Question - why is taxiing so difficult?

[sport02]

I try it in game and it's seems as the plane run " fast " it's possible without brake and locked taiwheel to turn only with rudder( gaz at idle )  , perhaps the Wind at this speed  is suffisent to active the rudder .

in game at a lower speed it's impossible to turn only with rudder ( gaz at idle )

 

in video it seems that tailwheel is locked , look at the stabilizer .

and not sure the pilot brake just a very very little to help but not visible .

 

it's fun because game help me to understand .

Edited May 8, 2016 by sport02

[JtD]

^^^   If you are going in a turn with engine at idle, what force will be acting on the rudder to give it any effect?

 

just a thought

a) wind speed

b) speed of the aircraft

edit: c) propwash also exists with idling engines

and in case this wasn't an academic question but related to my post above yours,

d) "low throttle, near idle" is not "idle". Probably in order to get a little bit more out of rudder input, but also in order to maintain speed.

Edited May 8, 2016 by JtD

[sport02]

conclusion is the same in game

at 2.34 the tail rise a little = brake

[Dakpilot]

I would say JTD your example would be a good way to do a ground loop in RL, use of brakes when taxiing FW190 is well documented and recomended

 

Am sure with your background you could produce a diagram showing the amount of propwash hitting the rudder at "low throttle" while in a constant turn at 20-25kmh

 

personally without the science I would say it is very little, and probably not enough to counter an already established turn

 

correct procedure would be to stop the turn with small amount of  brake, continue forward for short period and lock the tailwheel by pulling back on the stick, am sure Mr Tank did not include the easy accessible 'stick activated' tail lock only for takeoff/landing

 

20-25kmh is quite fast for turning while taxi, at that speed in a turn I would expect throttle to be at idle...an increase of speed at that time would not be really be beneficial or desired.

 

You will often see taxiing with mechanics sitting on the wing for guidance, at 20-25kmh they would probably get bounced off on anything but perfect tarmac...fast walking pace 5-7  km/h

 

Yes it is probably possible to find accounts of fast taxi, but i imagine this was only done by VERY experienced pilots with total understanding of their aircraft and is not standard procedure

 

I am not saying taxiing is perfect in BoS, and it likely never will be in a digital aircraft sim because there are do many parameters that do not justify the dev and compute time necessary, but i feel your example is not a good one in this instance 

 

Cheers Dakpilot

[JtD]

in video it seems that tailwheel is locked , look at the stabilizer .

Dang it, you're right. Elevator, not stab, but it's up. Can't figure out why I did not see this, I looked for it and it seemed straight. Perhaps too much coffee? Thanks for pointing that out!

[wtornado]

^{yes ,}

 

^{if it's not a sim , what sim you know WTornado ?}

 

^{especially for taxiing , I doubt professionnal sim take this attention .}

Professional sims do if it is a qualification trial it depends on what level you put the simulator at.

 

The Sukhoi Superjet Professional simulator takes taxiing seriously

 

This professional sim Boeing 737 real flight simulator full traffic circuit take-off and landing does too.

 

I would of been disappointed of a ground loop in this take-off and landing hehehe

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y3jlZzdb3TM

Edited May 8, 2016 by WTornado

[sport02]

also tricycle landing gear is less difficult .

even a professsionnel sim is not perfect , I remember after the first flight of the A380 , pilots say that is more easy in real  than in the sim

Edited May 8, 2016 by sport02

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

Dont underestimate the controll surface authority at quick taxing speeds. Its a fun practise for us glider pilots to land and hold wings level if wind is strong enough (5 kt can be).

At roughtly 15 km/h you have enough rudder authority to steer lefz/right and keep wings level even with sidewind.

Of course neither the Fw-190 nor any other plane ingame is a lightweight glider. But in terms of size their controll surfaces are not far off + gliders are actually bigger aircraft.

Edited May 8, 2016 by 6./ZG26_5tuka

[SharpeXB]

Wow. Check out the bounce landing this 109G at 1:15

The second landing is smoother.

 

[SharpeXB]

Yes it is probably possible to find accounts of fast taxi, but i imagine this was only done by VERY experienced pilots with total understanding of their aircraft and is not standard procedure

 

This is a great account of non regulation handling from Norbert Hannig's "Luftwaffe Fighter Ace"

"I touched down just behind Walter, who pulled his usual trick of lifting his tail off the ground and driving his Gustav back to dispersal. I didn’t want to waste time, and so followed his example. All went splendidly. I also drove across the field on two wheels and then let the tail sink back down onto the ground as I approached the dispersal area,"

Right afterwards he has a ground collision which could lead to Court Martial and the end of his flying career.

[Holtzauge]

Wow. Check out the bounce landing this 109G at 1:15

The second landing is smoother.

 

 

Yes, but look how steady it is in the air: It's like it was on rails. I think the Messerschmitt Stiftung needs to tweak the FM because it's not wobbling enough.......

[Dakpilot]

Must be getting boring in the FM section... when two of the main contributors come here to 'crap' on BoS  FM and ground handling...

 

first with claims about  inaccurate ground handling from a vid, failing to note use of tailwheel lock and brakes and now cheap digs at 109 FM

 

I am all for finding faults and correcting them with knowledge and info...but sometime it seems some people's hobby is actually just finding fault..  ...gets boring

 

maybe i'm wrong but it certainly seems that way sometimes, if the above post had a smiley maybe it would seem different, but it doesn't

 

Cheers Dakpilot

[Holtzauge]

Must be getting boring in the FM section... when two of the main contributors come here to 'crap' on BoS  FM and ground handling...

 

first with claims about  inaccurate ground handling from a vid, failing to note use of tailwheel lock and brakes and now cheap digs at 109 FM

 

I am all for finding faults and correcting them with knowledge and info...but sometime it seems some people's hobby is actually just finding fault..  ...gets boring

 

maybe i'm wrong but it certainly seems that way sometimes, if the above post had a smiley maybe it would seem different, but it doesn't

 

Cheers Dakpilot

Well that is not even half as boring as the same old people who invariably show up to complain about people who have opinions about flight models.  

 

Cheers Holz

[Rjel]

Well that is not even half as boring as the same old people who invariably show up to complain about people who have opinions about flight models.

 

Cheers Holz

The us vs. them malarkey gets old too.

[wtornado]

I would like to share this with you boys it is a magazine I dug out from my bookshelf and I have 100' of WWII magazines

that I had bought for years like Flypast,Flight Journal,Fana de L'aviation just to name a few.

 

Now the info I am giving is from my 2005 Flight Journal ''special issue'' on German Fighters.

 

Flight Journal is an excellent book to pick up with good articles and great photos and you can get them at pratically any good bookstore.

 

The article on the BF-109 was written by the Late Mark Hanna and Capt.Eric Brown P.44 in the magazine.

 

The article covers incredible detailed flight info on everything for pre flight to taxiing to takeoff engine

adjustments and landing just to name part of what is written.

 

Now when the pilot explains taxiing from detailed article of the 109 from page 46. 

 

 

'' The 109 needs a lot of power to get moving,so you need to allow the engine to warm up a little before you pile on the power.Throttle up to 1,800rpm and

suddenly,you're rolling;power back.To turn while taxiing,push the stick forward against the instument panel to lighten the tail,add some throttle and jab the

brake(do this in a Spitfire and you're on your nose!).The 109 ,however is very tail-heavy and is reluctant to turn;you can very easily lock up a wheel.

If you do not use the above technique,you will charge off across the airfield in a straight line!''

 

On P. 50 on the paragraph ''Airborne'' 

 

''Power up and keep it coming smoothly up to 40 inches.Keep the tail down initially,and keep it straight by feel rather than any positive technique.

Tail is coming up now,and the rudder is becoming effective.I'm subconsciously correcting the rudder all the time.It is incredibly entertaining to watch the 109 lift

off the ground;the rudder literally flashing around!''

 

''The fighter is now bucking along,accelerating rapidly.As the tail lifts,there is a positive tendancy to swing leftThis can easily be checked; however,

if you are really aggressive in lifting the tail,the left swing tendency is difficult to stop and happens very quickly.It's a wild rough ride on grass,and

with all the noise and smoke from the stacks,it is very exciting''

 

Quick glance at the airspeed indicator(ASI):160kp/h,a light pull-back on the stick,and you're flying.''

 

The plane does not do that with me.

Here is recorded info and not on 90 year old pilots but pilots flying the 109 today.

 

 

Not even a comment on the actual article and its finding.

 

Must be getting boring in the FM section... when two of the main contributors come here to 'crap' on BoS  FM and ground handling...

