PDA

View Full Version : FM2, F4U, F6F comparison



Snuffy Smith
11-04-2004, 12:58 PM
I've found the plane to learn with is the FM2. I've found it the best training plane for traps, and I recommend it to anyone having trouble with their carrier landings, as I did. In reading up on it I found this first hand account comparing the real life FM2, Corsair & Hellcat. It's a little long for a post, but I thought it very interesting.

Robert Allison, VC-93, CVE USS Petroff Bay 1944-1945:
Now that I had flown all three navy fighter planes I feel qualified in comparing them. The F4U was considered to be faster than the F6F but not by much if anything. Both were faster by far than the FM-2 but the FM-2 was considerably more maneuverable than either of the others. I believe, if given the choice of flying one of them in combat I would choose the
F6F. But flying from a carrier I would prefer the FM-2. An example of how dependable an FM-2 was is a situation that occurred to Walt Glista on board the USS Shamrock Bay. His FM-2 was sitting on the catapult under full power waiting for the launch mechanism to be fired when the metal ring that holds the anchor on the tail end of the plane broke. The plane in this position is about 70 feet from the leading edge of the flight deck. Without the assistance of the catapult Glista flew that plane off the deck, and literally held it in the air. It's tail wheel was dragging in the water before gathering enough speed to climb. No other combat plane in the world could have accomplished that.

On Guam there was a shortage of FMs so we had to do our flying in F6Fs and F4Us. I had quite a bit of experience in the F6F and none in the F4U so here was my chance to check out in this fancy, good looking, inverted gull winged plane that was considered one of the best fighter planes in the world. One morning Al Godfrey and I each checked out an F4U and after taking a few minutes to check out the cockpit and familiarize ourselves with the controls and instruments, we climbed in, started the engines and taxied to the end of the runway. We both pulled on to the runway with me on Godfrey's wing. Mistake number one. We should not have taken off in formation. The usual procedure for a formation take-off is for the lead pilot to hold his plane on the runway until the wing
man is airborne. This we did but Al did not look back to see if I was airborne and did not speed up his plane. I was holding my plane back at a dangerously slow air speed and concentrating intently on holding my position on Al's plane when I glanced out the opposite side of my plane only to find that the right wing was only about six inches from the ground. Scared the hell out of me. I poured the throttle to my plane and left Al literally sitting on the runway. I have to say that I was shocked to feel the tremendous burst of power that two thousand horse power engine kicked forth.

After we rendezvoused, we climbed to about 15,000 feet where we were pounced upon from above by a couple of F6Fs. A dog fight ensued and I found myself in a tail chase with one of the F6Fs. I also found, that an F4U was no match with the F6F in turns. I kept drawing my plane tighter and tighter, the next thing I knew the plane snapped on it's back and I found myself hurtling for the ocean in a spin. I rolled the Chance-Vought F4U Corsair plane upright and pulled hard back on the stick and in an instant I was on my back again in a high speed stall. This time I rolled out and very gently eased back on the stick . The plane came out of it's dive screaming. I don't think I ever traveled so fast, as a matter of fact I know I hadn't. Anyhow, that was the end of the dog fight. Al and I rendezvoused again and returned to the field. Since NAS Agana strip is located on a hill top about 500 feet above an army air force field, we were required to make right hand landing patterns. I followed Al in and as I leveled out over the end of the runway I held the plane about 15 feet in the air until it stalled. Like any other plane it should have settled down to the runway. It didn't! It stalled and the right wing dropped causing the plane to land on the right wheel, bounced, came down on the left wheel, bounced, came down on the right wheel. Finally I got the plane down
and was home free. That was as much of the F4U as I wanted or needed.

XyZspineZyX
11-04-2004, 01:56 PM
Great post! Thanks man. I'm gonna quote this in one of the flight model debate threads... the Corsair stall thing is an excellent data point!

faustnik
11-04-2004, 02:01 PM
Excellent post. Thank you. Great description of an F4U being someplace it shouldn't, in a turn fight.

berg417448
11-04-2004, 02:50 PM
The guy should have learned how to fly the Corsair before trying to fight in it! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Kwiatos
11-04-2004, 03:04 PM
Very good reading. I knew that some planes are totally screwed up in PF lol

DangerForward
11-04-2004, 04:15 PM
Very important post!

