What do you think?

Discussion in 'Aviation' started by F4D, Sep 22, 2005.

  1. F4D

    F4D New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2005
    Messages:
    20
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    1
    Occupation:
    Retired
    Location:
    Texas
    I was reading "U.S. Navy Fighters of WWII" by Barrett Tillman and Robert L. Lawson and found this interesting.

    They quote a Grumman test pilot named Corwin "Corky" Meyer with the following comment on the conventional wisdom on the F4U and F6F speed specifications.
    " The bent-wing had a different pitot system then we did, and it gave different readings. But I can tell you that flying side by side, the F6 not only had as good a Vmax as the Corsair, it accelerated as well,too."

    Then the book says that Grumman found that the F4U's only advantage was 15 to 20 knots faster in "main blower stage" below 5,000 ft.
    Otherwise, performance was nearly identical.

    So... what do you think?
     
  2. GregP

    GregP Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2003
    Messages:
    5,906
    Likes Received:
    853
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    Electrical Engineer, Aircraft Restoration
    Location:
    Rancho Cucamonga, California, U.S.A.
    I agree.

    Same engine, same propeller, about the same form drag = same performance.

    By the way, the F6F didn't use ram air in the "Main" stage to reduce the chance of carburetor icing when returning form a mission. In service, the F6F had a VERY low instance of carb icing. Not so, the F4U. Ram air caused a drop in carb air temp, and it helped ice form even at 75°F+.
     
  3. F4D

    F4D New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2005
    Messages:
    20
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    1
    Occupation:
    Retired
    Location:
    Texas
    I did not know that! Of course you can fill volumes with things I don't know. Thanks!

    :)
     
Loading...

Share This Page