Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: SgtPappy on May 24, 2010, 11:56:34 PM
-
I don't know if this has been talked about recently, but I think it's pretty important for this discussion to be continued now.
The most recent thread I could find was this, also started by myself: http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,252200.0.html (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,252200.0.html)
Unfortunately, it just turned into a big P-51 argument rather than an F6F-5 performance debate.
409 mph Hellcat? That's a notion supported by many tests, apparently, all of which were provided by WideWing. Somewhere in there it says that the F6F-5 and F4U-1D had virtually the same maximum performance numbers.
-
You mean the factory test where it performed better without armor and guns or ammo? :D
EDIT: I did find a page that alleges to have data from Boscombe Down that shows the F6F5 performing a little better but its 391 @23100ft and not 402:
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f6f/f6f-5-58310.pdf
-
Well I know Widewing did not agree with the way the F6f was modeled. And the test data shows that the F4u series shouldn't out turn it, yet they do in game.
The problem is to find really reliable data that is not subjective.
-
I'm not sure about the condition of the aircraft but I was reading WideWing's test data, which he found from Mike Williams' site.
Ghosth, the F4U turns pretty badly without flaps and the Hellcat will turn with the F4U even if both have 10 degrees of flaps down. It's only after that when the Hellcat is out turned. In addition, multiple tests say the F4U should easily 'out climb' the F6F-5, yet it doesn't.
Plus, the P-38 is widely known in tests to out turn a P-51 with 10 degrees of flaps. In this game it will do so, but only momentarily since its turn radius is larger, so 'out turn' is pretty subjective.
A Spitfire Ia should 'out turn' a Hurricane Mk.Ia but in this game, it doesn't.
I have to say that the fact that an F6F-5 can out turn an F4U in any condition at all already follows the saying that 'a Hellcat should out turn a Corsair'.
Stoney and I had conversations about this, and he stated that everything in this game is based on math, and can conflict with the subjective test data.
-
Actually an area I am thoroughly researching it the Hellcats preformance. I have come a cross an interesting comparison in the "Report of Joint Fighter Conference, NAS Paxtuxent River, MD. 16-23 Oct. 1944" published by Schiffer Military Press.
The flight test panel was a who's who list of the best factory pilots of the day with many industry professionals who went onto great things. In the back of the book is all of the tabulated flight reports and I found one aspect particularly interesting. For some of the planes accelerated 3G stall tests were performed and the Hellcats 3G speed is significantly lower than I expected. I am continuing to gather information and verify testing methodology but it does provide some data to work with. I need to get some more information to some of the other people I've asked for help, but I hope to have a more definitive answer soon about the Hellcat performance.
-
...Stoney and I had conversations about this, and he stated that everything in this game is based on math, and can conflict with the subjective test data.
'Subjective' meaning by perspective... feeling... beliefs... desires...
I favor the math side myself. :D
-
Actually an area I am thoroughly researching it the Hellcats preformance. I have come a cross an interesting comparison in the "Report of Joint Fighter Conference, NAS Paxtuxent River, MD. 16-23 Oct. 1944" published by Schiffer Military Press.
...
For some of the planes accelerated 3G stall tests were performed and the Hellcats 3G speed is significantly lower than I expected. I am continuing to gather information and verify testing methodology but it does provide some data to work with.
Can I find this test online anywhere and are any aircraft tested with flaps? Do you think our F6F-5 reflects the turn rate given in that test?
-
Sorry it's not on-line anywhere I can find it. But you can buy it here.
http://www.schifferbooks.com/newschiffer/book_template.php?isbn=0764304046 (http://www.schifferbooks.com/newschiffer/book_template.php?isbn=0764304046)
I highly recommend it, it gives a lot of insight into the designers and manufacturers thoughts. Especially with the number of eminently qualified test pilots of the day.
There's no specific testing done at various flap settings like AH (most planes don't have the same flap "steps" we have in AH). There is one test in particular that drew my attention and that is the accelerated 3G stall test. The average 3G stall speed in the report for the Hellcat is MUCH lower than what we get in game. However, this could be due to many factors and may not be an accurate reflection of its true performance. I am working to gather more data, and review the validity of the test, before a definitive answer can be given.
