Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: Gman on January 10, 2012, 04:42:08 PM
-
I don't really see many of these anymore, not even when CV fights are going on. It looks like the Seafire, followed by the F4U 1A and the C hog etc are chosen 10x more often.
Is there any pilots that regularly fly the Hellcat, or consider it their "main" ride, like Mathman did back in the day? I'd like to hear some opinions about it, as I've been reading a lot of Hellcat books, two by Barrett Tillman lately, and they were incredibly well written accounts of the F6F during the war. I always used to think of it as an evolutionary follow on of the F4F, but it isn't really. Max take off weight is TWO TIMES that of the Wildcat, even though the Hellcat doesn't look twice as heavy as the Wildcat sitting side by side. The K/D ratio vs the Japanese fighters is astounding. In the Pacific theater, I wonder what pilots who ended up being stationed on Henderson field or any of the other land bases favored - the F6F, the P38's that became available, or the early P47's. I know the P51's become the primary land based fighter in the last year or so of the war, but I'm interested more in the couple of years that preceded this.
Also, the F6F had crazy range, nearly that of the P51. I wonder how it would have done in the European theater? Without that radiator to get damaged, I wonder if it would have had a lot lower loss ratio than the Mustang. I've got no idea how it would have performed vs the 109 and 190s compared to the P51.
Also, what are the opinions of the F6F compared to the P47? They are both very similar in terms of size, engine, and armament (give or take the 2 50's of the P47). Obviously the P47M/N is faster, but the other models seem close to the Hellcat. How do they compare in terms of zoom/dive/turn rate/turn radius at typical AH2 engagement altitudes?
I'm thinking of flying it for a couple of weeks straight and see how I do. It's pretty slow in the deck which is my primary concern.
-
I try and use the Hellcat as much as I can. i know an vietnam vet that restored a Hellcat and he argues that it was better than the P-51. In some aspects I tend to agree. Hellcat Kill/death ratio was 19/1 unlike the mustangs 12/1 and Corsairs 14/1. It was also a very rugged aircraft and had the great R-2800 P&W engine.
-
People are afraid to fly it because they can't compare to Greebo's awesomeness in it.
-
Dodger flies it often.
I don't think it gets flown as much because of how CVs are frequently used...
for example....
f4uC = better plane to vulch with & take town buildings down with
-
The reason why the hellcat had such a spectacular K/d was that it was designed specifically to counter the zero and it did it very well. Had it been in the ETO I'd imagine its k/d would have been much less.
-
The reason why the hellcat had such a spectacular K/d was that it was designed specifically to counter the zero and it did it very well. Had it been in the ETO I'd imagine its k/d would have been much less.
This, not mentioning that the majority of Japanese pilots around that time had far, far less experience and worse training than the German pilots.
-
Had it been in the ETO I'd imagine its k/d would have been much less.
Heh. I imagine Wildwing will stop by in awhile to address these things.
FWIW, AvA has run a few setups involving Corsairs and Hellcats against 109s and FWs. While reasonably competitive, I think most of the participants would agree that they'd rather be in a Hellcat than either of the German rides.
- oldman
-
The reason why the hellcat had such a spectacular K/d was that it was designed specifically to counter the zero and it did it very well. Had it been in the ETO I'd imagine its k/d would have been much less.
This is a common myth, the F6F prototype flew before the US got it's hands on the A6M that crashed in the Aleutians and was evaluated by the US military.
Over 1000 F6F-3 and -5's were delivered the Fleet Air Arm and involved in anti shipping missions, although there were few chances for air to air combat.
To answer the OP I think the F6F usage took a hit when the 3D shape was updated and the rear view was reduced substantially, but that's just a guess I don't have the stats to back it up. As is there is little reason from a performance point of view to recommend it over the F4U, however it remains my favorite carrier plane although I don't find myself launching from CV's much these days.
-
The reason why the hellcat had such a spectacular K/d was that it was designed specifically to counter the zero and it did it very well. Had it been in the ETO I'd imagine its k/d would have been much less.
The Hellcat was not designed just to kill the zero. The first prototype had already flown before we encountered the Zero
-
The reason why the hellcat had such a spectacular K/d was that it was designed specifically to counter the zero and it did it very well. Had it been in the ETO I'd imagine its k/d would have been much less.
F6F-5s saw action during the invasion of southern France... 5 or 6 kills (Ju 88s and JU-52s). No losses to the Luftwaffe. German fighters avoided the Hellcats, preferring not to engage. The Hellcats provided considerable air support for ground troops, destroying armored vehicles, trucks and artillery. A few F6Fs were lost to tripleA. Ironically, the Navy elected to use borrowed P-51C fighters as naval gunfire spotters, largely due to their superior loiter time. FM-2s were also in combat during the invasion (Operation Dragoon/Anvil).
-
The Hellcat was not designed just to kill the zero. The first prototype had already flown before we encountered the Zero
Not correct... The F6F design was modified once data from combat with Zeros was analyzed. This data resulted in switching from the 1600 hp R-2600 to the 2000 hp R-2800. The XF6F-1 first flew at the end of June, 1942, with the R-2800 powered XF6F-3 flying about a month later. This was 6 months after the Navy encountered the Zero. The first captured Zero wasn't test flown until September, 1942. Nonetheless, the F6F-3 incorporated changes as flight data began to make its way to Gurmman's Engineering department.
-
This, not mentioning that the majority of Japanese pilots around that time had far, far less experience and worse training than the German pilots.
Typically aces who first flew in the Pacific, scored better in the ETO. By middle 1944, new Luftwaffe pilots were not nearly as well trained as their Allied counterparts. By 1945, Germany was mostly putting up cannon fodder in terms of new pilots.
-
F6F isn't flown that much (IMO) because fights tend to place the primary importance on speed, since if you're fast, you can walk away from anything that can out turn you. And CV fights tend to be low-mid alt, which further exposes the F6F's relativly low speed compared to many late war aircraft, because theres less room too dive away and escape.
If the F6F could crack even 345 at low altitude, I have no doubt that it would be much more popular. The F4U-1A offers the best speed of any perk-free carrier fighter (approaching 375mph at only 5k). The Seafire is lighter, and though its not a whole lot more manuverable, it doesn't feel nearly so heavy at low speeds, and seems more responsive, as well as packing the Hispanos so many people love, so the seafire offers several positive characteristics over the F6F at the expense of about 25mph. If the A6M5 could take more than a nasty look before it burst into flames, it would probably be more popular than the Seafire.
For some of the more common land-based fighters, the 190A5 can hit almost 375mph at a mere 5k, the 109K4 is approaching 400mph at that altitude. The D9 is at 375mph on the deck, and the Typhoon is also getting close to 375mph. P-51D is at about 360mph, Yak-9U is at about 355, the La-7 is at 380mph, and the Spit 16 is creeping up on 350mph, as is the Ki-84.
To put it simply, many people feel the F6F just doesn't offer enough positive characteristics in other areas to compensate for its lack of speed.
-
Also, what are the opinions of the F6F compared to the P47? They are both very similar in terms of size, engine, and armament (give or take the 2 50's of the P47). Obviously the P47M/N is faster, but the other models seem close to the Hellcat. How do they compare in terms of zoom/dive/turn rate/turn radius at typical AH2 engagement altitudes?
I'm thinking of flying it for a couple of weeks straight and see how I do. It's pretty slow in the deck which is my primary concern.
F6Fs frequently tangled with P-47s over Long Island, since they were built at factories just a few miles apart. As a general rule, below 20k the F6F was competitive, but up higher the P-47 was king. Hellcats could fly circles around the Jug in a low speed turning contest. However, if the P-47s held an altitude advantage, the Hellcat pilots had their hands very full.
-
Did any of the Royal Navy Hellcats see action in the Atlantic or Med or just in the Pacific?
ack-ack
-
The reason why the hellcat had such a spectacular K/d was that it was designed specifically to counter the zero and it did it very well. Had it been in the ETO I'd imagine its k/d would have been much less.
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php?topic=290433.0
-
I used to fly the Hellcat a fair amount as my primary attack ride. I haven't flown it much lately but have spent a good amount of time in it over the years.
IMO it's primary fault is it's low top speed followed by it's reluctance to climb from a slow start. That said it can turn like crazy with flaps out and I've often turn fought P-51's, 109K-4's and FW-190's without ever dropping my ord. I figure if I'm carrying ord on a mission I'm not dropping it until I absolutely have to so I got a lot of practice. Loaded it's still competative with those planes but they tend to extend and reset which they can do at will. Jugs are generally outclassed by the F6F. Once the ord is gone the F6F is an excellent low speed turn fighter and like the F4F it's rugged as hell. That said in a high speed dive you have to be careful pulling out with ord attached or you'll lose your wings.
I think the remodel that limited the rear vision lowered it's use the most. Since then you just simply can't see behind you but I try not to let it bother me. If I've got my SA up I have good idea what might be there anyway.
I chose it as one of my primary rides (along with the Spitfire XVI (pure fighter) and FW190A-8 (buff hunter/fighter)) due to it's versitility. It can carry as much ord as most and flys and fights better than most once the ord's gone. There's nothing in the MA I wouldn't try to engage with a light F6F.
BTW, Slapshot's one of the better F6F sticks if he's still around. He used to fly it almost exclusively in MW and used to give me fits in my Spit.
-
Did any of the Royal Navy Hellcats see action in the Atlantic or Med or just in the Pacific?
ack-ack
I believe that the FAA Hellcats managed about 52 kills during the war. They also fought a brief engagement against the Luftwaffe off of Norway.
There is a USN test of the F4U-1A and F6F-3 compared to a FW 190A-4. Generally speaking, it was not a good idea to engage either with a 190 unless one had a considerable E advantage, and even then, the 190 better skedaddle before E state equalize. One interesting note from the test is that which shows the F6F-3 reaching 391 mph @ 25k. That's 5 mph faster than the Aces High F6F-5 can do. TAIC tests show the F6F-5 being able to attain 408 mph.
Here's a link to the Navy test: http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/ptr-1107.pdf (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/ptr-1107.pdf)
-
IMO it's primary fault is it's low top speed followed by it's reluctance to climb from a slow start. That said it can turn like crazy with flaps out and I've often turn fought P-51's, 109K-4's and FW-190's without ever dropping my ord. I figure if I'm carrying ord on a mission I'm not dropping it until I absolutely have to so I got a lot of practice. Loaded it's still competative with those planes but they tend to extend and reset which they can do at will.
Jugs are generally outclassed by the F6F. Once the ord is gone the F6F is an excellent low speed turn fighter and like the F4F it's rugged as hell. That said in a high speed dive you have to be careful pulling out with ord attached or you'll lose your wings.
I wouldn't go so far as to say its competative.... but it can hold its own given a fair chance. When I was playing, one of the things I least like to see was an ornery F6F pilot, because odds were good that if he was flying well, he knew the F6F well, and because they weren't afraid to HO anything without a spud-gun.
As for the F6F outclassing the jug, I would say thats true for the earlier models, but the D-40 can hold its own, and the M and N can walk away from you like the others. Also, I've never understood why everyone consides the F6F to be 'rugged' Yeah, if you're counting individual bullets its pretty tough, but I've never had one survive a tater, and they still die with a good burst from even .50's.
-
Generally speaking, I've always considered the faster plane to ALWAYS have the advantage (historically speaking) but that does depend on alt doesn't it.
Also food for thought when comparing...
The f6f may have been to counter the Zero
The late model 190's were more to counter a heavy bomber.
I would think that affects things to a degree. What I mean is I'm not certain on a historical basis they could be compared.
-
Not correct... The F6F design was modified once data from combat with Zeros was analyzed. This data resulted in switching from the 1600 hp R-2600 to the 2000 hp R-2800. The XF6F-1 first flew at the end of June, 1942, with the R-2800 powered XF6F-3 flying about a month later. This was 6 months after the Navy encountered the Zero. The first captured Zero wasn't test flown until September, 1942. Nonetheless, the F6F-3 incorporated changes as flight data began to make its way to Gurmman's Engineering department.
But the basic design was still the same. If they just upped the horse power thats not much of a change to the rest of the airframe
-
its a great plane for sure and I try to use them - but the zero is a better carrier plane for the kind of launch, in the fight asap sort of playing that happens a lot off CVs. And the F4U is just a better plane and has better views. . .which is shocking really.
-
My Hurricane loves the Hellcats. NOM NOM NOM
-
I fly something that is fairly close to it as "a main ride", the P-47 D-11.
-
But the basic design was still the same. If they just upped the horse power thats not much of a change to the rest of the airframe
That just shows that the basic design was already sufficient. Don't forget that there was a lot of information out of China about Japanese fighters prior to the F6 design.
-
That just shows that the basic design was already sufficient. Don't forget that there was a lot of information out of China about Japanese fighters prior to the F6 design.
When the flying tigers notified the U.S Government about the Zero they did not believe the capabilities they were describing. The U.S government did not take the info coming out of china seriously.
-
I fly the F6F as my main ride in the MA. The relative scarcity of F6Fs online is one of the things that draws me to it really. I guess the main reason for this lack of use is the F4U series. Not only are the Corsairs faster but they are better turn fighters too, particularly the 1, 1A and 4. Their flaps seem more effective and they seem more stable in a knife fight, which is odd given their RL reputation for low speed handling compared to the F6F.
I think the F6F would have made a good 9th AF aircraft in the ETO, probably better than the aircraft which were used for ground attack there. However it would have lacked the speed at alt needed for the 8th AF's role.
Co alt I find I have no problem dealing with P-47s in the MA. However if they attack with an alt advantage there is not much I can do except wait for them to get frustrated and screw up, which is the case with all the fast bnz rides.
-
I love the F6F
-
F6f faded into obscurity when F4U uber flaps showed up.
I think the F4U flap and gear speed need some looking into.
