PDA

View Full Version : Corsair practice...



BSS_Goat
06-02-2004, 09:30 AM
What plane do ya'll think will handle close to the PF Corsair? I would think the Thunderbolt D-22 but w/ more speed and better roll.

http://images.allposters.com/images/dar/yng-17.jpg

Patriotism is your conviction
that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it
--George Bernard Shaw

BSS_Goat
06-02-2004, 09:30 AM
What plane do ya'll think will handle close to the PF Corsair? I would think the Thunderbolt D-22 but w/ more speed and better roll.

http://images.allposters.com/images/dar/yng-17.jpg

Patriotism is your conviction
that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it
--George Bernard Shaw

BigKahuna_GS
06-02-2004, 10:14 AM
S!


The Corsair does not fly anything like any of the Jugs. You could compare it more to the Mustang but with a radial engine. The Corsair has better manueverability and much lighter stick pressures than the Pony.



_____

CCJ: What do you define as the most important things a fighter pilot must know to be successful, relating to air combat maneuvering?

Robert S. Johnson :
It's pretty simple, really. Know the absolute limits of your plane's capabilities.
Know its strengths and weaknesses. Know the strengths and weaknesses of you enemy's fighters. Never fight the way your enemy fights best. Always fight the way you fight best. Never be predictable.

In "Fighter Aces," aviation historians Raymond Tolliver
and Trevor Constable compared Johnson's record with that of two German aces.
Werner Molders was the first ace to score 100 aerial victories and Erich Hartmann is the top scoring ace of all time with 352.

The authors noted that
Johnson "emerges impressively from this comparison." He downed 28 planes in 91 sorties, while Molders took 142 sorties to do the same, and Hartmann, 194.
________



http://www.warplaneswarehouse.com/planes_lg/MS1AOO_LG.jpg

"Angels of Okinawa"

IV_JG51_Razor
06-02-2004, 10:35 AM
The Jug and Corsair may not have any flight characteristics in common, but for what's currently available in FB, I think it is the best candidate for training. It's heavy, and it's low speed handling characteristics are somewhat challanging....to say the least. I think that if you can get proficient at consistantly putting the Jug down on the runway at a selected spot, in a good landing attitude (for the benefit of Vidar http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif ) without busting your a$$, you'll be way ahead of the game when PF finally hits the shelves.

Granted, once PF does come out, we will have to get used to a completely different set of flight characteristics with the Corsair, Hellcat, and TBF. For all you Wildcat fans out there, I would use the Brewster for now because I would expect there to be very little difference between those two.

Fortunately, for those Spitfire and Zeke fans out there, they already have their favorite ride available to play with. I have found both of those planes to have extremely docile low speed handling characteristics, and a pleasure to land in FCLP excersises.

Razor
IV/JG51 Intelligence Officer
www.jg51.net (http://www.jg51.net)

"Good judgement comes from experience, and experience comes from poor judgement"

BigKahuna_GS
06-02-2004, 10:37 AM
S!


There is a book called "Flying the Old Fighters" or "Flying the Old Planes" (cant remeber the exact name)where a retired Navy fighter pilot turned Hollywood stunt pilot compares Navy fighters to USAAF fighters.

In the book it was either Frank Tallman or Paul Mantz who flys early Hot Air Ballons, WWI fighters, Golden Age of Flying 1920's-1930's planes and then he gets to the WWII warbirds. The F4U controls are described as light and very responsive, more so than the P51.


_____

CCJ: What do you define as the most important things a fighter pilot must know to be successful, relating to air combat maneuvering?

Robert S. Johnson :
It's pretty simple, really. Know the absolute limits of your plane's capabilities.
Know its strengths and weaknesses. Know the strengths and weaknesses of you enemy's fighters. Never fight the way your enemy fights best. Always fight the way you fight best. Never be predictable.

In "Fighter Aces," aviation historians Raymond Tolliver
and Trevor Constable compared Johnson's record with that of two German aces.
Werner Molders was the first ace to score 100 aerial victories and Erich Hartmann is the top scoring ace of all time with 352.

