Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: artik on April 22, 2014, 06:58:32 AM
-
I used to love F4U-1D long time ago. Now when I'm back to AH I fly it only from the carriers as no other "normal" plane available.
By normal I mean that is relatively fast, dives, and climbs well.
Yesterday I took the F4U-1D to the fight against Spit XVI... I was surprised how well it turned with several notches of flaps even against Spitfire XVI,
I remember started with diving on it trying to do a snapshot on it, but with few vertical maneuvers I realized it becomes dangerous as Spit gets on my 6. So I dived away to realize that spit closes on me. I did few hard turns and when he was close enough I did once again hard short turn with flaps, extending the gears and dropping the throttle to 0 to see the spit just pass nearby and immediately returned the throttle back, upped the gear and flaps.
If the spit was going vertical I'd probably be dead, however after realizing that I'm on his 6, he started several flat scissors to drop me of his 6 and that continued with a hard steady turn. I had no enough energy but managed to extend flaps and follow his plane enough to get a solid shut withing an about half a circle blowing his wing.
I was surprised how well F4U turned with flaps. I assume that if spitfire would continue on vertical maneuvers I'd be doomed but being able to out-turn a spitfire in F4u was quite a surprise for me.
Was I just lucky or it is indeed not a bad turner (with a cost of a lots of E) ?
-
The Corsair's flaps generate a TON of lift (you can see this from the stall speed reductions in the operating manual), though as you noted it comes with the sacrifice of a lot of E once you drop past the second notch. You're pretty much committed to a turn fight at that point.
-
Oh, by the way, just wait until you figure out the rudder.
As much press as the flaps get, I find that the rudder is actually even MORE important.
-
While the F4U magic flaps do generate some drag and limit sustained turns, nothing will cut a corner with an F4U under 250 mph after the flaps come out.
Nothing.
The F4U is the only plane I never engage in a maneuvering combat unless I feel the pilot is clueless. I prefer to turn my Mosquito with Spits and KI84s than with F4Us.
I used to love F4U-1D long time ago. Now when I'm back to AH I fly it only from the carriers as no other "normal" plane available.
Heresy!
You have the F6F, which is so much cooler. It also climbs better than the F4U and I swear that when the light hits it in a certain angle, its blue is bluer too.
-
You have the F6F, which is so much cooler.
But also much slower. I really don't like F6F, it feels too heavy to me and has horrible rear view.
-
But also much slower. I really don't like F6F, it feels too heavy to me and has horrible rear view.
it can do wonders. Greebo can vouch
-
it can do wonders. Greebo can vouch
Shut up and fly Zach! Welcome back!
-
Shut up and fly Zach! Welcome back!
Priorities are my career and girlfriend as of right. Alas we don't have a hard wired internet but wifi wich is crap so idk what other than save and train
-
While the F4U magic flaps do generate some drag and limit sustained turns, nothing will cut a corner with an F4U under 250 mph after the flaps come out.
Nothing.
Zeke?
-
Zeke?
In a sustained turn, yes, but at 250 the Corsair CAN briefly out-corner him, ESPECIALLY if you use a high-yo to move your downrange travel into the vertical, and kick hard on the inside rudder. That big barn door on the back end can REALLY haul the F4U's nose around in a vertical turn (wingover or high-yo). You just want to make it a quick corner (no more than ~90-180 degrees if you can help it) and then get the hell out to grab speed and ideally altitude to set up for another pass (do NOT let him sucker you into the sustained turn).
-
But also much slower. I really don't like F6F, it feels too heavy to me and has horrible rear view.
Yes, the F6F is slower. Two reasons for that. Unlike the F4U, Grumman didn't design the F6F with direct ram air. Grumman was rightly concerned with carburetor icing. So, at low altitude the F4U was about 20 mph faster. However, as altitude went up, the low altitude advantage gradually vanished. In tests by Grumman and TAIC show, by full throttle height, the F4U-1D and F6F-5 have virtually identical speeds (409 mph for the Hellcat). In Aces High, we have an F6F-5 modeled with F6F-3 performance. I was hoping it would be corrected when the F6F received the revised graphic update, but it wasn't. This speed equality has been confirmed by my friend, Chris Fahey (a retired F-16 driver), who flies both for Steve Hinton's Planes of Fame. Above 15,000 feet, there is little to no difference in speed at normal power. Chris also flies their P-38J, MiG-15, F-86F, P-51D and just about everything else airworthy.
As it is, the F6F-5 in game easily out-turns all F4Us clean. The best turning Corsair version, the F4U-1, needs two notches of flaps to match a clean F6F-5. However, the added drag still makes it uneven, as the F6F-5 turns the same size circle at a significantly faster rate of turn. As a fight slows down, all F4Us gain a slight to almost no edge with full flaps, from 32 feet (F4U-1) to just 2 feet (F4U-1C) in radius. However, the drag of those flaps is such that the F6F-5 still has a faster turn rate, offsetting the F4U's slightly tighter turn radius.
In game, the F6F-5, at full flaps, will turn a slightly smaller circle, at a slightly higher turn rate, than a flaps-out Spitfire Mk.IX. My testing shows this to be true, as does that done by Mosq in his sustained turn data. Other later vintage Spits, like the Mk.VIII and MK.XVI must avoid flaps, and keep the fight fast enough to use their superior vertical performance. Otherwise, the F6F-5 can beat them in a flat or nearly flat turning contest. Of course, all of the above presumes that the F6F pilot is highly skilled in the aircraft.
