Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: F4UDOA on January 09, 2001, 04:58:00 PM
-
Gents,
We have a flight model in the F4U-1C/D which is representative of the F4U-1A. Except up until now I never had the test data to prove it. Now thanks to Wells I have these documents and I can show our FM matches.
(http://www.geocities.com/slakergmb/14728170.jpg)
This data is a F4U-1A with water. It matches the current F4U-1D we have.
Here is the correct F4U-1D data
(http://www.geocities.com/slakergmb/19128170.jpg)
(http://www.geocities.com/slakergmb/19728170.jpg)
(http://www.geocities.com/slakergmb/19d28170.jpg)
Notice
1. Initial climb is 3370FPM combat power and 2930FPM military power at 12,175LBS. Since climb and acceleration are tied together this mean a much better accelerating bird as well as a MUCH better climber.
2. Vmax at sea level in the clean condition is 366MPH and 417MPH at 20,000.
3. Notice how this data matches the Flight test against the P-51B, FW190A5, F6F-3/5 and A6M2/5 much better than the charts listed in AH.
4. Level stall at gross weight is 87.5mph.
The current AH FM stall is 100MPH.
It has been said be me and others that the prop change was largely responsible for the performance increase between the -1 and -1D.
This is apparently so as the -1 results use the blade design 6443 and the -1D uses 6501A-0.
5. Notice the design spec for the -1C is clearly a F4U-1D with a slightly heavier weight.
[This message has been edited by F4UDOA (edited 01-09-2001).]
[This message has been edited by F4UDOA (edited 01-09-2001).]
-
My observations:
I don't think we really ever fly in "clean" condition in AH so the AH 1D should go 359.
The 1D has 2250 HP (instead of 2135 for the 1A) with WEP. I suspect this accounts for about half of the increase in climb rate.
Very nice data. Thanks F4UDOA and Wells!
Hooligan
[This message has been edited by Hooligan (edited 01-09-2001).]
-
Great data. This is the kind of stuff needed to base arguments off of. Thx
-
Hehe, did I see options for additional armament?
A 3rd bomb on the fuselage?
2 11.75" rockets instead of the pylon bombs?
Thanks for the scans, cool reading.
-
This data was shown on this website.
Wells pointed it out to me. The climb I have always been suspicious of considering every climb calculation and flight test I have seen for the F4U puts it at roughly 3400FPM. For some reason this document has been hiding from me for a while.
Here is the main URL.
http://www.geocities.com/slakergmb/id63.htm (http://www.geocities.com/slakergmb/id63.htm)
-
Fix the 190a8 climb too (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
-
looks like the ah f4u1d matches the f4u1d data pretty close with pylons on.
but im almost sure the AH f4u1d is modelled for combat conditions with pylons and rocket mounts. it wouldnt make sense for it not to be. these items were standard on almost all f4u1d's and rarely removed.
but i'm all for decreasing the f4u1c's performance to be less than the f4u1d (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
[This message has been edited by Citabria (edited 01-10-2001).]
-
You guys notice he's got F4U-F6F vs. Fw-190 A5/U4 charts there too?
-----------------------
Flakbait
Delta 6's Flight School (http://www.worldaccessnet.com/~delta6)
"For yay did the sky darken, and split open and spew forth fire, and
through the smoke rode the Four Wurgers of the Apocalypse.
And on their canopies was tattooed the number of the Beast, and the
number was 190." Jedi, Verse Five, Capter Two, The Book of Dweeb
(http://www.worldaccessnet.com/~delta6/htbin/custom1.jpg)
-
Hi
Interseting how this this data shows that chog is quite a bit heavier than dhog. Isnt the whole chog bunch arguing some bs that chog was 200-300 lbs lighter than dhog???
thanks GRUNHERZ
-
Citabria - the same applies to pretty much all of the fighters in AH.
-
f4u1c: 12470lbs
f4u1d: 12175lbs
12470-12175=295lbs
f4u1d should outperform that big blue piece of toejam chog by a hair. currently the chog outperforms the f4u1d by a hair. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/mad.gif)
-
(http://www.geocities.com/slakergmb/1378f6f0.gif)
only place the f4u1d climb performance shows less in ah than in real life is below 1000 feet. above that the AH f4u1d is the same or better
-
nev mind.
[This message has been edited by Swoop (edited 01-10-2001).]
-
funked aircraft like the typhoon and p38L had rocket rails installed only when rockets loaded though. otherwise they were removed.
-
Grunherz wrote:
Interseting how this this data shows that chog is quite a bit heavier than dhog. Isnt the whole chog bunch arguing some bs that chog was 200-300 lbs lighter than dhog???
Pyro stated that the C and D used the same FM and that in AH the C was a couple of hundred pounds lighter. Nobody has been arguing some bs about this, merely quoting Pyro. And I am certain that if Pyro says that the AH Chog is a bit lighter than the AH Dhog, this is a fact.
Citibria wrote:
f4u1d should outperform that big blue piece of toejam chog by a hair. currently the chog outperforms the f4u1d by a hair.
If HTC should decide to change the F4U FM based on this data, the Dhog will get about a 10% increase in climb and acceleration as well as a noticeable improvement in turn ability. The new Chog will perform a hair worse than the new Dhog but it will still perform better than the current Chog.
Im certainly glad (and admittedly surprised) to see the two of you cheering the publication of this new data. And I am also looking forward to the possibility of FM changes to the F4Us that will increase their climb, acceleration and turn performance.
Hooligan
-
30 bucks for hogs improving in next version..
10 bucks for fw190a8 staying the same rock it has been
-
Why has the AH-F4U-1D with wep not the same decrease in power from sealevel up to 2000ft? Looks like the AH-F4U holds 2250hp power up to 15k
-
of course?
why the heck not?
everyone knows the f4u1c/d was the best climber, diver, turner, burner, accelerator, runner, roller damage taker of the war
it should out climb the p-38L
out turn the n1k2
outroll the fw190
out dive the jug
outaccelerate the 109g10
take more damage than the ju88
and outrun the typhoon
[This message has been edited by Citabria (edited 01-10-2001).]
-
Gents,
I have long believe the F4U should climb and accelerate better than the AH model. I stopped my crusade because I didn't have the appropriate test data. Thanks to some help by other members I now do so I'm asking.
As for some who choose to whine about there birds poor AH representation I don't know what to tell you.
Citabria I have asked you for some P-38L info which you either don't have or don't whish to provide. IE. What is the loaded weight of a P-38L with full internal fuel and ammo? If you can answer that question maybe you can make an argument about the performance. As for your last post. I think you can do better.
The FW190A-8 climb? I have no idea what it should be? Didn't Niklas post a chart a while back showing the climb, speed of all 190 models?? I can tell you right now with WEP it outclimbs the F4U-1D in AH.
-
Citabria,
BTW, I will tell you what Pyro has said many times. They don't configure the turn performance of any of the AH birds. They input parameters into a dynamic model which then creates it's own turn capabilities. In other words they add wingspan, aspect ratio, lift coefficient and viola....Flight model.
The reason the P-38L doesn't turn like it should is that the AH Flaps don't create enough lift. But it's not just the 38 FM. It's the F4U, F6F, P-51 and any other bird that used them for maneuvering(P-38, F4U, P-51, NIK2) or landing(every other bird). None of them stall properly with flaps in a 1G stall in AH.
You want fix the P-38L? Do the damn work, and maybe they will listen. Instead of whining all over my thread.
Later
-
i really canīt understand your complaints F4udoa.
Itīs easy to see in the F4U-1D/C chart from this website that at already 2000ft your engine power is only ~2100hp. According to these charts the F4U really needs a fix ....
...because between 2k and 15k the current AH-F4U is 10-15mph too fast (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)!!!!!!
i would be really silent hihi (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) enjoy your speed advantage and hope pyro donīt look at the charts (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
And the stall speed- maybe with flaps full down?
niklas
-
Niklas,
Really?
1. The "chart" you are looking at shows the F4U-1D with pylons. If you read the clean condition for a fighter config the F4U-1D has a top speed of 366MPH at sea level and 417MPH at 20K. That is faster than the AH model on both counts.
2. The initial climb is 3370FPM with WEP and 2930FPM in military power. And 7.1minutes to 20,000ft at over 12,000lbs. That time is far superior to the existing FM which takes over 8minutes. Also this will dramatically increase acceleration as well as the ability to maintain low speed turns and turning ability.
3. The stall of 87mph even with flaps is better than the current F4U-1D.
No thanks Niklas. I'll take the real thing anyday.
-
Niklas,
Also that climb chart includes two capped pylons and the center line drop tank rack.
Dra, drag, drag. That wouldn't be there in the clean condition. So climb would actually improve.
This is with the two large pylons and rack
http://www.geocities.com/slakergmb/id78.htm (http://www.geocities.com/slakergmb/id78.htm)
And this is without.
http://www.geocities.com/slakergmb/id79.htm (http://www.geocities.com/slakergmb/id79.htm)
[This message has been edited by F4UDOA (edited 01-10-2001).]
[This message has been edited by F4UDOA (edited 01-10-2001).]
-
F4UDOA:
Maybe I am misunderstanding this so please correct me if I am wrong.
The "clean" condition was not typical. "Normal" condition for the F4U is with pylons and a centerline rack. These were typically left on an aircraft at all times and not taken off aircraft for "light" sorties.
Is this correct?
Hooligan
Hooligan
-
Hooligan,
I n all the comabat photo's I have ever seen of the F4U-1D unless they were carrying DT's or bombs the pylons would not be there. That would be the "Fighter" configuration.
Check this pic
(http://www.vought.com/photos/images/0426_066.jpg)
The pylon supporting the drop tank is large and visible.
Against this pic
(http://www.vought.com/photos/images/0426_082.jpg)
And the pylons are gone. You have to zoom in on the pic but the center rack and pylons are definitly optional.
-
I generally don't worry about minor variations in the FM. A few MPH or FPM one way or the other doesn't bother me.
I will say this about F4UDOA though:
He does the homework and posts documentation based on something other than an anecdote or pilot impression.
F4 & I have had our disagreements in the O'Club and probably always will. That has nothing to do with the game, though.
With respect to his posted research of his namesake plane most of the other guys around here could learn from him.
...and NO, I'm not an F4U flyer. I'm almost always in the Jug or the Mustang. (Which are, of course, incredibly overmodeled as part of the on-going allied conspiracy. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/rolleyes.gif) )
[This message has been edited by Toad (edited 01-10-2001).]
-
every f4u in that pic has rocket stubs installed as well as pylons.
im pretty certain that the pylons and rocket stubs wer ussually left on the airplane although i think the centerline bomb rack wasn't ussually used.
(http://www.vought.com/photos/images/0426_066.jpg)
[This message has been edited by Citabria (edited 01-10-2001).]
-
Toad<S>
Yeah, we do have our differences don't we (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
I kinda get into this stuff. I'm really not a gamer. I would be doing this stuff and emailing people even if there were no flight simms.
My latest venture is emailing some poor guy at Vought to send me some documentation from there archives. I should really get out more.
Later
-
Citabria,
Can you read??
1. The rocket launching stubs come off too but that is not what I am talking about. The Pylons I am referring too are the two big ones attached to the fuselage on either side of the drop tank rack. Look at the top picture. Do you see them?? No. Do you see the rocket launch stubs(which isn't what I was talking about anyway) No.
2. Look at your previous post of the climb diagram. It says Flight test base on combat loading: 2 capped pylons+ Center line drop tank rack Gee, which two pylons are they talking about??
here is a diagram without.
http://www.geocities.com/slakergmb/id78.htm (http://www.geocities.com/slakergmb/id78.htm)
and with
http://www.geocities.com/slakergmb/id79.htm (http://www.geocities.com/slakergmb/id79.htm)
Kapish?
BTW, What is the loaded weight of a P-38L with full internal fuel and ammo??
[This message has been edited by F4UDOA (edited 01-10-2001).]
[This message has been edited by F4UDOA (edited 01-10-2001).]
-
i really dont care as long as the f4u1d is better than the f4u1c.
[This message has been edited by Citabria (edited 01-10-2001).]
-
Relax man. The guy likes his plane, he fights for his plane, and instead of coming up with neato catch phrases (like "turbolasers") he actually provides empirical and documented evidence.
I could care less if they drop 20mph off of it, I'd love to strap on those 12" rockets, or the 3rd 1k# bomb.
------------------
Fatty
Fat Drunk Bastards (http://fdb.50megs.com)
"If you have to ask, yes, you are whining."
-
F4U:
Thanks for the info.
Hooligan
-
Thanks for the info. I'll take a look at it and digest it. I still have the performance discrepencies between the game and our charts to dig into, so I'll just go over the whole thing when I get a chance. The interesting thing that jumps out at me is the weight on the -1C being higher than the -1D. In AH it's the opposite because I've never seen a weight on the -1C and just figured the difference using weapon and ammo weights. That wouldn't take into account the installation, additional structural reinforcement, and whatever else they had to do.
------------------
Doug "Pyro" Balmos
HiTech Creations
-
thank god the f4u1d will soon outperform
el cannon de blasto chog
-
Pyro,
I have all of the F4U-1/1A/1D performance charts. I will email them to you ASAP. And thanks for taking a look.
Citabria,
Sorry about the sarcasm but I am shooting for accuracy. I really don't care that much about the F4U-1C. I drive the F4U regardless of what ever the "hot" airplane is in AH. But I have a mountain of data that points to better climb/acceleration that what we see here. As far as perk planes I would much rather see the F4U-4 and the F2G(<==would be a wild bellybutton ride not in any other simm) than a F4U-1C that is based on cannon only.
However I do think perking it because of the cannons is a bit silly. Mainly because the bulk of the people will just fly the next uber cannon bird until all cannon birds are perked. This variety theory going around is a dream. There will be no more C202's or La-5's than there are now. Pretty soon we will just be playing laser tag and nobody will get shot down.
Later
-
perk it because its rare. its not a true blue blood mass use f4u pacific corsair. just a historical oddity with only a few 100 built.
it makes the f4u1d redundant and should be a cheap perk.
-
F4UDOA As chairman of the D-Hog-Pilots-of-AH Association i want to thank you for your ongoing effort to get the FM of the F4U as realistic as possible! (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
Seriously thanks for the digging mate!
<S>
DW6
-
Well Ducky Baby,
If more pilots flew the -1D like you it might get perked too. Just goes to show it's the pilot no the plane. It's really stiff's like me that need the better flying A/C.
<S>
F4UDOA
-
Very interesting information F4UDOA, do you have the pages with the altitude versus performance charts that typically come with these pages? If so, I would be interested in a copy of them.
The data comparison between the -1C and -1D is great, in fact its some hard numbers that I have been looking for, for a long time.
But realistically, after looking at them, the performance difference (-1D vs -1C) is still so slight as too be neglible. In fact with the analog gauges of Aces High, in a blind test between the two, most people would not be able to tell the difference. Its easily within the error range of reading the instruments.
Where did you get these? Con them outta Francis Dean? If so, ask him if he has any solid data on either the P-51H, F4U-4 (on 100 octane fuel) or the F2G. I would love to see it.
------------------
Vermillion
**MOL**, Men of Leisure
[This message has been edited by Vermillion (edited 01-11-2001).]
-
Verm,
Not Frances Dean this time. It was Wells.
He pointed me to this guy's website. He has the stuff posted for the -1 and -1D.
Here ya go. The chart you want is in there. I was looking for this for a long time.
http://www.geocities.com/slakergmb/id63.htm (http://www.geocities.com/slakergmb/id63.htm)
I would like that stuff for the F4U-4, P-51H and F2G as well, hehe. Still looking...
[This message has been edited by F4UDOA (edited 01-11-2001).]
-
Pyro:
I believe I know why the CHog weighs more than the DHog. I believe that the oppressive burden of a guilty conscious is weighing this plane down. Even though it has done nothing wrong, the CHog feels guilty because otherwise rational people have become frothing maniacs due to its mere existence. Poor RAM has developed multiple-personality disorder.
Hooligan
-
Originally posted by Citabria:
perk it because its rare. its not a true blue blood mass use f4u pacific corsair. just a historical oddity with only a few 100 built.
it makes the f4u1d redundant and should be a cheap perk.
This from the guy who likes to play ostdweeb and flatten entire fields with a 37mm gun (of which only 40 were made PERK IT!).
but im almost sure the AH f4u1d is modelled for combat conditions with pylons and rocket mounts. it wouldnt make sense for it not to be. these items were standard on almost all f4u1d's and rarely removed.
Guess you missed this part of the above diagrams (I had to refresh the page 3-4 times before I got the whole images).
