Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: Kongkyuk on January 31, 2007, 12:59:42 AM
-
In 1944 the F4u4 had the C option available. I would love to see the C added to the F4u4 roster in AH.
What an AWSOME combo that would be.
Any comments
-
F4u-4 arrived so late in the game it only saw a few months' service before the war's end. The F4u-4b with 20mm cannon was a post-war plane, and saw service in Korea, but not in WW2.
-
All the different info out there is amazing. The book I have states the f4u4c (cannon) was in service in October 1944.
-
No, the F4u-1C was in service in '44. The f4u4 didn't come out til '45, so the f4u4b wouldn't come out til after the war ended in Japan, and the C wouldn't come out til after that. FYI the -4B has the 20mm, not the -4c, which had 50cals (I think).
I think your book made a typo.
-
F4U-4
As XF4U-4, 6 wing guns, rocket pylons, later aircraft
had flat windscreen panel, forward mast deleted.
1753 as F4U-4.
297 as F4U-4B, 4 wing mounted M3 cannons.
300 as F4U-4C, 20mm wing cannons.
9 as F4U-4P, photo reconnaissance version.
Produced 1944 - 1945
Vought Stratford, Connecticut (U)
Just a quick cut and paste from the Vought web site.
Make the perk cost close to the 262 if need be. I think that would be an easy addition to the roster and a fun plane to fly.
-
See the -4b? 4 M3 cannons. That's the name of the 20mm cannon.
It was post war. It won't ever make it into this game. Sorry. The f4u1c is pretty capable, though, and it's not like the 50cals are weak (I just landed 6 kills in a p51d without reloading tonight).
-
Alot of info on the web about the f4u4c (cannons) being in service in 1944. too much to copy and paste, The B was much later and produced in low numbers.
-
Wtg on ur 6 kills
, 50cals can do the job just fine. I just like the power of cannons.
-
Originally posted by Krusty
See the -4b? 4 M3 cannons. That's the name of the 20mm cannon....
lol the FAA got US made hispanos on their Corsairs? PWNT!!!11:rofl:rofl:aok
-
Well sorry, but that info is wrong. 4B and 4C did NOT see service in WWII.
-
need some hellkitty variants, got enuf corsair ones... :cry
-
Originally posted by Krusty
See the -4b? 4 M3 cannons. That's the name of the 20mm cannon.
It was post war. It won't ever make it into this game. Sorry. The f4u1c is pretty capable, though, and it's not like the 50cals are weak (I just landed 6 kills in a p51d without reloading tonight).
Not according to Dean. F4u-4b 297 dec. 1944.
Sounds like a bit more than the Ta152 don't it?
Bronk
Edit: Unless I read it wrong it's listed in the production run along side -4 and -4n.
-
The -4 (with no letter) barely saw any action at the end of the war, as it was. The -4B came later, after the war's end. There were a couple of threads on the matter prior to this, with the same outcome. I even quoted a few book references at the time, but I don't know where those threads went.
EDIT: The -4bs were allocated to the Royal Navy, but none were ever sent, so they probably weren't used or built (normally orders precede production, is my thinking)
-
Think I remember that, Krusty.
Something about how originally, the 4B was the designation for the British export variant, similar to the F4U-1B. However the idea was scrapped. The 4B designation was later reused for the cannon-armed variant that flew during Korea.
-
That's something along the lines I remember. I don't know much about the -4C history, though.
-
Just to add in Jan of '45 the navy ordered 300 of the cannon -4 variant.
According to Dean.
Bronk
-
According to David Mondey, "American Aircraft of WWII" page236 last papragraph, "Production F4U-4s began to enter service with the US Navy on 31 October 1944, and although F4u-4Bs were allocated for the Royal Navy no such aircraft were received. Variants of the F4U-4 included the F4U-4C with an armament of four 20-mm cannon,"
I agree that the F4U-4C was in very limited use in the Pacific during WWII.
Doesn't anybody but me think that the F4U-4C would be an AWSOME perk plane? Great speed, manuverablity, the best firepower and pilot protection.
Make the cost 100 or more perks. The plane would be a monster :t
-
Originally posted by Kongkyuk
Alot of info on the web about the f4u4c (cannons) being in service in 1944. too much to copy and paste, The B was much later and produced in low numbers.
