F4U-1 Vs. F4U-1A

[Getback]

Been flying the F4U-1 quite a bit lately. Mostly because I've been trying to get to 10,000 perkies. It's a bit of a perk farmer. Landed 44 perkies one run with 7 kills a while back.

But there's a difference between the two crafts. The F4U-1 seems a bit sluggish on handling compared to the F4U-1A. It's also a bit slower. The 1A will get you out of trouble much faster since it accelerates much faster. Then following that line of thought the 1A climbs better. I think I will hit around 10k at the radar circle in the -1 and about 11k in the 1A. The F4U-1 also seems to stiffen up a bit at high speeds and may turn a hair better at slower speeds. I'm not totally sure on the latter. It just seems that way.

One thing the F4U-1 has better forward views. You can look over the nose fairly easy and thus get a lead on your target. While the f4U-1A has limited front view and a better review. In fact regarding views the -1 reminds me of the f6.

Both are fun crafts to fly and matched against equal pilots, one being in the -1 and the other in the 1A, you will have all the fight you want.

[JunkyII]

Both are good in a knife fight 1A is better in MA just because of the reasons above...

I'm sure a hog dweeb will be around soon with the actual stats between them.

[Saxman]

The -1 is arguably slightly better as a pure flaps-out turner, however I find that advantage tends to be slightly nullified by the 1A's improved vertical and acceleration. It's not a tremendous difference, (with climb and acceleration going from poor to average at best) but it's enough. The 1A is also a bit more stable and less prone to spinning out thanks to that stall strip. The top speed difference isn't really much of an advantage for the 1A, only a couple mph (the 1A hits ~417 at best altitude, I think the 1 is somewhere between 412-415).

I also tend to find the views rather the opposite, with a good view over the nose on the 1A thanks to the higher seat position, but a somewhat poor rear view. The -1 has cutouts in the deck behind the pilot much like the earlier P-40s which greatly improve rearward visibility. That said, all of the Hogs are at least decent if you set your views properly.

Keep in mind our -1 is a bit of a Frankenstein, too. It's been discussed before, but the water injection didn't get added until the later 1As (which is what our paddle prop 1A is). Earlier machines had their engines upgraded in the field, but I don't think anyone's turned up evidence the birdcages (except possibly the F4U-2 night fighters, which remained on the front lines than the other birdcage Hogs) were refit. I still think WEP should be removed from the -1, since that's representing the higher power settings under water injection (historical Hogs didn't have a "WEP," and the water injection kicked in based on the throttle position). It would also better differentiate the -1 and 1A, and to better represent the early Corsairs.

[gyrene81]

is water injection necessary for war emergency power? i thought it was something like a 2 speed supercharger type thing on the f4u-1...

this performance trial shows a war emergency and a mil power throttle rating on the f4u-1...
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f4u/f4u.html

[SIK1]

The picture is of a 1A. Raised cockpit, semi bubble canopy, taller tail wheel, and no top cowl flaps, are a few of the changes that differentiate a 1A from a 1. One issue is that neither Vought nor the Navy differentiated the 1 from the 1A until late in the production run. They were just known as F4U-1's. Yes water injection is necessary for WEP. The 2 speed supercharger is used for high and low altitudes.

[gyrene81]

neither water nor methanol injection is necessary for war emergency power...prior to the boosted injection systems the throttle stop could be removed in some planes to boost the maximum power beyond normal operation. british planes had a way to boost the supercharger pressure early in the war.

[Scca]

The picture is of a 1A. Raised cockpit, semi bubble canopy, taller tail wheel, and no top cowl flaps, are a few of the changes that differentiate a 1A from a 1. One issue is that neither Vought nor the Navy differentiated the 1 from the 1A until late in the production run. They were just known as F4U-1's. Yes water injection is necessary for WEP. The 2 speed supercharger is used for high and low altitudes.

Yes, the picture is a 1A, the specs below breakout the 1 vs 1A, and the 1 did have wep according to that site.

[SIK1]

neither water nor methanol injection is necessary for war emergency power...prior to the boosted injection systems the throttle stop could be removed in some planes to boost the maximum power beyond normal operation. british planes had a way to boost the supercharger pressure early in the war.

Really, because when I look at the full report http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f4u/f4u-1-02334.pdf within the document you posted http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f4u/f4u.html it says that "water injection equipment was installed to obtain war emergency power rating."

