Remove F4U Backplate

[WarTooth]

20mm,

>> Because that plane would be almost unstopable:

Help me understand what would make it unstoppable?

Thanks,

WT 

[SAS_KID]

To allow a field modification would be like opening up Pandora's box....

[uberslet]

Noir,

>> 109's with 5x20mm

Was this actually implemented routinely?

Having the backplate removed on F4U's was actually a routine occurrence.  How routine may forever be a point of contention of course so I simply pose it as an option. 

Given how many people have read this, there does not seem to be a violent outcry not to have this option.  I know that if I flew the F4U in WWII I'd want the option.

How about you? I'd like to hear your thoughts on this topic please,

WT 

i think noir was joking, (A), and as people have mentioned, this was a field mod (B)....

[BnZ]

Maybe not remove it, but maybe make it offer SOME extra protection? It doesn't seem too.

In my experience, the F4Us get pilot wounds as much more than planes with less plating back there.

[Kweassa]

Was this actually implemented routinely?

 Questioning the frequency of the previously (and a bit sarcastically) mentioned '5x20mm' option on 109s..

Having the backplate removed on F4U's was actually a routine occurrence.  How routine may forever be a point of contention of course so I simply pose it as an option. 

 And then, choosing not to discuss the frequency of the backplates removed - since it is controversial, and one would prefer to just ignore it completely.


 ...

 You get the picture.

[SkyRock]

Nothing wrong witht the hog series just the way they are.  Visibility is great and chicks dig gullwings!

[SectorNine50]

Can't you maneuver your view around to where it's no worse than other non-bubble canopy planes?

[Noir]

Noir,

>> 109's with 5x20mm

Was this actually implemented routinely?

Having the backplate removed on F4U's was actually a routine occurrence.  How routine may forever be a point of contention of course so I simply pose it as an option. 

Given how many people have read this, there does not seem to be a violent outcry not to have this option.  I know that if I flew the F4U in WWII I'd want the option.

How about you? I'd like to hear your thoughts on this topic please,

WT 

Ok lets make sure what you are talking about...here is a rear view of a F4U pilot in AH2 (note my perfect drawing skills)



Lets see that armor plate from the outside....



Well if you remove the armor plate I don't see how it would improve visibility, as there is a whole tail behind it.

[1pLUs44]

I can see out my F4U's just fine, I just adjusted the pilots' position.

[Anaxogoras]

109's with 5x20mm

Bring field mods to AH and perk 'em.
 

[WarTooth]

Noir,

Nice job on the graphic detailing.   

The piece that you have termed "Holds the Canopy" is what I'd like the option to enable\disable.  Being that WWII pilots removed it\replaced it with glass etc, may indicate its real affectivity as a functioning piece.  Yep, like many of you I have seen F4Us up close.


Kweassa,

>> And then, choosing not to discuss the frequency of the backplates removed - since it is controversial, and one would prefer to just ignore it completely.

Thanks for your response.  I think perhaps you are reading too much into my post.  I am just trying to keep it nudged toward the question at hand.


SectorNine50,

>> Can't you maneuver your view around to where it's no worse than other non-bubble canopy planes?

Though I have set my views via F10 it always seems this component is still blocking a significant portion of the view.  Maybe I can stick my head out the window. 


Further Information:

The name of the 1st non-bird cage canopy seems to be "bulged Malcolm Hood".  http://pmulcahy.100megs3.com/aircraft/us_fighter-bombers.html

According to Wikopedia this "field mod" made it into the last production run of the F4 (July\1945) as "an all-round vision bubble-type canopy was installed."  Picture shown on wikipedia page.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F2G_Corsair


WT 

[Saxman]

No. It should NOT be removable. You've been given plenty of reasons why. Also, I'd like you to point me out some documentary evidence it ever WAS removed in the field, as this isn't a simple job. Hacking it off may be, but you'd need an entirely new, specially-fitted piece glass made especially for the change in the canopy frame. And guess what, I doubt most airbases in the middle of the Pacific, many of which were just strips of crushed coral and had little more permanent structures than a few tents, had the facilities or equipment for fabricating the canopy glass. If a canopy needed replacing it came from a wrecked plane that was no longer flyable, a central supply depot IF they were lucky, or from back in the States.

The only F4U that should NOT have it is the F4U-4, as it was removed in all but the first few out of the factory and most -4s didn't have it to begin with. It's been requested a couple times to remove it from the F4U-4, but it should NOT be removed from the earlier marks.

[Hap]

Sounds like this would fall under the realm of "field modification".  Which is a whole nasty can of worms once it's opened. 

Fuel and barracks. 

[WarTooth]

Saxman,

Thanks for your feedback.

If this is vitally important to you I invite you to talk to any later war F4U vets to determine for your own satisfaction its legitimacy and rate of occurrence.   For me it was my Dad.

Off topic, my Dad was on the Yorktown and other US Navy ships in WWII.  He mentioned that when WWII broke out the Zero was seen as an incredible technological advancement.  What none of the WWII documentaries seem to convey is just what a shock wave the Zero represented at the time.

WT 

[Noir]

Even if the F4U did receive field modifications these are not to be included in AH models until HTC changes his mind.

I pointed out the 109 as an example with its hundreds of field modification kits that are almost impossible to model correctly. I remember the never ending debate that occurred here around the parasite drag caused by the gondolas...I remember also the list of field mods on the B25 that we never had.

Its not like we don't want them, but HTC would have to open a 5 persons field mod branch just to list all these modifications, and evaluate the change needed in the flight model and skins...Like soulyss said its a nasty can of worms once opened.