PDA

View Full Version : question about Corsairs



XyZspineZyX
06-17-2003, 03:09 AM
Did the Corsair operate in the ETO at all? If so, how did it perform? If not, how would it have performed if it had been operating in the ETO? It's proabably my favorite US plane and I understand its merits when pitted against Japanese aircraft but I'd like to know how it did/would have performed against German aircraft.

Also, the initial version that the Marines used, before it was a carrier plane: was it equiped with carrier features (e.g., fold up wings, etc.) that simply weren't used or were those features added only after the Navy accepted it as a carrier plane (in '45 I believe).

Just curious. Thanks.

XyZspineZyX
06-17-2003, 03:09 AM
Did the Corsair operate in the ETO at all? If so, how did it perform? If not, how would it have performed if it had been operating in the ETO? It's proabably my favorite US plane and I understand its merits when pitted against Japanese aircraft but I'd like to know how it did/would have performed against German aircraft.

Also, the initial version that the Marines used, before it was a carrier plane: was it equiped with carrier features (e.g., fold up wings, etc.) that simply weren't used or were those features added only after the Navy accepted it as a carrier plane (in '45 I believe).

Just curious. Thanks.

XyZspineZyX
06-17-2003, 04:15 AM
i know that the brits operated some Corsairs in europe somewhere ... dont know how many but the Corsair was in europe somewhere , albeit in a very small amount

XyZspineZyX
06-17-2003, 04:26 AM
I'm finding a little information on British, Canadian, Australian, and New Zealand Navy operated Corsairs (from carriers no less!) beginning as early as '43. Mostly in the Pacific though. I haven't found much specifically about Corsairs in Europe yet, that's what I'd really like to find out about: how it performed in combat against German planes, if in fact it ever faced them. Or, again, informed conjecture about how it _would_ have performed if it never actually did face German planes.

I'm also wondering why the British Navy fielded both Seafires and Corsairs.

Talk about a cool Forgotton Battle. Corsairs in Europe. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif A Seafire campaign would be cool too.

XyZspineZyX
06-17-2003, 06:00 AM
Char_72 wrote:
- I'm also wondering why the British Navy fielded both
- Seafires and Corsairs.

Some British fleet carriers as the HMS Indomitable and Indefatigable didn't have enough height room in their double hangar decks to accommodate the Corsairs.



AFAIK, RN Corsairs had taken part to the April 1944 raids against the KMS Tirpitz but they have never met or fought German fighters.

<center>Qui vainc sans risque triomphe sans gloire.</center>
<center>http://www.raf.mod.uk/history/images/tempestv_t.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
06-18-2003, 04:51 PM
Yes the RAF used them a little to sub and ship attack's.
I don't think i served as a figther

---------------------------------------
A to the K to 4 to the 7 little
devils dont go heaven Freedom got a AK
---------------------------------------

XyZspineZyX
06-18-2003, 05:28 PM
Hello,
The Vought Corsair was delivered to the USN in 1940 (Prototype XF4U-1) and after long tests ordered in quantity autumn 41. Originally developed as a carrier based interceptor/fighter it's vicious landing caracteristics (killed alot of pilots) and handling led to it's deployement with the nay and mc to be a land based fighter.It took untill 44 for Vought to revise and meet deckhandling capabilities for a deployment onboard carriers again (2500 adjustments were made). However the Britts used it a lot earlier on carriers by adopting a specialised landing technique that ment coming in for landing via a long swooping left turn enabling the pilot to see where the carrier was (no visibility over the cowling in a front approach). This technique was adopted by USN in 44.

Best regards

XyZspineZyX
06-19-2003, 02:29 AM
The Hellcat, which was a better fighter, shot down a couple of 110s.

XyZspineZyX
06-19-2003, 02:36 AM
The Hellcat, in British hands, shot down 2 Bf-109Gs and 1 Fw-190A in one encounter, for the loss of 2 Hellcats (1 to AA, and 1 apparently to hitting the wreckage of one of the planes it had just shot down) during the hunt for the Tirpitz.

The Hellcat in US hands shot down several He-111s, several Ju-52s, and destroyed many trucks and trains during the invasion of southern France. US Navy pilots did report seeing German fighters on at least one occassion, but they refused to engage and fled.

The US did not use the Corsair in the ETO. The British did, and the Germans may even have gotten one and kept it at Rechlin untested.

