Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: SgtPappy on March 19, 2006, 04:48:36 PM
-
I'm not entirely sure if anyone has posted this yet, but I've been wondering for a while.. which aircraft IS better in real life? the Hellcat or the Corsair (in terms of firepower, ammo, armor, range, climb etc.)?
thanks
-
I think they are pretty much a draw. The F4U was used many years after the F6F was gone, so maybe that is an indication of the better aircraft, then again maybe not.
-
my money is on the corsair, it is faster and has better range. i think it is also slightly more meneuverable than the hellcat.
-
i dont think any1 1 really knows though the hellcat shot down 5/6 of jap kills
-
that is because the hellcat was designed specifically to combat japanese aircraft and because there were so many of them. you are also failing to put into account the kill ratio rather than the total kills. IIRC the corsair had a higher (highest?) kill ratio than the hellcat.
-
Originally posted by SMIDSY
my money is on the corsair, it is faster and has better range. i think it is also slightly more meneuverable than the hellcat.
Let's look at the F4U-1D vs the F6F-5. Speeds were different by only about 8 mph... Both have similar ranges, with the F6F-5 having slightly greater internal fuel capacity, but a bit more drag.
Maneuverability is very subjective. There is no doubt that the F6F would handily turn inside the F4U. However, the F4U had a faster roll rate.
If you examine kill to loss ratios during the war, you will find that the F6F did notably better than the F4U did.
You can download and read a TAIC flight test report comparing the the F6F and F4U against the A6M5 from my server here. (http://home.att.net/~historyworld/TAICzero.pdf) You'll need Adobe Reader to open the file.
My regards,
Widewing
-
wow..thats a spicey meat-a-ball! thnx fer the charts widewing. but i was wondering about the F6F-5 in comparison with the F4U-4. but the stuff u gave me will be invaluable in the future, im sure
-
Peronally Id say that the later F4Us like for example the F4U-4 where better then any of the planes in the F6F series.
But that really doesnt matter imho because the F6F was way way more important to the victory in the pacific then any other navy fighter, propably most important fighter overall.
So F6F was the more important plane which contributed much more to the war effort but the late F4Us where better.
Tex
-
You know i was thinking of this exact question. I was going to post it but i see someone beat me to it.
The other question i was going to post. What plane had the biggest impact in WW2. Was it the Pony or my favorite the Jug? The 38 seem well rounded, and the hellcat had alot of success in the pacific theater. I know all had its + and -. But really out of all the american planes what had the biggest roll in the Allied Success.
-
i still say the corsair is better.
-
The question is really incompelte, its like asking whats better a can opener or a corkscrew....it all depends what you want to do with them.
-
In AH the the F4U will win ... all things being equal.
-
ok Alf, i guess i shud elaborate then. i really mean which of the 2 perform better overall, even if one considers that both pilots are experts at flying their planes. but hey.. if every1 else was able to answer thie question, hows it incomplete? lol
-
no, alf is right. like i said before, the hellcat was designed purely to combat japanese fighters. whereas the corsair was designed as a general naval fighter.
-
Corsairs, of course.
Chicks dig gullwings.
HONK!
Gooss
-
lol ooo yea! guess ill stick with that then. but mad respect to the Hellcat still remains.
and btw, i'll be sure to fix up my questions alf
-
There are some Hellcat pilots in AH that I would not want to meet if I was flyin the F4U-1D or F4U-1...
That said, I would rather be in the F4U, it just suits my flying better (and I know it a lot better). The F6F suits other people's style better. It boils down to how well you know the strengths of one and the weaknesses of the other.
Its hard for the F4Us to get away from the Hellcat, especially at low altitude...at higher altitude, the F4U will have the advantage.
Both are tough birds but in this regard, the F6F has another advantage -- not that it is tougher than the F4U, but because the F4U can't usually flame it with a snapshot, which is all you are going to get (assuming equal skill/energy states, etc). Where the F6F can just saddle up and blast away on the F4U till his armor is gone.
F4U-4 is the best fighter in the game. Nothin can touch that :aok
-
While the F6F did hold a higher kill/death ratio than the F4U, it was not it's sucessor. If the F4U were cleared for carrier operations sooner, it would have seen more action and gotten more kills. The Hellcat and Bearcat were obsoleted by the F4U variants, as such the F4U was able to fulfill the future roles better than those planes.
I haven't looked up the data, but I have a very hard time believing the F6F (and F8F) were as fast or faster than the F4U. The F4U had a lower drag airframe with the gull wing configuration and extensive drag reduction was done by the NACA before ww2. The F4U saw much more service after some operational issues were worked out than any F6F or F8F variants and was used long after the introduction of jets into the early 1970's.
I would be interested to read in reports why the Navy phased out the F6F (or F8F) and kept the F4U for 40 years. Jets played a part in that decision for sure, but whether it was range, durability, ordinance capability, or maintainablity that edged out the F4U from its simliar era planes is a mystery to me. On the topic of speed again, how many F6F (F8F) planes were used in civilian racing? None that I have ever seen, but the F4U (and P51) were top contenders.
Regards,
Malta
p.s. talking about the game now: if the F4U-4 had 4 20mm hispando's, then it might be one of the 'best plane in the game' and worthy of the perks. Above 250 ias, the P51, 109, 190, and La7 are more maneuverable in the game. Many planes in the game are more manueverable below 200 ias (including the F6F). One could say it has a combination of attributes that make their sum greater than the parts, but I would not after flying it. Marginally better acceleration and a slighty higher top speed than the -1C with inferior 50 cal guns doesn't count for much in a fight.
-
well standond i agree on you that the f4u4 doesn't need to be perked i would call it one of the best turners in the game. now back on the subject i would mostly say that the f4u was much better then the f6f it had a 2800 engine and a huge prop this thing was fast plus i bet more pilots would tell you that the f4u was a much better plane. but thats just my opinion.
catfish6
-
Originally posted by stantond
On the topic of speed again, how many F6F (F8F) planes were used in civilian racing?
Rare Bear. Closed course speed record holder of 528mph. Its won Unlimted at Reno 15 times.
http://www.rarebear.com/
-
Originally posted by ujustdied
well standond i agree on you that the f4u4 doesn't need to be perked i would call it one of the best turners in the game. now back on the subject i would mostly say that the f4u was much better then the f6f it had a 2800 engine and a huge prop this thing was fast plus i bet more pilots would tell you that the f4u was a much better plane. but thats just my opinion.
catfish6
They had essentially the same engine except for some packaging details. The F4U was only marginally faster.
-
WAIT!! the F4U was in service in the 70s? by whom? not the US, thats for sure.
-
Yeah Id agree..in here F4u seems much better than the F6F. Maybe its just because how I fly, but I dont seem to get much out of the AH F6F.
In this game there seems to be some planes where flaps greatly improve, minimally improve, and some that retard performance. Id say the F4u flaps greatly improve, and the F6 seem somewhere between minimal/retard performance. May just be me though.
In real life..go see Mr. Whoopee...he has all the answers :)
-
If we are putting this comparison in an historical context I would have to say that F6F could have a case made for it as the greatest carrier born fighter ever. It was the right design at the right place at the right time. It had enough performance to beat it's primary adversary (the A6M) and was simple enough to maintain in a combat environment and was a perfect match for the pilots the navy was turning out in 43 and 44. You can argue the technical merits of the F4U and the F6F, but I think the F6F did more to win the war than the F4U. It did everything; it gutted the ranks of the IJN (granted this process was started years earlier), won air superiority, it performed attack/light bomber roles and nightfighting.
-
If you want to go by gutting the cream of the IJN crop, you really have to give props to the F4F. The Battles of Midway and Guadalcanal are what really bloodied the Japanese best fighter pilots, and it was the Wildcat that did it.
Anyway, the only clear advantages the F6F had over the F4U I've ever been aware of was that she was easier to fly in general and was better-suited for carrier duty out of the box, whereas it took some trial and error to perfect the Hog. Corsair may have only been faster by 8mph, but she WAS still faster, and IIRC maneuverability at high airspeeds was superior, while low speeds was an edge to the Fat Cat, but not particularly significant (the guys with access to every official test chart and performance comparison ever written are bound to correct me). A couple times I've outmaneuvered F6Fs with a 1-Hog in medium to low-speeds, tho that could just have been the quality of pilot I was facing. Firepower was basically the same with the 1D and later carrying the same ordinance loadout, if not slightly heavier. I also seem to remember hearing/reading/seeing that the F4U could take more of a pounding than even the P-47.
As has been suggested, the kill/death of the F6F is rather skewed by the sheer number of them in the combat area.
-
The F6F wasn't developed (and produced) much further beyond the F6F-5, the Corsair was, but more as an attack aircraft.
Grumman had the F8F as the F6F's successor, but his aircraft was designed to a different philosophy. More a carrier based air superiority fighter, hence it became obsolete much sooner because the jets arrived to the scene. At least, that's my guess.
I asked a similar question long ago, Widewing had some good background info on this topic, F6F, F8F evolution and the F4U. Can maybe be found with a search.
In AH the F4U-1D has a significant speed advantage over the F6F but in a dogfight I'd rather fly the F6F.
-
F6F was definitly one of the planes with greatest impact on the war. Its appearance instantly shifted the advantage to the american side in naval wars. The F4u was always favoured in its design stages over the Hellcat, but was delivered too late. Not to mention the F6F pitot tube legends that made the F4u "superior" and much "faster".
The F6f to the F4U is what the P47 is to the 51. Produced in larger numbers, did more actual work and in the critical stages of the war but their competitor, "superior" on paper, got most of the glory. The mere fact that P47 and F6F were the most produced USAF and USN fighters say something about their effectiveness. They were definitly not produced because they were pretty. Cost, maintnance, reliability, availability are also part of plane performance.
The greatest thing about the F6F was its reliability and readiness for use from carriers. In AH we do not have mechanical problems and if we crash on landing, no damage is done. People tend to underestimate the importance of this on the global strategic level. The Mossie is another example of how the use of "inferior" wood materials is actually an advantage in war time.
Bozon
-
Originally posted by bozon
The greatest thing about the F6F was its reliability and readiness for use from carriers. In AH we do not have mechanical problems and if we crash on landing, no damage is done.
Bozon
I thought the Corsair had a reputation for being a devil to land on a carrier - high torque, hopeless visibility. F6F was better in this respect. Were many Corsairs lost on landing and if so did it have big effect on K/D ratio?
Regards
-
Originally posted by ALF
The question is really incompelte, its like asking whats better a can opener or a corkscrew....it all depends what you want to do with them.
Silly man....to open beer or wine bottles of course :rofl
-
Originally posted by Jebus
The other question i was going to post. What plane had the biggest impact in WW2. Was it the Pony or my favorite the Jug? The 38 seem well rounded, and the hellcat had alot of success in the pacific theater. I know all had its + and -. But really out of all the american planes what had the biggest roll in the Allied Success.
Well this can be argued from so many angles that its almost impossible.
For the PTO I would say the F6F was the MVP. It won air supperiority over the IJN something that no other allied plane managed to do.
ETO is much more difficult imho to judge. The Pony in competition with late mark spits where the best planes. The D Pony did really only see action against a luftwaffe which was heavily decimated on trained pilots. Spitfires came in so many versions that its hard to say Spitfire was the best plane without specifying version.
Imho one of the key airial battles of the ETO was the Battle of Britain. If the RAF wouldnt have halted the luftwaffe there the war would have been over in europe. Sure the Spit was the best of the british planes in BoB but the main bulk was still the Hurricanes who pulled the heaviest workload.
The RAF would never have won BoB without Hurricanes. Would they have won it without the Spit? Doubt it.
So I would say the MVP of the ETO and most likely of the entire war would imho go to the Hurricane and the Spit.
But Im basing that on the fact that they prevented the allies from loosing the war.
But the question of which plane contributed most to actually winning it... hmm thats harder... Id say that "race" is between the Jug, the 38 and the Spit... but Ill leave that to others to discuss...
Tex
-
This might be my favorite conversation of all time.
