Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: bkbandit on August 28, 2006, 11:03:38 PM
-
This is one i have had on my mind for a while now. I spent all of may and june in a f4u, but for the last month i have been in f6f and wow, its great. They have the same ammo load same gun package carry the same amount of ord. And o yeah.. they can both land and take off from cv:lol At speed f4u has a better roll , its faster, depending on the model u have a semi bubble cockpit, u have dive brakes(landing gears up to 400 mph). BUt hellcat has better accel, u can get low and slow and still move while a f4u is in trouble, hellcat has a bird cage cockpit, it isnt no bubble but the bars arent bad and the rear view is better then the f4u. F6F maxs at 18k at only 380 which in my world is horrible, but when ur at that alt the fight is under u, the roll rate is good on this plane and unlike the f4u ur roll rate is good slow as well as fast. Hellcat also gets more time on a full tank. BOth of them dive like hell(i like f6f better) can do high speed turns well and can take hits.
If i had to pick, i really love f4u but i have to go in the F6F, that accel is just to horrible to enjoy that speed advantage, in a drag f6f wins. I have fought plenty of f4us in a f6f, low hi u name it, its f6f. And yes i have baged f4u4's. THis might be that im fightin lesser pilots but wit the time i spent its in both fighter its f6f. Unless f4u could accel faster it will always be the f6f.
Got alot of big time f4u guys and guys that just love the blue planes in general, i would love to see what u guys think.
Lets try to keep the comparison between f6f and f4u1 f4u1c and d, maybe later we can through the 4 in.
0 f4u
1 f6f
-
F6F is better "overall" ride in AH and dweeb friendly. Thr F4Us tend to require a bit more experience in game to do well with.
-
I like the F4U for attacking shore bases, just because it carrys two more rockets than the F6F. Not much of a difference, but if you're not expecting fighter opposition anyway, you might as well have the extra rockets. As for fighting aircraft off carriers, I prefer the Seafire, but since this is between the F6F and the F4U, I'll leave it at that.
-
I think it's been stated that the F6F's climb and acceleration is slightly overmodelled and the F4U SHOULD out-accelerate and climb the F6F (lighter and less drag with just as much engine power). I also think I saw a post by WW somewhere around here that the F4U starts getting sluggish at higher speeds in the game, whereas it's really the F6F that should.
In capable hands the F4U SHOULD be able to get a shot first in a turn fight because of the Corsair's ability to get her flaps into play sooner (sometimes I think the Corsair's flaps work a little TOO well, as occaisonally I've dropped a notch to get that last bit of lead, and my nose pops TOO far so I lose the shot picture). I'm going from memory off another WW post, here, but IIRC their turning circles and rates are close enough that any advantage to the F6F is minimal at best. In addition, the instantaneous turn of the Corsair should not be overlooked, as I THINK she has the advantage in initial turn and it's only once you get into a sustained, low-speed turning fight that the Hellcat's edge comes into play.
I won't argue with you on stability, as I still spin my Hog occaisonally (generally if I get too heavy with simultaneous rudder and back-stick. For some reason snap-rolls to the left always end with me inverted) and under some very unexpected circumstances (I spun tonight pulling into the vertical at ~400mph) but the Corsair can STILL take a pretty heavy hand on the stick and follow some pretty eratic maneuvers so long as you know WHEN to back off (like the moment you get that first wing dip).
Durability is questionable, as I think the Corsair is a bit porked with pieces being blown off under VERY light damage (I've had long-range .30cal hits blow off my wings :p ). The F4U SHOULD have the advantage here, but I don't know of anyone who's put this to the test. That being said, I think both planes seem to have a bit of a glass jaw.
Internal fuel range I don't even bother worrying about. More gas means more weight and a less maneuverable plane, and in both the F6 AND F4 when dealing with a MA overrun by Spixteens I want to fly as light as I can and still have fuel to fight. I only carry more than 50% internal in a -1D if drop tanks are unavailable, and even then never more than 75%. The exception is if I'm packing a full ordinance load, which I have no problems loading full fuel since I'll just burn off about half anyway on the climb out to my usual approach alt. If I'm going to BnZ I keep my external fuel, but once I need to start turning I know I've got enough gas I can cut my tank and still make it home. Also, I think F4UDOA posted something that indicates the F4U actually gets MORE range because of her greater speed, especially at cruise. I know I've been able to make it at least a sector on 1/8 internal in the 1D at ~5-7k alt under max cruise settings.
To follow your example of personal experience vs, I've shot down 12 F6Fs this tour, and died to 3. One I was forced into a HO situation by an enemy F4U that joined the fight late (I SHOULD have had the F6, but when I got saddled up his F4 buddy tried to HO and I was forced to break off before I could fire. Both me and the F6 extended, reversed, and to keep the F4 from getting a good shot or slipping in behind me I was driven into an anglethat put me into a HO on the F6. I lit his engine up but as I passed over my tail popped off. I HATE dying like that :mad: ). On the second a Zeke made a high-deflection shot that clipped off the outer half of my left wing, and while I was trying to recover the F6 that I was sparring with (once again, I had the shot but lost it when I tried to evade the Zeke) circled in behind me. I can't remember the third one, (I THINK I had just recorded a kill and he circled in behind me before I could evade) but certainly, I WOULD have had the other two without the intervention of their buddy.
-
we already figured out that the f6f is not the 3 or the 5 but a middle of the field model(i would still like f6f-3 and f6f-5 both instead of one). ANd we also figured out that the f4u is nuetered. I REALLLY wish they would fix it, but again... "f4u is too uber, its not fair". BUt for now likes deal with our current models.
I just got out of the m/a, had a real good run wit the f6f, but of course im a idiot and dont have the film runing:furious . I baged 4 seafires and a ki84 and still had ammo and fuel, but those ltar guys slamed the cv so i was done for that sortie. AS for her wiegh wat i do is take 50% and take a drop tank, the tank gets me where i need to go wit a good alt and e situation, alot of times i have half of the tank left. A problem wit the f4u is SA, i came up on one yesterday(recorded my one kill :lol ) and was watchin his views, he only saw me once and the rest of the fight he must have been useing the force or somethin cause the last thing he saw is a flash and water(in this fight i was n f4u4). i remember another one i had against an f4u1(i had a f6f) he was chaseing me as i was goin to land, i just waited and rolled up, shot by then tryes to play the turn game and makes a real tight hi g turn, hi yo-yo and by the time i came down he had no e at all, just another dead f4u. Wit alittle more accel he could have atleast had more time to evade but that waste of a pratte and whintey didnt pull him away.
As for dweeb friendly i doubt it. YEs she is reallyyy honest in the stall and has a great gun package but un like the spit u have flaps to work, and against another spit a full flap circle will kill u. F6F asawell as F4U need some solid acm and e mangement, how many f6f's have u killed tryin to out turn u. I think its a good plane to learn wit, it gives u many options. fighter sweeps,jabo, fleet defense it can handle it, the only thing it doesnt do well is high alt, thats where f4u shines but still wit the crap accel a p51(i have done this many times) will jump on top of u and chase u to the deck.
Saxman how do u check that stat, i want to see wat im doin wit that f6f. Do i assume that u pick f4u??
And as far as seafire, its a cool plane and when a mission calls for it i fly it(i havent flown this thing since last month), but i dont like the gun package and the plane is seriously made of paper, but its big advantage that it has over other spits is that it doesnt break under hi g's. I have seen many spit 16s fall apart in front of my face trying to dive and turn hard(this is also a way to get them off ur back).
-
My F4u seems to pwn F6f's. This maybe a problem.:cool:
-
Well seeing as how they haven't fixed the overmodelled HO-icanes, and Spixteens and ElGays are running rampant unperked, I don't see why they'd let uberness stop them from fixing the plane to handle the way it SHOULD play.
Visibility with the F4U isn't really a HUGE problem so long as you set your views right. Actually, I find the F4U-1's birdcage actually has a bit BETTER view straight back than the bubble on the -1D/C/ and -4. I think the situation you describe speaks more to poor view setup and bad SA on behalf of the pilot than any failure of the Corsair's design (also partly a modelling issue, as the Corsair's rear view wasn't that much different than the F6).
I've largely stepped away from the -1. She's definately too sluggish for me, and I think the lack of power shows in any type of extended turning fight when she's heavy with gas so I'm spending most of my time in the 1D (which is closer to the 1A we're wanting, anyway, so it's a good ride to transition from) with occaisonal sorties in a -4. The F6Fs I've killed have been a mix of small and large furballs with an occaisonal 1vs1 encounter (which in my experience are a rarity, as generally I don't see an F6F unless it's part of a massive carrier raid). Some caught napping with high speed passes, some while maneuvering at mid to low speeds. The key for the F4U is either ending the fight quickly, or taking advantage of her E-dumping ability to get her flaps into play before the F6F can reduce enough speed
As far as Spits...
Seafires, Spit VIIIs and XIVs really don't seem to have the overwhelming advantage of the other marks (Spit VIIIs I have my best k/d vs Spits this tour at 6:1). I think the effect of the weight of the carrier gear is REALLY telling in the Seafire. The Spit XIV just doesn't perform as well at low altitude, and in general gives up too much as a turn-fighter compared to the other Marks. I don't really have an explanation for the Spit VIII, but it seems those are always my easiest Spit kills. Pilot-dependent, Spit Is are fairly easily dealth with as well because the F4U and F6F just so drastically outmuscle them. I just don't ever SEE any, or someone else gets to them first. Spit IX and XVI are by FAR the most dangerous marks, although against both I've used gear and flaps to great effect to cut inside and get a shot. I've forced a stalemate on Spixteens by dumping full flaps and gear and dragging him into the turning circle
Meh. P-51s I have no fear (one tour I had 20 Pony D kills and no deaths). If he has the advantage and stays high and fast I just keep dodging until I get support, an exit opportunity, or he screws up and lets me get on top of him and reverse the position. Otherwise I make him turn. A turning Pony that loses too much speed and altitude is a dead Pony unless he tries to run (which is what the majority of 51s do when encountering a co-alt con).
As far as scoring... From the Scores page use the Kill Stats in Extended Format option. That lets you see ALL your kills (regular scoring doesn't show everything). Lets you see how many kills you have in a particular aircraft, how many of them you've killed how many of that fighter have killed you, and how many times you've died in it (counts deaths only, I think, not bails, ditches or disco's). Also shows total kills, total deaths, and kills and deaths to each country.
-
i agree the f4u1 cockpit is better but the accel is just horrible. 51s have a bad rep cause the noobs that fly them, they think it can out turn anythin and try and get hammered, i use the f4us e dumping ability against it, gets slow and just sit on top, take my time, wit the crap accel he aint goin no where, hes below u(he prob already tryed to dive away) and hes turnin circles, u can take ur time or ur buddy will have him. F4U gets slow u noe it and u have to make sure u have time to build e back up or u are in a situation where u are safe where u are(example hitin ground targets wit a bunch of friendly green over head). Only one time today i would have rather had f4u, when this p47(i am 16k hes about 19) dives donw and tryes to ho, simple stick and rudder movement defeats his attack around and balst the wep, ended up chaseing him up hill(he had the e from his climb) 2.0k 3.0k then it stoped but as soon as i went up to 18k im finished and have to come back down, that bum got away(51 or f4u kill that bum
:lol ).
Spit 16 is dagnerous but it is slow and cant take the hi g's, i like goin fast so i make a pass and hi yo- yo if i dont get him a leave myself wit enuff to set up for another run. It rolls real good it turns real good it goes slow real go it accels good it has good views. BUt imo the guns suck and the thing is litly armoured, i have had many spits hit the ground from a pilot wound from a sparkle of 50s. I like seafire better cause it can dive and not break to bits, imo has better guns. As for wieght i fly heavy planes so i wont feel it.
-
As much as I love the F6F, the F4u as modeled in AH is simply better in almost every aspect. The worst thing about the F6F is the roll rate. The secons is that you are slower than spit 8 and only a little faster than spit 5 or a N1K. Still, it is a fun ride.
The real life advantages of the Hellcat over the corsair were not in performance but in areas which were critical in RL but are irrelevant to the game.
Bozon
-
Originally posted by bozon
As much as I love the F6F, the F4u as modeled in AH is simply better in almost every aspect.
Not anymore... Since the drag model change the F6F has been transformed. It can match the F4U-1D in turn radius and acceleration. The Hellcat holds the edge in turn rate. It also climbs a bit better and our testing shows that it holds a slight edge in zoom-climb. It gives up some on roll rate, but rudder speeds it up considerably. One area where the F6F holds an advantage is in maneuverability in a high-speed dive. In contrast, the F4U-1D is faster at all altitudes.
In a straight-up fight with equal pilots, the F6F-5 and F4U-1D are so closely matched that there is little to choose between them.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Widewing,
I've always felt that the F6F was undermodelled in terms of speed. Have any changes been made in that regard? The -5 Hellcat was capable of breaking 400mph in real life, but I've never been able to get better than 380 in Aces High.
Regards, Shuckins
-
Originally posted by Shuckins
Widewing,
I've always felt that the F6F was undermodelled in terms of speed. Have any changes been made in that regard? The -5 Hellcat was capable of breaking 400mph in real life, but I've never been able to get better than 380 in Aces High.
Regards, Shuckins
Really can u get any proof of that, if f6f could hit 400mph level its a monster, but then that means that f4u1d has to go 405-415. The only time i seen f4u1d fly that fast is when i was in a room wit wind, i have read also that 51d could get close to 500mph, i have seen this in the same room wit wind, and no it wasnt no monster winds it was in one of those h2h rooms taylored to realism.
-
Originally posted by Shuckins
Widewing,
I've always felt that the F6F was undermodelled in terms of speed. Have any changes been made in that regard? The -5 Hellcat was capable of breaking 400mph in real life, but I've never been able to get better than 380 in Aces High.
Regards, Shuckins
The best I ever saw in AH2 is 386 mph @ 21,600 feet.
However, when tested by TAIC (Technical Air Intelligence Command) in 1944, a standard F6F-5 attained 409 mph @ 21,600 feet. Below is an excerpt from the test report (comparing the F6F-5 to the A6M5 Zero). I have the entire report in .pdf format.
(http://home.att.net/~c.c.jordan/TAIC-F6F-5.jpg)
My regards,
Widewing
-
So in the speed deparment our f6f is closer to the f6f3 then right? Why is our f6f5 so slow, u have it in black and white, wheres my speed:mad: . If its there in black and white why dont we have it in the game??
Widewing always has the right info when u need it:aok . That guy must have a doctrine or somethin.
-
The question I would have about the F6F-5 in various speed test is this.
What was the condition of the airplane? Does the F6F-5 do 400+MPH with pylons and rocket rails or was that test in the clean condition?
The F4U-1D speed with Pylons is in the 410-415MPH range. What is the F6F-5 speed with external stores pylons?
FYI,
I just tripped over this in Corky Meyers new book listing all of his Flight Journal Articals. This is an excerpt from his F7F review in August of 2002.
The first experimental XF7F-1 Tigercat had the 2,000hp Pratt & Whitney R-2800-10B engine. This was the Hellcat's standard production engine, and it continued Grumman's policy of not installing an untried engine in a new aircraft. The Tigercat, which was 71mph faster than the Hellcat and had twice its rate of climb, easily met the Navy's requirements of 451mph at 21,000 feet.
The biggest problem I have with the F6F performance is that the airspeed indicator of this airplane was so unrealiabe that it was doubtful that any F6F pilot ever really new how fast they were going. Even the "fix" of this problem caused an even greater airspeed error than before except this time it was indicating to 17Knots too fast instead of 15 knots too slow.
I have Vought Documents showing the test of the F4U-1 Speed in 1943 with radio towers used for calibration. They knew exactly how fast the F4U was at all alt and indications. Grumman either did not know or was reluctant to say how fast the F6F actually was. By the time of the F4U-5 the airspeed inicator had 0 MPH error throught the entire speed range so the technology certainly was there for Grumman.
Here is the link
F7F by Corky Myer (http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3897/is_200208/ai_n9120620)
-
FYI,
(http://home.comcast.net/~markw4/TAICF4U.jpg)
(http://home.att.net/~c.c.jordan/TAIC-F6F-5.jpg)
Two things about this report.
1. Why is the F6F-5 so fast at sea level? It did not use rammed air in neutral blower as did the F4U so why is it just 7MPH slower. Even Corkey Meyer admits to a 25knots disadvantage at this alt. Is this another F6F CAS problem?
2. If the F6F-5 climb 600FPM slower than the F4U-1D then why does it climb almost 500FPM better at the same altitude in AH?
-
I've seen data published by Francis Dean and a couple of other sources which indicate that when Hellcat and Corsair have the same engine, propeller, and operational weights their rates of climb are nearly equal.
The Corsair possessed a speed and climb advantage at lower levels because the main stage blower and carburetor got ram air directly from the forward wing duct. The Hellcat got its carburetor air directly from the accessory compartment of the fuselage, just behind the engine, with no ram effect, yielding the same effect as it would if the aircraft were motionless on the ground. The Corsair's was getting carburetor air supercharged by the speed of the airplane. In both aircraft the design was similar in that they provided ram air to the low and high blower stages.
In the Hellcat, the warmer air coming from the accessory compartment prevented inadvertent carburetor icing engine failure. Grumman Wildcats had ram air in the main stage just like the Corsair, and many were lost because pilots failed to take precautions to prevent it.
At medium and higher altitudes both Hellcat and Corsair benefitted from ram-air, so the performance gap narrowed significantly.
Comparing top speeds posted by different sources or manufacturers is problematic. No two test at exactly the same fuel capacity, operational loads, etc. Dean's climb data showed the F4U-1D holding a distinct advantage in climb...but at 400 lbs. less test weight than did the F6F-5. Weight effects rate of climb more so than it does top speed.
By way of example, let's say a theoretical fighter has a top speed of 400mph. Add 500 pounds to it's operational weight and top speed drops to 394 mph....but climb rate, which had been 3500 fpm at sea level, drops by 500 fpm. Top speed is affected by about 2%, while climb rate drops by more than 14%.
-
Originally posted by F4UDOA
Two things about this report.
1. Why is the F6F-5 so fast at sea level? It did not use rammed air in neutral blower as did the F4U so why is it just 7MPH slower. Even Corkey Meyer admits to a 25knots disadvantage at this alt. Is this another F6F CAS problem?
2. If the F6F-5 climb 600FPM slower than the F4U-1D then why does it climb almost 500FPM better at the same altitude in AH?
Well, assuming the F6F-5 was faster than it is supposed to be is probably not the likely answer. Perhaps this particular F4U-1D was a dog. I've seen the test data for the Zero used and it was exceptionally slow at sea level. Even the bog-slow FM-2 was 6 mph faster than the Zero....
Indeed, if you look at the Zero's speed chart in the document, it could manage only 291 mph at sea level. 291+41 is 332 mph...right where it's supposed to be for the F6F-5.
If we look at Grumman's speed data for the F6F-5, we see that the TAIC test produced speeds 17 mph slower than Grumman claimed (348 mph). Navy data for the F6F-5 shows 319 mph at 12,740 lb. The TAIC F6F weighed 12,285 at take off, and was surely lighter during the speed runs.
So, the TAIC sea level speed falls to the slow side of the middle, exactly what one would expect for this plane at this weight (12 mph faster than the Navy data for a much heavier F6F and 17 mph slower than factory data for a slightly heavier Hellcat than that used by TAIC).
On the other hand, the F4U-1D is markedly slower than we would expect @ 339 mph. However, that isn't inconsistent with a plane burdened by the drag associated with rocket tabs and bomb mounts.
Maybe the F6F was fitted for the centerline tank only. Also, the F6F was carrying 120 lb more fuel than the F4U, but 30 lb less oil.
We also do not know the state of tune for each aircraft, nor do we know the overall condition of each. Poor cowling and panel fit can eat up considerable speed.
Whatever the cause, the test doesn't show that the F6F is unually fast, but it does show that the particular F4U was slower than one would expect. Since we don't have specifics on configurations, all we can do is view the data at face value.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Oh yeah, I forgot to mention one thing...
In AH2, the A6M5 does 289 mph at sea level, with the F6F-5 able to attain 330 mph... The difference is 41 mph, exactly the same as in the TAIC test.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Widewing,
The A6M5 listed in the TAIC chart is from the Army test and may not even be the same airplane. The AAF test says their airplane was damaged (the landing gears doors would not close)and indeed the max speed reached on the Army test was 325MPH where as in the Navy test the max speed reached was 335MPH.
So we know that at least at 20K the Navy A6M5 was a full 10MPH faster than the Army test bird. So if you add 10MPH to the speed of the A6M5 at sea level the F4U sea level speed is 348MPH which is roughly the listed speed with rocket rails and pylons.
However the peice that is the most curious is the 5,000FT speed of the F6F-5. It goes from being 41MPH faster at sea level to only 25MPH faster at 5K, why?? The F6F does not use rammed air at low alt in Neutral blower stage so why the large drop in performance? The F4U has a 42MPH adavatage at 5K but the slight drop is to be expected because of a linear increase in performance in the A6M5 and the dip in speed caused by the F4U blower shift and then increasing into low blower.
What could cause the F6F-5 to have a performance spike at sea level but not at 5K?
The weights of the two aircraft are actually more equal than they normally would be. The F6F-5 at a full load would weight at least 300LBS more than the F4U-1D. It was 200lbs heavier empty and carried 13 gallons more fuel internally.
Shuckins,
The only problem with the same engine, same prop, Ram air theory is that it didn't hold up in post war flight test of both A/C or range calcualtions for both a/c. Check the Flight manuals for both aircraft and their speeds at the same cruise settings. The speed differences are vast and these were Navy range test.
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.
-
One more thing,
I was looking at the FM-2 comparison with the Navy A6M5. The FM-2 is listed as being 12MPH slower than the Zero at 10K and 8MPH slower at 15K. This is important because the top speed reached by the FM-2 in the test is 321MPH at 13K. So we know that the Zero was between 12MPH and 8MPH faster than the FM-2 at 13,000FT. So 10MPH faster sounds about right?
That is 331MPH at 13K which is already 5MPH faster than the AAF test A/C. But from that you can also tell that the F4U (70MPH faster at 15K)was crossing 400MPH at 15K in low blower and the F6F would have been at approx 390MPH at 15K (62MPH faster).
The F4U speed is accurate as can be expected but the F6F doing 390MPH at 15K? That is higher than the listed top speed of the A/C. Is this another IAS/CAS error?
-
Widewing and F4UDOA,
The TAIC test aircraft undoubtedly reflects a fairly accurate picture of top speed, free to a great extent of the type of bias or cooking-of-the-books often found in the manufacturer's performance data.
Most of the pictures I've seen of F6F-5s show them equipped with the same rocket-rails that equipped the Corsair. The eights sets of these rails reduced the top speed of the F4U-1D by 13 mph, according to data that F4UDOA posted in his Nav-Air thread on the Corsair. It would be fair to say that the rails on the Hellcat, although two fewer in number, had a commensurate affect on that aircraft's top speed.
It would be helpful to know what the TAIC test Hellcat was equipped with. If that aircraft was armed with those rails, then the Hellcat's top speed would have been somewhere between five and ten mph faster than the 409 mph quoted in the test data. On the other hand, if that aircraft was NOT equipped with the rocket rails, then their installation would have reduced the -5s top speed to near 400 mph.
These are the problems that make it so hard for enthusiasts to come to any kind of consensus of opinion on the actual speeds of these aircraft relative to each other.
-
THe one thing that takes me out of the f4u is its accel, its a freakin bus, if i get out and push the thing ill accel better. F6F isnt a super fast accel plane either but it out does the f4u and u arent dead in the water with low in in a F6F. In every single documentary(every pacific war doc and also docs that talked to the actually men that flew f4u) all say that f4u got well above 400mph, i have only got the f4u1 and the f4u4 to that speed(of course i went took a shower and came back well i was waiting), shouldnt the d model do it too. It has rocket rails and pylons but so does mustang. F4U with 2000 horsepower and that big prop cant really accel that dam slow, its not a small plane but the 51 isnt small either and she accels way better, im not excepting a drag machine but it sure aint a dump truck.
-
http://gonzoville.com/ahcharts/index.php
F4U-x vs P51-d in AH
Bronk
-
bkbandit,
I am really surprised the F4U-1D accerates so bad in AH2 these days. I have been out of the game for a while so I am not flying regularly. I do have the latest version so I will do some accereration test. The last time I check the two aircraft were at a virtual deadheat in acceleration.
As far as the actual top speeds I have test done from as late as mid-1945 and later on the F4U and F6F done by the Navy I will try to get scanned and posted.
-
Originally posted by bkbandit
THe one thing that takes me out of the f4u is its accel, its a freakin bus, if i get out and push the thing ill accel better. F6F isnt a super fast accel plane either but it out does the f4u and u arent dead in the water with low in in a F6F.
I would not make such statements without checking first. I doubt the F6F out-accelerate the F4uD, especially on the deck. Also since F6F top speed is slower, the advantage will go to the F4U the higher the speed.
The similarity in preformance is not suprising. The F6F, F4U and P47 were 3 different implementations of the same technology designed in the same era under the same philosophy. It not like the engineers of one company were far more brilliant that those of the other. Each had its own fine tuning and tradeoffs but none had a definit overall advantage over the other. The F6F and F4U were also built to answer the same navy requirements which explains the very similar performance. The major difference were narrowed down to production methods and technical stuff unrelated to aircraft preformance.
Bozon
-
bozon i fly nothing but us navy fighters(with maybe 1/3 of my time going to the p51b D and p47d for the attack runs). Alot of time has been spent in f6f and f4u. F4U is faster but takes too long to get there. By the time u start feelin that speed ur likely to be forced into an evasive move bleeding e and leting the con catch up, i have seen it too many times, and in the t/a the other day i figured what the hell like me see how good this f6f could turn, i went up against a f4u1(the better turner out fof the bunch) and evenutaully came around on him, this isnt supposed to happen f4u should have been able to pull around and get me. If this was the case i doubt the f4u would have been such a lengedary fighter, i have seen alot and read alot about corsair and it is supposed to do everything the hellcat can do better. That in mind hellcat was no push over and it earns its right as being called a killer and a dependable machine but theres a reason that f4u stood in service till korea and f6f didnt. Some real life data on f4u accel would be cool.
0 f4u
1 f6f
-
Were flaps involved in the fight?
-
bk,
It's a mistake to think the Corsair did everything better than the Hellcat. Each was a superbly designed aircraft in its own right. The Japanese called them the "Terrible Twins."
Indeed, being designed to meet the same Navy specifications and requirements, the similarities between the two are startling. Range, firepower, strike load, durability, and climb rate were well nigh identical. The Corsair possessed a greater top speed and roll rate, but the Hellcat had its own set of superior assets as well.
The Hellcat's carrier operation capabilities were, according to Hamilton McWhorter and many other Navy pilots, far superior to those of the Corsair. Visibility over the nose was superior to almost any U.S. fighter extant, with the possible exception of the P-38. The Hellcat also possessed better all round visibility. The cowling of the nose dropped away from the cockpit with an 8 degree downward angle, enhancing tracking of targets and offering superior visibility during carrier landings.
In comparisons with other U.S. fighters of the time, service pilots rated the Hellcat's ailerons the best at speeds around 100 knots. Attitude and longitudinal control in the landing circuit were superb, just what the Navy desired in a carrier-based fighter.
The Hellcat also possessed some of the bast stall characteristics, and one of lowest stall speeds of any fighter of the war. In addition, handling characteristics were extremely honest and predictable. As one pilot stated, a pilot could make abrupt and positive maneuvers, even at high speed.
Francis Dean compared the turning rates of U.S. fighters in his book "America's Hundred Thousand." Using the turning circle of the Wildcat as his baseline figure, and without the use of flaps, the Hellcat's turning circle was rated at 138% of the Wildcat's, while the F4U-1D was rated at 212% . While use of the Corsair's flaps may have closed the gap somewhat, it had a lot of ground to make up, and once locked into a turning fight with speeds equal and both fighters having their flaps deployed, it is doubtful that the Corsair would have outturned the Hellcat.
Lastly, the Hellcat possessed a slight speed advantage over the Corsair in a dive: 449mph IAS for the Hellcat versus 443mph IAS for the Corsair.
Regards, Shuckins
-
In a 1v1 situation in AH, I haven't had any real problems killing the F4U while flying the F6F.
I should add that this is/was typically the case in all four of the distinct versions of the Hellcat in AH (the pre 1.08 FM, the post 1.08 FM, AHII FM, and the current one).
-
Originally posted by bkbandit
If this was the case i doubt the f4u would have been such a lengedary fighter, i have seen alot and read alot about corsair and it is supposed to do everything the hellcat can do better.
The Hellcat has larger wing area. I'm not suprised it turns better, and has lower stall speed.
While the inverted gull wing had some advantages, it was probably not such a great design overall as it was not used since in any major fighter.
-
Originally posted by Mathman
In a 1v1 situation in AH, I haven't had any real problems killing the F4U while flying the F6F.
I should add that this is/was typically the case in all four of the distinct versions of the Hellcat in AH (the pre 1.08 FM, the post 1.08 FM, AHII FM, and the current one).
I find the F6F slightly better in 1v1 fights. 1v1, the F6F has a slight advantage over the F4Us as it has the same turn radius, but a faster turn rate. It's a close match in a low speed fight, but the Hellcat has an edge that can be exploited. Especially if the fight is in the vertical. You would need the F4U-4 to beat the Hellcat in the vertical, and not by much. Dogfighting climbs are little more than simple zooms. The aircraft with the edge in E gains an advantage. If equal E, the aircraft with greater potential energy will win. A heavy fighter like the F6F and F4U can surprise better climbing but lighter fighters, simply thru the laws of momentum. Managing E is everything when speeds are just above stall, making the pilot a truly significant factor.
My regards,
Widewing
-
The only case I would make for the F4U out turning the F6F is with the use of combat flap setting. In AH the F6F can deploy flaps in multiple stages where as in real life it could only deploy full flaps and have them "Blow Up" in stages.
-
Shuckins,
You know Dean's chart uses the wrong Clmax numbers for almost every aircraft in the chart right?
If you want real Clmax numbers of those A/C his calcualtions turn out very different.
Dive restrictions on the F4U-1 and F6F-5 were virtually identical although almost impossibe to decipher because of the airspeed indicator problem in the F6F-3/5. The initial problem of indicating to slow was immediatepy compoounded by a system that showed it much too fast.
When you read any specification on stall speed, G limits or max speed you have to consider that you may be looking at speeds that are listed as far off as 17Knots IAS too fast or too slow.
-
I remember a doc that had a old japanese pilot and they asked him about the f4u, he paused and had a sick look on his face and said that he hates the corairs cuase it killed so many of his friends. THe pause and sick look was enough to have me believe that it is nuetered some. In that turn fight i had we both had full flaps down and my wep was blasting and im pretty sure his was too.
Accel data, can anyone find it.
Pick Pick Pick
0 f4u
1 f6f
-
Originally posted by F4UDOA
You know Dean's chart uses the wrong Clmax numbers for almost every aircraft in the chart right?
No dog in this fight, but out of curiosity, how do you reach this conclusion?
- oldman
-
No dog in this fight, but out of curiosity, how do you reach this conclusion?
Well to be honest about 7 years ago when I bought the book I was contant to live with the idea that the F4U just couldn't turn well. Then a few things happened.
1. I found the NACA reports server which shows the Clmax numbers for many of the aircraft in Dean's list. They are not even close oddly enough except the F4U which is spot on.
2. I found out that Francis Dean lived about 20 minutes away from me so I contacted him through Shiffer Books and went to visit him. He told me that his Cl numbers were calculated from the accerated stall numbers in the "1944 Joint Fighter Conferance". Dean was the guy who turned that report into a book. From there you can tell that the numbers are IAS and not CAS and there was no weight, power condition etc listed which is why the numbers are all over the place. In fact if Dean would have used the 3G stall number from the FG-1 instead of the F4U-1D the 3G stall speed would be 130Knots IAS instead of 170Knots IAS.
3. I started talking to a guy named "Wells" on these boards who showed me how to calculate Clmax from stall speeds. Once you know that things become very easy. It is a dead stupid calculation. Even I can do it.
4. I have the G limit chart for the F4U and F6F. The F4U wasn't that bad and the F6F isn't that good.
For a point of reference just look at the A6M5 test. The F4U and F6F have exactly the same result in turns against the Zero. The only difference is that with combat flaps the F4U can hang in a bit longer.
"The Zero could gain one turn in 3 1/2 at 10,000FT" The same is true for the F4U and F6F.
-
bkbandit,
It has been found.
(http://home.comcast.net/~markw4/Acceleration.jpg)
FYI, The F4U in this test did not have the paddle prop installed. It would have been better than in the test.
Also the F4U-1D out climbed the F6F-3 which was supposed to be superior to the F6F-5 in climb.
-
F4UDOA,
Dean stated that the stall tripper wedge that was installed on the right wing to even out the stall speed of the Corsair's wings was responsible for changing the lift coefficient. Thus, while the Corsair's wing-loading was not particularly high, the turning circle was negatively effected. He also states that there was a NACA test that indicated that this was indeed the case.
The main advantage of the Corsair's flaps was the speed with which they could be deployed. The maneuvering setting for the flaps was 20 degrees. Deploying flaps fully down was seldom used in combat because it was a desperation setting, and drastically reduced the aircraft's speed, which could quickly get a pilot killed in the wrong situation.
Capt. Eric Brown flew both the Hellcat and Corsair extensively during WW II, and was impressed by both fighters, but when it came time to mix it up with enemy aircraft, preferred the Hellcat. Perhaps no pilot in the history of aviation has the extensive experience that Brown has in flying a wide variety of aircraft, both Allied and Axis. Being British, I don't believe he can be faulted for having any bias, and his analysis of each aircraft's capabilities was purely objective.
The Corsair's faults were not completely addressed until the advent of the F4U-4 came into service, which arrived so late that it saw little combat. Carrier compatability shortcomings caused the Corsair to be pulled from fleet service three times during the war. Evidently the Navy was unwilling to accept the losses associated with the Corsair's slow-speed stall characteristics until the arrival of the -1D Corsair. In any event, the Corsair was not cleared for carrier duty until December of 1944.
-
Shuckins,
Dean said the Clmax was effected and it was (from 2.30 to 1.88), however the stall speeds remained very much unchanged or at least did not effect it very much.
Remember all of the flight test you are reading about had the stall fix in place. The F6F faired no better in turning against the A6M5 than the F4U. Stall fix in all.
As far as carrier servicability you should know that after the F4U-1A in mid 1943 almost nothing was changed in the entire carrier service life of the F4U series right through the F4U-7 to make it any better a carrier plane. The stall fix, Oleo struts, raised seat, semi bubble canopy etc were all part of the -1A.
Read this quote from Tommy Blackburn on why the F4U was not put into service on carriers in 1943.
But a few days out, official lightning struck. VF-17 was detached from Bunker Hill, and ordered to the island of Espiritu Santo, to operate as a land-based squadron. The problem was one of logistics, not of operations. The high command knew that Blackburn's Corsairs could operate from a carrier. But as the only Corsair squadron in a Navy full of Grumman Hellcats and Wildcats, supplying and maintaining them would be a headache. Ashore in the Solomons, VF-17 could rely on Marine Corps' established Corsair maintenance resources. There was no appeal. On October 2, they off-loaded from Bunker Hill
-
u guys must serouisly have these planes in ur garage and fly them secretly. So who does this accel data match up with our aces high data?
0 F4U
1 F6F
-
Hi F4UDOA,
>I started talking to a guy named "Wells" on these boards who showed me how to calculate Clmax from stall speeds. Once you know that things become very easy. It is a dead stupid calculation. Even I can do it.
Hm, I think there are quite a number of factors that can make this calculation a bit inaccurate, but it's certainly more scientific than the Fighter Conference data (which wasn't meant to be scientific).
Out of curiosity: Which figures are you using for the two aircraft?
>"The Zero could gain one turn in 3 1/2 at 10,000FT" The same is true for the F4U and F6F.
I just had a look at the Fw 190 comparison report, and the F4U-1D and F6F-3 (with water injection) used in that test were credited with identical turn comparison results against the Fw 190, too. (Only that they out-turned that particular enemy, instead of being out-turned as they were by the Zero :-)
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
i like the blue planes.:p
ummm ... yep the blue ones r gud. now hush
-
Hm, I think there are quite a number of factors that can make this calculation a bit inaccurate, but it's certainly more scientific than the Fighter Conference data (which wasn't meant to be scientific).
Exactly! And if you read the data from the conferance as far as pilot opinion and consesus you can get a pretty good baseline for what was real and what was not. Somehow that has gotten lost and this is what is left.
Out of curiosity: Which figures are you using for the two aircraft?
I am using NACA document 829.
The Clmax was reduced in the F4U from 2.30 to 1.88 with full flaps (50 degrees deflection). You can see the F6F Clmax is marginally higher with Full flaps. Airplane #1 next to them does not have any flap deployed.
Dean's numbers have the F6F Clmax around 2+ without flaps.
(http://home.comcast.net/~markw4/Clmax.jpg)
-
wait, cannons on f6f?? did it have them?? i noe the raf for some reason reguned our american planes, there p51 had cannons(why dont we) did there f6f have cannons?? Not that i want them, personally i think the 6 50s are a better air to air weapon.
-
Originally posted by F4UDOA
I am using NACA document 829.
The Clmax was reduced in the F4U from 2.30 to 1.88 with full flaps (50 degrees deflection). You can see the F6F Clmax is marginally higher with Full flaps. Airplane #1 next to them does not have any flap deployed.
Dean's numbers have the F6F Clmax around 2+ without flaps.
Report 829 states that the sharp-edged spoiler installed to reduce wing drop is what lowered the F4U's CLmax, not the use of flaps.
"The maximum lift coefficient of the airplane, however, was reduced from 2.30 to 1.88 by the sharp leading edge."
Also, if you compare figures 14 and 15 with the figure you posted, you can see the CLmax change associated with full flap deployment on both the F6F-3 and F4U-1. CLmax numbers in figure 14 and 15 represent 0 degrees of flaps.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Originally posted by bkbandit
wait, cannons on f6f?? did it have them?? i noe the raf for some reason reguned our american planes, there p51 had cannons(why dont we) did there f6f have cannons?? Not that i want them, personally i think the 6 50s are a better air to air weapon.
All F6F-5s were engineered to install a pair of 20mm cannon. However, they were only installed on F6F-5N night fighters, and many were removed and replaced by Browning .50 cal MGs as the muzzle flash of the cannons would cause a loss of night vision. You can find many photos of F6F-5Ns armed with only machine guns... Pilots liked the added firepower, but you can't shoot what you can't see. So, many had MGs retrofitted.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Report 829 states that the sharp-edged spoiler installed to reduce wing drop is what lowered the F4U's CLmax, not the use of flaps.
Widwing,
I wasn't saying that it was because of the use of the flaps. I was responding to Shuckins implying that the Clmax of the F6F without flaps is over 2.0 which did not exist to my knowledge of any WW2 fighter. But Dean's list of Clmax numbers is just way off the mark. Because of that his turn index is way off.
If you put the right data into that calculation the results are very different.
Also it should be noted that much of the reason that the F6F wing had a higher Cl than the F4U was the intial roughness of the F4U wing which was later corrected. So the Cl max increased from the NACA report going forward.
-
I thought I remember reading somewhere the unreliability of the American-produced version of the Hispano caused the military to largely pull the 20mm except for a handful of aircraft.
-
Originally posted by F4UDOA
Widwing,
I wasn't saying that it was because of the use of the flaps. I was responding to Shuckins implying that the Clmax of the F6F without flaps is over 2.0 which did not exist to my knowledge of any WW2 fighter. But Dean's list of Clmax numbers is just way off the mark. Because of that his turn index is way off.
If you put the right data into that calculation the results are very different.
Also it should be noted that much of the reason that the F6F wing had a higher Cl than the F4U was the intial roughness of the F4U wing which was later corrected. So the Cl max increased from the NACA report going forward.
Well, it seems that NACA was trying to isolate the wing performance without the influence of the prop. When the prop was "idling", the CLmax increased. I suspect that at max RPM, low pitch, CLmax will increase substantially more.
I also believe that NACA claims that the spoiler strip presented a trade-off. A significant reduction of CLmax in exchange for much better handling near stall speed. Most would agree that it was a good trade.
This report shows that the F6F has a higher CLmax with and without flaps, but does not demonstrate the huge difference shown by Dean. Indeed, the differences were not dramatic, just as they are not far apart in the game... Which is to HTC's credit.
Also in the report is a description of the F4U and F6F wing. It seems that the F4U wing was very rough, with many panels and gaps. When taped up, the CLmax improved. Likewise for the F6F, but to a somewhat lesser degree. However, since both represented fleet aircraft, neither will be treated to taping and added fillets in service. When we look at the P-51 tested, we see that the wing is much cleaner. This is what one would expect as the P-51 wing doesn't fold. Of course, the P-51 has a considerably higher wing loading than the two Navy fighters, which is more significant IMHO.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Originally posted by Saxman
I thought I remember reading somewhere the unreliability of the American-produced version of the Hispano caused the military to largely pull the 20mm except for a handful of aircraft.
F6Fs certainly had issues with the cannons jamming. However, most of the time careful deburring, stoning of bolts and reassembly cured these ills. Tillman writes about these issues in his Hellcat book.
Most were removed because they were delivered without flash suppressors. Some squadrons had the carrier's machine shop manufacture suppressors from bar stock, but the majority simply removed the cannons and installed .50 cals until they received factory suppressors.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Hi Widewing,
>Well, it seems that NACA was trying to isolate the wing performance without the influence of the prop.
Fortunately, that yields about the same Clmax we get in a high speed turn when the effect of the propeller slipstream is relatively small.
I'd take the numbers from the figures 14/15 you pointed out as good data on the relative turning capabilities.
Plugging them into my spreadsheet, I get the following sustained turn rates at 1000 m:
16,12 °/s for the Fw 190A-5 @ 3989 kg, 1.32 ata, 2400 rpm (Clmax 1.21)
16,62 °/s for the F6F-3 @ 12,740 lbs, 60" Hg, 2700 rpm (Clmax 1.29)
16,38 °/s for the F4U @ 12,470 lbs (Clmax 1.17)
17,15 °/s for the Fw 190A-5 @ 3989 kg, 1.42 ata, 2700 rpm (Clmax 1.21)
Hm, suprisingly, the aircraft are rather close and the Fw 190 on emergency power actually comes out best. The Navy fighters were flown at a slightly reduced weight compared to the figures I used, but I'm not sure that accounts for the difference. I'll have to analyse that later.
>This is what one would expect as the P-51 wing doesn't fold.
It might also be the result of trying to build a laminar-flow wing, which required greater attention to surface quality.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
HoHun,
You F4U weight is a few hundred pounds high. Try 12,175 for a fully loaded -1D. Most listings are closer to 12,000lbs even.
Also those Clmax numbers are with prop removed and no slipstream. The F4U Clmax calculated with no power and no flaps moves up to 1.49. The F6F I am not sure because of CAS error.
Check this.
(http://mywebpages.comcast.net/markw4/F4UG.jpg)
(http://mywebpages.comcast.net/markw4/F4Ustall.jpg)
(http://mywebpages.comcast.net/markw4/F4UCAS.jpg)
-
Hi F4UDOA,
>You F4U weight is a few hundred pounds high. Try 12,175 for a fully loaded -1D.
Ah, I accidentally used the F4U-1C weight instead of the -1D weight from the same chart!
>Also those Clmax numbers are with prop removed and no slipstream.
For turning purposes, that's the one that gives the most realistic results.
(I also found some other Focke-Wulf data. There is a large variance in Focke-Wulf data, I used a dataset yielding 666 km/h @ 6.2 km which results in a slightly worse turn rate than I quoted previously.)
Corrected comparison at 1 km:
16,11 °/s for the Fw 190A-5 @ 3989 kg, 1.42 ata, 2700 rpm (Clmax 1.21)
16,62 °/s for the F6F-3 @ 12,740 lbs, 60" Hg, 2700 rpm (Clmax 1.29)
16,83 °/s for the F4U-1D @ 12,175 lbs (Clmax 1.17)
At 8 km:
7.15 °/s for the F6F-3 @ 12,740 lbs, 60" Hg, 2700 rpm (Clmax 1.29)
7.75 °/s for the Fw 190A-5 @ 3989 kg, 1.42 ata, 2700 rpm (Clmax 1.21)
7.75 °/s for the F4U-1D @ 12,175 lbs (Clmax 1.17)
(The Hellcat might be a bit inaccurate, I didn't fully understand all the historical data and its apparent contradictions. I'm also using the weight data from the F6F-5 for the F6F-3 with water injection though the latter might be lighter - or not.)
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
Originally posted by HoHun
[F4UDOA]>Also those Clmax numbers are with prop removed and no slipstream.
For turning purposes, that's the one that gives the most realistic results.
Actually not, the flight envelope chart as F4UDOA posted above gives far more more realistic results (assuming that weight and IAS/TAS conversions are accurate).
gripen
-
heres somethin that hit me yesterday, i was flying fm2 and it is way more roughed then f6f, arent the supposed to be the same in the duribility department. I was at 186(took 2 hours for the bishops to take the base away from the nites, a very depressing site) and fm2 is slow but the turn rate and duribilty let me kill tons of hurris ju88s 110 etc. Im not to sure about f4u but i noe f6f was know for absorbing retarded amounts of damage then roll over and bag a kill.
-
bkbandit: Even P-47 pilots admitted that the F4U was by far the toughest single-engine fighter the Americans produced. However I routinely have stabs, wing parts, and the entire tail blown off by long-range pings from machine gun fire (d600-1000).
For that matter, I've absolutely UNLOADED (I'm talking at LEAST 100-200 rounds) within convergence into the engines of Spits, HO-icanes and Mustangs and watched them fly off without any sign of damage, and yet one or two pings will kill the engine on a Hog? The R-2800 was supposedly one of the most rugged and reliable aircraft powerplants of the war and was known to continue to operate despite having whole cylinder heads completely blown off, but here one hit is all it takes to cause a fatal oil leak while the far less durable Merlin keeps humming.
-
they realllllyyyyy need to the fix this, they need to up the armor or something, the american planes werent werent a agilie but made up for it 2 fold with the armor.
-
Hi Saxman,
>bkbandit: Even P-47 pilots admitted that the F4U was by far the toughest single-engine fighter the Americans produced.
Do you perhaps have the quote ready? That would be quite interesting :-)
However, with regard to reputation, I'm afraid it's not a very accurate representation of reality.
If you look at the US Navy statistics that were prepared just after WW2 based on their total combat experience, the one aircraft type that could really take more flak than any other and still come home was the Douglas SBD.
I don't know whether people who read other books than I did share this impression, but I'd never have thought it was such a tough aircraft based on all those books I had read on WW2 air combat. Sure, one always reads that the pilots were unhappy about the SB2C and liked the SBD much better, but that might have just indicated that the SB2C really had a lot of problems ...
So, it's always better to try and find some data to cross-check the reputation now and then ;-)
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
Originally posted by HoHun
Hi Saxman,
>bkbandit: Even P-47 pilots admitted that the F4U was by far the toughest single-engine fighter the Americans produced.
Do you perhaps have the quote ready? That would be quite interesting :-)
However, with regard to reputation, I'm afraid it's not a very accurate representation of reality.
If you look at the US Navy statistics that were prepared just after WW2 based on their total combat experience, the one aircraft type that could really take more flak than any other and still come home was the Douglas SBD.
I don't know whether people who read other books than I did share this impression, but I'd never have thought it was such a tough aircraft based on all those books I had read on WW2 air combat. Sure, one always reads that the pilots were unhappy about the SB2C and liked the SBD much better, but that might have just indicated that the SB2C really had a lot of problems ...
So, it's always better to try and find some data to cross-check the reputation now and then ;-)
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
Henning, here's the specific quote you are referring to, from page 78 and 79:
a) Loss rates to enemy A/A were highest in 1942 and generallv lowest in 1943. increasing slightly from then until the end of the war. The 1942 rates reflect the predominance of large enemy warships among the targets for that year, figures for 1943 and subsequent years the relatively lower but increasing effectiveness of Japanese land A/A. Actually enemy A/A material improved and increased in volume at a far greater rate, but this trend was offset by the improved performance characteristics of Naval aircraft, and improved tictics against A/A.
(b) Loss rates for carrier-based aircraft were consistently higher than for land-based aircraft, despite inclusion in the latter of the relatively vulnerable VPB. The reason is that land-based aircraft generally were assigned to attack the less well-defended rear area targets, already well beaten down by the carrier forces, such as those in the Marshalls and Philippines. Also their campaigns against such heavily defended targets as the Rabaul area were of long duration, and by the later stages enemy A/A guns had been greatly reduced in number and ammunition supplies
depleted. Carrier aircraft, on the other hand, were constantly reaching out toward the most heavily defended targets, pressing their attacks close to wipe out such small and vital targets as grounded aircraft, warships and merchant vessels, and seldom staying long enough to enjoy the benefits of the reduced A/A defenses resulting from their attacks.
(c) The lesser effectiveness of enemy A/A against our land-based planes did not result from an appreciably lower rate of hits per sortie attacking defended targets, but from generally lower lethal effect of hits. A smaller percentage of the land-based planes hit by A/A was lost. In part, also the lower rate of losses for land-based planes reflected the extensive use of the less vulnerable SBD, while the carriers were shifting to the highly vulnerable SB2C.
(d) The SBD, carrier-based or land-based, had consistently the best record of any plane model. It generally received slightly less hits per sortie than other planes, and in addition had the lowest ratio of losses to hits of any single-engine plane.
(e) The F6F appears to have had considerable advantage over the F4U when flown under the same conditions. Receiving about the same number of hits per sortie in comparable operations, the F6F had a far lower rate of loss per plane hit.
(f) The TBM loss rate appears to have been lower than that of the SB2C. It received more hits per sortie, but showed greater ability to survive hits. Both SB2C and TBM were somewhat more subject to A/A loss than fighters.
Loss rates per 100 action sorties, by carrier type:
F6F: .87 CV/CVL .83 CVE
F4U: 1.46 CV/CVL .90 CVE
FM: 0 CV/CVL .48 CVE
SBD: .68 CV/CVL 0 CVE
SB2C: 1.43 CV/CVL 0 CVE
TBM: 1.10 CV/CVL .72 CVE
One should also note that the Navy states that the F6F was a more survivable fighter than the F4U. However, the small, rugged SBD was best at getting its crew home.
This next part is very interesting as well. From page 77:
In the case of F6F and F4U losses the bulk of those reported as destroyed by unidentified types, amounting to one-fourth of the total, have been prorated as noted in the footnote to the table. This, plus the errors in identification which may normally be expected in the action reports,
results in a decrease of accuracy which leaves something to be desired, but permits comparisons which are believed sufficiently near the truth to be of considerable value and interest, and are in any event the best available.
The result of comparing each pair of figures is to produce a combat ratio for air combat between each two models or types of planes involved - subject to the limitation on accuracy noted above.
The F6F appears to have shot down 15.5 single-engine Jap fighters for each F6F destroyed in combat with them. Against the Zeke the F6F ratio was over 13-to-1; against Oscar over 15-to-1; against Tojo (probably including a large proportion of misidentifications) over 31-to-1. Against
the most advanced types the F6F did less well: 8.5 to-1 against the Frank, Jack and George combined.
Unusual is the loss of 6 F6Fs in combat with Betty; however, with respect to enemy twin-engine planes as a whole the ratio was 66-to-1, and against all other bomber types combined is 225-to-1.
The F4U nearly matched the F6F performance during this period, with a 15-to-1 ratio against single-engine fighters, and 12-to-1 against Zeke. The F4U, however, included a relatively large number of obsolete Nates among its kills, and while its record against Oscar and Tony was superior to the F6F's, the F4U scored only 13-to-1 against Tojo, and only 6-to-1 against Frank, Jack and George combined.
The phenomenal FM leads all fighters during this period, with a 26-to-1 ratio over Jap single-engine fighters, only 2 losses sustained in destroying 87 Zekes, and only two losses in downing 194 bombers and miscellaneous types.
My regards,
Widewing
-
One question about the rate of loss between the F6F and F4U, (incidentally, I think the fairly close numbers between the two aircraft out of those stationed aboard the CVEs is significant) is whether the F6F could really sustain more damage without going down, or if the milder handling characteristics of the F6F are coming into play? The F4U was already notorious for its low-speed handling characteristics--especially during carrier landings--as it is. How many of the losses factored in to the ratio were badly shot-up planes that made it home but cracked up trying to land? Or, aircraft that made it back but were so badly damaged the pilot elected to bail out rather than attempt a landing? While the aircraft made it home, it would technically be considered as a loss in both cases.
-
Widewing, do you have comparable numbers for PTO P-61s?
-
I love statistics.
Here are some of my favorites.
The top Navy Carrier fighter aircraft by claimed kill ratio. It should be noted that the F6F scored almost 5,000kills during this time and the F4U and FM-2 scores were in the hundreds so the comparison is not great because of the circumstances.
1. FM-2= 32 to 1 Kill ratio (not 27 to 1)
2. F6F= 20.22 to 1
3. F4U= 20 to 1
The Top Navy Land Based fighters by kill ratio
1. F4U= 11.4 to 1
2. F6F= 5 to 1
3. FM2/F4F= 2.6 to 1
It should also be noted that the victory totals are almost the same among all of these aircraft and the timeline of these kills was based more in 1942/43. Could it be possible that the combat that these aircraft faced in 1943 was somehow more difficult than in later years?
Well the question is this,
Does the fact that the F6F claimed 2470 kills between June and Oct 1944 mean that during the "Mariannes Turkey Shoot" that the pilots were more obsolete than the aircraft they were flying?
If you were to remove the results of the mariannes slaughter the kill numbers become very even and the kill ratio of the F6F comes way down. The F4U kill stats were never affected by the Mariannes because it wasn't there.
The bottom line in all these statistics is that the reason the F6F had the number of kills it had was because it was where the fight was when it was being fought. For that it should be recognized as the most significant Naval Aircraft of WW2. If Vought was guilty of anything it was not being Grumman in 1943 and not being able to break through the wall until it was absolutely neccesary to put higher performance aircraft on the decks of Carriers. Not more aircraft, higher performing aircraft.
As to durability of the F4U I would just point to the fact that the F4U dropped almost 3 times as much ordinance (15,621 tons vs 6,603) than the F6F while sustaining far fewer losses to AAA (553 to 349). Ground attack is perhaps the greatest test of durability of all possible test.
And besides the F4U shot down a Mig-15 in Korea and a P-51D in El Salvador and that has got to be worth 2,500 Zekes any day :aok
-
Saxman,
Two things,
1. In almost the same number of total sorties many more F6F's were lost to operational accidents than the F4U.
2. Of all of the Navy and Marine squadrons that were put on Carriers in 1945 most of them had almost no carrier experiance before deploying for combat nor did the crews aboard those ships have experiance working on non Grumman aircraft but somehow they managed to not only serve but achieve the same kill ratio on carriers as the mighty F6F while maintaining service ratios only fractionally lower.
I leave you with this
Speed (http://www.airraceaddict.com/streaming_video_92_scorsair.shtml)
-
The reason the Hellcat was where the fight was when it was being fought was because of it's superior carrier compatibility performance. The Navy simply was not willing to accept the level of losses among young pilots resulting from the Corsair's dangerous low-speed handling characteristics.
An article in Flight Journal's special edition about the Corsair had this quote from Captain Eric Brown, in response to a question about why the British Royal navy was able to carrier-qualify the Corsair more than a year before the American Navy:
"We were a bit desperate at that time with our new carriers being launched faster than we were able to equip them...The Corsairs gave us a bit of a hard time, and we soon understood exactly why the Americans had so much trouble with them. One problem was the bad view over the nose. Also, if one got slow on approach and added full powe to go around again, one could induce an uncontrollable torque roll. Because of the Corsair's small stabilizing vertical-fin area and high power, the aircraft would then yaw, roll, stall and spin into the water. It also had a most non-resilient landing gear that would bounce the beast over the barrier into the parked aircraft pack on the foredeck.
It's redeeming factor was its high kill rate - second only to the Hellcat's, but the high accident rate cost a lot of Allied pilots their lives. The Royal Navy had a lot of trash in its Seafire and Sea Hurricane aircraft because neither was designed from the ground up for carrier operations."
Question answer: because of its great need for carrier fighters, the British Royal Navy accepted the Corsair's abysmal accident losses."
Indeed, the Corsair's handling and carrier compatability problems were never fully resolved, despite the fact that it continued in service with the Navy for many years after the end of the war.
In that same article it mentions that in a 1952 F4U-5 Pilots' Handbook it stated clearly on page 29, "At the stall with POWER ON, FLAPS DOWN, a roll off to the left is violent and is accompanied by a 600 to 900 food loss in altitude." At this late date in the Corsair's long history, torque roll still caused too many accidents when a pilot added power during a landing-signal officer's wafe-off on a poor carrier-landing approach.
Two Vought WWII test pilots, when asked why it took so long to cure the Corsair's carrier-landing bounce and torque-roll stall accident problems, responded: Vought's engineering boss simply didn't want to hear that anything was wrong with the Corsair, even from Navy-trained test pilots.
So the choice of the Hellcat over the Corsair wasn't simply a matter of choosing the fighter with the best straight-line performance.
-
Originally posted by Debonair
Widewing, do you have comparable numbers for PTO P-61s?
this is blue planes only(mainly hellcat and crosair), why would there be posts of p61, and we dont even have that plane anyway(i would like to see it but after tod, again... in 2 week:furious )
-
Originally posted by F4UDOA
The Top Navy Land Based fighters by kill ratio
1. F4U= 11.4 to 1
2. F6F= 5 to 1
3. FM2/F4F= 2.6 to 1
As to durability of the F4U I would just point to the fact that the F4U dropped almost 3 times as much ordinance (15,621 tons vs 6,603) than the F6F while sustaining far fewer losses to AAA (553 to 349). Ground attack is perhaps the greatest test of durability of all possible test.
That's pretty damn selective there.. You picked the smallest possible population to support your argument. Plucking stats out of their context is somewhat disingenuous. Now, by taking the whole population of land based Corsairs and Hellcats by adding in Marine land based F4Us and F6Fs to the equation, the ratios are:
F4U: 8.0/1
F6F: 8.9/1
As to durability, the document defines this very well, and we've had this discussion before.
Here's what the document says in reference to tripleA losses (it's already in the earlier text):
The reason is that land-based aircraft generally were assigned to attack the less well-defended rear area targets, already well beaten down by the carrier forces, such as those in the Marshalls and Philippines. Also their campaigns against such heavily defended targets as the Rabaul area were of long duration, and by the later stages enemy A/A guns had been greatly reduced in number and ammunition supplies depleted. Carrier aircraft, on the other hand, were constantly reaching out toward the most heavily defended targets, pressing their attacks close to wipe out such small and vital targets as grounded aircraft, warships and merchant vessels, and seldom staying long enough to enjoy the benefits of the reduced A/A defenses resulting from their attacks.
The fact is that land based units faced far less formidable tripleA than did the carrier units, regardless of what they were flying. Close support missions encountered the least lethal tripleA, as enemy infantry units generally were armed with just light MGs and rifles. Unlike the Germans, Japanese Army units were very poorly armed for defending themselves against air attack. Inasmuch as the F6F flew the vast majority of carrier sorties against the well defended targets described above, you would expect heavier losses.
I'm at a complete loss to understand your vendetta against Grumman and the F6F. There's no denying that the F4U was a tremedous fighter, but the F6F was certainly just as good, and without question more important to the war's outcome. Seriously, what motivates your dislike?
My regards,
Widewing
-
Originally posted by bkbandit
this is blue planes only(mainly hellcat and crosair), why would there be posts of p61, and we dont even have that plane anyway(i would like to see it but after tod, again... in 2 week:furious )
Yeah, I know that, but the P-61 is a favorite of mine & I haven't ever found any information on even one of them being lost in second world war combat, so it's ratio is seemingly untouchable, but my research skills are a bit amteurish...
-
another thread.......start one but not here. start a new thread, maybe more interest will get it added later and maybe even nite all together. But hellcat and f4u both had nite variants keeping this thread moveing right along on track.
-
Originally posted by Debonair
Yeah, I know that, but the P-61 is a favorite of mine & I haven't ever found any information on even one of them being lost in second world war combat, so it's ratio is seemingly untouchable, but my research skills are a bit amteurish...
As far as I can determine, in the Pacific war...69 kills, two probables against no losses.
My regards,
Widewing
-
I'm at a complete loss to understand your vendetta against Grumman and the F6F. There's no denying that the F4U was a tremedous fighter, but the F6F was certainly just as good, and without question more important to the war's outcome. Seriously, what motivates your dislike?
Funny you should say this since you are the Grumman and Lockheed rep for Aces High.
I have nothing against the F6F in fact I have collected more data on the F6F that any other bird except the F4U.
What I do see on these boards however is an effort to re-write history and create some performance equality with the F4U and F6F that did not exist Until Corkey Meyers started his writing career However even Corkey jokes that if Boone Guyton were alive that he would disagree. Lost in this is the fact the Meyer was the Cheif Grumman test pilot.
The other arguement that is presented is the superiority by kill ratio. Yes the F6F had a superior kill ratio for the war but this did not tell the whole story.
In similar circumstances the F4U was either equal or superior provided that the time and place were the same.
That's pretty damn selective there.. You picked the smallest possible population to support your argument. Plucking stats out of their context is somewhat disingenuous. Now, by taking the whole population of land based Corsairs and Hellcats by adding in Marine land based F4Us and F6Fs to the equation, the ratios are:
F4U: 8.0/1
F6F: 8.9/1
Your math is wrong? I don't know how you got 8/1 for the F4U.
Page 22 Land based F4U total- 1560kills-155losses= 10.06 to 1.
However.
That actually helps my point of the parity of kill ratios in the same conditions. This does not prove the F6F as an uber tank that could not be shot down.
Also you should note that 68 claims were made by land based F6F Night Fighter Squadrons (I believe these were all Marine Squadrons). There were 93 land based Marine claims for the war and 115 made by land based Navy squadrons for a total of 208kills and 25 losses. But if you subract out the 68 kills and 2 losses in night time action the results are very different.
Daytime Landbased Kill ratio's for the war
F6F- 6.08/1
F4U- 10.4/1
Widwing,
This thread was a technical discussion but you brought the kill ratios into it. They are very subjective and inaccurate. It is obvious by these numbers that nothing can be proven to show superiority of one A/C over the other except by sheer volume from 5 months of lopsided fighting in one area.
What these stats show clearly however is the parity of the skill of the pilots and the enemy in every theater represented. Navy carrier, Marine Carrier, Navy land and Marine land. Almost dead equal throughout.
These stats show much more of pilots than aircraft.
-
Originally posted by F4UDOA
Funny you should say this since you are the Grumman and Lockheed rep for Aces High.
I have nothing against the F6F in fact I have collected more data on the F6F that any other bird except the F4U.
What I do see on these boards however is an effort to re-write history and create some performance equality with the F4U and F6F that did not exist Until Corkey Meyers started his writing career However even Corkey jokes that if Boone Guyton were alive that he would disagree. Lost in this is the fact the Meyer was the Cheif Grumman test pilot.
The other arguement that is presented is the superiority by kill ratio. Yes the F6F had a superior kill ratio for the war but this did not tell the whole story.
In similar circumstances the F4U was either equal or superior provided that the time and place were the same.
I suppose that having logged nearly 2,000 hours in Grumman airplanes makes me a fan.. Getting aboard the carrier without incident 332 times establishes a certain level of admiration for one's aircraft..
You continue to blast Meyer, but he has major league credentials..hall of fame level, in fact.
Here's a little bit about Corky:
"Corky Meyer was born on April 14, 1920 in Springfield, Illinois. After High School he attended the University of Illinois and went on to M.I.T. Corky received his flight training and obtained his commercial, instructor, instrument and multi-engine ratings from the Civilian Pilot Training Program in
1940 – 42.
After working as a trainee for Pan American Airways, Corky joined Grumman in 1942 and soon became the project pilot for the F6F Hellcat, F7F Tigercat, F8F Bearcat, F9F Panther, XF10F-1 Jaguar, and the F11F Tiger series.
He has flown many of the high-performance aircraft made in the 1940s including a Japanese A6M Zero.
In 1947 Corky performed first flight of the XF9F-2 Panther, Grumman’s first jet fighter. He was head of Grumman Flight Operations at Edwards Air Force Base from 1952-56. In 1954 he became the first civilian pilot to qualify aboard an aircraft carrier, when he landed aboard USS Lake Champlain (CVS-39) flying an F9F-6 Cougar.
In 1967 Corky was elected Vice President of the Grumman Aircraft Engineering Corporation guiding the company through its many reorganizations. In 1969 he was elected to the board of directors of the Grumman Aerospace Corporation, and in 1972 became senior Vice President of GAC. In 1974 Corky became President and CEO of Grumman American, a commercial aircraft subsidiary. Before he retired from his 36-year career with Grumman in 1978 Corky had tested and evaluated more than 125 different types of both military and commercial jet and piston-engine aircraft. He continued his career in aviation as president and CEO of the Enstrom Helicopter Corporation and later Falcon Jet Corporation.
Corky was inducted into the Carrier Aviation Test Pilots Hall of Honor at Patriots Point Naval and Maritime Museum in Charleston, South Carolina in 1995. On May 9, 1997, at a banquet held at the National Museum of Naval Aviation, Pensacola, Florida, he was named Honorary Naval Aviator No. 23.
His other achievements include being a founding member, as well as a Fellow of the Society of Experimental Test Pilots (and accepting the James H. Doolittle Award in 1971), an Associate Fellow of the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, the Wright Stuff Association – Wright Field World War Two Test Pilots Association, the Early and Pioneer Naval Aviators Association of Golden Eagles, and the Aerospace Walk of Honor."
I'll leave a space here where you can list your aviation accomplishments. You know, the ones that qualify you to judge Mr. Meyer.... Just type in your resume between the arrows.
--> <--
Furthermore, Meyer is an expert on the F6F and to a substantial extent, the F4U as well. If you recall (and even if you don't), Grumman was given an F4U-1D, BuNo. 57157 to test and determine if the revised oleo struts had made it ready for carrier service. Grumman did extensive drop tests and they made additional modifications to the struts. When the engineers were satisfied, Meyer flew a series of Field Carrier landings and signed off the Corsair as CV ready... Why would the Navy enlist Grumman to evaluate Vought's bounce solution? Maybe because they thought Grumman had the experience and honesty to be objective.
Your math is wrong? I don't know how you got 8/1 for the F4U.
Page 22 Land based F4U total- 1560kills-155losses= 10.06 to 1.
However.
That actually helps my point of the parity of kill ratios in the same conditions. This does not prove the F6F as an uber tank that could not be shot down.
Also you should note that 68 claims were made by land based F6F Night Fighter Squadrons (I believe these were all Marine Squadrons). There were 93 land based Marine claims for the war and 115 made by land based Navy squadrons for a total of 208kills and 25 losses. But if you subract out the 68 kills and 2 losses in night time action the results are very different.
Daytime Landbased Kill ratio's for the war
F6F- 6.08/1
F4U- 10.4/1
Once again, you are comparing the smallest possible population to draw conclusions. Just over 5,000 action sorties were flown by land based Hellcats, while around 54,000 sorties were flown by F4Us. You are ignoring the other 62,000+ F6F action sorties, because they don't support your argument. In that regard, you are arguing a single data point as evidence to contradict the whole analysis. In short, you're parsing the data to support facts not in evidence... But, you tend do that, so no shock there.
Oh, and this thread began as a discussion of the relative merits of the F4U and F6F in the game. It was you who decided to make it a technical discussion and I who introduced the Navy Statisical Analysis for survivability after it was suggested that the F4U was more survivable than the P-47 and Henning pointed out that the SBD was the champ in that regard. I tossed in the K/D stats to boot. This thread has followed several paths.. But now it's become a typically shrill anti-Grumman, anti-Meyer tirade and it's getting to be a bore.
So, I'll leave you to reply and be done with it. But, don't forget to fill in between those arrows there ace...
My regards,
Widewing
-
Originally posted by Widewing
As far as I can determine, in the Pacific war...69 kills, two probables against no losses.
My regards,
Widewing
Thanks for the info, if it is correct then the P-61 seems to have had no combat losses to enemy action for the war (one was dropped by an RAF Mossie:mad: :mad: :furious )
zOMG ratio!!!1:O :O :O :aok
-
You'd have to look at the ETO stats as well then.
Incidentally, do you have details on the friendly fire incident? (For the files ... )
-
Widewing,
Your loyalty to Grumman is noted but not necessary. I am already aware of it.
Here are another couple facts about Corkey Meyer.
1. He was a lifetime Grumman Employee and the last time I check he was human. You take the opinions of all of the pilots of the 1944 Joint Fighter Conferance (Combat pilots not Contract) and completely disregard them but somehow the chief test pilot from Grumman should be the final word in your arguement. Why don't you just ask Roy Grumman?
BTW, The Society Of Experamental Test Pilots (A group founded by Corkey Meyer) found the F4U-1D to be superior to the F6F as a fighter plane and a fighter bomber which agrees with the 1944 JFC and the 1944 Independant Naval Review that all found the F4U to be a "Superior" fighter aircraft.
2. Here is another piece of Corkey Meyer trivia. He was turned down by Vought early in the F4U program to be a Vought Test pilot.
Sour grapes? Maybe.
When I use the F4U in carrier service you say the F4U didn't fly enough missions there so I am cherry picking stats. Then you use the F4U and F6F land based sorties as an example and I correct your errors and you say it it to small a statistic after you brought it up and fudged the numbers. If it is so meaningless why are you bringing it up?
And by the way that is the second time you got the stats wrong with the kill ratios. First you said the FM-2 was 27/1 kill ratio and then land based F4U's at 8/1. Did your calculator break or are you having a hard time with facts?
The fact is in every catagory where conditions are the same the F4U is equal or superior in kill ratio. In fact using your criteria the FM-2 and SBD were the two greatest aircraft in the Naval inventory.
So, I'll leave you to reply and be done with it. But, don't forget to fill in between those arrows there ace...
That's pretty compelling stuff from a retired Stewardess there Ace...:aok
-
do the numbers change a lot if you include korean war F4U carrier stats?
-
Opens deck chair, pulls beer out of cooler.
-
alot of data thrown around, ALOT of data, and to tell u the truth i havent even read it(havent had time to). But would any of that data be enough to change the duriability or accel for either of these planes? How about speed, all the f4us should be clocking 400mph+ without killing the wep or waiting 20 years to get there(and i shouldnt have to go nose low either). A simple yes or no would be the best answer for this one. Im not a stat freak(other then k/d i dont pay no mind to them) i just read some,watch tv, play, and post what i see.
F4U with its horrible accel has kinda phased it self out of my line up. Now i fly only 3 planes, F6F(doesnt matter if im off a cv or not, i use it in the middle of the map), P51, and the P47 for ground attack. If hellcat was faster and had better hi alt speed i might consider it over the P51. Hellcat rocks, very simple. From time to time i will fly the perked f4u4 but im kinda of dissapointed, other then the roll rate and the air brakes it has nothin on the p51(51s great views makes up for f4us extra ammo).
this threads score
1 F6F
0 F4U
if i love blue planes let us now. IMO the most dangerous planes come off of the carrier deck.
-
Originally posted by F4UDOA
That's pretty compelling stuff from a retired Stewardess there Ace...:aok
I only have these three handy, but there's more, I have all my records... Recieved two qual certs on same day (Flight Engineer) down in GTMO and the third about 10 months later aboard Saratoga (Crew Chief).
(http://home.att.net/~c.c.jordan/AC-C1A.jpg)
(http://home.att.net/~c.c.jordan/AC-C118.jpg)
(http://home.att.net/~c.c.jordan/AC-C131.jpg)
Still waiting for your qualifications... I'll put those arrows up again.
--> <--
My regards,
Widewing
-
Originally posted by bkbandit
From time to time i will fly the perked f4u4 but im kinda of dissapointed, other then the roll rate and the air brakes it has nothin on the p51(51s great views makes up for f4us extra ammo).
You're kidding, I hope.
The F4U-4 is superior to the P-51 in every respect except range.. Faster, much better climb, will turn circles around a Mustang and has much better acceleration. Equal pilots in a Co-E, Co-alt meeting between the P-51 and the F4U-4.... The P-51 loses every time.
In the game, the best fighter, bar none, is the F4U-4. If it had Hispanos (F4U-4B), it would cost 100 perks.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Originally posted by Debonair
do the numbers change a lot if you include korean war F4U carrier stats?
No.. Very few Communist fighters were shot down by prop driven fighters. Some Yak-9Ps, a couple of old Yak-7s and a few La-9s... F4Us, P-51s and P-82s got most of these. Probably less than 30 in total. MiGs were claimed by an F4U-4B, an AD-2 and a Royal Navy Sea Fury. The F4U killed one MiG, but was shot down by another.
Korea was a different ball game than WWII. Prop fighters were the primary close-support aircraft for the first year and a half. Moreover, the NK and Chinese had large amounts of 23mm and 57mm tripleA guns in combat units. Losses were very heavy among the WWII vintage fighter-bombers. The Mustangs were especially vulnerable. Yet, there were about 300 P-47s flying in reserve and air guard units in CONUS. Why the Jugs were never sent to Japan in 1950 is a puzzle.
My regards,
Widewing
-
when i fly p51 and f4u i dont comitte to tight circles, that goes double for f4u, i only will go if i noe i have him and im all alone so i can recover me e. I have read about it and the descriptions i get make it feel like it should be alot better then our aces high verison. It all comes down to the pilot, i can go through many sceniors with the 2 and other then a type turn to the death or a rolling scissors i dont see many advantages. But it comes down to whos flyin it. would the fact that our little world of aces high doesnt have wind effect performance, i played in one room with it and f4u flew really strong and no matter which way i went pulled with the 2000 horse p&w, is this affecting it. When it fly the way it did there wasnt a doubt in my mind why historians(aswell as widewing) rav about corsair and are happy to tell people that it was the greatness.
1 f6f
0 f4u
-
These bratwursts look about done - you want one Debonair?
-
Originally posted by Widewing
The Mustangs were especially vulnerable. Yet, there were about 300 P-47s flying in reserve and air guard units in CONUS. Why the Jugs were never sent to Japan in 1950 is a puzzle.
This is something I've always wondered about, too.
- oldman
-
The F4U-4 is nowhere NEAR as vulnerable when slow as the 1-series Hogs. Her acceleration doesn't lag significantly enough behind the other MA dragsters to put her at a serious disadvantage (I think she's only within a second or two of the top accelerators). She'll out-turn the La-7, out EVERYTHING the P-51, is superior to the Frank in top speed and rate of climb (and I THINK comes damn close to out-turning her, too).
The F4U-4s you've been killing have probably been flown by ho-tard rundweebs who needed a year to save up enough perks to give her a ride and thought they could fly it like a Spit.
-
Still waiting for your qualifications... I'll put those arrows up again.
Exactly what "Qualification" are you asking for?
Were you a load master(cargo loader), flight engineer(flying crew chief). I was an Avionics Tech on C-141's, C-130's and C-5A's and even an L-1011 in a pinch in Rota Spain. Hell, I was USAIR Gold memeber for years, thats a bunch miles and I sat in the pilots seat as much as you did, what is your point?
You have never flown either aircraft and have no understanding of the physics of flight as far as I can tell. You use annecdotes whenever possible and discount basics facts like drag/lift coefficients and wing area, Horsepower etc.
I'll send that arrow back to you and you know what you can do with it?
##===>:O
-
Originally posted by Scherf
These bratwursts look about done - you want one Debonair?
no idea what you mean, was just wondering if my Queen of the Midnight Skies tops them all with it's unreal combat ratio as i've been lead to believe...as for the F4U-4b or c, i remember a small controversy over if they were even in 2nd world war combat or not, but dont remember the results...
-
Originally posted by F4UDOA
Exactly what "Qualification" are you asking for?
Hell, I was USAIR Gold memeber for years, thats a bunch miles and I sat in the pilots seat as much as you did, what is your point?
LOLOLOLOL USAir gold member... LOLOLOL You're killin' me Ace, you're killin' me.
My uncle rode a bus for 30 years... that didn't give him the insight of Parnelli Jones or Jackie Stewart.
My point is this, you repeatedly criticize and ridicule Corky Meyer, whose credentials are among the most impressive of any involved in American aviation in the past 60 years. Is his memory absolutely perfect? No, but he has memories of these events, something you do not have. You have to rely on someone else's work, he doesn't. He was the primary development test pilot for the F6F-5, F7F, F8F, F9F and F-11. No one in aviation knows more about these aircraft, having nursed them from infancy to maturity. Yet, you dismiss him as if he's just some old bumbling fool. You question his honesty, saying that he was a career Gurmman employee. That just reeks of self-importance. And when asked what credentials you hold to be in a position to judge Meyer's work, you point to being a USAir gold club member.... God have mercy!
As for me, I earned my wings the old fashioned way...I flew 8 to 10 hours a day, seven days a week. I studied the NATOPS until it was memorized. I passed a NATOPS review board, written test and a NATOPS check ride, and I did that on 5 different types of aircraft. 332 traps, 12 of them in one day, 9 the next (qualifying seven pilots). 17 of the 332 in the right seat... About 240 hours in the right seat of the C-1A, just over 20 in the backseat of TA-4Js and a joyride in the RIO seat of an F-4J with VF-103.
As to understanding flight physics. Yeah, I'm an idiot. The Senior Project Engineer for a firm that has hardware on just about every major weapons system in the US arsenal. From JDAM to GMLARS to Excalibre to Hellfire, all of these are useless if my hardware doesn't work. But then again, I'm an idiot and could be wrong.....
My regards,
Widewing
-
Originally posted by Scherf
These bratwursts look about done - you want one Debonair?
no idea what you mean, was just wondering if my Queen of the Midnight Skies tops them all with it's unreal combat ratio as i've been lead to believe...as for the F4U-4b or c, i remember a small controversy over if they were even in 2nd world war combat or not, but dont remember the results...but yeah, i'd like a brat (http://www.nostalgija2.com/forum/images/smiles/hungry.gif)(http://www.nostalgija2.com/forum/images/smiles/hungry.gif)(http://www.nostalgija2.com/forum/images/smiles/hungry.gif)(http://www.nostalgija2.com/forum/images/smiles/hungry.gif)(http://www.nostalgija2.com/forum/images/smiles/hungry.gif)(http://www.nostalgija2.com/forum/images/smiles/hungry.gif):aok :aok :cool:
-
that didn't give him the insight of Parnelli Jones or Jackie Stewart
OMFG!!!!
Now you are comparing yourself to Jackie Stewart!!!! You are such an ego maniac. Do you realize how out of touch you are? Are you typing from a rocking chair?
Forget about Parnelli Jones, you are closer to Smarty Jones, the back half you pompus rump.
Go ahead and explain to me again how an aircraft with the same HP, engine and prop is as fast as another one with higher drag Coefficient, larger wings, larger cowl and larger tail section with a cockpit that sits up higher than a double decker bus.
Oh yeah, every piece of documentation in history says it's not except Grumman. I bet you can't even begin to try Mr.NATOPS.
I think you owe the Government a pile of money you stole.
Oh yeah, can you get me some coffee stewardess:rofl
-
Boy, someone here needs to work on reading and comprehension.:eek:
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
Boy, someone here needs to work on reading and comprehension.:eek:
Yeah, science has made amazing progess, but no cure is possible for some conditions....
I'm still choking on the USAir gold member stuff.
My regards,
Widewing
-
I have been following this thread with great enjoyment over the last few days. Absolutely hilarious. While reading it, I did experience a moment of deja vu. Then I remembered this thread. (http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=119768) It was about the top speed of the F6F and provoked a very similar debate/discussion to the one in this current thread. Since that is the case, I will just add a couple of my replies from that thread since they pretty much fit right into this one:
This thread has become highly entertaining. Thanks F4UDOA for trying to convince people your favorite fighter is better than someone else's. It quite honestly sounds like you are *****ing about the Navy chosing to field the F6F on the carriers in 1943 instead of the F4U, thus denying the place in history for the bent-wing bird. It is quite laughable. No amount of debate on this board is going to change the fact that while the F4U had the performance numbers, the F6F had the historical results. But please, keep up the debate, its a great read for those moments when I am bored.
IMO, the F6F was the right plane at the right time. Whatever the reason it was placed in the fleet doesn't change that. Whatever performance advantage the F4U has does not change that. Could the F4U have done exactly the same thing as the F6F during 1944 had it been in the fleet? Of course. They both completely outclassed the Japanese opposition of the time. The F6F fans can take heart in the fact the Hellcat killed 5,000+ Japanese planes. The F4U fans can take heart in the Hog's long service and the fact that it is unquestionably much more recognizable by the public at large.
And this one as well:
Trust me, I think WW is just as entertaining. Its the classic "my dad can beat up your dad" type of argument. You love the F4U. I love the F6F. He likes the F6F.
Oh, and both the F4U and F6F faced diminished skill Japanese pilots. The USN and USMC chewed them up at Coral Sea, Midway, Guadalcanal, Eastern Solomons, and Santa Cruz flying a severely outclassed plane in the F4F.
Just so we are clear on where I stand on all of this, I do not care if the F6F, or F4U for that matter, is changed in AH. If it is, be it for better performance or worse, I will continue to fly the Hellcat. It is my favorite WW2 fighter after all.
-
Maybe we can follow this up with the P-38 was the greatest fighter in the AAF because Tony LaVier said so.
-
mathman hellcat
2 f6f
0 f4u
-
bandit, that little scoreboard of yours is really quite meaningless. Mathman's opinion is just that, OPINION. He says he flies the 'Cat because it's his favorite plane, not that it was better.
Plus, any neutering in performance suffered by the 1-series Corsairs against the Hellcat in the game are remedied in the F4U-4. The F4U-4 is faster at all altitudes, climbs better at all altitudes and acceleration is superior throughout the speed range. The Hellcat's only clear advantage is her mild stall characteristics make her more forgiving, and possible sustained turning (WW: Does the extra muscle of the -4 make negate the Cat's turn rate edge over the 1-series? I would at least think so given the increased power and that the -4 still manages almost the identical turn radius to the 1D).
The advantages of the -4 over the F6F aren't just by small degress. There's a very significant performance gap.
At 10,000 feet the -4 makes around 375mph under normal power. The Hellcat hasn't even touched 350. Kick in WEP and the 4-Hog hits 400 at that alt (maxing out over 450mph at 25k). Under WEP the -4 can sustain nearly 4000fpm climb up to 15,000ft (~3800fpm if I'm reading the comparison charts right). Climb in the F6F falls off steadily from 3500fpm down to less than 2900 over that same altitude range. The F4U-4 accelerates from 150 to 300mph in almost half the time as the F6F.
The only way a -4 pilot should lose to an F6F is if he gets stupid or the F6F starts with too much of an advantage and is able to make the most of it (in other words, equal pilots at the top of their game under equal conditions, the F4U-4 should win).
-
the f4u4 is perked, comparing that with hellcat is isnt fair. The other f4us are just to slow, they all should able to clock 400mph without blastin wep and waiting 20 years. Alot of data was thrown around, if that data cant prove that aces high corsair is nuetered its a waste(i didnt read it, does it prove it). F4u4 makes up for it, big whoop, f4u1 couldnt have been that crappy.
-
Originally posted by Saxman
Plus, any neutering in performance suffered by the 1-series Corsairs against the Hellcat in the game are remedied in the F4U-4.
Ingame yes, but the proper comparison is to the F8F bearcat.
Originally posted by Mathman
IMO, the F6F was the right plane at the right time.
I have a special liking to the Hellcat because it was the first model plane I built when I was really young. I got it as a gift, a huge 1:32 model and knew nothing about it, but it got my interest in aviation going - no good reason, just the right plane at the right time.
Bozon
-
bkbandit,
I would like to return this thread to a discussion on aircraft performance.
What performance aspect of the F6F-3/5 would you consider superior based on? I would really like to keep score so let's set a criteria.
1. Speed
2. Climb
3. Dive
4. Turn
5. Durability
6. Fighter bomber capability.
Anything else you would like to add?
BTW, I agree with Mathman, the F6F was the right airplane at the right time.
-
Originally posted by HoHun
>Also those Clmax numbers are with prop removed and no slipstream.
For turning purposes, that's the one that gives the most realistic results.
Hi HoHun
I disagree. You appear to be calculating sustained turn rates, and the maximum sustained turn rate occurs at low speed and high AoA when the influence of the slipstream will be significant.
Badboy
-
Originally posted by bkbandit
the f4u4 is perked, comparing that with hellcat is isnt fair. The other f4us are just to slow, they all should able to clock 400mph without blastin wep and waiting 20 years. Alot of data was thrown around, if that data cant prove that aces high corsair is nuetered its a waste(i didnt read it, does it prove it). F4u4 makes up for it, big whoop, f4u1 couldnt have been that crappy.
There's nothing slow about any of the F4Us in the game. All rank in the top 1/3 of the plane set at sea level.
At 10,000 feet they are still faster than most of the plane set. Here's were they run in relation to the whole of the plane set, and I've thrown is some others for comparison.
F4U-1: 390 mph (10th fastest in plane set)
F4U-1C: 379 mph (15th fastest)
F4U-1D: 380 mph (tied for 14th fastest)
F4U-4: 398 mph (7th fastest)
F6F-5: 354 mph (36th fastest)
P-47D-25: 374 mph (20th fastest)
Bf 109G-2: 380 mph (tied for 14th fastest)
Fw 190A-5: 366 mph (25th fastest)
P-38J: 373 mph (21st fastest)
Spit IX: 362 mph (31st fastest)
La-7: 394 mph (9th fastest)
P-51D: 406 mph (2nd fastest)
Ki-84: 367 mph (24th fastest)
Tempest: 396 mph (8th fastest)
A6M5: 330 mph (44th fastest)
Bf 109K-4: 411 mph (fastest overall)
Typhoon: 381 mph (13th fastest)
Ki-61: 352 mph (37th fastest)
You will notice that the F4U-1 is 9 mph faster than the Typhoon and only 6 mph slower than the Tempest... Not bad for a late 1942 vintage fighter.
Acceleration is isn't bad, generally in mid pack, with the F4U-4 being among the top tier.
Here's some acceleration figures for the same aircraft taken at sea level for comparison. Time was measured from 150 mph to 250 mph.
F4U-1: 28.69 seconds
F4U-1C: 25.59
F4U-1D: 24.50
F4U-4: 20.69
F6F-5: 25.12
P-47D-25: 28.34
Bf 109G-2: 22.19
Fw 190A-5: 24.34
P-38J: 23.23
Spit IX: 24.72
La-7: 19.15
P-51D: 25.11
Ki-84: 21.56
Tempest: 18.50
A6M5: 30.69
Bf 109K-4: 18.97
Typhoon: 24.13
Ki-61: 31.28
You will see that the F4U-1D accelerates faster than the P-51D, which is in a dead heat with the F6F-5. You should also note that low-speed acceleration is usually not enough to save your bacon, but E management will.
In short, the various -1 Corsairs are very capable aircraft. They offer excellent speed, reasonable acceleration and outstanding maneuverability throughout the whole of the speed range.
Do not let perceptions fool you, the F4Us are very lethal aircraft and are among the very few that can perform virtually any role within the game.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Originally posted by Badboy
I disagree. You appear to be calculating sustained turn rates, and the maximum sustained turn rate occurs at low speed and high AoA when the influence of the slipstream will be significant.
In addition the the clmax will decrease when the altitude and speed increase (basicly the Reynolds number increase). That is why a flight tested flight envelope gives the most realistic results at wide altitude range.
Slipstream (and thrustline due to AoA) effects are significant at lower speeds but actually the error is not very large at best sustained turn rate speeds (assuming around 3g at low altitude) because the drop of the clmax and decreasing effect of the thrust (in the prop driven planes) balances the situation.
Anyway, the 1g clmax values give just accidentally correct results without some sort of correcting (thrust, mach number etc.).
gripen
-
Hi Badboy,
>I disagree. You appear to be calculating sustained turn rates, and the maximum sustained turn rate occurs at low speed and high AoA when the influence of the slipstream will be significant.
A typical sustained turn at low altitude by a WW2 propeller-driven fighters is flown at about 3G, and at a speed sufficient to render the slipstream mostly ineffective, judging from the WW2 era tests I have seen. It might be different for lower-powered aircraft turning at slower speeds, but according the evidence I have seen, for the fighters we are discussing, the power-off clean Clmax yields the best results.
I'd be quite interested in a more detailed discussion in order to improve the accuracy of my calculations. (If you remember, we already exchanged a few emails over this exact topic when I asked for your advice one or two years ago - most of the factors I described back then are still relevant.)
So if you feel like it, I'll send you the latest version of my calculator, and we can pick up our exchange where we left it a while back :-)
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
Hi F4UDOA and Widewing,
I thought this thread was highly interesting before I somehow pushed the wrong button by mentioning those Navy statistics. Would it be possible to get back on track again? :-)
The question of credentials is really meaningless here as we're never so short on time that we need to believe (that's were "credentials" come from: "credere" is Latin, "to believe") what anyone writes here if we don't feel convinced by what someone else writes.
Credentials don't help when there is a logical flaw in someone's reasoning, or - as it happens more frequently, and with regard to the Navy statistics has happened just now - there is just not enough data to reach an unambiguous conclusion.
I actually read your comments on the factors affecting the statistics with great interest. I love statistics, and you both added details I hadn't been aware of :-)
The argument that followed was more or less about nothing, as F4UDOA's mention of Corky Meyer was not really strictly on topic, and I don't think Widewing ever suggested that the F6F was as fast as the F4U, which I believe was sort of implied by Meyer's discussion of the airspeed indicator calibration.
With the data we have seen here, I would not fault anyone for not following Meyer in that point, but as apparently no one did anyway, there should have been no reason to go "shields up, phasers full power" for the two of you :-)
I don't think we need this "credentials" stuff - that's about believing in the absence of proof.
If you've read Bryson's "A Short History of Nearly Everything", you're probably aware of some of the nonsense great scientists have come up with in their not-so-great moment, and if you can't believe guys like Isaac Newton based on credentials alone, I'd say there are few others left to trust in ;-)
Not to mention it's bad style to question someone's credentials instead of dealing with his factual arguments. Usually, that's a sign he is defending a weak case! (And with questionable means.) Now as you both dropped into that mode completely accidentally, I don't think it applies here, but I'd hate to see you two at odds with each other over nothing at all!
I mean, it's not even an Luftwaffe vs. Allies question, or a Air Force vs. Navy, but you are arguing about two Navy aircraft here (flying for the same Navy, no less!)
I'd suggest to lower DEFCON back to "peaceful", suspected bandits turned out to be friendlies after all ;-)
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
Originally posted by HoHun
...but according the evidence I have seen, for the fighters we are discussing, the power-off clean Clmax yields the best results.
Hm... I have no idea what evidence you are talking about but the power off Clmax value gives correct results just in the point where the real reachable power on clmax happens to be same (certain speed and altitude combination). In all other cases it's more or less off.
If properly created, a compressibility corrected flight envelope will give correct results for any given altitude and speed combination (sustained or instantaneous turning).
gripen
-
Originally posted by HoHun
but according the evidence I have seen, for the fighters we are discussing, the power-off clean Clmax yields the best results.
My apologies, but I can't recall the details of our previous discussions, I'll see if I still have them archived. But either way, I think we need to take a look at your evidence, because the conclusion simply can't be right. Clmax values are almost always considered a property of the wing section, and are for the wing alone, so those are generally the values found, but there are two factors that will improve the Clmax power on, the first is the slipstream that energises the airflow over the inner wings and lowers the stall speed, which explains why power on stall speeds are always slightly lower than power off, even at the best sustained turn speed. The other factor is the radial component of thrust, which is greatest at low speed and at high AoA which is where the best sustained turn rate occurs. Both effects combine to raise the effective Clmax. I've never seen data that contradicts that.
I'd be quite interested in a more detailed discussion in order to improve the accuracy of my calculations. (If you remember, we already exchanged a few emails over this exact topic when I asked for your advice one or two years ago - most of the factors I described back then are still relevant.
I do remember discussing this with you previously, or was that about engine data? Please forgive me, the details of our conversation are gone, must be my age :) I would be delighted to resume, if you want to email me it's leon . smith @ blue yonder . co . uk with all the spaces removed.
So if you feel like it, I'll send you the latest version of my calculator, and we can pick up our exchange where we left it a
while back :-)
Please feel free, and I'm interested to see if your radial G includes a factor for slipstream and a component of thrust.
Privileged Contributors: Angus, Arlo, BlauK, Gripen, Gunzo, humble, Knegel, MiloMorai, TDeacon
Just currious, what does this list mean, and how did those people get on it?
Badboy
-
Below is the chart showing the decreasing effect of the thrust on Clmax when the speed increases. It's from NACA tests on the F2A, notable thing is that the tests were done at rather low speeds so the effect of the mach number and reynolds number is not really visible (and probably not even measured).
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/852_1157788308_f2apoweron.jpg)
Later NACA conducted large tests (NACA TN 1044) on effect of the Mach and Reynolds number and below is the chart showing decrease of the Clmax when the mach number increase. Test were done power off (due to comparison to wind tunnel results). Regarding the topic of this thread, there is also data on F6F.
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/852_1157788341_clmaxvsmach.jpg)
NACA also made some testing on power on and below is a chart (NACA RM L6I10) showing the results on P-51D (results are also compared to earlier measurements on P-51B). Notable thing is that they measured abrupt stalls (pull out) and gradual stalls (turning) and the results show typical 15-20% difference in Clmax between these which should be accounted for accurate calculations.
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/852_1157788390_p-51poweron.jpg)
Some points need further investigation like e factor etc. but regarding the reachable Clmax at given flight condition, the data can be generalized fairly well to similar airframes using similar wing profiles and shows pretty well that the 1g stalling speeds rarely give correct results.
gripen
-
Hi Badboy,
> I would be delighted to resume, if you want to email me
Great, I'll do! :-)
>Just currious, what does this list mean, and how did those people get on it?
They get on it by relying on trolling techniques, dishonesty, insults, or ethically grossly deficient behaviour of other kind. That earns them the privilege of posting whatever they want entirely un-opposed by me. Thinking about it, I'd also offer to add people on their own request before they get nasty! :-)
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
Originally posted by HoHun
They get on it by relying on trolling techniques, dishonesty, insults, or ethically grossly deficient behaviour of other kind. That earns them the privilege of posting whatever they want entirely un-opposed by me. Thinking about it, I'd also offer to add people on their own request before they get nasty! :-)
Well, some people are able to make personal attack in their every post.
gripen
-
well, i dont have charts or avaition expericence, i just spend alot of time flying them. I was talking all that about corsair and ended up baging my first 262 in a f4u1d:aok (wrote that guys name down, hes my trophy for this month, along with the 234 i got today) but on another note i fought a f4u4 today in a f6f, i had him on the ropes and he tryed to dive away, well i stuck to his back at 400 and beat on him wit 50s. i cant really make up my mind with these 2, i guess its the pilot and the situation(whos got the e etc) that dictates the winner of this one.
I never meant for this thread to be an arguement, i guess u guys are just passionate about the blue planes. p51b vs p51d didnt get like this.:lol )
-
Originally posted by bkbandit
...p51b vs p51d didnt get like this.:lol )
that is not fair, this one is about two different models of plane (and multiple variants of both), that one was about just two variants of the same plane.
IMHO this thread doesnt win until it gets to at least 119 posts.
-
i just wanted to see what the majority of the community would prefer to fly. I have had alot of fights and theres no winner between these 2, it has to do with the pilot, there is no clear advantage, i have had plenty of f4us(im in hellcat) drop gears full flaps and think they are goin to out turn me, i pull up and and beat down on them from above. I have also been in f4u and had hellcats dive on me for me only to force an over shot and hit him with a 50 cal surprise. I just wanted to see where the community stood on this. From what i see in flight f4u gets more flight time, i only see hellcat out at see but i see corsair every where. I love to see guys bring out stats and get into a deep discussion, but i just was curious on where everyone stood.
I personally like them both, both have there problems(like the pain of landing corsair, and the lack of speed in hellcat) but both are great fighter/bombers and can be brought to the fight no matter the situation.
-
Hi Bkbandit,
>I love to see guys bring out stats and get into a deep discussion, but i just was curious on where everyone stood.
I'd say Widewing has made a good point when he posted the speed comparison. In a nutshell, you are condemned to fight all aircraft that are faster than you at their terms because you can't evade a fight. To establish a fighter's potential for success, you then have to check which other strengths you can use against each of those you can't evade.
In a one-versus-one, often the fighter with the lower speed will look better (if this speed results from a tradeoff for higher manoeuvrability). In a many-versus-many, the situation is not as clearly cut. In an environment virtually saturated with fighters, any prolonged dogfighting is going to result in defeat anyway, so that makes speed an important option.
Of course, as it's only a game, you have the freedom to accept that your survival depends on the random fluctuations of numerical superiority in the combat zone and not on your flying, and concentrate on killing as many enemies as possible before you either run out of foes or run out of life ;-) This approach might require another set of characteristics from your mount again :-)
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
The argument that followed was more or less about nothing, as F4UDOA's mention of Corky Meyer was not really strictly on topic, and I don't think Widewing ever suggested that the F6F was as fast as the F4U, which I believe was sort of implied by Meyer's discussion of the airspeed indicator calibration.
HoHun,
Sorry for not responding sooner. My time is limited these days to say the least.
In any case here is case against the "faulty airspeed indicator".
The first of which is the conclusion of Corkey Meyers arguement is strange for a proffessional test pilot. He states the two aircraft are about the same size so they should have the same top speed. The wing area, cowl opening, canopy hight and tail section just for starters are not even close. You would expect someone in Meyers position to know better. Drag is the differance in speed especially at altitude.
The second piece is something I have from Vought that I never posted. It is a flight test to calibrate the airspeed error using radio towers to measure true airspeed at all altitudes from sea level to 30K. These test were done in mid-1943. In other words Vought new exactly how fast the F4U was but Grumman had no reasonable idea how fast the F6F was?? I don't think so
The next issue is the fix. Grumman goes from the F6F-3 which indicates 15Knots to slow to the F6F-5 which indicates 17knots to fast? I have exactly 4 different IAS CAS charts for the F6F which was only in production for 4 years. I doubt anyone that flew the F6F ever really new how fast they were going.
Next is the writing of Corkey Meyer himself. He mentions in his flight Journal articals that the F7F was 71MPH faster than the F6F. He makes the same statement of the F8F being faster than the F6F by a significant margin. Well which is it Corkey??
I communicated with Corkey Meyer via Fax of all things about a year ago and I asked him some very generic questions about his F4U test such as speeds and climb rates. He directed me to his articles that I already have and of course the answers are not there. If you notice nowhere does he actually say how fast he was going.
My theory is simple. The F4U they had was underperforming, most likely leaking ducting causing loss of pressure in the low and high blower stages. The Brits had the same problem in the first F4U they tested so they retested and it performed just fine. But they never determined that the two had the same top speed and neither did the USN.
BTW, I have numerous test post airspeed indicator fix none of which show no parity of airspeed.
-
Hi F4UDOA,
>In any case here is case against the "faulty airspeed indicator".
Roger on the data :-)
My observation was just that no-one actually claimed the F6F to be as fast as the F4U in this thread. The airspeed indicator question sparked off the entire "credentials" debate, but as far as I can tell, there wasn't any actual disagreement between Widewing and you in this question.
So I'd like to suggest that your argument only resulted from a misunderstanding and not from a real difference in opinion!
(I'm feeling obliged to point that out because it was my comment on Navy statistics that started it all.)
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
Yeah,
I'm not exactly sure where it went of the hook but it certainly did. But then again it always does.
-
A couple of points, if I may.
Pete Bowers mentioned that he used Grumman factory data for the F7F-1 when writing the American Fighter with Angelluci. That factory data shows the F7F-1 attaining 394 mph at sea level. In contrast, factory data shows the F6F-3 able to attain 324 mph at sea level. That's 70 mph. So, Meyer may have had that in mind when he wrote his article. Pete passed away a few years ago and I have no idea what happened to his vast collection of photos and flight data. Bodie may know.
No one has argued that the F6F was faster or even as fast as the F4U... Speed isn't everything. Being there, however, WAS everything.
Had the F6F not been designed and developed as quickly as it was, the F4U may have gone aboard the carriers, warts and all. But, the Navy had a choice and they went with the aircraft that was carrier ready in their view. Like the P-38, the F4U suffered through a prolonged teething process. Both Lockheed and Vought were slow to fix the problems that existed. In Vought's case, it kept the Corsair land-bound for a year longer than it should have been. Some have said that is was a direct result of stubborn leadership at Vought. That may be true, but the whatever the cause, a superb fighter was relegated to the back-water of the Pacific war for far too long. They were extremely valuable where they served, but had they been aboard the fleet carriers, there's no doubt that they would have rivaled the F6F for top kill honors. The problem was, you have to be where the main action is and the F4U didn't get to the center ring of the circus until the show was largely over. Had the invasion of Japan come to pass, the F4Us would have been a major factor. Especially with the F4U-4 arriving in greater numbers every month.
I've said it many times; the F4U-4 was the best all around fighter to see combat in WWII. It could do everything as good or better than any other fighter in the world at the time. No other combat proven fighter offered its level of capability in so many differing areas of the combat mission. Moreover, while it was inferior to the F8F-1 as a pure dogfighter, the F8F-1 was not even close to the F4U-4 as a fighter-bomber. Only the F7F could rival the F4U-4 in all-around capability and it was previously deemed too "hot" for carrier duty on the Essex class CVs and, like the F4U-1, was handed to the Marines for land-based service.
Since I mentioned the F7F, I have wondered why no one ever hung a pair of R3350s on one and owned the unlimited event at Reno....
My regards,
Widewing
-
There was an F7F at the races last year. It was a stock/restored plane, and finished 4th or 5th in the Unlimited Gold, if I recall correctly. A very impressive aircraft to say the least. I don't know if he's coming back this year, but I'll let you know after Sunday. I wonder if there are enough airframes left out there to actually do a hot-rod F7F?
-
f8f would be a monster. Too bad we dont have it, i read last nite that it was in the in middle of the pacifc when it ended. Another fighter that didnt make it was the p51h(i have read there still debutin if it saw action). Alot stats thrown around, but heres the simple question... if u had to pick right now a fighter to do up in what would it be....F6F hellcat or the F4U corsair(lets say F4U1 series).
IM in the middle of the road right now, if a plane cant go 400 mph im not happy and the hellcat is the slowest thing i fly. I guess it depends on the mood of the day. Since this post started i have been spending more time in f4u and have had alot of succes. BUt while f4u is faster i feel more agile in hellcat(imo) and the fact that im not out of the game low and slow makes up for its speed. im 50/50.
-
IM in the middle of the road right now, if a plane cant go 400 mph im not happy and the hellcat is the slowest thing i fly
bkbandit, if fun is what you want - screw the stats.
Choose a plane by looks, by history, by funny name, because your grandad flew one or because any other odd reason.
The stats do not matter for the fun factor. You might get a few more kills or get killed a little less in an "uber" plane, but you'll miss all the personal attachment to your favorite rides. That, does add immersion, add fun and dulls the pain of getting shot down in your "inferior" ride. In addition you'll soon find out you do almost as well even in a "lesser" fighter, but one you like more.
Bozon
-
bozon i read u loud and clear. I just like to go fast, i love catching la7s that think there geting away scot free after a pork or vulch run. If i really cared about uber'ness i prob wouldnt look at hellcat one bit, u have to "work" to get kills:lol unlike the certain spits that shall remain nameless.
-
>Civilized Mode On<
Widewing,
I just purchased Corkey Meyers book of his Flight Journal articles over the years from Amazon. They are not anything that hasn't been put out before so I was a little dissapointed by the content but I also purchased "Flying to the Limit" by Peter Caygill a British test pilot who gives another interesting perspective.
In any case Corkey's F7F article (And his F8F article) are already avaiable on the web at one of my favorite sites "findarticles.com" so you can see the exact verbage used.
The first experimental XF7F-1 Tigercat had the 2,000hp Pratt & Whitney R-2800-10B engine. This was the Hellcat's standard production engine, and it continued Grumman's policy of not installing an untried engine in a new aircraft. The Tigercat, which was 71mph faster than the Hellcat and had twice its rate of climb, easily met the Navy's requirements of 451mph at 21,000 feet.
Here is the link to the entire story so due dilligence can be done.
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3897/is_200208/ai_n9120620/pg_1 (http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3897/is_200208/ai_n9120620/pg_1)
Here is Corkey's second quote comparing the F6F to the F8F. Notice how low he states the Hellcats climb rate to be?? 2150FPM??
By early 1945, the F8F had entered the fleet. Immediately, pilots found it was indeed a great shot in the arm to have such startling performance because, as we had anticipated, the Japanese had introduced several airplanes with much improved performance over the Zeros. The timing of getting the Bearcat to the fleet was perfect. Not only was it an exciting airplane to fly (one could even see the Focke-Wulf heritage), but it was also 47 knots faster than the Hellcat, without water injection, and took off in 200 feet of carrier-deck space compared to the Hellcat's 325-feet requirement. It had an amazing rate of climb of 5,340 feet per minute, which was more than twice the Hellcat's! It had the fastest rate of climb of any propeller-driven fighter in the War. Its rate of climb endeared it to the Navy pilots because getting on top of the enemy had been the criteria of aerial combat success ever since WW I. You can imagine that Navy aviators also heartily enjoyed that the F8F could easily outperform any and all Army Air Force fighters at the time!
Again here is the full link
F8F article (http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3897/is_199808/ai_n8826530/pg_1)
-
(one could even see the Focke-Wulf heritage)
Brings back memories of another thread.
-
Originally posted by Stoney74
There was an F7F at the races last year. It was a stock/restored plane, and finished 4th or 5th in the Unlimited Gold, if I recall correctly. A very impressive aircraft to say the least. I don't know if he's coming back this year, but I'll let you know after Sunday. I wonder if there are enough airframes left out there to actually do a hot-rod F7F?
that on is 17th on the list of qualifiers this year, Big Bossman just a pinch under 387 MPH at what i'd guess was a density alt of about 7500' (5000' + 2500 cause Reno in summer is hot)
-
Watched Big Bossman fly today. He run's the Unlimited Silver, not gold. And, while he qualified much better, finished last today in the heat race. But man, that plane is the best sounding thing on the field. Not one, but two R-2800...