Quote:
Originally Posted by Jukka Juutinen
F4U turn was substantially improved with flaps. As far as I know, the flaps of the F6F were less effective in this. Both had quite similar wing-loading and wing profile (Naca 230xx).
All test reports on the Fw 190 mention that it had very little stall warning under acceleration and the departure was very violent.
Why should the F4U be limited to 52" when the - 8W allowed 60 "? It is the very same issue as with early Allison's and their very low manual ratings vs. what was achievable.
On the other hand, the BMW 801 was a very fragile engine and tolarated high powered and" abuse" poorly.
|
Only to establish period vs period in model comparisons via flight tests. The A4 was in combat 18 mo (?) earler than F4U-1. A better comparison is A-5.
For 1944 F4U-1 and -1D at 62" perhaps compare vs FW 190A-8 @ 1.58/1.65ata? or FW-190D-9 w/MW50? F4U-4 comparisons need to focus on FW 190D-9/-D-13 and Ta 152.
Ditto for selecting 109 model for comparison in period vs Period.
As for combat flap deployment for F4U, it's established best rate of turn could not be maintained at same altitude - same issue with all fighters deploying flaps to achieve better CLmax ----------->also brought much more drag. Perhaps Ok for a quick snap shot.
At the end of the day, I was posing questions regarding the flight test procedures used to derive 'conclusions' about dogfighting superiority.
I still do.