I don't recall seeing one. The FR-1 was flying before the end of the war, but didn't see combat. From what I've read, it had some pretty serious structural problems and didn't last long in Navy service. Sounds like a bit of a widowmaker.
Looking at the stats, its performance was roughly in the neighborhood of the F6F or F4U while on both engines. Its principle advantage appears to be range, which seems to be achieved by the relatively low-HP piston engine only as a sort of "cruise" engine. Aside from that edge, the F8F Bearcat, introduced at about the same time, appears to have been a much more successful (and safe) plane.
Did the jet engine give an advantage that doesn't show up in the stats given? Was the Fireball's performance at various altitudes different from a purely-piston engine plane? What is the rate of climb with both engines?
The Fireball is an interesting plane. I would like to see it as an alternate history card. Probably a land-based fighter.
Its interesting. I haven't found firm stats on rate of climb with the jet, but then early jets often struggled with low altitude performance. I have no idea, but my guess is any performance advantage in climb it might have had above other period fighters was achieved at great risk to the plane and pilot. Honestly, aside from range, maybe great performance for a 1943 plane? The big deal appears to have been range... run just on the radial at a lower speed to get a lot of range, then kick in the jet at a critical moment to get generally good high speed performance...then get off the jet again for the max-conserve return flight home. An interesting concept, but not exactly a super fighter in War at Sea terms.
The other thing to note: The USN only build enough for a 3-4 squadrons (66 planes if I recall correctly). By comparison, the Bearcat was built in far greater numbers and became the standard fleet defense fighter (though it never completely eliminated the Corsair as a multi-role fighter). By 1945-46 USN standards, the FR-1 was a pretty niche, dare I say "weird" plane that never gained fleet wide acceptance.
If I was going to do a card, I'd try to emphasize the range advantage some how, keep it carrier based (its intended role) and perhaps make it make a very low chance of failure recovery check for its horrid structure. Might be a fun niche plane in a long-range game.
Did the jet engine give an advantage that doesn't show up in the stats given? Was the Fireball's performance at various altitudes different from a purely-piston engine plane? What is the rate of climb with both engines?
The Fireball is an interesting plane. I would like to see it as an alternate history card. Probably a land-based fighter.
That's definitely a carrier plane. Why would you restrict it to land bases?
Did the jet engine give an advantage that doesn't show up in the stats given? Was the Fireball's performance at various altitudes different from a purely-piston engine plane? What is the rate of climb with both engines?
The Fireball is an interesting plane. I would like to see it as an alternate history card. Probably a land-based fighter.
That's definitely a carrier plane. Why would you restrict it to land bases?
I had thought SWODaddy had mentioned the FR-1 seeing mostly land-based service. I have no idea where I got that from.
Make it a carrier fighter, with some kind of recovery check SA.
Its interesting. I haven't found firm stats on rate of climb with the jet, but then early jets often struggled with low altitude performance. I have no idea, but my guess is any performance advantage in climb it might have had above other period fighters was achieved at great risk to the plane and pilot. Honestly, aside from range, maybe great performance for a 1943 plane? The big deal appears to have been range... run just on the radial at a lower speed to get a lot of range, then kick in the jet at a critical moment to get generally good high speed performance...then get off the jet again for the max-conserve return flight home. An interesting concept, but not exactly a super fighter in War at Sea terms.
The other thing to note: The USN only build enough for a 3-4 squadrons (66 planes if I recall correctly). By comparison, the Bearcat was built in far greater numbers and became the standard fleet defense fighter (though it never completely eliminated the Corsair as a multi-role fighter). By 1945-46 USN standards, the FR-1 was a pretty niche, dare I say "weird" plane that never gained fleet wide acceptance.
If I was going to do a card, I'd try to emphasize the range advantage some how, keep it carrier based (its intended role) and perhaps make it make a very low chance of failure recovery check for its horrid structure. Might be a fun niche plane in a long-range game.
The range comments got me thinking. The FR-1 has two kinds of engines, so it had to carry two different kinds of fuel. Right? Based on the range figures, I'll guess most of the fuel carried was for the piston engine. The jet would be used only in combat. Maybe the jet engine wasn't normally used for climbing from takeoff, due to a lack of fuel? I'm just guessing here.