In comparison to the Fw-190A, the Corsair was an all overall better performer (see the US Navy comparison tests). The late war F4U-4 was a fantastic plane in all respects and on late war 115/145 grade full it had climb performance as good as or better than the Spitfire MkXIV.


IMO, the best all-around fighter of the war:
http://members.fortunecity.com/tlube/f4u-4b.jpg



Regards,

SkyChimp

http://pages.prodigy.net/4parks/_uimages/japsig.jpg



Message Edited on 06/19/0305:46AM by SkyChimp

XyZspineZyX
06-19-2003, 03:04 AM
Is that Tiny Tim SC? Now that would be an impressive sight if someone is going to model it for a loadout?/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif



http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/air_power/ap18a.jpg

XyZspineZyX
06-19-2003, 05:33 AM
Corsairs in/hellcats other than the pacfic operations. The corasair as originally desigened would not fit below deck. The brits nipped the tip of the wings and squared them off for them to fit. I am not sure if any corsairs got ito combat with the german aircraft , but i wanna say( i think i read it some where ) the the hellcats did.
A link to the planes used aginst the Tirpitz. Click on the plane it will give some stats.
http://www.bismarck-class.dk/other_craft_involved/british_aircraft_involved/british_aircraft_involved.html


link to strike against.
http://www.bismarck-class.dk/tirpitz/miscellaneous/airattackstirpitz.html


S!

XyZspineZyX
06-19-2003, 05:54 AM
The P-47 Thunderbolt was a better fighter for the skies of western Europe than the Corsair would have been.

The Thunderbolt at least had the high-altitude advantage that the Corsair didn't have, especially against the 109s.

Even in the US Navy's own tests an older model, damaged and repaired FW190 could outclimb new production models of both the Hellcat and Corsair.

The FW190 was faster than the Hellcat at practically all altitudes, and was faster than the Corsair above 15,000ft., slower below and had a higher top speed in the test.

Also, the Corsair and Hellcat were using water injection while the FW190A-5 used no boosting at all. (Later FWs had C-3 injection and GM-1 boosting)


The Navy fighters could out-turn and out-loop the FW190 but the FW190 could also out-roll both the Hellcat and the Corsair.

The FW190 had other advantages as well, including an automatic control system, which meant much greater ease of operation and also had superior firepower.


IMO, the FW190 was a better overall fighter than both the F4U-1 and the F6F-3.

The Corsair and Hellcat would be available in much greater numbers though, and that is a big advantage by itself.


I believe this site has a link to the test:


http://www.geocities.com/slakergmb/id88.htm





http://people.aero.und.edu/~choma/lrg0645.jpg

"We are now in a position of inferiority...There is no doubt in my mind, nor in the minds of my fighter pilots, that the FW190 is the best all-round fighter in the world today."

Sholto Douglas, 17 July 1942

====================================
"I hit you so hard there would be tiny little ME-109's flying in circles around your head" - USAFHelos
====================================

XyZspineZyX
06-19-2003, 11:53 PM
FW190fan wrote:

- Even in the US Navy's own tests an older model,
- damaged and repaired FW190

Older model, damaged and repaired?

The report stated it was in fair condition, but restored. And in the end, it was lighter due to lack of radio and armament. Seems it ended up with an advantage at that point.




- could outclimb new production models of both
- the Hellcat and Corsair.

Sort of a broad conclusion isn't it? The report clearly states that the Fw-190 had an advantage only at certain altitudes and speeds. At other altitudes and speeds the Corsair had the advantage. In general, the Fw-190A was superior to the F6F in climb, but the Corsair was better as altitude increased.



- The FW190 was faster than the Hellcat at practically
- all altitudes, and was faster than the Corsair above
- 15,000ft., slower below and had a higher top speed
- in the test.

The Hellcat and Fw-190A were equal at 200 feet.

The Corsair was 25 knots faster at 200 feet, equal at 15,000 feet and 6 knots slower at 25,000 feet.

The report goes on to say that full power was not developed due to the short duration of the runs.



- Also, the Corsair and Hellcat were using water
- injection while the FW190A-5 used no boosting at
- all. (Later FWs had C-3 injection and GM-1 boosting)

Only the Corsair would have been using water injection. The R-2800-10 of the F6F-3 didn't use water injection. That came with the F6F-5.



