PDA

View Full Version : Hellcat & Corsair Sea Level Speed vs Parasitic Drag



BigKahuna_GS
05-04-2005, 08:50 AM
S!

Just wanted to point out that these Official US Navy speed tests only lasted for 2 minutes at full throttle (War Emergency Power) and as the test states full speed was probably not developed, so the Hellcat and Corsair could of gone faster yet given more time. Wonder what the F6F-5 would of done ?


http://web.infoave.net/~howardds/id90.htm

http://web.infoave.net/~howardds/id91.htm

Notice the Hellcat's sea level speed in the "clean condition" in this official US Navy test is about 15mph faster than in Pacific Fighters--334mph TAS vs 319mph in PF. The massive wing pylons the Hellcat has as the PF default loadout is causing huge parasitic drag. Trying to dive away from Zeros is almost impossible in this plane. With WEP only on for 2 minutes the F6F-3 would of probably gone even faster.

The Corsair's sea level speed is listed as 363mph TAS that is -3mph less from another test of V-max 366mph. From 2 different planes being only 3mph differnt is not bad. Both speed tests show a +5 & +8mph faster for the Corsair over the current PF F/M. But as the speed test above indicates WEP was ran only for 2 minutes so this Corsair did not attain full V-max sea level speed which might of matched or exceeded 366mph TAS.

The default loadout needs to be in the "clean condition" for all models of the Hellcat & Corsair, the parasitic drag from wing pylons and zero launch rocket stubs is taking away 10-15mph or:

15 miles (statute) per hour is equal to 24.14 kilometers (km) per hour

http://web.infoave.net/~howardds/28060b00.gif

http://web.infoave.net/~howardds/27428170.gif


___

BigKahuna_GS
05-04-2005, 08:50 AM
S!

Just wanted to point out that these Official US Navy speed tests only lasted for 2 minutes at full throttle (War Emergency Power) and as the test states full speed was probably not developed, so the Hellcat and Corsair could of gone faster yet given more time. Wonder what the F6F-5 would of done ?


http://web.infoave.net/~howardds/id90.htm

http://web.infoave.net/~howardds/id91.htm

Notice the Hellcat's sea level speed in the "clean condition" in this official US Navy test is about 15mph faster than in Pacific Fighters--334mph TAS vs 319mph in PF. The massive wing pylons the Hellcat has as the PF default loadout is causing huge parasitic drag. Trying to dive away from Zeros is almost impossible in this plane. With WEP only on for 2 minutes the F6F-3 would of probably gone even faster.

The Corsair's sea level speed is listed as 363mph TAS that is -3mph less from another test of V-max 366mph. From 2 different planes being only 3mph differnt is not bad. Both speed tests show a +5 & +8mph faster for the Corsair over the current PF F/M. But as the speed test above indicates WEP was ran only for 2 minutes so this Corsair did not attain full V-max sea level speed which might of matched or exceeded 366mph TAS.

The default loadout needs to be in the "clean condition" for all models of the Hellcat & Corsair, the parasitic drag from wing pylons and zero launch rocket stubs is taking away 10-15mph or:

15 miles (statute) per hour is equal to 24.14 kilometers (km) per hour

http://web.infoave.net/~howardds/28060b00.gif

http://web.infoave.net/~howardds/27428170.gif


___

LeadSpitter_
05-04-2005, 09:07 AM
interesting.

faustnik
05-04-2005, 10:05 AM
Kahuna,

Are problems with overheating in the F4U stated in any of the tests? I am continually frustrated by the rapid overheat of both the F6F and F4U in PF, yet I have never read of such a problem with the R-2800.

JG53Frankyboy
05-04-2005, 10:16 AM
overheat is also with the A-20 and B-25.
you cant fly with 100% rev, 100% throttle & open coolers without overheat.
thats weird !
imagine what other engines can in game like Cr.42 ore Bf109

faustnik
05-04-2005, 10:40 AM
From the F4U manual:

The "FULL OPEN" setting of cowl flaps is provided primarily for ground cooling. If the setting is used right, buffeting of the tail surfaces will result. Open about 2/3 for take-off and climb, and close (or open slightly, if required) for high-speed and cruising level flight.

Trying this in PF and your Corsair will cook fast. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

JG53Frankyboy
05-04-2005, 10:50 AM
engine cooling in game isnt like in real life.
it was more a proplem to keep the engine at operatingh temerature at altutude than a proplem of overheat http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

and sure , no plane was able to run at military power (100%throttle) till its tank was empty like its possible with the most planes in game.

BUT it should be all the same conditions for all the planes

BigKahuna_GS
05-04-2005, 10:53 AM
S!


Hya Faustnick,

In all the books/articals I have read and the WW2 Corsair Pilots I have talked to including my dad, overheating was never an issue. This plane was fast and held it's energy well. The controls were very well harmonized and below 25,000ft performed very well against USAAF fighters like the P51 and P47.


These are rankings on the Corsair from RAF, USAAF, Navy & Marine Pilots during the Joint Fighter Confrence Evaluation & Americas Hundred Thousand :

Modern Evaluations of the Corsair

"On May 21st, 1943 a fighter evaluation meeting took place at Elgin AAFB in Florida. Army pilots flying the Corsair for the first time were high in their praise. Dogfights were held with the P-47, P-51, P-38 and P-39 fighters, and all resulted favorably for the Corsair." pg538

A modern evaluation of the Corsiar found it to be the "weapon of choice" over a P51D, a P-47D and an F6F-5. Pg.537

Rated "Best Elevators" out of 14 fighter types pg.532 & pg.605

Rated "Best Dive Stability and Control" pg.606

Rated 2nd out of 12 fighters for "Best Ailerons" at 350mph IAS pg.531

Rated 2nd for "Best Airlerons" at 100mph IAS pg.605.

Rated 2nd for "Best Rudder" pg.606

Rated 2nd out of 9 fighters in the catagory "Best all-around stability"
Pg.532

"Although the Corsair had slightly higher wingloading than the Hellcat at equivilent loaded weights with peak wing lift coefficient reduced by the small spoiler strip on the right wing and thus a little poorer turning radius (as compared to the Hellcat)...it had very moderate stick forces in windup turns." pg 532

"Was superior in manueverability and response to the P51B."pg.530

This was the same P51B that Col Bud Anderson thought was slightly more nimble than the 109s he faced in the ETO. That was above 25,000ft though.


_____

BigKahuna_GS
05-04-2005, 11:08 AM
S!

Another problem when the engine is hot is that the plane does not want to accelerate on the deck. I was in a F4U-1D on greatergreen running away on WEP from Iwo Jima and the pursuing bandits chasing me, I could barely get the speed above 305-310mph IAS. That is slow for the Corsair, it also takes quite awhile for the engine to cool off--Too Long-lol.

The Bottom line is the Hellcat should be doing 335-340mph TAS sea level and the Corsair should be doing at least 366mph TAS V-max at sea level.

___

faustnik
05-04-2005, 11:25 AM
Yes, it is almost impossible to maintain high speed on the deck with the F4U because of the overheat. It gets very frustrating. My expectation (yes, I know it might not be correct) for the F4U in PF, was to be able to use Fw190 tactics with little or no difficulty. Right now, the ability to extend at high speed is severely limited by the rapid overheat.

robban75
05-04-2005, 11:40 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by faustnik:
Kahuna,

Are problems with overheating in the F4U stated in any of the tests? I am continually frustrated by the rapid overheat of both the F6F and F4U in PF, yet I have never read of such a problem with the R-2800. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The test report contains more pages. On one of them it states that the Corsair overheated throughout the tests when high power was applied. It doesn't mention any overheating on the Fw 190 or Hellcat. The FW-190A-5/U-4 was not flown with Erh¶ten Notleistung during these tests. Both US aircraft used water injection.

BigKahuna_GS
05-04-2005, 11:51 AM
S!


If you look at the very last line on the bottom document there was an emergeny take off RPM setting of 2800RPM. This would give additional lift and thrust when taking off heavily loaded or to climb faster to intercept Kamikazes.

An additional 100RPM could give 100-150bhp. This 2800PRM emergency rating was only for about (recommended 1-3min) but during intercept mode off of Okinawa they ran as much as 10min or until contact was made. Our PF Corsairs only operate at 2700RPM, so imagine the heat generated in real life under maximum RPM and prop pitch to intercept the Kamikazies---with no reported overheating problems !

The Pratt & Whitney 2800R engines were tough sons of beaches and in some tests a P47M was boosted to 3500hp for 100 operational hours with no engine detonation or problems. Think of the heat generated there.

Both the Corsair and Thunderbolts used the same P&W engines minus the turbo for the Corsair.
___

BigKahuna_GS
05-04-2005, 11:57 AM
S!
__________________________________________________ ________________________
Robban
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The test report contains more pages. On one of them it states that the Corsair overheated throughout the tests when high power was applied. It doesn't mention any overheating on the Fw 190 or Hellcat </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
__________________________________________________ _______________________



If you read the report Robban you will see that they accidently flew the Corsair on auto-lean during high speed operation---not a good thing to do.

Once the test was continued on auto-rich there was no overheating problems. Pratt & Whitney engines were top notch tough engines that were used and abused and brought home pilots hundreds of miles even while severely damaged.


____

robban75
05-04-2005, 12:09 PM
I just wrote what I remebered from the report, cause I don't have it avaliable right now. The page that showed the tests doesn't work anymore. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

Does this apply in-game I wonder? Leaning the mixture was important in real life, is it as important in the game? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

faustnik
05-04-2005, 12:13 PM
I think the F4U only goes 100% or 120%. If you are not on the absolute deck, 120% runs like cr4p.

BigKahuna_GS
05-04-2005, 12:21 PM
S!



Another thing I forgot to add was the standard factory propeller was used instead of the high effiecny type replacement propeller that would of increased both the speed and climb of the Corsair.

It is all listed on the last page of the report.

The Corsair, Hellcat and P47 all used the same Pratt & Whitney engines. There was no overheating issues with any of these planes.

My main focus in posting was that the sea level speed of the Hellcat and Corsair are wrong and need to be corrected. The flight test vs the 190 has been talked about many times, I wasnt trying to focus on that.

___

BigKahuna_GS
05-04-2005, 12:26 PM
S!

Robban
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I just wrote what I remebered from the report, cause I don't have it avaliable right now. The page that showed the tests doesn't work anymore. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>



Hya Robban, I provided the links to all the US Navy Reports on the Hellcat & Corsair in my original post. They are listed at the top of my post and the website has changed to a new location.


___

faustnik
05-04-2005, 12:27 PM
I didn't mean to sidetrack the thread with overheat, it just seems that high speed tactics with the F4U are severely limited because of the overheat.

BigKahuna_GS
05-04-2005, 12:40 PM
S!


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">faustnik posted Wed May 04 2005 11:27
I didn't mean to sidetrack the thread with overheat, it just seems that high speed tactics with the F4U are severely limited because of the overheat. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>



No problem mate I dont think you are. It is a legitamite problem that needs to be corrected and I like discussing it http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

You are correct, the overheating problem does limit the Corsair high speed tactics.

Auto-lean and Auto-rich dont work in AEP/PF as they did in real life. Auto-rich could be adjusted and used at almost any altitude to increase RPM settings and power levels to help prevent detonation or to help the engine run cooler during high/maximum performance levels.

__

robban75
05-04-2005, 12:50 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by 609IAP_Kahuna:
S!
It is all listed on the last page of the report.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Doh! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif How could I have missed that! Thanks for the links!

