So the F4U's a super plane..

[Grits]

While post-war Navy and Marine pilots tended to be high-time in flight experience, such was not the case during the early part of WW II.

Which has been my only point to keep in mind when reading the anecdotal reports of those early pilots.

[Shuckins]

Sax, the Corsair's stall at any reasonable combat speed was fairly benign....it was the nasty characteristics that emerged at low speeds, full flaps when a pilot cobbed the power too much that rendered it unsuitable for carrier ops.....that and the oleo-leg bounce, poor visibility over the nose, and asymmetrical stall.

However, there were other dangerous characteristics that emerged soon after production began on the first models.  For instance, the original Navy design specifications called for the Corsair (and the Hellcat also) to successfully recover from an 8-turn spin.  It was discovered that after the second spin the Corsair prototype could NOT recover from the spin.  Fortunately, the test airacraft was outfitted with a spin recovery parachute, or it would have been lost.  One indication of how far the Navy was willing to bend-over-backwards in order to justify the purchase of the F4U is that it REVISED the spin recovery specifications from 8 spins to two. 

To return to the low-speed, full-flaps, dogfighting that is going on in AH at the present time, let me state that even IF the Corsair has a slow-speed turn comparable to a Spitfire, deploying flaps carries a plethora of penalties.  For one thing, depending on the aircraft type, the effectiveness of the ailerons in blanked, often to a very great degree.  Thus, the ability to execute a quick bank and change of direction is greatly curtailed.  Secondly, full or partial flap deployment on an aircraft the size and weight of the Corsair for more than a moment or two drastically slows its speed.  Acceleration from speeds below 200 mph in a close, hard-turning dogfight would be insufficient to take the Corsair, or the Hellcat for that matter, out of danger.  American pilots of those airacraft simply did not make a habit of extending flaps during combat with the Japanese except for the very briefest of moments.

Regards, Shuckins

[mtnman]

To return to the low-speed, full-flaps, dogfighting that is going on in AH at the present time, let me state that even IF the Corsair has a slow-speed turn comparable to a Spitfire, deploying flaps carries a plethora of penalties.  For one thing, depending on the aircraft type, the effectiveness of the ailerons in blanked, often to a very great degree.  Thus, the ability to execute a quick bank and change of direction is greatly curtailed.  Secondly, full or partial flap deployment on an aircraft the size and weight of the Corsair for more than a moment or two drastically slows its speed.  Acceleration from speeds below 200 mph in a close, hard-turning dogfight would be insufficient to take the Corsair, or the Hellcat for that matter, out of danger.  American pilots of those airacraft simply did not make a habit of extending flaps during combat with the Japanese except for the very briefest of moments.

Regards, Shuckins

This description fits my overall impression of the AH F4U when slow with flaps down.  I'd have to admit that I think the torque in the game seems to be neutered, but I'm not so sure that that is accidental.  I also highly suspect that that "flaw" is not limited to the F4U's.  Having some planes show large torque penalties while others do not doesn't seem fair (F4U vs Tempest...)

MtnMan

[Saxman]

Schuckins,

First, I'm not arguing against the stall behavior in the landing configuration, and the vicious snap-over if the engine is over-revved at low speeds. My problem is that several people appear to be using that as their SOLE argument for why the F4U isn't CAPABLE of it.

Second your points are why, if you've seen me actually fly in-game, if I can at all help it I avoid such sow-speed, full-flaps engagements in the Corsair. If I have control of the fight, or am at least on neutral footing I attempt to avoid situations where I need more than two notches of flaps (occasionally I'll use three if I'm at the top of a loop). I may exceed this in a small or 1v1 engagement, but again, I prefer fighting in speed ranges between 250-350mph IAS as the F4U generally has the advantage in mid and high-speed handling. I personally don't think the minuscule turning circle out-weighs the average-at-best acceleration and limited low-speed vertical performance. Additionally, the Corsair's turn radius advantage is of limited benefit because the turn RATE is so much lower. Yeah, she'll cut inside a Spit, but if the Hog doesn't get the shot off soon the Spit's higher turn rate comes into play.

[Bodhi]

Krusty,

Why'd you delete your reply? 

Just an FYI, 250 - 300 hours is a very inexperienced pilot.  Considering today, most insurance companies require over 200 hours flying from the back seat of the T-6 before they consider allowing you to fly the Corsair.  Thats assuming you have 500 hours complex tail dragger time.

[Bodhi]

Here is the page from the F4u-4 Flight Handbook concerning stalls.  Notice the speeds, then notice the bold print on intentional spins...

[mtnman]

Interesting- it looks like the speeds for the F4U-4 stall are exactly the same as for the F4U-1.  The spin warning in my book (F4U-1) states- "NO INTENTIONAL SPINNING IS PERMITTED".  The spin recovery seems very similar, if anything it looks more complicated in your book.  I only get one paragraph in my book, but of course the authors may have figured that if it got that far the pilot was dead anyway so they just gave him something to do to occupy his mind for those last few seconds...

Stalls are described as "not abnormal, and warning exists in..."  "Recovery from the incipient stages of a spin following a stall is rapid on normal use of controls..." 

There is a note on stalls, even though spins are forbidden-

"NOTE-  Pilots should familiarize themselves thoroughly with the stall, in both straight flight and tight turns."

So spins are discouraged, but stall practice is encouraged.  Not the same for sure, but a stall in a tight turn can easily develop into a spin with all that torque...  For that matter, the stall in tight turns seems to be exactly what this threads main point is.

They didn't recommend that inexperienced pilots attempt much in the way of maneuvering at speeds under 180 knots.

MtnMan

[Shuckins]

Wow Bodi....lol.  Is it just me...or is that section on stall characteristics and recovery just sloppin' over with contradictions?


"NO INTENTIONAL SPINNING OF THE MODEL F4U-4 AIRPLANE IS PERMITTED!"

"Satisfactory recovery from spins of four turns in each direction in the clean condition and from one turn in the landing condition has been adequately demonstrated for required spin entry conditions."

My first reaction to those statements, if I were a pilot new to the Corsair, would be,  "Are they chittin' me?"

[Karnak]

Well, I remain skeptical that the F4U out turned the Spitfire.  In AH Spitfires use their flaps in combat, something that never happened in reality and are still out turned by the F4Us.  Having a 12,000lb fighter out turn a 7,500lb fighter as readily as the F4U does seems off to me.

The F4Us are also among the most docile aircraft in the game.

[Bodhi]

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.

nice edit...   

They did go from the SNJ to the F4u.  There was simply nothing else to transission too.  As I said befor, my granddad went from the T-6 to the 51.  He always told me that he felt he knew enough about the 51 too be dangerous.

Please, astonish us with your wonderous insight on pilot training now... 

[Bodhi]

Wow Bodi....lol.  Is it just me...or is that section on stall characteristics and recovery just sloppin' over with contradictions?


"NO INTENTIONAL SPINNING OF THE MODEL F4U-4 AIRPLANE IS PERMITTED!"

"Satisfactory recovery from spins of four turns in each direction in the clean condition and from one turn in the landing condition has been adequately demonstrated for required spin entry conditions."

My first reaction to those statements, if I were a pilot new to the Corsair, would be,  "Are they chittin' me?"

I don't think so Shuckins... the spin is not something you want to screw with with any warbird short of the Hellcat, ever there they prohibit it.  I think it is more the same of what we have heard all along, these guys just did not play with aircraft along the edge of the low speed stall like we do.  I mean come on, we lose a cartoon aircraft, they would lose their life.

[Stoney]

Wow Bodi....lol.  Is it just me...or is that section on stall characteristics and recovery just sloppin' over with contradictions?


"NO INTENTIONAL SPINNING OF THE MODEL F4U-4 AIRPLANE IS PERMITTED!"

"Satisfactory recovery from spins of four turns in each direction in the clean condition and from one turn in the landing condition has been adequately demonstrated for required spin entry conditions."

My first reaction to those statements, if I were a pilot new to the Corsair, would be,  "Are they chittin' me?"

You gotta remember that test pilots did intentionally spin the plane.  That's where the "adequately demonstrated" part comes from.  Intentional spins were prohibited for the operating forces.

[Guppy35]

Interesting note in a report written for the Fleet Air Arm by Jeffrey Quill, Supermarine Chief Test Pilot regarding the Seafire  and carrier landing problems.

"It is the opinion of this writer that the poor speed controlabilty of the Seafire is the cause of trouble with such pilots who do have trouble with Seafires.  As an example, the American Hellcats and Corsairs, although they are very much heavier aircraft, and approach the deck very much faster, are, in fact, generally considered easier to land on, and it is my opinion that their good speed controlability contributes towards  the easiness of deck landing more then anything else."

Quill certainly knew Spits and would hardly have a bias towards American birds.  For what it's worth

As for the Spinning bit.  I have a wartime Tempest Pilot's manual and it says the same thing.  Spins prohibited.

[Bodhi]

You gotta remember that test pilots did intentionally spin the plane.  That's where the "adequately demonstrated" part comes from.  Intentional spins were prohibited for the operating forces.

Intentional spins in any WW2 aircraft for ayone short of a test pilot or very high time in type pilot should be highly discouraged.

[Charge]

"Even worse, the Corsair did a totally unexpected double snap roll when performing a 5G accelerated stall in the clean condition."

Benign stall? Double snap roll? And 190 has "nasty" stall with a single snap roll? 

"I have a wartime Tempest Pilot's manual and it says the same thing.  Spins prohibited."

IIRC The Finnish airforce prohibited the spins with 109s too, and it is considered as very easy to recover from stalls. However I'm not sure if it was usually to prevent the pilots needlessly over-stressing the airframe or from actual danger of spin developing into a flat spin.

I think that the problems is that if the spin develops more than a few rotations the centrifugal force may start to shift the COG behind the COL making the a/c practically a leaf. After that it is up to pilot to find a moment in pitch oscillation where careful control movements and applying power might break the pattern. In some planes it just did not work.

-C+