If the data turns out to be somewhat accurate, it would lead to better high speed (relative to the Hellcats performance) maneuverability.
-
Here are the combat flight tests results that I found it was published in 1988 in an article for Naval aviation news.
http://www.history.navy.mil/branches/hist-ac/f6f-5.pdf
It is a comparison of the F6F-3 and F6F-5
-
You mean the factory test where it performed better without armor and guns or ammo? :D
EDIT: I did find a page that alleges to have data from Boscombe Down that shows the F6F5 performing a little better but its 391 @23100ft and not 402:
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f6f/f6f-5-58310.pdf
Look at the data again.... 391 mph at MIL power, not WEP. Keep that in mind. Other tests show the F6F-5 easily exceeding 400 mph when using combat power.
-
Widewing I was scanning for peak speeds and thats it... but looking at it again they seem to be saying that combat power (WEP) is less power than MIL? Okay... so why?
-
"Look at the data again.... 391 mph at MIL power, not WEP. Keep that in mind. Other tests show the F6F-5 easily exceeding 400 mph when using combat power."
What other tests? From the thread in 2008 I found one comparison test which probably presented only the indicated speeds and thus cannot be considered very reliable.
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f6f/f6f-5-58310.pdf
Looking at the data in link above seems to indicate the standard figure of 390mph at 23.000ft and in combat power 394 at 19.000ft even if the engine output was increased 1650hp to 1950 i.e quite significantly. According to that data it looks impossible for F6F to exceed 400mph in level flight with that supercharger.
-C+
-
What other tests? From the thread in 2008 I found one comparison test which probably presented only the indicated speeds and thus cannot be considered very reliable.
This test: http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/japan/ptr-1111.pdf (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/japan/ptr-1111.pdf)
409 mph @ 21,600 feet, tested at Patuxent Naval Air Station, November 1944.
-
So what's the rub then? What's the stated reason they don't bump the speed up?
-
I suppose HTC just needs more proof; perhaps another test that proves that the Hellcat, in combat condition at so-and-so engine settings will hit that speed.
I'm sure the community would greatly appreciate a faster Hellcat.
-
The issue is that a lot of the testing itself was flawed. The placement of the air intake for airspeed had a flaw in it and was later moved, but when flown side-by-side with an F4u corsair, it matched its speed almost identically. The test pilots thought there was no difference in the plane performance, other than the F6F turned a little tighter, and one of them (F4u?) climbed a little faster.
But, then, they were flying the real deal, and did not have Aces High Brand (TM) uberflappen. Excessive use of flaps in this game totally throws the F6Fs manuverability into the trash bin when compared to the flaps-down F4u in-game.
-
"So what's the rub then? What's the stated reason they don't bump the speed up?"
Did you look at the link I posted Stoney?
It shows that despite significant power increase by using WEP practically did not increase level speed. To me it tells that the only way for F6F to be faster would be flying higher to overcome its drag and the supercharger it has does not support that.
"This test: http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/japan/ptr-1111.pdf
409 mph @ 21,600 feet, tested at Patuxent Naval Air Station, November 1944."
That is the test I was referring to earlier.
And comparison test between F4U and F6F is valid if it can be confirmed that the F4U was performing up to average to begin with. Test setup with with a particularly slow F4U and particularly fast F6F may produce such phenomenons.
-C+
-
"So what's the rub then? What's the stated reason they don't bump the speed up?"
Did you look at the link I posted Stoney?
Uh, yeah... I meant, why hasn't HTC bumped the speed of the plane? Has anyone heard from them about why 391 mph is pegged as top speed?
-
The issue is that a lot of the testing itself was flawed. The placement of the air intake for airspeed had a flaw in it and was later moved, but when flown side-by-side with an F4u corsair, it matched its speed almost identically. The test pilots thought there was no difference in the plane performance, other than the F6F turned a little tighter, and one of them (F4u?) climbed a little faster.
But, then, they were flying the real deal, and did not have Aces High Brand (TM) uberflappen. Excessive use of flaps in this game totally throws the F6Fs manuverability into the trash bin when compared to the flaps-down F4u in-game.
Not to mention the fact that they really didn't test planes in combat with flaps down, and when they did, they tested like 10 degrees.
