PDA

View Full Version : a general warm fuzzy then a question re corsair



deskpilot
02-07-2009, 06:48 AM
firstly...Il2 is just great! It's so enjoyable to try different planes and find out "wow I love this one too!" Tremendous achievment to have modelled so many. Hats off to Oleg and the team. One such newly discovered plane in between sessions on the p38 which my son is patiently trying to teach me how to get the best out of, is the Corsair. Unusual shape (were the bent wings so as to make the undercarriage shorter and more stable on carrier decks, by the way?) and I've not found it at all difficult to fly or land. (Could I actually be getting better at this sim?) I'd welcome any tips for getting the best out of this quirky but brilliant plane. What exactly is water injection as compared to other Boost wep features? It seems quite a maneouverable plane, and quite quick. would you recommend boomnzoom, or other tactics?

Pyrres
02-07-2009, 10:29 AM
Fly energy tactics with Corsair. Keep your speed up and you should be fine with most of the japanese planes. The bent wings were there just to make enought ground clearense to fit that big propeller. Water injection works quite simply, I just canīt explain it so here is a link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W..._injection_(engines) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_injection_(engines)).

jayhall0315
02-07-2009, 01:57 PM
Yes, the Corsair in IL2 can be a bad *** weapon. First fly it like an energy fighter with altitude and then come down on opponents. Do not get caught up in tight turning battles with zeros or Ki43/Ki84s but rather make a pass and then climb before circling about. Try not to let your speed drop below 300 kph or so, for then handling becomes bad and the stick will not respond. The Corsair in-game competes well with all Zeros, the Ki43, all Jap bombers, many American planes (including the P51 but not P63). It is about equal to the Ki84b (slightly faster but turns worse) and is out classed by the Ki84C which is almost as fast, has a 30 mm cannon and turns much better. On the Western front the Corsair can compete with and up to the Bf 109 F4 and early FW 190s, but the Bf 109 G2 and later models of both the Bfs and FW 190s will out class it. The Corsair can hold its own against the La-5 and maybe La-5F but the La-5 FN and La-7/La-7 3xB20 out class it by a large margin unless you take the Corsiar above 3500m.

In-game the F4U-C has four Hispano cannons and is far more destructive than the F4U-D model but if taking the exact same amount of fuel, the F4U-D will weigh about 500 lbs less and will out turn and out climb a F4U-C (and this is modeled in the game).

If flown properly, you should be able to take on two to three Zeros by yourself and by using potential energy correctly and making passes on them, you can usually splash em without ever taking damage yourself.

Send me a private message (pm) and I will instruct you how to visit me on Hyperlobby with an up close and personal tutorial of what I mean in detail.

Hope this helps - Jay

Chevy350
02-08-2009, 05:38 PM
i think the corsair outclasses ALL 109s. lol

K_Freddie
02-09-2009, 05:47 AM
Originally posted by Chevy350:
i think the corsair outclasses ALL 109s. lol
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif...Definitely now a 10-pager...
.. and over the horizon comes the charts, tactics, engine specs...
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

HayateAce
02-09-2009, 07:08 AM
F4U and F6F would have brought the same {whoop butt?} to 109s and 190s that the P47 and P51 did...and then some.

It would have been even uglier.

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

Bremspropeller
02-09-2009, 07:50 AM
devastation to 109s and 190s

You like to put things a bit simple, don't you?
IIRC, the only encounter between Corsairs and 190s saw both a/c to be equally matched.

jamesblonde1979
02-09-2009, 08:21 AM
(were the bent wings so as to make the undercarriage shorter and more stable on carrier decks, by the way?)

I'm pretty sure the bent wings are for propellor clearance. The Corsair has a HUGE prop, if you have a look at any photo with a scale reference, ie pilot next to the prop, you will see what I mean. The Stuka has gull wings for the same reason.

Glad to see you like the Corsair, it's definitely on my 'to fly' list after the Mustang. Both aircraft are quite challenging and highly rewarding fighters to fly given their reputation.

captgeo
02-09-2009, 08:30 AM
I love the Corsair, and the T-bolt, the wings were bent for prop clearence. I could see spec wise that the FW-190 and Corsair would be evenly matched, but I do "think" that the 109 in any model would be dropped by the Corsair easily.

jamesblonde1979
02-09-2009, 08:39 AM
Originally posted by captgeo:
but I do "think" that the 109 in any model would be dropped by the Corsair easily.

The Corsair should beat the 109 at it's own game but You'd have a tricky time lining up a shot without stalling out. I'd be happy enough in an F-4 or G-2 but not in the heavier 109-s.

HayateAce
02-09-2009, 08:50 AM
There are 5 other pages of the report, but page 5 summed it up nicely.



http://home.comcast.net/~markw4/page5.jpg

Bremspropeller
02-09-2009, 09:38 AM
Yeah, two evenly matched fighters.

R_Target
02-09-2009, 10:31 AM
Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">devastation to 109s and 190s

You like to put things a bit simple, don't you?
IIRC, the only encounter between Corsairs and 190s saw both a/c to be equally matched. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't think Fw190 and Corsair ever met. RN Hellcats fought against JG5 during Tirpitz strikes. Results: two F6F lost, two 109 lost. RN also claimed one Fw190 in this fight, but I'm not sure there were any in the area.

Bremspropeller
02-09-2009, 10:41 AM
I don't think F4U and Corsair ever met. RN Hellcats fought against JG5 during Tirpitz strikes. Results: two F6F lost, two 109 lost. RN also claimed one Fw190 in this fight, but I'm not sure there were any in the area.


I looked it up shortly after posting.
You're correct. It was two Hellcats vs two 109s.

But I was also referring to the USN-test.

In a nutshell, the 190 copares to the F4U in the following manner:
- slower down low
- faster up high
- climbs better
- turns worse
- same acceleration
- same roll
- worse fwd. visibility
- better rear visibility

Not mentioned in the test is the 190s
- smaller airframe
- shorter range
- better armament
- lower ordnance-payload

HayateAce
02-09-2009, 11:33 AM
Originally posted by Bremspropeller:

- worse fwd. visibility
- better rear visibility



Helpful, since they're always running.

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

AllorNothing117
02-09-2009, 01:09 PM
"Patiently trying to teach me how to fly..."

Awwww, cheers dad! he's much better than he makes out guys! Best of luck in the corsair! I flew it once and did horibly, doesn't one them have folding wings? That'd be cool...

HayateAce
02-09-2009, 11:31 PM
Love the father/son duo here. Hop online and fly as wingmen. ( http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif maybe that will get you online AllorNothing).

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

The IL2 F4U is near the top of the experten plane list. You really must know what you are doing in this A/C to survive. Especially against late war Japanese planes. Only the very best IL2 players are true Corsair aces.

I think a fun server would be 109/190's vs the USN in F6F and F4U's.

Gadje
02-10-2009, 05:39 AM
Originally posted by HayateAce:
I think a fun server would be 109/190's vs the USN in F6F and F4U's.

Spit v 109 server has a Norway map with RN versions of these aircraft on it and it is a good one. The Seafire is on it too though, so most red fly that, which is a pity as it would be a better fight without it IMO.

My teammate and I occasionally host a Coop in HL which is basically a 6v6 machine matchup.
We have both a 109G6 v Hellcat and a 190A6 v F4U-C (fantasy that one!)match and it is always close. Having flown both sides it's pilot skill that decides either of them.
Very well matched.

Bremspropeller
02-10-2009, 07:47 AM
Agree, Hayate.
Those J2Ms are definately a threat to the F4U.
Their four 20mms can turn your day into a bad one after just one mistake.

But it's a fun match-up.

danjama
02-10-2009, 08:31 AM
From what i remember, the corsair was a brute at anything below optimum speed. You were just a sitting duck. It was best to stay high and keep your speed. The 190 on the other hand had a huge advantage in its roll rate which helped it to escape alot of situations. It also recovers speed well and climbs well.

I'm not sure which i'd rather be in. The early corsairs were much lighter and therefore easier to handle. The 190's are good through all models and armament is excellent.

HayateAce
02-10-2009, 08:52 AM
What optimum speed is that?

Recall that the F4U's roll rate is evenly matched with the 190, and as the speed and airspace of the fight comes down, advantage to the F4U goes up.

F4U's were also good through all models, and it is widely known that the best Corsairs were the end of the series, the "dash 4." In fact, it is widely believed that the "dash 4" may be the best piston-engined fighter in history.

From the interweb:

"...there was nothing in western Europe that could hang with the F4U-4. Even when including the Soviets, only the Yak-3 could hope to survive a one on one with the Corsair. To do so, the Yak would have to expertly flown. Furthermore, the Yak-3 was strictly a low to medium altitude fighter. Above 20,000 ft its power dropped off rapidly, as did its maneuverability. The Yak-3 in question had better be powered by the Klimov M107A engine and not the low output M105. Otherwise, the speed difference is too great to overcome."

HayateAce
02-10-2009, 08:57 AM
Plus it looks purty.


http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/228/476665305_042ff07b1c.jpg?v=0

danjama
02-10-2009, 08:58 AM
Well i'm just talking from my experiences of both in game.

K_Freddie
02-10-2009, 09:00 AM
We can all fly at high speed, jink this and jink that.. and run away from combat, in most sensible cases.
BUT... what happens when you're 'trapped' and you've never practised tight turning low speed tactics... sitting duck are we not.

FW190/ME109 creams them all in these situations. I've found these two planes 'so stable', and easy to fly at stall speed, that it's just unfair to the rest.
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

HayateAce
02-10-2009, 09:50 AM
Originally posted by K_Freddie:


FW190/ME109 creams them all in these situations. I've found these two planes 'so stable', and easy to fly at stall speed, that it's just unfair to the rest.
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Totally agreed, and the chief reason I will not fly these two a/c. The allied a/c have a mysterious twitch built in that these two magically do not have.

erco415
02-10-2009, 01:24 PM
Originally posted by jamesblonde1979:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">(were the bent wings so as to make the undercarriage shorter and more stable on carrier decks, by the way?)

I'm pretty sure the bent wings are for propellor clearance. The Corsair has a HUGE prop, if you have a look at any photo with a scale reference, ie pilot next to the prop, you will see what I mean. The Stuka has gull wings for the same reason.

Glad to see you like the Corsair, it's definitely on my 'to fly' list after the Mustang. Both aircraft are quite challenging and highly rewarding fighters to fly given their reputation. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The bent wing came about in an effort to keep the landing gear short (and thus lighter) for carrier ops while maintaining prop clearance. A happy side effect is that the wing-fuselage joint is less draggy as a result of the near 90 degree join.

Friendly_flyer
02-10-2009, 02:00 PM
The Corsair is also a decent ground-pounder (and one with a very useful load-out). Don't get caught while low and slow though!

Bremspropeller
02-10-2009, 02:13 PM
In fact, it is widely believed that the "dash 4" may be the best piston-engined fighter in history.

Yeah, it's widely believed on a single site.

The best piston-powered fighter was the Sea Fury, hands down.

R_Target
02-10-2009, 06:12 PM
Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
The best piston-powered fighter was the Sea Fury, hands down.

Really? There's not much performance difference between Sea Fury and F4U-4. The F8F-1 is 2500 lbs. lighter than either for about the same power, and would be my pick in a dogfight situation.

HayateAce
02-10-2009, 09:00 PM
Agreed on F8F, but I was thinking in terms of combat WW2 a/c. Too bad the F8F is not included in our planeset.

She would indeed be a real bear.

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

VW-IceFire
02-10-2009, 09:33 PM
Originally posted by R_Target:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
The best piston-powered fighter was the Sea Fury, hands down.

Really? There's not much performance difference between Sea Fury and F4U-4. The F8F-1 is 2500 lbs. lighter than either for about the same power, and would be my pick in a dogfight situation. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
The La-9 is also worth mentioning. Between these you have similar types of aircraft using very high performance engines and having similar performance between them all.

It is a shame to not have the F4U-4 in-game...I would have liked to see what it could do versus the opposition.

BigKahuna_GS
02-11-2009, 04:22 PM
S!

I wasn't going to claim which plane is better--they all have their strengths and weaknesses.

I just wanted to point out a few things so often over looked:


The Corsair in the flight test vs the 190:

1. Did not have the right propeller installed which actually made a performance differnece. The new propeller did not arrive from the factory on time for the test.

2. The Corsair was over heating--why? Pilot error he accidently ran performance tests in auto-lean not auto-rich.
That is covered in the report--read it yourself. The pilot backed off because of heat issues (auto-lean) decreasing performance.

3. Almost Everyone over-boosted. To what degree ukwn. But this much is known Carriers had 145grade aviation fuel on board so the ETO isn't the
only place 150grade fuel was found. I have talked to Corsair pilots that ran their F4U1-Ds at 65"-70"MAP on this fuel for Kamikaze intercepts.
I can't seem to find a book or charts documenting this though. This was before the Dash-4 went operational.

4. A slightly overboosted F4U-1 on 130grade fuel at 65"MAP, wax job/sand fill(like so many USAAF & Luft tests), and an early model 4-bladed prop did 435mph at 18,000ft.

Problems in IL2

#1.Problem No F4U-4 in Pacific Fighters, this would be representative against late model japanese fighters.

#2.All Corasir models without rocket stubs are about 10mph too slow at sea level.

