Grumman F9F-5

[Danneskjold 3,092]

If this is the actual climbrate then why does it climb like a complete UFO ingame? it climbs with the mig-15 bis and outclimbs sabre Fs, something's wrong

 

it out turns planes that have about half its wingloading and rolls extremely fast despite having fuel tanks in the wings

 

sounds like a broken FM to me

 

It climbs like a complete UFO because of how its WEP is set up in game.  In reality the F9F-2 and F9F-5 had 60 seconds worth of Water Injection.  It was pretty much only used for Take Offs from the Carriers.  In game, the F9F's can access WEP power whenever they want as long as they haven't overheated.

 

The F9F-2 at Military Power (with a 30 minute limit) runs at 5,000 lbs of thrust.  At WEP it has an increase of 15% power.  You can understand how broken it is when the plane can basically access a 15% increase in power whenever it wants with no real consequences in game.

 

Take the F9F-5 at Military Power.  6,250 lbs of thrust.  At wep it has an increase of 12% power.  Again, you can see how much it affects the game when the F9F-5 should be at 6,250 lbf 99.9% of the time, but can hit 7,000 lbf whenever it wants. 

 

This little fix will go farther to balance and fix the F9F's than any other thing they could do.

 

 

And by the way, the wing tip tanks on the F9F's are removable, but not droppable.  With the huge fuel consumption of the early jets, and since they had to operate from the sea heading inland, you hardly ever see the F9F's without them.  But it is possible. 

 

 

Also, the F9F-5 was one of the first planes to have "Blown Air Flaps."  Basically they stole a little bit of jet exhaust, and piped it into the flaps, giving them a huge boost in efficiency while being used. 

 

 

The sources I have are the F9F-2 and F9F-5 SAC's, the F9F-5 Pilot's handbook, and other internet sources.

[Bullfrog_ 3,180]

What would be awesome is if everyone would have to use knots for speed, nautical miles for distance, and feet for altitude. 

This is the beauty of the imperial system. The nautical mile is far superior to both the metric and the standardize mile. They should teach it everywhere, the world is becoming a small place!

 

Such a high wingloading, and fuel tanks in the wings

 

it turns and rolls like a complete UFO in game, not to mention the climb, when will it be fixed?

Wing loading isn't the only factor that effects turn.

Edited May 21, 2014 by Bullfrog_

[Biplane_Master 38]

Wing loading isn't the only factor that effects turn.

it is the most important factor, the panther's wingloading is very large, about 280kg/m^2 for a loaded F9F-2, ingame it turns faster than most jets even though it has the highest wingloading of all, blown air flaps might help it but defiantly not by this much, there was a reason it was mostly used as a ground attacker in the korean war, ingame they can be a bigger threat than the sabres

Edited May 21, 2014 by Biplane_Master

[Rumpullpus 3,883]

it is the most important factor

well IMO I would say wing shape and thickness are actually the most important factors not wing loading. a clipped wing spitfire or A6M have low wing loadings, but still turn like floral compared to their counterparts.

Edited May 21, 2014 by Rumpullpus

[Biplane_Master 38]

well IMO I would say wing shape and thickness are actually the most important factors not wing loading. a clipped wing spitfire or A6M have low wing loadings, but still turn like floral compared to their counterparts.

a spitfire remains a spitfire, it turns very well with clipped wings or not, clipping the wings reduces the wingloading by a fair amount too, there are other reasons why clipped wings reduce turn time but they are not that significant, for example a spitfire will still out turn a bf-109 which has a higher wingloading, whether it has clipped wings or not, even though the 109's wings are built to have a very high lift coefficient and have leading edge slats which increase turn rate

 

wingloading basically determines how much lift is required to make the plane turn, you can alter the wing's shape to give it a bit more lift but in the end if a wing requires a lot less lift to move it will still turn better. 

 

thrust/weight ratio is also very important though, since lift is mostly dependent on speed and angle of attack, for a plane to sustain a high speed at a high angle of attack it needs to have a fair amount of force pushing it, that's why bombers aren't great turners despite having low wingloadings

Edited May 21, 2014 by Biplane_Master

[Danneskjold 3,092]

Wingloading is a crude measure of Turning Ability.  It's a decent way to take a quick glance at the differences between planes.  It doesn't take into account other problems, like Fuel Loading.  For example, the F9F-2 has a max-throttle flight time of roughly twice that of the F-86's.  If you take off the wing tip tanks, the F9F-2 loses 12% of its wing loading giving it roughly equal wing loading to the F-86F-25, and still has a flight time greater than that of the F-86.

 

 

"Wing Loading" really shouldn't be used as anything more than a quick comparison of different planes. 

 

 

The F9F Panther's are so maneuverable compared to other jets is because they have hydraulic boosts on the ailerons and spring tabs on the elevators, while most of the other country's straight wing jets (and some swept wing jets) do not have either. 

[Bullfrog_ 3,180]

it is the most important factor

Maybe.. Maybe not.. But it's the only factor. You can't tell how a plane is going to turn by only looking at it's wing loading.
 

Edited May 21, 2014 by Bullfrog_

[PapaShteve 1,687]

it is the most important factor

Really? I guess B-17s should out turn P-51s. B-17 has a lower wing load - the most important factor you say.

[LordMustang 7,405]

Such a high wingloading, and fuel tanks in the wings
 
it turns and rolls like a complete UFO in game, not to mention the climb, when will it be fixed?

It isn't overperforming at all, have you ever flown it?

[SubRyan 5,556]

Wingloading is a crude measure of Turning Ability.  It's a decent way to take a quick glance at the differences between planes.  It doesn't take into account other problems, like Fuel Loading.  For example, the F9F-2 has a max-throttle flight time of roughly twice that of the F-86's.  If you take off the wing tip tanks, the F9F-2 loses 12% of its wing loading giving it roughly equal wing loading to the F-86F-25, and still has a flight time greater than that of the F-86.

 

 

"Wing Loading" really shouldn't be used as anything more than a quick comparison of different planes. 

 

 

The F9F Panther's are so maneuverable compared to other jets is because they have hydraulic boosts on the ailerons and spring tabs on the elevators, while most of the other country's straight wing jets (and some swept wing jets) do not have either. 

 

Since you have the pilots handbook, is the F9F-5 corresponding to the IAS limits set in the flight operating strength diagram in the book? The F9F-2 is wildly over performing according to its flight strength diagram

[SubRyan 5,556]

It climbs like a complete UFO because of how its WEP is set up in game.  In reality the F9F-2 and F9F-5 had 60 seconds worth of Water Injection.  It was pretty much only used for Take Offs from the Carriers.  In game, the F9F's can access WEP power whenever they want as long as they haven't overheated.

 

The F9F-2 at Military Power (with a 30 minute limit) runs at 5,000 lbs of thrust.  At WEP it has an increase of 15% power.  You can understand how broken it is when the plane can basically access a 15% increase in power whenever it wants with no real consequences in game.

 

The F9F-2 water-methanol injection system ran out after 30 seconds, since it injection tank capacity was only 22.5 gallons

 

 

As for the engine temperature limits on the -2, there were quite a few restrictions with the J42-P-8 engine

 

Edited December 7, 2014 by SubRyan

[SubRyan 5,556]

Shouldn't the F9F-5 only have hydraulic boost assist for its ailerons only? Like the F9F-2 should (but doesn't)

 

 

Also shouldn't the methanol injection on the F9F-5 be limited closer to 30 seconds? Instead of the minute that is posted in this data sheet seeing as how the injection tank on the -5 is 25 gallons, and the injection tank on -2 is 22.5 gallons which limits its methanol injection to 30 seconds

[SubRyan 5,556]

Threads merged

[bilsantu 5,950]

Why does it have immense superior performance over F9F-2 at high altitude?

[Retry 7,363]

Hmm... Climb rate at low altitude seems to be too low, while at high altitude seems too high.

[SubRyan 5,556]

Why does it have immense superior performance over F9F-2 at high altitude?

 

-2 is using a license built Nene, -5 is using a license built Tay

[bilsantu 5,950]

-2 is using a license built Nene, -5 is using a license built Tay

 

So, is it natural result of the higher thrust or Tay is built for higher altitude?

[SubRyan 5,556]

So, is it natural result of the higher thrust or Tay is built for higher altitude?

 

The Tay was just a bigger Nene, which of itself was just a bigger Derwent