Aircraft Capacity/Used

[MuguNiner]

Hi all,

I have the Yorktown in port at Kavieng and removed a squadron of 40 aircraft and loaded VF-17, numbering 36. Now the Aircraft Capacity/Used reads 90/196?

Has anyone seen this before? What Have I done?

[Alfred]

VF-17 is not flying a carrier capable airframe and therefore each airframe counts as 4 for CV stacking  purposes.
 
Alfred

[m10bob]

Very good Alfred!...I would not have caught that and did not know that rule![X(][&o]

[pbiggar]

You will get F4U-1A planes in a few months. They are carrier capable. I made this mistake as well and learned my lesson after much frustration.

[geofflambert]

This is a rule that has never been broken, as far as I am aware (including by me). Every Allied player will try to operate F4U-1s on a carrier and will learn the hard way that that turns the carrier into an overcrowded parking lot. Shall it ever be so.

[RangerJoe]

All that you have to remember is that those first Corsairs were not hookers. That is, they had nothing to catch the wires on the carrier with . . .

[dcpollay]

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

All that you have to remember is that those first Corsairs were not hookers. That is, they had nothing to catch the wires on the carrier with . . .

I think you mean they WERE hookers....You're F****d if you use them on the carrier.[;)]

[RangerJoe]

The first Corsairs had no tail hook so they weren't hookers . . .

[MuguNiner]

Thank you all.

[rockmedic109]

ORIGINAL: m10bob

Very good Alfred!...I would not have caught that and did not know that rule![X(][&o]

I never knew that rule either. Thanks Alfred.

[rustysi]

IRL when the Corsair was first introduced the Navy was reticent to use it on their CV's hook or no hook. They felt the aircraft had viability problems due to the cockpit position. Being located far back, the wings obstructed the pilots' downward forward visibility. Not good on a CV.

There were other problems with the early aircraft's CV use as well. Pretty sure another was with its landing gear. Thus it was relegated to the Marines.

When other issues were cleared up it still took input from the British to convince the US to use it on CV's. If you've ever seen them land on a deck you'll notice their 'circular' route (the British idea), as opposed to straight in for a 'normal' approach.

Anyway, that's the way I heard it (or read it).[:)]

[MakeeLearn]

Corsair landed on wrong carrier.

[btd64]

It looks like the plane landed in the middle of the hood....GP

[rockmedic109]

Nope. It still has it's hubcaps. Pilot just got married.

[RangerJoe]

Nope. It still has it's hubcaps. Pilot just got married.

So that is why the POW is there - "Prisoner Of Wife!"

[MakeeLearn]

...

[fcooke]

The first Corsairs had 'springy or bouncy' landing gear. Got fixed later. The UK fixed the approach problem with the curved approach. They were motivated. They were operating Marlets, Fulmers, Seafires (speaking about bad landing gear) and Sea Hurris. The Corsair was a two generation leap over those.

[rustysi]

The first Corsairs had 'springy or bouncy' landing gear.

Yeah, you can really see it in the Victory at Sea episode where Munda 'gets its first tooth'.