. It is fun to do all these comparisons but in the end, they are somewhat meaningless and useless.. They do force us to do some research in depth. And in the end, as Chris says, pilot skill plays a major role.
Colin1
Senior Master Sergeant
Pilot skill needs to be left out of a comparison
otherwise equalising all of the other variables becomes meaningless. Pilots, for comparisons sake, need to be of notionally equal competence and with no speed/altitude/other advantage over his adversary. If you fail to do this, you are comparing the pilots, not the aircraft.
otherwise equalising all of the other variables becomes meaningless. Pilots, for comparisons sake, need to be of notionally equal competence and with no speed/altitude/other advantage over his adversary. If you fail to do this, you are comparing the pilots, not the aircraft.
Just Schmidt
Senior Airman
It is indeed a point that aircraft never fought each other in the 'laboratory' (and have nobody at all heard about any 'live' combat between our birds?).
To complicate matters different nations used different qalities of fuel, whereas I assume the controlled tests use the same for all aircrafts involved. To this we can add the different tactical circumstances as mentioned by Renrich.
And though pilot skill generally should be left out, it remains to be considered that some aircraft definitely were more forgiving to fly than others, and therefore better or worse for pilots of differing skills and experience, and maybe even temperament.
The last point leeds me to hazard my mostly intuitional assessment of the four aircraft, where I believe the F6F5 was outclassed by the others, but probably the easiest to fly. I suspect that the Fw 190A-5 and F4U1 were about equally superior to the rest, though the Bf 109G-6 had an advantage flying top cover, at least if the top is 8km+.
Though these comparision threads in the end hardly can prove anything conclusively (exept for the obvious), they are fun to read and a lot of facts I never was aware of pops up in passing, making them as useful as any historical discussions can be.
To complicate matters different nations used different qalities of fuel, whereas I assume the controlled tests use the same for all aircrafts involved. To this we can add the different tactical circumstances as mentioned by Renrich.
And though pilot skill generally should be left out, it remains to be considered that some aircraft definitely were more forgiving to fly than others, and therefore better or worse for pilots of differing skills and experience, and maybe even temperament.
The last point leeds me to hazard my mostly intuitional assessment of the four aircraft, where I believe the F6F5 was outclassed by the others, but probably the easiest to fly. I suspect that the Fw 190A-5 and F4U1 were about equally superior to the rest, though the Bf 109G-6 had an advantage flying top cover, at least if the top is 8km+.
Though these comparision threads in the end hardly can prove anything conclusively (exept for the obvious), they are fun to read and a lot of facts I never was aware of pops up in passing, making them as useful as any historical discussions can be.
Colin1
Senior Master Sergeant
If you want to know why an aircraft that should have done better in a particular theatre, didn't, then different tactical circumstances would need to be investigated, run them anywhere else and you are skewing your results; just as biassing the pilot skill only compares the pilots, introducing tactical advantages only highlights the tactically advantaged, regardless of how good his 'plane is.
If you want to know who's running the best ship, they need to become lab rats, it's a controlled environment. Test them in as many flight regimes as you like but test them equally and see who fares best; the 'plane with the most ticks in boxes is likely the better combat aircraft. Done dilligently, the forgiving nature or otherwise of a particular aircraft should be revealed anyway.
davparlr
Senior Master Sergeant
All the comments about pilot ability is correct. I perceive that the relationship of a pilot to his aircraft is similar to a coach to his football team. Each team has its strengths and its weaknesses and the successful coach knows how to effectively use his teams strengths against his opponent's weaknesses. An aircraft has many features that affect it use in combat, airspeed, climb rate, acceleration, turning ability, firepower, armor, range, diving ability, roll rate, stability, armament, pilot visibility, size, producability, reliability, survivability and so on. Since some of these factor are counter to others, for instance stability often is lost with increased roll rate, there is no perfect fighter aircraft. Also, some capabilities are more important than others, e.g. much more technology has gone into making fighters faster that increasing turn rate. Aircraft are also designed to differing criteria. Like the football team, fighters have strengths and weaknesses. But some football teams have more strengths and fewer weaknesses than opposing teams and therefore the coach's job is much easier. So too, is the fighter. Some fighters have more tools for the pilot to work with. This certainly makes the pilots tasks easier but does not mean he will win every time. All this makes comparisons outside the mission assignment as difficult. Very few would argue with the statement that the P-51 was the best long range escort fighter in the war. It had all the tools it needed, high speed, long range, endurance, high altitude performance and fire power. However, it was not the best at low altitude nor for ground attack. So, after all this rambling, comparisons of aircraft superiority really is a discussion on how many tools are available to the pilot of one aircraft than for the pilot of the opposing aircraft for the mission defined.
