Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: Shuckins on June 10, 2004, 09:52:18 PM
-
Several months ago I participated in a post where the topic was the Hellcat's top speed. There was considerable debate about whether or not it was correctly modeled in AH.
Several people took part. F4UDOA quoted airspeed charts published by Chance Vought which tested the Hellcat's performance versus that of the F4U. These charts indicated that the Hellcat had a top speed above 400 mph. Other sources, such as NAS Patuxent and Grumman, were also quoted. All these sources agreed that the top speed of the F6F was greater than that posted by the Navy. The posts in that thread were cordial and very interesting. Several of us hoped that HTC would take notice and tweak the Hellcat's flight model.
Since that time I have run across other sources, such as Dean's tome America's Hundred Thousand , which indicate the Hellcat was a true 400 mph fighter.
My question is, has anyone done any flight test on the new Hellcat flight model in AH II to see if it's performance has indeed been tweaked? What other changes in the flight model have you noticed?
Regards, Shuckins/Leggern
-
FWIW, Corky Meyer, Grumman test pilot, claims that the reason the F6F is listed as being slower than the F4U had to do with the fact that the F6F airspeed indicator was reading a bit slow due to some quirk in the pitot static system.
ra
-
A pair of Corsair took on two Grumman Hellcat NOTE Navy Flier Edward "Butch" O'Hare piloted one of the Hellcats, and later flew the Corsair. Observers said the Hellcat was no match for F4U-1.
-
Amen Rafe35
My thought is, if the F6F was the better, faster fighter, why did they spend the millions of dollars to develop the F4U?
SIDENOTE ALERT!: Sometimes it seems like the F6F and F4F are indestructible. I fly the Corsair exclusively and sometimes 2 or 3 pings from the aforementioned craft will cut off my wing, yet I will spend the majority of 1200 rounds @ less than 400 yards on either one and they fly away with at most, a trail of smoke. I ask again, if they are hardier and faster planes, why design another?
-
Rafe,
I've never heard that story before. Have you got a source?
Captain Eric Brown, in his book Duels in the Sky compared the F4U-1 and the F6F-3 to the Fw-190A. Being one of the top test pilots for the RNAF he had flown all three aircraft extensively. Being British, he had no personal biases favoring either of the American aircraft. He stated that the "FW-190 could not be bested by the Corsair." In comparing the FW with the Hellcat he said "Danger to the Hellcat would be severe. This was a contest that was so finely balanced that pilot ability would determine the outcome."
That is quite a different assessment than the one offered in your account.
Regards, Shuckins/Leggern
-
Mac,
The Corsair and Hellcat were designed to meet the same Naval contract specifications for a new shipboard fighter. The Hellcat was originally intended to be powerd by a different engine than the Pratt and Whitney R2800 allocated to the Corsair. The Hellcat was designed to be a backup for the Corsair in case it failed to meet Naval carrier qualification trials. This was a fortuitous move by the Navy, for the Corsair failed to become carrier qualified until the last 9 months of the war.
The Hellcat was not faster than the Corsair, but the speed differential was substantial. The biggest advantage that the Hellcat had over the Corsair was its vice free handling at high speeds and in carrier landings at low speed. The Corsair, in early attempts to utilize it in carrier operations, earned the nickname "Ensign Eliminator" because of its quirky, deadlying handling characteristics at low speeds.
Because of its superlative handling, the Hellcat was ideally suited for the needs of carrier squadrons largely manned by new pilots fresh out of flight school.
Regards, Shuckins/Leggern
-
Originally posted by Shuckins
Rafe,
I've never heard that story before. Have you got a source?
Captain Eric Brown, in his book Duels in the Sky compared the F4U-1 and the F6F-3 to the Fw-190A. Being one of the top test pilots for the RNAF he had flown all three aircraft extensively. Being British, he had no personal biases favoring either of the American aircraft. He stated that the "FW-190 could not be bested by the Corsair." In comparing the FW with the Hellcat he said "Danger to the Hellcat would be severe. This was a contest that was so finely balanced that pilot ability would determine the outcome."
That is quite a different assessment than the one offered in your account.
Regards, Shuckins/Leggern
Shuckins,
I got that story from another book which I don't remember what the name of that book and it was from early 1970s where couple US Navy books come around. I might have to re-check that book from the Library where I got it from and most of them detail I got it from Vought after I email them for questions. I still copy most important info what did the author write about F4U and the rest of US aircraft and I still got this:
"In early January, 1943, a captured Japanese Zero was put up against an F4U-1, with the Corsair proving superior in most respects. Against a P-51 Mustang, the Corsair outfought the Army craft above 12,000 feet, and was considered evenly matched below that altitude. A pair of Corsair took on two Grumman Hellcat NOTE Navy Flier Edward "Butch" O'Hare piloted one of the Hellcats, and later flew the Corsair. Observers said the Hellcat was no match for F4U-1. On May 21, 1943 a fighter evaluation meeting took place at Eglin Air Base in Florida. Army pilots flying the Corsair for the first time were high in their praise. Dogfights were held with P-47, P-51, P-38, and P-39 Army fighters and all resulted favorably for the Corsair."
It was really intresting that I found that old book and I might get it tomorrow if Library open tomorrow or not.
Rafe
-
Picked up a used copy of "Duels in the Sky" thru the Barnes and Noble website for a bit over six bucks, including shipping. The others they had for sale cost a bit more; Zeno's site sells new copies for $20 or thereabouts.
-
There is a discrepancy between the standard navy characteristics charts and some of the numbers reported by Grumman and referenced by guys like Barett Tilman.
I am somewhat skeptical of claims the F6f is as fast as the F4u-1 on a few grounds.
First the model of the r2800 used in F6f engine might not have been as powerful at high altitudes as the one in the F4u-1. The difference might be as simple as supercharger settings or carburation, I don't know. I think the effect is rather small though.
Second, the F6f wing area is substantially larger than the F4u, as is total "wetted area" - the surface of the plane exposed to the airstream. That usually means more drag. Also I'll bet the F6f has a lower lift-drag coefficient (someone can check that with Francis Dean or Loftin I believe). These effects should matter a lot.
Finally, while I haven't surveyed all the charts, it appears the F6f weighed no less than the f4u-1.
I've never understood this pitot tube argument. All navy fighters had an airspeed adjustment chart in their manuals so they knew these weren't perfect. On a one-off flight I can see this being a problem.
What I don't believe is Grumman or the U.S. Navy running repeated tests without good instruments that are improperly calibrated.
Variation in measurement would more likely result from different a/c weights or failing to convert actual weather conditions into standard atmosphere.
-blogs
Originally posted by Shuckins
Several months ago I participated in a post where the topic was the Hellcat's top speed. There was considerable debate about whether or not it was correctly modeled in AH.
Several people took part. F4UDOA quoted airspeed charts published by Chance Vought which tested the Hellcat's performance versus that of the F4U. These charts indicated that the Hellcat had a top speed above 400 mph. Other sources, such as NAS Patuxent and Grumman, were also quoted. All these sources agreed that the top speed of the F6F was greater than that posted by the Navy. The posts in that thread were cordial and very interesting. Several of us hoped that HTC would take notice and tweak the Hellcat's flight model.
Since that time I have run across other sources, such as Dean's tome America's Hundred Thousand , which indicate the Hellcat was a true 400 mph fighter.
My question is, has anyone done any flight test on the new Hellcat flight model in AH II to see if it's performance has indeed been tweaked? What other changes in the flight model have you noticed?
Regards, Shuckins/Leggern
-
joeblogs,
The versions of the Corsair that saw the most combat were the F4U-1A and the F4U-1D. The -1D was powered by the R2800-8W engine, which produced 2000hp at sea-level, 2135hp under wep at 12,400 feet, and 1650hp at 21,000 feet.
The F6F-3 was powered by by the R2800-10 engine. The F6F-5 had the same engine with water-injection added. It produced 2000hp at sea-level, 2135hp at 15,000 ft., and 1650hp at 22,500 feet.
The baseline weights of the -1D Corsair and the -5 Hellcat were almost identical at about 12,300 lbs., hardly surprising when one considers that the two aircraft were designed to meet the same navy specifications for performance, range, ordnance, top-speed, etc. Power loadings at all altitudes were also practically identical. Both aircraft used the same 3-bladed Hamilton-Standard propeller.
As one can imagine, given the above data, climb rates were nearly identical as well, when combat loadings were similar.
Drag coefficients were very similar, with the Corsair possessing a slight edge. The drag coefficient of the F4U-1D was .0267. That of the F6F-3 was .0272. The coefficient of the F6F-5 was slightly less than that of the -3 because of a redesigned engine cowling, but I have no figures for its exact coefficient. The Hellcat's wing did give it more substantial flat plate area, 9.08 sq. ft. compared to the Corsair's 8.58 sq. ft.
Getting down to brass tacks, the top speeds listed for both aircraft vary considerably, depending on the sources quoted. The top speeds listed by the manufacturers tended to be more optimistic than those given by the Navy. I don't know why the discrepancies between the two sources exist, but I strongly suspect it had to do with devotion to maintenance. The manufacturers undoubtedly kept their test aircraft in superb condition to get as much performance as possible, and the Navy was simply not as devoted to maintenance as the manufacturers were.
The early F4U-1 had a top speed of slightly under 400mph. The Navy listed the top speed for the -3 Hellcat as being about 380mph. Later investigations by Grumman revealed that the early Hellcat's air-speed indicator was faulty, consistently showing it to be about 20knots slower than the early model Corsair, even when they were in closely stabilised formation. Grumman copied the placement for the Corsair's air-speed indicator and thus attained identical readings. The only real speed advantage enjoyed by the early Corsair was 20knots at altitudes below 5000 feet, because the Corsair's blower received ram-air at those altitudes and the Hellcat's did not.
Maximum speeds vary according to the sources quoted. Top speed of the F4U-1D under wep is listed as 417mph at 20,000 feet. The Hellcat's top speed came at almost the same altitude. Chance Vought was given a Hellcat (A -5 I believe.) to study for the purpose of improving the Corsair's cockpit layout and stall characteristics. The data they amassed during these tests gives a top speed of near 405mph, which is almost identical to that given by Grumman. Late in 1944, the NAS at Patuxent, Maryland, tested an F6F-5 against a late model Zero, and listed the Hellcat's top speed as being 409 mph. (That aircraft must have been in superb condition!)
So as you can see from this data, the performance edge held by the Corsair was real, but was not substantial.
Regards, Shuckins/Leggern
-
Francis Dean covers this debate very well.
I would make only a few qualifications to your argument. First, I am skeptical that USN or Grumman would run repeated flight tests (I am not referring to the Petuxant meeting here) without calibrated instruments. If they did we should assume a big margin of error around any a/c performance numbers we talk about.
That said, the difference between 400 MPH and 380MPH is only 5%. So I can't rule out sampling error.
Second, most comparisons of -8 and -10 Double Wasps use the same performance numbers, but I've seen reports where the superchargers are not the same and hence the critical altitudes are slightly different (only by a few thousand feet). This might explain differences in Vmax. But this is tentative claim; I am trying to match up three different engine numbering systems.
Had either of these engines been geared for fighting at European style altitudes (30+k ft), both planes would have been significantly faster, at least in true airspeed.
Third, while someone else can do the calculations better than I, small differences in drag coefficients, or wing area for that matter, translate into significant differences in drag at high speeds, because drag increases in proportion to the square of velocity.
-Blogs
Originally posted by Shuckins
joeblogs,
The versions of the Corsair that saw the most combat were the F4U-1A and the F4U-1D. The -1D was powered by the R2800-8W engine, which produced 2000hp at sea-level, 2135hp under wep at 12,400 feet, and 1650hp at 21,000 feet.
The F6F-3 was powered by by the R2800-10 engine. The F6F-5 had the same engine with water-injection added. It produced 2000hp at sea-level, 2135hp at 15,000 ft., and 1650hp at 22,500 feet.
The baseline weights of the -1D Corsair and the -5 Hellcat were almost identical at about 12,300 lbs., hardly surprising when one considers that the two aircraft were designed to meet the same navy specifications for performance, range, ordnance, top-speed, etc. Power loadings at all altitudes were also practically identical. Both aircraft used the same 3-bladed Hamilton-Standard propeller.
As one can imagine, given the above data, climb rates were nearly identical as well, when combat loadings were similar.
Drag coefficients were very similar, with the Corsair possessing a slight edge. The drag coefficient of the F4U-1D was .0267. That of the F6F-3 was .0272. The coefficient of the F6F-5 was slightly less than that of the -3 because of a redesigned engine cowling, but I have no figures for its exact coefficient. The Hellcat's wing did give it more substantial flat plate area, 9.08 sq. ft. compared to the Corsair's 8.58 sq. ft.
Getting down to brass tacks, the top speeds listed for both aircraft vary considerably, depending on the sources quoted. The top speeds listed by the manufacturers tended to be more optimistic than those given by the Navy. I don't know why the discrepancies between the two sources exist, but I strongly suspect it had to do with devotion to maintenance. The manufacturers undoubtedly kept their test aircraft in superb condition to get as much performance as possible, and the Navy was simply not as devoted to maintenance as the manufacturers were.
The early F4U-1 had a top speed of slightly under 400mph. The Navy listed the top speed for the -3 Hellcat as being about 380mph. Later investigations by Grumman revealed that the early Hellcat's air-speed indicator was faulty, consistently showing it to be about 20knots slower than the early model Corsair, even when they were in closely stabilised formation. Grumman copied the placement for the Corsair's air-speed indicator and thus attained identical readings. The only real speed advantage enjoyed by the early Corsair was 20knots at altitudes below 5000 feet, because the Corsair's blower received ram-air at those altitudes and the Hellcat's did not.
Maximum speeds vary according to the sources quoted. Top speed of the F4U-1D under wep is listed as 417mph at 20,000 feet. The Hellcat's top speed came at almost the same altitude. Chance Vought was given a Hellcat (A -5 I believe.) to study for the purpose of improving the Corsair's cockpit layout and stall characteristics. The data they amassed during these tests gives a top speed of near 405mph, which is almost identical to that given by Grumman. Late in 1944, the NAS at Patuxent, Maryland, tested an F6F-5 against a late model Zero, and listed the Hellcat's top speed as being 409 mph. (That aircraft must have been in superb condition!)
So as you can see from this data, the performance edge held by the Corsair was real, but was not substantial.
Regards, Shuckins/Leggern
-
joebloggs,
I believe you are right. The difference in drag coefficients would exact a greater penalty in level flight the faster the two aircraft flew. For instance, the XF6F-6 prototypes had the same engine and propeller as the F4U-4 Corsair and had a top speed at 23,000 feet of 425mph. That's about 15 to 20 mph less than the F4U-4 at the same altitude, depending on the sources quoted.
If one studies these two designs closely you could find yourself being amazed at how similar they are in weight, power-loadings, range, fire-power, ordnance carrying ability, top speeds, etc. The only difference between the two that allowed the Hellcat to be readily accepted by the Navy for carrier operations was it's utterly reliable and predictable handling qualities. The Corsair's dangerous handling vices were not sufficiently rectified to permit it's use on carriers until about January of 1945.
Regards, Shuckins/Leggern
-
Shuckins - Did the production models of these planes use the same propellers? For some reason I thoought the F4u-1 prop was a tad longer. Could just be poor memory.
-Blogs
Originally posted by Shuckins
joebloggs,
I believe you are right. The difference in drag coefficients would exact a greater penalty in level flight the faster the two aircraft flew. For instance, the XF6F-6 prototypes had the same engine and propeller as the F4U-4 Corsair and had a top speed at 23,000 feet of 425mph. That's about 15 to 20 mph less than the F4U-4 at the same altitude, depending on the sources quoted.
If one studies these two designs closely you could find yourself being amazed at how similar they are in weight, power-loadings, range, fire-power, ordnance carrying ability, top speeds, etc. The only difference between the two that allowed the Hellcat to be readily accepted by the Navy for carrier operations was it's utterly reliable and predictable handling qualities. The Corsair's dangerous handling vices were not sufficiently rectified to permit it's use on carriers until about January of 1945.
Regards, Shuckins/Leggern
-
Not sure about that joe. Both models of the Hellcat used the same Hamilton-Standard propeller with 6501 blades that all the -1 Corsairs used.
Corky Meyer, test pilot for Grumman, stated in an article in Flight Journal magazine that the XF6F-6 Hellcat had the same engine and propeller as the F4U-4, so I suppose he knows what he's talking about.
Regards, Shuckins/Leggern
-
Originally posted by Shuckins
Not sure about that joe. Both models of the Hellcat used the same Hamilton-Standard propeller with 6501 blades that all the -1 Corsairs used.
Corky Meyer, test pilot for Grumman, stated in an article in Flight Journal magazine that the XF6F-6 Hellcat had the same engine and propeller as the F4U-4, so I suppose he knows what he's talking about.
Regards, Shuckins/Leggern
Then later Grumman F8F Bearcat putting Hellcat to retirement home and F8F is pretty faster than almost US Navy planes until F4U-5 came in 1946.
-
I don't believe the Hellcat was being sent to the retirement home Rafe. The Corsair had finally been carrier qualified by early 1945, so its numbers were being increased. Torpedo and dive-bombing aircraft were being eliminated because there were few mission they performed that the Corsair and Hellcat couldn't do better.
The F8F was intended to counter the kamikaze threat which was expected to peak when Allied forces invaded Japan. If memory serves, the Bearcat was to be assigned mainly to the jeep carriers which were stationed closer to the beaches than the fleet carriers. It was never meant to take over the long-range strike duties of the Hellcat.
Regards, Shuckins/Leggern
-
Its nice to see that my calendar is correct. This topic seems to pop up about every 6 months to a year. j/k
I suppose it is an understatement to say that I am a fan of the F6F. I just thought I would add my two cents to this discussion. While there seems to be some fairly strong evidence indicating that the top speed was over 400, I don't know or care that this change will be put forth in a subsequent version of AH. Would I like more speed? Of course! Who wouldn't? However, I feel the F6F is a great plane as is and don't see this as something that is a pressing issue, at least not like some of the issues that people insist are there for the 38 (I use "insist" for the simple reason I don't fly the plane or know enough about it to offer an opinion concerning these problems if they do indeed exist). The other issue is NACA-type performance charts for the Hellcat. Do any exist with the revised speed difference? If not, its a tough nut to crack trying to provide data for Pyro so that he can change the performance to the proper figures at all altitudes.
On a side note, I have also recently seen people wanting the -5N with its 2 20mm's. Until we have a way of implementing night fighters in an accurate environment, my question has to be "why?" The 6 .50's shred planes very easily. No need for the Hispanos. It would ruin an good plane. Those that just want to have the 20's added, where is the evidence that these were placed operationally on the -5 day fighters? I have yet to see any beyond the fact that all -5's had the inner gun bays configured so that they could carry the 20mm.
-
Math,
I'm seen evidence that some of the last production model F6F-5s did have 20mms. Not sure if any made it into combat, but some did, apparently, wind up seeing service in some reserve units. They can be spotted in old photographs of these reserve aircraft by looking at the position of the gun barrels. The inboard 20mms protruded at least a foot from the wing's leading edge. These weapons were therefore recessed further into the wing than the 20mms of the F6F-5N night fighters. The barrels of the two out-board .50 calibers were flush with the wing's leading edge.
There was also a rumor that some of the -5 Hellcats flying from carriers to support the landings in southern France in 1944 had been modified to carry 20mms, but I've never been able to find any evidence to back that up.
Regards, Shuckins/Leggern
-
Hellcat was used in training through the early 1950s.
-Blogs
Originally posted by Rafe35
Then later Grumman F8F Bearcat putting Hellcat to retirement home and F8F is pretty faster than almost US Navy planes until F4U-5 came in 1946.
-
To get back to the main question...ahem...are there any major differences between the flight models of the Hellcat in AH I and AH II?
-
Shuckins
Yes, F6F Hellcats are still serviceable, but not as fighting role and mostly of them were use them for training for new US Navy pilots after the ended WWII. Most of them were sold for scrap or blow up by new radio-guided flying bombs before Korean War.
The fastest Hellcats were the two XF6F6's using uprated R.2800.-2,l00hp normally but boosted to 2,450 hp with water injection. This engine turned a fourbladed Hamilton Standard propeller and pushed the needle to 417 mph at 22,000 feet. No production order was received for this type, however, as the final tests were completed after the end of the war. Hellcat production terminated after 12,275 units had been built.
Rafe
-
Using the F4u's initial carrier quals as some sort of proof of poor low speed handling is incorrect.
Tom Blackburn places the qual difficulty with the design of the tail hook and the unseasoned deck on the Bunker Hill, The hook was shaped in cross-section similar to an ax and would cut through the soft wood decking, snag on some underlying steel and pop off, leaving the plane undecellerated to be caught by the crash barriers.
-
Originally posted by Rafe35
A pair of Corsair took on two Grumman Hellcat NOTE Navy Flier Edward "Butch" O'Hare piloted one of the Hellcats, and later flew the Corsair. Observers said the Hellcat was no match for F4U-1.
Funny, the Japanese didn't think so, they feared the Hellcat more than any other allied fighter. And, for good cause. Saburo Sakai stated that IJNAF pilots dreaded running into Hellcats. Its speed and maneuverability combination easily overpowered the Zero.
Let's see, the F4U-1 is a bit faster on the deck due to power increasing due to direct ram air. At altitude the difference is nil*. (read some test reports for the full skinny). The Hellcat wins the climb contest with ease, and the turning radius contest by a very large margin. Drag coefficients are nearly identical (.267 vs .271).
Butch O'Hare was a hero, no question. But, he earned his CHoM shooting down medium bombers. Indeed, O'Hare picked up two more kills in the F6F, but was shot down and killed in it. Put David McCampbell in the Hellcat and the best F4U pilot you can name and then let's see what happens.
My opinion is that the F4U didn't surpass the F6F until the arrival of the F4U-4.
*Corky Meyer has described the comparison testing of the F6F-5 and the F4U-1A. Once in high blower at altitude, speeds were identical.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Originally posted by Shuckins
To get back to the main question...ahem...are there any major differences between the flight models of the Hellcat in AH I and AH II?
Doesn't seem to me there is any major differences.
Most of the plane v plane match ups are as you would expect.
have noticed the niki a little easier to kill and the ki-61 a little harder, might just be a matter of who's been flying them, need some more time
Zoom climb feels pretty good - dont' know if it's better.
One thing I have noticed (several times unfortunately) is you really get a different feeling and effect of the "weight" of the plane when you are close to the ground.
Have augered , in low and slow fights where I normally wouldn't have.
Redd
-
Originally posted by Widewing
Funny, the Japanese didn't think so, they feared the Hellcat more than any other allied fighter. And, for good cause. Saburo Sakai stated that IJNAF pilots dreaded running into Hellcats. Its speed and maneuverability combination easily overpowered the Zero.
Let's see, the F4U-1 is a bit faster on the deck due to power increasing due to direct ram air. At altitude the difference is nil*. (read some test reports for the full skinny). The Hellcat wins the climb contest with ease, and the turning radius contest by a very large margin. Drag coefficients are nearly identical (.267 vs .271).
Butch O'Hare was a hero, no question. But, he earned his CHoM shooting down medium bombers. Indeed, O'Hare picked up two more kills in the F6F, but was shot down and killed in it. Put David McCampbell in the Hellcat and the best F4U pilot you can name and then let's see what happens.
My opinion is that the F4U didn't surpass the F6F until the arrival of the F4U-4.
*Corky Meyer has described the comparison testing of the F6F-5 and the F4U-1A. Once in high blower at altitude, speeds were identical.
My regards,
Widewing
If the AH models are accurate and anything to go by you would back the f6-f in any co-e engagement . Would take a fair pilot skill adv to pull the f4u back to even odds.
Redd
-
Originally posted by Widewing
Put David McCampbell in the Hellcat and the best F4U pilot you can name and then let's see what happens.
Well, There's is couple good F4U Pilots like Gregory Boyington and Ira Kepford, but there is so many F4U Aces and I believe there are like 124+ of them.
That is good idea what you said Widewing, an "What If" David McCampbell in the Hellcat and the rest of Hellcat Aces .VS. F4U Aces.
Rafe
BTW, Before Sakai death, He visit to the Champlin Fighter Museum in Mesa, Arizona, he eagerly accepted a backseat ride in a P-51D. Hopping down after 40 minutes of aerobatics with owner Bill Hane. Sakai grinned and said through his interpreter, "The Mustang is almost as good as the Hellcat!" :)
-
Originally posted by Rafe35
Well, There's is couple good F4U Pilots like Gregory Boyington and Ira Kepford, but there is so many F4U Aces and I believe there are like 124+ of them.
That is good idea what you said Widewing, an "What If" David McCampbell in the Hellcat and the rest of Hellcat Aces .VS. F4U Aces.
Rafe
I don't think it would be all that great of a fight. It would be a gangbang of epic proportions with 307 F6F aces fighting those 124 F4U aces.
-
Originally posted by Shuckins
Math,
I'm seen evidence that some of the last production model F6F-5s did have 20mms. Not sure if any made it into combat, but some did, apparently, wind up seeing service in some reserve units. They can be spotted in old photographs of these reserve aircraft by looking at the position of the gun barrels. The inboard 20mms protruded at least a foot from the wing's leading edge. These weapons were therefore recessed further into the wing than the 20mms of the F6F-5N night fighters. The barrels of the two out-board .50 calibers were flush with the wing's leading edge.
There was also a rumor that some of the -5 Hellcats flying from carriers to support the landings in southern France in 1944 had been modified to carry 20mms, but I've never been able to find any evidence to back that up.
Regards, Shuckins/Leggern
Production -5 Hellcats DID NOT see fleet service with 20mm cannon. The only reason the wing is configured both ways is for ease of manufacture, as Grumman did not to completely tool up two assemblies of the wing. The wing is different in areas, but not substantially. The only Hellcats pressed into use with the 20's was the -5N, and they were so sparingly available, it is almost not worth mentioning. The erection and maintenance manuals for the -5 list the 20mm as an "also available," and spend little time on it. Mathman is right, give up on the -5N, there is no need.
