PDA

View Full Version : Version 3.04



Yellonet
01-18-2005, 12:17 PM
Can the Corsair take from the CVEs now? If so... wasn't it unable to do that in real life, at least if loaded?

ComradeBadinov
01-18-2005, 12:21 PM
The patch does not fix the Corsair problem on full size carriers.. I have tested it with 50% fuel, 2 Tiny Tims, and 8x APHVARS with the Carrier going 34kmph... you can not take off, with take off flaps only.. it crashes everytime. You still have to use 120% mixture, and landing flaps just before the end of the deck. As to the other fixes.. who cares.. I don't fly the Buffalo cause the sight is not right...3.04, waste of download bandwidth....

John_Stag
01-18-2005, 12:41 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Yellonet:
Can the Corsair take from the CVEs now? If so... wasn't it unable to do that in real life, at least if loaded? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Corsair couldn't operate frome a CVE in real life.

xTHRUDx
01-18-2005, 01:19 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
The Corsair couldn't operate frome a CVE in real life. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>



i call BS on this comment:

proof
http://www.vmf235.com/corsair.html

http://www.navsource.org/archives/03/0311808.jpg

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Four different types of missions of aircraft operated from the decks of the FBI and made its nights as busy as its days. CVE pilots flew as many as four long support missions every day, which said Rear Admiral Durgin, "meant nine hours in the air of constant flying and fighting." "That's too much," he added. The BI had twelve CORSAIRS (F4U-1D and FG-1) which fought brilliantly by day. Ten HELLCATS (F6F-5N) continued the battle into the night. Twelve Avengers (TBM-3) launched torpedoes and bombs at strategic points.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

heres another one

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>CVE 106 was the first Carrier to Have a Complete Marine Air Group including a complete aircraft service unit. They came aboard with an F6F 5n night fighter squadron, a TBM/.TBF bomber squadron and a F4U fighter squadron <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Paajtor_61ShAP
01-18-2005, 01:29 PM
The Corsair could land on carriers...that's what your 1st link is about.
The 2nd one gives me an error.

Taking off from a CVE wasn't the ideal situation for them, but it could be done.

Acidcrash_112th
01-18-2005, 01:32 PM
go to http://www.navsource.org/archives/03/ first then http://www.navsource.org/archives/03/0311808.jpg it will work then

JG51Beolke
01-18-2005, 01:34 PM
Then what's the problem with getting the Corsair's flight model fixed. I don't understand. According to the above links, they were able to take off from CVE's. Or is it the game doesn't allow for the CVE's to go fast enough. Although they were much slower. Then that would mean the Corsair's model is pretty much, off. The only other determining factor would be wind. But if there was a slight breeze, would that mean the Navy would have to wait for a stronger head wind to launch their planes off the CVE's?

Paajtor_61ShAP
01-18-2005, 01:35 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Acidcrash_112th:
go to http://www.navsource.org/archives/03/ first then http://www.navsource.org/archives/03/0311808.jpg it will work then <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Nope...I get a "forbidden" on both links.

AlmightyTallest
01-18-2005, 02:10 PM
Beolke, I think the main thing to remember is that the U.S. used catapults on their Essex class carriers, as well as on their light carriers to launch heavily loaded aircraft, or launch them when no wind was present. We don't have this modeled in PF, but this new patch brings up new issues.

Others tested acceleration of various aircraft and found the Corsair, among other radial engined aicraft, to be short on their acceleration speed from the 3.03 patch. I would be interested to know what this patch does exactly, and if it is realistic. I don't want it to be easier to take off with certain loadouts if it wasn't possible in real life for pilots to do so under the same conditions. I also would like to know if it just changes the acceleration on take off, or if it affects aircraft with increased acceleration while in flight and fighting.

I also always thought the Corsair could take off with 2 Tiny Tims and 8 HVAR's off of Essex class carriers. Are there any sites that could prove that this loadout was used and flown off of Carriers?

I do appreciate that Oleg listened to many who brought up the acceleration issue and made a patch WITHIN MERE WEEKS of the issue being brought up. Now that's great service!!

But I'd still be interested in finding out exactly what the patch does to the aircraft Flight models.

JG51Beolke
01-18-2005, 02:10 PM
I was able to get to those links 15 minutes ago. Seems they're blocked now. It's a conspiracy, lolololololol. Someone call Moulder and Scully.

JG51Beolke
01-18-2005, 02:16 PM
I was under the impression that Essex class Carriers never used Catapults during the Pacific war. The only Catapult I'm aware of them remotely using was the one that pertrded from the foward hangar bay to launch alert fighters. There's some Carrier movie out there that even shows this. It's with Dana Andrews I believe. I am aware though that the British did use them on the decks after perfecting the launching of their Corsair's. I'm going to do some Google searches tonight. Thanks for the info. And No matter what the flight model is like, I still love playing the game.

AlmightyTallest
01-18-2005, 02:30 PM
I read about the catapults in various books on the pacific war, but I did find this info:

http://www.steelnavy.com/essex_data.htm

Essex class had 2 catapults in some ships apparently during WW2, that picture of an Essex class ship at the site above shows the 2 hydralic catapults at the bow of the ship either side of the elevator.

From above site:

Catapults (Deck): 1 H4B (2 H4B's in later ships) Essex completed without catapults.
Catapults (Hanger): 1 H4A Yorktown, Intrepid, Hornet, Bunker Hill, Wasp Only


And like you said, no matter the flight model, I do enjoy this sim very much. Things improve with time and patience with this series I've noticed. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

VBF-83_Hawk
01-18-2005, 02:55 PM
I saw a video where they were shooting off TBMs from the Essex in 45'. I will try to find it.

Also, I email Glem Wallace daily. He flew F4U-1Ds off the Essex during the last 6 months of the war. I will ask him.

Tailgator
01-18-2005, 03:47 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by xTHRUDx:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
The Corsair couldn't operate frome a CVE in real life. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>



i call BS on this comment:

proof
http://www.vmf235.com/corsair.html

http://www.navsource.org/archives/03/0311808.jpg

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Four different types of missions of aircraft operated from the decks of the FBI and made its nights as busy as its days. CVE pilots flew as many as four long support missions every day, which said Rear Admiral Durgin, "meant nine hours in the air of constant flying and fighting." "That's too much," he added. The BI had twelve CORSAIRS (F4U-1D and FG-1) which fought brilliantly by day. Ten HELLCATS (F6F-5N) continued the battle into the night. Twelve Avengers (TBM-3) launched torpedoes and bombs at strategic points.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

heres another one

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>CVE 106 was the first Carrier to Have a Complete Marine Air Group including a complete aircraft service unit. They came aboard with an F6F 5n night fighter squadron, a TBM/.TBF bomber squadron and a F4U fighter squadron <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

CVE 106 was a "commencement bay" class CVE, that class has 75ft more of flight deck than the class we have in the game

JG51Beolke
01-18-2005, 04:36 PM
Here's a link to that movie I was talking about. It's very good and it also follows the exploits of a TBF squadron based aboard that Carrier.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/630223607X/104-2951710-7099934?v=glance

AlmightyTallest
01-18-2005, 08:44 PM
Thanks for that link Beolke that's an excellent movie for 1944 by the way. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Hawk, that would be very nice to hear from Mr. Wallace, it would be nice to get the opportunity to hear about these things from the guys who were there when possible.

I wonder what he would think about the PF 3.04 Corsair?

F4U_Flyer
01-18-2005, 09:27 PM
After saving private ryan and band of brothers most of these old films look a little cheesy! But if you consider the time frame and take your " it must be real and accurate " many of these during and just post war movies are very entertaining! I still like midway , battle of the bulge , patton , flying tigers , fighting seebees , and most all of the old cheesy , if not accurate movies! Wing and a prayer included!

AlmightyTallest
01-18-2005, 09:32 PM
lol Flyer, I know where your coming from, Saving Private Ryan and Band of Brothers sort of ruined the old war movies for me. But I still enjoy them, just got spoiled with the newer ones though

EnGaurde
01-18-2005, 11:45 PM
aargh all this too'ing and fro'ing... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

was able to take off, wasnt able to take off, this carrier, that carrier, am i the only one confused? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

i just dont understand how so many people could get so many conflicting reports on carrier take offs. Now i have no idea who is actually accurate.

if the correct setup for the carrier cant be done due to game engine limitations ie wind etc then i agree that the "slider" should be set to make sure the plane can take to the air. If this upsets the detail nazis then so be it?

i think i need to stop reading some types of posts, i just find it too confusing that these planes ever did what popular history says they did due to the endless contradictions over specifics.

dont get me wrong, i'd like to see things accurate too.

meh.

i'll still play. I just wont load Tiny Tims? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

Blackdog5555
01-19-2005, 12:00 AM
All CVEs had Catapaults. They used to launch the 7 ton P47s off the things in transport. just watch an old movie. you will never get a fully loaded F4U off a CVE in this game because they dont have catapaults. It too difficult to model them i guess.Just Google CVE....on a full size 820-900 foot Essex class carrier you need to be going 30mph.. not 34kmph. (for full load). try it.

woofiedog
01-19-2005, 02:32 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif USS Manila Bay (CVE 61)
http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USN/ships/img/CVE/CVE-61_ManilaBay.gif

On 23 June, MANILA BAY came under enemy air attack during refueling operations east of Saipan. Two fighter-bombers attacked her from dead ahead, dropping four bombs which exploded wide to port. Intense antiaircraft fire suppressed further attacks; and, as a precautionary and rather unusual move which Admiral Spruance later characterized as "commendable initiative," MANILA BAY launched four of the Army P-47s she was ferrying to fly protective CAP until radar screens were clear of contacts. The Army fighters then flew to Saipan, their intended destination. MANILA BAY launched the remaining planes the next day and returned to Eniwetok, arriving 27 June. After embarking 207 wounded troops, she departed 1 July, touched Pearl Harbor the 8th, and reached San Diego 16 July.

http://www.multied.com/navy/ecarrier/manila%20bay.html

http://www.navysite.de/cve/cve61.htm

woofiedog
01-19-2005, 02:46 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif Just a little more info...

http://www.navysite.de/cve/casablanca.gif

General Information:

The CASABLANCA - class was the largest class of Escort Aircraft Carriers ever built and consisted of 50 ships which were built by Kaiser Shipbuilding in Vancouver, Washington. This class was a classic example of the United States' economic potential during WW II because all 50 ships were laid down, launched and commissioned within one year.
The nickname "Jeep Carriers" for these small aircraft carriers did not refer to their size but to the high frequency of their construction. It only took between 3 1/2 and 8 months to complete one carrier.

Ships of this class were equipped with a wooden flight deck, one catapult and two aircraft elevators.

In contrast to the US Navy's previous escort carrier classes, none of the CASABLANCA - class carriers was given to the Royal Navy during the war.

Most of the ships were decommissioned after the war but some of them were re-activated for duty during the Korean War. Manned by civilian crews of the Military Sea Transportation Service (MSTS) they were used to transport planes across the Pacific.

http://www.navysite.de/cve/casablanca-cve.gif

woofiedog
01-19-2005, 03:03 AM
Essex class fleet aircraft carriers

Link: http://www.hazegray.org/navhist/carriers/us_fleet.htm#essex-cl

http://www.hazegray.org/navhist/carriers/images/usa/cv12-4.jpg

Variations: See "long hull" description above. Some units were completed with athwartships catapults in the forward hangar bay, but these were soon removed in favor of additional AA guns. Postwar reconstructions lead to major variations within the class and within each rebuild configurations.

Modernization: Following WWII most ships underwent extensive upgrades under several programs.

SCB 27A: First major upgrade program applied to Essex class. This was a general, all-around upgrade, including a completely rebuilt and reconfigured island, new arresting gear and hydraulic catapults, new aircraft fueling arrangements, and all deck-level 5 inch guns removed. The gun armament was reduced to 8 single 5/38 DP and 12 to 14 dual 3/50 AA; the gun battery was gradually reduced over time. The rebuild did not include an angled flight deck. Displacement was 40,600 tons.