Page 1 of 23 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 342

Thread: Corsair vs. BF 109G,K or FW 190's

  1. #1
    Member 16KJV11's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Timbuktu
    Posts
    78
    Post Thanks / Like

    Corsair vs. BF 109G,K or FW 190's

    How would one of the US Navy's top fighters in the Pacific (the Corsair) match up to top aircraft in the Euopean Theatre such as the later BF 109's and FW 190's?

    Last edited by 16KJV11; 11-02-2007 at 10:59 PM. Reason: Clarification
    r2
    If you think practicing what you preach is rough, just try preaching what you practice.

  2. #2
    Senior Member lesofprimus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Long Island Native in Mississippi
    Posts
    19,166
    Post Thanks / Like
    Pretty much eat them for lunch...



  3. #3
    Member CPWN's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    32
    Post Thanks / Like
    British test pilot Eric Brown seems ever to say Corsair II is inferior to Fw190A.

  4. #4
    Senior Member comiso90's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    FL
    Posts
    3,672
    Post Thanks / Like
    Last edited by comiso90; 11-03-2007 at 12:36 AM.

  5. #5
    Der Crew Chief DerAdlerIstGelandet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    USA/Germany
    Posts
    40,706
    Post Thanks / Like
    I think overall the Fw 190 and the Corsair would be a pretty good match. Ofcourse at certain alltitudes each one had its advantages. Corsair had the speed and range advantage.

    I think it would come down to pilot skill.

    I dont like Browns rating system so I take what he has to say with a grain of salt.


    fly boy:"isnt that the first jet bomber becasue i have flown one in a flight sim before and i know how it handles"

  6. #6
    Senior Member comiso90's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    FL
    Posts
    3,672
    Post Thanks / Like
    I think aircraft designed from the start as carrier vs. land based are automatically handicapped. If a carrier based aircraft is comparable, it is a engineering victory.

    .

  7. #7
    Banned Kurfürst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Aquincum, Pannonia Prima
    Posts
    1,076
    Post Thanks / Like
    Which Corsair? Which 190? Which 109...?

  8. #8
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Lisbon
    Posts
    36
    Post Thanks / Like
    there is no way to compare these 3 fighters .. but i think that the fighters that combat in europe may be better that pacific fighters (europe was a very hostile theater more that the pacific) so i think the bf ou fw may be better that corsair.

  9. #9
    Senior Member lesofprimus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Long Island Native in Mississippi
    Posts
    19,166
    Post Thanks / Like
    In a "typical" combat, the Fw 190A-8 with normal combat load, and the F4U-1D in similar drag, it really wouldnt be much of a contest.... The Corsair was a much better performer....

    If we compare the Fw 190D-9/13 against the -1D, it becomes alittle different to compare, but then, if u take the next generation of Focke Wulf, u have to take the next gen of Corsair, and the F4U-4 is in a class of its own....

    However, the pilots who are flying in this "mythical" combat would be the deciding factor...



  10. #10
    “Archive” Micdrow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    6,543
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by lesofprimus View Post
    However, the pilots who are flying in this "mythical" combat would be the deciding factor...
    Very true Les

    "Valor does not mean Hero."

  11. #11
    Senior Member drgondog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Scurry, Texas
    Posts
    6,673
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by lesofprimus View Post
    In a "typical" combat, the Fw 190A-8 with normal combat load, and the F4U-1D in similar drag, it really wouldnt be much of a contest.... The Corsair was a much better performer....

    If we compare the Fw 190D-9/13 against the -1D, it becomes alittle different to compare, but then, if u take the next generation of Focke Wulf, u have to take the next gen of Corsair, and the F4U-4 is in a class of its own....

    However, the pilots who are flying in this "mythical" combat would be the deciding factor...
    Dead on. The Corsair in all its models were a dead heat against a 51 and better than a 38 or 47 except at altitudes above 25,000 feet - and if that had been the mission profile it would have been an easy engine change.

