Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: earl1937 on December 10, 2013, 06:11:30 AM
-
:airplane: I had a rather interesting sortie yesterday which just goes to prove, even if you get the breaks sometimes things just don't work out!
While in a 1C, hunting bombers which had been hitting one of our bases, I came across a flight of B-17's, set up my approach proceeded to dive in for the "kill"! But, alas, a Spit 8, which I hadn't noticed moved into my 4 O'clock position, so I cut off my attack on the 17's, which I had hit one, but he killed one of my guns. With the Spit having a height advantage, decided just to dive out, get some distance between us and sure enough, he was about 4.5 back and broke off and went his own way. I am now in "Indian" country about 2 sectors, so decided I needed to get back closer to home.
I came up on a flight of KI-67's, about 2K below me and to my right. Dove in for the attack and in the ensueing exchange of gun fire, killed two of them and ran out of cannon. Still had 62 rounds in the damaged gun, but what the heck, think I will just go home.
I am now down to about 5K when I noticed behind me a F4U1A about 4.5 back! OK, no problem, I am about 30 miles or so from friendly base, started a swallow dive to gain speed, engaged wep and looked back, now this guy is 3.5 back with a minus on the distance, so I know he is gaining on me. The 1A will out run the 1C, but with a little luck, I can get to friendly base and the base ack will drive him off. Nope! he is now 2.0 back gaining on me, even tho I am doing right a 500MPH IAS!
Finally, he is 1K back, so I turn hard left, pulling g's to where I only have a small view and thought, see if this guy can turn that thing! Round and Round we go and I am actually gaining on him, to where I can just barely can see him and thought, "Now what ET, you got no ammo"! Glancing at the DG, I waited until the rough heading to home, rolled left 270 degrees and headed for home! Gained a little on him, he is now 1.5 back, but closing a little bit, but I am about 2 minutes from base. We are now down in the bushes, running like "ber rabbit" and he aren't going to give up.
About that time, he must have hit a tree or something, because I got the kill on him, now have 3 kills and about 30 seconds from landing. Relaxed a little, started to turn final and "boom", a PT boat sitting right off shore killed me. I had not noticed a enemy CV about 5 miles off shore.
Oh, well, another day in the life of a Aces High throttle pusher! LOL
(http://i1346.photobucket.com/albums/p684/earl1937/800px-Vought_F4U_Corsair_USMC_zps3ec4072d.jpg)
-
That 1A is my favorite F4U. Man those PTs can catch you off guard. It makes it worse when you think your on easy street heading for the fence.
-
I was having a pretty good day on Saturday. My gunnery was leaving a LOT to be desired, but I was on a decent kill streak on four fighter sorties (1, 1, 5, 2 without a loss). I was on my fifth fighter sortie of the day and had plenty of gas and ammunition to loiter, and had already added two more to my count for the day. I was just coming off my second victory and entered a climbing turn to get back above the fight to look for another target when I heard a sound that made my blood turn cold: Windows's "Device Disconnected" alert. The USB hub all of my controls were connected to decided to shut off.
My Corsair started rolling, and in a panic I grabbed for the USB cable on the hub to disconnect/reconnect it. The lights on my controls came back up, but Aces High was no longer recognizing them! I was stuck watching helplessly as I spun in and splattered myself across the landscape.
Stupid USB hub...
-
I only use my hub for non-critical devices.
My stick is plugged into the best and fastest usb port on my pc because it is my most important input device.
-
Fantastic! :aok :D
-
Interesting that Earl states he is combat flying with another F4U at "500mph IAS",
- since that is way faster than the Vne allowable [by ~50mph] -in the pilots notes,
& the real aircraft would not have been capable of combat manoeuvres at those speeds.
-
Interesting that Earl states he is combat flying with another F4U at "500mph IAS",
- since that is way faster than the Vne allowable [by ~50mph] -in the pilots notes,
& the real aircraft would not have been capable of combat manoeuvres at those speeds.
:airplane: You sir are correct, just like the LA-7 was a dominate aircraft in WW2 and yes, I have had the 1A at 550 before in this game. Never flew one of these aircraft in RL, but would have loved it! :salute
-
Brooke, got any comment about "...the 1A at 550...in this game"?
& Earl, if it had really come to it, the USAAF & RAF could've done the VVS up a treat in `45..
-
:airplane: I had a rather interesting sortie yesterday which just goes to prove, even if you get the breaks sometimes things just don't work out!
While in a 1C, hunting bombers which had been hitting one of our bases, I came across a flight of B-17's, set up my approach proceeded to dive in for the "kill"! But, alas, a Spit 8, which I hadn't noticed moved into my 4 O'clock position, so I cut off my attack on the 17's, which I had hit one, but he killed one of my guns. With the Spit having a height advantage, decided just to dive out, get some distance between us and sure enough, he was about 4.5 back and broke off and went his own way. I am now in "Indian" country about 2 sectors, so decided I needed to get back closer to home.
I came up on a flight of KI-67's, about 2K below me and to my right. Dove in for the attack and in the ensueing exchange of gun fire, killed two of them and ran out of cannon. Still had 62 rounds in the damaged gun, but what the heck, think I will just go home.
I am now down to about 5K when I noticed behind me a F4U1A about 4.5 back! OK, no problem, I am about 30 miles or so from friendly base, started a swallow dive to gain speed, engaged wep and looked back, now this guy is 3.5 back with a minus on the distance, so I know he is gaining on me. The 1A will out run the 1C, but with a little luck, I can get to friendly base and the base ack will drive him off. Nope! he is now 2.0 back gaining on me, even tho I am doing right a 500MPH IAS!
