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

[tunnelrat]

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.

This is why planes like the SBD had a bomb sling, to ensure the bomb didn't just mangle the prop when released at steep angles.  I believe the Stuka (or at least some models) had the same thing, but I am not positive.

[mtnman]

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.

 

The departure characteristics have been discussed in many threads.  If they haven't been discussed in this thread, it may simply be due to a lack of interest in hashing through it again.

The training film for the F4U discusses departure in several different configurations beginning at about 12:30 in this clip...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kpxyyLQ7u7g

On the negative side it's described with terms such as "abrupt, and preceded with very little warning", "left wing stalls first due to the torque reaction of the engine", "goes quickly" and "off on the left wing"  

On the positive side we see and hear "regain control as quickly as possible and you'll run no chance of trouble", and "prompt, positive actions result in a normal recovery", and "stick pressures are heavy (you can help them with your tabs), but with experience you'll become familiar with the F4U's stall characteristics".

Overall, not so bad, and definitely not "vicious"...

Still, I'd consider this film to be anecdotal evidence, and of limited value in comparing the AH model to the actual plane.  It gives us "numbers", and visual representation, but doesn't get anywhere close to the type of departures we regularly experience in the game.  While I would hope the training film gives an accurate representation of the plane to the inexperienced pilots who would be studying it, I also doubt they'd want to scare the pants off the poor kids either.

I don't see the AH F4U drop its left wing as harshly as it does in this film...  But what I see in the video is child's play compared to what I've experienced many-a-time in the AH F4U (see post 39 for an example).  Unfortunately, I don't have any film of the "really nasty" stuff I've seen from the AH F4U either...

I'm still not arguing that the AH F4U is perfect; I don't know for a fact one way or the other...  I really doubt there is evidence in existence that can prove or disprove that when it comes to the small details, and out-of-the-ordinary envelope stall characteristics.  And I don't think it really matters unless the pilot gets modeled more realistically.

I've been doing a lot of bow hunting for deer from my Tree Lounge lately, and one thing I've noticed is that it's MUCH easier for me to "check six" quickly, completely, and effectively in the AH F4U than it is for me to do so in RL from my seat.

In the end, it's important to note that the F4U is still the best prop driven plane ever designed (I have several sources for this, so it must be true- film/video, written statements, and from the internet), and it's only right that it's also pretty dang good in AH  

[nrshida]

On the negative side it's described with terms such as "abrupt, and preceded with very little warning", "left wing stalls first due to the torque reaction of the engine", "goes quickly" and "off on the left wing"  

I don't see the AH F4U drop its left wing as harshly as it does in this film...  

Precisely.

Still, I'd consider this film to be anecdotal evidence, and of limited value in comparing the AH model to the actual plane.  

You cannot scientifically or statistically quantify a handling trait because it is subjectively experienced by a user. This is not grounds for dismissal of the description. It is fair and reasonable to describe AH's Fw190 departure characteristics as 'abrupt' for example, wouldn't you agree?

 

[mtnman]

Precisely.

You cannot scientifically or statistically quantify a handling trait because it is subjectively experienced by a user. This is not grounds for dismissal of the description. It is fair and reasonable to describe AH's Fw190 departure characteristics as 'abrupt' for example, wouldn't you agree?

Your post really outlines very well why subjective "evidence" cannot be used to accurately model an aircraft.

First, you cherry-picked what you felt were the pertinent sections of my post to best support the "nasty" qualities not being represented correctly in AH.  You left out what I said next, and thus falsely quoted me.  You left out what the film had to say as well, so have falsely quoted the film.

The F4U stall departure I experienced and presented in post 39 is far worse than anything I would expect based on what I've ever seen described in print or film relating to a RL F4U.  I've also stalled the AH F4U at 10,000 AGL, and spun it into the ground unable to recover...  I suppose I could argue that this is unrealistic in AH?  I'm not, of coarse, but why not?

Whether or not you want to or not, it makes it look like you have an agenda to "prove" the AH F4U departure is incorrect.  If you do indeed have such an agenda, I'd expect you to present something (anything?) non-subjective, or yes I would say I have grounds for dismissal of your subjective claims.

Next, you try to draw me into agreement with your subjective qualification of the AH 190 departure characteristics.  To which I'll say "Sure, it could be reasonable to describe the AH 190's departure as abrupt."  That certainly leaves a lot of subjectivity on the table, and leaves us wide open for speculation...  Slightly abrupt, moderately abrupt, severely abrupt?  Accurate to RL?  No way for me to tell.

While I wouldn't automatically dismiss evidence because it's subjective, I would definitely have to qualify it as such, and consider it to be of minimal value.  Interesting?  Yup.  Worth trying to copy?  Nope.  At least not without further evidence of a less subjective nature.  Of course, the subjective evidence could be what steers us to examine aspects less subjectively, so has value in that regard.

And once again, without a pilot being modeled to perform as a RL pilot would, we cannot accurately and fully compare any plane in AH with any plane in RL.  The simple fact is that a pilot in AH can do more things, easier, than a pilot in RL.  This allows an AH pilot to control his/her plane differently than a real pilot, and allows him/her to do things with his/her plane that a RL pilot cannot.  As long as that is true, you cannot expect AH planes to be limited to what we saw from their RL counterparts.

Furthermore, what we do have when it comes to subjective evidence on the RL planes cannot be compared to what we have in AH for the above reasons.  Our pilots are not limited to what they were limited to in RL, and that is really a profound difference.  

I'm not complaining, I'm very happy to play the game with the pieces HTC has given us...  I just recognize that the differences between RL and AH are very real, and not necessarily due to errors in aircraft modeling.

[Krusty]

You cannot reduce the argument to 1 line: Subjective is irrelevant and impossible. That seems to be your only pertinent point in every post in this thread.

That doesn't fly. While perceptions may change from person to person ("subjectivity"), the observations these subjective people make are very real.

HTC models their flight model on SUBJECTIVE handling of a real RV-8. You cannot prove a flight model is accurate just on numbers alone. You must at some point test the flight MODEL with the flight REALITY in our real world. When the two compare with each other SUBJECTIVELY you can come to the conclussion that your flight model is accurate.

When the flight MODEL does not match the flight REALITY (even if said reality is 60 years old), there remains areas to continue tweaking and fixing.

[mtnman]

But it does match, from what I've seen from the guys who've run the numbers.  

And again, if you want it to match reality, you need a pilot model that does the same.  It would take a 4-armed man to fly a real F4U the way I can with my fingertips.

Krusty, do you not consider the pilot model to be pertinent?

Subjectively, my experiences with the F4U match up pretty well with the training film- "regain control as quickly as possible and you'll run no chance of trouble", and "prompt, positive actions result in a normal recovery", and "stick pressures are heavy (you can help them with your tabs), but with experience you'll become familiar with the F4U's stall characteristics".

Do we discount these statements, and just take the negatives?

[Ardy123]

But it does match, from what I've seen from the guys who've run the numbers.  

And again, if you want it to match reality, you need a pilot model that does the same.  It would take a 4-armed man to fly a real F4U the way I can with my fingertips.

Krusty, do you not consider the pilot model to be pertinent?

Subjectively, my experiences with the F4U match up pretty well with the training film- "regain control as quickly as possible and you'll run no chance of trouble", and "prompt, positive actions result in a normal recovery", and "stick pressures are heavy (you can help them with your tabs), but with experience you'll become familiar with the F4U's stall characteristics".

Do we discount these statements, and just take the negatives?

If one were graph the lift-co around stall, would one see a sharp fall off for the planes that have a 'fast departure'?

[nrshida]

Mtnman,

I did not falsely quote you, I directly copied two of your statements to highlight my point, removing the irrelevant (your full statement remains above for anyone else to verify). You state that you do not see the AH F4U drop its left wing as harshly as it does in this film. The kind of stall characteristic is a significant quality which affects the kind of fights we have in AH, not a minor lesser important characteristic which isn't worth dwelling on.

The rest of your comments which tend towards mitigating this lack doesn't address the difference in this 'quality' which is noted with emphasis in the training film as a characteristic of this aircraft and are themselves remarkably subjective and unsupported.

Playing semantic games and trying to dismiss this as anecdotal and subjective is rather a dissappointment. I have considerable faith in HTC's flight model and their approach, but the fidelity of any simulation has limits. Some things can be quantified and modelled accurately and others are more of an emergent quality of a simulation. The measure is finally: does the simulation reflect the essential qualities of the item being simulated? I mentioned the departure of the Fw190 as an exampe because I think any player would fairly describe that aircraft as having an abrupt departure. And the F4U, is it fairly described as abrupt or more fairly as docile?

When you discuss the extra work a real pilot had / has to do (sobering, I realise) it doesn't enter into this discussion at all, since every AH plane enjoys this 'simplification' equally. We could discuss flaps endlessly here, for example or the 'manual engine management' required by the pilot. This is a layer of abstraction within which all AH pilots benefit equally from (some arguable more equally than others).

My agenda should be patently obvious and while I appreciate that the F4U is your favourite aircraft, it is rather a shame you don't also share that agenda and that an impartial discussion could not take place amongst the players.

[mtnman]

When you discuss the extra work a real pilot had / has to do (sobering, I realise) it doesn't enter into this discussion at all, since every AH plane enjoys this 'simplification' equally. We could discuss flaps endlessly here, for example or the 'manual engine management' required by the pilot. This is a layer of abstraction within which all AH pilots benefit equally from (some arguable more equally than others).

This is not what I'm referring to.  I understand the "why's" of this aspect of the game, and while I wish things were more realistic myself, I'm not arguing for it.

What I'm referring to is the fact that what I can easily do as a pilot in AH is impossible to do in real life.  Not that what I do in AH is simplified.  What I'm talking about goes well beyond (and probably isn't) "equally beneficial" and allows for unrealistic control of the planes in AH.

An F4U pilot in RL cannot operate the flaps with his left hand, while also manipulating the engine with his left hand, while also manipulating the gear with his left hand (all at the same time).  And even if he could, he wouldn't be able to do it easily under heavy G-load, while I can do all of those things simultaneously (and easily) under almost any G-load.

It amounts to me using flaps, or throttle, or gear, or whatever, at times I wouldn't be able to do so in RL.  It amounts to me easily doing multiple things that would be really hard in RL.  This allows me to control the plane and make it do things (and at times) that I wouldn't be able to make the plane do in RL.

To take the argument further, I'd say that it could be theoretically possible for a RL F4U to do the exact things an AH F4U does, if the RL pilot weren't limited by himself and his cockpit layout.  Without an accurately modeled pilot, limited to doing what a RL pilot could do, were not ever going to have an apples-to-apples comparison. 

People are seldom able to get full efficiency from any machine.  Machines are generally capable of performing at a (much) higher efficiency than the human operator is capable of.  This is true of everything from cordless drills to high production factory equipment.  Redesigning the workplace layout is a sometimes difficult first step towards optimizing output.  In AH, we're able to highly optimize the workplace layout, so are able to get more out of the planes.  In particular, we have finer control in the more "difficult" situations.  Hence, we should expect to see fewer control-related problems or issues in those situations which require the finest control (i.e. near departure).

On top of that, we have the simplified workload that you mentioned above.  Two separate topics...  And as mentioned earlier, we should really be tossing some environmental factors in there too...

My agenda should be patently obvious and while I appreciate that the F4U is your favourite aircraft, it is rather a shame you don't also share that agenda and that an impartial discussion could not take place amongst the players.

Don't assume that I don't share your agenda.  Don't assume that because the F4U is really the only plane in WWII to hold my interest that I think it flies "right" or that I don't think it should be changed.

For what it's worth, I wish the AH F4U was more difficult to fly.  I think it's too easy.  I don't have any objective proof though, and I don't consider the subjective evidence I've seen as solid enough to warrant a change.

I'm not arguing that it's correct; just that the evidence presented is too subjective to be considered "proof".  Personally, I want all of the planes to be as realistic as possible.  I don't believe I've ever argued that the F4U flight model is "correct"?

I don't believe that the issues we're discussing can be solved by asking each other whether departure of any particular aircraft is "abrupt" or matches what somebody who flew the aircraft said/says without being able to quantitatively measure what we're looking at.  I don't think the flight model should be up to popular opinion, either.

When my then-young son can easily take off, fly, and land any plane in AH with about 5 minutes of explanation (even though he can't ride a bicycle yet), I have a tendency to be skeptical as to how close to reality any of the planes really are...

Also, FWIW, the argument doesn't really look impartial when you quote only the "negative" attributes, leave out the "positives", and label it as "precisely".  You did see the part where I mentioned that I've seen the F4U do things much worse in AH than I've been lead to believe it should through subjective descriptions, right?

[nrshida]

I agree that the discussion regarding the departure characteristics cannot really make progress or come to any positive conclusion so I'll just leave it to stand as is it.

The tangential conversation of modelling the human element of the synergy between plane and pilot, if I understand correctly, is interesting and I think already exists slightly to an extent with certain aircraft. I believe both the 109 and the Ki-84 replicate the heavy stick forces by reducing the effectiveness of pulling back on our game peripherals.

