RHS Installer/Switcher Updated

[timtom]

(Sullivan 1994 p.4)

[timtom]

(Tillman 1996 p.5, 17)

The text doesn't spell out which version of the Corsair is portrayed in the lower image, although in the context of the text one would presume the the Dash 1, which of course the idiosyncratic canopy reveals it to be.

[timtom]

(Kinzey 1998 p.6)

No indication of fuselage guns.

[timtom]

(Kinzey 1998 p.26)

Note date 8-11-42.

[timtom]

(Sullivan 1994 p.19, 25)

[timtom]

(Sullivan & Lucabaugh 1993)

No fuselage guns, three in wing.

[timtom]

(Tillman 1996 p.18, 22)

Note absence of fuselage guns. The canopy of the VF-12 F4U-1's indicates that they from early in the production run as opposed to the VF-17 F4U-1.

[timtom]

(Styling 1995 p.10, 11)

Note that F4U-1 serials start with BuNo 02153, making 02189 the 37th production F4U-1.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: JeffK

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?

It appears there was a change in the production of the -1 model of the Corsair - a logical one. A different refernece says they deleted both nose guns - which had to fire through the propeller hub and synchronize their ROF - reducing it - in favor of two more guns in the wings. It appears this is the form in RHS - a six .50 cal armed version - which is exactly what you wanted it to be. The principle that it should be the first version was not honored in this instance - probably because we went with the more numerous production variant - but it is a judgement call - made a couple of years ago - and I don't remember. I see no particular profit in having reviewed this matter - except that looking caused me to revise the date it becomes available.

I live at source - and while I would expect to detect it if there were a problem with the installer - I don't know if there is. It is done by a professional programmer who uses a verification procedure that catches most errors. And the number of RHS users is large - so I hear about file issues - or notice them when files are sent to me. Nevertheless - it is possible there might be a problem of this sort - and if there is - it will be corrected when it is identified as such. Many RHS users get source files directly from me (by being on the primary distribution list) or from the RHS site - or the backup RHS site in the UK. The installer is relatively new - and sorely needed for beginners - but those with an installation already only need to refresh the updated data files. There have been file errors of various sorts from time to time. When investigating a reported data issue - it is best practice to go to the actual source file - and when I checked that - I found the corret data was present. If you wish to look at source - I can send it to you directly - as will Mifune or many other RHS users. If you suspect file issues - these can be identified by comparing files from source with those from a download site, or the installer, or whatever. All that is certain on this single datum point at the moment is that the armament issue you raised is not an issue in the files at source. Until you are sure you have the source aircraft files - any other apparent data issues are not germane to the actual source files. Once you are sure - although it is not fun - I will look at any issue you present - INCLUDING controversial performance issues - if you raise that issue in the format which makes it time efficient to review it: state type, issue, slot number and an aviation reference giving the data you think may be preferred. I will verify the matter - and if there is no doubt about it - simply adopt your data. If sources or some logical other issue are involved - I will reply on the forum - and either (a) adopt the data you suggest anyway; (b) keep the original data; (c) adopt some different data review indisates is better than either; (d) say I want Forum feedback before making a decision. This process never takes less than two hours - nor if you honor the procedure - more than two days - one day being the RHS norm. Drawing it out only happens when you don't make it quick and easy to get at the matter or to take seriously the report. Following the procedure and being respectful are the keys to getting it changed if you have a better datum. The data set is so gigantic that information theory says it is literally certain there will be errors - and all we can do is fix it one item at a time. I have designed a streamlined process that facilitates such changes - in the context of the vast RHS scenario set - and I diligently implement this procedure - wether or not it is understood or appreciated. I don't get upset - and I don't allow myself to be buffaloed either. The system is what it is; the data is what it is; and any time you have something better - we will use it in preference to what we have. That said - the aircraft data is pretty good - albiet not as good for Allied as Axis - and not as good for non US aircraft as for US aircraft - due to relative amounts of time devoted to reviews. Also - it is entirely possible you might find a source we don't have - as when Dutch readers gave us stuff on the Dornier flying boats not availabe in English references - permitting a better representation of their armament. In such a case we go with the clearly better data - even if it isn't in references in US libraries. Which is to say - if you have a good reason to say something - we will even waive the reference requirement - but always say it WITH the source.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: JeffK

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.

