F4U-4 vs YaK-9U
- Thread starter Soren
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Hi Davparlr,
>I too, have had difficulties with the numbers associated with the referenced document, especially climb.
Hm, actually I didn't have any difficulties with the numbers, but maybe I didn't look closely enough.
What do you think is difficult about the data set I referenced?
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
>I too, have had difficulties with the numbers associated with the referenced document, especially climb.
Hm, actually I didn't have any difficulties with the numbers, but maybe I didn't look closely enough.
What do you think is difficult about the data set I referenced?
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
Hi Claidemore,
>One performance factor that is always overlooked (probably because we don't know how to calculate it), is acceleration.
Acceleration at any speed is directly proportional to climb rate at the same speed, which can be calculated fairly easily.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
>One performance factor that is always overlooked (probably because we don't know how to calculate it), is acceleration.
Acceleration at any speed is directly proportional to climb rate at the same speed, which can be calculated fairly easily.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
i'm in wrong Yak 9U had VK 107 but davparl date are for VK 105 engined version
davparlr
Senior Master Sergeant
Vincenzo said:
Good observation. I was a bit lazy in applying adjustments for increased fuel consumption. However, only the calculations of wing loading and power loading were affected. The performance numbers, airspeed and climb, was taken at the normal F4U-4 fighter weight, about 12,500 lbs. The summation is still valid.
HoHun said:
It is not just the data you presented referencing the navyairbureau document I have had difficulties with, but various sources. For example, look at rate of climb at sea level for the F4U-4 as noted by different sources.
1) Dean, America's Hundred Thousand
Combat power (2380 hp), 12,400 lbs 3800 ft/min
2) Flight test, A/C 80765,
Mil power (2000 hp), 12,500 lbs 3550 ft/min
3) Vought Detail Specification For Model F4U-4 Airplane
Combat Power (2380 hp), 12,405 lbs 4360 ft/min
4) Navyairbureau Document
Max power, 12,480lbs 4800 ft/min
Additional reference. Flight test F4U-1A (with water injection) no. 17930
War emergency power (2150 hp), 12,162 lbs 3200 ft/min
As you can see, the data is all over the place. Notice that the Navyairbureau no. for the F4U-4 is 1600 ft/min better than the F4U-1A with only a 230 hp increase, which doesn't make sense. I have had much difficulty in correlating data for the F4U-4, and, all the data looks valid. Tis a puzzlement. Maybe there is a difference in fuel but I found no reference.
Hi Davparlr,
>It is not just the data you presented referencing the navyairbureau document I have had difficulties with, but various sources.
Hm, I had a closer look at the BuAer document, and now I have difficulties with that one too :-/
>Max power, 12,480lbs 4800 ft/min
Max power is not even listed with a HP figure in the document. It only lists "T.O.", "Mil." and "Norm.", but provides speed curves only for "Maximum" and "Normal".
The data for BuAer speed curve 4 ("Normal" power) shows markedly less influence of supersonic propeller tip speeds than I'd expect. The climb rate at normal power seems to be a bit too high compared to my calculations too. As typically, my calculations err just a bit on the high side, this is cause for concern.
The "maximum" power setting is not defined, but if I simply up power in my calculations until I get that 4800 rpm low-altitude climb rate, I end up with at least 3000 HP. This seems excessive ...
Hm, I'll have to have a look at the F4U-1 again which seemed to have rather sane data when I last ran the numbers for it.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
>It is not just the data you presented referencing the navyairbureau document I have had difficulties with, but various sources.
Hm, I had a closer look at the BuAer document, and now I have difficulties with that one too :-/
>Max power, 12,480lbs 4800 ft/min
Max power is not even listed with a HP figure in the document. It only lists "T.O.", "Mil." and "Norm.", but provides speed curves only for "Maximum" and "Normal".
The data for BuAer speed curve 4 ("Normal" power) shows markedly less influence of supersonic propeller tip speeds than I'd expect. The climb rate at normal power seems to be a bit too high compared to my calculations too. As typically, my calculations err just a bit on the high side, this is cause for concern.
The "maximum" power setting is not defined, but if I simply up power in my calculations until I get that 4800 rpm low-altitude climb rate, I end up with at least 3000 HP. This seems excessive ...
