PDA

View Full Version : F6F Speed



R_Target
10-12-2006, 09:14 AM
I'm posting this in hopes of getting the F6F speeds corrected.

Thus far, I have only located three primary sources for F6F speeds: the postwar "Standard Aircraft Characteristics" testing (available here (http://history.navy.mil/branches/hist-ac/f6f-5.pdf)), a 1944 comparative evaluation between F6F, F4U, and FW 190 (available here (http://www.geocities.com/slakergmb/id88.htm)), and a 1944 comparative evaluation against A6M Model 52 (available here (http://home.att.net/%7Ehistoryworld/TAICzero.pdf)).



First, the results of my testing. All runs were made on the Crimea map at noon, 100% fuel, radiators closed,
elevator and rudder trimmed, full power and WEP, for ~5 minutes after speed and altitude were stabilized. TAS from gauges in no-cockpit view.

Alt.(feet) kph mph knots

SL 521 323 281
3k 521 323 281
5k 516 320 278
7k 518 321 279
9k 530 329 286
10k 541 336 292
12k 554 344 299
14k 571 354 308
15k 579 359 312
16k 585 363 315
18k 593 368 320
20k 611 379 329
22k 619 384 334
25k 615 382 332
30k 591 367 319


Now, the real-life tests:

From Navaer "Standard Aircraft Characteristics". Number "2" is Combat (WEP) power:

http://img207.imageshack.us/img207/9577/graphnomarkha4.gif

From F4U/F6F/FW 190 comparative evaluation:

http://img134.imageshack.us/img134/6638/comptestme7.gif

From the TAIC Zeke 52 report:

http://img225.imageshack.us/img225/1479/taictestcg7.gif

All three tests indicate faster speeds than the F6F in PF. For a rough comparison, I plotted PF performance against
the Navaer graph:
PF performance in red:

http://img207.imageshack.us/img207/2983/graphnavaerkh6.gif

With F4U/FW 190 test results in green:

http://img207.imageshack.us/img207/822/graphnavf4f6190ps1.gif

I didn't attempt to graph the results from the Zeke 52 report because only the top speed is given; all other results
are in comparison to the Zeke which was not equipped with water injection. Please note that I don't consider my
additions to the Navaer chart as exact, although I think it gives a fair approximation.
My conclusion is that, at most altitudes, the PF Hellcat is performing below the levels of the lowest performing
test (Navaer "Standard Aircraft Characteristics") I could find. Also please note that the Navaer test is a postwar
test and that the plane listed is 300-500 lbs overweight from wartime F6F's.

Hopefully this issue can be addressed.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

*+
http://img273.imageshack.us/img273/4695/shidensigao4.jpg

ZG77_Nagual
10-12-2006, 12:50 PM
I have read the f6f was, in fact, as fast as the corsair but for the placement of the pitot tube.Corky Meyer f4u v f6f article (http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3897/is_199812/ai_n8817082)<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://webpages.charter.net/cmorey/pics/corsair.jpg

SkyChimp
10-13-2006, 07:03 PM
Don't use the NAVAIR figures. They are dated 1949 and 1950. The text states that the plane is a "second line fighter and trainer." Almost without question, the performance figures contained in the sheets are based on performance on a derated engine. IMO, the other tests you referenced are more reliable tools in determining the performance of a war-time F6F - which suggests the F6F was a true 400 mph fighter, and maybe a wee bit faster.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

Regards,
SkyChimp
http://members.cox.net/us.fighters/colorchimp.jpg

"Hammer the American hard enough and you forge the best weapon in the world."
Captain Simeon Ecuyer during the siege of Fort Pitt

VFA-195 Snacky
10-14-2006, 02:04 AM
Hellcat and Corsair were very similar in performance. Hellcat was a bit more stable at lower speeds and had a slightly better turn radius.

I read somewhere that the Hellcat was the direct response to tests done on a captured Zero. It couldn't out turn a zero, but it didnt need to if it could outrun one.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://us.st11.yimg.com/us.st.yimg.com/I/airplanepictures_1918_16003860

VW-IceFire
10-14-2006, 09:48 AM
Originally posted by VFA-195 Snacky:
Hellcat and Corsair were very similar in performance. Hellcat was a bit more stable at lower speeds and had a slightly better turn radius.

I read somewhere that the Hellcat was the direct response to tests done on a captured Zero. It couldn't out turn a zero, but it didnt need to if it could outrun one.
The Hellcat was never a direct response to the Zero. It was a direct response to the Navy wanting something better than the Wildcat and the Corsair was years away from perfection at the time so the Hellcat was developed as a "interim" fighter. Funny enough...most "interim" or "stopgap" fighters of WWII turn out to be the most used and built in the greatest numbers.

But if you look at the Hellcat...all of the design traits are taken from the Wildcat and expanded on. The Wildcat could almost reach parity with the Zero given enough development (the FM-2 for instance - also USN pilots did exceptionally well in 1943 thanks to training and tactics) but parity isn't good enough and the Hellcat is just all around better making it the perfect weapon against the Zero.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/icefire-tempestv.jpg
Find my missions at Flying Legends (http://www.flying-legends.net/php/downloads/downloads.php?cat_id=19) and Mission4Today.com (http://www.mission4today.com).

EAF19_Aceman
10-14-2006, 09:56 AM
Sorry but my book on navy aircraft in ww2 says that the f6 WAS a direct response to the zero<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://i85.photobucket.com/albums/k61/DanCarey/mustangsigpic.jpg

ElAurens
10-14-2006, 11:17 AM
Your book is wrong.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

_____________________________

http://img118.imageshack.us/img118/554/elskiubikb4.jpg

"To explain the lure of speed you would have to explain human nature" - T.E. Lawrence

Hoarmurath
10-14-2006, 11:55 AM
Development of the hellcat started in 1940, and the first prototypes were ordered by USN in 06/41. I don't see how it could have been an answer to the zero.

The plane was faster than zero, good dive speed, good climbing ability. It had many advantages over the zero. Maneuverability was not one of them.

It's speed was good, but it was still slower than F4U.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://hoarmurath.free.fr/images/sigus.jpg (http://hoarmurath.free.fr/files/internationale-ru.mp3)
56Kers are strongly advised to NOT click on my signature http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Chuck_Older
10-14-2006, 03:10 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

The US Government was given details of the Zero by Claire Chennault in 1940, and the Experts the government used all claimed that the performance of the aircraft was impossible, so they disregarded Chennault's report

Hard to see how the F6F could have been a response to the Zero, since the US didn't want to beleive the Zero's performance, and in effect threw away any reference to flight data for the aircraft in 1940

Aceman, I have read that the F6F was made to counter the Zero myself, and I have also seen facts presented here that destroy that notion. I am sure that elements of the F6F were designed to compete with all enemy aircraft, and performance versus the Zero was obviously a goal during the aircraft's life, but I feel that was where this idea of the plane was built as a direct counter to the Zero came from, and the misunderstanding gets repeated by various authors in error

ICDP
10-14-2006, 05:19 PM
Excellent work R_Target. The F6F is one of my favourite fighters powerfull and looks mean and deadly. Not like those namby pamby gracefull Spits, Stangs and Yak's http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

I even like flying the F65 in the sim and it completely outclasses the A6M in all the right areas. Unfortunately it is too slow by about 10-15mph (depending on the source) at quite a few altitudes. It seems mostly spot on at SL though, I can get 326mph out of it.

When PF was first released the F6F (and F4U) were far too fast with supercharger stage 3 engaged. I brought this problem (and others) to the attention of Oleg in a series of e-mails and eventually the 3rd stage supercharger bug was fixed. Unfortunately the result was that while the F6F was more in line with real life figures it was at the lower 3% of its rated top speed (387mph by my tests). When I e-mailed the devs about this I got no reply. There are a few aircraft that suffer the same fate such as the A6M2 and Ki61. Some aircraft are actually modelled on the optimistic side, the Fw190A8 is about 10mph too fast at SL for example. I suggest you try e-mailing the devs at the normal bug reporting e-mail. Good luck and be sure to show plenty of official speed test with as much detail as possible.