ZG77_Nagual
11-04-2004, 05:32 PM
Lets see - in the simm the corsair is really fast. If you over control it it flips over on its back or goes into a spin or both. The hellcat outturns it - the fm2 outturns both. The Corsair is faster than either and retains energy better. So....

the above pilot report is by a guy flying the corsair for the first time after he was used to the fm2 wildcat - the best turning american plane - and the hellcat - which was built to fight the zero. It reminds me of similar accounts by pilots accustomed to one type - who hopped into another for a test drive and decided they didn't like it. I've seen very similar conclusions about the p38, p51, spitfire, 109, p47, 190, p40, p39, p63 etc. etc.

Hades_Dragon
11-04-2004, 07:02 PM
Psh, a pilot who flew the F4U for the first time and was clearly already a fan of the Cats, sounds biased to me. The guy is lucky it was an F4U sitting there for him to try out instead of a P-47 or -51 as his review would of been even worse if he wasn't dead. The things he did in the Sair could of killed them in these other aircraft that stalled MUCH sooner and violently. You can't say the Corsair was a bad dog fighter from a single flight by a pilot who never flew it before. The hellcat is about the only plane the Sairs' size it won't out manuver.

JG77Von_Hess
11-04-2004, 07:14 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Yeah but wich other amarican figters did stall much sooner in tight turning than the F4U?

Regards.

VH.

mortoma
11-04-2004, 07:24 PM
Holy crappers!! This guy was no doubt a good fighter pilot, better than I could ever be. But it sounds like landing a plane is not his forte. I'd never try to flare any plane 15 above a runway and stall it in. That's too high in my mind. I try to get a stall horn with my gear about two feet above the runway when I fly, and I usually get the horn.
But 15 feet??? No way, not on your life, not even a 747 Jumbo. Not like I can fly one of those but you know what I mean.

ImpStarDuece
11-05-2004, 12:21 AM
Interesting post.

Thanks for the info.

Confirms most ofthe stuff i have read in the last few years.

If anyone has it i think aeroplane did a special on the P-47. One of the articles has a direct comparison by a Republic test pilot and a Grumman test pilot of the P-47 and the F6F, both of which were being tested at a similar time.

I love if someone could post the article or a link to it if they can find it. I lost my copy 6 months back and haven't benn able to replace it.

faustnik
11-05-2004, 12:46 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG77Von_Hess:
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Yeah but wich other amarican figters did stall much sooner in tight turning than the F4U?

Regards.

VH. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm still trying to figure this out but, maybe the answer is "none"???

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/turning.jpg

jpatrick62
11-05-2004, 01:29 PM
There is a lot of data on WW2 fighters on the 'net, much of it bad. If you want to see the data the fighter pilots recorded at the time the planes existed, try reading the Interservice Fighter Conference of 1944. It ranks the FM2, F6F-6, P51, P47, p38, F4U-1D, P61 with real data a nd test pilot reports. For low-speed turning:

1. FM2
2. F6F-6
3. F4U-1D
4. P63
5. P51
6. P38
7. P47

There's also a wealth of info on stall speed, acceleration, climb, etc. When all test pilots form all countries added it up, they chose the F4U above the F6F-6 and FM2 for best carrier fighter, citing better acceleration and climb. the FM2 had the best turn, but was considered underpowered.

The P47M was liked, but the P47D was not.
The P51 was dinged for a poor turn radius.

The interesting spin comes from British pilots who tested the American planes. They did not like the P47D nor the P38 as well as the P51, which is understandable. They seemed to like the F4U for its high speed handling and combat ability.

The Seafire 3 was also at the conference and liked by many American pilots. It was, however, considered underpowered and had a poor rate of climb.

DangerForward
11-05-2004, 02:38 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JPatrick62:
There is a lot of data on WW2 fighters on the 'net, much of it bad. If you want to see the data the fighter pilots recorded at the time the planes existed, try reading the Interservice Fighter Conference of 1944. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Is this the "Report of Joint Fighter Conference, NAS Patuxent River, MD 16-23 Oct. 1944"? Or is it a different report?

XyZspineZyX
11-05-2004, 03:10 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by faustnik:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG77Von_Hess:
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Yeah but wich other amarican figters did stall much sooner in tight turning than the F4U?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm still trying to figure this out but, maybe the answer is "none"???

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/turning.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Faustnik, where does this data derive from? Is it real or is it from a game or something?

