PDA

View Full Version : F4U Corsair: a serious contender



GK.
04-16-2004, 11:12 PM
I guess its no mystery what side I will spend the majority of the time flying for. The only plane I can honestly say I will fear is the f4u.

12,681 produced
417mph max speed @ 19,900 feet
6 50cal mgs with 341 rounds
range of 1,015 miles

An interesting fact about the corsair is that it flew a total of 64,051 missions, downed 2,140 planes and only 189 corsairs were lost. It is a ratio unmatched in the history of air warfare.

It was also the first american fighter to break the 400mph barrier.

Fortunately for me, it became operational on feb 13, 1943, used by the marine corp in Guadalcanal. This is also where and when the George first saw combat (guadalcanal) around the same time. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

http://data.photodump.com/gk/shidensig.jpg
*Proud Chute Shooter*

GK.
04-16-2004, 11:12 PM
I guess its no mystery what side I will spend the majority of the time flying for. The only plane I can honestly say I will fear is the f4u.

12,681 produced
417mph max speed @ 19,900 feet
6 50cal mgs with 341 rounds
range of 1,015 miles

An interesting fact about the corsair is that it flew a total of 64,051 missions, downed 2,140 planes and only 189 corsairs were lost. It is a ratio unmatched in the history of air warfare.

It was also the first american fighter to break the 400mph barrier.

Fortunately for me, it became operational on feb 13, 1943, used by the marine corp in Guadalcanal. This is also where and when the George first saw combat (guadalcanal) around the same time. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

http://data.photodump.com/gk/shidensig.jpg
*Proud Chute Shooter*

Rudee37
04-16-2004, 11:42 PM
The Chance-Vought F4U Corsair was the first single engine American figher which challenged the zero. Having read over a dozen books on the air war in the Pacific, I can tell you that the F4U was plagued with chronic fuel leaks from it's cowl seams. Many photos of the F4U taken during the Pacific campaign often show duct-taped cowl seams to stop the fuel leaks. Not only that, but it was a extremely high-maintenance aircraft which required more maintenance per man hour than any other American figher in the theatre. Hydraulic lines constantly blew on them, and landing gear often collapsed during landing. The collapse of the gear was often a result of heavy landings with the tail up as opposed to the recommended three-point landing. (low angle of attack "tail up" landings were done to improve visibility over the Corsairs long nose).

The most bothersome design flaw of the F4U Corsair was a result of an earlier modification in which Engineers located the cockpit three feet further aft so that a huge 232 gallon fuel tank could be installed behind the engine. It ended up creating a cylindrical nose measuring 14 feet from the pilot to the prop. This was definitely not a fun aircraft to roll down the runway with, because you couldn't see over the cowl. What the F4U had going for it was it's incredible roll rate and speed in the dive.

As far as the Japanese were concerned, it wasn't until the F6F Hellcat appeared during the Gilberts campaign that the Japanese realized that the zero was no longer the best performing fighter. Of all the various US aircraft the Japanese encountered in the Pacific, the Hellcat was the only figher that could surpass the zero in a fighter-vs-fighte dog fight. For me personally, I will be mastering the Hellcat figher, and I will look forward to battling you in the virtual skies.

For a good read, I recommend Bruce Gamble's book entitled "The Black Sheep" The Definitive Account of Maring Fighting Squadron 214 in WWII. (Pappy Boyington's squadron)
Regards,

chris455
04-16-2004, 11:47 PM
Only four prototypes existed Of the Shiden in July of '43.
It didn't see combat over Guadalcanal by a country mile.
It wasn't even "in service" until early 1944.

Source:
http://www.air-navy.com/shiden.htm

The Corsair, on the other hand was first received by the Navy in July of 1942
This is almost a year and a half earlier than the the Shiden's debut into frontline (squadron) service.
The Corsair saw plenty of action over Guadalcanal. The Japanese had nothing that could match it's performance at the time.

Source
http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/f4u.html

http://members.cox.net/miataman1/p47n2.jpg

[This message was edited by chris455 on Sat April 17 2004 at 12:30 AM.]

Geshausen
04-16-2004, 11:54 PM
I never heard about that Rudee. I guess it's good for the corsair(and just about anyone else) players that in sims we don't model random deficencies like faulty construction or the fuel leaks you speak of. I seriously hope there will be an lso of sorts because it was next to impossible to land a corsair on a carrier deck WITH one. Most of the landing they couldn't even see the deck with that big front end.

I can't wait for her though, shes my favorite plane of the war.

Imperial Studmuffin

All your yak are belong to us!

www.wtfiml33t.com (http://www.wtfiml33t.com)

Rudee37
04-16-2004, 11:58 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by chris455:

...The Corsair saw _plenty_ of action over Guadalcanal. The Japanese had nothing that could match it's performance at that time. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not neccessarily. The Zero was still the best performing aircraft, however, the Corsair's main advantage over the Zero was it's power in the dive, and the pilots used this to their advantage.

The Corsair's powerful Pratt & Whitney R-2800 Double Wasp super-charged engine with pistons the size of paint cans, allowed pilots to change tactics against the Zero to their advantage. They took advantage of this through attacking from a higher altitude and diving into the Zero formations with tremendous speed, getting off a quick burst, pulling up to altitude, then repeating... It was this high-altitude tactic of attack that the pilots adopted which made the Corsair one of the most feared allied aircraft at the time. Other powerful aircraft such as the P-38 used similar tactics to down the superior performing Zero. Remember, the Zero was designed to dog-fight, twisting and turning... These high-altitude passes made by Corsairs and P-38's were breakng the rules so-to-speak, according to the Japanese, as this kind of blind sided hit and run tactic was not what the Japanese thought to be a dog-fight. But it sure worked! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

[This message was edited by Rudee37 on Fri April 16 2004 at 11:07 PM.]

chris455
04-17-2004, 12:09 AM
Yessiree Rudee.
That's how the Corsair clawed so many hundreds of brave, but outmatched Japanese pilots from the skies over the Pacific.

But not only the Corsair used those tactics. The P-38 and P-47 used the same deadly vertical maneuvers to good effect throughout the latter half of the war. By the time the second generation of Japanese fighters came to the fray, only a handful of pilots skilled enough to take advantage of their new mounts still existed.

It was a sad, almost ignoble end for the once proud Imperial air arm. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

http://members.cox.net/miataman1/p47n2.jpg

luthier1
04-17-2004, 12:13 AM
I have a feeling it will be less than one hour between the product hitting the shelves and the first thread popping up here about the F4U being undermodeled, because somebody got shot down by a Zero in a dogfight and stood absolutely no chance.