The authors noted that
Johnson "emerges impressively from this comparison." He downed 28 planes in 91 sorties, while Molders took 142 sorties to do the same, and Hartmann, 194.
________


http://www.warplaneswarehouse.com/planes_lg/MS1AOO_LG.jpg

"Angels of Okinawa"

BlitzPig_DDT
06-02-2004, 10:58 AM
You know how hard it is to find a picture of the sword? lol If you even mention "Corsair" all you get is the F4U. Ruined a joke opportunity. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

http://operationcarepackage.org/ddtsig.gif

BigKahuna_GS
06-02-2004, 11:00 AM
S!

__________________________________________________ ________________________
Razor wrote-I think it is the best candidate for training(47). It's heavy, and it's low speed handling characteristics are somewhat challanging....to say the least.
__________________________________________________ __________________________


Look at the weight of the Corsair, it resembles the Mustang. Slow speed charectoristics were enhanced with a stall strip giving plenty of warning before a stall. The Corsairs slow speed handling was better than that of the Mustang.

In carrier trials to see whether Mustangs could operate from a flight deck and be carrier qualified, it was found that the Mustang's slow speed handeling and fast approach speed was not acceptable for being aboard a carrier. The test team voted to reject the Pony for carrier operations.
That is in "Report of Joint Fighter Confrence" 1944.

____

CCJ: What do you define as the most important things a fighter pilot must know to be successful, relating to air combat maneuvering?

Robert S. Johnson :
It's pretty simple, really. Know the absolute limits of your plane's capabilities.
Know its strengths and weaknesses. Know the strengths and weaknesses of you enemy's fighters. Never fight the way your enemy fights best. Always fight the way you fight best. Never be predictable.

In "Fighter Aces," aviation historians Raymond Tolliver
and Trevor Constable compared Johnson's record with that of two German aces.
Werner Molders was the first ace to score 100 aerial victories and Erich Hartmann is the top scoring ace of all time with 352.

The authors noted that
Johnson "emerges impressively from this comparison." He downed 28 planes in 91 sorties, while Molders took 142 sorties to do the same, and Hartmann, 194.
________


http://www.warplaneswarehouse.com/planes_lg/MS1AOO_LG.jpg

"Angels of Okinawa"

BlitzPig_DDT
06-02-2004, 11:03 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by 609IAP_Kahuna:
S!

__________________________________________________ ________________________
Razor wrote-I think it is the best candidate for training(47). It's heavy, and it's low speed handling characteristics are somewhat challanging....to say the least.
__________________________________________________ __________________________


Look at the weight of the Corsair, it resembles the Mustang. Slow speed charectoristics were enhanced with a stall strip giving plenty of warning before a stall. The Corsairs slow speed handling was better than that of the Mustang.

In carrier trials to see whether Mustangs could operate from a flight deck and be carrier qualified, it was found that the Mustang's slow speed handeling and fast approach speed was not acceptable for being aboard a carrier. The test team voted to reject the Pony for carrier operations.
That is in "Report of Joint Fighter Confrence" 1944.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah, that wonderful, miracle laminar flow wing people love to go on about.

Reimar chose to stay away from it for good reason. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

(not that he is in any way related to the Corsair or PTO.)

http://operationcarepackage.org/ddtsig.gif

IV_JG51_Razor
06-02-2004, 11:08 AM
I'm not disputing the differences between the Corsair and the Pony, or the Jug. all I'm saying is that if you can get around the bounce pattern in a Jug well enough, the planes we will fly in PF will be a piece of cake! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Razor
IV/JG51 Intelligence Officer
www.jg51.net (http://www.jg51.net)

"Good judgement comes from experience, and experience comes from poor judgement"

BigKahuna_GS
06-02-2004, 11:18 AM
S!


Heck the HellCat is heavier than the Corsair when comparing weight.

I think the Pony was shot down more for its approach speed being too fast during carrier landings. Then consider the benefit of an air cooled engine vs a water cooled engine. I bet the thought a water cooled engine flying over the vast Pacific Ocean was enough for the Navy guys.

CCJ: What do you define as the most important things a fighter pilot must know to be successful, relating to air combat maneuvering?

