PDA

View Full Version : Corsair in 3.04



arrow80
01-19-2005, 11:27 AM
Has Corsair been given a better acceleration just to take off from CVE's? I won't install this patch, if this gives corsair unhistorical feature and will be a big disapointment for me, if dev. team listens to all those whines: Why can't I take off with my fully loaded Corsair from CVE?

NorrisMcWhirter
01-19-2005, 11:47 AM
Hi,

Well, I'd be surprised if it didn't. After all, this "adjustment" kills two birds with one stone for the whiners:

a. They can get off the deck of a stationary carrier in their unrealistic DF server with a max'd loadout.

b. With a clean configuration they have a new uber plane capable of shooting down 10-15 bad guys a flight just like in the movies!

Not a bad outcome if you're into that kind of thing, is it?

Cheers,
Norris

Kadin1
01-19-2005, 12:40 PM
Let's test before we start Jumping up and down and scream murder, shall we? !C Maddox team has probably tweak the situation to be more accurate. My report from testing is as follows. Single Mission, USN, F4U!A. Takes off from original spawning position with 100% fuel but NOT with 100% fuel, Napalm and Drop tank for the short Bay Carrier. That take off is tedious. You need to pay attention. With Bomb loads out so far taking off is not possible.Maybe if fuel is reduced...
Before 3.04 I have extensively practiced and managed to take off with up to 50% and that was it. So this leads me to believe that the adjustment is on the finer tuning level. Lets hear other people testing specific mission...

Kadin1
01-19-2005, 12:59 PM
NorrisMcWhirter, I have three questions for you. Is a F4UD with two tiny tims and 8 rockets considered fully loaded? Is carrying 3 500kg bombs heavier? Is the lexinghton the longest carrier?
Please, try not to post statements that you have not verified. Especially when it is so easy to do. It ruins your credibility.
If it is difficult for you to make a mission to test your statements, send me a PM and I will send you mine, if you have any doubts.

ZG77_Nagual
01-19-2005, 01:07 PM
Taking off from a static carrier is now possible - but not easy. I'd say the tweak is an improvement but not excessive - it is nowhere near how it was before the last patch.

AlmightyTallest
01-19-2005, 02:10 PM
Would have to agree with Nagual, it's still not easy, and in some cases still impossible to have a full loadout and take off from a carrier with no wind, which would be realistic as well.

I think the acceleration was found to be incrorrect for the Corsair and other planes and was adjusted accordingly.

So far, offline, the Corsair can get 2 Tiny Tims, 8 HVAR's off of the Essex class As long as the Essex is going 30mph, and you have to be very careful, you'll drop pretty close to the wavetops doing it too. Which seems reasonable because of the weight being carried.


I find the Corsair more believeable in 3.04, and it still allows for realistic loadouts to be taken to the battlefront from a large carrier. The new sounds sound better for it as well

Seems just about right going by the reports seen here:

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?q=Y&a=tpc&s=400102&f=63110913&m=9741002752&p=2

Apparently, the Corsair should have had an acceleration figure that was 1.5 to 2.08 feet per second, which would be a little faster than what was happening in the sim. Seems to have been corrected, and I thank Oleg for the quick fix to this situation. The offline campaigns are playable now with the Hellcat and Corsair loadouts used histroically from carriers during the war.

NorrisMcWhirter
01-19-2005, 02:47 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kadin1:
NorrisMcWhirter, I have three questions for you. Is a F4UD with two tiny tims and 8 rockets considered fully loaded? Is carrying 3 500kg bombs heavier? Is the lexinghton the longest carrier?
Please, try not to post statements that you have not verified. Especially when it is so easy to do. It ruins your credibility.
If it is difficult for you to make a mission to test your statements, send me a PM and I will send you mine, if you have any doubts. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hi,

I missed a wink out - sorry - as I was being sarcastic. But you know what they say about sarcasm - there is always a hint of the truth to it http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Cheers,
Norris

JG53Harti
01-19-2005, 02:51 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by NorrisMcWhirter:
b. With a clean configuration they have a new uber plane capable of shooting down 10-15 bad guys a flight just like in the movies!

Cheers,
Norris <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

GT182
01-19-2005, 03:01 PM
Here's my take on the Corsair.

In 3.03m she wouldn't take off from a moving carrier - not the escort carriers mind you - at 50% fuel and just 2 napalm tanks with WEP and full mixture. The droptank was release before takeoff. Alwasy went off and into the drink even taking off with takeoff flaps at the start, and once moving, going to landing flaps . With 3.04m, now at least I can get off the deck with that same loadout. So it seems to me 3.04 is a great improvement.

The non-moving carriers just don't cut it and aren't worth a try for me. Now if they'd have the carriers moving in the dogfight maps that would be a different story. It needs to be real. I have never seen anything in RL, except a helo, takeoff from a static carrier. And doing so in PF is just plain dumb IMHO. A/C need the wind from the carriers movement, even with catapults, for takeoffs. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

VF-152_Rider
01-19-2005, 03:56 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Arrow80:
Has Corsair been given a better acceleration just to take off from CVE's? I won't install this patch, if this gives corsair unhistorical feature and will be a big disapointment for me, if dev. team listens to all those whines: Why can't I take off with my fully loaded Corsair from CVE? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If Pacific Fighter was a stand alone whining would not take place about the F4U, I bet that most if not all the people complaining about this aircraft, are those that fly German aircrafts only.

The title of the sim says it all Pacific Fighters, therefore on would expect to take off from a carrier with some kind of a load out on a DF, server.

The Corsair, is not the problem FB+AEP with Pacific Fighter installed, is the problem, so do as most of us has done since IL-2, (2001) deal with it, we don't always get what we want.

Cheers...Rider

WWMaxGunz
01-19-2005, 04:11 PM
Readme with 3.04 says "corrected takeoff acceleration".

Now what does Chicken Little say?

AAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!! SKY IS FALLING!!!!!!!
(and yes, those others are whiners)

Please show me a piece of that sky that fell.

TAGERT.
01-19-2005, 04:14 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Arrow80:
Has Corsair been given a better acceleration just to take off from CVE's? I won't install this patch, if this gives corsair unhistorical feature and will be a big disapointment for me, if dev. team listens to all those whines: Why can't I take off with my fully loaded Corsair from CVE? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>whining about whiners.. LOL! So many whines.. so little proof to back them up.

p1ngu666
01-19-2005, 05:17 PM
sbd can take off from static carrier with 3x 500lb bombs http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

so if u wanna jabbo take that http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

perhaps they should bulid a couple of super carriers for df/coop maps, make it simple, but really big, dont cover it with guns http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
u could make it a 2 lane carrier, spawn on one side, landing on the other (solves collision problem)

say twice the length of one of the longer carriers, then most planes can takeoff http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif, plus solve other problems, collison, low fps around carrier, ppl who spawn then go afk (space to go around) server spasm's cos of flak

it might be possible just to stretch existing carriers

joeap
01-19-2005, 05:23 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by NorrisMcWhirter:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kadin1:
NorrisMcWhirter, I have three questions for you. Is a F4UD with two tiny tims and 8 rockets considered fully loaded? Is carrying 3 500kg bombs heavier? Is the lexinghton the longest carrier?
Please, try not to post statements that you have not verified. Especially when it is so easy to do. It ruins your credibility.
If it is difficult for you to make a mission to test your statements, send me a PM and I will send you mine, if you have any doubts. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hi,

I missed a wink out - sorry - as I was being sarcastic. But you know what they say about sarcasm - there is always a hint of the truth to it http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Cheers,
Norris <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Norris have you yourself tried the moving carriers???? I had problems with the RN carrier with full fuel and a bombload even if it was moving at full speed. Why dont' you try it. I myself wanted a headwind. Or do you think it was common not to launch planes with bombs and full tanks. Maybe sometimes sure. Look at Wiley's guncam site and see the vidoe of a Corsair with a DROP TANK whose wheels leave the deck before crossing the bow of a large carrier. I have only flown F4Fs off the CVEs and even then with a moving carrier and a couple of bombs it is dificult. But unless you have tried it yourself better shut it. Go ahead and try it.

VW-IceFire
01-19-2005, 06:25 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Arrow80:
Has Corsair been given a better acceleration just to take off from CVE's? I won't install this patch, if this gives corsair unhistorical feature and will be a big disapointment for me, if dev. team listens to all those whines: Why can't I take off with my fully loaded Corsair from CVE? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Actually, it was impossible to get a loaded Corsair off the deck of a stationary Essex class too. That was a problem for dogfight servers running scripted campaigns...it was difficult to make scenarios with Corsairs and ground targets because they simply were not capable.

But feel free to not install the 3.04 patch. Your choice...not sure why you need to advertise it?

WWMaxGunz
01-19-2005, 09:06 PM
Possible with catapult so don't be fooled by pictures.

PzKpfw
01-19-2005, 09:34 PM
Concerning Corsair take off @ the JFC the F4U-1C & F4U-1D were both rated *Goodfor take off charachteristics, & ranked Best overload takeoff from a small area.

Takeoff @ over 11,000lbs was achieved at 98mph IAS used about 1200ft of runway.

*See: Dean Francis H. America's Hundred-Thousand p.526

F4U-1 Loadout weight *2-Bombs:

Empty Weight - 8971lb
Operateing Equipt. - 744lb.
Basic Weight - 9715lb.
Water/Alchohol - 90lb.
Useable Oil - 98lb.
Cal.050 Ammunition - 703lb
Bombs/Rockets - 2000lb
Fuel Internal - 1422lb
Gross Weight - 14028lb.

*See: ibid. p.513

F4U-1 Acceleration @ 12694lb:*

Mil.HP = 2000
Thrust.lb = 2400
Drag.LB = 1580
Acceleration FT/SEC = 2.08

*See: ibid. p.604

Regards, John Waters

Gibbage1
01-19-2005, 09:35 PM
Max. We have shown video of F4U taking off with droptanks. Wheels up 50 feet before the deck ended, and that was the first F4U in the flight line. I dont buy the "3.03 was realistic" bs after watching that.

Please. Feel free to watch it. Its in the beginning.

http://pauke.ee.ethz.ch:8732/oberstguncam/Frameset/RealDocumentaries6.htm

Blackdog5555
01-20-2005, 01:25 AM
Real Data.. Not Crybaby whine
according to the official USN take off chart for the F4U, fully loaded. that's 14,900lbs. Hard surface and zero wind took 1110 ft. to get off the ground but with 30mph head wind (Essex aircraft carrier speed) it only took 480ft. Half the deck length of an Essex carrier. A half loaded F4U 11.700lbs. needs 540 ft. to take off from a static carrier. This has been argued "ad nausium" Jesus H. Christ.
The LW children who have never flown the F4U off the carrier, nor know anything about the F4U seem to complain either about their friggin 20s or the F4U without any data to support their *****. GO TO SCHOOL. and please, dont load the patch. Just go away. Sorry for the rant. I really shouldnt bother. really.

WUAF_Badsight
01-20-2005, 01:30 AM
wow , so if someone has ever cried foul over Corsairs takeoff now its been changed , apparently the are LW "crybabies" that need to "GO TO SCHOOL"

nice assuming there Blackdog , of course no american Corsair fan ever complained

be sure

& you can , because Blackdog just schooled us all

joeap
01-20-2005, 04:06 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
Possible with catapult so don't be fooled by pictures. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Gibbage posted it... please look at this clip.

video proof (http://pauke.ee.ethz.ch:8732/oberstguncam/Frameset/RealDocumentaries6.htm)

WWMaxGunz
01-20-2005, 04:44 AM
Got a nice program error and close from windoze. That was after a good long wait for
the dialup to get the data which is unsaveable. Gee, what fun.

Just tell me Gib are you sure that there was no assist from a catapult?
Are you sure and how do you know that the carrier had zero forward speed and was not
running into any wind? Because if you ain't then how does this 'proof' apply?

John Waters pulled up takeoff length of 1200 ft with some load and I'm pretty sure
that even full size CV decks are not that long. I'm also pretty sure the 1200 ft is
without wind and the runway wasn't moving relative to the ground.

The trouble with your basic picture is that it may not show pertinent things like
wind. Or it may if there's any flags, windsocks, things like those. I don't know
since the video didn't get to run for me. Till then I hope you understand I'd rather
go with the reports from people whose jobs it was to know loads and takeoff distances.
It is still an actual specialized job in the military, isn't it being a loadmaster?

They even include things like temperature and altitude. With cold air, that 1200 ft
distance will be shorter unless that is the distance for cold weather, which I doubt.
Maybe there's a thermometer in view? At least we can be sure of the alt!

joeap
01-20-2005, 05:05 AM
For crying out loud, did Gib say the carrier was not moving? It shows a moving Essex class carrier, a real documentary film in B & W from WWII and the carrier is moving because you can see the deck crew's clothes getting ruffled and the way they are standing shows there was a pretty stiff breeze. I don't see any catapult being used at all...it just takes off (with what appears to be full flaps btw). Look here is the main page you might have better luck from there.

main page (http://pauke.ee.ethz.ch:8732/oberstguncam/Frameset/index2.htm)

A great site btw, the link you want is "Pacific Carrier Landings"

cheers.

Stanger_361st
01-20-2005, 05:41 AM
One thing I noticed was the takeoff, there was no dipping down to wave top. They just went up. I have seen shots before were they went down some but this one no dipping here. Some of those landings looked like mine lol.

Loki-PF
01-20-2005, 11:30 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by NorrisMcWhirter:
Hi,

Well, I'd be surprised if it didn't. After all, this "adjustment" kills two birds with one stone for the whiners:

a. They can get off the deck of a stationary carrier in their unrealistic DF server with a max'd loadout.

b. With a clean configuration they have a new uber plane capable of shooting down 10-15 bad guys a flight just like in the movies!

Not a bad outcome if you're into that kind of thing, is it?

Cheers,
Norris <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Norris,

Is it theoretically possible that there could be a change to an American FM that was positive AND accurate?!

lrrp22
01-20-2005, 11:48 AM
Not a chance, Loki.

Don't you realize that the Third Reich was the paragon of honest disclosure, while the western Allies, particularly us Ami's, were nothing but dirty propoganda mongers?

C'mon, get with the program... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Loki-PF:

Norris,

Is it theoretically possible that there could be a change to an American FM that was positive _AND_ accurate?! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Gibbage1
01-20-2005, 12:32 PM
Max. Arrester hooks were used for catapult takeoffs. The hook was dropped and attached to a brakeable line. Then the pilot would rev his engine to full throttle. Once the catapult was released, it would brake the line. The arrester hook was not seen lowered on that takeoff.

RedNeckerson
01-20-2005, 12:37 PM
Does anyone have the specific charts from the US Navy that shows required T/O distance and required wind speed for specific ordinance loadouts for the Corsair?

Surely something like this must exist.

That's what we need to compare to.

PzKpfw
01-20-2005, 01:52 PM
Further reading of AHT's charts from USN, F4U pilots manual on F4U on takeoff weight/distance under a hard dry surface @ under sea level, 0 wind conditions.:



F4U-1:

12,500lb - 650-750ft

F4U-1D:
13,500lb - 1250ft

F4U-4:
13,500lb - 800ft
14,500lb - 950ft

*See: Dean Francis H. America's Hundred-Thousand p.512

Regards, John Waters

p1ngu666
01-20-2005, 02:08 PM
looks breezy with carrier moving, slight swell
and pilot doesnt maintain that climb, maybe goes to get safty speed. a good lso or starter would time takeoff with the swell, but i cant remmber what they did. we need to find the takeoff speed too

i took off from a carrier in a coop with 3x 1000lb bombs and hvar, 50% fuel just

that vid shows the energy and how dangous it was tho

p1ngu666
01-20-2005, 02:10 PM
ah, ta mate
doesnt the british carrier have the distance marked onit in feet?

AlmightyTallest
01-20-2005, 03:10 PM
starfighter1 had the following info about the corsair from these sites:

http://www.zenoswarbirdvideos.com/F4USTUFF.html

http://www.zenoswarbirdvideos.com/Images/F4U/F4UTOCL.gif

http://www.zenoswarbirdvideos.com/Images/F4U/F4UTOCL.gif

It's for an F4U-1 and if you squint, you can see to the left of the chart at the Take off distance for a 30 degree flap setting.

at 11,700 lbs gross weight, with a 30 knot headwind, the ground run is only 260 feet.

at 14,200 lbs gross, with 30 knot head wind it's sea level hard surface runway ground run is 450 feet.

The next box over next to the ground run is the ground run figure to "Clear a 50 foot object" in the path of the planes take off run.

Pretty impressive numbers from the Corsair F4U-1 FG-1, and F3A-1 flight manual, and it seems Oleg has fixed the problem.

Gibbage1
01-20-2005, 03:27 PM
There we have it. Both documents and video proof that shows the F4U could get off the deck of a carrier loaded. Now can be do away with the myth of 3.03 being "realistic"? Thanks.

JG53Frankyboy
01-20-2005, 05:37 PM
what i cant understand , with such much Corsair fans here. why nobody is making tests with every available loadoutoption and is trying to launch from a Essex carrier at 56Km/h ? if 100% fuel dodnt make it, reduce it, till you can take off.

here is the mission.file for such test. best edit it in a COOP mission and ply it offline


[MAIN]
MAP CoralSea/Online_load.ini
TIME 12.0
CloudType 0
CloudHeight 1000.0
army 1
playerNum 0
[Wing]
880sq00
USN_VF_15A01
USN_VF_44A01
[880sq00]
Planes 1
Skill 1
Class air.F4UCORSAIR4
Fuel 100
weapons default
[880sq00_Way]
TAKEOFF 49967.26 20586.84 0 0 1_Chief 0 &0
NORMFLY 3328.41 20792.30 3000.00 350.00 &0
[USN_VF_15A01]
Planes 1
Skill 1
Class air.F4U1D
Fuel 100
weapons default
[USN_VF_15A01_Way]
TAKEOFF 50008.35 30366.61 0 0 0_Chief 0 &0
NORMFLY 2835.31 30900.80 3000.00 350.00 &0
[USN_VF_44A01]
Planes 1
Skill 1
Class air.F6F5
Fuel 100
weapons default
[USN_VF_44A01_Way]
TAKEOFF 50049.44 40392.94 0 0 2_Chief 0 &0
NORMFLY 2301.12 40639.49 3000.00 350.00 &0
[Chiefs]
0_Chief Ships.USSEssexCV9 1 0 2 1.0
1_Chief Ships.HMSIllustriousCV 1 0 2 1.0
2_Chief Ships.USSEssexCV9 1 0 2 1.0
[0_Chief_Road]
50008.35 30037.88 120.00 0 2 15.433334350585938
1068.38 30037.88 120.00
[1_Chief_Road]
50008.35 20011.56 120.00 0 2 15.555555555555555
616.37 20011.56 120.00
[2_Chief_Road]
50049.44 40023.11 120.00 0 2 15.433334350585938
862.92 39982.02 120.00
[NStationary]
[Buildings]
[Bridge]
[House]

Stanger_361st
01-20-2005, 05:47 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gibbage1:
There we have it. Both documents and video proof that shows the F4U could get off the deck of a carrier loaded. Now can be do away with the myth of 3.03 being "realistic"? Thanks. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I am not to sure about this. We all know that the Americans data is always overdone to spill fear amongst the axis. After all the 109 was the best at everything. I guess the axis was not there to make it official. I am sure that it is at least 25% over. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

WWMaxGunz
01-20-2005, 06:01 PM
Sorry Gib but that 30 knot headwind makes all the difference in the world.

11700 lbs - the lightest load on the chart BTW
---------------------------------------------------------------
no headwind - 680 ft (how long is that CVE deck TAIL to nose?
30 knot headwind - 260 ft (wheels up before the prow!)

13100 lbs - 910 ft and 380 ft, still able to get up nice with the wind.

