Question for Acceleration Carrier Ops Guru's

PutPut

PutPut

Charter Member 2014
Every time I trap a tail dragger on a carrier equiped with Acceleration style arrestor cables it winds up tipping up on it's nose and then goes into an uncontrolable crash. I first noticed it with my own Grumman Skyrocket so I thought it might be my own mistake. However, I have the same problem with the Wyvern. It doesn't happen with tricycle gear planes such as the T-45, F-18, etc. Any idea what's happening here? I have played with the tail hook cable force adjustment and that doesn't seem to change anything.

Thanks, Paul
 
Hi Paul, I have done a lot of messing with taildraggers and now have all mine launching off the cat and landing without tipping over but it takes a bit of time juggling the tailhook location.

Try this on your Wyvern

[tailhook]
tailhook_length = 5.0
tailhook_position = -21.0, 0.0, -1.0
cable_force_adjust=6.0
 
Paul, I do not have the Grumman Skyrocket but what other taildraggers do you have problems with I may already have fixed some of them with cat and hook but bear in mind nearly all the ones I have done are British built or US aircraft that were used by the Royal Navy in WWII to use on the impending HMS Victorious of WWII vintage
 
That's OK, I am really working on the Skyrocket so I can upload it soon. I had to change the launch bar pivot point to get it to go straight off the carrier without tilting up or down (down, not so good!) so I have a handle on that. I obviously was not changing the cable force adjustment enough; I just changed it fron 1 to 10.0 on the Skyrocket and that is very close to doing the job. Your data works great on the Wyvern. Thanks for pointing in the right direction.

:ernae:

Paul
 
Paul, the hook location plays a big part part, I have found that you can rarely trap with the tailhook position on the visual tailhook on the model so I move it back towards the tail a little at a time test then move again if required which it usualy does and you end up with the virtual hook a good bit behind the visual but it works, may take a little time but worth it I think anyway it keeps me quiet


[tailhook]
tailhook_length = 5.0
tailhook_position = -21.0, 0.0, -1.0
cable_force_adjust=6.0
 
Yup, moved the virtual hook back .5 ft. at a time and at 1 ft back from the visual position it doesn't tip over. Thanks again, Paul
 
In doing development work on a not to be named naval aircraft with hundreds of arrested landings on the "Big E", I found that approach speed must be spot on with proper wind over the deck. Typical wind over the deck should be 35 knots or so, though 25 will often do. For a typical naval aircraft of WWII, 75, 85 knots IAS should be the range to shoot for depending on the aircraft, certainly not over 90 knots even for a F4U. Make sure that you are down to a reasonable landing weight!

Cheers: T
 
Hi!
I agree with you Fliger747, but I'm a little concerned with tail dragger navy planes. It seems that FSX/Acceleration is applying the trap/caught deceleration on the main gear and not on the tailhook position. It could be a good explaination for some crashes.
But as Fliger747 said, most of the time, this is due to a too much speed... Naval aircraft trap/caught speed are roughly about 10% over the stall speed which is not really a "comfortable" speed for a simmer pilot like you and me... :bump:

Regards,
S.
 
Fliger nailed it.

Approach profile is king. You should be hitting the deck just above stall speed & in a 3 point stance. When in that configuration typically when the wire is caught it will pull you level & then the tail will drop back to the deck.
 
Previous discussions indicated that Acceleration modeling of trapping and catapulting is based on trike gear which is why modifying the entries to be unrealistic (meaning not at visual location) are required to get expected performance.

With enough practice and no modifications I can land the Hellcat and occasionally the F4U without crashing.

Rich, are you willing/able to post all your modifications? I would love to get more trikes catapulting. I understand that these settings don't work for everyone (tried some before unsuccessfully), but I would love to try.
 
My findings for failure to trap, very often bouncing over the wires = gear needs looking at, the default cable force adjust of 1 is to low = wire breaking if you like then piloting adds to it.