--

Daiichidoku
02-12-2009, 08:24 AM
Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
Agree, Hayate.
Those J2Ms are definately a threat to the F4U.
Their four 20mms can turn your day into a bad one after just one mistake.

But it's a fun match-up.

M3 is great copetitive type, great fights with that vs hellcat, corsair, lightning, mustang etc

not M5

they are distictly NO fun whatsoever

freakin overmodelled POS, the La7 of +4000m

be nice to have F7, F8, 51H, F4U-4, or a properly modelled 38 to deal with em

HayateAce
02-12-2009, 09:07 AM
Skies of Valor has a single late war Pacific matchup of some of these types. I have had some sorties with 5 or more kills, but from a defensive aspect, you'd better be at the very top of your game to return shipboard.

For an aircraft with essentially a razorback design and a vertical stab the size of a B17, horizontal stability is too squirrely to be realistic. Put this machine into a scissors and things will get squirrely times 1,000.

But, the graphic model is beautiful, it's fun to look at and you can get kills on superior a/c with it. I suppose we can have fun with it or get bored in La7s.

jayhall0315
02-13-2009, 08:42 PM
....
The IL2 F4U is near the top of the experten plane list. You really must know what you are doing in this A/C to survive. Especially against late war Japanese planes. Only the very best IL2 players are true Corsair aces.

I think a fun server would be 109/190's vs the USN in F6F and F4U's.

It is very hard for me to give exact specifics since so many good fliers can be found on Hyperlobby, but I tend to agree that many of the good pilots are those that use (or have learned) the FW 190, Corsair and P51.

I host a server where I often fight guys in a wide range of planes and many times I have fought guys who are decent in La7s and Spit 25lbs until we switch to an all Corsair battle (or all P51 or all FW 190) and then their skills or lack there of are really telling. That is when I really get to see how they handle energy tactics and conservation of advantageous conditions. FI Gadje, Mikester, the AFJ guys, the [OAC] guys and some Russian squads do this very well while many others do not.

If pressed on the issue, I guess I would say that the Corsair is (for the main front line fighters) one of the top two or three most difficult to fly at a high level in IL2. One test for myself personally that is always very telling is that I sometimes visit an intermediate level server where many guys stay with the La7s and Spit 25lbs (with Ki84s and I-185 M71s coming in second) and go at them in my Corsair. I know that when I can get to the point that I can strike successfully and continue mounting my kill count steadily without many taking me out (despite their numerous advantages in speed and turning), then I am really beginning to do well as an IL2 pilot.

Jay

Aaron_GT
02-14-2009, 04:24 AM
#2.All Corasir models without rocket stubs are about 10mph too slow at sea level.

Rocket stubs modelled as always present?

Within 10mph is reasonable, though, given that tests of the same model of most aircraft by different groups often vary by that amount.

On a tangent some well known performance figures are wrong! E.g. The maximum speed of 365 mph for the Spitfire I is not from a production version - that was 10mph slower at altitude. This is where it is good to have spitfireperformance.com and it does show the variation in test figures.

In terms of best fighter (even just single engined piston) there are many criteria, including breadth of missions that could be carried out, range, ordnance capacity, performance, ease-of-use, ease-of-maintenance, gun platform, and cost. The F4U did exceptionally well as an all-rounder and had twice the external load capacity of most of its contemporaries. The places where it fell down were in ease-of-use (carrier landing complexity) and slightly less than ideal stability as a gun platform compared to, say, the F6F. I'm not sure you could really reduce it to one top fighter as weighting the criteria would be somewhat arbitrary, but the likes of the La-9, F4U, P-51, F8F, Fw-190 are all going to be up there. Possibly the Spitfire too.

What planes were important is another matter. While the Hurricane or P-40 might not win prizes for being the best they would for being there at critical points in history.

Aaron_GT
02-14-2009, 04:30 AM
It is very hard for me to give exact specifics since so many good fliers can be found on Hyperlobby, but I tend to agree that many of the good pilots are those that use (or have learned) the FW 190, Corsair and P51.

I find the F4U to be a great plane online but I don't like flying it as I don't like the way it responds unless you keep well above 200mph. Given the JFC report comments I might not be alone. But then I find the Fw 190A horrible too. In the F4U size/weight class I find the Tempest V, F6F, and P-47 work better for me.

BigKahuna_GS
02-19-2009, 09:50 AM
Rocket stubs modelled as always present?

Within 10mph is reasonable, though, given that tests of the same model of most aircraft by different groups often vary by that amount.


