PDA

View Full Version : F4U, F6F and FW comparison report



Hedge72
05-04-2004, 09:41 AM
A very interesting comparison report (http://www.geocities.com/slakergmb/id88.htm) between the aircraft listed in the topic. Gives some insight to the differences between the F4U and the F6F as well.

There's also a comparison report with the Corsair and a P-51B

Hedge

Hedge72
05-04-2004, 09:41 AM
A very interesting comparison report (http://www.geocities.com/slakergmb/id88.htm) between the aircraft listed in the topic. Gives some insight to the differences between the F4U and the F6F as well.

There's also a comparison report with the Corsair and a P-51B

Hedge

fullrealfly3r
05-04-2004, 11:15 AM
That test used a fw190-A5/u4, which was a conversion of the fw into a bomber role. The test is not indicative of the relative performance between an fw that was designed for a2a combat vs the hellcat or corsair. However, interesting read, nevertheless.

faustnik
05-04-2004, 01:22 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by fullrealfly3r:
That test used a fw190-A5/u4, which was a conversion of the fw into a bomber role. The test is not indicative of the relative performance between an fw that was designed for a2a combat vs the hellcat or corsair. However, interesting read, nevertheless.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by fullrealfly3r:
That test used a fw190-A5/u4, which was a conversion of the fw into a bomber role.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The pictures of that A5 are in "Wings of the Luftwaffe" by Cpt. Eric Brown. The ETC rack has been removed. The A5/U2-A5/U8 also had outer guns removed.

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
www.7Jg77.com (http://www.7jg77.com)
CWoS FB forum. More Cheese, Less Whine. (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=25)

SkyChimp
05-04-2004, 06:46 PM
The book War Prizes gives a short history of the Fw-190 used in that test. It states the W Nr was 160057 and that the plane was an Fw-190A-4, not an A-5.

Can someone with a list of W Nrs look that number up and tell us whether it was actually an A-4 or an A-5?

Regards,
http://members.cox.net/us.fighters/wildsig.jpg

Gibbage1
05-04-2004, 07:12 PM
I find it interesting. The F4U and F6F were both WAY heavier then the 190, but still out performed it.

Weight "As tested"

FW-190 8690lb
F4u 11988lb
F6f 12406lb

Wow.

My post's are my asumptions only, and in no way linked to fact. I am not an official 1C, Ubi, or Russian Red Rocket spokesman.

"Most P-39's were sent to the Russians - so I guess that was an American secret weapon against our Russian allies."

Stan Wood, P-38 pilot who also flew the P-39.

lbhskier37
05-05-2004, 12:43 AM
Didnt mention any use of boost on the FW, so I am thinking its an A4. If it was indeed a U4 it would have the added armor for ground attacks also, I wasnt really sure what they were saying in the article about weight, but maybe they made up for that? From that article, it seems that the FW should be able to hold its own fine with the 2 navy planes.

http://lbhskier37.freeservers.com/pics/Killasig6.jpg (http://www.il2skins.com/?action=list&whereauthorid=lbhkilla&comefrom=display&ts=1049772896)
Official "uber190n00b"
"Only the spirit of attack, born in a brave heart, will bring success to any fighter aircraft, no matter how highly developed it may be." Adolf Galland

faustnik
05-05-2004, 12:48 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SkyChimp:
The book __War Prizes__ gives a short history of the Fw-190 used in that test. It states the W Nr was 160057 and that the plane was an Fw-190A-4, not an A-5.

Can someone with a list of W Nrs look that number up and tell us whether it was actually an A-4 or an A-5?

_Regards,_
http://members.cox.net/us.fighters/wildsig.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The 160 000 block were A5s.

Source: "Focke-Wulf Fw190&Ta152" Nowarra.

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
www.7Jg77.com (http://www.7jg77.com)
CWoS FB forum. More Cheese, Less Whine. (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=25)

lbhskier37
05-05-2004, 01:15 AM
Werent A5s capable of 2000ish HP with boost? or didnt that come until the A8s.

http://lbhskier37.freeservers.com/pics/Killasig6.jpg (http://www.il2skins.com/?action=list&whereauthorid=lbhkilla&comefrom=display&ts=1049772896)
Official "uber190n00b"
"Only the spirit of attack, born in a brave heart, will bring success to any fighter aircraft, no matter how highly developed it may be." Adolf Galland

Ruy Horta
05-05-2004, 01:54 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by faustnik:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SkyChimp:
It states the W Nr was 160057 and that the plane was an Fw-190A-4, not an A-5.

Can someone with a list of W Nrs look that number up and tell us whether it was actually an A-4 or an A-5?

_Regards,_
http://members.cox.net/us.fighters/wildsig.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The 160 000 block were A5s.

Source: "Focke-Wulf Fw190&Ta152" Nowarra.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Its probably a typo by Butler. If I remember correctly a WNr. would remain the same even after a rebuilt to higher standard. Its WNr. does not fit an A-4. Butler covers a LOT of material, a typo can easily slip in.

Its not an A-5/U4 either, since that was a recon version, built only in a small series and does not fit the description of the a/c in the report - a Jabo.

F/G-model Fw 190s can be a nightmare.

Based on various sources this a/c appears to have been a G-3, but it might have been a G-2.

The G-2 is identical to a A-5/U8, the G-3 is identical to the A-5/U13 (JaboRei). Without digging deeper, based on the information at my disposal, I'd go for a G-3.

Ruy Horta

Bremspropeller
05-05-2004, 01:31 PM
Chimpster, you post a picture, I tell you, which version and about the external differences btwn. A-4 and A-5.


The a/c in Eric Brown's book's an Fw190A-5/U (racks were removed, so I can't really tell you which "Umrüstsatz" )...you can easily distinguish an A-5 from an A-4 due by it's longer nose (10cm longer, elongation is visible in front of the radiator-grills by an extra panel which was necessary after the nose-stretching).

Remember: the tests were flown at WEP power with the F4U and F6f, while the Fw didn't use it's WEP. The test shows that the a/c are more or less equal - a slight advantage goes for the Corsair.
The only field where the US planes could not compare with the Fw was their firepower - no surprise, 'cause the Fw outgunned almost evry plane http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif


http://www.ccbirding.com/thw/id/peregrine2--hwi.JPG
Da B&Z bird !

http://www.virtual-jabog32.de
http://www.jg68.de.vu

[This message was edited by Bremspropeller on Wed May 05 2004 at 12:42 PM.]

