FM-2 Wildcat performance

[IceFire]

Question for everyone. I've spent some time flying Wildcats a fair bit in IL-2 recently and they are quite a lot of fun to fly. Fairly agile, well armed, well protected and sturdy... great time flying them. But the FM-2 always seemed a bit odd... it's supposedly got more power than the earlier ones (and has the taller tail to compensate) but it doesn't seem to be much faster and in IL-2 compare it's only marginally faster in a few specific situations and is otherwise similar or inferior.

Mistake or just how the FM-2 rolls?

[DKoor]

Hm. I've had a few disappointments online in FM-2 (ancient history now, it was in those times when I really knew what I was doing online :) ), and while good fighter overall I don't think it really matches the Corsair. Or the Hellcat for that matter.

It is agile I agree on that but what's the point when opposition is more agile and they can only be outmatched thru sheer speed.:neutral:

I see that plane more enjoyable offline while online I would prefer to fly Hellcat and Corsair. In that order.:cool:

[IceFire]

Hm. I've had a few disappointments online in FM-2 (ancient history now, it was in those times when I really knew what I was doing online :) ), and while good fighter overall I don't think it really matches the Corsair. Or the Hellcat for that matter.

It is agile I agree on that but what's the point when opposition is more agile and they can only be outmatched thru sheer speed.:neutral:

I see that plane more enjoyable offline while online I would prefer to fly Hellcat and Corsair. In that order.:cool:
Those are VERY cool fighters for sure :)

The Wildcat can be fun too. It's definitely not going to reach the performance levels of those fighters that replaced it (with good reason) but I am curious if the FM-2 is performing at the level that it should or if it's been shortchanged a bit?

I wish it had HVAR's like they were equipped with. Would make for some better strike mission options.

[MaxGunz]

Those are VERY cool fighters for sure :)

The Wildcat can be fun too. It's definitely not going to reach the performance levels of those fighters that replaced it (with good reason) but I am curious if the FM-2 is performing at the level that it should or if it's been shortchanged a bit?

I wish it had HVAR's like they were equipped with. Would make for some better strike mission options.

Do you have any speed at alt data for the FM-2? I am guessing, 'no'.

Maybe the prop is different too, optimized for climb instead of speed?
Or some other difference?

[IceFire]

Do you have any speed at alt data for the FM-2? I am guessing, 'no'.

Maybe the prop is different too, optimized for climb instead of speed?
Or some other difference?

Trying to find something on that. Sometimes if I ask questions then I suddenly find it on my own... so far not this time. Trying to see if I can get the basic critical altitude speed and power information.

The FM-2 had some extra juice over the regular Wildcat and comments suggest that it was noticeably quicker in the climb and a better turner but the in-game version I notice very little.

Not sure if the prop is different too. You might be right...optimized for climb. Or even something extra just to get it off the escort carrier decks?

[JtD]

For a first impression:

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f4f/fm-2.html

Manual states 2600 rpm / 50" low blower, 52" high blower for WEP.

[MaxGunz]

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f4f/16169-level.jpg

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f4f/f4f.html

It looks like the FM-2 should be faster than the F4F-3 at 14000 ft.

[K_Freddie]

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f4f/f4f.html


Surprised to see that it had a telescope sight.. were these ever useful ?

[JtD]

In fighter aircraft of late 1930 they were still state of the art, however, they were soon to be replaced by electric gunsights, which were far better. This is also true for the F4F-3, only the first couple of aircraft were ever fitted with telescope sights. Apparently telescope sights were considered better than iron rings, though.

Speaking of very early F4F-3's, the first two F4F-3 came with a different armament of 2x.303+2x.50, the .303 being installed in the fuselage, the .50 in the wings. One of them is 1845, tested alongside 1848 which is seen in the picture. 1848 would be the fifth F4F-3 to be made, and was written off on March 23rd, 1942, after a crash landing on the Hornet.