Hm, I'll have to have a look at the F4U-1 again which seemed to have rather sane data when I last ran the numbers for it.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
dragonandhistail
Airman
Hello everyone,
I'd have to vote for the F4U in almost every category. I am new to these forums and look forward to learning from all of you. I am interested in the survivability of the respective aircraft engines of each of these fighters with regard to battle damage. Was the Corsair's radial better able to take hits than the Yak's inline?
Thanks
I'd have to vote for the F4U in almost every category. I am new to these forums and look forward to learning from all of you. I am interested in the survivability of the respective aircraft engines of each of these fighters with regard to battle damage. Was the Corsair's radial better able to take hits than the Yak's inline?
Thanks
Catch22
Major
The Corsairs engine could take more punishment, but it was also contained to the cowling really. Inline engines had components all through the plane, making it much more likely to get damaged. Basically, to hurt the F4U's engine, you pretty much had to hit the engine itself, whereas with the Yak you could hit most of the fuselage and cause damage.
Clay_Allison
Staff Sergeant
- 1,154
- Dec 24, 2008
This is an interesting question but It comes down IMO to any debate between a traditional dogfighter (Yak) and a heavy boom-and-zoom fighter.
I think if the Corsair comes in high with the energy advantage then the Yak has no chance. If the Yak has altitude and energy, I think it makes it 50/50.
The F4U was tough, very tough. I think it could take a few more shots than the Yak 9 and that has done more for fighters (F4F, P-40 versus better performing fighters) than flying purists give it credit for.
Overall, I'd say a long series of contest would return a 3:1 kill advantage over the Yak-9, not even counting the fact that American pilots have always been better than Russian pilots. (No offense, but 3 wars in which they can be compared head to head (Korea, Vietnam) or against common opponents (WWII) renders a clear enough result for me.
I think if the Corsair comes in high with the energy advantage then the Yak has no chance. If the Yak has altitude and energy, I think it makes it 50/50.
The F4U was tough, very tough. I think it could take a few more shots than the Yak 9 and that has done more for fighters (F4F, P-40 versus better performing fighters) than flying purists give it credit for.
Overall, I'd say a long series of contest would return a 3:1 kill advantage over the Yak-9, not even counting the fact that American pilots have always been better than Russian pilots. (No offense, but 3 wars in which they can be compared head to head (Korea, Vietnam) or against common opponents (WWII) renders a clear enough result for me.
claidemore
Senior Airman
Let's see. One American pilot in WWII with 40 kills.
The Soviets had 15 guys with over 40 kills, top guy had 62.
3 American pilots with over 30 kills compared to 49 Soviet pilots with over 30 kills.
27 American pilots with 20 kills or more, 203 Soviet pilots.
That's about a 10 to 1 advantage for the Soviets the way I do math. If my numbers are wrong, I apologize, I did a quick search to find these.
So what would happen if you put a Croation pilot in the Corsair (the Croats had exactly the same number of 40 kill aces as the USA) and a Finnish one in the Yak (they had half as many 40 kill aces as the Soviets)? Who would win then?
Catch22
Major
Claidemore, you have to take into consideration too that the Americans flew a limit of 3 combat tours then got sent home. Russian pilots flew and flew and flew some more, until they were either dead, captured or the war ended. Same with German pilots. Western Allied pilots just didn't have the time to amass as many kills.
Clay_Allison
Staff Sergeant
- 1,154
- Dec 24, 2008
100+ kill aces have only happened in one war and all against one opponent, the Soviet Union. Numerically the Soviets had more wins and more Aces. That is extremely impressive if you don't care at all about losses. The Soviets probably lost more fighters in any given year from the Beginning of their war with Germany than the U.S. lost in all three of the wars I named put together.
When it was settled head to head using WWII veterans in Korea, the results were pretty clear who was superior, MiG-15 against F-86.
I'd take a Finnish Pilot from WWII against anybody, they probably had the highest average number of kills/pilot of any air force in the war, all with pretty below average or average-at-best fighters.