In Aces High, very few who fly the Hellcat do so as anything but a carrier borne bomb truck. There are only a handful of F6F "experten". This surprises me, as the Hellcat is a relatively easy fighter to master, and has outstanding combat attributes. I believe the truly poor rear view is a big contributor, along with its mediocre low altitude speed and acceleration. For many players, when the option of running away is off the table, so is the Hellcat.
That said, the F6F-5 is one of the best aircraft for dive speed and control. With combat trim on, it will pull out, hands off, from Mach .80 dives. 604 mph, hands off pull-out at 3g. Nothing else in this game can match this (film available for disbelievers). Not very long ago, in the MA, I'm at 15k and spot a dot on dar. I climb towards the dot. It turned out to be a P-47M, flown by our friend (and amazing banjo player), BBAW. We merged, him coming down, me going up. Probably about 18k high. I did a max rate reversal, ending up about 1.5k behind. BBAW dives away to gain some separation to reverse into a second merge. However, the distance didn't increase. Instead, my F6F was not losing ground. To gain some distance, BBAW increases his dive angle. The F6F is still there. 550 mph, and I'm gaining. Leveling off at wave height, I had closed the distance to 600 yards. Eventually, the P-47M will pull away as the Hellcat slows below 370 mph. But, not before I put my last 200 rounds into the Jug. BBAW was somewhat incredulous. How the heck did the Hellcat outdive the P-47M? Well, the Jug has a lower critical Mach (.73 to the F6F's .75). In short, it attains a higher speed, because of the more rapid drag rise of the Jug. Dive acceleration above 500 mph TAS favors the Hellcat. As we went below 2,000 feet, the film showed the P-47M at 520 mph, the F6F-5 at 550 mph.
Chris' actual flying analysis is that the F4U-1A is faster at low altitude. It has much better ailerons than the F6F-5. Views from the 3/9 line on aft are better. Advantages for the F6F-5 include a much better view over the nose. A far superior cockpit design and layout. Better climb rate for any given power setting. A more effective, albeit heavier rudder (again, unlike the game model). Less trim change over the whole speed envelope, and finally, vastly better low speed handling and stability. His comment was that if you went from the SNJ Advanced Trainer (Navy version of the T-6) to the F6F, you'll find the Hellcat easier to fly.
In combat, the F6F-5 proved to survive battle damage better than the F4U. Grumman truly over-designed the airframe in terms of strength. F6Fs survived, without airframe damage, g excursions up to 13g (as did the stout little F4F). The biggest reason the Navy preferred the F6F was it was simply a better aircraft around the boat. Far lower accident rate. Initially, the F4U had issues with bouncing over the arresting wires. The main gear oleo struts were simply too stiff, with little damping. The Navy contracted with Grumman to fix the F4U's gear problem. Corwin (Corky) Meyer was assigned as the test pilot, and a pair of F4Us were delivered to Grumman. They quickly discovered and fixed the specific design issues, and successfully demonstrated it to the Navy. Engineering drawings were delivered to Vought and Goodyear, with the changes being incorporated on the landing gear production lines. The F4U was now up the Navy's high standard for carrier duty.
So, in the game, how good is the F6F? Plenty good. If the pilot takes the time to master it, and has good SA and ACM skills, he need fear nothing. Co-E, the F6F can go toe to toe with just about anything. Not the best in most categories, it's good enough in all categories to be one of the most balanced fighters in the game. Over recent years, I've maintained a nearly 50/1 kill to loss ratio in the F6F. It's my most successful ride, by far. However, this tour, I statistically lost two to software lock-ups (requiring a reboot). I suggest that F6F pilots fly it aggressively. It hides its E state better than most. It's big and heavy, and zoom climbs better than most fighters. Use rudder to speed up roll response. S turn once in a while to check your 6. Don't be in too much of a hurry to get to a fight. Get some altitude under you that can be traded for speed when needed. The F6F is a top tier GV killer, with lots of ordnance and great low speed precision, along with excellent vision over the nose. Decent gun package, lots of ammo and very stable gun platform. If HTC updates (corrects) the speed model, it'll be even better at medium altitudes.
Link to dive and turn performance film (50% fuel): http://www.mediafire.com/download/hnbuv8856jpk7q2/film41.ahf (http://www.mediafire.com/download/hnbuv8856jpk7q2/film41.ahf)
-
I almost never turn fight - it is sort of last resort, that what happened in F4U when I found myself in co-E with Spit XVI that does almost everything better climbs, accelerates little bit faster - and apparently I could turn with it.
I agree that in the right hands F6F is dangerous - as almost any aircraft in right hands. To me F6F is just "isn't it"... There is no single factor - it is combination: cockpit view, roll, low speed handling... so it just doesn't feels right for me.
I'd say F6F is typical US plane - strong, heavy, with poor climb rate, poor acceleration. I almost never fly US planes, maybe besides P-51D that is the only that was "done right" with good climb and acceptable acceleration. The only exception for me is carriers.
The planes that I actually prefer usually have excellent climb and acceleration, excellent roll, good speed - almost none of US fighters fit to this category besides probably P-51D that comes close. So my usual rides are Fw-190D, Yak-3, Spit XVI - of course for carriers the best one are US planes.
-
I almost never turn fight - it is sort of last resort, that what happened in F4U when I found myself in co-E with Spit XVI that does almost everything better climbs, accelerates little bit faster - and apparently I could turn with it.
I agree that in the right hands F6F is dangerous - as almost any aircraft in right hands. To me F6F is just "isn't it"... There is no single factor - it is combination: cockpit view, roll, low speed handling... so it just doesn't feels right for me.
