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

[CORSNING]

davparir,
I read the report on 44-1 fuel that you posted. It said the merlin 66 in the Mk.IX was cleared for +25 and the Mk.XIV was cleared for +21 boost. I saw the general statement."It is understood that the maximum permissible boost pressure in these engines is plus 25-lbs per sq.inch". The statement was saying that of all the engines tested safely, that +25 boost was the maximum permitted in ANY of them. Not ALL of them.
Later Griffon engines were cleared for +25 boost, but not the Griffon 61/65. At least not for combat durring WW2. It was tested extensively in hopes of catching V-1s though.
I know that the Mk.VIII with the Griffon installed was capable of around 5,100fpm. That was a prototype for the Mk.XIV. I believe the maximum climb rate of the Spit 14 at +21 is somewhere in the middle of 4,700-5,100fpm. Like I said, I have not seen figures or graph showing the climb rate of the Mk.14 at +21 boost. I would love to though.
I'm agreeing with Vincenzo on this one.
Oh, and one last thing The F4U-4's figures in clean (no pylons) are: 383mph/SL AND 4,770fpm/SL. (actually the climb rate is with the double clip wing pylons). Apples to apples and interceptor to interceptor.

 

[Milosh]

davparir,

I know that the Mk.VIII with the Griffon installed was capable of around 5,100fpm.

The Mk VIII used a Merlin engine.

 

[CORSNING]

Milosh,
That's correct except for the one used for the Mk.14 prototype. They had to take a Spitfire frame from somewhere for the tests.

 

[spicmart]

F4U-4 375 4150 446at26k 440 2800
Fw-190D-9 385 4430 431at16k 418 2165
Spitfire XIV 389 5000 447at26k 446 3100

IIRC the top speed of the Fw 190D-9 was about 438 mph with MW50 at about 16k.

 

[Siegfried]

IIRC the top speed of the Fw 190D-9 was about 438 mph with MW50 at about 16k.

Yes, much of the data about the FW 190D-9 is testing data from FW done for aerodynamic purposes and not to ascertain top speed.
The Basic Jumo 213A was a bomber engine and ran at 1750hp on 87 octane B4 fuel. Three power raising boost systems were introduced within a few weeks of intial service entry.
1 A rich mixture system that injected fuel into the eye of the supercharger, this achieved 1900hp.
2 The Oldenberg system of MW50 water methanol injection, installed by Luftwaffe technicians. Supercharger pressure was used to pressurise the MW50 tank and blow the mixture into the inlet.
3 A more developed high flow MW50 system that pumped the mixture in, this required control system modificatcations by junkers technicians, this was the 438mph version.
4 There was also a version which combined the above with C3 (96/130) octane fuel may have seen servive on eastern front.

It should be noted that the speed of 438mph is respectable given the low altitude it was achieved at and the 87 octane fuel.

The Jumo 213A used on the Fw 190D-9 engine was a bomber engine left over from cancelled Ju 188 production. It had a single stage two speed supercharger. A proper fighter engine would have been the Jumo 213C which incorporated all of the power boostiing systems and produced 2000hp on C3 alone. It also had the mountings for an engine canon and the required propeller. Jumo 213A was interim solution. The 213C probably fell foul of high octane fuel issues.

The Fw 190D-13 had a Jumo 213F or (potentially EB engine) with a two stage 3 speed supercharger of around 2240 or 2300+ power. It also had hydraulic boosted ailerons. Speed was 458mph. A few got into service and Goetz's Yellow 12 survives in the NASM.

Of course the FW 190D series itself were also interim to the more modified long span high altitude Ta 152H and Ta 152C (which had shorter wings for more agillity)

Some versions of the D-13 were to get wing tanks for considerably greater range, where the outer 20mm guns were.

 

[spicmart]

Thanks for the info, Siegfried!