-
Originally posted by Rafe35
Shuckins
Yes, F6F Hellcats are still serviceable, but not as fighting role and mostly of them were use them for training for new US Navy pilots after the ended WWII. Most of them were sold for scrap or blow up by new radio-guided flying bombs before Korean War.
The fastest Hellcats were the two XF6F6's using uprated R.2800.-2,l00hp normally but boosted to 2,450 hp with water injection. This engine turned a fourbladed Hamilton Standard propeller and pushed the needle to 417 mph at 22,000 feet. No production order was received for this type, however, as the final tests were completed after the end of the war. Hellcat production terminated after 12,275 units had been built.
Rafe
Most Hellcats were not blown up by radio controlled bombs, they served mostly as drones, which were blown up as the US developed air to air missiles.
-
Originally posted by joeblogs
Second, most comparisons of -8 and -10 Double Wasps use the same performance numbers, but I've seen reports where the superchargers are not the same and hence the critical altitudes are slightly different (only by a few thousand feet). This might explain differences in Vmax. But this is tentative claim; I am trying to match up three different engine numbering systems.
The ONLY difference between the -8 and -10 is the downdraft carburetor on the -10. That is it.
-
Bodhi -
According to P&W documents you're right. I think a Navy SEFC chart I was looking at mislabels a -18w for a -8W. The former is optimized for higher altitudes...
-blogs
Originally posted by Bodhi
The ONLY difference between the -8 and -10 is the downdraft carburetor on the -10. That is it.
-
Originally posted by joeblogs
Bodhi -
According to P&W documents you're right. I think a Navy SEFC chart I was looking at mislabels a -18w for a -8W. The former is optimized for higher altitudes...
-blogs
The Navy mislabels a lot of things...
-
Originally posted by Bodhi
Production -5 Hellcats DID NOT see fleet service with 20mm cannon. The only reason the wing is configured both ways is for ease of manufacture, as Grumman did not to completely tool up two assemblies of the wing. The wing is different in areas, but not substantially. The only Hellcats pressed into use with the 20's was the -5N, and they were so sparingly available, it is almost not worth mentioning. The erection and maintenance manuals for the -5 list the 20mm as an "also available," and spend little time on it. Mathman is right, give up on the -5N, there is no need.
Not only was the Hispano installation limited to only a portion of the F6F-5N run, those arriving in the combat area had them promptly removed due not having flash hiders. That made the cannons less than useless for night combat. When flash hiders became available they were reinstalled.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Well I certainly can't leave this one alone.
Here it is.
My top reasons why the F4U was a better fighter and bomber than the F6F.
1. "That old book" Rafe mentions is by Barret Tillman called "Corsair, The F4U in WW2 and Korea. The story goes on to say that Butch O'Hare was so impressed that he deployed a squadron of F6F's to Hawai and brought one F4U-1 with him as his personel airplane that nobody else could fly. Also the opposing F4U pilot was Joe Clifton of some fame himself.
2. From the same book in an interview with Rex Barber noted P-38 pilot from Yamamoto fame. In an interview with Rex he says "If the US could have only built one fighter Bomber during the war it should have been the F4U". Pretty high praise from an AAF pilot.
3. Also from Tillmans book. An evalution board from the Navy with three combat pilots including Commnader of the VF-11 LT Commander Gordon Cady, Commander of the VF-1 (Returned from Tarawa) LT Commander Bernard Strean and Lt Colonel John Smith CO of the VMF-223.
All test were done on a CVE becuase of it's small size. The evaluation lasted three weeks and the findings were.
A. The F6F-5 was more maneuverable than a F6F-3 but not as maneuverable as an F4U-1D.
B. The F4U was "No doubt faster than the F6F"
C. The F4U-1D had better Zoom climb.
D. The F6F had a wider field of vision and was generally easier to land aboard a carrier.
E. The F4U-1D is a better gunnery platform.
. "We determined that F4U was equally as good a carrier plane if not better".
4. From Butch O'Hares memoirs "Fatefull Rendevous" he mentions that he and his squadron had a contest for money with an F4U-1 squad in a climb to 20,000FT. He mentions that it was "generally excepted that the F4U could outclimb the F6F by 700FPM". His squad lost the bet. It is generally excepted in AH that the F6F can outclimb the F4U. However in side by side test with the FW190 and A6M-5 the F4U outclimbed the F6F-3/5 by a fair margin.
5. In the 1944 Joint fighter Conferance the F4U-1D was selected as the best carrier plane in production over the F6F-5 by a wide margin of 61% to 31%. This was Marine, Navy, AAF, RAF, Royal Navy, NACA and contractor pilots.
6. In a modern test of the SETP or "Socioty of Experamental Test Pilots" in 1989 with a F6F-5, FG-1D (F4U-1D from Goodyear), P-51D and P-47D-40 performed extensive test on these birds and found the FG-1D to be the best in terms of ACM also finding the F4U stall to be gentle. They also found the F6F to have excessive rudder forces as well as a resistance to maneuevr at high power and low speed. Also the weight of the f4U for these test was 11,000LBS well within combat weight. The weight of the F6F was 10,700LBS. In reality the F6F was 300lbs heavier than the F4U not the other way around.
FYI the SEPT is a group of military test pilots and the group was founded by CORKEY MEYER!!
7. According to Vought the Cdo of the F4U-1 is .020 and Cdo of the F6F-5 is .023. The F4U has 20SQft less wing area and a smaller cowl opening. Both A/C have the same engine, HP and HP curves. How they could be the same speed at 20,000FT with two functioning aircraft would either be an engine malfunction or pilot error. Especially since the F4U was 20+knots faster at sea level accoring to Corkey Meyer.
Myth
Indeed the F6F had a large pitot tube error.
However
Speed.
A. The error was discover in mid 1944 and was largely non-existant in F6F-5 prodution.
B. The error on the early F6F pitot tube was "ADD11.5 knots" according to the F6F-3/5 handbook at 300MPH IAS. However on the F4U-1 the Pitot tube error at 300MPH was "ADD 8 Knots". So the CAS differance between the two A/C was a whopping 3.5 Knots!!
Stall
According to the POH the F4U-1 stall with full flaps is virtually the same speed as the F6F with full flap at the same weight.
Durability and Ensign eliminator.
In almost the same exact number of total sorties flown the F4U had signifcantly less total loss of A/C despite dropping almost 3 times as many tons of ordinance. Also the F4U suffered far fewer operational losses and losses to AAA during the war according to the official Navy records.
To some it up in every evaluation of the F4U and F6F side by side the F4U proven to be superior. Only in annecdote does the F6F grow in performance.
-
Thank you F4UDOA.
Thanks for presenting the facts, because FACTS speak for themselves.
-
Originally posted by F4UDOA
5. In the 1944 Joint fighter Conferance the F4U-1D was selected as the best carrier plane in production over the F6F-5 by a wide margin of 61% to 31%. This was Marine, Navy, AAF, RAF, Royal Navy, NACA and contractor pilots.
In almost the same exact number of total sorties flown the F4U had signifcantly less total loss of A/C despite dropping almost 3 times as many tons of ordinance. Also the F4U suffered far fewer operational losses and losses to AAA during the war according to the official Navy records.
To some it up in every evaluation of the F4U and F6F side by side the F4U proven to be superior. Only in annecdote does the F6F grow in performance.
First, let's list ALL of the comparison tests at the JFC.
Best all around cockpit: F6F-5 wins, F4U-1D doesn't even make the list.
Worst cockpit: F4U-1D is up near the top.
Best engine controls: F6F-5 scores ahead of F4U-1D.
Best gear and flap controls: F6F-5 is #1, F4U-1D is 3rd behind P-51D.
Best cockpit canopy: F4U-1D is 3rd, F6F-5 is 4th.
Most comfortable cockpit: F6F-5 is 2nd, F4U-1D is 7th.
Best all around visibility: F6F-5 ranks ahead of Corsair.
Best armor: Corsair 2nd, F6F-5 3rd.
Best overload takeoff: F6F-5 is first.
Best ailerons at 350 mph: F4U is second to P-51D, F6F-5 ranks 4th.
Best ailerons at 100 mph: F6F-5 is 1st, F4U-1D is 2nd.
Best elevators: F4U-1D is first, F6F-6 is second.
Best rudder: F6F-5 is first...Refutes what the SoETPs stated.
Best all around stability: F6F-5 is first, Corsair second.
Best characteristics 5 mph above stall. F6F-5 is first, F4U-1D is dead last.
Best dive stability: F4U-1D is first, F6F-5 is 3rd behind P-47.
Best instrument and night flying qualities: F6F-5 is first, F4U-1D is 3rd.
Best fighter above 25,000 feet: F4U-1D is ranked 3rd, F6F-5 is ranked 4th, and get this, the F4U-4 is ranked 5th! Doesn't this sort of indicate that at least some of these guys couldn't buy a clue if their name was Bill Gates?
Now, a few facts about the JFC. It was dismissed by all three services as a boondoggle. Testing was utterly subjective, nothing was instrumented and most pilots had little or no experience in the majority of the aircraft flown. Corporate test pilots showed where their loyalties lived. Service rivalry was readily apparent. AAF pilots who never took off or landed on a carrier were making judgements about carrier suitability... In short, the JFC was about as useless an event as could be imagined... A waste of time and money. Not only that, less than half of the pilots completed the questionaires, so any concensus is limited to only a segment of the test population.
One participant called the meeting, "an opportunity to play with airplanes, talk airplanes, pat themselves on the back and then go get drunk."
Where did you get that "In almost the same exact number of total sorties flown" stuff?
Facts: F4Us flew 62,051 combat sorties, they shot down 2,140 Japanese and finished the war with an 11/1 kill to loss ratio.
F6Fs flew far more (just over 100,000 I believe) sorties and shot down 5,203 Japanese aircraft and finished the war with a 19/1 kill to loss ratio.
Don't misunderstand me, I have always been a big fan of the F4U. But, if I had to pick one as an "air superiority fighter", I'd take the Hellcat without second thoughts. Unless the F4U-4 is offered, in which case that would be my selection.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Hi Shuckins,
>Several months ago I participated in a post where the topic was the Hellcat's top speed. There was considerable debate about whether or not it was correctly modeled in AH.
OK, let's look at the numbers from the BuAer data sheets:
F4U-1D, R-2800-8W, MIL, 12175 lbs, 2930 fpm @ sea level, 396 mph @ 23900 ft
F6F-5, R-2800-10W, MIL, 12740 lbs, 2850 fpm @ sea level, 380 mph @ 23400 ft
So far, pretty evenly matched.
F4U-1D, R-2800-8W, Combat, 12175 lbs, 3370 fpm @ sea level, 409 mph @ 19900 ft
F6F-5, R-2800-10W, MIL power, 12740 lbs, 2980 fpm @ sea level, 380 mph @ 23400 ft
This is looking strange now.
First, the gain in sea level climb rate looks greatly inferior for the F6F. However, that can be explained: The F4U data sheet implies use of neutral supercharger gear, while the F6F data sheet doesn't. The F4U would climb at about 3080 fpm without that, which would be perfectly in line with the F6F data.
But what about the speed? The F6F gets no speed increase at all from combat power! Well, that's due to the absolute top speed being unaffected. The F6F does indeed get a power increase, but high gear full throttle height is just 18000 ft compared to the 19900 ft of the F4U. In MIL power, the F4U had a 500 ft higher full throttle height, so why is it 1900 ft now?
A similar effect can be seen in the climb graph now that we know what to look for: At climb speed, MIL power high gear full throttle height is about 21000 ft for the F4U and 20200 ft for the F6F. Combat power full throttle height is 17000 ft for the F4U, but only about 15200 ft for the F6f. The F6F loses about 1000 ft here.
A third, more subtle effect is that the F4U seems to gain some performance even above full throttle height with the combat power setting, while the F6F, if the speed and climb graphs were extrapolated, would actually lose some!
What's wrong with the F6F-5? It does't seem able to exploit the full power from the water injection. The reduced full throttle heights make me wonder if the F6F-5 can't employ ram effect for some reason when at combat power. In some aircraft (like the P-51), it's possible to draw in unrammed air (through a filter) if desired, this might be what we're observing with the F6F-5.
The other question is whether the F4U actually increases rpm when going to combat power as suggested by the graphs, while the F6F-5 doesn't. (The performance increase might also be due to the charge-cooling effect of the water injection, or due to artistic liberty of the guy drawing the chart ;-)
In any case, there's something strange about F6F-5 performance.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
I'll push back on one point only. If you read Lundtrsom's "First Team" you'll find a very high proportion of all F4f losses were due to accidents on take-off or landing. Many squadrons had just transitioned to the f4f and after Midway, many squadrons were simply green.
After that experience, it is only natural for the Navy to be conservative about landing characteristics in 1942. The fact that the oleo problem was fixed by 1944 and US fighter crews had more time to train in their mounts suggests that 1942-43 and 1944-45 were not comparable.
-blogs
Originally posted by F4UDOA
Well I certainly can't leave this one alone.
Here it is.
My top reasons why the F4U was a better fighter and bomber than the F6F.
1. "That old book" Rafe mentions is by Barret Tillman called "Corsair, The F4U in WW2 and Korea. The story goes on to say that Butch O'Hare was so impressed that he deployed a squadron of F6F's to Hawai and brought one F4U-1 with him as his personel airplane that nobody else could fly. Also the opposing F4U pilot was Joe Clifton of some fame himself.
2. From the same book in an interview with Rex Barber noted P-38 pilot from Yamamoto fame. In an interview with Rex he says "If the US could have only built one fighter Bomber during the war it should have been the F4U". Pretty high praise from an AAF pilot.
3. Also from Tillmans book. An evalution board from the Navy with three combat pilots including Commnader of the VF-11 LT Commander Gordon Cady, Commander of the VF-1 (Returned from Tarawa) LT Commander Bernard Strean and Lt Colonel John Smith CO of the VMF-223.
All test were done on a CVE becuase of it's small size. The evaluation lasted three weeks and the findings were.
A. The F6F-5 was more maneuverable than a F6F-3 but not as maneuverable as an F4U-1D.
B. The F4U was "No doubt faster than the F6F"
C. The F4U-1D had better Zoom climb.
D. The F6F had a wider field of vision and was generally easier to land aboard a carrier.
E. The F4U-1D is a better gunnery platform.
. "We determined that F4U was equally as good a carrier plane if not better".
4. From Butch O'Hares memoirs "Fatefull Rendevous" he mentions that he and his squadron had a contest for money with an F4U-1 squad in a climb to 20,000FT. He mentions that it was "generally excepted that the F4U could outclimb the F6F by 700FPM". His squad lost the bet. It is generally excepted in AH that the F6F can outclimb the F4U. However in side by side test with the FW190 and A6M-5 the F4U outclimbed the F6F-3/5 by a fair margin.
5. In the 1944 Joint fighter Conferance the F4U-1D was selected as the best carrier plane in production over the F6F-5 by a wide margin of 61% to 31%. This was Marine, Navy, AAF, RAF, Royal Navy, NACA and contractor pilots.
6. In a modern test of the SETP or "Socioty of Experamental Test Pilots" in 1989 with a F6F-5, FG-1D (F4U-1D from Goodyear), P-51D and P-47D-40 performed extensive test on these birds and found the FG-1D to be the best in terms of ACM also finding the F4U stall to be gentle. They also found the F6F to have excessive rudder forces as well as a resistance to maneuevr at high power and low speed. Also the weight of the f4U for these test was 11,000LBS well within combat weight. The weight of the F6F was 10,700LBS. In reality the F6F was 300lbs heavier than the F4U not the other way around.
FYI the SEPT is a group of military test pilots and the group was founded by CORKEY MEYER!!
7. According to Vought the Cdo of the F4U-1 is .020 and Cdo of the F6F-5 is .023. The F4U has 20SQft less wing area and a smaller cowl opening. Both A/C have the same engine, HP and HP curves. How they could be the same speed at 20,000FT with two functioning aircraft would either be an engine malfunction or pilot error. Especially since the F4U was 20+knots faster at sea level accoring to Corkey Meyer.
Myth
Indeed the F6F had a large pitot tube error.
However
Speed.
A. The error was discover in mid 1944 and was largely non-existant in F6F-5 prodution.
B. The error on the early F6F pitot tube was "ADD11.5 knots" according to the F6F-3/5 handbook at 300MPH IAS. However on the F4U-1 the Pitot tube error at 300MPH was "ADD 8 Knots". So the CAS differance between the two A/C was a whopping 3.5 Knots!!
Stall
According to the POH the F4U-1 stall with full flaps is virtually the same speed as the F6F with full flap at the same weight.
Durability and Ensign eliminator.
In almost the same exact number of total sorties flown the F4U had signifcantly less total loss of A/C despite dropping almost 3 times as many tons of ordinance. Also the F4U suffered far fewer operational losses and losses to AAA during the war according to the official Navy records.
To some it up in every evaluation of the F4U and F6F side by side the F4U proven to be superior. Only in annecdote does the F6F grow in performance.
-
HoHun,
If you look more closely at the data from the BuAer you'll notice that the F6F-5 was listed as being 600 pounds heavier than the Corsair. That indicates that, for some reason, the Hellcat had been loaded to a greater takeoff weight than the Corsair. Empty weights of the two aircraft are virtually identical, with the Corsair being less than 100 pounds lighter than the Hellcat (This is comparing a late model F4U-1 against the F6F-5; I have no data for the -1D Corsair, which is supposed to be heavier than the earlier models.)
