ridiculous uncontrollable engine torque on airplane models.

[SvartHelvete]

How can a plane that torques one way magically gain that same torque in the opposite direction? How is that even possible? 

[Talon_]

What?

[Trooper117]

Funny how everyone else seems to control the torque with no problems...

[69th_Mobile_BBQ]

On planes without rudder trim like the Me 109, some rudder input is required to stay flying straight. For the 109 it's adding right rudder, which is accurate. I've noticed that once the plane is at speeds around 500+ kph, the rudder requirement switches to requiring a bit of left rudder.   I always figured it had something to do with aerodynamics. Maybe this is what he's talking about?

[Barnacles]

2 hours ago, SvartHelvete said:

How can a plane that torques one way magically gain that same torque in the opposite direction? How is that even possible? 

Just press the 'I believe' button.

[Lusekofte]

2 hours ago, SvartHelvete said:

How can a plane that torques one way magically gain that same torque in the opposite direction? How is that even possible? 

Norsk? 
 

Please specify what plane you refering to. 
many of the taildraggers need to have their tailwheel straight before starting take off or locked. 
Your offensive attitude , and your perspective on the problem need to be corrected. Always think it might be you before going public with a accusation of faulty programming. 
As I see it no cfs get ground handling correct in special if there is wind. 

[SvartHelvete]

45 minutes ago, Trooper117 said:

Funny how everyone else seems to control the torque with no problems...

You really helped me with my troubles. I am glad to be a part of this really helpful gaming community.

[=X51=VC_]

41 minutes ago, 69th_Mobile_BBQ said:

On planes without rudder trim like the Me 109, some rudder input is required to stay flying straight. For the 109 it's adding right rudder, which is accurate. I've noticed that once the plane is at speeds around 500+ kph, the rudder requirement switches to requiring a bit of left rudder.   I always figured it had something to do with aerodynamics. Maybe this is what he's talking about?

 

This is because the Bf 109 tail is a vertical aerofoil tuned to cancel the engine torque at apporoximately cruise to combat power settings in the 400-500 km/h range. Slower than that and this vertical "wing" does not produce enough sideways "lift", so you need right rudder. Faster than that and the sideways lift on the tail is swinging the nose too far to the right, so you need left rudder now to cancel it.

Edited July 8, 2020 by =X51=VC_

[SvartHelvete]

12 minutes ago, 216th_LuseKofte said:

Norsk? 
 

Please specify what plane you refering to. 
many of the taildraggers need to have their tailwheel straight before starting take off or locked. 
Your offensive attitude , and your perspective on the problem need to be corrected. Always think it might be you before going public with a accusation of faulty programming. 
As I see it no cfs get ground handling correct in special if there is wind. 

You have some rather thin skin if you think I have an offensive attitude for expressing an opinion on an experience I am having in a video game. I think you know it must be faulty for a planes torque to magically reverse. 

[FTC_DerSheriff]

1 minute ago, SvartHelvete said:

You really helped me with my troubles. I am glad to be a part of this really helpful gaming community.

You started the topic aggressively. So follow adjust your tone for answers that are more helpful. If you even want to have proper answers.
Because how you start the topic suggests that you aren't after an answer.

[SvartHelvete]

Just now, =X51=VC_ said:

 

This is because the Bf 109 tail is a vertical aerofoil tuned to exactly cancel the engine torque in the 400-500 km/h range. Slower that that and this vertical "wing" does not produce enough sideways "lift", so you need rudder. Faster than that and the sideways "lift" is swinging the nose too far to the right, so you need left rudder now to cancel it.

I have no troubles with the 109s . It is the 190s and the strike aircraft for the Germans. I have had the 190 spin out with the tail wheel locked and the rudder applied to compensate for the torque. I have  had these aircraft torque in the opposite direction of the engines torque. How is that even possible? 

 

3 minutes ago, DerSheriff said:

You started the topic aggressively. So follow adjust your tone for answers that are more helpful. If you even want to have proper answers.
Because how you start the topic suggests that you aren't after an answer.

 

3 minutes ago, DerSheriff said:

You started the topic aggressively. So follow adjust your tone for answers that are more helpful. If you even want to have proper answers.
Because how you start the topic suggests that you aren't after an answer.

I don't like you, please do not reply to my thread.

 

[=X51=VC_]

You did not even say you meant on the ground. Anyway I was not answering you, because you did not even explain in what planes or situations you have an issue. I was explaining for 69th_Mobile_BBQ.

[sevenless]

6 minutes ago, SvartHelvete said:

I have no troubles with the 109s . It is the 190s and the strike aircraft for the Germans. I have had the 190 spin out with the tail wheel locked and the rudder applied to compensate for the torque. I have  had these aircraft torque in the opposite direction of the engines torque. How is that even possible? 

 

 

I don't like you, please do not reply to my thread.

 

 

Don´t feed the Troll.

[firdimigdi]

2 hours ago, SvartHelvete said:

How can a plane that torques one way magically gain that same torque in the opposite direction? How is that even possible? 

 

Could you please provide an example description of what it is you are referring to, including a description of the control inputs you are applying? Also the wind conditions.

Edited July 8, 2020 by Firdimigdi

[Bremspropeller]

Wind.

[=FEW=fernando11]

37 minutes ago, SvartHelvete said:

I have no troubles with the 109s . It is the 190s and the strike aircraft for the Germans. I have had the 190 spin out with the tail wheel locked and the rudder applied to compensate for the torque. I have  had these aircraft torque in the opposite direction of the engines torque. How is that even possible? 

 

 

I don't like you, please do not reply to my thread.

 

Mate, chill a bit.

 

You do come across as way too agresive/on the defensive...

 

Why dont you start by say "Hi everyone"

I have this and this problem, on this and this situations...

There is even a new players section on this forum when I have seen some basic "problems"" and dificulties explained  many many times over and over again by some friendly and helpfull members.

As others state, don't asume everyone else is wrong and you are wright.

Is this a new plane you have never used?

Are you sure you are locking the Tail wheel properly?

Can you make a short video of the problem you are having?

Edited July 8, 2020 by =FEW=fernando11

[Elem]

1 hour ago, SvartHelvete said:

You really helped me with my troubles. I am glad to be a part of this really helpful gaming community.

You really haven't said what your troubles are yet! And you haven't been until now!

Edited July 8, 2020 by Elem
error

[Lusekofte]

1 hour ago, SvartHelvete said:

You have some rather thin skin if you think I have an offensive attitude for expressing an opinion on an experience I am having in a video game. I think you know it must be faulty for a planes torque to magically reverse. 

As I said some airplanes need to have their tailwheel straight before you throttle up. Others need tail wheel lock. 
I did not mean offensive in other meaning than you are pretty sure it is the games fault not your operation of the aircraft. 
You need to specify what plane you struggle with. You post is far too general, no plane act the same.  
wind is a big issue in this game

I see you mention the 190. Stick all the way back activate tailwheel lock. 
hs 129 need to have manual prop at 0% and tailwheel straight. Carefully handeling. Ju 88 is tricky. You need to look at the instrument Pendel to react and always keep your tailwheel straight before takeoff

 

 

Edited July 8, 2020 by 216th_LuseKofte

[Stoopy]

Seems to me the young lad is talking about issues on the ground taxiing the aircraft, and is using the word torque to describe spinning.

 

EDIT:  Oops.  ^^ Seems LuseKofte has addressed that.  And better than I would have.

 

 

Edited July 8, 2020 by Stoopy

[Zooropa_Fly]

To be fair, if anyone thinks that OP was in any way 'offensive' - for God's sake don't go near any of the ww1 forums !

[RedKestrel]

7 minutes ago, Stoopy said:

Seems to me the young lad is talking about issues on the ground taxiing the aircraft, and is using the word torque to describe spinning.

 

Yes. It sounds like he is over-correcting for engine torque and initiating a ground loop in the opposite direction. And as @216th_LuseKofte mentions above, the 190 only locks the tailwheel when the stick is fully back, so the button to 'lock the tailwheel' would not work. Without a locked tailwheel it is very easy to start a turning moment that you can't stop, because physics is a bitch.

 

[PatrickAWlson]

5 minutes ago, RedKestrel said:

Yes. It sounds like he is over-correcting for engine torque and initiating a ground loop in the opposite direction. And as @216th_LuseKofte mentions above, the 190 only locks the tailwheel when the stick is fully back, so the button to 'lock the tailwheel' would not work. Without a locked tailwheel it is very easy to start a turning moment that you can't stop, because physics is a bitch.

 

 

Just transitioned from 109 to 190 and I can confirm the importance of pulling the stick back  .  If one is taxiing it gets a bit more tricky.  As you turn onto the runway your tailwheel might not be straight and I don't think pulling to lock automatically straightens it.  You may have to go forward for just a moment to straighten the tailwheel, then pull to lock, then apply more power. 

 

The tail of the 190 does not come up as readily as the 109 (at least that is my perception).  You need something like 130 KPH before it wants to come off the ground.  That means that you are looking blind over the nose pulling on the stick, and dancing on the rudder, all for a longer period that I was accustomed to on the 109.

 

 

[firdimigdi]

30 minutes ago, Stoopy said:

Seems to me the young lad is talking about issues on the ground taxiing the aircraft, and is using the word torque to describe spinning.

 

Yup - now that I read through some of the back and forth with others it does seem like that. Although no mention of crosswinds it sounds like he gets caught off guard when the tail gets off the ground.

[Legioneod]

Torque is so under modeled in this game, it's not a huge factor imo on take off and landing. Probably just need to get used to the game. Do you have rudder pedals and brakes set up, because that can cause you some trouble taxiing/ taking off even with little touque.

[Lusekofte]

Anyhow a lot of people make donuts with fighters all the time. And they all do it due to lack of patience. 
I read P 47 is a hard case in real life. P 51 got its quirks too. Not always the easiest to land and operate in real life as I understand it. It is hotrods and should not be plug and play to get right. 
If not accurate modeled it might very well be historical problems. 

[=X51=VC_]

3 minutes ago, Legioneod said:

Torque is so under modeled in this game.

 

Can confirm, take-off in the DCS 109K-4 is cold-sweat terrifying, even after a few times, while IL2 it's just rudder and the plane takes off itself. The stuff you need to do in DCS, constantly tapping brakes, adjusting with ailerons as well as rudder, more closely matches the descriptions of pilots flying 109s.

 

Having said that, DCS ground handling for WWII planes is way easier than IL2. Not sure what that means and which is more realistic.

 

190 is hard to taxi and easy to donut in IL2, but as long as you take it slowly and patiently you can overcome it. Taildraggers are easy to over-correct so it's a "dance" often on multiple controls (brakes, rudder, throttle) to keep it going where you want and you need to predict a problem and respond quickly and accurately before it becomes impossible to correct.

Edited July 8, 2020 by =X51=VC_

[Lusekofte]

The  nick he has say it all, this is a very angry man. Svarte helvete is something you utter when you bump your little toe into something hard

[SCG_Wulfe]

Well, regardless of anyone's motives. I think there is definitely some room for improvement when it comes to to taxiing, takeoff and landing. I think the engine torque on take off should actually be more difficult to control. You shouldn't get away with just ramming the throttle forward. Also lifting the tail too soon without adequate flow over the surfaces should generally be a death sentence.

Edited July 8, 2020 by SCG_Wulfe

[PatrickAWlson]

1 hour ago, 216th_LuseKofte said:

Anyhow a lot of people make donuts with fighters all the time. And they all do it due to lack of patience. 
I read P 47 is a hard case in real life. P 51 got its quirks too. Not always the easiest to land and operate in real life as I understand it. It is hotrods and should not be plug and play to get right. 
If not accurate modeled it might very well be historical problems. 

 

I personally have bigger problems with bombers than fighters.  Most fighters have rudder authority straight away so no need to use brakes.  The He111 and Ju88 to me are bears to get off the ground because the need for toe tapping.

[SCG_motoadve]

Torque is very under modeled in Il2 series.

And torque is something that you needed to master.

I wish some day they increase torque, it would add lots of realism.

 

Some  might not like it, but unlike real pilots , they have infinite amount of planes and lives to learn it in IL2.

[=FEW=fernando11]

1 hour ago, PatrickAWlson said:

 

Just transitioned from 109 to 190 and I can confirm the importance of pulling the stick back  .  If one is taxiing it gets a bit more tricky.  As you turn onto the runway your tailwheel might not be straight and I don't think pulling to lock automatically straightens it.  You may have to go forward for just a moment to straighten the tailwheel, then pull to lock, then apply more power. 

 

The tail of the 190 does not come up as readily as the 109 (at least that is my perception).  You need something like 130 KPH before it wants to come off the ground.  That means that you are looking blind over the nose pulling on the stick, and dancing on the rudder, all for a longer period that I was accustomed to on the 109.

