PDA

View Full Version : When Did The BEST PROP Fighters Fight ?



XyZspineZyX
09-13-2003, 11:40 AM
Q : When Did The BEST PROP Fighters Fight ?


A : ( & this is easy ) DURING THE KOREAN WAR

SEAFURY
BEARCAT
CORSAIR
F-51 MUSTANG
LA-9
YAK-9 ( last one )

I have only just bearly scratched the surface

the KOREAN WAR would make the ULTIMATE successor to Forgotten Battles

it would be a STEP UP in A/C performance

masses of Bombers , masses of fighters ( & Classic Jets !!! )

yes for me the Jets of Korea would be secondary to the Props that were there

but you also would have the first Jets that were in the air to DOGFIGHT ......

the sim would be the best Dogfight Sim EVER

XyZspineZyX
09-13-2003, 11:40 AM
Q : When Did The BEST PROP Fighters Fight ?


A : ( & this is easy ) DURING THE KOREAN WAR

SEAFURY
BEARCAT
CORSAIR
F-51 MUSTANG
LA-9
YAK-9 ( last one )

I have only just bearly scratched the surface

the KOREAN WAR would make the ULTIMATE successor to Forgotten Battles

it would be a STEP UP in A/C performance

masses of Bombers , masses of fighters ( & Classic Jets !!! )

yes for me the Jets of Korea would be secondary to the Props that were there

but you also would have the first Jets that were in the air to DOGFIGHT ......

the sim would be the best Dogfight Sim EVER

XyZspineZyX
09-13-2003, 01:51 PM
Bearcat was not used in Korea, which puts in question the performance of the type. The bulky Corsair was prefered.

Funny that in '47 F8F-2 switched to a variable speed supercharger, like in Bf-109. It took them almost 10 years but they got it right, in the end/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif


<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
09-13-2003, 02:03 PM
I'll stick with the prop jobs. I know that especially during that time, jets did use guns to shoot down their enemy, but as missle's advanced they were also becoming the preferred weapon. I dont have anything against early or modern jets, in fact I like them very much. But they do have a tendency to get boring in simulated air to air combat. The prop planes of that era would be fun. We got to see some nice advances in them.





...and once you have tasted flight, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward,
for there you have been and there you long to return.
~leonardo de vinci

XyZspineZyX
09-13-2003, 02:03 PM
but the jets would rule the best prop fighter war was ww2

unless you have certified, verified data and proof of this or have actually flown the planes that stop your whineing!

XyZspineZyX
09-13-2003, 02:15 PM
i think the best one's fought in the 45

---------------------------------------
A to the K to 4 to the 7 little
devils dont go heaven Freedom got a AK
---------------------------------------

XyZspineZyX
09-14-2003, 02:25 AM
Fiestapower i didnt say the Prop planes in Korea would be better than the Jets in performance

fiestapower wrote:
- but the jets would rule the best prop fighter war
- was ww2

and NO , the best Prop fighters ever to fly were in the air in the Korean War Fradd

XyZspineZyX
09-14-2003, 02:45 AM
Huckebein_FW wrote:
- Bearcat was not used in Korea, which puts in
- question the performance of the type. The bulky
- Corsair was prefered.
-
- Funny that in '47 F8F-2 switched to a variable speed
- supercharger, like in Bf-109. It took them almost 10
- years but they got it right, in the end


/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif Every chance you get to make a disparging remark, you take.


No Huckles, the Bearcat was not used in Korea, because it had already been subplanted by the F9F Panther jet fighter.

The Marines and Navy used the Corsair in the close support role. It had a better load carrying capacity than the Bearcat.

But in air-to-air capability, the F8F-1 Bearcat was superior to the Corsair. It had a better rate of climb, better turn, better roll. Except for top speed, it was the better fighter.

And funny you should bring up the Germans, both the F4U-4 and F8F were better than the "best" Nazi piston fighter, the Bf-109K-4.

It's probably for the best for the Germans that they never met these US Navy fighters in combat.

BTW, Huckles, if the Americans "finally got it right," what say that the Germans "ended up with it wrong." The DB605L engine went back to a mechanical 2 stage supercharger.



Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/NAA_logo.jpg


Message Edited on 09/14/03‚ 05:47AM by SkyChimp

Message Edited on 09/14/0306:04AM by SkyChimp

XyZspineZyX
09-14-2003, 03:11 AM
Touche.

<center><FONT color="red">[b]BlitzPig_EL</FONT>[B]<CENTER> http://old.jccc.net/~droberts/p40/images/p40home.gif
</img>.
"All men dream, but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds, wake in the day that it was vanity:
but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act on their dreams with open eyes, to make them possible. "
--T.E. Lawrence

XyZspineZyX
09-14-2003, 04:49 AM
mustangs and corsiars got in a little scrap in the (Soccer War) Bearcats were used by the french in Vietnam(ground attack). The brits had to bring in some late mark spits to handel the Rhodisian Mustangs, Hunters were to darn fast. Isreal used avia S199 (modded up 109) aginst syrian, egytian ?? spitfires. I wanna say in the middle east (post ww2) action, or there about, were spit IX's vs later marks spits (can't remeber who right now), and i think the last version of the inline tempest got a little action there also. Sea fury vs mig 15, Korea. Off the top of my head.

http://robcolvin.homestead.com/files/wulf1.JPG

XyZspineZyX
09-14-2003, 07:06 AM
SkyChimp wrote:
- Huckebein_FW wrote:
-- Bearcat was not used in Korea, which puts in
-- question the performance of the type. The bulky
-- Corsair was prefered.
--
-- Funny that in '47 F8F-2 switched to a variable speed
-- supercharger, like in Bf-109. It took them almost 10
-- years but they got it right, in the end
-
- Every chance you get
- to make a disparging remark, you take.
-
-
- No Huckles, the Bearcat was not used in Korea,
- because it had already been subplanted by the F9F
- Panther jet fighter.

Then why did they use Corsairs?


-
- The Marines and Navy used the Corsair in the close
- support role. It had a better load carrying
- capacity than the Bearcat.


And still Mustang, which saw wide spread use at the beginning at the Korean war, loosing almost 400 of them, had the same payload as Bearcat. Why not use the superclimbing Bearcat instead of glass jaw Mustang? Why not let USN and Marines take the prop ground attack job and let USAF do the jet work, USAF had better jets anyway.
The only answer is that Bearcat was not up to it.


-
- But in air-to-air capability, the F8F-1 Bearcat was
- superior to the Corsair. It had a better rate of
- climb, better turn, better roll. Except for top
- speed, it was the better fighter.


Yes it was a better dogfighter than Corsair.


-
- And funny you should bring up the Germans, both the
- F4U-4 and F8F were better than the "best" Nazi
- piston fighter, the Bf-109K-4.
-
- It's probably for the best for the Germans that they
- never met these US Navy fighters in combat.


Dream on.
Bearcat was a heavier aircraft than Dora, had less power, was less aerodynamic (both pressure drag and induced drag were higher, because of larger flat plate area and an awful aspect ratio respectively) and you still think that it climbed with 6000fpm/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif . Dora with MW50 had an initial climb of 4300fpm at loaded weight, be satisfied if Bearcat reached even 4000fpm loaded. Corsair was worse.
Comparing those USN second rate planes with a superlative dogfighter like Bf-109K-4 is a sacrilege/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif



-
- BTW, Huckles, if the Americans "finally got it
- right," what say that the Germans "ended up with it
- wrong." The DB605L engine went back to a mechanical
- 2 stage supercharger.

For altitudes over 10.000m (where there was no activity) a double stage supercharger was a better solution, a one stage superchager offers the best performance at medium altitudes, there is no way around it. But K4 was perfectly capable of using GM-1, the speed difference with DB605L equiped variant was only 20km/h. DB605L was not worth the effort, and anyway by that time Messerschmitt was in the jet age already.


<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
09-14-2003, 07:15 AM
Huck, you are so biased, it isnt even funny...

XyZspineZyX
09-14-2003, 07:47 AM
Huck, they used Corsairs because Corsairs were a heck of a lot better at ground pounding than the Panthers were. They were more rugged, could opperate from shorter carriers, and could lift heavier bomb loads off of those carriers, and most of all, they still had a shipload of spar parts for them, left over from the war.

Same reason you didn't see much of the Tigercat in Korea, they had more than enough spare parts for the older aircraft, and it didn't offer enough over jets, to be worth tooling up a new line.

You've gotten stuck in this mentality that if they used it, it must have been the best possible thing they could have used. Sometimes the best isn't worth the cost of fielding, when something much cheaper can do the job just as well. Germany never quite realised that during WWII and kept on fielding the best, and most expensive designs they could manage, and often ended up putting next to nothing out at all.

Harry Voyager

http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0YQDLAswcqmIpvWP9dLzZVayPXOmo6IJ16aURujNfs4dDETH84 Q6eIkCbWQemjqF6O8ZfvzlsvUUauJyy9GYnKM6!o3fu!kBnWVh BgMt3q2T3BUQ8yjBBqECLxFaqXVV5U2kWiSIlq1s6VoaVvRqBy Q/Avatar%202%20500x500%20[final).jpg?dc=4675409848259594077

XyZspineZyX
09-14-2003, 07:53 AM
Huckebein_FW wrote:

- Then why did they use Corsairs?

Re-read my post Huckles, I tell you exactly why.



- And still Mustang, which saw wide spread use at the
- beginning at the Korean war, loosing almost 400 of
- them, had the same payload as Bearcat. Why not use
- the superclimbing Bearcat instead of glass jaw
- Mustang? Why not let USN and Marines take the prop
- ground attack job and let USAF do the jet work, USAF
- had better jets anyway.
- The only answer is that Bearcat was not up to it.

Because, Huckles, the Mustang was a USAF plane, the Bearcat was a NAVY plane. And, again (since you apparently don't read) the F8F had been replaced by the F9F.



- Yes it was a better dogfighter than Corsair.

I already said that.



- Dream on.
- Bearcat was a heavier aircraft than Dora,

Bearcat, 9,150 lbs - loaded weight.
Dora-9, 9,480 lbs - loaded weight.



- had less
- power,

Pratt and Whitney R-2800-34W - 2,450 hp - combat power
Junkers Jumo 213A - 2,240 hp - emergency rating



- was less aerodynamic (both pressure drag and
- induced drag were higher, because of larger flat
- plate area and an awful aspect ratio respectively)

Bearcat Cd .019
Dora-9 Cd .023

The bearcat had MUCH better wing loading as well.



- and you still think that it climbed with 6000fpm

That's the XF8F. Even the F8F-1 climbed in exces of 5,000 fpm.



- Dora with MW50 had an
- initial climb of 4300fpm at loaded weight, be
- satisfied if Bearcat reached even 4000fpm loaded.

I'm more than satisfied, Huckles. Both Bearcat and Corair beat your Dora --- handily. They both beat K-4 also.



- Corsair was worse.

4,770 fpm at sea level, rising to over 4,800 at 11,000 feet. MUCH better than ANY Dora, and better than the K-4 from about 5,000 feet on up.



- Comparing those USN second rate planes with a
- superlative dogfighter like Bf-109K-4 is a
- sacrilege

Spoken like a true zealot.



- For altitudes over 10.000m (where there was no
- activity) a double stage supercharger was a better
- solution, a one stage superchager offers the best
- performance at medium altitudes, there is no way
- around it. But K4 was perfectly capable of using
- GM-1, the speed difference with DB605L equiped
- variant was only 20km/h. DB605L was not worth the
- effort, and anyway by that time Messerschmitt was in
- the jet age already.

Let's do the twist.....

There was no 605L variant of the K-4. The K-4 was NEVER produced with that engine



In otherwords, Huckles. The Dora and K-4 are sub-par in a comparison with the Bearcat, and -4 Corsair. Doesn't even come close.



Gosh, Huckles, you didn't even try to prepare for this debate, did you. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif



Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/NAA_logo.jpg

XyZspineZyX
09-14-2003, 07:56 AM
On top of that, Huckles, we're comparing carrier fighters to your land locked Dora and '109. Let's shave off a few hundred pounds off both the Corsair and the Bearcat for arresting gear and your Dora and '109 are even deeper in the cesspit.

Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/NAA_logo.jpg

XyZspineZyX
09-14-2003, 07:57 AM
GoreChild666 wrote:
- Huck, you are so biased, it isnt even funny...

Take it with a light heart my friend, my response is only for Skychimp ears.


<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
09-14-2003, 08:07 AM
Huckebein_FW wrote:
- GoreChild666 wrote:
-- Huck, you are so biased, it isnt even funny...
-
- Take it with a light heart my friend, my response is
- only for Skychimp ears.


I knew you didn't believe that crap you wrote. it was so stupid, not even you could have possibly believed it.



Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/NAA_logo.jpg

XyZspineZyX
09-14-2003, 08:34 AM
Huckebein_FW wrote:
- GoreChild666 wrote:
-- Huck, you are so biased, it isnt even funny...
-
- Take it with a light heart my friend, my response is
- only for Skychimp ears.
-

Then take it off these boards. If it is only for SkyChimp, then send it only to SkyChimp, and stop dumping all over a public forum.

Harry Voyager

http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0YQDLAswcqmIpvWP9dLzZVayPXOmo6IJ16aURujNfs4dDETH84 Q6eIkCbWQemjqF6O8ZfvzlsvUUauJyy9GYnKM6!o3fu!kBnWVh BgMt3q2T3BUQ8yjBBqECLxFaqXVV5U2kWiSIlq1s6VoaVvRqBy Q/Avatar%202%20500x500%20[final).jpg?dc=4675409848259594077

XyZspineZyX
09-14-2003, 09:01 AM
GoreChild666 wrote:
- Huck, you are so biased, it isnt even funny...

there are some more biased people around this forum.
some very proud People from hungary and the USA, but i call no names /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif




http://www.bayern.de/Layout/wappen.gif

Bavaria is one of the oldest European states.
It dates back to about 500 A.D., when the Roman Empire was overcome by the onslaught of Germanic tribes. According to a widespread theory, the Bavarian tribe had descended from the Romans who remained in the country, the original Celtic population and the Germanic invaders.

Bavarian History : http://www.bayern.de/Bayern/Information/geschichteE.html#kap0

XyZspineZyX
09-14-2003, 10:16 AM
SkyChimp wrote:
-
- Huckebein_FW wrote:
-
-- Then why did they use Corsairs?
-
- Re-read my post Huckles, I tell you exactly why.
-
-
-
-
-- And still Mustang, which saw wide spread use at the
-- beginning at the Korean war, loosing almost 400 of
-- them, had the same payload as Bearcat. Why not use
-- the superclimbing Bearcat instead of glass jaw
-- Mustang? Why not let USN and Marines take the prop
-- ground attack job and let USAF do the jet work, USAF
-- had better jets anyway.
-- The only answer is that Bearcat was not up to it.
-
- Because, Huckles, the Mustang was a USAF plane, the
- Bearcat was a NAVY plane. And, again (since you
- apparently don't read) the F8F had been replaced by
- the F9F.

Don't give me this crap, F8F was not retired when F9F entered in service. And Corsair was used in parallel with F9F, doing the same job: ground attack. Why Bearcat couldn't do it? Was Mustang better for ground attack? (and please don't come back with this argument, that Mustang was an USAF plane and Bearcat no, if USAF didn't have a good plane for ground attack, why not let USN and Marines do it, they had plenty of planes in service for the job).



-- Yes it was a better dogfighter than Corsair.
-
- I already said that.

