Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: SD67 on February 21, 2008, 06:27:40 AM
-
I remember when I first started flying AHII one of the things that struck me was the accuracy of the flight model.
My favourite aircraft was the Corsair, so naturally I immediately took one up and I was immediately impressed with how accurately the flight model represented everything I'd read.
These aircraft were nicknamed "ensign eliminators" due to their unforgiving low speed stall characteristics. They would drop a wing and enter a spin at the onset of a very abrupt stall. Recently I've noticed they F4-U is more forgiving that I remember. Is it just that my cartoon skills have just improved to the point that I can manage it better or has the Corsair model been softened some?
-
Since the flaps update, the f4u's have become very forgiving. They are amongst the finest low speed handling planes in AH, if not the best.
-
I disagree thrila. The flaps are certainly uber and greatly improve low-speed turning ability, but NOT stability. She's still twitchy and will snap out from under you with little to no warning. I still lose her from time to time, just usually am able to recover before it becomes fatal.
I think it's more a matter of SD67's skill, as I in no way would call the F4Us forgiving for inexperienced players.
-
I simply don't agree. I don't fly them often but when i do they're a joy to fly. The stall can be prevented often enough just by easing on the stick when a wing begins to slowly dip. The plane has very little torque and is easily handled at speeds below 100mph, even at around 70 mph ASI with a high angle of attack the plane is controllable. In comparison to most other planes i believe she is unrivalled at low speeds. The rudder authority at low speeds is awesome too.
-
I agree with thrila.
One of my first planes I ever remember taking off in (offline) waaaaay back was a F4u1D and I wasn't very experienced, so it had a NASTY stall. I went in 3-4 times on takeoff alone before switching craft and trying others.
The airflow recode SERIOUSLY made the corsairs uber. Way beyond their capabilities should. The flaps on these planes are now seriously unrealistic, and the gentle as a baby's bottom stall hasn't made me spin out or dip a wing since the recode.
They're uber. They're overmodeled. Before the recode they were second tier, delegated to jabo. Almost unused. Now you'll find more f4us than p51s most times in a furball. It out turns all but spit5s, to boot!
(do you realize the turn radius goes from 700 feet to 400 feet with full flaps? That's almost a 50% reduction in turn radius for ALL corsairs!! Most planes with full flaps only get 25%-30% reduction in turn radius.)
-
The current modeling of the F4U makes it into a UFO at low speed, no doubt about it.
-
"The airflow recode SERIOUSLY made the corsairs uber. Way beyond their capabilities should. The flaps on these planes are now seriously unrealistic, and the gentle as a baby's bottom stall hasn't made me spin out or dip a wing since the recode."
even with the rudder authority if you push the f4u to its limits it'll dip a wing then progress to a spin in a heart beat...but it is very easy to recover from that spin with alittle alt.
-
Whoa ....
All this Corsair love .....
I didn't notice too much difference offline from what I remembered it being like over a couple years ago. Was hopin' that simply meant my skills hadn't eroded that much. Thanks for burstin' my bubble! :D
-
Very smooth in the stall for me.
I had to bust a gut to outturn a guy slow in my spit8 the other day.
Hardly anything tests my spit8!
I'll mix it up with zeros, hurris you name it i'll have a couple of turns with it. Seriously had to work around it.
Only problem it does have is regaining E when you've had full flaps out.
Not the best acceleration.
-
Wasn't it Widewing who had video of a REAL F4U performing the exact same sorts of maneuvering that the better Hog sticks pull off in the game?
With all the notes, numbers and other hard data that gets posted regarding the historical effectiveness of the Corsair's flaps (even the pilot's operation manuals show that the Corsair's flaps generate an ENORMOUS amount of lift especially power on) it amazes me how often these threads come up.
-
tip in spit to defeat corsairs...start to turnfight until you are under 150mph then go into pure verticals (watch your wings :P). The F4U weight will make the difference.
I've read some BS website yesterday which was claiming the F4U4 is the best fighter/bomber of the war.
http://home.att.net/~historyzone/F4U-4.html (http://home.att.net/~historyzone/F4U-4.html)
I don't know where that guy found the F4U had a great 6 view...