I'd say F6F is typical US plane - strong, heavy, with poor climb rate, poor acceleration. I almost never fly US planes, maybe besides P-51D that is the only that was "done right" with good climb and acceptable acceleration. The only exception for me is carriers.
The planes that I actually prefer usually have excellent climb and acceleration, excellent roll, good speed - almost none of US fighters fit to this category besides probably P-51D that comes close. So my usual rides are Fw-190D, Yak-3, Spit XVI - of course for carriers the best one are US planes.
Check out that film I linked to. With 50% fuel, 3,750 fpm isn't poor. Dora's need to avoid a Co-E Hellcat. The Yak-3 is in big trouble below 250 mph, and the Spit16 better stay fast and fight in the vertical, assuming it survives the second merge (it often doesn't). The Hellcat can beat it on the first two reverses, because it can dump flaps and gain angles really fast. A great dueling match is the F6F-5 and Bf 109F-4. I flew many duels with one of our former players, one of the better sticks in the game (Urchin). Both F6F and F4U vs the Spit16. If he survived the first two merges, he could gain an advantage in the vertical. He usually got shot up before the fight lasted that long. Of course, these were duels with dueling rules. The MA often presents different challenges, such as climbing far out from the first merge...
-
Widewing am I right in thinking that you had evidence that the F4U stall speed was too low in AH?
-
Check out that film I linked to. With 50% fuel, 3,750 fpm isn't poor. Dora's need to avoid a Co-E Hellcat.
You are talking about 1 vs 1... Now change it into 2 vs 2 with team work... the story changes completely. Hellcat stands no chance.
-
You are talking about 1 vs 1... Now change it into 2 vs 2 with team work... the story changes completely. Hellcat stands no chance.
Rather a bad overstatement. It is a textbook angles vs. energy fighter match, and there are effective section tactics for both sides of that coin. Honestly I'd say assuming a sterile co-e 2v2, the Dora pilots will need to be more experienced to avoid being forced to die or run.
-
You are talking about 1 vs 1... Now change it into 2 vs 2 with team work... the story changes completely. Hellcat stands no chance.
No chance? Murdr and I teamed up in Hellcats against a pair of well known, highly experienced 109K-4 drivers for a 4 man duel. Both K-4 drivers were in the tower in less than two minutes. After the first merge, the K-4 guys never saw either of us in their gun sights. The Dora does not worry me. One dimensional, BnZ, energy tactics often means dead if forced into a low speed fight. Better static climb doesn't help in a duel, especially after a Co-E merge. Dueling takes away the Dora's one tactical advantage: Extending half a sector to reverse. You are not allowed to disengage, gotta stay and fight. Even the MA, the best the Dora driver will ever get is nose on nose. When frustration sets in, he may push harder for angles. If he does, risk goes up quickly.
Spend some time in fighters with more balanced performance. It'll make you a better pilot. Fly an I-16, Hurricane or FM-2 some, you'll learn a lot about how to spoil a BnZ fighter's day.
-
... One dimensional, BnZ, energy tactics often means dead if forced into a low speed fight ...
That is exactly why I said 2 vs 2... I wouldn't BnZ with my wingman the F6F I'll just put them into a trap each time they try to get on ours 6.
190D has better sustained turn ratio on high speeds - I mean at lets say if F6F would try to turn with Dora at 250-300mph it would loose energy while 190 would keep it. It would allow to attack you and than extend being covered by a wingman.
I for example wouldn't try to fight in a hard turns or running pure vertical maneuvers but rather manage high speed fights controlling attack and extend.
Flying as a team would require entirely different tactics... We practiced such things once with our squadron and almost always when I met a team that works together they are very dangerous. Dora for F6F is almost what 262 for Mustang
-
Widewing am I right in thinking that you had evidence that the F4U stall speed was too low in AH?
My understanding is that the corsair's stall speeds in game coincided with what was in the operator's manual with a reasonable margin for error.
-
My understanding is that the corsair's stall speeds in game coincided with what was in the operator's manual with a reasonable margin for error.
Stall speed is spot on... Stability isn't. Chris Fahey told me that he can fly the F6F-5 down to 85 knots in landing configuration and it's a stable as a brick through maneuvers, including rolling into 45 degree banked turns. On the other hand, Chris says that the F4U-1A will want to snap inverted if he attempted that at 85 knots. The right wing spoiler reduced the tendency for unequal side wing stall, but did not completely eliminate it. This was exacerbated in a right hand, low speed turn, where the inside wing wants to stall first anyway. Chris also stated that the F6F's rudder was more effective than that of the F4U, probably due to its longer lever arm. Total vertical stabilizer area is also greater for the F6F, both fixed and movable (22 sq/ft total, 13 sq/ft movable for F4U, 24 sq/ft total, and 14 sq/ft movable for F6F). This allows for more effective countering of torque. If the F4U's rudder is more effective in the game, it shouldn't be.
-
Yesterday I took the F4U-1D to the fight against Spit XVI... I was surprised how well it turned with several notches of flaps even against Spitfire XVI,
The real surprise in this is that someone actually used the F4U-D as a fighter and not as a suicide bombtruck only :old:
-
Stall speed is spot on... Stability isn't. Chris Fahey told me that he can fly the F6F-5 down to 85 knots in landing configuration and it's a stable as a brick through maneuvers, including rolling into 45 degree banked turns. On the other hand, Chris says that the F4U-1A will want to snap inverted if he attempted that at 85 knots. The right wing spoiler reduced the tendency for unequal side wing stall, but did not completely eliminate it. This was exacerbated in a right hand, low speed turn, where the inside wing wants to stall first anyway.
