PDA

View Full Version : getting things straight about PF carrier landing



MOhz
10-09-2004, 09:28 AM
obviously i am going to buy PF and install PF over IL2|FB|AEP. then i get both planes, but please will someone explain to me how i will takeoff from a carrier in a FW??? not to mention landing!!! i know that people have also pointed out 64 people trying to land on one carrier!!!!!!!!!!! i am laughing my a** off!!!! the imagination is just great and think of the peoples faces, man just great!! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

AusDerReihe
10-09-2004, 09:36 AM
takeoff from the carrier isn't going to be a problem, but the landing is. anyway, you can only land on a carrier with a plane that has a hook to grab the cable that stops you from rolling past the end of the deck and into the sea. to my knowledge no FW ever had such a hook, except maybe an experimental model. i think this hook is called an "arrestor hook" or something.

EURO_Snoopy
10-09-2004, 09:48 AM
Videos from france Simulation show carrier landings by HE-111 (http://www.france-simulation.com/download.php?did=115&clickdo=1) & TB3 (http://www.france-simulation.com/download.php?did=116&clickdo=1) so a FW should be possible too, even without a hook. (unless of course this has changed since the preview version)

MOhz
10-09-2004, 09:48 AM
but that is exactly the point!! german planes dont have hooks!! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/351.gif

MOhz
10-09-2004, 09:54 AM
roger snoopy!! (Tb3 and he111 landing on carrier http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif )

Dunkelgrun
10-09-2004, 10:01 AM
The latest vid shows a Me262 and Go229 landing on a carrier as well. Both very bumpily!
Cheers!

TAGERT.
10-09-2004, 10:18 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by EURO_Snoopy:
Videos from france Simulation show carrier landings by http://www.france-simulation.com/download.php?did=115&clickdo=1 & http://www.france-simulation.com/download.php?did=116&clickdo=1 so a FW should be possible too, even without a hook. (unless of course this has changed since the preview version) <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>You guys have once again missed the point and purpose of the hook. If a plane can TAKE OF in that short amount of runway with no assist, then it stands to reason it could land in that short amount of runway also.. The POINT and PURPOSE of the trap with hook on plane and wire on ship is to stop it far short of that full length.. BECAUSE there is a good chance that other planes that landed just min prior to you are still on the deck out in front of the wire being preped to be taken below deck or just parked. That is just one reason, the other is it is just smart and safer to do.. But does not mean it couldnt have been done.

As for the He111, TB3, Me262, etc.. who knows? I personally doubt it, but then again it is a simulator.. where by that very notion it is not perfect.

MOhz
10-09-2004, 10:31 AM
thanks for clearing things up tagert

AusDerReihe
10-09-2004, 10:38 AM
if it's possible to land aircraft on carriers that don't have the hook, that's ok. personally i don't think i'd ever try IRL. just hope someone keeps this in mind when talking about realism/historical accuracy http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

MOhz
10-09-2004, 10:46 AM
now that we have the hook problem on the hook, what is with a zillion pips all landing on the same oh yeah and taking off one carrier. and those tings were smaller than the Enterprise (not star trek)

TAGERT.
10-09-2004, 11:33 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MOhz:
what is with a zillion pips all landing on the same oh yeah and taking off one carrier. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>A zillion? By that comment I must assume that your talking about ONLINE DF play? In that there wont be a zillion pips in an ONLINE MISSION or a OFFLINE MISSION. With that said, I doubt if you will see many carrier op's in a DF arena. Unless they allow the ships to move in a DF arena now? But even then, Im sure the bulk of DF play will be in a map with land bases.

BPO6_PANP
10-09-2004, 12:19 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif~S!
If you look real close at the speed of the 111 on landing, you can see that the carrier is doing at least 50 kph !

so a landing with a 111 on a ship that is not moving will be a lot harder than that vid makes it out to be http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Zeus-cat
10-09-2004, 12:22 PM
I disagree with the statement that a plane that can takeoff from a carrier can also land on one. Landings and takeoffs are two different things.

