The F6F Hellcat

[Pongo]

Man the wrecking crew..that was a while back.

[RTSigma]

2000? Jeez It would have been almost another year before I saw a naked woman at a strip joint.

[Bodhi]

Originally posted by SgtPappy
im pretty sure the F6F's are easier to fly, are more stable, and are a bit structurally tougher than the F4U. plus they turn tighter, have equal to better handling at every speed, especially low, and actually climb better than corsairs that had the same engine. they also have a much lower stall speed and (though not very significant, but somewhat of an advantage in emergencies, especially against japanese planes) the Hellcat carried 50 more bullets. also, which is considered the most important thing in war is that they were easier to maintain and build. even so, i do believe that the F4U is an overall better plane, but im stickin with the Hellcat.. unless some1 convinces me other wise  

The Hellcat did not have the same engine as the Corsair.

Differences were minute, as performance is listed as the same, but the early F4u's had a R2800-8 and the F4u-4 an R2800-18W or a R2800-42W (mostly the B's).  The Hellcat series through the -5 carried R2800-10W.

The differences are in carburetor mounting, top on the Hellcat and F4u-4 and bottom on the early F4u's.  Also, the case designs differ owing to different design requirements.

[Shuckins]

In an earlier post about the Hellcat, one responder (wish I could remember who it was) stated that the British replaced two of the .50 caliber machine guns with .20mm cannon.

This makes sense to me because the Brits tended to place cannon on all the fighter types that they operated.

Does anybody have any information about this, or remember who it was that posted that information?

Regards, Shuckins

[Bodhi]

We did it too... in fact the wing on the -5's was designed to take one cannon and 2 .50's, or the the standard load out.

[Silat]

Originally posted by Widewing
Whoa.... Does Silat know you guys are posting vacation photos of his girlfriend?

My regards,

Widewing

Trolls make the best lovers............

[joeblogs]

You are right there is little difference between the -8 and -10 models. The -18 however is a "C" block engine as opposed to the "B" blocks of the -8 and -10. It has a bit more power and few less bugs (e.g. the supercharger).

-Blogs

Originally posted by Bodhi
The Hellcat did not have the same engine as the Corsair.

Differences were minute, as performance is listed as the same, but the early F4u's had a R2800-8 and the F4u-4 an R2800-18W or a R2800-42W (mostly the B's).  The Hellcat series through the -5 carried R2800-10W.

The differences are in carburetor mounting, top on the Hellcat and F4u-4 and bottom on the early F4u's.  Also, the case designs differ owing to different design requirements.

[Squire]

"In an earlier post about the Hellcat, one responder (wish I could remember who it was) stated that the British replaced two of the .50 caliber machine guns with .20mm cannon."

The Fleet Air Arm (Royal Navy) never operated any F6Fs with 20mm.

The 20mm was an armament varient on the F6F-5N Night Fighter. Most served in USN and USMC units in 1945. Some land based, some ship based. Only some of the F6F Night Fighters had the 2 x 20mm 4 x 50cal set, most did not.

Most accounts I have read indicate the pilots didnt think the 20mm added that much vs the Japanese a/c they were engaged with, since they tended to go down to 6x 50s pretty quick as it was.

[Bodhi]

Originally posted by joeblogs
You are right there is little difference between the -8 and -10 models. The -18 however is a "C" block engine as opposed to the "B" blocks of the -8 and -10. It has a bit more power and few less bugs (e.g. the supercharger).

-Blogs

The only real difference between the -10W and the -18W is the "C series" power section.  The "C series" power section enabled 100 more hp at Max military, and 25 more hp at normal settings.   It is also 80 pounds heavier, and burns fuel faster.  All in all, I am a much bigger fan of the B series engines than the C series.  Unless we start talking the CB series.  The CB's are the easiest to maintain, and they definitely are the smarter choice if historical accuracy is not the aim.  As the 18W having fewer bugs, I'd have to disagree.  The 18W turned at higher RPM's then the 10W and in fact has a higher wear rate than does the 10W.  The only benefit the 18W has over the 10W is the blower ratio, and that is where you are finding the "issues" which, if properly maintained, it is not an issue.