It would be great to get these issues fixed but IIRC if an aircraft is hitting speeds within 3% either way it is deemed correct http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

Here is another chart that shows tops speed for the F6F to be in the region of 400mph. Ignore the red line under the F4U SL top speed.

http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b58/ICDP/alliedchrt.jpg

JtD
10-15-2006, 04:11 AM
Why is there a red line for the F4-U?

I can pretty much confirm R_Targets test results.

ICDP
10-15-2006, 05:02 AM
Hi JtD,

I had uploaded this file previously to show that the F4U was reaching its official speeds and was not 10mph too slow at SL. I simply linked to it again to save time rather than uploading the original version.

I hope this didn't cause confussion.

I haven't tested the F6F for quite a while but at SL it seems pretty spot on and about 10-15mph too slow at critical alt.

VW-IceFire
10-15-2006, 09:09 AM
Originally posted by ICDP:
Hi JtD,

I had uploaded this file previously to show that the F4U was reaching its official speeds and was not 10mph too slow at SL. I simply linked to it again to save time rather than uploading the original version.

I hope this didn't cause confussion.

I haven't tested the F6F for quite a while but at SL it seems pretty spot on and about 10-15mph too slow at critical alt.
I had thought that it was reaching the advertised speeds for sea and critical altitude but that it dropped off in between? I totally support you guys getting this solved. Love flying the F6F!<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/icefire-tempestv.jpg
Find my missions at Flying Legends (http://www.flying-legends.net/php/downloads/downloads.php?cat_id=19) and Mission4Today.com (http://www.mission4today.com).

blindpugh
10-17-2006, 12:25 PM
Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by VFA-195 Snacky:
Hellcat and Corsair were very similar in performance. Hellcat was a bit more stable at lower speeds and had a slightly better turn radius.

I read somewhere that the Hellcat was the direct response to tests done on a captured Zero. It couldn't out turn a zero, but it didnt need to if it could outrun one.
The Hellcat was never a direct response to the Zero. It was a direct response to the Navy wanting something better than the Wildcat and the Corsair was years away from perfection at the time so the Hellcat was developed as a "interim" fighter. Funny enough...most "interim" or "stopgap" fighters of WWII turn out to be the most used and built in the greatest numbers.

But if you look at the Hellcat...all of the design traits are taken from the Wildcat and expanded on. The Wildcat could almost reach parity with the Zero given enough development (the FM-2 for instance - also USN pilots did exceptionally well in 1943 thanks to training and tactics) but parity isn't good enough and the Hellcat is just all around better making it the perfect weapon against the Zero. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>but not in this sim m8

ICDP
10-17-2006, 02:01 PM
I find the complete opposite blindpugh. The F6F in the sim has all the same advantages over the A6M that it did in RL. It is faster, more agile at higher speeds and climbs better at the correct speeds. At altitude it is a far superior fighter. So apart from a slightly too slow top speed (which the A6M also suffers from) the F6F is totally dominant against the A6M.

The F6F could not outturn an A6M at lower speeds but if you use your superior speed you will totally dictate the fight. The F6F is to the A6M what the Fw190A is to the Spitfire MkV.

VW-IceFire
10-17-2006, 05:34 PM
Originally posted by blindpugh:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by VFA-195 Snacky:
Hellcat and Corsair were very similar in performance. Hellcat was a bit more stable at lower speeds and had a slightly better turn radius.

I read somewhere that the Hellcat was the direct response to tests done on a captured Zero. It couldn't out turn a zero, but it didnt need to if it could outrun one.
The Hellcat was never a direct response to the Zero. It was a direct response to the Navy wanting something better than the Wildcat and the Corsair was years away from perfection at the time so the Hellcat was developed as a "interim" fighter. Funny enough...most "interim" or "stopgap" fighters of WWII turn out to be the most used and built in the greatest numbers.

But if you look at the Hellcat...all of the design traits are taken from the Wildcat and expanded on. The Wildcat could almost reach parity with the Zero given enough development (the FM-2 for instance - also USN pilots did exceptionally well in 1943 thanks to training and tactics) but parity isn't good enough and the Hellcat is just all around better making it the perfect weapon against the Zero. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>but not in this sim m8 </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Absolutely in this sim. If you're good in a Hellcat you can flame swarms of Zeros without too much trouble. My personal online all time record is 8 Zeros in about 10 minutes...four of those kills were made within the same 2 minutes. Some of the pilots were just aweful and others were too preoccupied shooting other guys so it made it easy. But deflection shots and high angle passes are king in the Hellcat. The Hellcat responds so well during these manuevers you feel sorry for the guy in the Zero as the F6F is so much better.

Conversely...if I was flying the Zero I'd be in big trouble. BUT...most guys I fly against flying a Zero don't know how to handle the F6F. They put it in crazy turns which I just cut inside of and nail them. The F6F's speed is off a bit but VS the Zero its still superior and a damn good fighter. I was surprised to see how well it turned versus the Bf109 and FW190...it can cut the corners on both of them in any manuever except roll.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/icefire-tempestv.jpg
Find my missions at Flying Legends (http://www.flying-legends.net/php/downloads/downloads.php?cat_id=19) and Mission4Today.com (http://www.mission4today.com).

RCAF_Irish_403
10-18-2006, 06:46 AM
blindpugh: If you are fighting the AI, I have to agree....they don't blackout, overheat....plus they can pull that silly "barrel roll while climbing/diving and accelerating at the same time." The Zeke is one of the worst offenders.

Against a human pilot, OTOH it's a totally different story. The F6F outclasses the Zeke in nearly every respect. Above 12,000 feet it's a slaughter. At high speeds your initial turn is very impressive. If you're in trouble make a shallow dive away....the Zeke faces two choices, either breakoff or breakup his ship. The 6 .50 cals do horrific things to the Zero.

One of my favorite tactics is to simply absorb the Zeke's gunfire and set up for a D'n'B (especially if the Zeke is out of cannon rounds) http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

Originally posted by marc_hawkins:
Don't be too proud of this technological terror you've constructed. A 108:0 kill ratio is insignificant next to the power of the Force

http://www.fas.org/main/home.jsp

WOLFMondo
10-18-2006, 08:27 AM
Originally posted by ICDP:
I find the complete opposite blindpugh. The F6F in the sim has all the same advantages over the A6M that it did in RL. It is faster, more agile at higher speeds and climbs better at the correct speeds. At altitude it is a far superior fighter. So apart from a slightly too slow top speed (which the A6M also suffers from) the F6F is totally dominant against the A6M.

The F6F could not outturn an A6M at lower speeds but if you use your superior speed you will totally dictate the fight. The F6F is to the A6M what the Fw190A is to the Spitfire MkV.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif

The Hellcat is within 5% of any figures anyone has produced in regards to its speed. The Hellcat pwnz0rs against human flown zeros using all its historical ability.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

Cheers!!

R_Target
11-06-2006, 08:17 AM
Thanks for the replies all. Hopefully this will be addressed.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

*+
http://img273.imageshack.us/img273/4695/shidensigao4.jpg

vocatx
11-08-2006, 08:39 PM
A friend of mine performed the same test under the same conditions just yesterday. Here are his findings for the Hellcat:

F6F-5 HELLCAT
Deck: 317mph
3km: 336mph
5km: 351mph
7km: 375mph
Published: 303mph @ Sea Level. 375 to 386 at 7km, depending on source.

Did you correct for true airspeed, or are your figures indicated airspeed?

He is testing several other aircraft as well. Watch for Joop's test results to be posted soon on the Warbirds of Prey forums. (He's having surgery tomorrow, so it may be a few days.)<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

4H_V-man
The 2nd Horseman

R_Target
11-08-2006, 09:23 PM
Originally posted by vocatx:
A friend of mine performed the same test under the same conditions just yesterday. Here are his findings for the Hellcat:

F6F-5 HELLCAT
Deck: 317mph
3km: 336mph
5km: 351mph
7km: 375mph
Published: 303mph @ Sea Level. 375 to 386 at 7km, depending on source.

