Peter Stickney wrote:

In article ,
Guy Alcala writes:
John Carrier wrote:

Excellent post. I particularly liked the link to the USN tests. As the
Corsair's opponent was almost exclusively Japanese, it must have been a
revelation to find there was an airplane it could outturn (okay, there was
the P-47).

The impact of a weapon system with an effective range of perhaps 1500 feet
skews the weighting of A/C performance characteristics quite a bit when
compared to modern machinery. But then as now, speed was life.

In fairness I should mention that Eric Brown, who'd flown all three
extensively, reached a different conclusion than this USN comparison. Re the
Corsair II (F4U-1A with clipped wingtips) vs. the FW-190A-4, he wrote:

"This would be a contest between a heavyweight and a lightweight fighter, with
virtually all the advantages on the side of the latter. Having flown both a/c
a lot, I have no doubt as to which I would rather fly. The FW-190A-4 could
not be bested by the Corsair.

"Verdict: The FW-190A-4 was arguably the best piston-engine fighter of World
War II [Note: he probably means the FW-190 series. Later in the book, when
rating the best performing piston-fighters of WW2 , he rates the Spit XIV
number one with the inline-engined FW-190D-9 just a nose behind, and the P-51D
(Mustang IV) a tad behind that, deliberately ignoring operational issues such
as range]. It is a clear winner in combat with the Corsair."

F6F-3 vs. FW-190A-4:

"This would be a showdown between two classic fighters. The German had a
speed advantage of 30 mph, the American a slight advantage in climb. Both
were very maneuverable* and both had heavy firepower. By 1944 the FW-190 was
a little long in the tooth, while the Hellcat was a relative newcomer; still,
the superb technology built into the German fighter by Kurt Tank was not
outmoded. The Hellcat had broken the iron grip of the Zeke in the Far East,
but the FW-190A-4 was a far tougher opponent.

"Verdict: This was a contest so finely balanced that the skill of the pilot
would probably be the deciding factor."

*A somewhat odd statement, as the Hellcat had the typically mushy Grumman
ailerons. But it could certainly out-turn the 190.

Some of that may, repeat _may_ be personal preference sneaking in.

I tend to agree, although I've also talked to a navy pilot who had considerable time
in both who said that the Hellcat was superior. But like the pilot ratings at the
fighter meets, subjectivity does creep in, which allows the same a/c's features to
be rated both best of and worst of, with numerous pilots in each group. Still,
Brown was a test pilot, and presumably a bit more objective than a line pilot, at
least as far as flight characteristics went.

Cdr Brown just plain didn't like the Corsair much at all, in any
version.

I agree, although I don't remember if he ever flew the ones with water injection
etc. He certainly must have flown the ones with the improved oleos, raised seat,
and stall strip.

Reading his reports, I get the feeling that the Spitfire fit
him just right, and that's what he was measuring against.

He is a little guy, whereas Boone Guyton (Vought Corsair project pilot) was 6'4".

(But not
teh Seafire, particularly, he rates it last in "Duels in the Sky" for
carrier-based fighters, due to its poor behavior around the boat.
It would be interesting to see what his opinion was of the P-47,
which was pretty similar to the Corsair in size & performance, albeit
with better control harmony.

While he certainly is Very British, he's not a blind chauvanist.

Defintely not, when you consider his appreciation for Grumman products. And when he
puts the Spit XIV and Mustang IV head to head, he rates them essentially equal in
the air, with the Spit having a slight advantage if he was forced to chose. I do
think he underrates the Mustang's affect on the European air war compared to the
Hellcat's effect on the Pacific air war, in arriving at his final ranking.

Guy