4.11 F4U Performance

[h0MbrE]

Originally Posted by Airway

I and several other members of the German Il-2 community from Sturmovik.de had the opportunity to see the development on the restauration of a real F4U last year at Meier Motors GmbH, one of the few companies in Germany, that is allowed to restore and license historic warbirds.

And so while we were visiting them during Europe's biggest oldtimer airshow, the 16th Oldtimer Fliegertreffen at Hahnweide (http://www.wolf-hirth.de/ott11_en/home.php), last year, we were able to meet the boss of MeierMotors and he showed us the company and the planes they were working on.
They had Messerschmitts, Mustangs and Spitfires beside the Corsair. We were overwhelmed.

Regarding the F4U everything seems to be alright within Il-2 4.11 as far as it can get to this point of time.
I didn't know to the time we that the gear of the F4U was used and capable to work as dive brake.
I liked the F4U since the TV series "Black Sheep Squadron", mostly because of the shape of the wings.
But to see it in real life and to be told about it's history, it's technology, mechanics, and the experience MeierMotors had while restoring the plane, was awesome.
I was amazed how small sized the actuator of the wings folding mechanism was.
I would never have thought that it could withstand such forces in flight.
I don't see a big difference between the Il-2 version of the Corsair and the real one. Sure, there are some, but don't forget, this is just a simulation, no the real thing.

See some F4U pictures we were able to make in their hangars, here:




Don't forget, that this simulation can just get as far as the computer technology up to date.
Don't complain about 10 knots or mph, or seconds of accerelation.
Take it as it is. Everybody has the same situation.
Make the best out of it.
Learn to handle the plane ingame and make it's disadvantage to your advantage.
The F4U is a big and heavy bird. Not a Japanese wood fighter.

See the plane we've seen in it's first flight tests in moving pictures and with sound, here:

Taxi checks a few months later:

It was a honourable experience to see such a plane getting restored, learning about it's technology and finally see and hear it back in the air.

Take that as confirmation that the development in Il-2 is as good as the developers are able to implement.

And finally here is the website of the Chance Vought Corsair F4U at MeierMotors GmbH in Germany:
Sadly no translation, but the pictures speak for itself:

http://www.meiermotors.com/index.php...mid=70&lang=en

A lot of pictures and videos.
Enjoy!

Looks like an awesome vacation and a wonderful experience! I'm envious. Still I really don't see anything relevant to the issue other than your opinion.

[LesniHU]

Originally Posted by sawyer692

I feel relevent arguments have been made. Take a look at the video in post #17. That guy took off from midship with at least a drop tank. Granted we won't know the carrier's speed or his fuel load but, that take off can not be repicated in the game. That is a real world relevent argument. Set up the scenario and try it (btw the top speed of the Saratoga/Lexington was 33.25 knots).

Tried. I was able to take off from first try with F4U-1A, 100% fuel+178gal droptank from flag forward on Essex without dipping after leaving deck. That is +- deck length as on Saratoga from front side of biggest superstructure, noticeably less than half of its total length. You need better references and to be better pilot.

[h0MbrE]

Originally Posted by LesniHU

You need better references and to be better pilot

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.

[MadBlaster]

Originally Posted by LesniHU

Tried. I was able to take off from first try with F4U-1A, 100% fuel+178gal droptank from flag forward on Essex without dipping after leaving deck. That is +- deck length as on Saratoga from front side of biggest superstructure, noticeably less than half of its total length. You need better references and to be better pilot.

You must of had significant headwind and carrier moving max speed. You shouldn't be able to do that on a stationary carrier and zero knot wind, or the game is way out of wack.

[IceFire]

Originally Posted by LesniHU

Tried. I was able to take off from first try with F4U-1A, 100% fuel+178gal droptank from flag forward on Essex without dipping after leaving deck. That is +- deck length as on Saratoga from front side of biggest superstructure, noticeably less than half of its total length. You need better references and to be better pilot.

How are you managing this? In completely calm conditions, stationary Essex and Saratoga, F4U-1A in clean configuration I can't get it to take off... crash in the water each time. I'd like to consider myself pretty good at carrier ops in IL-2.

Acceleration on the deck is definitely quite slow. On a moving carrier with wind it's no problem even with a loadout but stationary is difficult.

[MadBlaster]

the saratoga is 880 feet overall.

the rl chart for F4U-1 says - clean config with full load of fuel and ammo= weight ~ 12800 lbs. The chart also says for 13100 lb on hard surface and no head wind you need 910 feet.

So, that is a borderline situation. You need either:

1) some assistance from your carrier
2) some headwind
3) or lighten your fuel load.

On the other hand, if you fly F4U-1D or 1C, you probably don't need 1,2 or 3 because it is lighter plane(s).

This assumes the game is modeled correctly.

btw, 178 u.s. gal fuel ~ 1000 lbs.

btw, also saratoga top speed according to wikipedia 33-35 knots.

[sawyer692]

Originally Posted by LesniHU

Tried. I was able to take off from first try with F4U-1A, 100% fuel+178gal droptank from flag forward on Essex without dipping after leaving deck. That is +- deck length as on Saratoga from front side of biggest superstructure, noticeably less than half of its total length. You need better references and to be better pilot.

Wow! You are a great pilot! You actually figure out how to defy gravity!

How about posting your flap settings? Prop pitch? Fuel mix? Carrier speed? Wind speed and direction? Mods? Type of helicopter?

Or better yet, post a video or NTRK. Or how about the MIS of the map you used.

Better pilot? hmmmmm

If you are a member of TD I think they should take a second look at you. 3 posts in 2 years and this is one of them??

[sawyer692]

Originally Posted by MadBlaster

the saratoga is 880 feet overall.

the rl chart for F4U-1 says - clean config with full load of fuel and ammo= weight ~ 12800 lbs. The chart also says for 13100 lb on hard surface and no head wind you need 910 feet.

So, that is a borderline situation. You need either:

1) some assistance from your carrier
2) some headwind
3) or lighten your fuel load.

On the other hand, if you fly F4U-1D or 1C, you probably don't need 1,2 or 3 because it is lighter plane(s).

This assumes the game is modeled correctly.

btw, 178 u.s. gal fuel ~ 1000 lbs.

btw, also saratoga top speed according to wikipedia 33-35 knots.

Awesome post, great info!

[MadBlaster]

Originally Posted by sawyer692

Awesome post, great info!

NP. But I wouldn't quite call him a liar. Maybe a smart ass is more appropriate. Like I said, if the carrier is going full tilt (30+ knots)...a little more than half a carrier you should be able to do it according to the chart. So maybe he did that.

[sawyer692]

Originally Posted by MadBlaster

NP. But I wouldn't quite call him a liar. Maybe a smart ass is more appropriate. Like I said, if the carrier is going full tilt (30+ knots)...a little more than half a carrier you should be able to do it according to the chart. So maybe he did that.

Thanks for the advice, I edited it.

Full tilt is doable but not without dipping below the deck. Like I posted before, top speed of the carriers at the time was 33.25 knots. I'm curious if he fudged that a bit.