Same for the F6F, especially since it's "been specifically designed to counter the Zero"

Oh God have mercy.

http://www.il2center.com/PF.jpg

Rudee37
04-17-2004, 12:20 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by luthier1:
I have a feeling it will be less than one hour between the product hitting the shelves and the first thread popping up here about the F4U being undermodeled, because somebody got shot down by a Zero in a dogfight and stood absolutely no chance.

Same for the F6F, especially since it's "been specifically designed to counter the Zero"

Oh God have mercy.

http://www.il2center.com/PF.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


So true.. so true..

chris455
04-17-2004, 12:21 AM
It won't be me, I'll be in my Jug.

Luthier,
I received the publication I sent away for,
"Japanese Landing Craft of WWII"
We were discussing this via e-mail a couple evenings ago.
It is a reprint of a publication of the US Naval Technical Mission to Japan, compiled immediately after the war.
It has a good 3 view technical drawing of the craft we discussed
Shall I scan and e-mail, or should I send you the book? Be happy to send it to you -
Chris

http://members.cox.net/miataman1/p47n2.jpg

[This message was edited by chris455 on Fri April 16 2004 at 11:32 PM.]

Rudee37
04-17-2004, 12:33 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Geshausen:
I seriously hope there will be an lso of sorts because it was next to impossible to land a corsair on a carrier deck WITH one. Most of the landing they couldn't even see the deck with that big front end.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Corsair was originally intended to be a Carrier born aircraft, however, it failed Carrier qualifications due to it's poor visibility and stall characteristics. The Corsair's enormous flaps made carrier landings very dangerous as spoiled airflow over the rudder made the required three-point landings next to impossible. From that point on, the Navy flew these primarily from land bases in the Solomons.

faustnik
04-17-2004, 12:35 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by luthier1:
I have a feeling it will be less than one hour between the product hitting the shelves and the first thread popping up here about the F4U being undermodeled, because somebody got shot down by a Zero in a dogfight and stood absolutely no chance.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

As long as it hits close to it's stated top speed, I'll be happy. I hate turning anyway.


It's funny that mechanical issues are mentioned associated with any American planes in the pacific (not that it wasn't true). It was the Japanese who had trouble keeping any more than a small percentage of their planes flying. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
www.7Jg77.com (http://www.7jg77.com)
CWoS FB forum. More Cheese, Less Whine. (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=25)

Geshausen
04-17-2004, 12:42 AM
If i'm not mistaken, the British did use Corsairs on carriers to good effect, which conviced the American navy to rethink its position. Toward the end of the war the Corsair took off and landed from USN carriers. The trick was making a long sliding loop onto the deck while watching the lso.

Imperial Studmuffin

All your yak are belong to us!

www.wtfiml33t.com (http://www.wtfiml33t.com)

Rudee37
04-17-2004, 12:58 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Geshausen:
If i'm not mistaken, the British did use Corsairs on carriers to good effect, which conviced the American navy to rethink its position. Toward the end of the war the Corsair took off and landed from USN carriers. The trick was making a long sliding loop onto the deck while watching the lso.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's pretty much how they did it. Due to poor forward visibility they would often swoop in low, flying parallel with the carrier, then make a sharp left banking turn, setting the bird down just over the trailing edge of the deck. The Corsair is a very torquee aircraft to be doing carrier ops in confined spaces. They had enough problems keeping them in a straight line on the land runways, let alone a crowded carrier deck.

Ruy Horta
04-17-2004, 12:59 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by GK.:
An interesting fact about the corsair is that it flew a total of 64,051 missions, downed 2,140 planes and only 189 corsairs were lost. It is a ratio unmatched in the history of air warfare.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

As with the Shiden you seem to be obsessed with claims http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

If you count the number of "combat missions" which were actually over empty ocean this percentage will rise, if you start adding the unknown cause losses and damaged beyond repair in "indian terrory" the percentage will rise. If you cut the claims (that is not accept 100% at face value), the score will drop.

The Corsair was a great a/c, I love her (!), but this score card is fixed http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Ruy Horta

Mr_Nakajima
04-17-2004, 01:50 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by luthier1:
I have a feeling it will be less than one hour between the product hitting the shelves and the first thread popping up here about the F4U being undermodeled, because somebody got shot down by a Zero in a dogfight and stood absolutely no chance.

Same for the F6F, especially since it's "been specifically designed to counter the Zero"

Oh God have mercy.

http://www.il2center.com/PF.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


LOL! It's true I'm afraid Luthier. There are a lot of people out there who assume that if you climb into a Corsair (or whatever) that you will automatically, AUTOMATICALLY achieve the same kill ratio as the real aircraft did. No need to be any good, use appropriate tactices or even appreciate the difference between a dogfight server or real life.

Geshausen
04-17-2004, 02:41 AM
There will always be people that won't take responsibility for there flying. You just don't turn with a Yak3 in a Fw-190! you aint going to have a chance unless the other pilot is having a seizure. I don't know how well the Corsair will handle in PF, but That doesnt matter as much to me. I prefer B&Z. So it will basically be a faster p-51 (gotta love those .50's!) By the way, Which Corsair models are we going to get?

Imperial Studmuffin

All your yak are belong to us!

www.wtfiml33t.com (http://www.wtfiml33t.com)

WUAF_Badsight
04-17-2004, 05:18 AM
the thing that holds American planes back IMO is that they are mainly equipped with .50cal MG's

they are MORE than adequate for A2A combat IRL

but in Computer sims its "one pass" cannons they are more highly favoured

of course , *ahem* , its also been showen that the .50cals in FB do have a tad more dispersion than other similer sized MG's (even at just 100m ! ! !)

for those who wonder about MG usefullness in A2A combat ....... lets see you get behind a metal plate while we fire heavy MG's at it (.50cals)

any takers ?

anyone at all ?

didnt think so

BlitzPig_DDT
04-17-2004, 07:26 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Rudee37:
It was this high-altitude tactic of attack that the pilots adopted which made the Corsair one of the most feared allied aircraft at the time.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I swear I remember reading a quote by Saburo Sakai that the Hellcat was the plane that got the respect of the Japanese aces.

From the AVG in P-40s, on through F4Fs up till the end of the war, all US planes were using speed and BnZ to take out the Japanese. Yet among all these planes, it was the F6F that stood out and earned the most respect of the Japanese Aces.

