Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: eddiek on July 18, 2003, 05:55:45 AM
-
Interesting reading, though you have to take it with a grain of salt......
Top fighters rated for the ETO and PTO.
ETO:
#1: P-47
#2: FW-190 series
I like and respect Corky Meyer's opinions and write ups. He was a test pilot for Grumman back then, when WWII was raging, and he got to fly all manner of aircraft.
What I keep wondering is if and when HTC and other flight sim makers are going to look at the data and adjust the F6F's true top speed to over 400 mph. Meyer wrote a nice article about a year ago, in which he described side by side testing of the F4U and the Hellcat, and he described an error in the placement of the pitot tube for the airspeed indicator on the F6F that caused it to read slow. Side by side testing showed the F6F to be every bit as fast as the Corsair ABOVE 5K, but below that the Corsair was faster.
FWIW, before the flaming starts, bear in mind that the fighter rating seems to be based on how much impact overall a fighter had on the war. Based on that criteria, I kinda agree with their opinion. The Jug and 190 did it all, and did it better than their counterparts.
-
What were the best rated for the PTO?
-
I'd venture to guess the A6M series, and either the F6F or the
P-38.
-
F6F was rated the best in the PTO.
-
Eddiek,
I respect Corkey Meyers opinion as much as anyone but do you really expect the lead Grumman test pilot to pick anything but the F6F?
I have been trying to contact Mr.Meyer as I have several questions for him.
In the fall FJ is doing a special issue on the F4u. In general Flight Journal does not give very positive view of the F4U. In fact last year FJ did an issue where they reviewed the best WW2 fighters based on the findings of the 1944 joint fighter conferance. Barely a mention of the F4U was made even thought the pilots at the conferance voted the F4U the best carrier fighter by an overwhelming majority.
I already know without seeing the issue that it will be an "Ensign Eliminator special". It will never mention that the F4U started replacing the Hellcat in 1944 when the Navy decided it was a superior fighter A/C and suitable if not equal as a carrier qualified fighter (and it was until the early 60's in the reserves). It will not mention the superior performance of the F4U compared to the F6F or the far superior ordinance carrying capability.
In fact the F6F was a true 400MPH fighter but by the time of late 1944 the production F4U-1A had a top speed of 430+MPH. This will not be mentioned in Flight Journal.
Rant mode off :D
-
Corky's approach is centered on overall effectivity. In now way was a the P47 better than the FW190, or the 109G :p
-
Originally posted by F4UDOA
Eddiek,
I respect Corkey Meyers opinion as much as anyone but do you really expect the lead Grumman test pilot to pick anything but the F6F?
I have been trying to contact Mr.Meyer as I have several questions for him.
In the fall FJ is doing a special issue on the F4u. In general Flight Journal does not give very positive view of the F4U. In fact last year FJ did an issue where they reviewed the best WW2 fighters based on the findings of the 1944 joint fighter conferance. Barely a mention of the F4U was made even thought the pilots at the conferance voted the F4U the best carrier fighter by an overwhelming majority.
I already know without seeing the issue that it will be an "Ensign Eliminator special". It will never mention that the F4U started replacing the Hellcat in 1944 when the Navy decided it was a superior fighter A/C and suitable if not equal as a carrier qualified fighter (and it was until the early 60's in the reserves). It will not mention the superior performance of the F4U compared to the F6F or the far superior ordinance carrying capability.
In fact the F6F was a true 400MPH fighter but by the time of late 1944 the production F4U-1A had a top speed of 430+MPH. This will not be mentioned in Flight Journal.
Rant mode off :D
Actually, F4UDOA, you said it all in the first sentence. It is an opinion call, and nobody's opinions are completely unbiased. I noticed yours seem to be colored by your obvious love for the F4U, for example.
For the record, the F4U is one of my favorite aircraft of all time.
-
Your right,
I am biased. But I'm not a contributing editor of a magazine.
My dissapointment is the attempt to re-write history by some authors or publications.
The facts are more than enough to make a decision. If the topic of the artical which had the most kills I would be the first to say the F6F.
However this is not the case. In fact the F4U had far more kills in 1943 than the F6F when the war was still in doubt. The F6F scored most of it's kills in late 1944 in the Marianes campain. I think timing counts for something. FYI I have the docs to back this up.
The same can be said of the scores achieved by some aces in WW2. It is one thing to have 26 kills when your Joe Foss in an F4F-4 in 1942 and completely another to have 40 in a P-38 in late 1944. Bong had more kills but Foss faced tougher pilots and had less than a superior A/C to do it in.
But hey if we are just comparing numbers then there is no arguement from me who was the top ace.
-
Originally posted by F4UDOA
Eddiek,
I respect Corkey Meyers opinion as much as anyone but do you really expect the lead Grumman test pilot to pick anything but the F6F?
I have been trying to contact Mr.Meyer as I have several questions for him.
In the fall FJ is doing a special issue on the F4u. In general Flight Journal does not give very positive view of the F4U. In fact last year FJ did an issue where they reviewed the best WW2 fighters based on the findings of the 1944 joint fighter conferance. Barely a mention of the F4U was made even thought the pilots at the conferance voted the F4U the best carrier fighter by an overwhelming majority.
