PDA

View Full Version : corsair, hellcat and the 190



Biloxi72
07-31-2004, 11:26 AM
S!
I read that there was a test done comparing these three planes. I am unsure which model of the corsair was used in the test and how they did against the 190. If anyone has a link to or can post this test i would be grateful.

Regards

Biloxi72
07-31-2004, 11:26 AM
S!
I read that there was a test done comparing these three planes. I am unsure which model of the corsair was used in the test and how they did against the 190. If anyone has a link to or can post this test i would be grateful.

Regards

Flying_Merkava
07-31-2004, 11:58 PM
The were also movies of Israeli Fighter pilots in F-15's shooting down Alien Flying Soucers, Ide like a link to see that too.

----------------------------

This interview was on Nat'l Public Radio (npr) in mid January.
A female was interviewing Marine Corps General Reinwald
about a Boy Scout visit to his base.
She was told the Boy Scouts were to be taught about guns.
She asked, "But you are equiping them to be violent killers." The General replied,
"Well you're equiped to be a prostitute, but you're not one, are you?"
The radio went silent and the interview ended. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/88.gif

warweapon2
08-01-2004, 12:44 AM
Thanks asshat

RedDeth
08-01-2004, 02:20 AM
lol

www.fighterjocks.net (http://www.fighterjocks.net) home of 12 time Champions AFJ http://66.237.29.231/IL2FS/round9.cfm http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/120_1088291823_taylor-greycap.jpg

Flying_Merkava
08-01-2004, 10:54 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by warweapon2:
Thanks asshat<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/cry.gif lmao http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/88.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/34.gif

----------------------------

This interview was on Nat'l Public Radio (npr) in mid January.
A female was interviewing Marine Corps General Reinwald
about a Boy Scout visit to his base.
She was told the Boy Scouts were to be taught about guns.
She asked, "But you are equiping them to be violent killers." The General replied,
"Well you're equiped to be a prostitute, but you're not one, are you?"
The radio went silent and the interview ended. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/88.gif

CowboyTodd41
08-01-2004, 10:18 PM
Well although i don't know the results of the tests, I do know they did come up against each other in the ETO since RNFAA used them, so Merkava, you do sond like an asshat.

http://www.spankdonkey.com/jamming/view.php/1782.png

LEXX_Luthor
08-02-2004, 01:29 AM
Yes, they saw UFOs in all theatres.

Biloxi72
08-02-2004, 06:53 AM
S!
I was not joking around, i found a site that tested all three of these planes i believe after the war concluded for the Naval department. It stated that the hell cat and the f4u4 could both outclimb and turn the 190 as well as run with it except at real high alts. I forgot where the site was and which type of 190 it was being tested and hoped that someone might have came across the same test. I found it while researching the corsairs.

Regards

MEGILE
08-02-2004, 07:15 AM
I don't know of any actual tests.. all I know of is what Cpt. Eric Brown said asbout the corsair and FW-190

Corsair II Versus Focke-Wulf 190A-4:

"This would be a contest between a heavyweight and a lightweight fighter, with virtually all the advantages on the side of the latter. Having flown both aircraft a lot, I have no doubt as to which I would rather fly. The Fw 190A-4 could not be bested by the Corsair. The Fw-190A4 was arguably the best piston-engine fighter of World War II. It is a clear winner in combat with the Corsair." - Cpt. Eric Brown

I wonder why he felt the A4 to be such a competitor, anybody read the book which this came out of? Duels in the sky i think its called..I'll have to get a copy off Ebay. Im interested to hear more about what Cpt brown had to say...

http://www.5thairforce.com/e107_files/public/p51darkj.jpg

jpatrick62
08-02-2004, 07:25 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by RufShod:
S!
I was not joking around, i found a site that tested all three of these planes i believe after the war concluded for the Naval department. It stated that the hell cat and the f4u4 could both outclimb and turn the 190 as well as run with it except at real high alts. I forgot where the site was and which type of 190 it was being tested and hoped that someone might have came across the same test. I found it while researching the corsairs.

Regards<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You are corect, that test was done at the Ptuxent Naval Air Station in Maryland during the war, in 1943. However, the Corsair used was a F4U-1D, not a F4U-4. Both the FW190 and the F4U were having some engine troubles, the FW190 would cut out above 33,000 ft and the Corsair was overheating due to a too-lean mixture. The report stated that because of this, the Corsair would probably do somewhat better in actual combat than in this test. The Fw190 was of the A5 type, a real terror in Europe. In many respects, the Corsair and the FW were similar aircraft, both having exceptional roll at any speeds. Climb and speeds were similar, with both having edges at certain altitudes. However, the Corsair was the better turner by a wide margin, with the report stating ther was no manuver the FW190 could do that either the Corsair or Hellcat could not follow with ease. On the other hand, both naval fighters could shake the Fw190 by using tight horizontal turns. The Hellcat lagged both the Corsair and FW190 in performance, particularly climb and acceleration, but was probably a better horizontal turner. Waht is certainly amazing about all of this is that they were comparing carrier fighters, which carry an additional 4-500 lbs of folding wing machanisms and tailhook and framing, against a land-based fighter.

jpatrick62
08-02-2004, 07:27 AM
Oops, I forgot the link -here it is:
Patuxent fighter tests (http://www.geocities.com/slakergmb/id3.htm)
Be aware, ther eis a test between a P51B, Hellcat and early model Corsair there as well.

JG53Frankyboy
08-02-2004, 07:34 AM
well, perhaps carrier based fighters have mostly to face landbased ones.

jpatrick62
08-02-2004, 11:05 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG53Frankyboy:
well, perhaps carrier based fighters have mostly to face landbased ones.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Perhaps, I just thought it amazing that the US Navy had carrier based fighters that could compete on equal terms with land based fighters.

Biloxi72
08-02-2004, 12:28 PM
S!
Ahh thanks Jpatrick sir you have saved me a lot of fustration trying to find this again. It looks like a great read.

Hades_Dragon
08-02-2004, 12:39 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Perhaps, I just thought it amazing that the US Navy had carrier based fighters that could compete on equal terms with land based fighters. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

IMHO USN aircraft such as the Hellcat and Corsair out perform most of the land based competition, whether it be enemy aircraft or other amerrican land based fighters. I would easily take an F4U to a P51 any day.

NegativeGee
08-02-2004, 07:43 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Megile:
I don't know of any actual tests.. all I know of is what Cpt. Eric Brown said asbout the corsair and FW-190

Corsair II Versus Focke-Wulf 190A-4:

"This would be a contest between a heavyweight and a lightweight fighter, with virtually all the advantages on the side of the latter. Having flown both aircraft a lot, I have no doubt as to which I would rather fly. The Fw 190A-4 could not be bested by the Corsair. The Fw-190A4 was arguably the best piston-engine fighter of World War II. It is a clear winner in combat with the Corsair." - Cpt. Eric Brown

I wonder why he felt the A4 to be such a competitor, anybody read the book which this came out of? Duels in the sky i think its called..I'll have to get a copy off Ebay. Im interested to hear more about what Cpt brown had to say...
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

His opinion was based on a A-4/U8 he evaluated in 1944 at Yeovilton. He has a high opinion of the FW series, no doubt partly based on his combat encounters with the type (on one occasion while flying a Spitire XI he and a FW could not get the advantage on the other and eventually both had to rtb as fuel ran low), partly on his evaluations and partly on his debriefings of Kurt Tank after WW2.

He also thought that of all the fighters of WW2, the best three *in descending order) were the Spitfire XVI, FW-190 D9 and P-51D, although with very little between them.

"As weaponry, both were good, but in far different ways from each other. In a nutshell, I describe it this way: if the FW 190 was a sabre, the 109 was a florett, or foil, like that used in the precision art of fencing." - Günther Rall

http://www.invoman.com/images/tali_with_hands.jpg

Look Noobie, we already told you, we don't have the Patch!

MEGILE
08-03-2004, 05:21 AM
Excellent stuff NegativeG http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

http://www.5thairforce.com/e107_files/public/p51darkj.jpg

TgD Thunderbolt56
08-03-2004, 05:30 AM
Hmmmm. I need to come here more than once or twice a week. This is good stuff. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

TB

.


Our FB server info: http://www.greatergreen.com/il2

jpatrick62
08-03-2004, 03:12 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>

He also thought that of all the fighters of WW2, the best three *in descending order) were the Spitfire XVI, FW-190 D9 and P-51D, although with very little between them.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I guess each test pilot had their own preferred mounts - probably geared towared their own flying habits. It's interesting that the P51D was not judged as well during the 1944 Interservice fighter conference, where test pilots from many of the Allied countries tested each of the current manufacturer's goodies.

LEXX_Luthor
08-03-2004, 03:17 PM
Unlike P~51, the Corsair needed a carrier to get within flying range. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Tater-SW-
08-03-2004, 03:57 PM
Unlike the P-51D, the F4U could fly home with a cylinder head or two blown clean off http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

tater

NegativeGee
08-03-2004, 04:31 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JPatrick62:
I guess each test pilot had their own preferred mounts - probably geared towared their own flying habits. It's interesting that the P51D was not judged as well during the 1944 Interservice fighter conference, where test pilots from many of the Allied countries tested each of the current manufacturer's goodies.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, thats true. I'm curious as to how much opportunity Brown had to fly Soviet types, I wonder what his opinion of things like the LaG 7 and Yak 3 would have been.

I noticed the same sort of thing in the conclusions of the Hellcat/Corsair/FW-190 A5 evaluations you linked. I was not surprised that the USN test pilots rated their planes over the Focke-Wulf (section: relative opinions of types), but was by their justification. They thought the automated features (mixture and prop controls I guess?) on the German plane were a "bad" thing, stating that the manual type fitted on the American planes gave the pilot better ability to exract the most out of their engine in combat operations.

"As weaponry, both were good, but in far different ways from each other. In a nutshell, I describe it this way: if the FW 190 was a sabre, the 109 was a florett, or foil, like that used in the precision art of fencing." - Günther Rall

http://www.invoman.com/images/tali_with_hands.jpg

Look Noobie, we already told you, we don't have the Patch!

Fliger747
08-03-2004, 05:25 PM
"Winkle" Brown did a test of the La-7, published in his book "Testing For Combat" (Airlife: England) and was impressed by the aircraft with regards to handling and performance, but not with regards to armament, instrumtation (important) pilot protection (just about none) and ability to absorb damage (wooden construction).

As with many things "Russian", the simple "90% good enough" solution, and efective in a theater where "numbers have their own quality".

jpatrick62
08-05-2004, 08:51 AM
Just got a copy of the 1944 Interservice fighter conference. The participants were test pilots from the Army Air Corps, Britain, Australia, the USN, and of course each manufacurer. Each test pilot flew one of the folowing ships:

P38L, P51D, FG1, F4U-1A, F4U-4, F2G, Seafire, firefly, F6f-5, F2F, F8F, F7F, P63, P47D, P47M,
Zero, and some others I cannot recall (book not in front of me).

Its an intereseting read, very technical, and basically lays out each planes strnghts and weaknesses realtive to each other.

