Planes to easy to Taxi and Take off

[II./JG53Lutzow_z06z33]

I'm not complaining, more of pointing somthing out that has changed for the worse when it comes to realism. In the hope it will be changed. Anyway when I first started flying il2 bos (beta days) taxing and take off were pretty difficult especially in the FW190 but also the BF109. Which to me is how it should be  lots of ground loops from inexperienced pilots cramming full power in to fast,or pushing the tail up to abruptly. Or not knowing how to handle a tail dagger after landing. Currently you can slam the throttle forward from a stop with no consequences. Landing is the same thing I can't say I've ground looped anything for quite somtime, yes I'm more experienced but the level of skill needed to handle these planes on the ground has been lowered. When we consider that more bf109s were lost in to/ldg accidents than in combat clearly we can see that somthing isn't right in the sim. I understand that for normal mode this would hurt the player base, but realistic ground handling should be implemented as a server option for Expert servers. What I say next is as a real world pilot who owns a Yak-52. Taxing a 109 or 190 shouldn't be like taxing a Cessna 172.  These are high performance fighters with huge amounts of torque to manage. Even in my Yak-52 I don't pour the coals to it(full power) until already rolling down the runway so my rudder is effective enough from the airflow to deal with the torque. My engine (360hp) is a runt compared to these WW2 fighters (1200hp or more). Anyway the ground handling needs to be looked at,getting these planes in the air should be a challenge at the expert level currently it's like flying a Cessna.

Edited May 24, 2018 by II./JG53Lutzow_z06z33

[RedKestrel]

If I do what you suggest I wreck my plane every time, even in a docile i16. I feel like this same thing has been posted about before but when people tried to duplicate it found the plane ground looped as expected...

[unreasonable]

IIRC it is the ground physics has been altered - I am not sure that there have been FM changes that affect ground handling. Have there?

 

It would be interesting if someone had ever collected accident stats for online flying. I bet those would be an eye-opener, and that people with only a few hours still crash on take off or landing all too often.

 

As for "torque": if you mean yawing from prop wash then there is still plenty of that during ground handling.

 

Anyway, not questioning your impressions or credentials: just that as usual the more specific you can be about exactly what you think is wrong the more likely you are to get decent feedback or consensus on the need to make changes.

 

 

[SCG_motoadve]

2 hours ago, II./JG53Lutzow_z06z33 said:

I'm not complaining, more of pointing somthing out that has changed for the worse when it comes to realism. In the hope it will be changed. Anyway when I first started flying il2 bos (beta days) taxing and take off were pretty difficult especially in the FW190 but also the BF109. Which to me is how it should be  lots of ground loops from inexperienced pilots cramming full power in to fast,or pushing the tail up to abruptly. Or not knowing how to handle a tail dagger after landing. Currently you can slam the throttle forward from a stop with no consequences. Landing is the same thing I can't say I've ground looped anything for quite somtime, yes I'm more experienced but the level of skill needed to handle these planes on the ground has been lowered. When we consider that more bf109s were lost in to/ldg accidents than in combat clearly we can see that somthing isn't right in the sim. I understand that for normal mode this would hurt the player base, but realistic ground handling should be implemented as a server option for Expert servers. What I say next is as a real world pilot who owns a Yak-52. Taxing a 109 or 190 shouldn't be like taxing a Cessna 172.  These are high performance fighters with huge amounts of torque to manage. Even in my Yak-52 I don't pour the coals to it(full power) until already rolling down the runway so my rudder is effective enough from the airflow to deal with the torque. My engine (360hp) is a runt compared to these WW2 fighters (1200hp or more). Anyway the ground handling needs to be looked at,getting these planes in the air should be a challenge at the expert level currently it's like flying a Cessna.

I agree 100% with you, as a real pilot I feel the same , this sim does not reward the landings or take offs, full power instantly and you take off, landing and ground handling super easy, easier than a Cessna 172, or any tail dragger, no challenge at all.

 

Torque is dumbed down big time, pull the throttle to 0% and pushed back to 100% and you see what I mean.

 

It would be nice to have a realistic option for single player and expert realistic servers.

Wanna play expert server? learn to fly the plane properly first like all pilots did, then go to combat, it would be a lot more rewarding.

 

 

On the other hand I think developers are aware , and they have it like this for playability reasons, and to not have a steeper learning curve and scare new players away, which makes sense.

As an option would be nice though, this team has the skill to do it for sure.

[DD_Perfesser]

Yes it is too easy to take off and land.

 There's hardly any yaw when the tail comes up and ugly bounces on landing are easy to ride out without a go around.  I can understand them keeping it simple in the name of gameplay however.....

At the very least it should be impossible to firewall the throttle from the parking ramp and get in the air. You could fix this by making ground handling more realistic or have fields that have a runway too rough to operate off the taxiways and runway.

[Guest deleted@50488]

It's been tamed a lot, I believe... and I do recall the early experiences with taking off and landing, but many were complaining about it because of not using the proper hardware...

 

Would be best to keep it that way and add an option for "easy takeoff & landing" in the Mission Settings ….

[BOO]

Damn - I though I was improving....

[RedKestrel]

I get all kinds of torque...any more and I wouldn’t be able to compensate for it with the rudder.

[RedKestrel]

Just out of curiousity I tried it out tonight with every fighter I could.

In every case except the Il-2, instant 100% swung the nose hard. Only full deflection of the rudder stopped the plane from spinning in place.

The Il-2 required some hard rudder (almost full opposite to torque) but let me take off.

The mig-3 instantly ground looped (hello tail wheel). The 109 dipped a wing and scraped, then dipped the other when I tried to compensate and ground looped. The Yak-1 tried to spin out, spun the other way when I gave it 100% rudder. I got it into the air, but it dipped a wing on takeoff and killed me because of all the oscillation. The I-16 ground looped.

Every time the tail wheel comes up on every plane I have (except the Il-2, which is docile) I need to apply 30-50% Rudder (or even more in the Mig-3) to keep the nose from swinging.

I know its more than 50% because the mig-3 tail wheel comes unlocked while I'm still compensating for initial torque.

Maybe you guys are applying more rudder than you think instinctively.

As far as landings I do think the gear is sometimes too robust, but I've had nasty bounces destroy my gear. And I've had one wheel of my gear collapse when I gave too much rudder on takeoff, the wing dipped and went on one wheel, and that wheel collapsed partially with the weight. I also regularly ground-loop the mig-3 on landing.

Maybe its a little simplified, but you can't just firewall the throttle and take off. Or at least, I can't. 

 

[unreasonable]

Always best to actually check these claims +1 Red Kestrel. My own recent experience is very much in line with what you say.

 

Could it be that part of the problem for RL pilots is that their HOTAS pedals (assuming they are using them) give very little resistance compared to their RL plane pedals? Or less travel? Hence they may be underestimating how much rudder is being used.

 

But if there is something specific wrong we need someone to document and record exactly what it is. Anyone?

 

 

[SCG_motoadve]

I have the Crosswind rudder pedals, they are pretty good, one of the best.

 

I made a video of a take off in a 109 without using the rudder, in real life that would be impossible in a 109 or any taildragger .

Maybe in game the rudder has too much authority, or toque dumbed down.

Most likely for playability reasons devs did it.

 

But for sure it is not that we real pilots have the problem and the game is the way the real planes are.

Video is VR so its ugly ? just did it to prove a  point.

 

 

[unreasonable]

Then I would be very interested in how you did that. I have just tried in a G-2 (QM, std conditions, no wind) four times and however slowly - or quickly - I advance the throttle the swing to the left is very marked as the rpm gets up to 1000. With feet off the pedals I will get 45 degrees or more off line almost immediately and eventually a full circle.

 

You were maybe 20 degrees off at worst (hard to see in your video - but that would be enough to crash on some airfields).  So I am genuinely puzzled as to what you were doing differently.

 

I find the same is true of all the aircraft I have used recently. 

[CisTer-dB-]

We have to be realistic on what we ask. If we had it exactly how it is. 90% of the guys wont be able to takeoff with a 109 and on most planes as a matter of fact 

Edited May 26, 2018 by ATAG_dB

[yeikov]

1 hour ago, II./JG77_motoadve said:

Most likely for playability reasons devs did it.