[This message was edited by Bremspropeller on Wed May 05 2004 at 12:47 PM.]

Ruy Horta
05-05-2004, 03:47 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
Chimpster, you post a picture, I tell you, which version and about the external differences btwn. A-4 and A-5.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The problem isn't A-4 or A-5, since its certainly an A-5 based a/c. It takes only limited experience with 190s to spot the extended forward fuselage.

IMHO its a G-3 (A-5/U13), based on the photographical and written evidence (WNr-series according to Griehl).

Again I think that Butler just made a typo.

Ruy Horta

Flakwalker
05-05-2004, 04:13 PM
If you like the Hellcat, get some training in the FW-190 before PF is released http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Ruy Horta
05-05-2004, 04:18 PM
Okay was doing some back tracking through "War Prizes" when I noticed that:

1.
p163 lists EB-104 as a Fw 190G-3 WNr 160016
Probably captured in Southern Italy Sept. 1943

2.
p.174 lists "CEE No.2900" as a Fw 190 A-4 WNr 160057, captured in Sicily Sept. 1943

This latter a/c is described as having been test flown at Patuxent River. There is also a photo included of this a/c after the USN overhaul at Anacostia.

Both photo and the WNr are confirmed by the report.

The only inconsistency is that WNr 160016 is definitely a G-3, matching what we would expect, but WNr 160057 is supposed to be an A-4, which does not fit the Air Intel report (A-5/U4) nor photographical evidence (A-5 series) nor the WNr.

Date of capture, location and WNr would suggest two sister a/c closely tied by WNr and fate.

Ruy Horta

faustnik
05-05-2004, 05:08 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Flakwalker:
If you like the Hellcat, get some training in the FW-190 before PF is released http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

We are training with the P-47Ds, should be closer. Already had plenty of 190 'training time'. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
www.7Jg77.com (http://www.7jg77.com)
CWoS FB forum. More Cheese, Less Whine. (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=25)

BlitzPig_DDT
05-05-2004, 05:44 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by faustnik:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Flakwalker:
If you like the Hellcat, get some training in the FW-190 before PF is released http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

We are training with the P-47Ds, should be closer. Already had plenty of 190 'training time'. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Closer? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/35.gif

P-47D (exact info on all individual models is hard to find on short notice - approximation) -
T.O. Weight - 14,500 lbs
HP - 2500
Power Loading - 5.8 lbs/HP
Wing Loading - 49 lbs/sq. ft.

F6F-5 -
T.O. Weight - 12,500 lbs
HP - 2000
Power Loading - 6.25 lbs/HP
Wing Loading - 37.43 lbs/sq. ft.


Power loading for the Hellcat is worse, but..... look at that wing loading.

Try training with an La5. That would be closer. Or actually, the La7 with rads open and limited power -

La7 -
T.O. Weight - 7,128 lbs
HP - 1850
Power Loading - 3.85 lbs/hp
Wing Loading - 37.64 lbs/sq. ft.


Also, it's worth noting that "Take off weight" is full fuel. I can't find the total fuel quantities for the planes, but, the F6F-5 had a range of 1,040 miles. The La7 had a range of about 410 miles. The Hellcat produced more power, and was probably a bit draggier. That would put it's fuel consumption higher than the La7 most likely. That just means that the Hellcat held one hell of a lot of fuel - which is about 6lbs per gallon. "Empty" weight of the F6F-5 is 9,153 lbs vs an empty La7 weight of 5,830 lbs. IOW - at FB load outs of 25% fuel, the wing loading would be even more in favor of the Hellcat, with the power loading improving more than the La's would as well (though obviously still not being as good in that area (4.6 empty vs 2.9 empty)).

==================================
The Blitz Pigs - Not a squad, a Movement!

Come and spam on our front porch.

http://www.blitzpigs.com

BlitzPig_DDT
05-05-2004, 06:05 PM
Just playin' with some #s (again), it looks like about 60% throttle on the La7 should bring the power loading inline with the Hellcats at max output. So, except for any cooling issues, full open rads, at that setting should be a damn good approximation of a clean F6F-5. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

==================================
The Blitz Pigs - Not a squad, a Movement!

Come and spam on our front porch.

http://www.blitzpigs.com

BlitzPig_DDT
05-05-2004, 06:17 PM
While I'm at it............ http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

F6F-5 stall speeds -
Clean Power On - 62kts (114.82 kph)
Power Off - 65kts (120.38 kph)

Full "Dirty" Power On - 53kts (98.16 kph)
Power Off - 58kts (107.416 kph)

That is slow. It should be a demon. Even in a turn fight. (well, in Europe anyway....and the plane set is supposed to be cross compatible, right? Guess where I'm heading with my Hellcat..... heh heh heh http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/icon_twisted.gif )


And recalling an earlier discussion of vis at Take Off - "Visibility is excellent and there is little need for S-turning" (Zeno's Warbirds Training Video (source for stall speeds too)) Hope we get this reflected. The footage of the taxi-ing shows an almost straight forward view for the pilot.

==================================
The Blitz Pigs - Not a squad, a Movement!

Come and spam on our front porch.

http://www.blitzpigs.com

SkyChimp
05-05-2004, 07:10 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Originally posted by BlitzPig_DDT:
I can't find the total fuel quantities for the planes, but, the F6F-5 had a range of 1,040 miles.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Hellcat had 3 internal tanks, two main tanks (one to the left and one to the right of centerline in the wings) and one reserve tank (beneath the cockpit). The two main tanks had a capacity of 87.5 US gallons each, and the reserve tank had a capcity of 75 gallons.

Regards,
http://members.cox.net/us.fighters/wildsig.jpg

faustnik
05-05-2004, 08:02 PM
Fine DDT, take the easy path training with your La7! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

If I can kill Zeros with the Jug, I should be able to it with an F4U of F6F, right? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
www.7Jg77.com (http://www.7jg77.com)
CWoS FB forum. More Cheese, Less Whine. (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=25)

BlitzPig_DDT
05-05-2004, 08:47 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by faustnik:
Fine DDT, take the easy path training with your La7! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

If I can kill Zeros with the Jug, I should be able to it with an F4U of F6F, right? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

That's true too. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

==================================
The Blitz Pigs - Not a squad, a Movement!

