4.11 F4U Performance

[LesniHU]

Originally Posted by h0MbrE

Comments like this are a good way to turn this into a flame war. This opinion could have been expressed in a much less disrespectful way. Let's please try to keep this respectful of one another. Can you give more details as to the procedure you used in your takeoff? What were your flap settings? Prop pitch? Fuel mix? Carrier speed? Wind speed and direction? These would be helpful details. To just say "I can do it and you need to be a better pilot" are detrimental to this entire discussion.

You are right.
It was 50km/h carrier speed into 10m/s wind with F4U-1A, 100% fuel+178gal droptank, takeoff flaps, radiator fully open, canopy open and seat up position. There are no tricks, just full power at full rpm and takeoff.

However lets look on context: there is someone here who starts the thread with "F4U is nerfed!" and uses a video as a proof. A video which shows a corsair takeoff from unknown point on deck (plane is already moving when takeoff recording starts!) and claims that its impossible in game and challenges others to try it. I tried it because I though it's a bug report, but now it looks that this case was usual cries or random people on internet without any hard data to support. I never claimed that I am super pilot (I'm not) and that makes result of this takeoff challenge even more sad. OTOH sawyer692 claimed that his whole squadron is in the very post I was answering to so telling him that he need better references (because this video does is not good) and better pilot (if I can do it I'm sure a squadron specialized in this plane could do it too) is only thing anyone could answer him.

Also, for record, expect high speed characteristics "nerfed" with low speed acceleration improved, thats how it is in both game and real life.

@sawyer692: you probably meant 3 posts in two days, not years, and you forgot to write that other two were with il2c data upload and helping a user in effort to solve his crashes. If your's opinion is that your posts help more than mine and that more posts makes better person, fine, I can live with it. Just do not post untrue information.

[MadBlaster]

Originally Posted by h0MbrE

Okay, I stand corrected on the atmospheric temperature but it also says the top speed was 431mph... should we dwell on that now as well? What I want to know is why are you trying to nit-pick at every little thing you can find simply to dismiss the reality when YOU KNOW the F4U in the game have nowhere near the capability they should. The facts are in front of you, please just fix the mistake.

Dude, i haven't even tried the patch! I'm not nit picking. I just happen to have played this game long enough to figure out these guys know what they are doing. Do you really believe they haven't looked at all those reports you linked to like 1000 times over??? Believe me...they have.

Really, I'm just enjoying reading all this stuff today because CLoD was so overhyped and good old IL-2 had some secrets that finally it seems a lot of people are finally figuring out.

[Arrow]

Originally Posted by h0MbrE

I'll give that a try. One thing I'm wondering is what you mean by "the engine gave in". How long did this take? The corsair was able to travel fairly decent distances at this speed without a problem. This is taken from Wikipedia:

"On 1 October, the XF4U-1 became the first single-engine U.S. fighter to fly faster than 400 mph (640 km/h) by setting an average ground speed of 405 miles per hour (652 km/h) during a flight from Stratford to Hartford."

That's over 50 miles from wheels up to wheels down. That is a pretty sustained distance and I'm sure they weren't blowing their engine to do it.

XF4U-1 is hardly a battle ready aircraft with wepons and all the imperfections of mass series production. Record setting aircraft are usually stripped of all unecessary equipment, perfectly maintained and aerodynamically cleanedw, which is hardly the case of combat aircraft that never achieve factory data and hardly so data of some record setting aircraft. I wonder what the result would be with a corsair having flown 5 missions in PTO loaded with guns, amno and maintained in the field.

[IceFire]

Originally Posted by h0MbrE

Okay, I stand corrected on the atmospheric temperature but it also says the top speed was 431mph... should we dwell on that now as well? Besides you already dismissed the data in question when you made the little red arrows pointing to the fact that the aircraft used in that test was "the cleaned up version". And as I have pointed out twice since then:

This test was done early in 1943 on the earlier 1942 F4U-1s. After which the improvements were made and the C and D models were produced. Once again, refer to THIS document for the relevant test results on the 1944, 1945 C and D models we use in the sim.


