Quote:
Originally Posted by horseback
I can't find much mention whether the engine was a plain vanilla -8 or -10, or a -8W or -10W, which indicates water injection, but it was not always noted back then. That still leaves the questionable performance of the F6F-5, which should do at least 330 mph at that altitude, or about 15-20 kph more than I could get in seven test runs.
|
Most test documents state the engine the plane was equipped, if not usually it can be deduced from loadout given, there is some amount (16gallons?) of anti-detonant mentioned when water injection was used.
The document above states: "Rudder trim effectiveness was not sufficient to trim in the high power climb." If I get this correctly it means though FULL rudder trim was applied in a high power climb the plane still deviated from flying straight. So at least early F6F-3s were trim hogs in rudder when climbing with full power - and I doubt that later model F6F behaved much different - even if a larger trim tab or different rudder were added, changing from clevel flight to climb would still require lots of trim change in rudder.
Water injection does "move" the power curve towards more power AND towards lower alt. So while the F6F-3 will be faster with first stage of the charger at 5kft (FTH~1000m), the F6F-5 will be faster when water injection is engaged in the second stage at that alt.
Same for the Corsairs: F4U-1 in first stage and F4U-1A in second stage when using WI above~1000m.
Water injection will work and will use water/methanol mix in first stage though, BUT will not have much of an effect.
Just compare the two power curves of the F6F-3(without WI) and and the F6F-5 in IL2compare. (Or F4U-1//F4U-1a)