Turn rate hierarchy correlation from actual flight tests

[mtnman]

curious, why do you assume they were ok at higher power settings, do you have some data on that because i have not seen any.  since a lot of the problems i have seen on film were on take off and "bolter" situations i have no reason to believe the plane was any less difficult with a lot of power added when the flaps were fully deployed.

I assume they have a higher power setting for take-off, than for landing.  I could verify it by checking the book I suppose.  As I posted earlier, the POH says-

"In case of short field or runway, lower flaps "FULL DOWN," make a normal take-off run, and take off with nose high."

In other words, low, slow, full flaps, and nose high (but with power) is ok.  And that's "recommended"...  The warning tied to this was for engine damage, not handling issues.  We could also assume that the fuel load would generally be heavier at take-off than while landing.

I'm not sure what you mean by "bolter".  The issues I'm familiar with were due to inexperienced pilots on a poor landing approach suddenly going to a full throttle setting while in a near stall, generally with flaps down, which resulted in a hard left roll.  "The inexperienced" part is what I've heard the "ensign" part of the nickname attributed to.  It's funny, but I've experienced this exact issue with an RC corsair, and it didn't end well.

[thorsim]

not sure how to spell it but "bolter" is what i have heard missed carrier approaches called ...

my point is i guess that none of these are beginner aircraft and few of them like being "slow" ...

imo that type of fight should be more difficult, in pointing out the specifics of that argument i can seem that i am slighting some aircraft, i do not mean to come across that way.  that is not the point i am trying to make.

if i had to supply a country with fighters in WW-2 and i could only pick one, it would more than likely be the HOG or the FW-190 with the deciding factor being whether the main priority is ease of use or naval operations.  

i hold the hog in high regard ...

+S+

t

I assume they have a higher power setting for take-off, than for landing.  I could verify it by checking the book I suppose.  As I posted earlier, the POH says-

"In case of short field or runway, lower flaps "FULL DOWN," make a normal take-off run, and take off with nose high."

In other words, low, slow, full flaps, and nose high (but with power) is ok.  And that's "recommended"...  The warning tied to this was for engine damage, not handling issues.  We could also assume that the fuel load would generally be heavier at take-off than while landing.

I'm not sure what you mean by "bolter".  The issues I'm familiar with were due to inexperienced pilots on a poor landing approach suddenly going to a full throttle setting while in a near stall, generally with flaps down, which resulted in a hard left roll.  "The inexperienced" part is what I've heard the "ensign" part of the nickname attributed to.  It's funny, but I've experienced this exact issue with an RC corsair, and it didn't end well.

 

[Saxman]

The issues I'm familiar with were due to inexperienced pilots on a poor landing approach suddenly going to a full throttle setting while in a near stall, generally with flaps down, which resulted in a hard left roll.

This was EXACTLY the main "handling problem" the Corsair experienced at low speeds. Inexperienced pilots on landing approach were coming in too slow and the aircraft began to stall. Rather than slowly increasing power they would slam the throttle to firewall and the sudden increase in torque would flip the aircraft over on its back. At low altitudes this was generally going to be fatal.

[TequilaChaser]

 here is another Realworld  F4U flyby I truly enjoy

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EKbxj4SU-dU&feature=related

my bad,  the comments says this was a flightsim....guess I am getting old & bad eye sight setting in, it looked real to me......

also, sorry for the hijacking/side stepping....... edit: guess I should use the spell checker also 

[gyrene81]

yep that was one of them Saxman, Thanks!   here is another Realworld  F4U flyby I truly enjoy

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EKbxj4SU-dU&feature=related

Wow TC didn't think you were hampered by "didn't read the entire thing"...you are joking about the "realworld" thing on that vid right?

That's not a "real world" flyby

Awesome CGI animation of an F4U Corsair making a pass during a simulated airshow.

[TequilaChaser]

you are joking about the "realworld" thing on that vid right?

