Most valuable Carrier Fighter Of WWII

[CORSNING]

Standard Aircraft Characteristics Arcive

 

[michael rauls]

After looking over the data presented at wwiiaircraftperformance.org I could definitely see the initial climb advantage the FM-2 possessed over the other two naval fighters. From all the aircraft testing performed, both the F6F and F4U-1 averaged right around 2,900 fpm at S/L when in military power while the FM-2 averaged over 3,500 fpm in similar settings (although the FM-2 does have a much smaller grouping of data to pick from than the other two airplanes). When flown at combat power the F6F and F4U-1 gained approximately 300 and 400 fpm respectively from the boost in horsepower but they still lagged behind the sprightly FM-2 in either power setting (one test of the FM-2 showed 3670 fpm in combat power). Quite impressive indeed.

FM-2 Performance Trials
F4U Performance Trials
F6F Performance Trials

That is impressive. Especially for a type that so often gets characterized as slow and clumsy in so many books and internet articles.
Have always really liked the F4f/Fm2 as it seemed like the underdog that still managed to come out on top but now have a new respect for what it could do performance wise.
The fact that a Fm2 in the later dark blue finish is one of the most beautiful sites to ever grace the human eye( in my opinion) doesn't hurt its case either.

 

[CORSNING]

FM-2 Performance Trials

In TED No. BIS 2127 page 14, FM-2 No. 15953 boasted an initial
climb rate of 3,730 fpm at 7,282 lb.

In TED No. PTR 0416 which was a report on WATER INJECTION
test on FM-2 No.16169 gave initial climb of 3,670 fpm at 7,418 lb.

The information I would use for comparison purposes would come
from BUREAU OF AERONAUTICS, NAVY DEPT. NAVAER - 1335 D
dated 9/1/44. In this document is given a much more standardize
initial climb of 3,650 fpm at 7,487 lb. These figures are from the
main graphs and charts in the report. There is also a section in
that report that states the clean initial climb of the aircraft is
3,660 fpm. at 7,473 lb.

 

[Shortround6]

This is very impressive but the initial climb rate soon (very soon) drops off, down to about 3200fpm at 4,000ft and 3100fpm at 5,000ft. At which point the supercharger is shifted into high gear and things stay somewhat stable to 8,000ft at which point the supercharger hits it's FTL for this level of boost and climb delines at a steady rate. about 2850fpm at 10,000ft and 2600fpm at 12,000ft.

 

[CORSNING]

Shortround is right on. The climb rate fell off rapidly.
The critical altitude for high supercharger on climb
was 8,600 ft. at which altitude the FM-2 was climbing
at 2,955 fpm. This reflected greatly the Navy's stance
on supercharger gearing. Check out the F8F's climb
rate. It very much followed suit.

 

[michael rauls]

This is very impressive but the initial climb rate soon (very soon) drops off, down to about 3200fpm at 4,000ft and 3100fpm at 5,000ft. At which point the supercharger is shifted into high gear and things stay somewhat stable to 8,000ft at which point the supercharger hits it's FTL for this level of boost and climb delines at a steady rate. about 2850fpm at 10,000ft and 2600fpm at 12,000ft.

Good information but 2850 fpm at 10,000 still seems pretty impressive for a type not generally given alot of credit for its climb and acceleration performance to say the least especially when you consider its in the ballpark of climb rates of types generally considered to have impressive climb and acceleration like the p51(3200 fpm i think?) and the A6m at 3100 and that doesn't even account for how those climb rates may have deteriorated with altitude( not sure of the numbers on that but I'm guessing there must have been some effect of increasing altitude on those types also)

 

[CORSNING]

Just one other note I would like to add. There was nothing
in the entire US fighter inventory that could maneuver with
the FM-2 for short distances. The only possible exception
would be the Curtiss P-40N-1 with reduced weight. The
Warhawk probably had the advantage in acceleration into
the roll and sustained roll rate. Just an FYI., Jeff

 

[michael rauls]

Just one other note I would like to add. There was nothing
in the entire US fighter inventory that could maneuver with
the FM-2 for short distances. The only possible exception
would be the Curtiss P-40N-1 with reduced weight. The
Warhawk probably had the advantage in acceleration into
the roll and sustained roll rate. Just an FYI., Jeff

Wow verry enlightening and certainly alot different than the conventional wisdom on the type one generally reads.
Gives me new appreciation for a type I have always liked anyway. Thank you!

