PDA

View Full Version : F4u vs p47 as fighter bomber



Biloxi72
09-14-2004, 06:53 AM
Which would be your plane of choice as a fighter bomber. IN terms of playing FB/PF i will probably prefer the corsair because what i have read (i will try and find my info quickly and post) the corsair can carry as much if not a little more then the Jug and possibly better range with drop tanks available for both. I also like the corsair in that it is a more capable dogfighter in terms of being able to be an energy fighter or if need be can hold its own as a turn fighter. While the jug is IMO strictly the Boom and zoom due to its slow climb if caught low.

I would like to see opinions and more facts then what i have found, not much sadly) on how these wonderful planes match up.

Thanks

Biloxi72
09-14-2004, 06:53 AM
Which would be your plane of choice as a fighter bomber. IN terms of playing FB/PF i will probably prefer the corsair because what i have read (i will try and find my info quickly and post) the corsair can carry as much if not a little more then the Jug and possibly better range with drop tanks available for both. I also like the corsair in that it is a more capable dogfighter in terms of being able to be an energy fighter or if need be can hold its own as a turn fighter. While the jug is IMO strictly the Boom and zoom due to its slow climb if caught low.

I would like to see opinions and more facts then what i have found, not much sadly) on how these wonderful planes match up.

Thanks

TgD Thunderbolt56
09-14-2004, 07:37 AM
I like the "Jug" (same engine, a little more firepower and an ashtray for crying out loud!), but the Corsair was more versatile and had a much longer service life.

TB


Our FB server info: http://www.greatergreen.com/il2

Biloxi72
09-14-2004, 07:53 AM
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif LOL thanks Tbolt the ashtray was good.

WOLFMondo
09-14-2004, 07:58 AM
Could the Corsair actually carry as much and as far as the P47N or D?

http://bill.nickdafish.com/sig/mondo.jpg
Wolfgaming.net. Where the Gameplay is teamplay (http://www.wolfgaming.net)

Biloxi72
09-14-2004, 08:57 AM
S!
Wolf from what i have read the f4u-1 series could not. However the f4u-4 series could carry more and was a bit faster i will get info when i get home, that is where i have all my sites with the info.

chris455
09-14-2004, 09:01 AM
Both were superb air to ground machines. IIRC, the corsair could carry 2,500 lbs of ordnance, same as the Jug. It was also a tough A/C, like the Jug. In the air to air arena, both of these planes were very effective against virtually all major japanese types. It's a hard choice for some- the Corsair is one sexxy looking ride-
but I'll stick to the Jug always.
"To each his own". http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

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

Eagle_361st
09-14-2004, 09:07 AM
The Jug, because I said so. :P

~S!
Eagle
Commanding Officer 361st vFG
www.361stvfg.com (http://www.361stvfg.com)
http://home.comcast.net/~smconlon/wsb/media/245357/site1079.jpg

"Two weeks, be sure" Oleg Maddox

Biloxi72
09-14-2004, 09:24 AM
Ok Jug lovers, i can see the loyalty to your planes http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/11.gif Yet Eagle and Chris if you guys were in that time period if they offered you the corsair or the Jug, would you not want an aircraft that could do same job but also be a better dogfighter. When i say dogfight i mean have the ability to turnfight more easily then say just dive down for a quick pass?

I guess i am asking as a pilot, would you want a plane that was the most versitlie in every phase of combat and still get you home? To me IMO the Jug seems to lack that a bit in RL and definately in this game. Not to be a flame cuz i do fly the jug and it is a fun plane. Just curious if the Jug is a better ride or do pilots like it only more out of a sense of loyalty and the old army vs. navy rivalry.

Eagle_361st
09-14-2004, 09:31 AM
Well it's a tough question, both are very similar and both are versatile. If it were me and I am a huge Corsair fan too, I would still stick with the Jug because of my loyalty to the plane and my knowledge on flying her. That's not to say that the Corsair doesn'r win out on the being more agile in a turning engagement. But the Jug wins out on her range and ability to strike deeper, or to get me home safe damaged over a longer coarse. It's a trade off really, I can still use my speed advantage rather than turning, strike farther, and run farther with the Jug.

