CORSAIR VS FW 190 Comparison
Вставка
- Опубліковано 13 лип 2024
- By 1943, the variants of the FW-190 were in many Luftwaffe units. When the type was first introduced in the spring of 1941, it outclassed the Spitfire Vs flown by the RAF. In June 1941, FW-190s shot down 15 Spitfire Vs without a loss and then again in August, 25 more Spitfire Vs went down for a loss of only four FW-190s. This led RAF pilots to call the airplane “The Butcher Bird.”
The FW-190As true performance was not understood until June 1942 when a Luftwaffe pilot landed his brand-new FW-190A in Wales. The RAF allowed U.S. Army Air Force pilots fly the FW-190A. The knowledge gained from this testing led to the development of the Spitfire IX and a change in tactics by both the U.S. Army Air Force and the RAF.
Fast forward to 1943. Already plans were being developed for the invasion of Southern France in June 1944 that would put additional pressure on the Wehrmacht in France. Since the suitable landing beaches were beyond the practical range of land-based fighters flying from either Italy or Corsica, during the initial days of the assault, air support would come from Royal Navy and U.S. carriers.
Both navies wanted to know how the F6F Hellcat and the F4U Corsair stacked up against the FW-190.
As luck would have it, the Allies captured an intact FW-190D on an airfield outside of Salerno. The fighter was ferried back to Patuxent River, inspected and tested against the F4U and the F6F. This video covers the results of the January 1944 comparison.
I loved the euphemism that Kurt Tank employed when describing the reason for his building of the FW. Went a little something like: Every nation that has produced fighter planes, always wants thoroughbreds. They get an airplane that has fantastic speed, with the aim of designing the fastest aircraft in the sky. By the time the aircraft receives its armour and armaments, it is no longer a thoroughbred, as originally designed. I don’t believe in sending our soldiers to battle in thoroughbreds. I believe we should send them in true war horses, instead.” Enter the FW 190.
A cavalry horse!
This is soooooo true. Go look at the empty weights of every U.S. and RAF fighter prototype or A model and then look at the empty weight of the most produced variants and the difference is startling
@@marcliebman3847 so true, and even counts for jets today! Further, I didn’t truly understand the Zero until I had context for its weight compared to its contemporaries
The thoroughbred thing was certainly true of the Britsh. They mocked the P-47 when it first appeard.
American designers seem to think more along the same lines as Kurt Tank. P-47, F-4U, F6F. All fast, powerful, heavy fighters designed to take combat damage and get their pilots home. Though the F6F was slower because it was purpose built to fight the zero and did not need to fly at 400+mph.
I believe Winkle Brown was very fond of the F6F.
I think people tend to overlook the ability of a plane to survive battle damage because it is hard to quantify. However, I have to believe a lot of pilots might have thought differently.
Both the Bf109 and the Spitfire were handicapped by the limitations of their designs caused by their small size.
The Corsair was the first SINGLE engined airplane to exceed 400 mph in level flight. The P-38 was the first, at least in the US. It was in Feb., 1939, in the XP-38, and went 420 mph.
The P-38 wouldn't do 400mph above 20,000 ft. The Corsair would. The 38 was used much more extensively in the PTO than the ETO for this very reason.
@@tonydeaton1967 The P-38 was used in the Pacific due to its range, superiority over the A6M when flown properly its second engine. Unless you've done what is known in the Navy as Blue Water ops, i.e. no land base within range of the carrier, it is hard to appreciate the security a second engine provides.
@@tonydeaton1967 This is simply incorrect. Testing in Burbank, CA in 1942 utilizing the P-38F and G indicated true airspeeds of 404mph at 27,000ft (well above the early models’ critical altitude… meaning they were doing well over 404mph all the way up to 27,000ft). Testing on the P-38J in 1944 showed a TAS of 422mph at 25,800ft.
Nope. 400 mph was first exceeded by Supermarine S6B (407.5 mph in September 1931)
@@andrzejpietrzak5465 I think he meant to say the first military fighter. The S6B was purpose built for the Schneider Trophy competition of 1931. But its a good point.
My two all time favorites in one video! Thank you for all the work you put into this, Prost!
Danke.... Enjoyed doing the videos.
@@marcliebman3847 This is exactly what I like to see on YT. Straightforward data and comparisons of different weapons. No hyperbole and conjecture. Thank you for posting this.
After watching your comparisons of the Corsair vs P-51 and FW-190, I am convinced that the Corsair was the best overall WW2 fighter. Thanks for the presentations!
There is no such a thing as a ‚best fighter’.
@@wolffweber7019 Yes, there is. Just as we can compare data on automobile performance and declare one car to be "the best", we can do the same with ww2 fighter aircraft.
@@widehotep9257
So, prove that Corsair was better plane than P-47 M.
