Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: fscott on December 28, 2000, 12:41:00 PM
-
I just tried out the Hog for the FIRST time today from a carrier. HiTech happened to be online also. After my takeoff I used hardly a smidget of rudder, hardly enuff to call it used. Anyway I was really surprised at the lack of torque effect from the Hog and it pretty much flew right off the deck in a straight line without a hitch.
So I said to HT that the hog requries no rudder on takeoff..this is not accurate. Some other gent chimed in saying that I should try it loaded. I say shouldn't make a difference, the torque effects from the engine were so bad it was called the ENSIGN ELIMINATOR. That little phrase means something gents, not a phrase given to the hog lightly. Anyway, no response from HiTech, so thinking perhaps he didn't hear my comment, I say again, hog no rudder needed on takeoff from carrier. Now he responds, "Heard your whine the first 100 times fscott." I say, uhm that is the second time. Then he says "over the last 3 months I've heard your whines." I'm simply thinking wtf? 1.05 just came out and this is the first time I've tried the hog on the carrier.
Ok big deal then. I'm pissed now, he is insulting my suggestion, and pretty much a GIVEN that the hog had tremendous torque on takeoff. I say again that it needs fixed because now he seems to be ignoring me. Oh well... he mutes me for ten minutes.
The real issue here is not the fact the hog may need fixed, but HiTech's immediate defensiveness of the hog's lack of torque. Perhaps he has me consfused with someone else? I dunno, and I'd hate to jump to conclusions afterall HT has done a great job with Aces High. All I was doing was basically making a statement that the hog needed torque effects added on carrier takeoff. After I repeated the statement, he takes immediate defense and insults me by saying he's heard MY whine for the 100th time now.
Ok feel free to defend HiTech and flame me and get your browning points. I just thought it was a little over the edge on his part. But again he's the boss here, he has control over all things..........
fscott
-
"over the last 3 months I've heard your whines."
I should clear that up. hat is not exactly what he said. Not sure the exact statement but it was specifically about the HOG toprque effects. I don't whine much about fm's. This is why I'm a little confused about his defensiveness.
fscott
-
Oops
[This message has been edited by Karnak (edited 12-28-2000).]
-
He probably got snappy, unfortunately, because he lumped you in with the guys who've been harping on the Hog, and torque effects in general, for months.
The problem I see here is that HTC like us to provide solid historical, or test data from actual aircraft before they look at something as more than a whine or a "feels" wrong comment. However I have never seen any such data for torque effects and therefore we can't provide anything other than pilot accounts say how bad the torque was in their Hog, Tiffie, Griffon Spit or whatever.
Just a thought, ah well.
------------------
We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;
For he to-day that sheds his blood with me
Shall be my brother
Sisu
-Karnak
-
This is generic; no one take it personally please.
Have you ever done something you were pretty proud of? Write a story, paint a picture, throw a touchdown pass, win a race, landscape your yard?
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.
Now suppose you had to listen to these folks for a solid year.
Think you'd get a little snippy sometimes?
I'm a "branded" cheerleader. Doesn't bother me a bit. Know why?
Simply because HTC is TRYING to make a great online WW2 ACM sim. That effort wins my support.
I don't publicly "go negative" on anyone trying to do this. Salute to the AW programmers, salute to the WB programmers, salute to the FA programmers, salute to WW2OnLine programmers, salute to the IL programmers.
I sure couldn't even begin to do what ANY of them are doing right now.
...and all of them are trying to make games that emulate flying WW2 aircraft. Gotta love that.
-
HTC have explained a couple of times that the prop effects are calculated as accurately as they know how.
Despite this there are some players who insist that the prop effects have been toned down for gameplay reasons. These folks are basically accusing HTC of lying.
If you call me a liar to my face, you had better duck. I doubt HTC feel much differently than I do on the issue.
-
fscott
I was on at lunch and saw the exchange. Well I didn't see your 1st comment I saw HT's response your comeback then his "3 month" reply. Don't take it personal. You have to remember they have to build it to please the masses. Torque is off on the 109's also. I figure if they made it real life, they'd hear more complains as many would not be able to handle it. When I joined, 1.02 I think, the 109 had much greater torque on T.O. and landing then it does now. No big deal, it's just a game. Best one out there now IMHO.
Eagler
-
funked they obviously have not done that...
the effects of prop speed and acceleration of the propellar mass are not calculated in torque i believe. the acceleration of a hamilton standard 4 blade (must weigh several hundred pounds?) from 1300 to 2600 rpm for example doesnt have a noticable effect on the airplane, which isnt correct.
i think the torque effects in STEADY STATE are pretty okay, but that the effects of accelerating or decellerating the propellar mass arent currently modeled.
also, the current multi engine modeling leaves much to be desired, IMO. The single engined p-38 will fly relatively easily on one engine, when in fact a rather large rudder input shouold be required to counteract the yawing moment. in addition the CL,max of the wing on the dead engine side should decrease sinceit doesnt have the prop wash over it anymore.