 

[jim]

Yes, much of the data about the FW 190D-9 is testing data from FW done for aerodynamic purposes and not to ascertain top speed.
The Basic Jumo 213A was a bomber engine and ran at 1750hp on 87 octane B4 fuel. Three power raising boost systems were introduced within a few weeks of intial service entry.
1 A rich mixture system that injected fuel into the eye of the supercharger, this achieved 1900hp.
2 The Oldenberg system of MW50 water methanol injection, installed by Luftwaffe technicians. Supercharger pressure was used to pressurise the MW50 tank and blow the mixture into the inlet.
3 A more developed high flow MW50 system that pumped the mixture in, this required control system modificatcations by junkers technicians, this was the 438mph version.
4 There was also a version which combined the above with C3 (96/130) octane fuel may have seen servive on eastern front.

It should be noted that the speed of 438mph is respectable given the low altitude it was achieved at and the 87 octane fuel.

The Jumo 213A used on the Fw 190D-9 engine was a bomber engine left over from cancelled Ju 188 production. It had a single stage two speed supercharger. A proper fighter engine would have been the Jumo 213C which incorporated all of the power boostiing systems and produced 2000hp on C3 alone. It also had the mountings for an engine canon and the required propeller. Jumo 213A was interim solution. The 213C probably fell foul of high octane fuel issues.

The Fw 190D-13 had a Jumo 213F or (potentially EB engine) with a two stage 3 speed supercharger of around 2240 or 2300+ power. It also had hydraulic boosted ailerons. Speed was 458mph. A few got into service and Goetz's Yellow 12 survives in the NASM.

Of course the FW 190D series itself were also interim to the more modified long span high altitude Ta 152H and Ta 152C (which had shorter wings for more agillity)

Some versions of the D-13 were to get wing tanks for considerably greater range, where the outer 20mm guns were.

Mr Siegfried
Could you answer me a few questions? You have great knowledge
a) The version that combined the high pressure Mw50 with C3 fuel was the mythical 2240 hp rating? It is the first time after years that i read somewhere that this version saw service. But it is true that i have read reports of Dora pilots on the eastern front that praised the aircraft ( the same aircrft that soviets test pilots considered ,post war, inferior)
b)In Hermann s book Ta 152, page 133, there is a mention about future use of MW100. Do you have any idea what was that?
c) In most books i see 1750/2050 hp with Mw 50 for the 213F. You confirm 2240hp? Interestingly,after 8/5/45 , a D13 fought well in mock compat,at low level with Tempest which produced ,according to our anglosaxons friends, 3000+++ hp at 13 lb boost
d) In Hermann book i read about integral engine cowling planned for the Ta 152 that would boost speed. Uhfortunately the book is not written with precision .Do you know what this modification was? Could this apply to D9 as well?
e) Was ever consider to use DB 603 A supercharger on jumo 213 A ? Would be possible? 213 s supercharger appears that was not only giving mediocre medium-high altitude performance but was relatively unreliable as well
f) D13 was using a radiator type of lower drug ?(drum type?)
g) While the aircraft had great potential , from the varius books i read, i have the impression that only a minority of the service aircrafts fully achieved the performance goals due to varius difficulties. Do you agree ?
h) Do you believe that would be possible for Lw to face fighters like P51H, Spit 24 , F4U-5 using B4 fuel?
Thank you in advance

 

[Denniss]

The Jumo 213C was just a 213A with the ability to install a Motorkanone. Changes from the 213A is some secondary equipment moved to different places to free-up space for the gun barrel.
Getting 2240PS was only possible with a different supercharger setup optimized for low altitude operations.
MW-100 wouldn't make much sense as it would be pure Methanol. AFAIR they experimented with MW-30 and EW-30 systems, using just 30% Methanol or Ethanol.
The 213E/F couldn't deliver that much power with MW-50 as the supercharger consumed more engine power and the gear setup might have been a litle different as well.
I don't think it was possible to use a DB supercharger on a Jumo engie - too different setups and space requirements.

