F6F Vs. F4U

[Captain Virgil Hilts]

Boy, someone here needs to work on reading and comprehension.

[Widewing]

Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
Boy, someone here needs to work on reading and comprehension.

Yeah, science has made amazing progess, but no cure is possible for some conditions....

I'm still choking on the USAir gold member stuff.

My regards,

Widewing

[Mathman]

I have been following this thread with great enjoyment over the last few days.  Absolutely hilarious.  While reading it, I did experience a moment of deja vu.  Then I remembered this thread.  It was about the top speed of the F6F and provoked a very similar debate/discussion to the one in this current thread.  Since that is the case, I will just add a couple of my replies from that thread since they pretty much fit right into this one:

This thread has become highly entertaining. Thanks F4UDOA for trying to convince people your favorite fighter is better than someone else's. It quite honestly sounds like you are *****ing about the Navy chosing to field the F6F on the carriers in 1943 instead of the F4U, thus denying the place in history for the bent-wing bird. It is quite laughable. No amount of debate on this board is going to change the fact that while the F4U had the performance numbers, the F6F had the historical results. But please, keep up the debate, its a great read for those moments when I am bored.

IMO, the F6F was the right plane at the right time. Whatever the reason it was placed in the fleet doesn't change that. Whatever performance advantage the F4U has does not change that. Could the F4U have done exactly the same thing as the F6F during 1944 had it been in the fleet? Of course. They both completely outclassed the Japanese opposition of the time. The F6F fans can take heart in the fact the Hellcat killed 5,000+ Japanese planes. The F4U fans can take heart in the Hog's long service and the fact that it is unquestionably much more recognizable by the public at large.

And this one as well:

Trust me, I think WW is just as entertaining. Its the classic "my dad can beat up your dad" type of argument. You love the F4U. I love the F6F. He likes the F6F.

Oh, and both the F4U and F6F faced diminished skill Japanese pilots. The USN and USMC chewed them up at Coral Sea, Midway, Guadalcanal, Eastern Solomons, and Santa Cruz flying a severely outclassed plane in the F4F.

Just so we are clear on where I stand on all of this, I do not care if the F6F, or F4U for that matter, is changed in AH.  If it is, be it for better performance or worse, I will continue to fly the Hellcat.  It is my favorite WW2 fighter after all.

[F4UDOA]

Maybe we can follow this up with the P-38 was the greatest fighter in the AAF because Tony LaVier said so.

[bkbandit]

mathman hellcat

2 f6f
0 f4u

[Saxman]

bandit, that little scoreboard of yours is really quite meaningless. Mathman's opinion is just that, OPINION. He says he flies the 'Cat because it's his favorite plane, not that it was better.

Plus, any neutering in performance suffered by the 1-series Corsairs against the Hellcat in the game are remedied in the F4U-4. The F4U-4 is faster at all altitudes, climbs better at all altitudes and acceleration is superior throughout the speed range. The Hellcat's only clear advantage is her mild stall characteristics make her more forgiving, and possible sustained turning (WW: Does the extra muscle of the -4 make negate  the Cat's turn rate edge over the 1-series? I would at least think so given the increased power and that the -4 still manages almost the identical turn radius to the 1D).

The advantages of the -4 over the F6F aren't just by small degress. There's a very significant performance gap.

At 10,000 feet the -4 makes around 375mph under normal power. The Hellcat hasn't even touched 350. Kick in WEP and the 4-Hog hits 400 at that alt (maxing out over 450mph at 25k). Under WEP the -4 can sustain nearly 4000fpm climb up to 15,000ft (~3800fpm if I'm reading the comparison charts right). Climb in the F6F falls off steadily from 3500fpm down to less than 2900 over that same altitude range. The F4U-4 accelerates from 150 to 300mph in almost half the time as the F6F.

The only way a -4 pilot should lose to an F6F is if he gets stupid or the F6F starts with too much of an advantage and is able to make the most of it (in other words, equal pilots at the top of their game under equal conditions, the F4U-4 should win).

[bkbandit]

the f4u4 is perked, comparing that with hellcat is isnt fair. The other f4us are just to slow, they all should able to clock 400mph without blastin wep and waiting 20 years. Alot of data was thrown around, if that data cant prove that aces high corsair is nuetered its a waste(i didnt read it, does it prove it). F4u4 makes up for it, big whoop, f4u1 couldnt have been that crappy.

