F4U1C Vs F4U1A

[Saxman]

"Fabric covered wing"! Surely you jest! If you are serious, then really you need to stay out of this thread!

Part of the outer wing covering on the F4U-1 series was fabric. The Rudder also had a fabric cover.

[earl1937]

Spped penalty for the 4 x 20 mm in the F4U-1C was 2 mph at sea level and 1 mph at 20,000 ft, at least according to the USN.

If memory serves me correctly, the difference in weight of the 20MM cannon and the .50 cals was one reason they only built 200 of the "C" hog and it was pretty much dedicated to air to ground attack sorties, although there are some PIRIP's of air to air combat with Japanese aircraft.
Guess the best way to answer  your question is take a F4UD up, full power and wep and see what top speed you get, then take the C up and do the same thing, with 24% fuel. Now we are talking about this game aircraft, not the real thing. I fly both in this game and can't tell much difference, but wasn't running tests or any kind. Compressability should be about the same, as its basically the same airframe.

[Golfer]

The space shuttle does alright with fabric covering.  I'm not sure whether or not it was as fast as an F4U though.

[J.A.W.]

Earl, a couple of points here..

You posted that you were being run down in top end speed by a 1A, while flying a 1C.

Is this due to piloting skill or fundamental speed difference?

The early US H-S cannon were flawed in production & were jam prone.

The USN, rightly, considered this unacceptable.

However, they really rated the cannon, as each being worth three 50cal MGs,
& reintroduced them as a standard fit in later F4U production planes.


The 50 cal was a relatively heavy gun too, & weighed more than cannon per effectiveness ratio.

The point about compressibility is..
Does the F4U - in Aces High - run an unrealistically advantageous  Vne?

If you have done 550mph IAS & stayed in the game, then probably - the answer is yes.

Space Shuttle ran a ceramic composite thermal tile covering,
 & at least - one - had a serious issue with it failing in flight.

[earl1937]

Earl, a couple of points here..

You posted that you were being run down in top end speed by a 1A, while flying a 1C.

Is this due to piloting skill or fundamental speed difference?

The early US H-S cannon were flawed in production & were jam prone.

The USN, rightly, considered this unacceptable.

However, they really rated the cannon, as each being worth three 50cal MGs,
& reintroduced them as a standard fit in later F4U production planes.


The 50 cal was a relatively heavy gun too, & weighed more than cannon per effectiveness ratio.

The point about compressibility is..
Does the F4U - in Aces High - run an unrealistically advantageous  Vne?

If you have done 550mph IAS & stayed in the game, then probably - the answer is yes.

Space Shuttle ran a ceramic composite thermal tile covering,
 & at least - one - had a serious issue with it failing in flight.

Good points and I stand corrected about the fabric covering. I really wasn't taking notes during this little fight I had with the 1A, so tonight I will take up a 1C, with 25& fuel and see where it compresses.

[Golfer]

Space Shuttle ran a ceramic composite thermal tile covering,
 & at least - one - had a serious issue with it failing in flight.

Alright, it didn't sink in the first time.

The Space Shuttle seems to do okay with fabric covering.  Whether or not it's faster than an F4U I'll defer since I'm not sure how fast the Space Shuttle is.

[Saxman]

If memory serves me correctly, the difference in weight of the 20MM cannon and the .50 cals was one reason they only built 200 of the "C" hog and it was pretty much dedicated to air to ground attack sorties, although there are some PIRIP's of air to air combat with Japanese aircraft.
Guess the best way to answer  your question is take a F4UD up, full power and wep and see what top speed you get, then take the C up and do the same thing, with 24% fuel. Now we are talking about this game aircraft, not the real thing. I fly both in this game and can't tell much difference, but wasn't running tests or any kind. Compressability should be about the same, as its basically the same airframe.

The Navy mainly passed on the F4U-1C because against the fragile and lightly-protected Japanese fighters, .50cal were more than sufficient to do the job (compare the Germans, who needed a lot of firepower to bring down the American bombers, so mounted increasingly large numbers of increasingly larger cannon). Likewise, American fighters in Europe didn't bother with cannon (aside from the P-38) for much the same reason: MGs were "good enough" to do the job. The cannon were looked at again post-war because as things progress into the jet age the "instant kill" capability of the cannon became increasingly important when you're dealing with the speeds jet combat reaches.

