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

[mtnman]

I am constantly amased at how well the F4U family manuvers with 3 notches of flaps slowly on the deck against rides I assumed without flaps out could saddel up with no problems. A6m, Hurri1\IIC, spit1-9, Ki84, N1K2, Brewster, I16.

In all honesty, the planes you've listed CAN saddle up on me with no problems if I'm slow on the deck.  It doesn't matter how many notches of flaps I have out (but I will get saddled up on even quicker if I have 2 or more notches out).

I've come to expect spits to be just at stall, with flaps extended, and WEP to hold them in the air at the moment of a shot. While trying to win a lufbry race once everyone has flaps out on the deck. The F4U family with flaps simply appears to be able to hover in the air at slower speeds than spits on WEP with flaps extended. Often I'd rather face a K4 with flaps out. I've been through the same with a Ki84 and N1K2 and full flaps out. I was unable to hover with F4U making slow manuvers that had 3 notches of flaps out. I keep looking for the glowing cyan antigrav feild mod under the F4U's. Just an underappreciated, amasingly manuverable family of 5 ton bumble bees with awsume flaps.

But, when I try the same thing in the F4U family I simply hover flop into the ground, or get overtaken by all the planes I've listed low and slow on the deck.

Spits kill my F4U in a lufberry, every single time.  KI84's will absolutely slaughter me in a lufberry.  I'm so paranoid of being caught in a lufberry that I just don't get into them, ever, so I cannot remember how I'd perform vs. a N1K or 109.  I just assume it won't work for me, so I don't fight them (or much of anything beyond C47's) that way.  I don't fight "flat".  I'm constantly going up and down.

"Simply appears to hover with 3 notches out"...  is just that when it comes to how I fly the F4U.  It's an illusion.  I cannot hover in an F4U, and specifically when it comes to 3 notches I'm not flying "sustained" at anything much under 200mph.  200mph is pretty dang fast in reality...  Even though I'll often slow down to a low speed (150mph, which still isn't all that slow in reality) I'm doing it in situations that will immediately allow me to drop my nose and get that speed back.

Personally, I consider anything 125mph and down to be bottom-of-the-barrel useless, wallowing, hope-and-a-prayer flying in an F4U.  All the discussion about stall-speed full flaps turn radii, etc, is interesting but not all that applicable when it comes to how I fly.  The vast majority of my fighting is in the 350mph to 200mph range, with frequent (but exceedingly brief) dips to 145-150mph.  I'll fairly often drop to 125 or so, but again, it's only when I KNOW I can easily recover and get back to a "useful" speed; and it's an EXTREMELY brief foray into slow speed.  125mph for me is near-panic/desperate mode, or just a brief and practically uncontrolled "coast" as I fall off and get my nose back down.  If I'm willingly hitting that 125 mark, it's because doing so will assure me of a fight-finishing kill shot, or because I'm running out of options and if I don't do it RIGHT NOW I'm going to get shot.

I've posted gobs of films over the years.  Try to find one of me "hovering"; it's not likely to exist.  If one does exist, it's almost definitely of me in the DA or TA and it's not like any fight I would normally fly.

I honestly appreciate the compliment below, but that's just not the reality of how I fly the F4U, or how I've taught it to students as a trainer.  Low and slow, I AM fodder! 

Besides HTC's programatical offering of the F4U family, there probably is an optimal series of steps to reach hover mode in this game that a number of players execute more effectively than most within the "programed parameters" available to them at their finger tips. I remember years ago in the game when F4U low and slow were fodder except in the hands of a "few very talented experts" like MtnMan. Now days I'm a bit more wary of an F4U than an A6m or K4 in the hands of average players once the flaps are out and I'm slow with it.

Again, I may be low, but I'm seldom slow...  If I'm slow, I'm seldom low...  If I'm alive and 3K or less AGL, I'm on my way out to climb back up.  My comfort zone is 6-12K.  Most fighting for me is 2-6K.  SA is probably my largest skill, followed by my gunnery; I don't get low, slow, and caught off guard.  If you catch me low and slow I just made a kill, and I see you coming (and more importantly, I'm speeding up!).  More than any fancy flying while low and slow the thing that allows me to survive is my opponents shooting skill compared to my own.  If I can dodge an attack or two and set up a brief shot for myself I can usually come out on top.

[Ardy123]

not to steal your thunder mtnman but I remember several fights with you were we would get in a rolling scissors and both of us would be way below 100 mph at the top of the barrel rolls.

[Chalenge]

If a surface hinged horizontally can be expected to deflect air vertically (i.e. elevators, ailerons, flaps), and a surface hinged vertically can be expected to deflect air horizontally (i.e. rudder), and if the orientation of those surfaces is rotated and the deflection of the airflow changes/rotates predictably (i.e if the plane is banked 90 degrees the rudder will deflect air vertically while the elevators will deflect air horizontally) does it not logically follow that a surface hinged (or rotated) at a 45/135 degree angle would deflect air at a 45/135 degree angle?

Until it meets relative wind again, maybe.

And of course the relative wind behaves accordingly regardless of the control surface in question, right?

Relative wind is with respect to the overall vector only.

I've heard the same.  The wing-to-fuselage arrangement is also reported to be less "draggy" than other arrangements.

A myth. The relative angle of the wing makes no difference. If it did it would be less draggy on one said and more draggy on another. The gull wing was a necessity in order to get the nose further elevated to clear the prop. Otherwise the F4U would have had some very long gear.

Would it make sense that the airflow would change based on whether the slow speed was sustained or not?  At what point might we expect to see the change?  10 seconds of sustained flight?  20 seconds?  100 seconds?  This seems like an odd direction to argue, but if you can explain it further I'm all ears.

It is not the airflow past the wings, but the airflow relative to the entire aircraft. Turbulent flow from the preceeding aircraft could very well cause a problem. All of the Blacksheep engaged in turning fights with Zeros reported that the F4U "fell off badly." That does not seem to be what we hear reported in these anti-F4U threads.

Beyond two notches of flaps...  The stabilizer is mounted above the wing.  The flaps drop below the wing.  The flaps direct the airflow down, relative to the stabilizer.  If the tail is lowered, the angle of air deflection off the flaps is also lowered.  It's relative.  I'm having trouble visualizing why sustained slow flight with more flaps dropped would change things?

I don't know, maybe the answer is right in front of your nose. You drop flaps on landing and the flaps help you see over the nose better by allowing a reduced angle of attack on approach. Does that also mean you still have the same elevator authority? Can you still rate exactly the same angles with flaps out?

None of my post was directed at you or your flying. My post is directed at cartoon physics in general. In that regard I disagree with the way the F4U's flight physics play out online.

My take on it is simple. Find a WWII F4U ace (if there still is one alive) and ask him to fly the F4U against a Zeke or any other plane. See what he says. The very things they were told NOT to do, are done online regularly.

Not surprising really since the majority now thinks that a plane-for-a-plane kill/death ratio is acceptable.

[mtnman]

Until it meets relative wind again, maybe.

Relative wind is with respect to the overall vector only.

A myth. The relative angle of the wing makes no difference. If it did it would be less draggy on one said and more draggy on another. The gull wing was a necessity in order to get the nose further elevated to clear the prop. Otherwise the F4U would have had some very long gear.

It is not the airflow past the wings, but the airflow relative to the entire aircraft. Turbulent flow from the preceeding aircraft could very well cause a problem. All of the Blacksheep engaged in turning fights with Zeros reported that the F4U "fell off badly." That does not seem to be what we hear reported in these anti-F4U threads.

I don't know, maybe the answer is right in front of your nose. You drop flaps on landing and the flaps help you see over the nose better by allowing a reduced angle of attack on approach. Does that also mean you still have the same elevator authority? Can you still rate exactly the same angles with flaps out?

None of my post was directed at you or your flying. My post is directed at cartoon physics in general. In that regard I disagree with the way the F4U's flight physics play out online.

My take on it is simple. Find a WWII F4U ace (if there still is one alive) and ask him to fly the F4U against a Zeke or any other plane. See what he says. The very things they were told NOT to do, are done online regularly.

Not surprising really since the majority now thinks that a plane-for-a-plane kill/death ratio is acceptable.

Can you (or anyone else) produce film of and F4U in AH turning with a zeke?  Here's a film we can begin with-  http://www.4shared.com/file/O-qfBLYs/Me_v2_F4U_and_Zeke.html  Let's look at how/where the F4U is able to keep up with (or exceed) the A6m's turns.  We could then maybe look at the minimum speeds that both F4U's are able to maneuver effectively at vs. the speeds where they actually perform well.

And once again, go back and read my post on flap use in the F4U.  http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,338341.msg4508466.html#msg4508466

Comparing the AH F4U fight-style to RL cannot be done, since our pilots do not have the same limitations.  This isn't limited to the F4U either; the same factors play in with the other planes as well.  I'm sure you could give some examples for the planes you fly?

I don't know if the F4U model physics are accurate or not.  We can't tell, since they're masked by the pilot.

[nrshida]

However, looking at the picture you posted,...