I'm not terribly interested in what you say.



-- Dream on.
-- Bearcat was a heavier aircraft than Dora,
-
- Bearcat, 9,150 lbs - loaded weight.
- Dora-9, 9,480 lbs - loaded weight.
-
-
-
-- had less
-- power,
-
- Pratt and Whitney R-2800-34W - 2,450 hp - combat
- power
- Junkers Jumo 213A - 2,240 hp - emergency rating

My data says 9386lb and a max of 2380hp for 34W mounted on Tigercat, though only 2100hp for bearcat, but I don't have original documents on Bearcat, do you?


-- was less aerodynamic (both pressure drag and
-- induced drag were higher, because of larger flat
-- plate area and an awful aspect ratio respectively)
-
- Bearcat Cd .019
- Dora-9 Cd .023

Yeah, yeah, USN also said that Corsair had a Cd0 of 0.020. When NACA tested Corsair they found that 0.021 was achieved with the airplane with surfaces polished, with all gaps filled, like gun positions, cowling, exhausts, tailhook, control hinges. Plane was sitting on a bench with prop removed. Of course it did not bear any reasemblance with the real plane and still this is all they got.

http://home.comcast.net/~bogdandone/corsair_drag.JPG


Also Dora Cd0 correct value is 0.021

Now flat plate:

Bearcat: 0.019*244 = 4.636
Dora: 0.021*200 = 4.2

so Dora generates less pressure drag

Induced drag (in level flight) is calculated with formula:
Di = (2*W^2)/(pi*e*b^2*air_density*speed^2) -


since the weights are very close, the only difference is e*b^2 , where e is oswald factor (which is aprox 1 - 1/aspect_ratio) and b is wing span.

e*b^2=(1-1/AR)*b^2=(1-wing_area/b^2)*b^2=b^2 - wing area

Bearcat: 35.8^2 - 244 = 1037.64
Dora: 34.5^2 - 197 = 993.25

The less the better in both cases, meaning that Dora is more aerodynamic in any flight condition.

Once again the formula for climb rate:

climb rate = ((thrust-drag)*climb_speed)/weight

Now if your data for weight and power rating is correct I admit that Bearcat has a 100-200fpm climb advantage over Dora.



- The bearcat had MUCH better wing loading as well.

Wing loading has no relevance in calculating drag.



-- and you still think that it climbed with 6000fpm
-
- That's the XF8F. Even the F8F-1 climbed in exces of
- 5,000 fpm.

5000fpm is possible on both Dora and Bearcat with a minimal fuel load. 6000fpm is absurd.



-- Dora with MW50 had an
-- initial climb of 4300fpm at loaded weight, be
-- satisfied if Bearcat reached even 4000fpm loaded.
-
- I'm more than satisfied, Huckles. Both Bearcat and
- Corair beat your Dora --- handily. They both beat
- K-4 also.

In your imagination.


-- Corsair was worse.
-
- 4,770 fpm at sea level, rising to over 4,800 at
- 11,000 feet. MUCH better than ANY Dora, and better
- than the K-4 from about 5,000 feet on up.

We can make a comparison between Dora and Corsair, but it doesn't matter since Bearcat was a better climber anyway.


-- Comparing those USN second rate planes with a
-- superlative dogfighter like Bf-109K-4 is a
-- sacrilege
-
- Spoken like a true zealot.
-
-
-
-
-- For altitudes over 10.000m (where there was no
-- activity) a double stage supercharger was a better
-- solution, a one stage superchager offers the best
-- performance at medium altitudes, there is no way
-- around it. But K4 was perfectly capable of using
-- GM-1, the speed difference with DB605L equiped
-- variant was only 20km/h. DB605L was not worth the
-- effort, and anyway by that time Messerschmitt was in
-- the jet age already.
-
- Let's do the twist.....
-
- There was no 605L variant of the K-4. The K-4 was
- NEVER produced with that engine

Did I say it was produced with 605L? improve your reading skills.



- In otherwords, Huckles. The Dora and K-4 are
- sub-par in a comparison with the Bearcat, and -4
- Corsair. Doesn't even come close.


Yes, precisely the other way around.



<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
09-14-2003, 01:14 PM
Huckebein_FW wrote:
-
-
- And still Mustang, which saw wide spread use at the
- beginning at the Korean war, loosing almost 400 of
- them,-


We lost 400 P51s in Korea?!

I'd be suprised if we had 400 P51s in Korea.

I'll admit it if I'm wrong, but that seems like a bogus number to me.

SkyChimp?

<center><FONT color="red">[b]BlitzPig_EL</FONT>[B]<CENTER> http://old.jccc.net/~droberts/p40/images/p40home.gif
</img>.
"All men dream, but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds, wake in the day that it was vanity:
but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act on their dreams with open eyes, to make them possible. "
--T.E. Lawrence

XyZspineZyX
09-14-2003, 01:33 PM
I don't want to throw more fuel on the fire here, but, shouldn't the Ta 152C be a better comparison for the Bearcat? There were some wicked engines planned for this one such as the Jumo 224 and Jumo 225, both in the 4000/5000hp range. However since this fighter never really saw any combat(AFAIK), perhaps it's irrelevant, but it shows the possible performance of a would be german fighter.

