Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: F4UDOA on July 21, 2006, 12:34:52 PM
-
The first page is almost identical to the current AH NAVAIR performance charts. Slightly better climb rate.
(http://home.comcast.net/~markw4/F4U-1DNAVAIR1.jpg)
The second side is the differance. 367MPH at sea level and 434MPH at 20K in the "Clean" condition.
(http://home.comcast.net/~markw4/F4U-1DNAVAIR.jpg)
-
Sweet. How would this compare to the true, late-model F4U-1A we\'re wanting added?
-
What they oughto add is the F-4u-7 the one that went to the French. That would be a monster! Perked of course like 35 to 40 points
-
When are we or are we ever goin to get this.
-
Thanks, F4UDOA! Most of us Corsair enthusiasts knew it and simply accepted the gameplay.
-
Thanks guys,
That being said the F4U-1D is a very fair representation of the -1D as I cannot porvide any proof that it ever flew combat missions without pylons.
However the F4U-1A post 1944 would have performed very simliarly to the 367 at seal level and 430MPH + at 20K. The one we have is a little short on HP and minus the paddle prop it doesn't climb nearly as well.
My hope is that we get an early war June 1943 F4U-1, F4U-1D and a 1944 F4U-1A. It would be the same as the FW190F8 and FW190A8. One is a fighter and one is a fighter bomber. They are the same airplane minus the extra drag.
Then the perk price of the F4U-4/-1C won't be an issue.
-
i really want that f4u1a, accel is to slow on the 1 model and the speed is slow on the d model.
i figure those hard points on the d model wouldnt kill the speed, 51d got 2 hard points and it aint slow.
-
Pony also doesn\'t have to contend with the drag of a radial engine.
-
yea but the corsair got 200 horse or so over the mustang. f4u1d SHOULD be able to get 200 in level flight.
I just want to see the f4u1a already.
-
HECK yeah.
-
hey for u f4u guys out there what was the type of f4u that that the black sheep flew in. is it the f4u1a or f4u1 or f4u1d which 1
-
I know later on they were in 1As, but I've seen a photo somewhere around here of Boyington in a -1.
Thing is, the F4U-1 and -1A are a bit tricky to differentiate because there was a pretty steady ongoing series of improvements in the -1, From what I've read, the USN/MC didn't originally note a difference in designation until LATER in the run. At either a certain BuNo or S/N I think they established that all prior Corsairs built with the bubble style canopy were -1As.
These are HYPOTHETICAL numbers, though I'm sure WW and DOA can come back with the ACTUAL ones, but let's say F4U-1 #1056 was the first produced with a bubble canopy. At this point, they were still designated as F4U-1s. However, at #1265 they decided that there were enough significant and common improvements being shared by ALL Corsairs beginning with #1056 to make for a seperate model, so they redesignated all those Corsairs ALREADY built and those still under construction as 1As. So basically, they back-dated the F4U-1A to #1056, even though they didn't actually come up with the differentiation until #1265.
Once again tho, that's what I've read about it. I'd wait for WW or DOA to have their go at it before accepting it as fact.
It gets a little more fun because as has been posted 'round here before, the F4U-1Cs weren't manufactured convenient block like the 1A and 1D. The 1Cs were drawn pretty much at random from under-construction 1A fuselages with reworked wings to mount the 20mm, so the S/Ns or BuNo for the 1Cs are sprinkled in with the 1A run.
-
Originally posted by bkbandit
yea but the corsair got 200 horse or so over the mustang. f4u1d SHOULD be able to get 200 in level flight.
I just want to see the f4u1a already.
i mean 400+mph.
I want the f4u1a, but at this point ill take a anything. I watch ww2 docs and theres some many holes in the plane set and huge gaps in the gv set. This is supposed to be a "flight sim" but certain planes are out of a job wit out anythin to kill on the ground, i mean a 110 would be useless if it was a pure air to air combat game. There so many planes and gvs missing.... where r they, r they even coming. This ct is soakin up all the time, it betteer change the way i play the game.
Im bearly playing the game at this point, i havent seen anythin new in so long. Its just getting boreing, im maybe 3 days away from canceling my sub, maybe ill rejoin when ct comes, if it ever comes.
-
Originally posted by ujustdied
hey for u f4u guys out there what was the type of f4u that that the black sheep flew in. is it the f4u1a or f4u1 or f4u1d which 1
VMF-214 flew the F4U-1, F4U-1A, FG-1A and F4U-1D over the course of their WWII operational history.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Originally posted by Saxman
I know later on they were in 1As, but I've seen a photo somewhere around here of Boyington in a -1.
Thing is, the F4U-1 and -1A are a bit tricky to differentiate because there was a pretty steady ongoing series of improvements in the -1, From what I've read, the USN/MC didn't originally note a difference in designation until LATER in the run. At either a certain BuNo or S/N I think they established that all prior Corsairs built with the bubble style canopy were -1As.
These are HYPOTHETICAL numbers, though I'm sure WW and DOA can come back with the ACTUAL ones, but let's say F4U-1 #1056 was the first produced with a bubble canopy. At this point, they were still designated as F4U-1s. However, at #1265 they decided that there were enough significant and common improvements being shared by ALL Corsairs beginning with #1056 to make for a seperate model, so they redesignated all those Corsairs ALREADY built and those still under construction as 1As. So basically, they back-dated the F4U-1A to #1056, even though they didn't actually come up with the differentiation until #1265.
Once again tho, that's what I've read about it. I'd wait for WW or DOA to have their go at it before accepting it as fact.
It gets a little more fun because as has been posted 'round here before, the F4U-1Cs weren't manufactured convenient block like the 1A and 1D. The 1Cs were drawn pretty much at random from under-construction 1A fuselages with reworked wings to mount the 20mm, so the S/Ns or BuNo for the 1Cs are sprinkled in with the 1A run.
