Special Aircraft Service
Individual Mods and Packs for IL-2 1946 => Other Mods => FM Discussions => Topic started by: FANATIC MODDER on June 01, 2012, 03:03:18 PM
-
If you go in the topic 'SAS repack of late Corsairs v1'
https://www.sas1946.com/main/index.php/topic,21760.0.html
You can read the following:
All these planes now have new FMs that are just quick edits of v4.10.1m Corsair FMs. Sources had somewhat contradicting information, but the used engine types and powers are listed in the readme. Top speeds should now be roughly correct at correct altitudes and the differences in superchargers and supercharger controls are now modeled. We have used the listed empty weights and this made F4U-4 about 400 kg lighter than the overweighted stock F4U-1, so this may make these turn surprisingly well. If you have good reference material and the knowledge to improve the FMs of all Corsairs, we are happy to see your improved FMs.
and I answered
I was impressed by the performance of the plane, even the F4U-4. It is shockingly better than the F4U-1D. I tried a combat 4vs 4 against ki-84s and they had no chance. Not only is faster, turns better, rolls better, can follow opponents is a immelman, even stalls and spins are considerably less violent that before...400 kg more as an empty weight for the F4U-1 is horrible. How they could possibly do such a mistake? (I am not questioning it, if you say so it should be that way). This "400 kg plus" really troubled me.
So, is really the stock F4U-1 FM so wrong? And if it is, what can be done about it?
-
Dude, do not forget F4U4 is a few improvements away from the F4U1 in REAL life. But it is true they have significant extra "kilos" as compared to the book.
I was very tempted to take that away (the seemingly anormal weight) but I do not dare touch the stock model. I mean, there is plenbty of data on F4U, it is a central plane, I cannot think that 1C could have put this one as marginal less carefull work.
On the other hand I have seen things so upsetting while browsing FMs that I could not but realize they were just humans making a game and knowing that a game is not to be taken so seriously... so... after so many real fuck ups... what should I think?
There are some REAL TYPOS in there (no doubt it was a typo when you find 2 FMs representing a variant with MORE fuel and one with LESS fuel with fuel amount inverted ::) -example from P39). Then I remember the famous russian bombs and so other many 1C "scandals" that I just don't believe anything anymore. Even the seemingly unimportant confusion of He162C&D spelling in the java classes tells you how widespread typos are. :P
So the weight certainly troubles me as well. I just simply don't know how it should match against its contemporary enemies.
There is nothing we can do unless someone who KNOWS can spend some serious & loving time to it.
-
If you remember, back in 2006 there was an upgrade (somewhere around v4.00 and the ...legendary v4.04m I think) that LaGG-3 was chopped of 300 kgs of empty weight. They were doing so many changes, improvements and bug fixes back then that it was obvious that their team was overloaded. My guess is that improving the FM was just bypassed because they has so many things to do, more important from the commercial point of view.
You are right that someone that knows the job has to work on it. That's for sure. It's a very difficult job.
Now if you want my opinion (I am not a pilot but I know a few things about aerodynamics...), Oleg and the 1C tended to overweight planes that they found a difficulty to simulate their temperamental/twitchy nature, especially the ones were not so good in the so important for a fighter "angle of attack". And the F4U is a difficult plane to simulate in general. The centre of lift is far away from the centre of mass, the not-so typical shape of the wing/stabilator/rudder played a part in their not-so well harmonized controls, the gull wings helped lateral stability but the 'commodity' they allowed, to have a rather small vertical stab/rudder complex for the size of the plane (on which the non-movable part was so small) didn't help matters in a spin recovery, especially at low speeds. In comparison, the Fw 190 is much more orthodox in its basic aerodynamic shape with very specific problems (trying to keep up the lift/drag/weight balance in check as the weight was escalating - check the early Fw 190s how balanced they are). I am not saying that Fw 190 was superior as a design. The F4U was just 1 meter longer but its combat weight was almost 50% up compared with the Fw 190. It had to be un-orthodox to an extent to keep dimensions down and still have superior performance.
Having said that, I believe that F4U is one of the most difficult planes to simulate properly and do it right is a challenge. But they manage to do it right with 190 (ok, the task there was easier) and now I try the re-born 190s of UP3.0/claymore and I discover many things (about tactics and combat results) that I was before aware only from various books and magazines. Who's going to take THE challenge?
-
Ok, I'm not going to go too much into the different aspects of the F4U's flight envelope, but one thing I've read a number of times is that it was not very popular with its pilots...
Not because of its performance (which was better than the F6F), but because of its poor low speed flight characteristics... something that is quite important to a carrier borne fighter.
Couple that with the cockpit being that far behind that massively long nose and you have an aircraft that is quite a challenge to land on a deck. Then again... I like a challenge! :)
-
Ok, I'm not going to go too much into the different aspects of the F4U's flight envelope, but one thing I've read a number of times is that it was not very popular with its pilots...
Not because of its performance (which was better than the F6F), but because of its poor low speed flight characteristics... something that is quite important to a carrier borne fighter.
Couple that with the cockpit being that far behind that massively long nose and you have an aircraft that is quite a challenge to land on a deck. Then again... I like a challenge! :)
Planes with a short tail often - but not always - tend to stall without warning at low speeds (I-16, P-40, P-51). Planes with a more or less steady aspect ratio also tend to spin without warning at high angles of attack (Fw 190, P-51). So by thinking the other way around, now it makes more sense why Spitfire and Bf 109 got it right. It's simplistic approach because there is no cardinal rule in aviation and someone can give examples of planes that follow these configurations but not this flight behaviour and be right, but it's the simplest way I can make it understand to a person that is not an aerodynamist (I am not too, just a guy that studied engineering in the uni and a lot of aerodynamics for its own pleasure).
To be honest, while we wait to have FM experts again (there is none right now), we could reduce such overload, but I don't know how this will result matching advanced japanese figthers with it.
As Cirx is not very often around, rather than sending him new FMs, I'll PM him asking what he thinks on me uploading next buttons with specific changes written down.
Yes, F4U had all chances to be unpopular after the very stable and forgiving F6F ;)
The F4U-1 as we have it right now seems overweight and overpowered. Restoring these values to historical ones will successfully restore the general behaviour and feeling of the plane in normal flying conditions. What it won't correct is the exact behaviour of the plane in particular conditions. So for example if the left wing stalls in real life we're going to have a more violent rotation of the plane to the one axis based on the simple physics law of V = r? (=r * omega, please support greek characters) where r is the radius starting from the end of the lifting part of the right wing. Of course in any similar case any plane would stall, the difference is in the initial velocity V, so the moment M would be higher too. In real life what the pilot receives is a lack of warning about the upcoming stall . That's one of the challenges of a true as possible simulation. The real maths of this act are differential equations, I try to say it in the simplest way possible.
-
Speaking of P-51, doesn't it also need major FM improvements? In the game it's practically a piece of junk compared to real life (or even DCS Mustang ;)).
-
On the contrary, I believe that is very well simulated.
-
On the contrary, I believe that is very well simulated.
The P-51 FM is not bad, it takes a bit of practice, that's all.
-
Has there been anything done on this flight model since this topic was posted? I am playing the C.U.P. WAW module with my only addition being Stratodog's Hellcats from UP 2.01 and the difference between those 'Cats (they perform almost EXACTLY as the charts I've pored over say they should, thanks again dude for giving my 'Cat some real fangs!) and the F4U-1 in the module are breathtaking. The F4U-1 veritably staggers into a climb (it should certainly be a bit more sluggish than the F6F but competitive with a Zeke 52 in a normal climb and skyrocketing past it in a zoom. It does neither.), acceleration is almost nonexistent (The Corsair has a slightly better power-to-weight ratio than the Hellcat yet I can assure you that the Corsair I have is going to be left behind me as if it is mired in quicksand if I goose the 'Cat), and level speed is, while not atrocious, certainly not the mind-boggling 20-70 mph+ differential that it should be over mid-war Zekes.
My "combat experience" while flying these two is probably the best summation of the differences between them and here goes a brief rundown of them. When flying Stratodog's modded F6F early, no water injection, I can regularly though maybe not completely easily take on 4 Ace AI Zeke 52s and leave them all in the drink within 5 minutes whilst BnZing with near impunity, to the point that I consider coming back with a few 7.7mm rounds through the plane to be a crap run. Trying the same with the F4U-1A gets me annihilated every time because I cannot outzoom the Zeke, I can't evade in a 400+ mph half rolling dive to zoom, hell, I literally have no options after the first diving attack aside from extending out so far that we are reduced to head-ons until I catch a couple 20mm rounds and end up vaporized. I can take two Ace Zekes in a helluva fight if everything goes according to plan, but I see no reason other than a flawed FM or me not managing the engine properly (which would be strange given that I'm using the 1944 F4U-1 pilot's manual for my supercharger stages, RPM, and MP levels for all flight regimes) that can explain the discrepancies here. Any thoughts or solutions for a frustrated early war Hog driver?
-
Some time ago CWatson developed a revised FM for the F4U-1 which he called “F4U-1A_USMC”. If you have CUP you can test out this new FM by installing my JSGME “#WAW_1st adder m12” which you can find at:
https://www.sas1946.com/main/index.php/topic,45858.0.html
Also in that first adder are “F4U-1C_USMC” and “F4U-1D_USMC” along with revised FMs for the F6F’s.
I believe you will find that their performance much improved when combating the Zero.
Enjoy … tooslow
-
It seems like that the F4U flies faster and climbs a little better in the latest 4.13 version.Also the KI-84 and J2M5 can achieve higher speeds than before. I wonder if they had adjusted the FM in the 4.13 to make this happen?
Regards
GAN
-
Some time ago CWatson developed a revised FM for the F4U-1 which he called “F4U-1A_USMC”. If you have CUP you can test out this new FM by installing my JSGME “#WAW_1st adder m12” which you can find at:
https://www.sas1946.com/main/index.php/topic,45858.0.html
Also in that first adder are “F4U-1C_USMC” and “F4U-1D_USMC” along with revised FMs for the F6F’s.
I believe you will find that their performance much improved when combating the Zero.
Enjoy … tooslow
Exactly what I was looking for, thanks a million my man! Now, if I can trouble you guys with one more question, here goes; In WAW all of my U.S. aircraft save for the P-51B-5NA and P-47D-40 (and the UP Hellcats I added to it) have the stock .50s that sound and hit very anemically. I want the big boom and the proper damage modelling to go with it so how do I go about doing so? Sorry if this is a stupid question, I'm actually doing quite well to have gotten this far given that my computing skills are nil!
EDIT- I had a bit of trouble with installation, apparently. I installed the first adder according to instructions and activated it through JSGME and it refuses to load. No "this program cannot open", crash message, nothing. It just loads about halfway and then disappears. I then installed the planes that I wanted the way that I usually do, by placing the folder in the #WAW folder and modifying the air.ini, and they work like a dream aside from the fact that my engine noise disappears when looking to 9 o'clock. Thoughts?
-
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
-
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?
-
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.
-
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....
-
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.
-
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
NO FULL QUOTES PLEASE !!!
It should also be noted that VF-17 was DISAPPOINTED when they had to give up their Corsairs later in the war, and THEY didn't care for the Hellcat. So a lot simply has to do with pilots trading an aircraft they're familiar with for something new.
So this bit about "pilots hated to fly it" is a load a baloney. The Marines loved 'em. Also, the F4U was quite manueverable for its size, with very effective flaps, (the first two notches were a "combat" setting) an excellent rate of roll, and exceptional rudder authority. No, you didn't want to hover around stall speed in a lufbery, but in a middle speed range (~200-250mph) the Corsair was not to be underestimated. The only reason it needed BnZ tactics in the Pacific was because it was fighting against paper kites like the Zero and Ki-43, WHICH EVEN THE F6F COULDN'T TAKE IN A TURNING FIGHT. However its handling compared much more favorably to other Western types (in fact the F4U was superior to the Mustang in everything but very high-altitude performance and endurance. There. I said it).
Honestly, there's a lot of that sort of misinformation going around because people make these comments about how the aircraft were used out of context.
Case in point, the F4F Wildcat was actually a very maneuverable little airplane. Yes, she was overweight, as many carrier-borne fighters of the era were, (even the Corsair and Hellcat) but she still compared well in a turning fight to even the Hurricane and the Spitfire (she just couldn't accelerate or climb with them). The problem was her main and most famous opposition were that same Zero and Ki-43, which were on a whole other level. Even SPITFIRES couldn't turn with a Zeke! Yet because of this, the Wildcat's reputation is that of poor maneuverability.
Anyway, does anyone have a link for that FM revision from CWatson? It seems to be gone from the post where it was mentioned.
-
on aviaskins made a new FM for the Corsair, with her plane sal a formidable weapon, which was in reality
-
on aviaskins made a new FM for the Corsair, with her plane sal a formidable weapon, which was in reality
Link?
-
I will ask the author of the mod and if he does not mind giving a link or post a new FM here
-
Here is a direct link to FM Corsair A, C, D ... FM is completely ready (in the post the author writes about the alpha version, but then he changed the post and set the final version of the FM)
http://forum.aviaskins.com/showpost.php?p=188700&postcount=1198
-
Hi leopard, can you give me (us) some assistance? I have downloaded the files from Aviaskins and now have a folder named F4U-1NEW_FM, in which are two folders one named КЛАСИ and one Flightmodels. What does КЛАСИ means?
There's also a file called F4U-1NEW_FM--повышенная скороподъёмность and another named F4U-1NEW_FM dated 22-1-2019 and in folder F4U-1NEW_FM--17 м в сек a F4U-1NEW_FM dated 23-1-2019. Which ones do I use?
-
the КЛАСИ folder ties the new FM to the default Corsairs ... from two FMs, one with a lowered (17 m / s) and the second with a high rate of climb heights (21-22 m / s) ... to install, simply place the entire folder in MODS ... .. used by default new FM with low rate of climb ... to use FM with high rate of climb, you need to remove the Cyrillic inscription from the second FM and put (-) in the first FM
-
Ok, thanks
-
I apologize for bring up the old thread. I have a question. Does BAT 1.4.3 include the new flight model for Corsair? just wondering. If not, I would like to use this new updated FM for BAT, if it is possible.
-
I apologize for bring up the old thread. I have a question. Does BAT 1.4.3 include the new flight model for Corsair? just wondering. If not, I would like to use this new updated FM for BAT, if it is possible.
You can try in BAT (in the right folders with classes)
put only files with class extension and new fm
(updated, minor bugs fixed).
-
Hello everyone.
I am confsued about the installation instruciton for BAT v4.2.2 HOTFIX 4.
In a folder "F4U-1NEW_FM", i see class files, plus three folders:
КЛАСИ, ПОКРАЩЕНА ФМ, and ФМ ІЗ ЗНИЖЕНИМИ ТТХ ДЛЯ БОТІВ
May I ask, which files or folder do I use to install into BAT?
Thank you for the guide.
Chaoic16