Author Topic: Slot `43 recommendation  (Read 3075 times)

Offline Arlo

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 24759
Slot `43 recommendation
« on: August 07, 2004, 08:02:29 PM »
Ummm .... I know the F6F is your ride, Soul-man (as is the F4U mine) but perhaps axing the F6F and TBM may not be a bad idea to get some of those voicing planeset parity in the general forum to reconsider? Of course, I say that with the full knowledge it could get my preciousssssss ... axed as well.

Offline Soulyss

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6558
      • Aces High Events
Slot `43 recommendation
« Reply #1 on: August 07, 2004, 08:51:18 PM »
funny thing is when I was putting together this setup I knew full well that I probably won't be flying Alllied at all this week.  A similar setup was done a couple months ago and I cringed at it when it was first announced but I ended up having a good time that week anyway which  gave me some hope.  

The funny thing is I think the F6F provides a better fight than the F4U does.  As far as both parties are concerned.. I enjoy fighting hellcats more than F4u's as well.  I  spent a few hours this morning in the arena and again this afternoon.  Some arena level changes will probably follow late tonight early tomorrow.  

I may open things up a little bit and bump the year to '44 include the -1D and the N1k and be done with it as well.  But we'll see.  

I'm mulling over the following

· Disabling gunners at the cv's... this will stop fleets from parking off the shore and shelling a base into dust... also will increase the vulnerability of the fleets.  I hope that this will keep them at arms length.. fleets should promote air battles not keep the other side on the ground.  

· Tweaks to hardness and Troop #'s to capture

I hope to make one set of changes this weekend and then keep my fingers crossed that they play out nicely for the rest of the week.  I try to keep my mid-week meddling to a minimum... but it looks like a little shifting is in order to get things right.
80th FS "Headhunters"
I blame mir.

Offline Soulyss

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6558
      • Aces High Events
Slot `43 recommendation
« Reply #2 on: August 07, 2004, 08:53:49 PM »
I wish we had the F6F-3 though the differences are kinda neglible I think.  -5 will roll better, and had water injection.  But I've heard that (and it can be argued) that the -3 climbed and accelerated better.
80th FS "Headhunters"
I blame mir.

Offline RTR

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2915
Slot `43 recommendation
« Reply #3 on: August 07, 2004, 09:13:45 PM »
Soulyss, I like the set up as is, and if you decide to add the N1K and the 1D that would be cool too :)

I think the F6F and the Tony seem to be matching up fairly well (although that could just be my ineptitude with the Hellcat showing through), and it's nice to see the F4U in a scenario (my favorite ride).

Gonna be a fun week:aok

Cheers,
RTR
The Damned

Offline Squire

  • Aces High CM Staff (Retired)
  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7683
Slot `43 recommendation
« Reply #4 on: August 08, 2004, 12:01:52 AM »
Please leave it as it is. We get enough F4U1-D/Nikki setups throughout the year. "North Solomons" worked just fine last time it was run. Im sure after this it will be a raft of 1945 ETO/PAC setups like we usually get.
« Last Edit: August 08, 2004, 12:07:03 AM by Squire »
Warloc
Friday Squad Ops CM Team
1841 Squadron Fleet Air Arm
Aces High since Tour 24

Offline Grits

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5332
Slot `43 recommendation
« Reply #5 on: August 08, 2004, 12:31:12 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Soulyss
· Disabling gunners at the cv's... this will stop fleets from parking off the shore and shelling a base into dust... also will increase the vulnerability of the fleets.  I hope that this will keep them at arms length.. fleets should promote air battles not keep the other side on the ground.


After another CV beaching tonight, I think you are on to something Soulyss.  Disabling manned ack on fleets, wont leave them defenseless yet will negate some of the motive to beach them in the first place. Nothing quite as lame as getting hit on the runway by 5" guns from a beached fleet.

Ack was a LAST line of defense.

Offline Grits

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5332
Slot `43 recommendation
« Reply #6 on: August 08, 2004, 02:17:06 AM »
And I dont mean that one side did it and the other didnt, both sides did some beaching of CV's.

Offline Arlo

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 24759
Slot `43 recommendation
« Reply #7 on: August 08, 2004, 02:21:21 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Soulyss
I wish we had the F6F-3 though the differences are kinda neglible I think.  -5 will roll better, and had water injection.  But I've heard that (and it can be argued) that the -3 climbed and accelerated better.


After seeing positive feedback, I'll side with the majority. No problem here.

On a side note, here's an excerpt from "Corsair - The F4U in World War II and Korea" by Barrett Tillman. It deals with finally getting the F4U ok'd for carrier ops but the comparisons between in and the F6F got my attention:
Quote

"On 22 April (1944) the Navy accepted its first F4U-1D, basically a -1A with two underwing pylons for external stores. Tests conducted in Hawaii during May showed the new Corsair the be perhaps the most versatile carrier aircraft of the period. The Naval Air Forces Pacific Command received an F6F-5 and an F4U-1D for the purpose of fleet evaluation. Three combat-experienced pilots were named to an evaluation board. They were Lieutenant Commander Gordon Cady, CO of VF-11; Lieutenant Commander Bernard W. Strean, CO of VF-1 recently returned from Tarawa; and Lieutenant Colonel John L. Smith who lead VMF-223 at Gaudalcanal. Cady and Smith had flown the F4F-4 in combat, Strean the F6F-3.

   'Smoke' Strean recalls, "The three of us decided that carrier suitability was the most important concern. We were given wide latitude as to how to accomplish the comparison. To give these planes the severest carrier test, we selected a CVE. All three of us made many landings in both airplanes. We determined that the F4U-1D was equally as good a carrier airplane as the F6F-5, if not better. The evaluation lasted perhaps three weeks."

   At the end of that time the board was generally agreed on most findings. The F6F-5 was more maneuverable than the F6F-3 because of the spring tabs on the former's ailerons, but it was not more maneuverable than the F4U-1D. Control forces on the Corsair also seemed lighter than on the Hellcat. There was no doubt that the Corsair was the faster than the F6F, and it possessed better zoom-climb characteristics than the Grumman.

   In the all-important realm of gunnery and ordinance delivery, the F4U-1D was also judged superior. The three pilots - who so far had all their combat experience in Grummans - believed the Corsair was a steadier gun platform and a better dive bomber. There was some uncertainty as to relative visability, but the Hellcat probably gave a wider field of view, and it was generally considered easier to land aboard ship, owing to the better forward visability.

   These tests reinforced the informal comparison which VF-12 ran against the Hellcats of VF-3 a year earlier. Joe Clifton and another VF-12 pilot had engaged in a mock combat with Lieutenant Commander Edward "Butch" O'Hare and a wingman near San Diego. Clifton's F4U-1s had proven faster and more maneuverable than O'Hare's F6F-3s, and the playful hassling must have made an impression upon O'Hare. When he took his squadron to Hawaii that summer, he managed to take an F4U-1 with him. For some time it was the only Corsair in the islands, and O'Hare would only let one other pilot fly it. Such are the privileges of being a Medal of Honor winner."


Another section of the book dealt with a comparison between the F4U and the A6M series:
Quote

   "In late 1944 a detailed test was run between an F4U-1D and a captured a6m5, or Zeke 52. From sea level up to 30,000 feet the Corsair proved faster by an average of 55 knots, or 64 mph. This was from a minimum advantage of 36 knots at 5,000 feet to a maximum of 69 knots at 25,000 feet. Top speeds were 413 mph (355 knots) for the F4U-1D at 20,400 feet and 355 mph (290 knots) at 18,000 for the Zeke.

