Jump to content


Founders [premium]
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

107 Excellent

About chuter

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Napa, California
  • Interests
    I'm an A319/A320 heavy maintenance airframe mechanic but I'm not so very interested in them (a heck of a lot cleaner than Boeings, though - lol). I'm also single engine land/sea - woohoo! Update: Now I'm working all fleets in Scheduled Special Route, Anything from overnights to month-long visits. Almost all my work involves fixing vendor work.

Recent Profile Visitors

841 profile views
  1. It must be pointed out that how brakes are used (or freaking never used) on a Spitfire has very little to do with how brakes are used on different aircraft, particularly a 109. The Spit's close proximity of main wheels to CG means three things, 1) the Spit is considerably less directionally unstable than some taildraggers (all taildraggers are unstable to varying degrees), 2) the plane, therefore, has a relatively very effective rudder (and steerable tailwheel if equipped and a tailwheel lock being unneeded), and 3) the plane is much more prone to noseover. With the Spit's superior directional control very little, if any, correctional braking would ever be required in the first place and the aircraft's consequent ease of noseover would shy a person away from using the brakes, hard anyway. The 109, on the other hand, has main wheels well ahead of the CG which means, again, three things, 1) the 109 is considerably more directionally unstable than some taildraggers, 2) the plane therefore, has a less effective rudder and, if equipped, steerable tailwheel (and more likely to be equipped with a locking tailwheel), and 3) the plane is very much less prone to noseover. With the 109's less effective rudder and a much reduced possibility of noseover it can be expected that hard use of directional braking may be expected during takeoff and landing, the Spitfire be dammed. Also, it should be pointed out that contemporary restrictions about hard brake use was not to prevent noseovers but to prevent brake wear and overheating. If someone has a poor taxiing technique routinely relying on hard brake use resulting in high brake temps they may find themselves in a situation where they need corrective braking but the brakes aren't there because of those temps. And then there's the frequent brake change expense. I've only flown a handful of taildraggers with drum brakes but two I will mention, a 1946 Aeronca 7AC 65 (with 8.5 x 6 tires) and a PA-22/20. The 7AC was not a serious noseover candidate in the first place and in the second it had crappy cable operated heel brakes so it should be noted without surprise that I would occasionally land that baby beast with the brakes HARD ON before touchdown (I frequently off-roaded that thing) without consequence. The PA-22/20, on the other hand, was rather light tailed (and someone else's plane) so brake use wouldn't begin until after tailwheel landing, but, while straight braking was limited because the tail would want to lift, side braking could be somewhat aggressive. A PA-22/20 with discs was the same way only more-so, care in straight braking but I could be much more aggressive in steering. The big advantage of the discs is that the braking effect was absolutely consistent.
  2. I really don't understand these statements, are you a taildragger pilot or even a mechanic? Concerning Klaus Plasa's test flying of Flugwerk 190 built by GossHawk: "WN: How does the FW-190 handle in comparison to other WWII-era fighters you have flown? KP: Similar to a Mustang in terms of stick and foot forces, whereas cockpit visibility from a Mustang may be just a little better. Compared to all American fighter airplanes, the biggest difference is the cramped cockpit space due to its tapering fuselage cross-section which makes shoulder and headroom almost touching the structure. The ground handling characteristics of the airplane are rather docile due to its wide track landing gear design (again, similar to a Mustang). The brakes which differ from the original drum brake design, modified by GossHawk to [ed.Red Line] disc brakes, make the airplane handle on the ground without difficulties." http://warbirdsnews.com/warbirds-news/fw-190-flight-gosshawk-unlimited.html A number of flying 109s (mainly Buchons) also have been modified to disc brakes and even WW2 aircraft that still use drum brakes use modern brake materials to significantly improve braking force, fade resistance and durability. Concerning John Romain's flying of the 109E: On landing "The risk of ground-loop becomes more pronounced as the airspeed decays to the 55-65 km/hr range, and the pilot will need to be quick on the brakes to counter a departure. The Bf 109E's original brakes will only give full strength for around ten seconds before they begin to fade, appreciation of which is essential during the landing roll. "There's a minute change between acceptable brakes and non-existent brakes", John adds wryly. "The original brake system is horrible, and any prolonged use on landing or taxiing will overheat them to the point that they are completely ineffective." Modified brake systems on the FHCAM Bf109E, and on the Buchons, have improved the aircraft's functionality and operational capabilities to no end." https://vintageaviationecho.com/bf109e/ Lately I've been reading about the Stuka (another aircraft that couldn't do high power ground runs without noseover) and Capt. Eric Brown's notes on the type are interesting. Noting that the Stuka "needed controlled braking to manoeuvre and was sensitive to any crosswind" and "... had a reputation for standing on its nose in an entirely different context -- during a landing!" went on to say "View for landing was excellent, the brakes proved powerful and could be applied almost immediately after a three-pointer, and the landing run was very short indeed."
