Take-off and landing

[Jabo_68*]

As I find take-off and landing harder in Cliffs Of Dover than Great Battles I want to know which title best simulates these features?

[Ala13_pienoir]

6 hours ago, Jabo_68* said:

As I find take-off and landing harder in Cliffs Of Dover than Great Battles I want to know which title best simulates these features?

The Balkan War began with a comment similar to this .....

Someone asked where they were doing the best falafel and before such an innocent question was the seed of destruction.

Someone said: they are simply different, but that is not enough and the cakes soon arrived!!

 

 

 

[Aap]

I don't think there are many people here that have flown these planes in real life to be able to comment, which is closer to reality. 

Anyway, when thinking of Bf-109's at least, CloD planes should be harder to take of and land than BoX planes, as these early versions did not have lockable tail wheels, so you need to "dance on the pedals" and be smooth with your throttle. 

[Heckpupper]

I'd say that neither BoX or CloD do a great job of simulating taxiing/take-off/landing particularly well. In BoX it's waaaaay to easy and prop effects, torque and low speed handling are very tame, while Cliffs does a slightly better job of this, the brakes and some other things are very poorly modeled. 

The other thing, is that what is considered a decent landings for simulator standards would be considered a terrible landing in real life, and your back would hate you for most landings you performed.

[Sokol1]

The thing is that being "hard" don't mean that is "best" or correct.

 

Take-off in GB is indeed more forgive, just keep plane in run way and pull up or trim up, in CloD are a bit more tricky, the wind (3 m/s ~ 5.8 knots) want flip up the plane, and if you don't rotate before a given speed threshold tires will blow-up and propeller damaged.

 

Landing in both is easy, but is difficult avoid that plane (any) make "donuts" after touch down in GB and bounce hard in CloD,  and taxi in CloD is a pain (due the wind, as above).

Edited August 22, 2019 by Sokol1

[pa4tim]

30 minutes ago, Sokol1 said:

Landing in both is easy, but is difficult avoid that plane (any) make "donuts" after touch down in GB and bounce hard in CloD,  and taxi in CloD is a pain (due the wind, as above).

 

You made my day, I am glad it is not completely my fault that almost every landing ( but for me in a FC plane) ends in a donut. Those things have no brakes but it seems to be better under control if I play a bit with throttle bursts and rudder.  Maybe this helps you in GB

On the other hand, I find taxi in FC planes a lot more easy as in GB.  I wish planes had a reverse gear ? 

 

I think now,  taking off in GB (and in 1946) is not very hard but when I started (not so long ago, I am still learning) I had big problems with it too.

It became a lot better after I mapped the L and R brakes to the rudder axis (there is one rudder axis but two brake axis so I map the rudder twice. But then I invert the rudder axis for one of the brakes. If you do not invert it for one brake you brake both wheels . As far as I experimented I think some planes have the brake-rudder coupling already in the FM embedded but I fly all planes now this way and I have no taking off problems anymore. But some planes are more reactive/aggressive as others so some need a softer touch on the brakes/rudder as others.  

 

There are planes with tail-wheel locking. For some it is done by pulling the stick but there are planes that have a separate tail-wheel lock keybinding you need to operate manually before taking off.  

 

What worked for me: I start if needed with some opposing rudder before I throttle up.  And if it goes more or less straight I only give very short rudder corrections because if you give to long rudder the plane suddenly can go on turning and end in a donut and if that does not happen,  you go over the strip as a drunk driver. React fast when you need to give rudder, do not wait to long,  but also stop correcting fast and before the plane is going straight again because it lags a bit. 

 

I have not a real problem in  GB regarding the touch-down and braking part of the landing but I do have a problem getting there at the right speed, height and direction.  For most when I am at an lower altitude to approach.  The only reason is that in those conditions I loose visual contact with the airfield while turning and can not find it back.  

[SE.VH_Boemundo]

The aircraft are oversensitive to wind in ClOD after TF patch. I am not sure if TF modelling is better, i have the feeling they just break things. The taxi and wind is too oversensitive.

1C should take CloD back. The graphics in my opinion and interaction with the cockpit rules. We need professional care for ClOD and would like they continue development.

Take back CLoD fix it a nd launch fully simulated individual aircraft like DCS. ClOD have some features (interaction and graphics) very interesting. It's a pity it is not going how by devs.

Edited August 24, 2019 by =BLW=Tales
completing

[JV69badatflyski]

9 minutes ago, =BLW=Tales said:

The aircraft are oversensitive to wind in ClOD after TF patch. I am not sure if TF modelling is better, i have the feeling they just break things. The taxi and wind is too oversensitive.

1C should take CloD back. The graphics in my opinion and interaction with the cockpit rules. We need professional care for ClOD and would like they continue development.

Take back CLoD fix it a nd launch fully simulated individual aircraft like DCS. ClOD have some features (interaction and graphics) very interesting. It's a pity it is not going how by devs.

LoL.....

?

[MeoW.Scharfi]

On 8/22/2019 at 10:32 AM, 4./JG26_Onebad said:

I'd say that neither BoX or CloD do a great job of simulating taxiing/take-off/landing particularly well. In BoX it's waaaaay to easy and prop effects, torque and low speed handling are very tame, while Cliffs does a slightly better job of this, the brakes and some other things are very poorly modeled. 

The other thing, is that what is considered a decent landings for simulator standards would be considered a terrible landing in real life, and your back would hate you for most landings you performed.

 

Real life landings are far easier than you think. Maybe the torque effect is not as strong in IL-2 as it should be(i don't know) but i wouldn't be too suprised if not even people who fly the last flyable 109s can tell that at full ata how the torque would react because the last flyable 109s are derated and are not flown in full power to save the engine.

 

I might sound like bitch here but people overexaggerating the difficulty of landings have never flown an airplane in their life or at least not a decent one. Landing is mostly quite easy. Overmodelling landing doesn't make something realistic at all. And the pilots back then were far worse than the typical sim pilot here and mostly made their solo flights with Bf 109s without having a simulator to train with and still were able without crashing it to dust.

 

Look at this glorious landing at the end, he kinda F*** it up, so in your point of view he would flipp and crash into 10 mio pieces? If i would land like that in il2, it would look even worse, tbh.

 

 

 

But i also want to add one thing, what i really would like and we maybe need, are these bad airfield mud conditions. Those would be awesome and they make the take offs and landings for most planes more difficult!

 

Like here

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cnBbj1pQaKg

 

or

 

 

Edited August 24, 2019 by MeoW.Scharfi

[Sokol1]

1 hour ago, =BLW=Tales said:

The aircraft are oversensitive to wind in ClOD after TF patch. I am not sure if TF modelling is better, i have the feeling they just break things.

 

To be fair the interaction of (light) wind over CloD planes on ground is the same since the release in 2011, AFAIR being worse at that time - who try take-off in Blenheim in that first days can remember the "nightmare".

[InProgress]

2 hours ago, MeoW.Scharfi said:

I might sound like bitch here but people overexaggerating the difficulty of landings have never flown an airplane in their life or at least not a decent one. Landing is mostly quite easy.

It's not, almost 50% of accidents occur during landing. And these are most deadly. So no, landing is not easy, it's the hardest part of flying. Some planes are easier to land some are harder. F4U seemed to have a lot of accidents during landings. 109 was similar but pilots who learned to fly it were happy with it and did not find landings hard. I think there was some data but I don't have a source. Bf109 had 11,000 landing accidents. Does not mean they crashed it but could simple push breaks too hard and break prop, touch ground with a wing etc. Easy to repair. 

 

People seem to want it insanely hard, I think it's good as it is. Hard does not mean you have crash every 3rd landing. You just have to be careful with 109 and actually put some effort into taking off or landings. In compare to ju87 for example which does not require so much work/skill to land or take off.

 

I honestly don't remember if I ever crashed it (ju87) or had bad landings with it. While in 109 it happened few times. 

 

Here are some opinions about 109, most are positive, some tell about few little problems. But it's not like 109 was nightmare to land or take off.

 

http://www.virtualpilots.fi/feature/articles/109myths/#landing

 

I think this should perfectly sums up everything.

 Me 109 E/F/G:
"The 109 had not for us, maybe not for the long time pilots of the 109, but the new comers had problems starting with the gear.  You know it was a high, narrow gear.  And we had many ground loops. And then the gear breaks. That is not a norm, this is a exception, but it anyway happens. "
- Major Gunther Rall

 

 

I really like this part tho, would love to see it in the game:

 

Me 109 G-6:
The locking mechanism of the landing gear was unreliable. The gear locking mechanism's indicator was mechanical, so it was best to kick the plane sideways to both directions before landing to be sure that the gear was surely locked.
- Martti Uottinen

Landing on wet airfields would be fun but I doubt it's possible to model. @Buzzsaw? As for now when you even touch small river or even a stream that is in front of some airfield in france. Your plane will jump up 20m and fall like a rock. Hope it will get fixed, same with instantly sinking planes during water landing.

 

 

Edited August 24, 2019 by InProgress

[MeoW.Scharfi]

@InProgress

 

The pilots had to operate 3 and up to 5 missions a day over a quite long time, on bad airfield conditions, especially with mud, winter and airfield hopping which was pretty much a big thing on eastern front where you just find the worst possible ground to take off. Some airfields had to sustain bombardments. If you have to operate due lack of sleep, illness, the high stress in a war/the possibilty to lose your life and living under bad living conditions. Even if you are not freezing to death, which many people can't even imagen what it does with your body and especially your mind and the fact that you are mostly not able to focus on a thing because you rather freeze or you are being ill, highly stressed, starving or anything else. With people who have unlike us far less experience about flying. Do you remember the first time your touched IL-2? How did your flight skill look like and how long did it take for you to get any good in landings? 

We have the luxus to retry after we punched the plane into the ground in a rough brain dead landing. Those other pilots had not this luxury of retrying under healthy conditions like us western europeans in time of freedome.

 

I have read a few biographies of world war 2 pilots especially 109 pilots. For example Lipfert who often wasted his planes on such stupid reasons and he was an ace(Experte) already to that time when he literally crashed his 109 in such stupidity. When anyone of us would have never thought of doing such things. But if you take the most important factor into account, the human error. Then it will be so clear why such things happen. Many of them admited that they were nervous wreckes, some of them were sent home in a straightjacket. This quite good explained which lousy conditions pilots had to fly back then in the Lipferts book.

[ZachariasX]

34 minutes ago, InProgress said:

It's not, almost 50% of accidents occur during landing.

100% of all accidents (except fatal midair collisions) are due to insufficient space between aircraft and ground. Simple.

 

It‘s not that take off and landings are difficult per se, there are just more things that can go wrong while giving you less margin for error. It‘s obvious that you have most bent metal near airfields, after all, that‘s where most aircraft are.

 

Conversely, most people think that diving their car very short distance is most safe, hence they often don‘t even buckle up „because I just want to dive over there“. Yet most accidents happen in proximity to ones home. Guess why? That‘s where you are driving mostly.

[InProgress]

@MeoW.Scharfi

That 50% is from modern times. 2006+

I am not saying landings are russian roulette but they simply count for almost half of accidents.

 

It depends who are we talk to and when and where. Allied pilots did not have it that bad, after the while they would simply get holidays, even if they don't want to. Germans had to fly non stop. But clod is about France and Great Britain, where you go to bar after mission, winters are just fine and you have normal house, not a hole in the ground with stolen heater from some russian house.

 

I am actually on your side here. Wanting some super high difficult landing makes no sense. 109 is hard to fly for new people. And I did crash it lots of times during take off when my wing would drop left and I would lose control. Landings were hard as well, it was when I first started flying in clod. But ju87 on the other hand was completely different. Even as a noob I was able to take off without crashing, landings were a bit bouncy but still just find.

 

This perfectly shows that 109 is as it should be. Hard if you don't know much about it and new people will crash a lot. While other planes are more forgiving.

 

I don't really fly 109, fighters are not my thing. Prefer good old stuka and 110. But I think we can all agree that from time to time our 109 landing is not perfect and ground loop happens or you bounce up and down.

3 minutes ago, ZachariasX said:

100% of all accidents (except fatal midair collisions) are due to insufficient space between aircraft and ground. Simple

100% you say?

[Aap]

1 hour ago, InProgress said:

It's not, almost 50% of accidents occur during landing. And these are most deadly. So no, landing is not easy

 

That kind of statistics does not really tell us if landing is easy or hard. It is like saying that if most of the broken shoelaces happen, while tightening shoelaces - so it means tightening shoelaces is really hard. Better indication of difficulty would be the amount of accidents vs successful landings. 

 

59 minutes ago, InProgress said:

That 50% is from modern times. 2006+

 

And the investigation then usually shows that weather was really bad + some instrument was malfunctioning + traffic controller had made a last minute change of runway + it was the first ever "no ILS" landing for the pilot + some other unfortunate coincidence that all together contributed to the accident.

[InProgress]

@II./JG77_Kemp

And yet 50% happens when they land and not take off or fly.  I think it's pretty simple, i did not say landings are hard by just being hard. They are hardest part of flying.

 

Guess depends how you understand easy/hard. I meant that if data shows that 47% of accidents happen during landing then it's the hardest part. Not that landings are super duper hard and you crash all the time. Yes,  all ok flights where nothing happend are pretty much 99%. It was less than 1% of all flights that had accidents. (this is commercial airlines data not little planes tho). But all i meant was that from accidents that do happen, landings are most common.

 

The total fatal accident rate, based on 219.5 million departures, was 0.33 and the hull loss accident rate was 0.77.

 

25 minutes ago, II./JG77_Kemp said:

And the investigation then usually shows that weather was really bad + some instrument was malfunctioning + traffic controller had made a last minute change of runway + it was the first ever "no ILS" landing for the pilot + some other unfortunate coincidence that all together contributed to the accident.

It was, is and will be for many years human error as main factor of accidents. Not only in air but anywhere, human error is the reason of car accidents and many others. You can say weather was bad and it contributed to it, but if weather is bad you don't drive 200km/h.

 

Well i really don't wanna go into it, statistic is a subject that people learn on university for many years and it's complicated as hell.

 

But in conclusion, riding a bike is not hard, but it's much easier to fall from it than fall when you walk. Just like it's easier for accident when you land than when you fly.

Edited August 24, 2019 by InProgress

[Aap]

40 minutes ago, InProgress said:

It was less than 1% of all flights that had accidents. (this is commercial airlines data not little planes tho).

 

I am pretty sure it is way-way-way lower than 1%. Just as an example, Heathrow has about 650 landings daily. Do you think there are several landing accidents daily? If the accident rate in commercial aviation was anywhere close to 1%, it would be considered a very dangerous way of transportation.

40 minutes ago, InProgress said:

It was, is and will be for many years human error as main factor of accidents.

 

I don't know what that graph is showing exactly, but if you have ever read a plane crash report or watched a documentary about it, these accidents are almost always a sum of several factors coinciding in the same flight. In commercial aviation there are procedures, checklists and two pilots. Even when there is a "human error", there is almost always some special condition or something out of the ordinary that made this human error possible.

 

Edit: Just looked up the accident rates from google. 2018 was a bad year, 0.36 fatal accidents per million (not per cent) of commercial flights. In 2017 it was 0.06 fatal accidents per million of flights. 

Edited August 24, 2019 by II./JG77_Kemp

[Sokol1]

RL statistics tell little about our game problem, there maintenance error/fault, component failures, controller mistakes, instruments malfunctioning, weather... don't play in the equation.

 

The only external factor is wind, but for "sake of gameplay "set down or turned off in some MP servers.

 

In game is easy put the plane in one piece on runway - rarely an player  will stall and spin before touch down,  what is difficult is put the plane in runway in a elegant an consistent way, and avoid the after touch down "quirks".

 

DCS P-51 is a pleasure to land - is not easy, but not annoying difficult, their other warbirds not so much.

 

 

 

 

Edited August 25, 2019 by Sokol1

[Ala13_pienoir]

From my ignorance, I will say that I always heard that more German pilots died landing than in combat

As well as the committed moments of the flight are takeoff and landing

We all know this and do not have much discussion

As they said, most of us would have broken our backs in many shots that we think have been cast correctly

I don't know if it will be more correct in clod, but what is certain is that it is more difficult

 

 

In reality, the most complicated moments in a flight are takeoff and landing, which account for 60% of fatal accidents. It is worth clarifying that another 10% of this type of accident occurs even before boarding the plane (in the taxi, in transport inside the airport) or even when the aircraft is parked or being towed.
This is, for pilots, one of the critical moments of the flight, which is concentrated in 12% of fatal accidents. The main difficulty is reaching enough speed to lift the flight into the space of the runway. Although historically this was a challenge for aircraft, currently the power of the engines has improved greatly, so that the takeoff ceased to be the most dangerous moment of the flight.

However, according to statistics, the most dangerous moment on a flight is the landing, which accounts for 48% of fatal accidents.

 

https://www.vix.com/es/ciencia/192366/cual-es-el-momento-mas-peligroso-de-un-viaje-en-avion

[InProgress]

6 hours ago, Sokol1 said:

RL statistics tell little about our game problem, there maintenance error/fault, component failures, controller mistakes, instruments malfunctioning, weather... don't play in the equation.

Who are you talking to? My point was only to show that landings are most deadly and accidents happens most during this part. It's not even up for discussion, it's a fact.

[danielprates]

On 8/22/2019 at 5:18 AM, II./JG77_Kemp said:

as these early versions did not have lockable tail wheels,

 

In the key binding options there is a "lock tailskid" button though. For what plane is it for?

 

As for the main topic: I do feel that CloD is overall harder, landings and takeoffs included, because more things are modelled that can go wrong. For instance in most (all) planes you can shred your tires if you touch down too fast, somenthing that wasn't modelled in BoX.

 

I like it. Feels more realistic.

Edited September 24, 2019 by danielprates

[jollyjack]

On 8/22/2019 at 1:19 AM, Jabo_68* said:

As I find take-off and landing harder in Cliffs Of Dover than Great Battles I want to know which title best simulates these features?

 

Well, i am relatively new to BoX and Cliffs. I must say some planes harder compared to others in both games. Spits are harder in Cliffs.

 

Other example: i tried Trips' Gramps BoK mission 3 with a Pe-2 and Couldn't get airborne, only crashing it in to the drink. So i messed around with it in the FMB. Could only get the pe2s35 version (not in Cliffs BTW) in the air of the programmed soft surface airfield, and just barely. Taxi-ing both Pe-2versions is a disaster generally (for me due tail wheel merry-go-rounding), so i placed the player Pe-2 at the very start of the runway instead of being parked.

 

This Pe-2 is a fun one alright, but slow. Probably needs more HP-ed engines, or maybe tuning them properly manually? If you use F2 and watch the gunner who's great at getting an Me109 out of harms way, he relaxes after the job sitting backwards (smoking a fag?) with his back at the plane's port-side.

 

In another FMB edited mission 3 i replaced the Pe with an A20. Piece of cake for this one; no wonder it's so popular ....

 

2 hours ago, danielprates said:

 

In the key binding options there is a "lock tailskid" button though. For what plane is it for?

 

As for the main topic: I do feel that CloD is overall harder, landings and takeoffs included, because more things are modelled that can go wrong. For instance in most (all) planes you can shred your tires if you touch down too fast, somenthing that wasn't modelled in BoX.  I like it. Feels more realistic.

 

For only some planes the tail wheel stays in a locked position with this function. But in Cliffs with a Spit f.i. you'll have to pull back the stick to get a tail wheel lock (tip from Sokol1?). Also sometimes correctly programmed functions in BoX work and then again refuse in the same game run. Example is Autopilot, and Time Scale upwards from 0. Maybe some one knows more about this .... In Cliffs you can manually edit or check/correct the confUser.ini file, but where can you do this in BoX?

 

PS just found this video, at the beginning there are the gunners, did not realize there were more than 1; no wonder these Me109s go down so fast:

 

 

Edited September 24, 2019 by jollyjack
correction

[Sokol1]

4 hours ago, danielprates said:

In the key binding options there is a "lock tailskid" button though. For what plane is it for?

 

"Lock tailskid" means lock tail wheel, work for Ju 87, Ju 88 and that Su(FO)-26.?

 

But CloD has some useless key binding, that are just left over of IL-2:1946, example:

Arestor hook

Fold wings

Hook/Unhook from mothership (Zveno)

Toggle horizontal stabilizer

 

 

Edited September 24, 2019 by Sokol1

[InProgress]

2 hours ago, Sokol1 said:

But CloD has some useless key binding, that are just left over of IL-2:1946, example:

Arestor hook

Fold wings

Hook/Unhook from mothership (Zveno)

Toggle horizontal stabilizer

I always thought it was some hint for future content or they had carriers or something and had to cut it off from the game because no time/money left

Edited September 24, 2019 by InProgress

[danielprates]

6 hours ago, Sokol1 said:

work for Ju 87, Ju 88 and that Su(FO)-26

 

This is what I wanted to know. I was away from CloD for a while and forgot some things. Tks!

[jollyjack]

I noticed some BBQ rosters under a Pe-2 wing in the video above's youtube image , didn't see them elsewhere. What are they? Antennae, slats?

 

 

Edited September 24, 2019 by jollyjack
added info

[Aap]

 

59 minutes ago, jollyjack said:

What are they? Antennae, slats?

 

Airbrakes.

[Sokol1]

11 hours ago, InProgress said:

I always thought it was some hint for future content or they had carriers or something and had to cut it off from the game because no time/money left

 

 

Is not need add commands for "future use", when the "future" came is just matter of add needed commands, this always happens:

 

Signal ground crew to insert/remove chocks

Fov +

Fov -

and 2/3 others I don't remember name don't exist in original game,  was added by TFS when they became necessary.

 

Around 25% of commands listed in CloD controls GUI can be removed/hidden - and so have a less clumsy interface, without "collateral effect", like the dozen of "Engine #3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8.

 

IF someday Hughes H-4 Hercules was added to CLoD, reintroduce the commands up to 8 again. 

Edited September 24, 2019 by Sokol1

[gn728]

3 hours ago, Sokol1 said:

Around 25% of commands listed in CloD controls GUI can be removed/hidden - and so have a less clumsy interface, without "collateral effect

I think programming 69 individual Magneto keystrokes might have been more impressive if it had also shipped with a decent GUI.....

[Sokol1]

... and magneto switch (toggle/rotary) don't have effect in plane startup, is just placebo. ?

[jollyjack]

9 hours ago, Sokol1 said:

... and magneto switch (toggle/rotary) don't have effect in plane startup, is just placebo. ?

 

Shhhhhh, mum's the word ....

 

[Ala13_pienoir]

15 hours ago, jollyjack said:

What are they? Antennae, slats?

 

 

many planes carried
To control the dive