F6F Hellcat

[Rebel]

On pages 602-606 in AHT the author cites a number of tests and pilot appraisals of the major fighter aircraft employed by the U.S. during WW II.  The results make interesting reading, and are very pertinent to this topic:

Best All-Around Visibility:  P-51D, P-47D-30, F6F-5, F4U-1D
Best Ailerons at 350mph:  P-51D, F4U-1D, P-38L, F6F-5
Best Ailerons at 100mph:  F6F-5, F4U-1D, P-47D-30, FM-2
Best Elevators:  F4U-1D, F6F-5, P-51D, P-47D-30
Best Rudder:  F6F-5, F4U-1D, P-38L, P-51D
Nicest All Around Stability: F6F-5, F4U-1D, P-61B, P-47B
Best characteristics 5mph above the Stall:  F6F-5, P-61B, P-38L FM-2

In turning performance, using the FM-2 as the base against which all the other fighters were measured, the aircraft performed thusly:

FM-2 (the champ)
P-63
P-61 (Yep...a large twin-engined fighter)
F6F-5
P-51D
P-38L
P-47D
F4U-1D (dead last)

The Corsair had a little over twice the turning circle of the FM-2, or 212% of the FM-2's turning circle.  The Hellcat had 138% of the FM-2's turning circle.

Thanks for that- the office doesn't allow me to keep AHT at my desk.   


Just out of curiosity- what's the official numbers on the FM2 vs the Hellcat and the F4U in game?  

My hunch is the FM2 vs Hellcat would be pretty close to RL data, but the F4U with the flaps and minimal torque modelling would be wildly out of place.

[Shuckins]

Thanks for that- the office doesn't allow me to keep AHT at my desk.   


Just out of curiosity- what's the official numbers on the FM2 vs the Hellcat and the F4U in game?  

My hunch is the FM2 vs Hellcat would be pretty close to RL data, but the F4U with the flaps and minimal torque modelling would be wildly out of place.

Don't have those at my fingertips.  However, I remember reading an NAS report which tested those three aircraft against a captured A6M-5.  The turning performance of the FM-2 and the Zero were almost identical, with the Zero having a slight edge.  On both the Hellcat and Corsair the Zero could pull-through for a killing shot in only 2 1/2 turns.

[ScottyK]

  IMO any changes to the F4U's would anger a good chunk of people.

[SectorNine50]

 IMO any changes to the F4U's would anger a good chunk of people.

Unfortunately, I think this is probably true.  It seems true for every change made to the game, really...

It is pretty interesting to watch those F4U's float about, though.  Doesn't help that their stall speed is much slower than most planes either.  In my mind, the F4U, as modeled now, is probably the best airframe in the game, at least in terms of how we fly in the AH MA 99% of the time.  They are very stable near their stall speed.

[Greebo]

IIRC the F6F used to be able to out turn the F4Us in AH and the situation reversed the last time the flap code was revised.

Were the NAS turning tests flaps up or down?

[Shuckins]

Greebo, the information for turn radius that I cited from AHT originated from a WW II U.S. fighter conference.  The data was for stall speeds in three g turns for clean aircraft configuration, with gear and flaps retracted, canopy closed, and no external stores.  The assumption was made in each case that engine power available was sufficient to keep the plan in level flight (not sinking) during the turn.  In such a case the minimum turn radius occurs when the wing develops the maximum possible lift coefficient without stalling. 

The author stated that the Corsair's position in last place was a bit of a surprise.  He thought this was due to a relatively low maximum lift coefficient, because wing loading was not overly high.  The spoiler placed on the right wing of the Corsair to eliminate an unsymmetric stall problem was suspected of dropping the overall lift coefficient considerably, and in fact, he states, an NACA test report notes this was indeed the case.

Note also that these results are for turn radius without flaps deployed on any of the aircraft.

[TequilaChaser]

IIRC the F6F used to be able to out turn the F4Us in AH and the situation reversed the last time the flap code was revised.

I remember our battles, Greebo..... you in your F6f and me in my F4U-1 ....... can never forget some of them......

