Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: indian on November 08, 1999, 12:30:00 PM
-
I have found plenty of references for the F4U-1c in combat some of which seems to be where the F4U-4B was fighting. What I have found so far is that the -4B was ordered in january of 45 so not to likely to see combat unless it was right at very end. I have a book on aces that says they flew the -1c in combat and one flew the -4 in combat BU#'s show it not to be a -4B. Going to keep looking for info most for the ground attack rolls that its supposed to have done, but alos found it was supposed to have done the high cover mission's for the -1D's while they did the ground attack.
I want my cannons.
------------------
Tommy (INDIAN) Toon
Cherokee Indian
My Homepage
Where you can find the Key Commands in files for Word6 Wordpad and text mode.
indians Homepage (http://www.geocities.com/~tltoon)
Aces High Word6 and Wordpad Doc's available on my web site.
-
I think we probably have some of the same resources. I have also read about exactly what you related to.
I still think the best route would be to offer the -1A and the -1C versions, which were basically identical except for the wings. Then we would have our cannons.:-)
-
I agree. Our safest bet is for the F4U-1A & F4U-1C. I have plenty of action reports and photos of the F4U-1C from the WWII combat zone. Same goes for the F4U-4. I have found zilch evidence that the F4U-4B made it into action.
The passage you are refering to in Veronico's 'F4U Corsair' book is a typo. Rather than the F4U-4 & F4U-4B entering the combat theater together on April 7, 1945 - it was the F4U-4 & F4U-1C. Veronico's paragraph mentions F4U-4B's from VMF-311 downing a Ki-48. VMF-311 was composed of F4U-1C's only. As were VMF-441, VBF-99, and VBF-8 for starters. I also know that the F4U-1C's that didn't supply the dedicated F4U-1C squadrons were used to replace lost aircraft in various other units (VF-84 being one example).
In regards to Bad Omen's post, the F4U-1C was the offspring of the F4U-1D rather than the F4U-1A. Airframes on the F4U-1D line were singled out and fitted with cannon armed wings, thus creating an F4U-1C. The -1C models had the twin centerline hard points of the -1C as well as all of the other minor modifications. The F4U-1C also carried the 2 rather than 4 rockets under each wing that we talked about earlier - but it did have the capability. The F4U-1C was THE cannon armed Corsair of WWII, and I suggest the collective effort towards a cannon armed Corsair be directed in the way of the F4U-1C. Of course if a planeset is activated we might only get to fly them for 3 or 4 days. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
(http://chani.arrakis-ttm.com/warbirds/jollyroger/gifs/new/kep.gif)
------------------
~Lt. Jg. Windle~
VF-17 (http://chani.arrakis-ttm.com/warbirds/jollyroger/) The Jolly Rogers 8X
Skychrgr@aol.com
-
Windle is absolutely correct! 13 blocks of F4u-1D's were completed before -1C production began.
Would love to have the choice of a F4u-1A with a single bomb (or drop tank) or the ultimate ground-pounder, a F4u-1C with 4 rocks and 2 - 1000lb'ers and all that 20mm ammo!
-
Give me a F4U-4 for air combat and a F4U-1c for air superiority combat. Sound good.
the best and the biggest guns.
------------------
Tommy (INDIAN) Toon
Cherokee Indian
My Homepage
Where you can find the Key Commands in files for Word6 Wordpad and text mode.
indians Homepage (http://www.geocities.com/~tltoon)
Aces High Word6 and Wordpad Doc's available on my web site.
-
WEEEL i still hope we'll get the 1D too so we have it a bit earlier in the planeset !!!!
It's big.. it's BLUE ... it's F 4 U!
Man i love that Bird (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Duckiwing6
-
The F4U-1C is the -1D but with cannons.
------------------
Tommy (INDIAN) Toon
Cherokee Indian
My Homepage
Where you can find the Key Commands in files for Word6 Wordpad and text mode.
indians Homepage (http://www.geocities.com/~tltoon)
Aces High Word6 and Wordpad Doc's available on my web site.
-
I know what ya mean Duck.
Just for the record the F4U-1C entered combat April 7, 1945 while the F4U-1D entered during December 1944/January 1945.
The best Corsair for planeset's sakes would be the infamous F4U-1A. It entered service around late summer of 1943 and basically had everything the F4U-1D had, without rockets and the second bomb/drop tank rack. Aside from these things the fuselage, powerplant, etc was virtually identical.
If an RPS is under consideration -Bring on the F4U-1A, then the F4U-1D,......then bring that F4U-1C!
(http://chani.arrakis-ttm.com/warbirds/jollyroger/gifs/new/kep.gif)
------------------
~Lt. Jg. Windle~
VF-17 (http://chani.arrakis-ttm.com/warbirds/jollyroger/) The Jolly Rogers 8X
Skychrgr@aol.com
-
Amazing what dweebs will do to get cannon in their birds to make them UeberPlanes. Find the *least* representative version of the plane in some obscure page of some obscure history and viola: instant mandate for the cannoned Corsair. It worked in Brand W, for a time, and flushed out a whole sewer full of sudden Corsair lovers with 20mm envy.
