Author Topic: F6F Vs. F4U (Read 11874 times)

bozon · « **Reply #30 on:** August 31, 2006, 06:33:11 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by bkbandit
If this was the case i doubt the f4u would have been such a lengedary fighter, i have seen alot and read alot about corsair and it is supposed to do everything the hellcat can do better.

The Hellcat has larger wing area. I'm not suprised it turns better, and has lower stall speed.

While the inverted gull wing had some advantages, it was probably not such a great design overall as it was not used since in any major fighter.

Widewing · « **Reply #31 on:** August 31, 2006, 06:43:05 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Mathman
In a 1v1 situation in AH, I haven't had any real problems killing the F4U while flying the F6F.

I should add that this is/was typically the case in all four of the distinct versions of the Hellcat in AH (the pre 1.08 FM, the post 1.08 FM, AHII FM, and the current one).

I find the F6F slightly better in 1v1 fights. 1v1, the F6F has a slight advantage over the F4Us as it has the same turn radius, but a faster turn rate. It's a close match in a low speed fight, but the Hellcat has an edge that can be exploited. Especially if the fight is in the vertical. You would need the F4U-4 to beat the Hellcat in the vertical, and not by much. Dogfighting climbs are little more than simple zooms. The aircraft with the edge in E gains an advantage. If equal E, the aircraft with greater potential energy will win. A heavy fighter like the F6F and F4U can surprise better climbing but lighter fighters, simply thru the laws of momentum. Managing E is everything when speeds are just above stall, making the pilot a truly significant factor.

My regards,

Widewing

F4UDOA · « **Reply #32 on:** August 31, 2006, 08:04:57 PM »

The only case I would make for the F4U out turning the F6F is with the use of combat flap setting. In AH the F6F can deploy flaps in multiple stages where as in real life it could only deploy full flaps and have them "Blow Up" in stages.

F4UDOA · « **Reply #33 on:** August 31, 2006, 08:15:45 PM »

Shuckins,

You know Dean's chart uses the wrong Clmax numbers for almost every aircraft in the chart right?

If you want real Clmax numbers of those A/C his calcualtions turn out very different.

Dive restrictions on the F4U-1 and F6F-5 were virtually identical although almost impossibe to decipher because of the airspeed indicator problem in the F6F-3/5. The initial problem of indicating to slow was immediatepy compoounded by a system that showed it much too fast.

When you read any specification on stall speed, G limits or max speed you have to consider that you may be looking at speeds that are listed as far off as 17Knots IAS too fast or too slow.

bkbandit · « **Reply #34 on:** August 31, 2006, 09:37:45 PM »

I remember a doc that had a old japanese pilot and they asked him about the f4u, he paused and had a sick look on his face and said that he hates the corairs cuase it killed so many of his friends. THe pause and sick look was enough to have me believe that it is nuetered some. In that turn fight i had we both had full flaps down and my wep was blasting and im pretty sure his was too.

Accel data, can anyone find it.

Pick Pick Pick

0 f4u
1 f6f

Oldman731 · « **Reply #35 on:** September 01, 2006, 07:36:55 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by F4UDOA
You know Dean's chart uses the wrong Clmax numbers for almost every aircraft in the chart right?

No dog in this fight, but out of curiosity, how do you reach this conclusion?

- oldman

F4UDOA · « **Reply #36 on:** September 01, 2006, 08:49:38 AM »

Quote

No dog in this fight, but out of curiosity, how do you reach this conclusion?

Well to be honest about 7 years ago when I bought the book I was contant to live with the idea that the F4U just couldn't turn well. Then a few things happened.

1. I found the NACA reports server which shows the Clmax numbers for many of the aircraft in Dean's list. They are not even close oddly enough except the F4U which is spot on.

2. I found out that Francis Dean lived about 20 minutes away from me so I contacted him through Shiffer Books and went to visit him. He told me that his Cl numbers were calculated from the accerated stall numbers in the "1944 Joint Fighter Conferance". Dean was the guy who turned that report into a book. From there you can tell that the numbers are IAS and not CAS and there was no weight, power condition etc listed which is why the numbers are all over the place. In fact if Dean would have used the 3G stall number from the FG-1 instead of the F4U-1D the 3G stall speed would be 130Knots IAS instead of 170Knots IAS.

3. I started talking to a guy named "Wells" on these boards who showed me how to calculate Clmax from stall speeds. Once you know that things become very easy. It is a dead stupid calculation. Even I can do it.

4. I have the G limit chart for the F4U and F6F. The F4U wasn't that bad and the F6F isn't that good.

For a point of reference just look at the A6M5 test. The F4U and F6F have exactly the same result in turns against the Zero. The only difference is that with combat flaps the F4U can hang in a bit longer.

"The Zero could gain one turn in 3 1/2 at 10,000FT" The same is true for the F4U and F6F.

F4UDOA · « **Reply #37 on:** September 01, 2006, 09:07:24 AM »

bkbandit,

It has been found.

FYI, The F4U in this test did not have the paddle prop installed. It would have been better than in the test.

Also the F4U-1D out climbed the F6F-3 which was supposed to be superior to the F6F-5 in climb.

