4.11 F4U Performance
 

Consistent crashes to desktop after hosting for just a few minutes.

Also, F4U is nerfed! This is my squad's primary fighter and it is now a sluggish chunk of metal in the sky that overheats 2 minutes after takeoff. Takes a very long time to get up to speed. Any chance of putting is back to what it was?

The rest of the patch is spot on and I applaud the work TD does

How does your tested performance of the F4U compare to real world numbers?

I agree about the F4U, that is a disgrace to the plane IMO.

Could you post your Results and the data you are using as a reference Shaker. Exactly what is the problem ?

According to Sawyer the F4U is nerfed. It's slow and overheats easily. After reading this thread I won't be installing this patch so you may want to refer to Sawyer692 and his findings on the Corsair.

The AI tweaks sounded impressive but this CTD issue and from what I have heard from my squad about the Corsair is quite disappointing.

Concerning the F4U Corsair.
 

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.

If it's like you say, all the people on HL will want to fly F4U giving its abilities in the RL! Who would fly the other ones? :) I think all the allies plane had their capabilities exagerated in the previous patches of IL2 and now I think the odds are more even!! ~S~

That is fine and dandy but this is a SIM not a video game. Further more it's not the plane it is the pilot that makes all of the difference and it seems to me the Allied planes took a big biased hit.

=D Still the effort on the AI is top notch. I also totally appreciate folks dedicating their lives to a patch to keep a 10 year old Holy Grail of flight SIMs alive. So there is my positive criticism.

I can't agree more with you on this matter!

I agree with Shaker. I love this sim because it has always been focused on realism. This nerfing of allied planes, ESPECIALLY the Corsair is a step in the wrong direction. They weren't even as fast as they were supposed to be to begin with but now.... useless. Which is very disappointing since I was SO looking forward to this patch. Sigh... back to 4.101 for now.

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.

Translating:
"...not as fast as they were supposed to deliver you easy kills".

I can understand your dissapointment. :rolleyes:
Seriously: read the numbers, I wrote above and think about.

Regarding the F4U performance, I, as always, recommend to start with the data presented here. While not near complete, it contains much of the essential information and will allow you to adjust expectations to a reasonable level.

To me the F4U seems a bit harder to judge when it stalls, but more manouverable for sure

I cannot give reference numbers as I am not responsible for the tweaks - the one, who is and I do trust, gave them to you. I told you about actual numbers (IL-2 compare 4.11).

But feel free to create your plane to your liking - on a different place.

[QUOTE=EJGr.Ost_Caspar;379066]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.
[QUOTE]


I look forward to testing this today against a breather in a Zero. It may take some time though as we'll be CTD every 5 minutes and overheating on takeoff. I fly the F4U almost exclusivley so I have a pretty good idea what to compare it to.

So you guys can create planes to your liking but when someone complains, they're told to shove off?

In the 10+ years this sim has been around, I've read of no complaints to the Corsair. It hasn't been touched in 10 years!! If was porked as someone said, why do you hardly ever see it in a HL game?

Run some tests off a carrier....It barely takes off. Forget about adding any ordinance. I set up a carrier at 16 knots and takeoff is a struggle.

I think the problem is the acceleration. It picks up speed like a bus climbing a hill. There are a lot of Navy squadrons out there who are not going to be happy you messed with their baby.

Please just fly the thing a little.....something is not right.

And you can't dispute real life footage. This guy is off the ground before the end of the deck, and he started from midship! He doesn't fall off it the sim plays now:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TqTz6jHTazA

A more realistic speed for carrier air operations would be 30 Knots.

Try that.

You know that carriers are turned into the wind during start and landings??? so a speed of 30 knots of the carrier + the wind inRL should make it easier.. and who start from a deck which is moving with only 16 knots... kamikazi???

I understand that but the Corsair could also take off from a stationary carrier with no catapult during training at Pearl. I think your missing the point

Well, WWII US carriers were about 900 ft long. Available take distance was obviously limited by how many aircraft were stowed on deck or awaiting takeoff.

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. Obviously, this was not an operational environment.

The sim, up to 4.101, portrayed this. Now it is not even close.

Agreed.

