|
Author
|
Topic: corsair
|
bolillo_loco
Pilot
|
posted 03-25- 05:36 AM
   
hey notice the late model corsair ie F4U-4. I know the first units to use the -4 did not start until may 1945. does anybody know if there is anyway to select a year so that a person is limited to planes that were only available during that year. also I would have to check, but I am not too sure if the F4U-4B was even a ww2 plane, or are you guys not that intense. I heard that the F4U-4 can really turn and thats odd, because all carrier born corsairs and late model ones had a spoiler on the left wing that destroyed its turning ability. even a 47D had a slight turning advantage over the corsair.IP: Logged |
jedi
Pilot
|
posted 03-25- 10:49 AM
The spoiler was on the right wing. It was to make the right wing stall first, so that it did not snap roll left at low speeds (like in a landing approach) from engine torque, and to help avoid spins.You'd probably find that the Corsair could in fact outturn the P-47 AND the Mustang AND the FW-190, although we could I'm sure argue those points over beer ad infinitum.  The FM on the Corsair is very beta. I simply don't have the OP knowledge yet to make it as high fidelity as it should be. It can NOT, however, outturn a Zero, and is only an even match for the 190, so if you pit it against its historical foes, it should at least have about the correct relative performance. Hehe as for the F4U-4, I'm not sure I'd join a game where one side got F4U-4s and the other got, say, Zeros or Tonys I threw that one in there just for fun--kinda like the He-162 and Go-229. It wasn't meant as a very "serious" WW2 plane, but with the Yak out there, and a MiG-15 in the works, you could build some good Korea missions for it. The F4U-4 DID in fact fly in combat, at Okinawa, but there is some contention as to whether the cannon-armed version saw any meaningful combat. I could have done the F4U-1C, which has the SAME 20mm armament, and saw plenty of combat for the whole last year of the war, but I figured no one would use the .50-cal version if there was a 20mm version of the same vintage. Besides, it might give somebody a chance to actually shoot down Tailslide ------------------
--jedi-- IP: Logged |
bolillo_loco
Pilot
|
posted 03-25- 10:50 PM
My question is, why isnt the F4U-4 modeled with the spoiler? From what I have read they were equiped with them. My books say the F4U-4 any version did not fly combat until May 1945 which gives the F4U-4 3 months in combat during ww2. On page 520 of americas hundred thousand by francis h dean states April 19, 1944 first flight of the test plane F4u-4XA same page and book The F4U-4XB prototype makes its first flight. page 523 of the same book states May 1945 The first operational F4U-4s reach Okinawa and go into action. same page and book June 10th 1945- The F4u-4s of VMF-212 get their first victory. page 524 same book Looks like only three carriers have F4U-4s those being Intrepid, Boxer, and Antietam My book says that there were 1,912 total F4U-4s built by VJ day, but not too many saw any action, and when they did it was May 1945. as far as turing goes with a spoiler on its wing the F4U was the worst plane in americas inventory, with out the spoiler it was probably compatable to an F6F which by the way had a smaller turing radius by a decent margin than a mustang. However since it is a navy plane it had the spoiler so if the corsair turns well it is over modeled. To me the corsair is not a Navy plane. For me it is a Marine Corps plane and the early corsairs that were ground based units should have their turing ability. IP: Logged |
jedi
Pilot
|
posted 03-26- 12:59 PM
Hmmm. Well, having a spoiler on one wing affects stall behavior, not necessarily turning ability. If I model it, it will be in the form of changing the airfoil on one wing, which would affect the plane at all speeds, whereas the spoiler would have little or no effect at high speed.I think maybe you are equating the spoiler with what you see on airliners or what the B-52 uses instead of ailerons. The "spoiler" on the Corsair, as far as I know, was a small protrusion on the leading edge of the right wing. This wing would reach stall speed just before the left wing, and counter the plane's natural torque-rolling at the stall. It was initially a field mod applied by VF-17, and later made standard. An alternative way to model it would be to decrease the propwash effect so that the plane doesn't torque roll so much. Again, that would effect the plane at all speeds, instead of just at the stall. As for turning, the Corsair was never noted as a great turning plane, but I've never read or seen any account that says it was anywhere near the "worst in the inventory." In other games with highly developed flight models, it will fairly easily out-dogfight a Mustang or FW-190, lose to a Hellcat or Spitfire, have its hands full with a 109, and have its lunch eaten by the Zero if it's foolish enough to turn with one. Again, the "final" version will probably not turn as well as the current one, but if you're beating Mustangs and 190s and losing to Spits and Zeros, it's not far off, and I won't be making it "the worst" in the SDOE inventory without some hard numbers backing that up. As for the Marine Corsair "turning better" than the Navy Corsair because of the lack of the spoiler, the Marine Corsair would ALSO have had much worse stall behavior, and been much less likely to be pushed to it's limit in a turning battle except by a very experienced pilot. If I can figure out a way to model the subtle differences the spoiler would make, I'll do it. I suspect the differences in weight and wing-loading among the different versions will overshadow it though, unless you can stallfight the darn thing at 85 knots ------------------
--jedi-- [This message has been edited by jedi (edited 03-26-2000).] IP: Logged |
Rattler
Pilot
|
posted 03-26- 02:12 PM
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
does anybody know if there is anyway to select a year so that a person is limited to planes that were only available during that year.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I'm not sure,but if your referring to Online Play,as in a rolling plane-set (WB Fantasy Arena?)in SDoE Online Play is done on a closed end mission basis.