~S!
Eagle
Commanding Officer 361st vFG
www.361stvfg.com (http://www.361stvfg.com)
http://home.comcast.net/~smconlon/wsb/media/245357/site1079.jpg

"Two weeks, be sure" Oleg Maddox

Eagle_361st
09-14-2004, 09:32 AM
Also let me just say I am going to cheat when PF comes out. I am going to aquire a Corsair to park right next to my Jug. It's nice being the boss. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

~S!
Eagle
Commanding Officer 361st vFG
www.361stvfg.com (http://www.361stvfg.com)
http://home.comcast.net/~smconlon/wsb/media/245357/site1079.jpg

"Two weeks, be sure" Oleg Maddox

Biloxi72
09-14-2004, 09:43 AM
LOL ok thank you Eagle those are some excellent points that Chris also pointed out as well. Seems these two birds for the mmost point are equal. ANd i guess being the boss to have two monster planes to fly must be nice http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

VF-10_Snacky
09-14-2004, 10:21 AM
I like both the P47 and the Corsair so it's a tuff choice, but any aircraft which requires carrier ops is the choice I will make.

_______________________________________________
http://www.x-plane.org/users/531seawolf/Corsair%20Sig.jpg
"Up there the world is divided into bastards and suckers. Make your choice."

â"” Derek Robinson, 'Piece of Cake.'

BSS_Vidar
09-14-2004, 10:44 AM
I absolutely love my "Bent Wing Warrior", but the Jug is the best single-engine ground pounder to come out of the war - Hands down.

S!

BSS_Vidar

MEGILE
09-14-2004, 11:15 AM
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

I'm gonna go with P-47 aswell.. sure the Corsair has the agility edge,.. but at the end of the day, that's one of the few planes it has the edge over.... it is still way out classed by Japanese planes in a slower turn fight, kinda negating the advantages.

F4U4 in pacific Fighters? I HIGHLY doubt it... but maybe if you are a good boy and do your home work and eat your vegetables. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

P-47N in pacific Fighters? maybe/maybe not... seen screenshots of the 3D model but apperently the dude making it lost the data.. so lets keep our fingers crossed.
No doubt the P-47N deserves to be in there, even if it arrived slightly later in the war.

P-47D27/N1 in what ever incarnation it comes it will be my mount with the P-51D20NA in a VERY close second place... although if it is a carrier vs. Carrier dogfight map I'll choose the 'Sair over the Hellkitty http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Which reminds me.. I must bump the "why not a P-47M" thread in olegs ready room.. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

http://www.5thairforce.com/e107_files/public/p51purplej.jpg

[This message was edited by Megile on Tue September 14 2004 at 10:25 AM.]

horseback
09-14-2004, 11:20 AM
Vidar-a lot of Typhoon drivers might take issue with you on the Thunderbolt being the best ground pounder to come out of the war. It was certainly the safest, but that is ONLY because Hellcat drivers still had to land on a carrier after all the other hazards of combat.

In a strict contest between the Corsair and the Jug as a fighter-bomber, the Corsair has the advantage in overall low level performance, although I believe in practice (as opposed to to official specs) the Republic product had much better top speed -Republic and Pratt & Whitney had their people out there in the field making sure that the ground crews were able to squeeze every little bit of performance out of the Jug, and by all accounts were very successful. In addition to better than 'book' performance, it enjoyed an excellent availability rate, that is, it required less maintenance/repair to stay in service, as expressed in terms of hours of flight vs hours of maintenance.

The Corsair, by contrast, tended to need more maintenance time. There was a saying at Grumman to the effect that a Corsair was faster than a Hellcat only four out of seven days, because the F4U was down for maintenance/repair three days out of the week.

This has a certain effect on pilot confidence and how far he will be willing to push his machine. I think I'd be more confident in a Jug. It can take more abuse and get me home, it's got the speed to allow me to dictate the terms of an air to air fight, and it doesn't have a lot of fabric on the control surfaces.

But I'd rather be flying a Hellcat.

cheers

horseback

"Here's your new Mustangs, boys. You can learn to fly'em on the way to the target. Cheers!" -LTCOL Don Blakeslee, 4th FG CO, February 27th, 1944

Mjoelner63
09-14-2004, 12:11 PM
Officiel evaluation from back then Cors 1b vs P51D-nxxx...... Cors outturned the 51 and could stay on station longer as well. The 51 only marginally outclimbed the Corsair at all altitudes. The 51d has approxemately the same wingloading as the the YAK 3 but at least 300hp more, but turns worse in FB AEP. Wonder how it'll be with the Corsair in PF ?

