PDA

View Full Version : ==Official Acceleration tests-F4U-1A==



Loki-PF
12-30-2004, 12:03 AM
***EDIT* Further testing has shown acceleration WAS changed for all US Radial engine planes in 3.03****

Salute All,

After reading many of the threads here about how the flight model has changed as of the latest patch, it seemed quite a few people expressed concern regarding the acceleration of the US Navy planes. ICDP had done some tests earlier in another F4U related thread (BTW thanks ICDP). I wanted to do a side by side taste test comparison to as Oleg says, "be sure".

I decided to test this as accurately as possible with the help of my good buddy Fenris. We did quite a few test flights tonight and its kind of late, so I don't have the tracks all sorted and zipped and uploaded...but we do have them.

TEST PROTOCOL:

*Crimea Map
*12 Noon
*Sitting wing to wing on an airstrip next to the plane we are testing acceleration against. *Both planes at 100% fuel
*Default loadouts.
*Both of us go full throttle +WEP/BOOST whatever at the same time.
*Both of us fly nose to tail nape of the earth


First test is vs a P-47 D27. The Corsair walks away from it in no time.

Second test was a FW-190-A6. The Corsair walks away from it in no time.

Third test is against a P-51C. The Mustang jumped out to a quick lead but the corsair eventually reeled it in and passed it quickly.

Fourth test was a P-51D. The Mustang jumped out to a quick lead but the corsair reeled it in more slowly and eventually passed it.

We wanted to do more testing but poor Fenris has to work early tomorrow so we ran outta time.

We decided to do these test in this fasion because A)people were concerned with carrier takeoffs so performance at altitude was not as important. B)frankly it was easier than trying to match velocity vectors at a certain altitude with an air start and then having to maintain that altitude.

Not sure what changed in the patch. getting off a moving CVE with 100% fuel is next to impossible even at the CVE's top speed.

Whatever it was though I dont think it was acceleration.

***EDIT* Further testing has shown acceleration WAS changed for all US Radial engine planes in 3.03****

Yes I will post the tracks tomorrow when I get more time.

Loki-PF
12-30-2004, 12:03 AM
***EDIT* Further testing has shown acceleration WAS changed for all US Radial engine planes in 3.03****

Salute All,

After reading many of the threads here about how the flight model has changed as of the latest patch, it seemed quite a few people expressed concern regarding the acceleration of the US Navy planes. ICDP had done some tests earlier in another F4U related thread (BTW thanks ICDP). I wanted to do a side by side taste test comparison to as Oleg says, "be sure".

I decided to test this as accurately as possible with the help of my good buddy Fenris. We did quite a few test flights tonight and its kind of late, so I don't have the tracks all sorted and zipped and uploaded...but we do have them.

TEST PROTOCOL:

*Crimea Map
*12 Noon
*Sitting wing to wing on an airstrip next to the plane we are testing acceleration against. *Both planes at 100% fuel
*Default loadouts.
*Both of us go full throttle +WEP/BOOST whatever at the same time.
*Both of us fly nose to tail nape of the earth


First test is vs a P-47 D27. The Corsair walks away from it in no time.

Second test was a FW-190-A6. The Corsair walks away from it in no time.

Third test is against a P-51C. The Mustang jumped out to a quick lead but the corsair eventually reeled it in and passed it quickly.

Fourth test was a P-51D. The Mustang jumped out to a quick lead but the corsair reeled it in more slowly and eventually passed it.

We wanted to do more testing but poor Fenris has to work early tomorrow so we ran outta time.

We decided to do these test in this fasion because A)people were concerned with carrier takeoffs so performance at altitude was not as important. B)frankly it was easier than trying to match velocity vectors at a certain altitude with an air start and then having to maintain that altitude.

Not sure what changed in the patch. getting off a moving CVE with 100% fuel is next to impossible even at the CVE's top speed.

Whatever it was though I dont think it was acceleration.

