F4U-5 handling performance reports

Discussion in 'Flight Test Data' started by Trilisser, Jul 10, 2012.

  1. Trilisser

    Trilisser Member

    Joined:
    May 22, 2011
    Messages:
    155
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Anyone with official handling performance reports for this variant? I have a pilot manual for this, but that is all.
     
  2. krieghund

    krieghund Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2006
    Messages:
    611
    Likes Received:
    21
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Occupation:
    Avionics Engineer Advisor to RSAF
    Location:
    Riyadh
    Here is data on the AU-1 Corsair which is the F4U-5. This is all I have, enjoy.
     

    Attached Files:

    • Like Like x 2
  3. Shortround6

    Shortround6 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2009
    Messages:
    9,781
    Likes Received:
    802
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    retired Firefighter
    Location:
    Central Florida Highlands
    I believe you may have had a momentary memory lapse. Mine seem to be getting closer together as I get older.

    The F4U-5 used a two stage supercharger with two "sidewinder" impellers in the first stage and had the best altitude performance of any Corsair.

    The F4U-6 (aka AU-1) was the ONLY production Corsair to use a single stage supercharger and had the worst altitude performance of any Corsair.

    The information presented is interesting though and may help (or hurt) those "what ifs" that people come up with about R-2800 powered fighters using single stage superchargers in the early part of the war.
     
  4. renrich

    renrich Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2007
    Messages:
    4,542
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Occupation:
    real estate
    Location:
    Montrose, Colorado
    As SR has pointed out the AU and the F4U5 are different AC. The AU was optimized for air to ground. The F4U5 was more of ACM AC. The F4U7 was similar to the AU but with much better high altitude performance.
     
  5. Shortround6

    Shortround6 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2009
    Messages:
    9,781
    Likes Received:
    802
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    retired Firefighter
    Location:
    Central Florida Highlands
    I believe the F4U-7 was an AU-1 with the engine from an F4U-4. Most (all?) went to the French Navy.
     
  6. Trilisser

    Trilisser Member

    Joined:
    May 22, 2011
    Messages:
    155
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Isn't the F4U-7 with a -42W engine?
     
  7. krieghund

    krieghund Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2006
    Messages:
    611
    Likes Received:
    21
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Occupation:
    Avionics Engineer Advisor to RSAF
    Location:
    Riyadh
    Oh yes 'old-timers' kicks in from time to time, however, the USN doc posted indicates the AU-1 is an F4U-5 with the lower rated -83 engine installed. The F4U-5 in its original form appears to be a hot ship but I can't find any data on it I may have. I have been trying to locate any USN or Vought docs linking the F4U-6 to the AU-1.
     
  8. renrich

    renrich Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2007
    Messages:
    4,542
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Occupation:
    real estate
    Location:
    Montrose, Colorado
    The AU had more armor than the F4U5. In "The Great Book of WW2 Aircraft" the specs on the F4U5 are that it had a P&W R2800-32W engine, Vmax of 470MPH at 26800 feet, service ceiling of 41400 feet and rate of climb of 3780 fpm
     
  9. Mike Williams

    Mike Williams Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2006
    Messages:
    199
    Likes Received:
    73
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Hi Trilisser,

    For starters, here's a chart of performance vs altitude for the F4U-5 from Chance Vought Aircraft Report No. 6645:

    [​IMG]

    Model F4U-5 Airplane, Performance vs Altitude
     
    • Like Like x 2
  10. Trilisser

    Trilisser Member

    Joined:
    May 22, 2011
    Messages:
    155
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Thanks a milliard! Indeed a hot ship!
     
  11. Shortround6

    Shortround6 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2009
    Messages:
    9,781
    Likes Received:
    802
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    retired Firefighter
    Location:
    Central Florida Highlands
    There may have only been an XFU-6, The designation changing to AU-1 for the production models. The -83 engine was very similar to the engine used in the F8F. It was over 300lbs lighter than the -32 engine used in the F4U-5 and that doesn't include the intercoolers or ducts.
     
