RHS Installer/Switcher Updated

[JeffroK]

You will find that I am a fanatic for nit picking accuracy. But I can not make RHS perfectly accurate because

1) What is the truth? Sometimes data differes. Sometimes data is absent. One must make a choice - a guess - and it may not be right.
So you look at a variety of sources, what variety of sources did your team look at, and did anyone check it?

2) There is a limit on time. I wanted to do RHS in about two months - and spend over three years. I can either research until I die - and not be done then - or issue product.
I just research half a dozen aircraft in an hour, and these were types I would not imapgine much work was required, there are some types that more work would be needed.

3) The sheer size of the data set prevents devoting excessive research on one item. We have violated that principle a hundred times - but that leaves 132 900 more to go.
But you had a team, and i would imagine some quality checking was done, especially for aircraft like the F4U-1 & Kittyhawk 1A

4) The amount of errors in the data were more than are imaginable - and probably mean we never should have tried to fix them. One Forum member devoted a man year or so just to getting LSTs right - and got sick of it before he finished.

5) If you want to make things more accurate - instead of railing in general - be specific - WITH DOCUMENTATION. I don't care what you know or remember - we have a standard - and it is - something must tell us the facts we use. If possible a standard reference any player can use to verify it.
Have a read above, I note that you havent quoted anything other than Wiki.

[JeffroK]

ORIGINAL: ggm

well el cid has a point about tthe corsair. f4u wiki has the xf4u as having 2 50 and 2 30 cal as main armament. its only after production models late in 43 that we see the 6 50 and other stuff added. so if he has 3 p36 and 3 buffoloes in his mod i see no reason why he shouldn't have early model xf4us.

ps thanks for this great mod...

No, a pre-production data does not become data for production models. I dont know where you got the "late in 43" idea from, the F4U-1 used in Feb 43 started off with 6 x 50cal.

have a further look, dont trust any single source that has odd data, though it may be correct, prove it furher.

It is more to do with finding a esoteric piece of data and then running with it.

[ggm]

you are indeed correct jeffk, about the f4u. my mistake about dates. apparently the xf4u was designed in 1940 after which it was desided to change to 6 50. are you using the cvo/bbo database (the only one i use) or the ebo database.as soon as i get home i will check the database...
havent gotten far enough in the game to notice any other errors. mainly i like the map and the starting industry dispositions and airproduction setups.

just a quick question el cid, do the aircraft factories (allied) upgrade from obsolete types to more modern, or do they continue to produce obsolete types?

ggm

[Bliztk]

They upgrade

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: ggm

well el cid has a point about tthe corsair. f4u wiki has the xf4u as having 2 50 and 2 30 cal as main armament. its only after production models late in 43 that we see the 6 50 and other stuff added. so if he has 3 p36 and 3 buffoloes in his mod i see no reason why he shouldn't have early model xf4us.

ps thanks for this great mod...

What we did was let you have your cake and eat it too. Originally - playes got late model Corsairs on the first date the plane flew in prototype form - or sometimes even before that. We go a different way. Originally proposed for CHS - I was doing a review of Japanese planes for CHS under supervision by Joe Wilkerson - we decided the standard ought to be:

You get a plane on the date it is first OPERATIONAL IN THEATER
and each version you get is in the firm it was introduced on that date.

Slot limits and a need to include or represent more plane types did lead to some compromises: For example we count ALL the "Kates" - B5N and B5M - indeed they were so similar they had the same official Allied code name. But they are not the same plane - both were produced - and technically all you get are in the B5N form statistically speaking. Sometimes - for the Allies - the compromise was to go with the dominant production sub series characteristics - but in general - when you get an early plane - it is as it was on the date of initial production - not some later form.

Figuring this out is anything but "basic" or "easy." Often the reference book data is misleading - that isn't how the plane was. For example - apparently all P-47s used in our theater differ from almost all reference book data - and when that became clear - we used the modified form (which later became production as well) - with the big drop tanks (fitted initially after arrival in Australia). But there must be lots of cases where we didn't figure out something like that - and if we spent more time doing research - we would do better. As it was I got complaints that players didn't want to wait until they died to play - so when eratta stopped coming in - I decided what we had was good enough. Even so - I have never stopped investigation any challenge - or issuing changes when - IMHO - they are appropriate. Someone has to decide - and after all - you can do what Nemo did - make a variant of RHS is you want to do so. I use a very open standard - modeled on CHS under Andrew Brown - only far easier to change - since you don't have to convince a whole committee each member of which has a veto. Even if I disagree - I permit myself to be overruled - by the Forum - and many RHS features are NOT as I would prefer - because this is a Forum product (e.g. I don't like restricted Dutch units unable to change islands when NEI had its own navy and merchant marine - it is silly in my view).

