Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: Beefcake on April 04, 2000, 11:55:00 AM
-
Hey HiTech Pyro, is the Hellcat on the list? heheheh I love that plane. Oh well, I was just wondering.
The Beefster
-
Beef, Did you give up on being a full time bomber pilot? I rarely fly them anymore myself.
I'm hoping the new version will bring back the strat to the game.
Mox
The Wrecking Crew
-
Put in my vote for the Hellcat (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
.....................
Skernsk
-
Hellcat should only enter along side the A6M5. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
------------------
daddog C.O.
332nd Flying Mongrels (http://www.ropescourse.org/flying.htm)
Where men become friends and friends become brothers.
-
Bring on the Cat! (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
popeye
-
stop with american planes....
pfffff...
what about fairey battle t-68 ?
Fokker TV ?
Fokker G1 ?
Northrop 8A-3N ?
Stuka ?
(http://www.multimania.com/alsacenono/no.jpg)
GC III/2 "Alsace" (http://www.multimania.com/alsacenono)
[This message has been edited by nonoht (edited 04-04-2000).]
-
Originally posted by nonoht:
stop with american planes....
pfffff...
what about fairey battle t-68 ?
Fokker TV ?
Fokker G1 ?
Northrop 8A-3N ?
Stuka ?
[This message has been edited by nonoht (edited 04-04-2000).]
Yeah, let's have some more cannon armed planes. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/tongue.gif) What am I saying!? (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/tongue.gif)
------------------
Tern
"Live to Fly! Fly to Fight! Fight to Live!"
========================
"There I was, inverted at 50 feet and 120 kts. and the only thing running was the radio."
-
The american fighters are hardly over represented. They are by any measure some of the most signifigant planes of the war, and how and why they were successfull is far more interesting to me then the fairly battle.
Hellcat! Hellcat! Hellcat!...
and its moving airstrip too please....
and the Zero....
------------------
Pongo
The Wrecking Crew
-
I agree. I love the Hellcat! Hopefully HTC will add the Zero and the Hellcat at the same time (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif). BTW, Historic Wings website has Hellcat wallpaper for this months calender.
www.historicwings.com (http://www.historicwings.com)
[This message has been edited by Sundog (edited 04-05-2000).]
-
I hope they add some british planes first.Some japenese too to even out the country sets. When they add a f6 i hope i get my 2 20 mm cannon not just 6 50's. The f6 is just the antidote to the spit fever we have here. A f6 + a 38 that can turn with flaps makes life alot tougher on a spit dweeb like myself.
-
Thanks Sundog , I got the wallpaper .
Hellcat has always been my favorite .
Did you know that in that plane there was more ace's made than any other in WW2 ?
-
Originally posted by air_spro:
Did you know that in that plane there was more ace's made than any other in WW2 ?
By 5 victories criteria ? How many aces ?
I believe 109s shot more planes than any other plane, so I guess 109s had more aces than Hellcat.
-
The book was "Aircraft of World War 11"
A visual encyclopedia
By Michael Sharpe , Jerry Scutts , and Dan March
Here's the quote
"At least 306 pilots achieved ace status while flying F6F's with US Navy squadrons during the war , a larger figure than for any other air_craft type. And the Hellcat obtained a better kill-to-loss ration of 19:1- a figure unrivalled by any other type --- for its Navy and Marine pilots were credited with 5,156 victories for hte loss of just 270 F6F's."
Now maybe they were talking about just for the US Navy or just US in all . I really didn't think of that when I wrote the first post. It really doesn't say that though .
[This message has been edited by air_spro (edited 04-14-2000).]
[This message has been edited by air_spro (edited 04-14-2000).]
-
Toliver says there are over 5000 LW aces.
How many do you think flew the 109...probably more than 300
------------------
Pongo
The Wrecking Crew
-
Ohhh yeah.. f6f or f4 they look 2 kool. Gots my vote (worth 2cents if you already have 1) !
-
Um I hate to burst any bubbles here but if they model an f6f it will behave like a slow f4u1 corsair it's heavier w same engine.
it wont climb as well among other things.
in short if your thinking its gonna be like WB's hellcat when they do make one... fact is thats fiction (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
-
Sturmoviks!
-
5000 LW aces??...I'm certainly not close to being an expert on LW history but I'd have to question that. The germans suffered from tremendous attrition on all fronts after 1942. My understanding is that an overwelming percentage (on the order of 70%) of all new LW pilots on all fronts were killed without recording a kill. I do know that the number of experten certainly numbered in the 100's (20 kills??) but I believe scoring fell thru the floor after ther top 500 or so...