I sense some drama here.

The Corsair flight model has changed 3 times in the past. After the Pacific Fighters release the turn rate was somewhat reduced (it was a very good turner in the initial Pacific Fighters release), then when the new flight model was introduced in 4.01m, ALL aircraft received new flight models. Now in 4.11 the Corsair has changed a little bit again.

I also ran some tests from a carrier as well. With 100% fuel, default loadout, Essex class carrier and flaps in takeoff position I was able to lift off just before the edge of the deck (i.e. I did not dip below deck) with only 100% throttle. I did not go 110% WEP. This was a moving carrier at 10kph from one of the missions in my old Corsair campaign (on M4T).

So far the only real thing I've noticed with the Corsair is that it turns better.

If there are going to be complaining to do about this aircraft... lets do some actual by the numbers testing. But I think we need to cut through some of the BS and get to the actual heart of the problem. What has changed (in your view) specifically? What speed were you getting before at altitude and what speed are you getting now? By the numbers.

We fly the Corsairs on a nightly basis so yeah we notice a difference. The numbers are moot as this mod team knows what they did to screw the pooch. I'm done with this debate as this so called "patch" doesn't even work anyways.

And the enemy AI are no better, they actually fly into the ocean quite often. I was highly looking forward to this patch but I am extremely disappointed. CTDs upon release are quite unacceptable and the butcher job done to the Corsair is inexcusable.

I'll stick to 4.101 since this isn't even open to discussion. There has been real world evidence provided for our defense however the mod team has provided nothing to back up what they have done.

The solution for me is simple.....4.101

There really is nothing more to see here.

glad you found yourself an answer.

I appreciate you actually doing some testing. Your test, however, was with no ordinance. Put 2x500lb bombs on and test. Keep in mind the parasitic drag was increased so that, coupled with poor FM, could be the problem.

The issue is the acceleration, not the top speed. I admit I've had little time to test the before/after speeds but I'll gladly post them and some video if thats what it takes. The testing I did do showed straight and level flight near sea level was around 260-270knts which, historically, was pretty close http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.o...4u-1-02334.pdf

Taking off from a carrier and the time to get to 260 knots is what concerns me. Until I do more testing, I'm not going to post on the matter.

I will say this: I truely appreciate the time and effort put into this sim. TD has done wonders to keep it alive. My worry is our squad will not be able to utilize the F4U or the F6F any longer because it is nerfed and we are a Navy squadron.

Numbers to follow (and perhaps some more "drama")

Great to see some Constructive criticism... Everbody are anxious to have a sim that is as close to reality as possible... pouting lips and playing "keep my breath 'til I go blue-game" helps noone"..

Thanx sawyer!

:rolleyes:

See post #101 for the proper way to respond.

Do you have any Real world test data that provides acceleration times to 260 knots ?

Also be aware that Drag values for external stores and pylons are now a lot more comprehensive than the simple model used previously. So Dont expect the same acceleration in 4.11 as you saw in 4.10.1 wheb carrying external stores.

Also in what way do you consider the F6F's to be "nerfed" ?

Well then have fun with 4.10.1...All I see is flippant responses to legitimate questions... so have a nice day then!

For me, if there is something wrong, I'd rather do the work and see where there might be a problem. So far I don't see one.

this is a simulator not a arcadish game, in the oleg worlds was a lot of mistakes, now TD fix them, if you dont like it, you can leave the sim, my fw190 was nerfed much more, now never reach the 730km/h but is a simulator not a blazing angels. Now I have to learn how to fight again.

TD you rock.

Finding real world data that provides that particular time does not appear to be available.

I'm aware of the new drag imposed on external stores. The problem exists with default loadout also.

I've not tackled the F6F yet, squad mates are reported it is also sluggish. I suppose that ones next.

My point here is: a carrier borne aircraft should be able to easily take off from a carrier and that is not the case right now. Comparing real world videos to what can be done in the sim is pretty good evidence, IMO.