Did you correct for true airspeed, or are your figures indicated airspeed?

He is testing several other aircraft as well. Watch for Joop's test results to be posted soon on the Warbirds of Prey forums. (He's having surgery tomorrow, so it may be a few days.)

Yup, TAS from the gauge in no-cockpit view, and then just converted. Those numbers are close to mine. If you converted to TAS from IAS on the speedbar, that may explain the slightly slower results from your friend's test.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

*+
http://img273.imageshack.us/img273/4695/shidensigao4.jpg

Nimits
11-08-2006, 09:40 PM
Sorry but my book on navy aircraft in ww2 says that the f6 WAS a direct response to the zero

That is an understandable myth, born through a couple of coincidences, and published in many books. The F6F was the exact right plane to defeat the A6M, heavier armed, faster at all altitudes, and more manuverable at high speeds and altitudes. The timely capture of an intact flyable A6M several months before the F6F entered service then lead many to believe the F6F's performance had been tailored against former's test results. Finally, the career of the F6F somewhat parallelled the A6M, entering service in 1943 while the Zeros still remained competative, beginning to be phased out in late 1944 in favor of the F4U after a majority of Zeros had either been destoryed or assigned to secondary duties, and being quickly replaced by the F8F and F4U in as soon as the war was over and their were no more Zeros to fight.


Originally posted by WOLFMondo:

The Hellcat is within 5% of any figures anyone has produced in regards to its speed.

Which could still be 20mph to slow. Whether or not that is acceptable in a survey sim with a over a hundred aircraft (not counting variants), I really cannot say. It seems to me, even if achieving perfection is not possible, the speed could be brought a little closer to reality, say within 2%-3% of real life top speed.

The real issue, though, may be that those performance figures are off. Supposedly tests were made where the F4U and F6F flew side by side, yet the F4U indicated airspeed was considerably slower (around 20 KIAS, if I remember correctly). It has been supposed that poor placement of the pitot tube resulted in incorrectly too slow air speed indications for the F6F. Even if the plane flew spot on at its published figures, it might still be flying 20 knots too slowly in the game, relative to everything else . . .

R_Target
11-10-2006, 07:03 AM
Here's the side-by-side comparison by Corky Meyer:

Navy taste test...: Hellcat vs. Corsair
Meyer, Corky

If the contest between the two airplanes had been for beauty of design, we would have given in immediately. Our baby, the Hellcat, was beautiful to us, but in comparison with the graceful lines of the Corsair, the Hellcat looked more like the box it came in than a new Navy fighter. We always used the euphemism "functional looking" instead of "ugly" to describe it

We were sure that Vought would have a difficult time meeting the Navy's demands, as most of the Corsair's deficiencies would require major changes in configuration. We were also steeped in the tradition that Grummanites could always make better Navy fighters than Connecticut clam diggers; thus, our tasks would be accomplished in a trice. Our performance-improvement challenge turned out to be much easier than we ever hoped, but the aileron problem turned out to be nearly impossible.

The Navy was right

As long as we had the enemy in our hangar, we decided to conduct a witch-hunt into its entrails. In my first flight, I discovered the Corsair did indeed indicate 20 knots faster and did have really smooth and powerful ailerons compared with our Hellcats. But, as we had heard and as was completely obvious, the cockpit was wretched from many standpoints. The most glaring deficiency was the absence of a cockpit floor! Behind the rudder pedals, only two, small heel panels offered any protection against dropping a pencil, a chart, or earphones, etc., into a three-foot-deep, yawning black hole. Consider the havoc this would cause if the pilot's relief tube dropped down there on a very, very long mission!

To simplify the evaluation and reduce data, we decided to test-fly the Hellcat and the Corsair in close formation. Instead of comparing complex calculations, performance could then be compared directly at the critical altitudes of the main stage, high and low blower altitudes of the engine's superchargers, and from cruise to high-speed, level flight with water injection. We also included some formation dives to learn which airplane was the slickest

Performance almost equal

Except for the Corsair being 20 knots faster than the Hellcat in the main, sea-level, supercharger stage, both fighters had almost exactly the same speed at the low and high blower stages from 5,000 feet altitude up to service ceiling! In essence, they had the same performance. Our formation flights showed that both airplanes (with similar power settings) were in closely stabilized formation at all altitudes tested above 5,000 feet Sometimes, the Corsair would slowly gain a lead of 100 to 200 feet after five minutes of stabilized power flight, and sometimes, the Hellcat would do the same. Considering that both airplanes had the same engine, propeller, gross weight, wingspan, etc., they should have had about the same performance. We did notice that during these runs, the Corsair always had about a 20-knot indicated airspeed (IAS) advantage! We didn't realize just how embarrassing it would be to solve that dilemma.

The reason the Corsair was faster in the main stage blower was that its engine and carburetor were provided with ram air coming in directly from the forward-facing wing duct, whereas the Hellcat had the carburetor air coming in from the accessory compartment of the fuselage just behind the engine, with no ram air effect Our airplane was getting carburetor air at the same pressure as it would have were it motionless on the ground, and the Corsair was getting carburetor air supercharged by the speed of the airplane giving it more power (speed) in the main stage blower. In both aircraft, however, the designs were similar in that they provided ram air to the low and high blower stages. Our engineering department defended its position because taking the warmer air for the main stage blower would prevent inadvertent carburetor icing engine failures. Many Wildcats that had ram air in the main stage like the Corsair were lost because pilots failed to take precautions in time to avert this type of disaster. The Hellcat design was reviewed and approved by the Navy. I had had a carburetor icing accident during final approach on my first flight in a Wildcat a few months previously; it resulted in my first deadstick landing and a vertical ground loop. I therefore heartily agreed with the Navy's decision.

IAS performance equalized-the hard way

After noting the 20 knots indicated airspeed difference that had caused all the "lower performance" ruckus for our Hellcat, we eagerly decided to change the airspeed system so that it would read evenly with the Corsair when they were in formation. We had taken a lot of flak from all who had flown both airplanes (but not in formation) and, therefore, everybody 'mew' that the Hellcat was inferior in high-speed performance. We liked our simple and less complicated airspeed system with the static and dynamic orifices on the same boom, but we decided to go whole hog and put the static orifice on the fuselage (like the Corsair) to tailor the system to read 20 knots higher. We tried several orifice locations to get the required reading. After I had done a thorough testing of the final system over the entire flight envelope-or so I thought-I proudly flew the airplane to the Naval Air Test Center at Patuxent, Maryland for an evaluation. We soon found out that we had not purloined the Corsair airspeed system design thoroughly enough.

We soon received the Navy's glowing report of the new system; and it went on to say that the Air Test Center had never tested an airplane with such remarkable low-speed performance in its entire history. They found that in a left side slip with the wheels and flaps extended, the Hellcat could fly at zero airspeed. Wonder of wonders! Grumman led the industry again! Upon re-evaluation, we found that the engineers, inexperienced with flush static airspeed systems, had designed ours with only one orifice on the left side of the airplane, and it was very unbalanced with the flaps down. As the senior engineering test pilot, I was in deep doo-doo for not testing the new system in all side-slip conditions. A dualorifice system way behind the lowered flaps (similar to the Corsair's) finally provided a satisfactory means to give the Hellcat a cockpit indicated airspeed reading comparable to the vaunted Corsair's. That was the last we heard of the Hellcat's performance gap with the Corsair. Performance case closed.

Hellcat ailerons improved-the NACA way

During this time, our flight-control engineers designed all kinds of aileron contours and shapes. We tested them to their limits, but to no avail We just could not get the same delightful low forces and high rolling performance as the Corsair had so ably demonstrated. We eventually realized that the high dihedral angle of the Hellcat's wing produced exceptionally high lateral stability, which was the cause of the low rolling rate of our ailerons. To change the dihedral of the wing meant completely redesigning the complicated wing-fold mechanism where the dihedral angle of the wing was formed. That was a real no-no in wartime production. We even went as far as making an exact set of molded plywood ailerons to the Corsair's contours, but we met with zero success. The very low lateral stability that we measured in the Corsair gave its ailerons great power and produced the fabulous rolling rate. They were sim ply not fighting as much inherent lateral stability as we were. We finally incorporated the newly invented NACA spring tab for the aileron; it did the trick by lowering the aileron stick forces over 50 percent, thus allowing the pilot to get full aileron deflections at speeds of 100 knots faster than he could before. Navy pilots agreed that the spring tab ailerons did close the rolling performance gap of the two competitors.

