PDA

View Full Version : WHINE about the sair and hellcat



fordfan25
12-27-2004, 11:15 PM
ok i have been flying alot of missions sence yesterday. im useing the same setings in defculty as i have for the past two years. sence this last patch in the corsair and hellcat. the ecelaration has been but down ALOT. i know there is a thread on this relateing to static carriers but im talking about in the air like in Q mission builder ect. the top speed is about the same but it now takes about 3 times as long to get there. i tested in a p47 and every thing is fine but the hellcat and f4u's are acting like there towing a chevy behind them lol. just thought id bring this up. has anyone else noticed this. this is the bigst deffernce in FM i have ever noticed from one patch to another. i swear guys im not makeing this up. and befor anyone says it i know how to fly lol. turning and handling seem about the same just the acelration seems way way to slow.

fordfan25
12-27-2004, 11:15 PM
ok i have been flying alot of missions sence yesterday. im useing the same setings in defculty as i have for the past two years. sence this last patch in the corsair and hellcat. the ecelaration has been but down ALOT. i know there is a thread on this relateing to static carriers but im talking about in the air like in Q mission builder ect. the top speed is about the same but it now takes about 3 times as long to get there. i tested in a p47 and every thing is fine but the hellcat and f4u's are acting like there towing a chevy behind them lol. just thought id bring this up. has anyone else noticed this. this is the bigst deffernce in FM i have ever noticed from one patch to another. i swear guys im not makeing this up. and befor anyone says it i know how to fly lol. turning and handling seem about the same just the acelration seems way way to slow.

p1ngu666
12-27-2004, 11:22 PM
cant be as bad as ki61 can it?

fordfan25
12-27-2004, 11:29 PM
i dont know i have not flown that enough to be able to tell anything from one patch to another. i mostly fly the hellcat and Hog. i dont mean to "whine" as you guys say lol. but i realy have noticed a major decress in the accel of those two fighters. its makeing it overly hard to fight in camapigns. the zeros keep cathing me like crazy unless i stay at high speeds and make long long drawn out turns so i dont lose any top end. it was fine befor this new patch. the corsair would eccel about like the p47 wich was fine with me.

CV8_Dudeness
12-27-2004, 11:50 PM
for a 2000 Hp A/C .. . . . . . both the Hellcat & Corsair seem slow to me

some posters have said they both hit their top speeds correct , but in DF's , they are caught easy

RAF74_Buzzsaw
12-28-2004, 12:11 AM
No such thing as 'Sair' in game.

There is a HAWG, HOSENOSE, ENSIGN KILLER, and various models of the F4U-1, but no 'Sair'.

fordfan25
12-28-2004, 12:18 AM
fine hog.lol

there top speeds are fine but i dont see it takeing so very much longer to reach a given speed than in a p47. i tried over and over again and every time with out fail i note how far it takes to reach a given speed. the HOG takes much much longer to get anywear near it TS compaired to the jug. i wish i had a stop watch. was the p47 that much quicker than the corsair? i always heard thay were about the same.

VMF-214_HaVoK
12-28-2004, 12:59 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by CV8_Dudeness:
for a 2000 Hp A/C .. . . . . . both the Hellcat & Corsair seem slow to me

some posters have said they both hit their top speeds correct , but in DF's , they are caught easy <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Corsair F4U-1D had 2,250HP putting it second in the game next to the P-47D with 2,300HP which has the most.
The F4U had an empty wt.lb. 8,694 and fully loaded wt.lb. 12,039.
The P-47 had an empty wt.lb. 10,700 and fully loaded wt.lb. 13,500.

The P-51D which had 1,695HP an empty wt.lb. 7,125 and fully loaded wt.lb. 10,100

The F6F-5 Hellcat which had 2,175HP an empty wt.lb. 9,153 and fully loaded wt.lb 11,381

Now considering the power to wieght ratio and the fact that I fly US planes with 25% fuel (which a lot of weight comes from) and guns only. I should not notice that the F4U and F6F acceleration to be so poor. Top speeds seem fine it just takes forever to obtain it. The P-47 has very good acceleration which makes sense. What does not make sense is that the F4U accerlerates slower then the P-47. It would also seem that by reducing fuel load makes no difference in acceleration. I suppose one would have to do a good test to see for sure. I can make my observations simply because I fly US planes 99% of the time several hours a day. And been flying the JUG since the 1.0 days exclusively until other US varients showed up.

fordfan25
12-28-2004, 01:20 AM
yes thats just what im saying. i to have flown the p47 alot sence 1.0 lol. the deff between the two in accelaration right now is more than noticble in Lv flight. i dont know about dives. maby some one who is good at testing them will jump in.

heywooood
12-28-2004, 01:31 AM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by fordfan25:
fine hog.lol


There is no such thing as a 'Hog' in this 'game'... it is spelled 'Hawg' according to 'Buzzsaw'

please try to be more anal retentive, 'fordfan'
as there is really no such thing as a 'grip'...

PS...I LOVE the 'SAIR, bro. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif

Bearcat99
12-28-2004, 08:43 AM
Would you like some cheese with that whine?
http://www.cheesesupply.com/images/newhtml/img_topmain.jpg http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

joeap
12-28-2004, 08:49 AM
I like cheese and WINE http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

VW-IceFire
12-28-2004, 08:53 AM
Time to take to the skies and have a Jug and a Corsair race.

mortoma
12-28-2004, 09:26 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by RAF74_Buzzsaw:
No such thing as 'Sair' in game.

There is a HAWG, HOSENOSE, ENSIGN KILLER, and various models of the F4U-1, but no 'Sair'. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Sair, Sair, Sair, Sair and more Sair. Oh and by the way, did I mention Sair?? So there!!!

mortoma
12-28-2004, 09:29 AM
The fact that they reduced the acceleration drastically is verified by the fact that they don't get off of carriers nearly as well as they did in 3.02bm. Very hard to get off a british carrier with two 500 pound bombs and full tank now. Should be easy.

