I wish you guys would focus on something else but take off, it is a bit longer than it should be and it was said it is going to be changed a.s.a.p. So if that is your only worry, you don't need to worry any more at all.

How about an answer to this one:

Quote:
Originally Posted by JtD
"It says 409 mph top and this is what you get in game."


How is this achieved? Altitude, throttle, pitch, fuel, armament, difficulty switches (overheating on/off)? I have never been able to get this out of a Corsair in this sim in level flight with full real settings or otherwise. Please give me a scenario and I will try to duplicate it.

Excellent news! That will make a lot of carrier jocks happy!

That's a start but the issue of the decreased speed of the aircraft still needs to be and addressed.

Besides the altitude difference accounting for your slower in game speed, weather/temperature differences? Looks like the real life test was done during winter time. Not sure what the Crimea Midday temp is modeled to. But it's not a winter map, or is it?

The season they did the tests in is irrelevant. It was probably done in Hawaii or somewhere in the southern part of the US where there is no winter. Besides... as I pointed out in an earlier post, this test was done early in 1943 on the earlier 1942 F4U-1s. After which the improvements were made and the C and D models were produced. Once again, refer to THIS document for the relevant test results on the 1944, 1945 C and D models we use in the sim:


http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f4u/f4u-1d-acp.pdf

We need to stick to the facts here and not be assuming things that might or might not be a factor. These tests were conducted at different altitudes and weapon/fuel loadouts, but the planes were ALL loaded as the official documents clearly point out.

Edit: Also if you notice at the bottom of that doc you will see "Water available for approximately 8.5 minutes at combat power". Wasn't the water cooling removed with 4.11 which causes it to overheat more quickly?

I achieved 660 km/h full switch minus
- unlimited fuel in order to keep conditions constant
- cockpit off so I could see the speed
- no wind and turbulence as this adds a random element
in a F4U-1D, standard loadout, 100% fuel at 20000ft on the Crimea map, noon, all out, rads closed, 3rd gear charger.

I could maintain that for a while before the engine gave in. 660 km/h is 410 mph.

Actually, the rl report that you provided says it was -30/-32 degrees C for the runs. It does matter because temperature is modeled in the game on each map. That's why there are summer and winter versions, desert...etc. The airspeed are slower on the warm maps and faster on the cold ones. It has to do with density of the air. So if Ivank is test flying on a warm map he is going to get a slower non-comparable result. And if he is flying at a lower elevation than the real life (as he pointed out), he is going to get a slower result. Assuming everything was modeled in the ballpark. I would trust Ivank based on past experience.

I'll give that a try. One thing I'm wondering is what you mean by "the engine gave in". How long did this take? The corsair was able to travel fairly decent distances at this speed without a problem. This is taken from Wikipedia:

"On 1 October, the XF4U-1 became the first single-engine U.S. fighter to fly faster than 400 mph (640 km/h) by setting an average ground speed of 405 miles per hour (652 km/h) during a flight from Stratford to Hartford."

That's over 50 miles from wheels up to wheels down. That is a pretty sustained distance and I'm sure they weren't blowing their engine to do it.

Okay, I stand corrected on the atmospheric temperature but it also says the top speed was 431mph... should we dwell on that now as well? Besides you already dismissed the data in question when you made the little red arrows pointing to the fact that the aircraft used in that test was "the cleaned up version". And as I have pointed out twice since then:

This test was done early in 1943 on the earlier 1942 F4U-1s. After which the improvements were made and the C and D models were produced. Once again, refer to THIS document for the relevant test results on the 1944, 1945 C and D models we use in the sim.


What I want to know is why are you trying to nit-pick at every little thing you can find simply to dismiss the facts when YOU KNOW the F4U in the game have nowhere near the capability they should. The real world data is in front of you, please just fix the mistake.

You are right.
It was 50km/h carrier speed into 10m/s wind with F4U-1A, 100% fuel+178gal droptank, takeoff flaps, radiator fully open, canopy open and seat up position. There are no tricks, just full power at full rpm and takeoff.

However lets look on context: there is someone here who starts the thread with "F4U is nerfed!" and uses a video as a proof. A video which shows a corsair takeoff from unknown point on deck (plane is already moving when takeoff recording starts!) and claims that its impossible in game and challenges others to try it. I tried it because I though it's a bug report, but now it looks that this case was usual cries or random people on internet without any hard data to support. I never claimed that I am super pilot (I'm not) and that makes result of this takeoff challenge even more sad. OTOH sawyer692 claimed that his whole squadron is in the very post I was answering to so telling him that he need better references (because this video does is not good) and better pilot (if I can do it I'm sure a squadron specialized in this plane could do it too) is only thing anyone could answer him.

Also, for record, expect high speed characteristics "nerfed" with low speed acceleration improved, thats how it is in both game and real life.

@sawyer692: you probably meant 3 posts in two days, not years, and you forgot to write that other two were with il2c data upload and helping a user in effort to solve his crashes. If your's opinion is that your posts help more than mine and that more posts makes better person, fine, I can live with it. Just do not post untrue information.

Dude, i haven't even tried the patch! I'm not nit picking. I just happen to have played this game long enough to figure out these guys know what they are doing. Do you really believe they haven't looked at all those reports you linked to like 1000 times over??? Believe me...they have.

Really, I'm just enjoying reading all this stuff today because CLoD was so overhyped and good old IL-2 had some secrets that finally it seems a lot of people are finally figuring out.

XF4U-1 is hardly a battle ready aircraft with wepons and all the imperfections of mass series production. Record setting aircraft are usually stripped of all unecessary equipment, perfectly maintained and aerodynamically cleanedw, which is hardly the case of combat aircraft that never achieve factory data and hardly so data of some record setting aircraft. I wonder what the result would be with a corsair having flown 5 missions in PTO loaded with guns, amno and maintained in the field.

Ok... I'm confused. I looked at the document that you've mentioned and the in-game version seems to match it performance wise very closely. Particularly around Combat Power at critical altitude and at sea level.

Here are the in-game results from 4.11 that I captured with a F4U-1D:
Loadout: Default
Fuel: 100%
Throttle: 110% (WEP/Watercooling Engaged)
Radiators: Closed
Map: Crimea
At Sea Level: 579kph TAS (or 360mph)
At 6100 meters/20,013 feet: 662 kph TAS (or 411mph)

The document you posted shows basically the same results:

Sea Level: 359mph
Critical Altitude (19,900 feet): 409mph

At sea level I was in first stage supercharger. At 6100 meters I was in third stage supercharger. Fuel mixture was 100% at all times.

That seems to be bang on the results of the document that you posted. I didn't test anything except Combat power. Am I missing something?

Ok ok. I see what you're saying. Didn't mean to bite your head off. :)

That and the next post from mine says it will be fixed (adjusted, whatever).
My only point was that many campaigns/single missions would also exhibit the same issue. :)

Some actual numbers courtesy of the the US Navy for F4U-4 (Declassified) from this PDF:

www.history.navy.mil/branches/hist-ac/f4u-4.pdf

It gives take off deck lengths in feet for various conditions, main ones being:

1)With 1x 150 Gal drop tank into 25knot wind =400ft (standard fighter loadout)

2)With 1x 150 Gal drop tank in calm conditions =800ft (1 and 2: Gross weight 13 597 pounds

3)With 2x 11.75in AR+ and 8x5in HVAR into 25knot wind = 700ft

4)With 2x 11.75in AR+ and 8x5in HVAR in calm = 1400ft (3 and 4: Gross weight 16 160 pounds)

See post# 77 by Madblaster. if we are discussing the smallest carriers and MB's image is correct then at 150m (492.12 ft) deck length take off in calm condition is not possible.

The next biggest carrier is 250m (853.008 ft) and just doable in calm conditions. Note though this is only for the fighter loadout with one 150 droptank, With rockets takeoff would only be possible into 25 knot wind and with only 100ft to spare.

The largest carrier shown is 300m (984.24) ft and rocket laden in calm conditions you won't get off that either.

I'm no expert on carrier planes or operations but from the above if your getting off any carrier fully laden in calm conditions you're doing very well, (and the Corsair should be nerfed somewhat more lol!). The PDF has lots of other info, scroll down past magazine article. Any complaints on a postcard to the US Navy, please.

okay. just to be really really clear. when you move the pp axis from 100% to 0% suddenly, there is a built in delay in the game. you have no control over that rate of change. that is hard-coded in the game I assume based on historical rate of change on the blade pitch for typical constant speed prop. so it is not a cheat imo. the prop pitch is a control the player maps to and can move it up or down at will. all your doing is moving the power band as fast as the game will allow to try to get as much additional acceleration as you possibly can to get off the carrier. I guess it's like a car. you cruise around in first gear, push the clutch in, step on the gas to get the revs up,if your engine is torquey enough, you can burn rubber in second gear. But I think in a plane the prop blade stalls out after a certain point when your out of the power band. something like that.

Does the chart assume that the carrier is moving at the top speed? Because in calm condition, I sure can't take off a F4U-1D with tinytims, hvars and full fuel load if the carrier (Saratoga) isn't traveling at top speed.

At carrier top speed, it's still a challenge, but possible. I was the only plane flying in the test mission I tried it out with. Winds were at zero.

From reading the pdf the impression I had was that wind refered to carrier speed + wind (sailing into it). 25 knots windspeed seemed also to be the maximum desirable from the charts shown. Take off distances can read off for differing windspeed and loadouts.
I have no idea if this data correlates with ingame takeoff or not, but assuming it is accurate, it's a good base from which to start discussing if it's porked or not.

