• 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

Ooh. I hate it when that happens.

Status
Not open for further replies.
The CG on a real Taildragger is traditionally forward most aircraft. Especially with Fighters with big radial engines, shorter fuselages with forward wings and main gear. The real aircraft were very prone to nose over for a host of reasons and they displayed the tendency to pitch forward/tail up when decelerating during arresting.

As Helldiver rightly points out, during low/zero wind conditions the Carriers would steam at the highest speed to provide sufficient forward speed for launch and traps. In optimum conditions, you point the deck into the wind which makes for more optimum launch & trap characteristics. The rest is a matter of approach profile, speed parameters , & technique. Stay off the brakes during the trap deceleration!

A good video to check out:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RJWWOEO2Asc

A couple of more:

Corsair Training Video:
http://www.zenoswarbirdvideos.com/wvx/F4UWM100.wvx

Hellcat:
http://www.zenoswarbirdvideos.com/wvx/F6F150.wvx
<input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><!--Session data--><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden"><input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><!--Session data--><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden"><input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><!--Session data--><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden">
 
Athough we didn't use "trapping" in World War Two.
We called it catching the hook.
Trapping only came about later on with the Jets.
Like what you would do with some vermin.
 
HD's right about the wind and carriers. When I was on the Lexington, if there was little to no wind, we'd speed up and make our own across the deck.
 
I accept that carrier speed is required/desirable mine are doing 29 Kts or 33.5 near enough MPH but I can still land on a static carrier.

Mal the problem with the models that tip on the nose is the hook attachment needs moving back not incorrect COG, messing with that will upset the flight dynamics, the brake settings can be adjusted in the aircraft.cfg I am concerned with the tail hook settings

I think a lot of the real world problems with taildraggers tipping up was bad positioning of the hook, the Seafire was a prime example they ended up reducing prop blade length by 6 inches due to so many prop strikes.

I believe a lot of the tailhook settings are copy pasted from some other aircraft and not properly tested and fixed if required.

My thought is more leverage is applied when the hook is further back as in the late model Seafires and a lot of the US carrier had the stinger type hook right from the start but I have had models of US aircraft with the visual hook coming out of the rear of the fuselage as it should but the cfg hook attach point is way in front of it resulting in nose overs, move it to the visual hook and problem solved.

I think Ms never even thought that some loonies would want to use taildraggers.

A couple of screenies that may serve to illustrate what I am talking about on the aircraft this thread is about but you can take it the same applies to others that nose over, I have spent more hours than I care to remember finding the cause of the problem and the cure.
 
Rich, I agree that some models are as you noted with improper hook geometry in the config and that clearly aggravates an already imperfect aspect of FSX. Some model configs seem to have the hook geometry correct while others way too forward as you noted. I have made those adjustments to models I felt had the deficiency but upon testing I took note that there was still a tendency to tip forward a good bit when arresting/decelerating albeit not as bad as before the tailhook geometry change. The whole idea about the benefit adding wind down the deck came up in a similar discussion here some time ago. One of the aspects of a real taildragger and even the dynamics of a model in FSX performing carrier arresting is that the tendency for tipping behavior normally comes from being above optimum speed and/or touching down mains first and not in a good 3 point technique. When either or both of those factors are in play(even with the hook mod) the natural tendency for all that decelerating momentum(being arrested/braked from the rear) and engine/nose weight is to tip forward. That's why in addition to the hook mod, the additional wind component along with proper technique/speeds can help make catching the wire a bit more controllable and enjoyable. If nothing else, trying wind settings can't hurt. It won't need lots!
<input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><!--Session data--><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden">
 
Storm, My 29 Kts ship speed will do for me if I can land on a stationary carrier without tipping over, I wonder how many people have dumped a taildragger or given up on them due to bad placing of the tail hook.

These are the taildraggers I have and either worked out of the box or have been fixed.

FSX Wyvern
FDG2 F4f-3 Martlet = Port
AH Seafires = Port
AH Seahurricanes = Port
AH Early Corsairs = Port
FSX Sea Gladiator
JF Martlet
FSX Sea Hornets
FSX Swordfish OK out of the box
ALPHA Blackburn Firebrand = Port
Skyraiders 1 FSX + 1 Port
RF/Vertigo F6F_Hellcat OK out of the box
AF_F4U-1A OK out of the box I think
JFFSX_Mosquito_MKTR33 (Sea Mosquito) a port I think
 
Rich said:
Storm, My 29 Kts ship speed will do for me if I can land on a stationary carrier without tipping over, I wonder how many people have dumped a taildragger or given up on them due to bad placing of the tail hook.

These are the taildraggers I have and either worked out of the box or have been fixed.

FSX Wyvern
FDG2 F4f-3 Martlet = Port
AH Seafires = Port
AH Seahurricanes = Port
AH Early Corsairs = Port
FSX Sea Gladiator
JF Martlet
FSX Sea Hornets
FSX Swordfish OK out of the box
ALPHA Blackburn Firebrand = Port
Skyraiders 1 FSX + 1 Port
RF/Vertigo F6F_Hellcat OK out of the box
AF_F4U-1A OK out of the box I think
Click to expand...

Rich, I used hook mods for the Sea Hornets, Piglet's Skyraider, and the Wyvern(made a huge difference with that model!). All 3 of them displayed exaggerated tipping tendencies prior. Regarding the stationary carriers, I too have had better luck with them and can't say why. The moving AI Carriers are a very dynamic animal for sure.

Besides the hook geometry modification on some models, wind/forward speed, I ended up curing landing problems just by a lot of practice. I bought the RF Hellcat the day it came out and the Dauntless since then. My first carrier landings with the F6F were anything but perfect and I had tipovers. I was coming in too flat and fast well enough outside of profile to make a good landing. Once I got the feel of flying the plane in the proper speed and attitude on lineup and then a good 3 point landing at power cut followed by full backpressure on arresting, it all came together. With that and the other enhancements(wind and hook geometry), I never have tipovers anymore. It's all a matter of multiple elements rather than a singular element that make or break the capability to obtain a good clean wire catch/landing.






<input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><!--Session data--><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden">
<input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><!--Session data--><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden"><input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><!--Session data--><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden">
 
Storm, which Sea Hornets are you using Alphasim or Rob Richardsons, if Robs they should have been ok as I gave him tailhook settings when he was building it.
I use my own flight dynamics on Robs Hornets so not sure how his setup works.

The Wyvern you can slap me around for, I was doing the flight dynamics for the Fs 9 version but dropped out of the circle for a good while then found it released as a FSX native with the Fs9 version dropped and only loaded FSX after the FSX Wyvern was released or I would probably still be on Fs9.

I found out about the nose over pretty quick and set about finding the cause and the cure, thats what started me on fixing all the others I have.

This is what I have for the Wyvern is it close to yours

[tailhook]
tailhook_length = 5.0
tailhook_position = -21.0, 0.0, -1.0
cable_force_adjust=6.0

The Flying Stations Swordfish I did so I knew that was ok though the Alphasim model I had prior to the Flying stations release needed fixing for FSX
 
Rich(sorry I said Rob the first attempt at this post, been a long day/night), my Wyvern mod was close to that but I am going to try yours and see how it does. It's a superb model no doubt. I am glad you did a workaround on the hook issue. I was beating my head against the wall trying to trap that one. I would say it is a complete model now with that mod!
I have RR's Sea Hornets. I am thinking I may have tweaked them some but I will have a look at them later to verify.

I was one of you guy's Beta testers for the Swordfish. Such a joy to fly and it did nearly perfect on my deck trials. Stingbag's a keeper!
<input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><!--Session data--><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden"><input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><!--Session data--><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden">
 
Storm are you using the Flight dynamics that came with Robs Hornets ? I posted my alternatives on Classic British Files and Avsim.com, search for ruscoe on avsim no one has complained yet, take note of the readme if you use max realism

Thanks for the beta testing, at my age I can remember seeing a odd few around
 
Rich, If you ever landed on a real carrier whle it was stationary at 90 to 100 MPH you would rip out evey wire and crash through the barrier and what was left would go into the sea..
 
Helldiver, I know what you are saying and agree wind speed over the deck is highly desirable.

This is to test the models I modify to stop nose over not for normal flying I am not stupid, time I think to keep my findings to myself.
 
Hey Rich,
Never mind getting involved in the drama of who's right-who's wrong discussions. That seems to be a favorite passtime here at SOH. They are usually the longest running threads.

Your fix works just fine for me and on a few other aircraft including the Skyraider. I never was able to catch the wire with that plane until I used your tailhook setting so thanks for that.

Any other thoughts feel free to PM me.

BR's,
mal
 
Mal thanks for that, happily those settings will work on the Skyraider too, is that Tim Conrads model ? I did one for that too unfortunately the Royal Navy only used the AEW version so I had to buy one.

I was not talking real world and static carriers I was talking getting them to work with the vagaries of FSX and the hook placement being wrong.

All my fixes are individually tailored as one does not always fit all

Any on my list you want ?
 
Rich, I can personally assure you that myself and Helldiver added our comments not for the sake of thread "drama" here or for a personal need to contradict your knowledge of the issue at hand with FSX AI Carrier Ops. Helldiver was a real SB2C crewman in WW2, I am a Pilot with significant time in taildraggers like the Citabria Decathlon, L-4, & Pitts S2B. I've learned the ropes about high power nose heavy taildraggers with critical CG's and how they handle on approach, landing, and rollout and so to that extent I have a good understanding about the dynamics of what is involved in landing a big radial engine aircraft/taildragger on a carrier deck.

My comments on this thread were an attempt to assert that there are multiple elements to the dynamics of landing a taildragger on a moving deck and that the little quirks encountered with FSX in simulating that environment are not all that dissimilar to what might be encountered with the real environment. My assertions regarding those elements were to help aid in making the experience for average simmers a little better though understanding the said elements/dynamics.

Again, there was no intention of a horse race to show who's knowledge or technique on the subject was superior to the other.

:salute:


<input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><!--Session data--><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden">
 
Storm, I accept your view and what Helldiver says but I did TRY to explain that I was working on the vagaries of FSX and attempting to get things working as they should in this case hook placement mods.

Being Welsh maybe my English is not good enough for Helldiver to grasp as he keeps coming back with real world stuff which I know and understand and have explained this is FSX, not everyone is up to or want to look for a fix so drops the idea of ever making a arrested landing with a tail dragger so loosing that enjoyment in FSX.

There are still a lot of things being investigated to find work around answers in FSX, it is by no means perfect.
 
This is one of those times where FSX proves itself to be a piece of PC software and not the real world, isn't it.

The way carrier landings work in FSX has been hard-wired around making it look good - not work right - with a fast jet. A tricycle aircraft. As someone has already said earlier, evidently ACES never thought anyone would be mad enough to want to try and land taildraggers using their code.

I don't need real world taildragger experience or real world carrier operations experience to know that what happened when I landed that Martlet was physically impossible. The aircraft was stationary, tail low, elevator right back, throttle idle, on the deck of a moving ship, after which it very, very, slowly pivoted forwards to land on its prop. The prop stopped, supporting the nose on one blade. However you look it it, that just isn't going to happen.

From my perspective, this thing is a simulator for entertainment that has some (limited) application in real-world training. Everything that we do in this sim, whatever we are developing, is a fudge to look right or behave as close to correctly as we can get it. If I come at it from that perspective and it means I have to make a tweak here or a tweak there to do what I need, so be it.

I've modified the hook position for the Wildcats and Martlets and can now land them every time, without having to spend hours setting the wind up and convincing the carrier to sail directly into it. Provided the carrier is moving, which I always make it, that's enough for me to have fun, which is all I'm doing.

I know and understand the real world physics, but rather the same as the wheels aren't actually connected to the body of the model I just made and it doesn't have an engine, it works for what I need it to do! :)

Back to texturing this little buggy now to see if it looks less bad when dressed up.

Cheers all!
 
IanP said:
This is one of those times where FSX proves itself to be a piece of PC software and not the real world, isn't it.

The way carrier landings work in FSX has been hard-wired around making it look good - not work right - with a fast jet. A tricycle aircraft. As someone has already said earlier, evidently ACES never thought anyone would be mad enough to want to try and land taildraggers using their code.

I don't need real world taildragger experience or real world carrier operations experience to know that what happened when I landed that Martlet was physically impossible. The aircraft was stationary, tail low, elevator right back, throttle idle, on the deck of a moving ship, after which it very, very, slowly pivoted forwards to land on its prop. The prop stopped, supporting the nose on one blade. However you look it it, that just isn't going to happen.

From my perspective, this thing is a simulator for entertainment that has some (limited) application in real-world training. Everything that we do in this sim, whatever we are developing, is a fudge to look right or behave as close to correctly as we can get it. If I come at it from that perspective and it means I have to make a tweak here or a tweak there to do what I need, so be it.

I've modified the hook position for the Wildcats and Martlets and can now land them every time, without having to spend hours setting the wind up and convincing the carrier to sail directly into it. Provided the carrier is moving, which I always make it, that's enough for me to have fun, which is all I'm doing.

I know and understand the real world physics, but rather the same as the wheels aren't actually connected to the body of the model I just made and it doesn't have an engine, it works for what I need it to do! :)

Back to texturing this little buggy now to see if it looks less bad when dressed up.

Cheers all!
Click to expand...

As of this afternoon, I was able to thoroughly test this model for about 2 hours in AI Carriers all thanks to my friend John for allowing me to use his PC & FSX for the afternoon to do this and other tests.. No hook modification, wind set for trials from 8 and up to 16 knots, no problems grabbing the wire for 25 plus landings! To make it harder, I set up moderate to heavy turbulence and a slight crosswind and still no problem. Adding Rich's hook mod seemed to make it easier and especially so at low wind.

I like this little model and it flies great. I think I am going to buy it this evening to add to my WW2 Carrier Bird Collection.

<input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><!--Session data--><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden">
 
I know that FSX will never approach real life but I'll keep pushing.
To show how important the head wind was on Carriers aircraft operation, here's a picture of a Carrier making a turn into the wind. They would travel at flank speed with the wind to her back and then turn 180 degrees to head right into the wind. Anyone that landed with a cross wind, ended up going over the side or hitting the island.


View attachment 23172
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top