Corsair Turning Ability in AH

[Shuckins]

Is there a discrepancy between the Corsair's turning ability in AH as opposed to real life?  Reading some of the posts in this forum I hear a fair number of sticks talking about the Corsair getting down and dirty, turning on a dime, outmaneuvering Spits, hanging pretty well with Zeros, and the like.  


This contradicts much of what I've read about the subject over the years.  Some of you who have much more info on the subject than I can offer some incite into the reality of this issue.

The best source I have for this is Francis Dean's tome
America's Hundred Thousand. In it he cites a comparison of the turning ability of top American fighters in the turning game, as they were rated by actual World War II fighter pilots at one of the fighter conferences held during the war.

Dean's data is for clean aircraft configuration, gear and flaps retracted, and no external stores.  The assumption is made in each case that engine power available is sufficient to keep the plane in level flight, not sinking, during the turn.  In such a case the minimum turn radius occurs when the wing develops the maximum possible lift coefficient without stalling.  The radius depends on the wing loading and maximum wing lift coefficient.  

The information available was for stall speeds in three g turns.  In any of the aircraft, if the control system was suitable, wing flaps could be more or less quickly dropped to a maneuver position to give increased wing lift coefficient and thus provide tighter turns, but these cases are not reflected in Dean's data.  For ranking purposes the quickest turning aircraft, the FM-2 Wildcat, was given an arbitrary value of 100%, and the rest are ranked relative to it.  

The other U.S. fighters tested yielding the following turning performance:

P-63A at 8780 lbs gross weight:  124%.

P-61B-1 at 27,000 lbs gross weight:  133%

F6F-5 at 12,500 lbs gross weight:  137%

P-51D-15 at 9500 lbs gross weight:  179%

P-38L at at 17,488 lbs gross weight:  205%

P-47D-30 at 14,300 lbs gross weight:  206%

F4U-1D at 11,803 lbs gross weight:  212%

The results for the Corsair, Dean states, seems to be due to a relatively low maximum lift coefficient, because wing loading was not overly high.  The spoiler placed on the right wing of the Corsair to eliminate an unsymmetric stall problem is suspected of dropping the overall lift coefficient considerably,  in fact an NACA test report notes this was indeed the case.




As to the matter of flaps, would they really make that much of a difference in the case of the Corsair.  With a turning ability rated at 212% of that of the Wildcat, it had a lot of ground to make up to catch the top-turning fighters in this comparison.

Also, given the Corsairs nasty stall characteristics in real life, which were not-fully resolved even by the end of the war, a close, hard-turning knife-fight was not where a pilot wanted to be in a Corsair....even WITH flaps deployed.


Widewing, et. al, what information do you have on this?

Regards, Shuckins

[hitech]

You are just measuring stall speeds, it makes no difference if you are at 3 g or 1 g, the ranks I.E. order of the planes will be the same.

Stall speed is only 1 component of turn performance.

HiTech

[mtnman]

All things being equal, the AH F4U's won't out-turn spits, zero's, hurris, etc.  Put the F4U against any of these on the deck, at the same fairly low airspeed, and the F4U is dead.  It's heavy, doesn't accelerate very well, and stalls nastily when you try to make it do things it doesn't want to do.

From everything I've read (including my "Pilot's Manual for the F4U Corsair")  the F4U's handle about like I would expect.  They stall at the correct speed, etc.  From watching the corsairs at the EAA airshow every year, and watching video footage, I would say that the AH corsair feels like what I would expect it to, based on what I've seen.  Obviously I've not seen them get real down and dirty though.

My radio-control F4U would kick the crud out of the AH F4U's though.  This I would also expect with the thicker airfoil, lighter wing loading, and higher power/weight ratio of the RC version.

That being said, there really isn't an airplane in AH that causes problems for a decent F4U stick.  It comes down to the pilots.  Can I out-turn those uber-turners? Yes.  But only if I can convince them to stay fast, and then I can only do it for a turn or two.  Getting them fast is no problem.  I act like I'm going to run away, so they chase me, then I get dirty to get behind them for a quick shot.  If I kill them, they perceive it as the F4U out-turning the spit, or zero or whatever, and label it as a flight model error.