Finally, he is 1K back, so I turn hard left, pulling g's to where I only have a small view and thought, see if this guy can turn that thing! Round and Round we go and I am actually gaining on him, to where I can just barely can see him and thought, "Now what ET, you got no ammo"! Glancing at the DG, I waited until the rough heading to home, rolled left 270 degrees and headed for home! Gained a little on him, he is now 1.5 back, but closing a little bit, but I am about 2 minutes from base. We are now down in the bushes, running like "ber rabbit" and he aren't going to give up.
About that time, he must have hit a tree or something, because I got the kill on him, now have 3 kills and about 30 seconds from landing. Relaxed a little, started to turn final and "boom", a PT boat sitting right off shore killed me. I had not noticed a enemy CV about 5 miles off shore.
Oh, well, another day in the life of a Aces High throttle pusher! LOL
(http://i1346.photobucket.com/albums/p684/earl1937/800px-Vought_F4U_Corsair_USMC_zps3ec4072d.jpg)
:rofl DOH!!!
-
In real life, a F4U-1A jockey at 550 mph IAS would
very probably be - fatalistically - watching his fabric wing skinning peel off,
that is, if he could bring himself to look, - at all..
-
Brooke, got any comment about "...the 1A at 550...in this game"?
The test version of the initial version (XF4U-1) was tested at speeds up to 885km/h (550 mph), but it did have control surface damage. I'm not sure if any changes/improvements were made in regard to that for production versions?
-
Was the IAS speed correction [pitot] ASI accurate on the prototype Corsair?
Was it modified/relocated for production?
Or was it simply a safety matter of setting the Vne at a figure ~100mph lower than that?
The Tempest was cleared for a Vne of 540mph,
but had its pitot head moved from an underwing [& 90`bend] location - to projecting forward
from the wing leading edge, & away from shock waves - to ensure ASI accuracy.
Another point is - was the F4U was capable of manoeuvre at Vne, or was it in compressibility lock?
-
What is the Vmax penalty for the long cannons in the 1C?
I guess the fact that they were so rarely used,
was why they didn't put aero-fairings on them like the Spitfires & Typhoons had?
The Tempest speed difference in between the long (but faired) cannons & short fully enclosed V-type H.S. cannon was reckoned to be worth 5-8 mph..
-
Spped penalty for the 4 x 20 mm in the F4U-1C was 2 mph at sea level and 1 mph at 20,000 ft, at least according to the USN.
-
In real life, a F4U-1A jockey at 550 mph IAS would
very probably be - fatalistically - watching his fabric wing skinning peel off,
that is, if he could bring himself to look, - at all..
:headscratch: "Fabric covered wing"! Surely you jest! If you are serious, then really you need to stay out of this thread!
-
:headscratch: "Fabric covered wing"! Surely you jest! If you are serious, then really you need to stay out of this thread!
Part of the outer wing covering on the F4U-1 series was fabric. The Rudder also had a fabric cover.
-
Spped penalty for the 4 x 20 mm in the F4U-1C was 2 mph at sea level and 1 mph at 20,000 ft, at least according to the USN.
:airplane: If memory serves me correctly, the difference in weight of the 20MM cannon and the .50 cals was one reason they only built 200 of the "C" hog and it was pretty much dedicated to air to ground attack sorties, although there are some PIRIP's of air to air combat with Japanese aircraft.
Guess the best way to answer your question is take a F4UD up, full power and wep and see what top speed you get, then take the C up and do the same thing, with 24% fuel. Now we are talking about this game aircraft, not the real thing. I fly both in this game and can't tell much difference, but wasn't running tests or any kind. Compressability should be about the same, as its basically the same airframe.
-
The space shuttle does alright with fabric covering. I'm not sure whether or not it was as fast as an F4U though.
-
Earl, a couple of points here..
You posted that you were being run down in top end speed by a 1A, while flying a 1C.
Is this due to piloting skill or fundamental speed difference?
The early US H-S cannon were flawed in production & were jam prone.
The USN, rightly, considered this unacceptable.
However, they really rated the cannon, as each being worth three 50cal MGs,
& reintroduced them as a standard fit in later F4U production planes.
The 50 cal was a relatively heavy gun too, & weighed more than cannon per effectiveness ratio.
The point about compressibility is..
Does the F4U - in Aces High - run an unrealistically advantageous Vne?
If you have done 550mph IAS & stayed in the game, then probably - the answer is yes.
Space Shuttle ran a ceramic composite thermal tile covering,
& at least - one - had a serious issue with it failing in flight.
-
Earl, a couple of points here..
You posted that you were being run down in top end speed by a 1A, while flying a 1C.
Is this due to piloting skill or fundamental speed difference?
The early US H-S cannon were flawed in production & were jam prone.
The USN, rightly, considered this unacceptable.
However, they really rated the cannon, as each being worth three 50cal MGs,
& reintroduced them as a standard fit in later F4U production planes.
The 50 cal was a relatively heavy gun too, & weighed more than cannon per effectiveness ratio.
The point about compressibility is..
Does the F4U - in Aces High - run an unrealistically advantageous Vne?
If you have done 550mph IAS & stayed in the game, then probably - the answer is yes.
Space Shuttle ran a ceramic composite thermal tile covering,
& at least - one - had a serious issue with it failing in flight.
:airplane: Good points and I stand corrected about the fabric covering. I really wasn't taking notes during this little fight I had with the 1A, so tonight I will take up a 1C, with 25& fuel and see where it compresses.
-
Space Shuttle ran a ceramic composite thermal tile covering,
& at least - one - had a serious issue with it failing in flight.
Alright, it didn't sink in the first time.
The Space Shuttle seems to do okay with fabric covering. Whether or not it's faster than an F4U I'll defer since I'm not sure how fast the Space Shuttle is.
