Author Topic: F4U-1D carrier Takeoffs porked? The proof!! (Read 1290 times)

MAC · « **Reply #45 on:** October 08, 2002, 11:08:34 PM »

Ahem...

One of F4UDOA's points...and it's a big one....is that you should NOT have to use WEP to take off from CV.

Also...You should NOT have to back up to the very end of the CV to take off....what did the front-o-the-line planes do in the CV when taking off?

F4UDOA is NOT saying it CANT be done.

His point is that it should not be this hard for a plane that was designed for CV take offs. There are BIGGER, HEAVIER, more "DRAGGY" planes out there who are airborne at shorter distances than a plane designed for just over 500' take offs.

J_A_B · « **Reply #46 on:** October 08, 2002, 11:11:17 PM »

F4UDOA--

I'm glad you found my film. I hope you found it useful. As I recall, it had running commentary in it to show exactly what I was doing. I did my best to mimic the standards that you had set forth for an F4U launch--no WEP, flaps down before rolling, no rollback, generally not trying to "game the game".

I also tried to let my engine spool up before rolling, this makes a noticable difference.

Once I have time I will test other AH aircraft in a similar manner if you'd like me to. Just provide me with the takeoff conditions.

ICEMAW--

My film is exactly as you'd like to see. I do not roll back or use WEP or any of that gamey stuff; I even put the flaps down before rolling

Fully loaded F4U, full fuel, 2 x 1K bombs, 8 rockets and it gets airborne every time

I forget which old thread it's in, perhaps F4UDOA or someone else who found it could punt the old thread so interested players can find it.

Maybe someone should submit it to HTC as a "Carrier takeoff training film" heh heh heh.

J_A_B

BUG_EAF322 · « **Reply #47 on:** October 09, 2002, 12:33:04 AM »

I think the "ensign killer" as the corsair was called needs a bit more torque to.

icemaw · « **Reply #48 on:** October 09, 2002, 12:40:15 AM »

Ok just took off 6 times in MA with your T/O procedures. I died on the first try and on 3rd try but got up on the other 4. So I guess I am wrong it can be done. But its way too hard a newb would never even come close. I couldent imagine doing it in a event or mission in MA with slow frame rates as every one ups.

Wilbus · « **Reply #49 on:** October 09, 2002, 05:02:25 AM »

Never had any real trouble getting it off the deck fully loaded, took me a few times to get it right the first times I tried (prior to this post) but it can definatly been done. AS more people have posted replies with films I don't think I need to do the same.

There is one thing though, like I said before, will quote F4UDOA on it.

Quote

3. Why do twins even bombers accelerate so well? the A20G, Mossie and P-38L are way overachieving here.

Like I siad before, doesn't matter if you're flying or are on the ground. All twins out accelerated all other planes except for possibly an LA7 down low.

It's crazy and can't possibly be right.
They all turn extreemly well aswell, the A20 can be used to outturn all planes except spits/better then spits. The P38 turns even better.

It's just fantastic, surprised all countries didn't just use twins instead...

Innominate · « **Reply #50 on:** October 09, 2002, 05:32:52 AM »

I don't know any specifics, or about the mossie or a-20, but the p38 DID have excellent acceleration, and turning ability.

Twin engine designs have a lot of advantages, however they're a lot more expensive and complicated than the single-engined fighters.

Vermillion · « **Reply #51 on:** October 09, 2002, 07:47:24 AM »

The biggest problem with twins in AH is that they have almost no roll inertia, where as in real life they had considerable roll inertia.

No, I'm not discussing sustained roll rates, which seems to be right on.

Read accounts of P-38s in real combat. They describe a distinct hesitation between the time that you move the controls (in the roll direction) and the time the aircraft starts too roll. Thats because of the mass of the engines located so far off the roll centerline. Bodie's book talks about this in several places.

And no, boosted airlerons will have no effect on this at all.

The easiest way to reverse a P-38 should be a rolling scissors, with a couple of direction reversals thrown in. In AH (and WB's and AW for that matter), the P-38 will eat you up if you try that.

In AH the roll inertia is just not there.

If anyone wants to debate this, start a new thread, I don't want to hijack F4UDOA's thread.

Wilbus · « **Reply #52 on:** October 09, 2002, 09:04:19 AM »

VV Verm.