Regarding your four-armed pilot analogy some aircraft would benefit and some would suffer. For instance the 109s require something like 20 partial rotations on a wheel, if I remember correctly, to fully deploy the flaps while the Spitfire literally was the flip of a switch and the N1K had automatic combat flaps available. I believe the 109 had an automatic pitch control and others not. Would deepen the experience to reproduce some of this workload, especially if there was an option and some slight risk / advantage gain, but I'm sure many of the players would be more interested in new aircraft instead. Ones with huge engines and big guns ideally lolz.

Much of what we do in Aces High is unhistoric and arguably 'unrealistic' if that indeed has any meaning in a vintage plane air combat simulator. This touches on a recent discussion regarding aerobatics and its place in ACM. I myself fly a Ki-84 in a decidedly balls to the wall (not those kind of balls) style which would take a suicidal pilot on a depressed day who just recieved a letter from his Brother to say he'd ran off with the pilot's wife to reproduce, but then that is what has become interesting to me and I don't like golf, crazy or otherwise, so here I am.

[mtnman]

I agree that the discussion regarding the departure characteristics cannot really make progress or come to any positive conclusion so I'll just leave it to stand as is it.

The tangential conversation of modelling the human element of the synergy between plane and pilot, if I understand correctly, is interesting and I think already exists slightly to an extent with certain aircraft. I believe both the 109 and the Ki-84 replicate the heavy stick forces by reducing the effectiveness of pulling back on our game peripherals.

Regarding your four-armed pilot analogy some aircraft would benefit and some would suffer.

I agree...

To further clarify what I'm talking about I've tossed together a few visuals...  

To preface though, the stick force effect kind of touches on it (I think it's there for all aircraft, FWIW), but not really.  In my profession, I spend a lot of time watching how people work and how they're effected by their work environment.  We also use a 50lb reference, but feel the one modeled in game is too generous.  In reality, that 50lbs limit isn't always "the same".  A person's ability to exert force varies greatly depending upon horizontal and vertical reach, torso twist, etc...  Temperature and humidity even factor into it, and of course fatigue does too.  Exerting 50lb of force is one thing...  Doing it several times is another...  Doing it several times in quick succession is another thing yet...  And doing it several times with one hand, while twisted to look over your shoulder, and while experiencing G-forces is another!  Add a pair of gloves (which can reduce grip strength substantially), a mixture of fear and adrenalin, and a variable environment, etc...

Anyway, that's NOT my point, ha!

Here's what I'm talking about-


My argument is that we have too much ability to control the aircraft, too quickly, and too easily, and with too "fine" a level of control as well.  This leads directly to the "unrealistic" flight we hear complaints of in regard to the F4U.

Look at that cockpit; imagine your right hand on the stick, your left on the throttle...  In a fight, maintaining throttle control is vital (we hear about it all the time).  So, if your hand is on the throttle, how do you manipulate the flaps?  Or the gear?  Or the trim?  You can't...  You have to let go, and switch from one control function to the next.

If you've read any F4U threads, I'm sure you've seen countless hints that flap control is vital as well...  If you're controlling the flaps in RL, how do you manipulate the throttle, the gear, or the trim?  You can't...  Those things have to wait until you have a free hand!

Look at my set-up in AH...


Obviously, I can control the throttle this way...  But, I also have the flaps at my fingertip, and the gear (which I seldom use in a fight, btw) under my thumb.  If I'm manipulating the throttle, how do I manipulate the flaps?  I wiggle my finger...  Rocking the button upwards lowers flaps, rocking it forward/down raises them back up.  I can manipulate the throttle, flaps, and gear all at the same time, which is impossible in the real plane.

There's more, of course.  Look at my stick hand...


In real life of course, if I'm working the throttle, or the flaps, or the gear, with my left hand, it would be impossible for me to manipulate the trim wheel and knobs, right?  How do I do it in AH?  Well, for starters it's automatic.  But beyond that, I can cause my elevator, rudder, and aileron trim to move to predetermined "best" positions by tapping the button with my right thumb.  That's because I use auto-trim when it's convenient, and have my trims mapped to rotary knobs on my throttle.  My trim wheels are marked, so I know they're in the right spot.  In a fight, if I tap that button, all three trims begin to move on their own...

In RL, I wouldn't be able to move the elevator trim while moving the aileron trim, unless I let go of the stick and used two hands on the trims.  How would I ever do the rudder at the same time?  And of course, in AH I can have the trim wheels going to their pre-designated spots while I'm also working the stick, flaps, throttle, and gear.  

How many hands would that take in RL?

So, here's how it plays out in the game...  Good KI84 fight_0336.ahf

In that fight, I kill a 109 and a KI84.  If you get behind me in external view, and zoom in, and watch the flaps, you'll see that I cause the flaps to move about 25 times to kill the 109 (not counting putting them back up when I'm done), and (roughly) an additional 29 times to kill the KI84.  And that's in a total of 3 1/2 minutes!

In RL, an F4U pilot may have used flaps in a fight, but would he have made that many fine adjustments?  No way!

In RL, the simple fact that the pilot would have to let go of the throttle to move the flaps probably meant he only moved them a notch here and there.  Now, the F4U did have "blow-up" flaps that he could set at say 2 notches, and they'd automatically fluctuate up/down dependent upon speed.  But what are the chances he'd go beyond the two notches?  Or that if he did, that he'd continuously tweak them up/down to fine-control his plane?  I can't believe that happened much at all...

Simply letting go and moving his hand from one place to the next would have taken time, and made it unlikely he could keep up with the "adjustment" pace I keep in my fights.  Would any experienced AH pilot claim that timing doesn't matter much?  That losing a few fractions of a second here and there won't effect the outcome of a fight?  That those lost fractions of a second won't effect the success of a maneuver?  That they won't make a "possible" maneuver practically "impossible"?

And I can do it with ease, even while looking behind me.  Could he have done that (unerringly move his hand between the throttle and flap lever, over and over, without "stumbling") while looking over his shoulder, and experiencing the "weighty" problems of G-forces?  Toss in some bumpy air...  I did it 20-plus times, with no fatigue.  How is he feeling 15 or so repetitions into it?  I bet his arm weighs a ton held out in front of him like that!  Is he sliding around in his seat at all?  Are his shoulder straps tight enough?  Too tight?  Is he scared?  Did he get enough sleep?  Does he need a restroom?

And how does he move the flap lever?  Does he need to push the button in at the end, and grasp the handle to move it a notch or two?  How long does that take?  Not for me; I just twitch a finger...  Heck, half the time I'm already pulling for another notch of flaps, just waiting for the speed to hit the magical number to allow the flap to move.  

I'm ahead of the game substantially as a pilot in AH compared to a RL F4U pilot.  And that's just the flaps so far...  What else am I doing that he couldn't possibly do while manipulating the flaps?  Am I playing with trim?  Certainly I'm working the throttle...  No gear (this time anyway...)

In my opinion, this is really the crux of the matter when it comes to "unrealistic" F4U modeling.  I believe that if nobody used flaps in the AH F4U, nobody would claim that it's flight model was too easy.  And if flaps could only be manipulated 2-3 times in a fight, instead of 25+ (25-plus!  TWENTY-FIVE PLUS!!!!!  Holy crud!  25 flap adjustments in one fight that lasts what, a minute?!).  Are there any RL WWII descriptions of pilots fine-tuning/mass-manipulating their flaps like that in a fight?  In any plane type?

Limiting flap manipulation to a more realistic level would "force" the F4U to fly more like we'd expect it to, based on RL.  And the difference is obvious.  Fight an F4U pilot who doesn't use his flaps effectively; he's dead meat!  Not all F4U pilots enjoy the same advantages from the flaps, because not all of them are getting the same effect due to differences in technique.  That's key!  It's not the plane, or the flaps; it's how the flaps are being used!

This is why I say we cannot judge the AH F4U based on subjective RL claims...  The control we have over the F4U in game is at a completely different level than what a real pilot could have in a real plane.  Essentially, even if the plane is modeled absolutely flawlessly, we're still flying a completely different plane because we're not limited to controlling it as a real pilot would.

And yes...  It applies to all planes, but not necessarily equally...  Some planes were more ergo-friendly, and had better cockpit design, etc, than others.  Those should have an advantage...  Some were worse, and should be disadvantaged...  In the most "advantaged" plane in RL though, I doubt you could compete with the advantages we have with our computer control systems...

Did I mention 25 times!!!!!!

[hlbly]

Okay mntman you had to know this was coming ......those are some very small hands . Just saying 

[Ardy123]

Okay mntman you had to know this was coming ......those are some very small hands . Just saying  

Its a giant ruse.... its really MtnWmn... she was just afraid of stealing Silat's thunder!  

[mtnman]

Okay mntman you had to know this was coming ......those are some very small hands . Just saying 

Its a giant ruse.... its really MtnWmn... she was just afraid of stealing Silat's thunder! 

Shhhh... 

[Tilt]

I agree...

To further clarify what I'm talking about I've tossed together a few visuals...  

Well argued IMO............