PDA

View Full Version : So which is the better air-to-air fighter: Hellcat or Corsair



huggy87
11-14-2004, 04:21 PM
I tend to do better with the Hellcat. I like its manueverability better and it still has enough poop to outrun most of the Japanese planes. I also like that it is more of a simple man's plane, easier to land on the carrier.

Then again, the corsair was the only one to make it to the korean war, even over the bearcat. So it must be the better overall plane.

huggy87
11-14-2004, 04:21 PM
I tend to do better with the Hellcat. I like its manueverability better and it still has enough poop to outrun most of the Japanese planes. I also like that it is more of a simple man's plane, easier to land on the carrier.

Then again, the corsair was the only one to make it to the korean war, even over the bearcat. So it must be the better overall plane.

Korolov
11-14-2004, 04:26 PM
Hellcat makes a better interceptor and fighter. The Corsair remained to the Korean War because of it's ground attack capability, not its usefulness as a fighter.

3.JG51_BigBear
11-14-2004, 04:57 PM
I definitely think the Hellcat is the better fighter. Te Corsair seems to be far more popular in the DF servers right now but the improved turning performance of the Hellcat with relatively similar dive and climb charactersitics to the Corsair make for a nice energy fighting package. As soon as someone goes out and wipes the dried urine off the wind screen we should be all set.

VMF-214_HaVoK
11-14-2004, 06:28 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Korolov:
Hellcat makes a better interceptor and fighter. The Corsair remained to the Korean War because of it's ground attack capability, not its usefulness as a fighter. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Even so the Corsair easily dispatched Russian aircraft when needed. Correct it was there for close air support but did see its fair share of air to air battles.

=S=

VFA-195 Snacky
11-14-2004, 07:00 PM
"* During the Korean War, the Corsair was used mostly in the close-support role. There were dogfights between F4Us and enemy Yak-9 fighters early in the conflict, but when the enemy introduced the fast MiG-15 jet fighter the Corsair was outmatched, though one Marine pilot did get lucky. On 9 September 1952 a MiG-15 made the mistake of getting into a turning contest with a Corsair piloted by Captain Jesse G. Folmar, with Folmar shooting the MiG down with his four 20 millimeter cannon. The MiG's wingmates quickly had their revenge, shooting down Folmar, though he bailed out and was quickly rescued with little injury."

source- http://www.vectorsite.net/avf4u.html#m6

fordfan25
11-14-2004, 07:08 PM
personal prefrence realy. the cat turns better but the corsair is noticbly faster. both can take a beating.

Hades_Dragon
11-14-2004, 07:35 PM
I think the Corsair is better suited as an interceptor than the Hellcat. It climbs better, is faster, and can carry more ammo.

Also I believe the Corsair would be better suited for air to air. While the Hellcat is slightly more nimble, its not going to be enough to change the tide in a dogfight against a lighter more manuverable aircraft, I would rather have the extra power, with which you can exert you aircraft's strength, its speed that much more against the opposition.

Korolov
11-14-2004, 09:00 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VMF-214_HaVoK:
Even so the Corsair easily dispatched Russian aircraft when needed. Correct it was there for close air support but did see its fair share of air to air battles.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Far more useful as a ground pounder if you ask me and no doubt it could hold its own with the best of the USSR's prop fighters of the time.

Hades_Dragon - The thing here is that the F6F is *fast enough*. The F4U's extra speed doesn't do it much good if it can't get to that point quickly. That's the F6F's advantage. So far in my experience, the F6F climbs a lot better, turns a lot better and outperforms the F4U in a fight. The F6F can stick on a Zekes tail long enough to pound him, but the F4U has to make a multitude of passes to get the same effect.

Now, the F4U's advantage comes in the capability to do so many multiple tasks in the same instant. The F6F has a measly ground attack loadout and not nearly as much ammunition. The F4U can remain on station for longer than the F6F and therein lies the fighting style. The F6F is designed for a straight all-out melee, capable of getting somewhere fast and sticking it out. The F4U on the other hand presents a more tactiful approach, stay out there and hit them when they're not looking. Entirely different styles of combat for the both of them.

Maple_Tiger
11-14-2004, 09:20 PM
I like the Corrsair, and I think it's a better fighter.

We know it's a little faster. But, it also has a better zoom climb.

fordfan25
11-14-2004, 09:23 PM
true but even though the cat is a better turner than the sair it is still no math for a zero or even a yak3 in a turn fight IMO and its not fast enough to hit and run.how ever i can keep an open mind

Korolov
11-14-2004, 09:32 PM
Later war variants of the A6M are on par with the Hellcat's maneuverability.

Don't forget also that the A6Ms have a climb capability, both zoom and regular, that rival both the F4U and F6F.

fordfan25
11-14-2004, 09:45 PM
right but the corsair has a much higher top speed so just keep your speed up and hell have a hard time with you. right?

VFA-195 Snacky
11-14-2004, 10:24 PM
The Corsair was good at making cheesy TV shows, but the Hellcat won the war in the Pacific.lol http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

prb17
11-14-2004, 11:20 PM
The Hellcat was designed to take everything we knew about the Wildcat, and everything we knew about the Zero (from the crashed specimen in the Aleutian Islands) and make a fighter designed to combine all the advantages of the F4F (rugged, superior firepower) with the advantages of the Zero (maneuverability). It succeeded well. It wasn€t designed to be an interceptor. It didn€t have the speed. That€s why the F4U was brought onto the carriers during the Kamikaze threat. It was a better interceptor (fast), which was what was needed to counter the Kamikaze threat.

Korolov
11-14-2004, 11:41 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by fordfan25:
right but the corsair has a much higher top speed so just keep your speed up and hell have a hard time with you. right? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not so much that the Corsair overshadows the Hellcat. A difference of about 20mph at maximum speed for either plane.

WUAF_Badsight
11-14-2004, 11:48 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VMF-214_HaVoK:
Even so the Corsair easily dispatched Russian aircraft when needed. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
oh puhleez . . . . . .

if anything the Korean airwar was a test of pilot training . . . . . & we both know which side had the best trained pilots

but are you seriously are trying to say that the Corsair has better A2A DF abilitys than the La-9 or Yak-9U ?

Hunde_3.JG51
11-15-2004, 12:20 AM
1 vs. 1 would probably take the Hellcat.

4 vs. 4 give me the Corsair.

But the term "dogfighter" indicates a close-in, turning fight in which case the Hellcat is better IMHO.

Overall, give me the Corsair. I don't like dogfighting, eventually you get slow and someone else takes you out. I prefer high speed hit and run, which favors the F-4U, P-47, FW-190, Typhoon/Tempest, etc..

mortoma
11-15-2004, 09:34 AM
The Hellcat should be renamed the 'Slowcat'. One guy said that it is able to outrun Japanese planes. Which ones?? Maybe the Zeke but that's about it!!! Seems to me that even the P-39s are faster and the old fart P-40s are nearly as fast. Give me a Corsair due to the slowness of the Cat alone!!

geetarman
11-15-2004, 09:51 AM
No, the Hellcat isn't very fast. But it's enough for a knife-fight. It's one thing to be fast and another to be quick. The 'Cat accelerates really well and can slow down really fast. I have no problems dealing with the Japanes or Russian planes in a dogfight.

The Corsair is a great plane, but, for a dogfight, the Hellcat can hang in there a bit better.

VF51_Flatspin
11-15-2004, 09:53 AM
Historically, I think the F6F had the better kills-to-loss ratio.

fordfan25
11-15-2004, 10:09 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WUAF_Badsight:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VMF-214_HaVoK:
Even so the Corsair easily dispatched Russian aircraft when needed. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
oh puhleez . . . . . .

if anything the Korean airwar was a test of pilot training . . . . . & we both know which side had the best trained pilots

but are you seriously are trying to say that the Corsair has better A2A DF abilitys than the La-9 or Yak-9U ? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

yes i am http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif. the the f4u-1 we have in the game but the ones thay used in Koria was every bit as good.as far as wich side had the best traind piolets. yes the US did "and still do hehehehe" but there were in FACT USSR ACES that flew for the NK. look up the states for both the la-9 and the f4u-4 there very close all the way around. the la-9 might climb better but the corsair had more range. the la-9 might turn a lttle better but the corsair was faster,not to mentune the corsair could take alot more pounding while the LA-9 would fall apart if the pilot sneezed lol. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif. the f4u also carried more ammo wich means it could stay in large fights longer.

Aero_Shodanjo
11-15-2004, 10:12 AM
"So which is the better air-to-air fighter: Hellcat or Corsair"...

IMO, the term "better" is a highly subjective matter. Which one that fits your flying and fighting style?

Tater-SW-
11-15-2004, 10:41 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by prb17:
The Hellcat was designed to take everything we knew about the Wildcat, and everything we knew about the Zero (from the crashed specimen in the Aleutian Islands) and make a fighter designed to combine all the advantages of the F4F (rugged, superior firepower) with the advantages of the Zero (maneuverability). It succeeded well. It wasn€t designed to be an interceptor. It didn€t have the speed. That€s why the F4U was brought onto the carriers during the Kamikaze threat. It was a better interceptor (fast), which was what was needed to counter the Kamikaze threat. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
You are right about the F6F being an every way improved F4F, but the Koga Zero is usually miscredited with being a design driver of the F6F.

The XF6F-1, and the up-engined XF6F-3 (virtually identical to the production model, and in fact became a production plane itself) both flew before the Koga Zero was patched up and tested by BuAer. The F6F was in no way a response to the Zero, it was simply designed to improve upon the F4F in every way. The XF6F was requested before we knew the Zero existed (summer 1941) as a back-up plan to the trouble plagued F4U program that had been moving slowly forward for a few years at that point. The R2800 engine upgrade was after the war started, and could possibly be seen as a response to pilots wanting more power, but the US was almost standardizing on that radial powerplant anyway for fighters, so it seems likely they would have tried it regardless. The fact that the F4F was as closely matched as it was with the Zero meant that it was bound to be superior than the Zero in every way as well (the XF4F-8, aka FM-2, was already on the drawing board (flew Nov '42), and the F6F was gonna be better than any F4F).

tater

muHamad-ALi
11-15-2004, 10:49 AM
To answer the question, both the f4u and f6f are godawful unless you have a wingman and both are modeled "incorrectly" in PF. Should be fixed in next patch according to an email I just recieved.

fordfan25
11-15-2004, 11:03 AM
sure thay were. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

DRB_Hookech0
11-15-2004, 11:46 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VF51_Flatspin:
Historically, I think the F6F had the better kills-to-loss ratio. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That may be, but IIRC the majority of their kill ratio came late in the war when the Japanese were out of pilot and were throwing 13 year olds up with a 2 week training course. It was the Wildcats, Corsairs and early squadrons of Hellcats that gutted the Japanese aircorps from G'canal to Rabual. The Japanese lost several whole air fleets there not to mention almost all of the experenced, highly competnet pilots that they began the war with.

VFA-195 Snacky
11-15-2004, 12:45 PM
here, educate yourselves.lol

Corsair (pdf)
http://www.history.navy.mil/branches/hist-ac/f4u-4.pdf

Hellcat (pdf)
http://www.history.navy.mil/branches/hist-ac/f6f-5.pdf

The ne thing that does bother me is the -5 is supposed to have 2x20mm with 4x.50. Interesting

BlitzPig_DDT
11-15-2004, 02:09 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VFA-195 Snacky:
The ne thing that does bother me is the -5 is supposed to have 2x20mm with 4x.50. Interesting <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

"Most" didn't have that config. Some of the very late built ones did though. Guess that was as good an excuse as any to hold back some of the US stuff. Kinda like that **** on the windows. Minor stuff, nothing too blatant or impossible to work around, just enough to have an effect. Very subtle.

It would have been nice to get the up-gunned Hellcat though. Not that it's needed, just that it would be nicer than having 19 Corsairs that all fly pretty much exactly the same for no other reason than that plane has ridiculous and misplaced hype and popularity. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

Korolov
11-15-2004, 02:09 PM
Snacky, my info says that the F6F-5N night fighter was the version with 2x20mm and 4x50 cals - I would imagine all types could be fitted with that, but my info says that the 6x50 cal armanent was more prominent.

VFA-195 Snacky
11-15-2004, 02:12 PM
rgr that Koro, I got that from the PDF links I posted above. Problem with history is it depends on who you ask.lol

DDT, I understand your fustration, but you had to know the Corsair was going to be the darling plane in PF. All we can do is point out those things that are obvious and live with what is close enough.

VMF-214_HaVoK
11-15-2004, 02:36 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WUAF_Badsight:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VMF-214_HaVoK:
Even so the Corsair easily dispatched Russian aircraft when needed. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
oh puhleez . . . . . .

if anything the Korean airwar was a test of pilot training . . . . . & we both know which side had the best trained pilots

but are you seriously are trying to say that the Corsair has better A2A DF abilitys than the La-9 or Yak-9U ? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Indeed it does. But you make me laugh with the trained pilots arguement. It goes both ways and has always been so. Its funny how you and luftwhiners use that arguement when its axis versus allies later in the war, but you dont dare use the same arguement for the beginning of the war. You automatically say axis planes were better but what you FAIL to say is that they had much more experience then allied pilots at that time. Such a double standard and its quite funny.

But yet again you manage to go out of your way and attempt to flame me. But since you lack the ability to type in english its not so offensive. You jump in with your 10 word flaming sentence and poof your gone. You never post any facts or data just your 12 year old imagination and your silly attempt to reach 5000 post as fast as you can...so you can be oooooh sooooo cooool http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

Now carry on n00bsight before I have to report your actions to your boss again so he can make you apologize to me one more time.

=S=

VMF-214_HaVoK
11-15-2004, 02:42 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by muHamad-ALi:
To answer the question, both the f4u and f6f are godawful unless you have a wingman and both are modeled "incorrectly" in PF. Should be fixed in next patch according to an email I just recieved. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You really have no idea what you are talking about do you. You stating that irl the Corsair and Hellcat were godawful planes...LMAO. I believe Walmart is a having a 2 for 1 sale on Clues this week. Go grab n00bsight and yourself one as quickly as you can.

Korolov
11-15-2004, 02:43 PM
Nonetheless, I find the 6x50 cal armanent to be plenty sufficient for downing most IJA planes. If we got 2x20mm, then it'd be quite the multipurpose killer. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

VMF-214_HaVoK
11-15-2004, 02:50 PM
Four Yaks and a couple of Corsairs


Air support for their ground troops has always been a top priority for Marine Air, but the possibility of engaging an aggressive enemy pilot could produce an adrenaline rush in any fighter pilot. During the Korean War, the Corsair pilots spent a lot of time in dangerous situations, and when they worked the northern sectors of the Korean peninsula, they always had their eyes checking for enemy fighters.

As 1950 ended, most of the North Korean Air Force's inventory of Soviet-built WW II vintage fighters had been destroyed, but some of the threat remained because a few had escaped over to Chinese air bases in Manchuria. On April 21, 1951, a division of Corsairs from the Checkerboard squadron (VMF-312) led by Capt. Phillip C. DeLong flew an interdiction mission over North Korea. True to Murphy's Law, early on, the division of four Corsairs was divided into pairs (elements), and that weakened their position in the event that they were jumped by an enemy force in larger numbers.

Capt. Phillip C. DeLong: "About an hour into our mission, while we were over the Chinnampo Harbor, we heard a radio distress call that one of the Corsairs from another division had been hit by ground fire. The pilot of the stricken aircraft was bailing out, so our priority was to do everything we could to make sure that he was rescued safely. After contacting our carrier with the location, I sent two of the Corsairs from my division to rendezvous with the inbound rescue helicopter; then my wingman and I continued on with our mission."

There was no doubt that the Marine fighter/bomber's presence in the area had already registered on the enemy radarscopes, and serious trouble was probably just minutes away. But a Marine fighter ace from WW II who had 11 confirmed kills in the Pacific theater was leading this element; Capt. DeLong and his wingman spent a lot of time looking for targets at a very low altitude.

DeLong: "We were climbing through two thousand feet when we saw four aircraft approaching us from the northwest at five thousand feet. My wingman, Lt. Harold Daigh, identified them as F-51 Mustangs, so we believed them to be friendly. For this reason, we didn't pay much attention to them as they turned toward us in a loose right-echelon formation. Suddenly, I became aware of what we were facing when one of their seven-point-seven millimeter rounds entered my cockpit and damaged my radio! Right after that, there were several more €˜thumps,' which were more rounds hitting my aircraft."

Lt. Daigh was maneuvering to get behind Yak-9 nos. 3 and 4 when his efforts to dump his ordnance failed! Despite the weight, he pressed the attack and opened fire on the closest one but didn't see any results. Immediately, he shifted his attention to Yak no. 4 and fired a long burst, scoring hits on the wing and fuselage. Seconds later, its wing broke off and it plummeted straight into the ground. In the meantime, Capt. DeLong had his hands full with other problems.

DeLong: "As soon as I was fired on, I executed a quick split-S maneuver to pick up speed. When the fight started, my maps were spread out in my lap, so now I was trying to evade the Yak's guns with my cockpit full of loose maps, which did not help my visibility! I had to get rid of them somehow so I'd be able to fight effectively. These were the tensest moments of the entire mission because you have to remember that we were only at two thousand feet when the fight started! In seconds, I stowed the maps and recovered from the dive, climbing sharply to the left."

This particular Yak flight was either flown by pilots who had survived aerial combat on many earlier occasions, or by fearless and aggressive instructor types. The dramatic loss of the first Yak did not deter the others. They continued to press the fight.

DeLong: "Two of the Yaks made another pass on me from astern, but I was able to turn the tables. While I was still in my defensive turn, one of the enemy fighters crossed in front of me from right to left. I hit it with a solid burst that did significant damage. The Yak began to stream black smoke, nosed over and went straight into the ground about half a mile from where Lt. Daigh's kill had crashed. Things were happening so fast and furious that I didn't realize I was still carrying my bombs. I jettisoned everything except my rockets. I decided that I might be able to use them if the remaining two Yaks proved too tough, or if others joined the fight."

There may have been a few incidences during the Korean War in which air-to-ground rockets were fired at another hostile aircraft, but as erratic as these rockets were, their chance of hitting anything was small. A lucky direct hit on any aircraft would have resulted in a fiery explosion and a certain "kill."

DeLong: "The fight continued to heat up as I sharply banked to the left and chased two Yaks out in front of me. Lt. Daigh was behind the first one, and the second one was right on his tail. I radioed him about the danger, and he cut to the left, causing the trailing Yak to overshoot him. Seconds later, Daigh nailed him with a burst, and the Yak began to trail smoke from its cockpit and wing root. I closed on the one out in front, and as soon as I squeezed off a quick burst, I saw smoke, but this one wasn't ready to call it quits!"

The Yaks were all fast and very maneuverable, but their construction wasn't as rugged as that of the Corsairs and Mustangs. They possessed good firepower and, in the hands of a good pilot, gave Marine pilots plenty of cause for concern. These aircraft had given the veteran Luftwaffe pilots plenty of trouble during the last half of WW II. The North Koreans had been given a significant number of these aircraft in the late 1940s for their fledgling air force.

DeLong: "As soon as I hit the Yak, he split-S'ed. I followed him into the maneuver and continued to score hits, and as the rounds chewed into their mark, pieces of the aircraft fell off and trailed past me. Seconds after I let up on my guns, the Yak pilot stopped using evasive tactics, and at that moment, I knew he was finished. Then I realized that I still had all of my rockets, so I selected the rocket launcher and hit the switch; nothing happened. Without losing a beat, I fired another burst from my guns, and that finished him off. Seconds later, papers, maps etc., flew out of the Yak's cockpit as he jettisoned his canopy and bailed out."

The Yak crashed into the water below, and Capt. DeLong racked up his second kill of the day. The enemy pilot parachuted safely into the water, and as the helicopter was on its way to pick up the downed Corsair, DeLong radioed that they should also try to pick up the Yak pilot, but the communication was never received. There had been four Yak-9s in the fight against the two Corsairs, and all were shot down, but only three confirmed.

Of course, it isn't over until the fat lady sings!

DeLong: "The dogfight had lasted about ten minutes, and we had shot three down and had one €˜probable.' Fortunately for Lt. Daigh, a few days later, UN forces found a Yak in shallow water within the same area, and this was all that was needed to upgrade the €˜probable' to a confirmed kill. It was a day that I'll long remember, and the only thing that could have made it better was to have taken one of the Yaks out with one of my rockets!"

=S=

fordfan25
11-15-2004, 02:53 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VMF-214_HaVoK:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by muHamad-ALi:
To answer the question, both the f4u and f6f are godawful unless you have a wingman and both are modeled "incorrectly" in PF. Should be fixed in next patch according to an email I just recieved. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You really have no idea what you are talking about do you. You stating that irl the Corsair and Hellcat were godawful planes...LMAO. I believe Walmart is a having a 2 for 1 sale on Clues this week. Go grab n00bsight and yourself one as quickly as you can. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

lol i was thinking along those same lines lol. he had to be jokeing. if not i feel bad for all those around him. stupidity of that magnitude is a danger to all those around it lol.

Maple_Tiger
11-15-2004, 02:57 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by muHamad-ALi:
To answer the question, both the f4u and f6f are godawful unless you have a wingman and both are modeled "incorrectly" in PF. Should be fixed in next patch according to an email I just recieved. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>



Now that muHamad is retired from boxing, this is what he does. From fighting with his fists, to fighting in the vertual skys.

darkhorizon11
11-15-2004, 02:57 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WUAF_Badsight:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VMF-214_HaVoK:
Even so the Corsair easily dispatched Russian aircraft when needed. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
oh puhleez . . . . . .

if anything the Korean airwar was a test of pilot training . . . . . & we both know which side had the best trained pilots

but are you seriously are trying to say that the Corsair has better A2A DF abilitys than the La-9 or Yak-9U ? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Badsight your assumption that the bad guys (aka communists and nazis) always have better planes is very skewed. I've seen this in other topics as well.

I've noticed when it comes to most wars the general skill of the pilots on both sides is generally similiar. The exception to this is the few naturals that come along, aka the Erich Hartmanns and Richard Bongs of the world. Its the capablility of the aircraft and the exact situation that determines the outcome of the battle from what I've seen.

I don't have any numbers to support how the Corsair faired in the Korean War but in WWII the highest scoring ace Hartmann admitted that his numbers were swelled because of the somewhat inferiority of Russian aircraft. He said that every American or British plane was probably worth two Russian.

Food for thought.

Speaking of which somebody have a kill ratio for the Corsair in NK?

wojtek_m
11-15-2004, 03:44 PM
Oh come on, US fanbois, Hartmann refered to early war russian planes... both german and russian late war planes were superior to their american counterparts. Just look at the numbers... climb rates, accelerations, max speeds, maneuverability...

Snoop_Baron
11-15-2004, 03:46 PM
Based on the two PDF files posted, the diference between in top speed between an F4U-1 and a F6F-3 is 37MPH which is 60KPH. I think that is a significant speed diference and would lead me to pick the Corsair over the Hellcat. I would pick the F4U-1C model becuase I think the 4 20mils would be better against the tough Hellcat and better suited for hit and run and B&Z attacks. If the 2x20mil+4x50cal Hellcat was in the game that would be a good choice of armament against the Corsair.

What's the speed difference between the Yak3 and the La7?

s!
Snoop

wojtek_m
11-15-2004, 03:48 PM
... or even weights - an late american fighter was nearly twice as heavy as a russian or german fighter, but it didnt have twice as much power, or twice as much wing area... Where the american planes excelled is range and damage resistance.

horseback
11-15-2004, 04:05 PM
Can't comment on the virtues of the PF Corsair vs the PF Hellcat, because I haven't had the add-on that long (I'm still working on landing them on the Pacific Islands map--the bastages aren't losing airspeed too easily), but I should point out that the Corsair in WWII was an incomplete aircraft design for most of the war.

The F4U-4 and later versions that flew in Korea were a whole 'nother animal than even the -1D version. There wasn't all that much to choose from between the -1 Corsairs and the -3 & -5 Hellcats in terms of air combat. The Hellcat had more combat opportunities after the Solomons campaign because it was deemed more suitable for carrier operations.

The difference for the Navy was the relative ease that new operators had learning to make the most and best use of the Hellcat. Besides being easier to land and take off (particularly from carriers), it was widely considered the easiest fighter aircraft in the US inventory to fly. But Grumman's design philosophy was to take the best of current design and engineering and make it work. By definition, the Hellcat was not intended for a long career; the big 'Cat was already technologically obsolete when it hit the Pacific in August of '43. Grumman intended for the Bearcat and Tigercat to take the next technological steps.

Vought's design of the Corsair was cutting edge; it took longer to mature. While the early versions were formidible, the technological innovations didn't all work as intended, and the 'bugs' took a while to overcome. The -4 was like FB 3.01 (or 3.02)-the bugs were (mostly) fixed, and the aircraft was still cutting edge and versatile.

Even after jets supplanted it as a frontline air to air fighter, it's ground attack capability was sufficient to keep it in production. And yes, the Corsair was obviously competitive in the A2A role with late and early postwar Soviet prop fighters, even at low level, as Capt. DeLong and his wingman proved.

cheers

horseback

VMF-214_HaVoK
11-15-2004, 04:06 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by wojtek_m:
... or even weights - an late american fighter was nearly twice as heavy as a russian or german fighter, but it didnt have twice as much power, or twice as much wing area... Where the american planes excelled is range and damage resistance. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You left out the fact that US planes in general could outdive and zoom climb there enemy not too mention usually had the top speed advantage. You should also know the F4U easily out performs the FW-190 in turning and looping which you quake arena fanboys love so much. F4U defeated its enemy with power and brute force which would go for most US aircraft. So many people think of the slow boring turn till your old fights at the deck when they talk about which plane is better then which.

=S=

wojtek_m
11-15-2004, 04:53 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VMF-214_HaVoK:

You left out the fact that US planes in general could outdive and zoom climb there enemy not too mention usually had the top speed advantage.

=S= <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, its not exactly true with the top speeds... the likes of La7, Yak9U, late FW190 or late Bf109 were all faster than late american planes, look at the numbers. They also all reached the top speeds faster, because of much better thrust/weights. Yes american planes dived better, but climbing wins fights, diving can only save your life http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif The differences in dive accelerations are not that big (was discussed here recently), the differences in zoom climbs are even smaller. Most american planes could withstand higher dive speeds than russian planes however (but german planes were equally good...). We shouldn't hijack this thread though http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

VMF-214_HaVoK
11-15-2004, 05:06 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by wojtek_m:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VMF-214_HaVoK:

You left out the fact that US planes in general could outdive and zoom climb there enemy not too mention usually had the top speed advantage.

=S= <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, its not exactly true with the top speeds... the likes of La7, Yak9U, late FW190 or late Bf109 were all faster than late american planes, look at the numbers. They also all reached the top speeds faster, because of much better thrust/weights. Yes american planes dived better, but climbing wins fights, diving can only save your life http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif The differences in dive accelerations are not that big (was discussed here recently), the differences in zoom climbs are even smaller. Most american planes could withstand higher dive speeds than russian planes however (but german planes were equally good...). We shouldn't hijack this thread though http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

RGRT on the hijacking part. I disagree with you and you disagree with me. But have you seen top speed data for F4U, P-51, P-47? Faster then FW and BF that was used in ETO. And faster then Jap planes use in PTO. As far as Russain planes sure they had fast planes but this is were the superior dive and zoom comes into play. And if you wanted to go late late with the likes of the F4U4 and P-47N then you are in a whole new class where they clearly have the climb,speed,dive advantages. Im sure we could debate this for days but with respect to the author of this thread I will cease this discussion for it has taken away from what he/she initially wanted to know. I apologize to the original poster.

=S=

icrash
11-15-2004, 05:19 PM
I found this in a recent magazine. Pilot admitted that instruments may not be truely accurate & the FW190 may not have hit its peak.
FW190A-4 vs F6F3 vs F4U1D

rate of climb best performance
FW 165 knots, F4U 135 knots, F6F 130 knots

horizontal speed
FW: 290 knots @ 200 feet, 356 knots @ 25,000 ft
advantage over F6F, none at 200 ft, 17 knots @25,000 ft
FW 25 knots slower than F4U @ 200 ft, equal ar 15,000 ft, 6 knot edge to FW @ 25,000 ft

acceleration
from 160 knot & faster, F4U then FW then F6F up to 15,000 ft, above this FW had the edge
below 160 knots, FW and F6F about the same (all done where the planes all accelerated @ same time while flying line abreast formation.

maneuverability
F4U & F6F could out turn FW, after 3 revolutions usually ended up on FW's tail. FW had bigger loop radius than other two and usually stalled suddenly when chasing the other two into a loop. FW near stall & left turn, reverse aileron control & suddenly stall. In right turn near stall right wing & nose down and plane entered a dive.
Please note I left alot of details out, this is the highlights of the article according to the guy that flew the planes. Draw your own conclusions.

BlitzPig_DDT
11-15-2004, 05:25 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by wojtek_m:
... or even weights - an late american fighter was nearly twice as heavy as a russian or german fighter, but it didnt have twice as much power, or twice as much wing area... Where the american planes excelled is range and damage resistance. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

From some posts I made in May -

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
F6F-5 stall speeds -
Clean Power On - 62kts (114.82 kph)
Power Off - 65kts (120.38 kph)

Full "Dirty" Power On - 53kts (98.16 kph)
Power Off - 58kts (107.416 kph)
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
F6F-5 -
T.O. Weight - 12,500 lbs
HP - 2000
Power Loading - 6.25 lbs/HP
Wing Loading - 37.43 lbs/sq. ft.


La7 -
T.O. Weight - 7,128 lbs
HP - 1850
Power Loading - 3.85 lbs/hp
Wing Loading - 37.64 lbs/sq. ft.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Hellcat has 250 gallons of internal fuel capacity. Take Off weight is always 100% fuel. IL2/FB/AEP/PF typical load is 25%. Fuel weighs roughly 6lbs per gallon. 25% of 250 is 62.5 gallons, 6lbs each = 375 lbs of fuel. A full tank weighs about 1500lbs for th F6F, so we can subtract 1125lbs (75%) for a PF load out, from the Take Off weight and arrive at 11,375lbs.

Running the numbers again we see -
Power Loading of 5.69 lbs/HP & Wing Loading of 34.06 lbs/sq. ft..

BTW, the Yak3 -
TO Weight - 5,852 lbs
HP - 1,225
Power Loading - 4.78 lbs/HP
Wing Loading - 36.62 lbs/sq. ft.


Even at full fuel loads the Hellcat is close to the Yak3. But it has over a 1000 mile range, to the Yaks abou 500 mile range.


I'm not saying wing loading is everything, but it is a major determinant in turning ability. We already know that the toughness, punch, and dive ablities of the F6F are top notch. Something like the Yak3 has the advantage in speed and climb, and with a smart pilot, would likely win one on one, however, multiple on multiple, the weak Yaks would be shredded.


Don't discount the USN planes. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

wojtek_m
11-15-2004, 07:41 PM
Look here:

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=23110283&m=7801089142

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

Hades_Dragon
11-15-2004, 08:10 PM
You have to take in consideration the ranges of late war German and Russian aircraft. They didn't carry NEARLY as much fuel, which adds very large amounts of weight. While they may of had somewhat higher peformance marks due to being much lighter, only being able to intercept the incoming attacker due to lack of range doesn't exactly win a war.

WUAF_Badsight
11-15-2004, 09:03 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VMF-214_HaVoK:
Indeed it does. But you make me laugh with the trained pilots arguement. It goes both ways and has always been so. Its funny how you and luftwhiners use that arguement when its axis versus allies later in the war, but you dont dare use the same arguement for the beginning of the war. You automatically say axis planes were better but what you FAIL to say is that they had much more experience then allied pilots at that time. Such a double standard and its quite funny.

But yet again you manage to go out of your way and attempt to flame me. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
i like how you equate being disagreed with as a flame , you really must believe what you type

its a fact that the UN pilots in Korea had more experience & were vastly better trained

your in never never land if you really think the Corsair had better DF ability than La-9's

darkhorizon11
11-16-2004, 10:57 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WUAF_Badsight:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VMF-214_HaVoK:
Indeed it does. But you make me laugh with the trained pilots arguement. It goes both ways and has always been so. Its funny how you and luftwhiners use that arguement when its axis versus allies later in the war, but you dont dare use the same arguement for the beginning of the war. You automatically say axis planes were better but what you FAIL to say is that they had much more experience then allied pilots at that time. Such a double standard and its quite funny.

But yet again you manage to go out of your way and attempt to flame me. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
i like how you equate being disagreed with as a flame , you really must believe what you type

its a fact that the UN pilots in Korea had more experience & were vastly better trained

your in never never land if you really think the Corsair had better DF ability than La-9's <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Screaming FLAME everytime you are proving wrong is immature. But he does have a point. So many times I've heard pilot who favor the Luftwaffe brag about how great mighty airforce was and their superior their training was against Allied flyers.

I guess that would explain why from the middle of 44 on some of their pilots were as young and 15 with under 30 hours.

As for the topic I would take the Corsair anyday of the week. Its quite the beast,you can practically do backflips in it.

Does anybody know the cheatcode to do a twirl refersal? I tried XXYB but nothing happened? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

SkyChimp
11-16-2004, 12:11 PM
The La-9, from what I've read, had worse handling characteristics than the La-7. It wasn't as fast as contemporary post-war fighters (P-51H, F4U-4, F4U-5, Sea Fury...). Was a mediocre climber. It may have been manueverable at low speed like most Lavochkins.

darkhorizon11
11-16-2004, 06:46 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by icrash:
I found this in a recent magazine. Pilot admitted that instruments may not be truely accurate & the FW190 may not have hit its peak.
FW190A-4 vs F6F3 vs F4U1D

rate of climb best performance
FW 165 knots, F4U 135 knots, F6F 130 knots

horizontal speed
FW: 290 knots @ 200 feet, 356 knots @ 25,000 ft
advantage over F6F, none at 200 ft, 17 knots @25,000 ft
FW 25 knots slower than F4U @ 200 ft, equal ar 15,000 ft, 6 knot edge to FW @ 25,000 ft

acceleration
from 160 knot & faster, F4U then FW then F6F up to 15,000 ft, above this FW had the edge
below 160 knots, FW and F6F about the same (all done where the planes all accelerated @ same time while flying line abreast formation.

maneuverability
F4U & F6F could out turn FW, after 3 revolutions usually ended up on FW's tail. FW had bigger loop radius than other two and usually stalled suddenly when chasing the other two into a loop. FW near stall & left turn, reverse aileron control & suddenly stall. In right turn near stall right wing & nose down and plane entered a dive.
Please note I left alot of details out, this is the highlights of the article according to the guy that flew the planes. Draw your own conclusions. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It might not be relevant since PF doesn't do a very good job modeling atmospheric conditions but in Real Life air temp. and moisture play a huge role in computing performance characteristics. Given high air temp and moisture content will affect the performance on both aircraft so I don't think it would switch an advantage around it is something to keep in mind!!!!

Mozzie_21
11-16-2004, 08:45 PM
Comparing hellcats and corsairs is like comparing indy cars and formula one cars.

Of course formula one cars are better.

WUAF_Darkangel
11-17-2004, 12:29 AM
Ssssssss every1 ... this is like my 2nd post since february this year when i 1st started playing il2 sturmovik online lol. Anyways in an okinawa map with clear weather with unlimited fuel but with limited ammo (not a single shot was fired during the test) as well as torque, wind turbulence and flutter effect switched on and both F4U1C and F6F-5 with 50% fuel, 120% oil mixture and radiator closed, here r the flight performance results:

acceleration 350-500km/hr on speed bar, 80m&lt;/= test altitude&lt;/=120m, altitude variation from initial altitude at the end of the test&lt;/= 5m (initila altitude= altitude of plane on altimeter on cockpit off mode when the plane reached 350 at level flight, speed bar is the red thing on the bottom left hand corner of the screen that shows speed altitude and heading)

F4U-1C: 35.5-36.0s

F6F-5: 55.5-57.0s

best climb time from 0.5km-1.5km starting with sustainable climb rate at 0.5km

F4U-1C: 43.5-44.0s (22-24 degree angle of inclination for best climb time, 240 is the sustainable speed on the speed bar)

F6F-5: 45.5-46s (24-26 degree angle of inclination for best climb time, 230 is the sustainable speed on the speed bar)

sustainable lateral right turn, 80m&lt;/=test altitude&lt;/=120m, altitude variation from the initial altitude at the end of the test&lt;/=5m

F4U-1C: 35-35.5s (cant remember sustainable speed for best turn time, but there's like at least a 20km/h speed range for this turn time)

F6F-5: 33-33.5s (cant remember sustainable speed for best turn time, but there's like at least a 20km/h speed range for this turn time)

armament and ammo load:

F4U-1c: 23-24s of 4x20mm

F6F-5: 21-22s of 6x12.7mm

Analysis of results:

At the test height F4u-1c is by far superior to the F6F-5 in acceleration. F4U-1C is also superior to the F6F-5 in climb from 0.5km-1.5m. The F6F-5 has a superior turn time for a sustainable turn compared to the F4U-1C at the test altitude. From my personal experience 4x20mm on the F4U-1C is a lot more destructive than the 6x12.7mm on the F6F-5. The F4U-1C has superior ammunition load in terms of seconds of fire compared to the F6F-5. The F4u-1C has a greater number of advantages than it does disadvantages compared to the F6F-5

Conclusion: The F4U-1C is a better bnz fighter than the F6F-5, while the F6F-5 is a better tnb fighter. The F4U-1c should also be able to shoot down enemy planes more easily because of its superior armament. The F4U-1c should also be able to shoot down a greater number of planes because of its greter seconds of fire. However since F4U-1c has a greater number of advantages than it does disadvantages over the F6F-5, it can be said that the F4U-1C is "better" than the F6F-5 as an "air-to-air fighter" for low altitude.

I also tested their flight performances at 10km and the F4u-1c still maintains its superiority in acceleration and climb over the F6F-5, but the their turn times are virtually identical. The F4U-1D's flight performance is slightly better than the F4u-1cs flight performance in every respect but still doesn't turn as well as the F6F-5 but that maybe because the F4U-1D carries more ammo (29-30s worth of 6x12.7mm) than the F6F-5 (21-22s of 6x12.7mm)

hope this helps http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

WUAF_Darkangel
11-17-2004, 12:53 AM
the turn times r for 720 degree turns

fordfan25
11-17-2004, 01:40 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by wojtek_m:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VMF-214_HaVoK:

You left out the fact that US planes in general could outdive and zoom climb there enemy not too mention usually had the top speed advantage.

=S= <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, its not exactly true with the top speeds... the likes of La7, Yak9U, late FW190 or late Bf109 were all faster than late american planes, look at the numbers. They also all reached the top speeds faster, because of much better thrust/weights. Yes american planes dived better, but climbing wins fights, diving can only save your life http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif The differences in dive accelerations are not that big (was discussed here recently), the differences in zoom climbs are even smaller. Most american planes could withstand higher dive speeds than russian planes however (but german planes were equally good...). We shouldn't hijack this thread though http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

not from every thing iv been able to find. from what i have read the -4 corsair was faster than both the la-7 and the yaks

CTO88
11-17-2004, 02:28 AM
corsair and hellcat are quite overmodelled in game.

example:
u1d climbed ~2900ft/m ~ 14,5m/s in game u-1a climbs 3720ft/min up to 4000ft/min @ medium heights lol.
also u1a in game climb with 2:42 @ 3000m in real 5,1min @ 3000m! (nearly 200% overmodelled!!!)
a normal production 109g6 needed 5 minutes to get 2000m higher!

also corsair was a bad turner cause wing produced much less lift than other planes like hellcat. aht states that corsair even turned worse than p47 and p38.


to my opinion us-airplanes had no advantage versus russian or german/japanese fighters in technology.

f6f5 http://img92.exs.cx/my.php?loc=img92&image=F6F5Data.jpg
compare f6f5 i.e. with yak3.

rate of climb: 2890ft/min vs 3400ft/min @ SL
speed: 330kts vs 350kts note also that yak3 made this speed near 10000ft lower than f6f5.
wingload of yak3 is also some lower than f6f.

some people may say f6f had much more range than yak3 and thats the reason for its heavy weight.
fuel weight of f6f is 1500lbs vs. yak3 had 605lbs.
wingarea: f6f 334sqft vs. yak3 160sqft
weight: 12740lbs(1090miles range) vs. 5837lbs(559miles)
wingload: 38,1 lbs/sqft vs. 36,5lbs/sft
wingload @ 605lbs fuel: 35,5lbs/sqft (~436miles range ) vs. 36,5sqft/lbs(559miles)

if yak3 take off with 100% fuel and f6f with ~40% its the same weight of fuel, last one has a slightly advantage in wingload but also less range! if you not take same fuel weight in comparsion but the same range yak3 will also win in wingload. additionaly yak3 used fuel that wasnt really comparable to american 100 octan and engine technology of yak3(normal) was also quite obsolete in 1944 and had no wep.

of course hellcat is much more stable due heavy structure, but yak3 is a very little plane not easy to hit.