 

[davparlr]

davparir,
I read the report on 44-1 fuel that you posted. It said the merlin 66 in the Mk.IX was cleared for +25 and the Mk.XIV was cleared for +21 boost. I saw the general statement."It is understood that the maximum permissible boost pressure in these engines is plus 25-lbs per sq.inch". The statement was saying that of all the engines tested safely, that +25 boost was the maximum permitted in ANY of them. Not ALL of them.
Later Griffon engines were cleared for +25 boost, but not the Griffon 61/65. At least not for combat durring WW2. It was tested extensively in hopes of catching V-1s though.
I know that the Mk.VIII with the Griffon installed was capable of around 5,100fpm. That was a prototype for the Mk.XIV. I believe the maximum climb rate of the Spit 14 at +21 is somewhere in the middle of 4,700-5,100fpm. Like I said, I have not seen figures or graph showing the climb rate of the Mk.14 at +21 boost. I would love to though.
I'm agreeing with Vincenzo on this one.

I believe the data I posted was at 21lbs.

Oh, and one last thing The F4U-4's figures in clean (no pylons) are: 383mph/SL

I can agree with this. I do not know the configuration of the Spit or D-9 relative to racks.

AND 4,770fpm/SL.

I have wrestled with the inconsistency of the F4U-4 climb data for many years and I am still not satisfied with an answer. Flight test on the F4U run by the Navy in August '45 and March '48 on tail number identified aircraft clearly indicates that the rate of climb of the F4U at 2100 to 2250 hp is around 3700 to 3750 ft/min. The F4U-4 hp from WEP to Mil varies from 2380 to 2450 for WEP to 2250 to 2100 for Mil, a delta of between 130 to 350 hp. The P-47D, with an increase of hp from 2200 to 2600, a delta of 400 hp gives an increase in climb of 500 ft/min. Now the F4U is a noted better climber than the P-47 so it should do better. The F6F, a better climber than the F4U, shows an increase of 280 hp generates about 400 ft/min. The F4U-1 (W) was tested at 3400 ft/min ROC at 2095 hp and a 3700 ft/min at 2250 hp. That's 300 ft/min for 165 hp increase. Doubling the horsepower gain to 330 hp, the ROC would increase to only 600 ft/min ROC. The F4U-4 itself is tested at an 800 ft/min increase at a 400 hp increase. So, comparing the data with all other F4U testing, a reasonable rate for the F4U-4 at SL would be more accurately put at around 4400 ft/min. It is unreasonable that a max of 350 hp is going to increase the climb of the F4U-4 by 1000 ft/min, maybe with a 1% air vehicle and engine.

(actually the climb rate is with the double clip wing pylons).

Pylons (wing racks) have little impact on climb other than some added weight.

Apple s to apples and interceptor to interceptor.

I'll correct my data so all your apples line up.

SL
F4U-4 (no racks) 383 mph 4450 ft/min
Fw-190D-9 385 mph 4429 ft/m in
Spit XIV 377 mph 5090 ft/min
P-51B (no racks) 386 mph 4430 ft/min

5k
F4U 402 3200
D-9 405 4134
XIV 395 5000
P-51 400 4420

10k
F4U 425 4200
D-9 428 4134
XIV 414 4450
P-51 420 3900

20k
F4U 457 3500
D-9 423 2902
XIV 433 4000
P-51 442 3200

The fuel weight of the tested F4U tended to be more (heavier) than the other aircraft, however, it also tended to consume more, so it would probably use more fuel than the other aircraft for a given mission.

All of these aircraft performance levels fall pretty close to the testing/manufacturing variables and thus are roughly equal for this envelope. Pilot proficiency and engagement situation would far outweigh any performance differences.

It is interesting to note that the P-51B/D was operationally capable of performing at these levels in May, 1944, one full year before the F4U-4 was operational. While the F4U-4, the Spitfire XIV, operational at these levels in the spring of '45, and the Fw-190D-9, operational in the fall of '44, are powerful, capable fighters, the P-51B/D with its upgraded fuel was still pretty even in performance with these great fighters later in the war.

 

[CORSNING]

davparir,
I totally agree with your summation. I also agree with joedee's ending sentence. There is no definitive winner. Except possibly in categories: Low altitude interceptor, Long range escort, High altitude air superiority, Ground attack...etc. And even then it all boils down to "WHAT DO YOU NEED THE A/C TO DO?". All the late war first line fighters had their pros and cons. Any one of them was lethal in the right hands or situations. We kick around numbers to try to get a little better clarification on what each A/C's limits really were, but they were actually whatever the pilot was willing to take them to.

For the record. The following figures for the F4U-4 were taken directly from the USN report of 1947. Except speeds other than sea level, 25,000ft and over. Other altitudes are calculated on the basis that the pylons added between 8-12 mph. drag. Height (ft.)/Speed (mph.)/Climb (fpm): Combat weight of 12,480 lbs.

.......0....383/4,770
.3,280....397/4,780
.5,000....404/4,790
.6,560....411/4,800
.9,840....424/4,910
10,000....428/4,825
13,120....439/4,290
15,000....447/4,300
16,400....445/4,340
19,680....458/3,880
20,000....463/3,800
22,960....463/3,300
25,000....449/2,900
30,000....441/2,090
35,000....426/1,200

Figures for the Spitfire and Focke-Wulf I'll leave to those who have researched them more than I.
Ahaaaaa...Just one more thing. Hey Soundbreaker (cool handle) the answer to your original question is YES.

 

[CORSNING]

davparir,
Where did the Spitfire and 190 figures come from? Can you post a graph with info? I would love to see them.
Great stuff buddy. Thanks, Jeff.

 

[Vincenzo]

SL

P-51B (no racks) 386 mph 4430 ft/min

5k

P-51 400 4420

10k

P-51 420 3900

20k

P-51 442 3200


It is interesting to note that the P-51B/D was operationally capable of performing at these levels in May, 1944,.

i'm not sure that P-51 was operationally at these levels from may, but a month or two more is not a large difference
the trouble is you use 75" boost but 8th AF used 72" boost, in other 5k climb it's for lightweight 51

 

[davparlr]

davparir,
Where did the Spitfire and 190 figures come from? Can you post a graph with info? I would love to see them.
Great stuff buddy. Thanks, Jeff.

In general, I have very poor references to British aircraft. The data I used was from a graph on Spitfireperformance on Spit XIV based on estimated 21# performance. It's the best I have.

Spitfire Mk XIV versus Me 109 G/K

As for the Fw-190D-2, I have a Fw chart showing all the speeds of various Fw products including Fw-190A-9, Fw-190D-9, Fw-190D-12, Ta-152H, and more. Unfortunately, it was provided to me on a private message and I don't feel free to share. However, spitfireperformance site chart showing comparisons of various D-9 sources, shows very similar performance using the D-9 line showing the best performance.

FW 190 D-9 Flight Trials


Climb data came from the attached chart.

CORSNING, could you provide me with the data source for the performance you have quoted. I am missing this important data point. It will not solve my conundrum on the variances of the F4U-4 testing but it certainly will weigh it. Thanks.

i'm not sure that P-51 was operationally at these levels from may, but a month or two more is not a large difference

You are correct on the date of implementation. I only identified the time when 75" was approved by the AAF.

the trouble is you use 75" boost but 8th AF used 72" boost,

But 75" was approved by AAF, and that did not mean that it was not available or that it was not used.
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/mustang/combat-reports/353-hinchey-14nov44.jpg

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/mustang/combat-reports/357-yeager-6nov44.jpg

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/mustang/combat-reports/479-riddle-24dec44.jpg
The fact that these pilot noted this performance in there encounter reports indicate three things to me, one, they were aware 75" was available, two, they used it when they needed it, and, finally, and importantly, they were not concerned about stating that they exceeded any doctrine direction to their commanders. They used what they needed. You can bet every pilot had this tucked away in his mind.

in other 5k climb it's for lightweight 51

I am not sure where I came up with the value for 5k. However, on looking at the climb test for the 44-1 fuel in detail, this shows actuals where test points are actually noted by *.
SL 4310 ft/min
.9k * 4390
2.9k * 4300
5k * 4180 .
10k 3800
19.8k * 3210
Also noted however, was tested weight, which was 9680 lbs including full internal fuel. "America's Hundred Thousand" which goes into detail of the weight of aircraft, identifies a fighter weight for the various aircraft. In the case of the P-51B, it calls out fuel weight as full internal fuel not including the extended range fuselage tank, which makes sense in that the aircraft is unstable with fuel fuselage tank fuel and this tank is depleted first. Using the AHT criteria of using the 180 gallons of the wing tanks, the fighter weight for the P-51B is 9024 lbs, or 656 lbs less than tested weight. Using North American chart for the P-51D, 400 lbs of weight loss equates to about 200 ft/min rate of climb increase at SL, about 100 ft/min at 20k. In this case the numbers would be 300 ft/min ROC increase at SL and 150 ft/min at 20k. So, this would make the P-51B, at fighter weight, climb data the following, estimated.
SL 4610 ft/min
.9k 4690
2.9k 4600
5k 4400
10k 4000
20k 3410

This is, of course, using the 75" of boost.
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/p-51b-24771-climb-blue.jpg
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/na-46-130-chart.jpg

 

[CORSNING]

davparir,
Thanks for the info.

The figures I used for the F4U-4 came from www.wwiiaircraftperformance.com. I have seen it posted on other Corsair sights also. It can be viewed at that sight or you can go back to Vincenzo's post #250 on this thread and just click on F4U-4 Performance Summery. Speeds given in the foot note on page 3 titled CLEAN CONDITION show 383/S.L. and 463.76 mph/20,600 ft. This shows that pylons slowed the plane 8-12 mph. Speeds and climb can be taken off the graphs on page 4. Page 2 shows F4U-4 loading condition (2) that was used for the graphs.

I checked on Mike Williams sight concerning 100/150 fuel. In a letter marked HEADQUARTERS EIGHTH AIR FORCE Technical Operations QPO 634 dated 4 April 1945 it states: " b. A decision was made in May 1944 to have all fighter units supplied with this fuel no later than 1 June (1944). As of that date operationhs with this fuel continued until approximately 1 February 1945."
This is backed up by a Recommendation in a flight test report on the P-51B-15 No.43-24777 dated 20 May 1944 that states: " A. It is recommended that the war emergency rating of the V-1650-7 engine as installed on the P-51B airplane and using 44-1 fuel be increased to 75 in.Hg. manifold pressure and 3,000 RPM."

On QPO 634 it shows that the 100/150 was also used in P-38s and P-47 and gives a summery of results. It appears that a "Pep" 100/150 plus fuel was used for a while but that must not have worked because they switched back to the standard 100/150 in 1 April 1945.

 

[Vincenzo]

for the 5k climb
there is a chart for a 8460 lbs P-51B-5 that show 4520 fpm,
ones for a 9680 lbs B-15 that show 4000 fpm
ones for a 9335 lbs B-15 that show 4000 fpm
ones for a 9260 lbs Mustang III tah show a bit less of 4000 fpm (+25" boost)

on encounter reports maybe, it's also possible that a few pilots giving all boost thinked to give 75" but they were 72" alone. just for readers is same site that report the limit to 72" for the 8th AF

 

[davparlr]

davparir,
Thanks for the info.

The figures I used for the F4U-4 came from www.wwiiaircraftperformance.com. I have seen it posted on other Corsair sights also. It can be viewed at that sight or you can go back to Vincenzo's post #250 on this thread and just click on F4U-4 Performance Summery. Speeds given in the foot note on page 3 titled CLEAN CONDITION show 383/S.L. and 463.76 mph/20,600 ft. This shows that pylons slowed the plane 8-12 mph. Speeds and climb can be taken off the graphs on page 4. Page 2 shows F4U-4 loading condition (2) that was used for the graphs.

Alas, I was aware of this data bit and it was indeed the source of my confusion, that and the data provided by "America's Hundred Thousand" which was completely opposite with a low figure.

for the 5k climb
there is a chart for a 8460 lbs P-51B-5 that show 4520 fpm,
ones for a 9680 lbs B-15 that show 4000 fpm
ones for a 9335 lbs B-15 that show 4000 fpm

And this represents a problem with comparing old performance tests. In the first one, the North American data has several unexplained apparent errors. The first one is the claim that the P-51B normal gross weight is 8460 lbs. This obviously is in error. The empty weight of the P-51B is 6988 lbs. Gun installation, pyrotechnics, and trapped fuel and oil raise the basic weight to 7325 lb. That would leave 1135 lbs for the pilot (200lbs), oil (94 lbs), and ammo (325lbs), which leave 516 lbs for fuel, or 86 gallons, which is slightly less than one wing tank (the P-51 has two). Gross weight as stated by Wagner in "American Combat Planes" is 9800 lbs (P-51C). I calculated the plane full up with 180 gallons (full wing tanks) as 9024 lbs. In no way is 8460 lbs normal gross weight. This looks like a 1000 lb error in the weight statement. A second problem is that it does not match the AAF test in the variation of the climb rate of 67" as compared to 75". This chart shows SL difference of 300 ft/min increase. The AAF test shows a 560 ft/min, almost twice as much. I think there is a problem with the NA charts, which does not identify a tail number.

Now, another interesting issue is with the last two test above, done by the AAF. The first one shows a gross weight of 9680 lbs performed on 10 May, 1944, on aircraft 43-24777, and the second one shows a weight of 9335 lbs performed on 15 May, 1944, on aircraft 43-24777, tests on the same aircraft five days apart and about 345 lb different weight. This is okay except when examining the actual data points and the linear interpretation of the data. They are identical! Only some of the writing and typing is different. With that weight difference there should have been an almost 200 ft/min ROC difference at SL. If the first test is correct, the second one is not.

ones for a 9260 lbs Mustang III tah show a bit less of 4000 fpm (+25" boost)

This Mustang III had a Merlin 100 engine and not the V-1650-7. I do not know the difference but I don't think you can compare the performance differences.

on encounter reports maybe, it's also possible that a few pilots giving all boost thinked to give 75" but they were 72" alone. just for readers is same site that report the limit to 72" for the 8th AF

We know the AAF approved the 75". We have discussed the 8th AF requirements, 72", which were apparently taken with a wink. What about the 5th AF, 9th, the 11th AF, the 12th AF, the 14th AF, the 15th AF, 20th AF, and the FEAF? All had P-51s and apparently had the option of how much boost they would allow up to 75".

In reality, every individual test has it variables and these can show up as some interesting data. We have a lot of data on the P-51 and most American aircraft and this indeed shows up. German data is often quite limited and we may not have more than one source for a specific aircraft. In that case we often use it a gospel and in reality, it is only one data point.

 

[davparlr]

duplicate post

 

[Vincenzo]

The lightweight in test was reported also in the first test available, a B-1 at 8430 lbs, so i'ts possible that this "normal" was with no full fuel in wing tanks or we have 2 similar errors in 2 different test.. sure it's also possible a error in the NA charts
Actually graphs for the two test on B-15 appear the same, and a full read of report it's same test, the right data are i think that for 9335 lbs where is available the full report.
Full agree on Mustang III with the Merlin 100, i've just not read the engine name

i'm sure that you known that 8th AF was the larger user of P-51 (Merlin), and also that FEAF never operated with Mustang (was disactived in feb '42), neither 11th AF used this in the WWII, and at moment we have none evidence that the others AF used 75" boost, also because the 72" and 75" boost need 100/150 grade fuel and we have no data when this was available out ETO.

The variability ot single fighter or of the single test need to take in the count so also few hundreds fpm on 4000 maybe simply variability

 

[drgondog]

Vincenzo - the 100/150 grade fuel arrived in May 1944 and by mid June was at every 8th AF fighter base in the UK. It is documented in the 4th and 355th FG Histories on Microfilm at USAFHRC as well as Mike Williams' site.

 

[Vincenzo]

drgondog you have not understand, sorry