-
When the flying tigers notified the U.S Government about the Zero they did not believe the capabilities they were describing. The U.S government did not take the info coming out of china seriously.
Did the Tigers ever actually fly against Zeros? Serious question, I was under the impression that the few Zekes ever used in China were used there and withdrawn quite awhile before the AVG became active.
- oldman
-
Did the Tigers ever actually fly against Zeros? Serious question, I was under the impression that the few Zekes ever used in China were used there and withdrawn quite awhile before the AVG became active.
- oldman
I don't believe they faced any Zeros, though a few Zeke squadrons were sent to China but mostly in the coastal areas if I remember correctly.
ack-ack
-
I used to fly the hellcat until they 'fixed' the rear view...and I'm not an isolated case.
The F6F turns nicely until you reach the nasty stall...the F4U holds all the cards since AH doesn't simulate the price difference :)
-
When the flying tigers notified the U.S Government about the Zero they did not believe the capabilities they were describing. The U.S government did not take the info coming out of china seriously.
The US government is not a conscious entity. :devil
You can be sure that there was a lot of interest by aircraft designers in what the other countries were flying.
-
Did the Tigers ever actually fly against Zeros? Serious question, I was under the impression that the few Zekes ever used in China were used there and withdrawn quite awhile before the AVG became active.
- oldman
I believe that the Tigers did encounter the Zeros. There was a show on the history channel about it.
-
I believe that the Tigers did encounter the Zeros. There was a show on the history channel about it.
The Flying Tigers AVG never encountered the Zeke in combat over China.
As for using a show on the History Channel as a verified source, I once saw a show on the History Channel that said the P-51D was equipped with 6x 50mm cannons.
ack-ack
-
The Flying Tigers AVG never encountered the Zeke in combat over China.
As for using a show on the History Channel as a verified source, I once saw a show on the History Channel that said the P-51D was equipped with 6x 50mm cannons.
ack-ack
6x 50mm cannons!!!! :O :O :O I did not notice that before... Maybe I should fly the 51 more...
-
The History Channel... :rofl
-
The Flying Tigers AVG never encountered the Zeke in combat over China.
As for using a show on the History Channel as a verified source, I once saw a show on the History Channel that said the P-51D was equipped with 6x 50mm cannons.
ack-ack
and your B38 is a light bomber :D
-
TV = :devil
-
After a rather long hiatus, I renewed my subscription briefly. I took the F6F, which had been my favorite ride, up for a test flight. The first thing I noticed was that the rear view had been ruined.
I found that change to be inexplicable. While the view from the Hellcat could not compare to that of a fighter with a bubble canopy, it was described by many WW II pilots as being "good". Grumman's chief test pilot for the F6F was Corky Meyer, as many of you know. In an article in a special edition of Flight Journal Corky described it thusly:
"Visibility from the cockpit was excellent for almost 360 degrees. Visibility aft was enhanced by a rearview mirror. The Hellcat fuselage's eight-degree nose-down angle provided excellent visibility for lead corrections when firing the six guns."
I read one statement in this thread that stated that the Corsair had superior turning ability to the F6F. That flies in the face of almost everything I have read about both fighters over the years. While the Corsair had superior ailerons, and could thus change direction more easily, once locked into a turn the Hellcat was superior. It's docile stall characteristics were also superior to the Corsair's. Taken together the Hellcat's turn rate and gentle stall gave it an advantage over the Corsair in turning.
-
I only fly the F6. I'm mainly an on the deck, turn and burn fighter. I've tested most of the planes out in AH, and it always seems like every plane has its strengths, and a major flaw (with very few exceptions.) For example, the P51 is fast, but it doesn't maneuver well, the LA7 is fast and maneuvers relatively well but its guns are hard to use and are limited, the Brewster is maneuverable, has excellent guns, but is not fast and not durable. I might be biased because I've been flying the F6 since 98 on and offline, but to me it does everything reasonably well, and has no major weakness. In the MA I have no fear fighting on the deck with spits, or entering a furball because the F6 turns very well, is a stable platform, has great guns with plenty of ammo, is nearly average in speed, and can absorb plenty of hits and still perform well when damaged. Before the update a year or so ago, I use to be able to fly with 1/2 a wing and still have enough stability to defend myself. I think flying the F6 is not just about using a single fighting aspect to your advantage, like using speed to BnZ, or maneuverability to TnB. The F6 doesn't do anything really well, but if you can combine everything it does relatively well you'll be deadly.
-
I would consider the K4 to be relatively flawless. Its only real downside is the balistics of the 30mm, which are made up for with the ability to kill everything this side of an Il-2 with a single round.
P-51 is also pretty well rounded. Its not extermely manuverable, but you can take it into some sketchy situations and come back. I've done it and seen it done.
Ki-84 would also seem to be one of more 'flawless' planes, really only lacking in dive speed.
I would also say the spitfire..... but I hate spitfires, so I won't say it. Flying the damn thing is basicly pointless if you want to push yourself to do better in every fight.
-
I would also say the spitfire..... but I hate spitfires, so I won't say it. Flying the damn thing is basicly pointless if you want to push yourself to do better in every fight.
There is nothing wrong with the Spitfire or with flying it. The only problem are people such as yourself that for some idiotic and moronic reasons think that by flying it you will not improve or learn anything. If the pilot has no desire to improve and learn, they aren't regardless of what they fly.
ack-ack
-
There is nothing wrong with the Spitfire or with flying it. The only problem are people such as yourself that for some idiotic and moronic reasons think that by flying it you will not improve or learn anything. If the pilot has no desire to improve and learn, they aren't regardless of what they fly.
ack-ack
Ack-ack,
Some planes force the pilot to focus on certain aspects of ACM, throttle management, and e management more than others in order to be successful. Planes like the spit 16 aren't as demanding. So yes, one should and will learn regardless, but I would argue that one would learn certain aspects faster in other rides as they would be forced to in order to feel 'successful'.
-
The Flying Tigers AVG never encountered the Zeke in combat over China.
As for using a show on the History Channel as a verified source, I once saw a show on the History Channel that said the P-51D was equipped with 6x 50mm cannons.
ack-ack
By that thinking the hurri IIb had 12 x 303mm cannons :O... a hurricane with the fire power of battleship broadside :devil I want I want (http://digital.library.upenn.edu/women/ward/effort/front-page.gif)
The brits must have worked out how to store the shells in the bloody ether.
-
I found that change to be inexplicable. While the view from the Hellcat could not compare to that of a fighter with a bubble canopy, it was described by many WW II pilots as being "good". Grumman's chief test pilot for the F6F was Corky Meyer, as many of you know. In an article in a special edition of Flight Journal Corky described it thusly:
"Visibility from the cockpit was excellent for almost 360 degrees. Visibility aft was enhanced by a rearview mirror. The Hellcat fuselage's eight-degree nose-down angle provided excellent visibility for lead corrections when firing the six guns."
I think the "new" cockpit view thing is over-emphasized. The Hellcat's view is still excellent given its razorback fuselage. We're all just spoiled because most of the other AH razorback cockpit views (e.g. the 109s) are unrealistically good. While the new cockpit view took some adjustment, once I got used to it I didn't find that it was causing me to lose any fights.
- oldman (I have many and varied other ways to lose fights, thank you very much)
-
I upped the F6 a couple times last night. It's a fun plane - extremely stable which is great for bad gunners like myself. At one point, I got stuck in a 3v1. The good turning ability enabled me to kill one bad guy, and survive long enough vs the reamining two for friendlies to show up and help me out. I'll have to giver her another shot tonight :aok
-
The f6f is a fine bird. You see so many corsairs now because, in my opinion, ....well lets just say I actively try to kill every f4u I see :devil
-
Not only are the Corsairs faster but they are better turn fighters too, particularly the 1, 1A and 4. Their flaps seem more effective and they seem more stable in a knife fight, which is odd given their RL reputation for low speed handling compared to the F6F.
Agreed, 110%.
-
I think the "new" cockpit view thing is over-emphasized. The Hellcat's view is still excellent given its razorback fuselage. We're all just spoiled because most of the other AH razorback cockpit views (e.g. the 109s) are unrealistically good. While the new cockpit view took some adjustment, once I got used to it I didn't find that it was causing me to lose any fights.
- oldman (I have many and varied other ways to lose fights, thank you very much)
Well, there's the problem. If the Hellcat is the one razorback plane with "realistic" rear view limitations, it is at a SA disadvantage that it shouldn't have. At the rate planes are remodeled, it will be a very, very long time before the playing field is leveled.
-
Well, there's the problem. If the Hellcat is the one razorback plane with "realistic" rear view limitations, it is at a SA disadvantage that it shouldn't have. At the rate planes are remodeled, it will be a very, very long time before the playing field is leveled.
Do you find that you lose many fights in the Hellcat because of the rear view?
- oldman
-
Do you find that you lose many fights in the Hellcat because of the rear view?
- oldman
when in a multi con engagement its pretty obvious that it limits the SA...also when you have to extend from bad odds you have no way to see how fast the pursuers are closing in, and take the necessary actions in good time...
MA duels are an illusion
-
when in a multi con engagement its pretty obvious that it limits the SA...also when you have to extend from bad odds you have no way to see how fast the pursuers are closing in, and take the necessary actions in good time...
MA duels are an illusion
Precisely. Making little turns every few seconds to check your 6 scrubs speed and adds to a pilot's workload. It is an extra disadvantage that other planes (that should have similar limitations) don't have.
-
Precisely. Making little turns every few seconds to check your 6 scrubs speed and adds to a pilot's workload.
Unless you're in a jet or rocket plane...don't you do this in any aircraft you're flying? None of them has perfect visibility to the rear, particularly below the tail.
- oldman
-
You know what the visibility was (same as other razorback planes) and what it is now. If it doesn't bother you, so be it. It's still different.
The thread is all yours, I'm done repeating myself.
-
"Visibility from the cockpit was excellent for almost 360 degrees. Visibility aft was enhanced by a rearview mirror. The Hellcat fuselage's eight-degree nose-down angle provided excellent visibility for lead corrections when firing the six guns."
-
I believe that the Tigers did encounter the Zeros. There was a show on the history channel about it.
There were no Zeros in China when the AVG was operational.....
-
"Visibility from the cockpit was excellent for almost 360 degrees. Visibility aft was enhanced by a rearview mirror. The Hellcat fuselage's eight-degree nose-down angle provided excellent visibility for lead corrections when firing the six guns."
What HTC did was restrict head movement too much. You can't get get your cartoon head anywhere near the canopy glass... Having had the opportunity to sit in an F6F-5 a few times, I know that if you get right up against the glass you can see better to the rear than the AH F6F-5.
-
I wouldn't go so far as to say its competative.... but it can hold its own given a fair chance. When I was playing, one of the things I least like to see was an ornery F6F pilot, because odds were good that if he was flying well, he knew the F6F well, and because they weren't afraid to HO anything without a spud-gun.
As for the F6F outclassing the jug, I would say thats true for the earlier models, but the D-40 can hold its own, and the M and N can walk away from you like the others. Also, I've never understood why everyone consides the F6F to be 'rugged' Yeah, if you're counting individual bullets its pretty tough, but I've never had one survive a tater, and they still die with a good burst from even .50's.
In game, the F6F is not especially rugged. In the real world, it would absorb more battle damage than the F4U. Post war analysis by the Navy shows this. Generally speaking, the F6F was more durable than the P-47 as well. It lacked the vulnerability of the Jug's turbo system, and it was designed to handle the severe stress and strain of carrier ops.
-
Yes, but this is something that doesn't come out in Aces High, which is why I don't understand why people bring it up.
That would be like me saying that the M4A3 is arguably better than the Tiger I in aces high because the Tiger I guzzled gas and was more prone to break downs (we have neither fuel nor random break downs for GV's in AH).
-
Yes, but this is something that doesn't come out in Aces High, which is why I don't understand why people bring it up.
That would be like me saying that the M4A3 is arguably better than the Tiger I in aces high because the Tiger I guzzled gas and was more prone to break downs (we have neither fuel nor random break downs for GV's in AH).
When you look at it objectively, the F6F is still a very durable plane in AH, which is why it's brought up. It may not be on par with the P-47, but I consider it on-par with the F4U's.
-
Meh, not even quite to the F4U's, IMO. At least not if you don't count the (slighly) higher tendency for oil hits in the F4U.
Close, but not quite there. Probably beause the F4U's are perfectly capable of flying with 90% of the control surfaces and 1/2 a wing missing :bolt:.
-
What HTC did was restrict head movement too much. You can't get get your cartoon head anywhere near the canopy glass... Having had the opportunity to sit in an F6F-5 a few times, I know that if you get right up against the glass you can see better to the rear than the AH F6F-5.
Yep. That would be my take on the problem with Hellcat rear visibility in-game as well.
-
Probably a good opportunity to dig this out again.......
(http://www.gfg06.dial.pipex.com/screenshots3/F6Fjoke.png)
-
This, not mentioning that the majority of Japanese pilots around that time had far, far less experience and worse training than the German pilots.
I agree with EskimoJoe, the Hellcat probably shot down a lot of planes in kamikaze mode and a lot of noobs.
-
I agree with EskimoJoe, the Hellcat probably shot down a lot of planes in kamikaze mode and a lot of noobs.
Yup. Like the P-51 in the ETO.
- oldman
-
I agree with EskimoJoe, the Hellcat probably shot down a lot of planes in kamikaze mode and a lot of noobs.
After 1943 the quality of Axis pilots in both the ETO and PTO degraded severely. Guenther Rall stated that the replacements he received at that time had a life expectancy of 10 hours of mission time.
What you stated is true of not just the Hellcat but also the F4U, P-38, Thunderbolt, Mustang and every other Allied fighter that engaged the enemy after 1943.
