F4U and stall fights

[Hangtime]

Kudo's Jekyll!!

I concur. Chuck did do his homework. Anybody who considered the guy was a dope better do theirs.  



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

[Hangtime]

Hiya Mino!..

>>How easy it is to judge things, "When the Judgement Comes from a Position of Incomplete Understanding and Complete Assumption".<<

Yah; as I recall, my granpappy called it "..operating entirely unencumbered by fact".  

Hang

[-zoll-]

Hey Guys,
Everyone has their own personal conceptions of how both the Pony and Hawg fly and perform.  I have been up in both of them (p-51D and FG-1D) I think most of the complaints I have read about the F4U on this board are bogus.  Our hawg wasn't shifty in the air requiring a lot of trim and it was a joy to fly.  The comment Minotaur made about the torque factor on takeoff is a true statement.  The P-51 has as much if not more torque on takeoff then the Hawg.  Think about how much extra side area the F4U has compared to the Mustang and that huge rudder.  This acts to counteract the torque.  The big difference making the hawg an ensign eliminator was going from an SNJ or F4F into an F4U compared to upgrading a USAAF Pilot into a D model mustang from a C or B model mustang.  And yes by the time the D model mustang was operational a lot more was known about how to deal with the torque.

Personally I think all the F4U's I have flown in all the sims have been mismodeled in the respect of Acceleration.  That damn plane would jump when you goosed the throttle.

Well, enough for now.  I just felt like I needed to say a few words while I was on here.  I can probably put together some hard data in the near future if it is desired.

Cya all later

Jerry Zollman
Lt. -zoll-
Executive Officer
VF-17 the Jolly Rogers

[Hangtime]

Hiya Zoll! Point taken.. flyin the real thing; lordy! (hang wipes drool from chin)

Hey; anybody know what a single .50 cal weighed?? I thought it was somethin like 1200 lbs with ammoo per gun (per pair??).. can't recall for sure.

Anyhoo; I'd guess that less pilot combat armor and bullet proof fuel tanks, combat armaments and all the other wartime stuff, a Corsair would fly like a dream. Hell maybe even as well as a P51..

(hang; ducking a barrage of empties)

[indian]

zoll no offense but I read the trim issue in Americas haundered thousand. Trim was all in the left hand Im sure they have fixed some of the trim problems by now. The biggest thing I wonder about is do they model the stall strips on the inboard wing (not really but kinda). I am with you on the accelleration but dont totally agree on torque the big radial should behave different then the inline v12 more mass moveing in circle and all, I think the experience pilots have now makes a big difference. You didnt say anything about the stall was it as bad as other have wrote it should be. I love the F4U ad the more info I find the happier I am.

------------------
Tommy (INDIAN) Toon
  Cherokee Indian
My Homepage
Where you can find the Key Commands in  files for Word6 Wordpad and text mode.

indians Homepage

Aces High Word6 and Wordpad Doc's available on my web site.

[funked]

I'll quote Mino a couple of times:

1. "How easy it is to judge things, "When the Judgement Comes from a Position of Incomplete Understanding and Complete Assumption"."

2. "Chuck stated something very close to "The 51 was superior to almost all the planes it encountered. It was faster, climbed and turned better."

Anybody who looks deeper than the History channel will know that statement 2 is utter BS.

So why post crap like statement 1?

[Jekyll]

 

2. "Chuck stated something very close to "The 51 was superior to almost all the planes it encountered. It was faster, climbed and turned better."

Anybody who looks deeper than the History channel will know that statement 2 is utter BS.

Hmm.  Ok lets think about the aircraft the P51 "encountered".  I would imagine that ol Chuck meant ENEMY aircraft.  I sincerely doubt he would have been comparing the 51 to a F4U for example.

P51-v-109G/K  Well the P51 would have been superior in top end speed and rate of turn.  109 would have had the edge in climb rate.

P51-v-190A series.  P51 faster, climbed better over 20k and better in sustained turn due to the fact that it bleeds speed more slowly than the 190.  190's only advantage would be in roll performance.

P51-v-190D9.  P51 again holds the aces in top end speed and sustained turn.  Better power/weight ratio of 190 helps to offset turn advantage of the 51.  A pretty even matchup, depending heavily on the respective skills of the pilots.

P51-v-Bf110.  No contest.  P51 wins in all categories except firepower.

P51-v-Me262.  The jet obviously has the advantage in top end speed, although if caught low and slow its a turkey shoot for the stang pilot.

OK, so Chuck's quote was that the 51 was superior to almost all the planes it encountered.  Hmmm, tell me funked, what's wrong with that statement??

In your expert opinion, of course  



------------------
C.O. Phoenix Squadron
www.users.bigpond.com/afinlayson/index.htm
'feel the heat .......'

[Hristo]

Agreed, Jekyll, but some of these P 51 advantages were at high alt.

Next, I think 109G/K would turn better than P 51D in sustained turn, at least at lower alt.

Also, wasn't it said that 109G-10, and especially Dora, were faster than P 51D on the deck ?

