PDA

View Full Version : F4U & 4.08



Widowmaker214
02-24-2007, 11:53 AM
While Im already saddend by whats become of the P38.. has anyone tried taking a Corsair off a carrier in 4.08m? I know alot of people just fly on hyperlobby and such.. but for those flying campaigns.. umm.. This has gotten pretty bad.
Bad weather.. heavy load.. carrier moving at 40 knots.. the corsair falls off the front of the carrier like you pushed it off.

In clear weather... with JUST a load of rockets.. the carrier moving at 40 knots..
the corsair drops within just a few feet of the water... and barely makes it.
This is an AMAZINGLY sharp contrast to previous flight models.

This is with both C and D models and was tested in the iwo jima map.


Please tell me there will be a 4.09

Widowmaker214
02-24-2007, 11:53 AM
While Im already saddend by whats become of the P38.. has anyone tried taking a Corsair off a carrier in 4.08m? I know alot of people just fly on hyperlobby and such.. but for those flying campaigns.. umm.. This has gotten pretty bad.
Bad weather.. heavy load.. carrier moving at 40 knots.. the corsair falls off the front of the carrier like you pushed it off.

In clear weather... with JUST a load of rockets.. the carrier moving at 40 knots..
the corsair drops within just a few feet of the water... and barely makes it.
This is an AMAZINGLY sharp contrast to previous flight models.

This is with both C and D models and was tested in the iwo jima map.


Please tell me there will be a 4.09

VW-IceFire
02-24-2007, 03:47 PM
Not having any serious problems.

I built a mission for the Kyushu map just with a little fun ground attack sortie. I'll probably release it as a single mission sometime.

Anyways I put the weather on Blind and the ship is the USS Essex moving at 55 kph (which I think its 30 kts or just about full speed). I couldn't get off with 100% fuel and some of the bigger loads but a perfectly normal carrier borne load of 2x500lb bombs and 8 HVAR rockets (again with 100% fuel) was not a problem. Yes there was a drop but gear up, flaps stay down, engine at full power and away we go.

Some of the biggest loads were never meant for carrier use so you have to keep that sort of thing in mind. The heaviest of configurations was either meant to be used with a catapult launch (we don't have that) or used by Marine Corsairs from much longer airstrips.

I didn't try this in the more rough seas but in calm weather I could also do 2x1000lb and 3x500lb with HVAR's as well.

Keep in mind that my usual carrier takeoff routine with heavy loads is:

1) Start engine
2) Lock tailwheel and set flaps to combat
3) Throttle to 110% and wait for the revs to stabilize
4) Put fuel mix at 120% for maximum power
5) Stick full back, counter rudder
6) Release chocks
7) Flaps down to takeoff
8) Once off the deck gear is up, flaps back to combat, and throttle down to 100% after initial climb is achieved

What sort of loads are you trying to take off with?

tigertalon
02-24-2007, 07:31 PM
I think widowmaker is on to something. I flew corsair (F4U-1C) from the carrier online tonight for the first time in 4.08 and it was amazingly hard for me to take off with it, even on 75% fuel and only default loadout. It's definitely changed (harder) from 4.07. Took me 3 tries to actually get airborne... and I thought it's only me.

VW-IceFire
02-24-2007, 08:03 PM
I did that too...earlier...before reading this thread. No problem. Although the guy ahead of me couldn't get it off...but lots of dogfight server pilots are like that http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Mind you...that was probably 25% fuel. Hrrmmmm...must try!

stansdds
02-25-2007, 08:57 AM
Corsair is porked again? Why does this not surprise me? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/shady.gif

VW-IceFire
02-25-2007, 09:30 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stansdds:
Corsair is porked again? Why does this not surprise me? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/shady.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Test it for yourself. Its performing just fine from my perspective. Still testing the take off performance but other than that...its still what you'd expect. Its far more stable and capable than before.

Phil_K
02-25-2007, 10:55 AM
F4U (& TBF) flight model is bugged.

Check this thread:

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/63110913/m/6191055925

VW-IceFire
02-25-2007, 01:18 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Phil_K:
F4U (& TBF) flight model is bugged.

Check this thread:

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/63110913/m/6191055925 </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Thats for the AI...they do seem to have trouble compensating for the swing more than usual.

