F4U in Europe

GTX said:

Speaking of F4U in Europe...:

View attachment 649298

Click to expand...

I wanted to give a shout out to this image. It really shows the differences between the Spit and Corsair even if the perspective makes the Corsair's wings appear shorter.

NevadaK said:

I wanted to give a shout out to this image. It really shows the differences between the Spit and Corsair even if the perspective makes the Corsair's wings appear shorter.

Click to expand...

I believe the FAA Corsairs had shortened wings

Clayton Magnet said:

I don't think so, looking at that graph, they have the F6F only slightly in front of the F4U-4. I would be comfortable saying the Hellcat was a good turning fighter, but only really when compared to other heavy weights, like the F4U, P-47, P-51 and Tempest.

Click to expand...

Not sure if we're reading the graph in the same but at this point it's immaterial. Until we can find hard statical data concerning turn performance between the Ki-61 and Spitfire Mk.V and draw an inference from there the graph has no real weight in our discussion.

The main take away is that lift coefficient should be considered along with wing loading when determining an aircraft's turn performance. The lift coefficient of the Hellcat's wing was greater than that of the Spitfire and it offset some if not all of the wing loading deficiency at certain speeds. I think this is very telling to say the least.

VA5124 said:

I'm wondering how the corsair would do in the ETO could it go toe to toe with the Germens ?

Click to expand...

Greetings VA 5124,

This is a provocative topic and has come up before on the forum. Here are a couple links to earlier threads:

My feeling is that the Corsair would have equalled or bettered potential opposing Axis fighters within its best operating envelope below 20,000 ft. While you mention the ETO, I suspect that the F4U-1 would have had great value in the MTO during the North Africa, Sicily, Italian campaigns especially in CAS and TAC. If the F4U had found its way to extensive use in the MTO/ETO I'm certain that we would have seen a variant appear that embodied the weight savings and performance modifications applied to Marine Corsairs in the Pacific. Ultimately, if the Corsair were being used as a strictly land based fighter, you would see a new non-folding wing further lightening and improving the basic design. (I was looking for a citation here, as I recall seeing reference to this proposed for Marine aircraft.)

The Corsair was an outstanding combat aircraft an assessment that is reinforced by the fact that it was produced well after the war and was used in Korea with distinction.

Clayton Magnet said:

I believe the FAA Corsairs had shortened wings

Click to expand...

This is true, eight inches were clipped from each wingtip in order to clear the height of the ship's internal hangar space.

Clayton Magnet said:

I believe the FAA Corsairs had shortened wings

Click to expand...

The FAA Corsair wings were reduced by 8" per side (16") The F4U wingspan was 41', so FAA wingspan should be around 39'- 6". The Spifire IX is list as 36' - 10". Not sure which model we are looking at in the photo, but it looks like the same wing plan.

Just looking at the wings makes the Spitfire appear bigger because it is closer, if you look at the shadows cast by both aircraft and compare to the white lines, the Spitfire clearly has the shorter span.

From reading through the thread, it sounds like the F4U didn't have the altitude performance to really dominate Bf 109 or Fw 190, which I found kind of surprising. On paper it looks very competitive aside from that, especially considering it can roll with the Fw but also out-turn it. But if it can't compete at 25,000 feet that would be a significant problem especially for any kind of escort mission.

Water injection may make the difference though, I'd like to see the numbers.

Instinctively, if Spit Vs and P-40Fs could hold their own with Bf 109F and (early) G in North Africa and Italy I would think the F4U would do noticeably better.

Clayton Magnet said:

I believe the FAA Corsairs had shortened wings

Click to expand...

I have read that clipping the wings to get it in British carriers which had lower ceilings, also made it a better plane to land on a carrier, with a slightly higher sink rate and less tendency to float across the deck, obviously something is lost somewhere else in the envelope of performance.

Clayton Magnet said:

I believe the FAA Corsairs had shortened wings

Click to expand...

Not by much.

wuzak said:

The F6F had ~ 50% extra wing area compared to the Spitfire V and ~90% more gross weight.

In other words, roughly 40% greater wing loading.

I would imagine that the big wing area is best in low speed manoeuvring, but a little detrimental at high speeds.

Click to expand...

No, it didn't.

The F6F-5 normal gross weight was 12,593 lbs. It had 334 sq ft of wing area. So, at gross weight, the wing loading was 37.7 lbs/sq ft. At 10,000 lbs, it was 29.9 lbs/sq ft.

A Spitfire Mk. V had a normal gross weight of 6,784 lbs and 242 sq ft of wing area, for a normal wing loading of 28.0 lbs/sq ft. At 5,900 lbs, it has a wing loading of 24.4 lbs/sq ft.

