Author Topic: AAF Test Early F4U-1 (Read 1687 times)

F4UDOA · « **on:** February 06, 2006, 10:03:45 AM »

Many people may have read about the report where the Army Tested the F4U-1 against the P-38, P-51 and P-47. Well I have heard it reffered to many times but I have never seen it until now.

Mike Williams and Neil Stirling of Spitfire Testing fame came across the report and shared it with me. It is copyright and I am posting it with their blessing so please be diligent in it's use and reposting. It should also be noted that many others on these boards with similar access to critical information are not as forthcoming with sharing and actually insist on being reumbersed. I think history is public domain and should be shared so kudos to Mike and Neil for doing the work for the rest of us.

A couple of comments to note when reading this report. I have some corresponding AAF documents that show the actual testing began in February of 1943 and the F4U in question is an early production F4U-1 without the Link Tab ailerons.

The Aircraft it is being testing against are

P-51A/F-6 according to the serial number noted in the flight card. Not sure if it is an F-6 but the serial number batch is linked to some F-6 types. It is certainly an Allison engine in either case.

The P-38G in the test is noted as being "stripped" or "light weight". I do not know why they tested this way and I do not have the flight card.

The P-47C I assume is standard production but I do not have the flight card or weights.

http://mywebpages.comcast.net/markw4/AAFF4U.pdf

Simaril · « **Reply #1 on:** February 06, 2006, 10:49:08 AM »

~~and THANKS to all those who contribeuted to being able to post this!~~

38ruk · « **Reply #2 on:** February 06, 2006, 03:58:56 PM »

Thank you very much to all for making this availiable ! 38

F4UDOA · « **Reply #3 on:** February 09, 2006, 12:24:41 PM »

Please someone say something about something else of other than the stinking Luftwaffe:rolleyes:

Anything, just don't talk about boost levels in the Uber this or the Galland that.

It is like watching I love Lucy re-runs over and over and over. Pretty soon the forums will be all Crummp all the time. He must be indepentantly wealthy to post as much as he does.

Anyway doesn't anyone want to comment on this report? Does anyone remember the USN or the PAC theater??

Bronk · « **Reply #4 on:** February 09, 2006, 12:33:01 PM »

Army air force pilot testing a navy ride . No wonder there was so much complaining in the test data.

Bronk

F4UDOA · « **Reply #5 on:** February 09, 2006, 04:02:28 PM »

Quote

Army air force pilot testing a navy ride . No wonder there was so much complaining in the test data.

There was a lot of whining in that report huh. But at the end they had to report that the F4U was a better dogfighter. It must have been painful.

BTW they also did their testing at 49'MAP instead of 54" MAP the F4U could pull. Cheaters!!

Bronk · « **Reply #6 on:** February 09, 2006, 04:20:05 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by F4UDOA
There was a lot of whining in that report huh. But at the end they had to report that the F4U was a better dogfighter. It must have been painful.

BTW they also did their testing at 49'MAP instead of 54" MAP the F4U could pull. Cheaters!!

I'll bet he was instructed NOT to go to 54 MAP. We cant have USAAF aircraft outdone.

Inter service rivalry runs deep.
Do you have any comparisons done with the 51b .

Bronk

Saxman · « **Reply #7 on:** February 09, 2006, 04:31:20 PM »

Lol, so a bit skewed results then, eh? Funny that even a slightly underpowered Corsair is considered a superior dogfighter than the top three USAAF birds.

Y'know this is the only thing I've ever read that complained about sluggishness of roll in the F4U, or of the controls in general at high airspeeds. Most everything I've ever seen said the Corsair handles like a dream as the airspeed piles on (certainly better than the compression-prone 38 and 47).

I'd heard about problems with the early Corsair's cowl flaps, to the point where many pilots had them permanently fixed closed (also with problems of fuel leaking from the main tank, forcing the panels to be taped down: The source of the light-colored design on the nose areas of many Corsairs just forward of the cockpit).

F4UDOA · « **Reply #8 on:** February 09, 2006, 07:06:46 PM »

Heya Saxman,

The early production F4U-1's did not have the Spring Tab ailerons. They were added after a few months but this bird was actually delivered to the Army in February 1943 so it was not equiped. The elavators were also reinforced. The F4U-5 had Spring tab rudder and elevators.

Not bad though out turning a stripped P-38G. Even the British evaluation list the small turning circle as on of it's best features. So much for not being able to turn myth.

I would like to know what MAP they were running the P-51A at. At 46" it climbed like a dog but that Allison could run up to 60" plus at low alt.

Bronk,

The F4U-1A test against the P-51B has been out for a while.

Check my site

http://mywebpages.comcast.net/markw4/

Bronk · « **Reply #9 on:** February 09, 2006, 08:17:08 PM »

lots of good reading there thanx.

Bronk

Saxman · « **Reply #10 on:** February 09, 2006, 09:08:42 PM »

Love the site, FD. I thought the article comparing the B-Pony was interesting. That test would hold up fairly well for the 51D, too, wouldn't? I can't recall there being a whole lot of differences in performance (actually, some books I've read make the D out to be a few MPH SLOWER because of the raised canopy) between the B/D other than improved firepower, and this article would seem to confirm that even the refined "early" Hogs were superior to the Mustang (and that the AH Pony may be a bit overpowered..

Sable · « **Reply #11 on:** February 10, 2006, 12:14:48 AM »

I think you have to keep in mind that interservice rivalry went both ways. Note that the F4U-1 in the P-51B test is running a higher power setting, increased water injection flow rate, a different prop, and was drag prepped. The production F4U-1A, was slower through most of the altitude band. Also in the test they list both F4Us as having a 750-1000fpm climb rate advantage! That really makes me wonder what power setting they were using on the P-51 - check out the chart on page 5 of this document.

With regard to the difference between the P-51B and D, the main one was the engine. Many P-51Bs had a V-1650-3 that was more geared to high altitude performance, while the later B and the D models had a V-1650-7 that was geared for better lower alt performance. Generally the -7 planes were faster from about 0-12k and from 20-26k, with the -3 planes being faster in the other ranges. Mike and Neil's page here has a lot of P-51 testing from a variety of sources. AH's P-51D almost exactly matches the North American tests, which fall about in the middle of the range.

justin_g · « **Reply #12 on:** February 10, 2006, 02:01:55 AM »

I suspect the climb trials were done at Military Power. In this case, the F4U-1 would out-climb the P-51B pretty much as stated in the USN comparison.

Sable · « **Reply #13 on:** February 10, 2006, 02:43:37 AM »

Military power on the P-51B/D was 3000rpm, 61" HG. The 2700rpm/46" is a reduced power setting, so that explains the poor performance. It would be the equivalent of using a 2550rpm/45" setting on the F4U.

Charge · « **Reply #14 on:** February 10, 2006, 04:16:56 AM »

"Please someone say something about something else of other than the stinking Luftwaffe"

HAH!! Youz cannot fight ze might of Luftwoffel wit U'r puny Mk1 Corzair!
Be gone wit zat unterperfoming pile of zunk!

-C+