"new" 1944 F4u-1d Navair

[joeblogs]

Originally posted by F4UDOA

Air Classics Volume 37 number 6
 

what is the date of the article?

-blogs

[Debonair]

Originally posted by F4UDOA
...5. High right rudder pressure on Carrier landings, on occassion inducing leg cramps...[/I]

...so they approached with a fairly high power setting?

[AKDogg]

Originally posted by bkbandit
wat game is that?

That looks like FS2004.  I got that sim and plane.

[Widewing]

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

[joeblogs]

But the two planes had different carburetors. Dean and I believe Graham White (in his volume on the R2800) discuss problems calibrating the carburetor on the early F6f's. Later versions seemed to have better fuel economy.

There's also a difference in the supercharger mechanism of the two planes. White suggests this worked against the F6F, deducting some horespower at low altitude that the F4u did not have to pay.

-Blogs

Originally posted by Widewing
...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. ...

Widewing

[joeblogs]

My memory failed me

White (p. 503) says that in the F6f at low altitude, where only one supercharger stage is spinning, there is no ram air. On the F4u, there is ram air even with just the first stage spinning. So the distinction for the supercharging is one of power rather than fuel economy.

Originally posted by joeblogs
But the two planes had different carburetors. Dean and I believe Graham White (in his volume on the R2800) discuss problems calibrating the carburetor on the early F6f's. Later versions seemed to have better fuel economy.

There's also a difference in the supercharger mechanism of the two planes. White suggests this worked against the F6F, deducting some horespower at low altitude that the F4u did not have to pay.

-Blogs

[MiloMorai]

From http://www.history.navy.mil/branches/hist-ac/

F6F-5

15,000'
combat range with 150gal dt - 950nmi @178kt
combat radius with 150gal dt - 340nmi @ 173kt

F4U-4

15,000'
combat range with 150gal dt - 1005mi @185kt
combat radius with 150gal dt - 315nmi @ 178kt

[bkbandit]

http://www.acepilots.com/planes/f4u_corsair.html

this says 3861 f4u1a's were produced, more then any other corsair, so why dont we have this one.

[F4UDOA]

Bkbandit,

We do have a F4U-1A, it is just a 1943 version not the 1944 with paddle prop, semi bubble and uprated engine.

Widewing,

Actually the F4U-1 in clean condition had a sea level cruise setting of
1300RPM-30"MAP-42GPH-195MPH TAS-Range 945 statute miles (230 gallons) from the POH.

JoeBlogs,

I am amazed at what these charts actually show. The F6F in many ways had the superior SFC. However due to the F4U being aerodynamically cleaner it had greater range because it could cruise much faster at reduced power settings.

For instance both A/C with 150 gallon DT's at 25,000FT 350 gallons of fuel.

F6F-5 Flight operation instruction chart Column II
2300RPM 36"MAP 106GPH 283MPH TAS 935 Statute miles

F4U-1D Flight operating chart Column III
2200RPM 37"MAP 126GPH 341MPH TAS 970 Statute miles

So the F6F has a better fuel consumption but the F4U cruises at 58MPH faster at a comparable fuel setting at 25,000FT and it fly's farther!! I guess Corky Meyer theory about the F6F being as fast as the F4U a the same power settings needs a little work unless his maps and airspeed indicator are out of calibration.

FYI Just to equilize the fuel consumption here is column IV for the F4U

2100RPM 34"MAP 96GPH 316MPH TAS gives a range of 1170 Statute miles.

Faster (by 33MPH), more fuel efficient and longer range.

However just to how clean the P-51D was and what a true escort aircraft could do.

P-51D with 2 X 75 gallon DT's total 350 gallons used
25,000FT 2700RPM 46" MAP 98GPH 377MPH TAS range statute miles
1280Miles, That's cruising!!

[joeblogs]

At long last I have located a copy of the P&W operator's manual for the 2 stage version of the B block Double Wasps. When it arrives I should be able to tell you a lot more about fuel consumption and power output for the R2800-10 relative to the more complete data we have on powerplant in the F4u.

-Blogs

Originally posted by F4UDOA
Bkbandit,

JoeBlogs,

I am amazed at what these charts actually show. The F6F in many ways had the superior SFC. However due to the F4U being aerodynamically cleaner it had greater range because it could cruise much faster at reduced power settings.

[ShortyDoowap]

Regarding the new documents:  has anyone determined the reason for the slightly increased perfromance?  The climb rate is a little better.  And Vmax is better at a 3,100 foot greater altitude.

There was a prop change during the F4U-1D run (BuNo 57356), going from a 13'4" prop to the 13'1" prop.  Any ideas on whether that had anything to do with it?

[Saxman]

IIRC, there's slight horsepower increase overall in the late-run F4U-1A and the 1D, and both planes used a paddle prop which took greater advantage of the engine power.

[bkbandit]

we will never see this in our f4u in the game. I switched to the hell cat and i am happier with it, its still a tough chance when i pick from f4u4 and f6f. BUt wait.... i can hear them now, ohhh f4u is uber already. Bull f4u is uber when u know how to use it, i killed many sleep f4us plus tons of others that kill them selfs with pure inexperience. Just like 51 a noob cant get in and expect to bag 5 kill runs everytime.