PDA

View Full Version : Does the Corsair feel "mushy" to you?



x__CRASH__x
11-10-2004, 12:21 AM
Corsair feels "mushy" to me in the controls. Especially the pitch. Like its flying in Jell-O. I guess I am just too used to the snappy response from a 109. This American stuff may take some getting used to.

x__CRASH__x
11-10-2004, 12:21 AM
Corsair feels "mushy" to me in the controls. Especially the pitch. Like its flying in Jell-O. I guess I am just too used to the snappy response from a 109. This American stuff may take some getting used to.

Appleby93
11-10-2004, 04:18 AM
A tad mushy, but strangely powerful.

JG51Beolke
11-10-2004, 07:08 AM
It feels like a flying Cadillac. The ride is solid and stable. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Gunner_361st
11-10-2004, 09:06 AM
Seems pretty simple and straight-forward to fly to me. Though to be perfectly honest, I prefer the Wildcat and Hellcat over the Corsair. The 'Sair is still fun to fly though, even if climb rates and torque effects at slow speed on it are a little suspect.

Box-weasel
11-10-2004, 09:40 AM
I spoke to a man(ex-aeronautical engineer) who owned both the Corsair & P-38. $3,000 after WW2. and he said that he didn't like to fly the Corsair since it felt like it wanted to just fall out of the air. He said it was like trying to fly a brick--hard to roll or do anything with. He much preferred his P-38, tho he said it cost him a weeks pay ($150) to fill up so he evntually sold it.

Chuck_Older
11-10-2004, 09:40 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by x__CRASH__x:
Corsair feels "mushy" to me in the controls. Especially the pitch. Like its flying in Jell-O. I guess I am just too used to the snappy response from a 109. This American stuff may take some getting used to. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You've just gone from driving a '62 Porsche 356 to driving a '67 Corvette with a 427.

Don't expect them to handle the same http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Nige_Reconman
11-10-2004, 09:50 AM
I'm nolt a fan of the corsair. Sure it has power, power, power but it feels imprecise to me - i guess mushy is a good description.

I'm an ex 109/262 junkie though.

WIFC Warhawk
11-10-2004, 10:24 AM
Hmmm...sounds like you enjoy the guns of those 109 and 262's LOL. I recommend you take the 1C model with the 20mm and fly online for about 10 hours faithfully...check your score over others http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif.

dragonhart38
11-10-2004, 11:05 AM
Check out Zeno's warbirds website and the training video on how to fly the F4U


http://www.zenoswarbirdvideos.com/F4U.html

Some notes from the Video:
Because of the size of the plane it will land faster and stall slower that other aircraft.

Take Off:

1. Set Rudder tab 6 degrees right
2. Elevator tab 1 degree nose up
3. Aileron 6 degrees right wing down
This is to compensate for left wing heaviness.

Flying:
Drain wing tanks first as they have no gauges starting with left wing tank first as this is the wing that stalls first due to the torgue produced by the engine and big prop.

Stall. onsets with little warning and buffeting, stalls on left wing first, stick pressures are heavy.corsair will begin to stall at 77 knots gear down flaps at 30 degrees no power.

Nige_Reconman
11-10-2004, 11:51 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WIFC Warhawk:
Hmmm...sounds like you enjoy the guns of those 109 and 262's LOL. I recommend you take the 1C model with the 20mm and fly online for about 10 hours faithfully...check your score over others http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I fly the 109f2 whenever possible i find it the most enjoyable.

And 262's when flown right - at speed and careful energy conservation you are very damaging, until you get clipped in an engine or overheat her then you're in a world of trouble.

SeaFireLIV
11-10-2004, 11:56 AM
yea, it feels just like Mushy peas!

Daiichidoku
11-10-2004, 12:10 PM
Save the Corsair comments until after the patch....I imagine it will be tamed a bit...
then let the chorus of whiners freak about thier latest favorite uber mensch!

SeaFireLIV
11-10-2004, 12:40 PM
Actually, x__CRASH__x is a bit of a joker. He tends to like to start a comment and watch everyone follow...

fishing.

The Corsair`s fine.

x__CRASH__x
11-10-2004, 03:06 PM
True, but this wasn't a joke. The Corsair does feel mushy too me. I can really feel it when I porpoise the elevators.

And for the Porsce / Corvette comment... I can still whoop the Corvette with my old Porsche! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Curtiss-P6E-Hawk
11-10-2004, 03:13 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by dragonhart38:
Check out Zeno's warbirds website and the training video on how to fly the F4U


http://www.zenoswarbirdvideos.com/F4U.html

Some notes from the Video:
Because of the size of the plane it will land faster and stall slower that other aircraft.

Take Off:

1. Set Rudder tab 6 degrees right
2. Elevator tab 1 degree nose up
3. Aileron 6 degrees right wing down
This is to compensate for left wing heaviness.

Flying:
Drain wing tanks first as they have no gauges starting with left wing tank first as this is the wing that stalls first due to the torgue produced by the engine and big prop.

Stall. onsets with little warning and buffeting, stalls on left wing first, stick pressures are heavy.corsair will begin to stall at 77 knots gear down flaps at 30 degrees no power. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah, I posted this link in an F4U bug thread. Notice that the F4U always rolls right as it stalls in PF!!!!!

Simply amazing. read the following:

On April 12th, 1945 VMF-312 had its first contact with the enemy. While flying CAP, a flight of four Corsairs, led by Capt. Dan H. Johnson, intercepted 20 Mitsubishi Zeros and four Jills (single engine torpedo-equipped attack aircraft). The outcome was a incredible 8 Zeros downed and six others damaged, while not one Corsair was lost. The rest of the enemy formation fled home without reaching their target. Engagements with the JAF continued and by the end of April VMF-312 had tallied 17 victories while only losing 1 Corsair piloted by Capt. Kenneth L. Reusser.

Things that make ya go "hmmmmm". With the way this thing flies in PF, you wont see the 11 to 1 kill ratio as it did in WWII.

Bill_Lester
11-10-2004, 03:19 PM
Trolling or not, I agree with Crash. As it stands, the F4U is my least favorite American a/c in PF. I much prefer the Hellcat, especially around the boat. Hopefully the Corsair will be debugged with the upcoming patch.

fordfan25
11-10-2004, 03:20 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by x__CRASH__x:
True, but this wasn't a joke. The Corsair does feel mushy too me. I can really feel it when I porpoise the elevators.

And for the Porsce / Corvette comment... I can still whoop the Corvette with my old Porsche! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

In your dreams

Chuck_Older
11-10-2004, 03:57 PM
I would take a Porche 356A over a big block Corvette on the Nurburgring any day of the week. The Corvette always had a rep as being sdome lithe sportscar and early on it wasn't so bad, but by the late '60s the thing was overweight, especially at the front.

Take the '69 COPO Corvettes and Camaros as an example. Two Corvettes got the COPO treatment, 69 Camaros got it. Why?

You can make a '69 Camaro lighter than a '69 Corvette. It's a better drag car.

Folks think the Corvette was light. It wasn't. So they saved a few hundred pounds of weight on the body. The car required a heavy duty, weighty, full steel frame. The '67 is no lightweight. I'll put my hundred bucks on the Porsche 356 unless we're at Bonnevile or the dragstrip

VW-IceFire
11-10-2004, 04:20 PM
Yep, the Corsair feels mushy to me too. I think it has to do with there being not much in the way of sensitivity on the controls.

I mean, it rolls fairly nicely, but it feels heavy and it doesn't really respond quickly. It doesn't roll like I thought it would (more FW190 like). It doesn't mean its wrong...its just that its not the plane I was assuming it to be.

Online it seems to be a favorite with everyone...but it also appears to present a fairly large target and its not as tough as the Hellcat (which is darned close to the P-47 in toughness).

InyerEye
11-10-2004, 05:09 PM
Seems fine to me.
I always do better with it than any other US plane.Hellcat is a close second,but that efing yellow goo on the canopy gets annoying. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

dragonhart38
11-10-2004, 05:28 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Curtiss-P6E-Hawk:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by dragonhart38:
Check out Zeno's warbirds website and the training video on how to fly the F4U


http://www.zenoswarbirdvideos.com/F4U.html

Some notes from the Video:
Because of the size of the plane it will land faster and stall slower that other aircraft.

Take Off:

1. Set Rudder tab 6 degrees right
2. Elevator tab 1 degree nose up
3. Aileron 6 degrees right wing down
This is to compensate for left wing heaviness.

Flying:
Drain wing tanks first as they have no gauges starting with left wing tank first as this is the wing that stalls first due to the torgue produced by the engine and big prop.

Stall. onsets with little warning and buffeting, stalls on left wing first, stick pressures are heavy.corsair will begin to stall at 77 knots gear down flaps at 30 degrees no power. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah, I posted this link in an F4U bug thread. Notice that the F4U always rolls right as it stalls in PF!!!!!

Simply amazing. read the following:

On April 12th, 1945 VMF-312 had its first contact with the enemy. While flying CAP, a flight of _four Corsairs_, led by Capt. Dan H. Johnson, intercepted _20 Mitsubishi Zeros_ and four Jills (single engine torpedo-equipped attack aircraft). The outcome was a incredible _8 Zeros downed and six others damaged_, while _not one_ Corsair was lost. The rest of the enemy formation fled home without reaching their target. Engagements with the JAF continued and by the end of April VMF-312 had tallied 17 victories while only losing 1 Corsair piloted by Capt. Kenneth L. Reusser.

Things that make ya go "hmmmmm". With the way this thing flies in PF, you wont see the 11 to 1 kill ratio as it did in WWII. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Yeah. The left wing will depart flight in a stall drop then she will roll over onto her back

dragonhart38
11-10-2004, 05:36 PM
Yep just like in the world war 2 Corsair training video. When the 1C Corsair stalls/departs controlled flight her left wing drops and she rolls over onto her back. Oleg got the stall aspect of this big bird correct!

Voidable
11-10-2004, 05:59 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Daiichidoku:
Save the Corsair comments until after the patch....I imagine it will be tamed a bit...
then let the chorus of whiners freak about thier latest favorite uber mensch! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If it is its because people like you (whiners)
arcade players go fly crimson skys http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

Hades_Dragon
11-10-2004, 06:15 PM
Test documents often state that the Corsair is extreme respoonsive with light stick forces as well as a very good roll rate.

As for its toughness, I have read that pilots often thought the Sair was just as equally resistant to battle damage as the P-47.

Pres.Clinton
11-10-2004, 08:18 PM
I love the corsair. Best plane in the game in my mind. Prefer it over the Hellcat, or any other american plane. To me it responds well and smoothly. And it is FAST!! The only complaint I have it that long nose obscuring the deck when you are try to come back aboard.

Bearcat99
11-10-2004, 08:43 PM
No....

x__CRASH__x
11-10-2004, 09:23 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bearcat99:
No.... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Such eloquence!


I agree with previous statements that I am going to reserve judgement until the patch. I wnjoy flying it just because it has been a favorite of mine since my youth. I also like it when I am flying a -109 because the exceptionally large wings are mk108 magnets!

Curtiss-P6E-Hawk
11-10-2004, 09:25 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by dragonhart38:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Curtiss-P6E-Hawk:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by dragonhart38:
Check out Zeno's warbirds website and the training video on how to fly the F4U


http://www.zenoswarbirdvideos.com/F4U.html

Some notes from the Video:
Because of the size of the plane it will land faster and stall slower that other aircraft.

Take Off:

1. Set Rudder tab 6 degrees right
2. Elevator tab 1 degree nose up
3. Aileron 6 degrees right wing down
This is to compensate for left wing heaviness.

Flying:
Drain wing tanks first as they have no gauges starting with left wing tank first as this is the wing that stalls first due to the torgue produced by the engine and big prop.

Stall. onsets with little warning and buffeting, stalls on left wing first, stick pressures are heavy.corsair will begin to stall at 77 knots gear down flaps at 30 degrees no power. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah, I posted this link in an F4U bug thread. Notice that the F4U always rolls right as it stalls in PF!!!!!

Simply amazing. read the following:

On April 12th, 1945 VMF-312 had its first contact with the enemy. While flying CAP, a flight of _four Corsairs_, led by Capt. Dan H. Johnson, intercepted _20 Mitsubishi Zeros_ and four Jills (single engine torpedo-equipped attack aircraft). The outcome was a incredible _8 Zeros downed and six others damaged_, while _not one_ Corsair was lost. The rest of the enemy formation fled home without reaching their target. Engagements with the JAF continued and by the end of April VMF-312 had tallied 17 victories while only losing 1 Corsair piloted by Capt. Kenneth L. Reusser.

Things that make ya go "hmmmmm". With the way this thing flies in PF, you wont see the 11 to 1 kill ratio as it did in WWII. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Yeah. The left wing will depart flight in a stall drop then she will roll over onto her back <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That is correct but it is supose to roll left, not right. In PF it rolls right in stead of left. When landing on the cv, it is very left wing heavy as it is supose to be. At an indicared 110mph it is very slugish and mushes before the stall speed of 87mph.

griego
11-10-2004, 10:07 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by dragonhart38:
Yep just like in the world war 2 Corsair training video. When the 1C Corsair stalls/departs controlled flight her left wing drops and she rolls over onto her back. Oleg got the stall aspect of this big bird correct! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Among other correct behavior, I think the F4U is wonderfully modeled in this game.In so many other games it's gutted.

It powerful like it should be. It had a huge prop. It should pull it self along very nicely as it does. I hope they don't tune it down any in the next patch.

AlmightyTallest
11-10-2004, 10:40 PM
I remember reading this book, and there are others about the Corsair can be found at the site below

http://www.warbirdalley.com/f4u-b.htm

Corsair: The F4U in World War II and Korea
By Barrett Tillman
Paperback, 219 pages
Published 2002 by Naval Institute Press

I found it very informative, it mentions a few times both that the Corsair was if not equal to the F6F in taking battle damage it certainly came a very close second.

I don't know exactly how it's modelled in PF, but I just hope it's flight model is accurate to the figures published. There are climb rates and seconds to complete a 360 roll in the book for different models of the plane. I'll have to find it in my library again and take a look.

I do hope that all of the planes in PF will at least have all their Flight models looked at again over time. Certainly doesn't hurt to get as many facts together to tweak the models here and there. In all I'm very happy with PF, and I really enjoy flying the Corsair. My brother enjoys the F6F and P-51 though http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Something for everyone in this sim, here's to hoping that more improvements to realism come along in the future from Oleg and his talented team.

WUAF_Badsight
11-10-2004, 11:33 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Curtiss-P6E-Hawk:
some big load of propaganda . . . . <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

& that supposed to mean what exactly Curtiss Hawk ?

SeaFireLIV
11-11-2004, 04:12 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Curtiss-P6E-Hawk:

Yeah, I posted this link in an F4U bug thread. Notice that the F4U always rolls right as it stalls in PF!!!!!

Simply amazing. read the following:

On April 12th, 1945 VMF-312 had its first contact with the enemy. While flying CAP, a flight of _four Corsairs_, led by Capt. Dan H. Johnson, intercepted _20 Mitsubishi Zeros_ and four Jills (single engine torpedo-equipped attack aircraft). The outcome was a incredible _8 Zeros downed and six others damaged_, while _not one_ Corsair was lost. The rest of the enemy formation fled home without reaching their target. Engagements with the JAF continued and by the end of April VMF-312 had tallied 17 victories while only losing 1 Corsair piloted by Capt. Kenneth L. Reusser.

Things that make ya go "hmmmmm". With the way this thing flies in PF, you wont see the 11 to 1 kill ratio as it did in WWII. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Excuse me, but this is a classic example of using quotes that suits a particular biased line that the poster wants. A bit like personal propaganda.

Surely you know it wasn`t JUST the plane, but :

1. Skill of the Pilots.
2. Good tactics.

There are probably other factors NOT mentioned (which is always the case in these things), but I`ll bet lack of japanese skilled pilots was one of them. Just popping up a particlar article that says X amount of aircraft were shot down by X amount of planes therefore plane X should fly in such a way is not enough. It`s not THAT simple!

But of course it suits your argument, doesn`t it?

Cippacometa
11-11-2004, 05:18 AM
The Corsair looks and flyes fine to me...

3 only things are really wrong in this aircraft, as it is modeled in PF:

1) on the instrument panel, the tachometer has a pointer missing (it should be like those on Yaks)
2) the wheel up/down indicator moves in the wrong direction (left-right instead of up-down)
3) according the Corsair flight manual I got, it looks to me that in PF Corsair overheats far too quickly at low altitude, it's a bit too slow and doesn't climb very well. Conversely, above 3-4000 m it's fine. Finally, try to fly it at about 9000 m, and you'll see how easily reaches 730-740 km/h on level flight!! A bit too much, isn't it?!

For the rest, it flyes very smooth, it has a good maneuvrability, it is very stable and strong, good firepower (expecially the 1C) and I have to say that it has become my favourite aircraft!

Aaron_GT
11-11-2004, 06:43 AM
According to Skychimp's figures, climb is pretty much spot on. There is some debate over the Sea Level speed, but it depends which USN figures you take. If you take the 359 mph with WEP speed, it is close. I think it's a bit slow at 20,000 ft though.

Yellonet
11-11-2004, 06:51 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Curtiss-P6E-Hawk:
Notice that the F4U always rolls right as it stalls in PF!!!!! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Corsair? Stall? HAHAHA...

Tunturisusi
11-11-2004, 06:52 AM
I wouldn't say "mushy"....more like "fluffy".
Worst is if it starts to scabble from side to side boofing and dingling at the same time. Still pretty gangly dingledang ...so not bad at all.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/354.gif

Yellonet
11-11-2004, 06:57 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Curtiss-P6E-Hawk:
Simply amazing. read the following:

On April 12th, 1945 VMF-312 had its first contact with the enemy. While flying CAP, a flight of _four Corsairs_, led by Capt. Dan H. Johnson, intercepted _20 Mitsubishi Zeros_ and four Jills (single engine torpedo-equipped attack aircraft). The outcome was a incredible _8 Zeros downed and six others damaged_, while _not one_ Corsair was lost. The rest of the enemy formation fled home without reaching their target. Engagements with the JAF continued and by the end of April VMF-312 had tallied 17 victories while only losing 1 Corsair piloted by Capt. Kenneth L. Reusser.

Things that make ya go "hmmmmm". With the way this thing flies in PF, you wont see the 11 to 1 kill ratio as it did in WWII. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I guess you forgot to mention that the Corsairs at the start of the engagement was 2000 meters above the japanese aircraft and that the japanese planes where taken by surprise heading home from a mission. With minimal ammo and almost no fuel left for combat manuevers they were pretty much slaughtered by the brave american pilots. Or something like that.

EDIT: spelling...

Cippacometa
11-11-2004, 07:06 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
According to Skychimp's figures, climb is pretty much spot on. There is some debate over the Sea Level speed, but it depends which USN figures you take. If you take the 359 mph with WEP speed, it is close. I think it's a bit slow at 20,000 ft though. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I agree. However, the speed problem is linked with the overheat problem. I am talking about sea level and low (&lt;2000 m) altitude. Try to go full throttle (100%, or even 95, and 90-100% pitch) after you have flown some 10-20 min to reach the target, so the engine had the time to get hot: after a very short time (2 min?) the engine "overheats". So, you just can't keep that claimed speed. Moreover, the engine cowlings drag is huge, so it's better to keep them at 2 or 4, rather than full open, and reduce throttle to cool down the engine: you will loose less speed like that, but still loose speed. Now, Corsair was a fast bird, wasn't it?
Consider also that on the flight manual it is written that you can keep full power (100%) or WEP (110%+water) at 2700 rpm for 5 minutes. Well, engine on PF will overheat much before. Maybe it's just the message "Engine overheat" appearing far too early, before the engine really overheats critically. In fact, it can stay overheated for quite a long time before burning... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

Does anyone know if there's already a version of IL-2 Compare including the new PF aircraft?

clint-ruin
11-11-2004, 07:09 AM
Corey Jordan says here:

http://home.att.net/~historyzone/F4U-4.html

So, perhaps now is a good time to summarize the performance of the F4U-4. Let€s compare it to the aircraft generally believed to be the best all-around fighter of World War Two, the North American P-51D Mustang.

Speed: The -4 was about 10 mph faster than the P-51D at the altitude where the Mustang developed it€s highest speed.
Advantage: F4U-4

Climb: The -4 Corsair was a remarkable climber despite its size and weight. It could out-climb the Mustang by nearly 800 fpm.
Advantage: F4U-4

Maneuverability: The F4U-4 was one of the very best. According to Jeffrey Ethell: "Of all World War II fighters, the Corsair was probably the finest in air-to-air combat for a balance of maneuverability and responsiveness. The -4, the last wartime version is considered by many pilots who have flown the entire line to be the best of them all€¦.." Indeed, the F4U-4 had few, if any equals at the business of ACM (air combat maneuvering).
Advantage: F4U-4
...

Ease of flight: Despite gaining the nickname of "Ensign Eliminator", the F4U series tendency to roll under torque was no more difficult to handle than any other high powered fighter of the era. Some who have flown both the Corsair and the Mustang state without hesitation that the P-51 exhibited a greater propensity to roll on its back than did the F4U. Moreover, the Corsair was a far more forgiving aircraft when entering a stall. Although it would drop its right wing abruptly, the aircraft gave plenty of advanced warning of an impending stall by entering a pronounced buffeting about 6-7 mph before the wing dropped. The P-51, however, gave no warning of an impending stall. When it did stall, it was with a total loss of pilot control, rolling inverted with a severe aileron snatch. Recovery usually used up 500 ft or more of altitude. It was not uncommon for Mustangs to spin out of tight turns during dogfights. The F4U could also be flown at speeds more than 30 mph slower than that at which the Mustang stalled. In other words, the P-51 could not hope to follow a Corsair in a low speed turning fight.
Advantage: F4U-4


Now Mr. Jordan is talking about the F4U-4, which is indeed a lot better than the F4U-x line before it. But due to the engine the torque issues are going to be even more pronounced in this case ..

He also says:

We now get to the more subjective aspects of the -4€s performance. Rating a fighter€s flight characteristics is never without pitfalls. What one pilot feels is too stiff, another might describe as firm or secure. As a result, opinions may vary. However, empirical data is certainly the most valuable in determining a fighter€s overall performance. The tangible things such as cockpit layout and visibility are also important, as are the intangible things such as confidence in the airframe to get the pilot home. I will do my best to present the subjective data in an unbiased manner.

In terms of maneuverability, all models of the Corsair were first rate. The F4U-4 was better than the F4U-1 series. Why? More power and better performance in the vertical regime. Very few fighters, even pure fighters such as the Yak-3 could hang with an -4 maneuvering in the vertical. Its terrific climbing ability combined with very light and sensitive controls made for a hard fighter to beat anytime the fight went vertical.

Ease of flight.The Corsair was much less a handful than the P-51 when flown into an accelerated stall, although it was by no means as forgiving as the F6F Hellcat. Torque roll was no worse than most of its high power contemporaries.

The F4U also rolled well. When rolling in conjunction with powerplant torque, in other words, rolling left, it was among the very fastest rolling fighters of the war. In the inventory of American fighters, only the P-47N rolled faster, and only by 6 degrees/second.

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.

Turning to dive acceleration, we find the F4U-4 and Mustang in a near dead heat. Both the P-47D and P-38L easily out distance the Corsair and P-51D in a dive. Still, these two accelerate better than the opposition from Japan and Germany. Moreover, both the Corsair and the Mustang have relatively high critical Mach numbers allowing them to attain very high speeds in prolonged dives before running into compressibility difficulty. With the exception of early model P-38€s, it was almost always a mistake to attempt to evade American fighters by trying to dive away. This goes for early war fighters as well, such as the P-40 and F4F Wildcat.

On the differences between the F4U-1 and 4:

Maximum speed:
F4U-1: 417 mph @ 19,900 ft.
F4U-4: 446 mph @ 26,200 ft.

The -4 displays a 29 mph speed advantage, but more importantly, does it at a considerably greater altitude. The F4U-4 is actually 10 mph faster than the P-51D at the Mustang€s best altitude.

Rate of climb:
F4U-1: 3,250 ft/min.
F4U-4: 4,170 ft/min.