Fighter overload weights for the two aircraft are 11,693 lbs for the -5 Hellcat and 11,962 pounds for the late model F4U-1 with water injection. These loads were with full internal fuel and sans drop tanks and ordnance.
As to low-speed handling qualities I refer you to an article by Corky Meyer in a recent edition of Flight Journal magazine. This was a special edition about the Corsair. Much has been made by some fighter enthusiasts about the fact that the RNAF carrier qualified the Corsair a full year before the U.S. Navy did. Corky asked Captain Eric Brown point blank about this, hoping that he could shed some light on the matter. Brown stated that the RNAF's test pilots quickly found out why the U.S. navy pilots were suffering such high accident rates with the Corsair. He was quite blunt about the F4U's dangerous low-speed handling and torque stall characteristics during waveoff conditions. Captain Brown said that, in essence, the RNAF cleared the Corsair for carrier operations because it had no British aircraft designed from the ground up to withstand the rough-and-tumble conditions of carrier warfare. Therefore, they just accepted the higher accident and casualty rates.
How typically British..."Carry on old chaps! Stiff upper lip!"
-
Hi Shuckins,
>That indicates that, for some reason, the Hellcat had been loaded to a greater takeoff weight than the Corsair.
Well, the BuAer load-out of both aircraft comprises of:
F6F-5: 1500 lbs fuel, 135 lbs oil, 287 lbs ammuntion (20 mm + 12.7 mm) = 1922 lbs
F4U-1D: 1422 lbs fuel, 92 lbs oil, 264 lbs ammunition (12.7 mm, my calculation) = 1778 lbs
(Oil and ammunition weights calculated by me, oil for the F4U-1D load condition is explicitely given and apparently not topped up, while the F6F-5 sheet only gives total oil capacity. There's also 16 gals of water in the F6F-5, sufficient for at least 10 min, while the F4U-1D has enough for 8.5 min, but no capacity given so I neglected water in my calculation.)
Working backwards from the gross weight for each condition, we get the following empty equipped weights:
F6F-5: 10818 lbs (BuAer Design 11000 lbs, Basic 10035 lbs, Empty 9238 lbs)
F4U-1D: 10397 lbs (Empty Actual 9014 lbs)
No idea what's going on there!
>Captain Brown said that, in essence, the RNAF cleared the Corsair for carrier operations because it had no British aircraft designed from the ground up to withstand the rough-and-tumble conditions of carrier warfare. Therefore, they just accepted the higher accident and casualty rates.
Roger that! The Seafire must have been much worse than the Corsair - Seafire/Sea Fury pilot Mike Crosley in "Up in Harm's Way" mentions that the Sea Fury accident rate in the Korean War much much smaller than those they had had with the Seafire in WW2. And they operated the Sea Fury under very difficult conditions, while they had flown the Seafire in the calm mediterranean!
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
For the Corsair in many respect was the greatest fighter produced in World War II by any nation. Quickly it proved superior to the famous Hellcat in many ways and appeared increasingly on carriers. Because the Corsair proved capable of handling a stream of design modifications, it stayed in production for years, and hundreds of USN and Marine pilots flew it during the Korean War. The Corsair remained in reserve serivce through the early 1960s.
-
If the F4U-1 , C model or D model, was so much better than the F6F why did the blue angels fly the F6f instead of the F4U?
I mean they (the blue Angels) were formed right after the end of WW2, one would think the Navy would use its best performing Fighter Plane, right?
-
Originally posted by TequilaChaser
If the F4U-1 , C model or D model, was so much better than the F6F why did the blue angels fly the F6f instead of the F4U?
I mean they (the blue Angels) were formed right after the end of WW2, one would think the Navy would use its best performing Fighter Plane, right?
I like F6F turn into Blue Angels while they are no longer as a fighter role in probably 1947 or later and F4U was still as a fighter role til the Korean War.
-
Originally posted by Rafe35
I like F6F turn into Blue Angels while they are no longer as a fighter role in probably 1947 or later and F4U was still as a fighter role til the Korean War.
I like the F6F too....
check this link: History Of The Blue Angels (http://www.blueangels.navy.mil/history/history.html)
They went from the F6F Hellcat(prop) to the F8F Bearcat(prop) to the F9F-2(jet)
guess the F8F was better than the F4U also
A cherished memory of mine: -->
I got to do corrosion control and help paint one of the first 3 of these F18's at NAS Cecilfield when I was stationed there.
"On November 8, 1986, the Blue Angels celebrated their 40th anniversary by unveiling its present aircraft, the sleek McDonnell Douglas (now Boeing) F/A-18 Hornet. The Hornet is the first dual-role fighter/attack aircraft serving on the nation's front lines of defense."
-
WW,
In answer to your question about my source.
Where did you get that "In almost the same exact number of total sorties flown" stuff?
Facts: F4Us flew 62,051 combat sorties, they shot down 2,140 Japanese and finished the war with an 11/1 kill to loss ratio.
F6Fs flew far more (just over 100,000 I believe) sorties and shot down 5,203 Japanese aircraft and finished the war with a 19/1 kill to loss ratio.
My source is the Naval Historic branch. They have a large document on there website detailing sorties kills etc.
I was writing from memory but I was very close to the real numbers. I posted the page on my site so you can download it in PDF.
A few things.
1. Actual number of combat sorties.
F6F- 66,350.
F4U- 64,051 That's pretty close.
2. Total losses for both are
F6F - 2,461 to all causes.
F4U - 1,624 to all causes
3. Loss to enemy AAA
F6F - 553
F4U - 349
4. Tons of ordinance dropped
F6F - 6,503
F4U - 15,621 That is a huge margin
5. The FM-2 had a higher K/D than the F6F by a wide margin with a claim of 32 to 1 K/D.
Also from the same statistical data although not the page I posted the F6F and F4U kills by year.
1943 total kills
F6F - 322
F4U- 636
1944 total kills
F6F- 3,051
F4U-492
During the month of June the F6F had 736 kills claimed and the F4U had 2 kills claimed. During the month of Oct the F6F claimed 1,016 NME and the F4U claimed 1!!
In fact from April 1944 through November 1944 the F4U total kills claimed was 5!! While the F6F claimed 2,669!! Can you say The Great Marianas Turkey Shoot!
It was not until May 1945 when parity in numbers was reached that the F4U claimed higher kills than the F6F with 251 to 234. The F4U remained tops through the war in total kills beyond that point.
As to the JFC.
1. The F4U-4 was only flow by 3 pilots. Acounting for it low result in votes tallied. The F2G was there as well and was not flown by any attendies also rsulting in almost no votes.
2. In votes for best fighter under 25,000FT
F8F - 30%
P-51D - 29%
F4U-1C/D - 27%
F7F - 6%
F6F - 2%
Mosquito - 2%
F4U-4 - 2%
F2G - 2%
If you go by your assertion that patronage was responsable for the result then lets assume that the Vought and Goodyear pilots that voted for the F4U-4 and F2G would have voted for the F4U-1 that makes it number 1 right??
In anycase it is apparent what the top fighter aircraft of the day were according to the school of thought at the time.
You may discount results of the meeting but the fact remains that a Naval revue board decided the same. As well as the SEPT and evaluations of the F6F and F4U against similar foes.
Here is the Naval historic Branch record of things.
http://home.comcast.net/~markw4/nasc1.pdf (http://home.comcast.net/~markw4/nasc1.pdf)
-
BTW,
The first time I saw the Blue Angels they were flying A3 SkyHawks in the 1970's not F-4 Phantoms.
Which one was a better fighter?
-
Originally posted by F4UDOA
BTW,
The first time I saw the Blue Angels they were flying A3 SkyHawks in the 1970's not F-4 Phantoms.
Which one was a better fighter?
From my own personal experience, the Scooter owns the F-4B/J in anything resembling a dogfight. Phantoms had no guns, and once inside the minimum range of its missiles, it was in deep bandini. It had one option...run like hell, reposition and try another missile. Most Top Gun students found out how agile the A-4 was the hard way. If they tried to dogfight with one they came to regret it at once and continuously thereafter.
Aside from budget reasons, the A-4 was a better aerobatic ride than the Phantom II. It did however, lack the pizzazz of the F-4.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Statements about the maneuverability of the Hellcat and Corsair seem to vary depending on what aspect of maneuverability they prize most heavily.
Those pilots who speak of the Corsair as being more maneuverable than the Hellcat are referring to it's high roll rate. The Corsair's peak roll rate is about 90 degrees a second at 300 mph, that of the Hellcat about 70 degrees a second at the same speed. According to Francis Dean, there appears to be no data extant concerning the roll rate of the Corsair at speeds above 300mph (That seems incredible...but much performance data of aircraft from that period is apparently, and tragically, being lost or forgotten.) Data for the Hellcat's roll rate shows it holding the 70 degree roll rate (or slightly less) to speeds above 400 mph.
Pilots who prefer the Hellcat's maneuverability to that of the Corsair are apparently referring to it's turn rate. Dean published a chart using the FM-2 as a point of comparison for the turn radius of all American produced fighters. The Hellcat had 137% of the FM-2's turn radius, and the Corsair 212%, a considerable difference in turning performance.
-
Originally posted by F4UDOA
WW,
1. Actual number of combat sorties.
F6F- 66,350.
F4U- 64,051 That's pretty close.
You are referring to Action Sorties, not individual sorties or flights. There's a very big difference.
Action Sortie: If any aircraft of a groups of aircraft assigned to a mission is engaged in combat of any sort, including bombing and strafing, all aircraft in that group assigned to that mission are classified as having flown an Action Sortie. If F6F's escort F4Us on a strike, and the enemy does not oppose the strike, with the F6Fs not engaging the enemy, then no Action Sorties are credited. It does not matter if they flew the whole mission. On the other hand, because the F4Us dive bomb the enemy base, all aircraft are considered Action Sorties.
Flights, Squadrons in Action is the category for all individual sorties. I think within this criteria you will see than the number of sorties flown is not close.
F6F's flew many thousands of fleet CAP sorties where no enemy was encountered. These do not count as Action Sorties.
Considering that the F4U was primarily assigned Attack duty, and the F6F was primarily assigned Air Superiority duty, one cannot expect the F6F to have delivered as much ordnance.
Within this same document, the following statement appears:
"The F6F was slightly superior to the F4U in combat, apparently chiefly because of its greater ability to survive damage." (page 58)
My regards,
Widewing
-
WW,
Action sorties or not. In almost the same number of "Action Sorties" the F4U lost less aircraft to every possible cause.
Also if you were to ask a pilot or examine the rate of loss anti aircraft fire in every war accounts for more loss of aircraft. But somehow the F4U despite dropping tons more ordininance lost less aircraft to AA.
And even more important the so called "Ensign Eliminator" lost less aircraft operationaly from all causes than the "Nice safe *****cat".
In the end the F4U may have been harder to fly but it's performance in the air far exceeded its reputation as an ensign killer when the real numbers are brought to light.
FYI. The FM-2 had the highest K/D of all Navy birds including the F6F. or 32 to 1.
The F6F and F4U based on carriers both had a K/D or 20 to 1.
When placed in equal operating conditions the Nany F4U K/D was as high as the F6F.
-
This thread has become highly entertaining. Thanks F4UDOA for trying to convince people your favorite fighter is better than someone else's. It quite honestly sounds like you are *****ing about the Navy chosing to field the F6F on the carriers in 1943 instead of the F4U, thus denying the place in history for the bent-wing bird. It is quite laughable. No amount of debate on this board is going to change the fact that while the F4U had the performance numbers, the F6F had the historical results. But please, keep up the debate, its a great read for those moments when I am bored.
IMO, the F6F was the right plane at the right time. Whatever the reason it was placed in the fleet doesn't change that. Whatever performance advantage the F4U has does not change that. Could the F4U have done exactly the same thing as the F6F during 1944 had it been in the fleet? Of course. They both completely outclassed the Japanese opposition of the time. The F6F fans can take heart in the fact the Hellcat killed 5,000+ Japanese planes. The F4U fans can take heart in the Hog's long service and the fact that it is unquestionably much more recognizable by the public at large.
-
Originally posted by F4UDOA
WW,
Action sorties or not. In almost the same number of "Action Sorties" the F4U lost less aircraft to every possible cause.
Also if you were to ask a pilot or examine the rate of loss anti aircraft fire in every war accounts for more loss of aircraft. But somehow the F4U despite dropping tons more ordininance lost less aircraft to AA.
And even more important the so called "Ensign Eliminator" lost less aircraft operationaly from all causes than the "Nice safe *****cat".
In the end the F4U may have been harder to fly but it's performance in the air far exceeded its reputation as an ensign killer when the real numbers are brought to light.
FYI. The FM-2 had the highest K/D of all Navy birds including the F6F. or 32 to 1.
The F6F and F4U based on carriers both had a K/D or 20 to 1.
When placed in equal operating conditions the Nany F4U K/D was as high as the F6F.
The overwhelming number of F6Fs lost to tripleA were lost attacking high risk targets that F4Us never even got near. Rabaul being a typical example of a land base and no small amount were lost to Japanese fleet AA. Every Island air base had to be destroyed, and it was Hellcats that did much of the destruction, and these bases were well protected by heavy caliber tripleA. Before and even after the F4U went aboard ship, much of its attack missions were against Japanese infantry. The Japanese infantry had damn little heavy caliber AA, mostly limited to smaller caliber, man-portable weapons.
When the F4U did go aboard carriers, the F6F had already killed the majority of experienced Japanese fighter pilots during the previous year. I would not be surprised if the majority of enemy aircraft encountered in 1945 were either bombers or Kamikazes. The Hellcat obtained its kill ratio fighting the core of the IJNAF and IJAAF. The F4U arrived on the carriers when the core of Japanese air power consisted of barely qualified pilots with little or no combat experience.
Go back and look at the Action Sorties again. Indeed, F6Fs and F4Us engaged the enemy a similar number of times. Yet, the F6F shot down 2 1/2 times as many enemy aircraft. Why? For one, the F6F was right in the middle of the action, even though the F4U was in combat much earlier. That's the advantage of being carrier qualified. A second reason was that the F6F was used primarily as a FIGHTER, the F4U as a fighter-bomber. It wasn't until 1945 that the F6F saw a significant increase in attack missions over the numbers of '43 and '44.
Even at the end of the war, the number of F6Fs aboard carriers, in combat, exceeded the number of F4Us in like circumstances.
As to operational losses, the F6F spent its whole career flying from carriers, the F4U only a matter of months. Operational losses will be higher when you land on a 300 ft by 50 ft piece of deck as opposed to a 6,000 ft runway. 1/5th of the F6Fs sent on the Turkey Shoot dusk strike were forced to ditch, having insufficient fuel to get back, or get aboard after sundown. That amounts to nearly 35 Hellcats listed as operational losses. You have to analyze why the F6F had more operational losses, not just point to the number and say, "see I told ya." Had the F4U been assigned carrier duty from the outset, operational losses would have been staggering. Losses were lower because the Navy was wise enough to recognize that the F4U was a death trap for low-time pilots operating from a carrier. Therefore, the Corsairs went to shore duty, where their poor over-the-nose vision and nasty stall handling was not a serious issue.
Without question, the F6F was the most important fighter in the Pacific war from the date of going operational until the surrender. It shot down more Japanese aircraft than the F4U combined with ALL USAAF fighters. That's saying something. And I'm not even counting the kills by FAA Hellcats against Japan.
My regards,
Widewing
-
US Marines prefer F4U than F6F and many US Marines pilots dislike Hellcat, but I don't know why they dislike them and they did so well on F4U.
-
I vote for the CW-21 Demon over either aircraft. :D
-
one plane has the preformance numbers, the other have the results.
One plane, arriving early, was fighting an enemy at his prime, the other arriving later to take out the garbage left.
One's later model was sent to korea while the other was taken out of service.
One became famous and the other remained in it's shadow.
loose the ugly blue color change F6F with P47 and F4U with P51 and you can have the exact same argument.
Bozon
-
Mathman and WW,
Revisionest history is your answer.
Contrary to your statements the F4U was the mainstay in 1943 while the Japanese could still defend themselves. Not the other way around. It was the F6F "taking out the trash" in 1944 after the hard fought battles were won. How else would you explain the F4F/FM-2 suddenly becoming a super fighter when it was considered inferior just a year prior? Boyington, Walsh, Kepford, and Hanson were already multple aces without ever firing a shot in 1944.
Also WW. Your statement about the F6F attacking large aerodromes and hard targets seems a little skewed. If it was correct shouldn't it have dropped more ordinance? Were these strafing missions?
If the arguement is which aircraft shot down more aircraft then the answer is simply the F6F. If aircraft performance is the question then the answer is just as easy.
Oh yeah, I'm not the only one here with a "Favorite airplane".
-
Originally posted by F4UDOA
If the arguement is which aircraft shot down more aircraft then the answer is simply the F6F. If aircraft performance is the question then the answer is just as easy.
Oh yeah, I'm not the only one here with a "Favorite airplane".
And I have said nothing different. Trust me, I think WW is just as entertaining. Its the classic "my dad can beat up your dad" type of argument. You love the F4U. I love the F6F. He likes the F6F.
Oh, and both the F4U and F6F faced diminished skill Japanese pilots. The USN and USMC chewed them up at Coral Sea, Midway, Guadalcanal, Eastern Solomons, and Santa Cruz flying a severely outclassed plane in the F4F.
