PDA

View Full Version : trapping



hdjuey
05-22-2007, 04:39 PM
how come sometime I clipp the back of the carrier,the plane bounces unrealistic in the air and why is the F-4u seem so hard to land

hdjuey
05-22-2007, 04:39 PM
how come sometime I clipp the back of the carrier,the plane bounces unrealistic in the air and why is the F-4u seem so hard to land

Divine-Wind
05-22-2007, 05:02 PM
Make sure realistic landings is checked in difficulty. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif As for the F4U being hard to land, I can't help ya there. Mostly fly ETO, or if I go PTO for a bit, I usually hop in one of the 'Cats or a Zero.

Ernst_Rohr
05-22-2007, 05:02 PM
It isnt unrealistic. A signifigant impact on the deck is going to compress the stuts on the gear, and when you take the g-load from impact off, they are going to uncompress. Add that to air filled rubber tires doing the same thing and you have your bounce.

The F4U is one of the hardest birds to land, as it should be. IRL the Corsair was referred to as the "Ensign eliminator" for its nasty handling characteristics, and the Navy consigned them to shore duty for quite a while until they worked out the issues with carrier ops and the Corsair.

Zeus-cat
05-22-2007, 07:41 PM
The bounce into the air is unrealistic. However, when it happens I think you would have had a catastrohic impact anyway.

The crash modelling on carriers is poor as the game engine was never designed to handle it. So when carriers were added they had to just do what they could.

VF-17_BOOM
05-22-2007, 09:22 PM
Check this out!
Carrier Operations (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ye6WeW6zYIk)

MrMojok
05-22-2007, 09:31 PM
I thought one of the very issues that consigned the Corsair to shore duty at first was that it had a bad tendency to bounce on a carrier landing.

In fact, I know I have read that in several places. They redesigned the struts or something to reduce this bounce.

stansdds
05-23-2007, 04:10 AM
The Corsair did have a bad tendency to bounce, the the British Royal Navy and the USN's own VF-17 designed some cures that pretty well tamed the Corsair. The reason the USN consigned the Corsair to land duty was for the simple reason that the USN had one active Corsair squadron, all other USN fighter squadrons were equipping with or already equipped with the Hellcat, so spare parts became the problem. Simple logistics, Hellcats for all aircraft carriers, spare parts for only one type of fighter for all carriers.

The F4U-1A and subsequent Corsairs incorporated the design features developed by the RN and VF-17. The bounce in IL2 may be correct for the F4U-1/Corsair I, but it is incorrect for all other models of the Corsair.

rnzoli
05-23-2007, 05:00 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Zeus-cat:
The bounce into the air is unrealistic. However, when it happens I think you would have had a catastrohic impact anyway. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yaha, on the other hand, when you slighly touch a part of the carrier, even with practically no speed (&lt;10km/h) your plane blows up immediately! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

End result: balance http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif