PDA

View Full Version : Poll: F6F Hellcat



WarWolfe_1
05-14-2006, 12:10 AM

ColoradoBBQ
05-14-2006, 12:16 AM
I think the plane is modelled almost correctly. Its true that the speed is a little slow and the wingroot are slightly weak but it does a good job of killing Zeroes and on-par with Georges and Franks as long as proper tactics are utilized.

horseback
05-14-2006, 12:16 AM
One of the all-time great fighters of WWII is thoroughly mis-represented in this sim. It's a huge injustice, and totally <STRIKE>inexplicable</STRIKE> inexcusable.

I re-try it after every patch, and after every patch, it's still screwed up, so rather than getting my guts tied up in a knot, I go back to the European theaters and try to forget about it. It's a damn shame...

cheers

horseback

ImpStarDuece
05-14-2006, 12:22 AM
I find the F6F to be one of the best planes in the game.

As far as I can determine, it performs to spec and reputation. Its rugged, nimble for such a big fighter and relatively forgiving and easy to fly. After flying a P-47 or a Tempest, going to a Hellcat is like going on holiday.

R_Target
05-14-2006, 01:24 AM
My main beef is that it's too slow. And of course the screwy one-sided recoil kick on the USN planes (going back to 4.01 fixed that for now).

Other than that, I like it. For such a big plane, it's really only a poor turner in comparison to Japanese iron. Stall recovery is easy, it's tough as hell, and you can pull out of a dive intact at 480MPH IAS if you're careful.

chris455
05-14-2006, 02:22 AM
Suffers from the same screwy DM of the R2800 engine as my Jug.
They BOTH need to be fixed, but I despair of it EVER happening.

ICDP
05-14-2006, 06:20 AM
I find it almost perfect according to what I have read about it. It is about 10mph too slow at altitude (within standard deviation) and perfect at SL. Against the Japanese AC it is superior to the A6M, Ki61 and Ki43 in all but low speed turnrate and low speed climb. It can outrun them at all alts and outclimb them at medium to high altitudes.

All in all it is performing very close to its historical levels.

tigertalon
05-14-2006, 07:38 AM
Originally posted by ColoradoBBQ:
on-par with Georges and Franks as long as proper tactics are utilized.

by "proper tactics" u probably ment outnumbering them by 3:1 AND having 1k alt advantage.

mandrill7
05-14-2006, 07:41 AM
I find the armament is frustrating. I have turned more than one Val into a rear fuselage sieve, only to have the bleedy thing keep flying happily along and the rear gunner pop me in the engine and start me smoking.

tigertalon
05-14-2006, 09:00 AM
Originally posted by mandrill7:
I find the armament is frustrating. I have turned more than one Val into a rear fuselage sieve, only to have the bleedy thing keep flying happily along and the rear gunner pop me in the engine and start me smoking.

Agreed, happened to me periodicaly that I needed more than 100 .50 cal hits to bring a val down. A val!

LEBillfish
05-14-2006, 09:01 AM
Hellcats though outstanding planes were not the "end all fighter"......None are or they would never be shot down no matter the pilots skill level.

I have read many accounts of for example of a few piece-mealed together Ki-100 (which the plane really was) taking on large groups of Hellcats and mopping up....8 vs. a large formation shooting down 22......Propaganda?...Probably, however numerous Hellcats were lost to everything that flew.

WHat tigertalon says above as a jab most likely is probably true......As the success of most allied fighters really boiled down to numbers in the air.......Now I've heard the annecdotal reports as well..."They could dive, roll, turn, climb better, were faster, much better armored"...Well frankly that doesn't make sense as we're not talking a 40 year difference in technology. So though they may have rolled better, and dove better, and been faster, and better armored......Somewhere they had to trade off.

If you read the honest accounts, if they did not make their first diving slash they dove away, hoping one of the other members of their flight would get the enemy as he pursued......Play it differently, and the laws of gravity apply as your flaming wreck falls to the sea.

IMLTHO

VW-IceFire
05-14-2006, 09:06 AM
The Hellcat is a great fighter but it suffers from the weak R-2800 engine problem (the inline on the Spitfire, 109, or Tempest is just as robust) and its got some pretty bad sway from the rudder. I'd like to see it tightened up a bit.

If you take the Hellcat up against European fighters, its a dangerous and capable foe. It can outturn a 109 fairly easily and dive with a Focke Wulf (althought it cannot stay with one in flat acceleration or speed).

Aguila_Azteca
05-14-2006, 09:08 AM
u guys just dont know anything.. the diference between real life and sim life hellcats is very simple... NOOb players flying hellcats.... experienced zero players flying zeros........

real life.... veteran hellcat pilots... vs badly train not even considered noobs... zero pilots...

tigertalon
05-14-2006, 09:44 AM
Originally posted by Aguila_Azteca:
badly train not even considered noobs... zero pilots...

Sounds pretty new to me. Any backups?

Another question arises to me: if we assume that japanese pilots really were n00bs from 1943 on, and american ones were pros, how did it happen? When did japanese pilots become so bad?

WOLFMondo
05-14-2006, 10:00 AM
Originally posted by R_Target:
My main beef is that it's too slow. And of course the screwy one-sided recoil kick on the USN planes (going back to 4.01 fixed that for now).


For a mid/late war fighter it was really quite slow IRL.

TC_Stele
05-14-2006, 10:18 AM
I find it nearly perfect according to what I've read up on the Hellcat. I too agree that it's a tad slow, but that's my only problem with it.

The stall recovery characteristic is eerily dead on according to what I've read about it and I think the armor is accurate as well. I learned that you can't really dive away from AI Zeros because the AI is a master at retaining its energy, however I'm able to pull away from human Zeros no problem.

SATAN_23rd
05-14-2006, 10:30 AM
I think pilot skill has to be considered while readng these kinds of threads. How many of you flying it are experienced pilots in real life, how many have flown an F6F, and how many have combat experience?

danjama
05-14-2006, 10:33 AM
Originally posted by horseback:
One of the all-time great fighters of WWII is thoroughly mis-represented in this sim. It's a huge injustice, and totally <STRIKE>inexplicable</STRIKE> inexcusable.

I re-try it after every patch, and after every patch, it's still screwed up, so rather than getting my guts tied up in a knot, I go back to the European theaters and try to forget about it. It's a damn shame...

cheers

horseback

Its sad, but this point could be relevant to any number of planes in this game.

I think the hellcat is modelled ok though.

JtD
05-14-2006, 11:11 AM
Originally posted by tigertalon:

Sounds pretty new to me. Any backups?

Another question arises to me: if we assume that japanese pilots really were n00bs from 1943 on, and american ones were pros, how did it happen? When did japanese pilots become so bad?

The Japanese used to train relativly few pilots until they became excellent. By the end of 1941, the average skill level among the Japanese pilots was probably higher than in any other airforce at the time. 1942 took a terrible toll. Most of them were killed, 1000 alone around Guadacanal and Midway. Japan failed to establish a decent wartime training schedule. Like Germany, Japan had to rush improperly trained men into service from 1943 on.

huggy87
05-14-2006, 11:13 AM
I don't know that anything is neccessarily wrong with the Hellcat in the sim. I think it is that the japanese planes are not modeled correctly. Try the real life american hellcat tactic of diving and rolling to the right in this sim. You will find the zero still on your tail where as it was apparently an almost fool proof tactic in real life.

Of course, we also need to remember that your average american hellcat pilot of 1944 had at least 300 hours of rigorous training conducted at least partially by war veterans. His japanese counterpart was probably lucky to have 100 hours with little training by veterans.

VW-IceFire
05-14-2006, 12:12 PM
Originally posted by tigertalon:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aguila_Azteca:
badly train not even considered noobs... zero pilots...

Sounds pretty new to me. Any backups?

Another question arises to me: if we assume that japanese pilots really were n00bs from 1943 on, and american ones were pros, how did it happen? When did japanese pilots become so bad? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Thats fairly straightforward.

Much like Nazi Germany, experienced Japanese pilots were not normally rotated home after a tour of duty on the frontlines. Many Japanese pilots, particularly in the Navy, kept on fighting. They were true experts and better than the average American pilot but there were few of them. As losses for the Japanese mounted, they started to run out of experienced pilots and to fill the gap they were sending in pilots with less and less time spent in the cockpit.

The end result is that by 1944, when the US made a play for the Marianas islands, although the Japanese pilots had the best fighter, dive bomber, and torpedo bomber yet available to them, they were cut out the sky. So few of them had experience in combat and so many had died over the previous few years (going down with the carriers sunk over Midway, killed during the continual and wasteful attempts to recapture Gaudalcanal, etc.) that the lack of experience became chronic.

The American pilots spent many times more practicing stateside and were often learning first hand from experienced pilots who'd already served a tour and knew what kept people alive and what didn't. So while USN pilots were being well trained, were ready, competent, and had capable hardware, the Japanese pilots were short on experience, high on nationalism in some cases, and although their equipment had never been better, they didn't know how to get the most out of them.

R_Target
05-14-2006, 12:48 PM
Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
For a mid/late war fighter it was really quite slow IRL.

Roger that. In PF, it hits the mark at SL, but lags behind the numbers as altitude increases.

fordfan25
05-14-2006, 02:37 PM
DM is WAY off. and like other heavey birds that had RL dive rate advantge its off. on way to know that something is wrong is that it has the same FM as the corsair -top speed.

ICDP
05-14-2006, 02:51 PM
I find the F6F to be much more agile than the F4U. I fly both regularly and the F6F is definately the more agile fighter.

fordfan25
05-14-2006, 05:00 PM
i fly them alot also and find other than top speed there is no deffernce. turn rate and stall is the same.

R_Target
05-14-2006, 05:08 PM
Originally posted by ICDP:
I find the F6F to be much more agile than the F4U. I fly both regularly and the F6F is definately the more agile fighter.
I feel the same way. Although sometimes it's nice to have that extra top end in the Corsair. Helps when you're trying to get the hell out of Dodge.

chris455
05-14-2006, 05:47 PM
Another question arises to me: if we assume that japanese pilots really were n00bs from 1943 on, and american ones were pros, how did it happen? When did japanese pilots become so bad?