A.K.Davis
12-28-2004, 10:16 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by mortoma:
The fact that they reduced the acceleration drastically is verified by the fact that they don't get off of carriers nearly as well as they did in 3.02bm. Very hard to get off a british carrier with two 500 pound bombs and full tank now. Should be easy. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

"Should be easy." Any sources, references, data to back that statement up?

Stiglr
12-28-2004, 12:18 PM
Yeah, really. It says a lot that carrier based Corsairs didn't see action until '44 in the Phillipines battles. Most of them operated from land bases until that time. That torque had a lot to do with it. You didn't "easily" roll with a Corsair from *anywhere*.

chris455
12-28-2004, 12:33 PM
Just say "Corsair". It's not that hard. Try it.
C-O-R-S-A-I-R. See? Now that wasn't so hard was it?
I don't know what a "Sair" is, but I know it sounds lazy and dissolute and was never used to describe the F4U. EVER. Until some irreverent Bozos around here decided they were too lazy to say "Corsair". So don't be one of them, Mkay?Just say Corsair. Thanks.

fordfan25
12-28-2004, 03:21 PM
dude if you dont like hearing people say sair then tough. your going to have to live with it because theres nothing you can do about it. and if you dont know what a sair is then the word sair is the least of your worries.ill say what ever i like. Mkay?

fordfan25
12-28-2004, 03:24 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bearcat99:
Would you like some cheese with that whine?
http://www.cheesesupply.com/images/newhtml/img_topmain.jpg http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

lol bear thats some nasty looking cheese man. i hope you didnt eat any of that.

RAF74_Buzzsaw
12-28-2004, 03:38 PM
Salute

If you 'sair' lovers prefer to be unknowledgeabe, and prefer to call the plane by a name which no self-respecting real F4U jockey would use, then feel free... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

"Sair Pilot": Noob dweeb who likes to turnfight his plane with Zekes and complains on O.R.R. when he gets his a** handed to him.

"Hawg Pilot": Salty Vet whose victims never saw him coming. Then they notice their cockpit is on fire, they are in an uncontrollable spin, and their right wing is missing.

fordfan25
12-28-2004, 04:50 PM
hawg pilot. "super pc geek who thinks he is actully flying a corsair and thinks he knows it all. thinks every one should think just as he does. Is far to raped up in his own little world wich incidentaly revolves around him and him alone.He believes no one has the right to think deffernt than his o great and wounderful self. and takes things far far to seriously.chill out.

sair pilot: a very cool, easy going, and good looking dude.Loved by hot chicks every wear due to his very large "joy stick" hehehe. only plays games to have FUN and RELAXE. has short temper when it comes to people tring to tell him how to think. he knows the sair should be called a corsair but because of people makeing a big deal out of it decides to keep calling it a sair just to mess with them. does not care if he gets his A$$ handed to him because he is happy just to play with his "joy stick". http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

signed your lord and master
FORDFAN

ps. what does "ps" stand for?

RocketDog
12-28-2004, 04:57 PM
Calling the F4U a "sair" is just shorthand for "I am 13 years old".

Regards,

RocketDog.

fordfan25
12-28-2004, 05:21 PM
see post above

chris455
12-28-2004, 06:12 PM
This is what a Corsair looks like:
http://members.cox.net/miataman1/FF1 .................and this is what a "sair" looks like:
http://members.cox.net/miataman1/FF2 Big joystick indeed.

Diablo310th
12-28-2004, 07:13 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif you guys kill me. Just fly a Jug. oops..can we say Jug? or is it jug? or is it T-Bolt? Actually..I like the "sair", Hawg, hog, Corsair. Did I cover all the bases?

stelr
12-28-2004, 07:47 PM
Really hate the nutering given the F4U in the latest patch.

By all accounts it was an excellent performer. In comparison with the F6F and P-47D (all equipped with a different varient of the Pratt & Whitney R-2800, 2000hp engine), the F4U was only a tad slower at top speed than the P-47D (631km/h at 7315m vs. 676km/h at 9150m). It had a faster rate of climb and was lighter than each of the others (4025kg empty vs. 4101kg empty for the F6F and 4485kg empty for the P-47D). I'm not an avionics expert but, having a superior thrust-to-weight ratio should imply it had at least equal or better acceleration than the P-47D.

Am I wrong with this assumption?

Also, I've seen some posts here that counter others' complaints about not being able to take off in the newly remodeled F4U from the deck of an escort carrier with the implication that F4Us shouldn't be able to do it anyway; that F4Us were difficult to get off any deck and were relegated to larger CVs. Hence the name "Ensign Eliminator."

This is clearly innacurate. In fact, the carrier qualification trials for the first F4U-1s were on the escort carrier USS Sangamon Bay, on 25 September 1942. The reason the Navy failed it and didn't clear it for carrier duty until 2 years later was due to poor forward visibility on landing (couldn't see the LSO over the long nose of the F4U) and problems with the stiff landing gear causing it to bounce on landing and often missing the wire. It was finally approved for carrier duty in Apr 44 after they fixed the main landing gear legs to reduce tendency to bounce on landing and adopted landing techniques developed for it by the Brits to keep the LSO in view until near touch down on deck.

The name Ensign Eliminator refers specifically to its the tendency of the left wing to drop like a rock at stall speed of 141km/hr...very near landing speed to trap abord a CV. Nothing to do with inability to take off a short deck.

Anyway, I just hope Oleg and crew review the actual data on the aircraft and let it do what it historically could. Here's hoping that 3.04 will get it "re-fixed."

fordfan25
12-28-2004, 08:26 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by chris455:
This is what a Corsair looks like:
http://members.cox.net/miataman1/FF1 .................and this is what a "sair" looks like:
http://members.cox.net/miataman1/FF2 Big joystick indeed. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

lmao. THAT WAS GOOD. and yes big joystick in deed. i love it that your saying im a baby for calling it a sair. yet your throwing a tantrum over something as insinsignificant as me calling it a sair. man you guys make me feel like im in the 3rd grade again lol. maybe

F4U_Flyer
12-28-2004, 09:12 PM
"This is clearly innacurate. In fact, the carrier qualification trials for the first F4U-1s were on the escort carrier USS Sangamon Bay, on 25 September 1942."