From what I have been able to determine, the F4U-1A designation was never officially adopted by the Navy. I can trace bureau numbers as to where the improved "1A" entered production, but the type was built by Vought, Goodyear, and Brewster. That complicates things a bit. For example: The F4U-1A, FG-1A and F3A-1 were all built to the same configuration.
Here's the typical mess involved.
F4U-1A: S/Ns 17456 thru 18121; 49660 thru 50359; 55784 thru 56483
FG-1A: S/Ns 12992 thru 14685; 76139 thru 76148
F3A-1: 04515 thru 04774; 08550 thru 08797; 11067 thru 11293
F4U-1Cs consisted of 10 batches of serial numbers plucked from those assigned to the F4U-1A and the F4U-1D. Organizing these into something coherent could take all day. During the war, the Navy's serial number organization was a nightmare.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Woo! I was partly right. :D
-
In addition to what WW and Saxman said, all the F4U squads based out of Munda like VMF-221 and VMF-214 shared their aircraft, they didnt have separate planes for each squad. Officially on paper they had certain BuNo aircraft assigned to squads, but once out in the field they shared them because of the difficulty of operating out of those outlying bases. Often they used the healthy pilots from several squads and put them in whatever aircraft were up and working to fill out mission requirements.
-
First I've heard about that, but I did know that while pilots had an individual aircraft "assigned" to them it wasn't like with the 8th AF where it was THEIR plane. The USN and MC drew lots to see who flew which plane on a sortie, or would grab whatever happened to be available.
-
Its still like that now, at least in the USMC. My Dad was CO of 214 from '85-'87 and all the A-4's had pilot names on them, but they were randomly assigned according to which ones were operational.
-
My personal favorite is Ken Walsh of the VMF-124. He arrived on station in Feb. 1943 and was an ace by May of that year. By the end of August 1943 he had 20 kills most of which were in strictly the F4U-1 with no bubble canopy and no water injection. I would like to see his marking in AH.
The actual changes to the F4U-1 to -1A were made slowly in the field and as they could be made in the factory when parts were available. you can see pictures of the Blacksheep in Late 1943 with birdcage and bubble canopies. The paddle props were not used until early 1944 and engine changes were constant. Technically there is no such thing as an F4U-1A, just modeifed -1's.
I actually saw letters in the archives of pilots complaining that the bubble canopies slowed the airplanes compared to the birdcage so some of those planes may not have been modifed intentionally.
-
I'd just like to see more F4U skins PERIOD. Everything's a Spit or a Mustang. :p
For those who aren't familiar with the markings I did a search of Ken Walsh and I came up with markings for the -1, -1D (should be 1A?), -4
(http://home1.gte.net/konman/Walsh.jpg)
(http://img282.imageshack.us/img282/1721/ta2005aug14006large6dv.jpg)
I always liked the blue-gray on gray early-war markings.
FG-1D with his markings from VMF-214. Should this really be a 1A?
(http://www.war-bird.com/images/FG-1D5.JPG)
The bottom one is credited as Ken Walsh's F4U-4 from Okinawa.
(http://modelingmadness.com/scotts/decals/aero/am48694a.jpg)
Real plane carrying the same markings from the other side.
(http://www.f4ucorsair.com/legends/NX6667.jpg)
-
wat game is that?
-
No clue. I just put "Ken Walsh F4U-1" into Yahoo and looked at what came up. Pretty tho, ain't it?
-
it just sucks that almost every game is prettyier then aces high:lol
-
Il-2 is real pretty but the FM is horrible IMHO. I think IL-2 Pac fighters was an afterthought.
I like the variety of AH but Saxman is right. Like most WW2 simms the P-51, Spit, 109 and 190 get most of the attention as far as skins and artwork and the rest come later.
FYI, I said I would like to see Walsh's A/C markings in AH. I would much prefer to see the actual A/C modeled more so than just the paint.
-
Well, as of right now the only one that's really missing is the 1A (I'm thinking that's what that FG-1D is SUPPOSED to be. IIRC the USN/MC stopped using the red-bordered national ensign in late 1943/early 1944).
Or are you referring to updated models?
-
Saxman,
I actually want to split the current F4U-1A into two peices.
1. F4U-1 May 1943, No ADI, Birdcage canopy and no stall fix.
2. F4U-1A May 1944. 2250HP ADI, Bubble canopy, paddle prop with bars and no pylons for external stores. 367MPH on the deck, 430MPH at 23K no perkies IE priceless.
Every F4U-1/FG-1 in theater at the time would have been retro-fitted at that time and there was at least a thousand of them. It certainly would have been more common than the 109K, G14, KI-84 and F4U-1C.
-
now that i think about it we might get f4u1a, i mean they added spit16 and we already had 20 other spit fire models in the hanger.
-
Agh! Stop making me drool DOA, my keyboard is gonna short out. :(
-
Just a side thought....who hard do they run the engines of the still flying warbirds? Not counting the reno air races ;)
-
I think everyone has there own rules in regard to max MAP.
Just go to any WW2 airshow and you can see the differance in pilots in similar aircraft. I have seen multple P-51D's at the same show and one was being flown like a baby stroller and the other one (Nervous Energy) was just flown like a beast. There must have been 100 MPH differance between the two aircraft.
Dale Snodgrass flys his F4U-5 like he is on a combat mission and some guys act like they are flying Cessna's.
-
Probably depends on who has no financial trouble with keeping a spare engine ready. ;)
-
Originally posted by Toad
Probably depends on who has no financial trouble with keeping a spare engine ready. ;)
How long will a R2800 last if you push it to what it did during wartime?
Then what? A 50K rebuild?
-
I think the fact that a lot of those engines are still operating after 60 years is a pretty strong testament to just how rugged they are.
-
yes to run after 60 years tell u wat its made out of.