 

Not 100%, but I am almost sure (I had nightmares thinking of takeoff and landing in a Mig-3 before) that this was an effect of the major FM revision that made planes much less unstable in yaw. Physics changes have effects across the board. Around the same time they also changed the landing gear reactions to save resources and allow more planes on the ground, maybe this has an effect too. I'm not a pilot so I don't know if it's more or less realistic, but I doubt that this was an intentional "dumb down" for playability.

Edited May 25, 2018 by yeikov

[Yogiflight]

18 hours ago, unreasonable said:

Then I would be very interested in how you did that. I have just tried in a G-2 (QM, std conditions, no wind) four times and however slowly - or quickly - I advance the throttle the swing to the left is very marked as the rpm gets up to 1000. With feet off the pedals I will get 45 degrees or more off line almost immediately and eventually a full circle.

At 1:30 you can see, that motoadve counters the torque with the ailerons to reduce the left yaw.

[unreasonable]

2 hours ago, Yogiflight said:

At 1:30 you can see, that motoadve counters the torque with the ailerons to reduce the left yaw.

 

I can see that he does something there but I do not see why it reduced yaw.

 

Torque does not produce yaw, it produces roll.  So you need a little aileron to prevent a wing dipping: I am OK with that. But I though that would induce adverse yaw: ie a further yaw to the left, requiring more right rudder. Was he using differential braking? 

 

The yaw is caused by asymmetrical prop wash and P-factor, both of which will cause left yaw in a clockwise propped aircraft during take off. When I take off in a G-2 I find right rudder absolutely essential. I can see that the video produced a different result - but a track would be easier to understand.

4 minutes ago, Agathos_Deimon said:

I honestly disagree with the thread opener. I fly oldtimers and taildragger IRL including the T-6/Harvard. I find the take-off and landing in IL2 not to much off. The ground handling at low speed, especially taxiing on the other hand is hilariously difficult.

 

Currently i am really struggling with the new Spitfire IX... <snip>

 

You are not the only one: I find it harder to keep straight than the MkV, but I have got the best results with brakes and being very quick to counter swing with a sharp rudder tap - put on and then take off rudder immediately, until I have completely stopped. Then raise flaps and taxi. 

[Vig]

"The ground handling at low speed, especially taxiing on the other hand is hilariously difficult. "

 

Thanks, Agathos, I was hoping that it wasn't just me. 

[Yogiflight]

1 hour ago, unreasonable said:

Torque does not produce yaw, it produces roll.  So you need a little aileron to prevent a wing dipping: I am OK with that. But I though that would induce adverse yaw: ie a further yaw to the left, requiring more right rudder. Was he using differential braking? 

Of course I don't know, if this is modelled here in game, but the rolling to the left because of the torque will put more pressure on the left wheel of the main gear and reduce the pressure on the right gear, which leads to a leftbraking effect. By giving right aileron this effect gets reduced by discharging the left gear. And, IIRC it also has to do with the air stream over the ailerons.

There has been a thread about this issue, already, some weeks ago.

[PainGod85]

1 hour ago, unreasonable said:

 

I can see that he does something there but I do not see why it reduced yaw.

 

Torque does not produce yaw, it produces roll.  So you need a little aileron to prevent a wing dipping: I am OK with that. But I though that would induce adverse yaw: ie a further yaw to the left, requiring more right rudder. Was he using differential braking? 

 

The yaw is caused by asymmetrical prop wash and P-factor, both of which will cause left yaw in a clockwise propped aircraft during take off. When I take off in a G-2 I find right rudder absolutely essential. I can see that the video produced a different result - but a track would be easier to understand.

 

You are not the only one: I find it harder to keep straight than the MkV, but I have got the best results with brakes and being very quick to counter swing with a sharp rudder tap - put on and then take off rudder immediately, until I have completely stopped. Then raise flaps and taxi. 

 

Hold on. While you are quite correct in saying the force applied by the prop's torque is rotational in the longitudinal axis, you are completely failing to take into account how that force is being distributed through the airframe.

 

That force means one gear leg is subject to higher force while the other is subject to proportionally the same amount less. This means the more heavily loaded gear leg is liable to become a pivot around which the airframe may ground loop, and at this point the engine's torque has a direct effect on the plane's yaw axis.

