Let me degress....

[john9001]

on every single eng plane i have flown in here , on take off from CV or airfield i have to use rudder input, maybe your joystick is messed up ??
44MAG

[Eagler]

disregard..

Eagler



[This message has been edited by Eagler (edited 12-29-2000).]

[fscott]

Well it's not difficult to test. It's pretty obvious the Hog requires no rudder input on takeoff from carrier. I've done it several times now. No my joystick is fine. I think many others would agree it requires no rudder. Perhaps YOUR joystick is screwed up. And why are we still defending the torque model? HiTech has already said it needs work. SO you really have to agree that it is not correct, otherwise you would be disagreeing with HiTech.

fscott

[214thCavalier]

Personally on take off with F4 i have to give it rudder one way ease it off then the damn thing will pull the other way requiring more adjustments and i have to do this just to keep near the centre of runway, if i dont touch rudder i am dead. No way i can just leave it and take off.
Of course you do have auto take off turned off i presume ?
Hmm just had another thought gonna do a test.

[Lephturn]

fscott:

Lets address your points in a similar fashion:

1.  AH pilots have 100's of times more experience than real life aces ever got.  Generally we have flown more virtual sorties and fired more bullets in anger than a whole squadron of real life aces.  We have died countless times to learn our lessons.  Virtual pilots are better gunners and better pilots in our area (simulations) because we have 1,000 times more experience than your regular real-life Ensign had.

2.  So?  Not even close to the same situation.  HTC has done everything they can to make the flight model as realistic as possible.  They can't go bug-hunting with no information based on "a feeling", they just don't have time.  What "feels right" to you might "feel" completely wrong to me.  Who do you believe?  Hence, the only way to be sure is to use DATA.

3.  I think what HiTech is saying is that he thinks it is possible to better simulate the effects of a turning engine at very low speeds.  He also thinks it's pretty damn close now, if I read that right.  I defend the current flight model because I have an idea how much research and work goes into this sim, and I will believe HT and Pyro's hard work over your "feeling" any day.

There are also other issues that folks are neglecting.  Namely engine management.  Please correct me if I'm wrong, because I don't really know enough about how AH models this or how it really worked, but bear with me.  When you "firewall the throttle" in AH, you are NOT doing the same thing that a real pilot did.  Our simplified engine management means that our RPM is staying constant while our "throttle" in AH adjusts manifold pressure and power output.  So, when you "firewall the throttle" in AH, you don't quickly increase engine RPM's the way a real pilot would have done when he "firewalled the throttle".  You see what I mean?  I'm just pointing out that I'm not sure we are comparing apples to apples here.  Maybe some more knowledgeable folks can give me the details on what happened in a real plane when a pilot "firewalled the throttle" but I suspect this is causing our perception not to jive very will with the historical accounts being quoted.

------------------
Lephturn - Chief Trainer
A member of The Flying Pigs  http://www.flyingpigs.com
 
"A pig is a jolly companion, Boar, sow, barrow, or gilt --
A pig is a pal, who'll boost your morale, Though mountains may topple and tilt.
When they've blackballed, bamboozled, and burned you, When they've turned on you, Tory and Whig,
Though you may be thrown over by Tabby and Rover, You'll never go wrong with a pig, a pig,
You'll never go wrong with a pig!" -- Thomas Pynchon, "Gravity's Rainbow"

[214thCavalier]

Ok wasted too much valuable flying time doing this but here it comes.

F4U c and D there is no appreciable difference with ordnance, fuel load or flap settings, in a nutshell it will veer to the left on take off with no rudder input. This is not affected by any settings in your joystick setup ie no amount of deadband or sensitivity makes any noticeable difference.
Proof ? here it is http://www.cavalier.cwc.net/dlfiles/f4u.ahf  
The F4U will be off the runway and spinning by the time it reaches 75 mph.
Now you are correct you can lift off from a CV with no rudder input and it does still veer to the left but the reason you get away with it is this, you are already doing approx 45 mph according to the airspeed indicator just by sitting still on the deck and the plane is starting to build up enough rudder authority to cancel a lot of the departure from line.
I tried it at a field by holding the F4 on line with rudder until approx 45-50 mph then letting it do its thing, it still veers to the left but at a much reduced rate and once it exceeds 75mph it starts reducing the veer until at approx 85-90 mph it has enough authority to cancel the veer completely. http://www.cavalier.cwc.net/dlfiles/f4u2.ahf

And this ones for Ram      
The Typhoon surprisingly does veer hard to the right and buries itself in a hanger with no rudder input heres the proof   http://www.cavalier.cwc.net/dlfiles/typhoon.ahf
Note the Tiffie veers hard right until approx 60 mph then has enough rudder authority to cancel the veer, lined up perfectly with the hanger, HT did you do that on purpose ?      

Now personally i think the problem may not lay so much with the torque effects but more with excessive rudder authority at low speed.
What i find hard to believe and it goes against everything i have heard about these aircraft (but of course i have no hard numbers to throw at you) is that at very low airspeeds the rudder has enough authority to do a hard turn opposite the torque reaction when the engines are on full throttle and doing less than 25 mph.
And i mean these aircraft above can do a very hard turn at low airspeeds on full throttle against the torque, for example the P51 can turn so tight it will roll over below 25 mph.
As far as i am aware these aircraft did not have rear wheel steering to aid in ground manouvering  so this low speed rudder authority seems totally excessive.
I have no idea if the numbers i mentioned above where the planes have enough airspeed to counter the torque with no rudder input are close to factual data or not, although it would be nice to know.
But i submit that the  thing you are all missing ie having to feed the power in carefully on take off to avoid departing the runway is more likely a problem of excessive rudder authority at low airspeed rather than any lack of torque.
So HT if you could put it on your to do list to look into this and reduce that low speed rudder authority if needed then even Ram will be happy cos if you nail the throttle by the time you have sufficient speed to control correctly you will be so far off line it will be too late.
And its not a problem cos those who do not want to know about or be bothered with this will always use auto take off anyway.
Of course i could be completely wrong and fully expect everybody to be waiting to tell me so      
I also appreciate the way 1.05 has been going that this could be well down your list of things to spend time on and hey you may never even bother coming back in here to read it.

[This message has been edited by 214thCavalier (edited 12-29-2000).]

[Zigrat]

funked i said this because AS FAR AS I KNOW (i dont have ah installed right now) when RPM is changed on the propellar, there is no noticable effect on the roll state of the aircraft.


is this true? if so its incorrect.


thats what i was saying. no i wasnt calling hitech a liar.

[Toad]

Might be on to something there Cav.

[Toad]

fscott,

"These were well trained pilots and most of them probably much better pilots right out of the academy than many of you "seasoned" pilots here. The behomoth eninges and props had tremendous torque.."

Is there any data available on the experience level of the pilots actually involved in F4U takeoff incidents (or any other behemoth engined hi-torque monster)? Is there a breakdown by flying time or experience?

Is there any data on how many such incidents happened per thousand sorties or whatever? In other words, is the a takeoff/torque accident per sortie rate?

Is there any data on takeoff/torque incident rates compared by training commands (flight school) versus combat commands (combat missions)?

Here's my point: All we really have is stories about using lots of rudder.

We also have proof that some guys "screwed the pooch" on T/O and did crash. We do NOT really have any idea how common that was. We KNOW that 100,000's of fully loaded combat missions were flown in these planes...without takeoff incidents. In fact the vast majority of the missions must have taken off without a hitch or there'd be much more documentation.

Now, I'll stick my neck out here, as one who has flown a lot of different types of airplanes, and give an opinion. Once you get to be pretty good at flying, the differences in airplane/engine/torque are a lot less important than making sure you are simply paying attention to the job at hand.  

It's the old joke about how to fly: The planes are all the same. Pull back and the houses get smaller, push forward and the houses get bigger again. Once you know how to do it...you pretty much know how to do it.

Now, I'm not saying that some of these AH planes shouldn't exhibit more "pull" on T/O. That depends; it depends A LOT on variables. Are you easing the throttle in? Are you keeping the tailwheel firmly down on the pavement early in the T/O run? Are you letting the airspeed build up until you get some vert stab/rudder effectiveness before you lift the tailwheel?

I never really had problems with AH T/O's even in the very first release of the beta, the one that got a reputation for being difficult. I used RL techniques though.

Beyond that, and this is a KEY point, even if new research and programming revisions do result in a change to the FM and "pull", the pilots in here will SOON master it.

This group is highly talented with a good understanding of actual flying techniques for the most part. So, we might have stronger characteristics on T/O but for 98% of the guys it will still be a non-issue.

Lastly, please.... HT has answered your question. He's as much as said it will be reinvestigated.

Can we let it rest for a while?

It doesn't really factor into whether the game is fun or not, does it? It will come when it comes...and it WILL come.

We'll still be flying and having a blast before and after the next change.

Thanks.

[funked]

Skurj I think what you say about the Typhoon is entirely plausible.  In fact I have an anectdote of a pilot taking his first flight in a Typhoon who, accustomed to Spitfires,  set his rudder trim in the wrong direction!

[ra]

<<Now personally i think the problem may not lay so much with the torque effects but more with excessive rudder authority at low speed.>>

From the point of view of the virtual pilot, this is really six of one half a dozen of the other.

And yes, those planes had tail wheel steering.  On most planes tailwheels were locked for takeoff and landing, and freed for taxiing.

ra

[This message has been edited by ra (edited 12-30-2000).]

[fscott]

Toad,

Please don't ignore "America's Hundred Thousand" which is the Bible on US aircraft. I will keep referring to this amazing source because it tells you exactly what is needed with an F4U takeoff. I've already paraphrased the sequence of things that are required.

fscott

[Toad]

From "The Jolly Rogers" by Tom Blackburn, Chapter 6:

"The long awaited word arrived in mid-February (1943)-one new F4U-1 Corsair fighter was ready for delivery at Floyd Bennett Field, New York...I was still clutching the pilot's handbook when we landed so I could get right down to the business of cockpit familiarization and checkout.

...I went through a last-minute cockpit scan and pushed the throttle forward to the stop as I began to roll. Habits die hard; I applied full right rudder, a must in the Wildcat. A snowbank on the right side of the runway loomed large, and the my overcorrection threatened to plow the Corsair in to the left-hand snowbank.

(Later in the same chapter) "VF-17 got through carrier qualifications with no personnel casualties. We busted a lot of wheels, blew a lot of tires, and totaled several of our airplanes, but everyone eventually make his five qualifying landings aboard Charger....Moreover, Charger hardly qualified as a carrier; that spitkit rarely produced the 25 knots of relative wind over her flight deck that was considered the standard minimum for safe landing operations.

Even recognizing the remarkable performance of my grass-green tyros - they kept their cool and drove like old hands - most of the credit for our zero casualty rate must go to Catwalk Cummings. An LSO is not unlike a golf pro who can see what a student is duing right or wrong and who can coach a fledgling into fully utilizing his abilities."

But what does Blacburn know anyway? He was just the skipper of the second Navy squadron to carrier qual in the F4U.  

Now, does the "bible" give any accident rates per 1000 or 100,000 sorties?

[Ripsnort]

 

You know how long or hard you worked on it, you are more familiar with what could have been done better or what didn't come out quite the way you planned. In short, you are intimately aware of any shortcomings and have probably resolved to do better next time.

Still, it's a pretty good piece of work.

Along come the spectators and critics. Some just say "nice job" or "enjoyed what you did". Most who appriecate your work probably remain silent.

Then the nitpickers chime in. They rip you up one side and down the other over faults that you are already intimately aware of or faults that they are imagining, either through simple ignorace or a simple difference of opinion.

They do it without respect, without decency and without letup.

Add to that piece of artwork you've slaved your bellybutton off on all year the fact that you also lost a brother and niece recently, and that Christmas can be such a joyous time of year, unless of course you've lost a loved one recently..yep, think I'd be alittle touchy too.

[This message has been edited by Ripsnort (edited 01-02-2001).]

[AKDejaVu]

Cavalier.. excellent post.  Its one of the more reasonable I've seen on this subject! <S>

As for this tidbit from fscott..

2) What's all this talk about "give us data and numbers"? You know, Chuck Yeager in his own words was NEVER able to provide flight test engineers with "data." He would simply fly the X-1, then come back down and talk in his own words about how it FELT wrong. He didn't provide charts, numbers, and data.

Don't even begin to compare Chuck Yeager to AH pilots bud.  When Chuck talks about "feel"... it is based on thousands of hours of flying and knowing what the correct "feel" is.  Even then.. he wasn't employed solely on his ability to judge how things "feel".  He correlated performance into numbers just like anyone else does.  I can't believe that for every time he used the word "feel" there wasn't quite a few numbers to back it up.

That asside, it does Mr. Yeager a great injustice to be compared to AH pilots.  We fly in a virtual world.. he flew in the real one.  The two are night and day.  One put his life on the line over and over again... the other only has to worry about carpel-tunnel syndrome.

AKDejaVu