Why the hell cant my sbc do the same?
-
i wonder how many original parts are in a modern R-2800?
-
What IS a "modern" R2800?
-
an F4u flying around today, how many original parts are in the engine?
can you just swap in a new cylinder or other part when you need to like in an 0-360?
is an R-2800 flying around today a collectional of replacement parts, all original or something in between?
-
AFAIK, as the engine itself is no longer in production any replacement parts would have to be scavenged (so while not original to the engine, certainly at least 50-60 years old) or custom-fabricated.
-
Originally posted by Saxman
AFAIK, as the engine itself is no longer in production any replacement parts would have to be scavenged (so while not original to the engine, certainly at least 50-60 years old) or custom-fabricated.
To add to this. Certain parts of an aircraft engine typically wont break, unless you're a sadist in the cockpit and/or your P-mechanic doesnt have a clue. Cylinder heads, crank case, and most of the other milled or cast parts not directly exposed to combustion tend to last a while.
Cranks and piston rods (master and articulated rods in radials) tend to go a bit more easily, but also seem to be a much more easily fabricated part. Pistons are the same. Cylinders on air-cooled aviation engines are also easy to fabricate (compared to a similar feat on, say, a water-cooled automotive engine), with the only complicated part being the construction of the sleeve and fins that are basicly heat-shrunk around the steel cylinder. A water-cooling aviation engine (IE a Merlin) would have a bit more trouble, due to a more complicated cylinder design once you get outside the steel cylinder wall. But I cant say for certain, as I've never torn one apart before.
-
can somebody get the speed numbers for the corsair(not the ah ones) every time i see corsair on tv it claims speeds of 405 plus, i never seen one slower, and how about some accel speeds, f4u feels neutered compared to what i see and read. alot of sites i read see that f4u was better then the p51d, i mean the f4u was still being built well after ww2.
-
Hey DOA, I checked out Pacific Fighters (I needed a PTO offline sim to play) and I have to agree with you about the FM.
SOME stuff I liked: like the much more complex engine management, being able to open the canopy, and DEFINATELY the graphics, but Jeebus! Actually CONTROLLING the plane alone is unbelievable, to say NOTHING about combat (no such thing as minor twitches to correct aim. The plane either reacts a lot, or reacts a TON to even small control inputs. I can't see where I'm shooting because their tracers may as well be invisible. For that matter, it's almost impossible to make out aircraft at long distances (AH handles that rendering FAR better).
Now THIS is my idea of a perfect sim: Combine our general flight model (fixing the known issues) with the Pac Fighters visuals and increased complexity
-
Saxman,
I wish I could have saved you some money. Here are my top complaints about IL Pac.
1. I cannot reach the max speed of the F4U-1D or -1A by at least 10MPH. I have closed intercoolers, cowl flaps and trimmed for hands off. In fact I cannot catch the P-39 and other slower aircraft in offline play. Very strange.
2. Also the gun shake moves the (12,000LBS) F4U like a rag doll even at speed.
3. The stall speeds are unbelievable. Between 15MPH to 25MPH high depending on flap configuration.
4. The rear view is non existant. Worse than WB, there is simply no evidense to support this anywhere I have seen. Even the P-51 is poor to the rear. It does have a rear view mirror but it does not even come close to being sufficient or realistic.
5. The R-2800 overheats in about 1or 2 minutes of mil power and less of ADI despite the fact that the F4U-1D had a mil power rating of 30 minutes.
It seems to me that this game is extremely slanted toward VVS and Luftwaffe AC. The PAC theater was a throw in to add more pretty targets.
-
PF's sounds are pretty poor, too. Engines are weak, flap/gear sounds are pretty generic, and their Browning .50 doesn't even SOUND like a Ma Deuce.
I also noticed the F4U just can't outrun a Zeke in a dive, and Zeros don't show any sign of control stiffness or wing rip in high-speed dives. Zekes will out-zoom her, too, which that just can't be right.
A LOT of this is all stuff that could be easily fixed with a patch. They've released a bunch already, so I don't see why they can't issue a fix to address these problems.
The other thing is, since EVERYONE puts their focus on the European Theater there's hardly anything even OUT there for the Pacific. The only PTO sims I've seen the last couple years was Microshaft's CFS2, PF, and that arcade shooter piece of crap Heroes of the Pacific.
Someone needs to resurrect Dynamix FAST so they can make Aces of the Pacific II.
-
the stock sounds suck here too, waffles sound pack is way better.
-
At least here we can change them. PacFighters I'm stuck with an F4U that sounds like Toad's engine on Super Mario Kart
-
we shouldnt have to waffle sounds should be the stock sounds for the game, our at least be offered right on the site.
im lookin, i know corsair didnt accel that slow, but then again theres no wind in m/a. i have flown f4u1d in a rooms wit lite wind and the thing flys like its supposed to, 400+ mph and didnt take all do to get to it niether. how do it fly in pacific fighters?
-
BkBandit,
Check my top 5 list of horrible things wrong with the F4U in PAC Fighters.
1. I cannot reach the max speed of the F4U-1D or -1A by at least 10MPH. I have closed intercoolers, cowl flaps and trimmed for hands off. In fact I cannot catch the P-39 and other slower aircraft in offline play. Very strange.
2. Also the gun shake moves the (12,000LBS) F4U like a rag doll even at speed.
3. The stall speeds are unbelievable. Between 15MPH to 25MPH high depending on flap configuration.
4. The rear view is non existant. Worse than WB, there is simply no evidense to support this anywhere I have seen. Even the P-51 is poor to the rear. It does have a rear view mirror but it does not even come close to being sufficient or realistic.
5. The R-2800 overheats in about 1or 2 minutes of mil power and less of ADI despite the fact that the F4U-1D had a mil power rating of 30 minutes.