That is 35% higher wing loading at gross weight and about 25% greater at lighter weight for both. So, as the Hellcat gets lighter, the Spitfire V's advantage gets smaller. And, the Hellcat has a radial engine with the weight much closer to the CG, which should make the instantaneous turn rate better.

I'd like to see a real comparative test, if one exists.

Against a Spitfire XIV, the Hellcat's wing loading was almost the same. 37.7 lbs/sq ft for the Hellcat and 35.1 lbs/sq ft for the Spitfire XIV. The F6F-5 was killing Japanese air power right when the Spit XIV was being flown and the Mk. V was on the way out or pretty much gone since the Mk. IX was coming on strong. I'm not at all sure the XIV would out-turn a Hellcat, but I might give the Mk. V a nod to have a slight turning advantage ... maybe not.

As I said, I'd like to see a comparative turn test, but with airplanes being flown from mid-1943 through early 1945. Until then, the Hellcat scored exceptionally well against its competition. I don't have comparable statistics for the Spitfire, so any statements about the relative effectiveness would be unverifiable, at least to me.

Schweik said:

From reading through the thread, it sounds like the F4U didn't have the altitude performance to really dominate Bf 109 or Fw 190, which I found kind of surprising. On paper it looks very competitive aside from that, especially considering it can roll with the Fw but also out-turn it. But if it can't compete at 25,000 feet that would be a significant problem especially for any kind of escort mission.

Water injection may make the difference though, I'd like to see the numbers.

Instinctively, if Spit Vs and P-40Fs could hold their own with Bf 109F and (early) G in North Africa and Italy I would think the F4U would do noticeably better.

Click to expand...

The Fw 190 didn't have good altitude performance. It was running out of steam by 20,000 feet. That's the radial-engine version, which was, by far, the most-produced. The Hellcat had decent performance to about the same height or slightly higher than the Fw 190 radial-engined units.

pbehn said:

Just looking at the wings makes the Spitfire appear bigger because it is closer, if you look at the shadows cast by both aircraft and compare to the white lines, the Spitfire clearly has the shorter span.

Click to expand...

That image looks like a diorama to me.

DarrenW said:

This is true, eight inches were clipped from each wingtip in order to clear the height of the ship's internal hangar space.

Click to expand...

And to help alleviate it's tendency to ''float'' over the deck when landing, same as the Seafire.

GregP said:

Against a Spitfire XIV, the Hellcat's wing loading was almost the same. 37.7 lbs/sq ft for the Hellcat and 35.1 lbs/sq ft for the Spitfire XIV. The F6F-5 was killing Japanese air power right when the Spit XIV was being flown and the Mk. V was on the way out or pretty much gone since the Mk. IX was coming on strong. I'm not at all sure the XIV would out-turn a Hellcat, but I might give the Mk. V a nod to have a slight turning advantage ... maybe not.

Click to expand...

Being flown? As in the Mk.XIV was already in service for 6 months before the F6F-5 started operations? Shooting down V-1s for a month?

The Mk.XIV was a bigger leap in performance from the Mk.IX than the F6F-5 was to the F6F-3.

The Mk.XIV could turn with the Mk.IX.


I suspect that the extra power compensates for the higher wing loading.

PAT303 said:

That image looks like a diorama to me.

Click to expand...

They say its a pic from HMS Fledgling/ Mill Meece Armoured Aircraft Carriers Armoured Aircraft Carriers

Clayton Magnet said:

I don't think so, looking at that graph, they have the F6F only slightly in front of the F4U-4. I would be comfortable saying the Hellcat was a good turning fighter, but only really when compared to other heavy weights, like the F4U, P-47, P-51 and Tempest.

Click to expand...

It seems as if most folks on this discussion conflate turn with a dominant air to air manueverability feature for mid-to late war fighters. It wasn't.

In addition, the V-n diagram based on the Combinations of airframe structure design limit G (or load factor 'n') rely also on pilot's ability to sustain the load factor n.

The Corner Velocity Vmax =(Sqrt [2*nmax*(W/S)/(rho*CLmax)] and n= L/W and nmax= Q*CLmax/W ---------> f ( Sqrt (W/S, 1/CLmax, 2*nmax/rho)

So, same altitude, same approx structural load capability, then W/L and CLmax dominate Corner Velocity.

Turn Radius (min) = 2*W/S/(rho*g*CLmax) -------------> f(W/S, 1/CLmax)

Rate of Turn wmax = g*Sqrt[rho*CLmax*nmax/(2*(W/S)] ---------> f(Sqrt (CLmax, nmax, 1/(W/S)]

So, for same altitude and pilot's equal ability to sustain high g, the airplane with highest CLmax and lowest W/S should have best Rate of turn and shortest turn radius.