OK, I thought I would do some testing using these numbers. First, I may not be the best pilot out there but I am pretty good and I have been playing this game since the original release. I loaded the 1st F4U-1A carrier takeoff mission into FMB and replaced the carrier each time while setting the speed to 0 Km. It resets it to 4 Km for some reason but I would call that calm as stated in the previous specs. I also added one drop tank to the loadout. Here is what I found using MadBlaster's ship diagram:

1) CVE USS Casablanca - 150 m - Can't be done by me or the AI
2) HMS Illustrious - 240 m - Can't be done by me or the AI
3) USS Essex - 260 m - I do it 50% of time, AI does it 100% but we both have to skim the water to do it ;-)
4) USS Lexington - 300 m - I do it 75% of time, AI does it all the time. We don't have to skim the water but it falls off the end of the deck quite a bit.

I think this shows that something is not right. Even if you use the above specs, the plane is under-performing. A decent player should be able to, at least, do this from the Lexington 100% of the time without dropping down to water level. I know someone said that this would be adjusted in an earlier post and I just hope they were sincere. Also, please take a look at the F6F's they also seem to struggle off the carriers now.

The F4U-4 is a different plane which didn't enter service until Oct 1944, sorry for any confusion. I found this for f4u-1
F4U-1
Fighter Bomber Fighter
(Normal) (Overload)

Gross Weight (lbs.) 11,142 11,399 12,656

Take-off distance in calm, ft. 482 507 664
Take-off distance in 15-knot wind, ft. 313 332 447
Take-off distance in 25-knot wind, ft. 217 232 318

Note that plane weighs less, and has less powerful engine, hence longer calm take off distance.

Just to be complete.

Here's the link to the pilots manual I was using:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/42209938/F...ok-FOI-1944pdf

page 7 say the bit about F4U-1 being ~ 800 lbs heavier than the F4U-1C/1D under full fuel and ammo loadout with no external loading (i assume this means no droptank) also, you figure the pilot weighs ~ 200 lbs and that probably isn't included in the figures.

page 65- the takeoff chart under varying scenarios (hard surface, soft...etc.)

it looks like the information from different sources differs a bit. not sure what is considered "official" for the game.

It is allowed "in game" but would never be done "in real life." So yes, it wouldn't be a cheat, just not even close to realistic.

:grin: you want me to talk about my three way switch for the vdm props??? just joking, kinda of.;)

Ah, nothing like a chart war to go with the new patch. :)

It's nerfed! It's uber! Oleg's biased against Western Allies! Oleg's biased against the Axis!

re: Ship size. Other people have tried to claim that tanks and ships in the game are the wrong scale. It's not true. Just get the length of your favorite plane and measure it against the scale of whatever it is that you think is too big or too small. The comparative sizes will come out fairly close to reality.

Modelers bust their butts to make their models realistic. They're not going to screw up something as basic as length or width, since that will make the entire model look wrong.

re: F4U performance.

The words that jump out at me are "Cleaned Up Version." Operationally, the F4U-1 mostly operated from primitive airstrips carved out of some of the most unforgiving terrain on earth. They sure as hell weren't "cleaned up." They were constantly exposed to salt spray, mud, sand and tropical weather, maintained by overworked and relatively untrained mechanics, and regularly abused by their pilots.

Charts and tables showing prototype and test plane performance are ideals, as far removed from actual combat performance as "miles per gallon" figures in car advertisements.

That's why I'd love to see a feature within IL2 which allows users, or server hosts, to tweak aircraft performance slightly. That way you can nerf or uber your own plane as you wish.

"They were constantly exposed to salt spray, mud, sand and tropical weather, maintained by overworked and relatively untrained mechanics, and regularly abused by their pilots."

Ahhh I get it now... that's why the F4U is too weak to even make it off the deck now. Well that makes it okay then. LOL

It's not to weak to take off, you can take off from large carriers that are moving with a load of bombs and go straight up from the deck, takes some skill, but it's possible. Static small carriers are impossible though, but I'm not sure the Corsair operated from those.

Still, for a 2300HP engine, acceleration is a bit poor, but maybe that's the way it was.

Not sure what the issue is... it's already been stated that the takeoff distance is wrong but pretty much been proven otherwise that the new performance levels match the documents that you previously provided.

Absolutely. All of this discussion has made me go back and replay an old campaign I did (called Facing The Wind) which follows VF-84 and VF-85 during the Okinawa campaign. I haven't finished the campaign but so far every mission works just as it did before... and the first couple of missions including some fairly normal and realistic loadouts that were used during attack missions.

Taking off from a stationary deck right now does appear impossible... but with a ship underway at normal speeds everything appears to be working quite well. That includes the AI. I've had zero mishaps on takeoff (and I've been watching!).

