Take offs and landings should not be that easy.

[303_Kwiatek]

About ladning G-4 Red 7 by Walter Eichhorn

 

Landing:

Landing has to be forsightfully planned. The process starts with switching off the radiator automatic. Manually fully opened, the spreaded radiator flaps at the wings trailing edge, close to the fusalage are decreasing the AC speed down to 300 kmph, at cruise power. The prop pitch is again switched to manual and set to 11:30. While further reducing power, below 250 kmph, flaps are set initially to 20°. Once decelerated to 200 kmph, the undercarriage is beeing extended. Still in wide downwind leg, flaps are set to 40°, and by a switch, the spark plugs can be burned. This should help to keep the egine running smoothly, when the plane has been flown with very low power over a longer time, previously. The final approach is done after a flat (low bank) turn at 180 kmph, Eichhorn prefers a slightly increased power setting. "Better 5 kmph too fast than being too slow", he says, "otherwise the descend rate is too high. Power changes in this speed range are connected with a strong turning about the vertical axis. You have to imagine that in the Messerschmitt, even small throttle changes are like 200 or 300 hp power difference. This has to be handled immediately". A lot of work that can quickly make the approach a wild ride, when descent rate, approach angle and speed do not match in the beginning. "The 109 wants to be treated like a glider on landing" once Bubi Hartmann had explained to Eichhorn. And this is confirmed by the three owners. A good method seems to be, to fly the final in a gentle curve. Thus, you keep the runway longest in sight. Just before touchdown, lined up straight, the landing tabs remain the only visual reference. "The Bf 109 is no wonder airplane," says Eichhorn, and Wilhelm Heinz even says that she is "meek as a lamp" if you treat her right. "But it's clearly a plane that has to be flown very disciplined, in precisely defined limits". Reserves, in case of errors, are depleted very quickly. This is probably one of the biggest differences to aircrafts usually flown by private pilots. Werner Grammel says it quite dramatically, "If you treat her properly, she is good to you too. If you don't, you'll get into hot water".

[303_Kwiatek]

36 minutes ago, blitze said:

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.

 

Hmm im quite sure that i read raport about 109 crash at landing ( probably Red7) when pilot did too fast  power apply for correction or go around then crashed due to torque reaction.

Edited March 5, 2018 by 303_Kwiatek

[HagarTheHorrible]

Re: P-51 Torque Roll

 

Originally Posted by supercub

I'm not going to mention any names......but a well known warbird/ex race pilot was talking to a friend of mine a few days ago about the recent accident in Southern Ca involving a P-51. I believe the initial NTSB report and general consensus is the accident was caused by a sudden increase in power, resulting in a torque roll. My friend said this experienced P-51 pilot that he was talking with.......said this was basically a myth.......that there is sufficient rudder and aileron control to keep the airplane going straight. This is in opposition to what I've always read and heard, in fact, if memory serves me, in the recent AOPA magazine, Barry Schiff talks about using no more then I believe it's 45" MP on a go around, but not having ever flown a Mustang I'm certainly no expert. Would like to hear from anyone with experience in Mustangs. Years ago, I did witness a Mustang that was attempting a wheel landing, he began to porpoise so applied power......the airplane started to yaw and roll left.......the pilot reduced power and leveled the wings and then slowly came back up on power.

Hi Supercub,

The difference in opinion comes from the definition of "torque roll", and the real reason that the airplane changes direction in three axis during high power, low airspeed conditions.

There is an excellent article about this in AvWeb's Pelican's Perch by John Deacon. John explains the whole process as well as I, or most anyone, can. Check it out.

It seems that every decade or so a spate of accidents happen that makes one think all of the previous knowledge has been lost. It hasn't, but the proliferation of knowledge about the basics needs to continue.

I might ad that not all students are predictable, either.

In about 1968 Mike Dillon wrote a fine article in Air Progress, the exact title I can't recall, but the dramatized 10 year old paraphrasing was "Fly Your Own Fighter Plane, or Death in a Beautiful Package" or thereabouts, which was about the four basic forces at work on high powered fighters at high power and low airspeed. It is still a great one and should be a must read for all those flying any airplane, tailwheel or tricycle, high power or low.