It also was exceedingly tough in all respects including landings. The USN asked Grumman to see what it would take to break them. Grumman proceeded to lift one on a hoist and drop it. They got up to 21ft, which was the height of the hangar, and dropped it.....it didn't break. But they had nothing higher to drop it from. A 21 foot static drop, and nothing broke.

The Hellcat pwnz j00 all, even that hose-nosed ensign-elimantor. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

==================================
The Blitz Pigs - Not a squad, a Movement!

Come and spam on our front porch.

http://www.blitzpigs.com

MetalG.
04-17-2004, 08:03 AM
Oh yea DDT, gotta love the Hellcat.
One of my favs as well from the Pacific.

FA_Maddog
04-17-2004, 08:37 AM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by luthier1:
I have a feeling it will be less than one hour between the product hitting the shelves and the first thread popping up here about the F4U being undermodeled, because somebody got shot down by a Zero in a dogfight and stood absolutely no chance.

Same for the F6F, especially since it's "been specifically designed to counter the Zero"

Oh God have mercy.

Just remember Luthier, it's 417 mph not 417 km/h. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Diablo310th
04-17-2004, 08:47 AM
Luthier......if it hasn't been said yet I will...I personally wanna thank you for being so active in these forums and keeping us informed. It's refreshing. Just give us plane FM's that as near historical as you you can. Like Chris455 I'll be in my Jug but I can't wait to fly the F6F too. Will we get the Hellcat model with the 20mm?

http://members.optusnet.com.au/tully_78th/legalsig.jpg

void74
04-17-2004, 09:14 AM
bump !In terms of maneuverability, all models of the Corsair were first rate. The F4U-4 was better than the F4U-1 series. Why? More power and better performance in the vertical regime. Very few fighters, even pure fighters such as the Yak-3 could hang with an -4 maneuvering in the vertical. Its terrific climbing ability combined with very light and sensitive controls made for a hard fighter to beat anytime the fight went vertical.

are there gona be more then one model?

Rudee37
04-17-2004, 12:05 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BlitzPig_DDT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Rudee37:
It was this high-altitude tactic of attack that the pilots adopted which made the Corsair one of the most feared allied aircraft at the time.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I swear I remember reading a quote by Saburo Sakai that the Hellcat was the plane that got the respect of the Japanese aces.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Hellcat definitely was the plane the Japanese feared the most. I mentioned this in my first post in this thread. And the P-40 did not use these diving tactics to the same extent as the F4U. The P40 had excellent diving characteristics, however, it was a very slow climbing aircraft, thus the diving maneuver was mostly used as an evasion tactic, not an offensive tactic to the levels it was used with the F4U.

[This message was edited by Rudee37 on Sat April 17 2004 at 11:16 AM.]

F19_Olli72
04-17-2004, 12:22 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by GK.:

An interesting fact about the corsair is that it flew a total of 64,051 missions, downed 2,140 planes and only 189 corsairs were lost. It is a ratio unmatched in the history of air warfare.

http://data.photodump.com/gk/shidensig.jpg
*Proud Chute Shooter*<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

'You is wrong' http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
If im not mistaken thats about a ratio of 1 to 11. The Finns had 19 Brewster losses for 496 kills. That equals a ratio of 1 to 26 http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

________________________________________________
www.screenshotart.com (http://www.screenshotart.com/) The place for screenshots.

GK.
04-17-2004, 12:43 PM
data comes from "World War II Airplanes volume 2"

http://data.photodump.com/gk/shidensig.jpg
*Proud Chute Shooter*

GK.
04-17-2004, 12:45 PM
It is my understanding that the hellcat flys similar to the jug. Sounds like easy pickings if not flown correctly. The f4u has roll rate, and speed going for it, it will be the fw190 of the pacific.

http://data.photodump.com/gk/shidensig.jpg
*Proud Chute Shooter*

luthier1
04-17-2004, 12:49 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by GK.:
data comes from "World War II Airplanes volume 2"<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It must not have been very thoroughly researched then.

http://www.il2center.com/PF.jpg

BlitzPig_DDT
04-17-2004, 12:58 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by GK.:
It is my understanding that the hellcat flys similar to the jug. Sounds like easy pickings if not flown correctly. The f4u has roll rate, and speed going for it, it will be the fw190 of the pacific.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Based on what?

The Hellcat had better powerloading and much better wing loading. (actually had the best wing loading of any US plane that saw combat in the war (IIRC))It'll accelerate better, and turn better, yet have the great dive manners characteristic to nearly all US planes of the era.

Once you start getting over 354kph or so, it starts to handle and turn better than the Zero. And that's not really all that fast, and it's well within it's speed range.

Further, it has much better vis over the nose than the Corsair for landing, take off, taxi, and most importantly, deflection shooting.

All wrapped up with basically the same survivability as the Jug.

==================================
The Blitz Pigs - Not a squad, a Movement!

Come and spam on our front porch.

http://www.blitzpigs.com

void74
04-17-2004, 12:59 PM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Olli72:

'You is wrong' http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
If im not mistaken thats about a ratio of 1 to 11. The Finns had 19 Brewster losses for 496 kills. That equals a ratio of 1 to 26 http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

_______________________________________________
no its 11 to 1 http://www.tgplanes.com/planfile.asp?idplane=38

VF-2_John_Banks
04-17-2004, 12:59 PM
This talk about the visibility over the nose in the F4U is rubbish! The view over the nose in the F4U wasn't worse than in any other taildragger plane, like the Mustang or P-47. And the reason why the Corsair failed to qualifiy for carrier ops, was not it's stall behavior, nor the visibility, but the shock absorbers, which where too stiff and caused the plane to bounce around the deck, as well as the tail wheel, which was too short. Chance Vought made the shock absorbers "softer" and the tail wheel a bit longer and the Corasir was as easy to land on a carrier as any other US naval plane.
About the visibility on approach. Due to the lack of the forward visibility in tail dragger planes, WW2 plane never did any straight carrier approaches, but flew a circle anti clockwise around the carrier and when they reached the rear or the carrier, they made a left turn onto the deck to be able to see the LSO. They leveled out just short before touch down. And that was not invented due to the F4U lol.

chris455
04-17-2004, 01:03 PM
Are you guys starting to get the impression that somebody around here likes being used as a human Pinata?
(I won't mention any names; but you might guess his initials! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif)

http://members.cox.net/miataman1/p47n2.jpg

Rudee37
04-17-2004, 01:11 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by GK.:
It is my understanding that the hellcat flys similar to the jug. Sounds like easy pickings if not flown correctly. The f4u has roll rate, and speed going for it, it will be the fw190 of the pacific.

http://data.photodump.com/gk/shidensig.jpg
*Proud Chute Shooter*<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Hellcat was based around the same Pratt & Whitney "double-wasp" radial engine that was used in the Corsair. It's design was affected from careful examination of a Zero fighter that was captured in the Aleutians in the spring of '42. They basically engineered the aircraft using the philosophy of weight-saving, which the Japanese employed with the Zero fighter. The Hellcat was superior to the Zero in every respect but maneuverablity and fuel range. It could outclimb, outdive, it could fly at higher altitudes, and was well protected with armor plating and self-sealing fuel tanks. Unlike any other American fighter, the Hellcat carried a greater load of ammunition due the reduction in it's overall weight. The Hellcat was the only plane of which the design was undertaken after the Pearl Harbor attack, then went into production specifically for the Pacific theatre. When production ceased at the end of 1945, over ten thousand Hellcats had rolled of the assembly lines.

