4.11 F4U Performance

[sawyer692]

Originally Posted by IceFire

I still feel like there is a lot of discussion and yet I can't figure out what the problem is. Yeah it's slower than before but that's not an argument in itself. It now more closely matches numbers provided (oddly by the people saying that it's too slow). Now what am I missing?

The problem is carrier takeoffs!!!!!!!! This plane is useless unless it can be flown from carriers and in a manner that reflects real-world capabilities.

TD has stated they would fix it so I'm personally going to wait and see. I hope they succeed in making it fun again.

I also hope they look into the Hellcat having the same issue.

Read this book: http://www.amazon.com/Americas-Hundr.../dp/0764300725

[dpeters95]

Originally Posted by IceFire

Interesting to find out about those ships for sure...any idea what the requirements were for a successful launch? Use of a catapult? Minimum wind over the deck?

As far as I know the US Navy never cleared the Corsair or the Helldiver for Escort Carrier use. Even the biggest (Sangamon class) I don't think was cleared to operate with either of those types.

I am surprised that the RN would do it... but they were the ones to pioneer Corsair use on carrier decks and developed the doctrine around usage so maybe they found a way.

Actually, I was surprised also. I didn't think F4U's were used on any escort carriers except for transport. I have seen pictures of F4U's on an escort carrier but they were being moved to a land based airfield.

Yes, you're correct. The RN actually figured out by performing a sort of semi-circle (as opposed to a longer straight in approach) they could avoid the "Left Wing Stall" that the US pilots complained about when trying to land. Actually, I think there were more F4U's on RN carriers than on US carriers. The vast majority were used from land based airfields by the US Marine Corps.

[IceFire]

Originally Posted by dpeters95

Yes, that is what I am saying! I agree, at a stand still they should not be able to takeoff; however, the F4U-1A Take-Off Mission 1 is using the USS Casablanca Escort Carrier that is traveling 35 Km/hr and the AI cannot takeoff even with no external loading...

With F4U-1A you can't but with the F4U-1D you can with armament but the fuel load can't be above 70% in my testing. I might be able to squeak it at 80% but I couldn't do it with a full fuel load. Reduce the fuel load and add armament and I may also be able to do it... the AI was able to get it off the deck with AP rockets attached which I was impressed with!

It's definitely the weight as the F4U-1A is heavier than the 1D.

Aside from the 35 kph of the ship those missions have no wind represented so it's undoubtedly easier to do with wind configured as being across the deck. It's a newer feature and those old missions don't have it set up...

Since JtD has already said the takeoff distance is too long... I suspect that it should be possible to takeoff from a CVE again once the values for takeoff performance are corrected.

[IceFire]

Originally Posted by sawyer692

The problem is carrier takeoffs!!!!!!!! This plane is useless unless it can be flown from carriers and in a manner that reflects real-world capabilities.

TD has stated they would fix it so I'm personally going to wait and see. I hope they succeed in making it fun again.

I also hope they look into the Hellcat having the same issue.

Read this book: http://www.amazon.com/Americas-Hundr.../dp/0764300725

Here I was thinking everyone was still talking about the maximum speed and that had me so very confused.

You can takeoff from carrier decks... just not from carriers at a standstill. Still... I'm glad it's being fixed. So far I haven't found any of my campaign missions broken because of the lengthened requirements but I'm still glad.

[sawyer692]

Again:

Originally Posted by sawyer692

Well, WWII US carriers were about 900 ft long. Available take distance was obviously limited by how many aircraft were stowed on deck or awaiting takeoff.

According to "America's Hundred Thousand", all Navy planes, with full load, could take off on an empty deck, using full length with no wind and no ship speed, except the F6F-3. Obviously, this was not an operational environment.

The sim, up to 4.101, portrayed this. Now it is not even close.

[IceFire]

Originally Posted by dpeters95

Actually, I was surprised also. I didn't think F4U's were used on any escort carriers except for transport. I have seen pictures of F4U's on an escort carrier but they were being moved to a land based airfield.

Yes, you're correct. The RN actually figured out by performing a sort of semi-circle (as opposed to a longer straight in approach) they could avoid the "Left Wing Stall" that the US pilots complained about when trying to land. Actually, I think there were more F4U's on RN carriers than on US carriers. The vast majority were used from land based airfields by the US Marine Corps.

Very interesting for sure!

I think it'd be an interesting direction to do a bit more work on the British Pacific Fleet operations in IL-2. A map of the Oil Refinery at Palembang, map of the area around Tokyo, a Firefly, a Ki-44, and Ki-48 and we could do most of the scenario. Oh and of course the RN escort carriers... but not all of them I guess because many of these would be US built and therefore owned by the infamous N-G... hopes dashed. Still we could do a lot with the main fleet carriers and the Corsairs we already have the FAA versions of the Corsairs.

[MadBlaster]

Originally Posted by sawyer692

Again:

and again, the Cassablanca was only http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Cas...a_%28CVE-55%29

just read it.

[IceFire]

Originally Posted by dpeters95

Well then, you're wrong!!! First of all, this game allows a speed of 35 Km/hr check the mission in FMB. No way it should not be able to takeoff. Maybe it should be a max of 18 Km/hr but I didn't design that part either. Secondly, I only play offline but I expect to be able to takeoff of a carrier in a "Stock created mission" that was included to teach me to takeoff. Should they have picked a larger carrier, maybe, but that's not the point here...

To be fair... picking a CVE for takeoff in a training mission was quite silly of the original Pacific Fighters mission designers. I suspect there was some unfamiliarity with the Pacific theater and US carrier ops as it's an unusual choice. From a Essex class the takeoff is no problem.

18 knots would be 33 kph so about the speed of the carriers in the mission.

It is possible to takeoff but not with the full fuel load and not with any significant armaments. In the RN circumstance I don't think they used anything more than two 500lb bombs on their Corsair IIs and IVs and I'm not sure if they would have used those on their Escort Carriers. Something to look into. In any case... with the takeoff distance being corrected I think we should see some of this go away.

[sawyer692]

Originally Posted by MadBlaster

and again, the Cassablanca was only http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Cas...a_%28CVE-55%29

just read it.

I'm not sure I know where you're going with that link ??

Are you agreeing or disagreeing with me??

"Escort Carriers .
Casablanca Class . 1943-44 . 6,730 tons ; 28 aircraft ; 512 feet ; 18 knots.
Fifty (50) ships: CVE-55 to CVE-104. The demand for escort carriers was extensive. The Casablanca Class were built by Kaiser using mass production techniques to a fast transport (P-1), design for speed of construction, but were intended as escort carriers from the ground up. All went to USN, almost all to the Pacific. Twin screws; two lifts; one catapult; 500 x 108 foot flight deck."

from: http://www.ww2pacific.com/notecve.html

[Bearcat]

Originally Posted by Snake

If it's like you say, all the people on HL will want to fly F4U giving its abilities in the RL! Who would fly the other ones? I think all the allies plane had their capabilities exagerated in the previous patches of IL2 and now I think the odds are more even!! ~S~

I think you are in denial. I will grant you that it has appeared in the past that some Russian planes were more ... optimistically modeled, I'll put it that way .. but the American planes in this sim almost from day one have been modeled questionably .. for what it's worth it seems to me as if the F4 stalls a lot easier now... it rolls slower ... and it doesn't seem to pick up speed as fast. It seems to have that balancing on a pencil thing that the P-51s used to have..