I already know without seeing the issue that it will be an "Ensign Eliminator special". It will never mention that the F4U started replacing the Hellcat in 1944 when the Navy decided it was a superior fighter A/C and suitable if not equal as a carrier qualified fighter (and it was until the early 60's in the reserves). It will not mention the superior performance of the F4U compared to the F6F or the far superior ordinance carrying capability.
In fact the F6F was a true 400MPH fighter but by the time of late 1944 the production F4U-1A had a top speed of 430+MPH. This will not be mentioned in Flight Journal.
Rant mode off :D
Several things to mention.
Post war interviews of Japanese fighter pilots revealed that they considered the F6F their most dangerous foe. Not the P-38 or the F4U. Many of them believed that the Hellcat could match their late-war Zeros in maneuverability.
Even if we ignore the Japanese pilots, we can't ignore that the F6F shot down a great many Japanese aircraft than any other type, Navy, Marines or Army.
As the war progressed and Vought fixed or minimized the problems with the F4U that caused the Navy to reject it for carrier duty, they began to appear in greater numbers. Nonetheless, the primary carrier fighter remained the F6F through the end of the war. Production continued until November of 1945, albeit at a much reduced rate (just like every other military aircraft). One can easily trace the increase in F4U deployment to the Kamakazi threat. As the Kamakazis became the greater threat, the Navy increased the number of fighters deployed aboard ship. Many land based Marine squadrons were hastily carrier qualified and sent to the fleet (with this process beginning in October of 1944, with the first new deployments on 12/28/44 aboard the Essex).
F4Us could lift more weight of ordnance than the F6F, but seldom if ever did so from a carrier. There were strict rules in place for maximum loads for both deck runs and catapult launches. Virtually all Corsairs flying with very heavy loads operated from shore facilities.
When the F4U-4 appeared in February of 1945, the Corsair had finally and clearly overtaken the F6F as fighter. However, that would be short lived as the the F8F was being delivered to squadrons and would begin arriving in theater by August. In terms of fighter capability, the F8F was superior to the F4U-4 in every category except maximum speed above 20,000 feet. Oddly, nearly every publication I've seen quotes Navy numbers for the F8F where it's maximum speed is listed as 421 mph at 19,700 feet. However, these numbers came from a single aircraft, tested at full load. Grumman test data shows a maximum speed of 445 mph (exactly the same that Grumman AND the Navy list for the F7F). French Armee De l'Air data also indicates a speed in excess of 440 mph for the F8F-1.
Not to divert too much from the basic topic, let me present a few figures on the F8F
F8F-1
Empty weight: 7,070 lbs
Gross weight; 9,386 lbs
Max power: 2,100 hp
Max speed: 421 mph (yeah, sure :))
F8F-2
Empty weight: 7,690 lbs
Gross weight: 10,426 lbs
Max power: 2,250 hp
Max speed: 447 mph.
On the plus side for the F8F-2 had a slightly redesigned cowling reportedly worth 6 mph. On the down side was an increase in weight by over half a ton. The slight increase in power (just about 6%) could not completely overcome the 10% increase in weight. And, this is reflected in the reduced climb rate compared to the F8F-1. Yet, the Navy test data says the much heavier -2 is 26 mph faster. Grumman was incredulous at the time and argued that the Navy's data was flawed. It seems that they had a strong case too. Bob Hall was convinced that the Navy intentionally avoided using the water injection, just as they did when testing the prototype in 1944 and stated such in an internal Grumman memo. I don't recall the Navy Engineering officer's name who was placed in charge of the F8F project, but do recall that one was hired by United Aircraft in late 1945 (United Aircraft was the parent company of Vought). Competition between Vought and Grumman was more than keen, it was pure cut-throat. Grumman and Vought both placed employees in the rival's company and corporate spying was rampant. It wasn't uncommon for Navy and Army test pilots to be offered "special" incentives to make sure a particular aircraft performed as well as advertised, or even better in some cases.
Has anyone researched why the F8F was not available in early 1945? It seems that the powers in charge were unwilling to transition from the F6F to the F8F and suffer a short term loss of production while Grumman retooled their production line. Grumman was forced to maintain their delivery rate and build F8Fs with excess manpower and virtually no production space. Meanwhile, the F4U was being built by Vought, Goodyear and Brewster! United Aircraft had some serious pull with the War Production Board, who wouldn't even take Leroy Grumman's phone calls... Don't ya just love politics? Eastern Aircraft (GM) was more than willing to begin immediate retooling for the F8F, but once again the War Production Board felt that the FM-2 should remain in production. Not until February of 1945 was Eastern handed an order for the F3M-1 Bearcat. Even then, they were to continue building FM-2s until after the war ended.
More than a few people have claimed that the WPB killed as many American airmen as did the enemy. But what does one expect when it was loaded down with former excutives from Curtiss, United Aircraft and General Motors?
But, back to the original discussion.
Vought's F4U series were tremendous aircraft, with the F4U-4 being the best all around fighter-bomber of the war. However, as a pure fighter the F6F was marginally superior to the F4U-1 series. It had no vices. It was as rugged as anything else flying. It was a joy to fly around the ship (the F4U was decidedly NOT a joy in the pattern and especially on final). In terms of performance, the F4U-1 had a slight edge in speed at all altitudes and a significantly faster roll rate. Climb, turn rate and stability all favored the Hellcat.
