Holy cow i took a beating and still landed.

[OpIvy]

I was in a plane (cant remember whats the name) and I went after a b-26, well i over shot and he blew my left wing right in half. I thought i was dead but for some odd reason i stayed level by using my rudders and leaning my stick to the right. I saw a Dot and flew towards it and found it was another Bomber so i thought What the hell i'm going to die anyways so i flew at the bomber. well i Blew the bomber apart and flew back to my home base where i landed just pasted the air field. I had one hell of a time landing because i was going so fast that my plane started to roll but my right wing broke and pushed me rightside up again.    
Now is it possible to fly about 20 miles with only half a wing?[/i]



 

   

   

[This message has been edited by OpIvy (edited 03-29-2001).]

[AKSeaWulfe]

I want to be the first to say it...

Chog wiener!!!!!!
-SW

[OpIvy]

Is that what its called?

i'm new so i was trying out all the planes but this one took one hell of a beating.

what does Chog stand for?

[Lephturn]

What you see is not entirely accurate.

When you see half your wing gone, this is really a way of representing heavy damage to your wing.  IE: your wing is still there, it's just all busted up.  You will notice that you lose lift from that wing, but if you keep your speed up you can often keep flying and even land safely.  This does a great job of simulating damage that you can still RTB with.  I like it.  

------------------
Sean "Lephturn" Conrad - Aces High Chief Trainer

A proud member of the mighty Flying Pigs
http://www.flyingpigs.com

Check out Lephturn's Aerodrome for AH articles and training info!

[GRUNHERZ]

Leph I dont know where this excuse started but thats just not true, some planes are never flyable with the wing half gone.
Others like chog and 190 can do just fine. And retain good manouverablitly as well and even gain speed, for example someone did a test where a P47 with half wing was actually a bit faster on the deck over a good period of time. This is an innacuracy in AH damage model that must be fixed.

[AKSeaWulfe]

 

Originally posted by OpIvy:
Is that what its called?

i'm new so i was trying out all the planes but this one took one hell of a beating.

what does Chog stand for?

Actually it's the cannon armed F4U-1A. When they added the 4 cannons, it became an F4U-1C which is what we have in AH.

It's called the "chog" because the F4U is nicknamed the hog. It's supposed to somehow be derogitory(sp?), and it's what the local AH LuftWiener contingent calls it because they get their butts waxed all the time by it.

:-)
-SW

[Staga]

Fix your views Op.
Move pilots head with arrows and pageUp/Down keys and save with F10. Repeat with all views.
 

[Raubvogel]

 

Originally posted by Lephturn:
 You will notice that you lose lift from that wing, but if you keep your speed up you can often keep flying and even land safely.  This does a great job of simulating damage that you can still RTB with.

Depends on the plane. In some planes it is a death sentence. Great job of simulating damage? Have to disagree there.

[GRUNHERZ]

Its not an F4U1A with cannons, its based on a 1D.

[AKSeaWulfe]

 

Originally posted by GRUNHERZ:
Its not an F4U1A with cannons, its based on a 1D.

and I quote:
With four 20-mm M2 cannon mounted in the wings in place of the .5-in(12,7-mm) weapons, 200 aircraft were delivered as F4U-1Cs, and the next version, F4U-1D, reverted to the smaller-calibre guns, but had twin pylons beneath the centre section for drop tanks or a pair of 1,000-lb (454 kb) bombs.

and I quote again...
Some accounts reverse the designation FrU-1B for the British versions which had clipped wingtips to permit stowage aboard low-ceilinged British aircraft carriers. The F4U-1C was armed with four 20-mm cannon in the wings instead of the six .50 calibre guns of other Dash-1s. The ultimate sub-type of the Dash-1 Corsair was the F4U-1D...

-SW

[Lephturn]

Grun, RAub,

What we have is clearly better than no modelling of damage at all.  It's a step above simply having a wing, or not having a wing.  It's intended to simulate major damage, without removing the entire wing.  The way that was simulated was to remove the outer section or wingtip.

Sure, it could be improved, but at least it's modelled.

Now there is an issue with drag.  When a piece gets blown off, you lose it's effects, and that includes it's lift and drag.  The end result is that a Hog with both wingtips missing is considerably faster than a complete one.  That's a modelling issue, but I"m sure it's on HT's list someplace.  It may not be easily solveable within the constraints of the current flight model.

Now as far as doing a good job of simulating something... well the effect is there for me.  When my wingtip gets blown off, the birds I fly can often be nursed back to base, although it's a tough job to land it.  That experience of using trim and opposite controls and rudder to nurse my wounded bird home all beat to crap is what is being simulated here, and in that regard it seems to work pretty well.  In addition, due to wing design, it is also true that some birds would be more tolerant than others to major wing damage and still be flyable.  I think this system also models those attributes to some degree.

In short, what we have does model different levels of damage.  It gives me what I feel is a reasonable effect, in terms of nursing my wounded bird home with some big assed holes in it.  Different planes also behave differently with major wing damage depending on their design.  It's not perfect, but I think has the desired effect.  

Just for reference, what sim has done it better?  I haven't done many others... I really want to know, I'm not being a smart-ass.

------------------
Sean "Lephturn" Conrad - Aces High Chief Trainer

A proud member of the mighty Flying Pigs
http://www.flyingpigs.com

Check out Lephturn's Aerodrome for AH articles and training info!

[GRUNHERZ]

Here is why I dont belive there is any level of differental damage.

When I fly 109 and the wing blown off- its always very very difficult if not almost impossible to resume controlled flight. Compare that to 190 and chog. Every time ive had my wing blown off in chog, every time, every single time- I had absolutely no trouble maintaing level flight and decent manouver. I even went to score 4-5 more kills vs fighters with half a wing in chog. No chog I ever flown was dead after the wing damage. Now to FW 190, I dont fly it much but a few times ive lost a wing I remember it still rolled nicely and responded well. When I face half wing 190s they actually outroll my 109 for pretty long time. Yes 190 is good roller and all that but it isnt that good. Plus since I fly the 109 with the 30mm and only fire it for real kills (I dont use 13mm when I fire the cannon so please dont tell me it might not be 30mm hit), I know that I must blow that wing in half and not just damage it. All of know the 30mm is destructive gun when it hits in AH, but so hard to hit arggghhhh   . We all have seen pictures of 30mm hits on fighters its not pretty, plus we all know it only took 2-3 hits to down a buff.
So what im saying is that the wing is blown off completly on all the planes when we see the half wing.

The other evidence of this is how AH does visually model the loss of ailerons- the DM can note that. Loss of ailrons is sign of partial wing damage, loss of wingtip is full wing damage. Have any of you ever had half wing loss displayed and still had ailerons? Because if it just modeled random wing damage somebody somewhere must have seen that?

Guys this a bug in AH, no way to excuse over it over and it should be fixed. This bug idea is fully in keeping with the lack of sophistication AH shows in DM at this time, as evidence by incresed performance if a wing is ripped in half. Not disater to AH by any means, but a considerable flaw none-the-less that should be put on the fix list and taken care of.

[ispar]

I seem to recall hearing that the half-wing graphic was a generic graphic for a plane missing anywhere from the tip to half a wing.

Landing it like that can be interesting, too. You have to keep your speed up, or you'll lose too much lift and pancake in at low altitude. I remember once plunking a Tempest down so fast that the thing was rolling along on one wheel, with the good wing up in the air! Must have been quite a sight, as I struggled and cursed with the rudder and wheel brakes. Sadly, I ended up having to avoid a building, and the attempted maneuver caused me to lose it totally and die  .

------------------
"E's bound to be guilty, or 'e wouldn't be 'ere!
Starboard gun! FIRE
Shootings to good for 'im, kick the louse out!
Port gun! FIRE"

[Karnak]

My experiences:

Spitfire missing half a wing is in a death tumble.

P-47 missing half a wing has trouble maintaining level flight.  I crashed trying to land.

------------------
We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;
For he to-day that sheds his blood with me
Shall be my brother

Bring the Spitfire F.MkXIVc to Aces High!!!

Sisu
-Karnak

[GRUNHERZ]

SW

None of that says anything about 1A, the fact is this 1A story is a well known fantasy.

Take a look at Burt Kinsey's Corsair book which comes in two editions with sections covering every model from the prototype, through the wartime operational and experimental types, and postwar developments.

The very first paragraph of the F4U1-C section begins something like this:

It is a common misconception that the  F4U1-C is a development of the F4U1-A with cannons, however it is actually an F4U1-D modification built in between F4U1-D productin blocks.

The vought papers that F4UDOA or Westy posted, support this also by clearly stating 1C is identical to 1D with the exception of cannons and the 300lb weight increase vs 1D.

So im sorry your information was incorrect. Arent you happy now that you learned something new?  <S>