Btw, I get 356mph for the F4U-1D on the Crimea map.

Aaron_GT
05-04-2005, 01:11 PM
356 plays 363 (in report), robban? Close enough?

BigKahuna_GS
05-04-2005, 01:14 PM
S!


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Robban--Btw, I get 356mph for the F4U-1D on the Crimea map. The plane in-game is fitted with several rocket pylons. Could that effect the overall topspeed enough to justify a 10mph speed decrease. Or was the Corsair in the real test also equipped with the pylons when it reached 366mph? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


The F4U-1A and F4U-1C/D had different levels of performance and climb. I think for ease of F/Ms they lumped summed them all together. I have gone at fast as 358mph TAS in the F4U-1A on the Crimea map. What is wrong is that the extra climb and speed the F4U-1C/D had is not in PF.

The F4U-1A's PF defaut loadout is in the clean condition. The F4U-1C/D actually climbed better and was faster than the F4U-1A. The F4U-1C/D default loadout is with the zero launch rocket stubs. When PF first came out they were in the clean condition.

It is obvious from the US Navy test flights that the F4U-1C/D sea level speed should at least be 366mph TAS V-max. This is listed on the bottom chart under "Clean Conditon". That means no rocket stubs, wing pylons or bomb racks.

And like Faustnik said---no early overheating.
____

Slickun
05-04-2005, 01:29 PM
Kahuna.

You left off the most important ranking the Joint Fighter Conference gave out.

They rated the planes Best Overall above and below 25,000 feet.

Of planes that saw service in WW2, the P-51 was rated best below 25,000 feet and 2nd (behind the P-47) above 25,000 feet.

BigKahuna_GS
05-04-2005, 01:40 PM
S!


__________________________________________________ _______________________
ArronGT---356 plays 363 (in report), robban? Close enough?
__________________________________________________ _______________________



Hya Arron,

We have had the little talks about these US Navy docs before. You have to pay closer attention mate http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif The 363mph was achieved on WEP for only 2 minutes and as the top of the chart says probably did not attain maximum speed. Also on the last page of the report it states the standard propeller was used not the high effiency propeller. Had the high effiency propeller been used the Corsair's speed and climb would have improved during the testing procedure.

I dont know about you, but 8-10mph missing on the Corsair and 15-20mph missing on the Hellcat is alot of speed at sea level and means the difference between living and dying most times. The Hellcat does alot dying right now, it's turn rate, stall/stall recovery, canopy and dive acceleration are all lacking. Most of this has been tested by a squadmate who flew real Hellcats in the Navy.

The sea level speeds I tested.
_____

BigKahuna_GS
05-04-2005, 01:51 PM
S!


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Slickun posted Wed May 04 2005 12:29
Kahuna.You left off the most important ranking the Joint Fighter Conference gave out.They rated the planes Best Overall above and below 25,000 feet.Of planes that saw service in WW2, the P-51 was rated best below 25,000 feet and 2nd (behind the P-47) above 25,000 feet. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>



Your right about that. And that rating left me a little confused because the F4U-4 clearly out performs the P51D at 25,000ft and below 25,000ft on almost every level. The F4U-1D out performs the P51D below 25,000ft in many areas as well. Maybe because the test was conducted at a USAAF base home field advantage was thrown in http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif


___

JtD
05-04-2005, 02:31 PM
You guys know you can run the Corsairs engine for ages with that overheat message on your screen before it suffers any damage?

I also guess the overheat thingy would have been an bigger issue in WW2 if they had had HUD with that blinking "overheat" line available in WW2. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

I flew 10 minutes at 357 mph about sea level (lets say 200 ft.) with 1D standard loadout 100% fuel before the engine gave up.

F-3 does 323.

What speeds were the tests started from?

Any more infos on the prop? It's not likely one prop gives better performance in every aspect than another one, more likely it's optimized for certain heights, speeds, etc. etc. Just curious.

horseback
05-04-2005, 02:42 PM
For clarification, the standard issue prop blades on the F4U-1A were tapered more at the base than the 'high efficiency' prop blades that came on the standard F4U-1C/D, similar to the paddleblade props put on the P-47D starting in early 1944.

These more efficient props allowed fuller use of the power of the R-2800 engine, improving climb, accelleration and top speed for all aircraft using them.

cheers

horseback

Aaron_GT
05-04-2005, 03:27 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The 363mph was achieved on WEP for only 2 minutes and as the top of the chart says probably did not attain maximum speed. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I dont know about you, but 8-10mph missing on the Corsair and 15-20mph missing on the Hellcat is alot of speed at sea level </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oops - opera 8 misinterpreted my mouse gestures there...

I was mostly looking at the Corsair figures. I am not sure what robban used in his tests timewise. I wasn't paying attention to the Hellcat figures (I never fly it!)

10 mins before the engine gives out would fit with an allowable 2 to 3 mins WEP, I think.

8 to 10 mph is a bit too much of a deficit. 5 to 6 mph I could let pass given that all planes are a little off anyway.

Aaron_GT
05-04-2005, 03:32 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Your right about that. And that rating left me a little confused because the F4U-4 clearly out performs the P51D at 25,000ft and below 25,000ft on almost every level. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The conclusions might also factor in cruise speeds and fuel economies, not just maximums. The P51 with the Merlin was pretty thrifty with the fuel. Overall unit costs might also be a factor.

Aaron_GT
05-04-2005, 04:14 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The Pratt & Whitney 2800R engines were tough sons of beaches and in some tests a P47M was boosted to 3500hp for 100 operational hours with no engine detonation or problems. Think of the heat generated there </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Have you got a reference for that? I've only seen numbers that high for R-2800s used in racing in the late 1960s after modification and rebuilding.

73GIAP_Milan
05-04-2005, 05:16 PM
just out of interest.

you stated that the craft were flown in clean condition. That is different then under combat conditions?
Consider the weight of the fuel taken, ammo loaded, armor fitted, perhaps some extra internal equipment fitted. Is this factored in at these tests or were these planes flown 'empty' with reduced fuelloads for testing purposes?
Would make a whole world of difference with a fully combatready loaded plane i think.

again, just out of interest http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

SkyChimp
05-04-2005, 06:19 PM
http://members.cox.net/us.fighters/hellcat_test.jpg

SkyChimp
05-04-2005, 06:37 PM
IMO, this is the way the F4U-1A should perform in FB, clean. This is from the F4U vs P-51 test:

http://members.cox.net/us.fighters/corsair.jpg

p1ngu666
05-04-2005, 06:42 PM
hey, u guys using 120%mix? may give u a few extra mph

when i last tested corsairs, mk1 (birdcage) was best speedwise, probably other areas. the corsairs seem to all have the same performance, with a few slight differences :\

oh and in a engine book it stated something along the lines of the american radials where designed for the airlines, so cruise performance was what they had in mind, auther stated they would be designed differently if the intention was for military use.

good solid engines, and sound nice too http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

SkyChimp
05-04-2005, 06:53 PM
The F4U's pylons alone are good for a 9-11 mph speed loss.

The BuAer data sheet on the F4U-4 shows that with pylons, SL speed is 374mph, and speed at critical altitude is 452 mph.

Clean (without pylons), SL speed icnreases to 383 mph, and speed at critical altitude increases to 463 mph.

BigKahuna_GS
05-05-2005, 12:50 AM
S!


Great posts as always Chimp !

Question-what does the dotted line on the speed chart represent for the F4U-1A ? That looks to be about 373mph TAS. It says something about Special _ _ _ but I cant make out the word.

Do you have similar speed charts for the F6F and F4U-1C/D ?



__________________________________________________ ______________________
73GIAP_Milan posted Wed May 04 2005 16:16
just out of interest.you stated that the craft were flown in clean condition. That is different then under combat conditions?
Consider the weight of the fuel taken, ammo loaded, armor fitted, perhapssome extra internal equipment fitted. Is this factored in at these tests or were these planes flown 'empty' with reduced fuelloads for testing purposes?Would make a whole world of difference with a fully combatready loaded plane i think.
__________________________________________________ ______________________



Combat condition and clean condition are almost identical except in combat condition wing plyons or drop tank racks can be installed. There is a varity of load outs under combat condition. Refer to the chart.

Clean conditon is a fully fueled and armed aircraft with the exception that no wing pylons, rocket stubs or drop tank racks/bomb racks are added to the airframe. The airframe is completely clean.




__________________________________________________ _____________________
quote:
Aaron_GT posted Wed May 04 2005 15:14
Have you got a reference for that? I've only seen numbers that high for R-2800s used in racing in the late 1960s after modification and rebuilding.
__________________________________________________ _______________________


http://home.att.net/~Historyzone/Seversky-Republic7.html

I was wrong Arron--the P&W R-2800 C series was over-boosted to 3,600hp for 250hrs without engine failure. Quite impressive


http://home.att.net/~Historyzone/P-47M56fg.JPG
Right out of the starting gate, the XP-47M the horse to beat in terms of speed. The XP-47M proved to be nearly as fast as the XP-47J. 488 mph was obtained on at least one flight. The official maximum speed is 470 mph. However, over-boosting the engine could tweak another 15 to 20 mph out of the big fighter. Some may find this next tidbit hard to swallow, however, the test documents still exist.

During durability testing of the C series R-2800 by Republic, it was decided to find out at what manifold pressure and carburetor temperature caused detonation. The technicians at Republic ran the engine at extreme boost pressures that produced 3,600 hp! But wait, it gets even more amazing. They ran it at 3,600 hp for 250 hours, without any failure! This was with common 100 octane avgas. No special fuels were used. Granted, the engines were largely used up, but survived without a single component failure. Try this with Rolls Royce Merlin or Allison V-1710 and see what happens.

Upon the USAAF being informed of the XP-47M, three YP-47M development aircraft were immediately ordered. These were built using P-47D-27-RE fighters straight off the production line. Having already logged hundreds of flights with the XP-47M, beginning in mid 1943, Republic had a big leg up in terms of development time. Actual production P-47M fighters used the P-47D-30-RE as the basic airframe.

The production P-47M fighters did not reach operational status until after many of the V-1 launch sites were over-run by Allied ground forces. Deployed to 3 squadrons of the 56th Fighter Group, the new fighter likely did not chase very many flying bombs. Inasmuch as most aviation historians claim that the P-47M was designed specifically to intercept the V-1, it will come as a surprise to them to learn that the prototype existed more than a year before the first V-1 was launched at Britain. Moreover, the P-47D, deployed in large numbers, was certainly fast enough to overtake the V-1. It was only coincidence that the XP-47M and the R-2800 C series engines were available when the V-1's began falling on London.

The 56th kept many of their older D models until the new M had its bugs corrected. Nonetheless, once sorted out, the P-47M was the fastest propeller driven fighter to see combat service in any Air Force in the ETO. Capable of speeds up to 475 mph, the M was a true "hotrod".


______

WOLFMondo
05-05-2005, 05:30 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG53Frankyboy:
overheat is also with the A-20 and B-25.
you cant fly with 100% rev, 100% throttle & open coolers without overheat.
thats weird !
imagine what other engines can in game like Cr.42 ore Bf109 </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

There bomber engines designed for cruising. If you leave the throttles at 100% your red lining the engines, of cause they will overheat. Check the gauges out in the cockpit, put them to 100% and full prop pitch and they red line. Reduce the throttle and prop pitch and there fine.
No bomber would cruise at full power anyway, the only reason some could, like the Lancaster is because they had figher engines in them.

