Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: StSanta on September 19, 2000, 11:59:00 PM
-
Well, I need info on them.
Now that HTC have chosen to add yet another late war US monster, I'd like to know just what it can do.
Turn performance, performance at altitude, guns, speed, roll rate, climb rate, acceleration, e retention capability.
Advantages and disadvantages. Comparisons with existing AH planes.
The ropedo plane is sorta non interesting, since it's oone big fat target for us LW types (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif), but I need info on that one.
Much appreciated.
------------------
StSanta
JG54 "Grünherz"
"Trespassers will be shot. Survivors will be shot again"
-
StSanta,
The F6F is actually a mid-war plane, going into production in 1943. It's not that fast in level flight, maxing around 386mph, I think. It dives like a bat-outta-hell, turns very well for an American fighter, has good e-qualities, average roller, very stable flight characteristics, very tough, and the worst six view of them all. Armamment was six .50 mgs, and it could carry all sorts of ordinance.
------------------
leonid, Kompol
5 GIAP VVS-KA, Knights (http://www.adamfive.com/guerrero)
"Our cause is just. The enemy will be crushed. Victory will be ours."
-
Well, a N1K on steroids?
------------------
StSanta
JG54 "Grünherz"
"Trespassers will be shot. Survivors will be shot again"
-
Santa that's pretty close except the F6F doesn't climb nearly as well as the N1K2. F6F performance is very similar to F4U performance. The differences are that it's 10-20 mph slower depending on altitude, it doesn't roll nearly as well at high speeds, and it turns a little better at slow speeds. Also it was reported by pilots to have much more benign handling and was much better for carrier operations.
-
Funked,
I read that Grumman actually felt the F6F was too stable an aircraft, and wanted to modify the Hellcat so that it would roll more quickly. Grumman went to Chance-Vought to analyse the F4U, basically to see just why the Corsair could roll so well. In the end Grumman gave up, because they realized that the F4U could do what it did not because of any one device, but because of the Corsair's design. Grumman wasn't willing to significantly alter its design of the F6F.
-
Santa, I always think of the F6F Hellcat as being very similar to the P-38.
Both are good "all arounders", meaning that they are good in all categories (climb, speed, dive, handling, etc.) but are not the best in any.
The major differences between the two, is that the F6F doesn't have the P-38's high altitude capability (no turbosupercharer), but the F6F is more robust (takes more damage) and does not seem to have as much problems with compression that the P38 has.
For detailed performance data, here is a US Navy website with great info.
http://www.history.navy.mil/branches/hist-ac/f6f-5.pdf (http://www.history.navy.mil/branches/hist-ac/f6f-5.pdf)
------------------
Vermillion
**MOL**, Men of Leisure
-
That plane is butt ugly .
-
N1K2 will out turn one handily. F6F pilots reported that the George looked like it was doing impossible turns were they first encountered it (the N1K2 had VERY good leading edge slats).
Sisu
-Karnak
-
Where does the idea come from that the F6F is some kind of climber? Other sims?
Best ROC (F6F-5, water injection) was barely over 3000 fpm. It's a huge plane. Larger dimensions than a P-47D-30 (although about 1500 lb lighter) but with significantly less power.
Not in the same class as the P-38 at all.
-
That's what i heared too Funked .. the F4U should outclimb and outrun the F6F .. but the F6 would turn way inside it (supposedly)
-
Funked: Larger dimensions than a P-47D-30 (although about 1500 lb lighter) but with significantly less power.
Okay, what am I missing in the 'significantly less power' column??
P47D-Engine:R2800-Weight:4812k
F4U-1D-Engine:R2800-Weight:4074k
F6F-Engine:R2800-Weight:4152k
I would expect it to climb close to what the P47D and F4U climb at...
[This message has been edited by Ripsnort (edited 09-20-2000).]
-
Karnak,
Where did you get your information on the N1K2? It didn't have leading edge slats.
