Author Topic: Hands Free CV Takeoff  (Read 321 times)

Offline ra

  • Parolee
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3569
Hands Free CV Takeoff
« on: April 09, 2002, 08:05:20 PM »
Stupid carrier trick you can try offline:

Grab F4U4 or F6F (only planes I tried, may work with others) with 50% fuel.  Set rudder and aileron trim to NEUTRAL, elevator trim to full up.  Now keep your hands off the controls and start the engine and hit WEP immediately.  When the plane clears the end of the deck raise the gear.  You have now successfully taken off from a carrier with a 2000+ HP engine with no need to counter act torque.   Justs makes you think.

ra

Offline Sandman

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 17620
Hands Free CV Takeoff
« Reply #1 on: April 09, 2002, 09:50:55 PM »
Set the CV course north.

Set the wind to blow south at 150 knots.

You can get off the deck with no engine and no torque. :)
sand

Offline ZeroPing

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 216
Hands Free CV Takeoff
« Reply #2 on: April 09, 2002, 10:11:39 PM »
FOGROT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


LMFAO

Offline LtHans

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 366
Hands Free CV Takeoff
« Reply #3 on: April 10, 2002, 03:55:33 AM »
Excuse me?  150 knot winds?  Hurricanes don't even blow that hard.

That isn't a trick.

I might also point out that modern carrier pilots take off with no hands either.  They hold onto handgrips on the canopy, not the controls.

Offline lord dolf vader

  • Parolee
  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1528
Hands Free CV Takeoff
« Reply #4 on: April 10, 2002, 04:10:26 AM »
err not to be difficult but hurricane winds do get higer than that catagory 5 is defined at 155 + mph

and what he is pointing out is that unlike modern fighters that have a sort of auto pilot that launches the aircraft from a track with a catapult.requireing no input has nothing to do with torq or lack there of . the ww2 models literaly just floored it and took of from a very short ruway no catipult track no auto pilot. ( they turn the ship into the wind and have the vessel at flank speed also ) the single engine of the corsair should be a squeak to handle like this the monster torq from the single engine will make the plane want to go to the side . requireing heavy input from the rudder to counteract. i havent tested it but seems about what i have found. hitech says he has no dought at all about the torq being corectly modeled . i just cant see how this can be true . it has come up  literaly hundreds of times on this board. i think ra is tryin to show a case that just has to be incorrect . ( hope he didnt have auto takeoff on :))

like i said i havent done the test and wont "HOT POTATO". and i am not hi enough in math to do a conclusive proof. anyone doing their mechanical eng deg senior project? finding if it is correct or not and if not what ht missed would probly be a "A" paper.
« Last Edit: April 10, 2002, 04:13:42 AM by lord dolf vader »

Offline MadBirdCZ

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 667
      • http://home.worldonline.cz/~cz088436/
Hands Free CV Takeoff
« Reply #5 on: April 10, 2002, 04:48:27 AM »
And what is the hands-off setup for CV takeoff when you in 100% internal 2x 1000lbs and Rockets F4U or F6F? :D

Offline tshred

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 252
Hands Free CV Takeoff
« Reply #6 on: April 10, 2002, 05:54:33 AM »
It's a gameplay concession IMO. Get used to it. We used to have more yaw at hi power low airspeed conditions in the early days of AH, but they reduced the effect.

The torque may be correct in AH, but they musta forgot about prop wash and p-factor IMO.

ts

Offline Wilbus

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4472
Hands Free CV Takeoff
« Reply #7 on: April 10, 2002, 05:58:05 AM »
Lord Dolf, modern carrier pilots don't have a 2000hp engine and a 3-4m in diameter prop infront of them, they either have twin turbo props (no tourge) or jet engines, most of the time jet engines. They have catapults that accelerate them to flight speed in 2 seconds.

Like Ra said, makes you think...
Rasmus "Wilbus" Mattsson

Liberating Livestock since 1998, recently returned from a 5 year Sheep-care training camp.

Offline Tac

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4085
Hands Free CV Takeoff
« Reply #8 on: April 10, 2002, 10:39:47 AM »
yep. makes you think a lot. I miss the days of pre-FM change when a hog or monster engine plane couldnt do a loop without cutting engine on the top portion because if it didnt it'd spin nasty. It was kinda fun too :) :)

Offline streakeagle

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1026
      • Streak Eagle - Stephen's Website
Hands Free CV Takeoff
« Reply #9 on: April 10, 2002, 11:04:12 AM »
Aircraft that takeoff with no hands on the carrier (i.e. F/A-18) are modern fly-by-wire aircraft witht he autopilot enabled. The computer is flying the plane and can respond to problems faster than a human, that is why they are hands off. The second they touch the controls, the autopilot is disabled.

F-4 Phantoms were hands-on takeoff... no fly-by-wire.

It is common knowledge that single engine WWII fighters would not roll straight down the runway without heavy rudder inputs. Aircraft like the P-47, P-51, and F4U were unforgiving if you didn't counteract the torque.

Aces High is head shoulders above most other flight sims, but it is still far from being a perfect simulation.
i5(4690K) MAXIMUS VII HERO(32 Gb RAM) GTX1080(8 Gb RAM) Win10 Home (64-bit)
OUR MISSION: PROTECT THE FORCE, GET THE PICTURES, ...AND KILL MIGS!

Offline Durr

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 247
      • http://us.geocities.com/ghostrider305
Hands Free CV Takeoff
« Reply #10 on: April 10, 2002, 12:52:39 PM »
This is fascinating to me because its almost like yall are playing a different game.  There are some minor flaws in the flight model of AH i think, but lack of torque isnt one of them, at least not in my experience.  When I take off in the game, using a Corsair or a P-47, I have to put in almost full rudder if I slam the power on quickly.  Even with gradual power increase, I find that I am still putting in significant amounts of rudder to maintain a straight line down the runway.

My personal opinion is that torque is slightly undermodelled to make the game a little easier to play for most people, but it isnt completely so, since it does require lots of rudder to take off.  The most powerful prop plane I have ever flown had 550 horsepower which is a far cry from 2000 of course and this plane was kinda  tricky when you first put the power in.  Tail draggers with that kind of power, like virtually all WW2 fighters were, are even harder because in addition to prop slipstream swirl, P-factor, and torque, you also have to deal with gyroscopic precession as the tail comes up.

Also btw, they dont always take off hands free from the boat.  Some planes do, others dont.  They do set the throttles locked all the way max power though, so that the tremendous acceleration doesnt bring the power back.  The F-18 can do a hands free takeoff, also some of the other newer planes.  Others arent able to do so however.  Of course the F-18 can land itself on the carrier as well.

Offline Wilbus

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4472
Hands Free CV Takeoff
« Reply #11 on: April 10, 2002, 01:00:09 PM »
Hardly have to give any rudder to stay on runway when I give full throttle, specially not in F4u, it's only a bit hard to keep steady but doesn't turn very much.

Even in modern civilian planes with 150Hp engines you have to give more rudder then I do in AH.
Rasmus "Wilbus" Mattsson

Liberating Livestock since 1998, recently returned from a 5 year Sheep-care training camp.

Offline Durr

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 247
      • http://us.geocities.com/ghostrider305
Hands Free CV Takeoff
« Reply #12 on: April 10, 2002, 01:49:57 PM »
I went and tried what ra said offline, and lo and behold, it worked.  The F-4U4 (trimmed yaw and roll neutral with 50% gas and pitch trim full up) actually took off hands free. It did turn slightly left, and ran off the left side of the boat slightly before the end, but it powered out of the descent just prior to hitting the water although it was a very close thing.  It then developed a left rolling motion that took it back towards the water, but the up trim began to raise the nose again as airspeed built.  Once again it began to climb, then continuing its left roll, ended up on its back diving towards the water.  I took over at this point, recovered the aircraft, and climbed to 12k for another torque test.  Once established and trimmed into level flight at 12k, I reduced power pulled nose up, and entered a right hand erect spin by pulling stick full aft, and applying full right rudder once the aircraft stalled.  Once established in the spin, I attempted to recover using standard inputs of stick slightly forward, and full opposite rudder.  The aircraft began to slowly recover.  I applied full throttle, and the spin recovered almost immediately,  which leads me to believe that the torque of the engine is at least modelled somewhat.  It then occured to me that perhaps the reason that the aircraft recovered, was because the engine is so powerful that the application of power immediately broke the stall with increased airspeed and airflow, to the point where the rudder had more authority.  So I tried a left hand spin.  Same trick didnt work here, so torque is modelled to a certain degree at least.  By the way, the spin characteristics of the F-4U4 are weird to say the least, it is much harder to spin than the F-4U1 is, at least in my opinion.

I then tried the hands free takeoff with the F-4UD, F-4U1, F-6f, and the Zeke.  All went off the left side of the runway and crashed.  The Hellcat came the closest to succeeding.  The Zeke, which has the least power and torque of all these planes was affected most by torque.  Of course its lighter too, which would make it more susceptible to torque, but I would still think from the accounts that I have read by pilots that got the chance to fly both, that the Corsair should have much worse torque than the Zero.  I next tried the F-4U4 with the trim in the default setting.  This time it went off the left side slightly sooner and crashed, which is odd because you would think that the default trim setting should be either all neutralized, or else in some setting that would help you takeoff, rather than making the airplane turn left even more than it already wants to.  Default takeoff trim for my F-4U4 was Aileron slightly right wing down which helps of course, and rudder slightly left which doesnt.

I tried taking off normally with the Corsair and paid careful attention to how much rudder input I used.  It wasnt as much as I thought I had been using, just enough to keep the plane centered on the runway.  I then tried taking off from a land field in the P-47 to see if my memory was failing me since I know that I usually have to use lots of rudder.  In the Jug, torque is much more apparent. At 50% fuel, and carrying no external ordnance, the Jug turned sharply to the left upon application of full power, and exited the runway almost immediately.  I then tried taking off normally, and I did indeed have to use lots of rudder input to maintain directional stability.  So the Jug seems more accurately modelled which brings up an interesting question.  The P-47 and the F-4U use the same engine, but the Corsair is somewhat lighter, which would logically lead you to conclude that torque would have a stronger effect on the Corsair.  This doesnt seem to be the case though.  I took the Corsair off the land field too, so the thesis could be proven with all variables set equal, and again the Corsair hardly deviated to the left.  

My conclusion is that torque isnt modelled correctly on the Corsair.  Some of the other planes seem to exhibit a more correct behavior however, so the flight model of the Corsair may need to be tweaked somewhat.

I met a Corsair pilot once, the only Navy night fighter ace of the Korean war.  His name is Guy Bordelon, and you may have seen a  famous painting of him shooting down his 5th enemy with his F-4U5 Corsair.  He told me several stories about the Corsair, and from the stories he told, it seems to me that the Corsair was very very tricky to handle, largely due to the torque of the engine.  Other books that I have about the "Ensign eliminator" suggest the same.  Either there is something not modelled correctly, or HTC has made the conscious decision to tone down the effect slighly in the interest of making the Corsair slightly more accessible to the casual player.  I will still say, however, that the AH flight model is likely the best of any flight simulator I have flown, and I have tried over 30.  I havent tried Il-2 yet, have to give it a shot as soon as I get the chance.  I need a good offline sim to backup Aces High for those times when my Internet access is down.  
:)
« Last Edit: April 10, 2002, 01:54:14 PM by Durr »

Offline Wilbus

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4472
Hands Free CV Takeoff
« Reply #13 on: April 10, 2002, 01:59:05 PM »
Nice tests Durr :)

I think quite many, if not all planes need some redone tourqe effetcs.

Jab, told me in a another thread that the plane turning on ground has got nothing to do with tourge, which I should know already since I've read aerodynamics to some extent. Not quite sure what the defination of "tourqe" is however what makes the plane turn on the ground, is the slip stream from the prop that hits the rudder/vertical stab and pushes it to the side, this is why you aply rudder.

Can somebody please explain to me what exactly tourqe is? Planes hardly have any tourqe in the air it seems like, except rolling different different direction when you change speed (which the 190 SHOULD NOT DO! GRRRRR). 109 should have pretty much tourqe IMO, late version specially, weighing around 6000 lbs with a 2000hp engine should produce pretty strong effects.
Rasmus "Wilbus" Mattsson

Liberating Livestock since 1998, recently returned from a 5 year Sheep-care training camp.

Offline lord dolf vader

  • Parolee
  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1528
Hands Free CV Takeoff
« Reply #14 on: April 10, 2002, 05:14:15 PM »
it seems that most here agree that torque is incorectly modeled in most if not all planes. (altho proof of exactly how  and how much seems elusive.)  agree that it is probly a gameplay concession. but as most of you know this has been brought up before ad nausium. the main problem is that Hitech has come out and said that the torqe thing is the one thing he is shure is correct. (or words to that effect). how could we incontrovertably find out once and for all ? testing a niki is pretty much out ( from all acounts it was hard to get them running in ww2.) but corsairs and 51s abound. couldent we just find a film of a hog taking off and see how much rudder it takes? or have a corsair pilot try the sim and give us a answer . otherwise we are just pullin our puds.

so how can we get a final answer? right wrong to much or to little ?

p.s. i watched black sheep episode of one takin off. now im shure they were korean hogs of higer horse power( had big ole 20mm hangin off um and im shure they werent hogcs) but looked like a hell of alot more rudder than we need in ah.no way that plane was goin anywere but in circles with no rudder and i mean little bitty ground loop circles.