F4U-x Tips

[humble]

I could be wrong, but after flying the F4U-1D for a bit, it feels as if it actually maneuvers slightly better than even the F4U-1A, and that its acceleration is ever so slightly better.

I know that the 1D is only lighter by about 170 lbs, not too much at all, but am I correct here about the maneuvering?

I prefer the D to the 1A, it's slower but it's got slightly better performance in the verticals IMO. No clue what the specifics are but my understanding is that the D has a different prop then the 1A...

[SgtPappy]

The -1D does feel different from the -1A... it certainly feels like I have more thrust available or something because I buffet less and seem to lose a little less energy in the turns. Not sure if I'm feeling that right.

But I always thought that it had the exact same propeller as the -1A. In fact, I can't find anything in my books about the -1's prop being different from the -1A's prop, let alone any information about the -1A's prop being different from the -1D's. 

[humble]

Not a good source but wikki says the D had a different engine then the 1A that generated an additional 250hp
Built in parallel with the F4U-1C, but was introduced in April 1944. It had the new -8W water-injection engine. This change gave the aircraft up to 250 hp (190 kW) more power, which, in turn, increased performance. Speed, for example, was boosted from 417 miles per hour (671 km/h) to 425 miles per hour (684 km/h).

It's the -4 that has the 4 blade prop...

[Saxman]

Not a good source but wikki says the D had a different engine then the 1A that generated an additional 250hp
Built in parallel with the F4U-1C, but was introduced in April 1944. It had the new -8W water-injection engine. This change gave the aircraft up to 250 hp (190 kW) more power, which, in turn, increased performance. Speed, for example, was boosted from 417 miles per hour (671 km/h) to 425 miles per hour (684 km/h).

It's the -4 that has the 4 blade prop...

The R-2800-8(W) was introduced in the F4U-1A, so they both have the exact same engine. Our 1A is a late-production version, which also has the same paddle prop as is used on the 1D. There is no difference in the engine and prop setup between the two aircraft.

The 1A IS slightly heavier due to the extra fuel tanks in the wings which may account for the apparent performance discrepancy, as the 1A will generally be carrying more fuel at any given time. However the only real difference I've ever felt between the two is that the 1A can be more easily stabilized against engine torque by burning the left wing down further than the right.

[mtnman]

I notice the difference between the two as well.  I like the -1D better when it comes to "slowish" turning fights.  It doesn't carry enough fuel for my tastes though, so I almost never fly it.

For some reason, I just like the -1A canopy better.  I like the paint-jobs better too.

I like to leave just over 1/16 fuel in the left wing, and just over 1/8th in my right.  Just enough to make it back, if I'm careful, but I don't like any "extra" weight in the wings.

[SgtPappy]

I bet that the -1A's fuel in the wings is what makes it feel different. Perhaps if I drained it, it would feel like the -1D.

Either way, I like the -1D's visibility and the fact that I can take eggs and stay clean after dropping them.

[Saxman]

It doesn't carry enough fuel for my tastes though, so I almost never fly it.

Engine oil and fuel are always the first things to go in the F4U.

[mtnman]

Engine oil and fuel are always the first things to go in the F4U.

You can say that again.

Followed by sanity?

[SgtPappy]

If we ever had the luxury of British Corsair I - IV's with squared off wing tips, do you think that would give the Corsair an extra 5 - 6 mph speed and ~100 - 150 fpm climb boost like it does for the Spitfire VIII vs. XVI?

I know Sax wants the FG-1A, but I say if it's not carrier-borne, it's not my kind of Corsair.   

[Saxman]

I think the Spixteen vs. Spit VIII is FAR more complicated than that. I don't see how wondering how REDUCING wing area (and the amount of lift along with it) can IMPROVE rate of climb....

I would think that a better comparison would be the A6M3 Model 32 vs. Model 22. Both aircraft had the exact same engine but the earlier Model 32 had clipped wings, resulting in poorer climb and turning ability, and reduced range, but increased rate of roll. Strikes me that the FG-1A would be more of an improvement due to the weight reduction, rather than reducing the wing area. However IIRC the Corsair I-IVs didn't clip a significant amount of the wing off to begin with, so may not have all that much of an effect, anyway.

[SgtPappy]

Well Sax, you must also realize that climb rate isn't really wing-loading related and the Spit VIII vs XVI isn't as complicated as you might think.

Honestly, if our Spit IX had a Merlin 66 engine it would perform identically to the Spit VIII, give or take 2-4 mph due to the VIII's retracted tailwheel.

Also, the Spit XVI actually is a Spitfire IX but with a Merlin 66 built in Detroit. That actually is the only difference. Believe it or not, it's not complicated at all. The Spitfire XVI's clipped wings add to its extra speed and the more aerodynamic wing gives it a better climb rate. In summation, a Spit XVI is indeed just like the VIII but with clipped wings (and a non-retracting tailwheel).

What inproves climb rate is the fact that the plane is more aerodynamic. That indeed helps climb rate and is one of the reasons why the P-51 climbs so well despite having a huge wing loading and low power-loading.

I'm actually 100% convinced a clipped wing Corsair will climb better, albeit not by much. But, hey, when you clip 8.5" of each wing resulting in the loss of 4.5 sq. ft. of wing area per wing, I think that's enough to do something. Plus, I have a soft spot for everything British.

[Karnak]

Spitfire VIII weighs more than the Spitfire XVI due to fuel in the wings and the hydraulics for the tail wheel.  Weight reduces climb.

[SgtPappy]

This is true, but ever tried offline practise, carrying 75% fuel in the Spitfire XVI (7086 lbs) and comparing it to a 25% fueled-up Spitfire VIII with a bit of its ammo used (7086 lbs.)?

Turns out the Spitfire XVI still climbs better by some 50 fpm.  @ 2K, the Spitfire XVI climbed at + 7800 fpm with the Spitfire VIII just under 7750 fpm.

Definitely not the results I was expecting, but it does prove that the clipped wings have some effect on increasing climb.