So far the only issue I see is that takeoff distance is a bit long. Maybe something to do with low speed acceleration. Everything else seems to be fine... and working as normal. To be honest, I'm not even sure what a couple of people are up in arms about. We hear that TD broke it so they should fix it but I'm not sure what they broke or what they should fix. I'll get onboard that bandwagon as soon as someone makes sense! :)

Hey all,
Here is a fun fact. Not sure I understand why but...

Since I have multiple installations of each version on my computer, I thought I would go back to V4.07m and check the F4U-1A's ability to take off from the CVE-55 escort carrier using the AI in the "Carrier Take-Off 1" mission. Well, to make a long story short in the 6 different versions, (4.07m, 4.08m, 4.09m, 4.10m, 4.10.1m, and 4.11m) it doesn't.

Here is the item of note, by accident I was fooling around with some difficulty settings and found that I can get it to take off in EVERY version, if I turn off the "Realistic Gunnery" and "Limited Ammo" settings! Now, we don't want that obviously, at least for those of us playing with realistic settings. I just thought I would pass along the info to those who know more about the programming end of it than I do to try and resolve this Take-Off issue in case they didn't already know, which they may.

I am assuming by turning these settings off that it removes the "weight of the ammo" from the plane's overall weight since you don't know what an unlimited amount of ammo weight would be???

Sawyer presented quite a convincing case and did hours of testing and posting only to be met with general skepticism. I have yet to see any data from DT supporting the changes to the flight model.

The Corsair took a huge performance hit and we haven't even gotten to the Hellcat yet.

I realize that endless hours have been spent on creating this patch and for the most part it's pretty cool.

What you guys have to realize is that those of us who fly the Navy planes exclusively, we have noticed a huge difference. And there is nothing wrong with stating the "feel" of a plane isn't quite right. We aren't all modders or airplane mechanics. Not to mention some of us have families and careers so we don't have time to test out the differences between patches.

Besides I think no matter what evidence is presented here, DT will shoot it down. I've seen declassified documents which matched my so-called fan base site stats and they have been met with cynical skepticism.

Further more DT has not provided any data or reasoning as to why the Corsair has been remodelled.

I have found this whole discussion to be highly biased and unprofessional.

OK, well how about this making sense... The following is a list of British Pacific Fleet ESCORT CARRIERS that all contained F4u-1a squadrons:

HMS Slinger
HMS Arbiter
HMS Speaker
HMS Fencer
HMS Chaser
HMS Reaper
HMS Striker
HMS Ruler

They were all the same "class" of ship and their overall length was 492 feet 3 inches (150.04 m), pretty much the identical length (150 m) as the US Escort Carriers. I used the British carriers because the US carrier list was so long that it would have taken forever to trace down all the on board squadrons and their airplane compliment.

So that should make sense. I don't have all the spec sheets, etc., and I don't know what loads they carried, but those F4u-1A's could at a minimum fly off the Escort Carriers deck, ours currently can not...

please look at the link i posted and consider

the f4U-1 is ~ 12800 lb with no external loadout, full fuel tank and full ammo load. (page 1 manual not pdf#)

the pilot weights ~200 lb.

12800 + 200 = 13000

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.

Since 492 feet lies somewhere in between that, you reach the conclusion that in real life, you could not take off from a stationary carrier with no headwind. the carrier had to be moving, most likely at max speed around 30+ knots.

if you really want to take off on a stationary short carrier, just dump some fuel from the internal tanks. that manual I link to tells somewhere the capacity of the internal fuel tanks. so you google how much a u.s. gallon of fuel weighs and you can calculate for yourself what max internal fuel load can be done on a stationary 150 meter carrier and what can't be done.

Now, if your saying these short carriers are moving at 30 + knots and you still can't take off with just full internal fuel tanks and full ammo...then there is a problem in the game. But if the carriers are stationary, well it is to be expected that you can't take off with full fuel and full ammo.

Shaker I suggest you read this thread. Sawyer provided his test data and a DT member (Me) went and retested in direct response to his test data. In general the test numbers agreed well with the various data presented in the links to WWII aircraft performance sight. You will also see that in one test Sawyer forget to use WEP and consequently got a figure dramatically lower than "Book" figures.... and asked what had we done to the FM. Alas flying the test correctly resulted in reasonable values !

You imply there has been deliberate bias and imply that DT have "nerfed" the F4. I don't see any specific data from YOU to prove YOUR argument. The majority of respondents to this thread have argued their point in a mature manner and provided references to support their argument.

You say in your post:

"The Corsair took a huge performance hit and we haven't even gotten to the Hellcat yet. "

How so ? What exactly do YOU mean by a "huge" performance hit ?? Give us a specific example and a documented proof that in game its wrong.