-
:airplane: If memory serves me correctly, the difference in weight of the 20MM cannon and the .50 cals was one reason they only built 200 of the "C" hog and it was pretty much dedicated to air to ground attack sorties, although there are some PIRIP's of air to air combat with Japanese aircraft.
Guess the best way to answer your question is take a F4UD up, full power and wep and see what top speed you get, then take the C up and do the same thing, with 24% fuel. Now we are talking about this game aircraft, not the real thing. I fly both in this game and can't tell much difference, but wasn't running tests or any kind. Compressability should be about the same, as its basically the same airframe.
The Navy mainly passed on the F4U-1C because against the fragile and lightly-protected Japanese fighters, .50cal were more than sufficient to do the job (compare the Germans, who needed a lot of firepower to bring down the American bombers, so mounted increasingly large numbers of increasingly larger cannon). Likewise, American fighters in Europe didn't bother with cannon (aside from the P-38) for much the same reason: MGs were "good enough" to do the job. The cannon were looked at again post-war because as things progress into the jet age the "instant kill" capability of the cannon became increasingly important when you're dealing with the speeds jet combat reaches.
The speed difference between the F4U-1D and 1C is not particularly significant, (only about 1-2mph) however both are without question slower than the 1 and 1A because the 1D/C have permanently fixed wing pylons. At best altitude, The F4U-1/A will hit ~420+ TAS (the 1A will hit 427, thanks to its paddle prop). That's over 20mph faster than the 1D/C at that altitude.
-
Alright, it didn't sink in the first time.
The Space Shuttle seems to do okay with fabric covering. Whether or not it's faster than an F4U I'll defer since I'm not sure how fast the Space Shuttle is.
Nah, it was the 1st SS crash that did 'sink in' to the Atlantic,
but that was due to the rocket booster failing, not a Vne/skin covering problem.
As for SS speed, ask Buck Rogers, since it was fast enough to get him to the 25th century &
the lovely Wilma [but don't mention Wiki]...
-
Nah, it was the 1st SS crash that did 'sink in' to the Atlantic,
but that was due to the rocket booster failing, not a Vne/skin covering problem.
Lets try it one last time. The space shuttle has a significant amount of fabric covering that looks basically like a big quilt.
The point being that simply as a matter of material there's construction and application to consider as well.
-
The SS covering is a hard ceramic composite matrix fitted over the structural skinning as a thermal barrier, & it is NOT in the same category as the doped fabric skinning used by earlier aircraft..
& Sm, the USN knew full well that a well functioning 4 x 20mm cannon fit out was way more
effective against any aircraft or ground target than even 8 x 50 cal MGs..
The RAF had operated 4 cannon fighters - in service - since `41,
& had been on the receiving end of them - in FW 190s - too.
The primary issue with US cannon use - was the failure to produce a good H-S copy
until too late for service.
& in the case of the USAAF/USAF ['cept for the P-61]- that extended to the Korean war, too.
-
The SS covering is a hard ceramic composite matrix fitted over the structural skinning as a thermal barrier, & it is NOT in the same category as the doped fabric skinning used by earlier aircraft..
Please, tell me more.
-
The Navy mainly passed on the F4U-1C because against the fragile and lightly-protected Japanese fighters, .50cal were more than sufficient to do the job (compare the Germans, who needed a lot of firepower to bring down the American bombers, so mounted increasingly large numbers of increasingly larger cannon). Likewise, American fighters in Europe didn't bother with cannon (aside from the P-38) for much the same reason: MGs were "good enough" to do the job. The cannon were looked at again post-war because as things progress into the jet age the "instant kill" capability of the cannon became increasingly important when you're dealing with the speeds jet combat reaches.
The speed difference between the F4U-1D and 1C is not particularly significant, (only about 1-2mph) however both are without question slower than the 1 and 1A because the 1D/C have permanently fixed wing pylons. At best altitude, The F4U-1/A will hit ~420+ TAS (the 1A will hit 427, thanks to its paddle prop). That's over 20mph faster than the 1D/C at that altitude.
:airplane: Just got back from TA and here is what I found: The F4UD, 330 cruise, level flight at 10K, with 25% fuel and wep engaged! The 1C about 320, with wep on.
I dove the the 1C to, as best I could guess, because the AS indicator ran out of marking, about 570 IAS and yes, compressing start about 525, but I recoved with no problem fromt he 570 speed because I was running out of altitude. Was trying to see if wings would come off, but as I said ran out of altitude from 19K. About a 45 degree dive angle. "Snowbell" was there, watching what I was doing, but wasn't in the cockpit with me. Take one up and see for yourself guys.
-
Most everything that's white on exterior of the shuttle isn't painted that way.
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-cDIYEDZOgxw/UJiUR7BlyNI/AAAAAAAAIRQ/isZhZJ7NbGk/s1600/IMG_3884a.jpg)
-
Earl - thanks for confirming that F4U flight data,
& yeah, it clearly shows the AH Corsair needs, ah, adjustment - to comply with the real world bird..
G, you do of course realize that those SS coverings shown in the pic are solely
for protection of the sensitive tiles on the ground & are not flown..
Or are you being 'funny' ..or attempting a thread hi-jack?
-
The stuff that gets RFH (which is a measure of how high a temperature is relative to "really hot") are tiles. Leading edges, underside of the lifting body, etc
Most of the white you see isn't tile.
Or they're putting blankies on once they get into orbit because it gets cold...
(http://spaceinimages.esa.int/var/esa/storage/images/esa_multimedia/images/2009/08/space_shuttle_endeavour_is_docked_with_the_iss_during_sts-127/10136176-2-eng-GB/Space_Shuttle_Endeavour_is_docked_with_the_ISS_during_STS-127.jpg)
-
Off Topic, but great pix , thanks G,
The black tiled areas are the ones that get RFH on re-entry direct plasma stream exposure.
