« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5   Go Down

Author Topic: Why was the F4u faster than the F6f?  (Read 3991 times)

Offline Swarmed

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 164
      • http://www.myspace.com/kazuoson
Why was the F4u faster than the F6f?
« Reply #15 on: July 17, 2005, 10:27:18 AM »




Here's a person to plane comparison. F6 is quite a bit bigger than the F4U.
Logged

Offline OOZ662

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7019
Why was the F4u faster than the F6f?
« Reply #16 on: July 17, 2005, 04:09:59 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by OOZ662
F4U-5N had a wingspan of 41 ft and was 33 ft 6 in long.
F6F-5 had a wingspan of 42 ft 10 in and was 33 ft 6 5/8 in long.


Either I'm not comparing the right thing to you guys or you're just ignoring me...:rolleyes:

The F4U is only 5/8 of an inch shorter than the F6F, but the F6F has a longer wingspan by 1 ft 10 in.
Logged
A Rook who first flew 09/26/03 at the age of 13, has been a GL in 10+ Scenarios, and was two-time Points and First Annual 68KO Cup winner of the AH Extreme Air Racing League.

Offline Widewing

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8804
Why was the F4u faster than the F6f?
« Reply #17 on: July 17, 2005, 04:28:50 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Swarmed




Note that this F6F has been pranged. A big dent in the upper cowling, a dent in the top side of the belly tank and a bent propeller blade.... I'll bet it was hit by another aircraft, possibly being towed or pushed on the flight deck.

My regards,

Widewing
Logged
My regards,

Widewing

YGBSM. Retired Member of Aces High Trainer Corps, Past President of the DFC, retired from flying as Tredlite.

Offline Blooz

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3845
Why was the F4u faster than the F6f?
« Reply #18 on: July 17, 2005, 08:22:48 PM »
Looks to me it got caught in the arrestor wires or in the crash barrier as evidenced by the cables on the deck and the one hung up in the prop.
Logged
White 9
JG11 Sonderstaffel

"The 'F' in 'communism' stands for food."

Offline mars01

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4148
Why was the F4u faster than the F6f?
« Reply #19 on: July 17, 2005, 10:15:09 PM »
Quote
I've wondered that too. About the stabilizer. looks ugly.
I can tell all your taste is in your mouth :D.   Nothing ugly about teh HOG!
Logged

Offline Bodhi

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8698
Why was the F4u faster than the F6f?
« Reply #20 on: July 18, 2005, 05:00:00 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Swarmed




Here's a person to plane comparison. F6 is quite a bit bigger than the F4U.


It is NOT "quite a bit bigger."

The sizes are comparable, within a foot in wing length, inches of overall length.  The weights are also comparable.  

So HOW is it quite a bit bigger????
Logged
I regret doing business with TD Computer Systems.

Offline Shane

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8004
Why was the F4u faster than the F6f?
« Reply #21 on: July 18, 2005, 05:20:02 PM »
all i claimed was the f6f was as big as a jug and that the f4u is smaller than expected...  :aok
Logged
Surrounded by suck and underwhelmed with mediocrity.
I'm always right, it just takes some poepl longer to come to that realization than others.
I'm not perfect, but I am closer to it than you are.
"...vox populi, vox dei..."  ~Alcuin ca. 798
Truth doesn't need exaggeration.

Offline Krusty

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 26745
Why was the F4u faster than the F6f?
« Reply #22 on: July 18, 2005, 05:26:49 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Bodhi
It is NOT "quite a bit bigger."

The sizes are comparable, within a foot in wing length, inches of overall length.  The weights are also comparable.  

So HOW is it quite a bit bigger????


Bodi you've made quite the logical error here....

"bigger" is not limited to wingspan. You must take into account mass, fuselage area, etc. The corsair's wings may reach to the same dimensions as the F6F, but the fuselage, engine, body, and everything, are all MUCH smaller, part for part, than the F6F's. The F6F is bulky, wide, deep, and has a lot more "displacement" (let's use that term) than the f4u1
Logged

Offline Bodhi

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8698
Why was the F4u faster than the F6f?
« Reply #23 on: July 18, 2005, 05:41:41 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Krusty
Bodi you've made quite the logical error here....

"bigger" is not limited to wingspan. You must take into account mass, fuselage area, etc. The corsair's wings may reach to the same dimensions as the F6F, but the fuselage, engine, body, and everything, are all MUCH smaller, part for part, than the F6F's. The F6F is bulky, wide, deep, and has a lot more "displacement" (let's use that term) than the f4u1


Currently we are working on an F4u.  I am well aware of it's size, and am able to look at numerous Hellcat carcasses any time I please.  I am also well aware that the F6F aircraft has a larger diameter fuselage, and the wings are thicker midspan.  They are relatively the same at the root.  The Corsair actually has larger wings if you strech them out from the gull.  

At the end of the day, side by side, the Hellcat is bigger than the F4u, but not by such a margin that it is a major size difference.
Logged
I regret doing business with TD Computer Systems.

Offline joeblogs

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 649
the thread has lost its way...
« Reply #24 on: July 18, 2005, 07:48:16 PM »
I started the post to add a piece of new (I think) info about how these planes are different. It doesn't pertain to top speed, but rather to speeds below 12k, well below the critical alt for max speed of either...

I think we know all this other stuff already. Anyone can look up the physical measurements of these planes...

-blogs
Logged

Offline Bodhi

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8698
Why was the F4u faster than the F6f?
« Reply #25 on: July 18, 2005, 09:41:32 PM »
ok, but if you really want to argue size, look at a frame by frame comparison of the Hellcat to Corsair.

Then tell me the F4u is that much smaller....
Logged
I regret doing business with TD Computer Systems.

Offline F4UDOA

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1731
      • http://mywebpages.comcast.net/markw4/index.html
Why was the F4u faster than the F6f?
« Reply #26 on: July 19, 2005, 08:35:24 AM »
As for size comparisons I love the OFMC birds flying in formation. It shows the small medium and large viariety of warbird types all in formation.







The Cd0 of the F4U was lower than the F6F by a fair margin due mostly to the frontal area being smaller, the cockpit being moved further aft and the slightly smaller wing area. It is said that "The F6F is the box the F4U came in".

However the big difference at low altitude was the RAM air capability of the F4U. In fact the later flight manuals of the F4U and F6F despite having the same engine rate the F4U-1 R2800-8W with 2300HP at sea level while the F6F R2800-10W remains at 2250HP rating no doubt due to RAM air.

Also the later F4U-1's were cleared for 2800RPM on takeoff.
Logged

Offline BlkKnit

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2090
Why was the F4u faster than the F6f?
« Reply #27 on: July 19, 2005, 09:39:06 AM »
Shane says the Hog is smaller than expected....heh, well all I know is the first time I saw one up close I was very suprised at how big it looked.  Airshow at ElToro, Pappy was gonna be there, and a F4U was parked at one of the squadrons, in blacksheep markings of course.  It seemed HUGE.  We rolled in there on the guard detail, changing out the guards.

I gotta mention the dolt we were relieving at that post had been up walking around on its wings.  He very nearly got a beatin over it.
Logged

Once a Knight is Never Enough

Offline HoHun

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2182
Re: Why was the F4u faster than the F6f?
« Reply #28 on: July 19, 2005, 12:49:29 PM »
Hi Joe,

>Rather surprisingly, ram air was not supplied to the main stage blower, only to the auxillary stage.

Have you ever seen a diagram of the supercharger intake arrangement? I'm not quite certain on how the description translates into a system.

>This anomally explains why a Corsair handily outperforms a Hellcat at lower altitudes. The Corsair's main stage was fed ram air and thus gained a significant amount of power.

Well, I don't believe this is a correct intepretation. Below full throttle height, you actually lose power to ram effect because the throttle has to be closed further to avoid overboosting, deteriorating volumentric efficiency.

Ram effect is beneficial above full throttle height only.

The reason for the Corsair's superior speed is its smaller frontal area (there's little to chose between the wings), made possible by embedding the air intakes into the wing root. As mentioned above, the gull-wing arrangement helps to reduce fuselage-wing interference drag, too.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)
Logged

Offline Furious

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3243
Why was the F4u faster than the F6f?
« Reply #29 on: July 19, 2005, 01:05:38 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by F4UDOA
As for size comparisons I love the OFMC birds flying in formation. It shows the small medium and large viariety of warbird types all in formation....


Relative size in perspective can be deceptive.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5   Go Up
« previous next »