Jump to content

DCS : F4U-1 Corsair


Hueyman
 Share

Recommended Posts

On 3/13/2021 at 8:21 AM, Hiromachi said:

There are no news because development currently demands full attention.  But I will try to get some news once time permits.


Hiromachi, Status check on the status check? 😄


Edited by Rakkis
  • Like 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

:shocking:

https://www.historynet.com/r-2800-piston-engine-perfection.htm
 

Quote

 

R-2800: Piston-Engine Perfection

...

...

"Was the R-2800 a good engine? “Everybody thought it was,” says Block. “We didn’t have turbines to compare it to, but rated against other big recips, it was an excellent engine. Of course, none of them had a fraction of the dependability of turbines. We feathered engines all the time. I had 11 R-2800 failures in my first two years with the airlines, landed on one engine 11 times—far more failures than I had in a variety of turboprops and jets in the next 34 years. It was amazing how you could blow whole jugs off the airplane, and if you pulled the power back, the engine kept running. You knew something was wrong, but you didn’t know exactly what it was—you just weren’t getting full power. And then you’d get on the ground and there’d be two cylinders hanging by their studs in the cowling.”

...

...

 

 

  • Like 2

Intel Core i7 3630QM @ 2.40GHz (Max Turbo Frequency 3.40 GHz) | 16.0GB Dual-Channel DDR3 @ 798MHz | 2047MB NVIDIA GeForce GT 635M | 447GB KINGSTON SA400S37480G (SATA-2 (SSD))

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Except, it's not a rich guy out for a joyride on a Sunday afternoon, it's guys in their 20's desperately trying to succeed at the assigned mission, trying to take off with too much weight in ordnance and fuel, then trying to outrun ze enemaz at absolute max power, straining that poor piston nest well beyond what the engineers could create, then trying to limp the plane back home.

 

The PT-6 turboprop turbine system... sure it's not as sexy as a radial, or a Merlin, but it's very reliable high power levels from such a tiny pack are part of why it's dominated so much of aviation world. It powers King Airs, Tucanos, AT-6's, Twin Otters, Beech 1900's, helis... I think at one point they even experimented with powering a locomotive train with a PT-6 !!

 

Thing is, like the story said, just because it's broke, doesn't mean it stopped working. That's part of the reason that radial piston engines were very popular among bush pilots in remote locations: even if it breaks, enough engine will still be running that you can usually make it home.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It took me all of 8 hours of flying radials to have an engine failure in one. A guy I worked for who used to own Hawkins and Powers (google it) said he never saw a Kc-97 land with all four engines running.

 

Edit: Radials are awesome. Just in my very limited experience they lived up to the unreliable reputation.


Edited by Jester986
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Rick50 said:

Except, it's not a rich guy out for a joyride on a Sunday afternoon, it's guys in their 20's desperately trying to succeed at the assigned mission, trying to take off with too much weight in ordnance and fuel, then trying to outrun ze enemaz at absolute max power, straining that poor piston nest well beyond what the engineers could create, then trying to limp the plane back home.

 

The PT-6 turboprop turbine system... sure it's not as sexy as a radial, or a Merlin, but it's very reliable high power levels from such a tiny pack are part of why it's dominated so much of aviation world. It powers King Airs, Tucanos, AT-6's, Twin Otters, Beech 1900's, helis... I think at one point they even experimented with powering a locomotive train with a PT-6 !!

 

Thing is, like the story said, just because it's broke, doesn't mean it stopped working. That's part of the reason that radial piston engines were very popular among bush pilots in remote locations: even if it breaks, enough engine will still be running that you can usually make it home.


I really don’t think you can compare a modern ecu controlled turbine with a high output WW2 piston.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

and yet I just did!

 

But yes, I'd agree it's an "apples to oranges" kind of comparison that's not "fair" in a sense considering many decades of development and engineering. But the fact is, even today there are aircraft types that are available in both turbine and radial configurations, and so it is worth a comparison. Examples off the top of my head are all bush planes: DHC-2 Beaver, which originally and are nearly all radial pistons, but there are some with a PT-6 turbine. Same with the single engine DHC-3 Otter (not the Twin Otter), that originally was made like a Beaver with a growth spurt, piston radial up front. Since then, as Twin Otters got super popular and not enough to meet demand, some stared to focus on taking the original single engine Otters, and mounting a PT-6 instead. And finally, a similar situationwith the Antonov AN-2, which virtually all having been made as piston radials, but a small number since converted to turboprop, and now you can buy from factory with a turboprop, and a AN2 redesign prototype also featured a turboprop too.

 

One thing about the Warbirds reliability at war power settings, it'd be interesting to look at how many missions or flights had been scrubbed due to such failures.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've got hundreds of hours in 220hp and 450hp Stearmans... lost a total of 1 cylinder in one W-670 once.  I hope I haven't jinxed myself lol... but for me, those have been pretty solid engines. 

 

... But those are completely different from the massive engines in the warbirds and subsequent propliners.  The amount of power those machines produce is nothing short of violent... it's probably amazing they run for any length of time at all haha. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Edited.  

 

Apologies.  I have broken the forum rules.  I did not intend to detract from the conversation about the lack of news for the DCS module.

 

 


Edited by MasaIV
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I VERY MUCH doubt, well, indeed I am pretty sure that that Corsair for Microsoft Flight Simulator 2020 

does not come even near to the upcoming DCS Corsair.... 

No weapons, no damage model, and don't get me started on the aerodynamics.....

 

Mainboard: ASUS Maximus X Hero Intel Z 370

CPU: Intel Core i7-8086K @ 4.0 GHz

Memory: 32GB Corsair Dominator Platinum DDR4-3000

Graphics Card: ASUS NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 10GB

Monitor ASUS PA 329 32" @ 4K

1 SSD Samsung 860 PRO 256 GB

1 SSD Samsung 860 PRO 4 TB

Windows 10 - 64 V. 2004

CH Pro combatstick, throttle and pedals

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please keep the discussion on DCS, the rules for the forum can be found at the top of the page.

 

thank you

smallCATPILOT.PNG.04bbece1b27ff1b2c193b174ec410fc0.PNG

Forum rules - DCS Crashing? Try this first - Cleanup and Repair - Discord BIGNEWY#8703 - Youtube - Patch Status

Windows 10 Pro x64, NVIDIA MSI RTX 2080Ti VENTUS GP, Intel® i9-10900K 3.70GHz, 5.30GHz Turbo, Corsair Hydro Series H150i Pro, 32GB DDR @3000, ASUS ROG Strix Z490-F Gaming, HP Reverb G2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
8 hours ago, Stearmandriver said:

Was really hoping for some Corsair news concurrent with the 2.7 release...

Me too. No new screenshots since February 5th and complete radio silence for more than five weeks. I hope they're making good progress but even if they aren't I would love an update.

 

Anyway nothing I can do but wait and wish them the best of luck.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Apart the developing's time (Magnitude and Leatherneck are small teams so it si understandable...) the problem with these guys is comunication and marketing.
They have IMHO one of the worst comunication strategy that I ever see that goes parallel with a really strange marketing.
It seems that they didn't care to create hype or to promote their module. To feed the customers it take only some screens, some news...there's not need to have every time a video or more...but nothing...I think that is not the best way to go in thelong way.
 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fully agree. There are always short bursts of activity with screenshots, videos, Facebook posts followed again by months of silence. Since they were also silent for months before, one is tended to believe that this time they are indeed finally close to release, only to be followed by yet another built up of disappointment. I simply can't understand why it is so hard to write a few sentences maybe twice a month about the current state of development work. Nothing fancifully, now big reveals, no screenshots, just what they are doing now and what is left to do.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Cunctator said:

Fully agree. There are always short bursts of activity with screenshots, videos, Facebook posts followed again by months of silence. Since they were also silent for months before, one is tended to believe that this time they are indeed finally close to release, only to be followed by yet another built up of disappointment. I simply can't understand why it is so hard to write a few sentences maybe twice a month about the current state of development work. Nothing fancifully, now big reveals, no screenshots, just what they are doing now and what is left to do.

That I can do. We've had a winter full of testing and many things are where they should be. FM was tested, some systems like hydraulics, weapons (including convergence / harmonization) and few others things such as sounds. Right now what is mostly remaining is cockpit perfection, final testing and sending to ED for their part of testing and evaluation. Rudel is working on cockpit details like piping, if you take a look at some pictures of Corsairs you will see ungodly amount of pipes and wires exposed in the cockpit. All this can be seen by user and all this has to be modeled. And its the cockpit that really takes so much time. 
On my end I can say that I had a mix of fortune and misfortune in finding documentation. I have found a lot of interesting documents regarding rockets, gunsights, toss bombing equipment and Bat bomb but only a portion of them could be researched as due to pandemic most archives (for example NARA facilities in Seattle and College Park and Smithsonian NASM) and museums are down. Oh, and I've spent a fair portion of last month writing a manual for the DCS F4U.


Edited by Hiromachi
  • Like 15
  • Thanks 16

AMD Ryzen 5900X @ 4.95 Ghz / Asus Crosshair VII X470 / 32 GB DDR4 3600 Mhz Cl16 / Radeon 6800XT / Samsung 960 EVO M.2 SSD / Creative SoundBlaster AE-9 / HP Reverb G2 / VIRPIL T-50CM /
Thrustmaster TPR Pendular Rudder Pedals / Audio Technica ATH-MSR7

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...