73GIAP_Milan
05-05-2005, 06:17 AM
Allright, that's clear now, thx for posting..
just had to know that http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

great datacharts!

BigKahuna_GS
05-05-2005, 12:57 PM
S!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
73GIAP_Milan posted Thu May 05 2005 05:17
Allright, that's clear now, thx for posting..
just had to know that </div></BLOCKQUOTE>



Rgr no problem mate http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

SkyChimp
05-05-2005, 03:30 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by 609IAP_Kahuna:!


Great posts as always Chimp !

Question-what does the dotted line on the speed chart represent for the F4U-1A ? That looks to be about 373mph TAS. It says something about Special _ _ _ but I cant make out the word.

Do you have similar speed charts for the F6F and F4U-1C/D ?

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

"Special Finish." That Corsair was sanded smooth with joint sealed. That's great for getting max speed, but not representative of service planes. Additionally, that F4U-1 Corsair was running at 65" hg MAP, as opposed to the normal 60"hg.

Here's the BuAer data sheet on the F6F-5 from the Naval Historical Center:
http://www.history.navy.mil/branches/hist-ac/f6f-5.pdf

Here's some BuAer data sheets on the F4U-1D/C:
http://members.cox.net/us.fighters/1.jpg
http://members.cox.net/us.fighters/2.jpg
http://members.cox.net/us.fighters/3.jpg
http://members.cox.net/us.fighters/4.jpg
http://members.cox.net/us.fighters/5.jpg

JtD
05-06-2005, 01:25 AM
I am a little confused over the F6F's top speed atm. I read in many books (all probably quoting from each other) a figure of 375 mph, which is about the speed Skychimps links mentions for military power.

I also gives combat speeds of 318kn and 312kn for combat and military power at 15.000 feet. What is a "combat speed"? Top speed at a certain height?

Kahuna initial link gives 391mph at 25k with two mins accelaration at what I consider combat power.

Skychimps A6M comparism says 409 mph, which I guess is for combat power, but it seems a little out of the scale. It's also reached at a rather low altitude.

Is there any backup for that 409 mph figure? Or are there details available about that test, like plane condition, power settings, testing procedure...?

Because with 409 mph, that Hellcat would deserve the name.

OldMan____
05-06-2005, 06:42 AM
Not strange this speed differences in game. Corsair is little bit too slow at deck.. but look. At 5000 ft.. try to make an A5 reach that speed without using boost system. Also wrong there.


Did anyone made speed test on all other altitudes presented on that test chart ? Would be nice to see if it is a general unpowerign issue.. or specific altitude (like 190 ).



Also when I fly a corsair I keep RPM at 80 most of time. That avoids prery well the overheating.

BigKahuna_GS
05-06-2005, 11:46 AM
S!


__________________________________________________ _________________________
quote:
SkyChimp posted Thu May 05 2005 14:30
"Special Finish." That Corsair was sanded smooth with joint sealed. That's great for getting max speed, but not representative of service planes. Additionally, that F4U-1 Corsair was running at 65" hg MAP, as opposed to the normal 60"hg.
__________________________________________________ _________________________



I saw that the MAP was higher too. There is a special emergency RPM setting of 2800rpm rather than 2700rpm. That could give an additonal 100-150hp. I wonder if that was used and that was why the MAP was higher.

Ahh Special Finish. That may not of been representative of the Corsair in the Pacific but that was SOP for Robert Johnson and the 56 FG's P47s:

As to the speed of his P-47; Pratt & Whitney tech reps were largely
responsible for giving Gould the secrets of horsepower production in the
R-2800. Engines with the same wastegate modifications were tested at P&W and produced in excess of 2,700 hp on the dynometer, and did so for hundreds of hours at full throttle. The later "C" series R-2800 (used in the P-47M and N) generated 3,600 hp during similar endurance testing. It should not be a surprise that a P-47D-5-RE should attain similar speeds to the P-47M with 2,800 hp with slightly greater drag. Gould also filled all gaps in seams and waxed Johnson's Jug to reduce parasite drag.

By the Spring of 1944, there wasn't a P-47 in the 56th that hadn't been
field modified like Johnson's. Ask any of the surviving crew chiefs. When
150 octane fuel became available in early '44, 72" MAP became the standard
for combat operations. While this setting was never incorporated into the
standard issue pilot's manual, it is easily found in 8th AF Fighter Command
technical bulletins and operational instructions.

R.Johnson--Sure. My second Jug, a D-5 was the best P-47 that I ever flew, and I flew them all, including the P-47M which the 56th got near the end of the war.

CCJ: What made this one Thunderbolt so fast?

RSJ: Several things. My crew sanded every joint smooth, and waxed it to a high gloss. Factory technical reps showed my crew chief, Pappy Gould, how to adjust the wastegates to keep the boost pressure higher than normal. My D-5, which I named Lucky, had water injection. I never used the water injection in combat. I didn't need it. From time to time I'd switch it on, push the throttle up to 72" of manifold pressure and the head rest would smack me from behind. I would let her run for a few minutes just for the fun of it.

CCJ: 72 inches!? Did you ever take note of your airspeed during one of those runs?

RSJ: Of course.

CCJ: And....... how fast did it go?

RSJ: I've seen just over 300 at altitude.

CCJ: 300 indicated?

RSJ: Yes.

CCJ: What was your altitude?

RSJ: I guess it was right around 32,000 feet.

CCJ: Geez, thats well over 450 mph!

RSJ: Oh, I figure closer to 470.

CCJ: What ever happened to Lucky?

RSJ: She was lost in a mid-air collision over the North Sea. I don't recall the pilot's name who was flying her on that ramrod. I was very upset. Lucky got at least 24 enemy aircraft and was the best Jug I ever flew. She was trouble free and I never had a single abort while flying her.


_______________

BigKahuna_GS
05-06-2005, 11:59 AM
http://www.aviationartcentral.com/images/art/trudgian/battleisland-trudgian.jpg

BigKahuna_GS
05-06-2005, 12:28 PM
S!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">OldMan____ posted Fri May 06 2005 05:42
Also when I fly a corsair I keep RPM at 80 most of time. That avoids prery well the overheating. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>



Rgr that. I do that most of the time, espcially when diving. Still the engine should not heat up so rapidly on the deck at full prop pitch and higher levels of power.

A squadmate sent me a combat report about 2 Corsairs that were sent after a high flying japanese recon plane-above 35,000ft. The Corsairs took off with maximum prop pitch to climb rapidly. At no time during their climb to level off did they experience any overheating issues. In fact they got so high their guns froze up and one of the Corsairs ended up using his prop to destroy the tail on the japanese recon plane.

I wish I stll had the combat report, I would post it.


__

robban75
05-07-2005, 04:00 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by 609IAP_Kahuna:
A squadmate sent me a combat report about 2 Corsairs that were sent after a high flying japanese recon plane-above 35,000ft. The Corsairs took off with maximum prop pitch to climb rapidly. At no time during their climb to level off did they experience any overheating issues. In fact they got so high their guns froze up and one of the Corsairs ended up using his prop to destroy the tail on the japanese recon plane.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The cold air at high altitude should threaten to undercool the engines, and in this case even the guns. This is not modelled I'm afraid. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif
Although high alt flight in the game is possible, it is not realistic. Although, some planes are less willingly to overheat at high alt. The Corsair not being one of them.

SkyChimp
05-07-2005, 11:40 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by robban75:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by 609IAP_Kahuna:
A squadmate sent me a combat report about 2 Corsairs that were sent after a high flying japanese recon plane-above 35,000ft. The Corsairs took off with maximum prop pitch to climb rapidly. At no time during their climb to level off did they experience any overheating issues. In fact they got so high their guns froze up and one of the Corsairs ended up using his prop to destroy the tail on the japanese recon plane.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The cold air at high altitude should threaten to undercool the engines, and in this case even the guns. This is not modelled I'm afraid. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif
Although high alt flight in the game is possible, it is not realistic. Although, some planes are less willingly to overheat at high alt. The Corsair not being one of them. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Overcooling at high altitude was a problem with P-47s in Europe. It usually happened at cruise setting requiring the pilot to occassionally apply more throttle.

p1ngu666
05-07-2005, 12:13 PM
p47 is fine up high, no real overheat issues
so lets look at the yak, its low alt engine is producing very little power up here...
but boy does it overheat quick!

CUJO_1970
05-07-2005, 06:39 PM
Even on the hottest summer day in Europe, the air at high altitude combined with "windchill" would be extremely frigid brrrrrrrrrrr.

As far as altitude is modelled in-game, Oleg said it was good only up to 30,000ft IIRC.

Overcooling, I'm sure is not modelled.

I wonder how a frozen sub-zero Russian winter would affect an engine cruising at 250-300mph http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

robban75
05-08-2005, 03:28 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SkyChimp:
Overcooling at high altitude was a problem with P-47s in Europe. It usually happened at cruise setting requiring the pilot to occassionally apply more throttle. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Swedish Mustang pilots reported having to fly with closed rads during winter time when the temperature was really low, even if flew just above the tree tops at full throttle. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

robban75
05-08-2005, 04:05 AM
Not a common sight in the sim world. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v486/robban75/icing.jpg

Slickun
05-09-2005, 03:16 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by 609IAP_Kahuna:
S!


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Slickun posted Wed May 04 2005 12:29
Kahuna.You left off the most important ranking the Joint Fighter Conference gave out.They rated the planes Best Overall above and below 25,000 feet.Of planes that saw service in WW2, the P-51 was rated best below 25,000 feet and 2nd (behind the P-47) above 25,000 feet. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>



Your right about that. And that rating left me a little confused because the F4U-4 clearly out performs the P51D at 25,000ft and below 25,000ft on almost every level. The F4U-1D out performs the P51D below 25,000ft in many areas as well. Maybe because the test was conducted at a USAAF base home field advantage was thrown in http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
Slickun writes:

Well, from what I understand, Navy guys flew AAf planes and vice versa.

Careful now. According to "America's 100,000" the -4 and the P-51 are so close in speeds as to be a wash. The B and C versions are faster than the D, at most heights. The Navy itself thought that they would do 450 mph.

As far as other aspects, the -4 and P-51D are amazingly closely matched. The -4 does a few things better, the P-51 does a few better as well.


___ </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

BigKahuna_GS
05-10-2005, 03:22 PM
S!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Slick--As far as other aspects, the -4 and P-51D are amazingly closely matched. The -4 does a few things better, the P-51 does a few better as well. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Hya Slick,

The F4U-4 did alot of things better than the P51 and it's not as closely matched as you say.

Advantages Of the F4U-4 over the P51D

Faster at altitude
Faster at mid altitudes
Faster on the deck
Better slow speed handeling
Lower stall speed
Much better climb rate
Better slow speed roll rate
Similar high speed roll rate with Mustang=equal
Better turn rate
Huge bomb payload--P51 does not even come close
Radial engine not prone to groundfire
Could land on a carrier

I would say the clear advantage belongs to the Corsair.

The F4U-4 speeds ratings were all dependant upon the configuration of the airframe. In clean condition the F4U-4 could exceed 380+ TAS at sea level and 450mph+ TAS at altitude.

Skychimps figures are even higher:

The F4U's pylons alone are good for a 9-11 mph speed loss.

The BuAer data sheet on the F4U-4 shows that with pylons, SL speed is 374mph, and speed at critical altitude is 452 mph.

Clean (without pylons), SL speed icnreases to 383 mph, and speed at critical altitude increases to 463 mph.

