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.
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.
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.
@@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.
@@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.
@@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.
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.
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!
@@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.
@@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.
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.
@@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!
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.
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.
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
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.
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)
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.
7:34 - I don't know if it was vacuum formed, but the Westland Whirlwind had pretty much a 360 clear view bubble cannopy before the FW190. Maybe it had a few more frames but it was very close to the ideal 'bubble top'.
Sort of true. If you look at the Whirlwind's canopy closely, you'll see some framing around it. BTW, only 114 Whirlwinds were made and they were withdrawn from service due to engine problems and poor performance..
@@marcliebman3847 Yes, problems with the Peregrine engine, but even with that it only ended it's service at the end of 1943. Quite a long and successful career for so few produced. Looking at pictures the framing is really small, mostly internal support fot the pilot's back armor. For all intents and purposes, in practice, a full bubble top. As the wikipedia article says: "With the pilot sitting high under one of the world's first full bubble canopies and the low and forward location of the wing, all round visibility was good (except for directly over the nose)".
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.
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
That's because they pilots were being rotated out of frontline squadrons, while the Luftwaffe could only afford to pull a pilot out for a month or two. Also, many of the pilots flying the FW-190 had been in combat since 9/1/39. And last, many of the German aces racked up their kills against Soviet Air Force Pilots in the early days of the invasion when the Red Air Force pilots were not very good, were forced to execute tactics that were not effective in planes that weren't as good as the Me-109 or the FW-190.
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.
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.
Had the Corsair been a FG-2 with the 18-cylinder R-2800 replaced with a 28-cylinder R-4360 both radials made by Pratt & Whitney, the Bearcat would have had a much tougher contest.
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.
Great video Marc, I really enjoyed it. There are a few things that can be corrected. Firstly at 4:33, The Last Goodyear Corsair was produced on September 6, 1945, with Vought being the sole producer until 1953 being the -5 series Corsairs. The FG-1A "Mod" is not a Brewster, but a Goodyear. This was a design prototype done in mid-late 1944. Eventually Goodyear used that Canopy on the F2G Super Corsair with the R4360 Wasp Major. 6:36, no Brewster Corsairs ever had a bubble canopy. Only F3As were ever produced, which was the Brewster equivalent to the FG-1 or F4U-1A. There is one example remaining which can be seen both on the ground and in the air at the National Museum of WWII Aviation in Colorado Springs, CO. Outside of that, excellent video.
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.
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.
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.
I am trying to find documents that have them recorded and have not. Late in the war, there were some RN carrier strikes in Northern Norway, but I can't find in either the RN archives or other sources that they happened. So, if you know of any and have proof, I'm all ears.
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.
My father landed Corsairs on carriers and found it difficult to keep the LSO in view because of the landing angle of its controlled stall and the size of the wings. He mentioned something about adjusting the trim for landing, but I cannot recall why. He loved flying it because it was such a hot rod of a plane, and his had a four-blade prop to boot.
My dad was a combat P-38 pilot who became a P-38 instructor. His favorite American fighter was the Corsair. Period. Hands down the best, in his opinion.
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!
seems like the 190A radial didn't have the proper high altitude supercharger set up that the 190D had for the bomber intercept role and it seems like the navy machines were built to have their MAX output @ more middle altitudes--like the 190As--iirc
While watching this im wondering if he considered the deficient nature of the fw190s engine condition due to lack of parts and knowledge for maintenance.
@Marc Liebman. I think it is also worth noteing that this is -1 the -4 would have come out even more on top given the user interface upgrade that the -4 had, along with the slightly bigger wing from what I have read and engine tuning plus 4 blade prop would have helped close the high altitude speed difference.
@@johnklatt3522 Yea most of what i have seen is mostly the same but I recall seeing that the -4 while it is an evolution just like the -5 it had minor upgrades. I am not aware why the -4 was apparently given a slight wing span increece and it is very minor, that is why I assumed it is not mentioned often. The -5 had similar minor changes such as a fill internal tail wheel and again the cockpit was updated in the layout to be more pilot friendly, and function better in heads up use. such as the attitude gage is moved to the center top of the dash.
@@johnklatt3522 I don't beleave there ever was any -4C or E maybe i just don't recall seeing them but i was under the impression there was only The -4. -4B with cannons and -4N with cannons and the radar. It has been a while since i looked into it but if i ever come across that stuff again i will take a look and link it.
(3:15) Sorry, you are wrong about why the wings were at that angle. Look at the Avenger's landing gear. The reason was that when the wings connect to the fuselage at a 90* angle, it reduced drag. The Corsair was all about the performance.
This is partly correct, the wing placement did reduce drag and the designers knew that, but the core reason was the keep the gear short -- the cost was a complex and expensive to build wing form. The Corsair gear was exceptionally strong because it was designed to be the air brakes while dive bombing, and there was no speed limit on keeping the gear down which is pretty much unheard of. As a result Corsair had the strongest gear of even USN fighters, and rarely if ever broke even during hard landings, unlike Hellcat gear.
You make it sound as if the F6F had inherently weak landing gear, which couldn't be farther from the truth. Actually the only reason we see more evidence of gear failure concerning the Hellcat was due to it's far greater use from carriers, which puts a much larger strain on the entire airframe than when operating from land bases, such as was the case concerning the F4U up until the last year of the war. Grumman would test landing gear by dropping the entire airframe from 20 feet and do this repeatedly in order to make sure it did not fail due to normal operational use. Now combat damage is a completely different ball of wax and by just viewing photos and movie clips of gear failures we have no idea of the amount sustained during a particular sortie where the gear collapsed on landing. Furthermore, these carrier crash landing "highlight reels" always show the same handful of gear failures. What about the other thousands of safe carrier traps made by Hellcat pilots where the aircraft landed without incident? These don't normally end up on wartime movie clips because they are not nearly as dramatic in nature. There is absolutely no basis to believe that the Hellcat did not have extremely rugged landing, which was more than capable of holding up to the abuse of daily carrier operations.
Sorry, but you are wrong. When Vought was designing the Corsair, they wanted to hang a 13' 4" diameter Hamilton Standard prop on it. But doing so would have meant that the handing gear had to be very long, which would weaken them. The solution was to install an inverted gull wing. And the approach speed of the Avenger is noticeably slower than that of the Corsair.
Nobody chooses what prop their going use before they know things like the wing’s configuration. And if Vought is so concerned about long, weak gear, how do you explain the Cutless?
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.
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.
I have a question... I know my thought is wrong, but I don't know why. I've always thought if you have 2 planes and one is a tighter turning plane, that's the better one for a dogfight. But, from what I've seen, more important is which is faster. Why? Example, Zero and P-40.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
@@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.
Not true. Except for the torpedo planes, particularly the TBDs, the dive bombers flew at 12- 15,000 enroute to the target. The Wildcats were above them in the upper teens, low 20s. Fighter sweeps from Guadalcanal up the slot toward Rabaul were flown in the upper teens and low 20s. Yes, this is lower than Europe, but most of the turning fights over Europe occurred in the below 25,000 and with the majority less than 20,000 down to the deck.
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.
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.
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.
![Blox Fruits Dragon Rework Update [Full Stream]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/EqDAp8udhm0/mqdefault.jpg)
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.
Great video, awesome knowledge and great presentation !
Very informative video my dad used to take me airshows in Galveston when I was a kid have a blessed day
Nice coverage of this topic.
Well sir, I think you did a fine job. It was a very informative video and I enjoyed watching it.
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.
Two of my favorite planes from ww2. Great video. Live the scale models as well
Happy new year great insight in to this to great planes
Excellent and concise. Thanks!
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.
Excellent! Fair and unbiased. Do a zillion more of these.
I didnt know Peter Sellers knew so much about WW2 aircraft!
amazing sir! More like this
Fascinating comparison, enjoyed it very much, thank you.
Nice video. Two of my favorite WW2 planes.
Well, that was a fantastic video. New channel to follow! Learning is fun!
Kurt tank was a innovative designer I always liked the FW190 it was also pretty rugged from what I've read great show thanks !
Can we have some Spitfire content at some point? Great video.
Sempre quis ver uma comparação dessas, agradecido.
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.
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!
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.
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
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
Great 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.
Always wondered how these two would fare against each other. Enormous thanks for the finally answering the question. 👍👏
Thanx.
Amazing man, thanks.
What a wonderful channel to stumble into and getting in 'on the bottom floor' as it were...
Thanx.
Nice video, thanks!
great video. interesting observation.
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.
Corsair is also WAY more beautiful ! 😊
Thank you for the video, greetings from Switzerland.
Beauty doesn't win battles.
@@kennethcurtis1856 unless it's a beauty battle
That was an interesting topic that I have never thought about. Now, I'll have to watch your other comparisons.
Thanx. Am planning more.
very informative and well-presented. thank you.
Thanx.
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.
I like it. Somming new I never new.
