PDA

View Full Version : Buffalo in 4.01



MLudner
08-17-2005, 05:44 PM
Well, there was a time when I considered myself carrier qualified ... once upon a time. Then came 4.01 and that was the end of that. The change in perspective threw me for a loop and forced me to change my gunsight view from Shift + F1 to mouse right click (I don't fly bombers much anyway...) and this is more realistic in the way that scope worked.
I suddenly discovered I could no longer properly judge my approach, though. I have also discovered the low speed handling characteristics have changed significantly, so much so that I now crash in about half of my landing attempts on a carrier. I then discovered that even on land my landings in a Buffalo pretty much sucked all of a sudden. Wow.
I can still land Wildcats on deck consistently, though. I overcame the new handling characteristics in 4.01 on other a/c rapidly, including 109's, Spits, Mustangs, 190's, et cetera, but the mighty Buffalo is driving me nuckin' futs. I'm back to ground-zero again: Take-off and landing drills on Ford Island NAS trying to regain proficiency.
Am I the only one having this twitch in my git along?

VW-IceFire
08-17-2005, 06:42 PM
To be honest I haven't tried.

Whats the problem you're having?

3.JG51_BigBear
08-17-2005, 07:58 PM
I've never had more fun with the Buffalo. The complex flight models seem to have had the greatest effect on the early war planes and I really couldn't be more happy with the way the Buffalo flys now. Most accounts I've read of Buffalo pilots have commented on the necessity to constantly retrim the airplane as you change the throttle and prop pitch settings and although the plane was a joy to fly during manuevers it was sort of frustrating to fly the plane over long distances because it was so difficult to trim.

As far as landing goes, the F2A is really the worst of the bunch. The B-239 and the MK1 have the reflector sights and I find myself flying those the most. I find that using a curved approach helps to land the F2A on a carrier because the view forward is so obstructed by the telescopic site. Always come in on the main gear and make sure you're perfectly level when you touch down so that both main wheels make contact as close to instantaneously as possible or the Buffalo bounces all over the place.

MLudner
08-18-2005, 05:39 PM
Originally posted by 3.JG51_BigBear:
I've never had more fun with the Buffalo. The complex flight models seem to have had the greatest effect on the early war planes and I really couldn't be more happy with the way the Buffalo flys now. Most accounts I've read of Buffalo pilots have commented on the necessity to constantly retrim the airplane as you change the throttle and prop pitch settings and although the plane was a joy to fly during manuevers it was sort of frustrating to fly the plane over long distances because it was so difficult to trim.

As far as landing goes, the F2A is really the worst of the bunch. The B-239 and the MK1 have the reflector sights and I find myself flying those the most. I find that using a curved approach helps to land the F2A on a carrier because the view forward is so obstructed by the telescopic site. Always come in on the main gear and make sure you're perfectly level when you touch down so that both main wheels make contact as close to instantaneously as possible or the Buffalo bounces all over the place.

I also love the Buffalo, that's why this distresses me some. I hate the thought that in order to keep my Pacific Theater Campaign going on schedule with my EF and Ardennes I might have to abandon the Buffalo and transfer my Squid pilot to a F4F ... either that or just ignore the crashes. I'll probably have to let it fall behind until I can regain proficiency with the Buffalo when my Squid next comes up in the rotation. Nuckin' futs, I'm tellin' ya.
I am improving ... gradually. I'm just not sure how long it's going to take. On the + side, the Buffalo does handle much better on take-off in 4.01 and I have no difficulty in basic flight maneuvers ... or even advanced flight maneuvers; it's just landing.
I think a big part of the problem is the perspective change (To which I do not object at all; for as I said above: it's more realistic to the way that scope worked). I used to look through the sight during approach and I was using it to guide myself in. The other is the low speed handling and torque. When I adjust the throttle the aircraft reacts more violently than it used to ... much more violently. I am having a problem with this, for as I prepare to flair and pull the throttle back to reduce speed from about 90 kts to 80 kts for touch down the Buffalo veers right dramatically, which results in a bounce that invariably launches me into the superstructure. Boom. On land it results in either a very violent landing or an actual crash, though with less fatal results.
My drills today looked almost decent, but I'm still not carrier ready by a long shot.
It would help if the training tracks were better. They do provide some useful pointers and give me a basic idea, but it's insufficient. It looks neat and they're cool to watch, but I need to see it from INSIDE of the cockpit, not from the port side. I need to see what it looks like as I will see it when I'm doing it for real. I am a lousy judge of distance on a computer screen so it does not help to tell me that I should bee 500 ft ASL X distance from the carrier since unless I see what it looks like to be X distance from the carrier how am I supposed to know exactly when to be at 500 ASL? Originally I used the training tracks to give me a basic idea, then went from there to develope a method that worked, even though I knew it was not the technically correct method. With the Buffalo this method is now ineffective. Thus, I am trying to figure out how to do it right pretty much blind; trying to get that flat, smooth descent going without stalling out behind the carrier and landing upside down in the wake. I also have some problems actually getting the Buffalo's gear in contact with the ground now. Sometimes it seems like I'm riding some invisible force and the gear just will not touch deck - or runway in one case while trying to land at neighboring Hickham AAF. That's not a very common problem, but it has happened a few times most frustratingly.

