PDA

View Full Version : Out for a spin: the Corsair



Stigler_9_JG52
06-24-2005, 10:26 AM
I had a few minutes in the seat of a F4U '43 Corsair last night. Wow, what a sweet bird.

Torque: what torque??? I was expecting an experience like, say, a P-39 or FW190, with rapid rolls, snaps in either direction, in knife-edge fashion.

Not even a clue that this Hose-Nose is unruly. Nice roll, but VERY controllable: just roll off a little power if you're going to the right and I had perfect authority over her flight path. This was my very first time in this plane, and I was able to do a chandelle, reverse course 120 degrees with an inverted diving turn and align a perfect gun run directly down the line of covered aircraft revetments; several times.

Take off: I tried a take off run, to see if the DoubleWasp would pull me off the strip. I used a fairly gradual powerup, about 5 seconds to get past 50% throttle. The nose didn't even move from center until the tailwheel lifted off the ground; even then, one 1/3 stab of rudder and that was all I had to do; no more than any other plane. No sign of "Ensign Eliminator" habits. I can't imagine this plane having any problems taking off the CV, which historically was a big problem with it, and why it tended to be land based with the Marines.

This plane has only one vice: the restricted six view... which is historical.

Corsair drivers should have nothing to EVER complain about. And you gottawins flying the '45 cannon version should be ashamed of yourselves. If you can't dominate with the '43 and '44 versions, which did the REAL work against the heart of the Japanese IJA and IJN, you need to work on your flying (and your gunnery). Six .50s should be plenty to get the job done.

stansdds
07-06-2005, 04:37 AM
The Corsair, even the PF v 4.01, was an ensign eliminator. Your techinque for flying sounds pretty well perfected and you added power slowly. In real life, the Corsair pilots had no problems with the Corsair once they learned these techniques. Now the newbie sim pilot or an ensign straight out of flight school would have likely tried to handle the Corsair like their training aircraft. They would have added throttle too quickly when they realized they were sinking too fast and initiated a hard roll to port. Try it for yourself, get the v 4.01 Corsair down to 300 feet at 80 KIAS, then add throttle quickly and see just how quickly it will roll to port and send you into the drink.

I think so many of us have so many hours behind sims that we think planes should be even harder to fly. We lose sight of the fact that we have more stick hours than many real combat pilots.

Asgeir_Strips
07-06-2005, 04:47 AM
Originally posted by Stigler_9_JG52:
I had a few minutes in the seat of a F4U '43 Corsair last night. Wow, what a sweet bird.

Torque: what torque??? I was expecting an experience like, say, a P-39 or FW190, with rapid rolls, snaps in either direction, in knife-edge fashion.

Not even a clue that this Hose-Nose is unruly. Nice roll, but VERY controllable: just roll off a little power if you're going to the right and I had perfect authority over her flight path. This was my very first time in this plane, and I was able to do a chandelle, reverse course 120 degrees with an inverted diving turn and align a perfect gun run directly down the line of covered aircraft revetments; several times.

Take off: I tried a take off run, to see if the DoubleWasp would pull me off the strip. I used a fairly gradual powerup, about 5 seconds to get past 50% throttle. The nose didn't even move from center until the tailwheel lifted off the ground; even then, one 1/3 stab of rudder and that was all I had to do; no more than any other plane. No sign of "Ensign Eliminator" habits. I can't imagine this plane having any problems taking off the CV, which historically was a big problem with it, and why it tended to be land based with the Marines.

This plane has only one vice: the restricted six view... which is historical.

Corsair drivers should have nothing to EVER complain about. And you gottawins flying the '45 cannon version should be ashamed of yourselves. If you can't dominate with the '43 and '44 versions, which did the REAL work against the heart of the Japanese IJA and IJN, you need to work on your flying (and your gunnery). Six .50s should be plenty to get the job done.

