Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: 327thBS on June 14, 2003, 02:25:18 PM
-
F4U-5N,F3A-1,XF4U-3B well can any tell me wit what the F4U-5N and F3A-1 was made for ?????????:confused:
-
All I know is F4U-5N is a night fighter and I never heard F3A-1.
-
why is the F4U-5N a night fiter and not a day fiter ??
-
The N stand for night fighter so the F4U-5 is the day fighter and the F4U-5N the night version ...
after a little seacrh on the net
The F3 were made by brewster like the FG were made by Goodyear
-
I can't explain everything about Chance Vought F4U Corsair and I found this link that you might like to know about.
http://www.aviation-history.com/vought/f4u.html
-
Variant List:
F4U-1B Designation given to aircraft supplied to UK.
F4U-1C Version with four 20mm cannon in place of wing armament.
F4U-1D Version with R-2800-8W engine and revised armament (also built by Brewster as the F3A-1D and by Goodyear as the FG-1D)
F4U-1P Photo Recon variant
F4U-2 Night fighter variant.
F4U-3 Very high altitude prototype. 13 built by Goodyear as the FG-3 and used by the U.S. Navy for research flights.
F4U-4 Second major variant. Equiped with either R-2800-18W or R-2800-42W powerplants
F4U-4C Version with four 20mm cannon in place of wing armament.
F4U-4E Night fighter variant with APS-3 AI Radar.
F4U-4N Night fighter variant with APS-5 or APS-6 AI Radar.
F4U-4P Photo Recon variant.
F4U-5 Post-WWII Fighter bomber variant with R-2800-32W powerplant.
F4U-5N Night fighter variant of F4U-5.
F4U-5P Tactical recon variant.
XF4U-6 Low-Altitude prototype with R-2800-83W engine with additional armor and weapons stores capabilty. 110 built under designation AU-1
F4U-7 Final production variant based on AU-1 but with R-2800-18W, total of 90 built and supplied French Aeronavale through MAP.
Corsair Mk. I Fleet Air Arm designation of F4U-1.
Corsair Mk. II Fleet Air Arm designation of F4U-1A.
Corsair Mk. III Fleet Air Arm designation of F3A-1D.
Corsair Mk. IV Fleet Air Arm designation of FG-1D.
http://www.warbirdsresourcegroup.org/NARG/corsair.html
-
thats interesting. Never knew there were so many f4u's. I am learning so much about aircraft from AH.
-
Using F4U-1C can shoot down the plane easily and it has cannon. :D
-
The F3A-1 was a F4U-1 license built by Brewster A/C.
Two very interesting facts about this.
1. Brewster holds the distinction of being the only A/C manufacture to actually go out of business during WW2.
2. Virtually all of the F3A-1 manufactured were delivered to the British. Amount these were the clipped wing varient and the "double clipped wing" which was a wing reduced even more the the standard 18" off of each wing.
The F4U-5, -5N, -5P and -5NL were all varients of the fastest production version of the F4U ever built. This varient could outclimb a Spit XIV. Quite the Hog.
-
Originally posted by 327thBS
why is the F4U-5N a night fiter and not a day fiter ??
Cuz they used it to take off and fly around and night.
-
I found this picture and this is what F4U-5N look like
(http://www.strictlyscale.com/EarlsF4U.jpg)
-
Anybody know what was the differance between the F4U-1 (Corsair Mk. I) and the F4U-1A (Corsair Mk. II) ?
Thanks
-
anyone know how the clipped wing RNAS Corsair performance differed from the standard Corsair?
Im guessing its similar to the clipped wing spits where low altitude performance and roll rate is better?
F4U-1A or Mk.II had the bulged canopy
-
Turns out my "nephew in law"(father in laws uncle)...flew hogs primarily the -5 in Korea...he did see action in WW2 and had 2 1/2 kills in an earlier hog...think the 1D. Anyway basically said the D out performed the pony hands down and the -4 & -5 were much better still. Only thing out there was better was the the F-8 (by a wide margin)...also mentioned the F-7...but didnt get the feeling he ever was up close and personal with one...he actually had 40 hrs or so in bearcat (non combat). Did 151 total "combat sorties" between the two wars...but apparently very little actual combat...maybe 10-12 sorties in WW2...never saw an enemy plane up close in Korea (lot of contrails up high). Never been in a plane since (as a pilot)...amazed he could just walk away and never give it another thought.
