PDA

View Full Version : Three point landings?



heywooood
04-13-2004, 09:26 AM
Luthier -

I am seeing some references to the difficulty in performing three point landings with the current flight model.. I am unable to do it at all at this point and it will be critical when we start trying to snag a wire in carrier ops..
As it is now - the only way we will be able to reach the wires will be if the hooks are overmodeled or the wires are 5-6 feet off the deck... we really need to be able to settle in a nose-high attitude for the traps to look realistic.

Will this be addressed in PF?

anybody trying this now?.. you will be able to touch the mains only.. it is not possible to touch all three wheels simultaneously..

[This message was edited by heywooood on Tue April 13 2004 at 09:41 AM.]

heywooood
04-13-2004, 09:26 AM
Luthier -

I am seeing some references to the difficulty in performing three point landings with the current flight model.. I am unable to do it at all at this point and it will be critical when we start trying to snag a wire in carrier ops..
As it is now - the only way we will be able to reach the wires will be if the hooks are overmodeled or the wires are 5-6 feet off the deck... we really need to be able to settle in a nose-high attitude for the traps to look realistic.

Will this be addressed in PF?

anybody trying this now?.. you will be able to touch the mains only.. it is not possible to touch all three wheels simultaneously..

[This message was edited by heywooood on Tue April 13 2004 at 09:41 AM.]

VW-IceFire
04-13-2004, 11:04 AM
In a Mustang I'm getting quite good at landing all three wheels at the same time...its not a smooth landing often but I usually can get it down.

I would imagine that pretty much all carrier aircraft (with a few exceptions) are designed for very low speed capability so that you can essentially float onto the deck...you see it a bit with the Zero...

It'll require practice but I think the current FM is sufficient...we just have alot of high speed landing aircraft to fly (FW190's especially).

http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/tmv-sig1.jpg
RCAF 412 Falcon Squadron - "Swift to Avenge"

AcesHigh_AVG
04-13-2004, 11:41 AM
Its possible to accomplish the three point, you just have to practice it alot. It isn't easy but once you get used to it you shouldn't have any trouble.

heywooood
04-13-2004, 12:10 PM
hmmm .. well the brewster doesnt want to do it at all.. and it is a carrier type.

at minimal stall speed over the fence cut power and hold the nose high.. it either wants to flip or - it will touch in three point and then up she goes, stalls - and falls.

even raising flaps at touch down to prevent the plane from trying to fly at this point has not worked.

can you link me to a track showing a three point landing and roll out?

BigBoy01
04-13-2004, 12:44 PM
It's been my experience that you only need to have all 3 wheels down together at the point in time where the tailhook snags one of the wires. It's not like landing on all 3 wheels simultaneously and then go look for a wire to snag. Your not going to be taking a couple of seconds (as if your over the end of a land runway) to pretty up your attitude and flare for that picture perfect 3 pointer. When you get over the edge of the deck it's gonna be bang-down, snag-hook, lurch-stop. It takes all of about 1 second so it's more of a timing thing than a normal runway landing. At least that's my impression of how it feels. And, yes, the landing gears operation, their ability to absorb impact without folding up, and the low speed flight characteristics of planes designed for carrier use will (should be) different. I think it may be more difficult to stick and "hold" a 3 pointer on land and keep it down than on a carrier because on a carrier it's stick it and stop or mis-stick it and bolter and then go around. On land you'll continue to bounce her up and down in ever decreasing leaps. Looks a lot worse when you miss a 3 pointer on land. LOL.

Also, make a mental note: Over the years I've seen quite a few hours of film footage of many vintage tail draggers flown by a variety of pilots from all sides of conflicts from WWI and WWII, (History channel, Discovery Wings, etc.). Next time you happen to see such a show keep track of how many runway landings are stuck 3 point.

P4C800 3.2EE/2048Corsair Twin X/2 X 80GB Raid 0 HDs/9800XT/CH HOTAS & Rudders.
AMD-(due for upgrade) 1.6/1024Ram/80GB HD/GeF3 500Ti/Evenstrained Hall Sensored Cougar#0047 with CH Rudders. Backup Cougar #11103.
XP Home /SP1a with most updates.

heywooood
04-13-2004, 01:16 PM
Right - I get all that.. ok

Let me put it another way

on final - at flare... ok flare to a 3 pointer.. these planes do not seem to want to hold a typical nose-high attitude for the typical 3point touch..

yes I can bang the airplane down 3 point and try to time it at a wire i suppose?.. Dont have a wire to try it with yet.. but thats not the idea... the planes need to flare evenly for a feww seconds before falling on a wing.

it is the flare, as you are over the fantail that you must execute to catch a wire.

Kasdeya
04-13-2004, 01:38 PM
try with more speed and one notch less of flaps. your flaring is more than anythign right but your stalling a wing.

spelling and grammer are in no matter my strong point. good day sir.

Kas

http://www.HouseofKasdeya.com/demon.jpg (http://www.361stvfg.com/)

BigBoy01
04-13-2004, 01:45 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by heywooood:
Right - I get all that.. ok

Let me put it another way

on final - at flare... ok flare to a 3 pointer.. these planes do not seem to want to hold a typical nose-high attitude for the typical 3point touch.. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Errrr, ahhhh, welcome to naval aviation. Maybe the land based planes do not have the proper handling characteristics to practice what you perceive to be needed for carrier landings (I fly CFS2, a lot, everything's hard about it and throw in wind and weather issues for the final ounce of humiliation. But on runway landings you've got all day to make adjustments, you can land hot or slow. It will be different with a small moving carrier. Again, think landing versus controlled crash. If you get the speed right, almost at stall, when you cut that engine the tail seems to race for the deck. It may not be modeled correctly, and I'm not saying I'm correct in my assessment, but that's subjectively how it feels to me.

P4C800 3.2EE/2048Corsair Twin X/2 X 80GB Raid 0 HDs/9800XT/CH HOTAS & Rudders.
AMD-(due for upgrade) 1.6/1024Ram/80GB HD/GeF3 500Ti/Evenstrained Hall Sensored Cougar#0047 with CH Rudders. Backup Cougar #11103.
XP Home /SP1a with most updates.

sugaki
04-13-2004, 01:46 PM
Bringing up old wounds, but you shouldn't stall only one wing while in level flight, which is what happens in FB. If this will happen in PF, it'll make carrier landings more difficult than it should be.

-Aki

heywooood
04-13-2004, 02:12 PM
Right -

my objective was not to open a wound - rather to compare notes on whether my expectations are off, whether or not the flight model is correct in this aspect, or whether it is or isnt technique that is the issue. I am not trying to be confrontational.

I feel that if it is the right technique to drop the plane onto the wire like a hawk on a mouse.. then ok. If it is correct to assume that the planes should infact be able to flare at touchdown, lets see a show of hands - who can do it?..

And bigboy I er ahh have seen em all a hundred times and as the planes reach the fantail they are always nose-high and flaring. unless they aren't and then they are bolter..

[This message was edited by heywooood on Tue April 13 2004 at 01:21 PM.]

