Author Topic: Attention C-Hog haters  (Read 752 times)

Offline AKDejaVu

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5049
      • http://www.dbstaines.com
Attention C-Hog haters
« Reply #30 on: October 23, 2000, 01:23:00 PM »
 
Quote
uhmm explain this c hog drivers
i was doing a little testing
please excuse my poor gunnery with hispano cannon I am not used to their trajectory, else the fight would have ended sooner (the spit not the f4uc

Um... the part where the Spit was only 300 yards back and couldn't get the shot?

The part where the spit missed maybe 6 snapshots on you?

The part where the spit did not hang at the top of the immelman even once.. rather continued through the turn as you hung for a better snapshot?

This film proves that the pilot makes the difference.  The spit pilot blew it at the end and died.  You blew it at the merge and lived.

I kinda missed it where you turned inside of him and retained better e and managed to zoom way over him than catch him in a dive.  I guess what I'm really missing, is how this film in any way shape or form shows the uberness of the F4u-1c.  Because it got a victory over a spit?

AKDejaVu

Offline ra

  • Parolee
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3569
Attention C-Hog haters
« Reply #31 on: October 23, 2000, 04:34:00 PM »
This is the first reference I've every seen saying that the P-47 had a poorly designed and uncomfortable cockpit.

ra

Offline Jigster

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 107
      • http://www.33rd.org
Attention C-Hog haters
« Reply #32 on: October 23, 2000, 05:15:00 PM »
It's also the first account of an F4U with good departure characteristics.

They musta been flying on a thimble full with pressurized oil tanks.

F4UDOA, you are partly right about carrier landings and that designation. But it also did have relevance to torque induced ground loops. But that's nothing new. A P-51 will ground loop if you gun it. So will most other high-preformence fighter planes. The Corsair was only noteworthy because it had to do it all the time, due to the situations on carriers, and had more incedents because of it.

Gun jamming, blah. If there's going to be gun problems, barrel overheating would be alot better. No need for random calculations. You fire to long, the barrel warps, then melts if you keep at it.

Btw, I've seen a F4U-4D armed with 4 20mm. I've also seen an Avenger with twin 20mm's, and a F4U-1A armed with 4 20mm's. The 4D had Mark V barrels, and the 1A had Mk II.

None were correct. The F4U-4D at the LSFM had them put in because they couldn't get the M2 wing mounts. It was either use the 20mm banks or use pipes (like in the P-47D "Tarheel Hal")

Don't put to much faith in resoration planes.

- Jig

Offline bowser

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 317
Attention C-Hog haters
« Reply #33 on: October 23, 2000, 05:43:00 PM »
Zigrat,

I think it was awfully nice of that spit pilot to keep flying in front of your cannons even though you were dead meat..is that what you meant?  

bowser

Offline Chango

  • Zinc Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1
Attention C-Hog haters
« Reply #34 on: October 23, 2000, 05:51:00 PM »
Zig most Full time Spit jocks would have had you after the first merge.  That Spit was on you like white on rice.  He screwed up you wound up with a snap shot and downed him! Congrats!  I also noticed that the cannon hit on more than 1 occasion and did no damage hmmmm!  The F4u seems ok to me except for the stall characteristics.  I think all the planes recover to easily.  I am used to WB's and stalls in all planes seemed to be modeled better. As far as cannons go I have seen real footage of planes hitting 3-4 times before a wing dropped off.  I have also seen films when they just break off! In AH it drops off on 1 hit a lot.  I feel they forgot to model the free space between the spars.  

Congrats again on your kill!!

LJK_Reschke

  • Guest
Attention C-Hog haters
« Reply #35 on: October 23, 2000, 06:50:00 PM »
Here is a link to the F4U development history.
 http://www.djjp.demon.co.uk/F4U.htm

It is short and to the point.  I have not been able to find any records from either Brewster or Goodyear in my searches over the years.  I have been a fan of this plane for a very long time.  However as Jig put it......"Don't put to much faith in resoration planes."

------------------
Maj. LJK_Reschke
Kommandeur Jagdbomber,
StaffelKapitaen I-31 LJK
www.luftjagerkorps.com

Offline Hooligan

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 889
Attention C-Hog haters
« Reply #36 on: October 23, 2000, 06:54:00 PM »
RA:

Some things like cockpit comfort are very subjective and every test-pilot has their own opinion.  If you read the comments in AHT and the Joint Fighter Conference report you will see what I mean.  In a US plane a "cramped and uncomfortable" cockpit probably means that the test-pilot had to reach "too far" to snag a coke from the cockpit fridge  .

Hooligan

Offline F4UDOA

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1731
      • http://mywebpages.comcast.net/markw4/index.html
Attention C-Hog haters
« Reply #37 on: October 23, 2000, 11:19:00 PM »
LJK_Reschke,

I am looking very closely at 25 FG-1D's that were shipped to El Salvador in the 1950's.
So far all of the pictures of these birds either restored or in service with El Salvador were equiped with 20mill cannon.
Unfortunatly it is very hard to find data on these birds built by Goodyear or Brewster.