-
You don't really help your arguments when you make a statement and then in the next sentence contradict your first statement.
-
After 1943 the quality of Axis pilots in both the ETO and PTO degraded severely. Guenther Rall stated that the replacements he received at that time had a life expectancy of 10 hours of mission time.
What you stated is true of not just the Hellcat but also the F4U, P-38, Thunderbolt, Mustang and every other Allied fighter that engaged the enemy after 1943.
Except that Rall was referring to pilots coming into service from middle 1944 and beyond. Until the Allied bombing priority shifted to the German synthetic fuel industry, Luftwaffe pilots were receiving adequate training time. Once fuel became a serious issue, after May of 1944, training time gradually became cut back.
This becomes difficult to quantify for many reasons. Thus, it is often written about in general terms.
Japan's situation was different altogether. Many of the IJN pilots who lost their ships at Midway survived, being transported home on Cruisers and Destroyers once rescued. The next major depletion occurred in June of 1944 (the Great Turkey Shoot). Japanese Army pilots were slowly ground down. By the fall of 1944, many of the better pilots had been killed. Like Germany, fuel was becoming an issue (submarine warfare had shut down oil imports to a fraction of that needed).
Those American and Commonwealth aces who attained their status in either theater towards the end of the respective war, did have a much easier time of it than those who preceded them. In February thru April of 1945, F6F and F4U pilots feasted on trainees and suicide pilots who could not or would not defend themselves. Yet, those flying combat missions over Japan in the summer of '45 ran into a higher quality of pilots, as Japan hoarded their few remaining higher end pilots on the home islands for what they thought would be a final stand.
-
Well...perhaps I wasn't specific enough:
"After 1943 the quality of Axis pilots in both the ETO and PTO degraded severely."
Widewing...wouldn't you agree that the situation for both Germany and Japan was basically similar? Attrition rates were staggering...and by the fall of '44 the level of training for Luftwaffe pilots was little better than it was for the Japanese?
-
It was a choice between training the pilots to the point of having a decent chance at surviving combat, training them to the point of being able to survive combat but getting but at a much much MUCH slower pace.... or getting pilots into combat somewhere close to on time and with the fuel they need to fight.
Germany and japan made the best choices (about pilot training) they could at the time. It was litterally a choice between getting poorly flown aircraft into the air, not not getting any aircraft up at all.
-
Well...perhaps I wasn't specific enough:
"After 1943 the quality of Axis pilots in both the ETO and PTO degraded severely."
Widewing...wouldn't you agree that the situation for both Germany and Japan was basically similar? Attrition rates were staggering...and by the fall of '44 the level of training for Luftwaffe pilots was little better than it was for the Japanese?
I absolutely agree. Attrition and a lack of fuel combined to limit the quality of training and the resulting pilots....
-
I think the "new" cockpit view thing is over-emphasized. The Hellcat's view is still excellent given its razorback fuselage.
I disagree. With mine (and many others) limited skillset I find visibility to be a huge factor. Just a little better visibility in the F6F would go a long way.
That being said, the F6F is a very capable plane. Fun to fly. Dives great. Good guns. Turns surprising well in many instances.
I always feel like I have climbed a mountain when I shoot down Greebo in his F6F. Co-alt in any plane against Greebo's F6F = death to me. He is so good in that thing, every time I see an F6F I think "I wonder if that is Greebo" and adjust accordingly. He is the only player and corresponding plane that I need to factor that in. :salute
-
One of the things I love doing in a hellcat is picking a fight with a P-51 :devil Most of the time they will run but every once in a while they will get into a turn fight with you and thats where the fun begins :cool:
-
Are the kill death ratios here a joke?? remember a few things...in some theaters pilots shared kills without firing a shot(ask pappy boyington) and in some theaters us forces counted aircraft on the dround that were shot as kills.....even is they were decoys or parts aircraft in non flyable condition........and third...remember at the end of the war an enemy pilot facing overwhelming numbers could simply bail out if he received any damage and be flying later that same day...that is if a U.S. pilot didnt kill him in his chute....whereas the U.s pilot would struggle to keep his plane up and make it back to base istaed of being captured.....and so kill death ration really mneans NOTHING. take two equal pilots...one on one...both flying their respective planes to their strengths....and you have a pretty even fight..........lets not dilute ourselves to looking at paper figures and thinking we know which plane was best or which pilot was best...................rememb er in ww1 richtofen had a large number of kills that were recon planes or boom and zoom kils(not all)...................Voss killed most of his planes(most fighters) dogfighting against superior numbers of enemy fighters........at yet richtofen is considered the most amazing fighter pilot in that conflict...ww2 had the same thing going on...prooganda....and the winners write the history,lol
-
Are the kill death ratios here a joke?? remember a few things...in some theaters pilots shared kills without firing a shot(ask pappy boyington) and in some theaters us forces counted aircraft on the dround that were shot as kills.....even is they were decoys or parts aircraft in non flyable condition........and third...remember at the end of the war an enemy pilot facing overwhelming numbers could simply bail out if he received any damage and be flying later that same day...that is if a U.S. pilot didnt kill him in his chute....whereas the U.s pilot would struggle to keep his plane up and make it back to base istaed of being captured.....and so kill death ration really mneans NOTHING. take two equal pilots...one on one...both flying their respective planes to their strengths....and you have a pretty even fight..........lets not dilute ourselves to looking at paper figures and thinking we know which plane was best or which pilot was best...................rememb er in ww1 richtofen had a large number of kills that were recon planes or boom and zoom kils(not all)...................Voss killed most of his planes(most fighters) dogfighting against superior numbers of enemy fighters........at yet richtofen is considered the most amazing fighter pilot in that conflict...ww2 had the same thing going on...prooganda....and the winners write the history,lol
No comment. I can't as this was so hard to read and understand................... ............................. ......................
-
Are the kill death ratios here a joke?? remember a few things...in some theaters pilots shared kills without firing a shot(ask pappy boyington) and in some theaters us forces counted aircraft on the dround that were shot as kills.....even is they were decoys or parts aircraft in non flyable condition........and third...remember at the end of the war an enemy pilot facing overwhelming numbers could simply bail out if he received any damage and be flying later that same day...that is if a U.S. pilot didnt kill him in his chute....whereas the U.s pilot would struggle to keep his plane up and make it back to base istaed of being captured.....and so kill death ration really mneans NOTHING. take two equal pilots...one on one...both flying their respective planes to their strengths....and you have a pretty even fight..........lets not dilute ourselves to looking at paper figures and thinking we know which plane was best or which pilot was best...................rememb er in ww1 richtofen had a large number of kills that were recon planes or boom and zoom kils(not all)...................Voss killed most of his planes(most fighters) dogfighting against superior numbers of enemy fighters........at yet richtofen is considered the most amazing fighter pilot in that conflict...ww2 had the same thing going on...prooganda....and the winners write the history,lol
Spark Notes version:
The author states that the kill/death numbers we see in our history books are not 100% accurate. He then goes on to say that because of this, we should not use them in any way to estimate pilot skill or aircraft abilities.
-
In a great read there is a book titled McCampbell's Heros about VF-15's ride through the central Pacific.
In one small read they note that a division (four birds) of Hellcats come across an old A6M(?). They have altitude and of course speed and note that this guy must have been old school. Between all four Hellcats and lots of ammo when it was over the Zero went one way without a scratch and the four Hellcats went home to tell stories.
I am not an expert Hellcat pilot (any bird for that matter) but in reading on the Hellcat it was far more about section and division tactics then anything else. It is an above average plane in many regards though mostly it is a bird designed to fly as a team. Rugged, turns good enough, plenty of firepower and tore holes through the IJN/IJA via squad tactics that would make Boelke smile.
You get the rare breed like Greebo but in real life, not many of them, certainly not in WW2. I'd love to spend some time with a few scrubs flying division tactics in this bird.
My one and a half cent.
Boo
-
Are the kill death ratios here a joke?? remember a few things...in some theaters pilots shared kills without firing a shot(ask pappy boyington) and in some theaters us forces counted aircraft on the dround that were shot as kills.....even is they were decoys or parts aircraft in non flyable condition........and third...remember at the end of the war an enemy pilot facing overwhelming numbers could simply bail out if he received any damage and be flying later that same day...that is if a U.S. pilot didnt kill him in his chute....whereas the U.s pilot would struggle to keep his plane up and make it back to base istaed of being captured.....and so kill death ration really mneans NOTHING. take two equal pilots...one on one...both flying their respective planes to their strengths....and you have a pretty even fight..........lets not dilute ourselves to looking at paper figures and thinking we know which plane was best or which pilot was best...................rememb er in ww1 richtofen had a large number of kills that were recon planes or boom and zoom kils(not all)...................Voss killed most of his planes(most fighters) dogfighting against superior numbers of enemy fighters........at yet richtofen is considered the most amazing fighter pilot in that conflict...ww2 had the same thing going on...prooganda....and the winners write the history,lol
A kill is still a Kill. as simple as that. It does not matter if it is a recon plane bomber fighter , boom and zoom, ho, turn-fight or surprise attack. A kill is a Kill.
-
Kill-to-death ratios cannot be trusted....from any of the combatants. There was too much going on in a dogfight for that. Overclaiming was rife in every combat group. Japanese pilots often overclaimed kills by an order of magnitude. The vast claims put in by Germany's great ubermensch aces should also be taken with a grain of salt.
There is an excellent book called "Genda's Blade" about an elite squadron of Japanese aces that was organized near the end of the war for defense of the Japanese home islands. For decades Japanese who studied the airwar had sung the praises of this group and were in awe of the vast number of kills that were amassed. In the prologue the author states basically what I have above....that the large number of kills credited to the united were largely myth. When tangling with U.S. Naval pilots in their first unit engagement for example, with a height and surprise advantage, the unit scored 14 kills while suffering 16 loses......which is about as even as it gets. The author also stated that his "setting the record straight" in this matter would probably cause umbrage with many Japanese readers.
-
What HTC did was restrict head movement too much. You can't get get your cartoon head anywhere near the canopy glass...
Which is now fixed in the Beta, thank you Pyro. :aok
-
I believe another factor that reduces the Hellcats usage in the MA is that the stall characteristics of the Corsair are rather benign. I have flown several tests with the Corsair where rudder authority was maintained as low as 30mph, which is far below tested figures. This is what gives the Corsair such an advantage in a turn fight, why take the Hellcat when the Corsair can turn better.
-
I believe another factor that reduces the Hellcats usage in the MA is that the stall characteristics of the Corsair are rather benign. I have flown several tests with the Corsair where rudder authority was maintained as low as 30mph, which is far below tested figures. This is what gives the Corsair such an advantage in a turn fight, why take the Hellcat when the Corsair can turn better.
I have always wondered about that. There are several planes where the rudder seems to be very effective well below stall speed.
-
I have always wondered about that. There are several planes where the rudder seems to be very effective well below stall speed.
the hogs have huge honking rudders.
-
the hogs have huge honking rudders.
They also have rather large torque-generating engines.
This has always been brought up though, the Corsair is quite a bit more stable at low speeds in AH than what appears in some of the reports people have read.
-
They also have rather large torque-generating engines.
This has always been brought up though, the Corsair is quite a bit more stable at low speeds in AH than what appears in some of the reports people have read.
Most of the comments on the handling being too easy seem to be from people who have "fatally" crashed several Corsairs before declaring how easy they are. I have yet to see a report that indicates any actual problem with the modeling.
-
I have spoken with Hitech many times about this, and he feels there might be an issue with the modeling, specifically relating to the slipstream effect on the rudder. However, he hasn't had time to work on it due to other priorities. I'm sure that when he has time he will look at it it will be addressed, but currently the Corsair rudder is much more effective below stall speeds then what was tested back in 1944.
-
Most of the comments on the handling being too easy seem to be from people who have "fatally" crashed several Corsairs before declaring how easy they are. I have yet to see a report that indicates any actual problem with the modeling.
Baumer's comments aside (that being the slipstream possibly being mis-modeled in game)
To put it quite simply, torque is very much minuted as compared to the real life, for ease of game-play, and understandably so. These are not Cessna's, or anything like that. They are monsters of airplanes, beyond any doubt, and very difficult to fly. No reason to fully replicate that- it's not fun.
The Corsair was rejected for carrier duty until the airframe was modified to get the low speed instability problem fixed.
They didn't call it the "Ensign Eliminator" for nothing.
The Hellcat, on the other hand, suffers from more low speed instability than it's Vought cousin, and that is very odd indeed when you have test reports comparing the "High strung predator of the F4U, to the Nice, safe, popsiclecat of the F6F" (AHT, F6F Comments section).
Further evidence can be found in the P-40, believe it or not. An old pilot's song goes like this:
Please don't give me a Peter Four Oh,
Oh Please don't give me a Peter Four Oh,
A ground-looping bastard,
You're sure to get plastered,
Oh Please don't give me a Peter Four Oh.
A common jape was you could always tell a P-40 pilot by his big right leg.
It seems that the minimizing of the torque has resulted in one aircraft (namely the F4U) becoming a popular ride because the low speed stability issues it faced in RL do not hamper it in-game, and yet keeps all of the world-class performance that it was famous for.
IMHO, it has affected gameplay, and Torque should probably be looked at a little more closely, and possibly increased. I'm not for making the planes impossible to fly, but when an F4U out turns the F6f because it doesn't have to worry about stability problems, that seems (to me, at least) to be more than enough evidence to at least take a 2nd look at it.
-
There were a number of reasons why the Corsair did not pass carrier qualification trials until late 1944. Corky Meyer identified quite a few of them: Unacceptable visibility during carrier approaches; poor stall characteristics, insufficient directional-control capability (specifically the tendency to torque-roll when power was applied after a wave-off); and uncontrollable bounce by the landing gear that put the aircraft over the barrier and into parked aircraft on the foredeck during landing.