7:34 - I don't know if it was vacuum formed, but the Westland Whirlwind had pretty much a 360 clear view bubble cannopy before the FW190. Maybe it had a few more frames but it was very close to the ideal 'bubble top'.
Sort of true. If you look at the Whirlwind's canopy closely, you'll see some framing around it. BTW, only 114 Whirlwinds were made and they were withdrawn from service due to engine problems and poor performance..
@@marcliebman3847
Yes, problems with the Peregrine engine, but even with that it only ended it's service at the end of 1943. Quite a long and successful career for so few produced.
Looking at pictures the framing is really small, mostly internal support fot the pilot's back armor. For all intents and purposes, in practice, a full bubble top. As the wikipedia article says: "With the pilot sitting high under one of the world's first full bubble canopies and the low and forward location of the wing, all round visibility was good (except for directly over the nose)".
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.
Liked and subscribed
thanks for the great comparison
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
The whistling death is the heavy favorite over the butcher bird but which one had more kills?
That's because they pilots were being rotated out of frontline squadrons, while the Luftwaffe could only afford to pull a pilot out for a month or two. Also, many of the pilots flying the FW-190 had been in combat since 9/1/39. And last, many of the German aces racked up their kills against Soviet Air Force Pilots in the early days of the invasion when the Red Air Force pilots were not very good, were forced to execute tactics that were not effective in planes that weren't as good as the Me-109 or the FW-190.
Good video! Kept me interested for 19:19! Well done!
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.
Thank you for the good explanation.
Thanx.
That was a nice presentation, thank you.
I always wondered how the F-4U-4 matched up with the F8F Bearcat.
On paper, the Bearcat would have "wiped the floor" with just about any other piston fighter in the war.
Had the Corsair been a FG-2 with the 18-cylinder R-2800 replaced with a 28-cylinder R-4360 both radials made by Pratt & Whitney, the Bearcat would have had a much tougher contest.
Well done and very interesting!
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.
Interesting..!!! Thanks for this video!
Great video Marc, I really enjoyed it. There are a few things that can be corrected. Firstly at 4:33, The Last Goodyear Corsair was produced on September 6, 1945, with Vought being the sole producer until 1953 being the -5 series Corsairs. The FG-1A "Mod" is not a Brewster, but a Goodyear. This was a design prototype done in mid-late 1944. Eventually Goodyear used that Canopy on the F2G Super Corsair with the R4360 Wasp Major. 6:36, no Brewster Corsairs ever had a bubble canopy. Only F3As were ever produced, which was the Brewster equivalent to the FG-1 or F4U-1A. There is one example remaining which can be seen both on the ground and in the air at the National Museum of WWII Aviation in Colorado Springs, CO. Outside of that, excellent video.
Great vid - very informative
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 gull wing also reduced the drag of the wing-fuselage interface.
This is true, and often overlooked.
Yup....
Thanks I often wondered how these two fighters would match up.
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.
13:55 Slight correction, it should be "SchnellkampfgeschwAder". Pronunciation ...like the "a" in "are" or "ah".
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.
Thank you for a very nice and detailed explanation.
Thanx for your kind words.
Thanx.
The Royal Airforce had the Corsair and there were some fights between the FW 190 and the Corsair.
I am trying to find documents that have them recorded and have not. Late in the war, there were some RN carrier strikes in Northern Norway, but I can't find in either the RN archives or other sources that they happened. So, if you know of any and have proof, I'm all ears.
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.
Great compare, sir!
My father landed Corsairs on carriers and found it difficult to keep the LSO in view because of the landing angle of its controlled stall and the size of the wings. He mentioned something about adjusting the trim for landing, but I cannot recall why. He loved flying it because it was such a hot rod of a plane, and his had a four-blade prop to boot.
My dad was a combat P-38 pilot who became a P-38 instructor. His favorite American fighter was the Corsair. Period. Hands down the best, in his opinion.
Corsair and the FW 190 two of my favourite
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!
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)
Excellent video! I look forward to watching your back catalog!!
seems like the 190A radial didn't have the proper high altitude supercharger set up that the 190D had for the bomber intercept role and it seems like the navy machines were built to have their MAX output @ more middle altitudes--like the 190As--iirc
While watching this im wondering if he considered the deficient nature of the fw190s engine condition due to lack of parts and knowledge for maintenance.
Is the gull wing design the reason for the Corsair's ability to out turn the 190?
No. Wing area and efficiency of the ailerons are the keys.