When the F4U-4 arrived, it reset the high water mark, but only until the F8F-1 arrived.
I do agree that the F4U doesn't get the press it so richly deserves.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Widewing,
On the subject of which was the penultimate dogfighter of it's time I would be a fool to argue that and other A/C other than the F8F would be king.
However
1. No F8F ever saw combat in WW2.
2. The F4U was in US service much longer than the F8F because of range and versitility.
3. I can provide with one pilots account of a dogfight between an F8F and F4U-1D in which the F4U was victorious. This was a wingtip to wing tip on the runway start as well. I recall the story of the F8F pilot making two overhead passes on a P-51 or 38 (not sure) before it could get off the runway. Not so here. The pilot was Don Engin Author of "Wings and Warriors" former combat pilot, test pilot, Commander of the USS America aircraft carrier as well as former curator of the National Air and Space museam.
Vought's F4U series were tremendous aircraft, with the F4U-4 being the best all around fighter-bomber of the war. However, as a pure fighter the F6F was marginally superior to the F4U-1 series. It had no vices. It was as rugged as anything else flying. It was a joy to fly around the ship (the F4U was decidedly NOT a joy in the pattern and especially on final). In terms of performance, the F4U-1 had a slight edge in speed at all altitudes and a significantly faster roll rate. Climb, turn rate and stability all favored the Hellcat.
I absolutely dissagree here.
I will quote three unbiased sources of considerable weight.
1. The 1944 Joint Fighter Conferance- Chose the F4U-1D as the best carrier production fighter over the F6F-5 61% to 31%. Also it is interesting to note that only about 30% of the attendies were Navy or Marine. Most were contract, British or Army.
2. The US Navy in Mid 1944 chose the F4U-1 to replace the F6F saying it was a superior figher and at least as suitable for carrier operation. I have the exact quote from the Navy but I have to look it up. It comes from Barret Tillmans F4U in combat.
3. The Socioty Of Experamental test pilots- They tested a F6F-5, FG-1D(F4U-1D, P-47D-40 and P-51D. They chose the F4U as the best dogfighting A/C because of light stick forces, performance and get this, a gentle stall. They were very critical of the F6F because of high stick and rudder forces as well as an inability to turn right at low speed. It is also important to note that their test were done with the F4U at a weight of 11,000LBS and the F6F was at 10,500lbs. So the F6F relative weight should have been 500lbs more than the F4U. So even with a 1,000lbs advantage it still did not win the evaluation.
The SETP as they are known is the kicker because Corkey Meyer is the founder of that orginization.
I wonder if Boone Guyton had written that artical if it would have been different?
BTW Widewing I really enjoy these conversations so keep it coming please.
:D
-
Those are the two planes I would have wanted to be in if it was my butt getting shot at. Inlines are nice, but radials get you home when you screw up.
-
I am surprised the History Channel was even able to properly identify prop jobs from jets....
-
Originally posted by Widewing
Post war interviews of Japanese fighter pilots revealed that they considered the F6F their most dangerous foe. Not the P-38 or the F4U. Many of them believed that the Hellcat could match their late-war Zeros in maneuverability.
I've read some of those interviews too.
The curious thing about it is that the Hellcat was also mentioned as being superior in roll to the Corsair, which doesn't seem to be the case from the charts I've seen. Moreover, at least one evaluation apparently concluded that comparative manoeuvrability was similar for both the F4U and F6F versus the A6M5 (i.e. only turn with a Zero above 250 mph; can stay with it briefly at just over 200).
I came away with a definite impression that the Japanese pilots had formed opinions on the basis of the relative tactics used; F4Us and P-38s stuck to the hit-and-run approach, and thus were considered rather unmanoeuvrable. F6Fs seem to have fought more like super-F4Fs, using good teamwork, firepower and durability to enter and win a many-on-many dogfight.
-
Originally posted by F4UDOA
Widewing,
On the subject of which was the penultimate dogfighter of it's time I would be a fool to argue that and other A/C other than the F8F would be king.
However
1. No F8F ever saw combat in WW2.
2. The F4U was in US service much longer than the F8F because of range and versitility.
3. I can provide with one pilots account of a dogfight between an F8F and F4U-1D in which the F4U was victorious. This was a wingtip to wing tip on the runway start as well. I recall the story of the F8F pilot making two overhead passes on a P-51 or 38 (not sure) before it could get off the runway. Not so here. The pilot was Don Engin Author of "Wings and Warriors" former combat pilot, test pilot, Commander of the USS America aircraft carrier as well as former curator of the National Air and Space museam.
I absolutely dissagree here.
I will quote three unbiased sources of considerable weight.
1. The 1944 Joint Fighter Conferance- Chose the F4U-1D as the best carrier production fighter over the F6F-5 61% to 31%. Also it is interesting to note that only about 30% of the attendies were Navy or Marine. Most were contract, British or Army.
2. The US Navy in Mid 1944 chose the F4U-1 to replace the F6F saying it was a superior figher and at least as suitable for carrier operation. I have the exact quote from the Navy but I have to look it up. It comes from Barret Tillmans F4U in combat.
