PDA

View Full Version : P-47D-22 Takeoff Bug



J_Weaver
01-01-2005, 05:25 PM
EDIT...Please skip down to my next to last post at the bottom.

Ok...here we go again. (please don't flame me, this is just my experiences)
As Oleg stated the FM change in 3.03 effect all planes. Although this change may be more realistic I beleive it maybe over done and here's why. I was messing around in the FMB making an airfield attack mission in on the Normandy map. When I tested the mission I found that the ai P-47's couldn't clear the trees at the end of the runway (however, I could). The airfield is the island just off the coast. There were 4 p-47's followed by 4 P-38's. I was using full fuel and max load. I realize that there are several things I could do to fix the problem, but my point is that something is amiss somewhere with the FM changes made.
Opinions guys?

J_Weaver
01-01-2005, 05:25 PM
EDIT...Please skip down to my next to last post at the bottom.

Ok...here we go again. (please don't flame me, this is just my experiences)
As Oleg stated the FM change in 3.03 effect all planes. Although this change may be more realistic I beleive it maybe over done and here's why. I was messing around in the FMB making an airfield attack mission in on the Normandy map. When I tested the mission I found that the ai P-47's couldn't clear the trees at the end of the runway (however, I could). The airfield is the island just off the coast. There were 4 p-47's followed by 4 P-38's. I was using full fuel and max load. I realize that there are several things I could do to fix the problem, but my point is that something is amiss somewhere with the FM changes made.
Opinions guys?

Talon_Sr
01-01-2005, 07:18 PM
Well, I'm a noob to prop sims(but by no means flight sims). I thought it was my inexperience with props and their stall speeds, but for the life of me, I can't seem to take off of the carrier with ANY plane loaded with rockets or bombs. The AP can do it, but I can't. I've tried combat, take-off, and even landing flap positions with WEP enabled. I've even adjusted the elevator trim. I've tried flaps from start and flaps from just before end of deck, but the **** plane eventually ditches. Even the AP brushes the water with the tail wheel. I don't think that's realistic. I've adjust the prop pitch and set the mixture to 100. What am I missing here? I must have crashed about 50 times in a row. The manual for this sim is useless. Give me the manuals that Flanker 2.0, and F4 had. Not so much for the basic ACM but for the flight characteristics of each plane. Talon

LStarosta
01-01-2005, 07:26 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Talon_Sr:
Well, I'm a noob to prop sims(but by no means flight sims). I thought it was my inexperience with props and their stall speeds, but for the life of me, I can't seem to take off of the carrier with ANY plane loaded with rockets or bombs. The AP can do it, but I can't. I've tried combat, take-off, and even landing flap positions with WEP enabled. I've even adjusted the elevator trim. I've tried flaps from start and flaps from just before end of deck, but the **** plane eventually ditches. Even the AP brushes the water with the tail wheel. I don't think that's realistic. I've adjust the prop pitch and set the mixture to 100. What am I missing here? I must have crashed about 50 times in a row. The manual for this sim is useless. Give me the manuals that Flanker 2.0, and F4 had. Not so much for the basic ACM but for the flight characteristics of each plane. Talon <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


This has been discussed before. To take off in many planes off a carrier deck, you need headwind in the form of a moving carrier or ordinary winds.

Talon_Sr
01-01-2005, 07:31 PM
Been there, done that. I've watched all the training videos and I'm well aware of the 30Km/Hr headwind. Still no joy. Any other ideas?

J_Weaver
01-01-2005, 07:44 PM
Indeed the carrier takeoffs are tough. The only thing to do is trade fuel for ordnance. Which is realistic considering we don't have catapults or a headwind over the deck. But thats a different thread.http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
After I had trouble with the carriers and then read some post I decided that this was a problem of a realistic plane without a realistic carrier. But after having this trouble with a loaded P-47 on a land base I'm begining to wonder if something is wrong. The aircraft seem ok once in the air but there is something wrong with the way the FM changes effected takeoffs. No I havn't done any formal test or have any offical data but when a P-47 runs down the runway like an overloaded Piper Cub something has got to be wrong. Just my 2 cents http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

LStarosta
01-02-2005, 12:46 PM
Seriously, I don't know what the problem is. I took P47's up with full fuel and ordinance and it took off perfectly fine.

J_Weaver
01-02-2005, 01:08 PM
Well the trouble in my mission is that the loaded P-47's are first, then followed by 4 P-38's. If I remove the P-38's or switch the order the P-47's can get up ok. I'm just saying that the distance taken up by the P-38's shouldn't make that much of a difference. I guess what I'm trying to say is that the loaded
P-47's 'seem' to take too long to get airborne.
(i.e. an unrealisticly long takeoff run) http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif But as I have never flown a P-47 I don't really know.

Does anyone have any data on what the takeoff run on a fully loaded P-47 should be?

note: I have experience this on the Normandy map. Takeoff headed toward the trees on the small island.

LStarosta
01-02-2005, 01:27 PM
That is very similar to the accounts I have read. Some pilots flying Jugs in the pacific off of improvised island air strips died because they couldn't get airborne before the airstrip ended... And beyond the airstrip were usually jagged rocks. The P47 is by no means a "lofty" airplane.

J_Weaver
01-02-2005, 03:28 PM
Yea, that for sure. They didn't call it the Jug for nothing. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

J_Weaver
01-02-2005, 05:37 PM
Ok...I'm offically fustrated now. There is no longer any doubt in my mind that their is a but with the new FM changes. I edit my mission so that the P-38's air start. Just 4 P-47's on the runway. I can get off ok but my wing me can't. Loadout is 100% fuel, 1 1000 and 2 500 pound bombs and rockets. Yes I know its a heavy load for an already heavy plane but the fact is that the ai can't get off of the ground. For those who don't know the runway I've refered to in my previous post it is concrete, not grass. The ai simply drive off of the end of the runway and into the trees. I'm going to do more testing on other runways.

MaxMhz
01-02-2005, 05:50 PM
POST that mission

Untill now I could take off with 100% fuel and max loadout from a carrier http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

ICDP
01-02-2005, 05:55 PM
Taking off from land bases means no wind. For a P47 at standard combat weight of 12500lbs the take-off run on hard surface runway at SL was 1800 feet. If you add some bombs/rockets at a weight of around 14000 the take-off run is increased to 2100 feet. These numbers are taken froom the P47 manual, though I believe they are for earlier model P47's. The best take-off ditance I have seen for the P47D with external drop tank is 1610 feet at at SL with zero wind. Even taking the better number that is a very long take-off run, your P47's are using max fuel and bomb load so expect even longer take-off runs.

Please don't take this as an attack, I am simply presenting some facts on the real P47 take-off distances.

Prior to 3.03 PF take-off distances had been unrealistically low for most planes, taking off with full fuel/bombs takes a very long distance. Now that this has finally been addressed people are noticing and are asking "what's wrong?" and incorrectly proclaiming this to be a bug. PF since 3.03 has finally started to move away from some unrealistic FM problems such as energy retention and climb rates. I do believe the Corsair, F6F and Ki61 could use a very small acceleration boost but 3.03 is definately a big improvement.

J_Weaver
01-02-2005, 06:35 PM
ICDP, thanks for the info on takeoff runs. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

MaxMhz, I think the following will answer your questions.

As I promised in my last post I did some testing. The problem seems limited to the
P-47D-22. I tested all models of the P-47 and only found this in the D22 model. I also tested the F4U-1D, F6F-5, P-38J, P-51D; none of them had any trouble. In fact they all took off in about half the distance of the P-47D-22. Although the rest of the P-47 family's (D-10 & D-27) takeoff runs "seemed" to match pretty close to ICDP's posted takeoff distances. They also "felt" real.(i.e. trying to get a heavy plane with a heavy load into the air) In every test the P-47D-22 needed about 100m more runway than there was to lift off. Again, I had no trouble myself getting off the ground but the ai does. I tested this on the Normandy 2 map and the Crimea(sp?) map. All planes had 100% fuel and their max loadout. I also used 4 aircraft.(myself and 3 ai) I would really appreciate it if some of you guys would test my resuts yourself and report back. After seeing the results of my test I can see how this was missed by who ever did the testing prior to release of this patch. This is a very limited problem, apparently effecting only the P-47D-22.

J_Weaver
01-10-2005, 12:08 PM
Bump

StellarRat
01-10-2005, 12:16 PM
The D-22 has a less powerful engine than the D-27 (300 hp less), but carries the same weight in fuel and stores, hence the longer take off distance. The D-10 has the same lower power engine, but since it can't carry as much stores the effect is cancelled vs. the D-22.

J_Weaver
01-10-2005, 12:49 PM
Thats true but the problem is that the ai can't get off the ground. They run off the end of the runway. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

StellarRat
01-10-2005, 12:59 PM
Well, they aren't as smart as you then are they? LOL! Anyway, sounds like a bug. I'd send a mail to Oleg. Posting the bug here is not going to work as Oleg does not browse the forums. Look at the bug report thread for the correct email address. Make sure to attach a track of the take off failure too.