Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: Krusty on August 25, 2012, 01:19:54 PM
-
I recall many years of learning to fly on the F4U before the airflow updates. Back then it was a pretty rare plane to come up against. It was okay but in the way a p51 is: It wasn't a turn plane. It COULD turn, but definitely not like the zeke/spit hybrid it is now :O
Then the airflow change made the flaps super. I don't care WHO you are you have to admit it is a super easy plane to turn now. It can hold its own with spitfires and even some zekes in stall fights, and with no instability or adverse yaw or anything. It's got almost no chance to spin and a very docile stall in most cases.
Here's what gets me:
For 6 years folks were: "Yup, that's right"
Then with the airflow recode, a night and day change in how it flies, it fills the arenas now, folks are: "uh.. yeah, this is how it should be"
Historically speaking this was never the case. So what's up with this game community? Just double-tongued? Justifying the plane they like? You can't say it's right before and right after, because it is so radically different in how the before/after are modeled.
These flaps were only used for landing, to lower speeds for carrier approaches. It's a massive plane with tons of power and it was NOT easy to fly slow, so why do we have a super-F4U in this game? Several folks have chimed in that it doesn't nearly have as much torque forces acting on it as it should, especially at low speed. Folks who seemingly know a lot about it (I believe Widewing was one, Bodhi another, and a few more).
So why do we have this spitfire-like F4U in our game?
Chime in. Not intended to flame. This thread is intended to gather facts, details, and what-have-you and/or possibly get HTC to reconsider how it's modeled in the future.
-
I recall many years of learning to fly on the F4U...
You think it should be harder to fly after many years of practice? It seems difficult enough for the new guys.
-
Now, it's fairly easy. Keep in mind at the time I was self-training, and was learning in the old HTH rooms because I didn't have a sub. I will admit I was super slow to learn even some basic stuff. I realized once I found a few HTH friends (I think "Warhawk" taught me a lot) that I was only retarding my own development by trying to learn by myself.
So, yes... I admit it took me at least a couple years to actually become something above "sitting duck".
This all starting back around 2000/2001 or so.
-
When I started this game I trained myself on the F4U and only the F4U for 6-8 months, I would say it is easy, but not TOO easy, and if it is remodeled to be more realistic and its too 'difficult for the new guys' then they can go back to their spitfires. Not every plane in the game has to be new guy friendly!
:salute
PS: Krusty, make 3 more posts :devil
-
F4U flaps are one of the things I am skeptical of in the game. Hurricane, A-20 and Bf110C agility are others.
-
I've always wondered if the cartoon F4U and the real one were modeled the same. When I flew the 4hog, I was always dinkin with flaps for turn and stall fights and if a pilot would have enough time to think of doing this in a real dog fight.
-
F4U flaps are one of the things I am skeptical of in the game. Hurricane, A-20 and Bf110C agility are others.
The plane was notorious for its low speed bad handling . Stalls with no warning . It was equipped with a light that came on when the plane was a few miles an hour above stall speed . Ours has a nice healthy buffet to warn before a stall . . When it stalled it quickly dropped a wing and corrective measures had to be fast or it went into a spin that was difficult to recover .I don't think I have ever spun a corsair . To get accepted the Navy had to relax it's 10 revolution maximum before recovery requirement . It could not be achieved without a chute being installed . As for prop torque it has a huge prop mated to an enormously powerful engine yet has little noticeable problems . Where I am really suspicious is the F4u-4 with a much more powerful engine has no more torque than any other model . It was called the ensign eliminator for a reason . Everything I can find shows the flaps being limited to 20 degrees during combat .
-
I'm partial to the hog, and I'm not going to claim heaps of factual knowledge of the real bird, but the OP is a bit of an overstatement, IMO.
I've outturned a few spits in one, likely due to said spit pilot mistake rather than My/Hog awesomeness. Zekes? Keep dreaming. I was forced to give it a shot one time. Was towered in the second turn. :(
It's a wonderful bird in my opinion, but I don't think its a super bird. It's not that hard to screw up and get owned in one. Especially when low and slow.
-
This sequence of films might be pertinent to this discussion. One part describes the stall:-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5J0BYq3yevs
-
I've seen the one you mean, shida. It's actually in part 2 of the series:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n-PwTTQz6Zw&feature=relmfu
after 2 minutes. It's an abrupt stall with a pretty sharp loss of altitude and the wing totally dropping own.
-
Krusty, you really over state most of your points. Getting in a stall fight with a good spit or zeke pilot, is still silly in this bird since they have a far superior power to weight ratio, and will end up over the top of you in short order, if they are any good. Plus either tends to get around the circle much faster then a Corsair, especially if the fight has gotten slow. So a Hybrid of a spit/zeke turning? wouldn't it be somewhere in between, rather then worse then both? Unless we are referring to high speed turning? The N1K in game is actaully about the closest turning plane to our Corsair, I feel it's slightly better in both turning and stability in this requard. A slow rolling scissors is a different story, and a Corsair strong point. Spitfire flies like a completely different animal then the Corsair. Completely different power to weight ratios, acceleration, and climb. In fact, the spitfires strengths are mostly the Corsairs (1 series) weaknesses. So spitfire like F4U, doesn't make much sense. I train people in corsairs 3 days of the week, almost every week, for quite a few years now. It's a very hard plane to master, and one of the busiest to fly correctly. No goofy stalls or yaw problems? you're not pushing it hard enough. Trust me they are there, if you push it hard enough. Same with torque issues, they are there, maybe not historically correct. The Corsair we have today is different from even the one we had 3-4 years ago or less, it was more stable before, then it is now. It's slowly being de-stabilized in what I'm seeing (and talking to other hog guys), either that or I'm getting more sloppy with it. I'm definitely no expert on the real thing, but as far as the one we have in game, I think I'm a pretty good authority. I'm all for making the planes as correct as possible, but also keep in mind we fly these things for the most part much harder then the real thing was normally pushed. So you have to think of the games flight model as what is the thing capable of, versus what did it do. For example, was it physically possible for this thing to dump 3 notches of flaps at 200mph? not that anybody ever tried it. If it was physically possible, shouldn't it be modeled? If it wasn't possible, then it shouldn't be modeled in my oppinion.
If someone can come up with some stall tests or turning tests with actual data that can be re-created in game to prove or disprove, I'm all for trying them out. I've got a whole squad of hog sticks that would love to try this stuff out, so you have a large sample base if needed. So lets keep this thread to actual facts rather then it turns with zeros and acts like a spitfire :aok
:salute
BigRat
-
I've seen the one you mean, shida. It's actually in part 2 of the series:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n-PwTTQz6Zw&feature=relmfu
after 2 minutes. It's an abrupt stall with a pretty sharp loss of altitude and the wing totally dropping own.
Yup, interesting to contrast the stall with the P-38, the training film of which is also on that channel. The P-38 one states the stall is very docile.
Do you think the information in that film conflicts with Aces High's version Big Rat?
When fighting against the Corsairs, I find their biggest assets to be the very tight turn radius, and their ability to nose down when slow and then U-turn upwards, the momentum allowing a shot with the effective longer range armament. A formidable opponent.
-
Do you think the information in that film conflicts with Aces High's version Big Rat?
When fighting against the Corsairs, I find their biggest assets to be the very tight turn radius, and their ability to nose down when slow and then U-turn upwards, the momentum allowing a shot with the effective longer range armament. A formidable opponent.
I don't think it conflicts all that much. A left wing stall at 88mph with 2 notches of flaps, and left wing stall at 97mph with no flaps. Not too far off what I see in game, about as slow as I can keep level controlled flight is around 75mph with full flaps. The speeds they mention reuired for certain manuevers seem kinda high compared to in game, but I also have to consider this is a training film. I start students at higher speeds and work the speed down to the minimums as they learn the aircraft, no reason they would't be doing the same. Eg. Immelmans start at 200mph to start off with then I can eventually work them down to 150. One thing I do find odd in the game is the -1 seems to be the most agile stall fighter of the bunch, when there were some stalling corrections developed in the 1a. Our game Corsair definitely has a tendency to have worse stalls to the left at high angles of attack then it does to the right. If you try taking it nose up as if trying to rope someone, and get your speed down to about 125mph and try to rudder turn it right (nose falls off to right side), it normally does it fairly easily with some practice and throttle work. Try to do the same thing with a left rudder turn and she'll tend to pancake spin, and takes a bit to get back under control. I think in my time I've figured out most ways to get this thing to stall, especially low speeds with too much rudder application. This wasn't much of an issue a few years ago, but getting the tail to wash out now can be done fairly easily.
A key to fighting against a Corsair is gaining the high ground against it early, and make it fight uphill. Use the Corsairs alt as your hard deck and never let it get itself nose down. Climb and acceleration are it's weak points (excluding the -4), So when you are piloting a Corsair in a fight it's critical to gain the high ground on your first merges while you still have the speed to do so.
:salute
BigRat
-
I think it conflicts plenty, personally. In that level, steady, 1G stall it drops so hard the nose automatically starts pointing down and the wing loses all lift to the point it's aimed at the ground.
In this game you get much more docile handling in a stall, even when pulling many Gs in a tight turn, and you can still maintain perfect aim on your target. As Shida said, you can still get your nose on targets with amazing E retention.
It doesn't match up to most historic accounts I've read about. It was a high speed fighter, and very heavy. It had a big wing so the wing loading was not as bad as some other planes, but it still was a massive plane with a great deal of inertia and a giant torque generating device on the front end. It needed a certain amount of airflow to remain pointed the proper way. Getting it slow was a recipe for death (yours, not the enemy's).
I don't think they were stating higher speeds Big Rat, I think they were stating actual speeds. Keep in mind any F4u pilots had already undergone flight training on advanced trainers. This would be a film for advanced pilots with many hours under their belts. Just not on this type.
-
I don't think it conflicts all that much...
Interesting information and insight :salute
I find it an enigmatic aircraft to fly. Doesn't seem to be turning well from the inside, but when I fight someone like Fudmukkr he bends it like Beckham. But then I don't fight smart, I just try to manoeuvre in close with everything.
-
The F4Us are better in a low speed/flaps out fight than the F6F, having both a better turn rate and more stability. This seems odd to me given these planes' RL reputations, particularly regarding stability. I share Karnak's agility doubts regarding the Hurri, 110C and A-20 as well.
-
On most AH planes torque feels very moderate, even the ones that were notorious for it. If this is how it was in reality, I don't see what the big fuss was about.
The flaps are just being abused due to the ability to fly at 80 mph, full throttle+WEP and wiggle the stick around without danger of spinning out of control. In principle, when flying close to the stall, full "roll" deflection of the stick can stall the outer ("rising") wing - it never does in AH, at least not that I felt it. As far as I remember, the only plane that felt like this was the old 109 flight model that made it very tricky to fly at slow speeds unless the player had a good stick and very steady hand.
Absurdly, the old bugged mosquito with the misplaced centre of gravity felt the most "correct" to me. Sure I was campaigning to get it fixed, but even back then I said it felt how most planes should handle. It is still one of the very few planes than can be stalled violently into a spin (try stick full lower left + full left rudder and hold on to you panties).
-
The F4Us are better in a low speed/flaps out fight than the F6F, having both a better turn rate and more stability. This seems odd to me given these planes' RL reputations, particularly regarding stability. I share Karnak's agility doubts regarding the Hurri, 110C and A-20 as well.
Greebo,
I consider you the hellcat expert in this game from your reputation, so I take your info in high reguards here on it. I remember the hellcat more stable at low speeds then the Corsair in game :headscratch:. So this puzzles me a bit. Granted I do not fly the hellcat a whole lot so, I'll do a bit more research. In fact I think tomorrow I'll take the squad for high alt hellcat practice rather then hog and see, nothing like high alt fighting to show stall tendencies. Greebo, would love for you to join us if you wish. 9 central time in custom arena, PM me if interested, and I'll get you the info. I find the same thing as you as far as turn rate flapped out at low speed between the two.
:salute
BigRat
-
I don't think they were stating higher speeds Big Rat, I think they were stating actual speeds. Keep in mind any F4u pilots had already undergone flight training on advanced trainers. This would be a film for advanced pilots with many hours under their belts. Just not on this type.
This would be an excellent question for those that actually taught in fighters. Do they actually teach the "limits" when starting someone on a new fighter, do they do it with a bit of safety margin to keep them out of stalls until very familiar with the aircraft. Rodent and Mace would be good ones to answer this question.
:salute
BigRat
-
Also the departure characteristics are very important because that imposes on how close to those limits you can safely / comfortably go.
It's an interesting discussion, but I hardly feel those most qualified to comment would be disposed to do so. No one wants their favourite AH plane knobbled :old:
-
Interesting information and insight :salute
I find it an enigmatic aircraft to fly. Doesn't seem to be turning well from the inside, but when I fight someone like Fudmukkr he bends it like Beckham. But then I don't fight smart, I just try to manoeuvre in close with everything.
Fighting you, I had to bend it like Beckham lol <S>
-
I let a gentleman that I know well fly the -4 on here awhile back right before we got his bird finished. He has also flown P-51's, P-40's, SBD's, and has tons of hours in the T-6 as well.
His comment was that this is nothing more than a video game. Until you have to put both hands on the stick to affect a pull out or have to be helped out of the cockpit owing to fatigue after a long demonstration flight. Plus the reality of cockpit management in a real warbird is lost here, and that is one of the many things he harped on. The one thing he did like though, was the ability to pull the trigger. He went on to say it is what it is and it's intention is good, to keep the genre and interest alive while having fun.
Point is, stop harping on what you can not fix in what is basically a game.
-
But you can fix the stall and handling and performance of planes, if it's not correct. I'm not referring to physical fatigue as much as other elements.
When was the last time you got into a spin in a P-51? Really, turned too tightly and spun into the turn and couldn't get out for at least a few revolutions? It used to be that way. I recall even back in AH1 you could and did spin the P-51D more than the P-51B (even when lightly loaded) because of the razorback. It seems the game is improving in many ways, but devolving in other ways. It's making certain planes far easier to fly than they ever were in real life.
If it was so tiring to fly the F4U-4, does that mean it was more unstable? Or that the stick pressures were higher? Then that can translate into AH as requiring more input on the stick for the same results, or perhaps bobbing around and fishtailing like a few planes already do.
The point is: The corsairs aren't quite right. How can we fix them?
-
The point is: The corsairs aren't quite right. How can we fix them?
To fix something you have to know what is wrong. Saying they "aren't quite right" isn't describing a specific problem that can be fixed. You have your subjective impressions of a PC simulated aircraft and have read subjective impressions from people flying real Corsairs. You note that your impressions aren't the same but you haven't posted anything that's incorrect that needs to be fixed.
-
To fix something you have to know what is wrong. Saying they "aren't quite right" isn't describing a specific problem that can be fixed. You have your subjective impressions of a PC simulated aircraft and have read subjective impressions from people flying real Corsairs. You note that your impressions aren't the same but you haven't posted anything that's incorrect that needs to be fixed.
I had the opportunity to have some stick (limited) time in a real aircraft and it was significantly different than AH. Right off the bat, the atmosphere and all the subtle effects associated with it make stability a much greater issue than it is in AH. One of my first experiences was noticing how I over corrected for every bump/shift etc.. that the aircraft experienced.
-
do you really want the game to go hyper realistic, if something is only a little off shouldn't we focus on more pressing matter Like getting the proper planes in (D.520)? or graphics fully updated? or MAPS?
-
I had the opportunity to have some stick (limited) time in a real aircraft and it was significantly different than AH. Right off the bat, the atmosphere and all the subtle effects associated with it make stability a much greater issue than it is in AH. One of my first experiences was noticing how I over corrected for every bump/shift etc.. that the aircraft experienced.
The main difference is that your seat was moving. There is a big difference in the subjective feel of things like stalls when you very suddenly drop down instead of simply noticing the view changed a bit on your monitor.
It's not the flight model that's too stable in AH, it's the air and the chair.
-
The main difference is that your seat was moving. There is a big difference in the subjective feel of things like stalls when you very suddenly drop down instead of simply noticing the view changed a bit on your monitor.
It's not the flight model that's too stable in AH, it's the air and the chair.
correct me if I am wrong, in AH, the atmosphere is static, ie you flying in an enormous gymnasium with perfect heating of the floor and no drafts at any alt.
-
The air is still unless you set wind and there is never turbulence. Maybe sometime in the future... :pray
-
I had the opportunity to have some stick (limited) time in a real aircraft and it was significantly different than AH.
Maybe because it's oh... I don't know......a real plane and not something in a video game!
-
Maybe because it's oh... I don't know......a real plane and not something in a video game!
duh troll
-
Interesting note - I've read countless AAR's and Combat reports during WW2, notably from the Marine corp F4u squadrons. Most specifically state never to get low and slow with Zeros or try to turn fight with them. None mention dropping flaps either during combat.
I can see combat flaps being dropped, which is one thing, but full flaps? doubtful. I doubt Hellcat pilots did the same from what limited AAR's I have on hellcat pilots, they never stated to slow down or drop flaps, but use speed and ALT advantage.
I've always had trouble flying F4u's, they just seem a bit weird to me - the F4u4 actually was the most stable platform that I flew, F4u-1a and F4u-1 were unstable for some reason. Then again I always flew them under 15k, last FSO I took an F4u-1a up to 30k and danced around a6m3's, with full flaps out.
-
To fix something you have to know what is wrong. Saying they "aren't quite right" isn't describing a specific problem that can be fixed. You have your subjective impressions of a PC simulated aircraft and have read subjective impressions from people flying real Corsairs. You note that your impressions aren't the same but you haven't posted anything that's incorrect that needs to be fixed.
Not quite. I've been specific in other posts. I was being generic in that one post.
I've pointed out several areas where it needs improving. Not enough torque-induced yaw, can't really spin it, far too docile a stall, and way too controllable in the stall. The plane holds E like it's got a a storage canister filled with E behind the pilot's seat (that's a joke, just so you know, don't want you to take me too literally here).
Overall it's a pale comparison to the real thing and actual historic combat tactics and reports. Its handling is not at all where it used to be, but people ignore that it's different because they want it to be better (glossing it over so as not to hurt their favored ride).
-
More than anything, I think you're seeing the result of an inaccurate "pilot" model. "Incomplete" is probably a better word than "inaccurate".
Numerically, the plane may very well be modeled about as accurately as possible (as of yet, I've not seen anyone post anything conclusive (at all) that shows the F4U doesn't fly right. It's all been subjective so far, for years...
However, while the AH F4U is a very "busy" plane to fly well, it wouldn't even be possible for a RL pilot to do what an AH pilot can easily do. If an AH pilot was limited to only being able to do what a RL pilot could, we wouldn't be able to get the AH F4U to do what we can make it do now.
While I feel this is true for all planes in AH (since they all use the same pilot), I think the issue is brought to the fore with the F4U (and likely other "busy" planes).
One example is that given by Ardy, in that we don't "feel" any of the effects of G's, or fear, or exhaustion, etc...
But what I'm referring to is (for example) that an actual F4U pilot wouldn't be able to manipulate throttle and flaps together (at all), while it's extremely simple for me to do so here. This allows me many other options in AH than I would have in RL. Those extra "options" mean I get what amounts to extra performance (even if the plane were modeled absolutely perfectly).
-
OK, we just took the Hellcat up for squad practice 25k to deck fights, I didn't tell the squad anything about what I was going to ask at the end. I had 12-13 guys show up tonight, after an hour of combat we called it. Before I left I asked if they thought the Hellcat was more or less stable then the Corsair. All said more, some said a lot more. My personal feeling is slightly more, after flying it for an hour and a half (I was in the TA with it earlier). It was mentioned more then once that it doesn't drop a wing like a corsair pushed over the limit (too little speed or too little flap).
:salute
BigRat
-
One example is that given by Ardy, in that we don't "feel" any of the effects of G's, or fear, or exhaustion, etc...
Well, That wasn't my intentions with my post, but it is a valid point (I felt, maybe wrongly, that turbulence causes planes to stall/etc slightly quicker (behave less predictably) and force pilots to give more 'buffer' between where the edge is).
I will say, that it did require more attention and input just to do basic turns as I was constantly trying to keep the ball in the center and adjust for the ever changing conditions... Granted I have almost 0 stick time, so I was over attentive and 'not comfortable' unlike a professional pilot, but that's the only comparison I have...(hopefully I'll have better ones in the future (fingers crossed)).
-
It was called the ensign eliminator for a reason.
In AH, those pilots that most closely resemble "ensign's" die horrible deaths in the F4U. Many while attempting to take off and/or land (which is how the real F4U earned that nickname). Could that be an argument that the model is accurate?
The F4U was also called "Whistling Death", and was one of the most feared US planes by the Japanese. While the AH A6M is a fairly easy kill for the AH F4U, turning certainly isn't the way to do it.
I point that out not to argue with you, but to illustrate that nicknames applied to airplanes aren't any sort of argument for or against the accuracy of the model.
-
Well, That wasn't my intentions with my post, but it is a valid point...
I know, sorry. Hopefully you don't think it was too far out of context.
-
I know, sorry. Hopefully you don't think it was too far out of context.
no, not at all...
I am totally ignorant to the numbers of surviving hellcats or f4us, but has anyone here every had the opportunity fly/ride in a real one? (I know for ~1k, you can ride in a p51 or p40 near my place).
I'm sure that a monster 40+lbs wing loading, huge engine, enormous mass, etc... means the plane handles significantly different than your standard civilian aircraft.
-
And, for what it's worth, the AH F4U does have a fairly nasty stall...
http://www.4shared.com/file/ceGImqJ-/Agent360_fun_fight_with_stall_.html?refurl=d1url
-
Not quite. I've been specific in other posts. I was being generic in that one post.
I've pointed out several areas where it needs improving. Not enough torque-induced yaw, can't really spin it, far too docile a stall, and way too controllable in the stall. The plane holds E like it's got a a storage canister filled with E behind the pilot's seat (that's a joke, just so you know, don't want you to take me too literally here).
Overall it's a pale comparison to the real thing and actual historic combat tactics and reports. Its handling is not at all where it used to be, but people ignore that it's different because they want it to be better (glossing it over so as not to hurt their favored ride).
You are still just listing subjective impressions. You don't have anything resembling data that shows a problem.
-
You are still just listing subjective impressions. You don't have anything resembling data that shows a problem.
there is no contemporary quantitative data that I know of for aircraft behaviour at the edge of and beyond controlled flight. in the same way as there is none for eg. directonal stability. which is completely understandable - we are looking at the point where the nice simple equations describing the aircraft's behaviour break down into chaos. even today with the help of supercomputers accurately modelling behaviour just outside of the envelope is impossible.
modelling these aspects will always rely on subjective reports from test and combat pilots. the meteor was extensively tested during WWII and its yaw instability was well known, but Ive never seen a table listing the frequency of the oscillations under different conditions.
unless you want to end up with all the aircraft "feeling" the same to fly, you have to include subjective, qualitative evidence.
-
In AH, those pilots that most closely resemble "ensign's" die horrible deaths in the F4U. Many while attempting to take off and/or land (which is how the real F4U earned that nickname). Could that be an argument that the model is accurate?
The F4U was also called "Whistling Death", and was one of the most feared US planes by the Japanese. While the AH A6M is a fairly easy kill for the AH F4U, turning certainly isn't the way to do it.
I point that out not to argue with you, but to illustrate that nicknames applied to airplanes aren't any sort of argument for or against the accuracy of the model.
The japanese never referred to it as whstling death . The germans never called my favorite ride the forked tailed devil either . Unfortunately for both :( .
-
Okay I agree mtnmn stall is pretty well modeled . I don't think spin is though . Is easy to recover not even needing rudder .
-
...unless you want to end up with all the aircraft "feeling" the same to fly, you have to include subjective, qualitative evidence.
I don't know that Hitech does any subjective adjustments to make the aircraft fly as differently as they do but I'll take his version over a player's impressions of how they should "feel" to the player.
-
Not quite. I've been specific in other posts. I was being generic in that one post.
I've pointed out several areas where it needs improving. Not enough torque-induced yaw, can't really spin it, far too docile a stall, and way too controllable in the stall. The plane holds E like it's got a a storage canister filled with E behind the pilot's seat (that's a joke, just so you know, don't want you to take me too literally here).
Overall it's a pale comparison to the real thing and actual historic combat tactics and reports. Its handling is not at all where it used to be, but people ignore that it's different because they want it to be better (glossing it over so as not to hurt their favored ride).
Krusty, the argument for tourque induced yaw could be made for every aircraft in here except the P-38. You can easily put the F4u into a stall and it can be a very nasty spin, again, although that argument could be made for every airplane in here. I disagree on E retention. If you start turning it bleeds E quickly and takes a high to regain it.
Look, you obviously have an axe to grind on the F4u, but at least get some facts to back it up.
-
there is no contemporary quantitative data that I know of for aircraft behaviour at the edge of and beyond controlled flight. in the same way as there is none for eg. directonal stability. which is completely understandable - we are looking at the point where the nice simple equations describing the aircraft's behaviour break down into chaos. even today with the help of supercomputers accurately modelling behaviour just outside of the envelope is impossible.
...
I don't know that Hitech does any subjective adjustments to make the aircraft fly as differently as they do but I'll take his version over a player's impressions of how they should "feel" to the player.
As far I know, HTC model the planes individually and calculate their behaviour at different conditions, then tabulate it and use interpolation for the real time game. They adjust their models to agree with the empirical data of official documents, but what happens at conditions other than the ones tested and reported in the documents is entirely up to their modeling.
You will not find any contemporary documents with accurate measurement of what happens during tails slides or accelerated stalls, only test pilot reports and impressions. Modelling is possible when the flow is coming from the right direction and in low angle of attack. Then, element by element calculations can work. But what do you do with a plane falling backwards? How much lift and drag does the wing element provide if the trailing edge is flying forward? What happens in high angle skids where the flow is going diagonally over the wing, thus the effective profiles of the wing along the flow lines are completely different than the "NACA" standards and change with skid angle and other parts of the plane are suddenly in the way (like fuselage).
The "normal flight conditions" modelling of most sims are pretty good. HTC has done a lot of work to achieve decent modeling even a little outside the "normal conditions", but extreme conditions are anyone's guess - and guess they must. The game is doing SOMETHING when you stall one wing while skidding in full engine torque with flaps out.
Now, my feeling is that HTC is doing the best unbiased model that they can and take what the calculation gives. There were cases in the past when they were not pleased with some of the results and they were changed. In 2002 AH1, the F6F had a nasty accelerated stall, while the F4U was a stable as a rock. After many complaints HTC had a FM revision and the behaviour has been switched. Was this the unbiased result of the improved mathematical modelling or was there some hand-made tweaks under the hood of the model engine?
-
Bozon over the years, Would have to look at revision history to tell you specifics, we have added things to the model that are added to all planes but have the most effect on some specific planes.
Things like wing taper,wash out /twist, how control surfaces effect the L/D and CM. How many points are sampled on the air foiles, How the vortex is shaped and calculated.
And the real pain is still finding more then a few good references to airfoil extreme AOA diagrams I.E. 30 - 180 deg.
HiTech
-
A point to consider is the no-risk flying of a cartoon plane. Was there a pilot kicking flaps out at 300 feet, inverted, then gear, to bleed E in a fight with a xxxxx type of bad guy airplane?
Is this a could not, or no one had the "cojones" or madness to try?
-
A point to consider is the no-risk flying of a cartoon plane. Was there a pilot kicking flaps out at 300 feet, inverted, then gear, to bleed E in a fight with a xxxxx type of bad guy airplane? Is this a could not, or no one had the "cojones" or madness to try?
That may be the right answer. No one would risk death. It was not a game. But I still feel strange when I "hover" in a F4U, dancing with my rudder... I have a lot of fun but I suspect that this is not quite right. I don't say it is impossible, I just say it's improbable. But then, all planes are easy here... ;-)
Cheers,
-
Another thing to point out is the instantaneous speed in which gear extend. I think the effects of extending and retracting gear would not be so advantageous if they operated at a more realistic speed. Thus my wish on sequences in the wish forum (plus wanting to have more time in which a sound could represent the movement).
I doubt very much that the aces that survived combat bye using this trick would have recommended it as a training exercise for rookies either way.
-
Look, you obviously have an axe to grind on the F4u
Not so. Axe to grind? No. This is nothing personal. I also find the way certain other craft behave to be undesirable as they do not reflect real world performance at all. This is just one of the most glaring examples. Start with the larger problems, and improve them. The F4U flight model (specifically how it handles, docile stalling, spin resistance, low speed handling with and without flaps, etc) is extremely unrealistic.
It's not JUST an issue of "lack of fear of death" either, because there are examples of the plane being flown at slow speeds, such as on final approaches, landing, taking off, where the handling is noted and the excessive torque could and would flip the plane over before you knew it. The in-game models are definitely way more "easy mode" than they used to be.
-
This sequence of films might be pertinent to this discussion. One part describes the stall:-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5J0BYq3yevs
What I find most interesting here is just how convoluted the start up and take off procedure is and how we are spared in game the rigmarole of adjusting myriad controls before we can 'up'.
I have a few hours in various types, mostly in Piper Warrior but also in Chipmunks and as a passenger only in various military types and all seem less involved than this.
Whilst I would enjoy the immersion of all these requirements it would need to be on a toggle otherwise a vulchers wet dream would be realised as 15 guys sat at the end of the field flicking levers and switches as all the t&p's get into the green. :huh
Also I doubt my budget would stretch to the 4 multi throttle quadrants required for realism. :bolt:
-
Would be interesting to implement full torque in an test environment, many high powered planes would suffer much.
Right now I'm using more rudder in my 80hp EuroCub than I do in an 109 on take-off.
-
Would be interesting to implement full torque in an test environment, many high powered planes would suffer much.
Right now I'm using more rudder in my 80hp EuroCub than I do in an 109 on take-off.
It already is "Full" torque.
-
um ... dont you use ailerons to counteract torque, and rudder to counteract asymetric thrust? :headscratch:
-
What I find most interesting here is just how convoluted the start up and take off procedure is and how we are spared in game the rigmarole of adjusting myriad controls before we can 'up'.
Yup, and also in flight. The pilot really was the engine management system as well. Magnetos, fuel tank selection, trim, cowl flaps, supercharger setting, mixture, electric sunroof position,... and he had to navigate, and work a complex radio, and keep up his SA.
-
Bozon over the years, Would have to look at revision history to tell you specifics, we have added things to the model that are added to all planes but have the most effect on some specific planes.
As I understand it, it was the last global flight modelling change which happened in 2006 where the F4U's stall speeds got seemingly reduced. As I never had the old version in conjuction to the current one, I didn't test it.
The version notes here:
Version 2.07 Changes
======================
Made several changes to the flight model affecting static thrust, propeller slipstream effects,
ground effect, flaps and slats. This affects all planes to one degree or another. Due to this change, the
table that controls combat trim had to be redone for all planes.
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,173569.0.html (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,173569.0.html)
After the release I recall Pyro saying that he thought there might have been some inconsistancies in the change that he thought needed to be wed out but it looks like nothing came of it. I couldn't find the exact quote but I think it was this sub forum.
-
When I read flight reports of late 109 and typhoon drivers had to be careful to apply throttle so you did not ground-loop the plane on takeoff.
I do not see this happening here. This might be true for more planes.
-
they didnt have autotakeoff ...
squad sweeps in mossies inevitably start off with at least one slewing off the runway into a field gun or hangar, cracks me up every time :D
-
squad sweeps in mossies inevitably start off with at least one slewing off the runway into a field gun or hangar, cracks me up every time :D
The mossie is one of the planes that really feels the secondary effects. There is a huge difference between stalling in a right hand or left a hand turn. From a right hand spin I can come out at will. From a left hand spin I will come out only if god wills it.
Try also to fly level and then pull/push the stick while watching the ball. It will swing to one side when you pull and the other when you push. I feel this is much more noticeable in the mossie than in most other planes. Maybe the Spit 14 suffers even more, but I have too little experience with it to tell.
-
I have actually been saying to my squad mates that she has been feeling sluggish in turns and etc for about three months now. I just read some info on the-4 showing it to have stall speed of 71.4 mph full flaps at sea level. I think the -1s were around 83 mph or so for the same. It also shows that all the F4Us had normal power military power and combat power what do we have in here? When I try to get low and slow (which is stupid to do) to push my flight envelope I notice she is all squirmy and I find myself using a lot of rudder to keep my nose in front. When I take off from the cv I do use 6 notches of elevator and 2 notches of flaps with a notch of rudder to take off easier like the video. For those that don't know about the landing gears, the were used for dive bombing to be able to extend up to 350mph which slowed them down but helped stabilize your weapon platform. I'm sure most fold know this already but I thought I would just throw it out there.
-
Upon returning in July after last playing AH in late 2005, I've really been amazed at the increase in low speed handling stability with flaps deployed for planes such as the 109, F4U, P47 and perhaps most remarkably the La 7. From what I've gathered this occurred with the 2.07 patch. FWIW the aircraft are easier to fly and are more forgiving. The 190's still seem stuck in Aces High I while similar heavy planes stall at lower speeds and have more useful flaps.
My knowledge of aviation is limited to history and aircraft, and I really know nothing of physics. But I did fly AH for a long time and think I developed a good sense for how the aircraft handle at their limits in the game.
It is amazing to me to see La7s and F4Us, and K4s flying around with full flaps deployed, at angles approaching huge air brakes, in zoom climbs with very little effect on deceleration. I've also seen the introduction of some pretty wonky maneuvers where the plane can be kicked around almost 200 degrees laterally, essentially leaving the flight envelope, and then returning to normal flight without any ill effects. The 109s do this without the greatest risk of entering a spin (almost impossible), but it's also doable in the Ki84, La7 and late P47s. Tactically this move has very limited use but it can be used to force an overshoot and reestablish positional parity. I would love to hear from more knowledgeable folks if these moves have any basis in reality, because it certainly isn't ACM.
-
Saw a new one last night. K4 with full flaps out behind my ponyD with full flaps just above falling out of the sky, comes to what looks like a full stop. Then suddenly point it's nose straight up with full flaps out and I guess uses WEP to climb straight up with full flaps out. Soppose from his client viewpoint he was avoiding colliding with my rear. It was probably the internet but, one moment the K4 came to almost a dead stand still. Then the next moment it's nose pivots 90 degrees vertical and climbs straight up like a helecopter with it's flaps full out.
Guess I witnessed a secret weapon of the Luft......... :)
A BfHarrier.......... :noid
-
I would leave record on and review stuff like that, most likely what you thought happened didnt bustr. That being said something like a k4 has a huge engine and light airframe once the noses arw pointed up the pony will not win the thrust battle.
-
I have not flown a single real ww2 airplane and if I did I would not attempt any of the 'trick moves' one can do in AH, but I suspect that most all planes post stall behavior is unrealistic. HTC can verify this, but I believe the game works by interpolating on statically generated tables. Tables which are generally complied from mathematical models simulating 'normal' airflow conditions (ie not post stall, not flying/falling backwards on your tail, etc...)
-
One of the argument is it shouldn't handle that well in slow speeds. We have the advantage that our WW2 real life pilots didn't have. If we die making a mistake we can reup. Which allows us the chance to learn how to stall fight. I guarantee you half the stuff the pilots try in AH2 would not have been performed in real life. We have the ability to try something new and if it works use it if not try something else
-
One of the argument is it shouldn't handle that well in slow speeds. We have the advantage that our WW2 real life pilots didn't have. If we die making a mistake we can reup. Which allows us the chance to learn how to stall fight. I guarantee you half the stuff the pilots try in AH2 would not have been performed in real life. We have the ability to try something new and if it works use it if not try something else
There is a major difference between what we do in a simulator (this game) vs what real pilots did - 80% that play this game will never understand that, rather they do not even care - this is a video game.
Most of the stuff in Aces High did not have live bullets flying at them - there is NO comparison period. Not going to bother giving my opinion on this because I wasn't there.
-
The Sukhoi 26 loaded weight is 2,600 lb and has a 360 hp engine. Or in other words a power loading of 0.14 hp per lb.
The Bf 109K's loaded weight is 7,400 lb and has a 1,800 hp engine. A power loading of 0.24 hp per lb; almost twice that of one of the world's best aerobatics aircraft.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IcP2G93-ZSA&feature=player_detailpage#t=47s
If the Su-26 can hang on it's prop like that then the 109 can do it even better and for longer. I doubt anyone would dare to do it in R/L though, but that's besides the point.
-
I have not flown a single real ww2 airplane and if I did I would not attempt any of the 'trick moves' one can do in AH, but I suspect that most all planes post stall behavior is unrealistic. HTC can verify this, but I believe the game works by interpolating on statically generated tables. Tables which are generally complied from mathematical models simulating 'normal' airflow conditions (ie not post stall, not flying/falling backwards on your tail, etc...)
You are incorrect, AH models the complete flight envelope and not just 'normal' airflow conditions.
HiTech
-
In film viewer, can we get get "g loading" and "plane weight" included in the two blank columns right next to the displays for speed and altitude?
It would go a long way toward understanding what really happened the your filmed sortie you are watching while also quelling many a cheating accusation.
-
In film viewer, can we get get "g loading" and "plane weight" included in the two blank columns right next to the displays for speed and altitude?
It would go a long way toward understanding what really happened the your filmed sortie you are watching while also quelling many a cheating accusation.
No, because your client does not have that information on other planes.
But also your assumption is incorrect, because amazingly anytime someone makes a "Amazing flight characteristic" accusation, they never seem to have a film to prove the accusation.
HiTech
-
That is simple to avoid. My settings run film every time so it is easy to save a film if I see anything peculiar. I recommend you people who see these things more than others do the same.
Also run the "trail" so you can see the enemy's actual movement relative to you.
"If the Su-26 can hang on it's prop like that then the 109 can do it even better and for longer."
It was actually done, to some degree. Finnish test pilot Pekka Kokko claimed that he flew a G2 in a 60 deg nose up without losing altitude. Or can we call that "flying" anymore or rather a controlled stall... ;)
-C+
-
I pulled off some weird as hell nose up stall in a 2 v 1 the other day with a K4. From my cockpit, it was like I literally pointed the nose up, did mutiple 360s in a spin, and dropped back down on the guy chasing me. The whole thing was maybe 5 seconds and both me and the other guy was baffled. I'll post the film once I get home.
I had around 50 fuel, going 200mph and about 200ft off the ground.
-
No, because your client does not have that information on other planes.
But also your assumption is incorrect, because amazingly anytime someone makes a "Amazing flight characteristic" accusation, they never seem to have a film to prove the accusation.
HiTech
I have only ever sent in two films.
Both "dog" and "ice", who were the stars of each film were later banned at warbirds.
If you ever get a film from me, it will be pretty obvious something is wrong.
Can we get the g loading and plane weight displayed for our own plane in the film?
-
I have only ever sent in two films.
Both "dog" and "ice", who were the stars of each film were later banned at warbirds.
If you ever get a film from me, it will be pretty obvious something is wrong.
Can we get the g loading and plane weight displayed for our own plane in the film?
I would prefer to see 'Total Energy' calculated by combining the kinetic energy of the aircraft with the potential energy.
-
I pulled off some weird as hell nose up stall in a 2 v 1 the other day with a K4. From my cockpit, it was like I literally pointed the nose up, did mutiple 360s in a spin, and dropped back down on the guy chasing me. The whole thing was maybe 5 seconds and both me and the other guy was baffled. I'll post the film once I get home.
I had around 50 fuel, going 200mph and about 200ft off the ground.
Reviewing my own film again, it turns out I pulled off a semi tailside/hammerhead. Either way, it was pretty cool watching. 50% accidental. Oh, and ignore the 200 banter. :D
http://www.mediafire.com/?440rw8dxrhaiu3g
Fight starts at 14:00. If you watch it from the cockpit view with my recorded views, you'll see why I was surprised.
And to stay on topic, is this do-able in real life? :headscratch:
-
Saw a new one last night. K4 with full flaps out behind my ponyD with full flaps just above falling out of the sky, comes to what looks like a full stop. Then suddenly point it's nose straight up with full flaps out and I guess uses WEP to climb straight up with full flaps out. Soppose from his client viewpoint he was avoiding colliding with my rear. It was probably the internet but, one moment the K4 came to almost a dead stand still. Then the next moment it's nose pivots 90 degrees vertical and climbs straight up like a helecopter with it's flaps full out.
Guess I witnessed a secret weapon of the Luft......... :)
A BfHarrier.......... :noid
seen some odd things like that recently myself, but it was a guy playing on what was evidently a very laggy connection
-
In film viewer, can we get get "g loading" and "plane weight" included in the two blank columns right next to the displays for speed and altitude?
It would go a long way toward understanding what really happened the your filmed sortie you are watching while also quelling many a cheating accusation.
These people accepting they sucked might go a long way to quelling cheating accusations, even watching the speeds in their own video would be helpful, but its not about finding out what went wrong, its about moving blame for their failure somewhere else. Watching the film would just prove they sucked and they would have to look for another excuse.
All the tools to find out what happened in your fight are in the film viewer already.
(http://i50.tinypic.com/5d5aoj.jpg)
(http://i48.tinypic.com/e89x6a.jpg)
-
These people accepting they sucked might go a long way to quelling cheating accusations, even watching the speeds in their own video would be helpful, but its not about finding out what went wrong, its about moving blame for their failure somewhere else. Watching the film would just prove they sucked and they would have to look for another excuse.
All the tools to find out what happened in your fight are in the film viewer already.
(http://i50.tinypic.com/5d5aoj.jpg)
(http://i48.tinypic.com/e89x6a.jpg)
The A5 is just toooo fun :rofl :lol :aok :banana: :airplane: :cheers:
-
LOL Pervert :lol. When you get those you know you're good with an aircraft :aok. By the way I haven't seen you in the TA with a 190 lately, good energy fighting practice.
:salute
BigRat
-
LOL Pervert :lol. When you get those you know you're good with an aircraft :aok. By the way I haven't seen you in the TA with a 190 lately, good energy fighting practice.
:salute
BigRat
I think its more sour grapes and others being ridiculously bad than me being good tbh! :rofl Haven't had the time lately mate miss messing around with yourself Morp and the other guys though was always relaxing and good fun! :salute
-
:rofl :rofl :rofl
oh my word....the ignorance is powerful in that one :rofl :rofl
-
Talked to a friend of mine yesterday, he is co-owner of a -5 and flies a -4 and FG-1D amongst other warbirds. Anyways, we got to talking about the performance of the Corsair when it was low and slow and he said that the aircraft is very responsive even with it's flaps fully deployed and down around 80. The kicker though is that he does not like to "explore" to much of the envelope at that speed because the departure is so abrupt and usually ends up with you on your back if you stall it. That said, I brought up the question here, and he pointed out the one thing I have said before and what several have said here, "You only have one life and one bird in the real world". That answer sums it up.
He went on to summarize the amount of times people come up at airshows and ask these types of questions regarding performance and why there is a lack of data on subjects like extreme slow speed performance. He said it is a really simple set of answers that he gives: a: it's super freaking dangerous, especially in an aircraft where intentional stalls are prohibited, b: most guys did not like to slow up in combat as it gave the japanese a chance and that they preferred methods of slashing attacks were preferred, and c: the reality that if you screw up, you will die, is a far better motivator to not do stupid things in combat like go slow and turn with aircraft designed to do such.
Just thought I'd add this since Krusty said that cartoon lives and no real death was not really a factor in why people take more chances in here.
-
Thanks for posting that Bodhi, i wouldnt want to be down around 80 mph on the verge of a stall if i were behind the controls either hehe :cheers:
-
...performance of the Corsair when it was low and slow and he said that the aircraft is very responsive even with it's flaps fully deployed and down around 80. The kicker though is that he does not like to "explore" to much of the envelope at that speed because the departure is so abrupt and usually ends up with you on your back if you stall it. That said,...
'That said'? Hold the phone a mo, he just confirmed the departure characteristics in the training films on Dozer's YouTube channel didn't he?
-
I've got back in game and have had a few unrecoverable stalls at low speeds, yall aren't pushing it. Would stick scaling have anything to do with not getting the sudden stalls? I'm not familiar with how that works but i have all my sliders at the top like mtnman does and i know it was like learn to fly without the stall limiter for awhile.
-
Thats good stuff Pervert. Haha. Some folks need to play a bit longer and realize the you in a 190 will always be a tough fight, no matter what the other guy is in.
Question for Hitech... do all airplanes have the same amount of control deflection, or do you use the "recommended throw?"
-
Thats good stuff Pervert. Haha. Some folks need to play a bit longer and realize the you in a 190 will always be a tough fight, no matter what the other guy is in.
Question for Hitech... do all airplanes have the same amount of control deflection, or do you use the "recommended throw?"
:rofl :rofl
not
-
And Ink reaches back and casts.....
I know Pervert sucks in a 190 the way Ink sucks in the 84. :neener:
You only have 7 3/4 months till my sentence is up and I get back into the game. Dammit the withdraw sucks... never gets better.
-
And Ink reaches back and casts.....
I know Pervert sucks in a 190 the way Ink sucks in the 84. :neener:
You only have 7 3/4 months till my sentence is up and I get back into the game. Dammit the withdraw sucks... never gets better.
shhhhh
-
In AH, those pilots that most closely resemble "ensign's" die horrible deaths in the F4U. Many while attempting to take off and/or land (which is how the real F4U earned that nickname). Could that be an argument that the model is accurate?
The F4U was also called "Whistling Death", and was one of the most feared US planes by the Japanese. While the AH A6M is a fairly easy kill for the AH F4U, turning certainly isn't the way to do it.
I point that out not to argue with you, but to illustrate that nicknames applied to airplanes aren't any sort of argument for or against the accuracy of the model.
Nothing but mad respect for you mountain man . The whistling death name is a myth however .
-
Nothing but mad respect for you mountain man . The whistling death name is a myth however .
:salute hlbly!
Completely possible. I've always thought it odd that the folks that had the most reason to fear it/hate it would give it such a complimentary name.
I've seen it referred to that way in print, but I suspect that ALL nicknames for the F4U are largely "myth". Even if a given nickname is "fact", it's possible/probable that the meaning we currently assign that name is out of context. I'd even argue that any given nickname had different meanings for different people at the time the nickname was created and used in "real time".
An F4U pilot referring to the F4U as the "Ensign Eliminator", for example, is probably using the implications of that nickname to brag about his ability to some (and maybe a large)extent. Flying a "nasty" plane inflates the status of the individual who successfully flies it.
The "worse" attributes an aircraft is credited with, the better the pilot is inferred to be if he can simply survive in that suicidal death-trap! If the plane is "deadly" to an inexperienced pilot, then obviously the pilot who regularly flies it is a step above the others... And what if he's successful in it? Then he's obviously about as good as they come! And if he's more successful in the suicidal death-trap than most other pilots who fly it? He's obviously elite!
How many ensigns did the "Ensign Eliminator" eliminate in reality?
A nickname attributed to an aircraft probably says far more about the pilot's who flew/named it than the plane itself...
It just boils down to the fact that a flight model cannot be considered "accurate" based on whether it meets the modern, inexperienced, and unfamiliar expectations of an individual basing his opinions on a historic nickname and anecdotal evidence.
-
Well said and point taken .
-
:salute hlbly!
Completely possible. I've always thought it odd that the folks that had the most reason to fear it/hate it would give it such a complimentary name.
I've seen it referred to that way in print, but I suspect that ALL nicknames for the F4U are largely "myth". Even if a given nickname is "fact", it's possible/probable that the meaning we currently assign that name is out of context. I'd even argue that any given nickname had different meanings for different people at the time the nickname was created and used in "real time".
An F4U pilot referring to the F4U as the "Ensign Eliminator", for example, is probably using the implications of that nickname to brag about his ability to some (and maybe a large)extent. Flying a "nasty" plane inflates the status of the individual who successfully flies it.
The "worse" attributes an aircraft is credited with, the better the pilot is inferred to be if he can simply survive in that suicidal death-trap! If the plane is "deadly" to an inexperienced pilot, then obviously the pilot who regularly flies it is a step above the others... And what if he's successful in it? Then he's obviously about as good as they come! And if he's more successful in the suicidal death-trap than most other pilots who fly it? He's obviously elite!
How many ensigns did the "Ensign Eliminator" eliminate in reality?
A nickname attributed to an aircraft probably says far more about the pilot's who flew/named it than the plane itself...
It just boils down to the fact that a flight model cannot be considered "accurate" based on whether it meets the modern, inexperienced, and unfamiliar expectations of an individual basing his opinions on a historic nickname and anecdotal evidence.
There is some much more going on in a real aircraft than in AH that its totally incomparable... I know you agree with me MtMan so I'm not calling you out by quoting you. I feel the need to remind people though, that just basic flight management was significantly greater in RL than in AH... look where the flaps are in relation to the stick...is there a button on the 'real' f4u flight stick to drop flaps? ...no, you have to take your hand off the throttle to manipulate the flaps... throw some 'g's and many other things to manage all at the same time...and forget about it... Not to mention the huge impact a 'non-static' atmosphere has on flying (weather/ thermals/common turbulence etc...)...
-
Rereading this thread I do find it a little odd that the departure characteristics were glossed over or dismissed without discussion. There are now several sources describing the departure characteristics as vicious.
I concede this is difficult to quantify or measure and I am not an F4U experten by any means but I haven't experienced a vicious departure in an AH Corsair, nothing reminiscent of a 190-like departure anyway - something to dread in a fight.
:headscratch:
-
There is some much more going on in a real aircraft than in AH that its totally incomparable... I know you agree with me MtMan so I'm not calling you out by quoting you. I feel the need to remind people though, that just basic flight management was significantly greater in RL than in AH... look where the flaps are in relation to the stick...is there a button on the 'real' f4u flight stick to drop flaps? ...no, you have to take your hand off the throttle to manipulate the flaps... throw some 'g's and many other things to manage all at the same time...and forget about it... Not to mention the huge impact a 'non-static' atmosphere has on flying (weather/ thermals/common turbulence etc...)...
You've nailed the real "issue" with getting "realistic" real-world performance from AH aircraft.
It's just not possible to have that without realistically modeling the environment and the pilot's limitations, abilities, knowledge, fears, etc... Even if the flight model for a particular plane is spot on!
Heck, the performance of my wife's mini van varies day-to-day much more in relation to environment and human-related factors than due to the vehicle itself.
-
I am OK with the F4u as it is. It is fun to fly but I never consider it an uber turn fighter.
I feel if one is going to change a plane in this game then the A-20 needs to be on top of the list. Just change it so it is not a weird type fighter plane killer. Make THAT plane historically accurate in this context first. I expect those that are expert at using the A-20 in this way to resist this.
Yep we can still kill A-20's in fighters. That is not the context of this thread. Making changes to planes to better align them to the real WWII plane performance is.
-
Watching Lancstukas, B17/B24s dive bombing is always fun. And I doubt it will ever get changed because while the pilot was probably incapable of doing it in real life, the plane was. And in AH, we are not "a pilot", we fly as the plane itself.
So while a real pilot wouldve ripped his arms off or be standing on his head, we're doing barrel rolls and going inverted in bombers and planes that were forbidden to do so.
-
Watching Lancstukas, B17/B24s dive bombing is always fun. And I doubt it will ever get changed because while the pilot was probably incapable of doing it in real life, the plane was. And in AH, we are not "a pilot", we fly as the plane itself.
So while a real pilot wouldve ripped his arms off or be standing on his head, we're doing barrel rolls and going inverted in bombers and planes that were forbidden to do so.
Lancasters were not forbidden to do so. The 'corkscrew' evasion involved throwing a laden Lancaster around the sky in diving rolling and climbing turns.
AH models, as I recall, 50lbs of stick force by the pilots whenever the data is available.
-
Watching Lancstukas, B17/B24s dive bombing is always fun. And I doubt it will ever get changed because while the pilot was probably incapable of doing it in real life, the plane was. And in AH, we are not "a pilot", we fly as the plane itself.
So while a real pilot wouldve ripped his arms off or be standing on his head, we're doing barrel rolls and going inverted in bombers and planes that were forbidden to do so.
The problem with bombers dive bombing (real life) is the bomb clearing the bomb bay. The bays and structures holding the bombs were designed and relied on gravity to get the bomb out and assumed that gravity is pointing in a certain direction. When diving at more than a shallow angle, the bombs will not travel in the expected direction and take more time to clear the bay and the structures in it (the bay is not a big empty volume where the bomb floats till it is released). Finally, there is the issue of the bomb behavior when crossing the wind sheer at the bay door. Bombs can spin out of control and even be thrown to hit the belly or wings of the plane.
-
Lancasters were not forbidden to do so. The 'corkscrew' evasion involved throwing a laden Lancaster around the sky in diving rolling and climbing turns.
AH models, as I recall, 50lbs of stick force by the pilots whenever the data is available.
Fine, point taken, but you can't expect anyone not to chuckle when a Lanc goes into a near 90 degrees dive, drop an entire bomb load (wouldn't the bombs fly forward into the nose of the plane in the first place?), then pull away like it's nothing.
One thing I'd like to see implemented. When a plane begins to creak and moan under high stress, it actually weakens the airframe. So you might be able to do it again, but by the 3rd or 4th time, the creaking comes at a slower speed and by the 5th or 6th, parts starts shedding.
-
Fine, point taken, but you can't expect anyone not to chuckle when a Lanc goes into a near 90 degrees dive
In all my 7 years of playing AH, I have yet to see that. I see Lancs in shallow dive bombing runs, but never in anything that actually would come close to "near 90 degrees".
The term 'Lancstuka' is fun, but if we take it seriously for a minute, massively exaggerating considering the dive angle which is/was actually used by genuine Sturzkampfflugzeuge
-
In all my 7 years of playing AH, I have yet to see that. I see Lancs in shallow dive bombing runs, but never in anything that actually would come close to "near 90 degrees".
The term 'Lancstuka' is fun, but if we take it seriously for a minute, massively exaggerating considering the dive angle which is/was actually used by genuine Sturzkampfflugzeuge
I just saw it yesterday with a B17... Heck, you can do it offline if you'd like.
-
I just saw it yesterday with a B17... Heck, you can do it offline if you'd like.
It's actually more difficult then one may think to get a near 90° dive level in a B-17 or Lanc, that's why it about never happens. I don't even do it in my Hurri D for good reasons ;)You don't have a film of that per chance? Because usually when it's being said "almost vertically" or "90°" it most of the time turns out to be much less, and that's for all planes. 60° (which looks really steep) is about the most I see and even that is rare with "Lancstukas".
-
The problem with bombers dive bombing (real life) is the bomb clearing the bomb bay. The bays and structures holding the bombs were designed and relied on gravity to get the bomb out and assumed that gravity is pointing in a certain direction. When diving at more than a shallow angle, the bombs will not travel in the expected direction and take more time to clear the bay and the structures in it (the bay is not a big empty volume where the bomb floats till it is released). Finally, there is the issue of the bomb behavior when crossing the wind sheer at the bay door. Bombs can spin out of control and even be thrown to hit the belly or wings of the plane.
This is why planes like the SBD had a bomb sling, to ensure the bomb didn't just mangle the prop when released at steep angles. I believe the Stuka (or at least some models) had the same thing, but I am not positive.
-
Rereading this thread I do find it a little odd that the departure characteristics were glossed over or dismissed without discussion. There are now several sources describing the departure characteristics as vicious.
I concede this is difficult to quantify or measure and I am not an F4U experten by any means but I haven't experienced a vicious departure in an AH Corsair, nothing reminiscent of a 190-like departure anyway - something to dread in a fight.
:headscratch:
The departure characteristics have been discussed in many threads. If they haven't been discussed in this thread, it may simply be due to a lack of interest in hashing through it again.
The training film for the F4U discusses departure in several different configurations beginning at about 12:30 in this clip...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kpxyyLQ7u7g
On the negative side it's described with terms such as "abrupt, and preceded with very little warning", "left wing stalls first due to the torque reaction of the engine", "goes quickly" and "off on the left wing"
On the positive side we see and hear "regain control as quickly as possible and you'll run no chance of trouble", and "prompt, positive actions result in a normal recovery", and "stick pressures are heavy (you can help them with your tabs), but with experience you'll become familiar with the F4U's stall characteristics".
Overall, not so bad, and definitely not "vicious"...
Still, I'd consider this film to be anecdotal evidence, and of limited value in comparing the AH model to the actual plane. It gives us "numbers", and visual representation, but doesn't get anywhere close to the type of departures we regularly experience in the game. While I would hope the training film gives an accurate representation of the plane to the inexperienced pilots who would be studying it, I also doubt they'd want to scare the pants off the poor kids either.
I don't see the AH F4U drop its left wing as harshly as it does in this film... But what I see in the video is child's play compared to what I've experienced many-a-time in the AH F4U (see post 39 for an example). Unfortunately, I don't have any film of the "really nasty" stuff I've seen from the AH F4U either...
I'm still not arguing that the AH F4U is perfect; I don't know for a fact one way or the other... I really doubt there is evidence in existence that can prove or disprove that when it comes to the small details, and out-of-the-ordinary envelope stall characteristics. And I don't think it really matters unless the pilot gets modeled more realistically.
I've been doing a lot of bow hunting for deer from my Tree Lounge lately, and one thing I've noticed is that it's MUCH easier for me to "check six" quickly, completely, and effectively in the AH F4U than it is for me to do so in RL from my seat.
In the end, it's important to note that the F4U is still the best prop driven plane ever designed (I have several sources for this, so it must be true- film/video, written statements, and from the internet), and it's only right that it's also pretty dang good in AH :D
-
On the negative side it's described with terms such as "abrupt, and preceded with very little warning", "left wing stalls first due to the torque reaction of the engine", "goes quickly" and "off on the left wing"
I don't see the AH F4U drop its left wing as harshly as it does in this film...
Precisely.
Still, I'd consider this film to be anecdotal evidence, and of limited value in comparing the AH model to the actual plane.
You cannot scientifically or statistically quantify a handling trait because it is subjectively experienced by a user. This is not grounds for dismissal of the description. It is fair and reasonable to describe AH's Fw190 departure characteristics as 'abrupt' for example, wouldn't you agree?
-
Precisely.
You cannot scientifically or statistically quantify a handling trait because it is subjectively experienced by a user. This is not grounds for dismissal of the description. It is fair and reasonable to describe AH's Fw190 departure characteristics as 'abrupt' for example, wouldn't you agree?
Your post really outlines very well why subjective "evidence" cannot be used to accurately model an aircraft.
First, you cherry-picked what you felt were the pertinent sections of my post to best support the "nasty" qualities not being represented correctly in AH. You left out what I said next, and thus falsely quoted me. You left out what the film had to say as well, so have falsely quoted the film.
The F4U stall departure I experienced and presented in post 39 is far worse than anything I would expect based on what I've ever seen described in print or film relating to a RL F4U. I've also stalled the AH F4U at 10,000 AGL, and spun it into the ground unable to recover... I suppose I could argue that this is unrealistic in AH? I'm not, of coarse, but why not?
Whether or not you want to or not, it makes it look like you have an agenda to "prove" the AH F4U departure is incorrect. If you do indeed have such an agenda, I'd expect you to present something (anything?) non-subjective, or yes I would say I have grounds for dismissal of your subjective claims.
Next, you try to draw me into agreement with your subjective qualification of the AH 190 departure characteristics. To which I'll say "Sure, it could be reasonable to describe the AH 190's departure as abrupt." That certainly leaves a lot of subjectivity on the table, and leaves us wide open for speculation... Slightly abrupt, moderately abrupt, severely abrupt? Accurate to RL? No way for me to tell.
While I wouldn't automatically dismiss evidence because it's subjective, I would definitely have to qualify it as such, and consider it to be of minimal value. Interesting? Yup. Worth trying to copy? Nope. At least not without further evidence of a less subjective nature. Of course, the subjective evidence could be what steers us to examine aspects less subjectively, so has value in that regard.
And once again, without a pilot being modeled to perform as a RL pilot would, we cannot accurately and fully compare any plane in AH with any plane in RL. The simple fact is that a pilot in AH can do more things, easier, than a pilot in RL. This allows an AH pilot to control his/her plane differently than a real pilot, and allows him/her to do things with his/her plane that a RL pilot cannot. As long as that is true, you cannot expect AH planes to be limited to what we saw from their RL counterparts.
Furthermore, what we do have when it comes to subjective evidence on the RL planes cannot be compared to what we have in AH for the above reasons. Our pilots are not limited to what they were limited to in RL, and that is really a profound difference.
I'm not complaining, I'm very happy to play the game with the pieces HTC has given us... I just recognize that the differences between RL and AH are very real, and not necessarily due to errors in aircraft modeling.
-
You cannot reduce the argument to 1 line: Subjective is irrelevant and impossible. That seems to be your only pertinent point in every post in this thread.
That doesn't fly. While perceptions may change from person to person ("subjectivity"), the observations these subjective people make are very real.
HTC models their flight model on SUBJECTIVE handling of a real RV-8. You cannot prove a flight model is accurate just on numbers alone. You must at some point test the flight MODEL with the flight REALITY in our real world. When the two compare with each other SUBJECTIVELY you can come to the conclussion that your flight model is accurate.
When the flight MODEL does not match the flight REALITY (even if said reality is 60 years old), there remains areas to continue tweaking and fixing.
-
But it does match, from what I've seen from the guys who've run the numbers.
And again, if you want it to match reality, you need a pilot model that does the same. It would take a 4-armed man to fly a real F4U the way I can with my fingertips.
Krusty, do you not consider the pilot model to be pertinent?
Subjectively, my experiences with the F4U match up pretty well with the training film- "regain control as quickly as possible and you'll run no chance of trouble", and "prompt, positive actions result in a normal recovery", and "stick pressures are heavy (you can help them with your tabs), but with experience you'll become familiar with the F4U's stall characteristics".
Do we discount these statements, and just take the negatives?
-
But it does match, from what I've seen from the guys who've run the numbers.
And again, if you want it to match reality, you need a pilot model that does the same. It would take a 4-armed man to fly a real F4U the way I can with my fingertips.
Krusty, do you not consider the pilot model to be pertinent?
Subjectively, my experiences with the F4U match up pretty well with the training film- "regain control as quickly as possible and you'll run no chance of trouble", and "prompt, positive actions result in a normal recovery", and "stick pressures are heavy (you can help them with your tabs), but with experience you'll become familiar with the F4U's stall characteristics".
Do we discount these statements, and just take the negatives?
If one were graph the lift-co around stall, would one see a sharp fall off for the planes that have a 'fast departure'?
-
Mtnman,
I did not falsely quote you, I directly copied two of your statements to highlight my point, removing the irrelevant (your full statement remains above for anyone else to verify). You state that you do not see the AH F4U drop its left wing as harshly as it does in this film. The kind of stall characteristic is a significant quality which affects the kind of fights we have in AH, not a minor lesser important characteristic which isn't worth dwelling on.
The rest of your comments which tend towards mitigating this lack doesn't address the difference in this 'quality' which is noted with emphasis in the training film as a characteristic of this aircraft and are themselves remarkably subjective and unsupported.
Playing semantic games and trying to dismiss this as anecdotal and subjective is rather a dissappointment. I have considerable faith in HTC's flight model and their approach, but the fidelity of any simulation has limits. Some things can be quantified and modelled accurately and others are more of an emergent quality of a simulation. The measure is finally: does the simulation reflect the essential qualities of the item being simulated? I mentioned the departure of the Fw190 as an exampe because I think any player would fairly describe that aircraft as having an abrupt departure. And the F4U, is it fairly described as abrupt or more fairly as docile?
When you discuss the extra work a real pilot had / has to do (sobering, I realise) it doesn't enter into this discussion at all, since every AH plane enjoys this 'simplification' equally. We could discuss flaps endlessly here, for example or the 'manual engine management' required by the pilot. This is a layer of abstraction within which all AH pilots benefit equally from (some arguable more equally than others).
My agenda should be patently obvious and while I appreciate that the F4U is your favourite aircraft, it is rather a shame you don't also share that agenda and that an impartial discussion could not take place amongst the players.
-
When you discuss the extra work a real pilot had / has to do (sobering, I realise) it doesn't enter into this discussion at all, since every AH plane enjoys this 'simplification' equally. We could discuss flaps endlessly here, for example or the 'manual engine management' required by the pilot. This is a layer of abstraction within which all AH pilots benefit equally from (some arguable more equally than others).
This is not what I'm referring to. I understand the "why's" of this aspect of the game, and while I wish things were more realistic myself, I'm not arguing for it.
What I'm referring to is the fact that what I can easily do as a pilot in AH is impossible to do in real life. Not that what I do in AH is simplified. What I'm talking about goes well beyond (and probably isn't) "equally beneficial" and allows for unrealistic control of the planes in AH.
An F4U pilot in RL cannot operate the flaps with his left hand, while also manipulating the engine with his left hand, while also manipulating the gear with his left hand (all at the same time). And even if he could, he wouldn't be able to do it easily under heavy G-load, while I can do all of those things simultaneously (and easily) under almost any G-load.
It amounts to me using flaps, or throttle, or gear, or whatever, at times I wouldn't be able to do so in RL. It amounts to me easily doing multiple things that would be really hard in RL. This allows me to control the plane and make it do things (and at times) that I wouldn't be able to make the plane do in RL.
To take the argument further, I'd say that it could be theoretically possible for a RL F4U to do the exact things an AH F4U does, if the RL pilot weren't limited by himself and his cockpit layout. Without an accurately modeled pilot, limited to doing what a RL pilot could do, were not ever going to have an apples-to-apples comparison.
People are seldom able to get full efficiency from any machine. Machines are generally capable of performing at a (much) higher efficiency than the human operator is capable of. This is true of everything from cordless drills to high production factory equipment. Redesigning the workplace layout is a sometimes difficult first step towards optimizing output. In AH, we're able to highly optimize the workplace layout, so are able to get more out of the planes. In particular, we have finer control in the more "difficult" situations. Hence, we should expect to see fewer control-related problems or issues in those situations which require the finest control (i.e. near departure).
On top of that, we have the simplified workload that you mentioned above. Two separate topics... And as mentioned earlier, we should really be tossing some environmental factors in there too...
My agenda should be patently obvious and while I appreciate that the F4U is your favourite aircraft, it is rather a shame you don't also share that agenda and that an impartial discussion could not take place amongst the players.
Don't assume that I don't share your agenda. Don't assume that because the F4U is really the only plane in WWII to hold my interest that I think it flies "right" or that I don't think it should be changed.
For what it's worth, I wish the AH F4U was more difficult to fly. I think it's too easy. I don't have any objective proof though, and I don't consider the subjective evidence I've seen as solid enough to warrant a change.
I'm not arguing that it's correct; just that the evidence presented is too subjective to be considered "proof". Personally, I want all of the planes to be as realistic as possible. I don't believe I've ever argued that the F4U flight model is "correct"?
I don't believe that the issues we're discussing can be solved by asking each other whether departure of any particular aircraft is "abrupt" or matches what somebody who flew the aircraft said/says without being able to quantitatively measure what we're looking at. I don't think the flight model should be up to popular opinion, either.
When my then-young son can easily take off, fly, and land any plane in AH with about 5 minutes of explanation (even though he can't ride a bicycle yet), I have a tendency to be skeptical as to how close to reality any of the planes really are...
Also, FWIW, the argument doesn't really look impartial when you quote only the "negative" attributes, leave out the "positives", and label it as "precisely". You did see the part where I mentioned that I've seen the F4U do things much worse in AH than I've been lead to believe it should through subjective descriptions, right?
-
I agree that the discussion regarding the departure characteristics cannot really make progress or come to any positive conclusion so I'll just leave it to stand as is it.
The tangential conversation of modelling the human element of the synergy between plane and pilot, if I understand correctly, is interesting and I think already exists slightly to an extent with certain aircraft. I believe both the 109 and the Ki-84 replicate the heavy stick forces by reducing the effectiveness of pulling back on our game peripherals.
Regarding your four-armed pilot analogy some aircraft would benefit and some would suffer. For instance the 109s require something like 20 partial rotations on a wheel, if I remember correctly, to fully deploy the flaps while the Spitfire literally was the flip of a switch and the N1K had automatic combat flaps available. I believe the 109 had an automatic pitch control and others not. Would deepen the experience to reproduce some of this workload, especially if there was an option and some slight risk / advantage gain, but I'm sure many of the players would be more interested in new aircraft instead. Ones with huge engines and big guns ideally lolz.
Much of what we do in Aces High is unhistoric and arguably 'unrealistic' if that indeed has any meaning in a vintage plane air combat simulator. This touches on a recent discussion regarding aerobatics and its place in ACM. I myself fly a Ki-84 in a decidedly balls to the wall (not those kind of balls) style which would take a suicidal pilot on a depressed day who just recieved a letter from his Brother to say he'd ran off with the pilot's wife to reproduce, but then that is what has become interesting to me and I don't like golf, crazy or otherwise, so here I am.
-
I agree that the discussion regarding the departure characteristics cannot really make progress or come to any positive conclusion so I'll just leave it to stand as is it.
The tangential conversation of modelling the human element of the synergy between plane and pilot, if I understand correctly, is interesting and I think already exists slightly to an extent with certain aircraft. I believe both the 109 and the Ki-84 replicate the heavy stick forces by reducing the effectiveness of pulling back on our game peripherals.
Regarding your four-armed pilot analogy some aircraft would benefit and some would suffer.
I agree...
To further clarify what I'm talking about I've tossed together a few visuals...
To preface though, the stick force effect kind of touches on it (I think it's there for all aircraft, FWIW), but not really. In my profession, I spend a lot of time watching how people work and how they're effected by their work environment. We also use a 50lb reference, but feel the one modeled in game is too generous. In reality, that 50lbs limit isn't always "the same". A person's ability to exert force varies greatly depending upon horizontal and vertical reach, torso twist, etc... Temperature and humidity even factor into it, and of course fatigue does too. Exerting 50lb of force is one thing... Doing it several times is another... Doing it several times in quick succession is another thing yet... And doing it several times with one hand, while twisted to look over your shoulder, and while experiencing G-forces is another! Add a pair of gloves (which can reduce grip strength substantially), a mixture of fear and adrenalin, and a variable environment, etc...
Anyway, that's NOT my point, ha!
Here's what I'm talking about-
(http://i107.photobucket.com/albums/m309/Mtnman_03/F4Ucockpit.jpg)
My argument is that we have too much ability to control the aircraft, too quickly, and too easily, and with too "fine" a level of control as well. This leads directly to the "unrealistic" flight we hear complaints of in regard to the F4U.
Look at that cockpit; imagine your right hand on the stick, your left on the throttle... In a fight, maintaining throttle control is vital (we hear about it all the time). So, if your hand is on the throttle, how do you manipulate the flaps? Or the gear? Or the trim? You can't... You have to let go, and switch from one control function to the next.
If you've read any F4U threads, I'm sure you've seen countless hints that flap control is vital as well... If you're controlling the flaps in RL, how do you manipulate the throttle, the gear, or the trim? You can't... Those things have to wait until you have a free hand!
Look at my set-up in AH...
(http://i107.photobucket.com/albums/m309/Mtnman_03/Throttlehand.jpg)
Obviously, I can control the throttle this way... But, I also have the flaps at my fingertip, and the gear (which I seldom use in a fight, btw) under my thumb. If I'm manipulating the throttle, how do I manipulate the flaps? I wiggle my finger... Rocking the button upwards lowers flaps, rocking it forward/down raises them back up. I can manipulate the throttle, flaps, and gear all at the same time, which is impossible in the real plane.
There's more, of course. Look at my stick hand...
(http://i107.photobucket.com/albums/m309/Mtnman_03/Stickhand.jpg)
In real life of course, if I'm working the throttle, or the flaps, or the gear, with my left hand, it would be impossible for me to manipulate the trim wheel and knobs, right? How do I do it in AH? Well, for starters it's automatic. But beyond that, I can cause my elevator, rudder, and aileron trim to move to predetermined "best" positions by tapping the button with my right thumb. That's because I use auto-trim when it's convenient, and have my trims mapped to rotary knobs on my throttle. My trim wheels are marked, so I know they're in the right spot. In a fight, if I tap that button, all three trims begin to move on their own...
In RL, I wouldn't be able to move the elevator trim while moving the aileron trim, unless I let go of the stick and used two hands on the trims. How would I ever do the rudder at the same time? And of course, in AH I can have the trim wheels going to their pre-designated spots while I'm also working the stick, flaps, throttle, and gear.
How many hands would that take in RL?
So, here's how it plays out in the game... Good KI84 fight_0336.ahf (http://www.4shared.com/file/hBd7LodN/Good_KI84_fight_0336.html)
In that fight, I kill a 109 and a KI84. If you get behind me in external view, and zoom in, and watch the flaps, you'll see that I cause the flaps to move about 25 times to kill the 109 (not counting putting them back up when I'm done), and (roughly) an additional 29 times to kill the KI84. And that's in a total of 3 1/2 minutes!
In RL, an F4U pilot may have used flaps in a fight, but would he have made that many fine adjustments? No way!
In RL, the simple fact that the pilot would have to let go of the throttle to move the flaps probably meant he only moved them a notch here and there. Now, the F4U did have "blow-up" flaps that he could set at say 2 notches, and they'd automatically fluctuate up/down dependent upon speed. But what are the chances he'd go beyond the two notches? Or that if he did, that he'd continuously tweak them up/down to fine-control his plane? I can't believe that happened much at all...
Simply letting go and moving his hand from one place to the next would have taken time, and made it unlikely he could keep up with the "adjustment" pace I keep in my fights. Would any experienced AH pilot claim that timing doesn't matter much? That losing a few fractions of a second here and there won't effect the outcome of a fight? That those lost fractions of a second won't effect the success of a maneuver? That they won't make a "possible" maneuver practically "impossible"?
And I can do it with ease, even while looking behind me. Could he have done that (unerringly move his hand between the throttle and flap lever, over and over, without "stumbling") while looking over his shoulder, and experiencing the "weighty" problems of G-forces? Toss in some bumpy air... I did it 20-plus times, with no fatigue. How is he feeling 15 or so repetitions into it? I bet his arm weighs a ton held out in front of him like that! Is he sliding around in his seat at all? Are his shoulder straps tight enough? Too tight? Is he scared? Did he get enough sleep? Does he need a restroom?
And how does he move the flap lever? Does he need to push the button in at the end, and grasp the handle to move it a notch or two? How long does that take? Not for me; I just twitch a finger... Heck, half the time I'm already pulling for another notch of flaps, just waiting for the speed to hit the magical number to allow the flap to move.
I'm ahead of the game substantially as a pilot in AH compared to a RL F4U pilot. And that's just the flaps so far... What else am I doing that he couldn't possibly do while manipulating the flaps? Am I playing with trim? Certainly I'm working the throttle... No gear (this time anyway...)
In my opinion, this is really the crux of the matter when it comes to "unrealistic" F4U modeling. I believe that if nobody used flaps in the AH F4U, nobody would claim that it's flight model was too easy. And if flaps could only be manipulated 2-3 times in a fight, instead of 25+ (25-plus! TWENTY-FIVE PLUS!!!!! Holy crud! 25 flap adjustments in one fight that lasts what, a minute?!). Are there any RL WWII descriptions of pilots fine-tuning/mass-manipulating their flaps like that in a fight? In any plane type?
Limiting flap manipulation to a more realistic level would "force" the F4U to fly more like we'd expect it to, based on RL. And the difference is obvious. Fight an F4U pilot who doesn't use his flaps effectively; he's dead meat! Not all F4U pilots enjoy the same advantages from the flaps, because not all of them are getting the same effect due to differences in technique. That's key! It's not the plane, or the flaps; it's how the flaps are being used!
This is why I say we cannot judge the AH F4U based on subjective RL claims... The control we have over the F4U in game is at a completely different level than what a real pilot could have in a real plane. Essentially, even if the plane is modeled absolutely flawlessly, we're still flying a completely different plane because we're not limited to controlling it as a real pilot would.
And yes... It applies to all planes, but not necessarily equally... Some planes were more ergo-friendly, and had better cockpit design, etc, than others. Those should have an advantage... Some were worse, and should be disadvantaged... In the most "advantaged" plane in RL though, I doubt you could compete with the advantages we have with our computer control systems...
Did I mention 25 times!!!!!!
-
Okay mntman you had to know this was coming ......those are some very small hands . Just saying :devil
-
Okay mntman you had to know this was coming ......those are some very small hands . Just saying :devil
Its a giant ruse.... its really MtnWmn... she was just afraid of stealing Silat's thunder! :x
-
Okay mntman you had to know this was coming ......those are some very small hands . Just saying :devil
Its a giant ruse.... its really MtnWmn... she was just afraid of stealing Silat's thunder! :x
Shhhh...
-
I agree...
To further clarify what I'm talking about I've tossed together a few visuals...
Well argued IMO............
-
I was gonna say that is some great shade of pink nail polish :rofl
-
You guys should start a "Stick - Throttel - Rudder - Only" deuling initiative and attempt to reasonably explore WW2 combat manuvering opposed to "Aces High Air Quake" combat manuvering as it has evolved into today due to our fly by our finger tips game style of throttels and sticks.
Granted some planes were designed to utilise flaps in combat, I doubt historicly in the goto manner we do. Now days in the MA a simple way to tell who is going to be a more involved fight. Watch them manuver on zoom and look for the flaps useage.
-
I was gonna say that is some great shade of pink nail polish :rofl
My favorite too :D
-
My favorite too :D
:rofl
:aok
-
His hands are far less hairy than I'd imagined for a Mountain Man :old:
-
Great since this thread, Morf has been accusing all of us hog driver's of painting our nails :(
:salute
BigRat
-
Great since this thread, Morf has been accusing all of us hog driver's of painting our nails :(
:salute
BigRat
:rofl :rofl :rofl
-
Great since this thread, Morf has been accusing all of us hog driver's of painting our nails :(
:salute
BigRat
For years I've said that the corsair has bent wings to help lift it's skirt when it crosses a puddle.........Now I have definitive proof! :devil
:salute
-
What can I say?
It definitely takes a skilled, gentle hand to coax full performance out of the corsair...
Ham-fisted flyers may as well move on to something else...
And like Gooss would say "Chicks love gull wings!"
-
What can I say?
It definitely takes a skilled, gentle hand to coax full performance out of...
[to make obvious/insert dirty joke here]
-
Great post MtnMan, but I gotta know, who does your nails? :devil
For years I've said that the corsair has bent wings to help lift it's skirt when it crosses a puddle.........Now I have definitive proof! :devil
:salute
Great since this thread, Morf has been accusing all of us hog driver's of painting our nails :(
:salute
BigRat
:rofl :lol :aok
-
Great since this thread, Morf has been accusing all of us hog driver's of painting our nails :(
:salute
BigRat
oh! until I read this thread I thought morf was losing his mind with all his talk about hog driver's painted nails..now I get it.. :bolt:
-
Wow, I RoFLed seeing this is still a subject of debate after YEARS of being a subject of debate. As often as it comes up, and as often as HT has always made tweaks to the various flight models, one would think if there was a specific problem with the Corsair, it would have been addressed by now.
But what I'm referring to is (for example) that an actual F4U pilot wouldn't be able to manipulate throttle and flaps together (at all), while it's extremely simple for me to do so here. This allows me many other options in AH than I would have in RL. Those extra "options" mean I get what amounts to extra performance (even if the plane were modeled absolutely perfectly).
Actually, there's something the real Corsair could do that ours can't: The flaps were controlled by a spring, so if you set one or two notches they could blow up and drop down on their own as airspeed changed. So at least for the first two notches you wouldn't HAVE to manually manipulate the flaps...
-
Wow, I RoFLed seeing this is still a subject of debate after YEARS of being a subject of debate. As often as it comes up, and as often as HT has always made tweaks to the various flight models, one would think if there was a specific problem with the Corsair, it would have been addressed by now.
I have to agree... I think "by the numbers" the F4U itself is probably modeled about as well as possible, and I doubt that it can be rendered too much more accurately with what we have available to us today.
Actually, there's something the real Corsair could do that ours can't: The flaps were controlled by a spring, so if you set one or two notches they could blow up and drop down on their own as airspeed changed. So at least for the first two notches you wouldn't HAVE to manually manipulate the flaps...
That's what I was referring to here.
In RL, the simple fact that the pilot would have to let go of the throttle to move the flaps probably meant he only moved them a notch here and there. Now, the F4U did have "blow-up" flaps that he could set at say 2 notches, and they'd automatically fluctuate up/down dependent upon speed. But what are the chances he'd go beyond the two notches? Or that if he did, that he'd continuously tweak them up/down to fine-control his plane? I can't believe that happened much at all...
Simply letting go and moving his hand from one place to the next would have taken time, and made it unlikely he could keep up with the "adjustment" pace I keep in my fights. Would any experienced AH pilot claim that timing doesn't matter much? That losing a few fractions of a second here and there won't effect the outcome of a fight? That those lost fractions of a second won't effect the success of a maneuver? That they won't make a "possible" maneuver practically "impossible"?
I'd tend to argue that the "convenience" and ease-of-optimization the flap system gave the pilot when using only one or two notches likely resulted in extremely rare in-combat manipulation of flaps that deviated from those settings. It undoubtedly made it easier on the pilot to use one or two notches, but less likely that he would stray from that to have used 3, 4, or 5 notches.
And if he did, it would have once again been a completely different beast than we have in AH.
I'd also point out that while that may have been "convenient", I for one don't really on the AH "auto-retract" flap feature, but quickly raise my flaps to minimize the drag imposition when I want to transition to faster flight. That's something else that would have once again been more difficult and time-consuming to do in RL.
Sure, my flaps blow up unintentionally all the time, and that's arguably more inconvenient than a spring system would be in those instances. Overall though, the AH pilot has a clear advantage when it comes to manipulation of the flaps (and all other control devices, practically simultaneously) than a real pilot would, and that leads to a much more "fine" level of control than could be maintained in reality.
-
I'd largely started skimming when I saw the thread descend into the standard circular argument, so I must have missed when you said it, lol.
One thing HTC could always do is program a delay on certain controls to represent the time it would take the pilot to actually move his hands to make the adjustments, and then modify it based on current G-load (I can't imagine it would be very easy to release the throttle and reach the flap control if you're in the middle of a 6G turn). Maybe it doesn't have to be an EXACT timing of how long it would take, but enough so that players don't get an instant benefit. That could address a lot of complaints about flap usage (but then add the spring-loaded flaps on plains like the Corsair and Hellcat, and autoflaps on the machines that actually had them).
What would be REALLY cool is to put an animated pilot model in the cockpit that you could actually see flip those switches and turn the dials (Star Citizen looks like it will have that). But say good-bye to your frame rates, lol!
-
I'd largely started skimming when I saw the thread descend into the standard circular argument, so I must have missed when you said it, lol.
One thing HTC could always do is program a delay on certain controls to represent the time it would take the pilot to actually move his hands to make the adjustments, and then modify it based on current G-load (I can't imagine it would be very easy to release the throttle and reach the flap control if you're in the middle of a 6G turn). Maybe it doesn't have to be an EXACT timing of how long it would take, but enough so that players don't get an instant benefit. That could address a lot of complaints about flap usage (but then add the spring-loaded flaps on plains like the Corsair and Hellcat, and autoflaps on the machines that actually had them).
What would be REALLY cool is to put an animated pilot model in the cockpit that you could actually see flip those switches and turn the dials (Star Citizen looks like it will have that). But say good-bye to your frame rates, lol!
I for one would absolutely love to see those types of things modeled. The eye-candy aspects would be great too, but the timing and effects on the pilot would be fantastic additions. Talk about realism and immersion...
And yup, if those things were modeled it sure would be nice to see the spring systems modeled on the flaps too.
-
It won't work.
A: With some button set up and tinkering, you can easily have rudder, throttle, flaps, and everything else a few inches apart. If there was an animation for each movement, your cartoon pilot would be switching back and forth between animations so quickly it would be like watching a freak show.
B: If a delay is added, so to avoid the animation problems in A, then how will you get the timing right? Some one, somewhere down the road is going to make a video of them working the throttle, flaps, etc etc faster than the animation can. In that case, some players will be handicapped while some may get a boost depending on the "delay times".
While it would be really neat to see, it's going to affect gameplay for the worse. Fast players will complain they're being handicapped and slow players will get an unfair advantage in a situation where they could've easily lost because they did not work the controls fast enough.
I can see it working with something like motion detectors (Xbox Kinect/Wii style), where if you're fast, so is your cartoon pilot and vice versa if you're slow. But that won't likely happen....ever.
-
That's why player hand/finger speed shouldn't factor into it at all. The activation of the control is delayed a set length of time for all players, with perhaps a variation depending on the aircraft to account for the different placement of the controls in the cockpit.
Everyone would be affected by the mechanics equally.
-
That's why player hand/finger speed shouldn't factor into it at all. The activation of the control is delayed a set length of time for all players, with perhaps a variation depending on the aircraft to account for the different placement of the controls in the cockpit.
Everyone would be affected by the mechanics equally.
Until some one proves that they can work the controls faster than what is set in game. So to the people who can do it faster, it's unrealistic. And vice versa if the animations are too quick and it's unrealistic for people who can't do it.
How are you going to set the delay so that everyone or at least, most people, will be happy?
-
Until some one proves that they can work the controls faster than what is set in game. So to the people who can do it faster, it's unrealistic. And vice versa if the animations are too quick and it's unrealistic for people who can't do it.
How are you going to set the delay so that everyone or at least, most people, will be happy?
Control X is activated by player > Delay Y + G-Load Modifier > Function Z occurs.
It's not going to outright eliminate the advantage players with HOTAS setups have over those who may only have stick + keyboard, but I would argue removing the instant reaction times will actually balance out that advantage to at least a small degree.
-
The F4Us are unusual in one respect from almost all other planes in the game, when full flaps are out their dps is Faster than with no flaps. So not only does the turn radius get smaller, as do all planes, but how fast they get around the circle is quicker, which very few other planes can do. A couple of planes, like the LA-7, LA-5, Ki-84, 109-F can hold the same dps rate, or maybe .1 faster than with no flaps, but the F4Us pick up a full 1 degree or more. The F4U4 has the typical loss of rate seen in other planes. Only the P-38 picks up that much dps with flaps out.
Here's a few examples:
P-51 NF 18.3; FF 16.4
P-47M NF 18.9; FF 18.0
FW-190A5 NF 18.8; FF 17.6
Spit 16 NF 23.5; FF 20.4
Ki-84 NF 22.5; FF 22.5
NIK2-J NF 22.5; FF 22.0
Bf109-K4 NF 19.6; FF 19.6
C205 NF 20.0; FF 17.7
LA-7 NF 20.8; FF 20.8
Yak 9-U NF 20.4; FF 17.7
F4U-1 NF 18.3; FF 19.6
F4U-1A NF 18.1; FF 19.3
F4U-1D NF 18.3; FF 18.9
F4U-1C NF 18.0; FF 18.6
F4U4 NF 20.0; FF 19.6
P-38L NF 18.9; FF 20.0
-
Hand book.
http://id.scribd.com/doc/48028870/1944-AN-01-45HA-1-Pilot-s-Handbook-of-Flight-Operating-Instructions-Navy-Models-F4U-1-F4U-1C-F4U-1D-F3A-1-F3A-1D-FG-1-FG-1D-British-Models-Co
-
The F4Us are unusual in one respect from almost all other planes in the game, when full flaps are out their dps is Faster than with no flaps.
You wouldn't expect that with plain flaps.
Actually I expected this to be a characteristic of the Westland Whirlwind too:-
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,313538.0.html
-
You wouldn't expect that with plain flaps.
It does sound odd on the surface at least.
I wonder if it has anything to do with the fact that due to the smaller radius the distance to fly one degree is less with full flaps than with none? Theoretically, the plane flying the smaller radius at a slower speed could still have a higher DPS...
I'd expect to see the same thing with other planes though. I guess if the radios doesn't improve enough we wouldn't see the same effect.
I also remember reading that the F4U sees better performance with 3 notches of flap than with 5. I wonder why we're not finding the same thing? Maybe it just wasn't tested?
-
Slightly off topic...but then again maybe not.
I've always been under the impression that the F4U-C's cannon armament was heavier and as such reduced performance. Ours in game certainly feels much more sluggish. But looking at the handbook Lyric just posted the Gross weight (full fuel and armament minus external stores) differs from the F4U-D only 35lbs with the -C being the heavier.
-
I also remember reading that the F4U sees better performance with 3 notches of flap than with 5. I wonder why we're not finding the same thing? Maybe it just wasn't tested?
I think MOSQ was just comparing none and full. Here's another handy graphic from Badboy.
(http://www.mediafire.com/conv/d9720db4f901b3e636b02ef1439050ecd89e6d72918d64716455e54c22e62d604g.jpg) (http://www.mediafire.com/view/?bfac4ummamoke14)
-
I think MOSQ was just comparing none and full. Here's another handy graphic from Badboy.
(http://www.mediafire.com/conv/d9720db4f901b3e636b02ef1439050ecd89e6d72918d64716455e54c22e62d604g.jpg) (http://www.mediafire.com/view/?bfac4ummamoke14)
Yes, that's it!
-
What is the fastest possible speed at which you can drop each level of flap in the F4U?
-
MOSQ can you confirm the configuration for your test with the Ki-84 is 25% fuel, full ammo on the deck?
-
What is the fastest possible speed at which you can drop each level of flap in the F4U?
First Notch- 250 mph
Second Notch- 225 mph
Third Notch- 200 mph
Fourth Notch- 175 mph
Fifth Notch- 150 mph
-
It does sound odd on the surface at least.
I wonder if it has anything to do with the fact that due to the smaller radius the distance to fly one degree is less with full flaps than with none? Theoretically, the plane flying the smaller radius at a slower speed could still have a higher DPS...
I'd expect to see the same thing with other planes though. I guess if the radios doesn't improve enough we wouldn't see the same effect.
I also remember reading that the F4U sees better performance with 3 notches of flap than with 5. I wonder why we're not finding the same thing? Maybe it just wasn't tested?
I would be grateful if someone with a deep technical understanding of aircraft dynamics could explain this because I thought I understood that Fowler flaps increased the turn rate and given they are reasonably large on the Ki-84 I'm rather sceptical about the comparable rates. How can the DPS be the same with a good deal more lifting surface available, longer chord, a better camber and a slightly higher thrust to drag ratio?
Also I can only assume with the Corsair that the flaps alter the camber to a very favourable degree since apparently the plain flap is one of the less efficient solutions (not the worst). Or is it to do with the speed combinations of deployment which are rather high? This is what I found interesting about the Whirlwind, that the flap could be deployed at so high a speed, around or just below instantaneous corner speed if memory serves.
Sorry for the minor hijack, but any opportunity to learn...
-
This old thread discusses flap performance in general and for some of the F4U series aircraft so may be of interest:
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,271266.0.html
Hope that helps...
Badboy
-
MOSQ can you confirm the configuration for your test with the Ki-84 is 25% fuel, full ammo on the deck?
Yes, at 500 ft.
First Notch- 250 mph
Second Notch- 225 mph
Third Notch- 200 mph
Fourth Notch- 175 mph
Fifth Notch- 150 mph
The F4U handbook says to never drop flaps faster than 200 Knots which equals 230.15 MPH. At that speed they "blow up" which we call auto-retract.
Comparing the in game to the F4U handbook:
IG: 250, Handbook 230 (200 Knots)
IG: 225, Handbook 230 (200 Knots)
IG: 200, Handbook 195 (170 knots)
IG: 175, Handbook: 166 (145 knots)
IG: 150, Handbook: 149 (130 knots)
IG weight by E6B, full fuel, full ammo, no external weapons vs Handbook
F4U1-C IG: 12,471 lbs, Handbook 12,063 lbs
F4U1-D IG: 12,176 lbs, Handbook 12,028 lbs.
This is assuming the handbook wasn't superseded later by an updated version, which it may have been.
-
I want to point out that I do not believe the flaps are of such a great benefit to the F4U. At least, not as much as the gear are. To understand what I mean you have to look at the cycle time of the landing gear of a real F4U and the landing gear of the F4U in game. Realize also that there is a center-of-gravity issue in real life that becomes much more manageable because of the reduced cycle time, as well as a drag issue that is likewise greatly influenced by the sequence.
Someone wished for fast landing gear speeds so they could go from zero-to-hero in less time. Now the gamers can use it to their advantage.
-
Someone wished for fast landing gear speeds so they could go from zero-to-hero in less time. Now the gamers can use it to their advantage.
I think it's worth noting that I don't know of ANY of the top-notch F4U sticks making much use of the F4U gear at all...
I've already spelled out how I feel about the flaps and controls in general, but I really only see newbie sticks that play around with the gear on a regular basis. As a matter of fact, in all my F4U training while I was a trainer I taught my students to keep their gear up in the wings where it belongs. IMO, using it in a fight is seldom helpful, and often detrimental.
When I see an opponent in an F4U dropping gear I'm immediately disappointed knowing that I'm going to have an easy kill rather than a serious fight.
Are you seeing it regularly used in a gamey manner?
-
Obviously, or I would not have said anything.
-
I want to point out that I do not believe the flaps are of such a great benefit to the F4U.
:rofl
-
58 sorties and 28 kills. . . :rolleyes:
-
58 sorties and 28 kills. . . :rolleyes:
Oh oh please stop, the pain, the agony, using my score to dismiss my emoticon commentary on your absurd comment :rofl :rofl
152 kills, 4 deaths = P-51D & Tempest picker who never slows down to see flaps deployed anyway. :lol
-
:rofl
Most late war american planes greatly benefit from their flaps, actually without them they would be hopeless in aces high :old:
-
Oh oh please stop, the pain, the agony, using my score to dismiss my emoticon commentary on your absurd comment :rofl :rofl
152 kills, 4 deaths = P-51D & Tempest picker who never slows down to see flaps deployed anyway. :lol
This is why no one takes you seriously. Picking doesnt exist. Its an excuse of weak minded individuals that consider themselves victims. They are.
-
This is why no one takes you seriously. Picking doesnt exist. Its an excuse of weak minded individuals that consider themselves victims. They are.
sorry but I take him more seriously than you, he is the DA sensei, while you are nothing I can remember of.
I'm the current #2 fighter score tard so I must be right, right?
-
This is why no one takes you seriously. Picking doesnt exist. Its an excuse of weak minded individuals that consider themselves victims. They are.
Ha ha ha ha ha. I take people taking me seriosly about as seriously as I take my score. You know I had to look it up to even check you were talking about me.
I thought the game was to look at the other's score and make deductions about the other person, a game you started so you could dismiss my laugh at your b/s comment about the F4U's flaps. If you want an argument with me Chalenge, don't worry, you'll get it.
Picking is a term created by players of this game to describe a pattern of behaviour. Given your recent exchange with Ink where you failed to assert your nonsensical comment that picking doesn't exist, and then you insulting him personally, including his family because he didn't agree with you, you look to me EXACTLY like a P-51D picker and one that knows it too.
Victims, don't make me laugh. If everyone flew a P-51D like you you'd get absolutely no kills at all. Pickers prey on people engaged in ACM fights pure and simple. There is no nobility to it whatsoever.
I find your score one of the most unimpressive things I have ever seen in Aces High. You are THAT fragile that you can't stand to get shot down? :rofl :rofl
Maybe if you ask really nice SirNuke could give you some P-51D flying lessons.
-
I think it's worth noting that I don't know of ANY of the top-notch F4U sticks making much use of the F4U gear at all...
I do it under two situations: Bombing runs, or an initial dive into a melee if I'm coming in with a substantial altitude advantage. Short or shallow dives I'll keep them tucked.
I want to point out that I do not believe the flaps are of such a great benefit to the F4U. At least, not as much as the rudder is.
Fixed.
-
Badboy's linked topic above on flaps and the hog is pure gold (as usual :)) and is essentially the answer to the OP, if you havent bothered to read it yet you should!
Here it is again:
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,271266.0.html (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,271266.0.html)
:aok
-
Obviously, or I would not have said anything.
Makes for easy kills for you then, eh?
-
Chalenge read my last post and decided he needed to extend away and gain some more energy before re-engaging.
-
Chalenge read my last post and decided he needed to extend away and gain some more energy before re-engaging.
No. I read your post and decided you are still a noob. People created the term 'pick' for the reasons I described. Most of them come form the DA and bring the DA mentality to the war arena thinking everyone will agree with them. They have taken over the General Forum and anyone posting anything contrary to their DA views are immediately attacked in an attempt to silence and different views.
When you grow up and finally molt out of the DA mentality you may discover that the game has many different aspects and all of them can be fun. But it's your money to toss away to mindless-endless furballing if you want. I cannot see the logic in repeated long trips ending in death but if that's your cup of tea why would I even try to stop you?
Some people never do change because they do not care to learn. I think that's you.
-
Let's take this elsewhere and leave this thread to the discussion of flaps shall we:-
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,344342.0.html
-
I would be grateful if someone with a deep technical understanding of aircraft dynamics could explain this because I thought I understood that Fowler flaps increased the turn rate and given they are reasonably large on the Ki-84 I'm rather sceptical about the comparable rates. How can the DPS be the same with a good deal more lifting surface available, longer chord, a better camber and a slightly higher thrust to drag ratio?
Also I can only assume with the Corsair that the flaps alter the camber to a very favourable degree since apparently the plain flap is one of the less efficient solutions (not the worst). Or is it to do with the speed combinations of deployment which are rather high? This is what I found interesting about the Whirlwind, that the flap could be deployed at so high a speed, around or just below instantaneous corner speed if memory serves.
Sorry for the minor hijack, but any opportunity to learn...
I don't know that this is a hijack? I think it's an applicable topic for this discussion.
I would also like to have someone with a deeper knowledge step in. Personally, I've always wondered what the aerodynamic effect of the F4U flaps is compared to flaps on more conventional wings...
If you look at this image, it's easy to see that fully 1/3 of the F4U flaps are deflecting the air in a totally different manner than would happen on conventional wings. What is the effect of this? Is it helpful, or detrimental?
(http://i107.photobucket.com/albums/m309/Mtnman_03/F4UFullFlaps3_zps9fad7d4e.jpg)
On a conventional wing, in a bank all of the deflected air from the flaps on the "high side" of the turn is being pushed to the outside of the turn, and is doing little to provide lift for the plane. At the same time, the flaps on the lower wing are providing more lift, but holding the plane in this bank with aileron and/or rudder is essentially "fighting" this flap.
On the F4U though, the 1/3 of the flap surface on the high side of the bank is still deflecting air much more directly downward (providing more effective lift). This is also helping to hold the high wing high, and possibly requiring less aileron/rudder deflection to hold the bank? Pure speculation here, I honestly don't know...
In level flight with flaps deflected, do the inner flap surfaces on the F4U create a higher pressure under the plane? Like a "bubble" effect, for lack of a better description? If so, is this helpful or detrimental? Does it compare in the slightest to ground effect? Does it add stability, or detract from it?
Real world, I wouldn't expect these effects (if they exist) to be remarked upon, for many of the same reasons I outlined many posts ago. I suspect it would take wind tunnel testing to prove or disprove these theories, and I've never come across any describing it? Real world, I don't recall seeing anything that mentions flap causing stability problems in the F4U? While landing mishaps were an issue, they seem to be more of a throttle management issue?
Since you brought up the KI84, I took a shot of that too to show how I believe the air is deflected differently.
(http://i107.photobucket.com/albums/m309/Mtnman_03/KI84FullFlaps3_zpsa92c93fd.jpg)
Please ignore the actual bank angles shown in these images- they are just clips from films so are not comparable.
In testing, has anyone checked what the bank angle is for the different planes at the edge of stall? I.e. is the F4U capable of holding a more severe bank in a minimum-radius edge-of-stall circle than a P51, or KI84, or whatever? Is this relevant? Correct?
-
How can the DPS be the same with a good deal more lifting surface available, longer chord, a better camber and a slightly higher thrust to drag ratio?
Where does the higher thrust to drag come from? Thrust is fixed and drag is increased.
The DPS can be the same because the wing is moving slower and that limits the load factor. Turn rate is both speed and load factor.
-
mtn,
I've always wondered this myself. It's already known that the configuration of the Corsair's wing had an effect on drag reduction, but no one's ever seemed to been able to answer whether it could affect the flaps as well.
-
Let's take this elsewhere and leave this thread to the discussion of flaps shall we:-
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,344342.0.html
You are the one that jumped in and started mouthing off. Just leave.
-
If you look at this image, it's easy to see that fully 1/3 of the F4U flaps are deflecting the air in a totally different manner than would happen on conventional wings. What is the effect of this? Is it helpful, or detrimental?
I don't think the flow is actually as you indicated. The relative wind is still the relative wind. I have heard also that the gull wing design prevented the blanketing of the tail during nose high slow flight conditions, but during sustained low-speed flight (especially in disturbed airflow from another aircraft - not occurring in AH) I am not sure if that the case, especially with more than two notches of flaps. My problem with the flap fights has always been that the people that do that sort of thing can even use full flaps. I don't believe that is relative to any reality. The problem being, as someone else pointed out (Badboy I think) that the nose rate has actually dropped below what would be the optimum with only two notches. So dropping flaps should be detrimental to angle fighting, but it seems to be everyones passion.
My entire point being (the problem I see in it) is that your entire idea of flap fighting is to get out of the way of attackers and yet you are not flying in an optimal manner at all. The reward of course is that once you finally get killed you can laugh and claim you had all of your flaps out for so long and no one got you, but you're still dead. Admitting to it. . . your call.
-
mtnman, the wind does not flow as you pictured it, nor it is "deflected" at all. The flaps change the profile of the wing (lets call it more "curved") and increase the flow vortex at the trailing edge. The result is that the flow accelerates more above the wing (or sucked from above into the vortex if you want to imagine it that way) and lift is increased. Drag also increased because a lot more energy goes to fuel the increased vortex and turbulence at the trailing edge.
-
In testing, has anyone checked what the bank angle is for the different planes at the edge of stall? I.e. is the F4U capable of holding a more severe bank in a minimum-radius edge-of-stall circle than a P51, or KI84, or whatever? Is this relevant? Correct?
The lift vector is always "up". Bank angle is proportional to load factor.
-
You are the one that jumped in and started mouthing off. Just leave.
Funny, the sequence of posts suggest other.
Since you said the Corsair's flaps were not such a great benefit you have demonstrated a lack of understanding of the topic and it's further been established from your score and comments from other players that you are a picker and a runner so you are far less qualified to discuss flaps than me. Why don't you leave.
-
Where does the higher thrust to drag come from? Thrust is fixed and drag is increased.
I gathered from other discussions that the efficiency of the prop increased as the airspeed decreased, also parasitic drag dropped off to a negligible level and lift induced drag was to do primarily with Alpha and G load. Have I understood those aspects incorrectly? I do not know the proportions of those even if I have, hence the discussion.
The DPS can be the same because the wing is moving slower and that limits the load factor. Turn rate is both speed and load factor.
Right, but the lifting area is also increased with Fowler flaps, say, so in the case of the Ki-84 that increase in lift merely supplies for reduced airspeed but with the Corsair (with the same lifting area regardless of flap position) it somehow increases it's DPS? Can you explain that to me please?
It's an interesting theory Mtnman, but wouldn't the 'angled' downwards force from the right side be cancelled out by that from the left side?
-
In testing, has anyone checked what the bank angle is for the different planes at the edge of stall? I.e. is the F4U capable of holding a more severe bank in a minimum-radius edge-of-stall circle than a P51, or KI84, or whatever? Is this relevant? Correct?
(http://i1114.photobucket.com/albums/k526/rwrk2/66_zps51eee5d2.jpg)
Photoshop says 66 degrees. Co-ordinated turn, 25% fuel, full ammo, full flaps, 15.5 seconds 360 flat turn 23.2 D/Sec.
-
I gathered from other discussions that the efficiency of the prop increased as the airspeed decreased, also parasitic drag dropped off to a negligible level and lift induced drag was to do primarily with Alpha and G load. Have I understood those aspects incorrectly? I do not know the proportions of those even if I have, hence the discussion.
When you add flaps you add drag. If lift to drag improved why would you ever have your flaps up?
Right, but the lifting area is also increased with Fowler flaps, say, so in the case of the Ki-84 that increase in lift merely supplies for reduced airspeed but with the Corsair (with the same lifting area regardless of flap position) it somehow increases it's DPS? Can you explain that to me please?
You're just looking at the difference between full flaps and none. Fowler flaps can be relatively low drag but likely not after extending more than 50%. Full flaps are designed for landing slowly, their effect on turn rate is secondary.
-
When you add flaps you add drag. If lift to drag improved why would you ever have your flaps up?
You're just looking at the difference between full flaps and none. Fowler flaps can be relatively low drag but likely not after extending more than 50%. Full flaps are designed for landing slowly, their effect on turn rate is secondary.
Not really sure if you're trying to pick through my posts to illustrate my ignorance :headscratch: I have no doubt you know a lot more about this than I, I concede that point that's why I'm here asking.
The flaps on the Ki-84 were designed as manoeuvring flaps unlike the Spitfire say which were just for landing. That much I've read in the literature of the development of the Hayate. Further, Fowler flaps improve turn rate I read.
Your first point similarly applies to the Corsair. It's a simple enough question, how can the plain flaps on the Corsair increase it's turn rate with plain flaps while the Ki-84 can only maintain it with Fowlers? Do you know the answer or not?
-
Not really sure if you're trying to pick through my posts to illustrate my ignorance :headscratch: I have no doubt you know a lot more about this than I, I concede that point that's why I'm here asking.
The flaps on the Ki-84 were designed as manoeuvring flaps unlike the Spitfire say which were just for landing. That much I've read in the literature of the development of the Hayate. Further, Fowler flaps improve turn rate I read.
Your first point similarly applies to the Corsair. It's a simple enough question, how can the plain flaps on the Corsair increase it's turn rate with plain flaps while the Ki-84 can only maintain it with Fowlers? Do you know the answer or not?
In simpler terms it's because the aircraft are different. You're assuming that Fowler flaps improve turn rate without considering the effect of their degree of extension.
-
Can we please get past the condescending obviousness. I know about the extra drag but the F4U has extra drag too, more drag. I'm not comparing the rates of the different aircraft to each other, only the fact that the F4U's rate increases with the same lifting area and the Nakajima does not increase it's rate with MORE lifting area. If the Fowlers (not proper Fowlers in fact, but, nevermind) create so much drag which negates their benefit, then using your own argument why did they fit them at all?
Look I'm just trying to get to the bottom of this because I think it will be informative and I clearly have lacuna in my understanding. If you don't know just say so, that would be more helpful than dancing around.
-
Can we please get past the condescending obviousness. I know about the extra drag but the F4U has extra drag too, more drag. I'm not comparing the rates of the different aircraft to each other, only the fact that the F4U's rate increases with the same lifting area and the Nakajima does not increase it's rate with MORE lifting area. If the Fowlers (not proper Fowlers in fact, but, nevermind) create so much drag which negates their benefit, then using your own argument why did they fit them at all?
Look I'm just trying to get to the bottom of this because I think it will be informative and I clearly have lacuna in my understanding. If you don't know just say so, that would be more helpful than dancing around.
As the Fowler flaps extend they change their angle and the ratio of lift to drag changes. The same thing happens with the F4U flaps. Because the lift/drag change is different in each aircraft they have different comparative results at each flap extension.
-
Just incase it was overlooked in Badboy's "caught in a flap" thread... Only 1 of the F4U series really gains throughout using each flap stage... That is the F4U-1 model.... All others kind of degrade after the second notch when referring to max DPS in sustained turning...
TC
-
Once the flaps are out isnt this argument a compairison of the relative manuverability and effectiveness at the edge of the stall of both planes "current programing" within very low speed bands?
I am constantly amased at how well the F4U family manuvers with 3 notches of flaps slowly on the deck against rides I assumed without flaps out could saddel up with no problems. A6m, Hurri1\IIC, spit1-9, Ki84, N1K2, Brewster, I16.
I've come to expect spits to be just at stall, with flaps extended, and WEP to hold them in the air at the moment of a shot. While trying to win a lufbry race once everyone has flaps out on the deck. The F4U family with flaps simply appears to be able to hover in the air at slower speeds than spits on WEP with flaps extended. Often I'd rather face a K4 with flaps out. I've been through the same with a Ki84 and N1K2 and full flaps out. I was unable to hover with F4U making slow manuvers that had 3 notches of flaps out. I keep looking for the glowing cyan antigrav feild mod under the F4U's. Just an underappreciated, amasingly manuverable family of 5 ton bumble bees with awsume flaps.
But, when I try the same thing in the F4U family I simply hover flop into the ground, or get overtaken by all the planes I've listed low and slow on the deck.
Besides HTC's programatical offering of the F4U family, there probably is an optimal series of steps to reach hover mode in this game that a number of players execute more effectively than most within the "programed parameters" available to them at their finger tips. I remember years ago in the game when F4U low and slow were fodder except in the hands of a "few very talented experts" like MtnMan. Now days I'm a bit more wary of an F4U than an A6m or K4 in the hands of average players once the flaps are out and I'm slow with it.
Something has changed in 11 years. The F4U family seems to be more user freindly and manuverable than it used to be for the novice. A number of my squadmates have started using F4U as their easy mode ride to gain the center line bomb load, better gunnery from the P51, better rear view then the F6, and manuverability.
-
As the Fowler flaps extend they change their angle and the ratio of lift to drag changes. The same thing happens with the F4U flaps. Because the lift/drag change is different in each aircraft they have different comparative results at each flap extension.
You don't know do you?
-
You don't know do you?
I just answered the same question 3 times. :lol
I won't waste any more of your time.
-
I just answered the same question 3 times. :lol
No you didn't, you just made vague generalisations which were already obvious. You haven't contributed to this question at all, just sort of wafted the issue away while implying you understood it all completely. Fantastic, thanks for your input :rolleyes:
Can anybody else explain this specific technical question:-
How come the F4U can increase its turn rate with deployed plain flaps when the Nakajima can only maintain the same rate with deployed Fowler flaps? This doesn't make sense to me. Does it make sense to anyone else?
-
Corsairs don't HAVE plain flaps. I think they're slotted, but I'm not sure.
-
Corsairs don't HAVE plain flaps. I think they're slotted, but I'm not sure.
I'll take your word for it. They still don't increase the lifting surface though I think.
-
They still don't increase the lifting surface though I think.
No, the F4U flaps do not increase the lifting surface.
They are however of the slotted type, which have a gap between the flap and the wing. This gap allows/forces high pressure air from under the wing to pass over the top edge of the flap. This helps the air to remain attached to the top surface of the flap rather than separating from it (which would cause extra drag). In addition, this design raises the velocity of the airflow over the trailing edge, which greatly increases the lift over the entire airfoil.
So, different from plain or slotted flaps, which generally add more drag than lift, the flaps of the F4U are changing the camber of the wing, redirecting the airflow, and using the redirected airflow to increase lift. Of course, beyond a certain point the flaps produce more drag while not producing more lift. There's a point of diminished returns.
The flaps on the KI84 are of the fowler type, which is essentially a split flap that slides backwards. As a result of sliding backwards it increases the area of the wing which serves the purpose of decreasing wing loading. Increasing the area of the wing isn't as beneficial as adjusting the camber of the wing though, in a discussion on flaps. Raising the lifting area of the wing adds some parasitic drag, and does not increase the lift coefficient. Changing the camber of the wing (which fowler flaps also do) does change the lift coefficient.
So, which is better? Got me. Although both designs are beneficial, the lesser flap design could actually equate to a more efficient wing if it adjusted the camber of that particular airfoil in a more beneficial manner than the "better" flap on the worse wing... This part of the discussion is beyond my knowledge....
-
No, the F4U flaps do not increase the lifting surface...
The Ki-84 flaps also increase camber and additionally the chord (unlike the Corsair). They are also slotted and not true Fowler flaps because the part closer to the fuselage extends further. Have a look:-
(http://i1114.photobucket.com/albums/k526/rwrk2/KageroKi-84FlapDeployment.jpg)
Did you test the angle of bank in a sustained turn Mtnman. I already posted mine above. That will make an interesting comparison.
-
I don't think the flow is actually as you indicated. The relative wind is still the relative wind.
If a surface hinged horizontally can be expected to deflect air vertically (i.e. elevators, ailerons, flaps), and a surface hinged vertically can be expected to deflect air horizontally (i.e. rudder), and if the orientation of those surfaces is rotated and the deflection of the airflow changes/rotates predictably (i.e if the plane is banked 90 degrees the rudder will deflect air vertically while the elevators will deflect air horizontally) does it not logically follow that a surface hinged (or rotated) at a 45/135 degree angle would deflect air at a 45/135 degree angle?
And of course the relative wind behaves accordingly regardless of the control surface in question, right?
I have heard also that the gull wing design prevented the blanketing of the tail during nose high slow flight conditions...
I've heard the same. The wing-to-fuselage arrangement is also reported to be less "draggy" than other arrangements.
...but during sustained low-speed flight... ...I am not sure if that the case, especially with more than two notches of flaps.
Would it make sense that the airflow would change based on whether the slow speed was sustained or not? At what point might we expect to see the change? 10 seconds of sustained flight? 20 seconds? 100 seconds? This seems like an odd direction to argue, but if you can explain it further I'm all ears.
Beyond two notches of flaps... The stabilizer is mounted above the wing. The flaps drop below the wing. The flaps direct the airflow down, relative to the stabilizer. If the tail is lowered, the angle of air deflection off the flaps is also lowered. It's relative. I'm having trouble visualizing why sustained slow flight with more flaps dropped would change things?
My problem with the flap fights has always been that the people that do that sort of thing can even use full flaps. I don't believe that is relative to any reality. The problem being, as someone else pointed out (Badboy I think) that the nose rate has actually dropped below what would be the optimum with only two notches. So dropping flaps should be detrimental to angle fighting, but it seems to be everyones passion.
In the F4U, dropping more than 2 notches of flaps can definitely be considered detrimental. I'll not argue that.
However, "detrimental" is also relative... I'll quite willingly drop more flaps than that and willingly accept the detrimental side effects, if I see that my opponent is ALSO flying or controlling his plane in a manner that's "detrimental" to him (or even more commonly, if he's using 3D space in a detrimental manner). The sum of all those detrimental effects may still leave me in a more favorable position than my opponent... I'm crafty and arrogant and always assume I'm going to win, so I'm willing to take things to the edge. I'm usually right, too :D
My entire point being (the problem I see in it) is that your entire idea of flap fighting is to get out of the way of attackers and yet you are not flying in an optimal manner at all. The reward of course is that once you finally get killed you can laugh and claim you had all of your flaps out for so long and no one got you, but you're still dead. Admitting to it. . . your call.
Honestly, I don't know how to take this. If this section of your post is aimed at me, you have no idea what you're talking about.
My idea of "flap fighting" is not to get out of the way of attackers. Actually, I ALWAYS consider myself to be the attacker/aggressor; the poor fella who thinks I'm defensive just hasn't figured that out yet. He will though, and very soon at that, lol!
Flying optimally? I'm out to have a good time, and to kill the other guys, and make it home to land safely. I think I fly the F4U pretty gol' dang optimally. I think the vast majority of the guys that get near me in the MA would agree. If not, I'm not so sure that bothers me? I guess I haven't thought about it enough to have an opinion on that yet... Gimme time, I just started playing...
That whole reward part about laughing at myself and claiming I had my flaps out for so long and all that is pure silliness. If that's directed at me, you're clueless. Admitting to that is just how you put it though... Your call...
Now, I'm not attacking the way you choose to fly...
On the one hand, I couldn't care less what you want to do, or how. On another, I'm excited about the chance to kill you while you're flying in a manner that you think optimizes your chances of survival while minimizing mine. I'm also excited about the opportunity to trick you into or capitalize on a mistake you make (just as you're hoping to do with me, right?). Just as I like to fight the hordes and multiple opponents "lone wolf" style. I like the challenge!
I'm simply pointing out that you do not appear to have the first clue about what motivates me, or how I feel in the event that I get shot down.
-
The Ki-84 flaps also increase camber and additionally the chord (unlike the Corsair). They are also slotted and not true Fowler flaps because the part closer to the fuselage extends further. Have a look:-
I spoke to the chord (referring to its effect on wing area).
Some fowler flaps are also "slotted" to a certain extent, but that's not the goal behind that design, and it isn't necessarily as effective as true "slotted" flaps.
When it come to the KI84 flaps, I'm nowhere near an expert. Honestly, the F4U is the only fighter in WWII I care enough about to do any research on...
However, looking at the picture you posted, and a few more I just saw in a google search, and this video- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NiqBOIVLRig I see a few things that make me skeptical that they would be as efficient as the slotted flaps on the F4U (but of course I could easily be wrong...) The section at the fuselage looks aerodynamically "dirty" to me. Like a mix between fowler and split flaps, which is draggy. Not only that, it's draggy at a draggy part of the plane (wing-fuselage joint). The shape of the flap leading edge- is it shaped for optimal slotted flap effect? Is the gap (and the gap shape) optimal? What about the leading edge of the flap bay, on the lower surface of the wing? This looks dirty to me too?
Again, I don't know, just pointing out what I see as potential deterrents to optimal airflow. Maybe I'm wrong, and the KI84 flaps should outperform the F4U? Got me, we need an expert.
Did you test the angle of bank in a sustained turn Mtnman. I already posted mine above. That will make an interesting comparison.
No, and unfortunately I don't expect to get into the game for the next few days at least. I was actually hoping someone might be interested enough to try it in a few planes and post the results...
-
I am constantly amased at how well the F4U family manuvers with 3 notches of flaps slowly on the deck against rides I assumed without flaps out could saddel up with no problems. A6m, Hurri1\IIC, spit1-9, Ki84, N1K2, Brewster, I16.
In all honesty, the planes you've listed CAN saddle up on me with no problems if I'm slow on the deck. It doesn't matter how many notches of flaps I have out (but I will get saddled up on even quicker if I have 2 or more notches out).
I've come to expect spits to be just at stall, with flaps extended, and WEP to hold them in the air at the moment of a shot. While trying to win a lufbry race once everyone has flaps out on the deck. The F4U family with flaps simply appears to be able to hover in the air at slower speeds than spits on WEP with flaps extended. Often I'd rather face a K4 with flaps out. I've been through the same with a Ki84 and N1K2 and full flaps out. I was unable to hover with F4U making slow manuvers that had 3 notches of flaps out. I keep looking for the glowing cyan antigrav feild mod under the F4U's. Just an underappreciated, amasingly manuverable family of 5 ton bumble bees with awsume flaps.
But, when I try the same thing in the F4U family I simply hover flop into the ground, or get overtaken by all the planes I've listed low and slow on the deck.
Spits kill my F4U in a lufberry, every single time. KI84's will absolutely slaughter me in a lufberry. I'm so paranoid of being caught in a lufberry that I just don't get into them, ever, so I cannot remember how I'd perform vs. a N1K or 109. I just assume it won't work for me, so I don't fight them (or much of anything beyond C47's) that way. I don't fight "flat". I'm constantly going up and down.
"Simply appears to hover with 3 notches out"... is just that when it comes to how I fly the F4U. It's an illusion. I cannot hover in an F4U, and specifically when it comes to 3 notches I'm not flying "sustained" at anything much under 200mph. 200mph is pretty dang fast in reality... Even though I'll often slow down to a low speed (150mph, which still isn't all that slow in reality) I'm doing it in situations that will immediately allow me to drop my nose and get that speed back.
Personally, I consider anything 125mph and down to be bottom-of-the-barrel useless, wallowing, hope-and-a-prayer flying in an F4U. All the discussion about stall-speed full flaps turn radii, etc, is interesting but not all that applicable when it comes to how I fly. The vast majority of my fighting is in the 350mph to 200mph range, with frequent (but exceedingly brief) dips to 145-150mph. I'll fairly often drop to 125 or so, but again, it's only when I KNOW I can easily recover and get back to a "useful" speed; and it's an EXTREMELY brief foray into slow speed. 125mph for me is near-panic/desperate mode, or just a brief and practically uncontrolled "coast" as I fall off and get my nose back down. If I'm willingly hitting that 125 mark, it's because doing so will assure me of a fight-finishing kill shot, or because I'm running out of options and if I don't do it RIGHT NOW I'm going to get shot.
I've posted gobs of films over the years. Try to find one of me "hovering"; it's not likely to exist. If one does exist, it's almost definitely of me in the DA or TA and it's not like any fight I would normally fly.
I honestly appreciate the compliment below, but that's just not the reality of how I fly the F4U, or how I've taught it to students as a trainer. Low and slow, I AM fodder!
Besides HTC's programatical offering of the F4U family, there probably is an optimal series of steps to reach hover mode in this game that a number of players execute more effectively than most within the "programed parameters" available to them at their finger tips. I remember years ago in the game when F4U low and slow were fodder except in the hands of a "few very talented experts" like MtnMan. Now days I'm a bit more wary of an F4U than an A6m or K4 in the hands of average players once the flaps are out and I'm slow with it.
Again, I may be low, but I'm seldom slow... If I'm slow, I'm seldom low... If I'm alive and 3K or less AGL, I'm on my way out to climb back up. My comfort zone is 6-12K. Most fighting for me is 2-6K. SA is probably my largest skill, followed by my gunnery; I don't get low, slow, and caught off guard. If you catch me low and slow I just made a kill, and I see you coming (and more importantly, I'm speeding up!). More than any fancy flying while low and slow the thing that allows me to survive is my opponents shooting skill compared to my own. If I can dodge an attack or two and set up a brief shot for myself I can usually come out on top.
-
not to steal your thunder mtnman but I remember several fights with you were we would get in a rolling scissors and both of us would be way below 100 mph at the top of the barrel rolls.
-
If a surface hinged horizontally can be expected to deflect air vertically (i.e. elevators, ailerons, flaps), and a surface hinged vertically can be expected to deflect air horizontally (i.e. rudder), and if the orientation of those surfaces is rotated and the deflection of the airflow changes/rotates predictably (i.e if the plane is banked 90 degrees the rudder will deflect air vertically while the elevators will deflect air horizontally) does it not logically follow that a surface hinged (or rotated) at a 45/135 degree angle would deflect air at a 45/135 degree angle?
Until it meets relative wind again, maybe.
And of course the relative wind behaves accordingly regardless of the control surface in question, right?
Relative wind is with respect to the overall vector only.
I've heard the same. The wing-to-fuselage arrangement is also reported to be less "draggy" than other arrangements.
A myth. The relative angle of the wing makes no difference. If it did it would be less draggy on one said and more draggy on another. The gull wing was a necessity in order to get the nose further elevated to clear the prop. Otherwise the F4U would have had some very long gear.
Would it make sense that the airflow would change based on whether the slow speed was sustained or not? At what point might we expect to see the change? 10 seconds of sustained flight? 20 seconds? 100 seconds? This seems like an odd direction to argue, but if you can explain it further I'm all ears.
It is not the airflow past the wings, but the airflow relative to the entire aircraft. Turbulent flow from the preceeding aircraft could very well cause a problem. All of the Blacksheep engaged in turning fights with Zeros reported that the F4U "fell off badly." That does not seem to be what we hear reported in these anti-F4U threads.
Beyond two notches of flaps... The stabilizer is mounted above the wing. The flaps drop below the wing. The flaps direct the airflow down, relative to the stabilizer. If the tail is lowered, the angle of air deflection off the flaps is also lowered. It's relative. I'm having trouble visualizing why sustained slow flight with more flaps dropped would change things?
I don't know, maybe the answer is right in front of your nose. You drop flaps on landing and the flaps help you see over the nose better by allowing a reduced angle of attack on approach. Does that also mean you still have the same elevator authority? Can you still rate exactly the same angles with flaps out?
None of my post was directed at you or your flying. My post is directed at cartoon physics in general. In that regard I disagree with the way the F4U's flight physics play out online.
My take on it is simple. Find a WWII F4U ace (if there still is one alive) and ask him to fly the F4U against a Zeke or any other plane. See what he says. The very things they were told NOT to do, are done online regularly.
Not surprising really since the majority now thinks that a plane-for-a-plane kill/death ratio is acceptable.
-
Until it meets relative wind again, maybe.
Relative wind is with respect to the overall vector only.
A myth. The relative angle of the wing makes no difference. If it did it would be less draggy on one said and more draggy on another. The gull wing was a necessity in order to get the nose further elevated to clear the prop. Otherwise the F4U would have had some very long gear.
It is not the airflow past the wings, but the airflow relative to the entire aircraft. Turbulent flow from the preceeding aircraft could very well cause a problem. All of the Blacksheep engaged in turning fights with Zeros reported that the F4U "fell off badly." That does not seem to be what we hear reported in these anti-F4U threads.
I don't know, maybe the answer is right in front of your nose. You drop flaps on landing and the flaps help you see over the nose better by allowing a reduced angle of attack on approach. Does that also mean you still have the same elevator authority? Can you still rate exactly the same angles with flaps out?
None of my post was directed at you or your flying. My post is directed at cartoon physics in general. In that regard I disagree with the way the F4U's flight physics play out online.
My take on it is simple. Find a WWII F4U ace (if there still is one alive) and ask him to fly the F4U against a Zeke or any other plane. See what he says. The very things they were told NOT to do, are done online regularly.
Not surprising really since the majority now thinks that a plane-for-a-plane kill/death ratio is acceptable.
Can you (or anyone else) produce film of and F4U in AH turning with a zeke? Here's a film we can begin with- http://www.4shared.com/file/O-qfBLYs/Me_v2_F4U_and_Zeke.html Let's look at how/where the F4U is able to keep up with (or exceed) the A6m's turns. We could then maybe look at the minimum speeds that both F4U's are able to maneuver effectively at vs. the speeds where they actually perform well.
And once again, go back and read my post on flap use in the F4U. http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,338341.msg4508466.html#msg4508466
Comparing the AH F4U fight-style to RL cannot be done, since our pilots do not have the same limitations. This isn't limited to the F4U either; the same factors play in with the other planes as well. I'm sure you could give some examples for the planes you fly?
I don't know if the F4U model physics are accurate or not. We can't tell, since they're masked by the pilot.
-
However, looking at the picture you posted,...
Those are good observations and I know it is not a proof but suggestive perhaps that all modern airliners seem to have Fowlers, many multi-element and all with slim slots.
I feel intuitively that the Fowlers are the superior design but would be happy if someone could explain the incredible relative performance increase in D/Sec with the Corsair's flaps. Like you said Mtnman, what we really need is any aerodynamics expert to show up as we are only speculating.
Could one of the other Corsair specialists please do the bank angle test for comparison please.
-
Its important to note that the absence of atmospheric changes make a huge difference in our abilities to pull ACMs. If any of you have flown a real airplane, the first thing you will notice is that there is always some level of turbulence and it DOES impact your flying... As a matter of fact, most people the first time they grab the stick they spend all their energy over correcting for the turbulence and not even really 'flying'.
-
Can you (or anyone else) produce film of and F4U in AH turning with a zeke? Here's a film we can begin with- http://www.4shared.com/file/O-qfBLYs/Me_v2_F4U_and_Zeke.html Let's look at how/where the F4U is able to keep up with (or exceed) the A6m's turns. We could then maybe look at the minimum speeds that both F4U's are able to maneuver effectively at vs. the speeds where they actually perform well.
And once again, go back and read my post on flap use in the F4U. http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,338341.msg4508466.html#msg4508466
Comparing the AH F4U fight-style to RL cannot be done, since our pilots do not have the same limitations. This isn't limited to the F4U either; the same factors play in with the other planes as well. I'm sure you could give some examples for the planes you fly?
I don't know if the F4U model physics are accurate or not. We can't tell, since they're masked by the pilot.
I dont fly F4Us or yes I could. Not that I mean an F4U actually can turn with a Zeke, but that online it can appear to do so. I have killed Zekes with a P-51 and had them complain that I (c-word) because a Mustang cannot out turn a Zeke. It's all about perspective. The reason I mentioned it in my post earlier is because an F4U CAN turn with a Zeke, if the Zeke pilot does not understand about energy levels, trim, and the tactical egg. In that case, yes, the flaps do help the watchful F4U pilot.
Yes, every plane in the game diverges from reality in at least one regard. We fly them all at 100% throttle all the time. Well, actually I don't. But then again I'm conserving fuel and doing other things that DA cry-baby/moonbats can't grasp.
(not directed at you)
-
Did some offline testing with an F4U-1A and a spit9 at 1000ft. F4U 3 notches of flaps, spit flap down. 25% fuel.
The goal was to allow both planes to slow down to a stall from level then see how they recovered. See how slowly I could fly a steep banked circle on WEP and keep the flaps down. See if I could perform any manuvers.
The F4U is easier to fly under 100ta than the spit and where I get the uphamism "hover" from. My aplogies for a poor tech descriptor versus an insulting one. The spit once stalled dosen't recover befor pancaking. The F4U handles the stall flop departure better. I had to stall twice to get a pancake becasue I recovered too quickly back to a wollowing hover. The spit suddenly just stops flying and starts belly flopping with no ability to recover inside of 1000ft. The F4U is better controlable in terms of ultra slow manuvers than the spit which is doing it's best just flying in a slow circle at 100 or slower.
Maybe the line of questioning should be separated into what are you trying to do with the F4U flaps in this "computer program" we call Aces High? Our benifactor who programed the F4U chose the numbers. We only do the best we can with the results in the game.
1. - How do the F4U flaps facilitate flying it low to the ground at speeds just at and below 100ta compaired to other rides? Contrary to popular beleif in fighter types and manuverability. It seems 100ta and slower as a combat flight envelope reveils different strengths and weaknesses than most players expect or can leverage in the heat of the moment. My misguided uphamism of "hovering". Hey a new name for the F4U family: Hover Hogs. Anyone remember the UFO N1K2?
2. - How do the F4U flaps facilitate flying it through WW2 normative combat manuvers?
I've never been shot down by F4U in 100ta and lower manuvering near the deck. I always pancake trying to pull angles while the Hog slowley hovers off. Granted if I chose to get that low and slow with that Hog in the first place. If you aren't paying attention you can get sucked into low and slow while trying to avoid overshooting the Hog. Reference back to my earlier comment about being wary of F4U with their flaps out. From my 11 years of experience with this game the F4U family just does that hovering thing better than at any time I can remember in the last couple of years.
-
In all honesty, the planes you've listed CAN saddle up on me with no problems if I'm slow on the deck. It doesn't matter how many notches of flaps I have out (but I will get saddled up on even quicker if I have 2 or more notches out).
Spits kill my F4U in a lufberry, every single time. KI84's will absolutely slaughter me in a lufberry. I'm so paranoid of being caught in a lufberry that I just don't get into them, ever, so I cannot remember how I'd perform vs. a N1K or 109. I just assume it won't work for me, so I don't fight them (or much of anything beyond C47's) that way. I don't fight "flat". I'm constantly going up and down.
"Simply appears to hover with 3 notches out"... is just that when it comes to how I fly the F4U. It's an illusion. I cannot hover in an F4U, and specifically when it comes to 3 notches I'm not flying "sustained" at anything much under 200mph. 200mph is pretty dang fast in reality... Even though I'll often slow down to a low speed (150mph, which still isn't all that slow in reality) I'm doing it in situations that will immediately allow me to drop my nose and get that speed back.
Personally, I consider anything 125mph and down to be bottom-of-the-barrel useless, wallowing, hope-and-a-prayer flying in an F4U. All the discussion about stall-speed full flaps turn radii, etc, is interesting but not all that applicable when it comes to how I fly. The vast majority of my fighting is in the 350mph to 200mph range, with frequent (but exceedingly brief) dips to 145-150mph. I'll fairly often drop to 125 or so, but again, it's only when I KNOW I can easily recover and get back to a "useful" speed; and it's an EXTREMELY brief foray into slow speed. 125mph for me is near-panic/desperate mode, or just a brief and practically uncontrolled "coast" as I fall off and get my nose back down. If I'm willingly hitting that 125 mark, it's because doing so will assure me of a fight-finishing kill shot, or because I'm running out of options and if I don't do it RIGHT NOW I'm going to get shot.
I've posted gobs of films over the years. Try to find one of me "hovering"; it's not likely to exist. If one does exist, it's almost definitely of me in the DA or TA and it's not like any fight I would normally fly.
I honestly appreciate the compliment below, but that's just not the reality of how I fly the F4U, or how I've taught it to students as a trainer. Low and slow, I AM fodder!
Again, I may be low, but I'm seldom slow... If I'm slow, I'm seldom low... If I'm alive and 3K or less AGL, I'm on my way out to climb back up. My comfort zone is 6-12K. Most fighting for me is 2-6K. SA is probably my largest skill, followed by my gunnery; I don't get low, slow, and caught off guard. If you catch me low and slow I just made a kill, and I see you coming (and more importantly, I'm speeding up!). More than any fancy flying while low and slow the thing that allows me to survive is my opponents shooting skill compared to my own. If I can dodge an attack or two and set up a brief shot for myself I can usually come out on top.
This perfectly illustrates reasons for my lack of success in the F4U. It was my main ride in AW before I started in AH then in AH I stuck with it for a bit then switched off to some other rides for various reasons. I recently returned after about 4 years and it seems to be noticably different from what it once was. After reading this post and being suprised at the differences in fighting them from before I decided to try it out again. I am most used to the Ki-84 with some messing round in the 109 series (K and G). I am not afraid of getting very slow on the deck with these birds as they have relatively good acceleration. I find it easier to manage the fight starting from a low E state. One of the big advantages of the Ki and 109 is the ability to build E relatively quickly or cycle my E from a low state to a higher state.
I know that the hog is a tough fight in a Ki (for me, against pilots of relatively equal skill) in a 1 v 1 situation. I wind up in many rolling scissors fighting in the Ki (by choice) and have always thought that plane was pretty good in that situation (esp hanging in the vertical at the top). That's a bad idea with a well flown hog for me now....I have to take the fight into more of a persistant spiral climb now rather than staying in a rolling scissors. So guess what...when I'm flying the hog I'm all over the rolling scissors. I do okay 1 v 1 but in a furball things fall apart for me. I try to fight like I'm in a Ki or 109 and get low and slow with little thought. However once it's gone on the deck in a hog it takes far longer to get back. This means evading extra attackers is very hard...you're basically a wallowing fat target for quite a while after getting slow. I need to change my mindset to be successful in that bird and all these posts have good info for adjusting....thanks for the info all. :salute
Zaphod
-
lets not speculate any more :aok
See what the experts found with wind tunnel tests back in the day.
88 pages of facts :headscratch: & pictures for the likes of me who can't make heads or tails of it.
http://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc62595/m1/1/?q=f4u
The rest are on various other f4U stuff.
http://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc64921/m1/1/?q=f4u
http://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc65254/m1/1/
http://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc59301/m1/1/?q=f4u corsair
This one has data on several naval planes.
http://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc58478/m1/1/?q=f4u
-
Those are good observations and I know it is not a proof but suggestive perhaps that all modern airliners seem to have Fowlers, many multi-element and all with slim slots.
I feel intuitively that the Fowlers are the superior design but would be happy if someone could explain the incredible relative performance increase in D/Sec with the Corsair's flaps. Like you said Mtnman, what we really need is any aerodynamics expert to show up as we are only speculating.
The part that is confusing is the requirement of a sustained turn. Two major things may limit your turn (there are also minor effects): maximum lift and engine power. The lift part is quite intuitive - if you cannot pull more G because you have reached the maximal angle of attack, you cannot increase DPS. Flaps may allow you to raise the max lift limit and thus the DPS limit.
The power is less intuitive. Being power limited means that the wings CAN produce more lift (i.e. currently not at max angle of attack), but the added drag will exceed what the engine can compensate for and the plane will lose speed/alt - i.e. the turn is not sustained. If you are power limited, flaps will not help you at all, they'll add to the max attainable lift that you do not reach and add drag at the current amount of lift (worse L/D) that will make the turn unsustainable. A more powerful engine can increase sustained DPS in power-limited situations.
Fowlers add lift with a relatively (to other types) small amount of drag added. I don't have numbers, but I think it is unlikely that they improve over all L/D (lift/drag) ratio, otherwise they will be left extended all the time. So, for a plane that is lift limited, they raise the lift cap, but also the required power - both because the lift is increasing and because L/D became worse. Since the power is available you compensate for the added drag and net a DPS gain. Other kind of flaps will increase lift, but raise the required power even more and may hit the power limit. Beyond a certain extension of the flaps (of any type) both L/D and the absolute drag become so bad that the available power is not enough and the plane is power limited. Any further extension of the flaps will make DPS worse since it will add drag, but not lift.
-
lets not speculate any more :aok
See what the experts found with wind tunnel tests back in the day.
88 pages of facts :headscratch: & pictures for the likes of me who can't make heads or tails of it.
http://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc62595/m1/1/?q=f4u
The rest are on various other f4U stuff.
http://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc64921/m1/1/?q=f4u
http://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc65254/m1/1/
http://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc59301/m1/1/?q=f4u corsair
This one has data on several naval planes.
http://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc58478/m1/1/?q=f4u
Has any one read any of these & figured anything out of note?
-
Has any one read any of these & figured anything out of note?
I spent a lot of time looking over the first link. It doesn't seem very applicable to the discussion, but I found it very interesting. I haven't had time to look at the other ones yet.
The first link is basically a summary of a group of tests performed with design features in mind. They're trying to figure out shapes, hinge points, etc, in an effort to settle on the best options.
There's nothing that I saw that would (directly) relate (or translate, anyway) to the F4U turn performance, etc...
I honestly don't think a wind tunnel test is likely to explain what we're looking for anyway.
And if it did, I suspect that we'd find that it meshes pretty close to what the F4U model is capable of in AH (or at least we'd find it difficult to find fault with the AH version). Not that a real pilot could do what we do in AH; rather that the plane in RL is/was capable of more than the pilot's were/are capable of doing with it. In AH we don't have those same pilot limitations.
-
Try and compare to real life plane and pilots as much as you like. But one thing is certain and that is the AH model of F4U is ridiculous that a plane so heavy can almost float about like a zeke with its uber flaps when needed. Then it can use it's other trick dump landing gear at high speeds to prevent overshoot as if it's got a Maverick like F14 Air Brake maneuver straight out of Top Gun.
Yet tell that to F4U sticks and they all say, no no never use landing gear yet get them into a position when they need to and they all do.
imho no other plane in the entire plane set has more ridiculous tricks and performance than the F4U
Updated a few years ago and it's become the US best ride ever since for all the wrong reasons.
F4U had big flaps for landing the heavy plane on carriers, not for doing barrel rolls at 100mph. It had heavy landing gear for carrier landings, not to act as speed brakes at 300mph.
And it certainly didn't sustain constant low speed turns like a lighter more agile fighter.
<S>...-Gixer
-
It had heavy landing gear for carrier landings, not to act as speed brakes at 300mph.
Not correct. The F4U gear was designed to be used as a speed brake. See this WW2 F4U training film, at about 14:30 it's shown how a pilot would deploy gear for use as an airbrake in a dive. The pilot would use the dive brake control lever, which would lower the gear while keeping the tail wheel up.
-
Yes extend as a dive brake, but could it then do a series of barrel rolls with the gear still extended and partial flaps?
<S>...-Gixer
-
Yes extend as a dive brake, but could it then do a series of barrel rolls with the gear still extended and partial flaps?
<S>...-Gixer
Why not?
-
Try and compare to real life plane and pilots as much as you like.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to defend the flight model. I don't know that it's correct...
However, it's certainly withstood gobs of argument, and even a fair amount of number-crunching and mathematics. I have strong doubts that there's info "out there" that can refute what we see. Lots of anecdotal evidence for sure, but I'm not seeing any hard data at all. There's been ton's of time/opportunity for someone to step forward and offer something up, but no takers.
I think it's pointless to go down the "it's all wrong" path without some factual evidence. It brings to mind the ol' "definition of insanity" quote.
Do you refute my theory on pilot ability RL vs. AH? I'd love to hear your argument. Personally, I think it accounts for all of the "inaccuracies" we hear about the F4U flight model, and I'm positive we see the same thing with many other "planes" as well.. I'm sure it benefits us all over, but maybe unfairly so with the planes that require the pilot to be extra-busy to be successful.
But one thing is certain and that is the AH model of F4U is ridiculous that a plane so heavy can almost float about like a zeke with its uber flaps when needed. Then it can use it's other trick dump landing gear at high speeds to prevent overshoot as if it's got a Maverick like F14 Air Brake maneuver straight out of Top Gun.
Yet tell that to F4U sticks and they all say, no no never use landing gear yet get them into a position when they need to and they all do.
imho no other plane in the entire plane set has more ridiculous tricks and performance than the F4U
Updated a few years ago and it's become the US best ride ever since for all the wrong reasons.
The ol' "floats like a zeke with it's uber flaps" is a pretty serious over-statement, that immediately makes me suspicious that the "victim" is lacking factual knowledge of how he's getting beat, so he's just using the "floats" argument as a crutch. Same thing for the ol' "landing gear" argument.
The super-slow "floater" F4U is an easy kill. So is the one with the gear out. And neither of them are doing much of anything if they're under 120mph (which is far from "floating" BTW).
I dug this out of my films today. If you compare my F4U to your Yak, I think you'll see a few things. First, no gear! Second, very little slow flight by me... I dipped to 116mph and (156mph for the kill) very briefly, but what was the average speed of the fight? Even in the scissors I was doing what 180mph? You actually allowed yourself to get slower than me (on the rope), and when you got into your scissors I stayed behind you, but also stayed FASTER than you.
You didn't get killed by a "floating, gear dropping F4U"; you got killed by your use of 3D space. I'm not assuming that's always the case, but I'd love to see film of a "floating, gear dropping F4U" causing you problems.
http://www.4shared.com/file/s0tnnCfs/Gixer_Yak.html
Too much flap use by me in the fight? I'd say yes! But, that takes things back to the AH pilot vs. RL pilot argument again.
-
Why not?
I'm trying to wrap my head around that one too.
-
I spent a lot of time looking over the first link. It doesn't seem very applicable to the discussion, but I found it very interesting. I haven't had time to look at the other ones yet.
I found a few things in there which makes me think you didn't look very hard. Within the first few pages of the report is the statement that aileron efficiency diminishes rapidly with flap deployment. Now, I have not flow the F4U much, but I would expect that to be readily tested.
Haven't seen anyone mention having tried it, but plenty of previous tests with turn circle measurements, and roll rate measurements. So, how exactly does someone measure their turn rate in the game? turn circle radius? so on. . .
-
However, it's certainly withstood gobs of argument, and even a fair amount of number-crunching and mathematics...
Failing to prove a hypothesis is not a proof of the contrary no matter how many times that cycle is repeated.
I've learned two things about the AH Corsair from this thread alone which is odd or so far inexplicable. Firstly that the departure characteristics described in the official training film do not match the characteristics of the departure in game. Not by a long way. And secondly and apparently uniquely the Corsair's turn rate improves with flaps when for every other aircraft, including those with an arguably superior design they can can only match the rate at best.
The latter aspect apparently none of us have sufficient in-depth knowledge about flap design and performance to make headway with the discussion (and indeed may be correct no matter how counterintuitive it appears) and the former has apparently been dismissed because the training film has been categorized as 'anecdotal' (unsuccessfully in my eyes).
This is of course understandable, no one wants to see their favourite plane knobbled. But withstanding the kind of 'argument' than normally transpires on this forum is the furthest thing from conclusive.
-
.
-
This is of course understandable, no one wants to see their favourite plane knobbled. But withstanding the kind of 'argument' than normally transpires on this forum is the furthest thing from conclusive.
Please understand, I think ALL the planes are too easier to fly than they should be, and I'd love to see every one of them modeled to be as realistic as possible. That includes the F4U...
And I agree with you, that these arguments go around in circles with little on no real evidence, which is why they go around in circles.
Failing to prove a hypothesis is not a proof of the contrary no matter how many times that cycle is repeated.
I've learned two things about the AH Corsair from this thread alone which is odd or so far inexplicable. Firstly that the departure characteristics described in the official training film do not match the characteristics of the departure in game. Not by a long way. And secondly and apparently uniquely the Corsair's turn rate improves with flaps when for every other aircraft, including those with an arguably superior design they can can only match the rate at best.
The latter aspect apparently none of us have sufficient in-depth knowledge about flap design and performance to make headway with the discussion (and indeed may be correct no matter how counterintuitive it appears) and the former has apparently been dismissed because the training film has been categorized as 'anecdotal' (unsuccessfully in my eyes).
This is one of the best investigations into the F4U flaps I've seen. Is it correct? Got me, the math is beyond my level of interest...
http://www.electraforge.com/brooke/flightsims/aces_high/stallSpeedMath/stallSpeedMath.html
It's from this thread, and I think DTango also wrote something up.
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,208942.0.html
It seems to me Brooke found an error, and tweaked his report to coincide, but I don't recall. It may be worth looking for.
-
I found a few things in there which makes me think you didn't look very hard. Within the first few pages of the report is the statement that aileron efficiency diminishes rapidly with flap deployment. Now, I have not flow the F4U much, but I would expect that to be readily tested.
Haven't seen anyone mention having tried it, but plenty of previous tests with turn circle measurements, and roll rate measurements. So, how exactly does someone measure their turn rate in the game? turn circle radius? so on. . .
Chalenge,
IIRC, that was talking about special leading edge flaps added in front of the ailerons as a test, NOT the actual flaps standard on the Corsair.
-
Please understand, I think ALL the planes are too easier to fly than they should be,
Just to play Devil's advocate a little further, what about the FW190?
Got me, the math is beyond my level of interest...
Well said :lol
-
nrshida is going all 'gaston' on us :)
-
It's just an example of the contrast in reception to comments about the flight modelling between both types on this forum.
Nuke did you read my recent dissertation on how the flexing of the Spitfire's wings in a turn fight contributed lift by flapping like a bird? It was so convinced that Gaston had to go away and do the maths. :banana:
-
it was brilliant but I miss him now :cry:
-
This is one of the best investigations into the F4U flaps I've seen. Is it correct? Got me, the math is beyond my level of interest...
http://www.electraforge.com/brooke/flightsims/aces_high/stallSpeedMath/stallSpeedMath.html
It seems to me Brooke found an error, antweaked his report to coincide, but I don't recall. It may be worth looking for.
I assume you mean stall speeds not flaps? I didn't see anything in the power on climbing stall test that allowed for the reduced load factor, maybe that was the error you mentioned?
Every newbie crashes the F4U but some AH vets think it's too easy to fly. I've never heard of an experienced F4U pilot claiming that the real aircraft was hard to fly, perhaps somebody has a link?
-
It's just an example of the contrast in reception to comments about the flight modelling between both types on this forum.
Nuke did you read my recent dissertation on how the flexing of the Spitfire's wings in a turn fight contributed lift by flapping like a bird? It was so convinced that Gaston had to go away and do the maths. :banana:
Which one of them is Nuke?
-
Which one of them is Nuke?
Im SirNuke, not NUKE
-
lol, I think I asked you in the MA too. Sorry about that. :)
-
I mean aircraft types not people types.
Also convincing, not convinced. Apologies.
-
Guys
Sorry to come back to this discussion so late, but I think I can offer an explanation that doesn't depend entirely on mathematics. While that may be a little less rigorous, it will be more accessible for those who don't have the patience or interest to do the math.
Firstly though I'd like to pick up on a few points:
I thought I understood that Fowler flaps increased the turn rate and given they are reasonably large on the Ki-84 I'm rather sceptical about the comparable rates.
How can the DPS be the same with a good deal more lifting surface available, longer chord, a better camber and a slightly higher thrust to drag ratio?
Fowler flaps will always increase the turn rate, but it is very important to be specific about what kind. The high lift coefficient and additional area for Fowler flaps will have the most dramatic influence on instantaneous turn rate and I think that anecdotal sources that describe that increase in maneuverability are referring to instantaneous turns, because the influence on sustained turns is far less dramatic and influenced by several other factors that can't be so easily attributed to the flaps alone, I'll explain that in more detail later.
I gathered from other discussions that the efficiency of the prop increased as the airspeed decreased.... Have I understood those aspects incorrectly?
That's the wrong way around, the efficiency of the prop does not increase as the airspeed decreases, if you check out an efficiency curve you will see that the efficiency decreases with airspeed. The amount is different for every engine/prop combination and while that is not important in a discussion about instantaneous turn rate, which Fowler flaps will always provide, it is important with regard to sustained turn rates because the best sustained turn rate occurs when the thrust and drag are in equilibrium, so the more thrust the higher the sustained turn rate.
It seems to me Brooke found an error, and tweaked his report to coincide, but I don't recall. It may be worth looking for.
I checked the math when Brooke first posted and pointed out a few errors that were quickly corrected. There were updates since then but other than rather clumsy notation, the final draft is fine and the conclusions are valid.
For anyone who doesn't want to do the math the following written explanation may be helpful.
If you want to predict the sustained turn rate for an aircraft the factors you would focus on are the thrust, the drag and the lift. When flaps are employed, all three change. The lift increases due to the change in curvature of the wing and in the case of Fowler flaps due to the increase in area. The parasite drag increases, but how much depends on several factors that makes comparison between flap type difficult without all the data. Most notably, the size of the flaps as a fraction of the chord length and span, the section profile, the deflection and if they are slotted, to name a few. Depending on those factors the parasite drag can swing either way, but parasite drag has less influence during a sustained turn where it is the induced drag that has the greatest influence on the resulting sustained turn rate. Obviously the thrust is also an important consideration but if we set the parasite drag and thrust to one side for a moment and consider the influence of the flaps on induced drag we can find an explanation that will help to clarify much of what we see in Aces High.
Induced drag is caused by the wing tip vortices resulting from the span-wise lift distribution. It has long been understood that an elliptical lift distribution is most efficient and gives the lowest induced drag and thus the best sustained turn rates, so we should consider the impact that flaps have on the spanwise lift distribution. Take an untapered, untwisted rectangular wing planform. Disregarding interference at the root and the finite length the lift will be similar at each station and so the span-wise lift distribution will be clearly not elliptical. Now if you lower the inboard trailing edge flap, increasing the lift over the inboard part of the wing the span-wise lift distribution will be closer to the elliptical than before, so under otherwise similar conditions the induced drag should actually decrease. This can be verified using data from NACA reports which shows the improved efficiency. On the other hand, if you do the same thing in the Spitfire, you move away from the ideal lift distribution, which it already had due to its planform, so the efficiency factor is reduced and induced drag increases. The Spitfire achieves an elliptical spanwise lift distribution by having an elliptical planform, but you can achieve it by more subtle means, such as wing taper ratio, change of thickness and change of wing section. For those reasons it is difficult to predict the effect that flaps will have on induced drag based on the flaps alone. Some configurations integrated with the wing will move closer to or farther from the optimal distribution when flaps increase the lift, so some will reduce the imposed drag and some will increase it, with a corresponding effect on the sustained turn rate. It is difficult to be more specific than that, other than to say that in almost every case where information can be found so that the performance can be checked properly, Aces High appears to be spot on, and that is probably so because we are all using the same data.
The evidence for the F4U having reduced induced drag and thus increased sustained turn rate is fairly convincing but only because I can run the calculations using more sophisticated thrust and lift models based on data from various NACA reports that produce an even closer match with Aces High than those carried out by Brooke. Unfortunately, I don't have the same wealth of information for the Ki84. Despite spending some time checking my sources today, I failed to find key data for the Ki84 that would be necessary to run calculations that would give further insight.
Meanwhile I think it is worth pointing out that the Ki84 does see a significant increase in sustained turn rate when flaps are employed. My own tests show an increase in sustained turn rate for the Ki84 at both flap settings with the maximum increase for one notch of around 1dps. While that is a smaller increase than the best that can be achieved with the F4U, it is worth pointing out that despite that, the Ki84 still has a superior maximum sustained turn rate than the F4U-4, and that is still very impressive.
Hope that helps
Badboy
-
Just to play Devil's advocate a little further, what about the FW190?
I'd like all of the planes to fly as realistically as possible, and that includes the 190's.
When it comes to my " too easy" comments, I feel that if my then-7 year old son with no aero-knowledge and no experience can easily figure out how to take off, fly, and land the planes in AH without me even being home I'd call them "too easy" to be realistic. Heck, I had it set up for rudder pedals too, and he couldn't even reach them, lol. Now, he wasn't landing on the runway, I'll give you that... And it took him a little bit to figure out how to raise and lower the gear, slow down to deploy it, and change to a different plane than the F4U in the hanger (which is why he didn't immediately snap the gear off after he took off).
Fun to fly, and modeled pretty dang realistically, yes. Hard to fly? No.
And I'm not talking about flying/fighting effectively in them.
The F4U is about the only plane I'm interested in from WWII. Some of the others hold a passive interest for me, like the P51, P40, B17, and B25. Not enough interest for me to fly them much though. The rest of the planes in WWII I find just plain aesthetically ugly. My only interest in them is as targets...
That doesn't mean I think the F4U should out-perform or be "better" than the rest. I'd prefer it to be one of the more difficult actually.
But when it comes to realism, I want measurable facts and data to be the basis. If the F4U is wrong, fix it! But honestly, I think the pilot model is skewing things so much that we can't see the reality of the modeling. If the pilot were modeled more completely, I think we'd see the F4U doing what we hear and read about in the history books...
You can't have an accurate model representation of what was in reality a combination of man and machine if only the machine is accurately modeled.
My contention is that a real WWII pilot would never be able to coax full "down and dirty" performance out of a real F4U. Even off by himself somewhere, with no threats apart from the ground, he's still going to be limited by what his body can do.
Of course, HTC may not feel like devoting that much time and effort to modeling something that wouldn't be seen as an exciting addition by many if not most players, and that would limit the fancy (i.e. exciting) flying that we see now to something that many would see as "less" exciting. Similar to the argument that removing the engine management requirements makes the game more fun for the majority...
-
A very clear explanation...
Badboy
Thank you sir!
I appreciate the information presented in a way that I can easily understand and visualize.
:salute
-
I found a few things in there which makes me think you didn't look very hard. Within the first few pages of the report is the statement that aileron efficiency diminishes rapidly with flap deployment. Now, I have not flow the F4U much, but I would expect that to be readily tested.
As Saxman mentioned, those weren't production-type flaps.
Also, the tests described were run March/April of '42, the first production F4U-1 was test flown in June of '42, and that report was issued in October 1942. The first -1's saw combat in February of '43. Those early F4U's went through quite a few changes, including aileron improvements and various drag-reduction improvements.
In AH, we don't see the F4U-1 all that much either. We normally see the -1A and -1D, which had been modified enough from the -1's to warrant a different designation.
All that led me to conclude that that report wasn't all that applicable to our discussion.
I did find it particularly interesting though for a different reason... I've been building a Radio Controlled F4U, and since I'm not real happy with the kit I've been modifying it heavily to make it much more scale. I found the diagrams helpful and saved quite a few of them into my research folder.
-
I'd like all of the planes to fly as realistically as possible, and that includes the 190's.
I didn't say you didn't, just that the departure characteristics of the AH Fw190s could be fairly described as viscous and without warning.
The F4U is about the only plane I'm interested in from WWII. Some of the others hold a passive interest for me, like the P51, P40, B17, and B25. Not enough interest for me to fly them much though. The rest of the planes in WWII I find just plain aesthetically ugly. My only interest in them is as targets...
Corsair pilots wear Sailor suits and sing 'In the Navy' :old:
Sorry some more questions for you Badboy, if you've got time.
Fowler flaps will always increase the turn rate, but it is very important to be specific about what kind. The high lift coefficient and additional area for Fowler flaps will have the most dramatic influence on instantaneous turn rate...
Let me just clarify this point, in this context you mean instantaneous because they produce so much lift, and hence drag that there is insufficient thrust to overcome the latter and hence the speed must drop which in turn reduces airflow hence lift, hence turn, which is why it is instantaneous and not sustainable?
That's the wrong way around, the efficiency of the prop does not increase as the airspeed decreases, if you check out an efficiency curve you will see that the efficiency decreases with airspeed.
But whichever way round you state it there is more thrust available at low speed than high, the opposite of a jet, correct?
If you want to predict the sustained turn rate for an aircraft the factors you would focus on are the thrust, the drag and the lift.
Isn't the weight of the aircraft also significant, obviously it only changes slightly and slowly in the same airframe, but in comparing different designs you must also consider the weight, the Corsair being rather 'big boned' compared to a lot of the other fighters.
The evidence for the F4U having reduced induced drag and thus increased sustained turn rate is fairly convincing
Do you mean the flaps were essentially making lift (and hence drag) just about up to the level of thrust? Again isn't the thrust related to the weight, a heavy aircraft needing an awful lot more power in the first place to ensure there is excess power left over to provide for the extra induced drag? So when you say reduced drag you mean compared to other aircraft rather than a Corsair with its flaps retracted, obviously?
Unfortunately, I don't have the same wealth of information for the Ki84. Despite spending some time checking my sources today, I failed to find key data for the Ki84 that would be necessary to run calculations that would give further insight.
What exact information do you require? If the information isn't available then what did HTC use to determine the flight model?
-
I didn't say you didn't, just that the departure characteristics of the AH Fw190s could be fairly described as viscous and without warning.
Sure, I guess they could... But since I know that, aren't they also predictable?
The problem with "viscous and without warning" is it means different things to different people at different times, with different levels of experience, in different situations, and different opinions. Way too variable and subjective. Interesting, but not useful. Also, too easy to "cherry-pick" the terms that best fit a preconceived notion or agenda.
Just because objective evidence is difficult to find, doesn't justify reverting to subjective evidence, IMO. In my world I'd lose my job if I fell into the trap of using subjective rather than objective evidence.
I'd refer you back to post 106...
Corsair pilots wear Sailor suits and sing 'In the Navy' :old:
-
I don't summarily dismiss evidence from a reputable source just because there is no statistical quantification.
Even in Formula 1 drivers and engineers discuss characteristics in qualitative terms before the engineers make alterations. I don't imagine them dismissing the impressions of the drivers because they don't have measurable data to back their impression. That would be unwise and wasteful. Of course they are motivated.
The official Corsair training film states: "Stalls are abrupt, and preceded by very little warning in the nature of buffeting".
I've just had a quick flap about offline to see for myself. The second Corsair model, 25% fuel, gear down just as configured in the training film. I've probably flown the Corsair less than a dozen times and then usually only as required in duelling matches.
My impressions:
"Stalls are predictable and docile with plenty of communication from the aircraft, the left wing wants to drop, you can feel it announcing after the buffet is well established, the departure it is not abrupt but progressive, you can even push it over the edge and recover with a little fettling of the rudder, throttle and medium stick inputs. I had the EB6 computer open the speed fluctuated to as low as 64 m.p.h. indicated in a nose up attitude in full control".
Quite a contrast.
-
Let me just clarify this point, in this context you mean instantaneous because they produce so much lift, and hence drag that there is insufficient thrust to overcome the latter and hence the speed must drop which in turn reduces airflow hence lift, hence turn, which is why it is instantaneous and not sustainable?
Yep, I think you've got it. Anytime you pull enough g that you can't sustain your airspeed and altitude your turn rate is instantaneous and not sustained, you are flying in the area of the envelope above the Ps=0 line, in the region of negative excess power, or negative Ps.
But whichever way round you state it there is more thrust available at low speed than high, the opposite of a jet, correct?
Well it matters which way around you state it, you had the efficiency v speed relationship the wrong way around and since you were asking if you understood it correctly I simply clarified that point for you. You have the trust v speed relationship the right way around.
Isn't the weight of the aircraft also significant, obviously it only changes slightly and slowly in the same airframe, but in comparing different designs you must also consider the weight, the Corsair being rather 'big boned' compared to a lot of the other fighters.
Not if you are only considering the effect of employing flaps on a particular aircraft, because as you lower the flaps the weight of the aircraft doesn't change so you can treat it as a constant rather than a variable, which is what I was doing. Of course if you want to know a value for sustained turn rate or do a comparison with another aircraft then of course the weight becomes a factor. The full range of data and aerodynamic ratios needed are as follows:
- The air density for the altitude which can be considered constant in a sustained turn.
- The gravitational constant, which actually varies slightly depending on location.
- The prop efficiency, which will change as the aircraft speed changes.
- The zero lift drag coefficient, which increases as flaps are lowered.
- The induced drag coefficient which may increase or decrease depending on the final lift distribution.
- The weight of the aircraft.
- The wing area which may change depending on flap type.
- The engine power at that altitude.
- The maximum lift coefficient for the given configuration.
The aerodynamic ratios needed are:
- The wing loading.
- The power loading.
- The maximum lift to drag ratio.
- The coefficient of lift at the maximum lift to drag ratio.
From that data you can calculate the maximum sustained load factor, the maximum sustained turn rate, the radius at that value, and the speed at that value. If you want me to run through an example calculation just ask.
Do you mean the flaps were essentially making lift (and hence drag) just about up to the level of thrust?
Not quite sure what you are asking here, but yes the flaps increase the lift and that can enable you to produce higher instantaneous turn rates.
Again isn't the thrust related to the weight, a heavy aircraft needing an awful lot more power in the first place to ensure there is excess power left over to provide for the extra induced drag?
No, thrust isn't related to the weight. They have an opposite effect on the sustained turn rate, additional weight being detrimental and additional thrust being beneficial, but they are independent of each other.
What exact information do you require? If the information isn't available then what did HTC use to determine the flight model?
I'm sure the information is available somewhere, I just couldn't find it when I wanted it the other day when I had the urge to do the calculations. I didn't get very far into it before I got stuck trying to find the reduction gear ratio for the Ki84 engine/prop combination for my thrust model. Unfortunately I was distracted before I had exhausted my search and haven't had an opportunity to resume. I always enjoy researching the aircraft, but as I browse documents and books I like to allow myself to wander in whatever direction my reading or interest takes me. It's an inefficient way to research and gather information, but each and every time is like an adventure that I never grow tired of.
Anyway I hope something here helps...
Regards
Badboy
-
Yep, I think you've got it.
:banana: :banana:
Not quite sure what you are asking here, but yes the flaps increase the lift and that can enable you to produce higher instantaneous turn rates.
I meant is it the case that the designers of the Corsair just hit the 'sweet spot' of a lift to drag ratio which the engine was still able to overcome with spare thrust?
No, thrust isn't related to the weight. They have an opposite effect on the sustained turn rate, additional weight being detrimental and additional thrust being beneficial, but they are independent of each other.
I meant net thrust remaining once all of the drag (more weight, more drag) has been dealt with. Does momentum play a part by the way?
I'm sure the information is available somewhere, I just couldn't find it when I wanted it the other day when I had the urge to do the calculations. I didn't get very far into it before I got stuck trying to find the reduction gear ratio for the Ki84 engine/prop combination for my thrust model. Unfortunately I was distracted before I had exhausted my search and haven't had an opportunity to resume. I always enjoy researching the aircraft, but as I browse documents and
books I like to allow myself to wander in whatever direction my reading or interest takes me. It's an inefficient way to research and gather information, but each and every time is like an adventure that I never grow tired of.
Maximum power is at 2900 r.p.m. for Ha-45-11 and Ha-45-12 with 1800 and 1825 hp respectively. The Ha-45-21 makes 1990 hp at 3000 r.p.m. The propeller reduction ratio is 0.5 on all three with an electric pitch control but it is acknowledged that the propeller diameter was too small for the engine this restriction being caused by the length of the main undercarriage. I told them to use a five blade prop :old:
Anyway I hope something here helps...
Yes thanks for your time Badboy, I actually now feel I have at least a basic understanding of all the elements and I think other people will benefit too. Once I can find the handbrake I'll be able to takeoff and try it all out :joystick:
-
Nothing substantial to add to this barring thanks (nearly) all for some interesting information on the most beautiful aircraft in the game. I nearly always up F4U's, and most frequently I use the -1 because it is just so dang much fun to fly. contrary to one particular comment, I NEVER drop gear in dogfights, nor do I see it often, and never from other better sticks than me. I agree, it is a clear sign of an upcoming kill, and I'm not that good. The -1 can absolutely hang in a kow and slow 1v1 with many aircraft, even with me at the stick. But it is ready to flop and fall from the sky, it has taken a lot to learn that sweet spot. It is handy knowledge that is more feel that gauged though. And since 1v1 becomes 5v1 when on the deck like I am, invariably I meet an unpleasant end. So thanks again for this wealth of knowledge, food for thought. fwiw, this version is harder than it was in 2007 or so. It sure seems it to me, again just a feel thing.
-
I don't summarily dismiss evidence from a reputable source just because there is no statistical quantification.
Even in Formula 1 drivers and engineers discuss characteristics in qualitative terms before the engineers make alterations. I don't imagine them dismissing the impressions of the drivers because they don't have measurable data to back their impression. That would be unwise and wasteful. Of course they are motivated.
The official Corsair training film states: "Stalls are abrupt, and preceded by very little warning in the nature of buffeting".
I've just had a quick flap about offline to see for myself. The second Corsair model, 25% fuel, gear down just as configured in the training film. I've probably flown the Corsair less than a dozen times and then usually only as required in duelling matches.
My impressions:
"Stalls are predictable and docile with plenty of communication from the aircraft, the left wing wants to drop, you can feel it announcing after the buffet is well established, the departure it is not abrupt but progressive, you can even push it over the edge and recover with a little fettling of the rudder, throttle and medium stick inputs. I had the EB6 computer open the speed fluctuated to as low as 64 m.p.h. indicated in a nose up attitude in full control".
Quite a contrast.
The second Corsair model, 25% fuel, gear down just as configured in the training film.
On my way out of town, but had some time to review the training film, search for some test documents, and do some tests.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kpxyyLQ7u7g
My findings were that the AH F4U-1 stalls pretty dang close to the way it does in the film, but is more difficult to recover than it should be. The F4U-1A may arguably stall too harshly in AH, and is almost definitely too difficult to recover. But I think I'm ok with that :aok
The key is to do the test in as close to a realistic manner as possible, and in order to get the results we all think we should see we need to do the tests similarly to what we see in the training film...
First, it's important to start with the correct plane, right? The plane shown is an early F4U-1, without the spoiler on the right wing. That spoiler was added later because the left wing had a tendency to stall before the right wing, especially under deceleration. The F4U-1A, and all later models had the spoiler (mounted on the leading edge of the right wing, just outboard of the gun ports).
This addition was said to effectively cause both wings to stall at the same time. We should expect the later model corsairs to have a somewhat "gentler" departure as a result...
We also know it's a -1 due to the canopy, the functional top three cowl flaps (training film at :52) which were sealed in later models, and the instructions to burn the fuel from the left wing first. The "heavy controls" is also an early F4U trait (that was later improved).
Can you imagine that they would have test flown the plane, and made that training video with 25% fuel? Not me... I loaded 100%, but am confident you could load somewhat less and see the same result (I also fly with 100% in the arenas). Adding the fuel adds weight, increasing the wing loading, which effects the stall...
Next, air density also effects the stall... So, how high were they in the training film? We should be in similar air density to expect similar results. I launched at 15K, but also performed the tests down to 12K. I'm fairly certain they were higher than that in the film.
I also trimmed for level at @325, and flew with Combat Trim off, to get that out of the equation.
So, get up there, drop your gear, and drop 3 notches of flaps (the training film stall you're referring to had 30 degrees of flaps). This first stall is POWER OFF, per the training film. Slow it down, and bring the stick back, and...
It'll drop it's left wing, and put you almost on your back. Very similar to the training film! I didn't "crank" the stick back hard, but also didn't go super-gentle (like I would normally fly). What did he do in the film? They don't say, but he was intentionally trying to show a stall, so would he be super gentle with it? I doubt it.
However, the training shows an easy recovery after each stall! The AH F4U stall is more problematic to recover from. I purposely just centered my controls to see what would happen, but the nose doesn't come down as nicely as it does in the training film...
So, the departure I found to be convincing; the recovery less so. Too difficult in AH compared to the film. Just my subjective opinion of course.
Next, they show the POWER ON, CLEAN stall, which is very similar. Again, AH does a good job of replicating the film. If anything recovery again seems easier in the training film though. If I use the advice given in the film "prompt positive action results in a normal recovery", I can live with the AH stall. :D
The POWER ON, LANDING CONFIG stall at 4:20 looks pretty dang gentle too! Wow!
Now, part of that may have been the different position of the cowl flaps. According to the test documents I found, opening them adversely effects the stall characteristics. They're closed in the POWER ON stall, which is noticeably more gentle, and open in the POWER OFF stall, which is more harsh.
The flaps are closed in AH; should we have a gentler stall? (See the test documents I'll link at end of post).
http://www.4shared.com/file/6CQ669gT/F4U-1_Stalls_0000.html
I also did the tests with the F4U-1A, with very similar (identical?) results. Where does the stall strip benefit come into play? I don't see it, for some reason? Oh well.
http://www.4shared.com/file/mV-JAob1/F4U-1A_Stalls.html
I found a few other things VERY interesting in the training film.
At around 16 minutes in they say the maneuvering flaps (25 degrees vs. the often-stated 20 degrees) are for use to increase maneuverability at slow speeds. The warning they give is to not dogfight with more maneuverable planes! Why?! They call it a bad tactic, but give no warning AT ALL about flight characteristics due to being slow and flaps out. Hmmm, food for thought. He actually says the flaps are designed for increased maneuvering at slow speeds AND to assist takeoff and landings. Not the other way around... More food for thought.
If we put emphasis on the "Stalls are abrupt, and preceded by very little warning in the nature of buffeting" quote, shouldn't we give equal weight to this one??
I like these ones too...
"There's nothing about the corsair that good pilot technique can't handle" and "There's plenty of sting in her guns".
Want to see a "floating corsair" outside of AH? Check out the training film at 19 minutes in. Low, slow, flaps out, and low throttle. I bet if he gave her full throttle he could sure make 'er dance!
Here's a link to some "Confidential" test reports I found. Pretty neat. http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f4u/f4u.html
Definitely some info on stall characteristics, and some direct comparisons with the 190A-4, F6F, P51B, P47. I haven't had time to go through them all, but they're definitely interesting reads.
Another interesting tidbit I found was the undesirable cockpit layout mentioned several times. It gives credence to the RL vs. AH pilot theory I mentioned earlier.
-
Yes you are right it was the wrong model. I took the early one up with 100% fuel, three notches, gear out and power off, as you suggested. The stall speed was higher as expected and this one it felt like either wing wanted to go. In all honesty, it still felt very communicative to me. Trouble started way after the buffet was fully set in. I was abusing it pretty hard and was able to work it to the point were I could maintain full back pressure on the stick (yes to the stop) and used the ailerons and rudder to keep the wings roughly level.
I then repeated the test with the second model, this one seems a little less docile, but conversely responded quicker to inputs.
Recovery in both models even when it snapped right over I found easy, had it back in under control and upright in around two seconds (estimated).
I didn't recheck the film to look at the cowl flaps but both the first and second model in AH have those modelled exactly the same graphically. Both the skins I have have that green paint inside. The cowl flap in line with the antiglare strip is closed on both, the other ones open (top ones at least).
<Shrug> I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree, clearly we are having a very different qualitative experience in AH. I'm not sure why that is.
-
<Shrug> I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree, clearly we are having a very different qualitative experience in AH. I'm not sure why that is.
I think it's because we're not running the same tests, using the same method.
We may also be looking for different answers...
I'm trying to see how closely the AH F4U stall characteristics match what is described in the training video.
It looks like you're taking that further to see if you can find cases where you can make the AH stall NOT match reality, and maybe then to see if "what happens next, or as a consequence of" of those cases matches your notion of how it "should" be.
First of all, I think that jumping to "what happens next", or how the stall can be "conquered" is premature without first seeing if the "basic" stall matches up in AH vs. reality (what we see in the video, and described in test reports).
Second, I find the terminology "abusing it pretty hard" and "able to work it to the point" and "used the ailerons and rudder to keep the wings roughly level" to be descriptions of testing that goes way beyond testing "basic stall" characteristics. Again; premature at the very least, and I'd also argue this to be massively outside the testing parameters shown in the film.
Different results? I'd hope so! It sounds like you're comparing apples to asteroids.
At what altitude did you do your tests?
Yes you are right it was the wrong model. I took the early one up with 100% fuel, three notches, gear out and power off, as you suggested.
The stall speed was higher as expected and this one it felt like either wing wanted to go. In all honesty, it still felt very communicative to me.
Trouble started way after the buffet was fully set in.
I was abusing it pretty hard and was able to work it to the point were I could maintain full back pressure on the stick (yes to the stop) and used the ailerons and rudder to keep the wings roughly level.
I didn't try to fight the stall, or keep it from happening.
I didn't get the sense they were trying to keep the stall from occurring in the video. I didn't visually or audibly get the sense that the pilot was doing everything he could to NOT stall.
I certainly didn't get the impression that the pilot was "abusing it pretty hard" and was trying to work it to the point were he could maintain full back pressure on the stick (yes to the stop) and was trying to use the ailerons and rudder to keep the wings roughly level.
Rather, I felt they were TRYING to get the plane to stall in the video, in a basic and "normal" sense, in order to show new pilots what they could expect and how to correct it once it had occurred. The easiest, most predictable and repeatable way to do that is to slow down with the wings level, and bring the stick straight back until the plane stalls.
I was simply trying to realistically recreate the stall I saw on the video, by mimicking the conditions as closely as possible.
If you're not doing the same basic thing, you're not running the same test that I am (nor are you testing what is shown in the training video).
I then repeated the test with the second model, this one seems a little less docile, but conversely responded quicker to inputs.
Admittedly, this is where things get trickier. We don't have readily available footage of the second model (I'm assuming you mean the -1A?). If we cannot reach a consensus with the more-complete evidence for the -1, I don't have much hope at all for agreeing with even less documentation.
However, based on the stall strip/spoiler improvement, we should expect to see the opposite of what you found. The stall in the -1A should be MORE docile. As far as response to control inputs, we shouldn't see any major difference. The -1 did go through numerous aileron changes though, and I'm not sure which ailerons were used on the plane in the video. For that reason, I guess maybe there could be some differences between the film and AH, but I'd expect there to be no difference between the various AH F4U's.
(http://i107.photobucket.com/albums/m309/Mtnman_03/F4UIIHCvsF4UI_zps44472f5b.jpg)
(http://i107.photobucket.com/albums/m309/Mtnman_03/F4U-1withspoiler_zpsdedf1d05.jpg)
I didn't recheck the film to look at the cowl flaps but both the first and second model in AH have those modelled exactly the same graphically. Both the skins I have have that green paint inside. The cowl flap in line with the antiglare strip is closed on both, the other ones open (top ones at least).
The cowl flaps in AH are not functional. They are graphically modeled closed or very slightly open. I have no idea whether their effects are modeled, but based on the fact that we don't notice buffeting of the tail surfaces I would say they're not modeled.
In normal operation, full open would be used for ground cooling, 2/3 open for take-off and climb, and closed (or opened slightly if required) in flight.
(http://i107.photobucket.com/albums/m309/Mtnman_03/AHCowlflaps_zps9022841b.jpg)
(http://i107.photobucket.com/albums/m309/Mtnman_03/F4UCowlflaps_zps28ee5193.jpg)
In order to clarify things I think we need to more clearly delineate between the different facets of the stall.
The buffet (I'm considering this to be more or less synonymous with "warning" of an impending stall)-
I also agree that the buffet seems to begin too early, but I don't know of a way to measure that against reality. Of course I don't know, but I suspect that HTC has modeled the buffet somewhat "generically", and that it may set in at a fairly standard "speed above stall" threshold for many or maybe all fighters/planes? If so, maybe it sets in "too early" on some planes to give an accurate representation of RL? So maybe we get too much warning in the F4U (or maybe many planes?). Not sure.
Departure-
When I run the test in the manner described above (and which I believe to be the method used by the pilot in the film), I get a stall departure very similar to that shown in the training film. I'm curious to see how many others get the same result.
Recovery-
Recovery in both models even when it snapped right over I found easy, had it back in under control and upright in around two seconds (estimated).
I agree, I can also recover easily and very quickly.
However, after entering a stall as described above, I felt like it took significantly more piloting in AH to recover than I saw or heard described in the video.
Not that it was difficult, or that "prompt positive action and normal technique won't bring about normal recovery", but that the nose appeared to drop further in the training film than it does (for me) in AH. In AH the nose kind of "got stuck" rather than swinging down as far. This (I feel) results in more required control to recover than it would if the nose fell further.
Regardless, the flight tests show "easy recovery" in a clean condition, without a terrible loss of altitude (I also believe the test pilot in the film dove more than he needed to in order to recover...).
They also show a tendency to fall off on either wing (which you also found to be true in the AH model).
It looks like landing configuration with throttle closed gives the least amount of warning/buffeting (which is a condition we'd seldom see in a fight in AH); coupled with the increased buffeting and reduced effectiveness of the elevator and rudder in that condition, I wonder if we've now "pegged" the real issue that caused an occasional pilot to flip over in a stall and crash on landing?
Further, that may be another clue that the AH F4U isn't so far off... The complaints we hear over and over and over result from people flying the corsair in a non-landing config, with high throttle; nowhere near the "worst case" conditions of low, slow, low throttle, cowl flaps open that resulted in the plane being dubber the "Ensign Eliminator". I haven't seen anything that would lead me to believe POWER ON stalls with flaps deployed should be all that violent?
(http://i107.photobucket.com/albums/m309/Mtnman_03/F3A-1Stallcharacteristics_zps22547222.jpg)
-
I want to point out that I do not believe the flaps are of such a great benefit to the F4U. At least, not as much as the gear are. To understand what I mean you have to look at the cycle time of the landing gear of a real F4U and the landing gear of the F4U in game. Realize also that there is a center-of-gravity issue in real life that becomes much more manageable because of the reduced cycle time, as well as a drag issue that is likewise greatly influenced by the sequence.
Someone wished for fast landing gear speeds so they could go from zero-to-hero in less time. Now the gamers can use it to their advantage.
By CoG issue, are you referring to the trim changes that we might expect as a result?
(http://i107.photobucket.com/albums/m309/Mtnman_03/Takeoff-geartrimchange_zps044e3c5a.jpg)
(http://i107.photobucket.com/albums/m309/Mtnman_03/Loweringundercarriage_zps92c424a2.jpg)
-
A myth. The relative angle of the wing makes no difference. If it did it would be less draggy on one said and more draggy on another.
I don't understand what you mean by this.
The "less draggy" aspect of the wing mount is explained as "the wing root being joined to the fuselage at a ninety degree angle which was the most efficient design for both maximizing strength and minimizing drag". I'm not sure what you mean by less draggy on one side and more on the other?
-
not to steal your thunder mtnman but I remember several fights with you were we would get in a rolling scissors and both of us would be way below 100 mph at the top of the barrel rolls.
I've been looking through a bunch of films... I have a few films of us fighting in the MA, and a long one (45 minutes) of us in the DA.
What I've found so far all supports my argument that below 120mph, I'm not doing much to maneuver at all. There were some maneuvers in the DA where we were low in speed at the top of maneuvers (into the 55mph range) but all I'm doing at that point is "coasting" over the top, waiting for enough speed to rebuild so that I can do something.
I'll freely admit that I use my trajectory to my advantage... But I'm not doing much maneuvering at all. I almost never leave myself "hanging" in those scenarios, because I use the little control I have in the 110-90mph window to direct my trajectory such that I'll rebuild speed.
That is supported by several occasions where I was behind you as you zoomed. Essentially, all I had to do was slightly adjust my nose to land hits on you, but at 80-90mph I don't have enough control of the plane to fine tune my aim the few degrees it would have taken to kill you.
So yes, I coast through maneuvers at less than 100mph, but don't have enough control to do much of anything if I'm under 120-130mph.
If you happen to have any films showing otherwise, I'd honestly like to see them.
-
We may also be looking for different answers...
I don't have anything invested in the F4U. Respectfully you don't seem any more objective than I.
I also agree that the buffet seems to begin too early, but I don't know of a way to measure that against reality.
Well again, consider this statement from the training film:-
"Stalls are abrupt, and preceded by very little warning in the nature of buffeting".
In AH the buffet is firmly established long before the wing drops which to me is 'plenty of warning' not 'very little warning'. Of course I also let the stall develop without fighting it as a first step but that really wasn't very interesting and isn't what you'd do if you stalled in a fight. Those further experiments were to see just how much I flirt with the stall listening to the communication from the aircraft as to what those wings are doing. I started my tests at 16k for both models.
Of course I don't know, but I suspect that HTC has modeled the buffet somewhat "generically", and that it may set in at a fairly standard "speed above stall" threshold for many or maybe all fighters/planes? If so, maybe it sets in "too early" on some planes to give an accurate representation of RL? So maybe we get too much warning in the F4U (or maybe many planes?). Not sure.
That's why I kept bringing up the Fw190, it can't be an across the board design choice if some AH aircraft are genuinely 'abrupt and without warning'. How about the short-nosed Spitfires (Marks I and V), they depart decidedly without warning or buffet in certain configurations and you have the Devil's own job to get those back.
I feel the discussion has now stagnated into an attack and defence situation which is a shame. I'm not campaigning to have the AH F4U knobbled, through the course of the discussion I felt an inconsistency was revealed which I found interesting to investigate / discuss. I am probably being unrealistic in expectation.
Think I'll stop here.
Shame no one else contributed to the angle of sustained turn gallery.
-
I don't have anything invested in the F4U. Respectfully you don't seem any more objective than I.
No, I'd argue that I'm easily more objective than you. We're just not (or weren't) testing the same thing.
I was testing to see if the AH F4U shows the same stall characteristics as it does in the training film.
You weren't. You described a test method seeing if you could make it NOT stall the same way as shown in the film.
Both are valid, and your test is important/valid. It was just premature until we'd established that the plane does stall as shown in the film, if it's flown the same way as shown.
Now, once we establish whether the stall itself is correct or not, we open the door to much deeper discussion into other aspects. One should obviously be the ability to avoid the stall through control manipulation. Another would be "non-basic" stalls. Should the plane stall differently in different conditions than we see it doing?
I feel the discussion has now stagnated into an attack and defence situation which is a shame.
It's a shame you feel that way. That's not my intent.
Disagreeing with you is not attacking you. Disagreeing with your methods (or at least with my interpretation of them based on your statements) is also not an attack.
I'll continue to point out inconsistencies as I see them though.
Well again, consider this statement from the training film:-
"Stalls are abrupt, and preceded by very little warning in the nature of buffeting".
In AH the buffet is firmly established long before the wing drops which to me is 'plenty of warning' not 'very little warning'. Of course I also let the stall develop without fighting it as a first step but that really wasn't very interesting and isn't what you'd do if you stalled in a fight. Those further experiments were to see just how much I flirt with the stall listening to the communication from the aircraft as to what those wings are doing. I started my tests at 16k for both models.
This discussion is what I would consider "pre-stall characteristics". I agree with your findings so far, and I believe the objective info you need to make an objective argument is available in the shots I posted above. More evidence is in the documents I linked to.
That's why I kept bringing up the Fw190, it can't be an across the board design choice if some AH aircraft are genuinely 'abrupt and without warning'. How about the short-nosed Spitfires (Marks I and V), they depart decidedly without warning or buffet in certain configurations and you have the Devil's own job to get those back.
This is extremely exciting info (to me anyway). It tells me that if you/I/anyone else can pose an objective argument, HTC would be able to (and likely would, based on other plane types) be willing to make adjustments to the model. I haven't tested this (yet), so I don't know.
Not that I believe the evidence points to the F4U stall being difficult to get out of.
-
No, I'd argue that I'm easily more objective than you. We're just not (or weren't) testing the same thing.
I was testing to see if the AH F4U shows the same stall characteristics as it does in the training film.
You weren't. You described a test method seeing if you could make it NOT stall the same way as shown in the film.
Well my interpretation of your actions is that you have systematically tried to dismiss or devalue evidence and findings right from the start of this discussion. First you dismissed the official training film as having no merit because it was anecdotal and non-quantitative. Once I pressed that point you tried to dismiss my testing simply because I went further exploring how it isn't behaving how they describe it in the film. Now you seem to intend to pursue an ad nauseam argument by dissecting what defines a stall and buffeting :frown:
Even in the 'don't fight it' mode of flying (which as I said I also tested (first)), the buffet begins waaaaaaay before the wing drops and even after that, just before the wing does drop it's telling you it's about to drop with an obvious little wiggle. I just can't see that constitutes 'very little warning', not by any normal definition and not with comparison with other AH aircraft.
It was just premature until we'd established that the plane does stall as shown in the film, if it's flown the same way as shown.
But we haven't established that. That's my point. Discussion cannot progress if we disagree about the communicative nature of the aircraft and sequence of the buffet and stall. There's just nothing further to say. We disagree.
It's a shame you feel that way. That's not my intent.
Disagreeing with you is not attacking you. Disagreeing with your methods (or at least with my interpretation of them based on your statements) is also not an attack.
Actually I was rather interpreting your responses as defensive & your apparent impression that I was attacking your favourite aircraft. That wasn't my intent either. I find I learn more in these discussions, but if positions become entrenched then it is no longer productive to continue. If I disengage from the discussion that is not me conceding my position either.
-
Well my interpretation of your actions is that you have systematically tried to dismiss or devalue evidence and findings right from the start of this discussion. First you dismissed the official training film as having no merit because it was anecdotal and non-quantitative.
You haven't really come up with any evidence though, have you? You don't like the evidence I've presented, and won't even read through it thoroughly enough to understand that the evidence you need to argue your point is right in front of you.
You just fall back on the same ol' argument that's been poorly presented over and over.
Talk about being entrenched! Sheesh! Pot, meet kettle...
The film is subjective and anecdotal, yes. It does have value though, and can be used to support the more objective evidence available. It can be used to argue your point, just as I've used it to argue mine. That's the beauty/trap of subjective evidence.
Now you seem to intend to pursue an ad nauseam argument by dissecting what defines a stall and buffeting :frown:
Odd. I want to break it down into sections (i.e. sequence) so that we can take a more definitive look at it. You don't like that, but then you say we can't progress unless we agree on it?
...communicative nature of the aircraft and sequence of the buffet and stall.
You're probably right, no point in going any further with you. You seem unwilling to work at understanding the conversation and then want to quit when it gets tough.
I suspected that with your comments to FLS, but still held out hope for you. My mistake.
-
Anyone have time/motivation to run a few tests? I have to do a bunch of traveling over the next few weeks so I won't be able to do it myself.
I think a strong argument could be made to support nrshida's point that the F4U communicates its impending stall too early. This "extra" warning probably makes it too easy to detect and avoid the stall.
I suspect the actual stall itself isn't the problem; it's the behavior that leads up to it that may be questionable.
According to the flight test reports I found and posted above, the buffet probably shouldn't begin until around 4mph (or less) before the plane stalls, depending upon the configuration.
If the AH F4U could be shown to begin the buffet much before that, I think it could be argued that the advantage of this extra warning is swaying things too far in favor of the F4U. If HTC could then be swayed with some objective evidence, maybe the model could be adjusted?
The implications of an adjustment like that could be huge...
-
You haven't really come up with any evidence though, have you? You don't like the evidence I've presented, and won't even read through it thoroughly enough to understand that the evidence you need to argue your point is right in front of you.
Your position is that I haven't come up with anything that satisfies your condition for being evidence, apparently. The definition of evidence is: facts or observations presented in support of an assertion, not statistical and quantifiable data which can be measured and compared.
Your printed evidence pertains to the later model I understood (perhaps I have mixed the model numbers?) and is no less anecdotal than the training film. But I should pay more attention to your evidence while you dismiss my previously presented evidence out of hand?
You just fall back on the same ol' argument that's been poorly presented over and over.
The 'same ol' argument' (thanks for attempting to belittle it, again) hasn't been addressed and there is no point moving further into a deeper discussion until the contradiction between training film and AH characteristics have been properly investigated. You DIDN'T want to do this you moved directly to imply that you had ESTABLISHED they matched. Which you haven't.
The film is subjective and anecdotal, yes. It does have value though, and can be used to support the more objective evidence available. It can be used to argue your point, just as I've used it to argue mine. That's the beauty/trap of subjective evidence.
My comments and observations are subjective. Anyone can repeat my test: watch the film, listen to the account of the stall and then put the AH Corsair into the same condition and report if the characteristics match the training film.
I don't think the training film is subjective, that would imply it was the position of an individual whereas this was apparently an official training film. I don't think it's unquantifiable as you suggest either, it describes a sequence which I say our Corsair doesn't match.
Others might make an effort and contribute too. I took the time to add to your 'lean angle' flight test, no one else did, not even you. No one else has even challenged my observations about the AH Corsair.
Odd. I want to break it down into sections (i.e. sequence) so that we can take a more definitive look at it. You don't like that, but then you say we can't progress unless we agree on it?
You systematically tried to dismiss everything I brought to this discussion up to this point and now I'm supposed to accept your implication that I am being obstructive?
I suspected that with your comments to FLS, but still held out hope for you. My mistake.
You held out hope for me that I would behave in accordance with your values? How extremely condescending of you. FLS was implying he understood a technical question and had explained it satisfactorily when in fact he hadn't. Then he 'laughed' and left the discussion. Hardly a professional deportment. Should I not direct such comments to a trainer, even when he behaves this way is that what you mean?
You're probably right, no point in going any further with you. You seem unwilling to work at understanding the conversation and then want to quit when it gets tough.
This is your second attempt to devalue my points on grounds of character. I've confined my comments to technical issues and my interpretation of other people's subjectivity and haven't got personal about it at all. Should I continue to try and forward my observations in an unreceptive and now bordering on insulting environment? Would this be an intelligent use of my resources? You accept no responsibility for your pattern of behaviour throughout this discussion, it has been dragged down to the dismissive and then personal level and you berate me for wishing to disengage?
If my observations are valueless and without merit, then they would be trivially dismissed without getting personal about it.
-
.
-
Your printed evidence pertains to the later model I understood (perhaps I have mixed the model numbers?) and is no less anecdotal than the training film.
Yes, I think you've missed the model numbers. The printed information is from different model numbers, and different individual aircraft. I simply grabbed those small sections to save you the effort of doing the research yourself.
Anyone can repeat my test: watch the film, listen to the account of the stall and then put the AH Corsair into the same condition and report if the characteristics match the training film.
I ran the test as I saw it done and heard it described in the film, and got the results shown in the film.
I can also change my test method to the one you describe (which doesn't match the film) and get the results you get (which don't match the film).
You held out hope for me that I would behave in accordance with your values?
Absolutely not! If I led you to the conclusion that I was judging your values or comparing them to mine, I apologize. I don't know enough about you as an individual to even come close to doing that.
-
Continued digging has raised more questions...
In particular, I've been looking into the issues of "warning", and the ability to control the plane through the stall (or not).
It's not difficult to find reference to "little warning" of an impending stall, but it sounds like there are three types of warnings in question; "buffet", stick forces, and the stall warning light (closest thing to the buzzer in AH?).
For the most part, the references to the "little warning" are either not identified as to which warning type is being discussed, or is linked to the stick forces-
In RL-"While the elevator forces are generally normal in direction, they vary only a small amount in approaching a stall with power on, and the control movement is very small. Thus the elevator control force and position do not provide the normal degree of "feel" or warning of change in air speed or angle of attack".
In AH- We get nothing as far as a warning, since we don't feel stick forces.
That's actually pretty descriptive, and may go a long way to answering the "little warning" question. It's more descriptive then any reference I could find to the warnings given via stall light or buffeting. Unfortunately (?) if this is the culprit when it comes to "little warning", AH is arguably less forgiving than RL. We don't get little warning; we get none! (when it comes to stick forces).
Next, we have the stall warning light / buzzer.
In RL- The stall warning light should operate 4-8 knots above the stall in landing condition, and 14-18 knots above the stall in clean condition. This is designed to operate regardless of the load condition of the plane, the acceleration (in turns or pull-outs), the throttle opening, or the flap setting, all of which cause the indicated speed to vary from that in straight flight at normal load with throttle closed.
In AH- The stall horn can be made to operate at a wide range of speeds depending upon attitude, etc, from as high as 140mph or more, right down to no warning until stall. It would take some work to dial this in through testing (which I haven't done conclusively yet).
Last, we have warning of impending stall through "buffeting".
In RL (as shown by the shots posted earlier) we could expect the controls to buffet 2-4 mph above stall depending upon configuration. Buffeting will also be caused by the cowl flaps... Buffeting in the real plane is described as "ample" in the clean condition, to "late" in the landing condition.
In AH, does the physical buffeting we have model the controls buffeting? Or the plane itself? Seems like the plane to me, but that may/may not equate to the controls? FWIW, I got buffeting from 0-4mph above the stall.
I'm not sure I see anything massively wrong with the warning we get, or the actual stall departure vs. RL?
That does leave the question of controlling the plane "through" the stall though (or at least being able to avoid the stall by controlling).
To answer that we'd need to look at the effectiveness of the elevator, rudder, and ailerons right up to the stall. At what point should those controls lose effectiveness to the point where control should be lost, and the stall is unavoidable?
In theory, if you could maintain control and keep the plane right above stall, you'd avoid the stall. But... Should the F4U have enough rudder, elevator, and aileron effectiveness at 2-4mph above the stall to maintain that control?
There's (some) info in print on that, too.
-
You don't have to be at 1G stalling so you could have a very low stall speed.
With flaps out your ailerons wouldn't be as close to stalling, lower AOA.
The stall is at a particular AOA so the stall horn is likely also set at a particular AOA in AH and RL.
Stalling without warning sounds like they maintained control up until they suddenly stalled. Like we do.
-
You don't have to be at 1G stalling so you could have a very low stall speed.
With flaps out your ailerons wouldn't be as close to stalling, lower AOA.
The stall is at a particular AOA so the stall horn is likely also set at a particular AOA in AH and RL.
Stalling without warning sounds like they maintained control up until they suddenly stalled. Like we do.
That correlates with what I'm finding too.
"Elevator maintains effectiveness at all speeds".
"Rudder is heavy at low speeds, with a reasonable amount of control right down to the stall" (engine on).
"Ailerons are light and lack feel at low speeds, but are still very effective".
IMO, I'd expect the ailerons to lose effectiveness first in a power-on stall, since the prop is blowing air across the tail surfaces. And it sounds like the aileron remain effective right up to the stall.
-
I don't understand what you mean by this.
The "less draggy" aspect of the wing mount is explained as "the wing root being joined to the fuselage at a ninety degree angle which was the most efficient design for both maximizing strength and minimizing drag". I'm not sure what you mean by less draggy on one side and more on the other?
Then you need to reconfigure your thinking cap. The F4U wing does not mate with the fuselage at 90 degrees. You can see this clearly in any 3 view of the aircraft. A wing has two sides, top and bottom. The bottom of the wing with respect to the fuselage has a more extreme angle than the top. What they were attempting to approach was similar to a straight wing being mounted to the center of a fuselage. They missed. Furthermore, as the fuselage tapers the angle increases, making the miss even worse. This was always a myth made as a selling point for an aircraft that was never as good as its press. People were hungry for good news and so every claim made by the F4U pilots was accepted. Boyington, for instance, may have scored as few as seven actual kills in his entire career (China included).
I don't know where you dug up the report on the flaps having caused no perceptable change in trim, because the Navy themselves and the Vought test pilot both said it did.
I also read Memorandum #33 for 4 June 1944 in which the Navy tested (combat tested) the F4U1 and F6F3 against the FW190A5. You should read it, too. The 190 they tested outperformed the F4U by their own reports, yet in AH the F4U kicks the 190s butt!
-
Then you need to reconfigure your thinking cap. The F4U wing does not mate with the fuselage at 90 degrees. You can see this clearly in any 3 view of the aircraft. A wing has two sides, top and bottom. The bottom of the wing with respect to the fuselage has a more extreme angle than the top. What they were attempting to approach was similar to a straight wing being mounted to the center of a fuselage. They missed. Furthermore, as the fuselage tapers the angle increases, making the miss even worse. This was always a myth made as a selling point for an aircraft that was never as good as its press. People were hungry for good news and so every claim made by the F4U pilots was accepted. Boyington, for instance, may have scored as few as seven actual kills in his entire career (China included).
I don't know where you dug up the report on the flaps having caused no perceptable change in trim, because the Navy themselves and the Vought test pilot both said it did.
I also read Memorandum #33 for 4 June 1944 in which the Navy tested (combat tested) the F4U1 and F6F3 against the FW190A5. You should read it, too. The 190 they tested outperformed the F4U by their own reports, yet in AH the F4U kicks the 190s butt!
Do you have a reference for the low drag being a myth? Everythng you've written about it sounds like specualtion.
If you compare the F4U and F6F the difference in the wing attachment angle is obvious. The clear difference is the F4U wing is mounted radial to the center line. Granted it's not precisely radial.
I expect there are other reasons the F6F is slower than the F4U, despite having the same engine and being about the same size, but it makes me wonder about the drag difference. The 0 lift drag coefficient of the F6F is .0211. Anyone know what it is for the F4U?
-
Then you need to reconfigure your thinking cap. The F4U wing does not mate with the fuselage at 90 degrees. You can see this clearly in any 3 view of the aircraft. A wing has two sides, top and bottom. The bottom of the wing with respect to the fuselage has a more extreme angle than the top. What they were attempting to approach was similar to a straight wing being mounted to the center of a fuselage. They missed. Furthermore, as the fuselage tapers the angle increases, making the miss even worse. This was always a myth made as a selling point for an aircraft that was never as good as its press.
Yup, I can see that from the drawings I have. I just pulled that quote out of one of several books that reference that.
Regardless of the angles or geometry, I suppose what really matters is whether or not it gave any advantage at all to the plane. Did it? I'm not seeing any tests that spell it out one way or the other, but I could be missing them.
People were hungry for good news and so every claim made by the F4U pilots was accepted. Boyington, for instance, may have scored as few as seven actual kills in his entire career (China included).
Who cares? I certainly don't, and have never really given a hoot one way or the other when it comes to kill reports. Are there any pilots (in any plane) where similar claims aren't possible?
I don't know where you dug up the report on the flaps having caused no perceptable change in trim, because the Navy themselves and the Vought test pilot both said it did.
Just out of one of the reports that lyric linked to. Lots of info in there...
I didn't really dwell on it to tell the truth. All it means to me is that the speeds the flaps were deployed may have been different in the different tests. Above a certain speed, I'd expect the nose to raise. Below a certain speed no amount of flaps will keep the nose from dropping. At some speed in between isn't it logical to think the trim won't be effected much?
If you'd like, we can dismiss the test claims though. Let's use the ones you like.
I also read Memorandum #33 for 4 June 1944 in which the Navy tested (combat tested) the F4U1 and F6F3 against the FW190A5. You should read it, too. The 190 they tested outperformed the F4U by their own reports, yet in AH the F4U kicks the 190s butt!
Surely not this report? Granted, the 190 climbed faster and was faster above 15K...
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/ptr-1107.pdf
Here's a snip from it (I did read a good chunk of it, but not all)-
(http://i107.photobucket.com/albums/m309/Mtnman_03/F4UF6FFW190_zps8faceb34.jpg)
One of the links lyric gave us pits the F4U against several other planes. P51, P47C, P38G. The F4U was argued to be "better for close-in fighting" than the P51 and P47, about even with the P38.
Lots of fairly subjective information...
-
Honestly, when I really started digging into these reports I was pretty certain I'd find some info to show there were errors in the AH F4U model. I'm having difficulty identifying them though.
Is it possible we're just on a "witch hunt"?
You know, LOTS of things we think "know" about history don't really appear all that factual under close scrutiny.
At this point, I'm pretty sold on the RL vs. AH pilot being the difference. In the end, it was man and machine.
In my industry, Overall Equipment Efficiency (OEE) averages out at around 60%. I.e. it's difficult to find a machine that's able to run at better than 60% of its potential effectiveness.
MUCH of that comes down to the details of how man interacts with machine. Why would we expect much else when it comes to interaction with a flying machine? Different variables are at play of course... In AH, we've eliminated MANY of those variables which the RL pilots weren't able to eliminate.
I don't believe it's reasonable at all to expect that a modern combat pilot can get 100% of the potential effectiveness out of a plane; but they're at a distinct advantage over a WWII pilot.
If we pulled the pilot out of an F4U and replaced him with a computer, or flew it like a drone from the comfort of a chair in a climate-controlled room, how close to AH could we get it to fly?
When I find things like this in flight test reports, it just makes me realize how similar an operator improperly adjusting a machine is to a mechanic improperly adjusting an airplane... This type of thing lowers the overall effectiveness of the machine, whether it flies or sits on a floor.
This was a "recommendation" that came out of one of the tests... Really? Someone thought it would be ok to do this?? How would this practice effect the performance of the plane?
(http://i107.photobucket.com/albums/m309/Mtnman_03/Flaptrimming_zps20de0501.jpg)
-
I haven't seen this video linked before. It's kind of interesting.
Stalls and spins in WWII planes-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tUs4oC_JiZY
-
Hand book I found online.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/55090514/1944-AP-2351A-B-C-D-PN-Pilot-s-Notes-for-Corsair-I-IV-Double-Wasp-R2800-8-or-R2800-8W-Engine
-
Pfft 190in ah will dominate f4 if you know what your doing
-
Pfft 190in ah will dominate f4 if you know what your doing
Only if the guy in the F4U doesn't.
Put the top Hog driver vs. the top 190 stick in a duel, and the F4U is going to come out on top more often than not.
None of which is relevant to the subject of the thread. :P
-
im just trying to stir the pot :devil
-
I have been reading the book by Boone Guyton on his time with Chance-Vought. After reading the book it is clear that a great deal of the problems associated with flying aircraft like the F4U have been avoided by choosing to control the aircraft by stick position. It would be easy to get upset by this fact and yell and scream about inaccuracies, but the fact remains that it is impossible to model the limitations of human muscles. Specifically, you will find in the manuals for the F4U the following: "Do Not Spin." It is there because when it concerns the F4U (all models) a left hand spin that goes beyond two turns is always (and I mean always) the final move.
Any spin in AH can be escaped by simply pushing forward. In the real F4U after two left hand turns in a spin you are done. The stick is buried in the pilots crotch and their is not enough human strength in any man to push it forward. The only way to model that is to end every double-left spin as a death-spin.
-
I have been reading the book by Boone Guyton on his time with Chance-Vought. After reading the book it is clear that a great deal of the problems associated with flying aircraft like the F4U have been avoided by choosing to control the aircraft by stick position. It would be easy to get upset by this fact and yell and scream about inaccuracies, but the fact remains that it is impossible to model the limitations of human muscles. Specifically, you will find in the manuals for the F4U the following: "Do Not Spin." It is there because when it concerns the F4U (all models) a left hand spin that goes beyond two turns is always (and I mean always) the final move.
Any spin in AH can be escaped by simply pushing forward. In the real F4U after two left hand turns in a spin you are done. The stick is buried in the pilots crotch and their is not enough human strength in any man to push it forward. The only way to model that is to end every double-left spin as a death-spin.
Or it means that the stick forces in the game aren't being modeled properly for all situations.