MLudner
08-18-2005, 05:53 PM
Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
To be honest I haven't tried.

Whats the problem you're having?

You should. The Buffalo is a great little fighter. It can actually almost compete with Zeros and Oscars in maneuverability and I feel much more confidence flying a Buffalo against the IJAF than a Wildcat. Just, watch-out: she's twitchy on landing. Great otherwise.

vocatx
08-18-2005, 07:31 PM
I love flying the Buffalo, but I have noticed it is much more challenging since 4.01.

I think one problem you may be having (from reading your post) is something that a lot of people make the mistake of doing: on landing (it is true all the time, but particularly evident on landing) you actually control your speed by adjusting your pitch, and your rate of descent with your throttle. I know it sounds couter-intuitive, but this is the way you handle a real aircraft on approach.

If you are coming in too fast, leave the throttle alone, and raise the nose; if too slow lower the nose. If you are going to land short apply a slight amount of power to lessen the rate of descent; if long, slightly reduce power and the rate of descent will increase. The way to practice this is to climb to altitude and practice holding a steady speed and rate of descent using the techniques outlined above.

I have flown the Buffalo many hours in the past, not so much since 4.01, and it is definetly a hand-full on landing. I agree, the take offs are better.

3.JG51_BigBear
08-18-2005, 09:08 PM
I just finished making a quick and dirty track of a Buffalo carrier landing in the QMB. If you want it send me a PM with an e-mail addi and I'll send it to you.

Seeing as I broke my left arm a couple weeks ago you'll have to excuse a bit of a wing wobble on the downleg which is me trying to adjust throttle and trim while keeping the plane level all with my right hand. Given the injury I'm rather pleased with the landing http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif.

VW-IceFire
08-18-2005, 09:37 PM
Originally posted by MLudner:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
To be honest I haven't tried.

Whats the problem you're having?

You should. The Buffalo is a great little fighter. It can actually almost compete with Zeros and Oscars in maneuverability and I feel much more confidence flying a Buffalo against the IJAF than a Wildcat. Just, watch-out: she's twitchy on landing. Great otherwise. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Oh I've flown it...but not from or to a carrier deck. Just as a landbase aircraft. Infact I have a campaign for it. And I really hate its performance...its a slug. Only the B-239 is ok.

But thats ok...thats history http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I prefer the F4F by a large margin. To each is own http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I did go and try landing on a carrier with the Buffalo after this post was made. I hit the deck first try with a very solid carrier landing. No problems...

3.JG51_BigBear
08-18-2005, 10:22 PM
Which campaign do you have Icefire? I'm always looking for good ones for the Buffalo.

MLudner
08-19-2005, 05:26 PM
Originally posted by vocatx:
I love flying the Buffalo, but I have noticed it is much more challenging since 4.01.

I think one problem you may be having (from reading your post) is something that a lot of people make the mistake of doing: on landing (it is true all the time, but particularly evident on landing) you actually control your speed by adjusting your pitch, and your rate of descent with your throttle. I know it sounds couter-intuitive, but this is the way you handle a real aircraft on approach.

If you are coming in too fast, leave the throttle alone, and raise the nose; if too slow lower the nose. If you are going to land short apply a slight amount of power to lessen the rate of descent; if long, slightly reduce power and the rate of descent will increase. The way to practice this is to climb to altitude and practice holding a steady speed and rate of descent using the techniques outlined above.

I have flown the Buffalo many hours in the past, not so much since 4.01, and it is definetly a hand-full on landing. I agree, the take offs are better.

Thank you. That was very helpful. I'm trying to figure out how to do that, but I'm missing some thing. This is why I'm drilling at Ford Island NAS; because of that wide and long runway I don't care where I touch down, just so long as I don't crash. I know my old, improvised method won't work with the Buffalo now. You just gave me a huge assist in understanding how to make it work that may allow me to figure it out (I was in rotor wing flight school, this fixed wing thing I don't have any IRL training in). I have been doing it the opposite of what you are saying; controlling my speed with the throttle and my descent with my elevators.
I approach in a shallow dive throttled back to keep myself above stall but close to touch-down speed (In a Bf-109, for example, from 180 - 200 kph) I then flair just before the runway threshold and reduce throttle, then let it settle onto the ground. Sometimes touch-down is so smooth I don't realize at first that my gear is actually on the ground. It works fine for in everything but the Buffalo.
Guess I need to learn to do it right, huh?
Thank you again.

MLudner
08-19-2005, 05:30 PM
Originally posted by 3.JG51_BigBear:
I just finished making a quick and dirty track of a Buffalo carrier landing in the QMB. If you want it send me a PM with an e-mail addi and I'll send it to you.

Seeing as I broke my left arm a couple weeks ago you'll have to excuse a bit of a wing wobble on the downleg which is me trying to adjust throttle and trim while keeping the plane level all with my right hand. Given the injury I'm rather pleased with the landing http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif.

It should be interesting. Sorry about your arm, I hope you were having fun doing whatever you were doing when you broke; at least then it's sort of worth it.
aetivs@charter.net

MLudner
08-19-2005, 05:45 PM
Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by MLudner:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
To be honest I haven't tried.

Whats the problem you're having?

You should. The Buffalo is a great little fighter. It can actually almost compete with Zeros and Oscars in maneuverability and I feel much more confidence flying a Buffalo against the IJAF than a Wildcat. Just, watch-out: she's twitchy on landing. Great otherwise. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Oh I've flown it...but not from or to a carrier deck. Just as a landbase aircraft. Infact I have a campaign for it. And I really hate its performance...its a slug. Only the B-239 is ok.

But thats ok...thats history http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I prefer the F4F by a large margin. To each is own http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I did go and try landing on a carrier with the Buffalo after this post was made. I hit the deck first try with a very solid carrier landing. No problems... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, then, we are exact opposites on that score. I feel much apprehension when closing on Jap fighters in a Wildcat (So far this has not helped the IJAF much, though, since my USMC pilot has smoked three of their aircraft so far and he's flying a Wildcat).
Really, the Wildcat is just a few knots faster than a Buffalo. Climbs like a B-17, turns like one too. Dives really, really fast. Reasonably armed with 4 Maw Deuces to the Buffalo's 2 .50's and 2 .30's. Very tough; takes an a-- kicking and still gives a licking. Easier to fly, that's for sure; handles very pleasantly. The hand-cranked landing gear kind of sucks, though.
The Buffalo has an excellent zoom climb and just a great roll rate, two abilities I exploit when fighting Zeros and Oscars.
But, then, the Wildcat does not break as easily on landing.
Neither can match a Zero or Oscar in performance, however, and so I find that since I can't out-run either I like the ability to compete on the maneuverability scale, because there my superior piloting skills (versus AI) often come into play. I was very dubious about the Buffalo when I first started flying it (as the B-239) because of its reputation as a flying coffin. However, I have since come to love the little guy.

vocatx
08-19-2005, 06:06 PM
Each and every aircraft has it's nuances, you just have to fly them long enough to find their respective "sweet spots". If you can land a 109 using the technique I outlined above, you can do it in just about any aircraft, it just takes practice.

I'm glad I was able to be of assistance. Good luck and keep up the practice sessions.

3.JG51_BigBear
08-20-2005, 02:17 AM
Originally posted by MLudner:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by 3.JG51_BigBear:
I just finished making a quick and dirty track of a Buffalo carrier landing in the QMB. If you want it send me a PM with an e-mail addi and I'll send it to you.

Seeing as I broke my left arm a couple weeks ago you'll have to excuse a bit of a wing wobble on the downleg which is me trying to adjust throttle and trim while keeping the plane level all with my right hand. Given the injury I'm rather pleased with the landing http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif.

It should be interesting. Sorry about your arm, I hope you were having fun doing whatever you were doing when you broke; at least then it's sort of worth it.
aetivs@charter.net </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Track sent.

Unfortunately the broken arm wasn't worth it. I was a passenger in a car that rammed into the back of a semi. I was lucky I was in the back seat and ended up with just the broken arm and a few minor cuts. Everybody else in the car made it but not everyone got out as cleanly as I did.

Depressing stuff over. Enjoy the track. I hope it helps.

DeerHunterUK
08-20-2005, 04:25 AM
It's a great little plane (especially the Buffalo Mk.I with it's 500 RPG) with a decent amount of firepower for it's time, if a little bit slow. The only problem I have with it is trying to trim it for level flight, I can never quite get it right.

MLudner
08-21-2005, 05:28 PM
Originally posted by 3.JG51_BigBear:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by MLudner:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by 3.JG51_BigBear:
I just finished making a quick and dirty track of a Buffalo carrier landing in the QMB. If you want it send me a PM with an e-mail addi and I'll send it to you.

Seeing as I broke my left arm a couple weeks ago you'll have to excuse a bit of a wing wobble on the downleg which is me trying to adjust throttle and trim while keeping the plane level all with my right hand. Given the injury I'm rather pleased with the landing http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif.

It should be interesting. Sorry about your arm, I hope you were having fun doing whatever you were doing when you broke; at least then it's sort of worth it.
aetivs@charter.net </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Track sent.

Unfortunately the broken arm wasn't worth it. I was a passenger in a car that rammed into the back of a semi. I was lucky I was in the back seat and ended up with just the broken arm and a few minor cuts. Everybody else in the car made it but not everyone got out as cleanly as I did.

Depressing stuff over. Enjoy the track. I hope it helps. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ouch. I just hate it when that happens. I'll check my e-mails later. Thank you.

MLudner
08-21-2005, 05:31 PM
Originally posted by vocatx:
Each and every aircraft has it's nuances, you just have to fly them long enough to find their respective "sweet spots". If you can land a 109 using the technique I outlined above, you can do it in just about any aircraft, it just takes practice.

I'm glad I was able to be of assistance. Good luck and keep up the practice sessions.

I'm not sure the USN agrees whole-heartedly with that keep it up sentiment. I usually wreck at least 1 Buffalo per drill.

MLudner
08-26-2005, 10:38 AM
Thank you all, especially vocatx, while I'm not quite ready to proceed to a carrier just yet, my landing in F2A-2's have improved immeasurably as I begin to grasp the correct method for establishing and controlling my rate of descent.

LEXX_Luthor
08-26-2005, 05:40 PM
Buffalo is Fun. One point: A good Fantasy Campaign with Japan attacking in early 1941 would see NAVY carrier F2A. That would be even More Fun.

Open Canopy mod makes F2A one of my Faves since the releace of the PF. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

vocatx
08-26-2005, 05:42 PM
Very pleased to find that my explanation was at least understandable (my wife's eyes usually glaze over when I try to explain something like this to her...), and to hear it helped. Look forward to seeing you on-line.

vocatx

http://www.warbirdsofprey.org/

GerritJ9
09-19-2005, 05:07 AM
The main problem with all three Buff variants we have is that their top speeds are modelled too slow; all three should be at least 20 km/h IAS faster at 5000 metres. The B-239 should have a top speed of 370-375 kph at 5000 metres rather than the 350 it reaches in FB. The F2A-2 should reach 420-430 kph at the same altitude instead of the 380 it is currently capable of, and the Buffalo Mk. 1 should reach 400-410 rather than the 350-360 it will currently attain. Take-offs and landings aren't really a problem with any of them- at least, not to me.
The Buffalo Mk. 1 climbs more slowly and manoeuvres more sluggishly than the F2A-2 or B-239, which is correct. My fav would be the F2A-2 if it did not have that hideous and useless gunsight. Best thing would be a KNIL B-339D: F2A-2 performance but with a better gunsight, though slightly weaker armament: two .30s and two .50s rather than four .50s.

MLudner
09-19-2005, 03:15 PM
I got over it. I used the good advice from vocatx and comments by others, then figured out how to approach the carrier while keeping the deck in sight long enough to land right. Flew two successful check flights (Ideal: three good landings to pass. The second took 5 to pass: #3 was too long, #4 too rough ... but #5 was just right).
It's all fun.

VW-IceFire
09-19-2005, 06:23 PM
Just for anyone interested....(as some had asked) I have my Buffalo campaign out.

Its the second one down at Flying Legends (currently) called Desperate Odds. Enjoy!

http://www.flying-legends.net/php/downloads/listings.php?cat_id=28

GerritJ9
09-20-2005, 02:19 AM
Just downloaded the Buff campaign, will try it tonight. Thanks, Icefire!

Kuna15
09-20-2005, 06:47 AM
I was practicing wheels up carrier landing with B-25 for Cast Away exclusively.

It isn't so hard, it is a matter of knowledge... in several tries I have learned how to land B-25 succesfully.
I have succeeded in first attempt, in spite of being damaged by friendly flak and swarm of Oscars.

If I had the nerves I would practice 'normal' wheels landing but, TBH I want to finish career asap.
Had others in progress too. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

GerritJ9
09-21-2005, 02:22 AM
Flew the first two missions in "Desperate Odds" last night. Got one A6M2 in the first; two G4Ms in second, but suffered engine damage and had to bale out on the way home http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-mad.gif
Looks great, Icefire!!!!!