-
Hellcats are neat, but it doesn't do anything the F4U can't already do. There are a lot more significant holes in the plane set to fill.
-
im pretty sure the F6F's are easier to fly, are more stable, and are a bit structurally tougher than the F4U. plus they turn tighter, have equal to better handling at every speed, especially low, and actually climb better than corsairs that had the same engine. they also have a much lower stall speed and (though not very significant, but somewhat of an advantage in emergencies, especially against japanese planes) the Hellcat carried 50 more bullets. also, which is considered the most important thing in war is that they were easier to maintain and build. even so, i do believe that the F4U is an overall better plane, but im stickin with the Hellcat.. unless some1 convinces me other wise :)
-
Holy dig up an old thread, batman!
:lol
:rolleyes:
-
haha i know! i just needed to say that!! :lol
-
since wer're on the subject, Eric Hartmann scored 352 comfirmed ariel victories in his ME-109. Those russians sure had a crappy air force, lol.
-
(http://www.enchantingdelights.com/FritzClass_1-16-05/KC%20Workshop%20March%2004/troll%20outside.jpg)
TROLL
-
What list?
Originally posted by Beefcake
Hey HiTech Pyro, is the Hellcat on the list? heheheh I love that plane. Oh well, I was just wondering.
The Beefster
-
Do I need an EGA monitor to view the list?
-
Those were pretty darn rare, mostly on the night fighters.
-Blogs
Originally posted by joeblogs
What list?
-
Originally posted by the Lazy ace
since wer're on the subject, Eric Hartmann scored 352 comfirmed ariel victories in his ME-109. Those russians sure had a crappy air force, lol.
Hooked on Phonics Graduate?
Karaya
-
Originally posted by F4UDOA
(http://www.enchantingdelights.com/FritzClass_1-16-05/KC%20Workshop%20March%2004/troll%20outside.jpg)
TROLL
Whoa.... Does Silat know you guys are posting vacation photos of his girlfriend?
My regards,
Widewing
-
Originally posted by Widewing
Whoa.... Does Silat know you guys are posting vacation photos of his girlfriend?
My regards,
Widewing
LOL
-
Man the wrecking crew..that was a while back.
-
2000? Jeez It would have been almost another year before I saw a naked woman at a strip joint.
-
Originally posted by SgtPappy
im pretty sure the F6F's are easier to fly, are more stable, and are a bit structurally tougher than the F4U. plus they turn tighter, have equal to better handling at every speed, especially low, and actually climb better than corsairs that had the same engine. they also have a much lower stall speed and (though not very significant, but somewhat of an advantage in emergencies, especially against japanese planes) the Hellcat carried 50 more bullets. also, which is considered the most important thing in war is that they were easier to maintain and build. even so, i do believe that the F4U is an overall better plane, but im stickin with the Hellcat.. unless some1 convinces me other wise :)
The Hellcat did not have the same engine as the Corsair.
Differences were minute, as performance is listed as the same, but the early F4u's had a R2800-8 and the F4u-4 an R2800-18W or a R2800-42W (mostly the B's). The Hellcat series through the -5 carried R2800-10W.
The differences are in carburetor mounting, top on the Hellcat and F4u-4 and bottom on the early F4u's. Also, the case designs differ owing to different design requirements.
-
In an earlier post about the Hellcat, one responder (wish I could remember who it was) stated that the British replaced two of the .50 caliber machine guns with .20mm cannon.
This makes sense to me because the Brits tended to place cannon on all the fighter types that they operated.
Does anybody have any information about this, or remember who it was that posted that information?
Regards, Shuckins
-
We did it too... in fact the wing on the -5's was designed to take one cannon and 2 .50's, or the the standard load out.
-
Originally posted by Widewing
Whoa.... Does Silat know you guys are posting vacation photos of his girlfriend?
My regards,
Widewing
Trolls make the best lovers............
-
You are right there is little difference between the -8 and -10 models. The -18 however is a "C" block engine as opposed to the "B" blocks of the -8 and -10. It has a bit more power and few less bugs (e.g. the supercharger).
-Blogs
Originally posted by Bodhi
The Hellcat did not have the same engine as the Corsair.
Differences were minute, as performance is listed as the same, but the early F4u's had a R2800-8 and the F4u-4 an R2800-18W or a R2800-42W (mostly the B's). The Hellcat series through the -5 carried R2800-10W.
The differences are in carburetor mounting, top on the Hellcat and F4u-4 and bottom on the early F4u's. Also, the case designs differ owing to different design requirements.
