Pyro,
I hope you read this because I really hate not knowing if you guy's read or don't read post. It takes to much energy to do the research to not even get an acknowledgment that it got read. Anyway I hope you read this.
I had no intention of trying to get the F4U-1D speed uprated. If it was your choice to model it with Pylons and rocket rails so be it. I was simply pointing out one possible reason in the desparity between F4U flight test against the A6M2/5, F6F-3/5 and FW190A5. In all of these test with no exception the F4U outclimbed it's opposition at the F4U's best climb speed of 155MPH. This is not the case in AH. The drag penalty of the pylons and rails was one possible explanation in my mind.
HOWEVER (there is always "one more thing" like Columbo say's).
If the F4U-1D in it's typical configuration is to be modeled with Pylons and Rocket rails should not all AH fighters with extensive ground attack capability be modeled with there Pylons and rocket rails ala the P-47, F6F, P-51 and FW-190? Remember late in the war there were not that many enemy A/C to shoot down. Most action sorties were ground attack. The F4U is a paradox in this regard because it fighter capabilties were enhanced with a prop change, Up rated HP, canopy, etc. but it is limited in AH by additional drag. The P-37D-30 was also used in this manor but is not penalized in AH. Should A/C that did not ordinarly carry ordinace such as the NIK2 or Spit not be allowed to carry any because it was not the "typical configuration?
IMHO all AH A/C should be modeled on an even playing field regardless of the special circumstances of the war. What many people do not realize is how much the F4U was considered superior as a fighter bomber compared to the F6F. It dropped nearly three times as many bombs and rockets, and yet had far less losses both operationally and in action despite flying almost exactly the same amount of missions.
Here is the record.
