PDA

View Full Version : Oleg Please Read: Corsair Data



RAF74_Buzzsaw
11-07-2004, 02:26 PM
Hello Oleg

Thankyou and Luthier for all your hard work on PACIFIC FIGHTERS. It is a worthy addition to the IL-2 series. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

There seems to be a bug with the Corsair however:

I noticed that it seems to perform very well so I did some tests.

The tests showed it is exceeding the historical climbrate.

Here is a U.S. Documents which show the Climbrate and other performance figures for the F4U-1D:

http://web.cetlink.net/~howardds/27328170.gif

You can see the climbrate at Sea Level with Combat power is 3370 Feet per Minute. The climb time to 10,000 ft, (3048 meters) is 3.3 minutes or 3 minutes 18 seconds. The climb time to 20,000 ft, (6096 meters) is 7.1 minutes or 7 minutes, 6 seconds.

My tests started with a fully loaded, (100% fuel, default load) Corsair F4U-1D at Sea level. Starting speed was 300 kph. I climbed at approximately 280 kph, 270kph over 10,000 ft. I changed to Supercharger stage 2 at 10,000 ft.

My climb times were:

1 minute 4 seconds sea level to 5,000 ft (1524 meters) That is an average climbrate of 4687 Feet per Minute between sea level and 5,000 ft.

2 minutes 35 seconds sea level to 10,000 ft (3048 meters). That is an average climbrate of 3871 feet per minute between sea level and 10,000 ft.

5 minutes 41 seconds sea level to 20,000 ft (6096 meters) That is an average climbrate of 3519 feet per minute between sea level and 20,000 ft.

The performance tests show that the F4U-1D definitely exceeds its historical limits.

I am wondering if there could be a problem and perhaps the programmer used the climb peformance figures from the later model F4U-4? The test results are almost exactly what a F4U-4 might have achieved.

I tested the sea level speed of the F4U-1D and got 366 kph or 354 mph, which is only slightly less than what the historical speed should be, so that is not a problem.

I also tested the stall speed of the F4U-1D and got exactly the correct figure. (87.5 mph or 140 kph for no power stall) So the wing lift seems to be very well modelled.

I have not yet done tests for the earlier model Corsair F4U-1 and F4U-1A.

Once again thankyou for your hard work and I am looking forward to the patch and the addons. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I can mail you the test records if you require them.

Col.Kurtz
11-07-2004, 02:53 PM
I already testet all Corsair and Hellcat versions and found this overmodelled Climbrate.
I sended Oleg the Data and he confirmed it,so it should be corrected in the new adoon. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Here you can find the discusion in German UBI Forum:
http://forums-de.ubi.com/eve/ubb.x?a=tpc&s=59010161&f=388104122&m=1801068332

VMF-214_HaVoK
11-07-2004, 02:54 PM
Send him the overmodeld KI-84 data as well. And the overmodeled dive acceleration speeds of all JAP planes while your at it please.

ICDP
11-07-2004, 03:22 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VMF-214_HaVoK:
Send him the overmodeld KI-84 data as well. And the overmodeled dive acceleration speeds of all JAP planes while your at it please. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No dissrespect HaVoK but it sound like this is a "If you break ours I want theirs broke too" post, forgive me if I'm wrong. If you want "all" (does that include making the already undermodelled Ki61?) Japanese AC performance reduced you should post correct data in the fashion Buzzsaw has posted.

Well done Buzzsaw for showing how to go about getting things fixed, we could all learn a valuable lesson from this.

SkyChimp
11-07-2004, 04:07 PM
If you are conducting the climb tests appropriately, you'll get proper climb times. If you don't, you are going to come up with incorrect number like those Buzzsaw posted.

To get the numbers on Buzzsaw's chart, YOU MUST conduct the climb in the same manner that produced them.

The best climb speed for the F4U-1D was 144mph IAS (125 knots, 231 km/h). That means you enter the climb at 144mph IAS at seal level. Apply combat power and continue to climb at such an angle that you maintain no more and no less than 144 mph IAS. That's how those numbers on that document were obtained (BTW, it isn't test data, it BuAer specs).

If you conduct the climb test appropriately, you will come up with more appropriate numbers. I've conducted the test on several occassions in the manner I've described and came up with (on average):

3:20 to 10,000 feet (should be 3:18 seconds)
7:03 to 20,000 feet (should be 7:06 seconds)

Oleg has gotten the climb rate of the F4U-1D remarkably accurate. He shouldn't change a thing.