Out on the ocean, into the wind and crank the engines -- the chart shows headwind up to
45 knots for operations. The takeoff runs get mighty short with 45 knot headwinds.
120 ft at 11700 lbs, LESS THAN HALF WHAT A WIND 2/3 AS FAST ALLOWS. What that says!

3.03 with the same size carrier at what speed and in what wind by the mission?
I ask what because how do I know wind in the mission except for none and how do I know
wind in that video except for it ruffles clothes?

Not science, not even engineering, certainly not proof with what data is presented.

WWMaxGunz
01-20-2005, 06:09 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stanger_361st:
I am not to sure about this. We all know that the Americans data is always overdone to spill fear amongst the axis. After all the 109 was the best at everything. I guess the axis was not there to make it official. I am sure that it is at least 25% over. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That is just too stupid.

Those charts are the kind of information they used to launch with, dummy.
It wasn't something given to newspapers or sent to the enemy either.

There is a reason why so many service members have clearances, but you wouldn't know
so I guess it works down to the housewife and kids level at least.

JG53Frankyboy
01-20-2005, 06:26 PM
im realy no experinced Corsair pilot , but after a few minutes i got these results:
F4U-1D on USS Essex at 56km/h ( see mission above http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif ).
settings:
110% power, 100% propeller, start flaps, arrestet tailwheel, cooler and cockpit closed.

8 HVAR + 2x1000lb bombs (i think a usual loadout ?! ) -> 100% fuel - i was airborn , i wouldnt call the start safe, surface was **** close, but i flew http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

1x2000lb + 2x1000lb -> no way , even with 25% fuel (what i expected)

very annnoying is
2xNapalm + 1x Droptank ->only with 25% fuel http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

realesing the Droptank on start position ( it doesnt harm you plane ore the ship http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif ) with 100% fuel it was no proplem.

**** droptanks !

Gibbage1
01-20-2005, 06:36 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stanger_361st:

I am not to sure about this. We all know that the Americans data is always overdone to spill fear amongst the axis. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I know this is just a troll, but ask yourslef. Whats more valuable? Fear from an enemy because an F4U can take off in X feet, or dead US pilots who thought they could take off in X feet?

Manuals are always in the conservitive side because they are written to keep the pilot within the envelope and alive. If the manual says 260 feet, I bet you a pilot could do it in 250 feet, but they write down 260 to be "on the safe side". Remember, your pilots life is more important then the enemy's fear of your aircraft.

Gibbage1
01-20-2005, 06:47 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
Sorry Gib but that 30 knot headwind makes all the difference in the world. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think your still under the impression that I was talking about static carriers. I was talking about F4U takeoffs in general were very much a struggle. Full fuel reuired a lot of work just to get off the deck. Full fuel with bombs or drop takes was almost impossible but for a rare few. Im talking about MOVING carriers in single player or coop. Thid video clearly shows a F4U (and many others) taking off from an Essex carrier, HALF DECK, with drop tank with no problem what so ever. Thats when IL2/PF clearly diverted from reality.

Maybe someone can make a FMB that marks the runway in 100 feet incraments and measures how long it takes? Then you can have your proof that the current modeling is wrong. Till then, we have ample proof in both documents and video that says an F4U can take off without a problem in real life. Its going to be hard to disprove that with simple words.

P.S. Even been on a boat doing 35 knots? It gets rather windy... Just sayin http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Maybe IL2's lack of wind is more unrealistic then an F4U taking off early?

JG53Frankyboy
01-20-2005, 06:54 PM
btw, launching the F6F-5 with its heaviest loadout , 2x500lbBombs + 1xDroptank , from the USS Essex is childplay at 100% fuel http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

WWMaxGunz
01-20-2005, 07:05 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gibbage1:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
Sorry Gib but that 30 knot headwind makes all the difference in the world. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think your still under the impression that I was talking about static carriers. I was talking about F4U takeoffs in general were very much a struggle. Full fuel reuired a lot of work just to get off the deck. Full fuel with bombs or drop takes was almost impossible but for a rare few. Im talking about MOVING carriers in single player or coop. Thid video clearly shows a F4U (and many others) taking off from an Essex carrier, HALF DECK, with drop tank with no problem what so ever. Thats when IL2/PF clearly diverted from reality.

Maybe someone can make a FMB that marks the runway in 100 feet incraments and measures how long it takes? Then you can have your proof that the current modeling is wrong. Till then, we have ample proof in both documents and video that says an F4U can take off without a problem in real life. Its going to be hard to disprove that with simple words.

P.S. Even been on a boat doing 35 knots? It gets rather windy... Just sayin http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Maybe IL2's lack of wind is more unrealistic then an F4U taking off early? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have to say, with all that put that way you do have something workable.
Still, I'd stick with the chart.....

JG53Frankyboy
01-20-2005, 07:30 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gibbage1:
.........Maybe someone can make a FMB that marks the runway in 100 feet incraments and measures how long it takes? . <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

betwenn red markings are 100m ( no feet possible) , betwenn red and green ones its 50m

[MAIN]
MAP Berlin/load.ini
TIME 8.0
TIMECONSTANT 1
CloudType 0
CloudHeight 1000.0
army 1
playerNum 0
[NStationary]
3_Static vehicles.stationary.Smoke$Smoke13 0 68899.99 56536.79 360.00 61.00
4_Static vehicles.stationary.Smoke$Smoke13 0 69000.07 56536.60 360.00 61.00
5_Static vehicles.stationary.Smoke$Smoke13 0 69099.96 56536.78 360.00 61.00
6_Static vehicles.stationary.Smoke$Smoke13 0 69199.98 56536.82 360.00 61.00
7_Static vehicles.stationary.Smoke$Smoke13 0 69299.93 56536.85 360.00 61.00
8_Static vehicles.stationary.Smoke$Smoke13 0 69399.97 56536.83 360.00 61.00
9_Static vehicles.stationary.Smoke$Smoke13 0 69499.97 56536.84 360.00 61.00
10_Static vehicles.stationary.Smoke$Smoke13 0 69600.06 56536.71 360.00 61.00
11_Static vehicles.stationary.Smoke$Smoke13 0 69699.98 56536.80 360.00 61.00
0_Static vehicles.stationary.Smoke$Smoke13 0 68599.96 56536.82 360.00 61.00
1_Static vehicles.stationary.Smoke$Smoke13 0 68699.97 56536.79 360.00 61.00
2_Static vehicles.stationary.Smoke$Smoke13 0 68799.98 56536.76 360.00 61.00
12_Static vehicles.stationary.Smoke$Smoke13 0 69799.98 56536.85 360.00 61.00
13_Static vehicles.stationary.Smoke$Smoke13 0 69899.96 56536.87 360.00 61.00
14_Static vehicles.stationary.Smoke$Smoke13 0 69999.98 56536.76 360.00 61.00
15_Static vehicles.stationary.Smoke$Smoke13 0 70099.94 56536.89 360.00 61.00
16_Static vehicles.stationary.Smoke$Smoke13 0 70199.94 56536.78 360.00 61.00
17_Static vehicles.stationary.Smoke$Smoke14 0 68649.90 56536.67 360.00 61.00
18_Static vehicles.stationary.Smoke$Smoke14 0 68749.92 56536.69 360.00 61.00
19_Static vehicles.stationary.Smoke$Smoke14 0 68849.77 56536.63 360.00 61.00
20_Static vehicles.stationary.Smoke$Smoke14 0 68949.84 56536.40 360.00 61.00
21_Static vehicles.stationary.Smoke$Smoke14 0 69050.15 56536.63 360.00 61.00
22_Static vehicles.stationary.Smoke$Smoke14 0 69149.99 56536.17 360.00 61.00
23_Static vehicles.stationary.Smoke$Smoke14 0 69249.85 56536.71 360.00 61.00
24_Static vehicles.stationary.Smoke$Smoke14 0 69349.85 56536.71 360.00 61.00
25_Static vehicles.stationary.Smoke$Smoke14 0 69449.84 56536.71 360.00 61.00
26_Static vehicles.stationary.Smoke$Smoke14 0 69550.06 56536.49 360.00 61.00
27_Static vehicles.stationary.Smoke$Smoke14 0 69650.05 56536.71 360.00 61.00
28_Static vehicles.stationary.Smoke$Smoke14 0 69750.05 56536.27 360.00 61.00
29_Static vehicles.stationary.Smoke$Smoke14 0 69849.82 56536.71 360.00 61.00
30_Static vehicles.stationary.Smoke$Smoke14 0 69950.03 56536.49 360.00 61.00
31_Static vehicles.stationary.Smoke$Smoke14 0 70050.03 56536.27 360.00 61.00
32_Static vehicles.stationary.Smoke$Smoke14 0 70149.81 56536.49 360.00 61.00
33_Static vehicles.stationary.Smoke$Smoke14 0 70249.80 56536.49 360.00 61.00
[Buildings]
0_bld House$RacingPoleRed 1 68600.09 56569.93 360.00
1_bld House$RacingPoleRed 1 68699.92 56569.97 360.00
2_bld House$RacingPoleRed 1 68799.97 56569.97 360.00
3_bld House$RacingPoleRed 1 68899.88 56569.97 360.00
4_bld House$RacingPoleRed 1 68999.94 56569.97 360.00
5_bld House$RacingPoleRed 1 69099.92 56569.97 360.00
6_bld House$RacingPoleRed 1 69199.97 56570.04 360.00
7_bld House$RacingPoleRed 1 69299.96 56569.97 360.00
8_bld House$RacingPoleRed 1 69400.01 56569.97 360.00
9_bld House$RacingPoleRed 1 69499.99 56569.97 360.00
10_bld House$RacingPoleRed 1 69599.90 56569.97 360.00
11_bld House$RacingPoleRed 1 69699.96 56569.97 360.00
12_bld House$RacingPoleRed 1 69799.94 56569.97 360.00
13_bld House$RacingPoleRed 1 69899.92 56569.97 360.00
14_bld House$RacingPoleRed 1 69999.97 56569.97 360.00
15_bld House$RacingPoleRed 1 70099.95 56569.97 360.00
16_bld House$RacingPoleRed 1 70200.01 56569.89 360.00
[BornPlace]
1 1000 69420 56536
[BornPlace0]
F4U-1A
F4U-1C
F4U-1D
CorsairMkI
CorsairMkII
CorsairMkIV
[Bridge]
[House]


its a dogfight map

Gibbage1
01-20-2005, 07:32 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:


I have to say, with all that put that way you do have something workable.
Still, I'd stick with the chart..... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I dont know what chart your reading, but the one posted said its very possible.