 

 

The tip that solved all my troubles taking off on the 190: .besides pulling the stick to lock the tailwheel,  run straight while pulling the stick all the way, and by watching the turn and bank indicator, keep the ball centered and you will have no problem.

At 100km/h relax the stick to a neutral position, you should have enough rudder autority, otherwise you risk going from Tail down to a climb and a stall.

[PatrickAWlson]

1 minute ago, =FEW=fernando11 said:

The tip that solved all my troubles taking off on the 190: .besides pulling the stick to lock the tailwheel,  run straight while pulling the stick all the way, and by watching the turn and bank indicator, keep the ball centered and you will have no problem.

At 100km/h relax the stick to a neutral position, you should have enough rudder autority, otherwise you risk going from Tail down to a climb and a stall.

 

Thanks for the tip.  I get it off the ground but usually my wingman has dangerously blown by me by the time I'm airborne  .  Tips like these should help me to beat my wingman into the air.

[Stoopy]

The FW190 encourages good habits because it's good practice to hold the stick back in your lap when taxiing any taildragger, to help keep the tail planted (exception being in cases of very strong winds from behind that are travelling faster than the aircraft is moving).   

 

Taxiing any of the conventional-gear aircraft in IL-2 benefits from this ('specially the LaGG IMHO).  As the old saying goes with taildraggers, "You're not done flying until the aircraft is parked". 

[I./JG52_Woutwocampe]

For a little while, like maybe a month ago, for some obscure reason, it became very hard for me to takeoff in a Dora with bomb loadout. The AI was totally unable to do it. I was the only one able to do so, the 7x AI Doras would make donuts. Out of nowhere, it became very manageable again, we call all takeoff with an SC500 without issue.

 

I must admit, I absolutely have no theory.

[von_Tom]

3 hours ago, MattS said:

 

 

 

How dare they use Darwin on that mug!

 

For those that aren't in the know, The Amazing World of Gumball is AMMMMAAAAZZZIIIIINNNNGGGGG!  Best series ever and the kids don't get most of the jokes.  I mean, Banana Joe in his room late at night watching an orange being unpeeled on his pc...

As for the OP - it can't.  It's a PICNIC problem.

 

von Tom

[=X51=VC_]

26 minutes ago, Stoopy said:

The FW190 encourages good habits because it's good practice to hold the stick back in your lap when taxiing any taildragger, to help keep the tail planted

 

Except the Bf 109, which according to a modern pilot flying a restored one is so tail heavy on the ground it apparently needs stick forward with power on to take weight off the tailwheel and actually get it to turn (on grass). Which explains why they needed to fit a bigger tailweel in the G series.

 

The Spitfire is the opposite, they sometimes had ground crew sitting on the tail during taxi because a mis-judged tap on the brakes would result in it tipping forward and banging the prop.

[Bremspropeller]

You know, you can always make the torque match by going inverted...

[40plus]

OP isn't going to do well here if he already has a stick up his keaster.

[Trooper117]

4 hours ago, SvartHelvete said:

You really helped me with my troubles. I am glad to be a part of this really helpful gaming community.

 

You didn't ask for help mate... you just jumped straight in with a statement, as if you were picking fault.

Ask for help and you would have surely got it..

[AndyJWest]

The more interesting question is how is it that a symmetrical object can be driven in a straight line by applying 1000+ HP to rotate another object at 90 degrees to the first object's axis of symmetry? The Wright Brothers, being the sensible guys they were, realised it couldn't (not that they had 1000+ HP to worry about), and accordingly designed their aircraft with counter-rotating propellers. More or less everyone since has decided to ignore the problem, and hope nobody notices.

 

Seriously though, to answer the OP's question, there are lots of things going on while a prop-driven taildragger is accelerating or decelerating on the ground, and all most none of them are doing anything to keep it straight. The torque is trying to roll the whole thing sideways. P-factor is offsetting the thrust sideways relative to the centre of the prop. The slipstream is rotating around the aircraft, doing all sorts of unpleasant things that will vary widely as the speed changes. The mainwheels, being in front of the CG, will yank the thing sideways as soon as it gets any drift at all. And the pilot, unless he is really good, can make the whole thing a lot worse by reacting too late, and by overcorrecting. Taking off under such conditions is an exercise in six-dimensional plate-spinning, and only possible at all because humans have brains capable of learning how to do it, and make it look easy. It isn't...