In actuality it was an error on the part of the spit, zero, or hurri pilot.

If I don't get my quick kill, I have two options.  One- I continue to turn with the spit, zero, or hurri.  Unless the other stick is a newbie, I'm gonna die.  Two- I realize that my advantage is gone or will be very quickly, so I exit to try again.  This is also easy.  I simply set up my maneuver so I can dive out one direction (south, say), while the spit is going up the other direction (north, say).  He has to reverse, which allows me time to get speed and some seperation (1-1.5K).  

Now we repeat-  he thinks I'm running (I'm not, I'm looking at him as an easy kill).  This makes him try really hard to catch me.  His quicker acceleration will help, and if not I drop throttle a bit to appear more tasty.  I really only want about 250-300 mph anyway.  So as he closes, I slow down, get the overshoot, and kill him.  Briefly as he goes by I will be able to turn tighter than him, because I'm slower.  Not because the F4U out-turns the spit though, but because the spit is too fast again.  Again, as he slows down, if I haven't killed him yet, he will eventually out-turn me, in which case I exit again.  I'll get it right eventually.  I have all day, it's not like a spit, zero, or hurri can run away from me, hehe.

So hopefully you can see that they way things are percieved by the AH pilots is not necessarily the way things really are.  F4U's out-turning the classic turn-fighters can be viewed as an uber-flap plane, or as a skewed flight model favoring the American planes, or a myriad of other things.

You'd be further ahead to realize that it is the TECHNIQUE used to out-turn the other plane that matters.  Not a "messed up flight model".  Those that realize this will be able to APPEAR to do wondrous, often impossible manuevers.  Those that don't will be left in the hanger, or here on the boards whining about uber planes.

MtnMan

[Oleg]

Of course, you cannt outturn spit5, any zero or hurr in corsair at slow speed (unless their pilots really suck). But corsair can handle very well against spit8/9/16 and most of other planes at any speed.

[Sketch]

Originally posted by mtnman
My radio-control F4U would kick the crud out of the AH F4U's though.  This I would also expect with the thicker airfoil, lighter wing loading, and higher power/weight ratio of the RC version.

What's the perk value on that?  And does it have a 20mm setup?

[Furball]

I wonder why the F4U has no bad handling qualities at all.  It wasn't known as the Ensign Eliminator because it chewed up flags (yes, granted the view didn't help things).  It just kinda floats around like it is on a magic carpet and goes wherever you want it to without any effort.

[Saxman]

The F4U's low speed stall is a lot nastier than a lot of people seem to think. I've been flying the Corsair almost exclusively for going on two years and there's times where she still gets out from under me at low airspeeds when I try to push her just a bit too hard.

The guys that manage to keep her floating like that know just how hard to push her, or have the control to be able to regularly recover in that first split-second of departure, before it turns into a full spin.

[Trikky]

I've seen more Spits enter flat spins than F4U's.

Whenever I've flown em, which is rare, biggest problem I have is dropping too much flap and having the nose elevate a couple of hundred degrees past my target.

Think its got something to do with the G key.

[CAP1]

Originally posted by mtnman
.



My radio-control F4U would kick the crud out of the AH F4U's though.  This I would also expect with the thicker airfoil, lighter wing loading, and higher power/weight ratio of the RC version.

MtnMan

this is off topic, but i HAVE to ask..........what kind is it? is it a kit, or an arf? what size engine? i fly a P51 with a saito 1.5 4 stroke,, and also a hangar nine T34, with an os .50 in it......i do havean electric corsair.....by alpha models...it has an axi outrunner motor, and for how small it is it hauls arse!!......handles unbelievably well too........

have fun dude!

<>

[BaDkaRmA158Th]

The REAL problem is the fact the lower the flaps are,the more STABLE it becomes.

This should not be, granted the f4u's tourque is still then same, the airflow under its wings less, thus harder to keep from a spin.

Right now,you drop flaps to full and the dman thing is more like a jet.


For a plane with horrible tourque, with flaps..it doesnt exsist.