Widowmaker214
02-26-2007, 01:46 AM
Icefire.. your checklist.. is exactly my take off routine. ALthough, I do not start with my flaps down. Thats to much extra drag when getting the bird rolling. I wait until my tail starts to come up before lowering flaps. It helps.
And my bomb/rocket load is HVARS and two 1000 lbers. No Dice. And that was in clam weather and the carrier at 40km/h.
(Paul has that hard coded in DCG because it used to work fine at that speed.. he's working on upping it to maximum now)
The corsair USED to be able to take off under those conditions.. Easily.
Oh and yes.. 100% fuel. We are not much of a hyperlobby group.


I think its more with the flight model changes. ALthough I have tested it in 4.071 and its still much more difficult to get off from a carrier. ( I got much closer to saving it in 4.071 with rockets and 2 bombs then I did in 4.08 but still never could survive a take off)
Forget about it in the Essex class....
the Saratoga and Lexington are longer so you have a better chance.. I can take off with rockets.. but its not so lovely.
Forget it with rockets and anything extra.
Now I do know they were not running extra heavy loads from the carriers.. but you figure you could take off with more than just rockets on board.
The Corsair also seems quite piggish. Its much much more different in a turn. And very slow to accelerate.
I dont know what it is but these latest changes are rather blah...
Ive flown a great many of the aircraft through .071 and .08 and the corsair and P38 seem the worst for wear. (I fly 99% of the time in online coop campaigns.. not hyperlobby) Those two were my more favorite aircraft and they have been castrated.

I guess I'll have to put test runways out in the water for my birds to take off from for the campaigns lol


And Icefire.. you said its much more stable and capable?
Are you sure we are talking about the Corsair?
The guys I fly with that love that aircraft have found it doesn't want to turn hardly at all anymore.
now I know its not a turn fighter, not even remotely close..... but any kind of turn with it she quickly wants to roll out right into a stall. Its alot more pronounced.
And with it being slow in the game.. its ..well.
Its more like flying a brick with a "shoot me" sign on it.
Just IMHO.
I need to do some more flying with it in 4.071 to see if that was indicitive of a change... I was flying alot in the P38 between 4.071 and 4.08


I think I might go test the SBD.. I havnt tried to take one of them off since before 1946.

PikeBishop
02-26-2007, 05:33 AM
Dear All,
Well, my personal experience with the F4u is its good enough to take on 3 Zero A6M5's at low level after being surprised by them and survive........a not-so-easy task. You can also easily take off from carriers with moderate loads, but not the heaviest loads.
regards,
SLP

WWSensei
02-26-2007, 06:22 AM
There is definitely a problem with the F4U and 4.0.7/8. I was in the middle of a Marinas 44 campaign under 4.0.5 with AI flying Corsairs off both the Yorktown and an escort carrier. Carriers are moving at 50kph. Under 4.0.5 they take off no problem. Since 4.0.7 if they carry ANY ordinance they splash in. Even stripped clean the first aircraft will always crash.

If there is ANY weather, watching the track they start to roll and about 10 feet down the deck they see to veer right suddenly and the fuselage collides with the conning tower.

Hellcats and Wildcats and SBDs taking off from the same carrier seem to do fine. TBFs also sem to suffer this "lerch" to the right and will also crash though not quite as often as the Corsairs.

sledgehammer2
02-26-2007, 05:59 PM
I used to practice carrier take offs alot. I agree that it's worse. In the F4U-1D single mission where you take off I can't even make it off with a full load of fuel. I understand heavy loads on a CVE, but I used to be able to get up with a full damn fuel tank. Oh well, I don't look for it to ever be fixed. I guess we're lucky we don't have the wobbles back.

VW-IceFire
02-26-2007, 06:11 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Widowmaker214:
Icefire.. your checklist.. is exactly my take off routine. ALthough, I do not start with my flaps down. Thats to much extra drag when getting the bird rolling. I wait until my tail starts to come up before lowering flaps. It helps.
And my bomb/rocket load is HVARS and two 1000 lbers. No Dice. And that was in clam weather and the carrier at 40km/h.
(Paul has that hard coded in DCG because it used to work fine at that speed.. he's working on upping it to maximum now)
The corsair USED to be able to take off under those conditions.. Easily.
Oh and yes.. 100% fuel. We are not much of a hyperlobby group.


I think its more with the flight model changes. ALthough I have tested it in 4.071 and its still much more difficult to get off from a carrier. ( I got much closer to saving it in 4.071 with rockets and 2 bombs then I did in 4.08 but still never could survive a take off)
Forget about it in the Essex class....
the Saratoga and Lexington are longer so you have a better chance.. I can take off with rockets.. but its not so lovely.
Forget it with rockets and anything extra.
Now I do know they were not running extra heavy loads from the carriers.. but you figure you could take off with more than just rockets on board.
The Corsair also seems quite piggish. Its much much more different in a turn. And very slow to accelerate.
I dont know what it is but these latest changes are rather blah...
Ive flown a great many of the aircraft through .071 and .08 and the corsair and P38 seem the worst for wear. (I fly 99% of the time in online coop campaigns.. not hyperlobby) Those two were my more favorite aircraft and they have been castrated.

I guess I'll have to put test runways out in the water for my birds to take off from for the campaigns lol


And Icefire.. you said its much more stable and capable?
Are you sure we are talking about the Corsair?
The guys I fly with that love that aircraft have found it doesn't want to turn hardly at all anymore.
now I know its not a turn fighter, not even remotely close..... but any kind of turn with it she quickly wants to roll out right into a stall. Its alot more pronounced.
And with it being slow in the game.. its ..well.
Its more like flying a brick with a "shoot me" sign on it.
Just IMHO.
I need to do some more flying with it in 4.071 to see if that was indicitive of a change... I was flying alot in the P38 between 4.071 and 4.08


I think I might go test the SBD.. I havnt tried to take one of them off since before 1946. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Interesting. I will test using your setup and see what I can get out of the plane. See what happens. It could be that overall FM changes have hurt the acceleration performance of the Corsair (its a domino effect when dealing with flight models).

Regarding the Corsairs other characteristics. Turn seems to be quite similar to the Tempest to me...at least on lesser amounts of fuel. Not quite as good but similar overall. The pronounced stall behavior is a good thing I think...although I'm not sure what they are seeing so I'd have to see tracks to say for sure...but the Corsair was known to be quite nasty stall wise in most of the literature I've read.

Not heard anyone call it slow. Last time I checked it reached its top speeds as advertised. I haven't tested or seen a speed chart for 4.08 so something could be wrong there. Quite honestly my usual method for test flying something is to take it out into a battle and see how she's performing against the opposition. Its highly subjective of course so if we want to really talk about numbers we'll all have to go out and get the information...but my feeling is that the plane is mostly the same, less slip and slide when rolling which is exactly what I wanted to see, and in my fights with Ki-84s, N1K-2Js, and the usual assortment of Zero's in a online environment the Corsair faired extremely well. I was shot down on two of four sorties but thats because the one time I rammed the target plane doing in excess of 650kph and he was moving slower than I thought (perfect shot tho and I showed him with bullets before the collision) and the other time I was flying fighter bomber into flak and fighters...so it was just bad! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

On my top 5 of WWII fighters, Corsair is somewhere in that list near the Tempest, FW190, and Spitfire. My diecast model of a VF-84 Bunker Hill Okinawa campaign Corsair sits on my desk next to me as I type this so I count myself as a fan too http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I do remember one of the 3.X patches introduced a change in the FM that made all USN carrier planes difficult to get off the deck. Then it was fixed. This might need to be done again if there is a widespread issue.

WB_Outlaw
02-26-2007, 06:32 PM
I did a test with the Lexington and the Saratoga with full fuel, HVARs, and 2 1000 pounders (they might have been 500 pounders now that I think about it). The carriers were moving at 40kph.

It is definitely harder to get off, but not impossible. The trick is locking the tailwheel, plenty of right rudder trim (I use 1/4 turn on my custom rig), just a touch of nose up trim, and dropping the flaps to landing about 3/4 of the way down the deck.

Don't try to hold it up too hard or you will stall. Let it settle as much as it needs to get some speed. It's a very fine line but it only took me two crashes from the Saratoga and none from the Lexington before I got it down pat.

I'll double check on the bomb load.

--Outlaw.

Widowmaker214
02-26-2007, 07:22 PM
Hey outlaw
thats pretty much how I'm doing it.
Locked tailwheel and I drop flaps once my tail comes up.
Right rudder till the tail comes up and then adjust as appropriate to keep her straight.
Then pull up the gear as soon as she leaves the deck.
just the tiniest of back pressure to keep her from nosing and I wait till she starts to rise before even thinking about bringing in flaps.

Of course now..I hit the water before she begins to rise lol.
But Im taking off the same way I always have and just like you described.

full fuel, hvars and 2000 lbrs with the carriers at 40km/h and I hit the water each time

You used to be able to do this with the canopy open too.. you can forget about that now.

Ive gotten closer to doing it with the lex and sara because of the longer deck but..

Its still my opinion that something is fubared.

VW-IceFire
02-26-2007, 08:11 PM
Question: What should be the maximum load of a Corsair off a carrier deck unassisted (without catapult). I realize this won't be simple because there's ship speed and deck winds to take into account. But the real version...how much should it be able to get off? Any documents?

WB_Outlaw
02-26-2007, 09:41 PM
I double checked and my loadout is with 2 1000 pounders. I don't have any issues with having the canopy open. Note that you are right on the edge of a stall and you have to be VERY light on the ailerons to keep from losing it. I have the aileron sensitivity set pretty low which may make all the difference. Also, my X-52 is 11 bit so I have pretty fine control. If you're using an 8-bit stick it might not be possible.

Below are some tracks, one from the Lex. and one from the Saratoga. Note that they are .trk files and they don't always perform the same when played back on another PC. Let me know if it crashes and I'll make 'em into .ntrks.


Carrier Ops. (http://www.whtboys.org/CarrierOps/CarrierOps.zip)

--Outlaw.

Antoninus
02-27-2007, 05:10 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
But the real version...how much should it be able to get off? Any documents? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

These numbers are from the F4U-1D standard aircraft characteristics
Parenthesized take off figures are calculated using the 2800 rpm Emergency Take off Rating

Take off distance at sea level:
<pre class="ip-ubbcode-code-pre">
speed of wind 2 X 1000 ibs bombs 8 x HVAR
head on 1 150 gal droptank

calm 1056 (995) ft 1120 (1060) ft
15 kn 701 (660) 747 (708)
25 kn 501 (472) 538 (509)
</pre>


and for F4u-4 with 8 HVAR and 2 tiny tim, a loadout that is perhaps most similar regarding it's weight and drag to the 2 x 1000 ibs bombs and 8 HVAR people try here:

<pre class="ip-ubbcode-code-pre">
speed of wind 2 X 11.75" AR (2 X 1280lbs)
head on 8 5" HVAR

calm 1349 ft
25 kn 708
</pre>

data can be found here:
http://www.geocities.com/slakergmb/id3.htm

WWSensei
02-27-2007, 08:16 AM
Just want to clarify. I can get the Corsair up. It's the AI that can't. For offline campaigns this is a killer for the Pacific. I've had entire squadrons of Corsairs be killed off--and it hurts because they are generally assigned escort duty for my SBDs...

It's definitely something in 4.0.7 because the exact same mission in 4.0.5 works fine but in 4.0.8 or 7 they do that stupid lurch to the right and smack into the conning tower.

arrow80
02-27-2007, 10:02 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWSensei:
Just want to clarify. I can get the Corsair up. It's the AI that can't. For offline campaigns this is a killer for the Pacific. I've had entire squadrons of Corsairs be killed off--and it hurts because they are generally assigned escort duty for my SBDs...

It's definitely something in 4.0.7 because the exact same mission in 4.0.5 works fine but in 4.0.8 or 7 they do that stupid lurch to the right and smack into the conning tower. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yes it's a killer for pacific, but it's been already reported by crazyivan as far as I know and been told by him. It should be addressed in next patch. Look here:
http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/63110913/m/6191055925/p/2

Widowmaker214
02-27-2007, 11:14 AM
I dont know if this makes a difference.. but I decided to just make a test mission....
nothing on the map but the carrier at 40 km/h and 1 aircraft. I had been using campaign missions prior.
This changes the frame rates considerably over an actual campaign mission...

In this setup.. I cant take off with 2 1000lb bombs and hvars. She still drops nearly to the water but you can hold her steady and climb out.

In an actual populated campaign mission where you get the frame rate drop when on the deck (below 20).. this becomes impossible.