I  can verify that the F4U series does have a substantial benefit of use of Rudder at speeds well below 40 / 30  mph...( 29 mph ) and it can fly and maneuver on a consistent basis under 100 mph / under 80 mph / under 60 mph ... when flying a fight in the vertical ....   

but just the same, I also have always declared that I could not really tell any difference in the F4U series before the code was revised to after  the code revision......

the only thing I ever noticed was I had to change my trim out speed in level flight from  300 to 310 IAS and moved it up to 320 to  330 IAS ... for my prefered trim setting to dogfight with ......

as for the torque and whether it is mediocre or not enough in regards to real life......... those who do not normally fly the F4U in the game, easily can flip it / roll it if they gun the throttle after trying to come in for a flared landing....... or they will do the continous bounce so much as to even break their landing gear or wingover, etc.......

you can not gain full performance turning to the right without backing off the throttle in a right hand turn to around 87% down to 80 % throttle......... verses being able to turn to the left with full 100% throttle ......

I always favored the F6f-3  back in air Warrior, over  AW's  F4u.......... but when I came to Aces high, I hated the F6f,  I found that the F4U-1 flew more like my beloved F6f-3 that AW had.....

this thread was / is a good read !


TC

[Greebo]

Maybe it wasn't the last revision, but I do recall being able to out turn F4Us in previous versions of AH.

I have no problem with torque effects being tuned down in AH, so long as each plane is correct relative to one another.

I'm not sure how the AH F6F turns relative to the F4U flaps up, maybe its just the flaps that gives the F4U the edge in AH. Any 1v1 dogfight I have vs an F4U usually ends up as a flaps down scissors fight pretty quickly and in this sort of fight the F4U dominates.

Interesting about how the lift spoiler screwed the real F4U's turn performance. I'm wondering now how HTC modelled the lift spoiler on the F4Us. Ideally they would have modelled a reduction in lift for that part of the wing, based on speed and angle of attack etc. If they just subtracted some of the rolling moment for the aircraft that might explain the aircraft's turning performance in AH. Does the F4U-1 (no spoiler) turn a lot better than the later versions, i.e. more than the weight reduction would allow for?

[FLS]

The F6F out turns the F4U flaps up and has a lower 3G stall speed.

I'm not aware of any torque model reductions to make flying easier but we've seen many debates about the specifics of anecdotal evidence since every reader seems to have a different understanding of the material.

I'm guessing Hitech's comment that Baumer mentioned refers to the forward position of the horizontal stabilizer in the F4U changing the effect of the slipstream on the vertical stabilizer and not the actual torque produced.

[Baumer]

FLS Hitech is thinking that his slipstream modeling might be creating a situation where there is too much air moving over the rudder at very low speeds. This creates more rudder authority below stall speeds then the Corsair actually should have.

[Rebel]

FLS Hitech is thinking that his slipstream modeling might be creating a situation where there is too much air moving over the rudder at very low speeds. This creates more rudder authority below stall speeds then the Corsair actually should have.

This *could* be the answer to the Corsairs rather incredible low speed feats. 

The slip stream issue you mention could very well mean that the aircraft in question is able to maintain stability outside of the normal envelope. 

I thought it was torque related, but this sounds like it could be the real issue. 

Wait and see, I guess.  Hopefully they get a good look at it soon.

[Slade]

Best All-Around Visibility:  P-51D, P-47D-30, F6F-5, F4U-1D

Wow! If these real world stats are correct, I hope AH's F6F changes bring its visibility into better alignment.

[FLS]

FLS Hitech is thinking that his slipstream modeling might be creating a situation where there is too much air moving over the rudder at very low speeds. This creates more rudder authority below stall speeds then the Corsair actually should have.

I'm guessing it's an issue with the difference in blanking. I imagine the airflow gets pretty complicated with the gull wings and the horizontal stabs forward of the vertical stab.

I thought it was torque related, but this sounds like it could be the real issue.  

The spiral slipstream is what causes most of the torque you notice in AH.

[F4UDOA]

FYI,

The turn radius performance data in AHT was calculated not tested data by the author Francis Dean. Some of his Cl data was scattered which is why the results of some are off. This was heavily discussed on the boards many years ago (when I was still active anyway).

[Noir]

if the slipstream modeling is off, it will affect all the planeset!