Bf 109-F2, ground-turning to the right, what am I doing wrong?

[Izel]

Hello community,

 

Lately, I've been having a lot of trouble doing effective ground turns while taxiing to the right (Bf-109 F2). I end up applying full right rudder, with full right differential break, ~25% throttle and I can barely make the plane move straight; sometimes the right break pressure is too strong that I stop the plane from moving and need to increase throttle, which again, causes me to move straight; releasing just a little bit or right break makes me spin hard to the left .  It is much easier for me to apply a "Zoolander"  and turn 270º to the left in order to turn right!

 

I am sure the tail-wheel is unlocked,  trim is +1, and sometimes it is very easy to turn!  Can someone enlighten me on what could I be doing wrong?

 

Cheers!

 

 

[Diggun]

Maybe... Maybe you're not an ambiturner? 

 

 

[crigby46]

The 109 has a narrow undercart which makes this problem more noticeable than in other aircraft, but it's a part of the torque reaction. It's the same reason you have to apply right rudder on takeoff, but exacerbated by the fact that you need to overcome the aircraft's inertia to immediately turn right; thawhile the aircraft is trying to turn left. Your best bet is to get going forwards first, and then turn right in relatively wide arc. That's actually easier to control than it sounds, as the torque will cause a slow turn to correct itself rather than turn into a spin!

[Field-Ops]

Basically, if you plan to turn right you should already be moving straight for at least a few feet before you will get any right turn out of her. 

[Guest deleted@50488]

You sure you're not using it under stronger crosswinds ?

 

In the server or mission / quaick mission, check if winds are set.

 

Anyway, I agree that taxiing the 109s in IL-2 is a lot more difficult, requiring almost permanent application of right rudder, than what I believe it's RL practice...

[FTC_Riksen]

 

[Blackhawk_FR]

8 hours ago, jcomm said:

You sure you're not using it under stronger crosswinds ?

 

I thought the same thing.

 

8 hours ago, jcomm said:

Anyway, I agree that taxiing the 109s in IL-2 is a lot more difficult, requiring almost permanent application of right rudder, than what I believe it's RL practice...

 

I'm not sure there is enough relative wind to have an effective rudder when taxiing (slow, few power). It's more about brakes, or controlled tailwheel when available. 

[Reckoner_]

On 4/6/2019 at 7:51 PM, Rosco said:

I end up applying full right rudder, with full right differential break

 

Quote

I am sure the tail-wheel is unlocked

 

That's your problem. Release the right brake and only apply small corrections to keep it straight. Tail-wheel should be unlocked only when you need to make a tight turn on taxiway.

Edited April 8, 2019 by Reckoner_

[Psyrion]

Try taxiing at low power. The 109 drives like a car if you unlock the tailwheel and increase power so about 1100-1300 rpm.

[=OT=Rollie]

All the planes are terrible at ground handling. Jason has placed way to much emphasis on using your brakes and not enough for the rudder. The rudder is very effective for pushing a light weight tail around.

Just look at a air boat. No brakes at all but the tail still moves very well from the blast of air coming off the prop.

[DD_Perfesser]

2 hours ago, =OT=Rollie said:

 

Just look at a air boat. No brakes at all but the tail still moves very well from the blast of air coming off the prop.

Not so sure about that. The "rudders" are right behind the prop. Probably more in the realm of vectored thrust.

[Blackhawk_FR]

On 4/15/2019 at 3:17 AM, =OT=Rollie said:

All the planes are terrible at ground handling. Jason has placed way to much emphasis on using your brakes and not enough for the rudder. The rudder is very effective for pushing a light weight tail around.

 

 

Rudder is just slightly effective. You need brakes or a controled tailwheel to taxi your aircraft.

[Herne]

On 4/15/2019 at 2:17 AM, =OT=Rollie said:

All the planes are terrible at ground handling. Jason has placed way to much emphasis on using your brakes and not enough for the rudder. The rudder is very effective for pushing a light weight tail around.

Just look at a air boat. No brakes at all but the tail still moves very well from the blast of air coming off the prop.

 

Just like real tail dragger's, it takes a little practice to become comfortable with the ground handling You'll find you should get used to it soon enough

[Sublime]

Rudder and lock that tail wheel.

Also man if you lean and look before you close the canopy and make sure youre clear to your front Ive noticed actually ramming the throttle forward fast reduces the torque effects a lot (they reduce as you speed up) and if you *gently* nose down to gain more speed around 100 km/h and rotate at 150/180.

Dont worry though as they said its practice - I csn take off Fw190s offline all day for some reason I always crash and burn online.  Eventually I got it. Keep trying.  Dont give in to game 'cheats' lowering difficulty IMO they just handicap you later

 

Ooh ya any take off using a brake is bad.  Youre taking off you DONT want brakes (and this is probably causing you to lose control at speed btw) 

Also good to remember o/t some planes like the A20 start with a parking brake on. Turn it off or do a 3km take off run like I did last night lol 

[Blackhawk_FR]

4 minutes ago, Sublime said:

Ive noticed actually ramming the throttle forward fast reduces the torque effects a lot (they reduce as you speed up)

 

Sorry but it's your imagination. 

Whatever how fast you push your throttle, as soon as you have max power with low speed, you got maximum torque and helicoidale blast.

[Sublime]

Easily could be.  No need to be sorry.  Then in that case its a stronger argument for practice then that Ive been playing this (however flight sims for 25 years) 3 weekd and can just take off in 120 seconds. Thats the problem with anecdotal evidence. Now imagine if I had been a pilot theres no real evidence to back this up but it *feels* real to me.  This is why a first person history is priceless but a true history needs lots of angles to make a serious argument.

Ty though

Oh and can you explain the heliocodale or whatever it is for a simple mind?  Wth is that?

Edited April 16, 2019 by Sublime

[Elem]

[Sublime]

Youre awesome. Pic worth 1k words ty

[=OT=Rollie]

I don't believe there is much of a difference in the airflow between a rudder that is 20 ft away and one that is 2 ft away. Especially since the rudders on airboats/hovercraft are generally smaller than for aircraft. The blast of air from the prop is sufficient enough to direct the aircraft in the direction you want. Brakes are needed to slow you down and to pivot in place, not so much just to taxi. I see way to many players constantly doing ground loops with no control once one starts. Taxing aircraft is not rocket science. It should not be harder than actually flying the plane. If this was the case there would have been mention of it in the history books and stories of WW2 aircraft. it would be a major statistic of aircraft damaged/destroyed in ground handling incidents. Even the 109 which was infamous for takeoff/landing problems was not such a beast, other than poor visibility, just to taxi. The use of brakes for taxing has been way overly done to provide more gameplay, not to be historically accurate. Just like the water effect anytime you get near a cloud. Flying thru clouds should not be like going thru a car wash.

Your opinion may be different, but I'm entitled to mine. And though I've never flown such high performance aircraft like WWII fighters, I do have experience with real life aircraft.

[Herne]

29 minutes ago, =OT=Rollie said:

I don't believe there is much of a difference in the airflow between a rudder that is 20 ft away and one that is 2 ft away. Especially since the rudders on airboats/hovercraft are generally smaller than for aircraft. The blast of air from the prop is sufficient enough to direct the aircraft in the direction you want. Brakes are needed to slow you down and to pivot in place, not so much just to taxi. I see way to many players constantly doing ground loops with no control once one starts. Taxing aircraft is not rocket science. It should not be harder than actually flying the plane. If this was the case there would have been mention of it in the history books and stories of WW2 aircraft. it would be a major statistic of aircraft damaged/destroyed in ground handling incidents. Even the 109 which was infamous for takeoff/landing problems was not such a beast, other than poor visibility, just to taxi. The use of brakes for taxing has been way overly done to provide more gameplay, not to be historically accurate. Just like the water effect anytime you get near a cloud. Flying thru clouds should not be like going thru a car wash.

Your opinion may be different, but I'm entitled to mine. And though I've never flown such high performance aircraft like WWII fighters, I do have experience with real life aircraft.