Regards,
SkyChimp


http://web.infoave.net/~howardds/2b18f6f0.gif


___

fordfan25
05-10-2005, 06:07 PM
A -4 corsair what is that. did it fight in the war. must not have been many of them.if it ever actully existed i bet it would be a good match up of all those KI-84C that allied piolets were all ways running into. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif lol. sorry could not stop my self. j/k

MoeLarryCheese
05-10-2005, 07:18 PM
Neat thread. I have to make a few points

First, you guys talk about over heat in R-2800s.

Piston engined fighters used a "scheduled climb"
rather than a sustained grab for altitude.
Reason is over heat.
As Chimpster can tell us that is the reason
for the "C" series R-2800.
Most R-2800 equipped planes would over heat quickly
while climbing for a long duration, notably the
"B" series equipped P-47s.

Liquid cooled faired little better. Again
a scheduled climb is required if you don't
want to fry an engine.

A scheduled climb is a stepped climb allowing
some level flight to build speed and cool down.

There is no easy way out.
The P&W R-2800 C series was far better equipped
for sustained heavy load, but would over cool
and self destruct if enough power/load was applied.

Early C series equipped aircraft such as the P-47M
and F8F Bearcat were plauged with engine problems.
Over cooling was a common mistake.

Remember the P-38 problems over Eurpoe?
over cooling and resulting engine failure were
common intill the pilots figured out they
had to open them up periodicly to clean
the plugs and get the oil temp up.

MLC

Aaron_GT
05-11-2005, 02:42 AM
"The F4U-4 did alot of things better than the P51 and it's not as closely matched as you say."

Whilst both designs are from the early 1940s originally when comparing the P51D and F4U-4 in terms of the service you are comparing a 1944 plane with a 1945 plane, so it's not surprising that the F4U-4 has the edge. Perhaps the comparasion should be the F4U-4 versus the P51H. However the P51H wasn't stressed for the same ordnance capacity as the F4U-4. Also a factor you didn't mention is the thrift of the engine which is important with regard to either range or logistics.

AlmightyTallest
05-11-2005, 07:40 AM
I thought the F4U-4 was arriving and flying with units in the Pacific in October 1944?

I think both planes have their advantages, but I wouldn't really call the F4U-4 a 1945 plane, though the first Pacific combat actions with it did happen in 1945. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Pretty interesting thread guys, keep it up it makes for good reading.

BigKahuna_GS
05-12-2005, 04:12 AM
S!


http://home.att.net/~historyzone/F4U-4.html

The F4U-4 arrived in combat early in 1945. Therefore, it had only about six months to establish its combat record against the Japanese. However, the big fighter remained in service throughout the Korean War, where along with the F4U-5, it gained a sterling reputation for delivering ordnance with great accuracy. Indeed, the Corsair earned the respect of enemy pilots flying the MiG-15. Vought's Corsair was a fighter that could not be treated lightly. In a turning fight below 350 knots, the MiG pilot could find himself in big trouble very quickly.

http://home.att.net/~historyzone/F4u4spl3.jpg

Chance Vought's F4U-4 came about as a development of the F4U-4XA, which was first flown in early April 1944. It was fitted with an up-rated Pratt & Whitney R2800-18W or -42W engine. This powerplant developed 2,450 bhp with water injection. It was also fitted with a four blade hydromatic propeller which provided the necessary efficiency to utilize the greater power. The carburetor inlet was moved from the wing root leading edge to a duct located under the engine. The exhaust stacks had to be re-routed as a result. Armament remained the same as the F4U-1, with six .50 caliber Browning MGs. The limited production F4U-4B was armed with four M3 20mm cannon. Under-wing load capability was substantial. Up to three 1,000 lb. bombs along with eight 5 inch rockets could be carried. Reportedly, it was not unusual to rig the F4U-4 with as much as 6,000 lbs of ordnance. Apparently the robust structure of the Corsair could bear these loads without undue wear and tear on the airframe. Almost certainly, such overloaded Corsairs did not operate from carrier decks, but exclusively from shore bases.

Let€s compare the F4U-4 to its earlier sibling, the F4U-1 so that we can clearly see the improvements made.

Maximum speed:
F4U-1: 417 mph @ 19,900 ft.
F4U-4: 446 mph @ 26,200 ft.

The -4 displays a 29 mph speed advantage, but more importantly, does it at a considerably greater altitude. The F4U-4 is actually 10 mph faster than the P-51D at the Mustang€s best altitude.

Rate of climb:
F4U-1: 3,250 ft/min.
F4U-4: 4,170 ft/min.
Not max climbrate

While the -4 has a more powerful engine, it also weighs more than the F4U-1. This marked increase in climb rate can be attributed to the more efficient 4 blade propeller as well as the higher power of the up-rated powerplant. The increase moves the Corsair into stellar company with fighters such as the P-38L and the F7F Tigercat. The F4U-4 climbs at a rate 20% better than the P-51D.

There is little doubt that the Corsair was likely the greatest load carrying fighter of its era. There is little to compare to it except perhaps late-war models of the P-47, which still fall somewhat short in maximum load.

http://home.att.net/~historyzone/f4u4.jpg

We now get to the more subjective aspects of the -4€s performance. Rating a fighter€s flight characteristics is never without pitfalls. What one pilot feels is too stiff, another might describe as firm or secure. As a result, opinions may vary. However, empirical data is certainly the most valuable in determining a fighter€s overall performance. The tangible things such as cockpit layout and visibility are also important, as are the intangible things such as confidence in the airframe to get the pilot home. I will do my best to present the subjective data in an unbiased manner.

In terms of maneuverability, all models of the Corsair were first rate. The F4U-4 was better than the F4U-1 series. Why? More power and better performance in the vertical regime. Very few fighters, even pure fighters such as the Yak-3 could hang with an -4 maneuvering in the vertical. Its terrific climbing ability combined with very light and sensitive controls made for a hard fighter to beat anytime the fight went vertical.

Ease of flight.The Corsair was much less a handful than the P-51 when flown into an accelerated stall, although it was by no means as forgiving as the F6F Hellcat. Torque roll was no worse than most of its high power contemporaries.

The F4U also rolled well. When rolling in conjunction with powerplant torque, in other words, rolling left, it was among the very fastest rolling fighters of the war. In the inventory of American fighters, only the P-47N rolled faster, and only by 6 degrees/second.

In level flight acceleration the F4U-4 gained speed at about 2.4 mph/sec, the P-51D accelerated at about 2.2 mph/sec. The F4U-1 could not keep up with either, accelerating at only 1.5 mph/sec. The real drag racer of American WWII fighters was the P-38L. It gained speed at 2.8 mph/sec. All acceleration data was compiled at 10-15,000 ft at Mil. power settings.

Turning to dive acceleration, we find the F4U-4 and Mustang in a near dead heat. Both the P-47D and P-38L easily out distance the Corsair and P-51D in a dive. Still, these two accelerate better than the opposition from Japan and Germany. Moreover, both the Corsair and the Mustang have relatively high critical Mach numbers allowing them to attain very high speeds in prolonged dives before running into compressibility difficulty. With the exception of early model P-38€s, it was almost always a mistake to attempt to evade American fighters by trying to dive away. This goes for early war fighters as well, such as the P-40 and F4F Wildcat.

There is one story recorded by a Luftwaffe pilot who, while flying a Bf-109F over North Africa tangled with several FAA Martlets (the British name for the F4F). Finding himself alone with a Martlet on his tail, he elected to half roll into a steep dive to shake off the slow flying carrier fighter. Hurtling down in a screaming dive, the German looked over his shoulder and was stunned to see the Martlet (Wildcat) closing with guns blazing. Pulling back on the stick, under heavy G loading, the German eased into a zoom climb. The F4F was still with him firing bursts. As the speed bled down, the Bf-109 began to pull away in a steady rate climb. Had the Brit been a better shot, the German was certain he would have been shot down. He had underestimated the diving ability of the American fighter. Indeed, many of his comrades would do the same over Europe and not be as fortunate as he.

When we look at the turn rates of WWII fighters we stumble upon several factors that determine how well a fighter can turn. Aside from the technical aspects such as wing area and wing loading, we find that some fighters are far more maneuverable at low speeds than at higher velocities. This was very common with Japanese designs. At speeds above 250 mph, the A6M Zero and the Ki-43 Hayabusa (Oscar) could not roll worth a nickel. But at 150 mph, they were two of the most dangerous fighters ever to take wing. It did not take long for Allied pilots to learn to avoid low speed turning duels with the Japanese. Once this rule was established, the light weight dogfighters were hopelessly outclassed by the much faster opposition.

Over Europe, things were somewhat different. The Luftwaffe flew fast, heavily armed aircraft that were not especially suited to low speed turning fights. The Allies had in their inventory the Spitfire, which was very adept at turning fights. The Americans had the P-47, P-38 and P-51. All of which were very fast and at least a match for the German fighters in maneuverability. Especially the P-38 which could out-turn anything the Luftwaffe had and could give the Spitfire pilot pause to consider his own mortality. With the exception of these last two, there was nothing in western Europe that could hang with the F4U-4. Even when including the Soviets, only the Yak-3 could hope to survive a one on one with the Corsair. To do so, the Yak would have to expertly flown. Furthermore, the Yak-3 was strictly a low to medium altitude fighter. Above 20,000 ft its power dropped off rapidly, as did its maneuverability. The Yak-3 in question had better be powered by the Klimov M107A engine and not the low output M105. Otherwise, the speed difference is too great to overcome.

So, perhaps now is a good time to summarize the performance of the F4U-4. Let€s compare it to the aircraft generally believed to be the best all-around fighter of World War Two, the North American P-51D Mustang.

Speed: The -4 was about 10 mph faster than the P-51D at the altitude where the Mustang developed it€s highest speed.
Advantage: F4U-4
Navy Speed test 463mph "clean"

Climb: The -4 Corsair was a remarkable climber despite its size and weight. It could out-climb the Mustang by nearly 800 fpm.
Advantage: F4U-4
not max climb rate

Maneuverability: The F4U-4 was one of the very best. According to Jeffrey Ethell: "Of all World War II fighters, the Corsair was probably the finest in air-to-air combat for a balance of maneuverability and responsiveness. The -4, the last wartime version is considered by many pilots who have flown the entire line to be the best of them all€¦.." Indeed, the F4U-4 had few, if any equals at the business of ACM (air combat maneuvering).
Advantage: F4U-4

Armament: Equipped with either six .50 caliber machine guns or four 20mm cannons, the -4 had more than adequate firepower to destroy any aircraft. It was the premier load carrying single engine fighter of the war. It could get airborne with bomb loads exceeding that of some twin engine medium bombers.
Advantage: F4U-4

Survivability: There was no other single engine fighter flown during the war that could absorb greater battle damage than the Corsair and still get home. Even the USAAF admitted that the F4U was a more rugged airframe than the tank-like P-47 Thunderbolt. That is a remarkable admission. The big Pratt & Whitney radial engine would continue to run and make power despite have one or more cylinders shot off. The P-51D, on the other hand, could be brought down by a single rifle bullet anywhere in the cooling system.
Advantage: F4U-4

Useful range: The F4U-4 had roughly the same radius of action as the Republic P-47D-25-RE, which flew escort missions deep into Germany as far as Berlin (the P-47D-25-RE had 100 gallons of additional internal fuel capacity). Yet, the P-51D still maintained a big edge in endurance.
Advantage: P-51D