   Unlike the F4F, the Corsair was capable of matching or exceeding the Zeke's rate of climb. Vought and Mitsubishi were equal up to 10,000 feet, after which the Corsair pulled ahead. In fact, at 18,000 feet, the -1D 750 feet per minute better than its opponent.

   'The maneuverability of the Zeke 52 is remarkable at speeds below about 175 knots, being far superior to that of the F4U-1D', said the report. 'It's superiority, however, diminishes with increased speed due to its high control forces, and the F4U-1D has the advantage at speeds above 200 knots.' Tests showed that in slow speed turns at 10,000 feet, the Zeke gained one turn in three and a half. But the Corsair, by maintaining an airspeed of 175 knots (200 mph) could use full flaps to stay with the Zeke for a half-turn. By that time, however, airspeed was down to 150 knots (173 mph) and it was high time to disengage.

   The Corsair's magnificent ailerons gave it an important advantage over Zekes. The two fighters' roll rate was equal at speeds under 200 knots, allowing the F4U to change directions on an equal basis. Above 200 knots, the Zeke's ailerons became heavy while the Corsair's were still effective. The time invested in those engineering test flights to perfect the ailerons paid handsome dividends in combat.

   In dive comaprisons, both fighters were approximately neck-and-neck in the very early stages. After that, the Corsair was vastly superior as it accelerated with astonishing speed. Few Japanese fighters had any hope of escaping an F4U in a dive, and even then it was only over short distances."


   In Ace's High, the F4U-1, 1D and 1C can't outclimb any of the IJ planeset. Acceleration in the game for the F4U is fairly anemic unless in a steep dive. Other than that, I find the comparison between the game and this book fairly close.

  As far as the F6F vs the F4U, in game the F6F comes out slightly ahead in manerverablity and climb and slightly behind in level speed and diving. The F6F seems to have a more stable gun platform in game, as well. And as far as divebombing is concerned, the F6F carries pretty much the same capacity and is the f4U's equal. A bit off from this book.
« Last Edit: August 08, 2004, 05:04:25 PM by Arlo »

Offline Slash27

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 12795
Slot `43 recommendation
« Reply #8 on: August 08, 2004, 05:07:00 AM »
Corsair was vastly superior as it accelerated with astonishing speed.

  I wonder how that compares with the P-51D?

storch

  • Guest
Slot `43 recommendation
« Reply #9 on: August 08, 2004, 08:22:07 AM »
The set up is a success!  The plane set is keenly competetive!

There is no need to delete the kitty from the plane set.  Granted the F6F-3 was present at this time and not the F6F-5.  We can make do with what we have and still have fun.  Regardless of whining the biggest difference between the two was engine and no rockets on the -3 perhaps no bombs I'm not sure.

 I believe that anyone that flies blue planes should be in blue planes.  The numbers be damned.  I would however greatly appreciate  what seems to me to be a small concession, even though it might offend some of the purists in the community. Please.  Enable the 110 as surrogate for the woefully absent Ki-45 Toryu.

Thank you oldman for some really tough fights.  That was some great P40 flying.
« Last Edit: August 08, 2004, 08:35:04 AM by storch »

Offline Arlo

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 24759
Slot `43 recommendation
« Reply #10 on: August 08, 2004, 09:30:35 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Slash27
Corsair was vastly superior as it accelerated with astonishing speed.

  I wonder how that compares with the P-51D?


The source doesn't specificallly go into detailed comparisons between the Corsair and AAF planes, especially dealing with acceleration but it did give this little tidbit:

Quote


   The Army Air Force got its first good look at the Corsair during the Fighter Evaluation Meet at Elgin Field, Florida, during May 1943. Below 10,000 feet the bent-wing Vought was superior to any Army fighter and held its own up to 15,000 or 20,000 feet. At higher altitudes where they were designed to perform, the Republic P-47 and the North American P-51 held the advantage. Along the East Coast, Thunderbolt pilots tired of losing races and dogfights to Corsairs and sought other sport. Pulling alongside the F4Us, they would hold up their oxygen masks and point upwards. A smart Corsair pilot would shake his head and break off.

