-3 or -5?

[Silver_Dragon]

6 minutes ago, grafspee said:

I aware of this, this pacific asset part will be part of  f4u module. But development pace is extremally slow and i would not be surprised if ed hellcat would launch years ahead .

The F4-U1 was show on 2023 and beyond video.... and the F6F has not show nothing outside old WW2 films. Has more plausible see the Corsair with your assets pack on 2023, with a Hellcat on 2024

[grafspee]

5 minutes ago, Silver_Dragon said:

The F4-U1 was show on 2023 and beyond video.... and the F6F has not show nothing outside old WW2 films. Has more plausible see the Corsair with your assets pack on 2023, with a Hellcat on 2024

I hope that, what you are saying will come true.

[Bozon]

18 hours ago, Cliffhanger31 said:

… The -5 Hellcat will have all of the cards over any variant of the Zero so it would be less compelling from a 1v1 perspective.

Well you can always choose not to engage the water injection.

Edited February 12, 2023 by Bozon

[Gunfreak]

11 hours ago, grafspee said:

I aware of this, this pacific asset part will be part of  f4u module. But development pace is extremally slow and i would not be surprised if ed hellcat would launch years ahead .

Mag3 have stated they are working on the damage modeling and that is the last to be done before its handed over to ED for final evaluation. 

Now, the damage modeling is a long tedious process,  so might still be many months before they are done with it. But I doubt ED will somehow beat Mag3 to the finish line with their Hellcat. 

[Bananabrai]

On 1/28/2023 at 11:56 PM, Krupi said:

however frankly I am fed up of this

This is not exclusively for WW2 DCS and I am fed with people that are fed up. 

I think it makes sense to express the need for time appropriate "devices", models, maps, etc., but it makes no sense to rage about it.
ED sees our messages, moderates are reading, they know this, they just decide differently for what ever reason and we should accept and continue our lives.

I'd rather have a C-130H, fitting better to the scenarios in my head and to the other AI assets we have, etc.
But probably something else sells better, or they have more info on something else, or SMEs know the newer stuff better, etc.
Many reasons possible. They decide for some reason, any, we don't know why, but they do.

Same probably counts for the Hellcat. 

Back to topic, can someone explain in detail what would be the differences between a -3 and a -5?

[saburo_cz]

-5 had water injection, the biggest difference between them (even the last production -3s had it too)

-5 had different windshield with simplified frame

-5 had deleted small windows behind cockpit (early -5 had them)

-5 had separate oil and intercooler flaps controls (-3 had one lever for both)

-5 had capability to carry HVARs

They had some minor difference between them in cockpit.

[Bananabrai]

19 hours ago, saburo_cz said:

-5 had water injection, the biggest difference between them (even the last production -3s had it too)

-5 had different windshield with simplified frame

-5 had deleted small windows behind cockpit (early -5 had them)

-5 had separate oil and intercooler flaps controls (-3 had one lever for both)

-5 had capability to carry HVARs

They had some minor difference between them in cockpit.

Thanks.

[WinterH]

21 hours ago, saburo_cz said:

-5 had water injection, the biggest difference between them (even the last production -3s had it too)

-5 had different windshield with simplified frame

-5 had deleted small windows behind cockpit (early -5 had them)

-5 had separate oil and intercooler flaps controls (-3 had one lever for both)

-5 had capability to carry HVARs

They had some minor difference between them in cockpit.

Yeah, based on this I'd very much prefer -5 myself as long as water injection is possible to disable in mission editor like we have for P-47s it should be the best of both worlds for everyone. Not that I would bemoan -3, but if at all possible, I'd like my HVARs please, thank you very much

However, the ideal scenario would be us getting both variants, and looks like the main module development differences would mostly be in cockpit and external art, and engine. Differences between the engines doesn't seem that big either. So it does seem having both variants may indeed be feasible as we have with P-47.

[Magic Zach]

On 1/29/2023 at 6:49 AM, Silver_Dragon said:

Normandy has builded by a 3rd party, and actual WW2 aircrafts coming from a KS pleges and previosly as tesbed by ED.

 

We go to get Marianas WW2, but the F6F version will build by the available info, no to mach on a time period.

I know that the F6F in general will have 90% of its information easily accessible in one source, so 'information available' wouldn't be a plausible excuse in this case.

It's no Japanese plane or Thunderbolt with its documentation destroyed, there are especially for the Wildcat loads of documentation on it thankfully.  As far as research goes, the Wildcat would be one of the easier warbirds.

[SOLIDKREATE]

Personally I'd like a -5. You gte the mixed battery with the 20mm cannons.

[Art-J]

^ Mixed armament was only used on night-fighter variant of -5 so I doubt we will get that one (and neither we should).