@@wolffweber7019 I think on paper the P47M is faster than a Corsair in a straight line and performed better at higher altitudes. But the vast majority of WW2 airplane combat took place at lower altitudes (dogfighting and ground attack) so the high-altitude performance numbers, while extremely impressive, are not as important. And from what I've read the P47M was extremely unreliable and had deadly mechanical problems. Also, it was produced in extremely low numbers and flown only in the final months of the war when Germany had a shortage of airplane fuel and was sending poorly-trained teenagers into combat. And the fact that P-47 production was cancelled in 1945 while the Corsair was produced until 1953 shows that military decision-makers thought the Corsair was superior.
Now your turn: "prove" the P-47M is a better overall plane than the Corsair.
@@widehotep9257That the Corsair was produced longer than the P47 doesn't prove it was a better fighter. It just proves it was very versatile especially for Navy applications. The Corsair wasn't produced until the early 50s because it was a great fighter after 45 but first due to the lack of carrier based jet engined fighters and when those were finally available because it was a great carrier based ground attack aircraft.
Fascinating comparison, enjoyed it very much, thank you.
Excellent! Fair and unbiased. Do a zillion more of these.
Thx for the interesting video, Marc! As a German I can tell it would be "Schnellkampfgeschwader". Only 550 of the G-3 were ever produced; it was rather a variant for long range ground attacks. A competition against the later versions A-8 or 9 would have been more time-like. ANY testing data of WW2 planes are tricky info. You never know if the captured aircraft is in it's best possible condition. And then the pilots - are they biased for the Allied or the German plane (much less likely). I think you'd need three very good, neutral test pilots (but where to find them?) and use the best performance results for each plane. Then there are other factors. The German production had to face growing problems with materials. OTOH German pilots often had a long-time experience on their planes, while the Allied pilots got exchanged after a certain time. However - Germany did not have the long-term capacities and was too overstretched to win that war. And I'm glad about that!
Danke. You make good points, but the airplane used in the test was not damaged when captured. U.S. test pilots are trained from day one to be objective. The test data is the test data. One of the problems the Allies had in testing German and Japanese aircraft was lack of parts, training and maintenance manuals. The Germans, who had a unit that flew rebuilt Allied aircraft in both test and deception operations had the same problem. By 1943, the Luftwaffe was facing overwhelming problems. It was overstretched, outnumbered, had no safe airspace to train pilots, was short on fuel, and until the Me-262, really didn't have an airplane that was better throughout the flight envelope than what the Allies could put in the air.
@@marcliebman3847 However, the "Corsair" is a damn impressive aircraft. I saw one live on the ILA 2009 (I think). It was much bigger than the German fighters. When the pilot ran the engine warm and pulled up throttle, the grannies behind the plane would have been blown away, if there had been any! ;-) Some say it's ugly, but I like the whole look of it!
Thank you for answering me.
Wouldn’t it be great if instead of saying “the Germans this, the Germans that…”
they be called what they were…Nazis.
I’m of British/Scottish descent and always felt the German ‘people’ get a bad wrap for being viewed as all Nazis.
It’s NEVER the people of countries that want a war but always a few influential tyrants that gather their blood thirsty henchmen to try and convince the people to follow their deadly path in hopes of peace and prosperity, which of course is impossible for these tyrants😢
From beginning to end, Nazi Germany never did have truly adequate industrial capacities. It wasn't just challenges with fuel and materials. German production would not be what it was without forced labor especially towards war's end.
@@wolframharms3495 people are strange i think the ugly birds are the good looking may it bf 109 or the corsair ... i dont think planes like the spitfire or the mustang wish are considered the elegant birds look as good
and i like the fw 190s cavalery horse apperance
Two of my favorite planes from ww2. Great video. Live the scale models as well
Great video, awesome knowledge and great presentation !
Happy new year great insight in to this to great planes
Kurt tank was a innovative designer I always liked the FW190 it was also pretty rugged from what I've read great show thanks !
Nice coverage of this topic.
Always wondered how these two would fare against each other. Enormous thanks for the finally answering the question. 👍👏
Thanx.
That was a nice presentation, thank you.
Those definitely weren't the only differences between the F4U-1 and F4U-4. The -4 had the much improved R-2800-18W engine (2450 horsepower) over the F4U-1's R-2800-8W (2250 horsepower). The -18W engine not only had more horsepower down low, but it also had a much better supercharging system and produced ALOT more power at high altitude.
You are correct. Which made the -4 a better airplane.
Well, that was a fantastic video. New channel to follow! Learning is fun!
This was very interesting. Thank you for creating the video! The Corsair has always been my favorite WW2 plane since I watched Baa-Baa Black Sheep as a kid.
Thanx.
amazing sir! More like this
Amazing man, thanks.
Excellent and concise. Thanks!
Nice video, thanks!
Great video!
A Malcom hood canopy was a free-blown, braceless canopy. The later Corsairs had a better canopy with fewer frames, but it was not a "Malcom" hood from the UK where they were manufactrued.
True
Great vid - very informative
Well sir, I think you did a fine job. It was a very informative video and I enjoyed watching it.
very informative and well-presented. thank you.