[el cid again]

It is true that RHS uses combined aircraft types. It is also true this is less than ideal. If we had more slots - I would spend a year or two giving you the different planes - even if they are close. But leaving out the "close" types is not good modeling - in terms of giving you production numbers. When we lack a slot - we got creative - and gave you the planes. If a unit had a dedicated aircraft of a sub type - in RHS it often will have different armament at the unit level - something you can see if you go to the unit instead of the basic plane type. So we sort of sneak in different planes under the same slot. Not everything shows up though - and drop tanks don't work at the unit level UNLESS they also are in the basic plane slot. But I can delete the drop tanks at the unit level. Anyway - don't complain if we give you a combined plane - it was that or you don't get the numbers that came off the line. You just have to make do with the fewer slots. At least we gave you every possible slot with planes in it - and these represent perhaps 3-5 times more planes than there are slots. For example - a recon bomber will - in a recon unit - not carry any bombs. I also gave it extra fuel - but code ignores it in this edition - so only the few really dedicated recon planes have that. There is - however - an RHS only recon variant of the B-24 that is fabulous. Since the B-29 recon variant - indeed even the basic bomber - exceed the 24 hour flying limit - we let you have both - but only vary the armament - and only use a single slot.

Although I cited Wiki to get data on the Australian Army above - I never used Wiki as a source for any aircraft. We published our sources in the Forum - and in general - we prefer to use general sources - so the same standards for different planes. However - the F4U was one that we supplimented by asking the manufacturer - and right or wrong - the "initial" version is what Grumman said it was. But a "source" for something like an airplane - vital in a naval air war - needs to be a reference book or an industrial document - not Wiki. That does not mean either is perfect - illustrated by many instances where these contradict each other. But is the starting point. If you can show using a source of academic merit that any specific case is better represented by different data - it is a published RHS standard you win your argument - and we will substitute it in. Only in the case of conflicting sources is there any reason to agonize over it - and even then - we will go with the preponderence of the evidence. Most errors are a result of not spending days and days on each point: For 250 plane types - if we did 10 days work on research on each - that would be 2500 days - or 20 000 hours. If we could afford that - we would almost always all agree with the result. But instead - we spend a few hours when somethign comes up - and then post what we find - and unless a Forum member chimes in - we will go with that in a couple of days effort. But the starting point is a formal source "available to a normal person in a major library" quoting Joe. Until we have one of those - we often don't worry about it. In most cases I already have the source - and can just go to it (no normal library has as many as I do - at least not in the West; there are several East of the Mississippi - but the point is - if you can point me at it - I can see it for myself). Having it - and knowing it - are not the same thing. I am the sort of person USNI askes to review references before they are published - and it is a game to open a Jane's to a page at random and ask me the details of whatever is listed there - a game I usually never mess up. But it is impossible to really know everything about any large subject area - and I depend on many points of view to direct me to the right page of the right book. We then go one further step: we cross reference. We like to have the same data from 5 different references - if we can get it - at which point we stop checking. But even just 2 or 3 tends to nail it down. So if you can start out with a confirming source as well as a primary source - that speeds the process about a day.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: JeffK

Fairey Albacore
From Wiki

• Guns:
  
  • One fixed forward-firing 0.303 in (7.7 mm) machine gun in starboard wing
  • One or two Vickers K machine guns in rear cockpit.

From http://www.fleetairarmarchive.net/Aircraft/Albacore.htm

[size="-1"]One forward firing .303in machine gun in starboard wing with 2 Vickers K in rear cockpit, One 1610lb torpedo, six 250lb or four 500lb bombs[/size]

This might be good data.