A fella makes a mission and only those aircraft are available(same for offline play)
You can select a year for the mission but it only places them in order of appearance when choosing a mission (latest year/bottom of list)
So.......... you can have correct historical match-ups, or fantasy plane match-ups,if thats what you prefer.Nice to have a choice and control  Rattler IP: Logged |
bolillo_loco
Pilot
|
posted 03-27- 02:18 PM
I am going to post turn data for 8 american planes and you will see that the corsair (any type with the spoiler) is dead last. What I dont think you understand is that the spoiler that was used destroyed the wing's lift coefficient. not only does wing loading effect turn performance so does the lift coeffieient. One reason the 38 turned as well as it did considering the wingloading was that the wing was very efficient, had fowler type flaps and had a decently high wing coeffecient. Much of the data I have read and learned over the last year since flying these planes online shocked me from what I was led to believe over the years. I was a mustang fan (USAAF) and a Corsair fan (USMC). Being a Marine it is only natural that I like planes the USMC used. I am no longer a Mustang fan cause I like to boom and zoom with a tad of turning performance. 38 is a much better b-n-z plane than a 51 in real life.IP: Logged |
bolillo_loco
Pilot
|
posted 03-27- 03:05 PM
I dont know if you can read and understand my info I posted on turning performance at the specs site. What makes sense in my head doesnt always jive with others. The way I typed it in I mean. I wish I had data on the corsair with out the spoiler, but I would guess it to be very similar to the f6f because both have about the same wing loading and would also guess wing coefficient as long as the corsair does not have the spoiler. During an NACA test they pointed to the spoiler giving the corsairs poor turning performance. Since the planes tested used the spoiler, I would have to say from what I have read, that if you dropped full flaps the corsair would have a slight edge over a mustang and a good one over a P-47, but that is it. All the other planes would be able to out turn it by a good margine. With out the spoiler it would prob be the same as a f6f, but all the other planes could also out turn this except for the 47 and 51. I cant say this enough times buy americas hundred thousand. This book is full of numbers at all altitudes and this is only the tip of the ice burg.IP: Logged |
jedi
Pilot
|
posted 03-27- 03:44 PM
OK, I read your stats. Nice stats BTW. Should be useful for speed and climb data, but not all that useful for turn. Your turn comparison data is only for 3G turn--not really very useful in combat turn comparison. The key question there is can I spend my turning energy so I end up on your tail long enough to fire, not what is my turn radius at a constant 3G.In the F4U data page, I found this:
Using the manuevering flaps (one notch available at up to 230 mph), "An F4U-4 could apparently turn inside a P-51D and stay on its tail." That's an F4U-FOUR, WITH wing stall strip installed, presumably And also this: "was superior in maneuverability and response to the P-51B." So which do I believe, the page that says the F4U had the largest turn circle, or the one that says it could outturn a P-51? Also, turning circle and turning ability are not synonymous. Turn rate plays a part, and energy bleed due to G as well. If you have some data on turn rates or turning circles at 5-6 G, that would be more useful. Also, I'd be a bit hesitant to pin all my conclusions about performance data on a single publication. AHT also indicates that the P-39Q appears to be a better all-around aircraft than the Corsair, but I'd bet you wouldn't find 10 pilots east of Vladivostok who would've traded their Corsair for an Iron Dog What were the conditions of the turn performance testing? Full fuel, full ammo, War Emergency Power? All of the above? None? What altitude? No dogfight flaps allowed? My current approach to the FM is going to be getting the airspeeds and climb rates as close as I can, and building a realistic airfoil. Whatever turn rates result from that will be what the model produces, unless I can get some comprehensive data as to rates at given speeds and G-loads, and an idea of how to make the model return those values. Hehe and as for "understanding" aerodynamic info, well, let's just say my life depends on it from time to time... ------------------
