Rough Field AC

[Zygote404]

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

[Pigslilspaz]

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.

[Ack-Ack]

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

[Killer91]

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.

[guncrasher]

Oh yeah that's my dream.  Up il2 from gv base .



Semp

[AWwrgwy]

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

[Ack-Ack]

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

[Zygote404]

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:






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.

[Zygote404]

Oh forgot to mention:

We should also have these able to up from ports:






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.

[Pigslilspaz]

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:

(Image removed from quote.)
(Image removed from quote.)
(Image removed from quote.)
(Image removed from quote.)

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

[Martyn]

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.

[RTHolmes]

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?

[Zygote404]

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.

[RTHolmes]

cant speak for the 152, but otherwise laughably inaccurate.

[Zygote404]

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?