Author Topic: Fix the F4U-1D (warning large imgs) (Read 2687 times)

Fishu · « **Reply #15 on:** January 10, 2001, 05:59:00 AM »

30 bucks for hogs improving in next version..
10 bucks for fw190a8 staying the same rock it has been

niklas · « **Reply #16 on:** January 10, 2001, 06:27:00 AM »

Why has the AH-F4U-1D with wep not the same decrease in power from sealevel up to 2000ft? Looks like the AH-F4U holds 2250hp power up to 15k

Citabria · « **Reply #17 on:** January 10, 2001, 06:38:00 AM »

of course?
why the heck not?

everyone knows the f4u1c/d was the best climber, diver, turner, burner, accelerator, runner, roller damage taker of the war

it should out climb the p-38L
out turn the n1k2
outroll the fw190
out dive the jug
outaccelerate the 109g10
take more damage than the ju88
and outrun the typhoon

[This message has been edited by Citabria (edited 01-10-2001).]

F4UDOA · « **Reply #18 on:** January 10, 2001, 08:17:00 AM »

Gents,

I have long believe the F4U should climb and accelerate better than the AH model. I stopped my crusade because I didn't have the appropriate test data. Thanks to some help by other members I now do so I'm asking.

As for some who choose to whine about there birds poor AH representation I don't know what to tell you.

Citabria I have asked you for some P-38L info which you either don't have or don't whish to provide. IE. What is the loaded weight of a P-38L with full internal fuel and ammo? If you can answer that question maybe you can make an argument about the performance. As for your last post. I think you can do better.

The FW190A-8 climb? I have no idea what it should be? Didn't Niklas post a chart a while back showing the climb, speed of all 190 models?? I can tell you right now with WEP it outclimbs the F4U-1D in AH.

F4UDOA · « **Reply #19 on:** January 10, 2001, 08:25:00 AM »

Citabria,

BTW, I will tell you what Pyro has said many times. They don't configure the turn performance of any of the AH birds. They input parameters into a dynamic model which then creates it's own turn capabilities. In other words they add wingspan, aspect ratio, lift coefficient and viola....Flight model.

The reason the P-38L doesn't turn like it should is that the AH Flaps don't create enough lift. But it's not just the 38 FM. It's the F4U, F6F, P-51 and any other bird that used them for maneuvering(P-38, F4U, P-51, NIK2) or landing(every other bird). None of them stall properly with flaps in a 1G stall in AH.

You want fix the P-38L? Do the damn work, and maybe they will listen. Instead of whining all over my thread.

Later

niklas · « **Reply #20 on:** January 10, 2001, 08:47:00 AM »

i really can´t understand your complaints F4udoa.

It´s easy to see in the F4U-1D/C chart from this website that at already 2000ft your engine power is only ~2100hp. According to these charts the F4U really needs a fix ....
...because between 2k and 15k the current AH-F4U is 10-15mph too fast

!!!!!!

i would be really silent hihi

enjoy your speed advantage and hope pyro don´t look at the charts

And the stall speed- maybe with flaps full down?

niklas

F4UDOA · « **Reply #21 on:** January 10, 2001, 11:42:00 AM »

Niklas,

Really?

1. The "chart" you are looking at shows the F4U-1D with pylons. If you read the clean condition for a fighter config the F4U-1D has a top speed of 366MPH at sea level and 417MPH at 20K. That is faster than the AH model on both counts.

2. The initial climb is 3370FPM with WEP and 2930FPM in military power. And 7.1minutes to 20,000ft at over 12,000lbs. That time is far superior to the existing FM which takes over 8minutes. Also this will dramatically increase acceleration as well as the ability to maintain low speed turns and turning ability.

3. The stall of 87mph even with flaps is better than the current F4U-1D.

No thanks Niklas. I'll take the real thing anyday.

F4UDOA · « **Reply #22 on:** January 10, 2001, 12:00:00 PM »

Niklas,

Also that climb chart includes two capped pylons and the center line drop tank rack.
Dra, drag, drag. That wouldn't be there in the clean condition. So climb would actually improve.

This is with the two large pylons and rack
http://www.geocities.com/slakergmb/id78.htm

And this is without.
http://www.geocities.com/slakergmb/id79.htm

[This message has been edited by F4UDOA (edited 01-10-2001).]

[This message has been edited by F4UDOA (edited 01-10-2001).]

Hooligan · « **Reply #23 on:** January 10, 2001, 12:39:00 PM »

F4UDOA:

Maybe I am misunderstanding this so please correct me if I am wrong.

The "clean" condition was not typical. "Normal" condition for the F4U is with pylons and a centerline rack. These were typically left on an aircraft at all times and not taken off aircraft for "light" sorties.

Is this correct?

Hooligan
Hooligan

F4UDOA · « **Reply #24 on:** January 10, 2001, 02:10:00 PM »

Hooligan,

I n all the comabat photo's I have ever seen of the F4U-1D unless they were carrying DT's or bombs the pylons would not be there. That would be the "Fighter" configuration.

Check this pic

The pylon supporting the drop tank is large and visible.

Against this pic

And the pylons are gone. You have to zoom in on the pic but the center rack and pylons are definitly optional.

Toad · « **Reply #25 on:** January 10, 2001, 02:50:00 PM »

I generally don't worry about minor variations in the FM. A few MPH or FPM one way or the other doesn't bother me.

I will say this about F4UDOA though:

He does the homework and posts documentation based on something other than an anecdote or pilot impression.

F4 & I have had our disagreements in the O'Club and probably always will. That has nothing to do with the game, though.

With respect to his posted research of his namesake plane most of the other guys around here could learn from him.

...and NO, I'm not an F4U flyer. I'm almost always in the Jug or the Mustang. (Which are, of course, incredibly overmodeled as part of the on-going allied conspiracy.

)

[This message has been edited by Toad (edited 01-10-2001).]

Citabria · « **Reply #26 on:** January 10, 2001, 03:18:00 PM »

every f4u in that pic has rocket stubs installed as well as pylons.

im pretty certain that the pylons and rocket stubs wer ussually left on the airplane although i think the centerline bomb rack wasn't ussually used.

[This message has been edited by Citabria (edited 01-10-2001).]

F4UDOA · « **Reply #27 on:** January 10, 2001, 03:22:00 PM »

Toad<S>

Yeah, we do have our differences don't we

I kinda get into this stuff. I'm really not a gamer. I would be doing this stuff and emailing people even if there were no flight simms.

My latest venture is emailing some poor guy at Vought to send me some documentation from there archives. I should really get out more.

Later

F4UDOA · « **Reply #28 on:** January 10, 2001, 03:30:00 PM »

Citabria,

Can you read??

1. The rocket launching stubs come off too but that is not what I am talking about. The Pylons I am referring too are the two big ones attached to the fuselage on either side of the drop tank rack. Look at the top picture. Do you see them?? No. Do you see the rocket launch stubs(which isn't what I was talking about anyway) No.

2. Look at your previous post of the climb diagram. It says Flight test base on combat loading: 2 capped pylons+ Center line drop tank rack Gee, which two pylons are they talking about??

here is a diagram without.
http://www.geocities.com/slakergmb/id78.htm

and with
http://www.geocities.com/slakergmb/id79.htm

Kapish?

BTW, What is the loaded weight of a P-38L with full internal fuel and ammo??

[This message has been edited by F4UDOA (edited 01-10-2001).]

[This message has been edited by F4UDOA (edited 01-10-2001).]

Citabria · « **Reply #29 on:** January 10, 2001, 04:12:00 PM »

i really dont care as long as the f4u1d is better than the f4u1c.

[This message has been edited by Citabria (edited 01-10-2001).]