Shuckins · « **Reply #38 on:** September 01, 2006, 09:41:59 AM »

F4UDOA,

Dean stated that the stall tripper wedge that was installed on the right wing to even out the stall speed of the Corsair's wings was responsible for changing the lift coefficient. Thus, while the Corsair's wing-loading was not particularly high, the turning circle was negatively effected. He also states that there was a NACA test that indicated that this was indeed the case.

The main advantage of the Corsair's flaps was the speed with which they could be deployed. The maneuvering setting for the flaps was 20 degrees. Deploying flaps fully down was seldom used in combat because it was a desperation setting, and drastically reduced the aircraft's speed, which could quickly get a pilot killed in the wrong situation.

Capt. Eric Brown flew both the Hellcat and Corsair extensively during WW II, and was impressed by both fighters, but when it came time to mix it up with enemy aircraft, preferred the Hellcat. Perhaps no pilot in the history of aviation has the extensive experience that Brown has in flying a wide variety of aircraft, both Allied and Axis. Being British, I don't believe he can be faulted for having any bias, and his analysis of each aircraft's capabilities was purely objective.

The Corsair's faults were not completely addressed until the advent of the F4U-4 came into service, which arrived so late that it saw little combat. Carrier compatability shortcomings caused the Corsair to be pulled from fleet service three times during the war. Evidently the Navy was unwilling to accept the losses associated with the Corsair's slow-speed stall characteristics until the arrival of the -1D Corsair. In any event, the Corsair was not cleared for carrier duty until December of 1944.

F4UDOA · « **Reply #39 on:** September 01, 2006, 01:51:01 PM »

Shuckins,

Dean said the Clmax was effected and it was (from 2.30 to 1.88), however the stall speeds remained very much unchanged or at least did not effect it very much.

Remember all of the flight test you are reading about had the stall fix in place. The F6F faired no better in turning against the A6M5 than the F4U. Stall fix in all.

As far as carrier servicability you should know that after the F4U-1A in mid 1943 almost nothing was changed in the entire carrier service life of the F4U series right through the F4U-7 to make it any better a carrier plane. The stall fix, Oleo struts, raised seat, semi bubble canopy etc were all part of the -1A.

Read this quote from Tommy Blackburn on why the F4U was not put into service on carriers in 1943.

Quote

But a few days out, official lightning struck. VF-17 was detached from Bunker Hill, and ordered to the island of Espiritu Santo, to operate as a land-based squadron. The problem was one of logistics, not of operations. The high command knew that Blackburn's Corsairs could operate from a carrier. But as the only Corsair squadron in a Navy full of Grumman Hellcats and Wildcats, supplying and maintaining them would be a headache. Ashore in the Solomons, VF-17 could rely on Marine Corps' established Corsair maintenance resources. There was no appeal. On October 2, they off-loaded from Bunker Hill

bkbandit · « **Reply #40 on:** September 01, 2006, 03:32:43 PM »

u guys must serouisly have these planes in ur garage and fly them secretly. So who does this accel data match up with our aces high data?

0 F4U
1 F6F

HoHun · « **Reply #41 on:** September 01, 2006, 03:52:25 PM »

Hi F4UDOA,

>I started talking to a guy named "Wells" on these boards who showed me how to calculate Clmax from stall speeds. Once you know that things become very easy. It is a dead stupid calculation. Even I can do it.

Hm, I think there are quite a number of factors that can make this calculation a bit inaccurate, but it's certainly more scientific than the Fighter Conference data (which wasn't meant to be scientific).

Out of curiosity: Which figures are you using for the two aircraft?

>"The Zero could gain one turn in 3 1/2 at 10,000FT" The same is true for the F4U and F6F.

I just had a look at the Fw 190 comparison report, and the F4U-1D and F6F-3 (with water injection) used in that test were credited with identical turn comparison results against the Fw 190, too. (Only that they out-turned that particular enemy, instead of being out-turned as they were by the Zero :-)

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

FBplmmr · « **Reply #42 on:** September 01, 2006, 07:18:26 PM »

i like the blue planes.

ummm ... yep the blue ones r gud. now hush

F4UDOA · « **Reply #43 on:** September 02, 2006, 04:26:38 PM »

Quote

Hm, I think there are quite a number of factors that can make this calculation a bit inaccurate, but it's certainly more scientific than the Fighter Conference data (which wasn't meant to be scientific).

Exactly! And if you read the data from the conferance as far as pilot opinion and consesus you can get a pretty good baseline for what was real and what was not. Somehow that has gotten lost and this is what is left.

Quote

Out of curiosity: Which figures are you using for the two aircraft?

I am using NACA document 829.

The Clmax was reduced in the F4U from 2.30 to 1.88 with full flaps (50 degrees deflection). You can see the F6F Clmax is marginally higher with Full flaps. Airplane #1 next to them does not have any flap deployed.

Dean's numbers have the F6F Clmax around 2+ without flaps.

bkbandit · « **Reply #44 on:** September 02, 2006, 09:46:01 PM »

wait, cannons on f6f?? did it have them?? i noe the raf for some reason reguned our american planes, there p51 had cannons(why dont we) did there f6f have cannons?? Not that i want them, personally i think the 6 50s are a better air to air weapon.