3. The Socioty Of Experamental test pilots- They tested a F6F-5, FG-1D(F4U-1D, P-47D-40 and P-51D. They chose the F4U as the best dogfighting A/C because of light stick forces, performance and get this, a gentle stall. They were very critical of the F6F because of high stick and rudder forces as well as an inability to turn right at low speed. It is also important to note that their test were done with the F4U at a weight of 11,000LBS and the F6F was at 10,500lbs. So the F6F relative weight should have been 500lbs more than the F4U. So even with a 1,000lbs advantage it still did not win the evaluation.
The SETP as they are known is the kicker because Corkey Meyer is the founder of that orginization.
I wonder if Boone Guyton had written that artical if it would have been different?
BTW Widewing I really enjoy these conversations so keep it coming please.
:D
I know several members of the Society of Experimental Test Pilots, Dudley Henriques (former President) being the guy I know best.
One of the things that jumps out at you reading the Report of the Joint Fighter Conference is the utter divergence of opinion. One guy loves a characteristic, another hates it. Every test reads that way. I have always viewed this "conference" as a boondoggle, with little merit. The vast majority of the pilots never flew a combat mission, with a considerable portion being civilians. That in my mind, marks their opinions as being of very limited value. As the late, great Erik Shilling said, "If you didn't fly it in combat, you were not qualified to judge its attributes and limits." He was referring to the P-40.
Yet, even using the reports from this highly suspect boondoggle, we find that the F6F was rated as having the best cockpit layout. It finished well ahead of the F4U-1D in engine controls, outward visibility, and pilot comfort. Of all the fighters tested, the F6F-5 was voted as having the best rudder, best ailerons at low speed, best stability, best stall and best instrument and night flying characteristics.
But here is where the test report goes wacky. Both the F4U-1D and F6F-5 were rated as better fighters than the F4U-4 above and below 25,000 feet!! :eek: Indeed, the fighter voted best above 25k was the P-47D-30, even though the P-47M was part of the program! Talk about creating a credibility gap...... Still wonder why I have little regard for their conclusions? ;)
I read that little book that compared the various fighters (in the late 1980s or early 90s, I think). I remember complaints about the FG-1s rudder. I also recall that the F6F proved to accelerate faster in a dive too. But, unfortunately, I don't have a copy handy.
As too the F4U-1D beating the F8F. I find this story to be a bit over the top for several reasons.
1) Acceleration, the F8F accelerated at better than twice the rate of the F4U-1D.
2) Takeoff run, the F8F required just under 400 feet to get airborne, the F4U-1D needed 700 feet. So, the F8F would be climbing out while the Corsair was just halfway to V2 speed.
If they took off side by side, the F8F pilot clearly had not applied full power, or he would have been long gone.
Finally, there's the saying, "on any given day". Gloster Gladiators shot down Bf-109Fs. But, we all recoginze that the Gladiator was vastly inferior to the Messerschmitt.
One other thing about the F6F-5 as modeled in AH. It lacks the provision to carry two 150 gallon drop tanks under the wings, along with the centerline tank. This gave the Hellcat a total fuel load of 700 gallons (as compared to about 560 gallons max for the F4U-1D). That translates into a max range in excess of 2,400 miles. It should be noted that the Navy rarely needed employ the three tanks or even just the under-wing tanks. But, it would be nice to have it available in the game.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Remember reading that F4U vs F8F runway "dogfight" thing. Dont remember the specifics but the F4U pilot cheated somehow.
-
Great thread.
-Sik
-
Originally posted by eddiek
Meyer wrote a nice article about a year ago, in which he described side by side testing of the F4U and the Hellcat, and he described an error in the placement of the pitot tube for the airspeed indicator on the F6F that caused it to read slow. Side by side testing showed the F6F to be every bit as fast as the Corsair ABOVE 5K, but below that the Corsair was faster.
Does this mean the Navy or Grumann did speed test without calibrating their instruments on a test way? Oh my....
niklas
-
Hi Eddiek,
>Meyer wrote a nice article about a year ago, in which he described side by side testing of the F4U and the Hellcat, and he described an error in the placement of the pitot tube for the airspeed indicator on the F6F that caused it to read slow.
Any serious performance tests starts by calibrating the airspeed indicator, so I find that hard to believe.
For the Fw 190, I've even seen tests that relied on theodolithic observation (with multiple passes with, against, and perpendicular to the wind) so that the airspeed indicator played no part at all.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
Hi again,
>Any serious performance tests starts by calibrating the airspeed indicator, so I find that hard to believe.
I've found report PTR-1107 which compared a captured Fw 190A-5 to an F4U-1D and an F6F-3.
"Airspeed indicators in all three planes were calibrated and loads were checked."
The F6F-3 (No. 42150) was weighing 12406 lbs, power setting was 54"/60" Hg at 2700 rpm.
Speeds achieved after short acceleration runs (full top speed would be higher) were (in comparison to F6F-5 BuAer speeds):
Altitude - PTR-1107 - BuAer F6F-5
00200 ft - 334 mph - 318 mph
05000 ft - 351 mph - 327 mph
10000 ft - 348 mph - 356 mph
15000 ft - 369 mph - 366 mph
20000 ft - 381 mph - 376 mph
25000 ft - 391 mph - 378 mph
BuAer data can be found here:
http://www.history.navy.mil/branches/org4-8.htm
From the Fw 190A-5 data, I'd say full top speed might be about 5 mph higher on the average (the data isn't entirely conclusive).
For the same loading condition, the BuAer data gives the following properties for the F6F-5:
Power setting - Max speed at sea level
Normal - 299 mph @ 1670 HP (ca.)
Military - 314 mph @ 1940 HP (ca.)
Combat - 318 mph @ 2030 HP
These speeds are consistent, but the power gain of just 90 HP seems very small for adding water-methanol injection. Most engines could do much better than that. The engine is specified as R-2800-10W, so perhaps someone can chime in with a power figure here?
What is striking is that according to the speed graph F6F-5 seems to lose 10 - 15 mph when it goes into combat power according to the speed graph. The additional power seems to recover that and add more, but it's still unusual.
I'd have though it mean that with water injection, the F6F-5 would have to crack the cowl flaps open, producing extra drag, but as the engine power values as analyzed above don't show that the F6F-5 should be faster in combat power than it actually is, this seems out of the question.
Does anyone have the maximum boost figures for the F6F-5 as specified by the manual? The BuAer overview unfortunately doesn't provide this data.
My conclusion so far: There is something strange in the neighbourhood :-)
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
I don't have time to write a full post but the speed test I have for the F4U have nothing to do with airspeed indicators either.
They are done by flying past a radar station.
HoHun,
The F6F in the FW190 test is a F6F-3. It was slightly higher in HP by about 2135HP to 2250HP. However the drag condition on the F6F-5 would be higher because of external stores pylons.
-
Hi F4UDOA,
>The F6F in the FW190 test is a F6F-3. It was slightly higher in HP by about 2135HP to 2250HP. However the drag condition on the F6F-5 would be higher because of external stores pylons.
Hm, do you mean the F6F-3 had more power, or the F6F-5 did?
Thanks for the hint regarding pylons! I checked the BuAer, document, and it reads:
"Combat conditions include fuselage bomb shackles and 'T' bracing, faired wing bomb-racks and sway bracing."
Apparently, the pylons aren't figured in, but the bomb racks probably have a greater effect anyway. You certainly set me on the right track :-)
As far as I know, the F6F-3 didn't have any bomb racks, which would help explaining the difference.
Any idea what the minimum drag configuration of the F6F-5 would be? It seems to me that at least the braces should be removable, even if the racks might be not.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
Sorry HoHun,
Your right, I was typing backwards as I was very tired when I wrote that post. The F6F-3=2135HP and the F6F-5=2250HP.
Funny thing about the drag conditions in AH. The F4U-1D is modeled with Pylons installed which account for about 10MPH in speed loss. The F6F-5 apparently is not modeled with the loss from the pylons as is accounted for by listing the top speed as 335MPG at sea level in AH while the Navair doc for the F6F-5 shows a lower top speed at sea level for the F6F-5 than does the F6F-3. The F4U-1D top speed without pylons is actually 366MPH at seal level.
I have a Navy doc which shows the improvement of the production F4U-1A series with 2250HP at 60" MAP with paddle prop with a top speed of 430MPH+ at 20K. This would be an accurate representation of a 1944 F4U in a fighter configuration. Even the XF6F-6 wasn't that fast.
-
Hi F4UDOA,
>while the Navair doc for the F6F-5 shows a lower top speed at sea level for the F6F-5 than does the F6F-3.
Do you have the BuAer sheet for the F6F-3? That would be interesting to see.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
Nice feedback, fellas.
HoHun.........the article stated that while flying the F6F and F4U side by side, in formation, the F6F's airspeed indicator read 20 mph slower than the one on the F4U, even though the planes were flying at the exact same speed. Closer investigation into that revealed a design flaw in the Hellcat's airspeed indicator layout that made the speed read slower than the plane was actually flying.
F4UDOA, I know you are a devoted Corsair fan, but chill my friend.
Corky Meyer flew just about all if not all of the planes we have talked about. I picked up a FJ special edition the same night that was about the P-47, and yep, he flew that bird too. He also flew the F4U, so while he may be biased, as you are, he was there, he took the planes up, so yeah, I kinda lean towards respecting a man who did test pilot work for a living. That he is a contributing editor now really shouldn't make a difference IMO.
Like Widewing said, there was a lot of political crap going at the fighter conference, so you take those reports the same way you take Corky Meyers' fighter ratings..........an opinion, and nothing more. He makes a good case for the Jug being the best ETO fighter, as he clearly states that it is not just about dogfighting and air to air. It is about what the plane did overall, and the Jug did just about everything, except photo recon work.
-
Eddiek,
What I get all worked up about is revisionest history.
I haven't had a chance to rebutt Widewings post but I have some things to say about that conferance.
1. F4U-4 not being selected as a best fighter above 20K. The report list how many pilots flew each A/C. Only 2 pilots flew the -4 and none flew the F2G which was also there. Hence few votes.
2. There were many combat pilots there. Including some famous names such as Renner, Guyton, Walsh, Lindberg and others. I respect these pilots as much as I do Corkey Meyers. And BTW Corkey Meyers was NOT a combat pilot. He was a contractor.
