Hey TD can you look again at the Corsair..

[Bearcat]

I made a similar post before.. but guys.. Please take a serious look again at this plane when you get the chance.. Thee is something wrong there .. The plane is way too slow and it overheats way too fast.. I don't have any charts or facts.. but please .. just take a look at it. Fly it yourself and you will see what I mean. I know it was not a turn and burn plane but it's performance is lacking.

F4U-1C: The prototype F4U-1C, BuNo50277, appeared in August 1943 and was based on an F4U-1. A total of 200 of this variant were built July–November 1944; all were based on the F4U-1D and were built in parallel with that variant. Intended for ground-attack as well as fighter missions, the F4U-1C was similar to the F4U-1D but its six machine guns were replaced by four 20 millimetre (0.79 in) AN/M2 cannons with 231 rounds of ammunition per gun. The F4U-1C was introduced to combat during 1945, most notably in the Okinawa campaign. Aviators preferred the standard armament of six .50 in (12.7 mm) machine guns since they were already more than powerful enough to destroy most Japanese aircraft, and had more ammunition and a higher rate of fire. The weight of the Hispano cannon and their ammunition affected the flight performance, especially its agility, but the aircraft was found to be especially potent in the ground attack role.
A Goodyear-built FG-1D, with the later style "Malcolm hood" canopy used by the F4U-1D.

F4U-1D (Corsair Mk IV): Built in parallel with the F4U-1C, but was introduced in April 1944. It had the new -8W water-injection engine. This change gave the aircraft up to 250 hp (190 kW) more power, which, in turn, increased performance. Speed was increased from 417 mph (671 km/h) to 425 mph (684 km/h). Due to the U.S. Navy's need for fighter-bombers, it had a payload of rockets double the -1A's, as well as twin-rack plumbing for an additional belly drop tank. However, these modifications necessitated the need for rocket tabs (attached to fully metal-plated underwing surfaces) and bomb pylons to be bolted on the fighter, causing extra drag. Additionally, the role of fighter-bombing was a new task for the Corsair and the wing fuel cells proved too vulnerable and were removed. The extra fuel carried by the two drop tanks would still allow the aircraft to fly relatively long missions despite the heavy, un-aerodynamic load. The regular armament of six machine guns were implemented as well. The canopies of most -1Ds had their struts removed along with their metal caps, which were used — at one point — as a measure to prevent the canopies' glass from cracking as they moved along the fuselage spines of the fighters. Also, the clear-view style "Malcolm Hood" canopy used initially on Supermarine Spitfire and P-51C Mustang aircraft was adopted as standard equipment for the -1D model, and all later F4U production aircraft. Additional production was carried out by Goodyear (FG-1D) and Brewster (F3A-1D). In Fleet Air Arm service, the latter was known as the Corsair III, and both had their wingtips clipped - 8 inches (203 mm) per wing - to allow storage in the lower hangars of British carriers.

The Corsairs in IL2 do not even come close. Can you at least at some point take a look at it.. Maybe prop size is modeled wrong .. but something is not right .. That bird in this sim is now a terrible plane to fly.. It is worse than it has ever been. Just look at it when you have the time.. Please.

[Fenice_1965]

I agree, it is embarassing to build late war missions now, with this fighter against late war japanese fighters (like ki84). It hasn't a chance.

[Bearcat]

None whatsoever.. You can't even run in it. Zeros catch up to you in a dive.. This plane was called "Whistling Death" ... in this sim it is "Whimpering Death" and that death is usually the pilot of the Corsair..

F4U Performance

[JtD]

So the Ki-84 is the reference for the correct flight model of all other planes? I don't think so. It appears from you link that the fastest speed tested with a service condition F4U-1 was 400 mph, doesn't it?

[Luno13]

The Ki-84 was not around in huge numbers or with enough good-quality fuel to sustain its performance like in Il-2. The top speed of ~400mph is TAS. Il-2 Compare states this is about ~418mph in the game at 6000 meters. At sea level, top speed is only 356.

I really don't think there is anything wrong with the Corsair. Choose your fights wisely.

However, I do agree that the Zero dives far too well, and probably has a too good roll-rate at the top end of the envelope.

[Fenice_1965]

I wasn't using KI84 as a reference but as an example, not the best as you correctly argued.

[Black_Sage29]

I learned quickly that altitude was paramount. Whoever had altitude dictated the terms of the battle, and there was nothing a Zero pilot could do to change that — we had him. The F4U could outperform a Zero in every aspect except slow speed maneuverability and slow speed rate of climb. Therefore you avoided getting slow when combating a Zero. It took time but eventually we developed tactics and deployed them very effectively... There were times, however, that I tangled with a Zero at slow speed, one on one. In these instances I considered myself fortunate to survive a battle. Of my 21 victories, 17 were against Zeros, and I lost five aircraft in combat. I was shot down three times and I crashed one that ploughed into the line back at base and wiped out another F4U

the corsair is far from maneuverable in il2 even at high speeds....even worse in hsfx

[JtD]

Originally Posted by Fenice_1965

I wasn't using KI84 as a reference but as an example, not the best as you correctly argued.

Good reply, in particular looking at my tone of voice. Sorry.

Originally Posted by Black_Sage29

the corsair is far from maneuverable in il2 even at high speeds....even worse in hsfx

The F4U is very manoeuvrable at speeds around 500-600km/h TAS. No A6M comes anywhere close at these speeds.

[Fenice_1965]

Good reply, in particular looking at my tone of voice. Sorry.

Np mate .
Effectively my post wasn't the best to express what I was meaning....

he corsair is far from maneuverable in il2 even at high speeds....even worse in hsfx

What I noticed is that F4U speed performances in HSFX expert mode are way more better. Do not know if they are more accurate or in excess on the other side...

[majorfailure]

IL2compare4.11 gives ~650kph at wep for the F4u-1d.
Tried it myself, fully loaded F4u1-d, WEP, ~672kph at ~7000m.
Compare that with data given by Bearcat that states 416/421 mph at ~20000 ft(669/677 kph) (F4U-1 No. 17930 and No's 55937, 50030) for a late Corsair with WaterInjection.
I'd say thats really close to real world data isn't it?