-
Originally posted by ViFF
Anybody know what was the differance between the F4U-1 (Corsair Mk. I) and the F4U-1A (Corsair Mk. II) ?
Thanks
If I remember correctly the difference between the -1 and -1A is the oleos for the landing gear and an addition to the wing. While it was sufficient for landing on the carrier the -1 bounced a bit to much and stalled really quickly at low speeds under 90 mph and the right wing dropped quickly. Also the canopy on the -1 was the "birdcage".
The -1A had a "rounded" canopy but this actually started with some -1 aircraft (it has been said from the 759th aircraft onward) and the seat was raised ~ 7 inches (18cm) for better forward visibility. I think a different oleo that allowed better control with the landing and had a wing strip added to all better low speed control and correction of the stall that was encountered on both take off and landing.
-
Originally posted by Furball
anyone know how the clipped wing RNAS Corsair performance differed from the standard Corsair?
Im guessing its similar to the clipped wing spits where low altitude performance and roll rate is better?
F4U-1A or Mk.II had the bulged canopy
I am sure the performance between the two was different, but I would suspect that it was almost neglible. The amount clipped off the Corsair was much less than what was clipped on the Spit.
I believe it was clipped so it could fit in the hangar deck, not for any performance reasons.
Also, I would like to add that I could be wrong (not the first time nor the last I am sure). Seeing as the only decent naval fighter produced was the F6F, I don't know why you guys would even care about the plane with the crazy wings.
-
Originally posted by Mathman
[B Seeing as the only decent naval fighter produced was the F6F, I don't know why you guys would even care about the plane with the crazy wings. [/B]
hmmmmm, possibly a little bias here, math?
-
Originally posted by Reschke
If I remember correctly the difference between the -1 and -1A is the oleos for the landing gear and an addition to the wing. While it was sufficient for landing on the carrier the -1 bounced a bit to much and stalled really quickly at low speeds under 90 mph and the right wing dropped quickly. Also the canopy on the -1 was the "birdcage".
The -1A had a "rounded" canopy but this actually started with some -1 aircraft (it has been said from the 759th aircraft onward) and the seat was raised ~ 7 inches (18cm) for better forward visibility. I think a different oleo that allowed better control with the landing and had a wing strip added to all better low speed control and correction of the stall that was encountered on both take off and landing.
Don't forget the improved cowling actuators that didn't spray fluid all over the windscreen. And the modified tailhooks that wouldn't catch on the steel supports under the new wood decks resulting in popping off the hookend and the plane tipping forward and demolishing itself.
Things that can't yet be modeled in the game. This is probably a very good thing. :D
-
Originally posted by Mathman
Seeing as the only decent naval fighter produced was the F6F, I don't know why you guys would even care about the plane with the crazy wings.
A total mystery as to why the Navy retained the F4U and not the F6F, eh? (Or the Bearcat's short life, for that matter) Total mystery. ;)
-
Originally posted by humble
Turns out my "nephew in law"(father in laws uncle)...flew hogs primarily the -5 in Korea...
Back in high school, I had a math teacher named Dr. Pepper (no joke) that flew Corsairs in WW2 with the Blacksheep squadron and later on during Korea was reactivated and flew the Super Corsair and was the wingman for the Super Corsair pilot that shot down a MiG and was given partial credit for the kill.
Ack-Ack
-
Originally posted by Arlo
A total mystery as to why the Navy retained the F4U and not the F6F, eh? (Or the Bearcat's short life, for that matter) Total mystery. ;)
Thats true! why even bother making the sea fury or even F/A-18's?! ;)
-
Ack, Ack,
That was a F4U-4 that shot down the Mig-15 not the F2G (Super Corsair).
Arlo,
Many people don't realize that only the first 800 F4U's built were real F4U-1's. After Aug, 1943 they were all manufactured and retrofitted with new tail hooks, oleo struts, cowl flaps sealed to prevent oil on windshield, spoiler strip to reduce stall, elevators reenforced for high speed dives, boost tabs on ailerons etc.
Read my sig on the bottom. Tommy Blackburn VF-17 Jolly Rogers thought that it was logistics not performance that kept the hog off carrier decks for so long.
-
I read an article somewhere that the F4U was one of the most comfortable fighters to fly in as far as stick forces are concerned. The controls were very well harmonized, better then in the P-47 and much better then the P-51.