I'll post some numbers soon comparing 4.101 to 4.11

We look forward to your analysis

Here is the data on the F4U-1 and others. Hopefully this will clarify things. It's pretty "cut and dry" that it is now way under modeled in the sim.


http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.o...4u-1-02334.pdf

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

The whole article for all the Corsairs:
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f4u/f4u.html

Pretty much every other airplane:

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/

"that it is now way under modeled in the sim"

How so ? How about some examples in Game compared directly with the performance from the references shown ? How does this also compare with 4.10.1 ?

Well, after a couple hours testing, here is what I found (F4U-C):


Speed- 100% fuel, 100% prop, appropriate supercharger settings

3000ft
4.101 -271kias
4.11 - 250kias

20,000ft
4.101 – 222kias
4.11 - 160kias



Carrier takeoff – carrier 28 knots, 100%fuel, 100% prop, takeoff flap setting, speed is from chocks release to clearing bow threshold

4.101- 96kias
4.11 – Upper 80s kias

Carrier takeoff – carrier 16 knots, 100%fuel, 100% prop, takeoff flap setting, speed is from chocks release to clearing bow threshold

4.101 – 85kias
4.11 - upper 70s kias

Carrier with ordinance

Rockets minus 10kias from 4.101
5x500 lb bombs minus 10kias from 4.101
2x1000 lb bombs minus 10 from 4.101 but dipped way below carrier and drug landing gear



Speed to 260kias, from standstill on runway, flying straight and level at 150ft

4.101 – 1min 15secs
4.11 – 1min 45secs


Some of the speed numbers in 4.101 are more precise due to the hud mod (the only mod on my sim)

Granted some of the differences may be slight on a few of the items but "feel" much greater in the sim. Either way, it is a slower aircraft now.

I have to ask; What did you guys do to the FM? I found nothing in the manual.

I have one question that may clarify something for me on the matter of the F4U as well. I realize the difference between indicated airspeed and true airspeed. My question is: Does the sim take the correlation between these into account? Or does it factor the indicated airspeed as the true airspeed or visa verse?


I will be doing some thorough testing with some of my squad mates over the next week or so and will report our findings. There are a few guys on the squad that live and breath this stuff and I want to involve them in the research to make sure I don't miss anything relevant (whether it proves or disproves that there are any errors in the modeling).

Will report back as soon as we feel we have accurate and complete data to share. As for now, thank you for listening! All the work you guys do to support this sim is highly appreciated.

All the published performance data is TAS. So when comparing Sim test performance to published data use TAS as well. Wonder woman view gives TAS.

Also there is always an issue with Atmosphere so do your tests Crimea Midday.

Sawyer. What supercharger settings (3) were you using in your 20,000ft test ? and on what map.
a 60KIAS diff is huge.

I think this may be part of the problem. The new top speed of the F4U in the sim is around 270kias (311mph). That is almost exactly the max IAS of the aircraft in the performance data. The truth is the actual TAS of the aircraft in the performance test was 431mph (375kias).

I am referring to this document from some of the 1943 official performance tests:

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.o...4u-1-02334.pdf

Not sure what you mean by "Wonder woman view" unless you are referring to the hud. I fly mostly full real anyhow but for our tests I will use the hud for reference.

Super 3 on the 20K test using coral sea map. I used that map for all the tests I did. I also took video of the tests if that helps although it would be simple to set up a scenario.

I do appreciate your "ear" on this and your responses.

(I also pondered the TAS vs IAS but the comparison shows air is air)

Likewise

Sawyer your 20,000Ft figures for 4.11 are way off. in your post 120 You got these numbers:

20,000ft
4.101 – 222kias
4.11 - 160kias
i.e. a diff of 62KIAS

I re tested in both 4.10.1 and 4.11.
F4U1C, 100% Fuel, Rad 2, 100% Power Prop pitch 100%, Supercharger 3 Default, Crimea Midday
I get 220KIAS or 579KMH TAS in 4.10.1
I get 210KIAS or 566KMH TAS in 4.11
A diff of 10KIAS or 12KMH TAS

Wonder Woman view cockpits off with the gaudy circular instruments :)

Hombre be more specific at what altitude ?

Try everything at Sea level Crimea. See what numbers you get then compare them to a specific chart from your reference.

Also read the title of that report .. it refers to a test for max performance at War Emergency Power of a "Cleaned up version"

http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e2...rsairclean.jpg

When I test in 4.11 Again Crimea Midday, WEP, RAD 2, 100% Fuel at 19,000ft (FTH Supercharger 3) I get the following:
240KIAS,280MPH IAS, 633KMH TAS (that works out at 393MPH TAS or 342Knots TAS)

The Max speed achieved in the Cleaned up test aircraft was as the report shows 429MPH TAS (averaged of the 2 runs). Its also worth pointing out they flew the test at 23,000ft, rather than the 19,000ft I flew the test.

Perhaps it would be helpful if you would share the performance data you used to model the aircraft as well. I'm doing the best I can here by researching and citing my references but I feel that I am simply hitting a brick wall. I'm sure your data is more relevant and official and I would like to see it as well if you don't mind?

Also, if you look at the date of the document these tests were conducted on the earlier model F4U-1 in 1943. After which the aerodynamic and performance improvements were made and then the C and D models were developed. Take a look at this doc from the US Navy Bureau of Aeronautics dated 1945 on the test results of the F4U-1C and 1D models, FULLY LOADED (defined in the doc), which we also use in the sim:

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

I gotta give you that one, WEP made a big difference. I was running at 99% throttle in the test I posted (forgot to mention that). I just tested again with WEP (no rad) and got it to 220kias per the speedbar.

I'll get together with my squad and do some more testing and research in the next couple days.

Again, I appreciate your time on this matter.

It says 409 mph top and this is what you get in game.

Would be nice to not clutter up a General debugging topic with a single FM debate.

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.

The issue was already underway in this thread before I made a post. If it would be better in addressed another thread go ahead and move all the posts on this issue there. It isn't my intention to clutter anything up.

^^This^^

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.

4.11 F4U Performance
 

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

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.

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 :grin:


http://www.europeanaf.org/shared/sta...ce/Table23.jpg


http://www.europeanaf.org/shared/sta...ce/Table41.jpg


http://www.europeanaf.org/shared/sta...ce/Table55.jpg


http://www.europeanaf.org/shared/sta...ce/Table42.jpg


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.

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

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?

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 ;) )

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.

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.

I promise this has nothing to do with the corsair gripe fest. I'm just coming at this from a different (non-biased) angle.

None of the USN Corsair carrier take-off missions work anymore. I can't get airborne, and believe me, I'm good at it.

The only reason I bring it up is that any other mission based upon the same type of criteria likely won't work either.

Thanks.

Look dude, I don't mean to be rude either, but it is obvious to me that you guys have no interest in listening to any negative feedback. Almost every response from you guys has been arrogant and condescending. When you are presented with real world data, you ignore it in favor of what you did in game "at sea level mid-morning in the Crimea.", or else you make pompous statements without providing one shred of real world data to back it up.

I didn't ask for the Navy planes to be 100% realistic. That really would be unfair. All I asked is could they be changed back to 4.101, which is still under powered and under modeled. Can't see how that is "one side getting exactly what it wants."

It's the same thing, even with the disclaimer. However, you're right. Take off distances are too long. This will be addressed a.s.a.p.

p.s.: I still can take off from the carriers, try raising gear the second you leave the deck. ;)

Try this and see if it works.

warm it up to at least 40C and full rich 120%, prop pitch 100% (max rpm), rad closed because it's cold engine.

After you release the chocks and just before you hit the end of the deck,crank the prop pitch down to 0% and pop full flaps. if that doesn't get you airborne, then something is wrong.

I have always felt theat the carriers have the wrong dimensions e.g too small, maybe as much as 10-15%... this could be a reason to the difficulties if correct

compare Enterprise CV6

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...rprise_cv6.jpg
http://www.navymemorial.org/Portals/...AS94206041.jpg
http://www.navsource.org/archives/02/020616.jpg
http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5229/5...18cbaebd_z.jpg


couldn't find a picture on Enterprise from the game but think and compare yourselves

I already do this as a matter of course.
:)

Woah, madblaster, I'm a pilot and only read the first part of what you said (mixture, chocks, then I hit reply).

If you have to decrease RPM and "pop flaps" uh... dude, that has nothing to do with flying an airplane. What in the heck are you talking about?

You never want to put the prop blade against the wind on takeoff and "pop flaps" (down I assume you mean)...

dude... I don't even want to start this in a bug thread.

I asked for relevant arguments...that's all. Many guys have come up with loads in hard facts which is swell..you can't say that you presented "real world dara".. you just went by I qoute ""feel" of the new models and comparison how the FM was in 4.101. That does not say much about real performance.

Regarding people having hard time to take off... I have always suspected that the carriers have the wrong dimensions e.g too small, maybe as much as 10-15%... this could be a reason to the difficulties if correct

compare Enterprise CV6

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...rprise_cv6.jpg
http://www.navymemorial.org/Portals/...AS94206041.jpg
http://www.navsource.org/archives/02/020616.jpg
http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5229/5...18cbaebd_z.jpg


couldn't find a picture on carriers from the game but think and compare yourselves

just try it. the idea is to generate incremental additional thrust and lift for a brief period (1 or two seconds) the instant you hit the end of the deck. it works. I've been flying this sim for at least four years. Cranking the pp axis value from 100% (fine pitch) to 0%( course pitch) puts sudden load on the prop and generates a bit of acceleration for few seconds. Of course, it's modeled constant speed prop, so the rate of change on the blade pitch is in the game...so this is not a cheat. Also, it takes time for the flaps to fully extend. by the time they are fully extended, you will be ready to start retracting them. Get devicelink and look at the accel parameter.

I feel relevent arguments have been made. Take a look at the video in post #17. That guy took off from midship with at least a drop tank. Granted we won't know the carrier's speed or his fuel load but, that take off can not be repicated in the game. That is a real world relevent argument. Set up the scenario and try it (btw the top speed of the Saratoga/Lexington was 33.25 knots).

Additionally, a Zero could never pull away from a corsair or a Hellcat. That's common knowledge.

My hope is this will be fixed and the "fun factor" of these planes restored.

The idea of the carriers not being modeled at a realistic length is a valid point that may need to be explored....

Another relevent argument: Thursday night, my squad ran a campaign with 12 Corsairs taking off from a carrier with various load outs. We ran 3 mission. 36 individual take offs without a single mishap on takeoff. That is how people trained in a Corsair can operate. To say we don't know what we're talking about is just sweeping us under the rug.

Anyone posting further regarding these plane should TRY them out first. Don't simple blame a lack of knowledge with prop pitch, powerband, radiator, or supercharger settings. WE know these planes, it's what we do.

Sweet mother of Joe.

Sawyer, when did I adress you about lack of evidence? You have come up with load of info which is GREAT, my only point was ANOTHER person's lack of facts other than his "feel".... undelsss u are the same person

now back to the discussin.. PLEASE!

It is not.

Now.. I went in and checked the size of the carriers.. It is a well known fact that we have always had a hard time with corsairs taking off from carriers, more so in 4.11 than before.

I took a screen from USS Lexington from the game to compare with the real Lexington, When it comes to the width of the carrier, you can fit 2 wildats next to eachtother.. maybe 2 and wreck ;)...

Now if we compare with this photo you can clearly see 4!!! Wildcats next to eachother.. wing unfolded...

If we take this comparison and apply it on the lenght of the carrier, it is likely that we might have the same size aspect, which would mean that we have Way to small carriers in Il2...
This would be nice if it was adressed. . I can't see how TD would resize all ships.. so.. something else has to be done.. I guess with FMs of carrierborne airplanes

http://www.svaf.net/temp/uss_lex.jpg
http://www.svaf.net/temp/usslexphoto.jpg

well.... maybe the airplanes wings on the picture are interlaced then?

Size of the carriers in the game is exact to their RL specs. Period.


Regarding your photo: a) planes on the photo are SBD, TBD and F2A (on the nose); b) they positioned on the deck in a "checker" pattern. It is clearly visible from the photo, that if those planes were positioned in a line wingtip to wingtip, only two of them would fit on deck in width. In the case of TBD even 2 of them won't fit.

[IMG]http://i41.tinypic.com/2uhmwbo.jpg[/IMG]


I made this a while back. Can't really remember how I did it though.

