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.

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.

Happy new year great insight in to this to great planes

My two all time favorites in one video! Thank you for all the work you put into this, Prost!

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!

Nice coverage of this topic.

Great video, awesome knowledge and great presentation !

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!

Kurt tank was a innovative designer I always liked the FW190 it was also pretty rugged from what I've read great show thanks !

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.

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.

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.

Two of my favorite planes from ww2. Great video. Live the scale models as well

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.

Sempre quis ver uma comparação dessas, agradecido.

Excellent! Fair and unbiased. Do a zillion more of these.

Well sir, I think you did a fine job. It was a very informative video and I enjoyed watching it.

Excellent and concise. Thanks!

Always wondered how these two would fare against each other. Enormous thanks for the finally answering the question. 👍👏

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.

amazing sir! More like this

I didnt know Peter Sellers knew so much about WW2 aircraft!

Well, that was a fantastic video. New channel to follow! Learning is fun!

Very informative video my dad used to take me airshows in Galveston when I was a kid have a blessed day

I like it. Somming new I never new.

Fascinating comparison, enjoyed it very much, thank you.

Nice video. Two of my favorite WW2 planes.

A very good "what if" piece, Marc. Interesting stats about the 190 vs the earlier Spit models.

Amazing man, thanks.

Well, I enjoyed that and I am pleased your ultimate conclusion was without bias. So you have me, liked and subbed! Bob England

Nice video, thanks!

Great video!

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.

great video. interesting observation.

Can we have some Spitfire content at some point? Great video.

Thanks for all this "1 vs. 1" research of these two great aircraft. Did you build your "training aids"/models? If so, good job! I'm a fellow model builder and your paint schemes were great/well done. I will look for more of your videos, this was my first one. Great job. (I was Navy also, F-14's at Miramar.)

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.

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)

Good video Marc.

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.

Corsair and the FW 190 two of my favourite

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.

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

Corsair is also WAY more beautiful ! 😊 Thank you for the video, greetings from Switzerland.

Thank you.

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.

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.

What a wonderful channel to stumble into and getting in 'on the bottom floor' as it were...

The F4U was/is a huge bird! Then on top of it all was as you showed it's agility! It's NO wonder why the hose nose flew through the Korean war!

Very interesting. That's me subscribed.

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.

very informative and well-presented. thank you.

Thank you for the good explanation.

That was an interesting topic that I have never thought about. Now, I'll have to watch your other comparisons.

Correction: The D-9 was NOT introduced as a reaction to some purported reliability issue attributed to the BMW 801 radial engines - it was because the Luftwaffe realized they needed better high altitude performance in order to quickly get to the altitudes at which the American heavy bombers operated and make their attack runs as quickly as possible.. Also, the G-3 variant of the FW-190 was built (or modified from an A-series airframe) to be a fighter bomber ("Jabo"). The armaments and underwing racks were different (depending upon the specific G-3 model, of which there were several), and heavy armor plating was added to the fuselage in the cockpit and firewall region. Using a G-3 in its testing would not have yielded results that were accurately representative of the performance of, say, an A-4 or A-8 FW190. Honestly? I think the Navy ran these tests to give their test pilots something to do.

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.

Unfortunately they never had the chance to match up against each other. That FW 190 was the best prop fighter the Germans made but was too little and too late. The F4 Corsair was the best overall fighter of WW2 in my opinion once they got the bugs worked out. The P-51 was the best at very high altitude, but couldn’t take hits as well because it had a radiator. The Corsair could take more punishment and didn’t need a pampered runway like the P-51. If I was a WW2 fighter pilot I would much prefer flying a fighter with a radial engine rather than a water cooled engine.

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.

Thanks I often wondered how these two fighters would match up.

Hey Marc, thank you for the excellent analysis. I guess the other question is the amount of damage the FW 190 could do to a Corsair and the damage the Corsair could do to the FW 190. There is no doubt that the FW would have been the best-armoured opponent the Corsair would have faced. Which of the 2 aircraft, Corsair and FW, was best protected with armour and would have been the most durable?

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.

Great info

That was a nice presentation, thank you.

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.

