Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: Zygote404 on September 16, 2010, 04:25:17 AM
-
Would be cool to have some of the bases converted into small rough (grass, dirt) fields to field aircraft like the IL2, I-16, P39, P40 etc that had large low pressure tires or were designed for less then compacted dirt runways and maybe later (P36, Beaufighter, KI-51) etc that were able to up off rudimentary airfields. Would give people an incentive to fly and try some of the earlier aircraft and help demonstrate that utility as well as speed, HP, turn rate were was also a crucial part of aircraft deployment.
Or let them up from vehicle bases :)
-
Would be cool to have some of the bases converted into small rough (grass, dirt) fields to field aircraft like the IL2, I-16, P39, P40 etc that had large low pressure tires or were designed for less then compacted dirt runways and maybe later (P36, Beaufighter, KI-51) etc that were able to up off rudimentary airfields. Would give people an incentive to fly and try some of the earlier aircraft and help demonstrate that utility as well as speed, HP, turn rate were was also a crucial part of aircraft deployment.
Or let them up from vehicle bases :)
first, we'd probably need terrain that isnt perfectly smooth before this is implemented.
-
Would be cool to have some of the bases converted into small rough (grass, dirt) fields to field aircraft like the IL2, I-16, P39, P40 etc that had large low pressure tires or were designed for less then compacted dirt runways and maybe later (P36, Beaufighter, KI-51) etc that were able to up off rudimentary airfields. Would give people an incentive to fly and try some of the earlier aircraft and help demonstrate that utility as well as speed, HP, turn rate were was also a crucial part of aircraft deployment.
Or let them up from vehicle bases :)
Having a grass or dirt strip field isn't going to be an incentive for people to try out earlier planes, they'll just up from a regular field and fly the plane they want to.
ack-ack
-
Having a grass or dirt strip field isn't going to be an incentive for people to try out earlier planes, they'll just up from a regular field and fly the plane they want to.
ack-ack
But if you let the early war planes built for rough fields up from v-bases then they would see at least a little more use. I can't see that being a bad thing.
-
Oh yeah that's my dream. Up il2 from gv base :).
Semp
-
I know this will sound crazy, but I can't think of any aircraft we have now, short of jets or maybe heavy bombers, that could not operate from grass fields. Even in 1945.
wrongway
-
I know this will sound crazy, but I can't think of any aircraft we have now, short of jets or maybe heavy bombers, that could not operate from grass fields. Even in 1945.
wrongway
P-51s for one. During the Invasion of the Philippines, P-51s flew limited number of missions compared to the P-47 and P-38s because they couldn't operate from the rough forward operating bases the Jugs and Lightnings were using. It wasn't until the recapture of Clark Field with its all weather cement runways was the Mustang finally able to operate from forward bases.
ack-ack
-
There were plenty of aircraft that were especially suited to landing on rudimentary airfields or even just paddocks, they typically had either wider wheelbases, double wheels, reinforced struts or wider lower pressure tires There were also plenty that needed at least an impacted earth runway to land as the undercarriage was just too flimsy, the wheelbase too narrow, the tires too small, or the structure of the aircraft too flimsy for continous landings on rudimentary airfields.
Yes you could probably operate a Ta 152 from a grass strip in optimal conditions but it wouldn't last long. Other conditions such as dust and weather would also be factors which is why some aircraft were able to operate effectively in desert / ice conditions while others could but would last a matter of weeks before needing new engines, landing gear, etc.
Check the landing gear on these aircraft:
(http://www.richard-seaman.com/Aircraft/Museums/Hendon/BritishWw2/Beaufighter11oClock.jpg)
(http://www.pewteraircraft.com/LUFTWAFFE/TA152/TA152-2.jpg)
(http://www.aviation-history.com/bell/p39-13a.jpg)
(http://military.discovery.com/technology/vehicles/fighters/images/supermarine-spitfire-625x450.jpg)
You can see why some of them are going to be able to repeatedly land on rough fields and others are going to have issues.
-
Oh forgot to mention:
We should also have these able to up from ports:
(http://ram-home.com/ram-old/spitfire-9-float.jpg)
(http://www.wwiivehicles.com/germany/aircraft/floatplane/arado-ar-196-floatplane/arado-ar-196-floatplane-01.png)
(http://ww2total.com/WW2/Weapons/War-Planes/Fighter-Planes/Japanese/Kawanishi-Kyofu-Type-11/images/Kyofu-01-px800.jpg)
(http://www.airfields-freeman.com/VA/NorfolkSeaplane_VA_Wilcdcatfish.jpg)
too much to ask but would be fun to fly em. don't think the russians had a fighter, only the BE-2 but it was recon only afaik.
-
There were plenty of aircraft that were especially suited to landing on rudimentary airfields or even just paddocks, they typically had either wider wheelbases, double wheels, reinforced struts or wider lower pressure tires There were also plenty that needed at least an impacted earth runway to land as the undercarriage was just too flimsy, the wheelbase too narrow, the tires too small, or the structure of the aircraft too flimsy for continous landings on rudimentary airfields.
Yes you could probably operate a Ta 152 from a grass strip in optimal conditions but it wouldn't last long. Other conditions such as dust and weather would also be factors which is why some aircraft were able to operate effectively in desert / ice conditions while others could but would last a matter of weeks before needing new engines, landing gear, etc.
Check the landing gear on these aircraft:
(http://www.richard-seaman.com/Aircraft/Museums/Hendon/BritishWw2/Beaufighter11oClock.jpg)
(http://www.pewteraircraft.com/LUFTWAFFE/TA152/TA152-2.jpg)
(http://www.aviation-history.com/bell/p39-13a.jpg)
(http://military.discovery.com/technology/vehicles/fighters/images/supermarine-spitfire-625x450.jpg)
You can see why some of them are going to be able to repeatedly land on rough fields and others are going to have issues.
Proof that we need the Beaufighter
-
If the grass gets to be rough then maybe we can have more realistic GV speeds too. At the moment they are able to race at full speed across country.
To do this properly for airfields and GVs we'd need, perhaps, at least 3 terrain types: -
- smooth (roads, runways)
- grass (fields, airfields)
- very rough (ploughed fields, and a lot of wooded areas).
The downside will be a lot more programming, a lot more design time on the terrain and furthermore the current maps with spawn points will all need revising.
Shame -but it looks like too big a jump at the moment.
-
You can see why some of them are going to be able to repeatedly land on rough fields and others are going to have issues.
ok which of those are you saying couldnt use improvised strips?
-
TA152 and the Spitfires.
Check the direction the wheels on the spit open. Spits nosed over quite easily on landing.
TA was very fragile. It did have outward opening wheels to give a wider wheelbase after complaints by LW pilots regarding the inward version on the earlier German fighters which lead to accidents on rough landings.
-
cant speak for the 152, but otherwise laughably inaccurate.
-
cant speak for the 152, but otherwise laughably inaccurate.
Whats not accurate? Do you believe that the spitfires were able to land reliably on rough terrain? If so why?
-
TA152 and the Spitfires.
Check the direction the wheels on the spit open. Spits nosed over quite easily on landing.
TA was very fragile. It did have outward opening wheels to give a wider wheelbase after complaints by LW pilots regarding the inward version on the earlier German fighters which lead to accidents on rough landings.
It looks like your picture shows a spitfire taking off from a grass field. If you look around it is common to see pictures from the period of spitfires taking off from grass fields.
There are even photos of spitfires still taking off from grass fields http://www.richard-seaman.com/Aircraft/AirShows/Duxford2002/Spitfires/Sampler/
-
not even just grass, look at picures from North Africa, spitfires took off from patches of desert, Most japanese fighters could take off from rough fields, on the easternfront, on both sides, they rarely had the luxury of a paved airstrip
-
Prepared grass or desert fields are not rough fields. Fact is the spitfire had a narrow undercarriage and that lead to stability issues.
"The thick wing of the Hurricane limited its maximum speed but that price gave other advantages. The large strong wing allowed a much wider undercarriage than the Spitfire with corresponding advantages of stability on rough airfields in battle theatres around the world, better performance on waterlogged airstrips and was easier for the less experienced pilot. All of which reduced accidents, improving the aircrafts serviceability level and versatility"
http://members.madasafish.com/~d_hodgkinson/hawker-Vspit.htm (http://members.madasafish.com/~d_hodgkinson/hawker-Vspit.htm)
-
Do you believe that the spitfires were able to land reliably on rough terrain? If so why?
well because almost every period photo or film footage ive ever seen of spits taking off and landing has been on rough strips. the spits still flying use grass fields almost every sortie, and these are 70yr old airframes ...
thats why.
-
Prepared grass or desert fields are not rough fields. Fact is the spitfire had a narrow undercarriage and that lead to stability issues.
Yes they are. Fields without a paved runway and only had a grass or dirt landing strip were considered to be "rough fields".
(http://cache4.asset-cache.net/xc/3279891.jpg?v=1&c=IWSAsset&k=2&d=45B0EB3381F7834DD3A84574AFEC3816FE65B767C239A889E7C3DB1D2EA1C136)
(http://cache4.asset-cache.net/xc/51573622.jpg?v=1&c=IWSAsset&k=2&d=45B0EB3381F7834D32BF08BD5BBEF1BC9CB4928FFC6036022FE9B97FD7895500)
Dirt strip at Malta
(http://www.nzetc.org/etexts/WH2-3RAF/WH2-3RAF015b.jpg)
ack-ack
-
btw the only "preparation" that most of the fields used during BoB had was a coupla centuries of sheep grazing :D
-
Whats not accurate? Do you believe that the spitfires were able to land reliably on rough terrain? If so why?