Come and spam on our front porch.

http://www.blitzpigs.com

BlitzPig_DDT
05-05-2004, 08:55 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SkyChimp:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Originally posted by BlitzPig_DDT:
I can't find the total fuel quantities for the planes, but, the F6F-5 had a range of 1,040 miles.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Hellcat had 3 internal tanks, two main tanks (one to the left and one to the right of centerline in the wings) and one reserve tank (beneath the cockpit). The two main tanks had a capacity of 87.5 US gallons each, and the reserve tank had a capcity of 75 gallons.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

250 gallons. About 1500 lbs (sheesh, where are the other 1500 hiding? lol).

So that's about 375 lbs of fuel at FB loadouts, or, 11,375 Take Off Weight.

Which would bring the Power Loading to 5.69 lbs/HP and Wing Loading to 34.06 lbs/sq. ft.

Very nice indeed. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

==================================
The Blitz Pigs - Not a squad, a Movement!

Come and spam on our front porch.

http://www.blitzpigs.com

BlitzPig_DDT
05-05-2004, 09:03 PM
Wow. I was just curious, so I googled the Yak3.....

TO Weight - 5,852 lbs
HP - 1,225
Power Loading - 4.78 lbs/HP
Wing Loading - 36.62 lbs/sq. ft. ( http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_eek.gif )

The F6F-5 compares well against even that. http://www.blitzpigs.com/forum/images/smiles/icon_eek.gif

==================================
The Blitz Pigs - Not a squad, a Movement!

Come and spam on our front porch.

http://www.blitzpigs.com

Flakwalker
05-05-2004, 09:33 PM
La-7 with radiator open to emulate a Hellcat?

LoL http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

A La-7 with radiator open, landing gear open, flaps open and plenty of vodka for the pilot can beat a Hellcat in turning, come on!

If you want to emulate an energy fighter the La-7 is not the best option. Try a P-47 or a FW-190, this last will train you better since the P-47 is to slow climbing.

BlitzPig_DDT
05-05-2004, 09:45 PM
Check the wing loadings Flak.

I was expecting this. lol The Hellcat is much more bad *** than most people think or expect. Be sure. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

==================================
The Blitz Pigs - Not a squad, a Movement!

Come and spam on our front porch.

http://www.blitzpigs.com

sugaki
05-06-2004, 11:41 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I was expecting this. lol The Hellcat is much more bad *** than most people think or expect. Be sure. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think the Hellcat gets overshadowed by the F4U too much, maybe because it didn't excel in one specific area? Overall it's an awesome plane, but don't see a lot of Hellcat fans ...no shortage of P38, P51, and F4U fans though.

It's my fav US plane.

Korolov
05-06-2004, 12:53 PM
Because the Hellcat is too bland and simple for most people to appreciate. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

http://www.mechmodels.com/images/newsig1.jpg

Blackdog5555
05-06-2004, 03:40 PM
Hellcat had a 19-1 kill ratio. Best in the West. More like little tobasco than bland. just didnt have the glamour of the Black Sheep.

Flakwalker
05-06-2004, 04:09 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Blackdog5555:
Hellcat had a 19-1 kill ratio. Best in the West. More like little tobasco than bland. just didnt have the glamour of the Black Sheep.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

But this was mainly because at the end the japanese don`t have very experiences pilots, they have of course but not in great numbers. And since the Hellcat was armoured and had selfsealing tanks and the japanese planes don`t had neither of that.

SkyChimp
05-06-2004, 05:27 PM
If you judge the bad-azzness of a plane by its wing-loading, then the Wildcat will be the baddest-azzest of all the US planes:

F3F-3 26.9lbs/sq ft
F4F-4 28.5
FM-2 28.8

Regards,
http://members.cox.net/us.fighters/wildsig.jpg

arcadeace
05-06-2004, 06:11 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Flakwalker:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Blackdog5555:
Hellcat had a 19-1 kill ratio. Best in the West. More like little tobasco than bland. just didnt have the glamour of the Black Sheep.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

But this was mainly because at the end the japanese don`t have very experiences pilots, they have of course but not in great numbers. And since the Hellcat was armoured and had selfsealing tanks and the japanese planes don`t had neither of that.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

19 to 1 is hard to overcome. The plane was better designed, to its credit. And pilots flying it more experienced than when the war started, to their credit.

http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/222_1082457373_222_1082441075_airaces.jpg

BlitzPig_DDT
05-06-2004, 08:42 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SkyChimp:
If you judge the bad-azzness of a plane by its wing-loading, then the Wildcat will be the baddest-azzest of all the US planes:

F3F-3 26.9lbs/sq ft
F4F-4 28.5
FM-2 28.8
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Impressive indeed. Not a big fan of the Wildcat (other than it being a Grumman). I didn't realize it was so maneuverable.

What about power loading though? That seemed to be a short coming. Not enough power to get good speed (level), climb particularly well, or maintain optimal turning speeds.

Re-read an article by Corky Meyer tonight that said the Hellcat, at gross take off weight, could get airborne in 600 ft in calm winds.

That's practically leaping into the air. And a climb rate of about 3500 f/m isn't too shabby either. Works out to about 17.7 m/s. Not entirely certain how that compares against all the '43 contemporaries, but, 1067m in 60 seconds isn't bad at all.

==================================
The Blitz Pigs - Not a squad, a Movement!

Come and spam on our front porch.

http://www.blitzpigs.com

SkyChimp
05-06-2004, 09:52 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BlitzPig_DDT:

What about power loading though? That seemed to be a short coming. Not enough power to get good speed (level), climb particularly well, or maintain optimal turning speeds.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

As good or better than F6F.

F4F-3 5.8 lbs/hp
F4F-4 6.2 lbs/hp
_FM-2 5.5 lbs/hp

The FM-2 Wildcat was America's tighest turning production fighter of WWII.

