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.
Hi Gang - been awhile since I've lurked in here
. Stoney's spot on. Also His advice about thinking about the aerodynamics of climb is very important too. He mentions excess power.
rate of climb = specific excess power = (thrust - drag) / weight * velocity
To illustrate Stoney's point about qualitative vs. quantitative data...
in the sgt pappy's OP we have two data points: rate of climb and airspeed. That leaves thrust, drag, and weight missing from the ROC equation. Without them we don't have any idea what we are evaluating because thrust, drag, and weight also make a big difference on ROC. (Also, don't let the simplicity of the equation fool you. Thrust and drag can be complicated with many factors dynamically influencing their value.)
So in short we have an anecdote of qualitative climb comparisons between an F4U, F6F, and A6M. But you can't really use it to do meaningful comparative analysis and flight model study.
Tango
412th FS Braunco Mustangs
