Corsair vs. BF 109G,K or FW 190's (1 Viewer)

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

I would agree in saying that the corsair overpowered the G-6 seing that it was much faster, at higher speeds was more maneuverable and always could out dive the bf 109; not to mention the corsair was a muchh more stable gun platform and we already know how effective the 6x .50cals were against the bf 109 (in the P-51). But when you move onto 1944 when you have variants such as the G-14, DB605AS powered bf 109s, and then the K the F4U-1D not only is either match or overpoered in speed but the bf 109s rate of climb is also enhanced.
 
I think it's safe to assume 3cm mine shells would put a Corsair down for the count. So both aircraft have enough firepower to destroy the opponent. Whoever hits first will win.
 
The performance relies greatly on altitude. At 15000ft the Bf 109 K even with only 1.8 ata outruns F4U-1 by some nearly ten miles per hour [1] [2]. Look at that chart closely and the F4U is about even with the 109 at its supercharger critical altitudes. That was speed,

climb. [3] [1] shows that Bf 109 K climbs slightly better, but significantly better at around 12000ft. The F4U-1 pilot should seek to fight somewhere near any of its supercharger critical altitudes, and not at its supercharger gear switch altitudes. As for turn rate, the F4U-1 looks better by wing loading, but I cannot find proof that it indeed turns better.

Note: I used the F4U-1 because I cannot find any report of a 2.0ata Bf 109 K, and if I do, I'll bring up the F4U-4 to compare to it.

[1] Spitfire Mk XIV versus Me 109 G/K
[2] http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f4u/50030-level-final.jpg
[3] http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f4u/50030-climb-final.jpg
 
The performance relies greatly on altitude. At 15000ft the Bf 109 K even with only 1.8 ata outruns F4U-1 by some nearly ten miles per hour [1] [2]. Look at that chart closely and the F4U is about even with the 109 at its supercharger critical altitudes. That was speed,

climb. [3] [1] shows that Bf 109 K climbs slightly better, but significantly better at around 12000ft. The F4U-1 pilot should seek to fight somewhere near any of its supercharger critical altitudes, and not at its supercharger gear switch altitudes. As for turn rate, the F4U-1 looks better by wing loading, but I cannot find proof that it indeed turns better.

Note: I used the F4U-1 because I cannot find any report of a 2.0ata Bf 109 K, and if I do, I'll bring up the F4U-4 to compare to it.

[1] Spitfire Mk XIV versus Me 109 G/K
[2] http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f4u/50030-level-final.jpg
[3] http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f4u/50030-climb-final.jpg

Just a tip - be advised that this thread has been inactive for almost 9 years. Some of the original posters may still be around, others may be long gone. Nothing wrong with resurrecting an old thread but you may not get a response if you direct your response to a specific post.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back