-
As to the FM-2, I believe it saw very little aerial combat during 1944 and 1945. They operated off of jeep carriers in support of U.S. landings on the Pacific islands. A poster in another thread stated that the pilots of the FM-2 were under orders not to seek combat with Japanese fighters because of the growing performance disparity.
Anyone have any sources for this?
-
Originally posted by Widewing
Let's see, the F4U-1 is a bit faster on the deck due to power increasing due to direct ram air. At altitude the difference is nil*. (read some test reports for the full skinny). The Hellcat wins the climb contest with ease, and the turning radius contest by a very large margin. Drag coefficients are nearly identical (.267 vs .271).
Drag coefficients alone tell you nothing, they must be combined with wing area. The F6F and F4U had similar drag coefficients, but the F6F had a larger wing area i.e. more drag.
-
A recent edition of the magazine of the USAF museum describes an event involving the flying tigers. One of the officers discovered he could get some Demons from Burma and arranged to fly them to base. These planes were nifty, but had no armor or self sealing tanks. And, the handlers didn't realize the engines weren't rated for 100 PN fuel. The planes crashed in the mountains as the engines seized up.
-Bob
Originally posted by Ecliptik
I vote for the CW-21 Demon over either aircraft. :D
-
Originally posted by Redd
If the AH models are accurate and anything to go by you would back the f6-f in any co-e engagement . Would take a fair pilot skill adv to pull the f4u back to even odds.
Redd
I'm almost a full time F4U-1a pilot, and a rule of thumb I have Vs F6 is once I fall below him at any time during the engagement, it's time to extend and escape. I have not yet found a way to defeat a skilled F6 pilot in that situation.
Conversely, if I can remain above him throughout, I usually return home...
-
Redtail,
The FM of the F4U-1 is different in AH2. Should the opportunity arrise I would luv to test it against the F6F in the DA.
I believe turn times especially with flaps may have evened the tables. I know the NIK2 has lost quite a bit in pure turning ability in AH2.
-
Mathman,
Sorry about the tone of my post. Not trying to get into that kind of conversation with a fellow Navy/Marine pilot (Virtual pilot).
But the whole Corkey Meyer subject gets under my skin a bit. That whole issue should have been resolved by the end of 1944 and we are still having that conversation today.
-
F4UDOA, if you see me online in AH2 give me a holler I'll head to the DA in my F6F. I'm not a hot shot F6F stick but I do have a lot of time in it, though I am finding the transition from AH1 to AH2 a little difficult. I'll give it a go in the name of operational research. :) I enjoy flying the F4U-1 also and if it is more manuverable in AH2 it may see more sorties from me than it has in the past. :)
-
Originally posted by F4UDOA
Redtail,
The FM of the F4U-1 is different in AH2. Should the opportunity arrise I would luv to test it against the F6F in the DA.
I believe turn times especially with flaps may have evened the tables. I know the NIK2 has lost quite a bit in pure turning ability in AH2.
When? :)
-
Originally posted by F4UDOA
Mathman and WW,
Revisionest history is your answer.
Contrary to your statements the F4U was the mainstay in 1943 while the Japanese could still defend themselves. Not the other way around. It was the F6F "taking out the trash" in 1944 after the hard fought battles were won. How else would you explain the F4F/FM-2 suddenly becoming a super fighter when it was considered inferior just a year prior? Boyington, Walsh, Kepford, and Hanson were already multple aces without ever firing a shot in 1944.
Also WW. Your statement about the F6F attacking large aerodromes and hard targets seems a little skewed. If it was correct shouldn't it have dropped more ordinance? Were these strafing missions?
If the arguement is which aircraft shot down more aircraft then the answer is simply the F6F. If aircraft performance is the question then the answer is just as easy.
Oh yeah, I'm not the only one here with a "Favorite airplane".
How many F4Us took part in the big Carrier battles of 1943-44? Generally speaking, the F4U spent most of its time in the Solomon Islands, and later up to New Georgia. Meanwhile, the big brawls were occuring far away from there. How many F4Us operated in the Solomons during that period, in terms of squadrons?
By October of 1943 the Corsairs had to share their hunting grounds with several land based F6F squadrons.
Indeed, everywhere else where Naval aircraft fought )prior to the August 1943 introduction of the Hellcat), the primary fighter was the F4F-4.
Unlike the F6F, the F4U had to follow the war because they were not deployed aboard ship.
I never stated that the F4U wasn't a terrific fighter. It played second fiddle to the F6F because the Hellcat was deployed with the fleet, meaning that it was everywhere the action was.
Therefore, in terms of importance, the F6F was without peer in the Pacific. It was still the most numerous fighter when Japan tossed in the towel.
Here's an interesting bit from the NASC:
(http://home.att.net/~c.c.jordan/F6FandF4Ustats.jpg)
My regards,
Widewing
-
Originally posted by Shuckins
As to the FM-2, I believe it saw very little aerial combat during 1944 and 1945. They operated off of jeep carriers in support of U.S. landings on the Pacific islands. A poster in another thread stated that the pilots of the FM-2 were under orders not to seek combat with Japanese fighters because of the growing performance disparity.
Anyone have any sources for this?
FMs were credited with 432 air to air shootdowns. The vast majority were by the FM-2.
With respect to the top scoring FM-2 squadron, the honor goes to VC-27 with 61.5 kills. Top FM-2 ace was Lt. R.E. Elliot of VC-27 with 9 kills confirmed. The Aces High FM-2 displays the colors of White 17 of VF-26 deployed aboard the CVE USS Santee. This squadron scored 31 victories.
An easy to find resource on the FM-2's Pacific service is Osprey's Wildcat Aces of World War Two.
For detail stats, you can use F4UDOA's link:NASC (http://home.comcast.net/~markw4/nasc1.pdf) or just visit the Navy History Center online directly.
My regards,
Widewing
-
This from the latest edition of the Friends Journal (of the US Airforce Museum):
"Schilling saw a Curtiss-Wright CW-21 Demon and fell in love with the plane. He arranged to try it out and called it "the most impressive aircraft I ever flew. It had a fantastic rate of climb of over 5,000 feet per minute."
The Demon was never really used much in combat, but Schilling convinced Chenault to obtain some for AVG (the flying tigers). … They had very little armor plating and no self-sealing tanks … Schilling led the flight of three toward their new home. Little did he know the engines were designed for 87 octane fuel and the Americans had put 100 octane fuel into them. This resulted in burnt and stuck valves, and eventually complete engine failure…"
Originally posted by Ecliptik
I vote for the CW-21 Demon over either aircraft. :D
-
The fuel must have been different in other ways as well. A higher octane rating alone wouldn't have damaged the engine.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
The fuel must have been different in other ways as well. A higher octane rating alone wouldn't have damaged the engine.
If the ignition timing was not changed, the engine could be damaged as stated.
-
joeblogs, Im fairly certain higher octain does not produce more heat. Octain rating is not a messure of fuels "Power" It is a messure at what tempiture and pressure it will combust with out a spark.
Higher Octian is used so that an engine can run with either higher manifold pressure, or a higher compression ratio with out causing it to ignite before the spark. Hence using higher octain alown will not improve a motors performance.
HiTech
-
Yes your right about heat. My bad. Note that if the ground crews adjusted the carburetors to take advantage of the 100 PN fuel, the engine would have run hotter (leaner mixtures can generate more heat). But if they knew to do that, they would have known the fuel would damage the engine too...
Here's probably what happened. Higher octane fuels have more additives, especially at this time TEL. These additives attack certain metals for example the materials used to make engine valves, valve seats, and spark plugs. When an engine is designed for higher octane gas, these parts have to designed accordingly.
S.D. Heron's Development of Aviation Fuels, pp 596-7 talks about all the problems engine makers had with heavily leaded gas and exhaust valves. In 1935, the only engine Wright had that could run on 100 PN fuels (which were only made in experimental batches at the time) was an experimenal derivative of its cyclone (p. 606).
USAF data on the engine model used in the Demon says it was rated with 91/96 PN fuel.
-Blogs
Originally posted by hitech
joeblogs, Im fairly certain higher octain does not produce more heat. Octain rating is not a messure of fuels "Power" It is a messure at what tempiture and pressure it will combust with out a spark.
Higher Octian is used so that an engine can run with either higher manifold pressure, or a higher compression ratio with out causing it to ignite before the spark. Hence using higher octain alown will not improve a motors performance.
HiTech
-
Originally posted by GScholz
The fuel must have been different in other ways as well. A higher octane rating alone wouldn't have damaged the engine.
-
The Hellcat is better.
You know it,
I know it,
Bob Dole knows it
The American people know it.
It seems that Hellcats top speed is pretty debatable, but I would say the F6F of AH is much more correct than what it was back in the days of AW.