How will the F-4U compare?

Btw, the report I linked earlier was a comparative trial between two late war F4U-1's (1944) and a P-51B, and as expected both F4U's easily outturned the P-51B.

Here's the link again: http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f4u/p-51b-f4u-1-navycomp.pdf

Researched the matter and it turns out that the book "Americas 100 thousand" is comparing a P-51 using flaps with a F4U using no flaps. (CL = 1.89 vs 1.48 )

Somehow the author misread the NACA report and used a flaps deployed CL figure for all the other aircraft, i.e. 1.89 for the P-51 etc.

CL of the P-51 with flaps retracted is 1.41, F4U-4's CL with flaps retracted is 1.48, as measured by NACA.

According to the book America's Hundred Thousand: The US production fighter Aircraft of WWII, the F4U-1 was superior to the P-51 and P-47 in a dogfight under 20,000ft. After that they started gaining the upper hand. The f4u-4 increased performance to the point that it was superior (though not in game) to even pure fighter yak-3s.

There were 6 different (main) versions of the Corsair in WW2. F4U-1 Birdcage, F4U-1, F4U-1A, F4U-1D, F4U-1C, F4U-4. There were 5 different (american) versions of the P-51 in WW2. There were 5 different versions of the P-47 in WW2.

It's kind of like someone saying, "The charger is the greatest car ever made." Yeah... Which charger?

The F4U was perhaps USA's best fighter of the war, combining great speed, climb rate, maneuverability, ruggedness and firepower all in one package.

 

In terms of maneuverability you can expect it to turn like a Bf-109, be as fast as a Mustang and roll like a Fw190. A truly magnificient fighter.

This may seem like it goes without saying, but the European and Pacific Theaters were entirely different things. What worked against the Japanese wouldn't necessarily work against the Germans.

The Japanese planes were relatively light, and relatively slow, and by the time they figured out the right way to do it, most of their good pilots were dead.

A word of caution regarding the anectdotes mentioned, the Corsair just like the Mustang will inly perform well at high airspeeds. This is not a slow flyer and it had very vicious stall characteristics.

 

The 109 will be the superiour dogfighter for sure, not only due to being 2t lighter and having a better P/W ratio. However the Corsair will be surely a nice addition, be it to the current game or future expansions.

The 109K-4 will be a superior dogfighter. The corsair would normally dive away if it got in trouble, but the K-4 had equal or better speed on the deck. A better equal match would likely be a BF-109G-6 / G-14.

Definitely is, and it carries an astounding array of ordinance, so much that leatherneck will have a busy schedule modeling it all, can take a beating and dish it back, stories of pilots letting the zeros get on their six and letting them shoot them so their wingman can flame them while they were distracted. It's top speed is faster than the p-51s as well. Like i said, when and if a third party developer wants to make a ki-84, ki-100 or j2m, then we should be concerned. If im not mistaken, it could turn with the lighter and smaller ki-61s.

It's top speed is roughly equal to the P-51D on the deck, but higher than that, the P-51 is faster.

Yeah. Loose sight, loose the fight. It certainly won't be revolutionary.

 

I am wondering, are they going to model it with or without spring tabs.

As far as I am aware, all the F4U-1A's and on had at least Balance Tabs, which are slightly different than Spring Tabs. They started mounting Spring Tabs on F4U-1D's. The difference is that balance tabs automatically lever away, where Spring Tabs only lever away at high speeds. I.E. Both have good high speed maneuverability, but Spring Tabs have slightly better low-medium speed control authority.

The corsair's good at medium and low altitudes, the r2800 engine works better with a supercharger, can think of the corsair's like an underpowered p47 with better slow speed handling, since it doesn't have the convoluted supercharger setup the p47 has.

A corsair basically has the same power as the P-47 on the deck. The difference is that the P-47's heavy turbocharger keeps the same power it has on the deck all the way up to peak altitude at ~30,000 feet, while the Corsair loses 300 HP to it's peak altitude at 20k feet, and is down 800 HP at 30k feet.

It's all about delivering HP at altitude.

There were 6 different (main) versions of the Corsair in WW2. F4U-1 Birdcage, F4U-1, F4U-1A, F4U-1D, F4U-1C, F4U-4. There were 5 different (american) versions of the P-51 in WW2. There were 5 different versions of the P-47 in WW2.

 

It's kind of like someone saying, "The charger is the greatest car ever made." Yeah... Which charger?

 

 

 

This may seem like it goes without saying, but the European and Pacific Theaters were entirely different things. What worked against the Japanese wouldn't necessarily work against the Germans.

 

The Japanese planes were relatively light, and relatively slow, and by the time they figured out the right way to do it, most of their good pilots were dead.

 

 

 

The 109K-4 will be a superior dogfighter. The corsair would normally dive away if it got in trouble, but the K-4 had equal or better speed on the deck. A better equal match would likely be a BF-109G-6 / G-14.

 

 

 

It's top speed is roughly equal to the P-51D on the deck, but higher than that, the P-51 is faster.

 

 

 

As far as I am aware, all the F4U-1A's and on had at least Balance Tabs, which are slightly different than Spring Tabs. They started mounting Spring Tabs on F4U-1D's. The difference is that balance tabs automatically lever away, where Spring Tabs only lever away at high speeds. I.E. Both have good high speed maneuverability, but Spring Tabs have slightly better low-medium speed control authority.

