Author Topic: My (F4U) wish for the new year (Read 1270 times)

F4UDOA · « **on:** December 27, 2005, 09:50:51 AM »

In light of all the uberness taking place all over the message boards I would like an uber (but historically accurate) F4U-1A for the new year.

Don't we already have an F4U-1A you ask? Well we do, sort of. We have a hybrid -1/-1A, it has the birdcage of the -1 as well as the stall characteristics and it also has the toothpick prop that limits climb. But it has the water injection of the -1A and that is about it.

I say pull the water out of our -1 (along with the extra weight) make it a early 1943 F4U-1 and give use a real -1A with a paddle prop, water injection raised buldged canopy and without the pylons and rocket stubs that take almost 10MPH out of the top speed. This is a 1944 airplane and saw heavy service for almost two years. All -1A's produced in 1944 would fit the criteria and the older models were refitted to match these specifications.

This is 60" MAP (usually 57.5" MAP) and the only difference would be that the arresting hook was removed since it wasn't on carriers anyway.

Brace yourself:O

F4UDOA · « **Reply #1 on:** December 27, 2005, 10:08:01 AM »

I almost forgot the gratuitous money shot.

Saxman · « **Reply #2 on:** December 27, 2005, 01:11:43 PM »

Seconded, thirded, fourthed, however many times it takes to get her!

MAC · « **Reply #3 on:** December 28, 2005, 12:38:12 AM »

Amen!

Saxman · « **Reply #4 on:** December 28, 2005, 12:54:32 AM »

Although didn't later 1As still use the arrestor hook? By mid-1944 Corsairs were finally being deployed on carriers with the USN in large numbers.

Regardless, I BADLY want to take a 1A for a spin.

justin_g · « **Reply #5 on:** December 28, 2005, 01:59:07 AM »

The charts are from one of the aircraft used in the USN P-51B vs F4U-1 comparison.

Quote

2. F4U-1A No. 17930 was a standard production raised cabin airplane, with a surface finish in rather poor condition, but with the tail hook removed. It is considered to have been in a drag condition representative of production airplanes after moderate service. The same type propeller as that on No. 02390 was installed.(Note: No. 6501A-0, the "paddle blade" type)

1K3 · « **Reply #6 on:** December 28, 2005, 02:19:31 AM »

Is the F4U lineup gonna be something like this?

1943

F4U-1
Feature(s)
* Remove Water Injection along with extra fats (weight)

1944

F4U-1A
Features...
* Paddle propeller
* Water Injection
* raised buldged canopy
* Deletion of fixed pylons, without the pylons and rocket stubs that take almost 10MPH out of the top speed.

F4U-1D

1945

F4U-1C
F4U-4

SMIDSY · « **Reply #7 on:** December 28, 2005, 03:39:11 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by F4UDOA
I almost forgot the gratuitous money shot.

I'd hit that.

F4UDOA · « **Reply #8 on:** December 28, 2005, 08:44:17 AM »

Saxman,

That is a great question. I think the F4U-1A's were designated for land based service. I say this not because I have some document that proves it but rather I have never seen a single picture or reference to a F4U-1A squadron during or after 1944 on a carrier. Also I don't know how much the tailhook had on the top speed anyway, or if it caused a problem with drag because the new raised tail wheel was being installed anyway. The only difference in speed from the F4U data I posted and the "Clean Condition" F4U-1D data from NAVAIR is the speeds above 15K (Approx). At sea level on up they are about the same until over 15K, the -1A ends up about 14MPH faster in Mil and War Emergency powers at 20K. It seems as if the High Blower of the F4U-1A was putting out more power than the -1D, otherwise the speeds are identical which shows the same drag characteristics.

Justin G,

Yes it is exactly the same serial number. I wish Vought had decided to use the 60 gallons of ADI they installed on the other F4U-1 they tested. Makes you wonder why?

1K3,

Would be nice to have huh? We have a bunch of 190's, 109's, Spit's etc. Wouldn't hurt to have another F4U handy. Could use an F6F-3 too.

SMIDSY,

In yours and my dreams!!!

SELECTOR · « **Reply #9 on:** December 28, 2005, 06:13:39 PM »

eeven with all the fancy graphs and pimped up plane , the question is WHY?....many more planes needed before another f4u..nice plane though..

F4UDOA · « **Reply #10 on:** December 28, 2005, 07:30:05 PM »

Selector,

Your right, there are more planes needed. I would say VVS more than any. Mig-3, TU-2 etc.

However it is my new years wish and I would really like to see another F4U. We have more Spits 109's, 190's, P-47's and the same number of Hurri's that don't get out of the hanger much.

Besides the F4U has some of the oldest artwork in the game and it would not take much at all to make a -1D into a -1A.

So why not and it doesn't even have to be in American markings. Make it the first RNZAF entry into AH.

Squire · « **Reply #11 on:** December 28, 2005, 08:33:58 PM »

Aren't they all going to be updated?

"Why" is kind of academic? its a given its going to be.

Saxman · « **Reply #12 on:** December 29, 2005, 01:47:14 AM »

To borrow a point from Krusty in regards to planes that've had their updates finished: THAT'S the best time to add a new variant model, since they're already going to be updating the existing ones anyway.

Better skin idea: Boyington's Lulu Bell.

F4UDOA · « **Reply #13 on:** December 29, 2005, 11:13:41 AM »

Krusty is right,

And that is why we now have a G-14 and K-4. The G-10 was a hybrid much like our -1A is now.

I am just requesting that it be split into two more accurate versions. And frankly if they used the clean F4U-1D numbers which are the same under about 16K that would be fine with me although I would prefer the climb of the model I posted.

Pongo · « **Reply #14 on:** December 29, 2005, 05:21:38 PM »

365 on the deck. Not to shabby