BlitzPig_DDT
04-17-2004, 01:19 PM
IIRC, Grumman was working on a successor to the Wildcat before the Aleutian Zero was snagged. The idea that it was designed specifically to counter the zero based on a captured example seems to be a persisting myth. Much like the idea that the F-K 109s had "cement encased" stick pressures at higher speeds (when in fact it was little (if any) worse than the P-51, which all pilots referred to as "a true 2-hander", something we all like to conventiently forget).

The Zero was also only a better turner at slow speeds. And the Hellcat was no slouch in the turn, at all.

Either way, it r0x0rz! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

==================================
The Blitz Pigs - Not a squad, a Movement!

Come and spam on our front porch.

http://www.blitzpigs.com

F19_Olli72
04-17-2004, 01:22 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by void74:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Olli72:

'You is wrong' http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
If im not mistaken thats about a ratio of 1 to 11. The Finns had 19 Brewster losses for 496 kills. That equals a ratio of 1 to 26 http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

_______________________________________________
no its 11 to 1 http://www.tgplanes.com/planfile.asp?idplane=38<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Exuse my noobiness, but cant you write loss/victory ratio instead of victory/loss ratio? Just wondering....

________________________________________________
www.screenshotart.com (http://www.screenshotart.com/) The place for screenshots.

Rudee37
04-17-2004, 01:23 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VF-2_John_Banks:
This talk about the visibility over the nose in the F4U is rubbish! The view over the nose in the F4U wasn't worse than in any other taildragger plane, like the Mustang or P-47.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Rubbish? I can quote Corsair pilots of many books which I read on the subject, in which they clearly state their opinions of the Corsair, specifically, it's best and worst features. The high angle of attack due to the large main gear, neccessary for lifting the aircraft in order to clear the massive prop, combined with the extremely lone nose, made it a pain to navigate during takeoff and landing. Like I said, I can quote Corsair pilots including Ken Walsh - one of the first pilots to fly the new Corsair against the Japanese (he racked up 20 Zeros before being shipped back to the States) Also, the infamous Greg "Pappy" Boyington has spoke often about the "damn long nose!" of the Corsair.

VF-2_John_Banks
04-17-2004, 02:18 PM
Sure there are and the visibility was crap on the ground. But the Corsair hadn't a worse visibility over the nose than the Mustang or the Thunderbolt. But keeep in mind, that most pilot only flew 2-3 planes (taildraggers) most of their WW2 carrer. The T-6 advanced trainer and then their usual combat plane. The nose of the Corsair was wider than on other planes, but you couldn't see a tad more out of a Mustang or even a Spitfire. Ever wondered why they had to s-turn on the taxi way? All planes had to be s-turned in order to see what's going on infront of you, except for the tricicle gear ones. So the stories about the crappy view out a Corsair on the ground are true but they are also true for most other tail draggers. But people tend to think that only the Corsair offered a crappy view on the ground. Once the COrsair was qualified for carrier ops, they landed and handled it just like all the other planes. They didn't have to change the landing proceedures only to get the F4 on the deck though.

Rudee37
04-17-2004, 02:29 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VF-2_John_Banks:
Sure there are and the visibility was crap on the ground. But the Corsair hadn't a worse visibility over the nose than the Mustang or the Thunderbolt. But keeep in mind, that most pilot only flew 2-3 planes (taildraggers) most of their WW2 carrer. The T-6 advanced trainer and then their usual combat plane. The nose of the Corsair was wider than on other planes, but you couldn't see a tad more out of a Mustang or even a Spitfire. Ever wondered why they had to s-turn on the taxi way? All planes had to be s-turned in order to see what's going on infront of you, except for the tricicle gear ones. So the stories about the crappy view out a Corsair on the ground are true but they are also true for most other tail draggers. But people tend to think that only the Corsair offered a crappy view on the ground. Once the COrsair was qualified for carrier ops, they landed and handled it just like all the other planes. They didn't have to change the landing proceedures only to get the F4 on the deck though.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I will agree with that, however, as mentioned, the Corsair had a much higher angle of attack compared to the Mustang and Jug when coming in for an ill-regarded three-point landing. When landing on the crushed coral bases on Espiritu, Corsair pilots opted for main gear touchdowns instead of the three-point for obvious reasons. I'll have to dig out my spec sheets on the Mustang and Jug to see overall dimensions and angles of attack, but I'm positive the Corsair was quite a bit higher than that of the Jug.

Incidentally, I've had my private pilots license for nearly 9 years now, and absolutely love aircraft of all types. My Wife has adopted a fondness for aircraft, thus it's great to attend various airshows and fly-ins around the Country. One of these days I'm going to digitize my photo album. I probably got over 3000 photos of various Mondern and vintage aircraft of all types, including my own piloting adventures.

[This message was edited by Rudee37 on Sat April 17 2004 at 02:01 PM.]

[This message was edited by Rudee37 on Sat April 17 2004 at 02:09 PM.]

BlitzPig_DDT
04-17-2004, 02:52 PM
Just whipped something together in photoshop. It's not meticulously accurate because the resolution is too low, and the scale of each 3-view is different. (scale won't matter to this though, 1 degree is 1 degree, regardless of scale) But, by taking the side view from a 3-view, putting 2 straight lines from the line tool (1 red, 1 blue), and putting them right at the bast of the windshield, then rotating 1 of the 2 untill it touches the cowl, using the windshield as the pivot point, I got 3.2 degrees for the Corsair and 4.5 degrees for the Hellcat.

It does have better over the nose visibility. I'm betting if I had much higher resolution, and proper pilots eye positioning, I'd find an even greater advantage for the Hellcat.

How much this would affect take off and taxi is debateable, but, it would certainly be an advantage for defelction shooting.

Also, all info I've found says that we didn't carrier qualify it until the Brits figured out how to do it and we used their technique. It was an LSO vis issue, which was worse with the Corsair than the Hellcat.

==================================
The Blitz Pigs - Not a squad, a Movement!

Come and spam on our front porch.

http://www.blitzpigs.com

JTFM
04-17-2004, 03:16 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BlitzPig_DDT:
Just whipped something together in photoshop. It's not meticulously accurate because the resolution is too low, and the scale of each 3-view is different. (scale won't matter to this though, 1 degree is 1 degree, regardless of scale) But, by taking the side view from a 3-view, putting 2 straight lines from the line tool (1 red, 1 blue), and putting them right at the bast of the windshield, then rotating 1 of the 2 untill it touches the cowl, using the windshield as the pivot point, I got 3.2 degrees for the Corsair and 4.5 degrees for the Hellcat.

It _does_ have better over the nose visibility. I'm betting if I had much higher resolution, and proper pilots eye positioning, I'd find an even greater advantage for the Hellcat. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

As you noted, you have completely disregarded individual pilot height and seat adjustment. What pilot had his eyes down at the base of the windscreen? You couldn't get your eyes that low, anyway, as the instrument panel was in the way.

Every photo I've seen of Corsair takeoffs feature the canopy open with the pilot sitting
very high in the cockpit--i.e. after having adjusting his seat accordingly.

VF-2_John_Banks
04-17-2004, 03:58 PM
That's right, the AOA was high due to the short tail wheel. Chance Vought raised the tail a bit by increasing the lenght of the tail wheel. I think that put the AOA of the Corsair into that of other planes but don't quote me on that.

Rudee37
04-17-2004, 04:09 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JTFM:
[QUOTE]Every photo I've seen of Corsair takeoffs feature the canopy open with the pilot sitting
_very_ high in the cockpit--i.e. after having adjusting his seat accordingly.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Care to guess who this person is sitting extremely low in the pilots seat? Hint: he was credited with 23 kills (3 with the AVG) despite often flying hungover.

http://members.shaw.ca/daryls/boyington.jpg

chris455
04-17-2004, 04:10 PM
That's Pappy. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

http://members.cox.net/miataman1/p47n2.jpg

Rudee37
04-17-2004, 04:23 PM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by chris455:
That's Pappy. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

You got it!

I espeically enjoyed stories about the Japanese taunting Boyington from the ground. (taken from Boyington's Autobiography "Baa Baa Black Sheep"). Boyington would circle high above the Japanese airbase waiting for Japanese pilots to take to the skies to challenge him. Often they wouldn't, in which Boyington would say over his radio to the Japanese "I'm right over your airfield.. why don't you bastards come up and fight?" The Japanese were not so brave, instead they would answer Boyington "Major Boyington, why don't you come down if you are so brave?". And Boyington did just that. He peeled off from the rest of the formation and dove down at tremendous speed, strafing gun emplacements on the airbase. "All right!" Boyington exclaimed. "I was down, now how 'bout you come up and fight?" No Zero's took off to meet Maj Boyington that day.

BlitzPig_DDT
04-17-2004, 04:34 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JTFM:
As you noted, you have completely disregarded individual pilot height and seat adjustment. What pilot had his eyes down at the base of the windscreen? You couldn't get your eyes that low, anyway, as the instrument panel was in the way.

Every photo I've seen of Corsair takeoffs feature the canopy open with the pilot sitting
_very_ high in the cockpit--i.e. after having adjusting his seat accordingly.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Haven't "disregarded" it, I just don't have the data. Because of the differences noted in what I did though, the Corsair pilot would need to be quite a bit higher than the Hellcat pilot to attain the same vis, let alone better.

==================================
The Blitz Pigs - Not a squad, a Movement!

Come and spam on our front porch.

http://www.blitzpigs.com

Fliger747
04-17-2004, 06:07 PM
The seat height in the F4U 1D was raised 8" I believe from the early F4U 1 "birdcage" model. Theis helped things somewhat. Remember that in any taildragger (I have flow many) that in landing one cranes their neck to the left (left because the throttle is on that side) to sight alongside the cowl, not over the top. I can't even see well enough straight over the cowl of a 185 to land, let alone a "hose nose". It takes some getting used to, especially carrier landings, but is an awsome airplane once mastered. The oleo strut/bounce problem was cured early on, carrier ops was mainly a parts and maintaince issue, so the fleet stayed with one type of fighter till highrt performance tan the F6F offered was needed for intercept.

No cowl fuel leaks in this bird, it was fluid from the cowl flap actuators.

Diablo310th
04-17-2004, 06:19 PM
http://members.optusnet.com.au/tully_78th/legalsig.jpg [/QUOTE]


UBI and moderators..please check the size of my signature. It is 200x400

http://members.optusnet.com.au/tully_78th/legalsig.jpg

Rudee37
04-17-2004, 06:23 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Fliger747:

No cowl fuel leaks in this bird, it was fluid from the cowl flap actuators.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

According to maintenance crews who worked on them (and I've read many references from them associated with this) ground crews taped cowl seams to prevent leakage from the fuselage fuel tank. However, like you mentioned, cowl flap actuators often did leak (oil) onto the windshield as well.

Gunny124
04-17-2004, 07:25 PM
Just a question, has everybody forgotten that both VF-12 and VF-17 were carrier qualed in the Birdcage Corsairs? 17 deployed with there's to the islands while VF-12 were transitioned to the Hellcat. One of the main reasons she didn't go to carriers was a matter of logistics. Grumman could could put the parts in the fleet and the maintenance crews were accustomed to Grumman birds. Anyway, its the best thing that could have happened for the Corps that Navy refused her early.

JTFM
04-17-2004, 09:48 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BlitzPig_DDT:
Haven't "disregarded" it, I just don't have the data.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I understand--you'd have to have the height and seat preference of every pilot who flew a Corsair!

It's too bad we don't have access to a Corsair and a Hellcat to sit in them and compare for ourselves! I sat in a Helldiver at an airshow a few years ago (paid five bucks to do it but it cost them more than that to clean the mess off the seat! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif) and that seemed as if I was looking up the side of Mt. Everest.

grist
04-17-2004, 09:54 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gunny124:
Just a question, has everybody forgotten that both VF-12 and VF-17 were carrier qualed in the Birdcage Corsairs? 17 deployed with there's to the islands while VF-12 were transitioned to the Hellcat. One of the main reasons she didn't go to carriers was a matter of logistics. Grumman could could put the parts in the fleet and the maintenance crews were accustomed to Grumman birds. Anyway, its the best thing that could have happened for the Corps that Navy refused her early.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

VF-17 deployed on Bunker Hill in September 1943 from the East coast, and was pulled off the ship on arrival in Hawaii.

Tully__
04-18-2004, 04:10 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Diablo310th:

UBI and moderators..please check the size of my signature. It is 200x400

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

....and way over the 30KB file size limit (nearly 45KB).

=================================================


http://members.optusnet.com.au/tully_78th/sig.jpg

IL2 Forums Moderator
Forum Terms of Use (http://www.ubi.com/US/Info/TermsOfUse.htm)

Salut
Tully

Fliger747
04-18-2004, 08:55 AM
There were "field mod kits" to fix some of the early problems such as the stiff oleo's and the cowl actuator leaks. The "solution" was to fair over the top cowl flaps, helping the windshield stay a little cleaner. For the Carrier employed night fighter, which was a radar equiped F4U 2, still basically an early Corsair, a windshield cleaning system using alchol was instaled (not without problems).

Check out Tillman's book "the Corsair", or Boon Guyton's book, both have interesting information. I once had a chance to meet Richard E (Chick) Harmer who headed the Night Corsair Squadron on the Enterprise.

VF-3Thunderboy
04-18-2004, 07:03 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The Japanese had nothing that could match it's performance at the time.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Uhm, they had the KI-61, which was a match for the Corsair anyway around it, at Munda, just up the "slot" from Guadalcanal.Also they had the KI-44 in '42 over "Singapore", but not at Guadalcanal.

The Zero was more than a match for P-38's Corsairs, etc. Allied fighters were LOUSY at dogfights.Proper tactics came in later.

In CFS2, Zeros RULE the rooms, 1% OR STOCK, UNLESS you were flying with Thunda'Boya, then the Wildcats rode all over your Japper A**es! (I hope this doesnt offend!) http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

VF-3Thunderboy
04-18-2004, 07:03 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The Japanese had nothing that could match it's performance at the time.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Uhm, they had the KI-61, which was a match for the Corsair anyway around it, at Munda, just up the "slot" from Guadalcanal.Also they had the KI-44 in '42 over "Singapore", but not at Guadalcanal.

The Zero was more than a match for P-38's Corsairs, etc. Allied fighters were LOUSY at dogfights.Proper tactics came in later.

In CFS2, Zeros RULE the rooms, 1% OR STOCK, UNLESS you were flying with Thunda'Boya, then the Wildcats rode all over your Japper A**es! (I hope this doesnt offend!) http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

Fliger747
04-18-2004, 10:03 PM
VF3

Czech the private topic for my e-mail. I can send some photos of a WWII USN Plotting board including circular slide rule.

void74
04-18-2004, 10:39 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VF-3Thunderboy:

In CFS2, Zeros RULE the rooms, 1% OR STOCK, UNLESS you were flying with Thunda'Boya, then the Wildcats rode all over your Japper A**es! (I hope this doesnt offend!) http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
not bragen but in CFS2 i kicked azz the my sair could beat zeros (boom and zoom),could turn with a hellcat using flaps,trim ect..i loved her played 2years its still a clasic hope PF corsair will be the same http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/59.gif

jpatrick62
05-11-2004, 01:24 PM
All this talk about which wa better between the Hellcat or Corsair was answered in 1944. The 1944 Interconference fighter contest allowed test pilots from all over the world to come to the Patuxent Naval Air Station and test each manufacturer's aircraft and evaluate it. In the contest for best carrie fighter, between a f6f-5, F4U-1d, and Searfire, the Corsair won. This was testing done by the test pilots of the day, flying the real planes in a real war requirement. I guess the academic argument will go on forever, but the reality of history has been etched in stone. By the way, the Navy came to the exact same conclusion in seperate testing, which you can read about here:
http://www.geocities.com/slakergmb/id3.htm
Yes, the Corsair was a beast, and it did have a poor forward taxiing view, like most taildraggers. However, the Navy was replacing Hellcats with Corsairs on board carriers by 1944-45 (although there were still more Hellcat squads on board).

VW-IceFire
05-11-2004, 01:41 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by luthier1:
I have a feeling it will be less than one hour between the product hitting the shelves and the first thread popping up here about the F4U being undermodeled, because somebody got shot down by a Zero in a dogfight and stood absolutely no chance.

Same for the F6F, especially since it's "been specifically designed to counter the Zero"

Oh God have mercy.

http://www.il2center.com/PF.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I was counting on 2 hours but I'm probably a little more optimistic http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/tmv-sig1.jpg
RCAF 412 Falcon Squadron - "Swift to Avenge"

VMF-214_HaVoK
05-11-2004, 04:12 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by GK.:
I guess its no mystery what side I will spend the majority of the time flying for. The only plane I can honestly say I will fear is the f4u.

12,681 produced
417mph max speed @ 19,900 feet
6 50cal mgs with 341 rounds
range of 1,015 miles

An interesting fact about the corsair is that it flew a total of 64,051 missions, downed 2,140 planes and only 189 corsairs were lost. It is a ratio unmatched in the history of air warfare.

It was also the first american fighter to break the 400mph barrier.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

WW2 best kill:death ratio goes too the Hellcat. Corsair racked up an impressive 11.3 to 1 air-to-air kill ratio. While this was considerably less than the 19 to 1 ratio achieved by the F6F Hellcat, it still remains one of the best ratios ever achieved by an American fighter.
As far as best ever in combat aviation well I believe that would goto the F-15 with 104 victories to 0 losses http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif
=S=
www.vmf-214.net (http://www.vmf-214.net)
(The Original BlackSheep of IL-2)

http://www.flightjournal.com/fj/images/hellcat_head_short.jpg

NegativeGee
05-11-2004, 04:54 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by luthier1:
I have a feeling it will be less than one hour between the product hitting the shelves and the first thread popping up here about the F4U being undermodeled, because somebody got shot down by a Zero in a dogfight and stood absolutely no chance.

Same for the F6F, especially since it's "been specifically designed to counter the Zero"

Oh God have mercy.

http://www.il2center.com/PF.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'd have said thats 55 minutes more than they need http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

"As weaponry, both were good, but in far different ways from each other. In a nutshell, I describe it this way: if the FW 190 was a sabre, the 109 was a florett, or foil, like that used in the precision art of fencing." - Gunther Rall

http://www.invoman.com/images/tali_with_hands.jpg

Look Noobie, we already told you, we don't have the Patch!

NW-LiteBulb
05-11-2004, 06:48 PM
oh and buy the way the corsair did have a savear tip stalling problem. The did add a small leading edge spoiler quite close to the gunports on right wing. And having sat in both a P51,Spitfire,Hurricane,Corsair,Hellcat and Sea Fury i can tell you that the corsair has segnificently worse forward vission then any of the other warbids i just mentioned. And btw i am 6 foot 2 and all the aircraft had the proper parachutes present.

Regards

LiteBulb
NetWings IL2/PF Moderator
Visit us at WWW.NetWings.Com (http://WWW.NetWings.Com)

Also known as Biggles3:FI:

Ruy Horta
05-12-2004, 02:12 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VMF-214_HaVoK:
WW2 best kill:death ratio goes too the Hellcat. Corsair racked up an impressive 11.3 to 1 air-to-air kill ratio. While this was considerably less than the 19 to 1 ratio achieved by the F6F Hellcat, it still remains one of the best ratios ever achieved by an American fighter.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

With all due respect, but these ratios only give half the picture.

Does a CLAIM of 11.3:1 vs 19:1 actually mean that the Hellcat is roughly twice as good as a Corsair? I mean if we are talking statistics...

Where do opportunity and circumstance come in to play?

Ruy Horta

BlitzPig_DDT
05-12-2004, 07:31 AM
Actually Ruy, I think it does tell the story. The Corsair was around as long as the Hellcat, but got fewer kills. And that is almost certainly because the Hellcat had more and better opportunities and circumstance.

But the reason for that is because it was a better carrier fighter, in that, it was much better suited to the carrier environment. The Corsairs lack of suitability to it's intended evironment kept it sidelined for much of the war. No matter how you slice it, that is poor.

==================================
The Blitz Pigs - Not a squad, a Movement!

Come and spam on our front porch.

http://www.blitzpigs.com

Ruy Horta
05-12-2004, 08:06 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BlitzPig_DDT:
But the reason for that is because it was a better carrier fighter, in that, it was much better suited to the carrier environment. The Corsairs lack of suitability to it's intended evironment kept it sidelined for much of the war. No matter how you slice it, that is poor.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not sure if that's to be called poor. I think you have a point though. The Hellcat was a good a/c and relatively easy to fly, hence a mediocre pilot could be expected to do his job, the numbers did the rest. The Corsair required more attention and a higher level of competence, hence it was less ideal to fit the Navy requirement of filling the sky with fighters, piloted in part by mediocre pilots. I wonder how many of those 19:1 claim are Kamikaze hardly giving a fight, compared to the harder won campaign of Corsairs slugging it out over the Solomons.

Hellcats had the easier job between the two, just like the Mustang compared to the Thunderbolt.

BTW the Hellcat looks like a porker compared to the Hog!

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/59.gif

VIVA EL HOG!!!

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/icon_twisted.gif

Ruy Horta

Ruy Horta
05-12-2004, 08:12 AM
However this is all nonsense, since real men will fly Wildcats!

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/11.gif

Ruy Horta

k5054
05-12-2004, 10:09 AM
That file I keep mentioning has all the data of who scored what when and lost to whom. Table 28 has comparitive kill/loss for all USN USMC and IJ forces in the last 12 months of the war. Less detailed data is available for earlier.
The corsair is alway just that little bit worse than the Hellcat in its stats, except of course for the 7 months when F4U was in combat and F6F not.

http://history.navy.mil/branches/org4-7.htm and d/l the 3.7 mb file Naval Aviation Statistics. Ruy, you'll love it. You'll wish you had this stuff for all the other campaigns.

geetarman
05-12-2004, 11:17 AM
Rhorta - LOL I'm with you on the Wildcat comment! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/88.gif

BTW - saw an interesting stat on my favorite ace of all time and country, Joe Foss. Out of the 26 kills he got, in more or less a thirty day period, flying in awful, awful conditions, about 19 of them were Zeros!

I'm sorry, but that to me speaks volumes about his skill as a pilot. Using an F4F-4 against a clearly superior aircraft in most flight parameters and scoring alot in a short period of time.

Ruy Horta
05-12-2004, 11:41 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by k5054:
That file I keep mentioning has all the data of who scored what when and lost to whom. Ruy, you'll love it. You'll wish you had this stuff for all the other campaigns.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks, I checked that one last time you mentioned it and indeed I love it. Also found out I had a forgotten copy on my HDD, which is proof that sometimes more is actually less. Lately I have so much data that I lost track.

But now I won't forget that easily!

Anyone interested in this product should take a look at that file and site, since its packed with interesting PDFs.

Ruy Horta

Nightbar0n
05-12-2004, 01:44 PM
I have a feeling it will be less than one hour between the product hitting the shelves and the first thread popping up here about the F4U being undermodeled, because somebody got shot down by a Zero in a dogfight and stood absolutely no chance.

Same for the F6F, especially since it's "been specifically designed to counter the Zero"

Oh God have mercy.

-----------------------------------------------
Hello,

Well, this is from my personal POV only...but ofcourse a Corsair (and most American Aircaft)would def lost the battle with a Zero in a tight turning close dogfight.
But Corsair have the advantage of speed, armors and guns....So i guess no matter how advanced or bad the machine is..In the end its all up to the people who operate it.

Cant Hardly wait for this Game http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Nightbar0n
05-12-2004, 01:50 PM
Oh, and about the kill ratio thing....Well, The American produced wayyy much more Hellcats than corsairs, So hellcats have been in much more action than than corsairs.

Thank you,

VMF-214_HaVoK
05-12-2004, 02:19 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by rhorta:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VMF-214_HaVoK:
WW2 best kill:death ratio goes too the Hellcat. Corsair racked up an impressive 11.3 to 1 air-to-air kill ratio. While this was considerably less than the 19 to 1 ratio achieved by the F6F Hellcat, it still remains one of the best ratios ever achieved by an American fighter.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

With all due respect, but these ratios only give half the picture.

Does a CLAIM of 11.3:1 vs 19:1 actually mean that the Hellcat is roughly twice as good as a Corsair? I mean if we are talking statistics...

Where do opportunity and circumstance come in to play?

