- Thread starter
-
- #41
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Was that common with the F4U?That performance report says the Hellcat engine was down on power, perhaps due to the carburetor not metering correctly. Heavy carbon deposits on the side of the plane are mentioned. It's not the first time I've see a complaint of substandard engine performance in those reports. Maybe that was the reason Grumman's tests showed Hellcat and Corsair evenly matched in speed. If the engine of their one Corsair exemplar was a little below par, that could account for the result.
If the engine of their one Corsair exemplar was a little below par, that could account for the result.
It would be interesting to imagine what would have happened if the F4U and F6F had entered service just in time to find themselves faced with a sky full of Shidenkais, Raidens, and Reppus.It was fast "enough", and that's what matters.
I'm not sure if I read that right. The USN did critically monitor or didn't critically monitor engines during their testing?This could definitely be the case, especially since it seems that there wasn't any critical monitoring of actual engine output, as was the norm during navy testing.
I thought the F4U-1A had a higher canopy than the F4U-1 (birdcage).From what I gather the F4U-1 under test was an early raised cabin variant and not the later -1D as described in the narrative.
I never knew the F4U-1 had any supercharger troubles...Given the less efficient propeller and somewhat troublesome supercharger found on earlier Corsairs, what you suggest becomes even more plausible to me.
Less of a vested interest to fudge numbers...That's why the US Navy test results are more reliable, at least to me anyway.
Wouldn't have enjoyed the kill ratio they ended up with, now would they?It would be interesting to imagine what would have happened if the F4U and F6F had entered service just in time to find themselves faced with a sky full of Shidenkais, Raidens, and Reppus.
Given the less efficient propeller and somewhat troublesome supercharger found on earlier Corsairs, what you suggest becomes even more plausible to me.
I never knew the F4U-1 had any supercharger troubles...
"Less efficient propeller"? Less efficient that what? The 4 blade propeller that came on the F4U-4, or the 3 blade propeller that the F6F stuck with?
I'm not sure if I read that right. The USN did critically monitor or didn't critically monitor engines during their testing?
I thought the F4U-1A had a higher canopy than the F4U-1 (birdcage).
I never knew the F4U-1 had any supercharger troubles...
Wouldn't have enjoyed the kill ratio they ended up with, now would they?
Given that the main difference between the engines powering the early production versions of the F6F and F4U was the way the carburetor pointed, any problems the F4U had with the supercharger would no doubt have manifested themselves in the F6F as well.
It's not that simple. The carburetor is only part of the equation, as there are many components to an aircraft induction system. In regards to the aircraft in discussion these included intercoolers, main & auxiliary stage blowers, gears & clutches, duct work and it's placement for ram air, supercharger regulator equipment, and various cockpit controls. The make-up of the induction systems found on the F6F and F4U were not identical and each had their own unique peculiarities.
Do you mean pointed forwards/rearwards, up/down, or some mix of both? Do you have a picture or a diagram?Given that the main difference between the engines powering the early production versions of the F6F and F4U was the way the carburetor pointed, any problems the F4U had with the supercharger would no doubt have manifested themselves in the F6F as well.
Oh, okay.I was referring to the testing performed by Grumman on their F4U "specimen". They apparently flew them in formation at varying throttle settings in order to gauge speed differences between the two types. The US Navy always thoroughly monitored engine performance during testing.
Ironically, I don't think the term F4U-1A was used during WWII. The British called those versions (F4U-1A/1D) the Mk.II, however.I should have been more clear here. All F4U-1 sub-variants (-1A thru -1D) were known collectively as F4U-1s, as this was the major variant. When the raised canopy and other modifications were introduced the "sub-variant" became known as the F4U-1A. I will start using the correct terminology henceforth.
Oh, okay. That makes more sense. I want to be clear, I have nothing against the F4U or the F6F. I just wanted to make sure all the information is accurate, this could affect important things, like beer-bets (i.e. "I'll bet you a round of beer that..."), and people interesting in making/modding flight-sim games. I would imagine historians would also find this to be interesting.I read this somewhere but for the life of me can't find the reference for it. I was just suggesting another possibility to why this particular F4U may have been under-performing during the tests.
Do you mean pointed forwards/rearwards, up/down, or some mix of both? Do you have a picture or a diagram?
Ironically, I don't think the term F4U-1A was used during WWII.
On just the F4U-1 variants? Or the F4U-1 & F4U-4?One was an updraught and the other a downdraught carburettor.
The F4U-4 had a carburetor under the chin, if I recall. If I was to make a guess, I figure it'd be an updraft simply because it's below the engine and the air would probably go up to make the engine, though it wouldn't be the first time I was wrong.The F4U-4 used a different model R-2800 to the F4U-1, and I believe the carburettor was flipped.
On just the F4U-1 variants? Or the F4U-1 & F4U-4?
The F4U-4 had a carburetor under the chin, if I recall. If I was to make a guess, I figure it'd be an updraft simply because it's below the engine and the air would probably go up to make the engine, though it wouldn't be the first time I was wrong.
I was under the impression that, once you're in low blower, with both main and aux stages running, you would effectively be in a situation that would see the air go from the carburetor, to the auxiliary stage blower, and from there, to the main-stage blower, and into the cylinders?No, the F4U-4 had an inlet under the nose, but these fed ducts to the auxiliary supercharger, not the carburettor.
Okay, so all the F4U-1's used updraft carburetors, the F6F's used a downdraft system?F4U-1 had an updraught craburettor (R-2800-8)
I was under the impression that, once you're in low blower, with both main and aux stages running, you would effectively be in a situation that would see the air go from the carburetor, to the auxiliary stage blower, and from there, to the main-stage blower, and into the cylinders?
From what I recall when in neutral blower the air came from a difference source to the main-stage blower, to the engine? I'd almost swear it came from the intercooler and, instead of going to the intercooler, it went to the engine
(pretty strange, because I remember reading/hearing you'd need 2-3 times the amount of airflow through the intercooler as that used for the carburetor)
Okay, so all the F4U-1's used updraft carburetors, the F6F's used a downdraft system?
It would be interesting to imagine what would have happened if the F4U and F6F had entered service just in time to find themselves faced with a sky full of Shidenkais, Raidens, and Reppus.
Cheers,
Wes