Author Topic: Corsair Turning Ability in AH (Read 14240 times)

HoseNose · « **Reply #120 on:** July 17, 2007, 10:00:43 AM »

Um I believe the F4U-4's max revs is 2700 rpm. Where'd 5000 come from?

Knegel · « **Reply #121 on:** July 17, 2007, 12:34:49 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by HoseNose
Um I believe the F4U-4's max revs is 2700 rpm. Where'd 5000 come from?

Oh my god, no arguments left that you need to pic on obvious typos??

mfp, not rpm of course.

Saxman · « **Reply #122 on:** July 17, 2007, 01:35:04 PM »

What picking? 5000rpm is WAY more than just a typo.

Knegel · « **Reply #123 on:** July 18, 2007, 02:09:48 AM »

LOL not 5000 is the typo, rpm is the typo, it should have been mfp(main fold presure) and for all who ever did look to the AH F4U gauges this is pretty obvious.

mtnman · « **Reply #124 on:** July 18, 2007, 04:38:40 AM »

I've looked at the AH F4U gauges more than most I would guess, and it was far from obvious to me. I had no idea where you came up with those numbers.

I still think the 5000 thing is off a bit. My F4U gauges say 30, 40, 50, as do the ones in my manual. Are yours different?

Not that this typo thing really means anything...

MtnMan

Knegel · « **Reply #125 on:** July 18, 2007, 07:10:42 AM »

Obvious is that rpm dont have that much to do with the power setting of the engine in AH(it remain constant), while the mfp change, when i change the throttle position.

But anyway, this all seems to be more like in IL-2 now, where the people wanna believe they have the most realistic FM.

Saxman · « **Reply #126 on:** July 18, 2007, 07:27:54 AM »

5000" MAP would probably cause the engine to implode, lol!

In the game F4U has a maximum of ~57" MAP with WEP engaged. Pretty sure this got as high as 60" in the field.

mtnman · « **Reply #127 on:** July 18, 2007, 02:53:45 PM »

QUOTE]But anyway, this all seems to be more like in IL-2 now, where the people wanna believe they have the most realistic FM.[/QUOTE]

Isn't this natural? Who ever wants to believe they have the worst of something? Especially if what they do have seems to work.

In the few years I've been here, Hitech has seemed willing to fix issues with their game if enough evidence shows a discrepency. You don't need to convince us, just them.

That said, with the amount of time this thread has been active it doesn't seem to me that your evidence has swayed that many people's opinions. That doesn't mean you're wrong. But with your arguments compared to all the others, I'm not convinced either.

A- If something IS wrong with the flight model, I'd prefer it would be changed- as I'm sure the majority who play this game would.

B- I don't feel you've shown that YET, as it seems most of the others reading this thread feel based on their response, or lack of.

C- If what you say is correct, it seems it would affect all the planes in the set accordingly, which seems like the planes would all turn worse, but still compare similarly to the way they do now? Zero's and Hurri's would still out-turn F4U's, but all would turn "less tight"?

I don't know, maybe your evidence isn't convincing, or maybe the way you've presented it?

MtnMan

HoseNose · « **Reply #128 on:** July 18, 2007, 07:22:22 PM »

Oooo. Mtnman brings up a good point. And no, Knegle I'm not picking on you.. don't be so girly lol. we're all good friends here just talking about the stuff we think is awesome - aircraft of WWII (more specifically AHII).

Krusty · « **Reply #129 on:** July 18, 2007, 08:19:14 PM »

Okay, He's trying to show that something's wrong.

We know SOMETHING is wrong. Perhaps its what he says, perhaps it's something unrelated.

All I know is that SOMETHING is wrong with current F4u flight modeling.

Quote

Originally posted by Widewing
Then again, I have some issues with the flight modeling. The F6F-5 is at least 20 mph too slow at its best altitude (should be neck and neck with the F4U-1D at 20k). There is a serious dynamic instability in the roll axis at high angles of attack. On the contrary, the F4U, which should be notably less stable than the Hellcat, is rock steady under those conditions and a paragon of genteel handling. Our F4Us display none of the vices known in the RW. The F6F-5 has vices that didn't exist in the RW. If they ever fix the F6F, it'll move up in the standings. It should also be able to carry the centerline tank AND 2 bombs, or 3 bombs (as should the F4U-1D).

Quote

Originally posted by Bodhi
Excellent post Widewing... although I can not choose the 1A over the 1d... just like the 1d more, probably stupid in that, but it's the U-bird I learned first... As for the F6F and F4u handling characteristics, I agree whole heartedly. The F6F is described by everyone I know who has flown it (both veterans and current pilots) as being better named a ***** cat when it's flight characteristics are considered. The contrary is the F4u's flight model, and every one I know that has major time in tem is do not get low and slow and try to maneuver. The stall below 200 kts and 6k AGL is unrecoverable as the wing drops and a spin results which is unrecoverable given the altitude. Given altitide the F4u is still a monster in the spin, and the few pilots I know that have intentionally spun the Corsair say they will never try it again. The U-bird is a beast in all sense of the word. It is very poorly protrayed here with regards to stall characteristics, that and it's very lightened load, especially cosidering the -1d's and the -4's. The '4's were carrying field modified pylons that could and did carry two 1k bombs each.

Passage to note:

"every one I know that has major time in tem is do not get low and slow and try to maneuver. The stall below 200 kts and 6k AGL is unrecoverable as the wing drops and a spin results which is unrecoverable given the altitude. Given altitide the F4u is still a monster in the spin, and the few pilots I know that have intentionally spun the Corsair say they will never try it again."

In this game the F4u is as docile as a spitfire. I have almost NEVER spun out, EVER, at any speed fast or slow. I can go from 350mph to 150 in the blink of an eye and then pull 3G+ turns without any negative handling.

That alone proves the flight model is wrong.

Now, I don't think Knegel's got it right. The argument he makes isn't very good. I think it's just the code in the F4u that's messed up, is all. They need to make the plane fly like a spit14 and it would be more realistic.

Benny Moore · « **Reply #130 on:** July 18, 2007, 10:06:00 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Krusty
I think it's just the code in the F4u that's messed up, is all. They need to make the plane fly like a spit14 and it would be more realistic.

That's not how it works. Hitech's model isn't some scripted thing like IL-2 where the developers artificially hand-write behavior into each aircraft ("Hmm, this book says that the P-40 should have a nasty spin, so I'll type in 'if AoA > 18 then exec "nasty spin"'"). Hitech's model uses lift, drag, weight, and thrust vectors, lots of them, and they are calculated at all times.

Making the F4U fly like the Spitfire Mark XIV would entail giving the F4U some of the Spitfire's lift and drag values. That would be exceedingly unrealistic, since Hitech uses real values. If there's a problem, it's probably that some of the data points are wrong. Either that, or the model itself isn't as complex in a certain area as it needs to be (for example, flaps). I suspect the latter. Still, it's by far the closest any flight model has come so far.

Quote

Originally posted by Bohdi
The stall below 200 kts and 6k AGL is unrecoverable as the wing drops and a spin results which is unrecoverable given the altitude.

While I agree that the F4U's stall in the game probably isn't nearly as severe as it should be, I must object to this statement. It is quite possible to recover from at least some types of stall in a real Corsair without a major altitude loss. You can see an example of this in the U.S.A.A.F. training video. Of course, it's a power-off slow stall, not a power-on accelerated stall. And he does not let the spin develop in the first place, but recovers immediately after the stall. But it all depends on how far you let the stall develop; that's true of nearly any airplane. I'm sure that even the docile Cessna could be placed into an unrecoverable spin, if you try hard enough.

Saxman · « **Reply #131 on:** July 19, 2007, 12:27:08 AM »

Quote

But it all depends on how far you let the stall develop...

THIS is the important statement. I've said this before, but the F4U in the game can be a HANDFUL for an unwary inexperienced pilot to try and fly slow in the weeds. I think part of the reason why she seems more forgiving is because a lot of the guys saying it are ALSO veterans who've already gone through the teething process of learning how to handle departure situations in the game.

The F4U, if flown with too rough a hand on the stick, WILL depart without warning. While I do agree the characteristics may be somewhat more docile than they should, I believe at least a part of this is an illusion because players in this game have the bonus lives to learn how to detect and recover before there's a problem, or just how far she can be pushed before she gets out from under them.

I've entered spins at high altitude and needed a good 5000-6000ft to recover again. The same would most certainly be a fatal crash in the typical MA furball. I don't think it's so much the aircraft isn't departing when it should, but that guys here, through the type of practice, trial and error that the HISTORICAL pilots didn't benefit from, have learned how to correct and recover almost before the problem starts.

Guaranteed, if you take a total newbie (as in no prior flight simulation experience whatsoever) to Aces High with in-game flight hours roughly equivalent to the average flight time of a rookie WWII fighter pilot just arrived at the front for his first check flight and stick him in the Corsair, then have him try and pull the sort of maneuvers the vets here with hundreds, if not THOUSANDS of game hours in the Hog can execute, he'll very quickly screw himself right into the ground.

Who was it a couple months ago who posted video of a REAL F4U pulling the EXACT same sort of gravity-defying maneuvers people are calling "BS!" on in this thread?

mtnman · « **Reply #132 on:** July 19, 2007, 06:27:01 AM »

Hmmm, Saxman, could that be the video that was through You-Tube? Maybe someone with a better internet connection could do a search...

I'm on 28K dial-up, and don't think I'll have the required time to do it myself. I'd be interested in the link if anyone finds it again.

I wonder how much the Combat Trim is responsible for the reduced severity of the spins? I know in my early days I was known to spin the F4U into the ground from as high as 12k, but I was REALLY BAD back then, hehe.

MtnMan

Saxman · « **Reply #133 on:** July 19, 2007, 07:19:06 AM »

I can't remember. I suppose I could always do a forum search, but there's been about a hundred of these "F4U Turn Performance is BS!!!!" threads since then.

Benny Moore · « **Reply #134 on:** July 19, 2007, 09:18:54 AM »

I'd love to see it, if only because it's footage of a real Corsair doing aerobatics.