I am trying to understand why the Corsair would have such bad available G's when it clearly has superior wing loading vs some of those aircraft (my grasp of aerodynamics is limited). Is it because the bent shape of the Corsair wing detracts from it's ability to generate lift and so the entire wing area is effectively reduced by a significant amount? How could the Corsair be such a great climber with such bad turning ability... is it because it has great power loading?

So if this table is correct, the problem with the Corsair is bad available G's... it stalls earlier than just about everything? Does that imply that it must therefore also bleed energy faster than the other aircraft listed?

Finally, how do we reconcile this data with the data from Patrick's 1944 Fighter Conference conclusions?

Voidable
11-05-2004, 03:47 PM
The corsair i think is just right, leave it alone!!!! The pilot was a wildcat ,hellcat pilot not a sar pilot a sair pilot would know that when the sar stalls her left wing drops...heck just watch the traning films .... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif Dont cry about the sar it stalls if you try to turn with alot of planes why dont you fly it ? you'll see.
Maddox did a Great! job on the sar the speed the handling ,everything i was very impressed with the airbrake thought thay might leave that littel detail with the main landing gear out .anyhow beautiful job guys http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

Voidable
11-05-2004, 04:17 PM
bump

faustnik
11-05-2004, 04:37 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by AgentBif:

Faustnik, where does this data derive from? Is it real or is it from a game or something?

I am trying to understand why the Corsair would have such bad available G's when it clearly has superior wing loading vs some of those aircraft (my grasp of aerodynamics is limited). Is it because the bent shape of the Corsair wing detracts from it's ability to generate lift and so the entire wing area is effectively reduced by a significant amount? How could the Corsair be such a great climber with such bad turning ability... is it because it has great power loading?

So if this table is correct, the problem with the Corsair is bad available G's... it stalls earlier than just about everything? Does that imply that it must therefore also bleed energy faster than the other aircraft listed?

Finally, how do we reconcile this data with the data from Patrick's 1944 Fighter Conference conclusions? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Bif,

This chart is from "America's Hundred Thousand". The book says it came from a "World War Two Fighter Conference". From the attached text (page 603):

Hauling up in eighth place and last, perhaps surprisingly, is the F4U-1 Corsair with a minimum turn radius 212% of the FM-2, well over twice the Wildcat minimum. This result seems to be due to a relatively low maximum lift coefficient, because wing loading was not overly high. The spoiler placed on the right wing of the Corsair to eliminate an unsymmetric stall problem is suspected of dropping the overall lift coefficient considerably, in fact an NACA test report notes that this was indeed the case.

DangerForward
11-05-2004, 04:55 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by faustnik:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by AgentBif:

Faustnik, where does this data derive from? Is it real or is it from a game or something?

I am trying to understand why the Corsair would have such bad available G's when it clearly has superior wing loading vs some of those aircraft (my grasp of aerodynamics is limited). Is it because the bent shape of the Corsair wing detracts from it's ability to generate lift and so the entire wing area is effectively reduced by a significant amount? How could the Corsair be such a great climber with such bad turning ability... is it because it has great power loading?

So if this table is correct, the problem with the Corsair is bad available G's... it stalls earlier than just about everything? Does that imply that it must therefore also bleed energy faster than the other aircraft listed?

Finally, how do we reconcile this data with the data from Patrick's 1944 Fighter Conference conclusions? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Bif,

This chart is from "America's Hundred Thousand". The book says it came from a "World War Two Fighter Conference". From the attached text (page 603):

_Hauling up in eighth place and last, perhaps surprisingly, is the F4U-1 Corsair with a minimum turn radius 212% of the FM-2, well over twice the Wildcat minimum. This result seems to be due to a relatively low maximum lift coefficient, because wing loading was not overly high. The spoiler placed on the right wing of the Corsair to eliminate an unsymmetric stall problem is suspected of dropping the overall lift coefficient considerably, in fact an NACA test report notes that this was indeed the case._ <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The NACA report is here:

http://naca.central.cranfield.ac.uk/reports/1945/naca-report-829.pdf

check out the pages labeled 605 and 606, the corsair is referred to as "airplane 6"

faustnik
11-05-2004, 05:11 PM
Thanks Danger. That's a 20% drop in lift coefficient. What models of the F4U had the spoiler?