 

 

 

A corsair basically has the same power as the P-47 on the deck. The difference is that the P-47's heavy turbocharger keeps the same power it has on the deck all the way up to peak altitude at ~30,000 feet, while the Corsair loses 300 HP to it's peak altitude at 20k feet, and is down 800 HP at 30k feet.

 

It's all about delivering HP at altitude.

The mustang was rated at 437 compared to the corsairs 447, at certain altitudes I'm assuming

Somehow the author misread the NACA report and used a flaps deployed CL figure for all the other aircraft, i.e. 1.89 for the P-51 etc.

 

CL of the P-51 with flaps retracted is 1.41, F4U-4's CL with flaps retracted is 1.48, as measured by NACA.

So he did. Apparently this issue was broached 12 years ago in the Aces high forum. My bad for not catching it. I did find the NACA Report on the changes to the F4U's Lift coef. It shows a sharp leading edge installation that caused the Coef to go from 2.30 to 1.88 max lift. I am not sure that particular solution was ever actually installed. Its on pdf pg 16. On pg 20 the report talks about the lift coef going all the way down to 1.26 in service condition even after sealing. So if someone can figure out what the actual results of this report are it would be nice.

[ame]http://naca.central.cranfield.ac.uk/reports/1945/naca-report-829.pdf[/ame]

So he did. Apparently this issue was broached 12 years ago in the Aces high forum. My bad for not catching it. I did find the NACA Report on the changes to the F4U's Lift coef. It shows a sharp leading edge installation that caused the Coef to go from 2.30 to 1.88 max lift. I am not sure that particular solution was ever actually installed. Its on pdf pg 16. On pg 20 the report talks about the lift coef going all the way down to 1.26 in service condition even after sealing. So if someone can figure out what the actual results of this report are it would be nice.

http://naca.central.cranfield.ac.uk/reports/1945/naca-report-829.pdf

Yes, that experimental installation was never installed, instead a much smaller strip was installed just outboard of the guns, and this didn't affect the CLmax :)

The 109K-4 will be a superior dogfighter. The corsair would normally dive away if it got in trouble, but the K-4 had equal or better speed on the deck. A better equal match would likely be a BF-109G-6 / G-14.

If the ingame 109 featured the correct CLmax it probably would be, but it doesn't seem like it (not gonna discuss that btw, I've been banned for that), either way the Corsair will be close to it and noticably superior to the Mustang in any type of turning match.

The mustang was rated at 437 compared to the corsairs 447, at certain altitudes I'm assuming

Not for the F4U-1D. Comparison for planes, F4U-4 tossed in for fun.

Alt - F4U-1D - P-51D - 109K-4 - F4U-4

SL. - 366 MPH - 367 MPH - 375 MPH -389 MPH

10k - ~390 - 410 - 416 - 410

20k - 417 - 425 - 446 - 445

25k - 405 - 445 - 438 - 451

30k - 390 - 420 - 429 - 440

If the ingame 109 featured the correct CLmax it probably would be, but it doesn't seem like it (not gonna discuss that btw, I've been banned for that), either way the Corsair will be close to it and noticably superior to the Mustang in any type of turning match.

Instantaneous turning, yes. Sustained turning, no.

Not for the F4U-1D. Comparison for planes, F4U-4 tossed in for fun.

 

Alt - F4U-1D - P-51D - 109K-4 - F4U-4

SL. - 366 MPH - 367 MPH - 375 MPH -389 MPH

10k - ~390 - 410 - 416 - 410

20k - 417 - 425 - 446 - 445

25k - 405 - 445 - 438 - 451

30k - 390 - 420 - 429 - 440

K-4 won't hit those speeds ingame at all.

Instantaneous turning, yes. Sustained turning, no.

It will be noticably better than the Mustang in both. As for compared with the 109, well who knows, I agree that the 109 should be better but with the current CLmax used ingame I wouldn't be too sure.

I don't think poor rear visibility would hamper the F-4U's performance too much.

I would like to chime in my 2 cents. I flew RC for about 6 years. I can tell you that was my all time favorite. IMHO its the best looking fighter and also the best landing. I have a spitfire, p47,ME 109, and by far I like my corsair the most. Also from seeing everyone land the P51, well... I never got one. Nothing like the sound and startup of a radial.

I don't think poor rear visibility would hamper the F-4U's performance too much.

Performance no. But if you can't see what is behind you, you cannot fight it. And with 30mm Mk108 the 109, if not seen, will make your life shorter than you expect.

Not for the F4U-1D. Comparison for planes, F4U-4 tossed in for fun.

 

Alt - F4U-1D - P-51D - 109K-4 - F4U-4

SL. - 366 MPH - 367 MPH - 375 MPH -389 MPH

10k - ~390 - 410 - 416 - 410

20k - 417 - 425 - 446 - 445

25k - 405 - 445 - 438 - 451

30k - 390 - 420 - 429 - 440

 

 

 

Instantaneous turning, yes. Sustained turning, no.

That table doesn't seem to be correct.

P-51D performance after which our DCS P-51D was modeled.

Bf109K4:

There are many tests that claim different speeds for F4U's and F4U-1D seems to be able to get to 358MPH, but it is only stated that it is on Combat power, which would lead me to believe that it is not WEP, but what in USAAF is called the Military power. The best power is surely shown here though:

All data belongs to their respective owners.