 

Now, you can do one of two things to compensate:

 

1. Combat the effects of engine torque with rudder input. This has the benefit of requiring less fluctuation in input for most of the takeoff roll.
2. Combat the actual engine torque by using ailerons to cause asymmetric lift on your wings so weight distribution between your main gear legs is evened out. With increasing speed, this can quickly cause you to completely lose control as lift forces start to change rapidly.

Edited May 26, 2018 by PainGod85

[unreasonable]

PainGod: Fair enough - but perhaps you could quantify for me how much of the leftwards yaw motion is coming from 1) prop wash, 2) P-factor, and 3) asymmetrical loading on the gear?

 

My problem with motoadve's video is that never mind how well one keeps the wings level with aileron, there is still an strong pull to the left in the early part of the take-off run, which I still need rudder to counteract. Even in his video the plane goes well off line to the left: enough to cause an accident in many circumstances. He could not hold it on line without rudder.

 

I am not sceptical that he can take off as he did: I am sceptical that that demonstrates that there is something fundamentally wrong with the FM and/or ground handling physics. 

 

 

[PainGod85]

49 minutes ago, unreasonable said:

PainGod: Fair enough - but perhaps you could quantify for me how much of the leftwards yaw motion is coming from 1) prop wash, 2) P-factor, and 3) asymmetrical loading on the gear?

 

My problem with motoadve's video is that never mind how well one keeps the wings level with aileron, there is still an strong pull to the left in the early part of the take-off run, which I still need rudder to counteract. Even in his video the plane goes well off line to the left: enough to cause an accident in many circumstances. He could not hold it on line without rudder.

 

I am not sceptical that he can take off as he did: I am sceptical that that demonstrates that there is something fundamentally wrong with the FM and/or ground handling physics. 

 

I was not making any statement regarding the video, just pointing out something in your response that didn't think of.

 

Anyways, quantifying how much of what has which kind of effect is probably going to be almost impossible without a degree in aeronautical engineering, but some ballpark blanket statements are probably possible.

First of all, we know the 109's engine turns clockwise and thus exerts a higher force on the left gear leg from its torque.

At the same time, this is reinforced by increasing effective alpha on the left inner wing, and decreased alpha on the right due to the way the prop blades interact with the air - they're essentially airfoils and thus create lift induced drag, which creates a spiraling funnel of air behind the propeller disk.

 

...aren't your first two points effectively the same?

 

 

[unreasonable]

2 minutes ago, PainGod85 said:

 

I was not making any statement regarding the video, just pointing out something in your response that didn't think of.

 

Anyways, quantifying how much of what has which kind of effect is probably going to be almost impossible without a degree in aeronautical engineering, but some ballpark blanket statements are probably possible.

First of all, we know the 109's engine turns clockwise and thus exerts a higher force on the left gear leg from its torque.

At the same time, this is reinforced by increasing effective alpha on the left inner wing, and decreased alpha on the right due to the way the prop blades interact with the air - they're essentially airfoils and thus create lift induced drag, which creates a spiraling funnel of air behind the propeller disk.

 

...aren't your first two points effectively the same?

 

 

 

They have a similar effect but arise from different causes, at least according to :  http://wiki.flightgear.org/Understanding_Propeller_Torque_and_P-Factor

 

But I agree with you that we cannot practically tease them out. What we can do though is avoid logical mistakes, and I think there is one in the thread, something like:

 

1) RL pilots did not do X  (agreed)

2) I can do X in the game (agreed - at least  motoadve can, even if I cannot )

3) Therefore the game's physics are wrong.

 

3) simply does not follow from 1 and 2.  motoadve took off without rudder - but why in the world would any RL pilot do that? For a bet? What he did would be extremely dangerous, as well as being totally unnecessary. How does unrealistic pilot behaviour prove unrealistic physics unless you can actually measure something in the physics in both game and RL?  Behaviour =/= capabilities.

 

 

[PainGod85]

You know what, I'm going to jump into the DCS 109 and see if I can takeoff without using rudder there.

 

E: Nope, not even close. I needed to use full right rudder, right aileron and intermittent right wheel brake to keep the plane on track until around the middle of my TO roll even when throttling up to 1.2 ATA on brakes at a standstill and never changing power settings until I was airborne.