Spritle
-
##s
Specification
F6F-5 Hellcat
Powerplant
One Pratt & Whitney R-2800-10W Double Wasp radial piston engine rated at 2,000 hp (1491 kW) for take-off, 1,675 hp (1249 kW) up to 5,500 ft (167
m) and 1,550 hp (1156 kW) at 22,000 ft (6710m)
Fuel capacity
Internal fuel 250 US gal (208.2 Imp gal; 946.3 liters); external fuel up to an unrevealed quantity of auxiliary fuel in one jettisonable long-range tank or 15
US gal (124.9 Imp gal; 567.8 liters) in one 150 US gal (124.9 Imp gal; 567.8 liter) drop tank
Dimensions
Wing
Span 42 ft 10 in (13.08 m) and width folded 16 ft 2 in (4.93 m); aspect ratio 5.49; area 334.00 sq ft (31.03 m2)
Fuselage and tail
Length 33 ft 4 in (10.16 m); height 14 ft 5 in (4.40 m); wheel track 11 ft 0 in (3.36 m); wheel base 21 ft 5.25 in (6.54 m)
Operational weights
Empty 9,2381b (4190 kg) equipped; normal take-off 12,740 Ib (5779 kg); maximum take-off 15,4131b (6991 kg)
Performance
Maximum level speed 'clean' 330 kt (380 mph; 611 km/h) at 23,400 ft (7130 m) declining to 291 kt (335 mph; 539 km/h) at sea level; cruising speed,
economical 146 kt (168 mph; 270 krn/h) at optimum altitude
Maximum range l,177 nm (1,335 miles; 2148 km) with drop tank; typical range 821 nm (945 miles; 1521 km) with internal fuel
Maximum rate of climb at sea level 2,980 ft (908 m) per minute; service ceiling 37 ,300 ft (11370 m)
Note the "10W" model of the R-2800 DW.
The F4U1D had a 8W, which delivered 2,250 hp at maximum compared to F6F5's 2,000 hp.
I don't know what powerplant the P47D-30 or -25 had but i assume its the R-2800-59, 2,000 hp for it both at take off and 30,000 ft, P47 should perform the same as F6F below 15k I assume.
Hopefully HTC will modeled the F6F's ability to fold it wings up for carrier stowage. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
------------------
BEAT DOWN POSSE
www.theregulators.org/bdp (http://www.theregulators.org/bdp)
(http://pobox2.zyan.com/~nath/haha.jpg)
Aces High Scenario Corps
[This message has been edited by Nath-BDP (edited 09-20-2000).]
-
The niki had the most advanced automatic
combat flaps the time it was introduced.
they have a niki on display at NAS Pensicola
museum.
http://214th.com/ww2/japan/n1k1/index.htm (http://214th.com/ww2/japan/n1k1/index.htm) http://www.nasm.edu/nasm/aero/aircraft/kawanish_n1k2.htm (http://www.nasm.edu/nasm/aero/aircraft/kawanish_n1k2.htm)
Whels
Originally posted by Spritle:
Karnak,
Where did you get your information on the N1K2? It didn't have leading edge slats.
Spritle
-
Yeah, what whels1 said.
I was typing from memory and got combat flaps and leading edge slats mixed up (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/redface.gif). [homermode]DOH!!![/homermode]
Sisu
-Karnak
-
Thanks guys, much appreciated (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
------------------
StSanta
JG54 "Grünherz"
"Trespassers will be shot. Survivors will be shot again"
(http://www.geocities.com/stsantasatan/crossbuster.gif)
[This message has been edited by StSanta (edited 09-20-2000).]
-
Type: P-47D-30-RE
Function: fighter
Year: 1943 Crew: 1 Engines: 1 * 1865kW P&W R-2800-59
Wing Span: 12.42m Length: 10.99m Height: 4.44m Wing Area: 27.9m2
Empty Weight: 4812kg Max.Weight: 7900kg
Max. Speed: 687km/h Ceiling: 12800m Max. Range: 2900km
Armament: 8*mg12.7mm 1135kg
Nath:The F4U1D had a 8W, which delivered 2,250 hp at maximum compared to F6F5's 2,000 hp. I don't know what powerplant the P47D-30 or -25 had but i assume its the R-2800-59, 2,000 hp for it both at take off and 30,000 ft, P47 should perform the same as F6F below 15k I assume.
So, tell me this, why can I climb to 20k faster in a P47D than a F4U, when the F4U is lighter, and has more power?
-
Santa, you're going to make more enemies than friends with that signature, including me.
-
Because 1D has 2,250 hp at take off, but losses it when alt is gained... with the P47D30 you stay at 2,000 hp all the way to 30k.
-
Nath, do you have any idea what it 'loses' it too? Like does it reduce to 1800 HP output or less? Just seems like the F4U should be a better climber than the P47D historically, I'm gonna ask some guys down at the flight museum, that actually worked on these birds, see what they have to say.
-
Santa,
Your sig looks like some kind of religious statement or, rather, denunciation.
