PDA

View Full Version : My opinon of the post patch corsair



Biloxi72
11-19-2004, 06:14 AM
S!
I love the corsair now more then before, it feels like the ensign eliminator now on carrier landings. Glad i fly USMC and i am land based hehe. It stalls now more quickly if i try and turn to much either way for too long, and now i have to be a bit more gentle on the stick. I can still turn pretty good as long as the speed stays up. I have not noticed to much else in it being different and that is good.

From the other posts I have gathered most other corsair pilots they all love the change. Maybe now all the corsair whiners will finally be quiet, like a certain boxer. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif I bet the worst feeling for these whiners is that we corsair pilots are HAPPY with the change.

XyZspineZyX
11-19-2004, 06:22 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
Hello,

i also did try the Corsair first and it feels very different. Stall and spins now. And it seems to have a little more speed.

Thanks for the patch.

Sensei

Hunde_3.JG51
11-19-2004, 08:25 AM
Agreed, I like the changes as it makes it feel more like a real aircraft. Now I can fly it without feeling guilty. Its good to see so many Corsair fans happy about the changes even though it presents more of a challenge.

DRB_Hookech0
11-19-2004, 08:33 AM
I love the way you are now sweating a little in the groove on carrier landings...big power changes will torque roll you over if your not carefull. Makes "bolters" a bit more interesting

This "Hog" driver gives the patch his stamp of approval....which wont even buy you a cup of coffee http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Fliger747
11-19-2004, 08:48 AM
I for one think (as a real pilot) that they missed the mark on this one. Go see my dissertation (rant) over in the Hellcat/ Corsair etc. post patch thread.

In effect it appears that they misunderstand what 'torque effects' really are and have substituted a lateral instability which the F4U did not have! "torque" effects, misnamed, manifest themselves primaraly in aircraft YAW, and roll only to the extent that the yaw is not countered by rudder. Torque roll occurs when rudder authority runs out at low speed.

This is not modeled well. At low speed the real F4U, or any high performance plane of the era was primaraly a rudder airplane at low speed. Having a lot of low and slow time in taildraggers I have a pretty good idea of what the interelation between power, roll and yaw should be, and it's further off the mark in an unrelated direction than it was.

This may be of little importance to many who are here.

Biloxi72
11-19-2004, 08:53 AM
Thanks flieger i did read your other post. Maybe the torque is overdone when coming in slow, but what do you think of the tendency to stall during combat manouvers? When you do more tests please post the results for us.

Also the big question i have not seen anyone bring up yet about the 'sair is its rate of climb? Are people still considering this plane a UFO?

Corsair9
11-19-2004, 11:08 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Fliger747:
I for one think (as a real pilot) that they missed the mark on this one. Go see my dissertation (rant) over in the Hellcat/ Corsair etc. post patch thread.

In effect it appears that they misunderstand what 'torque effects' really are and have substituted a lateral instability which the F4U did not have! "torque" effects, misnamed, manifest themselves primaraly in aircraft YAW, and roll only to the extent that the yaw is not countered by rudder. Torque roll occurs when rudder authority runs out at low speed.

This is not modeled well. At low speed the real F4U, or any high performance plane of the era was primaraly a rudder airplane at low speed. Having a lot of low and slow time in taildraggers I have a pretty good idea of what the interelation between power, roll and yaw should be, and it's further off the mark in an unrelated direction than it was.

This may be of little importance to many who are here. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I also am a pilot in real life and absolutely concur with Fliger's analysis. Currently, I fly a WWII-era Steerman bi-plane and, although it's nothing like an F4U, it does have very noticeable torque and P-Factor effects at slow speed.

I've always found IL-2 flight models to be a little goofy and probably too restrictive in the G verses Stall regime. But, since I have found no way to display the game's calculated G loading, it's impossible for me to pass judgment.

TheGozr
11-19-2004, 11:26 AM
Flying yak9-U-M i agree with you both above.