I would believe that this carrier was moving into the wind not sitting stationary. According to a doc in another post calm conditions required 1100 ft to takeoff , escorts were much shorter than this. I think the fix needs to be with either wind moddeling for online or moving carriers. Dont play online ( dialup ) so i dont know if these features exist in online , i am just speculating. I do though like the fact that oleg is trying to moddel the planes as accurate as possible .

Flyer out !

BuzzU
12-28-2004, 09:35 PM
Here's a new sig for some of you.

Blackdog5555
12-28-2004, 11:18 PM
This data was Googled and seem fairly credible. As you can see, the F4U-1 is a slow accellerator. I think the flight model is pretty much on the money. I think the pre patch was more like the -4 which was nice.


"In level flight acceleration the F4U-4 gained speed at about 2.4 mph/sec, the P-51D accelerated at about 2.2 mph/sec. The F4U-1 could not keep up with either, accelerating at only 1.5 mph/sec. The real drag racer of American WWII fighters was the P-38L. It gained speed at 2.8 mph/sec. All acceleration data was compiled at 10-15,000 ft at Mil. power settings".

Blackdog5555
12-29-2004, 02:26 AM
After i posted above, i tested the F4U...and "Its porked." its is supposed to accelerate at 1.5 mph per sec.. but it doesnt. Also at 19,000 ft it is rated at 417mph. I could only get it to go 370mph. Sea level speed is close to ok. What a joke. Its either done intentionally or they have idiots doing the flight models.

WUAF_Badsight
12-29-2004, 04:05 AM
what game map did you do your top speed test on ?

did you back off when the overheat came on ?

were your Rads open or closed ?

were you trimed level or were you nudging the stick level ?

all of the above makes a big difference (especially the Map used)

Augermc
12-29-2004, 08:19 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> If you 'sair' lovers prefer to be unknowledgeabe, and prefer to call the plane by a name which no self-respecting real F4U jockey would use, then feel free...
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wow, how many real F4U jockeys do you know?? I know one that lives 3 houses down, but he is 79 years old now and in a wheelchair. I honestly don't think he gives a rip what people playing a game on a computer calls the F4U. Hell€¦.I was in the Navy on submarines and often called them €œboats€ and the navy the €œnav€. We even called carriers €œbirdfarms€ and all surface ships were €œskimmers€.

Maybe people started calling it €œsair€ during on line games 'cause....oops...because it is €œeaiser€ abbreviate while playing the game....oops....piloting your aircraft. Maybe it isn€t a big deal.

stelr
12-29-2004, 08:46 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by F4U_Flyer:
I would believe that this carrier was moving into the wind not sitting stationary. According to a doc in another post calm conditions required 1100 ft to takeoff , escorts were much shorter than this. I think the fix needs to be with either wind moddeling for online or moving carriers. Dont play online ( dialup ) so i dont know if these features exist in online , i am just speculating. I do though like the fact that oleg is trying to moddel the planes as accurate as possible .

Flyer out ! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree with you Flyer. The escort carrier was obviously not stationary when they were doing the tests in '42. However, in the F4U "Single Mission" T/O from Carrier, the escort carrier is moving. I don't know how fast, but it's definitely cruising, as it runs over me when I'm in the water.

As for modeling the aircraft as they were...not to satisfy "playability" or to placate someone or some group of enthusiasts...is exactly what I'm in favor of.

Buzz's post above indicates that although the F4U-1 could not accelerate as fast as the P-51, F6F, or P-47, it could still accelerate faster than the one modeled in 3.03. And, achieve a faster top speed than the one in the game.

This clearly must be fixed in 3.04.

PLEASE OLEG...hear our prayers! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/cry.gif

Aaron_GT
12-29-2004, 12:06 PM
" And, achieve a faster top speed than the one in the game."

At sea level the one we have is about 5 km/h too slow. That's pretty close. Not sure what the situation is at 20,000 feet in 3.03 - not done a test - been more concentrated on getting the thing off the ground! :-)

t0n.
12-29-2004, 12:43 PM
I am all for making the Corsizzle (its off the hizzle fo shizzle http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif ) as accurate as possible. But it does annoy me that the late war Japanese wonder birds are spared the same treatment thanks to an almost total lack of verifiable performance data. Not cool!

And yeah, stop calling the Corsizzle the "sair" you noobs http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

tttiger
12-29-2004, 01:20 PM
Just to correct an error from Stglr:

While there were many Marine Corsair squadrons involved in the recapture of the Philippines, all were land-based and part of either MAG-12 and, later, MAG-14.

The first Corsairs assigned to a carrier were asssigned to VMF-124 and VMF-213 and delivered Dec. 28, 1944 to the USS Essex in Ulithi. The Essex went to sea on Dec. 30. Before they even went into combat, the Essex Corsairs had three fatal crashes during training landings.

On Jan. 3, the Essex Corsairs conducted their first combat mission escorting bombers to Okinawa. Their second was on Jan. 12, escorting bombers to Saigon.

There were no carrier-based Corsairs involved in the late 1944 battles in the Philippines as Stig stated. Sorry, but you are incorrect (at least according to "America's One Hundred Thousand").

For what it's worth, in their first month, the Essex Corsairs downed 10 enemy planes and destroyed 16 on the ground. But a total of 17 Corsairs and 8 pilots were lost. Of those 13 aircraft and 7 pilots were listed as operational losses.

All of that said, I totally agree there is something seriously wrong with the acceleration of the Corsair and was even before the 3.03 patch.

There is no way I can take off from a CVE in a Corsair unless it has only 25 percent fuel and no external stores.

It isn't just my lousy (and mine is) flying. Last week, I led 3 AI Corsairs off a CVE. I crashed and so did the first two AIs. Only the last AI became airborne, presumably because it had a bit more deck for take-off.

That ain't right and must be fixed.

Happy New Year!

ttt

JaggedRaven
12-29-2004, 03:19 PM
sair.

No601_prangster
12-29-2004, 04:50 PM
A Fleet Air Arm test pilots thoughts on the Corsair.

Oddly enough, the Royal Navy was not quite so fastidious as the US Navy regarding, deck landing characteristics and cleared the Corsair for shipboard operation some nine months before its American counterpart. The obstacles to the Corsair's shipboard use were admittedly not insurmountable, but I can Only surmise that the apparently ready acceptance by their LOrdships of the Admiralty of the Chance Vought fighter for carrier operation must have been solely due to the exigencies of the times, for the landing behaviour of the Corsair really was bad, a fact to which I was able to attest after the briefest acquaintance with the aircraft.

I had joined the Royal Aircraft Establishment at Fainborough in January 1944, and one of the first tasks to which I was assigned was that of checking out the diving characteristics of the Corsair with undercarriage both retracted and extended. The aircraft with which I was to perform the tests was an early Lend-Lease Corsair Mk I (JTilS) and our encounter was certainly not a case of love at first sight. On the contrary, during my acquaintance with this impressively large and aesthetically unappealing fighter, which was to spread over several years, I was never to achieve any Sort of rapport.

The Corsair's inordinately large proboscis was, I suppose, its most outstanding feature - in the USA in later years I was to hear this fighter referred to by the sobriquet 'Old Hog Nose' - and coupled with its fairly acute and most distinctive ground stance, it imparted an impression of rugged strength rather than aerodynamic refinement. The cockpit was, I discovered, inordinately spacious, and I was reminded of the suggestion of an RAF pilot on first seeing the P-47 Thunderbolt that its occupant might take evasive action by releasing his harness and dodging about the cockpit! It appeared to have been tailored for an extremely tall pilot- I subsequently learned that the principal Corsair project pilot was 6 ft 4 in (1,93 m) in height - and one of more modest stature such as myself inevitably experienced some discomfort keeping one's feet on the rudder with the seat adjusted to a height from which what little forward view existed could be gained. The layout of the cockpit was poor and on the ground the only reasonable view was upward!

The immense Pratt & Whitney R-2800-8 Double Wasp was turned over by hand four or five times, the fuel booster pump was switched ON, the priming switch was flicked several times, the ignition switch activated and the starter cartridge fired. The Double Wasp, which has take-off rating of 2,000 blip at 2,700 rpm, usually burst into life immediately and with the firing switch depressed and the mixture control moved slowly to AUTO RICH was soon purring with all the smoothness and reliability so characteristic of this family of engines. The Double Wasp was opened up to 1,000 rpm to warm up, the usual temperature, pressure and magneto checks performed, the flaps lowered and raised, and the revs increased to 1,400, the operahon of the two-speed supercharger being checked by moving the control from NEUTRAL to LOW and, after a pause of a few seconds to ~nGH. With the propeller control fully down, the throttle was opened and take-off boost and static rpm checked, the stick being held hard back to contain a strong tendency for the tail to lift.

The feeling of not being at one with the aircraft was emphasised during taxying, when the totally inadequate forward view necessitated swinging that great nose from side to side, but to do this the tailwheel had to be unlocked and the Corsair was then very unstable directionally, necessitating constant use of the brakes with the danger of nosing over in the event of too harsh application. There could be no doubt that some practice was necessary to achieve satisfactory ground handling. For take-off, the trimmers had to be set six deg right rudder with six deg down on the right aileron and one deg nose up on the elevator. With mixture in AUTO RiCH, fuel **** on RESERVE, booster pump ON, intercooler shutters closed, the supercharger lever in NEUTRAL, and the tailwheel locked, the engine was opened up to 54 in boost and 2,700 rpm. If trimming was correct, the Corsair demonstrated no tendency to swing and unstick was rapid. With the application of 30 deg of flap, such as would be employed for a carrier take-off, and about two-thirds normal fuel at a take-off weight of about 11,150 lb (5058 kg), the Corsair would take-off within 185 yards (169 m) without wind and about 120 yards (110 m) into a 15 knot (28 km/h) wind.

The speed for maximum climb rate was 125 knots (232 km/h) from sea level up to 21,000 ft (6400 m) and the intercooler shutters had to be opened fully, but the cowl gills were only half opened otherwise there was some buffet. Climb was certainly impressive, with that immense 13 ft 4 in (4,06 m) diameter Hamilton Standard propeller pulling the aircraft up like a high-speed lift, 10,000 ft (3 050 m) being passed in 46 minutes and 20,000 ft (6095 m) in 96 minutes. Above 21,000 ft (6400 m) climb speed was reduced three knots (5,5 km/h) per 2,000 ft (610 in), but the two-stage two-speed supercharger ensured good climbing capability well above 30,000 ft (9 145 in). Once in level flight, the Corsair could be trimmed to a very stable hands-off flying condition. Its stability was positive at all times in the cruise and at high speeds. It imparted a feeling of solidity; to compare it with, say, the Seafire, was like comparing a shire horse with a poio pony, and this feeling of solidness was combined with an impression of immense power.

The harmony of control was poor, the elevators being heavy but the ailerons being moderately light, enabling the Corsair to be rolled to its maximum rate even at fairly high diving speeds. This effective high-speed aileron control must certainly have been valuable in the South Pacific as the Corsair's principal opponent in that theatre, the Zero-Sen, had poor aileron control at high speeds at which it rolled sluggishly. I had heard that Marine Corps pilots used this high-speed roll capability as a standard evasive tactic, diving the Corsair and then rolling to port or starboard before recovery to shake off any pursuing enemy fighter. Acceleration was quite dramatic and a clean aeroplane with about two-thirds fuel in main tank only and 200 rounds for each of its six 'fifties could reach a maximum speed of 342 knots (634 km/h) at the Corsair's critical altitude of 24.000 ft (7,315 m) on normal maximum power, which, at that altitude was 1,550 hp at 2,550 rpm. At combat power of 1,650 hp at 2,700 rpm (limited to five minutes), maximum speed was 343 knots (636 km/h).