Ruy Horta<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

With all due respect to you stats is exactly what we was talking about. I argued the claim he made I did not argue which plane is better but what planes had the better stats. I really dont understand how you got that from the post.
=S=
www.vmf-214.net (http://www.vmf-214.net)
(The Original BlackSheep of IL-2)

http://www.flightjournal.com/fj/images/hellcat_head_short.jpg

BigKahuna_GS
05-13-2004, 04:09 AM
S!
__________________________________________________ ________________________
BP-DDT wrote--Actually Ruy, I think it does tell the story. The Corsair was around as long as the Hellcat, but got fewer kills. And that is almost certainly because the Hellcat had more and better opportunities and circumstance.
__________________________________________________ ________________________


Tell the whole story ? Twice the plane ? Negative.

Yamamoto and his Imperial Naval Staff considerd it the utmost priority to stop the American advance in the Solomons. The Solomons Islands were of great strategic value, Rabaul and its surrounding bases had the top guns of IJNAF rotating thru to protect it. Up and until Rabaul was finally neutralized the competiton from the Japanese was very stiff and it was mainly the Corsair that broke the back of the IJNAF at Rabaul.

While the Hellcat was an excellent plane, moments when the competiton was pretty slack as in the Marianas Turkey Shoot added to their final kill ratio. This is where David McCampbel shot down 9 Japanese planes in one sortie(a great feat mind you). McCampbell described the Japanese as almost aerial drones putting up little resistance, 350 Japanese planes were shot down in that air battle.

As new Japanese aircraft designs hit the war the lack of speed from the Hellcat was beginning show. Ultimately, the Navy found the Corsair superior to the Hellcat as a carrier plane. The Hellcats were removed from carriers as fast as possible and replaced with Corsairs. Many have considered the F4U-4 the best multi-role aircraft of WW2, when considering it's speed 447mph, roll, manueverability, durability and ordanance payload.

Both the Hellcat & Corsair are excellent planes. The Corsair was the superior plane though.


__________________



CCJ: What do you define as the most important things a fighter pilot must know to be successful, relating to air combat maneuvering?

Robert S. Johnson :
It's pretty simple, really. Know the absolute limits of your plane's capabilities.
Know its strengths and weaknesses. Know the strengths and weaknesses of you enemy's fighters. Never fight the way your enemy fights best. Always fight the way you fight best. Never be predictable.

In "Fighter Aces," aviation historians Raymond Tolliver
and Trevor Constable compared Johnson's record with that of two German aces.
Werner Molders was the first ace to score 100 aerial victories and Erich Hartmann is the top scoring ace of all time with 352.

The authors noted that
Johnson "emerges impressively from this comparison." He downed 28 planes in 91 sorties, while Molders took 142 sorties to do the same, and Hartmann, 194.
________



http://www.warplaneswarehouse.com/planes_lg/MS1AOO_LG.jpg

"Angels of Okinawa"

BigKahuna_GS
05-13-2004, 04:57 AM
S!


What I would really like to know is--will the front antenna mast be optional/removed on the Corsair ?

The majority of Corsair Sqdns removed the front antenna mast on the cowling to improve visibility.


_______________

CCJ: What do you define as the most important things a fighter pilot must know to be successful, relating to air combat maneuvering?

Robert S. Johnson :
It's pretty simple, really. Know the absolute limits of your plane's capabilities.
Know its strengths and weaknesses. Know the strengths and weaknesses of you enemy's fighters. Never fight the way your enemy fights best. Always fight the way you fight best. Never be predictable.

In "Fighter Aces," aviation historians Raymond Tolliver
and Trevor Constable compared Johnson's record with that of two German aces.
Werner Molders was the first ace to score 100 aerial victories and Erich Hartmann is the top scoring ace of all time with 352.

The authors noted that
Johnson "emerges impressively from this comparison." He downed 28 planes in 91 sorties, while Molders took 142 sorties to do the same, and Hartmann, 194.
________



http://www.warplaneswarehouse.com/planes_lg/MS1AOO_LG.jpg

"Angels of Okinawa"

Ruy Horta
05-13-2004, 12:55 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by 609IAP_Kahuna:
Yamamoto and his Imperial Naval Staff considerd it the utmost priority to stop the American advance in the Solomons. The Solomons Islands were of great strategic value, Rabaul and its surrounding bases had the top guns of IJNAF rotating thru to protect it. Up and until Rabaul was finally neutralized the competiton from the Japanese was very stiff and it was mainly the Corsair that broke the back of the IJNAF at Rabaul.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Japanese pilots seem to confirm this, I've read that they compared Rabaul to being their "Eastern Front". It was the steady attrition of the Solomons campaign that broke the Japanese back.

It wasn't just the set piece battles, since there might have been time between '42 and '44 to train new air crew, but the '43 campaign made sure that there wasn't a respite.

Ruy Horta

Ruy Horta
05-13-2004, 12:59 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by geetarman:
BTW - saw an interesting stat on my favorite ace of all time and country, Joe Foss. Out of the 26 kills he got, in more or less a thirty day period, flying in awful, awful conditions, about 19 of them were Zeros!

I'm sorry, but that to me speaks volumes about his skill as a pilot. Using an F4F-4 against a clearly superior aircraft in most flight parameters and scoring alot in a short period of time.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Got some great Foss profiles by Tom Tullis, but that's beside the point.

From a US fighter POV I am mostly looking forward to the early Guadalcanal campaign flying Wildcats and the Solomons campaign flying birdcage Corsairs.

Afterwards the challenge lies with the Japanese and might find me flying for the other side...

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/crazy.gif

Ruy Horta

jpatrick62
05-13-2004, 02:02 PM
Here's a question I was hoping some of you WW2 buffs could answer for me. It is well known that the F4U failed its initial carrier tests due to excessive bounce on desk landing. because the Marines wanted this A/C there was a run of fixed wing corsairs FG1's that the marines used. I'm not sure of the numbers, but apparently there was a run of build by Vought and Goodyear. Since we all know that carrier aircraft weigh 400-800 lbs heavier due to updagraded frame, tailhook assembley, folding wings, etc. you would expect this run of F$U's to climb and turn appreciably better than their folding winged cousins. In fact, its not really amazing that Corsairs and to a lesser extent Hellcats equalled or nearly equalled the P47's and P51's of their era, but the fact that they were carrier aircraft and did so is really amazing. Joe Foss, I believe, in an inerview claimed that the Navy got the drop on the Army for better manufacturers. At any rate, has anyone out their data on the "fixed wing" Corsairs?

k5054
05-13-2004, 04:09 PM
I've read about the fixed wing FG-1, and I agree it should have been better if all the deck-landing gear was removed. But I've never seen a photo of a fixed wing Corsair, and I'm beginning to wonder if it ever saw service. Maybe for training?
I'd love to know if anyone has a picture.