Various aircraft,ships and tanks

Dear visitor, welcome to WesWorld. If this is your first visit here, please read the Help. It explains in detail how this page works. To use all features of this page, you should consider registering. Please use the registration form, to register here or read more information about the registration process. If you are already registered, please login here.

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
…
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
12

Red Admiral

Italian Stallion

Posts: 7,019

Saturday, January 22nd 2011, 5:25pm

It's a Goodyear F2G with the R-4360 engine.

Go to the top of the page

Daidalos

Professional

Posts: 674

Saturday, January 22nd 2011, 5:54pm

Never heard of that machine, so it's actually a real world design?

Go to the top of the page

Brockpaine

The Shadow

Posts: 15,109

Saturday, January 22nd 2011, 5:56pm

Quoted

Originally posted by Daidalos
Never heard of that machine, so it's actually a real world design?

Yes, it is. It didn't really see production - only twelve built - but on the postwar American racing circuits they set a lot of records.

Go to the top of the page

Red Admiral

Italian Stallion

Posts: 7,019

Sunday, January 23rd 2011, 10:52am

Quoted

Originally posted by Daidalos
Never heard of that machine, so it's actually a real world design?

The F2G is a real design, built around the R-4360. Quite a lot more power than the R-2800 at low level, but a lot heavier and draggier so the performance of the F2G didn't improve a great deal over the standard F4U-4. 399mph at sea level and 4400ft/min rate of climb vs. ~370mph at sl and 4000ft/min roc.

Go to the top of the page

Brockpaine

The Shadow

Posts: 15,109

Sunday, January 23rd 2011, 7:34pm

The F2G was also slower at most higher altitudes than the F4U-4 (which topped out at 446mph @ 8,000m).

All in all, the F2G was a disappointing performance even compared to the straight F4Us - evidence that adding MOAR POWARS doesn't always work.

But they were pretty planes.

Go to the top of the page

Red Admiral

Italian Stallion

Posts: 7,019

Sunday, January 23rd 2011, 10:08pm

Quoted

Originally posted by Brockpaine
The F2G was also slower at most higher altitudes than the F4U-4 (which topped out at 446mph @ 8,000m).

All in all, the F2G was a disappointing performance even compared to the straight F4Us - evidence that adding MOAR POWARS doesn't always work.

It comes down to engine ratings. The wartime R-4360 without a turbocharger installation had a low rated altitude and power. The best position it was in was at sea level producing 3,000hp giving a 700hp advantage over the R-2800, but with a large weight and drag increase. At altitude, the single speed supercharger of the R-4360 just doesn't hack it and the R-2800 sustains it's performance much better at high altitude.

Go to the top of the page

thesmilingassassin

The Chosen One

Posts: 13,513

Monday, January 24th 2011, 12:46am

Quoted

Originally posted by Brockpaine
The F2G was also slower at most higher altitudes than the F4U-4 (which topped out at 446mph @ 8,000m).

All in all, the F2G was a disappointing performance even compared to the straight F4Us - evidence that adding MOAR POWARS doesn't always work.

But they were pretty planes.

I wouldn't say pretty, more like VERY agressive looking, which with military aircraft I suppose its the same thing.

Go to the top of the page

Vukovlad

Me too !!!

Posts: 4,137

Monday, January 24th 2011, 2:50am

A tank with no specs whatsoever

Go to the top of the page

BruceDuncan

Ex chaos ordo

Posts: 12,916

Monday, January 24th 2011, 2:56am

That running gear just does not look right.

The arm on the odd numbered wheels looks as though it would jam at any moment, and since the road wheels do rotate...

Go to the top of the page

Red Admiral

Italian Stallion

Posts: 7,019

Monday, January 24th 2011, 7:52pm

I imagine the forwards wheel in the pair is mounted on the inboard of the track, whilst the rear is towards the outer. Sort of like the overlapping suspension in the Tiger and Panther, but without the overlap.

Go to the top of the page

Rooijen10

Mr. Valentines Day

Posts: 9,644

Monday, January 24th 2011, 8:03pm

Quoted

I imagine the forwards wheel in the pair is mounted on the inboard of the track, whilst the rear is towards the outer.

When you look at the track, you can see that that is indeed the case.

Go to the top of the page

BruceDuncan

Ex chaos ordo

Posts: 12,916

Monday, January 24th 2011, 8:23pm

Quoted

Originally posted by Rooijen10

Quoted

I imagine the forwards wheel in the pair is mounted on the inboard of the track, whilst the rear is towards the outer.

When you look at the track, you can see that that is indeed the case.

Upon further research, I am forced to agree. The Skoda T-15 prototype had road-wheels mounted in a not too dissimilar fashion. It still strikes me as sub-optimal, but not unworkable.

Go to the top of the page

Red Admiral

Italian Stallion

Posts: 7,019

Monday, January 24th 2011, 8:35pm

Quoted

Originally posted by BruceDuncan
Upon further research, I am forced to agree. The Skoda T-15 prototype had road-wheels mounted in a not too dissimilar fashion. It still strikes me as sub-optimal, but not unworkable.

It means that you can mount wide tracks and get relatively low mean peak pressures. Today everyone's pretty much gone with large and wide roadwheels that make contact each side of the track. That's more of a speed related thing though.