Rudder authority - taildraggers...

[Guest deleted@50488]

After the latest FM update I tested again the torque effects on ground as well as rudder authority during taxi / takeoff, at high or low ( even iddle ) power settings, and I can't but find it way overdone.

 

The 109s, for instance, require permanent almost always full right rudder during taxi, even with tailwheel locked, and even when throttle back to iddle.

 

OTOH, in a takeoff with tailwheel unlocked, the rudder, even if one firewalls the throttle, is sufficient to steer the aircraft during the takeoff run, even on initial takeoff, assymetric braking not being required at all. under any circumstances.

 

I know that a 109 is steered with differential braking, but in IL2 I would have to permanently press right toe brake, which would not be consistent with gaining sufficient speed to taxi... so, I can only taxi with FULL right rudder pretty much all of the time.

 

In some aspects is tougher than it should - during taxi for instance - while on others it's way simpler than it should - taking of at max power with na unlocked tailwheel on the 109s for instance... 

 

Some examples from RL:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CnpC_BcK7xY

https://youtu.be/lF5tTFQFvs8?t=676

Edited September 11, 2017 by jcomm

[indiaciki]

It is overdone. It always has been. My father was miltary trained on taildraggers (YU) the UTVA AERO3 and the SOKO 522. Groundhandling has always been more difficult than in RL.

Edited September 10, 2017 by indiaciki

[Quax]

The 109s, for instance, require permanent almost always full right rudder during taxi, even with tailwheel locked, and even when throttle back to iddle.

On 9/10/2017 at 10:34 PM, jcomm said:

The 109s, for instance, require permanent almost always full right rudder during taxi, even with tailwheel locked, and even when throttle back to iddle.

 

I never use the rudder to taxi an taildragger in RL. It might move a bit using differential braking, if I can´t keep my legs calm

[303_Kwiatek]

Other hand braking in BOX seemed too weak during taxi.  Never had such problems  with taxi taildrager IRL ( even 1000 HP one)  like there is in BOX.  IRL is possible to stop drift ( ground loop) during taxi without much problem just by pressing brakes, in BOX these is impossible in any plane - when plane start to make circle on the ground there is not possible to stop it.  Thats why i usually taxi in BOX with blocked tailwheel.     IT is about slow speed taxi  -   not  take off run or landing run. 

Thats why taxi on BOX seemed to me not exacly realistic.

 

Maby problem is also with too effective rudder  but with decent burst of power IRL there should be possible to turn on the ground only by rudder ( without brakes) but it need add some good burst of power and full rudder kick

Edited February 20, 2019 by 303_Kwiatek

[E69_geramos109]

brakes in  bos are almost useless

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

4 minutes ago, E69_geramos109 said:

brakes in  bos are almost useless

Well, our Fighters all weigh in at about 3+ tons, with small Drum Brakes that you wouldn't want on a 200kg Motorbike. These Brakes are good enough to Pivot the Aircraft, but they aren for Taxiing. 

All Aircraft ingame can be taxied with careful Application of Throttle and Rudder. Realistically speaking most of you guys would torch your Planes IRL by overheating your brakes. 

 

 

[303_Kwiatek]

Commone i drive plane near 5 000 kg 1000 HP big 4 blade prop taildrager  ( with tailwheel lock/unlock) and never got such problems with taxi like in BOX.  IRL i could stop ground circle by brakes but in BOX it is impossible.

[ZachariasX]

The brakes should definitely have more bite, even if it was just for a couple braking cycles.

 

But there is the problem that with the bicycle brakes, some sticks use a button function for that, e.g. the X-56. If it was modelled correctly, it would be impossible to taxi for instance the Spit without making her stand on the prop when you just touch the brake lever/button.

 

It is my impression that we have a lot of rudder control early in this sim (due to whatever cause), kind of offsetting the tame brakes. Brakes that not only have less bite, but that also are actuated slower, gradual way even though you „click“ them to 100%.

 

Bottom line is something that clearly handles slightly different from real aircraft, but that just takes a bit practise and it is no problem to taxi any of the included aircraft. But you can do it with any joystick.

[Guest deleted@50488]

I can only have as a basis for validating the efficiency of the Spitfire brakes, which were known to cause prop strikes if used without care during taxi and landing rollout, when too much brake was used...  In IL-2 we do not have to care about it, and we can use full braking at any time with no punishment...

Edited March 3, 2019 by jcomm

[=EXPEND=CG_Justin]

The 110 is the absolute worst when it comes to braking. They were boosted a bit a few patches ago, but still not much braking authority at all.

[69th_chuter]

On 3/3/2019 at 12:47 AM, jcomm said:

I can only have as a basis for validating the efficiency of the Spitfire brakes, which were known to cause prop strikes if used without care during taxi and landing rollout, when too much brake was used...  In IL-2 we do not have to care about it, and we can use full braking at any time with no punishment...

 

It has to do with the main wheel's placement relative to the CG.  The Spitfire's wheels were rather close to the CG (the wheels being under the wing leading edge) which meant ground steering and control was a breeze with very little likelihood the aircraft would get away from you (directionally) and groundloop.  The trade off was there was consequently very little weight on the tailwheel and it could be very easy to nose over (even high power runups on chocks would nose it over).  The 109, in contrast,  puts much more weight on the tailwheel with the main wheels slightly out in front of the wing to allow for aircraft operations on rougher terrain with much less danger of the aircraft tripping over bumps and holes putting the aircraft on its nose.  The trade off here was an aircraft much more directionally unstable on the ground than the Spitfire.  (The 109 has a bad reputation for "narrow" gear causing directional problems when the "superlative" Spitfires' gear was actually narrower.  There were a couple of factors here but CG location relative to wheel location was central.)  When we start talking about brake reliability and efficiency that's a bit harder to quantify, although the 109 brakes weren't famous for being powerful.  The 109 brakes appear to have been reasonably strong (for WW2) initially but would build heat rapidly and dissipate it slowly (like most WW2 drum brakes - lol) meaning one ultimately couldn't get away with relying on the brakes alone to drive a 109 around an airport.  The 109 simply needs to be kept on a much shorter leash than the Spitfire.

 

Additionally, I know several 109s flying today are using modern disc brakes and, frankly, I would assume the ones flying that I'm not sure about to be running discs for the obvious safety and spares reasons as well.