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

[Gixer]

Yes extend as a dive brake, but could it then do a series of barrel rolls with the gear still extended and partial flaps?


<S>...-Gixer

[FLS]

Yes extend as a dive brake, but could it then do a series of barrel rolls with the gear still extended and partial flaps?


<S>...-Gixer

Why not?

[mtnman]

Try and compare to real life plane and pilots as much as you like.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to defend the flight model.  I don't know that it's correct... 

However, it's certainly withstood gobs of argument, and even a fair amount of number-crunching and mathematics.  I have strong doubts that there's info "out there" that can refute what we see.  Lots of anecdotal evidence for sure, but I'm not seeing any hard data at all.  There's been ton's of time/opportunity for someone to step forward and offer something up, but no takers.

I think it's pointless to go down the "it's all wrong" path without some factual evidence.  It brings to mind the ol' "definition of insanity" quote.

Do you refute my theory on pilot ability RL vs. AH?  I'd love to hear your argument.  Personally, I think it accounts for all of the "inaccuracies" we hear about the F4U flight model, and I'm positive we see the same thing with many other "planes" as well..  I'm sure it benefits us all over, but maybe unfairly so with the planes that require the pilot to be extra-busy to be successful.

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.

The ol' "floats like a zeke with it's uber flaps" is a pretty serious over-statement, that immediately makes me suspicious that the "victim" is lacking factual knowledge of how he's getting beat, so he's just using the "floats" argument as a crutch.  Same thing for the ol' "landing gear" argument.

The super-slow "floater" F4U is an easy kill.  So is the one with the gear out.  And neither of them are doing much of anything if they're under 120mph (which is far from "floating" BTW).

I dug this out of my films today.  If you compare my F4U to your Yak, I think you'll see a few things.  First, no gear!  Second, very little slow flight by me...  I dipped to 116mph and (156mph for the kill) very briefly, but what was the average speed of the fight?  Even in the scissors I was doing what 180mph?  You actually allowed yourself to get slower than me (on the rope), and when you got into your scissors I stayed behind you, but also stayed FASTER than you.

You didn't get killed by a "floating, gear dropping F4U"; you got killed by your use of 3D space.  I'm not assuming that's always the case, but I'd love to see film of a "floating, gear dropping F4U" causing you problems.

http://www.4shared.com/file/s0tnnCfs/Gixer_Yak.html

Too much flap use by me in the fight?  I'd say yes!  But, that takes things back to the AH pilot vs. RL pilot argument again.

[mtnman]

Why not?

I'm trying to wrap my head around that one too.

[Chalenge]

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.

I found a few things in there which makes me think you didn't look very hard. Within the first few pages of the report is the statement that aileron efficiency diminishes rapidly with flap deployment. Now, I have not flow the F4U much, but I would expect that to be readily tested.

Haven't seen anyone mention having tried it, but plenty of previous tests with turn circle measurements, and roll rate measurements. So, how exactly does someone measure their turn rate in the game? turn circle radius? so on. . .

[nrshida]

However, it's certainly withstood gobs of argument, and even a fair amount of number-crunching and mathematics...

Failing to prove a hypothesis is not a proof of the contrary no matter how many times that cycle is repeated.

I've learned two things about the AH Corsair from this thread alone which is odd or so far inexplicable. Firstly that the departure characteristics described in the official training film do not match the characteristics of the departure in game. Not by a long way. And secondly and apparently uniquely the Corsair's turn rate improves with flaps when for every other aircraft, including those with an arguably superior design they can can only match the rate at best.

The latter aspect apparently none of us have sufficient in-depth knowledge about flap design and performance to make headway with the discussion (and indeed may be correct no matter how counterintuitive it appears) and the former has apparently been dismissed because the training film has been categorized as 'anecdotal' (unsuccessfully in my eyes).

This is of course understandable, no one wants to see their favourite plane knobbled. But withstanding the kind of 'argument' than normally transpires on this forum is the furthest thing from conclusive.

[nrshida]

.

[mtnman]

This is of course understandable, no one wants to see their favourite plane knobbled. But withstanding the kind of 'argument' than normally transpires on this forum is the furthest thing from conclusive.

Please understand, I think ALL the planes are too easier to fly than they should be, and I'd love to see every one of them modeled to be as realistic as possible.  That includes the F4U...

And I agree with you, that these arguments go around in circles with little on no real evidence, which is why they go around in circles.

Failing to prove a hypothesis is not a proof of the contrary no matter how many times that cycle is repeated.

I've learned two things about the AH Corsair from this thread alone which is odd or so far inexplicable. Firstly that the departure characteristics described in the official training film do not match the characteristics of the departure in game. Not by a long way. And secondly and apparently uniquely the Corsair's turn rate improves with flaps when for every other aircraft, including those with an arguably superior design they can can only match the rate at best.

The latter aspect apparently none of us have sufficient in-depth knowledge about flap design and performance to make headway with the discussion (and indeed may be correct no matter how counterintuitive it appears) and the former has apparently been dismissed because the training film has been categorized as 'anecdotal' (unsuccessfully in my eyes).

This is one of the best investigations into the F4U flaps I've seen.  Is it correct?  Got me, the math is beyond my level of interest...

http://www.electraforge.com/brooke/flightsims/aces_high/stallSpeedMath/stallSpeedMath.html

It's from this thread, and I think DTango also wrote something up.

http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,208942.0.html

It seems to me Brooke found an error, and tweaked his report to coincide, but I don't recall.  It may be worth looking for.

[Saxman]

I found a few things in there which makes me think you didn't look very hard. Within the first few pages of the report is the statement that aileron efficiency diminishes rapidly with flap deployment. Now, I have not flow the F4U much, but I would expect that to be readily tested.

Haven't seen anyone mention having tried it, but plenty of previous tests with turn circle measurements, and roll rate measurements. So, how exactly does someone measure their turn rate in the game? turn circle radius? so on. . .

Chalenge,

IIRC, that was talking about special leading edge flaps added in front of the ailerons as a test, NOT the actual flaps standard on the Corsair.

[nrshida]

Please understand, I think ALL the planes are too easier to fly than they should be,

Just to play Devil's advocate a little further, what about the FW190?

Got me, the math is beyond my level of interest...

Well said 

[Noir]

nrshida is going all 'gaston' on us

[nrshida]

It's just an example of the contrast in reception to comments about the flight modelling between both types on this forum.

Nuke did you read my recent dissertation on how the flexing of the Spitfire's wings in a turn fight contributed lift by flapping like a bird? It was so convinced that Gaston had to go away and do the maths. 

[Noir]

it was brilliant but I miss him now :

[FLS]

This is one of the best investigations into the F4U flaps I've seen.  Is it correct?  Got me, the math is beyond my level of interest...

http://www.electraforge.com/brooke/flightsims/aces_high/stallSpeedMath/stallSpeedMath.html

It seems to me Brooke found an error, antweaked his report to coincide, but I don't recall.  It may be worth looking for.

I assume you mean stall speeds not flaps? I didn't see anything in the power on climbing stall test that allowed for the reduced load factor, maybe that was the error you mentioned?

Every newbie crashes the F4U but some AH vets think it's too easy to fly. I've never heard of an experienced F4U pilot claiming that the real aircraft was hard to fly, perhaps somebody has a link?

[GScholz]

It's just an example of the contrast in reception to comments about the flight modelling between both types on this forum.

Nuke did you read my recent dissertation on how the flexing of the Spitfire's wings in a turn fight contributed lift by flapping like a bird? It was so convinced that Gaston had to go away and do the maths. 

Which one of them is Nuke?