As requested:
Maj Hugh Elwood (VMF-212)--
"The Corsair was a hell of a thing to fly, particularly if you'd started on a much lighter aircraft. It had so much torque that when you poured the coals to 2800 rpm, it would try to walk away from you. You had to have full rudder on there in order to keep control. The F4U had a very large cockpit, so much so that the shorter guys could not hold their rudder all the way in to counteract the torque. Some pilots used to fly with a cushion--one of my pilots, Lt Hap Langstaff, used to have two of them in there in order to be able to push the rudder pedals further forward."
Account of W. Buckner Hanner (VMF-123)--
"...All landings, whether actually on an aircraft carrier, or at a shore base, were executed in a carrier-approach style for practice and consistency. A nose-high descent in a left-hand turn brought the Corsair to its final approach. On the base leg of the pattern, just before turning on final approach, Hanner remembers looking out to the left to make sure no other traffic was still on the runway. Then, when the big-nosed F4U turned onto final, the runway was obscured from view, leaving Hanner to pray "God, I hope there's nobody on that runway!" During the pattern approach, Hanner would be cranking in a total of 20 degrees right rudder trim, balancing this with a rudder pedal offset to the left. But the 20-degree input was vital, he says, in the event of a go-around, whether at sea or on land. Without that right rudder trim, the massive addition of power needed for a go-around could very well put the Corsair on its back in a vicious--and usually fatal--roll to the left from torque."
As Wells points out above, it's possible to generate torque in excess of the ailerons' ability to counter the rolling moment at approach speed. When you add in the effects of p-factor, slipstream over the tail surfaces, and the amount of wing "blown" by the Hog's large prop, the situation is worsened. If you allow the airplane to yaw, as it will with a rapid, unchecked power application, it will induce a further rolling moment. If you then allow the airplane to start rolling rapidly, you will have to deal with INERTIA as well to DECELERATE the roll, (a factor usually forgotten, but potentially deadly) and you'll be even farther into a "torque deficit."
OTOH, if you counter your power application with the rudder, and allow the plane to accelerate before full power is achieved, you'll be able to handle it. So sure, the actual "culprit" may be improper throttle technique, but the corrective action depends on the ability to quickly achieve (and HOLD) full rudder deflection. Throw in the fact that the stall speed of a steeply banked aircraft is much higher than in level unbanked flight, and you have even more reason not to allow that roll to develop in the first place. Having enough aileron to "roll out" does you no good if the wings are stalled at 50 feet. Inasmuch as the rudder trim assists you in achieving full rudder deflection, and makes it "easier" to hold it against the various forces you're up against, it should be fairly intuitive that using the rudder trim is more than just a good "technique."
But this isn't about rudder trim, it's about torque-modeling. I'm convinced the Hog was NOT a plane where you could just mash full power with NO rudder on takeoff roll OR at 100 mph on approach and watch it fly blithely along undisturbed
I'm convinced its real pilots thought much the same.
I'm not slamming the AH FM by any means, but I'm also not predisposed to defend it just because I like the sim or its developers (which I do BTW). Take the AH Hog out for a takeoff. Ram the throttle up to full. It will VERY mildly tend to the left slightly. Tapping the rudder will correct it. Now get airborne, slow to 100 mph, and slam the throttle in again. NOTHING "bad" will happen at all, with or without rudder use.
IMO that fails to capture the "character" of the airplane. If that's "acceptable" for playability reasons, I have no argument with it. OTOH, if the objective IS to get the "feel" of the individual planes "right," then IMO the torque issue needs to be revisited. Simply constructive criticism, and hopefully received as such.
I leave it to others whether the same holds true for the other planes as well.
--jedi