The white 'blankie' areas shown in space are indeed (AFAIK) - thermal blankets for avionics.
All of them are covering the actual metal structural skinning & are not 'skinning' in themselves.
-
The whole thing is covered in fabric. Fuselage, upper wings, engine cowlings, cargo doors.
Not just avionics, but darn near everything that's white.
Nothing to do with structural integrity of the craft, simply the outer layer of fabric. Making it...fabric...
-
& Sm, the USN knew full well that a well functioning 4 x 20mm cannon fit out was way more
effective against any aircraft or ground target than even 8 x 50 cal MGs..
And you don't think the US would have pushed harder to get a good cannon if they felt that the .50cal they were using were inadequate. It's one thing to say something's BETTER, something else entirely to go on to saying you NEED it.
The US came up with quite a few ideas for aircraft that would certainly have been superior to what they already had. For example: The P-38K. Climb to 20,000ft in 5 minutes, clocked at 432mph with a possibility of hitting 450mph on WEP at combat loads, and all this being done with the extra weight and drag of paint. BMF would have gotten even better performance. Ultimately abandoned because the existing P-38s, P-51s and P-47s were adequate, and Lockheed declined halting current production to retool for producing the better version. Then there's the XA-38 Grizzly, cancelled because the USAAF just didn't need it anymore as their mission profile in Europe changed, even though it would have been one hell of a medium attack plane. And of course, the ever-popular P-63, which the US declined to use because what they had was already good enough and they didn't need it. Which is also why the US didn't push on getting the P-80 into combat.
You can bet that if the US military felt an overwhelming need for cannon, that one way or another they'd have made sure they got them. As it is, because the .50cal were doing a good enough job they decided to go with what was working. Teething issues were a secondary concern.
-
Earl, a couple of points here..
You posted that you were being run down in top end speed by a 1A, while flying a 1C.
Is this due to piloting skill or fundamental speed difference?
There is a significant speed difference, especially at sea level (367 mph vs 353 mph). This is due to the -1A not having underwing stores pylons and it lacks the drag of the cannons. 14 mph is significant in a prolonged chase. Worse yet, because the -1A is lighter than the -1C, it turns better.
-
G, on the F4U, the doped stretched fabric was a hangover from WW 1 type tech.
It did form the skin structure in that case, & was a primary aero, not a thermal covering..
& Sm,
The P-38K was not followed up by the USAAF since P-38 improvements weren't deemed worthwhile.
The P-38 was basically in best-by-date mode - as far as the USAAF was concerned.
The `47 & `51 did get significant improvements, - bubble canopy, paddle blade props, ADI & etc..
Indeed, the `51H was a virtually all-new plane, sharing little with earlier variants.
The P-63 was too small to tote much as a JABO, or pack enough fuel for good endurance.
& Ww, thanks for the info you posted stat above,
& have you got accurate Vne/compressibility onset IAS figures for the F4U-1?
If the US H-S cannon was up to standard, they would've used more of them.
The British rejected the US built cannon, (& ammo) as unserviceable by their standards..
While US forces soldiered on with the less than optimal 50 cal MG, they did put plenty of effort into
alternatives, none of which panned out in time for much service use in WW 2.
-
The P-38K. Climb to 20,000ft in 5 minutes, clocked at 432mph with a possibility of hitting 450mph on WEP at combat loads, and all this being done with the extra weight and drag of paint. BMF would have gotten even better performance. Ultimately abandoned because the existing P-38s, P-51s and P-47s were adequate, and Lockheed declined halting current production to retool for producing the better version.
Lockheed was denied permission by the War Production Board to halt current production in order to retool the production lines for the P-38K. It was unfortunate because the test mule used (believe it was a P-38G-10-L0) out performed current US fighters under production at the time, including the P-51B and P-47D.
Lockheed even proposed installing Merlin engines in the P-38 but again, that was denied by the War Production Board for the same reason they denied retooling the production line for the P-38K.
ack-ack
-
The P-38K was not followed up by the USAAF since P-38 improvements weren't deemed worthwhile.
The P-38 was basically in best-by-date mode - as far as the USAAF was concerned.
Not true. The War Production Board denied the request because of the demand for the P-38 at the time and claimed it couldn't afford the short time the production line would be shut down (Lockheed estimated no more than two week down time) to retool the production line for the P-38K.
The War Production Board turned down Lockheed's request for the Merlin engine because at the time the Packard built Merlin engines were slated for the P-51B and the War Production Board felt that the Merlin wouldn't bring substantial improvement and also couldn't afford the stop production on the P-38 when the USA needed all the fighters it could produce at the time.
Read Warren Bodie's book sometime.
ack-ack
-
Ww, thanks for that info, & do you have accurate IAS figures for F4U-1 Vne/compressibility onset?
A.A., yeah - thanks also- for confirming that significant improvements which were
ok'd for `47 & `51 - were denied for the somewhat passé P-38, & rightly so IMO, too.
Bodies book...is a fan-boi tome.. IMO - ain't worth buying,
I'm glad I borrowed it from a library & didn't waste my money..
-
A.A., yeah - thanks also- for confirming that significant improvements which were
ok'd for `47 & `51 - were denied for the somewhat passé P-38, & rightly so IMO, too.
That was only for the proposal by Johnson to add the Merlin, the WPB thought it wouldn't be of any benefit, however, that was not the case with the P-38K. It was denied not because the WPD didn't see any benefit, it was denied because at the time there was a pressing need for any available fighter coming off the production line, especially the P-38 which at the time were in somewhat of short of supply and couldn't keep up with demand. The WPB felt any production stoppage of current P-38s would have a negative effect.