Robert S. Johnson :
It's pretty simple, really. Know the absolute limits of your plane's capabilities.
Know its strengths and weaknesses. Know the strengths and weaknesses of you enemy's fighters. Never fight the way your enemy fights best. Always fight the way you fight best. Never be predictable.

In "Fighter Aces," aviation historians Raymond Tolliver
and Trevor Constable compared Johnson's record with that of two German aces.
Werner Molders was the first ace to score 100 aerial victories and Erich Hartmann is the top scoring ace of all time with 352.

The authors noted that
Johnson "emerges impressively from this comparison." He downed 28 planes in 91 sorties, while Molders took 142 sorties to do the same, and Hartmann, 194.
________


http://www.warplaneswarehouse.com/planes_lg/MS1AOO_LG.jpg

"Angels of Okinawa"

IV_JG51_Razor
06-02-2004, 11:55 AM
I think you're right about the water cooled engine. My dad, who was a Navy carrier pilot during the war (TBFs), said that very thing. I remember asking him, back when I was a kid building models, why the Navy didn't buy the Mustang. He told me about the carrier trials they did with a P-51 rigged with a tailhook, and he said that very thing. The Navy didn't want anything to do with an inline engine. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif He didn't mention anything about unsuitability due to approach speeds. I think there was a little round motor bias going on there http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Razor
IV/JG51 Intelligence Officer
www.jg51.net (http://www.jg51.net)

"Good judgement comes from experience, and experience comes from poor judgement"

Texas LongHorn
06-02-2004, 12:39 PM
Razor, in the early seventies I did my stint and went through A & P school (Airframe and PowerPlant.) We had a couple of old Pratt's around that had not run in years. My roomie and I got them going, and let me tell you.... Nothing, and I mean nothing makes the same sound as the roundy round (the moniker of the day.) I loved em' because once you got them running they would go for a week. I suspect the prejudice was really against anything with an external cooling system. All the best, LongHorn

http://img49.photobucket.com/albums/v149/msdavis/My_Sig_Image2.jpg

Fliger747
06-02-2004, 01:00 PM
I am a great fan of the R2800 engine! It was a war winner, powerfull, dependable, fuel efficent and above all versitile! I still see them flying all of the time in the venerable DC 6. Sometimes the "not invented here" syndrome colors test results. The RAF tested the Tempest airframe with I believe the Centarus (or Hercules) (I forget) and had a wonderful performer, which post war became the SEA FURY. However their inclination towards liquid cooled engines tilted them towards the Napier Saber, a powerfull 24 cyl "H" engine of great complexity and somewhat more doubtfull reliability.

The point being that the folks running such comparisons have their personal preferences. I am predjudiced towards the Boeings I fly and would not be able to give a unbiased review of say an "Airbus".

Not everyone has CFS2 or CFS3, as this is not a MS website. However for those of you who do, I recomend the Avhistory.org 1% planes for pretty good flight charcteristics, reasonably replicating the handling of many of these planes. The 1% F4U-1D for CFS2 flies really well, not like the poor stock plane and will give a pretty good simulation of the techniques that need to be mastered. For those of you that have CFS3, the 1% F4U-4 just released flies quite nicely, like a real plane should and has the preformance just about spot on.

As some have said here before, good field landing practice in any of the planes will allow one to develop the necessary skills to make a quick transition. Land it in the same place, the same way, every time!

Good luck!

arcadeace
06-02-2004, 02:07 PM
Yeah the 1% a/c were a nice improvement over stock CFS2/3. My experience with the Mustang B/C models hand better maneuverability at mid to high speed range than the Corsairs.

http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/222_1082457373_222_1082441075_airaces.jpg

VW-IceFire
06-02-2004, 03:40 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Fliger747:
I am a great fan of the R2800 engine! It was a war winner, powerfull, dependable, fuel efficent and above all versitile! I still see them flying all of the time in the venerable DC 6. Sometimes the "not invented here" syndrome colors test results. The RAF tested the Tempest airframe with I believe the Centarus (or Hercules) (I forget) and had a wonderful performer, which post war became the SEA FURY. However their inclination towards liquid cooled engines tilted them towards the Napier Saber, a powerfull 24 cyl "H" engine of great complexity and somewhat more doubtfull reliability. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Mostly true...Cam decided on the Centarus Radial engine early in the Tempests development but as in most things during the war the expediant solution was to get the Tempest working with the Sabre which was essentially already on hand and essentially already a part of the Typhoon airframe which the Tempest was devised from.