 

The difference is horsepower. These WWII fighters taking off under scramble conditions is going to put more force on the tail fin requiring more rudder input from you to keep it moving straight down the runway, gunning the throttle from stand still, even if it does not blow the engine is not really advised.

Hovercraft, at least the ones I have seen have no obstruction between the fan and the fin / rudder, so the vortex, for want of a better word does not apply. 

 

Civilian Tail dragger's  tend to have much less powerful engines. the RAF's dehavilland chipmunk trainer for example had 145HP engine for a dual seater, that could also tow gliders, but you still have to use rudder offset to keep it straight on the runway.

Edited April 16, 2019 by =11=Herne

[Blackhawk_FR]

54 minutes ago, =OT=Rollie said:

The blast of air from the prop is sufficient enough to direct the aircraft in the direction you want.

From my personal experience on light taiwheel aircrafts, I can confirm that no, the blast of air is not enough. Considering you're taxiing slowly with almost idle throttle (just enough to maintain your speed). 

I also asked to a pilot who is flying a Yak9 (https://www.46aviation.com/warbirds/). He confirm the rudder is really slightly efficient. 

So... it's not a question of an opinion vs another. It's just a fact  

 

54 minutes ago, =OT=Rollie said:

It should not be harder than actually flying the plane.

Actually yes it is. Some aircrafts are harder to taxi than fly.

 

25 minutes ago, =11=Herne said:

The use of brakes for taxing has been way overly done to provide more gameplay, not to be historically accurate.

See above. 

 

54 minutes ago, =OT=Rollie said:

Just like the water effect anytime you get near a cloud. Flying thru clouds should not be like going thru a car wash.

But you are right about this. 

Edited April 16, 2019 by F/JG300_Faucon

[busdriver]

What @F/JG300_Faucon said. My exact thoughts.

[CAFulcrum]

Don't worry, the AI has the same problem.  I got back from a career mission just now and there was a lone 109 at the end of the runway going around in endless circles.

I think the trick is to account for wide turns and not going too fast.  Once it starts to lean and spin its over.

[Sublime]

22 hours ago, Elem said:

The helio thing caught me off.  Im used to it being referred to in regards to the sun.  From the pic it clicked - its a word describing rotating or shifting on an axis thanks again

[Elem]

It's...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helicoid

as Faucon said.

not

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helios

 

Edited April 17, 2019 by Elem

[=420=Syphen]

On 4/16/2019 at 10:28 AM, =OT=Rollie said:

I don't believe there is much of a difference in the airflow between a rudder that is 20 ft away and one that is 2 ft away. Especially since the rudders on airboats/hovercraft are generally smaller than for aircraft. The blast of air from the prop is sufficient enough to direct the aircraft in the direction you want. Brakes are needed to slow you down and to pivot in place, not so much just to taxi. I see way to many players constantly doing ground loops with no control once one starts. Taxing aircraft is not rocket science. It should not be harder than actually flying the plane. If this was the case there would have been mention of it in the history books and stories of WW2 aircraft. it would be a major statistic of aircraft damaged/destroyed in ground handling incidents. Even the 109 which was infamous for takeoff/landing problems was not such a beast, other than poor visibility, just to taxi. The use of brakes for taxing has been way overly done to provide more gameplay, not to be historically accurate. Just like the water effect anytime you get near a cloud. Flying thru clouds should not be like going thru a car wash.

Your opinion may be different, but I'm entitled to mine. And though I've never flown such high performance aircraft like WWII fighters, I do have experience with real life aircraft.

 

So long as there is weight on your tailwheel, the rudder is minimally efficient. With the tailwheel on the ground we use either a) A steerable tailwheel or b) braking to provide the bulk of the steering. If this is not sufficient, a quick, strong shot of throttle with forward elevator to unweight the tailwheel and give flow over the rudder will help steering.  I'd say it's a healthy mix of rudder &  braking. I don't think a general blanket statement of "Brakes are only for pivoting in place & rudder steers the rest of the time!!" is correct.