F4U and stall fights

[Hangtime]

Hmmmm.. mebbe it's a mite early; but does anybody else think the Corsair as modeled is a bit optimistic in the T&B catgory?? It seems to stall kinda late for such a heavy fighter; and it's initial turn also seems optimistic.

Flat out; I think it's speed is about right; the accel seems right for a big radial; and the accel in a dive seems good too. But the turnfights.. jeeze; its like an uber spit as modeled; and is seemingly out of its 'heavy fighter catagory' hanging on so well without a stall in the low slow turns.

 

------------------
Hangtime  PALE HORSES
"I looked, and behold; a Pale Horse, and it's riders name was Death, and Hell followed with him" Rev 6.8

[Hristo]

Stallfighted one on the deck in 190. It is my opinion that it handles better at low speeds than 2 MG 151 190, as well that it outturns it in a flat turn. Only its inertia seems greater, and thus its reversals take longer.

So, 190 is better in reversals, while Hog beats it in sustained maneuvers  

The fight was really desperate and I was hard pressed, but at the end te Hog augered. I guess that Eliminator nickname is in order  

Also, that might not be the last from Hog pilots. Their quality jumped compared to yesterday, when it was easy meat for Wurger. Who knows what secrets its FM hides for the future.

[funked]

The Navy flew a Fw 190A-5 extensively against the F6F-3 and the F4U-1.  They found the Navy planes were better in a sustained turning fight.  The F6F could not roll as well as the Fw 190 but the F4U was close.  Fw 190 outclimbed both aircraft at all test altitudes.  F4U was faster on the deck, F6F and Fw 190 were about even.  At 25k the Fw 190 was faster than either Navy plane.  If anybody wants this document, email and I'll give you the National Archives reference.

[Hristo]

190 climbed better than F4U and faster at 25k ? Wow, I never had that impression in the arena  



[This message has been edited by Hristo (edited 12-04-1999).]

[spinny]

Post the ref, funky one...I vaguely remember the document. FWIW, and I may be mistaken, but I think some mentioned today to HT that he thought the Hog bled too much E in a turn and HT said he and Pyro were looking into it.
(   )


------------------
Spinny, VF-17
8X

[Lephturn]

I love it.. but it does seem really forgiving at low speed.. much like the Pony.  Love the gun sight on it though, and it is a very stable BnZ platform.  My favorite for now...  and it might even keep me happy until I get my P47D. <G>


------------------
Lephturn
The Flying Pigs

[Minotaur]

Never flown a real F4, but all that I have read said that they were indeed very forgiving at stall.

Mino

[CombatWombat]

When slow, the F4U were supposedly somewhat decent handling.  If you look at the gull, it kinda gives it a large amount of dihedral.  It gots it's nickname from the torque, not so much the airframe itself.  

As for the 190-A outclimbing it and outrunning it at 25k, well, that goes against everything I've beleived, but of course, I'm prolly wrong  = )
I've known the A model wulfs to be poor performers at alt, and the corsair to be a somewhat good one.  Just doesnt make sense IMPIO (in my probably incorrect opinion)

[Hangtime]

Rgr all the above.. seems reasonable, but would expect torque to be a much bigger factor in the stall speed turns...

Tks for the feedback. This ones destined to be a Great Plane Pyro!

------------------
Hangtime  PALE HORSES
"I looked, and behold; a Pale Horse, and it's riders name was Death, and Hell followed with him" Rev 6.8

[Fishu]

Now when we compare 190 and F4u, I can only say that 190 feels VERY lousy at slow speeds when compared to P51 and even more with F4u, which doesn't seem to have any problems with 40mph and its "big" torque.
If F4u had big torque, real ensign killer, then Me109 had so big torque that it shouldn't been able to get off even with expert  
(109 in AH has alot greater torque effects than F4u, even 190 has greater)

If these all allie planes can stall so fine, why don't we make it more closer to that same overmodel/realism for LW planes.
For now, it seems like LW planes are in different priority caterogy of modelling than allies.

[Toad]

Yes, it's clearly a diabolical plot by the imperialist American flight modelers to uber-model US iron and mini-model LW engineering genius, thus insuring running-dog capitalist superiority for this present generation of on-line flight simulations.

The only possible countermove is for the LW supporters to create their own programs that correctly model the superior materials, engineering and workmanship of the fighters in question while also accurately modeling the slipshod, inefficient mass produced American trash.

Then this new program can go H2H against Aces High and truth and justice will be served!!!!

[Toad]

The above post is tongue-in cheek. :-^

Since WB, I've watched HT, Pyro and the whole crew get accused of favoring one nation's planes over another nation's planes by unfairly programming the flight models.

They get accused of incorrect modeling every which way. LW planes are too strong/too weak, US planes are too strong/too weak, Brit planes are too strong/too weak and on and on and on and on.

I think they just model them according to their system. They get the data, plug it into the equations they use for baseline and tweak the results.
 
I seriously doubt if there is any INTENT to over or under model any particular nation's aircraft.

Perhaps their system could be improved, perhaps not. Anyone know of any other game or games that do this better than WB or AH which are essentially products of the same team?

Let them work, make suggestions if you really do have serious, reliable information (forget the coffee-table books) but skip the accusatory finger-pointing, OK?

I think they're doing the best they can and trying to be fair to all.

[Mark Luper]

HEAR! HEAR! Toad, well said, sucinct and to the point.

MarkAT

[Minotaur]

Toad <Salute>;

Thanks!  

I have been getting pretty tired of this whining myself.  I usually read new posts almost every day.  Alot of threads have been getting fairly poluted by this line of discussion.  

I keep expecting some one to post up some kind of "Real World Data" and compare it to "AH Actual Results", but it has not happened yet.  Mostly just "Repetative Spouting Off" is what I have read.

As a side note.   I was watching The History Channel today.  Chuck Yeager was being interviewed.  Chuck stated something very close to "The 51 was superior to almost all the planes it encountered.   It was faster, climbed and turned better.  It was often underestimated".  Obviously Chuck is biased, but I believe his experience justifies his comments much more than many comments I have read in this forum.  

Mino

[Hristo]

History Channel is overmodeled  

OK, seriously now. What I try to point out is that for some reason Pony became much more dangerous since early versions. This is not so obvious, beause many newbies fly it. But average pilot in Pony is very dangerous nowadays. And moreover, G-10 got castrated and we got a buff killer to fight such Pony. Dora is still held away from us, but we are promised early war planes to fight this menace. They are not the answer, IMHO.


I have following complaints about the Pony:

It seems very docile at low speed and high AoA. It zooms till 0 speed, then reverses by itself. A little stall horn, but that's it. No sign of possible spin. Is this really the famous laminar wing, of which I heard many times that it is not suited for slow flying ?

OK, its low drag might be able to keep its E. I totally agree with that. But its power loading should not make it such a climber and accelerator, nor a low level dogfighter. Its greatest help in attaining speed should not be engine and nose level, but gravity assist. If you lose speed in Pony, better have some alt below you. After all it is a heavy plane with moderate engine power, and should behave as such.

I trust to HTC crew, even if it is hard sometimes. Otherwise I wouldn't be here.