***EDIT* Further testing has shown acceleration WAS changed for all US Radial engine planes in 3.03****

Yes I will post the tracks tomorrow when I get more time.

clint-ruin
12-30-2004, 12:58 AM
Can't believe there's no comment on this [perhaps you gave the wrong answer comrade? :>]. But thankyou for testing this out for all of us and putting in the hard work. Have you asked oleg for his general opinion on the planes performance other than "it's wrong/not wrong" ?

fordfan25
12-30-2004, 01:10 AM
man i wish it would do that for me. i have not tried it from take off i normaly fly with air starts hower. i swear on pain of death that in my game on my setting in the air starting off in quick mission builder it is in fact much slower to acellarate than the p47. and the faster you go the bigger the gap gets. i promise im not makeing this up. i fly with auto engien mng on. so i dont have to fool with the fuel rich and super charger settings. thay both reach there max speeds pretty close to what thay used to but both the hellcat and f4u once thay get to 400 kph i think it is, are just flat out like there draging something behind them. im comparing this to the 3.01 patch. when i first noticed it i thought i had my flaps to combat or gear down lol.

WUAF_Badsight
12-30-2004, 01:12 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by clint-ruin:
Can't believe there's no comment on this [perhaps you gave the wrong answer comrade? :&gt;]. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
WORD !

clint-ruin
12-30-2004, 01:13 AM
Are we looking instead at a problem with the landing gear/tyres producing too much drag on the ground?

That could be an interesting fix for the take off from CVE issues.. turn gear drag on only after they've been dropped manually by the pilot.

ICDP
12-30-2004, 01:33 AM
Great work LOKI, much appreciated, your fiding regarding the F4U1 are matching mine. What type of Corsair did you fly, this is important because if it was an F4U1d ot Mk IV then the fuel load was only 75% despite it saying 100% in the loadout.

RocketDog
12-30-2004, 03:40 AM
Thank you Loki.

Regards,

RocketDog.

ElAurens
12-30-2004, 05:18 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ICDP:
this is important because if it was an F4U1d ot Mk IV then the fuel load was only 75% despite it saying 100% in the loadout. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Huh?

ElAurens
12-30-2004, 05:27 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Loki-PF:

Third test is against a P-51C. The Mustang jumped out to a quick lead but the corsair reeled it in and passed it quickly.

Fourth test was a P-51D. The Mustang jumped out to a quick lead but the corsair reeled it in more slowly and eventually passed it.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And here we see one of the greatest innacuracies in the US planeset. The P51C was faster by almost 20mph than the P51D, this is not correctly modeled in the game. Never has been.

Aaron_GT
12-30-2004, 06:16 AM
" The P51C was faster by almost 20mph than the P51D,"

At what altitude and at what boost level for the C and D?

Loki-PF
12-30-2004, 08:36 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by fordfan25:
man i wish it would do that for me. i have not tried it from take off i normaly fly with air starts hower. i swear on pain of death that in my game on my setting in the air starting off in quick mission builder it is in fact much slower to acellarate than the p47. and the faster you go the bigger the gap gets. i promise im not makeing this up. i fly with auto engien mng on. so i dont have to fool with the fuel rich and super charger settings. thay both reach there max speeds pretty close to what thay used to but both the hellcat and f4u once thay get to 400 kph i think it is, are just flat out like there draging something behind them. im comparing this to the 3.01 patch. when i first noticed it i thought i had my flaps to combat or gear down lol. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I hear you Fordfan.... Believe me I'm not saying something didn't change. It's very obvious that something did. I was just testing acceleration. Also important to note I was testing acceleration against planes that DO NOT HAVE TO take off from a carrier.

What I should really do is go back and do same test in 3.0 and compare to 3.03...

Loki-PF
12-30-2004, 09:38 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ICDP:
Great work LOKI, much appreciated, your fiding regarding the F4U1 are matching mine. What type of Corsair did you fly, this is important because if it was an F4U1d ot Mk IV then the fuel load was only 75% despite it saying 100% in the loadout. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

ICDP,

Type of Corsair was in title of the thread! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

VW-IceFire
12-30-2004, 09:42 AM
Thanks for doing the tests. I was going to try and do a similar thing myself but I hadn't gotten an opportunity to yet.

Well done!

Loki-PF
12-30-2004, 09:43 AM
The big question I have after lasts nights test with Fenris is this....

Is it historically accurate that an F4U-1D with 100% fuel CAN'T take off from an escort carrier that's doing flank speed?

We set up a test that had an escort carrier doing it's maximum speed (35 Kph I think) and STILL couldn't get the thing in the air. Something tells me this isn't right, but I'm not sure what's changed to cause it. Anyone got any hard facts on take off stats? Chimp et al?

No457_Warrior
12-30-2004, 10:07 AM
S!
Here are 2 tracks I did on a map by Beowolf.
It is one of the unsealed island strips so maybe there is a surface friction/drag issue on some aircraft now.

I tested this on both 3.03m and 3.02bm and the results are WAAAYYY different.
Settings: Take off flaps, 120% mix, 100% pitch, Rad and canopy closed, hold brakes and goto 110% throttle then release brakes.

3.03m:
The F4U1a crawls along and splashes into the sea reaching a mere 110kph, The P40 begins rolling 16-17secs after and flys over the F4U1a before it hits the water!!!!!! that alone should not be possible.
3.02bm:
The F4U1a powers along nicely and lifts off doing 170kph and reaches 190kph at feet wet, the P40 again moves 16secs later and makes no ground on the F4U1a at all (distance actually increases between the 2)

Track 1 3.02bm (http://members.iinet.net.au/~greavus/files/Toff302bm.ntrk)
Track 2 3.03m (http://members.iinet.net.au/~greavus/files/Toff303m.ntrk)

Maybe there is a similar problem the way the game handles the carrier decks aswell

S!
Warrior

Aaron_GT
12-30-2004, 10:36 AM
Warrior:

What are the take off distances (I assume that there is no wind). The thing to do is relate that distance to the take off runs for the F4U. They might be accurate for the F4U and wrong for the P40 (or vice-versa, or correct for neither).

VMF-214_HaVoK
12-30-2004, 10:45 AM
Please tell me you are sending these tracks to Oleg. Send them to him. mado@1c.ru
He usually responds rather quickly, atleast for me he did.

ICDP
12-30-2004, 10:48 AM
Warrior, using the same test mission provided by Beowolff I am hitting 160kph at feet wet in the Corsair. I actually have more difficulty taking off using the P40E in that mission.

My appologies Loki, read the thread very quickly before heading off for work this morning. Good work http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

ElAurens
12-30-2004, 11:03 AM
The P40 had the shortest T.O. roll of any aircraft in the USAAF inventory in WW2.

lrrp22
12-30-2004, 01:11 PM
At the same boost level and with the same engine, the P-51C should be 2-3 mph faster than the D at all altitudes.

A P-51C with the V-1650-3 engine should be generally 10-15 mph slower than the D up to 25,000 ft or so, and 10 mph faster above.

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


And here we see one of the greatest innacuracies in the US planeset. The P51C was faster by almost 20mph than the P51D, this is not correctly modeled in the game. Never has been. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

ZG77_Nagual
12-30-2004, 02:59 PM
Loki - first off - great work! Thanks!
Second - possible to throw a p38 into the mix?

Hope you got your data off to Oleg. I expect he's very busy right now - but he ignores nothing legit.

fordfan25
12-30-2004, 03:08 PM
Loki. any chance you could do a acellaration test on both the f4u and hellcat at higher speeds not take off speed. like starting off at say 340kmh and see how long it takes them to get to say 480 or 530. thats were iv noticed the bigst change.

RS_Half_PInt
12-30-2004, 04:40 PM
The acceleration of the F4u1-A has changed since the 3.02bm patch.

Here are some screenies of the acceleration difference in the 2 patches taking off from the escort carrier used in the "takeoff" single mission operation for the F4u1-a.

My settings were full flaps, 120% mix, 100% fuel; the carrier (a real shorty) was moving at 35 kn/hr.

The first picture is the 3.02bm patch
The second is the 3.03m patch

http://rs-half-pint.walagata.com/3.02bm.gif

http://rs-half-pint.walagata.com/3.03m.gif

Half_Pint

ElAurens
12-30-2004, 04:50 PM
I cannot say for sure about this, but I am having doubts that the F4U operated from CVEs. Weren't they usually F4F/FM2 squadrons on them?

Loki-PF
12-30-2004, 07:41 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by RS_Half_PInt:
The acceleration of the F4u1-A has changed since the 3.02bm patch.

Here are some screenies of the acceleration difference in the 2 patches taking off from the escort carrier used in the "takeoff" single mission operation for the F4u1-a.

My settings were full flaps, 120% mix, 100% fuel; the carrier (a real shorty) was moving at 35 kn/hr.

The first picture is the 3.02bm patch
The second is the 3.03m patch

Half_Pint <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Half_Pint,

That was a *MOST* excellent post. I don't think anyone here is disagreeing with you about the fact that something *major* changed in 3.03. We are all just trying to get our heads around if it was *right* or not. Our tests were to see if *Only* the US navy fighters were affected or if it was a more general change in the FM code.

What would *REALLY* be a definative test would be to do exactly what you did above but with a FW-190... I suspect you'd see the same thing.... But if that was so then does that mean we've had the *wrong* flight model all this time?

Loki-PF
12-30-2004, 07:46 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ZG77_Nagual:
Loki - first off - great work! Thanks!
Second - possible to throw a p38 into the mix?

Hope you got your data off to Oleg. I expect he's very busy right now - but he ignores nothing legit. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

ZG77_Nagual,

I'm gonna try to talk Fenris into doing some more testing later on tonight, we'll see if we can do one for my personal favorite plane in the world, the P-38.

On another note.... Not sure if I need to send anything to Oleg.... Not convinced there's a problem yet. (obviously not talking about the P-38 here) http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

fordfan25
12-30-2004, 10:34 PM
ok i tried on crimara at 6500 alt. and in the f4u-1d the highst speed i could get was 540 something KM/H i think in the game it says it could do 670 at that alt. i am runing for the most part with difuculty easy. exept fuil, ammo, realistic gunry, headshack, realistic landing. what gives? i ajusted trim and kept her Lv. i ran at 110% wep all the way.

Saburo_0
12-31-2004, 12:46 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by fordfan25:
ok i tried on crimara at 6500 alt. and in the f4u-1d the highst speed i could get was 540 something KM/H i think in the game it says it could do 670 at that alt. i am runing for the most part with difuculty easy. exept fuil, ammo, realistic gunry, headshack, realistic landing. what gives? i ajusted trim and kept her Lv. i ran at 110% wep all the way. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Mixture?

fordfan25
12-31-2004, 01:18 AM
auto mixture.

RocketDog
12-31-2004, 03:57 AM
Supercharger?

I have just had a quick go with the F4U-D on the Crimea map. 110% throttle, 25% fuel, supercharger set to 3 (should be 2 according to the readme, but the RPM goes up a bit with 3 so I used that).

I got 674 kph at 7,000 m and 690 kph at 6,500 m. This is actually a bit faster than the figures in IL-2 compare. Maybe a full fuel load would slow it down a touch.

I didn't take any great time over the tests, so it is possible they are out a bit, but it's not likely to be by very much.

Looks to me like the top speed is pretty much correct.

Regards,

RocketDog.

joeap
12-31-2004, 04:19 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ElAurens:
I cannot say for sure about this, but I am having doubts that the F4U operated from CVEs. Weren't they usually F4F/FM2 squadrons on them? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
You are correct, at least not the small CVEs we have in the sim...there were some larger CVES which operated them, plus the normal CVs were the main ones for the F4U.

RS_Half_PInt
12-31-2004, 04:29 AM
Loki: Because of time constraints I can't run any tests this morning; I'll do my best to get some done tonight.

Half_Pint

Tailgator
12-31-2004, 06:50 AM
http://www.history.navy.mil/avh-1910/APP25.PDF

list of what planes opperated on aircraft carriers

Tailgator
12-31-2004, 06:52 AM
doh thats korean war lol

about the only thing found conserning f4u's on cve's (during WWII) is table 8,9 of this

http://www.history.navy.mil/download/nasc.pdf

ElAurens
12-31-2004, 09:40 AM
Thanks joeap, I was pretty sure about that.

I know that they did operate F4Us from CVLs, but those had more flight deck and were capable of higher speeds. Remember that the CVEs that we have are just Liberty ships with flight decks.

Here are some specs ont he types we have , and some others...

Casablanca Class:
* Displacement: 10,982 tons (full load)
* Length: 512'3"
* Beam: 65' at water line
* Draft: 22'4"
* Speed: 19 knots
* Armament 1 5"/38 DP, 8x2 40mm, 20 20mm, 28 planes
* Complement: 860
* Skinner Unaflow reciprocating engines, twin screws, 11,200 h.p.
* Max cruising radius: 10,200 miles @ 15 knots; 7,200 miles @ 19 knots

Essex Class, Short-Hull Group:
* Displacement: 27,100 tons
* Length: 874'
* Beam: 93' at water line
* Draft: 28'
* Speed 33 knots
* Armament: 12 5"/38, 10-18x4 40mm, 56-62 20mm, 103 planes
* Complement: 3448
* Geared turbines with four screws, 150,000 hp
* Max cruising radius: 10,700 miles at 25 knots; 16,900 miles @ 15 knots

Lexington Class:
* Displacement: 33,000 tons
* Length: 910'
* Beam: 105'
* Draft: 35'"
* Speed 34 knots
* Armament: 12 5"/38 DP, 2x2 40mm, 23x4 40mm, 16 20mm, 86 planes
* Complement: 3373
* Turbines with electric motor, 4 screws, 180,000 hp
* Max cruising radius: 4,600 miles @ 25 knots; 9,500 miles at 15 knots
* Converted from Battle Cruisers while building

Thee were 2 classes of CVL:

Independence Class(9 vessels):
* Displacement: 11,000 tons
* Length: 619'
* Beam: 71' at water line
* Draft: 24'
* Speed: 32 knots
* Armament: 10x2 40mm, 2x4 40mm, 16-20 20mm, 33 planes
* Complement: 1569
* Geared turbine engines with 4 screws, 103,000 hp
* Max cruising radius: 5,800 miles @ 25 knots; 10,100 miles @ 15 knots
* Converted from Cleveland Class cruiser hulls

Saipan Class(2 vessels):
* Displacement: 14,500 tons
* Length: 638'7"
* Beam: 76'9"
* Draft: 25'
* Speed: 33 knots
* Armament: 10x2 40mm, 5x4 40mm, 25 20mm, 48 planes
* Complement: 1500+
* Adapted from Baltimore Class Heavy Cruiser design, but built from keel up as Carriers

Here is the site I found the info at:

http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USN/ships/ships-cv.html#cvb

Tailgator
12-31-2004, 09:57 AM
http://www.acepilots.com/usmc/hist10.html

Marine Carriers
In late July 1944, General Vandegrift made an extensive inspection trip to the Pacific. On his return through Pearl Harbor, conferences were held with Admirals Nimitz, Tower and Sherman; General Rowell, Commander, Marine Air Wings, Pacific; Brigadier General Thomas, Director Plans and Policies; and Brigadier General Harris, Director of Marine Aviation. The decisions reached brought significant changes in the employment of Marine Aviation for the balance of the war.
There was a revalidation of the primary role of Marine Aviation as the support of Marine ground forces, with a recommendation that a division of six Commencement Bay-class escort carriers be manned with Marine Aviation squadrons for the purpose. The six carrier groups would be trained at MCAS Santa Barbara, Calif. Each group would be composed of one VMF squadron with 18 planes and one Marine torpedo-bomber (VMTB) squadron with 12 planes, under a Marine Air Support Group known as Marine Carrier Groups, Aircraft, Fleet Marine Force, Pacific.
By the time the units were assembled, trained and qualified aboard their ships, the war was drawing to its end. The first of the Marine escort carriers (CVEs) to deploy was Block Island, which arrived off Okinawa on May 10, 1945. In addition to attacks on Japanese installations in the Okinawa area, she also supported the Marine divisions on the island. She was joined by the Gilbert Islands on June 1, and both participated in strikes in the Okinawa area and in the Balikpapan invasion. Two more Marine CVEs came out before the end, Cape Gloucester and Vella Gulf. All four Marine CVE participated in various aspects of the wind-down of the war, Block Island and Gilbert Islands taking part in the surrender of Formosa and the evacuation of approximately 1,000 allied POWs who had been imprisoned there

ive no idea atm about the ship class mentioned but i think the Block island was an older one, me myself id say that catapults where pretty well nessisary to get any version of a F4u off the deck of any CVE

i was mainly posting to this tread because the question was raised about F4u's ever being used on CVEs

Loki-PF
12-31-2004, 09:59 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ElAurens:
Thanks joeap, I was pretty sure about that.

I know that they did operate F4Us from CVLs, but those had more flight deck and were capable of higher speeds. Remember that the CVEs that we have are just Liberty ships with flight decks.

http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USN/ships/ships-cv.html#cvb <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

ElAurens,

Great find friend! Was just going to post that also re CVL's and having bigger decks because of the converted cruiser hulls.

BTW last night I did some more testing.... The FW cant get off a CVE steeming at flank either, but a Zero leaps into the air without any perceptable drop off the bow. It's an amazing plane when it comes to carrier ops.

Tailgator
12-31-2004, 10:21 AM
COMMENCEMENT BAY



CVE-105

Displacement: 11,373 t.

Length: 577€1€

Beam: 75€

Extreme Width: 105€2€

Draft: 32€

Speed: 19 k.

Complement: 1,066

Armament: 2 5€

Class: COMMENCEMENT BAY

this might help in cve questions http://www.hazegray.org/danfs/carriers/cve.htm

ElAurens
12-31-2004, 10:34 AM
That extra 65 feet of deck vs. the CVEs we have in game may just be the difference. Too bad we don't have the list of aircraft embarked. Or their operational loadouts...

Loki-PF
12-31-2004, 02:41 PM
SATURDAY NIGHT AT THE DRAGSTRIP

Welcome to Central Crimea's premier "grass drag" strip! We're your hosts Loki and Fenris.

We've put these clips together for your amusement and entertainment, and also to show relative acceleration in relation to the F4u-1A.

For those of you that dont have the time to watch all the tracks I will summarize.

The results are not at all surprising and are pretty much in line with simple HP/weight ratios.

Here are the planes tested and the results! Look for your favorites and download to see the drag race. Wish I had more online diskspace, the bloopers and out-takes were hilarious.

*Remember* We aren't testing top speed here, but rather acceleration. So we are looking at whos out front (or pulling away) by the end of the grass strip. Some of the planes that pull a quick lead on the Corsair get reeled back in by the big radial but we *are not* interested in top speed...at that point in the track Fenris and I are just playing!
Thanks again to my wingy Fenris!

F4U-1a_vs_A6M5 (http://mack_rc51.home.mchsi.com/F4U-1a_vs_A6M5.zip) A6M5=Faster

F4U-1a_vs_BF109G6_Late (http://mack_rc51.home.mchsi.com/F4U-1a_vs_BF109G6_Late.zip) BF109G6=Faster

F4U-1a_vs_FW190A6 (http://mack_rc51.home.mchsi.com/F4U-1a_vs_FW190A6.zip) FW190A6=Slower

F4U-1a_vs_La5Fn (http://mack_rc51.home.mchsi.com/F4U-1a_vs_La5Fn.zip) La5Fn=Faster

F4U-1a_vs_P-38 (http://mack_rc51.home.mchsi.com/F4U-1a_vs_P-38.zip) P38=Faster

F4U-1a_vs_P-47D (http://mack_rc51.home.mchsi.com/F4U-1a_vs_P-47D.zip) P-47=Slower

F4U-1a_vs_P-51C (http://mack_rc51.home.mchsi.com/F4U-1a_vs_P-51C.zip) P-51C=Faster

*EDIT* BTW the Faster/Slower is whether or not the plane being tested against the F4U is Faster/Slower......

Fliger747
12-31-2004, 02:57 PM
The F4U was operated from CVE's, mostly for short range strike missions. Loads were adjusted for wind conditions, which in much of the Central Pacific would involve Tradewinds, which can add an additional 15 KNOTS to the 15-18 that the CVE's were (actually) capable of. CATAPULTS were used to "up" the payloads, though that lenghtened the launch time.

The real situation required the availability of WIND or CATAPULTS, we have neither. In most gaming situations HERE, use of th F4U off of the CVE is inadvisable, as it would be in real life given the limitations of (no wind) meterology and (limited) ship speed.

RS_Half_PInt
12-31-2004, 03:56 PM
My latest findings are all based on takeoffs from the Lexington. Full flaps and 100% fuel with Wep were used on all planes. Stage one supercharger settings with 120% mix were used on the La-7, the Ki-841a and the F4U1-A Corsair. Maximum acceleration results were taken at the end of the deck with wheels on the edge. The test results will show patch 3.03bm on top and patch 3.03m on the bottom.

My procedure was to get the nose down gently and try to parallel the white guide line as close as possible; I tried to be consistent.

F4U1-A 178Km/h Tas
167Km/h Tas

P-51D 20 171 Km/h Tas
171 Km/h Tas

P-47-D 27 163Km/h Tas
154Km/h Tas

Bf-109K4 190 Km/h Tas
189 Km/h Tas

FW 190A-9 157 Km/h Tas
157 Km/h Tas

FW D-9 185 Km/h Tas
185 Km/h Tas

LA-7 182 Km/h Tas
181 Km/h Tas

P-38L 179 Km/h Tas
179 Km/h Tas

KI-841A 175 Km/h Tas
176 Km/h Tas

http://rs-half-pint.walagata.com/KI84_SIDE_3.03M
Lotaa torque..Whoa..

Half_Pint

Fenris459
12-31-2004, 10:55 PM
Does anyone else notice the disturbing trend that only American aircraft with radial engines appear to be slower from patch 3.02BM to Patch 3.03m??!

Notice how the Axis and Soviet radial engine aircraft are unchanged.
Also note how inline engine aircraft from all countries also appear unchanged.

This appears to validate complaints from the Jug drivers that the bird doesn't accel nearly as well in the current patch.

I think it would be instructive to perform some climb to hieght tests from 3.02BM to 3.03M and see just how much has changed.

Tailgator
01-01-2005, 01:01 AM
from Olegs responce its pretty clear that all planes are affected abit with the rate of climbs being ajusted for all aircraft.

p1ngu666
01-01-2005, 11:12 AM
maybe only those where wrong?

i mean i dunno for sure *shrug*

and the lack of wind would limit our possible ops

Diablo310th
01-01-2005, 11:14 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Tailgator:
from Olegs responce its pretty clear that all planes are affected abit with the rate of climbs being ajusted for all aircraft. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Are you saying this is why the Jug doesn't accelerate as fast?? What about level flight? Is this climb change effecting my level acceleration too? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif

Loki-PF
01-01-2005, 11:36 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Tailgator:
from Olegs responce its pretty clear that all planes are affected abit with the rate of climbs being ajusted for all aircraft. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

From the data in the *GAME* it's pretty clear they changed something other/besides *climb* rates. Climb rates have *nothing* to do with acceleration.

Besides, can someone please illuminate the certain principle of physics in the flight model that only affects US Radial Engine planes?

Anyone?

JaBo_HH-BlackSheep
01-01-2005, 03:42 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Loki-PF:
The big question I have after lasts nights test with Fenris is this....

Is it historically accurate that an F4U-1D with 100% fuel _CAN'T_ take off from an escort carrier that's doing flank speed?

We set up a test that had an escort carrier doing it's maximum speed (35 Kph I think) and _STILL_ couldn't get the thing in the air. Something tells me this isn't right, but I'm not sure what's changed to cause it. Anyone got any hard facts on take off stats? Chimp et al? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

not to bug you, but maybe this was the reason why they were never used on escort/Jeep-carriers instea they used the FM-2 i think.

@Loki-PF
ehm, well so you say the acceleration of the US-Radial's got porked by Oleg.
well have you tryed to take-off an FW190A8? or an A9?
they both have 2000hp the A9 even more, both are way lighter than the F4U-1, but still they need way more time to accelerate and to take-off.

how do you explain this?
MAYBE the F4U and the F6F were just a bit too fast on accelerating? is this possible?
haven't u noticed that it felt highly unrealistic (at least compared to other AC) how fast they accelerated once the ***** were gone?

Please do us a favour.
go pick a FW190A whatever. stop the time you need to reach certain speeds on ground (acceleration at take-off).
Pick a F4U-1 do the same.
Now pick an F6F and do it once again.

than compare the Powerload of the three planes.

Loki-PF
01-01-2005, 04:21 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JaBo_HH-BlackSheep:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Loki-PF:
The big question I have after lasts nights test with Fenris is this....

Is it historically accurate that an F4U-1D with 100% fuel _CAN'T_ take off from an escort carrier that's doing flank speed?

We set up a test that had an escort carrier doing it's maximum speed (35 Kph I think) and _STILL_ couldn't get the thing in the air. Something tells me this isn't right, but I'm not sure what's changed to cause it. Anyone got any hard facts on take off stats? Chimp et al? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

not to bug you, but maybe this was the reason why they were never used on escort/Jeep-carriers instea they used the FM-2 i think.

@Loki-PF
ehm, well so you say the acceleration of the US-Radial's got porked by Oleg.
well have you tryed to take-off an FW190A8? or an A9?
they both have 2000hp the A9 even more, both are way lighter than the F4U-1, but still they need way more time to accelerate and to take-off.

how do you explain this?
MAYBE the F4U and the F6F were just a bit too fast on accelerating? is this possible?
haven't u noticed that it felt highly unrealistic (at least compared to other AC) how fast they accelerated once the ***** were gone?

Please do us a favour.
go pick a FW190A whatever. stop the time you need to reach certain speeds on ground (acceleration at take-off).
Pick a F4U-1 do the same.
Now pick an F6F and do it once again.

than compare the Powerload of the three planes. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Jabo,

Easy there pal... Never said that *anything* was porked. But the fact is that acceleration has changed for US radial engined aircraft. Not Axis (FW).

Also I have no problem with only being able to take off from a moving carrier with ordy, thats not my point. As far as DF maps are concerned there are plenty of workarounds for that so thats no big deal....

And YES I did try it in a FW. Didn't take the time to read this thread or actually watch any of the tracks? Just thinking I'm an Ameriwhiner and going into defence mode?

The test here show that the accel of the FW is unchanged, while the US planes are changed. *HOWEVER* I was surprised to see the corsair out accel the FW on takeoff. FYI the FW is my favorite Axis plane to fly.

So it's simple, it was porked then or its porked now.... I don't know which. Do you ?

Wolf-Strike
01-01-2005, 04:36 PM
Guys,what i think is happening here is that the IL2 series doesnt model enuff flight characteristics to give us truley close to accurate FM's.I dont know whats missing or if its a lot of stuff missing but this is just my theory from reading many posts here.I would imagine that there are factors modeled now such as drag/lift/weight.hopefully things such as wingloading are also.I dont know and maybe the way to settle all of this is to just have Oleg give us the facts.If he tells us that the parameters for flight in this sim is weight/drag...etc,and that they show us that there is not much more they can do with it at this time to fix it,id be satisfied.

Its clearly obvious that the radial engined planes above have gotten their acceleration chopped a bit.Now I look at that fact and it makes me wonder why Oleg has done this.

Could it be that oleg,from reading all the posts about how these radial engined planes are climbing way too fast compared to others in game,has slowed down THE major factor that determines climb.That one factor being acceleration.So instead of saying he changed acceleration he says that he changed the rate of climb for different angles.Well acceleration=torgue and if you reduce this then the plane Will not be able to climb at severe angles but also its level acceleration will change with weight of plane being same.

Oleg has said"You asked for one, but forgot the result in other areas ".Well I think the above is true here.So I ask then my friends,what is missing here.I think only Oleg and crew know and know if we will ever get this implemented.

What does everyone think of this???

Aaron_GT
01-01-2005, 07:18 PM
Has anyone tried taking the acceleration results posted here and comparing to historical acceleration figures? I did see some posted in a thread somewhere for the F4U...

RS_Half_PInt
01-01-2005, 07:50 PM
Editing my post is a little difficult because of the column form of the stats but fyi the carrier was moving at 35km/h. Forgot to mention that.

The most effective takeoff is achieved by starting without flaps, getting the nose down and then hitting the flaps and having full flaps at the edge of the carrier; at least that's the way in works in the sim; of course my findings were based on full flaps at chocks release and the SOP for carrier takeoffs the USN used will probably be different from my procedure for comparitive tests in the sim.

Half_Pint