If the FM-2 was given an arbitrary turn score of 100%, the F6F-5 turn score would be 138%. The Wildcat could easily turn inside the Hellcat.

Regards,
http://members.cox.net/us.fighters/hellsig.jpg

k5054
05-07-2004, 05:41 AM
Didn't the FM-2 have a kill ratio of 32-1? It wasn't just a Wildcat, it had far more power at low alt, and the Japanese fighters were not such good turners by 1945.

BlitzPig_DDT
05-07-2004, 06:29 AM
The Wilder Wildcat is a bit of a different beast than the plain old basic Wildcat.

I did ask for that to be included. Too many russians, europeans, and axis loving americans to allow that to happen though it seems. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

==================================
The Blitz Pigs - Not a squad, a Movement!

Come and spam on our front porch.

http://www.blitzpigs.com

SkyChimp
05-07-2004, 04:30 PM
I suspect that any difference in instantaneous turn between the F4F-3, F4F-4 and FM-2 would be negligible. The F4F-3 probably has the edge among all these, however, even if almost unnoticeable.

Regards,
http://members.cox.net/us.fighters/hellsig.jpg

ZG77_Nagual
05-07-2004, 05:51 PM
Looks like the fm2 weighed about 500lbs less - had four .50s but with more ammo and 150 more horsepower - should definitely have the edge.

BlitzPig_DDT
05-07-2004, 06:49 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SkyChimp:
I suspect that any difference in instantaneous turn between the F4F-3, F4F-4 and FM-2 would be negligible. The F4F-3 probably has the edge among all these, however, even if almost unnoticeable.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

But when you're that close, power makes the difference. The FM-2 did have more get'up'n'go, didn't it? (like I said, that was never a plane I really got into before, though am starting to gain some interest)

==================================
The Blitz Pigs - Not a squad, a Movement!

Come and spam on our front porch.

http://www.blitzpigs.com

Gibbage1
05-07-2004, 06:59 PM
From what I remember, the FM2 was the result of an aggressive weight loss diet of the F4F-4. It was lighter, more powerful engine, and a bigger horizontal stab to counter the extra torque. They also removed 2 of the 6 guns. There are other changes, but minimul. The FM2 should perform a bit better then the -4 and a little better then the -3.

Also, a little bit of info. Not only did the F4F series have hand-cranked landing gear (I.E. I-16) but also hand-cranked landing flaps, and hand-cranked radiator flaps! Even the arrestor hook was manual! Everything was manual to save weight on this puppy. But it was still a bit heavier then the Zero, but one of the lightest aircraft in the US inventory not including the L-birds.

My post's are my asumptions only, and in no way linked to fact. I am not an official 1C, Ubi, or Russian Red Rocket spokesman.

"Most P-39's were sent to the Russians - so I guess that was an American secret weapon against our Russian allies."

Stan Wood, P-38 pilot who also flew the P-39.

SkyChimp
05-07-2004, 07:28 PM
I suppose the FM-2 would probably have an edge in sustained turn, but instantaneous turn (where wingloading is the major factor) I can't imagine there was much difference at all.

Typical fighter gross weights according to America's Hundred Thousand were:

F4F-3 7150 lbs
F4F-4 7426 lbs
FM-2 7487 lbs

Anecdotal evidence suggests that FM-2 was finally the equal of the Zero (the A6M5 by that time) in manueverability.

Regards,
http://members.cox.net/us.fighters/hellsig.jpg

Blackdog5555
05-09-2004, 03:37 PM
Everyone knows that the 19-1 F6F kill ratio didnt result from magic! dont need to be an apologist or speak platitudes. (and pardon my assumtion). Considering all factors, I sure everyone would agree that it was the best/ most effective carrier based fighter in the the pacific theatre at its arrival. thats all.

jpatrick62
05-10-2004, 11:58 AM
I think history will judge the Hellcat as being in the exact right place at the right time. It was easy to handle and land, but still competant enough to overcome its main advesary, the Zero. It was not the best carrier based fighter, and by late 1944 several Jap fighter models could best it, the japs just could not produce them in enough quantity. It does make me laugh when people calin Jap pilots weren't as good as the German ones. The Brits certainly found out they were when Spits and Hurries tangled with Zeros off Singapore earlier in the war. The Japanese pilots were every bit as good and if not, better than their German counterparts. Which carrie based fighter was the best? Well I guess the question was historically answered by the Navy in 1944. In that time, when the war was going on, when comparing the actual machines, the Navy chose the Corsair over the Hellcat. That's historical fact, modern computer pilots notwithstanding. This was further backed up in the 1944 Interservice tests in Patuxent naval air station. Pilots around the world took each manufacturers plane up and evaluated them against each other. In the competition between the Hellcat, Corsair, and Seafire, the Corsair (F4u-1d version) was chosen as best Naval fighter. For an earlier question about turn rates and manuverability, tests between a corsair, P51, and Hellcat revealed the Corsair and hellcat easily out-turning the P51, especially at lower alts. The turn champ here was the Hellcat, with a ligter wing loading, then the Corsair, and finally the P51.

k5054
05-10-2004, 12:31 PM
The difference between Hellcat and corsair weren't important compared to Zeke, Oscar, Val, Kate etc. Either one could beat up on aircraft 50+mph slower.
Against the later ones, F6F did just as well as F4U, but certainly F4U was chosen over F6F for that little extra speed and climb.
On the other hand this USN/USMC summary,

history.navy.mil/download/nasc.pdf

which everybody here should download and read right now...
says that when hit a F6F was twice as likely to survive the mission compared to a F4U. Wouldn't you like those odds better?

Download that file, read its many tables, and understand what was happening to the Japanese forces by the end of the war.

ZG77_Nagual
05-10-2004, 12:45 PM
About the early war quality of japanese pilots - read sakai's autobiography. Their training was simply incredible.

Both the hellcat and corsair should be alot of fun. Moreover, as was the case with the mustang, I'm guessing they'll be well modeled - esp the corsair - since there are a few of them still flying around. Plus they served well into Korea which makes for more surviving pilots. (yes, I know the f4u4etc. had significantly more power than the f4u1 but basic overall handling should be about the same)

BlitzPig_DDT
05-10-2004, 03:07 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JPatrick62:
For an earlier question about turn rates and manuverability, tests between a corsair, P51, and Hellcat revealed the Corsair and hellcat easily out-turning the P51, especially at lower alts. The turn champ here was the Hellcat, with a ligter wing loading, then the Corsair, and finally the P51.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>On the other hand this USN/USMC summary,

history.navy.mil/download/nasc.pdf

which everybody here should download and read right now...
says that when hit a F6F was twice as likely to survive the mission compared to a F4U. Wouldn't you like those odds better?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Which is to say...... Grumman pwnz j00! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

BTW - it was a better carrier fighter than the Corsair. The reason is that it was far (like, by a long shot) more suited to carrier ops. It did not have the nasty stall problems of the Corsair, or the bouncing problems of the Corsair, or the lack of visibility of the Corsair.

In a head to head competition, it would depend heavily on which model of Corsair. The line was extended and upgraded many times. Contermporary vs contemporary though, it's about pilot and positioning. They are that close.

But, by the very end of the war, the Corsair had enough power for climb and flat out speed that it could dominate the fight and dictate the terms, in a matchup with the Hellcat. Particularly with a 2v2. But......for a late war comparison, the right thing to do is use the Bearcat. And well, Grumman pwnz. Again.

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

==================================
The Blitz Pigs - Not a squad, a Movement!

Come and spam on our front porch.

http://www.blitzpigs.com

ElAurens
05-10-2004, 03:37 PM
DDT, how many times do I have to remind you that the Bearcat did not see combat in WW2?

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Also, I'll bet that above 15,000 or so the Corsair pwnz the F8F.

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

_____________________________

http://www.blitzpigs.com/forum/images/avatars/Curtiss_logo.gif

BlitzPig_EL

BlitzPig_DDT
05-10-2004, 05:26 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ElAurens:
DDT, how many times do I have to remind you that the Bearcat did not see combat in WW2?

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

:::ahem:::..... I-185, MiG-3U, Bi-1....... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

As stated, anything up to and including 1946 is valid for inclusion. This "never saw combat" thing is old and lame and should be dropped. Along with "never flew". If there is enough data to develop an FM in the same way as modern AEs wroking on a new design and there is info for the 'pit, feck it, include it. Regardless of where it's from.

(Just think about a WWI sim. Whether a model saw combat or not is irrelevant, most of the ones that did have precious little data, if any, at this point. Certainly in comparison to WWII planes.)



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Also, I'll bet that above 15,000 or so the Corsair pwnz the F8F.

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hmmm.... I can't deny that, because I don't know. I will however mention that I do doubt it.

_____________________________

http://www.blitzpigs.com/forum/images/avatars/Curtiss_logo.gif

__BlitzPig_EL__[/QUOTE]

==================================
The Blitz Pigs - Not a squad, a Movement!

Come and spam on our front porch.

http://www.blitzpigs.com

ZG77_Nagual
05-10-2004, 05:38 PM
found this on Baugher's site

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The increased weight of the F4F-4 made this version less suitable for use on the small decks of escort carriers. However, the Wildcat was more suited to these small, slow carriers than the newer, but also larger and heavier fighters such as the F6F and F4U. Therefore it was decided in 1942 to develop a lighter model. The two prototypes were built by Grumman under the designation XF4F-8, but production aircraft were built by Eastern as the FM-2.
The new Wildcat was powered by the R-1820-56 engine. Previous USN Wildcats were all powered by the R-1830, but the R-1820-56 delivered 1350hp, 150hp more than the engine of the F4F-4, and was also 102kg lighter, with a weight of 604kg. The weight was also reduced by deleting two guns (increasing ammunition to 1720 rounds at the same time) and the reserve fuel tank. The new engine had a single-stage supercharger, and performance at altitude was therefore below that of the F4F-4. But at low levels the performance was considerably better, with a spectacular improvement in climbing rate. The main tasks of the FM-2 were to be submarine patrols and close air support, so performance at high altitude was less important.

The two XF4F-8s were modified F4F-4s. The first one was flown on 8 November 1942. The prototypes were fitted with slotted flaps, but these proved less efficient that the split flaps of earlier models. The XF4F-8 weighed 2433kg empty, 3211kg gross, and 3752kg at max overload. The production FM-2 was, inevitably, a bit heavier.

Characteristic for the engine installation was a rectangular indentation of the forward fuselage aft of the cowling ring, above the wing leading edges, were the exhaust of the engine were grouped. The circular oil coolers under the inboard wing sections were removed. In side view, the FM-2 was easy to identify. And a taller vertical tail was fitted, because of the more powerful torque of the engine. This had other benefits, for the FM-2 now also had fully satisfactory spin recovery characteristics. The tailhook had to be reinforced after combat experienced showed it to be too weak.

Some later aircraft had the -56W or -56WA engines, with water injection. A tank with a 10min water supply was carried. After the 240st aircraft the main fuel tank of 117 US gallons was replaced by one of 126 US gallons, compensating a bit for the deletion of the reserve tank. After the 3301st aircraft provision was made for six 5in rockets.

The first order, for 1265, was signed in early 1943. The final production of the FM-2 was 4127, plus 340 Wildcat Mk.VIs for the FAA. The FM-2 was the most built version of the Wildcat.

The first combat of the FM-2 was during Operation Flintlock, the invasion of Kwajalein, in January 1944, when the USS Manila Bay (Task Group 52.9) carried twelve FM-2s. In June they fought in operation Forager, the invasion of the Marianas. Experience showed that the FM-2 had at best only a marginal performance advantage over the Japanese aircraft, and that its reduced armament was a disadvantage. But the Japanese pilots of the time were inexperienced and poorly trained.

In October 1944 a conference on aircraft requirements was held at Patuxent River. The armed forces showed their latest fighters, and an impressive demonstration of the XF8F-1 Bearcat was done by Bob Hall. But the FM-2 was nevertheless considered the best fighter below 10000ft, even in comparison with the F6F, F4U, P-47 and P-51. It was stable, handled well in a dive, and had excellent landing characteristics. On the other hand, its level speed was unimpressive, its small armament load was a problem, and the cockpit provided no rearward view.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

sugaki
05-10-2004, 05:53 PM
Pound for pound, F4U's a better fighter than the F6F. But the F6F's far more better suited for carrier ops, and for filling up attrition with its forgiving characteristics.