WUAF_Badsight
11-17-2004, 03:00 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by fordfan25:
not from every thing iv been able to find. from what i have read the -4 corsair was faster than both the la-7 and the yaks <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
it would have been , as there was no La-7's in Korea

but there were 720 Kmh La-9's in Korea (four 20mm nose cannon , all metal construction)

& the Yak-9U was doing 700 Kmh in WW2 , but the Korean Yak was the Yak-9P (three 20mm nose cannon , all metal Yak)

DeerHunterUK
11-17-2004, 05:17 AM
In the August '03 edition of Flight Journal, there was a huge feature on the 'Best WWII Fighter'. In the Pacific theatre, the Hellcat was 1st, the Corsair 2nd and the A6M5 Zero 3rd. For those of you interested in the European theatre the P-47 was 1st, the FW-190 was 2nd and the Spitfire was 3rd.

JG53Frankyboy
11-17-2004, 07:27 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by CTO88:
corsair and hellcat are quite overmodelled in game.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

yes, i had the Corsair Mk.I (unfortunalty there is no early US Marines F4U-1 in game http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif ) at around 700km/h TAS at 5800m !
Crimea map, 100% fuel , 2.loader stage , 120%mixture. realy a little bit too fast, isnt it ?
sure, the Corsair HAS to be fast, but that way ?

is there ANY performance difference betwenn all the Corsair variants in game ?

btw i had the F6F-5 with the same circumstances at around 630km/h TAS - also not bad http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

(before someone calling me Luft-/Nipponwhiner , i know that at blue side are also some planes very strange in performance http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif )

EDIT because i wrote IAS instead the correct TAS http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

SkyChimp
11-17-2004, 06:59 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by CTO88:
corsair and hellcat are quite overmodelled in game.

example:
u1d climbed ~2900ft/m ~ 14,5m/s in game u-1a climbs 3720ft/min up to 4000ft/min @ medium heights lol.
also u1a in game climb with 2:42 @ 3000m in real 5,1min @ 3000m! (nearly 200% overmodelled!!!)
a normal production 109g6 needed 5 minutes to get 2000m higher!

also corsair was a bad turner cause wing produced much less lift than other planes like hellcat. aht states that corsair even turned worse than p47 and p38.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

AHT compares some planes using flaps to the F4U which does not appear to have used any flap. It's only table in AHT that I see that doesn't make much sense and leads some to wrong conclusions regarding turn ability.



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
to my opinion us-airplanes had no advantage versus russian or german/japanese fighters in technology.

f6f5 http://img92.exs.cx/my.php?loc=img92&image=F6F5Data.jpg
compare f6f5 i.e. with yak3.

rate of climb: 2890ft/min vs 3400ft/min @ SL
speed: 330kts vs 350kts note also that yak3 made this speed near 10000ft lower than f6f5.
wingload of yak3 is also some lower than f6f.

some people may say f6f had much more range than yak3 and thats the reason for its heavy weight.
fuel weight of f6f is 1500lbs vs. yak3 had 605lbs.
wingarea: f6f 334sqft vs. yak3 160sqft
weight: 12740lbs(1090miles range) vs. 5837lbs(559miles)
wingload: 38,1 lbs/sqft vs. 36,5lbs/sft
wingload @ 605lbs fuel: 35,5lbs/sqft (~436miles range ) vs. 36,5sqft/lbs(559miles)

if yak3 take off with 100% fuel and f6f with ~40% its the same weight of fuel, last one has a slightly advantage in wingload but also less range! if you not take same fuel weight in comparsion but the same range yak3 will also win in wingload. additionaly yak3 used fuel that wasnt really comparable to american 100 octan and engine technology of yak3(normal) was also quite obsolete in 1944 and had no wep.

of course hellcat is much more stable due heavy structure, but yak3 is a very little plane not easy to hit. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Yak couldn't land on carriers, didn't have to operate hundreds of miles from a carrier over open water and need to return after having been shot full of holes. And it couldn't carry a credible external load for ground attack. Neither could it carry a torpedo, the Hellcat could.

Yak was a great point defense fighter. It would have sucked as a carrier fighter.

fordfan25
11-17-2004, 07:14 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WUAF_Badsight:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by fordfan25:
not from every thing iv been able to find. from what i have read the -4 corsair was faster than both the la-7 and the yaks <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
it would have been , as there was no La-7's in Korea

but there were 720 Kmh La-9's in Korea (four 20mm nose cannon , all metal construction)

& the Yak-9U was doing 700 Kmh in WW2 , but the Korean Yak was the Yak-9P (three 20mm nose cannon , all metal Yak) <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

well shoot man the ww2 f4u4 had a speed of 717km/h. ill see what i can find on the versions that were used in korea. and thats with it haveing more fuel and bieng heavier.

fordfan25
11-17-2004, 07:25 PM
ok i found 2 sights both say the f4u-5n wich was of course a night fighter had a top speed of 756km/h

SkyChimp
11-17-2004, 07:26 PM
No La-7s in Korea? USAF kills credits indicate 3 were shot down by US pilots in air-to-air combat.

HellToupee
11-17-2004, 07:41 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SkyChimp:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by CTO88:
corsair and hellcat are quite overmodelled in game.

example:
u1d climbed ~2900ft/m ~ 14,5m/s in game u-1a climbs 3720ft/min up to 4000ft/min @ medium heights lol.
also u1a in game climb with 2:42 @ 3000m in real 5,1min @ 3000m! (nearly 200% overmodelled!!!)
a normal production 109g6 needed 5 minutes to get 2000m higher!

also corsair was a bad turner cause wing produced much less lift than other planes like hellcat. aht states that corsair even turned worse than p47 and p38.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

AHT compares some planes using flaps to the F4U which does not appear to have used any flap. It's only table in AHT that I see that doesn't make much sense and leads some to wrong conclusions regarding turn ability.



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
to my opinion us-airplanes had no advantage versus russian or german/japanese fighters in technology.

f6f5 http://img92.exs.cx/my.php?loc=img92&image=F6F5Data.jpg
compare f6f5 i.e. with yak3.

rate of climb: 2890ft/min vs 3400ft/min @ SL
speed: 330kts vs 350kts note also that yak3 made this speed near 10000ft lower than f6f5.
wingload of yak3 is also some lower than f6f.

some people may say f6f had much more range than yak3 and thats the reason for its heavy weight.
fuel weight of f6f is 1500lbs vs. yak3 had 605lbs.
wingarea: f6f 334sqft vs. yak3 160sqft
weight: 12740lbs(1090miles range) vs. 5837lbs(559miles)
wingload: 38,1 lbs/sqft vs. 36,5lbs/sft
wingload @ 605lbs fuel: 35,5lbs/sqft (~436miles range ) vs. 36,5sqft/lbs(559miles)

if yak3 take off with 100% fuel and f6f with ~40% its the same weight of fuel, last one has a slightly advantage in wingload but also less range! if you not take same fuel weight in comparsion but the same range yak3 will also win in wingload. additionaly yak3 used fuel that wasnt really comparable to american 100 octan and engine technology of yak3(normal) was also quite obsolete in 1944 and had no wep.

of course hellcat is much more stable due heavy structure, but yak3 is a very little plane not easy to hit. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Yak couldn't land on carriers, didn't have to operate hundreds of miles from a carrier over open water and need to return after having been shot full of holes. And it couldn't carry a credible external load for ground attack. Neither could it carry a torpedo, the Hellcat could.

Yak was a great point defense fighter. It would have sucked as a carrier fighter. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I wouldnt say couldnt, if tehy wanted to make it a carrier fighter im pretty sure it could have been, like the spitfire, and 109t modifications. They wouldnt need long range and bombloads as they would serve as defensive fighters.

BlitzPig_DDT
11-17-2004, 09:07 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by HellToupee:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SkyChimp:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by CTO88:
corsair and hellcat are quite overmodelled in game.

example:
u1d climbed ~2900ft/m ~ 14,5m/s in game u-1a climbs 3720ft/min up to 4000ft/min @ medium heights lol.
also u1a in game climb with 2:42 @ 3000m in real 5,1min @ 3000m! (nearly 200% overmodelled!!!)
a normal production 109g6 needed 5 minutes to get 2000m higher!

also corsair was a bad turner cause wing produced much less lift than other planes like hellcat. aht states that corsair even turned worse than p47 and p38.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

AHT compares some planes using flaps to the F4U which does not appear to have used any flap. It's only table in AHT that I see that doesn't make much sense and leads some to wrong conclusions regarding turn ability.



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
to my opinion us-airplanes had no advantage versus russian or german/japanese fighters in technology.

f6f5 http://img92.exs.cx/my.php?loc=img92&image=F6F5Data.jpg
compare f6f5 i.e. with yak3.

rate of climb: 2890ft/min vs 3400ft/min @ SL
speed: 330kts vs 350kts note also that yak3 made this speed near 10000ft lower than f6f5.
wingload of yak3 is also some lower than f6f.

some people may say f6f had much more range than yak3 and thats the reason for its heavy weight.
fuel weight of f6f is 1500lbs vs. yak3 had 605lbs.
wingarea: f6f 334sqft vs. yak3 160sqft
weight: 12740lbs(1090miles range) vs. 5837lbs(559miles)
wingload: 38,1 lbs/sqft vs. 36,5lbs/sft
wingload @ 605lbs fuel: 35,5lbs/sqft (~436miles range ) vs. 36,5sqft/lbs(559miles)

if yak3 take off with 100% fuel and f6f with ~40% its the same weight of fuel, last one has a slightly advantage in wingload but also less range! if you not take same fuel weight in comparsion but the same range yak3 will also win in wingload. additionaly yak3 used fuel that wasnt really comparable to american 100 octan and engine technology of yak3(normal) was also quite obsolete in 1944 and had no wep.

of course hellcat is much more stable due heavy structure, but yak3 is a very little plane not easy to hit. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Yak couldn't land on carriers, didn't have to operate hundreds of miles from a carrier over open water and need to return after having been shot full of holes. And it couldn't carry a credible external load for ground attack. Neither could it carry a torpedo, the Hellcat could.

Yak was a great point defense fighter. It would have sucked as a carrier fighter. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I wouldnt say couldnt, if tehy wanted to make it a carrier fighter im pretty sure it could have been, like the spitfire, and 109t modifications. They wouldnt need long range and bombloads as they would serve as defensive fighters. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ever notice that there was really only 1 operational carrier plane that was water cooled? There's a reason for that. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

I seriously doubt the light, relatively fragile Yak3 frame could withstand the forces of a carrier trap. The hook alone would likely either rip out, or pull the plane apart. If they compensate for that, they add to the weight and begin to lose the advantage. Also, those wings are large. They should fold to be ideal for carrier ops. Add another 500 - 700 lbs for that too.

And what about gear? The Navy asked Grumman to see just what it would take to break the Hellcat, and Grumman performed repeated static drops, each time hoisting it higher. Eventually, they reached the top of the hangar - 21 feet - and it did not break. What would happen to a Yak3 at landing weight, in a 21 foot static drop, do you suppose?

Could they compensate by making it stronger? Sure. Not sure how much flexibility the base design would allow, but where there's a will, there's a way, right? Although - more weight, and worse wing loading all over again.

Even with the same short legs, how well do you think a well re-inforced Yak3 like this would do, performance-wise? Given that the wing loadings are so close to begin with, it may well end up worse than the Hellcat, and that is without even getting to engine/cooling system armor, and still with a pitiful range. Plus, that would also hose the power loading as well, which means acceleration, top speed, climb, and ceiling would all suffer.

The answer? A more powerful engine. Back then, that meant bigger. Bigger meant more drag and more weight. Also, more power = more fuel consumption. That short range would now be even shorter.

Oh, and it still isn't carrying anything in the way of ordinance either.

Still think the Yak3 is all that and the Hellcat isn't? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif


BTW - the weight listed above of 15,000lbs is way off. Roughly 12,500 is the loaded weight (some say less than 100lbs less, others less than 100lbs more). And the wing loading for the proper fully loaded weight I already posted - 37.43lbs / sq. ft.

However, since everything discussed here ultimately has "in game" undertones, the typical loadout is 25% fuel. That's 11,375lbs total weight, and 34.06lbs / sq. ft. wing loading.

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

JG53Frankyboy
11-18-2004, 04:19 AM
Fairy Fulmar
Fairy Firefly
Yokosuka D4Y1&2

not to forgett (also their orogins were landbased)
Supermarine Seafire (Merlin and Griffon engines)
Hawker Nimrod
Hawker SeaHurricane

Mozzie_21
11-18-2004, 05:13 AM
Fairey Baracuda
deHavilland Sea Hornet (probably stretching it)
Bf109T (well that is stretching it).

Sir.Robin-1337
11-18-2004, 05:34 AM
The P-51D outperforms them both.

dragonhart38
11-18-2004, 10:37 AM
Tommy Blackburn from VF17 said in his book that the Hellcat guys who had finished they tours were only too eager to check out in the 1A and join his squadron rather than go back to a carrier based Hellcat squadron. Mind you I am sure he was being bias. Ironically, VF 17 eventually transitioned to the 6F.

Snoop_Baron
11-18-2004, 02:59 PM
We seem to have gone of course here http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

So which is better the Hellcat or the Corsair?

Is the 37MPH or 60KPH speed advantage that the Corsair has enough to compensate for the Hellcat's superior turn performance?

Those number are based on the PDFs posted earlier I wonder what the speed difference is in the game at sea level, 2k, 4k, and 6k.

Also in game we get the 4x20mil Corsair, but we do not have a cannon armed Hellcat. That has to be a plus for the Corsair, in a fight between the two types.

I need to get some more PF time so I can get some more time in the Hellcat.

s!
Snoop