The flaps could be lowered 20 deg to assist manoeuvring at speeds tip to 200 knots (370 km/h) and recommended speeds for aerobatics included 350-360 knots (650-670 km/h) for an upward roll, 330 knots (610 km/h) for a climbing roll, 300 knots (556 km/h) for a roll off the top of a loop and 260-280 knots (480-520 km/h) for a loop, but it was not recommended that the Corsair be held inverted for more than three seconds. The stalling characteristics were very poor, with little warning other than that afforded by the stall warning light on the instrument panel which was operated by the breakdown of airflow over the centre section. At the stall, the right wing dropped sharply and an incipient spin developed if the control column was not moved smartly forward. If the Corsair stalled in a steep turn it would normally flick out, but recovery was rapid if control column pressure was relaxed quickly. At about 11,500 lb (5 216 kg) with engine off and all up, the Corsair would stall at 90 knots (167 km/h), and with flaps and undercarriage down at 76 knots (141 km/h), the warning light coming on at 80 knots (148 km/h).

My initial task with the Corsair was, as previously mentioned, to check out the diving characteristics. We had had reports of Marine Corps Corsairs losing the fabric from their elevators, and I could well imagine this because, due to the combination of relative aerodynamic cleanliness, high power and weight, the Corsair accelerated very rapidly in a dive with the aircraft clean, and relatively inexperienced pilots working off some exuberance by diving steeply from high altitudes without close regard to structural limitations could easily have found themselves in trouble. In clean condition, acceleration was rapid to 400 knots (740 km/h) below 10,000 ft (3 050 in), but with the undercarriage extended to serve as a dive brake it took about the same height loss to reach 350 knots (650 km/h). Any attempt to exceed these limiting speeds produced pronounced elevator buffeting. Lowering the undercarriage as a brake was done by using the dive brake control, the tailwheel remaining retracted otherwise damage to the tailwheel doors would have resulted. Lowering the mainwheels produced a strong nose down trim change, and the elevators heavied up in diving and a pull-out called for plenty of height in consequence. Buffeting of the elevators could occur during the recovery, dictating easing off the pull-out and reducingg. Prior to the dive, the supercharger was set to NEUTRAL, the mixture in AUTO RICH, the throttle was set one-third open, the cowling flaps, oil and intercooler shutters were shut and the rudder was trimmed six deg left with the elevator set one-and-a-half deg nose down. As no automatic boost control was fitted, care had to be exercised in avoiding overboosting.

I was well aware that the US Navy had found the Corsair's deck-landing characteristics so disappointing in trials that it had been assigned for shore duties while an attempt was being made to iron out the problems, and although the FAA rvas deck-landing the aircraft, I knew that, by consensus, it had been pronounced a brute and assumed that shipboard operations with the Corsair were something of a case of needs must when the devil drives. The fact that experienced US Navy pilots could deck-land the Corsair had been demonstrated a couple of months earlier, in November 1943, when VF-17, providing high cover for the carriers Esse.r and Bunker Hill, had run short of fuel after decimating an attacking torpedo-bomber force and had landed safely aboard the carriers. All in all, I wasmost anxious to discover for myself if the Corsair was the deck-4anding dog that it was reputed to be. It was!

In the deck-landing configuration with approach power, the Corsair could demonstrate a very nasty incipient torque stall with dangerously little warning, the starboard wing usually dropping sharply. With the large flaps fully extended the descent rate was rapid, and a simulated deck-landing at 80 knots (148 km/h) gave very poor view and sluggish aileron and elevator control. A curved approach was very necessary if the pilot was to have any chance of seeing the carrier, let alone the batsman! When the throttle was cut, the nose dropped so that the aircraft bounced on its mainwheels, and once the tailwheel made contact, the aircraft proved very unstable directionally, despite the tailwheel lock, swinging either to port or starboard, and this swing had to be checked immediately with the brakes. On one approach, I tried a baulked landing and discovered that the sudden opening of the throttle at 80 knots (148 km/h) also produced the previously-mentioned torque stall, but this time the port wing dropped. I needed no more convincing of the wisdom of the US Navy in withholding the Corsair from shipboard operation! Oh yes, the Corsair could be landed on a deck without undue difficulty by an experienced pilot in ideal conditions, but with pilots of average capability, really pitching decks and marginal weather conditions, attrition simply had to be of serious proportions.

Changes were being continuously applied to the Corsair on the assembly lines, among the first that could be seen externally being the introduction of the higher, single-piece canopy as distinct from the original 'bird cage" hood. This vastly improved canopy was accompanied by the elimination of the cut-outs for aft-vision behind the headrest and the raising of the seat by about seven inches (18 cm), and the combination did marginally improve forward view. Although these modifications did not apparently warrant any change in US Navy designation at that time, their application produced the designation Corsair Mk II in the Royal Navy. Oddly enough, somewhat more significant changes in later batches of aircraft did not result in mark number changes, despite the addition of at least a suffix letter to the US Navy designation. For example: all Royal Navy Corsairs could carry the 142 Imp gal (646 I) centreline tank and with the 361st Corsair II this could be augmented by a 137 Imp gal (623 I) tank under the starboard wing only (in lieu ofabomb), but with the 441st aircraft, the unprotected integral wing leading edge tanks were discarded and a 137 Imp gal (623 I) tank could be carried under each wing. Thus, the last 150 Corsair Mk us were basically F4U-lDs, but unlike their US Navy counterparts they carried no distinctive designation. To make nonsense of the whole mark number system, identical aircraft produced by Brewster and Goodyear were assigned the designations Corsair Mk Ill and Mk IV respectively.

Other changes included the provision of longer-stroke oleos to take some of the bounce out of the landing and, peculiar to FAA Corsairs, the clipping of eight inches (20 cm) from each wingtip to reduce the folded height for stowage in the cramped below-decks hangars of escort carriers, this latter, somewhat rudimentary modification incidentally improving lateral control. The Corsair II was, of course, a heavy aircraft for escort carrier work and reports soon began to reach us at Farnborough of a disturbing accident rate and of excessive wear on arrester wires. It was not just the sheer bulk of the Corsair, but the fact that the pilots were throwing it onto the deck too fast, the lack of aerodynamic stall warning making for a tendency to approach at too high a speed. The real trouble, of course, lay in the fact that the modifications characterised by the Corsair Mk II had made little positive improvement in its deck-landing qualities except that there was less tendency to bounce over the wires after the mainwheels first deck contact.

In general, the arrester wires were only surviving about four landings before having to be replaced. Inevitably, a Corsair II came to the RAE to be tried out in the arrester gear fitted on the short runway. These trials included a series with the aircraft carrying two 1,000-lb (453,6-kg) bombs which gave an all-up weight of 14,000 lb (6 350 kg). At 24g and a deliberate 15 ft (4,57 m) off centre contact, the arrester wire was being destroyed at each landing. These were extreme conditions, of course, but arrester wire wear and tear remained excessive and the number of accidents escalated in proportion to the number of Corsairs deployed. Later, with a Corsair IV, we were to perform a number of tests with arrester wires fitted with heavy 1-in (2,54-cm) centre spans (ie, the piece contacted by the arrester hook). The very first landing that I made into this heavy span whipped the tailwheel olco clean off the aircraft, so this was obviously no solution to the problem. Indeed, no solution was to be found by the time the problem disappeared with the disembarkation of the last FAA Corsair squadron in August 1946.

In the meantime, the FAA had taken its Corsairs into action, their operational debut in the European theatre having taken place on 3 April 1944 when No 1834 Squadron aboard HMS Victo,-ious flew fighter cover in concert with Hellcat, Wildcat and Seafire squadrons for Barracudas attacking Tirpitz lying in Kaafiord, northern Norway. In further attacks on Tirpitz in July and August, the Corsairs of Nos 1841 and 1842 squadrons from HMS Formidable were also in action. April also witnessed the operational debut of the FAA Corsair in the Pacific area, when, on the 19th of that month. Nos 1830 and 1833 squadrons escorted Barracudas attacking Sabang.

Despite the fact that the FAA was flying the Corsair from carriers in several theatres, the original design aim of shipboard operation was not achieved by the US services until 28 December 1944, and then it was a Marine Corps squadron that first flew combat sorties from a carrier. The F4U-i had been finally cleared for shipboard service with the US Navy in the previous April, after VF-103 had completed 113 uneventful landings in succession aboard the USS Gambier Bay, its Corsairs having been fitted with the longer-stroke oleos mentioned earlier. The Marine Corps squadron that initiated shipboard Corsair operations. VMF-124, flew from the USS Essex, the first USMC unit to be deployed aboard a fast carrier specifically to meet the increasing threat of Japanese Kamikaze attacks, and by the end of the Okinawa campaign, nearly every US Navy carrier was equipped with Corsairs.

There can be no doubt that the Corsair was one of the fastest naval aircraft of WW 11 and few of its pilots criticised it from the performance standpoint. It had a good range, adequate firepower, an extremely reliable engine and it could absorb a lot of punishment. However, in my view it left much to be desired as a fighter from the viewpoint of manoeuvrability and this same shortcoming was apparent in the dive bombing r6le in which it saw widespread use. Finally, it had a very dreary track record as a deck-landing aircraft; many were the pilots that lauded its high-speed performance but decried its lack of affinity with a carrier deck.

It was with this unenthusiastic regard for the Corsair lingering in my memory that I found myself faced with the same aircraft in slightly different guise a number of years later, in 1951, when I was posted on attachment as a test pilot to the US Naval Air Test Center at Patuxent River. On the inventory of Flight Test was the AU-i, a dedicated low-level ground support derivative of the original Corsair evolved specifically for Marine Corps use in the Korean War. Fitted with a single-stage two-speed R-2800-83WA version of the Double Wasp with a sea level combat rating of 2,800 hp, a lot more armour in the cockpit and engine sections and a built-in armament of four 20-mm Mk 6 cannon with 231 rpg, the AU-i had taken on a lot of weight by comparison with the WW II Corsairs with which I was familiar. With a pair of 150 US gal (5681) drop tanks, a 1,000-lb (453,6-kg) bomb and six 500-lb (226,8-kg) bombs, the AU-1 weighed in at no less than 19,398 lb (8,799 kg).

Understandably, performance had suffered, the maximum speed attainable when laden in the fashion described being 207 knots (384 km/h) at 8,800 ft (2,680 in), but combat range was 715 nm (1 325 kin) cruising at 165 knots (306 km/h) at 15,000 ft (4570 in). It wasthe handlingof the AU-i that served to heighten my distaste for the Corsair, however, for if its ancestor had proffered some unendearing characteristics, they had been multiplied in the descendant. The AU-I had developed some highly undesirable directional stability and control characteristics, such as requiring almost full right rudder on a deck-landing approach, thus rendering baulked landing the most hazardous of operations. It also displayed a directional oscillation in diving with external stores, thus setting up wing rocking and seriously affecting the aiming accuracy. The manoeuvring forces were high - 13 lb (5,9 kg) per g at 200 knots 370 km/h) at mid CG - and aileron overbalance occurred above 265 knots (491 km/h). These shortcomings were compounded by the old fault of inadequate stall warning and, if anything, the forward view appeared to have worsened. Whether any of these defects were eventually remedied I know not, but unless they were, I sympathise with any pilots that operated the AU-I from a carrier.

The Corsair is a difficult aircraft to assess for, as I have already said, it was operationally successful in spite of itself. Designed essentially as a shipboard air superiority weapon, it was only a qualified success when operated from carriers, but when operated from shore bases by the US Marine Corps it built up an excellent record. The Corsair has, of course, a sentimental place in the hearts of FAA pilots because it gave us our only fighter VC, Lt Robert Hampton Gray, RCanNVR, who, leading a force of Corsairs attacking Japanese naval vessels in Onawaga Bay on 9 August 1945, attacked a destroyer despite his aircraft having suffered damage from anti-aircraft fire, and scored a direct hit before his aircraft was struck once more and burst into flames.

VMF215_Plug
12-29-2004, 05:41 PM
S~ Gents,

I cannot possibly even approach the firsthand experience of the Prangster on this subject. Thank you sir for your insight into the real thing. I'm just a virtual pilot. I've always thought it ironic that the first Navy to deploy an aircraft that had such success for the US in the pacific was not the US. Of course the British also perfected the carrier.