Edited May 26, 2018 by PainGod85

[unreasonable]

Well no doubt that is very interesting but I am sure that you are not going to use the performance of a video game as evidence of how the real thing behaved.

 

Meanwhile here is a film of a real 109 taking off. You can see that he needs some rudder, but in dabs: certainly not full right rudder for more than fractions of a second.

Quite hard to find clear films of the real thing taking off where you can see the rudder, unfortunately.

 

 

Edited May 26, 2018 by unreasonable

[PainGod85]

1 minute ago, unreasonable said:

Well no doubt that is very interesting but I am sure that you are not going to use the performance of a video game as evidence of how the real thing behaved.

 

Meanwhile here is a film of a real 109 taking off. You can see that he needs some rudder, but in dabs: certainly not full right rudder for more than fractions of a second.

Quite hard to find clear films of the real thing taking off where you can see the rudder, unfortunately.

 

 

 

Agreed, and privately I believe ED overdid torque effects on its prop birds.

[unreasonable]

OK (I do not have DCS) but just for interest - and the record - here is an even clearer shot - watch from about 3.56. Again there is rudder use but only short dabs of nothing like full rudder although he does use full rudder when taxiing earlier.

 

 

Edited May 26, 2018 by unreasonable

[Guest deleted@50488]

OTOH, in IL-2 I have to use right rudder, permanently, all along the taxi ride, which disagrees a lot with what we can observe in RW footage of 109s taxiing, and this applies also with tailwheel locked...

 

I'd say none of the two is correct in their ground physics….  one for some reasons, the other for different ones...

[DD_Perfesser]

It is easier in the game than RL fighters and it should be - we loose enough of the precious things every year with the best pilots that can be had. The airfields in BOX would look like wrecking yards and you could find your way home just by the fires.

It shouldn't be so hard that the newer pilots can't get off the ground but as I originally stated I would simply like to see the end of Hyperlobby takeoffs across the active runway.

A strip of rough ground ... a few more obstacles is all it would take.

 

In any of these fighters you should not be able to keep control even using full rudder if you mash the throttle to full from a standing start.

Perhaps the early fighters aren't so overpowered but go ahead and give our new Spit IX a try(check out the astonishingly low sink rate in a glide too.)

The recent Spitfire nose over in France is about the result you should expect in a fighter with a light tail.

 

 

In this Mustang clip you can see at 2 min. he takes a full 10 seconds (maybe more)to apply full power.

 

[Art-J]

On 5/26/2018 at 8:42 PM, jcomm-in-combat said:

OTOH, in IL-2 I have to use right rudder, permanently, all along the taxi ride, which disagrees a lot with what we can observe in RW footage of 109s taxiing, and this applies also with tailwheel locked...

 

I'd say none of the two is correct in their ground physics….  one for some reasons, the other for different ones...

 

Hear hear!

Coming recently to BoX from DCS I kind of got used to generally ultraoptimistic rudder effectiveness at low RPM and speeds, and resulting lack of need (almost) for using differential braking. I still fly CloD occasionally, so both platforms feel similar here.

 

BoX seems to be skewed the opposite way compared to DCS, I wouldn't be surprised if "correct" prop-vs-rudder modelling was somewhere in between.

 

It's difficult, however, to accept almost non-existent effectiveness of tailwheel lock in this sim, especially when 109s love to turn left all the time - concrete, grass, lock or no lock, you name it. I even did some experiments turning off the engine during rollout to minimize the prop slipstream and see what would happen. Nah, the Messer still tries to groundloop strictly to the left :D.

Edited May 28, 2018 by Art-J

[Poochnboo]

On 5/26/2018 at 7:36 AM, Agathos_Deimon said:

I honestly disagree with the thread opener. I fly oldtimers and taildragger IRL including the T-6/Harvard. I find the take-off and landing in IL2 not to much off. The ground handling at low speed, especially taxiing on the other hand is hilariously difficult.

As a real life pilot with a lot of taildragger time (I owned one!) I agree with this. I feel the torque. But trying to taxi.....I feel, and must look like, a complete idiot. Two nights ago I was on line. I first taxied into a PE2. Then I ran into a P40. THE THIRD TIME I hit a fuel truck. I finally got off the ground on the fourth attempt! Lol!!!!!!!!!!

[ACG_Smokejumper]

On 5/26/2018 at 4:39 AM, unreasonable said:

 

I can see that he does something there but I do not see why it reduced yaw.

 

Torque does not produce yaw, it produces roll.  So you need a little aileron to prevent a wing dipping: I am OK with that. But I though that would induce adverse yaw: ie a further yaw to the left, requiring more right rudder. Was he using differential braking? 

 

The yaw is caused by asymmetrical prop wash and P-factor, both of which will cause left yaw in a clockwise propped aircraft during take off. When I take off in a G-2 I find right rudder absolutely essential. I can see that the video produced a different result - but a track would be easier to understand.

 

You are not the only one: I find it harder to keep straight than the MkV, but I have got the best results with brakes and being very quick to counter swing with a sharp rudder tap - put on and then take off rudder immediately, until I have completely stopped. Then raise flaps and taxi. 

 

 

I do the same. I pump the rudder like I'm trying to stop on ice pre ABS. I think I read it somewhere and it works.

[Bilbo_Baggins]

On 5/27/2018 at 1:43 AM, PainGod85 said:

You know what, I'm going to jump into the DCS 109 and see if I can takeoff without using rudder there.

 

 

 

You can't take off a 109 in BOX without using rudder. How are people imagining this? If you power up it will careen to the left. 

Edited June 2, 2018 by Mcdaddy

[MeoW.Scharfi]

8 minutes ago, Mcdaddy said:

ou can't take off a 109 in BOX without using rudder. How are people imagining this? If you power up it will careen to the left. 

 

Not true at all, of course you can take off without ANY ruder in a 109 in BoX.

[Bilbo_Baggins]

15 minutes ago, MeoW.Scharfi said:

 

Not true at all, of course you can take off without ANY ruder in a 109 in BoX.

 

How is that done without a rudder? The airplane will go to the left and you will end up in the bush or wrapped around an AA gun. 

Edited June 2, 2018 by Mcdaddy

[MeoW.Scharfi]

1 minute ago, Mcdaddy said:

How is that done?

 

That's how

 

[Bilbo_Baggins]

15 minutes ago, MeoW.Scharfi said:

 

That's how

 

 

I guess it's time to wrap up this sim and put it back in the arcade box then.

 

Is there a reason why you've made the video pitch black and the rudder controls not visible?

Edited June 2, 2018 by Mcdaddy

[MeoW.Scharfi]

Just now, Mcdaddy said:

I guess it's time to wrap up this sim and put it back the arcade box then. 

 

It's pretty much like in the aviation where flight students are getting told to put their stick against the wind.

That causes drag and avoids the plane to break out. That's why i am putting my stick to the left side.

Which is also a good trick for DCS K4 that tends to break out a lot.

 

Just now, Mcdaddy said:

Is there a reason why you've made the video pitch black and the rudder controls not visible?

 

Oh i can upload another video where i do the same with high gamma till everyone eyes bleed, no problem.

[Bilbo_Baggins]

3 minutes ago, MeoW.Scharfi said:

 

It's pretty much like in the aviation where flight students are getting told to put their stick against the wind.

That causes drag and avoids the plane to break out. That's why i am putting my stick to the left side.

Which is also a good trick for DCS K4 that tends to break out a lot.

  

 

Oh i can upload another video where i do the same with high gamma till everyone eyes bleed, no problem.

 

What does 'break out' mean? 

 

Full aileron left- will have to try that. Do you consider this realistic?

[MeoW.Scharfi]

22 minutes ago, Mcdaddy said:

What does 'break out' mean? 

 

Full aileron left- will have to try that. Do you consider this realistic?

 

Break out = loses control in take off/ground loop, my english brain went afk there.

 

Yes i consider it as realistic flight physic, it works also in dcs K4. But I can't tell if it's how a 109 would act in real life, no one can except real 109 pilots who tried that.

Moreover I think that without ruder take off would work with binding the right break to a key, and pressing it a few times while taking off.

 

 

Edited June 2, 2018 by MeoW.Scharfi

[SCG_motoadve]

I posted the no rudder take off before.

No real airplane can take off without rudder input (Maybe Aircoupe but that one has ailerons linked to rudder).