It says 13100lb, 30 knots is 385 feet. 480 at 14900lb.

An Essex class is between 820 feet to 872 feet (depending on the source?). Even at 14900lb (full load max weight), no headwind, and the ship moving at 30 knots, the F4U can still take off in just over half-deck. With a good loadout, it takes less then half-deck.

What chart are you reading?

JG53Frankyboy
01-20-2005, 07:37 PM
an Esses carrier is long
820ft at water line
872ft over all
860ft at flight deck
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Gibbage1
01-20-2005, 07:38 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG53Frankyboy:


betwenn red markings are 100m ( no feet possible) , betwenn red and green ones its 50m
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Cool. Thanks. Maybe Max can test it? Im currently at work.

Gibbage1
01-20-2005, 07:41 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG53Frankyboy:
an Esses carrier is long
820ft at water line
872ft over all
860ft at flight deck
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks again. Im limited to quick google searches. But 860 flight deck? That means a fully loaded F4U SHOULD be able to get off just fine at HALF DECK doing 30 knots, no headwind.

So thats all the proof we need right there. The chart, the video, and the math all agree that yes, an F4U fully loaded can, and should be able to take off from an Essex carrier.

Anyone disagree?

JG53Frankyboy
01-20-2005, 07:42 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gibbage1:
..................... Even at 14900lb (full load max weight), no headwind, and the ship moving at 30 knots, the F4U can still take off in just over half-deck. With a good loadout, it takes less then half-deck.

What chart are you reading? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

so, what game loadout would represent this 14900lb with 100%fuel ?

Gibbage1
01-20-2005, 07:51 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG53Frankyboy:

so, what game loadout would represent this 14900lb with 100%fuel ? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

To be honest, I have no clue. Its my asumption that 14900lb is max weight. I dont have access to any of my referances. Maybe someone can do some math?

VBF-83_Hawk
01-20-2005, 08:02 PM
Is 100% fuel really giving you 100%? Look at the fuel guage when selecting fuel %. The guages are wrong!! Could be an flight model thing!

F4U-1 100% is 100%
F4U-1D 100% is NOT 100%

Check it out yourself.

PzKpfw
01-20-2005, 08:06 PM
The chart for an overloaded F4U-1 with no water injection, or bombs lists following weight*:

Empty Weight - 8762.7lb
Trapped Fuel/Oil - 88.0lb
Crew - 200lb
Cal.50 Gun Instn - 398.5lb
Gunsights - 4.2lb
Gun Camera - 3.9lb
Pyrotechnics - 11.5lb
Prov.For Drop tank & Larger Oil tank - 27.2lb
Comm/Nav. Equip - 126.5lb
Oxygen Equip - 27.5lb
Emergency Equip - 22.7lb
Fixed Useful Load - 910lb
Basic Weight - 9672.7lb
Useable Oil - 193.5lb
Cal .50 Ammo - 702.6lb
Fuel. Fuselage tk - 1422.0lb
Fuel. Wing Panel - 756.0lb
Drop Tank - 78.5lb
Fuel.Drop tank - 956.0lb
Total Dispos.Load - 4108.6lb
Useful Load - 5018.6lb
Gross Weight - 13,781lb

See: Dean Francis H. America's Hundred-Thousand. p.513

Regards, John Waters

JG53Frankyboy
01-20-2005, 08:23 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VBF-83_Hawk:
Is 100% fuel really giving you 100%? Look at the fuel guage when selecting fuel %. The guages are wrong!! Could be an flight model thing!

F4U-1 100% is 100%
F4U-1D 100% is NOT 100%

Check it out yourself. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

fuel gauges doesnt show % ! they show litres/gallons. and often not all instead from a special marge.
but true , the -1D ( not -1C !) and CorsairMk.IV are showing less fuel than the others on the gauge.

well, nothing surprises me anymore after 3 years with this game - also having experinces with "strange" fuelloads in Ju87B,Fw190A8/9/F8 , Bf109F.

but perhaps these late Corsairs had less fuel than the others, i dodnt know , but i doubt it.
perhaps just the gauges are showing wrong. and the game is calculating other things

AlmightyTallest
01-20-2005, 08:35 PM
Hey Hawk, I think you may have something about complex fuel management not working quite right in PF, but I think the F4U-1D has 75% at full fuel, because of the removal of the wing tanks for the -1D version.

Also, if this is true for the -1D, shouldn't it also hold true for the -1C version? I've gotten conflicting info as to wether the -1C is actually a cannon carrying -1A , or a -1D that's given cannons. The rocket racks and bomb carrying capacity of the -1C in PF leads me to believe it's a modified -1D, but it can't carry the Tiny Tims like the -1D lol.

Also, I just noticed something about that chart I posted, look at the notice below the take off runs. It says "NOTE INCREASE DISTANCE 10% FOR EACH 20 degrees Farenheit ABOVE 32 Degrees Farenheit"

So, for example, if the takeoff run was 480 Feet at 32 Degrees F, with a fully loaded 14,200 lb Corsair that had a 30knot head wind and we wanted to get a more accurate figure for the tropics, (I'd guess about 92 Degrees Farenheit). So add 30% to 480 feet and I get.... a 624 foot take off run for a Fully loaded corsair at 92 Degrees Farenheit.

Don't know how much temperature is taken into account in PF though. But it's still capable of getting off of a full sized carrier going 30 knots with about 200 feet to spare http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Some good data being passed around here guys.

Frankyboy, Thanks for setting up some missions to test out the Corsair for the community, I'll look to see if I can find what loadouts weighed what and what was considered the maximum loadouts.

Also, you may want to further test Hellcat loadouts, I saw one other poster here mention that they had a lot of trouble getting airborne with a light Hellcat loadout, but an easy time with the heavy loadouts. May have the weights of the ordinance mixed up, or not, but it doesn't hurt to test this idea out or to have Oleg take a look at it before the next patch if there is a difference.

Gibbage1
01-20-2005, 08:44 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PzKpfw:
Gross Weight - 13,781lb
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So 13,700 for a fully fueled F4U? OK. That gets us somewere.

14,900 must be with 2x500lb bombs then, with weight for bomb racks.

Gib

AlmightyTallest
01-20-2005, 08:52 PM
PzKpfw does that book have any info about any of the other Corsair -1 Variants in regards to weight? Specifically anything about the -1D or even -1C models?

I'd like to find a take off chart specifically for the -1D model now. I know someone out there has to have one. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

JG53Frankyboy
01-20-2005, 08:57 PM
well, assuming all Corsairs in game has the same FM ( the last IL2 compare says so http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif ).

F4U-1D , 100% fuel with 2x500lb bombs , no proplem from Essex. had ~170km/h IAS at the end of the deck

Corsair MkIV , from british carrier, 100% fuel, 2x500lb Bombs (hell, here that are british bombs , never noticed before http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif ) also no proplem http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

VBF-83_Hawk
01-20-2005, 09:02 PM
AlmightyTallest

I was thinking that instead of Oleg comming up with a whole new FM for the -1D, he may have modified the fuel load FM on the -1D in order to get correct weight. Aslo modifieng the fuel burn, which I think is still off.

Even so, there was no wing guages in the -1 but there would be a weight diffeence between the -1 and -1D.....!!??

JG53Frankyboy
01-20-2005, 09:06 PM
just to be sure.
F4U-1A , 2x500lb Bombs, 100% fuel

no proplem on Essex at 56km/h to launch.

unfortunatly all Corsairs in game has waterinjection.
and Skychimp is saying since ages the loudoutoptions are realy weird till wrong http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

PzKpfw
01-20-2005, 09:31 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by AlmightyTallest:
PzKpfw does that book have any info about any of the other Corsair -1 Variants in regards to weight? Specifically anything about the -1D or even -1C models?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

F4U-1D Alternate Useful Loads (LBS.)

F4U-1D Fighter:

Empty Weight - 8982lb
Operateing Equipt. - 744lb
Basic Weight - 9726lb
Water/Alchohol - 90lb.
Useable Oil - 98lb.
Cal.050 Ammunition - 703lb
Fuel Internal - 1422lb
Gross Weight - 12039lb

F4U-1D Fighter:

Empty Weight - 8982lb
Operateing Equipt. - 744lb
Basic Weight - 9726lb
Water/Alchohol - 90lb
Useable Oil - 150lb
Cal.050 Ammunition - 703lb
Fuel Internal - 2166lb
Gross Weight - 12835lb.

F4U-1D Fighter x 1 ext tank:

Empty Weight - 8982lb
Operateing Equipt. - 792lb
Basic Weight - 9774lb
Water/Alchohol - 90lb.
Useable Oil - 180lb.
Cal.050 Ammunition - 703lb
Fuel Internal - 2166lb
Fuel External - 306lb
Drop Tank - 40lb
Gross Weight - 13259

F4U-1D Fighter x 2 ext tank:

Empty Weight - 8971lb
Operateing Equipt. - 755lb
Basic Weight - 9726lb
Water/Alchohol - 90lb.
Useable Oil - 180lb.
Cal.050 Ammunition - 703lb
Fuel Internal - 1422lb
Fuel External - 1800lb
Drop Tanks - 158lb
Gross Weight - 14079lb

F4U-1D 1 x Bomb 1 x ext tank:

Empty Weight - 8971lb
Operateing Equipt. - 750lb.
Basic Weight - 9721lb.
Water/Alchohol - 90lb.
Useable Oil - 165lb
Cal.050 Ammunition - 703lb
Bombs/Rockets - 1000lb
Fuel Internal - 1422lb
Fuel External - 900lb
Drop tank - 79lb
Gross Weight - 14080lb

F4U-1D 2 bombs:

Empty Weight - 8971lb
Operateing Equipt. - 744lb.
Basic Weight - 9715lb.
Water/Alchohol - 90lb.
Useable Oil - 98lb.
Cal.050 Ammunition - 703lb
Bombs/Rockets - 2000lb
Fuel Internal - 1422lb
Gross Weight - 14028lb.

Note: The only loadout with x 8 HVAR listed is for the F4U-4 which lists HVAR weight @ 1155lb.

*See: ibid. p.513


Regards, John Waters

JG53Frankyboy
01-20-2005, 09:34 PM
and a last one before i realy have to catch some few hours of sleep.

from the starting position of plane No1 on a Essex Carier in game to the end of the flightdeck its ~ 183m . thats around 558ft

JG53Frankyboy
01-20-2005, 09:43 PM
well
"F4U-1D 2 bombs:

Empty Weight - 8971lb
Operateing Equipt. - 744lb.
Basic Weight - 9715lb.
Water/Alchohol - 90lb.
Useable Oil - 98lb.
Cal.050 Ammunition - 703lb
Bombs/Rockets - 2000lb
Fuel Internal - 1422lb
Gross Weight - 14028lb."

so, i used a F4U-1D , 100% fuel, 2x1000lb bombs.
was able to start safe , not with so much reserves as the real dates are showing with a runway of 558ft and 56Km/h carrierspeed expected , but it was ok.

AlmightyTallest
01-20-2005, 10:48 PM
PzKpfw , thanks for the detailed info, I gotta get myself a copy of that book http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Frankyboy, thanks again for the info and the tests. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Well, we at least know the 14,200 lb. full takeoff weight from the chart would most likely include 2,000 lbs of external ordinance or fuel. And Frankyboy was able to take off with a carrier going 56kph with a 2,000 lb external loadout.

It may not match up exactly with the charts, but you have to admit that Oleg got it alot closer to the charts this time vs. version 3.03 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Plus there may be other factors Oleg had to consider that we haven't yet.

Hawk, I was thinking the same thing you were. If a -1D didn't have wing tanks, you'd think there would be a weight difference that would affect the takeoff distances and such. But PzKpfw has some good figures for the -1D which are close to the maximum figure in the chart of 14,200 lbs. The two -1D max weights from PzKpfw's source are listed as being around the 14,080 lbs. mark when carrying 2,000 lbs of external stores. Seems to be a weight savings of 120 lbs without those wing tanks.


Well done guys http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

VBF-83_Hawk
01-20-2005, 10:58 PM
Woulda been a lot faster and eisier if Oleg would just tell us what, why and how he changed it http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

AlmightyTallest
01-20-2005, 11:04 PM
lol, agreed Hawk http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I hear Olegs sick, I do hope he gets better soon. Being sick.... well... sucks. Get well soon Oleg http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

VBF-83_Hawk
01-21-2005, 12:08 AM
Ah man, I didnt know...."get well" Oleg!!!

Blackdog5555
01-21-2005, 03:22 AM
Oh boy! Its Badsight. my little ******ed special friend. You're like my little shadow, are you? Hey, thanks for the support. Again, you post with no data, information or statistics. Just insipid inuendo and sarcasm, just like the original poster. anyway, If you think you want to be a comedian, keep your day job. Oops, are your pants down again? I cant tell. Ok, take your mother underwear off and go to bed! You make my day BadBreath! ROGLMAO. cheers

Blackdog5555
01-21-2005, 03:42 AM
Again.. This debate goes on..you would think, why on Gods Green Earth would anybody doubt that a Corsair could get off a carrier deck instead of falling off into the drink? It is hilarious. Really if someone has made up their mind that the F4U should not be able to make it off a moving carrier deck then why argue with them? they are struggling with reality. Just from a humankind perspective it's funny to watch people's twisted biases in action. Its just funny. Ok Badbutt.. its your turn.

WUAF_Badsight
01-21-2005, 04:17 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Blackdog5555:
Again, you post with no data, information or statistics. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>i dont need data or info to show how insulting your trying to be is why

WWMaxGunz
01-21-2005, 08:01 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by AlmightyTallest:
Also, I just noticed something about that chart I posted, look at the notice below the take off runs. It says "NOTE INCREASE DISTANCE 10% FOR EACH 20 degrees Farenheit ABOVE 32 Degrees Farenheit"
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

How about that? Actual details might make a difference, that chart is for zero centigrade!
Colder air is denser at the same alt, any pilot can attest to that.

Standard atmosphere in the sim is summer on I think Crimea map or another?
Standard atmosphere sea level temperature is 15 centigrade, 59 farenheit, figure 13.5% longer
by the 10% for every 20 F rule. But that only takes 480 ft to 544 ft ON THAT MAP.

Best to check these things before going to Oleg saying it should take this much length and
then being wrong ... is there anything else? Chart says 2700 rpm and 54" HG, same line.

DRB_Hookech0
01-21-2005, 09:08 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gibbage1:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PzKpfw:
Gross Weight - 13,781lb
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So 13,700 for a fully fueled F4U? OK. That gets us somewere.

14,900 must be with 2x500lb bombs then, with weight for bomb racks.

Gib <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Iposted this in an eariler thread a few weeks ago but **** if i can find it. This is from the F4u Flight Manual.

Just more ammo for the firing line.

Fuel - Grade 100/130 Spec. AN-F-28

Capacity (model F4u-1, F3a-1, FG-1, and Brit serial # Jt-100 to Jt-554)

Normal Fighter - 178 US gal. **This is 75% full in PF**

Overload Fighter (full tanks) - 363 US gal.

Overload Fighter (drop tanks) - 535 US gal.

Capacity (model F4u-1d, F3a-1d, Fg-1d and Brit serial # Jt-555 and subsequent)

Normal fighter - 178 US gal.

Fighter - 237 US gal.

Long Range fighter or fighter bomber - 391 US gal.

Long rang fighter - 545 US gal.

Tanks:
Fuel system for model F4u-1, F3a-1, FG-1, and Brit serial # Jt-100 to Jt-554
inclusive (prior to center section twin pylons installation) is shown in fig. 11.

The self sealing main tank, located in the fuselage, forward of the cockpit, has
a total capacity of 237 US gal. of fuel, including a stand pipe reserve of 50
US. gal.. Two wing tanks, built integrally with the outer panels, have a capacity
of 63 US gal. each. The wing tanks are provided with a CO2 vapor dilution system.
Provision is made, under the fuselage, for the installation of a droppable auxiliary
tank having the capacity of 170 US gal. The main fuel tank maintains a standpipe
reserve of 50 US gal. after the fuel supply thru the main line is exhausted. Bear
in mind that the reserve is made availible as the quantity necessary for final
operation before landing, when the main fuel supply is exhausted and noted below.

The fuel system for model F4u-1d, F3a-1d, Fg-1d and Brit serial # Jt-555 and subsequent
is shown in fig. 11A.

This system includes provisions for installing two Navy standard-type droppable tanks,
each with a capacity of 154 US gal. on the center section twin pylons. Lockheed-type
droppable tanks which have the capacity of 170 US gal. may be installed in place of
Navy standard-type tanks if the latter is not available. The orignal main tank and
provisions for installign s droppable tank under the fuselage are retained on these
airplanes. However, the two wing tanks and their vapor dilution system are eleminated.

AlmightyTallest
01-21-2005, 01:51 PM
MaxGunz, as I said before, the fine print says that the chart is for 32 degrees Farenheit. Going by that figure, and figuring for a Tropical climate of 92 degrees farenheit I took the charts advice and simply added 10% to the takeoff run for every 20 degrees above 32 degrees to arrive at that value.

32+20+20+20= 92 degrees
+10%+10%+10% = 30%

Takeoff run at 32 degrees 30 knots full load= 480 feet

At 92 Degrees that same takeoff run would be 624 feet. Still capable of getting off a large carrier with a full combat load. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif And the chart seems to be calculated for a land based takeoff. On a carrier, when you get to the end of the runway, you still have about 50 or 60 feet of altitude to fly in until your acceleration can get you more altitude.

Hookech0, thanks for that info from the pilot's manual, that manual wouldn't happen to have any other data pertaining to carrier operations and combat loadouts would it?

DRB_Hookech0
01-21-2005, 02:57 PM
Not in the manual I have. Mine looks to be the standard one floating around the "Manual" web pages.

I'd like to see if there is a NAVToP's for the F4u series out there. I found a F4u-4 manual but right now have not picked it up.

I have these manuals also:
B-17F/G Flight Manual
B-29 Cruise Control Manual
B-17G Pilot Training Manual
P-51 Pilot Training Manual
B-29 Pilot Training Manual

and I just ordered:

Japanese Aircraft Performance & Characteristics Manual
TAIC Manual No 1 Dec 44

This manual includes US Intelligence estimates on the performance, characteristics and vulnerabilities of Japanese aircraft encountered in WW II.

Covers 60+ Japanese aircraft and includes aircraft drawings, photos, performance charts, weapons information and fields of fire.

A very informative manual on Japanese aircraft of WW II.

AlmightyTallest
01-21-2005, 03:00 PM
Sounds like some neato stuff for have for your libraray Hookech0 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

What is this NAVToP you speak of though?

DRB_Hookech0
01-21-2005, 03:07 PM
IIRC its Naval air Training and Operational Proceedures NAVTOPs

Formerly known as NAVAIR I think. Basiclly they are training aids for carrier ops and naval aircraft.

The Bomber flight manuals are for when I'm flying my WoP B-17G or B-29A in FS9....oh and the wonderful new WoP P-51D/H that came out this week. What a excellant aircraft....although a nightmare to land.

WWMaxGunz
01-21-2005, 03:45 PM
All true Tallest, but we don't have to guess at temperature on that one map with standard
atmosphere, the one used for all speed and climb tests. Temperature at SL is 15 C, 59 F.
No room for guesses and counter-guesses, ya see? It works or it doesn't.

I was thinking of using UDPSpeed to get the distance of takeoff run but really I can only
approximate using that.

I'd rather roll off the end and let it drop a bit for more speed than I would get the nose
up and start dragging early anyway, but that's just me. I know I'd be farther out and
higher up soon enough.

It gets hot pretty quick even a bit outside the tropics but ya gotta note that it does
that more over land than sea. Way more. Over a boat deck it'll be hot but I dunno about
in a 30 kt wind. On a slow transport, you cook. 6am I've seen 95+ degrees many mornings
not even summer out for PT in Schofield but down at the beach it was always cooler from
the air off the ocean.

AlmightyTallest
01-21-2005, 04:38 PM
No problem MaxGunz, I understand what your saying. I would rather these planes be as accurate as possible in PF, and since there is a map for that kind of testing, then I guess others could do specific tests to see exactly how long the takeoff run would be and should be at a given temperature since that map has it all set up.

I only have PF stand alone at the moment, so I don't have that map to test with.

I'm like you though, I'd rather drop off the end of the carrier a little before I got into a climb. And with the loadouts the Corsair can carry, you can do quite a bit of dropping before you gain enough speed to gain any altitude, even if the the Essex is going 30 mph. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

WWMaxGunz
01-21-2005, 07:57 PM
Well I don't think that as close as possible is how I'd put it.
Overall the kind of FM this is will only get so close without insanely massive work hours
poured in, and even then just so close. So I see demanding points of performance here and
there being "so close" will end up pulling other performance too far out. It is more like
fitting a curve to data points than filling in a table which is how the old FM's worked.
The table does handling worse than poorly. The physical models fit points fairly at best.
At least the real physical models do.

All I want is that if people are going to use data to claim the sim is way off then they
use the right data, even pursuing their own possible errors down as hard or harder than
they pursue evidence to back their claims. I have no problem with Gibbages' video. I
just want that when the feet measuring is set up and done, it is as or more correct than
he will ask of the sim. Then I feel very good in supporting the conclusions.

Gibbage1
01-21-2005, 08:29 PM
So Max. After all that, you do agree that it was possible to take an F4U off a carrier at full load?

AlmightyTallest
01-21-2005, 08:59 PM
Well said Max, I agree with you completely. I'm pretty new to this sim, and I'm still learning about the ins and outs of the flight model used for it. From other posts about this sim's flight model, I can see that it would be extremely difficult to make all flight models perfectly match with the data provided in some documents in all of the flight regimes as you said.

WWMaxGunz
01-22-2005, 04:17 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gibbage1:
So Max. After all that, you do agree that it was possible to take an F4U off a carrier at full load? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If you have the deck length for load, wind (includes speed of the ship) and temperature then
it should be possible.

I would still load in 12+ taps of nose up and hit 1 or 2 steps flap near the end of the run.
And me, I'd roll it right off the end unless it just wanted to rise before that.

I hadn't tried with 3.03 Gib because I was just finishing up from last operation this series
and getting a tube pulled out from inside just 7 days ago. I've been slow and lazy, very
tired even since. But I did upgrade my hadware, memory and video just for PF. Kinda wish
things would settle down but even moreso, settle down somewhere evenly near right counting
that right is something that none of us completely knows or is willing to learn. Learning
will also have to count for learning the way the final sim is and learning to accept it.
Till then, you know I believe in trying but only where it's clearly needed and only for so
long -- the trail has with dead horses that some keep being brought back up over and over,
it only makes the board easier, really smarter to ignore at the 1C end.

It's a complex situation, the board. I find I don't have the energy to keep at it. Noise
level is high and the signals are all over the range. Impression is many things screwed up
but few of those agreed upon except by vocal groups with members going hyper by default.
1C primary job keeping them in business is BoB. It would be nice if the major part of the
team could just take 6+ months to completely go over and level all the PF planes to the same
detail levels FM and DM... a year with nothing else to do would be good... but it's not going
to happen unless a fan hits a big lottery and pays for an after-BoB revision I think. Till
that, with all the flak on the board it just gets me depressed at times hoping for what at
first seemed so happening.

Neal

Chuck_Older
01-22-2005, 07:40 AM
Arrow-

This bugs me a bit-

"I won't install this patch, if this gives corsair unhistorical feature "

Why?

Because I gaurantee you that flying the F4U in this sim is not what it would be like to fly a real F4U.

Stalls for one thing are globally simplified in the sim and not very accurate, and the F4U is not immune to this

So you won't fly it if it's not historically correct? This sim makes an incredible effort to provide you with just that, but it must fall short of reality.

What you're saying here is :"I know all there is to know about what's right and wrong with the Corsair, and if it's 99% right I won't bother"

That's up to you, but you were never flying a Corsair that was 99% correct. You act like it was a dead-on representation of the real thing in PF when it shipped, and now it's been ruined by the updates and ptaches, which I just can't agree with. You've always been flying a Corsair that has "unhistorical features", and you can rely on that

arrow80
01-23-2005, 10:59 AM
Chuck and everyone: just to explain myself. I didn't intend to start such large discussion with some flame. I just wanted to know if in 3.04 corsair is given an unhistorical feature, because if it did, then I am happy with the 3.03 one. I wanted to asks experts who know much about this plane (as I don't). And if they say:" no it doesn't , corsair in 3.04 is more real than 3.03 corsair, I will have no problem with it. Chuck, I know that none of the planes is 99% correct it may be even much less, lets say 80% (or whatever), by why to lower this number by giving planes (in general) features that are clearly unhistorical and make them even less real?

heywooood
01-23-2005, 02:06 PM
because you have to satisfy your customers/users. Everyone says they want the most realistic simulation, but what that means to each individual simmer is not the same.

DF flyers need to be able to do certain things..offline flyers have some things they need the sim to do, and co-op fliers have a list....

The developer must try to meet everyones need, so compromises are made. If 1c says "stuff you - we will make it our way and not listen to customers concerns", well...sooner rather than later the sim is out of production.

We have a great sim here - produced by a developer who wants historical accuracy of exeptional degree but also willing to listen to his best customers...remember - things aren't altered because one forum member wants it... there has to be a concensus -

Gibbage1
01-23-2005, 04:30 PM
Well after 5 pages of very delightful debate, it turns out that the proof overwelmingly shows that the F4U in 3.04 is more accurate then 3.03 in turns of takeoff distance.

Unfortunatly, to do this, it seams they had to globally change the low speed handling of ALL aircraft. Now everything seams to be able to fly 30KPH slower before stalls. That means people can turn a bit tighter before stalling. So everything globally has had turn time shaved off a bit.

But you must ask yourself. Whats more historical? An F4U that cant take off from a carrier at all, or one that can, and has about 1/2 second shaved off its 360 degree turn time? Since everything has this turn boost, its not like it gives the F4U an advantage.

So far 3.04 is good, but in my openion it only fixes a few things in 3.03. Its a quick "band-aid" for carrier ops. Thats all. Sometime to tide us over till the "big add-on" thats been dangled in front of us like a carrot on a stick since release.

Gib

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Arrow80:
Chuck and everyone: just to explain myself. I didn't intend to start such large discussion with some flame. I just wanted to know if in 3.04 corsair is given an unhistorical feature, because if it did, then I am happy with the 3.03 one. I wanted to asks experts who know much about this plane (as I don't). And if they say:" no it doesn't , corsair in 3.04 is more real than 3.03 corsair, I will have no problem with it. Chuck, I know that none of the planes is 99% correct it may be even much less, lets say 80% (or whatever), by why to lower this number by giving planes (in general) features that are clearly unhistorical and make them even less real? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

BigKahuna_GS
01-25-2005, 05:35 PM
S!

This official Navy chart shows the F4U-1D/1C sea level speed to be 366mph TAS in "clean configuration", middle bottom of page.

Vmax/SL 366mph
http://web.cetlink.net/~howardds/id74.htm
http://web.cetlink.net/~howardds/id74.htm



This official Navy chart below shows that the F4U-I C/D Corsair could take off from a carrier in a "0/calm" wind condition in 623feet to 653feet with a normal max fuel and ammunition load. My dad had done this several times being a Marine Corp fighter pilot. 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

"Emergency Take-Off Rating"
1850hp/2800rpm/SL
One minute only
http://web.cetlink.net/~howardds/id73.htm

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


Naval Aviation History Branch

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

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

_____

Aaron_GT
01-26-2005, 05:09 AM
"This official Navy chart shows the F4U-1D/1C sea level speed to be 366mph TAS in "clean configuration", middle bottom of page."

That's without racks. If you look at the fully fueled, with racks, but no ordnance it is 358mph at SL on
the same page. We always have the racks attached in PF, so 358 is the figure the -1D should be hitting at SL in PF on the Crimean map.

Ruy Horta
01-26-2005, 05:30 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by p1ngu666:
it might be possible just to stretch existing carriers <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I've got a simple and authentic sollution.

If the coding cannot handle carriers in DF-mode, leave them out and provide for some good maps to make up for their loss...

Of course ideally they'd improve the coding.

It can be done, it is being done in games much older than this one.

In this case they opted for the easiest sollution, not the best one.

VBF-83_Hawk
01-26-2005, 08:43 AM
I never get more than 320 MPH at sea level in -1D with canopy closed. With canopy open, I get 310 mph.

BigKahuna_GS
01-26-2005, 08:44 AM
S!

__________________________________________________ ________________________
Aaron_GT posted Wed January 26 2005 04:09
"This official Navy chart shows the F4U-1D/1C sea level speed to be 366mph TAS in "clean configuration", middle bottom of page."
That's without racks. If you look at the fully fueled, with racks, but no ordnance it is 358mph at SL on
the same page. We always have the racks attached in PF, so 358 is the figure the -1D should be hitting at SL in PF on the Crimean map.
__________________________________________________ ________________________



Hya Aaron, that is actually incorrect. Re-read the "Clean Condition"

"Clean Condition": Same as combat condition except pylons (wing pylons); Fuse. Drop tank rack removed. V-max/S.L. 366mph


The Pacific Fighters default load out for the F4U 1C/1D Corsair is with the small zero launch rocket stubs only. No wing pylons, no drop tank rack. So essentially the default load out is almost in clean condition with the exception of the zero launch stubs for HVARS. The F4U-1A default load out is completely in clean condition.

