4.11 F4U Performance

[6S.Maraz]

Originally Posted by Pips

One of the little gems covered in the book is the issue of water-alcohol injection (WEP) for the F6F-3. It's been mentioned in the v4.11 ReadMe that TD has dropped WEP for the -3 model (but retained for the -5) in the interests of historical accuracy.

That however is not quite correct.

Whilst the F6F-3 originally was produced without WEP installed, following it's first actions by VF-33 in August '43 BuAer requested Grumman to fit WEP to all new -3 models, and to organise retrofitting of those already produced.
It didn't happen overnight, but by January '44 60% of all in-service F6F-3's had been fitted with the water-injected P&W R-2800-10W engine. That's covered in the book on Pages 26, 560 and 584.

So on that account TD should perhaps revert to the v4.10 setting for the F6F-3 model.

Hi,
we are aware that WEP was fitted to F6F-3 during their operational carreer.
Unfortunately we cannot activate FM features according to mission date (up to now).

So we decided to leave F6F-3 without water injection in order to have two different models, one representy an early plane, retaining old performance, the other one (F6F-5) getting a boost. Otherwise we would have had two almost identic planes.

And no, we cannot add a new slot for a late F6F-3, unfortunately (Grumman F6F-3 is the complete name of this aircraft).

Thanks for your report and your support.
Maraz

[Janosch]

Originally Posted by mmaruda

Did some testing on take off missions for carriers.

Let's try the Seafire!
British carrier in the missions is larger than the small US ones, bigger wingspan and all - should be easy. Nope!
On a moving carrier the seafire barely gets off the deck, if you forget flaps (landing only), you're going for a swim.
Static carrier is impossible.

A certain kind soul on mission4today gave a tip regarding landing gear in a discussion about the F4U fm: only raise landing gear after you begin to get altitude - not right after the deck ends. I haven't done many tests regarding this method versus raising gear immediately, but it seems to work.

In the builtin carrier takeoff missions, I managed to take off the Seafire with ammo and 100% fuel load from both static and moving carriers. Lower flaps no later than the 420 marker, keep nose slightly above horizon and the plane will take off. It's very hairy with a static carrier though, as the lowered landing gear almost hit water. Needless to say, I used 110% wep!

[WTE_Galway]

In reality the plane that was historically regarded as dangerous to take off from a carrier was a fully loaded SDB ...

LIEUTENANT H. B. HARDEN, USN Air Operations, USS ENTERPRISE
Bureau of Aeronautics March 4, 1943
http://www.researcheratlarge.com/Aircraft/CV6Airgroup/ (last page)

Q. You mentioned the overloading of the SBD. Is there any feeling out there feeling that radar is being forced on the Fleet as necessary equipment?

A. No, the feeling was simply this, that the plane was at the present time so heavy that it was dangerous on every take-off that the addition of some equipment which they were not trained to use was not justified.

[Jumoschwanz]

I tested the F4u on the Pacific Map and I found a 80km/hr advantage over the A6m5 at sea level at noon, and a 60km/hr advantage at 5000 meters altitude.
Also as usual the Corsair and most other allied aircraft are going to have an advantage in maneuverability at high speed.
No reason to get shot down by a zero unless you screw up or are bounced.

If you are having overheating issues then you simply do not know how to manage the engine. With the radiator open at 85% prop pitch I was able to run Corsairs on WEP for very long periods of time, longer than many other aircraft before I had overheating issues.

The Corsair will be king of the Pacific on 1943 maps. On 1944 maps the J2m3 and the Ki-84 will give it trouble, but that is what the late Japanese aircraft were built for, to compete with the late U.S. fighters and bombers.

I know a few specialists who are real terrors in the Corsair in slow turning dogfights no matter what they are up against, if the Corsair turns even better now then it is going to be interesting going up against them...

I would fly the Corsair like the FW190A, keep it fast and try to have an advantage of speed and/or surprise when you attack. Flying that way with a squad on coms should make you as successful as anyone on any server.

If you are flying on the deck in furballs on arcade settings without using historical tactics then there is no discussion even worth having....

[ACE-OF-ACES]

Originally Posted by Jumoschwanz

I tested the F4u on the Pacific Map and I found a 80km/hr advantage over the A6m5 at sea level at noon, and a 60km/hr advantage at 5000 meters altitude.

Pacific Map.. Not sure which map the IL-2Compare 4.11 data is realitve to, but it got simular values, i.e.

@ SL
567 kph F4u-1A
465 kph A6M5a
--------------------
102 kph

@ 5,000m
630 kph F4u-1A
542 kph A6M5a
--------------------
88 kph

Originally Posted by Jumoschwanz

Also as usual the Corsair and most other allied aircraft are going to have an advantage in maneuverability at high speed.

Sadly IL-2Comapre does NOT show roll rates, but at 1,000m the ZERO out flat turns the F4u at speeds below 430kph, Above that speed the F4U turns better, which would agree with your statment.

Originally Posted by Jumoschwanz

If you are flying on the deck in furballs on arcade settings without using historical tactics then there is no discussion even worth having....

Agreed

[Jumoschwanz]

I set the 1944 Corsair up on the Lexington with the carrier traveling at 32km/hr and I took off with 100% fuel and two 500lb bombs on my second try. After I went in the drink on the first attempt I watched the AI take off with a weapons load and it taught me a few things.

I used full throttle, 100% prop pitch and full flaps as I always have.

I noticed that when the AI left the end of the deck, they immediately raised their landing gear and then actually flew their aircraft at an angle towards the surface of the water to pick up airspeed, then leveled out just above it.

If you leave the end of the carrier deck and try to hold the aircraft level and maintain altitude it will not work.

I am sure that most missions flown on and probably even off line will not require near 100% fuel, so with 25%-50% fuel and a weapons load things should be a lot easier.

I am not saying that IL2 is a perfect representation of Corsair and Carrier operations in WWII, but it it the best we have and if I can take off with a good fuel load and a few bombs then it will do the job for now.

[EJGr.Ost_Caspar]

Oh... different font face... interesting. Impact is no web font though. Sry to be OT.

[Snake]

Originally Posted by Jumoschwanz

If you are flying on the deck in furballs on arcade settings without using historical tactics then there is no discussion even worth having....

HA HA!!! +10!! So well said!

[Whacker]

Hi friends, I know this is a bit of a "hairy" thread, but would like to throw my own 2 cents in here.

First off, I love the 4.11 patch and can't wait for Modact and HSFX to start supporting it. And a big thank you to Team D for continuing to to support their game, I bought every version and expansion at release and it's money well spent.

On topic, I think there is something slightly wonky about the F4U-1x's that bears investigation. I've been monkeying around with carrier takeoffs, both on the shorter CVEs and the bigger Essex CV's, and it's been a nightmare. I can't take off on the CVE to save my life, stationary or moving, ordinance or none. Fiddled with the missions a bit using the FMB and still no luck. I tried just about every suggestion in this thread that I could find but no joy.

I saw someone's comment about a book mentioning that "All US naval aircraft could take off fully loaded from a stationary aircraft carrier", so I started doing a bit of digging myself. I found this information here: http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f4u/f4u.html which appears to reference a number of official publishings from the manufacturers and military testing. It just says the -1 version and not which subvariant. Regardless, the data on take-off distances vs. fuel load is interesting. "Overload" which appears to be full fuel t/o dist with no wind is 660ish ft, 100 over the length of the Casablanca class CVE's in game. 15 kt headwind is pushing it, 25 kt is faster than the CVEs can go but adding headwind to make up for it can be done. I still couldn't take off with a combined 25 kt Wind Over Deck with full fuel as indicated by that source. With a 310ish ft t/o distance the F4U should pretty much leap off the deck, like we see in some of the Youtube videos posted.

As a few others point out, there are some interim solutions that can put a bandaid on this in the mean time, but I would submit to TD that this does bear some investigation.

[BadAim]

I haven't read all of the rest of this thread so I'm not sure what's going on with it, but I can say that I've never read anything about the F4U being used operationally from a CVE, and as far as I know it took the Brits to figure out how to fly the damn thing from a fleet carrier. I just don't see why anyone would expect the F4U to be useful from a CVE in IL2 if it wasn't used that way during the war. If I'm wrong I don't mind being corrected by someone who actually knows, as I'm no expert on the Pacific theater and I've only been studying it in any depth in the last couple of years.

Past any actual evidence, I'd expect a plane the size and wing loading (not to mention the nassty stall characteristics) of the Corsair to have trouble on anything the size of a CVE. That of course that doesn't mean anything.