How exactly does a picture comparing two rows of Wildcats lined up wingtip to wingtip with another one with four rows staggered with overlapped wings, and with the outer aircraft right on the edge of the deck, actually prove anything?

I think the question is answered by Saqson .. thank you.

See post #36 on page 4. I mentioned "feel" as well.

"Evidence", "relevent arguments" - apples and apples man.

We are not the same person, however Sailor flys with me a few times a week and has a great deal of time in the Corsair.

We are giving you guys feedback. If it's not wanted, just say the word.

This patch really is awesome, perfect in fact, with the exception of the capabilities of our Navy planes.

huh?

I just uploaded a new version of IL-2Compare that includes LesniHU's new 4.11 files, See attached in my post here

Also, if you want to see the F4u values from 4.10 you can see them here

IL2-Compare Online

Where you can switch between metric and imperal values and select different fuel loads

Great mate... compare on the web... can't get it to start though . no planelists appear... using Chrome and IE .. no luck :(

Hmmm.. thought I fixxed that.. Click on the HOME tab first.. than the IL2Comp tab that should reset it

works.. excellent.. good idea mate

Thanks!

Also note, you can right mouse click on the graphs and do a SAVE AS to your PC.. Should you want to use them for something else

Ill also be adding the Ps and Thrust Required and Thrust Aval graphs soon.. and I still need to add the load factor values and radius values to the
doghouse lines

Last but not least.. I will be adding REAL WORLD DATA graphs to the menu so you can compare in-game results to real world results.. I wish I had that done allready, would have came in handy for this F4u topic!

Hi all! I don't think I have ever posted in this forum, but I'm a long time IL-2 player so I guess I might as well add some feedback here.

I am by no means an expert on US Navy planes, but I fly them quite often and the changes to the FM struck me as odd. At first I was outraged - the Corsairs are crap against Zeros, I kept crashing on take-offs, what the hell? But then I figured, there must by a way, since I didn't believe that TD would brake the Corsairs and Cats just to make our lives miserable.

First - you can take off even from a stationary carrier, it's hard, but possible. Come to think of it, why should it be easy? I can bet my bottom dollar, that flying a real plane is at least 100 times harder than anything you do in IL-2 and especially when it's a seaborne plane. The trick is to warm up the engine and go straight on the deck, there's no room for error here, swirling around the deck because you cannot perfectly apply rudder cost precious speed and gets you killed. It's not impossible, it's just a lot harder and you need to remember about the rich mixture.

As for dogfighting and engine overheating - proper CEM is the key. First I struggled, but after some time I came to terms with the new FM - I can outrun a Zero and shoot it out of the sky. Only once I overheated the engine in the Wildcat while climbing after take-off with 100% pitch and closed radiator. In a dogfight one just needs to remember that you cannot go 100% throttle with full pitch and closed radiator for long - I think it's fairly realistic. On the other hand, with CEM off, the planes fly slow and overheat very often.

I'm not saying the FMs are good, I'm not someone to judge since I lack the knowledge, but one can adapt to them and still fly these planes, it's just harder.

Lol. ;):rolleyes:

I and several other members of the German Il-2 community from Sturmovik.de had the opportunity to see the development on the restauration of a real F4U last year at Meier Motors GmbH, one of the few companies in Germany, that is allowed to restore and license historic warbirds.

And so while we were visiting them during Europe's biggest oldtimer airshow, the 16th Oldtimer Fliegertreffen at Hahnweide (http://www.wolf-hirth.de/ott11_en/home.php), last year, we were able to meet the boss of MeierMotors and he showed us the company and the planes they were working on.
They had Messerschmitts, Mustangs and Spitfires beside the Corsair. We were overwhelmed.

Regarding the F4U everything seems to be alright within Il-2 4.11 as far as it can get to this point of time.
I didn't know to the time we that the gear of the F4U was used and capable to work as dive brake.
I liked the F4U since the TV series "Black Sheep Squadron", mostly because of the shape of the wings.
But to see it in real life and to be told about it's history, it's technology, mechanics, and the experience MeierMotors had while restoring the plane, was awesome.
I was amazed how small sized the actuator of the wings folding mechanism was.
I would never have thought that it could withstand such forces in flight.
I don't see a big difference between the Il-2 version of the Corsair and the real one. Sure, there are some, but don't forget, this is just a simulation, no the real thing.

