Was the corsair as good a fighter as the spitfire or the FW?

[KraziKanuK]

If you did not make such dumb post, I would not have commented. Dumb because there is obviously something wrong with the labelling.

You said 1100hp, not 2200hp.

What is so hard to believe about the climb? The P51 with 1490hp, and 260kg lighter, climbed to 6.0km in 6.1 minutes while the D-9 with 1750hp took 7.7 minutes. This from a book on the Dora.

So it doesn't take a genius to figure out that there's something seriously not right.

BTW, the climb rate of the Dora dropped off dramatically above 4km.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

If you did not make such dumb post, I would not have commented. Dumb because there is obviously something wrong with the labelling.

You said 1100hp, not 2200hp.

What is so hard to believe about the climb? The P51 with 1490hp, and 260kg lighter, climbed to 6.0km in 6.1 minutes while the D-9 with 1750hp took 7.7 minutes. This from a book on the Dora.

So it doesn't take a genius to figure out that there's something seriously not right.

BTW, the climb rate of the Dora dropped off dramatically above 4km.

The actual P-38 POH says otherwise - I calculate 7 minutes at 2650 ft/mim for the J/L based on the POH and again this is at 17,400 pounds

 

[Soren]

If you did not make such dumb post, I would not have commented. Dumb because there is obviously something wrong with the labelling.

I commented on what the graph says Krazi, and that is not "Dumb".

You said 1100hp, not 2200hp.

Ofcause I did ! Cause it says 1100 hp !!

Multiplying that gives you 2200 hp, thats less than the Fw-190D-9 for twice as heavy an a/c, and thats what I said Krazi !

And when you add the flat pate area as-well, it really looks ridiculous !

What is so hard to believe about the climb? The P51 with 1490hp, and 260kg lighter, climbed to 6.0km in 6.1 minutes while the D-9 with 1750hp took 7.7 minutes. This from a book on the Dora.

So it doesn't take a genius to figure out that there's something seriously not right.

At normal military power the P-51 would reach 20,000ft in 7.5 min.

BTW, the climb rate of the Dora dropped off dramatically above 4km.

There should still be more than enough power to beat the P-38 to 6km !

 

[FLYBOYJ]

The posted climb data in the POH is the same for the J and L

17,400lbs - 7 minutes to 20,000 feet
19,400lbs - 9 minutes
21,400lbs - 11 minutes

 

[wmaxt]

Thats preposterous !

We're talking about a plane which weighs twice that of an ordinary single engined fighter, and it doesn't even have twice the power ! And the wing-loading and drag of the P-38 is also waay higher !

I gotta agree with Soren - I just looked in a POH - Time to 15,000 feet in a J with V-1710s-89/91 was 5 minutes, 9 minutes to 25,000 @ 17,400 lbs.

An L at 17,400 still shows a 9 minute climb to 25,000, 5 minutes to 15,000.

Best climb speed between SL and 25,000 is 180 - 170 MPH (Vx)

Those numbers are at 54" boost to. 60" (350hp) boost will make a difference as will 64" boost (600hp). I'm giving both numbers because of the possibility that the 64" boost was not used/available often, many pilots note they used "over 60" so who knows for sure?

The power loading for a P-38L at combat weight (17,400lbs) and 3200hp 60" boost is 5.4lbs/hp. The Dora 9 at normal loaded weight is 9840lbs and 1776hp (no boost) for 5.5lbs/hp. Not so different.

wmaxt

 

[wmaxt]

The Green curve labled as 1100hp is actualy the military power curve and should be labled as 54" and 1425hp. Edited @ 5:25pm

Another thing that needs to be pointed out is that the Fw-190D-9 whose power is 2240hp at sea level on MW 50 has already dropped to 2000hp by 11,500ft. Under normal unboosted power the D is rated at 1776hp at sea level and 1600hp at 18000ft and continues to drop as the altitude increases. The P-38 has retained its 1600/1725hp at ~30,000ft.

