Take offs and landings should not be that easy.

[Blutaar]

Imagine the rudder and differential breaking dance needed to just perform taxiing and what happens to planes without differential breaking and tailwheel lock if we would add 50% torpue. Then lets throw in some 50% less rudder authority at slow speeds, that would be funny.

[Ribbon]

I see you didn't used brakes too, but you used quite a lot ailerons which kindly behave on ground as rudder.

Of course when speed is achieved.

Taking wings AoA while aircraft on ground lowered aileron produce quite a lot drag while upped aileron is protected from airflow by wings AoA, also taking in mind ailerons are far from torque center it gives quite compensation.

Danger starts when tail goes up and before plane is about to lift tending to roll but i see you decreased aileron input in that stage but vertical stabilizer already got it's purpose on those speed.

Edited March 3, 2018 by EAF_Ribbon

[SCG_motoadve]

Just now, EAF_Ribbon said:

I see you didn't used brakes too, but you used quite a lot ailerons which kindly behave on ground as rudder.

Yes used aileron.

You should not be able take off in any taildrager airplane from a Piper cub to a P51 without using rudder, impossible, no matter how much aileron input you put in.

 

If developers think is better for the community and gameplay then it is fine, they know their market, but it is doable so to my first point, its too easy.

[Ribbon]

2 minutes ago, motoadve said:

Yes used aileron.

You should not be able take off in any taildrager airplane from a Piper cub to a P51 without using rudder, impossible, no matter how much aileron input you put in.

 

If developers think is better for the community and gameplay then it is fine, they know their market, but it is doable so to my first point, its too easy.

You're the pilot so if you say so i believe you. I just try to think logical but without any experience

[SCG_motoadve]

6 minutes ago, EAF_Ribbon said:

You're the pilot so if you say so i believe you. I just try to think logical but without any experience

That is ok.

 

If you want to experience it more close to how it is in real life to take off in a taildrager, take off in the 109 with tailwheel unlocked, see how much more rudder work you have to do, that's how it is.

[Ribbon]

6 minutes ago, motoadve said:

That is ok.

 

If you want to experience it more close to how it is in real life to take off in a taildrager, take off in the 109 with tailwheel unlocked, see how much more rudder work you have to do, that's how it is.

I use quite a lot rudder on all aircrafts but tailwheel lock i use only on fw190 so i guess i already experienced it or maybe i use it unconscious by now since before i started to fly fw i never used tailwheel lock. 

[Yogiflight]

Hi motoadve, do you fly taildragers with lockable tailwheels? From what I read, the 109 was quite tailheavy, so the pilots had to push the stick forward, when they wanted to make a hard turn during taxiing. And another thing I read somewhere is, that most of the accidents during takeoff with the 109s happened when the tailwheel lost contact with the ground, and therefore the 109 its longitudinal stability, when young unexperienced pilots didn't give the right rudder pedal a dauntless kick, to counter the left turn, they crashed their aircraft. But I am no pilot, so I can't say how believable this is.

[303_Bies]

1 hour ago, ZachariasX said:

I don't think that torque is "dumbed down".

For anyone who is not sure how much torque in the game is reduced in compare with real life, you can do an ultimate test:

 

 - during the final approach in Bf-109 with ~200km/h and idle throttle move the throttle suddenly from idle to emergency power. 

 

In real life you would immediately flip the plane over and you would die...

 

In the game you can cope with that and land normally.

 

Torque in the game is greatly reduced and the only question is what is the reason.

 

Edited March 3, 2018 by bies

[Quax]

7 hours ago, bies said:

I can agree with one: torque  is dumbed down significantly in compare with real aircraft.

 

I can´t believe you ever flew a real aircraft. Otherwise you should know what torque is ? Only at the moment the tail is lifted the torque takes effect.

The OP was claiming, he would need no right rudder at take off. But at start of take off roll, there is no torque effect.

The reason for the right rudder at start of T/O roll is the slipstream. And it is definitly modelled in BoS - better than in any other sim BTW.

