Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: Fowler on April 14, 2002, 09:35:51 PM
-
Hello
First of all id like to say that i feel the F6 is my plane to fly, i had some initial problems but after working through those i have really come to love to fly this plane.
My first question is about dive bombing. I get to about 10k above the base and i try to turn over the aircraft and keep sight of the target but i find this really difficult to do. Is there a better way to get the bombs on target? I really want to become proficent with the f6 in a Jabo Role so mastering this skill is a must for me.
My second question is about flap use. Sometimes i get into a situation where i have a slow aircraft out in front of me and im setting up a shot and he/she breaks hard and i get into a little turning situation. When and how much flaps should i use with this bird?
And last of all I was wondering if the hellcat has one strenght that stands over another? It seems to be a pretty good plane overall but i was wondering if a vetern cat flying could tell me where this girl really shines?
Thanks again if it were not for you guys i would never have even got off the runway :)
Fowler...
-
she shines while in my crosshairs :D
hope you stay with AH, we need more Michigan people in here.
-
When dive bombing I prefer to start no higher than 10k, also dont try and 90° dive to target, 70° is much better. Your enemy here is excess speed, if you have trouble, try starting your actual bomb run at under 7500 (and from a relatively slow speed before the dive). Usually I tend to start out in a 70° dive, aiming in front of the target and pull out a bit, dropping the egg just as the target passes under my nose at 60° or so. You need to be sure an let the bomb travel far enough to arm, so be sure an release at ~1000 feet.
When approaching a slower adversary, I much prefer a high yo-yo to actually slowing down, and then Id prefer a barel roll to flaps also. If however you get into a situation where you are slow, I apply the flaps "as needed" (in other words untill I out turn the guy in front of me). 1-2 notches is all that is recomended, anything more and your going to slow to do anything but die.
There are a few amazing Hellcat Aces out there Akdejavue comes to mind, that can make the thing manuver like a harrier with a bad attitude. As will all planes, getting to know her is the most important. Once you learn the rules, you can learn to break them. I can tell you the Hellcat can do some unbeievable hammerhead stall type manuvers, the trick is being agressive enough to make her flop over, but being quick (and good) enough to recover from the stall/spin before it actually happens.
The Hellcat is a very good all around plane, its not the best at anything. Its not as fast as an F4u or P51, its not as manuverable as a Zeke or Spit, and it doesnt roll as quickly as a Focke Wulfe, but when flown well, it is more than a match for any of the planes in the MA. I fly it like a P47 that can turn a bit.
-
<>
Due to instrumentation problems, I thought the Hellcat and Corsair were about the same speed in actuality.
-
Check out Mathman's F6F Write-Up (http://www.netaces.org/ahplanes/usa/mathmanf6f/mathman.html#title) . I think you'll find most of what you're looking for, including a detailed portion on jabo missions.
HaMmeR
www.netAces.org (http://www.netaces.org)
-
Flaps are one of those things that you need to practice using. I found that there are situations where I will not use them, others I use them all the time. If the plane is that much slower, it may be wise to extend a bit and reverse back into them. Also, you might try pulling your nose above the horizon, drop a notch or two of flaps, and turn with the con. I have found this to be a good way to drop speed when I have to. The thing is, the F6F accelerates very slowly, so you only want to do this if you are certain that you will nail him and that there is nobody around to come in and nail you low and slow.
As far as secrets to the F6F, the only real one is to learn to manage speed. The F6F is probably one of the best planes in the arena at around 225-275mph. If you can keep your speed around this, you will be turning very well and still have speed to pull a hard break if someone comes dropping in on your 6.
As far as what the F6F does best, there really isn't one thing. It is a jack of all trades, master of none. You can Bnz, TnB, and Jabo in it.
I fly it for two reasons:
1) I can do OK in it as I get more and more practice in it.
2) It is my favorite fighter of WW2 :)
Hope you enjoy it, check either Hammer's site or my site. (http://home.attbi.com/~alemanymathman/), and feel free to ask questions.
-math
-
Steven,
You're right about the Hellcat's performance being equal to the F4U's. These two aircraft had almost identical performance when they were equipped with the same engine and propeller. The only edge in speed possessed by the Corsair was at altitudes below 5000 feet, and this was mainly because its supercharger operated differently than that of the Hellcat at those altitudes. To prevent carburetor icing, the Hellcat's supercharger drew its air from the space directly behind the engine, while the Corsair's was drawn from the air-intakes located on the wing-leading edges.