To everybody's happiness (except the Japanese's) these ailerons were introduced on the F6F-5 early in 1944. To further increase Japanese joy, we retrofitted many of the 3,000-plus F6F-3s that had been delivered to the Navy without spring tab ailerons with spring tabs.

On one flight during full-power performance testing at 25,000 feet, I had the chance to see just what the practical benefits of the Corsair's low lateral stability would be in an emergency. Pat Gallo, one of our other experimental test pilots, was flying the Corsair; I was flying the Hellcat. We were at full power heading toward Bermuda when I noticed that Pat no longer answered my radio calls. I was trying to remind him to check his estimate of the differences between our speeds. When I finally passed his Corsair, I saw him peering at me very glassy eyed, in a real daze. I also noted that he was wearing one of the unsafe, light gray Mine Safety oxygen masks. I thought we had destroyed those masks many months before after having serious problems with them at high altitude. We were now using the dark green Navy-issue masks with the balloon bag under the pilot's chin; the bag clearly showed the oxygen flow by its expansion and contraction with each breath.

I immediately realized that I was faced with making one of the most critical decisions I would ever have to make for a fellow test pilot I was unable to communicate with Pat and I knew that in another 10 minutes at full power he would be halfway to Bermuda. He would then run out of gasoline over a very cold and unwelcoming winter Atlantic Ocean. It became quite clear what I had to do, but I worried that my actions could have dire consequences.

I slowed to formation speed on his left side and closed in to him until my right wingtip was just under his left wingtip. I then gave a strong left push to my stick and rolled him into a 30-degree right bank. His Corsair started down in a long, slow spiral with me in traiL I did not know whether my actions would lead to a steep dive to the water or not, but I knew I had to do something. With the luck of the century, the Corsair's very weak pitch and roll stability slowly took over, and we leveled out heading back to Long Island at about 19,000 feet. Much less hesitantly, I then repeated the maneuver twice until, at about 9,000 feet, he started talking to me in a most querulous and angry tone inquiring which damn maneuver we were going to do next Using my most diplomatic tone I told him that we were very low on fuel and that he should reduce power from full throttle to cruise and return to base with me. His regular fiery temperament seemed all too docile until he said that he wasn't feeling too well and suggested that I talk him through his landing. On the ground, he confessed that he didn't remember anything about the flight from climbing through 10,000 feet to awaking at 9,000 feet before we landed. Needless to say, I now had great comments about the Corsair's weak lateral stability and many more foul ones about the Mine Safety masks still in our ready room lockers.

A very jumpy takeoff

Before measuring Corsair takeoff performance, I performed the usual required stalls in all configurations. This model of the Corsair had the new and improved stall tripper wedge on the right wing to improve stalls. It was quite clear to me that the Hellcat was much more docile and controllable during and after stalls, especially in the landing-condition accelerated stalls. The Corsair had more of an abrupt wing drop in the normal stalls and was more difficult to un-stall than the Hellcat. Even worse, the Corsair did a totally unexpected double snap roll when performing a 5G accelerated stall in the clean condition. During these tests, I should have been more impressed with the Corsair's reactions than I was. The Corsair was really talking to me.

We had found that the Hellcat could shorten its takeoff roll by about 100 feet in a calm wind if the tail was raised to level flight position during the first part of the roll and then slammed down at minimum takeoff speed. We named this a 'lump takeoff' (versus the normal three-point type). This became the standard way to make a short takeoff in the Hellcat-not so in the mighty Corsair.

My Army doctor brother was visiting me at Grumman on the day we were to perform minimum-distance measured takeoffs in the Corsair, and he was out on the runway to watch the proceedings. After making 10 measured three-point takeoffs in the Corsair, I told the engineers that I was going to start jump takeoffs. I pushed the stick forward and waited until the speed indicated 66 knots; then I slammed the tail down onto the runway as I had many, many times in the Hellcat Lo and behold! As the tailwheel went down on the runway, I got a very strong wind from the left side of the cockpit because the airplane prematurely left the ground, instantly yawed 30 degrees left, stalled, dropped the left wing, fell to the ground and departed the runway promptly to the left without any help from me. We were headed at full power straight into a batch of Hellcats on the delivery line. Navy delivery pilots who have flown from Grumman's Bethpage airport know there isn't much empty space there, and they would thus understand the interesting but unplanned path the Corsair was grinding out for me.

The Corsair's action was so precipitate that it seemed as if it took me way too much time to start taking prudent defensive actions. I finally yanked the throttle back, raised the tail so I could see what the near future held for me and began a frantic braking on what happily proved to be hard-packed, dry ground. I stopped about 50 feet from the nearest Hellcat in the delivery-line area! I sat there for a while until the earth stopped trembling, then I slowly taxied back to our experimental flightline and decided to call it a day for jump takeoffs. While we were having cocktails that evening, my brother hesitantly asked me if I did that for a living every day.

Epilogue

The Corsair's production line benefited in many ways from its Hellcat evaluation. Reducing the oleo bounce, making further improvements to its harsh stall characteristics and enhancing the forward visibility by extending the tailwheel and raising the seat were easy ones to incorporate into the production line. But several of the needed fixes were impossible to insert into the production line until the major changeover of the F4U-4 model in late 1944. The Corsair's cockpit internal layout, for instance, required a complete redesign, and that was impossible to do with the high wartime production rate that Vought was striving for in 1943.

Forward visibility for the Corsair was never as good as the Hellcat's because of the design of its wing center section. In a fighter, fuel is usually required to be on its center of gravity to keep the flight characteristics within satisfactory limits. The Corsair was originally designed to have the fuel in the wing center section, and the first few prototypes did have it there. But the inverted-gull-wing design was so complicated to manufacture that those tanks had to be removed and a fuel tank had to be placed on top of the wing in a fuselage extension-where the cockpit had been. Placing the cockpit four feet farther aft gave the Corsair its very impaired forward visibility, especially in the landing configuration. This poor forward visibility also greatly reduced pilot lead estimation capabilities in deflection gunnery runs. The long nose was as endemic to poor visibility in the Corsair as the design of the wing dihedral was to the low rolling performance in the Hellcat

The Hellcat, with its straight wing center section, could be designed with all of the fuel on the CG. Thus, the cockpit could be positioned just behind the engine to provide excellent forward visibility for aerial gunnery, carrier approach and even after flare-out on landing. It was also attached to so much structure around the center of gravity that it gave the pilot excellent crash protection. Hellcat pilots gave Grumman its nickname "the Grumman Ironworks."

The lack of satisfactory forward visibility caused many carrierlanding accidents in the early Corsair series until the F4U-4 came into squadrons late in the War. Because of high accident rates, Corsairs were pulled from carrier operations three times during the War. In land-based operations where higher-speed wheel landings could be used to improve forward visibility, the Corsair had a very good safety record.

In summary, any objective analysis must acknowledge that the United States and the U.S. Navy were fortunate indeed to have Grumman and Vought to produce the "Fustess with the mostess" so soon after Pearl Harbor. Part of the heat in the discussion to decide which was the better airplane was generated by the fact that both planes met the requirements for carrier and land-based uses extremely well

This writer just might have been a little less biased if the Chance Vought Corp. was sending him a monthly retirement check of the same size as Grumman has been doing for the last 17 years. If, however, the late Boone Guyton, who was the project test pilot for all models of the Corsair (and was an old friend) was buying the beer, I would agree heartily with him that the "bent-wing bastard" was the "greatest fighter in aviation history!"

Copyright Air Age Publishing Dec 1998<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

*+
http://img273.imageshack.us/img273/4695/shidensigao4.jpg

ICDP
11-12-2006, 04:39 AM
Great read R_Target, thanks for posting it.

After reading the results of your friends test I decided to test the F6F-5 again under the following conditions.

Crimea map, 12:00 noon, 100% fuel and internal ammo. 110% power withe WEP enabled. Readings are taken from the TAS view.

SL 521kph (324mph)
1K 527kph (327mph)
2k 517kph (321mph)
3k 538kph (335mph)
4k 565kph (351mph)
5k 575kph (357mph)
6k 605kph (376mph)
7k 621kph (385mph)
7.3k 613kph (381mph)

Here are those figures drawn onto an official USN F6F-5 speed graph. I believe the line marked 2 on the graph is for combat power. If this is the case then the F6F-5 in PF is around 10-15mph too slow at quite a few altitudes. The chart I linked to earlier in this thread gives the F6F-5 speed of 399mph at 20,100ft. Despite this it is still modelled within acceptable tollerance levels and I doubt it will be fixed. Other aicraft suffer a similar problem and this variance has now become normal for quite a few aircraft in PF.

http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b58/ICDP/Speedchart.jpg

BigKahuna_GS
11-12-2006, 07:40 PM
__________________________________________________ _________________________
ICDP-I had uploaded this file previously to show that the F4U was reaching its official speeds and was not 10mph too slow at SL. I simply linked to it again to save time rather than uploading the original version.
I hope this didn't cause confussion.
I haven't tested the F6F for quite a while but at SL it seems pretty spot on and about 10-15mph too slow at critical alt.
__________________________________________________ _________________________


I don't think the sea level V-max speed of 355mph for the Corsair is accurate according to the speeds the Navy got in the "clean condition" of wartime combat loaded Corsairs. The problem with IL2/PF is that for the most part Corsair performance has been lumped sumed together for all models without much difference. My dad flew this plane and said he had no problem hitting speeds over 370mph on WEP at sea level.

You also have to be very careful because many of the speed tests the Navy conducted were with wing pylons & drop tanks. Look specificaly for "clean condition" speed tests.

Here is a great web site with Official Naval WW2 Flight Tests
http://www.geocities.com/slakergmb/id3.htm

Notice the 38lb wing loading on a fully combat loaded Corsair. Also notice the emergency take off rating & distance. IL2 can't match these ratings at all.
http://www.geocities.com/slakergmb/19128170.jpg

http://www.geocities.com/slakergmb/19728170.jpg

Navy 366mph sea level V-max in "Clean Condition"
http://www.geocities.com/slakergmb/19728170.jpg

Notice Sea Level speeds much better than IL2. The Corsair is at least 10mph too slow at sea level in IL2/PF.
http://www.geocities.com/slakergmb/23d60700.jpg

__<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://airplanesandmore.com/prodimages/largeSting%20of%20the%20Yellow%20Jackets.jpg
The Yo-Yo is very difficult to explain. It was first perfected by the well-known Chinese fighter pilot Yo-Yo Noritake. He also found it difficult to explain, being quite devoid of English.
? Squadron Leader K. G. Holland, RAF.


It is generally inadvisable to eject directly over the area you just bombed.

? USAF Manual

ICDP
11-13-2006, 11:03 AM
This is an F6F thread Kahuna.

mynameisroland
11-13-2006, 12:07 PM
Originally posted by 609IAP_Kahuna:
My dad flew this plane and said he had no problem hitting speeds over 370mph on WEP at sea level.


What plane ? There were lots of Corsairs, was the F4U4 by anychance?<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y294/mynameisroland/boemherTemp4.jpg

BigKahuna_GS
11-14-2006, 10:49 AM
ICDP-This is an F6F thread Kahuna.
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ ______________________


Rgr that but you posted incorrect F4U flight data (V-max sea level speed)and called it correct. Your red underlined sea level speed for the F4U. I hope you are not the guy that Oleg is listening for this speed because it is at least 10mph too slow. If you lool at the Navy Comparison Flight Tests between the P51B vs F4U1-A the sea level V-max speed is listed again at 366mph and with as little as a 5"Hg boost hit 376mph & 435mph at 18,000ft. The Corsair was a very fast bird from sea level to just over 20,000ft.

I didn't post about the Hellcat yet but if you check R-2800 emergency take off rating in a "calm" or zero wind condition it also applies to the Hellcat's take off distances. Neither the Hellcat or Corsair have the correct take off power, combat loading or take distance on a static carrier according to official US Navy Docs. They are both underachieving in IL2/PF.



__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ _____________________
mynameisroland --What plane ? There were lots of Corsairs, was the F4U4 by anychance?
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ _____________________


Isn't it great when people try to be smart a_ _ but dont bother to read or even look at the flight test data before responding ?

If a 1943 F4U-1 Corsair can hit 376mph at sea level and 435mph at 18,000ft do you even have a clue what a F4U-4 would do ?
What part of this don't you understand ?

http://www.geocities.com/slakergmb/23d60700.jpg
http://www.geocities.com/slakergmb/23d60700.jpg

F4U-4 Speeds in "Clean Condition" 384mph at Sea Level & 464mph at 20,500ft
http://us.geocities.com/slakergmb/1098f6f0.gif


F4U-1D vs F6F Speeds

http://us.geocities.com/slakergmb/1318f6f0.gif

F4U-1D vs F6F-5 Climb Rates

http://us.geocities.com/slakergmb/1378f6f0.gif <div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://airplanesandmore.com/prodimages/largeSting%20of%20the%20Yellow%20Jackets.jpg
The Yo-Yo is very difficult to explain. It was first perfected by the well-known Chinese fighter pilot Yo-Yo Noritake. He also found it difficult to explain, being quite devoid of English.
? Squadron Leader K. G. Holland, RAF.


It is generally inadvisable to eject directly over the area you just bombed.

? USAF Manual

Kocur_
11-14-2006, 12:04 PM
If a 1943 F4U-1 Corsair can hit 376mph at sea level

Do I see "Special Flush" at 376mph/65''Hg line in the top chart, dated March 1944 btw?

VFA-195 Snacky
11-14-2006, 01:56 PM
I can see this debate going on for weeks, but if you look at flight tests between the Corsair and Hellcat you will see very similar numbers.

The Hellcat had the exact same WASP 2800 that the Corsair did. The Hellcat was lighter than the Corsair. It doesn't take a genius to figure it out.

I'm not saying they both clones, but definantly closer than what Oleg would have you believe.


Originally posted by Hoarmurath:
Development of the hellcat started in 1940, and the first prototypes were ordered by USN in 06/41. I don't see how it could have been an answer to the zero.

The plane was faster than zero, good dive speed, good climbing ability. It had many advantages over the zero. Maneuverability was not one of them.

It's speed was good, but it was still slower than F4U. <div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://us.st11.yimg.com/us.st.yimg.com/I/airplanepictures_1918_16003860

ICDP
11-14-2006, 02:55 PM
Originally posted by VFA-195 Snacky:
I can see this debate going on for weeks, but if you look at flight tests between the Corsair and Hellcat you will see very similar numbers.

The Hellcat had the exact same WASP 2800 that the Corsair did. The Hellcat was lighter than the Corsair. It doesn't take a genius to figure it out.

I'm not saying they both clones, but definantly closer than what Oleg would have you believe.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Hoarmurath:
Development of the hellcat started in 1940, and the first prototypes were ordered by USN in 06/41. I don't see how it could have been an answer to the zero.

The plane was faster than zero, good dive speed, good climbing ability. It had many advantages over the zero. Maneuverability was not one of them.

It's speed was good, but it was still slower than F4U. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The F6F had more drag I believe. Having said that I do agree that the F65 should have around a 10-15 mph speed increase at most altitudes. Unfortunately I don't see it getting fixed in PF.

I have given up asking for performance changes on many different AC. It isn't that the devs don't care, they simply don't have the manpower to fix these issues.

berg417448
11-14-2006, 03:35 PM
Originally posted by Kocur_:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">If a 1943 F4U-1 Corsair can hit 376mph at sea level

Do I see "Special Flush" at 376mph/65''Hg line in the top chart, dated March 1944 btw? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


It may say "Special Finish". Hard to tell.