Tilt · « **Reply #53 on:** October 09, 2002, 09:08:15 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by F4UDOA
Heya's[/IMG]

Sorry if I missed it but do you have the pilots notes showing the take off and landing speeds for various loadings..........

I have noted on another AH AC that at the recommended landing speed the AH version is very unstable............. and cannot be the "recommended AH landing speed".

F4UDOA · « **Reply #54 on:** October 09, 2002, 11:30:10 AM »

Without getting into to much detail on landing speeds I will say this.

Most A/C do not stall at the right speeds. You should be able to fly an F4U down to 80MPH and land. In AH 80mph you are not flying anymore.

I think the flap may have something to do with it.

For takeoff and landing charts try Zenoswarbirds.com I'm not sure if that is the correct URL. Type it into google and you will find it.

SlapShot · « **Reply #55 on:** October 09, 2002, 01:14:26 PM »

F4UDOA,

It seems as though some of the "post-ers" are missing the point, even with all the data that you have presented.

Hurray for you ... you can get off the carrier. %99.99 can't.

The point here is that if the FM is modelled correctly, according to the specs that F4UDOA has spend a lot of time gathering, it shouldn't involve all these different incantations to do it. From what I have read in all of F4UDOA posts ... it should be rather EASY to take off. Such is not the case here.

Thanks for all the work and info F4UDOA ... very interesting !!!

F4UDOA · « **Reply #56 on:** October 09, 2002, 01:52:50 PM »

Thanks Slapshot,

I think you and a few others get it.

I was surprised to find out that I can do it to. I just need to stand with one hand in the air while dancing to do it.

It doesn't really work the way it's suposed to but I guess it's good enough for government work as they used to say.

I don't seem to have anyones attention that's going to change anything.

Red Tail 444 · « **Reply #57 on:** October 09, 2002, 02:47:32 PM »

DOA, did you get my video?

I agre that it shouldn't be AS difficult as it is, but as was posted earlier, it didn't earn the reputation as a difficult ride without reason.

I do believe that engine / power settings are point of contention, as it was determined very early on, that pushing the throttle to full power at takeoff will cause you to somersault. Such is not the case in AH.

And as for cheering the folks that can get a loaded Hog up from a CV...cheers are earned, warranted, and deserved...There are few things in AH more thrilling than that.. LOL

This is a No-Flame Zone

J_A_B · « **Reply #58 on:** October 09, 2002, 02:49:35 PM »

Eh, the problem is the fact that there's not as much deck in front of the plane as there should be. Even 50 feet more flightdeck would be a big help.

Taking off a carrier in a fully-loaded F4U should NOT be "easy". There's a REASON the USN refused to use them on carriers until towards the end of the war and even then only with a certain amount of hesitation. The F6F really is better suited for carrier operations.

I will not vouch for as to whether AH is accurate. Perhaps you misunderstand me, but my saying I CAN take off doesn't automatically mean AH must be right. All I said is I can get the plane airborne every time using the proper RL takepff procedures. That simple fact does not mean AH is right OR wrong.

If anyone can get a fully-loaded P-47D-30 off a carrier without using wep or rolling back, I'd like to see it because I can't do it and I'd like to know what I'm doing wrong

J_A_B

F4UDOA · « **Reply #59 on:** October 09, 2002, 05:47:49 PM »

JAB and RedTail,

You guys both are getting caught up in a bit of hyperbole.

The F4U had a bad reputation for landing not takeoff. In fact it served on carriers from 1944 to 1953. Years longer than the F6F. And NO change was made after 1943 to improve landing characteristics. In fact if you read Tommy Blackburns Autobiography he says the only reason it wasn't passed for carrier service in 1943 is because of logistics issues with parts and the fact that Grumman had a stranglehold on the Naval Brass.

Takeoff characteristics of the F4U where considered very good in fact. At the Joint Fighter Conferance of 1944 the F4U-1D was third in "Best overload takeoff characteristics" behind the F6F and F8F but ahead of the F7F, P-38L and FM2 in that order. In the F4U takeoff quality chart it was rated 22 good, no fair, no poor, 4 other and two no votes.

This is a far more reliable depiction of flight characteristics than a blanket "ensign eliminator" nickname. If you read Marion Carls Autobiography he says that the F4F had the same reputation in the beggining and all pilots complain when a new bird arrives.

In anycase would say the F4U takeoff rates the same as it did in 1944?

Aces High Bulletin Board