 

first with claims about  inaccurate ground handling from a vid, failing to note use of tailwheel lock and brakes and now cheap digs at 109 FM

 

I am all for finding faults and correcting them with knowledge and info...but sometime it seems some people's hobby is actually just finding fault..  ...gets boring

 

maybe i'm wrong but it certainly seems that way sometimes, if the above post had a smiley maybe it would seem different, but it doesn't

 

Cheers Dakpilot

I posted the ground handling and taxiing in a 109 with detailed info from Flight Journal magazine and I am pretty sure the pilots

that wrote the article knew what they are and were talking about.In game the rudder is responsive at under 10 kph you can ground loop at

10 Kph plus don't even think of unlocking the tail wheel in game you have to keep the tail wheel permanently locked, and it sort of

makes you wonder why even have that option just remove the binding key to lock/unlock the tail wheel permanently for the 109 you

don't and can't use it anyways.The  wheel must be locked to maneuver in game.

Edited May 9, 2016 by WTornado

[SharpeXB]

Yes, but look how steady it is in the air: It's like it was on rails. I think the Messerschmitt Stiftung needs to tweak the FM because it's not wobbling enough.......

I guess the real pilot wasn't using a little plastic joystick huh?

 

That's some great footage. Rarely do you see less than perfect landings from pilots handling these rare expensive planes. Too often the example of how "easy" it supposedly is to land them is footage from expert pilots at air shows. They just make it look easy.

Go back and watch the "Whoopsydaisy" from Battle of Britain too.

 

Well that is not even half as boring as the same old people who invariably show up to complain about people who have opinions about flight models.

But that's exactly the point. People stating their "opinions" with no facts. And for the most part those opinions are just comparisons to other games. Edited May 9, 2016 by SharpeXB

[wtornado]

I guess the real pilot wasn't using a little plastic joystick huh?

 

That's some great footage. Rarely do you see less than perfect landings from pilots handling these rare expensive planes. Too often the example of how "easy" it supposedly is to land them is footage from expert pilots at air shows. They just make it look easy.

Go back and watch the "Whoopsydaisy" from Battle of Britain too.

 

But that's exactly the point. People stating their "opinions" with no facts. And for the most part those opinions are just comparisons to other gam

It is not my opinion it is two pilots giving detailed accounts of handling and procedures and no one want to comment on the

Flight Journal articles with good reason I guess.Because they are most likely dead on..

[SharpeXB]

It is not my opinion it is two pilots giving detailed accounts of handling and procedures and no one want to comment on the

Flight Journal articles with good reason I guess.Because they are most likely dead on..

But "add some throttle and jab the brakes" isn't anything you can quantify mathematically. So it's not much worth for an assessment.

And "keep it straight by feel" is exactly the sort of thing we can't do in a PC sim.

[BraveSirRobin]

It is not my opinion it is two pilots giving detailed accounts of handling and procedures and no one want to comment on the

Flight Journal articles with good reason I guess.Because they are most likely dead on..

 

Sorry, I missed the link.  How many BoS hours do these guys have?

[neofightr2]

There`s plenty of 3D spatial awareness in this game, especially if you use Trackir. The only limit is on the person. And it shouldn`t be a problem for men in general. I don`t think SA is the problem here.

Unless you are using VR HMDs you have 2d spatial awareness not 3d and even that is not perfect due to the limited FOV. For me to maximize my spatial awareness I go to external view so I can see exactly how the plane is reacting to my inputs. Compared to my real-life experience with tactical jets and turbo-prop trainers (1000s of hours), computer sims will always be harder due to the factors I mentioned.

 

I had the very fortunate experience of simming before I trained in real-life and now I am back to simming since I retired.

 

In real life you get lots of inputs from seat of the pants as well as visual cues. I too use Track IR but that's not the point.

 

And yes SA will always be a factor in computer sims due to FOV limitations (monitor and HMD). 

 

BTW actual flying of modern tactical planes is much easier than you imagine because the pilot is expected to due a hell of a lot more than just fly the plane so the engineers needs to make flying almost effortless. But WWII planes was a whole different mindset. You were basically on your own in handling the plane and engineers didn't have a clue on pilot workload when designing them. Hence they were much harder to fly.

[neofightr2]

Here is recorded info and not on 90 year old pilots but pilots flying the 109 today.

 

 

Not even a comment on the actual article and its finding.

 

I posted the ground handling and taxiing in a 109 with detailed info from Flight Journal magazine and I am pretty sure the pilots

that wrote the article knew what they are and were talking about.In game the rudder is responsive at under 10 kph you can ground loop at

10 Kph plus don't even think of unlocking the tail wheel in game you have to keep the tail wheel permanently locked, and it sort of

makes you wonder why even have that option just remove the binding key to lock/unlock the tail wheel permanently for the 109 you

don't and can't use it anyways.The  wheel must be locked to maneuver in game.

I find I have to unlock the tail wheel to get any control (as expected). I have been focused on the russian planes so I will check out the 109.

After about an hour of practice, I am not having issues at all with taxiiing/takeoff (other than it being tedious at times) with the russian planes. I am using lots of brake and rudder input to make it work but it makes sense to me based on my real-life experience with planes in general.

[unreasonable]

Wow. Check out the bounce landing this 109G at 1:15

The second landing is smoother.

 

 

What I found interesting in that video is that the airfield is not at all flat - that probably made landing smoothly a little trickier, even if the designated strip had had a mower run over the grass!

 

But evidence that the 109 was perfectly happy flying out of improvised grass strips.

[unreasonable]

Unless you are using VR HMDs you have 2d spatial awareness not 3d and even that is not perfect due to the limited FOV. For me to maximize my spatial awareness I go to external view so I can see exactly how the plane is reacting to my inputs. Compared to my real-life experience with tactical jets and turbo-prop trainers (1000s of hours), computer sims will always be harder due to the factors I mentioned.

 

I had the very fortunate experience of simming before I trained in real-life and now I am back to simming since I retired.

 

In real life you get lots of inputs from seat of the pants as well as visual cues. I too use Track IR but that's not the point.

 

And yes SA will always be a factor in computer sims due to FOV limitations (monitor and HMD). 

 

BTW actual flying of modern tactical planes is much easier than you imagine because the pilot is expected to due a hell of a lot more than just fly the plane so the engineers needs to make flying almost effortless. But WWII planes was a whole different mindset. You were basically on your own in handling the plane and engineers didn't have a clue on pilot workload when designing them. Hence they were much harder to fly.

 

Agree with everything you say except the part I have made bold. When you look at a simple line drawing of a cube, for instance, the brain is interpreting this into a 3D shape. That is why certain illusions work: eg that allow drawings to look as though a cube has first one corner, then then the other, nearer to the viewer. Same when looking at a screen image - the brain "knows" this is a 3D environment, and does its best to create a 3D interpretation.

 

That is one good reason not to use on screen HUDs, icons etc if you can do without them - they can undermine the 3D interpretation.

[JtD]

But evidence that the 109 was perfectly happy flying out of improvised grass strips.

Not just the 109, if you want to check youtube for some WW2 newsreels, you can find amazing footage of WW2 aircraft negotiating difficult terrain in a manner that would make a modern rally driver proud. Many WW2 airfields, and not just the improvised ones, were simple grass fields, and they weren't anywhere close to smooth even on a good day. There are reasons that the Marston Mat was so valuable.

[unreasonable]

Yes, JtD, I know - actually had made the same point myself about the Stalingrad summer map. Nice to see the Moscow map has some open grass airfields - similar to those described in accounts of LW operations in the southern sector as well.  

 

I think the point about the Marston Mat and similar, though, is that the heavier the aircraft, the riskier operating off less well prepared fields will get, I would think. So you might get a Spitfire down on a field that you would not want to land on in a Typhoon, for instance. Plus they allow for operations off fields that are flat but perhaps not well drained or stony with a quick build time. But this is a late war development.

[JtD]

My comment on the Marston Mat was more related to the videos (poor conditions airfields used by heavily loaded aircraft), not grass airfields in good condition. I guess I skipped a sentence there. I totally agree with your points.

[BlitzPig_EL]

Sorry, I missed the link.  How many BoS hours do these guys have?

 

What on earth are you on about?

 

Am I to gather that you really don't care how these aircraft are supposed to handle?  Because yours, and SharpeXB's comments in this thread seem to point in that direction.

[seafireliv]

Wow. Check out the bounce landing this 109G at 1:15

The second landing is smoother.

 

Interesting, here at at 0:22 and 1:26 if you look closely, you can see quite a lot of `minor` bouncing as the aircraft taxis. Now this `minor` bouncing would translate to quite a lot  of bonce if actually in the cockpit. Not smooth.

Edited May 9, 2016 by seafireliv

[SharpeXB]

Interesting, here at at 0:22 and 1:26 if you look closely, you can see quite a lot of `minor` bouncing as the aircraft taxis. Now this `minor` bouncing would translate to quite a lot of bonce if actually in the cockpit. Not smooth.

The landing bounce isn't caused by the ground though. It's the typical reasons, fast decent, front wheels hit first,the rearward cog makes the aoa increases, plane becomes airborne again. The second landing is slower and on three points so there's much less bounce.

Just like what happens in BoS.

And in other sims like X-Plane. I'm not trying to plug other sims. Just showing that this physics is common in current sims.

http://youtu.be/ERkJsYI8Tdc

Look at about 8:40 onwards and all the mistakes. I'm ballooning because my speed is too high and I didn't close the throttle when flaring. Then I hit on the front wheels and start bouncing. Then fight off the ground loop. I have toe brakes mapped in X-Plane so the taxiing is easier. Otherwise it's the same challenge as BoS

What on earth are you on about?

 

His point is that BoS is a freakin game. A realistic one to be sure but a game nonetheless.

At some point you gotta accept that and learn to play it and stop complaining.

If you've got real data to bring to the discussion. Bring it. If not then just practice at the game and stop bellyaching.

Edited May 9, 2016 by SharpeXB

[wtornado]

But "add some throttle and jab the brakes" isn't anything you can quantify mathematically. So it's not much worth for an assessment.

And "keep it straight by feel" is exactly the sort of thing we can't do in a PC sim.

Mathematical probably explains the BOS in game 109 handling.

 

I give up.

 

Controllers and joystick keeps on changing ID anyways I am taking a break

let them release another Beta patch again or is it alpha?

[BSS_Sniper]

6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann, on 02 May 2016 - 12:19, said:

Having to push much, much lighter gliders out of rough fields and what kind of resistance deep grass has on wheels (for a 220kg aircraft we often need more than 4 people, sometimes a car) and the bumbs they make during that (In a K-13 someone has to lift tail whilst pushing, around 10kg static, and the jolts once dislocated one mates shoulder) showed me that terrain has a massive influence on light aircraft already and the aircraft we have, have much higher ground pressure and should react similarly. 

I guess most of the Motor-Flyers here have never Operated from rough ground and cannot appreciate how much force is actually involved. 

Taildraggers react to the ground A LOT, and the further forward the CG, the more bounce there simply is. 

 

Sorry, but you can't compare a glider to powered aircraft. They just aren't even in the same arena. I operated out of grass fields for years. Grass, dirt, doesn't matter, they are normally nice and soft and make for better landings than a man made hard surface. Taxing an aircraft isn't any different on soft field either, unless it's full of mud. It's wrong here, very wrong and has been since the start.

The landing bounce isn't caused by the ground though. It's the typical reasons, fast decent, front wheels hit first,the rearward cog makes the aoa increases, plane becomes airborne again. The second landing is slower and on three points so there's much less bounce.

Just like what happens in BoS.

And in other sims like X-Plane. I'm not trying to plug other sims. Just showing that this physics is common in current sims.

Look at about 8:40 onwards and all the mistakes. I'm ballooning because my speed is too high and I didn't close the throttle when flaring. Then I hit on the front wheels and start bouncing. Then fight off the ground loop. I have toe brakes mapped in X-Plane so the taxiing is easier. Otherwise it's the same challenge as BoS

His point is that BoS is a freakin game. A realistic one to be sure but a game nonetheless.

At some point you gotta accept that and learn to play it and stop complaining.

If you've got real data to bring to the discussion. Bring it. If not then just practice at the game and stop bellyaching.

 

Here we go with the data crap. It's always the guys with NO real life experience in an aircraft that want to bring up data and tell people they are "bellyaching". The ground handling here from taxi, takeoff to landing is a complete joke. You can go play with your paperwork, it means nothing. Get in a plane, learn to fly and get back to us.

[SharpeXB]

 Here we go with the data crap. It's always the guys with NO real life experience in an aircraft that want to bring up data and tell people they are "bellyaching".

That's not my rule, that's what 1CGS has stated about flight model revisions. There's a process for requesting such changes. You need to present some real world data and demonstrate that something in the game is wrong. Then they'll consider it. And they have indeed made such corrections in the past.

But they won't constantly change the game based upon people complaining on the forum. That's what happened in RoF and it didn't turn out well. It just leads to more complaining.

[BlitzPig_EL]

Indeed Sniper, indeed.  Even my very limited seat time tells me the same thing.

 

SharpeXB, you really have NOTHING to bring to the table in this discussion, other than quoting forum rules.  And BSR asking how many hours Eric Brown has in the sim?  Are you serious????

