Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: Urchin on March 09, 2008, 05:07:55 PM
-
Just about the most stable plane in the set below 100 mph, turning circle the size of a Spits...
Is the plane overmodelled now, or was it undermodelled the first 5 years I played?
I can say from fighting in it and against it that none of the US iron holds a candle to it, it is head and shoulders above every other US plane in the game. I'd say the Spit 16 has about a one in three chance against an F4U in an angles fight, maybe one in two if the Spit pilot is smart and transitions to energy fighting after the F4U burns off its speed. The La-7 can beat one the same way, but if the La-7 pilot doesn't transition to E fighting the F4U will dominate it.
Two things confuse me. One - the F4U (all of them) have turning circles the size of the FM-2 with flaps down. I'll have to pull my copy of AHT out of the box it is packed in, but I believe the F4U was actually rated dead last in turning ability by Dean. Secondly, the plane has about the most docile handling of any plane I've flown since I've come back (which is most of them, by now) at slow speed. I couldn't even get the plane to snaproll at the top of a rolling scissors - it is almost like it has no torque at all. The 109s by comparison feel much more manueverable than they were when I left, but all have torque that is so massive that the plane won't roll to the right at all at slow speed. You can use that to advantage by kicking in left rudder at the top of a rolling scissor to roll around very quickly, so quickly that I usually do two rolls before I can get it stopped. The F4U won't do that at all.. it mushes at the top if you try to snap roll it.
So what gives?
-
There is a lot of discussion about the F4U right now, and torque has been addressed a bit... I'm not even sure about the whole issue, but I have smelled something fishy, and just wasn't sure.
Still like the Corsair though, regardless.
However, I read on a thread once... someone stated that Dean's ratings were incorrect.
-
URchin,
I disagree about the F4U not wanting to snap-roll. She doesn't like doing it to the right, but will very quickly snap over to the left.
-
Urchin, completely agree. Flying a Yak two aircraft that always get my attention above all others during a fight is the F4U (any version) for reasons you stated and the Tempest.
I've mentioned the over modeling of the F4U before as it's performance was a suprise to me also when I returned to AH after a few years. For such a large heavy aircraft it's low speed performance with flaps is over modeled. Hopefully it will be addressed in a future update.
No wonder the aircraft is a favorite amongst the score/picking crowd.
<S>...-Gixer
-
Gixer,
Care to explain to me why over modeled low-speed performance is conducive to PICKERS, who generally sit up at high altitude and rocket down at high speeds?
Incidentally, it should be worth noting that the F4U is not all that common for that accusation to be valid. Unless there's an enemy CV in the area I rarely see all that many enemy Corsairs, and when I do they usually fall into two categories: About as tough a fight as I'm going to find, or lunchmeat. I RARELY see anything in between the two extremes.
-
No wonder the aircraft is a favorite amongst the score/picking crowd.
<S>...-Gixer
:cry
-
Urchin,
Dean's Clmax numbers were all wrong, except for the F4U but for every other aircraft he calculated, if you want Clmax numbers just go to NACA or Vought and take a look there. If you replace the Clmax numbers in his Turning index equation you get different results.
If you want relative turning ability look at the F4U vs F6F, A6M, KI-61, FW190 flight test hat are all over the web, the results are no secret and they were done almost exclusively without flaps. The EM diagram for this aircraft (No flaps) can also be easily found. The problem is that AH no matter how realistic is still a game and because of this the tactics are "Gamey". How many Fighter pilots would drop full flaps at sea level at WEP power and start a max performance turn in the middle of a dogfight? Not too many, so how are you supposed to gauge this ability in a Simm? How about running your aircraft at full power all of the time and using a fuel mulptiplier?
Do you think it is realistic when a 190 pilot in AH starts yanking the stick all over the place and gets a message "Don't move your controls so rapidly"? How about some of the low speed tricks in the P-38 (Tail Slides, hammerheads). Maybe F4U pilots should get a message in the cockpit "Don't turn so tightly" when extending full flaps?
-
Speaking of F4U vs F6F vs 190, didn't that test show that the F4U was the superior turner?
-
I think that the more I hear about the "uber" F4u, the more I feel it is being victimized by those that do not really "know" it's capabilities. IMHO, I personally feel that the F4u would have been under much more widespread use throughout the Navy had they just worked through the initial deployment problems. The British did, and found it to be a valuable asset on the CV's. We just pawned them off to the Marines, who incidentally helped to show it's full potential.
But, back to what F4UDOA said, the numbers are all different. So how, do we actually know what to use? I think using Vought's test data would probably be the most prudent.
-
IMHO, I personally feel that the F4u would have been under much more widespread use throughout the Navy had they just worked through the initial deployment problems. The British did, and found it to be a valuable asset on the CV's. We just pawned them off to the Marines, who incidentally helped to show it's full potential.
But, back to what F4UDOA said, the numbers are all different. So how, do we actually know what to use? I think using Vought's test data would probably be the most prudent.