The F4U has always been my favourite airplane during ww2, and like you, i've never had any problems with it in PF! Even Carrier Landings is piece of cake for me. (i might bounce sometimes, but rarely)

I've never felt unsafe online when i fly the corsair.. and i've never been beaten either

Kannaksen_hanu
07-06-2005, 06:00 AM
Originally posted by stansdds:
The Corsair, even the PF v 4.01, was an ensign eliminator. Your techinque for flying sounds pretty well perfected and you added power slowly. In real life, the Corsair pilots had no problems with the Corsair once they learned these techniques.

Well in 4.01 you can slam the throttle straight to 100% and have no problems at all as long as tailwheel is locked.

I was a bit disappointed of how easy plane Corsair is. I thought I could get some kicks from its take-off / landing, but no.

RNZAFJay
07-06-2005, 06:03 AM
Ive always liked the Corsiar (mostly because it just looks cool), its right up there with my other two favorite WW2 birds, the Spit and the P-38. However I do find it hard to handle.

Im gradully getting used to it, listening for the stall sounds but I find once I stall and get into a spin, I just cant get out, or even bail.

Ok, the Spit stalls and spins but seems pretty easy to recover and the P-38 doesnt really spin at all. Im only a beginner in PF but I really want to master the F4U and other energy fighter, rather than rely on stall fighters like the Spit and Zero (as much as I love the Spit.)

I already get the feeling that the F4U is a very rewarding plane once you get the knack.

Oilburner_TAW
07-06-2005, 04:35 PM
Originally posted by Stigler_9_JG52:
..........about 5 seconds to get past 50% throttle...........

Unfortunately that option is not available with 100% fuel and a couple of bombs taking off from a CV. If you have ever seen footage of corsairs taking off from ground strips and compared the real life rudder input on takeoff to that required in PF, you will note that Oleg has it spot on.

96th_Nightshifter
07-06-2005, 04:42 PM
Originally posted by Asgeir_Strips:

I've never felt unsafe online when i fly the corsair.. and i've never been beaten either

NEVER!?!?! - Do you teach?

VW-IceFire
07-06-2005, 04:46 PM
Next to the Tempest and the Spitfire the Corsair is an all time personal favorite. I loved that bird even in Aces of the Pacific back in the day.

Stigler, I'd have to say that you didn't experience too many of the ensign eliminator tendancies because of your excellent technique, particularly with slow throttle up to takeoff power and so on.

Even in 3.04, if you really yank hard on the stick it will develop into a spin fairly quickly. I actually haven't tried to do that in 4.01 yet...maybe I should see. Nonetheless, you are right, no Corsair pilot should have reason to complain in 4.01 (or 3.04 really) as the plane is in very excellent working order.

Stigler_9_JG52
07-06-2005, 05:18 PM
Well, I will come back and admit taking a spin on a server with more fighting and action, and having a few spin incidents.... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

but still, I find it quite a bit more docile than I'd expect, especially on take-off. Even with a careful run-up, you should have to be standing on that rudder to counter that propwash. Then again, I'd expect something similar (though not as dramatic) in a P-40, and didn't see it there, either.

VF-29_Sandman
07-06-2005, 06:01 PM
i prefer the 50 cal equipped corsair. the gunsite is extremely accurate if u know how to use it. 4x20mm is for noobs

EiZ0N
07-06-2005, 06:54 PM
I think so many of us have so many hours behind sims that we think planes should be even harder to fly. We lose sight of the fact that we have more stick hours than many real combat pilots.

Heh, interesting point.

If you went back in time and were sat in the cockpit of a WW2 plane, without any training, do you think you'd get it in the air and back down?