Can't wait for PF
Cheers all

TgD Thunderbolt56
09-14-2004, 12:24 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mjoelner63:
...... Cors outturned the 51 and could stay on station longer as well. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Wha...? I have never seen an account that stated the Corsair had greater duration than a P-51. Typo? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_confused.gif


Our FB server info: http://www.greatergreen.com/il2

BSS_Vidar
09-14-2004, 01:25 PM
No doubt the Typhoon was a great mud mover, but I believe (along with its striking performance)the P-47 edges it out due to "Survivability" down in the trenches and bringing the pilot home better than any fighterbomber.

BSS_Vidar

Eagle_361st
09-14-2004, 02:21 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BSS_Vidar:
No doubt the Typhoon was a great mud mover, but I believe (along with its striking performance)the P-47 edges it out due to "Survivability" down in the trenches and bringing the pilot home better than any fighterbomber.

BSS_Vidar<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Indeed the P-47 had a .7% loss ratio(ETO numbers, but saw more action there) for combat missions of all types in WWII. That is better than any a/c in the war.

~S!
Eagle
Commanding Officer 361st vFG
www.361stvfg.com (http://www.361stvfg.com)
http://home.comcast.net/~smconlon/wsb/media/245357/site1079.jpg

"Two weeks, be sure" Oleg Maddox

BlackShrike
09-14-2004, 02:31 PM
F4U4 is being released in initial PF .

corsair is more nimble but the P47-N has much more speed than corsairs .

P-47-N first choice

F4U-4 second

early corsairs third

P-47-D models last

BigKahuna_GS
09-14-2004, 03:17 PM
S!

F4U-4 :

Maximum speed:
F4U-1: 417 mph @ 19,900 ft.
F4U-4: 446 mph @ 26,200 ft.

The -4 displays a 29 mph speed advantage, but more importantly, does it at a considerably greater altitude. The F4U-4 is actually 10 mph faster than the P-51D at the Mustangâ's best altitude.

Rate of climb:
F4U-1: 3,250 ft/min.
F4U-4: 4,170 ft/min.

While the -4 has a more powerful engine, it also weighs more than the F4U-1. This marked increase in climb rate can be attributed to the more efficient 4 blade propeller as well as the higher power of the up-rated powerplant. The increase moves the Corsair into stellar company with fighters such as the P-38L and the F7F Tigercat. The F4U-4 climbs at a rate 20% better than the P-51D.

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.

Maneuverability: The F4U-4 was one of the very best. According to Jeffrey Ethell: "Of all World War II fighters, the Corsair was probably the finest in air-to-air combat for a balance of maneuverability and responsiveness. The -4, the last wartime version is considered by many pilots who have flown the entire line to be the best of them allâ....." Indeed, the F4U-4 had few, if any equals at the business of ACM (air combat maneuvering).
Advantage: F4U-4

Ease of flight.The Corsair was much less a handful than the P-51 when flown into an accelerated stall, although it was by no means as forgiving as the F6F Hellcat. Torque roll was no worse than most of its high power contemporaries.

The F4U also rolled well. When rolling in conjunction with powerplant torque, in other words, rolling left, it was among the very fastest rolling fighters of the war. In the inventory of American fighters, only the P-47N rolled faster, and only by 6 degrees/second.

http://web.cetlink.net/~howardds/28260b00.gif

http://home.att.net/~historyzone/F4U-4.html

http://home.att.net/~historyzone/Corsair2.jpg



_______



"Aggressiveness was fundamental to success in air-to-air combat and if you ever caught a fighter pilot in a defensive mood you had him licked before you started shooting."
Cmdr. David McCampbell, USN

McCampbell's nine kills in 90 minutes set a record in aerial warfare history for a single mission that is believed to stand today. He is the nation's top Navy ace and fourth-leading ace, behind three Army Air Force pilots.
_______
http://www.militaryartgallery.com/Images_b/b-zero-fighter-sweep.jpg
"Angels of Okinawa"

BigKahuna_GS
09-14-2004, 03:21 PM
S!

F4U-4:

Under-wing load capability was substantial. Up to three 1,000 lb. bombs along with eight 5 inch rockets could be carried. Reportedly, it was not unusual to rig the F4U-4 with as much as 6,000 lbs of ordnance. Apparently the robust structure of the Corsair could bear these loads without undue wear and tear on the airframe. Almost certainly, such overloaded Corsairs did not operate from carrier decks, but exclusively from shore bases.