[joeblogs]

One issue with the earlier engines was supercharger surging when changing from low to high blower and back. Worst case, You could blow parts off the engine or start a good fire.

I am not saying the A & B series were bad engines. I don't think there was a more reliable engine of that power range. The only one close might be a Bristol sleeve-valve.

The C series also had a redesigned crank case - stiffer and the oil cooling paths were improved.

The 18W is rated at a slightly higher RPM under high MAP precisely becuase it was a stronger engine. It would not be at all suprising to find greater wear if the engines are run at max RPM as the stresses increase with the cube of RPM. Still these engines had a time between overhaul that were multiples of nearly all axis high powered engines.

Fixed blower ratios are always a comprimise as you are basically picking one or more critical altitudes and hoping that is where the plane will do most of the fighting.

There is a mystery about the specific fuel consumption of all these engines through the war. It's clearly due to the carburetors but I've never been able to sort out the conflicting materials. Ironically, in commercial use after the war, these were efficient engines.

Did the CB series even make the war?

-Blogs

Originally posted by Bodhi
The only real difference between the -10W and the -18W is the "C series" power section.  The "C series" power section enabled 100 more hp at Max military, and 25 more hp at normal settings.   It is also 80 pounds heavier, and burns fuel faster.  All in all, I am a much bigger fan of the B series engines than the C series.  Unless we start talking the CB series.  The CB's are the easiest to maintain, and they definitely are the smarter choice if historical accuracy is not the aim.  As the 18W having fewer bugs, I'd have to disagree.  The 18W turned at higher RPM's then the 10W and in fact has a higher wear rate than does the 10W.  The only benefit the 18W has over the 10W is the blower ratio, and that is where you are finding the "issues" which, if properly maintained, it is not an issue.

[Bodhi]

CB's never made the war as far as I know.  We just use them now in "flyers" (aircraft that are close but not 100% historically accurate) as the parts are fairly affordable and still readily available.  Plus the maintenance is a breeze compared to earlier stuff.  The CB3 has a single stage blower which makes it far simpler than the two stage stuff.

I buy cylinders all the time.  We have a lot of 2800's in our collection, so it is always a good idea to have the parts in stock.  By comparison, late model stuff like the C series cyclinders are fairly available, and a "stud assembly" just a plain jane cylinder with no piston, rings or valves runs about a $100.00.  A B series front cylinder is about $2500.00 and a rear about $1200.00.  Complete B fronts run about $3000.00 if you can find them.  Start doing the math and it gets very expensive, very quick!

[F4UDOA]

Bodhi,

What do you do??

I have always though the C series superior to the B because you could run it at higher MAP rating without predetination. The P-47 was cleared to run 150 octane fuel with the "C" block at 65"MAP without ADI and up to 75" MAP with ADI.

The highest MAP approved for F6F or F4U with the B block was 60" although the F4U could ooverboost in the main blower. Not sure about the F6F.

Do you know if PW did any testing at higher MAP's in the B series?

[gripen]

It's claimed in the White's book that the B-series R-2800 was pushed up to 100" during bench tests. That was with max amount of ADI + special cooling.

Generally the later C-series (and E-series etc.) and civil versions of the R-2800 are completely redesigned engines (specially the head cooling was improved).

gripen

[Bodhi]

The difference Gripen is saying about the late C's and CB's heads was changing the underlying structure below the fins to a more aerodynamically designed set up that better allowed air flow through the fins.  That and the increase in the number of fins by making the thinner specifically on the barrel.

[F4UDOA]

Gripen/Bodhi,

Do you know the max MAP allowed for 100 octane fuel with ADI on the B block.

I have a book that list some Cleveland AirRace results and the HP of each engine. The B block got up to about 2400HP on Lucky Gallon (FG-1) in 1946 but the C could reach close to 3,000 in the F4U-5 or AU-1. Much better cooling apparently. I don't know if there is a ratio of MAP to HP but I figure 2400HP was about 65" MAP on the R-2800B-8W.

Do you know if the B block cleared for 150 octane fuel?