Jump to content


why isn't the grumman F6F Hellcat avalible


  • Please log in to reply
40 replies to this topic

pyantoryng #21 Posted 09 January 2018 - 02:13 PM

    Colonel

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 1469 battles
  • 8,126
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

View PostSpiritFoxMY, on 09 January 2018 - 09:13 AM, said:

 

Leave my Brewster alone dammit.

 

The Pirate Treatment (standalone branch that go back to the mainline) could be an option...

WoWP makes a great jousting game...especially with the 262 and people busy in furballs...
I am deaf, silent, and fly with unrealistic controls. Do not count on me to carry - my back's already broken from overweight.

StoptheViolins #22 Posted 09 January 2018 - 02:44 PM

    Command Chief Master Sergeant

  • Member
  • 1470 battles
  • 839
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012
FM-2 is just the GM version of the F4F.

I think it had a slightly different engine cowling and vstab.

I'd rather WG sort out the sky whale and replace it with the Venom followed by the Sea Vixen.  No need for paper planes in the uk line.

Onyx #23 Posted 10 January 2018 - 03:47 PM

    Master Sergeant

  • Alpha tester
  • 697 battles
  • 65
  • [CMFRT] CMFRT
  • Member since:
    10-30-2011

View PostStoptheViolins, on 09 January 2018 - 06:44 AM, said:

FM-2 is just the GM version of the F4F.

I think it had a slightly different engine cowling and vstab.

I'd rather WG sort out the sky whale and replace it with the Venom followed by the Sea Vixen. No need for paper planes in the uk line.

 

XF5U says "hi."  As delicious as pancakes are, that plane is hideously out of place as a production line.  First, navy planes didn't use the M39 as far as I know.  Second, the M39 isn't a 1940s gun (in the sense that the US military had access to it).  It's 1950s introduction while the XF5U was cancelled in 1947.  Third, the XF5U is a failed prototype of a plane that literally never flew and was basically powered by paper and math.  Four, there's a plane that would fit well there with some strategic fittings:  The P-82.  Same era, twin-engine, had up to 14 0.50 cals (possibly more, I've seen images with other gun pods, unknown caliber).  Could creatively be up-gunned if the devs absolutely wanted to.  And it's a production plane that actually saw service.  As bad as certain other U.S. planes are, such as the F-94 with Vulcan, the XF-90, which wasn't even selected to receive production before being cancelled for the penetration fighter program.  The XF-88 was.  The XF-90 also was an Air Force jet, which didn't use Colt Mk 12s, that was a Navy gun.  It would have used M39s if it used any 20mm.  It's a bit picky, but until the M61 standardized fighter armament in the late '50s, The USN and USAF generally didn't touch each other's equipment for a variety of reasons.  

 

I digress.

 

And yeah.  While the FM-1 was based on the F4F-4 except removing 2 of the wing guns and adding room for bombs/rockets, the FM-2 is based on the XF4F-8 prototype that Grumman abandoned when they moved to the F6F.  It featured a stronger (1350hp) engine and a larger vertical stabilizer to handle the torque.  Not sure of cowling differences, but I'd be surprised if it didn't have differences.

 

The only real justification to get the FM-2 into the line is to make an entirely Grumman line by just adding 1 plane in and moving the Buffalo wherever.  Could be a premium, a side-grade, could be a branch to a different line or skip into the Vought line or what have you, but having a unified Grumman line would be something that could be done.



StoptheViolins #24 Posted 10 January 2018 - 04:34 PM

    Command Chief Master Sergeant

  • Member
  • 1470 battles
  • 839
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

View PostOnyx, on 10 January 2018 - 10:47 AM, said:

 

XF5U says "hi."  As delicious as pancakes are, that plane is hideously out of place as a production line.  First, navy planes didn't use the M39 as far as I know.  Second, the M39 isn't a 1940s gun (in the sense that the US military had access to it).  It's 1950s introduction while the XF5U was cancelled in 1947.  Third, the XF5U is a failed prototype of a plane that literally never flew and was basically powered by paper and math.  Four, there's a plane that would fit well there with some strategic fittings:  The P-82.  Same era, twin-engine, had up to 14 0.50 cals (possibly more, I've seen images with other gun pods, unknown caliber).  Could creatively be up-gunned if the devs absolutely wanted to.  And it's a production plane that actually saw service.  As bad as certain other U.S. planes are, such as the F-94 with Vulcan, the XF-90, which wasn't even selected to receive production before being cancelled for the penetration fighter program.  The XF-88 was.  The XF-90 also was an Air Force jet, which didn't use Colt Mk 12s, that was a Navy gun.  It would have used M39s if it used any 20mm.  It's a bit picky, but until the M61 standardized fighter armament in the late '50s, The USN and USAF generally didn't touch each other's equipment for a variety of reasons.  

