Length of the escort carriers have no relevance.. they were equipped with catapults, which are not modeled in IL2

http://www.svaf.net/temp/kwaja.jpg
http://www.svaf.net/temp/gilbert.jpg
http://www.svaf.net/temp/sarg.jpg

Source picture: "F4U Corsair in action" - Squadron/signal publications AIRCRAFT NO. 29 and "F4U in Color - Squadron/signal publications"

Ahh, true. To be honest, I was thinking knots. But I would think 20 knots should also work, right?

Did some testing on take off missions for carriers.

Corsair, all versions: stationary carrier take off training missions work, it's possible to get off the deck and fly, but those are large carriers. Moving carriers however are the small ones - impossible to take off, no matter engine setting (tried even with superchargers).

Same thing goes for the Hellcats.
Wildcats have no problem with any carriers.

Now, people say that US Navy planes got the nerf.

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.

Now, several things that come to my mind.

1. In the first IL-2 Pacific Fighters versions there were also problems with carrier take-offs. This is funny because since the first Forgotten Battles, the planes got a bit of a power boost, and some realism fans were outraged by the too easy FMs (the Polish website Yoyosims.pl still has the reviews, that criticise the FMs of FB and PF significantly and the guys who wrote them really know a lot on WWII aviation).
2. Both the small carriers and the British one have catapults which do not work in the game, maybe historically the heavier planes were launched with these when the travelled slow and with no wind?
3. The missions are old, probably don't feature wind and most probably were carelessly designed just to show carrier take-offs.
4. Every campaign you start positions you on a large carrier and has you take off with the ship going at max speed and into the wind. This is the impression I got after several hours of testing.

Conclusion: apart from the training missions and user made missions with the same conditions as the training ones, there is no real problem with taking off from carriers in the campaigns. So the Corsair performance isn't necessarily wrong.

Our problem has several solutions:
1. TD works on a hotfix covering take-off acceleration for all the navy planes, so they can get off the deck (as clearly it's not only the F4U that has problems).
2. TD works on a hotfix that enables catapults for carriers (there is a mod for this available for some time now, and it even features AI using the catapult, so it should not be too hard).
3. Someone finally provides proof that small carriers did not launch the heavier planes without catapult or at all, or whatever, so we could finally close the deal on navy planes and "learn to like it" the way it is.

okay, here's rough calculation for 18 knots. you can do same for 20 knots if you want. pulling data from my other post:

go to page 60 (manual not pdf#) of that link. look at the chart for gross weight 13100 lb for takeoff on a hard surface. notice that you need 380 feet with a 30 knot headwind or 680 feet with a 15 knot headwind.

So for 18 knot, to figure required distance from the chart data:
680 ft-380ft=300 ft (distance differential)
30 knot-15 knot=15 knot (headwind differential)
300 ft /15knot = 20 ft/knot (relate the two differential)
18 knot-15 knot = 3 knot (18 knots is what we knot, not 15 knots...he, he another one)

3knot*20ft/knot = 60 ft
680 ft-60ft ~ 620 feet needed at 18 knots.
Casablanca is 512 ft, so too short at 18 knots.

again..For me discussing the take off length in irrelevant as it seems that catapult was used both on Essex class carriers and escort carriers...
Too bad it's not modeled. If it was we wouldn't discuss takeoff but rather the rest of the FM.

http://www.svaf.net/temp/york.jpg

The British F4Us were not identical to the US ones. Among other things they had about 20 cm clipped off the wings.


Note that these British ships were lend lease Bogue Class carriers fitted with catapults.

A random clip of F4Us corsairs taking off from a larger (non catapult) carrier ...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2SngBxtYFao

That would be the solution

yes, bring on the catapults. no more math.;)

I agree. I'm not asking for a "super plane". It's only fun playing a simulator when you are actually simulating something. I just feel that the acceleration is too slow. When I watch my takeoff from an external view, the F4U-1A looks like it's rolling through a swamp.

thank you!!!! it IS so irrelevant. The decks could have been 50m....still being able to take off ..with catapults.. which WAS USED.. acceleration is a non-issue

EDIT:: well it is an issue.. I guess.. as we don't have catapults yet and we must be able to fly missions still :)