F4U1C Vs F4U1A

[J.A.W.]

Good post Mtn-m..

Interesting that the Brits state that the practical limit for Corsair combat dives does co-relate
with the Vne @ 460mph.. so.. quite a bit slower  than A-H's virtual modelling allows.

In their test of the F6F they also remark on the fabric control surface skinning 'ballooning'
during high speed dives & affecting controllability..

I think it was understood that gung-ho young fighter-jocks would exceed the Vne,
..just like punk teenagers speeding on fast motorcycles.. but how many times you'd get
a badly bent bird past the crew chief.. or make it home.. I don't know..

[J.A.W.]

Bob Spurdle survived having a weary Spitfire (P7364) disintegrate on him in a WFO dive
while chasing a 109 in the Battle of Britain, but then he was uncommonly lucky..
- an important quality to have - as a pilot..

& the F4U was indeed - the ride of choice - for the USMC 'Black Sheep' bunch.. AFAIR..

[Saxman]

& the F4U was indeed - the ride of choice - for the USMC 'Black Sheep' bunch.. AFAIR..

The Marines in general saw the Corsair as their ride of choice, not just VMF-214. In fact I think the majority (if not all) of the Marine Hellcats were F6F-5(N) night-fighter variants equipping the VMF(N) squadrons, or as small numbers of aircraft assigned to the regular VMFs to supplement their day fighters (the same would have been done with the F4U-2s).

I think the Marines even equipped several of the VMSB squadrons with Corsairs instead of Dauntlesses (which unlike the Navy, they were smart enough to pass up that dog Helldiver and keep their SBDs up through the end of the war). I know for sure the VMOs used Corsairs.

[J.A.W.]

Sure that wasn't just another typical case of the Navy 'hand-me-down' policy towards the USMC?

& that the USN's salty CV skippers passed on the F4U  - 'til well into`44 - in favour of the F6F,
virtually palming off the F4U as fit only for Lend-Lease Limeys & Land-Lubber Leathernecks..

[Widewing]

Good post Mtn-m..

Interesting that the Brits state that the practical limit for Corsair combat dives does co-relate
with the Vne @ 460mph.. so.. quite a bit slower  than A-H's virtual modelling allows.

460 mph IAS. At 12,000 feet, that translates into 540 mph TAS, or Mach 0.741, which corresponds to what we see in the game.

[J.A.W.]

So Ww, can you be serious - the A-H ASI shows TAS?

Earl reports going off the clock on his F4U terminal dive test @ 570 IAS & no control issues..

[FLS]

Try it yourself. Note how easily you maneuver. 

[J.A.W.]

That does not compute.. 570 IAS in a F4U is virtually tie fighter fantasy..

[Saxman]

Sure that wasn't just another typical case of the Navy 'hand-me-down' policy towards the USMC?

& that the USN's salty CV skippers passed on the F4U  - 'til well into`44 - in favour of the F6F,
virtually palming off the F4U as fit only for Lend-Lease Limeys & Land-Lubber Leathernecks..

The Navy passed on the F4U and continued to use the F4F on the carriers until September 1943, when the F6F became available, due to early teething problems during carrier operations (primarily excessive gear bounce, and it took the Royal Navy to develop landing procedures that eliminated the visibility problems over the nose). Afterwards, the decision by the Navy to keep with the Hellcat on the carrier decks (even though performance-wise the Corsair was the superior aircraft) was a combination of logistics (easier to keep the fleets supplied with parts if they're universally equipped with one fighter), cost (the Corsair was a good bit more expensive), and the fact Vought wasn't building the more complicated Corsairs fast enough to supply both services.

There was no "palming off" whatsoever. It was entirely a matter of what the Navy had was "good enough" at doing the job, so they didn't need the other type and sent it to where it WAS needed. Had the F6F not been good enough (or even developed in the first place), you can bet your bellybutton the Navy would have pushed to get the Corsair ready for carrier use much faster.

[Widewing]

So Ww, can you be serious - the A-H ASI shows TAS?

Earl reports going off the clock on his F4U terminal dive test @ 570 IAS & no control issues..

In Aces High, the ASI shows both indicated and true air speed. You can also use the E6B tool to check your true TAS at anytime.

All that aside, I performed a simple calculation to determine TAS based upon IAS and an arbitrary altitude.

[Widewing]

I performed a terminal velocity dive from 30,000 feet. Below is a screen shot as the F4U-1A was near 13,000 feet. Note the TAS and the IAS. The Corsair was completely locked up, shaking like a hooker in church.. I had just pulled off power to idle and was about you use trim to induce a gentle pitch-up as the Mach dropped. The F4U has limited maneuverability at 545 mph TAS. At 555 mph TAS at sea level, it has very little control in any axis.

[Saxman]

As I fly the Corsair regularly to exclusively, I can confirm what WW is saying. ~540 TAS the Corsair begins to get unresponsive.

Keep in mind also that we do NOT have wing skin damage in the WWII arenas (though it is present in WWI). So even if the Corsair was prone to shedding the fabric elements of its airfoil and control surfaces around 540TAS, that particular form of damage isn't modeled for ANY aircraft.

[J.A.W.]

Thanks for the clarification Ww, & Sm..

But Ww... "shaking like a hooker in church"?

 Does the tail hook drop due to aero-buffet?

Is that some kind of Mach crit' booty call?

Sm,  yeah, F4U had the goods on the Grumman kitty-cats hustle-wise
&  the USN  sure got busy with F4U CV ops - when the Divine Wind blew in..

[FLS]

That does not compute.. 570 IAS in a F4U is virtually tie fighter fantasy..

So you have nothing to offer but your imagination.

[J.A.W.]

Virtually.. hilarious..

& what do you post 'cept  a downer-type running commentary?

Are you Brad Pitt, & have a nice real Spit to jazz about in - in real life?