F4U vs F6F & Top-Speed: Let's Settle This

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

Things I should have asked earlier but didn't

Fuel/Air Ratio

Rich mixtures don't GIVE you more power, they help you SUSTAIN more power by cooling the cylinder temps and holding off detonation.
At the risk of sounding stupid: Does this apply with carburetor/pressure-carbs only or with direct fuel-injection as well?

F6F Speeds

I should have addressed this earlier, but looking at that speed figure, 400 mph seems completely plausible if no wing-pylon was installed (not sure how common this was at the time of the test).

Not bad.
 
At the risk of sounding stupid: Does this apply with carburetor/pressure-carbs only or with direct fuel-injection as well?
"The stupidest question is the unasked question." (I forget whose quote that is.)
It's basic internal combustion facts. Regardless of the induction system, the best theoretical power output comes at a mixture that generates more heat than most engines cooling systems can dissipate and is on the ragged edge of detonation. So high power settings require a richer mixture than the ideal, or "stochiometric" best power mixture, the extra fuel serving to cool the engine and create a safety margin between operation and detonation. That's Fuel Mixture 101 from the perspective of us peons who only fix them and fly them.
To get the real skinny, you should consult Cullum (Snowygrouch, as he's known here on the forum) for the engineer/designer perspective. Wait..he'll probably see this, jump on here, and set the record straight.
 
This is a bit messy so I`m not 100% sure whats being asked - however I think it would be instructive if I shared whats called a "mixture response curve"

This was developed for aero engines in the late 1930`s, and was at least published first by German engineers (this is not necessarily proof of others ignorance on it).

The mixture response curve was the fuel chemists creation after they started realising how worthless the Octane number was once you get down to very detailed development, because the Octane number (pre about 1942) was done at ONE air/fuel ratio, ONE engine speed, ONE air temperature ONE ignition advance. It didnt take long before engineers realised that if you vary those parameters, the detonation limit (analogous to the Octane number) jumped around all over the place, and in certain circumstances some engines made LESS power on fuels with higher octane fuels (once you get down to looking at differences of jus a few points).

So they decided to measure knock resistance across the full range of air/fuel ratios and make a graph (a more primative version of this is what the Allies essentially did when the 100/130 PN grade fuel specifications were jointly agreed between the UK and USA, which measured octane at TWO air/fuel mixtures not ONE, hence 100 Octane lean/130 PN at rich, its essentially the same fuel as 100 Octane from 1940, just measured with greater diligence).

Germans being Germans decied that a couple of points were no good, they wanted a complete curve, so they measured it at perhaps six or more points.

An example is below, in short you can make a LOT more power at rich mixtures for two reasons, firstly the cylinder may be kept cool by the extra fuel (a lot more than
can actually be burned, potentially) which raises the knock limit so you can increase boost, and secondly you can obviously burn more fuel because there are more
fuel carbon and hydrogen molecules floating about inside the cylinder to combine with oxygen.

Of course, if you have an air cooled engine it may be advantagous to run at a rich mixture a lot of the time to help keep temperatures down, which is a reliabilty factor,
but this doesnt mean that you CANT make a lot more power at rich mixtures if you are able to do so.

 
F6F Speeds

I should have addressed this earlier, but looking at that speed figure, 400 mph seems completely plausible if no wing-pylon was installed (not sure how common this was at the time of the test).
By the fall of 1944 wing pylons and fuselage bomb/drop tank attachment points were a very familiar sight on fleet Hellcats (both F6F-3 and -5 models). Rocket launching hard points were common as well. Much of this had to do with the aircraft being increasingly tasked with the fighter-bomber role.

Maximum level COMBAT speed of the F6F-5 has been quoted in USN ACPs to be 378 mph at 18,000 ft with wing pylons/fuselage bomb attachment points and 389 mph in clean condition. From what I can figure, dual wing pylons lowered maximum speed by 5 mph, while fuselage bomb attachment points reduced this further by another 6 mph.

So yes, 400 mph was certainly possible with a factory-fresh F6F-5 in clean condition but due to operational needs this wasn't a normal configuration for Hellcats by this period of the war.

It's interesting to note that an F4U-1D with two uncapped wing pylons and fuselage drop tank rack had a maximum COMBAT speed roughly equal to the F6F-5 in a 'clean' configuration.
 
Last edited:

Users who are viewing this thread