|
|
|
|
#1
09-18-2013, 10:00 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Unfortunately, both aircraft are claimed as the 'intellectual property' of the US Defense Company with an overactive legal staff that Shall Not Be Named...
 (this is their company logo).As far as I know, there would be an enormous can of worms involved, a great deal of money spent, and very little chance of getting anything worthwhile accomplished. Your chances of getting a flyable Typhoon are much better. cheers horseback 
|
|
#2
09-19-2013, 11:45 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
tell me more about F4U in the game currently though?
do you feel it's historically correct in it's climb rate, power output etc...? likelihood of overheating? you don't notice very much bad things when you fight against zero, because you can still outrun them eventually. but against tonys (ki61) and the late war japanese monster planes hayate and shiden (ki84 and N1k2), I have BIG problems, always, with USN planes... maybe it's historical, i dunno, i've heard though, that Ki84 is basically an uber plane of the pacific front though. either online or offfline against AIs.
|
|
#3
09-19-2013, 12:23 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Fly a Corsair like it was meant to be flown and use the tactics and techniques that you'd find in the high scoring USMC squadrons in the Solomons and it'll do VERY well. Its top speed matches the published USN test reports almost dead on these days so its top speed and other attributes are accurate the last I and others checked. The Ki-61 was one of the first Japanese fighters to challenge American aircraft on their own terms (with speed and dive capabilities) and both the Ki-84 and N1K are technically higher performing than the Corsair. I'd say the Ki-84 is modeled somewhat optimistically with a top speed and other performance levels consistent with the best maintained Ki-84s... indeed it may have even been based off of an American test using fuel that was better in quality than what Japan typically had access to. This can make a big difference. I've suggested that a 1944 year Ki-84 option be added to give a more typical level of performance while maintaining the higher performing ones as well. Keep in mind two issues that the Japanese faced that you don't as a sim pilot: 1) Engine and other mechanical difficulties that many of their aircraft faced including the Ki-84, Ki-61, and N1K. Spare parts were hard to find in some theatres and the conditions and industrial issues that Japan faced caused many technical issues keeping these aircraft on the ground or at reduced levels of capability. 2) Pilot training issues caused by high losses of the experienced pilots in the first two years of the war. A pilot with little experience in an excellent aircraft won't be much use against a coordinated team flying Corsairs even if the Corsair is a little lower on the raw performance level.
__________________
Find my missions and much more at Mission4Today.com Last edited by IceFire; 09-19-2013 at 12:26 PM.
|
|
#5
09-20-2013, 12:11 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
thx for the answer icefire.
Well, true enough, good teamwork works well enough with wildcats vs zekes, I hope it would work also with corsair vs george/frank (n1k2 ki84). Also I'm not ranting, actually as a matter of fact I just had a great evening on skies of valor server, I had personal IL-2 record sofar there. By my own calculations on yesterday's game, I had 16:1 victory/defeat ratio + 3 damaged enemy ac. My aerial defeat came when I went strafing enemy base alone, I got bounced by two p-38s. I had two kills in the bag already though.  On one hand, I understand, that the game would become quite complicated to balance, if we went with completely historically accurate "circumstances" (lack of spare parts, poor engine quality, poor fuel quality etc...) On the other hand, aviation fuel quality was quite important technological factor to have in WW2. After all, all engines use fuel, even the best engine is simply an overengineered paperweight, unless supplied with dinosaur-remains, petrol products. Power comes from the chemical energy of the fuel, does it not?  I dunno how accurate this is but here's this web-article, Dr Peter W. Becker, University of South Carolina, for the significance of avgas quality in WW2 http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/a...aug/becker.htm Essentially, the site says, because of American high quality avgas, Allied airforces were able to field aircraft engines which had better power output. Substantial increases in aircraft speed, range, and ceiling would be made possible with high octane avgas. These advantages Germany was unable to obtain until 1945 or so, claims the article. I would hazard a guess that the high octane fuel bottleneck prevented Luftwaffe from having properly functioning high altitude fighter aircraft, at an earlier time. Worse German fuel, compared to Allied fuel, would lead to bad compression ratio in German engines, meaning less power output.
|
|
#6
09-20-2013, 01:09 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
|
|
#7
09-22-2013, 01:56 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Yes it was perhaps oversimplification on my part, I should not have lumped together 1939 british fuel with high octane American fuel. Probably there was not so much lend-lease during battle of britain.
But as a matter of fact, bf-109 (and also fockewulf) have worse power, speed, climb and ceiling. When compared to more modern Allied fighters in 1943-45 (I consider ta152 as separate design) matchups against spit mark9, mustangs, thunderbolts...(im unsure if corsair is better up high, vs german) Reason for this good allied performance, compared to poorer german performanc at high altitude, lies partly in the fuel quality difference (which affects compression rate in engine)
|
|
#8
09-22-2013, 08:10 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I've been flying Corsairs and Hellcats a lot lately, and I should make a few points about the FMs.
First, while the performance is there with full engine power (110% throttle), it often seems a bit sluggish if not downright weak at less than full power. It sometimes seems an all or nothing proposition with these two. I've found that changing supercharger stages appropriately (stage 1 from sea level to around 4500 ft/1500m, stage 2 from 4500 to 17500 ft, and stage 3 above 17500 ft) helps, keeping your cowl gills (radiator flaps) at 30%, and your prop pitch between 90 and 80% when you want to speed up without overheating are big helps. When you're cruising, drop your rpms to about 2250 and your manifold pressure to about 30-35 inches with your radiator at 30% at any altitude (and the higher you get, the better against the Japanese fighters). Second, keep the fight in the vertical; dive at 2400 or so rpm (80% prop pitch), with your supercharger at least one stage down and unless you only have a couple of thousand feet to go, don't put your throttles past 90%; you'll pick up speed quickly and you'll need to mash in a lot of left rudder and nose down trim as you gain speed, especially with the Hellcat. Trim is critical with both of these aircraft; being out of trim sucks away a lot of your speed and power, and speed and power are your primary advantages in these aircraft. Make sure you either have a very handy pair of trim axes for rudder and elevator, or easily reached buttons for left & right rudder and up and down elevator trims (I use the POV hat switch on my stick for trim, since I have a TrackIR). Third, they both give you a lot better forward vision than the Army fighters, and the gunsight is great for estimating angles and distances in a diving attack. Shoot when you have a shot--don't try to follow your target through more than 70 degrees of turn or into a loop; just blow on past, change directions and gradually pull up into a zoom climb. Increase your prop pitch and throttle as you climb, but drop back down to lower pitch and throttle once you've gotten three or four thousand feet above the enemy to keep your engine temps manageable. Most of the time, you won't need to exceed 100% throttle; the real aircraft only went to war emergency if their lives were on the line (and they still got yelled at by the squadron Engineering Officer and or their crew chief when they got back). Look around to make sure that you're clear and nobody is on your tail and then set up for your next attack. Use the Lean Forward POV to see behind and below you--you'll be glad you did. Fourth, the in-game Zero has an UNGODLY acceleration from 200 to about 350kph IAS; in addition, its in-game weapons are much more effective than the real life performance, and as you might guess, the AI are unaffected by the limitations of little things like a standard convergence. I've been de-winged from over 600m by Rookies when I made the mistake of flying straight and level once I thought I had enough distance... If you're flying Japanese aircraft, you will find that in general they are more manageable to fly than the USN fighters; much less trimming, no nose dropping as speed increases, don't overheat as quickly and they will go exactly where you point them if you keep the 'ball' centered--and the instruments are wonderfully clear and correct--something the Corsair and Hellcat are largely missing. But once they get to 350 kph, they lose steam and oomph quickly--in real life, the Zero and Oscar's stick forces 'heavied up' at speeds over 220 mph/365kph, and you were supposedly able to evade them fairly easily with a hard roll right and a dive--they just couldn't follow. That doesn't seem to be part of the Il-2 '46 flight model for A6Ms or Ki-43s, but they are slower than you so keep fast and change directions slightly every couple of seconds until you have 700m or more separation with a speed in excess of 460 kph/280mph/250 knots. IMHO, the Japanese FMs are almost all overoptimistic, period. Away from the carriers and major bases like Rabaul or Saipan, the maintenance was poor to non-existent, never mind the fact that the Allies had choked off most of their logisticis lines and by the time the Philippines were invaded in late 1944, most of the skilled manpower the IJN and IJA started the war with were dead or trapped on some jungle island, and that definitely included their aircraft ground crews. I suspect that actual factory performance figures that are published were ideals that were rarely met by production aircraft, particularly after mid-1944. As mentioned earlier, the FMS seem to be based on US tests made with higher octane fuels and a certain amount of maintenance and repair far superior to anything apart from the original manufacturer's facilities that an IJN or IJAS aircraft would have received just to make it safe to fly by Western standards. The designs themselves were often quite good, but engines were generally less powerful than the designs needed and the actual production standards to build them properly were often beyond the abilities of the Japanese work force of the 1940s, especially as more and more able bodied men with technical backgrounds were absorbed (and often misused) by the Imperial Japanese Army and Navy. cheers horseback
|
|
#9
09-20-2013, 04:19 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
 The short version is that the original flight models for these aircraft were done with various choices in place and plenty of arguments and bickering on the old Oleg's Ready Room forum (Ubisoft Forums). Most aircraft were modelled with best possible performance numbers which may not have always been the best decision in my mind (I'd rather war typical performance levels). I'd also wager that the best known performance data on the Japanese aircraft may have come from Allied sources rather than from Japan. The Allies tested Japanese aircraft extensively and often with better gas and maintenance than front line Japanese squadrons... at least this is what I've read. Which suggests the best sources we have on the rarer Japanese types are somewhat higher performing than they probably did in the field. By how much is also open to debate of course. Again... all of that is a totally different can of worms. I'll stop before I tempt fate and we see a 30 pager 
__________________
Find my missions and much more at Mission4Today.com
|
|
#10
09-19-2013, 02:46 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
 |
|
|
Hybrid Mode
