Hey TD can you look again at the Corsair..

[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.

[ElAurens]

Wow.

This explains why F4Fs will leave the A6M in level flight like it was tied to the ground. Also explains my preference for flying IJA aircraft in the sim over the Zeke.

[horseback]

As I said, the results from the 190 and the Zero don't make sense to me; I wonder if these aircraft flown by AI would get better numbers, because they sure seem faster when I'm flying against them in a QMB or a campaign. Maybe having Insta-Trim confers more Mojo than even I thought it does.

I'll want to try the F4F-3 and -4, the P-40E, the Ki-43 and maybe the Ki-27 (which was active over the Philippines as well as China during the early war). We might want to check the IJN/IJA fighters vs the USN/early USAAF fighters at 5000 ft as well; the early contests of 1942 often took place at lower alts. If the Japanese birds perform better there, it might start to give us a better picture.

The FW results are the ones that make least sense to me; the tests I recall reading seem to indicate that it was both quicker & faster than the Corsair and Hellcat, and initially quicker than the P-47D, if not quite as fast over all, particularly at higher alts. I would like to think that I'm either running it at its worst altitude for comparison or that I'm doing something wrong.

I'd really like to get some numbers from people who really know these birds well; maybe a track or two from the pros demonstrating three 'runs' in the QMB Crimea Map at noon starting at 3050m and 270/280 kph Indicated, properly trimmed and at the appropriate supercharger stage and mixture heading west over the sea. Just slam everything forward and do your best to keep it straight & level until it reaches top speed or has been in overheat without getting any more speed for a minute or two. Then open your radiator or cowl gills, drop your Prop pitch and throttle setting and go back to where you started; usually your engine is completely cooled and happy to take another sprint. I've noticed that overall, the time to top speed, like the overheat, is fairly consistent--it's the times in the middle that can vary by a bit.

I'm also wondering if we couldn't test and compare dive acceleration in a similar way...

cheers

horseback

[EJGr.Ost_Caspar]

Very interesting! Not sure, what it means for Fw190, but Zero isn't surprising me. Its not known as a fast plane. However, this shows clearly, how much a 'feeling' can fail.

But I have a theory, what could cause this: E-bleeding
I suppose, planes are much different here. If you don't trim properly, then you bleed E all the time and this may be much more worse for a F4U than for a Zero or even Fw190. And in dogfight this is more important than max speed and pure positive acceleration.

I think, you can leave out the Ki-27 - it will not show any surprising numbers, being the weakest and slowest with its fixed gear and fixed propellar. But Ki-43 vs. A6M or Ki-84 vs. Corsair could contain some interesting results.

[majorfailure]

Originally Posted by horseback

As I said, the results from the 190 and the Zero don't make sense to me; I wonder if these aircraft flown by AI would get better numbers, because they sure seem faster when I'm flying against them in a QMB or a campaign. Maybe having Insta-Trim confers more Mojo than even I thought it does.

While the Zero makes perfect sense to me, it is out of its ideal performance envelope almost into the beginning of the test, the Fw190 is a bit astonishing - maybe not its best altitude though. Or maybe it is the way it is -similar power/weight, but more power at the Corsair - if it has a comparable front area that would then give it an edge.

Originally Posted by horseback

I'll want to try the F4F-3 and -4, the P-40E, the Ki-43 and maybe the Ki-27 (which was active over the Philippines as well as China during the early war). We might want to check the IJN/IJA fighters vs the USN/early USAAF fighters at 5000 ft as well; the early contests of 1942 often took place at lower alts. If the Japanese birds perform better there, it might start to give us a better picture.

I'd be interested in P-39s, I somehow have the feeling the later ones accelerate pretty good. Maybe I get to testing some this week -I'm intrigued by what's been done.

Originally Posted by horseback

I'm also wondering if we couldn't test and compare dive acceleration in a similar way...

I don't see how - the problem beeing the dive angle - would have to test parallel or flying pursuit.

Originally Posted by horseback

cheers

horseback

Thanks for getting all the data - especially as it didn't back up your original claim -other people wouldn't have had the balls to post it.