Corsair9 and Fliger747
Thank you to bring up the G's as well http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

faustnik
11-19-2004, 11:36 AM
The F4U is more "190 like" now. I'm not sure about realism as I don't have Flieger's experience but, I like it. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

johann63
11-19-2004, 11:40 AM
well I actually flat stalled a corsair last night which resulted in my destruction but if I think about the position of the plane and airspeed at the time it probably should have flat stalled. Yeah to me is seems more realistic as far as flight dynamics but not being a real pilot what do I know.

Another thing I notice that seemed more pronounced that I really liked is when recieving damage from enemy fire your plane can temporarily be hard to handle until you adjust for the new damage. At one time I recieved a really hard hit on my right wing which flipped me over. At first I thought I lost a wing then I released it was just damage and with some speed and stick control I regained plane control, Pretty cool effect.

Saburo_0
11-19-2004, 11:52 AM
Fliger747 ,
You should write Oleg & co. At the least maybe you can have some influence on the BoB title that's being designed from the ground up.

MiszaNC
11-19-2004, 11:56 AM
I have a feeling that F4U and F6F "jump" much less when landing on carriers. I am not sure about it however i used to do nice "kangooroo" after touch down the deck. Now have final with some 5-10 mph faster due to bed stall characteristic, especially of F4U. The plane has now more of "ground effect" with full flaps and do not know if that is correct. SBD is much easier for me to handle, it tuches down nicer and less "jumpy" and can take off with heavies bomb and full fuel.
Val is now like a dream when landing, stop easy with no catching a wire.
F6F has 3 flaps down position which seams to bo uncorrect, as far as I know and what has been discused on the forum already.
Anyway I love the patch and the new exe! Thanks Oleg!

ZG77_Nagual
11-19-2004, 12:01 PM
Hmmm. Well Ineed to get on tonight and do some landings. In terms of dogfighting I did my usual 1 vs 8 routine and the Corsair seem easier to win it - turn seems the same but energy seems better. I could now pretty much blow off the j2m aces whereas before they were allways right there in the climb. I'd say she's definitely a better dogfighter.

Fliger747
11-19-2004, 04:59 PM
I do think they are making progress, and do deserve credit for caring enough to keep developing a product that is 'out the door'.

My beef with the slow speed model of the F4U is a small one. Doing some more flying with it I do think they have added a little of the proper lateral trim shift with power changes. A bit more might be better (more realistic). But it is an article of faith that a taildragger needs very active rudder application with power changes. Looking at photos of the F4U staggering off of a CVE deck, the application of FULL right rudder was quite noticable! That aspect of the FM is presently very benign.

Something still seems a bit squirly in the lateral stability. I haven't quite quantified it's charcteristics at present, It may be that tweaking the adjustment of the joystick response curves in "hardware", one can fix this. Proper trim seems to be critical for the handling of these flight models. The 'feel' of the trim is hard to find, perhaps a more visible trim scale on the cockpit trim wheels would help us find our way to proper trim settings.

The Stearman is a neat plane, my dad learned to fly in one of those many years ago. My taildragger addiction is currently satisfied in a supercub (on skis).

MiszaNC
11-19-2004, 07:49 PM
Fliger747 I like your notes, even in "nice handle" Ce150 at a very low speed rudder is only effective control and addig power too fast makes this little plane much less stable. In F4U with its huge propeler and powerfull engine that has to be much, much bigger problem. So I agree the plane is almost "hands off" on take off.
Anyway I stay in a pattern over carriers in F4U and have to say this plane bounce too much and too easy! F6F as well. When you watching landing F6F and F4U on WW2 movies after power cut off they just fell down onto the deck! From even some 2-3 meters, keeping tail low above the deck. In PF after rather nice touch down tail jump well above the deck and all aircraft going up like it would weight nothing! AS far as I know the gear of carriers based planes were specialy made for protect (or eliminate as much as possible) "jumping" after touch down and keep airplane on the deck. After the patch this behaviour is a bit better but still far from what I can see on oryginal footage from WW2. One more thing many times on the touch down tailhook was sliding on the deck and just passed 2 sometimes 4 wires(making nice spark effect on its way) before catching one!Then again after catching one tail rather unrealistic is rising up too much, pushinh the nose down. Anyway I like USN planes much more after the patch.

IV_JG51_Prien
11-19-2004, 07:56 PM
I like it now too.. It felt too much like a UFO before the patch.

p1ngu666
11-19-2004, 08:04 PM
hm didnt early corsair have no shock absorbers or something? it bounced alot.

yeah, at low speed torque is corrected with rudder, isnt it dangous on some aircraft to correct with aliron?

also, torque on some aircraft is partly faked, for example zero..

rudder seems tobe pointing right default to produce some torque.
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif
also, any idea to counteract the crabbing on the twins like beu/b25?

p1ngu666
11-19-2004, 08:04 PM
ps nice to see corsairs stallin when ur in your zero http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Saburo_0
11-19-2004, 08:29 PM
I think (& i may be wrong or even very wrong)
that the amount of rudder input needed has been kept down because of the difficulty this cause people who don't have rudder pedals but have to use a twist stick or keyboard.

Trim I agree, it's almost impossible to feel the difference it makes & very hard to trim the planes properly. Some kind of indicator might be nice but sounds unlikely to be implemented.

Voidable
11-19-2004, 09:02 PM
i like most of it but I think thay over did it on the stalling i was doing cartwheels in the dadblom thing http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif trust me i know alot about her i know when she does stall that left wing drops. she wasent called the elimanator for nothing but come on http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

Hunde_3.JG51
11-19-2004, 10:01 PM
After more testing I love the handling but she does seem a bit slow down low. I could only get 565-570 on the deck, which may or may not be too slow. But at 2,000m I got the same top speed, couldn't break 570km/h with 50% fuel, 100% mix, 100% prop-pitch, radiator closed, etc. Tried different supercharger settings and prop-pitch settings but no luck. This just seems a bit slow although at 3,000 she started to come alive and hit around 597km/h. I do however get around 660-670km/h at 6,000m and 8,000m. Not much of a drop off up high.

Something to remember about F4U vs. Ki-84 is that the Corsair was downing aircraft as early as Feb. 1943, whereas the Hayate did not see real service until mid-44 or later. Its kind of like comparing Corsair to FW-190D. The F4U should be dominant in '43 and I think it is, but in mid to late '44 and in '45 the Japanese planes caught up, and in the case of the Hayate, surpassed the F4U. By the same token the Ki-100 was a '45 aircraft which gives the developers a legitimate reason to include the F4U-4 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif.

BinaryFalcon
11-19-2004, 10:12 PM
Well, I got in some more time with it tonight, and was unable to make a fully successful carrier landing this time.

I know part of it was the new FM, but I'm still not clear on how much, since I made my first post-patch landing attempt on the Coral Sea map in a thunderstorm with a huge gaping hole ripped in my left wing.

Needless to say, control was a bit squirrely anyway, and that killer left crosswind that blows you into the island isn't helping either. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

I'm hoping it'll see another FM tweak before this is all done, because something definitely feels "off" about it.

Not massively so, but it feels a little less correct now, even if we assume it's now more accurate. I'm not sure if that's going to make any sense to most people, but it's the best way I can describe it.

BlitzPig_DDT
11-19-2004, 10:25 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hunde_3.JG51:
By the same token the Ki-100 was a '45 aircraft which gives the developers a legitimate reason to include the F4U-4 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually, it's validation for including the other 2 'Cats. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

BigKahuna_GS
11-20-2004, 11:14 AM
S!

__________________________________________________ _________________________
The F4U is more "190 like" now. I'm not sure about realism as I don't have Flieger's experience but, I like it.
__________________________________________________ _________________________


That is an interesting take from the flight test between the 190 vs Hellcat and Corsair. Data that Oleg used showed the Corsair easily out-turning and out looping the 190.


This will be the first flight sim I know of to have the Corsair turn worse than the P51. The F4U with lower wingloading and a 30mph lower stall point not turn better than a P51?

With all the performance cuts of turn rate, drag and stall has turned the Corsair a very capable dogfighter into the US Navy's version of the P47. But the Corsair is worse in some regards than the P47 because it has little zoom climb and decreased energy retention now.


This is from SimHQ on ACM :

Notice the turn rate of the F4U-1C vs P51D

http://www.simhq.com/_air/air_011b.html

Let€s apply that logic to two new fighters, the Aces High F4U-1C and the F6F-5. Examination of Fig7 shows that the Hellcat is the angles fighter, while the Corsair is the energy fighter. It is also important to point out that those designations are relative, and can change depending on the opponent. For example, let€s consider what would happen if we compared the F6F with the Spitfire, or the F4U with the P-51.

http://www.simhq.com/_air/images/air_011b_1.jpg


In the case of the F4U versus the P-51, its role has changed. Examination of the overlay shown in Fig8 reveals that the F4U is now the angles fighter, but the advantage is only around 1dps, not enough to make this an easy fight by any means. However, the P-51 doesn€t have enough superiority at high speed to realize a significant energy advantage, so while the P-51 is the energy fighter in this case, the distinction is less clear. In this case, the P-51 can€t allow the fight to get slow, but will also have difficulty employing energy tactics against the F4U. It is possible in situations like this, that other factors relating to roll rate, climb rate, stall characteristics, initial energy advantage, weapons effectiveness, or perhaps some difference in pilot skill, are more likely to have a greater influence on the outcome than pure maneuverability. Many pilots would approach a fight like this as if it were a similar aircraft engagement. However, if I were flying the P-51 against the F4U, I would be nervous of the combination of higher turn rate, smaller radius, and the mighty cannons of the 1C model, and make good use of that modest extra speed.

http://www.simhq.com/_air/images/air_011b_2.jpg

____


P-51B and F4U-1 Comparison Report

Official US Navy fly off between the P51B vs F4U-1D

http://web.cetlink.net/~howardds/id103.htm

http://web.cetlink.net/~howardds/28a60700.gif



_____

Fliger747
11-20-2004, 01:26 PM
Great data, thanks! The best book I have seen to date on energy vrs angles tactics, similar vrs similar and vrs dissimilar aircraft is Shaw's "Fighter Combat". Highly recomended reading!

McCambell achieved all of his victorys flying the F6F Hellcat, in a target rich environment! A fine shot, as many of the aces were.

LeadSpitter_
11-20-2004, 02:06 PM
Now only if they would tone down the ki84 to make it somewhat realistic, its still should be top fighter to 8000m but the problem is its rudder effectiveness and doesnt make it stall like the other aircraft also its dive accelaration and high speed handling are insane.

Now only if all aircraft would stall like the corsair wildcat and p40b taking 1000m+ to recover from a spin like the good old il2 sturmovik day stalls none of this isntant snap ufo recovery bs.

ZG77_Nagual
11-20-2004, 02:12 PM
Near as I can tell the Corsair does outperform the mustang in simm. It also seems much easier to land on a carrier with the better engine/prop deceleration model. I easily pegged it the first try.
I don't fly the mustang much but the corsair appears to turn substantially better - it also holds up a little long in a very high speed - high G turn - not losing a wing as quickly as the mustang.

Fliger747
11-20-2004, 03:40 PM
Part of the reason for that is the Mustang used a laminar flow airfoil section. By moving the maximum section further aft along the chord, cruise drag was reduced. However with a sharper leading edge section, high angle of attack operation was degraded somewhat.

Another example of compromise necessary to optimize an aircraft for a needed mission profile, in this case RANGE.

The USN looked at the possibility of navalizing the P51 at one point when a requirememt existed for an aircraft of it's range. The aircraft was sucessfully landed aboard, but would have required modifications increasing the rudder effectiveness to operate in the narrow speed window that was necessary

BigKahuna_GS
11-20-2004, 05:51 PM
S!

__________________________________________________ ___________________
ZG77_Nagual posted Sat November 20 2004 13:12
Near as I can tell the Corsair does outperform the mustang in simm. It also seems much easier to land on a carrier with the better engine/prop deceleration model. I easily pegged it the first try.
I don't fly the mustang much but the corsair appears to turn substantially better - it also holds up a little long in a very high speed - high G turn - not losing a wing as quickly as the mustang.
__________________________________________________ _______________________



Salute Nagual, I am sorry to say mate the Corsair has been cut and cut rather deeply. A mild trim it wasn't.

From the top source the Corsair does not turn better than the Mustang.

Even though records and official US Navy docs show that the F4U-1 was more manueverable than the most agile Mustang the P51-B model. Quite a shame really.

Add drag & stall with little energy retention on top of all this and that is quite a reduction in overall performance.

http://web.cetlink.net/~howardds/28a60700.gif

ZG77_Nagual
11-20-2004, 06:10 PM
I'd swear its definitely better vertically. But I could be wrong. I dont see any concrete test evidence however frm the simm. Does 'top source' mean Oleg? theres nothing in this thread to support worse turning in FB and she certainly seems to turn as well at least as pre patch to me - only an impression of course

BigKahuna_GS
11-20-2004, 06:18 PM
S!

__________________________________________________ _________________
ZG77_Nagual posted Sat November 20 2004 17:10
I'd swear its definitely better vertically. But I could be wrong.
I dont see any concrete test evidence however.
__________________________________________________ __________________


Nagual, I have been in contact with the head dude about
the performance. The F4U has less performance than the P51.
Straight from the top.


____

ZG77_Nagual
11-21-2004, 08:34 AM
bummer. I"d expect the 51 to be a better e fighter - due to it's aerodynamics - but certainly not as good a turn and low speed performance.

BigKahuna_GS
11-21-2004, 09:36 PM
S!
__________________________________________________ _________________
ZG77_Nagual --posted Sun November 21 2004 07:34
bummer. I"d expect the 51 to be a better e fighter - due to it's aerodynamics - but certainly not as good a turn and low speed performance
__________________________________________________ _____________________



Rgr that. Like I said before Pacific Fighters will be the first flight sim I've seen where the P51 out-turns and out performs the Corsair below 24,000ft. The Corsairs turning ability, energy retention, stall, and even climb rate have been snipped excessively.

What is interesting to note in Americas Hundred Thousand, the Corsair was rated "best elevators" out of 14 fighter type aircraft that included the P51.

So what does lower wingloading, a 30mph lower stall point and terrific elevator response get you in PF =====lower performance======


From Americas Hundred Thousand

Modern Evaluations of the Corsair:

"On May 21st, 1943 a fighter evaluation meeting took place at Elgin AAFB in Florida. Army pilots flying the Corsair for the first time were high in their praise. Dogfights were held with the P-47, P-51, P-38 and P-39 fighters, and all resulted favorably for the Corsair." pg538

A modern evaluation of the Corsiar found it to be the "weapon of choice" over a P51D, a P-47D and an F6F-5. Pg.537

Rated "Best Elevators" out of 14 fighter types pg.532 & pg.605

Rated "Best Dive Stability and Control" pg.606

Rated 2nd out of 12 fighters for "Best Ailerons" at 350mph IAS pg.531

Rated 2nd for "Best Airlerons" at 100mph IAS pg.605.

Rated 2nd for "Best Rudder" pg.606

Rated 2nd out of 9 fighters in the catagory "Best all-around stability"
Pg.532

"Although the Corsair had slightly higher wingloading than the Hellcat at equivilent loaded weights with peak wing lift coefficient reduced by the small spoiler strip on the right wing and thus a little poorer turning radius (as compared to the Hellcat)...it had very moderate stick forces in windup turns." pg 532

"Was superior in manueverability and response to the P51B."pg.530

__


This is from SimHQ on ACM :

Notice the turn rate of the F4U-1C vs P51D

http://www.simhq.com/_air/air_011b.html

Let€s apply that logic to two new fighters, the Aces High F4U-1C and the F6F-5. Examination of Fig7 shows that the Hellcat is the angles fighter, while the Corsair is the energy fighter. It is also important to point out that those designations are relative, and can change depending on the opponent. For example, let€s consider what would happen if we compared the F6F with the Spitfire, or the F4U with the P-51.

http://www.simhq.com/_air/images/air_011b_1.jpg

In the case of the F4U versus the P-51, its role has changed. Examination of the overlay shown in Fig8 reveals that the F4U is now the angles fighter, but the advantage is only around 1dps, not enough to make this an easy fight by any means. However, the P-51 doesn€t have enough superiority at high speed to realize a significant energy advantage, so while the P-51 is the energy fighter in this case, the distinction is less clear. In this case, the P-51 can€t allow the fight to get slow, but will also have difficulty employing energy tactics against the F4U. It is possible in situations like this, that other factors relating to roll rate, climb rate, stall characteristics, initial energy advantage, weapons effectiveness, or perhaps some difference in pilot skill, are more likely to have a greater influence on the outcome than pure maneuverability. Many pilots would approach a fight like this as if it were a similar aircraft engagement. However, if I were flying the P-51 against the F4U, I would be nervous of the combination of higher turn rate, smaller radius, and the mighty cannons of the 1C model, and make good use of that modest extra speed.


http://www.simhq.com/_air/images/air_011b_2.jpg


____

LuftLuver
11-21-2004, 10:29 PM
Oleg and 1C have obviously given in and buckled under the weight of probably untold amounts of email from whiners who couldn't easily deal with the the F4U.

To get the Corsair back, it will probably take the same concerted effort that saved the P47 from being a POS cargo plane flying rubber dogsh*t out of Hong Kong.

Don't Get Elimated!

http://www.ceciliatheband.com/gallery/laura/think/images/mxc.jpg

Voidable
11-21-2004, 10:30 PM
i think thay need to look at its Survivability
i my self belive they had that part right now thay dont http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

VMF-214_HaVoK
11-21-2004, 10:56 PM
It is way to slow. I can barely get over 250mph in level flight. Zero has no problem running it down. Rather it be in a climb or a dive. How hard is it to use accurate data? Why does Oleg insist on giving in to the whiners? It seems Oleg has used so called accurate data for the JAP planes and they are now faster then ever. We should not even need to have this discussion...just use the data Oleg.

F4U-1A 417 MPH
F4U-1C 417 MPH
F4U-1D 425 MPH

It would also seem the whiners got there way with the climb rate. Nice seeing how SkyChimp proved they were testing it wrong. If tested correctly it was correct prepatch.

BigKahuna_GS
11-21-2004, 11:51 PM
S!
__________________________________________________ ________________________
VMF-214_HaVoK posted Sun November 21 2004 21:56
It is way to slow. I can barely get over 250mph in level flight. Zero has no problem running it down. Rather it be in a climb or a dive. How hard is it to use accurate data? Why does Oleg insist on giving in to the whiners? It seems Oleg has used so called accurate data for the JAP planes and they are now faster then ever. We should not even need to have this discussion...just use the data Oleg.

F4U-1A 417 MPH
F4U-1C 417 MPH
F4U-1D 425 MPH
__________________________________________________ ________________________



Hya Havock, were these top end speeds for the Corsair TAS or IAS ?

All you can do is test every parameter possible and send tracks into Oleg.
I hope Chimp sent his climb rate findings in. The Corsair was known as a good climbing aircraft and certainly a better climber than the P51 or P47.

While you are checking speeds, check the Zeros high alt speed.

A6m3, A6m5a/b/c, A6m7-62/63

All of these planes are able to either hit their top end speed or come very close to it at 8000meters. That is 2000-4000meters above where their best top end speed is. By comparison the best speed I can get out of the P38L at 10,000meters is 620kph TAS (2000m above its best speed rating) , that is 42kph less than its top end speed rating at 8000m. The P38 was turbo + supercharger equipped with intercoolers.

The in game view finder rated speed for the A6m5 is listed at 555kph @ 6000meters. The A6m5 can do 540-550kph TAS at 8000meters. I tried to hold my joystick as steady as possible but the no-cockpit view altimeter was sensitive and hard to follow.

LENGTH CONVERSION
2000 Meters equals 6561.68 Feet

______

LuftLuver
11-22-2004, 12:25 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by 609IAP_Kahuna:
S!
_

The in game view finder rated speed for the A6m5 is listed at 555kph @ 6000meters. The A6m5 can do 540-550kph TAS at 8000meters. I tried to hold my joystick as steady as possible but the no-cockpit view altimeter was sensitive and hard to follow.

LENGTH CONVERSION
2000 Meters equals 6561.68 Feet

______ <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If the aircraft model will allow it, trim it out for hands-off level flight for the most accurate speed readings. The sim does reduce speed even with the slightest inputs.

faustnik
11-22-2004, 01:06 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by 609IAP_Kahuna:
S!

__________________________________________________ _________________________
The F4U is more "190 like" now. I'm not sure about realism as I don't have Flieger's experience but, I like it.
__________________________________________________ _________________________


That is an interesting take from the flight test between the 190 vs Hellcat and Corsair. Data that Oleg used showed the Corsair easily out-turning and out looping the 190.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The F4U might be more "190 like" but, that is not saying it does not turn and loop better than the F190A5 in PF 3.01, it certainly does. Where the F4U-1D and Fw190A5 do not match the Navy's test data is speed and climb. The F4U in PF does not have the speed on the deck indicated by the Navy test. The Fw190A5 does not have the climb advantage it should by those same tests either.

The F4U also seems the caught the glass jaw virus from the P-40. One shot to the engine and it is either stopped or sputtering.

effte
11-22-2004, 02:57 PM
Torque effects are when the engine tries to spin the propeller and as a result the aircraft rolls... or would roll, if nothing was done to counter it. This can be due to the inertia of the propeller (if the RPM is changing) or the aerodynamic forces acting on the propeller blades. Either way, the torque that is put into the propeller through the propshaft is also exerted on the airframe through the engine mounts. Every action has an equal and opposite reaction.

That is the only (primary) effect of torque. A torque roll is when the torque overpowers the aerodynamical forces on the airframe and rotates the aircraft. Bad when opening up the throttle on a missed approach, rather neat if done vertically in an airshow routine.

If you are slow, chances are your control surfaces will not be able to counter the torque of the engine. This means the torque roll will be out of control until you decrease power or increase airspeed. Not my idea of a good time. But that is not all, it can get worse still. The AoA of the wing going down increases with the roll. If you are slow, you are probably close to the stall AoA. If the downgoing wing stalls, your torque roll just turned into a snap roll. That is not at all what you want when you initiate a missed approach.

In most aircraft, torque roll is not really an issue. It is only in powerful beasts where the torque to moment of inertia ratio is enough to be a factor. If you want to build such a beast, attach the largest engine you can find to the smallest airframe possible. That is how they built the Corsair.

P-factor, helical propwash, gyroscopic precession... all of these can create yaw, and all of these are at times mistakenly referred to as torque. Out in the real world, but in particular in the realm of PC flight simulation, €œtorque€ seems to be the common name erroneously attached to all prop-related effects.

The G-loading can be found through the angle of bank in a coordinated turn, through timing turns at a fixed airspeed or through various other means, UDPGraph being but one.

Gotta second that the bouncing on landing seems excessive. Perhaps they only have one bump setting for the dampers, where it should be both bump and rebound? Or, horrible thought, no damping... could explain a bit of the sometimes interesting ground handling. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Regards,
Fred

Fliger747
11-22-2004, 11:16 PM
A good dissertation on the somewhat complex set of factors which make up what in the sim world is called 'torque'.

As with most of these deals, one would have to be the 'airfile' author to know exactly what his goal was in modeling each of these areas of handling. We only have our reverse engineering to go on, and our expectations.

In dealing with reported performance data we are really at a disadvantage, given that much of the initial data of the era was recorded by a rather busy test pilot with a stopwatch and kneeboard. Significant errors even in good data can crop up due to vagaries in changing weight and CG, differences in installed equipment and on and on. Was the particular figure derived at military power, or war emergency power.

Probably the best and most reliable climb figures seem to be the time to climb numbers generated, ie. 5.7 min to 20,000 ft as an example (made up).

A dirty plane, one with a few combat patches and peeling paint an be quite a bit slower. My experience with piston planes has been that there is a lot of variation. Generally the planes 'tested' were well prepared'.

Always remember (all youse guyz know this) that the reported speed figures are in TRUE airspeed, a much higher number than what you will indicate (IAS) at high altitude.