   Perhaps one of the greatest tributes to the Corsair came from an Army pilot. Major (later Colonel) Rex T. Barber was an exponent and a devotee of the twin-boomed P-38. His combat tour in the Solomons ended with a key role in the interception of Japan's premier naval leader, Admiral Isukoru Yamamoto. Rex Barber flew a wide variety of fighters, but his assessment of the F4U was typically succinct: "If the United States had to pick one fighter-bomber to produce during the war, it should have been the Corsair."

Corsair: The F4U in World War II and Korea - Barrett Tillman


Offline Soulyss

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6558
      • Aces High Events
Slot `43 recommendation
« Reply #11 on: August 08, 2004, 09:40:53 AM »
You know Arlo, I've been looking at getting Barrett's book for ages now.. perhaps I'll break down and get it here soon.  I greatly enjoyed his book on the F6F.  

The comparision only had one real surprise for me, that was the question of stability and gun platform.  Considering how good the historic reputation of the F6F as being a stable, no surprises airplane I would have thought it would rank better in that regard.  As far as AH goes two of the biggest pluses the F6F had over the F4U historically aren't a factor here.   Ease of manufacture and maintenence.  I don't think a F4U squadron out there could post the in service percentages that the F6F could.  Other than that I would call it's over-all performance in terms of speed, climb, etc. to be "good enough" wiithout being jaw dropping by any stretch of the imagination.  

When there's talk of outclimbing the IJN planes I always like to qualify the statement is this a zoom, or high speed climb?  because of it's massive size and weight the F4U should be able to sustain a high speed or zoom climb longer than a A6M for example... I'd be surprised if I saw a source that stated it could match the zeke in a low speed sustained climb.
80th FS "Headhunters"
I blame mir.

Offline Soulyss

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6558
      • Aces High Events
Slot `43 recommendation
« Reply #12 on: August 08, 2004, 09:59:58 AM »
Just a heads up as of, 8:00am PST manned gun positions on all cv's has been disabled.
80th FS "Headhunters"
I blame mir.

Offline Arlo

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 24759
Slot `43 recommendation
« Reply #13 on: August 08, 2004, 10:14:44 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Soulyss

When there's talk of outclimbing the IJN planes I always like to qualify the statement is this a zoom, or high speed climb?  because of it's massive size and weight the F4U should be able to sustain a high speed or zoom climb longer than a A6M for example... I'd be surprised if I saw a source that stated it could match the zeke in a low speed sustained climb.


Well, it's only one source and I admit I'm book poor reference-wise (this book was a gift from a fellow squadie, Cmorum - bless his heart).

But the way it phrased the test it sounds like climb tests from take-off to alt. Apparently the horsepower and huge airfoil surfaces of the F4U made up for its weight.

In AH and AHII, from takeoff to alt, both the A6M2 and A6M5 have a distinct advantage over the F4U-1, -1D and -1C.

On the maintenance issue, I wouldn't be surprised if the F6F was easier to manufacture and maintain than the F4U. The biggest deterrant in getting the F4U on CVs, though, was the Navy supply chain gearing for F6Fs instead of F4Us for the fleet.
« Last Edit: August 08, 2004, 10:17:28 AM by Arlo »

Offline Reschke

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7724
      • VF-17 "The Jolly Rogers"
Slot `43 recommendation
« Reply #14 on: August 08, 2004, 10:33:28 AM »
Someone mentioned the PTO planesets earlier...well I know I will be running one with the Frank up against anything the allies had. I just hope that we can get the Phillipines map redone in time for it to at least get us close to a better map selection than what we have now.
Buckshot
Reschke from March 2001 till tour 146
Founder and CO VF-17 Jolly Rogers September 2002 - December 2006
"I'm baaaaccccckkk!"