The navy preferred the F6F not because it was the "better" plane, but because it was the smarter choice for a wide spread and quick deployment, not to mention more economic.
The problem in the game is the flaps out turning. I don't think there is any issue with normal no-flap turn performance of almost any plane - not even the P51. You will not find any data regarding turn performance with full flaps, because no on in their right mind would want to measure it. It was simply not done - and not because they failed to come up with this bright idea. It may be linked to the very lenient near stall behavior and reduced torque we may have in the game relative to the real thing, I really don't know.
If what we need is a game solution to a game problem, I'd make it so the gears come out when flaps are deployed beyond a given stage and spoil any kind of floating round and around at 80 mph. OR, and the P38 anti-auto-retract crowed would love to hear, make the flaps jam if you go 1 mph beyond the listed speed. You make get the kill, but then RTB at 80 mph.
-
OR, and the P38 anti-auto-retract crowed would love to hear, make the flaps jam if you go 1 mph beyond the listed speed. You make get the kill, but then RTB at 80 mph.
The Corsairs flaps are on spring loaded actuators to prevent them from being damaged by over speed.
-
One thing that needs to be pointed out when talking about the F4Us "bad" stall habits is that most of the info is anecdotal, not all, but most of it. And this is in comparison to other more stable Naval aircraft which by design have to have better low speed handling that non Naval aircraft. The F4U was less stable than the F4F but was it less stable than the P-51?
Remember, the guys who had issues with the poor low speed handling of the F4U had at best flown an F4F, most only an SNJ trainer. The F4U was a monster compared to the F4F and in great part the anecdotal stories, I believe, are a result of even well trained and experienced high hour pilots coming to grips with a 2000hp 10,000+ lbs aircraft. In most cases that is close to double the HP and lbs of their previous aircraft. I do not deny that it was a handful compared to previous aircraft, but if you trained a pilot in the F6F and then had them transition to the F4U I doubt they would have had much of a problem.
On the separate issue of the in-game performance, I have no data to support, but I tend to think the F4U is a tad overdone, as are the 110c and Hurricanes while the 190, Mossie and F6F could be improved a bit.
-
"One thing that needs to be pointed out when talking about the F4Us "bad" stall habits is that most of the info is anecdotal, not all, but most of it."
Well, it had a conventional NACA profile which tolerates AoA quite well and angled wing which should make it directionally quite stable, especially in slow speed. I cannot think of anything but high torque, especially if compared to F4F so the observation of radical stall characteristics may indeed be subjective...
Then again maybe the angled wing was the cause combined with rather even chord between root and tip? I'm trying to reason why Ju87 was not reported to have such characteristics despite its angled wing but the answer may be its root/tip chord ratio so that the tip profile in Ju87 actually stalled later than root because the tip chord was a lot smaller than the root.
Junkers Ju 87 Stuka, R Goettingen 256, T Goettingen 256 (http://www.ds-cats.com/~kurisawa/aeronautics/Airfoils/OpenFiles.link/A2052/OS0230-2_A.jpg)
Vought V-166 F4U Corsair, R NACA 23015, T NACA 23009
Maybe the planform choice actually made the Corsair a tip staller?!?
-C+
PS. I'm not sure if the small sharp fillet in port wing really cured anything but made the wing drop in stall less pronounced.
-
I think of it like a new car driver who has only driven a Geo Metro taking their first spin in a Ford GT or Corvette Z06. The faster cars would seem totally uncontrollable and unstable compared to the Geo. After some time though, the driver would get used to the faster cars and its no problem. But, like I said it is a total guess on my part.
-
I disagree that it's all operator incompetence that earned this reputation.
They're not going to go from a SNJ to a f4u. They all have orientation flight, they have training, they are sent to familiarize themselves with the planes before they're ever allowed to solo. On top of that they're experienced enough in how to fly the plane before they ever try a CV landing.
You're not giving them enough credit.
The F4u was NEVER a spitfire, and NEVER turned like one, yet here in-game it has one of the tightest turn circles and one of the most stable stalls ever.
-
What did VF-17 fly before they got F4Us?
Also, my Dad was a Naval Aviator and a Flight Instructor here at NAS Pensacola, I am fully aware of how the flight training process works. I also know how difficult the transition to totally new aircraft type can be.
-
Grits, I think they were threatened with F6Fs but the sq cdr fought to keep the f4us. I'd guess they switched from F6Fs. Just a guess.
-
Krusty,
It should be pointed out that the average amount of flight time pilots during WWII had before being sent into combat would be appallingly minimal by today's standards.
Also, VF-17 was formed AS an F4U squadron, I believe.
-
I disagree that it's all operator incompetence that earned this reputation.
Since the game is based upon factual numbers, how about you back up your opinion that this is not the case. The F4u was a new type that was introduced during a war. It took time for the syllabus for flight training to be drawn up. Inexperience in type was a major hazard for all new pilots. The F4u helped introduce a new engine type to the Navy, the R2800. With this engine a whole new set of problems arrived, including high torque.
