So the F4U's a super plane..

[Urchin]

Just about the most stable plane in the set below 100 mph, turning circle the size of a Spits... 

Is the plane overmodelled now, or was it undermodelled the first 5 years I played? 

I can say from fighting in it and against it that none of the US iron holds a candle to it, it is head and shoulders above every other US plane in the game.  I'd say the Spit 16 has about a one in three chance against an F4U in an angles fight, maybe one in two if the Spit pilot is smart and transitions to energy fighting after the F4U burns off its speed.  The La-7 can beat one the same way, but if the La-7 pilot doesn't transition to E fighting the F4U will dominate it. 

Two things confuse me.  One - the F4U (all of them) have turning circles the size of the FM-2 with flaps down.  I'll have to pull my copy of AHT out of the box it is packed in, but I believe the F4U was actually rated dead last in turning ability by Dean.  Secondly, the plane has about the most docile handling of any plane I've flown since I've come back (which is most of them, by now) at slow speed.  I couldn't even get the plane to snaproll at the top of a rolling scissors - it is almost like it has no torque at all.  The 109s by comparison feel much more manueverable than they were when I left, but all have torque that is so massive that the plane won't roll to the right at all at slow speed.  You can use that to advantage by kicking in left rudder at the top of a rolling scissor to roll around very quickly, so quickly that I usually do two rolls before I can get it stopped.  The F4U won't do that at all.. it mushes at the top if you try to snap roll it.

So what gives?

[SgtPappy]

There is a lot of discussion about the F4U right now, and torque has been addressed a bit... I'm not even sure about the whole issue, but I have smelled something fishy, and just wasn't sure.

Still like the Corsair though, regardless.

However, I read on a thread once... someone stated that Dean's ratings were incorrect.

[Saxman]

URchin,

I disagree about the F4U not wanting to snap-roll. She doesn't like doing it to the right, but will very quickly snap over to the left.

[Gixer]

Urchin, completely agree. Flying a Yak two aircraft that always get my attention above all others during a fight is the F4U (any version) for reasons you stated and the Tempest.

I've mentioned the over modeling of the F4U before as it's performance was a suprise to me also when I returned to AH after a few years.  For such a large heavy aircraft it's low speed performance with flaps is over modeled. Hopefully it will be addressed in a future update.

No wonder the aircraft is a favorite amongst the score/picking crowd.


<S>...-Gixer

[Saxman]

Gixer,

Care to explain to me why over modeled low-speed performance is conducive to PICKERS, who generally sit up at high altitude and rocket down at high speeds?

Incidentally, it should be worth noting that the F4U is not all that common for that accusation to be valid. Unless there's an enemy CV in the area I rarely see all that many enemy Corsairs, and when I do they usually fall into two categories: About as tough a fight as I'm going to find, or lunchmeat. I RARELY see anything in between the two extremes.

[TwinBoom]

No wonder the aircraft is a favorite amongst the score/picking crowd.


<S>...-Gixer

 

[F4UDOA]

Urchin,

Dean's Clmax numbers were all wrong, except for the F4U but for every other aircraft he calculated, if you want Clmax numbers just go to NACA or Vought and take a look there. If you replace the Clmax numbers in his Turning index equation you get different results.

If you want relative turning ability look at the F4U vs F6F, A6M, KI-61, FW190 flight test hat are all over the web, the results are no secret and they were done almost exclusively without flaps. The EM diagram for this aircraft (No flaps) can also be easily found. The problem is that AH no matter how realistic is still a game and because of this the tactics are "Gamey". How many Fighter pilots would drop full flaps at sea level at WEP power and start a max performance turn in the middle of a dogfight? Not too many, so how are you supposed to gauge this ability in a Simm? How about running your aircraft at full power all of the time and using a fuel mulptiplier?

Do you think it is realistic when a 190 pilot in AH starts yanking the stick all over the place and gets a message "Don't move your controls so rapidly"? How about some of the low speed tricks in the P-38 (Tail Slides, hammerheads). Maybe F4U pilots should get a message in the cockpit "Don't turn so tightly" when extending full flaps?
 

[Saxman]

Speaking of F4U vs F6F vs 190, didn't that test show that the F4U was the superior turner?

[Bodhi]

I think that the more I hear about the "uber" F4u, the more I feel it is being victimized by those that do not really "know" it's capabilities.  IMHO, I personally feel that the F4u would have been under much more widespread use throughout the Navy had they just worked through the initial deployment problems.  The British did, and found it to be a valuable asset on the CV's.  We just pawned them off to the Marines, who incidentally helped to show it's full potential.

But, back to what F4UDOA said, the numbers are all different.  So how, do we actually know what to use?  I think using Vought's test data would probably be the most prudent.

[bozon]

IMHO, I personally feel that the F4u would have been under much more widespread use throughout the Navy had they just worked through the initial deployment problems.  The British did, and found it to be a valuable asset on the CV's.  We just pawned them off to the Marines, who incidentally helped to show it's full potential.

But, back to what F4UDOA said, the numbers are all different.  So how, do we actually know what to use?  I think using Vought's test data would probably be the most prudent.

The navy preferred the F6F not because it was the "better" plane, but because it was the smarter choice for a wide spread and quick deployment, not to mention more economic.

The problem in the game is the flaps out turning. I don't think there is any issue with normal no-flap turn performance of almost any plane - not even the P51. You will not find any data regarding turn performance with full flaps, because no on in their right mind would want to measure it. It was simply not done - and not because they failed to come up with this bright idea. It may be linked to the very lenient near stall behavior and reduced torque we may have in the game relative to the real thing, I really don't know.

If what we need is a game solution to a game problem, I'd make it so the gears come out when flaps are deployed beyond a given stage and spoil any kind of floating round and around at 80 mph. OR, and the P38 anti-auto-retract crowed would love to hear, make the flaps jam if you go 1 mph beyond the listed speed. You make get the kill, but then RTB at 80 mph.

[Bodhi]

OR, and the P38 anti-auto-retract crowed would love to hear, make the flaps jam if you go 1 mph beyond the listed speed. You make get the kill, but then RTB at 80 mph.

The Corsairs flaps are on spring loaded actuators to prevent them from being damaged by over speed.

[Grits]

One thing that needs to be pointed out when talking about the F4Us "bad" stall habits is that most of the info is anecdotal, not all, but most of it. And this is in comparison to other more stable Naval aircraft which by design have to have better low speed handling that non Naval aircraft. The F4U was less stable than the F4F but was it less stable than the P-51?

Remember, the guys who had issues with the poor low speed handling of the F4U had at best flown an F4F, most only an SNJ trainer. The F4U was a monster compared to the F4F and in great part the anecdotal stories, I believe, are a result of even well trained and experienced high hour pilots coming to grips with a 2000hp 10,000+ lbs aircraft. In most cases that is close to double the HP and lbs of their previous aircraft. I do not deny that it was a handful compared to previous aircraft, but if you trained a pilot in the F6F and then had them transition to the F4U I doubt they would have had much of a problem.

On the separate issue of the in-game performance, I have no data to support, but I tend to think the F4U is a tad overdone, as are the 110c and Hurricanes while the 190, Mossie and F6F could be improved a bit.

[Charge]

"One thing that needs to be pointed out when talking about the F4Us "bad" stall habits is that most of the info is anecdotal, not all, but most of it."

Well, it had a conventional NACA profile which tolerates AoA quite well and angled wing which should make it directionally quite stable, especially in slow speed. I cannot think of anything but high torque, especially if compared to F4F so the observation of radical stall characteristics may indeed be subjective...

Then again maybe the angled wing was the cause combined with rather even chord between root and tip? I'm trying to reason why Ju87 was not reported to have such characteristics despite its angled wing but the answer may be its root/tip chord ratio so that the tip profile in Ju87 actually stalled later than root because the tip chord was a lot smaller than the root.

Junkers Ju 87 Stuka, R Goettingen 256, T Goettingen 256 (http://www.ds-cats.com/~kurisawa/aeronautics/Airfoils/OpenFiles.link/A2052/OS0230-2_A.jpg)
Vought V-166 F4U Corsair, R NACA 23015, T NACA 23009

Maybe the planform choice actually made the Corsair a tip staller?!?

-C+

PS. I'm not sure if the small sharp fillet in port wing really cured anything but made the wing drop in stall less pronounced.

[Grits]

I think of it like a new car driver who has only driven a Geo Metro taking their first spin in a Ford GT or Corvette Z06. The faster cars would seem totally uncontrollable and unstable compared to the Geo. After some time though, the driver would get used to the faster cars and its no problem. But, like I said it is a total guess on my part.

[Krusty]

I disagree that it's all operator incompetence that earned this reputation.

They're not going to go from a SNJ to a f4u. They all have orientation flight, they have training, they are sent to familiarize themselves with the planes before they're ever allowed to solo. On top of that they're experienced enough in how to fly the plane before they ever try a CV landing.

You're not giving them enough credit.

The F4u was NEVER a spitfire, and NEVER turned like one, yet here in-game it has one of the tightest turn circles and one of the most stable stalls ever.