That's not a "real world" flyby

I know it's not...but one is only limited to 120 minutes to edit their post.... is why I made the extra post apologizing for the mislabeling of it........

here:
I APOLOGIZE FOR MISLABELING THE ABOVE YOUTUBE VIDEO I LINKED TO AS

Realworld  F4U flyby

........ PLEASE FORGIVE ME

I typed in capital letters to make sure everyone sees it this time..... thanks for understanding.......  on my end  the video link said F4U flyby, I clicked it but I was viewing it in full screen HD windowsmediaplayer11........s o NO, i saw no comments or other parts of the actual webpage it was on until this morning around 6 or 7 am.....

let me say that one more time, though.....

my bad,  the comments says this was a flightsim....guess I am getting old & bad eye sight setting in, it looked real to me......

also, sorry for the hijacking/side stepping.......

[gyrene81]

LOL...sorry TC...I stepped on your last post without "reading the entire thing"... have a beer  on me.



So why do these threads turn into personal bashing? Seems like any post in these forums is open to someone tossing a flame in just for kicks...then the "experts" jump in and add their 2 cents worth of gasoline... 

10 yrs of flying some flight sim does not make you any type of an expert in anything but gaming...and there have been a few who have posted in this thread and some others who seem to believe they have become aeronautical engineering experts in WWII aviation for every country involved just because they happen to have played a game for 10 years...or some other nonsense. Laughable.

Then there are the wagon riders...the band wagon experts by proxy...just because they like one person and dislike another, they suddenly become experts on something and feel free to interpret everything regardless of actual content. Laughable.


This thread started out as one person presenting what he believes to be factual data...and rather than anyone finding then posting opposing data... it's turned into "my pea brain is bigger than yours because I have been playing this game longer than you"...just goes to show intelligent discussion is only possible here if you're on the "popular kids bandwagon" from the top of the tree down...and that's a shame.

[TequilaChaser]

LOL...sorry TC...I stepped on your last post without "reading the entire thing"... have a beer  on me.



So why do these threads turn into personal bashing? Seems like any post in these forums is open to someone tossing a flame in just for kicks...then the "experts" jump in and add their 2 cents worth of gasoline... 

10 yrs of flying some flight sim does not make you any type of an expert in anything but gaming...and there have been a few who have posted in this thread and some others who seem to believe they have become aeronautical engineering experts in WWII aviation for every country involved just because they happen to have played a game for 10 years...or some other nonsense. Laughable.

Then there are the wagon riders...the band wagon experts by proxy...just because they like one person and dislike another, they suddenly become experts on something and feel free to interpret everything regardless of actual content. Laughable.


This thread started out as one person presenting what he believes to be factual data...and rather than anyone finding then posting opposing data... it's turned into "my pea brain is bigger than yours because I have been playing this game longer than you"...just goes to show intelligent discussion is only possible here if you're on the "popular kids bandwagon" from the top of the tree down...and that's a shame.

no worries....

as for the other part........is the nature of the beast ( the internet & forums ) btw........found your post/reply  about why these threads turn out this way, truthful and hilarious...........

[Chalenge]

my bad,  the comments says this was a flightsim....guess I am getting old & bad eye sight setting in, it looked real to me......

also, sorry for the hijacking/side stepping....... edit: guess I should use the spell checker also 

CGI

[Murdr]

however it is impossible to address where HTC may be incorrect in their data if they do not show it.

Not at all.  I've came across errors, emailed a brief explaination with supporting source (if applicable) to the appropriate person, and it was fixed the following release. 

This thread started out as one person presenting what he believes to be factual data...and rather than anyone finding then posting opposing data... it's turned into "my pea brain is bigger than yours because I have been playing this game longer than you"...just goes to show intelligent discussion is only possible here if you're on the "popular kids bandwagon" from the top of the tree down...and that's a shame.

Nah, you are just walking into the middle of a 10 month long conversation.  If you follow the "Show the last posts of this person." link on the OP's profile, you will find nearly all posts are in the same vein.  And if you browsed those threads, you'd find many patient and reasoned replies trying to educate the OP on factors that he's not taking into consieration when trying to draw conclusions from the sources he's reading.  Maybe in another 10 months there will be progress on that front.

[TequilaChaser]

   here is another Realworld  F4U flyby I truly enjoy
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EKbxj4SU-dU&feature=related

Hey, you stupid non thorough reading ID10T it is

lape2002
December 04, 2007

Awesome CGI animation of an F4U Corsair making a pass during a simulated airshow.

these stupid unknowing people on these boards.... I swear.......