Those are good observations and I know it is not a proof but suggestive perhaps that all modern airliners seem to have Fowlers, many multi-element and all with slim slots.

I feel intuitively that the Fowlers are the superior design but would be happy if someone could explain the incredible relative performance increase in D/Sec with the Corsair's flaps. Like you said Mtnman, what we really need is any aerodynamics expert to show up as we are only speculating.

Could one of the other Corsair specialists please do the bank angle test for comparison please.




 

[Ardy123]

Its important to note that the absence of atmospheric changes make a huge difference in our abilities to pull ACMs. If any of you have flown a real airplane, the first thing you will notice is that there is always some level of turbulence and it DOES impact your flying... As a matter of fact, most people the first time they grab the stick they spend all their energy over correcting for the turbulence and not even really 'flying'.

[Chalenge]

Can you (or anyone else) produce film of and F4U in AH turning with a zeke?  Here's a film we can begin with-  http://www.4shared.com/file/O-qfBLYs/Me_v2_F4U_and_Zeke.html  Let's look at how/where the F4U is able to keep up with (or exceed) the A6m's turns.  We could then maybe look at the minimum speeds that both F4U's are able to maneuver effectively at vs. the speeds where they actually perform well.

And once again, go back and read my post on flap use in the F4U.  http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,338341.msg4508466.html#msg4508466

Comparing the AH F4U fight-style to RL cannot be done, since our pilots do not have the same limitations.  This isn't limited to the F4U either; the same factors play in with the other planes as well.  I'm sure you could give some examples for the planes you fly?

I don't know if the F4U model physics are accurate or not.  We can't tell, since they're masked by the pilot.

I dont fly F4Us or yes I could. Not that I mean an F4U actually can turn with a Zeke, but that online it can appear to do so. I have killed Zekes with a P-51 and had them complain that I (c-word) because a Mustang cannot out turn a Zeke. It's all about perspective. The reason I mentioned it in my post earlier is because an F4U CAN turn with a Zeke, if the Zeke pilot does not understand about energy levels, trim, and the tactical egg. In that case, yes, the flaps do help the watchful F4U pilot.

Yes, every plane in the game diverges from reality in at least one regard. We fly them all at 100% throttle all the time. Well, actually I don't. But then again I'm conserving fuel and doing other things that DA cry-baby/moonbats can't grasp.

(not directed at you)

[bustr]

Did some offline testing with an F4U-1A and a spit9 at 1000ft. F4U 3 notches of flaps, spit flap down. 25% fuel.

The goal was to allow both planes to slow down to a stall from level then see how they recovered. See how slowly I could fly a steep banked circle on WEP and keep the flaps down. See if I could perform any manuvers.

The F4U is easier to fly under 100ta than the spit and where I get the uphamism "hover" from. My aplogies for a poor tech descriptor versus an insulting one. The spit once stalled dosen't recover befor pancaking. The F4U handles the stall flop departure better. I had to stall twice to get a pancake becasue I recovered too quickly back to a wollowing hover. The spit suddenly just stops flying and starts belly flopping with no ability to recover inside of 1000ft. The F4U is better controlable in terms of ultra slow manuvers than the spit which is doing it's best just flying in a slow circle at 100 or slower.

Maybe the line of questioning should be separated into what are you trying to do with the F4U flaps in this "computer program" we call Aces High? Our benifactor who programed the F4U chose the numbers. We only do the best we can with the results in the game.

1. - How do the F4U flaps facilitate flying it low to the ground at speeds just at and below 100ta compaired to other rides? Contrary to popular beleif in fighter types and manuverability. It seems 100ta and slower as a combat flight envelope reveils different strengths and weaknesses than most players expect or can leverage in the heat of the moment. My misguided uphamism of "hovering". Hey a new name for the F4U family: Hover Hogs. Anyone remember the UFO N1K2?

2. - How do the F4U flaps facilitate flying it through WW2 normative combat manuvers?

I've never been shot down by F4U in 100ta and lower manuvering near the deck. I always pancake trying to pull angles while the Hog slowley hovers off. Granted if I chose to get that low and slow with that Hog in the first place. If you aren't paying attention you can get sucked into low and slow while trying to avoid overshooting the Hog. Reference back to my earlier comment about being wary of F4U with their flaps out. From my 11 years of experience with this game the F4U family just does that hovering thing better than at any time I can remember in the last couple of years.

[Brakechk]

In all honesty, the planes you've listed CAN saddle up on me with no problems if I'm slow on the deck.  It doesn't matter how many notches of flaps I have out (but I will get saddled up on even quicker if I have 2 or more notches out).

