F6F Vs. F4U

[Badboy]

Originally posted by HoHun
but according the evidence I have seen, for the fighters we are discussing, the power-off clean Clmax yields the best results.

My apologies, but I can't recall the details of our previous discussions, I'll see if I still have them archived. But either way, I think we need to take a look at your evidence, because the conclusion simply can't be right. Clmax values are almost always considered a property of the wing section, and are for the wing alone, so those are generally the values found, but there are two factors that will improve the Clmax power on, the first is the slipstream that energises the airflow over the inner wings and lowers the stall speed, which explains why power on stall speeds are always slightly lower than power off, even at the best sustained turn speed. The other factor is the radial component of thrust, which is greatest at low speed and at high AoA which is where the best sustained turn rate occurs. Both effects combine to raise the effective Clmax. I've never seen data that contradicts that.

I'd be quite interested in a more detailed discussion in order to improve the accuracy of my calculations. (If you remember, we already exchanged a few emails over this exact topic when I asked for your advice one or two years ago - most of the factors I described back then are still relevant.

I do remember discussing this with you previously, or was that about engine data? Please forgive me, the details of our conversation are gone, must be my age  I would be delighted to resume, if you want to email me it's leon . smith @ blue yonder . co . uk with all the spaces removed.

So if you feel like it, I'll send you the latest version of my calculator, and we can pick up our exchange where we left it a
while back :-)

Please feel free, and I'm interested to see if your radial G includes a factor for  slipstream and a component of thrust.

Privileged Contributors: Angus, Arlo, BlauK, Gripen, Gunzo, humble, Knegel, MiloMorai, TDeacon

Just currious, what does this list mean, and how did those people get on it?

Badboy

[gripen]

Below is the chart showing the decreasing effect of the thrust on Clmax when the speed increases. It's from NACA tests on the F2A, notable thing is that the tests were done at rather low speeds so the effect of the mach number and reynolds number is not really visible (and probably not even measured).



Later NACA conducted large tests (NACA TN 1044) on effect of the Mach and Reynolds number and below is the chart showing decrease of the Clmax when the mach number increase. Test were done power off (due to comparison to wind tunnel results). Regarding the topic of this thread, there is also data on F6F.



NACA also made some testing on power on and below is a chart (NACA RM L6I10) showing the results on P-51D (results are also compared to earlier measurements on P-51B). Notable thing is that they measured abrupt stalls (pull out) and gradual stalls (turning) and the results show typical 15-20% difference in Clmax between these which should be accounted for accurate calculations.



Some points need further investigation like e factor etc. but regarding the reachable Clmax at given flight condition, the data can be generalized fairly well to similar airframes using similar wing profiles and shows pretty well that the 1g stalling speeds rarely give correct results.

gripen

[HoHun]

Hi Badboy,

> I would be delighted to resume, if you want to email me

Great, I'll do! :-)

>Just currious, what does this list mean, and how did those people get on it?

They get on it by relying on trolling techniques, dishonesty, insults, or ethically grossly deficient behaviour of other kind. That earns them the privilege of posting whatever they want entirely un-opposed by me. Thinking about it, I'd also offer to add people on their own request before they get nasty! :-)

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

[gripen]

Originally posted by HoHun

They get on it by relying on trolling techniques, dishonesty, insults, or ethically grossly deficient behaviour of other kind. That earns them the privilege of posting whatever they want entirely un-opposed by me. Thinking about it, I'd also offer to add people on their own request before they get nasty! :-)

Well, some people are able to make personal attack in their every post.

gripen

[bkbandit]

well, i dont have charts or avaition expericence, i just spend alot of time flying them. I was talking all that about corsair and ended up baging my first 262 in a f4u1d:aok (wrote that guys name down, hes my trophy for this month, along with the 234 i got today) but on another note i fought a f4u4 today in a f6f, i had him on the ropes and he tryed to dive away, well i stuck to his back at 400 and beat on him wit 50s. i cant really make up my mind with these 2, i guess its the pilot and the situation(whos got the e etc) that dictates the winner of this one.

I never meant for this thread to be an arguement, i guess u guys are just passionate about the blue planes. p51b vs p51d didnt get like this. )

[Debonair]

Originally posted by bkbandit
...p51b vs p51d didnt get like this. )

that is not fair, this one is about two different models of plane (and multiple variants of both), that one was about just two variants of the same plane.  
IMHO this thread doesnt win until it gets to at least 119 posts.

