Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: Brocster on February 28, 2008, 07:50:02 PM
-
First of all, apologies ahead of time. I have been away from the game for almost three years. I started back in 2001 and had to leave in 2005. This question may be a bit dated/obvious now, but I am just getting my feet wet again.
Soooooo....
My opinion is that the Corsairs in the past were a bit undermodeled. I have nothing to base this on other than the fact that their performance in the Arena's did not fit the reputation they had in the historical frame of reference (where many regarded them as the finest prop fighter ever).
The question is this: WERE they a bit undermodeled back a few years ago, and, has the modelling improved a bit? The Corsairs seem to fly a bit better and, more honestly, I have been getting shot down a bit more by them! :) Fully admit that my piloting skills could have been the reason I felt they were "undermodelled".
I appreciate your comments and I look forward to being in the game a bit! See you in there!
CrzeMonk (Former SEBrock, former CrzyMonk)
:aok
-
I *believe* that the flight model was updated, or atleast thier flaps were. Either way, they now have "teh uber-flappen."
donkey
-
The entire airflow system was recoded, and somewhere along the way F4us suddenly started turning like spits, instead of like p47s (what they used to do), suddenly they don't dip wings in stalls, are gentle as babes in the woods, and are uber monsters, compared to what they used to be.
I think they are overmodeled NOW, not back then.
-
Originally posted by Krusty
The entire airflow system was recoded, and somewhere along the way F4us suddenly started turning like spits, instead of like p47s (what they used to do), suddenly they don't dip wings in stalls, are gentle as babes in the woods, and are uber monsters, compared to what they used to be.
I think they are overmodeled NOW, not back then.
I have original film that PROVES the corsairs arent stalling right. I took off from a CV today, TOTALLY botched the takeoff. I SHOULD have augered in without a chance, but instead my F-4U flew off like nothing was wrong!
-
It's not so much the effectiveness of the aircraft's flaps. Even based on stall speeds alone, the F4U's flaps generate an IMPRESSIVE amount of lift compared to other aircraft, so it's not surprising that they'd provide a significant benefit towards turn radius (that said, I personally try to stay out of situations where I need more than two notches).
The main question is the low-speed, high-power stall.
HOWEVER...
After watching the stall demonstration in the training video someone posted in the previous thread on this subject, I think it's worth noting that when power on and full flaps the aircraft showed nose-tuck and a tendency to fall towards the left in the stall, but it was only with flaps RETRACTED with power on that the F4U actually snapped over on departure in the power-on stall. Additionally, it was with the power OFF with full flaps that likewise generated the instant flip-over on stall.
-
Incidentally,
I thought I remember either reading or hearing that the main cause of accidents during landing wasn't so much departure behavior of the stall itself, but from inexperienced pilots over-compensating during the stall and applying too much power too suddenly. The sudden increase in torque would then snap the F4U right over.
Again, I'm not certain on this one so take it with a grain of salt until someone with access to better information can confirm.
-
It's not so much the effectiveness of the aircraft's flaps. Even based on stall speeds alone, the F4U's flaps generate an IMPRESSIVE amount of lift compared to other aircraft, so it's not surprising that they'd provide a significant benefit towards turn radius (that said, I personally try to stay out of situations where I need more than two notches).
The F4U flaps and their ingenious placement on the trailing edge is no doubt a very interesting design concept to consider, and it is entirely believeable that they may be (up to some extent) more effective than some of its counterparts in various planes.
However, technically they are nothing but plain flaps, and this fact is clearly stated in even inHTC's own Planes&Vehicles page (http://www.flyaceshigh.com/ahhelp/models/f4u1d.html), from which I quote;
The F4U-1D has a plain flap that is designed to also aid maneuvering at a setting of up to 20 degrees. This setting will provide an enhancement to the plane's turning capabilities at a low cost in additional drag. If you get caught in a turning fight, use of the maneuver setting is highly recommended. The maneuver flap setting can be used up to speeds of 230 MPH. For takeoff, 20 degrees of flaps is the normal setting. Maximum flap deflection is 50 degrees.
Ultimately, a flap is nothing but a mere aid.
There are many planes in AH with flaps which are techincally more efficient than those of the F4Us, and despite that there are clear limits to how it performs in relation to its basic spec.
For example, it has been long rumored throughout AH1 and AH2 that the P-38s can turn very well for its size. Actual turn radius testings, including some of my own, have proved that the magic of the P-38s lie in their inherent stability in knife fight situations due to the non-torque status, rather than the turn radius itself, which has proved to be nothing too impressive.
Both Mosq's and my own testings, confirm the P-38J turns the worst of the following 4 planes; Spit9, Bf109G-6, P-47D-11, P-38J: whether with or without flaps.
The actual testings on true physical capabilities of the P-38, is in great discrepancy with empirical experience of many people in which the P-38 seems to turn much better than it actually can. In effect, it proves what some people have been guessing for a long time.
Many people note highly of how the P-38 is equipped with a Fowler-type flap system which is often quoted to be most efficient. They usually attribute the excellent maneuvering characteristics of the P-38 to its flaps - which, quite contrary in reality, as proved by testings, does not actually help out the lumbering fifteen-thousand pound, twin-engined plane by much in turn maneuvering. The P-38, in game as it is, has its turn radius closest to the Fw190s than any other plane. (The Fw190s, ofcourse, being the worst turners in the game)
What does this tell us?
It tells us no matter how efficient a flap is, it's not going to make a big, heavy plane overcome a much lighter, nimble plane that is inherently designed to turn better.
The P-38 utilizes its special status as a plane with neutered torque, which allows its pilots to excell in harsh maneuvering despite its unimpressive turning radius (even with the "efficient" Fowler flaps). So then, what's the F4U got, besides its flaps, that makes it physically turn so much better in actuallity?
Go to the AH Fighter comparisons page and try a comparison of the following 4 planes:
F4U-1, F6F-5, Spit9 and the FM-2.
Compare the turn radius performance of the 4 planes, and one immediately realizes something is truly weird with how the flaps benefit the F4U.
The worst turning aircraft in normal flight condition, suddenly becomes the 2nd best with full flaps, almost bordering on the performance levels of the FM-2. If the flaps alone can shake around turn radius performance like that, then it is logical to assume the F4U flaps are either providing too much lift, or providing too much stability - because flaps alone, no matter how efficient the system is, will not be able to such drastically alter how a plane can turn.
I don't think you can keep defending and justifying the current performance of the F4U with the "it's the flaps" reasoning any more. Even Widewing has some choice words to say about the F4U's turn performance being too extreme. He says the same things about the 109s, but 109s at least have the "slats" defense to go by, as well as being a very small and lightweight plane than compared to American iron.
What's the F4U got beside its flaps, that allows it to physically(not anecdotally) become such a well-turning plane, despite its large size and weight, and a powerful P&W engine full of dangerous torque forces, at such extremely low speeds during knife fighting?
Try another comparison in the fighter comparisons page, this time a F4U-1 against a Ki-84.
The Ki-84's also equipped with a highly efficient flap, much more than the Corsair. The two planes are both single-engined, and normal flight conditions show that the Ki-84 has a clear edge over the F4U in turning radius.
But then, in full flaps, the F4U plain smack outturns the Ki-84, a plane much lighter in weight, inherently better off in wingloading (as demonstrated by normal flight conditions), equipped with one of the most efficient flap systems in the game.
The Ki-84 is a lighter, better turning plane, with at least as efficient flap systems in place, and the much heavier F4U, with higher engine torque, higher wingloading, just outturns it because of the flaps?
Dude, how can this not be strange?
-
It must be a typo. It is well-known by the F4U buffs that the Corsair carries slotted flaps, not plain flaps.
But I think that you may be correct to some extent. The F4U turns too tight... it's ridiculously good even for slotted flaps.
Btw, turn radius isn't everything. The P-38 has a dreadful turn radius but it turns so tremendously fast (since its flaps ARE efficient in that they provide higher lift coefficients for a lower cost in drag compared to other planes' flaps) that it can pull a lower angle of attack than another plane but encounter much less drag. So turn RATE is more important.
-
But I think that you may be correct to some extent. The F4U turns too tight... it's ridiculously good even for slotted flaps.
Btw, turn radius isn't everything. The P-38 has a dreadful turn radius but it turns so tremendously fast (since its flaps ARE efficient in that they provide higher lift coefficients for a lower cost in drag compared to other planes' flaps) that it can pull a lower angle of attack than another plane but encounter much less drag. So turn RATE is more important.
True.
What you have mentioned is sort of the point: despite the efficient flaps, the Fowlers do not really help out in greatly shortening the pure physical turn radius of the P-38 - contrary, to which many people believe.
Instead, like you've mentioned, the excellent Fowlers act in conjunction with the neutered-torque status of the P-38, in which it can pull high physical extremes and make its transition from powerful initial/instantaneous turn into a low-speed, high AoA sustained turn in a very natural and smooth manner - whereas most single engined planes experience a very discomforting transitional phase in trying to slow down to a sustained turn, due to instability coming from torque effects.
As a result, the P-38, despite the horrid pure physical turn radius, in many cases outturns planes with a smaller turn radius.
But the F4U... its flaps allows it to outturn other planes by giving it a physically smaller turning radius than planes that are almost half its weight and size, and turns better than itself in normal flight conditions - which implies the flaps are giving the Corsair a lift powerful enough to make a heavy, inherently worse turning plane, physically turn the tables when its flaps are out.
Now, that's some flaps. Makes one almost wonder if Chance-Vaught invented a anti-G device in the form of flaps.
-
Some bizarre side-effect of the F4U's wing configuration?
-
I don't believe I've seen any sources quoting the "inverted gull wing" had more to do with than just 1) solving the landing gear problem and 2) providing a relatively low-drag design for the fairings.
On the other hand, almost every source quotes the 'Ensign eliminator' problem, where they often mention;
... the inevitable issue of the enormous torque of the Double Wasp: if a pilot was waved off a carrier landing, he would throttle up and bank off to the left for another pass, and the Corsair had a nasty tendency to flip over on its back if revved up incautiously.
Yet another peculiarity was that, due to propwash effects, the left wing would stall before the right on the landing approach, which tended to make the aircraft roll to the left as well.
..
If there are any sources out there which mentions that a gull-wing would provide enough beneficial effects to enable a twelve-thousand pound aircraft physically outturn (by the radius) a seven-thousand pound aircraft (which normally outturns it by a wide margin), when flaps are being used for both aircraft, I'd love to see what the aerodynamical explanation is behind it.
If there aren't any particular sources noting that a F4U's gull wings had some sort of fantastic effect that is highly beneficial specifically when it is engaged in a low-speed sustained turn contest with flaps engaged, then I would think it'd be logical to assume the FM concerning the flaps is wrong, rather than assume the F4U had some previously unrecognized potential which defies empirical circumstances.
In simpler terms, I don't see how a F4U can physically outturn by the radius a contemporary Spitfire or a Ki-84 with full flaps, when both the Spit and the Ki outturns the F4U easily during normal turns without flaps. The lumbering F4U suddenly turns into a FM2 - just because of the flaps, which I call "weird".
-
A couple of definitions:
Use of flaps tends to lower the stalling angle of attack. Even though the coefficient of lift is raised, the wing actually stalls earlier, with respect to AoA.
Plain Flap: Adds camber to the wing, creating more lift.
Split Flap: Adds camber, but with more drag
Slotted Flap: Adds camber to the wing, but due to the gap between the flap and the wing, allows air to pass through, meaning it creates more lift with less relative drag
Fowler Flap: As the flap extends down and back, it creates camber and increases wing area, so in effect, Fowler flaps not only create more lift, but also reduce wing loading, to a degree.
While Fowler Flaps are considered the "most efficient", this is a misleading term, as a more proper description would be "have the most potential". Just because one aircraft has Fowler Flaps and another has a plain or split flap, it cannot be said that the aircraft with the Fowlers always has a more efficient flap system. In fact, it is possible that an aircraft with merely plain flaps can have a more effective and efficient flap system than one with Fowlers, if its properly designed. There are many more variables that impact the effectiveness and efficiency of the flap system on any given aircraft. In the perpetual use of trade-offs in aircraft design, designers are always looking to strike the best compromise of desired aerodynamic characteristics that allow the aircraft to perform its designed mission. Things like flap chord, flap span, flap angle, flapped airfoil characteristics, and most importantly, flapped wing area (that portion of the wing that is actually affected by the flaps) are some of the various factors that come into play. I'd have to do some research to confirm my suspicion, but the Corsair seems to have broad chord flaps, and a great deal of flapped wing area. It'd be interesting to find some scale drawings of the aircraft previously mentioned and do the analysis to determine if there were any characteristics related to the geometry that could spell the difference.
In game, its all the same "air" that each plane is flying in, so there has to be a difference with the geometry that makes the Corsair flaps so effective. I'm not saying they're exactly right, but obviously are in harmony with the flight model, so I suspect there is a reason as to why, other than simply "uber-ness".
-
Heaven help us, don't make this about P38s Kweassa. That discussion has been beaten to death :)
He was asking about F4U's:aok
-
Has anyone done a real study of the F4U's flap design? As stated previously they definitely provide a HUGE amount of lift, as is evident from the significant reduction in stall speed, compared to the flaps of, say, the P-51. And as Pappy mentioned, the F4U used slotted flaps which, as pointed out by Stoney, cause less drag.
This is also why I think it's important to know HOW the flaps work in regards to the airflow code. Does HTC just plug in an estimate of how much lift the flaps provide? Or do they tell the game the angle, chord and area of the flaps, how it affects the wing area, and let the airflow over the flaps determine this itself?
I won't deny that engine torque in the F4Us need to be addressed, (the same is probably also the case in other aircraft as well) but so far no one's really posted convincing data that shows that the effect of flaps on turn radius by itself (disregarding low-speed, high-power stability issues from engine torque) is off.
-
Originally posted by Stoney
I'd have to do some research to confirm my suspicion, but the Corsair seems to have broad chord flaps, and a great deal of flapped wing area. It'd be interesting to find some scale drawings of the aircraft previously mentioned and do the analysis to determine if there were any characteristics related to the geometry that could spell the difference.
I think you've hit the nail on the head. Whatever carrier landing difficulties the Corsair experienced, I've never read that it was too "hot."
Three view drawings (http://www.airwar.ru/other/draw_fw.html)
The first list of drawings are Russian planes. Some of these drawings are not high quality, but some seem useful.
Slotted flaps.
(http://www.cybermodeler.net/aircraft/f4u/images/dux_f4u_05.jpg)
(http://www.cybermodeler.net/aircraft/f4u/images/kzoo_f4u_05.jpg)
(http://www.cybermodeler.net/aircraft/f4u/images/nasm_f4u_07.jpg)
Spitfire flaps
(http://www.cybermodeler.net/aircraft/spitfire/images/chi_spit_10.jpg)
Best Regards
-
Originally posted by Saxman
And as Pappy mentioned, the F4U used slotted flaps which, as pointed out by Stoney, cause less drag.
Compared to what? This is what I was talking about. You can't make a statement like that. Just because they're slotted doesn't necessarily make them "less draggy" than another plane with plain flaps.
This is also why I think it's important to know HOW the flaps work in regards to the airflow code. Does HTC just plug in an estimate of how much lift the flaps provide? Or do they tell the game the angle, chord and area of the flaps, how it affects the wing area, and let the airflow over the flaps determine this itself?
This is probably where we wander into proprietary territory. I wouldn't expect HTC to tell us how they model it. What I suggest is to draw comparisons based on how aerodynamicists do it today. There are formulas and principles that can be applied. But, it takes some work to do it properly. However, even they can't be taken at face value. They should merely can be used to draw comparisons or to expound on a theory that something in the FM may not be working accurately.
I won't deny that engine torque in the F4Us need to be addressed, (the same is probably also the case in other aircraft as well)
Again, compared to what? I'm not saying that the torque is exactly what was experienced by a Corsair pilot back in the day. What I am saying is that, compared to the rest of the aircraft in the plane set, what do you base that statement on. Do you have a set of data to make the comparison?
-
Slotted flaps are nothing new, nor nothing spectacularly uber.
(http://www.top-flite.com/airplanes/topa0135-5b.jpg)
P-47s had 'em.
109Es had 'em too.
Using that as an excuse/justification for why the F4us shave off 50% of their turn while in full flaps, while almost all the other planes with similar flaps get about 25% improvement, is a false claim.
Let's be a little realistic here. The F4U was a nice plane. So was the P-51, so was the F6F. But it didn't fly like THIS game would have you think. Also, note that the AH1 corsairs, nobody complained about lack of performance, but they handled more like p-47s. Here, they gain massive performance enhancements, regular folks say "wait a minute" and then all of a sudden we get a lot of corsair fans standing up for the new performance.
My question is: Where were you when the AH1 performance was uncontested? If this is "right" why hasn't the 8 years of USN pilots in this game cried out to correct it?
Not any damning evidence, but food for thought.
EDIT: Please, also note the spring flaps shown in the F4u underside are probably related to the guns. They only exist directly behind the guns. Maybe to reduce residue buildup etc on the flaps when guns are fired. Note that all along the rest of the flaps these do not exist, and there's precious little air that can get in and across the top from the buttom. Sure, some would, but not as much as a modern airliner's flaps (if you've ever seen those you know what I mean).
-
In Greg Boyingtons book (Baa baa blacksheep), Col. Boyington talked about a new pilot in the F4U that was at landing speed and suddenly went to full power. The plane immediately inverted and crashed. The pilot was scalped but survived.
Anyone remember this story?
-
AquaShrimp pretty much hit the torque issue. The historical F4U would flip inverted if the engine was over-revved to try and compensate for a low speed stall in landing configuration (full flaps, gear out. This behavior is DEFINITELY not present in the game. The F4U will pull depending on trim position, but the snap-invert does NOT occur (I hate comparing the two sims, especially because AH's flight model is generally superior, but one of the few things Pacific Fighters really seemed to do well with the F4U's flight model is over-revving the engine in a landing configuration causing the plane to snap over).
Stoney,
Slotted Flap: Adds camber to the wing, but due to the gap between the flap and the wing, allows air to pass through, meaning it creates more lift with less relative drag
YOU said slotted flaps are less draggy than plain flaps. :p
-
Wow... I just checked that plane comparison site and the F4U-1 really does have a turning circle the same size as a Spit 16 with flaps down.
That is pretty amazing.
-
Anybody ever consider the surface area of the F4u flaps compared to lets say the spits and such. If u look at the pictures posted her, the f4u flaps are 2-3 times larger then the spits when deployed. I'm sure it the same against a ki84 and such.
-
Dogg raises a good point which we've never went into depth in the other many threads about this subject.
Whenever I lose a flap in-game while flying my Corsair, I retract them in an attempt to stabilize the aircraft. In this case, the wing area is so greatly reduced, the plane falls off easily on that wing and no amount of rudder or aileron can help me from flipping over. It's worse than losing a wingtip.
Perhaps the large flap area is a part of the Corsair's secret. If I find time I'll try to find some numbers.
-
Originally posted by SgtPappy
Dogg raises a good point which we've never went into depth in the other many threads about this subject.
Whenever I lose a flap in-game while flying my Corsair, I retract them in an attempt to stabilize the aircraft. In this case, the wing area is so greatly reduced, the plane falls off easily on that wing and no amount of rudder or aileron can help me from flipping over. It's worse than losing a wingtip.
Perhaps the large flap area is a part of the Corsair's secret. If I find time I'll try to find some numbers.
Sometimes you don't actually lose the flap. Sometimes it just jams in that position. However the game graphics don't display this. I think this is what is happening to you. In order to fly right, lower your flaps again until your plane stops rolling.
-
Originally posted by AKDogg
Anybody ever consider the surface area of the F4u flaps compared to lets say the spits and such. If u look at the pictures posted her, the f4u flaps are 2-3 times larger then the spits when deployed. I'm sure it the same against a ki84 and such.
Hitting the nail on the head with a sledgehammer there! :D
What about weight difference...
F4U-1: 12,039lbs (the lightest one we have in-game)
Spit 14/16: 8,500lbs (both are the heaviest in-game)
3,539lbs total of weight difference... Kind of a bit more weight to toss around for that Hog.
Imagine a Spit with flaps the size of the Hogs, imagine those wicked wings! :rofl
-
Spitfire 16 (clipped wings) weighs 7241 lbs fully loaded (no ord). Its lighter than a full span IX or an VIII. The 8500 is a typo. You can check the weights in E6B.
-
Originally posted by Squire
Spitfire 16 (clipped wings) weighs 7241 lbs fully loaded (no ord). Its lighter than a full span IX or an VIII. The 8500 is a typo. You can check the weights in E6B.
Nice to know.... :aok
but it is still way lighter! :D
-
I forgot why I like this game and community so much... I always thought I know a bit about specs, historical performance, etc... then I read these posts. Nicely done.
Needless to say, I am very enthralled by the new Hog performance in the game.. I am not sure yet if this performance is indicative of the real world performance. I always felt in the past (I played AHI and the early parts of II) that the Corsairs did not fly the way they were "Meant to". I can't really nail what I mean on the head....
Anyways...It is good to be back and see all the intelligent posts.
Broc
:aok
-
This is the problem with anecdotal evidence vs. empirical numbers.
IE, Bodhi in the previous thread on the issue quoted a pilot who said by no means get slow in the Corsair.
HOWEVER, first the gentlemen didn't say anything about turn radius. He may have been referring to a VERY fine edge between controlled flight and departure, which the Corsair was notoriously twitchy.
Additionally, the point should ALSO be made that the real pilots don't have the infinite number of virtual lives to spend learning just how far the aircraft could be pushed. This is true of almost every aircraft in the game, because we have the luxury of taking a new plane out of the hangar as we're learning to push these ships PAST the envelope.
Thus, a REAL pilot would have called flying the Corsair "scary" (to paraphrase an anecdote from Krusty, I believe) simply because he only has one life, and a mistake while pushing the aircraft beyond its limits that we can brush off and say "Oh well" and try it again, all it takes is one accident and he's done. Then again, there's ALSO stories by experienced pilots during that called the F4U an absolute dream of a fighter (I've never gotten around to finishing Black Sheep One and it's been a while since I last picked it up, but I BELIEVE Boyington was one of them).
The Corsair may have been FULLY capable of performing the maneuvers that we see in the arenas (in fact, I'm pretty sure someone posted airshow video sometime back that shows just THAT). The difference is, there's such a steep and potentially fatal learning curve that pilots who fly the Hog in real life don't dare take the chance to learn just how far she can be pushed.
-
Originally posted by AquaShrimp
Sometimes you don't actually lose the flap. Sometimes it just jams in that position. However the game graphics don't display this. I think this is what is happening to you. In order to fly right, lower your flaps again until your plane stops rolling.
Oh hmm, I'll get a friend over for a LAN attempt and see if that works. Thanks for the advice.
Just wondering how you came to that conclusion, however.
At any rate, there's mention in the 'pony is awful' thread about a veteran F4U pilot stating that if he attempted anything we do in the F4U in-game, he would not be here.
At the same time there's always some pilots better than others. People thought the P-38 was a widow maker and the numbers of those people dropped when YIPPEE, the 5000th P-38 was flown doing things pilots thought it could never do.
-
First of all, I have no idea if the FM of the F4U with flaps deployed is correct. I posted the slotted flap photos above because someone said that they thought F4U flaps were not slotted.
In any case, I don't think simple comparisons of the F4U with flaps deployed against 109s or Spits or other planes is sufficient either.
The significant anhedral and dihedral of the F4U has a geometric effect on camber, including camber with flaps deployed, that very likely has a significant effect on performance with flaps out.
(http://www.benkeshet.com/cross_section/Slide1.BMP)
(http://www.benkeshet.com/cross_section/Slide2.BMP)
The following graphic also strikes me that Hitech may have the F4U FM fairly calculated, but I certainly can't say so.
(http://hitechcreations.com/pyro/poweron01.jpg)
All the best.
-
Thanks, Old Sport. It's always good to have new explanations like that. But sorry, I don't really understand that bracketed diagram of cross sections. :)
-
Originally posted by Saxman
The difference is, there's such a steep and potentially fatal learning curve that pilots who fly the Hog in real life don't dare take the chance to learn just how far she can be pushed.
I disagree... An average pilot in AH can push the hog way further than even the best pilot in real life could. That's not because they have a virtual life. *I*'m not that skilled in flying te F4u, it's far from a regular ride.
On the occasion I take one up with some squaddies/friends, I have no problem taking it to the edge, past the edge, recovering instantly, and keep on flying.
That's a pilot with minimal F4u experience, able to pull of things the most experienced test pilots and aces of the war wouldn't even attempt.
No, there is a disparity here between what the plane could actually do and what it does in this game. It's not pilot related. It's physics related (somehow)
-
Sax DOES have apoint. Many of the cartoon pilots are more successful (not necessarily better) than many of the vets since in-game we've got infinite lives, health, lack of many engine management systems, manual trim and we instead have an infinite number of extra advantages with which we can take advantage.
However, I do agree (again, to some extent) with Krusty that there is a noticable discrepency with the flight model.
Krusty, even Sax admits that the high torque effects that Hog pilots endured even when properly trimmed, does not apply to the in-game Corsair.
-
All in all sounds like all are asking HTC to doublecheck the torque modeling more than anything. Suppose if multiple films of someone coming in for a typical carrier style landing (practically stall speed, flaps full, gear and hook extended) where they suddenly max out the throttle and the plane continues on course without any need for correction then that's the culprit.
-
Arlo hits it, I think. Address the uncharacteristically low torque and I wouldn't be surprised to see a lot of problems iron themselves out. If the F4U's stability is addressed at low speeds, regardless of whether or not the flaps make such a tight turning circle theoretically possible the rough departure behavior alone is guaranteed to punt Corsair fights into a higher average airspeed range.