Instead of listing reasons for a viewpoint of mine that is obvious I will just quote a few sources where the F6F-3/5 is compared to the F4U-1/1D either directly or indirectly.
1. TAIC report FW190 vrs F6F-3 and F4U-1D.
Speed
F4U advantage of 29MPH at SL, 21MPH at 10k, 14MPH at 20K and 12MPH at 25K.
Climb
F4U advantage oer the F6F at all speeds no specific rates noted.
Turn
No advantage noted over each other. Both superior to the FW190.
2. TAIC A6M5 vrs F4U-1D and F6F-5
Speed F4U advantage 7MPH at SL, 13MPH at 10K, 9MPH at 20K, 5K at 25K.
Climb F4U Advantage 600FPM SL to 10K, 500FPM at 15K and equal at 22K.
Turn the F4U/F6F were the same relative to the Zeke however the F4U was tested with flaps.
3. Navy Evaluation 1944 determined the F4U was en equal or better carrier A/C.
4. 1944 JFC Pax River- Pilots preffered the F4U-1D over the F6F-5 61% to 31%
5. SETP Socioty of Expermental Test pilots- An international group of modern Military test pilots in 1989 did a symposium on the P-51D, P-47D, F6F-5 and F4U-1D(FG-1D) and flight tested these A/C using modern test techniques. They preffered the F4U-1D for these reasons.
"Light and comfortable stick forces, good performance, adeqaute stall warning and docile behavior at the stall made it the Weapon of choice amoung those tested."
The greatest supporters of the F6F are Royal Navy Commander Eric Brown and Cheif Grumman test pilot Corkey Meyer that I have read.
BTW, I have never agreed on the speeds being the same at altititude of the two aircraft considering the drag areas are different as well as the frontal area. Also the pitot tube placement of the F6F that caused the error was discovered in 1944. I have a F6F-5 POH that is revised up to 1947. It show the problem as being corrected in later model F6F-5's.
The chart for the newer F6F-5 shows this
300Knots IAS Deduct 2.5Knots for CAS
The older F6F-5 the Chart shows this
300Knots IAS add 11.5Knots for CAS
The F4U-1/1D shows this
300Knots IAS add 8knots for CAS
So the differance between the two in pitot tube error is 3.5Knots error. Hardly anything to get worked up about.
-
BTW, I have never agreed on the speeds being the same at altititude of the two aircraft considering the drag areas are different as well as the frontal area.
Just a small correction as I've seen this mentioned several times before. "Frontal area" means absolutly nothing in regard to drag. The F4u had low drag for a big radial, but not because of frontal area.
Bozon
-
One seldom addressed issue with the F4U is that it failed carrier compatibility trials. Consider that the prototype was flying on May 29, 1940, while the F6F prototype first flew in late June of 1942. Vought had delivered less than 60 fighters by November of 1942. Two and a half years after the prototype had flown, production was merely a trickle and these aircraft suffered from many problems still. During the first months of production, there were constant changes and updates being made right on the production line. Vought was establishing themselves as a very inefficient manufacturer. It took Vought almost four years to get the F4U sorted out for its designed purpose. Meanwhile, Grumman got it right coming out of the starting gate with the XF6F-3.
Contrary to standard WWII mythology, the F6F was not designed to combat the Zero. In June of 1941, the Navy issued Grumman a contract to design and develop an improved Wildcat as a back-up to the Vought F4U. The Navy was unwilling to place all of it cards on Vought's table, especially since Vought had not established that the F4U would be a success. Hindsight shows that this caution was not only justified, but a God send.
Thirteen months after the XF6F-3 flies, the Hellcat is in combat flying from the Essex, Yorktown, Independence, Princeton and Belleau Wood with VF-33 operating from Guadalcanal as well.
Grumman's philosophy was "build 'em simple, build 'em strong and build 'em quickly." In March of 1945, Grumman's Plant #3 delivered 605 F6F-5s, a record that was never beaten by any other American manufacturer from a single factory during the war or since. In fact, Plant #3 actually delivered 658 aircraft that month, including 48 F7Fs, 2 F8Fs and 3 Goose Amphibians. During the whole of its production life, the F6F saw the fewest changes to the basic design of any fighter still in combat at the war's end. It was simply that good from the outset.
So, what about performance and general usage? Both aircraft have their merits and their weaknesses. However, the F4U's weaknesses were generally chronic and somewhat more severe than those of the Hellcat.
In terms of handling, the F6F was superior, especially "around the boat". Benign stall characteristics, good view of the flight deck and a wing that generated tremendous lift all contributed to the Hellcat being a safe and easy fighter to operate from a carrier. On the other hand, the F4U stalled far more violently, and visibility over the long nose was very poor. Stall characteristics improved a great deal with the addition of a wing spoiler to counter the violent wing drop of early aircraft, but it never came close to the F6F in that area of the flight envelope. In terms of deck handling, both aircraft were stable, even in crosswinds. Yet despite substantial improvements in the F4U, it was always inferior to the F6F in the ability of the pilot to see while on the ground or flight deck.
One can never underestimate the importance of good handling and visibility around the boat or on the flight deck. Accidents often resulted in more aircraft and pilots lost than in actual combat. Accident rates for the F6F were substantially lower than for the F4U throughout the war. It must be understood that the Navy was always willing to trade a little performance for safety and no one could credibly argue that the F6F was not the better fighter in terms of safe carrier operations.
While the F4U was far from ideal flying around the boat, it proved to be a very capable fighter away from the ship. Early models were poor climbers and slow accelerating in level flight. Nonetheless, high-speed handling was outstanding. If used according to its strengths, it could easily dominate the Japanese fighters. At low levels, the F4U was considerably faster than the F6F. This is attributed to the use of direct ram air into the intake system. In the simplest of explanations, this acted much like a supercharger, providing for pressure air and thus, a more dense air charge. On the other hand, Grumman preferred to route intake air through the accessory section where it was warmed prior to entering the carburetor. This was in line with Grumman's conservative design approach. Pre-warming the intake air eliminated the problem of carburetor icing that would often lead to the engine losing power, or simply stopping altogether.
What this boils down to is that the F4U had more power available at low altitude and that is reflected in a speed differential of nearly 30 mph at sea level. In exchange, the F4U risked carburetor icing, especially under certain weather conditions.
Maneuverability is a subjective issue, but I will delve into it using available data and calculations.
First, let's examine an Energy Management Diagram created by one of our Trainers; Badboy, and currently part of his excellent energy management article located at SimHQ here. (http://www.simhq.com/_air/air_011a.html) I suggest reviewing the article so as to understand what the diagram demonstrates. This diagram is based upon the Aces High F6F-5 and F4U-1C. Nonetheless, it generally represents real world reports and performance calculations, although some other sources give the Hellcat an even larger advantage.
(http://www.simhq.com/_air/images/air_011b_1.jpg)
Rather than repeat what Badboy states in his article, I will simply state that the F6F could easily turn inside the F4U. You might question this because these aircraft were of similar weight and the F6F's wing area is only 20 square feet greater than that of the F4U. What apparently makes the difference is the lift coefficient. In Francis Dean's epic work on US WWII fighters, he calculates a minimum turn radius index based upon how much a wing is loaded divided by how efficient the wing is in lifting. The Maximum Lift Coefficients used by Dean are 2.27 for the F6F-5 and 1.48 for the F4U-1D. Dean uses test data for 3g stall speeds, which corresponds to 139 IAS for the F6F-5 and 172.5 mph IAS for the F4U-1D. Resulting calculations show an index differential of 35% favoring the F6F.
However, turning ability alone does not establish a winner. Both aircraft were very capable fighters and many consider the F4U superior overall. Each has its proponents and detractors. Grumman never improved rearward visibility, which virtually everyone who flew the plane in combat thought was its single greatest weakness.
Maximum speed issues have been discussed elsewhere in this thread. Let it be stated that there was no great difference between them at their critical altitudes.
If we examine how each type impacted the war, we can only conclude that the F6F was a more important fighter than the F4U. Because it was aboard carriers in mid 1943, the F6F fought the major air battles of the Pacific war and utterly crushed Japanese Naval air power. Yet, had the F4U passed carrier qualification a year sooner and had been aboard the carriers, the result would have been the same. Although statistical evidence suggests that the F4U may have suffered greater loss.
Final war time stats give the F6F a 19:1 kill to loss ratio, while the F4U comes in with an 11:1 ratio. Both are impressive, but the Hellcat's borders on rediculous.
Another interesting fact not generally known centers on the F6F and F4U as bomber escorts. Generally, most people think of the P-51 as the premier bomber escort of WWII. Yet, within the context of their environment, the Hellcats and Corsairs did an equally impressive job. From December of 1944 through mid August of 1945, Navy bombers (SB2C and TBMs) escorted by F6Fs and/or F4Us suffered only 8 aircraft shot down by Japanese fighters.... just eight. Moreover, many of these raids were over the Japanese home islands.
Maybe we should let the Japanese tell which they thought was the better of the two. Historian and author Henry Sakaida surveyed a number of surviving Japanese aces and when asked what American fighter they feared most, the majority said, "the Hellcat". Some examples:
Sadumu Komachi- "I think the best enemy fighter plane I fought against was the F6F. It was faster than our Zero and more powerful. It could dogfight, whereas the F4U could not. There was nothing more frightening than a Hellcat on your tail."
Takeo Tanaimizu- "The F4U was a tough plane, your bullets would just bounce off. I think the toughest opponent was the Grumman F6F. They could maneuver and roll, whereas planes like the P-38 and F4U made hit and run passes. The F6F could actually dogfight with us, and it was much faster and more powerful than our Zero."
Saburo Sakai- "The F6F was the best U.S. Navy fighter. I fought them over Iwo Jima for the first time in June of 1944 and I was shocked at how much Grummans had improved since 1942."
Sadaaki Akamtsu- "In my opinion, the P-51 was the most dangerous American fighter because of its incredible speed. After the P-51 I believe the F6F was the most dangerous, because it was faster and more maneuverable than my Raiden."
You can draw your own conclusions as to which was better, but within the context of history, there's little doubt about which was the war-winning fighter in the Pacific. It shot down more Japanese aircraft than the F4U, P-51, P-47 and P-38 combined. It scored the highest number of kills by one pilot during one sortie (9 kills, 2 probables). History shows that the honor of most important Naval fighter goes to the Grumman F6F.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Originally posted by SMIDSY
WAIT!! the F4U was in service in the 70s? by whom? not the US, thats for sure.
yea, smidsy. its pretty cool when u think about it. El Salvador flew the last known Corsair mission in 1971. the US had already retired their F4U's sometime in the late 60's.
-
Originally posted by SgtPappy
yea, smidsy. its pretty cool when u think about it. El Salvador flew the last known Corsair mission in 1971. the US had already retired their F4U's sometime in the late 60's.
All F4Us were retired from US front-line service in 1954, although some served in Naval Reserve units until 1957.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Widewing,
I knew I would get a good reply from you I just didn't know if you would catch this post. Anyway here it goes.
Banjo music please.....
You said
1. In terms of handling, the F6F was superior, especially "around the boat". Benign stall characteristics, good view of the flight deck and a wing that generated tremendous lift all contributed to the Hellcat being a safe and easy fighter to operate from a carrier. On the other hand, the F4U stalled far more violently, and visibility over the long nose was very poor. Stall characteristics improved a great deal with the addition of a wing spoiler to counter the violent wing drop of early aircraft, but it never came close to the F6F in that area of the flight envelope. In terms of deck handling, both aircraft were stable, even in crosswinds. Yet despite substantial improvements in the F4U, it was always inferior to the F6F in the ability of the pilot to see while on the ground or flight deck.
The fact is that most of the handling problems experianced on the early F4U's were resolved by the summer of 1943 including the asymetrical stall, debounded landing gear, raised pilots seat. This aircraft essentially remained the same in terms of handling through the entire production run through 1952.
If you read my signuature at the bottom of my post you will see that Tommy Blackburn Commander of the VF-17 Jolly Rodgers felt that the F4U not being deployed on ships was a logistics problem caused by the Navy not wanting to interrupt the parts deployment and maintenance of the already Grumman Navy. The F6F and F4F shared many parts and maintainance practices so it was an easy decision to go with the F6F and leave the F4U on the shore until performance became a priority.
Next you posted Badboys chart and stated this in regard to turn performance.
2.Rather than repeat what Badboy states in his article, I will simply state that the F6F could easily turn inside the F4U. You might question this because these aircraft were of similar weight and the F6F's wing area is only 20 square feet greater than that of the F4U. What apparently makes the difference is the lift coefficient. In Francis Dean's epic work on US WWII fighters, he calculates a minimum turn radius index based upon how much a wing is loaded divided by how efficient the wing is in lifting. The Maximum Lift Coefficients used by Dean are 2.27 for the F6F-5 and 1.48 for the F4U-1D. Dean uses test data for 3g stall speeds, which corresponds to 139 IAS for the F6F-5 and 172.5 mph IAS for the F4U-1D. Resulting calculations show an index differential of 35% favoring the F6F.
This is one of the great myths in fighter aircraft lure.
Remember the Pitot tube error that Corkey Meyer used to say the F6F was as fast as the F4U, well it also makes the F6F fly like a hovercraft if you read the IAS and not the CAS. In fact the F6F-5N at Pax river had a power on stall of 20Knots!! No wonder the Clmax came back skewed.
The numbers used by Francis Dean are calculated from the JFC in Pax River. They are not referenced to test conditions, power condition, weight and they are not converted into CAS.
The real EM diagrams look nothing like that when both A/C weight 12,000lbs. In fact the F4U would appear to be somewhat superior at equal loading.
In mock dogfights the F4U-1 has out turned the likes of the P-47C, P-51A, P-38G, FW190A and P-51B.
First the F4U from the appendices of the POH
(http://mywebpages.comcast.net/markw4/F4UG.jpg)
Now the F6F-5
(http://mywebpages.comcast.net/markw4/F6FG.jpg)
Also when it comes to K/D and loss ratio the Navy needs to be somewhat embarrassed by it's rempant overclaiming.
The fact is the FM-2 flying from Carriers claimed a 32 to 1 kill ratio and F4U pilots flying from carriers claimed a 20 to 1 ratio. Navy F6F pilots flying from land bases only claimed a 5 to 1 K/D.
So apparently under the same circumstances the F4U and F6F had nearly identical K/D's.
I did not list individual pilots (especially enemy) but I will say this. Any evaluation between the two A/C by an independant body has always come back in favor of the F4U even when the F6F was flown by the likes of Butch O'Hare the F4U proved superior as an Air Combat machine.
-
Originally posted by Widewing
One seldom addressed issue with the F4U is that it failed carrier compatibility trials. ]
Some blatant jingoism and Royal Ensign waving here, but worth mentioning that the Corsair was initially considered unsuitable for deck operations by the US Navy. The Royal Navy had other ideas though and RN Corsairs were being used in carrier ops 9 months before the USN.
UK took delivery of 2012 Corsairs. British Corsairs had 16inch clipped off wings to allow below deck stowage in the smaller RN carriers! These clipped wing Corsairs must have had a hell of a rate of roll.
Regards :)
-
The clipped wings had a helpful side effect too, they tended to increase the sink rate on finals and reduce the Corsair's tendency to float over the arrestor wires.
One thing that helped the RN adjust to the F4U was their experience with the Seafire, which was even more awkward to land on a CV. Apart from the well known gear weakness, the Seafire had the same poor visibility over the nose. The technique developed for the Seafire was to make a tightly curving approach onto the deck, in order to keep it in sight, straightening up at the last second. The same thing worked with the Corsair.
The late appearance of the F4U on USN CVs was as much to do with logistics and training as anything else. The USN didn't want to have to supply two lots of spares across the Pacific to their CVs, so VF-17 apart, most of the first F4Us went to the Marines.
-
Originally posted by TexMurphy
Well this can be argued from so many angles that its almost impossible.
For the PTO I would say the F6F was the MVP. It won air supperiority over the IJN something that no other allied plane managed to do.
Tex
The Flying Tigers did the same thing, albeit against the IJAF.
ack-ack
-
Originally posted by Widewing
All F4Us were retired from US front-line service in 1954, although some served in Naval Reserve units until 1957.
My regards,
Widewing
o crap.. i put 60's.. lol i meant 50's.. thnx for the correction Widewing
-
All things considered, my historical facts aren't that accurate. However, they do support my position.
Regards,
Malta
-
Originally posted by stantond
While the F6F did hold a higher kill/death ratio than the F4U, it was not it's sucessor. If the F4U were cleared for carrier operations sooner, it would have seen more action and gotten more kills. The Hellcat and Bearcat were obsoleted by the F4U variants, as such the F4U was able to fulfill the future roles better than those planes.
I haven't looked up the data, but I have a very hard time believing the F6F (and F8F) were as fast or faster than the F4U. The F4U had a lower drag airframe with the gull wing configuration and extensive drag reduction was done by the NACA before ww2. The F4U saw much more service after some operational issues were worked out than any F6F or F8F variants and was used long after the introduction of jets into the early 1970's.
I would be interested to read in reports why the Navy phased out the F6F (or F8F) and kept the F4U for 40 years. Jets played a part in that decision for sure, but whether it was range, durability, ordinance capability, or maintainablity that edged out the F4U from its simliar era planes is a mystery to me. On the topic of speed again, how many F6F (F8F) planes were used in civilian racing? None that I have ever seen, but the F4U (and P51) were top contenders.
p.s. talking about the game now: if the F4U-4 had 4 20mm hispando's, then it might be one of the 'best plane in the game' and worthy of the perks. Above 250 ias, the P51, 109, 190, and La7 are more maneuverable in the game. Many planes in the game are more manueverable below 200 ias (including the F6F). One could say it has a combination of attributes that make their sum greater than the parts, but I would not after flying it. Marginally better acceleration and a slighty higher top speed than the -1C with inferior 50 cal guns doesn't count for much in a fight.
Well, the F8F was not made obsolete by the F4U.
They had completely different missions. The F8F was an air superiority fighter, the best ever to operate from a carrier and possibly the best ever built by anyone prior to jets. On the other hand, the F4U-4 was a fighter-bomber. It was fast, climbed well and able to handle anything it might encounter... except the F8F, especially the F8F-2. F8Fs were short range fighters, with a limited bomb load. The F4U-4 put the A into attack. When the Korean war broke out, F4U-4s and F4U-5s were an important aircraft. They were essential to the attack mission during the opening months. They were joined by the heavy lifting AD Skyraider, which could haul twice the weight of ordnance of the Corsair and were better armored to withstand tripleA. By 1952, the F4U's days were numbered. New jets could haul more bombs and get to and from the target much faster.
F4Us, in various models were in front line service with the USN for 12 years. Remarkable back then, but short-lived by today's standards (the F-14 was just retired after 32 years of service and the B-52 has surpassed 51 years of service). F4Us remained in service for one reason; the attack mission. By the late 1940s, the F4U was obsolete as a fighter, with new jet designs filling the fighter role, allowing F4U units to concentrate on delivering ordnance, which they did very well.
As to F8Fs in racing...Someone mentioned Rare Bear, which attained 542 mph on the downwind leg of its record speed run. By the way, Rare bear hit those speeds while flying just 100 feet above ground level. This same plane also holds the time to climb record as well.
In AH2, the F4U-4 is among the very best in the game. I believe that it is the best fighter in the game. Nothing is faster at altitude and only the Tempest is notably faster on the deck. None of the fast planes, save the Spitfire Mk.XIV, can afford to maneuver with the F4U-4 for very long. It will out-climb the Tempest, P-51D and La-7. It will haul more ordnance than any of the so-called "Uber" fighters. It's only limitation is a rather short range on internal fuel.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Widewing,
It may be worth your while (or not) to contact the persons at:
http://www.history.navy.mil/index.html
and explain to them how the F6F's speed is too low, they have slighted the F8F's greatness, and the F4U was not a fighter aircraft in Korea! Here is another link for historical aircraft:
http://www.history.navy.mil/branches/org4-8.htm
If you believe the information on the Naval history website is wrong or lacking, maybe you should try and have it changed? U.S. government tax dollars are at work there and if their information is wrong, it should be changed. I'll leave that up to your discretion.
Regards,
Malta
p.s. in AH the Bearcat would be worth the F4U-4's perk points with it's 4-20mm cannons and climb rate advantage. I have not found the F4U-4 to be a great climbing aircraft in AH (compared to Spitfires, 109's, the La7 and Tempest).
-
IIRC the first batches or Bearcats had four 0.5 in Brownings. The idea was for a light, fast climbing interceptor to deal with Kamikaze attacks, so low weight was more important than firepower. By the Korean war the Bearcat (F8F-1B?) had the four 20mms for the ground attack role.
So in the highly unlikely event of AH getting an F8F for the MA, it would be armed with four 0.5in guns. I'd still fly it though. :)
-
Originally posted by bozon
F6F was definitly one of the planes with greatest impact on the war. Its appearance instantly shifted the advantage to the american side in naval wars.
Beware of nostalgia:
IMHO, what we all need to remember in any of these discussions is the true impact on the war of any one piece of equipment. The only true war-changing piece of gear in the entire war was a single B-29 carrying Fatboy. The F6F didn't strategically change the war in the pacific--tactically perhaps, but the war didn't get easier in '43 when the Hellcat showed up. The bloodiest battles of the war all occurred afterwords.
Across the pond, German tank technology was superior to allied. The German MG42 was the finest MG in the war. Again, on the losing side.
So, going back to my original point, tactical advantage gained through technology does not necessarily, and with respect to this argument, did not equal strategic gain. The Hellcat was an excellent plane, purpose designed and built, but did not confer a strategic benefit to the war in the pacific. If the Hellcat had never been built, and the Navy procured F4U's in their place, would we have shot down less planes? Lengthened the war? I believe ultimately, kill numbers would have been the same, and obviously, the war would have still ended sometime in early August '45.
-
Originally posted by stantond
Widewing,
It may be worth your while (or not) to contact the persons at:
http://www.history.navy.mil/index.html
and explain to them how the F6F's speed is too low, they have slighted the F8F's greatness, and the F4U was not a fighter aircraft in Korea! Here is another link for historical aircraft:
http://www.history.navy.mil/branches/org4-8.htm
If you believe the information on the Naval history website is wrong or lacking, maybe you should try and have it changed? U.S. government tax dollars are at work there and if their information is wrong, it should be changed. I'll leave that up to your discretion.
Regards,
Malta
p.s. in AH the Bearcat would be worth the F4U-4's perk points with it's 4-20mm cannons and climb rate advantage. I have not found the F4U-4 to be a great climbing aircraft in AH (compared to Spitfires, 109's, the La7 and Tempest).
You're killing me Stantond... You have a marginal understanding of aviation history and yet you attempt to lecture...
I have already posted a link to a test report done by the Technical Air Intelligence Command, that pooh-poohs the Standard Aircraft Characteristics sheet, which were and still are, useless documents for historians. There are several tests of the F6F-5 that used independent airspeed measuring equipment that clearly show what the F6F was capable of. Then we have Grumman's own data, which mimics that of TAIC.
I'm at a loss to understand what you are talking about in regard to the F4U in Korea. F4Us, teamed with the ADs, were the Navy's primary attack aircraft in Korea. After the MiG-15 showed up, the F4Us and ADs were often escorted by F9Fs.
As to the F4U-4 in Aces High... About 9 months ago I tested every fighter in the game to determine speeds at various altitudes, acceleration and climb rates. At the time, the F4U-4 ranked 5th in climb rate from sea level to 10,000 feet. Only the 109G-10, 109G-6, 109G-2 and Spit14 climbed faster. The G-2 got there just 0.84 seconds faster, a statistical dead heat. The F4U-4 got to 10k 5 seconds faster than the 190D-9, 6.5 seconds faster than the Tempest, and 7.7 seconds faster than the La-7. I appreciate your opinion, but I prefer data and the data says different.