Edited March 3, 2018 by Quax

[Quax]

20 minutes ago, bies said:

For anyone who is not sure how much torque in the game is reduced in compare with real life, you can do an ultimate test:

 

 - during the final approach in Bf-109 with ~200km/h and idle throttle move the throttle suddenly from idle to emergency power. 

 

In real life you would immediately flip the plane over and you would die...

 

No torque would flip the plane over. Do us a favor and ecucate yourself about the torque effect. Rookie pilots were able to "flip" the plane in this situation. 

But only if they stalled one wing. If you are at the edge of the stall and suddenly use full aileron, this may happen. Especially if you don´t use adequate rudder input the plane

will yaw (sideslip) and this can lead to stall on the slower wing.

[Quax]

1 hour ago, Sambot88 said:

So, landings and takeoffs are too easy for someone who flies real planes?

 

Check the history of this forum. Most users were complaining like crazy in the beginning, that landings and takeoffs are too difficult compared to real planes.

I can assure you, there is no better sim at the moment (civilian or military), considering takeoffs and landings. 

Edited March 3, 2018 by Quax

[Wolfram-Harms]

2 hours ago, motoadve said:

Look at the pedals, not a single movement, outside view look at the rudder, straight.

 

Well, you were "driving" quite a curve left for your takeoff - you almost ran into an aircraft shelter.

And you used ailerons to compensate a bit.

My Kommandant would lesson you for a takeoff like that!

[curiousGamblerr]

14 minutes ago, Wolfram-Harms said:

Well, you were "driving" quite a curve left for your takeoff - you almost ran into an aircraft shelter.

 

Yeah, this is important to. Zero chance of this working on an actual runway, so does it really count?

[JimTM]

2 hours ago, motoadve said:

 

Look at the pedals, not a single movement, outside view look at the rudder, straight.

 

 

 

The only way I was able to duplicate this was to check "Simplified Physics" in the Realism screen. With or without any of the other aids selected, my plane would veer to the left, even though I throttled up smoothly and used right aileron, stick back.

 

[Stig]

42 minutes ago, Quax said:

Check the history of this forum. Most users were complaining like crazy in the beginning, that landings and takeoffs are too difficult compared to real planes.

 

I've been here from the start with BoX, and this is what I remember too. Same with taxying.

[BlitzPig_EL]

Indeed, with several real, current professional pilots all laughing about how wrong the ground handling/ground loops were.

 

 

[No601_Swallow]

Nah. Couldn't do it. And even if it's possible (which I doubt), slashing diagonally and chaotically across a field - especially in someone who's craving (so he says) "realisim"  - don't cut it.

[SCG_motoadve]

1 hour ago, Quax said:

 

Check the history of this forum. Most users were complaining like crazy in the beginning, that landings and takeoffs are too difficult compared to real planes.

I can assure you, there is no better sim at the moment (civilian or military), considering takeoffs and landings. 

Maybe the complains of being too difficult were with the old model? I returned to flightsimming 1.5 years ago, I think the ground model was fixed then. Agree it is the best sim at the moment, the new FM its fantatastic too,who cares if it is not perfect, it is a lot of fun though.

Edited March 3, 2018 by motoadve

[StickMan]

17 hours ago, motoadve said:

Real pilot here, nose gear and tail draggers, have not flown a warbird (Yet   ) and I fly ofetn and in very challenging enviroments, so get to feel the airplane a lot.

The ground modelling is very simple, landings you can do a terrible one that bounces your plane back in the air pretty high, then bounces back and straightens , like nothing.

The torque is modeled but not to those big engines torque amount, it should pull a lot more, so you need to apply power smoothly or else you groundloop.

Yes compared even to the civilian sims the IL BOS FM and ground modelling is a lot better, DCS might have better ground modelling though.

It was like this pre-patch. Back then guys cried it was unrealistic because these aircraft did not have similar ground handling of the 180 HP Piper Cub they flew.

[fiddlinjim]

I agree with the need of good rudder control to get almost all of the IL2 planes off the ground and also to make a proper turn and avoid a skid.

[Sokol1]

4 hours ago, motoadve said:

Go try it whoever does not believe me.

109 G2 20 degrees of flaps, aerodrome (not runway)

Apply power very smoothly, give some right aileron once you get speed and more power, and it will fly.

Will try to post the track somehow.

 

I am able to do this (and I don't fly in BoS at long time), grass runway, Custom settings with only Engine Warm-up ticked.

The take-off is not properly straight - so are some kind of "torque" acting,  but manage fly without touch the rudder. 

 

 

[sniperton]

I can believe that motoadve could take off without rudder in expert mode, BUT he could not keep his initial course.

His initial heading is 270 degrees, and his plane is constantly turning to the left until he can lift the tail with a heading of 255 degrees.

A 15 degrees deviation from the take off path would have been fatal on a normal runway.

Perhaps torque effects are tuned down in the game, but it doesn't seem possible to take off without rudder AND to keep course.

 

Edited March 3, 2018 by sniperton

[=EXPEND=Dendro]

Maybe the deciding factor is consequence ..... no sane pilot in his right mind would try take off in a taildragger with no rudder input for fear of crashing and likely death. In a sim its very easy to give it a try with zero consequences. Maybe you can do it in a real plane but noone is willing to have a go at it?

Edited March 4, 2018 by =EXPEND=DendroAspis

[6./ZG26_Custard]

I "fondly" remember the howls of despair and  cries of derision about how Landing, taking off and ground taxiing was unrealistic and too difficult. While I'm not denying the OP's ability to take off using no rudder input and just aileron it's hardly a practical way to take off, particularly on a crowded airfield as you would probably be ploughing into other virtual pilots. I genuinely think that what the developers are aiming for is a happy balance between "realism" and practicality for the more casual pilots out there. Speaking personally, i used to prefer the more challenging landings but not being a real pilot, I have no real world experience of how easy or difficult it is to actually land a real aircraft. I am sure if torque was modelled 100% accurately we would have cries of "its far too difficult"  as aircraft would be crashing, veering off course etc . 

[Hoots]

44 minutes ago, sinned said:

I like how the OP hides in his writing about his use of ailerons while complaining about no torque.  

 

Thats not even a proper take off.  

 

Pls ban this rodent for 2 years.  

 

 

 

I think you need to chill out a little bit, Sinned. 

[Herne]

16 hours ago, motoadve said:

Yes used aileron.

You should not be able take off in any taildrager airplane from a Piper cub to a P51 without using rudder, impossible, no matter how much aileron input you put in.

 

If developers think is better for the community and gameplay then it is fine, they know their market, but it is doable so to my first point, its too easy.

 

with your tail wheel locked, and your very gentle application of throttle, you are able to pick up enough speed so that the tail acts as a weather vane allowing you to successfully apply full power.

 

now try the same test with a 12 m/s cross wind at greater than 45 degrees off your nose.

 

Having said this I do think ground handling was more difficult pre FM update. IIRC they even talked about it in the DD. let me see if I can find it . . . 

No DD 169 talks about the updated FM but doesn't talk about the ground handling specifically. I thought I read about it somewhere but then I struggle these days to remember what I had to eat yesterday

 

Edit: Found it mentioned in the patch notes :-

https://il2sturmovik.com/news/338/update-2012/

 

"Take off and landings became more predictable and controllable. "

 

under main changes

 

 

Edited March 4, 2018 by =FEW=Herne

[Guest deleted@50488]

I would rather have it as optional, just as other items are.

 

One can opt for "simple flight model", auto-rudder, ... There could be an entry for "simple takeoff & landing".

 

Landing really became so simple that it's simply not very believable, and that - for me - "ruins" the experience...

 

Ah, RL pilot here, btw :-) ( for more than  37 yrs )

Edited March 4, 2018 by jcomm-in-combat

[Max_Damage]

There is no reason to be sceptical about flight models in IL2 BOS. The flight itself is very well done imo. But it is the interaction between the plane and the ground which allows you to screw up every landing and come out unscratched.

[Pupo]

Time to move this thread to the FM discussion. 

Start collecting hard data on the landing and take off performance of the modeled aircraft and compare it with in-game aircraft performance. And if you find some discrepancy send it to the Dev team.

 

"Gut feelings" will not bring any changes to the game.

[Wolfram-Harms]

I think this is not firstly a flight simulation, but an air combat simulation.

What I mean is, that we must not click and press every single knob and switch to get an airplane fully prepared

for even the taking off. Some things are simplified to make it more fun to concentrate on the fighting.

That being said, I find the takeoff and landing simulation just the right mix between some difficulty

and some easyness.

And I bet, the outcry would be HUGE, if the Bf 109 for example was as tricky as the real craft was.

Almost a third of all Bf 109s had damage or got completely wrecked, from mistakes at takeoff or landing.

 

That MAY be fun to have in a sim for some true simulation freaks - but for the majority of a combat sim,

it would just be a big pile of frustration, I guess.

 

This video may show, how even the experienced EADS pilot had a tricky bouncy landing:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FJmu4n-bwJg&t=182s

 

 

Edited March 4, 2018 by Wolfram-Harms

[dburne]

I am currently flying the Spit , and loving it especially in my PWCG Campaign.

 

One thing I really like with the Spit in this sim, as opposed to say the "other one", is the fact that takeoffs and landings are more manageable. I personally do not want an exercise in frustration getting airborne and landing this beautiful bird , I just want to have fun enjoying flying and combat in it. Takeoffs are not bad at all, with enough right rudder trim fed in at first. It is still a little bit of a challenge to land and successfully come to a stop without twisting the plane around, but still quite enjoyable. But feels so good when I can come to a complete stop in a straight line.

 

[busdriver]

Anybody else notice how excruciatingly slow the power is applied? I simply can't apply power that slowly and think that proves something. Now demo that on a runway AND smoothly apply FULL TAKEOFF power in less than 5 seconds, AND STAY on the runway for your takeoff roll then report your results. That would impress me.

 

This is an air combat simulation played by 1G Comfy Chair Fighter Pilots not a sim looking for FAA type rating certification. We could do silly sh*t in the military and airline multi-million dollar simulators that were parlor tricks. But I assure you that we didn't claim that proved anything. Of course YMMV.

 

 

[GridiroN]

I disagree that the game is overly easy. I think the lack of true wind simulation does make landings and take offs easier. You don't have to worry about drifting, or use anti-gust techniques. 

 

That being said, landing and take-off did get noticeably a bit too easy when they changed the flight-model...

[IckyATLAS]

 

First it is important to note that the plane will veer left if the propeller turn clockwise (seen from pilot), and vice versa. The reason is that you will have a propeller induced airflow that will rotate around the plane in the same direction of the propeller (say clockwise) and hit the rudder on the left side which will make the plane deviate left. To this you have to add the torque effect that gets added to this. So it is not only torque. You have to add the p-factor that is related to the propeller blade angle of attack change but this is not useful here.

 

You do not flip a plane like this, in straight flight even with aerobatics planes that have an enormous power to weight ratio, it does not happen, wing surfaces are large and will oppose torque. You can with a good AOA and with a full aileron move that will stall the wing, do a snap roll. 

Modern aerobatic planes have very large ailerons surface, but are not as fast as the fighters. The fighters are faster  and thus you could snap roll with smaller aileron surface. There is also the fact that the fighters had very high wing load which would make snaps even easier. Now the 109 had slats, to improve at high AOA stall characteristics, and maybe reduce an uncontrolled snap roll happening. But this is only my guess here.

Aerobatics planes  made in carbon/kevlar fibers are made for these kind of figures. The WWII fighter planes would structurally suffer with these brutal figures (now if survival is at stake who cares about the machine). The fighters had machine-guns  and ammo boxes in the wings. A snap roll would create very high wing structural stresses around the large weights that are guns and ammo. And the risk is to have jammed guns. You could also have the landing gear getting jammed or malfunction.

 

These WWII fighters with very high wing load, and up to 2'000 hp were very dangerous at low speed, (climb and land, but worse on climb) due to brutal stalls. Now when you take off fully loaded with bombs, ammo, fuel etc..  you have a high AOA, at full power the rotating propeller slipstream will disturb the normal airflow around wings and fuselage. With  increasing speed  the airflow will take over against the rotating one. Now if you are in a hurry to start a  climbing turn before having good speed, yes you stall or do a snap roll that will nail you on the ground.

 

Regarding the take off video the plane is not going straight. The plane veers after all at least 30 degrees left, even with aileron correction. 

 

[FuriousMeow]

The 109 also has an asymmetrical airfoil for the vertical stabilizer.

[303_Kwiatek]

On 3.03.2018 at 7:37 PM, Quax said:

 

No torque would flip the plane over. Do us a favor and ecucate yourself about the torque effect. Rookie pilots were able to "flip" the plane in this situation. 

But only if they stalled one wing. If you are at the edge of the stall and suddenly use full aileron, this may happen. Especially if you don´t use adequate rudder input the plane

will yaw (sideslip) and this can lead to stall on the slower wing.

 

Are You sure?

Check 109 G4 Rotte 7 accident. Pilot got wrong landing pattern decided to go around apply full power too fast and wooala  landed on his back inverted

 

I also think that take offs and expecially bouncy landings are too simplicated. Developers changed landing gear spoilers and then planes could hang quite bouncy landings without damages. Before changes it looks more beliveable. Other hand taxi looks very strange to me planes are oversensivity on the ground never experience such problems irl in taildraggers.

 

But generally take offs and landings in BOX comapring to other sims still looks the most immersive to me

Edited March 5, 2018 by 303_Kwiatek

[Dakpilot]

33 minutes ago, 303_Kwiatek said:

 

Are You sure?

Check 109 G4 Rotte 7 accident. Pilot got wrong landing pattern decided to go around apply full power too fast and wooala  landed on his back inverted

 

 

 

 

Do you have a link to the accident report that states that? or are you just making wild assumptions/sensationalist  posts

 

Cheers, Dakpilot

[303_Kwiatek]

12 minutes ago, Dakpilot said:

 

 

Do you have a link to the accident report that states that? or are you just making wild assumptions/sensationalist  posts

 

Cheers, Dakpilot

I read the raport long time ago dont have link actually or it was in some paper magazine. I interesting in these so i remember a reason of these.

Edited March 5, 2018 by 303_Kwiatek

[blitze]

5 minutes ago, 303_Kwiatek said:

I read the raport long time ago dont have link actually or it was in some paper magazine. I interesting in these so i remember a reason.

https://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?45496-Bf-109-G-4-quot-red-7-quot-was-destroyed-by-an-accident

 

This is what I could find on the accident but it was in 2005, subsequent links to online media don't seem to work and the plane did not flip on an aborted landing but landed on 1 wheel and dipped its wing into the ground or so.  Anyway, it is discussed in this forum.

 

If you want a challenge with take offs, try a fully fueled Ju88 with large wing bomb load and internal smaller bombs.  I'm sure you will get a rise out of the challenge.  For me, all planes need respect when leaving and returning to terra firma.  Respect on the throttle, and also inputs with rudder to hold the line on the runway and with some, differential wheel brakes until rudder authority is established.  Offline one has to use Full Real settings to get the detailed modeling.  Custom doesn't cut it for some reason regardless of what tick boxes are selected.  You can set QMB to Runway for your start which will put you lined up on the runway with the engine warmed up.  This on Full Real as well as easier.

 

Saying the 109 can be taken off holding the line on the runway without rudder input in Full Real is Rubbish.

[HagarTheHorrible]

P 5, torque reaction accident 2014

 

https://www.ntsb.gov/_layouts/ntsb.aviation/brief.aspx?ev_id=20140704X61908&key=1