-
Add on that she can neither dive away from or zoom climb out on a Zeke. Turning up the filtering helped with the "All or nothing" control input, though.
Like I said: It COULD still be a great game if only they'd FIX things.
-
The funny thing I actually know a guy who is a moderator on the Il-2 boards and says he is a friend of Oleg's. I told him his "game" is a POS.
He swears NASA designed the software so it must be right:rofl
I think not.
-
Well, maybe for the general overall flight dynamics, but certainly not the F4U specifically.
Oh BTW DOA, think you'll like this:
(http://saxman.xwlegacy.net/AcesHigh/White-13/White-13.png)
And in case HTC needs any more reason to add the 1A, just IMAGINE all the VF-17, (I've seen decals for at LEAST as many as TEN different Jolly Rogers 1As) VMF-214 and so on and so on skins that could be done!
-
is there any black and white accel data out there? the hell cat(which is niether small or lite) will out accel f4u, does that make any sense or is this is how its supposed to be.
-
BkBandit,
I don't think there is anyway the F6F would accelerate faster than the F4U for a variety of reasons. In fact I have never seen anything to show that the F6F could outclimb the F4U other than the charts in AH.
It was heavier, had more drag and in side by side test it did not. Only in the Grumman test reports does this occur. Based on that I don't see how this could be possible.
-
I think i remember reading in The Jolly Rogers that they tried out a Hellcat's prop on their F4Us & the performance boost was significant...
-
Debonair,
Really? Where did you read that? I know that the F4U-1 did switch to the F6F's prop blade but I never heard of the Jolly Rogers doing any testing. The actual change took place in early 1944.
Even prior to that the F4U was out climbing the F6F though. You can check that in two places. The first being the F6F/F4U vrs the FW190A-5. The F4U was superior to the F6F at all speeds tested in climb despite having the older style 13'4" toothpick prop. Also in Butch O'Hare's memiors he references a squadron climb contest between the F4U and F6F. He mentions taking the bet in his F6F squadron despite the fact that it was "known" that the F4U was superior in that regard.
-
now that i think about it harder, it could have been in another book.
i'm not with my library right now, but i'll find the book that it has to be if it aint The Jolly Rogers.
...now i m teh concentrating on my memory of all of my books:huh :huh :mad: :mad: :O :D :cool: ....
Think maybe it is in Hell in the Heavens
(http://www.scuttlebuttsmallchow.com/hellheaven.jpg)
all i remember is something about F4Us swaping in smaller props from F6Fs & having a performance boost
-
Originally posted by F4UDOA
BkBandit,
I don't think there is anyway the F6F would accelerate faster than the F4U for a variety of reasons. In fact I have never seen anything to show that the F6F could outclimb the F4U other than the charts in AH.
It was heavier, had more drag and in side by side test it did not. Only in the Grumman test reports does this occur. Based on that I don't see how this could be possible.
Within the game, F4U-1s and the Hellcat accelerate at very much the same rate. Typically, time required to accelerate from 150 mph to 250 mph at sea level, is as follows, in seconds:
All at 25% fuel...
F6F-5: 25.14
F4U-1: 28.69
F4U-1C: 25.59
F4U-1D: 24.56
F4U-4: 20.69
The F4U-4 is the hotrod of the bunch, but it carries less fuel at 25% than the others.
In terms of climb, the F4U-4 wins easily. I find that the F6F-5 has a slight advantage over the F4U-1D (about 300 fpm), which increases to about 500 fpm over the F4U-1. Entering a climb from sea level at 250 mph, the F6F-5 gets to 5,000 feet in 1:43.47 minutes. The F4U-1D requires 1:53.31 minutes.
Several other categories have been measured, beyond the common tests that show the F4Us are all faster in max speed at all altitudes. Most of us who have researched these aircraft recognize that the F6F is at least 20 mph slower than real word test data (TAIC and Grumman) indicates. That, however, is still is not enough to exceed the F4Us.
Dive testing reveals that both the F6F and the F4U types can all exceed 600 mph in a long dive. However, the F6F, for some unknown reason, doesn't lock up as early as the F4Us. Indeed, at extreme speeds, the F6F maneuvers very well at 600 mph. Meanwhile, 190s, P-51s and Spitfires are completely out of control. The F4Us are also superior to those above at very high speeds, but still lock-up before the Hellcat. Dive tests were performed with combat trim on.
Minimum turn radius has been tested extensively since the last update. All of the F4Us turn very small circles, with the F4U-1, F4U-1D and F4U-4 being so close together as to be called even (between 424 and 430 feet). Due to the added weight of four Hispanos and a big ammo load, the F4U-1C lags behind those at around 445 feet. Right there with the F4Us is the F6F-5 at 430 feet. Again, virtually no difference in turn radius.
Turn rate is just as important as turn radius, and in a sustained turn, it is often more important. In terms of turn rate, the F4Us typically manage from the 19.4 degrees per second for the least powerful F4U-1, up to 19.8 degrees per second for the high output F4U-4. The Dhog comes in between those two. Once again, the heavier Chog trails behind at around 18.8 degrees per second. It's in a sustained turn where the F6F-5 shows some measurable superiority. Its turn rate at minumum radius is close to 21 degrees per second. In a left-hand lufberry, the F6F will chase the F4U around the circle gaining on every turn. Eventually, it will catch the F4Us from behind. The Hellcat gets around a circle nearly 1.5 seconds faster than the F4U-1D when both are turning left with full flaps deployed. While this advantage is measurable, it is not big by any stretch.
The ability of the pilot to obtain maximum turn rate will absolutely make a greater difference than that displayed in the above example. Any two pilots can get differing results. However, that difference will invariably be towards the negative as the best each aircraft can do has been well defined by testing performed by several very able pilots; who with few exceptions, have generated data that correlates closely. We use the same methodology. The only known differences are in hardware, such as flight controllers. Typically, guys testing with CH Products hardware get slightly better results. This is certainly due to added precision of the CH hardware, resulting in more precise control of aircraft. Precision is everything when exploring the absolute limits of any aircraft modeled in the game.