Nevertheless, the British Royal Navy qualified the Corsair for carrier operations before the American Navy did. Corky asked Capt. Eric Brown, the Royal Navy's most decorated test pilot and asked him how they were able to do it.
Capt. Brown's answer: "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 power to go around again, one could induce an uncontrollable torque roll. Because of the Corsair's small stabilizing vertical-fin area (one-third the size of the Hellcat's) 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 answered: because of its great need for carrier fighters, the British Royal Navy accepted the Corsair's abysmal losses.
Evidently, the torque roll problem was never fully corrected. Meyer states that as late as 1952 the F4U-5 Pilot's Handbook 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-foot loss in altitude." Why had Chance-Vought not fully addressed this problem at such a late date? When Meyer posed this question to two Vought WW II test pilots, they immediately replied that Vought's engineering boss simply didn't want to hear that anything was wrong with the Corsair, even from Navy-trained test pilots."
[The above information is taken from a special edition of Flight Journal, 2004, dedicated to the F4U Corsair.]
-
It seems that the minimizing of the torque has resulted in one aircraft (namely the F4U) becoming a popular ride because the low speed stability issues it faced in RL do not hamper it in-game, and yet keeps all of the world-class performance that it was famous for.
IMHO, it has affected gameplay, and Torque should probably be looked at a little more closely, and possibly increased. I'm not for making the planes impossible to fly, but when an F4U out turns the F6f because it doesn't have to worry about stability problems, that seems (to me, at least) to be more than enough evidence to at least take a 2nd look at it.
On pages 602-606 in AHT the author cites a number of tests and pilot appraisals of the major fighter aircraft employed by the U.S. during WW II. The results make interesting reading, and are very pertinent to this topic:
Best All-Around Visibility: P-51D, P-47D-30, F6F-5, F4U-1D
Best Ailerons at 350mph: P-51D, F4U-1D, P-38L, F6F-5
Best Ailerons at 100mph: F6F-5, F4U-1D, P-47D-30, FM-2
Best Elevators: F4U-1D, F6F-5, P-51D, P-47D-30
Best Rudder: F6F-5, F4U-1D, P-38L, P-51D
Nicest All Around Stability: F6F-5, F4U-1D, P-61B, P-47B
Best characteristics 5mph above the Stall: F6F-5, P-61B, P-38L FM-2
In turning performance, using the FM-2 as the base against which all the other fighters were measured, the aircraft performed thusly:
FM-2 (the champ)
P-63
P-61 (Yep...a large twin-engined fighter)
F6F-5
P-51D
P-38L
P-47D
F4U-1D (dead last)
The Corsair had a little over twice the turning circle of the FM-2, or 212% of the FM-2's turning circle. The Hellcat had 138% of the FM-2's turning circle.
-
On pages 602-606 in AHT the author cites a number of tests and pilot appraisals of the major fighter aircraft employed by the U.S. during WW II. The results make interesting reading, and are very pertinent to this topic:
Best All-Around Visibility: P-51D, P-47D-30, F6F-5, F4U-1D
Best Ailerons at 350mph: P-51D, F4U-1D, P-38L, F6F-5
Best Ailerons at 100mph: F6F-5, F4U-1D, P-47D-30, FM-2
Best Elevators: F4U-1D, F6F-5, P-51D, P-47D-30
Best Rudder: F6F-5, F4U-1D, P-38L, P-51D
Nicest All Around Stability: F6F-5, F4U-1D, P-61B, P-47B
Best characteristics 5mph above the Stall: F6F-5, P-61B, P-38L FM-2
In turning performance, using the FM-2 as the base against which all the other fighters were measured, the aircraft performed thusly:
FM-2 (the champ)
P-63
P-61 (Yep...a large twin-engined fighter)
F6F-5
P-51D
P-38L
P-47D
F4U-1D (dead last)
The Corsair had a little over twice the turning circle of the FM-2, or 212% of the FM-2's turning circle. The Hellcat had 138% of the FM-2's turning circle.
Thanks for that- the office doesn't allow me to keep AHT at my desk. :)
Just out of curiosity- what's the official numbers on the FM2 vs the Hellcat and the F4U in game?
My hunch is the FM2 vs Hellcat would be pretty close to RL data, but the F4U with the flaps and minimal torque modelling would be wildly out of place.
-
Thanks for that- the office doesn't allow me to keep AHT at my desk. :)
Just out of curiosity- what's the official numbers on the FM2 vs the Hellcat and the F4U in game?
My hunch is the FM2 vs Hellcat would be pretty close to RL data, but the F4U with the flaps and minimal torque modelling would be wildly out of place.
Don't have those at my fingertips. However, I remember reading an NAS report which tested those three aircraft against a captured A6M-5. The turning performance of the FM-2 and the Zero were almost identical, with the Zero having a slight edge. On both the Hellcat and Corsair the Zero could pull-through for a killing shot in only 2 1/2 turns.
-
IMO any changes to the F4U's would anger a good chunk of people.
-
IMO any changes to the F4U's would anger a good chunk of people.
Unfortunately, I think this is probably true. It seems true for every change made to the game, really...
It is pretty interesting to watch those F4U's float about, though. Doesn't help that their stall speed is much slower than most planes either. In my mind, the F4U, as modeled now, is probably the best airframe in the game, at least in terms of how we fly in the AH MA 99% of the time. They are very stable near their stall speed.
-
IIRC the F6F used to be able to out turn the F4Us in AH and the situation reversed the last time the flap code was revised.
Were the NAS turning tests flaps up or down?
-
Greebo, the information for turn radius that I cited from AHT originated from a WW II U.S. fighter conference. The data was for stall speeds in three g turns for clean aircraft configuration, with gear and flaps retracted, canopy closed, and no external stores. The assumption was made in each case that engine power available was sufficient to keep the plan in level flight (not sinking) during the turn. In such a case the minimum turn radius occurs when the wing develops the maximum possible lift coefficient without stalling.
The author stated that the Corsair's position in last place was a bit of a surprise. He thought this was due to a relatively low maximum lift coefficient, because wing loading was not overly high. The spoiler placed on the right wing of the Corsair to eliminate an unsymmetric stall problem was suspected of dropping the overall lift coefficient considerably, and in fact, he states, an NACA test report notes this was indeed the case.
Note also that these results are for turn radius without flaps deployed on any of the aircraft.
-
IIRC the F6F used to be able to out turn the F4Us in AH and the situation reversed the last time the flap code was revised.
I remember our battles, Greebo..... you in your F6f and me in my F4U-1 ....... can never forget some of them......
I can verify that the F4U series does have a substantial benefit of use of Rudder at speeds well below 40 / 30 mph...( 29 mph ) and it can fly and maneuver on a consistent basis under 100 mph / under 80 mph / under 60 mph ... when flying a fight in the vertical ....
but just the same, I also have always declared that I could not really tell any difference in the F4U series before the code was revised to after the code revision......
the only thing I ever noticed was I had to change my trim out speed in level flight from 300 to 310 IAS and moved it up to 320 to 330 IAS ... for my prefered trim setting to dogfight with ......
as for the torque and whether it is mediocre or not enough in regards to real life......... those who do not normally fly the F4U in the game, easily can flip it / roll it if they gun the throttle after trying to come in for a flared landing....... or they will do the continous bounce so much as to even break their landing gear or wingover, etc.......
you can not gain full performance turning to the right without backing off the throttle in a right hand turn to around 87% down to 80 % throttle......... verses being able to turn to the left with full 100% throttle ......
I always favored the F6f-3 back in air Warrior, over AW's F4u.......... but when I came to Aces high, I hated the F6f, I found that the F4U-1 flew more like my beloved F6f-3 that AW had.....
this thread was / is a good read !
TC
-
Maybe it wasn't the last revision, but I do recall being able to out turn F4Us in previous versions of AH.
I have no problem with torque effects being tuned down in AH, so long as each plane is correct relative to one another.
I'm not sure how the AH F6F turns relative to the F4U flaps up, maybe its just the flaps that gives the F4U the edge in AH. Any 1v1 dogfight I have vs an F4U usually ends up as a flaps down scissors fight pretty quickly and in this sort of fight the F4U dominates.
Interesting about how the lift spoiler screwed the real F4U's turn performance. I'm wondering now how HTC modelled the lift spoiler on the F4Us. Ideally they would have modelled a reduction in lift for that part of the wing, based on speed and angle of attack etc. If they just subtracted some of the rolling moment for the aircraft that might explain the aircraft's turning performance in AH. Does the F4U-1 (no spoiler) turn a lot better than the later versions, i.e. more than the weight reduction would allow for?
-
The F6F out turns the F4U flaps up and has a lower 3G stall speed.
I'm not aware of any torque model reductions to make flying easier but we've seen many debates about the specifics of anecdotal evidence since every reader seems to have a different understanding of the material.
I'm guessing Hitech's comment that Baumer mentioned refers to the forward position of the horizontal stabilizer in the F4U changing the effect of the slipstream on the vertical stabilizer and not the actual torque produced.
-
FLS Hitech is thinking that his slipstream modeling might be creating a situation where there is too much air moving over the rudder at very low speeds. This creates more rudder authority below stall speeds then the Corsair actually should have.
-
FLS Hitech is thinking that his slipstream modeling might be creating a situation where there is too much air moving over the rudder at very low speeds. This creates more rudder authority below stall speeds then the Corsair actually should have.
This *could* be the answer to the Corsairs rather incredible low speed feats.
The slip stream issue you mention could very well mean that the aircraft in question is able to maintain stability outside of the normal envelope.
I thought it was torque related, but this sounds like it could be the real issue.
Wait and see, I guess. Hopefully they get a good look at it soon.
-
Best All-Around Visibility: P-51D, P-47D-30, F6F-5, F4U-1D
Wow! If these real world stats are correct, I hope AH's F6F changes bring its visibility into better alignment.
-
FLS Hitech is thinking that his slipstream modeling might be creating a situation where there is too much air moving over the rudder at very low speeds. This creates more rudder authority below stall speeds then the Corsair actually should have.
I'm guessing it's an issue with the difference in blanking. I imagine the airflow gets pretty complicated with the gull wings and the horizontal stabs forward of the vertical stab.
I thought it was torque related, but this sounds like it could be the real issue.
The spiral slipstream is what causes most of the torque you notice in AH.
-
FYI,
The turn radius performance data in AHT was calculated not tested data by the author Francis Dean. Some of his Cl data was scattered which is why the results of some are off. This was heavily discussed on the boards many years ago (when I was still active anyway).
-
if the slipstream modeling is off, it will affect all the planeset! :old:
-
This is true, but it will affect some planes more than others.
-
I'm guessing it's an issue with the difference in blanking. I imagine the airflow gets pretty complicated with the gull wings and the horizontal stabs forward of the vertical stab.
Doh. I mean horizontal stabs behind, not forward of, the vertical.
-
FYI,
The turn radius performance data in AHT was calculated not tested data by the author Francis Dean. Some of his Cl data was scattered which is why the results of some are off. This was heavily discussed on the boards many years ago (when I was still active anyway).
Well, I suppose that depends on how you interpret this text:
"Accurate data on minimum turn radius of fighter types is difficult to come by or to estimate. Information is available, however, from one of the World War II U.S. fighter conferences on stall speeds in three g turns for eight of the eleven types considered here. Data are provided for the P-38, P-47, P-51, P-61, P-63, FM-2, F4U-1D, and F6F-5. The information is for clean aircraft configuration, that is gear and flaps retracted, canopy closed, and no external stores aboard. The assumption is made in each case that engine power available is sufficient to keep the plane in level flight (not sinking) during the turn. In such a case the minimum turn radius occurs when the wing develops the maximum possible lift coefficient without stalling. The actual minimum turn radii are not calculated, but Table 103 (quoted in one of my earlier posts) shows the eight types ranked in order from best to poorest turn radius capibility. The radius depends on the airplane wing loading (weight divided by wing area) and maximum wing lift co-efficient. A low wing loading tends to make the plane more maneuverable, that is, to have a tighter turning circle capability; if the wing loading is high turning is penalized. On the other hand if the wing maximum lift coefficient is low the turn capability is poor; if it is high turning can be tighter; the proportionality is inverse."
_____________________________
The part that is bolded indicates that Francis Dean did not come up with this data on his own, or make it up. Since the men who compiled the data were the flight engineers and military pilots who attended the fighter conference one MUST assume that they knew what they were talking about. The text that comes after the bolded part stems from Dean attempting to make clear how the data was compiled and why certain assumptions were made.
-
By the way, if the fighter conference that Dean mentions in the previous text was the Joint Fighter Conference held at the Naval Air Station Patuxent Maryland from October 16-20, 1944 (and I have every reason to believe it was) then examples of the various fighter types discussed above were available for the large group of attending pilots. The pilots evaluated certain characteristics of the fighters present. In addition to purely technical evaluations they performed direct "head-to-head" comparisons. So the turn-radius, roll-rate, acceleration, dive speed, and any other combat characteristics were tested. You can bet your bottom dollar that those aircraft were thoroughly wrung out.
-
The data was for stall speeds in three g turns for clean aircraft configuration, with gear and flaps retracted, canopy closed, and no external stores.
That's probably why the Corsair was so far down the list compared to how it's flown here. If you've seen the stall speed chart for the F4U, the amount of lift generated by the Hog's flaps is absolutely RIDICULOUS. I don't have it handy, but IIRC the stall speed reduction for power-on full flaps was something approaching, if not BEYOND, 50% vs. clean configuration.
-
That's probably why the Corsair was so far down the list compared to how it's flown here. If you've seen the stall speed chart for the F4U, the amount of lift generated by the Hog's flaps is absolutely RIDICULOUS. I don't have it handy, but IIRC the stall speed reduction for power-on full flaps was something approaching, if not BEYOND, 50% vs. clean configuration.