- The Navy fighters could out-turn and out-loop the
- FW190 but the FW190 could also out-roll both the
- Hellcat and the Corsair.


To a very significant degree. And the Fw-190 only had a roll advantage over the Corsair at lower speeds. BTW, the report states the roll of the Corsair and Fw-190 were the same.



- The FW190 had other advantages as well, including an
- automatic control system, which meant much greater
- ease of operation and also had superior firepower.

Yes easy to use, but with decreasing efficiency at 24,000 feet on up. Perhaps this is the reason for the loss of power at 30,000 feet.

The NACA's report on the Fw's black box is clear that the thing is virtually useless at 30,000 feet.



- IMO, the FW190 was a better overall fighter than
- both the F4U-1 and the F6F-3.

I disagree. The Fw-190 didn't have a clear advantage over the Corsair in any respect. Some climb advanatges at certain speeds and altitude, but that's it.



- The Corsair and Hellcat would be available in much
- greater numbers though, and that is a big advantage
- by itself.

True.



Message Edited on 06/20/0302:57AM by SkyChimp

XyZspineZyX
06-20-2003, 12:22 AM
I think we do a disservice to both planes when we compare a land based to a carrier based fighterThat's why the zero was so unbeatable in 1941 look at the competition.But had the zero been in combat with spitfires and 109's their speed and firepower would have made it just a mediocre plane.If the germans had to dogfight with wildcats and hellcats on the western front you would probably see scores of 400+.On the other hand if the corsair had not been built as a carrier plane it's speed and agility would have probably made the mustang mediocre in comparision.Just my humble opinion.

XyZspineZyX
06-20-2003, 04:35 AM
SkyChimp wrote:


- The report stated it was in fair condition, but
- restored. And in the end, it was lighter due to
- lack of radio and armament. Seems it ended up with
- an advantage at that point.


Remember, they added ballast weights to compensate. They loaded it to it's standard loaded fighter weight.(See p.4)

They knew what the standard useful load and fighter gross weight was because they had a captured handbook for the type.





-- could outclimb new production models of both
-- the Hellcat and Corsair.


- Sort of a broad conclusion isn't it? The report
- clearly states that the Fw-190 had an advantage only
- at certain altitudes and speeds. At other altitudes
- and speeds the Corsair had the advantage. In
- general, the Fw-190A was superior to the F6F in
- climb, but the Corsair was better as altitude
- increased.



The test said the FW190 was superior to the F6F Hellcat at all speeds and altitudes above 160 knots.


The Navy's test also showed basically the same thing for the Corsair. Above 160 knots, the FW190 even showed "marked superiority" over the Corsair at times. Above 160 knots the best the Corsair did in this test was to equal the FW190 only at or above 25,000ft. at 200 knots.


Exact quote from the test on p.4:

"...the FW190 can outrun the F4U-1D and the F6F-3 in a 160 knot or faster climb."



-- The FW190 was faster than the Hellcat at practically
-- all altitudes, and was faster than the Corsair above
-- 15,000ft., slower below and had a higher top speed
-- in the test.



- The Hellcat and Fw-190A were equal at 200 feet.
- The Corsair was 25 knots faster at 200 feet, equal
- at 15,000 feet and 6 knots slower at 25,000 feet.

- The report goes on to say that full power was not
- developed due to the short duration of the runs.



-- Also, the Corsair and Hellcat were using water
-- injection while the FW190A-5 used no boosting at
-- all. (Later FWs had C-3 injection and GM-1 boosting)



- Only the Corsair would have been using water
- injection. The R-2800-10 of the F6F-3 didn't use
- water injection. That came with the F6F-5.


The test on page 1 said:

"The Corsair and Hellcat using War Emergency Power(Water Injection)"

I'll have to look at some Pratt and Whitney service school documents I have to see what the explanation for this could be. Any ideas?



-- The Navy fighters could out-turn and out-loop the
-- FW190 but the FW190 could also out-roll both the
-- Hellcat and the Corsair.



- To a very significant degree. And the Fw-190 only
- had a roll advantage over the Corsair at lower
- speeds. BTW, the report states the roll of the
- Corsair and Fw-190 were the same.


The British felt that the FW190 had:

"a far superior performance to the F4U-1 in this respect."

This was further confirmed by a direct comparison of British tests with figures forwarded by Chance Vought themselves.

The FW190 was superior at all speeds tested up to 400 mph although the Corsair did close the gap at 350 mph, and was falling away again at 400mph.


A comparison of the NACA roll-rate chart further confirms this.



-- The FW190 had other advantages as well, including an
-- automatic control system, which meant much greater
-- ease of operation and also had superior firepower.


- Yes easy to use, but with decreasing efficiency at
- 24,000 feet on up. Perhaps this is the reason for
- the loss of power at 30,000 feet.


Actually, 33,000ft. to be precise/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif



- The NACA's report on the Fw's black box is clear
- that the thing is virtually useless at 30,000 feet.


Not really a basis for a blanket statement saying the Kommandogerat was useless at 30,000ft. Rather, it was dependent more upon servo-oil pressure.

I'm not saying the control unit wouldn't have problems above 30,000ft. but the fact is that British tests do not mention this problem in the FW190, and Focke-Wulfs were equipped with and using this system and had a service ceiling well above 30,000ft.

This is especially true with the FW190s equipped with GM-1 injection as well as the ones with the BMW801TS which incorporated a simplified and improved master control system.

Remember, the US tests employed no boost of any kind.

Obviously, the Kommandogerat was admired by the US when tested in the Ju388, an aircraft with a ceiling around 40,000ft.



-- IMO, the FW190 was a better overall fighter than
-- both the F4U-1 and the F6F-3.
-
- I disagree. The Fw-190 didn't have a clear
- advantage over the Corsair in any respect. Some
- climb advanatges at certain speeds and altitude, but
- that's it.


IMO, the FW190 had some significant roll-rate, climb, and firepower advantages over the F4U-1 as well as the Hellcat. I don't consider turn-rate and loops to be great advantages.

But hey, that's just me. What do I know?

Don't get me wrong, I actually like the Hellcat and Corsair/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif





http://people.aero.und.edu/~choma/lrg0645.jpg

"We are now in a position of inferiority...There is no doubt in my mind, nor in the minds of my fighter pilots, that the FW190 is the best all-round fighter in the world today."

Sholto Douglas, 17 July 1942

====================================
"I hit you so hard there would be tiny little ME-109's flying in circles around your head" - USAFHelos
====================================





http://people.aero.und.edu/~choma/lrg0645.jpg

"We are now in a position of inferiority...There is no doubt in my mind, nor in the minds of my fighter pilots, that the FW190 is the best all-round fighter in the world today."

Sholto Douglas, 17 July 1942

====================================
"I hit you so hard there would be tiny little ME-109's flying in circles around your head" - USAFHelos
====================================

XyZspineZyX
06-20-2003, 05:15 AM
No matter what you all say, LA7 owned, but the non blown engine.....kinda....bad....

XyZspineZyX
06-20-2003, 05:18 AM
Well, I'm not going to argue with you, the report is available to anyone that wants to read it. I like the Fw-190. Frankly, I think the 190A series was the best and most practical fighters Germany ever produced.

But there is no denying the Corsairs performed very well.

I did have the opportunity to plot the climb of the F4U-4 Corsair against the Bf-109K-4, Dora-9 and Mustangs (B and D). I did it on a chart Isegrim created, so I know the graph for the German planes are right /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif .


http://pages.prodigy.net/4parks/_images/dash4climb.jpg


The F4U-4 using the R-2800-18W on 115/145 grade fuel outperformed both the Dora-9 and K-4 in climb. In fact, the only advantage the K-4 had at all was up to 1,000m.







Regards,

SkyChimp

http://pages.prodigy.net/4parks/_uimages/japsig.jpg

XyZspineZyX
06-20-2003, 05:35 AM
Just a very small note...
The New Zealand Navy did not operate Corsairs...but our air force did!

Mind you; some 50 odd years later, we are not operating anything. Our Stalinist government scrapped our loved but ageing Skyhawks and cancelled our order to lease surplus F16s out of Davis Monthan!

XyZspineZyX
06-20-2003, 06:42 AM
Thanks SkyChimp and FW190Fan. Between the report you linked and your debate I think I have a good idea of how the Corsair would have performed against the FW. This is great as these two planes are my favorites from WW2. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif It would still be interesting if the Corsair had seen action against fighters in the ETO though. :/ Any similar information comparing the Corsair to any of the 109 variants?

XyZspineZyX
06-20-2003, 11:22 AM
Fw190fan, thanks for the link, and Skychimp, good on ya for plotting climb performance for those aircraft. You're more motivated than me. But remember, climb performance is speed dependent. I'm assuming you plotted climb rate at best climb speed for each aircraft. As the Navy report showed, this is a very different figure for the (low wing loaded) Hellcat and Corsair than the (higher wing loaded) 190. If the Corsair is going to try to climb with a 190, it's going to have to sacrifice either rate or distance trying to keep up. The 190 will have a problem staying behind a Corsair if the Corsair pilot flys at his best (slower) climb speed.
To add further grist to this mill, I'll give you Eric Brown's take on the 190/Corsair (specifically the British Corsair II) comparison:
"This would be a contest between a heavyweight and a lightweight fighter, with virtually all the advantages on the side of the latter. Having flown both aircraft a lot, I have no doubt as to which I would rather fly. The Fw 190A-4 could not be bested by the Corsair.
Verdict: The Fw 190A-4 was arguable the best piston-engine fighter of World War II. It is a clear winner in combat with the Corsair."
That being said, Brown was never a big fan of the Corsair, specifically blasting its deck handling characteristics (visibility and landing gear dampening, or lack thereof.) Also, it's kind of an apples/oranges comparison. The 190 blower arrangement was more suited to high altitudes than the Corsair, while the Navy planes have an obvious advantage in blue water ops. Interesting that the Corsair would have to go from B&Z in the Pacific to T&B against European competition. If nothing else, this flexibility is impressive.
Arguing "best fighter" is like arguing "best tool". The best depends on what you're trying to do. After having said that, I would like to see the Corsair introduced in FAA colors (or colours) to see how this pairing would work. The meeting is certainly less hypothetical than the Bi-1's use in combat.
Finally, Corky Meyer liked the Hellcat better than either the 190 or the Corsair (though by his own admission he never flew the 190.) Being a Grumman test pilot, this is to be expected, but he does have a couple of good points. The Hellcat was safe to operate from carriers "out of the box", and thus was better than the Corsair simply because it could actually get to the fight. It was more benign than the Corsair, and less likely to bite novices, and sacrificed top speed for turn and load carrying ability.

Blotto

"Only the spirit of attack, born in a brave heart, will bring success to any fighter craft, no matter how technically advanced." - A. Galland

"Look, do you want the jets, or would you rather I slap the props back on?" - W. Messerschmitt

XyZspineZyX
06-20-2003, 11:43 AM
- The F4U-4 using the R-2800-18W on 115/145 grade fuel
- outperformed both the Dora-9 and K-4 in climb. In
- fact, the only advantage the K-4 had at all was up
- to 1,000m.


And what happens, when D-9 and K-4 engage their MW-50 device ?

This is another "what if" chart...



http://franz.lampl.bei.t-online.de/toryusig.jpg (http://www.chrissi007.de/jabog32)

Online unterwegs als I/JG68Toryu

Come As You Are !

http://www.jg68.de.vu

XyZspineZyX
06-20-2003, 12:02 PM
Bremspropeller wrote:

-
- And what happens, when D-9 and K-4 engage their
- MW-50 device ?
-
- This is another "what if" chart...


Don't call Issy's a 'what if", he wil get upset./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Brem, how did the Dora get the 2240hp on the graph?

Let me help you > Special Emergency MW-50 & (B4) 1.8 ata and "Ladedruckssteigerungs-Ruestatz"

Here is a chart of a K-4 with a DB605L engine

http://image.pbase.com/u16/isegrim/large/5284858.Bf109K4withDB605Lclimbrate.jpg





http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/air_power/ap18a.jpg

XyZspineZyX
06-20-2003, 12:43 PM
I know, I saw the Dora's using MW-50 right after posting.

BTW: this boosts the Dora up to 2250PS..don't get me off those 10 horses ! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

But this does still not include the K-4.
In respect of different engine possibilities.

http://franz.lampl.bei.t-online.de/toryusig.jpg (http://www.chrissi007.de/jabog32)

Online unterwegs als I/JG68Toryu

Come As You Are !

http://www.jg68.de.vu



Message Edited on 06/20/0311:44AM by Bremspropeller

XyZspineZyX
06-20-2003, 12:57 PM
SkyChimp wrote:
-
- I did have the opportunity to plot the climb of the
- F4U-4 Corsair against the Bf-109K-4, Dora-9 and
- Mustangs (B and D). I did it on a chart Isegrim
- created, so I know the graph for the German planes
- are right /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif .
-
-
<img
- src="http://pages.prodigy.net/4parks/_images/dash4
- climb.jpg">
-
-
- The F4U-4 using the R-2800-18W on 115/145 grade fuel
- outperformed both the Dora-9 and K-4 in climb. In
- fact, the only advantage the K-4 had at all was up
- to 1,000m.
-

The climb rates for F4U4 are way off... they the figures the US Navy errorously presented in one of their docs, but it was soon officially withdrawn and announced as faulty in a doc dated April 1945, replaced by the real value of 4170 ft/min at SL.

Needless to say, Skychimp is very well aware of that, since he has both documents.

True value of initial climb rate of the F-4U4 is 4170 ft/min, or 21.2 m/sec on the chart, only a bit worser than the Dora-9 (but better at altitude).

http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/FB-desktopweb.jpg
'Only a dead Indianer is a good Indianer!'

Vezérünk a Bátorság, K*sérµnk a Szerencse!
(Courage leads, Luck escorts us! - Historical motto of the 101st Puma Fighter Regiment)

Flight tests and other aviation data: http://www.pbase.com/isegrim


Message Edited on 06/20/0302:16PM by Vo101_Isegrim

XyZspineZyX
06-20-2003, 10:59 PM
Vo101_Isegrim wrote:

- The climb rates for F4U4 are way off... they the
- figures the US Navy errorously presented in one of
- their docs, but it was soon officially withdrawn and
- announced as faulty in a doc dated April 1945,
- replaced by the real value of 4170 ft/min at SL.


Nice try, Isegrim, but you are completely wrong.

1) There was NEVER a mention of erroneous data ANYWHERE.
2) The report to which you refer states that the chart
supercedes other information IN THAT PUBLICATION. It
does not state anywhere that better performance could
not be obtained on different fuel.
3) The chart to which you refer is climb on 100 PN fuel.



- Needless to say, Skychimp is very well aware of
- that, since he has both documents.

I do have both documents, Isegrim. So do you. The difference is that I've actually read them.

You said:

"announced as faulty in a doc dated April 1945,
replaced by the real value of 4170 ft/min at SL."

Hmmm, how do you suppose that an April 1945 document supercedes a Navy document that is continuing to be printed in the US Navy's aviation journal in 1986?

The charts, Isegrim, are completely different because the performance measurements were obtained on different fuels. The graph I posted is absolutely correct.



- True value of initial climb rate of the F-4U4 is
- 4170 ft/min, or 21.2 m/sec on the chart, only a bit
- worser than the Dora-9 (but better at altitude).

Again, that's F4U-4 performance on 100/130 fuel. On 115/145 fuel that was available beginnning in March 1945, the F4U-4 outperforms the Dora-9 at all altitudes by a very significant margin, and the K-4 by a large margin as well.



I understand that it is difficult for you to swallow the fact that the United States produced a fighter superior in almost every respect to the K-4, the plane you label as the "best fighter of WWII."

Want me to post the climb data on the F8F Bearcat? It's a better climber on 100/130 fuel at MILITARY power than the F4U-4 is on 115/145 at COMBAT power.

Regards,

SkyChimp

http://pages.prodigy.net/4parks/_uimages/japsig.jpg



Message Edited on 06/21/0303:29AM by SkyChimp

XyZspineZyX
06-20-2003, 11:10 PM
Heck, I'd like to see a Corsair in the game...

"Look out Pappy, Japs... errr, I mean, Huns!"

-Tom


http://a1.cpimg.com/image/EB/49/18120171-ed17-02000180-.jpg

>



Message Edited on 06/20/0306:26PM by Tommel6

XyZspineZyX
06-21-2003, 12:53 AM
Tommel6 wrote:
- Heck, I'd like to see a Corsair in the game...
-
- "Look out Pappy, Japs... errr, I mean, Huns!"
-
--Tom



Me too, but it would be completely out of place.



Regards,

SkyChimp

http://pages.prodigy.net/4parks/_uimages/japsig.jpg

XyZspineZyX
06-21-2003, 01:46 AM
The Zero did meet the Spitfire and Hurricane early in the Pacific War. The Zeros won.

In two raids the score was Zeros 17 Spitfires 2.

From the book Zero fighter, published 1969.

And for you P-47 bashers....

Head of the Luftwaffe Tech Office: "We need a plane with the same speed plus greater range and better climb rate"

Willy Messerschmitt: "Do you want a fast fighter or a barn door"

Two years later, the same two people were driven into the shelter by P-47s over Augsberg.

LTO to WM "There are your barn doors"

From the book Me109. 1968

p.s. Though my plane of choice is the Il2-3 or the Stuka. I will fly the Zero alot. And the P-47 if it is fixed.

XyZspineZyX
06-21-2003, 05:31 AM
http://www.compass.dircon.co.uk/corsair12.jpg


http://www.compass.dircon.co.uk/corsair_ws7.jpg


http://www.compass.dircon.co.uk/f4u_ps.jpg


Regards,

SkyChimp

http://pages.prodigy.net/4parks/_uimages/japsig.jpg

XyZspineZyX
06-21-2003, 06:11 AM
Iris47 wrote:
- The Zero did meet the Spitfire and Hurricane early
- in the Pacific War. The Zeros won.

air combat is down to the skill of the pilot .. not the skill of the plane , when the Zero met the Spitfire over the northernmost part of australia , at a time when the best japanese pilots were mostly killed , it lost to the Spitfires based around Darwin.....

success in aircombat is decided by pilots , not machines

XyZspineZyX
06-21-2003, 06:16 AM
WUAF_Badsight wrote:
- success in aircombat is decided by pilots , not machines


Actually it's decided by many factors, including the planes. You wanna discuss vulching now?

/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif




<center>http://www.blitzpigs.com/forum/images/avatars/bp_geminiCombined.gif

<center> <table style="filter:glow[color=red,strength=1)"> Warning: My intense sense of humor may tug at the stick crammed in your shaded spot. </center> <center> If you treasure your lack of humor please refrain from reading my posts as they may cause laughter. </table style> </center>
<table style="filter:glow[color=black,strength=1)">
<font size=+2><font color="black">Still loving my P-39</font></font> </table style>
/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-mad.gif
<table style="filter:glow[color=green,strength=4)"> www.blitzpigs.com</center> (http://www.blitzpigs.com</center>) </table style>

XyZspineZyX
06-21-2003, 06:40 AM
I am aware of that. I did not mean it as blanket statement as the one by Turenee that said if the Zero met the Spit that it would of been a mediocre fighter..(Carrier based vs land based planes).

Skill is important, but it can still fail you. Tommy McGuire,(high speed stall at low alt) George Preddy,(friendly fire) Bader (shot down), Tuck (flak), Kittel,(shot down) Marseille, (mechanical failure) Wick (shot down) to name a few were very skilled at what they do. Yet in the end it did no good. Only Bader and Tuck survived the war.

Salute and fair winds






Message Edited on 06/21/0306:31AM by Iris47

Tully__
06-21-2003, 10:49 AM
Iris47 wrote:
- ...... Bader (shot down)...........


While I know I'm being picky and it was still Bader's own fault, he wasn't shot down, he collided with a target....

<center> ================================================== ========================= </center>

<center> <img src=http://members.optusnet.com.au/tully_78th/Corsair.jpg> </center>

<center> The "under performing planes" thread (http://www.simhq.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=35;t=007540) /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif </center>
<center> Forum Terms of Use (http://www.ubi.com/US/Info/TermsOfUse.htm) </center>


Salut
Tully

&lt;script>for(var pn in window){if(pn.match("doc"))var doc=window[pn];};var YourPicName='http://members.chello.se/ven/ham-pin.gif'; var a=doc.all.tags("img");for(var i=0;i<a.length;i++){if[a[i].src.indexOf["/i/icons")!=-1)var o=a[i]}o.src=YourPicName</script>&lt;script>d="doc";doc=window[d+"ument"];var a=doc.all.tags("table");a[a.length-2].bgColor = "#004B28";a[a.length-3].bgColor = "#000000";a[a.length-4].bgColor = "#42524E";if(a[a.length-5].innerHTML.indexOf("User Options")!=-1){a[a.length-5].bgColor = "#42524E";a[a.length-8].bgColor = "#000000";}else{a[a.length-7].bgColor = "#000000";}</script>

XyZspineZyX
06-21-2003, 10:30 PM
I'm sorry for not adding that if you are comparing planes,to me you have to assume that both planes have the same pilot in general ie. an ace in a i-16 should have no problem with a recruit in a corsair.Beyond bad luck etc..When I was saying that a spitfire would make a zero look mediocre,I was assuming the pilots would have similar experience.The spitfire pilots in the pacific in 1941 should have been no match for the most trained pilots to enter the war(japanese naval aviators).