-
Viff,
I have a report that was done on the F6F, P-51D, P-47D and F4U-1D. It states that the F4U stick forces were almost too light. The P-47s were good but the P-51 was almost 20lbs per G pulled. The F6F also had rudder force issues that could not be overcome even with full trim.
In another report the 1944 Joint Fighter Conferance the F4U-1D was rated #1 for best harmonazation of controls.
These types of things are impossible to model in AH but were huge factors in actual A2A combat.
One area that the P-51 was superior was the ease of engine mangement becuase of many automatic features. The FW190 also benifited from this.
-
Originally posted by F4UDOA
Arlo,
Many people don't realize that only the first 800 F4U's built were real F4U-1's. After Aug, 1943 they were all manufactured and retrofitted with new tail hooks, oleo struts, cowl flaps sealed to prevent oil on windshield, spoiler strip to reduce stall, elevators reenforced for high speed dives, boost tabs on ailerons etc.
Read my sig on the bottom. Tommy Blackburn VF-17 Jolly Rogers thought that it was logistics not performance that kept the hog off carrier decks for so long.
I have the book you're quoting from, DOA. :D
"Toward the end of the shakedown, Cdr Bags Bagdonovich and I were summoned to Captain Ballentine's sea cabin. Grave-faced, Bally showed us a dispatch from ComAirLant which offered to replace our troubleprone Hogs with new Grumman F6F Hellcat fighters. The question was whether we three felt comfortable deploying to the Pacific foward area in a fighter that many thought had not been suitably designed for carrier work. The dispatch indicated that we needed to make an immediate decision so the new Hellcats could be ready and waiting for Fighting-17 as soon as we returned to Norfolk.
The query was not unexpected. Vought had been heaving around to get numerous needed changes into the production line. These included, among many others, raising the cockpit, providing a semi-bubble canopy, perfecting zero-bounce oleo struts - shock absorbers - finding ways to get the tail higher in the three point attitude, perfecting and installing our homegrown right-wing leading-edge spoiler, perfecting non-spray cowl flap actuators, and on and on. Russ Clark, the boss of the Vought civilian crew onboard the ship, had kept messages flying to the factory with problem identifications and recommended solutions. The company clearly saw what was at stake, so promised, scout's honor, to have not less than a dozen F4U-1As waiting fur us dockside at Norfolk upon our return on August 10. The balance of the thirty-six fighters allowed the squadron would be in our hands, they swore, by August 20.
Bags, who had not troubled himself to keep abreast of our difficulties, begged the question. I had spent a great deal of time on the bridge observing flight ops and thus had had many opportunities to talk to the captain. I knew him pretty well and he knew me. Above all, I knew that he kept himself well informed and was decisive to boot. He clearly expected the same from his subordinates, so Bags's waffling didn't sit too well. At length, Bally got fed up and turned to me. "Well, Tommy?"
I had done my homework. "We both know that Captain Eddie [Clexton, the Airlant material officer] is no dummy, that he has a real handle on the validity of Vought's replacement schedule. He concurs with you and me that the Hogs we have aboard are by no stretch of the imagination carrier ready. So he's telling Admiral Bellinger, "We can go either way. If Ballentine figures the better performance of the Corsair justifies the risks and operational nightmares, I recommend we go along. He knows he'll have to live with them."
Bally was all ears. He merely nodded into my break, so I went on. "What you're asking me is, do I believe these fixes for the Corsair are going to give us a combat-ready airplane. Right?"
"Skipper, I'm so convinced, and so are my pilots, that I recommend in the strongest terms that we go forward with the Corsairs. Fighting-17 could make the switch to the F6Fs without even breathing hard. But we believe that that would be a cop-out and a serious mistake. The F4U is the better combat airplane."
Bally smiled. "I expected that answer, but not put in such positive terms."
"Captain, we'll be doing a lot of operating during the trip from Norfolk to San Diego. In addition to the crack-ups we've had, we've averaged one blown tire in every three landings. I'll bet you ten bucks that we'll not only have zero crashes, but we wont even blow ten main mounts on the jaunt to San Diego - provided, of course, we're not demoted to the Hellcat."
You've got a bet, Tommy. I'll tell ComAirLant that the Bunker Hill strongly recommends deployment with the F4U."
The Jolly Rogers[/b] Tom Blackburn pg. 89-91