The current best climbers, in order of least time required to 10k, are:
Spitfire Mk.XVI 1:38.38
Bf 109K-4 1:43.19
Spitfire Mk.XIV 1:44.69
Spitfire Mk.VIII 1:44.72
Bf 109G-14 1:45.72
Bf 109G-6 1:53.79
Bf 109G-2 1:54.62
F4U-4 1:55.46
By the way, the F8F-1, the model in service when the war ended, was armed with four .50 caliber Brownings. Cannons were fitted to the F8F-1B (126 delivered between 2/46 and 2/48) and the F8F-2 (293 delivered between 11/47 and 4/49). France used F8Fs in combat thru 1954. F8Fs began being replaced by the F2H Banshee in late 1949, and with the F9F Panther in early 1950.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Originally posted by stantond
I have not found the F4U-4 to be a great climbing aircraft in AH (compared to Spitfires, 109's, the La7 and Tempest).
Read below.
Originally posted by Widewing
In AH2, the F4U-4 is among the very best in the game. I believe that it is the best fighter in the game. Nothing is faster at altitude and only the Tempest is notably faster on the deck. None of the fast planes, save the Spitfire Mk.XIV, can afford to maneuver with the F4U-4 for very long. It will out-climb the Tempest, P-51D and La-7. It will haul more ordnance than any of the so-called "Uber" fighters. It's only limitation is a rather short range on internal fuel.
I agree with Widewing's assesment, the F4U-4 is the best (non-jet) fighter in the game.
-
You mean my assesment 20 posts ago? :cool:
-
Ya know, if the truth be known I'd have to say the guys that actually flew Cats liked them the best and those that flew Hogs liked them the best. This suggests that if it's yer 6 in a sling and yer plane kept you alive through it then it must be a pretty nice ride.
Now that's real life....
If yer talking about what we do here...one thing you may want to think about it just how many guys do you think really stayed in a turn fight in a 1v1 or 1v2 with many other enemy planes within visual range?
The very cool thing we get to do here is actually fly the turns and tactics that were employed without having to deal with the trama of dyin. :D Those guys positioned themselves with "any" advantage they might muster and went in for pass and bug.
I'm an ex-Flying Tiger and to listen to Dick Rossi talk about Chenaults training it was more of a "get alt, dive in, hit em on a pass, and keep of trucking. Extend, grab and do it again. Never turn with a zeke was the order of the day.
-
I thought I remember reading or hearing somewhere that the F4U is that she turned TOO well, tricking a lot of pilots into thinking they could engage a sustained turning fight, at which point the nasty departure characteristics usually kicked in.
-
Saxman,
I think what you read is that the F4U has a great instantanious turn rate. If you look at the two charts I posted for the G-Load limits you can see that the F4U can pull 3G's at 140Knots IAS while the F6F-5 can do the same at 150Knots IAS. In CAS it is much closer because you have to add 3.5 Knots to the F4U speed and subtract 2knots from the F6F-5. But still that leaves the F4U with a 5Knot advantage in instantanious turning ability over the F6F. And this chart is calibrated to equal weight of 12,000lbs so the F6F is losing 200+ extra pounds that it would normally carry in relation to the F4U.
This was essentially proved by the SEPT (Socioty of experamental test pilots) in 1989 when they flight tested the two A/C. They did two test that show this and the F6F actually was significantly underweight for these test.
Here are the two test. Keep in mind that the F6F should weight at least 200lbs more than the F4U at the same loading condtion. So it is 500lbs total under weight relative to the F4U
1. 3G accelerated stall decaying airspeed (less than 1Knts per second)
F6F-5 10,681lbs
F6F-5 stall warning 100knots
3G Stall at 95knots
F4U-1D (FG-1D) 11,055lbs
F4U-1D Stall warning 103Knots
3G Stall 98Knots
2. Level 180 Degree heading change 220Knots IAS 10,000FT METO power (max Continous).
F6F-5 9.9 seconds
F4U-1D 8.5 seconds
So in the instantious turn regime the F4U can be considered superior even thought the sustained turn would not be as good. However at altitudes where power to weight are optimal the sustained performance would be at it's best such as sea level, 20K etc.
-
When considering the preferences of Japanese pilots over which aircraft they prefered to "dogfight" ...the F6F seems to be their choice. I wonder why?
Japanese pilots were trained how to counter turning manuvers found in the
typical "dogfight" and the F6F seemed to satisfy that "challenge" in which the Japanese Bushido Warrior found himself against the F6F. What he didn't like was the fast slashing attack of the F4U which, if wisely flown would extend with speed, regain altitude and repeat the attack. So, to me, Japanese pilots' distaste for combat in the traditional "dogfighting" against the F4U speaks highly of the F4U's and strengthens, not lessens, the F4U effectiveness against the Japanese versus the F6F.
Granted...I'm no expert. For those interested in the Air War in the South Pacific in WWII....I recommend, "Fire in the Sky", written by Eric Bergerund.
For those Corsair enthusiasts flying in Aces High...keep it high...keep it fast...and fly to the six.
-
"Whispering Death" .... does sound kind of like something they might have feared.
And turning Isn't eveything ..... the rudder & gull wings give the F4u a barrel roll like no other..... not like you'd want to be knife fighting with zeke's IRL though.
-
My favorite nickname for the F6F is the "Whistling Outhouse" followed closely by "The box the F4U came in".
-
wow everyone... thanks for the information! it helps.. and cheers to u widewing for that convincing writeup. at first i started leaning toward the F4U, but that writeup stating the Hellcats better overall maneuverability (which can be argued) and the fear it caused among axis pilots made me rethink my 'leaning'.
but is there any1 out there who like Hellcats better? if so, why? i'd like to know.
i see F6F pilots beating La-7's and spits outta the skies regularly, so speak up Hellcat fans!
-
Originally posted by DamnedRen
I'm an ex-Flying Tiger
An ex-WWII real-life Flying Tiger pilot? (Don't want to appear gullible here, but it's possible.)
-
Originally posted by Brooke
An ex-WWII real-life Flying Tiger pilot? (Don't want to appear gullible here, but it's possible.)
Bet it's the air cargo operation.
- oldman
-
Wasn't it "Whistling Death"? Not "Whispering"?
The Hellcat is a helluva plane.
The Hog has gullwings.
How is that a tough decision?
HONK!
Gooss
-
lol .. but i was thinking... correct me if im wrong but wen the hellcat and the corsair were using the same engine, (P&W R-2800) the hellcat could climb better. it could perform better in many things except speed and roll i think... it also technically carried more ammo. 400 rpg, while the corsair carried 375 for 2 guns and 400 for the other 4. not big, but just saying. the grumman design had less armor but was structurally sturdier, and , as a result could take a bit more punishment.
-
Originally posted by Oldman731
Bet it's the air cargo operation.
- oldman
Correct, oldman. But, it WAS started by Bob Prescott (original Flying Tiger) and even Pappy Boyinton worked for us when it first got going. We have annual reunions and Dick Rossi (original Flying Tiger) was always at em if yer interested in old tales of the real thing. I went to work for FTL in '81 and stayed with them until we were bought out by FedEx.
Here's the home page....http://www.flyingtigersavg.com/
-
Originally posted by DamnedRen
Correct, oldman. But, it WAS started by Bob Prescott (original Flying Tiger) and even Pappy Boyinton worked for us when it first got going. We have annual reunions and Dick Rossi (original Flying Tiger) was always at em if yer interested in old tales of the real thing. I went to work for FTL in '81 and stayed with them until we were bought out by FedEx.
Here's the home page....http://www.flyingtigersavg.com/
That's pretty nifty! Sounds like a fun and good place to work.
-
The book AMERICA'S HUNDRED THOUSAND, by Francis H. Dean has a huge amount of data, including comparative data, on the US WWII fighters. It is an awesome tome. At the end, it has lots of comparative data.
Speed: F4U-1D is 10-20 mph faster than F6F-5 (depending on alt)
Climb: F4U-1D climbs better than F6F-5 (1-1.5 minute faster to 10k)
Range, no drop tanks: F6F-5 300 miles longer than F4U-1D
Roll rate: F4U-1D better than F6F-5 (by a lot at higher speeds)
Turning performance: F6F-5 a lot better than F4U-1D (see below)
Dive acceleration: F4U-1D better than F6F-5
Limit dive speed: F6F-5 better than F4U-1D (only by 6 mph)
Turn radius (scaled units, as estimated by speed for 3g stall at gross wt.):
FM-2, 12.0
P-63A-9, 14.9
P-61B-1, 16.0
F6F-5, 16.5
P-51D-15, 21.5
P-38L, 24.6
P-47D-30, 24.7
F4U-1D, 25.4
Note, this is turn radius assuming each aircraft can sustain a 3 g turn, no better, no worse, and so does not properly include the effect of engine performance. Still, it's interesting that the F4U-1D comes out so poorly in this. The book estimates that this is because the F4U-1D had a "spoiler placed on the right wing of the Corsair to eliminate an unsymmetric stall problem" that is estimated to drop the overall lift coefficient by a lot ("in fact an NACA test report notes this was indeed the case").
In the end, I think it boils down to the fact that the F4U-1D is faster and rolls better than the F6F-5, was much worse in lower-speed turning, but in real-life combat, lower-speed turning was not as important as speed and roll rate.
(As an aside, many people are mistaken about the idea that bigger, heavier aircraft have poorer turning performance. This is not what determines low-speed turning performance. If a big, heavy plane has a large wing with good max. lift coefficient, it will turn well, like the P-61 Black Widow.)
-
Brooke,
The Clmax listed in America's Hundred Thousand are mostly way off hence the turn calculations are way off.
-
quote:
"In the end, I think it boils down to the fact that the F4U-1D is faster and rolls better than the F6F-5, was much worse in lower-speed turning, but in real-life combat, lower-speed turning was not as important as speed and roll rate." - Brooke
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
lol i screwed up the auto-quoting but anyway...
that can be argued though, rite? cuz speed and roll rate are definitely very important, and as some pilots say, turning doesnt win fights... but the Hellcat's turning ability allowed it to dogfight with japanese planes (as widewing said) and THAT single ability made the japanese more fearful of the F6F.
-
but the Hellcat's turning ability allowed it to dogfight with japanese planes (as widewing said) and THAT single ability made the japanese more fearful of the F6F.
That is pretty subjective, I prefer to stick with the facts.
In terms of history you can point to the fact that the F4U scored almost twice as many kills in 1943 than the F6F and that a great many F6F kills (over 1,000 in Oct 1944 alone) were scored against inferior pilots. In fact there were 4 20 kill aces in the F4U by January of 1944, Aldrich VMF 215 20kills, Hanson 25kills VMF 215 , Boyington VMF 214 22Kills, and Walsh 21Kills VMF121.
The F6F may have been the King of the Kills for 1944/45 but in 1943 it was the F4U. Also it was the F4U in the Solomon Island campaign during that time.
From March of 1944 to December 1944 in 10 months the F6F scored 2459 kills. During the same period of time the F4U scored a 71kills and if you eliminate December for the F4U it only had 16kills in 9 months of 1944!!
The rest of the war was more evenly distributed.
-
FD: I'm pretty firmly in the F4U > F6F camp, but as a point of order, wasn't the F4U beginning to see combat as early as Feb/March, with the Fatcat's combat debut on 1 December? A better measure would probably to figure the average number of kills/month of service.
Interesting thing to point out is that of those roughly 1000 kills the F6F scored in October 1944, a HUGE chunk would have been recorded during the Turkey Shoot/Battle of the Phillippine Sea.
-
true, but the Hellcat was shooting down more planes per month, at least early on. and the plane entered, like u sed, almost 1/2 a year after the F4U entered WWII, and still destroyed more planes with a better kill ratio. there were more, yes, but thats also something to consider. the hellcat was built to easy to produce, and in war, a huge lot of relatively ok overall performers is better than a tiny amount of great overall performers. so, because of its easier productivity, the hallcat can be considered pretty much just as great as the F4U.
