Author Topic: F4U-1A performance in 1944 (Read 778 times)

F4UDOA · « **on:** July 28, 2003, 12:42:19 PM »

Gents,

Here is a document that shows the performance of the F4U-1A in early 1944 with all the latest mods including paddle blade prop, boost tab ailerons, re-enforced elevators, smoothed surfaces without the added drag for ordinance carried by the F4U-1D.

FYI, the F4U-1A we currently have is an early model mid-1943 and does not have these mods so it's performance is not the same. Kind of like the differance between different Spit IX's. This is not a whine only new data for hose who may not have seen it.

It is about a 4meg download in PDF

F4U-1A 1944

Karnak · « **Reply #1 on:** July 28, 2003, 03:43:17 PM »

We don't have any F4U-1A, let alone a 1943 version as opposed to a 1944 version.

F4UDOA · « **Reply #2 on:** July 28, 2003, 08:41:21 PM »

Ehh Karnak,

Yes we do. Albeit the bird cage remains it is still a -1A.

HoHun · « **Reply #3 on:** July 28, 2003, 10:18:37 PM »

Hi F4UDOA,

pretty interesting report, thanks! That F4U went really fast, especially down low.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

Karnak · « **Reply #4 on:** July 28, 2003, 11:47:18 PM »

I understood that the F4U-1 we have is a 1942 F4U and that the F4U-1A introduced numerous changes, including the removal of the bird cage.

F4UDOA · « **Reply #5 on:** July 29, 2003, 10:07:20 AM »

The F4U-1A we have is a hybrid.

It is visually a F4U-1 but performance it is a F4U-1A.

Here is a link to the performance specs of the F4U-1A we have.

The water injection is the true mark of the -1A designation.

Karnak · « **Reply #6 on:** July 30, 2003, 12:54:11 AM »

Gotcha.

I wish there were fewer of these hybid aircraft in AH.

What kind of performance should a 1942 F4U have?

F4UDOA · « **Reply #7 on:** July 30, 2003, 09:25:13 AM »

I actually have quite a bit of data on that guy. The 1942 F4U-1 that is. Mostly Brit stuff.

First it is extremely light for an F4U without wing tanks full. About 11,700lbs with only maintank full and 12,600lbs with all tanks full.

No WEP, no spoiler on starboard wing so the stall is more abrupt but at a slightly lower speed (I believe our F4U-1A is modeled that way).

Max speed sea level
348MPH

@20K 390MPH

@23K 395MPH

ROC (11,200LBS)
2900FPM@sea level
8+ minutes to 20K

I would personally like to see the F4U-1A I posted as the 1944 fighter varient of the F4U and the F4U-1 early as the 1942/43 varient.

FYI if the Pylons and wing stores were removed from the F4U-1D we have it woud be a 1944 F4U-1A.

Karnak · « **Reply #8 on:** July 30, 2003, 07:36:11 PM »

I agree that the F4U-1 should have the 1942 stats, but I don't think we need two 1944 F4Us and no 1943 F4Us. It would make more sense, I think, to add the F4U-1A in its 1943 configuration.

1942: F4U-1
1943: F4U-1A
1944: F4U-1D
1945: F4U-1C
1945: F4U-4

F4UDOA · « **Reply #9 on:** July 30, 2003, 11:19:56 PM »

Karnak,

I somewhat agree because your list with dates makes sense except it really takes the worst qualities of the F4U series with every varient in AH.

For example.

F4U-1 1942/43- Not in AH, however it is the lightest best maneuvering F4U and has the speed of an La-5. Hence it is not slow at all. Also it is the version flown by most of the famous F4U aces such as Walsh, Kepford, Boyington etc.

F4U-1A- 1943 Also flown by many of the same aces however it incorperates many additions such as WEP however it did not have the paddle blade prop so performance gains are marginal especially in climb. This version is in AH albeit hybrid.

