Rough Field AC

[Zygote404]

Zygote, why would you even bring up the crosswinds thing? everything is affected by crosswinds, and I'd assume that lighter planes are more affected.

And not only would this have little impact on the game IMO, but since spits WERE based at rough fields, you can't really use the "well, they weren't ideally suited to it" argument. The Ju-88 wasn't idealy suited as a night fighter or strafer, but it was used in that role, with some success I might add.

Spitfire was affected by crosswinds more because it was nose heavy and its prop clearance was low, on landing it was prone to have its undercarriage collapse if it hit hard while more robust aircraft were not.  Additionally since landing entailed not being able to see forward, a crosswind while landing blind and with weak undercarriage was even more problematic.  

They were based on rough airfields through necessity.  That did not make them a rough field aircraft.  Now I have repeatedly said in this thread they did use rough airfields.  However they were not designed, suited to and did not last long on rough airfields.

[Zygote404]

(Image removed from quote.)

That doesnt look like a smooth mown paved strip to me

So sit down and shh.

Those fields look pretty damn flat to me.  We're not talking about an inch of grass being a problem, we're talking about rocks, divots, soggy areas, uneven ground, short take off and landing space.  Things that will cause the plane to tip sideways or forwards or otherwise interfere with the gear or make the plane become unstable and crash.

Like this:

[Nemisis]

You fail to understand that the crosswind factor adds nothing to your argument. Its entirely possible that a P-40 with a propstrike caused by a crosswind would suffer a simmilar accident. Landing gear isn't intended to hit the ground at 30degrees  .

How long is 'not long'? What was the difference between how long they lasted at a packed dirt strip, and at a rough field? And agian, aircraft were thrust into roles they weren't idealy suited to, and did reasonably well. You can't use that argument so long as they did reasonably well on rough fields.


Since we have perfect conditions in AH, you would need to add a lot to make this benefitial (weather, uneven terrain, prop strikes that cause some physical motion to the plane, etc.). You're argument is flawed IMO, and your jumping the gun.

[ariansworld]

Zygote, dude just give up....... you are beating your head on a block wall.   
Where is a facepalm photo when you need one?

[Zygote404]

You fail to understand that the crosswind factor adds nothing to your argument. Its entirely possible that a P-40 with a propstrike caused by a crosswind would suffer a simmilar accident. Landing gear isn't intended to hit the ground at 30degrees  .

How long is 'not long'? What was the difference between how long they lasted at a packed dirt strip, and at a rough field? And agian, aircraft were thrust into roles they weren't idealy suited to, and did reasonably well. You can't use that argument so long as they did reasonably well on rough fields.


Since we have perfect conditions in AH, you would need to add a lot to make this benefitial (weather, uneven terrain, prop strikes that cause some physical motion to the plane, etc.). You're argument is flawed IMO, and your jumping the gun.

The P40 was extremely robust but it suffered the same problems as the spitfire in regards to landing gear.

Poor ground visibility and the relatively narrow landing gear track led to many losses due to accidents on the ground.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curtiss_P-40_Warhawk


It was however cheaper, service was easier and it was very robust and could withstand conditions the spitfires could not.

I don't have statistical information relating to how long.  What I do know is they were very easy for veteran pilots to land on packed dirt  or better.  The accident rate on developed grass was higher then packed dirt or better.  They were very difficult for novice pilots to land even on developed airfield.  In one particular month there were 38 spitfires destroyed or damaged in landing accidents at one training school in England.

They didn't do reasonably well on rough fields, they did very poorly.  Its all detailed in the links I have posted previously.


No you don't need realistic things like prop strikes, terrain changes etc.  There are plenty of examples of conditions imposed in game that don't require that level of realism. 163's only taking off from 1 HQ field. Destroying all fuel still leaving 75% available etc. Landing 1 centimeter off a runway giving you a ditch etc.

Zygote, dude just give up....... you are beating your head on a block wall.  
Where is a facepalm photo when you need one?

No. Defeating ignorance and stupidity is important.

[Nemisis]

the narrow track was the issue, but a failure in the landing gear (folding into the upright possition on touchdown, an actuall break in the struts or whatever you want to call the main part connected to the wheel, etc) wasn't as large of an issue in the P-40.

Ok, so lets take a P-38 for example then. landing gear still isn't inteded to hit the ground at 30 degrees off the verticle. I have no doubt that a P-38's landing gear would break under those conditions. Its 17000lbs of fighter coming down on 1-2 wheels in that situation, one of those being the nose wheel.

You're just shooting yourself in the foot with that 38 sptifres being destroyed on landing at a training school thing. I assume they are going to train pilots on an improved airfield rather than some field they were using as a makeshift airstrip. If spitfires were that hard to land, even under good conditions, then they had no bussiness being used on even packed dirt strips, which you said they were, and succesfully.

[Zygote404]

the narrow track was the issue, but a failure in the landing gear (folding into the upright possition on touchdown, an actuall break in the struts or whatever you want to call the main part connected to the wheel, etc) wasn't as large of an issue in the P-40.

Ok, so lets take a P-38 for example then. landing gear still isn't inteded to hit the ground at 30 degrees off the verticle. I have no doubt that a P-38's landing gear would break under those conditions. Its 17000lbs of fighter coming down on 1-2 wheels in that situation, one of those being the nose wheel.

You're just shooting yourself in the foot with that 38 sptifres being destroyed on landing at a training school thing. I assume they are going to train pilots on an improved airfield rather than some field they were using as a makeshift airstrip. If spitfires were that hard to land, even under good conditions, then they had no bussiness being used on even packed dirt strips, which you said they were, and succesfully.

P38 had excellent brakes.  It had variable flap settings which could be deployed for low speed landings and shorter take offs, it had counter rotating props.  It had greater prop clearance and excellent visibility forward.  All of these things made it a better, more stable aircraft for landing and taking off.

Not shooting myself in the foot at all.  Packed strips are good conditions.  They are rock hard flat airstrips.  Like I said, if you read the links I posted, they were better for spits then grass since grass caused a few extra problems for the spitfires.

[Nemisis]

OK, then a P-47. What happened was that it didn't come in completely level for whatever reason. The right gear impacts the runway at 30 degress off the verticle, causing it to fold, the left landing gear touches down at this point, followed by the tail wheel. Right wing tip hits the ground, causing the plane to rotate, stresses the left landing gear, causing it to break. Completely plausible scenario, can happen to any plane, and a rough field does nothing to increase the likely hood of this particular accident.

Scenario 2: P-47 coming in for a landing at low speed. Just before touchdown, a gust of wind catches the the verticle stabalizer, causing the plane to yaw 30 degrees to the left, aided by the torque of the engine. Landing gear alignment is no longer consistent with the plane's motion, when the landing gear touches down, they are at a 30 degree angle relative to the runway. This sideways motion is enough to cause a failure to the landing gear. Nose impacts the ground, lifting the rear end up in the air, and the plane flips. Again, perfectly plausible scenario, and one that wouldn't nessicarily be more likely on a rough airfield.


And you are shooting yourself in the foot. If spitfires were that difficult to land when flown by new pilots (I assume they were fairly close to graduation, as they were training in fighters, rather than trainer aircraft). Since these pilots were probably going to be sent into combat soon, they should have been able to land on an improved strip.

[Zygote404]

OK, then a P-47. What happened was that it didn't come in completely level for whatever reason. The right gear impacts the runway at 30 degress off the verticle, causing it to fold, the left landing gear touches down at this point, followed by the tail wheel. Right wing tip hits the ground, causing the plane to rotate, stresses the left landing gear, causing it to break. Completely plausible scenario, can happen to any plane, and a rough field does nothing to increase the likely hood of this particular accident.

Scenario 2: P-47 coming in for a landing at low speed. Just before touchdown, a gust of wind catches the the verticle stabalizer, causing the plane to yaw 30 degrees to the left, aided by the torque of the engine. Landing gear alignment is no longer consistent with the plane's motion, when the landing gear touches down, they are at a 30 degree angle relative to the runway. This sideways motion is enough to cause a failure to the landing gear. Nose impacts the ground, lifting the rear end up in the air, and the plane flips. Again, perfectly plausible scenario, and one that wouldn't nessicarily be more likely on a rough airfield.


And you are shooting yourself in the foot. If spitfires were that difficult to land when flown by new pilots (I assume they were fairly close to graduation, as they were training in fighters, rather than trainer aircraft). Since these pilots were probably going to be sent into combat soon, they should have been able to land on an improved strip.

From what I know of the P47, it had a very big prop.  Ground clearance was not good, around 6 inches.  Pilots had to flare the ac on landing to avoid prop strike.  Prop strikes generally didn't destroy the aircraft, they destroyed the prop and damaged the runway.

The problem with your examples is the degree events of equal power would have on both planes.  To cause such a drastic accident in the P47, the wind gust would probably need to be much more severe, the 47 was heavy, stable and once again had good variable flaps to slow its landing speed and assist its take offs.  The landing gear was very sturdy, it had brakes that could be used effectively as well.


They were difficult to learn to land as far as I know.  I never flew one so I can only go by what I have read.  The problem with new pilots landing Spits was there was no forward view when landing, you didn't deploy flaps until right before the landing since they were all or nothing flaps. The brakes were not good, too much and your Spit was sticking nose first into the ground. Too little and you didn't stop.  The brakes even when slowed down enough to apply full braking didn't stop the plane fully, it still had to roll to a stop.  Once down you couldn't see where you were going since the nose still blocked your view forward.

I can see how that combination of factors could cause trainee pilots to make mistakes and break their aircraft.

[Imowface]

You do realize that that "bad forward view" is the dumbest excuse I have ever seen on there BBS, spitfires front veiw was no worse then the corsairs, p-47, Bf-109,p-40, and mustang, it has nothing to do with taking off and landing on a rough field Corsair took off from jungles all the time, and it was notoriously hard to fly, and I never hear anyone calling spitfires ensign eliminators, all the junk you just listed has nothing to do with weather on not an A/C can land on a rough surface, and also if I may ask, as I am currious, were there really that many compleatly un prepaired strips in WW2, ie tall grass, and huge potholes and stones all over it like you desribe, the only storys I ever here of such landings are in emergancy situations

[Zygote404]

Yes forward visibility is important when landing.  Believe it or not.  Simply because you haven't heard something doesn't mean its not true.  You may want to read on why a naval plane like the Corsair was in the jungle and not on a carrier.  Forward Visibility.

Also P47, P40 and Mustang visibility forwards when landing was much better then the Spitfire. 

[RTHolmes]

Semantics.

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

irony aside, the point still stands that the bulk of spitfire sorties flown during the BoB were from grass strips. many of these had been used as RAF or flying club fields in the period between the wars, and were essentially grazing land with the field's fences removed to provide long enough strips.

drainage improvement work would have been done on some, but otherwise they were just that - grazing. most would not have been mowed, sheep are cheaper and more effective at keeping grass cropped. this is the method used even now, just a couple of weeks ago I was at RAF Weston on the Green (pre-war RFC strip used during WWII). its now used for jump training and for the gliding club. the ground is very uneven, in fact you can still see the outlines of feudal plots. like most of these fields (the clue is in the name) there has been no preparation of the ground itself (levelling, compacting, returfing etc.) beyond a few centuries of ploughing and grazing.

all fields in Europe will have been "prepared" to some degree (forest clearance, draining) because its been densely populated and farmed for a coupla thousand years. half the fields in Norfolk would have been bogs if the entire area hadnt been drained or reclaimed from the sea during the middle ages. however many of the fields had no special preparation for flight, beyond removal of fences and the odd boulder, and the erection of a windsock and a bunch of tents for accommodation.

watch some movies of BoB takeoffs and landings on youtube and you can clearly see how uneven the strips were - the planes are bouncing around all over the place. likewise film from north africa, their strips were just desert with the largest boulders removed (as in your photo above and countless other photos of spits using similar strips).


edit: note the pic of the stuka you use to demonstrate a rough field which spits could not opreate from is in Malta. Ack posted a photo of Spits operating from Malta earlier in this thread ...

[Zygote404]

irony aside, the point still stands that the bulk of spitfire sorties flown during the BoB were from grass strips. many of these had been used as RAF or flying club fields in the period between the wars, and were essentially grazing land with the field's fences removed to provide long enough strips.

drainage improvement work would have been done on some, but otherwise they were just that - grazing. most would not have been mowed, sheep are cheaper and more effective at keeping grass cropped. this is the method used even now, just a couple of weeks ago I was at RAF Weston on the Green (pre-war RFC strip used during WWII). its now used for jump training and for the gliding club. the ground is very uneven, in fact you can still see the outlines of feudal plots. like most of these fields (the clue is in the name) there has been no preparation of the ground itself (levelling, compacting, returfing etc.) beyond a few centuries of ploughing and grazing.

all fields in Europe will have been "prepared" to some degree (forest clearance, draining) because its been densely populated and farmed for a coupla thousand years. half the fields in Norfolk would have been bogs if the entire area hadnt been drained or reclaimed from the sea during the middle ages. however many of the fields had no special preparation for flight, beyond removal of fences and the odd boulder, and the erection of a windsock and a bunch of tents for accommodation.

watch some movies of BoB takeoffs and landings on youtube and you can clearly see how uneven the strips were - the planes are bouncing around all over the place. likewise film from north africa, their strips were just desert with the largest boulders removed (as in your photo above and countless other photos of spits using similar strips).


edit: note the pic of the stuka you use to demonstrate a rough field which spits could not opreate from is in Malta. Ack posted a photo of Spits operating from Malta earlier in this thread ...

Semantics - You take something I have said "Spitfires can not take off from rough fields", which was in response to someone asking if they would be included in my wishlist idea, and despite my having said multiple times throughout this thread that "they could take off from rough fields" and "they did take off from rough fields" continue to insist that I am incorrect based on that one line. You are using my response, insisting on your interpretation of the wording that I am saying they could not take off from rough fields.  This is deliberate obfuscation.

Hurricanes did and could take off from catapult ships, they did and could land on water at the end of the sortie.  This does make the hurricane a float plane.  According to your logic, since Hurricanes did and could take off from naval warships and did and could land in water afterward that they were navalised floatplanes.  

Also, why would you say the Stuka is in Malta when it obviously is not.  The Stuka in question is a Wehrmacht 39 aircraft, operating from a very rough field (just a patch of dirt, rock and scrub) out of Sicily.

[Nemisis]

Zygote, you're pretty much saying that there was nothing as bad as the spit, and thats a complete lie. Flaps wouldn't help if you're just about to touch down. Breaks wouldn't help if your gear is 30 degrees off of the direction of your movment.


We're not going to see this any time soon, and it would add little to the game. Few would use this, choosing upping their favorite plane from a different base, rather than one they don't know too well at a closer one.

[Zygote404]

Zygote, you're pretty much saying that there was nothing as bad as the spit, and thats a complete lie. Flaps wouldn't help if you're just about to touch down. Breaks wouldn't help if your gear is 30 degrees off of the direction of your movment.


We're not going to see this any time soon, and it would add little to the game. Few would use this, choosing upping their favorite plane from a different base, rather than one they don't know too well at a closer one.

Nothing as bad as a spitfire?  Where did I say that.  The Spitfire was an awesome aircraft, looked good, flew very well, was ahead of its time in some areas.  However, every plane had a weakness or weaknesses, and so did the Spitfire.  It was rather bad at high speed due to wing twisting, this became so bad at times that banking right would cause the aircraft to turn left.  It had fragile landing gear and wasn't very good on rough forward airfields or in tropical conditions. It was more difficult to service and repair then aircraft like the p40 and hurricane.  At low levels and high speeds it experienced cracking and wing damage due to the thicker air.  It had poor range as well.

Flaps would help if your just about to touch down.  They act as air-brakes and reduce stall chance.  I have no idea what your going on about being 30 degrees off your direction of travel.

As for not seeing it, most of the wishlist items will never be included in the game.  Thats not the point of a wishlist imo.  As for adding little to the game thats not for you to say other then as a personal preference of your own.  If you would prefer to up your same old ride thats your problem for being what I consider boring and predictable, I'm certain there are a few people in the game, probably more then a few, that do prefer more of a challenge.