Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: WarTooth on September 06, 2008, 12:01:55 PM
-
Hello All,
AH, please provide the option to enable\disable the F4U plate behind the pilots head. I (like some of the F4U pilots in WWII) would rather not have that there. I'd rather have the increased visibility rather than the minor improvement in pilot protection.
Does anyone else feel the same on this?
Thanks for responding,
WT
-
Actually not a bad wish. As long as removing it means you receive less pilot protection.
I personally don't mind it being there. I see it as just another challenge to overcome in learning to fly another aircraft. Still not a bad idea, in my opinion.
-
Actually not a bad wish. As long as removing it means you receive less pilot protection.
I personally don't mind it being there. I see it as just another challenge to overcome in learning to fly another aircraft. Still not a bad idea, in my opinion.
same. :aok
-
Which back plate? The piece of metal over your head, or that thick bulkhead behind you?
The former provides no protection whatsoever. It's not armor and was intended to prevent the canopy from cracking when it was opened. It SHOULD be removed from the F4U-4, as very few -4s used it. However very few of the other models REMOVED it so should stay on the 1A/C/D.
Removing the bulkhead behind you isn't going to do much to improve invisibility.
-
>> Which back plate? The piece of metal over your head,
Yes.
Would you mind having the option to enable or disable it?
Thanks for your feedback,
WT :salute
-
Sounds like this would fall under the realm of "field modification". Which is a whole nasty can of worms once it's opened.
-
Soulyss,
Would you mind having the option to enable or disable it?
Thanks, :salute
WT
-
Hello Wartooth,
I do not think there should be an option to remove it.
<Salute>
-
doesn't bother me any, keep it.
-
My point was that there was a plethora of field mods that were carried out by front line units in WW2. This would just open the door to a cornicopia of issues that would in all likely hood cause no end of grief has it is argued back and forth on the BBS.
Personally I think we're better off as we are now. Field mods are not considered, from a modelling stand point it just makes more sense. You model the FM's based on official primary source documentation. Once you start allowing field modifications this becomes impossible.
Ultimately what I perfer or think has absolutely nothing to do with bringing a feature to the game of course but up to this point the absense of any field mods makes me think that HTC is at least sympathetic to this view. :)
That isn't to say that some of things that were done wouldn't be interesting... .would love to have the uprated engines on the P-38 that hear so much about. But from a neutral corner of trying to produce this game no mods seems to make the most sense.
-
109's with 5x20mm :huh
-
109's with 5x20mm :huh
:huh :huh :huh :huh :huh :huh :huh :huh wtf?
-
Don't look up! :)
-
Noir,
>> 109's with 5x20mm
Was this actually implemented routinely?
Having the backplate removed on F4U's was actually a routine occurrence. How routine may forever be a point of contention of course so I simply pose it as an option.
Given how many people have read this, there does not seem to be a violent outcry not to have this option. I know that if I flew the F4U in WWII I'd want the option.
How about you? I'd like to hear your thoughts on this topic please,
WT :salute
-
I agree with removing it also if it means less protection! But then I also would also suggest this to be a perk version. Because that plane would be almost unstopable:)
-
20mm,
>> Because that plane would be almost unstopable:
Help me understand what would make it unstoppable?
Thanks,
WT :salute
-
To allow a field modification would be like opening up Pandora's box....
-
Noir,
>> 109's with 5x20mm
Was this actually implemented routinely?
Having the backplate removed on F4U's was actually a routine occurrence. How routine may forever be a point of contention of course so I simply pose it as an option.
Given how many people have read this, there does not seem to be a violent outcry not to have this option. I know that if I flew the F4U in WWII I'd want the option.
How about you? I'd like to hear your thoughts on this topic please,
WT :salute
i think noir was joking, (A), and as people have mentioned, this was a field mod (B)....
-
Maybe not remove it, but maybe make it offer SOME extra protection? It doesn't seem too.
In my experience, the F4Us get pilot wounds as much more than planes with less plating back there.
-
Was this actually implemented routinely?
Questioning the frequency of the previously (and a bit sarcastically) mentioned '5x20mm' option on 109s..
Having the backplate removed on F4U's was actually a routine occurrence. How routine may forever be a point of contention of course so I simply pose it as an option.
And then, choosing not to discuss the frequency of the backplates removed - since it is controversial, and one would prefer to just ignore it completely.
...
You get the picture.
-
Nothing wrong witht the hog series just the way they are. Visibility is great and chicks dig gullwings! :aok
-
Can't you maneuver your view around to where it's no worse than other non-bubble canopy planes?
-
Noir,
>> 109's with 5x20mm
Was this actually implemented routinely?
Having the backplate removed on F4U's was actually a routine occurrence. How routine may forever be a point of contention of course so I simply pose it as an option.
Given how many people have read this, there does not seem to be a violent outcry not to have this option. I know that if I flew the F4U in WWII I'd want the option.
How about you? I'd like to hear your thoughts on this topic please,
WT :salute
Ok lets make sure what you are talking about...here is a rear view of a F4U pilot in AH2 (note my perfect drawing skills)
(http://mapage.noos.fr/rsm/ahss33.jpg)
Lets see that armor plate from the outside....
(http://mapage.noos.fr/rsm/ahss35_2.jpg)
Well if you remove the armor plate I don't see how it would improve visibility, as there is a whole tail behind it.
-
I can see out my F4U's just fine, I just adjusted the pilots' position.
-
109's with 5x20mm :huh
:noid
Bring field mods to AH and perk 'em.
:noid :noid
-
Noir,
Nice job on the graphic detailing. :aok
The piece that you have termed "Holds the Canopy" is what I'd like the option to enable\disable. Being that WWII pilots removed it\replaced it with glass etc, may indicate its real affectivity as a functioning piece. Yep, like many of you I have seen F4Us up close.
Kweassa,
>> And then, choosing not to discuss the frequency of the backplates removed - since it is controversial, and one would prefer to just ignore it completely.
Thanks for your response. I think perhaps you are reading too much into my post. I am just trying to keep it nudged toward the question at hand.
SectorNine50,
>> Can't you maneuver your view around to where it's no worse than other non-bubble canopy planes?
Though I have set my views via F10 it always seems this component is still blocking a significant portion of the view. Maybe I can stick my head out the window. :D
Further Information:
The name of the 1st non-bird cage canopy seems to be "bulged Malcolm Hood". http://pmulcahy.100megs3.com/aircraft/us_fighter-bombers.html
According to Wikopedia this "field mod" made it into the last production run of the F4 (July\1945) as "an all-round vision bubble-type canopy was installed." Picture shown on wikipedia page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F2G_Corsair
WT :salute
-
No. It should NOT be removable. You've been given plenty of reasons why. Also, I'd like you to point me out some documentary evidence it ever WAS removed in the field, as this isn't a simple job. Hacking it off may be, but you'd need an entirely new, specially-fitted piece glass made especially for the change in the canopy frame. And guess what, I doubt most airbases in the middle of the Pacific, many of which were just strips of crushed coral and had little more permanent structures than a few tents, had the facilities or equipment for fabricating the canopy glass. If a canopy needed replacing it came from a wrecked plane that was no longer flyable, a central supply depot IF they were lucky, or from back in the States.
The only F4U that should NOT have it is the F4U-4, as it was removed in all but the first few out of the factory and most -4s didn't have it to begin with. It's been requested a couple times to remove it from the F4U-4, but it should NOT be removed from the earlier marks.
-
Sounds like this would fall under the realm of "field modification". Which is a whole nasty can of worms once it's opened.
Fuel and barracks.
-
Saxman,
Thanks for your feedback.
If this is vitally important to you I invite you to talk to any later war F4U vets to determine for your own satisfaction its legitimacy and rate of occurrence. For me it was my Dad.
Off topic, my Dad was on the Yorktown and other US Navy ships in WWII. He mentioned that when WWII broke out the Zero was seen as an incredible technological advancement. What none of the WWII documentaries seem to convey is just what a shock wave the Zero represented at the time.
WT :salute
-
Even if the F4U did receive field modifications these are not to be included in AH models until HTC changes his mind.
I pointed out the 109 as an example with its hundreds of field modification kits that are almost impossible to model correctly. I remember the never ending debate that occurred here around the parasite drag caused by the gondolas...I remember also the list of field mods on the B25 that we never had.
Its not like we don't want them, but HTC would have to open a 5 persons field mod branch just to list all these modifications, and evaluate the change needed in the flight model and skins...Like soulyss said its a nasty can of worms once opened.
-
Noir,
>> Like soulyss said its a nasty can of worms once opened.
I see your point.
Thanks,
WT
-
Actually not a bad wish. As long as removing it means you receive less pilot protection.
I personally don't mind it being there. I see it as just another challenge to overcome in learning to fly another aircraft. Still not a bad idea, in my opinion.
i dont think the protection makes any difference with or without the plate. i flew the f4u1c when it did not have the plate and loved the increased visibility. when they updated it i got disinterested in flying it.
-
i dont think the protection makes any difference with or without the plate. i flew the f4u1c when it did not have the plate and loved the increased visibility. when they updated it i got disinterested in flying it.
:rolleyes: It always had the plate didn't it ?
-
The plate would be very hard to remove as a field mod. It, as Sax said, exists to protect the canopy flex during opening and closing. It also provides a minor amount of protection, but would likely just come apart as the canopy offers very little and would simply break.
As for a field mod removal, think of it this way. What would you replace it with when you took it out, as full canopy's did not exist at that time.
-
We had a spare canopy upstairs, here are a few photos I took for someone else. They best illustrate the canopy layout and plate in question. I also measured plate thickness, and it is 7/16" thick.
(http://i168.photobucket.com/albums/u191/bodhi83/DSC02471.jpg)
(http://i168.photobucket.com/albums/u191/bodhi83/DSC02472.jpg)
(http://i168.photobucket.com/albums/u191/bodhi83/DSC02473.jpg)
(http://i168.photobucket.com/albums/u191/bodhi83/DSC02474.jpg)
(http://i168.photobucket.com/albums/u191/bodhi83/DSC02475.jpg)
-
Lol, it must be a dream to live in your house, with spare F4U parts lying around in the attic. ;)
-
Lol, it must be a dream to live in your house, with spare F4U parts lying around in the attic. ;)
Yeah, I think that somedays too, but then I get to realize I have to fix that stuff as well...