Ease of flight: Despite gaining the nickname of "Ensign Eliminator", the F4U series tendency to roll under torque was no more difficult to handle than any other high powered fighter of the era. Some who have flown both the Corsair and the Mustang state without hesitation that the P-51 exhibited a greater propensity to roll on its back than did the F4U. Moreover, the Corsair was a far more forgiving aircraft when entering a stall. Although it would drop its right wing abruptly, the aircraft gave plenty of advanced warning of an impending stall by entering a pronounced buffeting about 6-7 mph before the wing dropped. The P-51, however, gave no warning of an impending stall. When it did stall, it was with a total loss of pilot control, rolling inverted with a severe aileron snatch. Recovery usually used up 500 ft or more of altitude. It was not uncommon for Mustangs to spin out of tight turns during dogfights. The F4U could also be flown at speeds more than 30 mph slower than that at which the Mustang stalled. In other words, the P-51 could not hope to follow a Corsair in a low speed turning fight.
Advantage: F4U-4

Outward Visibility: The Corsair provided for very good visibility from the cockpit. However, few if any WWII fighters offered the pilot a better view than the P-51D. The earlier P-51B was inferior to the F4U. Nonetheless, it was the D model that made up the bulk of Mustang production.
Advantage: P-51D

Finally there is an area in which the P-51 cannot compete at all. The F4U was designed to operate from an aircraft carrier. What this provides for is a utility that is unmatched by the better land based fighters of WWII. The ability to operate at sea or from shore can never be over-valued.
Obvious advantage: F4U-4

In conclusion, it would be hard, no, impossible to dismiss the F4U-4 as the leading candidate for the "best fighter/bomber of WWII". Furthermore, there is strong evidence that it very well may be the best piston engine fighter (to see combat) period. Certainly, everyone can agree on this: The F4U-4 Corsair was at the pinnacle of WWII piston engine technology and performance. When people debate the relative merits of the great fighter aircraft of WWII, they would be remiss in not acknowledging the F4U-4 as one of the very best, and in the educated opinion of many, "the best" fighter aircraft to fly into combat in World War II.

___

BigKahuna_GS
05-12-2005, 04:30 AM
S!

__________________________________________________ _________________________
Aaron_GT posted Wed May 11 2005 01:42
"The F4U-4 did alot of things better than the P51 and it's not as closely matched as you say."
Whilst both designs are from the early 1940s originally when comparing the P51D and F4U-4 in terms of the service you are comparing a 1944 plane with a 1945 plane, so it's not surprising that the F4U-4 has the edge. Perhaps the comparasion should be the F4U-4 versus the P51H. However the P51H wasn't stressed for the same ordnance capacity as the F4U-4. Also a factor you didn't mention is the thrift of the engine which is important with regard to either range or logistics.
__________________________________________________ _______________________


Hya Aaron, actually the Corsair like the P38 is a pre 1940 design. I think the design started in late 1938. The Corsair was the first plane to hit the 400mph speed barrier. The Corsair airframe proved to be so hardy that it had the longest production run of WW2 fighters. The F4U-4 had range similar to P47D models that were able to fly escort missions deep into germany-Berlin. The P51H was a stellar performer. I just was comparing aircraft that actually saw combat in WW2. The P51H almost made it--too bad it did not.

Now ask yourself which plane would of you rather been attacking ground targets during WW2 or Korea in, the F4U-4 Corsair or P51 Mustang ?

___

Aaron_GT
05-12-2005, 12:20 PM
Right you are - 1938.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The F4U-4 had range similar to P47D models that were able to fly escort missions deep into germany-Berlin. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

If the P51 didn't have advantages over either the of these for that mission profile then had there been a possibility I am sure that the P51 would have been dropped in favour of the F4U. But then the P40 carried on and on.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Now ask yourself which plane would of you rather been attacking ground targets during WW2 or Korea in, the F4U-4 Corsair or P51 Mustang ? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'd prefer to be in an A26!

Slickun
05-12-2005, 03:58 PM
Fellas, fellas. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Allow me to disagree with many of the things posted above about the -4 and P-51.

My source is "America's 100,00" by Dean, and a few graphs the US Navy made available.

Speed: Depends on the model and altitude. 446 is the top speed often given for the -4. Sorry, but this is slower than the 450 at 29,000 feet the Navy got the P-51B to in their trails. It (446) also matches reported top ends from the Pacific P-51's that operated P-51D's with high boost.

Maneuverability. Depends on whether the "spoiler strip" is present on the wing or not. If it was, the -4 was not a match for the P-51 in any sort of turning fight. The P-51D, no combat flaps, stalled at a significantly lower speed in a 3G turn than the spoiler equipped -4. At high speeds, well, both were fitted with G-Suit attachments. Pilot toughness. Roll rates are amazingly close.

Acceleration? "America's 100,000" is very clear. The P-51D model is better, only behind, slightly, the late mark P-38's and the P-47M.

Dive? "America's 100,000" is very clear. The Corsair is not as good a diving machine. The P-51 had a higher mach, critical mach, and dive acceleration.

My Dad, with experience flying against the -4's, will tell you the P-51 had the best zoom climb amongst the P-47N, -4, and P-51. Take that with all the salt you want.

Despite Ethell's opinions, pilots at the Joint Fighter Conference, during the war, ranked the P-51 ahead of the -4 both above AND below 25,000 fett in the category "Best All Around".

Firepower? Well, go with any Corsair with 20 mm's. Any other bird is a wash with 6 x 50 cal.

Range? Well, both birds had amazingly long legs.

Climb? If the -4 didn't outclimb the P-51 it was a dog. What late model prop didn't outclimb the D? Planes from all over the world were ashamed that they couldn't outclimb the P-51D. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

No argument here about the Corsair as a tough fighter bomber. It was just a great, great ground attack plane. Tougher, hauled more, I agree to all of that. It had an arrestor hook. No contest there.

Yet in the things that US pilots wanted in an air to air fighter...speed, acceleration, roll rate, turn, high speed turns, zoom and dive, visibility, the P-51 enjoys advantages. At least in some sources.

Gents, I LOVE the Corsair. Please don't take any of the above as a knock on the bird. Just giving an alternative look at some of the data I see.

Slickun
05-12-2005, 04:08 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Hya Slick,

The F4U-4 did alot of things better than the P51 and it's not as closely matched as you say.

Advantages Of the F4U-4 over the P51D

Faster at altitude
Faster at mid altitudes
Faster on the deck
Better slow speed handeling
Lower stall speed
Much better climb rate
Better slow speed roll rate
Similar high speed roll rate with Mustang=equal
Better turn rate
Huge bomb payload--P51 does not even come close
Radial engine not prone to groundfire
Could land on a carrier </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You left off:

P-51 accelerates better
P-51 Dives better
P-51 zooms better
Reverse ALL turning statements if -4 had the "Spoiler Strip" on the right wing.

Speed? Depends on the altitude and condition of the wing, and what manual you read.

I think its a wash if talking about air to air, unless the spoiler strip is present, wherein there is no contest.

Air to ground? No contest, although the P-51 was good, not great at it.

fordfan25
05-12-2005, 11:34 PM
i thought i read the -4 acceled faster than the stang

Abbuzze
05-13-2005, 04:19 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SkyChimp:

Overcooling at high altitude was a problem with P-47s in Europe. It usually happened at cruise setting requiring the pilot to occassionally apply more throttle. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think it was a general problem for planes, even 109´s had to close the radiators to get the oil at correct temperature.

Slickun
05-13-2005, 01:56 PM
Fordfan, I don't have "America's 100,000" by Dean in front of me, but I remember being kind of surprised at how poorly the -4 did accelerate, with all that horsepower and all. Plus, as I said earlier, I'm a big fan of the type.

This is off the top of my head, but the top three late model US planes in acceleration were, in order, (all around 3.0 fps) the P-38L, the P-47M, and the P-51D, in that order.

If I ever get any time I'll post a little more in depth about what Mr. Dean has to say about all this.

BigKahuna_GS
05-16-2005, 06:29 AM
S!
__________________________________________________ ________________________
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
Slick wrote--You left off:
P-51 accelerates better
P-51 Dives better
P-51 zooms better
Reverse ALL turning statements if -4 had the "Spoiler Strip" on the right wing.Speed? Depends on the altitude and condition of the wing, and what manual you read. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
__________________________________________________ ________________________



Hya Slick, no worries mate we are just having a friendly discussion about the performance differences of these 2 great fighters.

As with the performance of any aircraft it depends upon which model of aircraft and the condition of the airframe. Clean condition is perferred.



SPEED - F4U4 vs P51D

In clean condition, the F4U-4 is superior at 463mph at alt and 383mph at sea level. If the Mustang was overboosted to 25lbs, speeds would be closer. The Mustang reportdly did 400mph on the deck with 25lbs boost. Then again, like the P47 the Corsair's engine could also be over-boosted.


TURN_RATE

It is generally thought that the P51B was the most agile/best turning model of the P51 series. In this Navy fly off between the F4U-1A vs P51B,
the F4U-1A out turns and out-accelerates the P51B. The F4U-1A is clearly superior to the P51B in this test below 25,000ft. The only place it is not superior is in dive acceleration with the P51B having the edge there. Later Corsair Models would close this gap and come close or match dive acceleration. The F4U-1A and later models had the right wing spoiler. Even some early Corsair's were retrofitted.

Something else to consider is that the Corsair had wingloading just slightly higher than the Hellcat and less than the Mustang which would aid in outurning the P51. The F4U could also be flown at speeds more than 30 mph slower than that at which the Mustang stalled. In other words, the P-51 could not hope to follow a Corsair in a low speed turning fight.

Note the lower stall speed of the Corsair in the report.


In Americas Hundred Thousand :

"An F4U-4 could apparently turn inside a P51D and stay on it's tail."
. pg532

"Although the Corsair had slightly higher wingloading than the Hellcat at equivilent loaded weights with peak wing lift coefficient reduced by the small spoiler strip on the right wing and thus a little poorer turning radius (as compared to the Hellcat)...it had very moderate stick forces in windup turns." pg 532

P-51B and F4U-1 Comparison Report
Report of the military evaluation and comparative flight characteristics

http://web.infoave.net/~howardds/id101.htm

http://web.infoave.net/~howardds/28860700.gif

http://web.infoave.net/~howardds/id103.htm

http://web.infoave.net/~howardds/28a60700.gif


This is from SimHQ on ACM :

http://www.simhq.com/_air/air_011b.html

Notice the turn rate of the F4U-1C vs P51D

Let€s apply that logic to two new fighters, the Aces High F4U-1C and the F6F-5. Examination of Fig7 shows that the Hellcat is the angles fighter, while the Corsair is the energy fighter. It is also important to point out that those designations are relative, and can change depending on the opponent. For example, let€s consider what would happen if we compared the F6F with the Spitfire, or the F4U with the P-51.

http://www.simhq.com/_air/images/air_011b_2.jpg
In the case of the F4U versus the P-51, its role has changed. Examination of the overlay shown in Fig8 reveals that the F4U is now the angles fighter, but the advantage is only around 1dps, not enough to make this an easy fight by any means. However, the P-51 doesn€t have enough superiority at high speed to realize a significant energy advantage, so while the P-51 is the energy fighter in this case, the distinction is less clear. In this case, the P-51 can€t allow the fight to get slow, but will also have difficulty employing energy tactics against the F4U. It is possible in situations like this, that other factors relating to roll rate, climb rate, stall characteristics, initial energy advantage, weapons effectiveness, or perhaps some difference in pilot skill, are more likely to have a greater influence on the outcome than pure maneuverability. Many pilots would approach a fight like this as if it were a similar aircraft engagement. However, if I were flying the P-51 against the F4U, I would be nervous of the combination of higher turn rate, smaller radius, and the mighty cannons of the 1C model, and make good use of that modest extra speed.



