Hey TD can you look again at the Corsair..

[Jumoschwanz]

I am sure this conversation would not have happened in WWII. The pilots flying the Corsair in Combat would be trained to work together and stay fast and fly smart.

When they screwed up and ended up below Jap fighters then they got shot down like Pappy Boyington and others.

The gamers fly around in the last version of the P47, which is a powerhouse and did have more power than the Corsair in real life, then they fly the late Corsair and cry about it. I am sure that no pilot in WWII ever wanted to do anything to a Jap fighter except to hit it with superior energy and then get away, from the early flying tigers to the end of the war.

So set yourself up in you QMB in any corsair with several thousand feet advantage and see how it goes for you then. If you get into a situation where you are low and slow enough that a zero shoots you up while you are in a dive then you deserve it.

[horseback]

Originally Posted by Jumoschwanz

I am sure this conversation would not have happened in WWII. The pilots flying the Corsair in Combat would be trained to work together and stay fast and fly smart.

When they screwed up and ended up below Jap fighters then they got shot down like Pappy Boyington and others.

The gamers fly around in the last version of the P47, which is a powerhouse and did have more power than the Corsair in real life, then they fly the late Corsair and cry about it. I am sure that no pilot in WWII ever wanted to do anything to a Jap fighter except to hit it with superior energy and then get away, from the early flying tigers to the end of the war.

So set yourself up in you QMB in any corsair with several thousand feet advantage and see how it goes for you then. If you get into a situation where you are low and slow enough that a zero shoots you up while you are in a dive then you deserve it.

I'm pretty sure that Bearcat is not guilty of the sort of naivete you are talking about; the fact is that the Corsair is awfully sluggish and seems to bleed speed very easily, even compared to early-to-midwar models of the P-47, which from comparison reports from wartime pilots who 'bounced' each other as part of their Stateside training/interservice rivalry, just doesn't make sense even if one believes (as I do) that WWII Naval Aviators were better trained and prepared than USAAF pilots of the same period.

The clear consensus was that the Corsair held practically all the cards over the Thunderbolt at altitudes below about 20k ft; quicker (which means acceleration), better climbing and more maneuverable, even after the paddleblades were added to the Thunderbolts. The only real-life advantage the Jug had below 20k was apparently dive acceleration, and as we all know, only a cartoon anvil could dive faster than a Thunderbolt (and cartoon anvils have cr@p zoom climb).

In game, the only obvious advantage the Corsair has over the P-47 is that the cockpit looks better at any altitude, and that just doesn't make sense., since everyone knows that the Army has always been superior to the Navy and Marines when it comes to things like interior design.

cheers

horseback

[JtD]

At WEP, what time does it take an F4U-1A to accelerate from 275 to 550 km/h TAS at 10k feet in game? How long does it take a P-47D22? Both standard loadout, 100% fuel. Just curious, if there's any substance to the claims.

[IceFire]

Originally Posted by JtD

At WEP, what time does it take an F4U-1A to accelerate from 275 to 550 km/h TAS at 10k feet in game? How long does it take a P-47D22? Both standard loadout, 100% fuel. Just curious, if there's any substance to the claims.

A few have said they feel a big difference but haven't actually tested. I'm probably just going to do the test to satisfy my own curiosity...

[JtD]

I find this to be a good chart, as far as F4U and P-47 comparison are concerned.

[horseback]

I ran a comparison of both the P-47D razorback and the F4U-1A Corsair at 10,000 ft attempting to measure acceleration from 270/280 kph indicated to top speed reached in a reasonable time. Neither aircraft likes to go under 320 or so kph; trimming for level flight requires a couple of extra hands, and once you manage a couple of consecutive seconds at that height/speed, slamming the throttle and prop pitch forward usually results in a two or three hundred foot climb in a couple of seconds, which can effectively halve your speed increase (which I doubt is the RL response of these birds). You have to shove the stick forward at the same time you throttle up and then desperately try to catch up on the trim while fighting your stick and pedals. The Corsair does this much better than the P-47D-10 or D-22, but even it is a lot of work to keep trimmed. Ultimately I just counted the best three runs because at least half of the runs ended up 10 to 15 degrees in another direction or varied by 500 ft of altitude or more, both of which I thought should be disqualifiers (and those runs usually had much higher or lower times at different stages).

I made a total of six runs per aircraft, at first just trying to time with a stopwatch, which was a total waste of time. I finally just recorded the runs over the Crimea map, and then paused and noted the times when the aircraft reached a predetermined indicated airspeed: from 270/280 to 350, from 350 to 400, from 400 to 450, 450 to 470, then at every 10kph of increase thereafter. I also noted the point after start at which the engine overheated; generally, this was pretty consistent, as I made a point of running back to the starting point with the cowl flaps open and prop pitch at 80% or less so the engine would be completely cooled before beginning the next run.

Overall, the Corsair accelerates quite a bit faster than the P-47D at this altitude, but part of the advantage lies in the fact that the P-47 tries to go straight up the moment you increase the power (and at 280 kph indicated, we're talking about 40-45% throttle and a bit of a high AOA); I was simply unable to get it to fly straight and level initially, and usually was 3-400 ft higher than where I started by the time I could (sort of) level off. Elevator trim especially has to be applied in microunits for both aircraft, but to me, the Corsair is more tractable and predictable, and after the first series of runs, I could keep it almost on the straight and narrow.

At 10,000 ft the Corsair at stage 2 supercharger, slamming the throttle forward from 40% to 110% and prop pitch from 80 to 100% goes from 270 kph to 350 indicated on average around 12 to 14 seconds (remember, this is the wrestling stage).

From 350 to 400 kph takes a consistent 14 seconds.

From 400 to 450 takes between 23 and 28 seconds.

From 450 to 470 took an average of 18 seconds (there was one 12 second run, but I couldn't duplicate it)

From 470 to 480, around 14-17 seconds.

From 480 to 490, around 11 seconds.

From 490 to 500, around 15 seconds.

Overheat started about the same time the speed reached 470 kph or a bit after, or at 1:25 into the run.

Under the same general conditions (excepting the automatic turbo supercharger setting), the P-47D-22 goes from 280 (I just couldn't get it to fly straight at 270 indicated; it just wallows like a pig) to 350 kph indicated in 19-22 seconds.

From 350 to 400 takes about 18 to 22 seconds.

From 400 to 450 takes between 30 and 33 seconds.

From 450 to 470 takes about 9 to 12 seconds.

From 470 to 480 takes about 40 to 42 seconds.

After this point, the aircraft seemed to reach its limit; I downshifted to about 90% prop pitch to get more speed, and ultimately was able to reach 490 only two out of three of my last attempts.

Time to 480 to 490 kph was between 22 and 26 seconds.

The Jug consistently overheated at near the same time as 450 kph indicated, or between 1:09 and 1:16.

Now I'll have to try the same measurements at around 18000 ft and then do it all over again with the A6M3/5, the Oscar and the FW 190A-5.

cheers

horseback

[IceFire]

Bang on horseback. Thank you for doing the hard testing.

So it seems that despite some feelings floating around, the Corsair is faster to accelerate. At least at this altitude. And not just by a second or two which is the most fascinating part.

If I get some time tomorrow I might replicate the test at another altitude. Not sure if 1,000 feet or 20,000 feet would be more valuable.

[JtD]

Thanks from me as well.

I did expect the F4U to clearly be better at that altitude, but the margin still is a surprise. 10k is the sweet spot for the F4U. I'd expect a different story at 18k, though.

[horseback]

Okay, just did the A6M5 Zero and FW 190A-5 1.65 ata at 10,000 ft, and the results are to me, at least-shocking. More shocking than the fact that there was gambling going on at Rick's Cafe' American. Bear in mind that I have rarely flown any of these Pacific theater aircraft in campaigns, and I haven't been in a 190A model for a good year or so, so I probably didn't get the best out of any of them. I think that I flew them all equally badly, but your results may differ.

The Zero in Il-2 is painfully slow; there is no way to put it diplomatically. Top speed (with WEP) is 410kph indicated at 10,000 ft, and it takes a while to get there. I found myself marking times from 275 to 300, 300 to 350, and then after 370, to every 10 kph. It takes longer to reach every speed than any of the other aircraft tested so far, which doesn't seem right, even at just 250 meters below the altitude for switching to the next supercharger stage.

Same conditions. 10,000 ft, Crimea map over the ocean heading due west. Start speed 270-280 kph indicated, in trim at starting speed, throttle to 110%, Prop Pitch to 100%, WEP. Trimming is somewhat easier than the Corsair, but it does take a while to catch up; altitude varied as much as 500m, centered on 3050m. Course was much easier to maintain; that varied no more than 4 degrees. After the P-47, the A6M5 seemed positively docile.

From 275 to 300 kph indicated, it took 8 seconds.

From 300 to 350 kph, it took another 17 seconds, or 25 seconds to go from 275 to 350. The Corsair took 13 seconds.

From 350 to 370, it took an average of 8 seconds.

From 370 to 380, it took 6 seconds.

From 380 to 390, it took another 10 seconds.

From 390 to 400, it averaged 10 seconds.

From 400 to 410, it averaged 26 seconds.

From start to top speed(!) of 410 kph indicated, the A6M5 took 1:25. Overheat consistently occurred at 1:00.

I don't have a time for the Corsair to 410 IAS, but at 400 kph indicated, it is 31 seconds ahead of the Zero-sen Model 52, or 50 kph faster at the same point in time.

SHOCKING.

The FW 190A-5 was also a bit of a shock; by far the most easily trimmed and controlled at all speeds, it still would tend to rather suddenly nose down or nose up when a certain speed was reached if I wasn't alert. It is also a bit sluggish compared to the US birds, although quicker than the Zero. Again, trimmed at 270-280 kph, 3050m, Crimea over the sea, due west, full throttle and WEP applied almost simultaneously.

Start to 300 took 6 seconds.

300 to 350 took 17 seconds (same as Zero, but with a 2 second lead).

350 to 370 took 8 seconds.

370 to 380 took 4 seconds.

380 to 390 took 4 seconds.

390 to 400 took 6 seconds. that is 45 seconds from start to 400 kph indicated. By comparison, the F4U-1A took 28 seconds and the P-47 took 41 seconds!

From 400 to 450, the FW 190A-5 (with 1.65ata) takes 38 seconds.

From 450 to 470, another 16 seconds.

From 470 to 480, another 13 seconds.

From 480 to 490, which was the top speed achieved, it took another 46 seconds. From start to top speed, the FW 190A-5 (1.65ata) takes 2:38, and overheated like clockwork at 2:14. The Corsair reaches that speed a full one minute earlier, and achieves another 10 kph indicated. The P-47D-22 gets there at 2:27.

As a local 'crusading' television journalist likes to say, that ain't right. At least, it doesn't seem right to me.

I'm so confused. Somebody please show me I'm wrong!

cheers

horseback

[IceFire]

Again horseback... you have my thanks for doing the testing and getting some hard numbers. Had zero time to test but I'd like to try and replicate some of what you've done just to add to the data points... hopefully in for a quieter week (ha!). But lets get to the bottom line here... the Zero is painfully slow to accelerate? Right? The Corsair is king of the castle here. And yet people feel quite the opposite about it. This is why testable numbers get really interesting.

You know, something we can do here is get a couple of people to line up their aircraft and use a dogfight or COOP mission to test and see. If someone wants to host, I'd join in.