Try here:
http://www.edufind.com/english/grammar/inf2.cfm
We're dealing with catenative verbs: verbs that take a verbal object, like would go, hear . . . sing, made . . . do, help . . .find, and so on. The latter three are separated by a (pro)noun, and that (pronoun) functions as the semantic agent of the bare infinitive.
a. Modals do not inflect for tense, number or person, so their objects do not inflect (i.e., bare infinitives lack inflectional properties). "had better" and "would have" also express modality, so they require a bare infinitive.
b. With verbs of perception, e.g., I heard her sing/singing, the object "her" functions as the semantic agent of "sing/singing". "heard X DO" (Catenative) Test: I heard
her.
She sang/was singing.
c. Causative "make" and "let" follow the same basic pattern as perception verbs. e.g., I made
her sing. TEST:
She sang.
When a verb requires another verb as its object, the first, or main verb carries inflection. The second verb does not. That's why "to" is omitted. If the second verb belongs in a clause of its own, e.g., I asked
her to sing (Direct Object), then quasi-inflectional "to" is added to show the verb "asked" doesn't take a verbal object. On the contrary, it requires a nominal object: the entire string "her to sing" functions as the direct object.
Special Note, the (pro)noun can be omitted, e.g., I asked
to go, making it appear as if the verb "ask" requires a verbal object direct object, but that's not the case: I asked
[reflexive, for me] to go.
Other:
"ought to" is a quasi-modal, like "supposed to". Note inflectional -ed.
"get" when synonymous with "have" expresses a causative meaning. See causative verbs.
I hope that helps.
All the best,