Author Topic: Corsair testing (Read 1132 times)

Neil Stirling · « **on:** January 17, 2007, 10:25:18 AM »

Some new information http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/ and a USN KI. HIEN evaluation.

Neil.

dtango · « **Reply #1 on:** January 17, 2007, 01:18:28 PM »

Neil:

That's a great site you guys have put together in terms of collection of reports! Thanks so much for sharing!

Tango, XO
412th FS Braunco Mustangs

Krusty · « **Reply #2 on:** January 17, 2007, 02:58:30 PM »

Well, according to this link from that page the Ki61 should have the same turning radius as the FM2, but according to the gonzo's page the Ki61 in AH has a much larger turn radius, and twice as wide with full flaps.

bozon · « **Reply #3 on:** January 18, 2007, 03:17:53 AM »

Krusty, I find many test results to be contradicting.

This is most evident with tests that are only comperative or give the test pilot's impressions and not hard numbers. Turning ability is one such common disagreement, but also simple things like trimming. One test says that the P47B was very easy to trim for "hands off" flight. The other (still P47B) notes the trimming as very difficult and explicitly states that "hands off" trimming is impossible.

A whole lot depended on the exact details: the condition of the plane, the fuel load, minor model modifications, enviroment etc... So, unless the difference is decisive, they get different results.

Most excelent website btw. Very interesting reading

bozon · « **Reply #4 on:** January 18, 2007, 03:28:24 AM »

P47D was officially cleared for 70" MAN as early as June 44 (though it was used in the field prior to that).
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/24june44-progress-report.pdf

I'd love to see that on the D40. That way it would be distinguished from the D25 and spread out the Jug series a little better. Of course what I would really like is a 70" boosted Razorback with a paddle blade prop for a real 56th FG jug

dtango · « **Reply #5 on:** January 18, 2007, 10:28:09 AM »

I've wanted my 150 grade fuel Pony

. 75" Hg (444 mph woohoo!) vs. a 67" Hg. (130 grade - 427 mph). 1860 HP vs. 1690 HP. That's what I'm talking about.

That would give me something to fight the 109K4 toe-to-toe with

.

Tango, XO
412th FS Braunco Mustangs

Neil Stirling · « **Reply #6 on:** January 18, 2007, 10:35:33 AM »

Some new Hellcat trial data added.

Neil.

Krusty · « **Reply #7 on:** January 18, 2007, 11:07:40 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by bozon
Krusty, I find many test results to be contradicting.

This is most evident with tests that are only comperative or give the test pilot's impressions and not hard numbers. Turning ability is one such common disagreement, but also simple things like trimming. One test says that the P47B was very easy to trim for "hands off" flight. The other (still P47B) notes the trimming as very difficult and explicitly states that "hands off" trimming is impossible.

A whole lot depended on the exact details: the condition of the plane, the fuel load, minor model modifications, enviroment etc... So, unless the difference is decisive, they get different results.

Most excelent website btw. Very interesting reading

You're quite right, now that I think about it.

Denholm · « **Reply #8 on:** January 18, 2007, 11:40:11 AM »

Didn't Nemeth help out on the Spit 8 trial with the 50% fuel combat test? I recall someone coming into my arena asking if anyone would volunteer to test the spit 8 with them. Nemeth accepted, I'm not sure if this is the same one.

Bronk · « **Reply #9 on:** January 18, 2007, 11:45:07 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Denholm
Didn't Nemeth help out on the Spit 8 trial with the 50% fuel combat test? I recall someone coming into my arena asking if anyone would volunteer to test the spit 8 with them. Nemeth accepted, I'm not sure if this is the same one.

Not unless Nemeth is a pilot and flew WWII AC.

Bronk

MOSQ · « **Reply #10 on:** January 18, 2007, 10:06:47 PM »

The Tony vs USN aircraft was very interesting. And it's not just one pilot who did the testing, there were 6 pilots involved.

Maybe Pyro should re-evaluate our Tony's turn performance.

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/japan/Tony-I.pdf

Widewing · « **Reply #11 on:** January 19, 2007, 09:27:13 AM »

Gents, I think we get a bit confused as to how the Military tested these fighters. Flaps were not used as it skewed the baseline.

For those planes in the test that we also have in the game, turn radius without flaps ranks as follows:

FM-2
Ki-61
F6F-5
F4U-1D
F4U-4 (virtual tie with -1D)

I agree that the Ki-61 should probably turn a bit better, but not much. Where the Ki-61 falls on its face is maneuvering with flaps. Its flaps are not very effective at reducing turn radius and combined with the added drag, the Ki-61 tends to wallow badly.

My regards,

Widewing

Widewing · « **Reply #12 on:** January 19, 2007, 10:35:59 AM »

Here's some other interesting data gleaned from this test. We know that the Ki-61 could manage about 270 knots at sea level, thus we can determine all other measured speeds in this test.

Ki-61
SL: 270 knots/ 311 mph (actual in game speed: 312 mph w/WEP)
20k: 289 knots / 333 mph (actual in game speed: 373 mph w/WEP)

FM-2
SL: 264 knots / 304 mph (actual in game speed: 302 mph w/WEP)
20k: 274 knots / 315 mph (actual in game speed: 318 mph w/WEP)

F6F-5
SL: 296 knots / 341 mph (actual in game speed: 331 mph w/WEP)
20k: 345 knots / 397 mph (actual in game speed: 385 mph w/WEP)

F4U-1D
SL: 302 knots / 348 mph (actual in game speed: 358 mph w/WEP)
20k: 353 knots / 406 mph (actual in game speed: 409 mph w/WEP)

F4U-4
SL: 315 knots / 363 mph (actual in game speed: 376 mph w/WEP)
20k: 377 knots / 434 mph (actual in game speed: 440 mph w/WEP)

F8F-1
SL: 330 knots / 380 mph (not in game)

F7F-3
SL: 324 knots / 373 mph (not in game)

Interesting.... This is the second Navy test I've seen that shows a real F6F-5 being substantially faster than the AH-2 version. The AH2 Ki-61 is much faster at 20,000 feet than the Ki-61-I tested by the Navy.

My regards,

Widewing

1K3 · « **Reply #13 on:** January 19, 2007, 11:22:20 AM »

I think our Hien fighter was the later version (~1944) with Ho-5 cannon.

Krusty · « **Reply #14 on:** January 19, 2007, 12:00:15 PM »

Also they mentioned they had to really struggle to get it working (hydraulics, I think it mentioned?) so they might have found a damaged one, or abandoned because it wasn't servicable, which might mean reduced power output. Ya never know.

There's been lots of comment on these boards about the F6F speedometer being inaccurate. Perhaps the Navy relied on it too much in their tests? (I'm not sure, but it would explain the higher numbers)