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

[ink]

And Ink reaches back and casts.....

I know Pervert sucks in a 190 the way Ink sucks in the 84.  

You only have 7 3/4 months till my sentence is up and I get back into the game.  Dammit the withdraw sucks... never gets better.

shhhhh

[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.

Nothing but mad respect for you mountain man . The whistling death name is a myth however .

[mtnman]

Nothing but mad respect for you mountain man . The whistling death name is a myth however .

  hlbly!

Completely possible.  I've always thought it odd that the folks that had the most reason to fear it/hate it would give it such a complimentary name.

I've seen it referred to that way in print, but I suspect that ALL nicknames for the F4U are largely "myth".  Even if a given nickname is "fact", it's possible/probable that the meaning we currently assign that name is out of context.  I'd even argue that any given nickname had different meanings for different people at the time the nickname was created and used in "real time".

An F4U pilot referring to the F4U as the "Ensign Eliminator", for example, is probably using the implications of that nickname to brag about his ability to some (and maybe a large)extent.  Flying a "nasty" plane inflates the status of the individual who successfully flies it.

The "worse" attributes an aircraft is credited with, the better the pilot is inferred to be if he can simply survive in that suicidal death-trap!  If the plane is "deadly" to an inexperienced pilot, then obviously the pilot who regularly flies it is a step above the others...  And what if he's successful in it?  Then he's obviously about as good as they come!  And if he's more successful in the suicidal death-trap than most other pilots who fly it?  He's obviously elite!

How many ensigns did the "Ensign Eliminator" eliminate in reality?

A nickname attributed to an aircraft probably says far more about the pilot's who flew/named it than the plane itself...

It just boils down to the fact that a flight model cannot be considered "accurate" based on whether it meets the modern, inexperienced, and unfamiliar expectations of an individual basing his opinions on a historic nickname and anecdotal evidence.

[hlbly]

Well said and point taken .

[Ardy123]

hlbly!

Completely possible.  I've always thought it odd that the folks that had the most reason to fear it/hate it would give it such a complimentary name.

I've seen it referred to that way in print, but I suspect that ALL nicknames for the F4U are largely "myth".  Even if a given nickname is "fact", it's possible/probable that the meaning we currently assign that name is out of context.  I'd even argue that any given nickname had different meanings for different people at the time the nickname was created and used in "real time".

An F4U pilot referring to the F4U as the "Ensign Eliminator", for example, is probably using the implications of that nickname to brag about his ability to some (and maybe a large)extent.  Flying a "nasty" plane inflates the status of the individual who successfully flies it.

The "worse" attributes an aircraft is credited with, the better the pilot is inferred to be if he can simply survive in that suicidal death-trap!  If the plane is "deadly" to an inexperienced pilot, then obviously the pilot who regularly flies it is a step above the others...  And what if he's successful in it?  Then he's obviously about as good as they come!  And if he's more successful in the suicidal death-trap than most other pilots who fly it?  He's obviously elite!

How many ensigns did the "Ensign Eliminator" eliminate in reality?

A nickname attributed to an aircraft probably says far more about the pilot's who flew/named it than the plane itself...

It just boils down to the fact that a flight model cannot be considered "accurate" based on whether it meets the modern, inexperienced, and unfamiliar expectations of an individual basing his opinions on a historic nickname and anecdotal evidence.

There is some much more going on in a real aircraft than in AH that its totally incomparable...  I know you agree with me MtMan so I'm not calling you out by quoting you. I feel the need to remind people though, that just basic flight management was significantly greater in RL than in AH... look where the flaps are in relation to the stick...is there a button on the 'real' f4u flight stick to drop flaps? ...no, you have to take your hand off the throttle to manipulate the flaps... throw some 'g's and many other things to manage all at the same time...and forget about it... Not to mention the huge impact a 'non-static' atmosphere has on flying (weather/ thermals/common turbulence etc...)...

[nrshida]

Rereading this thread I do find it a little odd that the departure characteristics were glossed over or dismissed without discussion. There are now several sources describing the departure characteristics as vicious.

I concede this is difficult to quantify or measure and I am not an F4U experten by any means but I haven't experienced a vicious departure in an AH Corsair, nothing reminiscent of a 190-like departure anyway - something to dread in a fight.

 

[mtnman]

There is some much more going on in a real aircraft than in AH that its totally incomparable...  I know you agree with me MtMan so I'm not calling you out by quoting you. I feel the need to remind people though, that just basic flight management was significantly greater in RL than in AH... look where the flaps are in relation to the stick...is there a button on the 'real' f4u flight stick to drop flaps? ...no, you have to take your hand off the throttle to manipulate the flaps... throw some 'g's and many other things to manage all at the same time...and forget about it... Not to mention the huge impact a 'non-static' atmosphere has on flying (weather/ thermals/common turbulence etc...)...

You've nailed the real "issue" with getting "realistic" real-world performance from AH aircraft.

It's just not possible to have that without realistically modeling the environment and the pilot's limitations, abilities, knowledge, fears, etc...  Even if the flight model for a particular plane is spot on!

Heck, the performance of my wife's mini van varies day-to-day much more in relation to environment and human-related factors than due to the vehicle itself.

[Slade]

I am OK with the F4u as it is.  It is fun to fly but I never consider it an uber turn fighter.

I feel if one is going to change a plane in this game then the A-20 needs to be on top of the list.  Just change it so it is not a weird type fighter plane killer.  Make THAT plane historically accurate in this context first.  I expect those that are expert at using the A-20 in this way to resist this.

Yep we can still kill A-20's in fighters.  That is not the context of this thread.  Making changes to planes to better align them to the real WWII plane performance is.

[titanic3]

Watching Lancstukas, B17/B24s dive bombing is always fun. And I doubt it will ever get changed because while the pilot was probably incapable of doing it in real life, the plane was. And in AH, we are not "a pilot", we fly as the plane itself.

So while a real pilot wouldve ripped his arms off or be standing on his head, we're doing barrel rolls and going inverted in bombers and planes that were forbidden to do so.

[Karnak]

Watching Lancstukas, B17/B24s dive bombing is always fun. And I doubt it will ever get changed because while the pilot was probably incapable of doing it in real life, the plane was. And in AH, we are not "a pilot", we fly as the plane itself.

So while a real pilot wouldve ripped his arms off or be standing on his head, we're doing barrel rolls and going inverted in bombers and planes that were forbidden to do so.

Lancasters were not forbidden to do so.  The 'corkscrew' evasion involved throwing a laden Lancaster around the sky in diving rolling and climbing turns.

AH models, as I recall, 50lbs of stick force by the pilots whenever the data is available.

[bozon]

Watching Lancstukas, B17/B24s dive bombing is always fun. And I doubt it will ever get changed because while the pilot was probably incapable of doing it in real life, the plane was. And in AH, we are not "a pilot", we fly as the plane itself.

So while a real pilot wouldve ripped his arms off or be standing on his head, we're doing barrel rolls and going inverted in bombers and planes that were forbidden to do so.

The problem with bombers dive bombing (real life) is the bomb clearing the bomb bay. The bays and structures holding the bombs were designed and relied on gravity to get the bomb out and assumed that gravity is pointing in a certain direction. When diving at more than a shallow angle, the bombs will not travel in the expected direction and take more time to clear the bay and the structures in it (the bay is not a big empty volume where the bomb floats till it is released). Finally, there is the issue of the bomb behavior when crossing the wind sheer at the bay door. Bombs can spin out of control and even be thrown to hit the belly or wings of the plane.

[titanic3]

Lancasters were not forbidden to do so.  The 'corkscrew' evasion involved throwing a laden Lancaster around the sky in diving rolling and climbing turns.

AH models, as I recall, 50lbs of stick force by the pilots whenever the data is available.

Fine, point taken, but you can't expect anyone not to chuckle when a Lanc goes into a near 90 degrees dive, drop an entire bomb load (wouldn't the bombs fly forward into the nose of the plane in the first place?), then pull away like it's nothing.

One thing I'd like to see implemented. When a plane begins to creak and moan under high stress, it actually weakens the airframe. So you might be able to do it again, but by the 3rd or 4th time, the creaking comes at a slower speed and by the 5th or 6th, parts starts shedding.

[Lusche]

Fine, point taken, but you can't expect anyone not to chuckle when a Lanc goes into a near 90 degrees dive

In all my 7 years of playing AH, I have yet to see that. I see Lancs in shallow dive bombing runs, but never in anything that actually would come close to "near 90 degrees".
The term 'Lancstuka' is fun, but if we take it seriously for a minute, massively exaggerating considering the dive angle which is/was actually used by genuine Sturzkampfflugzeuge

[titanic3]

In all my 7 years of playing AH, I have yet to see that. I see Lancs in shallow dive bombing runs, but never in anything that actually would come close to "near 90 degrees".
The term 'Lancstuka' is fun, but if we take it seriously for a minute, massively exaggerating considering the dive angle which is/was actually used by genuine Sturzkampfflugzeuge

I just saw it yesterday with a B17... Heck, you can do it offline if you'd like.

[Lusche]

I just saw it yesterday with a B17... Heck, you can do it offline if you'd like.

It's actually more difficult then one may think to get a near 90° dive level in a B-17 or Lanc, that's why it about never happens. I don't even do it in my Hurri D for good reasons ;)You don't have a film of that per chance? Because usually when it's being said "almost vertically" or "90°" it most of the time turns out to be much less, and that's for all planes. 60° (which looks really steep) is about the most I see and even that is rare with "Lancstukas".