Are you sure it's the right forum for it?
miko
-
Gents,
The Topic of climb in an F4U has alway's been an anomally(Spelling)? The F4U-1D is listed at 2250HP at sea level and the power drops off to only 1900HP at 20K. It is listed as climbing at 3150FPM and 7+min to 20K. However in head to head test against the P-51B(listed as outclimbing the Mustang by 700FPM not as good as the 190 better than the Zero and F6F), Fw-190A5, A6M-5 Zero and F6F Hellcat it bested those numbers by a considerable amount. As well as having less weight and drag than a P-47D and better power loading and wing loading.
So why the better rated climb? Well I have alway's believed that some A/C specs are over rated by either the service or manufacturer. Take for example the the
P47-D30. The addition of water injection added 600Hp to the engine for short periods of time raising the climb from 2500FPM at Military power to roughly 3400FPM. The
F4U-1D also had water injection which raised the rated power 250HP fro 2000HP to 2250HP and climb values from Roughly 2800FPM at Military power to 3150FPM. Cosidering they both had the nearly the same water injection the P-47 benifited by a geat amount more than the F4U. Enough to make the P-47 climb almost 1,000FPM better than at military power I don't know. It was not the case in the ealier versions of the P-47 with water injection until the D25.
The other factor is the Propeller which is the quoted reason from republic on the climb gain in the P-47 from the early D model to the late. It was given a Hamilton Standard 4 blade paddle blade prop. However the F4U was already using a HS paddle blade prop at the time. What ever the case I have sworn off debating these subjects until I see Badboy's breakdown of A/C performance which I have been waiting to be published for some time.
Until then if Well's or anyone else has a good explanation I would be happy to listen.
Later
F4UDOA
-
agreed Miko
santa-
Are you making an attemp at being funny? Just want to be the antagonist? That IS offensive to me.
ammo
-
Rip, remember the P-47's have a super charger behind the cockpit that is the size of your average washing machine along with some of the most efficent ducting work concieved.
The F4U has a much much smaller 2 stage blower mounted directly on the engine, thats a little over a foot in diameter and 6 inchs thick. The F6F has pretty much the same type that loses power over 10k all the way to 19k where the second stage kicks in.
From 14k to 19k most US fighers lose power until the second gearing for the super charger kicks in and draws more air. The exceptions US fighters being the P-47 and P-38. If you look at average partroling altitudes for Navy planes from historical account's they normally were not in that 14k to 19k if they could help it (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) I think 12k and below and 20k and above, right?
The P-47 produces much more power in that range, maintaining it's climb rate pretty well up to 25k or so when it starts dropping off slowly. Same with the P-38.
- Jig
[This message has been edited by Jigster (edited 09-20-2000).]
-
An attempt to be funny (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif).
Please don't hold it against me; I had a rough childhood. My Life manual wasn't in my package, and I've been pushing buttons ever since, trying to figure the damned thing out.
If you hated that one, yer gonna love this (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
--
StSanta
JG54 "Grunherz"
(http://www.geocities.com/stsantasatan/flag.gif)
"What is better, to be loved by one, or hated by all?"
-
In regards to the Hellcat's roll rate, I believe the spring tab ailerons were added in the -5 to offer a much better rate of roll, however, it never did match the F4U's roll rate. I think somewhere further back on the boards I posted a response regarding this subject based on reports from Corky Meyer, a Grumman Test Pilot. This is probably from the `Report of Joint Fighter Conference' book that Pyro recommended a while back. It's a good book with background information on the various aircraft you won't find in your average book on World War Two planes.
[This message has been edited by Sundog (edited 09-20-2000).]
-
Ripsnort:
I don't know where you got those weights.
Loaded weights (max internal fuel and ammo, no external stores) are about 12,700 lb for the Hellcat, 12,000 lb for the Hog, and 14,500 lb for the Jug. Empty weights are interesting but I've yet to see any flight test data that was measured at the empty weight. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
The engines are different.
F4U-1D (R-2800-8W) and F6F-5 (R-2800-10W) both had 2135 hp with water injection. The P-47D-27 through -40 (R-2800-59) could make 2600 hp with water injection.
The big difference is that Navy planes had two-stage two-speed mechanical blowers while the Jug used a single-speed single-stage mechanical blower plus a turbosupercharger.
The Jug's supercharging system could generate more boost at sea level than that of the Navy planes and could maintain that boost at high altitudes where the mechanical superchargers were gasping.
As a result the 2600 hp in the late P-47D could be maintained up to 25,000 feet, while the Hog and Hellcat could only maintain their 2135 hp ratings up to about 15,000 feet.
[This message has been edited by funked (edited 09-21-2000).]
-
DOA the reason the Jug benefitted more from water injection is because its supercharging system could generate more boost. Water injection doesn't give you any more boost, it just lets you operate at boost levels that would normally cause detonation, overheating, and other bad things.
-
Here:
http://www.history.navy.mil/branches/hist-ac/f6f-5.pdf (http://www.history.navy.mil/branches/hist-ac/f6f-5.pdf)
Enjoy (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
BTW. Are we going to have an armament option? This plane could have either two 20mm with four 50's or six 50's. *Another plane with hispanos. Fishu is going to go crazy! (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
-Westy
[This message has been edited by Westy (edited 09-21-2000).]
-
The only F6F witn 20mm was the F6F5N, which was a nightfighter.
-
I promise to use them only at night (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
-Westy
-
Hmm,
The confusing thing about the Jug's climb rate isn't that it was supercharged. Remember all Jugs were supercharged from the very early to the very late. The riddle to solve on the Jug's climb rate was this.
The P-47D20 through the P-47D produced only 2300HP. The D20 climbed at no more than 2500FPM with water injection. However with No change in engine HP the P-47D25 climb performance was increased at combat power to 3400FPM with only a propeller change to a wide chord prop Hamilton Standard Prop. So the Supercharging really had nothing to do with the increase in the Jugs performance.
By comparison the F4U also changed to a wide chord HS prop(it was a three blade prop)with an increase in performance that is only noted in the flight test performed against other A/C ie. the P-51B and FW190-A5. No where in the performance specs will you see this noted. I believe somewhere there should be a sperate performance chart for the increased performance. The change of prop however is noted in the pilots manual for use whenever possible because it Quote "improves performance".
Funked,
From the F4U-1D pilots manual.
War emergency power
RPM Manifold pressure Horse Power Alt.
2700 57.5 2250HP Sea level
2700 59 2135HP 15,000FT
2700 59.5 1975HP 20,000FT
The Hellcat also had the same engine ratings. For whatever reason many sources choose to qoute this incorrectly.
Later
F4UDOA
-
DOA I thought D-25 was the first Jug with Water Inj? Talking with Gabreski about it, he thought the combination of the water injection and the prop made a huge difference.
I don't think a D-25 should climb any better than an F4U-1D at sea level. I would expect the D-25 to climb better at higher altitudes as the Hog's HP fluctuates up and down while the Jug power stays constant.
I think you might be right that the Navy figures are conservative. But I don't think they are conservative by too much. As far as head to head tests, I am wary of them. They are usually conducted by people with an agenda. Also they are highly variable. I can give you a reference to a climb test where a P-39D and A6M smoked an F4U-1D.
Thanks for the clarification on the power for R-2800-8W and R-2800-10W.
-
Funked, Personal agendas !?! Never! (LW conspiracy comes to mind, hehe)
I'm just curious as to why the P47 climbs so dang good compared to WB's jug, is theres really that under-modeled or ours over-modeled?
-
Climb vs. altitude and speed vs. altitude on WB planes are off badly in many cases. Some of them are pretty close but some are off in left field.
-
Funked,
You are right about the P-47D becoming superior at Higher alts in climb compared to both Corsair and Hellcat. But I'm thinking more of 25K and over. That is right about the altitude where the power to weight begins to favor the P-47.
As far as the water injection I am looking at America's Hundred Thousand for my reference. Water injection started in the
P-47D-5 raising Max HP from 2000HP to 2300HP.
If you have that flight test data on the A6M, P-39 and F4U I would Luv to see it. Please Email it to me. However I have flgith test data on the A6M-2 and A6M-5 where the F4U-1 and -1D are equal up to about 10K and then superior above reaching 20K faster. The P-39 was faster initially to 5K but then fell off at 10K and was a dog by 15K. That really doesn't surprise me based on power to weight at sea level. My reference is in the "Warbird History" Combat and Developement of the Zero. An excellent book with some great photo's.
Later
F4UDOA
PS. Please email me any additional flight test data you might have.
-
Originally posted by F4UDOA:
Funked,
You are right about the P-47D becoming superior at Higher alts in climb compared to both Corsair and Hellcat. But I'm thinking more of 25K and over. That is right about the altitude where the power to weight begins to favor the P-47.
As far as the water injection I am looking at America's Hundred Thousand for my reference. Water injection started in the
P-47D-5 raising Max HP from 2000HP to 2300HP.
