By golly you are right Bear.  RN Corsairs did fly in the European theater.  In 1943 as you state.

As a matter of interest:

What was their combat record in terms of kills in the European campaign?

How many RN Corsair squadrons were empoyed in the D Day June 1944 Normandy landings?   

Capt Eric Brown, RN, Test Pilot.  Flew all US/Br carrier fighters 1939 - 1970, 487 aircraft, last RN F4.  "Duels in the Sky" for those interested in comparisions between USN and J/N fighters.  He also flew J/N fighters for test.

His assessment Corsair v 109G: Favorable for the 109 but don't make tactical errors.

Vs 190: 190 without a doubt.

"Even the 2US F4U is a poor flying machine."
Make that 1US F4U.  Still a poor flying machine in the sim.  Unless accelerated stalls are a useful tactical manuver.  Believe it to be GMax problem.   

Interesting that CFS simmers are carrier qualified.  Just for grins; how many regularly make CV landings? 

nickle

Since you verified that F4U's were in fact in FAA active service flying combat missions in Europe & not in the "None participated" category that you originally claimed why don't you just look it up in the same place  

>>>Vs 190: 190 without a doubt.<<<

Others had a different view:



Your mileage may vary.  

>>>Make that 1US F4U.  Still a poor flying machine in the sim.<<<

You are still missing some letters & numbers in the ID but that's OK.

Very interesting comment that F4U, which ever F4U it actually is, flys poorly.   For example the 1US F4U-4B Corsair is a machine that can



roll at over 100 degrees per second at 340mph and



can pull almost 8G at 300mph.  Handles poorly, y'all got to be just funning with us  

BTW the improved Zero model 52 looks like this




When the Zero is 100mph slower & has 10,000ft less service ceiling, do you really want to be flying a 1% Zero against a 1% Corsair? Or to state the question a little differently do you have a simulated death wish  

>>>Believe it to be GMax problem.<<<

Really?  The visual development tool is effecting the flight models, I will have to look into that.  You are aware of course that not all of the 1US F4U's are created using Gmax but they all can meet their in flight numbers.



>>>Interesting that CFS simmers are carrier qualified.  Just for grins; how many regularly make CV landings?<<<

Well my old squadron VMF-257 WildBunch had approximately 330 of them because every mission started & ended on the deck.  

BEAR - AvHistory

Lt Hampton Grey, VC, RCNVR, Corsair pilot Tripitz action 1944:

http://www.navalandmilitarymuseum.org/resource/Resources_Frame.html?gray.html&1

It strikes me that Mr. Meyer never flew Spitfires. In fact, as he swears so heavily on the Thunderbolt, I see that it's quite obvious that he never flew Tempests or Typhoons either.


And nickle, this is one argument your never going to win.

nickle,

And clearly you favor Captain Brown over the USN test pilots as he supports your point of view.  

Its just too bad that Captain Brown was flying a F4U-1 & not a F4U-4 in his tests Myers has the same problem in the Hellcat speed tests as its against a F4U-1 which is about 30mph slower at 6,000ft less altitude then the F4U-4.  

I don't think anyone was knocking themselves out to campaign a Hellcats at Reno although they were surplus and available.

As for your climb claims they are just like everything else you stated in this thread about how the planes in the sim fly - all opinion & no facts to back them up.

For example, your climb statement has no value as its missing all the components that make up a climb rate: What power settings are being used - How the aircraft loaded - What the speed of the climb is - What is the AoA -  Also if our planes are wrong - What specific altitudes are they off at - How much are they off & so on.  

We have no real problems with the America’s Hundred Thousand as we all use it as one of our sources, but only one of our sources.

If you don't like the way our F4U's & P-47's fly just put up some solid data where they are off & stop trolling. Its easy all you need to say is your plane does A & the real one according to (name of source) does B so you are off by X.

You talked all about how the F4U was so bad but instead of saying specifically what the issues were you tried to change the subject.

You first started with comments that the 1% Spitfire had the wrong 350 Chevy intake, but you had the wrong Spitfire.

You stated the "Hurricane" was all messed up with the wrong nose, but you again had the wrong plane as it was not a Hurricane but a Spitfire with a tropical filter.

You stated there were no F4U's is Europe, but the FAA flew them in combat operations.

You said the CFS2 1% F4U flys badly but were never able to tell us which one since they fly differently.

You said it stall/rolls? too much, but our numbers dispute that on any version.

You blamed Gmax for bad flight properties & causing accelerated stalls, but Gmax has nothing to do with the flight models.

You said the model is Gmax, but some of them are stock MS visuals, other are FSDS & you were unable to tell us which one it was.

You said Grumman used the Fw-190 as a base for the Bearcat, but this is just an urban legend created by embroidering on the fact that Leroy Grumman viewed some captured German planes in the UK in early1943. It was actually built to meet a USN contract requirement that it could operate from all carries not just the big CV's.

You said no one ever landed & took off from the carrier is CFS2, but this is just smoke & mirrors on your part to move off the subject.  

We had about 350,000 CFS2 carrier based planes downloaded which were created at the specific request of people for carrier operations.  We even converted MS/AI planes into carrier capable units because of the demand.



When the guys discovered no carriers in CFS3 it hurt sales & no carriers in the still born CFS4 sparked protests on the messageboards & petitions to MS.

As for your cheap shot at the sim guys in the 257th a number were military pilots taking a busman's holidays playing with a computer.  Chameleon & his wingman used to log in from the Gulf where they were running No-Fly zone patrols in F-16's.  They enjoyed playing Navy & trapping

One of the biggest fans of the CFS2 1% F4U series day job is a USN test pilot at Naval Weapons Center China Lake working on the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet project.  The Corsair was at the top of his wish list to own.

You were doing so well with your comments above you started the lets talk about Hellcats or 109's or 190 or anything else but not explain why to you the 1% F4U flys badly in the sim.  

So back to your no content comments - I never said the P-47 was a dog you did.  Your saying it was a dog sort of completes the circle you started with the F4U flys bad comment.

You make statements with absolutely no content other then a non quantifiable "its a dog", "it flys bad" which is total rubbish especially from a guy who thinks a desert Spitfire is a Hurricane with a bad nose job

I said it was heavy & flys like a heavy plane.  If you think a single engine plane with a maximum TOW of 17,500 pounds was an agile lightweight who am I to disagree with you.

Its interesting to note that the P-38F another agile lightweight had two engines to pull its maximum TOW of 18,000 pounds off the ground.

You might not be aware of it but getting a plane to feel heavy in the game to a sim pilot is a major big deal.  

Bottom line here is climb performance is not MIA in this sim & its not missing in our P-47 series which meets its climb rate numbers.

>>>Does not mean that a $50 sim running on a (maybe) $1500 computer is going to duplicate the real deal or close to it.<<<

Really, no kidding?

BTW: Which part of our readme statement "It is the intention of the AvHistory 1% project to over time build the most accurate aircraft that the CFS3 software can support." don't you understand.

You want to continue this, stay focused & put up something verifiable,  not just some more vague comments about the planes with no backup.

BEAR

Gee Bear you took it so personal.

Yes indeed: Capt Brown and Meyers over BuAer.

Best carrier fighter by record:  F6F.

Corsair prone to stalls and rolls in sim.  Not representative of the real aircraft.

None of the 3US fighters will climb per specs.  Since you have the reference; check for yourself.

To paraphrase T Hanks:  Fighter Pilots don't cry.

Nickle,

>>>Corsair prone to stalls and rolls in sim.  Not representative of the real aircraft.

None of the 3US fighters will climb per specs.  Since you have the reference; check for yourself.<<<<

In addition to the references I also have the output charts of their specific climb performance taken real time in the game that demonstrate they are on the climb numbers listed in those same references.

Anyway, You are just continuing to repeat the same circular augment & adding nothing of value as it goes around since your opinions are all unsupported  by any evidence. 

Does not seem like there is anything more to say other then,  if you really believe, as you said earlier that



this is a  Hurricane how informed can your unsupported opinions on how the planes fly  possibly be

BEAR

Yowsa Bear!

Who did the external paint job on that Spitfire?