Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: Zigrat on December 07, 2000, 10:33:00 AM
-
it is almost as good as the p51
something is off teh with f4u because either a)it should climb faster or b) it should be slower. something doesnt seem right about it.
-
Zig,
You knew I would answer this right (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Anyway I just want to say that the F4U is an anomalous A/C. I was just testing your spreadsheet when I noticed the same thing. However I noticed it a while back when Wells made the same spreadsheet. I also was perplexed by the low Cdo. However there are two things that support it.
1. There are four separate flight test available in head to head comparison vrs other A/C that show the F4U with the same max speed of 360mph at sea level or higher.
2. Check the P-47 and and F6F Cdo's using your spreadsheet. They both have relatively low drag as well. The F4U is lower but should be because of a much smaller cowl opening. This is because the oil coolers in the F4U are in the wing roots.
So yes the F4U Cdo is way out of line with inline engine A/C that you would suspect to be lower. But it is compatible with other radial engine A/C. The only thing I can figure is that the drag penalty for a radial engine is not as high as expected. Possible because of the prop wash over the open area?
Also Zig. Could you please test the LW savior FW190D-9 in your spread sheet. I would just like to prove to some on these boards that the D9 will not out turn anything except maybe another D9. It will sound more credible if you say it than me.
BTW I am using the same 1G stall number for the D9 as an A8. I do not have the 1g stall for the D9 but the weight and wing are compatible with the A8.
Later
F4UDOA
-
that first spreadsheet has a few errors, i will upload a updated one soon
-
One thing that most people miss is that the Hog has the best wing/fuselage juncture of about any mid/late war plane. The Juncture is the ideal 90 degrees. I have heard some say that this was offset somewhat by the the "gull" bend but most agree it was a big factor.
lazs
-
are we talking about drag coefficengs here and that the corsair had a low one almost as good as the mustang?
-
Hi
Well actually the reason for such a good drag number for chog was due to removal of tiny rocket stubs and less weight of ammo and guns compared to 1D. Muhahhaaaa yea right. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
-
Like I said.... wing root juncture makes a big difference. As F4Udoa points out, the speed tests are not in question. The Hog was very fast at all alts. 2250 or so hp at sea level doesn't hurt tho.
lazs
-
besides the F4U had probably one of the best Prop - engine - airframe combo of WW2 except maybe the P47N and M
DW6
-
and the Fw190
(adding some gasoline to the threat to see if its lit up by flames, this thread is being very boring (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif))
-
RAM,
I got a good one. Check out Zigrat's Excel spreadsheet on turn radius and rate.
Plug FW190D-9 into it. It has the worst turning circle of any bird in AH except maybe P-47. Almost 900meters to turn at 4G's.
F4U at around 650, P-51 around 700meters. Here is the link. Try it yourself.
http://www.iit.edu/~buonmic/aircraft-test.xls (http://www.iit.edu/~buonmic/aircraft-test.xls)
This should keep things interesting.
BTW, the F6F will be around 580meters. Wait until that bird shows up. People will be screaming.
Later
F4UDOA
-
I must say the truth. I have no idea on how to use Excel, so I still havent tried Zig's test thing.
And about 190d9, I expected it to turn a bit better than Fw190A8 (wich is enough bad (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)). You say it turns a bit worse?. Nice.
LEss dweebs flying the man's plane (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif). And then there is no reason to perk it with MW50 (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
-
Having it's cockpit located as far aft as possible helps to reduce drag as well, kinda like the Gee Bee concept. The canopy was curved and sloped with at least a 45 degree angle, which was a major concern with the earlier Spitfires in causing drag. There is no radiator scoops or ducting to cause drag with the air-cooled engine. Except on the Mustang, those systems probably added enough drag to offset any benefits of using an inline engine.
-
I have a question here. since they put the spoilers on the corsairs due to its stall habbits will this be modeled into the -4? this affected its turning ability.
-
f4udoa those units are feet, not meters (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
one strange thing i have noticed from my spreadsheet is all aircraft in the game climb too slow at mid speeds..... around 250 MPH.. not sure why tho (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
i havent modeled trim drag in the spreadsheet because to do that you need weight and balance info, as well as airfoil data and tail size ... not too easy info to get. plus it varies significantly for each plane.
also please note that this gives rather *generic* performance numbers which will be up to about 10% off the real aircrafts performance #s due to the fact that specifics of the planes are not well modeled (ie this program will over predit p51 performance at high AOA because its drag increase once laminar flow stops isnt modeled) and other such idosyncracies, but in *general* its a good idea to gague airplane performance.
someone asked how to determine dive performance, look at the -climb rate required to maintain a specific speed, and tehre you have the dive speed (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) ie go to 1 g dive, 5000 fpm dive and see the speed of each at this alt..
-
Nobody is going to have a cow over an F6F that turns well...most people are pretty aware of that and it turned well in Warbirds.
It will still have horrible rear vis, and it will still have nothing but .50s.
-
I neither have a problem with the F6F turning performance. It sounds ok, but I do not understand why its armament would matter. it carried the same 6 .50 cals like the corsair did. does this mean the -4B corsair is going to be used with 4 20mm cannons?
-
Bolillo we already have the F4U-1c in aces armed with 4 20mm hispanos...
As well as F4U-1D with 50's
AKSKurj
-
I'm willing to wager a lot of money there isn't a single post complaining of the "uber" Hellcat after 1.05 comes out :-)
Unless they REALLY butcher the FM somehow.
In fact, I doubt you see all that many of them 2-3 weeks after the release. Granted, with moveable head positions, the rear vis probs aren't as bad as WBs, but it's simply not going to be flown much.
In fact, all adding CVs will do is increase the numbers of CHogs and Nikis :-)
Unfortunately, the microscopic handful of CHogs that did see combat did it off carrier decks..I can't imagine it not being enabled. And people aren't going to choose Hellcats over CHogs and Nikis.
-
I thought that N1K2-J was an japanese land-airplane and not equipped for carrier operations?
-
Yep it was not a carrier plane AFAIK.
Now how about an N1K1 seaplane? (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
-
Ack...I knew that...
I was thinking Navy = CV capable :-).
Well, the CVs will increase the numbers of CHogs even more...it's the only thing people will be flying from them....
-
my question about the -4 corsair is will it be the .50 cal -4 or the 4 20mm -4B
-
Since when are we getting the F4U-4 at all? (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif) The -4B and -4C were in use only after WW2.
-
yes, that is why I questioned it. the F4U-4 with 6 .50 cal was a ww2 plane. I know it only saw combat from june 1945 until august 1945, but this still makes it a ww2 plane. I have never seen anybody argue that a spit mk XIV wasnt a ww2 plane and I think there were more F4U-4s in service at wars end than Mk XIVs.
I agree that the F4U-4B and -4C were not ww2 planes.
-
Zigrat the answers are simple:
1: The F4u has a high coolness factor. As such the laws of physics are not enforced as strictly for the f4u.
2: The plane is blue. The sky is blue. Since the color is the same there is less drag.
3: Black magic...
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
------------------
bloom25
THUNDERBIRDS
-
Gents,
I do believe the F4U-4B did see action in WW2, however I will not lobby for it's use in Aces High. I would rather see the F4U-1A(better maneuvering) and F4U-4 as the two non-perked versions of the F4U and the -1C be the perk version.
I do think the F6F however will be the next A/C in the game that people think is unfair. I don't think people understand the performance of the A/C. It can turn with if not better than a Spit IX. Is faster than most at sea level at 345MPH. And had a 3,000FPM rate of climb. Currently there is no A/C in the game that is as maneuverable and durable with 6 50cals. It will probable eliminate the F4U-1D from game play because of this. This is one reason why the F4U-1A should be here instead. I think it will replace the NIK2 and the Spit as the plane of choice for newbies. It may not have had this effect in WB but it did in AW.
Anyway that's my 2 cents.
Later
F4UDOA
-
Even in WB (back when I was there), the F6F was a beast in the right hands.
A high F6F still sends shudders down my spine. You WB vets will remember what Garn can do in that bird. Naaaaasty.
However, the F6F is not a cannon bird, so it won't be the dweeb ride the others are. With 6 x .50's it will take a good shot to do well in it. Killing things with a 4x20mm bird will still be easier IMHO.
That said, I'm glad of it. I'd rather the F6F not be too popular, as it is one of my favourite AC of all time. It's like a mini-Jug. And it's Blue!<G>
------------------
Lephturn - Chief Trainer
A member of The Flying Pigs http://www.flyingpigs.com (http://www.flyingpigs.com)
"A pig is a jolly companion, Boar, sow, barrow, or gilt --
A pig is a pal, who'll boost your morale, Though mountains may topple and tilt.
When they've blackballed, bamboozled, and burned you, When they've turned on you, Tory and Whig,
Though you may be thrown over by Tabby and Rover, You'll never go wrong with a pig, a pig,
You'll never go wrong with a pig!" -- Thomas Pynchon, "Gravity's Rainbow"
-
Unless rearward visibility in the F6F is intolerable (as it was in WB) then I expect it to be a fine dweeb ride. Compared to the dweeb-spit IX (at sea level): The F6F has a bit worse climb and firepower, has similar turn capabilites, is faster, is a better diver and much more durable and it has a huge ammo load. I am looking forward to dweebing around in it a lot and I will feel highly insulted if I am not frequently called a cheater for flying it.
Also, concerning drag I think Bloom25 is right. The often overlooked "spectral drag" factor highly favors the manly blue aircraft.
Hooligan
-
I think the AH view system, with it's moveable pilot's head/butt system, will significantly decrease the rear view problems. It certainly helps in the Hog, which is almost as restrictive as the F6F.
------------------
Lephturn - Chief Trainer
A member of The Flying Pigs http://www.flyingpigs.com (http://www.flyingpigs.com)
"A pig is a jolly companion, Boar, sow, barrow, or gilt --
A pig is a pal, who'll boost your morale, Though mountains may topple and tilt.
When they've blackballed, bamboozled, and burned you, When they've turned on you, Tory and Whig,
Though you may be thrown over by Tabby and Rover, You'll never go wrong with a pig, a pig,
You'll never go wrong with a pig!" -- Thomas Pynchon, "Gravity's Rainbow"
-
I have a question for you F4UDOA. if the F4U-4 with 6 .50 cal was barely a ww2 bird then how did the -4B make it into combat? seeing that the -4 only saw combat use in the last 3 months of the war.
the -4 had the spoiler on the wing to make its stall habbits better. this spoiler ruined the corsairs turing ability. a -4 will not turn like a -1, not even close, but on the other side of the coin the -4 will be much faster and climb much better than a -1.