All the info I have seen claiming that has always been based on F4U-1Cs being misidentified as F4U-4Bs or F4U-4Cs. In otherwords, it stems from one error that has propogated out like the mythical 15mm cowl guns on the Bf109K-4.
-
That quote in no way says F4U-4Cs were in service before the end of WWII. All it says was that the F4U-4C was a VARIANT of the -4.
-
RGR tht, but they were in use by June 1945 for the final push to Japan.:aok
-
Originally posted by Kongkyuk
RGR tht, but they were in use by June 1945 for the final push to Japan.:aok
That has been debanked in the past. The only F4U-4s to see service in WWII had six .50 cals.
-
The -4b Corsairs were built & served in the Korean War with USN
history.navy.mil has a lot of photos of them
(http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/images/g420000/g420932.jpg)
(http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/images/g420000/g423961.jpg)
(http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/images/g420000/g420926.jpg)
looks like they were built to FAA spec & then had the wingtips reattached
-
Regardless, post war.
-
:cry I want an F4U-4C :D
-
Why? So you can out-run all but 3 planes in the game (tempest, 262 and la7, 2 of which are perked), out-turn 90% of all the planes in the game, outroll all but spit16 and 190D, out-dive everything including P-47s, decelerate so fast your face would rip off and your eyes pop out, pop flaps at all speeds and gain endless lift with almost no drag, and easily shoot down any plane from any angle at ranges up to and including 1k, with enough ammo left over to land a 20-kill sortie without rearming?
Why? You want that, go fly an arcade game with powerups and maybe space aliens :D
F4us are overmodeled as-is. Enjoy it while you can. You never know when HTC might re-think the modeling and say "Now wait a second, this isn't right".
-
Give definitive proof that the F4u's are overmodeled.
-
Give definitive proof that they could go from 450mph clean to flaps-full, gear down, 110mph with no stall problems, inside of 15 seconds. That kind of decelleration could kill or disorient the pilot, yet I see that as one of the main manuvers of the so-called AH hog-drivers.
-
Originally posted by Bodhi
Give definitive proof that the F4u's are overmodeled.
:rofl :rofl :rofl Don't hold your breath waiting on it.
-
Give me definitive proof they're modeled accurately.
Hell these planes couldn't fly upside down for more than 15-30 seconds before the engines seized, due to lack of oil. In this game they can fly endlessly. We also have hardly any of the other engine-related woes of the real life aircraft.
Are you going to tell me the F4u we have in Aces High is NOT the product of many many many compromises between reality and game? And since we KNOW that this plane is a compromise, are you going to tell me you think it's 100% accurate? If so we have nothing else to discuss, and you cannot be helped.
-
Originally posted by Krusty
Give definitive proof that they could go from 450mph clean to flaps-full, gear down, 110mph with no stall problems, inside of 15 seconds. That kind of decelleration could kill or disorient the pilot, yet I see that as one of the main manuvers of the so-called AH hog-drivers.
You have proof of this, or is it like the bombers you claimed were 100MPH faster than anyone else has ever seen them?
By the way, 30MPH per second decel is not nearly so bad as you would have people believe.
-
Speeds like that, even with airbags, can knock people unconscious. Only in Aces High it's perfectly controllable, no problems come up, and you're in control 100% of the time. I want to see you red out for 35 seconds (like a perma-blackout) if you pull this move in the corsair.
-
Originally posted by Krusty
Give me definitive proof they're modeled accurately.
Hell these planes couldn't fly upside down for more than 15-30 seconds before the engines seized, due to lack of oil. In this game they can fly endlessly. We also have hardly any of the other engine-related woes of the real life aircraft.
Are you going to tell me the F4u we have in Aces High is NOT the product of many many many compromises between reality and game? And since we KNOW that this plane is a compromise, are you going to tell me you think it's 100% accurate? If so we have nothing else to discuss, and you cannot be helped.
"WE" know? No, YOU THINK YOU know.
YOU made the claim that the model for the F4U was horribly inaccurate. It is YOUR claim, YOU provide proof of it.
-
Yes, **WE** know that this game is not realistic.
If you don't agree then, again, nobody can help you.
It is a game. Some attempt has been made to make certain parts of the game match up to historical records.
Some parts of this game are entirely made up and designed solely for the reason of gameplay.
These two statements are obvious. We KNOW this is a game of compromises.
If you disagree you're simply being argumentative and trying to pick a fight.
P.S. I said "over-modeled", not your somewhat inflamatory "horribly inaccurate"
-
Originally posted by Krusty
Speeds like that, even with airbags, can knock people unconscious. Only in Aces High it's perfectly controllable, no problems come up, and you're in control 100% of the time. I want to see you red out for 35 seconds (like a perma-blackout) if you pull this move in the corsair.
I suppose now you'll tell us that every carrier pilot completely loses control and consciousness when he catches the hook. Because the decel from landing on a carrier, especially when you include the front of the plane slamming onto the deck, is at least as bad as you describe.
-
Originally posted by Krusty
Yes, **WE** know that this game is not realistic.
If you don't agree then, again, nobody can help you.
It is a game. Some attempt has been made to make certain parts of the game match up to historical records.
Some parts of this game are entirely made up and designed solely for the reason of gameplay.
These two statements are obvious. We KNOW this is a game of compromises.
If you disagree you're simply being argumentative and trying to pick a fight.
LOL, I'm trying to pick a fight. Do you ever read what you post?
The game is reasonably realistic.
Now, back to your original claim, provide proof the F4U flight model is horribly wrong.
Or continue to spin about madly, while the rest of us look on for the entertainment value alone.
-
When your gear are on the deck of a CV the only way you can fly is forward (the CV pushes up). The hook keeps you in place, and so you don't need to be in control, unless the hook fails to catch and then you gently nose back up.
In a corsair in this game you can pop flaps, gear, full rudder side slip and aileron to compensate and decelerate JUST as fast, only while maintaining perfect control on 3 sets of controls (ailerons elevators and rudder) when in fact if you TRIED to hold your arms to your chest you probably couldn't. Car crash test show that even light items cannot be held in even 20mph accidents. They fly out of your hands. If you were trying to hold onto the control stick at this time your hands would still be pulled forward (thus pushing the stick forward, thus nosing you down uncontrollably until you had fully decelerated), and forget trying to hold the stick to a point where you could control the side-slip rudder at the same time as decelerating.
Ever try the ... whattaya call it? Tilt-a-whirl? You're inside being held to the wall by centrifugal force. You literally cannot extend your head, arm, or legs away from you. Same (in reverse) for this f4u situation. You could not keep your arms coordinated and in control even if you wanted. And while they're being pulled if you're holding onto the stick, the stick is going to follow them (and they're going "forward").
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
LOL, I'm trying to pick a fight. Do you ever read what you post?
The game is reasonably realistic.
Now, back to your original claim, provide proof the F4U flight model is horribly wrong.
Or continue to spin about madly, while the rest of us look on for the entertainment value alone.
Reasonably? The engine modeling is pathetic. Bombers fly at 2x cruise speeds nonstop. Select people regularly gripe about fighters never overheating at full throttle. The ord situation, the E6B, the instruments, the base locations, the terrains themselves, the weather, the atmosphere, everything is unrealistic. I still enjoy it as a game but I realize it's NOT realistic.
Secondly, *YOU* are the one putting words in my mouth. I said it was "over-modeled"
And yes, you do seem to be trying to pick a fight. As of my last post I've made my point. To hell with your replies trying to change the subject or put words in my mouth.
-
Originally posted by Krusty
Give definitive proof that they could go from 450mph clean to flaps-full, gear down, 110mph with no stall problems, inside of 15 seconds.
Film please.
Bronk
Edit: With combat trim off preferably.
-
Originally posted by Krusty
Speeds like that, even with airbags, can knock people unconscious. Only in Aces High it's perfectly controllable, no problems come up, and you're in control 100% of the time. I want to see you red out for 35 seconds (like a perma-blackout) if you pull this move in the corsair.
Krusty, STOP!!!! Geez!
Even if the F4U-4 could decelerate from 450 to 110 mph in 15 seconds (it cannot), that's a deceleration rate of 33 ft/sec, which is slightly faster than a Toyota Camry decelerates under braking in a panic stop (30 ft/sec).
So, you're saying that an airplane somehow brakes faster in flight than a car on a perfect road surface? LOLOL
If you decelerated at 1 G, the rate would be 32.2 ft/sec. No one will be knocked out at 1 G. Formula One cars decelerate at 3 G, and I'm not aware of any drivers passing out.
Krusty, if you ever want anyone to take anything you say seriously, you have to stop shoveling horse hockey like a stable boy.
My regards,
Widewing
-
it takes 20 seconds, it would have taken less only I didn't hit the gear first thing.
http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/858_1170290200_f4u4_decel.zip
That's 340mph in 20 seconds. I probably could have got it to 15 if I pushed it.
EDIT: meant to type this:
340mph in 20 seconds is 17mph decel per second. In a car doing 0-60 in 4 seconds you're only doing 15mph accel. If I got this f4u4 to decel in 15 seconds you're talking 22mph/sec. That's more than "emergency braking" in a toyota.
Even the fastest cars can barely go 0 to 60 in 4 seconds, so imagine facing backwards in a Ferrari as it rockets off, pushing you face-first into the restraints and seats. You're going to tell me you'll be able to do anything under that?
Like I said, if you were holding something you wouldn't be able to control it. Most stearing wheels are fixed to the frame. Most flight sticks float free. You'd jam it full forward without meaning to.
EDIT2: If I knew more about the calculations of physics I'd try a few of 'em, to compute the force this is doing on the human body, and then check how much damage that similar amounts of force do to the human body, but I don't know so I can't.
-
Originally posted by Widewing
If you decelerated at 1 G, the rate would be 32.2 ft/sec. No one will be knocked out at 1 G. Formula One cars decelerate at 3 G, and I'm not aware of any drivers passing out.
I don't buy that. What math did you use? I mean what did you do to get 32.2feet/sec? As near as I can tell it's not a straight deceleration as there's sidslip and drag slowing it down, not a ground or surface. How do you get distance? (the feet/sec part I mean)
EDIT: By this I mean I'll admit I'm wrong if I'm wrong, but I'm not seeing how you got from A to B
-
No, actually, the fastest cars go from zero to 330MPH in 4.45 seconds.
Some of the slower cars go zero to 210MPH in less than 7 seconds, and they shift four times manually while doing it.
They put harnesses in fighter planes so you don't flop around the cockpit like a fish.
And 15 to 20 seconds is a LONG time.
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
They put harnesses in fighter planes so you don't flop around the cockpit like a fish.
Yes, very true. Very good point. Only harnesses and seats are designed to support acceleration in the direction that pushes the occupant further into the seat. They can support a lot more force the other way, such as restraints holding the occupant in place when the car hits a wall, but they don't always absorb the force very well.
Not to mention holding onto a control flight stick, cross-controlling ailerons and rudder, popping gear, and hitting the "flaps down" key nonstop. I was quite busy while decelerating in the film, but in complete control. If I'm wrong, perhaps they wouldn't "red out" -- but they probably won't have such perfect manual dexterity and control as to cross control and play with switches in the cockpit.
I would like to know what WW used on his math, just to know how he got from A to B (like I said).
-
I don't have my math cheat sheets handy, but I'd bet he meant 32 feet per second per second. Any speed can be converted to feet per second, and acceleration (negative or positive) is therefore converted to feet per second per second.
And drag cars exceed 3G negative when the chute deploys, and you still have to steer and otherwise manage them.
Also remember that inertia applies, so that even when decelerating rapidly, the object still wants to continue in a relative straight line until that inertia is spent.
-
Like I mentioned I don't know many physics calculations (I was interested but never pursued it) so I don't know how you get to 32feet per sec/per sec.
A drag racer's a totally different beast, I'd think. It barely steers in the first place. Slowing down you can put your hands on the wheel and it's bolted in place (and will support your hands/arms' weight). What if it were a free-floating wheel? What if you controlled the drag racer with an X-Box controller on a loose stick? Would you be able to hold onto it while trying to control it?
Unfortunately the G-meter in AH doesn't read too well in mostly-level flight. It was all over the place in my tests when I checked the film viewer. Sometimes it was positive 5, sometimes it was negative 1, and sometimes it just bounced between 0 and 2. I guess it's meant for lift/dive only.
EDIT: I mention this last bit because I went back to check, after WW mentioned 1G.
-
You'd be wrong about the drag car. You do have to steer them, in fact they get somewhat nasty when you pop the chute, especially the shorter wheelbase cars. The force doesn't really tend to plant your hands on the wheel, either.
-
Fair enough. That was speculation.
I still would like to know the math behind 450 to 110 in 15-20 seconds being less than 1G.
-
1mph = 5280 feet per hour.
which = 88 feet per minute
which = 1.466... per second
Times 340mph (from the f4u4) you get 498.666... feet per second.
I don't think that's right, either.
-
Originally posted by Krusty
I don't buy that. What math did you use? I mean what did you do to get 32.2feet/sec? As near as I can tell it's not a straight deceleration as there's sidslip and drag slowing it down, not a ground or surface. How do you get distance? (the feet/sec part I mean)
EDIT: By this I mean I'll admit I'm wrong if I'm wrong, but I'm not seeing how you got from A to B
:rolleyes:
If we ignore air resistance, an object falling freely increases in speed by 32.17 ft/sec for each second it free falls. Therefore, a free falling object (in a vacuum) accelerates at 1 G.
Note also that deceleration is really acceleration in the opposite direction of motion. Ponder that....
As for me, I'm a Professional Engineer who designs acceleration sensors for a living. In fact, I'm the only Engineer who does this in our company and we are the industry leader in this technology. I've been doing this job for over 27 years. Go here (http://www.aerodyne-controls.com/) and click on the Mercury Free Motion Switches link.
My regards,
Widewing
-
the acceleration at which all bodies of matter fall to the center of the earth is 9.8 (rounded, mind you) meters per second per second.
This converts to roughly 32 feet per second per second.
This value is one G.
You decelerated the F4U at roughly 17 feet per second per second.
This comes to .53125 G's.
Think of it this way.
You are strapped to a car seat bolted to your roof. In the sitting position, you are facing down, your stomach to the floor. I can completely assure you that you would be able to play with your computer joystick in the scenario. And as a matter of fact, imagine that everything, including your body weight almost half of what it normally does. And furthermore, everything in the aircraft you would be flying is completely connected to each other. So, in your scenario of being bolted to the roof, imagine that your friend is holding your joystick comfortably in front of you. In the linear forward motion, the ability of you to control the aircraft would be, most likely, absolute.
Now we should take in consideration of the vertical motion. In the video, i would assume that the maximum vertical G's would be around maybe 5 G's (the gauge only reads to 4, but from the view, I doubt you would have been gaining so much altitude to break 6 Gs at maximum, though this is a guess). If you are a fighter pilot, and cannot control your aircraft in a environment between -3 and +6 G's, you should in no way be piloting a fighter aircraft. The trained human being can handle these forces naturally.
Thus, a trained F4U pilot should most definitely be able to handle these conditions, and I would assume an average person would be, most likely, able to survive in it as well.
-
Originally posted by Poem
the acceleration at which all bodies of matter fall to the center of the earth is 9.8 (rounded, mind you) meters per second per second.
This converts to roughly 32 feet per second per second.
This value is one G.
You decelerated the F4U at roughly 17 feet per second per second.
This comes to .53125 G's.
Think of it this way.
You are strapped to a car seat bolted to your roof. In the sitting position, you are facing down, your stomach to the floor. I can completely assure you that you would be able to play with your computer joystick in the scenario. And as a matter of fact, imagine that everything, including your body weight almost half of what it normally does. And furthermore, everything in the aircraft you would be flying is completely connected to each other. So, in your scenario of being bolted to the roof, imagine that your friend is holding your joystick comfortably in front of you. In the linear forward motion, the ability of you to control the aircraft would be, most likely, absolute.
Now we should take in consideration of the vertical motion. In the video, i would assume that the maximum vertical G's would be around maybe 5 G's (the gauge only reads to 4, but from the view, I doubt you would have been gaining so much altitude to break 6 Gs at maximum, though this is a guess). If you are a fighter pilot, and cannot control your aircraft in a environment between -3 and +6 G's, you should in no way be piloting a fighter aircraft. The trained human being can handle these forces naturally.
Thus, a trained F4U pilot should most definitely be able to handle these conditions, and I would assume an average person would be, most likely, able to survive in it as well.
Okay I understand that, only I decelerated the f4u at 17mph/sec, not feet/sec. How do I get from mph/sec to feet/sec/sec?
-
Originally posted by Krusty
Fair enough. That was speculation.
I still would like to know the math behind 450 to 110 in 15-20 seconds being less than 1G.
Given information: 32 ft/s/s = 1 g
Math: 450-110 = 340 feet per second
340 ft per sec / 15 sec = 22.66666666666666~ feet per second per second
22.66666666666666/ 32 = .7
the maximum of this is .7 g, which is less than 1 g.
-
Originally posted by Poem
Given information: 32 ft/s/s = 1 g
Math: 450-110 = 340 feet per second
340 ft per sec / 15 sec = 22.66666666666666~ feet per second per second
22.66666666666666/ 32 = .7
the maximum of this is .7 g, which is less than 1 g.
No, because mph is not feet. It was 340mph in 20 (possibly 15?) seconds.
It was at the low end (using 20 secs) 17mph/sec. At the high end (15 seconds) it was 22mph/sec.
miles per hour are not feet per second, so I dunno how you go from one to the other.
EDIT: What, is it simple math? Even if you do 32*60*60 to get feet per hour per second, then divide by 5280 you get 21.8181...
-
Originally posted by Krusty
Okay I understand that, only I decelerated the f4u at 17mph/sec, not feet/sec. How do I get from mph/sec to feet/sec/sec?
my lord your right.
now for good ol' equations!
1 mph = 1.467 ft per sec
340 x 1.467 = 500
500 / 20 = 25 feet per second per second
500 / 15 = 33 (just slightly over 1 g)
Really, for the sake of argument, its so close it does not even matter, though you were right in that regard. Still, the idea of a persons ability to handle the situation still holds true, it is absolutely possible.
-
Krusty, a simple online primer on Newtonian Physics. (http://www.lightandmatter.com/html_books/1np/ch04/ch04.html)
It's an easy to read introduction into Newton's laws of motion. It may help.
My regards,
Widewing
-
It seems that way, yes. Such rapid decelleration, though... hard to believe it's such minimal impact.
-
Just to put it out there, a modern F/A-18 E superhornet lands on the deck of an aircraft carrier at around 170 knots.
170 knots = roughly 200 miles per hour
they come to a complete halt after catching the cable in about 3 seconds.
200 mph = about 300 feet per second
300 ft/s / 3 seconds = 100 feet per second per second, well over 3 g's.
I have never heard anything about a pilot of a F/A-18 red out during a carrier landing. I have also never heard of any losing hand of the aircraft controls.
-
Originally posted by Krusty
It seems that way, yes. Such rapid decelleration, though... hard to believe it's such minimal impact.
My dear friend, it is not rapid at all. It is actually quite slow considering the accelerations achievable by manned craft, and other situations that arise in real life.
-
Not that anyone is still watching the original subject of the post but there is some evidence of the F4U-4C during the war. In fact Vought records show all F4U-4/4B/4C ptoduction in 1944. When they were delivered may be another story.
I am not saying that they were in combat just that they were indeed produced if not retrofitted. I remember reading the wings could fit either .50 cal or 20mill
Here are two pics from the Vought website, they are the same airplane from different angles (nose markings) and dated in July 1945 labeled F4U-4C and clearly is a F4U-4C showing the short barrel M-3 cannon.
(http://www.vought.com/heritage/photo/assets/images/db_images/db_0429_023.jpg)
(http://www.vought.com/heritage/photo/assets/images/db_images/db_0429_020.jpg)
-
Good post F4uDOA.
I did not have time to get to the production data today. It is a pain in the arse going through those micro films as much of it is in poor condition. I was farly sure I had seen the F4u-4b's being produced in '44. I think most were retrofitted though to carry the .50's.
As for standard -4 wings being able to carry 20mm's like the -4B, well, that is a yes and no answer.
Yes, a -4 could carry 2 20mm. Not 4. The wing is not designed without modification to allow for 4 20mm. First off, in the standard -4 wing, the inbd gun slots are larger allowing for the larger weapon. The inbd spent ammunition holes are larger too. The kicker though is the ammo can slots. Only the forward guns are capable of being widened by the removal of the cap skin and forward structure. This allows the much larger can for the 20mm to fit.
If I have time tomorrow, I will try to post some pics to show the difference between the cans, and the internal structure of the wing so you can better visualise it.
-
Krusty,
I am not trying to argue with you, but the F4u is fairly close to most of the speeds posted. Not 100% exact, but close. As for anything being 100% here, as you have agreed, this is a game. As such, it is impossible to model everything the way it was in real life with our current technologies.
For instance, I for one have no desire to warm up my R2800 for 15 minutes to reach operating temps.
I also have no desire to have complex engine management in here.
I also have no desire to experience the "real spin" of an F4u, as many feel it to be unrecoverable in a reasonable amount of time.
With these things in mind, we can compromise and realise that the flight models are fairly close. Sure, a lot of things are not as real as we would hope, but a lot of things are real enough with out turning this into a simulation that very few could fly.
Lastly, a friendly bit of advice without being mean, stick to the facts. You have the propensity for stating things that are not 100% accurate. You also can be quick to rebuke people without knowing 100% about the truth. So, to make things easier for all of us and you, understand it is ok not to know it all. Hell, I have spent the better part of 4 years dealing with two seperate Corsair restorations both restoring and managing them, and I definitely do not know it all on the subject. I do know though, that Vought is without a doubt one of those companies that never truly picked up "mass production" as far as the Corsair was concerned.
;)
-
Wow it was just a thought to have an F4U-4C... :eek:
-
Another (relevant) F4U question:
Didn't the 1D and 4 also carry external stores on the center pylon during WWII (as opposed to post-war upgrades)? I thought I remember seeing alternate ordinance loads on the 1D during the war that included a third bomb (I THINK it was an additional 500 or 1000lb bomb) or external drop tank on the centerline, in addition to bombs on the inside pylons and rockets on the outer wing stubs.
I know for SURE I've seen a stated loadout of 8x5" HVARs, 2x11" Tiny Tims and 1x1000lb bomb for the 1D.
-
I've seen F6Fs with 3 DTs as well. I don't know how common it was.
-
Lindbergh flew a MAG-31 F4U-1d with three bombs aboard, two 1000# & a single 2000#...doubt it could get off a carrier that way, though
-
Saxman,
Apparantly it did. I just opened that manual to the fuel system diagram on the F4U-1D and on the fuel slector switch is listed left wing droppable/right wing dropable/center line dropable.
So I guess that is a yes. However the F4U-4 does not seem to have the center line tank available according to the manual.
Bodhi,
I will try to find the reference for you. I believe it was some thing I read online so I will take it for what it is worth.
-
Bodhi,
Here is the artical I was speaking about. It also makes light of the difference in hitting power between the .50cal and the 20mill. Pretty good read actually.
Ron added, "F4U's carried 50 cal and 20 mm guns almost interchangeably. For uniformity with the other aircraft in our Air Wing our carried 20 mm. Those operating off the carriers (Task Force 77) used whatever the Navy squadrons onboard used (usually 50 cal)." Joe Rychetnik later added about the misinformation about the VMF(N)-513 20mm in some recent articles. "One writer claims planes were equipped with "rotary" 20mm guns but this not true, just plain vanila 20mm aircraft cannon made by General Motors etc."