You're right...it is ridiculous. Because of the amount of lift granted by the Corsair's flaps, a lot of AH pilots hover about during a dogfight like hummingbirds. No sane WW II fighter pilot toddled around during a dogfight with his flaps fully extended. It was a sure way to commit suicide. When flaps were used at all it was for only brief....very brief....periods....to evade an attacker or attain a firing solution.
-
The same goes for the Spits, F6F, P-38s, 109s, the Ki-84, N1K2, FM-2, Brewster, and every other fighter in the plane set. To say nothing of the dive-bombing Lancasters and bomber formations running at max power all the way to target and back.
-
I don't care if the Corsair out turns the Hellcat. I care that the aerodynamic model is incorrect and it gives specific planes, capability that they just didn't have.
-
Isn't this really easy to test? What was the historical stalling speed of the F4U-1 with flaps? Around 80 mph if I remember correctly. What is it in the game? How does the stalling speed of the game model without flaps compare to its historical counterpart?
-
Here is everything that Dean had to report in AHT about the Corsair's stalling characteristics:
___________________________
"Stalling characteristics of the Corsair were considered quite normal, at least after the spoiler strip was installed inboard on the right wing to keep the stall reasonably symmetrical. Stall warnings consisted of a tail buffet, an abnormal nose-up attitude, a lightening of stick forces, and increasing left wing heaviness with an additional requirement for right rudder if power was on. The warnings came only about five knots before actual stall in landing configuration, so later airplanes were equipped with a warning light in the cockpit to signal impending stall to pilots not fully proficient in the Corsair. The light, located on the instrument panel, was connected to an airflow sensor on the wing center section. A breakdown of wing airflow sent a signal to illuminate the light. The sensing system gave a more advanced warning, about 15 knots above stall speed in the clean condition of the airplane. After considerable experience with the aircraft pilots could sense an impending stall without the aid of the warning light.
The actual stall was quite abrupt, particularly with flaps down, and was accompanied by a relatively sharp left roll, or in some cases a sharp right wing drop and a nose down pitch. If the stick was quickly dumped forward a tendency to spin could be avoided. Stall speed was in the range of 70 to 90 knots IAS depending on aircraft model, weight, power level, and configuration.
An accelerated stall while pulling g in a high speed turn or dive pullout was preceded by aircraft buffeting a few knots above the actual stall. As with the landing condition, the spoiler on the right wing succeeded in stalling out the wings quite evenly in the high speed case. A Vought test pilot said "We found the wedge most effective in improving flight characteristics during a high speed accelereated stall". The stall was characterized by a quick right wing drop with considerable shaking of the aircraft, which could easily flick out of the turn unless back stick pressure was quickly released. When this was done a rapid recovery could be made.
Stall warning and stall recovery characteristics of both F4U-1C and F4U-1D Corsairs were rated "good" by a group of pilots. Interestingly though, the Corsair was ranked ninth of eleven fighter types in "Best characteristics five mph above stall".
No intentional spinning was permitted by the book in Corsairs, and Vought test pilots advised service pilots not to try. The reason was it got tougher to recover as the number of spins added up. If a spin developed inadvertently the pilot was to apply the standard procedure of full opposite rudder followed by full forward stick with ailerons held neutral. Recovery from the incipient stage of a spin was quick with standard procedures being used promptly, and with a one turn spin recovery could be made within a quarter turn. Letting it really wind up was the problem. In testing the later F4U-4 airplane though, Vought pilots explored spin behavior, including inverted spins, and found no particular difficulty in recovering from normal four turn spins with a clean airplane. This model was usually considered the very best flying of all the Corsair aircraft versions."
-
Here is everything that Dean had to report in AHT about the Corsair's stalling characteristics:
___________________________
"Stalling characteristics of the Corsair were considered quite normal, at least after the spoiler strip was installed inboard on the right wing to keep the stall reasonably symmetrical. Stall warnings consisted of a tail buffet, an abnormal nose-up attitude, a lightening of stick forces, and increasing left wing heaviness with an additional requirement for right rudder if power was on. The warnings came only about five knots before actual stall in landing configuration, so later airplanes were equipped with a warning light in the cockpit to signal impending stall to pilots not fully proficient in the Corsair. The light, located on the instrument panel, was connected to an airflow sensor on the wing center section. A breakdown of wing airflow sent a signal to illuminate the light. The sensing system gave a more advanced warning, about 15 knots above stall speed in the clean condition of the airplane. After considerable experience with the aircraft pilots could sense an impending stall without the aid of the warning light.
The actual stall was quite abrupt, particularly with flaps down, and was accompanied by a relatively sharp left roll, or in some cases a sharp right wing drop and a nose down pitch. If the stick was quickly dumped forward a tendency to spin could be avoided. Stall speed was in the range of 70 to 90 knots IAS depending on aircraft model, weight, power level, and configuration.
An accelerated stall while pulling g in a high speed turn or dive pullout was preceded by aircraft buffeting a few knots above the actual stall. As with the landing condition, the spoiler on the right wing succeeded in stalling out the wings quite evenly in the high speed case. A Vought test pilot said "We found the wedge most effective in improving flight characteristics during a high speed accelereated stall". The stall was characterized by a quick right wing drop with considerable shaking of the aircraft, which could easily flick out of the turn unless back stick pressure was quickly released. When this was done a rapid recovery could be made.
Stall warning and stall recovery characteristics of both F4U-1C and F4U-1D Corsairs were rated "good" by a group of pilots. Interestingly though, the Corsair was ranked ninth of eleven fighter types in "Best characteristics five mph above stall".
No intentional spinning was permitted by the book in Corsairs, and Vought test pilots advised service pilots not to try. The reason was it got tougher to recover as the number of spins added up. If a spin developed inadvertently the pilot was to apply the standard procedure of full opposite rudder followed by full forward stick with ailerons held neutral. Recovery from the incipient stage of a spin was quick with standard procedures being used promptly, and with a one turn spin recovery could be made within a quarter turn. Letting it really wind up was the problem. In testing the later F4U-4 airplane though, Vought pilots explored spin behavior, including inverted spins, and found no particular difficulty in recovering from normal four turn spins with a clean airplane. This model was usually considered the very best flying of all the Corsair aircraft versions."
You read that, and the Corsair doesn't sound like the wild and untamed beast the reputation makes her out to be. Rather she sounds little different than most other high-powered fighter aircraft of the time. If you consider that the F4U was one of the first of the truly high-powered fighters (Navy and Marine pilots were going from the Brewster or F4F with only 1200hp to an aircraft with almost DOUBLE that) it really makes me think a lot of the teething problems and reputation were less the airframe itself and more from pilot inexperience with the more powerful engine.
-
The fact that the Corsair in game stalls below every documented stall speed is proof enough that something is wrong.
The fact that the Corsair in game has clearly demonstrable rudder authority at 30 mph is proof enough that something is wrong.
What ever is wrong probably applies to all aircraft, not just the Corsair.
-
The F4U-D stalls at 100mph level power off and 76mph landing configuration as in the manual. What am I missing?
-
Other than Greebo and Mathman, I don't forget Redd, he was one of the best F6F'ers I've encountered.
oh... and Wadke!
-
FLS I just re-ran my stall stall tests for the F4U-1D and this is what I came up with. All stalls were initiated at 500 feet with stabilized speed and maintaining close to zero vertical speed as the plane decelerated. Also, per Hitech I chose to record a stall as the onset of canopy frame shake, this is not when the plane is truly stalled but at least 1 of the lift points in the aerodynamic model is stalled. Typically a pilot would have to fly deeper into a stall to even notice it, most planes I've flown the stall speed in the POH is when the nose drops. I ran these tests at 11,465lbs take off weight with fuel burn at 1.00.
per the Corsair POH 15 Mar 45 with an aircraft weight of 11,300 lbs.
Gear up, flaps up, throttle closed, stall speed of 87kts (100mph)- my ten test average- 98.2 mph
Gear down, flaps down (50), throttle closed, stall speed of 75kts (86mph)- my ten test average- 73.5 mph
Gear up, flaps up, power on (18" & 2400 rpm) stall speed of 84kts (96mph)- my ten test average- 96.8 mph
Gear down, flaps down (50), power on (23" & 2400 rpm) stall speed of 66kts (75mph)- my ten test average- 75.5 mph
The Corsair is my favorite aircraft, but I choose not to fly it much in Aces High. It's excessive views and unrealistic low speed modeling make it too inaccurate for me.
-
Looks to me like the most critical stall speed in a fight, power on flaps down, is right where it should be. Power off flaps down may be wrong, but who's honestly flying around with power off in combat?
-
I know several of the top sticks are very adept at the flaps down power off turn as part of a good rolling scissors, not that they use it all the time. And a 10% error is pretty significant when your in a tight stall fight.
-
power off (0% throttle, not engine off) is the only way to dump speed quickly, otherwise you are still pulling yourself through the air
-
The fact that the Corsair in game stalls below every documented stall speed is proof enough that something is wrong.
What ever is wrong probably applies to all aircraft, not just the Corsair.
FLS I just re-ran my stall stall tests for the F4U-1D and this is what I came up with. All stalls were initiated at 500 feet with stabilized speed and maintaining close to zero vertical speed as the plane decelerated. Also, per Hitech I chose to record a stall as the onset of canopy frame shake, this is not when the plane is truly stalled but at least 1 of the lift points in the aerodynamic model is stalled. Typically a pilot would have to fly deeper into a stall to even notice it, most planes I've flown the stall speed in the POH is when the nose drops. I ran these tests at 11,465lbs take off weight with fuel burn at 1.00.
per the Corsair POH 15 Mar 45 with an aircraft weight of 11,300 lbs.
Gear up, flaps up, throttle closed, stall speed of 87kts (100mph)- my ten test average- 98.2 mph
Gear down, flaps down (50), throttle closed, stall speed of 75kts (86mph)- my ten test average- 73.5 mph
Gear up, flaps up, power on (18" & 2400 rpm) stall speed of 84kts (96mph)- my ten test average- 96.8 mph
Gear down, flaps down (50), power on (23" & 2400 rpm) stall speed of 66kts (75mph)- my ten test average- 75.5 mph
The Corsair is my favorite aircraft, but I choose not to fly it much in Aces High. It's excessive views and unrealistic low speed modeling make it too inaccurate for me.
Back a while when either hitech or pyro posted that one image of all the different data gathering points along the wing of either the F4U or might of been the F6f, Brooke went and did some very thorough data testing...... comparing Aces high planes F4U-1 and the P38J comparing their flight characteristics / stall points to what the Real Life POH ( Pilots Operational Handbook ) data showed for these particular plane types...... Brooke's research showed that for just about 99.9% ( <--- my thought ) of the data being compared, that the numbers were nearly identical from Real Life to Aces High, acknowledging that their was a .5 mph to 1 mph difference here and there........ with maybe 1 or 2 of the test having a lil bit higher indifference of around 2 mph or so.....
here is a link to that data research, that Brooke did:
http://www.electraforge.com/brooke/flightsims/aces_high/stallSpeedMath/stallSpeedMath.html
in regards to using flaps down ( is this full flaps??? ) and power off while turning in a rolling scissors, I have to disagree with the thought of anyone doing this..... one should not be chopping throttle/throttle off in a rolling scissors battle, and one should avoid as much as possible using flaps, especially full flaps......... unless they are at the endgame / stallmate in such a rolling scissors that they have no options left..... One should want to have maximum throttle / thrust available and use the Helix and the angle of the helix to prevail in the rolling scissors.....
I do think that it might be possible, and you Baumer, have stated it ( I think earlier )... that the slipstream might be causing some unforeseen adverse effect............ in return letting the F4U series have more rudder authority than they might should have................ maybe because the F4U has gullwings and since they angle down then back up, they do not break up the airflow in such away as to negate rudder authority ability, like what ,might happen to the slipstream forces on say the F6f, or P51, or P38.......... since these planes do not have that particular wing design, by effect these planes wings break up or dirty up the slip stream airflow to where it is negligible and the slipstream airflow is of no benefit..... yet on the F4U and the bent wings, it works in such a way that the F4U does benefit......
the one constant that must be realized is ........ no one back then was able to severely push a plane beyond its boundaries too far, without consequence of them losing their lives......
so if HTC/ hitech can get so close if not exact in plane scaling, powerplant performace, lift-drag-thrust-gravity etc.... , stall performance, turn and climb and speed performance...... is it not possible to say that HTC has been able to get as close to possible to the real thing and that because people have 10's of thousands of hours over the years with no worries of actually dieing, that some of the things that have been seen in game from some of the aircraft, might indeed be possible? after all?
I will close with, I seriously think, if something was so far askew-ed and out of whack with the F4U flight model or flaps, for such a long time as all the different posts in the different AH forums / sub forums show from the complaint threads that have popped up from time to time over the years...... that if something actually was wrong, HiTech would have done fixed it ..... and would have posted that they found an error or something....... they do do that when they find something out of place or find anything that is off
now, you done posted and have been talking with him, regarding a possible torque & slipstream issue..... and it could very well have some merit to it, and if it does, I would think that HiTech/ HTC would positively fix it and post about it in the update notes, when an update or newer patch or version comes out..... Maybe the F4U does gain a benefit to be able to have good rudder authority when the indicator is reading 30 mph IAS, due to its gull wing design and having a larger unobstructed opening for slipstream air to pass through rather than like the other planes who's wings would break it up / dirty it up more ( <--- just an uneducated theory )
<S>
TC
-
I think TC's got an interesting point on the gull wings.
