DCS : F4U-1 Corsair

a little reading material...

 

http://www.f4ucorsair.com/history.html

That was great, thank you!

-Nick

awesome pic- thanks! i remember watching ba ba black sheep as a kid and being totally enamored w the corsair!

Beautiful bird! :thumbup:

Pwease?

:shocking: WOUHOUUU ! F4U-7 ! Nice anachronism ! :D

All the same understandable :pilotfly:

:shocking: WOUHOUUU ! F4U-7 ! Nice anachronism ! :D

All the same understandable :pilotfly:

Absolutely ahah !

For any Corsair lover, take a cup of something, sit back and watch : [ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nubn_QpkHnI[/ame]

Such an awesome bird.... without a doubt the best US fighter of WW2 IMHO.

The F4U-4 was a match for any prop fighter produced during the war.

Such an awesome bird.... without a doubt the best US fighter of WW2 IMHO.

 

The F4U-4 was a match for any prop fighter produced during the war.

But was it a match for.....

TEH MIG 21????

But was it a match for.....

 

TEH MIG 21????

:megalol:

Such an awesome bird.... without a doubt the best US fighter of WW2 IMHO.

 

The F4U-4 was a match for any prop fighter produced during the war.

It wasn't even a match for Kawanishi N1K

Such an awesome bird.... without a doubt the best US fighter of WW2 IMHO.

 

The F4U-4 was a match for any prop fighter produced during the war.

Did you check out the total losses in the history article? Sweeping statements like that can always be disputed because there isn't a definite way to compare them. We get that you like it though :music_whistling:

What a great picture:)

Such an awesome bird.... without a doubt the best US fighter of WW2 IMHO.

 

The F4U-4 was a match for any prop fighter produced during the war.

 

It wasn't even a match for Kawanishi N1K

Even when using favorable test data for N1K the F4U-4 has an 40 mph speed advantage at almost every altitude. That's hardly not even a match.

Did you check out the total losses in the history article? Sweeping statements like that can always be disputed because there isn't a definite way to compare them.

You can always compare performance figures, which are not that far apart from the other late war beasts that this statement would be devalued. Everything else is up to pilots and tactics.

40 mph speed advantage

Does it apply to climb rate?

Does it apply to climb rate?

F4U-4 outclassed N1K2-J in almost every aspect, except for maneuverability (sustained and instantaneous turn), firepower and rear visibility. But F4U-4 saw also smaller use than F4U-1d and as much as it was desired to supply with them all units, fact remains that until the end of hostilities the F4U-1 remained primary Corsair in service. And keeping in mind the maps like Iwo-Jima or Okinawa F4U-1d just makes sense.

Adding F4U-4 in current plans would be like 109 K-4 in Normandy ...

Just dont get me wrong, I dont mind F4U-4 on its own (as VEAO is already making Bearcat, so there is some field for top performing naval fighters. And F4U-4 is a great fighter !) but it just doesnt fit any known scenario of that time and would outperform all opponents met in the Pacific, the only aircraft I can think of that could have a chance would be J2M3.

Personally I've never liked the Shinden a lot. Ki-84 is a better performing and prettier looking aircraft which is a better match to most Allied birds. But that's just me, and unlike N1K2J it is an army plane so I guess a naval fighter vs another naval fighter would have some special appeal as a possible rival. What about a Raiden though? Would it not be another possible nice opponent to an early Corsair, albeit still a land based one.

What I wonder most about F4U-1 is what sort of ground attack ordnance would we get. I intent to burn some vehicles with it :). I know Corsairs were equipped with HVARs, Tiny Tims and a considerable bomb load for a fighter but were these weapons available across all the variants? Any idea what sort of bombs/rockets we should expect on this particular variant, if any?

Personally I've never liked the Shinden a lot. Ki-84 is a better performing and prettier looking aircraft which is a better match to most Allied birds. But that's just me, and unlike N1K2J it is an army plane so I guess a naval fighter vs another naval fighter would have some special appeal as a possible rival. What about a Raiden though? Would it not be another possible nice opponent to an early Corsair, albeit still a land based one.

Not Shinden (J7W1 was named Shinden) but Shiden "Violet Lightning".

And J2M3 is Raiden.

In fact there was no such great performance difference, most quoted figures for N1K2-J are not accurate. Ki-82 had some advantages, but N1K2-J had its as well - namely heavier armament and a lot more ammunition for it, superior high speed flight characteristics, more modern design (laminar airfoil ) and automatic combat flaps.

