• 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

  • Server side Maintenance is done. We still have an update to the forum software to run but that one will have to wait for a better time.

Great Lakes Aircraft Carriers

Cool!

Nice pics. Thanks Tony. They show just another reason why the US Navy was able to graduate so many highly qualified pilots during WWll and overwhelm the Japanese. Learning to take off and land was a dangerous enough business at best. The availability of these training ships in the relative safety of inland lakes allowed U.S pilots to perfect those skills. Great stuff.
 
That was indeed an interesting 2 or so hours I spent beginning on the link you posted Tony2. I was not aware of a manned/unmanned drone during WWII by the Naval Aircraft Factory and called TDN-1 before. I do remember that remote controlled B-17 loaded with explosives that killed Joe Kennedy and thought it never went much beyond that research. Makes me wonder how many other aircraft I know nothing about. It also seems I learn something historically new every time I come here to the basement! Thank you again Tony...excellent! In fact, thank you all.

:USA-flag:
 
Great link and photos of two truly unique CV's. The Buffalo Naval & Military Park has a home-built 5ft long model of the USS Sable, ex-SS Greater Buffalo, on display in their museum building. I thought it was a pretty impressively detailed model until I happened upon the counterpart model of the SS Greater Buffalo at a random estate sale last year. What a jaw-dropper she was! They wanted a cool $2500 for her though

:icon_eek:
 
First TRAPS!

Ok.....did a couple of traps on Lake Michigan. Hit the second or third wires and I'm fine. IX-64 looks great. No trouble getting on board, but as I taxied to the stern to try a takeoff my AC fell right through the deck and into the lake. Not over the edge, through the deck.

So, next I set up to begin the mission at take off and at start up, I'm in the water again. I mean I don't even start out at deck level.
Seems like the back section of the IX-64 is just for looks.
 
sounds like the deck is missing some planks. i wonder if something happened to the CFG file.

does this look right to you

[platform.0]
; platforms are the actual surface that the planes
; land on. You can define as many platforms as you
; want by adding subsequent sections with increasing
; numbers. e.g. [platform.1], [platform.2] etc.
;
; vertices should be defined in model coordinates,
; and counter-clockwise order when viewed from above.
: REMEMBER, positive z is out the TAIL of the ship
; the shape may be concave or convex
; there may be from 3 to 20 vertices (limitation
; may go away later) and they must all be on the same
; plane.
vertex.0=-11.025,8,68.294
vertex.1=11.025,8,68.294
vertex.2=13.475,8,-58.187
vertex.3=11.025,8,-65.844
vertex.4=-11.025,8,-65.844
vertex.5=-13.475,8,-58.187

whats the deck height?

we should check this. and see how it sits.
 
ok here is a realy bad pic but those are the vertex locations marked with smoke


View attachment 84120

if you want to add it for testing here are the entries to put into the DP

[EXTRA.8]
location=-11.025,8,68.294
effect=fx_marker

[EXTRA.9]
location=11.025,8,68.294
effect=fx_marker

[EXTRA.10]
location=13.475,8,-58.187
effect=fx_marker

[EXTRA.11]
location=11.025,8,-65.844
effect=fx_marker

[EXTRA.12]
location=-11.025,8,-65.844
effect=fx_marker

[EXTRA.13]
location=-13.475,8,-58.187
effect=fx_marker
 
I've noticed that most carriers have 10 vertex's. maybe thats the problem here? not enough.

it also has 6 cables.
 
Boy are you leaning on a weak reed BH. I don't even know what a vertex is, let alone how to add planks to the platform. But I'm eager to learn so tell me what to do and I'll give it a try.
 
Worthless said:
Boy are you leaning on a weak reed BH. I don't even know what a vertex is, let alone how to add planks to the platform. But I'm eager to learn so tell me what to do and I'll give it a try.
Click to expand...

i think that most cover the whole ship but there must be gaps or holes. looking at the pic it seems that the middle of the ship could use more.

ok from what i see the width is 11.025 per side except for that section that is 13.475. i think these are in meters.

i think they are out of order. so lets try this first.

vertex.0=-11.025,8,-65.844
vertex.1=-13.475,8,-58.187
vertex.2=-11.025,8,68.294
vertex.3=11.025,8,68.294
vertex.4=13.475,8,-58.187
vertex.5=11.025,8,-65.844

that puts them in a counter-clockwise order. i think... negitive is left correct. hummm.

that should fix the holes. what we can do is add 2 more here

vertex.0=-11.025,8,-65.844
vertex.1=-13.475,8,-58.187
vertex.2=-13.475,8,58.187
vertex.3=-11.025,8,68.294
vertex.4=11.025,8,68.294
vertex.5=13.475,8,58.187
vertex.6=13.475,8,-58.187
vertex.7=11.025,8,-65.844

now this might not be the correct pattern of the ship. i'll put it through ACM and get the coords.
but this is a start.
 
I changed the Ship.cfg to your new setup but the AC still falls through the deck.
Moving the take off position up 20 got my AC out of the water, so I'm dry at least, for now.

takeoff_start=0,21,-70....original

takeoff_start=0,21,-50....modified

Still, this ship only had a deck length of 500ft.....per the VN readme.... and that's barley enough length to get airborne, using an F4F-3 with 20% flaps and trimmed for take off.

The readme also states that it is doubtful these ships were capable of 20 knots and on low wind days operations were curtailed due to low WOD, wind over the deck.
 
Worthless said:
I changed the Ship.cfg to your new setup but the AC still falls through the deck.
Moving the take off position up 20 got my AC out of the water, so I'm dry at least, for now.

takeoff_start=0,21,-70....original

takeoff_start=0,21,-50....modified

Still, this ship only had a deck length of 500ft.....per the VN readme.... and that's barley enough length to get airborne, using an F4F-3 with 20% flaps and trimmed for take off.

The readme also states that it is doubtful these ships were capable of 20 knots and on low wind days operations were curtailed due to low WOD, wind over the deck.
Click to expand...


yeah I think the main point of them where to get pilots to follow proceedures and get them up to speed on landings. that way when they went to the fleet they had some practice and experience to rely on.

i'll get more coords and try to set the deck up. It would be kool to do a training mission set in the proper location.
 
Deck fixed

Hey Worthless,

Ok with your fix and a new deck she works perfectly now. I was able to go all over the deck without any issues.

I'm adding this folder with a modified DP and CFG. the max speed will be 21 knots. i also adjusted the LOS so you will land on deck not before it. it might not be perfect but i had no trouble.

i'm adding my test mission so you can jump right in. I used all stock ships and wildcat so everything should work well.

View attachment 84244

Let me know how it goes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top