Hey TD can you look again at the Corsair..

[Luno13]

The Ki-84 was not around in huge numbers or with enough good-quality fuel to sustain its performance like in Il-2. The top speed of ~400mph is TAS. Il-2 Compare states this is about ~418mph in the game at 6000 meters. At sea level, top speed is only 356.

I really don't think there is anything wrong with the Corsair. Choose your fights wisely.

However, I do agree that the Zero dives far too well, and probably has a too good roll-rate at the top end of the envelope.

[Fenice_1965]

I wasn't using KI84 as a reference but as an example, not the best as you correctly argued.

[Black_Sage29]

I learned quickly that altitude was paramount. Whoever had altitude dictated the terms of the battle, and there was nothing a Zero pilot could do to change that — we had him. The F4U could outperform a Zero in every aspect except slow speed maneuverability and slow speed rate of climb. Therefore you avoided getting slow when combating a Zero. It took time but eventually we developed tactics and deployed them very effectively... There were times, however, that I tangled with a Zero at slow speed, one on one. In these instances I considered myself fortunate to survive a battle. Of my 21 victories, 17 were against Zeros, and I lost five aircraft in combat. I was shot down three times and I crashed one that ploughed into the line back at base and wiped out another F4U

the corsair is far from maneuverable in il2 even at high speeds....even worse in hsfx

[JtD]

Originally Posted by Fenice_1965

I wasn't using KI84 as a reference but as an example, not the best as you correctly argued.

Good reply, in particular looking at my tone of voice. Sorry.

Originally Posted by Black_Sage29

the corsair is far from maneuverable in il2 even at high speeds....even worse in hsfx

The F4U is very manoeuvrable at speeds around 500-600km/h TAS. No A6M comes anywhere close at these speeds.

[Fenice_1965]

Good reply, in particular looking at my tone of voice. Sorry.

Np mate .
Effectively my post wasn't the best to express what I was meaning....

he corsair is far from maneuverable in il2 even at high speeds....even worse in hsfx

What I noticed is that F4U speed performances in HSFX expert mode are way more better. Do not know if they are more accurate or in excess on the other side...

[majorfailure]

IL2compare4.11 gives ~650kph at wep for the F4u-1d.
Tried it myself, fully loaded F4u1-d, WEP, ~672kph at ~7000m.
Compare that with data given by Bearcat that states 416/421 mph at ~20000 ft(669/677 kph) (F4U-1 No. 17930 and No's 55937, 50030) for a late Corsair with WaterInjection.
I'd say thats really close to real world data isn't it?

[Black_Sage29]

The corsair doesn't go past 220mph-230mph tops in low alt flight..its not supposed to be that slow and thats with 30% fuel

Why do American planes not get any love in this game..I mean come on

[DuxCorvan]

Originally Posted by JtD

Good reply, in particular looking at my tone of voice. Sorry.

Don't worry, I'm pretty sure he didn't hear anything at all...

Interesting work, horseback. Is your feeling that acceleration is tied directly to, and only, drag? The reason I ask is because blade pitch was another major factor, in that as it increased more thrust was diverted from forward propulsion to resisting rotation. The result would then be a much faster drop off of acceleration at the top of the scale than the simple increase of drag. Curiosity only.

As for the 190, you're right, the trim in the real plane wasn't anywhere near twitchy and, bizarrely, the faster the plane went the less adjustment it needed for speed's sake. Above 260mph no adjustments in trim were needed at all if the only variable was speed. Sounds like you could use that characteristic - lol. As to its in game takeoff acceleration I've done standing start drag races between an absolutely empty (no ammo, 10% fuel) A8 closed cowl flaps (and auto prop) and an overloaded (1600lb, fully fueled) SBD with canopy and cowl flaps open and to 100mph it's practically a draw! lol. Fun times.

--- Trivia: Lowest drag D9 cowl flap setting was 23% open. ---

[horseback]

Originally Posted by zipper

Interesting work, horseback. Is your feeling that acceleration is tied directly to, and only, drag? The reason I ask is because blade pitch was another major factor, in that as it increased more thrust was diverted from forward propulsion to resisting rotation. The result would then be a much faster drop off of acceleration at the top of the scale than the simple increase of drag. Curiosity only.

As for the 190, you're right, the trim in the real plane wasn't anywhere near twitchy and, bizarrely, the faster the plane went the less adjustment it needed for speed's sake. Above 260mph no adjustments in trim were needed at all if the only variable was speed. Sounds like you could use that characteristic - lol. As to its in game takeoff acceleration I've done standing start drag races between an absolutely empty (no ammo, 10% fuel) A8 closed cowl flaps (and auto prop) and an overloaded (1600lb, fully fueled) SBD with canopy and cowl flaps open and to 100mph it's practically a draw! lol. Fun times.

--- Trivia: Lowest drag D9 cowl flap setting was 23% open. ---

No, weight is definitely a factor; re-testing the P-47D-22, now that I have more of a 'feel' for what I need to watch and compensate for, makes it clear that the FM for that bird makes acceleration very dependent on what angle your nose is pointed. If you're just a hair high, you can gain 20m in altitude and lose a second or two in a 3-5 second 10kph interval. Conversely, if your nose is just a skosh (not sure of the spelling) low, you can lose 25 or 30m and decrease your 10 kph interval by a second or three. This applies throughout the P-47's speed range, while for lighter aircraft like the Corsair, it applies mainly at the far end of the acceleration run, where the engine is straining for that last bit of speed.

My understanding is that the Thunderbolt was pretty aerodynamic and that it had surprisingly low drag for its size. It was however, a big heavy sucker with inefficient props (the paddleblades aren't modeled on the razorback Jugs), so I kind of expected that its acceleration would be less than spectacular, especially at these altitudes.

However the Mustang, which is a fairly heavy aircraft when you consider the horsepower of the V-1650 (even with the fuselage tank empty), doesn't seem to suffer for it nearly as much as the Corsair at the far end of its performance curve, so that's where I assume the drag coefficient comes in. I'm going to try to quit complaining about the unrealistic trim demands so much, because the Hellcat, the P-47, the Focke-Wulf and even the Zero have it worse.

The FW 190A, though, was supposed to be much quicker off the mark even than most models of the Spitfire V, so I really don't know where to assign the blame for that.

Someone in an earlier post suggested E-bleed is what is hamstringing these supposedly high-performance aircraft, and that's as good a place as any to start. Most of the victims of this issue appear to have had what was described at the time as 'sensitive' trim tabs or trim controls; the aircraft was described as easy to trim because the trim adjustments were relatively minor as speed or power changed, and the tabs were often described as 'effective'. What I have been finding is that most of the needed adjustments are too small to use button trim--you either go way over or way under with that last click; the happy medium leaves you either pushing your stick forward or pulling it back 5-10 degrees, which is not the best way to squeeze that last 6-8 kph out of your aircraft by keeping her absolutely level.

I've tried switching to trim both on a throttle quadrant and on the Saitek X52 throttle (I just couldn't abide that stick, though, so I either use my CH Combatstick or my son's Thrustmaster T.1600). In either case, the increments you have to apply are teeny-wheeny tiny, especially in the elevator trim. I sometimes think that blowing on the damned things can have a measurable effect on my angle of attack at higher speeds. I have tried a variety of curves, but mostly what happens is that the transition point between 43 and 60 is located just where I needed an extra tiny adjustment.

What confuses me is that if you actually watch your rudder or elevators from outside the cockpit as you apply trim by button while parked on the ground, it takes about 80 clicks from a neutral position to the maximum in each direction (80 clicks up, 80 clicks down; same with rudder left/right trim). The animation shows no visible movement for four or five clicks (depending on where you are in the motion range), but I am taking it on faith that the single click has some effect when we are 'flying'; if you watch the vector ball in Wonder Woman view, a single click of rudder trim always has a visible effect, so I'm assuming that the elevator trim works the same way, even though it's harder to detect or measure via the vector ball method.

You'd think that 160 clicks of range of adjustment on each control surface would confer a little more precision...

cheers

horseback