F4U turn performance, flaps, the real plane, etc (discussion)

[Ardy123]

Maybe because it's oh... I don't know......a real plane and not something in a video game!

duh troll

[Butcher]

Interesting note - I've read countless AAR's and Combat reports during WW2, notably from the Marine corp F4u squadrons. Most specifically state never to get low and slow with Zeros or try to turn fight with them. None mention dropping flaps either during combat.

I can see combat flaps being dropped, which is one thing, but full flaps? doubtful. I doubt Hellcat pilots did the same from what limited AAR's I have on hellcat pilots, they never stated to slow down or drop flaps, but use speed and ALT advantage.


I've always had trouble flying F4u's, they just seem a bit weird to me - the F4u4 actually was the most stable platform that I flew, F4u-1a and F4u-1 were unstable for some reason. Then again I always flew them under 15k, last FSO I took an F4u-1a up to 30k and danced around a6m3's, with full flaps out.

[Krusty]

To fix something you have to know what is wrong. Saying they "aren't quite right" isn't describing a specific problem that can be fixed. You have your subjective impressions of a PC simulated aircraft and have read subjective impressions from people flying real Corsairs. You note that your impressions aren't the same but you haven't posted anything that's incorrect that needs to be fixed.

Not quite. I've been specific in other posts. I was being generic in that one post.

I've pointed out several areas where it needs improving. Not enough torque-induced yaw, can't really spin it, far too docile a stall, and way too controllable in the stall. The plane holds E like it's got a a storage canister filled with E behind the pilot's seat (that's a joke, just so you know, don't want you to take me too literally here).

Overall it's a pale comparison to the real thing and actual historic combat tactics and reports. Its handling is not at all where it used to be, but people ignore that it's different because they want it to be better (glossing it over so as not to hurt their favored ride).

[mtnman]

More than anything, I think you're seeing the result of an inaccurate "pilot" model.  "Incomplete" is probably a better word than "inaccurate".

Numerically, the plane may very well be modeled about as accurately as possible (as of yet, I've not seen anyone post anything conclusive (at all) that shows the F4U doesn't fly right.  It's all been subjective so far, for years...

However, while the AH F4U is a very "busy" plane to fly well, it wouldn't even be possible for a RL pilot to do what an AH pilot can easily do.  If an AH pilot was limited to only being able to do what a RL pilot could, we wouldn't be able to get the AH F4U to do what we can make it do now.

While I feel this is true for all planes in AH (since they all use the same pilot), I think the issue is brought to the fore with the F4U (and likely other "busy" planes).

One example is that given by Ardy, in that we don't "feel" any of the effects of G's, or fear, or exhaustion, etc...

But what I'm referring to is (for example) that an actual F4U pilot wouldn't be able to manipulate throttle and flaps together (at all), while it's extremely simple for me to do so here.  This allows me many other options in AH than I would have in RL.  Those extra "options" mean I get what amounts to extra performance (even if the plane were modeled absolutely perfectly).

[Big Rat]

OK, we just took the Hellcat up for squad practice 25k to deck fights, I didn't tell the squad anything about what I was going to ask at the end.  I had 12-13 guys show up tonight, after an hour of combat we called it.  Before I left I asked if they thought the Hellcat was more or less stable then the Corsair.  All said more, some said a lot more.  My personal feeling is slightly more, after flying it for an hour and a half (I was in the TA with it earlier).  It was mentioned more then once that it doesn't drop a wing like a corsair pushed over the limit (too little speed or too little flap).  

 
BigRat  

[Ardy123]

One example is that given by Ardy, in that we don't "feel" any of the effects of G's, or fear, or exhaustion, etc...

Well, That wasn't my intentions with my post, but it is a valid point (I felt, maybe wrongly, that turbulence causes planes to stall/etc slightly quicker (behave less predictably) and force pilots to give more 'buffer' between where the edge is).

I will say, that it did require more attention and input just to do basic turns as I was constantly trying to keep the ball in the center and adjust for the ever changing conditions... Granted I have almost 0 stick time, so I was over attentive and 'not comfortable' unlike a professional pilot, but that's the only comparison I have...(hopefully I'll have better ones in the future (fingers crossed)).

[mtnman]

It was called the ensign eliminator for a reason.

In AH, those pilots that most closely resemble "ensign's" die horrible deaths in the F4U.  Many while attempting to take off and/or land (which is how the real F4U earned that nickname).  Could that be an argument that the model is  accurate?

The F4U was also called "Whistling Death", and was one of the most feared US planes by the Japanese.  While the AH A6M is a fairly easy kill for the AH F4U, turning certainly isn't the way to do it.

I point that out not to argue with you, but to illustrate that nicknames applied to airplanes aren't any sort of argument for or against the accuracy of the model.

[mtnman]

Well, That wasn't my intentions with my post, but it is a valid point...

I know, sorry.  Hopefully you don't think it was too far out of context.

[Ardy123]

I know, sorry.  Hopefully you don't think it was too far out of context.

no, not at all...
I am totally ignorant to the numbers of surviving hellcats or f4us, but has anyone here every had the opportunity fly/ride in a real one? (I know for ~1k, you can ride in a p51 or p40 near my place).

I'm sure that a monster 40+lbs wing loading, huge engine, enormous mass, etc... means the plane handles significantly different than your standard civilian aircraft.

[mtnman]

And, for what it's worth, the AH F4U does have a fairly nasty stall...

http://www.4shared.com/file/ceGImqJ-/Agent360_fun_fight_with_stall_.html?refurl=d1url

[FLS]

Not quite. I've been specific in other posts. I was being generic in that one post.

I've pointed out several areas where it needs improving. Not enough torque-induced yaw, can't really spin it, far too docile a stall, and way too controllable in the stall. The plane holds E like it's got a a storage canister filled with E behind the pilot's seat (that's a joke, just so you know, don't want you to take me too literally here).

Overall it's a pale comparison to the real thing and actual historic combat tactics and reports. Its handling is not at all where it used to be, but people ignore that it's different because they want it to be better (glossing it over so as not to hurt their favored ride).

You are still just listing subjective impressions. You don't have anything resembling data that shows a problem.

[RTHolmes]

You are still just listing subjective impressions. You don't have anything resembling data that shows a problem.

there is no contemporary quantitative data that I know of for aircraft behaviour at the edge of and beyond controlled flight. in the same way as there is none for eg. directonal stability. which is completely understandable - we are looking at the point where the nice simple equations describing the aircraft's behaviour break down into chaos. even today with the help of supercomputers accurately modelling behaviour just outside of the envelope is impossible.

modelling these aspects will always rely on subjective reports from test and combat pilots. the meteor was extensively tested during WWII and its yaw instability was well known, but Ive never seen a table listing the frequency of the oscillations under different conditions.

unless you want to end up with all the aircraft "feeling" the same to fly, you have to include subjective, qualitative evidence.

[hlbly]

In AH, those pilots that most closely resemble "ensign's" die horrible deaths in the F4U.  Many while attempting to take off and/or land (which is how the real F4U earned that nickname).  Could that be an argument that the model is  accurate?

The F4U was also called "Whistling Death", and was one of the most feared US planes by the Japanese.  While the AH A6M is a fairly easy kill for the AH F4U, turning certainly isn't the way to do it.

I point that out not to argue with you, but to illustrate that nicknames applied to airplanes aren't any sort of argument for or against the accuracy of the model.

The japanese never referred to it as whstling death . The germans never called my favorite ride the forked tailed devil either . Unfortunately for both .

[hlbly]

Okay I agree mtnmn stall is pretty well modeled . I don't think spin is though . Is easy to recover not even needing rudder .

[FLS]

...unless you want to end up with all the aircraft "feeling" the same to fly, you have to include subjective, qualitative evidence.

I don't know that Hitech does any subjective adjustments to make the aircraft fly as differently as they do but I'll take his version over a player's impressions of how they should "feel" to the player.