... by the way.. its Philippines
-
Originally posted by Jebus
What plane had the biggest impact in WW2.
Fw-190 series.
Karaya
-
lol really now.. however.. i think we should get back to the F6F vs. F4U stuff =p
-
Originally posted by F4UDOA
That is pretty subjective, I prefer to stick with the facts.
In terms of history you can point to the fact that the F4U scored almost twice as many kills in 1943 than the F6F and that a great many F6F kills (over 1,000 in Oct 1944 alone) were scored against inferior pilots. In fact there were 4 20 kill aces in the F4U by January of 1944, Aldrich VMF 215 20kills, Hanson 25kills VMF 215 , Boyington VMF 214 22Kills, and Walsh 21Kills VMF121.
The F6F may have been the King of the Kills for 1944/45 but in 1943 it was the F4U. Also it was the F4U in the Solomon Island campaign during that time.
From March of 1944 to December 1944 in 10 months the F6F scored 2459 kills. During the same period of time the F4U scored a 71kills and if you eliminate December for the F4U it only had 16kills in 9 months of 1944!!
The rest of the war was more evenly distributed.
What you neglect to mention is that the F6F didn't see combat until August 28, 1943 and then in limited numbers initially. Kinda skews the results a bit...
My regards,
Widewing
-
Originally posted by F4UDOA
Brooke,
The Clmax listed in America's Hundred Thousand are mostly way off hence the turn calculations are way off.
The turn calculations are based on stall speed at 3 g's, which according to the text was measured in flight tests. If so, the turn calculations are spot on, given the provision of 3 g turns, of course, which was noted in what I posted.
-
Originally posted by F4UDOA
Brooke,
The Clmax listed in America's Hundred Thousand are mostly way off hence the turn calculations are way off.
Dean used NACA report 829 for CLmax data on the F6F and F4U... Are you saying NACA was wrong?
Get it here. (http://naca.larc.nasa.gov/index.cgi?method=display&redirect=http://naca.larc.nasa.gov/reports/1945/naca-report-829/&oaiID=oai:naca.larc.nasa.gov:naca-report-829)
Furthermore, you have stated that Dean's Drag Coefficient of .0267 for the F4U is also wrong. However, he obtained this from NACA Report WR-ACR-L5A30, A Summary of Drag Results From Recent Tests of Army and Navy Airplanes.
It seems to me that every data point cited by Dean that rains on the F4U love-fest is dismissed as an error. Yet, Dean obtained the data from NACA test reports. Therefore if you believe it's wrong, you'll need a more authoritative source than NACA, and I have some doubts that such a source exists.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Widewing,
I agree with NACA. Did you actually read the document you referenced? As for my F4U lovefest you might notice the name of this thread is F4U Vrs F6F. The next P-38 lovefest you can do the fawning.
My information comes from when I was standing in Mr.Dean's study a few years ago before he passed and I asked him where he got those Clmax numbers. He got (at least some of them if not all of them) from the 1944 Joint Fighter Conferance test results of 3G stalls. Most of them make no sense what so ever when compared with real life Clmax numbers.
The only one that is accurate is the F4U at 1.48 which may have come from the NACA report burried somewhere but I doubt as it only makes reference to the F4U Clmax of 1.88 with full flaps or 1.17 or 1.26 on page 25 with no flap and no propellor. I know you didn't read the thing or you would have seen that.
America's Hundred Thousand list the F6F-5 Clmax as 2.27. NACA shows it on page 25 with no flap and no propellor as 1.40 approx and approx 1.9 with prop idling.
So no NACA is not wrong but it also has nothing to do with the Clamx numbers in AHT.
What is the Clmax of the F4U and F6F? That is easy on most A/C such as the F4U, P-51 etc. Except the pitot tube error is so bad on the F6F that the CAS chart still makes it subjective. The IAS stall is roughly 73Knots and the pitot error says add 4Knots so that puts the stall at roughly 90MPH at 12,000lbs.
Both from the Pilots Handbooks
12,000 * 391 / 90^2 * 334
4692000 / 2705400
Clmax = 1.73 Which I have to say is higher than I thought it would be.
The F4U-1
11,300lbs * 391 / 97^2 * 314
4418300 / 2954426
1.49 On the money
Now recalculate AHT performance index with the right Clmax. Also take a look at the 1944 JFC and notcie the Mr.Dean is the publisher of the minutes through Shiffer Books.
Now look at the real EM diagram for the F6F and F4U. Which one has the better turning ability?
(http://mywebpages.comcast.net/markw4/F6FG.jpg)
(http://mywebpages.comcast.net/markw4/F4UG.jpg)
-
Widewing,
Here is a detailed drag analysis of the F4U-1 on page 13 of this Vought document.
Do you have the Army document you referenced? I would like to compare it.
Vought Internal Comparison (http://mywebpages.comcast.net/markw4/MSWF4UDATA.pdf)
-
F4UDOA, I see what you mean about the CLmax's.
You don't need CLmax to calculate turn radius (assuming a 3g steady-state turn). It is, using Newtonian mechanics and assuming I haven't made a calculation error, r = v^2 / a, where r = radius, v = velocity, and a = radial acceleration = g * sqrt(G^2 - 1), where g is acceleration due to gravity and G are the number of g's the pilot is experiencing. Thus, in a 3 g turn, r = v^2 / (2.83 * g).
In this case, if the F6F-5 has a 3 g stall speed of 139 mph = 62.1 m/s, r = 139 m.
If the F4U-1D has a 3 g stall speed of 172.5 mph = 77.1 m/s, r = 214 m.
If you scale things to "index units" so that 139 m is 12.0 index units, the radius for the F4U-1D comes out to 18.5 (not the 25.4 listed in the book).
So, the F4U-1D has a much larger turning radius than the F6F-5, but not as much larger as listed by the "index units" measurement in the book.
Thanks for pointing that out.
On a separate note, you got to meet Francis Dean, eh? That's very nifty! I love his book!
-
Farking hell. Was thinking 1 September and typed 1 December. :p
Anyway, the problem with kills (both total numbers, and by ratio) to decide the "what plane is better" argument is that as has been said, they'll be skewed by an infinate number of factors. I mean, hell, if you go by what the Finns did, that makes the lowly F2A one of the best fighters of the war PERIOD, nevermind that the Buffalo was pretty much proven to be hopelessly outmatched by about any modern aircraft the Japanese could throw at her and most of the Luftwobble birds (I'll probably be corrected on this, but the success of the Brewster there was primarily against similarly obsolete Russian fighters and bombers, correct?).
Also, I noticed there's been a bit of emphasis on turn radius. Isn't overall cornering ability a bit more important than just what plane has the tightest turning circle? There's any number of ways to trim a few yards off a turn, but at least from my understanding not so many ways of boosting the other.
-
Turning radius was just the thing that I had some data for, although I could work it around to give turning rate, too. Even then, it is somewhat artificial, because it assumes all the aircraft are doing 3 g turns.
It is fun to argue the fine points of various WWII aircraft, so that's what folks are doing, even if it is arguing fine points. My point of view based on what data I had is that the F4U-1D is probably considered the better plane because, while it doesn't turn as well at low speeds, it does roll better and is faster.
On a separate note, I read once that the Finns liked the Brewster also because it was reliable and would run in harsh winter weather.
-
If you want to go by gutting the cream of the IJN crop, you really have to give props to the F4F. The Battles of Midway and Guadalcanal are what really bloodied the Japanese best fighter pilots, and it was the Wildcat that did it.
Midway - might want to give credit where credit is due: obsolete TBDs of Torpedo 8 drew down IJN top cover in a massacre, but that allowed SBDs to destroy the four IJN carriers, assisted by subs. The IJN pilots perished with the carriers. Not really a claim-to-fame for the Wildcat. But at Guadalcanal it did prove its worth.
Terminology clarification. The Corsair has inverted gull wings. The B-25 has a slight gull wing configuration.
Best regards,
Cement
-
Brooke,
The 3G stall numbers come from the 1944 JFC. They do not have weight, power or flap condition listed and they are IAS not CAS and the data was collected by about 40 different pilots over a week not in test conditions. The Clmax numbers are calculated from those 3G stall speeds and that is why they are so far off from the NACA report Widewing keeps waving around (I have had it for about 5 years).
The two charts I posted show you exactly what the flight envelopes ofthe aircraft are without power at 12,000lbs not flap. The charts are from the Navy and they came from the pilots manuals of both aircraft.
Most of the information I posted on my website came from Mr.Dean. He was a great guy and thought nothing of lending me a great deal of original information and having me in his house poking around his library. But he wrote a book and it has some errors. I can't help that, I am just posting some of the authentic documentation.
The manuals I get are from
http://www.esscoaircraft.com/ (http://www.esscoaircraft.com/ )
-
As a point of order, many of the Japanese pilots trapped on their carriers when they were hit just abandoned ships to be picked up by the escort ships.
-
Hogs RULE!:D
-
Originally posted by F4UDOA
Widewing,
I agree with NACA. Did you actually read the document you referenced? As for my F4U lovefest you might notice the name of this thread is F4U Vrs F6F. The next P-38 lovefest you can do the fawning.
My information comes from when I was standing in Mr.Dean's study a few years ago before he passed and I asked him where he got those Clmax numbers. He got (at least some of them if not all of them) from the 1944 Joint Fighter Conferance test results of 3G stalls. Most of them make no sense what so ever when compared with real life Clmax numbers.
The only one that is accurate is the F4U at 1.48 which may have come from the NACA report burried somewhere but I doubt as it only makes reference to the F4U Clmax of 1.88 with full flaps or 1.17 or 1.26 on page 25 with no flap and no propellor. I know you didn't read the thing or you would have seen that.
America's Hundred Thousand list the F6F-5 Clmax as 2.27. NACA shows it on page 25 with no flap and no propellor as 1.40 approx and approx 1.9 with prop idling.
So no NACA is not wrong but it also has nothing to do with the Clamx numbers in AHT.
What is the Clmax of the F4U and F6F? That is easy on most A/C such as the F4U, P-51 etc. Except the pitot tube error is so bad on the F6F that the CAS chart still makes it subjective. The IAS stall is roughly 73Knots and the pitot error says add 4Knots so that puts the stall at roughly 90MPH at 12,000lbs.
Both from the Pilots Handbooks
12,000 * 391 / 90^2 * 334
4692000 / 2705400
Clmax = 1.73 Which I have to say is higher than I thought it would be.
The F4U-1
11,300lbs * 391 / 97^2 * 314
4418300 / 2954426
1.49 On the money
Now recalculate AHT performance index with the right Clmax. Also take a look at the 1944 JFC and notcie the Mr.Dean is the publisher of the minutes through Shiffer Books.
Now look at the real EM diagram for the F6F and F4U. Which one has the better turning ability?
Ah... Operational Strength Limits charts are not Energy Maneuverability Diagrams.... That should be obvious. Moreover, notice the backside of the curves. The maximum speed @ 7g below 10k for the F4U is 340 knots. However, the F6F-5 is allowed 370 knots when loaded to 7g at the same height. This difference prevails over the entire speed and altitude ranges of the charts. Why is this? Apparently, the F6F is allowed much higher speeds over the g loading range at all altitudes. Now, look to the far right side of the chart. Notice that the F6F-5 is allowed 480 knots @ 3 g, but the F4U is restricted to 410 knots when loaded to 3 g..
I'm not an aeronautical engineer, I'm a mechanical engineer. That said, it seems to me that the F6F-5 has a considerably stronger airframe (or at least rated that way by the Navy) than the F4U, at least the way I'm reading these charts.
Back to NACA 829.... I only had time to read a portion of it. However, it appears that the CLmax for both aircraft drops dramatically if an actual service aircraft is tested, more so for the F4U. I suspect that recalculating turn index should be based upon the far lower CLmax of service aircraft, not those aircraft specifically prepared to test the "perfect" airplane.