And Ki-84 and N1K2-J would have same reason to be there, N1K2-J was a Land based Navy fighter, so no difference here if compared to Ki-84. After all Japanese in Iwo Jima or Okinawa wont have any carriers (or should not have unless we go for "what if scenario") but operate from airfields.

What I wonder most about F4U-1 is what sort of ground attack ordnance would we get. I intent to burn some vehicles with it . I know Corsairs were equipped with HVARs, Tiny Tims and a considerable bomb load for a fighter but were these weapons available across all the variants? Any idea what sort of bombs/rockets we should expect on this particular variant, if any?

From my perspective its as good ground pounder as P-47 and it can carry :

1) On Wing Pylons - 2 x Droppable fuel tank

or

2 x 1000 / 500 / 250 lbs bombs

or

6 x 100 lbs bombs

or

2 x 11.75" rockets

2) Under fuselage - 1 x droppable fuel tank

or

1 x 1000 / 500 / 250 lbs bomb

3) Under wings - 8 x HVAR or A.R. rockets

And judging by MiG-21 ... I'd expect all kinds of ordnance loadouts for Corsair.

How about a ASM-N-2 Bat Anti ship radar-guided gliding bomb?

Corsairs also dropped napalm in WW2 and some were field modded to handle a 2000 pound bomb on the centerline rack.

Just dont get me wrong, I dont mind F4U-4 on its own (as VEAO is already making Bearcat, so there is some field for top performing naval fighters. And F4U-4 is a great fighter !) but it just doesnt fit any known scenario of that time and would outperform all opponents met in the Pacific, the only aircraft I can think of that could have a chance would be J2M3.

I still hope somebody will make a Korea map in the not so distant future and for that war the F4U-4 would fit perfectly. The later Russian piston engine types used there should also sell quite well in Russia and the east.

Does it apply to climb rate?

F4U-4 performance:

In addition to this the F4U-4 boasted excellent maneuverability, easily outturning the P-51 in comparative trials and was the only Allied fighter featuring a roll rate close to that of the Fw190.

My biggest love in the aviation world, the first time I could sit in the cockpit, I had tears in my eyes....such a beauty :-)

F4U-4 outclassed N1K2-J in almost every aspect, except for maneuverability (sustained and instantaneous turn), firepower and rear visibility. But F4U-4 saw also smaller use than F4U-1d and as much as it was desired to supply with them all units, fact remains that until the end of hostilities the F4U-1 remained primary Corsair in service. And keeping in mind the maps like Iwo-Jima or Okinawa F4U-1d just makes sense.

Adding F4U-4 in current plans would be like 109 K-4 in Normandy ...

 

Just dont get me wrong, I dont mind F4U-4 on its own (as VEAO is already making Bearcat, so there is some field for top performing naval fighters. And F4U-4 is a great fighter !) but it just doesnt fit any known scenario of that time and would outperform all opponents met in the Pacific, the only aircraft I can think of that could have a chance would be J2M3.

I personally strongly prefer the F4U-4 over the F4U-1 due to the fact that it would be the first time the -4 has been done for a proper sim. Also the issue with a proper opponent is easily solved by simply introducing some of its historical late war Japanese opponents, such as the Ki-84b for example - which I btw would also love to fly.

and then ofcourse there's the fact that the F4U-4 with its more oval nose shape (supercharger intake) just cooler :smoke:

I personally strongly prefer the F4U-4 over the F4U-1 due to the fact that it would be the first time the -4 has been done for a proper sim. Also the issue with a proper opponent is easily solved by simply introducing some of its historical late war Japanese opponents, such as the Ki-84b for example - which I btw would also love to fly.

There is no technical difference between Ki-84-Ia and Ib, except for armament and possibly installation of low pressure fuel injection. Thus same Ki-84 that flew in late 1944 would not differ from Ki-84 flying over Okinawa in 1945 (not taking into account degradation of fuel, manufacturing, maintenance and so on ...). I stand on this that F4U-4 would find no proper opposition here, and as much as word balance has little meaning in any serious sim, there is also that thing reflecting the impact of the machine on the events - and F4U-4 had minimal impact if compared to F4U-1d.

As a matter of fact I cant recall a single operation in which pilots of 343 Kokutai would tackle with F4U-4, and that unit participated in every decent operation over Okinawa and Southern Japan in Spring and Summer 1945.

Again, I dont mind the fighter itself. Beautiful warbird (though I'm more into ground pounding and so AU-1 comes in my mind) but dont see any greater scenario for it :dunno: