4.11 F4U Performance

[F19_Klunk]

Originally Posted by MadBlaster

yes, bring on the catapults. no more math.

thank you!!!! it IS so irrelevant. The decks could have been 50m....still being able to take off ..with catapults.. which WAS USED.. acceleration is a non-issue

EDIT:: well it is an issue.. I guess.. as we don't have catapults yet and we must be able to fly missions still

[sawyer692]

Originally Posted by F19_Klunk

thank you!!!! it IS so irrelevant. The decks could have been 50m....still being able to take off ..with catapults.. which WAS USED.. acceleration is a non-issue

EDIT:: well it is an issue.. I guess.. as we don't have catapults yet and we must be able to fly missions still

Seriously? You want to band-aid this issue with catapults? wow

[h0MbrE]

Originally Posted by sawyer692

Seriously? You want to band-aid this issue with catapults? wow

That was my exact same reaction.

[Pips]

Been following this thread with much fascination. Aircraft performance discussion's are always a passionate, hard argued topic.

Several good points have been made on both sides, although not always accepted by those of a different view. Many links have been offered touting flight information, which again are not always accepted by those with a different view.

We all have our own preferences and beliefs, and changing anyone's view is a very hard thing to do. Lots of facts and figures can often get in the way of reaching an agreement. Especially as there doesn't seem to be an agreement of just 'one' set of figures for performance.

Which in a roundabout way brings me to my question.

In all the various threads with links/comments to performance graphs and figures, no mention has been made of the those contained in the superb book "America's Hundred Thousand: US Production Fighters of WWII" by Francis H. Dean.
This book contains it all; info on all 11 US fighter aircraft (and all sub-models), graphs, figures, turn rates, roll rates, climb rates, development background, performance, compressability effects, aircraft comparisons, take-off runs, loads (fuel and ammo), weights, engine settings for all forms of flight and so on. If that was used as the basis for modelling US aircraft flight performance it sure would go a long way to avoiding this form of dispute.


One of the little gems covered in the book is the issue of water-alcohol injection (WEP) for the F6F-3. It's been mentioned in the v4.11 ReadMe that TD has dropped WEP for the -3 model (but retained for the -5) in the interests of historical accuracy.

That however is not quite correct.

Whilst the F6F-3 originally was produced without WEP installed, following it's first actions by VF-33 in August '43 BuAer requested Grumman to fit WEP to all new -3 models, and to organise retrofitting of those already produced.
It didn't happen overnight, but by January '44 60% of all in-service F6F-3's had been fitted with the water-injected P&W R-2800-10W engine. That's covered in the book on Pages 26, 560 and 584.

So on that account TD should perhaps revert to the v4.10 setting for the F6F-3 model.

[sawyer692]

Originally Posted by Pips

In all the various threads with links/comments to performance graphs and figures, no mention has been made of the those contained in the superb book "America's Hundred Thousand: US Production Fighters of WWII" by Francis H. Dean.
.

I made mention of that book in post #21 of this thread:

"According to "America's Hundred Thousand", all Navy planes, with full load, could take off on an empty deck, using full length with no wind and no ship speed, except the F6F-3."

Excellent post by the way.

I don't mean to ruffle feathers or start bickering back and forth with folks. I think this patch is a really good addition to this sim.

It just happens the F4U (and the F6F) are planes I fly exclusively and they cannot afford to be tweaked in such a way that allows carrier ops to be so lacking. If they were strictly land-based planes, I don't think such a stink would have been made.

Team Diadalos mentioned they will fix the problem and I trust they will follow through. I don't want this to give the impression the patch is unappreciated.

[6S.Maraz]

Originally Posted by Pips

One of the little gems covered in the book is the issue of water-alcohol injection (WEP) for the F6F-3. It's been mentioned in the v4.11 ReadMe that TD has dropped WEP for the -3 model (but retained for the -5) in the interests of historical accuracy.

That however is not quite correct.

Whilst the F6F-3 originally was produced without WEP installed, following it's first actions by VF-33 in August '43 BuAer requested Grumman to fit WEP to all new -3 models, and to organise retrofitting of those already produced.
It didn't happen overnight, but by January '44 60% of all in-service F6F-3's had been fitted with the water-injected P&W R-2800-10W engine. That's covered in the book on Pages 26, 560 and 584.

So on that account TD should perhaps revert to the v4.10 setting for the F6F-3 model.

Hi,
we are aware that WEP was fitted to F6F-3 during their operational carreer.
Unfortunately we cannot activate FM features according to mission date (up to now).

So we decided to leave F6F-3 without water injection in order to have two different models, one representy an early plane, retaining old performance, the other one (F6F-5) getting a boost. Otherwise we would have had two almost identic planes.

And no, we cannot add a new slot for a late F6F-3, unfortunately (Grumman F6F-3 is the complete name of this aircraft).

Thanks for your report and your support.
Maraz

[Jumoschwanz]

I set the 1944 Corsair up on the Lexington with the carrier traveling at 32km/hr and I took off with 100% fuel and two 500lb bombs on my second try. After I went in the drink on the first attempt I watched the AI take off with a weapons load and it taught me a few things.

I used full throttle, 100% prop pitch and full flaps as I always have.

I noticed that when the AI left the end of the deck, they immediately raised their landing gear and then actually flew their aircraft at an angle towards the surface of the water to pick up airspeed, then leveled out just above it.

If you leave the end of the carrier deck and try to hold the aircraft level and maintain altitude it will not work.

I am sure that most missions flown on and probably even off line will not require near 100% fuel, so with 25%-50% fuel and a weapons load things should be a lot easier.

I am not saying that IL2 is a perfect representation of Corsair and Carrier operations in WWII, but it it the best we have and if I can take off with a good fuel load and a few bombs then it will do the job for now.

[EJGr.Ost_Caspar]

Oh... different font face... interesting. Impact is no web font though. Sry to be OT.

[mmaruda]

There is already a mod activator for 4.11 so I decided to check it out with the new catapult mod (also beta). Unfortunately it doesn't work.

Anyway, since the mod community decided to stick to 4.10 for now, no unofficial solution can be expected any time soon.

So, all in favour of TD making a hotfix for working catapults?

Just to be clear. Apart from the training missions and custom missions/campaigns I haven't noticed any official Dgen stuff that would make it impossible to take of from the carrier, which for offline play on stock campaigns is ok, since you can fly a campaign with Navy planes and have fun (unless I am mistaken, if so please correct me). However, IL-2 is a simulator, so it should depict the real thing more or less. With Navy planes and small carriers it doesn't at the moment.

We are unable to reach a proof supported conclusion regarding aircraft performance here. The "porked FM" issue was raised time and again as long as the game exists and frankly speaking I'm tired of it. There will always be someone unhappy, because his fav plane is not as good in the game as his fav propaganda source says. This always leads to another patch having an overmodelled FM for some AC, because enough people shouted loud enough. Lets just leave it the way it is. The Corsair was mostly used by the US Marines for CAS missions, it does the job. The only thing that everyone here objectively agrees on, is that it's impossible to take off from smaller carriers. IMO catapults are the best solution, since they should be in the game to begin with and we already know it can be done.

Could anyone from TD kindly say if it would be possible in the near future (yes NEAR, remember the world end this year?).

[sawyer692]

Originally Posted by mmaruda

because his fav plane is not as good in the game as his fav propaganda source says.

Are you suggesting video footage from the time period is just propaganda?

Do you not think carrier-borne aircraft should be able to take off from a carrier in a realistic manner?

Do you think tweaking the FM to help its behavior on carrier takeoffs will make it a better dogfighting machine?

Don't make this something it isn't. Nobody's looking for an uber plane. If we wanted an "easy" plane to fly or to get kills in, it would not be a Navy plane!

The arguments presented are legit and hopefully the info provided will be helpful to Team D.