The main reason the Hellcat has suffered from a "low-performance" reputation has to do with a faulty air-speed indicator design that was installed on almost the entire -3 production line. This system consistently showed the Hellcat's top speed as being 20 knots (23mph) slower than a Corsair moving at the same speed. Grumman only discovered this discrepancy after the Navy ordered them to close the "performance gap." This they did, simply copying the Corsair's air-speed indicator system. Apparently, this satisfied the Navy, for nothing else was said about the Hellcat's top-speed being deficient.
However, the Hellcat never shook its "low-performance" reputation. The early performance figures are the ones most often quoted by authors of WWII air-combat history, who either have not done their homework, or simply choose not to believe it. I have read posts on this message board that vehemently deny that the Hellcat's performance can be as good as that of the Corsair which, when boiled down to their basic essence, state that it simply doesn't LOOK as fast. When I made the statement that it didn't make sense to credit the P-47 with a top speed almost 50 mph faster than the Hellcat, when both had the same engine, one fellow replied that the P-47's supercharging was superior (It is, no argument there) and that being heavier doesn't always inhibit a plane's performance (It doesn't). But in summing up, he said "...besides, the Hellcat was a big plane. Have you ever stood beside one." The Hellcat can't be as fast as the P-47 because the Hellcat is such a big plane!? Sorry, fella, but that argument stands on its head!
Naval Air Intelligence conducted performance evaluations of the F6F-5, F4U-1, and the FM-2 against a late model Zero (Model 25 I believe.) Tops speed for the -5 Hellcat was listed as 409 mph at an altitude of 19,000 feet. Top speed for the Corsair at the same altitude was 413 mph. Four mph faster than the Hellcat, the difference that an extra coat of wax can make.
Regards, Shuckins
-
Godwineson, very good write-up, thanks. You mention the speed error being a problem for the F6F-3, so did the F6F-5 correct the airspeed problem? Is the speed used for the F6F-5 in Aces High the correct speed then?
-
Ok, I'm making a post here with more holes in it than a piece of swiss cheese as far as varifiable statistics and reference material but here it goes anyway. :D
Several years ago (and here's where the memory fails me) I read an article in an aviation magazine (I MAY still have the mag somewhere in my house, but it'd take a dedicated Search & Rescue to find it) but the article was written by a Gruman test pilot who flew for Gruman during the war. The Navy was displeased with the F6's roll rate and speed in comparison to the Corsair's so they asked them to test the two planes head to head to see what was causing the differences and to "fix" the Hellcat. This may be the same test that Shuckins was referring to. What they discovered was that the F6 WAS just as fast as the F4U, it was just the the indicator they used (not the dial instrument but the actuall indicator that registers how fast the wind is moving through it). The other thing they discovered, concerning the roll rate, had something to do with the wing postitioning at the wing root I believe (its been a LOOONG time since I read the article and I'm NOT an engineer ;) which they corrected as best they could. This brought about the F6F-5 model with a better roll rate than the -3 model. SO! At least according to the writtings of that Gruman test pilot who flew BOTH the F6 & the F4U under identical situations there was NO difference in the speed of the F6. I'll try to find the magazine if I still have it.
The article also gave a humorus story of how he tried to a "Skip-Hop" take-off in an F4U (something you could do easily in an F6) and nearly took out a row of parked planes and barely got the plane back under controll before plowing into a hanger full of mechanics and planes. :eek:
I loved the F6 in AW and was ALWAYS fumming about the slow speed they gave it in AW. They had the -3 modeled and I was always complaining that they needed the -5 with the better roll rate and true speed of an F6. I'm glad to see the F6 IS faster in AH but STILL not as fast as the F4U. But then the only advantages an F4U would have over an F6 is climb rate, roll rate and better E retention.
Oh and while I'm here :D does anyone know which canopy it is we have here in AW? I know there were several canopy's for the F6 and the later war one was much less like a birdcage type.
Sorry to have hijacked your thread Fowler. I too strongly recommend reading Maths article on Netaces. Its an excellent piece and truly had me missing my ole kitty :( and wanting to work harder to get better with it in AW.
-
Ooops!! :eek: Did I say "What canopy do we have here in AW"? OUCH! A thousand lashes with a wet noodle! :mad: May I be drawn and quartered if I ever err again in so greivous a fashion and ever slip and confuse AH (a truly marvelous product) with AW again.
:rolleyes:
-
Steven,
Yes, Grumman did correct the air-speed indicator system on the -5 Hellcat. As I indicated in my post, Naval Air Intelligence, which was conducting performance evaluations which would benefit our combat pilots in the Pacific, had no reason to stretch the statistics on the Hellcat just to keep Grumman happy.
