|
Posts:
876
Registered:
12/20/00
|
|
(16 of 24)
Aug 4, 2008 5:30 AM
|
Opinions do vary, and although I respect Eric Brown's, the US Navy had the oposite opinion after testing an FW-190-A/4 head to head against an F4U-1D and an F6F-3. The USN report states "No maneuvers could be done in the FW-190 which could not be followed by both the F4U-1 and F6F." The full report can be found here:
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/ptr-1107.pdf
--
Illegitimis non carborundum, "Vinegar Joe" Stilwell
|
|
|
Posts:
1,615
From:
UK
Registered:
5/1/08
|
|
|
Posts:
783
From:
Long Island, Berlin
Registered:
11/2/04
|
|
(18 of 24)
Aug 4, 2008 10:59 AM
|
do you mean that I can pick a Ta-152, which TECHINCALLY is a Fw-190?
Because if so, I'm pretty sure I'd be able to dust quite a few of those Corsairs or Spitfires flying against me. I say this as an avid Il-2 1946 fan... 
--
regards
Jan
|
|
|
Posts:
1,718
Registered:
2/12/03
|
|
(19 of 24)
Aug 4, 2008 11:31 AM
|
Not to pick a fight here, but in all fairness, this expiriment could have been flawed. The FW 190 was being maintained by people unfamiliar with the type and who had no tech manuals on how to maintain it. The pilots weren't used to it and had limited time in it. Therefore, the FW 190 may have given a sub-par performance.
Harold
|
|
|
Posts:
637
Registered:
2/11/03
|
|
(20 of 24)
Aug 4, 2008 12:17 PM
|
|
Robert, I thought the Corsair II was the USN's A-7 and it's variants. Are you sure the FW would be a match for the Vulcan M61 Gatling gun in the A-7E??...-BH
|
|
|
Posts:
2,714
From:
Washington state
Registered:
9/10/99
|
|
(21 of 24)
Aug 4, 2008 12:27 PM
|
> Robert, I thought the Corsair II was the USN's A-7
> and it's variants. Are you sure the FW would be a
> match for the Vulcan M61 Gatling gun in the
> A-7E??...-BH
Hi Bob!
Sneaky. 
Since Brown was a Fleet Air Arm pilot, he uses the British designations throughout much of his book. The Corsair II was the British designation for the F4U-1A.
--
TV interviewer: Why do you think people love Doctor Who so much?
Russell T. Davies: Because it's the best idea ever invented in the history of the world!
|
|
|
Posts:
2,714
From:
Washington state
Registered:
9/10/99
|
|
(22 of 24)
Aug 4, 2008 12:42 PM
|
> Opinions do vary, and although I respect Eric
> Brown's, the US Navy had the oposite opinion after
> testing an FW-190-A/4 head to head against an F4U-1D
> and an F6F-3. The USN report states "No maneuvers
> could be done in the FW-190 which could not be
> followed by both the F4U-1 and F6F." The full report
> can be found here:
> http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/ptr-1107.
> pdf
The October 1944 Joint Fighter Conference also reported a better assessment of the Corsair's manueverablity than is often stated. They had two Corsairs to test - an FG-1A, the fixed wing Goodyear-built version of the F4U-1A; and a cannon-armed F4U-1C.
All eleven pilots who flew the FG-1A rated it "A' or "B" (on a four letter scale "A" to "D") in manueverability, while 23 of 27 did the same for the F4U-1C.
They didn't have an Fw 190 to test, unfortunately, so we don't have a directly comparable assessment of the same pilots' opinions of that aircraft.
--
TV interviewer: Why do you think people love Doctor Who so much?
Russell T. Davies: Because it's the best idea ever invented in the history of the world!
|
|
|
Posts:
876
Registered:
12/20/00
|
|
(23 of 24)
Aug 5, 2008 5:03 AM
|
Well, no head-to-head test is definitive unless you have guys firing live ammunition at one another. As far as maintenance, since they were unfamiliar with the FW-190, I submit it was probably more meticulously maintained than the average FW-190 doing quick mission turn arounds at an unprepared field. Pilot unfamiliarity is not going to be an issue in the collection of test data such as speeds, rates of climb, turn rate, acceleration, etc. It certainly could have an effect on mock combat maneuvering.
That said, the FW-190 was a very good airplane. Bob Hall flew a captured 190 and reported back to Leroy Grumman that an R-2800 in that airframe would be a world beater. That was the inspiration for the F8F Bearcat, which would be my pick.
--
Illegitimis non carborundum, "Vinegar Joe" Stilwell
|
|
|
Posts:
1,718
Registered:
2/12/03
|
|
(24 of 24)
Aug 5, 2008 7:36 AM
|
I'm sure the American mechanics did the best they could. But they were "flying blind" because they didn't have the tech manuals and specifications on tuning, etc. Also, the German engine was made for different fuel than we used, plus I'm not sure that they used the GM-1 or other enhancements that the Germans put on the engine (if indeed it even had it)..
Also, German engines were, at times, different than ours. Just look at the trouble we had getting the Prinz Eugen to run. We had to hire German ex-seamen to get it over to the USA.
I really agree with your comment re. combat manuverability. It takes a good while for a pilot to get the feel of an airplane and to be able to push it to the absolute limits without going over. I remember reading a book about the making of the movie "Battle of Britain". As you may know, Adolph Galland was one of the technical advisors on that movie and it happened he was being his ususal German stubborn self when demanding accuracy as far as the Luftwaffe went. He really got upset by the lack of sharp, crisp, manuvers by the pilots hired to fly the Spanish ME 109s. The professional pilots challanged him to show them. Of course he did, giving them an airial display that left them in awe. When he got down one of them said, "You can't do that in that airplane!" His answer was, "You did, or you didn't live to long in the English sky."
Harold
|
|
|
|
|