-
Stoney, look how long it took to get the moss changed. :uhoh
-
I will say that the F6F is a helluva an Aircraft, but on more than 1 occasion I have heard that it is way overmodeled. For instance, the other day I dove on one that was low on the deck and after watching another pilot rake him with fire I proceeded to hit him with over 50-20mm cannon rnds from a C-Hog and suprise suprise, he kept on flying. I have noticed this more and more lately, having to chase down planes I have just pummeled with more than enough rounds to take them down, only to be killed by one of their buddies as I have to put more rounds into them after the fact. I think this is an issue that more and more pilots are expressing dissatisfaction with and should be addressed.
-
Have you got film of a F6F taking 50 hits from 20mm? :D
-
All I can say is that if you did indeed hit him with 50 rounds of 20mm, you also scattered those 50 all over his airframe.
Because 15 rounds in one place will break whatever it hits.
I'd be willing to bet that over half of those 50 missed clean.
Pick one point and hammer them all into the same spot. They'll die every time.
-
I still think it's undermodeled. Since proof has already been shown regarding the errors in testing and corrections made in the performance of the aircraft, the plane should be upped in top speed.
Chances are people would notice its superiority in clean maneuverability vs. a clean F4U more easily.
-
I think only Greebos F6 is over modeled, everyone else is fine. :neener:
-
I
Plus, the P-38 is widely known in tests to out turn a P-51 with 10 degrees of flaps. In this game it will do so, but only momentarily since its turn radius is larger, so 'out turn' is pretty subjective.
I don't know what game you are playing but the 38 will out turn a 51 handily in AHII, pilots being equal.
-
It takes 2 rounds of Hispano II 20mm to take the tail off of a Bf110G-2. It takes 3 rounds of Hispano II 20mm to take the tail off of a Mosquito Mk VI. It takes 14 rounds of Hispano II 20mm to take the tail off of a Lancaster. It takes 17 rounds of Hispano II 20mm to take the tail off of a B-17G.
I highly doubt that you could actually hit an F6F-5 with 50 rounds of 20mm ammo and not fatally injure it.
-
"I highly doubt that you could actually hit an F6F-5 with 50 rounds of 20mm ammo and not fatally injure it."
Maybe he was talking about MG151/20... :P
-C+
-
"I highly doubt that you could actually hit an F6F-5 with 50 rounds of 20mm ammo and not fatally injure it."
Maybe he was talking about MG151/20... :P
-C+
I'm including Type 99 Model I, let alone MG151/20.
-
It takes 2 rounds of Hispano II 20mm to take the tail off of a Bf110G-2. It takes 3 rounds of Hispano II 20mm to take the tail off of a Mosquito Mk VI. It takes 14 rounds of Hispano II 20mm to take the tail off of a Lancaster. It takes 17 rounds of Hispano II 20mm to take the tail off of a B-17G.
I highly doubt that you could actually hit an F6F-5 with 50 rounds of 20mm ammo and not fatally injure it.
Yet if you hit the cockpit with just two any of those planes are toast.
-
The F6F-5's a beast, <3 that ride.
-
I've returned after 8 mos and seen a little tweaking of the ENY :aok One curiosity is that the F6F stayed at 15 ENY...half expected it to jump to 20. When compared to the 20 ENY P47D40...
Roll- Jug
Cockpit vis- Jug
Firepower - Jug
A-G ords - Jug
Climb - F6F marginally better to 8k then...JUG
Dive - Jug
Roll - Jug
Toughness - Jug
Turn - F6F
Speed - Jug
My best guess is that the carrier capability has something to do with this. Carrier capability aside, if you bump the F6F to 20ENY the P47 is still the more attractive option. I love the Hellcat, second only to Jug no heresy intended just soliciting thoughts. :salute
-
I don't think anybody could hit someone with 50 20mm's.......... I did hit a P47 with 12 and only knocked off a landing gear....Then one finally hit the cockpit and killed the pilot...... With its pilot dead the plane laughed at me and flipped me the bird as it flew on in to the ground. :neener:
-
I think the most 20mms I've EVER put into a P47 is 8.
Flaps- Jug
Fuel Options - Jug
Energy retention - Jug...