Blitzpig: Bring on the F8F, so long as there's an A7M in the mix http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gifhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

-Aki

LEXX_Luthor
05-10-2004, 07:44 PM
http://www.boardy.de/images/smilies/ylflower.gif

Well said Blitz_DDT, you are stating the military aviation enthusiast point of view, as well as reflecting the real life expericenced fighter pilot lust to fly every new experimental combat aircraft they could dig their sharpened claws into.

Blitz_DDT:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>This "never saw combat" thing is old and lame and should be dropped. Along with "never flew". If there is enough data to develop an FM in the same way as modern AEs wroking on a new design and there is info for the 'pit, feck it, include it. Regardless of where it's from.

(Just think about a WWI sim. Whether a model saw combat or not is irrelevant, most of the ones that did have precious little data, if any, at this point. Certainly in comparison to WWII planes.)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Flakwalker
05-10-2004, 08:55 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by sugaki:
Pound for pound, F4U's a better fighter than the F6F. But the F6F's far more better suited for carrier ops, and for filling up attrition with its forgiving characteristics.

-Aki<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Once the pilot mastered the F4U (also some changes where made to allow the Corsair to be on CVs) on landing and take off it was better than the Hellcat, with this last one you had to do very three points landing because the propeler was so wide that easily could touch the ground.

The proof is that the Corsair was keep in the Navy for years not like the Hellcat.

BlitzPig_DDT
05-10-2004, 10:08 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Flakwalker:
Once the pilot mastered the F4U (also some changes where made to allow the Corsair to be on CVs) on landing and take off it was better than the Hellcat, with this last one you had to do very three points landing because the propeler was so wide that easily could touch the ground.

The proof is that the Corsair was keep in the Navy for years not like the Hellcat.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Heh, well, that statement may be proof of something, but I'm certain it's not of what you intended.

The Corsair was more like the 109 or Spitfire. Updated and modified throughout it's life. Grumman, which was made of and run by pilots, most ex-Navy BTW, had a much better policy w/r/t just about everything. Part of this was a decision to not waste resources on trying to wring out an existing airframe. They chose instead to start clean and make something new. That turned out to be the F8F.

By the time the war ended, there was little need for a prop based pure fighter/interceptor. That role was going to be filled by jets in the vert near future. That was obvious. With them being so close, and no enemies to fight, there was no need for the ultimate prop, so the Bearcat's order was practically canceled.

The Corsair meanwhile, represented a significant prior investment, and, it had the ability to carry an impressive amount of ordinance into battle. There was still a need for that. So it was pressed into full time ground pounding service. Much like the P-47.

==================================
The Blitz Pigs - Not a squad, a Movement!

Come and spam on our front porch.

http://www.blitzpigs.com

k5054
05-11-2004, 02:10 AM
Was the Corsair kept in production because of post-war politics? The F5U and F6U, and F7U for that matter, were no good. Grumman's F7F, F8F and F9F all had to be made. So did the Navy keep taking Corsairs to keep the Vought line open? If they did, it paid off, because F8U was better for the navy than F10F or F11F, the beautiful but short-legged Tiger. Many examples exist in the world of 50's procurement of ordering mediocre aircraft just to kep a manufacturer in business.

Here endeth the lesson in useless facts and idle speculation.

jpatrick62
05-11-2004, 07:57 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by k5054:
Was the Corsair kept in production because of post-war politics?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not exactly - again the computer pilots are taking history away from the facts. The F4U served admirably in Korea - even giving the Navy their ONLY ace. We can argue all we want about politics and which fighetr was better - that fact is they both (f6f and F4U) served our purposes well. The Hellcat was undoubtably the more docile and piot friendly plane. The Hellcat, due to its better carrier manners, was on board more carriers and as a result shot down more planes than the Corsair - that's undisputed history.The Corsair was a difficult and was dangerous to the untrained. However, even test pilots of the time (and the Navy as well) chose the corsair as the best pure carrier fighter, that's history. The Bearcat arrived later in 1946 but was a great prop fighter in the time where jets started to rule. Even the F4u-5, which had better top speed and climb was obsolete as a fighter by 1946.

BlitzPig_DDT
05-11-2004, 10:09 AM
<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 k5054:
Was the Corsair kept in production because of post-war politics?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not exactly - again the computer pilots are taking history away from the facts. The F4U served admirably in Korea - even giving the Navy their ONLY ace. We can argue all we want about politics and which fighetr was better - that fact is they both (f6f and F4U) served our purposes well. The Hellcat was undoubtably the more docile and piot friendly plane. The Hellcat, due to its better carrier manners, was on board more carriers and as a result shot down more planes than the Corsair - that's undisputed history.The Corsair was a difficult and was dangerous to the untrained. However, even test pilots of the time (and the Navy as well) chose the corsair as the best pure carrier fighter, that's history. The Bearcat arrived later in 1946 but was a great prop fighter in the time where jets started to rule. Even the F4u-5, which had better top speed and climb was obsolete as a fighter by 1946.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Interesting that you speak of "computer pilots taking history away from the facts" and then state that the Bearcat came in '46. The F8F-1 was planned, developed, tested, approved, and shipborne steaming toward Japan all before their surrender. Mere days away from seeing combat when the war ended. That wasn't '46.

The Corsair was a ground pounder in Korea, even if it did get a few kills. The only reason to keep it around then was for the attack role. Why risk expensive cutting edge jets in that role when you have props, and why use props as interceptors when the enemy is using jets?

I know most people have a hard on for the Corsair, but, the F9F would beat the snot out of any Corsair. The F9F-6 even more so, but that came later (and was not only faster, but had better carrier manners than the Vought. lol).

When you look at the pre-existing investment (which the bean counters, even in the military, want to see an ROI on) in the Corsair, plus it's ordinance capacity, it's no surprise that it was opted for over the F8F. As the latter, while capable of carrying ordinance, and an impressive amount by early war standards, that wasn't it's primary purpose and didn't have the means to carry near what the Corsair could.