-
"In an earlier post about the Hellcat, one responder (wish I could remember who it was) stated that the British replaced two of the .50 caliber machine guns with .20mm cannon."
The Fleet Air Arm (Royal Navy) never operated any F6Fs with 20mm.
The 20mm was an armament varient on the F6F-5N Night Fighter. Most served in USN and USMC units in 1945. Some land based, some ship based. Only some of the F6F Night Fighters had the 2 x 20mm 4 x 50cal set, most did not.
Most accounts I have read indicate the pilots didnt think the 20mm added that much vs the Japanese a/c they were engaged with, since they tended to go down to 6x 50s pretty quick as it was.
-
Originally posted by joeblogs
You are right there is little difference between the -8 and -10 models. The -18 however is a "C" block engine as opposed to the "B" blocks of the -8 and -10. It has a bit more power and few less bugs (e.g. the supercharger).
-Blogs
The only real difference between the -10W and the -18W is the "C series" power section. The "C series" power section enabled 100 more hp at Max military, and 25 more hp at normal settings. It is also 80 pounds heavier, and burns fuel faster. All in all, I am a much bigger fan of the B series engines than the C series. Unless we start talking the CB series. The CB's are the easiest to maintain, and they definitely are the smarter choice if historical accuracy is not the aim. As the 18W having fewer bugs, I'd have to disagree. The 18W turned at higher RPM's then the 10W and in fact has a higher wear rate than does the 10W. The only benefit the 18W has over the 10W is the blower ratio, and that is where you are finding the "issues" which, if properly maintained, it is not an issue.
-
One issue with the earlier engines was supercharger surging when changing from low to high blower and back. Worst case, You could blow parts off the engine or start a good fire.
I am not saying the A & B series were bad engines. I don't think there was a more reliable engine of that power range. The only one close might be a Bristol sleeve-valve.
The C series also had a redesigned crank case - stiffer and the oil cooling paths were improved.
The 18W is rated at a slightly higher RPM under high MAP precisely becuase it was a stronger engine. It would not be at all suprising to find greater wear if the engines are run at max RPM as the stresses increase with the cube of RPM. Still these engines had a time between overhaul that were multiples of nearly all axis high powered engines.
Fixed blower ratios are always a comprimise as you are basically picking one or more critical altitudes and hoping that is where the plane will do most of the fighting.
There is a mystery about the specific fuel consumption of all these engines through the war. It's clearly due to the carburetors but I've never been able to sort out the conflicting materials. Ironically, in commercial use after the war, these were efficient engines.
Did the CB series even make the war?
-Blogs
Originally posted by Bodhi
The only real difference between the -10W and the -18W is the "C series" power section. The "C series" power section enabled 100 more hp at Max military, and 25 more hp at normal settings. It is also 80 pounds heavier, and burns fuel faster. All in all, I am a much bigger fan of the B series engines than the C series. Unless we start talking the CB series. The CB's are the easiest to maintain, and they definitely are the smarter choice if historical accuracy is not the aim. As the 18W having fewer bugs, I'd have to disagree. The 18W turned at higher RPM's then the 10W and in fact has a higher wear rate than does the 10W. The only benefit the 18W has over the 10W is the blower ratio, and that is where you are finding the "issues" which, if properly maintained, it is not an issue.
-
CB's never made the war as far as I know. We just use them now in "flyers" (aircraft that are close but not 100% historically accurate) as the parts are fairly affordable and still readily available. Plus the maintenance is a breeze compared to earlier stuff. The CB3 has a single stage blower which makes it far simpler than the two stage stuff.
I buy cylinders all the time. We have a lot of 2800's in our collection, so it is always a good idea to have the parts in stock. By comparison, late model stuff like the C series cyclinders are fairly available, and a "stud assembly" just a plain jane cylinder with no piston, rings or valves runs about a $100.00. A B series front cylinder is about $2500.00 and a rear about $1200.00. Complete B fronts run about $3000.00 if you can find them. Start doing the math and it gets very expensive, very quick!
-
Bodhi,
What do you do??
I have always though the C series superior to the B because you could run it at higher MAP rating without predetination. The P-47 was cleared to run 150 octane fuel with the "C" block at 65"MAP without ADI and up to 75" MAP with ADI.
The highest MAP approved for F6F or F4U with the B block was 60" although the F4U could ooverboost in the main blower. Not sure about the F6F.
Do you know if PW did any testing at higher MAP's in the B series?
-
It's claimed in the White's book that the B-series R-2800 was pushed up to 100" during bench tests. That was with max amount of ADI + special cooling.