Just my thoughts.

http://members.chello.se/unni/GK-2.JPG


'When it comes to aircombat, I'd rather be lucky than good any day!'

XyZspineZyX
09-14-2003, 02:26 PM
There is an older Korean War sim already, called Mig Alley.

This is mainly using machine guns and cannon rather than missiles so it makes for a lot of dogfighting.

I didnt play it at the time but the reviews were good.

XyZspineZyX
09-14-2003, 02:37 PM
Huckebein_FW wrote:

- Don't give me this crap, F8F was not retired when
- F9F entered in service. And Corsair was used in
- parallel with F9F, doing the same job: ground
- attack. Why Bearcat couldn't do it? Was Mustang
- better for ground attack? (and please don't come
- back with this argument, that Mustang was an USAF
- plane and Bearcat no, if USAF didn't have a good
- plane for ground attack, why not let USN and Marines
- do it, they had plenty of planes in service for the
- job).

I see logic is lost on you. Typical. Why would the USAF use the Bearcat. Did the USAF need a cwarrier fighter? And the Marines and Navy did the job of ground pounding, they all did.



- I'm not terribly interested in what you say.

Of course you are. Or you wouldn't wouldn't be in this thread touting Nazi superiority.



- My data says 9386lb and a max of 2380hp for 34W
- mounted on Tigercat, though only 2100hp for bearcat,
- but I don't have original documents on Bearcat, do
- you?

Those are Military power ratings. You want to compare Jumo's emergency power rating to R-2800's military power rating. No one ever accused you of being unbiased.



- Yeah, yeah, USN also said that Corsair had a Cd0 of
- 0.020. When NACA tested Corsair they found that
- 0.021 was achieved with the airplane with surfaces
- polished, with all gaps filled, like gun positions,
- cowling, exhausts, tailhook, control hinges. Plane
- was sitting on a bench with prop removed. Of course
- it did not bear any reasemblance with the real plane
- and still this is all they got.

Wait a minute Huckles, that's what you said "all" manufacturer did when testing planes. So what would the German plane's Cd be in combat condition, .027?



- Also Dora Cd0 correct value is 0.021

You wish.



- Now flat plate:
-
- Bearcat: 0.019*244 = 4.636
- Dora: 0.021*200 = 4.2
-
- so Dora generates less pressure drag
-
- Induced drag (in level flight) is calculated with
- formula:
- Di = (2*W^2)/(pi*e*b^2*air_density*speed^2) -
-
-
- since the weights are very close, the only
- difference is e*b^2 , where e is oswald factor
- (which is aprox 1 - 1/aspect_ratio) and b is wing
- span.
-
- e*b^2=(1-1/AR)*b^2=(1-wing_area/b^2)*b^2=b^2 - wing
- area
-
- Bearcat: 35.8^2 - 244 = 1037.64
- Dora: 34.5^2 - 197 = 993.25
-
- The less the better in both cases, meaning that Dora
- is more aerodynamic in any flight condition.
-
- Once again the formula for climb rate:
-
- climb rate = ((thrust-drag)*climb_speed)/weight
-
- Now if your data for weight and power rating is
- correct I admit that Bearcat has a 100-200fpm climb
- advantage over Dora.


First of all, you fabricated the Dora's Cd. That's wrong. its .0236. NOT .021. Please provide PROOF of what you claim.

Second, from the pilots manual for the F8F, the following climb times:

5,000 feet 1 minute
10,000 feet 2.13 minutes
15,000 feet 3.36 minutes
20,000 feet 4.8 minutes
25,000 feet 6.6 minutes

That's a military power climb rate on 100/130 grade fuel.

Nevermind that combat power was available, and so was 115/145 grade fuel.



I notice you tend to fall back on you calculator when you're ideals are up against the wall. And that you fabricate numbers and conceal others to get the figures you want.



- Wing loading has no relevance in calculating drag.

...as the Bearcat flys circles around the Dora.



- 5000fpm is possible on both Dora and Bearcat with a

It's not impossible. You just don't like it because its vastly superior to the Dora. And you just can't have that.



- In your imagination.

No, you're the one in a fantasy land. You're K-4 and Dora come ina distant thrird and forth in comparison to the Bearcat and Corsair.



- We can make a comparison between Dora and Corsair,
- but it doesn't matter since Bearcat was a better

Well, Huckles. Wanna post some chart on the -4 Corsair and the Dora 9? Best climb versus best climb? I'm willing http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif



- Did I say it was produced with 605L? improve your
- reading skills.

You said, "the speed difference with DB605L equiped
**variant**." As I stated, there was no 605L variant.



- Yes, precisely the other way around.

