Fulqrum Publishing Home   |   Register   |   Today Posts   |   Members   |   UserCP   |   Calendar   |   Search   |   FAQ

Go Back   Official Fulqrum Publishing forum > Fulqrum Publishing > IL-2 Sturmovik

IL-2 Sturmovik The famous combat flight simulator.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 05-05-2013, 03:07 PM
The Stalker The Stalker is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 37
Default F4U Takeoff problem

Hi, I've been reading some topics on this but I can't find anything conclusive.

Basically, I used to fly the F4U when I started playing IL-2 and had no problems with it. I've returned to the game recently (4.11.1) and wanted to practice carrier take off (single mission - USN - F4U takeoff 1) and I can't seem to get the thing off no matter what. I don't remember having this problem before.

In my opinion the carrier in the training mission seems a bit short. I'm having trouble taking off without ordnance and I don't even want to think what it would look like if I tried with ordnance.

I'm attaching 2 of my attempts just so you get the picture of the problem and maybe tell me what's wrong.

Thanks in advance.
Attached Files
File Type: zip Fails.zip (13.8 KB, 3 views)
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 05-05-2013, 03:41 PM
The Stalker The Stalker is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 37
Default

*Update.

I managed to take off with F4U-D variant, barely. Lowering fuel amount also helps with F4U-A. Still it seems strange I'm having so much trouble taking off the F4U-A with a full tank without ordnance.

Any thoughts?
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 05-05-2013, 05:58 PM
EJGr.Ost_Caspar EJGr.Ost_Caspar is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 939
Default

I can take off with F4U-A with 100% fuel as well. Its close, but also AI cannot make it better. Didn't check your track, but did you use mixture 120%?

But indeed the CVEs are a bit short. Maybe we should change it.
Not sure, if Corsairs ever started on light carriers...
__________________

----------------------------------------------
For bugreports, help and support contact:
daidalos.team@googlemail.com

For modelers - The IL-2 standard modeling specifications:
IL-Modeling Bible
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 05-05-2013, 07:06 PM
The Stalker The Stalker is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 37
Default

Thanks for the reply. In the training mission, the AI from the other carrier takes off but seems to be as close as half a meter from water at one point. I simply cannot hold the stick so perfectly still.

If someone has the time, please attach .trk of your take off in training mission "carrier take off 1" for the F4U-A with 100% fuel.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 05-05-2013, 08:10 PM
IceFire IceFire is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,879
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by EJGr.Ost_Caspar View Post
I can take off with F4U-A with 100% fuel as well. Its close, but also AI cannot make it better. Didn't check your track, but did you use mixture 120%?

But indeed the CVEs are a bit short. Maybe we should change it.
Not sure, if Corsairs ever started on light carriers...
They didn't. Only Wildcats and Avengers operated from CVE's in any quantity. It's not possible to take off from a stationary CVE with a Corsair. I haven't tried with 10% fuel but even then I doubt it.

Probably should be changed... I can do that!
__________________
Find my missions and much more at Mission4Today.com
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 05-05-2013, 08:54 PM
sniperton sniperton is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 253
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by EJGr.Ost_Caspar View Post
I can take off with F4U-A with 100% fuel as well. Its close, but also AI cannot make it better. Didn't check your track, but did you use mixture 120%?
I envy you Caspar. I can do it myself, but with rather strange trim settings:

Aileron 6-8 notches right
Rudder 6-8 notches right
Elevator 25-30 notches up (!)

This way it flyes off from itself, and only minimal stick input is needed after takeoff, but still it's a bit odd historically.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 05-06-2013, 01:17 AM
horseback horseback is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: San Diego, California
Posts: 190
Default

During the war, Corsairs, Hellcats, even Spitfires, P-40s and P-47s were all flown off of CVE type carriers with full combat loads by average service pilots on several occasions without the aid of catapults. Taking off wasn't the problem; landing on a shorter, slower, more unstable CVE deck was a distinct problem.

By every account, the Wildcat was one of the hardest aircraft to take off from a carrier--the F4F-4 and FM-1 models were especially somewhat underpowered, and the darned things were so torque-y on top of those narrow landing gear that almost anything after that must have seemed like a piece of cake by comparison. Certainly, the late-war carrier fighters should have more than enough power and lift to clear even a short carrier deck easily with a normal combat load.

I think that there's either something 'off' in the acceleration & takeoff modeling or that the 'correct' procedure for the Player to achieve the desired results is not well known or understood.

cheers

horseback
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 05-06-2013, 02:00 AM
IceFire IceFire is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,879
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by horseback View Post
During the war, Corsairs, Hellcats, even Spitfires, P-40s and P-47s were all flown off of CVE type carriers with full combat loads by average service pilots on several occasions without the aid of catapults. Taking off wasn't the problem; landing on a shorter, slower, more unstable CVE deck was a distinct problem.

By every account, the Wildcat was one of the hardest aircraft to take off from a carrier--the F4F-4 and FM-1 models were especially somewhat underpowered, and the darned things were so torque-y on top of those narrow landing gear that almost anything after that must have seemed like a piece of cake by comparison. Certainly, the late-war carrier fighters should have more than enough power and lift to clear even a short carrier deck easily with a normal combat load.

I think that there's either something 'off' in the acceleration & takeoff modeling or that the 'correct' procedure for the Player to achieve the desired results is not well known or understood.

cheers

horseback
If I'm not mistaken, those were all much larger than the one class of CVE that we have from Pacific Fighters.

The Wildcat may have been a bit of a handful but it was still the aircraft of choice for these tiny pocket carriers. At the battle of Leyte Gulf it was a few Wildcats and Avengers from the CVE's of Taffy 3 that held back a much larger force. There was no Hellcat or Corsair employed from these carriers.
__________________
Find my missions and much more at Mission4Today.com
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 05-07-2013, 01:39 PM
Plane-Eater Plane-Eater is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 19
Default

The obvious solution here is to implement deck catapults the same way the ships had (and depended on) them in real life...
Reply With Quote
Reply


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 05:25 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2007 Fulqrum Publishing. All rights reserved.