But I have failed so far to communicate the standard (nominally from CHS but which RHS uses) required for efficient review by a gatekeeper or coordinator:

You need to specify the slot of the aircraft
You need to provide a REFERENCE - not a web site - preferably a recognized reference found in libraries - otherwise an official document from an archival source

Ideally you could provide a confirming reference - although if you do these two steps - I will do the confirming reference if one or more exist.

To change numbers of planes without such a standard is far too time consuming. Gate keepers - even like Andrew - normally only do one scenario: I do many - so my time is an order of magnitude worse - to permit player choices built into the variety of scenarios.

You may respect the standard or not - but I am not going to spend man years looking things up: that is the standard and it is reasonable - not even devised by me - and the way to get things done.

[JeffroK]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

ORIGINAL: JeffK

Fairey Albacore
From Wiki

• Guns:
  
  • One fixed forward-firing 0.303 in (7.7 mm) machine gun in starboard wing
  • One or two Vickers K machine guns in rear cockpit.

From http://www.fleetairarmarchive.net/Aircraft/Albacore.htm

[size="-1"]One forward firing .303in machine gun in starboard wing with 2 Vickers K in rear cockpit, One 1610lb torpedo, six 250lb or four 500lb bombs[/size]

This might be good data.

But I have failed so far to communicate the standard (nominally from CHS but which RHS uses) required for efficient review by a gatekeeper or coordinator:

You need to specify the slot of the aircraft
You need to provide a REFERENCE - not a web site - preferably a recognized reference found in libraries - otherwise an official document from an archival source

Ideally you could provide a confirming reference - although if you do these two steps - I will do the confirming reference if one or more exist.

To change numbers of planes without such a standard is far too time consuming. Gate keepers - even like Andrew - normally only do one scenario: I do many - so my time is an order of magnitude worse - to permit player choices built into the variety of scenarios.

You may respect the standard or not - but I am not going to spend man years looking things up: that is the standard and it is reasonable - not even devised by me - and the way to get things done.

Huh, you need to wake up. Admit there is a possibility that your data could be wrong and do some investigation yourself. Too often you hide behind blaming CHS or Vanilla or "the RHS Team"

YOU, at least RHS, have made a number of errors.

If you want RHS to be as accurate as is possible, YOU can simply go to the database and look for the aircraft tab, for starters the Albacore is the first Allied aircraft.

My list doesnt include every aircraft, shouldnt take long to dig out the sources used and check them.

I'd like you to quote some references as to where your data came from, I"ve looked at more than 4 printed reference works (some Brit, some American & some combined) plus a number of web based sources and fail to see any contradictory data.

I'm not questioning performance, which is so open to dispute, but weaponary which was fitted to 100's or 1000's of aircraft.

Either have a look for yourself or accept that RHS is a flawed product.

[JeffroK]

Although I cited Wiki to get data on the Australian Army above - I never used Wiki as a source for any aircraft. We published our sources in the Forum - and in general - we prefer to use general sources - so the same standards for different planes. However - the F4U was one that we supplimented by asking the manufacturer - and right or wrong - the "initial" version is what Grumman said it was.     But Vought made the F4U, not Grumman  And the specs for a prototype are not the same as for a production model. But a "source" for something like an airplane - vital in a naval air war Its hard to have an air war without aircraft - needs to be a reference book or an industrial document - not Wiki. That does not mean either is perfect - illustrated by many instances where these contradict each other. But is the starting point. If you can show using a source of academic merit And of course you would rate its academic merit that any specific case is better represented by different data From my post These confirm data from American Aircraft of WW2 by David Mondey, The encyclopedia of World Aircraft by Paul Eden & Soph Moeng plus Janes Fighting Aircraft of WW2 (Though this is sometimes off) - it is a published RHS standard you win your argument - and we will substitute it in. Only in the case of conflicting sources is there any reason to agonize over it - and even then - we will go with the preponderence of the evidence. So what amazing work has given you the erronous data you have used?? Most errors are a result of not spending days and days on each point: For 250 plane types - if we did 10 days work on research on each - that would be 2500 days - or 20 000 hours. If I had acces to the  Library you seem to live in, I would imagine an hours work tops , maybe less if the data lined up nicely.  If we could afford that - we would almost always all agree with the result. But instead - we spend a few hours when somethign comes up - and then post what we find - and unless a Forum member chimes in - we will go with that in a couple of days effort.  Problem might be that you have alienated so many forum members with your inability to listen that they just didnt bother. But the starting point is a formal source "available to a normal person in a major library" quoting Joe. Until we have one of those - we often don't worry about it. In most cases I already have the source - and can just go to it (no normal library has as many as I do - at least not in the West; there are several East of the Mississippi - but the point is - if you can point me at it - I can see it for myself). Having it - and knowing it - are not the same thing. I am the sort of person USNI askes to review references before they are published -Then I might have to review my useage of any USNI articles which I might see. and it is a game to open a Jane's to a page at random and ask me the details of whatever is listed there - a game I usually never mess up. Aren't I good!!! But it is impossible to really know everything about any large subject area - and I depend on many points of view to direct me to the right page of the right book. We then go one further step: we cross reference. We like to have the same data from 5 different references - if we can get it - at which point we stop checking. But even just 2 or 3 tends to nail it down.  So just where did you find 5, or even 2-3 sources to confirm the armanents used in the aircraft database, or your designation of 9th Australian Div, or the track networks and port size in Nthn Australia & more if I keep looking. So if you can start out with a confirming source as well as a primary source - that speeds the process about a day.

