Author Topic: We don't have a "real F4U-1"???  (Read 478 times)

Offline 1K3

  • Parolee
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3449
We don't have a "real F4U-1"???
« on: July 19, 2007, 08:06:52 PM »
The F4U lineup

Late 1942 to Early 1943.....
- no F4U here

late 1943 to early 1944.....
- F4U-1 and F4U-1A

late 1944 to 1945.....
- F4U-1C/D

1945.....
- F4U-4



Does anyone here see what's wrong with the lineup?  What is wrong is that we don't have the "real F4U-1" for late 1942 - early 1943 time frame.

A "real" F4U-1 birdcage for late 1942 - early 1943 did not carry Water Injection.  Water injection was fitted on F4U-1 birdcage the same time when F4U-1A entered service for late 1943 - early 1944 time frame.

The F4U-1 "birdcage" that we have right now is almost basically an F4U-1A in when it comes to speed.

Offline Saxman

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 9155
We don't have a "real F4U-1"???
« Reply #1 on: July 19, 2007, 09:20:33 PM »
Yes. WEP should really be removed from the birdcage Hog.
Ron White says you can't fix stupid. I beg to differ. Stupid will usually sort itself out, it's just a matter of making sure you're not close enough to become collateral damage.

Offline 1K3

  • Parolee
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3449
We don't have a "real F4U-1"???
« Reply #2 on: July 19, 2007, 11:03:02 PM »
See for yourselves.  The "real" F4U-1.

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f4u/02155-level.jpg
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f4u/02155-climb.jpg

I can't believe NONE of the "experts" in this board pointed this out earlier.

Offline Saxman

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 9155
We don't have a "real F4U-1"???
« Reply #3 on: July 19, 2007, 11:12:00 PM »
Actually, it was a while ago, I think.

Also, the F4U-1D is missing provisions for its centerline pylon (however if you go to the skin viewer, you can see that the pylon IS included). Some Marine strikes (from land bases) loaded the Hogs down with as much as 4000lbs of bombs (1 2000lb bomb on the centerline, and a thousand pounder on each wing pylon) though I'm not sure if they also carried rockets in this configuration.

I also want Tiny Tims!
Ron White says you can't fix stupid. I beg to differ. Stupid will usually sort itself out, it's just a matter of making sure you're not close enough to become collateral damage.

Offline 1K3

  • Parolee
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3449
We don't have a "real F4U-1"???
« Reply #4 on: July 19, 2007, 11:20:55 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Saxman

I also want Tiny Tims!


:O

It's like a primitive surface to air missile.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n9RLK__dFDE

Offline Saxman

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 9155
We don't have a "real F4U-1"???
« Reply #5 on: July 20, 2007, 12:32:20 AM »
More accurately, a 500lb armor-piercing naval shell with a rocket engine attached. :D
Ron White says you can't fix stupid. I beg to differ. Stupid will usually sort itself out, it's just a matter of making sure you're not close enough to become collateral damage.

Offline Stoney74

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1439
We don't have a "real F4U-1"???
« Reply #6 on: July 20, 2007, 02:39:19 AM »
Don't confuse War Emergency Power (WEP) with water injection.  For U.S. birds, the WEP rating was a higher allowable manifold pressure that carried a time limit, most of the time it was 5 minutes.  Most American fighters, regardless of whether or not they had water injection, had a WEP power setting.  Water Injection was merely provided to allow higher manifold settings that may or may not have been the WEP power setting.  Case in point, the P-47N water injection began at 54" of manifold pressure, even though the WEP rating was 72".  Time limit for WEP in the Jug N was 5 minutes continuous, even though it carried 15 minutes worth of water.  Conversely, the P-51D had a WEP rating, even though it didn't carry water injection.

So, the F4U-1 may not have had water injection early on, but the R-2800 that powered it did have a WEP rating.

Offline Krusty

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 26745
We don't have a "real F4U-1"???
« Reply #7 on: July 20, 2007, 09:00:30 AM »
^--- Quite so. Folks seem to confuse that point far too often. Excellent clarification! :aok