The numbers in the P-38 POH are comparable to these numbers of the Dora without the MW 50
Fw-190D-9 - 2.1min to 6,500ft (3095ft/min ave)- 16.8min to 32,800ft (1952ft/min ave) Full power no MW 50 1776hp at SL droping off with altitude after 2nd stage supercharger engages
P-38L--------2.0min to 5,000ft (2500ft/min ave)- 15min - 35,000ft (2333ft/min ave) Military power 54" boost 1425hp (ea) SL-~30,000ft 17,400lbs

The P-38 adds another 350hp between 54" and 60" boost and another 250hp at 64". The MW 50 adds 464hp at SL and it drops off as the altitude increases, as shown above. The difference in climb giving the Fw-190 an edge at SL-6500ft drops off rather quickly as the altitude increases.

As to flat plate area and climb, the P-51 has a flat plate area of 3.80sf to the P-38s 8.78sf and the P-38 outclimbs the P-51 by a comfortable margin, the P-51 climbs at 3 min to 5,000ft, 28min to 35,000ft at less than 10,300lbs military power. FP numbers courtesy of NACA/NASA, P-51 climb data from the P-51 POH.

The bottom line here is that the P-38 could, at a minimum, keep up with the Dora in a climb.

wmaxt

 

[Soren]

The normal loaded weight for the Dora-9 is 9,414 lbs wmaxt, a pretty big difference.

Lets look at the numbers...

Power-loading
Fw-190D-9, no boost (1776hp): 5.3 lbs/hp
P-38L, no boost (2x1425hp): 6.1 lbs/hp

Fw-190D-9, full boost (2240hp): 4.2 lbs/hp
P-38L, full boost (2x1725hp): 5.04 lbs/hp

Wing-loading
Fw-190D-9: 47.7 lbs/sq.ft.
P-38L: 53 lbs/sq.ft.

Flat plate area
Fw-190D-9: 4.77 sq.ft.
P-38L: 8.78 sq.ft.

Now how exactly is the P-38 ever going to out-climb the Dora-9, when even at full boost the P-38 will have trouble out-climbing a Dora-9 flying at normal power ?

Lets say the Dora-9's power at full boost has dropped to 1850-1900hp at 18,000ft, thats a power-loading of 5.08-4.92 lbs/hp, thats still equal or better than the P-38L at full boost, and by now the Dora-9 has already acquired itself a good lead. (And remember this is without even considering FP area and lift-loading)

 

[syscom3]

P38's also had some free HP from the exhaust thrust.

 

[Jabberwocky]

Some real world test numbers:

P-38G 42-12687 Tested at 48" mainfold

5,000 feet in 1.71 minutes
10,000 feet in 2.81 minutes
15,000 feet in 4.21 minutes
20,000 feet in 5.68 minutes
25,000 feet in 7.36 minutes
30,000 feet in 9.46 minutes

Peak RoC: 3,660 feet/minute at 5000 feet

P-38J 42-67869 Tested at 60" manifold, 16,600lbs

5000 feet in 1.25 minutes
10,000 feet in 2.54 minutes
15,000 feet in 3.89 minutes
20,000 feet in 5.37 minutes
25,000 feet in 7.06 minutes
30,000 feet in 9.32 minutes

Peak RoC: 4,000 feet/minute at sea level

Anyone have some 190D9 data? All I have are some general 190 serise document from FockWulfe, which give climb to 10,000m (33,000 feet) as 16.8 minute at normal power and 12.5 minutes at military power

 

[KraziKanuK]

Notice the date on the graphs > March 45

 

[KraziKanuK]

Jabber, the use of MW50 increased the climb rate from 17.8m/s to 22.5m/s at low level.

Lots of D-9 reports here, http://www.spitfireperformance.com/fw190/fw190d9test.html

 

[Soren]

According to those doc's using "Sonder Notleistung" the Dora-9 at normal combat weight and equipped with ETC-504 rack would reach 6km in 5min 43 sec. Without the ETC-504 rack and using "Sonder notleistung mit a lader als bodenmotor" this time would be even lower.

Things are starting to make some sense..