190A would also be more trouble at low alts, while it is a complete dog at 20k and higher. Roll rate makes it evade longer, and luck saves it from time to time.


Also, I believe Dora climbed better than P 51D at altitudes below 20k.


What I like the most is your opinion on P 51D vs 190D-9 matchup.   Is anyone listening, please ?

[This message has been edited by Hristo (edited 12-08-1999).]

[Jinx]

Hey Zoll,

Its always interesting to hear first hand accounts instead of the second or third hand info we usually have to go on, thanks for taking the time to add your thoughts.

I understand that the torque effects on takeoff can be about the same on a P51 and an F4U, given that the hawg is a bigger plane. But I have always, based on what I have read on the F4U, thought that the ‘killer’ effect with the huge radial was from sudden changes in power. Like getting long on final and slamming the throttle to go around, the plane would snap instantly and dig a big hole next to the runway.

I have also seen film of F4Us taking off from a carrier, presumably in to the wind. Watching from behind, it looks like the pilot is holding almost full rudder to counter the prop and engine forces, would you say that is a misinterpretation? Or is the Mustang just as bad on a short takeoff?

  -Jinx
  The Flying Pigs

[spinny]

100 rounds of .50 weighs about 35 pounds; the gun (aircraft version) weighs about 100 pounds (recoil absorption stuff), so on a fully loaded Hog, the guns and ammo weigh a little over 1400 pounds.

I understand, FWIW, that some Marine squadrons in the PAC removed the arresting gear and the two outer guns from the Hog, thus saving over 1000 pounds of weight.
The tail-hook alone weighs 600 pounds.

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

[-zoll-]

Hey Guys,
No offense taken Indian   When we discuss torque we have to keep something in mind.  Just because the radial engine is round doesn't mean that it will create more torque than a V-12 engine.  Keep in mind we are not talking about a "rotary" round engine.  The engine doesn't spin.  In the R-2800 in paticular the Crankshaft is well balanced and dampened.  The main determining factor of torque is the Propeller size, rpm and pitch.  

Jinx, That was a very valid point you brought up about sudden power increases and torque which helps my argument concerning acceleration.  A sudden increase in power at slow speeds was as detrimental in the Pony as the f4U.  The torque roll crash on takeoff or final approach in the Hawg was more prominent given the role the plane was operated in.  Full power takeoff's from short jungle strips or carrier decks compared to USAAF airfields. I can assure you if you were trying to coax enough power out of a pony to get airborne in the short distance the Hawg had to take off from you would need a huge amount of rudder input to counteract the torque as well.  Now when you look at the acceleration models in these sims, and you take an airplane that has so much power and torque that it can slam dunk you into the ground at slow speed, then in the sim at 150mph you throw in full military power and WEP, no torque effect?  75% of all planes out accel you? Something is wrong here.  I am not singling out this sim in paticular.  Just sims in general HT.

To all: I don't mean to offend anyone with what I say.  I can tell you that a lot of my conceptions and views of air combat and the operation of these planes was blown out of the water when I got the oportunity to be around them as much as I have been now.

Blue skies and happy hunting  

Jerry Zollman
Lt. -zoll-
Executive Officer
VF-17 The Jolly Rogers

[humble]

I'd like to add a couple of comments to this thread...

1) Everything I'm reading supports the Pony's rate of climb in AH..as a former AW type I'm used to pony being a slow climber..in both Mike Spicks book on WW2 and Bob Hoovers book pony is specifically praised for climb and handling.

2) My understanding is that there is a huge difference in climb and sustained turn capability between the 190a5 and a8..I believe the a5 is much the same as the a4 in those respects

3. Pilot ability here is far more important than in AW and I believe pilots who can fly the optimal "line" thru there manuvers in AH can coax a huge performance differential vs the average pilot and make newbies scream.

I've come to belief the biggest issue here is often the 6 inches between my ears are undermodeled with regard to understanding the FM's.

[Hangtime]

Re: Dora v Mustang D model...

Oh; I can't wait! I was very impressed and surprised by the energy and aerodynamics modeling in AH. If the flight model fidelity holds for the Dora the way it currently does in the Mustang; we will have the most outstanding cross-platform matchup (LW v USAAF)in this sim.

..and since this sub thread is kinda polluting the original; (and I do very much wish to hear this discussion) I'm gonna start a new topic with this post... USAAF v Luftwaffe.  

Hang



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

[spinny]

OK, Dora comes in, so does -4 Hog  

[funked]

Jekyll:  I'll leave the "superior" comment alone because that is subjective.  The part about speed, climb, and turn is the obviously false part.  

P-51D fought in the PTO, and there were several Japanese fighters that could turn better and outclimb it at low altitude.

The P-51D was faster than some Fw 190 variants, but not faster than a Fw 190D-9 at all altitudes.  All Fw 190 variants could climb as well or better up to 20k or so, and several Me 109 variants could climb better at any altitude.

Chuck's full of it in this case.