Originally posted by F4UDOA
Maybe they had a short runway to fly off of? Maybe it was base practice to takeoff with flaps. In any event it shows some of the differences between the two A/C that you might not read from Corky Meyer.
I happened to have the magazine in which this artical was printed. The pilot goes on to list several positive and negative factors for each airplane. This is not in the online article for whatever reason.
Air Classics Volume 37 number 6
The pilot Williamm Chatham list.
Corsair Positive features
1. Flap arrangement
2. The light touch on the controls, especially at high speeds.
3. Fuel economy 40 gal per hour
4. Better gun platform and dive bombing platform for me.
5. Quick acceleration in a dive and when adding full power.
6. Better visibility in the air due to semi-bubble canopy
7. Good top speed approx 405MPH
8. Easy plane to ditch on water
Corsair Negative features
1. High speed stall, on occasion so violent it would pull the stick out of my hand.
2. Long nose hid the runway on takeoff and landing, especially at night.
3. Too many hydraulic problems
4. Rocker boxes leaking oil onto the windshield. Mostly on old birdcage model.
Hellcat positive factors
1. Better visibility over the nose especially at night
2. Better night approaches
3. No high speed stalls
4. Nice and stable
5. Good low speed characteristics. Came aboard 10 to 15MPH sower than F4U
6. Cockpit neat/well planned
7. Safe secure feeling. Very forgiving.
8. Well built/rugged.
9. Word of mouth. We had six Hellcat aces in VF-2 and they all swore by her. One Ace (I think from VF-15) said "if she could cook, I'd marry her!". Some guys called her the Navy Jug. because she was tough and strong like the Army P-47. The Army had a saying: If you want to be a hero fly Mustangs, if you want to come home fly the Jug.
Hellcat negative factors
1. Really did not like the flap arrangement, being able to drop flaps ten degrees at a time was an advantage.
2. Fuel economy a bit high at 55GPH.
3. Engine noise, Corsair much quiter.
4 Control pressure heavy at high speed.
5. High right rudder pressure on Carrier landings, on occassion inducing leg cramps
I have read about the rudder and stick forces being rough on the Hellcat before.
Well, his article suffers from some serious holes.. Likewise, his personal preferences are also evident. There's nothing wrong with that, but you have to consider it nonetheless.
First, if you look at the SEFC for the F4U-1, you will see that a fuel burn rate of 40 gph is not listed. Indeed, the lowest burn rate is associated with 1,300 RPM @ 30 in/hg... If my guess is right, that's idling along in a clean airplane at about 165 mph while burning 42 gph.
As to the 55 gph figure for the F6F, obviously fuel burn is a function of throttle, mixture and rpm. Inasmuch as the Navy never published an SEFC chart for the F6F, I'm curious as to where he got that figure.
However, we can compare range data. For the F4U-1D, it could fly about 1,025 miles @ 1,500 feet on 237 gallons of fuel. In comparison, the F6F-5 could fly 1,330 miles @ 1,500 feet on 250 gallons. Broken down in miles per gallon, this translates into 4.32 mpg for the F4U-1D and 5.32 mpg for the F6F-5. We do not know what speeds are associated with these ranges, but since both aircraft were powered by nearly identical engines, fuel burn rates should be very similar. At low crusing speeds, any differences in drag are largely mitigated as is the effect of RAM. Note also that the F4U data is that of the Navy and will be conservative, while the F6F data is from the manufacturer and may have been considered somewhat optimistic by the Navy.
I cannot help but wonder if the pilot's comments on fuel burn are based more upon perception rather than actual data.
That said, he seems to recognize the attributes of each aircraft and is not out of line with the general opinion of those who were fortunate enough to fly both types in combat.
My regards,
Widewing