-
I think the power off stall for most planes in Aces High are modeled for non fliers. This is especially apparent in the F4U-1 when landing on a carrier. The dash one should be the most difficult plane to land on a CV and it's rather easy. Chance Vought addressed the problem of the left wing suddenly dropping in the power off (Dirty) stall by adding a small spoiler just outboard of the guns on the right wing. This meant that both wings would drop at the same time, not alleviate the sudden stall. I believe this was done from the -1A on.
I have heard that HiTech has compared his RV-8 to the game and it's very close to what happens in the game. It just seems that from my experience that as aircraft weight goes up, the feeling of the stall suddenly dropping increases. Stall a T-6 wings level and it shudders then the nose drops cleanly.
I do understand making the game enjoyable for everyone and certain compromises have to be made. If we have easy stalls to keep more people in the game and flying then that's fine by me. we just need to accept that it's not always going to match real life.
Of course, taking advantage of every limit to get the kill, or stay live is also part of the game.:D
-
Noir,
He didn't. He NEVER said the F4U had a great rear view, just good general all-around visibility, which anywhere but dead-six the bubble-top Corsairs DO have a pretty clean view (the rear view alleviated somewhat by shifting in the seat).
I've read this article before, and agree with its assessment. If you're going to call it BS then first make sure you read it right, and second, WHY?
-
Originally posted by Saxman
Noir,
He didn't. He NEVER said the F4U had a great rear view, just good general all-around visibility, which anywhere but dead-six the bubble-top Corsairs DO have a pretty clean view (the rear view alleviated somewhat by shifting in the seat).
I've read this article before, and agree with its assessment. If you're going to call it BS then first make sure you read it right, and second, WHY?
Ok my miss on the visibilty misread, maybe its no BS but....can't he compare F4U with anything that is NOT a P51 ? That guy says he's objective, basing his text on data only, but all I can see is a subjective analysis.
One exemple is the speed comparison.
Speed: The -4 was about 10 mph faster than the P-51D at the altitude where the Mustang developed it’s highest speed. Advantage: F4U-4.
We are talking about the best in war or the best american plane ? And at what altitude ?
Read the other articles they are in the same spirit, biased info IMO. One that got me :lol is about the P-38 size and shape, The P-38: Is Size And Shape A Disadvantage? (http://home.att.net/~ww2aircraft/Profiles.html)
Reading that we can almost believe the P-38 was a great diver :D
-
This is a very nice clip here:
http://www.zenoswarbirdvideos.com/F4U.html
I used the windows media player link (below the real media links).
Right aroudn 13:30 or so they show stalls. Total stalls, the entire wing drops and the plane is almost instantly inverted. Real footage, no less!! Flaps out stalls are less violent but looks like he's about to spin out at a moment's notice (the nose tucks under and seems to crab sideways)
I wonder if those fuel consumption numbers match AH. They say max cruise on lean gets you less than 100 GPH burn, full power 250 gph, but if you reduce RPM below max cruise you can lean it out to 45 GPH or so.
THAT would be an amazing amount of fuel conservation! I need to compare to AH next time I'm up.
-
great video, and people want more realistic planes.... watch the startup procedures... some wouldnt be able to take off...
-
Actually Krusty, I've experienced the instant-inversion stall during rolling scissors in-game when I've given her too much rudder at the top of the maneuver.
-
Originally posted by Saxman
I disagree thrila. The flaps are certainly uber and greatly improve low-speed turning ability, but NOT stability. She's still twitchy and will snap out from under you with little to no warning. I still lose her from time to time, just usually am able to recover before it becomes fatal.
I think it's more a matter of SD67's skill, as I in no way would call the F4Us forgiving for inexperienced players.
Ok, I like the F4U very much, but it is entirely too stable at low speeds. More so than the F6F, which set the standard for carrier fighter stability around the boat. You can fly it down to 60 mph, nose high and cob the power with not a hint of instability. Historically, it's wrong, period. I've discussed this with a gentleman who flew the F4U-4 and F4U-5. When I described the low-speed handling behavior he wrote back and said, "if I had attempted what you described, I wouldn't be here to discuss it with you."
In a discussion with a local FG-1D owner, he described low speed, high power handling as "like a fat girl on a surfboard."