[bozon]

Originally posted by Saxman
Plus, any neutering in performance suffered by the 1-series Corsairs against the Hellcat in the game are remedied in the F4U-4.  

Ingame yes, but the proper comparison is to the F8F bearcat.

Originally posted by Mathman
IMO, the F6F was the right plane at the right time.

I have a special liking to the Hellcat because it was the first model plane I built when I was really young. I got it as a gift, a huge 1:32 model and knew nothing about it, but it got my interest in aviation going - no good reason, just the right plane at the right time.

Bozon

[F4UDOA]

bkbandit,

I would like to return this thread to a discussion on aircraft performance.

What performance aspect of the F6F-3/5 would you consider superior based on? I would really like to keep score so let's set a criteria.

1. Speed

2. Climb

3. Dive

4. Turn

5. Durability

6. Fighter bomber capability.

Anything else you would like to add?

BTW, I agree with Mathman, the F6F was the right airplane at the right time.

[Badboy]

Originally posted by HoHun

>Also those Clmax numbers are with prop removed and no slipstream.

For turning purposes, that's the one that gives the most realistic results.

Hi HoHun

I disagree. You appear to be calculating sustained turn rates, and the maximum sustained turn rate occurs at low speed and high AoA when the influence of the slipstream will be significant.

Badboy

[Widewing]

Originally posted by bkbandit
the f4u4 is perked, comparing that with hellcat is isnt fair. The other f4us are just to slow, they all should able to clock 400mph without blastin wep and waiting 20 years. Alot of data was thrown around, if that data cant prove that aces high corsair is nuetered its a waste(i didnt read it, does it prove it). F4u4 makes up for it, big whoop, f4u1 couldnt have been that crappy.

There's nothing slow about any of the F4Us in the game. All rank in the top 1/3 of the plane set at sea level.

At 10,000 feet they are still faster than most of the plane set. Here's were they run in relation to the whole of the plane set, and I've thrown is some others for comparison.

F4U-1: 390 mph (10th fastest in plane set)
F4U-1C: 379 mph (15th fastest)
F4U-1D: 380 mph (tied for 14th fastest)
F4U-4: 398 mph (7th fastest)
F6F-5: 354 mph (36th fastest)
P-47D-25: 374 mph (20th fastest)
Bf 109G-2: 380 mph (tied for 14th fastest)
Fw 190A-5: 366 mph (25th fastest)
P-38J: 373 mph (21st fastest)
Spit IX: 362 mph (31st fastest)
La-7: 394 mph (9th fastest)
P-51D: 406 mph (2nd fastest)
Ki-84: 367 mph (24th fastest)
Tempest: 396 mph (8th fastest)
A6M5: 330 mph (44th fastest)
Bf 109K-4: 411 mph (fastest overall)
Typhoon: 381 mph (13th fastest)
Ki-61: 352 mph (37th fastest)

You will notice that the F4U-1 is 9 mph faster than the Typhoon and only 6 mph slower than the Tempest... Not bad for a late 1942 vintage fighter.

Acceleration is isn't bad, generally in mid pack, with the F4U-4 being among the top tier.

Here's some acceleration figures for the same aircraft taken at sea level for comparison. Time was measured from 150 mph to 250 mph.

F4U-1: 28.69 seconds
F4U-1C: 25.59
F4U-1D: 24.50
F4U-4: 20.69
F6F-5: 25.12
P-47D-25: 28.34
Bf 109G-2: 22.19
Fw 190A-5: 24.34
P-38J: 23.23
Spit IX: 24.72
La-7: 19.15
P-51D: 25.11
Ki-84: 21.56
Tempest: 18.50
A6M5: 30.69
Bf 109K-4: 18.97
Typhoon: 24.13
Ki-61: 31.28

You will see that the F4U-1D accelerates faster than the P-51D, which is in a dead heat with the F6F-5. You should also note that low-speed acceleration is usually not enough to save your bacon, but E management will.

In short, the various -1 Corsairs are very capable aircraft. They offer excellent speed, reasonable acceleration and outstanding maneuverability throughout the whole of the speed range.