I am sure some people will find this a more valid comparison than others, but Corey does state repeatedly that "..the F4U-4 was excellent as this, as was the -1". Good enough for me! Even Oleg was impressed with its handling, and he has repeatedly stated that the '47 and '51 were nowhere near as good as most credit them [even leading some to believe he hates all US figthters].

Go read the whole article anyhow, see what you make of it and how you feel they match up.

clint-ruin
11-11-2004, 07:17 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Cippacometa:
Maybe it's just the message "Engine overheat" appearing far too early, before the engine _really_ overheats critically. In fact, it can stay overheated for quite a long time before burning... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The "overheat" message varies in seriousness, but almost everything has about 5 to 7 minutes from receiving that on the screen before engine damage occurs, if the engine is left at the same power and with the same cooling. I'll test this in PF in a sec, but that was true of everything but the jet aircraft and the Hurri Mk1 last I looked in FBAEP.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Does anyone know if there's already a version of IL-2 Compare including the new PF aircraft? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

People were trying to get Youss to make a new one .. did they?

hawkmeister
11-11-2004, 07:18 AM
Actually I'm a bit surprised with the PF Corsair. Based on all I'd read and heard about flying the real thing, I'd expected something similar to the P-40 in terms of overall handling and stall/spin characteristics. The PF plane is much tamer than I expected and seems to have much better low speed turning capability. I find the overall handling to be very satisfactory - not necessarily accurate - but very pleasant. I actually prefer it to the Hellcat, which I was not expecting. It's very responsive but not squirrely like a 190. The right wing drop on stall thing is an obvious screw-up and I hope to see that fixed, eventually.

All I care about is accuracy, so as long as it ends up so - let the chips fall where they may.

Cippacometa
11-11-2004, 07:30 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by hawkmeister:
Actually I'm a bit surprised with the PF Corsair. Based on all I'd read and heard about flying the real thing, I'd expected something similar to the P-40 in terms of overall handling and stall/spin characteristics. The PF plane is much tamer than I expected and seems to have much better low speed turning capability. I find the overall handling to be very satisfactory - not necessarily accurate - but very pleasant. I actually prefer it to the Hellcat, which I was not expecting. It's very responsive but not squirrely like a 190. The right wing drop on stall thing is an obvious screw-up and I hope to see that fixed, eventually.

All I care about is accuracy, so as long as it ends up so - let the chips fall where they may. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree... by the way, are we going to have also the F4U-4 serie?? That would be amazing!! Imagine the same aircraft but with a better engine!!

geetarman
11-11-2004, 08:37 AM
I think, overall, it's an excellent aircraft. The Hellcat is a bit more sprightly, but, the two are close. Each of these planes, IMHO, are the best performng US aircraft in the game, from an overall perspective. This seems to match what history has shown us.

The Corsair may "float" a bit, but it feels solid and powerful, although it's too slow at 20,000'. I feel no hesitation to mix it up with Franks or Zeros in either of these planes, again, as history has shown us.

As far as some of the comments about how the Corsair perfromed against the Zero in WWII, and the impression that maybe the game has overmodelled it, I disagree. The Corsair was a superior craft to the Zero, except in a low speed knife-fight. I think the game modelling shows this very accurately.

SeaFireLIV
11-11-2004, 10:10 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Yellonet:

I guess you forgot to mention that the Corsairs at the start of the engagement was 2000 meters above the japanese aircraft and that the japanese planes where taken by surpise heading home from a mission. With minimal ammo and almost no fuel left for combat manuevers they were pretty much slaughtered by the brave american pilots. Or something like that. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thnx, yelownet. I didn`t know enough abot that particular air battle to comment on the EXACT details, but i`ve been around long enough to know that when a guy pops on a particular quote supporting his fave plane doing amazing deeds, with NO negatives, somethings not quite right. Thanx for the COMPLETE picture of the dogfight. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

OldMan____
11-11-2004, 10:49 AM
The corsair handles very close to my expectation based on plane size, weight and overall data. In fact it handles much closer to my expectation than I expected before game release.

I still fear the p51D more than the corsair, but the resilence of these Navy planes is huge. The overal resistanec I think is ok, but when I fly the corsair it seems to not feel any damage effect until the very end (extreme oposition to 190 that can get a lot of punishment too, but a single .50 bullet will make him very difficult to fly).