One thing that comes to mind immediately is why do planes have separate takeoff and landing flap settings if a landing is no different than a takeoff?

Major differences that I can think of:
I need brakes on a landing, but not on a takeoff. My braking ability would have to match (or exceed) my acceleration ability on takeoff if I were to stop in the same distance as I used to takeoff. Also, braking too hard in a tail-dragger can be dangerous.

My starting point is fixed on takeoffs from a carrier. I start on the deck and know how much deck I have in front of me to takeoff. My landing distance avilable to me can vary greatly depending on where I actually touch down when I land.

On takeoff I can rev my engine up while applying the brakes. I let the brakes go and can accelerate quickly. I also can nose down after I leave the deck for a little more airspeed. I suppose you could do something similar on landing. Approach the ship below the level of the deck and then just before you get to the ship, pop up to burn off air speed and then set it down before it stalls. I can't see anyone doing this in real life.

If I ignore the difference in weight of planes taking off with full fuel loads and ammo and bombs versus those returning empty, then I would assume my takeoff speed must be slower than my landing speed. As soon as generate enough lift during takeoff, I can pull up from the deck (being careful not to pull up too hard and stall). I need to be above that speed on landing. There is no margin of error here. Too slow and I stall and crash into the ship.

I am sure there are other things to consider too.

Zeus-cat

TAGERT.
10-09-2004, 01:12 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Zeus-cat:
I disagree with the statement that a plane that can takeoff from a carrier can also land on one. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Is what a forum is all about.. opinions are like a$$holes.. we all got one. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Zeus-cat:
Landings and takeoffs are two different things. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Now that we have the obvious out of the way.. let see what your reasoning is to support your opinion.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Zeus-cat:
One thing that comes to mind immediately is why do planes have separate takeoff and landing flap settings if a landing is no different than a takeoff? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>One thing that comes to mind immediately is that during take offs your trying to go from SLOW to FAST and during landings your trying to go from FAST to SLOW. i.e. the inverse, and your engine RPM are probably inverse too

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Zeus-cat:
Major differences that I can think of:
I need brakes on a landing, but not on a takeoff. My braking ability would have to match (or exceed) my acceleration ability on takeoff if I were to stop in the same distance as I used to takeoff. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Well not really the acceleration.. the FORCE of the THRUST is all you have to counteract. Like DRAG, your breaks counter the THRUST. And sense your landing your engine is typically not at full throttle.. Thus the BREAKS don't really have to counter much FORCE. They just have to deal with bleeding up the momentum. And BREAKS are typically designed to meet that need. Take your car for example. Your BREAKS can typically apply enough force to counter act the engine. That is to say your breaks are stronger than your engine.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Zeus-cat:
Also, braking too hard in a tail-dragger can be dangerous. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>As I all ready pointed out.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Zeus-cat:
My starting point is fixed on takeoffs from a carrier. I start on the deck and know how much deck I have in front of me to takeoff. My landing distance available to me can vary greatly depending on where I actually touch down when I land. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Just another good reason not to do it.. But does not mean it couldn't be done.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Zeus-cat:
On takeoff I can rev my engine up while applying the brakes. I let the brakes go and can accelerate quickly. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Proof that BREAKS are typically stronger than the ENGINE.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Zeus-cat:
I also can nose down after I leave the deck for a little more airspeed. I suppose you could do something similar on landing. Approach the ship below the level of the deck and then just before you get to the ship, pop up to burn off air speed and then set it down before it stalls. I can't see anyone doing this in real life. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Again, just another good reason not to do it.. But does not mean it couldn't be done.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Zeus-cat:
If I ignore the difference in weight of planes taking off with full fuel loads and ammo and bombs versus those returning empty, then I would assume my takeoff speed must be slower than my landing speed. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>That is a convent thing to ignore! For your argument that is. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Zeus-cat:
As soon as generate enough lift during takeoff, I can pull up from the deck (being careful not to pull up too hard and stall). I need to be above that speed on landing. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>No you don't.. As you pointed out the different flap settings.. Landing flaps allow you to go slower than takeoff flap settings.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Zeus-cat:
There is no margin of error here. Too slow and I stall and crash into the ship. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Again, just another good reason not to do it.. But does not mean it couldn't be done.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Zeus-cat:
I am sure there are other things to consider too. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Surly! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

crazyivan1970
10-09-2004, 01:14 PM
You can land pretty much everything on the moving carrier if it fits the deck, be sure http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