Here's a simple front-plan view of the F6F:
(http://www.historyofwar.org/Pictures/grumman_f6f-3_front.gif)
By comparison, the F4U:
(http://www.historyofwar.org/Pictures/f4u-1a_front.gif)
The wing configuration definitely drops the Corsair's wing well below the center of the prop. Could this have anything to do with how the slipstream modeling affects the Corsair?
-
Well, I suppose that depends on how you interpret this text:
"Accurate data on minimum turn radius of fighter types is difficult to come by or to estimate. Information is available, however, from one of the World War II U.S. fighter conferences on stall speeds in three g turns for eight of the eleven types considered here. Data are provided for the P-38, P-47, P-51, P-61, P-63, FM-2, F4U-1D, and F6F-5. The information is for clean aircraft configuration, that is gear and flaps retracted, canopy closed, and no external stores aboard. The assumption is made in each case that engine power available is sufficient to keep the plane in level flight (not sinking) during the turn. In such a case the minimum turn radius occurs when the wing develops the maximum possible lift coefficient without stalling. The actual minimum turn radii are not calculated, but Table 103 (quoted in one of my earlier posts) shows the eight types ranked in order from best to poorest turn radius capibility. The radius depends on the airplane wing loading (weight divided by wing area) and maximum wing lift co-efficient. A low wing loading tends to make the plane more maneuverable, that is, to have a tighter turning circle capability; if the wing loading is high turning is penalized. On the other hand if the wing maximum lift coefficient is low the turn capability is poor; if it is high turning can be tighter; the proportionality is inverse."
Shuckins,
I say this because I actually met with Mr.Dean before he passed about 10 + years ago at his home in Concord Pa.not far from me.I asked him about this. His data came from different sources which is why it happens to be scattered. If you calculate the Clmax of the F4U from the stall speeds in the flight manual circa F4U-1D 1946 you will get 1.47/48. The 1.2 comes from a NACA document from an early test airframe from NACA doc 728 that can be found online. You can check the Clmax against any of the aircraft in that table and many are unusual (as I remember). the first F4U's had many imperfections in the wings that lowered the Clmax. I'll pull up some of my old docs if you want.
_____________________________
The part that is bolded indicates that Francis Dean did not come up with this data on his own, or make it up. Since the men who compiled the data were the flight engineers and military pilots who attended the fighter conference one MUST assume that they knew what they were talking about. The text that comes after the bolded part stems from Dean attempting to make clear how the data was compiled and why certain assumptions were made.
-
From the AH v2.27 patch notes:
Changed the cockpit head bounds on the F6F.
-
From the AH v2.27 patch notes:
:x :x
-
F4UDOA, thanks for the reply and the offer. I certainly would like to see your documents.
-
In the fall of 1944 a captured Zero 52 was delivered to the NAS at Patuxent River, Maryland to be evaluated against the three main U.S. Naval fighters then employed in combat in the Pacific: the F4U-1D, F6F-5, and the FM-2. The results of those tests were released in the Air Command Weekly Intelligence Summary, Allied Technical Air Intelligence Unit, South East Asia, "Flight Trials of Zeke 52, December 17, 1944.
The data released in that summary make fascinating reading, not just because of the comparisons drawn with U.S. naval fighters but also in the unintended comparison drawn between the naval fighters as well. The following data is taken from that summary. For the purposes of the flight tests both aircraft were flown side by side, making all things equal in the beginning.
"In a race for altitude, the best climb of the F4U-1D was equal to the Zero's up to 10,000ft, about 750fpm better at 18,000ft and about 500fpm better at 22,000ft and above. Best climb speeds of the Corsair and Zero were 156mph and 122mph IAS respectively.
The F4U-1D was faster than the Zero 52 at all altitudes, having the least margin of 42mph at 5,000ft and the widest difference of 80mph at 25,000ft. Top speeds attained were 413mph TAS at 20,400ft for the Corsair and 335mph TAS at 18,000ft for the Zero.
In slow speed turns the Zero could gain one turn in three and a half at 10,000ft. At speeds around 202mph, however, by using flaps the F4U could stay with the Zero for about one-half turn, or until its speed fell off to 173mph.
The Zero climbed about 600fpm better than the F6F up to 9,000ft, after which the advantage fell off gradually until the two aircraft were about equal at 14,000ft. Above this altitude the Hellcat had the advantage, varying from 500fpm better at 22,000ft, to about 250fpm better at 30,000ft. Best climb speeds of the F6F-5 amd Zero 52 were 150mph and 122mph respectively.
The F6F-5 was faster than the Zero 52 at all altitudes, having the least margin of 25mph at 5,000ft and the widest difference of 75mph at 25,000ft. Top speeds attained were 409mph at 21,600ft for the Hellcat, and 335mph at 18,000ft for the Zero.
Comments on turns for the Hellcat were identical to those made on the Corsair, except the attempts at turning with flaps were not mentioned.
________________________
Computer just started getting screwy on me....couldn't bold the top speed of the Hellcat. However, the test indicated that the top speeds for bot the Corsair and Hellcat came at almost identical altitudes and were within 4mph of each other.
According to Corkey Meyer, who test flew both aircraft, the reason the Corsair was 20 knots faster than the Hellcat at low altitudes was because its engine and carburetor were provided with ram air coming in to the main stage blower directly from the forward-facing wing duct, whereas the Hellcat had the carburetor air coming in from the accessory compartment of the fuselage just behind the engine, with no ram air effect. The Hellcat was getting carburetor air at the same pressure as it would have were it motionless on the ground, and the Corsair was getting carburetor air supercharged by the speed of the airplane giving it more power and speed in the main stage blower. In both aircraft, however, the designs were similar in that they provided ram air to the low and high blower stages. Grumman's engineers had adopted the system used in the Hellcat because taking the warmer air for the main stage blower would prevent inadvertent carburetor icing engine failures. The Wildcat had ram air in the main stage like the Corsair and many were lost because pilots failed to take precautions in time to avert this type of disaster.
____________________
I'm tired and gotta get up early to go to work. More later.
-
I'm confused. Why would ram air matter on a turbo or supercharged engine? Wouldn't the ram effect be basically negated by the compressor?
-
No, the ram air pressure is added on to the supercharger(s) pressure and atmospheric pressure for that matter. So the pressure delivered to the engine is higher using ram air. Effectively using ram air gives you an extra supercharger stage for nothing.
-
AKRaven flies the F6F very well. I'm usually in an F4U and he beats me like a drum. I'm still a sucker for his "go vert-rudder kick-kill Gooss" move. I avoid Greebo.
Any comment on the new head positions in the Hellcat making visibility better?
Regarding the F4U stall speeds, who cares? An F4U at stall speed is a target. I know this from experience. It saves me a long flight rtb.
Too many hog pilots have resulted in more people learning how to kill them. I wish for a limit to b-n-z passes.
HONK!
Gooss
-
>> Any comment on the new head positions in the Hellcat making visibility better?
It is such a micro change it is hard to call it an "improvement".
There are some internet sources (who is to say which is correct?) that claim all around visibility in the F6 was better than the F4-U. It would be nice if the F6 rear view was a good as the F4-U.
There is an F6 at Bradly Field in Windsor Locks, CT. I am tempted to call them up and ask them to get in it with a digital camera and take a picture of the rear view. Then pass that on to AH.
-
>> Any comment on the new head positions in the Hellcat making visibility better?
It is such a micro change it is hard to call it an "improvement".
There are some internet sources (who is to say which is correct?) that claim all around visibility in the F6 was better than the F4-U. It would be nice if the F6 rear view was a good as the F4-U.
There is an F6 at Bradly Field in Windsor Locks, CT. I am tempted to call them up and ask them to get in it with a digital camera and take a picture of the rear view. Then pass that on to AH.
-
It is such a micro change it is hard to call it an "improvement".
Agreed. Wasn't expecting the change to be dramatic, but I don't "see" much of an improvement here.
-
It is a little bit better. Not what it once was and certainly nowhere near as good as the F4U. Maybe when the Corsair gets remodeled, it will get a similarly limited rear view.
-
http://thebrigade.thechive.com/2012/01/26/friday-firepower-f6f-hellcat-has-seen-war/ (http://thebrigade.thechive.com/2012/01/26/friday-firepower-f6f-hellcat-has-seen-war/)
-
It is a little bit better. Not what it once was and certainly nowhere near as good as the F4U. Maybe when the Corsair gets remodeled, it will get a similarly limited rear view.
Why would the Corsairs get remodeled again? They're already up to 2.0 standard.
-
Excuse me for asking, but shouldn't the F4U have a better rear view? Bubble canopy and all.
-
Excuse me for asking, but shouldn't the F4U have a better rear view? Bubble canopy and all.
No because it has that giant piece of metal hanging above your head were glass should be.
-
No because it has that giant piece of metal hanging above your head were glass should be.
Not all versions.
(http://www.vectorsite.net/avf4u_4.jpg)
(http://www.aircraftresourcecenter.com/rh/images/galleries/articles/155-254/5517/gallery_11019/photos_1223386568.jpg)
-
More correctly, most F4U-4s and some later 1Ds removed that plate entirely. The plate really should be removed from our -4 to be representative of the majority.
-
I was a bit disappointed. I got to fly the new patch for the first time last night and the view with TrackIR out the back of an F6 isn't much better. If I could get the same view as the hog I'd be happy. I'd spend a lot more time in that plane if I could see out the back just a bit better.
-
No because it has that giant piece of metal hanging above your head were glass should be.
Isn't this piece of metal modeled correctly in the game? Having a Malcolm-hood style bubble canopy gives the pilot the advantage of looking back down the side of his aircraft.
-
The plate really should be removed from our -4 to be representative of the majority.
+1 :aok
-
Not all versions.
(http://www.vectorsite.net/avf4u_4.jpg)
(http://www.aircraftresourcecenter.com/rh/images/galleries/articles/155-254/5517/gallery_11019/photos_1223386568.jpg)
Only the F2G1 and F2G2 "super Corsairs" built by Good Year powered by P&W R4360's had the bubbly canopy and they never even saw service
-
Only the F2G1 and F2G2 "super Corsairs" built by Good Year powered by P&W R4360's had the bubbly canopy and they never even saw service
got any documents to back that up?
I thought they even went as far as to replacing some of the birdcage canopys on the early F4U-1 models with bubble canopys in the field as a field modification....
and used the bubble canopy on the F4U-4's & -5's as well as having most F4U-1D's & -1C's with bubble canopys also..... with some F4U-1A models thrown in as well
is everyone talking about the same thing here? bubble canopy vs bubbily canopy ( is extra buldging bubble outwards ) vs the original birdcage
Saxman? Widewing?
TC
-
The Malcolm-hood style bubble canopy (like on the Spit and P-51B/C) could be retrofitted in the field, but a true bubble canopy would require major structural changes to the rear fuselage.
(http://www.air-and-space.com/20060521%20Chino/DSC_6300%20F4U-1A%20NX83782%20F2G-1%20N5588N%2057%20right%20side%20in%20flight%20l.jpg)
-
got any documents to back that up?
I thought they even went as far as to replacing some of the birdcage canopys on the early F4U-1 models with bubble canopys in the field as a field modification....
and used the bubble canopy on the F4U-4's & -5's as well as having most F4U-1D's & -1C's with bubble canopys also..... with some F4U-1A models thrown in as well
is everyone talking about the same thing here? bubble canopy vs bubbily canopy ( is extra buldging bubble outwards ) vs the original birdcage
Saxman? Widewing?
TC
I learned this from talking with an old guy who flew AU-7s (dedicated ground attack version for the marines) who knows a ton about F4U's and he said that the only ones that had a true bubble canopy were the F2G1 and F2G2. The Malcolm-hood style bubble canopy (like on the Spit and P-51B/C) could be retrofitted in the field, but a true bubble canopy would require major structural changes to the rear fuselage.
(http://www.air-and-space.com/20060521%20Chino/DSC_6300%20F4U-1A%20NX83782%20F2G-1%20N5588N%2057%20right%20side%20in%20flight%20l.jpg)
The red one in that picture is an F2G2 that has been modified for air racing.
-
I learned this from talking with an old guy who flew AU-7s (dedicated ground attack version for the marines) who knows a ton about F4U's and he said that the only ones that had a true bubble canopy were the F2G1 and F2G2. The red one in that picture is an F2G2 that has been modified for air racing.
my bad, I was wrong regarding the F4U-1 series having any bubble canopys
it started after the F4U-1A series were in production, and lasted up into the F4U-5 models and further ....
osprey_WWII War Planes Books_Aircraft of the Aces 008 - Corsair Aces of World War II_page 90
(http://i1235.photobucket.com/albums/ff432/TCofAcesHigh/F4U%20Corsair%20Stuff/osprey_WWIIWarPlanesBooks_AircraftoftheAces008-CorsairAcesofWorldWarII_page90.jpg)
also notice that the F4U-4 is not showing the head armor plate at the back edge of the canopy in the above page.......
a side question: did any corsair II models fly in WWII? the clipped wing versions ?
anyhows, my apologies for incorrectly posting about the F4U-1 model, earlier .....
PR3D4TOR, I am not talking about he "P47D25 & up or the P51D, etc"... type tear drop bubble canopys, like what is shown on that air Racing Red F4U pic
I am refering to the F4U series type bubble canopy, verses the original Bird cage canopy, then either post war or possibly at end of war the bulging out oversized bubble canopy seen on some postwar ( or maybe late war even ) corsair models...
please correct me if I am wrong, or have incorrectly posted something...... I do not want to be misleading anyone
<S>
TC
-
The F4U-4 in the picture is likely a post-war variant with the flat windscreen, which you can see upon careful comparison between the other F4U's there. The 'armor plate' is actually a piece of metal that was placed there to prevent the canopy from breaking upon sliding.
Most F4U-4's produced lacked the canopy plate and the curved windshield, but there were only a few of these that served in WWII. 90% of the -4 pictures I've seen have either both or just the curved windshield.