 

I digress.

 

And yeah.  While the FM-1 was based on the F4F-4 except removing 2 of the wing guns and adding room for bombs/rockets, the FM-2 is based on the XF4F-8 prototype that Grumman abandoned when they moved to the F6F.  It featured a stronger (1350hp) engine and a larger vertical stabilizer to handle the torque.  Not sure of cowling differences, but I'd be surprised if it didn't have differences.

 

The only real justification to get the FM-2 into the line is to make an entirely Grumman line by just adding 1 plane in and moving the Buffalo wherever.  Could be a premium, a side-grade, could be a branch to a different line or skip into the Vought line or what have you, but having a unified Grumman line would be something that could be done.

 

Actually the pancake did fly, it flew well enough to build the 2nd prototype which did not fly.  The second prototype was scrapped once the project was cancelled.  If you want to debate crap planes then the F6U Pirate flew just about as much as the XF5U.  The Pirate's average time per frame was 32 hours for 30 aircraft.  Essentially some air frames had enough hours to deliver and fly to scrap.  The Pirate existed long enough to meet a signed contract obligation to deliver 30 aircraft.

 

But I concur the P-82 would have been far better to put in the slot and make the pancake a premium.

 

I am not saying don't add the F6F, btw.. Maybe make it a bump out plane next to the Corsair at T6?  



pyantoryng #25 Posted 10 January 2018 - 06:18 PM

    Colonel

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 1469 battles
  • 8,126
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

Here's a history of the Pancake and its associated planes in WoWP.

 

A long, long time ago, in the Beta period, the little mark that denotes Multirole fighters was used for "carrier-based fighters", which encompasses the USN fighters, from the early Grumman to the Corsairs, the Pirate, the Cutlass, the entire IJN tree from Type 91 all the way to J7W3...and one outlier: The Ar 197, a plane that requires its very own pilot as there was no such thing as German carrier-based fighter.

 

Where does the Pancake fit into all of this? Back then, the F4U-1 and F4U-4 didn't exist - it was a singular F4U at tier 6 and straight to the F2G in tier 7...the Pancake was there, in the tier 8 spot, as a "carrier-based fighter", leading to the F6U Pirate. Why was it there? It was Vought. Nothing more.

 

The tech tree revamp that becomes much of the tech tree as we know it today came to pass, the F4U-1 and F4U-4 came to be, F2G moved to T8, and no, Starfire didn't enter the scene yet, not until the Sleipnir UFO's laser successfully proved that one gun with massive RoF could work, but I digress. It went from Corsairs to Pirate and Cutlass.

 

The Pancake got pulled out of the tech tree altogether and was made premium for anyone who owned them, and was completely removed at release until the US heavy fighters line was introduced and the Pancake returned to its place at tier 8...would be a waste of perfectly good plane that was ready to use to speed up US HF tree release at that time perhaps...

 

The Pancake, I should note, could retain one pair of 50cals in a separate slot while the other two pairs got upgraded to the M39 at that point. The HF Pancake left the two holes above the cannons empty.

 

On a related note, the Me 609, basically Bf 109Z with option for MK 103 gunpods or SC1000 1-ton bomb, had no place in WoWP since the tree revamp that moved the 109Z to tier 7...not even as a premium. I wonder whether WG have something against the Zwiling style planes that also leave F-82 out of their minds...or they just want to keep the North America firm for light fighters and not heavies in their world...

 

As for XF-90 using Mk 12...probably because it didn't make production to begin with that they could just slap whatever, and the Mk 12 was tier 10 whereas the M39 was tier 9 back when equipments had tiers...while a case could be made that the Russian NR-23 was also tier 9 and used on their top-end fighters......



WoWP makes a great jousting game...especially with the 262 and people busy in furballs...
I am deaf, silent, and fly with unrealistic controls. Do not count on me to carry - my back's already broken from overweight.