XyZspineZyX
11-05-2004, 05:55 PM
I remember hearing of this spoiler before but I didn't realise it had such a heavy price on maneuver performance. I recall reading that to reduce accidents on landing (especially fouling up carrier decks), they added this spoiler so that when the Corsair stalled, it wouldn't wingover harshly right on the deck but instead would drop both wings more evenly.... turning a lot of potential crashes into merely rough landings.

So this little thing is responsible for rendering the Corsair a more lousy turn fighter than the Jug?!

How do we reconcile Faustnik's Fighter Conference conclusions about the Corsair with Patrick's Fighter Conference about the same plane? Are they talking about radically different variants? What are the aerodynamic conditions in Patrick's list?

SkyChimp
11-05-2004, 06:18 PM
This is the most troublesome chart in AHT:
http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/turning.jpg

One problem is is that the author does not adequately explain what a "Minimum Turn Radius 'Index Number'" is.

Second, and probably most importantly, are the odd lift coefficients given. And as you know, the higher the lift coefficient, the better the turning ability.

The table states these figures are for "No Flaps." Well, it seems the Corair has the lowest lift coefficient of any of the planes. That in and of itself is odd. The others have very high lift coefficients, well in excess of what I would expect them to be without the use of lift enhancing devices, like flaps.

After some checking, it seems the only plane that has a lift coefficient listed without the use of flaps is the F4U. To get lift coefficients as high as some that I see there, flaps had to have been used. IMO, I see the F4U coming in last to a bunch of planes using a helluva lot of flap.

I've got an NACA report entitled Summary of Measurements in Langley Full-Scale Tunnel of Maximum Lift Coefficients and Stalling Characteristics of Airplanes that suggests the Corsair's maximum lift coefficient was 2.30 (full flaps). The same report shows the P-51 had a lift coefficient with retracted flaps of around 1.4.

So, I can only conclude that the author put together a chart comparing airplanes with flaps in various positions, not just "No Flaps" as it states.

Voidable
11-05-2004, 06:24 PM
Aircraft of world war 2
by Chris Chant:..
The Corsair was undoutedly one of the finest aircraft of the war, and was virtually unmatched in the Pacific theatre after its service entry in February 1943. Development of the V-166B began in 1938, with the aim of tailoring the smallest possible airframe to fit the powerful Pratt & Whitney XR-2800 Double Wasp engine. The highly cranked wing was designed to allow clearance for the large diameter propeller, without the need for overlong main gear units. The XF4U-1 prototype first flew in May 1940, but it was not until the following February that the US Navy placed and order for 585 F4U-1 production aircraft. Carrier evaluation proved disappointing, leading to changes in the landing gear and cockpit height to improve forward view. Most aircraft were modified on the production line and were designated F4U-1A. Initial operational service was with the USMC (February 1943), but the aircraft later distinguished itself with both the US Navy and Fleet Air Arm.

Performance: initial climb rate 951m (3,120ft) per minuite

If it was so sucky then why did it remained in production until after World War 2 in to Kora

::http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gifublisher unknown here on::::
The Marines first Ace of the Korean War was lst Lieutenant John Andre who flew a F4U-5NL (Corsair) out of Kunsan. On 7 June 1952, 1st Lt. Andre scored a kill of a Yak-9 from his F4U-5N making him the first Marine Ace of the Korean Conflict. Lt. Andre had 5 kills (1 Yak-9 (Korea) plus 4 kills from WWII) and is listed in the Fighter Aces list co-authored list byAl BowersandDavid Lednicer.) Ron Stout remembers that "one night he was ordered to launch on strip alert there and lit her off, revved her up, and did his take-off from the taxi strip in front of the tower. The AF tower personnel got very excited about that. The exploits of lst Lt. John W. Andre (a former enlisted pilot) would make a book by themselves."

Ray Bourgholtzer, who flew F7F-3Ns out of Kangnung, wrote, "I knew John Andre and he flew both F7F's and Corsairs. He was flying a Corsair when he shot down the Yak. It had come in behind him and when he realized he was being attacked. He dropped wheels and flaps, and cut the throttle. This caused the Yak to overshoot him and when he did, Andre then increased his throttle and pulled up the wheels and flaps and stayed with the Yak and shot him down with his 4 20mm cannon."

NOTE: The achievement of Lt. Andre as the FIRST Marine ace in Korea is dependent upon the "definition" used. According to Paul Noel, "As usual there is a problem of definition. ... Andre had four Japanese kills in WWII but his Korean War kill brought his total to five, i.e., an ace before Bolt got his fifth kill. The Marine with the Air Force, Jack Bolt, got six Mig-15 while assigned to the 51st Fighter Interceptor Wing. From "U.S. Marine Corps Aviation" by Mersky, "---Bolt---the only Marine to gain five or more kills in Korea alone;--"..

DangerForward
11-05-2004, 06:31 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by faustnik:
Thanks Danger. That's a 20% drop in lift coefficient. What models of the F4U had the spoiler? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Basically all the models we have. The early F4U1 didn't have it, but we have the F4U1a that was the first to have the spoiler.

DangerForward
11-05-2004, 06:36 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by AgentBif:
I remember hearing of this spoiler before but I didn't realise it had such a heavy price on maneuver performance. I recall reading that to reduce accidents on landing (especially fouling up carrier decks), they added this spoiler so that when the Corsair stalled, it wouldn't wingover harshly right on the deck but instead would drop both wings more evenly.... turning a lot of potential crashes into merely rough landings.

So this little thing is responsible for rendering the Corsair a more lousy turn fighter than the Jug?!

How do we reconcile Faustnik's Fighter Conference conclusions about the Corsair with Patrick's Fighter Conference about the same plane? Are they talking about radically different variants? What are the aerodynamic conditions in Patrick's list? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have one crazy idea to explain the difference. Mind you, I don't want to offend Patrick. My guess is the turn ranking he's talking about is based of the 3G stall speed, but numbers for Navy planes are based in knots. So just placing the planes in order by the lowest 3G stall number without converting all planes to mph gives the order he described. The same thing almost happened to me, I bought a copy of the "Report of Joint Fighter Conference" They tripped me up by using knots for the navy planes, alongside mph for the airforce planes.

DangerForward
11-05-2004, 06:40 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SkyChimp:
This is the most troublesome chart in AHT:
http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/turning.jpg

One problem is is that the author does not adequately explain what a "Minimum Turn Radius 'Index Number'" is.

Second, and probably most importantly, are the odd lift coefficients given. And as you know, the higher the lift coefficient, the better the turning ability.

The table states these figures are for "No Flaps." Well, it seems the Corair has the lowest lift coefficient of any of the planes. That in and of itself is odd. The others have very high lift coefficients, well in excess of what I would expect them to be without the use of lift enhancing devices, like flaps.

After some checking, it seems the only plane that has a lift coefficient listed without the use of flaps is the F4U. To get lift coefficients as high as some that I see there, flaps had to have been used. IMO, I see the F4U coming in last to a bunch of planes using a helluva lot of flap.

I've got an NACA report entitled _Summary of Measurements in Langley Full-Scale Tunnel of Maximum Lift Coefficients and Stalling Characteristics of Airplanes_ that suggests the Corsair's maximum lift coefficient was 2.30 (full flaps). The same report shows the P-51 had a lift coefficient with retracted flaps of around 1.4.

So, I can only conclude that the author put together a chart comparing airplanes with flaps in various positions, not just "No Flaps" as it states. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think table 103 has a typo error in it. In the chapter on the Corsair they give the max lift coefficient as 1.88, not 1.48. In addition the NACA report I referenced give the number as 1.88. It's only one digit difference so...

faustnik
11-05-2004, 07:34 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Voidable:


If it was so sucky then why did it remained in production until after World War 2 in to Kora

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Because turn ability and performance are two different things. The F4U was certainly a superior performer with a very powerful engine giving it high level and dive speeds.

BigKahuna_GS
11-05-2004, 07:44 PM
S!

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_1.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.

http://www.simhq.com/_air/images/air_011b_2.jpg

____


From 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


_______

Hades_Dragon
11-05-2004, 08:36 PM
F4U vs P-51 (http://web.cetlink.net/~howardds/id95.htm)

Read this and tell me the F4U is a poor turn fighter.

The Corsair was designed to handle well at low speeds. When it could come in at the speeds required to land on a Carrier and aircraft like the P-47 and P-51 had to come in very hot it's pretty much BS that you can sit here and say that the F4U was the worst turn fighter particularly at low speeds. All official reviews of the aircraft I've seen say that the Corsair is one of the most responsive aircraft with extremely light stick forces. The tests on paper clearly show its manuveribility. "God forbid that there is anaircraft that can compete with your beloved Mustang or Thunderbolt". When it comes down to it, for its size the F4U along side the F6F, are the 2 best handlding aircraft for there size with the F4U being more responsive and powerful but the F6F holding the advantage in turn radius. This isn't me saying this, its the flight tests and the specs and dimensions of the aircraft.