Look; most of those 4-cannon Corsairs were in crates on ships on the way to the front when the bombs were dropped and the war ended. The rest prolly served ground pounding Okinawa or some such. They weren't clearing the Slot or taking Rabaul, or taking part in the Marianas Turkey Shoot and other defining moments of the war like the Corsair you *really* profess to love; that being the 6 x.50 version.
If you want cannon, fly a cannon-armed plane. A *representative* one.
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) Just stirring the pot a little, and lamenting "modeling favoritism" things like the fact that we've never seen a FW190F (with the 4 x 100kg bombs in addition to the centerline 500 lber.) in *any* game, to counteract all those US planes with huge payloads and rocket loadouts.....<g,d,r>
-
Stigi - chill out!
Luftwaffe pilots have way more to benefit from an "anything goes" policy on armament variations.
I can't wait to line up one of these blue pigs with my X-4 guided AAM. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
-
Yah, Yah, Yah. I vote for the F-16C, F-18E, F-14D, or A-10! Think about an A-10 vulcher... The 30mm Avenger cannon would tear any plane to pieces with a short burst!
------------------
rendar
F/S R.A.F. Squadron 303 (Polish)
[This message has been edited by Rendar (edited 11-10-1999).]
-
stiglr I dont give a damn weather you like my opinion or not. I like the F4U meaning all of them every other country has some cannons i want cannons. I will kill in the corsair with or without so kiss my prettythang.
You and your damn refenrece better get updated becuase there is a corsair ace in the f4u1c.
------------------
Tommy (INDIAN) Toon
Cherokee Indian
My Homepage
Where you can find the Key Commands in files for Word6 Wordpad and text mode.
indians Homepage (http://www.geocities.com/~tltoon)
Aces High Word6 and Wordpad Doc's available on my web site.
-
Well Stig, I supposed you missed my post mentioning that ALL WWII aircraft have the right to be modeled - just not the right to be modeled FIRST.
Also above I stated that the F4U-1A & F4U-1D should be modeled first - THEN HTC should get around to the F4U-1C model. By the time Aces High has 3 different Corsairs modeled no doubt you will have every Bf-109 loadout known to history available for your favorite ride. Beyond that point, your rebuttals to modeling legitimate WWII fighting aircraft to oppose your "schmitt" will easily be picked out as underdog rabble - where as now they conveniently fall under the guise of acceptable reason. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
[img]http://chani.arrakis-ttm.com/warbirds/jollyroger/gifs/new/kep.gif[img]
------------------
~Lt. Jg. Windle~
VF-17 (http://chani.arrakis-ttm.com/warbirds/jollyroger/) The Jolly Rogers 8X
Skychrgr@aol.com
[This message has been edited by Windle (edited 11-11-1999).]
-
see this the problem with rolling planeset when everybody can take the plane he wants.. why take a 6 cal . armed plane against folks who'll drive ONLY N1k1s and KI84's ? When 90% of all Jap fighters flown at that time where Zekes and KI43's... same with all other plane sets... it's not too well balanced when people hop on the fastest, best turning GUNSHIP they can get their hands on :-/
And yea The F4U-1C was out there but what i've read the cannons had a rediciously low reliability above 15000 feet.. so i'd rather go for firing .05's (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
DW6
-
I'm with ya Duckwing....
...then again, 98% of the fighting I do IS below 15k (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
Seriously, once a plethora of aircraft are modeled I hope HTC goes one step deeper than others by adding some kind of formula that only allows historical percentages to enter the arena. If you wanted to fly a Corsair, most likely you'd have to choose the F4U-1A or F4U-1D. Likewise when flying, the chances of engaging a Ki-84 or Ta-152 would be rarer than they are now - but a much more cherrished moment. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) Along the same lines, actually getting an assignment in an F4U-1C would be a great reward! This is the missing factor that 'unbalances' arenas. Of course if one flies the FW-190 'Dora' exclusively he'd be pretty pissed not being able to fly it every sortie. I think that's the main problem with implementing such limitations. I for one would (maybe in a Historical Arena) would love to enter the skies and meet a realistic percentage of enemy types (Zero's and Ki-43's) rather than the persistant wave of nothing but Ki-84's EVERY time I enter combat (refering to my 'Brand W' experience). In this manner HTC could model whatever they liked and the general community wouldn't need to bellyache over 'imbalance', nor would flight models need to be 'tweeked' for the sake of gameplay.
(http://chani.arrakis-ttm.com/warbirds/jollyroger/gifs/new/kep.gif)
------------------
~Lt. Jg. Windle~
VF-17 (http://chani.arrakis-ttm.com/warbirds/jollyroger/) The Jolly Rogers 8X
Skychrgr@aol.com
-
--- Windle: ----
Of course if one flies the FW-190 'Dora' exclusively he'd be pretty pissed not being able to fly it every sortie.
--- end ---
My last year and half or so in WB I flew pretty much nothing but Bf 109G-6, and once RPS came I was rather against it cause I couldn't go on-line any day I wanted and grab a G-6.
I did fly few weeks of Hurricane Mk.I ( Finns had 12 Hurricanes so that's why I flew it ) in the later part of RPS including 'uber week' and still got kills. The point really is, I want to fly what ever I like when ever I like. If the rest of the pilots are so uber that they can't help but fly Sea Fury's and such, so be it. See if I care. I will still be enjoying _my_ flying in which ever plane I decide to fly at a given moment. If someone want's an even playing field he should stick to duels.
//fats
-
Glad to see duckwing and *gasp* even windle have a clue as to what I'm talking about.The cannoned F4U is just one example of this; I don't have anything against Corsairs, and actually like them myself.
Ueberplanism is actually a plane choice limiter, and exposes those ego-challenged pilots who just *have* to win every time (buy a boxed game, indian!!!! And: my lawywer advises me I should tell you to bite me! (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) ), and have to fly the -est plane: the fastEST, biggEST, deadlieEST. These guys might learn a little something about ACM, SA and other piloting skills by flying planes without -EST on the end of 'em. Many of these planes are actually FUN!!!!
-
Hehe... and this is coming from the guy who said he thought DOA was boring. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) Biplanes in WW1 are boring, Biplanes in WW2 are macho. Go figure.
PS - All who think that Stigi should be forced to fly the 109E all War long, shout "aye!" (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
------------------
SnakeEyes
o-o-o-
=4th Fighter Group=
[This message has been edited by SnakeEyes (edited 11-11-1999).]
-
Just curious, Stig, but now that the A8 is out with 3 different armament loadouts, what's your take now on a cannon-armed F4U?
------------------
Spinny, VF-17
8X
-
My first choice is the F4u-1A. However, from experience in WB, when you are flying the Corsair, especially for CV OPS, and with all the non-historical matchups against all the cannon-armed Spitfires and FW's,and the heavily armored P47's, F4u's and F6f's all I can say is it would be nice to jump into a F4u-1C once in a while. If it was historical matchups and I was flying against all Jap planes, I would actually choose a cannon armed version, whether it be -1A,-1D, or -4. I would take larger ammo load over 20mm cause I know I knock down a Jap plane with a burst or two.
-
My take on the FW190A8? It's a *representative* Focke Wulf for the late war. Thus, its *representative* loadouts, cannon-heavy tho they are, are applicable. The FW always WAS a cannon bird, from the A3 on.
My whole problem with the 4-cannon Corsair is, that, given that choice, NOBODY will fly a 6 x .50. That's not representative. That's cannon-envy dweebery, ueberplaneism and gotta-winism at its worst. The real 4-cannon planes flew for all of "15 minutes of fame" in the real event. If AH is going to model representative planes, and not just the "favorite iteration", the 4-cannon Corsair doesn't make sense.
-
Stigi, like I said, SHUDDAP!
Luftwaffles have a lot more to gain from "laissez-fair" loadout policies than the Boyington wannabees! (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
-
funked,
come on, I'm no hypocrite. I don't wanna see skies full of Komets and Volksjaeger, either. Or experimental jets carrying 50mm cannon.
I DO NOT want Fantasy birds, especially now when we have SO MUCH planeset to fill out. Give me the REAL war, or as close as we can get to it.
-
I just want to make sure that 90% of the Luftwobblies have to fly with Cannon rounds designed for downing buffs, and that were less effective against small armored fighter aircraft.
Just like real life. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
------------------
SnakeEyes
o-o-o-
=4th Fighter Group=
-
Stiglr be careful what you ask for! The real war was not fun for the Jagdflieger.
I just want the real planes. Take the real planes and make a war that is WW2-like and fun to play. I'd be happy with that.
-
Just fine, funked, I think we're asking for the same thing.
The "real" war, taken as a whole, had Corsairs with 6 x .50s....and for YOU, o-o-o, cannon effective well past 250 yds. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
-
I'd fly a -1D Stig !! But since when did the F4U become an uber plane? Ever tried to turn with a Spit, or out run a pony or Dora? It's all in how you fly them. The one thing I hate about "Brand W" is the Spit, 190 section! TALK about Ubers =< !!
------------------
Drdoyo, Lt. J.G.
