Originally posted by Soulyss
I wish we had the F6F-3 though the differences are kinda neglible I think. -5 will roll better, and had water injection. But I've heard that (and it can be argued) that the -3 climbed and accelerated better.
After seeing positive feedback, I'll side with the majority. No problem here.
On a side note, here's an excerpt from "Corsair - The F4U in World War II and Korea" by Barrett Tillman. It deals with finally getting the F4U ok'd for carrier ops but the comparisons between in and the F6F got my attention:
"On 22 April (1944) the Navy accepted its first F4U-1D, basically a -1A with two underwing pylons for external stores. Tests conducted in Hawaii during May showed the new Corsair the be perhaps the most versatile carrier aircraft of the period. The Naval Air Forces Pacific Command received an F6F-5 and an F4U-1D for the purpose of fleet evaluation. Three combat-experienced pilots were named to an evaluation board. They were Lieutenant Commander Gordon Cady, CO of VF-11; Lieutenant Commander Bernard W. Strean, CO of VF-1 recently returned from Tarawa; and Lieutenant Colonel John L. Smith who lead VMF-223 at Gaudalcanal. Cady and Smith had flown the F4F-4 in combat, Strean the F6F-3.
'Smoke' Strean recalls, "The three of us decided that carrier suitability was the most important concern. We were given wide latitude as to how to accomplish the comparison. To give these planes the severest carrier test, we selected a CVE. All three of us made many landings in both airplanes. We determined that the F4U-1D was equally as good a carrier airplane as the F6F-5, if not better. The evaluation lasted perhaps three weeks."
At the end of that time the board was generally agreed on most findings. The F6F-5 was more maneuverable than the F6F-3 because of the spring tabs on the former's ailerons, but it was not more maneuverable than the F4U-1D. Control forces on the Corsair also seemed lighter than on the Hellcat. There was no doubt that the Corsair was the faster than the F6F, and it possessed better zoom-climb characteristics than the Grumman.
In the all-important realm of gunnery and ordinance delivery, the F4U-1D was also judged superior. The three pilots - who so far had all their combat experience in Grummans - believed the Corsair was a steadier gun platform and a better dive bomber. There was some uncertainty as to relative visability, but the Hellcat probably gave a wider field of view, and it was generally considered easier to land aboard ship, owing to the better forward visability.
These tests reinforced the informal comparison which VF-12 ran against the Hellcats of VF-3 a year earlier. Joe Clifton and another VF-12 pilot had engaged in a mock combat with Lieutenant Commander Edward "Butch" O'Hare and a wingman near San Diego. Clifton's F4U-1s had proven faster and more maneuverable than O'Hare's F6F-3s, and the playful hassling must have made an impression upon O'Hare. When he took his squadron to Hawaii that summer, he managed to take an F4U-1 with him. For some time it was the only Corsair in the islands, and O'Hare would only let one other pilot fly it. Such are the privileges of being a Medal of Honor winner."
Another section of the book dealt with a comparison between the F4U and the A6M series:
"In late 1944 a detailed test was run between an F4U-1D and a captured a6m5, or Zeke 52. From sea level up to 30,000 feet the Corsair proved faster by an average of 55 knots, or 64 mph. This was from a minimum advantage of 36 knots at 5,000 feet to a maximum of 69 knots at 25,000 feet. Top speeds were 413 mph (355 knots) for the F4U-1D at 20,400 feet and 355 mph (290 knots) at 18,000 for the Zeke.
Unlike the F4F, the Corsair was capable of matching or exceeding the Zeke's rate of climb. Vought and Mitsubishi were equal up to 10,000 feet, after which the Corsair pulled ahead. In fact, at 18,000 feet, the -1D 750 feet per minute better than its opponent.
'The maneuverability of the Zeke 52 is remarkable at speeds below about 175 knots, being far superior to that of the F4U-1D', said the report. 'It's superiority, however, diminishes with increased speed due to its high control forces, and the F4U-1D has the advantage at speeds above 200 knots.' Tests showed that in slow speed turns at 10,000 feet, the Zeke gained one turn in three and a half. But the Corsair, by maintaining an airspeed of 175 knots (200 mph) could use full flaps to stay with the Zeke for a half-turn. By that time, however, airspeed was down to 150 knots (173 mph) and it was high time to disengage.
The Corsair's magnificent ailerons gave it an important advantage over Zekes. The two fighters' roll rate was equal at speeds under 200 knots, allowing the F4U to change directions on an equal basis. Above 200 knots, the Zeke's ailerons became heavy while the Corsair's were still effective. The time invested in those engineering test flights to perfect the ailerons paid handsome dividends in combat.
In dive comaprisons, both fighters were approximately neck-and-neck in the very early stages. After that, the Corsair was vastly superior as it accelerated with astonishing speed. Few Japanese fighters had any hope of escaping an F4U in a dive, and even then it was only over short distances."
In Ace's High, the F4U-1, 1D and 1C can't outclimb any of the IJ planeset. Acceleration in the game for the F4U is fairly anemic unless in a steep dive. Other than that, I find the comparison between the game and this book fairly close.
As far as the F6F vs the F4U, in game the F6F comes out slightly ahead in manerverablity and climb and slightly behind in level speed and diving. The F6F seems to have a more stable gun platform in game, as well. And as far as divebombing is concerned, the F6F carries pretty much the same capacity and is the f4U's equal. A bit off from this book.
