What is the climb rate of an F2G Corsair?
- Thread starter pinsog
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Shortround6
Major General
"Official specifications" call for 4400fpm with 4 guns and 1200 rounds of ammo using 3000hp from the engine. However the specifications are dated Dec 1st 1944 and the first production F2G didn't fly until July of 1945. There were two converted F1G Corsairs serving as prototypes however.
http://www.alternatewars.com/SAC/F2G-2_Super_Corsair_ACP_-_1_December_1944_(Tommy).pdf
http://www.alternatewars.com/SAC/F2G-2_Super_Corsair_ACP_-_1_December_1944_(Tommy).pdf
mikewint
Captain
Performance
- Maximum speed: 431 mph (374 knots, 694 km/h) at 16,400 ft (5,000 m)
- Range: 1,955 mi (1,699 nm, 3,146 km) with external tanks
- Service ceiling: 38,800 ft (11,800 m)
- Rate of climb: 4,400 ft/min (22.35 m/s)
- Wing loading: 42.5 lb/ft² (208.75 kg/m²)
- Power/mass: 0.22 hp/lb (370 W/kg)
- Thread starter
- #4
I saw the 4,400 figure quoted several places. Does the hp, wing design, weight of the airplane and climb rate all seem to match up? I thought 4,400 fpm seemed a little low in view of the power installed and 7,000 seemed quite high.
In fact, the F4U-4 shows a max climb at sea level of 4'360 fpm at 12,400 pounds. That makes me wonder if 4,400 fpm is low for the F2G?
EDIT: Just looked at your link Shortround, I guess 4,400 is an official figure. Interesting. I would think they would expect more out of an R4360
In fact, the F4U-4 shows a max climb at sea level of 4'360 fpm at 12,400 pounds. That makes me wonder if 4,400 fpm is low for the F2G?
EDIT: Just looked at your link Shortround, I guess 4,400 is an official figure. Interesting. I would think they would expect more out of an R4360
Shortround6
Major General
The F2G was 13,346lbs with 4 guns. Engine was good for 3000hp
The F4U-4 using 2100hp and weighing 12,500lbs was good for 3720fpm.
the climb rate of the F4U-4 while using water injection was 4360fpm at 12,400lbs. using about 2380hp.
The F2G wasn't equipped/rated for using water injection in the specification sheets.
Now was the prop on the F2G really capable of handling all the power?
The F4U-4 using 2100hp and weighing 12,500lbs was good for 3720fpm.
the climb rate of the F4U-4 while using water injection was 4360fpm at 12,400lbs. using about 2380hp.
The F2G wasn't equipped/rated for using water injection in the specification sheets.
Now was the prop on the F2G really capable of handling all the power?
Elvis
Chief Master Sergeant
In case anyone's curious, 4400 fpm = 50 mph.
So next time you're out in your car and you're doing 50, now you have something to relate it to.
So next time you're out in your car and you're doing 50, now you have something to relate it to.
GregP
Major
The guys at the Planes of Fame who have flown real Super Corsairs say it climbs a LOT better than that. Of course, NONE of them flying are sporting full military equipment, but even the old guys who come in say it's better than 4,400 fpm. I don't have a single figure, but absolutely believe it is better than the standard 4,400 fpm numbers I see online. I'd believe 4,400 at maybe military power and full weight, with all equipment aboard, but not at the entire 3,000 HP and normal fighter weight it launched at when it flew the few in-service flights that it flew.
Also, since they only built 10, there isn't much use in fighting about a climb rate for plane that was basically a small run of prototypes. I can say this; it didn't lack for climb rate capability down under 20,000 feet! 5,000+ fpm would not surprise me at all.
Last, these days, there is no such thing as a bone stock R-4360. The 4360s flying today are pretty much all running whatever parts they can find or adapt. Many have PMA'd parts in them. Pretty much all are capable of 3,000 HP. Many can make 4,000 HP and some can make 4,400 Hp with some funny gas that turns the exhaust dirty brown at Reno. When they land, a truck that says "N2O" on the side pulls up and pumps stuff into the plane.
Probably the most stock 4360s running are on the Martin Mars Fire Bomber flying boat, and THEY can make the full 3,000 HP when called upon to do so. Most of the time, they are running at best economy power. When the engines are yours, or YOU are paying for them, you treat them well!