-
I said:
HTC have explained a couple of times that the prop effects are calculated as accurately as they know how.
Zig said: funked they obviously have not done that...
Huh? How is that obvious? It's not obvious to me. Not only is it not obvious that they haven't made the best calculations that they can with their knowledge, it's also not obvious that their calculations are incorrect.
It's clear that you are saying their calculations are incorrect. Are you further saying that they are liars, that the calculations are intentionally incorrect? That's how your response reads.
[This message has been edited by funked (edited 12-28-2000).]
-
I think "ensign eliminator" had to do with the combo of big bellybutton motor, poor training, no forward view and a catchy slogan more than anything else. Kinda like the P-39 forward tumble.
-
Originally posted by Gadfly:
I think "ensign eliminator" had to do with the combo of big bellybutton motor, poor training, no forward view and a catchy slogan more than anything else. Kinda like the P-39 forward tumble.
I think that the smashed typhoons on the British fields' right side hangars were,too, the product of a catchy slogan, huh, gadfly?
[This message has been edited by RAM (edited 12-28-2000).]
-
In Tuck's book he described how the first Squadrons to equip with the Hurricane (the RAF's first monoplane fighter) started stories about how it was a beast to fly and you had to watch it and fight it every second or it'd turn on and kill you. The did this to impress the other pilots, who were flying Gladiators, and to make themselves out to be the best of the best. In reality the Hurricane was a very forgiving and docile fighter.
Tuck was certain that several pilots, new or just new to the Hurricane, were so nervous because of the stories they'd heard that they went and crashed it, killing themselves.
Tuck flew Spitfires and Hurricanes.
Catchy stories can sometimes kill.
------------------
We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;
For he to-day that sheds his blood with me
Shall be my brother
Sisu
-Karnak
-
Amazing how quickly we get off the subject! Look the two issues were HiTech's defensiveness, of which know I feel perhaps he was just in a defensive mood, and the lack of torque on the Hog's carrier launch.
Funked, I cannot agree at all. I tried several more launches offline with 100% fuel load and no rudder before, during, and after takeoff...the result was a clean almost straight ahead takeoff.
The "Bible" of american fighters, "America's Hundred Thousand" states very clearly under the F4U's "Takeoff and Climb" section that significant rudder and trimmed rudder was required on takeoff. Additionally after takeoff aileron was required to keep it from rolling over to the left and into the ground/water.
The main question is if this is what is required of an F4U takeoff, then why isn't it required in AH?
fscott
-
After reading HiTech's reply to a flight model question on the other board, I realize that he WAS in a pissy mood today. He said he was about to explode. However, he also implied that the torque effects were accurate? At least that's how I read it. I guess I'd have to disagree there.
fscott
-
HT posted this over in General Discussion/Flight Model. There's more there.
"There are pieces of what you call torque I know are very close to real performance BTW did you know real eng torque more than doubled on most planes in 1.04? The yaw effect you are referring to is mostly do to slip stream effects. They might not be spot on but they are very close. I've already spent lots of hours researching ways to better simulate this effect. It will most probably change in the future but to gain more accuracy in that area is not a simple thing and there are lots of bigger fish in the pan at this moment."
IMHO, too many people fall into the "this must be fixed immediately" mode. The game is a never-ending "work in progress". They used to say that on the site.
It's obvious that HT is aware of this area. It's also obvious (from the above post and other previous posts) that this area of the FM will be revisited.
Until then, may I suggest that we all play 1.05 and have fun while waiting for 1.06?
-
fscott Said:
The main question is if this is what is required of an F4U takeoff, then why isn't it required in AH?
And what precisly do you think it is fscott.
Don't say not enof torque. Because that is way to vage of term.
Could it be we put to much trim in the air craft?
Could it be that we have to much slip stream on the wings,or to fast, or hits to much of the wings or at the wrong angle?
Could it be that the slip stream angle on the horzital stab is incorect?
Could it be that the departer line of the lift curve of the wings is not steap enough?
Could it be the ratio of rudder input to rudder movemnt?
Could it be the lift curve on the vertical stab?
Could be to much surface area on the fuse conatacting the slip stream?
If you realy want to get in to this fscott. Do me a real favor, ive been looking for a hp/torque/rpm curve on the wasp. If you want to help find one, id love to see it.
HiTech
-
Which model HT, I have those diagrams but not a complete series and not for more than 1/4 of the variants they produced with different fuel grades ignition variants and fuel delivery systems. Please, can you tell me which engine /setup you are looking for maybe I can help.
-
She got her name from killing ensigns at LOW speed on LANDING approaches on WAVE OFFs. She was one of the first large HP monsters out there. She has a huge vator, and the 1D has special mods done to it to help with the low speed torque effects. I would think an early serial # -1A would be much more noticable but not the 1D. Even the 1As were modified to correct early problems. Spitfires were worse with torque problems due to the narrow gear and higher HP. The P51 was a torque monster also.
Do I think torque effect to the plane is perfect? I don't really know I haven't flown a mustang, corsair, or spitfire in real life. I can only go by what I read or watch from real life pilots. I recently watched a check out flight of a 1D. The pilot remarked how easy she was to handle on the ground. But did note that flying most warbirds wasn't something to be done just for the fun of it, if you forgot what you were doing it could be fatal.
I think flying at low speeds most the planes seem to wing stall pretty (crashed the tbm x2 today). I belly flopped a heavy 1D today on carrier take off.
If you really want to help better the game then please provide HTC with #s and references to improve the game :P
S!
Rocket
------------------
(http://www.reddragons.de/images/sig.jpg)
VMF-115 Joe's Jokers-RD AH DIV
Fierce and Bold
With Honour and Courage
_______________________
www.reddragons.de/aceshigh/ (http://www.reddragons.de)
-
Originally posted by Toad:
I'm a "branded" cheerleader. Doesn't bother me a bit. Know why?
Simply because HTC is TRYING to make a great online WW2 ACM sim. That effort wins my support.
...and all of them are trying to make games that emulate flying WW2 aircraft. Gotta love that.
Toad you talk far too much sense for this board (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Vladd
-
RAM, I would chalk that up to poor training, and line the TO's against the wall for letting an idiot that would ram the hanger sit in a seat and call himself an "aviator".
-
Ok outstanding HiTech. Until tonite I was unaware that you were attempting to fix the torque equations. All you needed to do was reply to my comment that you will be looking into torque effects, rather than say you heard me the first 100 times.
That's all I need to know. Sorry I have no curves or numbers. If I did you'd be the first to receive them.
fscott
-
I am simply tired about the people who think that when I try to point out what I think its porked, I am slamming the rest of the work in AH.
If I thought that AH was not worth my money then WTF I'm doing flying it right now?
I think that AH is great. That its fun. And I love it.
Still, each time I point what is, for me, screwed, Kaboom. Seems that, because I think that the Hispanos have Laser performance (wich they have), because I thikn that a couple of planes do strange things (wich IMO, they do), and because I think that the planes suffer too few effects from a heavy fast spinning propeller, I am slamming all the rest.
People call me whiner and slammer. Ok, then I have to call those people crybabies, kids that when someone says that something can be wrong in their favorite toy start to cry, to insult, to discredite, at any cost. Again I remember the thinks that Lazs and F4UDOA were called (especially the first, and yes, by me too) when they pointed out that 1.03 FM had way off drags. They were called slammers, whiners, and even worse things.
but they were right.
I dont claim to be right or wrong. I refer to my right to point out what I think its right or wrong. I can be waaaay off, but to critic THREE THINGS IN A WHOLE GAME IS NOT TO SLAM ALL THE F*/*ING GAME; DAMNIT!. and I critic the HIspano damage model, the FM of Hog and N1K2 and the lack of torque effects in the aircrafts.
That means I'm slamming the rest of your work, Hitech?...I'm discrediting AH while I am still bringing people to the MA to test the game?...People?...HTC?...can you answer me?...
Different than the rest of the people I DID receive the message of your answer in the other thread in the general forum. I am one of the leaders of the "fix it" in Aces High. You say that work is done in the torque department? OK! I am SATISFIED!,its MORE THAN ENOUGH for me, for I trust you and your work, damnit!...but why couldnt say that one month ago, when I asked it as an honest question?. Why do you turn defensive when people ask you questions like that?...why do you mute people in the main arena when they ask you about determinate things (I never was, but know people who has been)?
Maybe you are tired of people slamming AH. But once again, I point out what I think is wrong. BUT I DONT SLAM YOUR WORK!
I'm paying 30$/month, right?. That should be enough proof.
-
Something simple.
With full power, was it possible to lift the tail of any of these WW2 fighters while it was stationary?
No fighter in AH can currently do this.
I seem to recall the real Spitfire would do it unless a couple of erks sat on the tailplane. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
-
You don't get it RAM. Explain all you want, but when you make roadkill statements like "hispano turbolasers" and "non E-losing turns" you ARE slamming HTC's work. You mis-represent the facts constantly and for some reason you don't think folks should be pissed off about it. What you do is classic FUD, and it's not good for the community.
Try to remember that HTC builds the game as best they can. If you think there might be a problem, do some tests and provide some data. Don't go making roadkill generalizations based on "examples" instead of data. You just make a fool of yourself and insult HTC when you do that. Get data, make your point, and that's it. Repeating the same toejam for months won't help.