If I may, I would like to interject another thought here. From what I have read over the years, the Navy apparently played "mind-games" with the companies that built its aircraft during World War II, playing one off against the other. Grumman was constantly being reminded of the "performance gap" between the F6F and the F4U, and Chance-Vought being berated because of the F4U's poor low-speed handling compared to that of the F6F's. How much this may have contributed to the reputations of these two sterling fighters is unknown, but it may be been considerable.
By the way, some sources I have read list the -3 Hellcat's top speed as 376 mph and that of the -5 as 380 mph. This is erroneous. The performance differential between the two models was substantial. Carrier groups that received -3's as replacements for aircraft lost in operations when -5's were not immediately available considered the -3's to be liabilities due to the increased performance and maneuverability of the -5's.
I wish HTC would have the courage to change the flight model of their F6F to correct the errors of the past. An extra 20 knots would be more historically accurate without turning the Hellcat into an uber-plane. How about it Hi-Tech?
Regards, Shuckins
-
hiya Tmast, longtime how ya been? :)
-
<<>>
Well, I may be being subjective, but the F6F is my favorite Pacific Theater aircraft and if this speed deficiency is modeled in Aces High, then I see no problem making comment and bringing it to HTC's attention. 20-knots is a good percentage of its top-end speed and would make a noticeable difference in game-play.
I am curious if he is aware of this or if we are indeed in the wrong here. If we are right and he's made aware of it, I'm curious where it falls into play in action, if any at all, by the Aces High team.
<<>>
TMAST, is this correct? I thought the F6F climbed pretty well for a piece of American iron and generally outclimbed the F4U-1's because of its big wing.
After posting, I thought of something.. if the Hellcat takes x-seconds to get from speed-x to top-speed, and top-speed is actually 20-knots more than realized, then it probably accelerates faster on the whole too. Hmm, this could prove very interesting.
-
OK, here goes...
Does anyone have any data which states not that there was confusion about the top speed/roll rate or anything, but that the F-6F should be 20 knots faster than it is modeled in AH?
-Sikboy
-
There are definately some things very odd with the AH F6F. Although Im not in a position to disclose findings of a recent Top Secret Pony Investigation Team concerning performance of the F6F Flight Model and certain ordinance peculiarities, suffice it to say:
Relax, its just a game :)
-
Guys, I talked with Pyro on the phone about this very same subject, the side-by-side tests Grumman pilot Corky Meyer did in 1943 with an F6F and an F4U. When I mentioned the discrepancy in speed, and asked Pyro if he was aware of it, his only response was "Uh-huh", end of subject as far as that conversation went.
Mr. Meyer spent several months testing the two planes in side by side comparisons and above 5000 feet, their performance was "identical".
In a recent article, he described the feeling the F6F gave you, climbing at 120 mph, 3600 fpm climb rate........excellent view, etc.
I don't look for HTC to do anything to the F6F FM anytime soon. They go on "official" test data, and if the Navy was truly playing mind games during the war, I seriously doubt anyone will find anything official that substantiates Meyer's tests. I have read article after article about how aircraft manufacturers put out skewed data to attempt to get more plane orders (Curtiss Aircraft comes to mind first, followed by Bell), but never anything harsh or uncomplimetary about Grumman.
"The name Grumman on an aircraft or a part has the same meaning as sterling on silver."--Vice Adm. John S McCain, CDR Naval Operation Pacific Fleet, 1944.
Check out "Flight Journal" magazine, April 2002 edition, or
www.flightjournal.com for more articles from Corky Meyer.
-
I am sure HTC has high quality data on the F6F that they based the FM on. If you want to see changes to the FM then produce the documentary evidence so that HTC can evaluate it. That is the way it works, and plenty of changes have been made in the past when people came up with the evidence to support their claims.
Hooligan
-
Hooligan,
The figures developed by Naval Air Intelligence during WWII ARE statistical data. I have seen them published in more than one source over the years. If NAI's data isn't good enough then perhaps the bar has been set too high. NAI's job was to provide the most accurate performance data possible to our combat pilots operating in the Pacific. I would think this would preclude NAI from becoming involved in the political disputes and wrangling that went on between the Navy pencil-pushers and the aircraft manufacturers.
HTC has done a magnificent job in developing Aces High. It is, by far the best combat flight simulation game yet developed. Also, they are not content to rest on their laurels. Indeed, they are continually striving for improvement. Aces High is quite an accomplishment for HTC considering the paucity of funds and resources available to such a small company. It is this continual striving for excellence that leads me to hope that they will modify the F6F's flight model and therefore correct more than 50 years of error.
Regards, Shuckins
-
Originally posted by H. Godwineson
Hooligan,
The figures developed by Naval Air Intelligence during WWII ARE statistical data.
I think Hooligan might be looking for a publication source for this data. I'd be interested in seeing it as well.
But I'd also like to put forth the cautionary statement that I've mentioned before in other posts about upping the performance of a plain based on a single data source:
There might not be a holy grail of data. It is possible that HTC models based on multiple sources. Considering the wide range of performance data on each airframe, this is the approach that makes the most sense to me.
I love the hellcat, and personally, I don't want to see it changed.
-Sikboy
-
Mathman.....
one of the most impressive things about the F6 to me is its rudder authority. I've found you can sucker a con into attacking you...."hang your tail out"....then flick it out of the way and use the incredible dive acceleration to continue the rudder reversal and chase em down. I havent looked at your site in a bit and didnt know if you'd spent any time on that. I know you've mentioned it more than once in other threads.
-
Starting to sound like a typical Luftwhiner post to me.... so where is everyone? Shouldn't you guys be in here ragging on these folks?
-
Originally posted by Urchin
Starting to sound like a typical Luftwhiner post to me.... so where is everyone? Shouldn't you guys be in here ragging on these folks?
Well... not really Urchin. Nobody has called HTC biased. I also haven't really seen anyone insist that changes be made or they'll quit.
Besides... they aren't talking about Nazi planes.
AKDejaVu
-
Did he say "paucity"? Dang, I gotta dig out the ol' Websters!
lol
-
Shuckins:
All I'm saying is that if you really believe the F6F FM is incorrect then you should do more than tell HTC what a report said. Produce the report and show it to HTC, then maybe a change will be forthcoming.
You said:
If NAI's data isn't good enough then perhaps the bar has been set too high.
Well if they aren't willing to change an FM based on NAI data they don't possess then I hardly think the bar is too high. Part of the criteria for basing an FM on certain data would be that they would actually have to see the data in question, wouldn't you agree?
Hooligan
-
Originally posted by Urchin
Starting to sound like a typical Luftwhiner post to me.... so where is everyone? Shouldn't you guys be in here ragging on these folks?
Hey, I'm keeping up my end Urchin lol.
-Sikboy
-
Hooligan,
Your point is well taken. The data from Air Intelligence has been used by various authors over the years (Unfortunately, not by enough of them.) in their technical histories of the Hellcat. I first ran across it in an article about the F6F in the October 1974 edition of Wings magazine. The latest that I have seen it reprinted was in a technical history of the Zero fighter (Can't remember the author's name off-hand, but he had several interviews with Saburo Sakai) which I purchased back in December.
I am certain those reports are still on file somewhere, but getting an actual copy of them would be about as difficult as finding dragons teeth. I recently e-mailed Barrett Tillman asking for information about Hellcat armament. He graciously replied to my questions. I think I will fire off another e-mail to see if he knows how to obtain a copy of these reports.
By the way, if I had known that using the term "paucity" would cause any confusion I would have watched my language!
Regards, Shuckins
-
Over the years I have seen a lot of data and a lot of comparisson tests where hellcats and hogs were tested with other planes like 190A5's and p51B's. The Corsair allways rolled much faster than the hellcat, climbed about the same and was faster at all alts. Turn was about the same with the edge given to the hellcat .The -3 hellcat actually climbed a little better than the -5 because it was lighter.
A lot of different props and versions and boost levels were used in a lot of the tests. the Corsair came equipped with at least 3 different props that I know of. The corsair and hellcat used the same engine with a different carb and intake ducts but with identical HP. The Corsair had the best ailerons of any plane in the war and the wing root junction contributed to it's higher, low level speed. The average of most tests I have seen gives the Corsair about a 15-20 mph edge at both alt and on the deck. Using navy test data the Corsair was about as fast as the 51b and outclimbed it. Both the hellcat and corsair handily outperformed the 190.