Spits kill my F4U in a lufberry, every single time.  KI84's will absolutely slaughter me in a lufberry.  I'm so paranoid of being caught in a lufberry that I just don't get into them, ever, so I cannot remember how I'd perform vs. a N1K or 109.  I just assume it won't work for me, so I don't fight them (or much of anything beyond C47's) that way.  I don't fight "flat".  I'm constantly going up and down.

"Simply appears to hover with 3 notches out"...  is just that when it comes to how I fly the F4U.  It's an illusion.  I cannot hover in an F4U, and specifically when it comes to 3 notches I'm not flying "sustained" at anything much under 200mph.  200mph is pretty dang fast in reality...  Even though I'll often slow down to a low speed (150mph, which still isn't all that slow in reality) I'm doing it in situations that will immediately allow me to drop my nose and get that speed back.

Personally, I consider anything 125mph and down to be bottom-of-the-barrel useless, wallowing, hope-and-a-prayer flying in an F4U.  All the discussion about stall-speed full flaps turn radii, etc, is interesting but not all that applicable when it comes to how I fly.  The vast majority of my fighting is in the 350mph to 200mph range, with frequent (but exceedingly brief) dips to 145-150mph.  I'll fairly often drop to 125 or so, but again, it's only when I KNOW I can easily recover and get back to a "useful" speed; and it's an EXTREMELY brief foray into slow speed.  125mph for me is near-panic/desperate mode, or just a brief and practically uncontrolled "coast" as I fall off and get my nose back down.  If I'm willingly hitting that 125 mark, it's because doing so will assure me of a fight-finishing kill shot, or because I'm running out of options and if I don't do it RIGHT NOW I'm going to get shot.

I've posted gobs of films over the years.  Try to find one of me "hovering"; it's not likely to exist.  If one does exist, it's almost definitely of me in the DA or TA and it's not like any fight I would normally fly.

I honestly appreciate the compliment below, but that's just not the reality of how I fly the F4U, or how I've taught it to students as a trainer.  Low and slow, I AM fodder! 

Again, I may be low, but I'm seldom slow...  If I'm slow, I'm seldom low...  If I'm alive and 3K or less AGL, I'm on my way out to climb back up.  My comfort zone is 6-12K.  Most fighting for me is 2-6K.  SA is probably my largest skill, followed by my gunnery; I don't get low, slow, and caught off guard.  If you catch me low and slow I just made a kill, and I see you coming (and more importantly, I'm speeding up!).  More than any fancy flying while low and slow the thing that allows me to survive is my opponents shooting skill compared to my own.  If I can dodge an attack or two and set up a brief shot for myself I can usually come out on top.

This perfectly illustrates reasons for my lack of success in the F4U.  It was my main ride in AW before I started in AH then in AH I stuck with it for a bit then switched off to some other rides for various reasons.  I recently returned after about 4 years and it seems to be noticably different from what it once was.  After reading this post and being suprised at the differences in fighting them from before I decided to try it out again.  I am most used to the Ki-84 with some messing round in the 109 series (K and G).  I am not afraid of getting very slow on the deck with these birds as they have relatively good acceleration.  I find it easier to manage the fight starting from a low E state.  One of the big advantages of the Ki and 109 is the ability to build E relatively quickly or cycle my E from a low state to a higher state. 

I know that the hog is a tough fight in a Ki (for me, against pilots of relatively equal skill) in a 1 v 1 situation.  I wind up in many rolling scissors fighting in the Ki (by choice) and have always thought that plane was pretty good in that situation (esp hanging in the vertical at the top).  That's a bad idea with a well flown hog for me now....I have to take the fight into more of a persistant spiral climb now rather than staying in a rolling scissors.  So guess what...when I'm flying the hog I'm all over the rolling scissors.  I do okay 1 v 1 but in a furball things fall apart for me.  I try to fight like I'm in a Ki or 109 and get low and slow with little thought.  However once it's gone on the deck in a hog it takes far longer to get back.  This means evading extra attackers is very hard...you're basically a wallowing fat target for quite a while after getting slow.  I need to change my mindset to be successful in that bird and all these posts have good info for adjusting....thanks for the info all. 

Zaphod

[lyric1]

lets not speculate any more
See what the experts found with wind tunnel tests back in the day.