Acceleration

IN AHT on Pg604 it shows the P51B/D out accelerating in level flight the Corsair F4U-1 and F4U-4. Uknown if the airframe is in clean condition.
In the above Navy test it states the F4U-1A out accelerated the P51B and in the F4U-4 web site states this :

In level flight acceleration the F4U-4 gained speed at about 2.4 mph/sec, the P-51D accelerated at about 2.2 mph/sec.



Dive

In Americas Hundred Thousand:
"The later F4U-4 model of the Corsair was a considerably different and improved airplane, and one Navy pilot claimed he could catch a P51D in a dive with this aircraft." pg530

Unfortunately AHT does not list the F4U-4 in its "Dive Capability Comparisons" on pg605.

Also AHT -- Does Not even list the F4U-4 under the titles "Best Fighter-Bomber" or "Best Production Carrier Based Fighter" Makes you wonder if they tested the plane for this or if there was a clerical error. After all the P51D made the list for best fighter bomber--lol.

F4U-4 Web site:
Turning to dive acceleration, we find the F4U-4 and Mustang in a near dead heat. Both the P-47D and P-38L easily out distance the Corsair and P-51D in a dive. Moreover, both the Corsair and the Mustang have relatively high critical Mach numbers allowing them to attain very high speeds in prolonged dives before running into compressibility difficulty.



Zoom Climb

The F4U-4 had over a 20% better climb rate and weighed more than the P51. Energy rentention and performance in the vertical was very good.

F4U-4 Web Site :
"In terms of maneuverability, all models of the Corsair were first rate. The F4U-4 was better than the F4U-1 series. Why? More power and better performance in the vertical regime. Very few fighters, even pure fighters such as the Yak-3 could hang with a F4U-4 maneuvering in the vertical. Its terrific climbing ability combined with very light and sensitive controls made for a hard fighter to beat anytime the fight went vertical."


The F4U-4 had a great zoom climb.



____

AlmightyTallest
05-16-2005, 08:36 AM
Hey guys, what kind of gunsight did the F4U-4 have? Did it use the same type as the older F4U models, or did it get an improved type?

Great debate slickun and Kahuna, good to see a friendly debate about some really high performance late war aircraft. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Slickun
05-16-2005, 10:30 AM
Hey Kahuna:

Where to start? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

AHT is very clear. The P-51D out-accelerated the F4U-4. The Navy stuff notwithstanding, Dean does back up his claim.

As well as the turning performance with the "spoiler strip". That little item messed with the lift co-efficient to the point that looking at the wing loading based on sq feet/weight is rendered moot. Dean backs this up as well.

The -4 was a great zoom climber? So was the P-51. If we are relying on anecdotal evidence here, my Dad out-zoomed -4's in his P-47N, and was outzoomed in turn by P-51D's.

How is this possible? How can the P-51, with so much less hp/weight etc keep up? The type had significantly less drag than the -4.

The Navy and its report, bless them, felt the Corsair was a better plane than the P-51. I have no doubt that is the case. A rugged ground pounding type would be a preferred type over the P-51 and its in-line engine and no tail hook.

You have a ton of anecdotal evidence to back up the claims that the -4 was better in nearly every area than the P-51. Yet if there was ever a place to pay attention TO anecdotal evidence, it was the Joint Fighter Conference. I have a hard time discounting, out of hand, what those experienced combat pilots thought about the birds. There was no agenda there that is discernable from the minutes, or comments, of the fliers testing the birds.

The claims that the Corsair was a beauty, and easy bird to fly don't jibe with what I've read about it. Quite the contrary, it appeared to be a beast to fly and control. "Ensign eliminator"? The USN liked the Hellcat better, even though they knew it wasn't as good a pure combat bird. The Corsair's negatives outweighed its positives for much of the war, in the USN's eyes.

I've got some numbers, and opinions on my side. What is my side? That contrary to a LOT of articles, the P-51 wasn't dwarfed as a combat bird quite as badly as -4 advocates make out. I'm merely trying to point out that there IS another opinion, backed by some data, out there.

ZG77_Nagual
05-16-2005, 11:40 AM
Seems like the most relevant comparisons are those between the 1a and mustang b - rather than the -4 and D. Also - weren't those comparisons post-war? Did the -4 have rocket rails etc. the -4 was, for the most part - a post ww2 variant - with very little action seen in the war.

Moreover AHT has been somewhat discredited by Oleg.

(the thing about the Navy and 'their stuff' is true - fortunately they had the best pilots, best airplanes and best training of any of the armed forces - and still do. They are also better looking, smarter and have less body odor than other people in addition to embodying all other possible virtues and some that have not been thought of yet)

BigKahuna_GS
05-16-2005, 11:54 AM
S!



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Slickrun wrote--AHT is very clear. The P-51D out-accelerated the F4U-4. The Navy stuff notwithstanding, Dean does back up his claim.
As well as the turning performance with the "spoiler strip". That little item messed with the lift co-efficient to the point that looking at the wing loading based on sq feet/weight is rendered moot. Dean backs this up as well.

Yet if there was ever a place to pay attention TO anecdotal evidence, it was the Joint Fighter Conference. I have a hard time discounting, out of hand, what those experienced combat pilots thought about the birds. There was no agenda there that is discernable from the minutes, or comments, of the fliers testing the birds.

The claims that the Corsair was a beauty, and easy bird to fly don't jibe with what I've read about it. Quite the contrary, it appeared to be a beast to fly and control. "Ensign eliminator"? The USN liked the Hellcat better, even though they knew it wasn't as good a pure combat bird. The Corsair's negatives outweighed its positives for much of the war, in the USN's eyes. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>



Hya Slick,

That is the problem, AHT is not always very clear and Dean has a tendency to lump sum pilot remarks about an aircraft without seperating which model they are referring to sometimes. Also some of these tests are not clear as to what standard was used. At times information does seem contradictory and does not make sense. Such as not including the F4U-4 on the list of best fighter-bombers but the P51D is there, etc.

I have found much more detailed information on the P38, P47 and F4U from authors such as Warren Bodie, Daniel Whitney, and Barret Tillman. I have had several emails reguarding information contained in AHT with Oleg. While some information is spot on, at other times it is not and is confusing --which is Oleg's complaint.

The Hellcat and Corsair both have less wingloading than the P51B, the lightest most responsive varient of the Mustang. The Corsair's right wing spoiler had little effect on lift and was ment to produce a pronouced arrival of a stall. That is the why the Corsair and Hellcat are modeled in AEP/PF, with a historicaly better turn rate than the P51. That is the way most modern flight sims have modeled turn rates--with the Corsair's turn rate better than the P51 Mustang's.

Many of the comments from the Joint Fighter Confrence are listed in AHT and this is one of them:

From Americas Hundred Thousand/JFC :

"Was superior in manueverability and response to the P51B."pg.530


You have to take into context what was happening when the Corsair was labled the "Ensign Eliminator" and this problem was only with the early Corsair's. Landing on a moving carrier is considered one of the toughest things a pilot can do and that is when the Corsair got this reputation. The Corsair did not give enough stall warning for rookie pilots and the problematic oleo struts took care of the rest. Much of these complaints were by pilots who were used to flying the little Wildcats.

The Brits cured part of the oleo problem and had the Corsairs flying from the decks of carriers in no time which is what the Navy should of done. In AHT and Joint Fighter Confrenece, the Corsair is listed as the all around superior Carrier plane over the Hellcat. That is why the Navy replaced the Hellcat with the Corsair on the carriers. An 11-1 kill ratio aint bad.

To give you a contrast, the P51 Mustang failed carrier qualifications. It was felt by Navy pilots that the stall speed was too high and there was not enough directional stability at slow speed for carrier landings. What nick name do you think the ensigns would of given the P51 on board a carrier with a high stall speed and lack of slow speed control ? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

If you look at the Corsair's flight performance comments from pilots of the Joint Fighter Confrence, it goes on and on about having the best elevators(out of 14 fighters), 2nd place airlerons at both low and high speed, 2nd best rudder, 1st in stability in high speed dives and great harmoninzed controls. In fact with so many positive remarks about the harmony of flight controls when compared to other aircraft it's hard to understand why the Corsair was not chosen as best fighter below 25,000ft. The Corsair definetly won the decathelon of responses about flight controls from the Joint Fighter Report.

http://web.infoave.net/~howardds/28b60700.gif

http://web.infoave.net/~howardds/28c60700.gif
____

Slickun
05-16-2005, 01:45 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">To give you a contrast, the P51 Mustang failed carrier qualifications. It was felt by Navy pilots that the stall speed was too high and there was not enough directional stability at slow speed for carrier landings. What nick name do you think the ensigns would of given the P51 on board a carrier with a high stall speed and lack of slow speed control ? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, the P-51 DID qualify for carrier ops. So, I don't know what the nickname would be. There is a picture somewhere of the P-51 with an arrestor hook.

If you will give me time, I will peruse my copy of the JFC. It is the whole thing, not just the stuff in AHT. All the pilot comments and ratings (they rated each bird in several categories) are available, and we can stop cherry picking the ones we like, which we are both doing http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif.

AHT backs up the acceleration and turning claims (P-51 better) with aerodynamic data, not anecdotes. You are underestimating the effect of the spoiler strip, or so the data Dean presents says. I'll also delve into the dive and zoom stuff. Just give me a chance to get at it all. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

So the pilots at the JFC felt the P-51 was a good ground attack bird? It was, my friend. It strafed, destroyed, bombed and blew up a LOT of stuff in two wars. Leaving off the -4 does not make the rest of the ratings not count.

One thing NOT covered in AHT is the fact that the P-51 was rated 2nd BEHIND the Bearcat in "best all around below 25,000 feet". I'm assuming that Dean only included stuff about planes that made the cut.

Slickun
05-16-2005, 01:49 PM
Moreover AHT has been somewhat discredited by Oleg.

I'm sure Oleg thinks it has been discredited.

P-51's with Allison engines, as well as P-51B, C and D models were flying, in numbers, at both VE and VJ day.

Slickun
05-16-2005, 07:43 PM
From "America's 100,000" by Dean, published by Schiffer books. AHT is something of a bible for a lot of us fans of US types.

Now, reading graphs is hard, and if I'm off by a hair on any of this, please feel free to correct me. You know, you have to get the ruler out and cross reference the two axis. The graphs are either manufacture or Official graphs.

First speed at altitude:
0 feet
F4U-1D - 358 mph
F4U-4 - 380
P-51B - 375
P-51D - 378

5,000 feet
F4U-1D - 375
F4U-4 - 380
P-51B - 390
P-51D - 395

10,000 feet
F4U-1D - 395
F4U-4 - 400
P-51B - 405
P-51D - 420

15,000 feet
F4U-1D - 420
F4U-4 - 421
P-51B - 432
P-51D - 415

20,000 feet
F4U-1D - 420
F4U-4 - 440
P-51B - 428
P-51D - 425

25,000 feet
F4U-1D - 412
F4U-4 - 446
P-51B - 430
P-51D - 437

28,000 feet
F4U1D - n/a
F4F-4 - 440
P-51B - 450
P-51D - 436

30,000 feet
F4U-1D - 393
F4U-4 - 435
P-51B - 440
P-51D - 435

As near as I can get, that's what the charts say. All in combat power. Pick the one you like. As I said, max speed depends on altitude and model.

Slickun
05-16-2005, 08:05 PM
Max climb rate at different altitudes.

Lets leave the -1d out, if that's OK. This is tedious enough (but fun).

Sea level
-4 - 3800 fpm
B - 3200 fpm
D - 3450 fpm

5,000 feet
-4 - 3400 fps
B - 3250 fpm
D - 3500 fpm

10,000
-4 - 3300 fpm
B - 3350 fpm
D - 3100 fpm

15,000 feet
-4 - 2700 fpm
B - 3400 fpm
D - 2800 fpm

20,000
-4 - 2800 fpm
B - 2700 fpm
D - 2700 fpm

25,000
-4 - 2500 fpm
B - 2650 fpm
D - 2000 fpm

30,000
-4 - 1750 fpm
B - 2100 fpm
D - 1400 fpm
F4U-4 max climb rate is combat power, 12420 pounds. P-51B is combat power, 9200 pounds. P-51B is for combat power, 10100 pounds.

Time to altitude in minutes
5,000
-4 - 1.4
B - 1.4
D - 1.4

10,000
-4 - 2.7
B - 3.5
D - 3.5

15,000
-4 - 4.3
B - 4.2
D - 5.1

20,000
-4 - 6.1
B - 6.1
D - 7.2

25,000
-4 - 8.0
B - 8.3
D - 9.0
That's as high as the -4 chart went.

30,000
B - 13.0
D - 13.5

The -4 figures are for combat power, 12,420 pounds. The P-51B figures are for combat power, 9690 lbs. P-51D combat power, 10176 pounds.

No shock here, the -4 enjoys an edge at most altitudes in climb, although not all. The P-51 B beats it to 15,00 and 20,000 feet.

Slickun
05-16-2005, 08:35 PM
Acceleration?
F4U-4 at 2380 hp accelerates at 3.33 feet per second/second.

The P-51D at 1720 hp accelerates at 3.85 fps/s.

Make of this what you will. Factored into the chart are combat hp, weight, thrust, and drag. A modern comparison of the Mustang and Corsair, done by SETP (society of experimental test pilots) agreed. Whether it was the -4 or not quien sabe?

Dive.


Again, modern tests show the Corsair-1 to lag behind the Mustang, Lightning and Thunderbolt.

On some early WW2 tests mach .75 was reached, with considerable buffeting and tuck under. However, mach .72 was the limit pilots were instructed to maintain, to avoid compressability. 489 mph TAS at 30,000 feet, 504 TAS at 20,000 feet, and 516 TAS (mach 7.0)at 10,000 feet were recommended limits. Show me what was done to increase the mach limits in the -4 and I'll listen.

Mustangs were dove at mach .83, 605 mph TAS, and remained controllable. Any compressibility problems didn't START until just under mach .75. The type was well known for its high-speed-before-compressibility. All 21 pilots rating the type at the JFC rated its dive acceleration performance as good, the highest. 11 rated its recovery as good, 1 said moderate.

Acceleration? I dunno. Vague, with AHT saying the -1 was about equal to the P-51D, both ahead of the P-47, behind the P-38G.

Slickun
05-16-2005, 09:07 PM
More from AHT:

Turning performance, no flaps, 3G turn, stall speed.

Taken into account in the chart were gross wt, wing area, and maximum lift coefficient.
P-51D - 159 mph
F4u-1D - 172.5 mph. The 1D weighed 11803 pounds, the P-51D 9500. Both very light in the pants for the test. I can't see how the -4, being heavier than the 1D, would do any better with the same wing. I can see the P-51B doing better than the D.

Problem is the lift coefficient on the Corsair is a very poor 1.48, compared to the P-51's 1.89. The spoiler strip altered the coefficient rather a lot, as an NACA test noted.

The -4 was probably the shortest legged of all the Corsairs. It is the only one that you could say the Mustang had a real range advantage over.

Visibility? The frame canopies of the B and C were terrible. But, the Corsair canopy sat so far back, I can't see the type as reefing into a turn and pulling lead over that loooong nose.

Well, enough of this, huh?

Again, I love the Corsair. A wonderful, rugged, fast and tough bird, perfect for the USMC. The Mustang, as good at ground attack as it was, is no match.

However the one article everyone likes to post, about how the -4 is better in nearly every single area than the P-51, kinda gets to me. There IS another opinion.

Slickun
05-16-2005, 09:25 PM
BTW, the Schiffer book about the JFC has mostly stuff about the -1 corsairs.

There were more Navy pilots at the conference than AAF pilots.

But, out of 51 votes for best all around fighter below 25,000 feet, the F8F Bearcat got 30%, the P-51D got 29%, and the F4U1 got 27%. The -4 got 2%.

For best all around above 25,000 feet the P-47 got 45%, the P-51 got 39%. The F4U's combined got 10%.

Both types could pull a ton of G's, and had G-Suits. The pilots rated the P-51's ailerons as the best above 350 mph, 33% to the F4U-1's 20%. A case can be made that the P-51 was slightly better at high speed maneuverability.

Nothing is mentioned about a lead computing gunsight in the Corsair. If this is true, edge to the P-51D.

As I've said, in air to ground the Corsair, any mark, is clearly the better. In air to air, I feel the Merlin Mustangs beat all marks of the -1 Corsairs, and have parity with the -4's.

If I was to build an air force in 1945 with only one prop A/C available, I'd go with the -4. Superb in air to air and air to ground, and an arrestor hook. Hard to beat that.

Slickun
05-16-2005, 09:34 PM
(the thing about the Navy and 'their stuff' is true - fortunately they had the best pilots, best airplanes and best training of any of the armed forces - and still do. They are also better looking, smarter and have less body odor than other people in addition to embodying all other possible virtues and some that have not been thought of yet)[/QUOTE]

Yep. But the Brits had to show the USN how to land the thing on a carrier.

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

SkyChimp
05-16-2005, 10:00 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Slickun:
More from AHT:

Problem is the lift coefficient on the Corsair is a very poor 1.48, compared to the P-51's 1.89. The spoiler strip altered the coefficient rather a lot, as an NACA test noted.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The problem with this is that I think it's wrong. Or at least misleading.

Dean states the lift coefficients listed are for "No Flaps." Indeed, the F4U's lift coefficient of 1.48 seems to be without flaps or lift enhancing devices.

According to an NACA document on Lift Coefficients, the F4U had a "maximum lift coefficient" of 2.30 without the leading edge spoiler, and 1.88 with the spoiler - both presumably with flap deflection.

The same NACA document indicates the P-51's maximum lift coefficient without deflection (no flaps) was 1.4.

So, it looks like Dean lists a lift coefficient for the P-51 WITH FLAP, and the lift coefficient for the F4U WITHOUT FLAP. In fact, according to the NACA report, hardly any US fighter had a maxiumum lift coefficient much above 1.4 without flap. So, Not only do I think Dean listed the P-51's CL with flap, the other planes are listed that way, too.

I'll post a link to the NACA document later.

Ugly_Kid
05-16-2005, 11:39 PM
You have to a bit more careful. There is also a difference on CLmax between no throttle and with throttle. In this respect NACA-829 gives for example P-39 and P-40 even lower values without flaps than for P-51. It is notable that laminar profile in P-51 should not be as good as the more conventional section in low speed handling but then on the other hand it wasn't _that_ laminar nor were the others _that_ turbulent.

The fact is that there is a substantial effect from prop slipstream as the figure 8 on that report shows. F-4 reaches _only_ 1.63 with 50? flaps and with no prop! (and 2.3 with some throttle!)

The 19% drop on CLmax due to spoiler is a fact it means 19% disadvantage in wing-loading.

If you want to have a better comparable figure without comparing apples and oranges figure 14 on page 20 gives a comparison of F-4 service wing vs. faired and sealed wing, both without prop slipstream and with 0? flap. Under this circumstances "service" wing has about CLmax=1.18 and "faired and sealed" wing reaches 1.3. Figure 15 on page 21 gives the same figures for P-51, in both cases about CLmax=1.4.

So there is something to what Slickun is saying. Additionally Dean claims the values to be with full throttle(!) 3 g turn and _without_ flaps. The source is given as Fighter Conference proceedings, not the said NACA report. He just backs the apparent lower CLmax of F-4 up with the NACA report. Just my 2c

SkyChimp
05-17-2005, 05:56 AM
The point I'm trying to make is that the differences between CLs in AHT between every other plane and the F4U suggests the comparisons are not made under identical conditions. Look at the CL for some of the other planes in that chart in AHT. There is simply no way some of them (or all of them except for the F4U) is the CL without flaps. It's hard to believe that P-47D-30 could achieve a CL of 1.98 versus the F4U's 1.48 under the same loading and flap deflection conditions.

Of all the charts in AHT, that one is the questionable one. Dean would have been better served to leave it out.

BigKahuna_GS
05-17-2005, 11:19 AM
S!

Hya Slickrun,

I have both AHT & RJFC and many others. When testing aircraft their needs to be standardization for all aircraft in the airframe configuration and testing procedure itself. There are tests in AHT that seem a mixed bag just as Skychimp has posted.

The 3g flat turn test Dean puts in his book is very misleading. It is well documented that both the Corsair & Hellcat have a much lower stall speed, and less wingloading and could turn more tightly than the P51. Yes, the right wing spoiler changed the lift coeffient of the Corsair but not as dramaticaly as Dean would have you believe--see NACA and the P51B vs F4U-1A flight test.

AFAIK, the Mustang was disqualified as being unsafe to land on a carrier due to it's higher stall speed as compared the Corsair/Hellcat and it's lack of slow speed control as compared to the Corsair/Hellcat. I saw the picture of the Mustang on board the carrier with it's arrestor hook. Navy pilots were opposed to the P51 as a carrier operated fighter.

AHT dive test that shows the P51D and F4U-1D tied in second place for dive acceleration pg605.

Dive Capability Comparisons
Dives from 25,000ft at 30 & 90 degrees
Dive Acceleration

1.P38G
2.P51D/F4U-1D Tied
3.P47D
4.F6F-5
5.P39D
6.F4F
7.P40E

This is another of Dean's vague tests. No given start speed, how far did the dive test go, what was the pull out altitude if any, etc. Then next to this is another dive listing again with very little information and another ranking which must be critical mach. At the bottom it says contrary to the dive listing on the left of that page, that the P51B could out dive the F4U-1. That is what the Navy posted in their flight test between the P51B vs F4U-1A.


If anything the Navy is conservative in their testing procedures. The Navy tests clearly show a different picture than what Dean has in AHT. The speeds in "Clean Configuration" for the F4U-4 exceeds the speeds for the P51D at all altitudes.

These sea level speeds look inaccurate. In AHT on page595, Graph 78A, under Combat power shows the P51B and P51D at about the same sea level speed of 370mph, The P63A is listed as the fastest at about 376mph.

Sea Level Speeds Combat Power US Army AHT pg595
Graph 78A
P51B/D --370mph
P63A --376mph

Sea Level Speeds Combat Power US Navy AHT pg595
Graph 78B
F4U1-D --359
F4U-4 --380

As compared to:
First speed at altitude:
0 feet
F4U-1D - 358 mph
F4U-4 - 380
P-51B - 375
P-51D - 378

Now the Navy repeatdly was getting a sea level V-Max of 366mph TAS for the F4U-1A/1D. Also I thought the P51D was faster at sea level than the P51B and I am surprised to see both at about the same speed in this graph.

