Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: angelsandair on January 04, 2008, 09:50:13 PM
-
why does the f4u-4 cost so many perkies, i understand the f4u-1c with its 20mm cannons, but is the u4 really all that much better, what is it? more powerfull engine? more maneuverable? im sure it carries the same amount of guns as the 1d, just wanted to kno~~~~1pLuS44-ROLLINGTHUNDER
-
It is a very effective airframe. One of the best in the game. It's ONLY shortcoming, is La7 like mpg.
-
I'm surprised Sax isn't here yet.
He'll tell you all about it... it's really only the tiniest smidge less maneuverable than the F4U-1D, but its extra thrust makes up for it. It really is the best overall prop plane in the game as its flaps will let it turn with any Spit pilot dumb enough to turn fight the 'wrong way'. It holds E better than the P-51 which is a lot. The main thing about it is the beast of the engine making 2450 hp max. and the more efficient 4-bladed prop with only a bit of extra weight allowing for essentially, an upgrade in almost everything.
It's pretty much the F4U-1D but uber. If you're a Spit freak like me, you'll understand; the F4U-4 is essentially what the Spitfire IX is to the Spitfire V... extra performance for a tiny cost in maneuverability. In fact, the Spit V loses more maneuverability from becoming the Mk.IX than the F4U-1D loses from becoming the -4.
At the same time the 4-Hog is slightly faster than its Spitfire counterpart, the Mk.XIV, and is much rarer and entered combat more than a year later in the war in numbers of about 200 units.
-
Pappy pretty much got it, however IMO she flies more like the 1A (which I consider the best pure dogfighter of the 1-series Hogs) than the 1D, without the extra gas in the wings.
The -4 essentially takes the two main shortcomings of the earlier marks: rate of climb and acceleration, and does away with them. While she still won't catch a Spixteen or La-7 in an extended straight climb, it's GREATLY improved nonetheless, and as with all the Corsairs the zoom is INSANE. With six tons of airplane behind it, she WILL run down those Ponies and La-7s who think they can lose her in the zoom. Additionally, she's in the upper echelons in acceleration at all altitudes, and is one of the fastest props throughout the altitude range, especially above 10,000ft. Even some of the top dragsters like the La-7 and Spixteen barely manage a second over her in acceleration.
As Pappy said, the engine adds additional 450hp over the 1-series, and the four-bladed prop is a major leap over the three-bladed one on the earlier marks. Of the five Corsairs we have, the -4 is by far the best in the vertical.
She also has all the other strengths of the Corsairs: Fast, superb high-speed, handling (ESPECIALLY aileron and rudder authority) excellent guns, der Uberflappen, reasonably tough airframe (though I still think our R2800 is made of glass).
The F4U-4 is either at the top, or at the very least within the top 5-10 or so, of virtually every performance category. There's few, if any, ships in the game that have so many tricks over so many opponents. Assuming equal pilots, the F4U-4 WILL beat any other opponent more often than not.
Really, her only glaring flaw is endurance. As Masher pointed out she does have a rather short range on internal fuel, but she can take a drop tank and full internal and even with the extra weight and drag is still more than a match for most opponents.
-
Originally posted by SgtPappy
I'm surprised Sax isn't here yet.
He'll tell you all about it... it's really only the tiniest smidge less maneuverable than the F4U-1D, but its extra thrust makes up for it. It really is the best overall prop plane in the game as its flaps will let it turn with any Spit pilot dumb enough to turn fight the 'wrong way'. It holds E better than the P-51 which is a lot. The main thing about it is the beast of the engine making 2450 hp max. and the more efficient 4-bladed prop with only a bit of extra weight allowing for essentially, an upgrade in almost everything.
It's pretty much the F4U-1D but uber. If you're a Spit freak like me, you'll understand; the F4U-4 is essentially what the Spitfire IX is to the Spitfire V... extra performance for a tiny cost in maneuverability. In fact, the Spit V loses more maneuverability from becoming the Mk.IX than the F4U-1D loses from becoming the -4.
At the same time the 4-Hog is slightly faster than its Spitfire counterpart, the Mk.XIV, and is much rarer and entered combat more than a year later in the war in numbers of about 200 units.
Hit the hammer on the head there mate :]
But I don't see why the f4u is perked but only the spit XIV is cause I think somewhere I read something like HT saying he perks planes on "How many people are flying them" or something like that, and I see plenty of spit XVI's out :]
The f4u4 is an amazing plane if you know how to use flaps, and is still a great plane if you don't. It can outdive most, if not all planes, it's fast, manuverable and maintains E very well, although, I still perfer the f4u-1c just because with flaps, it easily makes up for it's shortage of manuverability, and it suits me well (even my spray and pray at times :aok )
-
Either way, if the F4U-4 were to ever be unperked the resulting whines would certainly drown out the "Perk the ElGhey!!!" squeaking.
-
Originally posted by Saxman
Either way, if the F4U-4 were to ever be unperked the resulting whines would certainly drown out the "Perk the ElGhey!!!" squeaking.
Isn't that why they made the /.squelch xxx command? :aok
-
Personally speaking of course... I still think the La-7 is better.
-
Originally posted by Saxman
Either way, if the F4U-4 were to ever be unperked the resulting whines would certainly drown out the "Perk the ElGhey!!!" squeaking.
I doubt it--most of the MA players wouldn't even notice. Unperk the -4, and the 1C with a perk will still see more usage. To most, the extra firepower is more important than the better performance, as our original poster so stated.
-
Originally posted by trigger2
Isn't that why they made the /.squelch xxx command? :aok
Really needs to be bound to a key. I can't type .squelch fast enough.
-
k thnx guys
-
Originally posted by trigger2
Hit the hammer on the head there mate :]
But I don't see why the f4u is perked but only the spit XIV is cause I think somewhere I read something like HT saying he perks planes on "How many people are flying them" or something like that, and I see plenty of spit XVI's out :]
The Spixteens are usually piloted by those who can't really fight and though there are many MANY of them, I guess it's just not enough for HTC to put a perk on them.
-
Originally posted by Stoney74
I doubt it--most of the MA players wouldn't even notice. Unperk the -4, and the 1C with a perk will still see more usage. To most, the extra firepower is more important than the better performance, as our original poster so stated.
I bet u get more kills in a -4 in 1 flight then u can in a -1c. Heck I bet I can get more kills in a -1 in 1 flight then u can in a -1c in 1 flight. It all in the aim and the 50 cal hogs offer more versatility then the c hog. I rather the 50 cal hogs then the cannon anyday. Only reason I fly a c hog is when I out #'d 3:1 and need to kill quickly instead of tickling my food and also for attacking a field.
-
Buncha noobs, real men don't fly blue planes.:aok
donkey
-
Originally posted by SgtPappy
The Spixteens are usually piloted by those who can't really fight and though there are many MANY of them, I guess it's just not enough for HTC to put a perk on them.
No need to perk the XVI because it doesn't unbalance the game play.
ack-ack
-
Originally posted by AKDogg
I bet u get more kills in a -4 in 1 flight then u can in a -1c. Heck I bet I can get more kills in a -1 in 1 flight then u can in a -1c in 1 flight. It all in the aim and the 50 cal hogs offer more versatility then the c hog. I rather the 50 cal hogs then the cannon anyday. Only reason I fly a c hog is when I out #'d 3:1 and need to kill quickly instead of tickling my food and also for attacking a field.
I don't disagree with you about the primacy of the -4. I'd rather fly it than the C-Hog any day. But, sadly, most MA'ers will go for the firepower rather than performance...I'm not talking about the decent sticks here, I'm talking about the masses. Hence, my statement that unperking the -4 wouldn't cause hardly anyone, minus the small percentage that appreciate the plane for what it is, to blink.
Going a little off topic here...Its the same philosophy I apply to the Spit 14 perk (what used to be the TA-152 perk) and the P-47N ENY. Just because HTC thinks an aircraft needs a perk or low ENY does not mean that it will always reflect in MA useage. 95% of all P-47N useage is as a bomb-truck, and therefore the 5 ENY is unwarranted, as its true potential is wasted on the MA. Same for the Spit 14. Most of the Spit crowd wouldn't fly it even without a perk, because it doesn't handle as benignly as a 16, 8, or 9. Its true potential is also wasted on the MA.
So to would the F4U-4. Remove the perk and the useage goes up a little, but not in an destabilizing manner. Remove the perk from the F4U-1C, and, well, we know what happens then.
-
The 4hog is an overpriced flying brick. The Chog is an overgunned flying brick. The rest of the hogs are just bricks. They are easy kills. Especially Dhogs flown by rooks. Engage them recklessly.
;)
HONK!
Gooss
-
Hogs? Bah, they couldn't even be bothered to put the wings on straight.
Sorry Sax, had to. :p
-
Chicks dig gull wings
-
the goofy winged plane is now my favorite with the -4 at the top of my list. If i wasn't getting shot down so much this tour I'd take it up more.
-
Unperking the -4hog is like unperking the tempest. No matter how much you argue, no matter how much you say "it wouldn't be used!" it would, and in massive numbers, and nobody would fight. It would be 100% runners and cowards, and lord knows there's enough of those in AH already.
-
I can honestly say if the Tempest was unperked i still wouldn't fly it, on the other hand I wouldn't get out of the -4 if it was unperked.
I agree keep it perked, it feels like I've chased more 51's and 190's in the last couple day's than the whole last year. Don't think I want more things to try and run down.
-
Originally posted by Treize69
Hogs? Bah, they couldn't even be bothered to put the wings on straight.
Sorry Sax, had to. :p
Yup I see the joke, but why did they have the gull wings?
Only thing I can think of is to make room for the I do believe 12 foot prop on take off..
-
Oh, 13' 4" heheh.
I win.
-
Originally posted by trigger2
Yup I see the joke, but why did they have the gull wings?
Only thing I can think of is to make room for the I do believe 12 foot prop on take off..
shorter, stronger landing gear for carrier landings and to make room for the huge pilot cooling fan. :D
-
Originally posted by SgtPappy
Oh, 13' 4" heheh.
I win.
It was a 13'2" prop actually
FYI -the F4u1a has 150 more HP off wep than the F4U4 But that prop is the major factor in it's success
This will get'em going!
-
Originally posted by stroker71
the F4u1a has 150 more HP off wep than the F4U4
:confused: You sure about this? I don't think the F4U-1A was pushing 2600 HP was it?
-
According to America's Hundred Thousand, by Dean,
model, military HP, WEP HP, # delivered
F4U-1, 2000, 2000 (no wep), 2469
F4U-1A, 2000, 2135, 3861
F4U-1D, 2000, 2135, 2800
F4U-4, 2100, 2380, 2050
-
Check that last figure for the 1A. Should it be 2861?
-
Had a fight with my F4u4 vs a p51, well actually two, and filmed it. It was fascinating to review the film. The f4 would accelerate faster than the 51 but could not out run it. I guess the big engine and the 4 bladed prop account for that. Oh the fight, Shot one down and the other ran. Of course I wouldn't bring it up unless it had a happy ending.
-
Depends on your altitude. At some parts of the altitude range the F4U-4 will leave the Mustang behind.
-
Originally posted by Stoney74
:confused: You sure about this? I don't think the F4U-1A was pushing 2600 HP was it?
the book i have states:
F4U1a with r-2800-8w is 2250hp
F4U4 with r-2800-18 is 2100hp
they did later replace the engine in the -4 not sure which one we have
it may be wrong but the f4u4 will still outrun a A1...on wep the -4 is a beast
Can we get the tiny tim rocket?
-
I've been asking for that, centerline ords on the 1D, 1A without wing folding and arrestor gear, and a fix to the frelling microscopic gunsights for the past several updates. :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by stroker71
the book i have states:
F4U1a with r-2800-8w is 2250hp
F4U4 with r-2800-18 is 2100hp
they did later replace the engine in the -4 not sure which one we have
it may be wrong but the f4u4 will still outrun a A1...on wep the -4 is a beast
Can we get the tiny tim rocket?
Factory ratings for the R-2800-8W and R-2800-18W are as follows:
R-2800-8W: 2,135 hp @ sea level, 1,975 hp @ 16,900 ft.
R-2800-18W: 2,380 hp @ sea level, 2,080 hp @ 23,300 ft.
Add to this the four-bladed prop of the F4U-4, which can harness more power than that of the three-bladed prop.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Originally posted by Saxman
Check that last figure for the 1A. Should it be 2861?
The 3861 is number of planes delivered that I saw or added up from the book's info. I'll check it again and post a correction if I added it up wrong. It is sort of unclear for me to have added a column (next to HP) of number produced, but there was some question about how many F4U-4's were produced (I think) earlier in this topic, so I added in that column.
-
Ah, ok.
-
Originally posted by stroker71
It was a 13'2" prop actually
This will get'em going!
Oh? 'The Great Book of WWII Airplanes' has failed me?
Also Stroker, I think the hp figure for the P&W R-2800-18W is 2450 hp with WEP, just like your R-2800-8W figure is a WEP figure of 2250 hp... these are the most commonly published figures that I've seen so far; I bet WW's are more accurate.
Oh, Sax, what's the weight difference on the A-hog with and without wing fold/arrester gear?
-
About 500lbs I believe. Although it's only a relatively small percentage of the total weight, 500lbs actually makes a significant difference in the 1A. What you can do, is take off with 100% internal, then burn the wings completely dry. Then compare how she handles at full internal fuel, and then with 500lbs LESS fuel as the main burns down. There's a noticeable improvement in performance 500lbs lighter.
-
500 lbs, not that much? lol to me...I think that's much; flying Spitfires and Corsairs in this game for its entire duration in my life, the Spitfire IX's weight of 7303 lbs. loaded vs. the Spitfire VIII's loaded weight of 7807 lbs. feels like a LOT.
And I have absolutely NO trouble turning a Spit IX tighter. With a whopping 500 lbs less weight on the USMC F4U, that's a good amount of weight lost. The only thing the F4U didn't have much of that I needed was acceleration and 500 lbs weight loss will really help.
I have the USN cross-section of the F4U but if you have the USMC cross section, I could dissect and look, piece by piece, the differences. In published works, this USMC Hog is about as popular as history class is to other kids my age. If there were more/near equal amounts of USMC Hogs compared to USN Hogs, I don't see why we can't have one. Besides, it was the USMC that made those Hogs famous! We'd be able to use those awesome skins of yours, Sax, with confidence.
-
What I meant by "insignificant" was compared to the aircraft's overall weight. 500lbs is a much bigger percentage of the weight of a 7000lb aircraft, as opposed to one that weighs about 12,000lbs at combat weight.
Regarding the USN vs USMC birds, it really depended first on where the aircraft was manufactured. All Vought-built aircraft were built as carrier-borne birds. Those built by Goodyear came out of the factory without the wing folding mechanism and arrestor gear. A large number of Vought-built 1As assigned to land-bases were later upgraded (or downgraded) before being turned over to the squadrons. Some Navy squadrons flew Corsairs without the carrier-handling equipment. Some Marine squadrons flew Corsairs that DID have it. And there's likely be a mix of both.
However a sufficient number of 1As were purpose-built in this configuration I think there should at LEAST be an option in the hangar allowing her to be flown that way. It would take no real additional modeling, except the removal of the tail hook.
-
That is very true, but after calculations I did a while back (assuming an F4U had its auw weight reduced by 350 lbs, the wingloading went down and powerloading went up enough to allow a tiny boost in performance... similar to tha boost a -1A gains over the -1).
I totally agree about having one for those reasons... I'll have to add that wish to my sig. Also, I was about to ask why some FG's had arrestor gear after looking at FG-1D, 'Marine's Dream'. Right now, I'm still trying to find info on FG-1A's.. hopefully find some important figures that could get us one in-game.
And I think it would make sense ti have one since the USMC really was an important user of the Hogs in general, and not just the F4U-1. I would really like to see either an FG-1A or FG-1D allowed in the list. Did these get H2O injection around the same time as the USN versions?
-
The presence of arrestor gear/etc on the FG-1D Marine's Dream is probably explainable by the fact she's a 1D: By the time that variant came out, between procedures developed by the Fleet Air Arm and improvements to the aircraft design itself, the Corsair was deemed suitable for carrier operations. So it stands to reason, since the F4U-1D was the first variant fully cleared for carrier use, both Vought and Goodyear's production runs would have all had the folding wings and arrestor gear (as opposed to the 1A, which was predominantly relegated to land bases).
-
Also, to add to your statement of additional modeling not being required.. does a weight reduction count? I have no idea as to how the flight models i this game are coded in terms of weight.
Also, I've been goolging around for a good while and I can't find a good source for Goodyear or Brewster Corsairs. If you have a good site pertaining to them, I'd like to see. I know it sounds weird but I'm not sure if the naval gearless Goodyear models had the wing fold/lock and arrestor hook controls as I haven't been able to find a single picture of a single Corsair with no naval gear.
The new plane could be like what the FM2 is to the F4F. Problem is, I don't think they'd make one before they add the other planes; most importantly IMO Axis transports and remodeled/added Italian a/c.
-
Adjusting the weight would be completely different from an outright new wireframe. All that would be required would be hiding the tail hook.
-
So I tried to lose 500 lbs off the -1A last night offline. With 25%, 0.0 burn and an ammo load multiplied by 9.8, my weight stood at the standard 11,278 lbs. I figured... hey... if I lose all this ammo, I can theoretically lose 500 lbs off the plane and see how it handles.
Problem is, I don't think the game is coded to allow that, even if the weight goes down that much, as I didn't notice much, possibly due to the fact I did this after I came back from work, quite tired.
You think someone could try out this test and see if the planes actually handle better or get better results under this 'glitch' test?