F4U's - accuracy an issue?

[SgtPappy]

I've looked up quite a bit of information on the F4U-s...

The 62 US gal. tanks in each wing in the F4U-1A - did they not hinder maneuverability, climb rate, and speed? Why, then, are the A-Hogs out running and outturning our D-Hogs? Also, shouldn't the Fowler flaps of the P-38 help the huge fighter outturn the Hog?

Additionally.. the C-Hogs were built in parallel with D-Hogs - using very similar airframes, and some using the same engine, both of which lacked the unarmored 62 gal. fuel cells. That is all the more reason for the aircraft to be more agile than the A-Hog. True, the A-hogs lacked the folding-wing mechanisms, but those fuel cells added a lot of weight... (ha.. it would suck if our A-hogs' were so accurate that their R-2800-8W's were fitted with those Coffman starters - damn unreliable things)

Lastly, though the C-Hog has a heavier armament, maneuverability seems just a little too poor. Did armament REALLY affect the maneuvering THAT much?

[Debonair]

i think 1a has a cleaner airframe, less underwing stuff

[Widewing]

Originally posted by SgtPappy
I've looked up quite a bit of information on the F4U-s...

The 62 US gal. tanks in each wing in the F4U-1A - did they not hinder maneuverability, climb rate, and speed? Why, then, are the A-Hogs out running and outturning our D-Hogs? Also, shouldn't the Fowler flaps of the P-38 help the huge fighter outturn the Hog?

Additionally.. the C-Hogs were built in parallel with D-Hogs - using very similar airframes, and some using the same engine, both of which lacked the unarmored 62 gal. fuel cells. That is all the more reason for the aircraft to be more agile than the A-Hog. True, the A-hogs lacked the folding-wing mechanisms, but those fuel cells added a lot of weight... (ha.. it would suck if our A-hogs' were so accurate that their R-2800-8W's were fitted with those Coffman starters - damn unreliable things)

Lastly, though the C-Hog has a heavier armament, maneuverability seems just a little too poor. Did armament REALLY affect the maneuvering THAT much?

The wing tanks in the early F4Us did not add any significant weight unless they were filled. The basic weight difference between the F4U-1A and F4U-1D was 11 pounds (the -1D being lighter). That is certainly not a factor.

F4UDOA has posted Navy test data for the -1A and -1D, and the -1A was a little faster at all altitudes.

The armament and ammo on the F4U-1C added considerable weight. Moreover, most if not all of the actual C-hogs were simply conversions of the F4U-1A anyway.

My regards,

Widewing

[SgtPappy]

Ah thanks. So the F4U-1A its performance advantage not because it was lighter. So It was just a cleaner frame?

[Widewing]

Originally posted by SgtPappy
Ah thanks. So the F4U-1A its performance advantage not because it was lighter. So It was just a cleaner frame?

In a nut shell, yes.

My regards,

Widewing

[Debonair]

i wonder if, give that time was available, performance nullifying things like bomb shakles would have been removed from an aircraft before a mission that they were not going to be used on...

[SgtPappy]

I, myself, always thought that bomb shakles in AH would be removed if one didn't load on bombs/DT's at all. I guess not.

I wonder if the model we have in the game was an F4U-1A was a folding-wing version of the AHog or not. If it's not, that may be another reason as to why it's faster - no weight of wing-mechanisms.

[Saxman]

Probably.

The issue with the pylons on the 1D is that I think they were permanently fixed to the wings. At least the ones for bombs/drop tanks were.

[F4UDOA]

Ah thanks. So the F4U-1A its performance advantage not because it was lighter. So It was just a cleaner frame?

Yes,

The performance of the F4U-1A in AH is strictly based on the F4U-1D performance with Pylons removed.

I honestly think that there is too much weight added to the F4U-1C for the armament. It is based on the 1945 NAVAIR weight chart. I some some contradicting information on the weight of the 20mill plus ammo. IMHO there is some other weight added that is not showing up on that NAVAIR weight.

FYI, all of our F4U's have folding wings.

[whels]

also a note on the wing tanks in the -1 and 1A. most here who fly them will drain the left almost dry, then right  leaving more then left in it. to compensate for the stall it has. when  wing tanks are drained, the added benifit of increased roll rate is added.

[Saxman]

Wing tanks provide a nice reserve, too.

[Guppy35]

Originally posted by SgtPappy
I've looked up quite a bit of information on the F4U-s...

The 62 US gal. tanks in each wing in the F4U-1A - did they not hinder maneuverability, climb rate, and speed? Why, then, are the A-Hogs out running and outturning our D-Hogs? Also, shouldn't the Fowler flaps of the P-38 help the huge fighter outturn the Hog?

Additionally.. the C-Hogs were built in parallel with D-Hogs - using very similar airframes, and some using the same engine, both of which lacked the unarmored 62 gal. fuel cells. That is all the more reason for the aircraft to be more agile than the A-Hog. True, the A-hogs lacked the folding-wing mechanisms, but those fuel cells added a lot of weight... (ha.. it would suck if our A-hogs' were so accurate that their R-2800-8W's were fitted with those Coffman starters - damn unreliable things)

Lastly, though the C-Hog has a heavier armament, maneuverability seems just a little too poor. Did armament REALLY affect the maneuvering THAT much?

Had a nice knock down drag out fight with a 1A in my 38G yesterday.  It took forever and ended up on the deck.  I don't know what his fuel situation was but I was under 50% in the 38G, which is where it seems to turn best.   I got lucky on a snap shot and riddled him from right in front of the cockpit to just behind it and he went down.  9 out of 10 times he would probably have beaten me, but i find that the 38G does well against most 1A drivers.   Now I'm an average stick so I'm talking against other average sticks in 1A's.  There are always those guys out there who can get the absolute most out of their birds.  Those 1A drivers eat me alive

[SgtPappy]

Originally posted by F4UDOA
Yes,

The performance of the F4U-1A in AH is strictly based on the F4U-1D performance with Pylons removed.

I honestly think that there is too much weight added to the F4U-1C for the armament. It is based on the 1945 NAVAIR weight chart. I some some contradicting information on the weight of the 20mill plus ammo. IMHO there is some other weight added that is not showing up on that NAVAIR weight.

FYI, all of our F4U's have folding wings.

where did you see that all F4U's had folding wings? in every source, I see that not ALL F4U-1A's had folding wings b/c they weren't quilified for carrier use... Oh well... I'd like to see the source from where you get your info... it should be useful for a constant asker like myself.

And about the C-Hogs.. they should put an option to take 120 rpg in the new perk ordance system coming up... that should equalize the weight just about as much as the A-Hog. That would make it practically identical to the A-hog in terms of performance and maneuverability. Hmm or maybe not... everyone would be flying them, and using their annoying HO 'tactics'.

[Debonair]

he said all of the ones in AH have teh folding wings...iirc the Goodyear Corsairs were built without & were for Marines only...

[SgtPappy]

Oh, so only the USMC ones didnt' have folding wings... I see.