[HavaFaza]

Looks like an F6F-3 in the 2024 and Beyond video, going off the bulge on the cowling over the exhaust tubes

[Art-J]

^ Apart from that, early type windscreen and windows behind canopy are dead giveaways. Yup, it's a -3, at least in that particular shot.

But, with such small visual and flight model differences, we can always dream about both being implemented at some point (just like two Spits or three Jugs we've got right now).

[Ala13_ManOWar]

Personally, I think F6F-3 with it's tiny back window looks a zillion times better than -5 and the differences aren't that big in order to make a huge leap in performance. HVARs after all weren't used until I don't recall what date, but really late war, so -5 means a very late war model which would be also out of period correct counterparts and map...

If we get the two of them I won't complain of course, they seem close enough for a P-47D like module, even hope so and TFC Hellcat is a -5 IIRC so the one they look closer, but I could live with a -3 until the end of the war without much trouble.

[Silver_Dragon]

About the version, I think has building the same aircraft available on The Fighter Collection, and fly by Nick Grey, a F6F-3 from late 43.
https://fighter-collection.com/cft/grumman-hellcat/

 

Edited January 8 by Silver_Dragon

[Ala13_ManOWar]

No, it's not "the same", the one seen in the 2024&B vídeo is an early F6F-3 with it's characteristic exhaust cowling shape (that tiny bump, yes), the one in TFC (sadly no longer there) was a late F6F-3, or an early -5 (which also boasted the little back window) without that exhaust cowling shape.

It doesn't mean they don't put in the module several versions in the end (it'd be really nice), but what we've seen so far is only an early -3, no more.

[Gunfreak]

9 hours ago, Ala13_ManOWar said:

Personally, I think F6F-3 with it's tiny back window looks a zillion times better than -5 and the differences aren't that big in order to make a huge leap in performance. HVARs after all weren't used until I don't recall what date, but really late war, so -5 means a very late war model which would be also out of period correct counterparts and map...

If we get the two of them I won't complain of course, they seem close enough for a P-47D like module, even hope so and TFC Hellcat is a -5 IIRC so the one they look closer, but I could live with a -3 until the end of the war without much trouble.

I don't think somewhat less power and speed will have much to say. You'll mostly be fighting Zeros or bombers (if we get them) and even an early-3 will have speed advantage over those planes, don't get into a turn fight with a zero and you'll be fine (would be equally true with a -5 or with a Corsair.

And let's face it, all the Japanese aircraft should be set to rookie for realism purposes by mid 43 anyway.

[Gambit21]

On 1/8/2024 at 1:24 PM, Gunfreak said:

I don't think somewhat less power and speed will have much to say. You'll mostly be fighting Zeros or bombers (if we get them) and even an early-3 will have speed advantage over those planes, don't get into a turn fight with a zero and you'll be fine (would be equally true with a -5 or with a Corsair.

And let's face it, all the Japanese aircraft should be set to rookie for realism purposes by mid 43 anyway.

 

An A6m-5 actually should match up fairly well against an F6F-3. That's a pretty good "comes down to the pilot" matchup.

It was mostly numbers and lack of experienced Japanese pilots that was at work here in RL. Then then the 5 came along and really widened the gap.

 

Even a poorly flown (let the Zero drag you into a knife-fight on the deck) F6F-5 will lose to even an A6M-2 in that case. 

We're in good shape...looking forward to this. 

 

[Krupi]

I was reading an account of an experienced F4U pilot who was dragged into a slow turn fight and he admitted he was very lucky to get out alive.

Given that it is supposedly significantly better at turning than a spit I could see frustrated DCs pilots making the same mistake constantly. 

[Gambit21]

14 hours ago, Krupi said:

 

Given that it is supposedly significantly better at turning than a spit I could see frustrated DCs pilots making the same mistake constantly. 

That's exactly how it often shakes out online. Most Hellcat/Corsair pilots fall for the bait, either out of ignorance, or sometimes even maybe under a "just this once" or a "I know I'm not supposed to, but I'm good enough" basis and then you've got them. Not putting your actual life at risk makes this phenomenon much more prevalent than in real life. 

[Gunfreak]

10 hours ago, Gambit21 said:

That's exactly how it often shakes out online. Most Hellcat/Corsair pilots fall for the bait, either out of ignorance, or sometimes even maybe under a "just this once" or a "I know I'm not supposed to, but I'm good enough" basis and then you've got them. Not putting your actual life at risk makes this phenomenon much more prevalent than in real life. 

Target fixation is a real thing, most pilots were young men with all the stupid crap that comes with that. Sure it happens more in games just like high angle blind shots happen way more than in real life. But there are plenty of source that show even veteran pilots could suffer Target fixation even to their death.

My problem is I can't hit crap in a dive. In DCS it can be really hard spotting a plane that is below you  and even if you do you then have to get the right angle to hit the plane either as you dive down on it. Or shoot it from below on the way back up. Hell, I can't even hit a plane flying straight and slow, as I end up in pilot induced oscillation. I can only hit planes going in a lazy turn. Which is why I prefer the Spit.

[grafspee]

@Gunfreak There were many during WW2 which had problems with aim. So you are not alone.

[rkk01]

I was surprised to read about Spit pilots getting caught out by Zeros…. 
 

Would have to check which models - but presumably Vcs over Darwin?

 

I also think the match ups with the 109 and both 190s will be fascinating 

 

I’ve posted before though - would be great to have an Illustrious class carrier (and a Seafire MkIII…!) to go with the Corsair and Hellcat

(Norway - about to get the right map… Tirpitz and JG.5 here we come )

Edited January 12 by rkk01

[WinterH]

3 hours ago, Gunfreak said:

My problem is I can't hit crap in a dive. In DCS it can be really hard spotting a plane that is below you  and even if you do you then have to get the right angle to hit the plane either as you dive down on it. Or shoot it from below on the way back up. Hell, I can't even hit a plane flying straight and slow, as I end up in pilot induced oscillation. I can only hit planes going in a lazy turn. Which is why I prefer the Spit.

To be fair even most of the famous WW2 aces weren't necessarily crackshots it seems. Hartmann himself said something to the effect of "get close until see the white of their eyes, then get closer, and then shoot when the plane pretty much fills your windsceen" and was damaged, by debris from his victim. Even was forced down because of it once if I recall correctly. I think Galland was kind of like that too. In fact he apparently refused to leave his Bf-109E with two wing cannons for a Bf-109F despite its all centered firepower.

Marseille on the other hand was said to even prefer just machine guns for their flat trajectory, and walked his high deflection shots neatly from enemy aircraft's engine to its cockpit, which is kind of grizzly in a way. I think one of the Soviet aces was also a rather gifted shot. But even among the best aces great shots seem to be more exception than the rule.

Even in DCS it seems to be a very perishable skill. I could hit insane high delfection shots with most guns at first or second try out of instict when I was a very regular player, now I'm happy if I can hit broad side of a barn with some regularity

1 hour ago, rkk01 said:

I was surprised to read about Spit pilots getting caught out by Zeros…. 

It may not be particularly surprising to be honest. They were used to being more maneuverable and better climbing aircraft in most of the possible match-ups before, but at least until mid war most of their opponents could outrun and/or out-accelerate them. Then suddenly, it was the exact opposite against the Zero: Spitfire had the speed advantage, but Zero climbed and turned better, so Spitfire pilots had to fight in the exact opposite way of how they did thus far.

[Gunfreak]

34 minutes ago, WinterH said:

To be fair even most of the famous WW2 aces weren't necessarily crackshots it seems. Hartmann himself said something to the effect of "get close until see the white of their eyes, then get closer, and then shoot when the plane pretty much fills your windsceen" and was damaged, by debris from his victim. Even was forced down because of it once if I recall correctly. I think Galland was kind of like that too. In fact he apparently refused to leave his Bf-109E with two wing cannons for a Bf-109F despite its all centered firepower.

Marseille on the other hand was said to even prefer just machine guns for their flat trajectory, and walked his high deflection shots neatly from enemy aircraft's engine to its cockpit, which is kind of grizzly in a way. I think one of the Soviet aces was also a rather gifted shot. But even among the best aces great shots seem to be more exception than the rule.

Even in DCS it seems to be a very perishable skill. I could hit insane high delfection shots with most guns at first or second try out of instict when I was a very regular player, now I'm happy if I can hit broad side of a barn with some regularity

It may not be particularly surprising to be honest. They were used to being more maneuverable and better climbing aircraft in most of the possible match-ups before, but at least until mid war most of their opponents could outrun and/or out-accelerate them. Then suddenly, it was the exact opposite against the Zero: Spitfire had the speed advantage, but Zero climbed and turned better, so Spitfire pilots had to fight in the exact opposite way of how they did thus far.

Oh I know, the vast majority of shoot downs happened when the target was flying straight, and usually unaware.

The number of planes shot down after the first joust dropped quite fast.

Majority of pilots even aces weren't particularly good at hitting planes that actively tries to avoid getting shot.

A few pilots mastered high angle shots. George Beurling seems to be one of the few that truly mastered that skill.(spending hours going through the mathematical theories)

But us armchair pilots have hundreds of hours to practice all kinda stuff that real pilots didn't. 

I'm definitely best in my Spitfire flying so close I can see my target on my sights even in quite violent turns. (That means they are usually around 100 yards away)  even a half second burst of 20mm will usually mess that plane up.

With the .50  cals in the P planes i struggle much more.