F19_Orheim
10-09-2004, 01:38 PM
Saw the Me 262 landing video at france simulation... Thank God for nosewheels.. let you apply a lot of brakes without nosing over http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

LEBillfish
10-09-2004, 01:54 PM
This might be an idea though probably out of the realm of reason for many of you.....I'll let you decide if you are one of those....

However what if........

Carrier based and type of planes take off and land from there and our land based type of planes take off and land on.........LAND??

Clever....huh?
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

F19_Orheim
10-09-2004, 01:56 PM
AAAAAAhhhhh didn't think about that http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

p1ngu666
10-09-2004, 02:03 PM
u can land a me163 too http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

VonKlugermon
10-09-2004, 05:20 PM
What goes up:
http://66.111.96.172/Sightings/QT/C130Takeoff.jpg

Must come down:
http://66.111.96.172/Sightings/QT/C130Landing.jpg

Willy

LEXX_Luthor
10-09-2004, 06:34 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>DF server <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
No need to talk about "realism" in this thread. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

effte
10-10-2004, 02:02 AM
As for everything being able to take off being able to land... naw.

If you firewall the throttle with the brakes locked, most of these high-performance aircraft will (or should, at least) tip over and grind the prop up on the tarmac. You had to tie the tails down to perform engine runups.

What does this prove? It proves that both the brakes and the engine are able to create more force than can be used when actually braking, unless you want to end up doing a nose-stand. In the early landing roll, you'll be able to use a bit more braking due to aero forces holding the tail down (you are pulling the stick hard back once the tail is down, right) but not significantly and not for long.

Alas, more power available for accelerating during the take-off roll than to decelerate during the landing.

Furthermore, you will not have full braking on landing. The aircraft will have to settle first. Yes, you can do it but you'll break a lot of aircraft in the process.

Yes, landing aircraft will be lighter... but not that much lighter.

Aircraft were not lined up in front of landing aircraft. Missing wires is a common thing, and having a bolter (the carrier version of a go-around) with aircraft in front is bad. Seriously bad.

OTOH, hook-less aircraft have been landed on carriers, one notable example being a C-130. That was highly non-standard though, and not something which would be done in everyday operations.

Regards,
Fred

Blottogg
10-10-2004, 03:57 AM
Tagert, a good example of takeoff performance being very different from landing would be the early jets and rocket planes. Landing a Me-262 or P-80 on deck would be interesting (the throttle's lag and touchy-ness being the big problems in my mind), but unassisted takeoffs would be a whole lot tougher. Jets, rockets and props have fundamentally different thrust vs. airspeed curves. Jets are anemic at slow speeds, while rockets produce the aircraft's highest acceleration from a standstill (thrust is approximately constant across the range of airspeeds, but opposing drag is zero from a standstill.) Props are somewhere in between, producing much better acceleration from a standstill than jets.

I'm sure people will be trying to carrier land the jets as soon as they can load the scenario in QMB, but to make the takeoff work they'll need to keep the jets light, and feed the galley slaves a double ration beforehand, to maximize wind over the deck.

I'm sure folks will be trying to make the Doolittle raid a round trip too, though here stopping will be the big problem (along with staying clear of the conning tower.) I remember reading in another thread that wheel brakes are modeled linearly with respect to speed, rather than exponentially. I'm not sure if this is true for AEP (though it makes sense since braking distance really isn't a factor for most runway landings, and it's calculational overhead better used elsewhere), but hopefully it will be modeled correctly for PF, where it will matter quite a bit. As someone also mentioned, full braking isn't available when the wheels touch down, since the wings are still supplying some lift, reducing the normal force on the wheels, and their braking effectiveness. Raising the flaps should help on land, but wouldn't be practical in the confined space of a carrier. Adding "Raise flaps immediately on touchdown" to the pilot's checklist coming aboard would be a little too busy, which is another good reason to have a hook.

Friendly_flyer
10-10-2004, 04:05 AM
There are three interesting factors in this situation:
<UL TYPE=SQUARE>
<LI>Landing speed of aircraft. For most planes in FB, that speed is somewhere right below 200 km/h.

<LI>Breaking distance. Though some planes have nose wheels that allow them to break harder, breaking distance is mostly dependent on the mass of the aircraft in question (a heavy bomber like a B-17 needs longer distance to slow down its bulk than a light biplane like a Gladiator.

<LI> Speed of carrier/headwind. With a carrier going 100 km/h, headfirst into a 50 km/h (steady) wind, you have shaved some 150 km/h of the speed that needs slowing down!
[/list]
So, when contemplating carrier landings, wee need to ask: How much speed needs to be bled off the landing airplane, and what's the breaking distance for that speed and down to naught? The TB3 and He111 bout have reasonably low landing speeds, and landing them on a carrier should be quite possible.

... says I, who usually uses the whole airfield runway and a bit of grass when landing a fighter.

F19_Ob
10-10-2004, 05:27 AM
During my fb time I have noticed how much faster a plane come to a halt if the wheels are left up or removed in the ones with fixed landing gear.
The p11 and the stuka can lose the gear by bumbing into trucks or tanks or similar.
Should work on a carrier too.


just an idea

MOhz
10-10-2004, 08:29 AM
yipppiiiii, got a constructive discussion going on, i thnk, i hope....

but if i get you right tagert, on online DF maps things are going to be land based?????

man too sad, i was already so happy about all the cursing that was going to happen....

btw for everyone: you dont have to take every word i write seriously, not now and not in the future.

MOhz
10-10-2004, 08:41 AM
great idea ob!

effte, from what i heard in the past about carrier take-offs, one does apply brakes and i dont understand the details, so i cant tell you why the plain doesnt tip over. maybe because when it starts, the pilot releases the brakes and that has the advantage that he is flying horizontally (level to the deck) so that he has clear view ahead.

and it was said that the ships still move in a straight line, right??

TAGERT.
10-10-2004, 10:29 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by effte:
Yes, you can do it but you'll break a lot of aircraft in the process. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Is all Im saying.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by effte:
Aircraft were not lined up in front of landing aircraft. Missing wires is a common thing, and having a bolter (the carrier version of a go-around) with aircraft in front is bad. Seriously bad. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>On modern carriers yes.. on WWII no. The modern has catapults section and a seperate OFF ANGLE landing section. So if you miss you just punch it and take off again. That was not allways the case in WWII, hence the NET should you miss the wire.

TAGERT.
10-10-2004, 10:39 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Blottogg:
Tagert, a good example of takeoff performance being very different from landing would be the early jets and rocket planes. Landing a Me-262 or P-80 on deck would be interesting (the throttle's lag and touchy-ness being the big problems in my mind), but unassisted takeoffs would be a whole lot tougher. Jets, rockets and props have fundamentally different thrust vs. airspeed curves. Jets are anemic at slow speeds, while rockets produce the aircraft's highest acceleration from a standstill (thrust is approximately constant across the range of airspeeds, but opposing drag is zero from a standstill.) Props are somewhere in between, producing much better acceleration from a standstill than jets. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Agree 100%. And is why I said "If a plane can TAKE OF in that short amount of runway with no assist"

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Blottogg:
I'm sure people will be trying to carrier land the jets as soon as they can load the scenario in QMB, but to make the takeoff work they'll need to keep the jets light, and feed the galley slaves a double ration beforehand, to maximize wind over the deck. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Agreed 100%! I would expect if everything is modled well that it would be nearly imposable to get a jet off the deck. At least I hope so.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Blottogg:
I'm sure folks will be trying to make the Doolittle raid a round trip too, though here stopping will be the big problem (along with staying clear of the conning tower.) <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Agreed 100%! Much like that C130 did.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Blottogg:
I remember reading in another thread that wheel brakes are modeled linearly with respect to speed, rather than exponentially. I'm not sure if this is true for AEP (though it makes sense since braking distance really isn't a factor for most runway landings, and it's calculational overhead better used elsewhere), but hopefully it will be modeled correctly for PF, where it will matter quite a bit. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Huh.. I didnt know that! I wonder if that has anything to do with the fact that most people dont have rudder peddles with toe breaks that are on a slider vs. the space bar?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Blottogg:
As someone also mentioned, full braking isn't available when the wheels touch down, since the wings are still supplying some lift, reducing the normal force on the wheels, and their braking effectiveness. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Agree 100%!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Blottogg:
Raising the flaps should help on land, but wouldn't be practical in the confined space of a carrier. Adding "Raise flaps immediately on touchdown" to the pilot's checklist coming aboard would be a little too busy, which is another good reason to have a hook. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Agreed 100%! In summary, Im not saying anyone would want to try this in real life. Only that just because it was not standard practice does not necessarly mean it couldnt be done. All it means is there were much BETTER ways to do it.

TAGERT.
10-10-2004, 10:43 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MOhz:
but if i get you right tagert, on online DF maps things are going to be land based????? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>That would be my GUESS! Based on the way the current IL2 handles DF. In a DF map nothing moves.. The ships dont move, the trucks dont move, There are no AI planes that move.. Just the things that humans fly move and the AA AI guns that shoot at them. I hope and wish that DF in PF will be different. LockOn does a much better job of this, but than again LockOn only has ONE MAP to deal with. Last night I was landing my A10 and I saw a train going by. Very cool. And you can also have AI planes in a DF map in LockOn.

Nubarus
10-10-2004, 03:06 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MOhz:
i know that people have also pointed out 64 people trying to land on one carrier!!!!!!!!!!! i am laughing my a** off!!!! the imagination is just great and think of the peoples faces, man just great!! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What makes you think that in a 128 player server each side only has one carrier?

It would be stupid to limit yourself to a lame and very boring one carrier vs one carrier setup in such a large game.

Better think big and make that a fleet vs fleet setup to make it interesting.

Yellonet
10-10-2004, 03:26 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MOhz:
...i know that people have also pointed out 64 people trying to land on one carrier!!!!!!!!!!! i am laughing my a** off!!!! the imagination is just great and think of the peoples faces, man just great!! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
We could have online competitions, the team that lands most planes on a carrier without a crash wins http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

It would take both landing and taxing skill http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Yellonet
10-10-2004, 03:28 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Nubarus:
...Better think big and make that a fleet vs fleet setup to make it interesting. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Unfortunately the fleets won't be moving http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/cry.gif

WereSnowleopard
10-10-2004, 04:28 PM
Hello, Why not get Me-109T anyway. However I saw somewhere that said if Germany still have carrier in 1942 then they will have navalized FW.

Cheerful
SNowleopard

karost
10-10-2004, 10:51 PM
I just wonder one thing in PF , is a wind's effect was model in FM ?

look picture here:
http://www.airwarfare.com/tactics/images/image001.jpg

then if we have a wind flow to the runway we can landing almost every plane.

but if we don't have that wind... than PF will become a good game/sim coz you no need to worry about cross wind landing when AI carrier did not heading the ship to the wind. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

http://www.airwarfare.com/tactics/images/image002.jpg

Edit:

TAGERT Thanks for this:
" LockOn does a much better job of this, but than again LockOn only has ONE MAP to deal with. Last night I was landing my A10 and I saw a train going by. Very cool. And you can also have AI planes in a DF map in LockOn. "

well... I think, I will buy "LockOn" first then I will waiting to read some people said about PF at a second http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

S!

