Corsair & Hellcat in Mediitteranean theater.

[hogenbor]

Eric Brown indeed stated that he would take the Fw-190 over the Corsair any day. There might be some debate over what types of Corsair he actually flew though.

Still, the man served for many, many years as a test pilot (where obtaining accurate and reproducible data is key) and has the world record for aircraft types flown and number of deck landings, ranging from pre WWII bi-planes to the F4 Phantom II. He also has combat experience.

So I value his opinion highly, more so than aces who flew only one or two types in combat. That having said, I'd take the Corsair over the FW-190 in AH2 any day and the later Spitfires over either.

Flame away.

[Crumpp]

So what, that makes the Fw190 bulletproof, even if I buy into your claim it was a porked model they tested?

It's not my claim, Squire.  It's documented.

Spit IX couldnt out roll a Fw190 either, I do recall they shot a few down though.

True and the FW190 could not outturn the Spitifire in a sustained level turn.  Yet I do recall FW-190's shot down a few Spits.

Some reason a Corsair couldnt do it?

No not at all.  The FW-190 would hardly be easy prey for the Corsair, however.  It would be a tough fight from either cockpit with equal piloting skills.

All the best,

Crumpp

[Angus]

You don't live just by rolling.
The 190 was fast, well controllable at high speeds, and packed a punch. That counts more basically.
Agility has been mentioned - entering rolls. Well, the Spitfire packed that one as well, on the vertical axis. Actually so much of it that it had to be tuned down!
Anyway, mentioning Eric Brown brings Gunther Rall to my mind. After all, he flew allied types in mock combats with LW students flying 109's......

[Crumpp]

Angus,

Pick up a copy of Shaw's Book:

http://www.f-16.net/aviation_books_book3120.html

I think you will enjoy and learn a lot from it.  Ask any fighter pilot about the connection between roll rate, agility, and it's link to manuverability.

The FW190 was the most agile fighter in WWII.

All the best,

Crumpp

[Squire]

Read my whole post. The gist being, The F4U-1 vs 44-45 IJAAF and IJN fighters, in relation to a comparison to the Fw190.

As for the Fw190 being the most manueverable fighter of the war, that holds up if you only concern yourself with one axis. It certainly didnt out turn every other fighter, and it certainly didnt loop faster than every other fighter, it also didnt handle at low speeds as good as some did. So, no, it wasnt the wars most manueverable fighter, and im not about to get into it here over that.

The term "manuerverbility" is too generic I suppose, because somebody always comes out with a specific in response to the term, but im not about to go into a 15 page technical diatribe every time I want to make a general comment, so I will labour on with it, as time is precious.

In any event, there was no "bylaw" passed in WW2 that would have prevented a 400+mph F4U-1 from shooting down a Fw190, which was my point, in response to the pilot caliming he "had no doubt he could shoot one down", which is just empty rhetoric, they could all be shot down, and they all were. < I labour it the point of being painfull as it still seems to allude.

Regards.

[Crumpp]

As for the Fw190 being the most manueverable fighter of the war, that holds up if you only concern yourself with one axis.

Read up on aircraft agility.

certainly didnt loop faster than every other fighter,

This comes from what?  One RAE report on an FW-190A3 that was experiencing heavy knocking due to the use of allied aviation fuels flown by a British pilot with how much experience in the type??  Less power = Less performance.

Check out the CG location on the FW-190A3/A4 compared to other FW190A's.

The light stick forces of the FW-190 made it easy to overcontrol.  Many transitioning 109's pilots had trouble looping it for this reason.  Once they learned not to input too much elevator, the FW 190 looped nicely.

it also didnt handle at low speeds as good as some did.

Sure, allied test pilots could not handle it well at low speeds nor can any aircraft with a rearward CG be handled well at low speeds.  Read the P51 POH warnings.

Besides having a different engine, the FW-190G series CG is to rear when compared with a fighter variant.  This lowers the stall speed and the power production is different.  Both effect turn radius.

Facts are the FW-190G series turned as well as the P51B/C according to RAE tactical trials.  It easily outturned both the Mustang IIa and the P47D-4 at speeds below 250IAS.  In both aircraft, the inexperienced in the type allied pilot had to reduce throttle to keep from overrunning them.

With that said, it was never designed to be a turn fighter.  I could outclimb the F4U1, was faster until 15,000 feet and could reverse very quickly.

All the best,

Crumpp

[bozon]

once you pass a certain roll rate ability it doesn't matter any more. If one plane could complete a full 360 in 1 sec and the other two full rolls 720 degrees in one second then the latter rolls twice as good as the 1st - the practical advantage will be zero though. A fighter needs to roll "well enough".

I remember asking an F-16 pilot, after a dogfight with a pair of A-4s, about the great roll rate of the A-4 skyhawk. His answer was that the little bugger can roll as much as he likes in his gunsight

Bozon

[icemaw]

The best plane of the war was the one that survived contacts with the enemy and brought you home safe. Everything else is just BLah bu Blah bu Blah.

[Crumpp]

A fighter needs to roll "well enough".

Study up on Geometry.

All the best,

Crumpp

[MiloMorai]

You all listen to Crumpp for he is the expert on everything.

[bozon]

Originally posted by Crumpp
Study up on Geometry.

Crumpp, it is not just studying Geometry - you also need to understand it.

Bozon

[Crumpp]

All the best,

Crumpp

[Karnak]

That is true Crump, however that page neglects to qualify that with the mention that the larger winged aircraft can pull into turns that the shorter winged aircraft cannot match without suffering a flight departure.

Also the diagram presents a rather exagerated difference in roll rate.

[Crumpp]

Karnak,

You are correct and so is the diagram.  The diagram's conditions are the same angle of bank and the same speed.

Some aircraft can pull a tighter angle of bank and some wings can still fly at a slower speed.

Remember the slower the speed, the smaller the radius.

Minimum radius of turn is dependant upon Pa vs Pr at CLmax.
 

All the best,

Crumpp

[Karnak]

Yes, I saw that, I was mainly clarifying it for people who might miss it.