The Japanese actually maiantained a rough parity quality-wise with US pilots up through mid-43, at which point attrition, pilot training capacity, the advent of second generation US fighters, losses in the Solomons as well as New Guinae and the lack of a pilot rotation scheme on the part of the Japanese heralded the onset of a rapid qualiitative takeover by the US, which only worsened for Japan as the war ground on.
See Bergerud, Fire In The Sky, for a detailed and very compelling analysis of these events.

PS- It is interesting to note, that after 1943, Japanese student pilots who were not considered good enough to be shipped out to combat commands were given jobs as instructor pilots at Tsuchiura and Kagamigahara- the opposite of US practice, where an instructor pilot would not only have thousands of hours of stick-time, but much of it would have been in combat.
The different results on training are not difficult to imagine.

J_Anonymous
05-14-2006, 05:58 PM
JtD and Icefire are right.

Being an island nation, which isolated itself to avoid colonization by western powers for nearly 400 years, Japan had experienced only a few foregin wars in its history before 19th century. In other words, Japan was sleeping for hundreds of years, drinking tea and sake, writing poems, etc. Unlike domestic warfare, the concept of "supplies" (including skilled pilots) is really important in modern wars overseas, but very few Japanese leaders understood it until it was too late (many of them refused to understand it, to be more precise).

J_Anonymous
05-14-2006, 06:14 PM
Originally posted by chris455:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Another question arises to me: if we assume that japanese pilots really were n00bs from 1943 on, and american ones were pros, how did it happen? When did japanese pilots become so bad?


The Japanese actually maiantained a rough parity quality-wise with US pilots up through mid-43, at which point attrition, pilot training capacity, the advent of second generation US fighters, losses in the Solomons as well as New Guinae and the lack of a pilot rotation scheme on the part of the Japanese heralded the onset of a rapid qualiitative takeover by the US, which only worsened for Japan as the war ground on.
See Bergerud, Fire In The Sky, for a detailed and very compelling analysis of these events.

PS- It is interesting to note, that after 1943, Japanese student pilots who were not considered good enough to be shipped out to combat commands were given jobs as instructor pilots at Tsuchiura and Kagamigahara- the opposite of US practice, where an instructor pilot would not only have thousands of hours of stick-time, but much of it would have been in combat.
The different results on training are not difficult to imagine. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Interesting, didn't know this. I guess the frontline needed usable pilots so desperately.

Xiolablu3
05-14-2006, 08:59 PM
I find the Hellcat a wonderfull plane to fight Zeros and Ki61's.

I find it much pregferable to the corsair which wobbles all over for me.

I played a pacific map yesterday as blue vs P38s and F6Fs and we were in complete disarray trying to fight them in Zeros, the Reds had to make a mistake before we could even get a shot at them.

I concluded I would rather be in a F6F than a Zero.

J_Anonymous
05-14-2006, 09:43 PM
I am afraid but you are absolutely right, Xiolablu3!! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Disorganized Zero's vs. organized F6F in on-line (UKD?) always ends with slaughtering of Zero's (as long as F6F's don't make the common mistake of entering turn fights, and maintain altitude)...... which opens up a question..... What if well organized A6M5's flown by good players as a squad face well organized F6F's flown by good players? Let's say, 10 Zero's vs. 10 F6F. I have never seen that kind of action in on-line before..... (because blue team usually ends up behaving like a bunch of idiots, by which I mean I am one of those idiots http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif). Needless to say, if F6F team somehow volunteers to enter individual turn fights (which often happens, too), that will be a feeding frenzy for Zero's http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif.

I rarely fly F6F, but I do think it's a cool plane as long as it's used like a Fw190. I have seen a few times in UKD, 3 or 4 F6F vs. 3 or 4 Zero's, both sides taking care of their comrades well. Now that's really an intense battle and fun!

Fork-N-spoon
05-14-2006, 10:05 PM
These are my observations while using the F6F that we have in this game:

It's slower than the real life aircraft that it's modeled after. If you go with the higher numbers available for this aircraft, it's much slower than the aircraft that it's modeled after. Some sources point towards a 400-405 mph top seed. Combine its slow speed with the fact that many aircraft in this game easily meet or exceed the most hopeful data available, and then it€s easy to see why the F6F is slow in our game.

While I'm not saying that its rate of roll is much lower than the real aircraft that it's modeled after, its rate of roll is low. There are aircraft in this game with decent rates of roll even though the aircraft they are modeled after had a low rate of roll in real life and there is much data to back up their low rates of roll.

The F6F easily enters a weird flick out spin while pulling high G maneuvers. This is inconsistent with the aircraft's wing design, pilot training videos, and pilot accounts. The F6F had very good low speed handling characteristics and a very gentle stall. On top of this, its one G stall speed was very low.

It doesn't turn as well as a Spitfire yet from all that I've read it should. The F6F had a high lift wing combined with a low wing loading. It also had ample power to sustain turns so the fore mentioned combined with enough power to pull it through turns spells a pretty decent turning aircraft. While it may not have been able to compete with early Japanese aircraft, it was still one of the better turning fighter aircraft from WWII. In this game it doesn't even all into the middle of the pack for turn performance at any speed.

It is easily damaged and catches fire very easily. It's very flammable at the wing root; did this aircraft carry fuel in the wings? I thought that it didn't, but I could easily be mistaken on where it did carry fuel because I€m not exactly an F6F fan boy.

Like all American aircraft, a hit to the fuel cells causes an almost never-ending fuel leak even though American production aircraft were probably equipped with the best fuel cells during the war.

Yes it is a big aircraft in terms of physical size. Yes it was also heavy, but I feel that too many people look at this in black and white. There are exceptions to every rule and the F6F is one of them. Consider this, despite the F6F's size and weight:

It turned well.

It had a fair top speed at all altitudes.

It easily ranks in the top five of "most able to sustain combat damage."

It has fair dive and climb performance.

It is easily one of the most stable and easiest WWII fighters to fly at speeds well below 100 mph.

It easily should rank in the top ten of "most forgiving stall characteristics for a single engine WWII fighter."

Despite all this, in this game the F6F's performance is very low. No matter how people will say "when properly flown...," it doesn't detract from the F6F's poor flight performance. Sure you can compare it to aircraft in this game that are slower and then say that you need to stop turning, but the problem that exists in this game is that the F6F can out run few aircraft. Most aircraft in this game can easily catch the F6F and once they do they can also out turn it.

If the F6F were correctly modeled then you could say this about it in our game:

"It can out turn what it can't out run."

"It can out run what it can't out turn."

Xiolablu3
05-14-2006, 10:31 PM
Originally posted by J_Anonymous:
I am afraid but you are absolutely right, Xiolablu3!! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Disorganized Zero's vs. organized F6F in on-line (UKD?) always ends with slaughtering of Zero's (as long as F6F's don't make the common mistake of entering turn fights, and maintain altitude)...... which opens up a question..... What if well organized A6M5's flown by good players as a squad face well organized F6F's flown by good players? Let's say, 10 Zero's vs. 10 F6F. I have never seen that kind of action in on-line before..... (because blue team usually ends up behaving like a bunch of idiots, by which I mean I am one of those idiots http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif). Needless to say, if F6F team somehow volunteers to enter individual turn fights (which often happens, too), that will be a feeding frenzy for Zero's http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif.

I rarely fly F6F, but I do think it's a cool plane as long as it's used like a Fw190. I have seen a few times in UKD, 3 or 4 F6F vs. 3 or 4 Zero's, both sides taking care of their comrades well. Now that's really an intense battle and fun!

HI mate, no this was on Winds Of War, I think the more the settings are towards Full Real, the better the Wildcat/Hellcat gets.

On UKD I find the Zeros have the edge because you can never surprise people. On WoW however it seems to be the Hellcat which has the edge.

Its almost futile trying to attack a 50cal armed Bomber like the A20 with a Zero, just a few hits and you are toast, I think the bomber has the edge here too, you must get above him and come down vertically to be sure yo wontbe hit and he is hard to catch!

ImpStarDuece
05-15-2006, 12:46 AM
Originally posted by Fork-N-spoon:
These are my observations while using the F6F that we have in this game:

It's slower than the real life aircraft that it's modeled after. If you go with the higher numbers available for this aircraft, it's much slower than the aircraft that it's modeled after. Some sources point towards a 400-405 mph top seed. Combine its slow speed with the fact that many aircraft in this game easily meet or exceed the most hopeful data available, and then it€s easy to see why the F6F is slow in our game.

The official USN listed speeds for the F6F-3 and F6F-5 are 370 and 380 mph respectively. However, I also have some USN testing documents for the F6F-5 which give 399 mph as the top speed.

The major difference here appears to be engine power ratings.

The slower USN data sets indicate 2,000 hp as the maximum output for the engine, with a P&W R-2800-10W. 2,030 hp is given as the T.O power and 2,110 hp at combat power at 13,100 feet. Top speeds are listed as 330 knots/379.5 mph at 23,400 feet and 276 knots/317.5 mph at sea-level. Time to 20,000 feet is given as 7.7 minuts.

However, USN comparative testing between its fighters and USAAF fighters has the engine rated at 2,250 hp at sea-level, or an improvement of 12.5%. These tests give the top speed for the F6F-5 as 399mph at 20,100 feet and 330 mph at sea-level. Time to 20,000 feet is given as This is a 19 mph increase at altitude and a 13 mph increase at sea level, which seems reasonable given the 250 hp increase in power.

My testing in game reveals that the F6F-3 Late, and the F6F-5 have essentaially identical performance. Top speeds are 520kph/323 mph at sea level and 619/385 mph at 23,500 feet.

I'd go out on a limb and say that the F6F-3 would be is almost perfect, if not a hair too fast, when it comes to speed if it didn't have WEP. However, the F6F-5 is probably modeled after the 2,000 hp data, and potentially has another 14 mph to make up in top speed.



While I'm not saying that its rate of roll is much lower than the real aircraft that it's modeled after, its rate of roll is low. There are aircraft in this game with decent rates of roll even though the aircraft they are modeled after had a low rate of roll in real life and there is much data to back up their low rates of roll.

The rate of roll for the Hellcat appears to be fine, and maybe even a little generous, from the limited testing I've done. The F6F-3 data from NACA 868 indicates a peak rate of roll at about 67 degrees a second at about 280 mph indicated. However, the Hellcats roll chart is VERY flat. It is still rolling at better than 60 degrees a second above 380 mph indicated.

Most other fighters given by NACA 868, as well as other data, appear to have a significantly higher rate of roll than the Hellcat, but also much more peaked roll curves.



It doesn't turn as well as a Spitfire yet from all that I've read it should. The F6F had a high lift wing combined with a low wing loading. It also had ample power to sustain turns so the fore mentioned combined with enough power to pull it through turns spells a pretty decent turning aircraft. While it may not have been able to compete with early Japanese aircraft, it was still one of the better turning fighter aircraft from WWII. In this game it doesn't even all into the middle of the pack for turn performance at any speed.

A Hellcat probably shouldn't turn as well as a Spitfire:

Spitfire V powerloading: 4.8 lbs/ hp
Spitfire V wingloading: 27 lbs/ sq foot

Spitfire IX powerloading: 4.3lbs/Hp
Spitfire IX wingloading: 30 lbs/ sq foot

Hellcat powerloading: (2000hp) 6.4 lbs/Hp (2,250 hp) 5.67 lbs/ hp
Hellcat wingloading: 38 lbs/ sq foot

it has both worse wingloading and worse powerloading than either a Mk V or a Mk IX.

Going off wing and powerloading isn't an absolute rule, but it should provide a reasonable estimate of turn performance.


It is easily damaged and catches fire very easily. It's very flammable at the wing root; did this aircraft carry fuel in the wings? I thought that it didn't, but I could easily be mistaken on where it did carry fuel because I€m not exactly an F6F fan boy.

Like all American aircraft, a hit to the fuel cells causes an almost never-ending fuel leak even though American production aircraft were probably equipped with the best fuel cells during the war.

All aircraft suffer from very fast fuel leaks, not just American ones. Look at the problems the FW-190 had until a few patches ago, or the Mosquito currently. Hit a fuel tank badly enough, and ti will drain very quickly.

After about a dozen tests (not enough to be conclusive) in an A6M3 against a Hellcat, it was almost impossible to light up the fuel cells with the MGs and quite difficult to do so with the wing cannon, I only did so on two occasions. More frequently cannon fire would tear the wing away at the fold point, which is probably too weak. Hit any fighter in the fuel tanks enough though, and it will go up.



Yes it is a big aircraft in terms of physical size. Yes it was also heavy, but I feel that too many people look at this in black and white. There are exceptions to every rule and the F6F is one of them. Consider this, despite the F6F's size and weight:

It turned well.

It had a fair top speed at all altitudes.

It easily ranks in the top five of "most able to sustain combat damage."

It has fair dive and climb performance.

It is easily one of the most stable and easiest WWII fighters to fly at speeds well below 100 mph.

It easily should rank in the top ten of "most forgiving stall characteristics for a single engine WWII fighter."

Despite all this, in this game the F6F's performance is very low. No matter how people will say "when properly flown...," it doesn't detract from the F6F's poor flight performance. Sure you can compare it to aircraft in this game that are slower and then say that you need to stop turning, but the problem that exists in this game is that the F6F can out run few aircraft. Most aircraft in this game can easily catch the F6F and once they do they can also out turn it.

The F6F is very forgiving compared to higher wing loading fighters like the Corsair, P-51, FW-190 or the P-47. However, its not as forgiving as something like a Spitfire, Zero or 109, which have much lower wingloading, and neither should it be.

In terms of performance the Hellcat is most similar to 1941 European fighters such as the Spitfire V, FW 190A1/A2 and BF-190F2, losing out a little in climb though. You can't cheat physics, no matter how you try. The F6F has a large frontal area, is heavy and power to weight is similar or a little inferior to fighters of that period.


If the F6F were correctly modeled then you could say this about it in our game:

"It can out turn what it can't out run."

"It can out run what it can't out turn."

Actually, if it were correctly modeled, you still couldn't say that, not even in the Pacific, not witout some serious provisos. Against the Zero, Tony, Tojo and Oscar, yes, the Hellcat had a definate performance advantage. However, once the late war Japanese types began to operate, they equalled or excelled the Hellcat in most performance areas. Japanese fighters such as the Raiden, Shiden and Hayate held most of the aces when it came to combatting the Hellcat.

Fork-N-spoon
05-15-2006, 07:43 AM
ImpStarDuece,

In your calculations for turn performance you're forgetting one very important factor, the wing's lift coefficient. The Hellcat had a very high lift wing. The Spitfire's wing didn't produce as much lift as the Hellcat's. Hence, the Hellcat had very good turn performance despite it having a modest wing loading, not high wing loading in your words. Many people at forums seem to forget or don't know that lift coefficient is important. They seem to think that an aircraft's turn performance is based solely on wing loading. There are several WWII aircraft that could easily out turn other WWII aircraft even though their wing loading was higher, sometimes much higher.

Fuel leaks, The Hellcat suffers from fuel leaks like all American aircraft do. Even though American aircraft most likely had the best self sealing fuel tanks they leak for a very long time before finally stopping. On the other hand, Japanese aircraft most likely had the worst self-sealing fuel tanks used during WWII yet the fuel tanks in Japanese aircraft quickly self seal.

The Hellcat is very well known for its gentle stall characteristics and low speed handling. I'm not sure how you can toss in the Bf-109 in your comparison because that aircraft is well known for its poor landing and takeoff characteristics, ie low speed handling. As far as I know, both the Hellcat and MkIX Spitfire had similar one G stall speeds with flaps and gear down so I'm not sure why the Spitfire would have much better low speed handling than a Hellcat. The Hellcat was designed for aircraft carrier duty so low speed handling was critical. During the period that we're speaking of, Grumman was well known and respected for producing aircraft with nice low speed handling characteristics. Again you seem to be only considering wing loading. There is much more to how an aircraft handles at low speed than its wing loading. You've used aircraft with a higher wing loading for a comparison against the Hellcat. You've used the Fw-190, P-47, P-51, and F4U. If you were to drop the wing loading of your comparison aircraft to that of the Hellcat, they still wouldn't have the same gentle low speed handling that the Hellcat had. This points to the fact that there is more to low speed handling than just a simple analysis of wing loading.

Treetop64
05-15-2006, 08:05 AM
Originally posted by LEBillfish:
I have read many accounts of for example of a few piece-mealed together Ki-100 (which the plane really was) taking on large groups of Hellcats and mopping up....8 vs. a large formation shooting down 22......Propaganda?...Probably, however numerous Hellcats were lost to everything that flew.

Doubtless. That reminds me of the story of S. Sakai single-handedly evading ninety 50 cals from 15 Hellcats, on a single sortie, and still brought his A6M home without a scratch on it.

I agree that a large part of the Hellcat's success stems from their superior numbers, and tactics taking advantage of that. That, and the fact that a majority of the IJN's most experienced fighter pilots were lost at Midway. If they had survived, I believe the F6s would have had a more bloodied charge through the Pacific.

At any rate, one must realize that American factories were pumping out Hellcats at an enormously prolific rate, something in the order of twenty per day. Twenty brand new Hellcats - with trained pilots - every single day. That's roughly 600 a month.

JG53Frankyboy
05-15-2006, 08:10 AM
Originally posted by Fork-N-spoon:
....................... I'm not sure how you can toss in the Bf-109 in your comparison because that aircraft is well known for its poor landing and takeoff characteristics, ie low speed handling. ..........

the 109 proplems in these situations were caused by its undercarriage , not by its flight characteristic

horseback
05-15-2006, 08:35 AM
When we talk about the real Hellcat, we have to talk about two things: ease of handling, and ruggedness.

The Hellcat was far and away the easiest combat aircraft in the US inventory to master. That means that it was predictable, forgiving and didn't require gobs of trim at the slightest change of throttle or speed. In-game, it shouldn't over-react to the slightest stick input, it should give you a clear warning when you're on the edge of a stall (I get the impression that the game is optimized for MSFF sticks instead of the majority of non-FF players) even without an FF stick, and when you do get into the stall, it shouldn't do somersaults.

The Hellcat was very nearly as 'safe' in combat as the P-47 (which is another of the notorious R-2800 porking victims), an amazing stat in light of the fact that most of its combat career, it was flown off of carriers, never mind that it was used to attack ground and surface targets as well as for air combat. In-game, it should take a lot more abuse than its contemporaries, and it should be harder to hit the engine (I'm convinced that the 'hit-box' for the R-2800 is simply huge, to go with its excessive fragility). It's clear that Oleg and his team made some assumptions about carrier fighters without doing serious research when it comes to the structural strength of American fighters in general, and particularly the USN birds. If anything, the wingfold area would be the strongest part of the wing structure.

cheers

horseback

luftluuver
05-15-2006, 08:58 AM
Worth repeating.


quote:
Originally posted by Fork-N-spoon:
....................... I'm not sure how you can toss in the Bf-109 in your comparison because that aircraft is well known for its poor landing and takeoff characteristics, ie low speed handling. ..........

<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">the 109 proplems in these situations were caused by its undercarriage, not by its flight characteristic</span>

Xiolablu3
05-15-2006, 09:42 AM
Originally posted by Fork-N-spoon:
I'm not sure how you can toss in the Bf-109 in your comparison because that aircraft is well known for its poor landing and takeoff characteristics, ie low speed handling. .

On the contarary, the 109 is well known for its excellent low speed handling in combat.

Maybe you mean Landing/Takeoff speed?

Are you sure that the Hellcats stubby wing had more lift than the Spitfires? I find it hard to believe, but I have no knowledge about the scientific side of this.

The F6F was very very heavy for a fighter, surely this would go against its turn performance too?

Searching for informantion about the F6F (I know little about it) I found this quote :-

'The F6F is the best example of the phrase, the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. The Cat is not fast; only the Zero is slower. Both the Ki-84 and the Zeke can out-turn it. The Corsair and the Lightning can out-climb it. Nonetheless, the Hellcat has rapidly become the most popular fighter in the Pacific theater because of its combination of attributes - though great at nothing, it does everything well. It has a good climb rate, turns beautifully - particularly at high speeds - is very durable, and possesses, along with the Corsair, the largest ammo load of any fighter'

'The Hellcat enjoyed a speed advantage of 40-60 m.p.h. over most versions of the A6M at 10,000 feet, increasing to 70-80 m.p.h. at 25,000 ft. Climb rate was inferior to most Japanese fighters up to 14,000 feet. In slow speed maneuvers, the Hellcat was at a serious disadvantage and tactics were specially devised to allow the huge Navy machine to either leave a Japanese fighter with an empty gunsight or, on his tail, to follow him through 90 degrees or less of a turn, deliver a burst, and if necessary, power away to reinitiate attack or leave the scene.'


I have never heard of Hellcats outturning Spifires. Forgive me for being dubios of your posts Fork n Spoon, but I remember the misinformed stuff you posted in the 'Spitfire was useless after 1940' thread.

Fork-N-spoon
05-15-2006, 09:48 AM
When I say low speed handling, I mean low speed handling more in the neighborhood of 150 mph or less while using high power settings. The Bf-109 isn't known for its low speed handling. It suffered from a lot of torque and "P-effects." Its poor landing qualities are due to its poor low speed flight characteristics. The Spitfire had narrow undercarriage as well, but you're never going to read about how hard it was to land. The Bf-109 on the other hand is another story.

fordfan25
05-15-2006, 10:39 AM
Are you sure that the Hellcats stubby wing
If im not mistaken didnt the hellcat have the largest wing's of any fighter in WW2?

JtD
05-15-2006, 11:14 AM
The important profil number in sustained turns is drag vs lift, not best lift coefficient. The F6F was nothing special there.

IIrc, it used a profil similar to the one on the Fw 190. It has an about 15% better wingload yet an about 30% worse powerload. It just shouldn't turn with a Spit any more than a FW.
Btw, a plane with similar weight, size and power was the early 110.

horseback
05-15-2006, 11:35 AM
Searching for informantion about the F6F (I know little about it) I found this quote :-
How about citing your source? Lots of people have said lots of things, and some have clearly had some prejudices, or are simply parroting what they have heard elsewhere.

The F6F was rarely compared directly to the Spitfire (odd, when it was so widely used by the FAA-one might expect a few direct comparisons in someone's memoirs, but the subject is almost not to be found), although the Seafire was a whole other story. Between its fragility and lesser virtues in low-speed handling, the Seafire compared poorly to the Hellcat where it counted in carrier ops. If it was operated in near ideal conditions, a Seafire III might last 4 or 5 combat sorties and recoveries (assuming no combat damage): a Hellcat would last hundreds, unless the pilot was an absolute goon.

As regards comments about the IJN pilots' supposed early war superiority over USN/USMC pilots, I can only point to the fact that the overwhelming majority of their casualties occured during the days of the 'inferior' F4F Wildcat, which enjoyed a better than one for one kill/loss ratio no matter whose numbers you use.

At best, the pre-war trained IJN and IJA pilots were 'about as good as' their pre-war trained USN/USMC opponents, who learned very quickly to use their relative strengths (reliable radios, better high-speed handling and ruggedness) to offset the superior speed, climb and maneuverability of the Zero. The Japanese displayed nothing like the tactical flexibility of the Allies, and it cost them heavily at every level.

cheers

horseback

Viper2005_
05-15-2006, 12:24 PM
Originally posted by JtD:
The important profil number in sustained turns is drag vs lift, not best lift coefficient. The F6F was nothing special there.

Actually lift is more important than drag for sustained turn rate since firstly the thrust available from a piston engine/airscrew combination actually varies inversely with TAS.

Meanwhile since turn rates are "g" limited, and g varies as V²/r, there is a very strong incentive from that direction to reduce speed as well.

In general therefore maximising, L^3/D^2 or even L^4/D^2 seems likely to be rather more important than L/D.

luftluuver
05-15-2006, 12:29 PM
Originally posted by Fork-N-spoon:
When I say low speed handling, I mean low speed handling more in the neighborhood of 150 mph or less while using high power settings. The Bf-109 isn't known for its low speed handling. It suffered from a lot of torque and "P-effects." Its poor landing qualities are due to its poor low speed flight characteristics. The Spitfire had narrow undercarriage as well, but you're never going to read about how hard it was to land. The Bf-109 on the other hand is another story. That 'spoon' should to be replaced by 'shovel'.

The 109 was very docile at low air speeds. Anyways, all the 'high' performance fighters of WW2 had torque roll issues with rapid application of throttle.

JtD
05-15-2006, 12:29 PM
Horseback, that better than 1 k/d includes killed bombers. Even the p.11 in the Polish campaign had a better than 1 k/d when it comes to combat records.

American pilot quality was a such, that in the initial phase of the Midway campaign (right until McClusky got lucky) US losses in about every single engagement were about 60-75% - fighters, dive bombers, torpedo bombers, escorts, CAP alike. And no, the Japanese did not have superior number in every single of these engagments. It amounted to a horrible number of 70-80 planes, about one quater of the American air forces. The Japanese losses until that point were neglectable. That is not down to plane qualitity.

Of course, you could also make a simple comparism of stick time and combat experience and you find the average Japanese pilots ahead by a few hundred hours in both categories.

JtD
05-15-2006, 12:43 PM
Originally posted by Viper2005_:
Actually lift is more important than drag...

This statement makes absolutely no sense to me. You mean a profile that offers more lift for more drag is better than one that offers less lift for less drag? And what if I now just increase the AoA of the latter profile? Wouldn't I just get the same lift for more drag? Wouldn't that make the latter profile plain and simple worse for turning?

Xiolablu3
05-15-2006, 12:44 PM
Horseback, those quotes are just random ones pulled up by google when I searched, they are nothing special, and could very well be wrong.

I was more asking rather than telling, as I said I know very little about the F6F.

I will addd the source if I do it again.

I googled 'F6F turn performance' and 'F6F turn rate' I think, you will probably find them if you search thru, if you are really that bothered, but as I say, they are nothing concrete as I say, just things 'people' have said and could very well be inaccurate.

horseback
05-15-2006, 01:05 PM
If you consider that up until the Guadalcanal campaign (BTW, Midway was a battle, not a campaign), almost every carrier fighter to fighter clash in 1942 was a first-time encounter for the majority of the participants, the natural inclination of the US pilots would be to try a maneuvering fight first. You wouldn't assume a maneuvering advantage for your opponent if you have a fighter pilot-sized ego.

You make all the qualifications you want, but the fighter's primary job is NOT killing other fighters: it is to stop the other guys' bombers and torpedo planes and to protect your own from the other guys' fighters. By that measuring stick, US Naval aviators starting from a marked disadvantage (a less capable fighter, no intelligence about enemy capabilities, no combat experience and an obsolete doctrine) did better than anyone (but themselves) had any right to expect, and they did it measurably better than their IJN counterparts on the Kaga, Hiryu, Soryu, and so on.

In these clashes, most of the time, the Japanese had the advantage in altitude and speed, covering the faster and higher flying Kate or Val, as compared to the Devastator or SBD, along with all the inherent advantages conferred by prior combat experience (personal or institutional).

When the confrontation became a toe-to-toe slugging match in the Solomons, the majority of the hard work was done by the Wildcat and pre-war trained Navy and Marine aviators before the February 1943 debut of the Corsair, and the Wildcat drivers won on a shoestring budget. The fact was that the tide was turned in the Pacific before the numerical advantages of 1943/44 were obtained.

I recommend Barrett Tillman's books on the Wildcat, Hellcat, SBD and Corsair for reference. He wrote them in the mid '70s, when he was able to personally interview the individual pilots as well as the engineers involved in the stories of these aircraft. I don't know if they are still in print, but they were originally published by the Naval Institute Press.

cheers

horseback

JtD
05-15-2006, 01:34 PM
But you know that the 70-80 planes the Japanese shot down were not flying circles in the sky, they were there to shoot Japanese bombers attacking Midway, and failed. They were there to attack the Japanese ships, and failed. They were there to escort the bombers, and failed. In the meantime, the Japanese planes were there to escort their bombers, and succeded, they were there to attack Midway, and succeded, they were there to intercept attacking bombers, and succeded.

It was a matter of luck that McClusky showed up when the IJN had NO CAP available. He had a sizable force available and a free go at the carriers - he did the job. Meanwhile, a Japanese force attacked the Yorktown with airborne CAP. This was the first attack the Japanese pilots made against the US ships. The Yorktown was hit and sunk in a later attack - again with CAP around the Yorktown.

If you claim that the battle of Midway and the related pilot losses in any way reflect the qualities of the pilots involved, you couldn't be more wrong.

And also, if the US pilots used an obselete doctrine, had no clue about the enemies capabilites and had no combat experience, as you say, doesn't that make them worse combat pilots? Doesn't that make up a huge part of pilot quality?

Loki-PF
05-15-2006, 02:28 PM
Originally posted by LEBillfish:
Hellcats though outstanding planes were not the "end all fighter"......None are or they would never be shot down no matter the pilots skill level.

I have read many accounts of for example of a few piece-mealed together Ki-100 (which the plane really was) taking on large groups of Hellcats and mopping up....8 vs. a large formation shooting down 22......Propaganda?...Probably, however numerous Hellcats were lost to everything that flew.

WHat tigertalon says above as a jab most likely is probably true......As the success of most allied fighters really boiled down to numbers in the air.......Now I've heard the annecdotal reports as well..."They could dive, roll, turn, climb better, were faster, much better armored"...Well frankly that doesn't make sense as we're not talking a 40 year difference in technology. So though they may have rolled better, and dove better, and been faster, and better armored......Somewhere they had to trade off.

If you read the honest accounts, if they did not make their first diving slash they dove away, hoping one of the other members of their flight would get the enemy as he pursued......Play it differently, and the laws of gravity apply as your flaming wreck falls to the sea.

IMLTHO

Billfish,

You've taken the wrong train of thought with your above comments about how two planes of the same era can have such drastically different performance envelopes.

It has *nothing* to do with technology or materials.

It has *everything* to do with a design philosophy of the countries/designers building them.



.

VW-IceFire
05-15-2006, 04:13 PM
Originally posted by Fork-N-spoon:
When I say low speed handling, I mean low speed handling more in the neighborhood of 150 mph or less while using high power settings. The Bf-109 isn't known for its low speed handling. It suffered from a lot of torque and "P-effects." Its poor landing qualities are due to its poor low speed flight characteristics. The Spitfire had narrow undercarriage as well, but you're never going to read about how hard it was to land. The Bf-109 on the other hand is another story.
MMmmmm at lower than 150mph most high performance WWII fighters had a problem. Singling the 109 out isn't really going to fly without mentioning a half dozen other types. The 109 is well known for its low speed handling in the 200mph range and that it was better in this area than the Spitfire.

Neither the Spitfire or 109 were probably as good as the Hellcat in a landing configuration with wheels down, flaps out, arrestor hook deployed but thats a rare thing. Most WWII props had a problem at slow speeds for all the same reasons.

Perhaps the only land base aircraft that could fly at a rediculously low speed without too much fear was the P-38 and that was mostly because of its engine design and flap structure.

Heavy_Metal1982
05-15-2006, 06:54 PM
Ahhh yes the Hellcat, my arch enemy of Pacific Fighters. I really dislike this plane and commonly refer to it as 'The Pig'. I find it's very difficult to use and frankly really dislike the plane in this sim. IRL I find it's a wonderful plane and quite powerful.

I enjoy using the F4F Wildcat and perfer that over the Hellcat. I get plently of kills Using the Wildcat, but once I get into the F6F I might as well be in my chute with my colt .45 shooting at planes like General Patton http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

horseback
05-15-2006, 08:37 PM
Originally posted by JtD:
But you know that the 70-80 planes the Japanese shot down were not flying circles in the sky, they were there to shoot Japanese bombers attacking Midway, and failed. They were there to attack the Japanese ships, and failed. They were there to escort the bombers, and failed. In the meantime, the Japanese planes were there to escort their bombers, and succeded, they were there to attack Midway, and succeded, they were there to intercept attacking bombers, and succeded.

It was a matter of luck that McClusky showed up when the IJN had NO CAP available. He had a sizable force available and a free go at the carriers - he did the job. Meanwhile, a Japanese force attacked the Yorktown with airborne CAP. This was the first attack the Japanese pilots made against the US ships. The Yorktown was hit and sunk in a later attack - again with CAP around the Yorktown.

If you claim that the battle of Midway and the related pilot losses in any way reflect the qualities of the pilots involved, you couldn't be more wrong.

And also, if the US pilots used an obselete doctrine, had no clue about the enemies capabilites and had no combat experience, as you say, doesn't that make them worse combat pilots? Doesn't that make up a huge part of pilot quality? I'm going to assume that you are speaking of the Marine and Army air units that were defending Midway island that constituted the bulk of US air casualties at Midway. For the most part, the Marine units were flying obsolete aircraft like the Brewster Buffalo, the TBD Devastator and the SB2U Vindicator. Except for the TBD VT squadrons from the three US carriers, the majority of Midway casualties were Marine 'scratch teams' thrown together at the last minute to defend Midway and were not familiar with their commanders, each other or their aircraft.

Not exactly a good place to be the first time you go into combat.

Any time you go into battle for the first time against an experienced opponent, you are at a disadvantage. That doesn't mean that you are less capable of being an effective warrior or that the other guy is inherently better, it simply means that he has an edge. He's been in the fire before, he knows what he has to do, and he's less prone to hesitate when the moment to kill comes up than a guy who has been brought up to be 'nice'. No amount of military training can overcome the moral training your mother gives you.

You literally have to go through the fire yourself.

But it's hardly fair to say that because their intelligence system let them down about the Japanese Navy's aircraft capabilities, or that they weren't fully up-to-date on modern air combat tactics (and let's be fair here; most of the RAF & VVS were still flying vic or line astern formations in mid 1942 as well) that they weren't pretty good at their job. Given the very limited contact the two air components had with each other before Midway and then Guadalcanal (in real time, less than 24 total hours of aerial combat between IJN and USN a/c to that point), the Americans did a spectacular job of adjusting to the harsh realities of air combat.

At Coral Sea, the adjusted score in Wildcat vs Zero combat was six to three in favor of the Zeros (we have to throw out the two A5M Claudes shot down defending the Shoho); six weeks later at Midway, the Americans, due in part to Jimmy Thach's weave, were up eleven to five over the Zero (where the shore-based Midway Buffalos are removed from the equation). I don't believe for a moment that the Japanese pilots, had they been flying the Wildcat & the Americans the Zero, could have equalled that improvement, or maintained that edge for another 8 months at Guadalcanal.

As for the loss of Yorktown, it was my understanding that the carrier would have survived had it not received a torpedo from a submarine long after the last Japanese aircraft had gone down with their carriers. I agree that there was some poor fighter direction involved there, and it was the last time all squadrons in a task group tried using a single voice radio frequency.

On the other hand, I can't blame fighter pilots for bad vectors from their radar controller on board ship.

Again, I recommend Tillman's books on the USN aircraft of WWII and The First Team, which seem to grasp the problems of the early carrier combats better than the average historian, particularly those from countries without a serious naval tradition.

cheers

horseback

horseback
05-15-2006, 09:48 PM
I'd like to follow my last post up by pointing out that the Wildcat squadrons on the Enterprise, Yorktown, and Hornet had literally just taken delivery of brand new F4F-4s, whose sole virtue over the F4F-3 was that it had a folding wing, allowing more Wildcats to be deployed on a carrier.

This meant that these squadrons had less than two weeks to familiarize themselves with the new build aircraft, find all the 'bugs' in them, and break in the new pilots brought in to replace the ones lost at Coral Sea.

The -4 was slower, had worse climb, a shorter gunfiring time and carried fewer total rounds than the 4 gunned -3s. It was generally considered a poor trade at the time, and the fighter pilots who survived Midway thought they had been handicapped just before entering the fight.

Finally, I'll point out, for the jillionth time, that Japanese claims from the beginning of the war to its last day, overclaimed by a consistant factor of seven times what their opponents actually lost. Everybody else started out claiming seven for every enemy a/c destroyed, and most worked things down to overclaiming at a 5:3.5 clip.

The Japanese remained incurably optimistic, assuming that if their rounds made contact, or if they thought they did, they'd shot down an enemy aircraft. Unfortunately, their leaders often believed them, and planned the next action or sorties accordingly, often with disastrous results.

cheers

horseback

ronison
05-16-2006, 12:55 AM
"by JTD"

"But you know that the 70-80 planes the Japanese shot down were not flying circles in the sky, they were there to shoot Japanese bombers attacking Midway, and failed. They were there to attack the Japanese ships, and failed. They were there to escort the bombers, and failed. In the meantime, the Japanese planes were there to escort their bombers, and succeded, they were there to attack Midway, and succeded, they were there to intercept attacking bombers, and succeded.

It was a matter of luck that McClusky showed up when the IJN had NO CAP available. He had a sizable force available and a free go at the carriers - he did the job. Meanwhile, a Japanese force attacked the Yorktown with airborne CAP. This was the first attack the Japanese pilots made against the US ships. The Yorktown was hit and sunk in a later attack - again with CAP around the Yorktown.

If you claim that the battle of Midway and the related pilot losses in any way reflect the qualities of the pilots involved, you couldn't be more wrong.

And also, if the US pilots used an obselete doctrine, had no clue about the enemies capabilites and had no combat experience, as you say, doesn't that make them worse combat pilots? Doesn't that make up a huge part of pilot quality?"
;;;;
;;;;;
;;;;;;
;;;;;;;


Someone really needs to go back and redo their Battle of Midway research.

First off as someone else pointed out most of the lost aircraft on the US side were from the land based aircraft involved. The US Marines that flew the Buffalo had been brought in and were formerly flying the F-4F-3 and had very few days to learn to fly the Buffalo before the battle.

The failed bomb runs were more from the land based B-17s and B-26s that were brought in to bolster the Midway air force than were from the US Naval aircraft. No hits were scored by any of the USAAF aircraft. Though some were reported none were even near miss damage. By the way the B-26s that attacked were flying as torpedo bombers and all missed. I believe it was the first and last time that the Marauder was used as a torpedo bomber.

If you look at the success of the US carrier based aircraft they out bombed and out thought the Japanese in all regards. First off McClusky was lucky in finding the Japanese carriers because the information he had was many hours old. He took a chance it worked out. Also another thing that worked out was that just prior to McClusky's flight showing up VT-8 flying the devastator had just been taken out of the air by the whole Japanese CAP. That was their first mistake and one that cost them dearly. So no there was CAP over the Japanese carriers but they had all fallen for the "get that plane" syndrome and all come down to the torpedo bomber level which took themsels out of the altitude advantage they needed for McClusky. This from better skilled pilots? No not realy, a better skilled pilot would have let the lower level CAP take care of the few torpedo bombers that came in and stayes up high incase other high level planes came. This by the way was US doctrin, bomb with the low level torpedo bombers first to try to draw down the CAP followed quickly by the dive bombers. The Japanese failed miserably here.