 

[wwii:)aircraft]

I may be coming from know where but I'd say that it is the Fw-190D, and not the F4U-4 Corsair that was the best fighter of WWII. Lets be realistic, I could talk about an aircraft such as the Ta-152, but i won't for it had little to no combat whatsoever. Although the Fw-190D entered a stage of the war in which the Allies had complete air superiority over the Luftwaffe, it was a remarkable aircraft. What makes it such an excellent fighter is that it combines the strong points of the Fw-190A with that of the Bf 109G. The aircraft was much easier to fly than the Bf 109G and Fw-190A, it had the best cockpit visibility for any German fighter (only second to the Me 262), excelled in the vertical boom zoom, and also had a range and speed very similar to that of the P-47D.

 

[CORSNING]

wwii
First of all, before making a blank statement that the Fw190D was better than the F4U-4, you have to decide "at what". There manueverability was very close at certain speeds and heights.
The Corsair was the hands down better load carrier (4,000 lbs capability). If we are talking a 1-on-1 dogfight, I would say the win would go to the better pilot that just happens to be having better luck that day. I do not have my files with me at this time, so I'm using what little memory I have on the following performance figures. I remember the Fw190D speed being around 350mph/S.L and 438mph somewhere around 30,000ft.? Initial climb from performance charts was about 3,700fpm. and I have seen it calculated with MW50 around 4,400fpm. The Ta 152H figures are (from memory) 375mph/S.L., around 450mph/20,000ft. Initial climb in the 4,000fpm range, although I have seen post that claim as high as 5,100fpm....??? Max speed reaching just over 465 way up around 40,000ft.
The F4U-4 figures from 1947 test results: 383mph/S.L, 463mph/22,000ft. Initial climb: 4,770fpm. increasing to over 4,800fpm around 6,000ft.
I am not saying the F4U was hands down better across the board compared to the Fw190D. I'm just saying it was highly competitive.
I believe I read in a Ta-152 book that the handling qualities of the D did not equal the A's. The D rolled about the same and turned better though.

 

[Kryten]

Never sat in a Corsair, but having tried the representation in flight sims I was struck by the lack of rear visibility, now I bear in mind this is a simulation, but could anyone comment on the rear cockpit armour which seems to restrict rear visibility on the representation?

 

[post76]

Looking at performance figures for the F4U-1, it had similar performance to the Fw190A6.
It was said to have performed better in the horizontal, making tighter turns and at higher speeds.
Climb was similar, roll was similar and dive was similar.
I see a lot of hype on the F4U-1C/D versions but the 1A with water injection was one of the faster and lighter versions.
It retained the clean wing and pushed 440mph at 65" w/water.
Its performance was most noted for its acceleration and power climbs.
F4Us did not have the dive speed (Vmax) of their counterparts which is perhaps why they weren't seen in the ETO.

Robert S Johnson trained attack runs on the F4U while flying the P-47. He commented the F4U and Fw190 were very similar as well, but he felt at altitude the F4U was a tad faster.

From that standpoint the Spitfire might compare against the F4U in a similar way as the Fw190, just remember it could turn tighter.

As for the F4U-4 being the most advanced fighter?
It may very well have been a top performer of the WW2 era.
Was it the most advanced by the end of WW2?
No, IMO. I still think there were more advancements with the P-47N and later model P-47D-40. Not a matter of performance but things like rear radar detection, and better mixture controls for range, and an auto-pilot.
The F4U would eventually see similar types of upgrades with the introduction of the F4U-5, easily one of the best fighters of the era but it wouldn't see combat in WW2.

 

[Readie]

It really is amazingly simple. The Spitfire was the best.
1939 - 1954
No other comes close.
Cheers
John

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Readie is to the RAF as Ratsel is to the Luftwaffe.

 

[Readie]

Readie is to the RAF as Ratsel is to the Luftwaffe.

Chris, very droll

 

[CORSNING]

post 76,
Please elaborate. My documents show that the F4U-1 was capable of 436mph/17,900ft and 2,890fpm initially at 65"/2,300hp. I do not have documents on the Fw-190A-6 to make a comparison.
Readie,
I don't now about that. The Bf.109 was in the Spanish Civil War. Operational just a tad bit before the Spitfire. With every mark of Spitfire came a Bf.109 equal right up to 1945. Don't get me wrong, I think the Spit was an awesome weapon. But It was not always supreme throughout the war.