PDA

View Full Version : Corsair carries heavier bombload than B-25 and SBD?



Philipscdrw
11-05-2004, 07:26 AM
Lo folks.

The Corsair can carry 4000lbs of bomb, which is more than the B-25 and the SBD,and it can sink a carrier by skip-bombing them. Is this correct?

VF-3Thunderboy
11-05-2004, 08:28 AM
Not sure what engine the B-25s were running, I think they might have been the same as the SBD- The Wildcat F4F 1200 HP radial/s. (R-1800's or so..)

The corsair had like 2X the HP so it could carry some might hefty loads.

scootertgm
11-05-2004, 09:15 AM
B-25's also carried several crew. The corsair is just a huge engine with a plane strapped on its back...

2000 horses is a lot of power.

JonHal
11-05-2004, 09:17 AM
The concept of the Fighter Bomber, so well represented by the Corsair, is one of the (many) reasons the Dive Bombers and Torpedo Bombers faded from prominence on US CVs at the end of ww2. Why have Dive bombers that need Fighter escort when a Fighter-Bomber could do both. Once the Kamikazi threat grew the need for more and more fighters on US CVs grew as well only boosting the Fighter-Bomber's merits in the eyes in CinCPAC.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Philipscdrw:
Lo folks.

The Corsair can carry 4000lbs of bomb, which is more than the B-25 and the SBD,and it can sink a carrier by skip-bombing them. Is this correct? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Athosd
11-05-2004, 09:51 AM
That 4000lb load is a monster indeed (1x2000, 2x1000) - will have to see how it effects the take off run.

The B-25 tops out at 3000lb - though its bomb load is more versatile and can be dropped from altitude with precision. The 25 is also carrying 12 .50s with ~500rpg, 7-8 crew and a quantity of armour plate.

Cheers

Athos

jasonburn
11-05-2004, 01:08 PM
yep, this is correct.

charles lindbergh was the first pilot who took off with 4000 lbs in a corsair. he found the plane was not very stable in a 70 degree dive, but he knocked out an artillery depot with sucess.

scootertgm
11-05-2004, 03:23 PM
yeah, unfortunately, unless they introduce catapults on teh carriers, you wont be able to take off from a carrier with that load, bu tyou can do it form land, but even then, it is a bear till you get up speed.

stansdds
11-05-2004, 06:38 PM
Although the -1c and later Corsairs could carry a maximum of 4000 pound of bombs and rockets, they rarely, if ever, did in combat. Most Corsairs would be loaded out with two 1000 pound bombs and nothing else or one 154 gallon drop tank, one 500 pound bomb and eight HVAR's. Even in Korea, the AU-1 was not loaded with more than 3000 pounds of ordnance.

SkyChimp
11-05-2004, 06:49 PM
As much as I love the Corsair in PF, the loadouts are royally screwed.

The F4U-1 (aka: Corsair I (British parlance), Birdcage) did not have the capability of carrying even an external fuel tank much less all the stuff you can choose for it in PF. The only external fitting on this model of Corsair were removeable bomb-racks on the outter wings below the guns and just ahead of the gun ejection ports. These racks were rated for 100lb class bombs.

The F4U-1A could carry, on its Brewster designed centerline rack, an external fuel tank or a bomb up to 1,000lbs (although it COULD actually accomodate a 2,000lb bomb). The F4U-1A was not produced with rocket accomdations under the wings.

The F4U-1C/D was the plane that could carry most of the stuff listed. Although its inner-wings racks were rated for 1,000lb class bombs.

The loadout options for the F4U-1 and F4U-1A are way overdone in PF.

JG53Frankyboy
11-05-2004, 07:07 PM
and i still think , in real life, a B-25 could deliver the same bombload as a Corsair to a much longer distance.

the complex Loadout-Fuel/Range relationship (= max weight) is unfortunatly totaly missing in the game

Mozzie_21
11-05-2004, 07:11 PM
I'm sure that a B-25 could have flown with a 6,000 lb bomb load if they could be fitted and the C of G was well aft. The bomb load, MTOW etc is an artificial value set for safety reasons etc. If these weights are exceeded the plane will still fly, just not as well. The Lanc flew with a 22,000lb grand slam. That is just crazy.

Anyway, to put things in perspective the A-4 Skyhawk could carry more bombs (from a carrier) than a B-17 Fort.

KatanaSam
11-05-2004, 09:23 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JonHal:
The concept of the Fighter Bomber, so well represented by the Corsair, is one of the (many) reasons the Dive Bombers and Torpedo Bombers faded from prominence on US CVs at the end of ww2. Why have Dive bombers that need Fighter escort when a Fighter-Bomber could do both. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Fighter bombers can't do it all. The combination of low altitude torpedos and high flying dive bombers often pulled off what straight fighter-bombers wouldn't have been able to do early in the war. Why? Because some of the most critical blows to the Japanese Navy were dealt by SBD's that swooped in while Japanese fighters were distracted with low altitude torpedo bombers. The SBD's sank more Japanese Naval tonnage than any other plane type.

Although your reasoning is valid, you can't forget that the shift in US aircraft needs also had much to do with the fact that later in the war there wasn't much Japanese Navy left to sink, so naturally the emphasis was on defending against Japanese suicide attacks.

stansdds
11-06-2004, 06:52 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> The F4U-1 (aka: Corsair I (British parlance), Birdcage) did not have the capability of carrying even an external fuel tank much less all the stuff you can choose for it in PF. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually the F4U-1 (Corsair I) could carry a centerline 160 gallon drop tank. This attachment point was retained on all variants of the Corsair.