The entire point of the above is to support this statement: If we don't have a definitive flight report on the F2G at this time, we never will, especially since the few remaining are NOT in stock military condition and are not very likely to ever be turned loose to generate one for public dissemination.
We are having our annual airshow this weekend, and Steve Hinton flew an aerobatic shown in the Friedkin F4U-4 that showed a fantastic vertical climb. He was on a straight up vertical line for at LEAST 8 - 10 seconds after achieving the vertical line and went as high as I've ever seen a basically stock WWII fighter go in an airshow vertically, and still had a crisp roll rate at the end. I heard more than one warbird pilot say they'd like to see a Super Corsair do it since the climb would continue for some distance.
So, I consider the 4,400 fpm climb rate as "conservative." I can say the same for the sometimes quoted 4,400 fpm climb rate for the Bearcat! They'll ALL do better than that if pushed to do it, and they are ALL lighter than a Corsair of ANY variety.
Also, since they only built 10, there isn't much use in fighting about a climb rate for plane that was basically a small run of prototypes. I can say this; it didn't lack for climb rate capability down under 20,000 feet! 5,000+ fpm would not surprise me at all.
Last, these days, there is no such thing as a bone stock R-4360. The 4360s flying today are pretty much all running whatever parts they can find or adapt. Many have PMA'd parts in them. Pretty much all are capable of 3,000 HP. Many can make 4,000 HP and some can make 4,400 Hp with some funny gas that turns the exhaust dirty brown at Reno. When they land, a truck that says "N2O" on the side pulls up and pumps stuff into the plane.
Probably the most stock 4360s running are on the Martin Mars Fire Bomber flying boat, and THEY can make the full 3,000 HP when called upon to do so. Most of the time, they are running at best economy power. When the engines are yours, or YOU are paying for them, you treat them well!
The entire point of the above is to support this statement: If we don't have a definitive flight report on the F2G at this time, we never will, especially since the few remaining are NOT in stock military condition and are not very likely to ever be turned loose to generate one for public dissemination.
We are having our annual airshow this weekend, and Steve Hinton flew an aerobatic shown in the Friedkin F4U-4 that showed a fantastic vertical climb. He was on a straight up vertical line for at LEAST 8 - 10 seconds after achieving the vertical line and went as high as I've ever seen a basically stock WWII fighter go in an airshow vertically, and still had a crisp roll rate at the end. I heard more than one warbird pilot say they'd like to see a Super Corsair do it since the climb would continue for some distance.
So, I consider the 4,400 fpm climb rate as "conservative." I can say the same for the sometimes quoted 4,400 fpm climb rate for the Bearcat! They'll ALL do better than that if pushed to do it, and they are ALL lighter than a Corsair of ANY variety.
Last edited:
- Thread starter
- #8
Very nice Greg. Last Thursday there were 2 P51 Mustangs orbiting just north of the airfield here, I am also just north of the airfield and they were a couple of miles away, and the bright red F2G Corsair took off, I think it's called 'Race 57', painted like a rising sun. They formed up north of town and then came down low, V formation, Corsair in the lead and a Mustang close aboard on each wing, went right down to the airport and pulled up into a steep climb. Then 1 Mustang and the Corsair did a few steep climbs etc over the airfield. My wife knows the owner, if I ever get to meet him i will ask him his thoughts on the difference between his 2 P51's, his Spitfire IX and his F2G Corsair in climb, handling etc
- Thread starter
- #10
Elvis
Chief Master Sergeant
Wasn't the F8F rated at 5000 ft./min.?
GregP
Major
Well, a stock F8F on 22 Nov 1946, at the air races in Washington D.C., went from a standstill to 10,000 AGL in 94 seconds for an average climb rate to 10,000 feet of 6,383 fpm! The Pilot was Lt. Cmdr. Bill Leonard, and his son (RLeonard)is a member of one of these forums. It's in the official record books and was an F8F-1 running a standard service R-2800 plus water injection!
Of course, he was very probably NOT at fighter weight and had a stiff wind (about 40-knots!) straight down the runway, too. But once airborne and at climb speed, the wind ceases to be a factor. I'd say it was "sprightly," and likely a bucket of fun!
Of course, he was very probably NOT at fighter weight and had a stiff wind (about 40-knots!) straight down the runway, too. But once airborne and at climb speed, the wind ceases to be a factor. I'd say it was "sprightly," and likely a bucket of fun!
Elvis
Chief Master Sergeant
No Boolits, No Guns, No "life saving" equipment (exception to parachute?) and likely just enough fool to accomplish the feat and get back to home, sweet earth safely.
...but yeah, that must've been quite a rush. Almost straight up at 72.5+ mph!
Elvis
...but yeah, that must've been quite a rush. Almost straight up at 72.5+ mph!
Elvis
Shortround6
Major General
There are several threads on this record setting flight. It was actually done by two planes and they had practiced several times in the few weeks or days leading up to the record flight. The pilot's log book is in possession of the fprum member RLeonard Greg referred to. I believe the planes had guns,. The 30-40kt head wind was significant however.
See: Was the Bearcat as good as the Late War Japanese fighters?
Post #16 Guns present, no ammo, 1/2 fuel. however the engine controls were modified to allow full emergency power with the landing gear down.
Please note that the F8F-1 Bearcat was listed as having 2750hp available as WER power at sea level. This may or may not be a misprint? Same source says 2450hp WER at 9600ft in high gear.
See: http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/F8F/F8F-1_Standard_Aircraft_Characteristics.pdf
Please note the 5610fpm climb at sea level
See: Was the Bearcat as good as the Late War Japanese fighters?
Post #16 Guns present, no ammo, 1/2 fuel. however the engine controls were modified to allow full emergency power with the landing gear down.
Please note that the F8F-1 Bearcat was listed as having 2750hp available as WER power at sea level. This may or may not be a misprint? Same source says 2450hp WER at 9600ft in high gear.
See: http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/F8F/F8F-1_Standard_Aircraft_Characteristics.pdf
Please note the 5610fpm climb at sea level
Elvis
Chief Master Sergeant
Hey, I was mostly right...and I guessed! =D
The F8F was definitely an amazing airplane. Too bad it came so late in the war.
...anyway, getting back on subject, I guess we're all in agreement that the F2G had a climb rate of at least 4400 fpm?
Elvis
The F8F was definitely an amazing airplane. Too bad it came so late in the war.
...anyway, getting back on subject, I guess we're all in agreement that the F2G had a climb rate of at least 4400 fpm?
Elvis
wuzak
Captain
It may have more power, but it also had around 1,000lb more weight (empty) or roughly 10%.
wuzak
Captain
The 4400ft/min would be the maximum climb rate at a certain altitude under for the configuration of the aircraft, based on a certain amount of fuel, ammunition and other equipment.
The rate of climb would increase if the aircraft was lighter in weight.
I am not sure about the USN, but many of the reports I have seen on British aircraft seem to rate climb, speed, etc, at 95% of MTOW, or corrected back to that figure by calculation.
Elvis
Chief Master Sergeant
"I am not sure about the USN, but many of the reports I have seen on British aircraft seem to rate climb, speed, etc, at 95% of MTOW, or corrected back to that figure by calculation."
Now that makes sense.
Make "Official stats" for MTOW (or almost), that way, you could say that the aircraft will climb at least that fast.
Thus, chances are, in actual combat (assuming everything is operating at "normal efficiency") the climb rate was probably a bit faster.
Elvis
Now that makes sense.
Make "Official stats" for MTOW (or almost), that way, you could say that the aircraft will climb at least that fast.
Thus, chances are, in actual combat (assuming everything is operating at "normal efficiency") the climb rate was probably a bit faster.
Elvis
GregP
Major
I've never seen a flight test report at 95% rated power, myself. Every report I've seen is at Military, WER dry, or WER wet power. The British usually report pounds of boost gauge and the U.S.A. uses inches of Mercury absolute.
But some may be reported at a lower power. The ones I have seen were listed as cruise-climb.
Would be interested to read the ones you are referencing above. Maybe I've seen it and just have not noticed the 95% correction part. Can't say.
But some may be reported at a lower power. The ones I have seen were listed as cruise-climb.
Would be interested to read the ones you are referencing above. Maybe I've seen it and just have not noticed the 95% correction part. Can't say.
Elvis
Chief Master Sergeant
Greg,
MTOW, not rated power.
Elvis
MTOW, not rated power.
Elvis
