Page 1 of 18 12311 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 178

Thread: F6F Speeds | Forums

  1. #1
    Senior Member R_Target's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    3,686
    The old thread was lost in the forum crash, so I've reconstituted it.

    I'm posting this in hopes of getting the F6F speeds corrected.

    Primary sources for F6F speeds include: the postwar "Standard Aircraft Characteristics" testing (available here), a 1943 F6F-3 test by the US Army (availablehere), a 1944 comparative evaluation between F6F, F4U, and FW 190 (available here), a 1944 comparative evaluation against A6M Model 52 (available here), as well as documents posted by other participants in the old thread.

    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 test of "F6F-3 and F6F-5 airplanes." Number "2" is Combat power:



    US Army 1943 test of an F6F-3 without water injection:



    From F4U/F6F/FW 190 comparative evaluation. Altitudes are 200ft., 5000ft., 10,000ft., 15,000ft., 20,000ft., 25,000ft.:



    From the TAIC Zeke 52 report:



    All four of these tests indicate faster speeds than the F6F in IL2/PF. For a rough comparison, I plotted PF performance against
    the Navaer graph: PF performance in red:



    F4U/FW 190 evaluation 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.

    Also note that the Navaer test was performed on a "second line fighter and trainer":



    And that that the engine in the Navaer test is only rated at 2,030HP at SL



    Whereas the F6F-5 with R2800-10W is rated at 2250HP at SL:



    Another data sheet showing F6F-5 top speeds with 2250HP at SL :



    Listing of F6F engines and HP from Francis Dean's America's 100,00



    My conclusion is that, at most altitudes, the PF Hellcat is performing below the levels of the lowest performing
    tests (Navaer "Standard Aircraft Characteristics") I could find. Also please note that the Navaer test is a postwar
    test and shows a lower HP rating than a wartime F6F-5 with water injection system, and that the weight indicated is approximately 300lbs. heavier than other sources.

    Hopefully this issue can be addressed.

    "The future lasts a long time"-Charles de Gaulle
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    1,898
    It will be addressed about the same time we get a Solomon Islands map and correct weapons loadouts for USN/USMC aircraft.
    When you know as much as I do, you become a danger only to yourself. -stansdds, 2006

    We Pacific fliers desperately need a Solomon Islands map.
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote

  3. #3
    Yes , the Hellcat ingame seems about 20 kph slower than the real life figures at every altitude , which is strange since it had the powerful R-2800 and was lighter than the Corsair.

    This said , it's not a whine , just a notice , i really like the Hellcat and very happy and grateful that Oleg put it in game , perhaps i don't have all the informations and my comment is wrong and mistaken , but if not , it'd be really cool that its top speed gets fine tuned for the next patch to meet better real life figures
    -------------------------------------------------
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote

  4. #4
    Senior Member R_Target's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    3,686
    Originally posted by Marcel_Albert:
    Yes , the Hellcat ingame seems about 20 kph slower than the real life figures at every altitude , which is strange since it had the powerful R-2800 and was lighter than the Corsair.

    This said , it's not a whine , just a notice , i really like the Hellcat and very happy and grateful that Oleg put it in game , perhaps i don't have all the informations and my comment is wrong and mistaken , but if not , it'd be really cool that its top speed gets fine tuned for the next patch to meet better real life figures
    Yes a fix would be nice. It's quite a disparity.

    "The future lasts a long time"-Charles de Gaulle
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote

  5. #5
    R_Target is the Fw 190 included in those charts you posted? I keep seeing it refered to but no data
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote

  6. #6
    Senior Member R_Target's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    3,686
    Originally posted by mynameisroland:
    R_Target is the Fw 190 included in those charts you posted? I keep seeing it refered to but no data
    Yes. I clipped it out but linked the whole thing, mainly because I'm trying to focus on the F6F speeds achieved without inviting any debate on the 190, it's condition during the tests, or the results obtained.

    "The future lasts a long time"-Charles de Gaulle
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote

  7. #7
    rgr will look at link.

    +1 on speeds
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote

  8. #8
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    6,123
    Also note that the Navaer test was performed on a "second line fighter and trainer":
    Since the test was post war that might be a comment on the type rather than the condition or usage of that particular aircraft, perhaps? I.e. that aircraft might be performing as expected given the engine power available.

    What is line 3 in the Navaer graph (the one that seems to correspond closely with in-game performance)?
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote

  9. #9
    More Hellcat performance data here

    http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f6f/f6f.html

    Neil.
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote

  10. #10
    Senior Member R_Target's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    3,686
    Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Also note that the Navaer test was performed on a "second line fighter and trainer":
    Since the test was post war that might be a comment on the type rather than the condition or usage of that particular aircraft, perhaps? I.e. that aircraft might be performing as expected given the engine power available.

    What is line 3 in the Navaer graph (the one that seems to correspond closely with in-game performance)? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

    Line 3 is Military power.

    "The future lasts a long time"-Charles de Gaulle
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote

Page 1 of 18 12311 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •