fastmongrel
1st Sergeant
Many contemporary writers did call the Napoleonic Wars The World War. The first truly global conflict though was the 7 Years War (1756-63) with fighting in Europe, Africa, North and South America, India and Asia.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
I worked in Germany and it goes back much further than the two world wars, in fact back to before the Thirty Years War. If you had a mind to you could call the Napoleonic wars a World War .
After the F6F aircraft design started to reverse and never recovered.
Hello DarrenW,
Judging by the standards of the European Theatre, the FW 190A-5 wasn't particularly fast for the time.
From the standpoint of advanced aerodynamics, it actually wasn't bad. The closely cowled engine with a spinner worked quite well as compared to American attempts to do similar things. Note that the F4F Wildcat prototype had a spinner but discarded it because of cooling issues. The fairly thin fuselage used engine exhaust to make up for the cross sectional change at the cowl and was an idea that was later copied by the Kawasaki Ki 100 when it switched from an inline to a radial engine.
The F6F is actually a much better example of lack of aerodynamic refinement. It was a great fighter and had all the necessary features to fight its intended opposition, but ease of construction (such as with lap joints) took priority over aerodynamics which is probably why it was so slow for the amount of power that it had. No matter what Grumman claimed, the Corsair was a bit faster on the same power.
Note that in this test, the F4U-1D had the stock propeller which had issues. In the field, they were often replaced with the propeller used by the Hellcat and performance was improved. This was specifically mentioned at the end of the report.
- Ivan.
,
Thanks Ivan, those are very good summations and I agree with most of them but not all. I hope you didn't confuse my statement concerning the aerodynamics of these two airplanes. When you look at the sheer size and weight of the F6F and F4U one would think that such a small and powerful airplane like the FW-190A would walk all over them in ever flight regime but it didn't (power to weight ratio being one of them). That's because they were a combination of just the right aerodynamic qualities and power, no more and no less.
And it's easy to be deceived by the general appearance of the Hellcat, being that it wasn't graced with the sleek lines of the Spitfire or P-51. It's drag coefficient wasn't really all that bad, especially for a navalized fighter. There are many references that give figures which are in the ball park of other fighters of the era which at first glance you'd think would be aerodynamically cleaner, such as the BF-109 series, but they really weren't.
We must stick to the facts and the facts state that the FW-190A-5 had a better power to weight ratio, even if it had less power. That's because it weighed approximately 50 percent less than either of the two Navy fighters.The numbers just don't lie....
We must stick to the facts and the facts state that the FW-190A-5 had a better power to weight ratio, even if it had less power. That's because it weighed approximately 50 percent less than either of the two Navy fighters.The numbers just don't lie....
But weight does effect the movement of any object in any plane of movement. The only way to overcome a disadvantage is either add power, decrease weight, or improve the shape or surface of the object. QUOTE]
In terms of speed, drag is a much bigger factor than weight.
Lol since when did this conversation become a debate about the virtues of the Hellcat versus the Corsair? And you really haven't told me anything I already didn't know about the arguments for and against the F6F. I've heard it all.
We must stick to the facts and the facts state that the FW-190A-5 had a better power to weight ratio, even if it had less power. That's because it weighed approximately 50 percent less than either of the two Navy fighters.The numbers just don't lie....
Note that during this test, the F6F was carrying the same ammunition load as F4U (703 pounds) while its full ammunition load would have been 720 pounds.
Why do you at every turn continually attack the F6F as a credible fighter design, while consistently defending the virtues of the FW-190? I wish you could be as impartial as Pbehn, but apparently your love affair for this Nazi fighter far outweighs any desire to get the record straight. This has NEVER been a comparison between the Corsair and Hellcat. You're making it such so as to deflect the focus off your beloved aircraft, the FW-190.
Wow, a whopping 17 pounds! I'm sure that would have had a huge effect of the overall flight qualities of the F6F. Anyway, the loaded weight of the machine under test was typical for an F6F-3 in a "overloaded" condition. If you are trying to imply that it was a "stripped down" version than you just experienced an epic fail.
And the weight figures that you provided have absolutely nothing to do with this discussion. We are talking about the A-5 model that was present during the tests and not the entire line of FW-190As. I suggest that you post this enlightening information here:
FW-190 - How Good Was It, Really?
As anyone who has studied aviation history knows, the overall performance of the later A models suffered greatly due to the increased weight of added armor and weapons. That's why they required BF-109s to fly cover for them during intercept missions. They were considered "easy meat" by most if not all allied fighter pilots. I'm almost certain that the Hellcat would have had an even easier time of dominating these later, rather bloated, flying machines.
70 hp was probably 5 to 10% of the power available for climb. That's a pretty high cost.Hello Swampyankee,
There are actually a couple memos of the time commenting about how flight performance tests of captured aircraft were not a good idea because of the lack of spares and lack of ability to maintain the aircraft. The particular "FW 190A-5/U4" tested in this report was at best a "well-used" aircraft. It was captured April 1943 and had gone through testing in England before transfer to the United States.
Regarding the "Brilliant Fan-Cooled Engine":
It allowed for good cooling under all conditions (once other issues were worked out) even with a very close cowling and a small cowl opening. At low speeds, it would require about 70 HP to spin but at high speed the airflow through the cowl opening was driving the fan and the actual power cost was negligible.
Another "Brilliant Idea" that turned out to be not so brilliant was the mounting of the oil cooler in a ring at the front of the cowl. It made for a very low drag assembly but also proved to be quite vulnerable to weapons fire and leaking oil directly onto a hot engine did not usually turn out well.
- Ivan.
70 hp was probably 5 to 10% of the power available for climb. That's a pretty high cost.
I never stated that the Hellcat was an "aerodynamic marvel". I just wanted to shed some light on a common misunderstanding of the F6F's overall airframe efficiency. Looks can be very deceiving, especially in the case of this airplane. And yes, I agree with you that the Corsair was overall a cleaner airframe (with a drag coefficient of around 0.020). But again, this has never been a discussion about it verses the Grumman airplane.
The P-51 Mustang on the other hand had probably the cleanest shape of any fighter plane of that era but in this case it definitely looked like it.
Small grammar error on my part. I know what overload means. The F6F-3 under test was right at it's normal "fighting weight" of 12,400lbs. I don't think the subtraction of 17 pounds that you mentioned is worth being concerned about.
And I stand by my statement regarding late war FW-190As. You can't be loaded down with more armor than the original design allowed for and armed to the teeth with large caliber cannon and rockets and expect to stay competitive.
70 hp was probably 5 to 10% of the power available for climb. That's a pretty high cost.
What were the equivalent flat plate areas for the Hellcat and Corsair? Coefficient of Drag isn't the entire story either
What value do you have for the Take-Off weight for the F6F-3 in "Fighter Overload" condition and what is the source?....
True but you're forgetting one thing, what was the primary mission of these aircraft? To dogfight and shoot those rockets at P51s???And I stand by my statement regarding late war FW-190As. You can't be loaded down with more armor than the original design allowed for and armed to the teeth with large caliber cannon and rockets and expect to stay competitive.
True but you're forgetting one thing, what was the primary mission of these aircraft? To dogfight and shoot those rockets at P51s???