Hya Aaron,

Unless something has changed there was one IL2 Corsair varient that had fixed rocket stubs on the wings. So somebody in F/M modeling decided to take the easy way out
and make ALL IL2 Corsairs fly like they had the parasitic drag of rocket stubs on their wings. A generic "one F/M fits all Corsairs" mode has pretty much been taken.

As for the speed I thought 8-10mph was beyond the + or - 5% F/M modeling IL2 was shooting for. I have posted a US Navy doc here many times that showed front line weather beaten
Fleet combat Corsairs were doing 366mph V-max at sea level--(no special prep).

When Pacific Fighters came out the Corsair did 366mph at sea level, now it does around 356-357mph at sea level a (minus 8-10mph).
When Pacific Fighters came out the Ki84 did 356mph at sea level, during patches it was relisted at 363mph in IL2 but actually goes 366mph(+3) for a total (plus 10mph).


There is really no reason for Corsairs without rocket stubs to go 366mph at sea level as when Pacific Fighters was released. This speed is well documented.

BigKahuna_GS
02-23-2009, 11:26 PM
From what i remember, the corsair was a brute at anything below optimum speed. You were just a sitting duck. It was best to stay high and keep your speed. The 190 on the other hand had a huge advantage in its roll rate which helped it to escape alot of situations. It also recovers speed well and climbs well.

I'm not sure which i'd rather be in. The early corsairs were much lighter and therefore easier to handle. The 190's are good through all models and armament is excellent.
__________________________________________________ _______________________________________________


Your logic with the Corsair was much the same as Oleg with the P47 series early in FB.
As the series progessed "the fighter got worse not better."

Using that logic the P47D-10 was a better aircraft than the P47M/N,
the F4U-1A was a better aircraft than the F4U-1D or F4U-4.
Both of these statements are way out of line and untrue.

Some things to consider about both aircraft:

The F4U had excellent airlerons/roll rate & elevator, both were rated near the top at the JFC.
Actually the F4U was rated number one in elevator response. The P47D had a very good high speed roll rate at 300-350mph (way too slow in IL2).

Both the F4U & P47D got heavier as the series went forward but also had improvements in horsepower, superchargers, fuel- 150grade ETO, 145grade PTO, overboosting & performance increases in speed and climb rates.

Here is the US Navy F4U Flight test--366mph V-Max at sea level Fleet Combat Corsairs (no prep)
& in "Clean Condition".

http://www.geocities.com/slakergmb/19728170.jpg

Aaron_GT
02-24-2009, 12:00 PM
As for the speed I thought 8-10mph was beyond the + or - 5% F/M modeling IL2 was shooting for. I have posted a US Navy doc here many times that showed front line weather beaten
Fleet combat Corsairs were doing 366mph V-max at sea level--(no special prep).

10/366 is 0.027, so it would be within the 5% margin. Still, no consolation if you are being run down by something!


There is really no reason for Corsairs without rocket stubs to go 366mph at sea level as when Pacific Fighters was released. This speed is well documented.

I am presuming that the physics model changes caused things to shift and there wasn't sufficient time to rebalance things with some winners (Ki84) and some losers (F4U), unfortunatelt. It certainly explains why my attempts to out run ki84s are unsuccessful!

Based on the table you posted the level speed with tank and no rails is 353, with rails 350, so the rail penalty should only be 3mph (the benefit of zero length rails compared to RAF types!). So the speed loss in versions is probably not modelling of rails then, but maybe just the change in physics modelling I am guessing.

BigKahuna_GS
02-25-2009, 02:02 PM
10/366 is 0.027, so it would be within the 5% margin. Still, no consolation if you are being run down by something![quote]


I re-read the perferred modeling again and + or - 3% was the standard (not 5%). Anyways I have read here on the forums that + or - 10mph exceeds F/M modeling standards.

Then there is the question of why does every Corsair basicly have the same flight model
whether it has fixed rocket stubs or not?


[quote]I am presuming that the physics model changes caused things to shift and there wasn't sufficient time to rebalance things with some winners (Ki84) and some losers (F4U), unfortunatelt. It certainly explains why my attempts to out run ki84s are unsuccessful!

Based on the table you posted the level speed with tank and no rails is 353, with rails 350, so the rail penalty should only be 3mph (the benefit of zero length rails compared to RAF types!). So the speed loss in versions is probably not modelling of rails then, but maybe just the change in physics modelling I am guessing.

These F/M changes happened long ago. It appears they are based off of pylons for drop tanks which is the closest to the parasitic drag number for the Corsair. So the wrong pararsitic drag
was modeled for ALL IL2 Corsair models including those in "clean condition".
I reported these errors long ago and it was never changed.