Late models of the F4U carried more than the P-47.

From a "computer pilot" perspective, it's kind of a shame that Leroy Grumman didn't follow the path that Vought, Super Marine, and Messerschmitt did and try to wring out his airframe. But, he was forward thinking and did the right thing, deciding not to waste time on that and instead start clean.

==================================
The Blitz Pigs - Not a squad, a Movement!

Come and spam on our front porch.

http://www.blitzpigs.com

jpatrick62
05-11-2004, 01:00 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BlitzPig_DDT:
I know most people have a hard on for the Corsair, but, the F9F would beat the snot out of any Corsair. The F9F-6 even more so, but that came later (and was not only faster, but had better carrier manners than the Vought. lol).
http://www.blitzpigs.com<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

lol Guy, I don't like any plane that much! I was simply stating that the test pilots at the time of the interservice fighter conference of 1944 as well as Navy test pilots in 2 seperate tests favored the Corsair over the Hellcat for performance reasons - that's simply history. As for the F9F being superior - I'm sure any turbojet or jet would be. i'm not knocking Grumman - the Hellcat was a fantastic fighter of its time. The Bearcat was great too - but it made no impact on the war and arrived too late. It was obsolete at introduction - even by 1944 standards (by the Me262).

SkyChimp
05-11-2004, 07:39 PM
The major advantage of the Corsair was its versatility. It's evolution took it from day fighter, to night-fighter, to dedicated ground support aircraft.

The last production Corsair wasn't really a fighter at all, but a model specified by the Marines to be a low-level ground-pounder - the AU-1. It was the only Corsair to have a single stage/single speed supercharger. It could carry immense loads. And it was very heavily armored.

Regards,
http://members.cox.net/us.fighters/hellsig.jpg

BigKahuna_GS
05-12-2004, 09:23 AM
S!

My dad was a USMC fighter pilot for 30 years and flew all four of these types of aircraft.

According to my dad, the Wildcat was a stubby little cigar shaped a/c with a cramped cockpit. It was fun to fly, but underpowered. At the time it was the best and only a/c that could compete with the Zero that the Navy/USMC had. Unfortunately it was completely outclassed by the zero. You needed teamwork to survive. He flew this a/c but not in combat.

He loved the Hellcat and said it was extremely easy to fly, very manueverable with great visibility. The Hellcat was known for getting in there with the Zeros and mixing it up more-semi turn fighting. The Corsair was speed bird, a predator. Although the Corsair could not turn with the Hellcat, its dive acceleration, zoom climb and overall speed made it superior to the Hellcat, especially when later models like the FU4-4 arrived. The only thing my dad didnt like about the Corsair was the long nose during carrier landings.

The Bearcat was the best prop plane my dad ever flew below 20,000ft. Extremely manueverable and fast. It climbed exceptionaly well, had great visibility. This would have been the plane to seek out and destroy Kamikazies with. He called it a "Hot Rod" of a plane, a pure dogfighter.

The F9F Panther was totally different from all these other types. Not as manueverable of course, but speed was the overall factor then. Strike missions were flown in this a/c as it could not compete with the Mig-15 in air to air.


___________________



CCJ: What do you define as the most important things a fighter pilot must know to be successful, relating to air combat maneuvering?

Robert S. Johnson :
It's pretty simple, really. Know the absolute limits of your plane's capabilities.
Know its strengths and weaknesses. Know the strengths and weaknesses of you enemy's fighters. Never fight the way your enemy fights best. Always fight the way you fight best. Never be predictable.

In "Fighter Aces," aviation historians Raymond Tolliver
and Trevor Constable compared Johnson's record with that of two German aces.
Werner Molders was the first ace to score 100 aerial victories and Erich Hartmann is the top scoring ace of all time with 352.

The authors noted that
Johnson "emerges impressively from this comparison." He downed 28 planes in 91 sorties, while Molders took 142 sorties to do the same, and Hartmann, 194.
________



http://www.warplaneswarehouse.com/planes_lg/MS1AOO_LG.jpg

"Angels of Okinawa"

k5054
05-13-2004, 03:29 AM
##
The F9F Panther was totally different from all these other types. Not as manueverable of course, but speed was the overall factor then. Strike missions were flown in this a/c as it could not compete with the Mig-15 in air to air.
##


On paper F9F could not compete with MiG-15 a/a. In historical fact it had some MiG-15 kills ( a handful) and no losses in Korea air to air at all.
In fact, F9F was truly the first jet to shoot down another in air combat. (I know about Russel Brown's F-80 claim, but the MiG was not killed that time, the F9F victory is confirmed in Russian records the next day, 9 Nov 1950 IIRC ).

And I still think F4U was kept in production to keep Vought's lines open, they were building nothing else in that period to 1952 (last WW2 fighter in production) while Grumman had F8F, F7F, F9F and AF and S2F, not to mention the Albatross whose designation I can't remember. In 1950 you still needed prop fighters if you wanted to stay on station for ground attack or operate from short strips, which is a USMC requirement.

BigKahuna_GS
05-13-2004, 04:38 AM
S!

__________________________________________________ _______________________
k5054---On paper F9F could not compete with MiG-15 a/a. In historical fact it had some MiG-15 kills ( a handful) and no losses in Korea air to air at all. In fact, F9F was truly the first jet to shoot down another in air combat. (I know about Russel Brown's F-80 claim, but the MiG was not killed that time, the F9F victory is confirmed in Russian records the next day, 9 Nov 1950 IIRC ).
__________________________________________________ __________________________


Any Mig-15 kills by F9F Panthers was due to pilot skill and opportunity. Both the F9F Panther & F2H-2 Banshee were considered inferior in overall performance to the Mig-15.

One of the very first Mig-15 Kills of the Korean War belonged to a F4U-4 Corsair. Bad tactics on the part of the Mig-15, he tried to turn fight.


_________________


CCJ: What do you define as the most important things a fighter pilot must know to be successful, relating to air combat maneuvering?

Robert S. Johnson :
It's pretty simple, really. Know the absolute limits of your plane's capabilities.
Know its strengths and weaknesses. Know the strengths and weaknesses of you enemy's fighters. Never fight the way your enemy fights best. Always fight the way you fight best. Never be predictable.