I have a static Clemancau ? parked in Manila bay with no wind which I use for proving arrested landings and can land all my aircraft on it with no problems except for my bad piloting, these landings are often with full fuel and payload unrealistic but it works likewise with a bit of overspeed.

Landing on the moving Ark Royal and Victorious steaming at 29 kts is obviously more realistic and satisfying landing on a moving runway but arrested landings on a static carrier with no wind and with full load though unrealistic can be done.

mfitch, the Hellcat is one of the few to trap straight out of the box, the reason for this I think is because the hook is so far back and in more or less the correct location on the visible model, moving the hook back on other aircraft where the vis hook is forward of the tail will reduce/stop nose over. What aircraft settings are you looking for bearing in mind I have only done British built or US aircraft used by the Royal Navy.

I have spent god knows how many hours looking at accel carrier arrested and cat launched work, unfortunately there is no way launch speed can be adjusted so the cat launch of the Swordfish we are working on is way out at around 200kts since its top speed is only around 130.

I think it is more to do with FSX computing leverage than maingear location as I also once thought, further back = more leverage

I am happy with my results.
 
Landing slow enough, which for the F4U-?? was about 87 knots IAS over the ramp at say 11,000 lbs, cut the gun, hold the stick back and she would settle tail first, boof inhto the wire.... a little tail rise as she catches the wire, but pretty close! Full fuel, no wind over the deck and the hook would probably depart the aircraft with who knows what attached....

T.
 
I am not arguing the real world we are talking of the half baked FSX world we have, there are far to many taildraggers that cannot be launched or trapped without them tipping over this includes both payware and freeware all I have done is worked out how to stop the nose over and make them cat capable and in doing it found they can be landed overweight and a bit fast with no wind over the deck not that I advocate doing it , probably easier without a 1600 lb torpedo hang off it, just dispelling the myth that it can't be done.

I will leave it there and cease this time wasting execise but at least one person is happy all my taildraggers launch and land well enough for me, I suspect a lot of people blame themselves for the inability to land on a carrier and are very frustrated and may never try again so money wasted if it was a payware model.
 
Rich,

Thanks for your input on this. I have only recently started enjoying carrier landings (using Thrawn's excellent USS Nimitz) and your data is much appreciated.

Thanks again :icon29:

Andrew
 
Andy, many thanks for your post, I only use Ark Royal and HMS Victorious which you should very soon be able to get your paws on, much smaller and very challenging, not that interested in modern jets later than the Buccaneer my stuff is mainly prop jobs, anything you are looking for cat and hook wise ?
 
But...<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:eek:ffice:eek:ffice" /><o:p></o:p>
The Aircraft factory Corsair does not seem to have a tailhook section in its cfg file...<o:p></o:p>
 
Stickshaker said:
But...<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:eek:ffice:eek:ffice" /><o:p></o:p>
The Aircraft factory Corsair does not seem to have a tailhook section in its cfg file...<o:p></o:p>
Click to expand...

Hi!
That's because the tailhook elements are coded into the model. If I had well understood some posts on this point, if you add a tailhook section into the Aircraft.cfg, it will overrirde the coded elements.

Regards,
S.
 
sparouty said:
Hi!
That's because the tailhook elements are coded into the model. If I had well understood some posts on this point, if you add a tailhook section into the Aircraft.cfg, it will overrirde the coded elements.

Regards,
S.
Click to expand...

Actually, the SDK says if you add a tailhook section to the aircraft .cfg, it will override any tailhook data coded into the model.

Paul
 
True if the tailhook is hard coded in the model it can be over written in the aircraft.cfg, will need to look at my Corsair I know I added cat launch but not sure about tail hook entries that one I think worked ok with minimal nose over
 
Just looked at my Aircraft factory Corsair and I have done nothing with the tailhook as it is in the model and works fine, one of the few that do straight out of the box, I just added cat launch to it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top