A6M5 climb rate

[vafiii]

Let's just say this myth has been busted.

[gyrene81]

Let's just say this myth has been busted.

Uh no it hasn't...but I'm not in the mood to point out where the missed points are.

[Noah17]

Has anyone used the suggested climb speeds of 156 mph for the F4U-1D and 150 mph for the F6F-5?

I had read the same test (I think) in the book "Zero Japan's Legendary Fighter."
I have set my autoclimb to 158(I forgot it should have been 156) in the F4U-1A.
Although I have not used a stopwatch or any other means to test it seems to me that the -1A climbs better at that speed. I do realize the tests were done w/ a 1D but, I figured that the performance would be very close with an edge to the 1A.
When I say climbed better it might be a couple hundred feet a minute..........This is an appearance and I don't know how accurate it would be.....But what the hell? It can't hurt.......

[SgtPappy]

I don't know how to make graphs but if someone could plot Noah's test results (i.e. F4U-1A/D, sustained climb @ 156 mph) against an F6F-5's climb rate at 150 mph, then maybe we can get a better bearing on climb rates here.

Does anyone know if the climb rate data posted in the scores & stats page are done at 160 mph for all aircraft? Because as far as we know, every plane essentially has a best climb speed, but auto-speed sets our climb speed to 160 mph default in each fighter.

EDIT: Sorry people, I posted the wrong link to the test earlier. This is the actual test: http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/japan/ptr-1111.pdf

[Saxman]

This graph shows the comparative performance of the 1D and F6F. Doesn't specify what speed the climb performance was tested at, however:



The chart shows a clear advantage going to the F6F at nearly all altitudes.

Here's an interesting one:



From the BuNo. this is likely an F4U-1A. Another one:



Once again, from the BuNo this is most likely a 1A.

Comparison an F6F-5:



No WEP on this one, but even under MIL the F4U-1A outperforms the F6F. This one shows a slightly different curve, (again, no WEP) but still surpassed by the 1A:



For some odd reason I'm not having much luck finding a climb chart with WEP noted on my search....

[SgtPappy]

Thanks Sax.

If we can find the speeds at which those climb rates were attained, then we can conclusively deduce if our aircraft are climbing incorrectly. In all of Sax's charts, the F4U-1(A)'s all climb faster than 3000 fpm without WEP. Obviously not the case with our plane.

I did, however retry Noah's tests. I took the F4U-1A for a spin, set auto-speed to 156 IAS and the plane easily climbed at ~ 3100 fpm from sea-level. It went over 3200 fpm with WEP as I got higher and higher, but that obviously dropped quickly.

[Noah17]

At higher alts. WEP makes even more of a difference in autoclimb at the 156~158 speed. It seems that it may be a few hundred feet better a minute difference from Mil to WEP at High altitudes. I've been spending more time climbing to 19k as this is the best top speed alt for the 1A (different blower setting maybe?)....Call me an "Alt Monkey" but it seems I'm running in to more 51's, 47's and, k4's up there every day....

Obviously fuel loads will vary the rate of climb. I flew the F6F in a fight briefly this morning. I normally "up" with 75% fuel as I did this morning.The F6F autoclimbing at the default rate did not seem to climb as well as the -1A with 75% fuel at the 156~158 MPH. Again the difference appears to be small in ft per minute but, if you're on autoclimb for 5minutes that could be a nice benefit.....Or perhaps I'm delusional as I have not had stopwatch or other means of testing lol. Admittedly my personal bias is towards the F4U. The higher speed and high speed climb is partially why it replaced the F6F anyway...Much better to get to and kill Kamikaze's that way. That and the demand for more fighters on board carriers.

For Hellcat jocks I mean no disrespect the F6F is a great plane and has some nice advantages too.

[froger]

Jap pilots were smaller and weighed less than American pilots resulting in an overall lighter, faster and more maneuverable aircraft. Jap's dined on vegetables, tofu and brown rice while Yanks gorged themselves on burgers, dogs, fries and milk shakes. Also, sake has half the calories of American beer.

ummm.......


froger

[Saxman]

Can any of our chart gurus confirm whether this indicates the rate of climb on the 1A/D/C is off, or is this something that was non-standard?

[Stoney]

Does anyone know if the climb rate data posted in the scores & stats page are done at 160 mph for all aircraft? Because as far as we know, every plane essentially has a best climb speed, but auto-speed sets our climb speed to 160 mph default in each fighter.

In-game, each plane's default [alt-x] speed is set for best climb, as modelled by HTC.  For example, compare default [alt-x] speed in the P-51 versus the F4U.

Now, that being said, as you increase altitude, best climb indicated air speed increases, but only slightly.  Where the P-47 best climb is around 160 at sea level, above 25,000 feet, its around 165.  Not to big of a difference really--a hundred fpm difference maybe.

Again, like all reports of this nature, we get a qualitative assessment by the pilots instead of hard, quantitative data.  Without testing weights, power settings, rates of climb, climbing speeds, etc., we get a cloudy picture of the relative performance.  If we were Corsair or Hellcat fanbois, we could desperately grasp to a report like this and cry "Look!, the F6F in-game is porked!  It says so in this report right here!"  Without the context of the test, its only interesting from a historical standpoint; it offers no "proof" of anything.

[Saxman]

But in the case of the F4U/F6F when multiple tests, climb rate reports, etc. indicate that the F4U outclimbs Hellcat, while the situation is reversed in the game something seems off. Even under full fuel load, the F6F outweighs the F4U-1D slightly by about 300-400lbs with the same amount of engine power, (the 1A under full fuel is heavier, but she does have the extra wing tanks. If the 1A is at 75% the Hellcat weighs more by 100lbs) but when you look at the performance comparison chart for the game the Hellcat outclimbs the 1D by a pretty good margin at all but a very tiny band between ~11-13,000ft, and above ~17k.

[SgtPappy]

Do we know however, that the R-2800-10W and R-2800-8W have the same power at sealevel? If they do, what Sax says about their respective power-weight ratios should allow an F4U-1D to climb faster. I assume the F4U is also more aerodynamic if the engines produce the same power since we know that the F4U is faster at sea-level.

Though let me also bring to the table the following speculation: I believe it has been mentioned before that Grumman was testing the Hellcat incorrectly at one point, and that other companies' tests (Vought, I think was one of them) concluded that the F6F-5 could exceed 400 mph in level flight. If all/most of the published tests out there are done with this possible 'incorrect testing', then we may never know what the Hellcat really performed like.

[Stoney]

I suppose my question to both of you would be, why is there a discrepancy in-game?  Everything in this game is controlled by mathematics.  I would suggest that there is an answer out there that would explain the difference.

First start with the aerodynamic characteristics that affect climb rate.  They are?  Also, when a test flight says that the F4U "outclimbed" the F6F, what exactly does that mean?  What is the quantitative difference in the flight test numbers?

[SgtPappy]

Stoney, that answer is exactly what we are seeking.

There must be something to explain the discrepancy, but I wish I knew what the answer was. Though I am still curious about the F6F-5's testing discrepancies that Widewing mentioned before. I can't find that thread.

[Saxman]

Pappy's on the ball. The couple charts and tests I've seen indicate something's fishy, however I don't have the information to determine what if anything is wrong. Hoping we can get some of the chart and stat gurus to lend a hand.

There's some charts out there with the 1A at nearly 4000fpm climb, however these I KNOW for certain are while testing overpowered settings (IIRC, it was something to do with pressure in the cylinder heads, that conversation was a while ago. Although I'd love to see it just to see the whines). We need someone with more information that can help sort this stuff out.