It also goes on to say that a 13.0 ft, 4-bladed prop with .4 gear ratio was installed instead of the standard 13.25 ft. 3-bladed prop with .5 gear ratio. The airplane was also "cleaned up" aerodynamically. "Considerable effort was made to reduce the drag by either removing drag producing items, or fairing them."

So to say this is representative of a -1 "birdcage" corsair is erroneous.

[gyrene81]

Really, because when I look at the full report http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f4u/f4u-1-02334.pdf within the document you posted http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f4u/f4u.html it says that "water injection equipment was installed to obtain war emergency power rating."

It also goes on to say that a 13.0 ft, 4-bladed prop with .4 gear ratio was installed instead of the standard 13.25 ft. 3-bladed prop with .5 gear ratio. The airplane was also "cleaned up" aerodynamically. "Considerable effort was made to reduce the drag by either removing drag producing items, or fairing them."

So to say this is representative of a -1 "birdcage" corsair is erroneous.

you might want to do some more research, not all planes required a water/methanol injection system to boost the power above military power.

[Arlo]

We're talking F4U here.  

"An important change, from the 1550th aircraft, was the installation of the -8W engine with water injection, which allowed higher emergency power to be used at low altitude. "

http://www.f4ucorsair.com/history.html

(About half-way down the entire article under 'Development.'.)

(Water alcohol injection was used on the Allison T56 [turbo-prop] on our P-3s.)

[gyrene81]

operative word "higher"...

[Arlo]

operative word "higher"...

It certainly isn't lower.  

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_emergency_power

"For use in emergency situations, it produced more than 100% of the engine's normal rated power for a limited amount of time, often about five minutes."

"Maximum normal power would be limited by a mechanical stop, for instance a wire across the throttle lever slot, but a more forceful push would break the wire, allowing extra power."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_injection_%28engines%29

"Piston engined petrol military aircraft utilized water injection technology prior to World War II in order to increase takeoff power. This was used so that heavily-laden fighters could take off from shorter runways, climb faster, and quickly reach high altitudes to intercept enemy bomber formations. Some fighter aircraft also used water injection to allow higher boost in short bursts during dogfights.

As a general rule, the fuel mixture is set at full rich on an aircraft engine when running it at high power settings (such as during takeoff). The extra fuel does not burn; its only purpose is to evaporate to absorb heat. This uses fuel faster and also decreases the efficiency of the combustion process. By using water injection, the cooling effect of the water allows the fuel mixture to be run leaner at its maximum power setting. Many military aircraft engines of the 1940s utilized a pressure carburetor, a type of fuel metering system similar to a throttle body injection system. In a water-injected engine, the pressure carburetor features a mechanical derichment valve which makes the system nearly automatic. When the pilot turns on the water injection pump, water pressure moves the derichment valve to restrict fuel flow to lean the mixture while at the same time mixing the water/methanol fluid in to the system. When the system runs out of fluid the derichment valve shuts and cuts off the water injection system, while enriching the fuel mixture to provide a cooling quench to prevent sudden detonation.

Due to the cooling effect of the water, Otto cycle aircraft engines with water injection can be made to produce more power through higher charge densities at the time of combustion. The additional charge density is typically achieved by allowing higher manifold pressures to be used before the onset of detonation; this is normally done by adding or increasing the amount of forced induction or further opening of the throttle, however a similar result may also be achieved via higher engine stoke. This has historically been the primary use of a water injection systems in aircraft.

The extra weight and complexity added by a water injection system was considered worthwhile for military purposes, while it is usually not considered worthwhile for civilian use. The one exception is racing aircraft, which are focused on making a tremendous amount of power for a short time; in this case the disadvantages of a water injection system are less important."

~~~~~~~~~

Now that we have the methodology fully laid out .... the net result is ..... ?  

(In AHII .... the WEP key is activating water injection on the F4U ... or supposedly so.) 

[SIK1]

you might want to do some more research, not all planes required a water/methanol injection system to boost the power above military power.

LOL, ok stick with that.

[colmbo]

But Gyrene is correct in that not all aircraft/engine combinations required water injection to produce WEP.  The P-51 was one of those...WEP was simply pushing the throttle farther forward and running at a higher manifold pressure.


WEP is simply exceeding max "rated" power.

[SIK1]

Yes, but the title of the thread is F4U-1 Vs. F4U-1A.