  12. GrumpyBadger

    GrumpyBadger Member

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2013
    Messages:
    36
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    8
    Location:
    Arizona
    Home Page:
    I hope y'all don't mind me bringing this post back up, but I have a question.

    Normally, I'm quite good at graphs, but I'm having a heck of a time interpreting all the performance graphs associated with the aircraft. It looks completely foreign to me and I've tried a lot to comprehend them. Any suggestions or help? I love flight sims, and I'll be flying IL2 soon, and I figure for my four favorite warbirds, Corsair included, it'll be good to understand these to know what they can and can't do, where they perform their best, and how accurate the flight model is (which I hear is pretty spot on).
     
  13. GrumpyBadger

    GrumpyBadger Member

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2013
    Messages:
    36
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    8
    Location:
    Arizona
    Home Page:
    #13 GrumpyBadger, Nov 2, 2013
    Last edited: Nov 2, 2013
    I hope y'all don't mind me bringing this post back up, but I have a question.

    Normally, I'm quite good at graphs, but I'm having a heck of a time interpreting all the performance graphs associated with the aircraft. It looks completely foreign to me and I've tried a lot to comprehend them. Any suggestions or help? I love flight sims, and I'll be flying IL2 soon, and I figure for my four favorite warbirds, Corsair included, it'll be good to understand these to know what they can and can't do, where they perform their best, and how accurate the flight model is (which I hear is pretty spot on).

    also, Mike Williams, I love your website. Ever since I first found it, it's been so helpful in getting to know my favorite warbirds.

    *and I wish I knew why it decided to double post this... sorry about that
     
  14. tomo pauk

    tomo pauk Creator of Interesting Threads

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2008
    Messages:
    8,007
    Likes Received:
    442
    Trophy Points:
    83
    #14 tomo pauk, Nov 3, 2013
    Last edited: Nov 6, 2013
    Hi,
    The Mike's graph might be interperetted like this: we will choose an altitude (say, 20000 ft) and plane's configuration (say, long range fighter - LRF, weighting 14113 lbs, fitted with a drop tank). Such a F4U-5 will have the rate of climb (RoC) of 2350 ft/min (1st set of graph lines), speed will be 340 kts (second set of graph lines). The plane is using 'normal' power setting. The engine will provide a tad above 1750 HP on that altitude(3rd set of graph lines), (IMO) without ram effect.
    Then we might try a 'normal fighter' configuration, clean, at 12901 lbs and 30000 ft. On 'normal' power, it will have the RoC of ~2150 ft/min, speed being 1385 mph; power being ~1650 HP, again without ram. On 'military' power (= 1900 HP at 30000 ft), it will have the RoC of ~2650 ft/min, speed of almost 395 kts.
     
  15. CORSNING

    CORSNING Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2008
    Messages:
    559
    Likes Received:
    33
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Lead maintenance technician.
    Location:
    Clyde, Ohio
    Hi tomo,

    If you are going to convert a graph to a chart, you have to slow way down and study the graph carefully. I believe you meant in your last statement "...speed of almost 395 knots.

    I am actually researching the P-47 performance and Spitfire chronology at this time, so I don't have time right now to do the whole decipher thing on the graph. The Reader's Digest version of the maximum performance of this bird using the graph looks like this:

    Altitude.Speed/Climb
    Feet.....mph/fpm
    S.L......400/4840
    .5,000..419/4780
    10,000.435/4550
    15,000.448/4080
    20,000.457/3460
    25,000.468/2860
    30,000.463/2620
    35,000.454/1680
    40,000.446/..740

    Maximums: 469.5 mph.@ 26,750 ft. and 4,840 fpm.@ S.L.

    Combat Ceiling (1,000 fpm.): 38,615 ft.

    Operational Ceiling (500 fpm.): 41,275 ft.

    Service Ceiling (100 fpm.): 43,400 ft.


    Thank you Mike for posting the F4U-5 graph.

    Jeff
     
  16. tomo pauk

    tomo pauk Creator of Interesting Threads

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2008
    Messages:
    8,007
    Likes Received:
    442
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Indeed, you're right about kts vs. mph. I'll edit my previous post.
     
Loading...

Share This Page