Kocur_
11-14-2006, 04:15 PM
Yes! Looks like "Special Finish" (a vertical line after "F" too much for "Flush"). Anyway "Special" is the key word regarding achieved speed...

SkyChimp
11-14-2006, 05:09 PM
Don't use this graph:

http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b58/ICDP/Speedchart.jpg

This is from a 1949/1950 NAVAIR document for a derated F6F-5. The MISSION AND DESCRIPTION box on the document states the F6F is NOW a second line fighter and trainer. Second line planes anfd trainers routinely flew on derated engine. The performance figure represented in the graphs DO NOT reflect wartime performance.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

Regards,
SkyChimp
http://members.cox.net/us.fighters/colorchimp.jpg

"Hammer the American hard enough and you forge the best weapon in the world."
Captain Simeon Ecuyer during the siege of Fort Pitt

ICDP
11-15-2006, 01:38 AM
Thanks Skychimp.

I used the cahrt to show how slow the F6F was, not to show how correct it was. As I said the F6F should be capable of around 400mph at rated alt. In fact there is evidence to suggest it could go faster. Unfortunately the F6F in PF is modelled to the lower end of its RL data.

BigKahuna_GS
11-15-2006, 09:53 PM
Kocur_ Posted Tue November 14 2006 11:04 Hide Post
quote:
Do I see "Special Flush" at 376mph/65''Hg line in the top chart, dated March 1944 btw?

I think you mean "Special Finish" which would mean the wings were cleaned up; probably repainted, waxed & gaps filled. Many allied & axis aircraft ran speed tests this way it was not uncommon. The 56th FG made a habit of sanding, repainting, polishing and filling gaps on thier fighters. For Robert Johnson this was standard operating procedure. Johnson felt that max mph gain from this was probably around 5mph. But he also wanted every advantage he could get. For Fleet Corsairs a "Special Finish" was not common or representaive of wartime F4Us. The again maybe the CAG wanted his Corsair shiney.

The point to remember here is that the pilot controld the boost or Hg. Most FGs removed the throttle stops so the pilot could give max power at any altitude. They felt it was their butt on the line and they would rather blow an engine than get shot down. Considering the boost levels the 56th FG was running in europe (up to 90" Hg) on R-2800 engines, this is a
mild boost increase on this Corsair from 60" to 65" Hg. This boost increase is the principle reason for speed/performance gains. While the "SF" helped it was but a small factor.

__<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://airplanesandmore.com/prodimages/largeSting%20of%20the%20Yellow%20Jackets.jpg
The Yo-Yo is very difficult to explain. It was first perfected by the well-known Chinese fighter pilot Yo-Yo Noritake. He also found it difficult to explain, being quite devoid of English.
? Squadron Leader K. G. Holland, RAF.


It is generally inadvisable to eject directly over the area you just bombed.

? USAF Manual

BigKahuna_GS
11-24-2006, 02:16 AM
VFA-195 Snacky
I can see this debate going on for weeks, but if you look at flight tests between the Corsair and Hellcat you will see very similar numbers. The Hellcat had the exact same WASP 2800 that the Corsair did. The Hellcat was lighter than the Corsair. It doesn't take a genius to figure it out.
__________________________________________________ _______________________________________________


Better look at the US Navy Flight Tests again because they show the F6F-5 at 323mph at sea level.
The Corsair at "Normal" power setting was as fast as the Hellcat at "WEP". The Corsair at "Military Power" was 20mph faster and at WEP "Clean Condition" was 42mph faster at sea level than the Hellcat. The Corsair also climbed about 500fpm faster. The Corsair had cleaner lines and less aerodynamic drag vs the Hellcat.

One of the main questions to ask is - If the Hellcat was almost identical in performance to the Corsair, why then did the Corsair replace the Hellcat as the front line Navy Fleet fighter ?
The Navy replaced the Hellcat with the Corsair because it was superior in many performance catogories such as speed, climb, payload & range.

http://us.geocities.com/slakergmb/1318f6f0.gif
http://us.geocities.com/slakergmb/1318f6f0.gif

The F6F-3 is listed at 12,406lbs. That is 400lbs more than the F4U-1 in this flight test. Later Corsair models could gain or lose weight according to fuel capacity and weapons changes. I seem to remember the Hellcat being heavier in possibly all models vs the Corsair.

http://www.geocities.com/slakergmb/20660b00.jpg



__________________________________________________ ______________________________________________
ICDP--The F6F had more drag I believe. Having said that I do agree that the F65 should have around a 10-15 mph speed increase at most altitudes. Unfortunately I don't see it getting fixed in PF.
--As I said the F6F should be capable of around 400mph at rated alt. In fact there is evidence to suggest it could go faster. Unfortunately the F6F in PF is modelled to the lower end of its RL data.
__________________________________________________ ______________________________________________



A 10-15mph speed loss is beyond being at the lower end of it's Real Life data and effects other flight parameters in the sim. The other real shame about the Hellcat is how painfully slow it accelerates during a dive. It is like watching paint dry or measuring with a sundail. According to my virtual squadmate who flew the Hellcat in real life says the stall speed is too high. The Corsair is also at least 10mph too slow. Not to mention the wrong take off power, take off distance, & take off distance vs ordenance load out.

_<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://airplanesandmore.com/prodimages/largeSting%20of%20the%20Yellow%20Jackets.jpg
The Yo-Yo is very difficult to explain. It was first perfected by the well-known Chinese fighter pilot Yo-Yo Noritake. He also found it difficult to explain, being quite devoid of English.
? Squadron Leader K. G. Holland, RAF.


It is generally inadvisable to eject directly over the area you just bombed.

? USAF Manual

ICDP
11-24-2006, 11:04 AM
Kahuna,

When I made the statement about the F6F being modelled at the lower end of RL data I meant the acutal official USN speed charts from the F6F manual. I have seen plenty of charts that show F6F top speed of 380mph. This is contradictory to many other RL tests of the F6F that show around 400mph.

Unfortunately I don't see the point in debating AC performance issues any further. The devs simply have not got the time or manpower to correct these kind of faults.

BigKahuna_GS
11-24-2006, 12:14 PM
ICDP--The devs simply have not got the time or manpower to correct these kind of faults.


Hya ICDP,

I understand what you are saying but it is interesting that there is time and resources to add drawing board aircraft that never flew but not correct flight and damage models of existing aircraft. If third parties are making the new flight/damage models of these new 46' aircraft why not use them to make some corrections ?
While I welcome new aircraft we should not forget about existing aircraft.
To me that is a matter of priorities & quality control.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://airplanesandmore.com/prodimages/largeSting%20of%20the%20Yellow%20Jackets.jpg
The Yo-Yo is very difficult to explain. It was first perfected by the well-known Chinese fighter pilot Yo-Yo Noritake. He also found it difficult to explain, being quite devoid of English.
? Squadron Leader K. G. Holland, RAF.


It is generally inadvisable to eject directly over the area you just bombed.

? USAF Manual

ICDP
11-24-2006, 05:02 PM
I couldn't agree more Kahuna http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

I have often wondered how there has been precious time found to implement such things as Bf109Z's, Horten watchyama callit's, YP80's etc. The time spent on implementing FM's and DM's on these unimportant (IMHO) aircraft should have been spent in other much more important areas. The AI has had serious issues for quite a few releases now. Many AC have poorly implemented DM's and FM's. The time spent creating the "paper napkin" and "also ran" AC could have been better spent fixing the P47 and Fw190 cockpits for example.

I am looking forward to the new upcoming DVD, but not for the new AC or maps etc, it is in the hope that the long needed AI fixes are included. I am not belittling the work and efforts of the AC modellers and map makers. I am just confused as to why the devs didnt come to the obvious conclusion that some much needed FM/DM and AI fixes should have been given priority.