VF-17 the Jolly Rogers
8X
-
I would much rather fly the .50 cal -1D anyday over any of the other F4U's out there modeled as to date. Brand W's -4 Hawg fly's like a brick and is way under modeled in many aspects. I have flown in an Actual FG-1D (goodyear F4U-1D)and I can attest to the general undermodeling of the F4U in all sims out there as of now. Unless you were hitting semi-hardend ground targets why would anyone in their right mind trade a generous amount of .50 cal ammo for a small cache of 20mm rounds. If they modeled the U.S. 20mm of that era correctly it would pretty much suck in its performance. If half the sim pilots were real marksmen they wouldn't have to pray that they could get a couple explosive 20mm rounds into the bad guy to down him. hehehe
My 2 cents work (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
Jerry Zollman
XO VF-17 8X
-
zoll since you've flown in an fg-1d I hope you'll yell at ht and pyro if they undermodel the hawg.
Gotta have as close to the real thing as they can get it IMNSHO =)
------------------
Air power is a thunderbolt launched from an egg shell invisibly tethered to a base. - Hoffman Nickerson
-
What Zoll didn't tell ya is that he is in the process of restoring a second Corsair for the owner of the first. This guy has all the luck. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif) Not only does he have cockpit time in the Corsair, but he gets to get up close and personal with every aspect of the airframe and engine during the teardown and restoration process. Here's a shot of the current F4U project about the time it arrived at the hangar:
http://users.hsonline.net/jzollman/htdoc/f4u.htm (http://users.hsonline.net/jzollman/htdoc/f4u.htm)
I hope ya don't mind me posting the link Jerry (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
The 'FAS' markings are left over from its service with the Fuerza Area Salvadorena (Salvadoran Air Force) during the 'Soccer War'-era. It's one of nine FG-1D's recovered from there after El Salvador declared them surplus in 1971. Two others were lost during the 'Soccer War', and the remaining nine were scrapped by the FAS around 1973.
(http://chani.arrakis-ttm.com/warbirds/jollyroger/gifs/new/kep.gif) (http://chani.arrakis-ttm.com/warbirds/jollyroger/kepbest.html)
------------------
~Lt. Jg. Windle~
VF-17 (http://chani.arrakis-ttm.com/warbirds/jollyroger/) The Jolly Rogers 8X
Skychrgr@aol.com
[This message has been edited by Windle (edited 11-24-1999).]
-
you're a very lucky man zoll. Owning a corsair is a dream I've had for a while (and intend to bring to reality one day =). I know, ya dinnae own it, but you're alot closer to it than I am =)
Hopefully the htc guys will listen close to what you've got to say about the hawg's fm in AH =)
------------------
Air power is a thunderbolt launched from an egg shell invisibly tethered to a base. - Hoffman Nickerson
-
Cave you and i have the same dream.
HiTech
-
Zoll;
Windle;
Where is that hanger located? Kind of looks familiar, but don't they all. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Reminds me of a Yak my Dad helped work on. He re-did the skirting around the epenage. The finished Yak had bright green wings with a silver polished fuselage. This Yak was modified to run in the Reno Air Races Unlimited Division. I believe there was a F4U type radial hanging on the nose.
I don't recall exactly, but I think the plane was owned by a man by the name of Bob Yancy. That sound familiar?
I got to watch the Yak race once. The Yak was extremly small compared to its competitors and was buffeted around like a Ping Pong Ball at a Hockey Game. The "Rare Bear" just blew everything away that year.
Bob Houver (name ???) flew his bright yellow P-51 over the races that year. He was the race official. Bob flew inverted officiating the races.
I also got to see the start of putting 2 MiG's (21's or 19's - Where is my Gingko? (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) ) together, to make one plane. In the same hanger as the Yak. The last time I saw that MiG it was painted bright pink. I believe the plane is named "The Pink Panther".
Mino
[This message has been edited by Minotaur (edited 11-24-1999).]
-
I share that dream as well (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
HiTech, since you have a pretty darn good chance at achieving it in the next few years, make sure you give me a ring when it's time to locate a project (or a flyer). I know where all of the anonymous and undocumented Corsair projects are and I'm in contact with all of the owners - been doing it for 15 years now. I'm the man you need to talk to if you want to tap the market for the best deal.
'Till then I'll be pushing my own buttons to come up with the finances for my own. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
If you guys feel that over a half million dollars is too much to pay for the real thing, check out this link:
http://homebuilt.org/pileggi/index.html (http://homebuilt.org/pileggi/index.html)
It's an 80% scale Corsair. It will be a few years before it flies, but it will be a hell of a lot easier to maintain than the real thing. Personally I really won't be satisfied until I can at least get checked out in the real thing. Give me 5 years and I'll be frequenting an airshow near you (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
(http://chani.arrakis-ttm.com/warbirds/jollyroger/gifs/new/kep.gif) (http://chani.arrakis-ttm.com/warbirds/jollyroger/kepbest.html)
------------------
~Lt. Jg. Windle~
VF-17 (http://chani.arrakis-ttm.com/warbirds/jollyroger/) The Jolly Rogers 8X
Skychrgr@aol.com
[This message has been edited by Windle (edited 11-24-1999).]