-
It's been a while since I did the research but cannon-armed F4U-4s definately did NOT see WWII combat.
There was an infinite amount of controversy over various late-war F4Us because people (and even some books) started confusing the F4U-1C and the F4U-4C and B, etc. etc. etc. some months back.
-
Like I said, no one without changes in the gun modeling is gonna call any purely .50 plane right now a dweebmobile.
Heck, I can't do anything in a .50 armed plane right now...I was an average pilot in WBs, played it about 3 years, quit about when Pyro and HT left, didn't play any flight sims at all till about 2 months ago, and I still suck in AH.....also haven't gotten rid of all my nose bounce, either. But I find I can't kill anything with .50s stil.
-
About 200 or 300 -4Bs were produced before the end of Hostilities. If memory serves, Hatch once posted a picture of somebody (his uncle?) posing with a -4B on Okinawa. I haven't seen any really reliable (i.e. archival) information that gives WWII combat dates for -4Bs. But the planes did exist at the time, so it can never be proven that none saw combat (i.e. you can't prove a negative).
Hooligan
-
-4Bs werent ww2 planes. 370 51H models were produced before the wars end, but none saw combat. it always took 3+ months after they were produced to see actual combat
-
Gents,
Here is some info from the Vought website on production numbers.
http://www.vought.com/y40-50/prod_40/ww2_f4u/quant_f4u/quant_f4u.html (http://www.vought.com/y40-50/prod_40/ww2_f4u/quant_f4u/quant_f4u.html)
There is a mention of specific combat record of a F4U-4C on this website, I just need to find it.
bolillo_loco,
The answer to your question is that they were produced simultaniously. I even have a book by Veronico Campbell that shows record of Goodyear production C-hog's designated FG-1E. I think they were more common than most people think. The Navy decided to move toward the 20Mil cannon in 1944 and from there forward even the late model TBM Avenger dive bombers had a 20Mil varient( I have seen them but I do not have a designation).
As far as the turning capability of a F4U-4 it was roughly the same as a F4U-1D being only 500lbs heavier fully loaded. The spoiler strip you mention was introduced very early in the F4U production of the -1A.
It's actual effect was lower the Max Cl from 2.33 to 1.88. Which was actually a retrofit not a production designation. There really was no such thing as a -1A production designation. Other mods for the 1A included a raised bubble canopy, debounced landing gear and water injection.
The turning performance of the F4U was measured with the strip remembering that the flight test between the F4U and FW190A5, P-51B, A6M5 and F6F were all done with a spoiler equiped F4U. It was shown to out turn the FW190A5 and P-51B while being slightly inferior to the F6F. In test against the Zero it could stay with the Zeke for one half turn. The F4U-4 had lower drag and 200HP more giving it better acceleration climb and E-retention. It is regarded by all as the best flying F4U.
Later
F4UDOA
[This message has been edited by F4UDOA (edited 12-11-2000).]
-
Hi
Unfortunately bolillo many people in here think that any plane that was produced should be in the game, wheather it saw actual WW2 combat is irrelevant to them. Some actualy think a plane being shipped to the front in September 1945 is a satisfactory definition of seeing "combat". Then they try to justify their reasoning with something like this, It wasnt P51Hs fault that the war ended before it saw combat. Actually Im starting to like this reasoning too, Ive always wanted to fly F86 vs Mig15, and was disappointed with Mig Alley. Soon we will have them in AH, since it was obviously not the fault of F86 or Mig15 that WW2 ended before they were ready.
thanks GRUNHERZ
-
Grunhurz,
It helps if you read the thread instead of just skimming the topics.
I said
I do believe the F4U-4B did see action in WW2, however I will not lobby for it's use in Aces High. I would rather see the F4U-1A(better maneuvering) and F4U-4 as the two non-perked versions of the F4U and the -1C be the perk version.
I don't believe anyone is screaming for it either. However if you read the production numbers from Vought it is clear that 297 F4U-4C's were completed by wars end.
BTW. Just because an A/C saw 5 minutes of combat in WW2 does not make it a production A/C.
The Hitler youth saw combat in WW2, and it didn't make them soldiers.
-
Originally posted by Torgo:
Ack...I knew that...
I was thinking Navy = CV capable :-).
Well, the CVs will increase the numbers of CHogs even more...it's the only thing people will be flying from them....
Torgo... u must fly in the MA with yer eyes closed...
Why would carriers mean more chogs or Niki's? Niki is not Navy, it was army so not CV capable. Adding more places to takeoff will not influence the ratio of niks vs chogs vs f6fs vs p51's...
If it can takeoff a carrier it can takeoff from an airbase, oh hey!! wait a minute we have airbases now which permit nik's and chogs to takeoff.. wonder why I ever see anything else in flight...
(workin on dhog in preparation fer the F6f)
AKSKurj
-
Skurj don't forget Seafires!!!
Were there any Polish Fleet Air Arm units? (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Hopefully we get some Vals and Kates to go with the Zekes.
I'd also really like to see the Bf 109T and Ju 87C.
Then we can have us a CV war!!!
[This message has been edited by funked (edited 12-11-2000).]
-
Starts running ...
Ta152, hmm what 24-25 saw combat... guess we should give each country(not each player) 1 ta152 per 24 hr period
We all know that AH will have "What if" aircraft. I say if it was produced b4 war's end than let it in.(perked or otherwise) There is no other way to squelch the whines that I can see....
AKSKurj
-
Speakin of the Seafire, it offically got the last kill of WWII, the Japanese surrendered while while he was enroute.
- Jig
-
Skurj,
The Niki WAS a Japanese Navy plane. However it was purely land-based (and the original was a floatplane) and thus presumably will not be CV capable in AH.
I simply had a brain-fart and forgot. The Ki-84 was the Japanese Army AC of roughly the same generation.
And simple logic dictates that the CVs will cause a bump-up of the number of CHogs.
1) A lot of people will want to fly off the CVs. After 1.05 that number will decline somewhat as the novelty wears off..but it will be significant.
2) The planeset for the CVs will be much smaller than the planset from land bases. You can fly any fighter from land bases. When 1.05 comes out, the only fighters you'll be able to fly from the CVs will be:
CHog
Regular Hog
Hellcat
Zero
And I guess conceivably HTC could enable the Spit V on the CVs till they knock out a quickie Seafire or something. But we've not heard anything to that effect.
Now, out of that tiny 4-plane planeset, AFTER the novelty of the Hellcat wears off, can you tell me which plane is gonna be selected for the majority of CV fighter sorties? Doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure it out.
-
The thing is I distinctly remember arguments here (and also on Argo's WB board years ago) where people were citing actual books claiming that cannon-armed F4U-4s saw combat and it was determined the books were erroneously confusing them with F4U-1Cs.
Just because it's published doesn't mean it's right.
-
Torgo,
Your right, just because it's published doesn't mean it's right. In fact 90% of published data is wrong from what I can see.
However it also doesn't prove it's wrong. I have found record of the FG-1E cannon armed Goodyear C-Hog. But I can't find production numbers. I know 297 F4U-4c's were built before wars end, I just have to find unit history. Just because it's published doesn't mean it's wrong either.
I have yet to see anybody step to the plate with any 1G stall information on the FW190D-9 but we will be perking that. Should we not model it because the data isn't available?
-
DOA,
If an 8500 lbs 190 stalls at 110 mph, a 9500 lbs 190 stalls at 116 mph
-
hey, a f4u-1 was they typical corair. but if you guy want to model a -4 go ahead. it was a ww2 plane. but this -4b stuff is too much. you guys will do what you want to so go ahead. corairs were the best and model the 38 to its worst performance. hey aces high is just another inaccurate sim. god what kills me about corsairs is 99% of you didnt even go thru paris island!
-
oh and by the way, the -4 didnt turn for squat. the spoiler destroyed its turning ability. when are you guys going to realize this? hey avoid the truth make the planes how ever you want! I think its time to wait for another sim. you boys are no better than wurger at eaw. he figured out all kinds of stuff with his matamatics, but it didnt jive with real figures.
-
bolillo whats all this "you" crap...
We are just players who have the ability to voice our thoughts and impressions of what we'd like to see.
Inaccurate sim.... NO Accurate arena sim will ever be financially successful. oh and none have to date btw. How accurate can any sim be that has a "main arena"? bolillo once the planeset gets filled out to the point of historically accurate scenarios becoming possible, and a large enough playerbase to support an AvA or Historical arena, i urge you to come check it out.
H2H (up to 8 ppl) is always free, and there are usually games to be found. 2 weeks free in the MA no strings attached and NO bill will be sent to you. Quit sittin on the fence...
The MA only requires balanced planesets (NO IF's or BUT's or AND's) accuracy means little. Library ww2 aviation experts will never be any more than that, Great interpreters of someone elses interpretations/impressions.
Aces has the ability to surpass all others in the HA and scenarios. AH is in its infancy, i can't wait for the future.. damn pc entertainment is closest thing to timetravel in existence (forward).
There is nothing else on the market boxed or otherwise that comes close to AH IMO. bolillo you likely must be sad that there is nothing accurate enough for you in existence.
bah errrm was that a rant...
now where did i put my shrink's business card....
AKSKurj
(didn't mean to offend anyone..)
-
This is too funny. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
-
I was starting to wonder if it was another one of your alliases Funked....
Did you go through paris island? how did your corsair turn?
-
Originally posted by F4UDOA:
Grunhurz,
It helps if you read the thread instead of just skimming the topics.
I said
I don't believe anyone is screaming for it either. However if you read the production numbers from Vought it is clear that 297 F4U-4C's were completed by wars end.
BTW. Just because an A/C saw 5 minutes of combat in WW2 does not make it a production A/C.
The Hitler youth saw combat in WW2, and it didn't make them soldiers.
On the theory that no thread is so good that it cant go off topic...
Do you know how well the 9th SS fought in Normandy I cant think of a single allied unit of any nationality that fought so well.....Mostly Hitler Youth...Its worth looking into.
-
jeeezus how did you guys twist my thread so
in the past i had been lead to believe that geman engineering was the best, but im starting to doubt that (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
guess which airplane is a) the fastest and b) one of the most inefficient
you guessed right (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) but GOD you would think they could have optimized it aerodynamically just a LITTLE
oh well good thing they didnt cuz mabye more p51 pilots would have died
-
LOL PONGO (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
-
Bolillo_loco,
1. I don't want the cannon F4U-4 in AH. It won't need to be. It will be the fastest bird up until 25K, climb at 4,000FPM and turn better than the P-51,P-47,P-38 or any FW190A/D orBF109G10. While diving better and retaining E better than the F4U-1.
2. The F4U-1A was the first to have the spoiler strip on the port wing root. Meaning that all F4U's in AH IE. -1C and -1D are already modeled with it. The F4U-4 was only 224lbs heavier than the -1 empty. But with less drag and 200hp more.
F4U-4= 9,206lbs empty
F4U-1= 8,982lbs empty
3. The F4U-1D(spoiler equipped) from the F4U pilots manual stalls power on clean(no flaps) at 96MPH. Which when multiplied by the square of 3G's give's you the 3G accelerated stall.
1G stall 3G stall
F4U-1D= 96MPH 166.27MPH
P-51D = 100MPH 173.20MPH
FW-190A5= 110MPH 190.52MPH
FW-190D9= 116MPH 200.91MPH
4. I also did not go to Paris Island. I went to Lackland Air Force base San Antonio Texas for Basic training in 1986. I have no idea what difference that makes in this conversation?
Wells,
Do you have a copy of the F4U-4 pilots manual?
-
BTW,
Another piece of F4U-4 trivia.
Did you know that the -4 had a pilots seat that raised the legs of the pilot to reduce the effects of G-LOC?
From the Vought web page.
Other changes included in the XF4U-4 were the raising of the cockpit deck to raise the pilot's legs to decrease the effect of acceleration during combat manueuvers, the repositioning of instruments and controls, the use of a new bubble canopy and the addition of a new armor-plated seat that provided more pilot protection
Later
-
Bollilo, you need to remember how the things work with AH. It's not a game abandoned by the developers, where people have opened the code and are now adding their own planes and FM like you mention with EAW.
It is a game that is continuosly being worked on (and not only adding more planes) by the staff of HTC.
The people in this thread have nothing to do with making of the FM for any of the planes in Aces High. Neither are they decieding what planes are to be modelled next.
Looking through posts on this forum you will see people crying about how this is wrong and why we don't have that model of one of the current planes that had this and that thingie, requests for planes they are hoping to be added or wild speculations of what planes will be the next. The chance of any of them being heard or guesses right are very small.
Go to the hangar in the game. Look through the list. Thats the planes we have. Besides that HTC have told that the Hellcat and the Avenger are currently under development (screenshots posted). This is all that we know. What the next plane besides those will be is anyone's guess. (I myself doubt it will be a F4U-4 tho, but thats just my guess)
Man I can't wait till IL-2 comes out. No P-51, P-47, P-38 and F4U that will lead to screaming and shouting and threads like this, but instead russian planes that they know diddelisquat about. ahhh (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
[This message has been edited by LLv34_Snefens (edited 12-12-2000).]
-
I think the -4 would only be added as a possible "Perk".
-
F4UDOA, when in '86 where you there?
I was in basic at Lackland in June-July of '86, in the 01st training squadron.
You?
------------------
Vermillion
**MOL**, Men of Leisure
-
Verm,
I was there in April/May. Then off to Biloxi Miss. for the next year for Avionics Navigation and Radar. Better known as "Av Nav".
Trying to Remember my Squad designation. Gotta find my yearbook and look it up.
Ahh the good old day's.
-
I am curious why then did the corsair fall last in turn ability when it had the spoiler in place? I think it is idiotic on my part to try to reason so I will just bug out.
-
Bolillo_loco,
I think you are refering to the chart in the back of "America's hundred thousand". That would explain what you mean by last place.
FYI, that chart was done by the authors calculation not by flight test results. The error in the chart is that many of the Max Cl's given are with flaps even though the chart says without. The F4U is without. You can check the Cl max of the F4U with flaps on page 534 of "AHT" where it describes the spoiler strip and the change in max CL or lift coefficient.
Also check this NACA doc that list the max Cl of the F6F, F4U, P-51, P-40 and P47.
http://naca.larc.nasa.gov/reports/1945/naca-report-829/ (http://naca.larc.nasa.gov/reports/1945/naca-report-829/)
look at page 20 that shows the max cl no flaps of the F4U being 1.48 and page 21 where you can see the P-51 is about the same with no flaps. Almost all WW2 fighters had a max no flap cl of about 1.50. If you use 1.88 in the chart in AHT for the F4U it then falls between the F6F and P-51 in turn performance which is where it should be.
This is not a flame attempt on my part. I had the same questions until I learned from Wells and others about some basic Aerodynamic theory.
If you know the level stall speed of an A/C you can determine the Max Cl very quickly.
Cl = Lift * 391 / (V^2 * WingArea)
= 12000 * 391 / (100^2 * 314)
= 1.49
The 12,000 is the gross weight of the F4U.
391 is to correct for air density at sea level I believe. And the 100 is the stall speed in MPH at that weight.
Hope this helps.
-
hmm
this new exciting plane (insert favorite uber ride) will:
1. out turn everything
2. outclimb everything
3. outdive everything
4. outrun everything
5. outgun everything
this new exciting plane will give me personal satisfaction because:
1. I have no desire for fair play
2. I am not looking for a challenge
3. I want easy kills and lots of them
4. I want the airplane to overcome deficiencies in my flying ability.
when I have an epihpany about online a2a games I will realize:
1. playing a game that isnt challenging gets boring quickly
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
-
i look at page 20 of this report and see 2 charts, one (fig. 15) for airplane 5 which is NOT the F4U, and one for the F4U- chart 14.
And maybe you need better glasses f4odoa but chart 14 says max lift coefficient for F4U in service condition ONLY ~1.18. Do you finally accept this??? Even WORSE than a laminar wing of a P51 with 1.3 (a naca flight test confirms this clmax value of the p51 btw in a 180° turn test). And without spoiler
And concerning your other numbers: Stall speed numbers are useless without knowing when the test was done- at the beginning of a flight i.e, or at the end with almost empty fuel tanks.
Clmax values also depend on Reynolds number.
I can show you naca documents with Clmax numbers up to 3.0 flaps down power on (Hurricane when i remember myself correctly)
-
Niklas,
Accept what? That you have an agenda?
That 1.2 figure is with the propeller removed. With the prop wash over the wing it is 1.48 as all the A/C stall speed are measured . The stall speeds quoted are from the pilots manuals of these A/C. And you know how to calculate max Cl.
Look at page 15 and 16 for the big print.
Propeller operating max Cl reduced from 2.33 to 1.88 with 50degrees flap.
From the F4U pilots manual.
Weight 11,300lbs clean no flaps stall 84 Knots or 96.66MPH. Stall speed with flaps 66knots or 75.95mph.
If you don't like my numbers do the math yourself.
-
F4U-4 would not be the fastest a/c up to 25k. Tempest V, Fw 190D-9, and probably La-7 would be quicker at low-medium altitudes.
-
Juzz,
You may be right on any of those birds. I was just comparing it to the one's already in AH.
Although I am certainly not aware of any off those birds being any faster than 380MPH at sea level and just under 440MPH at 20K. If you have speed and climb charts for the LA-7 or Tempest V I would luv to see them.
Cit,
Relax man. Nobody is introducing any uber planes. The F4U-4 is a possible perk plane. This conversation has nothing to do with Aces High FM's. This is about real flight characteristics. Pyro may never put this bird or the P-47M/N in the game. Regardless of this they are still some of the finest of WW2.
Remember Pyro may or may not model any of these birds but if he does he has access to the same data that we do. And if he is incorrect he has corrected mistakes in the past. Nobody on these boards tells HTC what to design.
-
Uhhh, since when does a real WW2 combat F4U-4 do 380mph at sea level? Only if you remove all the pylons and use high octane fuel...
Tempest V does 392mph at sea level.
La-7 if it was put in AH, would be around 380mph I guess.
-
But what happens when we have "perk" planes that were in combat longer in WWII and in larger numbers than the F4U-1C?
This is true of a variety of suggested perk planes....the Tempest, the Spit XIV, the F4U-4...
-
who is interested in a flight condition with flaps down??
In the whole report, there is only one example with flaps down and power on, and this is for the F4U. Where do you want to know from that 1.88 is good?? Itīs pretty bad for a flaps full down power on condition imo.
How do you want to know whatīs the effect of propwash without flaps?? Flaps allow maybe a much higher increase in Cl with power on.
I just compare 2 EQUAL conditions: power off, no propeller.
Clmax F4U 1.18
Clmax P51 1.28
There is only ONE test for flaps up and power on in the whole report.
page 17 shows only a slight increase in Cl for another aircraft with flaps up and power on btw. In the 180° turn test the XP51 reached with cruising power a Clmax of 1.25-1.30. Again only a slight increase in Clmax compared to the 829 number without propeller
and what do you think f4udoa, does this spoiler also reduce Clmax in a flight condition with flaps up?
niklas
[This message has been edited by niklas (edited 12-13-2000).]
[This message has been edited by niklas (edited 12-13-2000).]
-
Niklas,
1. That is no prop condition. What does the chart show with the prop? 1.48
What does it show with 50degrees of flap? 1.88
I am calculating from stall speed and getting the same answers. What does it matter what the max cl is without a prop?
Yes the spoiler reduces cl max with or without flaps.
How many times do you think the aircraft was flight tested without a prop? The spoiler was meant to effect the flying characteristics on or near stall with or without flaps.
2. The only reason I am answering this question is for Bolillo_loco who read a chart in America's hundred Thousand that list most A/C Max Cl with flap and some without. I was trying to explain that most WW2 A/C have a Max Cl of Approx. 1.5(with propeller). The chart he is reading shows the P-51 with a Max Cl of 1.89. I am trying to tell him that 1.89 is to high for a wing with no flaps. Maybe you would like to explain it to him since you don't like my explanation.
Here is a list of the max Cl's in the chart.
1. FM-2= 2.38
2. P-63A= 2.38
3. P-61= 2.54
4. F6F-5= 2.27
5. P-51D= 1.89
6. P-38L= 2.17
7. P-47D= 1.93
8. F4U-1D=1.48
So are these numbers right? Flaps, no flaps?
Are they to high?
-
Juzz,
My F4U-4 speed chart comes from "America's Hundred Thousand" and is not from the PDF file that you have. In fact the power curve from my chart looks nothing like the one in the PDF. The chart I am using shows the initial climb at 3850Fpm and max sea level speed being 380MPH. Also the critical alt is much higher than the PDF doc. It reaches 446MPH at 26,000FT. The PDF shows max critical alt being 20K which doesn't sound right anyway.
F4UDOA
-
F4udoa, i canīt find in the 829 no number with 1.48. Even on page 20 thereīs only a 1.38 number, but this is for aircraft 5 (F6F)
Where do you see in the 829 report the number 1.48 ????????
-
all those figured are flapped, cept for the hog
-
Thanks Zig,
That's all I wanted to explain to bolillo_loco but I got sidetracked.
Niklas,
What's your point?
-
DOA,
The lower critical height in the PDF is further indication that higher manifold pressures were used in that test. The higher the manifold pressure, the lower the critical height.
-
Wells,
I didn't know that was characteristic of higher manifold pressure?
The strange thing is that the max speed is virtually identical with the two charts except the max speed of 446mph comes at 26,000ft instead of 20,000ft.
Also the top speed at sea level is 380mph even with the lower manifold pressure. The real differance in performance is in the climb. 3850Fpm instead of 4770FPM. I guess the brick wall of drag is the limiting factor more than available HP when it comes to speed.
-
Aren't the numbers in AHT calculations?
The USN F4U-4.pdf quotes 383mph @ s/l, and 463mph at 20,600ft with 115/145 octane fuel and no pylons - and it says "Performance is based on flight test of the F4U-4 airplane."
In the .pdf chart the MAP used is so much higher than normal the lowest supercharger gear isn't even used!
-
Again, i hope for the last time:
You say according to the Naca829 report without flaps the max. Cl value for the F4U is 1.48 , right??
This is NOT true!!
NO chart/figure/sentence in naca829 report says Clmax=1.48 for the F4U
so STOP LYING
There is only one figuere (figure 15) in the naca829 report for the F4U without flaps (and propeller removed) and it says max CL = 1.18 for a wing in service condition!!
All other figures/charts for the F4U in the report are with flaps 50° down!
DO YOU FINALLY UNDERSTAND ME???
niklas
-
I don't see any 1.48 figure in the NACA report either...
-
It must be distressing to finally realize that for every model/performance level of FW 190.... There is a model of the Corsair that is vastly superior. To find out that they also have range and be are able to turn must be a shock. Oh well... That's what you get when you think of WWII as a Euro only war.
lazs
-
Juzz,
It is a graphed performance chart Juzz. The only calculated numbers I can see are in the back of the book were the author tries to determine the drag, range and turning radius of the aircraft. I hadn't noticed that they didn't use low blower. I guess that would explain the difference in power curves. It's amazing that it was that fast at low alt without using the low blower!
Niklas,
The 1.48 comes from "America's Hundred Thousand". Which is the source document in question. If you would actually read the entire post you would realize that. Why you keep telling me what the value is with no prop I do not know. I didn't ask you, and it has no bearing on this conversation.
BTW, don't reply to me on these boards anymore please, Thank you.
-
Ahem... perhaps there has been a typo?
Also check this NACA doc that list the max Cl of the F6F, F4U, P-51, P-40 and P47.
http://naca.larc.nasa.gov/reports/1945/naca-report-829/ (http://naca.larc.nasa.gov/reports/1945/naca-report-829/)
look at page 20 that shows the max cl no flaps of the F4U being 1.48
-
So what?? I just said it didn't come from the NACA doc. It came from AHT.
It doesn't change the stall speed. It doesn't change the calclation for stall speed. And at the end the max Cl no flaps is still the same.
Again.
Cl = Lift * 391 / (V^2 * WingArea)
= 12000 * 391 / (100^2 * 314)
= 1.49
Any questions?
BTW Niklas you said.
F4Udoa the Dora was much more powerful. Less drag, more power > faster and tighter turn. The missing cannons in the outer wing section> higher AoA usually possible. Much better aerodynamic in the nose section > better airflow around the fuselage and wing root section
Less frontal area, but longer fuselage can maybe also have an influence ("floor area"), you also need less elevator deflection with a longer tail which reduce your total lift less.
Bigger propeller > bigger propwash effect
Wells said
DOA,
If an 8500 lbs 190 stalls at 110 mph, a 9500 lbs 190 stalls at 116 mph
It's 1G level stall is 116MPH, 3G accelerated stall 201MPH.
Sorry Dude. It turns like a truck on ice. And just for fun.
Cl= 9480LBS * 391 / (116^2 * 197)
Cl= 3706680 / 2650832
Cl= 1.398<====Sucks!! IMO
-
So what?! That quote is the big part of what started the whole mess, is what... I didn't think it was clear that you got the number from AHT, and niklas had to ask where in the NACA report it was 3 times before he got a definite answer.
D-9 stall speed of 116mph: I believe wells calculated that speed assuming that the D-9 is simply a heavier A-5. It isn't though: the nose, prop, etc.. are different -> the stall speed just might not be what wells has predicted.
-
Uhh, the whole point of my post was to tell Bolillo_loco that the chart in the back of AHT showing Max Cl for various A/C were all including flaps.
Here is a list of the max Cl's in the chart.
1. FM-2= 2.38
2. P-63A= 2.38
3. P-61= 2.54
4. F6F-5= 2.27
5. P-51D= 1.89
6. P-38L= 2.17
7. P-47D= 1.93
8. F4U-1D=1.48
The only one that is no flap is the F4U. I have said before that most WW2 fighters were between 1.4 and 1.5. My mistake was quoting the wrong source for a no flap Max Cl. It is still 1.48. It still doesn't change anything other than the point of arguing semantics.
And on the D9 the wing area is still the same as an A model and wing loading is still the greatest factor in determining turning ability.
I don't think Wells assumed that the D9 was a heavier A8. It's fairly obvious that the two are different. But the wing of the D9 is not at all similar to the Ta-152 as Niklas would have you believe. The fact is that nobody has produced any 1G stall data for the FW190D9. Until then I will stick with the 116MPH.
-
fyi a 8500 lb 190 doesnt stall at 110, more like 100
-
then can somebody explain why in ath that it points to the spoiler of being the cause for the corsairs poor turing performance. also how do you know it was done with flaps and what are the lift coefficients of all planes with full flaps? I think the point I was trying to make was the 38 doesnt even make its lowest performance figures and when I questioned it, many were quick to say "it should spin when stalled"
question why the spoiler is said to have spoiled the turn performance of a corsair and many are quick to come up with some mathmatical calculation that it was wrong. didnt somebody come up with a mathmatical calculation that bumble bees should not fly?
-
bolillo_loco,
You have to learn on yur own. I tried to explain this to you but you don't want to listen. WW2 fighters had a max Cl of between 1.4 to 1.5 with no flaps. They vary a little of of that at times but not much. The chart in the back of AHT is calculated by the author based on max cl data that he had. You need to understand that everything you read isn't true. The F4U with it's spoiler could still out turn many of it's contemporaries.
Read these flgith test vs the P-51, FW190A5 and F6F.
http://members.home.net/markw4/FW190_F4U.html (http://members.home.net/markw4/FW190_F4U.html)
http://members.home.net/markw4/index2.html (http://members.home.net/markw4/index2.html)
Zigrat,
I know 110MPH is a high number. But this is where it comes from. Do you have any other docs with stall charts??
http://members.nbci.com/mikewaltz/F-TR-1102-ND.htm (http://members.nbci.com/mikewaltz/F-TR-1102-ND.htm)
Information from Technical Report No. F-TR-1102-ND "Handbook for FW-190 Airplane" By. Lt. F. D. Van Wart, 1946.
Aircraft in question was a Fw 190G-3. Bomb racks were removed making the aircraft equivalent to a Fw 190A-5. The G-3 also had a directional autopilot and other equipment not found on the A-5, but the MG 17 in the cowl were deleted (354 lb with ammo). A-5 airframe differs from A-1 through A-4 in that the engine mounts were extended 15cm forward, increasing aircraft length by that amount. Aircraft weight was 6940 lb empty and 8538 with pilot, ballast (ammunition), and maximum fuel load. Stalling speeds were 110 mph clean, 105 mph dirty.
-
ahah the emperor has no clothes.
turn performance of the p38 and f4u have been accidentally switched!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
heh I bet f4udoa would have a cow if the f4u turned like the p38 does in 1.04.
i also find it curious that the f4u1c has such a large turn performance edge over the f4u1d.
yes very curious.
[This message has been edited by Citabria (edited 12-14-2000).]
-
I highly doubt the spoiler had much effect on overall performance of the F4u. It's 6" long in a 41' wingspan. At the time, the Corsair was having problems qualifying for carrier ops and it needed all the help it could get. A significant increase in stall speed would not have been desirable in helping it's case.
-
Curious; did the RN Corsair II have the spoiler on it's (clipped) wing?
-
This is truely turning into an idiotic thread.
Juzz,
I would say yes.
-
ok then from what I have gathered the lift coefficient would vary depending on the aoa also. one other point of curiosity is you say the aht chart gives lift coefficients for planes using flaps, but the corsair lacks any flap. That doesnt make much sense to me. In the turing performance the 38 w/o the use of any flap is said to be poor just like the 47. in the test compairison of P-63 vs P-51 the P-63 was judged superior to the P-51 and it also goes on to say that when the 38 used its maneouvering flaps it was judged equal to the P-63. so if all planes are using flaps when why does the 38 fall to almost the last in the pack?
also one interesting thing I read on the F4U corsair was that it said with the spoiler the lift coefficient dropped from 2.3 to 1.88
-
The turn results in AHT are 'averages' of turn tests performed from the Joint Fighter Conference, where the results are scattered all over the map...I wouldn't read too much accuracy in that.
[This message has been edited by wells (edited 12-15-2000).]
-
wells you also said that you doubt the spoiler had little impact on the plane. it must have had some. it caused the stall of both wings to be more even thus improving the stall habbits of the corsair. also the naca report that I was directed to read said that it lowered the lift coefficient of the wing on the corsair. this would affect turning ability. it lowered the lift coefficient of the wing that produced the most lift and lowered it to with in the limits of the weak wing.
so I do not understand why it is the popular belief that the -4 corsair should turn as well as the -1.
also somebody said that in ath that all the planes but the corsair used flaps, now explain why the 38 doesnt out turn the 51 if flaps were used?
38s with fowler type flaps had to have very large lift coefficients when they used any type of flap vs other american fighters. also even with out the flaps a 38 had a high enough lift coefficient that it could stay with or out turn a 47 with a lighter wing loading. then look at the mustang it is 700lbs lighter than full fuel load. drop the 38 down to the same percentage of fuel and that plane only has an edge over the 38, but it doesnt sound as good when you consider a 38 has a much higher wing loading.
-
loco... The stall strip was on every Corsair save the very first ones. the strip did not raise the stall speed so much as change the stall characteristics. a -4 should turn at least as well as a -1 and probly a little better since they are the same plane with the -4 being slightly heavier but with more HP. The exception would be the Goodyear Corsair -1's without folding wings and tailhooks. These Goodyear planes would turn, climb and perform slightly better due to the fact that they would be the lightest of the bunch.
lazs