Liked and subscribed thanks for the great comparison

I would point out although indeed they although they never did meet in combat Brits did acquire the f4u through lend lease and loved it

The A version had BMW 801 engine ; they were never able to improve the high altitude performance to the level even of the Me109 let alone allied premier aircraft later P47 Ds and P51ds ; even late P38s . That is why the D was introduced with an inline engine by Junkers . So these aircraft were not available in large numbers in 1944 . The Merlin and Griffon engine were developed to allow Spitfires to perform better at all altitudes. compared with the Focke Wulf 190 depending on which was needed . The Royal Navy was instrumental in making the Cosair adapted fly safer on carriers ; which then probably made it the best performance fighter in this field in WW2

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)

(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.

I always wondered how the F-4U-4 matched up with the F8F Bearcat.

Interesting stuff - they're closer to equal than I anticipated, and the F4U's turn performance is a surprise. Larger wing area helps.

Interesting..!!! Thanks for this video!

The gull wing also reduced the drag of the wing-fuselage interface.

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 😁

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.

From what I have read ,the Germans main problem in interceptions of American bomber streams was the performance of FW190 fell off at 25000 feet .This was the height which the Americans usually flew at .Mean while The BF 109 g was in its element at high altitudes but did not have the armament to shoot down the bombers .The Germans tried to rectify the BF109g armament by adding 2 20 mm cannon in underwing tubs but this made the 109 vulnerable to American escorts has it impaired performance. The FW190 carried 4 20 mm cannon and was the preferred fighter for most pilots on the western front due to its ability to survive battle damage . The early Fw190s had cooling problems with the bottom cylinders in the BMW radials but from what I have read this was solved I thing the main performance issues were the Americans developing the high octane fuel that gave the Allies a distinct advantage in the air war

Turn rate is problematic for comparison between types but I seriously doubt any Fw190 could out-turn a Spitfire - the wing loading is just too high. However, rate of roll (which allows a pilot to change direction) was undoubtedly better in the Fw190 than the Spitfire Mk5. In a prolonged turn fight the Fw is at a distinct disadvantage.

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!

that does not surprise me the P47 Tbolt was big to and it held its own pretty good ,,l agree the Corsair would have held its own also.

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.

Part of the reason for a bent wing is a wing connected to a round fuselage at a 90 degree angle is more aerodynamic.

Great vid - very informative

I ALWAYS WONDERED ABOUT THESE 2.

Well done and very interesting!

One other design innovation the FW190 had was control rods instead of cables. It was a notably rugged fighter.

Thank you for a very nice and detailed explanation.

The F4U-4 was also equipped with (4) 20mm cannons and the F4U-1 (6) Nifty Fifties, it also had an uprated P&W R-2800 in addition to the Malcolm hood and 4 bladed Hamilton Standard propeller.

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.

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.

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.

Altogether, I must say that the video was well presented and I loved the comparison graphs. I'm an old fart who's father was on the New Jersey. I grew up to join the US Navy as a Gunners Mate, Guns (3"-50s) on board the USS Fairfax County, LST-1193. Gator Navy!! OOO-RAH

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.

FW-190 and the Corsair are two of my favorite WWII planes. I'm a F4U>P51 guy.

The Royal Airforce had the Corsair and there were some fights between the FW 190 and the Corsair.

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'.

Thanks

Good video! Kept me interested for 19:19! Well done!

Great compare, sir!

13:55 Slight correction, it should be "SchnellkampfgeschwAder". Pronunciation ...like the "a" in "are" or "ah".

At the moment I am reading a diary of a German fighter pilot who served on the Western Front. First he flew the ME 109, later the FW 190 variants. In the book he mentions that no Allied fighter on the Western Front in 1942 achieved the roll rate of the FW and that they used this to their advantage in the air battles. Most of the time they were outnumbered 3 to 1 and the Allied fighter protection either waited for them at higher altitudes or engaged them in air combat at the latest at the first attack of the bombers. He also mentions in his book that in the beginning they had a hard time shooting down a B17 despite their better armament, mostly they could only force them to drop bombs. On the whole, they could not carry enough fuel to rise when the Allied bombers formed up in the airspace over England. The Allied fighter protection came later and only when they were about to fly over the English coast did the Germans have a picture of which targets were to be bombed and which JGs were to ascend. This was then much too late to climb with the FW,ME to 7000-9000 metres altitude where the dogfights took place. Many officers at that time persuaded Göring and Hitler to shift the fighter protection more inland so that one had time to gain altitude, but the German leadership did not want to show any weakness and so the fighter pilots were the stupid ones. Nevertheless, despite the adverse circumstances, the German fighters shot down more fighters than were shot down, at least as described in the diary.