This month's "FLIGHT JOURNAL"

[Sikboy]

Great thread.

-Sik

[niklas]

Originally posted by eddiek
Meyer wrote a nice article about a year ago, in which he described side by side testing of the F4U and the Hellcat, and he described an error in the placement of the pitot tube for the airspeed indicator on the F6F that caused it to read slow.  Side by side testing showed the F6F to be every bit as fast as the Corsair ABOVE 5K, but below that the Corsair was faster.
 

Does this mean the Navy or Grumann did speed test without calibrating their instruments on a test way? Oh my....

niklas

[HoHun]

Hi Eddiek,

>Meyer wrote a nice article about a year ago, in which he described side by side testing of the F4U and the Hellcat, and he described an error in the placement of the pitot tube for the airspeed indicator on the F6F that caused it to read slow.  

Any serious performance tests starts by calibrating the airspeed indicator, so I find that hard to believe.

For the Fw 190, I've even seen tests that relied on theodolithic observation (with multiple passes with, against, and perpendicular to the wind) so that the airspeed indicator played no part at all.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

[HoHun]

Hi again,

>Any serious performance tests starts by calibrating the airspeed indicator, so I find that hard to believe.

I've found report PTR-1107 which compared a captured Fw 190A-5 to an F4U-1D and an F6F-3.

"Airspeed indicators in all three planes were calibrated and loads were checked."

The F6F-3 (No. 42150) was weighing 12406 lbs, power setting was 54"/60" Hg at 2700 rpm.

Speeds achieved after short acceleration runs (full top speed would be higher) were (in comparison to F6F-5 BuAer speeds):

Altitude - PTR-1107 - BuAer F6F-5
00200 ft - 334 mph - 318 mph
05000 ft - 351 mph - 327 mph
10000 ft - 348 mph - 356 mph
15000 ft - 369 mph - 366 mph
20000 ft - 381 mph - 376 mph
25000 ft - 391 mph - 378 mph

BuAer data can be found here:

http://www.history.navy.mil/branches/org4-8.htm

From the Fw 190A-5 data, I'd say full top speed might be about 5 mph higher on the average (the data isn't entirely conclusive).

For the same loading condition, the BuAer data gives the following properties for the F6F-5:

Power setting - Max speed at sea level
Normal - 299 mph @ 1670 HP (ca.)
Military - 314 mph @ 1940 HP (ca.)
Combat - 318 mph @ 2030 HP

These speeds are consistent, but the power gain of just 90 HP seems very small for adding water-methanol injection. Most engines could do much better than that. The engine is specified as R-2800-10W, so perhaps someone can chime in with a power figure here?

What is striking is that according to the speed graph F6F-5 seems to lose 10 - 15 mph when it goes into combat power according to the speed graph. The additional power seems to recover that and add more, but it's still unusual.

I'd have though it mean that with water injection, the F6F-5 would have to crack the cowl flaps open, producing extra drag, but as the engine power values as analyzed above don't show that the F6F-5 should be faster in combat power than it actually is, this seems out of the question.

Does anyone have the maximum boost figures for the F6F-5 as specified by the manual? The BuAer overview unfortunately doesn't provide this data.

My conclusion so far: There is something strange in the neighbourhood :-)

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

[F4UDOA]

I don't have time to write a full post but the speed test I have for the F4U have nothing to do with airspeed indicators either.

They are done by flying past a radar station.

HoHun,

The F6F in the FW190 test is a F6F-3. It was slightly higher in HP by about 2135HP to 2250HP. However the drag condition on the F6F-5 would be higher because of external stores pylons.

[HoHun]

Hi F4UDOA,

>The F6F in the FW190 test is a F6F-3. It was slightly higher in HP by about 2135HP to 2250HP. However the drag condition on the F6F-5 would be higher because of external stores pylons.

Hm, do you mean the F6F-3 had more power, or the F6F-5 did?

Thanks for the hint regarding pylons! I checked the BuAer, document, and it reads:

"Combat conditions include fuselage bomb shackles and 'T' bracing, faired wing bomb-racks and sway bracing."

Apparently, the pylons aren't figured in, but the bomb racks probably have a greater effect anyway. You certainly set me on the right track :-)

As far as I know, the F6F-3 didn't have any bomb racks, which would help explaining the difference.

Any idea what the minimum drag configuration of the F6F-5 would be? It seems to me that at least the braces should be removable, even if the racks might be not.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

[F4UDOA]

Sorry HoHun,

Your right, I was typing backwards as I was very tired when I wrote that post. The F6F-3=2135HP and the F6F-5=2250HP.

Funny thing about the drag conditions in AH. The F4U-1D is modeled with Pylons installed which account for about 10MPH in speed loss. The F6F-5 apparently is not modeled with the loss from the pylons as is accounted for by listing the top speed as 335MPG at sea level in AH while the Navair doc for the F6F-5 shows a lower top speed at sea level for the F6F-5 than does the F6F-3. The F4U-1D top speed without pylons is actually 366MPH at seal level.

