PDA

View Full Version : is corsair,hellcat unporked now?



m.manson2004
01-19-2005, 11:05 PM
question to the experts

Has this patch redressed the flight physics of the above 2 planes in your opinion?ie top speed, stall, climb rate, etc
manson

_54th_Target
01-20-2005, 10:26 AM
Well, maybe only half porked now, at least compared to what it used to be like. It can actually get off the carrier now with some ordnance attached (in DF missions)
_54th_Target

m.manson2004
01-20-2005, 10:48 AM
Take off

100% fuel and drop tank successful.Flaps down at take off.

top speed

Corsair at sea level 100% fuel 550 klmhr.
Hellcat at sea level 100% fuel 520 klmhr.

i dont know how to measure climb rate.
manson

crazyivan1970
01-20-2005, 10:49 AM
Gotta love the terminalogy

horseback
01-20-2005, 02:55 PM
How many Dutch airlines per hour does one have to travel before one breaks the sound barrier at sea level?

cheers

horseback

Chuck_Older
01-20-2005, 03:05 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by m.manson2004:
Take off

100% fuel and drop tank successful.Flaps down at take off.

top speed

Corsair at sea level 100% fuel 550 klmhr.
Hellcat at sea level 100% fuel 520 klmhr.

i dont know how to measure climb rate.
manson <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
KPH, kph or kp/h might unconfuse folks if you want to talk about kilometers per hour

To discuss top speeds:

first, you must talk about Indicated Air Speed, or "IAS", and "True Air Speed", or TAS. They aren't the same. Also, the top speed of the F6F, for example, in real life, could only be reached at 24,000 feet- that's over 2000 meters. Sea level tests might be more convenient, but don't be surprised you cannot reach top speed

rate of climb can be done the way they did it- determine your best climb rate speed, and time how long it takes to get to 'X' feet or meters at that speed. For instance, in a P-51, the best climb speed was roughly 170 mph. Firewall the throttle, climb at an angle that keeps you at 170 mph IAS, and time it

Also, beleive it or not, the map plays a part, so you'll need to say which map you're testing on.

Un-porking may not be needed http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

MiamiEagle
01-20-2005, 11:08 PM
What do mean with Pork. Thats that mean that they should beat every Japanese that show up to contest them with a ehhance performance capability. The Answer is No.

Get this through your head. The difference in performance between the American planes and Japanes planes was not as great as one have been lead to beleive in the history books.

The difference was circumstances, Tactics and Pilot skill. It was not that our planes were so superior to theirs.

That is total fiction. Iam tire of all this whining.

Tiger

lbhskier37
01-20-2005, 11:13 PM
I'm an SI system guy, why can't we talk in m/s?

rurik
01-20-2005, 11:14 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chuck_Older:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by m.manson2004:
Take off

100% fuel and drop tank successful.Flaps down at take off.

top speed

Corsair at sea level 100% fuel 550 klmhr.
Hellcat at sea level 100% fuel 520 klmhr.

i dont know how to measure climb rate.
manson <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
KPH, kph or kp/h might unconfuse folks if you want to talk about kilometers per hour

To discuss top speeds:

first, you must talk about Indicated Air Speed, or "IAS", and "True Air Speed", or TAS. They aren't the same. Also, the top speed of the F6F, for example, in real life, could only be reached at 24,000 feet- that's over 2000 meters. Sea level tests might be more convenient, but don't be surprised you cannot reach top speed

rate of climb can be done the way they did it- determine your best climb rate speed, and time how long it takes to get to 'X' feet or meters at that speed. For instance, in a P-51, the best climb speed was roughly 170 mph. Firewall the throttle, climb at an angle that keeps you at 170 mph IAS, and time it

Also, beleive it or not, the map plays a part, so you'll need to say which map you're testing on.

Un-porking may not be needed http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Umm...yes, tehnically that's correct; 24,000ft is over 2000m http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

ElAurens
01-20-2005, 11:27 PM
24,000ft. = 7,315.2 meters.

So, to accurately test the F6F's top speed you would have to be at that altitude on the Crimea map, as it is the only map in the game that has it's atmospherics set to the "standard day" conditions necessary for flight testing.

I doubt that any aircraft in the sim will reach it's real world top speed on the Pacific maps, because of the atmospheric conditions in the Pacific region. (High temperatures and humidity). In real life there were probably no aircraft that operated in the Pacific that were manufactured/tested in the US or Europe that could achieve their "official" test numbers.

WOLFMondo
01-21-2005, 01:24 AM
Theres enough pork in here for a spam factory.

GR142-Pipper
01-21-2005, 01:47 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MiamiEagle:
(...snip...)Get this through your head. The difference in performance between the American planes and Japanes planes was not as great as one have been lead to beleive in the history books.

The difference was circumtances, Tactics and Pilot skill. It was not that our plane were so superior to theirs. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Respectfully, that simply isn't true. The U.S. aircraft WERE superior to the Japanese aircraft after the first year of the war and this culminated in the F4U Corsair. Hellcats more than handled A6Ms but neither the Corsair nor the Hellcat reflect this in this sim...as of now. The performance, workmanship, reliability, as well as the ability to take a hit by the U.S. aircraft were flat out superior. Yes, the Japanese did have some aircraft that were good performers, the Ki-84 being a good example. But again, in total, the U.S. aircraft were tops.

GR142-Pipper

GR142-Pipper
01-21-2005, 01:52 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ElAurens:
So, to accurately test the F6F's top speed you would have to be at that altitude on the _Crimea_ map, as it is the only map in the game that has it's atmospherics set to the "standard day" conditions necessary for flight testing. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Top speed is certainly one important criteria but the measure that I find REALLY cripples U.S. aircraft is the rather low rates of acceleration that they possess. This is MUCH more important in an engagement than the aircraft's top speed. The reason that it's more important is that the outcomes of many engagements depend on an aircraft's energy state. It takes SO long for the U.S. aircraft in this sim to reach maximum speed as to be nearly meaningless. The U.S. planes simply cannot get slow. Period. 'Just my take.

GR142-Pipper

m.manson2004
01-21-2005, 03:03 AM
reaching top speed

yes i had the same feeling,did it really take that long till you got to top speed.Surely radials accelerated faster than that flying level.

height

The charts i have indicate tests at over 24000ft
which divided by 4 gives 5000 mt.Can we fly that heigh in PF?I'll give it a try and increase mix.

Cclimb rate

Can anyone please do the test stated above and compare to official charts.I dont have climb rate datas.

fuel content

How much fuel are tests conducted with?

zero tests

What are the speeds you are reaching for the 5 model at sea level and with how much gas in the tank.I'll do a test with 100% fuel and report later today.

comments

Thanks for above clarifications and info.

manson

ElAurens
01-21-2005, 05:16 AM
manson...

At higher altitudes you will have to decrease mixture because of the lower density of the air.

Also my figure for the altitude conversion from feet to meters is correct.

Here is a nice conversion program for all Imperial/Metric conversions:

http://www.teaching-english-in-japan.net/conversion/miles

Just go to the site and find what you need to convert and type in the numbers...

m.manson2004
01-21-2005, 10:01 AM
i just tried the following


corsair c hellcat 5 zero 5a models
Marianas
5000 mt
100%fuel
mix 100%
supercharger where available

results

Approx 100 kph less than top speed for each plane at sea level.e.g Zero 420 kph Hellcat 400kph Corsair 490kph.IAS.

should'nt they have been faster than sea level?
Will try again with less mix.Nope,cannot decrease mix for these planes.
manson

Chuck_Older
01-21-2005, 10:06 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by rurik:

Umm...yes, tehnically that's correct; 24,000ft is over 2000m http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't get it...most players seem to think 1,000m is high altitude