Fliegeroffizier
10-10-2004, 11:34 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Friendly_flyer:

... Speed of carrier/headwind. With a carrier going 100 km/h, headfirst into a 50 km/h (steady) wind, you have shaved some 150 km/h of the speed that needs slowing down!
... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Show me a WWII carrier going 100Km/hr and I'll show you a science fiction fantasy. Absolute maximum speed was around 30 Knots(55 Kph)

Even modern era Reagan and Nimitz Class carriers still report publicly a maximum speed of just over 30 knots (perhaps 60Kph)

It's quite clear that Oleg's Pacific Fighters will introduce a lot of folks to a subset of WWII warfare about which they know virtually nothing....just as we all learned a lot about the aerial war on the Eastern Front with the release of the original IL2!

Jason Bourne
10-11-2004, 12:14 AM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by TAGERT.:
...Well not really the acceleration.. the FORCE of the THRUST is all you have to counteract. Like DRAG, your breaks counter the THRUST. And sense your landing your engine is typically not at full throttle.. Thus the BREAKS don't really have to counter much FORCE. They just have to deal with bleeding up the momentum. And BREAKS are typically designed to meet that need. Take your car for example. Your BREAKS can typically apply enough force to counter act the engine. That is to say your breaks are stronger than your engine.

Proof that BREAKS are typically stronger than the ENGINE.

QUOTE]

hmmm. looks like some one has never paid any attention to what a car does when you slow down, or taken a physics class. first off, unless you an idiot, you dont mash the accelerator when you are trying to slow down, rather you either disengage the clutch (on a manual) or simply let off the accel (on a automatic tranny car), so really, you breaks DONT have to be stronger then the engine. infact, on many modern cars, even with breaks fully connected, you can still accelerate.

also, breaks dont counter trust OR any force really. they apply a torque/rotational force to the break disks to slow the plane/car down. and all breaks have to counter act is NOT momentum or force of thrust, but rather the kinetic energy of the plane/car.

Blottogg
10-11-2004, 05:55 AM
Tagert, it looks like at least one of the guys over at france-simulation.com managed to both take off and land with a YP-80 on an Essex class carrier. Don't know his fuel load or the wind over the deck though. Here is the movie link, I hope. Their download system is a little funky, so I may not have grabbed the right URL.

http://www.france-simulation.com/download.php?did=117&clickdo=1

They've also got movies of a Go-229 and Me-262 making the trip, though both look like more sporty rides than the YP-80 shots.

PF_Coastie
10-11-2004, 08:12 AM
I truly hope they have modded the DF FMB to allow for moving objects. This one simple mod would totally change this game for the better. It would add a whole new dimension to the game.

Just imagine; One squad challenges another to a battle created on a DF map for the purpose of respawn. Using a script the number of planes could be limited to each side. There are moving columns, trains and ship convoys throughout the map with designated targets to destroy.

If you happen to get the golden BB in the noggin on your first straffing pass, you can respawn and get back in the fight with your squad.

At the end of a predetermined amount of time(lets say 3 hours), If neither squad achieved the given objectives, then the scores are tallied and a winner is decided.

3 non-stop hours of fun in a private server with an actual objective and moving targets! One can only dream I guess.

TAGERT.
10-11-2004, 08:44 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Blottogg:
Tagert, it looks like at least one of the guys over at france-simulation.com managed to both take off and land with a YP-80 on an Essex class carrier. Don't know his fuel load or the wind over the deck though. Here is the movie link, I hope. Their download system is a little funky, so I may not have grabbed the right URL.

http://www.france-simulation.com/download.php?did=117&clickdo=1 <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Huh.. what with all the work they did in the 1950's with jet assisted catapults I wouldnt have expected a P80 could take off from a carrier. I did expect them to have to fudge some aspects of it but I rahter hoped a jet wouldnt be able to do it.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Blottogg:
They've also got movies of a Go-229 and Me-262 making the trip, though both look like more sporty rides than the YP-80 shots. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I saw the ones of them landing.. but did they take off in those too?

TAGERT.
10-11-2004, 09:00 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jason Bourne:
hmmm. looks like some one has never paid any attention to what a car does when you slow down, or taken a physics class. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>You would be wrong on both counts.. But your wrong so often who can keep count?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jason Bourne:
first off, unless you an idiot, <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>First off, dont be too hard on yourself! Just because you assumed wrong about all the physics classes I have had does not mean you can not be right on some things! Even a broken clock is right twice a day! So, chin up! Hang in there!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jason Bourne:
you dont mash the accelerator when you are trying to slow down, <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Duh

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jason Bourne:
rather you either disengage the clutch (on a manual) or simply let off the accel (on a automatic tranny car), so really, you breaks DONT have to be stronger then the engine. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Yet they typically are! You seem to have miss a few physics classes.. At a stand still your car's breaks are typically enough to keep the car from.. No mater how much stand on the gas peddel. Now that may not be true for a 1967 mussel car.. But a 1967 mussel car is not typical! Also note I was talking about starting from a stand still.. once a car is moving you not only have the engine force to deal with but also momentum. Two very different thihngs

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jason Bourne:
infact, on many modern cars, even with breaks fully connected, you can still accelerate. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I can not speak for ABS breaks, where a processor may over ride you peddel inputs. But typically a cars breaks are enough to keep it from starting to move.. from a stand still that is.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jason Bourne:
also, breaks dont counter trust OR any force really. they apply a torque/rotational force to the break disks to slow the plane/car down. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Sorry, but your wrong. You can not have TORQUE without a FORCE. The FORCE in a disk break is appled at a radis from the axcel.. Thus.. TORQUE = FORCE Ӕ LENGTH. IMHO you should really read a physics book ONCE before you start preaching... Just a thought.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jason Bourne:
and all breaks have to counter act is NOT momentum or force of thrust, but rather the kinetic energy of the plane/car. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Sorry.. but your wrong again. Also, if your really interested, I recomend you start with the 100 series of physics books or a pre-calc class.

Tully__
10-11-2004, 09:38 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Zeus-cat:
One thing that comes to mind immediately is why do planes have separate takeoff and landing flap settings if a landing is no different than a takeoff? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

In takeoff you want maximum lift with minimum drag penalty. At landing you wan't maximum lift and you don't care about drag as long as you still have enough thrust to maintain the glide slope.

Tully__
10-11-2004, 10:28 AM
I couldn't resist it, I went and did some tests. I can fairly consistantly land in half to three quarters the distance it takes me to take off in just about anything. Conclusion... if I can take off from a carrier deck and if I can hit the touch down point, I can land on a carrier.

sunflower1
10-11-2004, 01:08 PM
Does anyone know if the barrier net will be modelled in motion for each plane's landing and parking? I am not asking for Bridge at Toko Ri drama, but I'd like to be staring at a net and parked planes when I'm coming aboard.

XyZspineZyX
10-11-2004, 01:23 PM
What the brakes do is counter mass (when moving. Velocity x Weight = Mass) and counter thrust, when standing still.
Hold the brakes, rev the engine too hard and you flip forward, nose over.
Hit the brakes too hard, too long on landing and you nose over, on tail draggers.

Taking off on a carrier.....hold the brakes and rev the engine, when it feels that you are just about to tip, release the brakes and accel gradually to top rev....full flap for bomb loads.
In a while, with practise it will be quite easy to take off in a short distance.

