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), a 1944 comparative evaluation between F6F, F4U, and FW 190 (available here), and a 1944 comparative evaluation against A6M Model 52 (available here).
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:
![]()
From F4U/F6F/FW 190 comparative evaluation:
![]()
From the TAIC Zeke 52 report:
![]()
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:
![]()
With F4U/FW 190 test results in green:
![]()
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">
*+
![]()
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<div class="ev_tpc_signature">
![]()
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
![]()
"Hammer the American hard enough and you forge the best weapon in the world."
Captain Simeon Ecuyer during the siege of Fort Pitt
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">
![]()
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.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.
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">
![]()
Find my missions at Flying Legends and Mission4Today.com.
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">
![]()
56Kers are strongly advised to NOT click on my signature![]()
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
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
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
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.
![]()