[IceFire]

Aha... http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f4f/fm-2.html

Same website. FM-2 performance information. It seems the FM-2 gets back what the F4F-4 lost. Seems like IL-2's performance numbers are pretty damn accurate for the FM-2. The F4F-4 might be a little on the fast side. F4F-3 seems about right too.

[IceFire]

In fighter aircraft of late 1930 they were still state of the art, however, they were soon to be replaced by electric gunsights, which were far better. This is also true for the F4F-3, only the first couple of aircraft were ever fitted with telescope sights. Apparently telescope sights were considered better than iron rings, though.

Speaking of very early F4F-3's, the first two F4F-3 came with a different armament of 2x.303+2x.50, the .303 being installed in the fuselage, the .50 in the wings. One of them is 1845, tested alongside 1848 which is seen in the picture. 1848 would be the fifth F4F-3 to be made, and was written off on March 23rd, 1942, after a crash landing on the Hornet.

That's interesting about the armament. I've never heard of that configuration before!

[MaxGunz]

Some countries had a pre-WWII doctrine where all the action was to be bombers and interceptors. Forgetting how wrong that turned out to be, telescopes made sense in that view.

[JtD]

Seems like IL-2's performance numbers are pretty damn accurate for the FM-2.I disagree, the real plane achieved around 530 km/h at altitudes between 11000' and 20000' (3.5 - 6km), whereas the il-2 variant only gets that fast at altitudes around 5km. Also top speed at low blower should be around 500, not just 470. Below 5km, the plane's too slow by about 30 km/h average, similar to the F6F-5 before 4.11.

[Pursuivant]

Some countries had a pre-WWII doctrine where all the action was to be bombers and interceptors. Forgetting how wrong that turned out to be, telescopes made sense in that view.

Yep. A telescopic sight makes sense if you're trying to take "sniper shots" at a relatively fragile and large plane. That would make sense in the 1930s when the conventional wisdom was "the bomber will always get through" and fighters were limited to stern chases or quick diving attacks with light weapons. Telescopic sights are also useful for dive or glide bombing attacks.

They also make some sense if you have the luxury of detecting the enemy before he detects you - since it allows you to identify the foe at a greater distance. Since most kills were against foes who never saw their attacker, realistically, it means that a telescopic sight is an improvement over iron sights.

But, it's idiotic to use a telescopic sight in a dogfight. Since that's the way that most IL2 players play the game, that makes telescopic sights fairly useless.

[IceFire]

I disagree, the real plane achieved around 530 km/h at altitudes between 11000' and 20000' (3.5 - 6km), whereas the il-2 variant only gets that fast at altitudes around 5km. Also top speed at low blower should be around 500, not just 470. Below 5km, the plane's too slow by about 30 km/h average, similar to the F6F-5 before 4.11.

So... the range of the maximum top speed is too low? Hrmm ok I'm starting to see that better now.

Below 5km is probably where it does most of it's flying. Historically and in online situations... so that is a pretty big issue then. I made the mistake of looking at critical alts only.

I guess it needs some work.

And some HVAR's :D

[JtD]

And some HVAR's :D+1

[ElAurens]

So, will the FM-2's performance be worked on for the next iteration?

[Luno13]

But, it's idiotic to use a telescopic sight in a dogfight. Since that's the way that most IL2 players play the game, that makes telescopic sights fairly useless.

This is a huge misconception in Il-2.

The collimator tube sight is not telescopic. It is simply a method to project a crosshair. You keep both eyes open, one on the target, and one looking through the tube. In that sense, it works like an electric reflector sight, so that your head position doesn't affect your aim.

Some were telescopic, but they only magnified 1.5 or 2 times at the most. They improved accuracy at long range over iron sights, but they were certainly not used for sniping.

It is seriously misrepresented in Il-2 by the large degree of magnification in gun-sight view. If you want a sense of how tube sights really worked, don't use gun-sight view (but you will not have the advantage of the collimating effect).

Theoretically, DT could fix this by removing the magnified view, and simply projecting a black crosshair in the way that a yellow one is projected on all reflector sights in the game.

[MaxGunz]

Il-2 default is 1/4 the size you would really see. When you look through the sight and see 'magnified' it is how the real would look without magnification.

[Luno13]

Il-2 default is 1/4 the size you would really see. When you look through the sight and see 'magnified' it is how the real would look without magnification.

That depends on your FOV and how far you sit from the screen. Compared to normal view, the gunsight view is magnified, so I think my point stands.

[JtD]

So, will the FM-2's performance be worked on for the next iteration?No particular plans for this at the moment, and personally I think this shouldn't be done without correcting the opposition as well. Most Japanese planes lack their WEP performance, too.

[IceFire]

No particular plans for this at the moment, and personally I think this shouldn't be done without correcting the opposition as well. Most Japanese planes lack their WEP performance, too.

Probably a good idea. Changes to the Wildcat would probably tip the balance until the Japanese types are sorted out as well.

Learning more and more... the whole Pacific side of things feels like it was rushed. The planes FM, certain details, armaments, etc. Don't get me wrong... they delivered quite a bit too.

[JtD]

Word on the street back in the day was that it was indeed rushed - and the NG issue kept PF from getting post release attention it still needed.

[Pursuivant]

This is a huge misconception in Il-2.

Thanks for the correction.

The fact that the collimator tube doesn't give you any actual magnification makes it even more useless, IMO, unless you're dive bombing.

Your suggestion about changing the magnification and the view through the collimator sight would make it more realistic, and also somewhat more useful since you don't lose SA when you go to gunsight view.

Until then, I'll just use iron sights or "Kentucky windage" and make sure I get so close I can count the rivets on the enemy plane before I open fire.

[MaxGunz]

Collimator tube is like having both front and rear sights on a rifle. And btw it is possible to snipe with open sights, been done lots of times. Compare that to machine guns where you watch over the top to see where the hits land.

[Luno13]

Thanks for the correction.

The fact that the collimator tube doesn't give you any actual magnification makes it even more useless, IMO, unless you're dive bombing.

Your suggestion about changing the magnification and the view through the collimator sight would make it more realistic, and also somewhat more useful since you don't lose SA when you go to gunsight view.

Until then, I'll just use iron sights or "Kentucky windage" and make sure I get so close I can count the rivets on the enemy plane before I open fire.

Rise of Flight models colimator tubes nicely. The free version of the game offers the Spad 13 which has both the Aldis and Le Chretien tube sights.

This video shows the Aldis on an Se5a.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a_GgylsCbwM

This video shows an Oigee gunsight used on German aircraft in WWI. Notice how the cross-hairs move with the camera, just like with a reflector. This sight also magnifies, but I don't remember how much.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EfEzrGYHwis

I've used a real collimator tube sight while lining measurements with a total station. The tube is only an inch long, but it's surprisingly accurate for initial targeting. The triangle will always point at the target, no matter the position of my eye.

[Pursuivant]

Rise of Flight models collimator tubes nicely. The free version of the game offers the Spad 13 which has both the Aldis and Le Chretien tube sights.

Thanks for the links. Now I see the value of the collimator; even if your head moves the crosshairs of the sight always remain on the target. As opposed to iron sights where if your head moves you lose your aim. Very handy in a plane where your head might be knocked about by G forces.

And I agree, the way that collimator tubes is very badly modeled in IL2. In real life you should have much more SA, and head shake from maneuvers should throw off your aim through iron sights a bit more than it does if you try to shoot while you're pulling Gs.

Of course, one of my complaints about every combat flight sim out there is that computer pilots are "iron men" who never get tired, scared, or sleepy. Even with "head shake on" in IL2, your point of view is never shifted that far out of line and you can still do quick shoulder checks even when you're pulling 6 G.

[1984]

i think, without problems for balance of pacific theater can be corrected only FM-2, it's like we now have only best la-5 1942 and FN, what really and do gameplay not normal...

maybe, good idea it's fix 2 and more planes-opponents in one patch, like yak-7b m-105pa and bf109f-4, la-5 and fw190a, etc...

it's only my opinion, of course...