4.11 F4U Performance

[dpeters95]

Originally Posted by MadBlaster

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.

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...

[MadBlaster]

Originally Posted by dpeters95

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...

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

[dpeters95]

Originally Posted by MadBlaster

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

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

[MadBlaster]

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.

[F19_Klunk]

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.

[IceFire]

Originally Posted by dpeters95

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...

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.