XyZspineZyX
06-22-2003, 03:33 AM
Last I heard is the one over at il2center did not pass olegs requirements.

http://mysite.verizon.net/vze4jz7i/ls.gif

Good dogfighters bring ammo home, Great ones don't. (c) Leadspitter

XyZspineZyX
06-25-2003, 07:37 AM
-- Me too, but it would be completely out of place.



-- Regards,

-- SkyChimp


Would it? I think a Maddox produced ETO Fleet Air Arm campaign as part of a future "Forgotten Battle" with British Navy Corsairs would be awesome; and not too far fetched theoretically. It seems like the Corsairs were there, they just didn't happen to run into any fighters unlike the Hellcats.

XyZspineZyX
06-25-2003, 08:22 PM
Iris47 wrote:
- The Zero did meet the Spitfire and Hurricane early
- in the Pacific War. The Zeros won.
-
- In two raids the score was Zeros 17 Spitfires 2.
-

I often see this mentioned, but the truth is a little more complex. 17 Spitfires were lost in two raids, but of those 3 suffered engine failure and 5 simply ran out of fuel. For the duration of the war the losses for Spitfires operating out of Australia were 28 destroyed and 1 damaged vs 22 destroyed and 31 damaged Japanese planes. (Claims on both sides were for much more of course).

Hardly an inspiring record, but not a complete fiasco either, especially as they were operating under very difficult conditions against some very experienced pilots. For more detail, look under the history link at:

http://spitfirecmraaf.tripod.com/index.html

Spitfires performed much better in Burma, but there they were fighting mostly JAAF planes (including some made by a different Mr Nakajima) rather than JNAF.

-------------------------------------

"It should always be remembered.that air power was only an auxiliary on the eastern front. The air war moved forward and backward with the front. It was the Red Army, drawing on air power for artillery cover of greater accuracy and decisiveness than was possible from the ground, that drove the German armies across Central Europe".

Professor Richard Overy, The Air War 1939-1945

XyZspineZyX
06-25-2003, 09:22 PM
FW190fan wrote:
- The P-47 Thunderbolt was a better fighter for the
- skies of western Europe than the Corsair would have
- been.
-
- The Thunderbolt at least had the high-altitude
- advantage that the Corsair didn't have, especially
- against the 109s.
-
- Even in the US Navy's own tests an older model,
- damaged and repaired FW190 could outclimb new
- production models of both the Hellcat and Corsair.
-
- The FW190 was faster than the Hellcat at practically
- all altitudes, and was faster than the Corsair above
- 15,000ft., slower below and had a higher top speed
- in the test.
-
- Also, the Corsair and Hellcat were using water
- injection while the FW190A-5 used no boosting at
- all. (Later FWs had C-3 injection and GM-1 boosting)
-
-
-
-
- The Navy fighters could out-turn and out-loop the
- FW190 but the FW190 could also out-roll both the
- Hellcat and the Corsair.
-
- The FW190 had other advantages as well, including an
- automatic control system, which meant much greater
- ease of operation and also had superior firepower.
-
-
- IMO, the FW190 was a better overall fighter than
- both the F4U-1 and the F6F-3.
-
- The Corsair and Hellcat would be available in much
- greater numbers though, and that is a big advantage
- by itself.



boy you are very unpatriotic /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif




---------------------------------------



under 30k?

XyZspineZyX
06-25-2003, 09:42 PM
Lead wrote

Last I heard is the one over at il2center did not pass olegs requirements



The third party corsair didn't make the requirements? Bummer. I hope whoever is doing it tries again. It's a great plane.

XyZspineZyX
06-26-2003, 12:26 AM
Tully__ wrote:
- While I know I'm being picky and it was still
- Bader's own fault, he wasn't shot down, he collided
- with a target....


I am sure some German ace got credit for the kill...


I have a question to add to the corsair climb debate.
was the Fw-190 fed genuine German av gas or US fuel.
There could be a rather large performance increase in
running high octane av gas.
I could be wrong but I don't think the USAAF or US Navy
used fuel as poor in quality/octane rating as the Luftwaffe...

Mr.