Zergling #26 Posted 10 January 2018 - 06:28 PM

    Senior Master Sergeant

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 710 battles
  • 151
  • [CMFRT] CMFRT
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

View PostStoptheViolins, on 11 January 2018 - 02:34 AM, said:

Actually the pancake did fly, it flew well enough to build the 2nd prototype which did not fly.  The second prototype was scrapped once the project was cancelled.

 

According to Wikipedia, all it did was some short hops that weren't 'true flights'.



Wombatmetal #27 Posted 10 January 2018 - 06:33 PM

    Command Chief Master Sergeant

  • Member
  • 754 battles
  • 729
  • Member since:
    06-02-2013
I also want to know why the F8F Bearcat isn't in the game. In the procurement competition the F2G lost and the Bearcat won and went into production, so we get the F2G? 

pyantoryng #28 Posted 10 January 2018 - 06:38 PM

    Colonel

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 1469 battles
  • 8,126
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

View PostDestroyer_Suzukaze, on 10 January 2018 - 06:33 PM, said:

I also want to know why the F8F Bearcat isn't in the game. In the procurement competition the F2G lost and the Bearcat won and went into production, so we get the F2G? 

 

The F2G is an outlier as it was made by Goodyear...but it's still a Vought Corsair. The Bearcat has no relation to Vought, so nope, nada.

 

...WoWP is pretty rigid about firms (pun not intended)...



WoWP makes a great jousting game...especially with the 262 and people busy in furballs...
I am deaf, silent, and fly with unrealistic controls. Do not count on me to carry - my back's already broken from overweight.

Wombatmetal #29 Posted 10 January 2018 - 09:25 PM

    Command Chief Master Sergeant

  • Member
  • 754 battles
  • 729
  • Member since:
    06-02-2013

View Postpyantoryng, on 10 January 2018 - 10:38 AM, said:

 

The F2G is an outlier as it was made by Goodyear...but it's still a Vought Corsair. The Bearcat has no relation to Vought, so nope, nada.

 

...WoWP is pretty rigid about firms (pun not intended)...

 

If you look at the procurement policies of the day, the US always prototyped two designs to cover their bets. B17, B24. P39, P40. P47, P51. F2A, F4F.

 

In this case F2G and F8F. Read the history of the F2G, it was dropped as the Bearcat was better, it got better performance using the P&W Wasp on the F4U  and the big honking 3000hp engine on the F2G wasn't a complication the Navy wanted



pyantoryng #30 Posted 10 January 2018 - 11:14 PM

    Colonel

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 1469 battles
  • 8,126
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

View PostDestroyer_Suzukaze, on 10 January 2018 - 09:25 PM, said:

 

If you look at the procurement policies of the day, the US always prototyped two designs to cover their bets. B17, B24. P39, P40. P47, P51. F2A, F4F.

 

In this case F2G and F8F. Read the history of the F2G, it was dropped as the Bearcat was better, it got better performance using the P&W Wasp on the F4U  and the big honking 3000hp engine on the F2G wasn't a complication the Navy wanted

 

Doesn't matter in the context of WG and WoWP; Bearcat ain't Corsair, so it's out of there.

WoWP makes a great jousting game...especially with the 262 and people busy in furballs...
I am deaf, silent, and fly with unrealistic controls. Do not count on me to carry - my back's already broken from overweight.

Wombatmetal #31 Posted 10 January 2018 - 11:43 PM

    Command Chief Master Sergeant

  • Member
  • 754 battles
  • 729
  • Member since:
    06-02-2013

View Postpyantoryng, on 10 January 2018 - 03:14 PM, said:

 

Doesn't matter in the context of WG and WoWP; Bearcat ain't Corsair, so it's out of there.

 

they also could have gone up the Grumman line - F3F, F4F, F6F, F8F which would have been more accurate for the Navy. Corsairs were largely Marine and land based (until the Brits adapted them to land on a carrier)

Wombatmetal #32 Posted 10 January 2018 - 11:56 PM

    Command Chief Master Sergeant

  • Member
  • 754 battles
  • 729
  • Member since:
    06-02-2013

Not to mention that the Hellcat shot down almost as many planes as a Spitfire; the P38 and Corsair were far behind.

 

Could you leave the Spit out? No. So why the Hellcat? I think that's what is confusing



Texthor #33 Posted 11 January 2018 - 12:10 AM

    Command Chief Master Sergeant

  • Member
  • 7 battles
  • 884
  • Member since:
    12-27-2013
I waited a long time for the Hellcat.  Alas, it was not to be.   Don't know why you would get worked up for it now.  In 2.0, all the fighters fly the same........

SpiritFoxMY #34 Posted 11 January 2018 - 12:55 AM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 1885 battles
  • 1,429
  • [R-A-W] R-A-W
  • Member since:
    12-31-2012

View PostDestroyer_Suzukaze, on 10 January 2018 - 11:56 PM, said:

Not to mention that the Hellcat shot down almost as many planes as a Spitfire; the P38 and Corsair were far behind.

 

Could you leave the Spit out? No. So why the Hellcat? I think that's what is confusing

 

They left the Hurricanes out for the longest time

***

But a truce to this mournful story

For death is a distant friend

So here's to a life of glory

And a laurel to crown each end


Wombatmetal #35 Posted 11 January 2018 - 02:03 AM

    Command Chief Master Sergeant

  • Member
  • 754 battles
  • 729
  • Member since:
    06-02-2013

View PostTexthor, on 10 January 2018 - 04:10 PM, said:

I waited a long time for the Hellcat.  Alas, it was not to be.   Don't know why you would get worked up for it now.  In 2.0, all the fighters fly the same........

 

They really don't

Onyx #36 Posted 11 January 2018 - 03:09 AM

    Master Sergeant

  • Alpha tester
  • 697 battles
  • 65
  • [CMFRT] CMFRT
  • Member since:
    10-30-2011

View Postpyantoryng, on 10 January 2018 - 10:18 AM, said:

<snip>

 

Thanks for the history lesson.  Anyways, the M39 being a tier 9 gun doesn't make much sense.  It's basically one of the best guns America made to mount on aircraft that isn't the M61.  At something like 1500 RPM, the gun being anything short of tier 10 is just a bizarre choice.  The M61 being in the game is also a bizarre choice, as that wasn't introduced until 1959 and there were prototype variants they could use to not be so late technically speaking.  Mounting the M61 on the F-94D, a plane that never even had cannons and was intended to be a rocket boat, is equally strange.  It's like the devs decided to take a square peg and do their best to get it to fit into a round slot, and turned the F-94 into a frankenplane in the process.  Hell, that the XF-88, XF-90, and YF-93 all exist and either of them could fill the same slot as the XF-94D (it was a prototype variant, after all) just leaves me questioning the dev's priorities on choosing the planes.

 

Don't get me wrong, I find the concept of the Vulcan equal parts bizarre and amusing, but it really doesn't fit in the multirole line.  Hell, the F-94D is a multirole in name alone.  Having anti-air rockets doesn't really improve their anti-ground capabilities, and the P.210 suffers similarly from this conundrum, as does the USSR multirole line, which also appears to be multirole in name alone.  I digress.

 

View Postpyantoryng, on 10 January 2018 - 10:38 AM, said:

 

The F2G is an outlier as it was made by Goodyear...but it's still a Vought Corsair. The Bearcat has no relation to Vought, so nope, nada.

 

...WoWP is pretty rigid about firms (pun not intended)...

 

More or less.  To put it another way, the F2G is effectively the final example of the Corsair, just as the FM-2 is the final example of the Wildcat despite it not actually having been made by Grumman even if it was based on Grumman designs.  In a similar vein, the Spitfire didn't end at the 14, but continued all the way to the Mk 47 Seafire, which should realistically be the tier 8 Spitfire plane as that's the actual ultimate version of the plane.  You can see this logic in numerous lines.  The P-51H is the ultimate Mustang.  The P-47N is the ultimate P-47 (with an argument to be made for the M as well, albeit that would be more a fighter than multirole).  Similarly, the 109K is the ultimate 109 (as far as I am aware) and exists in the line before turning to a racing plane that never was used for combat and is very much paper (Wargaming please).

 

There's a strong tendency amongst all aircraft lines if they saw a specific model that was iterated with time to have it cap, either at tier 7/8 if it saw a lot of production models, or just cap period if its tenure was cut short or its usefulness limited (such as the P-38 line going from G to L and then turning into the F7F).  Despite it being a different manufacturer, the F2G is still very much the ultimate Corsair, and it deserves its place in the game.

 

View PostZergling, on 10 January 2018 - 10:28 AM, said:

 

According to Wikipedia, all it did was some short hops that weren't 'true flights'.

 

More or less.  It didn't leave ground effect, so like the H-4 Hercules, saying it flew is a bit of an overstatement.  It probably could have flown, but it never actually did.  It's an awkward plane in an awkward time.

 

View PostDestroyer_Suzukaze, on 10 January 2018 - 03:56 PM, said:

Not to mention that the Hellcat shot down almost as many planes as a Spitfire; the P38 and Corsair were far behind.

 

Could you leave the Spit out? No. So why the Hellcat? I think that's what is confusing

 

Because even though the F6F was the mainstay of the USN during WWII, the F4U was actually vastly more popular a plane for a variety of reasons, from it's sexy looks to the fact that it's a performance demon.  It was better than the F6F in many ways except specifically that it was difficult at best to land on carriers until the brits managed to show the USN how to land it.  Plus, in terms of dropping ordnance, as far as I'm aware the F6F was primarily used as an escort while the Corsair was used more in the capacity of the P-47 due to its limitations for carrier landings and stronger engines allowing it to carry more ordnance overall.

 

While there's an argument to be made that the F6F should be in the tree, the F4U fits better as a multirole than the Grumman line would in my opinion.



StoptheViolins #37 Posted 11 January 2018 - 05:24 AM

    Command Chief Master Sergeant

  • Member
  • 1470 battles
  • 839
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012
The F-94D was a single production unit with one seat and used as a test bed for the Vulcan cannon with no nose rockets.

The F-94A was a 4x0.50 cal guns only bird. Two seater.

The F-94B was a 4x0.50 cal plus 2 0.50 in pods underwing for a total of 8 0.50 cal guns.  It had a better engine and a revised cockpit.

The F-94C was a nose rocket bird but in the field the nose rockets were not loaded and wing rocket pods were used instead.  The smoke from the nose rockets blinded the pilot.

So WG took liberty with the nose guns and upped them to 20mm as an intermediate load out. And merged all the airframes into one...



NorthernPorter #38 Posted 11 January 2018 - 06:12 PM

    Senior Master Sergeant

  • Alpha Test Veteran
  • 1375 battles
  • 229
  • Member since:
    12-13-2011

View PostSassover, on 04 August 2017 - 05:54 PM, said:

 

Still no. The F6F is no more OP than say a P51D. Why WG/Persha decided to stop the Grumman line at T5, and then go with Voight is a mystery...like so much of the design decisions in this game. There is an answer for things that are OP...NERF. WG is never afraid to nerf the OP in the game, so that cannot be the reason.

 

Fact is, The F6F should not be a Premium plane, but instead part of a new branch of the existing tech tree line. F6F/F8F/F9F/F9F-6

 

I'd like this, they should add the line off from the F4F and then you could go down either the Chance-Vought line or Grumman line from there.

So something like this...

V   F4F  
VI   F6F-3 F4U-1
VII F7F F6F-5 F4U-4
VIII XF5U F8F F2G
IX F2H F9F F6U
X XF-90 F9F-6 F7U

So you're going from the F4F to either the F6F-3 or the F4U-1. And then from the F6F-3 you could jump over to the heavies in the F7F or continue on into the F6F-5.

Probably just wishful thinking though...

 



Jazz_4 #39 Posted 30 January 2018 - 02:37 PM

    Senior Airman

  • Member
  • 576 battles
  • 10
  • [FURHQ] FURHQ
  • Member since:
    11-05-2016
anyone know why the f4f-3 and the corsair premiums were removed from the shop?

pyantoryng #40 Posted 30 January 2018 - 02:58 PM

    Colonel

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 1469 battles
  • 8,126
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

View PostJazz_4, on 30 January 2018 - 02:37 PM, said:

anyone know why the f4f-3 and the corsair premiums were removed from the shop?

 

Premium rotation. Only that it has happened in WoWP for the very first time.

WoWP makes a great jousting game...especially with the 262 and people busy in furballs...
I am deaf, silent, and fly with unrealistic controls. Do not count on me to carry - my back's already broken from overweight.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users