Generally the later C-series (and E-series etc.) and civil versions of the R-2800 are completely redesigned engines (specially the head cooling was improved).
gripen
-
The difference Gripen is saying about the late C's and CB's heads was changing the underlying structure below the fins to a more aerodynamically designed set up that better allowed air flow through the fins. That and the increase in the number of fins by making the thinner specifically on the barrel.
-
Gripen/Bodhi,
Do you know the max MAP allowed for 100 octane fuel with ADI on the B block.
I have a book that list some Cleveland AirRace results and the HP of each engine. The B block got up to about 2400HP on Lucky Gallon (FG-1) in 1946 but the C could reach close to 3,000 in the F4U-5 or AU-1. Much better cooling apparently. I don't know if there is a ratio of MAP to HP but I figure 2400HP was about 65" MAP on the R-2800B-8W.
Do you know if the B block cleared for 150 octane fuel?
-
Hi F4UDOA,
>I don't know if there is a ratio of MAP to HP but I figure 2400HP was about 65" MAP on the R-2800B-8W.
The ratio of boost pressure to power per cylinder is linear.
However, in practice you get increased charge heating with a migher boost pressure, and you're mostly interested in crankshaft power, which means you'd have to deduce the power required to drive the supercharger, so as usual, the devil is lurking in the details :-)
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
Indeed,
The early R2800B-8 produced 2000HP at SL.
Later the addition of ADI increased HP to 2135HP at SL. Quickly followed by rating increases to 2250HP and then 2300HP in service A/C. However this was done at MAP rating never increasing and never reaching the limit of 60" MAP at sea level. In fact the 2300HP comes at 57.5"MAP.
Go figure.
-
F4UDOA,
The limits of the B-series R-2800 have been discused here several times and I don't have anything new to say. But to summarize:
With the grade 100/130 fuel and ADI, the B-series R-2800 was rated at 56" in the beginning and later raised up to 64" in the USAF service and up to 59" or 60" in the Navy. High ratings tended to cause overheating problems during the climb.
With the grade 100/150 fuel and ADI, the B-series R-2800 was at least tested up to 70" or higher but the service ratings are a bit unclear. Probably in the 8th AF quite high ratings were used with the grade 100/150.
gripen
-
Gripen,
Can you reccomend a good book on the subject? Or should I say what is the best in your opinion?
-
buy R2800 - Pratt and Whitney's Dependable Masterpiece. by Graham White.
-
Yep, White's book is the best book on R-2800. There is not much about the ratings or power curves but otherwise it's good, particularly the installations to the airframes are presented well.
gripen
-
http://mysite.verizon.net/vze479py/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderfiles/doublewasp.pdf
http://mysite.verizon.net/vze479py/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderfiles/doublewasp2.pdf
Originally posted by F4UDOA
Gripen,
Can you reccomend a good book on the subject? Or should I say what is the best in your opinion?
-
Originally posted by Bodhi
The Hellcat did not have the same engine as the Corsair.
Differences were minute, as performance is listed as the same, but the early F4u's had a R2800-8 and the F4u-4 an R2800-18W or a R2800-42W (mostly the B's). The Hellcat series through the -5 carried R2800-10W.
The differences are in carburetor mounting, top on the Hellcat and F4u-4 and bottom on the early F4u's. Also, the case designs differ owing to different design requirements.
woops.. sorry bout that. i should have specified that the engines had the same type of performance.. didnt actually mean they were the exact same identical engine
-
(http://mysite.verizon.net/vze479py/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/doublewasp.gif)
(http://mysite.verizon.net/vze479py/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/doublewasp2.gif)
-
Joe B,
It seems as if there could only be two choices for the F4U-1 and F6F-3/5 and that would be the 2SB-G and SSB-G.
I am curious as two which one was it though. It is possible that they used different engines however it would be hard to determine exactly which one since the critical altitudes don't exactly match.
-
According to another P&W document, the R2800-10 is an SSB2-G
The R2800-18 is an SSC22-G
The B or C stands for the B or C series, respectively. The double 'S' stands for a 2 stage, 2 speed supercharger
Trouble is, some of Wilkinson's notation does not appear to be P&W's, especially for the later volumes. It might be a later military or a postwar designation.
-Blogs
Originally posted by F4UDOA
Joe B,
It seems as if there could only be two choices for the F4U-1 and F6F-3/5 and that would be the 2SB-G and SSB-G.
I am curious as two which one was it though. It is possible that they used different engines however it would be hard to determine exactly which one since the critical altitudes don't exactly match.