SkyChimp
11-30-2006, 08:10 PM
Originally posted by ICDP:
I used the cahrt to show how slow the F6F was, not to show how correct it was.

OK, that is a reason to use it. I fully agree with your assessment.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

Regards,
SkyChimp
http://members.cox.net/us.fighters/colorchimp.jpg

"Hammer the American hard enough and you forge the best weapon in the world."
Captain Simeon Ecuyer during the siege of Fort Pitt

WB_Outlaw
11-30-2006, 09:02 PM
Originally posted by 609IAP_Kahuna:
I understand what you are saying but it is interesting that there is time and resources to add drawing board aircraft that never flew but not correct flight and damage models of existing aircraft. If third parties are making the new flight/damage models of these new 46' aircraft why not use them to make some corrections ?


I think the answer is that the third parties aren't doing it out of necessity (ie to pay their bills), rather, it's a labor of love and they ain't lovin' the F6 or any of the other stuff that could use some tweaking. Also, the basic framework of the application is limiting in some cases and nothing short of a major overhaul can fix it (IMHO the AI probably falls into this category).

--Outlaw.

ICDP
12-01-2006, 03:16 AM
Outlaw it is not the work done by the 3rd party modellers that we are discussing. It is the work from the official developers that is required to get these 3rd party AC into the game/sim. I am simply stating my opinion that each and every single one of the never made to production or major combat use AC are a complete waste of time. I and many other people would much rather see the unrealistic P47 razorbacks and Fw190 visibility fixed than get 10 free addon planes that are of no consequence to WWII.

I would say that the vast majority of people would have hopped into a Horten flying wing for a few fun flights and then never flew it again. Same for the Bf109Z or the YP80 or that stupid russian prototype AC that never went into production. The developers should have simply not spent one second on incorporating them into the sim. There are still so many gameplay, AI issues and so many DM/FM issues that need fixed and yet the devs have repeatedly ignored them to concentrate on adding new worthless AC. The AI ships don't even try to evade dive bombers. This alone makes the Pacific campaigns totally unrealistic, dive bombing a ship that sails merily along in a nice straight line is laughable.

Sorry if this seems like I am getting at you that is not my inention. I am simply pointing out that the time and effort the devs wasted on these worthless addons could have been used to perfect many other sadly lacking areas.

WB_Outlaw
12-01-2006, 06:09 AM
I feel your pain ICDP and agree with you , however, keep in mind that ADDING content is almost certainly MUCH easier than CHANGING code. Changes in code require much regression testing of larger parts of the application than were changed to ensure that the changes didn't break something else in an unexpected place.

Also, on a large modularized project it is often the case for individuals to become the only ones familiar enough with their module to quickly and reliably make changes. If they leave, that portion of the code is essentially fixed for the duration as it's just too expensive to have someone else "learn" how it works. I wonder if this isn't the case with the AI since it's been mediocre at best for a very long time.

Simple economics also come into play. If more people will pay more for new content than will pay for other fixes, the new content is going to win. I, for one, would certainly pay for many small fixes but I can guarantee you that if UBI tried to charge for 3%-5% increases in flight model accuracy, the whining would be massive. Even if they included a completely revamped AI it would get them nothing but the old, "...why should I pay for something that should have been in the very first release..." garbage.

--Outlaw.

ICDP
12-01-2006, 07:07 AM
Hi Outlaw,

You make very valid points about what sells for addons and unfortunately you are 100% correct. What is laughable though is that Oleg and the local fanboys actually believe the AI in this sim is "all that". The ability for the AI to put up a decent fight 1v1 does not make good AI. It is a collection of multiple parts and in most departments the IL2 series AI is very poor. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

Xiolablu3
12-01-2006, 02:06 PM
Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by blindpugh:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by VFA-195 Snacky:
Hellcat and Corsair were very similar in performance. Hellcat was a bit more stable at lower speeds and had a slightly better turn radius.

I read somewhere that the Hellcat was the direct response to tests done on a captured Zero. It couldn't out turn a zero, but it didnt need to if it could outrun one.
The Hellcat was never a direct response to the Zero. It was a direct response to the Navy wanting something better than the Wildcat and the Corsair was years away from perfection at the time so the Hellcat was developed as a "interim" fighter. Funny enough...most "interim" or "stopgap" fighters of WWII turn out to be the most used and built in the greatest numbers.

But if you look at the Hellcat...all of the design traits are taken from the Wildcat and expanded on. The Wildcat could almost reach parity with the Zero given enough development (the FM-2 for instance - also USN pilots did exceptionally well in 1943 thanks to training and tactics) but parity isn't good enough and the Hellcat is just all around better making it the perfect weapon against the Zero. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>but not in this sim m8 </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Absolutely in this sim. If you're good in a Hellcat you can flame swarms of Zeros without too much trouble. My personal online all time record is 8 Zeros in about 10 minutes...four of those kills were made within the same 2 minutes. Some of the pilots were just aweful and others were too preoccupied shooting other guys so it made it easy. But deflection shots and high angle passes are king in the Hellcat. The Hellcat responds so well during these manuevers you feel sorry for the guy in the Zero as the F6F is so much better.

Conversely...if I was flying the Zero I'd be in big trouble. BUT...most guys I fly against flying a Zero don't know how to handle the F6F. They put it in crazy turns which I just cut inside of and nail them. The F6F's speed is off a bit but VS the Zero its still superior and a damn good fighter. I was surprised to see how well it turned versus the Bf109 and FW190...it can cut the corners on both of them in any manuever except roll. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


The Hellcat is superior to the comntemporary Zero in the sim, in everything except turning circles at low speeds, I think.

I would much rather be in a Hellcat/Wildcat in the game.

When you first start fly it seesm like the Zero holds all the cards, but as soon as you learn to keep your speed up in the Hellcat and use teamwork, the Zero has a very tough time.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

--------------------------------------------------------------------
"I despise what you say; I will defend to the death your right to say it."
-Voltaire

Philipscdrw
12-02-2006, 01:39 PM
OK, if the standard USN Corsair has an ASI that reads 20mph higher than the standard USN Hellcat's ASI when they're both travelling at the same speed, due to differing positions of the static ports...

...doesn't that make 'This plane is 10mph too slow/fast!' arguments pointless? If you can't rely on the accuracy of the real aircraft's ASI?<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

------------------------------------------------------------
PhilipsCDRw

PF_Tini's Simple Guide to Switching 4.04m, 4.05m, and 4.07m. (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/7351046415)
Flying on Hyperlobby as EAF_T_Dozer

Antoninus
12-03-2006, 02:23 AM
Only if they never properly callibrated the speed gauges or counter checked their results with ground meauserements in any WW2 era flight tests. For me that's hard to believe, in this case most of them would probably be completly worthless.

According to the test pilot story the problem with the pitot tube placement was recognized and fixed, so that it should not effect later production models. Also many pilot manuals have tables with SI readings and corrections for certain alltitudes, so they certainly did not simply trus the ASI without checking it's accuracy.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

_____________________________________
http://img136.imageshack.us/img136/3734/il2sig26hf.jpg

Actually everybody talks about aerial combat. I maintain that hitting ground targets, and especially ships is more dangerous than aerial combat. - Joe Foss

R_Target
12-18-2006, 10:31 PM
Bump. Still hoping for resolution of this issue.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

*+
http://img273.imageshack.us/img273/4695/shidensigao4.jpg

RamsteinUSA
12-21-2006, 12:05 PM
We have a squad member who flew Hellcats off carriers. He has stated the numbers for us and all some of the performance data and info and has tried to get Oleg to fix several problems. But going beyond that, I wil look it up in our private forums and see if I can pull out the numbers you seek. I am not stating the speed is wrong int he game. I will only give the numbers he has given us. He also states engineering data too, but again I wil try to see if I can grab the numbers and leave the aeronuatical engineering stuff out. He was trying to get Oleg to fix stall characteristics too. Not sure if he had any issues with speed. Not sure when I wil get back, he is out of town if I need to ask him anything it will be a couple weeks.
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/sleepzzz.gif<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