RxMan
04-13-2004, 02:47 PM
You do not have to make a 3 point landing, have you ever noticed how low the hook is once it is deployed i.e. landing gear lowered?
http://broadcast.illuminatedtech.com/pages/aircraft_feature/tbf84p6.jpg
http://broadcast.illuminatedtech.com/pages/aircraft_feature/tbf13p3.jpg

luthier1
04-13-2004, 03:01 PM
The envelope is very small where you can stay in controlled flight with your nose above the horizon, and still lose altitude. It takes practice, and you gotta watch your instruments.

It's not as simple as a lot of people apparently expect, they just think they can be going relatively slow, and at some approximate altitude near the threshold pull the nose up a few degrees, and make a three-point landing.

Besides on most carrier planes the hook is not alinged with the tailwheel, it's ways below it. So a three-point is not required - just a nose up attitude when your front wheels touch the deck.

http://www.il2center.com/PF.jpg

heywooood
04-13-2004, 03:15 PM
There ya go drugman

That is a really long johnny Holmes style tailhook ain't it?.. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/blink.gif

Well theres a bit of help.. hell you could DIVE at the deck and STILL hook on. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Thanks for posting - thats all I needed to see I guess..

DONB3397
04-13-2004, 03:20 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kasdeya:
Try with more speed and one notch less of flaps. Your flaring is more than anything right but your stalling a wing.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
We don't know what carrier landings in PF will require yet, but I think Kasdeya may have the right approach. The FB flight models don't allow you to float during the flare out; the a/c usually drops a wing or drops too hard. If you fly the plane all the way down to the field before stalling, then lift the nose slowly and cut power, you can sometimes set down on all three without bouncing. For me this works pretty well with heavy a/c (P-47, 190A, P-51D).

On the other hand, I admit to giving up with the Spit, the 109E through G, and certain other planes; these seem to require 2-wheeled landings and gentle deceleration before applying brakes. Can't do that on a carrier deck!

It'll be interesting to try the carriers, especially with the F4U when you can't see the edge of the deck under the nose.

heywooood
04-13-2004, 03:27 PM
Right Donb3397 -

That has been my experience also..

And I can force a 3 point touch - the trick is to hold it down after the touchdown.

but since the tailhook in some cases will more than make up for it - we can probably fly a relativly normal FB approach and hook-up no prob.

luthier1
04-13-2004, 03:28 PM
I think you guys just have the wrong idea of what you're supposed to do on a carrier landing. You're not supposed to float down on final with your nose up all the time.

I've been watching a lot of carrier footage lately. Pilots mostly just do a regular nose-down approach aiming to do a two-wheel, then yanking the stick pretty hard just a few seconds before touching down. That's all.

http://www.il2center.com/PF.jpg

heywooood
04-13-2004, 03:51 PM
Luthier -
thanks for taking the time to post..

I guess the best thing is just to wait until we have a carrier to work on this..

It seems though that a three point attitude is not necessary.. just fly to a point on the deck and cut power and either hook on, or power on and try again.

FltLt_HardBall
04-13-2004, 10:05 PM
Land-based a/c are better off landing on the mains first; a 3-pointer, whilst stylish, is hard on the airframe. So, yes it's possible to do a 3-pointer in FB, but if you mess it up it'll turn into a bouncy mess, so it's better just to land on the mains.

I'll be interested to see how carrier landings go in PF. But after reading what Luthier says, I'm sure there'll be no problem http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Robus_P
04-13-2004, 10:22 PM
I have never heard that a three pointer is harder on the airframe than landing on the mains. The technique takes a little more practice, but tailwheel flying is all about technique. The plane should float in ground effect as it loses speed and then settle gently on all three wheels at mimimum speed. There should not be any shock to the airframe. Touchdown speed and rollout are less than with a wheel landing. On an unpaved strip, there is less chance of damaging the prop.

Is ground effect modeled in FB? I suspect not.

Can someone post a track file of a genuine three point landing--a real one with a float and a stall, not just a belly flop.

sugaki
04-13-2004, 10:37 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by luthier1:
I think you guys just have the wrong idea of what you're supposed to do on a carrier landing. You're not supposed to float down on final with your nose up all the time.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

My point wasn't that you must do three-point landings to successfully land on carriers, it is simply that one wing stalling at low-speeds in level flight will still make landings a lot harder than they should be.

Three-point landings weren't needed, but accurate stall physics still need to be modelled--regardless of whether the front wheels or rear wheels all touch, your plane should be close to or at the stall speed, and for your plane to suddenly pitch to the right would be disastrous.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The envelope is very small where you can stay in controlled flight with your nose above the horizon, and still lose altitude. It takes practice, and you gotta watch your instruments. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Your point implies that past the envelope your plane should turn into an uncontrollable hulk. Stalling in level flight makes your nose pitch down and not much else. It shouldn't flip out because you've passed the envelope.

IV_JG51_Razor
04-14-2004, 06:00 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by luthier1:
I think you guys just have the wrong idea of what you're supposed to do on a carrier landing. You're not supposed to float down on final with your nose up all the time.

I've been watching a lot of carrier footage lately. Pilots mostly just do a regular nose-down approach aiming to do a two-wheel, then yanking the stick pretty hard just a few seconds before touching down. That's all.

http://www.il2center.com/PF.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm not speaking from experience here, but to give my statements just a little bit of crdibility, I will say that I am a pilot with over 10k hrs, and my dad was a Naval Aviator who flew off carriers during WWII and Korea. According to him, the carrier landing approach was flown just above stall speed all the way down to the deck. Once the pilot had rolled out wings level, he was watching the LSO to see if he was going to get a "cut" or not. A good LSO would give the pilot plenty of warning with a "wave off" early on in the final phase of the approach. Once he's in close on final, the power is gradually coming up to keep his speed at just above the stall. This is the point which you've all heard of as being "slightly behind the power curve". The pilot is carrying himself along to the deck with brute force waiting for the "cut" at which time he litterally cuts his throttle and settles down onto the deck. Some landings are very gentle, and some are extremely hard, depending on the pilot's altitude, sink rate, the carrier's "heave", and a multitude of other things.

The one thing in Oleg's code that I think will have to be revisited is the spring action of the gear. These planes all bounce way too much, and would never do for a carrier sim IMHO.

Razor
IV/JG51 Intelligence Officer
www.jg51.net (http://www.jg51.net)

"Good judgement comes from experience, and experience comes from poor judgement"

Blottogg
04-14-2004, 06:15 AM
I'm not carrier-qualified (do we have any squids posting who could shed some light?), but from what I've seen of carrier landings, aimpoint is the important thing. Carrier landings are usually no-flare affairs. Configure, establish airspeed AoA and decent rate, pick a spot on the deck to hit, and fly there. Chop the power when the LSO signals, and the plane is coming down. With restricted visibility in planes like the Corsair, a curving final approach path will add a little more complexity to the process. If you're worried about the tail not making contact with the deck, I'm pretty sure when the main gear (in front of the CG) hits, inertia is going to carry the tail to the deck shortly thereafter (remember, no flare, just a constant rate of decent 'till impact.)