As to most of the rest of the problems the Japanese had it was mostly caused from indecision of the task force commander and aids to decide to arm for ships and seek out the possibility of US carriers being there, which they had hints were around, or arm to bomb Midway again. The indecision caused the ordinance along with refueling equipment to be exposed onboard the ship when the attacks came. Another small factor was the fact that the Japanese carriers were more or less all together. Spruance had the forsight to split TF-16 and TF-17 into two groups that opperated many miles aprat so if one was found the other could still opperate hopefuly without interfearance. That is partialy why only one US carrier was sunk while four Japanese carriers went to the bottom

Obsolete Doctrine is totally false. The doctrine for all aircraft battles from carriers were still being written at that time by both the Japanese as well as the US. Prior to Midway there had been a total of one clash from aircraft carrier to aircraft carrier and that was the Battle of the Coral Sea. As far as having a clue about the enemies capabilities both sides had just had a good lesson on what the other could do in the Battle of the Coral Sea. The Japanese came out on top with that if you look at what was lost but also lost in that they had to stop their advance. Also the experience that not only the planers but the pilots, which were the same ones at Midway, was invaluable. So yes even the US pilots had experience. As far as battles they were only about one down and in some instances a few hrs worth over China by some Japanese pilots. But as far as Midway the only other advantage that most pilots had on the Japanese side was Pearl Harbor. Pearl Harbor in all counts was more or less a cake walk on the part of the Japanese due to the nature of catching the US "napping".

You have missed many points along with the one about the Yorktown which someone else here pointed out.

The battle could have and should have gone in the favor of the Japanese but the way that the US Navy executed it can be nothing but brilliant. The fact that the Yorktown was there just weeks after taking heavy damage at Coral Sea, the fact that all US carriers made it past the Japanese picket submarines that were to warn the fleet, the fact that the "inexperienced" US force totally trounced the "All knowing" Japanese is a testament to the skill of the US planers and pilots.

All battles have their share of luck. All battles have their share of skill. And in the case of Midway the US force had both. The skill of the Japanese pilot at the time was slightly better than the US counterpart but the learning curve up to that point had been great for the US. After Midway the Japanese were left with little in the form of skilled pilots. Add that to the numbers of aircraft and replacement pilots along with supplies and you had a loosing war for the Japanese after Midway.

Funny it was almost 6 months to the day after Pearl Harbor. And according to Yammato was the longest he could guarantee an offensive against the US.

Sorry to go OT on this.

IL2-chuter
05-16-2006, 04:38 AM
I was going to post something but after slogging all the way through the thread I've inexplicably lost interest . . .



http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

JtD
05-16-2006, 09:39 AM
I'd like to point out that I know about all the facts you pointed out and just have a different point of view.

As the US won the war, yours must be right.

So having recieved inferior training and lacking combat experience, at the end of 1941 the average US pilot was the worlds best.

Daiichidoku
05-16-2006, 09:55 AM
ronison also manages to omit that the a JP scout plane had actually spotted a TF, but couldnt alert the fleet due to an unservicable wireless set

if it had, midway would not turned out as it did

no matter what way one slices it, midway was luck on one side....or unluck for the other


had it been JP attackers on a TF, who's to say the US CAP wouldnt have been all drawn away, as the case with the JP?
NOTHING

horseback
05-16-2006, 02:37 PM
Originally posted by JtD:
I'd like to point out that I know about all the facts you pointed out and just have a different point of view.

As the US won the war, yours must be right.

So having recieved inferior training and lacking combat experience, at the end of 1941 the average US pilot was the worlds best. You can look it up. US Naval Aviators were generally acknowleged as among the best-trained military pilots in the world at the time America entered the war. Certainly, they were vastly better off than pre-war trained US Army pilots. They probably weren't the world's best at the end of 1941, but they could make a very good case for themselves at the end of 1942, when one makes allowances for the quality of the opposition and differences in equipment.

Wildcats and Buffalos weren't nearly as competitive with A6M2/3s in late '42 as Spitfire IXs were with FW 190A-4/5s, particularly at the altitudes they usually met.

Here's a little exercise for you. Do a comparison between successful Army Air Force fighter pilots who served in the ETO and Army Air Force fighter pilots who served in the Pacific/CBI. Since these came from the same population pool and received the same training, their results would indicate which opponent was more formidible.

Having done that, compare the Pacific aces from the AAF to those in the USN/USMC in terms of scoring vs combat sorties, survival rates (15 kills in the ETO was as close as an AAF pilot could come to being bullet proof in air to air combat), and prior service (was his training pre war, early war, or late-war?).

This study should be quite instructive for you.

cheers

horseback

Heavy_Weather
05-16-2006, 03:22 PM
it seems quite sluggish

Ruy Horta
05-16-2006, 04:05 PM
NUMBERS!!!

Low_Flyer_MkVb
05-16-2006, 04:17 PM
I think Ruy has a point.

Fork-N-spoon
05-16-2006, 09:51 PM
If I remember correctly, Eric Brown stated that at low speed the Bf-109 lacked rudder authority and that the control surfaces became sluggish making the aircraft hard to control under conditions of high power settings and low speed. This combined with a rather high accident rate leads me to believe that at speeds below 150 mph the Bf-109 had poor handling qualities. Somebody pointed out that all WWII aircraft had problems if they were at low speed and suddenly went to high power. I never stated that they did or didn€t, but since somebody has brought this up it does vary from aircraft to aircraft regardless of the wing and power loading. It is possible for an aircraft with a higher wing loading and higer power loading to have a lower stall speed and better low speed handling qualities than an aircraft that has a more favorable wing and power loading.

Consider the 1944 Patuxent River NAS fighter conference. I believe that 13 British test pilots participated in this test as well as many test pilots from manufacturers; including DeHavilland Aircraft of Canada, US Army, Navy, and Marines.

Some of the aircraft tested were,

P-38L
P-47M
P-51D
P-61
P-63
FM-2
F6F-5
FG-1 (F4U-1D) made by Goodyear I believe
F7F
F8Fmosquito
SEAFIRE***

In the following categories the F6F beat the Seafire by a wide margin. In most of following categories the F6F was voted as being the best.

Best for overload take-off from a small area
Nicest harmonization of control forces
Best ailerons at 100 mph
Best elevator
Best characteristics at 5 mph above stall
Best all around fighter above 25,000 ft
Best all around fighter below 25,000 ft *note the Seafire didn€t receive any votes
Best carrier based fighter *note the Seafire didn€t receive any votes
Potentially the best carrier fighter (modified for carrier operations if necessary) *note the Seafire didn€t receive any votes


Average of all votes for stall characteristics in clean configuration

F6F-5
Power off 77
Power on 69
Seafire
Power off 70
Power on 63

3G accelerated stall speed average of all votes

F6F-5 121
Seafire 140

Note that the F6F despite having a higher wing loading and a higher weight to power loading than the Seafire, the F6F had similar one G stall speeds as did the Seafire, and that the F6F's 3 G stall speed is lower than that of the Seafire. Considering that the Seafire has similar stall speeds as that of the Spitfire MkIX, I would say that the F6F has similar turn performance at 1 G and it appears to have slightly better performance in 3 G turns. Carrier aircraft are designed for low speed handling qualities and the F6F scored very high in this category while the Spitfire didn€t. The reason is simple, the F6F had much better low speed flying qualities than that of the Spitfire.

Somebody brought up drag profile and turn performance. Low speed turn performance has little to do with drag. Since I am talking about speeds well below 200 mph and sometimes at speeds of 100 mph or less, drag plays a little part in this.

Wing loading will tell you little about how an aircraft will fly at very low speeds. Consider this, a P-40 had a lower wing loading than the P-47 and P-51B, C, and D versions did. The P-40 also had a higher weight to power ratio than the P-47 and P-51 versions did i.e. less hp per lb. Despite all this, the P-40 had worse low speed handling qualities than the P-47 and P-51 versions did. My personal favorite pilot's comment about the P-40 is, "An experienced P-40 pilot could be recognized by his muscular right leg."

If one were to make the most logical comparison to the F6F it would have to be the F4U-1. When looking at the F6F and F4U-1 and only comparing numbers, you will note that both aircraft had similar wing loading, power to weight ratios, and the drag profiles aren€t as different as night and day. Despite a simple analysis of these numbers and their corresponding similarities, both aircraft were very different to fly. Under conditions of low speed and high power, the F6F was much easier to fly and easier to maintain control than the F4U-1 was.

I am trying to smash some people's ideas that you can tell how well an aircraft will handle at low speeds and how well it will turn at low speeds by its power loading, wing loading, and drag profile. There are simply too many factors that go into low speed handling qualities and minimum turn radius than wing loading, power loading, and drag profile. This is why two aircraft with similar wing loading, power loading, and drag profiles can have very different low speed handling and turn radiuses. The best black and white example I can think of is the P-36 vs. the P-40. Both aircraft are nearly identical in terms of weights and power loadings yet both aircraft had very different low speed handling qualities even though both have identical airframes, the P-36 being much nicer and docile.

The F6F that we have in this game resembles its real life aircraft in physical appearance only. It completely lacks any ability to turn, sustain damage, and its stall characteristics are much worse than most aircraft that we have in this game.

jetguy06
05-16-2006, 10:01 PM
The plane is great, don't get me wrong, but historically, it could stand up to much more punishment than it could in the game.I get a zero on my tail, and BAM.....my whole tail section is all-of-a-sudden missing and plumeting to Earth behind me in tiny bits.It's a great plane, though i hate flying it on ground missions, since the bombs/rockets/both weigh you down so much.My only complaint is the damage.

luftluuver
05-17-2006, 12:56 AM
Me 109 G-6:
In landing the Me was stable. The leading edge slats were quick and reliable, and they prevented the plane from lurching in slow speeds and made it possible to make "stall landings" to short fields. The problem in landings was the long nose, so the plane was partly controlled by touch in the final seconds of landing.
- Torsti Tallgren, Finnish post war fighter pilot. Source: Hannu Valtonen, "Me 109 ja Saksan sotatalous" (Messerschmitt Bf 109 and the German war economy), ISBN 951-95688-7-5.

Me 109 G:
"-Was the Messerschmitt difficult to land?
She was not difficult to land but after touchdown you must not let her curve. In Malmi there was a 10 by 10 m spot where German night fighter pilots broke at least six of their Messerschmitts. After touchdown they had veered to the right and the plane tilted to the left until the wingtip and prop contacted the ground. Yet they had logged thousands of hours with the Messerschmitt. In the night they flew like angels and landed without any veering, but in daytime they couldn't do anything."
- Ky¶sti Karhila, Finnish fighter ace. 32 victories. Source: Interview by Finnish Virtual Pilots Association.

Me 109 G-6:
"The Me was stable on landings. The quickly reacing automatic wing slats negated any swaying on slow speeds and made it possible to make "stall landings" to small fields. The problem in stall landings was the long nose, which hindered visibility forward. Because this controlling at the last stages of landing was done partly by sense of touch on the controls."
- Torsti Tallgren, Finnish post war fighter pilot. Source: Interview of Torsti Tallgren by Finnish Virtual Pilots Association.

Me 109 G-6:
Landing was slightly problematic if the approach was straight, with slight overspeed at about 180 km/h. Landing was extremely easy and pleasing when done with shallow descending turn, as then you could see easily the landing point. You had a little throttle, speed 150-160 km/h, 145 km/h at final. You controlled the descent speed with the engine and there was no problems, the feeling was the same as with Stieglitz. If I recall correctly the Me "sits down" at 140-142 km/h.
The takeoff and landing accidents were largely result from lack of experience in training. People didn't know what to do and how to do it. As a result the plane was respected too much, and pilots were too careful. The plane carried the man, and the man didn't control his plane.
- Erkki O. Pakarinen, Finnish fighter pilot, Finnish Air Force trainer. Source: Hannu Valtonen, "Me 109 ja Saksan sotatalous" (Messerschmitt Bf 109 and the German war economy), ISBN 951-95688-7-5.

Me 109 G:
"Speed at 150 knots or less, gear select to DOWN and activate the button and feel the gear come down asymmetrically. Check the mechanical indicators (ignore the electric position indicators), pitch fully fine... fuel - both boost pumps ON. If you have less than 1/4 fuel and the rear pump is not on the engine may stop in the three-point attitude. Rad flaps to full open and wings flaps to 10 degrees to 15 degrees. As the wing passes the threshold downwind - take all the power off and roll into the finals turn, cranking the flap like mad as you go. The important things is to set up a highish rate of descent, curved approach. The aircraft is reluctant to lose speed around finals so ideally you should initiate the turn quite slow at about 100-105. Slats normally deploy half way round finals but you the pilot are not aware they have come out. The ideal is to keep turning with the speed slowly bleeding, and roll out at about 10 feet at the right speed and just starting to transition to the three point attitude, the last speed I usually see is just about 90; I'm normally too busy to look after that!
The '109 is one of the most controllable aircraft that I have flown at slow speed around finals, and provided you don't get too slow is one of the easiest to three point. It just feels right ! The only problem is getting it too slow. If this happens you end up with a very high sink rate, very quickly and absolutely no ability to check or flare to round out. It literally falls out of your hands !
Once down on three points the aircraft tends to stay down - but this is when you have to be careful. The forward view has gone to hell and you cannot afford to let any sort of swing develop. The problem is that the initial detection is more difficult. The aeroplane is completely unpredictable and can diverge in either direction. There never seems to be any pattern to this. Sometimes the most immaculate three pointer will turn into a potential disaster half way through the landing roll. Other times a ropey landing will roll thraight as an arrow!"
- Mark Hanna of the Old Flying Machine Company flying the OFMC Messerschmitt Bf 109 G (Spanish version).

Me 109 G:
"I didn't notice any special hardships in landings."
-Jorma Karhunen, Finnish fighter ace. 36 1/2 victories, fighter squadron commander. Source: Hannu Valtonen, "Me 109 ja Saksan sotatalous" (Messerschmitt Bf 109 and the German war economy), ISBN 951-95688-7-5.

Me 109 G-2:
"Landing was normal."
-Lasse Kilpinen, Finnish fighter pilot. Source: Hannu Valtonen, "Me 109 ja Saksan sotatalous" (Messerschmitt Bf 109 and the German war economy), ISBN 951-95688-7-5.Source: Hannu Valtonen, "Messerschmitt Bf 109 and the German war economy"

Me 109 G:
"It was beneficial to keep the throttle a little open when landing. This made the landings softer and almost all three-point landings were successful with this technique. During landings the leading edge slats were fully open. But there was no troubles in landing even with throttle at idle."
-Mikko Lallukka, Finnish fighter pilot. Source: Hannu Valtonen, "Me 109 ja Saksan sotatalous" (Messerschmitt Bf 109 and the German war economy), ISBN 951-95688-7-5.Source: Hannu Valtonen, "Messerschmitt Bf 109 and the German war economy"

Me 109 G:
"Good in the Me? Good flying characterics, powerful engine and good take-off and landing characterics."
- Onni Kuuluvainen, Finnish fighter pilot. Source: Hannu Valtonen, "Me 109 ja Saksan sotatalous" (Messerschmitt Bf 109 and the German war economy), ISBN 951-95688-7-5.

Me 109 G:
"Landing: landing glide using engine power and the following light wheel touchdown was easy and non-problematic. I didn't have any trouble in landings even when a tire exploded in my first Messerschmitt flight."
-Otso Leskinen, Finnish fighter pilot. Source: Hannu Valtonen, "Me 109 ja Saksan sotatalous" (Messerschmitt Bf 109 and the German war economy), ISBN 951-95688-7-5.

Me 109 G:
"MT could "sit down" on field easily, without any problems. Of all different planes I have flown the easiest to fly were the Pyry (advanced trainer) and the Messerschmitt."
- Esko Nuuttila, Finnish fighter pilot. Source: Hannu Valtonen, "Me 109 ja Saksan sotatalous" (Messerschmitt Bf 109 and the German war economy), ISBN 951-95688-7-5.

Me 109 G:
"Takeoff and landing are known as troublesome, but in my opinion there is much more rumours around than what actually happened. There sure was some tendency to swing and it surely swerved if you didn't take into account. But I got the correct training for Messerchmitt and it helped me during my whole career. It was: "lock tailwheel, open up the throttle smoothly. When the speed increases correct any tendency to swing with your feet. Use the stick normally. Lift the tailwheel and pull plane into the sky.
Training to Me? It depended on the teacher. I got good training. First you had to know all the knobs and meters in the cockpit. Then you got the advice for takeoff and landing. Landing was easy in my opinion. In cold weather it was useful to have some RPMs during the finals and kill throttle just before flaring."
- Atte Nyman, , Finnish fighter ace. 5 victories. Source: Hannu Valtonen, "Me 109 ja Saksan sotatalous" (Messerschmitt Bf 109 and the German war economy), ISBN 951-95688-7-5.Source: Hannu Valtonen, "Messerschmitt Bf 109 and the German war economy"

Me 109 G:
There wasn't any special problems with landing.
- Reino Suhonen, Finnish fighter pilot. Source: Hannu Valtonen, "Me 109 ja Saksan sotatalous" (Messerschmitt Bf 109 and the German war economy), ISBN 951-95688-7-5.

Me 109 G:
Landing: approach field with about 250 km/h speed. When turning to landing direction slow down to 200-210 and always try to land as close to the beginning of runway as possible, so you won't have problems in small fields. Gear is out, flaps out, radiator open - those operations were done at 220-240 km/h speed. Bring plane to landing direction's center and sit down on three points at 180 km/h.
- Pekka Tanner, Finnish fighter pilot. Source: Hannu Valtonen, "Me 109 ja Saksan sotatalous" (Messerschmitt Bf 109 and the German war economy), ISBN 951-95688-7-5.


109 undercarriage
"The 109 had a big drawback, which I didn't like from the start. It was that rackety - I always said rackety - undercarriage; that negative, against-the-rules-of-statics undercarriage that allowed the machine to swing away."
- Generalleutnant Werner Funck, Inspector of Fighters, 1939.
ME 109 E/F/G:
"The 109 had not for us, maybe not for the long time pilots of the 109, but the new comers had problems starting with the gear. You know it was a high, narrow gear. And we had many ground loops. And then the gear breaks. That is not a norm, this is a exception, but it anyway happens. "
- Major Gunther Rall. German fighter ace, NATO general, Commander of the German Air Force. 275 victories. Source: Lecture by general Rall.

Me 109 G-6:
The locking mechanism of the landing gear was unreliable. The gear locking mechanism's indicator was mechanical, so it was best to kick the plane sideways to both directions before landing to be sure that the gear was surely locked.
- Martti Uottinen, Finnish war bomber pilot, post war fighter pilot. Source: Hannu Valtonen, "Me 109 ja Saksan sotatalous" (Messerschmitt Bf 109 and the German war economy), ISBN 951-95688-7-5.

from http://www.virtualpilots.fi/feature/articles/109myths/

Fork-N-spoon
05-17-2006, 01:18 AM
I'm quite sure that I could find many sources that say that the P-40 was easy to land. Despite this most pilots agree that it was much more difficult to fly at low speeds than the other USAAC aircraft were.

ImpStarDuece
05-17-2006, 01:32 AM
Stall speeds for Spitfire V and Seafire II/III, from the manual:

Flaps and undercarriage up: 73 mph IAS
Flaps and undercarriage down: 63 IAS

at 6,400 lbs


Stall speed for the F6F-5, as given by the USN "Performance Comparison of Current US Fighter Airplanes"

76 mph

at 3/4 ammunition and 3/4 fuel.

Enjoy your discussion. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

luftluuver
05-17-2006, 02:13 AM
LOL, Kurfurst is going to mess his pants, me defending his uber 109. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

F&S, every pilot said the 109 was docile on the landing approach, even at speeds of 200kph(120mph), UNTIL the wheels touched the ground.

GR142-Pipper
05-17-2006, 03:04 AM
Originally posted by horseback:
One of the all-time great fighters of WWII is thoroughly mis-represented in this sim. It's a huge injustice, and totally <STRIKE>inexplicable</STRIKE> inexcusable.

I re-try it after every patch, and after every patch, it's still screwed up, so rather than getting my guts tied up in a knot, I go back to the European theaters and try to forget about it. It's a damn shame... Completely agree. It's very typical of U.S. fighters from mid-war onward. The F6F is but one of several...all of which were legendary in real life.

The rule of thumb for U.S. fighters in this game seems to be: 1) if the Russians liked it in WWII, it flys well in this game (to wit: P-39 and P-40), 2) if the Russians didn't like it, it doesn't fly well in this game (to wit: P-47), 3) if the Russians couldn't make anything as good, it doesn't fly well in this game (to wit: P-51).

GR142-Pipper

GR142-Pipper
05-17-2006, 03:07 AM
Originally posted by ICDP:
I find it almost perfect according to what I have read about it. It is about 10mph too slow at altitude (within standard deviation) and perfect at SL. Against the Japanese AC it is superior to the A6M, Ki61 and Ki43 in all but low speed turnrate and low speed climb. It can outrun them at all alts and outclimb them at medium to high altitudes.

All in all it is performing very close to its historical levels. The problem with the F6F (like virtually all U.S. mid/late war fighters) is that it accelerates like a complete pig. It doesn't matter much in an engagement what the top end speed is. It's much more important to be able to retain and reacquire energy quickly. The R-2800 equipped aircraft did this well in real life...not so in this game.

GR142-Pipper

joeap
05-17-2006, 03:45 AM
Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by horseback:
One of the all-time great fighters of WWII is thoroughly mis-represented in this sim. It's a huge injustice, and totally <STRIKE>inexplicable</STRIKE> inexcusable.

I re-try it after every patch, and after every patch, it's still screwed up, so rather than getting my guts tied up in a knot, I go back to the European theaters and try to forget about it. It's a damn shame... Completely agree. It's very typical of U.S. fighters from mid-war onward. The F6F is but one of several...all of which were legendary in real life.

The rule of thumb for U.S. fighters in this game seems to be: 1) if the Russians liked it in WWII, it flys well in this game (to wit: P-39 and P-40), 2) if the Russians didn't like it, it doesn't fly well in this game (to wit: P-47), 3) if the Russians couldn't make anything as good, it doesn't fly well in this game (to wit: P-51).

GR142-Pipper </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif Damn Chekists.

Xiolablu3
05-17-2006, 04:09 AM
I like the F6F in the game, and the F4F.

It fights Zeros very well.

WOLFMondo
05-17-2006, 04:12 AM
The test between the Seafire and F6F I think should be taken lightly. Not that its inaccurate but the Seafire III was nothing really more than a 1941 Spitfire VB that was heavier than its RAF counterpart. Its not even a deliberatly designed carrier fighter but one shoe horned into the role. In this sim I'd take an F6F over a Seafire any day.

Xiolablu3
05-17-2006, 06:18 AM
Yeah, the Spit/Seafire didnt make a very good carrier plane.

JG53Frankyboy
05-17-2006, 06:28 AM
Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
The test between the Seafire and F6F I think should be taken lightly. Not that its inaccurate but the Seafire III was nothing really more than a 1941 Spitfire VB that was heavier than its RAF counterpart. Its not even a deliberatly designed carrier fighter but one shoe horned into the role. In this sim I'd take an F6F over a Seafire any day.

for low level operation , lets say till 3000m, i would take a Seafire L.III over a F6F every day.......... in the game !

Fork-N-spoon
05-17-2006, 11:50 AM
Originally posted by JG53Frankyboy:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
The test between the Seafire and F6F I think should be taken lightly. Not that its inaccurate but the Seafire III was nothing really more than a 1941 Spitfire VB that was heavier than its RAF counterpart. Its not even a deliberatly designed carrier fighter but one shoe horned into the role. In this sim I'd take an F6F over a Seafire any day.

for low level operation , lets say till 3000m, i would take a Seafire L.III over a F6F every day.......... in the game ! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

If =AFJ=Mantis and =AFJ=Viper were to hear that satement, they would burn their Morrissey records!

faustnik
05-17-2006, 12:30 PM
Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:The problem with the F6F (like virtually all U.S. mid/late war fighters) is that it accelerates like a complete pig. It doesn't matter much in an engagement what the top end speed is. It's much more important to be able to retain and reacquire energy quickly. The R-2800 equipped aircraft did this well in real life...not so in this game.


Here are actual numbers from in-sim tests.

http://mitglied.lycos.de/jaytdee/t404/404testing.html

Acceleration is much more of a "heavy vs. light" a/c deal in PF, than a one "country is singled out" thing.

faustnik
05-17-2006, 12:33 PM
Originally posted by luftluuver:
LOL, Kurfurst is going to mess his pants, me defending his uber 109. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

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

Xiolablu3
05-17-2006, 12:35 PM
Double POst , sorry.

Xiolablu3
05-17-2006, 12:36 PM
If that chart is correct, the acceleration is actually pretty good, 15 secs from 0-200.

Bf109G2 which is fastest is 11.9 secs from 0-200.

F6F is better than average.

109,Spit and Fw190D look best on average, from very low speed to 200.

faustnik
05-17-2006, 12:41 PM
Yeah, looks like it. The R-2800 planes are actually better at low speed than the BMW801D planes.

I can't tell from his post if JtD made that chart or not. Sure is some nice work though.

Fork-N-spoon
05-18-2006, 02:14 AM
Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
The test between the Seafire and F6F I think should be taken lightly. Not that its inaccurate but the Seafire III was nothing really more than a 1941 Spitfire VB that was heavier than its RAF counterpart. Its not even a deliberatly designed carrier fighter but one shoe horned into the role. In this sim I'd take an F6F over a Seafire any day.

The difference between the Seafire and Spitfire isn't night and day. ImpStarDuece provided stall speeds for the Spitfire MkV that are very similar to the ones that I provided from the Patuxent test. Considering that the F6F has similar one G stall speeds and slightly more favorable 3 G stall speeds, this would lead me to believe that the F6F should have similar turn performance at speeds below 200 mph. In the "wave off" category the F6F received more votes for "good" than did the Seafire. The favorable "wave off" votes give insight to the fact that the Hellcat was easy to fly even under conditions of slow speed and suddently applying full throttle. Our in game F6F resembles this but little.

My point in bringing this data to light is that in our current game the F6F has no chance of sustaining a tight turn on the deck with a Spitfire at speeds below 250 kph indicated. If you try and follow a Spitfire with an F6F into a tight turn, the F6F flicks out of the turn and enteres a very weird spin while the Spitfire is easily under control. This isn't consistent with what the real F6F was like according to many aircraft tests, pilot accounts, test pilot accounts, books written about the F6F, and many other sources.

The reason why I use the Spitfire for comparisons is because it is a pretty good benchmark. While there are many aircraft that can exceed either the Spitfires rate of roll, turn performance, climb, or top speed there are only a few that can match it under all these conditions. This paragraph is speaking of real aircraft and not our current game.

GR142-Pipper
05-18-2006, 02:55 AM
Originally posted by faustnik:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:The problem with the F6F (like virtually all U.S. mid/late war fighters) is that it accelerates like a complete pig. It doesn't matter much in an engagement what the top end speed is. It's much more important to be able to retain and reacquire energy quickly. The R-2800 equipped aircraft did this well in real life...not so in this game.


Here are actual numbers from in-sim tests.

http://mitglied.lycos.de/jaytdee/t404/404testing.html

Acceleration is much more of a "heavy vs. light" a/c deal in PF, than a one "country is singled out" thing. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>I would buy into that a bit more except Maddox and Company have done precious little (IMHO) to rectify the obvious performance inadequacies of the U.S. mid/late war fighters. How else do you explain it? Flight model inadequacies? Nah, not buying that for one minute. It's poor programming with an extra helping of complete indifference. Go figure.

...just my take.

GR142-Pipper

HellToupee
05-18-2006, 03:38 AM
Originally posted by Fork-N-spoon:
The difference between the Seafire and Spitfire isn't night and day.

but it is quite a difference, the additional heavy carrier equipment shifted the center of gravity aft that made low speed control worse than that of the spitfire.

Treetop64
05-18-2006, 04:10 AM
Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by faustnik:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:The problem with the F6F (like virtually all U.S. mid/late war fighters) is that it accelerates like a complete pig. It doesn't matter much in an engagement what the top end speed is. It's much more important to be able to retain and reacquire energy quickly. The R-2800 equipped aircraft did this well in real life...not so in this game.


Here are actual numbers from in-sim tests.

http://mitglied.lycos.de/jaytdee/t404/404testing.html

Acceleration is much more of a "heavy vs. light" a/c deal in PF, than a one "country is singled out" thing. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>I would buy into that a bit more except Maddox and Company have done precious little (IMHO) to rectify the obvious performance inadequacies of the U.S. mid/late war fighters. How else do you explain it? Flight model inadequacies? Nah, not buying that for one minute. It's poor programming with an extra helping of complete indifference. Go figure.

...just my take.

GR142-Pipper </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It might be more than mere coincidence that the Yankee fighters accuired by the Soviets during the war fly well in the game, but most of the ones they did not recieve during the war fly poorly in the game.

A lot of the reasons why some American models were exported was because they did not quite meet the expectations of American requirements, but still found enough international customers to make continuing production financially viable. Do you think that if the American planes represented in this sim flew similarly to their real-life counterparts during the war, that they would have kept the Hellcats, Mustangs, and possibly the Lightnings serving in U.S. fighter wings? Probably not.

JtD
05-19-2006, 12:32 PM
Originally posted by horseback:
You can look it up. US Naval Aviators were generally acknowleged as among the best-trained military pilots in the world at the time America entered the war. Certainly, they were vastly better off than pre-war trained US Army pilots. They probably weren't the world's best at the end of 1941, but they could make a very good case for themselves at the end of 1942, when one makes allowances for the quality of the opposition and differences in equipment.

This seems to be another of our differences. Where I live, average means average, not picking an elite group.

JtD
05-19-2006, 12:38 PM
I don't get what the problem is. Many of the US fighters are excellent, the F6F especially is a joy to fly. It's a bit slow vs. the German planes, but it eats Zeros alive.


If flown in the right environment, the US types can take on almost any contemporary opponent in a 1vs1. My only complaint would be they lack the firepower of the 190. Apart from that, good aircraft with strenght's and weaknesses like all other planes in the sim.

Top_Gun_1_0_1
05-19-2006, 12:48 PM
this plane is one of the "toughest" fighter around
Tough armor is what the heckcat is all about!