Col.Kurtz
11-07-2004, 04:53 PM
(same text as in other post)
well
climbchart of Corsair from Manual gives 135 Knots for Climb that is 250km/h IAS
My test where done with start from Airport with timecount at liftoff with 220km/h then acceleration to 260km/H while Climbing then substained climb to alt:

Results:

F4U-1a 2135HP

In game:
3050m in 2:42min =54sec too fast
6100m in 5:10min =2:32min too fast

M/sec-ft/min
0-1k--18,9--3720 (2890ft/min real)
1-2k--18,5--3640
2-3k--18,2--3580
3-4k--21,3--4192
4-5k--20,4--4015
5-6k--19,2--3779
6-7k€"18,9--3720

Corsair MK.I has identical performance

-----
F4U-1D 2250HP

In game:
3050m in 2:31min = 47sec too fast
6100m in 4:56min = 2:10min too fast


M/sec--ft/min
0-1k€"20,8 -- 4094
1-2k€"18,5 -- 3641
2-3k€"20,4 -- 4015
3-4k€"20,4 -- 4015
4-5k€"21,7 -- 4278
5-6k---20 --- 3937
6-7k-- 18,9 €" 3713

---------------
F6F5 Hellcat

In game:
3040m in 2:48min too fast
6140m in 5:28min 2:14min too fast

M/sec.---ft/min
0-1k=18,9--3713
1-2k=17,2--3392
2-3k=17,5--3451
3-4k=19,6--3858
4-5k=18,9--3714
5-6k=17,2--3392
6-7k=18,2--3576

----------------

To make you happy i did rightnow a test with your recommed 250km/h(235knots)
and got this:
F4U-1D
3100m---2:29min
6100m---4:51min http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif


Here a report: (see climbspeed and compare with FW190...)
There is no way that corsair climbs faster at higher speeds if it would do in PF it would be even worser overmodelling.. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
http://home.arcor.de/sebastianleitiger/190A5vsF4U-1DvsF6F-3/corsair1.jpg

Enjoy your UFO till Patch http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/cry.gif

SkyChimp
11-07-2004, 05:09 PM
You and I must be playing two different PFs. My results have been very consistent, and much closer to what they are supposed to be.

BTW, 135 knots is for the F4U-1 with the R2800-8 engine. The F4U-1D had the R-2800-8W with water injection. You can't judge the -1D to -1 standards. Best climb speed varied between models, even if only by a few knots.

Col.Kurtz
11-07-2004, 05:22 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> You and I must be playing two different PFs. My results have been very consistent, and much closer to what they are supposed to be.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This or i adjust my plane correct:

Cooler open
Mixtur to 120%(auto Rich)
Fullpower
Climb to 1000m with neutral Gear
@1000m change in low Blower (2stage in Game)
@6000m set high blower

No overheat this way even in climb to 7000m (~23000ft)
Above climbdata from me is substained climb even with acceleration!

btw
for translation of my data
3050m=~10000ft
6100m=~20000ft

SkyChimp
11-07-2004, 05:24 PM
Then it must be two different PFs.

BTW, no one gonna complain that the F4U-1A's Sea Level speed is too low? By 20mph? 345mph versus the actual 365mph?

Col.Kurtz
11-07-2004, 05:32 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

Speed test on Crimea Map at Sea Level with cooler closed(Krim)
F4U-1a Corsair
578km/h in game(359mph)
Real= 577km/h http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Perfekt

F6F5 Hellcat
534km/h in game (332mph)
Real= 511km/h (33km/h zu schnell)

Seems we really have diffrent PF versions http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
Maybe you have allready a leaked patch installed? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/heart.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/icon_twisted.gif

VMF-214_HaVoK
11-07-2004, 05:39 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ICDP:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VMF-214_HaVoK:
Send him the overmodeld KI-84 data as well. And the overmodeled dive acceleration speeds of all JAP planes while your at it please. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No dissrespect HaVoK but it sound like this is a "If you break ours I want theirs broke too" post, forgive me if I'm wrong. If you want "all" (does that include making the already undermodelled Ki61?) Japanese AC performance reduced you should post correct data in the fashion Buzzsaw has posted.

Well done Buzzsaw for showing how to go about getting things fixed, we could all learn a valuable lesson from this. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I find it odd that so much time and effort is going to testing allied planes and the same test for axis planes is not being presented. I agree the KI61 is undermodeled from what I have read. And ofcoarse it has been noted several times.

Climbrate for the Corsair may be wrong or may not be. If its wrong then yes lets have it fixed. But fix the overmodeled aspects of JAP planes too.
The Corsair which could roll on par with a FW190A is too slow. It compresses to quickly in a dive. And it will also blackout longer then anyother plane in the game. But what we will see all to often in these forums is the things that people feel are overmodeled with US planes. Oleg will do what he wants to do reguardless of what I say. All I ask is for the axis planes be looked harder at too. At most of all give us proper dive acceleration and zoom climbs for ALL planes.

