Semi-annual Corsair Wishlist

[Saxman]

Figure it's time once again to post my semi-regular Corsair wishlist:

1) Hangar option to launch the F4U-1A and 1D as the FG-1A/D variant. The Goodyear-produced Corsairs were built without arrestor gear and folding wings, shaving about 1000lbs off the aircraft's weight. This could be a hangar loadout option available only from land bases.

2) Give the F4U-1D and F4U-4 back its center rack.

3) Add the 2000lb bomb for the centerline rack.

4) Tiny Tims!!! (ok, this would be good for other USN aircraft as well)

5) As I understand it, WEP in the Corsairs is functioning as a stand-in for the water injection system used on the "wet" versions of the R-2800 to provide additional power. However the Corsair didn't receive this version of the R-2800 (the -8W version) until the F4U-1A. If WEP is indeed supposed to be a stand-in for the water injection system, it should be removed from the F4U-1 as it didn't have the water injection system.

[Krusty]

The only corsair in-game with water injection is the F4U-4. The others are running at power settings designated only for emergency power, as far as I understand it. They're simply running higher RPM and MAP that was restricted, rather than using water injection. This was quite common for most planes in WW2.

[Saxman]

The only corsair in-game with water injection is the F4U-4. The others are running at power settings designated only for emergency power, as far as I understand it. They're simply running higher RPM and MAP that was restricted, rather than using water injection. This was quite common for most planes in WW2.

If that's the case something's wrong with the modeling, then, because the 1A, C and D all had water injection.

[Krusty]

If I recall, all of that was retro-fit after the fact, right? The most likely answer is we have models that were not retro-fit, to differentiate them timeline-wise. That would be why our 109G-6 is from 1942, for example, while our 109G-14 depicts one from 1943/1944.

[Krusty]

I think I owe you an apology... I think I was wrong. I remember thinking the -4 is the only one where gallons per hour drops when you use WEP, so I thought only it had water.

I think NOW this is wrong. I just tested out all of our corsairs offline. In all of them except the -4, the full throttle power and the WEP power burn the same gallons per hour. No bug, it's too consistent. There is an increase of about 4" of MAP from full to WEP, but no corresponding fuel burn increase. I dropped the throttle 4" on all of them, to estimate about how much of a fuel burn change there should be, and it went from 484 to about 450 GPH in all cases.

Why is the fuel burn not dropping during WEP? The water injection. It's reducing fuel burn at the higher power, which just happens to bring it down exactly to the non-WEP levels.

I was under the impression none of our corsairs had WEP but the -4. Now after looking into this, I believe all of them have it, just the -4's is a totally different beast and is more noticable when watching the burn rate.

[SIK1]

Water/alcohol injection first appeared on F4U-1A, BuNo. 55910, FG-1A, BuNo. 13992, F3A-1A, BuNo. 11208 (Allied/Signal F4U part 1).
Now I'm looking for the reference, but I seem to recall mention the P&W had a retrofit kit available to modify earlier R-2800 to water/alcohol injection and it was a fairly common modification to earlier production corsairs.

+1 on the center line hard point for the -1D, and -4

[Saxman]

Water/alcohol injection first appeared on F4U-1A, BuNo. 55910, FG-1A, BuNo. 13992, F3A-1A, BuNo. 11208 (Allied/Signal F4U part 1).
Now I'm looking for the reference, but I seem to recall mention the P&W had a retrofit kit available to modify earlier R-2800 to water/alcohol injection and it was a fairly common modification to earlier production corsairs.

+1 on the center line hard point for the -1D, and -4

I know the 1As were updated in the field. However by the time the water injection came around I think the only birdcage Hogs still in use were the F4U-2 night fighters. The -1s would have been replaced by 1As by, so the -1 really shouldn't be modeled for water injection. If Krusty is correct and that's depicted by a lack of fuel burn increase when WEP is on, then the -1's fuel burn should be going up under WEP.

Assuming that's how the water injection in the Corsairs is being modeled. I'm also wondering whether this is consistent with other aircraft that used the "wet" R-2800.

[SIK1]

It's possible that the birdcage corsairs were out of service by the time the water injection was introduced. That is why I'm trying to find the reference to the field modification because for some reason I remember it being Marine -1 corsairs that were being modified, but I won't swear to it until I find the reference I'm thinking of.

[Krusty]

There was no designation change for the corsair when the elevated deck and the new canopy were installed. They were all interchangably "F4U-1"s according to the factory. Going off of Squadron's books for that. It was too minor a change to even warrant a designation change, and the F4U-1A monicker is really an after-the-fact name given to that sub-model.

Going off the info I'm getting from Squadron's books and the fact that the speed charts are 98% identical on HTC's comparison page, I don't really know why we even got both to begin with. The -1 doesn't fill any planeset holes that the -1A can't fill just as readily.


P.S. I'm not even sure why the -1A we have gets a ram air boost at sea level while the -1 we have does not. Look at the speed charts. They should have the same engine with the same power.

[Zacherof]

Figure it's time once again to post my semi-regular Corsair wishlist:

1) Hangar option to launch the F4U-1A and 1D as the FG-1A/D variant. The Goodyear-produced Corsairs were built without arrestor gear and folding wings, shaving about 1000lbs off the aircraft's weight. This could be a hangar loadout option available only from land bases.

2) Give the F4U-1D and F4U-4 back its center rack.

3) Add the 2000lb bomb for the centerline rack.

4) Tiny Tims!!! (ok, this would be good for other USN aircraft as well)

5) As I understand it, WEP in the Corsairs is functioning as a stand-in for the water injection system used on the "wet" versions of the R-2800 to provide additional power. However the Corsair didn't receive this version of the R-2800 (the -8W version) until the F4U-1A. If WEP is indeed supposed to be a stand-in for the water injection system, it should be removed from the F4U-1 as it didn't have the water injection system.