  3. Taildragger characteristics are based on the design. This post is basic in nature. Spitfire. The Spit's close proximity of main wheels to CG plumb point means that the rudder and brakes are more* effective and the forward roll is less* unstable BUT the tail is very light and the aircraft can't be high power run chocked without tying the tail down. The Spit was rather famous for prop damage and noseovers. Me109. The ME's wheels were much further forward of the CG plumb point which means the pilot had to act much sooner with the rudder and brakes because the forward roll was much more* unstable than the Spit and this reduced the apparent effectiveness of them. This location put much more weight on the tailwheel (requiring a larger tire) and as a result the aircraft could be chocked and high power run without tying down the tail. In the end the ME was not prone to noseovers BUT was famous for its groundloops. * these are relative terms between the two aircraft, obviously. Whether the gear is narrow or wide the result is mostly only on how effective the brakes are, the wider the gear the more effective the brakes. Brakes are used as soon as the pilot realizes he's way behind the game and full rudder is not arresting the deviant swing. There has been a time or two when I've smashed both full rudder AND hard brakes at the same time to avoid what was ... well, obviously not my fault, but a sudden uncommanded swing no one, and I mean literally no one because it wasn't my fault, could have anticipated. With success, I might add. I swear it just jumped right out in front of me ... like a tree. So, it's all a trade-off. It looks like, being an interceptor, it was never really anticipated that the Spit would ever operate off of unimproved fields allowing a more stable ground handling design for standard RAF airfields while the whole concept of the Luftwaffe was to operate off of forward fields behind the ever advancing lines of the victorious Wehrmacht with the rough advance fields considered likely to contribute to aircraft noseovers reducing aircraft availability.
  4. Actually, the compass should be off about 6° W on that map for New Years '45 which would complicate navigation a tiny bit ...
  5. The manual says not to drop internal bombs from a greater than 30° dive (obviously). In game I've noticed you can drop from inverted without incident - bombs simply don't drop until you pull positive G then they fall away strictly on the aircraft's Y axis. I've also dived to 450 mph and pulled out, near the ground, to the point of passing out without 1) stalling and 2) breaking the airplane. It will develop over time, no doubt.
  6. Here's the training film on the accelerated stall prone, non-aerobatic A-20. Check it out at the 11:45 mark. http://zenoswarbirdvideos.com/A-20.html
  7. Absolutely correct, but with a loss of propeller efficiency. You want the fewest blades with the largest possible diameter (at a given tip speed) for the greatest efficiency.
  8. This (Panther) is another tank (along with Panzer IV) that has a reverse rolling odometer. Counting down to doomsday ...
  9. Actually, all the 3 blade props (Hart and Mac 80", 82" and 84") are quieter, even the 86" Hartzell 3 blade Scimitar (for the 185E and F), than any of the stock 2 blades.
  10. Go to Key Bindings, click on the top button (Services) and see what key you're using for "Send chat messages to all". That's the key for the component health ... ummm ... quality.
  11. ... and ... why can't the commander call out the load? How is it only the gunner can do that? And why doesn't the loader automatically load the next available load type when a selected load runs out? And we should actually be able to prioritize load order ... but anyway ... Yeah, the map thing, because the last thing anyone is going to do before launching an attack is spend time making detailed maps with terrain elevation ... or even have photos of the enemy positions ... I guess its a game thing.
  12. Yeah, that's an issue. I've found myself, on the Finnish server, playing hard against the AI AT guns, out in the open in terrain defilade because in the woods my sight is compromised, not its, then ... oh, my ... there's an airplane ... oh, well. 😑 Heck, I've been hit repeatedly 300 meters deep in trees with fanatical determination by it (no trees were harmed, by the way).
  13. Also, the grass around you isn't seen by the enemy beyond it's visible radius ---> around him <--- . That means when you're peering over a crest and looking through the tops of the weeds he's seeing all of you that's visible above the ground without any grass. Other than that the cover from foliage is surprisingly similar across all the settings.
  14. As I recall, in tests it was figured the first five rounds (or so) were the quickest being from the "ready rack". After that it becomes problematic ... I'm surprised no one has posted "hard" numbers yet.
  15. And ... that's not the only potential problem with low altitude bombing ... here's an interesting video: https://worldwarwings.com/allied-plane-breaks-apart-testing-new-bomb-heartwrenching/?a=mk&var=bounce back-ww2&utm_campaign=bounce back&utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_term=embed-ww2-mk&utm_content=footage
  • Create New...