*COMBAT CONDITION: Two capped pylots aboard; Fuse. drop tank rack aboard. Rocket launchers not aboard. Combat condition plus 8 Mk 5-1 launchers-Vmax/SL 350mph, Vmax 400/19900 (Comb.Power) Combat condition less pylon caps Vmax/SL 351mph, Vmax401/19900 (Comb.Power)
---------------------------------------
CLEAN CONDITION: same as Combat Condition except pylons and Fuse. drop tank rack removed Vmax/SL 366mph, Vmax 417/20000 (Combat Power)
Apparently the rocket racks aren't installed when they aren't gonna carry rockets.
Clean condition would be a fighter config I'd imagine (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
[This message has been edited by CavemanJ (edited 01-11-2001).]
-
Even with the pylons the real 1Ds and 1Cs climb, accel and turn a bit better than the AH ones (at least better than indicated on AH charts). In clean condition, which F4UDOA says was standard for "fighter missions" they will perform even better.
Hooligan
-
F4UDOA... any way I can convince you to find info on the P-38L? I cant figure out how the heck or where the heck ye dig up all this stuff.. but thank you for your efforts! <S>
-
Tac,
I was just looking into the P-38L performance in AH compared to what I have. There are two problems that stand out.
1. I don't know what a P-38L with full fuel and ammo weights. I even have the Pilots Manual and I can't tell. I know what the P-38J weights but the L was slightly higher. How much I don't know. I am looking for exact numbers. Once I know that I can compare it to the AH model. I really need to see a break down of fuel, oil ammo, and extra weight from the hydraulics in the L model.
2. None of the flaps on any AH plane work properly at low speed. And the P-38 relies on the fowler type flap more than any other plane to maneuver at low speed, so it is hurt the worst. The F4U, P-51 are the other two that are significantly effected. Just check the 1G stall against the AH model with fullflaps against anyone of these birds. It's really not even close. But the 38 has such poor wingloading without them that it get's hurt the most.
-
someone test v max f4u sea level with 2 1k eggs
chart says 290, does aces high show this?
-
Argh...
AHOY MATEYS!
-
Zig,
Err, 290mph is at a normal power setting.
It doesn't list military power with that heavy an ordinance load. It's a condition of the game that we run at full power all the time. In real combat they would never fly mil or combat power with 2 1,000lbs bombs.
BTW Zigrat, your excel spreadsheet for climb was dead on the money for the F4U-1D. You have no idea how long I looked for that stupid piece of paper to prove it.
-
Cc F4UDOA.. thanks! <S>
-
Hmmm somebody figured out how to turn on their laptop, eh Brigand?
Hooligan
-
F4UDOA:
I believe that the F6F is modelled somewhat conservatively. I suspect that if sufficient documentation were uncovered, that the AH F6F performance might get changed to closely match the F6F performance in the comparitive flight test information you have posted on your web page. Any chance you could change your handle to F6FDOA for about 90 days? (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Hooligan
-
Hooligan,
From my contact with the author of "America's Hundred Thousand" I have some F6F stuff that's pretty interesting. I have a web page but I'm not that good putting stuff up. I'll email it to you and maybe you could throw it on the web.
The data is not test data however. It is the design data for the anticipated performance of the A/C. Pretty neat stuff. It's basically the Grumman FM of there own bird. Very detailed.
As a side note I am talking to a guy at the Vought company. They were purchased by the LTV corporation back in the 60's. Then during the 90's they were purchased by Lockeed/Martin Grumman. Then very recently they were spun back off into....
You got it, Vought. So after all that there is a Vought A/C and they are owned by the same people as Grumman. Pretty weird ehh.
-
the only data i know for the F6F is included in the following PDF http://214th.com/ww2/usa/f6f/f6f.pdf (http://214th.com/ww2/usa/f6f/f6f.pdf)
The last pages are almost identical to those of the F4U-4 (not the performance, the layout) so i think itīs also official data.
They didnīt mention wep there? Hellcat didnīt have water-injection ?
niklas
-
Niklas:
I believe the early F6F-3s were not built with WEP but most had it retrofitted. The -5s were built with WEP.
On the notes page of the document you provided a link to it does list COMBAT power ratings, and these are for WEP.
Hooligan
[This message has been edited by Hooligan (edited 01-12-2001).]
-
Niklas, that document originally comes from the US Navy Military History site at:
http://www.history.navy.mil/branches/org4-8.htm (http://www.history.navy.mil/branches/org4-8.htm)
And yes its official test data.
------------------
Vermillion
**MOL**, Men of Leisure