They're not going to go from a SNJ to a f4u. They all have orientation flight, they have training, they are sent to familiarize themselves with the planes before they're ever allowed to solo. On top of that they're experienced enough in how to fly the plane before they ever try a CV landing.
You're not giving them enough credit.
With the exception of the F4F and Buffalo, there was no in between for the Corsair. There was simply no option but to go from the SNJ to the Corsair. I believe Widewing can chime in here and prove that. Pilots did go from the T-6 to the P-40, P-47, and P-51, so it is reasonable to believe they did the same on the Corsair . My Grandfather went direct from the T-6 to the P-51.
As for being experienced enough before trying to land on a CV, keep in mind that in the eyes of the Navy, they are not considered full fledged pilots until they accomplished that little portion of their curriculum. The pages of naval history have plenty of pilots who washed out at the carrier landing stage. At most, they have 250 - 300 hours of flight time. That is no where near "experienced enough" to know all the quirks of their type. Add to that the first time they try to land on a cv, it is:
a: moving forward
b: turbulent air over the end of the cv due to ship exhaust
c: slightly rolling
Landing on a CV for the first time had to be the most hair raising experience imaginable.
The F4u was NEVER a spitfire, and NEVER turned like one, yet here in-game it has one of the tightest turn circles and one of the most stable stalls ever.
The F4u is not a Spitfire in game either. Unless the pilot is a complete noob, a Spitfire will eat a F4u for breakfast in a turn fight. It's just the nature of the two aircraft. The Spit ways almost half the weight of a F4u. It is built for turning performance and as a pure fighter, ie eggs an after thought. The F4u is built to land on a carrier, as well as carry bombs in addition to being a fighter.
As for stalls in game, I agree, it is gamey, but that is an addition to the game to all planes to keep them easier to fly. The Corsair in here, still snaps to the left at extreme when you push it to hard. That is reflective of the real life behavior.
Tell ya what Krusty, this is starting to look like a personal dislike of the F4u from you, almost liek you will stop at nothing to get it changed to what you believe it should be. While I do not fear making ALL the aircraft handle more like their real life counterparts, I want real life data used to perfect that, and in the case of full flap turn performance in the Corsair, that data is scarce.
-
As a real world example I know of from my Dad, when he was an instructor they still used both T-34s and T-28s. The step from a T-34 up to the 1200hp T-28 was a HUGE and dangerous step even in 1970, imagine going from an SNJ to an F4U, its a much bigger step.
-
The US Navy received its first production F4U-1 on 31 July 1942, with carrier trials beginning on the USS SANGAMON on 25 September 1942. Getting the machine into service proved difficult. The framed "birdcage" style canopy provided inadequate visibility for deck handling, a serious concern given the kind of damage the oversize prop could do to anybody or anything that got in its way. Even more seriously, the machine had a nasty tendency to "bounce" on touchdown, which could cause it to miss the arresting hook and slam into the crash barrier, or even go out of control. The long "hose nose" visibility problem has already been mentioned, and there was 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...
...with Corsair pilots freely admitting that the F4U was unforgiving and not a good choice for a green pilot. Over half the losses of Corsairs in the Pacific Theater were credited to accidents and not combat.
http://www.vectorsite.net/avf4u.html
Truth or not, i don't know. Sources are listed at the bottom of the page, it does appear that the torque is undermodelled. Try rolling a Tempest, Typhoon or Spit 14 at low speed compared to the F4U, IIRC you cannot even keep the Temp level on a WEP climbout after takeoff because of the torque effect and snapshots in the 14 are very difficult because of the odd torque. The N1K and La7 do not suffer from torque either.
-
Meyer, Corky "Navy taste test...: Hellcat vs. Corsair". Flight Journal. Dec 1998.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3897/is_199812/ai_n8817082/pg_1
Before measuring Corsair takeoff performance, I performed the usual required stalls in all configurations. This model of the Corsair had the new and improved stall tripper wedge on the right wing to improve stalls. It was quite clear to me that the Hellcat was much more docile and controllable during and after stalls, especially in the landing-condition accelerated stalls. The Corsair had more of an abrupt wing drop in the normal stalls and was more difficult to un-stall than the Hellcat. Even worse, the Corsair did a totally unexpected double snap roll when performing a 5G accelerated stall in the clean condition. During these tests, I should have been more impressed with the Corsair's reactions than I was. The Corsair was really talking to me.
Pretty biased report it seems, but some useful info in there. I am in no way against the F4U, just interested in how it flew historically.
-
I'm not saying the Corsair should be easy to fly, nor that it is correct in AH. I am saying that most of the stories about its poor low speed handling are from non-test pilots during the process of transitioning to the F4U from another plane. This means there is a tacit comparison to their previous aircraft, which was probably less than half the HP and weight. Even in the quote in Furball's post, the Corsairs poor stall and low speed handling is noted relative to the F6F which was renowned as one of the most docile and easy to fly planes of the entire war. If you notice though, he does not seem to feel its a "deal killer" just not as good as the F6F.
-
Grits, I think they were threatened with F6Fs but the sq cdr fought to keep the f4us. I'd guess they switched from F6Fs. Just a guess.
VF-17 had already fully qualified in the F4U before the Navy gave them the option of transitioning to the F6F. VF-17 chose to stay with the F4U.
-
Furball: I'm in the same boat as you
Grits: Consider that the F6F was as fast as the F4u, climbed faster, had the exact same firepower, turned tighter, was MUCH more gentle and forgiving in stalls, and was battle tested. There's no reason to pick the corsair over the hellcat. Then again, some pilots say the P-39D was the best plane of the war, even after moving to P-51s, or that the P-40 was, even after going to P-47s, P-38s, etc. I don't think you can read too much into it, other than personal bias, that they chose to stick with one plane over another. There are other examples of this, too, not related to the USN.
Bodhi: 250-300 hours is hundreds of sorties, training and operational. Hundreds. By that time they had better have learned the quirks or washed out. LW pilots got a miniscule fraction of that many times. Japanese pilots toward the end of the war even less. If, even after so much flight time, pilots still had trouble, it is a sign of a difficult to handle airframe. RAF pilots in BOB had much less flight time for their spits than LW pilots had for their 109s. Both sides were commonly held to be evenly matched, in regards to fighter effectiveness (a group of 109s fights a group of spits, it's a pretty even matchup). However, the 109 pilots were much much more experienced than the spit pilots. History shows us that the spit was a lot easier to handle, much more forgiving, and the 109 was much more difficult to handle, less forgiving.
So if pilots with 250-300 hours flight time were having accidents left and right in teh F4u, one might draw the conclusion that it's a difficult to handle plane, rather than blaming a "mere" 250-300 hours flight time. The same pilots had little to no trouble on the F6F. If it were only pilot error, all types would have had the same rate of accidents. Once we agree that all planes handle differently, and given average pilot skill, the same set of pilots crashes in plane A but not in plane B, plane A usually has handling problems.
I think that's the inference a lot of people are making on the corsair, and IMO it holds up against the reports from pilots that flew it.
And, yes, F4us in-game do out turn spits. All save the SpitV.
http://www.gonzoville.com/ahcharts/index.php?p1=f4u1&p2=f4u1d&p3=spit9&p4=spit16
-
Grits: Consider that the F6F was as fast as the F4u, climbed faster, had the exact same firepower, turned tighter, was MUCH more gentle and forgiving in stalls, and was battle tested. There's no reason to pick the corsair over the hellcat. Then again, some pilots say the P-39D was the best plane of the war, even after moving to P-51s, or that the P-40 was, even after going to P-47s, P-38s, etc. I don't think you can read too much into it, other than personal bias, that they chose to stick with one plane over another. There are other examples of this, too, not related to the USN.
The F4U was battle tested months before the F6F was even deployed. There was no F6F when the first pilots came out of flight training to the F4U, they came from F4Fs at best but most came from SNJs. If the F6F was so much better why did the USN use the F4U (AU-1) until the early '50s out living even the F8F?
All of this irrelevant to my point which was just to note the large jump in performance the F4U posed to those first guys that transitioned to it from trainers. I am not making an argument that the F4U was better or worse than any other plane, only that the early anecdotes must be read with that "performance shock" in mind.
-
Krusty,
Actually, F4U was faster (marginally or markedly, depending on the model of both involved) climbed somewhat better, (again, either marginally or markedly, depending on the models involved) and I believe also had the superior acceleration. But that's beside the point.
The point is your statement that if the Corsair's accident rate was entirely attributable to error by low flight-time pilots then ALL airframes would experience the same loss rate is flawed. The only one consistent feature of all reports on the Corsair's accident history is the circumstances under which they were noted: Landing configuration.
I've yet to see any consistent reports on the Corsair's stall behavior under combat maneuvering.
-
Krusty- that web page doesn't work well for me at all, I think because my connect speed is so low. (28K dial-up)
The pictures generally just put the little "x" in the corner. Through repeated (6-8) tries I can usually get some of them to load, but...
Does that site (or another) show turn rate as well? Or just radius? I'd be curious to see that. The F4U being able to turn the same size circle as the spit doesn't tell the whole story unless they do it at the same speed...
Honestly, when I get real slow against a spit in a flat circle I know I'm screwed, since he'll creap around behind me eventually. Most of my kills against spits are early in the fight, while he's still too fast to turn at his best radius. I seldom use the "best" radius for the F4U either, since flying around near a stall in aslow accelerating plane is not good strategy in my book.
Again, I'm not complaining OR defending the FM, as I simply don't know. Way too much subjective arguing to convince me either way...
MtnMan
-
My sources on the Corsair are limited in number. Widewing and F4UDOA have much more at their disposal than I. So, I can't say that I'm an export of the F4U by any means. However, I'm somewhat puzzled by some of the posters in this thread minimizing what the Navy considered to be the very troublesome carrier-qualification problems of the Corsair.
Specifically, there is a tendency, by some, to discount the opinions of qualified test pilots with thousands of hours of flight time in a wide variety of high-performance aircraft who have published accounts or testified to the aforementioned negative handling characteristics of the F4U. Indeed, there are some who use a single inconsistency in such testimony as an excuse to dismiss the rest of the account out-of-hand. Those championing a great aircraft should never allow their devotion to make them blind to its weaknesses and idiosyncracies.
The early Corsair's carrier qualification problems were several, and while some were correctable, others proved to be almost insuperable. Poor visibility over the nose during carrier landings proved to be of the latter type, and was never fully resolved, although it could be compensated for somewhat by using a curving path to the approach.
Another problem, torque roll, is aptly describe by Capt. Eric Brown of the Royal Navy. While it is true that the British Royal Navy was able to carrier qualify its Corsairs one year ahead of the U.S. Navy, it did not happen simply because the British worked through the problems. To quote Capt. Brown: "We were a bit desperate at that time with our new carriers being launched faster than we were able to equip them. The Corsairs gave us a bit of a hard time, and we soon understood exactly why the Americans had so much trouble with them. One problem was the bad view over the nose, Also, if one got slow on approach and added full power to go around again, one could induce an uncontrollable torque roll. Because of it's small stabilizing vertical-fin area and high power, the arcraft would then yaw, roll, stall and spin into the water. It also had a most non-resilient landing gear that would bounce the beast over the barrier into the parked aircraft pack on the foredeck."
"It's redeeming factor was its high kill rate - second only to the Hellcat's, but the high accident rate cost a lot of Allied pilots their lives. The Royal Navy had a lot of trash in its Seafire and Sea Hurrican aircraft because neither was designed from the ground up for carrier operations."
A 1952 F4u-5 Pilots' Handbook states clearly on page 29, "At the stall with POWER ON, FLAPS DOWN, a roll off to the left is violent and is accompanied by a 600- to 900-foot loss in altitude." So the torque roll problem still manifested itself even at this late a date in the Corsair's production life. Clearly, no version of the F4U suffered fools gladly.
Early Corsairs had a serious tendency to drop their left wing abruptly during a power-on stall during landing. To correct this, Chance-Voung installed a leading edge strip, or spoiler on the right wing, just out-board of the "crank" or bend section. This caused the right and left wings to stall at approximately the same time, but also increased the stall speed. One Vought pilot is quoted in Francis Dean's AHT as stating, "I found the device had more of a psychological effect for apprehensive pilots than a positive cure for the unsymmetrical stall."
I haven't flown in AH for a while, so I can't comment directly on the Corsair's turning ability with full-flaps, power on. Yet, according to much that I have ready over the years, being low-and-slow in any aircraft the size and weight of the F4U was NOT where a pilot wanted to be when fighting the Japanese, or any light-weight, cut-and-thrust enemy fighter. The speed for maximum deployment of the flaps was 230 mph, and the maneuvering setting on the flaps was 20 degrees. Any five-ton fighter flopping around with full flaps at speeds under 200 mph was begging to get clobbered by any proficient Japanese pilot. The maneuvering setting would allow the Corsair to stay with a Zero at that speed for 1/4 of a turn; an attempt to reef it in and outturn the Zeke to attain a killing shot would put the American in danger of stalling out. Within three turns, the Jap would be punishing the Corsair's pilot for making such a stupid error.
While post-war Navy and Marine pilots tended to be high-time in flight experience, such was not the case during the early part of WW II. The landing problems inherent in the designe were of great concern to the Navy which, in the opinion of many experts, was fully justified in pulling it from carrier duty three times during the war.
Regards, Shuckins
-
Shuckins,
I don't think the Corsair's stall issues are being disregarded at all.
HOWEVER what IS being disregarded is that in every piece of evidence used by those who are trying to discredit the current model (and that's exactly what seems to be happening) the Corsair's lethal departure tendencies ARE LARGELY ONLY REFERENCED IN REGARDS TO LANDING CONFIGURATION. More specifically, the aircraft's violent departure when a pilot over-revs the engine during a stall or go-around on landing. I have YET to see any notable or consistent report presented that specifically describes the F4U's stall behavior under combat maneuvering and configuration.
In fact, what official reports and tests on the aircraft's actual combat capabilities and maneuverability I HAVE seen make a point of the F4U's excellent responsiveness and maneuverability, and definite (Fw-190) or marginal (F6F) advantage over a number of other aircraft in direct comparisons (I'm sure WW or F4UDOA can be convinced to repost the Fw vs F4U vs F6F test report).
Does this necessarily mean that there would different results of stall tests performed under extreme combat maneuvering vs landing configuration? No it doesn't, but neither does the lack of information rule OUT the Corsair's ability to engage in near-stall combat maneuvering.
-
While post-war Navy and Marine pilots tended to be high-time in flight experience, such was not the case during the early part of WW II.
Which has been my only point to keep in mind when reading the anecdotal reports of those early pilots.
-
Sax, the Corsair's stall at any reasonable combat speed was fairly benign....it was the nasty characteristics that emerged at low speeds, full flaps when a pilot cobbed the power too much that rendered it unsuitable for carrier ops.....that and the oleo-leg bounce, poor visibility over the nose, and asymmetrical stall.
However, there were other dangerous characteristics that emerged soon after production began on the first models. For instance, the original Navy design specifications called for the Corsair (and the Hellcat also) to successfully recover from an 8-turn spin. It was discovered that after the second spin the Corsair prototype could NOT recover from the spin. Fortunately, the test airacraft was outfitted with a spin recovery parachute, or it would have been lost. One indication of how far the Navy was willing to bend-over-backwards in order to justify the purchase of the F4U is that it REVISED the spin recovery specifications from 8 spins to two.
To return to the low-speed, full-flaps, dogfighting that is going on in AH at the present time, let me state that even IF the Corsair has a slow-speed turn comparable to a Spitfire, deploying flaps carries a plethora of penalties. For one thing, depending on the aircraft type, the effectiveness of the ailerons in blanked, often to a very great degree. Thus, the ability to execute a quick bank and change of direction is greatly curtailed. Secondly, full or partial flap deployment on an aircraft the size and weight of the Corsair for more than a moment or two drastically slows its speed. Acceleration from speeds below 200 mph in a close, hard-turning dogfight would be insufficient to take the Corsair, or the Hellcat for that matter, out of danger. American pilots of those airacraft simply did not make a habit of extending flaps during combat with the Japanese except for the very briefest of moments.
Regards, Shuckins
-
To return to the low-speed, full-flaps, dogfighting that is going on in AH at the present time, let me state that even IF the Corsair has a slow-speed turn comparable to a Spitfire, deploying flaps carries a plethora of penalties. For one thing, depending on the aircraft type, the effectiveness of the ailerons in blanked, often to a very great degree. Thus, the ability to execute a quick bank and change of direction is greatly curtailed. Secondly, full or partial flap deployment on an aircraft the size and weight of the Corsair for more than a moment or two drastically slows its speed. Acceleration from speeds below 200 mph in a close, hard-turning dogfight would be insufficient to take the Corsair, or the Hellcat for that matter, out of danger. American pilots of those airacraft simply did not make a habit of extending flaps during combat with the Japanese except for the very briefest of moments.
Regards, Shuckins
This description fits my overall impression of the AH F4U when slow with flaps down. I'd have to admit that I think the torque in the game seems to be neutered, but I'm not so sure that that is accidental. I also highly suspect that that "flaw" is not limited to the F4U's. Having some planes show large torque penalties while others do not doesn't seem fair (F4U vs Tempest...)
MtnMan
-
Schuckins,
First, I'm not arguing against the stall behavior in the landing configuration, and the vicious snap-over if the engine is over-revved at low speeds. My problem is that several people appear to be using that as their SOLE argument for why the F4U isn't CAPABLE of it.
Second your points are why, if you've seen me actually fly in-game, if I can at all help it I avoid such sow-speed, full-flaps engagements in the Corsair. If I have control of the fight, or am at least on neutral footing I attempt to avoid situations where I need more than two notches of flaps (occasionally I'll use three if I'm at the top of a loop). I may exceed this in a small or 1v1 engagement, but again, I prefer fighting in speed ranges between 250-350mph IAS as the F4U generally has the advantage in mid and high-speed handling. I personally don't think the minuscule turning circle out-weighs the average-at-best acceleration and limited low-speed vertical performance. Additionally, the Corsair's turn radius advantage is of limited benefit because the turn RATE is so much lower. Yeah, she'll cut inside a Spit, but if the Hog doesn't get the shot off soon the Spit's higher turn rate comes into play.
-
Krusty,
Why'd you delete your reply?
Just an FYI, 250 - 300 hours is a very inexperienced pilot. Considering today, most insurance companies require over 200 hours flying from the back seat of the T-6 before they consider allowing you to fly the Corsair. Thats assuming you have 500 hours complex tail dragger time.
-
Here is the page from the F4u-4 Flight Handbook concerning stalls. Notice the speeds, then notice the bold print on intentional spins...
(http://i168.photobucket.com/albums/u191/bodhi83/f4u4stallpg41.jpg)
-
Interesting- it looks like the speeds for the F4U-4 stall are exactly the same as for the F4U-1. The spin warning in my book (F4U-1) states- "NO INTENTIONAL SPINNING IS PERMITTED". The spin recovery seems very similar, if anything it looks more complicated in your book. I only get one paragraph in my book, but of course the authors may have figured that if it got that far the pilot was dead anyway so they just gave him something to do to occupy his mind for those last few seconds...
Stalls are described as "not abnormal, and warning exists in..." "Recovery from the incipient stages of a spin following a stall is rapid on normal use of controls..."
There is a note on stalls, even though spins are forbidden-
"NOTE- Pilots should familiarize themselves thoroughly with the stall, in both straight flight and tight turns."
So spins are discouraged, but stall practice is encouraged. Not the same for sure, but a stall in a tight turn can easily develop into a spin with all that torque... For that matter, the stall in tight turns seems to be exactly what this threads main point is.
They didn't recommend that inexperienced pilots attempt much in the way of maneuvering at speeds under 180 knots.
MtnMan
-
Wow Bodi....lol. Is it just me...or is that section on stall characteristics and recovery just sloppin' over with contradictions?
"NO INTENTIONAL SPINNING OF THE MODEL F4U-4 AIRPLANE IS PERMITTED!"
"Satisfactory recovery from spins of four turns in each direction in the clean condition and from one turn in the landing condition has been adequately demonstrated for required spin entry conditions."
My first reaction to those statements, if I were a pilot new to the Corsair, would be, "Are they chittin' me?"
-
Well, I remain skeptical that the F4U out turned the Spitfire. In AH Spitfires use their flaps in combat, something that never happened in reality and are still out turned by the F4Us. Having a 12,000lb fighter out turn a 7,500lb fighter as readily as the F4U does seems off to me.
The F4Us are also among the most docile aircraft in the game.
-
I disagree that it's all operator incompetence that earned this reputation.
They're not going to go from a SNJ to a f4u. They all have orientation flight, they have training, they are sent to familiarize themselves with the planes before they're ever allowed to solo. On top of that they're experienced enough in how to fly the plane before they ever try a CV landing.
You're not giving them enough credit.
The F4u was NEVER a spitfire, and NEVER turned like one, yet here in-game it has one of the tightest turn circles and one of the most stable stalls ever.
nice edit... :rolleyes:
They did go from the SNJ to the F4u. There was simply nothing else to transission too. As I said befor, my granddad went from the T-6 to the 51. He always told me that he felt he knew enough about the 51 too be dangerous.
Please, astonish us with your wonderous insight on pilot training now...
-
Wow Bodi....lol. Is it just me...or is that section on stall characteristics and recovery just sloppin' over with contradictions?
"NO INTENTIONAL SPINNING OF THE MODEL F4U-4 AIRPLANE IS PERMITTED!"
"Satisfactory recovery from spins of four turns in each direction in the clean condition and from one turn in the landing condition has been adequately demonstrated for required spin entry conditions."
My first reaction to those statements, if I were a pilot new to the Corsair, would be, "Are they chittin' me?"
I don't think so Shuckins... the spin is not something you want to screw with with any warbird short of the Hellcat, ever there they prohibit it. I think it is more the same of what we have heard all along, these guys just did not play with aircraft along the edge of the low speed stall like we do. I mean come on, we lose a cartoon aircraft, they would lose their life.
-
Wow Bodi....lol. Is it just me...or is that section on stall characteristics and recovery just sloppin' over with contradictions?
"NO INTENTIONAL SPINNING OF THE MODEL F4U-4 AIRPLANE IS PERMITTED!"
"Satisfactory recovery from spins of four turns in each direction in the clean condition and from one turn in the landing condition has been adequately demonstrated for required spin entry conditions."
My first reaction to those statements, if I were a pilot new to the Corsair, would be, "Are they chittin' me?"
You gotta remember that test pilots did intentionally spin the plane. That's where the "adequately demonstrated" part comes from. Intentional spins were prohibited for the operating forces.
-
Interesting note in a report written for the Fleet Air Arm by Jeffrey Quill, Supermarine Chief Test Pilot regarding the Seafire and carrier landing problems.
"It is the opinion of this writer that the poor speed controlabilty of the Seafire is the cause of trouble with such pilots who do have trouble with Seafires. As an example, the American Hellcats and Corsairs, although they are very much heavier aircraft, and approach the deck very much faster, are, in fact, generally considered easier to land on, and it is my opinion that their good speed controlability contributes towards the easiness of deck landing more then anything else."
Quill certainly knew Spits and would hardly have a bias towards American birds. For what it's worth
As for the Spinning bit. I have a wartime Tempest Pilot's manual and it says the same thing. Spins prohibited.
-
You gotta remember that test pilots did intentionally spin the plane. That's where the "adequately demonstrated" part comes from. Intentional spins were prohibited for the operating forces.
Intentional spins in any WW2 aircraft for ayone short of a test pilot or very high time in type pilot should be highly discouraged.
-
"Even worse, the Corsair did a totally unexpected double snap roll when performing a 5G accelerated stall in the clean condition."
Benign stall? Double snap roll? And 190 has "nasty" stall with a single snap roll? :huh
"I have a wartime Tempest Pilot's manual and it says the same thing. Spins prohibited."
IIRC The Finnish airforce prohibited the spins with 109s too, and it is considered as very easy to recover from stalls. However I'm not sure if it was usually to prevent the pilots needlessly over-stressing the airframe or from actual danger of spin developing into a flat spin.
I think that the problems is that if the spin develops more than a few rotations the centrifugal force may start to shift the COG behind the COL making the a/c practically a leaf. After that it is up to pilot to find a moment in pitch oscillation where careful control movements and applying power might break the pattern. In some planes it just did not work.
-C+
-
Charge,
In game, the F4u will torque roll to the left if you push it too far.
-
Yeah, Shuckins had the explanation in his post:
"Early Corsairs had a serious tendency to drop their left wing abruptly during a power-on stall during landing. To correct this, Chance-Voung installed a leading edge strip, or spoiler on the right wing, just out-board of the "crank" or bend section. This caused the right and left wings to stall at approximately the same time, but also increased the stall speed. One Vought pilot is quoted in Francis Dean's AHT as stating, "I found the device had more of a psychological effect for apprehensive pilots than a positive cure for the unsymmetrical stall."
I didn't claim otherwise. I just speculated of what was the reason for such behavior from aerodynamic point of view. I may be wrong, of course -just wanted to discuss about the matter.
Does anybody know if there is any kind on built in wash-out in Corsair's wing?
-C+
-
Does anybody know if there is any kind on built in wash-out in Corsair's wing?
From looking at the NACA stall test performed on the F4U two things are apparent.
1. The stall is a root stall not a tip stall.
2. The stall is caused by the rotation of the propellor and the airflow over the starboard wing root. Power off this A-Symetrical stall should not occur or be greatly reduced. It was at it's worst with flaps down at low speeds.
FYI The F4U did have some wing twist built in to the wing how much I have to research. Tip stallers are usually more tapered wing designs, the F4U had very rectangular wings typical of carrier aircraft of the time.
-
Does anybody know if there is any kind on built in wash-out in Corsair's wing?
-C+
Have a look at NACA Test Report 829 at: http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19930091906_1993091906.pdf (http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19930091906_1993091906.pdf)
My regards,
Widewing
-
From looking at the NACA stall test performed on the F4U two things are apparent.
1. The stall is a root stall not a tip stall.
2. The stall is caused by the rotation of the propellor and the airflow over the starboard wing root. Power off this A-Symetrical stall should not occur or be greatly reduced. It was at it's worst with flaps down at low speeds.
FYI The F4U did have some wing twist built in to the wing how much I have to research. Tip stallers are usually more tapered wing designs, the F4U had very rectangular wings typical of carrier aircraft of the time.
NACA Report 829 shows no washout for the Corsair. Angle of incidence at the root and tip both were set a 2 degrees. As did almost all other WWII fighter designs, Vought used a great deal of airfoil taper--23018 root and 23009 at the tip. Given the lower stall Rn of the 9 percent airfoil profile, the tip would stall before the root, all other things being equal. I'll caveat that by saying that the absence of planform taper would reduce that tendency compared to most other contemporary designs. You might be able to argue that the lack of washout would remove the advantage of the lack of planform taper, but without some sort of detailed analysis, it would be conjecture.
Hmm, WW beat me to it.
-
I believe it.
I started trying to learn the corsair last week. I spent most of my AH time thjis past year flying the 109 K4.
The torque roll in the Hog has surprised me a few times. The first was with gear down and flaps out. I started sinking too quickly and mashed the throttle forward and it was all she wrote. Rudder/aileron inputs seemed to do nothing to help me.
Another time I was low and slow, flaps out, looking for a GV to egg. I mashed the throttle forward and promptly rolled right into the deck.
I have been working at smoothly rolling on the throttle and it has helped with keeping me from killing myself. Now I have to work on keeping everyone else from killing me. :lol
Charge,
In game, the F4u will torque roll to the left if you push it too far.
-
I'm never what you might call "gentle" on the throttle. I mash it on, off, however hard I want. I've never spun out from just increasing throttle. I DO notice the ball shift positions in some planes, and sometimes the nose turns a little, but I've never just instantly flipped over and crashed from throttle.
Not in this game.
-
If you get slow enough in the Corsair and on the edge of uncoordinated flight, if you throttle up to fast, you will torque roll over.
-
It isn't instantaneous....but it happens at a point where you can't recover because without the power you will crash and with the power you will crash. You are just screwed.
I'm never what you might call "gentle" on the throttle. I mash it on, off, however hard I want. I've never spun out from just increasing throttle. I DO notice the ball shift positions in some planes, and sometimes the nose turns a little, but I've never just instantly flipped over and crashed from throttle.
Not in this game.
-
If you get slow enough in the Corsair and on the edge of uncoordinated flight, if you throttle up to fast, you will torque roll over.
And try it without combat trim on... since the veteran Hog pilots lacked that special feature. I suppose you would find it much harder to not torque roll at very low speeds when you suddenly throttle up.
-
I never use combat trim. I have all the trim mapped to my stick.