PDA

View Full Version : Especially for Slush - 250kph takeoff and 300kph landing tracks



XyZspineZyX
09-23-2003, 09:55 PM
Hi Slush,

Here you go, you wanted proof /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif Here are tracks for a takeoff at 250kph (think it hits 260) and a 300kph landing, I'll get a better landing if you want but I think it proves the point (that something is seriously knackered with the FM's ) /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif (oh, it's in a P-40 btw - a bit more interesting, it's not as easy as the Hurricane /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif )

An interesting point from the pilots notes for the P-40:
Note:- Do not lower undercarriage above 175 m.p.h. IAS.

I've flew the P-40 with the wheels down at speeds in excess of 350kph (350 x 0.621 = 217mph) - WAY over the limit noted in the Pilots notes for the plane - if it couldn't handle 175mph in the air there is no way on earth the undercarriage will handle 186mph on the ground. Just face facts, FB's is not right for the P-40, Hurricane etc. It would be interesting to go back to IL-2 and check it out.

Takeoff:
http://www.geekfix.com/takeoff.ntrk
Landing
http://www.geekfix.com/1945.ntrk

Enjoy !
Matt.

http://www.geekfix.com/shamone.jpg</img>



<font face="verdana, arial, helvetica" size="2" >__________________

<font size="1">Pentium 4 3.06Ghz 800Mhz FSB Hyperthreading | Abit IC7 Max 3 | 256Mb Radeon 9800 Pro |
2 x WD Raptor 10,000rpm S-ATA's (RAID 0) | 1Gb OCZ PC4000 Dual Channel Gold Series DDR |
Coolermaster 'Black Widow' | Zalman 7000-CPU Cooler | Track-IR</font></font></p></p>


</p>

XyZspineZyX
09-23-2003, 09:55 PM
Hi Slush,

Here you go, you wanted proof /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif Here are tracks for a takeoff at 250kph (think it hits 260) and a 300kph landing, I'll get a better landing if you want but I think it proves the point (that something is seriously knackered with the FM's ) /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif (oh, it's in a P-40 btw - a bit more interesting, it's not as easy as the Hurricane /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif )

An interesting point from the pilots notes for the P-40:
Note:- Do not lower undercarriage above 175 m.p.h. IAS.

I've flew the P-40 with the wheels down at speeds in excess of 350kph (350 x 0.621 = 217mph) - WAY over the limit noted in the Pilots notes for the plane - if it couldn't handle 175mph in the air there is no way on earth the undercarriage will handle 186mph on the ground. Just face facts, FB's is not right for the P-40, Hurricane etc. It would be interesting to go back to IL-2 and check it out.

Takeoff:
http://www.geekfix.com/takeoff.ntrk
Landing
http://www.geekfix.com/1945.ntrk

Enjoy !
Matt.

http://www.geekfix.com/shamone.jpg</img>



<font face="verdana, arial, helvetica" size="2" >__________________

<font size="1">Pentium 4 3.06Ghz 800Mhz FSB Hyperthreading | Abit IC7 Max 3 | 256Mb Radeon 9800 Pro |
2 x WD Raptor 10,000rpm S-ATA's (RAID 0) | 1Gb OCZ PC4000 Dual Channel Gold Series DDR |
Coolermaster 'Black Widow' | Zalman 7000-CPU Cooler | Track-IR</font></font></p></p>


</p>

XyZspineZyX
09-23-2003, 09:59 PM
Not to in any way detract from your point, I jsut thought I should mention that Vlo is usually much higher than Vle. Meaning that the speed at which the gear can be *raised/lowered* is much less than the speed at which the aircraft can be flown with them down.

Trivial I know. . .

S!
TX-EcoDragon
Black 1
TX Squadron XO
http://www.txsquadron.com

Reserve Pilot Aircraft #2 of Gruppo 313
Pattuglia Acrobatica Virtuale
http://www.pav-amvi.it

http://www.calaggieflyers.com/



http://www.txsquadron.com/images/txsquadron_main.gif

XyZspineZyX
09-23-2003, 10:03 PM
Thanks for the post Dragon /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif - the point wasn't necessarily regarding the speed at whcih the aircraft can the flown with the gear down, it was more along the lines of the rather high speeds at which takeoffs and landings can be made - landings in particular, thanks anyway tho /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif btw - I've lowered the gear in the P-40 at 360kph !



http://www.geekfix.com/shamone.jpg</img>



<font face="verdana, arial, helvetica" size="2" >__________________

<font size="1">Pentium 4 3.06Ghz 800Mhz FSB Hyperthreading | Abit IC7 Max 3 | 256Mb Radeon 9800 Pro |
2 x WD Raptor 10,000rpm S-ATA's (RAID 0) | 1Gb OCZ PC4000 Dual Channel Gold Series DDR |
Coolermaster 'Black Widow' | Zalman 7000-CPU Cooler | Track-IR</font></font></p></p>


</p>



Message Edited on 09/23/0309:04PM by ICAG_Bader

XyZspineZyX
09-23-2003, 10:04 PM
Hi Badger,

Do you think you could see your way to zipping or raring those files? They're just text so they compress very well. Not getting fantastic compression out of it over a modem and it doesn't appear they're being gzipped via mod_gzip on the server end.

As I said when you mentioned this earlier, feel free to post these tracks in the ORR with a request to fix the overmodelled landing wheels on planes. It is however possibly not the highest priority bugfix for Maddox right now.


http://home.iprimus.com.au/djgwen/fb/worker_parasite.jpg

Need help with NewView? Read this thread. (http://forums.ubi.com/messages/message_view-topic.asp?name=us_il2sturmovik_gd&id=yzbcj)

XyZspineZyX
09-23-2003, 10:09 PM
sure - here is a link to a zipfile, sorry - should have done it before.

http://www.geekfix.com/tracks.zip

btw, it's Bader as in Douglas Bader /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

/m

http://www.geekfix.com/shamone.jpg</img>



<font face="verdana, arial, helvetica" size="2" >__________________

<font size="1">Pentium 4 3.06Ghz 800Mhz FSB Hyperthreading | Abit IC7 Max 3 | 256Mb Radeon 9800 Pro |
2 x WD Raptor 10,000rpm S-ATA's (RAID 0) | 1Gb OCZ PC4000 Dual Channel Gold Series DDR |
Coolermaster 'Black Widow' | Zalman 7000-CPU Cooler | Track-IR</font></font></p></p>


</p>

XyZspineZyX
09-23-2003, 10:13 PM
I have badgers on the brain lately.

If you've seen the badger thing that's been doing the rounds you know why.

The horror :<


http://home.iprimus.com.au/djgwen/fb/worker_parasite.jpg

Need help with NewView? Read this thread. (http://forums.ubi.com/messages/message_view-topic.asp?name=us_il2sturmovik_gd&id=yzbcj)

XyZspineZyX
09-23-2003, 10:34 PM
I've been rolling for taking off at speeds of 250kph+ since the original Il2. I don't think anything has changed since then. But, the plane usually lifts by itself at those speeds.

Landing, I couldn't say. I don't usually try it faster than 250.

<center>http://banners.wunderground.com/banner/gizmotimetemp_both/language/www/US/TX/Dallas.gif </center>

XyZspineZyX
09-24-2003, 07:17 AM
bump

http://www.geekfix.com/shamone.jpg</img>



<font face="verdana, arial, helvetica" size="2" >__________________

<font size="1">Pentium 4 3.06Ghz 800Mhz FSB Hyperthreading | Abit IC7 Max 3 | 256Mb Radeon 9800 Pro |
2 x WD Raptor 10,000rpm S-ATA's (RAID 0) | 1Gb OCZ PC4000 Dual Channel Gold Series DDR |
Coolermaster 'Black Widow' | Zalman 7000-CPU Cooler | Track-IR</font></font></p></p>


</p>

XyZspineZyX
09-24-2003, 07:29 AM
It is relatively easy to get a 109 to 300 kmh in takeoff roll on a good runway in game .. just hold stick forward

I do have severe doubts of the viability of this procedure in a real 109.

<center> http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0SQDLAtUWiWZ3BKw19!aryp7v3C1h1DuNwpHOOuqhlraGSyMAY KiPEOZAA1OBgsLu*Sa0UQ2my0PiFyvNkJ5K7Clsoy7yNtEvOXY nHDuPNiotpZACY2oJxw/aircraftround.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
09-24-2003, 07:48 AM
WTE_Galway wrote:
- It is relatively easy to get a 109 to 300 kmh in
- takeoff roll on a good runway in game .. just hold
- stick forward
-
- I do have severe doubts of the viability of this
- procedure in a real 109.

As do I, I find if somewhat frustrating that such an obvious thing isn't fixed, sheer lunacy to expect a planes undercarriage to withstand such punishment!

/m

http://www.geekfix.com/shamone.jpg</img>



<font face="verdana, arial, helvetica" size="2" >__________________

<font size="1">Pentium 4 3.06Ghz 800Mhz FSB Hyperthreading | Abit IC7 Max 3 | 256Mb Radeon 9800 Pro |
2 x WD Raptor 10,000rpm S-ATA's (RAID 0) | 1Gb OCZ PC4000 Dual Channel Gold Series DDR |
Coolermaster 'Black Widow' | Zalman 7000-CPU Cooler | Track-IR</font></font></p></p>


</p>

XyZspineZyX
09-24-2003, 08:50 AM
I see nothing wrong with it at all. There's more pressure on the gear sitting still than when doing 300mph down the runway. At that speed the only pressure on the gear is the slight pressure the pilot applies in order to prevent lifting off.
I've never read anything that made me think WWII aircraft langing gear weren't sturdy. The biggest problem was damage to the retract mehcanism not the gear. You could end up with your gear stuck down or with them refusing to come down.

I've read where a P-47 landed off the runway hard, and slid with brakes fully locked into a stack of railroad ties. It did absolutely nothing to the gear or the P-47.

The problem was the hydraulics back then. Especially on corsairs, and P-40's. As the wheel came out of the back of the wing, and rotated down, and forward. Then the wheel rotated 90 degree's into the locked position.
It's much harder on the hydraulics that way than to have them drop straight down sideways from the wing like most aircraft do.

The 109's problem was it's extremely narrow gear stance which was hard on the gear, and made take off, landing, and even taxiing around difficult.

XyZspineZyX
09-24-2003, 09:01 AM
Badget, my main man, once more:

You stated that the patch wrecked FB and that planes on a regular basis could be landed at speeds exceeding 300 kph.

My argument was that 1) others did not seem to be able to do it on such a regular basis as you (ie. it's not as easy as you claim), 2) I'm not convinced that it could NOT be done in real life. Of course noone would recommend it in a pilot's manual, but that doesn't mean it wasn't possible.

So why don't you just keep your track? I never disputed that it couldn't be done. I just said that you once more jumped to your favourite conclusion: That FB is a piece of bugged sh..

/slush

http://dk.groups.yahoo.com/group/aktivitetsdage/files/Eurotrolls.gif

You can't handle the truth!
Col. Jessep