--jedi-- [This message has been edited by jedi (edited 03-27-2000).] IP: Logged |
bolillo_loco
Pilot
|
posted 03-27- 09:37 PM
I dont know where you pulled the P-39 from, I did not post any info on this plane. I posted data on the P-63. I would assume that a P-40 and a P-39 could also out turn a Corsair, and the Mustang. You must remember that these are for aircraft with gear and flaps up. I thought I did state this. I doubt that very many ww2 aircraft could pull 5 or 6 g's in a constant turn. I would in fact bet the ranch on this. To my knowledge only modern jet aircraft are capable of sustained 5+ g turns because they have enough power on tap to sustain such a turn. ww2 fighters would probably not qualify for this. These tests were done by many test pilots and the data was taken from too many sources to list. The corsair still comes in dead last for turns with flaps up. I too know that a corsair could out turn a mustang with combat flaps extended, but this means little to me cause a mustang does not have what I would call steller turning performance, unless we are talking about airspeeds above 350 mph IAS where the mustang came into its own. As far as pulling 5+ g's go I would also feel pretty sure that the planes would turn in this exact same order. Just because a P-39 or a P-40 (which seem to rank as laim in your book and also in mine by the way) could out turn a Corsair does not mean that they were better. Zeros could also out turn a corsair, but we all know a well piloted corsair should win because it can dictate the fight due to its speed advantage. I do not have any stats for either a P-39 or a P-40 for turn performance, but just by what I have read I would guess them to be some where around the same performance of a P-63 or maybe just a tad better. remember that just cause a WW-1 biplane could out turn a WW-2 fighter does not mean that it is a better plane for combat. I will list the turn performance with out flaps of any type again based on what I have read. 1st - FM2(F4F),2nd - P-63, P-39, P-40, 3rd P-61, 4th F6F, P-51, P-38, P-47, F4U. Now with flaps it is a very different story, 1st FM-2 F4F, 2nd P-63, P-39, P-40, P-38, 3rd P-61, 4th F6F, 5th F4U, 6th P-51, 7th P-47like I said I can only guess on the P-39 and P-40. my books just say they were better or equal to the best turning army aircorps planes. with the flaps this gave a P-38 the ability to stay with a P-63 which was a good bit ahead of a corsair or a mustang. I thought I pointed this out about the corsair both with flaps and with out flaps. when you post info you can re read what I have wrote so please read my articles carefully this way you are not raising questions or statements that I have already posted on. btw a P-63 and a P-39 may look the same, but they are two completely different planes. Once I post data on a P-63 and you cross referece it to a P-39 you will see what I mean, and it also had a laminar flow wing like a mustang which the P-39 did not have. IP: Logged |
bolillo_loco
Pilot
|
posted 03-27- 09:55 PM
btw, I read that you are using airfoil data that you are going to model into a computer program that would figure out all the info for you (I am guessing) I have seen this done at other game sites and the computer spit out numbers that did not jive with well recorded flight info. I do not know how complex these systems are, nor just how much info they need to be accurate, but I do not see any need for any of this since I have turn data and anybody can have it because I posted what books I am using. The game I saw a guy do this and had the flight models all wacked out. he had a P-47 both flaps up and flaps down out turning a P-38. This is the most extreme example I can think of. flaps up a 38 had a small margine of turning advantage over a 47. Flaps full down a 38 should get onto a 47's tail in two turns or less. all the data I posted for turns were for minimum turn radius. it is for the best turn a plane can make with out losing any altitude and a turn it could sustain all day, not a sudden turn at high speed pulling high g's IP: Logged |
slk
unregistered
|
posted 03-28- 08:37 PM
I may have found you guys a WWII pilot that
flew F4u's off the USS Bennington during the
war, are you interested...