I argued this very point a year ago after some flight testing of my own with several Corsair aficionados including Mtnman and was ultimately shouted down, dismissed and insulted.
-
That is exactly why I said 2 vs 2... I wouldn't BnZ with my wingman the F6F I'll just put them into a trap each time they try to get on ours 6.
Good luck with that....
190D has better sustained turn ratio on high speeds - I mean at lets say if F6F would try to turn with Dora at 250-300mph it would loose energy while 190 would keep it. It would allow to attack you and than extend being covered by a wingman.
Your wingman will be very busy trying to stay alive. It will end up with two 1v1 fights, until one screws up. Then it'll be two on one, and time for the surviving Dora to skedaddle while the gittin' is good.
I for example wouldn't try to fight in a hard turns or running pure vertical maneuvers but rather manage high speed fights controlling attack and extend.
That's what I meant about half sector extending. Run till there's enough separation to reverse (usually a climbing reverse). But, all that means is another merge, and then another, and another until the F6F pilot falls asleep from the boredom.
Flying as a team would require entirely different tactics... We practiced such things once with our squadron and almost always when I met a team that works together they are very dangerous. Dora for F6F is almost what 262 for Mustang
The difference isn't nearly that dramatic.
Too bad the F6F-6 was discontinued (the F8F was selected instead, and superior in every way). Basically, take an R-2800 C series engine, and the prop from the F4U-4 and install it in an F6F-5. 425 mph, 4,200 fpm climb and the maneuverability of the Hellcat. The -6 would have been in the fleet six months before the F8F-1, but the Navy felt that the -5 would be adequate until the Bearcat was deploying to combat (mid August of 1945).
-
What bothers me in AH much more than the missing 20mph at 20,000 of the F6F is that I keep snapping its wings off at high speeds. No warning, no bending metal sounds - just cough while holding the stick and off comes the wing. Quite surprising given its resistance to cannon damage. The P-47 may get its controls locked in a dive, but I never snapped a wing in it no matter how hard the pullout.
-
What bothers me in AH much more than the missing 20mph at 20,000 of the F6F is that I keep snapping its wings off at high speeds. No warning, no bending metal sounds - just cough while holding the stick and off comes the wing. Quite surprising given its resistance to cannon damage. The P-47 may get its controls locked in a dive, but I never snapped a wing in it no matter how hard the pullout.
I don't think I've ever broken an F6F.... Then again, I fly the A-20 a lot, and smooth on the controls becomes muscle memory. Watch the video I posted above. 604 mph, groaning a bit. Nothing breaks.
-
Better static climb doesn't help in a duel, especially after a Co-E merge.
What *is* the best tactic for a fighter whose primary advantage is better powerloading?
-
What *is* the best tactic for a fighter whose primary advantage is better powerloading?
If You have equally skilled pilots, a Co-E engagement in the MA can result in tactical draw.
So, you have gauge the relative skill of the opposition. However, inasmuch as the initial tactical situation has almost limitless variation, one cannot paint with a broad brush. In dueling, with the tactical limits, there isn't much the better power loading fighter can do, but hope for an error. In the case of the Dora vs F6F in the MA, the Dora driver can always disengage and go looking for a less difficult challenge. They often do just that..
-
Too bad the F6F-6 was discontinued (the F8F was selected instead, and superior in every way). Basically, take an R-2800 C series engine, and the prop from the F4U-4 and install it in an F6F-5.
Didn't the F8F also have the wing shape of a FW 190?
-
If the F6F had better roll rate at high speed I would be dead in 190a's many more times. They normally break off at 500-550 mph after some fast rolling.
The 51d in RL could not dive with a 109g6, where the 51b model could, I don't see that in AH, both models dive equally and catch 109's to its max speed.
It looks to me also that the f4u has the best gun platform of all .50 cal wing-mounted guns, inflicting damage up to 800, where the rest of them do it at 600.
-
If the F6F had better roll rate at high speed I would be dead in 190a's many more times. They normally break off at 500-550 mph after some fast rolling.
The 51d in RL could not dive with a 109g6, where the 51b model could, I don't see that in AH, both models dive equally and catch 109's to its max speed.
It looks to me also that the f4u has the best gun platform of all .50 cal wing-mounted guns, inflicting damage up to 800, where the rest of them do it at 600.
Save, why wouldn't a P-51D dive as fast as a P-51B?
-
Didn't the F8F also have the wing shape of a FW 190?
The 190D-9 had NACA 23015.3 at the root, and NACA 23009 at the tip.
The F6F-5 had NACA 23015.6 at the root, and NACA 23009 at the tip.
Very nearly identical...
The F8F-1 had NACA 23018 at the root and NACA 23009 at the tip.
A bit less like the 190....
-
Maybe it is just me, but when fighting skilled Dora pilots in a P-51, it seems like they can often "get on top" and put me on the defensive after a few turns. Skyyr is good at this, from a co-alt merge. Of course the F6F is superior to the P-51 in wing loading and presumably energy retention in turns, so that may be the difference.
If You have equally skilled pilots, a Co-E engagement in the MA can result in tactical draw.
So, you have gauge the relative skill of the opposition. However, inasmuch as the initial tactical situation has almost limitless variation, one cannot paint with a broad brush. In dueling, with the tactical limits, there isn't much the better power loading fighter can do, but hope for an error. In the case of the Dora vs F6F in the MA, the Dora driver can always disengage and go looking for a less difficult challenge. They often do just that..
-
Maybe it is just me, but when fighting skilled Dora pilots in a P-51, it seems like they can often "get on top" and put me on the defensive after a few turns. Skyyr is good at this, from a co-alt merge. Of course the F6F is superior to the P-51 in wing loading and presumably energy retention in turns, so that may be the difference.
I've had several 1v1 fights with Dora's in the MA, piloted by guys who fly it almost exclusively. In every case I can recall, the Dora had a big altitude advantage at the outset. So, I started with the disadvantage. Inasmuch as I rarely fly very high, and generally fly in defense, I've developed methods of dealing with this situation. One doesn't have to burn much E to avoid the Dora. I can easily induce an overshoot, and I have become adept at scoring hits when they do so. I don't waste E. Sooner or later, the other guy will make a mistake, or simply leave or change to a less annoying target. If I go through the last 3 years of tour data, I doubt that I'll find a single instance when I lost an F6F to a 190D-9.
-
Save, why wouldn't a P-51D dive as fast as a P-51B?
I remember reading this some p51d pilot accounts of this somewhere, it was due to the razorback gave better stability at high speed than the p51d, where the bubble canopy disturbed the airflow over the tail.
here I found one source :
On two other occasions ME 109s got away from me because the P 51d could not stay with them in a high-speed dive. At 525-550 mph the plane would start to porpoise uncontrollably and had to be slowed to regain control. The P 51 was redlined at 505 mph, meaning that this speed should not be exceeded. But when chasing 109s or 190s in a dive from 25-26,000 it often was exceeded, if you wanted to keep up with those enemy planes. The P 51b, and c, could stay with those planes in a dive. The P 51d had a thicker wing and a bubble canopy which changed the airflow and brought on compressibility at lower speeds."
- Robert C.Curtis, American P-51 pilot.
dive test :
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/mustangIV-divetest.html
-
I remember reading this some p51d pilot accounts of this somewhere, it was due to the razorback gave better stability at high speed than the p51d, where the bubble canopy disturbed the airflow over the tail.
here I found one source :
On two other occasions ME 109s got away from me because the P 51d could not stay with them in a high-speed dive. At 525-550 mph the plane would start to porpoise uncontrollably and had to be slowed to regain control. The P 51 was redlined at 505 mph, meaning that this speed should not be exceeded. But when chasing 109s or 190s in a dive from 25-26,000 it often was exceeded, if you wanted to keep up with those enemy planes. The P 51b, and c, could stay with those planes in a dive. The P 51d had a thicker wing and a bubble canopy which changed the airflow and brought on compressibility at lower speeds."
- Robert C.Curtis, American P-51 pilot.
Those 109's were probably en route to a spectacular lawn dart if my experience of gaming in them is anything to go by :old:
-
double
-
I remember reading this some p51d pilot accounts of this somewhere, it was due to the razorback gave better stability at high speed than the p51d, where the bubble canopy disturbed the airflow over the tail.
here I found one source :
On two other occasions ME 109s got away from me because the P 51d could not stay with them in a high-speed dive. At 525-550 mph the plane would start to porpoise uncontrollably and had to be slowed to regain control. The P 51 was redlined at 505 mph, meaning that this speed should not be exceeded. But when chasing 109s or 190s in a dive from 25-26,000 it often was exceeded, if you wanted to keep up with those enemy planes. The P 51b, and c, could stay with those planes in a dive. The P 51d had a thicker wing and a bubble canopy which changed the airflow and brought on compressibility at lower speeds."
- Robert C.Curtis, American P-51 pilot.
dive test :
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/mustangIV-divetest.html
Curtiss was wrong. There is no difference in the wing thickness between the P-51B and P-51D. Pure myth, quoted by many since. Instability along the flight axis was restored with the dorsal strike added to the rudder transition. The wing profile and thickness ratio is identical. All P-51s had the same critical Mach, which was considerably higher than that of the Bf-109.
-
Critical mach does not limit top dive speed, only controllability. The 109 lost effectiveness of its main control surfaces earlier than the P-51 in a dive, but the elevator trim in the 109 and 190 remained effective at any speed allowing recovery from a dive at any time. Even at extreme beyond-red-line speeds approaching 600 mph, as one Finnish pilot found out. The 109 would also not tuck-under like the P-38 and P-47 when approaching critical mach, but had to be trimmed nose down to stay in a dive. Otherwise it would level off on its own. The p-51 was not as sturdy in a dive as the P-38 and P-47. Several pilots lost their lives in dives after converting to the P-51 from P-47s.
-
Critical mach does not limit top dive speed, only controllability. The 109 lost effectiveness of its main control surfaces earlier than the P-51 in a dive, but the elevator trim in the 109 and 190 remained effective at any speed allowing recovery from a dive at any time. Even at extreme beyond-red-line speeds approaching 600 mph, as one Finnish pilot found out. The 109 would also not tuck-under like the P-38 and P-47 when approaching critical mach, but had to be trimmed nose down to stay in a dive. Otherwise it would level off on its own. The p-51 was not as sturdy in a dive as the P-38 and P-47. Several pilots lost their lives in dives after converting to the P-51 from P-47s.
Critical Mach reflects the onset of compressibility, above that controllability can rapidly deteriorate. P-38s and P-47s did not encounter Mach Tuck until well beyond critical Mach.
