Author Topic: how did the f4u have such a low CD,0  (Read 2029 times)

Offline Torgo

  • Zinc Member
  • *
  • Posts: 23
how did the f4u have such a low CD,0
« Reply #30 on: December 11, 2000, 01:12:00 PM »
It's been a while since I did the research but cannon-armed F4U-4s definately did NOT see WWII combat.

There was an infinite amount of controversy over various late-war F4Us because people (and even some books) started confusing the F4U-1C and the F4U-4C and B, etc. etc. etc. some months back.

Offline Torgo

  • Zinc Member
  • *
  • Posts: 23
how did the f4u have such a low CD,0
« Reply #31 on: December 11, 2000, 01:17:00 PM »
Like I said, no one without changes in the gun modeling is gonna call any purely .50 plane right now a dweebmobile.

Heck, I can't do anything in a .50 armed plane right now...I was an average pilot in WBs, played it about 3 years, quit about when Pyro and HT left, didn't play any flight sims at all till about 2 months ago, and I still suck in AH.....also haven't gotten rid of all my nose bounce, either. But I find I can't kill anything with .50s stil.

Offline Hooligan

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 889
how did the f4u have such a low CD,0
« Reply #32 on: December 11, 2000, 01:50:00 PM »
About 200 or 300 -4Bs were produced before the end of Hostilities.  If memory serves, Hatch once posted a picture of somebody (his uncle?) posing with a -4B on Okinawa.  I haven't seen any really reliable (i.e. archival) information that gives WWII combat dates for -4Bs.  But the planes did exist at the time, so it can never be proven that none saw combat (i.e. you can't prove a negative).

Hooligan

Offline bolillo_loco

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 127
how did the f4u have such a low CD,0
« Reply #33 on: December 11, 2000, 03:31:00 PM »
-4Bs werent ww2 planes. 370 51H models were produced before the wars end, but none saw combat. it always took 3+ months after they were produced to see actual combat

Offline F4UDOA

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1731
      • http://mywebpages.comcast.net/markw4/index.html
how did the f4u have such a low CD,0
« Reply #34 on: December 11, 2000, 03:48:00 PM »
Gents,

Here is some info from the Vought website on production numbers.

  http://www.vought.com/y40-50/prod_40/ww2_f4u/quant_f4u/quant_f4u.html  

There is a mention of specific combat record of a F4U-4C on this website, I just need to find it.

bolillo_loco,

The answer to your question is that they were produced simultaniously. I even have a book by Veronico Campbell that shows record of Goodyear production C-hog's designated FG-1E. I think they were more common than most people think. The Navy decided to move toward the 20Mil cannon in 1944 and from there forward even the late model TBM Avenger dive bombers had a 20Mil varient( I have seen them but I do not have a designation).

As far as the turning capability of a F4U-4 it was roughly the same as a F4U-1D being only 500lbs heavier fully loaded. The spoiler strip you mention was introduced very early in the F4U production of the -1A.
It's actual effect was lower the Max Cl from 2.33 to 1.88. Which was actually a retrofit not a production designation. There really was no such thing as a -1A production designation. Other mods for the 1A included a raised bubble canopy, debounced landing gear and water injection.

The turning performance of the F4U was measured with the strip remembering that the flight test between the F4U and FW190A5, P-51B, A6M5 and F6F were all done with a spoiler equiped F4U. It was shown to out turn the FW190A5 and P-51B while being slightly inferior to the F6F. In test against the Zero it could stay with the Zeke for one half turn. The F4U-4 had lower drag and 200HP more giving it better acceleration climb and E-retention. It is regarded by all as the best flying F4U.

Later
F4UDOA

[This message has been edited by F4UDOA (edited 12-11-2000).]

Offline GRUNHERZ

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 13413
how did the f4u have such a low CD,0
« Reply #35 on: December 11, 2000, 04:31:00 PM »
Hi

Unfortunately bolillo many people in here think that any plane that was produced should be in the game, wheather it saw actual WW2 combat is irrelevant to them. Some actualy think a plane being shipped to the  front in September 1945 is a satisfactory definition of seeing "combat". Then they try to justify their reasoning with something like this, It wasnt P51Hs fault that the war ended before it saw combat. Actually Im starting to like this reasoning too, Ive always wanted to fly F86 vs Mig15, and was disappointed with Mig Alley. Soon we will have them in AH, since it was obviously not the fault of F86 or Mig15 that WW2 ended before they were ready.

thanks GRUNHERZ

Offline F4UDOA

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1731
      • http://mywebpages.comcast.net/markw4/index.html
how did the f4u have such a low CD,0
« Reply #36 on: December 11, 2000, 05:17:00 PM »
Grunhurz,

It helps if you read the thread instead of just skimming the topics.

I said

 
Quote
I do believe the F4U-4B did see action in WW2, however I will not lobby for it's use in Aces High. I would rather see the F4U-1A(better maneuvering) and F4U-4 as the two non-perked versions of the F4U and the -1C be the perk version.