+1

P.S. I'm not even sure why the -1A we have gets a ram air boost at sea level while the -1 we have does not. Look at the speed charts. They should have the same engine with the same power.

Wouldn't the prop come into play?
1A has a thicker prop
And I always felt the birdcage was faster below 5k. 

[Wmaker]

P.S. I'm not even sure why the -1A we have gets a ram air boost at sea level while the -1 we have does not. Look at the speed charts. They should have the same engine with the same power.

EDIT/It doesn't have anything to do with "ram air boost" (no idea what you meant by that in this particular context, intrigued to hear though). Different individual planes, different data sets./EDIT

Data set AH's F4U-1 matches: http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f4u/f4u-1-acp.pdf (The WEP here is with water injection).

5) As I understand it, WEP in the Corsairs is functioning as a stand-in for the water injection system used on the "wet" versions of the R-2800 to provide additional power. However the Corsair didn't receive this version of the R-2800 (the -8W version) until the F4U-1A. If WEP is indeed supposed to be a stand-in for the water injection system, it should be removed from the F4U-1 as it didn't have the water injection system.

AHT indeed uses the term takeoff/military instead of "combat" (which is "WEP" in American nomenclature) for the F4U-1's max. power setting. AHT doesn't list the MAP for it but I assume based on the -8W's MIL-setting that it is 54"(listed as "MIL" in AH). So considering all that, and the data above F4U-1 in AH uses water injection.

[Saxman]

There was no designation change for the corsair when the elevated deck and the new canopy were installed. They were all interchangably "F4U-1"s according to the factory. Going off of Squadron's books for that. It was too minor a change to even warrant a designation change, and the F4U-1A monicker is really an after-the-fact name given to that sub-model.

Going off the info I'm getting from Squadron's books and the fact that the speed charts are 98% identical on HTC's comparison page, I don't really know why we even got both to begin with. The -1 doesn't fill any planeset holes that the -1A can't fill just as readily.


P.S. I'm not even sure why the -1A we have gets a ram air boost at sea level while the -1 we have does not. Look at the speed charts. They should have the same engine with the same power.

Our 1A is one of the later models with the paddle prop, so that may account for the performance difference. The acceleration and rate of climb are much improved over the birdcage, and there's slight differences in the turn performance (amazing the differences a prop can make). Between that, the water injection, the new canopy and the wing spoiler, there's certainly enough differences. With that, would you REALLY want to see 1As in the Mid War arena or in early-1943 scenarios.

[Wmaker]

Just wanted to clarify that, like Saxman, I don't think F4U-1 should have water injection. Even the F4U-1A's didn't have it initially. The first F4U (-1A) equipped with water injection was produced in Nov 25th '43.

HTC may have used the data I mentioned above (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f4u/f4u-1-acp.pdf) as it lists the type as F4U-1. One thing I've noticed about the primary source documentation about the Corsair is the fact that the exact sub variant is rarely mentioned which obviously can cause confusion regarding which exact sub type is being talked about (I haven't taken a look at the serial/Buro numbers). That document is dated April '44. First F4U-1's had their operational debut more than a year earlier.

Here's data of a vanilla F4U-1 without water injection (R2800-8 engine): http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f4u/f4u-1-02155-British.pdf. This data represents F4U-1 much better than the data currently in use.

[Saxman]

Just wanted to clarify that, like Saxman, I don't think F4U-1 should have water injection. Even the F4U-1A's didn't have it initially. The first F4U (-1A) equipped with water injection was produced in Nov 25th '43.

HTC may have used the data I mentioned above (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f4u/f4u-1-acp.pdf) as it lists the type as F4U-1. One thing I've noticed about the primary source documentation about the Corsair is the fact that the exact sub variant is rarely mentioned which obviously can cause confusion regarding which exact sub type is being talked about (I haven't taken a look at the serial/Buro numbers). That document is dated April '44. First F4U-1's had their operational debut more than a year earlier.

Here's data of a vanilla F4U-1 without water injection (R2800-8 engine): http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f4u/f4u-1-02155-British.pdf. This data represents F4U-1 much better than the data currently in use.

So I'd say tweak the F4U-1's performance based on that second PDF. Leave the 1A as it is since most aircraft produced before the water injection was introduced had their engines retrofit in the field, anyway, so the R-2800-8W engine would have been more representative on the 1A. That way we have the F4U-1 to represent all Corsairs from February 1943 to the introduction of the injection water in November, and the 1A to represent Nov 1943 forward. That should differentiate the -1 from our -1A a bit more than currently.

[smoe]

1) Hangar option to launch the F4U-1A and 1D as the FG-1A/D variant. The Goodyear-produced Corsairs were built without arrestor gear and folding wings, shaving about 1000lbs off the aircraft's weight. This could be a hangar loadout option available only from land bases.

I think this would be a nice option. The early F4U's were used by the USMC and initially rejected by the USN.

A 1000lbs weight reduction would be rather nice.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vought_F4U_Corsair

"A land-based version for the USMC, without the folding wing capability, was built by Goodyear under the designation FG-1. In Fleet Air Arm service the F4U-1 was given the service name Corsair Mk I."

"A land-based version, without the folding wing capability, was built by Goodyear as the FG-1A. In British service, the aircraft type was modified with "clipped" wings (8 in (200 mm) was cut off each wingtip) for use on British aircraft carriers,[96] under the designation Corsair Mk II."

Additional production was carried out by Goodyear (FG-1D) and Brewster (F3A-1D). In Fleet Air Arm service, the latter was known as the Corsair III, and both had their wingtips clipped - 8 inches (203 mm) per wing - to allow storage in the lower hangars of British carriers.