[bkbandit]

i just wanted to see what the majority of the community would prefer to fly.  I have had alot of fights and theres no winner between these 2, it has to do with the pilot, there is no clear advantage, i have had plenty of f4us(im in hellcat) drop gears full flaps and think they are goin to out turn me, i pull up and and beat down on them from above. I have also been in f4u and had hellcats dive on me for me only to force an over shot and hit him with a 50 cal surprise.  I just wanted to see where the community stood on this. From what i see in flight f4u gets more flight time, i only see hellcat out at see but i see corsair every where. I love to see guys bring out stats and get into a deep discussion, but i just was curious on where everyone stood.

I personally like them both, both have there problems(like the pain of landing corsair, and the lack of speed in hellcat) but both are great fighter/bombers and can be brought to the fight no matter the situation.

[HoHun]

Hi Bkbandit,

>I love to see guys bring out stats and get into a deep discussion, but i just was curious on where everyone stood.

I'd say Widewing has made a good point when he posted the speed comparison. In a nutshell, you are condemned to fight all aircraft that are faster than you at their terms because you can't evade a fight. To establish a fighter's potential for success, you then have to check which other strengths you can use against each of those you can't evade.

In a one-versus-one, often the fighter with the lower speed will look better (if this speed results from a tradeoff for higher manoeuvrability). In a many-versus-many, the situation is not as clearly cut. In an environment virtually saturated with fighters, any prolonged dogfighting is going to result in defeat anyway, so that makes speed an important option.

Of course, as it's only a game, you have the freedom to accept that your survival depends on the random fluctuations of numerical superiority in the combat zone and not on your flying, and concentrate on killing as many enemies as possible before you either run out of foes or run out of life ;-) This approach might require another set of characteristics from your mount again :-)

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

[F4UDOA]

The argument that followed was more or less about nothing, as F4UDOA's mention of Corky Meyer was not really strictly on topic, and I don't think Widewing ever suggested that the F6F was as fast as the F4U, which I believe was sort of implied by Meyer's discussion of the airspeed indicator calibration.

HoHun,

Sorry for not responding sooner. My time is limited these days to say the least.

In any case here is case against the "faulty airspeed indicator".

The first of which is the conclusion of Corkey Meyers arguement is strange for a proffessional test pilot. He states the two aircraft are about the same size so they should have the same top speed. The wing area, cowl opening, canopy hight and tail section just for starters are not even close. You would expect someone in Meyers position to know better. Drag is the differance in speed especially at altitude.

The second piece is something I have from Vought that I never posted. It is a flight test to calibrate the airspeed error using radio towers to measure true airspeed at all altitudes from sea level to 30K. These test were done in mid-1943. In other words Vought new exactly how fast the F4U was but Grumman had no reasonable idea how fast the F6F was?? I don't think so

The next issue is the fix. Grumman goes from the F6F-3 which indicates 15Knots to slow to the F6F-5 which indicates 17knots to fast? I have exactly 4 different IAS CAS charts for the F6F which was only in production for 4 years. I doubt anyone that flew the F6F ever really new how fast they were going.

Next is the writing of Corkey Meyer himself. He mentions in his flight Journal articals that the F7F was 71MPH faster than the F6F. He makes the same statement of the F8F being faster than the F6F by a significant margin. Well which is it Corkey??

I communicated with Corkey Meyer via Fax of all things about a year ago and I asked him some very generic questions about his F4U test such as speeds and climb rates. He directed me to his articles that I already have and of course the answers are not there. If you notice nowhere does he actually say how fast he was going.

My theory is simple. The F4U they had was underperforming, most likely leaking ducting causing loss of pressure in the low and high blower stages. The Brits had the same problem in the first F4U they tested so they retested and it performed just fine. But they never determined that the two had the same top speed and neither did the USN.

BTW, I have numerous test post airspeed indicator fix none of which show no parity of airspeed.

[HoHun]

Hi F4UDOA,

>In any case here is case against the "faulty airspeed indicator".

Roger on the data :-)

My observation was just that no-one actually claimed the F6F to be as fast as the F4U in this thread. The airspeed indicator question sparked off the entire "credentials" debate, but as far as I can tell, there wasn't any actual disagreement between Widewing and you in this question.

So I'd like to suggest that your argument only resulted from a misunderstanding and not from a real difference in opinion!

(I'm feeling obliged to point that out because it was my comment on Navy statistics that started it all.)

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

[F4UDOA]

Yeah,

I'm not exactly sure where it went of the hook but it certainly did. But then again it always does.

[Widewing]

A couple of points, if I may.

Pete Bowers mentioned that he used Grumman factory data for the F7F-1 when writing the American Fighter with Angelluci. That factory data shows the F7F-1 attaining 394 mph at sea level. In contrast, factory data shows the F6F-3 able to attain 324 mph at sea level. That's 70 mph. So, Meyer may have had that in mind when he wrote his article. Pete passed away a few years ago and I have no idea what happened to his vast collection of photos and flight data. Bodie may know.

No one has argued that the F6F was faster or even as fast as the F4U... Speed isn't everything. Being there, however, WAS everything.

Had the F6F not been designed and developed as quickly as it was, the F4U may have gone aboard the carriers, warts and all. But, the Navy had a choice and they went with the aircraft that was carrier ready in their view. Like the P-38, the F4U suffered through a prolonged teething process. Both Lockheed and Vought were slow to fix the problems that existed. In Vought's case, it kept the Corsair land-bound for a year longer than it should have been. Some have said that is was a direct result of stubborn leadership at Vought. That may be true, but the whatever the cause, a superb fighter was relegated to the back-water of the Pacific war for far too long. They were extremely valuable where they served, but had they been aboard the fleet carriers, there's no doubt that they would have rivaled the F6F for top kill honors. The problem was, you have to be where the main action is and the F4U didn't get to the center ring of the circus until the show was largely over. Had the invasion of Japan come to pass, the F4Us would have been a major factor. Especially with the F4U-4 arriving in greater numbers every month.

I've said it many times; the F4U-4 was the best all around fighter to see combat in WWII. It could do everything as good or better than any other fighter in the world at the time. No other combat proven fighter offered its level of capability in so many differing areas of the combat mission. Moreover, while it was inferior to the F8F-1 as a pure dogfighter, the F8F-1 was not even close to the F4U-4 as a fighter-bomber. Only the F7F could rival the F4U-4 in all-around capability and it was previously deemed too "hot" for carrier duty on the Essex class CVs and, like the F4U-1, was handed to the Marines for land-based service.

Since I mentioned the F7F, I have wondered why no one ever hung a pair of R3350s on one and owned the unlimited event at Reno....

My regards,

Widewing

[Stoney74]

There was an F7F at the races last year.  It was a stock/restored plane, and finished 4th or 5th in the Unlimited Gold, if I recall correctly.  A very impressive aircraft to say the least.  I don't know if he's coming back this year, but I'll let you know after Sunday.  I wonder if there are enough airframes left out there to actually do a hot-rod F7F?

[bkbandit]

f8f would be a monster. Too bad we dont have it, i read last nite that it was in the in middle of the pacifc when it ended. Another fighter that didnt make it was the p51h(i have read there still debutin if it saw action). Alot stats thrown around, but heres the simple question... if u had to pick right now a fighter to do up in what would it be....F6F hellcat or the F4U corsair(lets say F4U1 series).

IM in the middle of the road right now, if a plane cant go 400 mph im not happy and the hellcat is the slowest thing i fly. I guess it depends on the mood of the day. Since this post started i have been spending more time in f4u and have had alot of succes. BUt while f4u is faster i feel more agile in hellcat(imo) and the fact that im not out of the game low and slow makes up for its speed. im 50/50.

[bozon]

IM in the middle of the road right now, if a plane cant go 400 mph im not happy and the hellcat is the slowest thing i fly

bkbandit, if fun is what you want - screw the stats.
Choose a plane by looks, by history, by funny name, because your grandad flew one or because any other odd reason.

The stats do not matter for the fun factor. You might get a few more kills or get killed a little less in an "uber" plane, but you'll miss all the personal attachment to your favorite rides. That, does add immersion, add fun and dulls the pain of getting shot down in your "inferior" ride. In addition you'll soon find out you do almost as well even in a "lesser" fighter, but one you like more.

Bozon