I have a Navy doc which shows the improvement of the production F4U-1A series with 2250HP at 60" MAP with paddle prop with a top speed of 430MPH+ at 20K. This would be an accurate representation of a 1944 F4U in a fighter configuration. Even the XF6F-6 wasn't that fast.

[HoHun]

Hi F4UDOA,

>while the Navair doc for the F6F-5 shows a lower top speed at sea level for the F6F-5 than does the F6F-3.

Do you have the BuAer sheet for the F6F-3? That would be interesting to see.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

[eddiek]

Nice feedback, fellas.

HoHun.........the article stated that while flying the F6F and F4U side by side, in formation, the F6F's airspeed indicator read 20 mph slower than the one on the F4U, even though the planes were flying at the exact same speed.  Closer investigation into that revealed a design flaw in the Hellcat's airspeed indicator layout that made the speed read slower than the plane was actually flying.

F4UDOA, I know you are a devoted Corsair fan, but chill my friend.
Corky Meyer flew just about all if not all of the planes we have talked about.  I picked up a FJ special edition the same night that was about the P-47, and yep, he flew that bird too.  He also flew the F4U, so while he may be biased, as you are, he was there, he took the planes up, so yeah, I kinda lean towards respecting a man who did test pilot work for a living.  That he is a contributing editor now  really shouldn't make a difference IMO.

Like Widewing said, there was a lot of political crap going at the fighter conference, so you take those reports the same way you take Corky Meyers' fighter ratings..........an opinion, and nothing more.  He makes a good case for the Jug being the best ETO fighter, as he clearly states that it is not just about dogfighting and air to air.  It is about what the plane did overall, and the Jug did just about everything, except photo recon work.

[F4UDOA]

Eddiek,

What I get all worked up about is revisionest history.

I haven't had a chance to rebutt Widewings post but I have some things to say about that conferance.

1. F4U-4 not being selected as a best fighter above 20K. The report list how many pilots flew each A/C. Only 2 pilots flew the -4 and none flew the F2G which was also there. Hence few votes.

2. There were many combat pilots there. Including some famous names such as Renner, Guyton, Walsh, Lindberg and others. I respect these pilots as much as I do Corkey Meyers. And BTW Corkey Meyers was NOT a combat pilot. He was a contractor.

3. The F6F was never as fast as the F4U. The Brits, Navy and Marine flew these A/C in formation and in numerous flight test and the F6F never tested as fast as the F4U even after the pitot tube error was corrected. Remember this error was corrected in 1944. Also the CD of the F6F was higher than the F4U. So with the same power how would they be the same speed? And by his own admission the F4U was 20Knots faster on the deck.

4. Politial bias, Grumman was the king of political bias in the Navy. Have you noticed how many Grumman birds have flow for the Navy in the past 50 years? In fact some Navy personel insisted it was Grummans political clout that kept the F4U's off of the Navy decks for so long. Not any problems with operating from carrier decks.

What is most important about the 1944 Conferance is the general tone of things. While different pilots may have different views on different aspects of an aircraft the fact remains that 60% of thr pilots preffered the F4U to the F6F. I respect their opinions with at least the same zealous degree that I do Corkey Meyers. And Meyers was a Grummen employee.

Yes I am biased. But find one unbiased source that shows the performance of the F6F to be superior to the F4U. I don't mean one pilot such as Capt. Eric Brown of the Royal Navy, I mean source such as the actual AFDU or any test report NAVAIR doc or competitive flight test.

FYI, here is a fact you may not know. In almost the same number of operational and combat sorties the F6F suffered far more operation accidents and losses than the F4U while dropping almost 1/3 of the tonnage of ordinance as the F4U.

[Shuckins]

F4UDOA and Widewing,

I purchased a book written by Barrett Tillman and Robert Lawson shortly after Christmas entitled World War II U.S. Navy Air Combat. In it, Marion Carl had this to say about the F8F:

We put on several airshows at Pax River, and I had some special routines.  My pet Bearcat would be spotted on the catapult and I'd be fired off, pull up into a loop, pop gear and flaps at the top, and land from the down side.  It was probably the shortest airshow performance ever, but it was pretty spectacular.

THAT I would have loved to have seen.  I doubt seriously the same stunt could have been performed by an F4U-4.

Regards, Shuckins

[eddiek]

Just curious as to what you are referring to.
Meyer was there, contract or not, he did fly a lot of different planes.  
Only "revisionist" history that irritates me is when folks start in with the little fantasy planes that never saw the light of day, and say "If the war had lasted 6 months longer this is what the Allies would have been up against."
Think about it:  Had the war in Europe lasted 6 months longer, some city in Germany would have had the notority of being the first to be A-bombed.  Had the Allies chosen to hit an aircraft factory or the oilfields, the result would have been the same.  Germany would have lost the ability to produce aircraft and not had the fuel to put them in the air anyway.
As to Grumman having a stranglehold on USN aviation, you have to ask yourself just what plane did Vought produce after the F4U and F8 Crusader that was worth a dang?  My thinking is that Grumman had already branched out into other aircraft lines and proven themselves of producing aircraft that met the USN specs, and producing them "on time."  Vought, IMHO, cut their own throats in the long run when the Corsair's development program dragged on and on and on, and Grumman whipped out the F6F and had it ready at nearly the same time as the F4U.
If there were politics involved, and I don't doubt that there were, at least part of it was Vought's fault.