Do not let perceptions fool you, the F4Us are very lethal aircraft and are among the very few that can perform virtually any role within the game.

My regards,

Widewing

[gripen]

Originally posted by Badboy

I disagree. You appear to be calculating sustained turn rates, and the maximum sustained turn rate occurs at low speed and high AoA when the influence of the slipstream will be significant.

In addition the the clmax will decrease when the altitude and speed increase (basicly the Reynolds number increase). That is why a flight tested flight envelope gives the most realistic results at wide altitude range.

Slipstream (and thrustline due to AoA) effects are significant at lower speeds but actually the error is not very large at best sustained turn rate speeds (assuming around 3g at low altitude) because the drop of the clmax and decreasing effect of the thrust (in the prop driven planes) balances the situation.

Anyway, the 1g clmax values give just accidentally correct results without some sort of correcting (thrust, mach number etc.).

gripen

[HoHun]

Hi Badboy,

>I disagree. You appear to be calculating sustained turn rates, and the maximum sustained turn rate occurs at low speed and high AoA when the influence of the slipstream will be significant.

A typical sustained turn at low altitude by a WW2 propeller-driven fighters is flown at about 3G, and at a speed sufficient to render the slipstream mostly ineffective, judging from the WW2 era tests I have seen. It might be different for lower-powered aircraft turning at slower speeds, but according the evidence I have seen, for the fighters we are discussing, the power-off clean Clmax yields the best results.

I'd be quite interested in a more detailed discussion in order to improve the accuracy of my calculations. (If you remember, we already exchanged a few emails over this exact topic when I asked for your advice one or two years ago - most of the factors I described back then are still relevant.)

So if you feel like it, I'll send you the latest version of my calculator, and we can pick up our exchange where we left it a while back :-)

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

[HoHun]

Hi F4UDOA and Widewing,

I thought this thread was highly interesting before I somehow pushed the wrong button by mentioning those Navy statistics. Would it be possible to get back on track again? :-)

The question of credentials is really meaningless here as we're never so short on time that we need to believe (that's were "credentials" come from: "credere" is Latin, "to believe") what anyone writes here if we don't feel convinced by what someone else writes.

Credentials don't help when there is a logical flaw in someone's reasoning, or - as it happens more frequently, and with regard to the Navy statistics has happened just now - there is just not enough data to reach an unambiguous conclusion.

I actually read your comments on the factors affecting the statistics with great interest. I love statistics, and you both added details I hadn't been aware of :-)

The argument that followed was more or less about nothing, as F4UDOA's mention of Corky Meyer was not really strictly on topic, and I don't think Widewing ever suggested that the F6F was as fast as the F4U, which I believe was sort of implied by Meyer's discussion of the airspeed indicator calibration.  

With the data we have seen here, I would not fault anyone for not following Meyer in that point, but as apparently no one did anyway, there should have been no reason to go "shields up, phasers full power" for the two of you :-)

I don't think we need this "credentials" stuff - that's about believing in the absence of proof.

If you've read Bryson's "A Short History of Nearly Everything", you're probably aware of some of the nonsense great scientists have come up with in their not-so-great moment, and if you can't believe guys like Isaac Newton based on credentials alone, I'd say there are few others left to trust in ;-)

Not to mention it's bad style to question someone's credentials instead of dealing with his factual arguments. Usually, that's a sign he is defending a weak case! (And with questionable means.)  Now as you both dropped into that mode completely accidentally, I don't think it applies here, but I'd hate to see you two at odds with each other over nothing at all!

I mean, it's not even an Luftwaffe vs. Allies question, or a Air Force vs. Navy, but you are arguing about two Navy aircraft here (flying for the same Navy, no less!)

I'd suggest to lower DEFCON back to "peaceful", suspected bandits turned out to be friendlies after all ;-)

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

[gripen]

Originally posted by HoHun

...but according the evidence I have seen, for the fighters we are discussing, the power-off clean Clmax yields the best results.

Hm... I have no idea what evidence you are talking about but the power off Clmax value gives correct results just in the point where the real reachable power on clmax happens to be same (certain speed and altitude combination). In all other cases it's more or less off.

If properly created, a compressibility corrected flight envelope will give correct results for any given altitude and speed combination (sustained or instantaneous turning).

gripen