4.11 F4U Performance

[h0MbrE]

Here is the data on the F4U-1 and others. Hopefully this will clarify things. It's pretty "cut and dry" that it is now way under modeled in the sim.


http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.o...4u-1-02334.pdf

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.o...f4u-1d-acp.pdf

The whole article for all the Corsairs:
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f4u/f4u.html

Pretty much every other airplane:

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/

[IvanK]

Originally Posted by h0MbrE

Here is the data on the F4U-1 and others. Hopefully this will clarify things. It's pretty "cut and dry" that it is now way under modeled in the sim.


http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.o...4u-1-02334.pdf

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.o...f4u-1d-acp.pdf

The whole article for all the Corsairs:
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f4u/f4u.html

Pretty much every other airplane:

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/

"that it is now way under modeled in the sim"

How so ? How about some examples in Game compared directly with the performance from the references shown ? How does this also compare with 4.10.1 ?

[sawyer692]

Well, after a couple hours testing, here is what I found (F4U-C):


Speed- 100% fuel, 100% prop, appropriate supercharger settings

3000ft
4.101 -271kias
4.11 - 250kias

20,000ft
4.101 – 222kias
4.11 - 160kias



Carrier takeoff – carrier 28 knots, 100%fuel, 100% prop, takeoff flap setting, speed is from chocks release to clearing bow threshold

4.101- 96kias
4.11 – Upper 80s kias

Carrier takeoff – carrier 16 knots, 100%fuel, 100% prop, takeoff flap setting, speed is from chocks release to clearing bow threshold

4.101 – 85kias
4.11 - upper 70s kias

Carrier with ordinance

Rockets minus 10kias from 4.101
5x500 lb bombs minus 10kias from 4.101
2x1000 lb bombs minus 10 from 4.101 but dipped way below carrier and drug landing gear



Speed to 260kias, from standstill on runway, flying straight and level at 150ft

4.101 – 1min 15secs
4.11 – 1min 45secs


Some of the speed numbers in 4.101 are more precise due to the hud mod (the only mod on my sim)

Granted some of the differences may be slight on a few of the items but "feel" much greater in the sim. Either way, it is a slower aircraft now.

I have to ask; What did you guys do to the FM? I found nothing in the manual.

[h0MbrE]

I have one question that may clarify something for me on the matter of the F4U as well. I realize the difference between indicated airspeed and true airspeed. My question is: Does the sim take the correlation between these into account? Or does it factor the indicated airspeed as the true airspeed or visa verse?

How so ? How about some examples in Game compared directly with the performance from the references shown ? How does this also compare with 4.10.1 ?

I will be doing some thorough testing with some of my squad mates over the next week or so and will report our findings. There are a few guys on the squad that live and breath this stuff and I want to involve them in the research to make sure I don't miss anything relevant (whether it proves or disproves that there are any errors in the modeling).

Will report back as soon as we feel we have accurate and complete data to share. As for now, thank you for listening! All the work you guys do to support this sim is highly appreciated.

[IvanK]

All the published performance data is TAS. So when comparing Sim test performance to published data use TAS as well. Wonder woman view gives TAS.

Also there is always an issue with Atmosphere so do your tests Crimea Midday.

[IvanK]

Sawyer. What supercharger settings (3) were you using in your 20,000ft test ? and on what map.
a 60KIAS diff is huge.

[sawyer692]

Originally Posted by IvanK

Sawyer. What supercharger settings (3) were you using in your 20,000ft test ? and on what map.
a 60KIAS diff is huge.

Super 3 on the 20K test using coral sea map. I used that map for all the tests I did. I also took video of the tests if that helps although it would be simple to set up a scenario.

I do appreciate your "ear" on this and your responses.

(I also pondered the TAS vs IAS but the comparison shows air is air)

[h0MbrE]

Originally Posted by IvanK

All the published performance data is TAS. So when comparing Sim test performance to published data use TAS as well. Wonder woman view gives TAS.

I think this may be part of the problem. The new top speed of the F4U in the sim is around 270kias (311mph). That is almost exactly the max IAS of the aircraft in the performance data. The truth is the actual TAS of the aircraft in the performance test was 431mph (375kias).

I am referring to this document from some of the 1943 official performance tests:

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.o...4u-1-02334.pdf

Not sure what you mean by "Wonder woman view" unless you are referring to the hud. I fly mostly full real anyhow but for our tests I will use the hud for reference.

[IvanK]

Originally Posted by h0MbrE

I think this may be part of the problem. The new top speed of the F4U in the sim is around 270kias (311mph). That is almost exactly the max IAS of the aircraft in the performance data. The truth is the actual TAS of the aircraft in the performance test was 431mph (375kias).

I am referring to this document from some of the 1943 official performance tests:

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.o...4u-1-02334.pdf

Not sure what you mean by "Wonder woman view" unless you are referring to the hud. I fly mostly full real anyhow but for our tests I will use the hud for reference.

Hombre be more specific at what altitude ?

Try everything at Sea level Crimea. See what numbers you get then compare them to a specific chart from your reference.

Also read the title of that report .. it refers to a test for max performance at War Emergency Power of a "Cleaned up version"



When I test in 4.11 Again Crimea Midday, WEP, RAD 2, 100% Fuel at 19,000ft (FTH Supercharger 3) I get the following:
240KIAS,280MPH IAS, 633KMH TAS (that works out at 393MPH TAS or 342Knots TAS)

The Max speed achieved in the Cleaned up test aircraft was as the report shows 429MPH TAS (averaged of the 2 runs). Its also worth pointing out they flew the test at 23,000ft, rather than the 19,000ft I flew the test.