(http://home.att.net/~historyworld/829-6.jpg)
I suspect that "real world" turn performance will be more accurately modeled on service aircraft.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Hellcat:aok
-
Originally posted by Widewing
Notice that the F6F-5 is allowed 480 knots @ 3 g, but the F4U is restricted to 410 knots when loaded to 3 g.
Actually, the F6F-5 is permitted 440 knots, not 480 knots. I plotted the F4U onto the F6F graph so you can better see the differences at various g loadings/speeds below 10,000 feet.
(http://home.att.net/~historyworld/F6FvsF4Uplot.jpg)
Can any of our aeronautical whizz-kids tell me why the F6F is permitted substantially higher speeds relative to g loading?
My regards,
Widewing
-
So do you concede that Dean's Clmax's are all off?
The NACA data and Dean's data don't match at all.
Also the charts I posted from the manuals are in IAS not CAS.
At 300Knots IAS the F4U requires you to add 8 knots.
At 300Knots IAS the F6F-5 with the later pitot tube configration requires that you subtract 2.5 knots.
Also the bounder layers established at lower speeds are stall limitations of the airframe, not limitations for tearing your wings off. The Grumman will not loose his wings if he exceeds 3G's at 150knots but he will enter the buffet boundery and begin to stall. That is obvious.
This fact can be supported by the SETP (Socioty of Experamental Test) when they tested the two aircraft in both 3G stall, high speed stalls and max performance 180 degree turns.
The Grumman was well underweight at 10,681LBS and the F4U was at 11,055lbs putting the Grumman well underweight by 500+lbs compared to the F4U. The P-51D weighed 8,900LBS and the P-47D40 weighed 11,535lbs.
Test 1
3G stalls at power degrading airspeed less than 1 knot per second.
F6F-5= 95Knots
F4U-1D= 98 Knots
P-47D-40= 109Knots
P-51D= 122knots
Test 2
Max G turns from V-Max at 10,000FT
F6F-5 reached light buffet at 6G while at lowest top speed of any aircraft tested.
P-47 reached light buffet at 4.8G and moderate buffet at 5.2G
P-51 and F4U had no buffet up to 6G max tested.
Test 3
Level 180 degree turn around at METO power (normal) 220Knots 10,000FT
P-51D= 10 seconds
F6F-5= 9.9 Seconds <== Worse than the P-47!!
P-47D= 9.7 Seconds
F4U= 8.5 seconds
None of these results show the F6F to be a super plane in the turning regime even when at a significantly reduced weight compared to it's competitors.
-
There is really only one way to settle all of this. It is for someone to buy me one F6F-5 and one F4U-1D. I will then test them both. I'll let F4UDOA and Widewing fly them, too.
-
Originally posted by F4UDOA
So do you concede that Dean's Clmax's are all off?
The NACA data and Dean's data don't match at all.
Also the charts I posted from the manuals are in IAS not CAS.
At 300Knots IAS the F4U requires you to add 8 knots.
At 300Knots IAS the F6F-5 with the later pitot tube configration requires that you subtract 2.5 knots.
Also the bounder layers established at lower speeds are stall limitations of the airframe, not limitations for tearing your wings off. The Grumman will not loose his wings if he exceeds 3G's at 150knots but he will enter the buffet boundery and begin to stall. That is obvious.
This fact can be supported by the SETP (Socioty of Experamental Test) when they tested the two aircraft in both 3G stall, high speed stalls and max performance 180 degree turns.
The Grumman was well underweight at 10,681LBS and the F4U was at 11,055lbs putting the Grumman well underweight by 500+lbs compared to the F4U. The P-51D weighed 8,900LBS and the P-47D40 weighed 11,535lbs.
Test 1
3G stalls at power degrading airspeed less than 1 knot per second.
F6F-5= 95Knots
F4U-1D= 98 Knots
P-47D-40= 109Knots
P-51D= 122knots
Test 2
Max G turns from V-Max at 10,000FT
F6F-5 reached light buffet at 6G while at lowest top speed of any aircraft tested.
P-47 reached light buffet at 4.8G and moderate buffet at 5.2G
P-51 and F4U had no buffet up to 6G max tested.
Test 3
Level 180 degree turn around at METO power (normal) 220Knots 10,000FT
P-51D= 10 seconds
F6F-5= 9.9 Seconds <== Worse than the P-47!!
P-47D= 9.7 Seconds
F4U= 8.5 seconds
None of these results show the F6F to be a super plane in the turning regime even when at a significantly reduced weight compared to it's competitors.
How about recalulating for NACA's 1.17 CLmax for the service F4U? Which, by the way, is a heck of a lot lower than Dean's or yours.
I'm also aware that the front side of the curve is not about structural limits, but the back side most certainly is. The back side says that the F4U was rated for lower speeds than the F6F for any given G loading on the airframe.
As to the SoETP symposium, I read their book several years ago, having borrowed it from Grumman test pilot Tom Gwynne. However, I don't have it now, so until I can compare it to what you've posted, I'm gonna view your comments in the same light as I did your previous comment about F4Us scoring better than the F6F in 1943, while evading the context that F6Fs only saw combat during the last 1/3rd of the year. Besides, if the P-47 is turning 180 degrees faster than the F6F and P-51, clearly there's something amiss in the test method or the aircraft or even the piloting. You know as well as I do that personal preferences and preconceived opinion will skew test results, and any test not managed by test engineers is little more than an exercise. Besides, you may be cherry-picking data, sort of a Crumppster in Blue. ;)
You are hanging your hat on a mighty sharp hook. I have never heard any pilot, who flew both the F6F and F4U, state that the F4U was better around the boat, or could out-turn the F6F. Not one. I spent more than a few years in Naval Aviation and have 332 traps to my credit. So, I know a few things about carrier aviation and the men who fly from them. I've chatted with many WWII vets. I've chatted with test pilots, in particular test pilots who worked for Grumman.
Universally, Japanese pilots feared the F6F more than the F4U. They have stated that the F6F could dogfight with them, while also stating that the F4U could not hope to.
The fact remains that the F6F, with not a great deal of help from the F4U, destroyed Japanese Naval aviation. Where the F6F encountered Japanese Army fighters, it was just as dominating. There's no doubt that the Hellcat was the most important fighter of the Pacific war. Anyone arguing otherwise is either misinformed, or being deliberately obtuse.
Does that make the F4U inferior? Not at all. Possessing somewhat different attributes, the F4U was a terrific fighter. Fast, excellent high-speed handling, decent turning and very rugged. But it was not better than the F6F at what both were designed to do; defend the fleet, escort the bombers and control the sky anywhere they flew.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Originally posted by Brooke
If you scale things to "index units" so that 139 m is 12.0 index units, the radius for the F4U-1D comes out to 18.5 (not the 25.4 listed in the book).
So, the F4U-1D has a much larger turning radius than the F6F-5, but not as much larger as listed by the "index units" measurement in the book.
Oops. The book has the F6F at 16.5 "index units" (not 12.0, which is what it listed for the FM-2). In that case, the F4U-1D by the above (not using CLmax, but just using the 3g stall speeds) does come out to be 25.4.
So, the book's numbers are correct if the 3 g stall speeds are correct, regardless of the CLmax's listed -- but not correct if the 3 g stall speeds are wrong, as pointed out by F4UDOA.
-
Thank you Brooke,
I am only asking that you consider the source.
Widewing,
It is funny you should Crummp me as you did because I was going to do the same with you.
When some facts fit your needs like the 3G stall speeds of the JFC you stick with it until the death but when I say that 60% to 30% of the pilots at that conferance chose the F4U as the best Navy fighter you say the conferance was a boonedogle and has no value. You wave the NACA report in my face as proof of your point without ever reading the report that confirms my opinion in the first place.
I know you have a long service career and I am also aware from my 4 years of service as an Avionics Tech that on ships and aircraft they like to say things like "God is in the Details". But you are not a detail guy. Detail is noticing IAS vrs CAS and Clmax numbers that are way out of line or bothering to read the report you are waving like a flagCrummp!!. Also you choose selected Japanese pilot annecdotes that are turely worthless to proove a point about detailed aircraft engineering.
No matter what my opinion or your opinion this arguement was settled by the Navy in 1945 when the F4U took over as the primary carrier fighter.
I truely enjoy this discussion because it has some great points of debate. But you have got to recognize that every independant body that has ever accomplished this test has settled in one direction and not the other.
-
lets not get low with name calling. I like both your postings and I'd hate to see you muted.
I think it is quite a wide spread opinion that from pure performance point of view the F4U had the edge over the F6F. Even if we neat pick the data we get the conclusion that at best, the F6F was equal to the F4U and not better.
In AH the F4U wins the contest hands down. Again, not that the F6F is bad, but the F4U is a little better.
However, the F6F had some advantages over the F4U in areas entirely un-related to fighting performance. Mentioned above were stall behaviour, deck operation, reliability, etc. Also, wasn't the F6F featuring a unique way of wing folding that saved a lot of storage space?
Since some of you are well versed in the navy history, can you please tell when was it decided and why the navy ordered so many more hellcats. Did they prefered it over the F4U because of these "little" things or was Grumann just able to produce and deliver what Vought couldn't? was it cheaper? Or was there some corruption and favoritism, a few bribes maybe... you know, juicy gossip :)
Bozon
-
Originally posted by F4UDOA
Widewing,
It is funny you should Crummp me as you did because I was going to do the same with you.
When some facts fit your needs like the 3G stall speeds of the JFC you stick with it until the death but when I say that 60% to 30% of the pilots at that conferance chose the F4U as the best Navy fighter you say the conferance was a boonedogle and has no value. You wave the NACA report in my face as proof of your point without ever reading the report that confirms my opinion in the first place.
I know you have a long service career and I am also aware from my 4 years of service as an Avionics Tech that on ships and aircraft they like to say things like "God is in the Details". But you are not a detail guy. Detail is noticing IAS vrs CAS and Clmax numbers that are way out of line or bothering to read the report you are waving like a flagCrummp!!. Also you choose selected Japanese pilot annecdotes that are turely worthless to proove a point about detailed aircraft engineering.
No matter what my opinion or your opinion this arguement was settled by the Navy in 1945 when the F4U took over as the primary carrier fighter.
I truely enjoy this discussion because it has some great points of debate. But you have got to recognize that every independant body that has ever accomplished this test has settled in one direction and not the other.
Let's clear the air a bit..
Fact: NACA 829 does not confirm your opinion. It states unequivocally that the F4U wing was an aerodynamic mess. A CLmax of 1.17 is a lot worse than 1.48.... Still notably inferior to the F6F.
Fact: The JFC was an perfect example of interservice and intercorporate rivalry. Opinions on any aircraft varied from pole to pole. It has little redeeming value beyond its novelty.
Fact: Your obvious obcession with the F4U blinds you to the fact that while it was a superb fighter, its complete absence would not have effected the outcome of the war whatsoever. However, that is not the case with the F6F. Without the Hellcat, the Navy would have had F4Fs on their carriers until 1945 as the Navy thought the F4U was not ready for CV duty. Would they have accepted it as is earlier? Maybe, but at what price in accidents? After being cleared for CV duty, its accident rate was much higher than the Hellcat's. Even as late as Korea, the F4U maintained its title of Barrier King, having a higher accident rate than the AD and even the F9F. To quote Capt. John McConnell, "When it came to carrier ops, the F6F instilled confidence in its pilots, whereas the F4U scared the crap out of them."
To quote from Naval Aviation Combat Statistics, page 37: "F6F operational loss rates were far lower than those for the FM and F4U." Note that the FMs flew from the very small decked CVEs. But even when flying from CVEs (Hellcats flew 5,426 combat sorties from CVEs), the F6F had a lower operational loss rate than the Wildcats. From that same document, page 58: "The F6F was slightly superior to the F4U in combat, apparently chiefly because of its greater ability to survive damage".