Also, the Corsair II - i.e. British F4U-1A - did enter service aboard British carriers in 1944. Wings were clipped because the F4U with its wings folded was too tall to fit inside the heavily-armored British carrier aircraft bays.
-
With the corsairs low speed handling, its well below whats documented but no one is willing to die or break a real corsair to prove its wrong so it stands.
http://youtu.be/6r9I--M7owE (http://youtu.be/6r9I--M7owE)
Never realized the Hellcat had two position flaps.
-
With the corsairs low speed handling, its well below whats documented but no one is willing to die or break a real corsair to prove its wrong so it stands.
http://youtu.be/6r9I--M7owE (http://youtu.be/6r9I--M7owE)
Never realized the Hellcat had two position flaps.
Wasn't it basically any-position flaps, since they were spring-loaded and would retract and deploy depending on speed? You could set them down, and they would basically auto-adjust, or something along those lines...
-
Wasn't it basically any-position flaps, since they were spring-loaded and would retract and deploy depending on speed? You could set them down, and they would basically auto-adjust, or something along those lines...
Actually, it would go down to any angle up to a certain point, at which the flaps were spring loaded, the air flow being the only thing keeping them up.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s1AJqUCyOdc (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s1AJqUCyOdc)
-
No sane WW II fighter pilot toddled around during a dogfight with his flaps fully extended. It was a sure way to commit suicide. When flaps were used at all it was for only brief....very brief....periods....to evade an attacker or attain a firing solution.
This isn't limited to the F4U, it stands for every fighter in the game. While the F4U may not be used in a "WWII realistic" manner, neither is any other fighter in AH.
Personally, I'm absolutely 100% in favor of any model-modification necessary to get the most realism possible when it comes to the F4U. It's the only plane in AH I'm interested in flying, and I'd like it to be as realistic as possible. Making it more difficult to fly (as long as it's realistic) would be an improvement in my opinion. If it's as simple as restructuring the slipstream, or whatever, great! Hopefully HTC sees it as a worthwhile improvement.
However, it doesn't really matter in the end, because it's going to be flat-out impossible to model the F4U in a manner that will cause it to fly/fight realistically in the game. As a matter of fact, if it is modeled "perfectly" it will fight (not necessarily fly) closer to the way it does now than to reality... HTC would have to model it incorrectly flight model-wise to get it to fight "realistically".
That's because the capabilities of the pilot in reality vs. AH are completely different. Personally, I think this is more important than the flight-model when it comes to "realistic" use of airplanes, and "realistic" dog-fighting strategies when it comes to a simulator. In this case, I'm not talking about the basic G-forces effects or fatigue factors. I'm talking about the fact that I can manipulate more controls, easier, in less time, and simultaneously, than a real pilot could. As long as that's possible, "realistic" dog-fights and strategies aren't.
IMO, it probably isn't that the FM is way off, or that the effects of the flaps are way off. It's more likely that the flaps and throttle (which any self-respecting F4U pilot will tell you are vital in fighting with the F4U) are able to be manipulated in an unrealistic manner, at unrealistic times, with unrealistic ease. This leads to unrealistic fight strategies and unrealistic results. Even if the F4U FM is flawless (which it might not be, but which also hasn't been proven in gobs and gobs of time, effort, and pages). Oops, did I mention the gear?
Look at this cockpit. I've circled the throttle and flap controls in red, and the gear lever in blue (and the trim in green, just for hoots). What's wrong with this picture?
(http://i107.photobucket.com/albums/m309/Mtnman_03/Copyoff4u1cockpit.jpg)
The problem is that realistically, a pilot would never be able to manipulate the throttle and flaps at the same time. He'd have to choose to do one or the other; switching back and forth would take time and effort (especially under G-load), and he might even have to fumble a bit to get his hand's fingers where they needed to be. The amount of effort required would vary as well, depending upon circumstance. How precise could he be at choosing to drop 1,2, or 3 notches of flaps in a stressful situation and under G's?
On the other hand, I have all those controls at my fingertips, and am not experiencing any G's. I can easily manipulate those controls all at the same time if I desire. I can make them go back and forth, too! Imagine how difficult it would be to make all of the small (and large) adjustments I make during a fight, if I had to do it in reality! Moving my hand and arm back and forth between the throttle and flaps, maybe even to the trim wheel, maybe to the gear lever... Flaps up, flaps down. Down another notch, then up! All the throttle tweaking at the same time (well, not in reality...).
The simple fact is that it would have been far more difficult for an actual pilot to make use of the flaps and throttle in the way I can (an do) do it with ease. That alone would have prevented many pilots from ever "playing with" the flaps like we do in AH. The pilot would probably have kept his hand on the throttle for the most part, and wouldn't have been all that likely to mess with flaps and get low, slow and dirty. Especially since doing so would put him at a distinct disadvantage, and probably into a situation where he'd have been forced to impossibly manipulate his controls in an efficient "AH manner" to survive.
This is true even if the FM for any particular plane is absolutely flawless...
But of course, if the slipstream model is incorrect, I'm hopeful it'll be fixed. Same thing goes for the effects of torque (which I highly suspect is neutered).
But if those do become modeled "perfectly" the planes will still be easily capable of "unrealistic" flight until the capabilities of the pilots are modeled precisely as well. Maybe there could be a link between the amount of G's being experienced, and whether or not you could adjust flap settings?
-
I know several of the top sticks are very adept at the flaps down power off turn as part of a good rolling scissors, not that they use it all the time.
in regards to using flaps down ( is this full flaps??? ) and power off while turning in a rolling scissors, I have to disagree with the thought of anyone doing this..... one should not be chopping throttle/throttle off in a rolling scissors battle, and one should avoid as much as possible using flaps, especially full flaps......... unless they are at the endgame / stallmate in such a rolling scissors that they have no options left..... One should want to have maximum throttle / thrust available and use the Helix and the angle of the helix to prevail in the rolling scissors.....
I've got to agree with you here TC. Dumping power like that is something I've always seen as a kind of "beginner" mistake with the F4U. It's definitely a bad idea.
I've always used (and recommended using) the geometry of the maneuver to put me behind my target/attacker, rather than trying to fly slower.
-
Interesting thread folks <S> here is a couple videos that I shared with my squadies. I use the aircraft carrier take off method with elevator trim 6 notches rudder etc. and it works rather well especially if you have a full fuel and bombs/rockets. I dont know if these have been posted or not. It also talks about using your gear as dive brakes. ;-) :airplane:
http://youtu.be/5J0BYq3yevs (http://youtu.be/5J0BYq3yevs)
http://youtu.be/n-PwTTQz6Zw (http://youtu.be/n-PwTTQz6Zw)
-
Works for me after I rearm the AR234 on the CV and take back off.
-
I've got to agree with you here TC. Dumping power like that is something I've always seen as a kind of "beginner" mistake with the F4U. It's definitely a bad idea.
I've always used (and recommended using) the geometry of the maneuver to put me behind my target/attacker, rather than trying to fly slower.
I didn't say that you should start by dumping power, but that you may/will need to do that against a skilled HOG driver, especially if you get into a prolonged rolling scissors.
-
xJUGGOx you are correct the Hellcat could use it's gear as a dive break. Unfortunately the landing gear animation model in Aces High can't support the gear in the trail position.
(http://332nd.org/dogs/baumer/BBS%20Stuff/ahbbs2012/F6Flandinggear.png)
-
I've got to agree with you here TC. Dumping power like that is something I've always seen as a kind of "beginner" mistake with the F4U. It's definitely a bad idea.
I've always used (and recommended using) the geometry of the maneuver to put me behind my target/attacker, rather than trying to fly slower.
Never flew the hog much, but I know enough to recognize that this is a correct statment. Especially when you consider that the other rides that are most able to keep with the hog in a rolling scissors fight are also usually better than average at generating E, and that the hogs (the -4 being the exception) aren't nessicarily great at this.
I can't see any benefit to flying slower just to get a shot if your opponent could walk away from you when you're actually slowed the point of having said shot.
-
I didn't say that you should start by dumping power, but that you may/will need to do that against a skilled HOG driver, especially if you get into a prolonged rolling scissors.
I agree with this, this is what I meant when I refered to being at the end game or stalemate in my previous post....
Heya Baumer,
I got a bunch more e-books / er books in pdf format, if you care to do some trading again, like we did before... during your gun sights thread awhile back......
shoot me a pm
TC
-
The problem is that realistically, a pilot would never be able to manipulate the throttle and flaps at the same time. He'd have to choose to do one or the other; switching back and forth would take time and effort (especially under G-load), and he might even have to fumble a bit to get his hand's fingers where they needed to be. The amount of effort required would vary as well, depending upon circumstance. How precise could he be at choosing to drop 1,2, or 3 notches of flaps in a stressful situation and under G's?
Just wanted to randomly throw out there that like the Hellcat, the Corsair's flaps were spring-loaded and could be set at a particular angle prior to entering a fight, then would blow back up or redeploy on their own as airspeed increased and decreased. So while a historical Corsair pilot couldn't manually manipulate his flaps and throttle the way we do, in some ways he actually had an ADVANTAGE since he could "set and forget" his flaps and not even worry about manually doing so....
-
Just wanted to randomly throw out there that like the Hellcat, the Corsair's flaps were spring-loaded and could be set at a particular angle prior to entering a fight, then would blow back up or redeploy on their own as airspeed increased and decreased. So while a historical Corsair pilot couldn't manually manipulate his flaps and throttle the way we do, in some ways he actually had an ADVANTAGE since he could "set and forget" his flaps and not even worry about manually doing so....
Good point, TC. I thought about adding that too, but forgot.
Do you know whether that would work at each and every flap setting?
In reality, that would probably be an advantage for us in AH, but less-so for a pilot in RL, and probably a detriment at times.
The reason I say that is I've never entered a fight in AH where I said "OK, I'm going to use 4 notches of flaps for this fight", and then followed through with that. In RL, if the pilot "pre-set" his flaps for "x" notches, and then found partway through the fight that this was an error, he'd have to let go of the throttle and reach for the flaps.
Regardless of whether he could or not, it would take longer and be more difficult than it is for any pilot in AH to do that. There are plenty of circumstances where my speed may allow me to use more notches than the situation dictates. In that case, having them "auto-deploy" to a speed-governed setting could be a detriment. They may deploy to 3 notches "automatically" as my speed drops (because I pre-set them there) but I may be in a situation where I'm actually trying to hold or even build speed. Having them move from the 2-notch area to the 3-notch area while I want to accelerate would NOT be an advantage.
In a case like that "pre-setting" flaps could easily "lock" me into a fight strategy in RL, or at least make it more difficult and/or more time consuming to change my strategy at a moments notice. As we all know, those in-close, tight, and slow fights can be decided by a very tiny margin, and somebody who takes too long to mentally recognize and physically react is at a real disadvantage.
Sure, as speed would build in RL, the flaps would "blow up" (just as they do in AH). However, I personally strive to adjust mine before they blow up in AH, because that little edge in accel may mean all the difference...
So, I'd argue that the ease with which I can manipulate my various controls gives my AH corsair an advantage over a spring-loaded flap equipped RL corsair. I can quickly/easily adapt and or change my wing configuration (and can do it many times in a fight) which is something that would be more difficult for an actual pilot.
That gives me much more "freedom" than I would have in just the control aspects. Add to that the "freedom" I enjoy when it comes to NOT feeling any G's, getting tired, or fearing for my life...
With the "pre-set" option in RL, it would be dangerous to get over-zealous in pre-setting flaps, so there would be good, sound reason to limit yourself to only a few notches. That alone could explain why it may have been uncommon for an actual F4U pilot to be dropping 5 notches and pulling many of the maneuvers that are "normal" in AH. We simply have more control over our planes in AH, and more freedom to exercise that control.
And of course, it isn't limited to the F4U's...
Just because the real plane (machine) may be capable of doing something (or flying a certain way at a certain speed) does NOT mean it would be possible for that machine to do that while being piloted by an actual pilot. Many (if not most) machines are capable of far more than they achieve at the hands of humans.
-
Maybe HTC should model a delay when activating certain controls, with it taking longer to occur under G-loading?
-
Mtnmn
If you look at the second video they talk about not deploying more then 25 degrees when engaging in combat. But it also states to use the power to run away and not turn fight. :salute
-
Maybe HTC should model a delay when activating certain controls, with it taking longer to occur under G-loading?
I don't know the answer myself, but I think something along those lines would probably be along the right track.
-
Mtnmn
If you look at the second video they talk about not deploying more then 25 degrees when engaging in combat. But it also states to use the power to run away and not turn fight. :salute
I didn't watch the video that far in but basically assumed that would be the case. WHY would they say that is the question though, and what makes their situation different from ours?
Obviously, the plane is designed to allow more flap usage than that, and that's because the designers found that more flap usage than that could be beneficial in certain circumstances (primarily landing, in WWII circumstances).
However, the plane won't just fall out of the sky if you use more than 25 degrees, and in WWII it was a worse idea to get slow and turn with an enemy than it is in AH.
Let's say HTC models a hammer and nail absolutely perfectly, and models a construction worker to just hold that nail at an angle determined by the user, and to swing the hammer to hit the nail. If HTC puts that into a game of sorts, could we expect real-world performance to be shown in building a structure?
No. Our worker won't get tired, his hands won't sweat (effecting his grip on the hammer), he'll never hold the nail wrong (or try to use a defective one), tire, weaken, or use poor technique with the hammer.
With our pc-interface devices and hot keys, etc, we might actually get that "old-fashioned" hammer and nail to perform closer to a real-world pneumatic tool than it would ever be possible a person with a hammer to do in RL. That's because there's nothing wrong with a hammer and nail, the weakness is with the human. If the human element is removed (by modeling or lack of in AH; by a new tool in RL) performance and apparent "skill" will be different, as will the final outcome.