Thing is... I wouldn't mind seeing a faster hellcat but a real case could be made for HTC being "right" in this instance.
lazs
-
Originally posted by TMASTadon
Ok, I'm making a post here with more holes in it than a piece of swiss cheese as far as varifiable statistics and reference material but here it goes anyway. :D
Several years ago (and here's where the memory fails me) I read an article in an aviation magazine (I MAY still have the mag somewhere in my house, but it'd take a dedicated Search & Rescue to find it) but the article was written by a Gruman test pilot who flew for Gruman during the war. The Navy was displeased with the F6's roll rate and speed in comparison to the Corsair's so they asked them to test the two planes head to head to see what was causing the differences and to "fix" the Hellcat. This may be the same test that Shuckins was referring to. What they discovered was that the F6 WAS just as fast as the F4U, it was just the the indicator they used (not the dial instrument but the actuall indicator that registers how fast the wind is moving through it). The other thing they discovered, concerning the roll rate, had something to do with the wing postitioning at the wing root I believe (its been a LOOONG time since I read the article and I'm NOT an engineer ;) which they corrected as best they could. This brought about the F6F-5 model with a better roll rate than the -3 model. SO! At least according to the writtings of that Gruman test pilot who flew BOTH the F6 & the F4U under identical situations there was NO difference in the speed of the F6. I'll try to find the magazine if I still have it.
The article also gave a humorus story of how he tried to a "Skip-Hop" take-off in an F4U (something you could do easily in an F6) and nearly took out a row of parked planes and barely got the plane back under controll before plowing into a hanger full of mechanics and planes. :eek:
I loved the F6 in AW and was ALWAYS fumming about the slow speed they gave it in AW. They had the -3 modeled and I was always complaining that they needed the -5 with the better roll rate and true speed of an F6. I'm glad to see the F6 IS faster in AH but STILL not as fast as the F4U. But then the only advantages an F4U would have over an F6 is climb rate, roll rate and better E retention.
Oh and while I'm here :D does anyone know which canopy it is we have here in AW? I know there were several canopy's for the F6 and the later war one was much less like a birdcage type.
Sorry to have hijacked your thread Fowler. I too strongly recommend reading Maths article on Netaces. Its an excellent piece and truly had me missing my ole kitty :( and wanting to work harder to get better with it in AW.
Corky Meyer wrote a piece about this for Flight Journal magazine. I have the article and can contact Corky should HTC wish to talk to him. Corky was the Senior Test Pilot on the F6F-5 program, as well as the F8F program.
To improve roll rate, Grumman incorporated an aileron spring tab system in the F6F-5. For details, see Diz Dean's "America's Hundred Thousand". There is also data available on the NACA server as well.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Flight Journal reprinted the article by Corky Meyer entitled "Navy Taste Test; Hellcat vs. Corsair" in a special edition called "Fighters."
In a side-bar to the main article, Corky talked about the advances made in supercharging during the 1920's through 1930's. The two-stage supercharger installed on the Hellcat and Corsair were first used on the F4F. Below are some of the comments from that article...
"The two-speed supercharger was geared to the crankshaft and attached to the rear of the engine; it augmented the main stage and boosted service-ceiling altitudes to over 30,000 feet while increasing level-flight performance to 325 mph (F4F). Because the fuel/air mixture was so highly compressed when the two stages (high and low) were added to the main stage, large radiators/intercoolers were needed to cool the air going into the carburetor; this prevented detonation and pre-ignition, which would ruin an engine rapidly. Octane limits were now required to be as high as 145. Fortunately, the U.S. was way ahead of its enemies in developing octane ratings over 100. This new superchager now required a three-position handle next to the throttle. The handle had "Main," "Low," and "High" inscribed on it and was shifted as the altitude requirements dictated."
"The Hellcat and Corsair were both equipped with the same R-2800 engines. Their level-flight performance now exceeded 400 mph and they had service ceilings of 38,000 feet..."
"The P-47 Thunderbolt and the Lockheed P-38 had turbo supercharging that gave them service ceilings of 40,000 feet and a 460 mph level performance. These aircraft and engine combinations did, however, take much longer to develop, they were much heavier, and they required long, complicated ducting to maintain proper weight and balance. An airplane had to be designed especially for such installations. The P-38, for instance, took five years to reach combat. The Grumman F6F-3 only took two years and one month to become combat ready."
There you have it guys. A first-person account by an expert witness who certainly should know the facts. If asked, I'm sure Corky could produce statistical data to back up his statements.
Regards, Shuckins
-
It's an interesting quote to be sure, but, in my opinion, it leaves a bit to be desired as far as conclusive proof that the F-6F5 should be remodeled. Perhaps it is addressed in some other part of the test, but this passage makes no mention of what models are being tested. If we just went by engine type (which seems to be what we are going by) then the F-6F3 and the should have been capable of 400+ MPH. This would be the first time I've ever head this projection. This is a narrative account of a flight test from long ago, by Grumman's test pilot. I really don't see how anyone could use this to make/change a flight model, expecially when it seems to conflict with most of the other data collected on the subject. This is much like the time someone used a narrative account of a Kurt Tank flight test of the Dora to show that the D9 should be controllable up to the very edge of the speed of sound. It makes for great reading, but it conflicts with the rest of the data on hand (or at least we must assume that it does, or else HTC is just making things up as they go).
At least that's how I see it.
-Sikboy
-
Sikboy,
Let me reassure you that I do not consider you to be anti-Hellcat!
Once statistics make their way into historical archives they often become "set in concrete," whether they make any sense or not. One reader of an earlier thread about this topic commented that the Navy was certainly aware of the discrepancy between the Hellcat's actual speed and that given by the air-speed-indicator system. He included a photo-copy of several pages from the Hellcat's pilot handbook where the pilots were instructed to ADD to the published speeds. The amounts added varied, depending upon the flight conditions.
Testimony given by a top test-pilot and the Air Intelligence Center should carry more weight that given by the average arm-chair expert.
Regards, Shuckins
-
I find the tone of this thread to be very cordial and very interesting. I look to this thread first to see if anything new has been posted before looking elsewhere. No demands or screaming for change, just a good discussion about the merits of the data. I may be subjective though, the Hellcat is my favorite PTO aircraft.
-
Steven,
I don't know how many of my post you have seen so I will start off with telling you that I have my hands on every piece of information on the F4U ever printed anywhere by anyone.
Any NAVAIR docs or otherwise that exist I have with the exception of the British AFDU which I will have soon.
Anyway I have also read the artical by Corky Myer which was published by Barret Tillman of Flight Journal.
1. First off let me say that I believe the Hellcat was a solid 400MPH A/C at 20K or close to that.
2. I have had but no longer have the original test documents of the F6F-5 post air speed indicator fix. I borrowed them from Frances Dean of "AHT" but I have long since returned them. In any case what they did to get top speed was take approx 5 production A/C run them to top speed at various alts and take the average speed. At least half of the birds tested di achieve over 400MPH at alt. However some of them tested were significantly slower brining down the average.
3. In Corky Myers test as well as the Test against the A6M5 and FW190 the F4U is approx. 30MPH faster at sea level and between 5 to 15mph at alt.in the later test. According to Corkey Myer this was because of a more efficient means of Air intake in the F4U. Keep in mind that since both engines are rated for the same power at sea level no advantage or disadvantage is given in AH.
4. In the Vought Archives they have the drag coefficients listed for each A/C listed as
F4U-1= .020
F6F-5= .023
This would account for a speed advantage for the F4U at all alts as long as rated power is the same.
HOWEVER(Vought) they still have the Max speed of the F6F-5 as 400MPH. I am a bit surprised that AH hasn't used the Vought chart since it is as detailed as any I have seen.
5. The F4U-1D in AH is the only A/C I am aware of that is modeled with a drag penalty from external stores Pylons regardless of loadout. Otherwise it would have a top speed of 366MPH at sea level and 417MPH at 20K.
Here is the Vought chart I am speaking of
-
F4UDOA,
Great post! Would you happen to know the drag coefficient for the P-47? It appears to be a sleek design in spite of it's great bulk. Is it's drag coefficient better than that of the Hellcat?
Regards, Shuckins
-
F4UDOA, I see your posts on occasion but can't really put anything in particular to your name. However, much of this stuff is over my head and I'm just enjoying watching the discussion. I can't really offer anything of use to either side here. Why do you collect so much technical data? Do you work on flight models or just like to collect? Anyway, it sounds as though the Hellcat might be flying around a little castrated.
Have you seen the new Wildcat models? I'm VERY to happy to see a possible early-war Pacific direction. :)
-
Hmmm... the plot thickens :)
So what we are looking at is this: The F-6F5 has a top speed of @400 mph at 20,000 feet. This is established through three sources that are mentioned here (and two of those are presented here). These sources are:
1. The Corky Meyer article from Flight Journal. 2. The Vought performance charts presented by F4UDOA and 3. The F6F-5 Pilots manual, which instructs pilots to add a certain number to offset a faulty speedo.
Do I have this correct? If so, this is probably most most compelling argument I've seen on correcting a performance oversite. Not only are the figures being pursued provided, but also an explaination for the discrepency between data sources is also provided. This is very nice work in my opinion to all who have taken part in this discussion.
I'm one of the biggest skeptics when it comes to performance changes, even in models I enjoy flying. But I've been won over in this case. Are there any dissenters left?