As far as I can remember, the F4U was always good with flaps out. After the drag model update it went from just good to absolutely ridiculous. Ditto for the 109s to lesser degree.
Planes that suffered from the drag model update include the Ki-61 and P-51 to name the most obvious.
Now clearly, the FM is a constantly evolving creature. Thus, we can expect changes and tweaks as the game move forward.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Originally posted by Baumer
I do understand making the game enjoyable for everyone and certain compromises have to be made. If we have easy stalls to keep more people in the game and flying then that's fine by me. we just need to accept that it's not always going to match real life...
The problem is that most folks rarely mention the difference in a power-on vs. power off stall. I remember my first stall training in a Cessna 172. Power off stalls were a non-event, whereas I almost put the plane into a spin during my first power-on stall, and that's in a plane with a 150 HP engine, because I wasn't paying attention to the ball.
The Corsairs reputation was earned during high Alpha, high power, low speed maneuvers around the landing pattern. This is dangerous territory for any aircraft, especially if the pilot is ham-fisted. The Hellcat was arguably a "lowest common denominator" type of plane. Its performance suffered as a result, but the Navy determined it would rather have the modest performance and easier "around the flight deck" handling. The Corsair on the other hand, had much better performance, and suffered in the landing pattern as a result. The Corsair was not a "lowest common denominator" plane. Flown well, it was just as safe. So, you can argue that its reputation was a result of inexperienced pilots rather than poor design/performance.
-
Originally posted by Noir
tip in spit to defeat corsairs...start to turnfight until you are under 150mph then go into pure verticals (watch your wings :P). The F4U weight will make the difference.
I've read some BS website yesterday which was claiming the F4U4 is the best fighter/bomber of the war.
http://home.att.net/~historyzone/F4U-4.html (http://home.att.net/~historyzone/F4U-4.html)
I don't know where that guy found the F4U had a great 6 view...
The article states: "The Corsair provided for very good visibility from the cockpit." That was the end of the discussion. So, how did you extrapolate that to "a great 6 view"?
Second, name a better WWII fighter-bomber than the F4U-4.... Make my evening.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Originally posted by Widewing
Second, name a better WWII fighter-bomber than the F4U-4.... Make my evening.
Noir...Any idea who wrote that article???
This should be interesting...
-
Originally posted by Stoney
Noir...Any idea who wrote that article???
This should be interesting...
;)
My regards,
Widewing
-
:rofl
-
There was a warbird pilot who owned an F4U and flew AH...I was talking to him and he'd just sold his F4U. I asked him why and he said he was scared every time he flew it. He called it totally unforgiving of any error on takeoff or landing....
-
I am a Spitfire and Mosquito fan. To a lesser extent a A6M and Ki-84 buff.
I cannot think of a better fighter-bomber than the F4U-4 in WWII.
In fact, if I were told that I had to fight a war using WWII units and I could only pick one tank, fighter, bomber, ect, I'd pick the F4U as my side's fighter. Sorry Spit and Mossie.
-
Originally posted by JimBeam
"The airflow recode SERIOUSLY made the corsairs uber. Way beyond their capabilities should. The flaps on these planes are now seriously unrealistic, and the gentle as a baby's bottom stall hasn't made me spin out or dip a wing since the recode."
even with the rudder authority if you push the f4u to its limits it'll dip a wing then progress to a spin in a heart beat...but it is very easy to recover from that spin with alittle alt.
I'm not sure about the whole flap thing either but take a look at the MANY flaps threads and there are actual mathematical equations to it all. Until I finish physics, I'm not going comprehend it, though.
-
Originally posted by Widewing
In a discussion with a local FG-1D owner, he described low speed, high power handling as "like a fat girl on a surfboard."
THAT is signature material if there has ever been signature material. I laughed for 1/2 an hour. A "hog on ice" indeed.
-
Crap. I thought I was just getting better in the Corsair. I didn't realize it had training wheels.
Nonetheless, chicks still dig gullwings.
HONK!
Gooss
-
Originally posted by JimBeam
Way beyond their capabilities should. The flaps on these planes are now seriously unrealistic...
Source please?
-
Quite an uppity tone, stoney. I could walk up to you for saying "it's a sunny day" and yell "SOURCE?!?!" in a confrontational manner, and would be received in better light than you are now.
Grow up a bit.
EDIT: I say this because you parrot that question as if it's a learned behavioral response and not an actual inquiry. Your mind is already made up and you shut out any other ideas. It's not a question to you, so why phrase it as one?
-
Originally posted by Krusty
Quite an uppity tone, stoney. I could walk up to you for saying "it's a sunny day" and yell "SOURCE?!?!" in a confrontational manner, and would be received in better light than you are now.
Grow up a bit.
EDIT: I say this because you parrot that question as if it's a learned behavioral response and not an actual inquiry. Your mind is already made up and you shut out any other ideas. It's not a question to you, so why phrase it as one?
He's reactionary, you say? Heh. I see. :D
-
Originally posted by Krusty
Quite an uppity tone, stoney. I could walk up to you for saying "it's a sunny day" and yell "SOURCE?!?!" in a confrontational manner, and would be received in better light than you are now.
Grow up a bit.
EDIT: I say this because you parrot that question as if it's a learned behavioral response and not an actual inquiry. Your mind is already made up and you shut out any other ideas. It's not a question to you, so why phrase it as one?
You miss my point Krusty. People make claims all the time on these boards using nothing other than anecdotes. I'm just trying to provoke some research/documentation for posts on this board, especially when commenting on the aerodynamic/flight characteristics of aircraft that are subject to a lot of folklore. If he had said "the flaps on these planes are totally unrealistic [History of the Corsair, by Bob Johnson]", rattled off some aerodynamic formula proving the flapped wing area was insufficient to create the amount of lift modelled in the game, or posted a link to some test data, etc. Something other than simply an unsupported statement would be nice.
This isn't a personal attack on JB. I've flown with him before and believe he's a valuable member of the community. Just trying to make a point that those types of statements are lost without some sort of documentation to make it a rational statement.
-
Originally posted by Stoney
Noir...Any idea who wrote that article???
This should be interesting...
I do not care who wrote this site really, I've seen this site long ago when surfing these boards, so I'll assume its someone posting here....
Anyway the F4U4 is indeed a very good fighter-bomber, I can't think of anything that can beat it (Hellcat maybe ?), except on its flight time at military power wich is fairly low in AH. My point was no to argue about the conclusion of the article, but how the writer compared planes...
US planes.....what else ?
-
Originally posted by Noir
US planes.....what else ?
There are no others.. :D
-
You miss my point Krusty. People make claims all the time on these boards using nothing other than anecdotes. I'm just trying to provoke some research/documentation for posts on this board, especially when commenting on the aerodynamic/flight characteristics of aircraft that are subject to a lot of folklore. If he had said "the flaps on these planes are totally unrealistic [History of the Corsair, by Bob Johnson]", rattled off some aerodynamic formula proving the flapped wing area was insufficient to create the amount of lift modelled in the game, or posted a link to some test data, etc. Something other than simply an unsupported statement would be nice.
You are exactly right on this Stoney, annecdotal evidence will turn this Simm into an Arcade game in minutes if you let it.
It is not as if there is no Stall test done on the F4U in which to create an accurate flight model, in fact of all of the aircraft in AH the F4U probably is in the top three as far as available flight test data (The Spit may have more). You can literally open the Flight manual and see the exact stall speed and depature behaivor in all flight conditions and weights. There is no ambiguity here, if it is believed the stall is modelled incorrectly compare it to the test results and move forward from there. The term "Ensign Eliminator" proves nothing as far as designing a Flight Model. In fact the stalls of several other A/C in AH are considered to be worse by flight testing standards including the Pony and Focke Wolf. Going back to the initial post of this thread the statement is made They would drop a wing and enter a spin at the onset of a very abrupt stall
A spin, Really? This was the Airwarrior Flight Model from 10 years ago.
Why doesn't someone do a flight test of stall speed and altitude loss and present this back to Pyro and HTC?
-
I guess I need to stop killing all u spit, niki and lala dweebs in my corsair. Now u guys gonna try to pork my hog. hehehehe.:noid
-
Originally posted by Noir
I do not care who wrote this site really, I've seen this site long ago when surfing these boards, so I'll assume its someone posting here....