Thanx.
That was an interesting topic that I have never thought about. Now, I'll have to watch your other comparisons.
Thanx. Am planning more.
Good video Marc.
thanx.
Liked and subscribed
thanks for the great comparison
A very good "what if" piece, Marc. Interesting stats about the 190 vs the earlier Spit models.
Thanx. The FW-190A was an ugly surprise to the RAF!!!
Thanx for your kind words. To say that the FW-190 was a rude shock to the RAF when it appeared in the skies over France is an understatement. Battle of Britain veterans who were used to having their way with Me-109s, very quickly realized the FW-190A and the FW-190D flown by a decent pilot was a formidable foe.
Nice video. Two of my favorite WW2 planes.
Interesting..!!! Thanks for this video!
Interesting that the USN did tests to see how the Corsair would do against the FW 190. I had never heard this before but it makes sense that they would have done this prior to the Normandy landings. One strategy could have been to use Corsairs and Thunderbolts together w P-47's dominating high altitude engagements and Corsairs to handling lower altitude combat.
Well done and very interesting!
Great video of a couple of my favorite fights. 👍
At the very beginning, you stated 2 aircraft that never saw combat. I know you meant to say saw combat against each other. Natural the F4U and the Fw 190 saw a heck of a lot of combat.
Great compare, sir!
Thank you for the good explanation.
Thanx.
Well, I enjoyed that and I am pleased your ultimate conclusion was without bias. So you have me, liked and subbed!
Bob
England
Thank you for a very nice and detailed explanation.
Thanx for your kind words.
Thanx.
great video. interesting observation.
Sempre quis ver uma comparação dessas, agradecido.
Thanks I often wondered how these two fighters would match up.
Great video! I liked and subbed. I grew up as a Marine Corps dependent. By the time I knew anything about WWII fighters, I began to read every book I could find about them. My favorite fighter is and was the F4U Corsair...especially the ones that have "MARINES" on the fuselage. Thanks for the videos sir, keep them coming, please.
Reverend, Thanx for your comment. I love the Corsair and I think it is under appreciated by the so called experts. OOOOHHHHRAAHHHH!!!!
I prefer the Hellcat
What did you think of the book/movie "Devotion"? Me: book was superb; movie was good but not great.
@@s.marcus3669 I have yet to see it, but hoping to see it soon. The trailer was good.
@@paststeve1 The movie trailer is ALWAYS good; how many times were audiences snookered into seeing craptastic movies because "the trailer looked good"...
It was a good movie, you should probably see it on the big screen over the small one in your living room....
Hey, I just gave you a free idea for a sermon: "the trailer ALWAYS looks good".... Don't need any money, just give credit to the Jew on youtube comment section!
Thank you.
What a wonderful channel to stumble into and getting in 'on the bottom floor' as it were...
Thanx.
I didnt know Peter Sellers knew so much about WW2 aircraft!
Great video thank you for posting this 👍🏻🇺🇸
Very interesting and informative 👍👍
Sehr interessant! Thanks for Video!👍
Danke schon....
Very excellent & informative. Thank You! This answered some questions that I've had since I was a kid. (and I was a kid many decades ago)
Great video
Thanks for all this "1 vs. 1" research of these two great aircraft. Did you build your "training aids"/models? If so, good job! I'm a fellow model builder and your paint schemes were great/well done. I will look for more of your videos, this was my first one. Great job. (I was Navy also, F-14's at Miramar.)
I wish I had the skill to build these airplanes. They are 1/48 scale museum quality models I got from Aiken Airplanes. They're not cheap, but they make great props for a video and now adorn my bookshelves.
Can we have some Spitfire content at some point? Great video.
Very interesting. That's me subscribed.
Love this.
A lot of guys assume the Corsair was not maneuverable or had a poor rate of turn, just because she was big. So many accounts I have read say that was not the case. This study confirms it.
Peace.
(Edited typo)
yeah. What I learned researching this one and the one on the Wildcat was that a lot of the "experts" were wrong. How and why is another story.
I like it. Somming new I never new.
Thanks
Excellent video! I look forward to watching your back catalog!!
Very interesting Video. The F4U has always been a favorite. I have a large print of it on my wall. I've never seen it in person. The closest I've come was going for a Joy ride in a A1 Sky raider at a Air show in Provo Utah. Money well spent 😁
Amen. Anytime you can fly in an airplane with a round engine, it is money well spent. There is nothing in the world that sounds or smells like a radial engine starting.
@@marcliebman3847 I agree 100%
Thank you
Cool thanks.
This is brilliant stuff. I do remember reading lots of RAF/RCAF spitfire squadron histories going on about the palpable sense of relief they felt when they received their Spit IXs and traded in their Spit Vs. It wasn't that the Spit IX was better, but it at least provided parity.
I always wondered how it would have gone if the British Fleet Air Arm Corsairs had encountered FW 190s over Norway - one of those great "what ifs."