Supercub, if you are a Super Cub pilot, you know what the rudder does in climb. Try an experiment. Hold the stick and rudder in one position for a 60 mph cruise. Then push the throttle all the way up and see where the nose goes.
The Mustang, Sea Fury, Bearcat, Hellcat, P-40, whatever,
does the exact same thing and the same control inputs make it go where you want it to go.

One thing not spoken much of is the control pressures required to get the control surfaces to the position to do the most good. 100 lbs or more are required if the trim tabs are in certain positions. The pressures can be so high that the controls cannot be moved to where they need to be to correct the attitude of the airplane.

For little airplane drivers try this; a trimmed out, flaps 40, 60 mph glide in an older Cessna 182. Then push the throttle to the stop and see how much elevator force it takes to hold the same attitude. This would be a primer for an out of trim condition in a warbird.
For those with light twin time, remember the rudder pressures that you trim out after the "drill". Remember the rudder forces that suddenly appear when you retard the good throttle in the flare? There are many examples that might be a sample of the control pressures required of a pilot of a warbird.

(According to my good buddy warbird/race pilot, the short fuselage P-40 is the worst rudder pressure hog during a go around.)

You ask a good question. As well, your buddies warbird/race pilot is right. But, he has simplified the situation to make it difficult for the general public to properly understand the details.

Chris...

 

Link to article mentioned above:

 

https://www.avweb.com/news/pelican/pelicans_perch_87_killer_go-arounds_195755-1.html

 

There is a suggestion of an increased risk of Torque reaction with radial engines.  Did the 190 Anton's suffer particularly badly, (high power, high wing loading) ?

Edited March 5, 2018 by HagarTheHorrible

[HagarTheHorrible]

I wonder if "P"factor is a not insignificant part of torque roll accidents ?  What people describe as torque induced swing, in the sim,  is actually "P" factor, obviously it's not a strong enough force to lift the weight of the aircraft as well as swing it, as one might expect with "P" factor, before the wings take the load, but it's still significant enough to swing the aircraft from it's desired heading leading to rudder correction, leading to pilot induced yaw and thus fuselage blanking, loss of lift etc etc ?

 

As the "P" factor pulls the aircraft around to the left/right the aircraft body partially blanks off the airflow over the downwind wing and possibly the control surface decreasing it's ability to resist rotational forces.  I admit it does sound a little counter intuitive because if the wing looses lift then it might be expected to drop down while the other wing, still producing lift,  corrects the aircraft attitude ?

[303_Kwiatek]

Torque roll airframe opposite direction then prop is spinning. expecially when you add power from idle to max you should expect greater effect of these

[SCG_motoadve]

21 hours ago, busdriver said:

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.

 

 

Iam not making tricks, just felt the take offs were so easy ,I though I hope I cannot take off without touching the rudder, and it can be done, which dissapointed  me. Some posters said its not true BS etc, so made the video to show them, I never take off that way when playing, would be dumb.

 

109s take offs are super easy in this sim, actually even easier if you just apply full power early on and keep it straight with rudder.

 

Developers have the skill to make a more realistic ground mode for sure, but probably prefer to keep it the  way it is for playability, or else the learning curve will be even steeper, and hurt bussines, players will complain and get fustrated, so makes sense the way it is.

 

Only wish there was an option to choose more realistic ground handling.

 

The way ground modelling is in the sim, its still better than all other sims by far, but whoever thinks this is how a 109 took off in real life,  not even close, sorry , so in Il2 BOS its immersive but easy, all the other sims are very bad really.

I remember being so dissapointed when I took my first flying lesson, and I had been practicing with FSX before it, during the flight lesson thought, FSX is not even close at ground handling or flight model, and at that time thought , this is more like Il2 (10 years ago)

 

Some people get too defensive in here, do not understand the reason.

 

Below an account of a pilot flying a 109G4, read what he says about the take offs.

 

https://www.warhistoryonline.com/guest-bloggers/newly-restored-messerschmitt-bf109g-flies-test-pilot-shares-experience.html

[Higaluto]

 

guess this is the best takeoff and landing footage out there, compared what he does in the cockpit and what i do in the sim. It looks very much alike, it sure dosent look like a plane that will instantly kill you on a takeoff run, what must be considered i think in the war they flew under all weather. Strong crosswinds wouldnt stop then from taking off to intercept bombers i guess if 9 out 10 planes could take off.

 

also very interesting to se his rudder movements and very gentle throttle inputs, takeoff run is very short and he seems to be stepping alot on the rudder, not holding full left or right rudder but more correcting rudder.

 

edit: watch it on youtube in 720p was much better to see details.

 

 

Edited March 5, 2018 by Higaluto

[Art-J]

Motoadve, people were calling BS, because everyone in their right mind thought about taking off the airplane in a straight line, as pilots always do, and this is where your theory would be BS.

 

Your video cleared things out 100% and thank you for that one, but then again, it doesn't really prove much. Technically, if direction is not an issue and the aifield allows the plane to deviate left as much as it wants and roll as far as it wants with slow throttle input, then you can make every prop-driven aircraft takeoff without rudder. If you explained that method in the very first post, nobody would jump on you.

[JimTM]

Great G-4 video Higaluto, thanks.

 

Aside: Does anyone know what the music is at the end? Sounds like a variation of 54-40's "One Day in Your Life".

[busdriver]

2 hours ago, motoadve said:

Iam not making tricks, just felt the take offs were so easy ,I though I hope I cannot take off without touching the rudder, and it can be done, which dissapointed  me. Some posters said its not true BS etc, so made the video to show them, I never take off that way when playing, would be dumb.

 

Developers have the skill to make a more realistic ground mode for sure, but probably prefer to keep it the  way it is for playability, or else the learning curve will be even steeper, and hurt bussines, players will complain and get fustrated, so makes sense the way it is.

 

Some people get too defensive in here, do not understand the reason.

 

 

Had your OP led with "Developers have the skill to make a more realistic ground mode for sure, but probably prefer to keep it the way it is for playability, or else the learning curve will be even steeper, and hurt business, players will complain and get frustrated, so makes sense the way it is. But look at this...I can takeoff in a 109 without touching the rudder." I doubt anybody would have gotten defensive.

 

Look at the title of this thread. Then compare your "stupid pilot trick." FYI that is an acceptable phrase amongst professional pilots that have watched "Stupid Pet Tricks" on David Letterman. Pilots performing stupid pilot tricks usually preface it with the phrase, "hey watch this." Your painfully slow power application...no regard to heading drift is by definition a "stupid pilot trick."

 

You think takeoffs are too easy. Fine, that's a valid opinion. Using your trick takeoff as proof, that's different.

[Quax]

9 hours 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

 

 

 

Yes, I am sure. The accident you are quoting is exactly the one I described. Wing stalled.

[SCG_motoadve]

1 hour ago, busdriver said:

 

Had your OP led with "Developers have the skill to make a more realistic ground mode for sure, but probably prefer to keep it the way it is for playability, or else the learning curve will be even steeper, and hurt business, players will complain and get frustrated, so makes sense the way it is. But look at this...I can takeoff in a 109 without touching the rudder." I doubt anybody would have gotten defensive.

 

Look at the title of this thread. Then compare your "stupid pilot trick." FYI that is an acceptable phrase amongst professional pilots that have watched "Stupid Pet Tricks" on David Letterman. Pilots performing stupid pilot tricks usually preface it with the phrase, "hey watch this." Your painfully slow power application...no regard to heading drift is by definition a "stupid pilot trick."

 

You think takeoffs are too easy. Fine, that's a valid opinion. Using your trick takeoff as proof, that's different.

 

Title might not be good, but the other one would be too long.

Initially when I said I could do take offs without touching the rudder everyone said BS, not possible, I just did the video to show it is possible, then I get responses like oh not in a straight line? why? I didnt do it to show of as trick, just to show it can be done and that kind of take off , should not be possible to do.

 

This kind of take off just shows  ground modelling its too easy , in real life you can have a dry lake bed 100miles x 100miles and you cannot take off without the use of rudder, ever.

 

But even worse is the from 0% to 100% full power instantly and you can take off in a straight line, very quick (yes using rudder) want me to make a video? I see lots of people use this technique in multiplayer, again super easy , quick take off, effortless, this technique should result in a ground loop instantly.

 

If you use the more realistic technique of applying smooth power and rudder makes it more realistic and challenging take offs in Il2 BOS, and I understand when people say it is fine the way it is, but the 0% power to 100% power quick take off should be rewarded with a ground loop, not being airborne quicker.

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

Time for this one to die. No PC simulator can fully compete with real life and none ever will in our lifetimes. You are using a parlor trick to make a point which is not particularly valid despite it not being completely invalid. The FM in this game is among the best, if not the best, available. Further, it is constantly getting tweaked as opportunity allows. Stop doubling down and let it go already.

[Herne]

On 05/03/2018 at 7:09 PM, motoadve said:

 

 

 

If you use the more realistic technique of applying smooth power and rudder makes it more realistic and challenging take offs in Il2 BOS, and I understand when people say it is fine the way it is, but the 0% power to 100% power quick take off should be rewarded with a ground loop, not being airborne quicker.

 

Try that in a p40

[SCG_motoadve]

4 hours ago, II/JG17_HerrMurf said:

Time for this one to die. No PC simulator can fully compete with real life and none ever will in our lifetimes. You are using a parlor trick to make a point which is not particularly valid despite it not being completely invalid. The FM in this game is among the best, if not the best, available. Further, it is constantly getting tweaked as opportunity allows. Stop doubling down and let it go already.

Where in my post I mention the FM? to me the FM is the best in the industry, I have said this many times and congratulate and thank the team, and exactly this is why I think the ground modelling is too easy and dumbed down compared to how detailed and good  the FM is.

 

Giving from 0% to full 100% throttle instantly in a 109 and getting away with a quick take off, its too easy.

 if its for playability then yes agreed , maybe its better for gaming purposses, compared to the flight model is not up to par. 

Go try it its a super easy take off.

The plane should ground loop, either the rudder is too effective when at ground or torque modelling is low, but this kind of take off is too easy and arcade compared to the fantastic FM

Here is a video of a quick take off.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zwrku1DRmok

Edited March 7, 2018 by motoadve

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

Where’s a dead horse gif when you need one?

[SCG_motoadve]

It was already dying and you resurrected it 

[Gambit21]

Hagar - Robin Olds (WWII Mustang pilot) disagrees with 'no Mustang torque roll'  he describes such an incident during a landing in his book.

[senseispcc]

One thing that is omitted in all this discussion is the fact that is real life the pilots can feel the plane, wind, movements, etc. In PC simulation we have only our eyes to guide us during these critical short moments that is the take off and if we keep in the confines of the artificial cockpit there is often not much to see from the outside world and the Wind direction and force cannot be seen or sensed.

We compare a 2-dimension representation of reality with reality it is a error. If the level of difficulty was the same in the game than in reality only one in a thousand takeoff or landing could be successful. I am very happy and satisfied with the actual solution and level of realism of the GAME that is given to us. Thanks to the development team.

[Ribbon]

4 minutes ago, senseispcc said:

One thing that is omitted in all this discussion is the fact that is real life the pilots can feel the plane, wind, movements, etc. In PC simulation we have only our eyes to guide us during these critical short moments that is the take off and if we keep in the confines of the artificial cockpit there is often not much to see from the outside world and the Wind direction and force cannot be seen or sensed.

We compare a 2-dimension representation of reality with reality it is a error. If the level of difficulty was the same in the game than in reality only one in a thousand takeoff or landing could be successful. I am very happy and satisfied with the actual solution and level of realism of the GAME that is given to us. Thanks to the development team.

I agree our senses are limited in virtual flying!

But you can visualy see wind effects, just go in "quick mission" and set weather conditions such as wind speed  and turbulence than try to land or attack ground targets.

It's modeled very nice!

On majority servers and SP missions weather conditions aren't noticable cos makers didn't set them to be challenging.

[senseispcc]

8 minutes ago, EAF_Ribbon said:

I agree our senses are limited in virtual flying!

But you can visualy see wind effects, just go in "quick mission" and set weather conditions such as wind speed  and turbulence than try to land or attack ground targets.

It's modeled very nice!

On majority servers and SP missions weather conditions aren't noticable cos makers didn't set them to be challenging.

I partially agree with you, Wind effects are nicely reproducing for the plane and the ordonnances (bombs, rockets and guns ammunitions) but until now I did not see any movement of the wind in the trees or on the water of the rivers. There are limitations on what the simulation can do.

 And the discussion was about takeoff and landing where there are limitations to sensations that the game can give back to the player.