 

Both of you need listen to what real pilots, with hundreds, if not thousands of hours of real seat time are saying  and learn something, instead of constantly bashing people with real piloting experience, or just defaulting to the "it's a game" defense.

 

The goal here is to make the sim a better experience for all of us.

 

Accepting something that is blatantly wrong because of some arbitrary rule, is surrendering to mediocrity.

 

This series has a lot going for it, it would be a pity if it didn't reach it's potential because some people are willing to accept it as is.

Edited May 9, 2016 by BlitzPig_EL

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

Funny enought the same people calling out for data to disprove anything were the very same that called for ,,more difficult taxiing" behaviour based on their claims of it ,,being more realistic" and because ,,pepple should be punished for taking off across the field".

 

So yea, there goes that.

Sorry, but you can't compare a glider to powered aircraft. They just aren't even in the same arena. I operated out of grass fields for years. Grass, dirt, doesn't matter, they are normally nice and soft and make for better landings than a man made hard surface. Taxing an aircraft isn't any different on soft field either, unless it's full of mud. It's wrong here, very wrong and has been since the start.

Even well prepared grass airstrips can lead to nasty suprises. I've witnessed an accident with a Pitts during which the pilot taxied somewhat too fast and with too much elevator pressure. The aircraft hit a bump and the tailwheel was rammed right into the rudderby the force of impact. By accounts of the pilot this wasn't the first time this happened with the aircraft.

 

Overall I agree bumps are modeled somewhat strange in a way they feel like too big and artificial while in reality you have more fine terrain disortions that cause more cockpit shaking than aircraft bumping.

Edited May 9, 2016 by 6./ZG26_5tuka

[Dakpilot]

Sorry, but you can't compare a glider to powered aircraft. They just aren't even in the same arena. I operated out of grass fields for years. Grass, dirt, doesn't matter, they are normally nice and soft and make for better landings than a man made hard surface. Taxing an aircraft isn't any different on soft field either, unless it's full of mud. It's wrong here, very wrong and has been since the start.

 

Here we go with the data crap. It's always the guys with NO real life experience in an aircraft that want to bring up data and tell people they are "bellyaching". The ground handling here from taxi, takeoff to landing is a complete joke. You can go play with your paperwork, it means nothing. Get in a plane, learn to fly and get back to us.

 

I guess that's going to quieten things down around here 

 

No comments unless you hold a licence to do so,  perhaps you should stick to real flying if you have such disdain for the sim community who have not had the opportunity to have had such a career or money to afford sport/GA flying

 

I have noticed a few people in this thread who actually have got in a 'plane' (thought that was a woodworking tool but anyway) who don't necessarily think that taxi, takeoff, and landing are a "complete joke" 

 

I can only assume that "Complete Joke" is a Pilot technical term I am unfamiliar with

 

Cheers Dakpilot

[SharpeXB]

SharpeXB, you really have NOTHING to bring to the table in this discussion, other than quoting forum rules.

And the rules are what they are for a reason. To avoid pointless arguments like this one.

In RoF, where all the aircraft are nearly 100 years old and with near certainty none of the arguers has ever flown one. The forum was full of "experts" arguing every single bit of stuff they could argue about. It gets ridiculous. Even the real data available varies so much you could submit almost anything as "authentic"

777 tried revising the FM to quell this but only ended up creating more arguments. So enough already.

Here's the rules again in case you missed them.

 

Forum Rules:

18. Claiming that FM is incorrect without the required proof and starting a flame thread based on such claim is prohibited.

The form for an FM claim consists of:

short but consistent description of the claim;

link to a reference and to a specific part of such reference that describes correct behaviour of a disputed element/situation;

game track record and the list of conditions used to recreate disputed element/situation.

Exception to this rule: FM discussion

 

Not following this form in its entirety will result in locking (locking and deleting) such thread and also in the following:

 

First offense - 7 days ban on entry

Second offense - 30 days ban on entry

Third offence - permanent ban on entry

[JtD]

Kind of off topic to quote FM rules in a ground handling topic.

[Hoots]

Kind of off topic to quote FM rules in a ground handling topic.

Kind of silly to argue semantics, we can probably assume that the rule covers all aspects of the flight envelope surely?

[JtD]

If you're convinced that for instance airfield roughness is covered by flight model, too, fine. I'm not. I'm off topic.

Edited May 9, 2016 by JtD

[Hoots]

So we need another forum rule? Or would it, perhaps, be easier to accept that an aircraft's interaction with the ground is covered by the existing one?