I have landed a Decathalon both two and three point, and done correctly (i.e. don't flare high and drop it in) neither is harder on the airframe than the other. A full three point landing without a flare will require you to fly very close to stall speed throughout the approach though, leaving little margin for error. IIRC this was the main reason the Mustang didn't get high marks for carrier landings (yes, they landed a Mustang on a carrier during trials.) It had too little stall margin at the airspeeds needed to land on a boat.

In the game, some aircraft are easier to land three point than others. I've landed the Hurricane tail wheel first, but others aren't so AoA friendly. The Corsair, with its tall tailwheel, should be one of the easier ones (though its visibility will problably be similar to what we've got now with the G.50.)

Wheel bounce varies from aircraft to aircraft in the game too (as it should, though I don't know if the variations are historically correct.) Landing gear bounce will be important for carrier landings, and should for example be fairly severe for early Corsairs (one of the main reasons Eric Brown didn't like them for carrier ops.) No chance to make up for bouncy gear by "greasing it on"... good carrier landing gear needs to soak up the impact without rebound.

As far as some aircraft in FB dropping a wing at the stall, for some planes this would be historically accurate, while others had more docile stall behavior. Without getting into specifics and doing some more reading, I don't know how accurate the game's variations are. Power on vs. power off affects the real aircraft, though in the game torque effects are pretty tame. As it is, torque may still affect stall characteristics in FB though, and should definitely play a part in PF (wave-offs were sporty for this reason, among others.)

Blotto

"Speed is life." - Anon
"Sight is life. Speed is merely groovy." - "Junior"

ELEM
04-14-2004, 08:00 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by FltLt_HardBall:
Land-based a/c are better off landing on the mains first; a 3-pointer, whilst stylish, is hard on the airframe. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry but that is complete BS! Wether you make a 2 or 3 point landing depends entirely on the a/c type. One is no more hard on the airfame than the other. A bad landing is a bad landing no matter what technique you are trying to use. If you learn to fly taildraggers you will be encouraged to make 3 pointers 99% of the time. They are not difficult to achieve, just a matter of controlling your airspeed and flairing correctly. They are certainly not difficult in FB. But as Luthier has pointed out, carrier landings do require a different technique as you do need to keep the nose lower than in the 3 point attitude.

I wouldn't join any club that would have ME as member!

http://img35.photobucket.com/albums/v107/Elem_Klimov/I-16_desktop.jpg

heywooood
04-14-2004, 08:33 AM
Thank you to all who have posted so far..

There is a healthy mixture of oppinion represented about both the method of executing a carrier landing and about the flare method to 3point landings in general.. thanks blotogg? for a comprehensive monologue. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

One thing we agree on I guess is that we cant wait to see how it will go in PF...

Blottogg
04-14-2004, 06:29 PM
Sorry, I guess I'm telling you how to build a clock when all you want to know is what time it is. Old instructor's habits die hard.

Blotto

"Speed is life." - Anon
"Sight is life. Speed is merely groovy." - "Junior"

Merlin (FZG_Immel)
04-14-2004, 06:49 PM
Luthier is right.. A carrier landing is more like a controlled stall/crash.. you dont need to do a nice 3 points..

However , Heywood is still right to pinpoint a bug in all FB planes FM.. you CANT stall straight ahead, with both wings like it happends in real life.. Of course torque can cause a wing to stall 1st, but if you look in FB you may stall left or right randomly on the same plane.

I think more flat stall at begin of stall in a level stall would be more realistic.

my 2cents-

------------------------------------------------------------
Slot 2 pilot of the Virtual Haute Voltige team, and live video director

http://www.haute-voltige.com/virtualHVteam/concept.htm

Blottogg
04-14-2004, 06:50 PM
Something else I thought of. While two or three point landings don't necessarily stress the plane differently, flare versus no-flare landings certainly do. Naval Aviators have a saying "Flaring to land is like squatting to pee." Of course that's why F/A-18's have big beefy landing gear, while Vipers land on toothpicks. The Hornet also gives up about 2.5 gee's to the Viper in order to devote structure to the pounding they take from not squatting, er... flaring. WWII aircraft had similar tradeoffs. Now, stop me before I sub-reference again.

Blotto

"Speed is life." - Anon
"Sight is life. Speed is merely groovy." - "Junior"

Fennec_P
04-14-2004, 06:55 PM
Hear hear on the stalls. Even with prop feathered, engine off, wings level, the Stuka still wants to violently snap roll. Don't even get me started on the P-38...

And death to the springy gear! No more flubber in the oleos!

ARSNL
04-14-2004, 08:04 PM
For modern carrier landings the pilots set full throttle just before touchdown in case they miss the wires.(Bolter) Does anyone know if this was common practice in WW2 as well?

http://www.digitalmelee.com/arsenal/Arse242.gif

Fennec_P
04-14-2004, 09:24 PM
In WWII carriers had barriers to stop bolters.

Some were like nets that would catch in the propellor. Other ones would snag the planes landing gear.

I believe the very end of the approach would be at idle power (hence the "cut" signal), so bolters were not practical due to the long spool up times of piston engines.

heywooood
04-14-2004, 09:30 PM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Blottogg:
Sorry, I guess I'm telling you how to build a clock when all you want to know is what time it is. Old instructor's habits die hard.

Blotto

Hey Blotto - I was being sincere 100 %
your post was great.really.

FltLt_HardBall
04-14-2004, 10:54 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ELEM:

I wouldn't join any club that would have ME as member!

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Me neither.

AcesHigh_AVG
04-15-2004, 12:06 PM
Yea in old WWII footage carrier landings are pretty violent really. You just kind of smash the plane into the deck and stop!

KCRQ
04-15-2004, 12:56 PM
heywooood have you done one in the real life?
I suggest you to rent out Citabria out of Pacific Coast Flyers in Carlsbad, and check it out with instructor. I promise you a lot of bounces at 3 points during the flare http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

P.S. I'm assuming that you are living in San Diego, as I saw in one of your postshttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by heywooood:
Right - I get all that.. ok

Let me put it another way

on final - at flare... ok flare to a 3 pointer.. these planes do not seem to want to hold a typical nose-high attitude for the typical 3point touch..

yes I can bang the airplane down 3 point and try to time it at a wire i suppose?.. Dont have a wire to try it with yet.. but thats not the idea... the planes need to flare evenly for a feww seconds before falling on a wing.

it is the flare, as you are over the fantail that you must execute to catch a wire.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

heywooood
04-15-2004, 01:38 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by KCRQ:
heywooood have you done one in the real life?
I suggest you to rent out Citabria out of Pacific Coast Flyers in Carlsbad, and check it out with instructor. I promise you a lot of bounces at 3 points during the flare http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

P.S. I'm assuming that you are living in San Diego, as I saw in one of your postshttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by heywooood:
Right - I get all that.. ok

Let me put it another way

on final - at flare... ok flare to a 3 pointer.. these planes do not seem to want to hold a typical nose-high attitude for the typical 3point touch..

yes I can bang the airplane down 3 point and try to time it at a wire i suppose?.. Dont have a wire to try it with yet.. but thats not the idea... the planes need to flare evenly for a feww seconds before falling on a wing.

it is the flare, as you are over the fantail that you must execute to catch a wire.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have landed Piper Cherokee Arrow II at Gillespie several times - but it is a trike..I'm afraid with all the cash I have tied up in flight sims and computer upgrades I am strapped.. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

[This message was edited by heywooood on Thu April 15 2004 at 12:48 PM.]

