F4u-4 and F8F

[horseback]

CONGESTED NAVY GUNSIGHT

You may now lower the brightness of the gunsight displays by assigning a key or button to increase or decrease the brightness. The USN sight does take a little getting used to, because the center dot isn't larger or more pronounced in any way, BUT it stands higher in your forward windshield above the cowl line, and once you get used to it, all those little lines and dots permit you to estimate angles and lead much more easily than that single dot hanging in the center of the circle. You can make higher deflection shots with your target still in your field of vision, which was what US Naval fighter gunnery doctrine was all about.

I find that the ai are quite good at changing direction the microsecond they disappear behind your aircraft's nose, even the stinkin' bombers; they can't do that nearly as easily against you in a Corsair or Hellcat, and it is even harder for a human pilot flying 'full real' to anticipate an opponent's firing solution that way in any case.

The only thing I have to say about the late-war IJN and IJA fighters' FMs is that they are BULLS**T, two parts imaginary and one part assuming that the 'factory figures' of the actual aircraft could ever have matched the basic production quality we assume for Allied aircraft, or had the fuels and competent maintenance available to the Allies at any point during the war. It's about 'gameplay' and symbolically sticking a thumb in the eye of that certain US defense company Who Shall Not Be Named instead of historical accuracy.

cheers

horseback

[pandacat]

Horseback, going back to PP and CEM questions. I tested it on F4F-3, going 95%to90% does get a higher speed, especially with a little nose down attitude. However, it only works on a certain altitude. I remember hearing someone say different altitude has different PP settings. The learning curve is pretty steep in the field of CEM. Wanna set up a new thread to discuss PP and throttle settings in more details?

[horseback]

Originally Posted by pandacat

Horseback, going back to PP and CEM questions. I tested it on F4F-3, going 95%to90% does get a higher speed, especially with a little nose down attitude. However, it only works on a certain altitude. I remember hearing someone say different altitude has different PP settings. The learning curve is pretty steep in the field of CEM. Wanna set up a new thread to discuss PP and throttle settings in more details?

Try taking it all the way down to 80%; the F4F is generally sluggish unless you're getting salt spray on your windscreen (at which point 120%/Full Rich Mixture will help keep your engine cooler), but many aircraft benefit from starting in low gear and gradually shifting to a higher gear for sustained speed and run still keep temps below overheat.

I had a thread that centered on acceleration tests the last three or four months; a lot of useful information can be found there, and if you can find the Pilot's Notes for the Martlet or F4F somewhere, there will be some Good Stuff there too. Simply put, though, the Wildcat was a classic case of the underpowered fighter. It's too heavy for the horsepower it has (and the FM-2, which was over 500 lbs lighter and had an extra 200 horses below 20K ft PLUS being that little bit aerodynamically cleaner simply doesn't have an FM that reflects that). According to America's Hundred Thousand, the Wildcat was pretty low drag but that little R-1830 wasn't enough for serious performance (and an R-2800 was almost two years off).

The Bearcat, which was the ultimate expression of the R-2800 powered fighter, looks a lot more like an FM-2 with a cut down rear fuselage and a bubbletop than it does like a refined Hellcat to me.

cheers

horseback

[pandacat]

Originally Posted by horseback

Try taking it all the way down to 80%; the F4F is generally sluggish unless you're getting salt spray on your windscreen (at which point 120%/Full Rich Mixture will help keep your engine cooler), but many aircraft benefit from starting in low gear and gradually shifting to a higher gear for sustained speed and run still keep temps below overheat.

I had a thread that centered on acceleration tests the last three or four months; a lot of useful information can be found there, and if you can find the Pilot's Notes for the Martlet or F4F somewhere, there will be some Good Stuff there too.

Yeah, hellcat is a bit uglier than wildcat. But out of all navy fighters, corsair is my favorite. Just hate the fact that we don't have -4 in this game.

[pandacat]

horseback. I went back to re-read your thread on acceleration tests. In there, you noted that 310+mph, 2700 accelerates better than 3000 for P51. I just wonder that from your experience if that's the case for all other US planes, such as F4u, F6F and P-47. Because you mentioned 3000 works for all speeds for spitfire, that makes me wonder if acceleration physics are modelled differently for different planes. Also, when you reduced your RPM down to 2700, did you simotanously chop throttle or you just maintain the max power all time?

[horseback]

Originally Posted by pandacat

horseback. I went back to re-read your thread on acceleration tests. In there, you noted that 310+mph, 2700 accelerates better than 3000 for P51. I just wonder that from your experience if that's the case for all other US planes, such as F4u, F6F and P-47. Because you mentioned 3000 works for all speeds for spitfire, that makes me wonder if acceleration physics are modelled differently for different planes. Also, when you reduced your RPM down to 2700, did you simotanously chop throttle or you just maintain the max power all time?

Actually, there are a few variables for the Mustang; there's a point in the 10,000 ft tests where the acceleration at 2700 rpm catches up with and passes the acceleration rate at 3000rpm. At 500 ft and at 5000 ft (which I haven't gotten around to recording and posting yet), this didn't happen. I suspect that it will happen at 15,000 ft and higher alts, where the air is thinner.

The Mustang's throttle control is kind of unique though (it controls manifold pressure directly, if I understand the manual correctly where most other aircraft's throttles just control how much fuel goes into the engine), and when testing the Spitfire Mk IX, which had essentially the same engine (and was lighter, but with a good bit more drag), I didn't get the same results at 2700 vs 3000 rpms.

The same is true with the P-38 and the American R-2800 powered fighters--they just don't react like a stick-shift car's transmission where you can put it in low gear (highest RPM) and gradually move up to higher gears (and progressively lower RPM) while accelerating at the same pace. Greatest constant state acceleration was obtained by shoving the throttle and prop pitch levers all the way forward and going all out until the engine overheated and then going for another 30 to 60 seconds or so, depending upon the aircraft (all the while mashing the nose down trim and adding rudder trim as required, and then in some cases, having to add nose up trim over certain higher speed ranges).

You CAN reach a desired speed and then lower prop pitch and get a temporary 'pop' in speed, but you can't keep the extra acceleration going by lowering your prop pitch some more--it's like putting too much strain on your engine, and making it work harder than it was designed to (like a bicyclist going uphill in too high a gear). What you want to do is get close to the speed you desire and then smoothly lower your prop pitch, allowing the engine to take advantage of the momentum you've built to reach that last bit and maintain your speed without overheating.

I also find that the better your power to weight ratio, the better your acceleration BUT drag is the ultimate limiter, and it increases on a steadily rising curve relative to speed. The Zero has a pretty good power to weight ratio and a spectacular acceleration at lower speeds, but it is larger than the Bf 109 and it has a really draggy high-lift wing, so the drag overpowers the engine fairly quickly once it reaches 370 to 400 kph or thereabouts.

At least that is what I found at 10,000ft/3000m and below.

I find that for the R-2800 powered fighters that the manual warns you not to keep high rpms during a dive; in fact, the recommended rpm for an extended dive is 2250, or close to 75% prop pitch. That will give you a pretty fast dive if you do it properly; you won't need much more than 60% throttle if you're taking it down over 3000 ft from your starting altitude.

The Corsair and even more, the Hellcat in this game exhibit an increasing nose-down attitude as the speed goes up. It seems to be a steady decrease in nose angle semi-proportional to speed, unlike the FW 190A, which has a sudden nose drop of a few degrees at (this is from memory, so don't bank on this) around 220 mph/ 360 kph and then stabilizes. These two USN birds just keep gradually tipping forwards, although the rate is greatest around 300-400 kph (160-220 knots) IAS. If you don't keep track of this, you can mess up your firing solution in a diving pass.

Your gunsight's center will not stay in the same spot if you maintain a straight line course even in a dive if your speed increases significantly; you have to 'aim' for a spot a bit farther ahead of your target than you would normally expect, and your diving gunnery pass will need to become shallower as you reach firing range.