Both the Hellcat & Corsair's default load out in PF should be in clean condition and let the virtual pilot decide the load out. The Hellcat's default load out is with wing pylons and bomb shackles. This load out is inaccurate if the Hellcat was to be in escort duty and had one fuselage drop tank only--no wing pylons or bomb shackles wound be mounted.

______

ZG77_Nagual
01-26-2005, 09:44 AM
You need to test SL speed in cockpit off mode to get TAS - it is spot on for the corsair.

BigKahuna_GS
01-26-2005, 10:31 AM
S!


__________________________________________________ _______________________
ZG77_Nagual posted Wed January 26 2005 08:44
You need to test SL speed in cockpit off mode to get TAS - it is spot on for the corsair.
__________________________________________________ _______________________



Hya Nagual, the SL speed is spot on for 358mph TAS not 366mph TAS. See the above "Clean Conditon" chart. V-max/S.L. 366mph TAS

366 Miles (statute) per hour equals 589.02 Kilometers per hour

Whenever I do speed tests it is on the crimea map, 100% fuel load and no cockpit for a TAS reading.



________

Aaron_GT
01-26-2005, 11:02 AM
Good point - I forgot about the fuselage pylons.

358 at SL is achievable in PF (in 302 when I last tested). Maybe this is the modelled set up rather than the 366 version. Maybe it is too complex to model a version of the same plane with different drags due to presence (or otherwise) of pylons given the code base?

ZG77_Nagual
01-26-2005, 11:30 AM
Righto - I ws referring to the 358 speed - 366 is a new one to me http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif First I've heard of it. It does it in the Okinawa map too - my cockpit off advice was for Hawk - who seems to be getting low speeds.

BigKahuna_GS
01-27-2005, 11:14 AM
S!

__________________________________________________ ________________________
Aaron_GT posted Wed January 26 2005 10:02
Good point - I forgot about the fuselage pylons.
358 at SL is achievable in PF (in 302 when I last tested). Maybe this is the modelled set up rather than the 366 version. Maybe it is too complex to model a version of the same plane with different drags due to presence (or otherwise) of pylons given the code base?
__________________________________________________ ________________________


Hya Aaron, and dont forget besides the removal of wing pylons, the fuselage drop tank rack was removed.

Like I said earlier, Both the Hellcat and Corsair in Pacific Fighters default load out should be in "clean condition"

http://web.cetlink.net/~howardds/id74.htm


http://web.cetlink.net/~howardds/id50.htm


F4U-1D climb rate with wing pylons, fuselage drop tank rack
http://web.cetlink.net/~howardds/2b08f6f0.gif

____

Aaron_GT
01-29-2005, 02:36 AM
I've had those same tables on my hard drive for a while, Kahuna, and I got confused over how clean each clean config was. The F4U1D in PF hits the 358 SL speed pretty much spot on so perhaps Oleg and team also misread the tables and assumed that this was the clean SL speed. If so it merits a bug email to Oleg.

BigKahuna_GS
02-01-2005, 12:13 PM
S!


Hya Aaron,

I emailed Oleg with this official Navy test for both Sea Level speed and climb rates--no answer/response. You will notice that all models of the Corsair pretty much fly the same way; same speed and climb.

Actually the Navy tests show that the F4U-1C/1D out-climbed the F4U-1A and were faster on the deck than the F4U-1A model.

Who knows what Oleg plugged in for the climb rate?


http://web.cetlink.net/~howardds/id74.htm

"Clean Condition" V-max/S.L. 366mph, V-max 417/20,000ft Combat Power

http://web.cetlink.net/~howardds/27428170.gif


___

VW-IceFire
02-01-2005, 08:50 PM
Not to go off topic or anything because you guys are having a lovely debate but the 3.04 Corsair has gotten me interested in the plane. It seems to be at a good spot....its terribly fun to fly, shoot aircraft, and bomb things with! I think I'll be making a Corsair mini-campaign sometime in the near future http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

AlmightyTallest
02-01-2005, 09:52 PM
lol, well welcome to the Corsair club IceFire http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Ground pounding can be just as much fun as air combat with the Corsair in PF. Anti-ship strikes with Tiny Tim's are my new favorite with the -1D.

And it's built Tonka tough as well, just in case you get hit by groundfire http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

BigKahuna_GS
02-01-2005, 10:34 PM
S!


Hya VW-IceFire welcome mate !

I actually think we are all agreeing--scary huh ?

The Corsair is an excellent all-around aircraft. In todays jargon a true strike-fighter. Besides the sea level speed, I was also noticing the stall speeds for the Corsair in the Navy Test charts are actually lower than whats in AEP/PF.

Doubt if anything will ever come of that one--lol



____

AlmightyTallest
02-02-2005, 08:47 AM
Thanks for the charts Kahuna, would be nice if Oleg and team could make the corsair stall at the indicated speeds, but from what I hear of the flight model it seems compromises have to be made.

I think there's enough people who accuse the Corsair of being a UFO already, despite the fact that multiple data tables and official sources prove the Corsair's performance characteristics.

VW-IceFire
02-02-2005, 06:38 PM
Thanks http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Yeah back when Aces of the Pacific came out when I was ...oh goodness, like 9 or 10 years old or something like that, the Corsair was my instant favorite. I knew nothing of WWII aircombat at that point but I was learning fast. When PF came out, I wanted to like the Corsair but something wasn't right...now the latest patches have got me interested. I've found its unique performance and I've started enjoying it.

Its really quite remarkable. Very fast, very capable, good firepower, climb is ok (I'm coming as a Spitfire fan too you see), and its really quite good in short turns and high speed manuvers. So its a joy to fly.

AlmightyTallest
02-02-2005, 07:09 PM
Oh man, your an old AOTP player too eh? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif I even modded AOTP back in 1994 to improve it's graphics on my Pentium 200 Mhz system lol. I still have the game, the box, and the 30 floppies of my mod files for it. That's the game that helped me get more interested in history, and the fighter pilot stories I had read about. I never could have imagined graphics like PF offers back then.

I'm heading in the opposite direction though IceFire, I'd really like to try out a Tempest in this sim. That or a Typhoon, they look very nice, and I expect they have excellent performance as well. The only problem is I'm worried about that inline engine, not so good for ground pounding when struck with ground fire http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

I still want the F4U-4 for PF though, even if it's impossible ;p You'll get your excellent climb if you had the -4 corsair and compared it with the spitfire.

VW-IceFire
02-02-2005, 08:10 PM
No worries on the inline engine, I'm hoping its modeled as well as possible and given a little extra protection. Unlike the Mustang, the Tempest is a little more robust in its construction and the engine is a little better protected from your average ground fire.

Its not as good as a radial (the ideal configuration of the Tempest is the Tempest Mark II with a Centarus radial) but it should be darned fun. Tempest is still my favorite http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif Certainly Corsair fans will like the Tempest as well!

Yeah, AOTP was awesome...thats what got me started. Well that an A-10 Tank Killer...the original.

AlmightyTallest
02-03-2005, 09:26 AM
lol, sounds good IceFire. I didn't know the Tempest had some extra protection for it's engine. I'm not very familiar with British late war aircraft but it sounds like it would be just as much fun to fly as my Corsair. And that Tempest Mark 2 sounds interesting, how many were made with this Centarus radial? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

WWMaxGunz
02-03-2005, 04:21 PM
Dynamix was a really good company. Had and played the whole Aces series back when I was
still in my 30's, hehehe.
Wish I could still load and play AOD....

And you guys did or did not get RB2/RB3D?

TAGERT.
02-03-2005, 06:19 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by AlmightyTallest:
Oh man, your an old AOTP player too eh? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif I even modded AOTP back in 1994 to improve it's graphics on my Pentium 200 Mhz system lol. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Hey an old timer! I made alot of the MODS for AOTP.. Back then I was a member of Compuserve.. We had a FSFORUM and I posted alot of my mods there. Funny.. Alot of them are still out there on the web

http://www.gamers.org/pub/games/uwp-uml/fltsim-mirror/AOTP/1946ii.txt
http://www.gamers.org/pub/games/uwp-uml/fltsim-mirror/AOTP/up2nowap.txt
http://www.gamers.org/pub/archives/cactus/hitech-sim/patches/aoerea.txt

Good times!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by AlmightyTallest:
I still have the game, the box, and the 30 floppies of my mod files for it. That's the game that helped me get more interested in history, and the fighter pilot stories I had read about. I never could have imagined graphics like PF offers back then. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Same here.. Imagine what another 10 years will bring.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by AlmightyTallest:
I still want the F4U-4 for PF though, even if it's impossible ;p You'll get your excellent climb if you had the -4 corsair and compared it with the spitfire. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Im still depressed about that one.

AlmightyTallest
02-03-2005, 08:53 PM
LOL Tagert, you helped with those files way back then? I found those same files and the Compuserve forums and other AOE and AOTP sites in late 1994 and used them to help mod my own stuff http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif So we were actually working from the work you guys did the year before lol. Man it's a small world http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif just looking at that AOEReal file brings back some good memories of how I got started with my modding. You guys were the ones that got me started when I was in college http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I was working with Timolean Ravazoulez (I don't remember how to spell his name.) Perhaps you guys knew him? He was working on an Eastern Front mod for AOTP and AoE and it was looking good too! We got extra hit boxes and found out how to allocate hydralics, oil and other such things to increase the realism back then for the aircraft.

I worked with the AI and made it possible for the AI gunners to miss the player a little more by assigning a circular area of firing probabilty for them. And I found out how to stop the AI from using cheat maneuverability with their aircraft. (The AOTP ACE pilots, no matter what they flew, were able to exceed the origional manufactured specifications of their aircraft in all envelopes lol)
You probably remember the one round ACE pilots that nailed you in that sim, I'm glad I was able to fix that problem with some hexadecimal editing http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Then I did a detail mod that drew the "high" resolution planes you see up close in the sim all the way out to the horizon instead of the generic shapes we had. Plus flames that came from wings of planes instead of just the fuselage, mods to model inline and radial engines, gun fixes, ballistic fixes lol. Man we had fun with that sim. I lost touch with Timolean because he joined the Army for his mandatory 2 years I believe back in 1996 or 97. I wonder what he's doing now? Maybe playing IL2 and Pacific Fighters no doubt http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

At any rate, I had a lot of fun working with AOTP, both playing and modding it for more realism for at least 6 years http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif And I never put 2 and 2 together that you were the author of some of the mods I used so long ago. It's nice to meet you again Tagert, you helped provide me with many sleepless nights playing these sims using your mods and getting me started on modding my own stuff.

MaxGunz is another old timer as well I see. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif I heard alot about Red Baron 2 but I never got the chance to play it or RB3D. How were they in comparison to other sims at the time? I liked Dynamix sims, but I never got the chance to find the WW1 flight sims they offered. And by time I did, my computer wouldn't run them because it ran to fast lol.


About the F4U-4 Tagert, man I know it, you seem to have been able to let it go and move on faster than I did. I'm still upset and depressed about it as well. I still have some hope that things will get cleared up and that perhaps it's being worked on in house and could be released as part of a pay addon in the future. I'm still happy with PF though, just a shame what happened with all this mess.

Geez, this thread got off topic, but I think the discussion about the Corsair's performance was done awile ago. At any rate it's nice to hear from you guys and see there were others way back when enjoying the same sims I did over 10 years ago. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

WWMaxGunz
02-04-2005, 01:16 AM
No way your PC is too fast for RB2 or RB3D. The original RB... yes but not the laters.

RB2 was the flight sim I played with a true physics based FM. Not as good as IL2 but it
runs from formulae and constants derived from a wind tunnel simulator they used for more
than one different wing shape even, as the company rep noted on the forums (yes, they had
long and close interaction with the community from the dev team to hired reps -- they had
a company forum but camped at the Delphi FSF that was the old Compuserv FSF run by Shebop)
and years ago when the files were cracked there is noted where to set which wing type your
plane has in RB3D.

I was a beta for RB2->RB3->RB3D and watched the crowd drag the sim down until it was cut
off and left with the FM cracked and bent, which has been shown -- fly the gold release
and there's a number of exploits that were what got used online almost exclusively until
the community broke the files and modded it as best able which has been a LOT and very
good work. Do a search for SWWISA, the Society of World War I Sim Artisans to find the
site and forum -- they are still active with the remains of the community.

RB2 patched to 1.44 will give you the best flight experience of any of the series. And
on a fast machine now you should not experience the one killer problem of framerate loss
down low (okay, extrapolating from faster PC's later running RB3D) and the associated
control response degradation. But... you get up in an Eindekker for combat maneuver
practice in RB2 1.44 and you will have to watch out not to overdo the stick! Only thing
is that RB2 had a very limited online capability... 4 players on a hosted site where
RB3D we ran 80 once in an online beta test, and the FM then was truer than the release
to boot!

RB2/3D uses hit boxes shaped to the graphics model but the boxes on the releases are
bigger/thicker than like the wings ... 3D modded has fixes for that as well.

The campaign and online capability have carried RB3D to be worthy of mods and play,
but if you want the best flying then I'd say RB2 with 1.44 and offline campaigns or
online 4 player is worth running some times. Oh yes... the gunnery may make you
laugh but remember that sim came out in 1997.

Also, if you don't have a Voodoo card (safe bet) then check out the Glide Wrapper
through SWWISA to get the clouds.

Aaron_GT
02-04-2005, 05:28 AM
IceFire wrote:
"Tempest is a little more robust in its construction and the engine is a little better protected from your average ground fire."

The Sabre was probably more robust when it
was working, but it was a bit on the temperamental side, though!

"Its not as good as a radial (the ideal configuration of the Tempest is the Tempest Mark II with a Centarus radial)"

The Centaurus is a rather complex radial so I don't know how resistant it would be to battle damage compared to US radials. I did see a Sea Fury fly at an airshow though - amazing stuff. Sadly it crashed a couple of weeks later killing the pilot.

AlmightyTallest
02-04-2005, 08:20 AM
Thanks for that info MaxGunz, The sim sounds alot better than I was thinking. I must have been thinking about the origional Red Baron sim from Dynamix, it's confusing when there's 3 red baron sims to choose from http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

That's some pretty pioneering work to have a physics based flight model back in 1997. Now I'm sorry I missed out on those sims. Which one had the best physics and flight model though? Or have both been improved to the same standard?

Also, thanks for that info Aaron, in FB/AEP/PF at least we wouldn't have to worry too much about the engine being tempermental http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Since all engines work as advertised for all planes.

WWMaxGunz
02-04-2005, 06:04 PM
I think that RB2 patched has the better FM as the RB3D FM has holes and cracks that can
never be covered without changes to the code.

Neither one is as good as the original IL2 FM.

But for feel, RB2 isn't bad as long as you avoid what was called "The Great Ground Suck"
situations which IMO were due more to lack of then-hardware power or the sim trying to
do too much. I had a friend at the time with a 300mz P-II and very good 3D card who did
not experience what I and most others running 200 to 233 machines did. When I upgraded,
the sim had moved on and the problem was smaller. It really paid to stay out of the weeds.

When framerate drops and control response goes with it, when what you see is delayed from
what is being calculated as the next step but you are still hauling on the stick... it is
time to loosen up and let the model fly. The more natural response is to pull harder.

Ummmm... my first flight sim experience goes back to 1981 while working at the U of D.
They had a think that ran on plasma screen terminals, you held the enter key down to
make it move and I flew the Viggen on it after the X-15. Then there was the 747 on my
nephews' Apple I think in 83, and then others as they appeared. First good one was Bob
Dinnermans' F-16 sim on the Amiga in 1986, and that one was really good for the time.

AlmightyTallest
02-04-2005, 06:27 PM
Thanks for the info MaxGunz, is there any way to play RB2 on today's machines though? I could probably find a copy on Ebay, don't know about it working with certain video cards though http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Your also showing your age my friend, and your propensity for flight sims from waaaay back http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif In 1981 I was playing Pac-Man at the local arcade, and I needed someone to hold me up so I could reach the controls lol. In 1983 I was drooling at the "graphics" of the flight "sim" arcade games M.A.C.H. 3 and Firefox http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

If only I could take all the time I used playing all those games so long ago. Because I would re-invest that time into all the games I could play today http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

WWMaxGunz
02-05-2005, 08:47 AM
There is Red Baron 2/3 community at SimHQ and Delphi forums SWWISA forum.
SWWISA is Society of World War I Sim Artisans.

Yes you can play on todays' hardware. You can also improve the graphics
wickedly and get the FM shaped up from the IMO tragic state it was released
in, which is why I say RB2 patched to 1.44 is better. They will even help
you find the re-release of RB3D through mail order. To find RB2... someone
might/should be selling it.

My age? I was in my mid-20's and already discharged from the Army in 1981.
Those were some of my best years despite the economy.

WOLFMondo
02-05-2005, 12:00 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
"Its not as good as a radial (the ideal configuration of the Tempest is the Tempest Mark II with a Centarus radial)"

The Centaurus is a rather complex radial so I don't know how resistant it would be to battle damage compared to US radials. I did see a Sea Fury fly at an airshow though - amazing stuff. Sadly it crashed a couple of weeks later killing the pilot. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think most Seafurys now fly with other engines due to the centaurus quirky nature. I know most of the racers have Pratt & Whitneys in them anyways...

VW-IceFire
02-05-2005, 12:49 PM
I thought I had read that the Centarus was a pretty sturdy and reliable engine as well.

AlmightyTallest, the Tempest Mark II was pretty much a post war aircraft. About 200 were delivered before the end of World War II and they were being prepared for the invasion of Japan. But the war ended before deployment.

The Tempest in general is a fairly robust plane. More like the Mustang and Thunderbolt in that its got a tough airframe and a fairly well protected engine. Not that they weren't brought down in large numbers by flak like other aircraft....but the only reason the Tempest V was allowed to operate where other aircraft may not have been able to was speed. It was felt that the Tempest was fast enough to get through a heavy flak situation quickly enough that they may not be targeted as readily as other slower aircraft.

Aaron_GT
02-07-2005, 02:23 AM
IceFire wrote:
"I thought I had read that the Centarus was a pretty sturdy and reliable engine as well"

It's a sleeve valve radial design. It took a lot of development work to get it to be reliable due to its complexity. It was sturdy and reliable under peacetime conditions but it wasn't reckoned to be able to absorb battle damage as well as simpler radial designs. It takes a smaller amount of damage to knock out a cylinder due to the required tolerances on the sleeves. This having been said FAA Sea Furys did well in Korea.

Vampiric666
02-17-2005, 04:52 PM
Corsair's elevator at 700 kmh is better than bf 109's at 400...................i hardly can believe it........... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

VW-IceFire
02-20-2005, 08:13 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
IceFire wrote:
"I thought I had read that the Centarus was a pretty sturdy and reliable engine as well"

It's a sleeve valve radial design. It took a lot of development work to get it to be reliable due to its complexity. It was sturdy and reliable under peacetime conditions but it wasn't reckoned to be able to absorb battle damage as well as simpler radial designs. It takes a smaller amount of damage to knock out a cylinder due to the required tolerances on the sleeves. This having been said FAA Sea Furys did well in Korea. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Ahh interesting....I did not know that. Interesting information. Thanks!

Dora-9
02-28-2005, 05:56 AM
We had a little competition to get the Corsair fully loaded (4000 lbs bombs) with 100 % fuel from a carrier deck in the german forum. It works on Lady Lex. On Essex only with 50 % fuel. Combat missions when you start at about 1/3 down the deck.

http://forums-de.ubi.com/eve/ubb.x?a=tpc&s=59010161&f=388104122&m=8701010682&r=9981010682#9981010682

Have a look. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

edit:

It works with 100 % fuel with the F4U-1D but not with the -1C. The Cannon-Corsair seems heavier. Here you have to reduce the fuel to 50% on the Essex.

But works fine with 100% fuel + 3 x 1000 lbs + 8 x HVAR.

Willey
02-28-2005, 06:02 AM
http://www.ubisoft.de/smileys/wchand.gif