Special Aircraft Service

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  
Pages: 1 [2]   Go Down

Author Topic: F4U-1 FM  (Read 5021 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

tooslow

  • Stang Driver
  • member
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 330
Re: F4U-1 FM
« Reply #12 on: August 27, 2015, 07:40:48 PM »

deadstick88

First I'm glad you got some of the planes working.  That's why I include the ini & ru files in the adders ... so you can do a selective install of just the planes you want and you don't have to download all of them. 

On your installation problems the only thing I can assume is that some how you got a corrupted download.   I just re-downloaded the first adder and it installed perfectly.   Also the first adder (#WAW_1st adder m12) has been downloaded almost 200 times and you are the first to mention this problem.   Since I can't duplicate your difficulty all I can suggest is that you re-download the adder and try again. 

Wish I could've been of more helpful ... tooslow
Logged

deadstick88

  • member
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 54
Re: F4U-1 FM
« Reply #13 on: August 30, 2015, 02:04:47 PM »

Here's the last line of the log file which I assume to be the problem;

[7:59:36 PM]   FM called 'FlightModels/Bf-109K-14.fmd' is being loaded from Alternative File: 'gui/game/buttons'
[7:59:36 PM]   FM called 'FlightModels/Bf-109Z.fmd' is being loaded from Alternative File: 'gui/game/buttons'
[7:59:36 PM]   Main begin: PlMisAir: class 'air.BF_109V48' not found
[7:59:36 PM]   java.lang.RuntimeException: PlMisAir: class 'air.BF_109V48' not found
[7:59:36 PM]      at com.maddox.il2.gui.GUIQuick.fillArrayPlanes(GUIQuick.java:1064)
[7:59:36 PM]      at com.maddox.il2.gui.GUIQuick.<init>(GUIQuick.java:1841)
[7:59:36 PM]      at com.maddox.il2.gui.GUI.create(GUI.java:160)
[7:59:36 PM]      at com.maddox.il2.game.Main3D.beginApp(Main3D.java:1885)
[7:59:36 PM]      at com.maddox.il2.game.Main3D.beginApp(Main3D.java:1579)
[7:59:36 PM]      at com.maddox.il2.game.MainWin3D.beginApp(MainWin3D.java:212)
[7:59:36 PM]      at com.maddox.il2.game.Main.exec(Main.java:432)
[7:59:36 PM]      at com.maddox.il2.game.GameWin3D.main(GameWin3D.java:235)
[Aug 30, 2015 7:59:36 PM] -------------- END log session -------------

So if my assumption is correct and the missing 109V48 is the problem, what is the solution?
Logged

trent

  • member
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 317
Re: F4U-1 FM
« Reply #14 on: October 24, 2015, 06:03:59 AM »


In real life the F4U Corsair was a pig to fly. It had horrible handling characteristics and pilots that transferred from the easy to fly Hellcat hated the F4U, even though the F4U was considerably faster. Corsair pilots used to call the F4U the "Hog" as well as "the bent-wing widow maker" because of all the handling related accidents the F4U had.

In fact, pilots had such trouble with the Corsair's handling that the US Navy first thought it to be unsuitable for carrier operations. The first F4U's were therefore restricted to land operations. It took some extensive training before the Corsair could be used on carriers. Even then the F4U was known more as a USMC fighter than a USN fighter, with most Corsairs remaining land-based.

Turning dogfights were to be avoided at all costs in the F4U. Boom & Zoom tactics were the way to success for the F4U, making good use of its 400mph+ top speed at high altitude. The F4U's size enabled it to carry a considerable load of bombs & rockets, which made it especially good in the ground attack role.
Logged

Griffon_301

  • SAS Team
  • member
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1433
Re: F4U-1 FM
« Reply #15 on: May 10, 2017, 12:53:05 PM »

True for the early 1A model but completely wrong for the 1D and Dash4...
Maybe grab some better sources before stating such wrong things like "pig to fly" and stuff....
I recommend the VF-17 story or Norman Hanson's bio...
And I remember some great 5 minutes of talking to a British FAA Corsair pilot at Duxford a few years ago....he had some different memories and never used the word pig to describe the Corsair....
Logged

FANATIC MODDER

  • Modder
  • member
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 779
Re: F4U-1 FM
« Reply #16 on: October 13, 2018, 03:26:06 AM »


In real life the F4U Corsair was a pig to fly. It had horrible handling characteristics and pilots that transferred from the easy to fly Hellcat hated the F4U, even though the F4U was considerably faster. Corsair pilots used to call the F4U the "Hog" as well as "the bent-wing widow maker" because of all the handling related accidents the F4U had.

In fact, pilots had such trouble with the Corsair's handling that the US Navy first thought it to be unsuitable for carrier operations. The first F4U's were therefore restricted to land operations. It took some extensive training before the Corsair could be used on carriers. Even then the F4U was known more as a USMC fighter than a USN fighter, with most Corsairs remaining land-based.

Turning dogfights were to be avoided at all costs in the F4U. Boom & Zoom tactics were the way to success for the F4U, making good use of its 400mph+ top speed at high altitude. The F4U's size enabled it to carry a considerable load of bombs & rockets, which made it especially good in the ground attack role.

Despite the fact the trent has to login for almost a year, I feel obliged to reply. It's very annoying that someone posts a comment without

1) reading what was written before in the same topic

2) apperently, never tried the plane himself of the simulator or at least not the other planes on its class to compare it.

About the comment of being a "pig". Well, almost single engined high powered in the 2000 bhp (or more) class was a "pig". Ex-Hurricane pilots would comment that the Typhoon/Tempest was a plane "for real men", while the Hurricane was "for boys". Ex-merlin spitfire pilots would comment about "wild nature" of the griffon-spitfires in contrast with the "sweet nature" of the merlin-spitfires. Experten would comment about the difficulty of novice pilots in the late 109s (G-14/AS, G-10, K-4) in contrast with the forgiving -D & -E models that were around when they were novice pilots. Soviets would allow initially new recruits to start their combat sorties with the La-5. And Japanese pilots similarly they would comment how the Ki-84, N1K1/2-J and J2M needed an experienced pilot to get the best out of it, in contrast with the more forgiving nature of the Ki-43 & A6M.
So in essence, this is a common theme with most of the single engined piston fighters that are close or exceed the 2000 bhp power class. In this level of power the "torquesteer" applied in full power settings became so huge that only experienced pilots could apply full throttle settings in combat and be able use the performance successfully and within a relative safety.
What was the "unfortunate" for the F4U was that it was the very first single engine fighter that arrived in the 2000 bhp power class. It was not long before that pilots were used in biplanes with less the half horsepower and the transition was huge. In a sense the long career of the F4U is mostly responsible for this reputation. Both in the early days of it career and in the last days, pilots used either in biplanes or jets would find the F4U difficult.

About the comparison with the F6F. I am a fan of the F6F myself. Grumman realized the most important point for a carrier fighter is to be exactly this, carrier COMPATIBLE. Indeed, the F6F is the most docile of the "2000 bhp power class" single engined fighters.

The F4U was hugely successful in combat. In fact F4U, F6F & P-38 are the top three most successful WWII US fighters in air combat. Of course one would argue that all of them were used primary in the pacific and not in Europe as the P-47 & P-51.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2]   Go Up
 

Page created in 0.024 seconds with 26 queries.