So to reduce delays they went with the Sabre...but it was decided early that the ultimate Tempest would be powered by the Centarus. The first 200 Tempest II's were finished before the end of the war and almost made it to the Pacific (painted with SEAC colors even) when the war ended (much like the Bearcat in this respect).

Its true that radial engines were given more respect by the Navy and In-Line by the Air Forces. Radials were seen as reliable and the In-Lines considered high performance...turns out the radials did the high performance bit too.

http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/tmv-sig1.jpg
RCAF 412 Falcon Squadron - "Swift to Avenge"

Fliger747
06-03-2004, 06:44 PM
Hopefully this will work (posting screen shots).

A trap in the 1% F4U 1D in CFS II. A great flying "airplane". The 1% guys have gone to a lot of effort to make these pretty good.

The first shot is just at before the cut, airspeed 85 kt. indicated, 30 kt's over the deck wind. The second is just about to touch down, wheels about 6" above the deck and the hook just getting ready to grab a wire.http://img78.photobucket.com/albums/v249/fliger747/sim%20photos/F4U-1A_the_cut.jpg http://img78.photobucket.com/albums/v249/fliger747/sim%20photos/F4U_1A__trap.jpg

james8325
06-03-2004, 07:43 PM
wow the cfsII graphics are **** compared to the pf screens. I wouldnt even be able to play that game lol.

BlitzPig_DDT
06-03-2004, 07:48 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by james8325:
wow the cfsII graphics are **** compared to the pf screens. I wouldnt even be able to play that game lol.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/crazy.gif

I can't understand the modern gamer.

Maybe it's because as a kid I cut my teeth on the original MechWarrior (1989) and LucasArt's BoB and SWOTL and Microprose's Knights of the Sky, and as such, have actually learned to use my imagination a bit. IDK.

But, while AEP has far nicer looking graphics than CFS2, CFS2 has plenty to get the job done.

http://operationcarepackage.org/ddtsig.gif

james8325
06-03-2004, 07:56 PM
well, im sure cfsII is a great game, its just ive always been a sucker for good graphics. Im drooling over half life 2 and doom 3. i cant wait to see how battle of britain graphics will be. fantastic im sure. lo-mac has amazing graphics too, but i like the gameplay of the il2 series more. Carrier landings in lo-mac dont feel right. i dont know what it is about them.

[This message was edited by james8325 on Thu June 03 2004 at 07:12 PM.]

BlitzPig_DDT
06-03-2004, 08:42 PM
Unfortunately, gameplay, writing, packaging, everything that made quality games, is falling by the way side thanks to the mania for graphics and multiplayer.

Used to be, to have a good selling game, you needed a good story, and good execution - IOW actually make a good game. Now, all you have to do is crank up the graphics and give it multiplayer and you have a hit. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_mad.gif

No offense james, just been a pet peeve of mine for some time now. You were just unlucky enough to trigger it. lol

http://operationcarepackage.org/ddtsig.gif

james8325
06-03-2004, 09:07 PM
graphics arent everything i look for in a game, my computer cant even handle most games with everything at max. I do like eye candy though. Its hard for me to play a game with very outdated graphics, just like it is hard for my to play a game with no story or gameplay. battlefield 1942 is one of the most popular games on the shelves, but i cant stand playing that game. while it was fun for a while, the online playing is full of idiots, as well as the gameplay and realism being laughable. doom 3 pulled me in because of the graphics, and half-life 2 because of the gameplay. splinter cell 3 also looks good for both graphics and gameplay. like i said i dont enjoy playing lo-mac even though the graphics are breathtaking. I hope you have a better understanding for how i choose a game now. sorry for this being off topic by the way lol.

Fliger747
06-03-2004, 09:30 PM
The point of my post is FLYING QUALITIES. I may be dissapointed by Pacific Fighters, if it flies poorly I will drop it and not look back. I hope not.

It is a sad commentary that the best WWII Carrier sim is as old as it is. These screen shots are from my laptop on the road, not set to a very high setting, what I am trying to illustrate is that some good honing of technique can be had here. I get to fly the $50 million dollar simshttp://img78.photobucket.com/albums/v249/fliger747/F4U_1D__trap_2.jpg with some regularity, and think that this IS (Clintonian emphasis)good practice.

Here is another one just before touchdown, a good illustration of a plane still under good control, but gonn'a quit flying real soon.

jpatrick62
06-04-2004, 10:22 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by IV_JG51_Razor:
I think you're right about the water cooled engine. My dad, who was a Navy carrier pilot during the war (TBFs), said that very thing. I remember asking him, back when I was a kid building models, why the Navy didn't buy the Mustang. He told me about the carrier trials they did with a P-51 rigged with a tailhook, and he said that very thing. The Navy didn't want anything to do with an inline engine. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif He didn't mention anything about unsuitability due to approach speeds. I think there was a little round motor bias going on there http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Razor
IV/JG51 Intelligence Officer
http://www.jg51.net

"Good judgement comes from experience, and experience comes from poor judgement"<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Razor, you are partially right. Corky Meyers, the test pilot from Grumman revealed that he flew a Mustang in carrier tests for Grumman. Grumman was very concerned taht the P51 would get some of the carrier fighter contracts especially since it had great range. However, Meyers revealed that his tests done durin the 1944 fightrer conference gave Grumman relief. Specifically, Meyers said the pony's laminar wing, great for high altitude speed, produced a terrrible low speed characteristic wing drop at stall that was both without warning and pronounced as the speeds got lower - definitely not waht you want in a carrier landing. In addition, North American would have to increase the wing size to accomodate the extra 5-800 lbs of weight a carrier fighter has for tailhook, fuealage bracing, floding wings, etc. These changes, observed Meyers, would negatively affect the pony's performance. In addition, the pony could not turn with either the F4U or F6F, nor was it as durable. In the end, the Nvay rejected the hybrid attempt. The really amazing thing about the F4U and F6F is that you can compare them to land based fighters even with the extra 5-800 lbs. The navy got great designs, so much so that Great Britain used them (f6F's and F4U's) throughout the war instead of their own home designs. The Seafire was the next closest tot he f6F and F4U, but tended to snap fuelage bracing and bend on landing - not a good thing. You can read alot about this stuff in the 1944 interservice fighter conferece report issued by "Flight Journal" magazine I believe - its a synopsis of the 1944 fighter conference.

lrrp22
06-04-2004, 11:11 AM
BlitzPig_DDT,

Don't confuse the laminar profile wing's unsuitability for carrier operations with an inherent deficiency.

Carrier aircraft have low speed handling and stall requirements that no land-based fighter need be concerned with. It should come as no suprise that Navy pilots would find the Mustang's very low-speed handling and stall characteristics alarming while army pilots had no such concerns.

There was nothing 'wrong' with the Mustang's stall behavior, it was just designed (rightly so) to different spec's and different requirements. It would be pointless and counterproductive to design a land-based fighter with carrier-like stall tolerances.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BlitzPig_DDT:

Yeah, that wonderful, miracle laminar flow wing people love to go on about.

Reimar chose to stay away from it for good reason. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

(not that he is in any way related to the Corsair or PTO.)

http://operationcarepackage.org/ddtsig.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

BlitzPig_DDT
06-04-2004, 11:16 AM
I disagree. It depends on the context.

My comment wasn't that Laminar Flow was "bad", it was that the worship it gets is.

You can have your cake and eat it too, to a degree at least. Incur a little more drag with thicker, "traditional" wings, but drop the drag incurred in both parasitic and interference forms by ditching the tail altogether. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Even then - look at the hosed nosed ensign eliminator everyone has a hard on for, or Grummans (including the bad *** Hellcat and world beating Bearcat).....

http://operationcarepackage.org/ddtsig.gif

Fliger747
06-05-2004, 01:51 AM
Laminar flow wings are optimized for a narrower set of angles of attack than is a more conventional wing (Clark Y comes to mind). The high speed aircraft (high transonic anyway) that I fly is optimized for an extremely narrow set of parameters, which makes it very efficent in that application. To effect good low speed handling it has a multitude of leading and trailing edge devices which would have been inappropriate in a fighter type of aircraft of the era.