Now examine real life in a world of Thrust and Drag and control/stick forces and the flight envelope under discussion.

Important factors not discussed in the physics rendition above begin to surface, particularly for different types of engines (single stage, two stage, turbo supercharged, etc) with different power generation as a function of altitude, different propeller efficiencies in a range of speeds and altitudes to deliver Thrust Hp, different exhaust gas thrust as function of MP and altitude, different cooling drag and pressure drag considerations as a function of CL and Velocity, etc.

Now factor ability to enter key flight envelopes and maintain optimal control (i.e. stick forces/aileron deflection, directional stability under asymmetric loading in roll or turn (slats vs rudder) as a function of speed, roll initiation/damping/reversal).

Back to the F6F. An interesting quote that I found when researching NAA Mustang/B-25 Chief Test pilot Bob Chilton, was that the one airplane he considered the equal (or better) in maueverability/handling qualities to the P-51B was the F6F. The genesis of the remark was his invitation to Eglin (incl many different test pilots) to engage in mock combat with and between F6F-3, F4U-1, P-38J, P-39N, P-40N, P-47D-11, Bf 109G-6, FW 190A-4, and P-51B-1.

The experiences of most/all Warbird pilots that have flown all Big 3 (AAF) plus F4U and F6F seem to support his remarks.

I might also remark that Very Few Warbird pilots today even Know that P-51B/D are rigged for 10/12 and 15 degrees and are flying the Merlin Mustang at 10 degrees for ailerons. My father flew both 12 and 15 during WWII. Four of six 109s and one Ju 87 were shot down in contested manuevering fights, including on the deck with no real margin for error. I know that the P-51D that Corky Meyer flew in his comparisons was a D with only 10 degrees aileron rigging and also had Reverse Rudder Boost tabl installed - rendering that D to diminished manueverabilty against even a P-51A.

Schweik said:

From reading through the thread, it sounds like the F4U didn't have the altitude performance to really dominate Bf 109 or Fw 190, which I found kind of surprising. On paper it looks very competitive aside from that, especially considering it can roll with the Fw but also out-turn it. But if it can't compete at 25,000 feet that would be a significant problem especially for any kind of escort mission.

Water injection may make the difference though, I'd like to see the numbers.

Instinctively, if Spit Vs and P-40Fs could hold their own with Bf 109F and (early) G in North Africa and Italy I would think the F4U would do noticeably better.

Click to expand...

The FTH for the BMW, DB abd R-2800 were reasonably close. Are you under impression that life stops at 18-22K for those engines? The F4U-1D with R-2800-8W had 2S/2S WI and delivered 1975 HP at 17K and 1650 HP at 21K. It was a clean Radial, It was the same speed (417mph) as P-38J at 20K (faster than both 190A and 109G and still 400+ at 25K..

-The US Secretary of the Army flew Corsairs!!
-Michael P. W. Stone, United States Secretary of the Army between 1989 and 1993
(Michael P. W. Stone - Wikipedia) was a FAA Corsair pilot during WW2. He addressed a bunch of students at an Army school I was attending and talked about flying Corsairs into France from the Med. I think he was describing recon missions but: 1) this was 30 years ago and 2) I was trying to figure out how a Royal Navy fighter pilot became SecArmy. Ain't politics wonderful??

drgondog said:

The FTH for the BMW, DB abd R-2800 were reasonably close. Are you under impression that life stops at 18-22K for those engines? The F4U-1D with R-2800-8W had 2S/2S WI and delivered 1975 HP at 17K and 1650 HP at 21K. It was a clean Radial, It was the same speed (417mph) as P-38J at 20K (faster than both 190A and 109G and still 400+ at 25K

Click to expand...

No I was not "under the impression that life sops at 18-22k" - I was trying to provide a benchmark to compare the various aircraft. I know they could still perform pretty well above their FTH. And I had read that Fw 190 was starting to have some trouble at above 20k ft but some of the posts in this thread seemed to indicate it had better altitude performance than the F4U. Numbers can be looked at from various different angles.

As I stated, from what I understand about the operational histories I would assume the F4U would have done better than Spit 5, P-40F, or even the early P-38s that were flying in the Med Theater, and they were holding their own. So I would presume the F4U could have done quite well. I don't know how it would compare to the Spit IX though.

As for the maneuverability / turn rate of the Mustang, I have to call that into question. It's an interesting issue about stringing the ailerons to 10 vs 12 or 15 degrees. I remember something like that being an issue with the P-51A and A-36 (etc). but that would affect roll more than turn right? I still remember pilots like Jeff Ethel who presumably knew what they were talking about, saying in 1990 that a P-51 was like a flying "block of cement" compared to a P-40.