KrazyKraut
Banned
- 337
- Apr 21, 2008
The results are not so clear as you may think. I read several more recent papers about the subject and it blows holes into the typically quoted ratio of 10:1 in favor of the F-86. If you substract combat against North Korean and Chinese pilots and compare claims to admitted losses you end up at around 1.3-1.5 Russian Migs for every Sabre. Now add that Migs were mostly going after B-29s where Sabres were usually going after Migs and the statistic doesn't look too bad for the Russian Migs.
Where do you get that from? You might want to do some research. The Germans had eight 100+ aces on the Western Front flying against British, French and US pilots. They also had another 29 pilots who scored at least 50 kills on the Western Front as well.
Here you go:
Hans-Joachim "Jochen" Marseille: 158
Heinz "Pritzel" Bär: 125 (plus 96 were on the East Front for a total of 221) Kurt Bühligen: 112
Adolf "Dolfo" Galland: 104
Joachim Müncheberg: 102 (plus 33 on the East front for a total of 135)
Werner Schroer: 102 (plus 12 on the East Front for a total of 114)
Egon Mayer: 102
Josef "Pips" Priller: 101
Helmut Wick scored 42 victories (total score of 56) alone in the Battle of Britian before being shot down and killed.
You might want to check out this website. One of our very own (Erich) has helped with this site as well.
Kacha`s Luftwaffe Page
claidemore
Senior Airman
Hi Catch22,
Totally agree, but I think you missed my point.
I was reacting to Clays statement:
One nations pilots are not intrinsicaly better than anothers, no matter what color their flag.
Clay Allison: Take a look at how many 10 plus kill aces the USA and the Soviets had in Korea. Also check out who was the top scorer in that conflict, and consider that the high scoring US pilots did so primarily against North Korean pilots while the Soviets racked up their scores against arguably the best trained pilots in the world.
I admire national pride, but it needs to be backed up with more tangible arguments than opinion.
BTW, how about some numbers to back up this statement?
Hi again,
>The data for BuAer speed curve 4 ("Normal" power) shows markedly less influence of supersonic propeller tip speeds than I'd expect.
It seems that the Corsair used a number of different propellers, including at least one 13' 4" propeller, a 13' 2" propeller (F4U-4) and a 13' 1" propeller.
Does anyone know when which propeller was used? It seems that the 13' 4" was used on the early models, but so far that's only a guess ...
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
>The data for BuAer speed curve 4 ("Normal" power) shows markedly less influence of supersonic propeller tip speeds than I'd expect.
It seems that the Corsair used a number of different propellers, including at least one 13' 4" propeller, a 13' 2" propeller (F4U-4) and a 13' 1" propeller.
Does anyone know when which propeller was used? It seems that the 13' 4" was used on the early models, but so far that's only a guess ...
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
renrich
Chief Master Sergeant
Basing conclusions about AC on kill figures is a little tricky since the kill figures are sometimes(always?) suspect. I would suspect that the kill figures would especially be suspect in the case of the USSR.
Agreed 100%.
davparlr
Senior Master Sergeant
The Vought site f4u-4spec, shows 3870 ft/min, however it also notes that the -18W engine generates 2450 hp. So, I don't even know how much hp the plane generates. Somewhere in all this info there lies the truth, perhaps you can ascertain the real values with your analysis.
Every time I try to evaluate this from various sources, I come against illogic.
HoHun said:
Dean only reference the 13'1'' propeller on the F4U-1, which is a three bladed prop. The F4U-4 used a four blade prop. Joint fighter conference book shows a 13'4" three bladed prop on the F4U-1C and a F2G with a 14'0" four bladed prop. Not much help
Clay_Allison
Staff Sergeant
- 1,154
- Dec 24, 2008
Look, I'm not knocking the Soviet pilots personally, I'm down on their training program. The Soviet Union always had a cavalier disregard for the lives of their troops and that went for their pilots as well. You look at kills, I look at losses. The Soviet pilots were killed in droves and you can't really argue that point. They just weren't trained up to peacetime standards the way American pilots were throughout the war.
You are still using the fact that Americans didn't fly as many missions as a crutch to make up your argument. I think if we had left guys in the air until the war was over or they died we'd have had several 50-kill aces. Of course we'd have had a lot more dead aces as well.
DerAdlerIstGelandet: I stand corrected but, looking at the list you still have to go a ways down before you get to Marseille. Change my statement to read 160 kills and it still makes my point.
