4.11 F4U Performance

[Pursuivant]

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.

Originally Posted by IvanK

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

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.

[h0MbrE]

"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

[mmaruda]

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.

[IceFire]

Originally Posted by mmaruda

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.

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!

[dpeters95]

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???

[Shaker]

Originally Posted by IceFire

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!

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.

[IvanK]

Originally Posted by Shaker

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.

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.

[IceFire]

Originally Posted by Shaker

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.

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?

[dpeters95]

Originally Posted by IceFire

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!

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...

[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.