SkyChimp
11-05-2004, 08:44 PM
The NACA report I have has a chart showing the Corsair's maximum lift coefficient as 2.30. That's without the leading edge spoiler:

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

It's around 2.30 at full flap (prop installed). That number is reduced to 1.88 when a sharp leading edge attachment is placed on the leading edge of the starboard wing between the guns and air intake. That's not normally where it was placed on production planes. The production spoiler was placed on leading edge of the starboard wing outboard of the guns. I'm not sure what the maximum lift coefficient was with the spoiler installed there, but I assume it would have to be about the same reduce roll moment.

Table 103 may very well have a typo in it. If it really should be 1.88, then the chart is clearly taking into consideration "Flaps" when it says "No Flaps." Because 1.88 is achieved with full flaps. I think 1.48 is approximately correct without flaps, so I think that chart is correct for the F4U.

But I think it's wrong for the P-51. I simply don't see how it could achieve a Cl of 1.89 without flaps. It was only 1.4 without a prop acording to my report. No way is it going to increase to 1.89 with a working prop. Maybe 1.44, but not 1.89. 1.89 has got to be with the use of flaps.

At any rate, the P-15B versus F4U-1 test by the US Navy indicates that the F4U was everywhere more manueverable than the P-51B. So Table 103 doesn't jive with actual tests that showed the F4U the more manueverable plane.

XyZspineZyX
11-05-2004, 09:58 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SkyChimp:
It's around 2.30 at full flap (prop installed). That number is reduced to 1.88 when a sharp leading edge attachment is placed on the leading edge of the starboard wing between the guns and air intake. That's not normally where it was placed on production planes. The production spoiler was placed on leading edge of the starboard wing outboard of the guns. I'm not sure what the maximum lift coefficient was with the spoiler installed there, but I assume it would have to be about the same reduce roll moment.

Table 103 may very well have a typo in it. If it really should be 1.88, then the chart is clearly taking into consideration "Flaps" when it says "No Flaps." Because 1.88 is achieved with full flaps. I think 1.48 is approximately correct without flaps, so I think that chart is correct for the F4U.

But I think it's wrong for the P-51. I simply don't see how it could achieve a Cl of 1.89 without flaps. It was only 1.4 without a prop acording to my report. No way is it going to increase to 1.89 with a working prop. Maybe 1.44, but not 1.89. 1.89 has got to be with the use of flaps.

At any rate, the P-15B versus F4U-1 test by the US Navy indicates that the F4U was everywhere more manueverable than the P-51B. So Table 103 doesn't jive with actual tests that showed the F4U the more manueverable plane. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Are you saying that prop-wash over the wings causes the airframe ti act as if it's coeficient of lift improves? But then this would be heavily dependent on throttle, rpm, pitch, mixture, and atmospheric conditions... right?

But I thought CL was one of those parameters that was supposed to be completely indiginous to the airframe itself... that's what a "coefficient" is, a constant that is independent of the variables involved. I also thought that CL could be measured by sampling aircraft performance under real flying conditions... right? Or not?

DangerForward
11-05-2004, 10:38 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SkyChimp:
At any rate, the P-15B versus F4U-1 test by the US Navy indicates that the F4U was everywhere more manueverable than the P-51B. So Table 103 doesn't jive with actual tests that showed the F4U the more manueverable plane. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think you're right that the 'no flaps' versus 'flaps' is wrong for some lines in table 103. The only way I can think of to put together Table 103 and the P51B/Corsair tests is that the comments about manueverability refers to roll rate or that the manueverability tests were P51B versus F4U-1 and not P51B versus F4U-1a. It's a stretch though I'd admit.

Hades_Dragon
11-05-2004, 11:34 PM
Amazing what a huge difference that small spoiler on the wing makes.

murewa
11-06-2004, 07:23 AM
ok, so I'm going up against a early or mid-war zero at low level and I don't have a significant speed advantage....

...whats it to be, FM-2, F6F, or F4U?

presumably corsair if I want a BnZ or energy battle, but is the FM-2 or F6F better for a tighter dogfight?

could it be said that FM-2 for turns, F4U for energy and F6F for a balance of the two?