For those uninitiated in the Korean War arguments over the difference between .50 caliber ammo the B-26s/F-84s used and the 20mm HEI that the Marines used, they scheduled a test in Taegu in the summer of 1951 between USAF F80 Shooting Star and F-84 Thunderjets with 30 rounds of 50 caliber per gun. The Marine F4U-5N had only 10 rounds of 20mm HEI. The F4U-5N was flown by Lt. Roland of the VMF(N)-513. USAF aircraft attacked their truck carrier targets with .50 caliber and caused the max damage of a "the kapok seat of one carrier began to smolder." The F4U-5N snapped the frame of the truck almost in half; blew one of the front wheels off; and destroyed the flatbed. On his second run, he hit the cab and snapped the steering column in half. Despite these tests, the USAF persisted in the use of .50 caliber ammo simply because there was a lot of it left over from World War II. Even today many people feel the USAF MiG kills would have been much higher if they had used 20mm HEI instead of .50 caliber as Soviet jets were literally riddled with holes from .50 caliber...but continued to fly and returned to base.
Actually, the Air Force did test a few fighters with 20mm ammunition. According to Officers in Flight Suits, The Story of American Air Force Fighter Pilots in the Korean War, by John Darrell Sherwood, 1996, these F-86 aircraft were flown in combat, but were withdrawn from service after a very short test period. Though the Air Force report conceded that the 20mm did "appear" to have better results, they attributed the kills partially to the experience of the pilots. The official reason the Air Force gave for not using 20mm ammunition was the short firing time; fewer rounds that could be carried; and a stall problem that occurred upon the firing of the guns. One aircraft was lost in combat.
Here is the link
http://kalaniosullivan.com/KunsanAB/VMF513/Howitwasa1ac.html (http://kalaniosullivan.com/KunsanAB/VMF513/Howitwasa1ac.html)
-
Him, the three bomb or two bomb plus drop tank option sounds like a post for the wishlist....
-
The difference between the early Corsairs and late is the deletion of the extra structure in the belly of the aircraft that precludes it from having a centrer pylon. This was changed with field modifications, but the standard -4's did not have center pylon capabilty as delivered.
-
F4UDOA, thanks for that info, I think it is very intersting to read. I will try as I said before to post those pictures today.
-
Originally posted by Widewing
Krusty, STOP!!!! Geez!
If you decelerated at 1 G, the rate would be 32.2 ft/sec. No one will be knocked out at 1 G. Formula One cars decelerate at 3 G, and I'm not aware of any drivers passing out.
My regards,
Widewing
Havent missed a race since 1982,ur abit behind there WW.....LOL.....
Last telemetry I saw showed 5g decelration and 3g acceleration and somewhere inbetween for cornering grip...... but thats only on the Ateam cars. Ferrari,Renault,BMW and McClaren,the others have somewhat lesser efforts as shown in lap times........................ ..
Wow never thought I'd have a chance to correct WW.... Wide:aok
PS plz update your site man.......
-
I never recalled the corsairs being overmodled, and I admit I've been grounded for about 18 months, but it sems to me that any experienced pilot that goes from 450 to 110 is either trying to make a combat landing on a carrier or trying to kill himself.
Anyone with any time in the seat of a corsair knows that below 20k, 250 IAS in a Co-E Co alt fight is in most cases going to lose that fight.
-
Originally posted by Red Tail 444
I never recalled the corsairs being overmodled, and I admit I've been grounded for about 18 months, but it sems to me that any experienced pilot that goes from 450 to 110 is either trying to make a combat landing on a carrier or trying to kill himself.
Anyone with any time in the seat of a corsair knows that below 20k, 250 IAS in a Co-E Co alt fight is in most cases going to lose that fight.
Bzzzzt wrong.
Bronk
-
Originally posted by Bronk
Bzzzzt wrong.
Bronk
lol, yeah, cuase @20k it is so easy to just dive to the safety of CV acks:aok :aok
-
Originally posted by Bronk
Bzzzzt wrong.
Bronk
I said below 20k, and if you differ, that's fine, but a more informed response would be appreciated, if capable.
-
Originally posted by Red Tail 444
I said below 20k, and if you differ, that's fine, but a more informed response would be appreciated, if capable.
Corsairs are now pretty uber at low speeds.
They are now a hovercraft in game.
I'd suggest Dloading the latest version and see first hand.
Bronk
-
Sounds like Bronk tried to out turn a Corsair in a Mustang and lost....
-
NO but i couldn't slow my 38 fast enough not to over shoot last night.:D
Don't mistake that last post as a whine. It's was just comparing to most AC in the plane set.
I like the hogs just fine thank you.
Bronk
-
LOL here he goes again.