Hey TD can you look again at the Corsair..

[majorfailure]

Originally Posted by Furio

A similar test was made during WWII, flying side by side a Corsair and a Hellcat.
According to Corky Meyer, who was Grumman test pilot in WWII and participated in the test, they showed identical performances. The slower F6F wasn’t slower at all, but have a badly placed static port, that caused lower airspeed readings.

The whole story can be read in the book “Corky Meyer’s Flight Journal”, written by Meyer himself and published by Specialty Press.

A F6F-5 vs. an earlier model F4U would be very close according to
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f6f/f6f.html
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f4u/f4u.html

[Furio]

Originally Posted by majorfailure

A F6F-5 vs. an earlier model F4U would be very close according to
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f6f/f6f.html
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f4u/f4u.html

If Corky Meyer’s memory is to be trusted, Grumman tested an F4U and Vought an F6F in the autumn of 1943, apparently later than the Boscombe Down’s report. The Hellcat’s ASI indicated 18 mph less than Corsair’s one, a difference that disappeared after relocation of static ports.

Flying side-by-side, the two fighters showed identical performances at all altitudes, with just a slight advantage for the Corsair on main blower, because of some ram air effect from the forward facing air duct in Corsair’s wing roots.

And the difference, or lack of, didn’t stop there. NACA developed spring tab assisted ailerons for the Hellcat, much improving rolling performance while reducing stick forces. With these ailerons, “Hellcat finally approached Corsair’s rolling performances”, as Meyer wrote. They were standard for the F6F-5, and were retrofitted to over 3,000 early models F6F-3. Indirectly this confirms the excellence of Corsair’s roll.

Conclusion: a side-by-side test of Il2’s Corsair and Hellcat should be very interesting, and for both types.

[Black_Sage29]

Originally Posted by Bearcat

I wouldn't expect it to accelerate like a car... Maybe I am doing something wrong but even with using throttle and pitch it is difficult for me to get any real speed out of the AC and it seems to overheat unless I keep the throttle below 80% or so .. Maybe it is me but a revisit wouldn't hurt by TD even if it was just to spend some time flying it just as a sim pilot to see if theynseenwhat I see.

Maximize power to 110% with water injection and 100% prop pitch. After flying in level flight for about 1 to 2 minutes it will accelerate to around 260-270mph

I usually only use water injection in level flight just to make it accelerate faster to top speed.

I wish TD would speed up the acceleration a bit though because corsair has the same engine as P-47 and P-47 is heavier and accelerates faster

If nothing else TD could you increase the acceleration of the corsair a bit..at least to match the p-47's if not more

[IceFire]

Originally Posted by Black_Sage29

Maximize power to 110% with water injection and 100% prop pitch. After flying in level flight for about 1 to 2 minutes it will accelerate to around 260-270mph

I usually only use water injection in level flight just to make it accelerate faster to top speed.

I wish TD would speed up the acceleration a bit though because corsair has the same engine as P-47 and P-47 is heavier and accelerates faster

If nothing else TD could you increase the acceleration of the corsair a bit..at least to match the p-47's if not more

Are you sure the P-40 accelerates faster? Get out a stop watch, hold altitude, and see what numbers each hits as they fly along.

[Luno13]

...and as for the Seafire...well, the RN lost many, many times more Seafires to landing accidents than to enemy action. Some of us would take that data as a clue that the Corsair was quite a bit more tractable than those aircraft, particularly at slower speeds (what? compared to the legendary Spitfire--which is what the wartime Seafire models were, with some modifications for hooks and so on). One should expect that the Corsair was overall, a more forgiving and less demanding aircraft than the Spitfire in most if not all regimes.

The Seafire? I've hardly landed one intact. Landing the Corsair is cake in comparison. They had similar vices though - long nose, tricky handling at low speeds. Even then, Corsairs have crashed even on Terra-firma due to that sudden stall they're notorious for. They handle as I would expect them too. I thought the P-38s were well-modeled, so that's the first time I've heard about them being slow, and they climb like rockets.

I do agree about the Japanese aircraft though, as well as the Me-109 and P-40.

[Bearcat]

The P-40s are a dream to fight in.. it just isn't a speed demon.. My gunnery in a P-40 is so much better than in a P-51. It's a much more stable platform.

[Black_Sage29]

Originally Posted by IceFire

Are you sure the P-40 accelerates faster? Get out a stop watch, hold altitude, and see what numbers each hits as they fly along.

I fly mostly American planes and I feel the difference. P-47 accelerates faster than corsair. You can test it out yourself if you want

Nice Bearcat, I like fighting in the P-51 more. It's just so damn fast

[Bearcat]

Yeah me too.. but the P-40 is a better gun platform.. it is more stable.. I get less wobblies in the P-40 than the P-51 hece the better gunnery. I am working on trying to tune up my stick settings..

[Snake]

After tuning your stick settings please share with us! I also have MSFFB joystick and I'm still looking for the best settings for it!

[IceFire]

Originally Posted by Black_Sage29

I fly mostly American planes and I feel the difference. P-47 accelerates faster than corsair. You can test it out yourself if you want

Nice Bearcat, I like fighting in the P-51 more. It's just so damn fast

Well you made the assertion so I figured you were volunteering to test