Overboosted is another story as the Mustang MarkIII hit around 400mph on the deck. The Corsair F4U-1A hit around 376mph on only 65" MAP overboosted. Robert Johnson's P47D-5 was pulling 72" MAP. I think the F4U-4 would acheive much higher than posted speeds overboosted also.

__

BigKahuna_GS
05-17-2005, 11:39 AM
S!


Then there is this speed chart for the P51B vs F4U-1A. On the deck, the F4U-1A is faster according to this official US Navy Chart.

http://web.infoave.net/~howardds/28b60700.gif


____

lrrp22
05-17-2005, 01:00 PM
Kahuna,

All the speeds listed for the P-51B in AHT and in the Navy test were for V-1650-3 P-51B's. A clean -7 B/C would do around 374 mph at SL on 67" WEP.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by 609IAP_Kahuna:
S!


Then there is this speed chart for the P51B vs F4U-1A. On the deck, the F4U-1A is faster according to this official US Navy Chart.


____ </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Slickun
05-17-2005, 03:05 PM
Kahuna, Skychimp, howdy from Arkansas! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Interesting discussion on the 3G turn chart. As I said, it is another opinion, backed up by some data. It is an argument about low speed steady turning anyway. I tend to think that the Corsair had the advantage there, especially when its better low speed ailerons were factored in. Despite what the graph says.

Both types could pull all the G's a man could stand at higher speeds. The Mustang pilots manual shows it capable of pulling 8 G's down to 265 mph IIRC before stalling, no flaps. I am sure the Corsair could pull a ton of G's as well. Both had arrangements for G suits. Both had great ailerons at high speeds. I'll go out on a limb, and say the P-51 had an edge, simply because of the JFC ratings of its ailerons being slightly better.

Skychimp questions the data, which is fine. But, the point I was trying to make, is that simply looking at the wing loading for the Corsair, without taking into account the spoiler strip's effect, is misleading.

How much this affected the low speed handling appears to be in question.

Kahuna, I purposely didn't present the dive accleration data because of the points you made. Not a good chart. I think in my post about diving I made some sort of caveat to that effect. We can speculate about the acceleration, it appears to be close, but I stand by the max dive speeds. The P-51 could go faster in a dive.

The maximum speeds, I promise, came off of the graphs in AHT. I went over them carefully. I used the graphs in the sections ABOUT the A/C (the P-51 and Corsair), to make sure I got the speeds on Combat Power. I didn't use the ones at the end of the book, in the comparison section.

As we have both said, who went faster, or climbed better, depended on what graph, condition of the wing, and the model.

Cheers, fellas!

BigKahuna_GS
05-17-2005, 03:06 PM
S!

__________________________________________________ ________________________
Irrp--All the speeds listed for the P-51B in AHT and in the Navy test were for V-1650-3 P-51B's. A clean -7 B/C would do around 374 mph at SL on 67" WEP.
__________________________________________________ ________________________



Rgr that Irrp. It all depends on what version of aircraft and what powerplant is driving it. That must of been an early P51B model.

What is the correct sea level speed for the P51D then ?
I have heard more than 67" MAP thrown around.
By the way great job on the RAF Mark III's.


__

Slickun
05-17-2005, 03:19 PM
Kahuna:

I'm not trying to make a case for the P-51 as a great Navy fighter. Or, if it had been fielded on carriers it would have served the Navy better than what they had.

However, sometime ago this subject came up. The P-51 eventually DID qualify for carrier landings. Seems like the really BIG problem was controlling power add ons during wave offs.

Anyway, it is no surprise to me that the P-51 wasn't very good at going slow.

BigKahuna_GS
05-17-2005, 04:00 PM
S!


Hya Sly,

There is no doubt that the P51B/D dived faster(higher critical mach)than early Corsair models right up to the F4U-1D. It is interesting though that the P51D & F4U-1D may have had similar dive speed acceleration--very fast.

However the F4U-4 was an entirely different animal and had a higher critical mach number over all other previous Corsairs models. Just thinking out loud here--since there is indication that the F4U-1D & P51D had similar dive acceleration, the F4U-4 which was the heaviest and most powerful model Corsair to date could of matched the P51 in a dive or even out accelerated the P51D during the dive due to horsepower/weight. Too bad the F4U-4 was not rated in the dive acceleration test or in terminal velocity.

Given the F4U-4's high critical mach along with greater mass, more horsepower/speed and superior climb rate, it should have a zoom climb that matches or exceeds the P51D. From the information I have read it certainly seemed that way.


___

BigKahuna_GS
05-17-2005, 04:06 PM
S!


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Slickun posted Tue May 17 2005 14:1
I'm not trying to make a case for the P-51 as a great Navy fighter. Or, if it had been fielded on carriers it would have served the Navy better than what they had. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Rgr that mate http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
I understand. I only brought it up as part of my point that the Corsair/Hellcat had a lower stall speed and lower wingloading which aided in greater manueverability over the P51.


__

Slickun
05-17-2005, 04:38 PM
RGR. And I threw in the spoiler strip to mitigate that.

Are we going round and round here? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

LOL.

But, it has been a lot of fun.

I LOVE the -4!!!

Slickun
05-17-2005, 04:48 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by 609IAP_Kahuna:
S!



Kahuna wrote:
Given the F4U-4's high critical mach along with greater mass, more horsepower/speed and superior climb rate, it should have a zoom climb that matches or exceeds the P51D. From the information I have read it certainly seemed that way.

Slick writes:

Show me why the -4 would have a higher critical mach than any of the other Corsair types. From everything I've read, its airframe was almost identical, just a few extra lumps on the cowling? I will listen.

The -1's reached mach .75, were basically limited to .72 at high altitude, .70 at low. Why would the -4 go faster in a dive, and not be limited to the same?

The P-51 reached .83, and didn't start to experience compression until just before .75. It was still controllable at a speed the Corsairs were maxxed at. The P-51 had a higher speed in the dive.

Dive acceleration? P-51 had less drag, was also heavy, and had a better level acceleration, at least at some altitudes.

And, as we've seen, the -4 SOMETIMES went faster and climbed faster. Depended on the altitude and model.


Do not discount drag. It is an unnanounced and often ignored factor in all things Mustang.


___ </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Slickun
05-17-2005, 05:02 PM
Kahuna, I'm going to post this for this forum. You may have read it from me before, but here goes. An anecdotal story about the Corsair, P-47, and Pony.

Ahem.

My Dad was born in 1920, and flew fighters from WW2 until the 60's. He flew everything from the P-36 to the F-101B Voodoo.

After a stint as a flight instructor, he was assigned to a P-47N squadron stationed, I think, at Dover, Delaware. He flew the D models a lot, and flew the N's on LOOOONG training flights up and down the eastern seabord. Many of these flights lasted 6 hours or more. As we all know, the N had really long legs.

On the return trips north his squadron often tangled with Corsair and Hellcat squadrons.

If in the D, the -4 was more than a match for the Jug. A favorite tactic for the -4 guys was to reef into a high speed turn, with the Jug following. As soon as speed bled a bit, they would roll level and zoom. Not only did they roll quicker, but always outzoomed the Jug, pouncing on them after the P-47 fell away.

When the guys got the N's, the tables were turned. The N rolled a lot better than the D, and as the Corsair guys found out, out zoomed them as well. Dad said they would follow the Corsair into the turn, match the roll out, and just sail by the Corsair. The Corsair pilot would salute them with one finger.

Dad had a LOT of respect for the Corsair (he knew they were -4's) and felt that below 15,000 feet they were better than the N. Above, the N was better. His opinion, of course. The groups would fly around and taunt the other to come up or down, and the fight would be on!

Pop did NOT think the Hellcat was first rate. He called it a training plane. Just his opinion, of course.

Dad will also tell you, the P-51 outzoomed any prop plane he ever flew or flew against. He felt it was a better plane than his beloved N model until 30,000 feet, where he thought the Jug ruled the skies.

Just a little anecdotal story from the typical AAF fighter jock, with all the biases one would expect! Take it with how ever many grains of salt you wish!

SkyChimp
05-17-2005, 06:39 PM
I'm not sure the -4 would have had a significantly higher critical mach than a late -1D model Corsair.

The document CHARACTERISTICS OF CURRENT US FIGHTER AIRPLANES shows the -1 and -4 Corsairs both with a Cd of .020. Except for the cowling, I'm not sure there was any really significant change to the exterior of the plane.

BigKahuna_GS
05-17-2005, 10:28 PM
S!

Great story Slickrun !

I love talking to veteran pilots and hearing their impressions
on how things were. Your dad may very well be righthttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I heard the Navy version where they always beat up on the P51s,P47s and the USAAF pilots would flip them the bird and point up to high altitude where they knew they would dominate over the Corsair.

I guess it depends who you are talking to, a Navy pilot or an Army pilot--as to which plane is better--LoL

My dad flew with the Marines in WW2(SBD,F6F,F4U) & in Korea doing strike missions in F9F Panthers. He was also a test pilot for awhile and flew about 175 differnt types of aircraft. The most potent prop fighters he flew where the F4U-4 Corsair and F8F Bearcat. Unfortunatly he did not fly a P51 or P47. I would of liked an objective opinon after flying all those types.

On my birth certificate where your parents fill out their personal information my dad put:
Occupation------------Test Pilot
Company---------------Marine Corps
Emergency Contact-----Control Tower

I guess he did have a sense of humor after all http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif


____

lrrp22
05-18-2005, 09:31 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by 609IAP_Kahuna:
S!

__________________________________________________ ________________________
Irrp--All the speeds listed for the P-51B in AHT and in the Navy test were for V-1650-3 P-51B's. A clean -7 B/C would do around 374 mph at SL on 67" WEP.
__________________________________________________ ________________________



Rgr that Irrp. It all depends on what version of aircraft and what powerplant is driving it. That must of been an early P51B model.

What is the correct sea level speed for the P51D then ?
I have heard more than 67" MAP thrown around.
By the way great job on the RAF Mark III's.


__ </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hey Kahuna,

A clean P-51D would be 1-3 mph slower than a -7 B according to USAAF numbers. Add ~10 mph to for 72" Hg and ~27 mph 81" Hg. Despite what Isegrim would like us to believe, there wasn't much drag/speed difference between the two.


...and thanks! Have you checked your PM's?

Slickun
05-18-2005, 09:35 AM
GREAT stuff, Kahuna. I forgive you for liking that USN stuff so much....http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I can just hear your Pop sneering as he described the AAF stuff. Bet he had about the same look on his face as mine did describing the USN birds and pilots.

Are we acting in proxy for our Dads? I wonder if they ever hooked up.

This has been a hoot, I tell ya. A hoot http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

ZG77_Nagual
05-18-2005, 09:52 AM
Lol Kahuna - My Uncle - Bud Walker - still does airshows in his pitts. (he is now either 80 or very very close). He flew Corsairs and panthers for the marines in Korea too.
Great discussion!

Slickun
05-18-2005, 02:36 PM
My Pop flew B-26's. In Korea. Long story there.

I'll tell his night fighter story again sometime.

Bremspropeller
05-19-2005, 07:49 AM
Has anybody of you already spent an idea on icing ?

IMHO this would be a nice feature for future Sims like BoB.

Just immagine: you're coming out of a cloud and your plane flies like a tank - ice is frickin' heavy and causes drag (not to mention the turbulences which are created by rough ice) http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif