Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: F4UDOA on October 08, 2002, 11:36:25 AM
-
Heya's
Just trying to take my place in AH as one of the all time whiners.
Anyway I've been doing some testing on the loaded F4U-1D fully loaded takeoff characteristics.
First test.
Auto take off land base no wind full fuel 2K Bombs 8 rockets. Gross weight 15,000LBS.
Observed takeoff runs for speed and distance.
Each notch off flap caused a longer takeoff run proving that the flaps do create drag. This is correct No problem.
The reason Auto take off causes a longer run is because it lifts off at approx the same speed in the F4U which is 120MPH give or take a few MPH. Viewed on external film viewer for exact speed.
Second test.
Same load manual takeoff. It is possible to achieve a much shorter take off run with full flaps.
90MPH appears to be the critical liftoff speed for the F4U-1D fully loaded with full flap.
Third Test.
Move to carrier.
In ten tries I was unable to reach my minimum critical speed by the end of runway for takeoff. Failed each time.
My conclusion based on this was that since the takeoff run for the F4U at 14,415LBS in a 30knot wind should be 509FT then maybe the Carrier deck is just to small for the F4U since HT said the spawn point is exactly 556FT from the end of the deck and the carrier is moving at 35MPH exactly. Granted I am used WEP also which is more power than the F4U would really have so with the extra weight 556FT is about the right distance for a Fully loaded F4U. So based on that alone I would say that the F4U should be able to make it off the deck in Mil power without to much difficutly albeit not much room to spare with manual takeoff.
These points are off.
1. I should not need WEP.
2. The run from the manual is with 30% flap not 100%.
3. a 14,300Lbs bird can do it in 509FT in 30Knots34.5MPH with 30% flap then a 15,000LBS should be able to make it in a 35MPH wind in 556FT with full flaps fairly consistantly from the flight manual which is a rather reliable piece of test data I think.
Here is the Killer.
Fourth test.
Grab a P-47D30 100% fuel 2K Eggs and 10 Rockets this is about an 18,000LBS A/C
Manual takeoff full flap, WEP whoosh!! right off the deck!!
From the pilots manual
The P-47D has a takeoff run at 15,000LBS of 1200FT. More than twice the run of an F4U-1D at 15,000LBS not 18,000lbs which the test A/C would have weight. WTF??
Next the P-38L full load full flaps full fuel 2K eggs 10 rockets.
Approximately a 21,500LBS A/C.
From the manual again
21,400LBS takeoff run 30Knot headwind 34MPH. takeoff run 930FT (300+ft longer than the F4U-1D with equal load)
Auto takeoff hands off!! full flap WEP. Whoosh.
Not even close. Off the deck before the end.
The P-51D failed would not takeoff with a full load.
The Mossie with full bombs rockets fuel made it first try.
The A-20 not only made it off with Rockets and bombs and fuel but made it easily. This A/C out accelerates the F4U-1 like it is standing still. Even with full flaps it made it to 100MPH + by the end of the deck. The F4U could not reach 90MPH!!!.
The F4U was pupose built for short takeoff runs. I keep saying the accleration is porked maybe this will stir some interest. An A-20 with bombs should not out accelerate an F4U-1D off of a carrier deck!!
Here is the F4U data.
(http://www.zenoswarbirdvideos.com/Images/F4U/F4UTOCL.gif)
P-47D data
(http://www.zenoswarbirdvideos.com/Images/P-47/47TOCL.gif)
-
good work.... unfortunatly HTC dont seem to care too much about such matters..we have tried before to get a plane fixed...it wont happen:D
-
I, have been talking and learning from a member of the VF 101 Grim reapers in Oceana, and according to USN flight data that he researched,
Corsairs landed with 30 degrees of flaps, but in CV takeoffs, only one notch of flaps is needed with max fuel/ordnance loadout.
Speed can be influenced by the amount of yawing, from rudder, compensating from torque, as you roll down the deck, as well as setting too many flap settings which bleed off E due to increased drag.
Excellent research, BTW, more than what I'd make tie for thats for sure.
I can get a loaded corsair off deck, but yes, not 100% of the time. Usually, its from a step in the procedure I forgot about, or did incorrectly, that puts me in the drink.
FWIW, we could use a little more help from HTC regarding the Corsair. maybe a longer CV...I won't even get into engine management :)
Gainsie
-
In ten tries I was unable to reach my minimum critical speed by the end of runway for takeoff. Failed each time.
Are you saying that you were not able to successfully keep the F4U airborn once you ran out of deck space?
-
Soulyss,
Correct.
I cannot keep that this flying 100% fuel Bombs rockets.
Even manual takeoff no combat trim.
From watching my attempts on land and at sea I can tell that full flap takeoff speed is approx. 90MPH. If you can reach 90MPH (measured on the digital viewer) you can takeoff. Unfortunately the F4U-1D falls just short of that on a CV.
Again I was able to takeoff from a CV in a fully loaded P-47D, P-38L, Mossie and A-20G.
The P-38 and A-20 were a Joke. They rocketed off the deck no problem. The P-38 will do it hands off auto take off.
The P-38L isn't even in the same league as the F4U-1D in the short takeoff world. It take a third more runway with the same load to lift off in reality.
The A20G is a medium bomber!! it easily outstripped the F4U-1D off the carrier deck. The question isn't how come I can't get off the deck in an f4U. The question is why is it so easy in A/C that shouldn't even be able to do it at all.
-
The P38 was a fast accelerating plane.
It also got the best climb speed full loaded.
that should say something.
I believe the P38 was able to take off carriers (there where ideas for it)but the navy never wanted water cooled planes.
For the rest u sound like a Allied Wilbus
:p
-
im with u bug.
-
Bug/Mitsu,
This has nothing to do with the Navy or what they wanted. From the AAF own P-38 flight manual it takes over 900Ft to lift off at that weight.
From the F4U flight manual. It takes more than 300ft less to take off with the same load in the same wind condition.
It really is pretty cut and dry.
-
Did you callibrate your throttle before testing?
-
take off spaces are all messed up...i had a easier time getting a c47 up than the f4u
and i have taken the c47 off on a airfeild in about the same area it takes to get a fully loaded hurrc2lese
something seems wrong there
-
Here is why I am sure that somethings porked.
Compare the speed of these three A/C at the end of a 556Ft carrier deck. All A/C full flap. Full load viewed on the external film viewer speeds read from digital readout.
1. A-20G speed = 97MPH+
2. B-26 Speed = 93MPH
3. F4U-1D = 88MPH
This is right? Two medium bombers can out accelerate an F4U-1D? Really?
The A-20G is 26,500 fully loaded with two 1600HP engines with a 61 foot wingspan!!
26500LBS/3200HP= Wingloading = 8.28
F4U-1D fully loaded 15,000lbs
15,000LBS/2250HP= Wingloading = 6.67
I will attatch the film for each.
-
Yeah a C-47 floats around like a butterfly here LOL.
But on the throttle point. I thought of that. But I'm looking at my MAP. When I engage WEP I get full 60" MAP which is correct. If my throttle where not on full then WEP would not engage.
Also it would affect all A/C tested.
-
It is possible to take a fully loaded F4U-1D and successfully launch from a CV. I just did it, it's dicey and you do lose alt off the front of the carrier but you can stay in the air.
-
Amen F4UDOA!
Thanks for the research. You are NOT whining...you are making legitimate arguments for a long-overdue Corsair Flight Model overhaul/adjustment.
When the History Channel has a program on the Corsair or the Black Sheep, they talk about how they would push the throttle forward and be slammed back in their seats. They talk about how the Corsair would "...climb like an angel returning to heaven."
Ever since the last major release the Corsair takeoff was porked. You used to be able to take off with autopilot and a full load with only 10-20% flaps with NO problems. Try that now!!! Impossible. It's a struggle to take off manually...with a full load and full fuel unless you roll back to the cables.
Looking at historical film and you see Corsairs with full load outs up off the CV several yards before the end of deck.
Keep up the good work. Maybe if we squeak enough.......big maybe. ;)
Thanks again F4UDOA!
MAC
No. 54 Squadron
-
F4UDOA, try the experiment again without flaps and see what the effect is.
It may not be an issue so much of weight and acceleration, but a factor of how "draggy" the flaps are, and their effect on lift. Which is what I suspect.
The F4U has huge flaps, and may be creating a large amount of drag, but without gaining the correct benefit of lift.
This might be causing the effect you are observing.
-
It's been my experience that lowering flaps during the take off, it's easier to get airborn than deploying them completely at the start.
-
Yes i agree that the F4U-1D is a tad bit porked but you must also remember a couple of things.
#1: At the time the F4U-1Ds started entering mainline service the Navy had started using catapolts.
#2: You almost NEVER heard of an A/C taking off, unassisted, from a CV with a full War load AND full Tanks. The A/C's were just too heavy.
So in conclusion, until you see AH start emplementing Steam catapolts on the CVs dont expect to up from CVs with full fuel and full War load (i.e 2k bombs and Rocks)
I usually up with a full War load with %75 fuel. Going full flaps with WEp on. You can make it off the deck and not stall out. You just gotta ride the stall horn for a couple of presious seconds ;)
Adapt and over come....You cant expect the people at HTC to get everything right. Excuses aside keep throwing in intelligent and Accurate input for A/C and they'll take notice.
-
Heya Gents
MAC,
I have been saying the same thing since 1.08. Something changed in the F4U FM. It did used to be able to takeoff much easier I'm sure.
Soulyss,
If you could please film your takeoff I would really appreciate it. Either post it or email it to me. I want to see what speed you are at when you lift off. Also try it your way once and then try it sitting full flap without rolling apply throttle/WEP and go.
I have no idea how you make your A/C roll back mine never does although I hear some people say they do it. I don't want to trick it into taking off I want to do it by the book and see if it is possible.
Verm,
I started off by testing on a medium field with no wind to test takeoff runs with and without flaps. With auto takeoff turned on each notch of flap will cause a longer run. But this is ok because auto takeoff works at the same speed everytime. So I know the flaps add drag. Then I tested with manual takeoff and I was able to lift off sooner with flaps than witout. So I know they create lift.
However I don't know if the ratio is right.
My thought is that the problem is the lack of acceleration to takeoff speed do to excess drag in the airframe not including the flaps. I think it hurts the overall accleration of the F4U even in a clean config. Post 1.08 the F4U-1D got very draggy. I said it then and I stick with it. Something changed weather they intended to do it or not.
An A-20G should not wing a drag race with an f4U.
-
I have a simple question...
Didn't USN use a catapult at carrier-takeoff?
BTW - B-25s could take off from carrier in first air raid against Japan homeland...this plane is heavier than A-20.
-
The A-20 not only made it off with Rockets and bombs and fuel but made it easily. This A/C out accelerates the F4U-1 like it is standing still. Even with full flaps it made it to 100MPH + by the end of the deck. The F4U could not reach 90MPH!!!.
The F4U was pupose built for short takeoff runs. I keep saying the accleration is porked maybe this will stir some interest. An A-20 with bombs should not out accelerate an F4U-1D off of a carrier deck!!
Twins in AH are porked to hell. They all outaccelerate the single engine fighters, they all outturn many of the single engine fighters. The A20 can more then hold its own against any plane in a turn fight but the very best as the spit or better. Same thing goes for mossie, P38 and 110. They outaccelerate almost everything in dives. Don't know what's up with that.
Nice info on the F4u btw.
-
I hate AKAK and DblTrubl's P-38 when fighting in Ki. :p
-
Guys, F4UDOA, and others. I agree that my beloved Hog needs some tweaking in its FM but I hardly think it is impossible to take off of a CV.
9 of 10 times I can get off a CV with full loadout. granted I use WEP and 2 or 3 notch flaps, not sure if you guys do.
But I agree that it is way different than it used to be and maybe needs to at least be looked at.
regards guys and gals.
Booky
-
Originally posted by F4UDOA
Here is why I am sure that somethings porked.
Compare the speed of these three A/C at the end of a 556Ft carrier deck. All A/C full flap.
3. F4U-1D = 88MPH
Respectfully, are you reading my posts? You Don't use or need full flaps when taking a Corsair off deck. Too much drag from full flaps.......not going to repeat myself again.:(
-
OntosMK1,
The carrier we have in AH is the USS Essex or at least an Essex class Carrier. I confirmed this with HT.
There is no Catapult on these carrier sduring WW2.
Here is a pick of the USS Essex launching an F4U at Okinawa in 1945. No catapult
(http://www.navsource.org/archives/02/020916.jpg)
-
Hmmm, tweaking F4U's FM? I hope HT tweaks Ki-61's FM too.
First of all, adverse yaw moment is too much when doing rolls in Ki-61. Ki-61 had a frise-type ailerons to restrain adverse yaw and to get lighter aileron moment. btw Ki-61's control system was all rod type except rudder.
http://www.mountainflying.com/adverse.htm
about adverse yaw and frise-type aileron.
And Ki-61's maneuverability is pretty porked in a dive.
It's not copy of Bf109...
In R/L, Ki-61 pilot could chase jinking P-47 at dive (P-47s often used this tactics when Ki-43s are chasing them. because Ki-43 doesn't have a durability of dive). One of pilot said "Ki-61's maneuverability was great even in 850km/h dive".
Sorry for hijacking F4UDOA, but I hope to improve Ki-61's FM like Hog. :)
-
Redtail and Booky,
Please film this for me and post it or email it please!!
100% fuel ammo and 2k bombs and rockets.
Try it once full flaps. Redtail the Flaps are suppsed to help not hurt, that is the problem.
Film it, post it.
Wilbus,
Dude you are so right. I tested the following.
B-26
Mossie
A-20
BF110G2
P-38L
Only the B-26 I couldn't get off the deck. All others made no problem full bombs and rockets.
All were superior in acceleration than any single I tested in speed reached at the end of the carrier deck. Definitely something up there. Very strange!
The BF110 had a torque to the left. Also strange?
-
CC Oedipus,
HT said it is 556FT from the spawn point. The actual deck is almost 900ft
-
Well F4UDOA, you may be, as you stated, a big whiner, but you are the most well researched whiner in the books.
-
F4UDOA,
Nice job but don't stop there. Im my experiance if you load up all the carrier AC to max and try to take off you are not likely to make it either. I cannot get a F6F or F4F up loaded. Using little game "tricks" like dumping a notch of flap at the end of the deck is not the cure, it is indicative of a modeling problem as that was not the way it was done in RL.
-
F4UDOA, et al,
heres a film I made a few weeks ago. This flm is part of the VF27th Hellcats qualifications for command.
Each member of the squad is required to load a fully loaded corsair off a CV then land it before we can participate in Squad Operations.
I have a cast on my stick (right) hand, so I admit it's a little hairy..but, I got airborne. The cast comes off this week, so maybe I'll post a better film.
Again, I appreciate your research
Gainsie
-
heres the film
-
heres the film...second attempt.
If it doesnt go through this time, contact me at corsair_pilot_mn@yahoo.com and I'll send you the film.
-
Err,
I don't see any link??
BTW is this film pre 1.08??
-
I'll email you Redtail.
THANKS!!
-
Low speed, high AoA flight is the weakest part of the FM in every sim I have ever flown.
ra
-
I posted a film of a fully-loaded F4U takeoff awhile back; it may still be on the boards. If you follow proper procedure and don't try to fight the plane it's not all that tough.
J_A_B
-
If someone has a film of a f4ud taking off with 100% fuel and 2 1000lb bombs + rockets I would like to see it. I dont mean after you backed up either. I can back up from spawn and take off. But I have NEVER seen one get up from the spawn point. I have never been able to do it. I have tried all flap wep man take off no flaps you name it I have tried it and the hog will not get off the deck with a full loadout.
-
Thanks Icemaw,
I'm glad I'm not the only one.
I have never seen anyone do it either post 1.08.
JAB is your film post 1.08? If you could just do it offline and post I would appreciate it. No takers yet.
BTW. How the hell do you back up on a carrier deck. I have no idea. Could someone post that little tidbit?
-
to back up on a carrier: start engine, release brake, crack throttle just a hair if you don't see your craft moving aft, crack it a bit more until it does. Use rudder to steer, if you're brave and impatient you can hit WEP once over any of the wires and you will sling shot back to stern and right off the boat if you're not careful. Must turn WEP off for brakes to have any effect.
Don't forget to brake :)
-
Originally posted by icemaw
If someone has a film of a f4ud taking off with 100% fuel and 2 1000lb bombs + rockets I would like to see it. I dont mean after you backed up either. I can back up from spawn and take off. But I have NEVER seen one get up from the spawn point. I have never been able to do it. I have tried all flap wep man take off no flaps you name it I have tried it and the hog will not get off the deck with a full loadout.
I'd be more than happy to show you, or anyone else interested, how to do this in an H2H arena, gimme a yell on ICQ or AIM(check my profile)
-
Mr.Blonde,
I just spent 20minutes working on this. I don't roll an inch.
Also I found JAB's film and one other. Frankly I'm shocked.
One constant that I have seen is the 90MPH mark. When JAB made it he was at about 92.5MPH on the digital film viewer. I cannot reach that speed. I get about 88MPH then I go in the drink.
Testing on dry land shows 90MPH to be the majic number. Is it possible that all FE's are not the same??
HT or Pyro please chime in on this.
-
zipped film attached
I turn off all trim (use right rudder on rolling and right after takeoff) wep on while holding brakes and release brakes after second of four notches of flaps..
my speed at the end of the deck is right at 90.
-
I don't friggin believe this.
I found JAB's film and watched it. Set trim identical to his. Full power no WEP full flap and three notches flap.
I freaking made it each time??
I checked the viewer to check my speed. WEP made no differance at all in acceleration to the end of the deck. both times I was at 88MPH and made it. Barely but I made it.
However the problem still exist.
1.Why is it so hard to reach 90MPH by the end of the deck. The A20G reaches 97MPH in the same distance with a full load.
2. WEP makes no differance in takeoff run. Is the WEP not working on the F4U-1D? At least at low speed it is invisable.
3. Why do twins even bombers accelerate so well? the A20G, Mossie and P-38L are way overachieving here.
4. The F4U-1D should not fall off the end of the deck like it does. I still think it is way to sluggish at full power low speed.
-
to back the plane up, you need RPM at 2100...I sent my film to F4UDOA...I got no clue how to post it here...
It's not all that hard...just tricky..enjoy
-
I did it 3 times in a row, filmed the last one. Think I failed the first 3 times, might have been 4. Once I got the hang of it I didn't think it was to horrible. F6F is a lot easier to take off though. P47 and P51 I couldnt get them to take off from the spawn point. I might have been able to do it if I rolled back some, not sure.
Heres the film, not sure exactly what I did. Think I dropped a notch or two of flaps as I passed the tower, and another notch or two as I cleared the deck.
Jeeez. Attachment is to big. Email me at Urchin@3-jg2.com and I'll send it to you. You can also try shodges1@comcast.com, but its been acting up lately.
-
Ahem...
One of F4UDOA's points...and it's a big one....is that you should NOT have to use WEP to take off from CV.
Also...You should NOT have to back up to the very end of the CV to take off....what did the front-o-the-line planes do in the CV when taking off?
F4UDOA is NOT saying it CANT be done.
His point is that it should not be this hard for a plane that was designed for CV take offs. There are BIGGER, HEAVIER, more "DRAGGY" planes out there who are airborne at shorter distances than a plane designed for just over 500' take offs.
:)
-
F4UDOA--
I'm glad you found my film. I hope you found it useful. As I recall, it had running commentary in it to show exactly what I was doing. I did my best to mimic the standards that you had set forth for an F4U launch--no WEP, flaps down before rolling, no rollback, generally not trying to "game the game".
I also tried to let my engine spool up before rolling, this makes a noticable difference.
Once I have time I will test other AH aircraft in a similar manner if you'd like me to. Just provide me with the takeoff conditions.
ICEMAW--
My film is exactly as you'd like to see. I do not roll back or use WEP or any of that gamey stuff; I even put the flaps down before rolling :) Fully loaded F4U, full fuel, 2 x 1K bombs, 8 rockets and it gets airborne every time :) I forget which old thread it's in, perhaps F4UDOA or someone else who found it could punt the old thread so interested players can find it.
Maybe someone should submit it to HTC as a "Carrier takeoff training film" heh heh heh.
J_A_B
-
I think the "ensign killer" as the corsair was called needs a bit more torque to.
;)
-
Ok just took off 6 times in MA with your T/O procedures. I died on the first try and on 3rd try but got up on the other 4. So I guess I am wrong it can be done. But its way too hard a newb would never even come close. I couldent imagine doing it in a event or mission in MA with slow frame rates as every one ups.
-
Never had any real trouble getting it off the deck fully loaded, took me a few times to get it right the first times I tried (prior to this post) but it can definatly been done. AS more people have posted replies with films I don't think I need to do the same.
There is one thing though, like I said before, will quote F4UDOA on it.
3. Why do twins even bombers accelerate so well? the A20G, Mossie and P-38L are way overachieving here.
Like I siad before, doesn't matter if you're flying or are on the ground. All twins out accelerated all other planes except for possibly an LA7 down low.
It's crazy and can't possibly be right.
They all turn extreemly well aswell, the A20 can be used to outturn all planes except spits/better then spits. The P38 turns even better.
It's just fantastic, surprised all countries didn't just use twins instead...
-
I don't know any specifics, or about the mossie or a-20, but the p38 DID have excellent acceleration, and turning ability.
Twin engine designs have a lot of advantages, however they're a lot more expensive and complicated than the single-engined fighters.
-
The biggest problem with twins in AH is that they have almost no roll inertia, where as in real life they had considerable roll inertia.
No, I'm not discussing sustained roll rates, which seems to be right on.
Read accounts of P-38s in real combat. They describe a distinct hesitation between the time that you move the controls (in the roll direction) and the time the aircraft starts too roll. Thats because of the mass of the engines located so far off the roll centerline. Bodie's book talks about this in several places.
And no, boosted airlerons will have no effect on this at all.
The easiest way to reverse a P-38 should be a rolling scissors, with a couple of direction reversals thrown in. In AH (and WB's and AW for that matter), the P-38 will eat you up if you try that.
In AH the roll inertia is just not there.
If anyone wants to debate this, start a new thread, I don't want to hijack F4UDOA's thread. :)
-
VV Verm.
-
Originally posted by F4UDOA
Heya's[/IMG]
Sorry if I missed it but do you have the pilots notes showing the take off and landing speeds for various loadings..........
I have noted on another AH AC that at the recommended landing speed the AH version is very unstable............. and cannot be the "recommended AH landing speed".
-
Without getting into to much detail on landing speeds I will say this.
Most A/C do not stall at the right speeds. You should be able to fly an F4U down to 80MPH and land. In AH 80mph you are not flying anymore.
I think the flap may have something to do with it.
For takeoff and landing charts try Zenoswarbirds.com I'm not sure if that is the correct URL. Type it into google and you will find it.
-
F4UDOA,
It seems as though some of the "post-ers" are missing the point, even with all the data that you have presented. :rolleyes:
Hurray for you ... you can get off the carrier. %99.99 can't.
The point here is that if the FM is modelled correctly, according to the specs that F4UDOA has spend a lot of time gathering, it shouldn't involve all these different incantations to do it. From what I have read in all of F4UDOA posts ... it should be rather EASY to take off. Such is not the case here.
Thanks for all the work and info F4UDOA ... very interesting !!!
-
Thanks Slapshot,
I think you and a few others get it.
I was surprised to find out that I can do it to. I just need to stand with one hand in the air while dancing to do it.
It doesn't really work the way it's suposed to but I guess it's good enough for government work as they used to say.
I don't seem to have anyones attention that's going to change anything.
-
DOA, did you get my video?
I agre that it shouldn't be AS difficult as it is, but as was posted earlier, it didn't earn the reputation as a difficult ride without reason.
I do believe that engine / power settings are point of contention, as it was determined very early on, that pushing the throttle to full power at takeoff will cause you to somersault. Such is not the case in AH.
And as for cheering the folks that can get a loaded Hog up from a CV...cheers are earned, warranted, and deserved...There are few things in AH more thrilling than that.. LOL
This is a No-Flame Zone :D
-
Eh, the problem is the fact that there's not as much deck in front of the plane as there should be. Even 50 feet more flightdeck would be a big help.
Taking off a carrier in a fully-loaded F4U should NOT be "easy". There's a REASON the USN refused to use them on carriers until towards the end of the war and even then only with a certain amount of hesitation. The F6F really is better suited for carrier operations.
I will not vouch for as to whether AH is accurate. Perhaps you misunderstand me, but my saying I CAN take off doesn't automatically mean AH must be right. All I said is I can get the plane airborne every time using the proper RL takepff procedures. That simple fact does not mean AH is right OR wrong.
If anyone can get a fully-loaded P-47D-30 off a carrier without using wep or rolling back, I'd like to see it because I can't do it and I'd like to know what I'm doing wrong :)
J_A_B
-
JAB and RedTail,
You guys both are getting caught up in a bit of hyperbole.
The F4U had a bad reputation for landing not takeoff. In fact it served on carriers from 1944 to 1953. Years longer than the F6F. And NO change was made after 1943 to improve landing characteristics. In fact if you read Tommy Blackburns Autobiography he says the only reason it wasn't passed for carrier service in 1943 is because of logistics issues with parts and the fact that Grumman had a stranglehold on the Naval Brass.
Takeoff characteristics of the F4U where considered very good in fact. At the Joint Fighter Conferance of 1944 the F4U-1D was third in "Best overload takeoff characteristics" behind the F6F and F8F but ahead of the F7F, P-38L and FM2 in that order. In the F4U takeoff quality chart it was rated 22 good, no fair, no poor, 4 other and two no votes.
This is a far more reliable depiction of flight characteristics than a blanket "ensign eliminator" nickname. If you read Marion Carls Autobiography he says that the F4F had the same reputation in the beggining and all pilots complain when a new bird arrives.
In anycase would say the F4U takeoff rates the same as it did in 1944?
-
I don't know since I didn't fly F4U's in 1944 :)
One thing that matters for AH--I am fairly sure HiTech likes the F4U.
J_A_B
-
CC JAB,
Your right. I have been told that HT is a fan of the F4U.
It's the engineer/Programmer vrs history conflict.
However it's very hard for me to look at a 100% physics model and discount all annecdotal evidence. HT and Pyro have engineer mentalities when it comes to flight simms, as well they should because it is their baby. I just play the simm, they have a REAL investment in AH.
That's why I do so much research into documentation. What I find is that most authors of WW2 aviation material know about as much about Warbirds as I do about being a dentist. That's why things like the F4U can't turn or should ground loop on every landing get started. The same people think the P-51 won the war.
On the other hand not all annectodal evidence should be ignored. For instance the 1944 Joint Fighter Report. You can get a very good idea of what the feeling that combat pilots of the time had about the various A/C. Another great source is the 1989 report by the Socioty of Expermental Test Pilots who did an evaluation of the F4U-1D, P-51D, P-47D-30 and F6F-5. As well as Jeff Ethal and Steve Hintons opinions on the subject.
Is this annecdotal? Yes, but it puts things in perspective when comparing apples and oranges. An engineer just wants to see charts and graphs but they don't often tell the complete story either.
Case and point in AH is the A20G accelerating better than the F4U,P-47, P-51 and F6F. As well as the relative similarities between the takeoff characteristics of these A/C. They are supposed to be different and the similarities then become conspicious. From a purely engineering standpoint this may in fact seem logical but history says differently. [/Ramble]
-
One thing we can't replicate in AH is the feeling of actually being inside these things. The entire experience feels somewhat disconnected as a result. In a driving sim, a Caddy drives about the same as a VW, but nobody thinks they are anything alike in reality. Same with planes IMO.
I think one of the big differences between AH and reality is for the most part us virtual pilots have little or no "formal" training. We don't take off properly, we make sloppy landings, and so on. The relative advantages and disadvantages of airplanes when taking off and landing becomes less important when we don't really care what we're doing and don't worry about dying.
The F4U groundloops are a great example. In AH the F4's have a rep for groundlooping all the time; in reality it happened but not on the magnitude it does in AH. I find that if I 3-point the F4U and go easy on he brakes it never groundloops.
I'm not really qualified to say whether AH is "right" or "wrong" regarding the F4U's; I've never flown them.
Either way, this is a great discussion :)
J_A_B
-
WELLLL.. after reading this thread I decided to try the 'ol hog thing again. I loaded her up with eggs and rockets and fuel, and took off..into the drink...6 times. I didn't put up the gear though..so i tried again, this time with my hand over the gear key, and AS SOON as the plane was airborne retracted the gear. I did the sink thing towards the water, but this time didn't hit the water! repeated again. Man, talk about a hairy takeoff. You can get a loaded hog off the deck, but the hellcat sure is alot easier. Or better yet, dont carry eggs! Go fighters!
-
I just spent 20minutes working on this. I don't roll an inch.
sorry shipmate works well with 190's and 109s when you need to back-up over wires to refuel and rearm.
if you started moving forward, too much throttle, hard to explain but when I mean't just a hair I wasn't kidding. But then again maybe it just don't work with that blue target. :)