[F4UDOA]

Shuckins,

Just because you read an exploit of what a F8F did at a airshow doesn't mean that the story didn't happen word for word.

The pilot telling the story was a combat pilot in three wars who went on to be a test pilot and a commander of an aircraft carrier followed by becoming the Curator of the National Air and Space Museam in the Smithsonian Institute. He is as credible as any pilot even Corkey Meyer who was a Grumman employee. His name is Dick Engin and the name of the book is Wings and Warriors. The fight was a challange between two squadrons for money. Best pilot against best pilot wing tip to wingtip start.

eddiek,

First the F8U was in service for 30 years and was known as the "Mig Master" in Veitnam.  Also the Vought F7U Corsair II which was in service for about 30+ years and was in Desert Storm. Only the F-14 and A-6 from Grumman would compare. And the F4U outlived the F6F and F8F combined. Grumman may have more recognition but Vought has done at least as well if not better when looking at quality not quanity.

Second I'm not the one with the political theory about why one aircraft was preffered over the other. I am saying that Grumman is the big boy on the block especially in 1942, so if you want to point at a political bully I think Grumman would be it.

Another future Commander of an Aircraft Carrier said the same thing about Grumman and politics in 1943. Tommy Blackburn of the VF-17. Just read my signature. It is an excerpt from his Autobiography.

[Widewing]

Originally posted by F4UDOA
Shuckins,

Just because you read an exploit of what a F8F did at a airshow doesn't mean that the story didn't happen word for word.

The pilot telling the story was a combat pilot in three wars who went on to be a test pilot and a commander of an aircraft carrier followed by becoming the Curator of the National Air and Space Museam in the Smithsonian Institute. He is as credible as any pilot even Corkey Meyer who was a Grumman employee. His name is Dick Engin and the name of the book is Wings and Warriors. The fight was a challange between two squadrons for money. Best pilot against best pilot wing tip to wingtip start.

eddiek,

First the F8U was in service for 30 years and was known as the "Mig Master" in Veitnam.  Also the Vought F7U Corsair II which was in service for about 30+ years and was in Desert Storm. Only the F-14 and A-6 from Grumman would compare. And the F4U outlived the F6F and F8F combined. Grumman may have more recognition but Vought has done at least as well if not better when looking at quality not quanity.

Second I'm not the one with the political theory about why one aircraft was preffered over the other. I am saying that Grumman is the big boy on the block especially in 1942, so if you want to point at a political bully I think Grumman would be it.

Another future Commander of an Aircraft Carrier said the same thing about Grumman and politics in 1943. Tommy Blackburn of the VF-17. Just read my signature. It is an excerpt from his Autobiography.

I have stated my thoughts on the F8F vs F4U-1D match. It proved nothing whatsoever.

Hell, Sabaro Sakai was asked what he thought of the P-51D after a hop in one (dual control). He stated, " The Mustang is almost as good as the Hellcat!"  

When asked, Sakai never hesitated to state that the Hellcat was the best fighter he ever encountered. Pretty good review, no?

As to the F8U; it was a first rate fighter, although obsolete by the middle 1970s, and was consigned to recce work. While it received much attention for its action over Vietnam, the only aces to emerge from that war flew the F-4 Phantom II. Likewise, the A-7 Corsair II was a solid light-medium attack aircraft. However, it was only marginally better than the A-4, and most A-4 pilots would have preferred to remain in the far more agile "Scooter" than transition to the A-7.  

In between the the F4U (discounting the stillborn F5U) and the F8U, were a pair of lemons. Both the F6U Pirate and the F7U Cutlass were widely disliked and replaced as the first opportunity by the Navy. In the middle 1950s, Grumman and Douglas produced the best Navy jet fighters and attack aircraft (F9F-7 Cougar, F11F Tiger, F4D Skyray, A-4 Skyhawk, A3D Skywarrior and even the F3D Skyknight). These were later joined by the A-6 Intruder, F3H Demon and eventually, the excellent F8U).

Remember that a Navy F8F held the time to altitude record for many years. From a standing start, an F8F (stripped of guns and nonessential equipment) took off and climbed to 10,000 feet in just over 90 seconds. The current record holder is a modified F8F-2, fitted with a Wright R3350 engine.

It was the arrival of Jet fighters than pushed the F8F off the carriers. Vought's Corsair remained solely for its ability as a light attack aircraft. As late as 1967, the F8F was in combat with the South Vietnamese Air Force.

These (the F8F and F4U) were two entirly different aircraft, with different missions. One was probably the best prop driven air superiority fighter ever built, and the other the best prop driven fighter-bomber.

My regards,

Widewing

[Guppy]

On the subject of the F-8 Crusader, it should be remembered that the F-8 community trained as dogfighting specialists (as opposed to the F-4s, which were initially envisioned as BVR interceptors) and were--along with their Air Force F-104 counterparts--pioneers of advanced tactics (most notably "loose-deuce").

The Crusader was certainly an excellent airplane, but it was the pilots and tactics that made it supreme.