F6F-5 Performance

[SgtPappy]

Forgive me is this was posted already; I simply couldn't find it anywhere in the records.

Has anyone been doing any hardcore testing on the new Hellcat? Does it reach that 409 mph mark which Grumman managed to somehow mess up? (though everyone makes mistakes, Grumman rocks...)

If anyone's got some random data lying around I'm sure we'd all love to see it!

[Shane]

Forgive me is this was posted already; I simply couldn't find it anywhere in the records.

Has anyone been doing any hardcore testing on the new Hellcat? Does it reach that 409 mph mark which Grumman managed to somehow mess up? (though everyone makes mistakes, Grumman rocks...)

If anyone's got some random data lying around I'm sure we'd all love to see it!

i've managed to peg out the airspeed indicator.   

ohhhh, you meant in level flight at some sort of configuration at some sort of altitude?

http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/wiki/index.php/F6F-5

[Anaxogoras]

<inserts usual skeptical thought about HTC fixing something here>

[SgtPappy]

Usually Widewing does massive tests on new planes... like when the new Corsairs were introduced.

So we have a new comprehensive test of top speed @ altitude, max climb rate, etc, stuff like that?

[Widewing]

Usually Widewing does massive tests on new planes... like when the new Corsairs were introduced.

So we have a new comprehensive test of top speed @ altitude, max climb rate, etc, stuff like that?

Our F6F-5 conforms to the HTC charts... 386 mph max at best altitude. Should do better than 400 mph. Navy tests of the F6F-3 showed 393 mph without WEP.

Nonetheless, below 10k, performance is in line with all Navy tests I've seen.


My regards,

Widewing

[SgtPappy]

Roger. Thanks WW. Most of my books show only a 2-setting flap toggle switch in the Hellcat too. Yet we still have 5 notches.

[TimRas]

AH2 F6F-5, 2700rpm, 57.5" WEP, 54" without WEP:



May be it is time to bury the 400+ mph myth.

[RTHolmes]

cmon tim you must know not to let hard data get in the way of a wishlist item

[Widewing]

AH2 F6F-5, 2700rpm, 57.5" WEP, 54" without WEP:
(Image removed from quote.)

(Image removed from quote.)
May be it is time to bury the 400+ mph myth.

Maybe it's time to examine the power settings with more care...

The F6F-5 in the test graph was doing 391 mph in MIL power. In WEP, you would see better than 400 mph, or a speed similar to the TAIC tests.

Read this test: http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/japan/ptr-1111.pdf

Read this test: http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f6f/f6f-3-detail-specification.pdf

Read this test: http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f6f/f6f-5-58310.pdf

Note the speeds and manifold pressures, also note (in the tests) that the Navy relocated the Static Pitot line to correct for the error induced by Grumman's placement. Brit test results were with the factory location of the Static Pitot line, and thus reflect the air speed error.

Head to head tests of the F6F-5 and F4U-1D showed that they had virtually identical speed at critical altitude.

400+ mph for the F6F-5 isn't myth.


My regards,

Widewing

[TimRas]

Read this test: http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/japan/ptr-1111.pdf

Read this test: http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f6f/f6f-3-detail-specification.pdf

Read this test: http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f6f/f6f-5-58310.pdf

Note the speeds and manifold pressures, also note (in the tests) that the Navy relocated the Static Pitot line to correct for the error induced by Grumman's placement. Brit test results were with the factory location of the Static Pitot line, and thus reflect the air speed error.

The TAIC report indeed gives 409mph for F6F-5. It also gives 335mph for A6M5 where as AH2 A6M5 can reach 350mph. 

The second link is a Grumman specification for F6F-3. It gives MIL power speed of 391mph. Note the sentence: "The performance is estimated to be as follows". AHT says "at combat power manufacturers figures are 10 to 30 mph increases over Navy numbers". Dean's words, not mine.

In your third link i think I'm seeing the combat rating speed also. About 5-20mph over MIL power speeds. But still below 400mph.

In the British test at Boscombe Down (60" with water injection) the report specifically mentions "Position error trials" and "Position error trials with repositioned static vent". So I think they catched the error.

IMO HTC tries to model the planes objectively, looking at all the data available. Not just picking the best possible number they can find and ignoring the rest.

[BnZs]

The TAIC report indeed gives 409mph for F6F-5. It also gives 335mph for A6M5 where as AH2 A6M5 can reach 350mph. 


IMO HTC tries to model the planes objectively, looking at all the data available. Not just picking the best possible number they can find and ignoring the rest.

It sometimes appears that for certain American planes they pick the worst plausible numbers...perhaps to keep the MAs "balanced", even if that means a little *tweaking* of the rides with the most name-recognition popularity in relation to the less popular. All within the wiggle room of plausibility afforded by variances in test results of course.

[Widewing]

Roger. Thanks WW. Most of my books show only a 2-setting flap toggle switch in the Hellcat too. Yet we still have 5 notches.

We should have at least 5 notches. F6F flaps could be toggled to any position between full up and full down, depending upon air speed. Like the F4U, flaps would not drop until air speed had bled down.

See below from British test and evaluation....




My regards,

Widewing

[Kweassa]

It sometimes appears that for certain American planes they pick the worst plausible numbers...perhaps to keep the MAs "balanced", even if that means a little *tweaking* of the rides with the most name-recognition popularity in relation to the less popular. All within the wiggle room of plausibility afforded by variances in test results of course.

ROFL

[BnZs]

ROFL

Okay, the F6F thing is one example of what I am talking about. Another is the P-51s.

Looking at max airspeeds at sea level for both the P-51B and P-51D, it would seem that HTC has chosen to use numbers from the low end of tested values.



And that is not even considering performance at higher boost levels using 150 octane fuel.



Lets look at some climb performance numbers:



Same thing, it appears that a value closer to the lower end of average results has been chosen.

Stay on the floor if you want to Kweassa...though you might not like what'll get all over you if you keep rolling around down there. 

[Die Hard]

Okay, the F6F thing is one example of what I am talking about. Another is the P-51s.

Looking at max airspeeds at sea level for both the P-51B and P-51D, it would seem that HTC has chosen to use numbers from the low end of tested values.

(Image removed from quote.)

And that is not even considering performance at higher boost levels using 150 octane fuel.

(Image removed from quote.)

Lets look at some climb performance numbers:

(Image removed from quote.)

Same thing, it appears that a value closer to the lower end of average results has been chosen.

Stay on the floor if you want to Kweassa...though you might not like what'll get all over you if you keep rolling around down there. 

The AH P-51B has the V-1650-3 engine and racks, and no "air force" in AH has the best fuel available. Ponys and Spits don't get 100/150, the 109's don't get C3 and the Japanese planes have to make due with the piss poor fuel they had. Nice Ami-whine though!