I don't believe anyone is screaming for it either. However if you read the production numbers from Vought it is clear that 297 F4U-4C's were completed by wars end.

BTW. Just because an A/C saw 5 minutes of combat in WW2 does not make it a production A/C.
The Hitler youth saw combat in WW2, and it didn't make them soldiers.  


Offline SKurj

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3630
how did the f4u have such a low CD,0
« Reply #37 on: December 11, 2000, 05:31:00 PM »
 
Quote
Originally posted by Torgo:
Ack...I knew that...

I was thinking Navy = CV capable :-).  

Well, the CVs will increase the numbers of CHogs even more...it's the only thing people will be flying from them....

Torgo... u must fly in the MA with yer eyes closed...
Why would carriers mean more chogs or Niki's?  Niki is not Navy, it was army so not CV capable.  Adding more places to takeoff will not influence the ratio of niks vs chogs vs f6fs vs p51's...
If it can takeoff a carrier it can takeoff from an airbase, oh hey!! wait a minute we have airbases now which permit nik's and chogs to takeoff.. wonder why I ever see anything else in flight...

(workin on dhog in preparation fer the F6f)

AKSKurj

funked

  • Guest
how did the f4u have such a low CD,0
« Reply #38 on: December 11, 2000, 05:39:00 PM »
Skurj don't forget Seafires!!!
Were there any Polish Fleet Air Arm units?    

Hopefully we get some Vals and Kates to go with the Zekes.

I'd also really like to see the Bf 109T and Ju 87C.

Then we can have us a CV war!!!

[This message has been edited by funked (edited 12-11-2000).]

Offline SKurj

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3630
how did the f4u have such a low CD,0
« Reply #39 on: December 11, 2000, 05:40:00 PM »
Starts running ...

Ta152, hmm what 24-25 saw combat... guess we should give each country(not each player) 1 ta152 per 24 hr period

We all know that AH will have "What if" aircraft.  I say if it was produced b4 war's end than let it in.(perked or otherwise)  There is no other way to squelch the whines that I can see....

AKSKurj

Offline Jigster

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 107
      • http://www.33rd.org
how did the f4u have such a low CD,0
« Reply #40 on: December 11, 2000, 05:51:00 PM »
Speakin of the Seafire, it offically got the last kill of WWII, the Japanese surrendered while while he was enroute.

- Jig

Offline Torgo

  • Zinc Member
  • *
  • Posts: 23
how did the f4u have such a low CD,0
« Reply #41 on: December 11, 2000, 06:04:00 PM »
Skurj,

The Niki WAS a Japanese Navy plane. However it was purely land-based (and the original was a floatplane) and thus presumably will not be CV capable in AH.

I simply had a brain-fart and forgot.  The Ki-84 was the Japanese Army AC of roughly  the same generation.

And simple logic dictates that the CVs will cause a bump-up of the number of CHogs.

1) A lot of people will want to fly off the CVs. After 1.05 that number will decline somewhat as the novelty wears off..but it will be significant.

2) The planeset for the CVs will be much smaller than the planset from land bases. You can fly any fighter from land bases. When 1.05 comes out, the only fighters you'll be able to fly from the CVs will be:

CHog
Regular Hog
Hellcat
Zero

And I guess conceivably HTC could enable the Spit V on the CVs till they knock out a quickie Seafire or something. But we've not heard anything to that effect.

Now, out of that tiny 4-plane planeset, AFTER the novelty of the Hellcat wears off, can you tell me which plane is gonna be selected for the majority of CV fighter sorties? Doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure it out.


Offline Torgo

  • Zinc Member
  • *
  • Posts: 23
how did the f4u have such a low CD,0
« Reply #42 on: December 11, 2000, 06:09:00 PM »
The thing is I distinctly remember arguments here (and also on Argo's WB board years ago) where people were citing actual books claiming that cannon-armed F4U-4s saw combat and it was determined the books were erroneously confusing them with F4U-1Cs.

Just because it's published doesn't mean it's right.

Offline F4UDOA

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1731
      • http://mywebpages.comcast.net/markw4/index.html
how did the f4u have such a low CD,0
« Reply #43 on: December 11, 2000, 07:54:00 PM »
Torgo,

Your right, just because it's published doesn't mean it's right. In fact 90% of published data is wrong from what I can see.

However it also doesn't prove it's wrong. I have found record of the FG-1E cannon armed Goodyear C-Hog. But I can't find production numbers. I know 297 F4U-4c's were built before wars end, I just have to find unit history. Just because it's published doesn't mean it's wrong either.

I have yet to see anybody step to the plate with any 1G stall information on the FW190D-9 but we will be perking that. Should we not model it because the data isn't available?

Offline wells

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 166
how did the f4u have such a low CD,0
« Reply #44 on: December 11, 2000, 08:51:00 PM »
DOA,

If an 8500 lbs 190 stalls at 110 mph, a 9500 lbs 190 stalls at 116 mph