• There seems to be an uptick in Political comments in recent months. Those of us who are long time members of the site know that Political and Religious content has been banned for years. Nothing has changed. Please leave all political and religious comments out of the forums.

    If you recently joined the forums you were not presented with this restriction in the terms of service. This was due to a conversion error when we went from vBulletin to Xenforo. We have updated our terms of service to reflect these corrections.

    Please note any post refering to a politician will be considered political even if it is intended to be humor. Our experience is these topics have a way of dividing the forums and causing deep resentment among members. It is a poison to the community. We appreciate compliance with the rules.

    The Staff of SOH

  • Please see the most recent updates in the "Where did the .com name go?" thread. Posts number 16 and 17.

    Post 16 Update

    Post 17 Warning

Just Getting Into Carrier Ops - Where to Start

Rich said:
TARPSBird, just confirm you have FSX acceleration, I have my carriers set up on fixed routes and times not using AI carriers.

Currently have HMS Ark Royal and HMS Victorious plying routes in and out of Manila Bay and north south back and fore between Subic and the mouth of Manila bay
Click to expand...

I also have several moving carriers set up using Lamont Clark's AI Boat Utility.
They steam around on various courses in different parts of the world.

Unfortunately, Lamont's web site is no longer active and that was the only place that
you could download that utility. However, anyone that has created the traffic BGL's
can share them with others. I'm away from my sim computer so I'm unable to
share my creations for another couple of weeks.

That old "static" carrier off the Golden Gate is pointed in the wrong direction
for the prevailing westerly winds on the San Francisco coast, I removed it long
ago as well as the navaid associated with it.

Paul
 
Rich,
Per your suggestion I installed HMS Victorious and the Swordfish and have already successfully trapped aboard in the flight that has Vic in the Med off the coast of Algeria. Noticed the ship has a single cat on the bow but have not attempted a cat shot.
 
Tarps what aircraft are you using ?

Sorry see you have the Swordfish, it does not have cat launch ability, we left it off because Swordfish top speed 130kts FSX throws it off at 170 kts


These are the tailhook and launch settings I had on Tims Spad settings

[tailhook]
tailhook_length = 6.0
tailhook_position = -25.000, 0.000, -0.500
cable_force_adjust = 6.0

[launch_assistance]
launch_bar_pivot = 4.41,0.00,-3.5
launch_bar_lug = 10.6, 0.0, -9.50
 
The only American carrier planes I have are prop aircraft used By the Royal Navy my Navy jets are all British plus 2 turbo props also British.
 
Tarps, Traffic files for Ark Royal and Victorious in Manila Bay with a bit of explanation, I fly off Sangley AB.
 
Some info on the Victorious 1940 model, you may find some lumps and bumps on the deck from the island forward to the left, this is not down to bad modeling it is exactly as the real
thing was at that time, the cat launch was raised to accommodate the piston.
 
Tarps, I am thinking you are taking the steam you see as the cat if yes the I am afraid it's not steam cats did not come out until after the war before they were hydraulic and compressed air, nowhere near the power of steam.

You can just see where the cat box is in this pic
 
Rich, I wonder, were later british carriers (WWII era & Light Fleets) able to use deck parks?

Craig :) :salute:
 
Craig, depends what you call deck parks, on recovery aircraft were parked forward of the crash barriers on launch they were at the back there were also outrigger parking where the tail was outside the deck area.

Much the same as US carriers I suspect.

The pics of Victorious I posted were early WIP the full length pic of the release would have had some Sea Hurricanes parked with their tails sticking out over the sea
 
SADT said:
Rich, I wonder, were later british carriers (WWII era & Light Fleets) able to use deck parks?

Craig :) :salute:
Click to expand...

The original plan for the Illustrious class was to rely on the armoured deck and hide everything in the hangar during air raids as it was thought impossible to protect a carrier from sustained attack from shore based aircraft. In European waters this to some extent was a reasonable assumption, especially considering the poor performance of RN fighters at the start of the war. If you look at the history of Illustrious post the Taranto raid if they hadn't done that they would have lost the ship in bombing raids.

However in day to day operations the RN used deck parks on all its carriers, even those on Artic convoy work. Actually some of those didn't have hangars being converted merchant men. Certainly in the Pacific it would have been impossible to get all the aircraft embarked in the hangar and the same is true of operations in Korea.

Incidentally Rich seems to be using an earlier build of Victorious than the final release as that features Sea Hurricanes parked on the outriggers down the starboard side.
 
Thanks Skip, Yes I edited my post re Vic outriggers and the Pic I posted was a early Wip shot, my excuse is I was tank crew and the nearest I got to a carrier was in up country Aden now south Yemen when 2 RAF Hunters conducted 2 flights of Sea Vixens off 2 RN carriers in the gulf of Aden Eagle I think was one and maybe Hermes or Albion, it was in the preparation of the withdrawal from Aden to let the bad lads know they had a bit more than the RAF Hunters to contend with.
 
Opinions seem to vary about the armoured flight decks. One the one hand Illustrious herself survived Stukas in the Mediterranean, and they undoubtedly saved more than one of the class from sinking by kamikazes late in the war. On the other, unarmoured decks might have allowed more fighters to be carried in the Pacific, which might have prevented the kamikazes reaching the carriers in the first place. On balance, thinking of Franklin and Intrepid, and remembering how few British carriers were available to replace damaged ships, the armoured deck was probably a good thing. One wonders how the unarmoured light fleet carriers, while fine for projecting sea power in the post war years, would have coped with kamikaze attacks.
 
It is interesting that not one of the Essex class carriers was sunk despite damage that would have sunk any carrier earlier in the war. Good damage control. The Midway class finally had enough tonnage to have an armored flight deck, a feature just not feasable to combine on a smaller tonnage with sufficent offensive power.

A fairtly thin deck could protect against the Kanakaze threat (due to the low velocity and often glancing angle), but not AP bombs dropped from any altitude. Any ship is a compromise and certainly the Kamikaze threat could not be reasonably anticipated. Most warships have been sunk by explosion and fire of their own ordinance stores and fuel.

Cheers: T
 
The Essex class had 2 and half inch armor for the hanger bay deck protecting everything lower from bombs. Lord knows I had to shut and raise those counterweighted hatches enough during GQ on the Lexington.
 
Yup, and must have worked. They were nominally protected from Cruiser fire in the vitals, the thinking at the time of design (pre war) was that a cruiser was the most likely surface threat as the Battleships of the era did not mostly have the speed to catch them. Probably the reason the Lex and Sara had 8 x 8" armament originally. Later of course aircraft were the threat and the original decision was to rely a lot on the air group for defense.

If you heard the 20 mm in action, time to hit the deck!

T
 
Made a few landings aboard HMS Ark Royal in Manila Bay. Very nice ship model (love the "meatball" lights) but my landings just aren't working out, too many nose-overs and cartwheels down the deck. So far I still prefer the old FS9 carrier ops with Arrestor Cables or the RCBCO gauges, and fixed-position carriers.
 
TARPSBird said:
Made a few landings aboard HMS Ark Royal in Manila Bay. Very nice ship model (love the "meatball" lights) but my landings just aren't working out, too many nose-overs and cartwheels down the deck. So far I still prefer the old FS9 carrier ops with Arrestor Cables or the RCBCO gauges, and fixed-position carriers.
Click to expand...

Hello Tarps,

That sounds very odd. Just out of curiousity, did you download the latest version of the Ark from Flying Stations? I seem to recall earlier versions had some weird crash issues. Mine's rock stable in the sim.

Also, as a troubleshooting measure, try another carrier, like the Clem or the Essex - with the exact same aircraft. Are you getting the same issues? If so, then it's not likely the ship. Also, maybe make sure your FSUIPC is updated. When on the carrier, does your plane sit still, or does it bounce around?

Noseovers? What aircraft? I know that "out of the box" a lot of the taildraggers perform badly, nosing over harshly. But Rich has done fixes for most all of them - usually small fixes in how the tailhook is positioned (dynamically, not visually) - and life is good. That said, I've never had a noseover on a tricycle gear plane ...

Cartwheeling? Again, what plane? And at speed are you approaching and then touching down? What weight or fuel% are you coming aboard with? I can't recall ever having a landing go that bad - though I've had my share of ramp strikes ... :sleep:

None of what you describe is normal, assuming you are flying within the approach speeds and weights of the particular aircraft. So the good news, it should be fixable - just need more data ... but help us by trying to isolate it to a particular plane and/or carrier.

talk soon,

dl
 
The fixes help, but usually the biggest reason for nose overs with the WWII birds is to fast a landing speed over the deck. This comes from (1) not enough wind over the deck, 30 knots is nice, from a combination of the carrier steaming into the wind and the wind itself. (2) too high an approach speed. Fist factor in that is to be at a fairly light weight, second is to get used to slow speed amnuvreing, it can be hairy with some aircraft.

The SOH Tigercat is a pretty good deck lander as you have a good view over the nose and it is stable.

T
 
Another excellent (and historically accurate) choice to fly off the Ark Royal is Rob Richardson’s superb Fairey Gannet series. Very low wing loading = low approach speeds, and the cockpit position gives you good visibility too.<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:eek:ffice:eek:ffice" /><o:p></o:p>
<o:p> </o:p>
Hands down the easiest plane I’ve found to land aboard a carrier has been <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:eek:ffice:smarttags" /><st1:City w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Richardson</st1:place></st1:City>’s Sea Hornet. Extremely slow landing speed, lots of power if needed. Even as a tail dragger, no tipover or otherwise untoward behaviour. Best visibility in the business, I’d say, sitting a few feet behind the nose, with neither guns nor engine in the way. Unfortunately, no historically accurate carrier – I choose the Flying Stations Victorious – best fit for now. <o:p></o:p>
<o:p> </o:p>
Again, you want to isolate are the issues with a particular plane versus a particular carrier. <o:p></o:p>
<o:p> </o:p>
Let us know ….<o:p></o:p>
<o:p> </o:p>
dl<o:p></o:p>
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top