PDA

View Full Version : carrier training w/ CFS2



Snyde-Dastardly
05-16-2004, 02:15 PM
I was thinking of fireing up CFS2 to get some carrier practice in. But after about an hour or so of digging I couldent find it. So the question is, should I burn the green for a new one or just say forget it?
CARPE DIEM

http://img21.photobucket.com/albums/v62/Vic-Whiplash/DN_4.bmp

Snyde-Dastardly
05-16-2004, 02:15 PM
I was thinking of fireing up CFS2 to get some carrier practice in. But after about an hour or so of digging I couldent find it. So the question is, should I burn the green for a new one or just say forget it?
CARPE DIEM

http://img21.photobucket.com/albums/v62/Vic-Whiplash/DN_4.bmp

SKULLS Virga
05-16-2004, 02:19 PM
Was thinking the same thing. Cant seem to find articles on carrier ops anymore though.

IV_JG51_Razor
05-16-2004, 03:11 PM
I would say it might not be a bad idea unless the FMs are really different between the two sims. Unfortunately, there isn't much in common, a/c type-wise, between the two sims right now to compare. Maybe try a Seafire, or a Zero?

Razor
IV/JG51 Intelligence Officer
www.jg51.net (http://www.jg51.net)

"Good judgement comes from experience, and experience comes from poor judgement"

LeadSpitter_
05-16-2004, 03:46 PM
fms and glide paths are so different, i dont think it would help much practicing in cfs2 i loaded it up again and did a couple carrier landings. Theres a huge difference in torque takeoffs glideslopes and landings from il2. I dont know how pf will be but the videos looks somewhat similiar to il2fb/aeps physics

http://img14.photobucket.com/albums/v43/leadspitter/newsig.jpg

Aaron_GT
05-16-2004, 04:11 PM
Which is more accurate? CFS2 or AEP/FB/IL2/PF?

Fennec_P
05-16-2004, 04:32 PM
In the short time I played CFS2 recently, I find its nothing like FB or AEP. I'm not too enthusiastic about the realism either.

Considering PF will be the latest incarnation of FB, it would probably be most worthwhile to practice with FB or AEP.

Mark yourself off a carrier sized section of runway with campfires, and have at it. Even without a tailhook, its completely possible to land most planes in the small space.

If you get good at that, it should be a piece of cake to land with arrestor cables in PF.

http://members.shaw.ca/fennec/urban.jpg

IV_JG51_Razor
05-16-2004, 05:13 PM
Try putting a couple of truck convoys at the end of the runway(off to the sides of course), and giving them a waypoint at the other end of the runway. Give your plane an airstart a click or two off the end of the strip with about 300m altitude. Now fly alongside the runway watching the convoy simulating the carrier deck. Pass by the trucks and give yourself a three or five count before initiating a left break to the downwind. See what it would look like to have the "deck" moving along at 25 kts, and planning your approach to touch down on the runway alongside the jeep! It's not necessary to try to stop. Just make sure you touch down within the first three or four trucks. Start off with the Brewster and the Zero. The Spitfire is also fairly docile in the pattern. When you've got them down, then take a -D10 Jug and give it a go! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/35.gif

Razor
IV/JG51 Intelligence Officer
www.jg51.net (http://www.jg51.net)

"Good judgement comes from experience, and experience comes from poor judgement"

Snyde-Dastardly
05-16-2004, 05:38 PM
Yea thats pretty much what I thought,,now for my next question,,what would be a good guess for the size of the carriers so I could mark it out? I love the truck colum idea there Razor. Im gonna try to practice for the Corsair with the slow left turn keeping the trucks in sight at all times to try to sim the long nose of that beast

http://img21.photobucket.com/albums/v62/Vic-Whiplash/DN_4.bmp

Fennec_P
05-16-2004, 05:55 PM
Ballpark figure 250m for a large carrier (Lex, Essex). The Tirpitz is about the same length.

http://members.shaw.ca/fennec/urban.jpg

heywooood
05-16-2004, 08:06 PM
Razor's little exercise works very well once you get it timed out - http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

james8325
05-16-2004, 08:10 PM
yea that was fun. thanks guys. i landed a zero no problem. i have some screens if u guys want to see them.

SKULLS Virga
05-16-2004, 08:44 PM
I reloaded CFS2 today - and was very disappointed. It is very different and I learned nothing. Didn't even have any fun.

Snyde-Dastardly
05-16-2004, 11:26 PM
Right on guys!!
This is what I love about this place ,,,no bull$hit! Thanks for all the input.Id love to see the screens there james, any little bit helps!
CARPE DIEM
Snyde

http://img21.photobucket.com/albums/v62/Vic-Whiplash/DN_4.bmp

Penguin_PFF
05-16-2004, 11:31 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
Which is more accurate? CFS2 or AEP/FB/IL2/PF?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

"Hi, my name is Aaron_GT. Please hurt me, for I desire punishment. Thank you."

Snyde-Dastardly
05-16-2004, 11:51 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Penguin_PFF:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
Which is more accurate? CFS2 or AEP/FB/IL2/PF?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

"Hi, my name is Aaron_GT. Please hurt me, for I desire punishment. Thank you."<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
WOW Tough room http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

http://img21.photobucket.com/albums/v62/Vic-Whiplash/DN_4.bmp

luthier1
05-17-2004, 02:03 AM
I think Razor's little exersise is a little misleading. When landing on a moving carrier at sea you don't really perceive it as moving. I just think of my actual landing speed as being my TAS minus carrier speed, that's all. Other than that, with the featureless expanse of the water around the carrier its movement becomes pretty much unnoticeable since it's so slow compared to your own speed.

Unless people who completed actual traps want to correct me, my feeling is that landing on a moving carrier is virtually the same as landing on a stationary one.

Anyway, for a better example of what a carrier landing looks like, set up like four cruisers moving side by side in a 2x2 formation at 30 km/h somewhere where no land can be seen, and simulate a landing on that. I don't think their speed will really be a factor in your approach.

http://www.il2center.com/PF.jpg

Aaron_GT
05-17-2004, 02:10 AM
""Hi, my name is Aaron_GT. Please hurt me, for I desire punishment. Thank you.""

I asked because of the debate by LeadSpitter
and others about the realism (or otherwise)
of the CFS3 FMs over on General Discussion. I
don't have CFS3 but I do have CFS2. The FMs
are definitely different, but I was curious
as to whether anyone had any opinions on the
differences in FMs between FB and CFS2 as they
might relate to carrier ops.

To be honest CFS2 feels like flying at arms
length, especially in the Swordfish campaign
I downloaded at the weekend. Plus the cockpits
and views leave something to be desired. I do
like the interactivity of the cockpits with
the mouse - something to look at within the
current FB type cockpit for BoB perhaps.

Snyde-Dastardly
05-17-2004, 06:02 AM
Hey welcome back luther,
Thanks for the info Ill give it a shot. I think Ill use online island 7 and dry dock the cruiers on the air stip for scale.
OBTW there luther, any pics of the 29 in flight? Like my ma always said it never hurts to ask http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif
Thanks again fellas
CARPE DIEM
Snyde

http://img21.photobucket.com/albums/v62/Vic-Whiplash/DN_4.bmp

Snyde-Dastardly
05-17-2004, 06:05 AM
OOps! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/35.gif
luth-I-er,,,. Its to early for me to be typeing
One day Ill learn how to spell,LOL

http://img21.photobucket.com/albums/v62/Vic-Whiplash/DN_4.bmp

IV_JG51_Razor
05-17-2004, 08:57 AM
I agree with you Luthier, there won't really be any sense of movement for the carrier out on the open sea. However, my little exercise will accomplish two things. First, it will help you develope the skills necessary to arrive at a specific spot, in the proper landing configuration (airspeed, attitude, altitude). This is a particularly difficult thing to do consistantly (for me anyway) http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Secondly, for all of us used to flying a normal traffic pattern around an airfield, the excersise will get you used to where to begin your turn from the downwind. It's considerably different than doing pattern work around a stationary field. We'll be getting a taste of that difference once we get to start flying PF in the DF servers vs coops! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Razor
IV/JG51 Intelligence Officer
www.jg51.net (http://www.jg51.net)

"Good judgement comes from experience, and experience comes from poor judgement"

heywooood
05-17-2004, 09:36 AM
Luthier -

Razor's method is designed more for curved approaches than for direct astern approaches.

I set up an airstart on the downwind leg at 200
meters alt. 200kph at the top end of the runway.. watch the vehicles and time the turn to base / final..the real trick is to match correct airspeed and alt. down to the 'deck' in the correct spot just ahead of tail end charlie..in this case the jeep at the rear of the convoy representing the stern of the boat.
For direct straight astern approaches from 1 or 2 kilometers there is no real need to use the method... but it doesn't hurt.

Yeah I'm sure the actual sim wont be the same and we're probably going to see this exercise as frivolous when PF rolls around , but at least it gives us something to do until then... or until AEP patch is out?..

[This message was edited by heywooood on Mon May 17 2004 at 09:57 AM.]

BSS_Vidar
05-17-2004, 11:12 AM
CFS2 is only $19 now, If you decide to get it. Let us know and I'll start carrier training right now to get ready for PF. The Blacksheep still keep frosty on CFS2 as far as CQ goes. Yes the FM are different, but that will not effect the most important skill development for flying around the boat. The important thing to learn is how to fly with OTHERS around the boat. Traps will come, no matter what sim you fly, but pattern work and coordination won't unless you practice it with others.
You'll need to install a few things into CFS2 so we can conduct ops on line. You can get them all from our sites utiliy page.

http://www.blacksheep214.com/utilities.html

1. CFS2 Multi-swap
2. Shipyards 3
3. MDL Edit set to "3" on all aircraft (This gets rid of the collission bubble plagued around CFS2 aircraft)
4. Teamspek client version. Voice comms are imparitive

5. Finally, review the CQ/Formation flying guide from here:
http://www.blacksheep214.com/cq/cq.htm

Don't worry if you don't quite understand everything right off the bat. Once you apply them, you'll see it in a different light and it will all come together. We have a 14 year old member that is becomming a real pro at it.
Post a message in our "Challenge forum" or email the Blacksheep staff at BSS_Staff@Yahoo.com if you wish to fly CQ with us in CFS2.

S!

BSS_Vidar

IV_JG51_Razor
05-17-2004, 11:48 AM
I think that for now, the biggest benifit to this type of training is derived from getting used to flying the pattern at greatly reduced airspeeds than we are used to. We won't have the luxury of being able to cross the fence at 200-220 Kph and float half way down the runway. You've got to get used to flying just above Vmc (minimum controlable airspeed) which, in a heavy fighter like the Jug, is quite a challange. The techniques you use to control the plane in this regime of flight are not the same as when you have a whole bunch of speed going for you. You'll find that trying to pick up a wing with your aileron instead of rudder is not a good thing! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif A sudden application of power is also not the thing to do. So, this kind of training, whether it's just to the runway, or to a spot abeam a bunch of moving vehicles, will help you get used to what it will be like trying to get aboard the carriers in PF.

Razor
IV/JG51 Intelligence Officer
www.jg51.net (http://www.jg51.net)

"Good judgement comes from experience, and experience comes from poor judgement"

BSS_Vidar
05-17-2004, 12:07 PM
Razor,
Vmc is a multi-engine term M8, so a Jug doesn't have one http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Vmc = Minimum speed at which directional control can still be maintained with loss of the critical engine.
Going below Vmc causes what is called a "VMC" in a multi-engined aircraft. The control inputs are being overcome by the thrust of the good engine, therefore, rolling the aircraft over on the bad side, or dead engine.

I think the V speed you're refering to is Vs (minimum speed in which the aircraft is still controllable.) No, Vs is not stall speed. Below it is. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/blink.gif

And I agree with your assecment for learning to contol airpeed in the pattern. But not what you thinking as far as controlability. Approach speeds at the boat are the same as shorebase patterns. The reason for learning good speed dicipline in the pattern is to maintain spacing from others that may be in the pattern with you. Although the rule aplies to both sea and land, it is much more important around the ship. A formation of aircraft tring to land on the same stretch of flight deck must have airspeed and pattern dicipline. If your too fast, you'll screw the pootch for yourself and get a wave-off for closing on the guy in front of you, therefore, he'll still be in the wires when you roll in of final. If you're too slowm you screw the pilot behind you.

BSS-Vidar

[This message was edited by BSS_Vidar on Mon May 17 2004 at 11:25 AM.]

Stuntie
05-17-2004, 12:24 PM
I've just re-installed CFS2 to get in some carrier practice.
I't might not be as good an FM as IL2/FB but it does enable you to practice the approach and descent angles etc.

Besides you can always treat the CFS2 aircraft as the well behaved trainers people generally start learning to trap with.

Cheers.
Stuntie

BSS_Vidar
05-17-2004, 12:37 PM
Again, NO ONE ever flies just above stall speed in a carrier pattern. That is sucide. There is an optimum controllable airspeed for each specific arcraft, which is why specific airframes MUST come down into the carrier patter together so separation can be maintained. If you have differnt aircraft with different speed regimes entering the pattern at the samer time, they'll be climbing all over each other.

S!

BSS_Vidar

P.S. Stunties way of thinkin' is dead on.

SKULLS Virga
05-17-2004, 04:10 PM
What does a carrier pattern look like? I have read about the slow descending left turn final that the British came up with for the Corsair, but what is the rest of it like?

Vidar???

EDIT: Nevermind - found your manual which includes carrier operations. I will read through it and ask questions after. - Thanks...

http://img68.photobucket.com/albums/v206/SKULLS_Virga/Signature_2.jpg

IV_JG51_Razor
05-17-2004, 05:08 PM
Vidar, you're absolutely right. Vs is the proper term.

I think you need to keep in mind that most of us out here in PF wannabe land are not carrier pilots, and don't fly our approaches ashore the same as we would at the boat. That is the purpose of the training I was talking about. To get folks used to flying around in the pattern at a much lower speed than they have been used to.

I also think you need to relate to this more in terms of WWII propeller aviation, and less in terms of modern day jet aviation. In today's Navy, you're absolutely right about it being "suicide" to fly around the boat at just above stall speed. There's no need to. You've got an angled deck, mirror landing system, ACLS, AoA indicators in the cockpit, speed brakes to help out, just to name a few. Back in WWII, they had a straight deck, and an LSO, period. If a pilot was doing it right, he was not much above his power on stall speed at the time of the cut. From that point, until he hits the deck, he is decelerating to his power off stall speed - and he is most definitely trying his very best to touch down in a three point attitude! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Razor
IV/JG51 Intelligence Officer
www.jg51.net (http://www.jg51.net)

"Good judgement comes from experience, and experience comes from poor judgement"

james8325
05-17-2004, 09:16 PM
here are some pics of a landing i did. The deck is about 250m long. i have a track, but i dont know how to post it. i also did one with moving jeeps, but that was somewhat easy. keep in mind i took the screens from a track, the real landing was done from cockpit in real time.

Approach
http://server5.uploadit.org/files/james8326-grab0000.jpg

touch down
http://server5.uploadit.org/files/james8326-grab0001.jpg

just made it
http://server5.uploadit.org/files/james8326-grab0002.jpg

take off
http://server5.uploadit.org/files/james8326-grab0003.jpg
http://server5.uploadit.org/files/james8326-grab0004.jpg

VF-3Thunderboy
05-17-2004, 09:35 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Unless people who completed actual traps want to correct me, my feeling is that landing on a moving carrier is virtually the same as landing on a stationary one. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

In CFS2 the carriers can "pitch" and "bob" up and down, and when landing, you "land" at about 30-40 KNTs. The actual times for Hellcats and wildcats from downwind leg to turn/land was about 10 seconds, not 30-40 seconds in line or anything of that nature.(Corsair would be an exeption I think).

I would also reccomend the 1% planes to practice with. There is plenty to do in CFS2, you just have to get used to the less ambitious graphics.

IV_JG51_Razor
05-17-2004, 09:53 PM
Nice shots James. I noticed that your speed at touch down was about 100 Kph. That's only about 54 Kts!! Try it in a P-47D-10! You'll need to keep about 180-190 Kph (97-102 Kts) on final, about 170 at the cut, and you'll really need to be careful with your aileron inputs at that low airspeed. If a wing begins to drop, you have to use your rudder to pick it up, not the ailerons!

There's no point in trying to get stoped within any particular distance since, in PF, you'll have a tail hook for that. Just do a touch and go, and rinse and repete. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I have found the Buffalo, Zero, and the Spitfire fairly docile in the pattern while in the landing configuration (gear down and full flaps). Even the FW-190A-4 was pretty nice in that configuration. The JUG, on the other hand, was quite a hanful! I flew it with full fuel and a belly tank, which was probably a little too heavy for that situation in RL, but I figured that If I could do it like that, the rest would be a piece of cake! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif I felt that, of all the planes available in AEP, the Jug would come closest to being like the F6F, or the F4U than any other. The Buffalo would probably be pretty close to what the F4F will be like in PF. Leadspitter has a pretty nice Navy Pacific paint scheme for the Jug too.

I too have a couple of tracks, but have no way of posting them. It wouldn't matter anyway, since I'm now on the road, and don't have them with me now.

Razor
IV/JG51 Intelligence Officer
www.jg51.net (http://www.jg51.net)

"Good judgement comes from experience, and experience comes from poor judgement"

BSS_Vidar
05-17-2004, 10:22 PM
Razor,
I fly props all the time bud. I know the differnce in performance between the two. Heck, I flew a P-51 just 2 months ago. What a treat! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif I am talking in terms of WWII carrier ops so my statement still stands that those guys didn't fly on the edge of a stall in the pattern. You stated I flew off angle decks. Precisly my point for having ample speed for ops on a straight deck. There is no oppion to bolter. Once you're on deck, you're commited. You have to have enough speed to stop a rate of decent, and give time for the engine to rev back up in the event a wave-off is given. One of my flight instructors was an Avenger pilot and an F-9 Cougar pilot. They were comfortably above Vs at all times. Again, speed had to be there in the event of a wave off.
The pattern used back then is pretty much the pattern used today for VFR CV case-1 recovery. WWII ops is where it came from. I understand these guys aren't Naval Aviators, but most find trying to re-create actual flight ops most challenging, and quite a few seem eager to learn it.