There is little doubt that the Corsair was likely the greatest load carrying fighter of its era. There is little to compare to it except perhaps late-war models of the P-47, which still fall somewhat short in maximum load.


________________



"Aggressiveness was fundamental to success in air-to-air combat and if you ever caught a fighter pilot in a defensive mood you had him licked before you started shooting."
Cmdr. David McCampbell, USN

McCampbell's nine kills in 90 minutes set a record in aerial warfare history for a single mission that is believed to stand today. He is the nation's top Navy ace and fourth-leading ace, behind three Army Air Force pilots.
_______
http://www.militaryartgallery.com/Images_b/b-zero-fighter-sweep.jpg
"Angels of Okinawa"

MEGILE
09-14-2004, 03:26 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> F4U4 is being released in initial PF .<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif We shall see..

http://www.5thairforce.com/e107_files/public/p51darkj.jpg

Cajun76
09-14-2004, 05:20 PM
Kahuna, I saw the same site last night, but haven't found anyone else saying the Corsair was carrying 3 x 1000lbs bombs, or up to 6000lbs of ordanance, especially in WWII. I'll keep looking though. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif That site has some good info, but it seems a bit biased toward the 'Sair.

Edit: Max I can find on almost half a dozen sites show 2000lbs of bombs and eight rockets for the F4U-4. Range is half the P-47N at a tad over 1000 miles.

Conclusion: If I had to fly combat, I'd be in the P-47N, followed closely by the Corsair, followed by the P-47D. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Good hunting,
(56th)*Cajun76
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v30/Cajun76/CajunsSig03.gif (http://www.airwarfare.com/)&lt;Click for Mudmovers http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
If you have trouble hitting your objective, your secondary targets are here and here,
an accordian factory and a mime school. Good luck, gentlemen. - Admiral Benson Hot Shots

[This message was edited by Cajun76 on Tue September 14 2004 at 04:46 PM.]

Biloxi72
09-14-2004, 05:45 PM
S!
Well i was mainly talking about the f4u-1 series but the 4 model does show how versitile and powerful the sair became. I guess it was the right design after all since it was the only fighter bomber modified and continued after the war. It might have been cool to see where the p47 would have ended up with more mods like the corsair.
After reading all the other comments I would still prefer the corsair in the PF/AEP world of ours.
Reasons:
1. manuverablity down low, needed to ground pound and get caught low alt. to escape the IJN/A planes. Also its rate of climb will get me to saftey faster then the Jug.
2. It is almost if not as tough as the Jug and can carry the same amount of armament. So really not losing much.
3. The high alt. speed advantage a Jug enjoys is not truly modeled correctly in FB so that advantage is kind of nullified i think.
4. It just looks scary and sleek, Though i have been caught in the sites of a Jug coming down on me an that is scary to http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_eek.gif!

On Horseback's comments and facts of engine reliability of the Jugs. I think those facts he posted are a little unfair to the corsair planes and ground crews. Both the Jug and Corsair did have the same PW engine i believe. So technically they should have been the same performance, but the corsairs record states otherwise. This in my view happened for a few reasons.
1. it was easier to get republic and PW technicians to European/English bases then to get those Vought and PW engineers out to the south pacific. So already they are at a disadvantge.
2. The Corsair in the pacific was based on the most primitive jungle islands with no protection from elements. Carrier planes could go below decks for cleaning and protection, while the Jugs could go in hangars or the weather was not a bad for ones outdoors.
3. Lastly the marines depended on supply ships to the island, plenty of reasons why supplies would not make it to them anmd make do with what you got. Navy planes had all the supples sailing with them and good conditons to work on them, no snipers hehe. Same with the Jugs.

I think if the corsairs had equal conditons as the others the mechanical problems would have been a lot less.

Great info guys, lots of passion about these two great planes!