The second thing and something that is a pet peive of mine(I don't usually keep peives as pets but oh well). The web site that you pointed out is bogus. Not just that one though but most of them. I hate Warbird web sites. They almost always have mistated or hand me down information from a Flying game from day's of old. The comment about the F4U not being able to turn is silly. An F4U aerodynamically is better suited to a turning fight than most late war fighters.
Also the F4U on takeoff required less rudder trim than a F6F or P-40. If you read Tommy Blackburns auto-biography he discusses his squadron qualifing no problem on carriers in early model F4U-1's. He states that the reason for the F4U not being carrier qualified imediately had more to due with getting Vought spare parts aboard carriers and other logistic issues more than any handling vice of the F4U. He was the first Navy squad to fly the F4U during trials and volenteered to give up carrier duty to fly the F4U from a land base instead of flying the F6F from carriers. That is a heavy endorsement from a Naval Squadron Comander.
Later in the war Marine pilots suffered landing on carriers in the F4U but they were not carrier qualified. They forced to qualify while on combat duty. A tough task in any A/C. Not trying to preach, just venting my frustration with web mythology.

Later
F4UDOA

Offline juzz

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 193
      • http://nope.haha.com
Attention C-Hog haters
« Reply #38 on: October 24, 2000, 03:07:00 AM »
F4UDOA; it's highly likely that those ex-WW2 FG-1D's were refitted for export, don't you think?

lazs

  • Guest
Attention C-Hog haters
« Reply #39 on: October 24, 2000, 11:09:00 AM »
jigster.... there are numerous references to hogs having good departure characteristics.  One good one is the planes of fame video of the Corsair.   A lot of Corsair old wives tales are shattered by actual demonstration.
lazs

Offline Ripsnort

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 27251
Attention C-Hog haters
« Reply #40 on: October 24, 2000, 11:15:00 AM »
They added a little leading edge fairing to the right wing of the hog to help its stall and departure characteristics with the 1D.  I'll give you more info later if you request it, but the book is at home.

lazs

  • Guest
Attention C-Hog haters
« Reply #41 on: October 24, 2000, 12:10:00 PM »
rip.. the strip is a piece of about 2" angle 6 inches long.  It helps both wings stall about the same.   A lot of guys removed em and couldn't really tell much difference.   The Hog was considered very easy to fly except for full power on situations near stall (go arounds) Most planes do this too but few have to make carrier landings where inexperienced pilots (ensigns) run into this situation.
lazs

Offline Rickenbacker

  • Zinc Member
  • *
  • Posts: 18
Attention C-Hog haters
« Reply #42 on: October 24, 2000, 03:24:00 PM »
Yeah, has anyone else seen references to the Jug having a poorly designed and uncomfortable cockpit? I've always seen american WW2 cockpits described as roomy, comfortable and efficiently laid out.

British and german cockpits, on the other hand are usually described as cramped, impossible to get into or out of and with an instrument panel like a bucket of tar that someone poured instruments in.  


------------------
        Rickenbacker (Ricken)

                -ISAF-
the Independent Swedish Air Force

Offline F4UDOA

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1731
      • http://mywebpages.comcast.net/markw4/index.html
Attention C-Hog haters
« Reply #43 on: October 25, 2000, 09:21:00 AM »
Juzz,

You probably right. It may have been a retro fit. I Just would want to know when this retro fit took place? In the mid 1940's when the Navy transitioned to 20mill or in the 50's for the Korean conflict(although I don't think and F4U older than a -4 saw service in Korea)or before they were shipped to El Salvador. Then of course once in El Salvador two FG-1D's and one P-51D were shot down by Humberto Varella of Honduras in a F4U-5 in one day. Seems cool that there was combat of WW2 fighters in 1968, but I can't help but think what a waste of birds.

Hooligan and Rickenbacker, I didn't include the pilots comments on why they did't like the P-47 Cockpit. They used some kind of standards evaluation technique to determine the amount of leg room for the pilot and determined that it was only suited for approx 20% of the size range of pilots even with the fold down rudder peddles. Also there were three engine cooling swtches that they did't like because the pilot could not see them during combat and hitting the wrong one could be costly. They also included pictures of these switches. I will photo copy this entire report when I get a chance and post it. I am definetly not trying to knock the Jug. Just sharing the report conclusions. I am more concerned with the flying characteristics of these birds anyway.

Later
F4UDOA


Offline StSanta

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2496
Attention C-Hog haters
« Reply #44 on: October 25, 2000, 09:37:00 AM »
The reason for big US cockpits:

FAT tulips and BIG ego's.

Us LW drivers are man and machine, all in one beautiful combination.

I am StSanta of the LW. Resistence is futile. You will be assassinated.

------------------
StSanta
9./JG 54 "Grünherz"