PDA

View Full Version : F6F-3 / F6F-5 Hellcat



wintergoose
03-27-2006, 02:44 AM
F6F-3 / F6F-5 Hellcat

In the Hardballs Aircraft Viewer they are sat exactly the same performance and i asume they are programmed alike in the SIM also.

The followin is taken from book Wings of Gold by Gerald Astor witch tells the storry of the U.S. Naval Air Campain in World War II.
I can highly recomand the book ISBN 0-345-47252-7
The book also describes with the pilots owen words how efective the .50 caliber realy was and how short bursts it took to down a Betty bomber.

Leiutnant Al Bolduc, also a member of VBF-12 on the RANDOLPH, flew the latest-model Hellcat, the F6F-5.
€It was different from the F6F-3 in the following respects ; the skin had flush rivets in all those areas that could cause drag with the dimple rivets-worth 15 knots.
It weighted a lttle more, and stalling speed was two to for knots higher.€
He noted that its engine had more power, and with its water-injection syatem, the F6F-5 could probably fly 50 knots faste than any published reports.
With a belly tank the plane could stay in the air as many as seven hours.
But there was one new wrinkle that spelled trouble, the Mark 23 gun sight, witch required a polot to reset the aiming reticle for each type of enemy plane.
€This was the last kind of sight we needed in a dogfight€
€Our guns were bore-sighted to cross at 1.500 feet with this sight instead of as usual 900 feet.

ImpStarDuece
03-27-2006, 03:53 AM
Remember that Hardball's aircraft viewer isn't always 100% accurate to real life. He can only work off the best information he has.

I have several different USN data sets for the F6F-5.

The 'official' USN specifications for the F6F-5 are for 330knots/380 mph at 23,400 feet.

However, there is a data comparison between all the major US fighters which puts top speed for the F6F-5 at 399 mph at 20,100 feet. There is also some P&W power output charts that suggest that the 399mph figure is more believeable. A 20mph increase in speed for another 150-200 hp sounds just about right.

Internal fuel for both the -3 and -5 was the same: 250 gallons and they both carried the same external loads as well.

I doubt however, that there was a 50-65 knot/ 57.5-75 mph increase in speed from the -3 to the -5.

JG53Frankyboy
03-27-2006, 04:00 AM
and speaking about the game. both Hellcats in game have Waterinjection. it is calling the -3 a late one.

so far i remember the main differnce between the game F6F is that the -3 has a better rearview because of this small windows behind the cockpit than the -6.

also the Corsairs in game have small , if at all, performance differences. its just so that the 1-D/Mk.IV have less fuel than the other- wondering why............

for me it always looked like that maddox games didnt put much research and work in the USN fighters http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

stansdds
03-27-2006, 04:33 AM
There are a number of errors in the USN fighters, leading me to also believe that there was inadequate research or attention to detail. The Hellcat and Corsairs seem to have been lumped together, late war external ordnance is incorrectly available on the early models of these aircraft. I have found a great number of errors that should not have been made if the developers had taken the time to fully research the aircraft of the Pacific war.

bird_brain
03-27-2006, 05:32 AM
The early Hellcats should not have had rocket rails available, and I have found no evidence that the -3s ever had them except on experimental trial models.
The biggest difference in my opinion is the lack of the later model gyroscopic gunsight as we have on the Mustang. The only adjustment that was necessary was twisting the throttle grip to adjust the reticle diameter to the wingspan on the target aircraft. Some pilots hated it and kept it caged, and others swore by it. Then again, some pilots just stuck chewing gum on the windshield or used a grease pencil in F86 Sabres. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

VW-IceFire
03-27-2006, 08:33 AM
Originally posted by JG53Frankyboy:
and speaking about the game. both Hellcats in game have Waterinjection. it is calling the -3 a late one.

so far i remember the main differnce between the game F6F is that the -3 has a better rearview because of this small windows behind the cockpit than the -6.

also the Corsairs in game have small , if at all, performance differences. its just so that the 1-D/Mk.IV have less fuel than the other- wondering why............

for me it always looked like that maddox games didnt put much research and work in the USN fighters http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif
Yeah USN fighters do seem to have the short end of the stick. The FM-2 was apparently quite a gem of a fighter but it doesn't seem any different than the F4F-3. The Corsair versions are all pretty much identical in performance from what I can see...the Hellcats too.

thefruitbat
03-27-2006, 09:00 AM
hopefuly, we will be able to see exactley what the differences are now with il2compare v3!
see here:

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/63110913/m/4961022724

that is if i can get it to download from bloody rapidshare http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/bigtears.gif

R_Target
03-27-2006, 09:44 AM
I've read a couple places that say the Hellcat was faster than the rated specs too, but good luck getting 1C/Maddox interested. One thing though, and I will have to check again, but I think Hellcats are too fast above 20,000 feet. Sea level speed hits the 323mph mark measured by the cockpit off method.
The Hellcats should have rear view mirrors too.

