Author Topic: Realism, Trees and Rearm Pads (Read 569 times)

FTJR · « **on:** April 22, 2005, 12:25:19 PM »

My whine for the month.

HT goes to the utmost detail in its Flight modeling, and, I think, does a great job.

But, theres always a but, then they go and put trees inside the airfield boundary on the runway centreline, or very close to it, as well as very close to the threshold.

Is this realisml. In RL you dont get this.

What is the advantage of doing it this way?

The rearm pads, why the change.. now they are more difficult to access, is this how a military would chose to have their hot pads? What was wrong with the way it was in AH1?

Thats it, cheese at the end of the table.

BlauK · « **Reply #1 on:** April 22, 2005, 12:58:04 PM »

Military would put the rearm/refuel pads much farther away, not right beside the runway beside the heaviest take-off and landing traffic

There were many smaller fields that had lots of trees either inside them or nearby, but I agree with you that the take-off and landing directions were cleared for quite some distance. Current map system uses 1x1 mile tiles and the longest diagonal runways reach from one corner to another. Controlling the next tiles is much more difficult, just like finding a good spot for the base in regard to hills especially when there are only a few common base layouts. The whole base has to be moved in 1 mile steps.

Your wish of clearer runway ends can be done by cutting the runways shorter

but I guess that is not what you are after...

humble · « **Reply #2 on:** April 22, 2005, 01:22:39 PM »

Actually you couldnt be more wrong about the tree's. Most forward fields were simply clearings. The germans in particular lost many planes (and pilots) due to engine failures on take off. I was reading one of the JG-26 histories and they lost 4 planes and pilots on takeoff during a single mission in late 44....all hit the trees at the "end of the runway"...

john9001 · « **Reply #3 on:** April 22, 2005, 01:35:48 PM »

i keep thinking about charley browns kite eating tree. ARHHHH

DamnedRen · « **Reply #4 on:** April 22, 2005, 01:54:56 PM »

Most takeoff performance is based one clearing a 50 ft obstacle at the end of the runway....I wonder what that could be?

Nuke33 · « **Reply #5 on:** April 22, 2005, 02:07:23 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by DamnedRen
Most takeoff performance is based one clearing a 50 ft obstacle at the end of the runway....I wonder what that could be?

Actually the trees are about 200ft tall right now.. I agree that they should not be close to runways at the present time.. If HT ever decided to make them smaller, then maybe that would be ok..

rshubert · « **Reply #6 on:** April 22, 2005, 02:44:42 PM »

Learn to fly. Trees at the end of the runway are not in any way abnormal.

plank · « **Reply #7 on:** April 22, 2005, 03:24:54 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by rshubert
Learn to fly. Trees at the end of the runway are not in any way abnormal.

Neither are overly-abrasive comments on the BBS in any way abnormal

rshubert · « **Reply #8 on:** April 23, 2005, 04:56:45 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by plank
Neither are overly-abrasive comments on the BBS in any way abnormal

Plank, I am serious. Trees are there, learn to fly. Add a notch of flaps on takeoff to get over the trees. If you up a flight of lancs and are looking at a hill at the end of the runway, land and choose a new direction.

When I fail to take those things into consideration I sometimes eat a tree or a hill at the end of the runway. But I don't post a whine about how the trees are too tall or too close to the runway or...whatever. I write it down to "my fault" and go on. There's altogether TOO MUCH victimology going on here. Every third person thinks there is something wrong with the GAME, when the problem is the nut behind the wheel.

I always thought that a game was supposed to be challenging and fun. As I see it, a person can either adapt to the way things are, and have fun with it, or they can whimper about how unfair or wrong something is, and be miserable. The obvious third choice is to take their ball and go home.

nopoop · « **Reply #9 on:** April 23, 2005, 06:21:43 PM »

What shubie said.

I would add that while it appears that "some" need to take a moment out and get in touch with themselves from the jest of this thread, keep in mind that doing so is DIRTY, OBSCENE AND MAKES FOR LAUNDRY THAT YOU DON'T WANT ANYONE HAVING A PEEK AT IN THE BASKET !!

It's your choice.

Step up.

FTJR · « **Reply #10 on:** April 24, 2005, 07:22:33 AM »

FYI i didn't post because I hit a tree. I can and do fly without problems. Yes I have failed to outclimb hills, my problem.

I like to land close to the threshold, so the runway length doesn't matter. But high trees so close is NOT realistic. All fields are surrounded by trees but they are Outside the boundary fence.

If you have an engine failure in a single engine plane on takeoff you are going to hit a tree regardless of their height and or distance from the runway.

Its a game, I do enjoy it. But its just a simple couple of questions, about the realism of high trees close to thresholds.

It was intended to be light hearted.

ALF · « **Reply #11 on:** April 24, 2005, 09:15:28 AM »

Trees and other obstructions are common near the ends of runways, especially front line runways.....just ask Lindberg. My only real anoyance is the occasional 'bowl' airfield, where the whole damned airfiled sits inside of a depression....that just aint done:D

DamnedRen · « **Reply #12 on:** April 24, 2005, 10:16:55 AM »

Very true Alf.

If you notice most airfields during the war were placed as close to sea level as possible. They did it for a number of reasons. One of which is no big obstacles to clear (mountains and such). Another being airplane performance is much better at sea level, especially for bombers.

It doesn't mean they were all at sea level but, given the choice, most were.