    I believe that the Fw190D-13 may have been a better dogfighter at than all of the 47D, 51D, 38L and F4U-4 above 34,000ft but who the hell was going to fight up there when the mission was at 20-26,000 ft - and the 51H fits in next Gen with 47N and F4U-4 - bring it down there and you are in the strike zone of all of our best fighters

  12. #12
    Senior Member drgondog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Scurry, Texas
    Posts
    6,673
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by comiso90 View Post
    I think aircraft designed from the start as carrier vs. land based are automatically handicapped. If a carrier based aircraft is comparable, it is a engineering victory.

    .
    The F4U was virtually a dead heat in a fight with a 51 and given equal pilot skill was better below 15-20K feet - so by definition it was a match in most combat against the 109G and Fw190A6. In the same arena it would do well against the Fw190D-9 (in my opinion) an it would have been well matched by the Me109K above 20,000 feet

    Brown had a lot of pilot experience in all these aircraft and deserves respect for his opinions..but in a long running debate (gentlemanly) in which I questioned his rankings of both the P-51 and F4U below the F6F and Fw190 he declared victory on the 190 based on Critical Mach number being higher!

    He won our argument because I could never find the Mcr on either the F4U or Fw190... and candidly the debate blurred between objective performance metrics, and the more subject contibution to the war and multi roles.

    His argument for placing the F6F above the P-51 was based on the crucial impact against JNAF airpower in Pacific while the 51 was joined by P-47, P-48, Spitfire and Tempest agianst the Luftwaffe..

  13. #13
    Senior Member Jank's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    679
    Post Thanks / Like
    As was already pointed out, it depends which Corsair. The 1-D would have afforded little benefit over the late Thundebolt D with paddle blade. The Dash 4 is another animal. Like comparing the Thunderbolt D to the M.

    If you read yhe encounter reports of Pony and Bolt drivers, you will see that a lot of combat in the European Theatre is at higher altitudes. Not so in the Pacific.

    http://mywebpages.comcast.net/markw4/MSWF4UDATA.pdf
    Last edited by Jank; 11-03-2007 at 12:30 PM.
    August 12, 1944 - In an armor cover mission at the Falaise track, Charlie Rife, 368th FG, 395th FS, takes 37mm fllak rounds to both wings. His wingman, Richard Kik, takes a 20mm round to the engine that knocks out two cylinders. Both make it back.

  14. #14
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    17
    Post Thanks / Like
    Umm...any of you guys ever read "I Fought You from The Skies" by Willi Heilmann? He flew 190's in the war.

    In the context of experienced pilots...

    He said the only thing they were afraid of were the Jugs diving on them from high above. They didn't fear the Mustangs...the Corsairs were more or less the equal of the Mustang...

    What does that tell you about a good German pilot facing a Corsair?
    Food for thought.

    Bud Anderson also said that the 190 was the equal of the Mustang.

  15. #15
    Senior Member drgondog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Scurry, Texas
    Posts
    6,673
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Jank View Post
    As was already pointed out, it depends which Corsair. The 1-D would have afforded little benefit over the late Thundebolt D with paddle blade. The Dash 4 is another animal. Like comparing the Thunderbolt D to the M.

    Jank - while the paddle blade did improve the Jug's accleration and hence low to medium altitude performance - even the D-25 through 28 would have struggled against the 190 and 109 and F4U-1 all the way from SL through perhaps 20,000 feet. IIRC the first paddle blade was introduced to the 56th Fg starting in January 1944 and didn't reach such outfits as the 355th or 352nd by the time they were replaced with P-51B's...so wide spread use didn't really happen until April/May timeframe

    There are a lot of encounter reports of out manuevering Fw190 and Me 109 at high altitude where the performance of the D really kicked in - but not so many on the deck - primarily because that's where a lot of 47s were shot down.

    If you read yhe encounter reports of Pony and Bolt drivers, you will see that a lot of combat in the European Theatre is at higher altitudes. Not so in the Pacific.

    true - but neither the Jug nor the 51 particularly dominated the Fw or Me109 at low to medium altitudes either

    http://mywebpages.comcast.net/markw4/MSWF4UDATA.pdf
    I would add a point. The F4u-1D was introduced about the time the Paddle Blade was added to the P-47D-10(?) and the R2800-8 boosted the max HP about 12% giving the lighter Corsair and even better comparison against the 51 and the 47.

    Having said all this I Do NOT have inflight, performance comparisons to throw at you so consider my comments in that light?

Page 1 of 23 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •