As I’ve just started my Tamiya 1/48 Corsair, I’ve just had a thought - although it performed with distinction against the Japanese, how would it have fared against the best fighters and pilots of the Luftwaffe if it had been deployed to the ETO?
It’s all hypothethical, I know, but what would have been its strong points, and indeed weaknesses, compared to the FW 190 and Me 109?
Did Royal Navy Corsairs in European waters ever encounter German fighters?
The only reference I found to FAA Corsairs in Europe were providing fighter cover against the Tirpitz but they did not encounter any aerial resistance.
Oh, and the one that was captured by the Germans in Norway after an emergency landing.
Without going into great detail the corsair would have done well against the luftwaffe. Post war US testing indcates it would have held it’s own against even D-9’s and late war 109G’s. The K-4 would have been tough to beat. I think it would have done better than the P-51 myself. I have US test data of a fly off between the corsair and a late P-51. If you are interested I’ll post it. Hellcats did enagage Fw190A’s and did very well against them. The corsair was big boy, but was very meneuverable. When I get home I’ll can post some more into if you like.
I’d love to see that.
It’s my understanding that the F4U was a zoom fighter like the P-38 and much later, the F4 Phantom. It could zoom in, make an attack, then disengage in a dive, pick up speed, zoom climb and re-engage (in other words, fight more in a vertical plane, rather than horizontal). I wouldn’t think the BF-109 could touch it in a climb (maybe a dive), but I’d expect the FW-190 to be a tougher contender than anything the Japanese had, in this type of battle.
Raymond Lucas was employed at Freeman Field after WWII, and he told me “those long nosed German fighters would easilly out fly anything the U.S. had with our pilots at the controlls when they were flying way up there.” Now most of the compairisons were done against late model Mustangs and P47’s (the Mustang was a better plane than the Corsair). He said that after a couple flights the U.S. pilots were in complete shock! I’d liked to have seen a fly off between all of them and some of the late model Spitfires
gary
Squeakie, what do you consider to be the top 5 WWII fighters? I always thought the Corsair to be up there.
I always put it the upper group myself, but not at the top for sure. I mean to say you gotta look at them all, without being biased. Even the Japanese built at least one that would fly with anything we had, and the Russians had one that pretty good as well. And when you get into that kind of catagory the quality of the pilot makes more of a difference than the aircraft itself. I like that last couple Spitfires used in WWII as well as some of the last FW190/TA152H runs. I’d probably have to say that it would have been the ME262 or the Meteor; even though he Meteor didn’t see combat over France or Germany. But that’s compairing apples to oranges. If you took everything designed during WWII, then my take would have been a Bearcat (I know I’ll be hung by my thumbs). Yet I do think that if the Japanese mainland had of been defended with BF109G14’s that things might have been really ugly; let alone D-9’s. So what’s best in my opinion? Let me think on it a couple hours and make that post.
gary
Sounds good.
I think that the Corsair would have held its own had it been deployed to the ETO. I do agree with it making use of a zoom technique. It would have been able to outpace any Bf-109 in my opinion except for the K-4. I also believe it would have also done well against the Fw-190 as they were heavily armed and armored late in the war which made them very unmanuveurable. The D-9 would have been a tough opponent though. The Corsair could have been a great fighter to replace or supplement the P-38. It would have been a fighter in between the P-47 and P-51. It could have done most of anything that either of those could do. And if the F2G would have been used, I don’t think that even a K-4 would stand a chance. Plus the fact that late war German pilots were becoming less and less experienced would be a huge factor.
As to the mention that a long nose German fighter could outpace anything the US had in Europe, I believe it. That was one of the smartest things the Germans ever did in my opion even if it was late in the war; mate a Junkers Jumo to a Fw-190. Take a very proven engine and mount it to a very versatile plane: very smart especially when it gives you a lot of performance. When the Ta-152H-1 came off the production line, Kurt Tank personally took a flight to cover the heavily armed bomber destroyers during a bombing raid on Germany, and he engaged P-51’s. He reported back that he flew rings around the Mustangs and totally dominated them which I find to be very plausible.
I’ve read that the early marks of the Meteor were real dogs. The ME262 would have eaten its lunch.
The Bearcat was a real performer. Fast and manueverable. I have a book at home describing a little friendly throwdown between a Bearcat squadron and some Air Force guys flying P-51s. According to this pilot’s recollection, the Bearcat beat the Mustangs in every way.
Well If I could walk up to the dealer and purchase one today I would Hands Down take a FW-190 over the Corsair. Im at the point in life where I choose Looks over Performance [;)]
Well I drive a truck now. So I’ll take a P-47M of course.
One thing overlooked in all of this is at what altitude would the fighting take place at? I would thing at lower levels the Corsair might have had an edge but i believe at the higher altitudes where the fighting took place in europe the Dora 9 would have had the advantage. The D-9 was specificly desinged for fighting at these heights.
Soulcrusher
That’s a good point. Even though the P-38 was a top fighter in the PTO and MTO, when the 8th AF tried to use it at high altitudes over Germany, they had all sorts of issues with it and since it couldn’t dive (at least not safely until the -J), the Luftwaffe aircraft could dive out of a dogfight that wasn’t in their favor and re-engage at a more favorable time. It frustrated the US pilots to no end.
I don’t think the Corsair ever got any real high altitude use in the PTO, at least not to the extent that ETO bomber escort would require (LeMay had B-29s going in over Japan at relatively low altitudes to get more bombs on target).
A quick over view of ETO fighter performace based on my memory. the altitude numbers are close but probably not 100% accurate. IF for some reason you like hard numbers I can get them for you.
The fw190D-9 late and the P-51D-25-RE performance is identical. These 2 are an even match at altitudes between 21 and 26K. Above 26K the mustang starts to gain the advantage only if it can keep it’s speed up. Below 21K and the D-9 starts to gain the upper hand. Since the bombers flew at an average altitude of about 24K pilot skill will be the deciding factor.
Bf109K-4 VS P-51D-25 is a different story. The K-4 is faster in level flight at most altitudes. has a far better rate of climb[:O]. Can turn with or inside the P-51 at most altitudes and speeds. The only advantage the P-51 has is a faster top speed in a dive. This mean The K-4 has control of the fight.
The bf109G-14/ vs VS P-51D-10 is a better match up. The mustang is faster in level fight, and in a dive. The 109 is has better rate of climb and low to mid speed turn performance advantage. At 25k these 2 are too close to call.
Bf109G-6 vs P-15B. The G-6 is toast[xx(]. The G-6 only had low speed turn performance advantage to it’s credit. The P-51B holds all the cards and has full control over the fight. The G-6 can’t flee nor can it do much other then duck and cover. Yes I know bartels shot down many P-51’s in a G-6. Pilot skill will always win out.
The Ta 152 was the mechine you are speeking of squeakie. This aircraft had jaw dropping performance at all altitudes and speeds. The allies has nothing even close to it. The 152 actually shocked american aircraft manfactures and test personal. many did not believe performance like this was even possible. Most everybody agrees the ta 152 was the best piston fighter ever produced. The only 2 aircraft I see standing a chance against it is the Bearrcat and the MK24 spitfire.
Now back on topic. how would the the corsair stack up against the luftwaffe? by first compairing it too the mustang we can get a good idea of how it would have done.
I already said I think the corsair has the advantage over the P-51. What I will do is post the fly off info and let you all take it in first. This way were all looking at the same info. Then I’ll post performance specs for the corsair VS a few lufty fighters. This will make fora good one on one comparsion. I think you’ll find the corsair is better then most think and mustang is not as good as the hype. Also I lied. It’s P-51B Vs F4U-1. I thought it was a D. I haven’t loooked at this is years, sorry guys. If anyone has a performance question about WWII ETO fighter now would be a great time to ask. I have that binder out[:)]
Good, the Corsair is still available on the lot! I’ll take it. One of the most beautiful yet deadly aircraft ever to take flight IMHO. [^]
Well, if we use that criterea, how about the CAC CA-15?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CAC_CA-15
Or the MB-5
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin-Baker_MB5
I always like the look of the MB-5! And the performance is very good.
In one of my Corsair reference books, there’s a passage that talks about how, late in the war, Corsairs were planned on being used to carry the Tiny Tim rockets for attacks on V-1 and V-2 launch sites. That would have been interesting. But then again, I’ve also heard about how the interservice rivalries were so great that I doubt a Navy or Marine Corsair would have been allowed into the USAAF’s European Theater.
Eric
Well Frank, would you go in 50/50 on one? I bet if we pool our resources, we could afford to buy a Corsair… seat. We could take turns sitting in it and making “Phbbbtphtbbt” noises! [party]
Summit, you’ll be happy to know that new-production Fw-190s are available… in Germany. You can get yourself the radial-enginedA8 or an A9 with an Allison V-1710 in it. Check out this link. Don’t ask about the price, though! [:O]
Kevin
This is what i think of the matter. (I can’t prove any of the statements with hard evidence.)
Corsair VS. FW 190
The Corsair would be slightly faster in climb and level flight. It would probably outturn the 190 in low speeds and turn with it at high speeds. (Both planes were a bit tricky near stall speeds)The Corsair should also be able to gain E faster. Armament was more potent on the 190 (4X20mm cannons [:O])and it had (I think) better overall visabilety.
1 on 1 with same E, corsair would probably be the winner. But in real warsituations I think the 190 was a better plane, with the armament, high divespeed and zoom capabileties it was a near perfect boom and zoom fighter. As long the 190 has a slight advantadge in E it would have been a fearsome opponent, If not it was probably not that fearsome.
Me 109G-6 VS. Corsair
The 109 is slower in level flight, climb would be similar, At slow speeds the corsair would be outturned and at high speeds it should be the other way around (don’t underestimate the ‘‘snapturns’’ the 109 is capable of becouse of the slats. And the forgiving stall characteristics). They would most likely build up E with the same speed. Armament was probably slightly in the 109s favor (Mk 108), corsairs were bigger (easier to hit) but could take some beatings.
1 on 1 they should be even. The 109 ruling slow speeds and the Corsair high speeds
Would they fight in packs the Corsair was probably better becouse of the higher top speed (more E).