Corsairs..?

[Krusty]

Originally posted by Old Sport
Okay Sgt Pappy, maybe these photos will help a little more.

Gravity pulls straight down, vertically. Lift pushes straight up, vertically against it.

So the cross-sectional shape of the wing that produces the lift, including the flaps, has to be measured vertically, not at an angle.

The F4U's bent wing can trick us into looking at the deployed flaps from an angle (the bottom view on the left), when we should be looking at them vertically (bottom view on the right). You can see just by a rough "eyeball" that the difference may be around 10 percent. I'd say that is not insignificant.

I don't mean to be rude, and please forgive me if I come across that way. I say this in the interest of perhaps pointing out the obvious:

I don't think it works that way at all. You're measuring vertical distances rather than the area of surface the air has to flow over. The flow of air reduces the pressure, creating lift. The thickness of the wing does play into lift, but is not the only factor, nor is the VERTICAL thickness of a parked wing at high AOA. You have to take into account many other factors.

[Serenity]

Originally posted by Saxman
Serenity,

If the stall strip made no appreciable difference it wouldn't have been there.

And I don't remember the film saying anything about changes in cockpit layout between the birdcage and later marks.

The change in cockpit layout went something like this:

"It is notable that in early models of the F4U such as this one, there is a small tab in the cockpit with the takeoff and landing checklist. [insert description of tab]. Later models of Corsair however, do not have this feature".

Again, thats not an exact quote, though if you want one, It will only take a minute to get it. Either way, if they note the difference between old and new in regards to such an insignificant piece of equipment, I would think though would also reference the effects of the stall strip. Perhaps it is that the stall strip DID make a difference, but still gave no warning prior to a stall. All that means is that the earlier plane is even more lethal in a stall.

[mtnman]

I don't think there is any doubt that HTC has put a lot of effort into getting the planes in AHII to look and fly as accurately as possible.  That said, AH could be looked at as an "artist's rendition".  As such, it's unlikely some people won't take a look at it and say "that ain't right!".  It's easy to look at a painting of a duck and say "the beak is too big, or too narrow, or the wrong color, etc...  It's a lot harder to do it better when you try it yourself though.  And who's to say the beak is actually wrong?  Maybe the beak is perfect, but your memory of how it should look is flawed.  Or maybe the feet are wrong, causing the beak to look wrong, when it's actually the only "right" thing in the entire painting.

I want to fly a corsair.  Ain't gonna happen though.  If I could fly a real one, no way would I push anywhere near "the limits".  Are there ANY pilots flying real F4U's that push them to the limits?  Or any other warbirds for that matter?  The best I can do is fly simulators.  That's ok, but I want the simulators to be as accurate as possible, to come as close to flying the real thing as I can get.  If there are issues with the FM, I hope they can be ironed out.  I have faith that HTC will fix FM problems as factual evidence becomes available.  I want the F4U to fly as realistically as possible.

Is the F4U FM 100% correct?  I doubt it.  I doubt any of the FM's are.  I don't fault HTC for that, I just think there are limits to how realistic it can get.  Personally, I have little interest in the vast majority of the planeset.  I fly the corsairs because they've always been my favorite.  If they made the FM 25 times more difficult, it's still the only plane I'd use.  I'd still learn to be effective in it.  Better that than to fly the other planes, at least in my opinion.  Do I see problems with it?  I suspect that torque is toned down considerably.  Enough varience in accounts of stall behavior has me just plane stumped.  I don't think adjustments should be made because we "think" they should be.

Is the F4U FM all wrong?  I doubt it.

So where do we make adjustments? 

Shall we base the FM on nicknames?  Three quickly come to mind- "Ensign Eliminator", "Whistling Death", and "Sweetheart of Okinawa".  One of those was based on landing issues, two on combat.  Maybe it should fight like "Whistling Death", and land like the "Ensign Eliminator"?  Or do we just pick the nickname that illustrates our argument best?  Are those nicknames accurate?  The F4U had some landing issues.  How bad were they?  Exactly how many, or what percentage, of new or veteran F4U pilots died on landing, due to the torque and stall characteristics?  How about in combat, for the same reasons?  Were they(F4U's) death traps?  Or did a few incidents get overblown?  We all like to think the ride we fly is the deadliest in combat, as well as the most difficult to master.  Nicknames reflect that.  I think nicknames are a poor model to base the FM on.

How about personal opinion?  Lots of folks claim the F4U shouldn't do what it does.  What SHOULD it do?  What should its turn radius be?  It's turn rate?  My personal opinion is that ALL the planes are too easy to fly.  I base that in part on the idea that I'm an OK F4U stick, but wouldn't say I'm anywhere close to ready to hop into a real F4U.  Another point, is that my son at 6 yrs old, unable to read very well, with 0 simulator experience, or any "physics of flight" understanding, was able to take off, fly, and land any plane he wanted to.  Just a few pointers from dad, and off he went.  Some folks would be embarassed to learn that at 7 and 8 yrs old he's killed a few of you in the MA.  Only a couple by himself, several more on my lap, with me working the pedals and throttle.  (He has trouble reaching the pedals, and is an "all or nothing" throttle user).  (His SA is terrible too, hehe).

I've heard that if you firewall a pony instantly at takeoff, bad things will happen.  Is that true?  I don't know, and would hate to think the AHII FM was based on rumors.  Anyone seen the results of this in RL?  With any of the other birds?  How many times per day do takeoff rolls in AH begin with full throttle, simply because the pilot died on full throttle previously and didn't reduce it for his next hop?  What SHOULD happen here?  I KNOW some things are easy-mode to keep the newer players interested. No weather, no wind, no night, easy level bombing, combat trim, etc...  I'm ok with that.  Less torque??  Less violent stalls??  Easier stall recovery??  In the end, opinions are like a55es.  We all have one, but mine is better than yours!

So, I think we need to base the FM on facts, physics and math.  If problems are shown and proven, they should be addressed.  Obviously, this is at HTC's discretion, but from what I've seen, they're receptive to this.  Comparing the F4U turn radius to the spit is pointless, unless we know for a fact that at least one of them is "proven correct".  What SHOULD the turn radius of the spit BE?

Arguing FM changes based on opinions or nicknames cheapens the argument, and reduces it to little more than a witch hunt.  What's next?  Shall we say the Spit16 is "uber"?  Or that the A20 shouldn't be such an effective air/air fighter?

MtnMan

[RAS]

Very nicely put Mountain Man

RASCAL

[Krusty]

Mtnman, you seem to make it sound 100% subjective.

It's not.

You want a flight engine that's 100% subjective, look at UbiSoft. Or BF2 (yes, I said BF2!).


There are measurable and quanitfiable effects and results and behaviors. These are not subjective. Getting them right is not easy. HTC hasn't made "an artists' rendition" but rather has tried to be as accurate as possible. In this case it just doesn't seem they've done it. In their credit, it's a VERY complex system, and a bug in any part of it could throw the performance and handling out of whack. Their intentions and their actions don't always come out to be the same. This is true of EVERY game that has bugs in it, and this is why HTC fixes bugs, rather than leaving them in and claiming artistic license.

[Bodhi]

I think that the Corsair's FM is far closer to reality than any other game out there.  Is there problems... yeah, but I think there are problems with every single plane in game.  So that said, I am going to caution those that seem to be pushing so hard to change things in specific aircraft only.... 

If these renditions of vintage aircraft flew exactly the way they do in r/l, 90% of you would never get them off the ground.  90% of the remaining 10% would never land one.  IMHO, if these aircraft stalled and spun like they did in r/l, the whole playing style in here would change to one of much more complex flight management and risk assessment.

[Saxman]

Bodhi,

I'm sure a lot of people are wondering right now...."Would that be a BAD thing?"

[StuB]

....If these renditions of vintage aircraft flew exactly the way they do in r/l, 90% of you would never get them off the ground.  90% of the remaining 10% would never land one.....

Absolutely.  This is because of the one thing AH will never be able to replicate (at least not likely in our lifetimes)....the seat of the pants feel. 

The pilots who flew these a/c successfully did it by feel as much as anything else.

[Bodhi]

I think it would be a bad thing from HTC's point of view Sax... if 99% of the people can not fly the damn aircraft without a very steep learning curve, then they will not play the game.

As for seat of the pants, thats one thing.  "Feel" is never going to be replicated in our lifetimes on a home computer.  Things like ground looping a 109 or Corsair because you did not control the yaw on take off could be added to a much more drastic action and make taking off extremely miserable.  How about we add the reality of trying to fly a fully loaded fighter out of a 3500 foot strip made of crushed coral?  Perhaps real engine management?  Fuel... I mean really, we could go on so far down the list that you spend more time worrrying about carb air inlet temps and icing, cylinder head temps, turbo exhaust temps, faulty radios, engine surging, runaway props.  The list could go on adfinitum.... I just do not think we are going to want to fly in a game like that.

AH2 gets it right in that they give us a taste of what it was like to fight against another real human that reacts and adapts to tactics unlike any computer opponent ever could.  I think that is the experience we need to expand on, instead of arguing whether the F4u's flaps are uber, or the 109 had 2000.2375734 HP at max take off power.

[mtnman]

Mtnman, you seem to make it sound 100% subjective.

It's not.

You want a flight engine that's 100% subjective, look at UbiSoft. Or BF2 (yes, I said BF2!).


There are measurable and quanitfiable effects and results and behaviors. These are not subjective. Getting them right is not easy. HTC hasn't made "an artists' rendition" but rather has tried to be as accurate as possible. In this case it just doesn't seem they've done it. In their credit, it's a VERY complex system, and a bug in any part of it could throw the performance and handling out of whack. Their intentions and their actions don't always come out to be the same. This is true of EVERY game that has bugs in it, and this is why HTC fixes bugs, rather than leaving them in and claiming artistic license.

I'm not saying it's all subjective Krusty.  I'm saying that we shouldn't demand changes without some real facts.  Does the F4U turn too well?  If it does, it should be fixed.  But how do we know it does?  Maybe it's not the F4U, maybe it's the other planes.  Maybe it's ALL the planes.  Without factual evidence, how can we prove or disprove anything?  In previous threads on this topic, it appeared that the basic measurable effects, results, and behaviors were pretty dang close.  Long mathematical explanations sure didn't seem to point the finger of blame at the F4U.  How many other FM's have survived such scrutiny?  Is the torque effect reduced? How much torque should there be, and what exactly should the effect be, vs what it currently is?

I'll be the first to admit I'm suspicious that some of the behaviors are not correct.  And not just for the positive in the case of the F4U- I feel the tail separates far too easily, for example.  I'll also readily admit that I can't prove my theories, and think it would be foolish to demand changes based on my intuition.  "In this case it just doesn't seem they've done it."- is a bad reason to change the FM, in my opinion.  It's too subjective, if you ask me.  If facts were brought to light showing discrepancies, I'd be the first to want the FM adjusted.  Facts should drive that decision though, not "feelings".  A snip out of a film showing a stall behavior is not enough evidence to say that the F4U should stall a certain way.  What other factors played into that particular stall?  Weight, wind, bad control inputs on the part of the pilot?  How much experience did the pilot have, and how tired was he?  Analyzing the stall is one thing, an untrained individual watching a film of it is another.

Present facts showing what should occur, and base the argument on fact, or it IS subjective.

And HTC DOES have some artistic license with their product, whether they claim it or not.  They don't have ALL the answers, so have had to use their best judgement in places, as would anyone else trying to simulate reality.

Even a picture of a duck isn't entirely subjective, since we have access to the duck and can verify the accuracy of the picture...

MtnMan

[SgtPappy]

Thanks for the diagram, Old Sport 

very helpful

[Old Sport]

Thanks for the diagram, Old Sport 

very helpful

You are certainly welcome, Sgt Pappy.

Stoney: The vertical tail's reason for being is to counter torque.

Okay, let me rephrase that

"One of the more important reasons there is a vertical stab is..."

EDIT: Even you can't deny that's its primary role. If a plane has too much torque they add vertical surface area to bite into the airflow and counteract this.

Care to enlighten us Krusty as to why un-powered, torque-less sailplanes bother with vertical stabilizer and rudder? How about jet aircraft, and the torque-neutralized P-38?

With almost 15,000 posts it is obvious that Aces High means a lot to you, bud.
Too bad you often leap before you look when you comment.

--------------

A Hog Combat Story

"The mission set for Feb. 19, 1944 was typical for the fliers of VF-17 that month: 20 planes on a strafing mission to Rabaul. Butch Davenport led the division; Ike was number 3. They took off at 0800, northwest towards Rabaul. Kepford's wingman soon developed engine trouble and was forced to return. Kepford was ordered to turn also back; he turned south, but kept rubbernecking and shortly spotted a lone Japanese Rufe seaplane. Although he was alone, Kepford dived down and opened up. The six .50's shook the Corsair and rippled holes in the enemy plane. As he pulled out of his dive, Kepford glanced back and saw the floatplane crash into the water. An easy kill behind him, Kepford turned south for home, radioing "Hog 29 here. Scratch one. Returning to base."

[I seem to recall from a different version of this story that someone radioed back, "Prove it"]

"But then he saw many, many dots, high above him and in between him and Bougainville. He hoped to remain inconspicuous, but four Zeros peeled off to attack him. Unwilling to fight the whole group, he turned north to escape them, but the four pursuers came on fast, with their tremendous altitude advantage. As the lead Zero came on fast and opened fire, Kepford decided to "go for broke." He dropped his flaps and landing gear and nosed down until he was skimming the waves; as the Zero roared over him, he pulled his Hog's nose up and opened fire. The Zero's stabilizer crumpled under the snapshot, and the plane crashed into the waves. As Kepford pulled in his gear and flaps, the remaining Zeros bracketed him . . . he was facing 3-to-1 odds, low and slow, and he was heading back in the direction of Rabaul.

"The other three Zeros spread out behind him, boxing him in, and continued to gain. Tracers streaked by! It was time to use the newly installed water injection "War Emergency Power" WEP, a temporary boost to the Pratt & Whitney R-2800 engine. The Jap planes stayed with him, scoring some hits on the F4U. He was really trapped at this point, unable to turn because of the Zeros behind, and forced to continue speeding north, while not gaining appreciably. Slowly, he began to pull away, but the WEP started to over-heat the engine. He got out of range and eased back on the throttle a bit, disengaging the WEP.

"Kepford had to make his move now! He cut across the path of the port Zero. The Japanese plane dropped to wavetop level, opened fire, and sharply turned, trying to tunr inside Kepford. At which point the Zero's left wing caught a wave top, and the plane cartwheeled across the ocean surface, disintegrated, and sank. The other two Zeros were left behind as Kepford dashed for home, landing on fumes in his fuel tank. He struggled out of his plane, pale and exhausted. His flying suit and shoes were soaked through with sweat. As the tension of the nerve-wracking four hour mission lifted, he shook all over and tears streamed from his eyes.

[From a different version of the story, he was wearing white tennis shoes that had turned green from profuse sweat, (and perhaps other liquids?).]

--------------

Best regards.

[Stoney]

I think that the Corsair's FM is far closer to reality than any other game out there. 

If these renditions of vintage aircraft flew exactly the way they do in r/l, 90% of you would never get them off the ground.  90% of the remaining 10% would never land one.

Agreed and agreed.

[Arlo]

A Hog Combat Story

"The mission set for Feb. 19, 1944 was typical for the fliers of VF-17 that month ...

Old Sport, quoting VF-17 stories is tantamount to a request to join. Alas, I'm currently helping the squad reorganize and revive. Wanna help? You've just displayed the most important trait we look for.

[Old Sport]

Old Sport, quoting VF-17 stories is tantamount to a request to join. Alas, I'm currently helping the squad reorganize and revive. Wanna help? You've just displayed the most important trait we look for.

 

I'm honored Arlo. My problems are two:

1) I am in Euro time, two zones east of GMT, so it is tough to be around for prime time US flying.

2) The squadron I served with as a radar tech in the 70's, VMFA 112, was formed during WWII as VMF 112, and flew the F4F and F4U. So I feel an obligation, poor pilot that I am, to represent this VMF.

But rest assured that if I see you VF-17 guys flying around I'll be glad to join up.