PDA

View Full Version : ok, give me a break already!



x__CRASH__x
12-12-2004, 06:31 PM
I've been spending my time in PF practicing carrier traps. I started with the Corsair, then moved on to the Wildcat/Hellcat. Then I tried the Zero. Whoa boy the Zero is a b|tch to land! Took me a week to get any sort of good at it, and I still screw it up!

Anyway, today I played a 2v2 Capture The Carrier game. You have to land on the carrier after making a kill to get a point. I took a A6M5b and got two points. A guy from the other team took one too, made no points. The other guy (and here comes my whine) flew a Seafire and got all 5 of their points! Now, get the popcorn and turn down your sound, cause here comes my whine.

There is no way a carrier based plane can be so easy to land!! I flew it after the match and landed it. No effort on my first time.
- Sped up to 100 KIAS= still, a good trap.
- Too great an angle = good trap.
- off center/too much yaw = good trap
- sped up to 130 KIAS = good trap
- flattened my AOA to 0 = good trap

AAARRGGHHH!!! Isn't there ANY challenge to landing this thing?? The only time I didn't trap is when I came in so off center with too much yaw at too great a speed I hit the island... BUT I STILL F**KING LIVED!!

ok, I feel better.

So, was the Seafire really this easy to land? I have a hard time believing that.

x__CRASH__x
12-12-2004, 06:31 PM
I've been spending my time in PF practicing carrier traps. I started with the Corsair, then moved on to the Wildcat/Hellcat. Then I tried the Zero. Whoa boy the Zero is a b|tch to land! Took me a week to get any sort of good at it, and I still screw it up!

Anyway, today I played a 2v2 Capture The Carrier game. You have to land on the carrier after making a kill to get a point. I took a A6M5b and got two points. A guy from the other team took one too, made no points. The other guy (and here comes my whine) flew a Seafire and got all 5 of their points! Now, get the popcorn and turn down your sound, cause here comes my whine.

There is no way a carrier based plane can be so easy to land!! I flew it after the match and landed it. No effort on my first time.
- Sped up to 100 KIAS= still, a good trap.
- Too great an angle = good trap.
- off center/too much yaw = good trap
- sped up to 130 KIAS = good trap
- flattened my AOA to 0 = good trap

AAARRGGHHH!!! Isn't there ANY challenge to landing this thing?? The only time I didn't trap is when I came in so off center with too much yaw at too great a speed I hit the island... BUT I STILL F**KING LIVED!!

ok, I feel better.

So, was the Seafire really this easy to land? I have a hard time believing that.

berg417448
12-12-2004, 06:49 PM
Apparently they were not ALL so easy to land http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

http://rds.yahoo.com/S=96062883/K=seafire+crash/v=2/SID=e/l=IVS/SIG=12dls5d98/*-http%3A//www.military.cz/british/air/war/fighter/seafire/seafire_crash.jpg

WTE_Grendal
12-12-2004, 06:50 PM
So, the Seafire is the carrier plane for me to choose http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

BuzzU
12-12-2004, 07:52 PM
Try it with a blindfold ace.

ElAurens
12-12-2004, 07:57 PM
Turn on externals and look at the difference in the tailhook lengths. Then you will understand.

The real problem is that neither the Spit's nor the BF 109 series have their real life fragility of landing gear modeled.

unseen84
12-12-2004, 08:03 PM
I've only tried landing a Seafire a couple of times, but I've been having a heck of a time trying to land a Val on a carrier. I've yet to actually catch a wire with it, the only times I've been successful were when I was able to jam on the brakes and stop before going off the end of the deck.

actionhank1786
12-12-2004, 08:16 PM
haha the ultimate slap in the face for me has been this.
With my joystick, i've been working on carrier landings since i got the game.
The stick's getting old, so there's no center. So when i get close to holding it level to glide in, the joystick just noses the thing down, so i'm constantly fighting to keep any sort of level. Also my computer stutters like a kid with a speech impediment.
So i've spent more time bathing in the ocean, then i have bragging on the deck.
Well one night i'm talking on my phone, and i dont feel like picking up the joystick, since i'm using the desk to rest my elbow. I'm just screwing around in the Zero Carrier take off mission, and playing around taking off with the keyboard, i get airborne, come around for a landing...and catch it first time in the zero...with my keyboard...
i tried it with my joystick that night, and crash again and again...
stupid joystick.

VW-IceFire
12-12-2004, 10:26 PM
Honestly? I find the Zero easier to land (easiest) than the Seafire...although I haven't spent much time there.

3.JG51_BigBear
12-12-2004, 10:45 PM
The seafire does seem ridiculously easy to land. Having the hook extend so far below the level of the main landing gear negates the need for a high AOA landing and allows for some major screwups. I've been trying to find some historical accounts on landing the seafire but so far I have had no luck.

3.JG51_BigBear
12-12-2004, 10:46 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by berg417448:
Apparently they were not ALL so easy to land http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

http://rds.yahoo.com/S=96062883/K=seafire+crash/v=2/SID=e/l=IVS/SIG=12dls5d98/*-http%3A//www.military.cz/british/air/war/fighter/seafire/seafire_crash.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This seafire has a completely different tailhook assembly. I wonder if the model we have in the game adopted the mid feuselage tailhook to compensate for problems like this.

Sockeye45
12-12-2004, 11:06 PM
I thought the Zero was a bit'h to land on a carrier at first, too. Then I watched how the AI did it.

The AI actually LANDED (three-point touch down, in this example) just after the ramp, then rolled forward, catching a wire. So I tried it... and bingo

That seems to be the trick for the Zero http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

BPLIzard
12-12-2004, 11:28 PM
I find the Zero a breeze to land. The Seafire on the other hand, I haven't landed it on a CV. Not even once.

WOLFMondo
12-13-2004, 01:14 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ElAurens:
Turn on externals and look at the difference in the tailhook lengths. Then you will understand.

The real problem is that neither the Spit's nor the BF 109 series have their real life fragility of landing gear modeled. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I found the seafire very easy to land because of that I think, the hook is easy to catch but theres no collapsing gear etc but I assume thats along the lines of random failures which are not and can't really be modelled.

actionhank1786
12-13-2004, 01:28 AM
I dont know, i'm assuming the Seafire probably had some tough gear.
I'd assume landing on a carrier time after time, you'd just build the **** gear out of I-beams

crazyivan1970
12-13-2004, 01:36 AM
Crash can`t even tell a difference from Seafire to Zero, i bet it was just a different version of Zero which he confused with Seafire http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

x__CRASH__x
12-13-2004, 02:29 AM
Personal attacks will not be tolerated. TOAD will ban you. It happened already today, don't let it happen to you, Ivan!

Blackdog5555
12-13-2004, 02:32 AM
Yes, in real life reports say the Seafire main problem was its ***ility. It was built tough enough for carrier action. And the picture ofthe crashed seafire shows a tailhook assemby on the end, rather than the middle. so it begs the question. Seafire is easy to land but the key to the zero is to land it just above stall speed so u have a positive AOA of about 10 degrees. drop the throttle at the numbers and drop/stall over the cables. The flight model gives the zero too much tail lifts at stall speed so you miss the cable unless your are nose up attitude when landing. Probably close to RL but i dunno. never flew one.

Blackdog5555
12-13-2004, 02:33 AM
was not built tough enough. sorry..cant type and drink at the same time

x__CRASH__x
12-13-2004, 02:56 AM
Stalling the Zero is the trick I learned. But it's hard to get it that slow.

Sakai9745
12-13-2004, 06:18 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif Tis the way, X_Crash. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif In a Zero, I typically fly the downwind at 100-120mph, then get her back somewhere around the 80-90 range after the break. Three-pointing her is the key, or that tailhook will fail to connect. Then you'll be hearing that airboss quote I just found yesterday...

"But you have to land here. This is where the food is." http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Regards,

Spitf_ACE
12-13-2004, 06:32 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Blackdog5555:
Yes, in real life reports say the Seafire main problem was its ***ility. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I take offence to that! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif

x__CRASH__x
12-13-2004, 01:45 PM
Don't ask, don't tell.

btw, you are looking
http://cheese-2k.tripod.com/sig/tyediegayfabulous

horseback
12-13-2004, 02:11 PM
Seafire in the picture from berg's post was a very late-war early post war Griffon powered Mk XV, essentially a Mk XII with a folding wing and a split/hooked rudder. As the picture indicates, it was not a resounding success.

Wartime Seafires were still Spitfires with a hook added and structurally beefed up a little. They didn't take the abuse of carrier landings well, and the basic design was not amenable to major changes to the landing gear necessary for such operations. The Royal Navy's carrier operations were often time-limited by the numbers of British made fighters available. Operational losses invariably exceeded combat losses.

cheers

horseback

Longjocks
12-13-2004, 02:33 PM
I've hardly flown a Seafire and never tried to land one so I can't compare it to the others, but if it's so easy then I may have to give it a go. I seriously don't want this to look like a brag as I'm not some stunning flyer, but I've failed carrier landings something like two times since I bought PF upon release (once while damaged - I posted it somewhere else in this forum - and another just being stupid). My first ever attempt in a Corsair was a success (although clumsy) and my more recent attempts in a zero were all successes. I find landing so **** easy in this game and this is the first game in which I've ever done WWII carrier landings. I'll try the Spit tonight and see how different it feels.

I will add that I do have a decent stick and we all know that can make a difference... especially to me as I'm about as useful as a masturbating monkey in the cockpit at the best of times.

crazyivan1970
12-13-2004, 03:14 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by x__CRASH__x:
Personal attacks will not be tolerated. TOAD will ban you. It happened already today, don't let it happen to you, Ivan! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I`ll ban TOAD first then will attack again! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif

NORAD_Zooly10
12-13-2004, 03:32 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

VMF-214_Pappy
12-14-2004, 06:49 PM
Well crash maybe your just not UBER enough man to land the Zero. LOL jk

x__CRASH__x
12-16-2004, 10:20 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by crazyivan1970:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by x__CRASH__x:
Personal attacks will not be tolerated. TOAD will ban you. It happened already today, don't let it happen to you, Ivan! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I`ll ban TOAD first then will attack again! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


You didn't see me object, did you? Get to it!