I'd be happy if they just fixed the ridiculous asymmetric recoil kick.

3.JG51_BigBear
03-27-2006, 04:28 PM
The fact that the f-3 and the f-5 are basically the same plane in game, minus the little windows of course, has always confused me. The early P-40s are the same way and the A and D Corsair also have basically the same performance. I realize that some later models of the Hellcats and Corsairs resembled the latter marks in terms of performance but it would add more flexibility to the sim if the planes represented earlier versions with different performance figures.

huggy87
03-27-2006, 05:19 PM
Something has never felt right about the hellcat in this game. I have never flown one, and I don't have any data to back this up. I just expected the plane to fly better and have a better gap over the zero. If nothing else, I would like to see it outdive a zero and roll right like they could in reality.

horseback
03-27-2006, 05:45 PM
According to Barret Tillman's books on the Hellcat, the -5 was not only noticeably faster, the spring-tab ailerons supposedly gave it even better maneuverability.

The FM-2 was supposed to be significantly better than the F4F-3/-4 Wildcats below 18,000 ft, being both lighter and having a more powerful engine. More than one Zero honcho found that out the hard way, but veteran Zero drivers never figured out that they were already on the losing side of the victories to losses column against the old Wildcats...

It should be noted here that USN aircraft had their speeds measured in Knots; the unit of measurement is, I believe, based on the 2,000 yd naughtical mile, instead of the 1760 yd statute mile (which is approx. 1606m).

cheers

horseback

Grey_Mouser67
03-27-2006, 06:15 PM
I'm afraid that there were shortcuts taken with the release of PF....in the limited testing I've done, the -3 and -4 Wildcats, the -3 and -5 Hellcats and the 1A and 1D Corsairs all have the same Flight models.

It is somewhat disturbing, but not the end of the world...the thing that really bugs me is that other aircraft that are seemingly more accurate get constant tweaking and changes while others that have well documented errors go unchanged.

Another thing I'd love to see is a -5 Hellcat with the inboard HMG's removed and replaced with Hispano cannons. I'm not sure how many were fitted as such, but I believe the Hellcats that flew over Europe with the FAA were so outfitted!

VW-IceFire
03-27-2006, 06:17 PM
Originally posted by 3.JG51_BigBear:
The fact that the f-3 and the f-5 are basically the same plane in game, minus the little windows of course, has always confused me. The early P-40s are the same way and the A and D Corsair also have basically the same performance. I realize that some later models of the Hellcats and Corsairs resembled the latter marks in terms of performance but it would add more flexibility to the sim if the planes represented earlier versions with different performance figures.
Yeah the F-3 and F-5 are basically the same...infact the F-3 we have is a F-3 Late (as the game lists) and its performance is basically identical...

Its basically a F-5 retrofitted from a F-3.

The P-40B and C differ only in very small ways so one would expect performance to be identical.

IL-2 Compare lists the F4U-1D as being different in performance over the F4U-1A...noteably in weight and with some turn and climb changes as a result. The FM-2 is different in performance...but not really in any ways that suggest an advantage.

JG53Frankyboy
03-27-2006, 06:28 PM
well, the F4U-1D/Corsair Mk.IV have 75% of the internal max fuel load of the earlier F4Us http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

now we know why they climb and turn a little bit better but have the same speed..............

3.JG51_BigBear
03-27-2006, 08:08 PM
Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
The P-40B and C differ only in very small ways so one would expect performance to be identical.


That was kind of what I was trying to get at. Why are they included at all?

With the F3-late and F5, I don't understand why 1C decided to go with two planes that are virtually identical.

VW-IceFire
03-27-2006, 08:32 PM
Originally posted by 3.JG51_BigBear:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
The P-40B and C differ only in very small ways so one would expect performance to be identical.


That was kind of what I was trying to get at. Why are they included at all?

With the F3-late and F5, I don't understand why 1C decided to go with two planes that are virtually identical. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Ahh ok...and yes I agree. Why not a standard, typical, representative F6F-3. With no power boosted ailerons, no water injection, and so forth.

stansdds
03-28-2006, 04:17 AM
Originally posted by VW-IceFire:

Ahh ok...and yes I agree. Why not a standard, typical, representative F6F-3. With no power boosted ailerons, no water injection, and so forth.

Yeah, that would have made more sense. And why not the F4U-1 instead of the Corsair I, or even do both, but without the twin pylons for bombs and water injection system. And the F4U-1A and Corsair II shouldn't have the pylons either and most should not have the water injection system as that was installed only on the last production lots of the F4U-1A.

JG53Frankyboy
03-28-2006, 04:41 AM
Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
.........Ahh ok...and yes I agree. Why not a standard, typical, representative F6F-3. With no power boosted ailerons, no water injection, and so forth.

perhaps because they would get eaten alive by the Zero 52s , even more than already http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif