4.11 F4U Performance

[BadAim]

Holy crap, what a bloody freaking mess! This is a BUG thread, not a disagree with the developer over every thing they've done with the sim thread. Does anyone know the difference between a bug and your own personal opinion on one plane's flight model? WOW. I'm really surprised anyone bothers.

[IvanK]

Discuss the F4U performance here please rather than in the General Debug thread.

[EAF331 Starfire]

Originally Posted by Shaker

http://www.aviation-history.com/vought/f4u.html

I am taking my info from the above link.

"It could outfight, outclimb and (if need be) outrun any prop driven enemy."

"The XF4U-1 first went aloft on May 1, 1940 and five months later flew the 45 miles (73 km) between Stratford and Hartford, Connecticut at a speed of 405 miles per hour (651.8 kph), becoming the first production aircraft to exceed 400 mph in level flight. The US Navy was very pleased with the performance of the Corsair and, in June 1941, ordered 584 copies. Over the next 11 years that figure would grow to over 12,500 F4Us. "

The stock F4U doesn't even meet these standards and now it appears to be worse.

I have been outturning the A6M5 in a Corsair(1944 version) in patch 4.10.1 and looking at the realworld numbers this ain't possible in rl. I have yet to try the Corsair out in patch 4.11 but I doubt that the performance can be more less simmed in patch 4.11.
I love flying Carrier operations so thanks for pointing it out; I will be my next a/c to test throughly.

[EAF331 Starfire]

Originally Posted by Shaker

http://www.aviation-history.com/vought/f4u.html

I am taking my info from the above link.

"It could outfight, outclimb and (if need be) outrun any prop driven enemy."

"The XF4U-1 first went aloft on May 1, 1940 and five months later flew the 45 miles (73 km) between Stratford and Hartford, Connecticut at a speed of 405 miles per hour (651.8 kph), becoming the first production aircraft to exceed 400 mph in level flight. The US Navy was very pleased with the performance of the Corsair and, in June 1941, ordered 584 copies. Over the next 11 years that figure would grow to over 12,500 F4Us. "

The stock F4U doesn't even meet these standards and now it appears to be worse.

Originally Posted by EJGr.Ost_Caspar

That link and statements are worth of nothing. Thats a product of a U.S. fansite, supported by bend oppinions of fighter pilots (who understandibly never would state "hey, our planes were all porked, but still we won!"). And you beliefe in it. Sorry to sound rude, but simply its that way.

As for the numbers: We have neighter the prototype, nor the F4U-4 in game.

"...any prop driven enemy.." - He forgot to add "...,that was available at that time." - wich in fact was (on fighters) an Ki-43, Ki-44, Ki-61 and A6M-3 and a little bit later an A6M-5, with almost the same performance as the A6M-3.

Now to the numbers in game. With the weakest of the Corsair versions - the F4U-1 - you can outrun a Zero anytime at any alt level, with a minimum advantage of 40km/h at 2000m and 6000m.
From 350km/h climb speed upward you can run away from any Zero as well.
Naturally you cannot turn with it below 440km/h neigher can you do slow-climbing below 350km/h.

To my eyes this gives quite a few possibilies to fight successfull against Zeros. Ki-61 may be a bit more difficult, but its almost the same there in all points.

Furthermore, the F4U series has all become sligthly more maneuverable.
To have said that, I don't see your problem, but maybe only in the way you use to fly.



Half true progaganda is no standard. "It could outfight everything." - Outfight? What is this? At least no value, that we can work with.

I tend to agree with EJGr.Ost_Caspar.

Looking at grafs and numbers for different a/c from WWII
like http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/ and http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spittest.html

and reading several books which analysed the war as a whole it was not the performance of the individual a/c that won the war.

It all came down to resources, production and strategy. In essence it was numbers!

We really need a feature that can balance the servers more historical. ETO 1944: RAF+USAF vs Luftwaffe = 4:1
I recommend reading "Brute Force" by John Ellis. Unfortunately it can only be found second hand but it is a revalation.

I have made a link to the aircraft production numbers for the war














Looking at the ratios make me laugh at most so called WWII documentaries. Almost all of them are filled with propaganda.
Don't get me wrong. I am glad that the Allies won (or my country would not exist), but that kind of propaganda are bad if we need to learn from history. It is against what the Allies (-USSR) fought for. It is bad for sims.

[sawyer692]

Any chance we could get the posts from the debugging thread moved over here??

[Sprsailor]

My squad flies carrier based USN planes almost exclusively on a regular basis. Many people would say that the F4U and F6F have always been under modeled in IL2, and many people would argue the opposite.

Regardless of anyone's opinions, the models up to 4.101 have been acceptable, with very few (if any) major problems or arguments from either point of view.

Here is my observation from testing both the F4U and the F6F in game. These tests were not for numbers or data. I was just flying the planes as I normally would in training missions that I am completely familiar with and fly on a regular basis. I wanted to test the "feel" of the new models.

I flew the F4U and the F6F both in Pacific Islands dog fight training missions that I fly on a regular basis. There were noticeable differences in speed and maneuverability, but those can no doubt be compensated for with more training.

The biggest single problem I had was engine overheating. It was a serious problem in the F6F. The engine literally overheated within seconds of engaging 2 zeros. Maneuvering was not a problem, but the zeros just walked away from the hellcat due to engine overheating. Impossible to dogfight with 50% throttle and radiator full open.

I had the same overheat problem with the F4U. It wasn't as bad. It did not overheat as fast, but it was still enough of a problem that it was impossible to engage the enemy for more than a few seconds, and of course there is no way to outrun them while cooling your engine.

These posts are not intended to insult or take away from anything TD has done with the 4.11 patch. Once the few bugs are worked out, most of it adds significantly to the experience, and everyone is very supportive and appreciative of the long hours of hard work put into it.

Rather than arguing about performance data and who's right and who's wrong, couldn't there be a compromise and just return the USN planes to 4.101? Most of the patch involves AI actions, 6dof, and adding new flyable aircraft anyway. Why change performance on just a few Navy planes, that only affect a few squadrons?

[F19_Klunk]

Originally Posted by Sprsailor

Rather than arguing about performance data and who's right and who's wrong, couldn't there be a compromise and just return the USN planes to 4.101? Most of the patch involves AI actions, 6dof, and adding new flyable aircraft anyway. Why change performance on just a few Navy planes, that only affect a few squadrons?

What kind of an argument is that? Sorry for beeing rude but do you actually think that you are the only ones that fly these planes? This affect ALL IL2 gamers and not only "pilots" who fly them exclusively. I fly each and every plane in IL2 depending on what server I fly on, what mission, what side has the overhand in numbers etc.
We are all anxious to have planes and FM/DM as close to reality as possible and TD has made it quite clear that they will listen and discuss the issue, but please.. use relevant arguments.... and a compromise is not by defintion when one side gets exactly what they want ( my mrs would of course disagree with that )

[KG26_Alpha]

Originally Posted by IvanK

Discuss the F4U performance here please rather than in the General Debug thread.

I've moved the relevant posts here .

[sawyer692]

Originally Posted by F19_Klunk

What kind of an argument is that? Sorry for beeing rude but do you actually think that you are the only ones that fly these planes? This affect ALL IL2 gamers and not only "pilots" who fly them exclusively. I fly each and every plane in IL2 depending on what server I fly on, what mission, what side has the overhand in numbers etc.
We are all anxious to have planes and FM/DM as close to reality as possible and TD has made it quite clear that they will listen and discuss the issue, but please.. use relevant arguments.

That sounds like a very relevent argument to me. This guy obviously flys the hell out of the those planes and notices the same shortcomings I have mentioned in the other thread.

Those planes could leap off the carriers in real life. Now they struggle and with any heavy ordinance they just won't do it.

And I'm sure people do fly the Corsair and Hellcat quite a bit but the Navy squads fly them exclusively and will suffer the most from this change. Besides, these planes were not king of skys to begin with.

Do some testing, mainly off carriers, and I think you'll see a huge difference.

[SturmKreator]

Originally Posted by Sprsailor

My squad flies carrier based USN planes almost exclusively on a regular basis. Many people would say that the F4U and F6F have always been under modeled in IL2, and many people would argue the opposite.

Regardless of anyone's opinions, the models up to 4.101 have been acceptable, with very few (if any) major problems or arguments from either point of view.

Here is my observation from testing both the F4U and the F6F in game. These tests were not for numbers or data. I was just flying the planes as I normally would in training missions that I am completely familiar with and fly on a regular basis. I wanted to test the "feel" of the new models.

I flew the F4U and the F6F both in Pacific Islands dog fight training missions that I fly on a regular basis. There were noticeable differences in speed and maneuverability, but those can no doubt be compensated for with more training.

The biggest single problem I had was engine overheating. It was a serious problem in the F6F. The engine literally overheated within seconds of engaging 2 zeros. Maneuvering was not a problem, but the zeros just walked away from the hellcat due to engine overheating. Impossible to dogfight with 50% throttle and radiator full open.

I had the same overheat problem with the F4U. It wasn't as bad. It did not overheat as fast, but it was still enough of a problem that it was impossible to engage the enemy for more than a few seconds, and of course there is no way to outrun them while cooling your engine.

These posts are not intended to insult or take away from anything TD has done with the 4.11 patch. Once the few bugs are worked out, most of it adds significantly to the experience, and everyone is very supportive and appreciative of the long hours of hard work put into it.

Rather than arguing about performance data and who's right and who's wrong, couldn't there be a compromise and just return the USN planes to 4.101? Most of the patch involves AI actions, 6dof, and adding new flyable aircraft anyway. Why change performance on just a few Navy planes, that only affect a few squadrons?

Do you know the powerband of this engine? Do you know how to use the PP correctly? In 4.10.1 If you know all of this things, easily you could reach high velocities km/h without overheat, now is a little more difficult but not impossible, you only have to know the plane, come of this is a simulator, you cant think in two days you can dominate a plane.