Gravity for loaded cargo inverted?

[H60MTI]

Yeah, I had to play with that when trying a CARP on Nellis for testing and practice. Something always has to be there, and it's not 0. Even though I was on an open airfield with nothing around...

[Someone]

3 minutes ago, H60MTI said:

Yeah, I had to play with that when trying a CARP on Nellis for testing and practice. Something always has to be there, and it's not 0. Even though I was on an open airfield with nothing around...

Can you clarify what you're referring to? 

Also: if you guys join the discord (or even dm me on it), I can be more helpful /responsive there.

[H60MTI]

From everything I've seen, that's why they use the drogue chutes. It rips it out regardless of deck angle. Granted I have seen no drogue chute drops but that thing went 45* up and the pallets literally dropped out the back. Was really cool to see Lol

[Jenrick]

9 minutes ago, Someone said:

There are two factors at play here, both of which matter equally for the cargo to exit:

1) the deck angle. as discussed above, the deck angle should be 7 or so degrees.

2) The acceleration of the plane, relative to the cargo, post unlock.

If you are flying level, and unlock the cargo, it wont move. 

If you THEN pull the nose up, you are increasing the deck angle, but you are ALSO decelerating. When the plane decelerates relative to the cargo (which is now unlocked, and not attached to the plane), it will move forward, relative to the airplane.

 

So, yes, the deck produces a component of acceleration, but not enough to trump the acceleration of the plane, relative to the cargo. When you nose up abruptly, you slow, and it moves forward. 

When you nose down, your plane is accelerating AWAY from the cargo, and it can come out.

Okay, that makes sense, momentum and all that.  I am going to see what happens in a sustained climb, at a certain point the cargo should exit.

Regardless of all that per @Nodaks post above:

22 hours ago, Nodak said:

Having been a loady on starlifters and herc's way back in the 80's and 90's cargo moving forward should never even be a possibility, there's always going to be some sort of system preventing it, whether rail locks, physical block, or a strap gate.

 

21 hours ago, Nodak said:

Correct, CDS doesn't use rail locks, why there's a limit on the container size and weight.  But they used gates to prevent forward motion,

So having something to prevent the cargo from going forward is needed, which would prevent what appears to be a physics bug which is actually just a nice example of conservation of momentum.

[Jenrick]

19 minutes ago, H60MTI said:

Yeah, I had to play with that when trying a CARP on Nellis for testing and practice. Something always has to be there, and it's not 0. Even though I was on an open airfield with nothing around...

Don't forget it's MSL not AGL, so for Nellis obstacle clearance date should be at least ~1800' or so depending on exactly where you're dropping.

 

17 minutes ago, Someone said:

Can you clarify what you're referring to? 

It was in reference to our discussion about needing to enter obstacle clearance height on the CARP page to get it to show up on the route.

[Someone]

10 minutes ago, Jenrick said:

Okay, that makes sense, momentum and all that.  I am going to see what happens in a sustained climb, at a certain point the cargo should exit.

Regardless of all that per @Nodaks post above:

 

So having something to prevent the cargo from going forward is needed, which would prevent what appears to be a physics bug which is actually just a nice example of conservation of momentum.

Yea, I plan to add a physical model/gate (with physics, like the ICS cable). Just haven't gotten to it yet. 

 

[TrigaNZ]

I was lucky enough to ride along on a Safair food drop in Sudan many years ago. When they did the drop, they applied max power and pitched up to get the load to run out the back.

[Someone]

11 minutes ago, TrigaNZ said:

I was lucky enough to ride along on a Safair food drop in Sudan many years ago. When they did the drop, they applied max power and pitched up to get the load to run out the back.

The key point here is: "applied max power".

[TrigaNZ]

1 hour ago, Someone said:

The key point here is: "applied max power".

Maybe but it was the pitch up that started the load rolling, it certainly didn't slide to the front of the aeroplane.