CC JAB,
Your right. I have been told that HT is a fan of the F4U.
It's the engineer/Programmer vrs history conflict.
However it's very hard for me to look at a 100% physics model and discount all annecdotal evidence. HT and Pyro have engineer mentalities when it comes to flight simms, as well they should because it is their baby. I just play the simm, they have a REAL investment in AH.
That's why I do so much research into documentation. What I find is that most authors of WW2 aviation material know about as much about Warbirds as I do about being a dentist. That's why things like the F4U can't turn or should ground loop on every landing get started. The same people think the P-51 won the war.
On the other hand not all annectodal evidence should be ignored. For instance the 1944 Joint Fighter Report. You can get a very good idea of what the feeling that combat pilots of the time had about the various A/C. Another great source is the 1989 report by the Socioty of Expermental Test Pilots who did an evaluation of the F4U-1D, P-51D, P-47D-30 and F6F-5. As well as Jeff Ethal and Steve Hintons opinions on the subject.
Is this annecdotal? Yes, but it puts things in perspective when comparing apples and oranges. An engineer just wants to see charts and graphs but they don't often tell the complete story either.
Case and point in AH is the A20G accelerating better than the F4U,P-47, P-51 and F6F. As well as the relative similarities between the takeoff characteristics of these A/C. They are supposed to be different and the similarities then become conspicious. From a purely engineering standpoint this may in fact seem logical but history says differently. [/Ramble]