Prior to the revised drag model, the F6F was too unstable to compete with the F4Us in turning tiny circles. Now it matches their turn radius and gets around those circles faster.
Zoom climbs: Few fighters zoom climb as well as the F4Us and F6F. In a straight climb, the F4U-1D and F6F-5 cannot match a P-38J. In a pure zoom climb, the F4U-1D does match the P-38J. Some bad news for PJ jocks... Our F6F-5 exceeds the P-38J in a pure zoom. In a side-by-side test between a P-38J and the F6F-5, the Hellcat consistently climbed 300 to 400 feet higher in a near vertical zoom. Both aircraft began the zoom at 300 mph.
Any offline tests were verified by flying the aircraft mentioned against each other in the TA. No noobs were flying these aircraft. All were veterans with some surely considered top-rank and who specialize in their type of fighter.
In conclusion, there's no doubt in my mind that the F4U-4 is the best prop fighter in the game. The Chog is not as capable a dogfighter as the other Hogs, but this is more than made up for in firepower. Our F4U-1 is agile and fast, but it is not as quite as good in the vertical as the Dhog and falls behind in acceleration. Of all the -1 versions of the Corsair, the F4U-1D is the most balanced in terms of handling and performance. In comparision, the F6F-5 is very much the equal of the F4U-1D. It (the Hellcat) has a slower unassisted rate of roll (using rudder greatly speeds up roll rate). It gives up a little bit in acceleration. It cannot chase down a Co-E hog. On the other hand, it can match the F4Us in turn radius, and has a faster turn rate. Stability just above a stall is superior to the F4Us, with a more effective rudder and ailerons at very low speeds. It climbs better than any -1 version of the Hog. When comparing the F4U-1D to the F6F-5, they are so close as to make pilot skill the biggest factor in determining the outcome.
I fly both and do not favor one over the other as a matter of taste. If limited to just these two types, I'd make my selection based upon what I expect to be doing. If I expect to encounter a crowd of enemy between bases, I'd take the F4U for its better speed. Fighting defensively, protecting a base, I would select the F6F for its edge in agility and ability to get to altitude faster. But, if I really want to have an advantage over the enemy, the F4U-4 is virtually without peer.
My regards,
Widewing
-
i just figured(and have seen on televison) that the f4u1d would hit 400mph+ and wouldnt take 20 minuties to got pass 360.i have played in rooms wit slight wind and have got 400+ at alt, is thats whats missing.
its hard for me to pick between hellcat and corsair. it depends on the mood of the day for me, but when i get into a slump hellcat is the one that gets me out of it.
-
The P&Ws Wasps & the Wright Cyclones had a time between overhaul approaching 1,000 hours by the end of WW2. This was a signficant multiple over nearly any other engine at that time. There were Russian engines that were not expected to make 100 hours before overhaul.
That said, if you ran one of these at military power for an extended period (30 minutes let's say), the mechanics were going to have to take a very good look at it on the ground. That is especially true if you exceeded the maximum cylinder head temperature as the aluminum heads would lose their strength and valves might lose their seal.
Nice thread F4u
-Blogs
Originally posted by zorstorer
How long will a R2800 last if you push it to what it did during wartime?
Then what? A 50K rebuild?
-
Originally posted by F4UDOA
Thanks guys,
That being said the F4U-1D is a very fair representation of the -1D as I cannot porvide any proof that it ever flew combat missions without pylons.
I have been wondering about this myself. I have seen restored versions of the -1D both with and without pylons, and wondered if they actually flew missions without them (as pure fighters). Something I'd like to know, just for curiousity's sake.
-
A big question i have now is, simply f6f vs f4u.
In real life f4u is supposed to be better in all performance specs, but in ah i dont see it that way, last tour i spent all my time in f4u, this tour i have spent all my time in f6f. Its not a dragster but it doesnt take years to build up ur e to fight, and for some reason f4u feels like it bleeds e like a bastard, f6f i have took through rolls loops twist and turns and after im done i dont feel like a collected a bunch of rocks on the plane. 10k is my average alt and u would figure f4u shines but it doesnt, takes longer to get up there and to build speed. The thing that corsair has hands down is roll rate, but that comes wit speed, and the ability to drop the landin gears for brakes, but then its a pain to get the e back. THe accel couldnt have been that bad in ww2, jezz its freakin terrible, its faster but u can never hit the speed u need. They carry the same bomb and rocket load,same guns and ammo, the difference would be in the drop tanks but f6f carrys more inside then f4u. Im no expert but this is just what i have noticed.
p51b has been a pleasant surprise, if it had 2 more extra guns(i noe it would wieght it down some) it would be hard to convince me to get into the 51d. Wasnt the 51b supposed to be slow up top, i didnt notice it slow at all.
-
bkbandit,
I don't know if it is a lack of F4U-1 performance in AH2 or that the F6F is overmodeled. All radials will bleed E faster than their inline counterparts but side by side the F4U should acclerate faster than the F6F. It is a cleaner airplane and all things being equal it should accelerate faster and blled E slower.
The F6F in AH is slightly overmodeled in two areas.
1. I have enough testing from Navy/NAVAIR, British or TAIC testing and nothing is close to our F6F-5. The only thing I have seen that points to the climb rate we have is a Grumman report based on calculation and not flight test.
2. Flaps, the F6F did not have deployable multiposition flaps as did the F4U. It had electronic flaps that took longer to deploy and they could only be deployed at 50 degrees and then auto retract to lesser deflections. You could not deploy 10 or 20 degress at a time, it simply was not possible from the cockpit as there was only a one position switch, either up or down.
