I love my 190 a5!

[F4UDOA]

Funked,

Your right, F4U was superior under apprx. 160MPH. I am not looking at the report to be more specific. I talked to Wells about this one. It is possible that the Cowl flaps open during climb could have been responsable for the slower rate. Where as accelleration would have been unaffected.

By the way, could you repost your link for that NACA roll info. Can't seem to get their from here and it looks like good stuff

Thanx
F4UDOA

[-lazs-]

ok funked but... That's a little missleading since speed falls off so rapidly in climb.  If you pick a climb speed that you can maintain to reach 20K the climb will be much less than if you only want to measure max climb at sea level to a a thousand feet or so or best initial climb.   Still.... With the same lb/hp and the same acceleration in the testing, why would the Corsair climb so poorly compared to the A5?   Real tests show the Hog outaccelerating a P51, A6m5 and vitually identical to the A5.  This is far from the case in AH.  The AH A6m5, P51 and A5 all outclimb the Hogs by 200-600 fpm and easily out accelerate it.  At one point the A5 climbs 4100 fpm or, 1100 fpm better than the Hogs best!   does that seem right to you?
lazs

[funked]

Fixed the roll link.

Lazs:

"With the same lb/hp and the same acceleration in the testing, why would the Corsair climb so poorly compared to the A5?"

For the third time:  If two planes have the same level flight acceleration at a given speed and altitude, then the sustained climb rates at that speed are equal at that altitude.  The fact that the USN found equal acceleration and unequal climb rates means one of their observations was wrong.  This is why subjective comparisons like this need to be taken with a grain of salt.

Also:
11988/2135 = 5.61
8690/1720 = 5.05
5.61 is not equal to 5.05.

Finally, what power settings were being used for climb and acceleration?  It appears WEP was used by the USN only for top speed tests.  But for some reason you are trying to compare the WEP climb and acceleration performance of these two aircraft in Aces High.  If you compare the non-WEP performance, like the USN did, the differences are not that large, and it is hard to choose between them over 10,000 feet.


[This message has been edited by funked (edited 07-02-2000).]

[This message has been edited by funked (edited 07-02-2000).]

[F4UDOA]

Funked,

Thanks for fixing that link. Do you have the F4U roll data as well? I wish that NACA server would search by document number because it is very difficult to find data in it's current format.

Anyway Funked on the Climb and accelleration from. Wells did a calculation that showed if the cowl flaps were open during climb on the F4U(as was standard practice) the added drag would have slowed down climb considerably. However during level flight accelleration they would be closed not affecting the side by side accelleration with the FW-190.

Also you have the power loading for the F4U listed as 2135Hp. Depending on the source it is also listed as 2250HP bringing it a little closer. The Hellcat had the same engine and also the same rated HP. Bringing me to my second point. Based on the sea level performance of the F4U vrs the F6F. I have serveral pieces of documentaion that show the F4U out climbing the F6F but the listed performance data would seem to contradict that by showing the F6F with a higher rate of climb. Whatever the case is in climb it is very hard to explain the differance in level flight speed at sea level between these two A/C considering they have very similer drag coefficients (the F4U is slightly lower) identical weights and power ratings. Yet the F4U is some 30MPH faster at sea level. It is just an example of how an intagable feature of an A/C can make flight performance change drastically. The reason is as I have read that the F4U air induction is much more efficient in low blower at low alt. The speed difference narrows at higher alt. But this may also be a factor in the F4U, FW190 comparison. Since the A5 also used a Radial with multple blower stages and had similar speed as the F6F at low alt. The climb comparison between F4U and F6F raises many questions for me. If you look at the listed performance data for the two A/C you would think that the F6F would outclimb the F4U. And by that you can also say it could out accellerate the F4U. Except that every piece of comparitive data would say the contrary as well as the performance calculation I believe. I will run some numbers to check it. In any case it is just an example of a contradictory flight vrs physics model.

Later F4UDOA

[-lazs-]

funked... 2130-2180hp  are figures for 5-8K  in fact, 2135 is at 12K.  the real numbers for sea level are 2250hp for the 8 and 10w engines.    And i agree... the conservative testing doesn't match the comparisson testing done during the war with real planes flying off against each other.   I tend to think the latter is better for comparisson purposes in a sim.... Using those tests, AH is so far off the mark that they should just drop the Corsair altogether until they can figure out what they did wrong.   The A5 seems fine.... Just fix most of the others now.
lazs