PsiIP: Logged |
Mirthain
Pilot
|
posted 03-28- 11:31 PM
Well, don't forget that altitude has a rather large effect on performance as well. The 39 may not have been a great turner, but she was/is faster at low alt (Under 10K feet) and can accelerate better. I had an Air Classics from a long time ago, and if I can find it again I will post some of the info about the plane there, but in the opening of the article the author, was flying one of the CAF P-39's challenged a friend who had a 51 to a race at a mid point between the 2 fields at 10K Ft. The P-39 beat the 51 there with time to spare.. I believe the article said 5 minutes! I will find the mag and post pertinent info here.
The iron dog was hated becuase they couldn't use it as an interceptor like many pilots wanted to. She had lots of rules, but within those rules, she was the best. One other thing that many pilots hated about the 39's was the cockpit. She had doors, like a car and that made lots of pilots very nervous about bailing from her.
Mirthain=FC=IP: Logged |
bolillo_loco
Pilot
|
posted 03-29- 01:56 PM
while my article does not post at what altitude these turns were made at, I would guess it was at 10,000 ft or lower. I dont know. The P-39 while maybe not being the best turning plane in the world, would have probably beaten almost all of the other american planes for turn performance. Corsair and mustang included. btw, just from some posts I have been reading here I get the opinion that either people are using the corsair and the mustang as either bench marks for turning performance or that they feel these planes actually had good turning performance. I myself would put both the corsair and the mustang in the same league as a 47 ie they were in the last 75%-100% of turing ability ranked best to worst in a maximum turn radius at low altitude.neither a corsair nor a mustang could make alot of H.P. at altitude so for those who figure in h.p. at altitudes neither could make very much. the mustang beat a 38 and a 47 (no flaps being used cause when a 38 uses flaps it can out turn a mustang very quickly even if the mustang uses its flaps) on the deck, I would guess just by using hp alone that above 25K to 30K that both may have a slight advantage over a mustang because both a 47 and a 38 could make wep power at or very near 30K but the mustangs hp fell off quickly from sea level ie 1,720 hp sea level and 900 hp at 30K for the mustang pretty poor performance when compairing this same figure to the 47 and the 38 IP: Logged |
Burkey
Pilot
|
posted 03-29- 02:13 PM
I say ask the pilot IP: Logged |
bolillo_loco
Pilot
|
posted 03-29- 09:29 PM
Asking a pilot would just give you another probably predjudiced opinion. If he loved his plane he may tell you of impossible feats that his plane could perform, or if he hated his plane he would probably degrade its performance well below what the plane was actually capable of. I trust in my books because it was a fact finding book and nobody was writting it about their favorite airplane.I do not feel that the book is infalable, but it is as close to accuracy as you will probably be able to find. I have not found too many stats from anybody posted at this site and am curious how come. I know at janes very few people seemed to know what any of the planes could do. I guess they only read partial info I really dont know. I do know I got some of this from guys "My grand pappy" or "My daddy flew em and he said yada yada" hehe that doesnt tell you much when looking for facts. As far as turning goes I feel a corsair with out the spoiler is probably equal to a F6F with the spoiler it is a boom and zoom plane like the mustang and both the F4U-1 and all P-51s have a rather poor rate of climb. Atleast the F4U-4 has a decent rate of climb. IP: Logged |
slk
unregistered
|
posted 03-30- 01:29 PM
Maybe your right about opinions BL, facts are facts. One portion of information that I have gotten from this pilot is that the F4u
was knick-named the "Insign killer".
Because of the torque at take-off often times
would cause the aircraft to flip on its top.
Of course this is a form of opinion, but I think that it also makes a clear statement to
the complexity of the plane.
This is just a sim and to model some of these
a/c to there actual and realistic performance
will render them un-flyable.
I say leave it alone, just my opinion...
Thanks.
PsiIP: Logged |
bolillo_loco
Pilot
|
posted 03-30- 02:17 PM
I have been unable to test any version of the corsair because when I try to fly one it takes me right back to windows.Since there are two basic models of the corsair the F4U-1 and the F4U-4 then they can be modeled differently. The Navy did not start using corsairs on carriers until early to middle 1945 around the same time as the F4U-4 appeared into combat. So all pre 1945 F4U-1s should probably have similar turning ability as a F6F. All 1945 Corsairs used on carriers had the debounce landing gear and spoilers to make them fit for use on carriers and these planes should not have very good turing ability unless they use flaps and then they are only slightly better than a Mustang. This would put an F4U-1 at a disadvantage because it lacks climbing ability and is similar in climbing ability to an early P-47 with out the Hamilton standard prop. The F4U-4 would however be different from the F4U-1 because it did have a decent/good rate of climb at low to medium altitudes until 20-25K was reached and engine power fell off.
I have been unable to find data from the game where people have tested planes. It seems more are interested in putting more and more planes into the game and are not worried if they are modeled as correctly as possible. IP: Logged |
Kraftwerk
Pilot
|
posted 03-30- 02:37 PM
Hey Loco!
Did you post what you had on the p-39?
Where? I agree with you that the P-63 probably could turn with the best, I have also read that the P-39 could turn with the Spitfire for A TURN OR TWO. This must be due to its devious spin characteristics and low power. Turn too long, you bleed to much speed and the puny Allison couldn't keep the airspeed up and in you go. Whatever you have posted please direct me to it. IP: Logged |
jedi
Pilot
|
posted 03-30- 08:42 PM
"Asking a pilot would just give you another probably predjudiced opinion.""It seems more are interested in putting more and more planes into the game and are not worried if they are modeled as correctly as possible." (Message edited, since this isn't the flame war zone. Let's just say that those are not wise or informed statements, and I find them mildly irritating). ------------------
--jedi-- [This message has been edited by jedi (edited 03-30-2000).] IP: Logged |
Michael
Pilot
|
posted 03-31- 12:15 AM
Loco, it takes a lot of time to make a plane and get it into the game. Once the 3-D model is done and thing flies and having posted a few screenshots along the way the maker has an overwhelming desire to release it. Then he can tweak the flight model at his liesure or, if he wants to, turn it over to someone who specializes in doing flight models. The planes that have been around for some time have gone through a number of flight model revisions and get better all the time. But if you put up posts that boil down to something like "nice plane, how come it doesn't fly properly?" the maker may not be very interested in your suggestions for improving it, however much merit they may have. You've posted lots of useful very detailed information on many of the planes and I'm sure you'll continue to see improved flight models as time passes. I don't know much (well nothing really) about this spoiler question and don't have a view on it one way or the other personally. IP: Logged |
bolillo_loco
Pilot
|
posted 03-31- 12:34 AM
I think I have posted the info I have in the airplane specs where ever that is. All this ulr junk is too much for me. For me if the planes are not modeled as closely as possible then there is not very much of a reason to research what they could really do. Just model them according to how much of an advantage you feel your favorite plane should have and there you go, just another flight sim IP: Logged |
Michael
Pilot
|
posted 03-31- 12:51 AM
I think there is a consensus here that the FMs should be as accurate as possible. Sometimes there is conflicting data and almost always differing views on more subjective things like stall characteristics. A lot of the newer planes were released to meet the contest deadline and some have had more FM work than others.IP: Logged |
Kraftwerk
Pilot
|
posted 03-31- 04:13 AM
Oki dokey!
Can anyone tell me where this info is posted then?IP: Logged |
jedi
Pilot
|
posted 03-31- 09:17 AM
Ah, what's the point?(edited again in the interest of harmony) The Corsair model will continue to evolve, and hopefully improve. CONSTRUCTIVE criticism welcome. Accusations of bias...NOT. Always easier to tear down than to actually build, I suppose. ------------------
--jedi-- [This message has been edited by jedi (edited 03-31-2000).] IP: Logged |
Kraftwerk
Pilot
|
posted 03-31- 09:28 AM
Will someone please tell me where loco has posted his data?IP: Logged |
goth
Pilot
|
posted 03-31- 09:42 AM
Kraftwork-
I think it was in a Preformace stats posting some time ago. If you do a search for postings by him, or on the corsair FM I think you'll find it. Sorry I can't remember where it was exactly.IP: Logged | |
FSIC Messageboard
UBBFriend: Email This Page to Someone! 