JG77Von_Hess
11-06-2004, 09:02 AM
Well i never really understood why they never did anything to reduce the interference drag on this by implementing a simple thing as a fillet.

Regards.

VH.

BigKahuna_GS
11-06-2004, 09:09 AM
S!


__________________________________________________ _____________________
murewa -- posted Sat November 06 2004 06:23
ok, so I'm going up against a early or mid-war zero at low level and I don't have a significant speed advantage....

...whats it to be, FM-2, F6F, or F4U?
__________________________________________________ _____________________



Well your first mistake was being at low level and the second was not having a significant speed advantage. You better hope you have the Corsair because it is the the fastest of the 3 on the deck and none of the 3 mentioned a/c can out-turn a Zeke. So speed is life.


____

BigKahuna_GS
11-06-2004, 09:18 AM
S!

From Dragons'link. I think it says it all.

This comparison is against the lighter more nimble P51B model with only 4 .50cals. The same model Bud Anderson thought was slightly more agile than the 109s he was facing over europe.


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



____

DangerForward
11-06-2004, 09:22 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by murewa:
ok, so I'm going up against a early or mid-war zero at low level and I don't have a significant speed advantage....

...whats it to be, FM-2, F6F, or F4U?

presumably corsair if I want a BnZ or energy battle, but is the FM-2 or F6F better for a tighter dogfight?

could it be said that FM-2 for turns, F4U for energy and F6F for a balance of the two? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think I'd take the Corsair. Bump the mixture to 120% and get a little space. It's a tough plane and should be able to take hits if you're in a bad spot. I always go for the biggest performance difference, in this case speed.

BigKahuna_GS
11-06-2004, 09:23 AM
S!

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


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

SkyChimp
11-06-2004, 01:32 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by AgentBif:

Are you saying that prop-wash over the wings causes the airframe ti act as if it's coeficient of lift improves? But then this would be heavily dependent on throttle, rpm, pitch, mixture, and atmospheric conditions... right?

But I thought CL was one of those parameters that was supposed to be completely indiginous to the airframe itself... that's what a "coefficient" is, a constant that is independent of the variables involved. I also thought that CL could be measured by sampling aircraft performance under real flying conditions... right? Or not? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The installation or removal of a prop does seem to have an effect on the the lift coeefficient and the stall characteristics of an airplane.

Here is the F4U without prop and with prop. This page is self explanatory:

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

Interesting point is the lower right schematic of the F4U. You can really see that the port wing stalled sooner than the starboard wing, requiring the installation of the spoiler to lower the Cl of the starboard wing.

Bill_Lester
11-06-2004, 01:46 PM
Jimney Cricket! Just give us the Bearcat and the whole thing is moot! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

XyZspineZyX
11-06-2004, 01:58 PM
Ok, that makes a little most sense to me... I would guess that chaotic vortex-like prop wash from that giant propeller would decrease the CL of the wings. The inside portion of the left wing seems to suffer from airflow that is kind of upward flowing, simulating a higher AOA while the right wing seems to feel the opposite airflow adjustment.

I never realised this effect was an issue... it's not just physical torque or gyro effect but also an airflow asymmetry coming from the prop.

Modelling this effect must be quite a challenge. I wonder if the PF engine does it? The lack of this effect in the sim might help explain why the Corsair is so gentle in a stall (in the game) compared to its known real behavior.

Furthermore, I wonder how much other aircraft with such massive props and engines suffered from this effect? Why is the Corsair so susceptible while the P-47 doesn't seem to be? I don't see why the gull-shape would make the wing more vulnerable to the prop's airflow vortex.

Great data though Monkey-Dude, thanks for posting it!

Philipscdrw
11-06-2004, 02:02 PM
Aaarghh! Run for the hills! It's the Battle of the Charts Episode 2: The Navy!

SkyChimp
11-06-2004, 02:38 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by AgentBif:
Ok, that makes a little most sense to me... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That report is still available on the NASA server. I recommend downloading it and taking a look. It covers many different US aircraft. You can download it here:

http://naca.larc.nasa.gov/index.cgi?method=display&redirect=http://naca.larc.nasa.gov/reports/1945/naca-report-829/&oaiID=oai:naca.larc.nasa.gov:naca-report-829

Saburo_0
11-06-2004, 11:21 PM
Fascinating stuff & nice of you gentlemen to share. Thanks!

Just makes me realize how tough a job it is to develop good flight models for these planes-let alone perfect ones.