Author Topic: Corsairs..? (Read 4284 times)

SgtPappy · « **Reply #30 on:** March 02, 2008, 03:27:10 PM »

Thanks, Old Sport. It's always good to have new explanations like that. But sorry, I don't really understand that bracketed diagram of cross sections.

Krusty · « **Reply #31 on:** March 02, 2008, 05:53:26 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Saxman
The difference is, there's such a steep and potentially fatal learning curve that pilots who fly the Hog in real life don't dare take the chance to learn just how far she can be pushed.

I disagree... An average pilot in AH can push the hog way further than even the best pilot in real life could. That's not because they have a virtual life. *I*'m not that skilled in flying te F4u, it's far from a regular ride.

On the occasion I take one up with some squaddies/friends, I have no problem taking it to the edge, past the edge, recovering instantly, and keep on flying.

That's a pilot with minimal F4u experience, able to pull of things the most experienced test pilots and aces of the war wouldn't even attempt.

No, there is a disparity here between what the plane could actually do and what it does in this game. It's not pilot related. It's physics related (somehow)

SgtPappy · « **Reply #32 on:** March 02, 2008, 08:36:43 PM »

Sax DOES have apoint. Many of the cartoon pilots are more successful (not necessarily better) than many of the vets since in-game we've got infinite lives, health, lack of many engine management systems, manual trim and we instead have an infinite number of extra advantages with which we can take advantage.

However, I do agree (again, to some extent) with Krusty that there is a noticable discrepency with the flight model.

Krusty, even Sax admits that the high torque effects that Hog pilots endured even when properly trimmed, does not apply to the in-game Corsair.

Arlo · « **Reply #33 on:** March 02, 2008, 09:18:39 PM »

All in all sounds like all are asking HTC to doublecheck the torque modeling more than anything. Suppose if multiple films of someone coming in for a typical carrier style landing (practically stall speed, flaps full, gear and hook extended) where they suddenly max out the throttle and the plane continues on course without any need for correction then that's the culprit.

Saxman · « **Reply #34 on:** March 02, 2008, 09:56:05 PM »

Arlo hits it, I think. Address the uncharacteristically low torque and I wouldn't be surprised to see a lot of problems iron themselves out. If the F4U's stability is addressed at low speeds, regardless of whether or not the flaps make such a tight turning circle theoretically possible the rough departure behavior alone is guaranteed to punt Corsair fights into a higher average airspeed range.

However given the way ALL the aircraft in the plane set are pushed beyond their anecdotal limits in-game, I highly doubt this would stop the best Corsair sticks from still getting full-flaps and slow down in the weeds. You'd just only be seeing the TOP F4U pilots doing it.

Stoney · « **Reply #35 on:** March 02, 2008, 11:28:43 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Saxman
Address the uncharacteristically low torque and I wouldn't be surprised to see a lot of problems iron themselves out.

Or, you get a new one when almost everyone crashes on takeoff when they firewall the throttle from the chocks. If the current torque modelling is at least comparable across the different airframes, then the relative difference between aircraft is accurate, even if the total amount of torque isn't the exact same.

I guess my question would be, if its torque we're concerned about on the Corsair, why would it be any different than the P-47? Same motor, almost same wing span, comparable aileron area and station on the wing, and they turn approximately the same amount of MP at sea level... No one complains that torque is overly offensive in the Jug?

Stoney · « **Reply #36 on:** March 02, 2008, 11:44:32 PM »

Excerpt from Widewings F4U4/P-51 comparison page:

"Ease of flight: Despite gaining the nickname of "Ensign Eliminator", the F4U series tendency to roll under torque was no more difficult to handle than any other high powered fighter of the era. Some who have flown both the Corsair and the Mustang state without hesitation that the P-51 exhibited a greater propensity to roll on its back than did the F4U. Moreover, the Corsair was a far more forgiving aircraft when entering a stall. Although it would drop its right wing abruptly, the aircraft gave plenty of advanced warning of an impending stall by entering a pronounced buffeting about 6-7 mph before the wing dropped. "

The nature of the Carrier landing pattern had more to do with its reputation than the actual torque on the aircraft.

Saxman · « **Reply #37 on:** March 03, 2008, 07:35:00 AM »

So here we have a contradiction.

On the one hand, we're hearing anecdotes relayed by Krusty and Bodhi that suggest flying a low and slow Corsair is a terrifying prospect.

On the OTHER hand, Widewing's article suggests torque roll in the F4U was no more of an issue than any other high-powered fighter, and that in spite of the sudden wing drop in a stall there was plenty of warning about 7mph before she snapped over. THAT would be something to test. Someone should take up a "combat loaded" F4U, get her full flaps out and watch the airspeed from the onset of buffering. Keep pushing the aircraft until she stalls and rolls over. If it's modeled right she should snap over about 6-7mph after buffeting occurs (I BELIEVE it's already been proven that the numerical stall speeds themselves are correct).

Granted, Widewing's comparing the -4 which had ironed out many of the issues experienced by the 1-series Hogs, but my understanding was that the stall strip introduced in the 1A's right wing was all that was needed or ever done regarding the left wing's tendency to drop in the stall.

Arlo · « **Reply #38 on:** March 03, 2008, 08:52:50 AM »

But ... I specifically did use a carrier approach as example for the test neccessary for torque tweaking. Also .... how about throttle response? My great uncle talked about how ground handlers in units transitioning to F4Us sometimes learned the hard way (ground-looping and often breaking planes) that the F4U's throttle was more responsive and the torque more pronounced than the planes they used to work on (F4Fs, granted). And somehow I just don't imagine AAC T-Bolt pilots approaching thier fields at stall speeds, arse low and chopping throttle at the end of the runway ... unless someone has anecdotal refence to share in return that corrects that presumption. So perhaps the torque's still the key ... and respective technique in given situations (as well as the T-Bolt's wider gear stance) is precisely the only real difference WW's site claims.

Krusty · « **Reply #39 on:** March 03, 2008, 09:05:27 AM »

Sax: I'm not just passing anecdotes. I even posted a clip of a WW2 training film. These stalls and characteristics are well documented and were self-evident.

Not just pilot anecdotes.

EDIT: P.S. I'm not entirely convinced it's only torque-related. 190s had vicious snap-stalls for a long time, and this was fixed by the airflow recode. P-47s became less forgiving in stall fights, the only change being airflow coding. I think it has to do with the airflow recode more than anything else. Consider the AH1 model of the corsair. It still had torque, and basically the data for the indivudal corsair planes remains unchanged. Somehow, how that data is being processed has changed.

Arlo · « **Reply #40 on:** March 03, 2008, 09:28:35 AM »

It's all related, K. The forces are all in effect in the air. Some are greater than others in different circumstances. The F4U's handling was also improved by adding a wing spoiler on the 1a and later versions.

"Carrier suitability was a major development issue, prompting changes to the main landing gear, tail wheel and tailhook. Early prototypes had difficulty recovering from developed spins since the inverted gull wing's shape interfered with elevator authority. A small spoiler was added to the leading edge of the starboard wing to reduce adverse stall characteristics.[6]"

[6] The Illustrated Encyclopedia of Aircraft 1985, p. 108.

New landing technique was developed, as well.

But a pilot in a low e plane that suddenly goes from idle to max throttle is gonna hafta correct for some pretty heavy torque when the powerplant produces 2000 horsepower and does so practically instantaneously. Seems only logical. There's not a lot of airflow for that spoiler to deal with. But the torque's still there at any airflow/speed. I'd wager the new landing technique also involved handling the throttle wisely. And a P-47 does not an Army Corsair make. Wing and wing root structure had it's effect, as well.

And if that's all it takes to add that realistic touch to satisfy the complaints while adding just enough challenge to keep the bird playable yet a bit more of a challenge to low speed operations (carrier ops included) - I'm all for it.

Stoney · « **Reply #41 on:** March 03, 2008, 09:40:36 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Arlo
And somehow I just don't imagine AAC T-Bolt pilots approaching thier fields at stall speeds, arse low and chopping throttle at the end of the runway ...

Exactly my point.

This is key. Like I said way above a couple of posts ago, or perhaps in another thread, the Corsair earned its reputation in low-speed, high angle of attack, high-powered conditions present in the landing pattern. But, this is dangerous ground for any aircraft. You're exactly right, the P-47 POH recommends 150 mph IAS or greater for the base to final turn, with just less than that over the fence/final. P-47 pilots were hammered to keep the plane fast until on final. The carrier pattern couldn't allow those types of speeds, at least not using the conventional techniques that were customary for the earlier Navy fighters.

Arlo · « **Reply #42 on:** March 03, 2008, 09:55:23 AM »

But does this put you in the "why not tweak the torque model" crowd or not? Or do you think that's opening a possible period of mass dissatisfaction (can-o-worms) when such coding presents the inevitable teething issues across the board, affecting practically everyone's favorite ride in a negative way that requires tweaking virtual pilot technique? I'm leaning pro-torque but I can be convinced otherwise if there's an decent argument standing in my way (and there may well be).

Saxman · « **Reply #43 on:** March 03, 2008, 10:19:35 AM »

Krusty,

As I pointed out before, in the video the F4U reacted more violently in the power-off/full flaps and power-on/partial flaps stalls than it did power-on full flaps.

In the power-on full-flap stall, the aircraft's nose tucked and it crabbed off to the left but did NOT exhibit the same immediate snap-over to inverted as in the other two power/flap configurations.

Urchin · « **Reply #44 on:** March 03, 2008, 10:23:46 AM »

I don't think torque in general is nuetered, the 109s are better at low speed fighting then they used to be, but they still have some pretty hefty torque when you punch the throttle. None of them will roll to the right with any sort of ease at slow speed / high AoA / full throttle type conditions, you are better off kicking the rudder over and snaprolling to the left.