Moving vs stationary carrier. Moving carrier is easier to land on.

S!

BSS_Vidar

[This message was edited by BSS_Vidar on Mon May 17 2004 at 09:38 PM.]

IV_JG51_Razor
05-17-2004, 11:25 PM
First off, let me say that I realize that there is a difference (in some cases a big difference, such as with the Bearcat) between the speeds of power on stall, and power off stall. In most cases, power on stall speed is lower than power off stall speed. In the following excerpt, the author of this Nav Air News article gives the reader a fairly good discription of how to get aboard sucessfully in a Bearcat.

"The pilot, having flown his airplane into a constant-altitude, constant-speed approach in line with the center of the deck, is given the cut. Height above deck is roughly 25 ft, varying with LSO's corrections for deck motion. Speed at cut is such that the three to five kts lost during descent allows plane to reach power off stalling speed at contact with deck.

Imediately after the cut, change in trim and loss of lift due to loss of power cause the plane to nose down, picking up sinking speed. The pilot flares the flight path of his plane by means of his elevators so as to reduce sinking speed and yet avoid floating. In this way, he picks up the second to fourth wire, contacting the deck with relatively little vertical velocity."

If the plane is 'three to five knots above power off stall speed' when the pilot is given the cut, that says to me that he was maybe 10 Kts above power on stall speed at that point. Now, I'm not saying that we need to be at that speed throughout the whole pattern, just that we need to be at that speed once we've turned on final.

If you're 10 Kts above power on stall speed, and given a wave off, it doesn't seem to me that that will be too much of a problem to deal with. A lot has to do with when the LSO gives you the wave off. If it's just as you're crossing the ramp, that's probably too late.

Razor
IV/JG51 Intelligence Officer
www.jg51.net (http://www.jg51.net)

"Good judgement comes from experience, and experience comes from poor judgement"

BSS_Vidar
05-18-2004, 02:09 AM
10 kts above Vs is a HUGH buffer from actual stall. That's no where near stalling. On an airspeed indicator, thats a warm and fuzzy for any pilot. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif When people on these threads were saying planes hung around just above stall speed, I inturprit that as right at Vs. Heck, normal manuvering speed in the dirty configuration can be within that 10 kt envolope.
I do believe you should check your statement on power-on vs power-off stalls though. The wing stalls at the same speed whether its power-on or power-off. In otherwords, powerplant settings are irrelivent when it comes to the workings of a wing. They are simply two differnt ways to stop a wing flying at the same speed and angle of attack, as well as two differnt ways a pilot must know how to recover from either situation. What does change the stall speed parameters is wing's configuration, i.e. flaps/slats. They change the length of the cord line, the shape and length of the camber, and increase angle-of-incidence. Clean stall is Vso, dirty stall is Vs1 (in a specific configuration). There are no V speeds for power on or off, because they are one in the same...

Keep in mind a wing can stall doing 300kts in a virtical dive. If you pull too hard and exceed "critical angle of attack" (The reletive wind angle to the airfoils cord line - roughly 17 deg on ALL airfoil shaps + or - a few tenths of a degree). The wing departs and stops flying.

As far as what you said about speeds being different around the pattern but refined on final... That's just fine IF you are by yourself in the pattern. But most of the time, we'll be flying a few formations at a time on-line. After the carrier brake, the pilot should have his plane "Onspeed" and in the "down and dirty" configuration by the time he gets to the downwind. Constant speed from that point to the deck is imperitive to maintain pattern spacing and integrity. If you're by yourself, drill around the pattern all you like, but if you have 4 other planes in the pattern with you, and another 8 in the spin pattern above hawking the deck waiting for their shot at the carrier brake, You have got to have dicipline and control your speed in the pattern. Bad speed and pattern dicipline will ripple throughout the entire carriers airspace.
During WWII those planes were rolling in on final in 45 to 50 second intervals. That's speed and pattern dicipline even back then. In over 50 years of carrier aviation, not much has really changed.

S!

BSS_Vidar

IV_JG51_Razor
05-18-2004, 10:13 AM
"I do believe you should check your statement on power-on vs power-off stalls though. The wing stalls at the same speed whether its power-on or power-off. In otherwords, powerplant settings are irrelivent when it comes to the workings of a wing. They are simply two differnt ways to stop a wing flying at the same speed and angle of attack, as well as two differnt ways a pilot must know how to recover from either situation. What does change the stall speed parameters is wing's configuration, i.e. flaps/slats. They change the length of the cord line, the shape and length of the camber, and increase angle-of-incidence. Clean stall is Vso, dirty stall is Vs1 (in a specific configuration). There are no V speeds for power on or off, because they are one in the same... "

The reason that a plane will stall at a lower speed with power on than with power off is because the wing has the airflow from that big fan up front influencing it. It thinks it's going faster than it really is. When the plane is in the groove, the pilot is trying to set himself up in this situation, where he is "dragging" himself in towards the deck at a constant speed and in a fairly flat approach for the last few seconds with power carrying him along. If the LSO likes what he sees, he gives the pilot the cut, at which point the pilot cuts his power and the plane immediaately begins to nose over due to the loss of power (and airspeed). The Nav Air News article was saying that if this is done properly, at the right altitude, the pilot will allow the nose to dip, thereby gaining a few knots back, and then flare to arrest his rate of sink, arriving on the deck with a minimum sink rate, and at power off stall speed. This will also result in a touch down pretty close to a three point attitude .For whatever reason, this is particularly difficult to do in IL-2.

All of my comments in this thread have been aimed at getting us to the point where we can accomplish this consistantly. It's never been about getting an air group back aboard in a minimum of time. I believe that this group is way behind the power curve for that kind of realisim. We've got to first be able to train ourselves to get control of our airspeed and altitude in the pattern before we start worrying about multiple aircraft in the pattern.

I think that most of us in here are used to landing with much more airspeed than necessary, simply because we can. Getting prepared for PF is going to require a lot of retraining in order to get comfortable with the handling qualities of these planes at lower speeds. Watch some of the videos from the E3 and look at the attitude and airspeed of that Corsair as it crosses the deck. It is consistantly too fast, and no flare which resulted in an "inflight engagement", and I know you're aware of how bad that can be for an airframe!

We should start training ourselves now to land at much slower speeds, to enter the pattern aligned with the runway at a consistant altitude and airspeed, break to the downwind at the same position and dirty up, turn base to final at the same point relative to the runway, and touch down at a predetermined spot every time. If we do this consistantly, we'll find our transition to PF much less painful. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif Obviously, these comments are not intended for you. I'm sure you're very good at this already. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Razor
IV/JG51 Intelligence Officer
www.jg51.net (http://www.jg51.net)

"Good judgement comes from experience, and experience comes from poor judgement"

BSS_Vidar
05-18-2004, 03:47 PM
Razor
I agree with you on that statement sir. This has been my intension from the start for offering to help any one or any squadron. CQ is the most fun you'll have flying without pulling the trigger. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif The BSS CQ/Formation Guide will aide anyone interested in learning how to accomplish this. Once you fly it a few times, and see and here terms put to use, things will start to click for you. Some of the Blacksheep will be up on the Zone 2nite in CFS2 at 10pm est conducting CQ. Our Teamspeak server is down until our OpsO gets home from his is "sabaticle" http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/52.gif: I'll have Rogerwilco running 2nite as a back-up.Zone message me for the IP and PW if anyone wants to participate.

BTW Razor, where can I DL these tracks? I'ld love to see'em.

S!

BSS_Vidar

[This message was edited by BSS_Vidar on Tue May 18 2004 at 03:00 PM.]

IV_JG51_Razor
05-18-2004, 05:10 PM
Vidar, as we get closer to the release of PF, I will be using your site for training material for some of our guys in IV/JG51. Excellent stuff! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Here are two links to where you can dl some videos. One is from Burnin I think, and the other is from Gibbige.

http://www.france-simulation.com/vid/index.htm

http://www.netwings.org/dcforum/DCForumID18/3461.html

Razor
IV/JG51 Intelligence Officer
www.jg51.net (http://www.jg51.net)

"Good judgement comes from experience, and experience comes from poor judgement"

XyZspineZyX
05-19-2004, 10:14 AM
CFS2 would be a very good "trainer" for carrier landings in Pacific Theatre.
In general, the dynamics are different between the two sims (AEP at least) but you will get a very good idea of how to go about landing on a moving carrier and how to run at just above stall speed, how to use the throttle to maintain a glide path and how to use/ lineup your gunsight whilst watching the carrier coming closer to you. Practising on a static strip, really doesn't achieve this. (Well it does but when you are in the critical stage, just before touchdown, focused on the gunsight and the deck coming up to you, you will notice the difference).
Being ready to ride the throttle to full power should you miss the traps, without torquing into a mass of twisted bits and bytes.

Accelerating to full power very quickly on take off and able to launch at less than 3/4's of the deck, whilst keeping the plane straight, getting that gear up as soon as lift is achieved......at just a little above stall speed..
It is all an art well worth the learning.

Just remember, the deck comes up to you, not the other way around and you are flying into a 30knt headwind


Gotta get a new bit...I've chomped through the last one...waiting http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

[This message was edited by Vagueout on Wed May 19 2004 at 09:24 AM.]

XyZspineZyX
05-19-2004, 10:31 AM
Oh I forgot..Set the CFS2 Flight Models to "hard"

BSS_Vidar
05-19-2004, 01:43 PM
Unfortunately, on-line CQ in CFS2 is with stationary carriers and no wind, unless you have Real Weather installed. But the training sessions has a moving carrier for ya. Leave the hook up for Touch & Go's by flying the pattern which will save time and get you more passes behind the boat. I suggest turning off the text.(Its annoying http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/35.gif) Practice the oval landing pattern as depicted in the Blacksheep CQ Guide. It'll help you learn to control speed, altitude, and timing. On-line, if you can master the stationary deck, a moving deck will come much easier.
We had a real good CQ session on the Zone last night. If anyone that still has CFS2 installed wishes to participate so you'll be ready when PF comes out, you're more than welcome to fly or just observe.
I will post when we'll have another CQ session on the Zone on this forum.Our next one will be Friday night 10PM EST. Rogerwilco will be required for comms. (Teamspeak server is down til Saturday). Zone message me for the IP and password.

It will be so nice to CQ in PF and finaly leave that CFS2 cartoon behind http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/blink.gif

~S~

BSS_Vidar

GT182
05-19-2004, 07:02 PM
At least with CFS 2 you can get used to going for a swim.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
by Stuntie:
It might not be as good an FM as IL2/FB but it does enable you to practice the approach and descent angles etc.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree, at least you get some practice. It shouldn't be too hard to convert to PF after it comes out. It's better than not trying any practice at all. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

"GT182" / "vonSpinmeister"
www.bombs-away.net (http://www.bombs-away.net)
"Fly to Survive, Survive to Fly"

Fliger747
05-19-2004, 08:57 PM
The CFS II flight model is fairly good given a proper aircraft. The 1% planes seem to have pretty realistic handling charcteristics. Some of the othes, including the stock ones can have some undesireable quirks when set to the "hard" flight model, which is the only one you should be using. As one of our posters noted earlier, weight and CG is an important consideration in handling in any aircraft, real or simulated. Just try traping a F4U-4 with two loaded belly tanks for a different experience! The real P47 and P51 had treally lousy flight charcteristics when loaded with full internal and external fuel. The idea was that allof the excess would be gone by the time any combat manuvering would be necessary.

As to power on, power off stalling speeds, and handling charcteristics, there is a lot of difference in the planes which I have flown into such places in Alaska such as short river bars or high altitude glaciers!

In WWII fightes, the mid/low wing configuration place a great deal of the wing right in the prop blast, which was good for lift, and hopefully rudder and elevator effectiveness. The problem was that at high angle of attack and slow airspeed that the aileons were not very effective, hence the increased importance of rudder to "kick up" an errant wing drop.

I don't think that I ever heard of too many sucessful "bolters" in WWII avation (where the wheels touched the deck) except pehaps in some of the carrier qual practice such as on the side wheeler "Wolverine". I have heard of guys trying that and catching the barrier with teir wheels, with perdictable results. The idea was to be able to take a late waveoff, a critical and essential manuver.

A piston engine has a lot of power available RIGH NOW, which with a big constant speed prop set to high pitch can translate into a lot of THRUST right now. Far more response than any turbine engine that I have flown. This translates into immediate lift, and a few other things that may not be as desireable such as "torque" roll. It is no coincidence tat the carrier island was to starboard and the waveoff to port, as that is the direction that the aircraft would want to roll as power was applied. Early (and late) turbine powered aircraft would fly differently as it wa necessary to keep the engines spooled up for improved power response. To accomplish this DRAG was necessary, in the form of large flaps at a high angle, or speedbrakes.

For the F4U-1A/1D I find an approach speed of about 85 knots about right at most weights. Below this speed sudden application of power will roll you right over, so it is a good minimum. At the cut, perhaps you are about 10 knots above power on stall and 5-7 knots above power off stall. At power reduction the elevators will become less effective and it will feel like the nose want's to drop, which it will if stick is not applied. At touchdown, with a lot of back stick the plane will squat nicely, tail low for a good hook engagement. The plane can be wheel landed and still probably get a good hook engagement, but on a pitching deck this may be more problematical.

Trim, trim, trim. Make sure that you have the trim rates set to an appropriate levels in the settings sliders for good control. This may be a LOW value. Rudder trim will vary with power settings.

Good luck!

BSS_Vidar
05-20-2004, 01:24 PM
Rgr dat 747,
Your last sentence in paragraph 6 discribes the technique called "Setting the Hook". Pilots usually got razzed doing it, but it was never counted against them for their boarding rate score on the "Greenie Board". http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Two mains and the hook are normal proceedure.

Razor,
As far as single engine vs multi-engine lift performance goes:
Nose mounted prop aircraft have less effect for generating lift to the wing and is considered neglegable. Rudder effectiveness is much more paramount. That is an issue for multi-engine prop planes with the powerplants mounted on the wings where inducted lift from prop wash is much more of an issue. You can dump the power on a nose prop and glide it in with no substantial loss of lift to the wings; however, if you dump the power on a wing mounted multi prop plane you loose at least 25% of generated lift, which is why multi-prop aircraft tend to have a more power on apprach.

S!

Vidar

IV_JG51_Razor
05-20-2004, 03:08 PM
I'd have to disagree with you there Vidar. In my 1000+ hours in single and multi-engine airplanes, I'v always found that power on Stall was several knots slower than power off stall.

But just to make sure of my facts before I posted the other day, I asked a DER that's working with my company right now on an STC project for one of our helicopters. He's a retired FAA engineering test pilot and graduate of the Air Force's test pilot school at Edwards. He confirmed the fact that the power on stall speeds for most single engine prop planes (multi-engines weren't discussed) was slower than power off, due to the increased airflow over the wing (and flaps). He went on to say that it is even that way to a certain extent in jets, due to the vertical component of the thrust added to lift.

Maybe this difference would be more apparent if the pitot tube were installed at the wing root instaed of out near the wing tip.

" ....which is why multi-prop aircraft tend to have a more power on apprach." I don't understand what you're saying here Vidar. I'll admit that it's been a real long time since my last flight as a PIC in a twin, and even longer since my initial training for my MEL, but I certainly don't ever recall being taught to carry more power on the approach. Maybe it's because the trainer was just a little Beechcraft, I don't know. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

Razor
IV/JG51 Intelligence Officer
www.jg51.net (http://www.jg51.net)

"Good judgement comes from experience, and experience comes from poor judgement"

BSS_Vidar
05-20-2004, 04:06 PM
Poor choice of words on my part Razor, sorry. What I meant by "more" power during approach is keeping approach power in longer than you would in a single engine prop. Pulling the power too early for instance on the Piper Seneca I fly is a bad thing. The bottom drops right out loosing the extra lift provided my the prop wash. I don't go to idle till after I initiate the flair. In the Piper Warrior, Best glide is established (approx 72 kts) I start pulling power before I even reach the numbers.
In the S-3B Viking, its a constant throttle ajustment to maintain on-speed,AoA, and rate of decent all the way to the deck.

On the power-on vs power off, How much of a difference in speed are we talking between the two? I just did a stall series in the Seneca the other day. Power on wing clean, buffet occured at 75mph. Power-off buffet wing clean buffet occured at 76mph. Dirtied up, 62/64 respectively.
One the airspeed indicator, their's nothing to depict the two from one another. But their is for wing configuration. That's the point I was trying to make.

BSS_Vidar

IV_JG51_Razor
05-20-2004, 04:20 PM
I understand now, what you were saying about the power for a twin in the approach mode.

As for the difference between the two, I can't say. I've always been aware of a difference though. The NavAirNews article about the Bearcat stated the there was a significant difference. I guess that would be easy to buy, given the relationship of it's huge prop to the mid wing design of the F8F. This might be something that was much more prevelant in single engine fighters with huge powerplants and props, rather than in little general aviation aircraft.

Razor
IV/JG51 Intelligence Officer
www.jg51.net (http://www.jg51.net)

"Good judgement comes from experience, and experience comes from poor judgement"

Fliger747
05-20-2004, 11:04 PM
Vidar:

I expect that you still have your copy of "H.H. Hurd" kicking around somewhere. He gives a pretty good description of all of this from my recollection. The Seneca is a fun plane to fly, (Hershey Bar wing and all) I probably have a thousand or so hours in one (quite a few years ago!).

A friend of mine and one of my sometimes co-pilots was an Edwards test pilot. Another active Boeing test pilot (the guy that wrote the "book") taught me to fly the 747-400. Their engineering approach and resource background was impressive. A pretty low key lot, which might surprise many.

These discussions are I think a good exploration of what was and is an interesting part of aviation. It is typical of the discussions that many of us have when "hangar flying" almost any kind of real flying machine.

It is good in the simulation environment to give a flavor of real aviation to those not otherwise exposed. I hope everyone enjoys and learns something here. I know it has me thinking about many things that have escaped from the forefront of my active thought.

Best wishes to all from "somewhere in Asia".