Why can't I achieve more than 258 kts airspeed?

[Gunfreak]

16 minutes ago, Saxman said:

That's for the F4U-4, which has a different block engine and a four-bladed paddle prop providing substantially more power.

Don't understand why flight simmers of all people don't understand that different modeles have different features. And it only seems to be related to the Corsair. Like they think there's just one Corsair.  They wouldn't go around using speeds for Mk XIV spitfire when talking about a MkIX spitfire. But for the Corsair they do that. 

 

When it comes to what is or isn't wrong with the engine. I have no real evidence one way or the other. But the fact it possible to "break it" by going to extremely unrealistic MP and RPM, makes me think the whole engine simulation is off to some degree.

 

Would be nice to get an official statement from Mag3. So all this theorising can end.

[felixx75]

3 minutes ago, Gunfreak said:

Would be nice to get an official statement from Mag3. So all this theorising can end.

That would be very good in any case, but the engine itself seems to be working properly, as all known values are achieved exactly the same way in the simulation. I rather think that something with the drag is not quite right

[GTFreeFlyer]

Let’s not forget… the module as is… is really fun to fly whether or not it’s missing a few knots.  My fav warbird as it currently stands, and will only get better   Adding warbird carrier ops with working homing signal, and the bat bomb, are a great addition to the sim.  13ft props to Mag3.

[Jenrick]

Had no issue clearing 280 knots IAS at 750 ft.  50% fuel, full guns, no stores.  Took off at Batumi with default weather.  Throttle to full mil, RPM at 2700.

 

null

[LeCuvier]

18 hours ago, Saxman said:

250kts Indicated or True?

Whether its indicated or true airspeed doesn't matter to me. What counts is whether my speed is adequate for the job. And if I can't even catch up with a bomber or a tanker aircraft, the aircraft is useless. Yes, I could bomb ships with BAT bombs provided I have air cover. Big deal!

If the performance doesn't improve I will trash the bird.

Edited July 1 by LeCuvier

[felixx75]

23 minutes ago, LeCuvier said:

What counts is whether my speed is adequate for the job.

Wrong, what counts is whether the real values of the F4U are achieved in the simulation or not. In order for us players to be able to compare this, we need this data and not "but we know that..." or "but it should be like this...".

In another thread someone posted a small table from which you can see that an F4U should be able to reach about 314kt (TS) at 5000ft. This means that your Hercules, which according to your information is travelling at 338 kt (IAS) @6000ft, is too fast to be catched by any warbird...

 

However, of course, I don't know how accurate this table actually is.

Edited July 1 by felixx75

[Lee Dove]

I suspect that the prop thrust is not calculated correctly for a 13ft prop. I wonder if they have taken the prop physics model from another module with a smaller diameter prop.

[Saxman]

39 minutes ago, Lee Dove said:

I suspect that the prop thrust is not calculated correctly for a 13ft prop. I wonder if they have taken the prop physics model from another module with a smaller diameter prop.

There would also be a question of whether they're modelling for the toothpick prop installed on the earlier production machines, or the correct broad-chord propeller tested by VF-17 and subsequently retrofit in the field and implemented on the production lines. That will make a big difference in acceleration and rate of climb especially.

[captain_dalan]

18 hours ago, Gunfreak said:

Don't understand why flight simmers of all people don't understand that different modeles have different features. And it only seems to be related to the Corsair. Like they think there's just one Corsair.  They wouldn't go around using speeds for Mk XIV spitfire when talking about a MkIX spitfire. But for the Corsair they do that. 

 

When it comes to what is or isn't wrong with the engine. I have no real evidence one way or the other. But the fact it possible to "break it" by going to extremely unrealistic MP and RPM, makes me think the whole engine simulation is off to some degree.

 

Would be nice to get an official statement from Mag3. So all this theorising can end.

As a demographic group we've fallen low from what we used to be. I mean, many don't understand the differences between indicated, calibrated and true airspeed, even less so ground speed. How can we expect them to understand engine variants and management. The tragic thing is, the confidence that ignorance manifests itself with. 

[LeCuvier]

7 hours ago, felixx75 said:

 ...This means that your Hercules, which according to your information is travelling at 338 kt (IAS) @6000ft, is too fast to be catched by any warbird...

 

You are right. The Hercules can outrun the F4U-1D. I was misled by the Hercules' behaviour in other exercise missions which are just the same but with the German warbirds chasing. In these missions I can easily catch & kill the C-130's even with the FW-190A. So I never realized that the C-130 could be a lot faster.

[Hayrake YE-ZB]

3 hours ago, LeCuvier said:

You are right. The Hercules can outrun the F4U-1D. I was misled by the Hercules' behaviour in other exercise missions which are just the same but with the German warbirds chasing. In these missions I can easily catch & kill the C-130's even with the FW-190A. So I never realized that the C-130 could be a lot faster.

A warbird mixed in C130s seems weird. What is the point, to provide a big target for gunnery that you can’t miss?

10 hours ago, LeCuvier said:

Whether its indicated or true airspeed doesn't matter to me. What counts is whether my speed is adequate for the job. And if I can't even catch up with a bomber or a tanker aircraft, the aircraft is useless. Yes, I could bomb ships with BAT bombs provided I have air cover. Big deal!

If the performance doesn't improve I will trash the bird.

LOL. Looks like you have to “trash the bird”! 

[Dkha]

So, I want to share a few things after doing a lot of testing.

I followed the rules based on the F4U’s own kneeboard in DCS and other tutorials on YouTube, and I really noticed some things that were “limiting” my speed in the game.

Well, on my first try I followed the rules from the DCS manuals + video, and both of them say:

Above 5000 ft, set the supercharger to low, and the mixture should ALWAYS stay on auto lean. I kept that setup with 2700 RPM and 55 manifold pressure, and I was reaching 250 to 260 knots.

Then I created an AI to analyze data, and I fed it with F4U manuals—both the official ones available online and the one that comes with the aircraft itself.

Next, I asked it to analyze my data alongside the manuals and cross-reference the information to see if the DCS engine model was accurate. And well… it is =). But the AI told me that the kneeboard in-game is wrong, and some info in the YouTube tutorials is wrong too.

It suggested I do the same flight but set the mixture to auto rich instead. I tried that setup and managed to get 275 knots. That was over 10 knots faster than usual. I thought that was interesting.

 

 

Why am I sharing this? Because I see a lot of people saying the engine is bad or wrong. I don’t think that’s exactly the case. These results actually match up with the information in the manuals.

[Saxman]

2 hours ago, Dkha said:

Because I see a lot of people saying the engine is bad or wrong. I don’t think that’s exactly the case.

The F4U-1D had the 8W engine. It's not supposed to, or at least shouldn't need to, use Auto-Rich to get full rated power. That's what the injection water is for. The only time the 8W was to use Auto-Rich was takeoffs and landing.

If using Auto-Rich gets the needed power the engine is absolutely modeled wrong, because that shows it's the WRONG ENGINE ALTOGETHER.

Edited July 2 by Saxman

[fargo007]

Ultimately the comparative is the bigger picture.

A BF-109 or even a P-47 easily outrun it. And they should not. All of these performance numbers and their follow on effects don't exist in a vacuum. They are also comparative, and it is those comparative aspects that wind up being more (singularly) important because they alone wind up defining the use case for any airplane in DCS that flies against another one. 

The success of a DCS module hinges on whether it rests correctly in its historical place as much or more than the accuracy of its technical absolutes.

[Nealius]

10 minutes ago, fargo007 said:

The success of a DCS module hinges on whether it rests correctly in its historical place

Which begs the question why we have a K-4 at all when it barely participated in the war. We should have a Gustav, but that's an entirely separate discussion. 

[Dkha]

1 hour ago, Saxman said:

The F4U-1D had the 8W engine. It's not supposed to, or at least shouldn't need to, use Auto-Rich to get full rated power. That's what the injection water is for. The only time the 8W was to use Auto-Rich was takeoffs and landing.

Let’s recap what I said: I mentioned that in level flight, following the instructions from both the DCS manual and YouTube tutorials, the aircraft wouldn’t go past 250 knots IAS. Right?
Then I said that by repeating the exact same parameters but switching to Auto Rich, I was able to reach 275 knots — without using water injection. In fact, when I did use it, I only gained about 10 knots

So from that, I understood the following: for climbing and high-power operation, you should use Auto Rich; for normal cruising, Auto Lean.

Could I be wrong? Of course.
As I mentioned at the end, MAG3 still hasn’t made any official statement so far.

[captain_dalan]

1 hour ago, fargo007 said:

Ultimately the comparative is the bigger picture.

A BF-109 or even a P-47 easily outrun it. And they should not.

Why not? 
I haven't really researched the P-47 we have in game, but the BF-109k is over 30 knots faster then F4U 1-D. And that's just top speed. Produce some acceleration charts and we can analyze those as well. 

[fargo007]

35 minutes ago, captain_dalan said:

Why not? 
I haven't really researched the P-47 we have in game, but the BF-109k is over 30 knots faster then F4U 1-D. And that's just top speed. Produce some acceleration charts and we can analyze those as well. 

Look into the p47 please.

[Saxman]

2 hours ago, Dkha said:

Let’s recap what I said: I mentioned that in level flight, following the instructions from both the DCS manual and YouTube tutorials, the aircraft wouldn’t go past 250 knots IAS. Right?
Then I said that by repeating the exact same parameters but switching to Auto Rich, I was able to reach 275 knots — without using water injection. In fact, when I did use it, I only gained about 10 knots

So from that, I understood the following: for climbing and high-power operation, you should use Auto Rich; for normal cruising, Auto Lean.

Could I be wrong? Of course.
As I mentioned at the end, MAG3 still hasn’t made any official statement so far.

Let's recap what I said:

The -8W engine didn't use Auto Rich for MIL or WEP power settings, but the -8 (without injection) DID. And the F4U-1D used the -8W engine. So if you're having to turn on Auto Rich to get the documented performance the engine is modeled wrong for the plane we have. Period.

Edited July 2 by Saxman

[gabuzomeu]

From the Corsair manual , info about WEP. Engine is R2800-8W, and states Auto Lean for WEP indeed.

 

[Gunfreak]

9 hours ago, captain_dalan said:

Why not? 
I haven't really researched the P-47 we have in game, but the BF-109k is over 30 knots faster then F4U 1-D. And that's just top speed. Produce some acceleration charts and we can analyze those as well. 

The K4 has a higher top speed true. So at 30k feet the K4 is much faster. Same is not true at 14k, 8k or sea level. 

[felixx75]

26 minutes ago, Gunfreak said:

The K4 has a higher top speed true. So at 30k feet the K4 is much faster. Same is not true at 14k, 8k or sea level. 

I seriously doubt that... 

I say it's faster at any altitude.

[fargo007]

It is. I meant to say the FW-190. I just confused them.

And in this video it comes in second to last which doesn't seem correct to me.

 

 

[felixx75]

30 minutes ago, fargo007 said:

It is. I meant to say the FW-190. I just confused them.

And in this video it comes in second to last which doesn't seem correct to me.

 

 

On the basis of what data do you think that a FW-190 D-9 was not faster at sea level? "It doesn't seem correct to you" is unfortunately not a valid argument.

(and this video is no proof either way)

[fargo007]

1 hour ago, felixx75 said:

On the basis of what data do you think that a FW-190 D-9 was not faster at sea level? "It doesn't seem correct to you" is unfortunately not a valid argument.

(and this video is no proof either way)

Instead of arguing the particulars of one specific plane at a time, address why the corsiar comes in second from the last.

If you're claiming that it should in fact come in second to last in this kind of comparative testing against all of these other aircraft, then okay. 

The issue here is the claim that the corsair isn't showing as much speed as it ought to. This video more or less bears that out, and there's also a second one where they test it with the 4200rpm secret extra power technique (where it wins unrealistically and dramatically) as well as an included control, which produces the same result as the first video. 

 

 

Edited July 2 by fargo007