Thanks again.
Yes, the Spitfire IX was guitar a leap ahead in Spitfire development. Interestingly like modern cars have power steering, the Spit IX had power controls on the elevators & airlerons, making it a joy to fly.In fact it was considered the nicest Spitfire to fly, although others like the Spitfire 14 were more powerful.
@@robertbruce1887 Raymond Baxter (of UK TV's Tomorrows World fame) and an ex-war time Spitfire pilot always said that the Spitfire Mk8 (which came after the Mk9 funnily enough) was the nicest of the lot being a highly refined and redeveloped version with an airframe strenghtened to accept the later versions of the Merlin. Horses for courses, I suppose....
It's been a while since I read it but Johnny Johnson describes in his autobiography a fight against a very good pilot in a FW190 while Johnson was in a Spitfire IX, where he was only able to escape by climbing to the altitude where the second stage of his supercharger cut in and he was in a perilous position up until that moment. So the conclusion I take from that is the Spitfire IX is only somewhat superior at certain altitudes so it's wise to stick to where it's the better performer.
@rednaughtstudios 100% - Spit l ix and 190 had their relative strengths. At least the IX gave them an opportunity to strike back / survive. I suspect the LF IXs with the Merlin 66 were a better match against the 190s in altitudes where the 190s generally held the advantage.
That said, you alluded to pilot skill and circumstance - which I suspect dictated most things back then.
Funny how fast technology moved back then, when humans/institutions are pushed to their limit to gain/maintain/makeup an advantage.
Thanx. The "bag of tricks" a.k.a. tactics that the RAF learned to defeat the Me-190 in the early model Spitfires didn't work when one flew a Spitfire V against an FW-190A at altitudes where most of the actual turning and maneuvering took place.
Love this! Thank you. F4U4, Fw190G3, P51D, my favorites in that order. I, back in day, flew AMA 1/12 scale combat. In scale models. Your statement about F4U over fw190 was fact. So cool your description. At scale FUN. F4U would out turn, climb and dive every time. But the FW would be quickly out roll in rate and bleed and recover airspeed better than F4U and P51. One circle or 2 circle didn't matter.Flew all 3. Granted I am talking scale models. F4U was the best all round flyer. But I used to cut some tail ribbons with FW bysnap roll out cut speed and recover speed faster causing over shoot. Every time. Leads me in not wondering about the number of wins the luftwaffe had...
Interesting. Way back when as in the 1950s, I built an RC model with about 4' wingspan. It only had 3 radio channels and was a hoot to fly. Roll rates are interesting because the Corsair out rolls almost anything it was tested against. I think the most interesting comments from the testers were how fast they could get behind an FW-190 from either an abeam or head on start.
Roll rates were equal.
Corsair is also WAY more beautiful ! 😊
Thank you for the video, greetings from Switzerland.
Beauty doesn't win battles.
I find this interesting... from a logistics perspective because it sounds like the Corsair is better but also... a lot more expensive. These are my two favorite fighters by the way, thanks for making this video.
The Corsair was a more complex airplane to build than the Mustang and therefore, more expensive. However, the fact that the Navy/Marine Corps used them as close air support airplanes extensively in Korea as did the French in Algeria says an awful lot about the durability and the performance of the Corsair.
I forgot to add that the Corsair cost about $75K in 1944 and the P-51D about $50k.
Fine video and a very interesting comparison between two aircraft that met each other only one time IIRC. Just one remark: the Fw vs Spit comparison chart shows that the former could out climb, out run and out dive the spit and turn with it, while this latter statement is clearly an inaccuracy.
The FW-190A/D could fly rings around the Spitfire Vs. It was not until the Spitfire VIIIs and Its came into the inventory that the RAF had a fighter capable of beating the FW-190.
From what I have read ,the Germans main problem in interceptions of American bomber streams was the performance of FW190 fell off at 25000 feet .This was the height which the Americans usually flew at .Mean while The BF 109 g was in its element at high altitudes but did not have the armament to shoot down the bombers .The Germans tried to rectify the BF109g armament by adding 2 20 mm cannon in underwing tubs but this made the 109 vulnerable to American escorts has it impaired performance.
The FW190 carried 4 20 mm cannon and was the preferred fighter for most pilots on the western front due to its ability to survive battle damage .
The early Fw190s had cooling problems with the bottom cylinders in the BMW radials but from what I have read this was solved
I thing the main performance issues were the Americans developing the high octane fuel that gave the Allies a distinct advantage in the air war
The F4U was/is a huge bird! Then on top of it all was as you showed it's agility! It's NO wonder why the hose nose flew through the Korean war!
Interesting stuff - they're closer to equal than I anticipated, and the F4U's turn performance is a surprise. Larger wing area helps.
FW 190 could have added a bit more wing area pretty easily but this was never done
yes, and the airplane had other advantages besides wing area.
The Corsair Also had huge flaps which it used in dog fights!
Wing loading also has a lot to do with it
As I understood it, the FW-190 was also designed for off-field use, near the front lines. This included the wide landing gear and ease of maintenance.
Yes. It you look at the statistics for the Bf-109 series, you'll find out that the Luftwaffe lost more 109s in landing and other operational accidents than in combat. From talking to guys who have flown the 109, it is a beast on the ground. The narrow, fragile landing gear and a small rudder making taxiing, taking ff and most important, landings, entertaining.
@@marcliebman3847 You wouldn't want to fly a Bf-109 from any rough air strip. Even a grass air field was not ideal. The rigours of war may have forced their use, but whenever possible concrete air strips were preferred. It is a weakness Kurt Tank already identified when designing the FW-190.
@@roykliffen9674 Amen!!!
Having built both as scale models as a kid even then (1960s) the stability difference was obvious. It's crazy that Hartmann and Rall survived so many missions in the 109, much less their kill list.
One of the details of its ease of maintenance was the 'power egg' design, where the engine could be removed from the airframe with relatively few disconnects required and replaced with a new engine using fewer personnel and in a much shorter time than the Bf109.
First of your videos I have seen. Like it very much. I wish it were longer, that you'd compared the -4 to Dora 9s etc. Question on F4U rate of climb. Was its best R/C 130 (mph or, I assume knots?)? Or was it just that if you climbed both airplanes at 130 whatever the F4U was better? Surprising that roll rates were about same, as I'd thought the F4U had trick ailerons. Did the BMW have a 2 stage blower, or just a two speed blower? Thanks.
Reason I didn't do the Dora Nine was that the comparison test that I found didn't include one. I noodled over the ROC issue. In some places it is knots, others mph. At 130, the F4U climbed faster, at 160, the FW-190 was better. AS far as ailerons, the ones in the first year's production were milled out of wood. the only advantage the Corsair had were servo tabs which give you consistent control pressures throughout most of the flight envelop. And yes, the BMW 801 and a two stage blower. it just wasn't very good/efficient.
Unfortunately they never had the chance to match up against each other. That FW 190 was the best prop fighter the Germans made but was too little and too late. The F4 Corsair was the best overall fighter of WW2 in my opinion once they got the bugs worked out. The P-51 was the best at very high altitude, but couldn’t take hits as well because it had a radiator. The Corsair could take more punishment and didn’t need a pampered runway like the P-51. If I was a WW2 fighter pilot I would much prefer flying a fighter with a radial engine rather than a water cooled engine.
"Too little?" You know they made 20,000 of them right?
@@janreznak881 Apparently that was too little.
👀
@@nole8923Well, Germany did lose ...
uum, the softening of the struts, the adjustable seat Height were developments of the Royal Navy air wing. the Malcom hood is a british company, NB Malcolm hoods were also fitted to P51s and spitfires
I read a while back that an additional benefit of the gull wing was that it allowed the wing to join the fuselage at a 90degree angle, which is optimum for drag reduction.
Your videos are reminding me of Corky Meyer (Grumman test pilot during WWII and later) who wrote some very illuminating articles about comparative flight characteristics of Allied and Axis fighters.
Just a comment here. The strength of the fw190 maneuvering was not turning but ROLLING MANAUVERS. The corsair with its cranked wing would never out roll a Fw190. It was the same with the p47. In early fights with the Spitfire the 190 rolled so fast it appeared to disappear it changed direction so fast.
FW-190 and the Corsair are two of my favorite WWII planes. I'm a F4U>P51 guy.
I thought the P-38 Lightning was the first US 400 mph plane. Sorry, ninja'ed.
And this is still a great video! TY Marc!
You are correct, but the difference was that the P-38 had two engines and the Corsair only one.
@@marcliebman3847 Yep
Great video thanks, I will indeed check out your other videos. Amazing the Allies didn't use the corsair more in the European theater. Whimpering death!
That was Whistling Death.
Glad you made this video! Maybe you should write a book. Not a pilot, but was a flight systems engineer, so I am very familiar with trade-off analysis. Dad was in advanced training in P-51s when War in Europe ended. From my Multiplayer Flight Sim experience I learned F4U was hard to recover from a spin. Also when was the Super Corsair developed? TIA! 👏
Super Corsair was developed but not produced in any quantity. It has an R-3350 (same basic engine as the A-1 Skyraider) but by then, jets were the way to go.
IL2 Sturmovik?
A very thorough & highly detailed video, Mr Liebman knows his subject well
in high tech flight sim game...FW190-D and the F4U-4 supreme birds that most used, to boot and scoot away, if turning fight was lost, they simply scoot away...if you out turn them...they just held their distance to re-engage...it seemed when i was using the F4U, i could manage most fights well enough, against the FW-190.
Hi Marc. Thanks for putting together this vid. One thing I noticed on your spreadsheet though. I believe the 801 engines has two-speed superchargers, but not two-stage? Just something I heard from Greg. Apparently, SS supercharging is what limited the 801's HP and altitude potentials.
Could be.... I didn't look into the details of the BMW supercharger. I am familiar with the two stage unit and pressurized carburetor and it was a reliable unit that enabled more boost at higher altitudes as well as fuel flow.
@@marcliebman3847 It's my understanding that the BMW 801 suffered the same limitation as the Allison V12 aircraft engines in single-engine fighters. Apparently there was no practical way to add a second supercharger (a second stage) to feed into the main supercharger. So even though those superchargers had two speeds (they could be 'upshifted' to spin faster) it limited those fighter planes to an effective service ceiling of about 20K feet. I think that was the main reason FW eventually sought a different engine. The Jumo 213 wasn't anything ultra special but it did have a 2-stage, 2-speed supercharging system and that made the "Doras" effective at much higher altitudes than the "A" versions. And 213 wasn't in high demand either at that time so it worked out really well for FW.
@@SDwriter.and.surfer focke wulf even testet the db 603 with the 190 in 1942/43 (with quit good results ( 190 c v-13, 15, 16 and 18). I thing they where canceled because the RLM wanted the engine for other planes. There where also Tests for a high altiude Version with a big supercharger under the fusulage and wider wings, but they failed the expertations and where canceled
@@shoggoth6292 I'd read something like that too. The DB engines were all spoken for, but the Jumos were in less demand. And I've seen pics of that high-altitude one you mention. I think it had a big turbocharger tucked under the belly. required some fancy ducting. As you indicate, an engineering dead end.
The difference between two stage and two speed is a discussion well beyond the scope of this video. However, having flown several airplanes with two stage superchargers, it made climbing up into the low 30s possible.
The Corsair may have been the first American single-engine aircraft to exceed 400 MPH in level flight, but the twin-engine XP-38 performed the same feat in 1939.
Which is exactly why I am putting another motor in my car; I'll be able to go twice as fast!
The P-38 couldn't do it above 20,000 ft. The Corsair could.
@@tonydeaton1967 Every aircraft has altitude, maneuverability, and speed related performance. For example, how many people are aware that the F4F-3 Wildcat had a higher service ceiling than the A6M-2 Zero and could outmaneuver the Zero when the latter was flying at high speed?
@@Paladin1873 The A6M's time of air superiority was short lived. The Wildcat had it's strengths and weaknesses to be sure but, the American fighter aircraft that succeeded it far outclassed the Zero.
@@tonydeaton1967 I'm pointing out that each aircraft has its strengths and weaknesses. There are many factors at play. A pilot who plays to his aircraft's strengths while minimizing those of his opponent is more likely to win an engagement even if flying something as outmoded in 1941 as the Brewster Buffalo.
The only combats between US navy fighters (in Royal Navy service) I can find are in Norway quoting from " Historynet" WHEN HELLCATS TOOK ON THE LUFTWAFFE
A month after the first strike, Hellcats were back in Norwegian skies, engaging in a unique dogfight with the Luftwaffe. On May 8 ’s No. 800 Squadron escorted a shipping strike that was intercepted by fighters of (Fighter Wing) 5. The British reported a mixed bag of Me-109Gs and Fw-190As. The Messerschmitt and Focke-Wulf fighters were roughly as fast as the Grumman at sea level, but neither could turn with a Hellcat. Being lighter, with a lower power loading, the 109 possessed a climb advantage.
The Germans splashed one Hellcat on the first pass but the other Fleet Air Arm pilots used their superior maneuverability to claim two 109s and a 190. The latter was credited to Lieutenant Blyth Ritchie, a Scot with 3½ previous victories in Sea Hurricanes. In turn, the Germans erroneously claimed three Grummans, though a second Hellcat likely fell to flak. The Luftwaffe actually lost three Messerschmitts and pilots, as no Focke-Wulfs were downed.
Alan, There was Operation Leader in September 1943 in which USN F4Fs, SBDs, and TBMs bombed Norwegian ports. Then, during the invasion of Southern France, RN Hellcats engaged Luftwaffe fighters and had a very favorable kill ratio. Those are the only ones I know of, but there may be others.
@@marcliebman3847 That's what's great about channels like your's a chance to find out more, Keep up the good work😁
Alan, There were also combat between RN Hellcats and the Luftwaffe during Operation Dragoon. The Hellcats had a kill ratio advantage. I don't have the numbers handy at the moment I am typing, but the RN pilots gave more than they got.
One other design innovation the FW190 had was control rods instead of cables. It was a notably rugged fighter.
Very informative video my dad used to take me airshows in Galveston when I was a kid have a blessed day
Correction: The D-9 was NOT introduced as a reaction to some purported reliability issue attributed to the BMW 801 radial engines - it was because the Luftwaffe realized they needed better high altitude performance in order to quickly get to the altitudes at which the American heavy bombers operated and make their attack runs as quickly as possible..
Also, the G-3 variant of the FW-190 was built (or modified from an A-series airframe) to be a fighter bomber ("Jabo"). The armaments and underwing racks were different (depending upon the specific G-3 model, of which there were several), and heavy armor plating was added to the fuselage in the cockpit and firewall region. Using a G-3 in its testing would not have yielded results that were accurately representative of the performance of, say, an A-4 or A-8 FW190.
Honestly? I think the Navy ran these tests to give their test pilots something to do.
Chuck, your point about the G-3 is well taken. However, your last comment is simply not true. The USAAF, USN and RAF all had testing programs that flew enemy aircraft both during and after the war.
@@marcliebman3847 The video SPECIFICALLY referred to USN testing of a G-3. Not an A-series. A G-3. If you can show where the USN compared any other variant of the FW190 against a Corsair, by all means share it.
@@chuckschillingvideos The airplane is a G-3, S/N 160 057 built in Marienburg, Germany. The test report reports it to be an A-4 and in other places, a different model. I had to track back to find the actual serial number in the archives.
At the moment I am reading a diary of a German fighter pilot who served on the Western Front. First he flew the ME 109, later the FW 190 variants. In the book he mentions that no Allied fighter on the Western Front in 1942 achieved the roll rate of the FW and that they used this to their advantage in the air battles. Most of the time they were outnumbered 3 to 1 and the Allied fighter protection either waited for them at higher altitudes or engaged them in air combat at the latest at the first attack of the bombers. He also mentions in his book that in the beginning they had a hard time shooting down a B17 despite their better armament, mostly they could only force them to drop bombs. On the whole, they could not carry enough fuel to rise when the Allied bombers formed up in the airspace over England. The Allied fighter protection came later and only when they were about to fly over the English coast did the Germans have a picture of which targets were to be bombed and which JGs were to ascend. This was then much too late to climb with the FW,ME to 7000-9000 metres altitude where the dogfights took place. Many officers at that time persuaded Göring and Hitler to shift the fighter protection more inland so that one had time to gain altitude, but the German leadership did not want to show any weakness and so the fighter pilots were the stupid ones. Nevertheless, despite the adverse circumstances, the German fighters shot down more fighters than were shot down, at least as described in the diary.
Very interesting thought. I want to start by saying most, if not all, the kill claims by U.S. bomber crews were exaggerated. By 1943, the Luftwaffe was outnumbered and more important, its experienced leaders were being killed. The average USAAF/RAF/USN/USMC pilot was taking off on his first combat mission had ~350. The new Luftwaffe pilots were lucky if they had 150. Like in any war, politics and poor leadership decisions often kill more troops in the front lines than the enemy and Galland, Rall, Steinhoff, and others who made recommendations were shoved aside or ignored. Even if they had been accepted, it would have only delayed the inevitable.
@@marcliebman3847 Yes, that's right. The diary also describes how they simulated air combat with the young pilots during ferrying exercises, as fighter pilot school was getting shorter and shorter because they had to replace the fallen pilots more and more quickly. What the boys didn't learn at school, the old pilots taught them in a makeshift way during these flyovers. The last chapters also describe how they had problems with the FW to keep up with the speed of the new Spitfire models. Nevertheless, I have at least the impression that in his squadron, considering the overwhelming number of opponents, not so many actually died in direct air combat, it was rather total losses or heavy damage through belly landings with which the squadron had to struggle. Since he was also a TO (technical officer) later on, you get a good impression of that. But one must also say that his squadron flew almost exclusively the FW, which leaves out the take-off crashes of the ME-109 where some German pilots lost their lives. But it is also true that he wrote already at the beginning of 1942 that the Germans had to have at least 2/3 more fighters and that they no longer believed in victory in the squadron there, at least most of them. The diary ends somewhere in the middle of 1943 and it is a pity that the diary is only in German.
Excellent video but one issue with the data. The FW-190A4 had a pair of 7.92mm MG17s in the cowling, not 13mm MG131s. I believe either the A7 or A8 was the first version of the A model to use MG131s.
Turn rate is problematic for comparison between types but I seriously doubt any Fw190 could out-turn a Spitfire - the wing loading is just too high. However, rate of roll (which allows a pilot to change direction) was undoubtedly better in the Fw190 than the Spitfire Mk5. In a prolonged turn fight the Fw is at a distinct disadvantage.
Try to read the Book of Johnnie Johnson.. He had a dogfight with a 190 which outclassed the spit V, ( event in turn because the more powerful engine ).. And if this thing is said by Johnson, I think we can believe him...
You are correct. The FW-190s clear superiority over the Spitfire V is the reason why RAF pilots dubbed the German fighter "The Butcher Bird."
In vertical turns, the Fw190 was better at turning than the mkV . No Fw190 would engage in horizontal turns with a Spitfire , you can see this if you play WarThunder in Simulator Mode.
Wish you would have gone into Kommandogerät a bit more, because IMO that is a superb tool to have as a combat pilot while in the Corsairs engine management is down all to the pilot which can increase load on the pilot.
Great comment. I've actually flown airplanes like the T-28 that has identical controls and the Porsche Mooney which had a system similar (more sophisticated, but very similar) to that was in the FW-190 and Mooney 201s, 231s and 252s which have conventional engine controls - prop, throttle, mixture - and are as close to being identical to the Porsche Mooney. With that background, let me say that very early on, you learn to move the controls in the proper sequence so it is instinctive. And, in the Corsair, they went to full increase on the prop and auto-rich on the mixture as they were closing in on the enemy so all that had to me moved was the throttle. Yes, there are some other nuances on the pre-combat check list for the Corsair, but assuming he had the mixture and the prop controls where they should be, it was just moving the throttle.
Back to the Porsche Mooney vs. the Mooney 201. From a performance perspective, the 201 out performed the Porsche version. And, flying the Porsche Mooney, I couldn't see any advantage over the normal controls. Maybe it was because I had lots of time in other GA airplanes, but what I did find was I could get better fuel consumption with the conventional controls than the analog automated fuel metering/injection system.
Part of the reason for a bent wing is a wing connected to a round fuselage at a 90 degree angle is more aerodynamic.
And to have somewhere to put the oil coolers not for the bigger prop the Hellcat had basically the same size prop but no bent wings because the fuselage is so much thicker because of the oil cooler location!
Actually, the inverted gull wing was not used to shorten the landing gear. Vought engineers were tasked with building the fastest plane possible and therefore were intent on reducing drag. These men realized that interference drag between the wing and the fuselage was lowest when the wing protruded at a 90-degree angle. Due to the internal layout, they were forced to go with a low wing. When dihedral is included, this would have caused a significant angle between the wing and fuselage, increasing drag. Therefore, they placed the wing root at a right angle to the fuselage and then bent it upwards to provide the essential dihedral. This made the plane faster and the shortened landing gear was a happy added benefit.
nice story if you can back it up
Cool story, shame it doesn't stack up aerodynamically
The biggest reason for the shape of the wing came about because they needed the clearance for large large propeller the engine required for max power, which otherwise would require landing gear that was far too long for the aircraft to be safe. Vought spotted that very early in the development stages.
Consider this: the Corsair gear retracted backward to nestle between the front and rear spar. This set the gear length. The gull wing followed as the only way to accommodate the big prop. Plus had the right angle fuselage intersection aerodynamic benefit. Whatever, it worked out.
BTW, the 190 is a very small plane, smaller than a 109 or Spit and way smaller than an F4u.
Suggest you dig up the Naval Aviation News article in which the Vought engineers were interviewed on why the inverted gull wing was originally chosen. Realization of the aerodynamic benefits you aptly describe came second.
Very informative, details that I haven't heard before, typically secretive Brits. The humble Hurricane did more work than the Spitfire but doesn't share in the credit, it didn't have the glamour boy image of the Spity.
Up to 1940 yes. After that Hurricanes were certainly still working hard, especially in the Med/North Africa, but were struggling to keep up with a ME109F and would certainly be in trouble against a FW190A.
@@rednaughtstudios Thanks for the info, tally ho!
1] 1st-off Outstanding Video Most Enjoyable Appreciate It. 2] You absolutely sure about that "the Corsair was the 1st piston-engined fighter over 400mph in level flight" stuff? haha. I thought the P-38 was in 1939 at 420mph. 3] If you want to play the [Technically the P-38 was not a Fighter, it was a High-Speed Interceptor] card I'm all for that no argument there. 4] At 12:41 "Question is which 1?" thats the key. Dont get me wrong I love the idea of comparison, and although the Hose went thru its changes like any other craft, the 50cal to 20mil swap probably being the biggest, Kurt's baby was a Heinze 57 from birth to death. Be tuff for me to compare, especially around D9 and Ta-152 time. Same thing with the evolving Spits. 5] Butcher Bird pilots were given strict orders by the "Fat Man" not to tangle with Jugs over Angels 20. That was the 109's job, due its it dynamite supercharger it drastically outperformed the 190 from around 12,500 on up. 6] Me personally below 10,000 I'd place my chips on the A8/A9. Above that...I'd for sure have my ass in the Vought. 7] I never knew the Frenchies had 190s during the war, Good 1. The Spaniards after, sure with the Buchon 109. But Heck!!! 8] At 16:08 in the spirit of the F-16's Lazy-Boy Recliner? 9] Who was that ol Dude that built a scaled-down 190 and used a Single Power Control from like a Beechcraft or Mooney or somethin. He said nobody remembered about it or even knew about it, from back in the day. But he did, and used it. 10] Once again good video...haha but no lol.
Corsair and the FW 190 two of my favourite
The gull wing also reduced the drag of the wing-fuselage interface.
This is true, and often overlooked.
Yup....
I would point out although indeed they although they never did meet in combat Brits did acquire the f4u through lend lease and loved it
I admit I am surprised, but the data is pretty convincing.
I ALWAYS WONDERED ABOUT THESE 2.