4.11 F4U Performance

[mmaruda]

Did some testing on take off missions for carriers.

Corsair, all versions: stationary carrier take off training missions work, it's possible to get off the deck and fly, but those are large carriers. Moving carriers however are the small ones - impossible to take off, no matter engine setting (tried even with superchargers).

Same thing goes for the Hellcats.
Wildcats have no problem with any carriers.

Now, people say that US Navy planes got the nerf.

Let's try the Seafire!
British carrier in the missions is larger than the small US ones, bigger wingspan and all - should be easy. Nope!
On a moving carrier the seafire barely gets off the deck, if you forget flaps (landing only), you're going for a swim.
Static carrier is impossible.

Now, several things that come to my mind.

1. In the first IL-2 Pacific Fighters versions there were also problems with carrier take-offs. This is funny because since the first Forgotten Battles, the planes got a bit of a power boost, and some realism fans were outraged by the too easy FMs (the Polish website Yoyosims.pl still has the reviews, that criticise the FMs of FB and PF significantly and the guys who wrote them really know a lot on WWII aviation).
2. Both the small carriers and the British one have catapults which do not work in the game, maybe historically the heavier planes were launched with these when the travelled slow and with no wind?
3. The missions are old, probably don't feature wind and most probably were carelessly designed just to show carrier take-offs.
4. Every campaign you start positions you on a large carrier and has you take off with the ship going at max speed and into the wind. This is the impression I got after several hours of testing.

Conclusion: apart from the training missions and user made missions with the same conditions as the training ones, there is no real problem with taking off from carriers in the campaigns. So the Corsair performance isn't necessarily wrong.

Our problem has several solutions:
1. TD works on a hotfix covering take-off acceleration for all the navy planes, so they can get off the deck (as clearly it's not only the F4U that has problems).
2. TD works on a hotfix that enables catapults for carriers (there is a mod for this available for some time now, and it even features AI using the catapult, so it should not be too hard).
3. Someone finally provides proof that small carriers did not launch the heavier planes without catapult or at all, or whatever, so we could finally close the deal on navy planes and "learn to like it" the way it is.

[F19_Klunk]

Originally Posted by mmaruda

2. TD works on a hotfix that enables catapults for carriers (there is a mod for this available for some time now, and it even features AI using the catapult, so it should not be too hard).

That would be the solution

[Janosch]

Originally Posted by mmaruda

Did some testing on take off missions for carriers.

Let's try the Seafire!
British carrier in the missions is larger than the small US ones, bigger wingspan and all - should be easy. Nope!
On a moving carrier the seafire barely gets off the deck, if you forget flaps (landing only), you're going for a swim.
Static carrier is impossible.

A certain kind soul on mission4today gave a tip regarding landing gear in a discussion about the F4U fm: only raise landing gear after you begin to get altitude - not right after the deck ends. I haven't done many tests regarding this method versus raising gear immediately, but it seems to work.

In the builtin carrier takeoff missions, I managed to take off the Seafire with ammo and 100% fuel load from both static and moving carriers. Lower flaps no later than the 420 marker, keep nose slightly above horizon and the plane will take off. It's very hairy with a static carrier though, as the lowered landing gear almost hit water. Needless to say, I used 110% wep!

[WTE_Galway]

In reality the plane that was historically regarded as dangerous to take off from a carrier was a fully loaded SDB ...

LIEUTENANT H. B. HARDEN, USN Air Operations, USS ENTERPRISE
Bureau of Aeronautics March 4, 1943
http://www.researcheratlarge.com/Aircraft/CV6Airgroup/ (last page)

Q. You mentioned the overloading of the SBD. Is there any feeling out there feeling that radar is being forced on the Fleet as necessary equipment?

A. No, the feeling was simply this, that the plane was at the present time so heavy that it was dangerous on every take-off that the addition of some equipment which they were not trained to use was not justified.