Fliger747
08-05-2004, 10:36 AM
That is a great book for anyone interested in the real in's and out's of fighters of that era. Especially interesting is some of the discussion on engines, power boosting and canopies (bubble types). In the back are some good graphs and data as well as some drawings of the "breakaway" wing tips on the F8F

jpatrick62
08-05-2004, 12:13 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Fliger747:
That is a great book for anyone interested in the real in's and out's of fighters of that era. Especially interesting is some of the discussion on engines, power boosting and canopies (bubble types). In the back are some good graphs and data as well as some drawings of the "breakaway" wing tips on the F8F<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

There are also some eye-opening suprises. Capt Brown stated that the Corsair's harmony of controls was "awful", the rudder "Stiff." Guess which plane amongst the American and British test pilots at the conference was judged to have the best harmony of controls and rudder (out of P51, seafire, P47D & M, F6f, P38, F4U, f2f, etc)? Yeah, you guessed it, the Corsair. Capt Brown and the participants of the Interservice fighter conference do not agree..

Doug_Thompson
08-05-2004, 01:58 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JPatrick62:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG53Frankyboy:
well, perhaps carrier based fighters have mostly to face landbased ones.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Perhaps, I just thought it amazing that the US Navy had carrier based fighters that could compete on equal terms with land based fighters.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Hellcat and Corsair had a 2000hp engine. That model of the Focke Wulf had, I believe, a 1700hp engine. The Corsair got more good out the horsepower because of that enormous prop.

Also, I don't know how much synchronization gear weighs for the cowl-mounted MG's in the FW 190, but that's some slight offset to the folding wing, heavier construction, etc.

http://www.model-news.com/projekt/335col/baerlog.jpg
Proud Charter Member of the Do-Do Birds Luftwhiners Chorus

Fliger747
08-05-2004, 06:24 PM
Over the years I have been to England and the "colonies" many many times. Capt. Winkle Brown's writings are interesting, though often I will politely disagree with him on his assesments. He for some reason finds the F4U an "ugly" airplane, to each his own I guess...

Another intersting rating by him places the Swordfish ahead of the TBF in rating the "greatest torpedo plane" of WWII. My apologies to my brit friends out there, but he IS (Clintonian emphasis) a Brit.

Bunker Hill
08-06-2004, 07:34 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Unlike P~51, the Corsair needed a carrier to get within flying range<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'd say 1100 (internal) to 2200 (+external) miles range is more than satisfactory. The Mustang would be hard pressed to exceed those numbers by more than 100 miles respectively.

jpatrick62
08-06-2004, 10:34 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Fliger747:
Over the years I have been to England and the "colonies" many many times. Capt. Winkle Brown's writings are interesting, though often I will politely disagree with him on his assesments. He for some reason finds the F4U an "ugly" airplane, to each his own I guess...

Another intersting rating by him places the Swordfish ahead of the TBF in rating the "greatest torpedo plane" of WWII. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So capt. Brown preferred the "stringbag" to the TBF? I read accounts where the stringbag was so slow it was actually an asset. In one story, the German fighters could not shoot down some stringbags in the Mediterranian cause these could not slow down enough to make an effective
shot. I guess I would have to side with the 1944 Interservice fighter conference and the Navy tests at Patuxents over Capt Brown. Lets face it- the interservice fighter conference had test pilots from Britain, Australia, the Army Air corps and the Navy and their conclusions differ greatly from Capt Brown's. No slight to the good Capt....

Fliger747
08-06-2004, 11:11 AM
To digress from the original topic a bit, the biggest drawback to the P51-D when fully loaded with fuel was the far aft CG, which made the flying charcteristics VERY BAD till some of the fuel was burned off. Having on ocassion flown aircraft with such charcteristics, it's a real handfull. The long snout of the F4U, and inverted gull wing allowed the Corsair to carry a good external fuel load and still retain decent handling. The F6F external tanks likewise kept the exta fuel under the center of lift.

During the 1944 P51 "Carrier Quals" the main limiting factor was rudder control. The minimum approach speed was 82 mph, limited by full rudder authority, and the max structural landing speed for arrested traps was 90 mph! A narrow window! However the plane did have good low speed handling charcteristics and a reasonable forward view. After the capture of Iwo Jima the project was abandoned as un-necessary.