As a member of VMF215 "The Fighting Corsairs", I have a particular love for the F4U. You all have named many of her nicknames, both historical and modern. I personally prefer the name "The Club With Which I Will Bludgeon You", but that is unwieldly even as an acronym. To each his own. Lighten up kids.

I agree that the biggest problem with using the Corsair in this game is the static carriers in the online game. Carriers are NEVER static during air ops. PLEASE fix this Oleg and team! As far as acceleration specs .. not my area of expertise.

One minor historical correction. VF-17 was the first (U.S.) operational unit to demonstrate the F4U's suitability for carrier ops. The F4U was cleared for carrier ops in April 1944. The first unit to actually deploy with the F4U was VF(N)-101 on the USS Enterprise on 9 Jan 1944 - WOW a night squadron the first to deploy the "Ens. Eliminator" on a carrier (for the U.S.)! They only deployed 4 A/C, so the deployment of VMF-124`and VMF-213 on Dec 28, 1944 (36 A/c) was much more significant.

My $0.02

Plug

No601_prangster
12-29-2004, 05:45 PM
Just to clear things up VMF215_Plug the quote above was lifted from another website and unfortunatly I don't know the name of the test pilot involved. Still it an interesting firsthand account http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

heywooood
12-29-2004, 06:25 PM
prangster - thank you for posting that account.

These pilot accounts are always interesting in that they always offer data in a colorful and insightful way. That being said, they offer little in the way of background of the pilot giving the account as a rule.
I think it is important to know what his experience is - what planes he has flown, and whether in test or in combat...especially just prior to his evaluation of the plane in his account. Sometime they mention this stuff, but usually only a brief mention.

And with regard to calling the F4-u a 'sair...vs. name calling the people on the forums that do so..well... I'll continue to refer to it my way. And if that makes me lazy or dull I guess I'll just have to take that to heart and cry like a girl all day long. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/cry.gif

hahahaaaha http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif I love the 'Sair, bro....and fordfan?....yer Killin' me! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

fordfan25
12-29-2004, 06:40 PM
thanks haywoood. in knew youd have my back lol. im not sure if some of thses guys are half jokeing or completly for real. its bad for me because id rather call it a HAWG but will keep calling it a sair in protest lol http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

heywooood
12-29-2004, 06:48 PM
no worries, fordfan...call her whatever you like....it works for me. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif as far as those other 'Bozos' go?....who the hell cares.

I have been flying the D9 lately anywho...Kurt Tank made some lean mean flyin' machines, didn't he?...

http://www.scalemodelart.com/images/fw190d9_08_jpg.jpg

Aaron_GT
12-29-2004, 07:00 PM
stelr wrote:
"By all accounts it was an excellent performer. In comparison with the F6F and P-47D (all equipped with a different varient of the Pratt & Whitney R-2800, 2000hp engine), the F4U was only a tad slower at top speed than the P-47D (631km/h at 7315m vs. 676km/h at 9150m). It had a faster rate of climb and was lighter than each of the others (4025kg empty vs. 4101kg empty for the F6F and 4485kg empty for the P-47D). I'm not an avionics expert but, having a superior thrust-to-weight ratio should imply it had at least equal or better acceleration than the P-47D.

Am I wrong with this assumption?"

Well, look at it this way. If the plane is lighter, has essentially the same engine with the same horsepower (assuming the same amount of supercharging) then it implies that the airframe has a higher drag. A source of drag might be a wing that induces more drag due to a design that develops more lift at slower speeds, suitable for a carrier aircraft. In a climb you are converting energy into potential energy (height) at low speeds where induced drag is lower so there power:weight comes into play much more. Also the extra lift might not hurt either.

Actually the P47D at altitude is probably generating much more horsepower than the F4U due to that big turbosupercharger, and is a bit slower at sea level where the supercharger isn't in play. But power:weight ratios don't affect speed in a linear way. So the rough analysis isn't perfect due to the speed difference at sea level.

The F4U should have better acceleration where induced drag is a relatively small factor - say around 150mph. Near 300mph it might be neck-and-neck with the P47 due to the induced drag.

fordfan25
12-29-2004, 07:24 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by heywooood:
no worries, fordfan...call her whatever you like....it works for me. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif as far as those other 'Bozos' go?....who the hell cares.

I have been flying the D9 lately anywho...Kurt Tank made some lean mean flyin' machines, didn't he?...

http://www.scalemodelart.com/images/fw190d9_08_jpg.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

yea not a bad looking plane for sure but i never could fly them for sh!%. good wepons in the late mod to. real nice looking cockpits dispite the bad veiw.

mortoma
12-29-2004, 07:51 PM
Sair........so there!!! Whatcha gonna do about it?? Huh??? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif I double Sair you to give me any grief about calling it a Sair!!

heywooood
12-29-2004, 08:20 PM
hehehhehe...pound that nail, mort. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

tttiger
12-29-2004, 10:04 PM
Great post, Prangster! Thank you!

It should be noted that almost EVERYTHING U.S. carriers did was done by British carriers FIRST. Up to and including the catapult. We Yanks just sort of borrowed their ideas.

Batsman! I love it! We should have grabbed that one, too http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

ttt

Ruy Horta
12-30-2004, 03:41 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by fordfan25:
its bad for me because id rather call it a HAWG <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Which means you've actually understood the point being made...

WOLFMondo
12-30-2004, 07:39 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by heywooood:
I have been flying the D9 lately anywho...Kurt Tank made some lean mean flyin' machines, didn't he?...
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I got hooked on the D9 th other day, thanks to Fish6981 and his handy tips im seeing why this plane was so feared...can't hit the side of a barn but it sure flies like no other plane!

Aaron_GT
12-30-2004, 10:46 AM
Yes the D9 is a very nice, smooth ride. Too bad it is Axis. I don't like to fly Axis planes.

heywooood
12-30-2004, 09:08 PM
I dont understand why, Aaron.

Axis planes?...they were the Axis in 1939-1945

there is a different Axis now....

For myself - I really appreciate being able to get to know what the Allies were up against, and getting to fly Luftwaffe equipment, albeit virtual, is a real big deal to me...thats why I love this sim and 1c so much.
There should be no angst or loathing today. I am an American and I see no reason to feel any hatred?...or shame?...in flying and experiencing all of the planes in FB/PF...for the same reason that I think it is ok to use other nicknames for the aircraft and not worry too much about offending the friggin' manufacturers ? (who, need I remind you, are trying there darndest to intercede and coerce the developers) or think that it somehow disrespects the veterans by calling an F4-u a 'sair' ??? (Maybe if 1c uses the name 'sair' on the box, we can finally get an F4u-4) gimme a break...or try to relax your grip just a little.

fordfan25
12-30-2004, 10:12 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ruy Horta:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by fordfan25:
its bad for me because id rather call it a HAWG <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Which means you've actually understood the point being made... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

o yes i get the point. the point is some people just cant stand it if thay dont get things just there way. and when thay dont thay start name calling like 12 year olds. i understand it was never called a sair in ww2 and i think this was the first post i ever called it a sair. And if some people would not have made a deal out of it it probly woulda been the last time i called it a sair. how ever now im going to call it a sair just to mess with them. and whats so great for me is if those people post saying thay dont care what i call it i know there full of it because of the big deal thay have already made of lol. thay may even make comments like "well if you want to be a 12 year old and not know what your talking about then go ahead" well that just makes me even more sure im geting to them. see i own them now plain and simple. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif every time i say sair it makes them cry http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/cry.gif BOOOHOOOHOOO, lol "im only jokeing around of course http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif "

chris455
12-31-2004, 12:30 AM
Fordfan25 wrote
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>And if some people would not have made a deal out of it it probly woulda been the last time i called it a sair. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

(lets out a long sigh)....................had we only known that before we posted . http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

WUAF_Badsight
12-31-2004, 12:33 AM
the Sair dont feel like a 2000 Hp plane to me

& you Sair fans ought to be rallying together

what is it about the Sair that makes you whip into a sword fight anyways ?

chris455
12-31-2004, 12:42 AM
Originally posted by WUAF_Badsight:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>the _Sair_ dont feel like a 2000 Hp plane to me.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
That's because in PF it suffers from a technical condition known as anglo-aeronautic emasculation.

Lotta that going around. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif
Maybe if some people write to their Sairy God mother about how unsair it is, it will get fixed.

Sinsairly,
Chris

fordfan25
12-31-2004, 01:00 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by chris455:
Originally posted by WUAF_Badsight:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>the _Sair_ dont feel like a 2000 Hp plane to me.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
That's because in PF it suffers from a technical condition known as _anglo-aeronautic emasculation._

Lotta that going around. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif
Maybe if some people write to their Sairy God mother about how unsair it is, it will get fixed.

Sinsairly,
Chris <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

lol good one ."anglo-aeronautic emasculation"

fordfan25
12-31-2004, 01:02 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WUAF_Badsight:
the _Sair_ dont feel like a 2000 Hp plane to me

& you _Sair_ fans ought to be rallying together

what is it about the _Sair_ that makes you whip into a sword fight anyways ? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

your right "IMO" it deff does not seem like its got all it should have but maby thats just me.

and yes we should all get togather on this

as for the fighting i did not take any of it to heart. i was just messn around most of the time.

F4U_Flyer
12-31-2004, 01:06 AM
" you _Sair_ fans ought to be rallying together "

seems to me all the posts reguarding the f4u problem is just that or is there something else we could do? Not a snitty post , just askin!

Glowplug
12-31-2004, 03:02 AM
I know there is a lot of whining about the FM for the Corsair, but I believe there is good evidence that the flight models are not right in all cases. In the current 3.03m patch Corsair has a wicked tendency to drop the left wing and bounce very badly on landing. The following url has one of the technical histories of the Corsair: [URL=http://www.vectorsite.net/avf4u.html]. To quote from that site: "* As mentioned, the Corsair's initial deficiencies were being worked out on a concurrent basis. The tendency to "bounce" on landings, which was due to the excessive stiffness of the shock absorber elements in the main landing gear struts, was greatly reduced after Vought engineers spent a lot of time tweaking with the stiffness to get the right value. The 689th production F4U-1 featured a number of significant changes... Other changes included a raised tailwheel leg, with a pneumatic instead of solid tire, to improve the pilot's forward view on the ground; and an almost unnoticeable 15 centimeter (6 inch) fixed "stall strip" that was fitted to the leading edge of the right wing outboard of the guns to ensure that both wings stalled at the same time on landing approach.
I fly the F4U-1C and it still exhibits the nasty left wing stall in turns and the excessive bounce. BOTH OF THESE PROBLEMS WERE ADDRESSED EARLY IN THE PRODUCTION RUNS. At the least the -1C ought get those two points right.

Kuikueg
12-31-2004, 05:33 AM
So we have a realistic early production Corsair.

Fair enough.

Ruy Horta
12-31-2004, 06:01 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by fordfan25:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ruy Horta:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by fordfan25:
its bad for me because id rather call it a HAWG <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Which means you've actually understood the point being made... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

o yes i get the point. the point is some people just cant stand it if thay dont get things just there way. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Personally I do not give a **** what someone wants to call an aeroplane, this is a gamer's board expect gamer behavior. But if you want to be understood by everyone, it helps using the generally known name. I'll bet you my left nut that there were many more nicknames given to the Corsair/Hog that we do not know of, some probably quite simple like "Fxcker".

Lets see if you understand me next time I write that they porked that fxcker...

clint-ruin
12-31-2004, 06:17 AM
The mighty flying porkchop.

MPD496
12-31-2004, 06:54 AM
Ok bottom line question here. Is this going to be fixed or are we just going to have to live with it?

heywooood
12-31-2004, 02:46 PM
Lets see if you understand me next time I write that they porked that fxcker...[/QUOTE]

Well - I am pretty sure everyone knows by now, if not from the beginning, what a 'sair is.
...not too many 'fxckers' should be confused by that term anymore... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

fordfan25
12-31-2004, 03:25 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by heywooood:
Lets see if you understand me next time I write that they porked that fxcker... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well - I am pretty sure everyone knows by now, if not from the beginning, what a 'sair is.
...not too many 'fxckers' should be confused by that term anymore... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif[/QUOTE]

lol