Check either report of side by side test of the A6M5 or FW190A5 and neither shows the F6F we have. The F4U-1/1D on the other hand is a pretty fair representation I would say.
-
yea since its a cleaner plane i figured accel would be alot faster but its not, its HORRIBLE. The only time remember corsair flyin and feeling powerful, fast, like i have read and seen in books and in tv is when we had wind on in this 8 player room. It wasnt even a alot maybe a 5 mph breeze.
IM goin to have to rock my slightly over modeled f6f cause that f4u lacks.
-
Originally posted by bkbandit
A big question i have now is, simply f6f vs f4u.
p51b has been a pleasant surprise, if it had 2 more extra guns(i noe it would wieght it down some) it would be hard to convince me to get into the 51d. Wasnt the 51b supposed to be slow up top, i didnt notice it slow at all.
The B is faster than D from about 14k to 19k then 27k to 30K+
The B has a faster top speed overall.
Bronk
-
While what you say is certainly true, I have just seen an actual flight test video where the pilot shows how the flaps achieve variable position as a simple function of airspeed.
Now that doesn't mean these are combat flaps the way we use them in the game.
-blogs
Originally posted by F4UDOA
bkbandit,
... 2. Flaps, the F6F did not have deployable multiposition flaps as did the F4U. It had electronic flaps that took longer to deploy and they could only be deployed at 50 degrees and then auto retract to lesser deflections. You could not deploy 10 or 20 degress at a time, it simply was not possible from the cockpit as there was only a one position switch, either up or down. ...
-
I thought I remember reading somewhere that the F6F's flaps were spring-controlled, so that if the pilot set them to the "down" position, they would automatically retract/deploy dependent on airspeed. While not automatic flaps per SE, it functioned in much the same way.
-
Originally posted by F4UDOA
2. Flaps, the F6F did not have deployable multiposition flaps as did the F4U. It had electronic flaps that took longer to deploy and they could only be deployed at 50 degrees and then auto retract to lesser deflections. You could not deploy 10 or 20 degress at a time, it simply was not possible from the cockpit as there was only a one position switch, either up or down.
F6Fs did not have electric flaps. The flaps were hydraulic, and the control valve was operated by a servo motor. Using manual override, flaps could be positioned at any point between full up and full down. Using the servo motor, you had two positions. The flaps would blow back up in relation to the aero loading related to speed. Tom Gwynne says that they would not fully blow up until speeds exceeded 300 TAS. (a quick edit: Manual Override was not especially easy to operate, thus a pilot had better practice using it. The valve applied pressure to the actuators for as long as the spring-loaded lever was depressed)
Our F6F-5 climbs more like the F6F-3. It should be slightly inferior to the F4U-1D, but is actually slightly better. However, the difference either way is not usually sigificant. Overall, the AH2 F6F seems like an amalgam of the two models. I'd rather have both, accurately represented.
As to drag and max speeds, the TAIC test presents a max speed for the F4U-1D as 413 mph @ 20,400 feet. This same test shows the F6F-5 as doing 409 mph @ 21,600 feet. With only 4 mph to differentiate between the two, drag differences cannot be substantial. Indeed, a good washing can gain 4 mph....
My regards,
Widewing
-
Here is a little snip of an artical that describes a WW2 pilots point of view of the F6F-5 and F4U-1. He is discribing the use of flaps on the two A/C.
With flaps full down (50 degrees), I moved the throttle forward and started to roll. First thing I noticed was engine noise. Much louder than the F4U. Also, I was not gaining speed as fast (due to having to use full flaps. In the bent-- wing we only used 20 or 30 degrees). That in itself was probably the biggest difference in the two planes taking off from a runway. On a carrier, both planes needed 50 degrees.
The Corsair had hydraulic flaps that could be lowered ten degrees at a time down to 50 degress. The F6F had electric flaps that were either full up or full down under 200 knots IAS (Indicated Air Speed). Over 200 knots IAS, the flaps would blow up on both planes. However, on the F4U they moved faster. I always felt that the F6F would have been a better plane if it had the hydraulic arrangement.
The whole article can be found here.
The Big Swtch (http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3901/is_200106/ai_n8996048)
The TAIC report is actually great proof of my point about the climb of the F6F-5 compared to the F4U-1D. Even in a test where the F6F-5 performs well ahead of any other F6F speed it still is out climbed by the F4U-1D by anywhere from 500FT to 750FT per minute.
The FW190 test is an F6F-3 that does 390MPH and the F4U-1D out climbs it too. And that F4U-1D did not have the high activity prop (Paddle prop) and it was still superior in climb and acceleration.
-
The flaps were hydraulic, but the switches (other than the overide) were electric...
-blogs
Originally posted by Widewing
F6Fs did not have electric flaps. . .
Widewing
-
Indeed,
For whatever reason they were slower to deploy.
-
50 degrees of flap for takeoff is a big surprise.
I've never met a plane where the flaps add much more than drag over 25 degrees.
i've also never taken off from a CV where you just about always get a 40kt breeze to T/O into
-
Yea i would like to see both the f6f-3 and the f6f-5 done correctly, but until then ill just run the current model. wit black and white proof of performance ah needs to go back in an adjust it. I want all the planes to be accurately represents.
-
Shh! bk! You'll just make the Hurri dweebs angry!
-
Originally posted by Debonair
50 degrees of flap for takeoff is a big surprise.
I've never met a plane where the flaps add much more than drag over 25 degrees.
i've also never taken off from a CV where you just about always get a 40kt breeze to T/O into
I have no idea why that guy used 50% flaps as the manual states that no flaps are required for field takeoffs. I suspect he didn't read the NATOPs very thoroughly before going flying. He certainly did not know how the system operated, or perhaps simply didn't understand how it operated.