See some F4U pictures we were able to make in their hangars, here:

http://www.abload.de/thumb/imgp7613s3z78.jpg http://www.abload.de/thumb/imgp76157faps.jpg http://www.abload.de/thumb/imgp7631dmyqj.jpg


Don't forget, that this simulation can just get as far as the computer technology up to date.
Don't complain about 10 knots or mph, or seconds of accerelation.
Take it as it is. Everybody has the same situation.
Make the best out of it.
Learn to handle the plane ingame and make it's disadvantage to your advantage.
The F4U is a big and heavy bird. Not a Japanese wood fighter.

See the plane we've seen in it's first flight tests in moving pictures and with sound, here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L0UNVZmYsNY

Taxi checks a few months later:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C_d125N9j7c

It was a honourable experience to see such a plane getting restored, learning about it's technology and finally see and hear it back in the air.

Take that as confirmation that the development in Il-2 is as good as the developers are able to implement.

And finally here is the website of the Chance Vought Corsair F4U at MeierMotors GmbH in Germany:
Sadly no translation, but the pictures speak for itself:

http://www.meiermotors.com/index.php...mid=70&lang=en

A lot of pictures and videos.
Enjoy!

Looks like an awesome vacation and a wonderful experience! I'm envious. Still I really don't see anything relevant to the issue other than your opinion.

Tried. I was able to take off from first try with F4U-1A, 100% fuel+178gal droptank from flag forward on Essex without dipping after leaving deck. That is +- deck length as on Saratoga from front side of biggest superstructure, noticeably less than half of its total length. You need better references and to be better pilot.

Comments like this are a good way to turn this into a flame war. This opinion could have been expressed in a much less disrespectful way. Let's please try to keep this respectful of one another. Can you give more details as to the procedure you used in your takeoff? What were your flap settings? Prop pitch? Fuel mix? Carrier speed? Wind speed and direction? These would be helpful details. To just say "I can do it and you need to be a better pilot" are detrimental to this entire discussion.

You must of had significant headwind and carrier moving max speed. You shouldn't be able to do that on a stationary carrier and zero knot wind, or the game is way out of wack.

How are you managing this? In completely calm conditions, stationary Essex and Saratoga, F4U-1A in clean configuration I can't get it to take off... crash in the water each time. I'd like to consider myself pretty good at carrier ops in IL-2.

Acceleration on the deck is definitely quite slow. On a moving carrier with wind it's no problem even with a loadout but stationary is difficult.

the saratoga is 880 feet overall.

the rl chart for F4U-1 says - clean config with full load of fuel and ammo= weight ~ 12800 lbs. The chart also says for 13100 lb on hard surface and no head wind you need 910 feet.

So, that is a borderline situation. You need either:

1) some assistance from your carrier
2) some headwind
3) or lighten your fuel load.

On the other hand, if you fly F4U-1D or 1C, you probably don't need 1,2 or 3 because it is lighter plane(s).

This assumes the game is modeled correctly.

btw, 178 u.s. gal fuel ~ 1000 lbs.

btw, also saratoga top speed according to wikipedia 33-35 knots.

Wow! You are a great pilot! You actually figure out how to defy gravity!

How about posting your flap settings? Prop pitch? Fuel mix? Carrier speed? Wind speed and direction? Mods? Type of helicopter?

Or better yet, post a video or NTRK. Or how about the MIS of the map you used.

Better pilot? hmmmmm

If you are a member of TD I think they should take a second look at you. 3 posts in 2 years and this is one of them??

Awesome post, great info! ;)

NP. But I wouldn't quite call him a liar. Maybe a smart ass is more appropriate. :-P Like I said, if the carrier is going full tilt (30+ knots)...a little more than half a carrier you should be able to do it according to the chart. So maybe he did that.

Thanks for the advice, I edited it.

Full tilt is doable but not without dipping below the deck. Like I posted before, top speed of the carriers at the time was 33.25 knots. I'm curious if he fudged that a bit.