(http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/wade-dive.jpg)
-
Glad we agree. Like I said critical mach does not limit top dive speed... only controllability. Btw. That chart was made post-war by an RAF officer for a magazine article... And if I recall correctly it reflects the relative differences in dive acceleration. Weight would be the biggest factor and we can see that the aircraft are sorted by weight as well with the 109 being the lightest and the Meteor the heaviest. We all know that the Spitfire was the fastest diver of the piston engines fighters (and had the highest critical mach number), but in that chart it is way back with the Jerries. The fastest known (and survived) dive speed of a WWII prop fighter was achieved by S/Lr Martindale, in a Spitfire P.R.XI, with a speed of 606mph (Mach .89) before his engine exploded, and the propeller disappeared. He landed safely. Finnish ace Valte Estama dived his damaged 109G-6 to 590 mph to put out an engine fire. He landed safely with the aircraft intact.
-
Glad we agree. Like I said critical mach does not limit top dive speed... only controllability. Btw. That chart was made post-war by an RAF officer for a magazine article... And if I recall correctly it reflects the relative differences in dive acceleration. Weight would be the biggest factor and we can see that the aircraft are sorted by weight as well with the 109 being the lightest and the Meteor the heaviest. We all know that the Spitfire was the fastest diver of the piston engines fighters (and had the highest critical mach number), but in that chart it is way back with the Jerries. The fastest known (and survived) dive speed of a WWII prop fighter was achieved by S/Lr Martindale, in a Spitfire P.R.XI, with a speed of 606mph (Mach .89) before his engine exploded, and the propeller disappeared. He landed safely. Finnish ace Valte Estama dived his damaged 109G-6 to 590 mph to put out an engine fire. He landed safely with the aircraft intact.
The fastest documented dive speed for a P-47 was Mach 0.83, flown by Herb Fisher. This P-47 was equipped with a Mach meter and data recorders.
Fisher, a test pilot for Curtiss Wright, was testing supposedly transonic propellers using a borrowed Air National Guard P-47D-30. This Thunderbolt was fitted with Dive Recovery Flaps. The P-47, having been subjected to the stresses of over 200 terminal speed dive, was returned to the Air Guard, where it was flown until 1954, when it (and the others) were replaced by the Republic F-84. It takes a stout airframe to shake off that much abuse.
During the test program, Fisher made over 200 dives at speeds at or in excess of Mach 0.79 . His fastest dives attained were Mach 0.83 with the recovery flaps deployed. During these dives, Fisher suffered bruising to the inside of his thighs due to the stick violently oscillating side to side. His wife made and sewed on padding to his flight suit legs to protect him from the stick beating his legs black and blue.
As a side note, Fisher took his 3 year-old son on one of those dives. Herb Fisher Jr. was the fastest toddler on earth until Jet airliners made their passenger debut. Herb Jr. sent me scans of photos documenting the event. Yes, they had to fabricate an oxygen mask for the child. These days, you would go to jail for that stunt….
As to Martindale, I believe his Spitfire accelerated to Mach .89 AFTER the prop shaft failed. The engine certainly was over-sped, which was a common issue with high Mach dives. The prop governor cannot limit the RPM. Many engines were replaced due to running the engine several hundred RPM beyond the allowable maximum resulting from dives.
-
I do not challenge the p47 ability to dive, in fact in aces high p47 have a hard time catching diving 190a's which they should not have.
I have read more pilot reports about the 51d not be able to dive with 109g if the 109g could reach his max speed before the p51 could catch him.
Many times the 109 where shot down well before reaching max speed though, remember also when the p51d where introduced, 90% of German pilots where newbies.
-
Yes the Thunderbolt was a very sturdy design indeed. No Save, the P-47 does not have any problems catching a 190 in a dive as long as the dive is done historically: P-47 dives from its perch several thousand feet above the 190, which is busy gunning for a bomber. When it is almost in gun range the 190 pilot spots the 47 coming screaming down and starts his dive. P-47 catches up quick and kills the 190.
-
If both start diving at 300mph 190 accelerate a bit faster initially like RL, but then 7 ton of liberty should catch up, but it looks from my experience like the 47 have a hard time catching up.
190a8 can dive to 620 mph trembling and shaking the last 20mph in AH, and do a gentle pull up, i have never seen a p47 do that, it might be possible but it has been my lifesaver quite some times in AH.
-
190 has a greater top speed in a dive than the P-47. The P-47 has greater zero-G pushover dive acceleration. It's important that you don't over-G the entry of the dive or you'll just bleed away the advantage and the 190 gets away. The differences in dive performance are not really that significant and the plane that enters the dive first with more initial speed generally wins.
-
The flying brick outhouse...
(http://www.mediafire.com/convkey/9922/1k3teovx7myq9b7fg.jpg)
-
That is a big mofo droptank only a blind engineer could love :lol
-
Another view, same Hellcat. F6F-3, early production variant. 377 to 383 mph at MIL power. A bit lighter than the F6F-5, but less power and not as aero clean. The -5 had cleaned up aero, revised windscreen and enough power to push beyond 400 mph at critical altitude.
(http://www.mediafire.com/convkey/2a12/736rc37hcr5jc8rfg.jpg)
-
I can't find any decent pics online of the F6F and the F4F side by side, either airborne or on the ground. I've seen both of them up close, but only separately, and the thing that greatly surprised me was how large the Hellcat was. I'd always had this assumed idea that it was just an advanced version of the Wildcat - uh, no. The Hellcat wasn't much smaller than the P47, it's incredible how nimble it is, and how well it rates/radius in turns with respect to how it looks, and what it must weigh.
Like I said, the only picture I could find was of a Brit F4F in the foreground, and an F6F in the background, so the Wildcat looks deceptively larger, even though you can still tell it's much smaller.
Anyone have a good example of such a pic?
-
I can't find any decent pics online of the F6F and the F4F side by side, either airborne or on the ground. I've seen both of them up close, but only separately, and the thing that greatly surprised me was how large the Hellcat was. I'd always had this assumed idea that it was just an advanced version of the Wildcat - uh, no. The Hellcat wasn't much smaller than the P47, it's incredible how nimble it is, and how well it rates/radius in turns with respect to how it looks, and what it must weigh.
Like I said, the only picture I could find was of a Brit F4F in the foreground, and an F6F in the background, so the Wildcat looks deceptively larger, even though you can still tell it's much smaller.
Anyone have a good example of such a pic?
This page shows a top view comparison:
http://www.aviatia.net/ww2versus/f4f-wildcat/f4f-vs-f6f/
-
That's actually not to bad of a picture, even though it's a bit of artwork, not an actual pic, that top down view gives a good view from that angle of the comparison I'm looking for side by side, or in this case, nose to nose from the top.
That pic brings up an interesting tidbit, it shows as the armament loadouts that the F6F-5N can have 2 20mm, I'm assuming hispano, and 4 .50 cal guns. That would be a great armament, and if that variant performed as good as our current Hellcat does in game - heh, with that armament package it would be pretty popular I would wager.
-
I can't find any decent pics online of the F6F and the F4F side by side, either airborne or on the ground. I've seen both of them up close, but only separately, and the thing that greatly surprised me was how large the Hellcat was. I'd always had this assumed idea that it was just an advanced version of the Wildcat - uh, no. The Hellcat wasn't much smaller than the P47, it's incredible how nimble it is, and how well it rates/radius in turns with respect to how it looks, and what it must weigh.
Like I said, the only picture I could find was of a Brit F4F in the foreground, and an F6F in the background, so the Wildcat looks deceptively larger, even though you can still tell it's much smaller.
Anyone have a good example of such a pic?
(http://billpekala.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/2012-09-11-Reno_1043And8more_tonemapped.jpg)
(http://www.vg-photo.com/airshow/riverside/usnh/hDSC_0960.jpg)
F8F-2, FM-2, F3F-3, F6F-5, F7F-2N. Note the Bearcat... Nearly same size and weight as the F4F-4, it had more than twice the horsepower.....
(http://home.comcast.net/~bzee1b/Chino09/Grumman/DSZ_4912.jpg)
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/72/FM_Wildcat_F6F_Hellcat_and_F8F_Bearcat_warbirds_in_flight.jpg)
-
Wow, those are some gorgeous pics. :aok
-
Sheldon's Hellcat song:
Hell kitty,
Fast kitty,
Big ball of fur.
Deadly kitty,
Sturdy kitty,
Purr, purr, purr.
-
FYI, dive differences are not nearly as different as people seem to think. I recall reading an American evaluation of the A6M and the separation gained by the American aircraft diving away from was much less than one would expect, being something like 400 yards. 400 yards is useful, but we're talking about the A6M. A P-47 vs Fw190 is going to be a much, much closer thing.
-
Perfect, thanks WW, those are great examples, exactly what I was looking for.
The Bearcat must have been incredible for the time. Imagine flying an F4F Wildat from the 42/43 era, then jumping right into the Bear - what a difference a couple of years made back then, it must of felt unreal.
I still would like to know if we could get that 20mm armed variant of the Hellcat. I realize that is probably as likely as getting the 4 20mm armed Spitfire, but it would be interesting to know how many 20mm armed F6F's served in the war. Something from memory seems to tell me that they were often night fighters, with that big bulbus white radar hub on one wing, but I could be mistaken. Anyhow, a Hellcat with 2 20mm and 4 50 would be nuts if it had the same performance as what he have now.
-
The only F6F armed with 20mm was the -5N night fighter variant. You'd be losing far more performance from the radome than the extra firepower would really be worth.
-
Ok, thanks Sax. Like I said, I thought I had remembered something about that, I just wasn't sure if there was another day fighter variant as well.
-
I THINK I read that standard -3 and -5 were capable of mounting the 20mm in the inboard gun position as well, but that this configuration was never used on the day fighters.
-
The only F6F armed with 20mm was the -5N night fighter variant. You'd be losing far more performance from the radome than the extra firepower would really be worth.
The typical F6F-3N/5N lost 17 to 20 mph in speed. Add to that another 400 lbs of radar and associated gear, plus the extras weight of the cannons... They were effective night fighters, and were used when needed during daylight. The performance penalty was not huge in the Pacific war, but it would be a bigger deal in the game.
-
When a maximum effort was called for, even the nights fighters went.... Ticonderoga turns into the wind....
(https://scontent-a-lga.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-frc3/t31.0-8/10298381_10203714846417041_3212256996685481969_o.jpg)
-
Another view, same Hellcat. F6F-3, early production variant. 377 to 383 mph at MIL power. A bit lighter than the F6F-5, but less power and not as aero clean. The -5 had cleaned up aero, revised windscreen and enough power to push beyond 400 mph at critical altitude.