But now with a clear shot vision (nop flashes) and with oposition without a bouble canopy I just have an easier time http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif (no.. I am not going to fly jap planes just to be shot down.. only fly real planes (AKA luftplanes) )

clint-ruin
11-11-2004, 10:51 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>

I guess you forgot to mention that the Corsairs at the start of the engagement was 2000 meters above the japanese aircraft and that the japanese planes where taken by surpise heading home from a mission. With minimal ammo and almost no fuel left for combat manuevers they were pretty much slaughtered by the brave american pilots. Or something like that. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Doesn't it say that the bombers and escorts never reached their target and turned for home?

I don't think there's a lot of point to such comparisons either though, don't get me wrong :&gt;

dragonhart38
11-11-2004, 11:54 AM
Yeah. The left wing will depart flight in a stall drop then she will roll over onto her back[/QUOTE]

That is correct but it is supose to roll left, not right. In PF it rolls right in stead of left. When landing on the cv, it is very left wing heavy as it is supose to be. At an indicared 110mph it is very slugish and mushes before the stall speed of 87mph.[/QUOTE]


I took the PF corsair up and and did exactly as the actual WW2 training video did. i.e. I cut the power to 0 and let the airpseed bleed off then watched what happened. Sure enough just like in the training video the left wing departs flight, it stalls and rolls left onto it's back.
Fuel is at 100% so I would *** sume that the left wing tanks are loaded and because this bird is left wing heavy she did as expected.

Perhaps your PF corsair is low on fuel when landing and the left wing tanks (which may by default drain first as it is part of the operating procedure for the real corsair) are empty which may be causing a stall and roll to the right.

Yellonet
11-11-2004, 01:25 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Yellonet:

I guess you forgot to mention that the Corsairs at the start of the engagement was 2000 meters above the japanese aircraft and that the japanese planes where taken by surpise heading home from a mission. With minimal ammo and almost no fuel left for combat manuevers they were pretty much slaughtered by the brave american pilots. Or something like that. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thnx, yelownet. I didn`t know enough abot that particular air battle to comment on the EXACT details, but i`ve been around long enough to know that when a guy pops on a particular quote supporting his fave plane doing amazing deeds, with NO negatives, somethings not quite right. Thanx for the COMPLETE picture of the dogfight. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Hehe.. I know you're sarcastic.... right? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Aaron_GT
11-11-2004, 02:42 PM
"I agree. However, the speed problem is linked with the overheat problem. I am talking about sea level and low (&lt;2000 m) altitude. Try to go full throttle (100%, or even 95, and 90-100% pitch) after you have flown some 10-20 min to reach the target, so the engine had the time to get hot: after a very short time (2 min?) the engine "overheats". So, you just can't keep that claimed speed."

I've not noticed a problem with overheating at sea level. You can keep WEP up at sea level for quite a long time before you get overheating.

In any case the max sea level speed is the max sea level speed attainable in ideal conditions flying straight and level. You can't necessarily expect to be always able to attain it after cruising at possibly less than ideal conditions with the engine getting hot.It depends on engine and plane, of course. If I am just cruising, though, I open the radiator a notch or two at 75% power, 80% prop when cruising, then close the radiator and go to 100% prop, 99% power in the combat zone, with WEP in reserve. Sometimes the engine overheats, but it takes a fair while to do so.

I've still barely scratched the surface of PF so far. I am having fun in the A20, Beau, and F4U and haven't really got to fly the other planes as yet!

SeaFireLIV
11-11-2004, 02:51 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Yellonet:
Hehe.. I know you're sarcastic.... right? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That`s the second time`s someone`s thought I was being sarcastic! i`m going to have to reevaluate the way I write on this forum...

or maybe not.

Aaron_GT
11-11-2004, 02:53 PM
If you cruise to the battle area at 75% throttle, 80% prop, two clicks of radiator open (and this goes for all planes) and then go up to 100% prop, radiator closed, 99% throttle only when you get to the battle area you can offset the worst of the overheating issues. If you fly there flat out then you are definitely going to end up overheating. The rated max sea level speeds would have been achievable only for a short time.