Hey TD can you look again at the Corsair..

[Bearcat]

The former is quite possible.. the latter is quite true.. I have been playing around with stick settings to try to find a better profile.. The engine in the Corsair is the same one in the P-47 .. and P-47s have been known to keep running with a blown cylinder.. Sometimes it seems as if the DM of the radials is the same as the inline engines.. From all accounts it should be more robust.

[majorfailure]

Originally Posted by Bearcat

The former is quite possible.. the latter is quite true.. I have been playing around with stick settings to try to find a better profile.. The engine in the Corsair is the same one in the P-47 .. and P-47s have been known to keep running with a blown cylinder.. Sometimes it seems as if the DM of the radials is the same as the inline engines.. From all accounts it should be more robust.

I've always assumed the "golden bullet" engine seizure was not a blown cylinder but something like main fuel line destroyed?

[Luno13]

Originally Posted by Bearcat

The former is quite possible.. the latter is quite true.. I have been playing around with stick settings to try to find a better profile.. The engine in the Corsair is the same one in the P-47 .. and P-47s have been known to keep running with a blown cylinder.. Sometimes it seems as if the DM of the radials is the same as the inline engines.. From all accounts it should be more robust.

It is more robust. I've had hits in the engine on a P-47 and made it hundreds of miles back to base on reduced RPM. Don't expect to be able to fight like that though. Also, be aware of confirmation bias. How many stories are there of a P-47 surviving with a missing cylinder? Bear in mind that you will never read the stories about the ones that didn't make it.

It starts with a perfectly reasonable request to review the attributes of an aircraft that seems to be different in-game versus the documented facts.

Bear in mind that the original question was about the speed of the F4U.

That question has been answered at least three times with actual documentation. Are you stuffing your fingers in your ears and going "La la la" until you can find something that matches your preference? The rest of your post is invalid hooplah so I won't bother commenting on it.

Note that report above says the corsair should reach 300mph Indicated air speed. IN game it doesn't reach this..not even close to that ( 220-230mph is way off )..but ok...

This is your own problem, not the game's. It is easy to achieve 300 mph in game. I just got 340 mph at 1000m and 417mph at 7000 meters.

[Bearcat]

How long did that take to achieve?

[Luno13]

I didn't time it, but I would guess within a few minutes, which seems perfectly reasonable. You don't just hit your top speed like a brick wall. You have to work to get to it, and you have to be vigilant to keep it. Note that the combat report quoted earlier advises pilots not to get slow. This doesn't mean you can get slow for a bit to tease your Zero opponent and then turn on afterburners to whizz up into low earth orbit again.

I learned quickly that altitude was paramount. Whoever had altitude dictated the terms of the battle, and there was nothing a Zero pilot could do to change that — we had him. The F4U could outperform a Zero in every aspect except slow speed manoeuvrability and slow speed rate of climb. Therefore you avoided getting slow when combating a Zero. It took time but eventually we developed tactics and deployed them very effectively... There were times, however, that I tangled with a Zero at slow speed, one on one. In these instances I considered myself fortunate to survive a battle. Of my 21 victories, 17 were against Zeros, and I lost five aircraft in combat. I was shot down three times and I crashed one that ploughed into the line back at base and wiped out another F4U.

The A6M2-21 has a loaded power to weight ratio of .29 kW/kg while the Corsair has one of .23kW/kg which is a 26% advantage in favor of the Zero. The A6M3 hamp has even better power to weight ratio at .31kW/kg, loaded. Don't expect miracles.

[Treetop64]

I've flown the Corsair quite a few times in the game, and I have to say that the only thing I don't like about it is that it tends to be a bit of a "wobbly goblin" in the yaw axis. Other than that, I like it.

The machine is more in its element the faster it goes. The faster the better. It rolls better than most at speed, but you have to take it easy in the turns, even at high speed!

I suspect a lot of the complaints stem from how some fly the Corsair, in that they rely too much on applying engine power to give them the speed they need, when in fact you have to fly the plane in a manner that will give you the most speed with the least amount of effort from the plane or pilot. In part, that means long, gentle high speed turns, and not aggressive fighting turns to stay in a fight. If you dive down on a target but the trigonometry of the situation isn't looking good, oh well... Continue on your way while maintaining your high speed (and don't squander it with a hard turn!), use your speed to regain altitude, be patient, and set yourself up for another pass. If someone else snags him in the meantime, tough. Get over it and move on.

Yes, it's a conservative, time-consuming, and - to some - a boring way to fight, but it's efficient and effective. At least it has been for me.

Also, you don't want the props to be at fine pitch during all this. Ideally, 2500 RPM, give or take a hundred or so while gyrating round, is what you want. Higher RPMs does not equal higher speed when you're already moving fast. At high speed, you want a more coarse propeller pitch to bite more air out from front of you to move quickly. The engine generates enough power to provide the torque necessary to do this at the selected RPMs. Also, you lower operating temps with a lower RPM, even with closed cowl flaps.

Again, I'm just speaking from personal experience with flying the Corsairs in the game, and I'm sure some will disagree, but that's fine.

[Bearcat]

Originally Posted by Luno13

I didn't time it, but I would guess within a few minutes, which seems perfectly reasonable. You don't just hit your top speed like a brick wall. You have to work to get to it, and you have to be vigilant to keep it. Note that the combat report quoted earlier advises pilots not to get slow. This doesn't mean you can get slow for a bit to tease your Zero opponent and then turn on afterburners to whizz up into low earth orbit again.



The A6M2-21 has a loaded power to weight ratio of .29 kW/kg while the Corsair has one of .23kW/kg which is a 26% advantage in favor of the Zero. The A6M3 hamp has even better power to weight ratio at .31kW/kg, loaded. Don't expect miracles.

I wouldn't expect it to accelerate like a car... Maybe I am doing something wrong but even with using throttle and pitch it is difficult for me to get any real speed out of the AC and it seems to overheat unless I keep the throttle below 80% or so .. Maybe it is me but a revisit wouldn't hurt by TD even if it was just to spend some time flying it just as a sim pilot to see if theynseenwhat I see.

[EJGr.Ost_Caspar]

Maybe it is me but a revisit wouldn't hurt by TD even if it was just to spend some time flying it just as a sim pilot to see if theynseenwhat I see.

Who sais, we don't do?
Climb performance and acceleration are directly linked. Is something off with climb performance on the F4U? I don't think so.

Anyway, it would be an interesting test to let a P-47 and F4U doing same maneuvers side by side.

[Kittle]

Luno's quote pretty much says it all about fighting the F4U. Note this man had been shot down THREE times. That speaks volumes about the amount of punishment an F4U could take and still keep the pilot alive to fight another day. A Zero pilot would be lucky to survive one shoot down, let alone three.

I took the F4U up last night in game to check all this out for myself. In level flight at 5000m I was able to attain and hold 300 mph. My controls are old and not well centered these days to keeping the slip ball in the middle was difficult at best, I could have gone faster. It does take a little while to attain this speed, but nothing out of what I would call realistic.

After this I took her on a power dive to just above sea level (Solomons 43 map) and screamed along at 430mph until speed bled off, keeping high 300s for a long time. Reminded me of how much of a performing fool the F4U can be when handled with love and care

[Furio]

Originally Posted by EJGr.Ost_Caspar

Who sais, we don't do?
Climb performance and acceleration are directly linked. Is something off with climb performance on the F4U? I don't think so.

Anyway, it would be an interesting test to let a P-47 and F4U doing same maneuvers side by side.

A similar test was made during WWII, flying side by side a Corsair and a Hellcat.
According to Corky Meyer, who was Grumman test pilot in WWII and participated in the test, they showed identical performances. The slower F6F wasn’t slower at all, but have a badly placed static port, that caused lower airspeed readings.

The whole story can be read in the book “Corky Meyer’s Flight Journal”, written by Meyer himself and published by Specialty Press.