And what does this mean

What we did was let you have your cake and eat it too. Originally - playes got late model Corsairs on the first date the plane flew in prototype form - or sometimes even before that. We go a different way. Originally proposed for CHS - I was doing a review of Japanese planes for CHS under supervision by Joe Wilkerson - we decided the standard ought to be:

You get a plane on the date it is first OPERATIONAL IN THEATER
and each version you get is in the firm it was introduced on that date.

Of course we dont expect to get anything before its available in theatre, though many question the difference between being available and its first combat usage, but you have sent out a combat aircraft with its prototype armament, and for all I know other prototype data.

You have proven that its impossible to tell you that you may have made a series of mistakes, and that it might be worth reviewing the data and maybe saying , whoops, we were wrong.  

It is true that RHS uses combined aircraft types. It is also true this is less than ideal. If we had more slots - I would spend a year or two giving you the different planes - even if they are close.

Hard to avoid with so many slots used up, I would have liked to see the B-23 & B32 but which ones get left out??

[ggm]

just peice of data that comes to mind is the maneuvorability of the p38. it seems somewhat low. is this wad? does the speed offset this in a to a combat? is the 2 engine fighter effect modelled correctly. havent gotten for enough  to find out.

ggm

[herwin]

ORIGINAL: ggm

just peice of data that comes to mind is the maneuvorability of the p38. it seems somewhat low. is this wad? does the speed offset this in a to a combat? is the 2 engine fighter effect modelled correctly. havent gotten for enough  to find out.

ggm

The P-38 was inferior in manoeuvrability to all Japanese fighters. It relied on energy tactics and firepower and was extremely effective as an offensive sweep fighter, long-range escort and bomber interceptor.

[JeffroK]

I think, the conversation was that 2E's got a 50% deduction & 4E's a 75% deduction based on the criteria used to calculate the MV pts.
 
The speed & climb performance figures of P38, Mosquito, Ki45 etc put them a step (or 2) above 2E Bombers.
 
I'm unsure of the final position, but there was talk of extra MV pts for items such as combat flaps on later P-38's.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: JeffK

ORIGINAL: el cid again

ORIGINAL: JeffK

Fairey Albacore
From Wiki

• Guns:
  
  • One fixed forward-firing 0.303 in (7.7 mm) machine gun in starboard wing
  • One or two Vickers K machine guns in rear cockpit.

From http://www.fleetairarmarchive.net/Aircraft/Albacore.htm

[size="-1"]One forward firing .303in machine gun in starboard wing with 2 Vickers K in rear cockpit, One 1610lb torpedo, six 250lb or four 500lb bombs[/size]

This might be good data.

But I have failed so far to communicate the standard (nominally from CHS but which RHS uses) required for efficient review by a gatekeeper or coordinator:

You need to specify the slot of the aircraft
.

Huh, you need to wake up. Admit there is a possibility that your data could be wrong and do some investigation yourself. Too often you hide behind blaming CHS or Vanilla or "the RHS Team"

YOU, at least RHS, have made a number of errors.
.

Much ado about nothing.

I went to RHS itself to look up the much complained about F4U-1 - and found 6 .50 cal MG in armament.
I then went to a reference - United States Navy Aircraft since 1911 (Naval Institute Press) and found we have TOO MANY guns.
Seems p.449 - "the XF4U-1 had a 0.30 in and a 0.50 in in the forward fusilage, one 0.50-in in each wing, and compartments in the wings for 10 small bombs for use against bomber formations." This was modified - but not as you said it was - p.450 - "Production aircraft had...two more guns in the wings..." So we should reduce the armament to show 5 .50s and a .30 for the first production version. Probably not what you had in mind - but the nature of data research. What is wrong here is that I only looked at a single source - and we might or might not come to the same conclusion after reviewing the preferred 5 sources. But what IS clear is that the RHS data was as you wanted it to be in the first place - and the criticism was misplaced.

I don't have to do anything. I don't work for you - and I would not if you paid me - because of your lack of respect. I have a thicker skin than almost anyone you will ever meet in your life - and I will not quickly or easily give up on you - but it is YOU who are going to change if WE are going to get along:

a) You must be civil

b) You must be respectful of a person who probably has more hours invested in modding than any other in the community

c) You must listen instead of just asserting things. It is likely you are not a manager of vast amounts of data - or a professional researcher - since you don't understand what those things involve. I am not going to explain them again. Either listen - or remain ignorant and hostile - your choice. This does not change that the standards of being a data manager were well set by Andrew Brown or that I am wise to follow in that tradition.

I did a lot of research - probably more than I should have done in many areas - and I have accepted about twice as much input as I personally generated. In spite of that, vast amounts of data remain as they were in stock, and even more as it was in CHS 155 at the time I took over the data set - several years ago. Most of the things we didn't add were wrong in either stock or CHS or both - and the inconsistency of the data is difficult to exaggerate. It was often honest - in the sense something somewhere said that - but sometimes on purpose - as with Allied bombers deliberately short changed in bomb load and range - as a workaround for "uber bombing" - which RHS corrected by device changes instead of bomb load changes. I spent so long reviewing data that I had to endure two full years of complaints I would never finish. There is no sense in which I claim perfection for the data - just that it is better than it used to be - and there is no sense in which I have not made the data open to changes from anyone. Aside from your ability to change whatever you like in an editor - I often make changes in the official editions of RHS - based on Forum input. The RHS Manual states we do not regerd data as sacred - and we will always change it in favor of better data.. That we have a standard for doing that - designed to help make the work load on one human more reasonable - is not a contradiction. Either honor it or don't complain. This is the last time I am going to say this.

Your only ability to get me to do something is by persuason. You are not one of those (plural) who have offered to pay me - something which so far I have declined to accept. You are not going to get where you want to go unless you become reasonable - starting with insuring you have the correct data files - and don't waste my time with bad data or without sources of academic merit.

[el cid again]

A flaw (possibly for good technical reasons) in WITP is that a player gets to USE IN COMBAT aircraft about one day after they appear.
They instantly transport transPacific and then some of them repair up in a day when you upgrade. For Japan - they may appear in theater and be used on the day they appear. This necessitates the standard evolved by Joe and I - players cannot have them before they are used - otherwise you end up with the situation as it used to be in CHS - planes months - sometimes over a year - early.

It is not only possible to get me to listen to suggestions about data or even altorithms - and there are literally thousands of threads on both - I deliberately put in place a process that differs from CHS - and from Matrix - in this respect. You can tell Matrix there is a better way - and a few things I suggested got into Matrix - but it takes a very long time - and happens less often than not. You can suggest CHS make a change - but they will not issue it for many months - and often Andrew will write "it isn't going to be reviewed for this round - maybe we will think about it in five months" sort of thing. RHS changes are sometimes issued same day, and usually within a few days - to such an extent that only a minority of the data is my own.

Being thick headed - unwilling to listen - is something you are far more familiar with than I am. I am reluctant to go off half cocked because someone says something - doubly so when it is not done in the correct way - because - as in the case of the Corsair - it is likely such a suggestion will be meaningless and is a waste of time to investigate. Nevertheless - I often go to the sources myself - as I did with the Australian 9th Division - and as I did with the F4U - just because the person suggesting either has no clue how to do it - or because I wonder myself. This is a gift of my time - something mine to allocate - and not something you have a right to require. Using the system is going to be both more graceful and more efficient than ignoring it. Having found the F-4U1 is the way it became in later production - and almost the way it was in initial production - and believing changing a .50 for a .30 won't be popular - I am disinclined to revise it - even though it appears that would be a strict interpretation of "you get it as it was when first produced." I regret I wasted my time looking it up. This experience makes me less inclined to think you are worth listening to. But IF

1) You get a CURRENT copy of RHS aircraft files

AND IF

2) You present corrections per standard -

I will verify and implement them.

Not because I like you (I am neutral on the subject) - not because I owe you or you diserve it - but because that is my way.

[JeffroK]

Having found the F-4U1 is the way it became in later production - and almost the way it was in initial production - and believing changing a .50 for a .30 won't be popular - I am disinclined to revise it - even though it appears that would be a strict interpretation of "you get it as it was when first produced." I regret I wasted my time looking it up. This experience makes me less inclined to think you are worth listening to. But IF

1) You get a CURRENT copy of RHS aircraft files

AND IF

I just used the RHS downloader, dont you keep it up to date.
 
So whats your answer on the F4U-1, in your double talk its hard to work out what you mean?
 
But, its only one of the many aircraft I questioned, and you havent quoted 1 piece of supporting data
 
[>:][>:][>:][>:][>:][>:][>:][>:]

[el cid again]

False again - see the cite to the page numbers on the Corsair.

While I was at it I decided to check date of first use in theater - and it was given - and the data we are using is different. So I changed it - and that impacted production rate - so I changed that. But that then impacted F4U-4 production rates - which are inherited - so I changed that as well. For all 22 RHS scenarios. Took a couple of hours. But whenever we do another update - there will be production data changes for Corsairs involving date and quantity - that is involving aircraft files and location files. We already made a change to the location file re 9th Division (AUS) - and I intend to make some more planning changes re ROC Army - at least.

This is typical of the RHS process. When we look at something - we also insure other aspects of the record are correct- and if we change something - we think about - and change as required - all related records. It is easy to believe that some minor field change is not significant - because after all it is a single datum. But for me - it affects 12 - sometimes 22 - scenarios - and - to avoid making a mess bigger than we fix - you have to think about the impacts of the changes - and change other records as required. That is what a data coordinator really does - not reseaerch (which is fun by comparison) - but agonizing over the compromises and impacts - and doing all the data entry. I am one of the fastest data entry people on the planet - but it matters little unless the data is good - and getting it so is anything but easy. If you believe otherwise - it isn't me who isn't listening to what I am told.

Given that you obviously have a non-RHS - or possibly an ancient RHS - aircraft file - I am uninterested in the "errors" you may have found in it. If you find a problem with current data - and have some basis you can CITE to show better data - I am always interested. If you were capable of listening to what you were told - you would already have noticed this above - got the current and correct files - and come back with sources related to any errors you still might have in mind. Unless and until you listen - well you are talking about some other data - and it is not germane to RHS.

[JeffroK]

Sorry, Only read the last post.
 
the XF4U-1 had a 0.30 in and a 0.50 in in the forward fusilage, one 0.50-in in each wing, and compartments in the wings for 10 small bombs for use against bomber formations." This was modified - but not as you said it was - p.450 - "Production aircraft had...two more guns in the wings..." So we should reduce the armament to show 5 .50s and a .30 for the first production version
 
I can access that book, I'll have to have a read and get the full context of the line as you have edited something. At least you looked up the query and found that, whatever database is being looked at, RHS was wrong. So it should get corrected one way or another.
 
Thats why people query things, and why they dont appreciate your "I'm right" replies to every item. I would have thought theis thread would have drawn input from all corners, seemd like few are interested in helping improve RHS if I am right or defending it if I am wrong.
 
But my reload of the database, last night my time, does not support your claim the data is correct.
 
So is the database on the installer/switcher not up to date, or are you looking at the F4U-4?
 
 

[JeffroK]

United States Navy Aircraft since 1911
 
Is this Gordon Swanborough's book?
 
I will also look at his Military Aircraft book to solve som other queries.

[timtom]

"The XF4U-1 had a 0.30-in and a 0.50-in gun in the forward fuselage, one 0.50-in in each wing...Production aircraft had...two more guns in the wings". (Swanborough & Bowers 1969 p.380-81). A literal reading of the text would suggest one additional gun of unspeficied calibre in each wing, but it could be taken to mean two additional guns in either wing. The table of technical data on p.384 specifies the armament of the F4U-1 as "6x0.50-in". Possibly the somewhat murky text is the result of two authors very familiar with the subject writing for an audience presumed familiar with the subject, hence they fail to realise and/or gloss over the need to spell out the exact armament configuration of production F4U's.

"There were major differences between the prototype and the first production aircraft. For example, the armament of one .30 cal and three .50 cal guns was revised to six .50 cal Brownings, three in each wing. "
(Styling 1995, p.8)

"Rex Biesel's team armed the new plane with two .30 calibre nose mounted machine guns...and two .50 calibre machine guns one mounted in each outer wing panel...After extensive testing of the prototype, Vought incorporated a number of design changes for the production aircraft...The internal wing mounted fuel tanks were removed and the space used for the installation of six .50 caliber machine guns, which were mounted three in each wing". (Sullivan 1994 p.4,p.7)

"Armament was an early change in the Corsair. The prewar philosophy of mixed .30 and .50 caliber guns was abandoned in favor of six .50s, three in each wing." (Tillman 1996 p.14)

"The prototype had two .30-caliber machine guns in the cowl and two .50-caliber guns in the wings. The cowl guns were deleted, and four more .50-caliber weapons were added to the wings". (Kinzey 1998 p.6)

"Originally fitted two fuselage and two wing guns, it was replanned with six .50in Browning MG 53-2 in the folding wings". (Gunston 1978)

"Armament comprised of a .50-in (12.7mm) and a 0.30-in (7.62mm) machine-gun in decking and one .50-in (12.7mm) machine-gun in each wing. This was the general form of the V-166B design as submitted for US Navy evaluation...By this time [October 1940], however, reports of combat in Europe had been made available to the US forces, and it was considered essential to take full advantage of this information before commiting the type to production. First and foremost, much heavier armament was necessary: It was decided to remove the fuselage-mounted guns and to install two additional 0.50-in (12.7mm) machine-guns in each wing." (Mondey 2000, p.234-35)

Armament, XF4U-1: 3x.50 in Mg, 1x.30 in Mg; Armament, F4U-1: 6x.50 in Mg (Angelucci & Bowers 1985, p.442)

Armament, (model not specified but engine given as R-2800-8, ie either an -1 or -1A: Six 50 cal. machine guns, all mounted in outer wings. (Bridgman 1989 p.213-14)

Bibliography:

Angelucci, Enzo & Bowers. Peter: The American Fighter. Orion Books 1985.
Bridgman, Leonard (ed.): Jane's Fighting Aircraft of WWII. Studio Editions 1989 (1947).
Gunston, Bill: The Illustrated Encyclopedia of Combat Aircraft of World War II: A technical directory of the warplanes of 1939-45. Salamander Books 1978.
Kinzey, Bert: F4U in Detail and Scale Vol.1: XF4U through F2G (Detail and Scale Vol.55). Squadron/Signal Publications 1998.
Monday, David: American Aircraft of World War II. Chancellor Press 2000 (1982).
Styling, Mark: Corsair Aces of World War II (Osprey Aircraft of the Aces Vol.8). Osprey Publications 1995.
Sullivan, Jim: F4U Corsair in Action. Squadron/Signal Publications 1994.
Sullivan, Jim & Lucabaugh, Dave: Golden Wings 1941-45: USN/USMC Aircraft of World War II. Squadron/Signal Publications 1993.
Swanborough, Gordon & Bowers, Peter: United States Navy Aircraft since 1911. Putnam & Co. 1969.
Tillman, Barrett: Vought F4U Corsair (Warbird Tech Vol.4). Specialty Press 1996.

[edited for spelling]

[edit] Note that aviation literature is notoriously poor at referencing, hence the relationship between individual works isn't immediately apparent. Thus for all I know all ten references above could draw on the same source or reference.

[timtom]

(Kinzey 1998 p.11, 27)