Disabled USAF Veteran

R_Target
12-28-2006, 07:02 AM
Originally posted by RamsteinUSA:
We have a squad member who flew Hellcats off carriers. He has stated the numbers for us and all some of the performance data and info and has tried to get Oleg to fix several problems. But going beyond that, I wil look it up in our private forums and see if I can pull out the numbers you seek. I am not stating the speed is wrong int he game. I will only give the numbers he has given us. He also states engineering data too, but again I wil try to see if I can grab the numbers and leave the aeronuatical engineering stuff out. He was trying to get Oleg to fix stall characteristics too. Not sure if he had any issues with speed. Not sure when I wil get back, he is out of town if I need to ask him anything it will be a couple weeks.
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/sleepzzz.gif

If you have any do***entation that hasn't already been posted, please put it up. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

*+
http://img273.imageshack.us/img273/4695/shidensigao4.jpg

VFA-195 Snacky
12-29-2006, 06:02 AM
The Corsair was a 400+ mph aircraft in level flight. True? There is no way to get the Corsair to 400mph in this sim without a dive.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://us.st11.yimg.com/us.st.yimg.com/I/airplanepictures_1918_16003860

BSS_Vidar
12-29-2006, 09:54 AM
Some eronious info out there on the net... Static port errors for airspeed indications? Impossible. The problem with the IAS issues in the Hellcat were not due to static port placements. It was the pitot system. i.e. ram-air/reletive wind not parallel to the pitot tube. Static ports are sensors used for the Altimiter, and VSI instruments.

The static port positions on the Hellcat caused improper altimeter readings due to unequal presures from either side of the fuselage of a crabing/slipping Hellcat. Once they were postioned properly - more forward, the altimeter bug was fixed.

VW-IceFire
12-29-2006, 11:01 AM
Originally posted by VFA-195 Snacky:
The Corsair was a 400+ mph aircraft in level flight. True? There is no way to get the Corsair to 400mph in this sim without a dive.
Uhhh....it goes well over 400mph in perfectly level flight.

You may want to read about IAS (Indicated Airspeed): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indicated_airspeed<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/icefire-tempestv.jpg
Find my missions at Flying Legends (http://www.flying-legends.net/php/downloads/downloads.php?cat_id=19) and Mission4Today.com (http://www.mission4today.com).

R_Target
12-30-2006, 08:03 PM
Here's another test conducted in August 1943 on an F6F-3.

http://img214.imageshack.us/img214/8427/f6f31943ux2.gif

The Hellcat in the test is not equipped with water injection, yet is matching the Pacific Fighters F6F-5 at FTH and Sea Level, and outperforming it at all other altitudes.

Report courtesy WWII Aircraft Performance and available here (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f6f/f6f-3-25820.pdf).<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

*+
http://img273.imageshack.us/img273/4695/shidensigao4.jpg

ICDP
12-31-2006, 10:00 AM
Hi R_Target,

I have done more tests and more research into the F6F in IL2. I have compiled a bunch of screenshots and some test results form the sim and sent of an e-mail to the official e-mail address. I really hope someone still monitors that address http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Here is a copy of what I sent.


Since IL2 is now eaching its final state with the upcoming 4.08 patch I felt it would be worthwhile asking if it would be possible given your busy time constraints if the performance of the F6F could be looked at. The F6F in IL2 is underperforming in speed by a margin that is outside the normal accepted 3% range of variation at many altitudes. After much testing and researching I have collected some real charts and test results for comparison to the F6F in IL2. Currently both the F6F-3 late and the F6F-5 are running at SLOWER THAN F6F-3 early speeds.

Below is a link to a real test conducted on an F6F-3. This test is dated 26th August 1943, therefore the engine fitted would have been an R2800-10 rated at 2000HP at sea level. The speeds I obtained with the F6F-5 in IL2 closely match the results of this test at SL and critical altitude. Though at most other altitudes the IL2 F6F is actually around 10-15 MPH slower when it should be around 15mph faster. So in fact we have a late model F6F that can't even reach the speed of an F6F early. Bare in mind that I am using WEP during my testing in IL2 (F65-5). Since the F6F-3 Late and F6F-5 in IL2 are fitted with water injection (WEP) they are using the R2800-10W engine which was rated at 2250 HP at sea level, the numbers from the chart are at 2000HP.

In IL2 I tested the F6F-5 under the following conditions:
Crimea map, 12:00 noon, 100% fuel and internal ammo. 110% power with WEP enabled. Readings are taken from the TAS view (no cockpit). Here are the results of my tests, I have plotted these results onto a real F6F-3 test chart for ease of comparison. As noted above the F6F-3 from the real test was using an R2800-10 engine without water injection.

Alt kph mph
SL 518 322
3,281 527 327
6,562 517 321
9,843 538 335
13,123 565 351
16,404 575 357
19,685 605 376
22,966 621 385
23,950 613 381

I have plotted the IL2 F6F-5 speeds onto a chart for easy comparison (Fig 1.).

http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b58/ICDP/Fig1.jpg

I also provide a link to a USN declassified postwar do***ent. This do***ent outlines the performance and specifications of the F6F-5 fighter. Note the section titled MISSION AND DESCRIPTIONS . It clearly states that the F6F-5 is now a second-line fighter and trainer. I have attached charts showing the relevant sections, areas of importance are underlined in red. The underlined sections show that the aircraft is running at a rating of 2000HP with water injection at take-off power (Fig 2. & Fig 3.). This is 250 HP less than a wartime rated R2800-10W engine. I have attached some charts that show the rated HP of the R2800-10W during wartime (Fig 4. & Fig 5.). Fig 5. also shows F6F-5 speeds in MPH at SL (330), 20000ft (398) and critical altitude (399). These speeds are higher than that obtainable by the F6F-5 in IL2.

http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b58/ICDP/Fig2.jpg

http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b58/ICDP/Fig3.jpg

http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b58/ICDP/Fig4.jpg

http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b58/ICDP/Fig5.jpg

Link to the postware F6F-5 specifications.
http://www.history.navy.mil/branches/hist-ac/f6f-5.pdf

From these do***ents and from testing in the simulation it is easy to see why I would conclude that the F6F in IL2 is running at de-rated specifications. For a true representation of the real wartime F6F-3 late and F6F-5 the engine power in the simulation should be boosted by 250HP. Or the speeds should be increased to match those of a fully rated F6F with an R2800-10W engine.

I sincerely hope that this issue can be looked into prior to the termination of any further fixes or updates to the Il2 engine.

Incidentaly I also tested the climbrate and it is very accurate upto 20,000ft (7min 8sec) for a fully rated F6F with the R2800-10W engine fitted.

R_Target
01-02-2007, 10:03 AM
Excellent work ICDP! Hopefully this will be addressed by MG team. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

*+
http://img273.imageshack.us/img273/4695/shidensigao4.jpg

R_Target
01-16-2007, 01:16 AM
Here's the listing of HP for the various models in America's 100,000:

http://img206.imageshack.us/img206/7164/hpf6fri9.jpg

DustyBarrels77
01-16-2007, 04:22 PM
Two words of advice.

Don't Bother...<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://images.google.com/images?q=tbn:M98REgPM-RPbEM:http://www.me-air-company.de/crash_gross/005.jpg

ICDP
01-16-2007, 05:28 PM
Originally posted by DustyBarrels77:
Two words of advice.

Don't Bother...

Have tried you to get this fixed and have been told "no chance"?

I know the chances are slim but I figured I could give it one more go. The F6F has been slow for much too long now. It is still competitive but should be much better.

Aaron_GT
01-17-2007, 01:53 AM
Given the closeness of the graph from the game to the F6F without water injection it makes you wonder if the problem is that the figures for a version without the injection were used to model what we have in the game.

R_Target
01-18-2007, 11:26 PM
Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
Given the closeness of the graph from the game to the F6F without water injection it makes you wonder if the problem is that the figures for a version without the injection were used to model what we have in the game.

Yeah, looks that way. Correct speeds would be nice. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

*+
http://img273.imageshack.us/img273/4695/shidensigao4.jpg