Landing....no bleeding is really necessary, that is for jets. Come on final at just above stall speed. The idea of wind over the deck and the carrier heading into the wind to create this or take advantage of existing wind, is for when the wheels hit the deck and dragging down. When in the air you are relative to the wind and when you touchdown, you are relative to the deck.
So in the air you might be doing what the true speed indicator says is 90 Knts but when you hit the deck, you are actually doing a lot less.
eg, 60Knts, because of the headwind.
(it is probably not very clear but the wind is necessary to fool the plane into thinking that it is actually going faster than it really is)
The same idea applies to take off, you actually lift off at a lot less speed than you would in "still" conditions

Keep the throttle ready for full rev should you miss the trap on a clear deck or at least some very careful braking and be ready for a right razzing if you miss the trap on a full deck.

If done right and with practise, you can put almost anything down a deck. P38's can be a tad awkward on a heaving deck.

MOhz
10-11-2004, 01:44 PM
yeah that is what i was saying, for take-off you just ("just") have to rev up the engine till it starts tipping and then blast off http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif. couldnt be any easier http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

RedDeth
10-11-2004, 02:23 PM
online dogfighting and multiple fighters flying and landing... how will that happen?

well consider this first. in online dogfights most planes never land. they get shot down.

second most maps will have multiple carrier bases per side.

there really wont be much of a problem with planes landing on top of each other. and remember also that once a plane is down they revive and the plane disappears off the deck. also lots of guys land on a single tiny runway now for fun.

finally there is something called a landing pattern. get in it and wait your turn . if not get banned from the server. or splash down and belly land in the water next to the carrier.

its not that difficult a concept guys

bun-bun195333
10-11-2004, 07:17 PM
BEDEVERE: So, how do we tell whether she is made of wood?
VILLAGER #1: Build a bridge out of her.
BEDEVERE: Aah, but can you not also build bridges out of stone?
VILLAGER #2: Oh, yeah.
BEDEVERE: Does wood sink in water?
VILLAGER #1: No, no.
VILLAGER #2: It floats! It floats!
VILLAGER #1: Throw her into the pond!
CROWD: The pond!
BEDEVERE: What also floats in water?
VILLAGER #1: Bread!
VILLAGER #2: Apples!
VILLAGER #3: Very small rocks!
VILLAGER #1: Cider!
VILLAGER #2: Great gravy!
VILLAGER #1: Cherries!
VILLAGER #2: Mud!
VILLAGER #3: Churches -- churches!
VILLAGER #2: Lead -- lead!
ARTHUR: A duck.
CROWD: Oooh.
BEDEVERE: Exactly! So, logically...,
VILLAGER #1: If... she.. weighs the same as a duck, she's made of
wood.
BEDEVERE: And therefore--?
VILLAGER #1: A witch!
CROWD: A witch!

XyZspineZyX
10-11-2004, 07:37 PM
Burn the witch!


Beware, the attack bunnies!

Classic Monty Python

TAGERT.
10-11-2004, 09:46 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MOhz:
yeah that is what i was saying, for take-off you just ("just") have to rev up the engine till it starts tipping and then blast off http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif. couldnt be any easier http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>In the game.. but not in real life.. If I remember right, you couldnt just PUNCH IT in an F4u.. The troque would roll you over into the drink. So, rev up yes.. but not necessary rev up to full throttle. Maybe some planes you could.. but not all IMHO

TAGERT.
10-11-2004, 09:49 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Vagueout:
What the brakes do is counter mass (when moving. Velocity x Weight = Mass) and counter thrust, when standing still. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Take that physics book you got that from and burn it! Or did you mean to say

Momentum = mass * velocity

XyZspineZyX
10-12-2004, 01:12 PM
mmmmm, I might have had the book upside down.


1000 kg moving at 100 km/h = ? kg, when being forced to slow down or sudden stop.
I could have meant 1/2 mass x velocity squared.
More probably, I did mean momentum = mass x velocity

What I did mean though was a moving object has more "weight", as in kinetic energy, when braking/ stopping resistance is applied in the opposite directon to travel. This is what the brake counters in a moving object.
I use a factor of six when calculating a SWL.