PDA

View Full Version : How realistic landing at carrier are in PF?

Kwiatos
10-06-2004, 02:57 AM
I saw video from France Sim with take off and landing at carrier YP-80 without hook - verfy funny thing.
http://www.checksix-fr.com/bibliotheque/index.php?page=detail&ID=2091

But even more funny is take off and landing from carrier in He-111.

http://www.checksix-fr.com/bibliotheque/index.php?page=detail&ID=2091

Nice realism i cant wait for PF relase to land at carrier in B-17 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Merlin (FZG_Immel)
10-06-2004, 04:34 AM
fisrt off all, the YP-80 video (who was the 1st video of this kind) is not from france-simulation, but from Checksix.

Now, your second link is wrong. It points OUR website, but should point france-simulation website to be correct.

the only purpose of my video was to show the FB/PF compatibility, having some fun.

Now, if really we want to talk about realism and landing in PF, let me explain things..

The Aircraft carrier is moving at 60kmh.. a plane like the YP-80 with 25% fuel has her stall speed around 130kmh (in the game) which allow you to land at this speed if you are a good stick. Once you landed on the deck, it means you have to brake from a 60kmh speed approximatively (FB/PF do not take in account the energy formula which is not proprortional to speed, but exponential. SO the braking system is simplified, which may cause the "bug".. but after all, this is normal.) So braking and stopping a plane that runs at 60kmh on a fast moving 200m deck is really easy.

That's why the landing is possible with such a plane- Now, the reason why in Real life it was not tried is because

-1 its really dangerous and you risk your real life

-2 In real life you have a lot of turbulences and gust when trailing behind a AC, and the air is not smooth like in a simulator.

-3 You dont want to waste a millions dollars plane on such a stupid attempt..

Now, about He111 and Tb3, this is really possible and not hard.. their landing speed is around the cruising speed of the AC.. which means you can nearly hover above the deck prior to landing. Same goes for a J8A (Gladiator) for example.

Now, I can tell you that landing a F4U is much more chalenging, due to her speed, and to her boucy manners as well.

And now, if we should talk about hazy or bad weather conditions, its a totally other matter.

With gusts, and pertubated airflow + the AC moving, those "exentric" attempts are really really hard to survive from.

And landing even a naval plane on bad weather on a carrier is always very very challenging, even with easy planes like F4F or Seafire--

Now, about realism.. in mid 60, a C-130 pilot landed her baby on the AC forrestal, without the use of any AC braking devices such as wires, or the barrier.
Their is a video of this around, if you want-. So, trying to land NON-naval planes on AC, isnt a new idea. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Kwiatos
10-06-2004, 05:02 AM
I hope in next video we dont see how Corsair outurn Spitfire

Merlin (FZG_Immel)
10-06-2004, 05:11 AM
Kwiatos. Why do you complain about a YP-80 able to land on a AC...?

why now..? this is not a PF bug at all.. This, if its buggy, its a bug in the YP-80 FM.. which is there since AEP. well, nobody complained about its FM since now.. but you could already do very short landing with Yp-80 in AEP and nobody had anything against it.

VW-IceFire
10-06-2004, 07:11 AM
Not worth your time Merlin. Some people are going to complain about every faucet of everything.

Should a YP-80 land on a carrier deck...sure as heck no but if you want to try then do so. Its like the challenge landing on the semi-circle island in the middle of the Pacific dogfight map we have right now.

olaleier
10-06-2004, 07:17 AM
For those interested, video of C-130 landing on Forrestal:
http://www.airspacemag.com/asm/web/site/QT/hercon.html

And taking off again:
http://www.airandspacemagazine.com/ASM/Web/Site/QT/HercOff.html

Story: http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/history/q0097.shtml

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Perhaps one of the most amazing accomplishments of the plane was described by Lockheed pilot Ted Limmer, who had qualified test pilot LT Flatley to fly the C-130. "The last landing I participated in, we touched down about 150 feet from the end, stopped in 270 feet more and launched from that position, using what was left of the deck. We still had a couple hundred feet left when we lifted off. Admiral Brown was flabbergasted." LT Flatley was eventually awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross by the Navy for his participation in the test program.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Amazing...

And now for another interesting navalization...

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/history/u2/carrier_02.jpg

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/history/q0050.shtml

Kwiatos
10-06-2004, 07:19 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Merlin (FZG_Immel):
Kwiatos. Why do you complain about a YP-80 able to land on a AC...?

why now..? this is not a PF bug at all.. This, if its buggy, its a bug in the YP-80 FM.. which is there since AEP. well, nobody complained about its FM since now.. but you could already do very short landing with Yp-80 in AEP and nobody had anything against it. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

exacly you right its bug of P-80 FM. Such bugs are for sure many more. PF bring new planes when we still have old buggy planes in FB/AEP. So we recive more planes more bugs, more ufos etc. These is the point. I dont like new planes new stuff without correct old things.
So when we will see video " How corsair outturn Spitfire"?

Merlin (FZG_Immel)
10-06-2004, 07:47 AM
" How corsair outturn Spitfire"?

oh well, just need time to edit a video http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

IV_JG51_Razor
10-06-2004, 08:11 AM
If I'm not mistaken, the Lt Flatley who flew the C-130, is the son of the famous fighter pilot of WWII. Lt Flatley went on to have a son of his own, who also became a Navy fighter pilot as well. I guess it must be in their genes http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Merlin (FZG_Immel)
10-06-2004, 09:09 AM
even their DNA must be flying into their cells http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

actionhank1786
10-06-2004, 09:20 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kwiatos:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Merlin (FZG_Immel):
Kwiatos. Why do you complain about a YP-80 able to land on a AC...?

why now..? this is not a PF bug at all.. This, if its buggy, its a bug in the YP-80 FM.. which is there since AEP. well, nobody complained about its FM since now.. but you could already do very short landing with Yp-80 in AEP and nobody had anything against it. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

exacly you right its bug of P-80 FM. Such bugs are for sure many more. PF bring new planes when we still have old buggy planes in FB/AEP. So we recive more planes more bugs, more ufos etc. These is the point. I dont like new planes new stuff without correct old things.
So when we will see video " How corsair outturn Spitfire"? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You say it like it's been keeping you from sleep. I'm sure until Merlin pointed it out, you didnt even think that the YP-80 having the slow landing speed was a problem, you just figured it was one more thing you could tear apart Pacific Fighters for. how about instead of doing all the whining and trolling now before the game's released, you save it for when you get your hands on a real copy.

Resident_Jock
10-06-2004, 12:24 PM
My God are the trolls out in force... How can you criticize PF for the P-80's FM when it's from FB. If anything, thank FB/AEP and it's downright crazy modelling of some planes. Besides, stranger things have happened on flattops, heheh.

VW-IceFire
10-06-2004, 04:40 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kwiatos:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Merlin (FZG_Immel):
Kwiatos. Why do you complain about a YP-80 able to land on a AC...?

why now..? this is not a PF bug at all.. This, if its buggy, its a bug in the YP-80 FM.. which is there since AEP. well, nobody complained about its FM since now.. but you could already do very short landing with Yp-80 in AEP and nobody had anything against it. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

exacly you right its bug of P-80 FM. Such bugs are for sure many more. PF bring new planes when we still have old buggy planes in FB/AEP. So we recive more planes more bugs, more ufos etc. These is the point. I dont like new planes new stuff without correct old things.
So when we will see video " How corsair outturn Spitfire"? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Ok so no new planes till things are absolutely perfect....by you? By Oleg? By me? By who exactly? At what point will the game be so perfect as to re-allow new aircraft to be added to the game? Seriously...thats insanity. Critical bugs are ones that cause the game to stop working...if new planes did that then we have a problem but they have a very stable game overall. The bugs we wine about, which are totally different than most game whines (they usually want the game to work in the first place!) are so small, so miniscule, and so utterly inane in comparison that a good deal of us really don't care.

If you don't like it...you know what choices you have.

Aeronautico
10-06-2004, 07:51 PM
I'd like to see a Storch overrun by the carrier at landing...

Is it possible? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

actionhank1786
10-07-2004, 10:17 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Aeronautico:
I'd like to see a Storch overrun by the carrier at landing...

Is it possible? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

"Storch, this is Lexington, we're now pulling up under you, requesting permission to make contact"