Chuck_Older
01-21-2005, 10:08 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by m.manson2004:
i just tried the following


corsair c hellcat 5 zero 5a models
Marianas
5000 mt
100%fuel
mix 100%
supercharger where available

results

Approx 100 kph less than top speed for each plane at sea level.e.g Zero 420 kph Hellcat 400kph Corsair less.

should'nt they have been faster than sea level?
Will try again with less mix.
manson <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

you still don't indicate IAS or TAS.... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif meters is "m". "MT" is "Mountain"

JG53Frankyboy
01-21-2005, 10:10 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by m.manson2004:
i just tried the following


corsair c hellcat 5 zero 5a models
Marianas
5000 mt
100%fuel
mix 100%
supercharger where available

results

Approx 100 kph less than top speed for each plane at sea level.e.g Zero 420 kph Hellcat 400kph Corsair less.

should'nt they have been faster than sea level?
Will try again with less mix.
manson <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

just to be sure , you know the difference between IAS (that is shown in speedbar and cockpitgauges) and TAS ( shwon at the "comic" gauges in the no cockpit view) ?
IAS is the speed in reloation to the air.
TAS is the speed in relation to the ground , and TAS you read in all books

and less mix than 100% is not availabe in these planes

m.manson2004
01-21-2005, 10:55 AM
My above statement

I have corrected Corsair to 490 kph IAS supercharger2.I noted you cannot decrease mix.What i want to know is were they not supposed to fly quicker in thin air?
manson

ElAurens
01-21-2005, 11:00 AM
Re-read my post again.

Top speed testing can only be accurately done on the Crimea map.

No aircraft will reach it's top speed at sea level.

m.manson2004
01-21-2005, 11:05 AM
ZERO test
same conditions as others
420 kph IAS supercharger1 sea level

manson

m.manson2004
01-21-2005, 11:08 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ElAurens:
Re-read my post again.

Top speed testing can only be accurately done on the Crimea map.

No aircraft will reach it's top speed at sea level. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
My books all indicate tests above 20000 ft,
What is the right hight in your opinion to test top speed?How much fuel?Will then go to Crimea.
manson

e2michaelb
01-22-2005, 08:50 PM
Why the obsession with top speed? I would think the comparative ability of planes to accelerate (or climb or dive or turn) in the game is what's most important. By the way, for ease of conversion, remember that one meter = 3.28feet, therefore 1000 meters = 3,280 feet. And 1000 meters also = 1 kilometer. 'round it off and just remember that each km is about 3300ft. (and 1 mile is 5280ft.) End of Lesson

Aaron_GT
01-23-2005, 03:22 AM
It is easiest to compare against published absolute figures. If the absolute figures are correct then by implication the relative performance will be correct. Hence the concern about absolute performance.

RocketDog
01-23-2005, 03:31 AM
m.manson, speed varies dramatically with height. The figures below are from the il2compare program and show the ingame performance of the F6F5 about one patch ago.

To get anything like the textbook top speed you will need to be at exactly the right height, have a low fuel load, run with the radiator closed (less drag) and with the supercharger at the right setting. Some aircraft will also need mixture to be set manually.

From my tests, all the major Allied aircraft perform as one might expect, at least after the Wildcat dive speed was increased. None are "porked".

Regards,

RocketDog.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v402/RocketDog/Image1.jpg

m.manson2004
01-23-2005, 01:02 PM
thanks rocketdog much appreciated.have tried them all in coop missions and note big difference.
manson

IL2-chuter
01-23-2005, 04:45 PM
The Hellcat was guaranteed by contract to hit better than 377mph at 23400ft at MILITARY power and NORMAL (full internal load) gross weight. The Navy's Board of Inspection hit 376mph with the -3. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif As far as I know all official performance numbers for US aircraft were at military, not WEP, power.

My brief test showed above performance at 110% and WEP. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

BigKahuna_GS
01-24-2005, 03:03 AM
S!

After reading through much of the official US Navy archives about the Corsair and Hellcat, it was their practice to do performance evaluations under combat conditions with wing pylons, bomb/drop tank shackles and sometimes external drop tanks amd/or drop tank racks. The parasitic drag induced from this could be 10-30mph depending on the load out.

For example, on the F4U-4, adding two capped pylons and the 8 rocket launchers stubs knocked 15 knots/17mph off the S.L. top speed. The point being that a little bit of parasitic drag can cause a lot of speed loss at high speed. At low speed, it is not nearly so much a factor.

Here is the F4U-1C/1D official Navy speed test in "clean configuration" and it is almost 10mph faster then in AEP/PF (near bottom middle) Notice what is removed for clean configuration and how similar things where hanging off the Hellcat in it's SL speed test. http://web.cetlink.net/~howardds/id74.htm 7pgs in all

V max/SL 366mph TAS
http://web.cetlink.net/~howardds/27428170.gif


Take off with full fuel and ammunition load "0"/calm wind condition.
This official Navy chart below shows that the F4U-I C/D Corsair could take off from a carrier in a " 0" wind condition in 623feet to 653feet with a max fuel and ammunition load.

Notice the power off stall speed of 87.5mph, it is very low considering the weight of the aircraft and with a max fuel and ammunition load. With low fuel (a no fuel rating) stall speed is only 82.2mph.
Stall speed power on is only 76.9mph
http://web.cetlink.net/~howardds/id73.htm

The F4U-4 was even better. At a take off weight of 13,597lbs + external drop tank, power off stall speed was 81mph. A no-fuel rating power off stall was 73.8mph very similar to the Hellcat. Power on stall speed was 66.9mph.
http://web.cetlink.net/~howardds/id83.htm


The Hellcat loading condition performance summary at a take off weight of 13,797lbs was:
Stall speed power off - 79.2mph
Stall speed power off no fuel - 72mph
Stall speed power on 72.2mph

http://www.history.navy.mil/branches/hist-ac/f6f-5.pdf
http://web.cetlink.net/~howardds/id73.htm


Here is the official US Navy climb charts of the F4U-1D-notice that is with 2 capped pylons and fuselage drop tank rack which reduces the climb rate.
http://web.cetlink.net/~howardds/2b08f6f0.gif


As for top speed in the Hellcat, Grumman got 400mph TAS @ 23,000ft and 350mph TAS on the deck(AHT). Also this was in "clean configuration". What may account for the speed difference is that the Navy had the F6F-5 set up for "Combat Conditions" which includes fusalage bomb shackles and "T" bracing, faired wing bomb racks and sway bracing. At the official Navy site the listed sea level speed is 276kts TAS per hour equals 317.615 Miles (statute) per hour in this "combat condition".

Also this speed is attained with a combat horsepower rating of 2,030hp @ sea level not the 2,250hp rating of the R-2800-10W engine. It is hard to imagine a fighter with 2,250hp @ sea level not being able to go faster than 324mph TAS on the deck.

AHT pg554 F6F-5 combat power @ sea level 2,250hp (WEP)

Click on this link--Official US Navy Archives and look towards the bottom:
http://www.history.navy.mil/branches/hist-ac/f6f-5.pdf


Unfortunately it has been difficult to find a US Navy "clean configuration" speed test listed, but I bet they wouldnt have been too far behind Grumman. Top end is usually accepted as 380mph TAS but SL speed is debateable because of parasitic drag during the Navy's test.

In Pacific Fighters, there is no default "clean configuration" for either the F6F-3 or F6F-5. Both planes have wing pylons and bomb shackles. The in game view finder lists the Hellcat at 2000hp but Americas Hundred Thousand lists the R2800-10W at 2,250hp at sea level.


Naval Aviation History Branch

The Naval Aviation History Office was established in January 1942. The office deals with subject matter on Naval Aviation from its beginnings in 1911 to the present time. It provides research assistance; maintains record collections; and publishes articles, monographs, and books on Naval Aviation. Due to staff limitations, the office only responds to official government phone requests at (202) 433-4355. All other requests must be submitted in writing. Extensive personal research requests are beyond the scope of the office. The general public should submit their requests in writing to Naval Historical Center, Naval Aviation History Branch, 805 Kidder Breese SE, Washington Navy Yard, Washington, D.C. 20374-5060. Processing time for reference requests is 4 to 8 weeks. The office is open to the public weekdays, except Wednesdays, and researchers are welcome to visit the office to conduct their research.


----

EnGaurde
01-24-2005, 04:12 AM
bah

this is ****.

all this number and graph wielding is just scientific bull**** by paper tigers.

i read the performance figures for my italian motorbike... and heres the killer bit.. PLUS ITS SUPPOSED PERFORMANCE AGAINST JAP BIKES... and all i can say is that i was immensely surprised at its real world performance.

hot days, it was hopeless.

cold days it cracked.

i just tire so quickly of each goon quoting all manner of bull**** data in their favour about whichever plane is "porked".

none, i say again NONE of you know FOR REAL how ANY plane flew back in the day with full ammo fuel etc etc...

all you can argue about in some ridiculous one up manship race is your googled data is somehow different to the next guys Oh My Data Is From The Original Designing Engineers Personal Memoirs blah blah blah ...

you're all fakking micro managing freaks arguing over **** you have no facking way of EVER PROVING FOR REAL ! ! ! !

NO MATTER HOW MUCH TROLLED UP **** YOU TYPE OUT ! ! ! !

gah.

i like this board.

i hate the bull**** claims.

pah.

*spit and makes the sign to avoid the Evil Eye*

*edit* YOURE ALL QUOTING SOMEBODY ELSE !!!

*EDIT* NONE OF YOU KNOW F O R R E A L !!!!

FluffyDucks
01-24-2005, 05:15 AM
LoL ....no need to be coy, tell us what you REALLY think. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Have to say though..you do have a point, 99% of these graphs/sheets/diagrams etc ad infinitum prove exactly nothing INGAME.
It is a game and all the data and BS in the world is not going to make any difference to the fact that ALL FMs in this game are COMPROMISES to the limitations of our own pcs abilities.
My advice to all the Whiners wanting to prove that "their" aircraft should be uberer than anyone elses is this: Live with it, adapt and survive, and cut out all the phoney baloney self delusional BS about "your" aircraft.

m.manson2004
01-24-2005, 06:50 AM
ATT ROCKETDOG


where do i go to copy the above details(il2programme) for all the planes.
manson

VW-IceFire
01-24-2005, 08:26 AM
Just to cut in for a second, I haven't checked with 3.04 but in 3.03 the Corsair and Hellcat were pretty much measuring upto their reported top speeds at altitude. I didn't test the full range of altitudes...

m.manson2004
01-24-2005, 09:32 AM
I feel a very big change in general all round performance for the Corsair,Hellcat and Wildcat since the recent patch.I played online all day yesterday and i cant complain about anything .I had stopped playing all together before this correction.
manson

BSS_Vidar
01-24-2005, 10:41 AM
Unporked? Well, not all the way, that's for sure. The carrier take-offs are more managable now, however, I was chased for miles by an A6M5 and could never open the distance. As a matter of fact he closed on me after chasing me in excess 40 miles over the two island map with a cresent atol in the middle. I should have been able to start opening open up on him with impunity. Neather of us came out of a dive - it was just a flat run on the deck. No Zeke should ever be able to catch a healthy Corsair in a flat run like dat.

m.manson2004
01-24-2005, 11:35 AM
CORSAIR
I never tried to run away from a zeke online yesterday i would go a distance and then turn to face him head on again which now i can with no stalls and big drop in power.I can also follow him pretty closely changing flap angle when turning only and raise again to pick up speed without stalling.
I tried both speeds at sea level and there was a big difference,over 60kph.Try it.
manson

VW-IceFire
01-24-2005, 12:09 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BSS_Vidar:
Unporked? Well, not all the way, that's for sure. The carrier take-offs are more managable now, however, I was chased for miles by an A6M5 and could never open the distance. As a matter of fact he closed on me after chasing me in excess 40 miles over the two island map with a cresent atol in the middle. I should have been able to start opening open up on him with impunity. Neather of us came out of a dive - it was just a flat run on the deck. No Zeke should ever be able to catch a healthy Corsair in a flat run like dat. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Well, I can tell you for sure that the Zeke IS slower than either the Hellcat or the Corsair on the deck. I know from experience of being the Zeke driver trying desperately to close the distance enough to bring guns into effect...its rare that I was able to build enough speed...say in a shallow dive or by using as perfect a trim as possible.

Whatever you were doing, it wasn't right. No Zero can catch a Corsair at any time in a flat out deck run.

BSS_Vidar
01-24-2005, 06:29 PM
I agree Ice,
Wish it made a track to show it... I was completly perplexed over this Zeke chasing and closing on me. I was at 120% mix, SC stg 1, 100% prop pitch, and full throttle doing close to 300mph. I couldn't get away. My intentions were to open up, then come right back at'em for a head-on, but he was parked on my tail.

VF-29_Sandman
01-24-2005, 07:23 PM
unless ur below 2400', running full rich (120%) wont give u the speed boost ur looking for. oleg capped that to a max of 750 meters alt.

m.manson2004
01-25-2005, 12:31 AM
how come when i try 120% mix at sea level the engines slows down?
manson

BigKahuna_GS
01-25-2005, 02:31 AM
S!


__________________________________________________ _____________________
m.manson2004
posted Mon January 24 2005 23:31
how come when i try 120% mix at sea level the engines slows down?
manson
__________________________________________________ _____________________



I do not see any performance gain with a (120% fuel) setting in PF for US fighters. There is no change in RPM's or manifold pressure. The only gain is possibly minor cooling for the engine under max load (rich). At 3000ft this setting will all but kill your engine. See above your post manson.



__________________________________________________ _________________________
EnGaurde posted Mon January 24 2005 03:12
bah
this is ****.
all this number and graph wielding is just scientific bull**** by paper tigers.i read the performance figures for my italian motorbike... and heres the killer bit.. PLUS ITS SUPPOSED PERFORMANCE AGAINST JAP BIKES... and all i can say is that i was immensely surprised at its real world performance.
hot days, it was hopeless.
cold days it cracked.
i just tire so quickly of each goon quoting all manner of bull**** data in their favour about whichever plane is "porked".
none, i say again NONE of you know FOR REAL how ANY plane flew back in the day with full ammo fuel etc etc... __________________________________________________ _________________________





Nice rambling metaphores and random thoughts.
Reminds me of that commercial....this is your brain....this your brain on..

The graph I posted is real world and was a performance evaulation conducted by the US Navy and is stored in their archives if you wish to read and learn something. The Navy was known for being very conservative with their testing and posted results.

And in fact I do know what one of these planes flew like with a full ammunition and fuel load. My dad was Marine Corps fighter pilot for 30years and flew these planes in the south pacific in WW2 and jets in Korea. Also one of my squadmates flew Hellcats and was carrier qualified.