(http://www.mediafire.com/convkey/2a12/736rc37hcr5jc8rfg.jpg)
Drag wise, I dont think there is any meaningful change between the -3 and -5. The wind screen was the same, only the small square rear window was removed in the -5, so this is a -3:
(http://www.vg-photo.com/airshow/riverside/usnh/hDSC_0960.jpg)
and this must be -5:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/72/FM_Wildcat_F6F_Hellcat_and_F8F_Bearcat_warbirds_in_flight.jpg)
The only difference in power was that water injection became standard with the -5 though many -3 already had them installed. The only other difference to affect performance was all metal ailerons in the -5 in an attempt to improve roll rate (only slightly AFAIK). Speed-wise a -5 hellcat and a -3 hellcat with added water injection should be very very close.
The 383 mph on MIL power as reported is almost the same as what the AH Hellcat achieves with WEP. I've seen numbers up to 391 mph on MIL power. The WEP max speed is achieved at lower alt than the max MIL speed. If we shift the AH curves so MIL power speed at 23,000 is 391 instead of 380, then the WEP peak speed will just about touch the 400 mph line. Of course, a simple global shift is NOT the right thing to do, but it is a decent local approximation.
-
The Hellcat wasn't much smaller than the P47, it's incredible how nimble it is, and how well it rates/radius in turns with respect to how it looks, and what it must weigh.
The F6F has bigger wing area than the P-47 by about 10%. It also weights a bit less (not much though).
-
Drag wise, I dont think there is any meaningful change between the -3 and -5. The wind screen was the same, only the small square rear window was removed in the -5, so this is a -3:
(http://www.vg-photo.com/airshow/riverside/usnh/hDSC_0960.jpg)
and this must be -5:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/72/FM_Wildcat_F6F_Hellcat_and_F8F_Bearcat_warbirds_in_flight.jpg)
The only difference in power was that water injection became standard with the -5 though many -3 already had them installed. The only other difference to affect performance was all metal ailerons in the -5 in an attempt to improve roll rate (only slightly AFAIK). Speed-wise a -5 hellcat and a -3 hellcat with added water injection should be very very close.
The 383 mph on MIL power as reported is almost the same as what the AH Hellcat achieves with WEP. I've seen numbers up to 391 mph on MIL power. The WEP max speed is achieved at lower alt than the max MIL speed. If we shift the AH curves so MIL power speed at 23,000 is 391 instead of 380, then the WEP peak speed will just about touch the 400 mph line. Of course, a simple global shift is NOT the right thing to do, but it is a decent local approximation.
Several changes made from the F6F-3 to the F5F-5 were aimed at drag reduction. The cowling was redesigned, with the exhaust bulge removed and careful attention paid to reduce drag from air leaving the oil cooler. Panel fitting was improved, and the lower cowl flaps replaced by carefully designed exhaust vents. The windscreen was redesigned, and shaped via wind tunnel testing. A flat sheet of armored glass was added, and the interior armored glass was removed. Grumman technical reports indicated that drag had been reduced by 4%.
F3F-3 models fitted with the R-2800-10W were capable of 397 to 401 mph using WEP and water injection. In-service aircraft were more likely at the lower end of that range. The F6F-5, when tested by TAIC and Grumman showed about a 10 mph increase over the -3, all of it directly from the reduction in drag.
When the -5 began to arrive in service, squadrons quickly found out that older -3s cruised slower than the new -5. Thus, the -3 pilots had to run at a higher power setting. This cut into their range. Thus, mission planning was based upon the -5 being throttled back some or limiting the range to what the -3 could do with adequate reserve.
-
Soi three's pretty good reason to have the -3 and -5 qs two speretqate models
(sorry I'v ehad atbit of bro8urbon tonight).
-
Several changes made from the F6F-3 to the F5F-5 were aimed at drag reduction. The cowling was redesigned, with the exhaust bulge removed and careful attention paid to reduce drag from air leaving the oil cooler. Panel fitting was improved, and the lower cowl flaps replaced by carefully designed exhaust vents. The windscreen was redesigned, and shaped via wind tunnel testing. A flat sheet of armored glass was added, and the interior armored glass was removed. Grumman technical reports indicated that drag had been reduced by 4%.
OK, thanks for pointing this out. I'll dig deeper into the literature because I do not remember reading about drag reduction before. There's always an opportunity to learn more.
:aok
-
How to tell an F6F-3 from an F6F-5....
Let's use this iconic Life Magazine photo to demonstrate the differences (between -3s too).
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-b-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn1/t31.0-8/10258146_10203725510323632_2897675423506495879_o.jpg)
Identifying if a particular Hellcat is an F6F-3 or an F6F-5 can be tricky for many. All -3 models have the small windows behind the main canopy. However, some early -5s also had those windows. The first 909 -3s had forward canted radio masts. Later -3s had vertical masts (to the left and right of center), as did the -5s. Not all -5s were painted in overall dark blue.
So, what identifiers or clues help us to determine what version this Hellcat is?
1) Lower cowl flap (omitted after BuNo 39998).
2) Rounded windshield (all-3s).
3) Exhaust bulge on cowling (omitted after BuNo 40234).
4) Straight radio mast (after BuNo 26195).
Since it has the lower cowl flaps, the BuNo of the Hellcat depicted is earlier than 39999. Thus, we know that this is an F6F-3, had a BuNo in the 65890 to 66244 series, and was delivered between July and September of 1943. 30 of this series were delivered to the Royal Navy, and BuNo 66244 was originally assigned to the XF6F-2. From the weathered appearance of the aircraft, odds are delivery was during the early part of that time period.
-
Would it be possible to get some hellcat lessons..?
Always have liked that plane
-
Would it be possible to get some hellcat lessons..?
Always have liked that plane
If I'm on the MA roster when you log in, PM me....