-Sikboy
-
Heyas
I used to have a boat load of data on my webpage but my ISP changed from @home.com to .comcast.net and it porked my webpage. Anyway I haven't had time to repost everything.
The answer to you question Shuckins the Cdo of the P-47 is listed as .022
The Top speed of the P-47 at sea level is listed as 354MPH in a hybred P-47D razorback with a R2800-63. Many have asked for this bird in AH.
Stevens,
I collect the source docs because I realized that most authors of WW2 aviation books just reprint old data and myth. In fact you might think the P-51 won the war by itself. I like to read autobiographies and collect source documents. I am very plane oriented however which does reduce my abilty to comment on some A/C. However I find that aquiring Navy/Marine docs far easier than their Army counter parts.
I reccomend and have these books
Barret Tillmans
Corsair
Hellcat
ZeroJapans Legendary Fighter by warbird history
America's Hundred Thousand by Frances Dean
Classic Warbird Buyers Guild by Jeffrey Ethell
Symposium by the "Socioty of Experamental Test Pilots"
1989 Evaluation of the F6F-5, F4U-1D, P-51D, P-47D-40
Butch O'Hare's Memoirs
"Fatefull Rendevous"
"Wings and Warriors" Donald Engin
"Report Of Joint Fighter Conferance 1944" Schiffer Publishing
There are others but for anecdotal evaluations these are the best.
The Symposium of Expermental test pilots was done by Modern Fighter Pilots and IMO should be taken very seriously since they use modern evaluation techniques. Their finding dispell some myth I think.
-
F4UDOA, it sounds like you have quite the collection of data! I do actually have Tillman's "Hellcat" and then the corresponding "Wildcat" books. But I'm actually much more interested in air-combat from the Vietnam War and I concentrate my collecting on that subject. In fact, I really don't know much about WW2 and really only started AH almost 1-yr ago as a small diversion to take during my busy schedule. However, Aces High proved a lot of quick and fast fun combined with the fact that I was accepted into the best squadron online (332nd Flying Mongrels) which is made up of the best people you can ever know, I have made AH more than just a diversion in my life. It must be nice for the HTC people to have a job that has such a positive influence on people's lives.
Anyway, back to topic... it seems there is some good data evidencing a greater performance for the Hellcat in Aces High, but I'm guessing HTC reviewed all this data during their initial research and then made their choice and I don't see them making any change to their Hellcat model. I for one don't know which data is correct, but the conflicting data as provided in this thread does make me do some mental gymnastics and really wonder.
:D
-
Steven,
I have done some serious testing with AH planes compared to Real Life stuff and what I have found is this.
AH is not only almost always right they are frighteningly almost 100% on. I mean stuff like fuel consumption vrs performance ratio's, top speeds at alt. IAS vrs TAS. Even the smallest details are almost always 100% correct.
However it does not always mean that they use the performance numbers I would like to see. For instance the F6F top speed. Or the charts used for the F4U-4. I don't spend a great deal of time complaining about it though because while I would use different information their information is valid also. Just different from mine.
Personally I would luv to see HTC open up their vault of data(not FM secrets) to the AH community. For me the data is as much fun for me as the game itself. But then again I am a huge geek. Or at least have a Q and A with the community once in a while.
One of the biggest issues I have with HTC is climb vrs acceleration. HTC and many of the math types like to tie them together and I strongly dissagree.
-
Steven and F4UDOA,
One of the things that I have always wondered about the Hellcat is this: Why wasn't the F6F designed "tweaked" as much as the Corsair or Thunderbolt or Lightning were to achieve more performance?
Grumman stuck with the three-bladed, variable pitch, Hamilton-Standard airscrew throughout the Hellcat's production run. All other aircraft which used the Pratt and Whitney R-2800 series engines used four-bladed, variable-pitch airscrews, except for the earliest production models of the Corsair. How much would the extra thrust produced by a four-bladed propeller have helped the Hellcat's performance? The Hellcat could have easily handled the fat-bladed propeller installed on the later models of the P-47. One American ace in Europe (I believe his name was Johnson) had one of these propellers retrofitted to his P-47 and it allowed him to outclimb Spitfires. He stated that "...Never again did an Me-109 or FW-190 outclimb me." (Paraphrased)
Perhaps such airscrews were in short supply. There was a war on at the time, after all, and every aircraft factory in the country was in full swing. Otherwise, this seems to be one of those relatively "easy" production changes that could have yielded a substantial increase in performance, but which was inexplicably never undertaken.
By the way, there was a design study undertaken by Grumman to install a Pratt and Whitney R-4350 engine in a Hellcat.
Drool!
Regards, Shuckins
-
I once read somewhere that the Hellcat concentrated on production rather than experimentation. I too would wonder about a four-bladed prop on the kittie. The thing that I love most about her is her simplicity and straight-forward design for the job needed. However, the Hellcat was a very good fighter in its theater of operations and there probably wasn't much demand for improvement considering the F8F Bearcat was just around the corner. Bummer that the Bearcat just missed seeing action...though it WAS in the theater on a CV nearing Japan just as the war ended. I think, if I remember right too, the Bearcats couldn't take off because the CV forgot some important parts for the aircraft like tailhooks or something.
-
Steven,
Absolutely right. The Hellcat's strengths were it's simplicity, performance, ruggedness, firepower, and range. All of these were major factors in the Pacific. The Navy's requirements of range and strike capability exacted some performance penalties compared to it's land-based contemporaries. The Seafire II may have been the best low-level carrier fighter of the war, but it did not have the robust construction necessary for carrier operations. The only other Allied fighter capable of meeting all of these requirements was the Corsair, and it did not carrier qualify until January of 1945. Despite its' performance, even the F8F Bearcat could not perform all of the Hellcat's missions.
Perhaps the greatest testimony to its' effectiveness can be found in the following statistics:
1. In a year and a half of combat operations, Hellcats destroyed more than 5,100 enemy aircraft.
2. Less than 300 were lost in combat due to enemy air activity.
Captain Eric Brown of the RNAF rated it the most significant carrier fighter of the war. He further stated it had a major impact on the air war in the Pacific Theater, undoubtedly altering its course.
Regards, Shuckins
-
For what it is worth, you can read the Standard Aircraft Characteristics Chart of the f65-5 at
http://www.history.navy.mil/branches/hist-ac/fighter.htm
I think this is a post-war version of this report given the bueair number system on the side, but I could be wrong. I have no idea whether any adjustemnt is made for inacurracies in the pitot tube.
If you read the f6f anf f4u pilot's manuals you see charts correcting the Indicated Air Speed measure up about 10 knots for the F6f and down about the same amount for the F4u-1. I have no idea why such information would not already be reflected in the flight test data.
-Blogs
Your point is well taken. The data from Air Intelligence has been used by various authors over the years (Unfortunately, not by enough of them.) in their technical histories of the Hellcat. I first ran across it in an article about the F6F in the October 1974 edition of Wings magazine. The latest that I have seen it reprinted was in a technical history of the Zero fighter (Can't remember the author's name off-hand, but he had several interviews with Saburo Sakai) which I purchased back in December.
I am certain those reports are still on file somewhere, but getting an actual copy of them would be about as difficult as finding dragons teeth. I recently e-mailed Barrett Tillman asking for information about Hellcat armament. He graciously replied to my questions. I think I will fire off another e-mail to see if he knows how to obtain a copy of these reports.
By the way, if I had known that using the term "paucity" would cause any confusion I would have watched my language!
Regards, Shuckins [/B][/QUOTE]
-
I've always wondered why they did not put four blades on the f6 too. And it seems paddle blades only show up in Europe. I wonder why?
-Blogs
Originally posted by H. Godwineson
Steven and F4UDOA,
One of the things that I have always wondered about the Hellcat is this: Why wasn't the F6F designed "tweaked" as much as the Corsair or Thunderbolt or Lightning were to achieve more performance?
Grumman stuck with the three-bladed, variable pitch, Hamilton-Standard airscrew throughout the Hellcat's production run. All other aircraft which used the Pratt and Whitney R-2800 series engines used four-bladed, variable-pitch airscrews, except for the earliest production models of the Corsair. How much would the extra thrust produced by a four-bladed propeller have helped the Hellcat's performance? The Hellcat could have easily handled the fat-bladed propeller installed on the later models of the P-47. One American ace in Europe (I believe his name was Johnson) had one of these propellers retrofitted to his P-47 and it allowed him to outclimb Spitfires. He stated that "...Never again did an Me-109 or FW-190 outclimb me." (Paraphrased)
Perhaps such airscrews were in short supply. There was a war on at the time, after all, and every aircraft factory in the country was in full swing. Otherwise, this seems to be one of those relatively "easy" production changes that could have yielded a substantial increase in performance, but which was inexplicably never undertaken.
By the way, there was a design study undertaken by Grumman to install a Pratt and Whitney R-4350 engine in a Hellcat.
Drool!
Regards, Shuckins