Contain your ramblings to mopeds or scooters or whatever it is you are riding.

http://www.history.navy.mil/branches/nhcorg4.htm

http://www.history.navy.mil/branches/org4-8.htm

Naval Aviation History Branch

The Naval Aviation History Office was established in January 1942. The office deals with subject matter on Naval Aviation from its beginnings in 1911 to the present time. It provides research assistance; maintains record collections; and publishes articles, monographs, and books on Naval Aviation. Due to staff limitations, the office only responds to official government phone requests at (202) 433-4355. All other requests must be submitted in writing. Extensive personal research requests are beyond the scope of the office. The general public should submit their requests in writing to Naval Historical Center, Naval Aviation History Branch, 805 Kidder Breese SE, Washington Navy Yard, Washington, D.C. 20374-5060. Processing time for reference requests is 4 to 8 weeks. The office is open to the public weekdays, except Wednesdays, and researchers are welcome to visit the office to conduct their research.


_____

VW-IceFire
01-25-2005, 07:40 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BSS_Vidar:
I agree Ice,
Wish it made a track to show it... I was completly perplexed over this Zeke chasing and closing on me. I was at 120% mix, SC stg 1, 100% prop pitch, and full throttle doing close to 300mph. I couldn't get away. My intentions were to open up, then come right back at'em for a head-on, but he was parked on my tail. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I would say maybe the 120% mix? I've only ever used that to take off from carriers with a maximum load. In level flight, I'm leery of using it.

Thats so very strange. In normal circumstances, it doesn't happen that way http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

rurik
01-25-2005, 08:52 AM
My question regarding the Navy data is: are the take-off distances listed absolute minimums or are they averaged?
If they're averaged then I think the tolerance could be considered a little bit lower for carrier take-offs.

BigKahuna_GS
01-25-2005, 10:15 AM
S!


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by BSS_Vidar:
I agree Ice,
Wish it made a track to show it... I was completly perplexed over this Zeke chasing and closing on me. I was at 120% mix, SC stg 1, 100% prop pitch, and full throttle doing close to 300mph. I couldn't get away. My intentions were to open up, then come right back at'em for a head-on, but he was parked on my tail.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------



Hya Vidar. I only say this because I did it. I extended away and reversed to a front quarters pass on a zeke using combat flaps but there was a 2nd closer zeke following me and closing as I reversed. I had to unload the plane and being close to the deck did not have much room for a nose down attitude. The zeke was closing and I was not sure why I wasnt pulling ahead until I remembered to retract the combat flap. There was an uncomfertable wait until I actualy started to accelerate away which I was able to do.

The only other experience I had is that if your engine is already hot and you are starting a speed run from a low energy state to escape it takes much longer to accelerate away and you may not achieve full power.



__________________________________________________ _______________________
rurik posted Tue January 25 2005 07:52
My question regarding the Navy data is: are the take-off distances listed absolute minimums or are they averaged?
If they're averaged then I think the tolerance could be considered a little bit lower for carrier take-offs.
__________________________________________________ ________________________



The lower take off figure 621feet was a special "Emergency Take Off Rating" of 2800rpm's for only 1 minute.

1850/2800/SL
http://web.cetlink.net/~howardds/id73.htm


__

BigKahuna_GS
01-25-2005, 10:16 AM
http://web.cetlink.net/~howardds/id73.htm

BigKahuna_GS
01-25-2005, 10:23 AM
S!


Heres the link it wont post for some reason.


http://web.cetlink.net/~howardds/id73.htm


___

BSS_Vidar
01-25-2005, 06:40 PM
I was on the deck, so the primary reason for full rich is for cooling purposes. I agree on the manifold and RPM issue, it makes no difference.
My thinking is that Zekes engine should have overheated just trying to stay with me. It may have, but is never slowed down.

It took VF-2_Charles in a high speed dive to catch us too late. The Zeke shot my pilot up pretty badly and I augered in before Charles could secure the kill.

This Zeke chased me for more than 2/3's of the map at high speed. I'm still baffeled.

WTE_Target
01-25-2005, 08:12 PM
Guys dont forget to adjust speed for altitude.I believe there is a table which does this in the second il-2 disc.
Basicaly the higher you get the indicated speed will measure way ...way less than the actual speed or TAS !!