F4U-1A 1944- Lighter than a -1D with all the performance in speed and climb as well as lower drag. Not in AH

F4U-1D 1944 is really just a -1A with all kinds of drag from external stores. Really puts on weight and slows climb and speed. We have it too.

F4U-1C 1944 Also to much weight and drag. Probably more weight than was really on the F4U-1C. We have it.

F4U-4 1945, this was also a 1944 airplane but it never got to combat until 1945. I have records of them in Oct 1944. Anyway ours is way porked in climb. I have a pilots manual from 1944 that shows the climb at max cruise being almost as good as our mil power climb. We have it.

So my answer is delete the WEP and remove about 300LBS from our -1A and make it a -1. Fix the -4 and let the players remove the pylons from the F4U-1D/C FM and we will be done.

No new airplanes just modify what we have.

AcId · « **Reply #10 on:** July 31, 2003, 09:26:21 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by F4UDOA
. . . . So my answer is delete the WEP and remove about 300LBS from our -1A and make it a -1.

Yer gettin me excited F4UDOA

I can almost hear the whines

Red Tail 444 · « **Reply #11 on:** July 31, 2003, 09:26:22 AM »

F4UDOA,

Just wondering, does HiTech ever listen to your suggestions? You always have hard data to back up your claims. seems to me all of your arguments make sense.

FWIW, you'd be an asset to the company, even as an Ad Hoc consultant.

Regards,
Gainsie

F4UDOA · « **Reply #12 on:** July 31, 2003, 10:34:56 AM »

Heya Redtail,

Thanks!!

It would be my dream and HT and Pyro's nightmare.

By my own admission I am too Airplane centric.

I try to send HT and Pyro data first when I scan a new document so they have data and can make there own choice.

I really believe that many of the FM defficiencys that I have been whining about for so long are because of the limitations of their flight engine. And I think many of those items will disappear in AH2 IE stalls, takeoff distance and low speed anomolies.

The other part of HTC plane choices have to do with the data they have available. I am sure if I provide complete data for the early F4U-1 they will add it. I think this has to do with the choice of many of the birds we have here. Everyone wants Ki-100 but where does the data come from. Not so easy.

The only real gripes about the F4U series is the F4U-4 and F4U-1C. I have so much data showing a much better climbing airplane than what we have for the -4. I just got the pilots manual for the Dec1944 version and I think I can prove it but it's a lot of data to scan etc. Also the F4U-1C is way to heavy. I don't have that much to back it up though. Just that the gun installation is much lighter than I thought.

Keep your eye out on my F4U-4 stuff though. It's all about fuel grades and HP curves.

Red Tail 444 · « **Reply #13 on:** July 31, 2003, 11:52:27 AM »

Rgr that. I don't even touch the -1C anymore. I am strictly a -1(a) and -4 pilot when I up a corsair.

What do you mean "look out for thr -4? are they making it accurate in AH2?

Gainsie

F4UDOA · « **Reply #14 on:** July 31, 2003, 12:14:26 PM »

Negative Redtail,

I wish. I will be posting some info regarding the F4U-4 in regard to other soucres for the F4U-4 climb performance. I have sources that show anyware from 4,000fpm to 4,700fpm at sea level. Ours is 3800FPM and it drops off fast.

In fact I just got the pilots manual for the F4U-4 which shows the max cruise climb at 8 minutes to 20,000ft. Our mil power takes almost 8minutes to 20K.

I am posting some of the fuel grade stuff in another thread right now.

The NAVAIR PDF which shows the F4U-4 climb at 4700fpm at sea level is dissmissed as using 130octane fuel. But I don't think it is based on the HP curves from the pilots manual.

Also the speeds shown in that pdf are idendical to the speeds we use except the climb sucks. If the MAP was higher the speed would be too. I wish I had the chart HTC is using for the F4U-4, the only other place I have seen it is AHT. And I met the author of that book and have still never seen those charts.