=S=

SkyChimp
11-07-2004, 05:46 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Col.Kurtz:

This or i adjust my plane correct:

Cooler open
Mixtur to 120%(auto Rich)
Fullpower
Climb to 1000m with neutral Gear
@1000m change in low Blower (2stage in Game)
@6000m set high blower

No overheat this way even in climb to 7000m (~23000ft)
Above climbdata from me is substained climb even with acceleration!

btw
for translation of my data
3050m=~10000ft
6100m=~20000ft <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


If this is what you did, then you conducted your test inconsistently with the BuAer document Buzzsaw posted.

You know a combat power climb doesn't use a "Neutral" setting don't you? You need to start out with the auxillery blower in low even at sea level.

That BuAer chart Buzzsaw posted had a climb chart along with it he didn't post. I'll post it and demonstrate what I am talking about:

http://members.cox.net/us.fighters/1DClimb.jpg

Voidable
11-07-2004, 08:12 PM
oleg already delt with the ki 84 c people were crying about it over and over and people thought all that crying would fix the ki for good with the up comming patch....lol he did just that basicaly said its just right! the patch came out and the ki was still the same...lol i love it. for all you people out there tring to distroy the corsair i hope the same happens with this http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

faustnik
11-07-2004, 09:02 PM
SkyChimp,

The Fw190A5 was compared to the F4U-1D in these tests correct?

http://web.cetlink.net/~howardds/id90.htm

The F4U in PF seems to be way too slow and climb way too well relative to these tests.

RAF74_Buzzsaw
11-07-2004, 09:20 PM
Salute

First of all, I am surprised to hear such a specious argument from SkyChimp. He is usually interested only in the facts. This is the type of argument which was previously used to justify some of the ridiculously overmodelled 109 climbrates.

The issue here is MAXIMUM RATE OF CLIMB. The speed at which that maximum rate of climb is achieved is irrelevant.

The speed which SkyChimp mentions, ie. 144 mph, or 230 kph is the speed at which the Corsair achieved its maximum rate of climb HISTORICALLY.

Since this is a game, not real life, it just so happens that the maximum rate of climb for the virtual Corsair F4U-1D is achieved at a slightly different speed.

HOWEVER... I am prepared to indulge such ridiculous arguements because whether the climb is done at 230 kph or 280 kph, the Corsair still climbs too fast.

I re-did the tests using the following criteria:

Starting speed: 230 KILOMETERS (not knots) per hour. (144 mph)

Starting height: Sea level.

Climb Speed: 230 kph.

Following climb times were achieved:

5000 ft (1524 Meters): 1 minute 12 seconds, for an average climbrate between sea level and 5000 ft of 4166 feet per minute, or clearly too high.

10,000 ft (3048 meters): 2 minutes 45 seconds, for and average climbrate between sea level and 10,000 ft of 3636 feet per minute.

20,000 ft (6096 meters): 6 minutes 2 seconds, for an average climbrate of 3314 feet per minute between sea level and 20,000 ft.

Climb times to 10,000 ft are 33 seconds too fast.

Climb times to 20,000 ft are 1 minute 1 second too fast.

So the fact remains, whether we choose to cripple the climbrate test of the Corsair or not, it climbs too fast.

Records of my tests are available for anyone who PM's me.

CV8_Dudeness
11-08-2004, 03:57 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VMF-214_HaVoK:
Send him the overmodeld KI-84 data as well. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
planes dive at similer speeds in FB , this has always been so

i seen you & Pappy moaning & moaning , always moaning about the Hayate

the Hayate's RL top speed was & is 427 mph

deal with it

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Oleg_Maddox:
Most changes in tunigs of planes (But not the FM) are for Japanese planes. Becasue US data of trials in many ways is wrong. We take in account now available for us data of Manufacture and Army test in Japan. They had 100 times more data. And in most case the test data in US has worse and not precise performace than we have now Japanese... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Kurfurst__
11-08-2004, 08:31 AM
Now that is some funny situation. RAFWhiners vs. YankWhiners.

I have not made tests myself , but Buzzshaw is right in one thing: If you can obtain better sustained climbrates with the same power and weight, than it IS OVERMODELLED, regardless on what climb speed this was achieved. Peak climbrates are _PEAK_ climbrates, they should not and could not be surprassed at ANY other climbing speed.

The arguing Skychimp makes is sand in the eye. 'Oh yes, you can waaaaay much better in the Corsair than a real Corsair pilot could even if tossing in every trick possible but.... hey, what climbspeed did you achieved much more the climbrate than the peak RL ROC of the F4U? 20 mph less/more ? Then forget about the whole thing, EVEN IF by using different climb speed you should have resulted in far smaller ROC, but in fact it resulted far higher...'

In brief, if you can achieve ANY higher sustained ROC at ANY other airspeeds than the officially given ROC of the Corsair, it IS overmodelled in ROC (just as a sidenote, as many other planes, too. But that isnt an right arguement for not to correct it).

PS : Such threads only confirm to me that the FM, with these zillion flyable planes are bleeding from a billion wounds, and WONT and CANT be corrected 100%, as long as the Battle of Britain is out... OK, they dont have time to correct the oldest bugs, being in there for YEARS, but the facts that they could get the FM right for the brand new planes makes me doubt that we will have a different situation with the BoB FM either... and that would be sad.

geetarman
11-08-2004, 08:49 AM
BTW, while your adjusting the Corsair's climbrate, check it's max speed at best altitude. It's too slow! That needs a review.

Aaron_GT
11-08-2004, 02:34 PM
Skychimp wrote:
"BTW, no one gonna complain that the F4U-1A's Sea Level speed is too low? By 20mph? 345mph versus the actual 365mph?"

Under what conditions, Chimp? I get 350 mph at WEP on the Crimean map and the figures from the USN that I have indicate that it should achieve 359mph with WEP with racks but no stores, 100% fuel. A 9mph difference isn't ideal, but it is half what you are suggesting. Or maybe I am playing a different version of PF :-)

Aaron_GT
11-08-2004, 02:36 PM
Kurfurst:
Skychimp has a point in that if you climb at the speed that the USN tested then its performance is pretty much spot on. But it is odd that there is a climb speed that produces a better climb rate. That implies that the beta testing may have tested at the USN climb speed and looked pretty much spot on, but that the beta tests may not have covered the climb speed that Buzzsaw tested. So Skychimp AND Buzzsaw both have a point.

Aaron_GT
11-08-2004, 02:37 PM
"BTW, while your adjusting the Corsair's climbrate, check it's max speed at best altitude. It's too slow!"

I did test the speed at 20,000 feet and I posted it in another thread, but for the life of me I cannot remember what I actually discovered!!!

VMF-214_HaVoK
11-08-2004, 02:53 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by CV8_Dudeness:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VMF-214_HaVoK:
Send him the overmodeld KI-84 data as well. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
planes dive at similer speeds in FB , this has always been so

i seen you & Pappy moaning & moaning , always moaning about the Hayate

the Hayate's RL top speed was & is 427 mph

deal with it

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Oleg_Maddox:
Most changes in tunigs of planes (But not the FM) are for Japanese planes. Becasue US data of trials in many ways is wrong. We take in account now available for us data of Manufacture and Army test in Japan. They had 100 times more data. And in most case the test data in US has worse and not precise performace than we have now Japanese... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wrong. The KI-84II had the topspeed that exceeded 400mph not the KI-84I...which is what we have in FB/PF.

Nakajima Ki-84I Hayate
Specification of Nakajima Ki-84-1a:

Engine: One Army Type 4 eighteen-cylinder air-cooled radial (Nakajima Ha-45). The following engine models were used: [Ha-45]11 rated at 1800 hp for takeoff and 1650 hp at 6560 feet. [Ha-45]12 rated at 1825 hp for takeoff and 1670 hp at 7875 feet. [Ha-45]21 rated at 1990 hp for takeoff and 1850 hp at 5740 feet. [Ha-45]23 rated at 1900 hp for takeoff and 1670 hp at 4725 feet.

Performance (early production): Maximum speed 392 mph at 20,080 feet, cruising speed 277 mph. An altitude of 16,405 feet could be reached in 5 minutes 54 seconds. An altitude of 26,240 feet could be attained in 11 minutes 40 seconds. Service ceiling 34,450 feet. Normal range 1053 miles, maximum range 1347 miles.

Weights: 5864 pounds empty, 7955 pounds loaded, 8576 pounds maximum. Dimensions: Wingspan 36 feet 10 7/16 inches, length 32 feet 6 9/16 inches, height 11 feet 1 1/4 inches, wing area 226.04 square feet. Armament: Two fuselage mounted 12.7-mm Type 1 (Ho-103) machine guns and two wing-mounted 20-mm Ho-5 cannon (Ki-84-Ia). Two fuselage-mounted 20-mm Ho-5 cannon and two wing-mounted 20-mm Ho-5 cannon (Ki-84-Ib). Two fuselage-mounted 20-mm Ho-5 cannon and two wing-mounted 30-mm Ho-105 cannon (Ki-84-Ic). External stores included two 551-pound bombs or two 44-Imp gall drop tanks.


Ki-84-II Hayate Kai
The Ki-84-II or Hayate Kai was an attempt to conserve valuable supplies of aluminum by employing large numbers of wooden components in the manufacture of the Hayate. The rear fuselage, certain fittings, and modified wingtips were made of wood, with all the wood work being carried out at a shadow factory at Tanuma. The engine was the Nakajama [Ha-45] 21, 25 or 23 with low-pressure fuel injection. Armament consisted of four 20-mm or two 20-mm and two 30-mm cannon. The designation Ki-84-II was actually a Nakajima designation, the aircraft in JAAF service retaining the Ki-84-Ib or -Ic designation, depending on armament.

Specification of Ki-84-II:

Engine: One Army Type 4 eighteen-cylinder air-cooled radial (Nakajima Ha-45). The following engine models were used: [Ha-45]21 rated at 1990 hp for takeoff and 1850 hp at 5740 feet. [Ha-45]23 rated at 1900 hp for takeoff and 1670 hp at 4725 feet. [Ha-45]25 rated at 2000 hp for takeoff and 1700 hp at 19,685 feet.

Performance: Maximum speed 416 mph

Weights: 8495 pounds loaded.

Dimensions: Wingspan 36 feet 10 7/16 inches, length 32 feet 6 9/16 inches, height 11 feet 1 1/4 inches, wing area 226.04 square feet. Armament: Two fuselage-mounted 20-mm Ho-5 cannon and two wing-mounted 20-mm Ho-5 cannon. Alternatively, the two wing-mounted 20-mm Ho-5 cannon could be replaced by two 30-mm Ho-105 cannon. External stores included two 551-pound bombs or two 44-Imp gall drop tanks.

Where you people are getting that the KI-84I is a 400mph+ plane is beyond me. And it should be noted that the Corsair is a 400mph+ plane and the KI is faster then it. Also we are all aware how long we have not had correct dive acceleration and zoom climbs. It makes it no less important just because Oleg has not given us it yet. Also lets not forget that US tested Jap planes using our much higher quality fuel then what Japan used at the time giving Jap planes even more performance then what they had while being flown by Japan.

Feel free to show your 427mph data for the KI-84I.

Carry On
=S=

VMF-214_HaVoK
11-08-2004, 02:56 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
"BTW, while your adjusting the Corsair's climbrate, check it's max speed at best altitude. It's too slow!"

I did test the speed at 20,000 feet and I posted it in another thread, but for the life of me I cannot remember what I actually discovered!!! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Might as well check the Hellcats ammo load and maxspeed as well.

XyZspineZyX
11-08-2004, 03:14 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VMF-214_HaVoK:
I find it odd that so much time and effort is going to testing allied planes and the same test for axis planes is not being presented.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm sure most people here want accuracy at all levels. There is probably more griping about allied aircraft right now because the game just came out and that's what most people are flying first.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The Corsair which could roll on par with a FW190A is too slow. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

YES! My understanding is that the Corsair was very responsive in roll, particularly at higher speeds. But in the game it's fairly lazy.

I guess when you add the quad 20's on the 1-C the Corsair kind of becomes the "Focke Wulf of the Sea"... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

SkyChimp
11-08-2004, 08:27 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
Now that is some funny situation. RAFWhiners vs. YankWhiners.

I have not made tests myself , but Buzzshaw is right in one thing: If you can obtain better sustained climbrates with the same power and weight, than it IS OVERMODELLED, regardless on what climb speed this was achieved. Peak climbrates are _PEAK_ climbrates, they should not and could not be surprassed at ANY other climbing speed.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Isegrim, that BuAer document does not depict a sustained climb rate at combat power. It does, however, reflect the findings of a sustained climb at combat power. To a certain degree, it reflects a sustained climb at a sustained speed. There is a significant difference.

In that chart, at combat power (or maximum throttle and manifold pressure) climb rate is greatest at sea level, and decreases as altitude increases. The rate at which it decreases fluctuates because of the supercharger, but it decreases nonetheless. Look at the chart I posted. Look at the climb line marked #1. At no point does the climb rate line rise vertically. There is never an instance of a combat-power climb rate being "sustained" in that chart - it's always dropping.

The issue here is Time-To-Climb numbers achieved in a sustained climb at a sustained speed. The Climb Rates given in that BuAer document are extrapolated from Time-To-Climb numbers. Likewise, climb rates for the PF F4U-1D as given by Buzzsaw are extrapolated from Time-To-Climb numbers he achieved.

If a PF pilot wants to compare his numbers to the numbers in the BuAer document, then the PF test must be performed in exactly the same manner as the real test that produced the BuAer numbers. If it's not, any comparison is invalid.

The climb rates and time-to-climb numbers in that BuAer document were achieved under strict conditions. The plane began its climb from sea level (right off the runway) at its optimal climb speed (my sources say that was 144mph IAS for the F4U-1D), with the auxillery blower in low, and the throttle set to combat power. It climbed at that optimal speed, pitching as necessary to maintain that speed. At somewhere between 12,500 feet and 14,500 the auxillery blower was switched from low to high. Speed remained consistent with the optimal climb speed, and the climb continued at combat power. Depending on the amount of time it took to reach a certain altitude, the rate of climb could be extrapolated.

These tests were conducted right off the runway. I have photos of some Navy aircraft (Ryan FR-1) performing sustained climb tests lifting off the runway and pitching into their climbs at their optimal climb speeds with their gears still retracting. This was how these sustained climb tests were performed.

Was it possible to get an "initial climb rate" at sea-level that is higher than the one specifed in that BuAer document? Sure, I don't see why not. However, you CAN NOT do it in a manner consistent with the sustained climb test that produced the BuAer numbers. Zooming into a climb, and starting the timing at the wrong point will produce reduced (better) time-to-climb numbers. The result will be the extrapolation of higher-than-expected climb rates.

Maybe the F4U-1D does have a screwed up climb ability in PF. Most planes in FB/AEP/PF do to some degree. But you can't prove it using that BuAer document unless you perfom your test properly. I tried to do it properly, on several occassions, and came up with numbers remarkebly close to what the BuAer document says they should be.



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
The arguing Skychimp makes is sand in the eye. 'Oh yes, you can waaaaay much better in the Corsair than a real Corsair pilot could even if tossing in every trick possible but.... hey, what climbspeed did you achieved much more the climbrate than the peak RL ROC of the F4U? 20 mph less/more ? Then forget about the whole thing, _EVEN IF_ by using different climb speed you should have resulted in _far smaller_ ROC, but in fact it resulted far higher...'

In brief, if you can achieve ANY higher sustained ROC at ANY other airspeeds than the officially given ROC of the Corsair, it IS overmodelled in ROC (just as a sidenote, as many other planes, too. But that isnt an right arguement for not to correct it).
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Again, rate of climb is secondary. Climb rates are extrapolated from time-to-climb numbers. Time-to-climb numbers can be enhanced by performing the test improperly.



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
PS : Such threads only confirm to me that the FM, with these zillion flyable planes are bleeding from a billion wounds, and WONT and CANT be corrected 100%, as long as the Battle of Britain is out... OK, they dont have time to correct the oldest bugs, being in there for YEARS, but the facts that they could get the FM right for the brand new planes makes me doubt that we will have a different situation with the BoB FM either... and that would be sad. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I've never agreed with you more.

SkyChimp
11-08-2004, 08:35 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
Skychimp wrote:
"BTW, no one gonna complain that the F4U-1A's Sea Level speed is too low? By 20mph? 345mph versus the actual 365mph?"

Under what conditions, Chimp? I get 350 mph at WEP on the Crimean map and the figures from the USN that I have indicate that it should achieve 359mph with WEP with racks but no stores, 100% fuel. A 9mph difference isn't ideal, but it is half what you are suggesting. Or maybe I am playing a different version of PF :-) <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm looking at the actual F4U-1A versus P-51B test report that has the speed chart. 365mph for the F4U-1A at sea-level.

sapre
11-08-2004, 08:49 PM
So who is right?
Skychimp or Buzzsaw?

CV8_Dudeness
11-08-2004, 11:07 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VMF-214_HaVoK:

Feel free to show your 427mph data for the KI-84I. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

ok then Havok

boot up FB/PF
click "view objects"
select "axis"
select "Ki-84-1a , 1944"
there you will see the more accurate data that Oleg Maddox mentions that is more detailed than the propaganda your spewing

ki84-1a(b) Hayate/frank 1944
type: interceptor / fighter bomber
weight : takeoff 3602 kg
engine : x1 Ha-45-21
power : takeoff 1970 hp
top speed ; sea level 584 kmh
at 6100 m 687 kmh (or 427)

your just one eyed Havok

BTW , just FYI Havok the Ki-84 C model was lightened to make up for the heavier cannons , it was like the hot rod model , but it dont handel as good as the Ki-84 ***

Aaron_GT
11-09-2004, 03:17 AM
SkyChimp wrote:
"I'm looking at the actual F4U-1A versus P-51B test report that has the speed chart. 365mph for the F4U-1A at sea-level. "

I'll have a look at the info I have. It says USN aeronautical bureau test something or other. It's on my PC at home and I am away from that until Thursday so I can't check until then. I can't host to post it here, though, unfortunately.

It's entirely possible that the same mark of plane could do 365 under one test, 359 under another, though. If Oleg used the same report that I have as the basis (359 at Sea Level, clean with racks at WEP, 417 at 19990 ft, same conditions) then it seems to match pretty well as other report being able to squeeze a few more mph out of it than me. Given the limitations of the speed bar I might be managing a bit more than 350mph anyway. I don't have DeviceLink to read any more exact speed than that. I wish I could remember what speed I got at 20,000 ft when I did a test, though. It's in a thread round here somewhere! I won't get chance to test again until Thursday.

Aaron_GT
11-09-2004, 03:22 AM
"So who is right?
Skychimp or Buzzsaw?"

They might both be right in terms of the tests, but maybe differ on the interpretation. If the climbs at 144mph in PF match the specs that SkyChimp has, as it appears they do, then that is good.

My remaining questions are:
(1) Is Buzzsaw using the appropriate power settings
to match the official times to altitude? It will depend on the relationship of % power in PF to the exact definition of combat power. If the dials in the Corsair cockpit are accurately portraying modelled settings then in theory we should be able to find a definition in inches of Hg for the Corsair combat power, and then pick the relevant % power setting.
(2) Is the fastest time to climb different from the climb rate at the specified climb speed at combat power anyway?

LuftLuver
11-09-2004, 10:13 AM
Poor blues guys. You get shot down in your anti-gravity UFO Ki84 series, so naturally it's off to cry in ORR. Oleg, pleeeez give us all advantage back. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/cry.gif

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

geetarman
11-09-2004, 12:05 PM
Aaron - I was involved in the other thread regarding the Corsair's max speed at best alt. I believe you posted that your test at 20,000 resulted in a much lower max speed than the official 417 (as did mine). I may be wrong though.

VMF-214_HaVoK
11-09-2004, 02:21 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by CV8_Dudeness:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VMF-214_HaVoK:

Feel free to show your 427mph data for the KI-84I. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

ok then Havok

boot up FB/PF
click "view objects"
select "axis"
select "Ki-84-1a , 1944"
there you will see the more accurate data that Oleg Maddox mentions that is more detailed than the propaganda your spewing

ki84-1a(b) Hayate/frank 1944
type: interceptor / fighter bomber
weight : takeoff 3602 kg
engine : x1 _Ha-45-21_
power : takeoff _1970 hp_
top speed ; sea level 584 kmh
at 6100 m _687 kmh_ (or 427)

your just one eyed Havok

BTW , just FYI Havok the Ki-84 C model was lightened to make up for the heavier cannons , it was like the hot rod model , but it dont handel as good as the Ki-84 *** <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

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

WUAF_Badsight
11-09-2004, 11:54 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LuftLuver:
Poor blues guys. You get shot down in your anti-gravity UFO Ki84 series, so naturally it's off to cry in ORR. Oleg, pleeeez give us all advantage back. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/cry.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
err this is a Corsair thread ?!?!?

& i agree with Skychimp totally , if it replicates that Corsair test then that is all that matters

it dont take too much imagination to realise that that climb speed could have been bettered IRL

& Havok , give it a rest , Oleg maddox has posted that the hayate matches japanese data

funny how the American tests also came up with similer numbers

VMF-214_HaVoK
11-10-2004, 03:20 PM
I have looked and looked for the so called 427mph top speed for the KI-84I. The KI-84II is the one with over 400mph top speed not the one we have in FB. I would just like someone to post some information stating that the KI-84I did 427mph is all. You say its right because Oleg says so, another poster made pretty much the same comment. I ask since Oleg is right and has accurate information then I guess he is right about the Corsair and several other planes ability to turn with full stick pressure as well as loop with no stall unless direction is quickly changed. I guess it would aslo mean that Oleg is right about the Mustangs slow speed low alt turning ability that you so often whine about.

Well since Oleg is always right and accurate I suggest we stop the whine sessions.

=S=

lrrp22
11-10-2004, 04:43 PM
HaVok,

FB's Ki-84 performance data comes directly from U.S. estimates of performance published in revision 2 of the Tactical Air Intelligence Center field manual dated March, 1945.

It is not Japanese test data, it is not U.S. test data- it is an estimate of best-case performance compiled by the TAIC.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VMF-214_HaVoK:
I have looked and looked for the so called 427mph top speed for the KI-84I. The KI-84II is the one with over 400mph top speed not the one we have in FB. I would just like someone to post some information stating that the KI-84I did 427mph is all. You say its right because Oleg says so, another poster made pretty much the same comment. I ask since Oleg is right and has accurate information then I guess he is right about the Corsair and several other planes ability to turn with full stick pressure as well as loop with no stall unless direction is quickly changed. I guess it would aslo mean that Oleg is right about the Mustangs slow speed low alt turning ability that you so often whine about.

Well since Oleg is always right and accurate I suggest we stop the whine sessions.

=S= <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

VMF-214_HaVoK
11-10-2004, 05:08 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lrrp22:
HaVok,

FB's Ki-84 performance data comes directly from U.S. estimates of performance published in revision 2 of the Tactical Air Intelligence Center field manual dated March, 1945.

It is not Japanese test data, it is not U.S. test data- it is an estimate of best-case performance compiled by the TAIC.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VMF-214_HaVoK:
I have looked and looked for the so called 427mph top speed for the KI-84I. The KI-84II is the one with over 400mph top speed not the one we have in FB. I would just like someone to post some information stating that the KI-84I did 427mph is all. You say its right because Oleg says so, another poster made pretty much the same comment. I ask since Oleg is right and has accurate information then I guess he is right about the Corsair and several other planes ability to turn with full stick pressure as well as loop with no stall unless direction is quickly changed. I guess it would aslo mean that Oleg is right about the Mustangs slow speed low alt turning ability that you so often whine about.

Well since Oleg is always right and accurate I suggest we stop the whine sessions.

=S= <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Post link or chart please.

=S=

lrrp22
11-10-2004, 05:36 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VMF-214_HaVoK:

Post link or chart please.

=S= <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Courtesy of butch2k:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v11/brentce/ki84-perfdata1.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v11/brentce/ki84-perfdata2.jpg

VMF-214_HaVoK
11-10-2004, 06:07 PM
Thanks...do you have a similar one for the F4U1D? From the same source.

lrrp22
11-10-2004, 06:13 PM
The TAIC's mission was gathering intelligence on enemy aircraft so it didn't publish data on Allied aircraft.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VMF-214_HaVoK:
Thanks...do you have a similar one for the F4U1D? From the same source. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

WUAF_Badsight
11-10-2004, 11:46 PM
im pretty sure Lrrp has missed this :

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Oleg_Maddox:
Most changes in tunigs of planes (But not the FM) are for Japanese planes. Becasue US data of trials in many ways is wrong. We take in account now available for us data of Manufacture and Army test in Japan. They had 100 times more data. And in most case the test data in US has worse and not precise performace than we have now Japanese... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Lrrp has ZERO knowledge of what data the Hayate is based on as Oleg has never said as much

Oleg also posted how impressed he was with the Corsairs data that he recieved Havok

Kwiatos
11-11-2004, 02:17 AM
Speaking of Ki-84 Hayate its pity that in FB we have different version with the same engine Ha-45-21 (the best engine reach 680 km/h). As i read Ki-84s with these engine were not many. Most version had weaker engine which reach only 631 km/h.

k5054
11-11-2004, 10:34 AM
The TAIC never had the opportunity to test a working Ki-84 with the -21 (or any other) engine before that report was published, that makes it estimated data. If there's a Japanese test which agrees with it, nobody has been able to find it.

The 430mph Corsair in the P-51B test was specially polished and run at a special high boost WEP, presumably so in this USN-organised test the Corsair would be able to beat the P-51 thoroughly. The Standard Corsair in the same test was slower. No other test of a -1 Corsair comes near this test. I think the Navy cheated.

The P51B did manage 450 at alt though, higher than the usually quoted figure. It was running the -3 engine, the high-alt model.

Mr_Nakajima
11-11-2004, 10:57 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SkyChimp:
The best climb speed for the F4U-1D was 144mph IAS (125 knots, 231 km/h). That means you enter the climb at 144mph IAS at seal level. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That would be slightly below sea level then Skychimp? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

lrrp22
11-11-2004, 12:42 PM
Yet FB's Ki-84 matches the estimated TAIC speed data exactly, hmmm...

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WUAF_Badsight:
im pretty sure Lrrp has missed this :

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Oleg_Maddox:
Most changes in tunigs of planes (But not the FM) are for Japanese planes. Becasue US data of trials in many ways is wrong. We take in account now available for us data of Manufacture and Army test in Japan. They had 100 times more data. And in most case the test data in US has worse and not precise performace than we have now Japanese... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Lrrp has ZERO knowledge of what data the Hayate is based on as Oleg has never said as much

Oleg also posted how impressed he was with the Corsairs data that he recieved Havok <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

F4UDOA
11-12-2004, 08:06 AM
The speed of 366MPH could be atained at sea level in the clean condition by removing the external stores pylons on the F4U-1D. The top speed at 20K would then be 417MPH.

On the 1944 F4U-1A however with no external pylons or rocket launchers and the new mods associated with the -1A upgrade IE the paddle three blade prop, fairing over the gun bay doors, faring over the tail wheel and hook a top speed of 430MPH could be attained in the F4U-1A at 60" combat power with the standard R2800-8W putting out 2250HP at sea level.

As far as climb rate goes different charts show slightly different power curves and blower shift points but the -1A and -1D will tale 7 minutes to reach 20K at combat power and 8 minutes at mil power. However this is reached at 12,000+lbs. When fuel and ammo are reduced by 1,000lbs the time drops 1 minute increasing average rate of climb significantly. So check your loadout before testing.

Also I have never seen any documentation of the F6F that shows a climb rate of over 3,000fpm. If anyone has such a NAVAIR document I would like to see it.

FYI, I have original Vought , Grumman, NAVAIR TAIC and British documents to post and share if needed.

effte
11-12-2004, 09:13 AM
Estimated/evaluated performance data such as those from the TAIC are never spot on. I've had the privilege to compare such data on a military jet fighter with the actual figures, which I had access to, and while they were in the ballpark they were still significantly off.

They're not intended to be exact specifications. They're intended to be close enough to allow for counter-tactics to be developed.

VMF-214_HaVoK
11-12-2004, 05:23 PM
Hopefully Oleg will give the Corsair it proper roll rate. As of now it much to slow. Test proved the Corsair to be able to roll pretty much on par with the FW190.

http://web.cetlink.net/~howardds/28060b00.gif

p1ngu666
11-12-2004, 06:37 PM
combat power = wep ingame?