PDA

View Full Version : hellcat climb question



charshep
08-16-2005, 08:51 PM
I know some performance compromises had to be made for the Hellcat in order to improve its carrier handling qualities, one of these being the enlarged wing. As I understand it, most of the changes added drag to the design but I thought they also added lift as well. If this is so, why wasn't the hellcat a better climber than it was, esp. considering that it had a good turn radius for its size and weight? Usually good turning aircraft are also good climbing aircraft.

charshep
08-16-2005, 08:51 PM
I know some performance compromises had to be made for the Hellcat in order to improve its carrier handling qualities, one of these being the enlarged wing. As I understand it, most of the changes added drag to the design but I thought they also added lift as well. If this is so, why wasn't the hellcat a better climber than it was, esp. considering that it had a good turn radius for its size and weight? Usually good turning aircraft are also good climbing aircraft.

SeperateCheck
08-16-2005, 09:03 PM
Wildcat is notorious for it's slow rate of climb. At all altitudes. I was always curious to know why the Americans thought it was such hot poop, me being an American myself.

Anyways, back to the Wildcat's lack of climbing ability. It's heavy. And shaped like a brick.

Brick + Heavy = Drag

hope this clears things up a bit for u, maybe.

Waldo.Pepper
08-16-2005, 09:09 PM
I'm not saying a thing. I'm loving this too much.

FritzGryphon
08-16-2005, 09:29 PM
What Waldo's trying to say is, climb is mostly a function of excess power. Just making the wing bigger won't help it (though, the best climb speed might get slightly lower, not a good thing).

charshep
08-16-2005, 09:49 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by FritzGryphon:
What Waldo's trying to say is, climb is mostly a function of excess power. Just making the wing bigger won't help it (though, the best climb speed might get slightly lower, not a good thing). </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


I see. Maybe I'm getting confused with wingloading? Anyways, I guess I'm wondering why exactly the Hellcat wasn't able to match the performance of the other P&W powered airplanes, exept for turn radius.

PlaneEater
08-16-2005, 10:02 PM
...because gluing wings to a beer keg doesn't an airplane make.

Badsight.
08-17-2005, 02:51 AM
SeperateCheck , Charshk is asking about HELLcats

& yes , for a 2000 Hp plane with good lift it makes me at least go hmmmm

+ the thing has poor accelleration

apparently the Hellcat was the largest Carrier-born fighter of WW2 , as in it was big :O

jpatrick62
08-19-2005, 02:40 PM
Actually, the Hellcat wasn't a bad climber, it was better than the P51, P38, and P40. In actual combat tests done during the war (goole on FW190, F4U and F6f test) you'll see the Hellcat was inferior only to the F4U in the Pacific, barring later war models.

tttiger6BL
08-19-2005, 04:38 PM
Take a look at pages 596 to 598 of "America's Hundred Thousand," which is my Bible on US aircraft (and just about everyone else's, too).

It's a bit hard to compare USAAF and USN aircraft because the USAAF data compares time to climb to 25,000 feet while the USN comparisons are to 20,000 feet.

Both are useful in IL-2/FB/AEP/PF because if you get above 25,000 the high altitude performance of all planes is so screwed up nothing approaches reality.

Among late war USAAF fighters, at 100 percent power (NOT Military), the P-63 was by far the champ among USAAF fighters (although it flew in combat only for Russia), reaching 25,000 feet in 8 minutes. The P-38J and L were next, followed by the P-39N/Q, P-47D-25, the P-40N and, last, the P-51D.

Bet you wouldn't have guessed that, huh?

As to Navy fighters, which this thread is all about, the F4U-4 was the clear champ, but the book notes it barely qualifies as a WWII fighter.

Next best late war Navy climber (are you ready for this "gluing wings to a beer keg" PlanEater and "shaped like a brick" Separate Checks?) http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif was the FM-2 late model Wildcat followed by the F4U-1D and last was the F6F-5.

(The F6F-3 Late we have is identical in performance to the F6F-5 because it was upgraded to F6F-5 standards, I have no idea why it's in the sim -- I guess so Oleg could claim one more flyable plane. A pity because the original F6F-3 would have been correct for mid-war 1943-44, when the Hellcat dominated the Pacific).

The simple answer is, yes, the Hellcat did not have a terrific rate of climb, although it was only marginally slower than the F4U-1D Corsair.

Once the Corsair finally began flying from carriers in January 1945, it was clearly superior to the Hellcat in performance (even though the Hellcat was more forgiving to fly).

The Navy planned to replace the Hellcat, which it recognized as outclassed by 1945, with the much more powerful Bearcat as its premier fighter, scrap the dive bombers and torpedo bombers (most were gone from carriers by the spring of 1945) and replace them with the F4U-4 as its next generation of attack airplane. The war ended before that change took place.

Among early war Navy planes, the F4F-3 Wildact was a much better climber than the F4F-4 Wildact with its two extra guns and folding wings. The champion early war Navy climber? You likely wouldn't have guessed it (I didn't): The Brewster Buffalo. It even out-climbed the early F6F-3.

Wish I had a scanner so I could toss those charts up here. But that's what they show and what the text says.

S!

ttt