Again, read Warren Bodie's book. It will put many of your 'myths' to bed.
ack-ack
-
P-38 buzz job....
(https://scontent-a-lga.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn2/1472930_643391579056716_1563252459_n.jpg)
-
Yeah, Bodies book has plenty of myths to go around..
He rates the P-38 as the best..
..except in his P-47 book, then it is best, cant wait for his `51 book, maybe he'll rate it best too..
& wouldn't '450 mph' actually exceed the P-38's terminally low Vne of ~440 mph?
-
Yeah, Bodies book has plenty of myths to go around..
He rates the P-38 as the best..
..except in his P-47 book, then it is best, cant wait for his `51 book, maybe he'll rate it best too..
Warren has been dead for several years.... You'll have to take a pass on the P-51 book.
-
Ww, thanks for that 'heads up' re Bodie's current writer status .
Guess I'll have to go with other Mustang info, & read about how the P-82 had the P-38s
long-range twin gig on a plate by wars end too..
The F4U on the other hand was deemed still useful by the USN & kept in production long after most any other contemporary recip' fighter/bomber.
-
Yeah, Bodies book has plenty of myths to go around..
He rates the P-38 as the best..
..except in his P-47 book, then it is best, cant wait for his `51 book, maybe he'll rate it best too..
& wouldn't '450 mph' actually exceed the P-38's terminally low Vne of ~440 mph?
460 mph TAS at 20k, 480 mph using dive recovery flaps.
(http://www.mediafire.com/convkey/08d7/31p8dqf8d6734qffg.jpg)
-
Thunder and Lightning.
John and Chris exercising the Planes of Fame P-47G and P-38J.
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-d-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/1265184_10151690406737828_74675783_o.jpg)
-
Again thanks Ww, for posting that data.
It makes clear the P-38's Vne limitations & shows graphically why they were at a disadvantage
against LW fighters, ( & faster diving USAAF rivals, too)..
Since neither the USN fighters nor P-38 with fairly low Vne limitations had difficulty
matching most Nippon planes [Raiden & Hien excluded perhaps?] in dive performance,
it also demonstrates that ETO A2A combat really demanded the best performance, as even Spitfires could not match 190/109 combat dives..
-
Regardless of one's favorites, there is something pretty for just about everyone in this video...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GNTEk8Jv2Hc (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GNTEk8Jv2Hc)
-
Steve Hinton wrings out the P-38J....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gYNhWSt-GXU&feature=c4-overview&list=UUFsBr8DyE5BBMxTgCl3H7ag (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gYNhWSt-GXU&feature=c4-overview&list=UUFsBr8DyE5BBMxTgCl3H7ag)
-
Grumman rules the sky....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h_dGpGcvocM&feature=c4-overview&list=UUFsBr8DyE5BBMxTgCl3H7ag (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h_dGpGcvocM&feature=c4-overview&list=UUFsBr8DyE5BBMxTgCl3H7ag)
-
Steve Hinton wrings out the P-38J....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gYNhWSt-GXU&feature=c4-overview&list=UUFsBr8DyE5BBMxTgCl3H7ag (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gYNhWSt-GXU&feature=c4-overview&list=UUFsBr8DyE5BBMxTgCl3H7ag)
I love the sounds of those Allison engines purr.
ack-ack
-
Really?
Actually they sound flat.. ..muffled.. like most turbo mills do, & no open exhaust ejector sound..
-
Here's one reason why the Brits turned their noses up at the P-38,
since this 1944 Brit twin's performance put even the wannabe P-38K - firmly in its place..
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/Hornet/Hornet_I_aircraft-data_card.jpg
-
Really?
Actually they sound flat.. ..muffled.. like most turbo mills do, & no open exhaust ejector sound..
To each his own I guess.
ack-ack
-
Hey A-A, make no mistake, just 'bout any V12 - & for sure - a turbo V-1710..
..sounds way better than those grumbly ol' off beat radials..
-
performance geek wars!
:bolt:
-
Hey A-A, make no mistake, just 'bout any V12 - & for sure - a turbo V-1710..
..sounds way better than those grumbly ol' off beat radials..
Yes, we get it, you don't like radials. Can we move on, please?
-
Hey A-A, make no mistake, just 'bout any V12 - & for sure - a turbo V-1710..
..sounds way better than those grumbly ol' off beat radials..
Like I said, to each his own.
ack-ack
-
Here's one reason why the Brits turned their noses up at the P-38,
since this 1944 Brit twin's performance put even the wannabe P-38K - firmly in its place..
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/Hornet/Hornet_I_aircraft-data_card.jpg
I think they also passed on the F-7F because they had the Hornet.
63tb
-
Yes, we get it, you don't like radials. Can we move on, please?
I don't dislike radials, its just a fact that they are best as bomb-truck & transport mills..
& it is another fact that engines that have even firing multiples of 3 cylinders sound real good..
Back on topic, is the anomalous F4U Vne allowed in Aces High going to be addressed?
-
Back on topic, is the anomalous F4U Vne allowed in Aces High going to be addressed?
I'm not so sure the top speed performance "issue" has been proven incorrect yet? I suspect you may be correct, but nobody has actually posted any fact-based data to support that argument, unless I'm just not seeing it.
First of all, I don't think it pays to focus on the Vne, because that's essentially a warning but not a line that if crossed guarantees issues. It's almost definitely a somewhat conservative number, so what we'd need to do is find the speed "line" that if crossed guarantees a problem. Vne will be fairly close to that line, but not actually "at" that line. Vne is like the warning under an SUV's sunscreen that says not to exceed 85mph. What happens if you surpass 85mph in an SUV? Are the results always "guaranteed"? Do they depend on the condition of that specific vehicle (i.e. my tires have 37K miles on them, and the front right tire pressure's a bit high, while the left rear tire pressure's a bit low, and there's a chip in my windscreen). Do the results of exceeding that speed depend on the skill (and or fatigue level) of the driver? Does it matter if the vehicle exceeds that speed "on the flat", versus going downhill, versus going uphill?