My regards,
Widewing
-
I have no idea why that guy used 50% flaps as the manual states that no flaps are required for field takeoffs. I suspect he didn't read the NATOPs very thoroughly before going flying. He certainly did not know how the system operated, or perhaps simply didn't understand how it operated.
Maybe they had a short runway to fly off of? Maybe it was base practice to takeoff with flaps. In any event it shows some of the differences between the two A/C that you might not read from Corky Meyer.
I happened to have the magazine in which this artical was printed. The pilot goes on to list several positive and negative factors for each airplane. This is not in the online article for whatever reason.
Air Classics Volume 37 number 6
The pilot Williamm Chatham list.
Corsair Positive features
1. Flap arrangement
2. The light touch on the controls, especially at high speeds.
3. Fuel economy 40 gal per hour
4. Better gun platform and dive bombing platform for me.
5. Quick acceleration in a dive and when adding full power.
6. Better visibility in the air due to semi-bubble canopy
7. Good top speed approx 405MPH
8. Easy plane to ditch on water
Corsair Negative features
1. High speed stall, on occasion so violent it would pull the stick out of my hand.
2. Long nose hid the runway on takeoff and landing, especially at night.
3. Too many hydraulic problems
4. Rocker boxes leaking oil onto the windshield. Mostly on old birdcage model.
Hellcat positive factors
1. Better visibility over the nose especially at night
2. Better night approaches
3. No high speed stalls
4. Nice and stable
5. Good low speed characteristics. Came aboard 10 to 15MPH sower than F4U
6. Cockpit neat/well planned
7. Safe secure feeling. Very forgiving.
8. Well built/rugged.
9. Word of mouth. We had six Hellcat aces in VF-2 and they all swore by her. One Ace (I think from VF-15) said "if she could cook, I'd marry her!". Some guys called her the Navy Jug. because she was tough and strong like the Army P-47. The Army had a saying: If you want to be a hero fly Mustangs, if you want to come home fly the Jug.
Hellcat negative factors
1. Really did not like the flap arrangement, being able to drop flaps ten degrees at a time was an advantage.
2. Fuel economy a bit high at 55GPH.
3. Engine noise, Corsair much quiter.
4 Control pressure heavy at high speed.
5. High right rudder pressure on Carrier landings, on occassion inducing leg cramps
I have read about the rudder and stick forces being rough on the Hellcat before.
-
Originally posted by F4UDOA
Air Classics Volume 37 number 6
what is the date of the article?
-blogs
-
Originally posted by F4UDOA
...5. High right rudder pressure on Carrier landings, on occassion inducing leg cramps...[/I]
...so they approached with a fairly high power setting?
-
Originally posted by bkbandit
wat game is that?
That looks like FS2004. I got that sim and plane.
-
Originally posted by F4UDOA
Maybe they had a short runway to fly off of? Maybe it was base practice to takeoff with flaps. In any event it shows some of the differences between the two A/C that you might not read from Corky Meyer.
I happened to have the magazine in which this artical was printed. The pilot goes on to list several positive and negative factors for each airplane. This is not in the online article for whatever reason.
Air Classics Volume 37 number 6
The pilot Williamm Chatham list.
Corsair Positive features
1. Flap arrangement
2. The light touch on the controls, especially at high speeds.
3. Fuel economy 40 gal per hour
4. Better gun platform and dive bombing platform for me.
5. Quick acceleration in a dive and when adding full power.
6. Better visibility in the air due to semi-bubble canopy
7. Good top speed approx 405MPH
8. Easy plane to ditch on water
Corsair Negative features
1. High speed stall, on occasion so violent it would pull the stick out of my hand.
2. Long nose hid the runway on takeoff and landing, especially at night.
3. Too many hydraulic problems
4. Rocker boxes leaking oil onto the windshield. Mostly on old birdcage model.
Hellcat positive factors
1. Better visibility over the nose especially at night
2. Better night approaches
3. No high speed stalls
4. Nice and stable
5. Good low speed characteristics. Came aboard 10 to 15MPH sower than F4U
6. Cockpit neat/well planned
7. Safe secure feeling. Very forgiving.
8. Well built/rugged.
9. Word of mouth. We had six Hellcat aces in VF-2 and they all swore by her. One Ace (I think from VF-15) said "if she could cook, I'd marry her!". Some guys called her the Navy Jug. because she was tough and strong like the Army P-47. The Army had a saying: If you want to be a hero fly Mustangs, if you want to come home fly the Jug.
Hellcat negative factors
1. Really did not like the flap arrangement, being able to drop flaps ten degrees at a time was an advantage.
2. Fuel economy a bit high at 55GPH.
3. Engine noise, Corsair much quiter.
4 Control pressure heavy at high speed.
5. High right rudder pressure on Carrier landings, on occassion inducing leg cramps
I have read about the rudder and stick forces being rough on the Hellcat before.
Well, his article suffers from some serious holes.. Likewise, his personal preferences are also evident. There's nothing wrong with that, but you have to consider it nonetheless.
First, if you look at the SEFC for the F4U-1, you will see that a fuel burn rate of 40 gph is not listed. Indeed, the lowest burn rate is associated with 1,300 RPM @ 30 in/hg... If my guess is right, that's idling along in a clean airplane at about 165 mph while burning 42 gph.
As to the 55 gph figure for the F6F, obviously fuel burn is a function of throttle, mixture and rpm. Inasmuch as the Navy never published an SEFC chart for the F6F, I'm curious as to where he got that figure.
However, we can compare range data. For the F4U-1D, it could fly about 1,025 miles @ 1,500 feet on 237 gallons of fuel. In comparison, the F6F-5 could fly 1,330 miles @ 1,500 feet on 250 gallons. Broken down in miles per gallon, this translates into 4.32 mpg for the F4U-1D and 5.32 mpg for the F6F-5. We do not know what speeds are associated with these ranges, but since both aircraft were powered by nearly identical engines, fuel burn rates should be very similar. At low crusing speeds, any differences in drag are largely mitigated as is the effect of RAM. Note also that the F4U data is that of the Navy and will be conservative, while the F6F data is from the manufacturer and may have been considered somewhat optimistic by the Navy.