Here's their breakdown of kill ratios:
(http://home.att.net/~c.c.jordan/USNstatskillratios.jpg)
You have argued about "details". I'm familiar with the "details". Virtually every guided weapon in the US inventory has my hardware on it. Every air dropped weapon employing the FMU-139 or FMU-143 fuze has my hardware onboard. When I say "my" hardware, I mean exactly that. I designed these devices, developed them and our company manufactures them. I know about details... If my hardware malfunctions, good people die, but mastery of "details" permits six sigma reliability... and only bad guys die. So, don't lecture me about details or about engineering.
You're not really a detail guy, you are a, "fly crap in the pepper" guy. I'll wager you can't recognize the difference either.
We can quote tests till hell freezes over. They establish nothing. What does count is the combat record. In that regard, the F6F established itself as the best carrier fighter of the war. I will grant you that the late-war F4U-4 was considerably superior in performance... But, it was a new generation of fighter and would be joined by the F8F (in August of 1945), which was the superior fighter of the two, while the F4U-4 was the superior fighter-bomber. F4Us were not replacing Hellcats on carriers during the war, they were supplementing the F6F and replacing VB and VT squadrons. At the surrender, F6Fs still outnumbered the F4U aboard CVs, CVLs and CVEs.
You have made an argument that the F4U was superior to the F6F as a fighter. However, the combat record does not bear that out. Combat records show that in virtually every category of combat capability, reliability and efficiency, the F6F comes out ahead of the F4U. You can dig out "details" until they come out of your ears, but you cannot circumnavigate around the combat record.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Originally posted by F4UDOA
Also you choose selected Japanese pilot annecdotes that are turely worthless to proove a point about detailed aircraft engineering.
Just out of curiosity, why would you say this?
- oldman
-
Oldman,
Because I can dig out a pile of crap annecdotes from Allied and Axis pilots that say the same thing. If fact I can take them from the same books.
Except I can use names like Marion Carl, Butch O'Hare Donald Engan etc in my quotes along with the official Navy and Marine position on the subject and Widewing has to find some obscure Japanese pilot to make a point about "details" of aircraft design.
-
well nobody said that what enemies say about a plane shows detailed design specs. however, it's simply shows what a plane can do to a certain extent. i.e. a pilot flying a Bf109-E is less likely to fear a Gloster Gladiator more than a Spitfire Mk.IX. why? because he simply estimates and realizes that the Spit has better performance than the Gladiator. therefore, he fears the Spit more.
-
Widewing,
Fact: NACA 829 does not confirm your opinion. It states unequivocally that the F4U wing was an aerodynamic mess. A CLmax of 1.17 is a lot worse than 1.48.... Still notably inferior to the F6F.
I don't suppose it would surprise you if I told you that the 1.17Clmax is without a propellor installed? Of course you would had have to read the thing first. The Clmax is 1.48 with prop installed power off.
11,300lbs * 391 / 314 * 97.5^2
4418300 / 2984962.5
Clmax = 1.48 Power off clean condition from the POH
Also you said
Dean used NACA report 829 for CLmax data on the F6F and F4U... Are you saying NACA was wrong?
Wrong again huh? I guess Dean didn't use NACA data for the F6F or F4U after all.
Next
Fact: The JFC was an perfect example of interservice and intercorporate rivalry. Opinions on any aircraft varied from pole to pole. It has little redeeming value beyond its novelty.
That is not a fact it is your opinion. In your last quote you swore the Clmax numbers were facts too. I really enjoy listening to you call WW2 fighter conferances a "novelty". You also called the Navy's NAVAIR document on the F6F junk as well. Is there anything not written by Corkey Meyer or a Japanese pilot that will prove your point?
Next
You have argued about "details". I'm familiar with the "details". Virtually every guided weapon in the US inventory has my hardware on it. Every air dropped weapon employing the FMU-139 or FMU-143 fuze has my hardware onboard. When I say "my" hardware, I mean exactly that. I designed these devices, developed them and our company manufactures them. I know about details... If my hardware malfunctions, good people die, but mastery of "details" permits six sigma reliability... and only bad guys die. So, don't lecture me about details or about engineering.
Taking the ego out for a walk today:aok
Facts
Navy pilots on carriers claimed kill ratios in
FM-2 - 32 to 1 K/D
F6F - 20 to 1 K/D
F4U - 20 to 1 K/D
Navy pilots on land claimed
F6F - 5 to 1 K/D
F4U - 11 to 1 K/D
It would seem when placed against the same circumstances the combat records seem to balance out quite nicely.
Of course there is 1,000 claimed kills in Oct 1944 by Navy F6F pilots. Is that where the F6F was fighting the best the Japanese had to offer?
-
Originally posted by F4UDOA
Facts
Navy pilots on carriers claimed kill ratios in
FM-2 - 32 to 1 K/D
F6F - 20 to 1 K/D
F4U - 20 to 1 K/D
Navy pilots on land claimed
F6F - 5 to 1 K/D
F4U - 11 to 1 K/D
It would seem when placed against the same circumstances the combat records seem to balance out quite nicely.
Of course there is 1,000 claimed kills in Oct 1944 by Navy F6F pilots. Is that where the F6F was fighting the best the Japanese had to offer?
I know this, that during that October, Hellcats were not shooting down virtually defenseless Kamikazes, but enemy aircraft intent on shooting down the F6Fs. Between early April of '45 and the end of June '45, the vast majority of F4U air to air kills were Kamikazes. Indeed, the greatest danger to Corsairs from the Kamikaze was from colliding with them. Many aircraft used for suicide attacks had their guns removed....
You certainly like to parse your facts to create a false impression. I posted the Navy's Combat Summary... Their official accounting of Naval Aviation in WWII. Anything you may offer will be "adjusted" to suit your position, as evidenced by your last post and several others in this thread.
Here's some facts from the same document.
Total Action sorties by F4Us in WWII: 64,061, total air to air kills: 2,140.
Total Action Sorties by F6Fs in WWII: 66,530, total air to air kills: 5,153.
For the F4U, that's .0334 kills per sortie.
For the F6F, that's .0774 kills per sortie, better than twice what the F4U managed.
F4Us shot down 2,140 enemy aircraft for 189 losses to Japanese aircraft.
2140/189=11.32/1 kill to loss ratio.
F6Fs shot down 5,153 enemy aircraft against 270 losses to Japanese aircraft. 5,153/270=19.09/1 kill to loss ratio.
That's directly from the Official record and you can try to twist it, distort and parse it all day long, but those numbers stand. If you cannot accept that, then the problem isn't the numbers, it's between your ears.
By the way, those "obscure" Japanese pilots, total more than 90 victories between them... In Japan, they are as well known as Carl, O'Hare and Engan are in America. Just because you haven't heard of them doesn't mean they are unknown. If you wish to know which USAAF fighter was the best in the ETO, just ask the Luftwaffe pilots. The same thing is valid as concerns the PTO or SWPA, ask the Japanese.
So, despite your best efforts to fabricate combat data, the official combat record clearly shows that the F6F was the superior aircraft and even more significantly, the F6F was the single most important fighter in the Pacific war, either Navy, Marines or Air Corps.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Lets get 5 of the top F6 pilots to go 3 rounds against 5 of the top f4u pilots ( in AH). I think it would be a blast, and would prove absolutely nothing.
Balsy
-
WW,
Unless your arguement is kill totals you have not a leg to stand on.
Every (qualified) review board that has ever looked at these two A/C has taken only one position. The only thing that is "between my ears" are facts and you are using annecdotes and spinning what little information you can provide like a clown spinning plates on a stick.
Your information (which is factual)
Total Action sorties by F4Us in WWII: 64,061, total air to air kills: 2,140.
Total Action Sorties by F6Fs in WWII: 66,530, total air to air kills: 5,153.
For the F4U, that's .0334 kills per sortie.
For the F6F, that's .0774 kills per sortie, better than twice what the F4U managed.
F4Us shot down 2,140 enemy aircraft for 189 losses to Japanese aircraft.
2140/189=11.32/1 kill to loss ratio.
Follwed by this from the same report
Navy pilots on carriers claimed kill ratios in
FM-2 - 32 to 1 K/D
F6F - 20 to 1 K/D
F4U - 20 to 1 K/D
Navy pilots on land claimed
F6F - 5 to 1 K/D
F4U - 11 to 1 K/D
Why do you suppose the same Navy pilots that were so successful on ships were not on land?? And why is the same airplane on ships so much more succesful that on land? Could it be than shooting down untrained Kamikazee pilots is not as difficult as shooting down experianced pilots on the fortress Rabaul in the Solomons campaign?
Can you address this please.
And this
Total ordinance delivered in Tons
F4U - 15,621 Tons/ total losses from A/A= 553
F6F - 6.503 Tons/ Total Losses from A/A= 349
Also Total operational losses combined
F6F- 1638
F4U- 1086
So it looks like you beloved F6F was more accident prone that the F4U after all. How do you account fo this?
Here is some fodder for the new Widewing Flight simulator "Annnecdotes High"
Petty Officer Takeo Tanimizu
"P-38's at low altitude were easy prey. They were not very fast, so they usually stayed at higher altitudes. Then they'd swoop down on you fire and zoom up. Tou really had to be carefull and keep looking up. Their weakest spot was their tail. A 20MM hit and their tails would snap off. The only time you could shoot down a Sikorsky (F4U) was when it was fleeing. You had to shoot it froma certain angle (from the rear: high into the cockpit) otherwise the bullets would bounce off."
We will have to get HTC to fix that.
Also from "Aircraft Vs Aircraft" by Norman Franks.
"They (Japanese) considered the Corsair to be the top American combat fighter at any altitude , the P-38 lighting the best at highlevel and the later version of the P-40 Warhawk the best fighter at low altitude."
Maj General Marion Carl Grumman Ace and test pilot.
"The Corsair was a great mount, head and shoulders above it's contemporaries. An airplane like the Corsair only comes around occasionally. Today the Phantom is in the same category-the best flying machine of the time."
Do you think he forgot about the F6F??
Or maybe a famous P-38 pilot like Col. Rex T. Barber of Yamamoto fame.
Quote
"If the United States only had to pick one fighter/bomber to produce during the war, it should have been the Corsair".
-
In the overall picture, I think it is significant that the F4U prototype was in the air before the Battle of Britain. Much was learned about air combat between May 1940, and June of 1942. It seems to me that Grumman's design being later, was able to capitalize from the start on available combat information and avoid the problems of "catching up" that Vought had to deal with: changing armament and hence the location of fuel tanks, thus being forced to modify the airframe.
Excerpts from Greg Goebel's site
http://www.vectorsite.net/avf4u.html (http://www.vectorsite.net/avf4u.html)
F4U
On 1 February 1938, the US Navy issued a request for proposals for a new high-performance single-seat carrier-based fighter that would use the most powerful engine available at the time.
The US Navy ordered a prototype of the Vought design as the "XF4U-1" in June 1938. Armament was planned as two 7.62 millimeter (0.30 caliber) Browning machine guns in the top of the nose, and a single 12.7 millimeter (0.50 caliber) Browning machine gun in each wing, for a total of four guns
Vought engineers completed a full-scale mockup of the XF4U-1 in early 1939 for wind tunnel tests and Navy inspection. The initial flight of the prototype XF4U-1 was on 29 May 1940.
[The plane] demonstrated the design's performance on 1 October 1940, clocking 650 KPH (404 MPH). However, the promise of the type was balanced by continuing difficulties, including some clear handling problems, and the nasty tendency of the Double Wasp engine to catch on fire.
To compound the delays, reports coming back from the war in Europe indicated that an armament of two 7.62 millimeter and two 12.7 millimeter machine guns was too light, and so when the US Navy asked for production proposals in November 1940, heavier armament was specified. The twin 7.62 millimeter Brownings in the nose were eliminated and two 12.7 millimeter Brownings were fitted in each wing.
There was another troublesome consequence: putting all the guns in the wings meant eliminating wing fuel tankage, and so the forward fuselage was stretched by 45 centimeters (18 inches) to include a new self-sealing tank in the center of the fuselage. The fuel tank also meant moving the cockpit back by about 91 centimeters (3 feet), which made it hard for a pilot to see over the nose when taxiing, taking off, or landing. There would never be any way around the long nose, one pilot later recollecting that he used to tell himself after he lined up for the approach: "God, I hope there's nobody on that runway!"