3. The F6F was never as fast as the F4U. The Brits, Navy and Marine flew these A/C in formation and in numerous flight test and the F6F never tested as fast as the F4U even after the pitot tube error was corrected. Remember this error was corrected in 1944. Also the CD of the F6F was higher than the F4U. So with the same power how would they be the same speed? And by his own admission the F4U was 20Knots faster on the deck.
4. Politial bias, Grumman was the king of political bias in the Navy. Have you noticed how many Grumman birds have flow for the Navy in the past 50 years? In fact some Navy personel insisted it was Grummans political clout that kept the F4U's off of the Navy decks for so long. Not any problems with operating from carrier decks.
What is most important about the 1944 Conferance is the general tone of things. While different pilots may have different views on different aspects of an aircraft the fact remains that 60% of thr pilots preffered the F4U to the F6F. I respect their opinions with at least the same zealous degree that I do Corkey Meyers. And Meyers was a Grummen employee.
Yes I am biased. But find one unbiased source that shows the performance of the F6F to be superior to the F4U. I don't mean one pilot such as Capt. Eric Brown of the Royal Navy, I mean source such as the actual AFDU or any test report NAVAIR doc or competitive flight test.
FYI, here is a fact you may not know. In almost the same number of operational and combat sorties the F6F suffered far more operation accidents and losses than the F4U while dropping almost 1/3 of the tonnage of ordinance as the F4U.
-
F4UDOA and Widewing,
I purchased a book written by Barrett Tillman and Robert Lawson shortly after Christmas entitled World War II U.S. Navy Air Combat. In it, Marion Carl had this to say about the F8F:
We put on several airshows at Pax River, and I had some special routines. My pet Bearcat would be spotted on the catapult and I'd be fired off, pull up into a loop, pop gear and flaps at the top, and land from the down side. It was probably the shortest airshow performance ever, but it was pretty spectacular.
THAT I would have loved to have seen. I doubt seriously the same stunt could have been performed by an F4U-4.
Regards, Shuckins
-
Just curious as to what you are referring to.
Meyer was there, contract or not, he did fly a lot of different planes.
Only "revisionist" history that irritates me is when folks start in with the little fantasy planes that never saw the light of day, and say "If the war had lasted 6 months longer this is what the Allies would have been up against."
Think about it: Had the war in Europe lasted 6 months longer, some city in Germany would have had the notority of being the first to be A-bombed. Had the Allies chosen to hit an aircraft factory or the oilfields, the result would have been the same. Germany would have lost the ability to produce aircraft and not had the fuel to put them in the air anyway.
As to Grumman having a stranglehold on USN aviation, you have to ask yourself just what plane did Vought produce after the F4U and F8 Crusader that was worth a dang? My thinking is that Grumman had already branched out into other aircraft lines and proven themselves of producing aircraft that met the USN specs, and producing them "on time." Vought, IMHO, cut their own throats in the long run when the Corsair's development program dragged on and on and on, and Grumman whipped out the F6F and had it ready at nearly the same time as the F4U.
If there were politics involved, and I don't doubt that there were, at least part of it was Vought's fault.
-
Shuckins,
Just because you read an exploit of what a F8F did at a airshow doesn't mean that the story didn't happen word for word.
The pilot telling the story was a combat pilot in three wars who went on to be a test pilot and a commander of an aircraft carrier followed by becoming the Curator of the National Air and Space Museam in the Smithsonian Institute. He is as credible as any pilot even Corkey Meyer who was a Grumman employee. His name is Dick Engin and the name of the book is Wings and Warriors. The fight was a challange between two squadrons for money. Best pilot against best pilot wing tip to wingtip start.
eddiek,
First the F8U was in service for 30 years and was known as the "Mig Master" in Veitnam. Also the Vought F7U Corsair II which was in service for about 30+ years and was in Desert Storm. Only the F-14 and A-6 from Grumman would compare. And the F4U outlived the F6F and F8F combined. Grumman may have more recognition but Vought has done at least as well if not better when looking at quality not quanity.
Second I'm not the one with the political theory about why one aircraft was preffered over the other. I am saying that Grumman is the big boy on the block especially in 1942, so if you want to point at a political bully I think Grumman would be it.
Another future Commander of an Aircraft Carrier said the same thing about Grumman and politics in 1943. Tommy Blackburn of the VF-17. Just read my signature. It is an excerpt from his Autobiography.
-
Originally posted by F4UDOA
Shuckins,
Just because you read an exploit of what a F8F did at a airshow doesn't mean that the story didn't happen word for word.
The pilot telling the story was a combat pilot in three wars who went on to be a test pilot and a commander of an aircraft carrier followed by becoming the Curator of the National Air and Space Museam in the Smithsonian Institute. He is as credible as any pilot even Corkey Meyer who was a Grumman employee. His name is Dick Engin and the name of the book is Wings and Warriors. The fight was a challange between two squadrons for money. Best pilot against best pilot wing tip to wingtip start.
eddiek,
First the F8U was in service for 30 years and was known as the "Mig Master" in Veitnam. Also the Vought F7U Corsair II which was in service for about 30+ years and was in Desert Storm. Only the F-14 and A-6 from Grumman would compare. And the F4U outlived the F6F and F8F combined. Grumman may have more recognition but Vought has done at least as well if not better when looking at quality not quanity.
Second I'm not the one with the political theory about why one aircraft was preffered over the other. I am saying that Grumman is the big boy on the block especially in 1942, so if you want to point at a political bully I think Grumman would be it.
Another future Commander of an Aircraft Carrier said the same thing about Grumman and politics in 1943. Tommy Blackburn of the VF-17. Just read my signature. It is an excerpt from his Autobiography.
I have stated my thoughts on the F8F vs F4U-1D match. It proved nothing whatsoever.
Hell, Sabaro Sakai was asked what he thought of the P-51D after a hop in one (dual control). He stated, " The Mustang is almost as good as the Hellcat!"
When asked, Sakai never hesitated to state that the Hellcat was the best fighter he ever encountered. Pretty good review, no?
As to the F8U; it was a first rate fighter, although obsolete by the middle 1970s, and was consigned to recce work. While it received much attention for its action over Vietnam, the only aces to emerge from that war flew the F-4 Phantom II. Likewise, the A-7 Corsair II was a solid light-medium attack aircraft. However, it was only marginally better than the A-4, and most A-4 pilots would have preferred to remain in the far more agile "Scooter" than transition to the A-7.
In between the the F4U (discounting the stillborn F5U) and the F8U, were a pair of lemons. Both the F6U Pirate and the F7U Cutlass were widely disliked and replaced as the first opportunity by the Navy. In the middle 1950s, Grumman and Douglas produced the best Navy jet fighters and attack aircraft (F9F-7 Cougar, F11F Tiger, F4D Skyray, A-4 Skyhawk, A3D Skywarrior and even the F3D Skyknight). These were later joined by the A-6 Intruder, F3H Demon and eventually, the excellent F8U).
Remember that a Navy F8F held the time to altitude record for many years. From a standing start, an F8F (stripped of guns and nonessential equipment) took off and climbed to 10,000 feet in just over 90 seconds. The current record holder is a modified F8F-2, fitted with a Wright R3350 engine.
It was the arrival of Jet fighters than pushed the F8F off the carriers. Vought's Corsair remained solely for its ability as a light attack aircraft. As late as 1967, the F8F was in combat with the South Vietnamese Air Force.
These (the F8F and F4U) were two entirly different aircraft, with different missions. One was probably the best prop driven air superiority fighter ever built, and the other the best prop driven fighter-bomber.
My regards,
Widewing
-
On the subject of the F-8 Crusader, it should be remembered that the F-8 community trained as dogfighting specialists (as opposed to the F-4s, which were initially envisioned as BVR interceptors) and were--along with their Air Force F-104 counterparts--pioneers of advanced tactics (most notably "loose-deuce").
The Crusader was certainly an excellent airplane, but it was the pilots and tactics that made it supreme.
-
F4UDOA calm down.... :) :) A few more weeks of this and you'll end up in a Bf109... :D
-
F4UDOA,
Afraid you misinterpreted my earlier post my friend. I didn't mean to infer that I didn't believe Marion Carl's article about performing the carrier stunt with the F8F. On the contrary, with the Bearcat's fabulous power-to-weight ratio, such a feat is possible. The point I was trying to make is that I do not believe that stunt would have been possible with the F4U-4 Corsair.
The Corsair was a tremendous fighter...but it's long developmental and carrier qualification periods severely limited it's combat record. While the Corsair had a slight edge in performance and roll rate over the Hellcat, the F6F was absolutely free of the handling vices that delayed the Corsair's acceptance for carrier operations. The Hellcat could also be produced faster and more economically than the Corsair, whose complex structure made manufacturing it more time-consuming. The Hellcat was available, in large numbers, when needed.
In Duels in the Sky Captain Eric Brown of the RNAF compared the F4U-1 and F6F-3 to the FW-190A. Having flown all three of these fighters extensively, Captain Brown's observations are especially pertinent. Since these aircraft were all produced outside of Britain, his opinions are relatively free of bias. In comparing the Corsair to the German fighter, Captain Brown was rather blunt...stating that with equal pilots the F4U could not best the 190. When comparing the Hellcat to Kurt Tank's creation Brown said that, while the Hellcat was the newer design, the superb engineering that had gone into the FW-190 was not out-dated. Danger to the Hellcat would be severe, but the contest was so evenly balanced as to be a virtual draw.
Regards, Shuckins
-
Shuckins,
I think we agree then. I don't get to carried away with most annecdotes but when faced with them I can produce many as well. In fact one can make an agruement based on annecdotes that the P-47 was the greatest dogfighter of all. I have seen it done on these boards.
Funny thing about Eric Brown, I have his book "Wings of the Navy" and "Duels in the sky". He gives a very detailed analysis of all his combats except when it comes to the F4U FW190 when he just says the FW190 is the winner then he moves on. I need a little more detail than that. The Navy ran that very test and found something very different. In fact I have the AFDU reports on the F6F and F4U and I can't see what Mr. Brown is raving about. The F4U is much faster than the F6F in the British test and in climb test the F6F is superior albeit the F6F is about 1,000lbs underweight and the F4U is in overload at about 12,800lbs. There is no discussion of maneuverability relative to one another however.
Also it would help to know I don't think the F4U is a better pure dogfighter than the F8F. I just don't think it is as one sided as everyone believes. The reason for the legend of the F8F is partially because it never actually had a real dogfight or an opponent to dogfight. The other reason is that very little real test data exist to compare it to anything else. One interesting thing about the F8F is that it had a severe aileron restriction at high speeds limiting it's high speed maneuverability. The other is it did not pull intantanious G's very well having a rather high G limit at moderate speeds for such a nimble fighter showing some structural weekness. It is important to keep in mind that the F4U was a long range fighter and had a large fuel and ammunition capacity compared to the F8F. When the two fighters were empty the weight differance was not as great as you may believe.
F4U-1 empty 9,000lbs
F8F-2 empty 7,650lbs
The F8F may have held most of the cards but not all of them.
Widewing,
I need more time to respond to you but I have some great material. I like your Saburu Sakia quotes however. I can produce a handfull of Japanese quotes saying that the F4U was the best they faced as well as a report from the VMF123 that swears they could turn inside the 323 Sentai NIK2-J's.
BTW, Grumman was the political bully in the Navy in WW2. If they think they got jobbed at the Fihter Conferance it was just a case of turn about is fair play in my book. Now McDonnel Douglas is king of the carrier.
-
Originally posted by F4UDOA
In fact the F6F was a true 400MPH fighter but by the time of late 1944 the production F4U-1A had a top speed of 430+MPH. This will not be mentioned in Flight Journal.
Rant mode off :D
Have you seen the TEAC report on the F6F-5/Zeke 52 (A6M5) fly-off?
They report the maximum speed of the F6F-5 as 409 mph @ 21,000 feet.
Too bad the AH Hellcat is such a slug... :)
My regards,
Widewing
-
Negative WW,
The AH Hellkitty has a top speed of 400MPH at 20k when measured on the digital viewer.
Apparently the AH Hellcat was modeled with the pitot tube airpeed error as well.
-
BTW Widewing,
If you have a copy of that TAIC report I would luv to have it.
I have excerpts from it but not the entire report.
BTW the F4U-1D outclimbed the A6M-5 and F6F-5 in that report as well being able to turn with the A6M-5 for a quarter turn or until 175Knots by use of the Maneuver flap setting. The F6F had no such maneuver flap.
However in AH the F6F flaps can be deployed in 10 degree increments. It never had them IRL.
-
SQUIDWHINER!
Well... just trying it out, actually.
What do you think? Will it ever be as popular as the L word?
;)
-
Hmm,
I give it about a 5.5.
I don't think it will catch on unless Grunherz starts flying F4U's:D
-
DOA,
The instrument error is irrelevant when talking about TAS. The TAS includes the correction factor, which is in the pilot's handbook (both early and late models).
-
Wells,
I have this picture of talking to Orson Wells in my head, just me.
Anyway the manual does show a very large CAS error is the airpeed table for the F6F-3/5.
But I was refferring to the actual instrament reading in the AH FM. The digital viewer does give you a 400MPH indication at 20K where as the speedometer IAS or TAS does not show that speed.
BTW, Just got my hands on a F4U-4 pilots handbook. Haven't been able to look at it yet. Ohh the anticipation!!!
-
But here is where the test report goes wacky. Both the F4U-1D and F6F-5 were rated as better fighters than the F4U-4 above and below 25,000 feet!!
because the f4u4 had that awful perk tag that made it a bullet magnet :D
-
I've red that article and Barret Tillman makes a similar claim in his book Hellcat, which is supposed to draw from Grumman archive records.
Only problem is that I have never seen a flight test report that corroborates those numbers.
-Blogs
Originally posted by eddiek
...
What I keep wondering is if and when HTC and other flight sim makers are going to look at the data and adjust the F6F's true top speed to over 400 mph. Meyer wrote a nice article about a year ago, in which he described side by side testing of the F4U and the Hellcat, and he described an error in the placement of the pitot tube for the airspeed indicator on the F6F that caused it to read slow. Side by side testing showed the F6F to be every bit as fast as the Corsair ABOVE 5K, but below that the Corsair was faster....
[/B]
-
Originally posted by joeblogs
I've red that article and Barret Tillman makes a similar claim in his book Hellcat, which is supposed to draw from Grumman archive records.
Only problem is that I have never seen a flight test report that corroborates those numbers.
-Blogs
Go to appendix D (page 240) of Barrett's book (Hellcat) and you can find a document issued by the the Royal Navy citing the TIAC comparision testing done with a Zeke 52 (A6M5) and F6F-5. This document was circulated around to all FAA Hellcat squadrons.
Maximum speed for the F6F-5 was recorded at 409 mph @ 21,600 feet.
My regards,
Widewing
-
You are right, I was wrong. It is right there in print.
So why don't we have a US SAC that corroborates these numbers?
-Blogs
Originally posted by Widewing
Go to appendix D (page 240) of Barrett's book (Hellcat) and you can find a document issued by the the Royal Navy citing the TIAC comparision testing done with a Zeke 52 (A6M5) and F6F-5. This document was circulated around to all FAA Hellcat squadrons.
Maximum speed for the F6F-5 was recorded at 409 mph @ 21,600 feet.
My regards,
Widewing