[Widewing]

LOL...sorry TC...I stepped on your last post without "reading the entire thing"... have a beer   on me.



So why do these threads turn into personal bashing? Seems like any post in these forums is open to someone tossing a flame in just for kicks...then the "experts" jump in and add their 2 cents worth of gasoline...  

10 yrs of flying some flight sim does not make you any type of an expert in anything but gaming...and there have been a few who have posted in this thread and some others who seem to believe they have become aeronautical engineering experts in WWII aviation for every country involved just because they happen to have played a game for 10 years...or some other nonsense. Laughable.

Then there are the wagon riders...the band wagon experts by proxy...just because they like one person and dislike another, they suddenly become experts on something and feel free to interpret everything regardless of actual content. Laughable.


This thread started out as one person presenting what he believes to be factual data...and rather than anyone finding then posting opposing data... it's turned into "my pea brain is bigger than yours because I have been playing this game longer than you"...just goes to show intelligent discussion is only possible here if you're on the "popular kids bandwagon" from the top of the tree down...and that's a shame.

One thing to consider is that there are some Aces High players who are, in fact, experts in WWII aviation history and/or aeronautics. Thus, when someone posts nonsense and repeats it over and over, they will eventually draw the attention of said individuals. Usually resulting in a one-sided discussion that degenerates into a pissing contest. Largely because the offending individual has no idea what they are up against, and can't seem figure out that they may not truly understand the topic. Indeed, anecdotal evidence is usually the most unreliable kind. Therefore, it is of dubious value, at best.

So, consider that there are some genuine "historians" who enjoy this game and participate in discussions.


My regards,

Widewing

[gyrene81]

One thing to consider is that there are some Aces High players who are, in fact, experts in WWII aviation history and/or aeronautics. Thus, when someone posts nonsense and repeats it over and over, they will eventually draw the attention of said individuals. Usually resulting in a one-sided discussion that degenerates into a pissing contest. Largely because the offending individual has no idea what they are up against, and can't seem figure out that they may not truly understand the topic. Indeed, anecdotal evidence is usually the most unreliable kind. Therefore, it is of dubious value, at best.

So, consider that there are some genuine "historians" who enjoy this game and participate in discussions.


My regards,

Widewing

Sorry Widewing but eh...the "genuine" historians and or aeronautics experts do not partake in making personal affronts to individuals in threads such as this one...from personal experience...they either refrain from posting or they present the evidence they have as fact not opinion. To simply dismiss someone's post based on "how long they have been playing AH" makes a person less credible than a person making erroneous statements...especially when words like "luftwhiner" and remarks like "Johnny has been here longer than you and he's an expert blah blah blah" are tossed about randomly...such things do not add to the discussion in any manner.


I happen to know Thor has gone through a lot of trouble over the years to educate himself as much as possible through research and personal contact with combat experienced pilots via multiple venues and though he does not present his case well in some ways...having knobs with less than zero factual information post personal attacks against him shows a level of infantile mentality here.

[morfiend]

gyrene,

  You may consider researching Widewing,He's far to humble to state his experence.

  I'll tell you this,he's an historian and has practical experence,the rest I'll leave up to you!

  An appology may be in order,provided you both to find out who the man is!!!

  

[Karnak]

Sorry Widewing but eh...the "genuine" historians and or aeronautics experts do not partake in making personal affronts to individuals in threads such as this one...from personal experience...they either refrain from posting or they present the evidence they have as fact not opinion. To simply dismiss someone's post based on "how long they have been playing AH" makes a person less credible than a person making erroneous statements...especially when words like "luftwhiner" and remarks like "Johnny has been here longer than you and he's an expert blah blah blah" are tossed about randomly...such things do not add to the discussion in any manner.


I happen to know Thor has gone through a lot of trouble over the years to educate himself as much as possible through research and personal contact with combat experienced pilots via multiple venues and though he does not present his case well in some ways...having knobs with less than zero factual information post personal attacks against him shows a level of infantile mentality here.

None of the people Widewing was referring to have called thorim a "luftwhiner" or such.

That they may not want to, again, do extensive posts explaining to somebody why they are mistaken when that person isn't willing to do even basic research is also quite understandable.  Why should they spend that kind of effort on somebody who hasn't demonstrated the willingness to put any effort at all into their own eduction on the subject.