Hope this helps.

cheers

horseback

[pandacat]

The last few sentences are very true. I always add a bit of up trim to maintain sight ahead of target. Btw. I don't know what hotas you use. I am using x52pro. I find using rotary for elevator trim is whole lot better than POV hat. Rotary helps you get to your desired trim quicker. Just a suggestion, you may want to try it. For rudder trim, I am still using POV hat. Thinking about moving that one also to the other rotary.

[Laurwin]

Originally Posted by horseback

You may now lower the brightness of the gunsight displays by assigning a key or button to increase or decrease the brightness. The USN sight does take a little getting used to, because the center dot isn't larger or more pronounced in any way, BUT it stands higher in your forward windshield above the cowl line, and once you get used to it, all those little lines and dots permit you to estimate angles and lead much more easily than that single dot hanging in the center of the circle. You can make higher deflection shots with your target still in your field of vision, which was what US Naval fighter gunnery doctrine was all about.

I find that the ai are quite good at changing direction the microsecond they disappear behind your aircraft's nose, even the stinkin' bombers; they can't do that nearly as easily against you in a Corsair or Hellcat, and it is even harder for a human pilot flying 'full real' to anticipate an opponent's firing solution that way in any case.

The only thing I have to say about the late-war IJN and IJA fighters' FMs is that they are BULLS**T, two parts imaginary and one part assuming that the 'factory figures' of the actual aircraft could ever have matched the basic production quality we assume for Allied aircraft, or had the fuels and competent maintenance available to the Allies at any point during the war. It's about 'gameplay' and symbolically sticking a thumb in the eye of that certain US defense company Who Shall Not Be Named instead of historical accuracy.

cheers

horseback

What convergence would you use with corsair/hellcat?

I've done ok at 300m with P-47 and mustang, but the gunsight is just... shall we say hard to adjust with the navy planes LOL.


I guess really close, you would blast zeke easily (and slightly tougher KI84 N1K2 etc...), with a closer convergence - like 150-200m.

[horseback]

Originally Posted by Laurwin

What convergence would you use with corsair/hellcat?

I've done ok at 300m with P-47 and mustang, but the gunsight is just... shall we say hard to adjust with the navy planes LOL.


I guess really close, you would blast zeke easily (and slightly tougher KI84 N1K2 etc...), with a closer convergence - like 150-200m.

305 meters is the standard range all USN and USMC fighters' guns were harmonized at (except night fighters, which were set for around 200m--but don't hold me to that).

That's the range I use (and it is very effective between 200 and 400m) for US fighters. I like the Navy sight more than the Army sight, but it took me a while to come to a full appreciation of its virtues.

cheers

horseback

[IceFire]

Originally Posted by horseback

You may now lower the brightness of the gunsight displays by assigning a key or button to increase or decrease the brightness. The USN sight does take a little getting used to, because the center dot isn't larger or more pronounced in any way, BUT it stands higher in your forward windshield above the cowl line, and once you get used to it, all those little lines and dots permit you to estimate angles and lead much more easily than that single dot hanging in the center of the circle. You can make higher deflection shots with your target still in your field of vision, which was what US Naval fighter gunnery doctrine was all about.

I find that the ai are quite good at changing direction the microsecond they disappear behind your aircraft's nose, even the stinkin' bombers; they can't do that nearly as easily against you in a Corsair or Hellcat, and it is even harder for a human pilot flying 'full real' to anticipate an opponent's firing solution that way in any case.

The only thing I have to say about the late-war IJN and IJA fighters' FMs is that they are BULLS**T, two parts imaginary and one part assuming that the 'factory figures' of the actual aircraft could ever have matched the basic production quality we assume for Allied aircraft, or had the fuels and competent maintenance available to the Allies at any point during the war. It's about 'gameplay' and symbolically sticking a thumb in the eye of that certain US defense company Who Shall Not Be Named instead of historical accuracy.

cheers

horseback

I agree that many of the Japanese fighters could use a solid going over by Team Daidalos. References are hard to come by with these aircraft too... so I suspect from the Pacific Fighters days that the FM's were created as is maybe with some of the stuff that you mention but also created in extreme haste, without a lot of care, and maybe even some laziness... I'm not sure. They don't appear to have gotten the kind of attention that some of the earlier aircraft did.