The speed difference between the F4U-1D and 1C is not particularly significant, (only about 1-2mph) however both are without question slower than the 1 and 1A because the 1D/C have permanently fixed wing pylons. At best altitude, The F4U-1/A will hit ~420+ TAS (the 1A will hit 427, thanks to its paddle prop). That's over 20mph faster than the 1D/C at that altitude.

[J.A.W.]

Alright, it didn't sink in the first time.

The Space Shuttle seems to do okay with fabric covering.  Whether or not it's faster than an F4U I'll defer since I'm not sure how fast the Space Shuttle is.

Nah, it was the 1st SS crash that did 'sink in' to the Atlantic,
 but that was due to the rocket booster failing, not a Vne/skin covering problem.

As for SS speed, ask Buck Rogers, since it was fast enough to get him to the 25th century &
the lovely Wilma [but don't mention Wiki]...

[Golfer]

Nah, it was the 1st SS crash that did 'sink in' to the Atlantic,
 but that was due to the rocket booster failing, not a Vne/skin covering problem.

Lets try it one last time.  The space shuttle has a significant amount of fabric covering that looks basically like a big quilt.

The point being that simply as a matter of material there's construction and application to consider as well.

[J.A.W.]

The SS covering is a hard ceramic composite matrix fitted over the structural skinning as a thermal barrier, & it is NOT in the same category as the doped fabric skinning used by earlier aircraft..


& Sm, the USN knew full well that a well functioning 4 x 20mm cannon fit out was way more
 effective against any aircraft or ground target than even 8 x 50 cal MGs..

The RAF had operated 4 cannon fighters - in service - since `41,
 & had been on the receiving end of them - in FW 190s - too.

The primary issue with US cannon use - was the failure to produce a good H-S copy
until too late for service.

& in the case of the USAAF/USAF ['cept for the P-61]- that extended to the Korean war, too.

[Golfer]

The SS covering is a hard ceramic composite matrix fitted over the structural skinning as a thermal barrier, & it is NOT in the same category as the doped fabric skinning used by earlier aircraft..

Please, tell me more.

[earl1937]

The Navy mainly passed on the F4U-1C because against the fragile and lightly-protected Japanese fighters, .50cal were more than sufficient to do the job (compare the Germans, who needed a lot of firepower to bring down the American bombers, so mounted increasingly large numbers of increasingly larger cannon). Likewise, American fighters in Europe didn't bother with cannon (aside from the P-38) for much the same reason: MGs were "good enough" to do the job. The cannon were looked at again post-war because as things progress into the jet age the "instant kill" capability of the cannon became increasingly important when you're dealing with the speeds jet combat reaches.

The speed difference between the F4U-1D and 1C is not particularly significant, (only about 1-2mph) however both are without question slower than the 1 and 1A because the 1D/C have permanently fixed wing pylons. At best altitude, The F4U-1/A will hit ~420+ TAS (the 1A will hit 427, thanks to its paddle prop). That's over 20mph faster than the 1D/C at that altitude.

Just got back from TA and here is what I found: The F4UD, 330 cruise, level flight at 10K, with 25% fuel and wep engaged! The 1C about 320, with wep on.

I dove the the 1C to, as best I could guess, because the AS indicator ran out of marking, about 570 IAS and yes, compressing start about 525, but I recoved with no problem fromt he 570 speed because I was running out of altitude.  Was trying to see if wings would come off, but as I said ran out of altitude from 19K. About a 45 degree dive angle. "Snowbell" was there, watching what I was doing, but wasn't in the cockpit with me. Take one up and see for yourself guys.

[Golfer]

Most everything that's white on exterior of the shuttle isn't painted that way.

[J.A.W.]

Earl - thanks for confirming that F4U flight data,
& yeah, it clearly shows the AH Corsair needs, ah, adjustment - to comply with the real world bird..

G, you do of course realize that those SS coverings shown in the pic are solely
for protection of the sensitive tiles on the ground & are not flown..

Or are you being 'funny' ..or attempting a thread hi-jack?

[Golfer]

The stuff that gets RFH (which is a measure of how high a temperature is relative to "really hot") are tiles.  Leading edges, underside of the lifting body, etc

Most of the white you see isn't tile.

Or they're putting blankies on once they get into orbit because it gets cold...