I think so - but it has two authors rather than one.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: 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]

Now THAT is sourcing your data. And it appears to justify the current RHS data of six 50s. Which means it does not need to be changed. However - production date needs to change - and production rate for it and the later -4 need to be adjusted as well. This has been done for an unreleased update - as has the redesignation and relocation and redating of the Australian Army AIF 9th Division. Other changes contemplated are revising some ROC unit plannings to more rational locations. If there are other aircraft data issues identified - they will also be folded in. I will start a thread - and indeed ANY issue may be raised in it.

[dwbradley]

el cid again



...... and while I would expect to detect it if there were a problem with the installer - I don't know if there is. It is done by a professional programmer who uses a verification procedure that catches most errors. And the number of RHS users is large - so I hear about file issues - or notice them when files are sent to me. Nevertheless - it is possible there might be a problem of this sort - and if there is - it will be corrected when it is identified as such. Many RHS users get source files directly from me (by being on the primary distribution list) or from the RHS site - or the backup RHS site in the UK. The installer is relatively new - and sorely needed for beginners - but those with an installation already only need to refresh the updated data files. There have been file errors of various sorts from time to time. When investigating a reported data issue - it is best practice to go to the actual source file - and when I checked that - I found the corret data was present. If you wish to look at source - I can send it to you directly - as will Mifune or many other RHS users. If you suspect file issues - these can be identified by comparing files from source with those from a download site, or the installer, or whatever. .....

El Cid either gives me too much credit when he says I am a professional programmer or he is defaming me. I'm not sure which view I like better.


Apparently a question has arisen about the possibility of data corruption in the latest version of the installer and whether that may be the source of some of the confusion I have noted in this thread.

I did not create the content of the databases represented nor am I expert enough to weigh in on the correctness of any of the data therein. I am capable enough to verify whether the installer correctly represents the files available at the RHS site.

There was a problem (my fault) with the 1.5 version of the installer so I was at some pains to avoid any such issues with the 1.6 version. So I was concerned when this issue was raised that I might have indeed induced more error.

I have done some checking today for the file set that represents scenario 70, since that seems to be the one that was used to generate the question(s) previously raised here. I downloaded again to a fresh and independent folder the files for scenario 70 from the RHS site. These files are at revision 7.954 except for wpc070.dat and wps070.dat which are at 7.9542. I did a binary compare of these files with the scenario 070 files in the scenario folder of the test install I had previously done on my laptop before releasing 1.6. The files are identical when tells me (unless I am missing something) that the installer is correctly delivering the configuration as it exists at the RHS site. Please advise if you think this isn’t true.

So wherein lays the source of confusion? I took a look at Scenario 70 using the editor supplied with the game. I note the following entries in the aircraft section of the database:

Slot 080 is named Corsair III/IV and has 6 x .50 Browning MG

Slot 094 is named F4U1D/AU1D and has 6 x .50 Browning MG

Slot 095 is named F4U-2 Corsair NF and has 4 x .50 Browning MG

Slot 096 is named F4U-4 Corsair and has 6 x .50 Browning MG

Slot 127 is named F4U-1/AU-1 Corsair and has 2 x .30 Browning MG + 2 x .50 Browning MG

Slot 179 is named Corsair I/F4U and has 2 x .30 Browning MG + 2 x .50 Browning MG


Since there ARE Corsairs of several flavors and gun complements in the database it appears to me that the posters are talking about different slots and may simply be in violent agreement.

Dave Bradley

[JeffroK]

From Dave's post,

I am questioning slots 127 & 179


I found these on a USN site, but is Navy News a valid reference, includes interesting data on the Wildcat as well.