DT listen and investigate legitimate well reasoned arguments (this thread alone is proof of this). Right now within DT there is considerable discussion and work going on with respect Carrier Take off performance in Il2 in general.

One liner cheap shots don't do anyone any good.

1. Escort carriers were only capable of doing 18 knots.
2. F4U, F6F, TBF and TBM on this carriers were launched from catapults only.
3. Take off from a stationary carrier (as well, as landing on such) IRL was way out of common practice.

Above were just historical facts. Now my personal opinion: those, who lament "F4U is nerfed!!!", actually mean "I can not pawn with this plane anymore!!!". :-P

The only post where I found sawyer presenting his case was his testing of Corsair performance in 4.10.1 and 4.11 which proves that the Corsair numbers have changed (top speed is reduced). However, that doesn't mean that it was correct. In general the Corsair numbers are now more representative of the specific versions. So the F4U-1 versus the F4U-1A versus the F4U-1D.

In follow up posts by other posters there was official US navy documentation showing the performance numbers. So I went...great, lets do some testing. Turns out the aircraft was too fast in 4.10.1 (and previous) and matches the numbers presented almost exactly. Nobody has refuted that point yet... I'm waiting for them to tell me I'm wrong :)

The trouble with "feel" of an airplane is that it's precisely that. Someones feelings on what it is and how it should be. To some degree the feel has to be relied upon for an overall judgement on how good a plane is but you can't use it to say "it feels too slow". Often times between patches we've had entire arguments about planes only for a couple of guys to show that nothing had changed between patches... identical numbers pre and post and yet someone "felt" that it was too slow now. Feeling can't be relied upon as a successful tool.

TD didn't provide any data... that would be helpful in this discussion for sure, however, lots of other data has been provided. So far, in my own testing (which I posted about), that data that has been provided matches the new changes to the Corsair. Before the Corsair was too fast and turned much too slowly. Now it's slower but it turns much faster. I don't know what prompted it to be that much better in the turn rate (I'm happy to see such an improvement) but I am also pleased that historical numbers are reachable and not too high above or below.

I still feel like there is a lot of discussion and yet I can't figure out what the problem is. Yeah it's slower than before but that's not an argument in itself. It now more closely matches numbers provided (oddly by the people saying that it's too slow). Now what am I missing?

Yes, that is what I am saying! I agree, at a stand still they should not be able to takeoff; however, the F4U-1A Take-Off Mission 1 is using the USS Casablanca Escort Carrier that is traveling 35 Km/hr and the AI cannot takeoff even with no external loading...

Interesting to find out about those ships for sure...any idea what the requirements were for a successful launch? Use of a catapult? Minimum wind over the deck?

As far as I know the US Navy never cleared the Corsair or the Helldiver for Escort Carrier use. Even the biggest (Sangamon class) I don't think was cleared to operate with either of those types.

I am surprised that the RN would do it... but they were the ones to pioneer Corsair use on carrier decks and developed the doctrine around usage so maybe they found a way.

Well then, you're wrong!!! First of all, this game allows a speed of 35 Km/hr check the mission in FMB. No way it should not be able to takeoff. Maybe it should be a max of 18 Km/hr but I didn't design that part either. Secondly, I only play offline but I expect to be able to takeoff of a carrier in a "Stock created mission" that was included to teach me to takeoff. Should they have picked a larger carrier, maybe, but that's not the point here...

? That's because 35 km/hr is only about 20 knots not 30 knots. Not knots..he, he made a funny.:)

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..

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 :)

That's great. You can really see the rounded off carrier approach that was used to defeat the "Left Wing Stall" problem.

You can also see that they are starting around the island which would be mid-shipish. I can't tell if they reach the end of the carrier from the angle but they all jump off regardless. None of them fall off the end. I know, I know, they are traveling at mach 1 with a 1oo mph headwind ;)

Seriously? You want to band-aid this issue with catapults? wow

There is already a mod activator for 4.11 so I decided to check it out with the new catapult mod (also beta). Unfortunately it doesn't work.

Anyway, since the mod community decided to stick to 4.10 for now, no unofficial solution can be expected any time soon.

So, all in favour of TD making a hotfix for working catapults?

Just to be clear. Apart from the training missions and custom missions/campaigns I haven't noticed any official Dgen stuff that would make it impossible to take of from the carrier, which for offline play on stock campaigns is ok, since you can fly a campaign with Navy planes and have fun (unless I am mistaken, if so please correct me). However, IL-2 is a simulator, so it should depict the real thing more or less. With Navy planes and small carriers it doesn't at the moment.

We are unable to reach a proof supported conclusion regarding aircraft performance here. The "porked FM" issue was raised time and again as long as the game exists and frankly speaking I'm tired of it. There will always be someone unhappy, because his fav plane is not as good in the game as his fav propaganda source says. This always leads to another patch having an overmodelled FM for some AC, because enough people shouted loud enough. Lets just leave it the way it is. The Corsair was mostly used by the US Marines for CAS missions, it does the job. The only thing that everyone here objectively agrees on, is that it's impossible to take off from smaller carriers. IMO catapults are the best solution, since they should be in the game to begin with and we already know it can be done.

Could anyone from TD kindly say if it would be possible in the near future (yes NEAR, remember the world end this year?). :)

The carrier looks like either HMS Illustrious or HMS Formidable, either way much larger than an escort carrier and capable of 30 knots under way.

One other thing the video shows clearly is the clipped wings on the RAF variant of the F4U.

Are you suggesting video footage from the time period is just propaganda?

Do you not think carrier-borne aircraft should be able to take off from a carrier in a realistic manner?

Do you think tweaking the FM to help its behavior on carrier takeoffs will make it a better dogfighting machine?

Don't make this something it isn't. Nobody's looking for an uber plane. If we wanted an "easy" plane to fly or to get kills in, it would not be a Navy plane!

The arguments presented are legit and hopefully the info provided will be helpful to Team D.

Training film gives good f6f data
 

That was my exact same reaction.

Been following this thread with much fascination. Aircraft performance discussion's are always a passionate, hard argued topic.

Several good points have been made on both sides, although not always accepted by those of a different view. Many links have been offered touting flight information, which again are not always accepted by those with a different view.

We all have our own preferences and beliefs, and changing anyone's view is a very hard thing to do. Lots of facts and figures can often get in the way of reaching an agreement. Especially as there doesn't seem to be an agreement of just 'one' set of figures for performance.

Which in a roundabout way brings me to my question.

In all the various threads with links/comments to performance graphs and figures, no mention has been made of the those contained in the superb book "America's Hundred Thousand: US Production Fighters of WWII" by Francis H. Dean.
This book contains it all; info on all 11 US fighter aircraft (and all sub-models), graphs, figures, turn rates, roll rates, climb rates, development background, performance, compressability effects, aircraft comparisons, take-off runs, loads (fuel and ammo), weights, engine settings for all forms of flight and so on. If that was used as the basis for modelling US aircraft flight performance it sure would go a long way to avoiding this form of dispute.


One of the little gems covered in the book is the issue of water-alcohol injection (WEP) for the F6F-3. It's been mentioned in the v4.11 ReadMe that TD has dropped WEP for the -3 model (but retained for the -5) in the interests of historical accuracy.

That however is not quite correct.

Whilst the F6F-3 originally was produced without WEP installed, following it's first actions by VF-33 in August '43 BuAer requested Grumman to fit WEP to all new -3 models, and to organise retrofitting of those already produced.
It didn't happen overnight, but by January '44 60% of all in-service F6F-3's had been fitted with the water-injected P&W R-2800-10W engine. That's covered in the book on Pages 26, 560 and 584.

So on that account TD should perhaps revert to the v4.10 setting for the F6F-3 model.

I made mention of that book in post #21 of this thread:

"According to "America's Hundred Thousand", all Navy planes, with full load, could take off on an empty deck, using full length with no wind and no ship speed, except the F6F-3."

Excellent post by the way.

I don't mean to ruffle feathers or start bickering back and forth with folks. I think this patch is a really good addition to this sim.

It just happens the F4U (and the F6F) are planes I fly exclusively and they cannot afford to be tweaked in such a way that allows carrier ops to be so lacking. If they were strictly land-based planes, I don't think such a stink would have been made.

Team Diadalos mentioned they will fix the problem and I trust they will follow through. I don't want this to give the impression the patch is unappreciated.

ignore please

Hi,
we are aware that WEP was fitted to F6F-3 during their operational carreer.
Unfortunately we cannot activate FM features according to mission date (up to now).

So we decided to leave F6F-3 without water injection in order to have two different models, one representy an early plane, retaining old performance, the other one (F6F-5) getting a boost. Otherwise we would have had two almost identic planes.

And no, we cannot add a new slot for a late F6F-3, unfortunately (Grumman F6F-3 is the complete name of this aircraft).

Thanks for your report and your support.
Maraz

A certain kind soul on mission4today gave a tip regarding landing gear in a discussion about the F4U fm: only raise landing gear after you begin to get altitude - not right after the deck ends. I haven't done many tests regarding this method versus raising gear immediately, but it seems to work.

In the builtin carrier takeoff missions, I managed to take off the Seafire with ammo and 100% fuel load from both static and moving carriers. Lower flaps no later than the 420 marker, keep nose slightly above horizon and the plane will take off. It's very hairy with a static carrier though, as the lowered landing gear almost hit water. Needless to say, I used 110% wep!

In reality the plane that was historically regarded as dangerous to take off from a carrier was a fully loaded SDB ...

I tested the F4u on the Pacific Map and I found a 80km/hr advantage over the A6m5 at sea level at noon, and a 60km/hr advantage at 5000 meters altitude.
Also as usual the Corsair and most other allied aircraft are going to have an advantage in maneuverability at high speed.
No reason to get shot down by a zero unless you screw up or are bounced.

If you are having overheating issues then you simply do not know how to manage the engine. With the radiator open at 85% prop pitch I was able to run Corsairs on WEP for very long periods of time, longer than many other aircraft before I had overheating issues.

The Corsair will be king of the Pacific on 1943 maps. On 1944 maps the J2m3 and the Ki-84 will give it trouble, but that is what the late Japanese aircraft were built for, to compete with the late U.S. fighters and bombers.

I know a few specialists who are real terrors in the Corsair in slow turning dogfights no matter what they are up against, if the Corsair turns even better now then it is going to be interesting going up against them...

I would fly the Corsair like the FW190A, keep it fast and try to have an advantage of speed and/or surprise when you attack. Flying that way with a squad on coms should make you as successful as anyone on any server.

If you are flying on the deck in furballs on arcade settings without using historical tactics then there is no discussion even worth having....

Pacific Map.. Not sure which map the IL-2Compare 4.11 data is realitve to, but it got simular values, i.e.

@ SL
567 kph F4u-1A
465 kph A6M5a
--------------------
102 kph

@ 5,000m
630 kph F4u-1A
542 kph A6M5a
--------------------
88 kph

Sadly IL-2Comapre does NOT show roll rates, but at 1,000m the ZERO out flat turns the F4u at speeds below 430kph, Above that speed the F4U turns better, which would agree with your statment.

Agreed

I set the 1944 Corsair up on the Lexington with the carrier traveling at 32km/hr and I took off with 100% fuel and two 500lb bombs on my second try. After I went in the drink on the first attempt I watched the AI take off with a weapons load and it taught me a few things.

I used full throttle, 100% prop pitch and full flaps as I always have.

I noticed that when the AI left the end of the deck, they immediately raised their landing gear and then actually flew their aircraft at an angle towards the surface of the water to pick up airspeed, then leveled out just above it.

If you leave the end of the carrier deck and try to hold the aircraft level and maintain altitude it will not work.

I am sure that most missions flown on and probably even off line will not require near 100% fuel, so with 25%-50% fuel and a weapons load things should be a lot easier.

I am not saying that IL2 is a perfect representation of Corsair and Carrier operations in WWII, but it it the best we have and if I can take off with a good fuel load and a few bombs then it will do the job for now.

Oh... different font face... interesting. Impact is no web font though. Sry to be OT. :grin:

HA HA!!! +10!! So well said!

Hi friends, I know this is a bit of a "hairy" thread, but would like to throw my own 2 cents in here.

First off, I love the 4.11 patch and can't wait for Modact and HSFX to start supporting it. And a big thank you to Team D for continuing to to support their game, I bought every version and expansion at release and it's money well spent.

On topic, I think there is something slightly wonky about the F4U-1x's that bears investigation. I've been monkeying around with carrier takeoffs, both on the shorter CVEs and the bigger Essex CV's, and it's been a nightmare. I can't take off on the CVE to save my life, stationary or moving, ordinance or none. Fiddled with the missions a bit using the FMB and still no luck. I tried just about every suggestion in this thread that I could find but no joy.

I saw someone's comment about a book mentioning that "All US naval aircraft could take off fully loaded from a stationary aircraft carrier", so I started doing a bit of digging myself. I found this information here: http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f4u/f4u.html which appears to reference a number of official publishings from the manufacturers and military testing. It just says the -1 version and not which subvariant. Regardless, the data on take-off distances vs. fuel load is interesting. "Overload" which appears to be full fuel t/o dist with no wind is 660ish ft, 100 over the length of the Casablanca class CVE's in game. 15 kt headwind is pushing it, 25 kt is faster than the CVEs can go but adding headwind to make up for it can be done. I still couldn't take off with a combined 25 kt Wind Over Deck with full fuel as indicated by that source. With a 310ish ft t/o distance the F4U should pretty much leap off the deck, like we see in some of the Youtube videos posted.

As a few others point out, there are some interim solutions that can put a bandaid on this in the mean time, but I would submit to TD that this does bear some investigation.

;-)

I haven't read all of the rest of this thread so I'm not sure what's going on with it, but I can say that I've never read anything about the F4U being used operationally from a CVE, and as far as I know it took the Brits to figure out how to fly the damn thing from a fleet carrier. I just don't see why anyone would expect the F4U to be useful from a CVE in IL2 if it wasn't used that way during the war. If I'm wrong I don't mind being corrected by someone who actually knows, as I'm no expert on the Pacific theater and I've only been studying it in any depth in the last couple of years.

Past any actual evidence, I'd expect a plane the size and wing loading (not to mention the nassty stall characteristics) of the Corsair to have trouble on anything the size of a CVE. That of course that doesn't mean anything.

Interesting discussion we had on another thread (or maybe forum) about Corsair use on CVE's. There were some that did have Corsair use. The RN used Corsairs from both full sized and escort class carriers which I found fascinating. The CVE use was somewhat limited and I believe catapult launches were a requirement for full fuel/armament loads.

I can't find the references right now... but there are a couple of pictures we found in a Squadron Signal Corsair book and elsewhere on the net.

It seems that the Brits are the pioneers as far as the Corsair is concerned. I certainly don't find it surprising that even they found the CVE troublesome. The F4U is a handful by any estimation, it seems to me that a lot of people are expecting these planes to be much easier to fly in the sim than they were in real life, but then again this is only my opinion and I could be wrong.

On the other hand, most of us probably have more hours in this sim than any WWII pilot could ever dream of having in real life. Perhaps we should do better?

I think that's very much the truth. Aside from the not dying and the terror of it all... we also have the advantage of hindsight and so much more time to practice. The average USAAF pilot in 1941 had very little idea of what capabilities the Zero had. The first time I went against a Zero in a P-40 I knew exactly what the Zero's reputation was and how to defeat it.

Of course, not all pilots out there are also students of history... but some are! :)

I'm not 100% sure about F4U's operating from CVEs during WWII, but I've seen a number of pictures of them on the end of the flight deck waiting for takeoff during the Korean War.

Those would be the later versions that have a LOT more power than the WW2 birds did.

LOL, power is great equalizer is it not?

Catapult is utilized on the end of the flight deck. So you've seen those Corsairs there.

Sawyer, my man, I just read thru all 19 pages of this post and took a bit to digest it (and look at everyone's links as well and documentation). Then I looked at the source code for the new Corsair flight models in 4.11, versus 4.10.1. As you can tell from my callsign, I fly Corsairs in full real..... alot. For 18 months, thru Hyperlobby, I operated a primarily full real duel server and got many, many corsair challenges. In 248 matches (and counting) of corsair versus corsair (with exact same plane, same starting altitude, same fuel load and same armament, etc..), I have not been defeated. (actually, I have been defeated but in the Bf-109 G2, which I dislike). Like you, Hombre and many others, I know the Corsair well. When to run in it, when to turn with it (and against whom), at what alt to climb at, etc... etc...

..All said and done, 4.11 is a downgrade. And not because the reality was that that was in fact how the corsair actually flew.

The corsair in 4.10.1 or any previous patch never matched real life corsairs (when I compare all the documentation presented) but as several noted, .... was acceptable, and if used correctly, could still kill well, provided the opposition did not all fly the Spit 25lbs and 185 M-71. In 4.11, the Corsair has been (along with the P51, TA, FWs and Tempy) downgraded by the changed FM along with the effects of the over reaching overheat model. I couldnt agree with any poster that I have seen here at the 1C forums more than what I have read from your comments. I believe you are USN_Sawyer correct ? If so, I have met you and you can indeed fly the corsair close to its operational limits (and the people I say this of, number about five to seven). I know that Hombre is USN_Hombre, so are you, USN_Sawyer ?

Sad to say but I don't think you will ever convince the TD Team WhistlinggDeath. I agree with you, the F4U is under-modelled, as is the F6F. Less so the F4F, P-51 and the P-47. The P-38, P-39 and P-40 are quite good.

Correct, USN_Saw actually. I'm OPS officer at USN squad.

Thanks for the support!

I'm not too concerned with the top speed (it actually seems pretty close) or the turning really. Those can be re-learned by practice.

It's simply getting off the carrier that bothers me.

Thankfully, they said they would fix it and our squad awaits anxiously for the next patch.

(Your name is very familiar but I can't place you. Where have we met??)

Yes Sawyer, I have flown with USN before on a few missions and hosted Hombre for a few fights (but way back in early 2010). Have also flown with BS_Vidar and a few of the Black Sheep on occasion. Aside from a few difficult fights with 357th_ULTI and LYNX_11, always had a hard time locating skilled Corsair foes to fight or fly with. You, Vidar and maybe one or two others are all I can remember as being really competent :)

aahhh. Well if you see me, Hombre or any USN guys online we all love the Corsair and will fly with or against you anytime. None of us really fly online outside the squad functions so we'll host a map.

I agree it's getting harder to find guys flying these Navy planes. We've been doing squad vs squad fights against the Bounty Hunters and they know their Corsairs well.

Post or PM your HL name and I'll add you to my friends list

Legend in your own mind huh....

Ah yes, herd NAWS is longer of this world. Tis a pitty...

Yeah, our CO: USN_NAWS, passed away following a surgury last April. RIP NAWS