* Formal naval acceptance trials for the XF4U-1 began in February 1941, and the initial Navy production order for 584 "F4U-1s" was placed on 30 June 1941. The type was given the name "Corsair", which had been the name of several prewar Vought aircraft. The first production F4U-1 performed its initial flight on 24 June 1942, once again with Boone Guyton at the controls.
The type quickly underwent a few more improvements, with the number of 12.7 millimeter Brownings in each wing increased to three, for a total of six; the addition of 70 kilograms (155 pounds) of armor around the cockpit and the oil tank, plus an armor glass windscreen and self-sealing fuel tanks; fit of shorter flaps and wider ailerons; and installation of an uprated R-2800-8 Double Wasp engine with a two-stage supercharger and 1,492 kW (2,000 HP) takeoff power to handle the aircraft's increased weight.
The US Navy received its first production F4U-1 on 31 July 1942, with carrier trials beginning on the USS SANGAMON on 25 September 1942.
http://www.vectorsite.net/avf6f.html (http://www.vectorsite.net/avf6f.html)
F6F
After performing wind-tunnel tests on a 16th-scale model, the US Navy ordered two G-50 prototypes on 30 June 1941. The first prototype, the "XF6F-1", was to be powered by a Wright R-2600-10 Cyclone air-cooled, two-row, 14-cylinder radial engine with 1,268 kW (1,700 HP), and the second, the "XF6F-2", was to be fitted with a turbocharged R-2600-16 Cyclone.
Feedback from the British, then flying the Wildcat against the Nazis, and from the US Navy suggested that a more powerful engine was required. The design team, led by Dick Hutton and under the overall direction of vice-president of engineering Bill Schwendler, settled on the Pratt & Whitney (P&W) R-2800 Double Wasp, an air-cooled, two-row, 18-cylinder radial engine in the 1,500 kW (2,000 HP) class. The R-2800 was to power both the Republic P-47 Thunderbolt and the Vought F4U Corsair, but both of these machines had been delayed, and so Grumman was able to get their hands on R-2800 engines.
The initial XF6F-1 "Hellcat" prototype flew on 26 June 1942 with the Cyclone engine and test pilot Bob Hall at the controls. However, the second prototype was actually completed as the "XF6F-3", with the bigger R-2800-10 engine. Hall performed the first flight of the XF6F-3 on 30 July 1942. He had to land the machine on a Long Island farm field on 17 August due to an engine failure.
The only major problem encountered during the test flights was tail flutter, which was fixed by reinforcing the rear fuselage. The lack of major snags was fortunate, since the XF6F-3 had already been ordered into production as the "F6F-3" on 23 May 1942, even before the first flight of the XF6F-1.
The first production F6F-3 performed its initial flight on 3 October 1942, and service deliveries of the type began in early 1943. Following carrier trials, in March 1943 the type reached operational status with Navy fighter squadron VF-9 on the carrier USS ESSEX, with the aircraft painted Navy blue topside and white on the bottom, the standard color scheme for the fighter through the war. Within nine months of the first flight of the production machine, 15 squadrons were equipped with the type. The Hellcat was primarily a Navy machine, the Marines generally preferring the more formidable but demanding F4U Corsair.
Best Regards,
Cement
-
well, i'll just say this because it's on my mind. many people believe that only the F6F-5N possessed the ability to carry 2 X 20mm cannon and 4 X .50 cals. however, according to Grumman (F6F Walkaround - Squadrons/Signals) ALL F6F-5's could carry the mixed armament although the 20mm cannon were only reserved for night fighter units. it would be great to see an F6F-5 fitted with the new gun combo in a next installment of AH. or maybe even an upgrade system in which the player chooses what parts to give to a plane after earning points.
-
Originally posted by F4UDOA
WW,
Unless your arguement is kill totals you have not a leg to stand on.
Your information (which is factual)
We know it's factual....
Follwed by this from the same report
Navy pilots on carriers claimed kill ratios in
FM-2 - 32 to 1 K/D
F6F - 20 to 1 K/D
F4U - 20 to 1 K/D
Navy pilots on land claimed
F6F - 5 to 1 K/D
F4U - 11 to 1 K/D
Why do you suppose the same Navy pilots that were so successful on ships were not on land?? And why is the same airplane on ships so much more succesful that on land? Could it be than shooting down untrained Kamikazee pilots is not as difficult as shooting down experianced pilots on the fortress Rabaul in the Solomons campaign?
Can you address this please.
[/b]
Easy to address...
First, here's the breakdown of kills by type and where operating from CV or land. It's broken down by year.
(http://home.att.net/~c.c.jordan/KillRatios.jpg)
As you can see, your numbers don't add up to what is shown here. It seems land based F6Fs did just as well or better than the F4Us. Note also that only a tiny precentage of F6Fs operated from shore bases. Also worth noting is that during 1945, the only period during which F6Fs and F4Us both operated from CVs, the F6F had a better kill ratio. Nice try though...
And this
Total ordinance delivered in Tons
F4U - 15,621 Tons/ total losses from A/A= 553
F6F - 6.503 Tons/ Total Losses from A/A= 349
[/b]
This chart shows that the vast majority of bomb tonnage dropped by F4Us were from land based Corsairs in support of ground troops. The land based F6Fs did likewise, with the ratio of bomb weight per sortie actually favoring the F6Fs. Ditto for rockets fired.
Carrier based F6Fs were assigned different missions, such as BARCAP, escort and only to a relatively limited degree, ground attack.
(http://home.att.net/~c.c.jordan/BombTrucks.jpg)
When operating from CVs, F4Us were more frequently used for attack missions, with the Hellcats assigned as escorts.
Also Total operational losses combined
F6F- 1638
F4U- 1086
So it looks like you beloved F6F was more accident prone that the F4U after all. How do you account fo this?
[/B]
Considering that the vast majority of combat sorties flown by F4Us were from land bases, I'd say that the F4U safety record was rather poor.
But, here you are parsing your data again, attempting to establish via trickery what is not in evidence.
I've already posted this earlier in the thread, but apparently you missed it. From Naval Aviation Combat Statistics, page 37: "F6F operational loss rates were far lower than those for the FM and F4U." But, don't let that fact inhibit your obsession.
How about losses overall, relative to the number of combat sorties flown.
(http://home.att.net/~c.c.jordan/LossRates.jpg)
Not even the ill-handling SB2C suffered a worse loss/sortie ratio than the F4U. I don't know why that is the case, but I suspect that because the F4U did a lot of ground attack, which is inherently dangerous, that this was a major factor.
Once again the combat records have established truth....
By the way, you may be surprised to know that I agree with Barber as to the F4U as being the universal choice for fighter-bomber. But for defending the fleet, the F6F was king, especially when the F4U didn't show up on carriers until the last months of the war.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Man, this thread is starting to get a little ugly. I'm finding myself a bunker.
-
Originally posted by Balsy
Lets get 5 of the top F6 pilots to go 3 rounds against 5 of the top f4u pilots ( in AH). I think it would be a blast, and would prove absolutely nothing.
Balsy
it would be FUN & ENTERTAINING!!! ;) ( I'll play referee/judge rofl )
-
Looking at the stats you are both providing, you are essentialy both doing the same thing, trying to prove that either the F4U or the F6F was the better fighter, which is not provable by those kinds of stats.
There are too many variables involved to say one was, or was not "better" or more succesfull. The opposition they faced, where they were deployed, the #s involved, the deployment schedules, the pilot experience, specific campaigns involved ect all throw too many unknowns into the mix, which is why its never really possible to quantify such things.
A clear example is the FM-2 in 1944. It had a period of very good kill-loss because of the specifics of anti-kamikaze and BARCAP work. Does that prove it was a "better" fighter? no, it does not. It proves it saw a lot of action is all. I doubt anybody in the USN said "lets replace our F6Fs and F4Us with FM-2s, look at these stats" in 1945.
Apples and oranges no matter how long you debate it. Stats will not tell you the whole story, ever. Thats the 1st thing you learn about stats.
Fact of the matter was, it probably made only a small difference wether a unit flew the F4U or F6F, it was all the other variables that made the difference. That doesn't sound as sexy, but its the truth.
-
Originally posted by Squire
Looking at the stats you are both providing, you are essentialy both doing the same thing, trying to prove that either the F4U or the F6F was the better fighter, which is not provable by those kinds of stats.
(Snipped)
Apples and oranges no matter how long you debate it. Stats will not tell you the whole story, ever. Thats the 1st thing you learn about stats.
Statisical analysis is how many things get proven. However, all statistics must be analyzed within the correct context.
We have the Navy's Combat Summary, which is a compilation of war-time data. It's an invaluable document because it establishes what was done and by which aircraft. Establishing the context is what I have been trying to do. Taking stats out of their context is a common method used to attempt proving something that wasn't.
Your example of the FM-2 is a good example. Late-war Wildcats were involved in both fleet protection and patrolling over invasion beaches or islands. With respect to BARCAP, they largely engaged suicide aircraft, and their limited escorts. Plus the number of Wildcats involved and the number of kills they obtained are relatively small. Small samples often tend to skew results. Even so, when you recognize the context, you also recognize that the results were dependent upon circumstances more than the quality of the Wildcat.
With the F4U and F6F we have a very large population in the samples. However, that portion of the sample where both types operated side by side aboard fleet CVs and CVLs has a substantially different context than the events prior to that time. Again, a great many of the fighter kills in 1945 were of suicide aircraft, which were essentially, defenseless. Thus we see a swelling of the kill to loss ratios corresponding to the quality of the opposition. Virtually any fighter will score well and lose few against an enemy that has no intention to fight, but rather tries to break through the CAP and dive into ships. So, I find that 1945 is not indicative of the fighting capability of the F4U vs the F6F (and certainly not for the FM-2). I believe you have to look at an earlier period, from middle-late 1943 through middle-late 1944 to establish what might be called "trends". The downside to this approach is that the F6F and F4U fought very different wars during this time frame.
To do an analysis of these planes with any hope of accuracy, you must apply the correct historical context. What should not be done is manipulate the data to establish facts that are not in evidence. Trying to win a debate at the expense of the truth is counter-productive. It is far more honest to simply post the Navy's analysis and draw conclusions based upon the historical context. Navy statisticians had no axe to grind.
We certainly cannot establish any absolutes reviewing the stats, but we can gain insight into what were the most important needs of the Navy and which aircraft came closest to completely fullfilling those needs.
My regards,
Widewing
-
How about we just say both the Fatcat and F4U made critical contributions to the war effort that, without EITHER of which, the war in the Pacific would have been a good deal harder for the Americans and call it a day?
I DO agree with FD on one thing, tho: I'd like to see bullets start bouncing harmlessly off my Corsair in the game! :p
-
Well I agree with that, any stats have to have a lot of context included, otherwise, they can be bent to anybodys desire.
I think the problem with debating the F6F and the F4U is that each type had both good and bad qualities, while being reasonably competative with each other. When you get two types that close, just as in the case of the Bf 109 and the Fw 190 series, it comes down to a subjective call. Each arguement can have a counter point, and there is no real way to definitively "prove" one was "better".
Same can be said for the 1940 Spit and Hurricane, they fought the BoB together, and you cant "undo" that. Which was really the "more effective" fighter? its been debated since, and I dare say it will never be "decided", stats alone will prove nothing defintively either...proponents for both will always have a point to counter with, and not unjustly so.
Also, the fact the F6F and F4U fought side by side in many campaigns, and really complemented each other, how do you then seperate that and do a fair comparison? its like baking a cake and then trying to get the original ingrediants back into the packages, its kinda hard to do. You cant "undo" what they did, and then view them as seperate. But, thats the hard part about looking at any one peice of hardware, no matter what, and always will be.
-
nice comment buddy! :aok this might end the debate once and for all. i do actually believe that, like the P-51, the F4U was a better overall fighter, but as a defense/dogfighter, like the Spitfire, the F6F was the king of the two.