I believe they can take off and land from grass strips because I've seen them do it about a hundred times.
-
There are a good number of accounts of Spitfires using grass fields to land in, not even roughly prepared as airfields.
-
What you are not getting, is that they were not suited to land on rough fields. The spits undercarriage was too narrow, it lead to nose-overs and crashes. Same as the 109. Which is why 190's were built with landing gear extending outwards rather then inwards and why hurricanes were more suited to landings and takeoffs on rough fields then spitfires.
The spitfire was never designed or intended to land on aircraft carriers either for the same reason. Necessity caused them to be used as carrier landing ac but they were never designed for it and the incident of crashes was higher then those ac that were more suited. Servicability and longevity is also an issue you are ignoring.
I can use my commuter car without modifications as a rally car but its unlikely to last very long if I do.
Also
Ack Ack
That airfield was not a rough field. It was constructed in 1929, 10 years before WW2. It had hardened dirt runways. A 10 year old established air base is hardly a rough field. A rough field is a relatively short, possibly uneven, undrained, possibly soft, possibly rocking, difficult to land on bit of land that is used as a landing strip. It is not a prepared landing strip. Rough airfields were forward operating bases, usually near the front or close to fighting, they were temporary not established air bases.
-
What you're not getting is that the nose overs happened due to misuse of brakes. Sure, don't land in a bog. Got it. That goes for a Mossie or Beaufighter too, despite their huge tires.
FYI, far more Bf109s were damaged or lost in landing accidents than Spitfires. German test pilots commented on how much easier the Spitfire was compared to the Bf109 in those areas.
-
+1 I've always liked this idea, can make the game alot more realistic too. :aok
-
What you're not getting is that the nose overs happened due to misuse of brakes. Sure, don't land in a bog. Got it. That goes for a Mossie or Beaufighter too, despite their huge tires.
FYI, far more Bf109s were damaged or lost in landing accidents than Spitfires. German test pilots commented on how much easier the Spitfire was compared to the Bf109 in those areas.
They also happened when hitting a small rock, small hole, soggy earth or any other obstacle in the way. They were unstable once again, due to the narrow undercarriage. It didn't go for the beaufighter, it was much more capable because it was much more stable and robust.
Don't take my word for it though, do a simple google search of "spitfire fragile" and have a look at how many hits you get regarding its landing gear and its fragility in general.
-
Heres another excerpt from Soviet Lend-Lease Fighter Aces of World War 2 By George Mellinger, Jim Laurier.
"Air interception duty proved to be the VVS's preferred use for the spitfire, since PVO units protected fixed locations and flew from developed airfields that were less likely to inflict damage on the British fighters fragile landing gear".
http://books.google.com.au/books?id=CJHGyw6HGqEC&pg=PA79&lpg=PA79&dq=fragile+spitfire&source=bl&ots=2BhtAg6ndA&sig=d8GT6Ru70Y9ZWRYQRmnE3MOH3Mo&hl=en&ei=zzCUTNygCYudcZTonaQF&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=7&ved=0CDAQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=fragile%20spitfire&f=false (http://books.google.com.au/books?id=CJHGyw6HGqEC&pg=PA79&lpg=PA79&dq=fragile+spitfire&source=bl&ots=2BhtAg6ndA&sig=d8GT6Ru70Y9ZWRYQRmnE3MOH3Mo&hl=en&ei=zzCUTNygCYudcZTonaQF&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=7&ved=0CDAQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=fragile%20spitfire&f=false)
This is a rough / rudimentary strip. Big difference from the mown grass you see spits landing on.
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3266/3257289167_0f4fd91553_o.jpg)
Malta Airfields
Kalafrana
(http://modelingmadness.com/reviews/preww2/gb/attardrbphotoa.jpg)
Luqa
(http://www.aircrewremembrancesociety.com/raf1943/yurchison_files/beaufighter-out-of-luqa.jpg)
Qrendi
(http://www.spitfireperformance.com/249sqdn-spitfire-9-qrendi.jpg)
Safi
(http://www.century-of-flight.net/Aviation%20history/WW2/58.jpg)
Ta Kali
(http://www.killifish.f9.co.uk/Malta%20WWII/Photo's/Aircraft%20Allied/Rearming%20a%20Spitfire.jpg)
Compare them all to the top pic. They were all prepared airfields.
