Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: RODBUSTR on January 05, 2018, 11:41:24 AM
-
Designing a plane like the Bf 110, Me 210, 410 and Me262 bomber. Trying to be all things to all people and not pleasing as many as You would hope to.. Although Evers, Gastner and Zindel got It pretty close with the JU88s. Is AH3 a simulator or fantasy game? chasing B17s and have Them land on a carrier to get away. Kind of laughable... I subscribed 4 years for the simulator part and thought It was pretty much spot on. but the more you play the more You learn it isn't. I like It either way, but would enjoy It a lot More if It adhered more to the laws of physics more than It does, but I know a lot of players who are not interested in The history or engineering of the weapons on WW2. may like to have more latitude in the weapons. Age may play a factor in the type of interest one has. I would hope that a game like this would give players the want to study World War Two. Anyway, have a blast.
-
Other then the CV going 30 mph exactly why do you think it's not possible?
HiTech
-
One of the reasons I play this game is the emphasis on real-world physics and the accuracy of the flight models. I know that a simulator can't be absolutely 100% accurate, but I know that Hitech's goal is to come as close as possible with a home computer.
Just because no one actually did such a thing with a real WWII airplane does not mean that it isn't possible.
-
There seem to be certain people who re just never happy. PLEASE be happy, enjoy the GAME. It's a GAME, it's not war, it's not real life. HiTech does one hell of a job, and I am certain he's not getting wealthy of of this game. We should be saying thank you!
Thank you, Dale, most of us appreciate what you do to allow us to pretend to be heroes.
-
There seem to be certain people who re just never happy. PLEASE be happy, enjoy the GAME. It's a GAME, it's not war, it's not real life. HiTech does one hell of a job, and I am certain he's not getting wealthy of of this game. We should be saying thank you!
Thank you, Dale, most of us appreciate what you do to allow us to pretend to be heroes.
So maybe HTC should add a "play responsibly" sticker to the game?
-
...... PLEASE be happy, enjoy the GAME. It's a GAME, it's not war, it's not real life. HiTech does one hell of a job, and I am certain he's not getting wealthy of of this game. We should be saying thank you!
Thank you, Dale, most of us appreciate what you do to allow us to pretend to be heroes.
Agreed......and I love the historical & accuracy elements too, such as are practical. Thank you Dale, Skuzzy and crew! :aok
-
Guys I think it may be theoretically possible to land a B-17 on an Essex class carrier, real world. I found a diagram of this CV class here:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8c/Design_plan_Essex.jpg (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8c/Design_plan_Essex.jpg)
The width of the flight deck is 109'; its length is 850'. The B-17's wingspan is about 104'. I think its possible to pick a line along the deck that avoids clipping the superstructure with your wingtip while still keeping the outboard main gear on the deck:
(https://i.imgur.com/JY9ZC30.jpg)
But, can it stop in time before it rolls off the front of the flight deck? I found a declassified document called B-17G Standard Aircraft Characteristics here: http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/B-17/B-17G_Standard_Aircraft_Characteristics.pdf (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/B-17/B-17G_Standard_Aircraft_Characteristics.pdf)
Here's the pertinent page, I think:
(https://i.imgur.com/bUOF7vU.jpg)
I've highlighted the stall speed (89 mph) and ground landing roll distance (1265 ft) on this image. I found a formula for braking distance in this wikipedia article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Braking_distance (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Braking_distance)
The maximum speed given an available braking distance d is given by:
v = √(2μgd) where μ is the coefficient of friction between tires and deck, and g is gravity of Earth
I plugged in 850 ft for the distance and got a velocity of 233.24 ft/s, or 159 mph. (Please check my math, I used a perfect 1.0 of the CoF). I figure a B-17 would be coming in at just over stall speed (90 mph) and thus have a speed over the deck of 60 mph, or 88 ft/s. This is much less than the 233 ft/s required to stop in 850 ft, so theoretically I think its possible.
Its nice to hear that someone was able to do this in AH - we could look at this as a strength of the game, not a weakness. :salute
-
I've landed B24s on a CV, I've landed 262s and 163s on a CV as well... It's not easy, but it can be done.
-
Historical WW2 events happening in Special Events Arena nearly every Friday night if that's what you're after. PM me.