However given the way ALL the aircraft in the plane set are pushed beyond their anecdotal limits in-game, I highly doubt this would stop the best Corsair sticks from still getting full-flaps and slow down in the weeds. You'd just only be seeing the TOP F4U pilots doing it.
-
Originally posted by Saxman
Address the uncharacteristically low torque and I wouldn't be surprised to see a lot of problems iron themselves out.
Or, you get a new one when almost everyone crashes on takeoff when they firewall the throttle from the chocks. If the current torque modelling is at least comparable across the different airframes, then the relative difference between aircraft is accurate, even if the total amount of torque isn't the exact same.
I guess my question would be, if its torque we're concerned about on the Corsair, why would it be any different than the P-47? Same motor, almost same wing span, comparable aileron area and station on the wing, and they turn approximately the same amount of MP at sea level... No one complains that torque is overly offensive in the Jug?
-
Excerpt from Widewings F4U4/P-51 comparison page:
"Ease of flight: Despite gaining the nickname of "Ensign Eliminator", the F4U series tendency to roll under torque was no more difficult to handle than any other high powered fighter of the era. Some who have flown both the Corsair and the Mustang state without hesitation that the P-51 exhibited a greater propensity to roll on its back than did the F4U. Moreover, the Corsair was a far more forgiving aircraft when entering a stall. Although it would drop its right wing abruptly, the aircraft gave plenty of advanced warning of an impending stall by entering a pronounced buffeting about 6-7 mph before the wing dropped. "
The nature of the Carrier landing pattern had more to do with its reputation than the actual torque on the aircraft.
-
So here we have a contradiction.
On the one hand, we're hearing anecdotes relayed by Krusty and Bodhi that suggest flying a low and slow Corsair is a terrifying prospect.
On the OTHER hand, Widewing's article suggests torque roll in the F4U was no more of an issue than any other high-powered fighter, and that in spite of the sudden wing drop in a stall there was plenty of warning about 7mph before she snapped over. THAT would be something to test. Someone should take up a "combat loaded" F4U, get her full flaps out and watch the airspeed from the onset of buffering. Keep pushing the aircraft until she stalls and rolls over. If it's modeled right she should snap over about 6-7mph after buffeting occurs (I BELIEVE it's already been proven that the numerical stall speeds themselves are correct).
Granted, Widewing's comparing the -4 which had ironed out many of the issues experienced by the 1-series Hogs, but my understanding was that the stall strip introduced in the 1A's right wing was all that was needed or ever done regarding the left wing's tendency to drop in the stall.
-
But ... I specifically did use a carrier approach as example for the test neccessary for torque tweaking. Also .... how about throttle response? My great uncle talked about how ground handlers in units transitioning to F4Us sometimes learned the hard way (ground-looping and often breaking planes) that the F4U's throttle was more responsive and the torque more pronounced than the planes they used to work on (F4Fs, granted). And somehow I just don't imagine AAC T-Bolt pilots approaching thier fields at stall speeds, arse low and chopping throttle at the end of the runway ... unless someone has anecdotal refence to share in return that corrects that presumption. So perhaps the torque's still the key ... and respective technique in given situations (as well as the T-Bolt's wider gear stance) is precisely the only real difference WW's site claims. :)
-
Sax: I'm not just passing anecdotes. I even posted a clip of a WW2 training film. These stalls and characteristics are well documented and were self-evident.
Not just pilot anecdotes.
EDIT: P.S. I'm not entirely convinced it's only torque-related. 190s had vicious snap-stalls for a long time, and this was fixed by the airflow recode. P-47s became less forgiving in stall fights, the only change being airflow coding. I think it has to do with the airflow recode more than anything else. Consider the AH1 model of the corsair. It still had torque, and basically the data for the indivudal corsair planes remains unchanged. Somehow, how that data is being processed has changed.
-
It's all related, K. The forces are all in effect in the air. Some are greater than others in different circumstances. The F4U's handling was also improved by adding a wing spoiler on the 1a and later versions.
"Carrier suitability was a major development issue, prompting changes to the main landing gear, tail wheel and tailhook. Early prototypes had difficulty recovering from developed spins since the inverted gull wing's shape interfered with elevator authority. A small spoiler was added to the leading edge of the starboard wing to reduce adverse stall characteristics.[6]"
[6] The Illustrated Encyclopedia of Aircraft 1985, p. 108.
New landing technique was developed, as well.
But a pilot in a low e plane that suddenly goes from idle to max throttle is gonna hafta correct for some pretty heavy torque when the powerplant produces 2000 horsepower and does so practically instantaneously. Seems only logical. There's not a lot of airflow for that spoiler to deal with. But the torque's still there at any airflow/speed. I'd wager the new landing technique also involved handling the throttle wisely. And a P-47 does not an Army Corsair make. Wing and wing root structure had it's effect, as well.
And if that's all it takes to add that realistic touch to satisfy the complaints while adding just enough challenge to keep the bird playable yet a bit more of a challenge to low speed operations (carrier ops included) - I'm all for it.
-
Originally posted by Arlo
And somehow I just don't imagine AAC T-Bolt pilots approaching thier fields at stall speeds, arse low and chopping throttle at the end of the runway ...
Exactly my point.
This is key. Like I said way above a couple of posts ago, or perhaps in another thread, the Corsair earned its reputation in low-speed, high angle of attack, high-powered conditions present in the landing pattern. But, this is dangerous ground for any aircraft. You're exactly right, the P-47 POH recommends 150 mph IAS or greater for the base to final turn, with just less than that over the fence/final. P-47 pilots were hammered to keep the plane fast until on final. The carrier pattern couldn't allow those types of speeds, at least not using the conventional techniques that were customary for the earlier Navy fighters.
-
But does this put you in the "why not tweak the torque model" crowd or not? Or do you think that's opening a possible period of mass dissatisfaction (can-o-worms) when such coding presents the inevitable teething issues across the board, affecting practically everyone's favorite ride in a negative way that requires tweaking virtual pilot technique? I'm leaning pro-torque but I can be convinced otherwise if there's an decent argument standing in my way (and there may well be). :)
-
Krusty,
As I pointed out before, in the video the F4U reacted more violently in the power-off/full flaps and power-on/partial flaps stalls than it did power-on full flaps.
In the power-on full-flap stall, the aircraft's nose tucked and it crabbed off to the left but did NOT exhibit the same immediate snap-over to inverted as in the other two power/flap configurations.
-
I don't think torque in general is nuetered, the 109s are better at low speed fighting then they used to be, but they still have some pretty hefty torque when you punch the throttle. None of them will roll to the right with any sort of ease at slow speed / high AoA / full throttle type conditions, you are better off kicking the rudder over and snaprolling to the left.
-
Urchin, at low speeds sometimes you can't even roll right with a good amount of rudder! I've noticed that when taking off at slow speeds in 109g6s. At high alt, including 109G14s, you use WEP and the aileron trim isn't enough to keep you on course. You actually start turning left on the compass heading, and have to adjust course repeatedly.
So we know the torque is there in general.
Also, the airframes on the F4u and P-47 are so different that I don't think they'd have the same departure characteristics. The 47 has a larger wing without the gull dip, a larger inverted-egg-shaped fuselage cross section, and a larger vertical tail, than the compact tube-like f4u. I mean that, while the engine may produce the same amount of torque, the rest of the p-47 may be better at overcoming this. Especially if the tail is further out and can act as a greater lever. One thing that always surprises me is the compactness of the F4u airframe.
P.S.
Originally posted by Saxman
Krusty,
As I pointed out before, in the video the F4U reacted more violently in the power-off/full flaps and power-on/partial flaps stalls than it did power-on full flaps.
In the power-on full-flap stall, the aircraft's nose tucked and it crabbed off to the left but did NOT exhibit the same immediate snap-over to inverted as in the other two power/flap configurations.
It didn't just crab over. It tucked under somewhat sharply in what looked like was going to be a flat spin. We're not just talking nose drop, it drop and spiraled inward, and you just don't see that in this game.
Come to think of it, I recall I *USED* to like the P-51B because the P-51D in-game had more of a tendency to spin into the left wing. The added dorsal surface on the -B meant this happened less. I haven't had that happen since the airflow recode. I think it's not only on the F4u that this is happening, now that I think about it.
-
It seems to be like this on most aircraft. The only time I'll come close to snapping over is when I neutralize all trim and full-power take-off.
The torque is likely an issue. For example, under many quoted sources (which I am too lazy to find right now), the Spitfire XIV is supposedly very difficult to handle at full throttle on take-off and not even FULL rudder can compensate. In the game, you can trim yourself neutral, firewall the throttle and you wont even have to use more than 50% rudder left to make the plane stay stable.
-
Yes, I'd heard that too.
I wonder if in AH1, the system worked "like that" and they set torque levels at "N" to get the desired results under that system. Now in AH2, the system works "like this" and the setting "N" doesn't produce the same result. To get the same end result, the torque needs to be set to "N * 1.5" (just using a random number for example).
-
Originally posted by Saxman
On the OTHER hand, Widewing's article suggests torque roll in the F4U was no more of an issue than any other high-powered fighter, and that in spite of the sudden wing drop in a stall there was plenty of warning about 7mph before she snapped over.
The video I mentioned before specifically stated that the F4U gave NO warning before stalls. I dont know much about these aircraft, but considering this was published as a training film by the war department, during the war, specifically about the F-4U, I would think they have an idea what they are talking about.
-
Originally posted by SgtPappy
For example, under many quoted sources (which I am too lazy to find right now), the Spitfire XIV is supposedly very difficult to handle at full throttle on take-off and not even FULL rudder can compensate.
In the book Fly For Your Life, the story of RAF pilot Robert Stanford Tuck, Tuck is quoted as saying that. Thats one source at least...
-
Originally posted by Arlo
But does this put you in the "why not tweak the torque model" crowd or not? Or do you think that's opening a possible period of mass dissatisfaction (can-o-worms) when such coding presents the inevitable teething issues across the board, affecting practically everyone's favorite ride in a negative way that requires tweaking virtual pilot technique? I'm leaning pro-torque but I can be convinced otherwise if there's an decent argument standing in my way (and there may well be). :)
Personally, I don't know. I think that HTC has done a good bit of "dumbing down" some of the more germane (if that's an appropriate word) parts of flight for the cause of playability and fun. I'm a real pilot, and if I need to get a dose of realism, I'll hop in an actual cockpit in order to satisfy my "engine management" fetish, for example. So, if the torque is porked, that's fine with me, as long as all planes possess the same relative differences in actual torque (i.e. everything is modelled at 75% of actual, for example). On the other hand, I'm not sure it is actually porked.
What I would like to see, and its the point I continually try to make here, is someone with an honest gripe about how things are modelled, is to do the research and the work to support their argument. There is a mountain of information available to the "Everyman" aerodynamicist that explains how all of these forces interact on aircraft. Given the fact that we know (from the picture of the F4U in a climb) that things like pounds of lift, coefficients of drag, and pitching moments are computed by the game (which has to use math to output aerodynamic forces on the plane), there must be some sort of relationship between whats going on in-game, and the formulas displayed in most aerodynamics textbooks/resources. Certainly Dale didn't "invent" all of the formulas that translate all that stuff into the code that affects the 3D model we see represented in game.
-
Krusty and Serenity,
A point of order is that the F4U used in the training video is a -1 birdcage, lacking the stall strip in the starboard wing. While it wasn't an absolute solution to the departure issue, it was clearly a significant enough improvement to warrant inclusion in every mark since. So the behavior in the video isn't perfectly indicative of stall behavior across the entire series.
-
Even the -1 birdcage in-game doesn't act like that film, though.
I haven't spun out at low speed in a long time in anything other than a ta152 -- and when that happens its instant tail slide, no spin, no recovery.
Only time I've come near to spinning is extreme hammerhead-type manuvers, and coming back down at the top.
-
Originally posted by Saxman
Krusty and Serenity,
A point of order is that the F4U used in the training video is a -1 birdcage, lacking the stall strip in the starboard wing. While it wasn't an absolute solution to the departure issue, it was clearly a significant enough improvement to warrant inclusion in every mark since. So the behavior in the video isn't perfectly indicative of stall behavior across the entire series.
However this film has taken into account newer models of F4Us as far as cockpit layout, so I would think that they would also take into account the characteristics. Perhaps if there was a truly significant difference in stall due to that strip, they would have mentioned it.
-
Originally posted by Krusty
Also, the airframes on the F4u and P-47 are so different that I don't think they'd have the same departure characteristics...
I wasn't talking about departure. That's more a term of stalling behavior. I was talking about torque effect.
...The 47 has a larger wing without the gull dip...
Corsair has 14 square feet more wing area than the Jug at 314 ft^2 vs. 300 ft^2. I could not find the aileron area on the Hog to compare.
...and a larger vertical tail, than the compact tube-like f4u. I mean that, while the engine may produce the same amount of torque, the rest of the p-47 may be better at overcoming this. Especially if the tail is further out and can act as a greater lever. One thing that always surprises me is the compactness of the F4u airframe.
If you were talking about which one might be more pitch/yaw stable, I'd agree. The P-47 was 3 feet longer than the Hog, plus the fact that the Vertical stab on the Hog was set in front of the horiz stab means a much shorter vertical tail arm on the Hog. Of course, Vought made up for it by having a rudder almost twice the size of the Jug.
But, the point is that the vertical stab has less to do with controlling the roll moment (of which torque would be a part) of the aircraft than the ailerons--much less. So, if there's an appreciable difference, it would be have to be in aileron area.
So, again, why would torque act more against the Corsair than the Jug, under the same power?
-
Serenity,
If the stall strip made no appreciable difference it wouldn't have been there.
And I don't remember the film saying anything about changes in cockpit layout between the birdcage and later marks.
-
Stoney: The vertical tail's reason for being is to counter torque. On the 109 models they added a taller tail as the engine power increased, because the smaller tails could not counter the torque. On the bubble top P-51s and P-47s, they lost dorsal area and couldn't counter as much torque, leading to fillets being installed.
-
Originally posted by Krusty
Stoney: The vertical tail's reason for being is to counter torque.
Oh boy...:huh
-
Okay, let me rephrase that
"One of the more important reasons there is a vertical stab is..."
EDIT: Even you can't deny that's its primary role. If a plane has too much torque they add vertical surface area to bite into the airflow and counteract this.
-
Originally posted by SgtPappy
Thanks, Old Sport. It's always good to have new explanations like that. But sorry, I don't really understand that bracketed diagram of cross sections. :)
Okay Sgt Pappy, maybe these photos will help a little more.
Gravity pulls straight down, vertically. Lift pushes straight up, vertically against it.
So the cross-sectional shape of the wing that produces the lift, including the flaps, has to be measured vertically, not at an angle.
The F4U's bent wing can trick us into looking at the length of the deployed flaps from an angle (the bottom view on the left), when we should be looking at them vertically (bottom view on the right). You can see just by a rough "eyeball" that the difference may be around 10 percent. I'd say that is not insignificant.
(http://www.benkeshet.com/cross_section/f4u.jpg)
All the best
-
Originally posted by Old Sport
Okay Sgt Pappy, maybe these photos will help a little more.
Gravity pulls straight down, vertically. Lift pushes straight up, vertically against it.
So the cross-sectional shape of the wing that produces the lift, including the flaps, has to be measured vertically, not at an angle.
The F4U's bent wing can trick us into looking at the deployed flaps from an angle (the bottom view on the left), when we should be looking at them vertically (bottom view on the right). You can see just by a rough "eyeball" that the difference may be around 10 percent. I'd say that is not insignificant.
I don't mean to be rude, and please forgive me if I come across that way. I say this in the interest of perhaps pointing out the obvious:
I don't think it works that way at all. You're measuring vertical distances rather than the area of surface the air has to flow over. The flow of air reduces the pressure, creating lift. The thickness of the wing does play into lift, but is not the only factor, nor is the VERTICAL thickness of a parked wing at high AOA. You have to take into account many other factors.
-
Originally posted by Saxman
Serenity,
If the stall strip made no appreciable difference it wouldn't have been there.
And I don't remember the film saying anything about changes in cockpit layout between the birdcage and later marks.
The change in cockpit layout went something like this:
"It is notable that in early models of the F4U such as this one, there is a small tab in the cockpit with the takeoff and landing checklist. [insert description of tab]. Later models of Corsair however, do not have this feature".
Again, thats not an exact quote, though if you want one, It will only take a minute to get it. Either way, if they note the difference between old and new in regards to such an insignificant piece of equipment, I would think though would also reference the effects of the stall strip. Perhaps it is that the stall strip DID make a difference, but still gave no warning prior to a stall. All that means is that the earlier plane is even more lethal in a stall.
-
I don't think there is any doubt that HTC has put a lot of effort into getting the planes in AHII to look and fly as accurately as possible. That said, AH could be looked at as an "artist's rendition". As such, it's unlikely some people won't take a look at it and say "that ain't right!". It's easy to look at a painting of a duck and say "the beak is too big, or too narrow, or the wrong color, etc... It's a lot harder to do it better when you try it yourself though. And who's to say the beak is actually wrong? Maybe the beak is perfect, but your memory of how it should look is flawed. Or maybe the feet are wrong, causing the beak to look wrong, when it's actually the only "right" thing in the entire painting.
I want to fly a corsair. Ain't gonna happen though. If I could fly a real one, no way would I push anywhere near "the limits". Are there ANY pilots flying real F4U's that push them to the limits? Or any other warbirds for that matter? The best I can do is fly simulators. That's ok, but I want the simulators to be as accurate as possible, to come as close to flying the real thing as I can get. If there are issues with the FM, I hope they can be ironed out. I have faith that HTC will fix FM problems as factual evidence becomes available. I want the F4U to fly as realistically as possible.
Is the F4U FM 100% correct? I doubt it. I doubt any of the FM's are. I don't fault HTC for that, I just think there are limits to how realistic it can get. Personally, I have little interest in the vast majority of the planeset. I fly the corsairs because they've always been my favorite. If they made the FM 25 times more difficult, it's still the only plane I'd use. I'd still learn to be effective in it. Better that than to fly the other planes, at least in my opinion. Do I see problems with it? I suspect that torque is toned down considerably. Enough varience in accounts of stall behavior has me just plane stumped. I don't think adjustments should be made because we "think" they should be.
Is the F4U FM all wrong? I doubt it.
So where do we make adjustments?
Shall we base the FM on nicknames? Three quickly come to mind- "Ensign Eliminator", "Whistling Death", and "Sweetheart of Okinawa". One of those was based on landing issues, two on combat. Maybe it should fight like "Whistling Death", and land like the "Ensign Eliminator"? Or do we just pick the nickname that illustrates our argument best? Are those nicknames accurate? The F4U had some landing issues. How bad were they? Exactly how many, or what percentage, of new or veteran F4U pilots died on landing, due to the torque and stall characteristics? How about in combat, for the same reasons? Were they(F4U's) death traps? Or did a few incidents get overblown? We all like to think the ride we fly is the deadliest in combat, as well as the most difficult to master. Nicknames reflect that. I think nicknames are a poor model to base the FM on.
How about personal opinion? Lots of folks claim the F4U shouldn't do what it does. What SHOULD it do? What should its turn radius be? It's turn rate? My personal opinion is that ALL the planes are too easy to fly. I base that in part on the idea that I'm an OK F4U stick, but wouldn't say I'm anywhere close to ready to hop into a real F4U. Another point, is that my son at 6 yrs old, unable to read very well, with 0 simulator experience, or any "physics of flight" understanding, was able to take off, fly, and land any plane he wanted to. Just a few pointers from dad, and off he went. Some folks would be embarassed to learn that at 7 and 8 yrs old he's killed a few of you in the MA. Only a couple by himself, several more on my lap, with me working the pedals and throttle. (He has trouble reaching the pedals, and is an "all or nothing" throttle user). (His SA is terrible too, hehe).
I've heard that if you firewall a pony instantly at takeoff, bad things will happen. Is that true? I don't know, and would hate to think the AHII FM was based on rumors. Anyone seen the results of this in RL? With any of the other birds? How many times per day do takeoff rolls in AH begin with full throttle, simply because the pilot died on full throttle previously and didn't reduce it for his next hop? What SHOULD happen here? I KNOW some things are easy-mode to keep the newer players interested. No weather, no wind, no night, easy level bombing, combat trim, etc... I'm ok with that. Less torque?? Less violent stalls?? Easier stall recovery?? In the end, opinions are like a55es. We all have one, but mine is better than yours!
So, I think we need to base the FM on facts, physics and math. If problems are shown and proven, they should be addressed. Obviously, this is at HTC's discretion, but from what I've seen, they're receptive to this. Comparing the F4U turn radius to the spit is pointless, unless we know for a fact that at least one of them is "proven correct". What SHOULD the turn radius of the spit BE?
Arguing FM changes based on opinions or nicknames cheapens the argument, and reduces it to little more than a witch hunt. What's next? Shall we say the Spit16 is "uber"? Or that the A20 shouldn't be such an effective air/air fighter?
MtnMan
-
Very nicely put Mountain Man
RASCAL
-
Mtnman, you seem to make it sound 100% subjective.
It's not.
You want a flight engine that's 100% subjective, look at UbiSoft. Or BF2 (yes, I said BF2!).
There are measurable and quanitfiable effects and results and behaviors. These are not subjective. Getting them right is not easy. HTC hasn't made "an artists' rendition" but rather has tried to be as accurate as possible. In this case it just doesn't seem they've done it. In their credit, it's a VERY complex system, and a bug in any part of it could throw the performance and handling out of whack. Their intentions and their actions don't always come out to be the same. This is true of EVERY game that has bugs in it, and this is why HTC fixes bugs, rather than leaving them in and claiming artistic license.
-
I think that the Corsair's FM is far closer to reality than any other game out there. Is there problems... yeah, but I think there are problems with every single plane in game. So that said, I am going to caution those that seem to be pushing so hard to change things in specific aircraft only....
If these renditions of vintage aircraft flew exactly the way they do in r/l, 90% of you would never get them off the ground. 90% of the remaining 10% would never land one. IMHO, if these aircraft stalled and spun like they did in r/l, the whole playing style in here would change to one of much more complex flight management and risk assessment.
-
Bodhi,
I'm sure a lot of people are wondering right now...."Would that be a BAD thing?" ;)
-
....If these renditions of vintage aircraft flew exactly the way they do in r/l, 90% of you would never get them off the ground. 90% of the remaining 10% would never land one.....
Absolutely. This is because of the one thing AH will never be able to replicate (at least not likely in our lifetimes)....the seat of the pants feel.
The pilots who flew these a/c successfully did it by feel as much as anything else.
-
I think it would be a bad thing from HTC's point of view Sax... if 99% of the people can not fly the damn aircraft without a very steep learning curve, then they will not play the game.
As for seat of the pants, thats one thing. "Feel" is never going to be replicated in our lifetimes on a home computer. Things like ground looping a 109 or Corsair because you did not control the yaw on take off could be added to a much more drastic action and make taking off extremely miserable. How about we add the reality of trying to fly a fully loaded fighter out of a 3500 foot strip made of crushed coral? Perhaps real engine management? Fuel... I mean really, we could go on so far down the list that you spend more time worrrying about carb air inlet temps and icing, cylinder head temps, turbo exhaust temps, faulty radios, engine surging, runaway props. The list could go on adfinitum.... I just do not think we are going to want to fly in a game like that.
AH2 gets it right in that they give us a taste of what it was like to fight against another real human that reacts and adapts to tactics unlike any computer opponent ever could. I think that is the experience we need to expand on, instead of arguing whether the F4u's flaps are uber, or the 109 had 2000.2375734 HP at max take off power.
-
Mtnman, you seem to make it sound 100% subjective.
It's not.
You want a flight engine that's 100% subjective, look at UbiSoft. Or BF2 (yes, I said BF2!).
There are measurable and quanitfiable effects and results and behaviors. These are not subjective. Getting them right is not easy. HTC hasn't made "an artists' rendition" but rather has tried to be as accurate as possible. In this case it just doesn't seem they've done it. In their credit, it's a VERY complex system, and a bug in any part of it could throw the performance and handling out of whack. Their intentions and their actions don't always come out to be the same. This is true of EVERY game that has bugs in it, and this is why HTC fixes bugs, rather than leaving them in and claiming artistic license.
I'm not saying it's all subjective Krusty. I'm saying that we shouldn't demand changes without some real facts. Does the F4U turn too well? If it does, it should be fixed. But how do we know it does? Maybe it's not the F4U, maybe it's the other planes. Maybe it's ALL the planes. Without factual evidence, how can we prove or disprove anything? In previous threads on this topic, it appeared that the basic measurable effects, results, and behaviors were pretty dang close. Long mathematical explanations sure didn't seem to point the finger of blame at the F4U. How many other FM's have survived such scrutiny? Is the torque effect reduced? How much torque should there be, and what exactly should the effect be, vs what it currently is?
I'll be the first to admit I'm suspicious that some of the behaviors are not correct. And not just for the positive in the case of the F4U- I feel the tail separates far too easily, for example. I'll also readily admit that I can't prove my theories, and think it would be foolish to demand changes based on my intuition. "In this case it just doesn't seem they've done it."- is a bad reason to change the FM, in my opinion. It's too subjective, if you ask me. If facts were brought to light showing discrepancies, I'd be the first to want the FM adjusted. Facts should drive that decision though, not "feelings". A snip out of a film showing a stall behavior is not enough evidence to say that the F4U should stall a certain way. What other factors played into that particular stall? Weight, wind, bad control inputs on the part of the pilot? How much experience did the pilot have, and how tired was he? Analyzing the stall is one thing, an untrained individual watching a film of it is another.
Present facts showing what should occur, and base the argument on fact, or it IS subjective.
And HTC DOES have some artistic license with their product, whether they claim it or not. They don't have ALL the answers, so have had to use their best judgement in places, as would anyone else trying to simulate reality.
Even a picture of a duck isn't entirely subjective, since we have access to the duck and can verify the accuracy of the picture...
MtnMan
-
Thanks for the diagram, Old Sport :aok
very helpful
-
Thanks for the diagram, Old Sport :aok
very helpful
You are certainly welcome, Sgt Pappy.
Stoney: The vertical tail's reason for being is to counter torque.
Okay, let me rephrase that
"One of the more important reasons there is a vertical stab is..."
EDIT: Even you can't deny that's its primary role. If a plane has too much torque they add vertical surface area to bite into the airflow and counteract this.
(http://www.fiddlersgreen.net/AC/aircraft/SchweizerTG-2/Tg-2photos/Schweizer-TG2-preflight.jpg)
Care to enlighten us Krusty as to why un-powered, torque-less sailplanes bother with vertical stabilizer and rudder? How about jet aircraft, and the torque-neutralized P-38?
With almost 15,000 posts it is obvious that Aces High means a lot to you, bud.
Too bad you often leap before you look when you comment.
--------------
A Hog Combat Story
"The mission set for Feb. 19, 1944 was typical for the fliers of VF-17 that month: 20 planes on a strafing mission to Rabaul. Butch Davenport led the division; Ike was number 3. They took off at 0800, northwest towards Rabaul. Kepford's wingman soon developed engine trouble and was forced to return. Kepford was ordered to turn also back; he turned south, but kept rubbernecking and shortly spotted a lone Japanese Rufe seaplane. Although he was alone, Kepford dived down and opened up. The six .50's shook the Corsair and rippled holes in the enemy plane. As he pulled out of his dive, Kepford glanced back and saw the floatplane crash into the water. An easy kill behind him, Kepford turned south for home, radioing "Hog 29 here. Scratch one. Returning to base."
[I seem to recall from a different version of this story that someone radioed back, "Prove it"]
"But then he saw many, many dots, high above him and in between him and Bougainville. He hoped to remain inconspicuous, but four Zeros peeled off to attack him. Unwilling to fight the whole group, he turned north to escape them, but the four pursuers came on fast, with their tremendous altitude advantage. As the lead Zero came on fast and opened fire, Kepford decided to "go for broke." He dropped his flaps and landing gear and nosed down until he was skimming the waves; as the Zero roared over him, he pulled his Hog's nose up and opened fire. The Zero's stabilizer crumpled under the snapshot, and the plane crashed into the waves. As Kepford pulled in his gear and flaps, the remaining Zeros bracketed him . . . he was facing 3-to-1 odds, low and slow, and he was heading back in the direction of Rabaul.
"The other three Zeros spread out behind him, boxing him in, and continued to gain. Tracers streaked by! It was time to use the newly installed water injection "War Emergency Power" WEP, a temporary boost to the Pratt & Whitney R-2800 engine. The Jap planes stayed with him, scoring some hits on the F4U. He was really trapped at this point, unable to turn because of the Zeros behind, and forced to continue speeding north, while not gaining appreciably. Slowly, he began to pull away, but the WEP started to over-heat the engine. He got out of range and eased back on the throttle a bit, disengaging the WEP.
"Kepford had to make his move now! He cut across the path of the port Zero. The Japanese plane dropped to wavetop level, opened fire, and sharply turned, trying to tunr inside Kepford. At which point the Zero's left wing caught a wave top, and the plane cartwheeled across the ocean surface, disintegrated, and sank. The other two Zeros were left behind as Kepford dashed for home, landing on fumes in his fuel tank. He struggled out of his plane, pale and exhausted. His flying suit and shoes were soaked through with sweat. As the tension of the nerve-wracking four hour mission lifted, he shook all over and tears streamed from his eyes.
[From a different version of the story, he was wearing white tennis shoes that had turned green from profuse sweat, (and perhaps other liquids?).]
--------------
Best regards.
-
I think that the Corsair's FM is far closer to reality than any other game out there.
If these renditions of vintage aircraft flew exactly the way they do in r/l, 90% of you would never get them off the ground. 90% of the remaining 10% would never land one.
Agreed and agreed.
-
A Hog Combat Story
"The mission set for Feb. 19, 1944 was typical for the fliers of VF-17 that month ...
Old Sport, quoting VF-17 stories is tantamount to a request to join. Alas, I'm currently helping the squad reorganize and revive. Wanna help? You've just displayed the most important trait we look for. :D
-
Old Sport, quoting VF-17 stories is tantamount to a request to join. Alas, I'm currently helping the squad reorganize and revive. Wanna help? You've just displayed the most important trait we look for. :D
:D
I'm honored Arlo. My problems are two:
1) I am in Euro time, two zones east of GMT, so it is tough to be around for prime time US flying.
2) The squadron I served with as a radar tech in the 70's, VMFA 112, was formed during WWII as VMF 112, and flew the F4F and F4U. So I feel an obligation, poor pilot that I am, to represent this VMF.
But rest assured that if I see you VF-17 guys flying around I'll be glad to join up. :aok
-
If these renditions of vintage aircraft flew exactly the way they do in r/l, 90% of you would never get them off the ground. 90% of the remaining 10% would never land one. IMHO, if these aircraft stalled and spun like they did in r/l, the whole playing style in here would change to one of much more complex flight management and risk assessment.
Does this mean that our various FMs are far and beyond from modeled properly? Do mean this in respect to such factors as combat trim, the lack of a realistic ground/bounce/landing characteristics (and other factors that make the flight model easier to handle for newer players)?
Or do you mean simply that the flight models of the aircraft are completely unrealistic?
Just wondering exactly what you mean.
-
Hitler Youth, with minimal glider training, were forced into planes. Sure there were accidents, but most of these greenhorns died because they had no COMBAT training, not because they couldn't take off or land. Got popped by allied guns.
-
Care to enlighten us Krusty as to why un-powered, torque-less sailplanes bother with vertical stabilizer and rudder? How about jet aircraft, and the torque-neutralized P-38?
No need to get insulting, by the way. I don't post for a number beside my name.
To answer the (possibly obvious) question: That's why I rephrased it to say "major" purpose.
It's yaw stability. A single engine plane yaws because of the torque. With air moving over the vertical stabilizer, that torque is countered. Even without this torque, you still need yaw stability due to vortexes, airflow, turbulence, what have you. Add torque and it just gets much worse. P.S. The P-38 still has torque, just 2 opposing forces cancel each other out.
For your VF-17 story, that's far from showing ANY stall characteristics. He's fast, on the deck, running, and 4 zeros dive on him. The first starts locking up, so he pops flaps, gear, nose down for an overshoot, and then keeps going. The other zeros kept up with him (from a dive) but did not catch him, so that's not a stall by any sense of the word. He barely slowed down. Just enough to force an overshoot on a plane that was already too fast. Heck I can do that in the MA without popping gear or flaps. A slight jink, and back, and you got a snapshot. You can do that at 450mph. Has nothing to do with stall handling on the corsair.
-
Hitler Youth, with minimal glider training, were forced into planes. Sure there were accidents, but most of these greenhorns died because they had no COMBAT training, not because they couldn't take off or land. Got popped by allied guns.
The had a bit more than just glider training Krusty. They also died or where horribly injured in droves because they did not know to take off and land.
-
A single engine plane yaws because of the torque. With air moving over the vertical stabilizer, that torque is countered. Even without this torque, you still need yaw stability due to vortexes, airflow, turbulence, what have you. Add torque and it just gets much worse. P.S. The P-38 still has torque, just 2 opposing forces cancel each other out.
Do you honestly believe that the vertical fin dissipates all the torque by itself just with airflow flowing over it???? Increasing the throttle even at high speed does not increase torque that has to be countered with something other than the vertical fin???
By that logic, why not cut the size of the rudder to a 1/4 of it's size as all it is used for is to deal with "airflow turbulence and vortexes"?
Come on man, research stuff before posting. You are just plain wrong on this one and are making yourself look silly.
-
Bodhi, I'd like to hear your point of view as well.
The way I figure it works, and this is based on basic understanding of airflow, torque, and basic physics, is as such:
The propellor spins one way
The force of the engine on the airframe wants to spin it the opposite way (not just along 1 axis though)
The prop spins left, creating a left vortex over the top of the plane
The plane wants to spin right.
The left-flowing vortex over the top of the plane hits the vertical stabilizer, pushing it left (counteracting the fuselage push to the right).
At higher speeds, also, the air on either side of the vertical stab helps to keep it from rolling either way (creating stability).
Note, however, that even in AH as is modeled now, certain 109s and the typhoon start yawing at full power on auto climb because of the torque. You throttle down and this goes away. You reduce throttle while landing in a ta152 and you get a lot less torque. Same for F4u family. Reducing RPM in a hammerhead reduces the need for more rudder.
Increasing the throttle does increase the torque, but usually it also speeds the plane up, and the increased airflow over the v-stab adds more resistance to roll either way.
I'm not negating ailerons. I'm just saying they're not meant for torque control.
-
Does this mean that our various FMs are far and beyond from modeled properly? Do mean this in respect to such factors as combat trim, the lack of a realistic ground/bounce/landing characteristics (and other factors that make the flight model easier to handle for newer players)?
Or do you mean simply that the flight models of the aircraft are completely unrealistic?
Just wondering exactly what you mean.
Pappy, I think it is about as close as they can get in a game. It is just not going to be possible to represent all the forces that are in real flight without some sacrifices being made for game play.
Do you want to introduce violent snap rolls into a spin when you depart coordinated flight in a large number of warbirds? I really don't want that. Some fighters lose 6000 feet before they recover in a spin. That basically means if you stall it (in some aircraft it will spin in regardless of what you do) you are going to spin down atleast that prescribed altitude before the aircraft is in a situation where it can be recovered. There are major reasons why the Mustang, Corsair, P-47, and most all fighters are Placarded to prohibit intentional spins.
-
Krusty,
When I pull the Corsair out (or any other aircraft for that matter), and I fire it up for a run up or check, I am aware of many things, but for sure two definites. When I throttle up, I'd best do it slow and even or I am going to be upside down and probably dead or wish I was because the fin and rudder can not counter all the torque being introduced in a very short time. I also make damn sure the stick is pulled all the way back to prevent the tail flying on it's own and me ruining a $100k propellor and $160k engine.
It is a fundamental understanding that the more the throttle is increased, the more torque the engine and prop will generate. The more torque generated the more the pilot has to counter this torque. In flight, the vertical fin on most Warbirds is generally offset a small amount to introduce a certain amount of force in flight to help counter this torque. I believe (been a long time since we set it) that this offset of the vertical stabilizer on the Corsair is 2.5 degrees off the longitudinal axis. Even though this offset exists, you still have to counter the force of the torque when you increase the throttle, or not over compensate when you decrease. To help aid in this, the rudders are generally equipped with trim tabs and boost tabs. The trim tab allows the pilot to dial in a setting that helps to counter the torque at specific engine settings. If the pilot increases the throttle, then the torque rises, and they generally dial in more rudder trim to counter act the torque so their legs do not get tired. Boost tabs do exactly what they sound like. They allow you to move the control surface even when the airflow forces rise high enough to provide force to counter your movements.
So in a nutshell, torque is always around, and has to constantly be countered to allow you to fly through the air in coordinated flight. One last thing, ailerons are for roll control, not turning. My old instructor got pissed when I used my ailerons and elevators to turn. The rudder controls the turn. The ailerons control the roll.
-
Would you say the problems when stationary are because there isn't enough airflow over the vertical surfaces yet?
-
No, I'd say it has to do with the 450 plus pound propellor and the engine spinning. It does not matter if you are in flight either. You introduce too much torque at once, and you will be corkscrewing through the air.
-
If the prop wash pushing against the side of the vertical stabilizer is what counters torque, it would seem redundant to me. After all, the prop wash can't tell the difference between the vertical and horizontal stabilizers, and there are two horizontal stabilizer surfaces for the prop wash to hit, right? The top of one, and the bottom of the other? Wouldn't it make more sense to just enlarge the horizontal stabilizer and do away with the vertical stabilizer? Yaw stability would suffer drastically of course, but the torque would be countered. I can see the vertical stabilizer "helping" with torque, but would consider its effect of simply keeping the nose pointed into the slipstream through simple weathervaning as more important by far.
How do aircraft designers know exactly how far forward or back to put the vertical stabilizer so the prop wash can smack into it effectively? Does the prop wash spiral stay the same "length" at varying speeds and throttle settings?
Does the vertical stabilizer still counter torque when the plane is on its side in flight, or does this duty transfer to the horizontal stabilizer, since it's now vertical?
Birds do just fine without vertical stabilizers, and they obviously don't have any torque (unless one wing is stronger, hehe). Krusty, you said- "Even without this torque, you still need yaw stability due to vortexes, airflow, turbulence, what have you." Don't birds still experience these phenomena? Wouldn't they still need a vertical stabilizer to compensate? I can see when they flap that they could "manually" compensate, but what about while soaring?
MtnMan
-
If the prop wash pushing against the side of the vertical stabilizer is what counters torque, it would seem redundant to me...How do aircraft designers know exactly how far forward or back to put the vertical stabilizer so the prop wash can smack into it effectively...Birds still experience these phenomena?
MtnMan
Prop wash against the vertical stabilizer is not what counters torque. On single engine U.S. fighters in game, it actually increases the overall effect, as propwash against the tail will make the nose yaw left. There is also a yawing moment from the propellor called "P-effect" or P-factor. On single engine U.S. fighters in game, P-effect also introduces a left yawing moment. Torque from the engine contributes to a rolling moment on the aircraft in flight. Ailerons control roll (or lateral) stability. The vertical stabs purpose is to control yaw (or directional) stability. What is important to note is that the yaw input of the rudder introduces roll moments, and roll inputs of the ailerons introduce yaw moments. That's why you have a ball in the cockpit, and why we have terms like "coordinated turns" meaning that the ailerons and rudders are working in harmony. The biggest contribution the vertical tail makes to roll stability is in its position--its above the rolling C.G of the aircraft, but its moment arm is much, much shorter than the ailerons in this respect.
Generally speaking, aircraft designers size and position tail surfaces using equations based on the size of the wing, and the distance between the wing and tail surfaces. The larger the tail surfaces are, and the further they are from the wing, the more effective they are at controlling yaw (vertical stab) and pitch (horizontal stab). Stability equations are then performed using the computed centers of gravity. These are some pretty complex equations.
As for birds... Well, the can accomplish almost every aspect of dynamic and static stability through the way they manipulate their wings. They can increase or decrease span, angle of attack, incidence, area, sweep, dihedral, anhedral, etc. We haven't figured out a way to do that yet...
-
Just an anecdote...I read either in Baa Baa Black Sheep, or Black Sheep One, that Corsair pilots had over-devloped right thigh muscles due to compensating for engine torque.
-
Just an anecdote...I read either in Baa Baa Black Sheep, or Black Sheep One, that Corsair pilots had over-devloped right thigh muscles due to compensating for engine torque.
Which made scrambling for fighters a comical event of having to run "toward" your plane at a right angle to get there? Now that's torque.
;)
-
Nice response Stoney- I was really just being sarcastic, but you put out some good, valid information. I probably should have refrained from my smart-axx post.
My toss in on the birds was really just to get people to scratch their heads and think "Hmm, birds have no torque, and no vertical stabilizer, so...) Kind of along the lines of Monty Python's "Search for the Holy Grail's" section on witch identification based on the idea that witches burn, as does wood, and wood floats, as do ducks, so if the gal weighs the same amount as a duck she must therefore be a witch (and of course she does, so she must be a witch...)
I have an inordinate interest and knowledge of birds (I'm a falconer) and am daily in awe of what birds can do in the air. It's one thing to see one fly by, totally another to see them in active pursuit. Maybe someday we'll be able to get our aircraft to do 10% of what they can do. I doubt we'll see it though, at least as far as maneuverability goes. You can add shifting of CG, and leading edge slats to your list too, before moving on to what they can do with their tails :^) I fly R/C, and have been on a quest to build a soaring model of a red-tailed hawk or golden eagle, but haven't been able to figure a way to do that without cheating and adding a vertical stabilizer. The closest I've come is to use drag from wing mounted control surfaces to cause yaw, but I'm not very happy with those results. I get much better flight control with a vertical stab, but of course my models are much closer to conventional aircraft than to birds, so that should be expected.
MtnMan
-
A few weeks ago, when this thread was churning, I decided to send an inquiry to Steve Hinton, who had graciously responded previously, about a year ago, to an email about P-38 handling.
So here are his comments to my two questions about F4U turning at slow speed, and torque.
The F4U will turn much tighter then the 51 at slow speed. It has very large flaps and has more wing area then the Mustang. The 47 is very heavy and isn't at all good at doing much except diving fast. The 47 requires loads of horse power to maneuver and it won't hold it's energy through many consecutive maneuvers. Torque is more of a concern low and slow flying a Corsair. The Mustang accelerates quite quickly and really isn't much of a bother. I think torque is way over rated these days. It is a factor but easily controlled. Just bring back a little throttle and you are in control again right away.
So, not extremely hard data, but may indicate the AH F4U isn't too far off the mark.
All the best.
-
Steve knows more about flying these aircraft than most.
-
Steve knows more about flying these aircraft than most.
Especially considering he has flown most up to the ragged edge. Thanks for the effort Old Sport...