From the US Navy, Page 1 mentions the increase in armament, later pages provide useful data for the F4U-4   http://www.history.navy.mil/branches/hist-ac/f4u-4.pdf   Useful data on the F4F-4/FM-1 & FM-2   http://www.history.navy.mil/branches/hist-ac/f4f-4.pdf  

[JeffroK]

Thanks for the added detail Timtom,

By looking into questions about the RHS series, even from shamateur researchers like me, should result in the RHS series being  a better product.

Next crusade is the Kittyhawk I/P40D with 2 x 30cal & 4 x 50cal versus Kittyhawk IA/P40E with 6 x 50cal for RAAF & RNZAF service
My sources are from ADF Serials and RNZAF Serials.

[ChickenOfTheSea]

Dave,
As the person who first reported the issues with the last installer, let me express what a nice product the RHS installer is. For those interested in RHS, which I recommend, it is a nice and convenient way to get started with this family of mods.

[dwbradley]

ORIGINAL: ChickenOfTheSea

Dave,
As the person who first reported the issues with the last installer, let me express what a nice product the RHS installer is. For those interested in RHS, which I recommend, it is a nice and convenient way to get started with this family of mods.

Thanks. Kind words are always appreciated. Kind words motivate people to do more. Critical insight is required to do better. The difficult part is to supply both in the correct proportion. I think you do very well at this balancing act.

It looks like we came to the same conclusion about the Corsair at approx. the same time.

Dave Bradley

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: JeffK

From Dave's post,

I am questioning slots 127 & 179


I found these on a USN site, but is Navy News a valid reference, includes interesting data on the Wildcat as well.

From the US Navy, Page 1 mentions the increase in armament, later pages provide useful data for the F4U-4   http://www.history.navy.mil/branches/hist-ac/f4u-4.pdf   Useful data on the F4F-4/FM-1 & FM-2   http://www.history.navy.mil/branches/hist-ac/f4f-4.pdf  

It turns out there seems to be a problem with 127

and that is WHY you are required to cite a slot number with a data challenge.

I simply looked down the list - found F4U-1 - and it was not the slot with the issue.
And - not realizing there was more than one - I thought the date was wrong. Turns out it was right after all - and all the files changed for production need to change back.

It really is better to honor the procedure put in place - designed by professionals - and not just say "go look up the slot yourself." It is far more likely to work when you point specificallly. Hope the lesson is learned. I certainly am more inclined to require this now. I hate spending lots of time on the wrong slot.

Given we have dedicated slots - we have the option of using the armament as originally produced in 127. But there is some ambiguity between materials- and I am not going to decide this until tomorrow - when I am not working.

Another implication is there is no problem with the data in the installer being the same as source. So it is possible other data issues you have are germane. But - the requirement remains: cite the specific slot - and the source of data you think indicates an issue may exist.

Other developments indicate there will be a 7.957 comprehensive (not micro) update - so we will take our time - and include every properly reported issue in it. ETA Monday - giving me three days off and two half days off - to resolve whatever needs to be resolved - and do all the data entry for 12 (or 22) scenarios - as appropriate.
'
One other change is the designation will simplify to F4U-1 - the attack designation - having a -1 - misled me into thinking it was a version of the -1. In fact - it was a Korean war version of the aircraft - although apparently designed for use in late WWII - it was not an early variant (-1 or not). So no AU designation.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: JeffK

Thanks for the added detail Timtom,

By looking into questions about the RHS series, even from shamateur researchers like me, should result in the RHS series being  a better product.

Next crusade is the Kittyhawk I/P40D with 2 x 30cal & 4 x 50cal versus Kittyhawk IA/P40E with 6 x 50cal for RAAF & RNZAF service
My sources are from ADF Serials and RNZAF Serials.

This isn't quite useful. Aside from the slots being missing - what you want isn't clear - and what your source is is not identifable. What data do you think should be in what slot - and what indicates that might be the actual data? Serials = what? If serial numbes - that isn't a source. If some series of films or publications - you know too much about what you are saying - but no one can look it up from what you have not said. So say it properly - name the source - and page numbers in it. I used an RAF reference in the same series as the USN one - but - it is less than ideal for RAAF and RNZAF - being somewhat spotty on data. Also - we tend to use the same plane for several nations - so if RAF or RCAF or IAF differe from Aussie practice - lacking slots - we might have to choose one or the other variations. But at least we can investigate the case IF we know what you are talking about. Which is not yet.

[JeffroK]

I apologise for the data in RHS being wrong.

I fail how you misunderstood that when I rabbited on about the F4U-1 you didnt understand that I meant the F4U-1.

As for the Kittyhawk I, I wasnt aware that any RAF units used them in the Far East, make sure that you use Far East & not Mid East data when looking at things.

I will provide you with references later.

I am amazed that a researcher such as you is not aware of the fantastic works of eithe Joe Baugher and his US Military aircraft serial (tail numbers) and a similar work by Darren Crick who has done the same for RAAF & RNZAF aircraft. This is one of the sources I use.

Both the RAAF & RNZAF used the Kitty IA, which was the equivalent to to P40E with some British equipment, usually radio. These were equipped with 6 x 50cal.

Again, a major Allied fighter in the early years has its firepower cut from 12 to 8.

You have the Kitty I/P40D, 560 KittyI were received by the RAF and 24 by the RCAF (from the 560) and only 20 P40D received by the USAAF. This has 4 x 50cal, I am unsure yet whether they also had 2 x 30cal as pages often report an increase without detailing any deductions.
As the RAF didnt field any Kitty squadrons in the Far East, only 24 may be accuratly portrayed (And I am unsure where the RCAF versions were based, they did have a Sqn in the Mid East)

Joe Baugher, who is good at this, cites the following as his sources.
Sources:

[ol][*] War Planes of the Second World War, Fighters, Volume Four, William Green, Doubleday, 1964.
[*] The American Fighter, Enzo Anguluci and Peter Bowers, Orion Books, 1987.
[*] United States Military Aircraft since 1909, Gordon Swanborough and Peter M. Bowers, Smithsonian Institution Press, 1989.
[*] Curtiss Aircraft, 1907-1947, Peter M. Bowers, Naval Institute Press, 1979.
[*] The Curtiss P-40 Tomahawk, Ray Wagner, Aircraft in Profile, Volume 2, Doubleday, 1965.
[*] British Military Aircraft Serials 1912-1969, Bruce Robertson, Ian Allen, 1969 [/ol]

[JeffroK]

P43A Lancer  Slot is in the 100's
RHS has 2 x30cal & 2 x 50cal.

Again from Joe Baugher
The P-43 was immediately followed by the P-43A, 80 examples of which were ordered. Serials were 40-2891/2970. Deliveries began in September of 1941. The P-43A was essentially the same as the earlier P-43, but differed in having the turbosupercharged R-1830-49 which afforded its full 1200 hp at 25,000 feet. Armament was increased to a full four 0.50-in machine guns, two in the fuselage and two in the wings. Deliveries began in September 1941. Maximum speed was 356 mph at 25,000 feet. An altitude of 15,000 feet could be reached in 6 minutes. Service ceiling was 36,000 feet, and range was 650 miles. Wingspan was 36 feet, length was 28 feet 6 inches, height was 14 feet, and wing area was 223 square feet Weights were 5996 pounds empty and 7435 pounds gross. Maximum takeoff weight was 8480 pounds.

[ol][*] War Planes of the Second World War, Fighters, Volume 4, William Green, Doubleday, 1964.
[*] The American Fighter, Enzo Angelucci and Peter Bowers, Orion Books, 1987.
[*] United States Military Aircraft Since 1909, Gordon Swanborough and Peter M. Bowers, Smithsonian, 1989.
[*] American Combat Planes, Ray Wagner, Doubleday, 1982
[*] E-Mail from Gary Barns, Melbourne, Australia
[*] Website of RAAF Museum, http://www.raafmuseum.com.au/research/index.htm [/ol]