So... tell me, how does the F4U feel?

[RoboRay 126]

http://www.sikorskya...es.com/f4u.html

 

That's for an F4U-1D. Later models were faster.

 

Heck, what version is MS offering, even?

 

EDIT: Oh, it is the F4U-1D. :Loser:

 

But it's performing like an F4U-4.

 

Either way, Corsairs don't go over 500mph in level flight. They certainly don't go over 500 knots!

 

I'm sticking with my theory that their "max speed" number is V_NE, and that MS accidentally said "knots" when giving the MPH number.

[FrankFasi 0]

Anyone familiar with the SR-71 (I love the Virtavia version for FSX) knows how strange it is to see 3.2 on the mach gauge while the KEAS (knots equivalent airspeed) indicates just 352 at 80,000'.

[EastCoastGuy 0]

You need to state what altitude you were at when flying at those speeds.

 

Most aircraft top speeds are going to be quoted at the altitude where they have max performance. This is not always down low, and definitely not the case with the Corsair.

 

For example 275 knots IAS is very roughly 385 knots TAS at 20k feet. I think the corsair has best performance at a slightly higher altitude than that.

 

Also always check the units. 500 knots is extremely fast and not correct.

 

I see a published top speed of 446 mph for an F4U-4, which equates to 336 knots.

 

Sounds like yours is outperforming or spot on assuming you were at around 20k feet when you saw that speed. As you climb higher, the IAS will probably slow down, but the TAS will remain high.

 

Edit: I came close on recalling the stats. It peaks at around 23k feet.

 

The 275 was at 10,000 feet, dropping to 247 at 25,000 feet. So basically their in-game model has no relation to reality... or to their own numbers.

[RoboRay 126]

The 275 was at 10,000 feet, dropping to 247 at 25,000 feet. So basically their in-game model has no relation to reality... or to their own numbers.

 

???

 

The in-game performance numbers you provided here and at the Steam Forum work out pretty close to actual, real-world, documented F4U-4 performance data.

 

Their Market description is obviously incorrect, at least for level flight, but your perception of the Flight F4U being "too slow" is not accurate. In fact, the Flight version is faster than the real F4U-1D.

 

EDIT: Delafina has confirmed on Steam that the listed max speed is V_NE. Still trying to get clarification on the knots/MPH issue. Considering that the P-51's max speed is listed as 438 knots, it looks pretty clear that the F4U's 507 number is actually MPH, not knots.

[Oracle427 45]

There are so many factors that would affect the performance before you can be sure.

 

Was the mixture leaned for max performance?

 

Were you trimmed for level flight?

 

By my estimates you were doing about 379 mph at 10k, which is very close to reality.

 

I would suggest climbing to 25k, trim the plane for level flight at max power and properly leaned (use auto lean).

 

Start a shallow descent to 23-20k feet. If you can hold at at a little over 300 knots IAS, I'd say you are doing what is expected. That would be around 500mph!

[FrankFasi 0]

little over 300 knots IAS, I'd say you are doing what is expected. That would be around 500mph!

 

a little over 345 MPH?

[dburne 2]

Well I cannot say how it would feel, as I will not be purchasing it - however, I am betting that it probably " tastes like chicken"

[Oracle427 45]

Yes at 500 mph TAS. :)

[HiFlyer 9,358]

a little over 345 MPH?

 

300kts at 20,000feet = 420tas = 345mph?

[FrankFasi 0]

300kts at 20,000feet = 420tas = 345mph

I see where I went wrong. Thanks for clarifying.

[Oracle427 45]

 

 

300kts at 20,000feet = 420tas = 345mph?

 

300 kts IAS * 1+(.2 * 20 )= 420 kts Tas * 1.15 = 483 mph TAS.

[HiFlyer 9,358]

300 kts IAS * 1+(.2 * 20 )= 420 kts Tas * 1.15 = 483 mph TAS.

 

I got 483.3 but I had to use Wolfram Alpha and this to get it.

 

http://www.flightsim...s_per_Hour.html

 

http://www.flightsimaviation.com/rule-of-thumb/21_Calculate_your_True_Airspeed_TAS.html

[RichLP 32]

I was told there would be no math...

[EastCoastGuy 0]

I was told there would be no math...

 

It's ok. Microsoft obviously didn't use any. :LMAO:

[RoboRay 126]

 

It's ok. Microsoft obviously didn't use any. :LMAO:

 

Actually, MS's math was correct. The in-game speeds you reported are correct.

 

They simply said "knots" in the Market description when they meant MPH.