I've never flown a plane, so perhaps I'm being terribly ignorant in even thinking this would be possible. Just an interesting thought.

bird_brain
07-06-2005, 07:40 PM
Originally posted by Stigler_9_JG52:
No sign of "Ensign Eliminator" habits. I can't imagine this plane having any problems taking off the CV, which historically was a big problem with it, and why it tended to be land based with the Marines.
The term "Ensign Eliminator" came up from the early Corsairs' habit of dropping the left wing in a stall at low altitude and high angle of attack while coming for Carrier landings. When you put that together with the bouncing landing gear struts, frequent blown main gear tires, defective sheared tailhooks and poor visibility over the nose, you had a handfull for a new pilot. They fixed all those problems early on (except the visibility). All these were problems with landing, not taking off. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

It was relegated to the Marines and land bases mostly because of problems with maintenance & spare parts, not suitability for carrier operations. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

You're right ... Tom Blackburn would agree to this day ... it is a bad bird! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

VW-IceFire
07-06-2005, 10:36 PM
Originally posted by Stigler_9_JG52:
Well, I will come back and admit taking a spin on a server with more fighting and action, and having a few spin incidents.... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

but still, I find it quite a bit more docile than I'd expect, especially on take-off. Even with a careful run-up, you should have to be standing on that rudder to counter that propwash. Then again, I'd expect something similar (though not as dramatic) in a P-40, and didn't see it there, either.
It happens. As with any plane, give it time and it will rarely or never happen.

Torque is definately not all the way up...for sure. But I think we're at a very decentl level where it affects our thinking and flight without totally whalloping people with something new.

As far as I know, this is the first time very serious torque has been modeled in a commercial combat simulator. We've got alot of people scratching their heads as is http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Badsight.
07-07-2005, 02:08 AM
Originally posted by Stigler_9_JG52:
And you gottawins flying the '45 cannon version should be ashamed of yourselves. If you can't dominate with the '43 and '44 versions, which did the REAL work against the heart of the Japanese IJA and IJN, you need to work on your flying (and your gunnery). Six .50s should be plenty to get the job done. oh jeez

do tell us when the Hispano was first fitted to the Corsair Stigler http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

VF-29_Sandman
07-07-2005, 05:33 AM
the 'super-corsair' armed with 20mm cannon was built to deal with the increasing kamikaze attacks. this could very well be it.

Stigler_9_JG52
07-07-2005, 09:44 AM
These were pretty much introduced for the Iwo Jima assault and the subsequent sweeps over the Japanese Home Islands.

My point being, it was the 6 x .50 caliber MG armed Corsairs that bore the brunt of the fighting against the thinning ranks of competent Japanese pilots in the Solomons & Phillipines.

You wouldn't know it from our Corsair community, though. In ratios GREATER THAN 90%, they ignore the representative versions for the Star Wars version with cannon.

VW-IceFire
07-07-2005, 11:32 AM
Originally posted by Stigler_9_JG52:
These were pretty much introduced for the Iwo Jima assault and the subsequent sweeps over the Japanese Home Islands.

My point being, it was the 6 x .50 caliber MG armed Corsairs that bore the brunt of the fighting against the thinning ranks of competent Japanese pilots in the Solomons & Phillipines.

You wouldn't know it from our Corsair community, though. In ratios GREATER THAN 90%, they ignore the representative versions for the Star Wars version with cannon.
That isn't the Corsair community...those are the same guys who fly the Ki-84c, La-7 3xB20, and the Bf109Z. Big guns is their only concern.

horseback
07-07-2005, 11:44 AM
but still, I find it quite a bit more docile than I'd expect, especially on take-off. Even with a careful run-up, you should have to be standing on that rudder to counter that propwash. Then again, I'd expect something similar (though not as dramatic) in a P-40, and didn't see it there, either.
Actually, the P-40 was MUCH more of a problem in ground handling than the Corsair, and required constant trim input/adjustment in the air.

F-4U-1s were considered treacherous for carrier landing purposes. Compared to contemporary land-based fighters, they were remarkably well behaved.

The 'hard to handle' rep is a lot like the P-40's rep for not being maneuverable. Context is everything. Corsairs were twitchy compared to the Hellcat, P-40s were poor turners only when compared to Oscars and Zeros. By European theater standards, they were easily among the best in these respective categories.

cheers

horseback

horseback
07-07-2005, 11:49 AM
...And the cannon armed versions of the Corsair started with the F-4U-2 nightfighter version. The cannon in the F-4U-1Cs were not particularly well-liked because they tended to freeze up at higher alts, and jam in turning fights (and except for kamikazes, combat against Japanese fighters was ALWAYS a turning fight).

cheers

horseback

Stigler_9_JG52
07-07-2005, 12:51 PM
You're right that ueberplaneism isn't limited to the Corsair community. But guys who fly 109Ks, for example, will also fly G6 Lates, G10s, G14s even G2s on occasion. And, at the very least, all these models (with the exception of the abominable fantasy 109Z) were mainstays at some point, with a lot of action. There WERE a lot of La7s and Yak3s. Less so for Ki-84s and Ki-100 Super Tonys.

My point is to point out the self-serving nature of a "ueber" version of a plane at the total exclusion of much more representative versions. I suppose you could level such a charge at guys who fly A6M7 Zeros and never M3s, M5s or especially M2s.

stansdds
07-07-2005, 05:06 PM
...And the cannon armed versions of the Corsair started with the F-4U-2 nightfighter version.
Huh? The F4U-2 was nothing more than a F4U-1 (two were F4U-1A's) fitted with the radar on the starboard wing, the outboard machine gun and its ammo removed to compensate for the extra weight. F4U-2's all had five 50 caliber machine guns. The first Corsair to have the four 20mm cannon was the F4U-1C. The F4U-4 had six 50 caliber machine guns, but the F4U-4B and all -5, AU-1, and -7's had four 20mm cannons.

SeaFireLIV
07-07-2005, 05:18 PM
Concerning the Corsair:

I gotta admit it`s way easier to fly than I expected considering I`ve only just started in the Pacific with it. It doesn`t feel like it should be this easy to a new user....


But then what do I know... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

Badsight.
07-08-2005, 04:46 AM
Originally posted by Stigler_9_JG52:
My point being, it was the 6 x .50 caliber MG armed Corsairs that bore the brunt of the fighting against the thinning ranks of competent Japanese pilots in the Solomons & Phillipines. well Hispano Corsairs are 44 vintage at least if not as early as 43

thats besides the point

you give HMGs their proper DM abilitys & you would see them being used a LOT more

the simple DM in this game makes for cannon to be needed to bust planes apart

you constantly complain about the way people are playing & yet look where your flying

in a Airquake game , a DF room

prehaps after MG's BoB game gets released we will see MG's punching like they should , till then ill take 20mm on my planes TY

Stigler_9_JG52
07-08-2005, 10:42 AM
Look where I'm flying?

Well, there isn't much in the way of choice, is there?

Most of the coops "scenarios" are just as stupid as the DFs.

And, many of the DFs that offer better matchups or time-segmented planesets (*polite applause*) then ruin things by "pretending nobody can see anything" with full-switch settings. I remember last weekend seeing a server where the host set the DOT setting to 2km... The DOTS could only be seen inside 2km (which would soon change into planeshapes anyway)!!! What's the reasoning there? How the heck could anyone find anything in those conditions????

Anyway, Badsight, my point still is: it doesn't matter if its a DF or a server, you can at least make it an interesting contest, or add a bit more variety for the players, by putting a little effort into the server's design. And the players can also experiment a bit more, and try a plane that doesn't "do everything for you"; at least some of the time. I'll climb into a Yak or a Spit or something every now and then... and even then, it's not an -ueber model.

Asgeir_Strips
07-08-2005, 11:35 AM
Originally posted by 96th_Nightshifter:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Asgeir_Strips:

I've never felt unsafe online when i fly the corsair.. and i've never been beaten either

NEVER!?!?! - Do you teach? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I've been beaten, of course, but not in a corsair!
but i don't get shot down often thougn..
I once managed to fend off 2 Oscars in a badly damaged Buffalo (ack ack) online. that was fun.. i managed to kill them before i crash landed right next to the runway (so i didn't mess flight ops)