What I want to know is why are you trying to nit-pick at every little thing you can find simply to dismiss the facts when YOU KNOW the F4U in the game have nowhere near the capability they should. The real world data is in front of you, please just fix the mistake.

Ok... I'm confused. I looked at the document that you've mentioned and the in-game version seems to match it performance wise very closely. Particularly around Combat Power at critical altitude and at sea level.

Here are the in-game results from 4.11 that I captured with a F4U-1D:
Loadout: Default
Fuel: 100%
Throttle: 110% (WEP/Watercooling Engaged)
Radiators: Closed
Map: Crimea
At Sea Level: 579kph TAS (or 360mph)
At 6100 meters/20,013 feet: 662 kph TAS (or 411mph)

The document you posted shows basically the same results:

Sea Level: 359mph
Critical Altitude (19,900 feet): 409mph

At sea level I was in first stage supercharger. At 6100 meters I was in third stage supercharger. Fuel mixture was 100% at all times.

That seems to be bang on the results of the document that you posted. I didn't test anything except Combat power. Am I missing something?

[Tolwyn]

Ok ok. I see what you're saying. Didn't mean to bite your head off.

That and the next post from mine says it will be fixed (adjusted, whatever).
My only point was that many campaigns/single missions would also exhibit the same issue.

Originally Posted by MadBlaster

just try it. the idea is to generate incremental additional thrust and lift for a brief period (1 or two seconds) the instant you hit the end of the deck. it works. I've been flying this sim for at least four years. Cranking the pp axis value from 100% (fine pitch) to 0%( course pitch) puts sudden load on the prop and generates a bit of acceleration for few seconds. Of course, it's modeled constant speed prop, so the rate of change on the blade pitch is in the game...so this is not a cheat. Also, it takes time for the flaps to fully extend. by the time they are fully extended, you will be ready to start retracting them. Get devicelink and look at the accel parameter.

[jameson]

Some actual numbers courtesy of the the US Navy for F4U-4 (Declassified) from this PDF:

www.history.navy.mil/branches/hist-ac/f4u-4.pdf

It gives take off deck lengths in feet for various conditions, main ones being:

1)With 1x 150 Gal drop tank into 25knot wind =400ft (standard fighter loadout)

2)With 1x 150 Gal drop tank in calm conditions =800ft (1 and 2: Gross weight 13 597 pounds

3)With 2x 11.75in AR+ and 8x5in HVAR into 25knot wind = 700ft

4)With 2x 11.75in AR+ and 8x5in HVAR in calm = 1400ft (3 and 4: Gross weight 16 160 pounds)

See post# 77 by Madblaster. if we are discussing the smallest carriers and MB's image is correct then at 150m (492.12 ft) deck length take off in calm condition is not possible.

The next biggest carrier is 250m (853.008 ft) and just doable in calm conditions. Note though this is only for the fighter loadout with one 150 droptank, With rockets takeoff would only be possible into 25 knot wind and with only 100ft to spare.

The largest carrier shown is 300m (984.24) ft and rocket laden in calm conditions you won't get off that either.

I'm no expert on carrier planes or operations but from the above if your getting off any carrier fully laden in calm conditions you're doing very well, (and the Corsair should be nerfed somewhat more lol!). The PDF has lots of other info, scroll down past magazine article. Any complaints on a postcard to the US Navy, please.

[MadBlaster]

Originally Posted by Tolwyn

Ok ok. I see what you're saying. Didn't mean to bite your head off.

That and the next post from mine says it will be fixed (adjusted, whatever).
My only point was that many campaigns/single missions would also exhibit the same issue.

okay. just to be really really clear. when you move the pp axis from 100% to 0% suddenly, there is a built in delay in the game. you have no control over that rate of change. that is hard-coded in the game I assume based on historical rate of change on the blade pitch for typical constant speed prop. so it is not a cheat imo. the prop pitch is a control the player maps to and can move it up or down at will. all your doing is moving the power band as fast as the game will allow to try to get as much additional acceleration as you possibly can to get off the carrier. I guess it's like a car. you cruise around in first gear, push the clutch in, step on the gas to get the revs up,if your engine is torquey enough, you can burn rubber in second gear. But I think in a plane the prop blade stalls out after a certain point when your out of the power band. something like that.

[Janosch]

Originally Posted by jameson

Some actual numbers courtesy of the the US Navy for F4U-4 (Declassified) from this PDF:

Does the chart assume that the carrier is moving at the top speed? Because in calm condition, I sure can't take off a F4U-1D with tinytims, hvars and full fuel load if the carrier (Saratoga) isn't traveling at top speed.

At carrier top speed, it's still a challenge, but possible. I was the only plane flying in the test mission I tried it out with. Winds were at zero.

[jameson]

From reading the pdf the impression I had was that wind refered to carrier speed + wind (sailing into it). 25 knots windspeed seemed also to be the maximum desirable from the charts shown. Take off distances can read off for differing windspeed and loadouts.
I have no idea if this data correlates with ingame takeoff or not, but assuming it is accurate, it's a good base from which to start discussing if it's porked or not.

[dpeters95]

Originally Posted by jameson

Some actual numbers courtesy of the the US Navy for F4U-4 (Declassified) from this PDF:

www.history.navy.mil/branches/hist-ac/f4u-4.pdf

It gives take off deck lengths in feet for various conditions, main ones being:

1)With 1x 150 Gal drop tank into 25knot wind =400ft (standard fighter loadout)

2)With 1x 150 Gal drop tank in calm conditions =800ft (1 and 2: Gross weight 13 597 pounds

3)With 2x 11.75in AR+ and 8x5in HVAR into 25knot wind = 700ft

4)With 2x 11.75in AR+ and 8x5in HVAR in calm = 1400ft (3 and 4: Gross weight 16 160 pounds)

See post# 77 by Madblaster. if we are discussing the smallest carriers and MB's image is correct then at 150m (492.12 ft) deck length take off in calm condition is not possible.

The next biggest carrier is 250m (853.008 ft) and just doable in calm conditions. Note though this is only for the fighter loadout with one 150 droptank, With rockets takeoff would only be possible into 25 knot wind and with only 100ft to spare.

The largest carrier shown is 300m (984.24) ft and rocket laden in calm conditions you won't get off that either.

I'm no expert on carrier planes or operations but from the above if your getting off any carrier fully laden in calm conditions you're doing very well, (and the Corsair should be nerfed somewhat more lol!). The PDF has lots of other info, scroll down past magazine article. Any complaints on a postcard to the US Navy, please.

OK, I thought I would do some testing using these numbers. First, I may not be the best pilot out there but I am pretty good and I have been playing this game since the original release. I loaded the 1st F4U-1A carrier takeoff mission into FMB and replaced the carrier each time while setting the speed to 0 Km. It resets it to 4 Km for some reason but I would call that calm as stated in the previous specs. I also added one drop tank to the loadout. Here is what I found using MadBlaster's ship diagram:

1) CVE USS Casablanca - 150 m - Can't be done by me or the AI
2) HMS Illustrious - 240 m - Can't be done by me or the AI
3) USS Essex - 260 m - I do it 50% of time, AI does it 100% but we both have to skim the water to do it
4) USS Lexington - 300 m - I do it 75% of time, AI does it all the time. We don't have to skim the water but it falls off the end of the deck quite a bit.

I think this shows that something is not right. Even if you use the above specs, the plane is under-performing. A decent player should be able to, at least, do this from the Lexington 100% of the time without dropping down to water level. I know someone said that this would be adjusted in an earlier post and I just hope they were sincere. Also, please take a look at the F6F's they also seem to struggle off the carriers now.