 

[DarrenW]

This is very impressive but the initial climb rate soon (very soon) drops off, down to about 3200fpm at 4,000ft and 3100fpm at 5,000ft. At which point the supercharger is shifted into high gear and things stay somewhat stable to 8,000ft at which point the supercharger hits it's FTL for this level of boost and climb delines at a steady rate. about 2850fpm at 10,000ft and 2600fpm at 12,000ft.

Good information but 2850 fpm at 10,000 still seems pretty impressive for a type not generally given alot of credit for its climb and acceleration performance to say the least especially when you consider its in the ballpark of climb rates of types generally considered to have impressive climb and acceleration like the p51(3200 fpm i think?) and the A6m at 3100 and that doesn't even account for how those climb rates may have deteriorated with altitude( not sure of the numbers on that but I'm guessing there must have been some effect of increasing altitude on those types also)

Yes, climb does drop off considerably after FTH, but because it's initial climb rate was so good it would arrive at 20Kft in the basically the same amount of time as the average F6F in military power (it would lag behind to that height if the F6F was using combat power however). Ditto for the F4U-1.

 

[DarrenW]

Standard Aircraft Characteristics Arcive

Thanks CORSNING for sharing this website with us. It has some very useful information indeed!

 

[CORSNING]

Your welcome Darren. I once was posting on the warbirds forum
all the information I could get my hands on. Shame that site closed
up this year.

 

[DarrenW]

Your welcome Darren. I once was posting on the warbirds forum
all the information I could get my hands on. Shame that site closed
up this year.

It is a shame but luckily you made a great contribution towards the hobby before that happened.

 

[CORSNING]

Thank you sir. Did I happen to mention anywhere that I
kept hard copy of it all? I am just waiting for the right
time and place to post it all again.....with many updates and
revisions of course.

 

[DarrenW]

Thank you sir. Did I happen to mention anywhere that I
kept hard copy of it all? I am just waiting for the right
time and place to post it all again.....with many updates and
revisions of course.

NICE!!!

 

[michael rauls]

Thank you sir. Did I happen to mention anywhere that I
kept hard copy of it all? I am just waiting for the right
time and place to post it all again.....with many updates and
revisions of course.

Yes thank you for not letting all of that valuable information slip away.

 

[RCAFson]

Thanks CORSNING for sharing this website with us. It has some very useful information indeed!

Be aware that the F4F-3/4 SAC data was never replicated by actual flight tests of individual aircraft. For whatever reason the USN seems to have "sexed up" the F4F data somewhat. In particular it's climb rate was considerably overstated.

BTW, the Fulmar is listed twice.

 

[CORSNING]

BTW, the Fulmar is listed twice.[/QUOTE]

Thank you RCAF. None of us were really going to mention that
fact. We all figure the Fulmar needed all the help it could get.

True Story, Jeff

 

[CORSNING]

It is a shame that warbirdsforum closed shop. I was just
starting to wind up with information on several A/C vs. A/C
comparisons. I was going to use the comparisons in the
books Duels in the Sky by Captain Eric M. Brown and
Fighter Aircraft Performance of WW2, A Comparative
Study by Erik Pilawskii for the foundation of the discussions.
I am open to all and any ideas where all the information
I have can be posted.

Thanks guys, Jeff

 

[CORSNING]

OK, down to business.

1941: Mitsubishi A6M2: If there ever was a mystique around
an aircraft, this baby had it. This year and early next goes to the ZERO.

1942: For at least the first six months the honor goes to the A6M2.
Now here is where everything gets interesting. Its performance
outclassed in almost every way, the F4F-3 holds the line. These
two great fighters have to share this year

1943: Early on the Zero in both the A6M2 and A6M3 models continue
to prove there worth. The higher loaded F4F-4 manages to still hold
the line. USN Navy pilots are sweating bullets but manage.

1943: This is the second half of the year. The F6F-3 takes all honors
at this time.

1944: We are talking carrier fighter here and we are talking about
the most valuable one. The honor passes from the F6F-3 to the
F6F-5 with its water injection system. The USN now has a 400
mph fighter.

1945: Guys, I would like to work the F4U-1D or F4U-4 in here
but the topic does not ask "The carrier fighter with the best
performance. It asks about the most valuable. The F6F-5
was still the most forgiving off the deck and kept flyers
alive. I thoroughly love the Corsair, but I am going to have
to back the Hellcat on the question asked. This is also
a numbers thing.

That is how I see this at this time, Jeff

 

[GrauGeist]

If I might also contribute an Honorable Mention to the list, partucularly for 1942:
The Douglas SBD, which, while not a fighter, helped shoulder the burden of defending the fleet from Japanese attackers, accruing 138 confirmed victories.