4.11 F4U Performance

[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.

[SaQSoN]

Originally Posted by MadBlaster

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.

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!!!".

[dpeters95]

Originally Posted by SaQSoN

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!!!".

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...

[IceFire]

Originally Posted by dpeters95

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...

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.

[dpeters95]

Originally Posted by IceFire

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 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.

[Robo.]

ignore please

[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?