Engine performance

[lawndartleo]

Are there issues to be resolved with engine performance?  With a clean aircraft I have not been able to even approach the numbers on the engine settings chart.  Things seem underpowered. If you believe your performance is correct, please publish a guide to achieve the stated performance.

 

Thank you!

[Mistermann]

 

This guy's a pilot and has an informed opinion.

[Saxman]

The Corsair actually had quite light stick forces. And that's a BIG rudder with a lot of authority.

(That said, it's way too twitchy.)

The roll rate is definitely off. The F4U had a rate of roll equivalent to the Fw-190, so about 150 degrees per second. He's giving it a rate of roll of 60 degrees per second, less than half of where it ought to be.

[Hayrake YE-ZB]

 

1 hour ago, Mistermann said:

This guy's a pilot and has an informed opinion.

He has only flown very low horsepower light aircraft. Not sure why he’s wearing a flight suit, perhaps he was in the Civil Air Patrol. With regard to tactical aircraft of any kind, I’d take his judgement for entertainment purposes only.

We’re in the “if it’s hard, or feels different from expectations, then it must be broken” phase. Give it time, and don’t forget to have fun!

[Bremspropeller]

4 hours ago, Saxman said:

The roll rate is definitely off. The F4U had a rate of roll equivalent to the Fw-190, so about 150 degrees per second. He's giving it a rate of roll of 60 degrees per second, less than half of where it ought to be.

IIRC the test you're referring to was with a F4U-4 with improved ailerons.

F4U-1 should be around 90°/s, give or take.

[Saxman]

3 hours ago, Bremspropeller said:

IIRC the test you're referring to was with a F4U-4 with improved ailerons.

F4U-1 should be around 90°/s, give or take.

Nope, it was an F4U-1. It was from a 3-way test in 1943 with the Fw-190, F4U-1, and F6F-3.

The boosted ailerons were first added late in the Birdcage run.

[Bremspropeller]

On 6/23/2025 at 2:14 PM, Saxman said:

Nope, it was an F4U-1. It was from a 3-way test in 1943 with the Fw-190, F4U-1, and F6F-3.

The boosted ailerons were first added late in the Birdcage run.

The data in America's Hundred Throusand shows a top roll-rate of around 90°/s (at 290 mph, graph shows a limited speed range, though) and claims anecdotal rates of up to 120°/s at about 350mph. Extrapolating the available graph shows that's a believable claim, but no actual data is given.

That means the 190 would roll quicker below about 320mph and the Corsair above 320mph (give or take a couple of mph). At 255mph (the 190's calculated peak roll rate at 50lbs stick force), the Fw is about 100% better than the Corsair's roll-rate (160°/s vs 80°/s). 

Edited June 27 by Bremspropeller

[Mike Busutil]

Fw 190 A-4/A-5:

At 150 mph: ~140 degrees/second

At 250 mph: ~150–160 degrees/second (peak performance)

At 350 mph: ~100–110 degrees/second (roll rate drops due to control stiffening at high speeds)

 

F4U-1D Corsair:

At 150 mph: ~130 degrees/second

At 250 mph: ~140–145 degrees/second

At 350 mph: ~120–130 degrees/second (maintains better high-speed roll due to aerodynamic design)

[Bremspropeller]

On 6/27/2025 at 3:08 PM, Mike Busutil said:

F4U-1D Corsair:

At 150 mph: ~130 degrees/second

At 250 mph: ~140–145 degrees/second

At 350 mph: ~120–130 degrees/second (maintains better high-speed roll due to aerodynamic design)

Where's that data from?

[Mike Busutil]

The primary reference for the F4U-1D roll rate data comes from U.S. Navy comparative tests conducted during World War II, which typically involved the F4U-1D (not the F4U-4) against captured or evaluated Axis aircraft like the Fw 190 A-series. These tests, such as those documented on wwiiaircraftperformance.org, explicitly mention the F4U-1D in comparisons with the Fw 190 A-4 or A-5. For example, a 1944 Navy test report (ptr-1107) compares the F4U-1D’s maneuverability, including roll rate, against the Fw 190 A-4, noting the Fw 190’s slight roll rate advantage at medium speeds (around 150–250 mph).

The U.S. Navy tests (e.g., 1944 trials) explicitly involved the F4U-1D, as it was the primary Corsair variant in service during the period when Fw 190 A-series aircraft were captured and evaluated. The roll rate values (120–145 deg/s) are consistent with the F4U-1D’s design, which was slightly less agile in roll than the Fw 190 A-4/A-5 but competitive, especially at higher speeds.

These tests, conducted during World War II, compared the F4U-1D against the Fw 190 A-4 or A-5, as seen in documents like the ptr-1107 report. The F4U-4, a later model with upgrades, wasn't part of these early tests, and forum discussions on WW2Aircraft.net Forums: FW-190A5 vs F4U-1D and F6F-3 explicitly mention the F4U-1D.

[Saxman]

28 minutes ago, Mike Busutil said:

The primary reference for the F4U-1D roll rate data comes from U.S. Navy comparative tests conducted during World War II, which typically involved the F4U-1D (not the F4U-4) against captured or evaluated Axis aircraft like the Fw 190 A-series. These tests, such as those documented on wwiiaircraftperformance.org, explicitly mention the F4U-1D in comparisons with the Fw 190 A-4 or A-5. For example, a 1944 Navy test report (ptr-1107) compares the F4U-1D’s maneuverability, including roll rate, against the Fw 190 A-4, noting the Fw 190’s slight roll rate advantage at medium speeds (around 150–250 mph).

The U.S. Navy tests (e.g., 1944 trials) explicitly involved the F4U-1D, as it was the primary Corsair variant in service during the period when Fw 190 A-series aircraft were captured and evaluated. The roll rate values (120–145 deg/s) are consistent with the F4U-1D’s design, which was slightly less agile in roll than the Fw 190 A-4/A-5 but competitive, especially at higher speeds.

These tests, conducted during World War II, compared the F4U-1D against the Fw 190 A-4 or A-5, as seen in documents like the ptr-1107 report. The F4U-4, a later model with upgrades, wasn't part of these early tests, and forum discussions on WW2Aircraft.net Forums: FW-190A5 vs F4U-1D and F6F-3 explicitly mention the F4U-1D.

The point they're arguing is those tests are only comparative, but don't provide actual measured numbers.

[Bremspropeller]

10 hours ago, Mike Busutil said:

The primary reference for the F4U-1D roll rate data comes from U.S. Navy comparative tests conducted during World War II, which typically involved the F4U-1D (not the F4U-4) against captured or evaluated Axis aircraft like the Fw 190 A-series. These tests, such as those documented on wwiiaircraftperformance.org, explicitly mention the F4U-1D in comparisons with the Fw 190 A-4 or A-5. For example, a 1944 Navy test report (ptr-1107) compares the F4U-1D’s maneuverability, including roll rate, against the Fw 190 A-4, noting the Fw 190’s slight roll rate advantage at medium speeds (around 150–250 mph).

The U.S. Navy tests (e.g., 1944 trials) explicitly involved the F4U-1D, as it was the primary Corsair variant in service during the period when Fw 190 A-series aircraft were captured and evaluated. The roll rate values (120–145 deg/s) are consistent with the F4U-1D’s design, which was slightly less agile in roll than the Fw 190 A-4/A-5 but competitive, especially at higher speeds.

These tests, conducted during World War II, compared the F4U-1D against the Fw 190 A-4 or A-5, as seen in documents like the ptr-1107 report. The F4U-4, a later model with upgrades, wasn't part of these early tests, and forum discussions on WW2Aircraft.net Forums: FW-190A5 vs F4U-1D and F6F-3 explicitly mention the F4U-1D.

wwiiairfcraftperformance unfortunately is down and only the first test (ptr-1107: F4U-1 vs F6F-3 vs Fw 190) is attainable otherwise via web archives.

Do you possibly have a link to the latter ('44 trials)?

 

Guyton in "Whistling Death" quotes "more than 180°/s" which I find to be grossly exaggerated, given the data at hand. As mentioned before, 120-145°/s is reasonable at high speeds, given the data out of America's Hundred Throusand. But not at ~250mph, where the 190 peaks. For that, you'd need substantial modifications on the ailerons and possiblythe wing, instead of just adding boost-tabs. Boost tabs alone will help slightly in initial roll response (*) and mostly in achievable roll rate at high speed. They won't change achievable roll-rate at speeds below max attainable stick-force.

___

(*) time for the stick to bang onto the stop is quicker, the lighter the required forces are

[DSR_T-800]

6 hours ago, Bremspropeller said:

wwiiairfcraftperformance unfortunately is down and only the first test (ptr-1107: F4U-1 vs F6F-3 vs Fw 190) is attainable otherwise via web archives.

Do you possibly have a link to the latter ('44 trials)?

 

Guyton in "Whistling Death" quotes "more than 180°/s" which I find to be grossly exaggerated, given the data at hand. As mentioned before, 120-145°/s is reasonable at high speeds, given the data out of America's Hundred Throusand. But not at ~250mph, where the 190 peaks. For that, you'd need substantial modifications on the ailerons and possiblythe wing, instead of just adding boost-tabs. Boost tabs alone will help slightly in initial roll response (*) and mostly in achievable roll rate at high speed. They won't change achievable roll-rate at speeds below max attainable stick-force.

___

(*) time for the stick to bang onto the stop is quicker, the lighter the required forces are

It helps to use the way back machine.

nullI can't remember where I found the F4U roll rate data, but it should be on wwiiairfcraftperformance. The blue and dark-blue lines are the corsairs left and right roll rate up to 42lbs of stick force. The lighter line is purely a visual gestimate.