Aces High Bulletin Board

General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: Saxman on July 07, 2017, 05:25:42 PM

Title: F4F-3
Post by: Saxman on July 07, 2017, 05:25:42 PM
So with the Wildcats being remodeled, what about adding the F4F-3? And before anyone says it: An F4F-4 with the four-gun package is NOT an F4F-3.

The -3 was faster by about 20 mph, had a superior rate of climb, better acceleration, was lighter, had longer internal fuel range, and was more maneuverable. In fact most pilots hated the -4s and wanted their -3s back (Thach in particular was critical of the -4). Most of the Marine squadrons flew the -3 until they received their Corsairs, and it was the most representative type on Guadalcanal.

I'd say that the presence of the F4U-1A alongside the -1, which have a similar disparity in performance, justifies the addition of the -3.
Title: Re: F4F-3
Post by: Ack-Ack on July 07, 2017, 05:33:01 PM
Which F4F-3? The base model or the 3A with the 1200hp Pratt & Whitney engine with the single-stage two-speed supercharger?
Title: Re: F4F-3
Post by: Saxman on July 07, 2017, 05:48:55 PM
I'd use the standard -3. The -3A wasn't produced in particularly large numbers, and the only real difference was improved range at the expense of high-altitude performance.
Title: Re: F4F-3
Post by: Owlblink on July 07, 2017, 06:14:02 PM
+1

Though I can see how some will argue "just use the FM2."
Title: Re: F4F-3
Post by: Ack-Ack on July 07, 2017, 06:18:32 PM
+1

Though I can see how some will argue "just use the FM2."

The FM-2 is basically an updated F4F-4 that was built by Goodyear instead of Grumman.
Title: Re: F4F-3
Post by: ONTOS on July 07, 2017, 06:34:21 PM
+1 for the -3
Title: Re: F4F-3
Post by: Saxman on July 07, 2017, 06:41:54 PM
The FM-2 is basically an updated F4F-4 that was built by Goodyear instead of Grumman.

If you want to get technical I believe the FM-2 was an F4F-8.
Title: Re: F4F-3
Post by: caldera on July 08, 2017, 09:11:46 AM
+1   
Title: Re: F4F-3
Post by: Saxman on July 08, 2017, 09:26:04 AM
If you want to get technical I believe the FM-2 was an F4F-8.

Also, it was built by General Motors. Goodyear's manufacturer code was G.
Title: Re: F4F-3
Post by: Greebo on July 08, 2017, 10:12:25 AM
There is no separate F4F-3 model being planned as far as I know. If HTC give us a four gun option with the F4F-4, it is a question of whether it will represent an F4F-3 or an FM-1, the main difference being the FM-1 had the heavy folding wings and the F4F-3 didn't.

I'd have thought HTC could just adjust the weight of the four gun package to represent not having the folding mechanism. However I seem to recall some of the extra weight added to the F4F-4/FM-1 was armour and I'm not sure if the protection of this armour could be removed along with the weight of an F4F-3 gun package.
Title: Re: F4F-3
Post by: Saxman on July 08, 2017, 11:04:09 AM
There is no separate F4F-3 model being planned as far as I know. If HTC give us a four gun option with the F4F-4, it is a question of whether it will represent an F4F-3 or an FM-1, the main difference being the FM-1 had the heavy folding wings and the F4F-3 didn't.

I'd have thought HTC could just adjust the weight of the four gun package to represent not having the folding mechanism. However I seem to recall some of the extra weight added to the F4F-4/FM-1 was armour and I'm not sure if the protection of this armour could be removed along with the weight of an F4F-3 gun package.

There really is no question. The performance disparity between the two is great enough that a four gun F4F-4 would be an FM-1.
Title: Re: F4F-3
Post by: trap78 on July 09, 2017, 10:38:02 AM
+1 for the F4F-3. A very good addition to the early war plane set.
Title: Re: F4F-3
Post by: Devil 505 on July 09, 2017, 12:12:40 PM
I'going to give this a big

-1


For no other reason than that the with the 110 update there was a perfect opportunity to add the 110F - which is much more needed for events than the F4F-3.

No 110F, no F4F-3
Title: Re: F4F-3
Post by: Saxman on July 09, 2017, 01:56:19 PM
I'going to give this a big

-1


For no other reason than that the with the 110 update there was a perfect opportunity to add the 110F - which is much more needed for events than the F4F-3.

No 110F, no F4F-3

Someone sounds bitter. ;-)
Title: Re: F4F-3
Post by: Devil 505 on July 09, 2017, 02:16:15 PM
Not bitter, Saxman. I'm just pointing out that new variants of planes being updated are already being passed over. Now should a F4F-3 be added with the Wildcat update, then I'd be very bitter.
Title: Re: F4F-3
Post by: pangea on July 10, 2017, 07:51:36 AM
+1
Title: Re: F4F-3
Post by: whiteman on July 10, 2017, 11:33:09 PM
+1, not having it included because another aircraft doesn't have a variant is lame reasoning.
Title: Re: F4F-3
Post by: lunatic1 on July 11, 2017, 07:09:22 AM
planes are in this game--specs, service record? it must have have certain number built number used time and quantity use in combat
Title: Re: F4F-3
Post by: Greebo on July 11, 2017, 08:19:39 AM
Its been a while since HTC added a new variant to an updated shape, IIRC the Yak-7 and 3 and the Sea Hurricane were the last. There was a big gap while AH3 was developed but since then we could have had a Ki-100 as well as the Bf-110F and the F4F-3 (assuming that's not going to be an F4F-4 hangar option). I don't think it has anything to do with numbers deployed either since we do already have the limited-use Ta-152, Me-163 and Wirblewind. The Ki-100 would have needed a little extra art and model work than the other two but way less work than a new ride.

Not sure why this is, perhaps the number of rides in the MA is becoming a resource/FPS hog and HTC are wary of adding too many more?
Title: Re: F4F-3
Post by: Squire on July 11, 2017, 07:04:38 PM
Quote
The -3 was faster by about 20 mph

I'm skeptical about that.
Title: Re: F4F-3
Post by: Slade on July 22, 2017, 07:20:47 AM
+1 for the -3
Title: Re: F4F-3
Post by: caldera on July 23, 2017, 07:06:02 AM
Its been a while since HTC added a new variant to an updated shape, IIRC the Yak-7 and 3 and the Sea Hurricane were the last. There was a big gap while AH3 was developed but since then we could have had a Ki-100 as well as the Bf-110F and the F4F-3 (assuming that's not going to be an F4F-4 hangar option). I don't think it has anything to do with numbers deployed either since we do already have the limited-use Ta-152, Me-163 and Wirblewind. The Ki-100 would have needed a little extra art and model work than the other two but way less work than a new ride.

Not sure why this is, perhaps the number of rides in the MA is becoming a resource/FPS hog and HTC are wary of adding too many more?

Wouldn't the number of planes/skin variants in the air at any one time determine that?  Already impossible to have every plane and skin we have in the air simultaneously.  Why would having more variants/skins in the hangar change that?  Not being a smartass (for once), honest question.
Title: Re: F4F-3
Post by: Greebo on July 23, 2017, 10:16:17 AM
I don't know how more rides would be a resource problem in-game, was just throwing the idea out there. It does of course increase the game's download size, but probably not by much relative to the whole game.
Title: Re: F4F-3
Post by: caldera on July 23, 2017, 11:37:09 AM
A new plane introduced a few times a year breathes a little life into the game.  Hopefully that practice resumes - and soon. 
Title: Re: F4F-3
Post by: pangea on July 24, 2017, 07:28:31 AM
A new plane introduced a few times a year breathes a little life into the game.  Hopefully that practice resumes - and soon.
This...
Title: Re: F4F-3
Post by: RODBUSTR on July 25, 2017, 10:09:59 PM
The FM2 was built by General Motors not Goodyear.
Title: Re: F4F-3
Post by: EskimoJoe on July 28, 2017, 12:21:11 PM
A new plane introduced a few times a year breathes a little life into the game.  Hopefully that practice resumes - and soon.

I feel that it will, once all of the AH-1 / early AH-2 models are updated to the current standard
Title: Re: F4F-3
Post by: BBP on July 30, 2017, 12:33:03 AM
+1 and got a link?