-
Hey Minotaur,
Unless you live near Kentucky, or wandered through, then you havn't seen this airport. BTW I've touched this project => with me bare hands. Had to wipe the drool off when Zoll took me to see it. I never knew how thin the aluminum around the sliding canopy frame is built up, or actually is not built up =P.
------------------
Drdoyo, Lt. J.G.
VF-17 the Jolly Rogers
8X
-
Where in Kentucky? Maybe I can arrange a little visit (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
I only live about 30 miles from Eastern Kentucky.
------------------
Vermillion
WB's: (verm--), **MOL**, Men of Leisure,
"Real men fly Radials, Nancy Boys fly Spitfires ;) "
-
Well, I figured that post of mine would kick up a flurry of replys. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif) The Individual I work for is Charles Osborn. The outfit is called Vintage Fighters and is located across the river from Louisville, Ky. We currently have 2 P-51D Mustangs (Hurry Home Honey and Shangri-La, and the Corsair Project. When I started working with VF we had the P-47D Big bellybutton Bird II and a VF-17 Painted FG-1D in Roger Hedricks #17 tri color paint job in addition to the stangs. Both the P-47 and the prior FG-1D have been sold to make room for new projects. The P-47D now carry's the colors of "Tarheel Hal".
I would be happy to share any info-insight that I can with you HT if there is anything I can help you with. If there is one thing I must stress that has been wrong with all F4U flight models to date it is the Acceleration modeling. I have been up in Mustang's and a lot of other high performance piston driven planes and the Corsair leaves them in the dust as far as acceleration is concerned.
Anyway if anyone would like more info from me about anything in my post Email me at jzollman@freewwweb.com I don't want to tie up the message board. I will try to stay with the topic heading in these posts.
Talk to you all later
Jerry Zollman
Lt. -zoll-
Executive Officer
VF-17 the Jolly Rogers 8X
-
Hitech;
If I ever did do any dreaming?
(http://www.thundermustang.com/g_inflite01.jpg)
http://www.thundermustang.com (http://www.thundermustang.com)
Mino
[This message has been edited by Minotaur (edited 11-26-1999).]
-
Or if you really wanna get down to pure scale rather than composite replicas....
(http://www.stewart51.com/grafx/s51upclose.JPG)
http://www.stewart51.com (http://www.stewart51.com)
With the new 60-degree V-12 debuting in 2000 for this little monster it will finally be giving the Thunder Mustang a run for its money. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) The new engine is in all basic respects a 70% scale Merlin. The cool thing about the 'Stewart 51' (pictured above) is that it is literally a scale version of the real P-51 drawn from the original North American blue prints, and constructed from all the original materials. Both the 'Stewart 51' and the 'Thunder Mustang' are 70% scale Mustangs, but the S51 gets my vote due to its authentic design & construction. Both have engines capable of 1000+ horsepower.
Here's a better view of what a finished out Stewart 51 can look like. You can't get looks like this with fiberlass.....
(http://member.aol.com/skychrgr/Oshkosh99/S51Stang02.jpg)
And the S-51's new 60-deg V-12 engine...
(http://www.stewart51.com/grafx/V12Vero1.JPG)
Also the complete S51 package (with engine) is roughly half that of the Thunder Mustang. Both of these planes would make great second choice aircraft for the aspiring warbird owner on a shoestring budget. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
(http://chani.arrakis-ttm.com/warbirds/jollyroger/gifs/new/kep.gif) (http://chani.arrakis-ttm.com/warbirds/jollyroger/kepbest.html)
------------------
~Lt. Jg. Windle~
VF-17 (http://chani.arrakis-ttm.com/warbirds/jollyroger/) The Jolly Rogers 8X
Skychrgr@aol.com
[This message has been edited by Windle (edited 11-26-1999).]
-
Here's how I'd do the AH RPS, if there ever is one...
Make it, say, 28 days long (or maybe 26 or 30, so Monday isn't always the same plane set). Then, each aircraft should be available for the same PERCENTAGE of the RPS that it was operational during the war. So if the F4U-1C was in operation for 6 months out of the 60 or so months in the war, we'd get it for three days. Who could argue with that? (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
Now for the "controversial" part. Since we don't allow any American planes until they enter the war (even though some of them were flying operationally before the Amis entered the war--P-39, P-40, F4F) then we ALSO phase out the Italian and German planes when they surrender (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif) So the "historically important" Dora flies in the RPS for about the same amount of time as the "historically insignificant" F4U-1C, and the last few days of the RPS represent the last few days of WW2 more "historically." Of course we'd need a couple more of the Japanese uberplanes like the Ki-100 to make this work. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
(Hehe only halfway serious there, but I AM looking forward to the "logical" explanation of why the LW planes should be available to the end of the RPS when the American planes aren't available until they start fighting--I mean, if we "arbitrarily" end the RPS in Q2 1945, why not arbitrarily START it in Q4 1941? You can always do Battle of Britain as a separate scenario-type event) (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
Always dangerous to use "history" as your basis for argument in one of these discussions. You never can tell how someone twisted will twist it to his own advantage (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) Actually I think I'd start the RPS in Q1 1940 and include the Winter War and Battle of France if we could, which would exclude the Yanks even longer, but I WOULD cut out the LW in Q2 1945. Fair's fair, and historical's historical. The last 3 months of the war was an Allies vs Japan affair.