US Navy 2
Luftwaffe 0

Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/NAA_logo.jpg

XyZspineZyX
09-15-2003, 05:05 AM
What surprised me when i studied it was just how good a fighter the Corsair was

first of all it was a Carrier based A/C which adds a lot of weight to the plane
& second it was well armoured compared to all Jap planes KI-84 excepted

now it performance was excellent ......
awesome climb
awesome turn ability

the later Corsairs that flewin Korea were absolute Beasts

tremendous power & speed & climb with slightly flyability also improved greatly over the first Corsair]

now The BEARCAT & TIGERCAT are quite possibly the greatest Prop planes of their type

the Firepower & performance of these two is simply outstanding for prop planes

a KOREAN SIM would be a BIG step up in performance compared to IL2 FB

i know about mig Ally ( i own it ) but Computers have come sooo far since it was released that a new KOREAN SIM would be SUPERB

imagine it

carriers
bombers galore
awesome Prop Fighters
fantastic scenery
varied missions

not to mention the classic jets which got all the Glory

but it would be the Props that would make the game so awesome in my book

especially the Late Yak 9s
& the LA-9s
& the SEA FURY
& the Late Corsairs
& of course to give us a chance to finally fly them in a virtual sky ...

the Bearcat & Tigercat
the Bearcat &

XyZspineZyX
09-15-2003, 06:55 AM
I just gotta get a piece of this. The reason Mustangs were used in Korea for ground support was that it was the only Air Force fighter with the range to carry the ordnance from bases in Japan (we didn't have any bases in Korea at the outset of hostilities) in-theater. The P-38 had just been retired(and large numbers in Japan had been scrapped), and all the long range P-47Ns were held in reserve in Europe in case the Soviets decided to get frisky while we were distracted by the festivities in the Far East.

The reason the Bearcat was not used as a ground support aircraft by the Navy (which is traditionally very jealous of its aircraft and its role in power projection, hence no Air Force jockeys in Navy planes until VietNam) was because it was designed primarily as an air superiority fighter, and that role was taken by the Panthers and Banshees, and there were vastly superior ground support prop fighters in the Corsair and Skyraider available to take up valuable deck space.

Huck's ignorance in that regard is forgivable, since he apparently comes from a country with no naval tradition to speak of.

Now, as for the reason that the Navy/Marine Corps fighters did not appear in Europe in a full time role, legend has it that General George Marshall threatened to resign if a Marine set foot in the ETO for anything more substantial than embassy duty. He seemed to be a little upset about the way the Marines hogged all the glory in the First World War, and wasn't about to let THAT happen again.

It is certainly true that interservice rivalry was a huge factor, but it should also be remembered that Vought barely kept up with the demand for Corsairs in the Pacific, and so the Fleet Air Arm had to provide the bulk of the Hellcat / Corsair representation in the ETO, and their focus was on anything but air to air.

"Here's your new Mustangs, boys. You can learn to fly'em on the way to the target. Cheers!" - LCOL Don Blakeslee, CO, 4th FG, March, 1944

XyZspineZyX
09-15-2003, 08:03 AM
horseback wrote:
- I just gotta get a piece of this. The reason
- Mustangs were used in Korea for ground support was
- that it was the only Air Force fighter with the
- range to carry the ordnance from bases in Japan (we
- didn't have any bases in Korea at the outset of
- hostilities) in-theater.

Not true. F-51 based in Japan were transfered in Korea. They flew combat missions from Korean bases. Problem is why did they do it in the first place? since F-51 was clearly not suited for the ground attack. Why not put USN and Marines do the air to ground work and USAF air superiority, since it had better jets.


- The reason the Bearcat was not used as a ground
- support aircraft by the Navy (which is traditionally
- very jealous of its aircraft and its role in power
- projection, hence no Air Force jockeys in Navy
- planes until VietNam) was because it was designed
- primarily as an air superiority fighter, and that
- role was taken by the Panthers and Banshees, and
- there were vastly superior ground support prop
- fighters in the Corsair and Skyraider available to
- take up valuable deck space.

Bearcat had the same bomb load with Mustang, then why Mustang was used after all? One of the reasons is certainly the weak airframe of Bearcat, from empty weight, almost half is the engine (for Dora is less than a third). That's a serious problem considering that R-2800 was a powerful engine and heavy engine. Add to this 185gall fuel and 2000lb bombs and the picture is not optimistic.
USN and Marines jets flew ground attack missions 99% of the time. They were never employed in air superiority role.


-
- Huck's ignorance in that regard is forgivable, since
- he apparently comes from a country with no naval
- tradition to speak of.

Your ignorance in knowing your own history is forgivable, since you apparently come from a country in which almost nobody knows it better.


-
- It is certainly true that interservice rivalry was a
- huge factor, but it should also be remembered that
- Vought barely kept up with the demand for Corsairs
- in the Pacific, and so the Fleet Air Arm had to
- provide the bulk of the Hellcat / Corsair
- representation in the ETO, and their focus was on
- anything but air to air.

Interservice rivalry meant more than a clash of egos. It became a matter of life and death at the end of war. Both USAAF and USN had its own set of contractors from different states, supported by different politicians. USAAF was pushing even before the war for a strategic air fleet that could take all the roles of the Navy. They wanted the Navy to be disbanded. USAAF's much touted strategic campaign "succeses" were it's arguments. USN response was very weak, and it for 5 years after the war its strenght continously diminished. One of the strategies during this publicity war with USAAF was to doctor the specs of the it's fighters to look more competitive, even if objective constraints of carier based fighters were resposible for the performance differences in most cases.
This is what happens with late Corsairs and Bearcat. That 6000fpm Bearcat prototype is an indication how ridiculous this competition became.



<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
09-15-2003, 05:54 PM
Let's get something clear here. "At the outset" means at the beginning of US involvement in the Korean conflict-in the Spring of 1950, there were no USAF bases in Korea, and until the Inchon success, the free Korean territory available for landing, refueling and rearming was constantly shrinking. Later in the war, yes, the Mustangs were based in Korea, but by that time they were established in the order of battle, and the F-47s, as I noted earlier, were reserved for the European continent.

Remember that in the early '50s, the US had drawn way back from our wartime strength, including seaborne transport, and our strength, such as it was, was focussed on the USSR in Europe. It takes two weeks to get to Korea by sea from Pearl Harbor in a destroyer (I know, I made the trip in one), and about half again as long in a transport ship that tops out at 12 Knots, longer if they're in a convoy or zig-zagging to avoid potential submarine threats (which they did, in the early phases of that conflict due to paranoia about Soviet intervention). This is important when there is no possibility of air resupply from the US west coast to the far east in the kind of numbers necessary to fight a war in Korea, and the garrison forces in the Philippines and Japan did not have the heavy weaponry, training, or logistics available to get to Korea and be effective.

Mustangs were used because they were the only long range ground attack capable Air Force units available. Bearcats were not used because they were no longer frontline fighters and the Navy didn't have them on the carriers deployed to Korea, when their primary role was being filled by Panthers and Banshees. Carriers are big ships, but they are extremely small airfields, so the fighter complement has to be carefully chosen. The Attack squadrons were composed of Corsairs and Skyraiders, as I said before, and they were still at the cutting edge of the technology of the time, when you factor in range and payload. The Panthers and Banshees were used for ground support only after it was established that the carriers were in no great danger of air attack, and using them only to fly CAP was a waste of fuel and pilot skills. There were, however, a few clashes between Navy jets and MiGs, and the Panther drivers aquitted themselves fairly well, given the performance differences.

I have to agree with Huck about the interservice rivalry issue, but it does have its good points. Differences in perspective provide a variety of possible solutions for each problem, some of which can only be proven in the heat of combat. What if the Navy had bought the Army's contention that they could protect our coasts with B-17s and B-24s, and that carriers were unnecessary? What would the Air Force have been flying if the Phantom II had not been developed for the Navy? In a democracy, there has to be competition for civilian support for military programs, and everyone has to make their case to the civilian heads of their branches, and so things get politicized.

American politics are confusing enough for those of us who speak American (as opposed to English); the Canadians can't figure it out, and some of them understand the general concepts of baseball and football (the kind with shoulderpads, for you soccer fans). I don't expect Europeans to fathom our politics any more than I can hope to sort out Italian or French politics.

As for my understanding of history, I'm a fifty year old Air Force Brat (my father was career Air Force) who spent a good five formative years in the UK in the '60s, and served my military time in the Navy. I've been reading about air combat since my family arrived in England right after the 20th anniversary of the BoB, and spent most of my life in and around the military (I'm a field engineer for a major Defense contractor), and my lifelong hobby is building model aircraft, specializing in World War II. I've done commissioned models for WWII vets, Top Gun instructors, and everyone in between, and I've tried to read everything in English available on everything I've modeled. I lived a lot of the history Huck claims that I'm ignorant of, and I've gotten the story first hand from a number of the guys (mostly American, with a smattering of Brits and Germans) who experienced what I did not.

Ignorance of world history is a common thing in America, where we've chosen to leave most of the ethnic and class distinctions of Europe behind. Yes, we still have problems, but nowhere in the world is there a successful democracy with the racial and ethnic diversity of the US. Ignoring something that has little or no effect on your life is hardly a fault. My countrymen get along fine without knowing all the kings of England, or how long any country was actually a country, or just a collection of principalities.

By the way, my mother's maiden name was Schultz.

"Here's your new Mustangs, boys. You can learn to fly'em on the way to the target. Cheers!" - LCOL Don Blakeslee, CO, 4th FG, March, 1944

"Here's your new Mustangs, boys. You can learn to fly'em on the way to the target. Cheers!" - LCOL Don Blakeslee, CO, 4th FG, March, 1944

XyZspineZyX
09-15-2003, 07:31 PM
Huckebein_FW wrote:
- Bearcat was not used in Korea, which puts in
- question the performance of the type. The bulky
- Corsair was prefered.
-
- Funny that in '47 F8F-2 switched to a variable speed
- supercharger, like in Bf-109. It took them almost 10
- years but they got it right, in the end

Aww Huck, I hope you still catch a good fishy with that one, but surely you know that Allison made variable speed hydraulic superchargers during the war.

Of course, the really good Allison powered jobs used turbochargers. Probably had something to do with the state of art in US metallurgy vs. the pot metal that passed for stainless steel wartime Germany. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Member of A-20 Havoc whiners. Over two thousand nine hundred A-20s delivered to the USSR, be sure!

XyZspineZyX
09-15-2003, 07:52 PM
ME 209 db603 1900 hp and 745 KPH 1 30MM 2 20MM BET THAT LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL

XyZspineZyX
09-15-2003, 08:00 PM
Wot love is this? Whos's serve? /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Roy Baty
IV/JG51 M√¬∂lders

"Be happy in your work!"
- Col. Saito

<center>http://www.bloggerheads.com/mash_quiz/images/mash_henry_blake.jpg (http://www.bloggerheads.com/mash_quiz/)</center>

XyZspineZyX
09-15-2003, 08:11 PM
http://users.belgacom.net/aircraft1/avion1/288.html#2225

XyZspineZyX
09-15-2003, 08:59 PM
Just checking in...and yes, I've read EVERY line in EVERY post in this thread.

