Low-speed F4U

[Bronk]

Because for the F4U with it's uber flaps and flight model performance makes the aircraft decelerate like Maverics F14 with an unrealistic ability to maintain zeke like performance at stupidly low speeds.


<S>...-Gixer

Holy overstatement batman. Zeke like?? I think not.

[Krusty]

Holy overstatement batman. Zeke like?? I think not.

The F4U1 with full flaps has the same turn radius as an A6M5 without flaps. Consider that. Also, the flaps come out at much higher speeds, the airframe can take much more stress, and it can pull many more Gs, so it can get the flaps out faster, more effectively, and out-turn the zeke while it's still trying to slow down enough to pull 5Gs airframe stress.

Not as much an overstatement as you'd think. F4us in this game are porked to the extreme uber side of the spectrum. I've noticed this since the airflow code update.

Why did you think that suddenly, overnight, the F4U went from "as frequently seen as the P-47" to "as frequently seen as the spitfire"?

[DoNKeY]

Because for the F4U with it's uber flaps and flight model performance makes the aircraft decelerate like Maverics F14 with an unrealistic ability to maintain zeke like performance at stupidly low speeds.


<S>...-Gixer

I'm not disagreeing that the FM is a little buggy, but using what you have on your aircraft isn't gaming the game.  That's like saying using the flaps, or the uber rudder is gamey...


<S>

donkey

[Saxman]

Why did you think that suddenly, overnight, the F4U went from "as frequently seen as the P-47" to "as frequently seen as the spitfire"?

I don't know where you're flying, but I don't see all that many F4Us--in fact, I rarely see more than two or three away from a carrier in the same furball except when I've got the rest of my squadron with me.

[Anaxogoras]

I don't know where you're flying, but I don't see all that many F4Us--in fact, I rarely see more than two or three away from a carrier in the same furball except when I've got the rest of my squadron with me.

That's mostly true.  I think a lot of people stay away from them because of the 6x.50cal armament (which I think is more than sufficient, but oh well).

On the other hand, I've seen the F4U surge in popularity from time to time, sometimes being more numerous than P-51s.

[Bronk]

Why did you think that suddenly, overnight, the F4U went from "as frequently seen as the P-47" to "as frequently seen as the spitfire"?

I'm sure you have the numbers to back that up.

Ohh and while we are at it. Why don't you look at turn rate not to mention virt performance at low speeds.

I'm not saying there isn't something wonky with the hogs slow speed performance. But claiming zeke at low speed Thats over the top.

[SectorNine50]

I don't know where you're flying, but I don't see all that many F4Us--in fact, I rarely see more than two or three away from a carrier in the same furball except when I've got the rest of my squadron with me.

I actually tend to see more F4U's up from the carrier when doing a base attack, carrier defense tends to be Spitfire's and A6M's in my experience.  The F6F is my favorite carrier plane and I've had times where I've noticed I'm literally the ONLY F6F in the sky while I'm surrounded by F4U's.  I wish I could bring up the plane sheet on the website (doesn't seem to be working for me atm) before I say this so I don't get flamed, but I feel that the F4U series are probably one of the most popular attack planes off the carrier.

Quick question:  I thought that combat trim was always set to one point (ie. the trimming that counters the torque of the engine at full throttle), is it actually dynamic based upon where your throttle settings are?

[BnZ]

I did the math once on flaps and turn radii once.

The average plane gets its turn radius reduced around 25% with full flaps.

Some oddities:
The P-51, with its maneuvering flaps, gets only a 19% reduction. Meanwhile, the FW-190, with its split-type flaps, NOT designed for combat maneuvers by any means, gets a 24% reductions

The P-38, with its large Fowler flaps (they move down AND backwards to actually increase wing area, very effective) gets a 26%. Not as much as advantage over plain maneuvering flaps as one would expect, to say nothing of the 190's split flaps.

Relevant to this topic, the Corsair gets 40%

Now, the Corsair was designed to land at ~75 mph on a carrier, so it SHOULD turn tighter than a P-47 or P-51 that was typically landed at 95 mph, but I agree the turn is probably a little too uber.

[SectorNine50]

Are we talking full flaps here, or just one notch?  Because I could understand that at full flaps it gets 40% more lift for landing on a carrier, but at one or two notches that seems a tad much to me.

[dtango]

Now, the Corsair was designed to land at ~75 mph on a carrier, so it SHOULD turn tighter than a P-47 or P-51 that was typically landed at 95 mph, but I agree the turn is probably a little too uber.

This topic has been addressed before.  NACA windtunnel drag polar data for the F4U with flaps exists.  Brooke used it awhile back to compare calculations against the AH FM and found that the AH F4U's full flap sustained turn performance is corroborated by the NACA data.

Tango, XO
412th FS Braunco Mustangs

[Widewing]

This topic has been addressed before.  NACA windtunnel drag polar data for the F4U with flaps exists.  Brooke used it awhile back to compare calculations against the AH FM and found that the AH F4U's full flap sustained turn performance is corroborated by the NACA data.

Tango, XO
412th FS Braunco Mustangs

I've been arguing that the turn radius is inconsequential anyway. Where the F4U modeling goes awry IMHO is in the virtual absence of torque induced roll, creating a measure of roll axis stability that is nothing short of ridiculous. Indeed, if the F4U was so endowed in the real world, accidents would have been all but nonexistent. Its stall behavior makes a Cessna 172 seem wild in comparison.

It may be that Combat Trim is the culprit here... I'll test that next.


My regards,

Widewing

[dtango]

WW:

Yep, totally understand your position that you're not bringing up the F4U's turn performance but it's lateral stability.  However the flaps-out turn performance issue always seems to creep up so I thought it appropriate to address it when folks bring it up.

On the issue of the F4U's low-speed lateral stability, I've followed the topic with some interest for awhile but haven't chosen to post anything on it for various reasons.  Primarily I don't feel my thinking on the topic is organized enough yet .  I look forward to whatever else you and others turn up on the topic.

Tango, XO
412th FS Braunco Mustangs

[Cajunn]

I don't have any of these issues and wouldn't know about low speed performance in the F4U's because I fly the thing like a rocket, and if I'm not mistaken that was the way the hog's were ment to be flown.

[ian5440]

I don't have any of these issues and wouldn't know about low speed performance in the F4U's because I fly the thing like a rocket, and if I'm not mistaken that was the way the hog's were ment to be flown.

they do like speed

[Chalenge]

I dont think its combat trim. I noticed the plane doesnt seem to suffer from adverse yaw during rolls at slow speed. During a normal landing approach (for which corrections were made in r/l) the roll is not rapid but I see F4Us in the game use rapid rolls and whereas I believe they should lose substantial speed and the nose should yaw they dont.

Model aircraft adjust for this problem by using more up than down aileron movement to offset the increased drag upon the upward moving aileron. The question I have is the real corsair the same way? Perhaps to a degree but I dont believe so. If the upward moving aileron travels the same distance as the downward moving aileron then at slow speeds the corsairs should experience adverse yaw and more than they are in this game. If they move in differential amounts then at high speeds it will be more difficult for the plane to track true during heavy rolling and that would never be designed into a fighter. For that reason alone I believe there is a problem.

Its the same for the 190s also. They get into trouble and here comes a substantial roll followed by heavy pitch at near stall speed and they get away with it. I dont believe its realistic for heavily loaded airframes. Maybe for F3A aircraft but not fighters from WWII.

Several German fighter pilots during the war would use the rapid rolling motion of the 190 to decelerate and force an overshoot. The same deceleration is absent here or at least appears to be.