In "Fighter Aces," aviation historians Raymond Tolliver
and Trevor Constable compared Johnson's record with that of two German aces.
Werner Molders was the first ace to score 100 aerial victories and Erich Hartmann is the top scoring ace of all time with 352.

The authors noted that
Johnson "emerges impressively from this comparison." He downed 28 planes in 91 sorties, while Molders took 142 sorties to do the same, and Hartmann, 194.
________



http://www.warplaneswarehouse.com/planes_lg/MS1AOO_LG.jpg

"Angels of Okinawa"

k5054
05-13-2004, 06:51 AM
Look, I have no doubt that the MiG-15 was superior to the Panther and equalled only by F-86 (E rather than A, probably), it's just the 'could not compete' that I object to. 6-0 is not a failure to compete. (ISTR 6, maybe not exact).

BlitzPig_DDT
05-13-2004, 07:30 AM
The purpose behind bringing up the F9F was that someone earlier was claiming that the F4U was some unbeatable über plane throughout it's entire career, and that it was used in the A2A role in Korea.

They stated that it was superior to the F8F in the A2A role, and that the proof of this was in it's continued use by the US post WWII.

I merely pointed out that post WWII it was a gound pounder. Not a fighter/interceptor. The Bearcat was absolutely superior to the Corsaid in the air superiority role. However, it was anemic in comparison to the Corsair in the ground support role.

With the coming of jets obvious to everyone, even the lunkheads in the Navy and USAF that thought stratight wings were still the way to go. Thus, it was a given that a prop air superiority fighter, even one as good as the Bearcat, was of no use any longer.

And yes, the MiG-15 was more than a match for the straight winged Panther. The Navy even began discussing the possibility of a Naval modified version of the F-86. However, the Panther was vastly superior to the Corsair in the A2A role. Which further illustrates that it wasn't kept for that reason. Rather, it was kept only for it's A2G capabilities, and therefore is proof of nothing when discussing Vought vs Grumman in prop A2A capacity.

But since we are on the subject of the F9F.....the F-86 was found to be unsuitable to carrier conversion, and Grumman made it a non-issue by modifying the Panther and making the Cougar, the F9F-6. And funnily enough, to everyone's surprise, it was not only much faster and higher performing than it's predecessor, it was even better at low speeds and at carrier ops. lol

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

http://operationcarepackage.org/ddtsig.gif

jpatrick62
05-13-2004, 02:06 PM
Here's a question I was hoping some of you WW2 buffs could answer for me. It is well known that the F4U failed its initial carrier tests due to excessive bounce on deck landing. Because the Marines wanted this A/C there was a run of fixed wing corsairs (FG1's) that the marines used. I'm not sure of the numbers, but apparently there was a run of build by Vought and Goodyear. Since we all know that carrier aircraft weigh 400-800 lbs heavier due to upgraded frame, tailhook assembly, folding wings, etc. you would expect this run of F4U's to climb and turn appreciably better than their folding winged cousins. In fact, its not so much that Corsairs and to a lesser extent Hellcats equalled or nearly equalled the P47's and P51's of their era, but the fact that they were carrier aircraft and did so is really amazing. Joe Foss, I believe, in an interview claimed that the Navy got the drop on the Army for better manufacturers. At any rate, has anyone out their data on the "fixed wing" Corsairs?

jpatrick62
05-13-2004, 02:26 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BlitzPig_DDT:
The Bearcat was absolutely superior to the Corsaid in the air superiority role.
http://operationcarepackage.org/ddtsig.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Dependng on the model - the dash 4 was inferior, but not by much, and the dash 5 was faster and climbed just as well.

Rebel_Yell_21
05-13-2004, 02:51 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JPatrick62:
Dependng on the model - the dash 4 was inferior, but not by much, and the dash 5 was faster and climbed just as well.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I really don't want to get into this thread, but too many statements like this are going by.

F8F = Purpose built interceptor, 3000 lbs lighter than F4U-5 at takeoff. Sustained climb performance is not even close. Manueverability is not even close.

There are almost as many Corsair propaganda websites as there are for the Mustang, and they love to quote inaccurate stats.

Corsair was a fantastic airplane, and I am a big fan of it and will fly the hell out of it in PF, but let's not give any of these planes more credit than they are due.

http://www.303rdbga.com/art-ferris-fortress-S.jpg

SkyChimp
05-13-2004, 06:11 PM
By the time the F8F-1 entered service, the F4U-4 was in production. The F4U-4 was widely considered the best US naval fighter of WWII, and the best F4U sub-variant. The F4U-4 was faster than the F8F-1 (452 mph vs 424 mph) and had a higher critical altitude (26,200 feet vs 17,300 feet). The F8F probably had the manueverability advantage, and a significantly better climb rate.

By the time the F8F-2 was in production, the F4U-5 was being produced. At 470mph, the F4U-5 was faster than the F8F-2 (447 mph). Critical altitudes were almost identical (26,800 feet vs 28,000 feet).

I'd tend to agree that the F8F was probably the better -fighter-. It had exceptionally few vices and was held in high esteem by all who flew it at the Joint Fighter Conference. But I understand it suffered from "bounce" problems during carrier landings.

The F4U-4/5 was the better fighter/bomber - certainly capable of performing both tasks in exceptional fashion.

The F4U was certainly used in the fighter/interceptor role after WWII. It was THE main carrier fighter following WWII, along with the F6F (which remained in that role -in ever lessening numbers - until 1948). Of course, the F8F was coming into the mix as well.

The first F4U-5s delivered around 1947 were built in pure day-fighter configuration. And the F4U-5N was THE main carrier and land based Navy/Marine night fighter in Korea. The only non-F-86 ace in Korea flew the F4U-5N.

I think the Navy felt a loyalty to both Grumman and Vought, which both produced exemplary naval fighters.

Regards,
http://members.cox.net/us.fighters/hellsig.jpg

Ruy Horta
05-13-2004, 11:05 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SkyChimp:
I think the Navy felt a loyalty to both Grumman and Vought, which both produced exemplary naval fighters.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Chimp gives a balanced picture, must be the subject?!

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/59.gif

Ruy Horta