I think the "critical" speed we need to determine is probably more along the lines of what the "critical mach" speed is for the actual plane. I know the test version of the F4U-1 had a wind tunnel "proven" critical mach of around .73, but that it was estimated to be higher than that in real life; maybe more along the lines of .78. Online, I'm finding that it may be similar to the P51? But lower than the P47 (late-variant P47's anyway)? I wouldn't say that I've found factual data though; probably just more along the lines of an educated guess...
What speed is ".73 mach" anyway? How does that speed vary at differing altitudes and air densities? What altitude/density was the actual plane tested in? How is that density reflected in AH?
And I wonder if the CM was the same for all variants of the F4U or not? I haven't been able to find that info; I'm also having trouble locating an actual Vne, for that matter. It's not listed in my copy of the POH, and I cannot find it in any of the test reports I've gone through.
Second, we need to determine what exactly happens flight-wise when the plane gets close to the CM? Is it recoverable, or not? Would it have been damaged, or not? (i.e. 90% certain the tail surfaces would have been shredded, or that it would not have been possible for the pilot to pull out, damage or not...). Factual info, rather than assumptions. Some reports I read made mention of the bulging fabric on the wings at speed, but they also made mention that the pilot would have been better off "tightening" the fabric? I'm not even sure how they'd do that, to be honest; it's the first I've ever seen that. But it raises the point of the specific condition of the specific plane being tested... Was it "pristine", or "less than pristine". Was it in a condition that would give results likely to be close to the results expected from a plane in better (or at least average) condition? Or was it a worn out wreck that was available for testing because it was no longer a viable combat craft? Many of the test reports I've read sound like the latter, rather than the former. Interesting for sure, but maybe not indicative of a "normal" condition plane? AH models "new" planes (rather than worn out carcasses), so that's the data we need to see replicated.
Third, we need to see what the AH plane does in as nearly identical tests as possible, to determine the same results above for the actual plane. Then we can compare them and argue for a change (if needed). Without that info though, we're just having an interesting discussion, with no chance of proving anything (let alone arguing that a change is necessary).
Shy of that, maybe someone like Brooke with his higher math skills and aero-knowledge can assist with some calculations that would give us "close", "probable" results without actual test data?
In addition, we may easily find that if there is an issue, it may be much more prevalent than just the F4U... How about the P47, P51, P38, 190, 109, etc... Do they behave correctly in a dive? Do ANY of the AH planes? Do they ALL? How have we determined that the F4U is the black sheep of the bunch?
I haven't even seen any film of the AH F4U behaving badly, and that's about as easy to get as can be... I'd get it myself, but my joystick and pedals are in a closet behind a Christmas tree atm...
Based on the Corsair MkII test below, the problem may not be with the critical mach speed, but rather that it's too easy to get the AH corsair to dive fast? But then again, they mention trim... In AH, the trim will automatically dial in a bunch of "down" if you dive, so the game is easily doing what is stated to be more difficult in RL... We'd almost need to toss the test results out if they're trim-related, because the AH CT solves that problem for us?
(http://i107.photobucket.com/albums/m309/Mtnman_03/CorsairMkIIDiveTests_zps370b4d49.jpg) (http://s107.photobucket.com/user/Mtnman_03/media/CorsairMkIIDiveTests_zps370b4d49.jpg.html)
-
Good post Mtn-m..
Interesting that the Brits state that the practical limit for Corsair combat dives does co-relate
with the Vne @ 460mph.. so.. quite a bit slower than A-H's virtual modelling allows.
In their test of the F6F they also remark on the fabric control surface skinning 'ballooning'
during high speed dives & affecting controllability..
I think it was understood that gung-ho young fighter-jocks would exceed the Vne,
..just like punk teenagers speeding on fast motorcycles.. but how many times you'd get
a badly bent bird past the crew chief.. or make it home.. I don't know..
-
Bob Spurdle survived having a weary Spitfire (P7364) disintegrate on him in a WFO dive
while chasing a 109 in the Battle of Britain, but then he was uncommonly lucky..
- an important quality to have - as a pilot..
& the F4U was indeed - the ride of choice - for the USMC 'Black Sheep' bunch.. AFAIR..
-
& the F4U was indeed - the ride of choice - for the USMC 'Black Sheep' bunch.. AFAIR..
The Marines in general saw the Corsair as their ride of choice, not just VMF-214. In fact I think the majority (if not all) of the Marine Hellcats were F6F-5(N) night-fighter variants equipping the VMF(N) squadrons, or as small numbers of aircraft assigned to the regular VMFs to supplement their day fighters (the same would have been done with the F4U-2s).
I think the Marines even equipped several of the VMSB squadrons with Corsairs instead of Dauntlesses (which unlike the Navy, they were smart enough to pass up that dog Helldiver and keep their SBDs up through the end of the war). I know for sure the VMOs used Corsairs.
-
Sure that wasn't just another typical case of the Navy 'hand-me-down' policy towards the USMC?
& that the USN's salty CV skippers passed on the F4U - 'til well into`44 - in favour of the F6F,
virtually palming off the F4U as fit only for Lend-Lease Limeys & Land-Lubber Leathernecks..
-
Good post Mtn-m..
Interesting that the Brits state that the practical limit for Corsair combat dives does co-relate
with the Vne @ 460mph.. so.. quite a bit slower than A-H's virtual modelling allows.
460 mph IAS. At 12,000 feet, that translates into 540 mph TAS, or Mach 0.741, which corresponds to what we see in the game.
-
So Ww, can you be serious - the A-H ASI shows TAS?
Earl reports going off the clock on his F4U terminal dive test @ 570 IAS & no control issues..
-
Try it yourself. Note how easily you maneuver. :aok
-
That does not compute.. 570 IAS in a F4U is virtually tie fighter fantasy..
-
Sure that wasn't just another typical case of the Navy 'hand-me-down' policy towards the USMC?
& that the USN's salty CV skippers passed on the F4U - 'til well into`44 - in favour of the F6F,
virtually palming off the F4U as fit only for Lend-Lease Limeys & Land-Lubber Leathernecks..
The Navy passed on the F4U and continued to use the F4F on the carriers until September 1943, when the F6F became available, due to early teething problems during carrier operations (primarily excessive gear bounce, and it took the Royal Navy to develop landing procedures that eliminated the visibility problems over the nose). Afterwards, the decision by the Navy to keep with the Hellcat on the carrier decks (even though performance-wise the Corsair was the superior aircraft) was a combination of logistics (easier to keep the fleets supplied with parts if they're universally equipped with one fighter), cost (the Corsair was a good bit more expensive), and the fact Vought wasn't building the more complicated Corsairs fast enough to supply both services.
There was no "palming off" whatsoever. It was entirely a matter of what the Navy had was "good enough" at doing the job, so they didn't need the other type and sent it to where it WAS needed. Had the F6F not been good enough (or even developed in the first place), you can bet your bellybutton the Navy would have pushed to get the Corsair ready for carrier use much faster.
-
So Ww, can you be serious - the A-H ASI shows TAS?
Earl reports going off the clock on his F4U terminal dive test @ 570 IAS & no control issues..
In Aces High, the ASI shows both indicated and true air speed. You can also use the E6B tool to check your true TAS at anytime.
All that aside, I performed a simple calculation to determine TAS based upon IAS and an arbitrary altitude.
-
I performed a terminal velocity dive from 30,000 feet. Below is a screen shot as the F4U-1A was near 13,000 feet. Note the TAS and the IAS. The Corsair was completely locked up, shaking like a hooker in church.. I had just pulled off power to idle and was about you use trim to induce a gentle pitch-up as the Mach dropped. The F4U has limited maneuverability at 545 mph TAS. At 555 mph TAS at sea level, it has very little control in any axis.
(http://www.mediafire.com/convkey/528e/4e4defemxwd5gu5fg.jpg)
-
As I fly the Corsair regularly to exclusively, I can confirm what WW is saying. ~540 TAS the Corsair begins to get unresponsive.
Keep in mind also that we do NOT have wing skin damage in the WWII arenas (though it is present in WWI). So even if the Corsair was prone to shedding the fabric elements of its airfoil and control surfaces around 540TAS, that particular form of damage isn't modeled for ANY aircraft.
-
Thanks for the clarification Ww, & Sm..
But Ww... "shaking like a hooker in church"?
Does the tail hook drop due to aero-buffet?
Is that some kind of Mach crit' booty call?
Sm, yeah, F4U had the goods on the Grumman kitty-cats hustle-wise
& the USN sure got busy with F4U CV ops - when the Divine Wind blew in..
-
That does not compute.. 570 IAS in a F4U is virtually tie fighter fantasy..
So you have nothing to offer but your imagination.
-
Virtually.. hilarious..
& what do you post 'cept a downer-type running commentary?
Are you Brad Pitt, & have a nice real Spit to jazz about in - in real life?
-
I performed a terminal velocity dive from 30,000 feet. Below is a screen shot as the F4U-1A was near 13,000 feet. Note the TAS and the IAS. The Corsair was completely locked up, shaking like a hooker in church.. I had just pulled off power to idle and was about you use trim to induce a gentle pitch-up as the Mach dropped. The F4U has limited maneuverability at 545 mph TAS. At 555 mph TAS at sea level, it has very little control in any axis.
(http://www.mediafire.com/convkey/528e/4e4defemxwd5gu5fg.jpg)
:airplane: I guess that is the difference in your computer and mine! I have been back up again to verify what I saw the first time I dove the F4U1C when trying to outrun the !A and again, my a/s indicator showed, as best I can tell, since there are no markings above 500, and again considerable distance above 500 and no, did not think to try any turns, but, yes it was in compressability mode, but not uncontrollable as far as recovering, with out using trim.
I sure didn't mean to start this big discussion guys, was just recalling what happened to me on short final over water, with 3 kills, guy running me down and me with no ammo, the 1A hitting a tree or hill, go though all that and get toasted by a PT boat that I had no idea was around.
Tell you what! Next time you see me on, in Rook country, ET37, give me a call on 171vox and I will take up a F4U1C, you can click on join and we will go do it together!
Been watching this discussion to see if someone can explain how the outer wing panels on the "hogs" were fabric covered! Was the fabric over plywood, metal or what?
-
The structural frame was all metal.
-
Yeah, the F4U featured other 'different' structural features, welded in part, rather than riveted,
& that strange gull wing..
Sm, do you know if the late production Corsairs went all metal, skin-wise?
-
The F4U-1C/D went to metal over more of the lower wing surfaces, though the upper wing remained the same. I'm pretty sure that beginning with the F4U-4 they went to an all-metal skin, and eliminated the fabric altogether.
The F4U-4 also removed that metal bit above the pilot's head except for the very first handful (even most of those that saw action in WWII removed it). Wish it would go away on our F4U-4 (among other Corsair wishes, like having the center rack on the 1D, and the ability to launch as a "land-based" FG-1/A/D without the excess weight of the tail hook and wing folding equipment).
-
Earl if you use the E6b on the clipboard you'll see IAS and TAS. If you film you'll see speed in the film viewer.
-
Earl if you use the E6b on the clipboard you'll see IAS and TAS. If you film you'll see speed in the film viewer.
:airplane: Correct sir, but as I have said before, I am a computer "dumbie" and can't figure out how to transfere my screen shots to pictures folder, where I could take a screen shot or video and of course, use them with posts in the forum. Any help would be appreciated guys on how to do this!
-
:airplane: Correct sir, but as I have said before, I am a computer "dumbie" and can't figure out how to transfere my screen shots to pictures folder, where I could take a screen shot or video and of course, use them with posts in the forum. Any help would be appreciated guys on how to do this!
You take screen shots with Alt S (hold down Alt and hit S). This creates a bitmap image in the scrshot folder inside the Aces High folder (which is found on your hard drive in the Hitech Creations folder). From there, you can open the image with any appropriate software and crop or resize as you wish. You can create free account on something like Photobucket or Mediafire. You upload the image and copy its URL. On the forum, you click on the insert image button and paste the URL where the cursor is blinking (just hit Ctrl V). You can add text above and/or below the image. When you click "post", the image will appear in your post.
-
I believe the default mapping is Alt+S
And you can drag and drop the screen shots from the aces high folder to anywhere else or upload then directly to photobucket from there as well.
-
You take screen shots with Ctrl S (hold down Ctrl and hit S). This creates a bitmap image in the scrshot folder inside the Aces High folder (which is found on your hard drive in the Hitech Creations folder). From there, you can open the image with any appropriate software and crop or resize as you wish. You can create free account on something like Photobucket or Mediafire. You upload the image and copy its URL. On the forum, you click on the insert image button and paste the URL where the cursor is blinking (just hit Ctrl V). You can add text above and/or below the image. When you click "post", the image will appear in your post.
IT is "ALT S" for a screen shot, CNTRL S turns squad highlite on and off.
-
IT is "ALT S" for a screen shot, CNTRL S turns squad highlite on and off.
Fixed.... I know this too.... :uhoh
-
Tommy Blackburn, CO of VF-17 said in mid-February of 1943 there was one new F4U-1 Corsair fighter ready for delivery at Floyd Bennett Field, New York and he picked it up.
VF-12 completed carrier qual by April of 1943. Two months after Blackburn picked up the F4U-1.
Starting May 1, 1943, VF-17 landed F4U-1's and eventually all pilots got their five traps. VF-17 deployed aboard Bunker Hill with new F4U-1A's from the factory September 10 of '43.
So, VF-12 and VF-17 successfully completed carrier qual with F4U-1's by April of 1943, a few months after the first F4U-1 was picked up from Vought. The Royal Navy/FAA didn't even get their F4U-1s until November of 1943. Seems the USN somehow figured out F4U-1 carrier ops prior to the FAA even getting their airplanes.
Further, VF-12 and VF-17 qualified aboard Charger, an older, slower converted passenger liner. Most of Blackburn’s pilots had never landed aboard any carrier before; they were grass-green. From Blackburn's book:
“Moreover, Charger hardly qualified as a carrier; that spitkit rarely produced the 25 knots of relative wind over her flight deck that was considered the standard minimum for safe landing operations.”
VF-17 deployed aboard Bunker Hill (Essex class) with new F4U-1A's from the factory September 10 of '43.
From Blackburn's book:
The trip to the West Coast was uneventful, and they sortied from San Diego on September 28.
But a few days out, official lightning struck. VF-17 was detached from Bunker Hill, and ordered to the island of Espiritu Santo, to operate as a land-based squadron. The problem was one of logistics, not of operations. The high command knew that Blackburn's Corsairs could operate from a carrier. But as the only Corsair squadron in a Navy full of Grumman Hellcats and Wildcats, supplying and maintaining them would be a headache.
It really doesn't appear that the USN had any trouble developing carrier landing procedures for the F4U-1. It appears the reason for the land basing was, as previously mentioned, just a logistical solution to a problem of a mixed fighter fleet on carriers.
-
You take screen shots with Alt S (hold down Alt and hit S). This creates a bitmap image in the scrshot folder inside the Aces High folder (which is found on your hard drive in the Hitech Creations folder). From there, you can open the image with any appropriate software and crop or resize as you wish. You can create free account on something like Photobucket or Mediafire. You upload the image and copy its URL. On the forum, you click on the insert image button and paste the URL where the cursor is blinking (just hit Ctrl V). You can add text above and/or below the image. When you click "post", the image will appear in your post.
:salute Thanks for tips guys! I knew how to screen shot and knew where they were in AH folder, but I have been trying to transfere from that folder to personal pictures, where I would then use Photo bucket to post in the forum. I also know how to use the image link for posting in here and have been doing that, but I now have a new question: Can I "drag" the screen shot I want to use to "my pictures" folder with out having to convert from bmap?
-
:salute Thanks for tips guys! I knew how to screen shot and knew where they were in AH folder, but I have been trying to transfere from that folder to personal pictures, where I would then use Photo bucket to post in the forum. I also know how to use the image link for posting in here and have been doing that, but I now have a new question: Can I "drag" the screen shot I want to use to "my pictures" folder with out having to convert from bmap?
Yes you can, the problem is that bmp files are pretty big. If you upload a bmp to photobucket I think it changes and saves it as a jpeg file which is a much smaller file format of the same picture. Also, due to size you aren't allowed to post bmp pictures on the boards.
So in short, sure you can just drag them to your picture folder, just be aware they take up a lot of room.
Uploading in most cases it will have to be changed either by you with a picture program, or to a site like photobucket that changes them automatically.
To post a picture here you have to store the picture some place on the web and add the link to that picture to the "post image" code you get when you click the post image button.
Here's a tutorial on how to post pictures http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,327528.0.html