I cannot help but wonder if the pilot's comments on fuel burn are based more upon perception rather than actual data.
That said, he seems to recognize the attributes of each aircraft and is not out of line with the general opinion of those who were fortunate enough to fly both types in combat.
My regards,
Widewing
-
But the two planes had different carburetors. Dean and I believe Graham White (in his volume on the R2800) discuss problems calibrating the carburetor on the early F6f's. Later versions seemed to have better fuel economy.
There's also a difference in the supercharger mechanism of the two planes. White suggests this worked against the F6F, deducting some horespower at low altitude that the F4u did not have to pay.
-Blogs
Originally posted by Widewing
...As to the 55 gph figure for the F6F, obviously fuel burn is a function of throttle, mixture and rpm. Inasmuch as the Navy never published an SEFC chart for the F6F, I'm curious as to where he got that figure. ...
However, we can compare range data. For the F4U-1D, it could fly about 1,025 miles @ 1,500 feet on 237 gallons of fuel. In comparison, the F6F-5 could fly 1,330 miles @ 1,500 feet on 250 gallons. Broken down in miles per gallon, this translates into 4.32 mpg for the F4U-1D and 5.32 mpg for the F6F-5. We do not know what speeds are associated with these ranges, but since both aircraft were powered by nearly identical engines, fuel burn rates should be very similar. ...
Widewing
-
My memory failed me
White (p. 503) says that in the F6f at low altitude, where only one supercharger stage is spinning, there is no ram air. On the F4u, there is ram air even with just the first stage spinning. So the distinction for the supercharging is one of power rather than fuel economy.
Originally posted by joeblogs
But the two planes had different carburetors. Dean and I believe Graham White (in his volume on the R2800) discuss problems calibrating the carburetor on the early F6f's. Later versions seemed to have better fuel economy.
There's also a difference in the supercharger mechanism of the two planes. White suggests this worked against the F6F, deducting some horespower at low altitude that the F4u did not have to pay.
-Blogs
-
From http://www.history.navy.mil/branches/hist-ac/
F6F-5
15,000'
combat range with 150gal dt - 950nmi @178kt
combat radius with 150gal dt - 340nmi @ 173kt
F4U-4
15,000'
combat range with 150gal dt - 1005mi @185kt
combat radius with 150gal dt - 315nmi @ 178kt
-
http://www.acepilots.com/planes/f4u_corsair.html
this says 3861 f4u1a's were produced, more then any other corsair, so why dont we have this one.
-
Bkbandit,
We do have a F4U-1A, it is just a 1943 version not the 1944 with paddle prop, semi bubble and uprated engine.
Widewing,
Actually the F4U-1 in clean condition had a sea level cruise setting of
1300RPM-30"MAP-42GPH-195MPH TAS-Range 945 statute miles (230 gallons) from the POH.
JoeBlogs,
I am amazed at what these charts actually show. The F6F in many ways had the superior SFC. However due to the F4U being aerodynamically cleaner it had greater range because it could cruise much faster at reduced power settings.
For instance both A/C with 150 gallon DT's at 25,000FT 350 gallons of fuel.
F6F-5 Flight operation instruction chart Column II
2300RPM 36"MAP 106GPH 283MPH TAS 935 Statute miles
F4U-1D Flight operating chart Column III
2200RPM 37"MAP 126GPH 341MPH TAS 970 Statute miles
So the F6F has a better fuel consumption but the F4U cruises at 58MPH faster at a comparable fuel setting at 25,000FT and it fly's farther!! I guess Corky Meyer theory about the F6F being as fast as the F4U a the same power settings needs a little work unless his maps and airspeed indicator are out of calibration.
FYI Just to equilize the fuel consumption here is column IV for the F4U
2100RPM 34"MAP 96GPH 316MPH TAS gives a range of 1170 Statute miles.
Faster (by 33MPH), more fuel efficient and longer range.
However just to how clean the P-51D was and what a true escort aircraft could do.
P-51D with 2 X 75 gallon DT's total 350 gallons used
25,000FT 2700RPM 46" MAP 98GPH 377MPH TAS range statute miles
1280Miles, That's cruising!!
-
At long last I have located a copy of the P&W operator's manual for the 2 stage version of the B block Double Wasps. When it arrives I should be able to tell you a lot more about fuel consumption and power output for the R2800-10 relative to the more complete data we have on powerplant in the F4u.
-Blogs
Originally posted by F4UDOA
Bkbandit,
JoeBlogs,
I am amazed at what these charts actually show. The F6F in many ways had the superior SFC. However due to the F4U being aerodynamically cleaner it had greater range because it could cruise much faster at reduced power settings.
-
Regarding the new documents: has anyone determined the reason for the slightly increased perfromance? The climb rate is a little better. And Vmax is better at a 3,100 foot greater altitude.
There was a prop change during the F4U-1D run (BuNo 57356), going from a 13'4" prop to the 13'1" prop. Any ideas on whether that had anything to do with it?
-
IIRC, there's slight horsepower increase overall in the late-run F4U-1A and the 1D, and both planes used a paddle prop which took greater advantage of the engine power.
-
we will never see this in our f4u in the game. I switched to the hell cat and i am happier with it, its still a tough chance when i pick from f4u4 and f6f. BUt wait.... i can hear them now, ohhh f4u is uber already. Bull f4u is uber when u know how to use it, i killed many sleep f4us plus tons of others that kill them selfs with pure inexperience. Just like 51 a noob cant get in and expect to bag 5 kill runs everytime.