A major error if every their was one.

[mtnman]

"this is off topic, but i HAVE to ask..........what kind is it? is it a kit, or an arf? what size engine? i fly a P51 with a saito 1.5 4 stroke,, and also a hangar nine T34, with an os .50 in it......i do havean electric corsair.....by alpha models...it has an axi outrunner motor, and for how small it is it hauls arse!!......handles unbelievably well too........

have fun dude!"

I've never flown an ARF, beyond teaching someone else how to fly theirs with a buddy-cord.  All my planes ve been kits or scratch-built.  My first 15-20 planes were scratch-built from plans or 3-views that I drew up to fit my engines.  I couldn't afford kits back then, but was an artist so found it easy to draw up what I wanted.  I learned lots that way too.

My current F4U is a Top Flite kit, with a .75 SuperTigre.  I'm actually in the process of rebuilding it after an "incident" while landing.  I fly behind my house (live on a farm), and the road is narrow, with several obstacle's.  I bought another kit and am rebuilding it now.  Before that, I flew a "short-kit" corsair (brand??) and a scratch-built Ultimate Bipe.  Along with a bunch of others.
My first P51 caused me some problems too.  An incident involving about $10,000 damage to a doctor's office condominium in Missoula, Montana while I was in college.  Damage to the secretary's office (double-paned gas filled window on the third floor, computers, fax machines, printers, etc, etc...) was pretty severe.  I ended up working on the owners (one of the Doc's) llama ranch for credit to repay it.  Kinda funny, but it also kinda sucked.

I'm also scratch-building a Pitts Super Stinker now, and am flying a .40 Cherokee.

"I wonder why the F4U has no bad handling qualities at all. It wasn't known as the Ensign Eliminator because it chewed up flags (yes, granted the view didn't help things). It just kinda floats around like it is on a magic carpet and goes wherever you want it to without any effort."

Sounds like it ranks up there with all the other planes in AH when you describe it that way.

MtnMan

[mtnman]

The nickname of "Ensign Eliminator" was earned mainly due to issues with landing, and in particular landing with full flaps and not enough power by inexperienced pilots.  I think it would be an error to judge a flight model based on a nickname.  If we did, the issue that would arise next would be whether it should be modeled as the "Ensign Eliminator", or as the "Sweetheart of Okinawa".  I'm guessing the model wouldn't be the same for both nicknames.

The landing issues reported by most literature seem to exist in the AH version.  Has anyone heard of a new corsair pilot NOT complaining about the ground loops on landing?

I've heard that torque is not modeled as harshly as it could be, on ANY of the AH planes.  Maybe true?  I have no idea.  I've heard one supposed actual pilot with F4U-4 experience says the AH -4 is undermodeled.  I don't know.  I'd let him speak for himself if he so chooses.

Maybe the pilot manual for the F4U has the answers.

It says under "Stalls" (pg 44 of my manual)- "The stalling characteristics of the airplane are not abnormal, and warning of the approach of the stall exists in tail buffeting, the abnormal nose-up attitude, and increasing left wing heaviness with power on."  Sounds like what I see in AH.

It says under "Spins" (pg 45)- Recovery from the incipient stage of a spin following a stall is rapid on normal use of the controls, and, if prompt action is taken, no trouble need be experienced, as the stalling characteristics of the airplane are not particularly abnormal."  Hmmm, that sounds real familiar too.

 Seems doubtful the manual would downplay potentially dangerous characteristics.  That could lead to bad things.  