You guys are like Ali and Frazier and I've got a ringside seat...now somebody give me a towel for this splatter!




http://home.earthlink.net/~aclzkim1/_uimages/p47atm.gif

XyZspineZyX
09-15-2003, 09:04 PM
More like Ali vs. an amateur ranked boxer, lol.

Barfly
Executive Officer
7. Staffel, JG 77 "Black Eagles"

http://www.7jg77.com

XyZspineZyX
09-15-2003, 10:43 PM
Huckebein_FW wrote:

One of the reasons
- is certainly the weak airframe of Bearcat, from
- empty weight, almost half is the engine (for Dora is
- less than a third). That's a serious problem
- considering that R-2800 was a powerful engine and
- heavy engine.

- One of the
- strategies during this publicity war with USAAF was
- to doctor the specs of the it's fighters to look
- more competitive


I agree, this is definately a fishing trip on Huck's part. Because if it weren't, these would rank as the most supremely stupid assertions ever made on these boards.

Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/NAA_logo.jpg

XyZspineZyX
09-15-2003, 11:21 PM
Very well put Horseback and the same for SkyChimp. I think
Huck will have to be put in the same corner as Ray Ban Jockey.
Their fanatical enthusiasm allows them to step over documented
facts of history and performance to fuel the long dead fires
of the "master-race". I want to commend Horseback and
Skychinp for sticking to the subject and not going into mud-
slinging as if it were some sort of presidential election.
I'm glad to see you share from your wealth of knowledge,
experiences and references with some of us who are a bit behind
on the learning curve. I'm fascinated by the performances of
the late war planes from all nationalities and the limitations
of prop aircraft. I think the K-4 and Ta-152 were great but
I believe the F8F, F7F, and F4U were overall better planes.
The Hawker Sea Fury couldn't be left out of the mix and the
Japanese Shinden could have possibly been ahead of them all in
time but we'll never know. As far as bringing all these
super-prop planes in a common arena to fight, it wouldn't be
much different from what we have in IL-2. They all share in
similar performances and therefore would equalize. Each would
nearly match in speed, climbing and firepower so it wouldn't
seem to be a "standout" aircraft. Much like a super athlete
would blow us all away in a foot race but would just be another
face in the crowd at an Olympic track event.

XyZspineZyX
09-15-2003, 11:50 PM
Huck. You just cant seem to understand, the Navy would NEVER use a USAF aircraft, and the USAF would NEVER use a Navy aircraft. Even if the Bearcat was far superior to the P-51, the USAF would have NEVER used it simply because it was Navy. The two groups had there own silent war. Even today, you dont see F-16's flying off carrier decks, or F-18's in the USAF. JASF (F-32) was THE FIRST aircraft to be supported by BOTH the Navy and USAF because it was DEMANDED by congress to have both play nice for the good of all. Yes, the P-51 was put into a bad role in Korea, but only because of stubbern politics. It had NOTHING to do with performance. The F8F replaced the F4U as a fighter. The F4U became a ground pounder because of its payload and ability to take hits. Then the F8F was replaced by the F9F as a FIGHTER at the start of the Korean war. The F4U was later replaced by another prop, the Sandy later on. Remember, there are more then 1 class of aircraft. Call the F4U a Jabo or something to help you understand this.

Gib

I am now accepting donations to help get the PBY flyable.

<center><form action="https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr" method="post">
<input type="hidden" name="cmd" value="_xclick">
<input type="hidden" name="business" value="gibbage@lycos.com">
<input type="hidden" name="item_name" value="Gibbages IL2; FB PBY Catalina Fund">
<input type="hidden" name="no_note" value="1">
<input type="hidden" name="currency_code" value="USD">
<input type="hidden" name="tax" value="0">
<input type="image" src="http://gibbageart.havagame.com/donations.gif" border="0" name="submit" alt="Make payments with PayPal - it's fast, free and secure!">
</form></center>

XyZspineZyX
09-16-2003, 12:38 AM
Korea.

I'd love to see Oleg do this.

I had Mig Alley and It was great at the time, but the careers were a bit alienating and you could'nt fly much prop stuff . The landscape looked exactly unlike Korea too, no angular hills, It looked more like the Yorkshire moors.

If the Yak, La9 and IL10 were flyable, not to mention Twin Mustang,Sea Fury, Seafire, Corsair and Tigercat, not to mention the B29 then it would be great.

Carrier ops with Panthers even the Ausies were there with Meteors.

All gun war too, I might be wrong but I don't think air to air missiles were used in Korea at all.

Computer gunsites would add variety to the whole experience too.



Message Edited on 09/15/0311:39PM by Oboe

XyZspineZyX
09-16-2003, 12:59 AM
lets not forget budget cuts when the war ended. since jets were on the way in and piston engines on the way out, there wasnt much in the budget for new aircraft like the F-82, F-51H, F-61, F8F, F4U-4 and later variants of the corsair. so the services used what aircraft they had and what the military budget said they could use. The 47 was by far the better aicraft for ground support when compaired to the 51, but the 47 was being phased out infavor of the 51. the budget again dictated this. the 51 was simply a cheaper aircraft to maintain, and fly.