F4U-4 performance with 115/145 grade fuel?

[gomwolf]

Hi guys. I have some questions about F4U-4. Please answer the question.

first see this pdf file. - http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f4u/f4u-4-detail-specification.pdf

1. When this a/c tested?
A person told me, this document drawn in 1947, but It does not mean it is tested in 1947. but I found two dates(21.May.1947 and august. 1947) in chart page. I think this document based on the result that tested in 1947.

2. Is it a performance with 100/130 grade fuel or 115/145 grade fuel?
A person think this performance is tested with 100/130 grade fuel. but he told me 'F4U-4 use the 115/145 grade fuel after it used in a/c carrier, too. Is it tested with 115/145 or 100/130?

3. How much 115/145 grade fuel increase performance?
I saw some threads and documents. Some of them, R2800-18w can use 115/145 grade fuel, but It is not better then 100/130. For better performance it need R2800-42w. but others, 115/145 grade fuel can increase R2800-18w's performance.
If 115/145 grade fuel can increase R2800-18w's performance, How much it can increase performance of F4U-4?


Sorry about my broken english. but plaese answer me~!

 

[Dawncaster]

that "Detail-Specification" report were not reflected improvements after debut.

same as report of F4U-1 F6F F4F.. etc.

and revised date can't be found.

so, you need to find other source.

Performance Summary of F4U-4 with 115/145 fuel : http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f4u/f4u-4.pdf

 

[GregP]

Hi,

That's NOT a test. It is a detail specification, which is what the Navy WANTED to be built, not was WAS buit. It is NOT a flight test at all, but a spec for design of the F4U-4.

 

[delcyros]

Yes GregP, but:

I quote (p.2):
"Performance is based upon flighttests of the F4U-4 airplane."

Sounds valid enogh for me.

 

[CORSNING]

Hi Greg,

Would you please elaborate on the report? How do you know it is just a specification sheet and not a performance test trials results?

Jeff

 

[Neil Stirling]

Vought originally intended that the F4U-4 was to run its -18W at 70 "hg with 115/145 octane fuel, however, the -18W was limited to 60"hg with either 100/130 or 115/145 octane. During late 1946 the -42W was fitted to around 60 F4U-4 Corsairs and this could be run at 70"hg, however, the USN did not use this rating. Information from The Pilots Handbook for Navy Model F4U-4 Airplane AN 01-45HB-1.

Neil.

 

[CORSNING]

Thank you Neil. Is there any test results, charts or graphs (preferable) on the F4U-4 at the 60"Hg that can be viewed?

Jeff

 

[Neil Stirling]

Hi Jeff

Airplane Characteristics and Performance Navair 1519c rev 9-44. Based on flight tests View attachment F4U-4_Corsair_ACP_-_1_March_1946 (2).pdf

Neil.

 

[CORSNING]

Very nice. Thank you Neil, Jeff.

 

[GregP]

On page number 13c the performance is based on calculations for the proposed type. There is NO flight test data in a detail specification, it is all calculation.

There is a preliminary specification, a detailed specification, a preliminary design review, a detailed design review, and a prototype is authorized by contract. No flight data is quoted in this document.

Anyone who thinks otherwise has not worked in aviation and dealt with detail specifications for aircraft. Detail specs are ALWAYS the npreliminary estimates when the contract is dangled to the manufacturers. Sometimes the designers can't quite hit the points needed, many times they can. Sometimes the engine or finish or airframe fails to follow the planned parameters and they can't.

An excellent example is the Bell P-39. It did NOT hit the detail specs at all, though it got close in prototype form, if you believe the tests. Thye production P-39 was NOT a 400 mph aircraft except in a dive. In the prototype, engine did not deliver quite the expected power, the drag was not quite as expected, and the intercooler was not the low-drag, efficient unit that was needed. The bet result was the aircraft fell short of specs and the turbo was deleted, thus ensuring mediocre performance in the production versions.