88 pages of facts  & pictures for the likes of me who can't make heads or tails of it.


http://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc62595/m1/1/?q=f4u

The rest are on various other f4U stuff.

http://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc64921/m1/1/?q=f4u

http://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc65254/m1/1/

http://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc59301/m1/1/?q=f4u corsair

This one has data on several naval planes.

http://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc58478/m1/1/?q=f4u

[bozon]

Those are good observations and I know it is not a proof but suggestive perhaps that all modern airliners seem to have Fowlers, many multi-element and all with slim slots.

I feel intuitively that the Fowlers are the superior design but would be happy if someone could explain the incredible relative performance increase in D/Sec with the Corsair's flaps. Like you said Mtnman, what we really need is any aerodynamics expert to show up as we are only speculating.

The part that is confusing is the requirement of a sustained turn. Two major things may limit your turn (there are also minor effects): maximum lift and engine power. The lift part is quite intuitive - if you cannot pull more G because you have reached the maximal angle of attack, you cannot increase DPS. Flaps may allow you to raise the max lift limit and thus the DPS limit.

The power is less intuitive. Being power limited means that the wings CAN produce more lift (i.e. currently not at max angle of attack), but the added drag will exceed what the engine can compensate for and the plane will lose speed/alt - i.e. the turn is not sustained. If you are power limited, flaps will not help you at all, they'll add to the max attainable lift that you do not reach and add drag at the current amount of lift (worse L/D) that will make the turn unsustainable. A more powerful engine can increase sustained DPS in power-limited situations.

Fowlers add lift with a relatively (to other types) small amount of drag added. I don't have numbers, but I think it is unlikely that they improve over all L/D (lift/drag) ratio, otherwise they will be left extended all the time. So, for a plane that is lift limited, they raise the lift cap, but also the required power - both because the lift is increasing and because L/D became worse. Since the power is available you compensate for the added drag and net a DPS gain. Other kind of flaps will increase lift, but raise the required power even more and may hit the power limit. Beyond a certain extension of the flaps (of any type) both L/D and the absolute drag become so bad that the available power is not enough and the plane is power limited. Any further extension of the flaps will make DPS worse since it will add drag, but not lift.

[lyric1]

lets not speculate any more
See what the experts found with wind tunnel tests back in the day.

88 pages of facts  & pictures for the likes of me who can't make heads or tails of it.


http://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc62595/m1/1/?q=f4u

The rest are on various other f4U stuff.

http://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc64921/m1/1/?q=f4u

http://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc65254/m1/1/

http://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc59301/m1/1/?q=f4u corsair

This one has data on several naval planes.

http://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc58478/m1/1/?q=f4u

Has any one read any of these & figured anything out of note?

[mtnman]

Has any one read any of these & figured anything out of note?

I spent a lot of time looking over the first link.  It doesn't seem very applicable to the discussion, but I found it very interesting.  I haven't had time to look at the other ones yet.

The first link is basically a summary of a group of tests performed with design features in mind.  They're trying to figure out shapes, hinge points, etc, in an effort to settle on the best options.

There's nothing that I saw that would (directly) relate (or translate, anyway) to the F4U turn performance, etc...

I honestly don't think a wind tunnel test is likely to explain what we're looking for anyway. 

And if it did, I suspect that we'd find that it meshes pretty close to what the F4U model is capable of in AH (or at least we'd find it difficult to find fault with the AH version).  Not that a real pilot could do what we do in AH; rather that the plane in RL is/was capable of more than the pilot's were/are capable of doing with it.  In AH we don't have those same pilot limitations.

[Gixer]

Try and compare to real life plane and pilots as much as you like. But one thing is certain and that is the AH model of F4U is ridiculous that a plane so heavy can almost float about like a zeke with its uber flaps when needed. Then it can use it's other trick dump landing gear at high speeds to prevent overshoot as if it's got a Maverick like F14 Air Brake maneuver straight out of Top Gun.

Yet tell that to F4U sticks and they all say, no no never use landing gear yet get them into a position when they need to and they all do.

imho no other plane in the entire plane set has more ridiculous tricks and performance than the F4U

Updated a few years ago and it's become the US best ride ever since for all the wrong reasons.

F4U had big flaps for landing the heavy plane on carriers, not for doing barrel rolls at 100mph. It had heavy landing gear for carrier landings, not to act as speed brakes at 300mph.

And it certainly didn't sustain constant low speed turns like a lighter more agile fighter.



<S>...-Gixer

[Lusche]

It had heavy landing gear for carrier landings, not to act as speed brakes at 300mph.

Not correct. The F4U gear was designed to be used as a speed brake. See this WW2 F4U training film, at about 14:30 it's shown how a pilot would deploy gear for use as an airbrake in a dive. The pilot would use the dive brake control lever, which would lower the gear while keeping the tail wheel up.