F4U-1A/D Corsair and its USN Carrier Service

[AquaShrimp]

The 190A-4 is hardly a late 44/45 plane.  The Luftwaffe evaluation report I am referring to compared an F4U1 to a 190D.  There was no comparison, the 190 was superior.

[whiteman]

ah, missing details are important.

[Saxman]

Aqua,

Post that report, please. I'd like to see that for myself.

[Widewing]

The 190A-4 is hardly a late 44/45 plane.  The Luftwaffe evaluation report I am referring to compared an F4U1 to a 190D.  There was no comparison, the 190 was superior.

The F6F-3 and F4U-1 were contemporary to the 190A-4. Comparing the F4U-1 (a late 1942 fighter) to the 190D is lopsided. Compare it to the F4U-4 and see what happens.

My regards,

Widewing

[Denniss]

No, the A-4 was a standard fighter variant.

There's something fishy in this report, the aircraft should have been a Fw 190 G-3 fighter-bomber variant with Werknummer 160057, captured at Gerbini in Sicilly. Or was CE No 2900 assigned to more than one aircraft ?

[Widewing]

There's something fishy in this report, the aircraft should have been a Fw 190 G-3 fighter-bomber variant with Werknummer 160057, captured at Gerbini in Sicilly. Or was CE No 2900 assigned to more than one aircraft ?

If you read the test document you'll see that it is mentioned that this 190 was converted from a fighter-bomber version.


My regards,

Widewing

[Denniss]

If you read the test document you'll see that it is mentioned that this 190 was converted from a fighter-bomber version.

Does not explain how an A-5 based G-3 became an A-4. Some other things to question are possible changes to the engine for the use as specialized fighter-bomber, different engine setup, external air intakes with dust filters or others. The engine they used does not sound to be healthy as it abruptly lost all power at about 33k feet or rough running due to spark plug fouling.
The weight list is also wrong as the MG 17 ammo weight is way off, should be a little less than the MG 151 ammo weight.
Also they did not say the converted the aircraft back to a standard fighter but they used ballast weights to simulate a fighter loadout.

If you account all the negative aspects this Fw 190 was burdened with the test outcome is fairly good.

[AquaShrimp]

The F6F-3 and F4U-1 were contemporary to the 190A-4. Comparing the F4U-1 (a late 1942 fighter) to the 190D is lopsided. Compare it to the F4U-4 and see what happens.

My regards,

Widewing

The F4U went through a stagnant period due to its poor carrier handling.  The -1 and 1D had roughly the same performance.  It just didn't compare to late war Luftwaffe aircraft.

[Saxman]

The F4U went through a stagnant period due to its poor carrier handling.  The -1 and 1D had roughly the same performance.  It just didn't compare to late war Luftwaffe aircraft.

The 1A and D's acceleration and rate of climb were markedly superior to the -1 with the addition of the paddle-prop. All the changes needed to make the F4U suitable for carrier service were introduced in the 1A: it was lack of effective operational procedures more than anything else that kept the F4U off carrier decks (VF-17 proved as early as 1943 the Corsair was perfectly suitable for carrier operations. It was LOGISTICS at this point that sent the Corsairs ashore). The 1C experimented with upgrading the armament to 20mm cannon, while the 1D also introduced a significant increase in the aircraft's ordinance loadout. No major changes in performance were introduced because...well...they weren't NEEDED.

Then consider that the only REAL change of note to the F4U-4 was a new engine and a four-bladed paddle-prop and that was enough to make it the best all-around prop fighter of the war.

The Dora was faster and accelerated better, and may have had a MARGINAL advantage in rate of roll over the early mark Hogs. Sustained rate of climb would also be superior, but this is mainly important in getting to initial altitude and not into actual combat. Zoom climb would be very closely matched as a result of the F4Us greater mass--in fact the Corsair may have had one of the best zoom climbs of any prop fighter in the war. While in weight of fire the German Iron had an advantage the ballistics of the Browning .50cal were vastly superior making for a more accurate gunnery platform. In any sort of maneuvering fight the F4Us of all marks were superior to the 190 at all airspeeds, with the 190's only possible advantage (and a slim one, if any) being in rate or roll. The only real option for the Dora against the F4U would be to start with the advantage and just keep picking. Any 190 that tried to maneuver with the F4U would be dead.

Just because a design doesn't have a dozen different marks doesn't mean it's STAGNANT.

So I say again: Put it up. I want to see this evaluation.

[TimRas]

it was lack of effective operational procedures more than anything else that kept the F4U off carrier decks (VF-17 proved as early as 1943 the Corsair was perfectly suitable for carrier operations. It was LOGISTICS at this point that sent the Corsairs ashore).

Just too many people were killed while trying to land the "Ensign Eliminator".

[Saxman]

A lot of this was the error of inexperienced pilots during the low-speed approach over-revving the engine when the aircraft began to stall, with the resulting increase in torque flipping them into the drink.

[Widewing]

Just too many people were killed while trying to land the "Ensign Eliminator".

I'll wager that some research would show that the F4U was less likely to suffer a landing accident aboard a carrier than the Bf 109 was likely to suffer an accident landing on a normal airfield.....

I have accident stats for the F4U in WWII, anyone have them for the 109s?


My regards,

Widewing

[thrila]

The FAA didn't seem to have too much trouble landing them using the curved approach.

[Bodhi]

Aqua,

Post that report, please. I'd like to see that for myself.

He can not post it... because he never saw it.

[Saxman]

He can not post it... because he never saw it.

Never saw it, or never EXISTED?