Back to the flaps, turn performance isn't greatly enhanced in AH if more than 25 degrees are used. That mirrors RL, at least in theory. However, in AH we're much more free to experiment, and we've found some distinct advantages to briefly, carefully, use up to 50 degrees. IMO, that's due in great part to the ease with which we can do that, and the lack of severe penalty for mistakes. The human element has not been modeled in AH, so we don't see the human-related limits that we see in RL F4U (or any other plane) usage.
-
I think its a premier CV aircraft. Its scores suffer due to its use as a bomb truck most of the time. I know it drives me nuts to see CVs come close to bases with ords and shore batterys up so I do a lot of high risk stuff with the Hellcat. But in a furball it can hold its own. No matter what your rear view is like its a bad idea to fly a straight line for long in a furball. I do best flying it like a P-38 instead of like a Spit. or other turn fighter.
-
In the game we are unafraid to fly at 60mph full flaps and full power not because of the flight model, but because of the non-flight model. HTC is doing a great job of simulating the flight conditions, but when the plane exceeds the normal envelope and turns into an odd-shaped object being hurled through the air, then the models are not that good (but they are very difficult to simulate). I am talking about what happens when you deep stall the plane, fly tail forward, side forward, or spinning like a dreidel. In the game, producing such conditions is difficult and recovery is easy and instantaneous, while in real life they were a much bigger threat.
If anyone remembers the old mosquito flat spins, this is probably more like real life, or at least closer to descriptions of departure from normal flight conditions. Stalling the old mosquito with nose high and full power on, meant at least 3000 feet for recovery if you were good and quick on response, or a carousel trip all the way to the ground if you were less good. Slow speed turning and in particular high speed snap stalls were really dangerous. With the F4U on the other hand, flying full power full flaps and pulling the stick all the way back is safer then rolling in a pile of cotton. In almost all AH planes, flying straight up, full power on, till you start a tail slide while maintaining full power is completely safe and recovery is instant.
-
Not my first choice, but it's a tough plane.
Nile Kinnick flew it after winning the heisman trophy and as an Iowan, that means something to me.
-
Not my first choice, but it's a tough plane.
Nile Kinnick flew it after winning the heisman trophy and as an Iowan, that means something to me.
I would of went with it was the first fighter plane to carry a 4,000lb bomb payload.
j/k :joystick:
-
Nobody flies the Hellcat because it is a POS deathtrap that should never have been made, both in real-life and in Aces High.
This drive-by post brought to you by the ghosts of AH past
-
Nobody flies the Hellcat because it is a POS deathtrap that should never have been made, both in real-life and in Aces High.
This drive-by post brought to you by the ghosts of AH past
If I am not mistaken I thought the hellcat had one of the highest if not the highest kill ratios for allied aircraft for WW II.
-
Sounds like Mathman needs some quality time with his flash cards.
-
HERE is a link, this is via my cellphone.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grumman_F6F_Hellcat (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grumman_F6F_Hellcat)
-
If I am not mistaken I thought the hellcat had one of the highest if not the highest kill ratios for allied aircraft for WW II.
Mathman is or was (as he most likely has lost most of his skills :P ) one the best ever in the F6. My guess is his post was a bit sarcastic.
-
Mathman is or was (as he most likely has lost most of his skills :P ) one the best ever in the F6. My guess is his post was a bit sarcastic.
Was just thinking that some people need a clue rake.
Yo Mathman!
- oldman
-
If I am not mistaken I thought the hellcat had one of the highest if not the highest kill ratios for allied aircraft for WW II.
Yes It had a 19:1 kill/death ratio which makes it the highest.
-
Lets remember though, thats not nessicarily a reflection on the plane's inherent qualities, but on pilot skill.
-
The Marianas turkey shoot is a perfect example how the F6F got it's impressive record. It's much the same with the German scores on the eastern front early/mid-war, facing an enemy flying out of date aircraft with poorly trained pilots and tactics unsuited to modern aerial warfare.
-
Since we're throwing out anecdotal points of view, here's one to consider.
When the Navy formed it's flight demonstration team (later named the Blue Angles) it was left to them to select the aircraft they would use. The pilots had a mix of Hellcat and Corsair experience, and as a group they selected to fly the Hellcat over the Corsair. They did this because when flying in tight formation they felt the Hellcat was much better at flying on the edge of it's performance then the Corsair. This doesn't mean it could out turn a Corsair, just that near the edge it was more stable and predictable.
-
The Hellcat is quite the fighter, to those who know how to use it. I kind of quible with it because I'm used to the throttle of the Jug and when I need WEP on it sounds like it's on 40 Manifold Pressure; really wierd. I'm sort of used to the canopy slightly, It reminds me of the D-11, and the rest of the P-40 models. A good strong point about it is with speed it turns well, it carries an exceptable load of ords, the six .50s pretty good, it's also rugged.
If you compare the veiw to a Spit I'll kill, because all Spit have to do is kick the rudder and you can see.
-
The Hellcat is quite the fighter, to those who know how to use it. I kind of quible with it because I'm used to the throttle of the Jug and when I need WEP on it sounds like it's on 40 Manifold Pressure; really wierd. I'm sort of used to the canopy slightly, It reminds me of the D-11, and the rest of the P-40 models. A good strong point about it is with speed it turns well, it carries an exceptable load of ords, the six .50s pretty good, it's also rugged.
If you compare the veiw to a Spit I'll kill, because all Spit have to do is kick the rudder and you can see.
Yes I have to agree. In the right hands it is a deadly machine.
-
If you compare the veiw to a Spit I'll kill, because all Spit have to do is kick the rudder and you can see.
Even without that the Spit's rear view is better due to the bulged canopy and windows behind the pilot's armor. I would not compare the two. The P-47D-11 is, as you say, a much better comparison.
-
Nobody flies the Hellcat because it is a POS deathtrap that should never have been made, both in real-life and in Aces High.
This drive-by post brought to you by the ghosts of AH past
Wow! there's a name I haven't seen in a long time.
When I first came to AH Mathman use to wax me all the time in that POS no matter what I was flying.
:salute
Sir
-
Nobody flies the Hellcat because it is a POS deathtrap that should never have been made, both in real-life and in Aces High.
This drive-by post brought to you by the ghosts of AH past
is somebody getting killed by hellcats a lot? :ahand :neener:
-
is somebody getting killed by hellcats a lot? :ahand :neener:
Mathman was the best F6F driver I've ever seen in this game.
-
Mathman was the best F6F driver I've ever seen in this game.
In fact, is his Hellcat web site still available?
- oldman
-
For you youngsters out there, Mathman was one of the best pilots in the game, right up there with Leviathn. It didn't matter what you were flying, they would hand you your head.
There was a plan by Grumman, at one point, to install the Pratt & Whitney R2800-18w, the same engine in the F4U-4, in the Hellcat with a Hamilton-Standard hydromatic airscrew with four 6501 blades. Many sources mistakenly quote it's top speed as 417mph at 17,000 feet altitude, but its true top speed was 425mph at 25,000 feet altitude.
A pity it didn't go into full-scale production. THAT version of the Hellcat in AH would have been a handful against almost every plane in the game.
-
For you youngsters out there, Mathman was one of the best pilots in the game, right up there with Leviathn. It didn't matter what you were flying, they would hand you your head.
There was a plan by Grumman, at one point, to install the Pratt & Whitney R2800-18w, the same engine in the F4U-4, in the Hellcat with a Hamilton-Standard hydromatic airscrew with four 6501 blades. Many sources mistakenly quote it's top speed as 417mph at 17,000 feet altitude, but its true top speed was 425mph at 25,000 feet altitude.
A pity it didn't go into full-scale production. THAT version of the Hellcat in AH would have been a handful against almost every plane in the game.
The Navy and Grumman concluded that the F8F-1 was far superior to the upgraded XF6F-6. Rather than consume resources on the lesser fighter, the program was dropped after two prototypes were built. The F8F turned out to be one of the best, indeed, probably the best prop driven air to air fighter ever to active service. It easily outclassed the F4U-4 air to air. It missed combat by a week or two. Several squadrons were aboard carriers just days from operations off of Japan. F8Fs took part in the huge Tokyo Bay fly-over when Japan formally signed the surrender.
The Aces High F6F-5 is about 20 mph too slow at best altitude, according to TAIC and Navy test data. It's low altitude speed (up to about 15k), where we generally fight, is correct...
-
The Navy and Grumman concluded that the F8F-1 was far superior to the upgraded XF6F-6. Rather than consume resources on the lesser fighter, the program was dropped after two prototypes were built. The F8F turned out to be one of the best, indeed, probably the best prop driven air to air fighter ever to active service. It easily outclassed the F4U-4 air to air. It missed combat by a week or two. Several squadrons were aboard carriers just days from operations off of Japan. F8Fs took part in the huge Tokyo Bay fly-over when Japan formally signed the surrender.
The Aces High F6F-5 is about 20 mph too slow at best altitude, according to TAIC and Navy test data. It's low altitude speed (up to about 15k), where we generally fight, is correct...
The thing about the F6F-6 is that it could have been put into production immediately, with almost no down time on the production line. Higher performance was despertely needed with late war Japanese fighters matching and in some cases exceeding that of the -5 Hellcat. With the invasion of Japan looming on the horizon, some in the Navy and at Grumman thought that larger numbers of the upgraded Hellcat would have been preferable to a much smaller number of Bearcats.
Depends on one's point of view I suppose.
-
The thing about the F6F-6 is that it could have been put into production immediately, with almost no down time on the production line. Higher performance was despertely needed with late war Japanese fighters matching and in some cases exceeding that of the -5 Hellcat. With the invasion of Japan looming on the horizon, some in the Navy and at Grumman thought that larger numbers of the upgraded Hellcat would have been preferable to a much smaller number of Bearcats.
Depends on one's point of view I suppose.
I don't think the Navy trials were completed when the decision was made cancel the program. Despite the relative simplicity of the change, the Navy had very strict rules about qualifying new or improved aircraft. Adding to this is getting a production line running. Grumman was running at full capacity in late 1944, early '45. They were pushing out 600 F6F-5s, plus F7Fs and the new F8F-1 every month. In addition, they were building amphibians as well. The logistics of getting a line running include a steady supply of engines and propellers. Indeed, there were notable changes to the whole QEC. You can't even begin until your suppliers are up and delivering everything you need. Next, you have to phase in the new aircraft, which means a separate line for the short term. Aircraft require a great deal of documentation. The Navy will have to develop and print manuals and checklists for pilots and maintenance personnel, which will have to be distributed prior to the aircraft arriving. The Navy will have to provide the required special tools. Thus, even when fast-tracked for acceptance, it can take months to get a line tooled, documentation written, printed and get people trained. I doubt that manufacturing could have begun prior to October of 1944. However, the first production F8F-1 was delivered in December of 1944. Understand also that the F8F-1 was scaling up slowly because the Navy did not want any reduction in deliveries of the F6F-5.
The Navy recognized that the F7F and F8F were top tier fighters, among the best ever. However, the Navy also recognized that the F6F-5 was still a very capable machine and was continuing to get the job done with minimal losses. That's where they rightly placed their priority. It was thought that an invasion of Japan in the fall of 1945 was a given. The Navy planned to have the F4U-4, F8F-1 and the F7F in considerable numbers for the invasion. Both Vought and Goodyear would be building the F4U-4/FG-4, replacing the F4U-1D/FG-1D. Grumman and Eastern Aircraft would be building the F8F-1/F3M-1. Had the war continued another few months, the fast carrier air groups would have been quickly outfitting with the latest fighters. Many F6F-5s were to be transferred to escort carriers, replacing the FM-2 as their primary fighter. F7Fs were all headed to the Marines, until the larger Midway class carriers were operational.
-
Widewing I appreciate the information you presented and your point of view. But there are a couple of things that I'd like to point out for your consideration and judgement. First, the decision to route a production line of R2800-18w engines to the F4U-4 was made at about the same time as the F6F-6 was being developed. I find the decision to be a bit inexplicable because at that time the Corsair had not yet carrier qualified and would not do so until December of 1944. The Hellcat had been carrier qualified for two years.
Secondly, the changes in design basically involved a simple horsepower upgrade with modified propeller gearing and blades. Since the 18w was essentially the same engine I presume the engine mounts would be the same, especially since Grumman tended to overengineer or beef up critical structural members. Corky Meyer wrote about the prototype F6F-6s and basically indicated that production problems were predicted to be minimal. As stable as the Hellcat design was no flight anomalies were expected to crop up.
Thirdly, with massive kamikaze attacks against the fleet being predicted for the invasion of Japan, not only would increased speed for the intercept be critical so also would loiter time. Did the Bearcat have the range to allow it to remain on station as long as the Hellcat and Corsair? How about firepower? If memory serves, the first Bearcats delivered to the fleet were only armed with four fifty caliber machine guns. Would this have been enough to destroy a kamikaze quickly enough to allow a Bearcat to intercept another target in a sky that was certain to contain a LOT of them?
Regards, Shuckins
-
Great thread, learned a lot about the F6 from it for certain. And long time Mathman, are you still teaching? Hope to see you flying again someday.
-
One thing I've not seen mentioned here as a major limfac is the Hellcat's roll rate. My primary aircraft was the D-25 Jug with the F6F a close second. It was possible to tolerate the inferior firepower relative to the Jug. It was possible to make do with the slower speed and restricted 6 view thanks to the better turning and short transit times courtesy of a CV spawn. But in the end the thing I missed most from the Jug was the roll rate- especially defensively in a rolling scissors. There were times when enough cumulative annoyance stacked going that I'd go to the dark side and fly the A5 for a spell...I'm not proud of it but it happened :(
-
Don't know about Late War but in Mid, the Hellcat is a monster.