Please Fix the c-47

[Roscoroo]

its wings tear off way too easy now ...

under 180 mph I used to be-able to out turn A6m's ... and I have done so many many times in the old ah1 ... Now i barly put it into a decent turn and the wings break off .Hit a notch or two of flaps and they break even faster.    this isnt right .

Thanks

[Gwjr2]

ya because you should be able to out turn a zeke in a goon......

[RobMo68]

Originally posted by Roscoroo
its wings tear off way too easy now ...

under 180 mph I used to be-able to out turn A6m's ... and I have done so many many times in the old ah1 ... Now i barly put it into a decent turn and the wings break off .Hit a notch or two of flaps and they break even faster.    this isnt right .

Thanks

 
C'mon man, this is supposed to be an accurate (as much as possible) simulation of RL aircraft. And I don't believe you'd be tryin to out-turn a Zeke or any fighter in a C-47 or any variant of the DC-3 in RL and live to tell about it.

[Fauxbra]

I dont know about Outturning a zeke...but the wings break off in anything but the most gentle turn. I was just cruising along all by my lonesome and made a course correction and my wing snapped off right at the engine Nacell. Really cant imagine this could be accurate.

[Widewing]

Originally posted by RobMo68
C'mon man, this is supposed to be an accurate (as much as possible) simulation of RL aircraft. And I don't believe you'd be tryin to out-turn a Zeke or any fighter in a C-47 or any variant of the DC-3 in RL and live to tell about it.

Okay, let's talk about the real world. C-47s could handle 7gs without damage. Douglas built a substantial strength reserve into that airframe. I personally know former AVG pilots that flew the C-47 across the Hump for CNAC who have related stories of bending wing spars but never breaking the aircraft.

I can also point to Flying Tiger Erik Shilling telling me about his C-47 easily out-turning P-40s.

A C-47 empty of cargo and flying with its tanks about half full has a lower wing loading than the A6M2 Zero. (19.6 lb per sq/ft vs 20.4 lb per sq/ft).

Clearly, there is a programming issue with the C-47 and I'm quite certain it will be addressed in the first patch.

My regards,

Widewing

[RobMo68]

Originally posted by Widewing
Okay, let's talk about the real world. C-47s could handle 7gs without damage. Douglas built a substantial strength reserve into that airframe. I personally know former AVG pilots that flew the C-47 across the Hump for CNAC who have related stories of bending wing spars but never breaking the aircraft.

I can also point to Flying Tiger Erik Shilling telling me about his C-47 easily out-turning P-40s.

A C-47 empty of cargo and flying with its tanks about half full has a lower wing loading than the A6M2 Zero. (19.6 lb per sq/ft vs 20.4 lb per sq/ft).

Clearly, there is a programming issue with the C-47 and I'm quite certain it will be addressed in the first patch.

My regards,

Widewing

Sure, it is one of the best designed airframes ever built. But that strength reserve that was designed into it was for it's lifting capacity not manueverability. Because they knew that in it's cargo variant that this plane could be  over loaded to the max and still be flown safely. And yes, he (Roscoroo) was not really clear about what manuevers he was performing, that caused the wings to fail. But a dollar gets ya six-pack, that he was probably trying to manuever the aircraft in such a way that it wasn't intended for. And looping and barrel rolling a goon loaded with troops and or cargo in RL, C'mon man.

Of course your quite right, there probably is a bug issue with the wings (I've snapped the wings of a 190 D-9, a couple of times in the new version, and so have a couple of my sqaudies). But maybe the bug was in the earlier versions (excess stability) and they did fix it. Just a thought!

[Fauxbra]

Nope Sorry nice try though...Its  a Bug

[RobMo68]

Originally posted by Fauxbra
Nope Sorry nice try though...Its  a Bug

Your prolly right! But while I was on with a couple of sqaudies talkin (Guano & Ezeepkns) about this issue. One had remarked that they (HiTech) had reconfigured the stress damage model, in the new version. I could have sworn that this was the problem, and maybe they had over corrected the damage level that caused the wings to fail prematurely. Either way, it's a problem.

Edit
From Pyro "It's a problem that's come about due to the wing changes we made back for 2.00. We just didn't realize there was a problem in that because the structural limits were not ever getting called. It should be back to normal in the next patch."


From DoKGonZo "HT, Pyro ... please tell us what "back to normal" means in this case? Will overstress be taken out or adjusted to more appropriate settings?

From Pyro's reply "Normal means they work at appropriate levels."

As referenced from 190A5 wing problem report.

This is what I was talking about! Maybe Rocoroo was getting away with over stressing the wing in the old version. Now he can't, because stress damage model has been corrected.

[ccvi]

Doesn't it rip both wingtips at the same time? And if it does so, shouldn't the clipped wing C47 be faster than the normal one?

[DREDIOCK]

Originally posted by Widewing
Okay, let's talk about the real world. C-47s could handle 7gs without damage.

Widewing

Ahh yesss but could it handle 7gs while fully loaded with cargo?

and even if it could would they pull 7gs  with a bunch of paratroopers on board?

Somehow I doubt it.

Im glad they fixed it.

but Im still seeing goon drivers do some pretty amazing things so it cant be fixed all that bad.

[Roscoroo]

No i wasnt looping or barrel rolling my c47 ....

I was doing my slow 1-2 notches of flaps out Flat turn ... this is a manuver ive used tons of times back in ah1 that used to bring the attackers into a turning stall (when they were silly enough to try to follow)

the structual limits are too low on the c-47 .

My Boss's Uncle was a Hump pilot in Burma and ive heard tons of story's about the C-47 ..and it is a very sturdy A/C . they used to ice up like crazy , and get flown very aggressively thru the canyons .

As of now at the speeds that im manuvering at I believe that its set to low .

[nirvana]

i did it the other night en route to take a base, plane was still flyable with about 2/3 or so of the wings ripped clear off.  not as easy to pilot without ailerons, yes, but it will still do.  Anyways, it needs to be looked at because i was on a slow climb and they snapped right off and well i started laughing:lol

[Blue Mako]

Originally posted by RobMo68
Sure, it is one of the best designed airframes ever built. But that strength reserve that was designed into it was for it's lifting capacity not manueverability.

Strength for load carrying is exactly the same as strength for maneuvering.  The structure cannot tell whether the load it is carrying is trying to make the aircraft turn or whether it is trying to lift a lump of cargo.