--jedi VF-17
-
Concerning the Scale replicas: I like the S-51 project for the all metal, realistic, to scale aspect of the plane. But, it would just about have to be a single place plane with no chance for a jump seat in it being it is so to scale? I haven't seen it up close so I don't know this for sure. I can tell you one thing for sure though. In the real P-51D without the TF-51 fuselage you have a very limited space for the backseater as it is now. It would be damn near impossible to fit a full grown person in the back of a 70% scale of the real one.
Now when you look at the Thunder Mustang. It has a modified fuselage shape at the cockpit area to accomidate not only two seats but an instrumented back seat you can fly from. In my honest opinion I wouldn't own something that I couldn't take someone else up in to share the wonderful experience in.
But, it definately cost a lot more for the Thunder kit. I know this because we were negotiating for a Thunder Mustang kit when we ran across or new FG-1D project. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Talk to you all later
Jerry Zollman
Lt. -zoll-
Executive Officer
VF-17 8X
-
I had the chance to see the Stewart 51 and the Thunder Mustang up close at Oshkosh and both had practically identical sized cockpits and canopies. The cockpit and the airfoil are two things that have to be redesigned for a scale aircraft in order to make them work efficiently. Since the Thunder Mustang is made of composite, it has a very refined appearance with no rivets and very few body seams. It really is a thoroughbred aircraft. The S-51 on the other hand has all the major manufacturing points of the full sized version. It isn't as milky smooth as the Thunder Mustang, but much to my liking it comes closer to the nostalgic appeal of the real thing.
Lately I had been leaning toward the Thunder Mustang as my favorite due to its high output and tip-top performance. This was until I saw the unveiling of Stewart's new V-12 at Oshkosh this year! This point tipped the scales back toward the S-51 for me. Not only would I be able to have an all metal scale Mustang, but it now could be fitted with a 'replica' Merlin powerplant which allowed it to compete with the TM. The only thing the TM still offers over the S-51 IMO (other than perfectly clean lines) is that the engine it uses is state of the art technology. No worries about mixture, carb heat, etc. You literally just push a button to start it and go with throttle up!
For the Mustang enthusiast who wants 'executive' feel and modern technology with the appearance of the world famous fighter then the Thunder Mustang is THE aircraft to have. It has the vintage lines with a more 'Ferrari' styling.
(http://www.thundermustang.com/N7TR-engine.jpg)
For the enthusiast like me who prefers the 'heavy iron' feel, along with all the quirks and hands on tweaking of the original machine, the S-51 is just the ticket. It has authentic construction and more of a 'classic hot rod' feel.
(http://www.stewart51.com/grafx/Ken%20port%20aft%20qtr.jpg)
All in all, both aircraft are magnificent offerings from two great companies. The best is yet to come in a couple of years when both will be battling it out around the pylons at Reno. It will make for some interesting competition to see both of these 1000+hp mini unlimiteds pushing for the win. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
(http://chani.arrakis-ttm.com/warbirds/jollyroger/gifs/new/kep.gif)
------------------
~Lt. Jg. Windle~
VF-17 (http://chani.arrakis-ttm.com/warbirds/jollyroger/) The Jolly Rogers 8X
Skychrgr@aol.com
-
now stop spawning this F4U THREAD with MUSTANGS (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
go search up an F4U Kit that's of aluminum too LOL
(have to admitt that this Steward 51 is a real beauty! but as zoll said a single seater isn't that great unless it's a REAL F4U (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
SC-Duckwing6
-
I've had the outline of an all-aluminum, scale F4U for a few years now. It rivals the S-51 in concept and also shares the 70% scaling. This seems to be the perfect size to bring warbird aircraft down to a realistic scale for general aviation. The great thing about the F4U is that it is about 1/4 larger than the P-51 overall with a bigger cockpit to boot. Due to this, the cockpit restrictions are less critical in a scale example.
Having the scaled airframe drawn up is not the real problem. The one nagging fault with the 70% scale Corsair (and all radial powered warbirds to date for that matter) has been the powerplant. So far, various scale kits of the Corsair have offered engine options that were less than ideal. The W.A.R. replica utilized an under powered inline (yuck) Continental engine to power its ½ scale offering of the F4U. IMO ½ scale is far too small to be considered anywhere near comfortable. The ‘Corsair 82’ is a very promising 82% scale F4U replica that will use the P&W R-985 for motivation. This is a great engine, but the lack of horsepower (450hp) necessitates the use of a small two-bladed propeller. The resulting size of the aircraft due to engine diameter coupled with the small prop kills the illusion of the real Corsair.
About 4 years ago I discovered the perfect engine – a Russian unit called the M-14P that outfits some of the new breed of Russian aerobatic aircraft. It is a 9-cylinder radial that offers a perfect 70% diameter when compared the Corsair’s P&W R-2800, thus allowing the cowling and airframe to be downsized accordingly without any glaring discrepancies in scale image. Though it is much smaller than the R-985 to be used on the ‘Corsair 82’, it still offers the same 450+hp. This mated with a smaller 70% scale airframe would really be a performer. The ‘Corsair82’ was originally going to use this engine, but the manufacturer didn’t like the fact that it turned the opposite direction (counter clockwise) compared to the R-2800. He also has affinity for the Pratt & Whitney logo. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif) The M-14P also has an inefficient inverted oiling system.
In the name of performance and scale realism, I’ve come up with the idea to create a prototype ‘scale R-2800’ by using components of two relatively inexpensive M-14P radials to create a double row 18-cylinder engine. This would necessitate a custom fabricated crankcase, crank, cams, and gearbox for proper prop rotation, but the stock cylinders, rods, and other redundant parts could be retained. The unsatisfactory oiling system could also be reengineered in the process. Once the concept engine was proven, producing them in numbers should be inexpensive enough to form a viable basis for recreating a fairly affordable scale F4U. This engine would also validate (finally) the creation of true to scale P-47’s, F6F’s, FW-190’s, etc. as well. In theory this potent little powerplant would offer close to 1000 horsepower and would make these scale, radial powered fighter replicas perform on par with the Thunder Mustang and Stewart 51. Imagine the new category of air races at Reno – the ‘Mini-Unlimiteds’! (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
As far as a two-seat version of the 70% Corsair is concerned, the only viable option would be to offer an F2G ‘bubble canopy’ version. Even on the full sized Corsairs, altering the rear fuselage and cramming a passenger in there is an obtuse concept. This is another factor that makes the Corsair a risky investment in the scale aircraft market. The F2G would work great, but only 10 of them were produced making them an obscure candidate for satisfying the popular desire for two seats in a scaled version of the famous WWII fighter. I, for one, would sacrifice the second seat for the chance to operate my own scale F4U Corsair. I’d just have to convince my flying buddies to build one of their own, and to come fly formation. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
So far funding (of course) has been the only obstacle in seeing the project through. Due to my involvement in other projects, locating an engineer to nail down the specs on the new engine components, and contracting a fabricator to build up the proof-of-concept prototype is a possibility that’s out of reach for moment. In the future (once I put enough capital together or locate willing investors) I plan on at least seeing the prototype engine through. If I can’t follow through with the entire ‘true to scale’, radial-powered warbird concept, I might at least be able to jumpstart it by offering up the first operational proof-of-concept scale powerplant. As I stated before, drawing up plans for the airframe design is relatively painless compared to fabricating a new, composite-engine prototype. For a flying example of a true 70% scale F4U constructed in an authentic fashion using authentic materials, including the concept engine, the cost would easily reach over the $1M mark. This is a relatively inexpensive investment IF one could prove there is a large market for the aircraft. The fact that a popular style second-seat version of the F4U would be practically non-existent narrows these possibilities down to a point where serious investment in this idea is questionable at best. One alternate possibility would be to offer another model (such as the bubble-canopied version of the P-47) that would have no second-seat restriction, and use it to open up this niche market. Following the projected success of this scale P-47 model, an F4U could be offered based on initial profits. The problem for me is that I don’t have a deep passion for the P-47 like I do for the F4U. As far as my involvement goes, if I find the chance I will probably follow through with the engine proof-of-concept and, if I’m lucky, create a single prototype example of the 70% scale F4U itself with no intention of marketing the aircraft. At that point I would see where the demand stood. If the prospect was promising, I (with a functional prototype in hand) could rally investors to fund the project based on initial orders placed by interested builders (much like the Flug Werk FW-190 project).
All in all, a no-holds-barred true to scale F4U project is indeed doable, but taking into consideration all of the above factors you can see why no one has jumped in with both feet to tackle the idea. The market is waiting for a creative mind with more money than sense to throw together a prototype and prove the viable reality of such a machine. Once someone shows up at Oshkosh with a living, breathing proof-of-concept vehicle the investors will flock. It’s working up to that point that’s made the creation of this wonderful idea so difficult.
(http://chani.arrakis-ttm.com/warbirds/jollyroger/gifs/new/kep.gif)
------------------
~Lt. Jg. Windle~
VF-17 (http://chani.arrakis-ttm.com/warbirds/jollyroger/) The Jolly Rogers 8X
Skychrgr@aol.com
-
Can't really belief that the M14 should have an inadequate inverted oiling system as it powers unlimited class aerobatic airplanes like the Sukhoi 26 and 29 and the trusty old Yak52 all of which have certainly no negative G restrictions.
So that should be no problem..
Building the engine as a twin row with the new cams, crankshaft and STILL have the inverted oil .. well dunno that meight be some engineering .. also building a Prop reduction unit is a pretty tough job for Joe homebuilder.. if youd offer the complete propulsion package thou as a firewall forward kit you might get some real attention
GREAT IDEA thou (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) really looking forward to see that !
Phil (DW6)
-
It will definately take someone a bit more adept than Joe Homebuilder to tool up for this project. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) So far I've run across numerous engineering groups that specialize in scratch building reduction units for inline engines, but few who have experience doing the same for radials. I believe that the M-14P's existing reduction unit can be used with modified gearing - this has already been done to a certain extent in the past by the factory. There are a few different versions of the M-14P, all of which have varying reduction gear and blower gear ratios to compensate for horsepower differences. These differences run from 260 to 450 horsepower. OTOH compensating for 800+ hp might necessitate a complete refabrication. So far most of my radial contacts deal with the large P&W & Wright's only. No doubt the expertise is out there, I simply haven't crossed that bridge yet. The true depth of the concept won't begin to unfold until I arrange to have preliminary drafts drawn up. That's the point when I'll realize the project is going to break me. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
In regards to the oiling system, I said inverted oiling system. What I meant was the oil filtering system. The stock system is not very high quality, and there's no way to put on an inline filter because the oil pump is internal. The only lines available to filter incoming oil are suction lines. When it comes to such things I'd be pretty much clueless on where to begin fabricating a remedy. I'm hoping the necessary reengineering involved would offer an opportunity to solve the problem.
This no doubt will take years to complete so don't expect anything too soon. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) I'm looking at 2 years right now before I can even think of getting serious about the project. Hopefully I will have the engineering end of it on paper well before that time though. My medium term goals right now revolve around getting a proof-of-concept design on paper and bringing the project right up to the point where fabrication can begin. That's the magic moment where $ will really come into play, and where I will have to seriously rearrange my life to make room enough to see it through to completion.
Without my current priorities I'd be on it tomorrow morning. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
(http://chani.arrakis-ttm.com/warbirds/jollyroger/gifs/new/kep.gif)
------------------
~Lt. Jg. Windle~
VF-17 (http://chani.arrakis-ttm.com/warbirds/jollyroger/) The Jolly Rogers 8X
Skychrgr@aol.com
-
Falling gracefully to earth below my silken carriage, my feet touch ground, I awake to see this in my garage....
http://www.vansaircraft.com/public/rv-6int.htm (http://www.vansaircraft.com/public/rv-6int.htm)
Mino
-
Heya Minotaur I took a demo ride in the RV-6 at Oshkosh last July. I gotta tell ya it's one responsive little plane! Me and my father have been discussing him building one for some time now. My demo pilot let me do some mild aerobatic moves and the stick just feels great in that plane. My father flew the RV-6A but felt the instrument panel was a bit close to the pilots eyes for his taste (he's hard to please). (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif) I felt like the quick controls might be a handfull on a cross country, but no doubt with a little getting used to it wouldn't be a big factor.
The RV-8 is what really got my blood pumping! It's basically an RV-6 with tandem seating so the throtle & stick are in the proper hands. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif) It's a beautiful aircraft with GREAT visibility - very similar to what you'd expect in a P-51. Make sure you give the RV-8 a look before you decide. IMO opinion both are very attractive and realistic aircraft to consider owning.
Glad to see someone else has a fancy for kitplanes. There's so many great ones out there it's hard for me to decide which I favor the most. I suppose if I had unlimited resources and was looking for a GA style aircraft I'd look into the 'Turbine Legend'. I also have a Rotorway Exec Fettish. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
(http://chani.arrakis-ttm.com/warbirds/jollyroger/gifs/new/kep.gif)
------------------
~Lt. Jg. Windle~
VF-17 (http://chani.arrakis-ttm.com/warbirds/jollyroger/) The Jolly Rogers 8X
Skychrgr@aol.com
-
Windle;
Ah someday! (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) My kids are going to hate their inheritance.
Currently my Dad is building a wing rib jig for some kind of WW1 WV powered highwing strut spruce fabric bicycle wheel Ugly. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) Building the plane for a buddy ($pelled $).
He loves that wood stuff, I want my aluminium baby.
Mino
[This message has been edited by Minotaur (edited 12-01-1999).]
-
Sounds like he's building a Pietenpol. My father had a flying buddy that wanted to build one of those years ago but he never made the investment.
Best of luck to ya in getting what you want in the near future. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) You definately picked a great airplane!
(http://chani.arrakis-ttm.com/warbirds/jollyroger/gifs/new/kep.gif)
------------------
~Lt. Jg. Windle~
VF-17 (http://chani.arrakis-ttm.com/warbirds/jollyroger/) The Jolly Rogers 8X
Skychrgr@aol.com
[This message has been edited by Windle (edited 12-01-1999).]