@Marc Liebman. I think it is also worth noteing that this is -1 the -4 would have come out even more on top given the user interface upgrade that the -4 had, along with the slightly bigger wing from what I have read and engine tuning plus 4 blade prop would have helped close the high altitude speed difference.
@@johnklatt3522 Yea most of what i have seen is mostly the same but I recall seeing that the -4 while it is an evolution just like the -5 it had minor upgrades. I am not aware why the -4 was apparently given a slight wing span increece and it is very minor, that is why I assumed it is not mentioned often. The -5 had similar minor changes such as a fill internal tail wheel and again the cockpit was updated in the layout to be more pilot friendly, and function better in heads up use. such as the attitude gage is moved to the center top of the dash.
@@johnklatt3522 I don't beleave there ever was any -4C or E maybe i just don't recall seeing them but i was under the impression there was only The -4. -4B with cannons and -4N with cannons and the radar. It has been a while since i looked into it but if i ever come across that stuff again i will take a look and link it.
yes. the -4 outperformed the -1
(3:15) Sorry, you are wrong about why the wings were at that angle. Look at the Avenger's landing gear. The reason was that when the wings connect to the fuselage at a 90* angle, it reduced drag. The Corsair was all about the performance.
This is partly correct, the wing placement did reduce drag and the designers knew that, but the core reason was the keep the gear short -- the cost was a complex and expensive to build wing form. The Corsair gear was exceptionally strong because it was designed to be the air brakes while dive bombing, and there was no speed limit on keeping the gear down which is pretty much unheard of. As a result Corsair had the strongest gear of even USN fighters, and rarely if ever broke even during hard landings, unlike Hellcat gear.
You make it sound as if the F6F had inherently weak landing gear, which couldn't be farther from the truth. Actually the only reason we see more evidence of gear failure concerning the Hellcat was due to it's far greater use from carriers, which puts a much larger strain on the entire airframe than when operating from land bases, such as was the case concerning the F4U up until the last year of the war.
Grumman would test landing gear by dropping the entire airframe from 20 feet and do this repeatedly in order to make sure it did not fail due to normal operational use.
Now combat damage is a completely different ball of wax and by just viewing photos and movie clips of gear failures we have no idea of the amount sustained during a particular sortie where the gear collapsed on landing.
Furthermore, these carrier crash landing "highlight reels" always show the same handful of gear failures. What about the other thousands of safe carrier traps made by Hellcat pilots where the aircraft landed without incident? These don't normally end up on wartime movie clips because they are not nearly as dramatic in nature.
There is absolutely no basis to believe that the Hellcat did not have extremely rugged landing, which was more than capable of holding up to the abuse of daily carrier operations.
The wings are at that angle so the prop doesn't hit the ground. Case closed.
Sorry, but you are wrong. When Vought was designing the Corsair, they wanted to hang a 13' 4" diameter Hamilton Standard prop on it. But doing so would have meant that the handing gear had to be very long, which would weaken them. The solution was to install an inverted gull wing. And the approach speed of the Avenger is noticeably slower than that of the Corsair.
Nobody chooses what prop their going use before they know things like the wing’s configuration.
And if Vought is so concerned about long, weak gear, how do you explain the Cutless?
One other design innovation the FW190 had was control rods instead of cables. It was a notably rugged fighter.
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%
Very interesting. That's me subscribed.
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.
I have a question...
I know my thought is wrong, but I don't know why.
I've always thought if you have 2 planes and one is a tighter turning plane, that's the better one for a dogfight. But, from what I've seen, more important is which is faster. Why?
Example, Zero and P-40.
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 info
Where can I find that fw 190 model? I need it for "Training"
Aiken Airplanes - www.aikenairplanes.com
Great video thank you for posting this 👍🏻🇺🇸
roll rate comparison at 10, 20 and 30,000 ft though?
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.
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.
Sehr interessant! Thanks for Video!👍
Danke schon....
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.
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
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.
Very interesting and informative 👍👍
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.
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.
Naval air battles usually took place at low altitude (think dive bombing) -- hence skewed towards performance at that level.
Not true. Except for the torpedo planes, particularly the TBDs, the dive bombers flew at 12- 15,000 enroute to the target. The Wildcats were above them in the upper teens, low 20s. Fighter sweeps from Guadalcanal up the slot toward Rabaul were flown in the upper teens and low 20s. Yes, this is lower than Europe, but most of the turning fights over Europe occurred in the below 25,000 and with the majority less than 20,000 down to the deck.
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.
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?
Thank you
Great video