4.11 F4U Performance

[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