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

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.

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.

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.

Again:

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.

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

just read it.

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.

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

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..