-
'Cause that is a really exhaustive search of photos.
-
That was every airfield on malta during ww2 period.
-
That was every airfield on malta during ww2 period.
And Malta is the only place WWII was fought.
-
And Malta is the only place WWII was fought.
Yes, didnt you know, all fighting was moved there after the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor....... :D
NOT
-
Yes, didnt you know, all fighting was moved there after the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor....... :D
NOT
Fun Fact the same me-109s that were at pearl harbor were also at malta. :noid
And zygote 152s operated off grass fields often. True they were somewhat fragile but most crashes on landings in them was due to pilot error. Many pilots who flew them had fewer than 20 hours of training in fighter aircraft.
-
Once again, grass field != to rough field. I have given you the information to back up my argument and you have given opinions.
-
You should just ask for a farm field thats been recently plowed and get it over with. Oh yeah with spawn points.
Once again, grass field != to rough field. I have given you the information to back up my argument and you have given opinions.
-
Now your catching on.
-
Once again, grass field != to rough field. I have given you the information to back up my argument and you have given opinions.
You're still not getting it. Spitfires landed on and took off from unprepared fields at times. As in, farmland.
-
You're still not getting it. Spitfires landed on and took off from unprepared fields at times. As in, farmland.
I'm sure they did. Operated from I'm sure they didn't.
Now use your eyes and read the paragraph below, paying special attention to the bolded part.
"Air interception duty proved to be the VVS's preferred use for the spitfire, since PVO units protected fixed locations and flew from developed airfields that were less likely to inflict damage on the British fighters fragile landing gear".
http://books.google.com.au/books?id=CJHGyw6HGqEC&pg=PA79&lpg=PA79&dq=fragile+spitfire&source=bl&ots=2BhtAg6ndA&sig=d8GT6Ru70Y9ZWRYQRmnE3MOH3Mo&hl=en&ei=zzCUTNygCYudcZTonaQF&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=7&ved=0CDAQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=fragile%20spitfire&f=false (http://books.google.com.au/books?id=CJHGyw6HGqEC&pg=PA79&lpg=PA79&dq=fragile+spitfire&source=bl&ots=2BhtAg6ndA&sig=d8GT6Ru70Y9ZWRYQRmnE3MOH3Mo&hl=en&ei=zzCUTNygCYudcZTonaQF&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=7&ved=0CDAQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=fragile%20spitfire&f=false)
-
I would love to see pure desert map like in North Africa Campaign; That would please the GV dweebs, not to mention the GV Bombing dweebs too :airplane:
-
I'm sure they did. Operated from I'm sure they didn't.
Now use your eyes and read the paragraph below, paying special attention to the bolded part.
"Air interception duty proved to be the VVS's preferred use for the spitfire, since PVO units protected fixed locations and flew from developed airfields that were less likely to inflict damage on the British fighters fragile landing gear".
http://books.google.com.au/books?id=CJHGyw6HGqEC&pg=PA79&lpg=PA79&dq=fragile+spitfire&source=bl&ots=2BhtAg6ndA&sig=d8GT6Ru70Y9ZWRYQRmnE3MOH3Mo&hl=en&ei=zzCUTNygCYudcZTonaQF&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=7&ved=0CDAQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=fragile%20spitfire&f=false (http://books.google.com.au/books?id=CJHGyw6HGqEC&pg=PA79&lpg=PA79&dq=fragile+spitfire&source=bl&ots=2BhtAg6ndA&sig=d8GT6Ru70Y9ZWRYQRmnE3MOH3Mo&hl=en&ei=zzCUTNygCYudcZTonaQF&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=7&ved=0CDAQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=fragile%20spitfire&f=false)
You cant hinge your whole argument on a fragment of a sentence.
Looks like you had to hurry up and find anything to support your argument. Hurry search google for "fragile spitfire."
-
You cant hinge your whole argument on a fragment of a sentence.
Looks like you had to hurry up and find anything to support your argument. Hurry search google for "fragile spitfire."
Yeah George Mellinger, the guy whose book that is from has no idea what he's talking about. He's only an expert on ww2 aviation and author of 3 books on ww2 aircraft. You on the other hand ... are just a forum user with nothing to back up what you say.
-
Yeah George Mellinger, the guy whose book that is from has no idea what he's talking about. He's only an expert on ww2 aviation and author of 3 books on ww2 aircraft. You on the other hand ... are just a forum user with nothing to back up what you say.
Dude good research includes more than one source. And more than a fragment of a sentence.
Nothing I have said really requires a source. The things I said about the 152 comes from Focke-Wulf Ta-152 by Thomas Hitchcock. The things I said about poorly trained Luft pilots toward the end of the war is really common knowledge around these parts. I could cite a bunch of different sources for that tid bit.