There is one sure way to avoid all of this. Try shutting the hell up for once.
Lephturn
-
You know, when I think I'm having a bad day or that life is treating me unfairly, I come here and read one of RAM's posts and realize that it could be worse! (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Cobra
-
This mention of Typhoons...
Could it be related to the fact that the rotation was opposite to what they were used to and the pilot used the wrong rudder input to couteract?
I've heard several accounts of this very thing happening in RL.
Ran into a guy who maintained Typh's in de war, if I find him again I will ask him about this..
AKskurj
-
Interesting to note that it was "Ensign Eliminator" not "Lieutenant J.G. or Lt. Commander Eliminator."
May we imply from this that newly minted nuggets with very low flying time total, almost no hi-performance aircraft time at all had some trouble with this aircraft?
May we imply that once you got a little actual experience it was no big deal? (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
Just about any flight instructor will tell you that your first 200 hours after you get your wings are the most dangerous.
-
Indeed, Ram, you DO NOT get it.
You've read these boards. Why is some people (dozens, actually) can describe perceived problems with the FM or game, suggest improvements and/or supply data and NOT draw the negative reaction that you do? In fact, many are applauded for their work and the improvements rapidly implemented.
Why is it "Ram" that is in Duma's whine meter cartoon?
Do you think a host of people just unfairly have it in for you?
Could it possibly have any root cause in YOUR behavior here?
Perhaps it might be worth a bit of your time to review your more famous threads and compare them to threads started by other folks with suggestions to improve the game. I think you'll note a major difference in tone and most definitely in frequency of repetitive statements.
Allow me to suggest searches for "HO Dweeb", the aforementioned "hispano", "turbolaser", "F4U-1C", "N1K2" and "torque" with Ram as the author.
After you've re-read that huge anthology then reflect on why only a very, very few of the BBS posters (those that find fault with the game in some regard or those that don't) feel it is necessary to post on this BBS under one "name" and fly in the MA under another.
Who would be responsible for that situation?
-
Please can we stay on the subject for a few days? Sheesh!
Three things:
1) Ensign Eliminator. People making it sound like they put 2 yr old babes in these machines on takeoff. 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. All you gotta do is READ. For instance get "America's Hundred Thousand" and it will tell you in black and white the Corsair's takeoff characteristics and what had to be done for a straight takeoff. Currently anyone can takeoff from a carrier with no rudder at all. Absolutley not accurate.
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.
3) HiTech has already stated that they will now be working on the torque code, at least sometime in the future. Uhm doesn't this tell you folks that it, duh...needs worked on? So why in the world defend the Hog's current fm as saying it "might have been this way?"
fscott
-
From what I have read and seen the hog we have isn't nearly the killer that the 1A was.
And I just tried takeoff with no rudder input. Off the side I went.
Try this .. take a loaded 1D up. Turn and come around. Drop gear and full flaps. Try to hold less than 100 mph. Firewall the throttle. I wing stalled every time resulting in a death.
I think compared to pre 1.04 releases she is much easier to handle but she still will put you in the dirt low and slow pretty fast if you aren't careful.
Are they right on the money with the torque? Not sure I don't fly as much as Chuch Yeager and don't know the flight characteristics like he did when he was testing. How many hours in the cockpit of real planes did he have when he gave them quality feedback after a flight. I don't think that comparing real life flight of a person with 1000s of hours in a real cockpit counts much with a flight sim. Here #s have to count becuase it will NEVER feel right.
Kinda a trade off thing. Do you want FM that is perfect based on #s of the real thing? Or do you want something that feels right based on the computers input? There has to be a middle ground to get the feel but have the #s close. When we look at feels right who do we look at? Someone that has 1000 flight sim hours or give it to real life warbird pilots and have them fly it and tweak it till it feels right?
I am all for perfection in our flight models and don't dispute that there is tweaking to be done yet. But I think there should be hard #s to back up claims of it being wrong, not seat of our pants claims in order to get things fixed, becuase most of us aren't qualified as real warbird pilots who have 100s-1000s of hours in the real thing to give credit to the basis of it needs fixed badly.
S!
Rocket
-
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
-
disregard..
Eagler
[This message has been edited by Eagler (edited 12-29-2000).]
-
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
-
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.
-
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 (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"
-
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 (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 (http://www.cavalier.cwc.net/dlfiles/f4u2.ahf)
And this ones for Ram (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
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 (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 ? (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
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 (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
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).]
-
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.
-
Might be on to something there Cav.
-
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. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
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.
-
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!
-
<<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).]
-
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
-
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. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
Now, does the "bible" give any accident rates per 1000 or 100,000 sorties?
-
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).]
-
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