Anyway the F4U4 is indeed a very good fighter-bomber, I can't think of anything that can beat it (Hellcat maybe ?), except on its flight time at military power wich is fairly low in AH. My point was no to argue about the conclusion of the article, but how the writer compared planes...
US planes.....what else ?
What else, in any air force, can claim parity with the F4U-4 in WWII?
A fighter bomber is multi-role aircraft. It must be able to deliver ordnance accurately on target, and excel in the role of air superiority.
The principle high end fighter-bombers of WWII would include the F4U-1D, F4U-4, F6F-5, P-51D, P-47D, Typhoon, Mosquito, P-38 and the Fw 190F/G. You could argue that the Tempest V would be in this group too, although it saw much less ground work than the Tiffie.
There's little point in looking at the earlier F4U as it is completely outclassed by the -4. The F6F-5 was very good, but it lacked the speed to deal with late war fighters as well as the F4U-4 could.
When we look at the P-47D, we see a very able attack platform, but it was out of its element at lower altitudes and inferior as a fighter to most of the competition down low.
In contrast, the P-38 was excellent. Adequate speed, good climb rate, agile and capable of hauling 4,000 lb of ordnance. Nonetheless, it was difficult to fly and maintain and had reached the end of practical development.
Hawker's Typhoon gave great service as a fighter-bomber. However, it was not much of a fighter, except down low. Even there, it was only marginal compared to the most of the group.
Much has been written about the Mosquito. It was the most versatile aircraft of the war. Unfortunately, it was generally over-matched against single-engine fighters. Mosquitoes were used mostly in the interdiction role, and often with some degree of fighter cover.
Focke Wulfs proved quite versatile as well, but the F and G models were usually at a disadvantage when opposed by pure fighter types.
While the Tempest proved very fast at low and medium altitudes, it was a relatively poor performer above 20,000 feet. It lacked the full range of versatility common to many US types.
Finally, we come to the P-51. Very fast, long range, good ordnance load and the ability to go from attack profile to top tier fighter at all altitudes. I rate it the 2nd best all around fighter of the war. Not THE best in many categories, but so well rounded that it is superior to all but the mighty F4U-4.
This is borne out by the fact that of all of the fighters listed above, only the F4U-4 and P-51D were still performing their multi-role missions 5 years later in Korea. Mustangs were withdrawn from combat before the Corsairs were due to one reason, survivability/attrition. The F4U was far more durable and resistant to ground fire.
As the premier fighter-bomber of WWII, no other aircraft could match the combination of versatility and performance offered by the F4U-4.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Originally posted by F4UDOA
You are exactly right on this Stoney, annecdotal evidence will turn this Simm into an Arcade game in minutes if you let it.
No, I don't think he is. And no, it won't.
Nobody is saying use only anecdotes.
However, consider the 109 flight models in this game. The 190 flight models. The NUMBERS were right, they hit the right stall speeds, but everything ELSE about them was totally off. They snap-stalled inverted in a split second with the lightest of backpressure at any speed below 250mph, for the 190s. The 109s were totally unstable for me. I literally could not fly them until AH2 came out. It was some bug, and others have noticed the same thing, where it felt as if the plane were on a gimble, one wing would snap stall then the other, and it would be unflyable. A few folks experienced some similar things, but I *guess* it had something to do with the way the code was running on my older machine (at the time). Then AH2 comes around and they get into accelerated stalls whilst in level, gentle, flight. The stall speeds might have been the same, but the handling was not.
Look at ALL the anecdotal evidence regarding quality of that flight, not the quantity of the mph. Nowhere did it show 190s snap stalling with even 1.1Gs nor did it show the 109s not being able to pull a certain AOA (can't recall what it was, the guy who did the turn tests figured out the angle, and it was 2x worse than any other plane in the game save for the 190) without stalling out.
So HTC goes back and totally rewrites all their airflow code.
Viola! Guess what?! The planes don't do these unhistorical things anymore! However they STILL hit the numbers.
IL2 hits the numbers and nothing else. Every plane flies like every other plane. In AH the individual handling of planes is also modeled.
Right now, the corsairs don't match up. The NUMBERS may be spot on but not the rest.
-
Widewing if I may go off topic for one post, how would the F7F and F8F have compared to the F4U4? IIRC one or both of them were otw to the front lines when the war ended.
-
The F7F actually was in operational service in 4/44 and delivered to the fleet in 5/44. It simply never saw combat....
Corky Meyer (the test pilot for the F7F) felt it was the best prop fighter he ever flew by a wide margin. Fred Trappell was chief test pilot for the navy during WW2. He is most famous for approving the F6F for production in 1 day (8,000 had been built before it actually "passed" formal testing). Corky ran into him after the war during testing for the F9F and queried him on the F7F and got a blistering rendition of all its shortcomings (Trappells personal plane was an F7F)...so corky asked him why he was flying one...
"If you dislike the Tigercat so much, why do you always fly it?" He explained: "The excess power of its two engines is wonderful for aerobatics; the cockpit planning and the forward visibility in the carrier approach is the best in any fighter ever built; the tricycle landing gear allows much faster pilot checkouts; the roll with the power boost rudder is faster than the ailerons; and it has a greater range than any fighter in inventory." Again, he was absolutely right. As he climbed up the ladder to the cockpit, he turned around, grinned and told me, "It's the best damn fighter I've ever flown." I realized he had thrown the entire test-pilot schoolbook at me with his succinct tirade and that we were probably pretty close in our opinions regarding the handling characteristics that define a really good fighter.
Corky's article on the F7F (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3897/is_200208/ai_n9120620/pg_1)
-
A whole operational year without any contact?
-
Stateside evaluation isn't really "service" -- that's trials IMO
-
It had a bunch of "issues" primarily related to passing the spin portions of the testing and then carrier qualifications. It was flown by a stateside landbased USMC unit but never deployed to a combat area....
-
Originally posted by Krusty
Stateside evaluation isn't really "service" -- that's trials IMO
It was not in evaluation, it was operationally deployed to a single squadron which was never deployed to a combat role.
-
Originally posted by Widewing
What else, in any air force, can claim parity with the F4U-4 in WWII?
A fighter bomber is multi-role aircraft. It must be able to deliver ordnance accurately on target, and excel in the role of air superiority.
The principle high end fighter-bombers of WWII would include the F4U-1D, F4U-4, F6F-5, P-51D, P-47D, Typhoon, Mosquito, P-38 and the Fw 190F/G. You could argue that the Tempest V would be in this group too, although it saw much less ground work than the Tiffie.
There's little point in looking at the earlier F4U as it is completely outclassed by the -4. The F6F-5 was very good, but it lacked the speed to deal with late war fighters as well as the F4U-4 could.
When we look at the P-47D, we see a very able attack platform, but it was out of its element at lower altitudes and inferior as a fighter to most of the competition down low.
In contrast, the P-38 was excellent. Adequate speed, good climb rate, agile and capable of hauling 4,000 lb of ordnance. Nonetheless, it was difficult to fly and maintain and had reached the end of practical development.
Hawker's Typhoon gave great service as a fighter-bomber. However, it was not much of a fighter, except down low. Even there, it was only marginal compared to the most of the group.
Much has been written about the Mosquito. It was the most versatile aircraft of the war. Unfortunately, it was generally over-matched against single-engine fighters. Mosquitoes were used mostly in the interdiction role, and often with some degree of fighter cover.
Focke Wulfs proved quite versatile as well, but the F and G models were usually at a disadvantage when opposed by pure fighter types.
While the Tempest proved very fast at low and medium altitudes, it was a relatively poor performer above 20,000 feet. It lacked the full range of versatility common to many US types.
Finally, we come to the P-51. Very fast, long range, good ordnance load and the ability to go from attack profile to top tier fighter at all altitudes. I rate it the 2nd best all around fighter of the war. Not THE best in many categories, but so well rounded that it is superior to all but the mighty F4U-4.
This is borne out by the fact that of all of the fighters listed above, only the F4U-4 and P-51D were still performing their multi-role missions 5 years later in Korea. Mustangs were withdrawn from combat before the Corsairs were due to one reason, survivability/attrition. The F4U was far more durable and resistant to ground fire.
As the premier fighter-bomber of WWII, no other aircraft could match the combination of versatility and performance offered by the F4U-4.
My regards,
Widewing
I'll have to agree with this, the french flew the F4U4 until 1960 or so :aok , but again my whine was not about the F4U4 performance, but the way that guy wrote about it.
Widewing and lets pray for new mosquito variants
-
I'm pretty sure that guy's Widewing! :lol
-
Originally posted by Noir
I'll have to agree with this, the french flew the F4U4 until 1960 or so :aok , but again my whine was not about the F4U4 performance, but the way that guy wrote about it.
Widewing and lets pray for new mosquito variants
:rofl :rofl :rofl
-
Originally posted by moot
Widewing if I may go off topic for one post, how would the F7F and F8F have compared to the F4U4? IIRC one or both of them were otw to the front lines when the war ended.
Well, the F7F was a better attack platform. In terms of performance, it was probably superior as a fighter too. However, it was designed for the next generation of carrier (Midway and Coral Sea), which were not ready before the war ended. It was thought to be a bit "too hot" for carrier duty on the Essex class. However, it did qualify aboard the Antietam and Shangri-la in April of 1945. Only one squadron deployed to the combat zone, VMF(N)-533 arrived on Okinawa a few days before Japan surrendered. Only one local sortie was flown and that was on the day Japan announced that they had quit. These were two-seat night fighters (F7F-2N), probably the best of their ilk to see service up till that time.
F8Fs were in route to Japan aboard a carrier (USS Boxer, IIRC) when the surrender occurred. They were about 5 days from combat. In terms of air to air capability, the F8F was without peer in the US Navy. However, it was not as good an attack platform as the F4U-4. I'd rate the F4U-4 as the better fighter-bomber of the two, with the Bearcat being the better pure fighter. With greater emphasis being placed on multi-role capability and new jet designs under development, the Bearcat would have a relatively short career in the fleet.
F7Fs served very effectively in Korea in the night fighter role. The F8F did not see combat in that war, having been replaced by the Grumman F9F-2 Panther by 1950.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Originally posted by Noir
I'll have to agree with this, the french flew the F4U4 until 1960 or so :aok , but again my whine was not about the F4U4 performance, but the way that guy wrote about it.
Widewing and lets pray for new mosquito variants
:rofl :rofl :confused: :rofl
-
Thanks Widewing. :)
-
Originally posted by Noir
I'll have to agree with this, the french flew the F4U4 until 1960 or so :aok , but again my whine was not about the F4U4 performance, but the way that guy wrote about it.
Widewing and lets pray for new mosquito variants
F4U7 and we used it because our navy add no other choice.
-
Originally posted by Krusty
http://www.zenoswarbirdvideos.com/F4U.html
Thanks for the film, krusty...
(The hell just frozen)
Sometimes I play with idea:
'What if HTC would create the elite "All maxed realism ww2 online sim, with very limited ww2 scenario." within netlag limits. ( I'm not any elite)
Probably impossible in wide scale in business wise but seriously, how about in small small scale? Very local, within friends scale? See, who knows, what kind of "rooms" there are and...
ok, thats enough for the playing with ideas ;)
----
F4U were harder to fly... back then... long time ago.
-
The F4U-7, built for the French Navy, completed the venerable Corsair line. Essentially the same as an F4U-4 in an F4U-6 (AU-1) airframe, it was equipped with a Pratt and Whitney two-speed, two-stage engine (R-2800-18W), making it a high-altitude fighter.
-
All the people that I know that fly the Corsair say keep it fast. Don't screw around low and slow, and don't you dare stall it.
-
I agree that the F4U-4 was the best fighter-bomber of the war.
Its only "small" problem was that Vought designed the best fighter that they could and forgot it has to operate from carriers and that they need to equip the whole USN with it. So it was the best land based fighter bomber that has the option of taking off from carriers.
As the main USN fighter-bomber, I think the decision to go with the Hellcat was the right one.
This is borne out by the fact that of all of the fighters listed above, only the F4U-4 and P-51D were still performing their multi-role missions 5 years later in Korea.
I think a lot of politics went into this as well.