And I own one of Mellingers books I don't have to search google books if I want to cite it.
-
Dude good research includes more than one source. And more than a fragment of a sentence.
Nothing I have said really requires a source. The things I said about the 152 comes from Focke-Wulf Ta-152 by Thomas Hitchcock. The things I said about poorly trained Luft pilots toward the end of the war is really common knowledge around these parts. I could cite a bunch of different sources for that tid bit.
And I own one of Mellingers books I don't have to search google books if I want to cite it.
In this thread I have provided you with 2 references. One by David John Hodgkinson, and one by George Mellinger. Both have written books on WW2 aircraft. Both are considered experts on the subject.
How many references would like?
So far the only evidence anyone has provided is how they've seen pictures of spitfires taking off from grass fields therefore they must be able to take off from rough fields... thats not very convincing.
-
In this thread I have provided you with 2 references. One by David John Hodgkinson, and one by George Mellinger. Both have written books on WW2 aircraft. Both are considered experts on the subject.
How many references would like?
So far the only evidence anyone has provided is how they've seen pictures of spitfires taking off from grass fields therefore they must be able to take off from rough fields... thats not very convincing.
Your argument is unconvincing. Lucky for you I have little interest in spitfires but I am sure someone will come along with more than a fragment of a sentence and a paragraph that says nothing about spits not operating from unprepared fields.
-
I would love to see pure desert map like in North Africa Campaign; That would please the GV dweebs, not to mention the GV Bombing dweebs too :airplane:
+1.
Zygote, I'm not seeing much PROOF that spitfires didn't/were unable to opperate from rough airstrips. I'm seeing a lot of examples of where/when they didn't, not that they couldn't.
-
+1.
Zygote, I'm not seeing much PROOF that spitfires didn't/were unable to opperate from rough airstrips. I'm seeing a lot of examples of where/when they didn't, not that they couldn't.
Like I said previously they could operate from rough fields. But so could any aircraft if they were willing to risk damage to the plane and possibly kill or injure its pilot. They could also operate from aircraft carriers but they were never designed to do so and so they had specific problems there too.
Basically the idea was for aircraft that were 'suited' to rough field operations not aircraft that were not and the spitfire was not.
-
There isnt a set of rules that say a certain A/C can take off or land on a rough field, N1K2's had notoriously bad landing gear and were used from some dirt strip on a rock in the middle of the ocean, and for the thing where you said aircraft that were suited to land on dirt, if it has wheels it is suited to land anywhere, some A/C were just better prepaired, like many before me have said to you, I think you need to do more research and then come back with a better argument then just spitfires couldnt land on dirt
-
There isnt a set of rules that say a certain A/C can take off or land on a rough field, N1K2's had notoriously bad landing gear and were used from some dirt strip on a rock in the middle of the ocean, and for the thing where you said aircraft that were suited to land on dirt, if it has wheels it is suited to land anywhere, some A/C were just better prepaired, like many before me have said to you, I think you need to do more research and then come back with a better argument then just spitfires couldnt land on dirt
Did you even read any of my posts? Read the one above you for starters.
A dirt strip is not a rough field. A dirt strip can have its surface compacted with bulldozers. It creates a very flat hard surface. A very flat hard surface is easy to land on.
No any aircraft that has wheels is not suited to land anywhere. There are reasons that certain aircraft were stationed in some locations while others were not. That reason is suitability.
I'd like you to go and find where I said Spitfires could not land on dirt. You will be looking for a long time.
Once again, could you land a spitfire on a rudimentary strip, with rocks and grass and holes all over it. Sure you could. If you didn't mind constantly servicing it, or didn't mind replacing a pilot when he got injured or killed, or the entire aircraft whenever it hit one of those things on the runway and went out of control.
-
Basically the idea was for aircraft that were 'suited' to rough field operations not aircraft that were not and the spitfire was not.
You have yet to supply a single piece of evidence that supports your claims.
Also, Seafires were designed to operate from carriers. They were not the ideal design for it, but they were designed to do so.
-
Australian War Memorial Museum
The Spitfire presented some difficulties in the South-West Pacific, owing to its relatively short range, mechanical problems resulting from climatic conditions, and its fragile undercarriage, which was not well-suited to the rough airstrips found throughout the theatre.
http://www.awm.gov.au/units/subject_653.asp (http://www.awm.gov.au/units/subject_653.asp)
Harold Lane THOMAS QSO (WW2 Spitfire pilot)
The Spitfire was totally unsuited for night flying because of the high nose, lack of visibility forward when landing and fragile undercarriage.
http://www.cambridgeairforce.org.nz/Hal%20Thomas.htm (http://www.cambridgeairforce.org.nz/Hal%20Thomas.htm)
French Counter-Insurgency Aircraft, 1946-1965
The Spitfire's narrow-track undercarriages proved ill-suited to the short, uneven, PSP (Pierced Steel-Plank) runways common in Indochina. Ground-loops and undercarriage failure were common.
http://worldatwar.net/chandelle/v3/v3n1/frcoin.html (http://worldatwar.net/chandelle/v3/v3n1/frcoin.html)
Bob Hart - Best Fighter Aircraft of WWII
The other problem never entirely resolved was a weak undercarriage, which caused many accidents and casualties especially, to less experienced pilots.
http://www.digitalsurvivors.com/archives/supermarinespitfire.php (http://www.digitalsurvivors.com/archives/supermarinespitfire.php)
The Illustrated Directory of a Century of Flight
The Spitfire was tightly packaged, and this led to its greatest failing. The main gear legs were located in the wing roots, with the wings retracting outboard into the wings. This resulted in a narrow track undercarriage, which was less then ideal for operating from rough strips, or in a cross-wind
http://books.google.com.au/books?id=XD8rz6jKpl4C&pg=PA345&lpg=PA345&dq=%2Bspitfire+%22rough+strips%22&source=bl&ots=4T_603FXJq&sig=Lq0HQUCBu4MQ813sZ2ZrWYMJjNQ&hl=en&ei=Y0-VTLyFKsTMcJit9KMF&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CBgQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=%2Bspitfire%20%22rough%20strips%22&f=false (http://books.google.com.au/books?id=XD8rz6jKpl4C&pg=PA345&lpg=PA345&dq=%2Bspitfire+%22rough+strips%22&source=bl&ots=4T_603FXJq&sig=Lq0HQUCBu4MQ813sZ2ZrWYMJjNQ&hl=en&ei=Y0-VTLyFKsTMcJit9KMF&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CBgQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=%2Bspitfire%20%22rough%20strips%22&f=false)
-
I don't think anyone disputed that the spit had a frail undercarriage.
Go back and read your own posts.
-
You have yet to supply a single piece of evidence that supports your claims.
Also, Seafires were designed to operate from carriers. They were not the ideal design for it, but they were designed to do so.
Were they 'designed' that way in the sense that some had a tail hook? Or is there more than that.
Zygote, any landing on a rough strip risks damage to the plane and injury or death to the pilot. Any number of things can happen when landing. Hell, didn't a prototype 163 explode on landing? Some aircraft were just more rugged than others, it doesn't mean you can use that as an argument against their being used on a rough strip.
-
Were they 'designed' that way in the sense that some had a tail hook? Or is there more than that.
Zygote, any landing on a rough strip risks damage to the plane and injury or death to the pilot. Any number of things can happen when landing. Hell, didn't a prototype 163 explode on landing? Some aircraft were just more rugged than others, it doesn't mean you can use that as an argument against their being used on a rough strip.
A spitfire cost around a million pounds in todays dollars to produce. It also took a considerable amount of time to produce compared to other aircraft (3 x longer than to produce a bf 109) largely because of its unique monocoque wing. They were top of the line aircraft. A trained pilot also took time to train and they were very valuable assets. This is why the Russians preferred to use their lend lease spitfires on developed fields (link above in one of my earlier posts) and why hurricanes were preferable for rudimentary fields over spitfires.
If you had a finite supply of very expensive but fragile top of the line fighters and a finite supply of cheaper less capable but more robust fighters, which ones would you be assigning to rough airfields and which to developed airfields?
The end line here is though, as evidenced by the repeated "less then ideal" and "not suited for" rough airfields quotes I have supplied -They were not suited to nor intended for rough airfields. End of story.
-
Seafires were just modified Spitfires. They were eventually produced from scratch as seafires but they once again suffered the same problems that Spitfires suffered. Weak landing gear and problems operating from carriers because they were not designed initially as carrier based aircraft.
You can read about them here: http://www.historyofwar.org/articles/weapons_supermarine_seafire.html (http://www.historyofwar.org/articles/weapons_supermarine_seafire.html)
-
ok which of those are you saying couldnt use improvised strips? asked by another player. This was your response
TA152 and the Spitfires.
this is the original argument
Can't and "not preferred" are a lot different.
-
I have never seen a photo of a Spitfire that had suffered a landing gear failure. I've seen a lot of photos of smashed Seafires from landing accidents, but none looked to be from weak gear.
Most Seafires were purpose built, but even the Seafires modified from Spitfires had to be substantially strengthened or the hook would simply have ripped the tail off.
-
ok which of those are you saying couldnt use improvised strips? asked by another player. This was your response
this is the original argument
Can't and "not preferred" are a lot different.
Not preferred because they are prone to crashing and killing the pilot. Thats a can't in my book. Playing the semantics card is not interesting to me.
-
Not preferred because they are prone to crashing and killing the pilot. Thats a can't in my book. Playing the semantics card is not interesting to me.
:rofl That's all you have to base your arguments on, semantics.
The more sources you post the more I see they did land on rough runways it just posed a challenge because they had a frail undercarriage. That would be obvious though.
-
I have never seen a photo of a Spitfire that had suffered a landing gear failure. I've seen a lot of photos of smashed Seafires from landing accidents, but none looked to be from weak gear.
Most Seafires were purpose built, but even the Seafires modified from Spitfires had to be substantially strengthened or the hook would simply have ripped the tail off.
(http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b132/Ace__Fire/SpitCrash2.jpg)
-
This one was in new zealand. It was rebuilt just prior to this accident after a heavy landing caused a landing gear collapse (image above). This accident was caused by a cross wind that caused a prop strike.
(http://www.neptunuslex.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/spit.jpg)
-
Was that a weak landing gear issue, or was it other mechanical failure? Ki-84's had weak landing gear that would at times fail,
-
Was that a weak landing gear issue, or was it other mechanical failure? Ki-84's had weak landing gear that would at times fail,
The top picture, first crash, it was a harder then normal landing. Snapped the landing gear.
The 2nd picture, apparently a crosswind cause the spit to bounce as it touched down, pitched it forward and caused a prop strike, the landing gear obviously gave way but I'm not sure as to why or how it was caused. Maybe his natural reaction was to pull the nose back and hes done a hop back onto the runway hard after that.
Heres one of the stories, they're all slightly different though. Journalistic interpretations no doubt.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10613213 (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10613213)
-
(http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b132/Ace__Fire/SpitCrash2.jpg)
nice photo. this must prove that the spit's landing gear was too weak to operate off asphalt strips, right? :lol
-
Lol zygote. As Holmes pointed out, you kind of shot yourself in the foot with that one :devil.
-
I dont even know why you posted the second one, you said it your self, it was a crosswind and the prop hit the ground nothing to do with landing gear
-
nice photo. this must prove that the spit's landing gear was too weak to operate off asphalt strips, right? :lol
What it indicates is even on developed airfields the Spitfire needs to be landed gently due to its landing gear and that it was sensitive to wind conditions. The margin for error is going to go up on a rough field with divots and rocks obviously.
This thread reminds me of raising teenagers. No matter what you say, how much evidence you provide, they won't listen because the don't want to.
I dont even know why you posted the second one, you said it your self, it was a crosswind and the prop hit the ground nothing to do with landing gear
Because the landing gear collapsed as well?
-
"Among the reasons the Spitfire V was not considered successful by the Soviets was friendly fire incidents when mistaken for Bf109, and poor servicability and high landing accident rate at rough forward fields. And the Spit V wasn't a greatly superior plane to P-39/40 again if high altitude wasn't emphasized. These were the reasons some VVS, ie. tactical af, units handed in Spits for P-39's in the Kuban region, but it's actually pretty similar again to experience in the Far East. Flying in primitive conditions in northern Australia, Spit V's were less successful against Japanese fighters than P-40's, a plane unsentimentally considered about equal below 15k ft in that theater. Those operations did favor a superior high altitude plane like the Spit, but again poor servicability and high operational loss rate in rough conditions was a big drawback. Again the Soviet experience was not unique.
The Spitfire IX was respected by the Soviets for its capabilities as high altitude interceptor, as v. German recon planes, so in that case the Spitfire's strengths were more the reason for its use in PVO, ie air defense, units than its weaknesses a reason not to use it in VVS units."
http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/soviet-use-hurricane-spitfire-17216.html (http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/soviet-use-hurricane-spitfire-17216.html)
Want more?
-
evidence of the C-130s weak landing gear - proof that its unsuitable for operation from unprepared strips:
(http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSojFM1BAKVKBivglSMeB2S8i-FHfb8LEnv5cDjWor2fv_r_Hw&t=1&usg=__-2tMcfIYJxxUHoLOSML7F_tI1UI=)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_730n6N0yHw (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_730n6N0yHw)
... :headscratch:
-
evidence of the C-130s weak landing gear - proof that its unsuitable for operation from unprepared strips:
(http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSojFM1BAKVKBivglSMeB2S8i-FHfb8LEnv5cDjWor2fv_r_Hw&t=1&usg=__-2tMcfIYJxxUHoLOSML7F_tI1UI=)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_730n6N0yHw (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_730n6N0yHw)
... :headscratch:
If could be if you backed it up with as many references as I have provided for the spitfire's issues.
Although, ironically, the first comment on the video says:
This video shows yet again that the 150, 000 pound C-130 needs a softer landing gear--either tracks or an Air Cushion Landing System (ACLS) so it can land without need of hard, prepared runways as standard practice.
So you might be right :rock
-
If could be if you backed it up with as many references as I have provided for the spitfire's issues.
What references? You haven't provided a single one yet. Not one single reference of yours says that Spitfires could not and did not operate off of rough air fields. All you have provided is that it was a bit harder on Spitfires than on some other types though easier than some.
-
What references? You haven't provided a single one yet. Not one single reference of yours says that Spitfires could not and did not operate off of rough air fields. All you have provided is that it was a bit harder on Spitfires than on some other types though easier than some.
Semantics.
From what I have discovered during researching they were even poor performers on developed grass strips. A bit of soggy ground or a bump was enough to tip and damage a wing or cause a prop strike and the brakes were so poor they needed a lot of space to land. They couldn't taxi well, needing to use a zig zag which further put them at risk of accident and they couldn't brake well because they were nose heavy. They couldn't take off with full power due to dangerous yaw to the right. All in all they had a very bad record of accidents while landing and taking off.
In the context of the idea behind this thread, they would not be classified as a plane suited as a rough field aircraft. Sorry but thats the end of this story.
-
:rofl
Alright, as a squeaker I know what its like to be flamed, but this just deserves it.
A. Spitfires were originally designed as a carrier or seaborne interceptor and so their landing gear while side by side centreline is reinforced for rough landings.
B. Spitfires were dispersed away from main airfields during the Battle of Britain, one squadron operated from a piece of farmland with a wooden shack at the end with no more servicing than a lawn mower, The Kent Aero club.
and C. The Spitfire developed a reputation for being one of the most effective if not THE most effective "hun getter" of WW2.
(http://www.spitfiresite.com/photos/historic/uploaded_images/spitfire-ix-306-sqn-small-765717.jpg)
That doesnt look like a smooth mown paved strip to me
So sit down and shh.
-
(http://www.spitfiresite.com/photos/historic/uploaded_images/1946-47-SPITFIRE-stribrny-745009.jpg)
That doesnt either
Also, THATS A LATE WAR SPIT
late war they had concrete and such but these were STILL flying off grass and dirt even with all the new high tech stuff on board
-
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.
-
:rofl
Alright, as a squeaker I know what its like to be flamed, but this just deserves it.
A. Spitfires were originally designed as a carrier or seaborne interceptor and so their landing gear while side by side centreline is reinforced for rough landings.
B. Spitfires were dispersed away from main airfields during the Battle of Britain, one squadron operated from a piece of farmland with a wooden shack at the end with no more servicing than a lawn mower, The Kent Aero club.
and C. The Spitfire developed a reputation for being one of the most effective if not THE most effective "hun getter" of WW2.
So sit down and shh.
LOL.
A. Absolute garbage. All evidence regarding the Spitfire is contrary to that statement. The spitfire was never designed as a naval aircraft nor did it have strong reinforced landing gear. You had best read the material I have linked above before you embarrass yourself making these sorts of statements.
B. A farm cannot be classified as a rough airfield. What classifies a strip as a rough airfield is rough conditions (rockey, bumpy, uneven, short length etc). How do you know that farm didn't have a really lovely flat hard paddock that was ideally suited for aircraft? What was the accident rate on that airfield in comparison to other aircraft like the hurricane operating in similiar conditions? Why was the action taken? Was there a World War going on? Did the country in question have a major air battle lasting months in which they were losing more aircraft then they could replace when this action was taken?
C. Operational K/D has no bearing on whether it was capable of using rough airfields effectively.
-
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.
-
(http://www.spitfiresite.com/photos/historic/uploaded_images/spitfire-ix-306-sqn-small-765717.jpg)
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:
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3266/3257289167_0f4fd91553_o.jpg)
-
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 :rolleyes:.
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.
-
Zygote, dude just give up....... you are beating your head on a block wall.
Where is a facepalm photo when you need one?
-
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 :rolleyes:.
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 (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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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 ...
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
Whatever point you're trying to make is lost since you're comparing a plane with a tricycle landing gear against a tail dragger. In addition, the scenario you painted for the one with the tricycle gear is so off the mark I can't even fathom how you made that stretch.
By the way, where did you get your figures for the landing gears on the P-38? Not from any book, that's for sure.
ack-ack
-
You're right, I know the P-38 is a bad example. I was just throwing stuff out there because he had all these examples of when spits didn't opperate off rough strips, but nothing that (IMO) would justify having spits disabled at a rough field.
But thats besides the point. I don't think HTC is going to let us lift planes from some strip of dirt out in the middle of no where.