PDA

View Full Version : H81A-2, P40B and P40C- not enough people threw a tantrum



Chuck_Older
11-20-2004, 05:48 AM
Is it just me, or are the ground handling quirks of the H81A-2, P-40B and P-40C still the same in version 3.01m as they were in v3.0?

Bumpy, wing-dipping, jarring taxiing traits whether you're on the runway or not. I can take off and land no problem, but it is annoying to deal with these wild take-off runs.

I know the plane had a rep for ground-looping, but this is ridiculous.

I had thought this was well known and would be addressed in v3.01, seems to have been overlooked.

I am sure I read many posts (not just by me http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif ) indicating that yes, we know, it's bumpy, 1C:Maddox knows too.

I guess we didn't yell, kick and scream enough. Does anyone in-the-know have any indication that this issue is even known?

Da_Godfatha
11-20-2004, 06:38 AM
I read in the book "P-40 in color", that the early short fusalage P-40's waddled like ducks. The longer fusalage P-40F and after solved that problem. The P-40M handles relativly good in the game.

Chuck_Older
11-20-2004, 06:57 AM
Like I said, I know they had ground handling quirks, but I'm not sure 'waddling like a duck' and 'scraping a wing' are the same thing

In any case, this effect is exactly the same for a grass strip and a concrete one. Also seems the same if I'm off the runway

DuxCorvan
11-20-2004, 07:02 AM
Yep, someone filled the wheels too much! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

Chuck_Older
11-20-2004, 07:16 AM
D@mn ground crew

13sqGambler
11-20-2004, 07:18 AM
I found that not deploying any flaps until the tailwheel is off the ground helps a lot in handling that waddle. It seems to disappear as soon as that tailwheel is airborned.

Won't make it disappear, but it helps it.

DIRTY-MAC
11-20-2004, 07:42 AM
Do the old Chaika trick
pull forward on the stick and try to lift the tail as fast as possible when taking off
that should do it
But I think you probably new that http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

DuxCorvan
11-20-2004, 08:35 AM
They should take these signals out of the strips... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif
http://fotofon.cathexes.net/archives/bump01.jpg

LeadSpitter_
11-20-2004, 09:48 AM
still there and its high speed control lock ups at 500kmph are ridiculous zekes are out turning it high speed the same with the p39.

reminds me of the fb 1.0 days of the p40e m.

I hope they pay more attention to this plane, offline you can kill a ai ace with a quarter of your ammo and they bail out but flying the p40b for 4 hours in virtual pilots against good finnish human players the only way to get a kill is to run out of ammo on a 109g6 and hide in the clouds till his engine seizes or he runs out of fuel. I have to say its the hardest plane to do well in even the b239 j8m and g.50 seem superior to it high speed handling and dive accelaration.

chris455
11-20-2004, 10:06 AM
I am surprised we haven't seen more discussion on the P-40B/C damage model. I literally have had a dozen or more cases where 1 hit from a Val rear gunner will take out my engine AND control column, if it doesn't PK me as well.

Hardly what you'd expect from an aircraft renowned for it's ruggedness. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

Stiglr
11-20-2004, 11:53 AM
I'm sure that has more to do with uebertailgunners in general than the P-40s (in)ability to withstand damage.

We have all experienced how gunners almost invariably put the very first hit either in the engine or the cockpit, and never seem to dent the wings or fuselage.

As for the takeoff thing, the P-40 should require some careful throttle runups, but the "waddling" sounds to me like pure eye candy effect gone bad. Last version of AEP, torque was all but non-existant during takeoff runs, but you got a wingdip when you first turned the engine over, (sarcastic http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif) so you got the illusion that torque was modelled. Seems to me these waddle features were just slapped in there, haphazardly by a dev team member who read a sentence or two about the "phenomenon".

XyZspineZyX
11-20-2004, 02:58 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

Hello,

Same problem with the F6F-3 on the deck of a carrier once landed if I try to taxi it any where you should see this aircraft bump from leg to the orther and if you put the shocks on at the good moment you get a plan that is completly strange with one leg shorter than the other, FUNNY.

Sensei.

I almost forgot the P47 also as this problem.

mortoma
11-20-2004, 03:47 PM
The wobble has not been addressed at all. It has been around a long time and affects the I-153, the I-16, the P-11C and now the early P-40s introduced with PF. It's more a bug with certains maps than anything, not the planes themselves. Because if you try any of these planes on the Finland 1 or 2 maps, there is no wobble at all. But try them on the Kuban, Balaton ( probably a few more of the old maps ) and all of the new PF maps and they all wobble seriously from side to side. This is not realistic because none of these planes have this trouble on take off in real life. The dudes that fly I-15s, I-153s and I-16s in New Zealand report no such trouble with those birds. Never read of any model of the P-40s having a severe wobble on take of roll either. The people who say try such-and-such to take off in them are sidestepping the issue of the bug. Better to get Oleg to fix the bug rather than develop unrealistic methods for taking off in certain planes with an unrealistic wobble!!! Fix it Oleg!!!! Don't skirt the issue by suggesting techniques to deal with something that should not be there in the first place.

vUSN_Deacon
11-20-2004, 03:55 PM
Hmm...."pull forward on the stick"?

Can the tailgunner fly the P-40? Oops, That's right...no tailgunner. How's about a little guy sittin' on the floor boards between the pedals lookin' up at the pilot saying, "I've got it"!!
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

DIRTY-MAC
11-20-2004, 03:58 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by mortoma:
The wobble has not been addressed at all. It has been around a long time and affects the I-153, the I-16, the P-11C and now the early P-40s introduced with PF. It's more a bug with certains maps than anything, not the planes themselves. Because if you try any of these planes on the Finland 1 or 2 maps, there is no wobble at all. But try them on the Kuban, Balaton ( probably a few more of the old maps ) and all of the new PF maps and they all wobble seriously from side to side. This is not realistic because none of these planes have this trouble on take off in real life. The dudes that fly I-15s, I-153s and I-16s in New Zealand report no such trouble with those birds. Never read of any model of the P-40s having a severe wobble on take of roll either. The people who say try such-and-such to take off in them are sidestepping the issue of the bug. Better to get Oleg to fix the bug rather than develop unrealistic methods for taking off in certain planes with an unrealistic wobble!!! Fix it Oleg!!!! Don't skirt the issue by suggesting techniques to deal with something that should not be there in the first place. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


I agree on that!

mortoma
11-21-2004, 12:22 PM
Glad someone agrees. Try taking off in an early P-40 from Finland 1 or 2 maps and you'll see how they are supposed to be on the take off roll.

DuxCorvan
11-21-2004, 12:25 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by mortoma:
Glad someone agrees. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I gladly agree with the gladness of the agreement! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

heywooood
11-21-2004, 12:34 PM
I object to the previous posters agreement 100 percent.

..and now thats done...why does the P40 do the hokey pokey on the runway?...

the Vals do this too BtW..

mortoma
11-21-2004, 08:05 PM
I thought I explained it well enough already. Oh well maybe you didn't read every post in here??
The problem is with some maps and some planes. If you try to takeoff the offending early P-40s on the Finland maps, they behave normally. There are some maps that don't have this problem, but most, if not all of the new PF maps do. I'll have to try the Val by the way. Go ahead and make a quick FMB mission taking off a P-40B or C in the Finland or Smolensk maps, you'll not have the bouncy take offs or landings. In any case, Oleg appears not to care about this problem. I have emailed the bug to him before, but you can try it again if you want.

p1ngu666
11-21-2004, 08:32 PM
last time i looked, val had no suspension, p40 and i16 maybe same now i think about it.

also u lose controls real easy too in p40 early?

NegativeGee
11-21-2004, 08:36 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by p1ngu666:
also u lose controls real easy too in p40 early? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes the control damage seems daft on the H81/P40 B/C.... I just don't see why they are so fragile.

chris455
11-21-2004, 09:07 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by NegativeGee:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by p1ngu666:
also u lose controls real easy too in p40 early? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes the control damage seems daft on the H81/P40 B/C.... I just don't see why they are so fragile. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Me neither.

heywooood
11-21-2004, 09:12 PM
I do recall reading that the P40 had some ground handling idiosyncracies due to the close coupled landing gear, but why is it only apparent on some maps?...I notice it doesnt matter whether the field is grass or concrete.

The Curtiss fighter did have oleo struts BtW..but I dont know how much 'travel' they had compared to other gear struts...hmmm

As far as the relative vulnerability of the controls and the engine to damage...except for the obvious risk to any inline engined airplanes' radiator, the P40 was supposed to be a very tough and rugged airframe.

I hope these issues will be addressed for the Hawk81-A-2 at least because that exagerrated teeter totter taxi is killin it for me.

mortoma
11-21-2004, 10:04 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by heywooood:
I object to the previous posters agreement 100 percent.

..and now thats done...why _does_ the P40 do the hokey pokey on the runway?...

The Vals do this too BtW.. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I did not find any problem on any type of airfield in the Val for some reason. I wonder why you have that trouble?!?!

mortoma
11-21-2004, 10:08 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by heywooood:
I do recall reading that the P40 had some ground handling idiosyncracies due to the close coupled landing gear, but why is it only apparent on some maps?...I notice it doesnt matter whether the field is grass or concrete.

The Curtiss fighter did have oleo struts BtW..but I dont know how much 'travel' they had compared to other gear struts...hmmm

As far as the relative vulnerability of the controls and the engine to damage...except for the obvious risk to any inline engined airplanes' radiator, the P40 was supposed to be a very tough and rugged airframe.

I hope these issues will be addressed for the Hawk81-A-2 at least because that exagerrated teeter totter taxi is killin it for me. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Yes it might have had a ground loop if you weren't careful, but the wobble from side to side to me really isn't the same thing.
There are lots of aircraft that can get into a ground loop but they don't wobble from side to side usually. Especially not to this extent, where a wingtip will actually touch the runway.