Hellcat and Corsair vs. Messerschmidt 109 and FockWulf 190

[Ghostdancer]

The Hellcat and Corsair which saw service in the Pacific - as far as I know. How would these have matched up to the German Messerschmidt 109 and FW-190. Always wondered about this.

[Colin1]

Which version of each aircraft is involved in the comparison?

[lesofprimus]

Gotta have the specifics, as well as the roles ur trying to compare.... Pacific vs ETO is not a good means of comparision...

[Ghostdancer]

Whichever versions were the most advanced late in the war I guess, in air to air combat.

[davebender]

The Hellcat and Corsair entered combat in quantity during mid 1943. So I think that's a good starting point for this discussion.

Me-109G6
Fw-190A5. Fw-190A6.

The Hellcat and Corsar will be early models.
F6F-3 (I think this was the first production model)
F4U-1.

[MikeGazdik]

I would say that the Hellcat and Corsair would match up well with the Focke Wulf. The Hellcat would have a speed disadvantage vs the FW 190. I think the F4U and Fw 190 are about a close as two completely different planes could be. I think any fight between these would be pilot vs pilot for sure.

The Me 109 would have some advantages at higher altitudes than all 3 other aircraft, all owning to the better altitude capability of the Daimler engine. This fight would be dictated by altitude at which the fight begins. As altitude is lost, the Hellcat and Corsair become stronger.

[davebender]

F4U and Fw 190 are about a close as two completely different planes could be.

I agree with this. However I think the F6F would be outclassed by the Me-109G in most situations. In fact even the late war F6F-5 would have a tough time vs the 1943 Me-109G6.

F6F-5.
F6F Hellcat - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
380 mph max speed.
Me-109F4 and later have a speed advantage.

3,500 ft/min climb.
The Me-109F4 and later have an advantage.

6 x .50cal MG.
All Me-109G (with 3cm prop cannon) have a firepower advantage.

.16 hp / lb.
The Me-109F4 and later have a superior power to weight ratio. That translates into superior acceleration.

Wing loading is roughly equal. Both should be good in stall fight.

The F6F is more rugged by virtue of being twice as heavy. There is more metal to shoot away. However ruggedness doesn't count for much when the opponent is firing 3cm mine shells (Me-109G) or 4 x MG151/20 with mine shells (Fw-190).

[renrich]

Late war F4U4 would be slightly to decidedly superior at altitudes where most combat took place to any FW190 or ME109. The F6F5 would not have much if any edge on late model DWs or MEs. If combat took place very far from base, both German fighters would be severely handicapped.

[davebender]

If combat took place very far from base, both German fighters would be severely handicapped.

That holds true for any fighter aircraft. The defender gets ground (or ship) based radar assistance and the pilot is not fatigued by several hours of flying. Not to mention the defender has a nearly fully tank of fuel while the attacker must keep one eye on the fuel guage.

[claidemore]

Check this out. Comparison by USN of FW, Hellcat and Corsair.
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.o...0/ptr-1107.pdf

[renrich]

The point is, Dave, that the Corsair and Hellcat could fight much further from base than could the two German fighters.

The F4U4 was a horse of an different color than the F4U1 in the comparison, Claidemore. It was a real upgrade in performance over the earlier Corsairs.

[zoomar]

Which why it is hard to compare two German land-based interceptors used in Europe with two long-range naval fighters primarily used in the Pacific. Both German planes had to be armed with cannon to bring down well-protected multi-engined heavy bombers as well as fighters. The US planes could do with their paltry six .50 cal MGs because they were primarly facing lightly constructed Japanese fighters and poorly protected bombers such as the Ki-21 and G4M.

Aren't there numerous instances of FAA Hellcats engaging FW190s and Bf109s in the ETO?

[renrich]

Zoomar, those "paltry" six fifties or four or eight shot down many, many enemy aircraft of all descriptions in the PTO and ETO and for that matter, in the Korean War. To say that you underestimate the 50 BMG perhaps is an understatement. Only a few encounters between FAA Hellcats and LW fighters occurred.
The fact is that in an encounter between two fighters, six fifties would arguably be more effective than cannon.

[zoomar]

I knew "paltry" would get a rise out of somebody.

You do have a point that six .50s work against Luftwaffe fighters. I've seen enough gun camera footage to know that. I've also seen a lot of footage where those.50 cals are peppering away at an Fw-190 or Bf-110 for what seems like forever before the German turns over and heads down. This tells me that, to get a kill with just MGs , it works best if the shooter is an experienced pilot who can stay on an enemy's tail for a long time and the shootee is a rookie who can barely fly his Fw190 in a straight line, let alone dodge his way out of Chuck Yeager's line of sight. Given pilots of equal experience and skill, I'd take an Fw190 with four 20mm cannon or a Bf-109 with a couple of 15mm cannon and a 30mm gun in the propellor hub anytime. I suspect most USAAF pilots would say the same thing.

[Colin1]

This tells me that, to get a kill with just MGs , it works best if the shooter is an experienced pilot who can stay on an enemy's tail for a long time and the shootee is a rookie who can barely fly his Fw190 in a straight line, let alone dodge his way out of Chuck Yeager's line of sight. Given pilots of equal experience and skill, I'd take an Fw190 with four 20mm cannon or a Bf-109 with a couple of 15mm cannon and a 30mm gun in the propellor hub anytime. I suspect most USAAF pilots would say the same thing

You suspect?
That's quite a leap of faith.
For my part, I'd imagine that 'most USAAF pilots' would baulk at the prospect of trying to harmonise the assimilar trajectory paths and muzzle velocities of the two cannon calibres you mention. In your 'pilots of equal experience and skill' scenario, who's going to have the biggest headache putting a solution on his opponent, considering that they're highly likely to be executing high-g evasive combat manoeuvres to stay out of harm's way?

They might also be worried about the limited ammunition supply, especially as they're the ones playing away from home.

You're not the first who's come on here and under-estimated the destructive power of 6 x .50s or even 4 x .50s in fighter vs fighter combat. If you have any documental evidence of USAAF pilots complaining about their armament over that of the Axis fighters they were facing, we'd like to see it.