Or this article on the F4U handling characteristics-

All variants of the Corsair are known for a tendency to fall off on the left wing in power-on stalls, rolling over onto the side or back and losing as much as several hundred feet of altitude before control can be fully regained. When there is sufficient altitude, the pilot is easily able to regain control, but at low altitudes this can prove fatal, leading to the moniker, "Ensign Eliminator" during early Navy tests of the plane.[citation needed]
Ground handling was a challenge for inexperienced pilots, due to the combination of a castoring tailwheel (that is, it freely swivels unless locked) and the length of the fuselage and cowling ahead of the cockpit (which inspired the nickname "Hose Nose"). The Corsair must be taxiied as a series of S-turns, with the pilot using the brakes to turn the plane first one direction then the other, in order to see past the nose. Crosswinds or sloppy use of the throttle or brakes rapidly leads to embarrassment for the pilot, as the plane veers off the taxiway or (in extreme cases) spins around in a low-speed groundloop and finally stops pointing the wrong direction. When the plane is taxiied a long distance, brake fade —the tendency for hot brakes to become unreliable— can also cause these problems. Pilots may wait a few moments before beginning the takeoff roll in order to let the brakes cool, so that they will have even steering during the first part of the roll before the rudder becomes effective.[citation needed]
The early models of the F4U had a major problem in landing, as the oleo struts in the landing gear would compress, then bounce the plane upward, riding the ground-effect cushion between the wing and the ground, which was increased when the tail was low in a three-point landing. A bad bounce could leave the pilot with tons of airplane, now out of ground effect, falling out of the sky without enough airspeed to keep the left wingtip from dropping toward the ground. The main gear would hit the ground hard enough to begin the cycle again, finally ending either in a series of smaller bounces or in a crash. Until the problem was solved (in a test program which took months), F4U pilots learned to land at high speed and keep the tail high until airspeed and lift bled off enough to keep the plane on the ground when the tail came down.[citation needed]
An added danger was that the shape of the inverted gull wing on the Corsair blanks out the elevators and rudder when the tail is down on the ground. This problem was relieved somewhat by lengthening the tail gear struts to lift the tail a few inches, where there was cleaner airflow.[citation needed]
Due to the long nose, pilots landing on aircraft carriers were unable to see the Landing Signal Officer (LSO)—or the rest of the aircraft carrier, for that matter—during the final, critical moments of final approach. American pilots developed a technique of applying right rudder and left aileron, crabbing the plane toward the flight deck, keeping the LSO in sight by keeping the nose pointed at an angle. British Commonwealth pilots simply modified their approach pattern into a long, shallow turn to the left, again to keep the nose pointed to the right until the signal to land had been given. (Plenty of footage shows USN and USMC pilots landing while making a left turn. The goal was to see the LSO. Pilots did not land unless the LSO gave the "OK and Cut". It is reasonable to think that a combination of left turn and crabbing were used while coming aboard.[citation needed] Interviews with US Corsair pilots support this as well.[citation needed]

One POSSIBLE problem I do see with the AH modeling (sorry Hitech, not tryin' to pick a fight with you...) is that my manual says the power on stall is 66 knots with 50 degrees of flaps.  The power they show is 23" Hg, 2400 RPM.  I can't get mine that slow, and I appear to be using more power.  Maybe the AH stall is too soon?

BadKarma-  Why else have flaps, if not to be more stable at slow speeds.  It seems crazy that flaps on planes would be so popular if they led to instability at slow speed.  Especially since slow speed and low alt are basic ingredients to landing.  Please explain more.  How is the corsair jet-like? In acceleration maybe?

Honestly sounds like some are getting spanked by the F4U's, and just need to learn how to deal with them.  Maybe your current strategy is less than perfect.

MtnMan

[Saxman]

Karma --

You ever tried to roll right full power, full flaps at speeds under 100-150mph?

Or...

Have you ever been at reduced power for a landing, full flaps, gear extended, properly trimmed, then all the sudden had to goose the throttle?

If not, try it sometime.

The F4U strongly dislikes turning to the right under low-speed, full-flap conditions. Right roll is very sluggish in this situation when power is on full, and the aircraft has a HEAVY tendency to try and snap roll left and flip over on her back. I HATE being in a low-speed fight where the target makes me go right.

Similarly, she strongly resists executing a snap roll to the right. The roll is slower, very loose, and she'll naturally recover within a revolution after releasing the stick and rudder. On the contrary, in a left snap roll the rate of roll is extremely high and the path of the roll very tight. She'll stay in it indefinitely, until you either recover or hit the ground.

Sudden direction changes under low speed conditions, (especially trying to change from left turn to right turn) even under full flaps, can be VERY unstable. It takes a firm but careful hand to keep her from slipping out of control.

If the aircraft is full flaps down and trimmed for 0 roll and straight flight while power is either reduced or at full idle, suddenly firewalling the throttle will cause the F4U to pull HARD to the left. She won't necessarily snap roll or spin, but it WILL take almost immediate corrective action (such as combat trim) to 0 out the roll and yaw.

[SteveBailey]

Originally posted by mtnman

That being said, there really isn't an airplane in AH that causes problems for a decent F4U stick.  It comes down to the pilots.  Can I out-turn those uber-turners? Yes.  But only if I can convince them to stay fast, and then I can only do it for a turn or two.  Getting them fast is no problem.  I act like I'm going to run away, so they chase me, then I get dirty to get behind them for a quick shot.  If I kill them, they perceive it as the F4U out-turning the spit, or zero or whatever, and label it as a flight model error.

In actuality it was an error on the part of the spit, zero, or hurri pilot.

If I don't get my quick kill, I have two options.  One- I continue to turn with the spit, zero, or hurri.  Unless the other stick is a newbie, I'm gonna die.  Two- I realize that my advantage is gone or will be very quickly, so I exit to try again.  This is also easy.  I simply set up my maneuver so I can dive out one direction (south, say), while the spit is going up the other direction (north, say).  He has to reverse, which allows me time to get speed and some seperation (1-1.5K).  

Now we repeat-  he thinks I'm running (I'm not, I'm looking at him as an easy kill).  This makes him try really hard to catch me.  His quicker acceleration will help, and if not I drop throttle a bit to appear more tasty.  I really only want about 250-300 mph anyway.  So as he closes, I slow down, get the overshoot, and kill him.  Briefly as he goes by I will be able to turn tighter than him, because I'm slower.  Not because the F4U out-turns the spit though, but because the spit is too fast again.  Again, as he slows down, if I haven't killed him yet, he will eventually out-turn me, in which case I exit again.  I'll get it right eventually.  I have all day, it's not like a spit, zero, or hurri can run away from me, hehe.


MtnMan

Do this in a mustang and you are a lucky, dweeb, runner, gamer, coward, cherry picker, altmonkey, scorepotato,  gangbanger, spray-and-prayer, no-skill,  noob, tard,  opportunistic,  hack,  squeaker, cheater, exploiter,(mustangs can't do that so I must be cheating/exploiting).  At least that's what I've been called.  All this from flying around no higher than 8k looking for the biggest darbar.  

[Knegel]

Hi,

the F4U itself turn in a credible way as long as no flaps get used, but the flaps make a stall fighter out of it, which is able to outturn the Spit14 and the F4U´s can employ the flaps at a very high speed, what give it a big extra advantage over most other planes.

The flaps are a major problem in AH in general, they all work like big fowler flaps, while normal flaps in general decrease the turnratio and glide path but not the radius in a sustained turn, if they are extracted more than 10 degree.

The flaps in AH seems to work over the complete length of the wing, while real flaps most only comver 50-70% of the wing, so if the flaps get used, only 50-70% of the wing get the extra lift, while the rest of the wing dont provide much lift anymore, cause at speeds where the "flap-airfoil" provide better lift, the "normal " airfoil stall or dont provide much lift at all(depending to the AoA). As result the lift of the the complete wing with extened flaps dont get higher, it rather decrease, but the wing provide this smaler lift at smaler speeds, where the wing without flaps already would stall.

Normal flaps have the highest influence to the C/L max, if they are extended by around 6 degree, at this moment the wing without flaps(wingtips) still create good lift and the wing with lift also have a good gain, resulting in a rather high lift with rather smal amount of drag, thats why this is called combat setting. With a higher angle the flaps mainly produce drag, used to influence the glidepath, while the lift remain rather constant(possible lift increasement due to the flaps get event out by the decreasing lift of the wingtips).

Imho the tunr relations without flaps fit rather good and the turn performence with 1 step flaps is also still credible, but then it get out of hand.
This count for many planes, not only the F4U.


Greetings,

Knegel