If you have that flight test data on the A6M, P-39 and F4U I would Luv to see it. Please Email it to me. However I have flgith test data on the A6M-2 and A6M-5 where the F4U-1 and -1D are equal up to about 10K and then superior above reaching 20K faster. The P-39 was faster initially to 5K but then fell off at 10K and was a dog by 15K. That really doesn't surprise me based on power to weight at sea level. My reference is in the "Warbird History" Combat and Developement of the Zero. An excellent book with some great photo's.
Later
F4UDOA
PS. Please email me any additional flight test data you might have.
Well keep in mind the P-39 and all the Zero's had no way of generating extra power as air density decreases. The F4U, F6F, etc all had a two stage charger, where the first stage was developing more power then the engine would be without it, even in the 14-19k zone where power loss is the greatest.
Thus the planes without it are decreasing in horsepower in the power to weight ratio as they increase in altitude. So the Zero would be comparible up to the point where the power loss from altitude causes it to fall behind in power to weight.
And didn't the 4 blade Hamilton Standard actives on the P-47's run at a higher RPM then the 3 blade on the Corsair?
- Jig
-
Jig,
I agree on your point about the blower shift points being the area of highest HP before it begins to drop off. Here is a link to the P-51B vs the F4U-1(modified) and F4U-1A(unmodified). It clearly shows the availbe Hp of the F4U-1A being right at or above 2000Hp all the way up to 20K
http://members.home.net/markw4/index2.html (http://members.home.net/markw4/index2.html)
Also the RPM on the P-47 was 2700 which is the same on the F4U. Referance is America's Hundred Thousand for both. Which leads me to believe since prior models of the P-47D-5 through D23 all had 2300HP as well as the same Supercharger that the increase in climb is due to the prop.
By contrast I have never seen a correction chart for increased performance in the
F4U-1D. I believe this is because the F4U-4 was under test at the time using the same blade type as was being installed on the
-1D(Type 6501A-0). They probably did not see a need to go back and benchmark the A/C again for that reason. I guess they didn't forsee the future where techno-geeks would argue the virtues of their favorite A/C until blue in the face.
Note the prop change notice in section
C.Drag condition
Also look at the F4U/F6F vs FW190A5 for another reference to the prop change and incresed performance.
http://members.home.net/markw4/FW190_F4U.html (http://members.home.net/markw4/FW190_F4U.html)
Later
F4UDOA
-
While we are discussing supercharging, I'd like to know what you people think of the following quote:
"While the conventionel mechanical superchargers consisted of one or two compressors driven via a two-speed gear, Daimler-Benz utilised an ingenious barometricly controlled hydraulic clutch which adjusted the compressor speed and thus the charging of the engine according to the needs at a given altitude.
The conventional method results in a relative loss in efficiency below rated altitude, because the compressor uses energy to produce surplus charging. A graphic presentation of engine output relative to altitude would show a "saw-touth" line: the output in low gear rising with altitude until reaching the rated altitude, then output falls until the high gear kicks in, when the output again rises the rated altitude is reached.
In comparison the Daimler-Benz system is more flexible. A graphic presentation would show a smooth shallow curve. A source of efficiency loss with this system being progressive heating of the oil as pressure in the clutch builds with altitude."
I found this quote at the following URL: http://w1.1861.telia.com/~u186104874/db605.htm (http://w1.1861.telia.com/~u186104874/db605.htm)
If this is true, then shouldn't it mean that the speed/climb curves for the 109s should be smooth and not jagged as they are now?
------------------
---
SageFIN
"The wolves are gathering, the stars are shifting...
come, join us in the hunt!"
---
-
Originally posted by Nath-BDP:
The only F6F witn 20mm was the F6F5N, which was a nightfighter.
Nath, we hashed out the 20mm/.50 cal issue in this thread: http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/Forum9/HTML/000623.html (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/Forum9/HTML/000623.html)
I recomend hitting the links for the info on the F6F, it's a U.S. navy document and while not stating any numbers of aircraft sent to the fleet with 4x.50 2x20mm, it implies that there were some manufactured in that manner, and not just the -5n (night fighter)
[edit]
After re-reading Westy's post, His link is one we looked at irt the armament issue. It's a declassified navy document.
[edit]
Hamish!
[This message has been edited by Hamish (edited 09-22-2000).]
-
The F6F sure is a cute 'lil plane. It reminds me of what a P-47C might look like if left out in the rain too long and it shrunk slightly.
I'm sure the F6F will supplement the spit as the newbies delight, it's one of those "well rounded" aircraft.