-
(http://www.theaviationzone.com/art-bin/photos/c130_5.jpg)
-
This NASA paper https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19780005100.pdf (https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19780005100.pdf) on friction characteristics of aircraft tires has a max CoF listed as 0.6. I recalculated and get a max touchdown velocity of 180 ft/s, 122.73 mph, still well above the stall speed of the B-17.
-
Even if three B17s could landed on a CV deck, they would have to be dumped overboard or the flight deck would be useless. No captain is going risk his boat for a b17 anyway.
So let them land but score it as a ditch.
-
Throwing vessels overboard is nothing new. Do you want to tell the Huey pilots in Nam that their missions didn't count because they had to shove their Helos overboard? :rolleyes:
-
A lot of fighters where thrown overboard to clear the deck. Land a B-17 would be to dangerous due to all the people on the ship. In AH on the other hand that isnt an issue, we can land on a cv because even if we break a wing its no problem. Since noone is dying in the game we also dont have a fighter squadron to cover the cv from enemy attacks... We do a lot of stuff that noone would do irl, even if it was possible, simply because we can.
-
Even if three B17s could landed on a CV deck, they would have to be dumped overboard or the flight deck would be useless. No captain is going risk his boat for a b17 anyway.
So let them land but score it as a ditch.
But that hasn't to do anything with physics.
Oh, and no captain would risk his boat by sailing under the shore battery. No boat had unlimited fighters. And so on...
-
Short field approach speed for the B-17 is 95mph IAS.
-
:rofl Need to RE Title a bit......Maybe Frankenstein had a similar delimma? :devil Hitech created a MONSTER(in the fluffy kind of purple haired, stuffed monster) and has a huge club of rabid fans. Wonder if Dale owns stock in pharmaceuticals? Scotch is just the carrier, NOT a true pharmaceutical :x I love it! I could care less if the planes even flew...its you GUYS/ Gals and Snakes in the grass(you know who I mean Coppr) that bring me back! :cheers:
-
You would have to be insane to try that in real life. In that diagram it appears that the left landing gear would pass around 8' from the left edge of the flight deck where it's narrower toward the stern and the right wingtip would pass around 6' from the closest gun mount. That would be extremely difficult to perform (about comparable to flying through a hangar, which I kinda doubt any B-17 in history ever did) and the slightest error in maneuvering or braking would send the plane either overboard or straight into the island at 90+mph. Also keep in mind that you're talking about a landing strip that is rolling and/or pitching, the plane has no arresting gear, the undercarriage was not designed to take the impact of landing at the steep rate of descent for carrier landings (carrier planes had and still have beefed up landing gear for this), the LSO would never have landed a plane like that before, and B-17 pilots were completely untrained in carrier landings, which are a difficult and dangerous operation for novices even when they've spent considerable time training for it and they're flying planes designed for it. And while it might be possible to roll to a stop in 862 feet, if you misjudge your landing and land even a little bit short or long on that pitching deck you and every crewman on the plane are going to die.
Lastly, the flight deck on that class was wood planking over a relatively thin sheet of steel, essentially a lightweight platform erected on top of the hangar deck, which was the strength deck of the ship (the Essex class were the last class of US carriers to be built that way), and in no way designed for landing a 20-ton airplane - that's four times the weight of a TBM. I have no idea whether it would take the weight without bending the steel or splintering the planking, and the pilot and the ship captain probably wouldn't have had any idea either, but it certainly wouldn't be good for the deck - and that deck is a much more valuable asset than a B-17.
All things considered, given that the plane is going to be thrown overboard anyway, your chances would be better ditching near the carrier and having a destroyer pick the crew up.
-
Very interesting Crash, especially your point about the strength of the flight deck. While the strength of landing gear struts may be modeled in AH (I'm reasonably sure I've snapped gear in hard landings before) I can easily believe AH doesn't model flight deck weight restrictions or impact damage from hard landings.
While the physics of weight, braking, stall speed, etc - may theoretically allow for landing a B-17 on a CV under perfect conditions - there is another factor I hadn't thought of until now. The AH pilots who accomplish this feat are almost certainly using external view on their approach. I'm not sure the pilot's view from a Flying Fortress would let you see the CV deck as you fly the approach, especially as you get in close.
-
You would have to be insane to try that in real life. In that diagram it appears that the left landing gear would pass around 8' from the left edge of the flight deck where it's narrower toward the stern and the right wingtip would pass around 6' from the closest gun mount. That would be extremely difficult to perform
Not a problem. Any pilot with passable skills can keep the airplane on the center line when landing or taking off....I'm talking keep the airplane within inches....certainly within 6 to 8 feet.
and B-17 pilots were completely untrained in carrier landings, which are a difficult and dangerous operation
B-17 pilots are some of the most awesome stick manipulators in the history of aviation....end of discussion.
that's four times the weight of a TBM. I have no idea whether it would take the weight without bending the steel or splintering the planking
The B-17 has huge tires which will result in a lower PSI than the small tired fighters even with their lighter weights. Just a guess but I don't think there would be any structural issues.
Of course this is all just a mental exercise. Could it be done? Sure, no doubt. Would it be practical, no.
-
Sometimes people miss the point. The game models the physics, what people do in game will often not resemble real life because the consequences are not life and death.
the fun part of the simulation is that you get to see what might have been possible of people had the audacity to try. Mustangs never fought Carsairs. But we get to see which one would win!!
Get it?
:salute
-
Sometimes people miss the point. The game models the physics, what people do in game will often not resemble real life because the consequences are not life and death.
the fun part of the simulation is that you get to see what might have been possible of people had the audacity to try. Mustangs never fought Carsairs. But we get to see which one would win!!
Get it?
:salute
Hiya Vinkman,
Sometimes you can't make this stuff up; real Life can be stranger than fiction. It turns out that Mustangs did fight versus Corsairs. Check out the 1969 "Soccer War" between Honduras and El Salvador: https://www.airspacemag.com/history-of-flight/last-piston-engine-dogfights-180956250/ (https://www.airspacemag.com/history-of-flight/last-piston-engine-dogfights-180956250/)
:salute
As far as landing a B-17 on CV in AH, I'd very be impressed if someone can do it without using external view.
-
As far as landing a B-17 on CV in AH, I'd very be impressed if someone can do it without using external view.
I've never used external view for flying in AH or real life. I find external view harder to use.
-
Hiya Vinkman,
Sometimes you can't make this stuff up; real Life can be stranger than fiction. It turns out that Mustangs did fight versus Corsairs. Check out the 1969 "Soccer War" between Honduras and El Salvador: https://www.airspacemag.com/history-of-flight/last-piston-engine-dogfights-180956250/ (https://www.airspacemag.com/history-of-flight/last-piston-engine-dogfights-180956250/)
:salute
As far as landing a B-17 on CV in AH, I'd very be impressed if someone can do it without using external view.
Darn...wrong again! thanks that was a fun read. :salute
-
Not a problem. Any pilot with passable skills can keep the airplane on the center line when landing or taking off....I'm talking keep the airplane within inches....certainly within 6 to 8 feet.
It's a lot harder when the center line is on a deck that is pitching and rolling. And those carriers pitched and rolled a lot more than modern ones do, or the cruise ships that are most peoples' experience of being on the open ocean these days.
Maybe, maybe, under perfect conditions, in sheltered, very calm waters, with pilots who had been trained to do it and had practice runs doing it on land and an LSO who had practiced landing big bombers. (You can't forget the LSO. His skill was almost as important as the pilot's for a successful carrier landing.) But a carrier landing is a lot trickier than landing on a similar size runway on land. And I'm still not sure the B-17's gear would take the impact.
Anyway, I'm not complaining about it in AH, just commenting on the feasibility of doing it IRL. We do a lot of things in AH that might be theoretically possible but no one in his right mind would do IRL, like landing on and taking off from carriers that are turning, or dive-bombing with 4-engine bombers. Losing a cartoon life is a lot less of a deterrent than losing a real one.
-
Many B-17s used parachutes attached to the tail turret as drag chutes for short field emergency landings. Landing a B-17 on a carrier could definitely be done.
-
Many B-17s used parachutes attached to the tail turret as drag chutes for short field emergency landings. Landing a B-17 on a carrier could definitely be done.
Not so much for a short field but because the brakes were not functioning. Both the B-17 and B-24 hydraulic systems were fragile to battle damage with the hydraulic system being much more critical on the B-24 since nearly everything was hydraulic, the only exception being the cowl flaps which were electric. On the B-17 it was the opposite, the only hydraulic functions were for brakes and cowl flaps.
-
Sometimes people miss the point. The game models the physics, what people do in game will often not resemble real life because the consequences are not life and death.
the fun part of the simulation is that you get to see what might have been possible of people had the audacity to try.
Exactly! :salute