It is indeed amazing that the USN fighters were as good as they were given the many tasks for which they had to be at least reasonably good. Range is one of them, especially compared to the European Theater fighters. A big plus was one of the world's greatest engines of the time, the R2800!

The 1944 Joint fighter conf. is available as a complete book, not expensive, at used bookstores, and very intresting!

jpatrick62
06-05-2004, 01:52 PM
My last post wasn't to deny that the Mustang was the best high altitude escort fighter of WW2. The laminar wing gave it great speed (The pony is a good 30 mph faster than the SpitIX with the same engine) and it was fuel efficient (as much as a WW2 fighter could be) and therefore could ride with the bombers all the way to Berlin and back. Simply put, no other fighter of its time could perform this role as well as the Mustang. At the same time, I think the Navy got the better all round designs which is amazing when you think of all a carrier fighter has to do.

Kwiatos
06-05-2004, 02:57 PM
I was in ILA Berlin 2004 and spoke with Corsair pilot from "Flying Bulls". He said that Corsair is more manouverable than P-51 and better roll. I think slow speed handling P-51 in FB is little too good now.

BigKahuna_GS
06-06-2004, 07:26 AM
S!

__________________________________________________ _______________________
Razor---He didn't mention anything about unsuitability due to approach speeds. I think there was a little round motor bias going on there
__________________________________________________ _______________________

hehe how true Razor !

My dad was a Marine fighter pilot in WW2 and Korea. He was in 30years and flew over 175 types of aircraft, but always liked the ones with round engines better http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif



For you guys wondering about the slow speed handeling of the P51 on the deck, remember that fuel load & energy state of an aircraft could make the 51 more faverable than you think. The P51 is usually flown with a 25% fuel load which greatly improves its performance. At a 25% fuel load the 51 has better wingloading than all 190 types and many types of 109.

This was the point i was trying to make about how US aircraft performance increased at a ratio porportinately much faster than german aircraft as fuel loads burned off. Very interesting reading.


Full fuel weights for the Mustangs are P-51D/10100 lbs; P-51B-15/9800; P-51B-1/9200. Fuel weight is calculated at 6 lbs/gallon.

Weights for the K-4 are from the Object Viewer and weights for the D-9 (9442 lbs) come from the Jagdhund Dora sight.

wingloading (lbs/sq. ft):

Bf 109K-4@100%-----42.27---106 gal
Bf 109K-4@ 50%-----40.46---53
Bf 109K-4@ 25%-----39.56---26.5

Fw 190A-9@100%-----49.25---168?

Fw 190D-9@100%-----47.93---168 gal
Fw 190D-9@ 50%-----45.37---84
Fw 190D-9@ 25%-----44.09---42

P-51D@100%---------43.35---269 gal
P-51D@ 25%---------38.15---67.25

P-51B-15NA@100%----42.06---269 gal
P-51B-15NA@ 25%----36.87---67.25

P-51B-1NA@100%-----39.48---184 gal
P-51B-1NA@ 25%-----35.93---46

CCJ: What do you define as the most important things a fighter pilot must know to be successful, relating to air combat maneuvering?

Robert S. Johnson :
It's pretty simple, really. Know the absolute limits of your plane's capabilities.
Know its strengths and weaknesses. Know the strengths and weaknesses of you enemy's fighters. Never fight the way your enemy fights best. Always fight the way you fight best. Never be predictable.

In "Fighter Aces," aviation historians Raymond Tolliver
and Trevor Constable compared Johnson's record with that of two German aces.
Werner Molders was the first ace to score 100 aerial victories and Erich Hartmann is the top scoring ace of all time with 352.

The authors noted that
Johnson "emerges impressively from this comparison." He downed 28 planes in 91 sorties, while Molders took 142 sorties to do the same, and Hartmann, 194.
________


http://www.warplaneswarehouse.com/planes_lg/MS1AOO_LG.jpg

"Angels of Okinawa"

Kwiatos
06-06-2004, 12:54 PM
Weight, laminar wings dont work so good at high AoA and slow speed http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif that's way Bf should be much better in slow speed doghfight than P-51

BSS_Vidar
06-06-2004, 01:37 PM
OK, let the "laminar Flow" to the back burner. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/35.gif Back to practicing carrier approaches to get ready for the Corsair.
The P-47 is a great learning tool for low and slow ops in the Field Carrier Landing Practice (FCLP) pattern. You master the P-47 in this speed and handling regime, you'll be more than ready when PF comes out.

BSS_Vidar

eobet
06-07-2004, 05:00 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BSS_Vidar:
OK, let the "laminar Flow" to the back burner. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/35.gif Back to practicing carrier approaches to get ready for the Corsair.
The P-47 is a great learning tool for low and slow ops in the Field Carrier Landing Practice (FCLP) pattern. You master the P-47 in this speed and handling regime, you'll be more than ready when PF comes out.

BSS_Vidar<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

But... without a Landing Signalling Officer? If the P-47 had zero forward visibility during landing, as with the Corsair, isn't that rather difficult?

SKULLS Virga
06-07-2004, 09:36 AM
Tried Goat's carrier mission last night in a P-40 and started to get the hang of it. I was feeling comfortable with 800' and 180-190 mph to the carrier then commencing the break turn, slowing to about 130 mph and 600 feet while extending gear and flaps to arrive abeam all out and on speed. Not sure about how my altitude was during the turn to final but it seemed to work out o.k. and I think I would have trapped just fine.

Then I moved to the Jug. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/51.gif My speed and altitude were all over the place, finals were blind, yawing, scary affairs with no chance for success. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/blink.gif I will spend more time going round and round until I get the hang of it. For now I'm very glad a little boat isn't the only place I can go home to.

http://img68.photobucket.com/albums/v206/SKULLS_Virga/Signature_2.jpg

BSS_Vidar
06-07-2004, 10:29 AM
Keep plugin' away Virga, You master the jug in the pattern, you'll be good to go!

eobet,
The Blacksheep have been doing carrier Ops on line in CFS2 for over 2 years. Their is no LSO in on-line game play. You have to fly a real CV-case-1 recovery pattern that a couple of my guys have developed into an IL-2 mission based off of our Carrier/Formation Flight Guide. I wrote this guide based off of the CV NATOPS Manual. (I still own one from my flying days in the Navy) You'll see the deck all the way down till just before touch-down when you roll wings level for the trap.
The whole reason for this pattern was due to the Corsair having such a long nose. The Brits came up with the solution. Once emplimented into U.S. Carrier Ops, it has stuck to this day with very little change.

S!

BSS_Vidar

[This message was edited by BSS_Vidar on Mon June 07 2004 at 09:38 AM.]

GT182
06-07-2004, 06:21 PM
The Corsairs controls should feel light.... they're made out of plywood, and the wingtips are plywood also. No joke. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

"GT182" / "Stab/JG51_vonSpinmeister"
www.bombs-away.net (http://www.bombs-away.net)
"Fly to Survive, Survive to Fly"

SKULLS Virga
06-07-2004, 09:39 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by GT182:
The Corsairs controls should feel light.... they're made out of plywood, and the wingtips are plywood also. No joke. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hmmm... I picture 3/4" plywood like I would make them and they should be lots heavier than aluminum. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/59.gif

http://img68.photobucket.com/albums/v206/SKULLS_Virga/Signature_2.jpg

Fliger747
06-09-2004, 02:21 PM
The actual "weight" of the flight control is not what makes them "heavy" or "light" in manuvering. They are responding mostly to air loads. Weight and ballance of the surface is important in their airspeed response, but this is a very complicated subject, an area of considerable experimentation and test flying. Vought flew over 100 test flights to work out the best aileron response (over a wide speed range) for the F4U. To achieve better handling charcteristics, aircraft designers used a number of devices, including ballance horns, spring tabs, and servo tabs.

This is a subject not within the perview of most folks here, but one that is historically interesting for those who care about "the way things work". Control surfaces and sometimes some wing pannels in the aircraft of the day were commonly fabric covered, as is the rudder in the F4U. Easy to repair at any rate!