IV_JG51_Razor
04-15-2004, 02:17 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by FltLt_HardBall:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ELEM:

I wouldn't join any club that would have ME as member!

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Me neither.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No offence Hardball, but Elem is absolutely right here. There is no difference in stresses on the airframe between landing in a three point attitude and a wheel landing, provided the pilot does it correctly. The forces on the airframe aren't any greater one way or the other. It's just more difficult to do correctly in a three point attitude. In a wheel landing, you're basically just flying the plane down to the runway with a minimum rate of descent, and at an airspeed a bit above stall. A three point landing is accomplished by litteraly stalling the airplane just as it touches the ground. Once the plane touches down, the wings are no longer "flying". It takes a great deal of training, and practice to be able to make this type of landing consistantly. The differences between the two are, the wheel landing is accomplished with more airspeed, and therefore the pilot has more control over his pitch, roll, and yaw axies, but takes more runway to land. The Three point landing is no more than the pilot flying the plane down to the runway, and stalling it at the point of touchdown. The catch is, once the pilot stalls the plane, he has very little control over the three axies. Basically, the plane has stopped flying. This results in a much slower landing speed, and a resulting shorter landing rollout required.

For whatever reason, it seems particularly difficult to accomplish this in FB.

You may have noticed that when you try to make a three pointer with most a/c in FB, if you don't get it just exactly right, the plane will bounce back up to the moon! The US Navy had a requirement that the main landing gear not display this tendancy. This is ONE of the reasons why the Corsair was originally rejected for carrier operations. It bounced way too much when touching down with more than the optimum sink rate for a normal carrier landing.

All Navy pilots were trained to land in a three point attitude in order to provide the minimum airspeed during the trap* so as to keep the stress on the airframe to a minimum.

The one thing that was a huge variable here, was that the "runway" had some vertical movement to it. In any kind of sea at all, the carrier deck would "heave" as much as 5 - 10 feet almost imperceptably. If the pilot were unable to detect this motion, or was late in adjusting for it, he might end up flaring his perfect three point approach at 10 - 20 feet too high! It's for this very reason that the Navy required the landing gear oleos of carrier based a/c to be very strong in the absorbstion of vertical strokes, but not very strong in their extension strokes.

This is what I meant by my remark that Oleg might have to revisit the modeling of the landing gear physics for PF.

* Trap is a relatively modern term referring to landing a plane on a carrier with an angled deck. Back in the days of the straight deck carriers, it was referred to as an "arrested landing".

Razor
IV/JG51 Intelligence Officer
www.jg51.net (http://www.jg51.net)

"Good judgement comes from experience, and experience comes from poor judgement"

KCRQ
04-15-2004, 08:08 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by heywooood:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by KCRQ:
heywooood have you done one in the real life?
I suggest you to rent out Citabria out of Pacific Coast Flyers in Carlsbad, and check it out with instructor. I promise you a lot of bounces at 3 points during the flare http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

P.S. I'm assuming that you are living in San Diego, as I saw in one of your postshttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by heywooood:
Right - I get all that.. ok

Let me put it another way

on final - at flare... ok flare to a 3 pointer.. these planes do not seem to want to hold a typical nose-high attitude for the typical 3point touch..

yes I can bang the airplane down 3 point and try to time it at a wire i suppose?.. Dont have a wire to try it with yet.. but thats not the idea... the planes need to flare evenly for a feww seconds before falling on a wing.

it is the flare, as you are over the fantail that you must execute to catch a wire.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have landed Piper Cherokee Arrow II at Gillespie several times - but it is a trike..I'm afraid with all the cash I have tied up in flight sims and computer upgrades I am strapped.. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

[This message was edited by heywooood on Thu April 15 2004 at 12:48 PM.]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You gotta be careful with this onehttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif It has retractable gears, they usually more sensitive to rough landings http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif May be we should make a deal after all. I can give some flight instructions and on give me some flight time on your fency computerhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

WereSnowleopard
04-15-2004, 08:23 PM
Pilot have to keep eyes on signal person on carrier as he guide pilot to keep wing level as have keep nose down to see him well. Yes, that's correct as luthier said pull nose up in last minute as let hook do all work as it hank plane down hard. I will check what if plane's hook miss wires, since other planes will still on top of carrier as not standard of today's carrier as it keep top clear in case jetfighter's hook miss wires.

FltLt_HardBall
04-15-2004, 09:15 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by IV_JG51_Razor:

No offence Hardball, but Elem is absolutely right here. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Maybe, but he should have been more polite.

So if you do a 3-pointer properly there's no extra stress on the airframe. If you **** it up it can turn into a bouncy mess ("Chasing Rabbits", is a term that has been used). Once you're in this situation I'd say there's a big risk of causing stress or even damage. Surely it's more practical (esp. in FB) to land on the mains, and maintain control throughout all 3 axes.

With regard to hitting the prop, yes there is a risk (esp. with a/c like the corsair), but many FB a/c you have to go full stick forward to do this, and surely a mains landing is not much more risky to a prop strike than a mains take-off?

CyC_AnD
04-16-2004, 02:49 AM
FW190 was tree point landing plane, it was in manual to land to tree points. And if you land on 3p you could apply all brakes without falling to the propeller.
What is wrong now, that we have to low minimal speeds for all planes. You can sit a bf109 in 120, 110 km/h. It is nonsense. Planes are to light, they bounce from the ground, they stick to the air in slow speeds. I was able to stall plane when was on ground in 100km/h it is impossible. Im not flying but I have few guys who do, when you landing in a plane you pull elavator even max after touch down to stay tail of plane on ground, in FB you will take off again untill you will have about 100km/h. Slow speed flying was always an issue, and havieness on ground was too. I hope they will do something with it in PF and BoB.
Do smthg with gliding too, couse now to brake plane is quite hard, they werent landing on idle in real like I always do now in FB.

CyC is my new home!

IV_JG51_Razor
04-16-2004, 06:36 AM
"Maybe, but he should have been more polite.

So if you do a 3-pointer properly there's no extra stress on the airframe. If you **** it up it can turn into a bouncy mess ("Chasing Rabbits", is a term that has been used). Once you're in this situation I'd say there's a big risk of causing stress or even damage. Surely it's more practical (esp. in FB) to land on the mains, and maintain control throughout all 3 axes.

With regard to hitting the prop, yes there is a risk (esp. with a/c like the corsair), but many FB a/c you have to go full stick forward to do this, and surely a mains landing is not much more risky to a prop strike than a mains take-off?"

Agreed Haedball, a little manners goes a long way in here http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

You are basically correct in your assumptions. A botched attempt at a three point landing can cause a lot of stress on an airframe, not to mention the damage to the pilot's ego! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Land based pilots normally made wheel landings simply because they could. A carrier approach, on the other hand, required the pilot to touch down at the minimum airspeed possible, so the carrier pilots were trained to land in a three point attitude, carrying a lot of power during the approach. The LSO's "cut" signal was exactly that - it meant that the pilot could cut the throttle, allowing the plane to settle to the deck in that three point attitude.

As I've said before, the landing gear modeling, or low speed handling as CyC_AnD has indicated, needs to be changed from the way it is now in FB if carrier landings are going to be feasable in PF.

Razor
IV/JG51 Intelligence Officer
www.jg51.net (http://www.jg51.net)

"Good judgement comes from experience, and experience comes from poor judgement"

Merlin (FZG_Immel)
04-16-2004, 07:48 AM
there is a way to make quite perfect 3 points with FB, but it is not the normal procedure.. when you flare the plane, and you feel the stall (on 1 wing) comming, you just retract all flaps.. at this point, instead of going down with a with, the whole plane will "sink" to the ground, and doesnt bounce.

Its the only way I found to make landing look like real 3 points..

FZG_Immel

------------------------------------------------------------
Slot 2 pilot of the Virtual Haute Voltige team, and live video director

http://www.haute-voltige.com/virtualHVteam/concept.htm

IV_JG51_Razor
04-16-2004, 04:32 PM
You may be right Merlin, but unfortunately, that's not the way it is in RL. No doubt, there are many ways to "game the game', but that's not what we're after here. What we'd like to see is a more realistic FM (or whatever it is) so that a more realistic simulation of carrier landings can be accomplished in PF. That's what prompted Haywoood's post in the first place.

Razor
IV/JG51 Intelligence Officer
www.jg51.net (http://www.jg51.net)

"Good judgement comes from experience, and experience comes from poor judgement"

olaleier
04-16-2004, 04:40 PM
The simple answer to the array of questions here is something like this:

The wing drop on level stalls has to be looked at. It's impossible to "mush" aircraft in FB.

The Corsiar however, can live with this FM.

Have a look here:
http://www.zenoswarbirdvideos.com/main.html

and check out the Corsair Instruction video. That baby drops a wing allright! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif I wouldn't want to be edging to close to stall speed on landing in this baby, or else my Ensign butt would be Eliminated. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

The P-38 can NOT live with this FM btw...

==================================
http://img2.photobucket.com/albums/v30/olaleier/cobrasig.jpg
==================================
Marvin in hyperlobby

Merlin (FZG_Immel)
04-16-2004, 07:02 PM
guys.. read me again plz.. I never said it was like in real life.. I said it was the only way i found to make it LOOK LIKE in real life.

I know well, what is the pb with actual FM, believe me

------------------------------------------------------------
Slot 2 pilot of the Virtual Haute Voltige team, and live video director

http://www.haute-voltige.com/virtualHVteam/concept.htm

Taylortony
04-17-2004, 08:18 AM
My Gear snaps off in 3 places and I end up pointing the other way.....does that count?

ptegomerpyle
04-17-2004, 09:45 AM
I'm getting comedy visions of bouncing on touchdown and into the sea already.

Cant say I've tried 3 point landings much but they ussually end up messy.

&lt;a href="http://www.virtualnicotine.com" title="For gaming addicts" target="_blank"&gt;&lt;img src="http://img3.photobucket.com/albums/v32/PrivatePyle/monkeysig.gif" border="0"&gt;&lt;/a&gt;

mike_espo
04-17-2004, 10:23 PM
I heard somewhere that world war two fighters had to be landed on 3 points or they would become uncontrollable.

"Fatte vede che ridemo!"http://www.flying-tigers.net/caccia%20WW%20II/g50.jpg

Alyssa1127
04-17-2004, 10:34 PM
Perhaps some, but I've also read that a lot of aircraft of this era were landed on the mains, both for improved control and visibility.

Alyssa1127
04-17-2004, 10:43 PM
Just a guess (everything I really fly has tricycle gear), but besides setting up the hook at an ideal angle for trapping, wouldn't a three-point landing also minimize bouncing due to excessive speed. I have seen so much WW2 footage of planes touching down, then bouncing OVER wires (not condusive to a long and happy career as an aviator http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif) A properly executed three-pointer stalls the aircraft just as the wheels make contact, right?

Alyssa

aminx
04-18-2004, 02:03 PM
are we getting arrestor hooks or not?
aminx

http://img25.photobucket.com/albums/v76/aminx/113.jpg

Allergic_2_Lead
04-18-2004, 10:37 PM
I kinda skipped to the end because most of the post seemed the same so I apologize if this is a repeat. 3point landing on carrier (to me anyhow) is the 2 main gear and the tailhook not the tail wheel. the tailhook from what I've seen is about the same drop as main gear making it pretty much a level flight with a drop in alt. I'm not a pilot and never will be so please don't freak out on me about my opinion, it's just an opinion.

Resident_Jock
04-19-2004, 12:36 AM
I think whenever I land I'm gonna be looking to rip my plane in half like that Hellcat that hits the bridge in every single WWII carrier documentary ever.

Blottogg
04-19-2004, 01:55 AM
Alyssa, I think the bounce has more to do with how the oleos were valved than speed. The ideal carrier landing gear compresses quickly, but rebounds slowly. This is fine for a flat deck, but land based gear is probably better off rebounding quicker to better follow less even paved or dirt runways. The Decathalon, with its spring steel mains, was absolutely unforgiving in the sink rate department, with essentially no damping in either direction. It would not make a good carrier aircraft. BTW, anyone know if Oleg and crew have gone so far as to program rebound rates into the gear for each plane's FM, or are they fixed in the engine? They compress on the models, and I'm wondering if the values can be changed for the carrier aircraft to land like play-dough instead of a rubber ball.

Factors favoring faster approach speeds are:

- Rudder and aileron control to counter p-factor and torque in the event of a go-around
- Visibility
- Stall margin in the event of gusts, moving landing surface, or ham-handedness. This also allows for a bigger airspeed cushion when flaring, at the cost of runway behind you as you feel for the ground.

Factors favoring slower approach speeds:

- Buying time on final to line up on the (very small) aimpoint correctly, and having more time to make the inevitable corrections (i.e. try to keep the changes slower than the pilot's reaction time, with less room for error than on land.)
- Reducing the load on the arrester gear
- Minimizing damage if/when hitting something (LSO platform, fantail, crash barrier, island etc.)
- Prop clearance and braking like AnD mentioned for the 190 (especially over rough terrain, not as much of a factor on carriers)
- Getting the tail low enough to engage a wire

My guess for WWII carrier aircraft is that landing speed was set at or just above the minimum airspeed that provided adequate control of torque/p-factor at full throttle. This speed gave at least a little stall margin as well. I think Allergic_2_Lead is right that this would put the tailhook about even with (or lower than) the mains while the tail wheel may still be above the main gear. This would be slower than a two point landing for a land based aircraft for the reasons mentioned above, but had benefits for carrier ops, at the cost of reduced safety.

As far as I can tell, aimpoint is the key to carrier landings. Speed, sink rate, impact forces all take a back seat to hitting the deck at the right spot. Flare, and even a couple of knots +/- changes your touchdown point by 100' or more. On a carrier, that'll miss the wires entirely. With an LSO (or later a Mirror Landing System), even forward visibility is deemed a luxury compared to hitting the mark, and giving the pilot as much time on final as possible to accomplish this.

With a bigger target available, land based pilots can add 10 knots for "mom and the kids" and not worry about missing the runway. It also makes it easier for them to save wear and tear on the gear by flaring. Flaring from three point has less stick travel available, and is easier to misjudge (though properly trimmed up, you can flare with the throttle in a three point attitude... I did this last night in the game in a Bf-110 with one elevator shot off. Another sign of a very nicely programmed FM.)

Blotto

"Speed is life." - Anon
"Sight is life. Speed is merely groovy." - "Junior"

BigBoy01
04-19-2004, 05:38 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by IV_JG51_Razor:
... the carrier landing approach was flown just above stall speed all the way down to the deck. Once the pilot had rolled out wings level, he was watching the LSO to see if he was going to get a "cut" or not. ... Once he's in close on final, the power is gradually coming up to keep his speed at just above the stall. ...This is the point which you've all heard of as being "slightly behind the power curve". The pilot is carrying himself along to the deck with brute force waiting for the "cut" at which time he litterally cuts his throttle and settles down onto the deck. Some landings are very gentle, and some are extremely hard, depending on the pilot's altitude, sink rate, the carrier's "heave", and a multitude of other things.

Razor
IV/JG51 Intelligence Officer
http://www.jg51.net

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's subjectively how I would describe the feel in CFS2, although I usually ignore the LSO and focus on the visual picture and control of the throttle. I'm not sure how accurate the LSO in CFS2 is in working with you on approach. I'm also amazed at some of the films I've seen of the WWII pilots turning so sharply on the down wind leg on approach and so close to stern of the carrier when they start banking, as the saying goes, "these guys are good".

P4C800 3.2EE/2048Corsair Twin X/2 X 80GB Raid 0 HDs/9800XT/CH HOTAS & Rudders.
AMD-(due for upgrade) 1.6/1024Ram/80GB HD/GeF3 500Ti/Evenstrained Hall Sensored Cougar#0047 with CH Rudders. Backup Cougar #11103.
XP Home /SP1a with most updates.

TX-EcoDragon
04-20-2004, 01:21 AM
I find that three pointers, or tail low landings aren't too much of a problem in FB, but holding that attitude, and using power to control the touchdown point is what makes them tough. . . and this is what you would have to do to catch a wire. The facts though are that most tailhooks extend down below the tailwheel far enough that even with the current FB dynamics I think you could catch a wire with just a slightly tail low atttiude. That said, this is an area of the FM that needs work, and for PF that need is even more obvious.

I am rather surprised by the number of comments saying that a three pointer is more difficult than a wheel landing, I have never heard that before! Many insurance companies and FBO owners prohibit wheel landings in their aircraft, even in crosswinds! I certainly used to feel a slightly elevated workload flying a wheel landing compared to a 3pt. Perhaps this is because the three pointer is much like a landing in a tricycle gear aircraft, while the wheel landing is a totally different beast, and of coruse most people nowadays learn in the trikes, and then go to the tailwheels. To do a wheel landing you really have to fight most of the habits you have from 3pt or tricycle gear landings.
In aircraft that are short coupled with high torque the wheel landings can be an advantage if a go-around is needed because the power change required for the go around is smaller, the yaw that happens from lifting the tail isn't there, and the aircraft can accelerate more readilly from this attitude.

Generally, safety dicatates that landings should happen at the lowest possible speeds, and for short field ops the 3 pt is also the better bet, and the carrier certainly qualifies as a short field!

S!
TX-EcoDragon
Black 1
TX Squadron XO
http://www.txsquadron.com

Member-Team Raven
http://www.waynehandley.com

First Slot Pilot Aircraft #4 of the Virtual Haute-Voltige Team
http://www.vhvt.com/

http://www.attitudeaviation.com/

http://www.calaggieflyers.com

http://www.txsquadron.com/uploaded/TX-EcoDragon/ravenvert.jpg

PlaneEater
04-20-2004, 01:37 AM
EcoDragon, what about aircraft that *have* to be brought in hot to keep from ground-looping, like the P-40? It was notorious for eating itself if you tried to 3pt it, because of the stall angle being basically the same as its stance on the ground.

TX-EcoDragon
04-20-2004, 09:03 PM
First point is that most aircraft have their critical angle of attack very close to that of the 3pt attitude, second is, the P-40 can be landed 3pt just fine.

Speed only helps prevent the groundloop if you maintain enough to keep control surfaces effective, and if you do that, you simply cant land. The facts are that you must keep the aircraft from sideloadingthe gear. In the end the way you prevent the ground loop is the same for all tailwheels, touchdown aligned with the direction of flight, and prevent any sideloads from happening until you have slowed down sufficiently, the slower you are at touchdown the shorter this time period is, the fewer times the tail raises or lowers, the fewer times gyroscopic precession acts to yaw the aircraft. Extra speed only prolongs the period with which the aircraft can be groundlooped. If landing on the mains first , but tail low is the only way the aircraft can land without a stall or running out of control effectiveness then there is more merit to the idea of a wheel landing only, but in most aircraft this isnt much problem (and isn't in the P-40 either, it lands fine in the 3pt attitude). This isn't with regard to the groundloop so much as it is a porpoise issue, which of course may lead to a groundloop afterwords. There are certain aircraft designs that might predicate a certain method over the other of course, but usually it is the 3pt over the wheel. I used to prefer the wheel when landing the PT-17 Stearman on narrow strips as then I can see a bit better to place the aircraft, but with practice using peripheral vision (or landing on conventionally sized strips) the 3pt was the favored approach.

S!
TX-EcoDragon
Black 1
TX Squadron XO
http://www.txsquadron.com

Member-Team Raven
http://www.waynehandley.com

First Slot Pilot Aircraft #4 of the Virtual Haute-Voltige Team
http://www.vhvt.com/

http://www.attitudeaviation.com/

http://www.calaggieflyers.com

http://www.txsquadron.com/uploaded/TX-EcoDragon/ravenvert.jpg

BSS_Vidar
04-21-2004, 08:13 PM
Wow!
How did this line of dis-information get started? Is that Iraqi dude in here? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/35.gif

First off. No one has ever flown behind the boat "Just above stall speed"... that's suicide.

Second. Critical Angle of Attack is roughly 17 degrees on every wing design ever invented. (plus or minus a few tenths of a degree) This is the region where at any attitude, any airspeed, and any altitude a wing will stop flying, aka stall/depart. In other words, you can be in a 300 kts dive, pull too hard and exceed critical angle of attack; therefore, depart the wing at high speeds.

Three, No one has ever tried to fly a three point landing in Naval Aviation history. The parameters for flying carrier ops are very refined. You fly the optimum controlable airspeed, establish a specific glide path (3.5 degrees) and if your flying a WWII aircraft, you cut the power when "Padels" tells you to. Modern aircraft approaches are a different story. I'll talk about that in the LOMAC forum.

~S~

BSS_Vidar
526 arrested landings on 7 different carriers, over 2000 hrs in S-3B Vikings and only got wet once.

Fliger747
04-30-2004, 08:29 AM
The WWII Carier landing technique was quite similar to the method used to and a supercub (same technology) on a short gravel bar! A fairly low angle, high power, slow speed approach, with enough of a power on stall margin to assure good controlability. At the "cut", some time and distance is covered in transitioning to the touchdown. What this is exactly is a learned and practiced response. It is a somewhat different method than used presently in turbine powered aircraft from angeled deck carriers. The guys with the "big ones" were in my opinion the guys in Korea flying Panthers and "Banjo's" onto the non-angled decks!

The angle of attack of an aircraft in landing configuration depending on the cross section of the airfoil, the type and deployment of leading edge and trailing edge devices etc., can vary quite a bit.

The main thing in any event is to land every time in the right (same) spot at a reasonably slow speed. The hook will hang down quite a ways and will catch pretty well in even a semi-wheel landing. Remember...the right spot! Field landing practice is good, try to touch down in a reliably close spot to te threshold, every time.

ptegomerpyle
04-30-2004, 09:51 AM
having the undercarriage collapse on a hard landing will be great fun, seeing if you can manage not to slide of the deck http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

http://img3.photobucket.com/albums/v32/PrivatePyle/monkeysig.gif (http://www.virtualnicotine.com)

Blottogg
05-01-2004, 01:59 PM
BBS_Vidar, good to see a squid's opinion. I'd been hoping one of you would show up and post. Thanks.

From your and Fliger747's posts, it looks like my earlier guesses weren't too far off. I hadn't known about the 3.5 degree glideslope, but that's just a little more steep than the standard 3 degree ILS on land.

FWIW, the History Channel's Corsair program had several pilots discussing carrier landings. The one I remember best was a pilot describing the approach as a constantly curved final path, with the LSO held in the crook of the wing. When he gave the cut signal, the pilot chopped the throttle, pushed the stick forward (presumably to fix the aimpoint on the deck) and then promptly pulled the stick back (presumably to both attain the proper nose high attitude and accomplish some sort of a flare to reduce sink rate and scrub off airspeed.)

Blotto

"Speed is life." - Anon
"Sight is life. Speed is merely groovy." - "Junior"

Fliger747
05-02-2004, 10:14 PM
The technique that you heard works pretty well. The trick is to not develope more of a sink rate than you can recover from. In actuality, being a little too slow here would be a disadvantage. You end up with a satisfying firm squat. Airspeed control is most important.

3.5 degrees is at the upper limit of certified glideslopes that I can use in the aircraft that I fly. Most, as you say, run around 3.0 degrees landside. It's not that the planes are hard to fly, it's that the permisible window is small.

BSS_Vidar
05-03-2004, 01:42 AM
Hey Blotto!!!
You mean like this!

http://www.blacksheep214.com/screenshots/cfs2/In%20the%20Groove.jpg

Yeah, that's me in CFS2. I've been teaching this "CV Case-1 Recovery" technique to the Blacksheep, VF-2, (as you can see sitting on the deck there) as well as a few others now for three years. We will be more than happy to spead the word. With 8 to 12 aircraft in a game, we'll show you how to get it on deck (From formation flight) and roll wings level in the groove for engine cutt-off before you know it.
You can spend hours refining your skills in the carrier pattern and never pull the trigger once. The next thing you know, you've discover you've had a blast and worked you @$$ off doing it too!

BSS_Vidar

Fliger747
05-03-2004, 08:14 AM
Vidar:

Great screen shot! Your site has some really good information, and you are right, the carrier ops can be a "blast" without ever pulling a trigger.

I notice that the carrier has no wake, so is stationary. Are you operating with wind over the deck via "weather" controls?

Regards,,,,,,,,

BSS_Vidar
05-03-2004, 03:39 PM
That's the major weakness in CFS2. The carriers have to be stationary for on-line ops, or all the players will see the carrier in a different position. It does pitch a roll though.(Big deal)http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif There is also NO wind comming down the bow which makes take-offs real tricky. Using apposing rudder in-puts to compensate for wing dip keeps the plane from inducing a stall which aileron throw would cause.
We stack a max of 6 Corsairs and Hellcat's at the stern to do section take-offs. No more than that because the first 2 planes won't have enough deck to run on. The airspeed gets to about 70 kts before clearing the deck and the pilot has to really show some nerve by letting the plane get into gound effect over the water. Hopefully, we won't have to deal with these issues in PF. A good stiff 30 knt wind over the bow on a moving carrier will have the tail wheel off the deck well before rotation time.Plus, we'll be able to stack the deck for more departing aircraft. The take off run with a good wind for a WWII fighter should need no more that 300 ft of deck run. That leaves about 400 ft of deck to pack, stack, and rack the rest of a strike force.

S!

Vidar

Fliger747
05-03-2004, 08:31 PM
Indeed the takeoffs with a fully loaded plane seem a bit anemic, necessitating a quick suck up of the gear and acceleration in "water effect". Too bad that the wind over the deck/moving carrier is not available in multiplayer. From hook release point in a typical trap, even with the wind, takeoffs can be interesting at any great weight. A more typical release point for the first aircraft wa abeam the Island.

My understanding was that the F4U was usally launched from the cat on the CVL's at higher weights, as with big ordinance loads.

Is there any way to record a "replay" as with the various flight sim issues? It is a great way to critique ones technique (did I do that?), and fun to watch as well.

heywooood
05-03-2004, 09:06 PM
Good point, Fliger ..

I expect to be able to record tracks just as now in FB - and to evaluate every trap (or disintegration) until my eyes bleed and my bladder explodes.. what ?..TMI? too much info? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/blink.gif

Blottogg
05-04-2004, 12:06 AM
BSS_Vidar, nice shot! That looks like what the man was describing. Looks like CFS2 has at least a little realism going for it. Too bad about the stationary ships. Like you said, hopefully PF will cure that. "Give me 30 kts over the deck, and commence flight ops."

I'm up for the practice pattern. Just don't tell me to put my gear down, okay? The Navy tower guys always did that (NATOPS standard, I guess.) I'll probably suck the gear up on the go too, instead of leaving it down in the pattern, which again is NATOPS standard AFAIK. Makes sense for blue water ops though. As a classmate said, "Down gear are happy gear."

Fliger747, you're right. The other mantra I had with students (I had a lot, actually) was "aimpoint, airspeed" down final. Make the landing strip narrower and shorter, and that becomes even more important. One of the things I'd always wanted to do was get carrier qualified. Never got a chance at an exchange tour though. Just another reason to look forward to PF I guess.

Blotto

"Speed is life." - Anon
"Sight is life. Speed is merely groovy." - "Junior"

Blottogg
05-04-2004, 12:06 AM
edit: double post

BSS_Vidar
05-04-2004, 01:37 AM
Cleaning up the plane immediatly after leaving the flight deck is a necessity in CFS2. When we get to the downwind however, the radio call "downwind and dirtying up" is required.
The reason for dirtying up (landing gear and flaps down) the plane in the downwind is to insure a good speed in the pattern is attained. Good pattern dicipline is a must or you'll run right up the guys rudder in front of you and more than likely get a "Technique Wave-off". This is a bad thing towards gaining a good Boarding Rate score on the "Greenie Board". http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/35.gif
You know you have a good pattern spacing when one guy calls "final" and another call "Abeam" right after, then another call downwind and dirty like clock work.
The standard technique for dividing up a formation for landing separation that is inbound for the carrier brake is either by counting to eight after the prvious plane brakes, or looking back over your left wing and wainting for the guy that broke before you to be 45 deg. behind you left wingtip. The standard formation for the carrier brake is the left echelon... But figertip and diamond work well too. You just have to have diciplined and tallented pilots with you.

You have a good group of pilots that fly diciplined formation in the carrier pattern. You can get a flight of four or five on deck in less than 90 seconds. The Blacksheep to it all the time. Can't wait to do it in PF. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

S!

BSS_Vidar

BSS_Vidar
05-04-2004, 02:08 AM
I should post this again incase others haven't seen it yet. This is the Blacksheep Carrier/Formation Flight Guide. I wrote this right out of the U.S. Navy's CV NATOPS Manual. You'll see we even incorporated the "Spin Pattern" incase the landing pattern is full.

http://www.blacksheep214.com/cq/cq.htm

To view each page, just select it in the left column and click on it. Feel free to print it out if you like.

A list of terms are there to learn the lingo for flying around the ship. Everyone has to speak the same languge around the boat folks.
Take the opportunity to view the screen shots illustrated in the guide under "what it looks like" so you'll know what to look for in the pattern(s). There are shots from outside the plane as well as from cockpit view so you can see how to space and line up your aircraft properly reletive to the ship.

Any questions on the guide or actual carrier flight ops are surely welcome.

BSS_Vidar

Fliger747
05-04-2004, 08:01 AM
Most of the "miltary" flying I get to do at present is for our brothers over at the USAF. The tower guys and gals still call out "gear should be down and locked", way early by our procedures, as we extend gear (final flaps at one dot) at about two dots below glideslope intercept such that very little power change is required to begin glideslope descent.

We use a "stabilized approach" technique for all of the "big iron", the idea being to reduce any corrections to small ones. In the long run it makes things easier.

Looking forward to carrier ops in the new sim! perhaps by that time I might have something faster than a 26 kbs dialup?

BSS_Vidar
05-04-2004, 12:43 PM
747,
You're more than welcome to CQ with the Blacksheep. You just have to have Teamspeak, because no on will be allowed to fly the pattern without comms - for obvious reasons.
www.teamspeak.org (http://www.teamspeak.org) , load the client version. We'll give you the IP and password to our dedicated Teamspeak server when you want to fly with us. Just go to our site www.Blacksheep214.com (http://www.Blacksheep214.com) and post in the open forum you want to CQ with us.

The Navy calls gear down as well but usually at shore bases. I don't ever recall hereing the gear down call at the boat. It's quite obvious anyways. Their is an AoA indicator that lights up on the nose strut of every fixed wing aircraft so the LSO can monitor each aircrafts approach speed.

Here's an example how "annal" an LSO's grade can be on an awesome pass at post flight de-brief:

Hi start - little fast in the middle - slightly off centerline - slight settle at the ramp for an 'OK' 3 wire".

Scoring goes as follows along with the color coding for tracking Boarding Rate history on the "Greenie Board" from worse to best...

1) No grade = Black
2) Fair = Yellow
3) OK = Green
* A Bolter (missed arrestment) = Red
You can actually still score an OK pass with a bolter. Sometimes "Hook skips" are not the fault of the pilot. In this case the "Greenie Board" would reflect a scoring square colored in half Green and half Red divided diagonaly. Same goes for a Fair pass or No Grade.

The 3 wire is the target: however, OK passes can be made on other wires depending on the circumstances. Every pass is different.

S!

BSS_Vidar

[This message was edited by BSS_Vidar on Tue May 04 2004 at 01:20 PM.]

Blottogg
05-04-2004, 07:08 PM
Fliger747 and BSS_Vidar, thanks for the info.

I figured the NATOPS were designed for minimum safe recovery time, and the spacing you describe is impressive. We'd come up initial echeloned away from the break, with 5 second spacing (unless we were in Australia and Lead screwed up, then it was "Four, clear to break, three clear to break...".) We could shave 3 seconds off your time by landing on alternating sides of the runway (3000' minimum spacing), and of course by not having to fish airplanes out of the cable (unless you were landing behind Mongo, who always seemed to have brake problems requiring a cable arrestment.)

We'd usually configure before glideslope intercept or the decent point as well, for the same reasons. Occasionally the FAP was before that though, forcing us to configure early. As is the universal standard, we'd include "gear down" with the FAP call. Air Force controllers wouldn't tell us to put the gear down though, only the Navy guys, like BBS_Vidar said.

Thanks too for the grading system. I'd read it somewhere but forgotten it. For the WWII carriers, there were more than 4 wires, weren't there? Eleven wires on some of them, IIRC. I'm guessing the wire to aim for in that arrangement was the fifth or sixth from the fantail ("OK trap, six wire."?) FWIW, Air Force RSU controllers (instructor pilots) had a grading system with acronyms for the students, too. "DIF, HF, FTD" would be "dragged in final, high flare, firm touchdown" for example. Operational bases didn't grade landings though.

Blotto

"Speed is life." - Anon
"Sight is life. Speed is merely groovy." - "Junior"

Fliger747
05-04-2004, 07:35 PM
Sounds like a lot of fun. Because of the constant grading that they were subject to, the Navy Pilots that I fly with usally make a pretty good approach (landings being another subject). The USAF guys often tell me that approach and landing were not "part of the mission", etc. It's amazing the detail you can pickup watching someone elses flying. I can tell (feel) when a pilot transitions to visual from instruments on approach. One of the attractions of flying is that every approach and landing is different, and always a challenge to approach perfection more closely.

You NEVER get there.

Between travel and other side of the world schedules, could be a while, but seems like a great group.

BSS_Vidar
05-04-2004, 10:41 PM
Yeah, the grading criteria is alot more refined than that of WWII carrier approaches because the landing area is so much more restricted and the speeds (depending on the aircraft) are so much higher. The S-3 Viking I flew in had an appraoch speed of 115 kts "on the ball". Hornets are around 135-140 kts and F-4's were the nastiest with about 160 kts - yikes!
But, there is the so called back up plan of the bolter "Thanx to the Brit's and the angled deck."
WWII carriers had more wires because the bolter wasn't an option back then. Once you were on deck, that's it-snagg'em while you can! Enough wires in the landing area were there in case of hook skips, and flattening out a little long in the glide path. Pitching and dutch-rolling decks can cause that at any time. After that were several rows of baracade wires which pretty much cut aircraft to pieces to prevent them from piling up into the aircraft parked at the bow.
As for their grading criteria back then, I never really looked into it, but it sounds like an interesting history project. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

BSS_Vidar

Fliger747
05-04-2004, 11:21 PM
Somewher on a layover, not so long ago, I saw a re-run of "Bridges of Toko-Ri". Quite a bit of real shipboard footage of early jet ops. I was amazed at the high approach speeds on to a straight deck, facing the barrier. With the early engines with their slow spool rates it seemed as if they used a fairly flat approach to keep the RPM's up in case of a waveoff. I tried downloading a Panther to try out, but am missing something at present (sound?).

Sent my "stuff" in to you guys, though with my post "vacation" schedule and timezones it might be hard to make contact.

Regards!