whats with the f4u-4

[Saxman]

Depends on your altitude. At some parts of the altitude range the F4U-4 will leave the Mustang behind.

[stroker71]

Originally posted by Stoney74
You sure about this?  I don't think the F4U-1A was pushing 2600 HP was it?

the book i have states:

F4U1a with r-2800-8w is 2250hp
F4U4 with r-2800-18 is 2100hp

they did later replace the engine in the -4 not sure which one we have

it may be wrong but the f4u4 will still outrun a A1...on wep the -4 is a beast

Can we get the tiny tim rocket?

[Saxman]

I've been asking for that, centerline ords on the 1D, 1A without wing folding and arrestor gear, and a fix to the frelling microscopic gunsights for the past several updates.

[Widewing]

Originally posted by stroker71
the book i have states:

F4U1a with r-2800-8w is 2250hp
F4U4 with r-2800-18 is 2100hp

they did later replace the engine in the -4 not sure which one we have

it may be wrong but the f4u4 will still outrun a A1...on wep the -4 is a beast

Can we get the tiny tim rocket?

Factory ratings for the R-2800-8W and R-2800-18W are as follows:

R-2800-8W: 2,135 hp @ sea level, 1,975 hp @ 16,900 ft.
 

R-2800-18W: 2,380 hp @ sea level, 2,080 hp @ 23,300 ft.

Add to this the four-bladed prop of the F4U-4, which can harness more power than that of the three-bladed prop.

My regards,

Widewing

[Brooke]

Originally posted by Saxman
Check that last figure for the 1A. Should it be 2861?

The 3861 is number of planes delivered that I saw or added up from the book's info.  I'll check it again and post a correction if I added it up wrong.  It is sort of unclear for me to have added a column (next to HP) of number produced, but there was some question about how many F4U-4's were produced (I think) earlier in this topic, so I added in that column.

[Saxman]

Ah, ok.

[SgtPappy]

Originally posted by stroker71
It was a 13'2" prop actually

This will get'em going!

Oh? 'The Great Book of WWII Airplanes' has failed me?
Also Stroker, I think the hp figure for the P&W R-2800-18W is 2450 hp with WEP, just like your R-2800-8W figure is a WEP figure of 2250 hp... these are the most commonly published figures that I've seen so far; I bet WW's are more accurate.

Oh, Sax, what's the weight difference on the A-hog with and without wing fold/arrester gear?

[Saxman]

About 500lbs I believe. Although it's only a relatively small percentage of the total weight, 500lbs actually makes a significant difference in the 1A. What you can do, is take off with 100% internal, then burn the wings completely dry. Then compare how she handles at full internal fuel, and then with 500lbs LESS fuel as the main burns down. There's a noticeable improvement in performance 500lbs lighter.

[SgtPappy]

500 lbs, not that much? lol to me...I think that's much; flying Spitfires and Corsairs in this game for its entire duration in my life, the Spitfire IX's weight of 7303 lbs. loaded vs. the Spitfire VIII's loaded weight of 7807 lbs. feels like a LOT.

And I have absolutely NO trouble turning a Spit IX tighter. With a whopping 500 lbs less weight on the USMC F4U, that's a good amount of weight lost. The only thing the F4U didn't have much of that I needed was acceleration and 500 lbs weight loss will really help.

I have the USN cross-section of the F4U but if you have the USMC cross section, I could dissect and look, piece by piece, the differences. In published works, this USMC Hog is about as popular as history class is to other kids my age. If there were more/near equal amounts of USMC Hogs compared to USN Hogs, I don't see why we can't have one. Besides, it was the USMC that made those Hogs famous! We'd be able to use those awesome skins of yours, Sax, with confidence.

[Saxman]

What I meant by "insignificant" was compared to the aircraft's overall weight. 500lbs is a much bigger percentage of the weight of a 7000lb aircraft, as opposed to one that weighs about 12,000lbs at combat weight.

Regarding the USN vs USMC birds, it really depended first on where the aircraft was manufactured. All Vought-built aircraft were built as carrier-borne birds. Those built by Goodyear came out of the factory without the wing folding mechanism and arrestor gear. A large number of Vought-built 1As assigned to land-bases were later upgraded (or downgraded) before being turned over to the squadrons. Some Navy squadrons flew Corsairs without the carrier-handling equipment. Some Marine squadrons flew Corsairs that DID have it. And there's likely be a mix of both.

However a sufficient number of 1As were purpose-built in this configuration I think there should at LEAST be an option in the hangar allowing her to be flown that way. It would take no real additional modeling, except the removal of the tail hook.

[SgtPappy]

That is very true, but after calculations I did a while back (assuming an F4U had its auw weight reduced by 350 lbs, the wingloading went down and powerloading went up enough to allow a tiny boost in performance... similar to tha boost a -1A gains over the -1).

I totally agree about having one for those reasons... I'll have to add that wish to my sig. Also, I was about to ask why some FG's had arrestor gear after looking at FG-1D, 'Marine's Dream'. Right now, I'm still trying to find info on FG-1A's.. hopefully find some important figures that could get us one in-game.

And I think it would make sense ti have one since the USMC really was an important user of the Hogs in general, and not just the F4U-1. I would really like to see either an FG-1A or FG-1D allowed in the list. Did these get H2O injection around the same time as the USN versions?

[Saxman]

The presence of arrestor gear/etc on the FG-1D Marine's Dream is probably explainable by the fact she's a 1D: By the time that variant came out, between procedures developed by the Fleet Air Arm and improvements to the aircraft design itself, the Corsair was deemed suitable for carrier operations. So it stands to reason, since the F4U-1D was the first variant fully cleared for carrier use, both Vought and Goodyear's production runs would have all had the folding wings and arrestor gear (as opposed to the 1A, which was predominantly relegated to land bases).

[SgtPappy]

Also, to add to your statement of additional modeling not being required.. does a weight reduction count? I have no idea as to how the flight models i this game are coded in terms of weight.

Also, I've been goolging around for a good while and I can't find a good source for Goodyear or Brewster Corsairs. If you have a good site pertaining to them, I'd like to see. I know it sounds weird but I'm not sure if the naval gearless Goodyear models had the wing fold/lock and arrestor hook controls as I haven't been able to find a single picture of a single Corsair with no naval gear.

The new plane could be like what the FM2 is to the F4F. Problem is, I don't think they'd make one before they add the other planes; most importantly IMO Axis transports and remodeled/added Italian a/c.

[Saxman]

Adjusting the weight would be completely different from an outright new wireframe. All that would be required would be hiding the tail hook.

[SgtPappy]

So I tried to lose 500 lbs off the -1A last night offline. With 25%, 0.0 burn and an ammo load multiplied by 9.8, my weight stood at the standard 11,278 lbs. I figured... hey... if I lose all this ammo, I can theoretically lose 500 lbs off the plane and see how it handles.

Problem is, I don't think the game is coded to allow that, even if the weight goes down that much, as I didn't notice much, possibly due to the fact I did this after I came back from work, quite tired.

You think someone could try out this test and see if the planes actually handle better or get better results under this 'glitch' test?