Aztek_Eagle
09-14-2004, 06:19 PM
i think the p47 can carrie more bombs, but the corsair is a rocket boy, so it would depend on what kind of ground target i am going for

SkyChimp
09-14-2004, 07:22 PM
The ultimate Corsair for ground-pounding was the US Marine's Korean War era AU-1. It was the only Corsair to use single stage supercharging as performance at anything much over tree-top level was unnecessary. It was very heavily armored and could carry around 9,000 lbs in external ordnance when flying from land, and usually up to 4,000 lbs when flying from carriers.

http://www.vought.com/heritage/photo/assets/images/db_images/db_3437_03.jpg
http://www.vought.com/heritage/photo/assets/images/db_images/db_4378_19.jpg
http://www.vought.com/heritage/photo/assets/images/db_images/db_4822_10.jpg


Regards,
SkyChimp
http://members.cox.net/us.fighters/SkyChimp_flying.jpg

Aztek_Eagle
09-14-2004, 08:32 PM
well but we are not in korea, in that case i would fly the a10 in the battle of midway

SkyChimp
09-14-2004, 08:37 PM
I love the P-47. But if I had to do all my work below 25,000 feet, I'd take the Corsair any day. The Corair was a fantastic fighter-bomber, and was a much better fighter than the P-47 at lower altitudes.

Regards,
SkyChimp
http://members.cox.net/us.fighters/SkyChimp_flying.jpg

Eagle_361st
09-14-2004, 08:41 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SkyChimp:
I love the P-47. But if I had to do all my work below 25,000 feet, I'd take the Corsair any day. The Corair was a fantastic fighter-bomber, and was a much better fighter than the P-47 at lower altitudes.

_Regards,
SkyChimp_
http://members.cox.net/us.fighters/SkyChimp_flying.jpg
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You shall be punished by the Jug for what you have said. Pure heresy I tell you.

~S!
Eagle
Commanding Officer 361st vFG
www.361stvfg.com (http://www.361stvfg.com)
http://home.comcast.net/~smconlon/wsb/media/245357/site1079.jpg

"Two weeks, be sure" Oleg Maddox

Cajun76
09-14-2004, 09:28 PM
Easy Eagle, to tell the truth, Chimp has been acting a little strange lately....


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v30/Cajun76/1054293914.jpg



http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Good hunting,
(56th)*Cajun76
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v30/Cajun76/CajunsSig03.gif (http://www.airwarfare.com/)&lt;Click for Mudmovers http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
If you have trouble hitting your objective, your secondary targets are here and here,
an accordian factory and a mime school. Good luck, gentlemen. - Admiral Benson Hot Shots

Eagle_361st
09-14-2004, 09:32 PM
OMG I just spewed Pepsi all over my monitor.

~S!
Eagle
Commanding Officer 361st vFG
www.361stvfg.com (http://www.361stvfg.com)
http://home.comcast.net/~smconlon/wsb/media/245357/site1079.jpg

"Two weeks, be sure" Oleg Maddox

Aztek_Eagle
09-15-2004, 01:05 AM
It is sad she looks better than my girlfriend.....

WOLFMondo
09-15-2004, 01:36 AM
The Jug rate of climb is a big factor but wouldn't there be escorts for them anyway?

Some one needs to give PF to Capt Eric Brown when its done for his proffessional opinion!

http://bill.nickdafish.com/sig/mondo.jpg
Wolfgaming.net. Where the Gameplay is teamplay (http://www.wolfgaming.net)

Biloxi72
09-15-2004, 07:18 AM
I dont think Eric Brown would be a good tester of the corsair. Not due to his flying credentials but I think he seems to be biased towards planes in the ETO. Megile has posted that Brown stated he would never take the corsair over the 190 because the 190 (a series) was a much better plane. Even though I believe the f4u-1 could climb quicker, turn better and was slightly faster then the 190 at certain alts.
I think IMO we need to find a pilot that flew in both the pacific and the ETO for a better reference. Then again An american pilot would be fine since we are comparing two AMerican craft. Overall though I think it is personal preference on this, and I will side with Skychimp on this one.

**runs for cover from eagle and tbolt's fury** http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/11.gif

Texas LongHorn
09-15-2004, 07:20 AM
You crazy guys always go off on this "Corsair" thing like it was some version of the lost chalice. The bent-winged bird AND the P-47 are just plain too easy to fly. Give me my fat Aluminum beer keg they call the Wildcat, now THAT'S an airplane. Later in the campaign and career the pilot can upgrade to the Hellcat. Heck, for that matter I'm looking forward to defending Midway in my Brewster Buffalo! Correct me if i'm wrong but it seems to me the Buff has the fastest roll-rate of any aircraft in the PTO. It's gonna' be a blast. All the best, LongHorn

http://img49.photobucket.com/albums/v149/msdavis/My_Sig_Image2.jpg

horseback
09-15-2004, 08:24 AM
I see that I have to defend my comments about the Corsair's servicability record in WWII. While it shared the R-2800 engine with the P-47 and the Hellcat, the supercharger installation was somewhat different in each aircraft, and the airframes were quite a bit different.

Hellcats operating off island bases (and yes, there were a number of Navy and Marine squadrons flying the Hellcat from island bases) in the Pacific were under the same supply and support constraints that the Corsair was, and still had much greater availibility rates.

The P-47 groups operating in the Pacific also seem to have kept their aircraft up to similar levels with the ETO based units. They were certainly better in that regard than the P-38, a much more complex airplane.

Grumman and Republic both seem to have embraced the KISS (keep it simple, stupid) principle more thoroughly than Vought, and it shows. The Corsair just took a longer time to 'shake out' its servicing problems.

If you throw in the fact that the Hellcat was a remarkably forgiving aircraft (an important consideration for one of my innate abilities), you can see why I'd prefer it for most air to air and air to ground missions.

cheers

horseback

"Here's your new Mustangs, boys. You can learn to fly'em on the way to the target. Cheers!" -LTCOL Don Blakeslee, 4th FG CO, February 27th, 1944

Reschke
09-15-2004, 08:39 AM
Why anyone wants to fly a Hellcat is beyond me. Just a simple airplane thats makes it to easy to get kills in. However I sincerely hope Oleg nueters the heck out of the kitty cat planes so they show their true colors...I love flying Roving High Cover for Hellcat drivers.


http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/784.gif

Seriously though I hope this game shows all aspects of the PTO and gimme my -1 Corsair anyday.

Lcdr. Reschke
CO VF-17 " The Jolly Rogers"
The Jolly Rogers (http://www.vf-17.org)

Biloxi72
09-15-2004, 09:09 AM
Horseback sir I hope you did not take what I stated as really an attack on what you posted about the corsair engine problem thing. I was just basing my opinions on what you had posted is all. I did not mean to be "attacking" your work. I just thought of ways to see why they had some problems. I guess I like the complexity of the corsair due to flying the German planes that were also complex in design. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

SkyChimp
09-15-2004, 06:04 PM
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v30/Cajun76/1054293914.jpg

Granny?

Regards,
SkyChimp
http://members.cox.net/us.fighters/SkyChimp_flying.jpg

horseback
09-16-2004, 11:38 AM
Rufshod-

No offense taken. I simply failed to clarify something I tended to take for granted. My maternal grandfather built FG-1 Corsairs for Goodyear throughout the war, and often commented that Goodyear had better quality standards than Chance-Vought. He maintained that many of the improvements that led to the -1D and -4 models had origins on the Goodyear factory floors.

Some of this might be due to 'team spirit', but the record does indicate that the Corsair had built-in flaws that were not necessary and took until the F4U-4 to remedy, over four years after they were initially noted, when the initial prototype flew. Engine and systems installations were not as accessible for maintenance, pilot view was restricted, the cooling flaps leaked oil which would spray over the windscreen -- in fact, fluids of every type leaked out of the forward fuselage (leading to those lines of tape modellers love so much on the upper nose).

Brewster built Corsairs had such severe quality problems that they rarely made it outside the continental United States, like the Curtiss-built P-47Gs. These aircraft were usually consigned to training commands, helping to firmly establish the 'ensign eliminator' reputation.

The fact is that some companies have a reputation for good engineering and sloppy manufacturing practices, that is, that they create brilliant designs, but build and refine them poorly. It takes years, instead of months, to work the 'kinks' out. The fact may be that disfunctional company cultures, bureaucracies, management and labor issues may have combined to kill more American airmen than our country's enemies.

cheers

horseback

"Here's your new Mustangs, boys. You can learn to fly'em on the way to the target. Cheers!" -LTCOL Don Blakeslee, 4th FG CO, February 27th, 1944

Biloxi72
09-17-2004, 07:24 AM
S!
Ahh ok Horseback great little inside info with your Grandfather. I will show my inexperince here by honestly saying I did not know other companines (like brewester) were contracted out to make the corsair. Thanks for clarifying your thoughts to me so i get the better picture.
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif