WWII USN fighters vs Luftwaffe fighters comparisons?

ISTR a site or book handicapping WWII USN fighters like the Corsair,
Hellcat, Wildcat, etc, against WWII Luftwaffe fighters like the FW 190
& Me 109, since they didn't actually meet each other in combat (or did
the RN do so?) I've googled & can't find anything. Anyone else recall
this?
Reply to
frank
Loading thread data ...
I believe that Eric Brown did a couple of books that compared aircraft to aircraft as he evaluated them. Try googling Eric Brown and see what you come up with. Or someone here just *might* chirp in if they know what I'm referring to!
--- Tontoni
Reply to
Stephen Tontoni
"Duels in the Sky-World War II Naval Aircraft in Combat" by Eric Brown. US version published by US Naval Institute 1988. (F4U and FW 190 on cover). Also "Allied vs Axis Aircraft" by G. D. Block, WE, Inc. dating from 1945.
Brown's book is the one you probably want.
Reply to
Aeropause
Not sure how much he compared aircraft to each other, but "Wings of the Luftwaffe", "Wings of the Navy" and "Wings of the Weird and Wonderful" (vols 1 & 2) give accounts of his experiences flying wartime and post-war types. And for what it's worth, when asked what his favourite aircraft was to fly, he replied"The de Havilland Hornet. Because it was so nice to fly an aircraft that was overpowered". Considering the W.W.II Fleet Air Arm types he started out on, I could see where he was coming from.
Jon.
Reply to
Jonathan Stilwell
Can't help you on the book - but it goes without saying that the RN employed US fighter types in notable action against the Luftwaffe - and the Japanese too. RN Hellcats flew on one of the many missions against the Tirpitz in Norway, for instance.
Dunno 'bout Fw 190s and Me 109s, but F6F Hellcats in US hands operating from jeep carriers in the Med bagged a section of Ju 52s along the Cote d'Azure in the summer of '44 during Operation Dragoon. I think the bulk of Hellcat action in Southern France was similar to what the USAAF was doing in the summer of '44 with their P-47s - namely, tearing up ground targets.
Good luck on the book.
WmB
Reply to
WmB
Aeropause offered this under a different subject header:
"Duels in the Sky-World War II Naval Aircraft in Combat" by Eric Brown. US version published by US Naval Institute 1988. (F4U and FW 190 on cover). Also "Allied vs Axis Aircraft" by G. D. Block, WE, Inc. dating from 1945.
Brown's book is the one you probably want.
------ That's what I was talking about! Very cool stuff.
(plus you gotta love anyone whose nickname is "Winkle"!)
--- Tontoni
Reply to
Stephen Tontoni
One of the problems with these comparisons is that aircraft performance is highly dependent on altitude, and different planes are designed to be optimum at one flight altitude. It is frequently the case that plane A is superior at one altitude and plane B at another, so one has to pick the right altitude to answer the question.
Reply to
Don Stauffer
Wasn't there some kind of project that went on between Germany and Japan. Where they were able to re-engineer some of their Fighter planes because Germany had sent some Fw-190's for evaluation or analysis to develop some kind of -new- Japanese Super Fighter or something. Is it what may have become the , and didn't they start out using a Big Old Daimler Benz -or- Junkers engine for what they ''Frankenstiend'' in the factory.
Would we have had any Planes in the Pacific that could have been able to take out the later Fw-190's and how about the Me-109 and Fw-190 variants that had the 20mm & 30mm long barrel Wing mounted Cannons.
Now I know it's always though of as being much too slow, but just a few of the Stuka ''Tank Buster'' would make short work of a Carrier Deck in a strafing run i'm thinking. Didn't they have a Large Cannon for the Fw-190 that was called the ''Can-Opener'' or something. What are your thoughts. ??
... Carl ..........
.
Rama-Lama-BIG-BORG ; BORG TEMPLE N.Y. Central-Park-West ; Master Builder of blessed temple KITS ; Keeper of Secret Temple Decoder Rings & Bracelets ; Fluent-in-1st--Degree--TALK-to-the-HAND --TEMPLE-ETTE--Guards--SIX--&--SEVEN--
The----WORLD--WIDE--WEB----is totally jam packed with thousands of people who are Destined to be nothing more then a faded weatherbeaten ---CHALK--OUTLINE--- along the---INFORMATION--SUPER--HIGHWAY---
This is My Main Modeling Page and Web-Site
formatting link

And Introducing "SPOT -the- CAT"
formatting link
A brief look into what is really me
formatting link
Yessss , I'm the -real- "Bad Santa"
formatting link
Reply to
cyberborg 4000
The japanese had a Fw-190A and a Bf-109E for trials, but they didn't compare all that well to their own planes, and neither was in production in Japan. They used the idea of an inline engine in the Ki-61 Tony though, but production couldn't keep up with demand, and they re-engined the Tony with a radial and got the Ki-100 which proved better. The Japanese planes stood up to US planes pretty well, especially later planes, but in the late war their pilots did not. A Ju-87D with 37 mm guns would probably make a carrier deck useless in very short time, provided all the defending planes vere away, just as the Stuka didn't do well when there was fughters opposing it in Europe. The germans used both 20 and 30 mm canons in fighters, but they suffered from lower rate of fire compared to the standard UD .50 cal (12.7mm) But both the US and the Brits used 20mm later. The later german planes may have had equal qualities to later US and brittish planse, but so did later japanese planes, the major difference is that after 6-7 years of fighting even the best pilots will be worn out, and especially the US had so large a number of pilots, that they could train for a good long period before being in the thick of the fighting, the Axis powers did not have that oppertunity. The best guess is that with pilots of equal quality and training the tecknical side would not have given advantage to either side.
Reply to
Claus Gustafsen
Absolutely true. The Soviets took the "lowly" P-39, yanked stuff out of it to lower its weight and made it into a low-altitude terror. If a "souped up" P-39 could defeat an FW-190, and a Ki-43 could beat the P-39 over Guadalcanal, does that mean that a fleet of Ki-43's could whup a Luftwaffe flying FW-190's? I thinketh not...
Reply to
dancho
I think the Stuka would have been overloaded and had a hard time getting to the target in the first place. I think that was a creative idea but impractical. How about hanging a torpedo under an Ar 240? Mount the cannon between the engines and the fuselage?
Bill Banaszak, MFE Sr.
Reply to
Mad-Modeller
Those rocket powered guided missiles the Luftwaffe used against the Italian battleship Roma worked like a charm. Slung under a Heinkel or a Junkers bomber I believe. No ifs, ands,or buts as to how well they worked. One of those into the Douglas fir planking of an Essex class carrier could have been a sickening sight.
WmB
Reply to
WmB
RN Hellcats over Norway apparently did mix it a bit with 109's and 190's. You might start by researching this quote:
formatting link

"Some #800 squadron Hellcats from HMS Emperor took on the German fighters and shot down 1 Fw-190 and two Bf-109G fighters. The Hellcats suffered one loss to the Luftwaffe and another to anti-aircraft fire. RN Sub/Lt. B. Richie got the Focke-Wulf and went on to total 6 kills, becoming one of only a few Royal Navy Hellcat aces."
frank wrote:
Reply to
old hoodoo
I read that his favourite was the Fiesler Storch because it was such a delight to fly.
John
Reply to
John Smith

PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.