Locking the tail wheel in Fw 190s

[Eisenfaustus]

I just came across a passage in “L. Dv.T 2190 A-1 bis A-8 Fl” (Basically the pilot’s notes for all Antons except the A9) on page 30:

“2. Rollen und Abflug

Beim Rollen ist zuerst der Spurzwang zu lösen, da sonst Kurvenrollen unmöglich. Zu diesem Zweck ist der Steuerknüppel etwa 3cm in Richtung „Drücken“ zu bewegen.“

 

in English:

2 Taxi and Takeoff

While Taxiing first unlock the tail wheel, otherwise turning impossible. For this purpose move the flightstick ca 3cm in the direction „nose down“. 
 

Right now in game we have to pull the almost all the way back to lock the tailwheel. 
 

According to the original manual you would actually ave to push the stick a little to unlock the tailwheel. 
 

So in a stick neutral position the tailwheel should be locked instead of unlocked…

 

Or am I understanding something wrong?

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

Real Life Pilot here: Whenever you Taxi a Taildragger, you Pull your Stick to the Belly, no matter what Type. 
This gives it stability. 

When starting up the Engine, you will normally press hold the Stick fully pulled back and keep it there. 
Now when starting to taxi, it will still be fully pulled back, and normally on Plane with a Non or manually locking tailwheel you can still perform turns without letting go of the stick. 
On the 190 however, to do a Pivot Turn you let go of the stick a little to unlock the tailwheel. 
And once you are done turning, you return to the fully pulled back position. 

 

Also: Tip for Take-Offs and Landings: Keep your Stick fully until the Plane becomes alive and after touchdown all the way until you are stopped.

[CUJO_1970]

Nah, I think OP is on to something. 
 

You don’t see any FW190 either old footage or modern aircraft with the elevator up while taxiing. I’ve never thought it was realistic the way the tail wheel works in the 190 as programmed in the sim, with the elevator sticking all the way up as you taxi around.

[JtD]

Well, the manuals say that "it only is locked when the stick is being pulled" and that "you have to move the stick 3cm forward to make sure it unlocks". It also says you should take off with the stick in neutral, and land with the stick pulled back, and have to remember to not keep the stick pulled back when turning to roll of the runway.

 

All in all this suggests that the locking/releasing point for the tailwheel was somewhere around the center point, not near the back.

 

Fwiw, the cylindrical pin which blocks the rotation has a conical end with a rounded cap, so it can be assumed that there's a range in the stick where the rotation of the wheel can happen freely within a very limited range and when the edges of this envelope are being reached, the pilot will receive feedback on the stick (trying to push the stick forward). If he then moves the stick forward, the wheel will be free.

 

All in all it's not as binary as you'd model it in a game.

[Bremspropeller]

On 10/23/2021 at 6:52 PM, 6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann said:

Real Life Pilot here: Whenever you Taxi a Taildragger, you Pull your Stick to the Belly, no matter what Type. 
This gives it stability. 

 

Unless you have a signifigant tail-wind component.

The 190 is rather tail-heavy, though.

 

17 hours ago, CUJO_1970 said:

You don’t see any FW190 either old footage or modern aircraft with the elevator up while taxiing. I’ve never thought it was realistic the way the tail wheel works in the 190 as programmed in the sim, with the elevator sticking all the way up as you taxi around.

 

Good point! I also think the ground-looping is a bit overdone.

[Dakpilot]

Problem is.. Translate - - move stick 3cm forward to make sure it unlocks - onto a plastic six inch desktop joystick or even a game pad with zero physical feedback

 

Cheers, Dakpilot 

[Bremspropeller]

It's not that hard.

The stick has to be x% of travel FWD of center to ensure a positive unlocking of the TW.

 

As opposed to x% AFT of center, as it is right now.

[ZachariasX]

1 hour ago, Bremspropeller said:

Good point! I also think the ground-looping is a bit overdone.

In general, especially on softer terrain...

[=420=Syphen]

On 10/23/2021 at 11:52 AM, 6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann said:

Real Life Pilot here: Whenever you Taxi a Taildragger, you Pull your Stick to the Belly, no matter what Type. 
This gives it stability. 

 

When taxiing downwind, you ease from fully back to about neutral, or maybe a bit back.. But not fully back. The one case where you don't keep the stick full back in taildraggers

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

On 11/18/2021 at 11:17 PM, =420=Syphen said:

 

When taxiing downwind, you ease from fully back to about neutral, or maybe a bit back.. But not fully back. The one case where you don't keep the stick full back in taildraggers

On something light and low power like a Scheibe Falke of Piper Cub, yes.

But already on something substantial enough like a Turbo 185 it'd take a hell of a Tailwind to make it non-beneficial to pull back even on Downwind. 

[=420=Syphen]

My only 185 time is on floats.. Haven't tried one on wheels yet.  Aileron control for taxiing crosswind and stuff was important, but you taxied neutral on elevator in most cases. Full back for the take off run only to get into the plow.

Edited November 21, 2021 by =420=Syphen

[III/JG52_Otto_-I-]

On 10/22/2021 at 7:43 PM, Eisenfaustus said:

I just came across a passage in “L. Dv.T 2190 A-1 bis A-8 Fl” (Basically the pilot’s notes for all Antons except the A9) on page 30:

“2. Rollen und Abflug

Beim Rollen ist zuerst der Spurzwang zu lösen, da sonst Kurvenrollen unmöglich. Zu diesem Zweck ist der Steuerknüppel etwa 3cm in Richtung „Drücken“ zu bewegen.“

 

in English:

2 Taxi and Takeoff

While Taxiing first unlock the tail wheel, otherwise turning impossible. For this purpose move the flightstick ca 3cm in the direction „nose down“. 
 

Right now in game we have to pull the almost all the way back to lock the tailwheel. 
 

According to the original manual you would actually ave to push the stick a little to unlock the tailwheel. 
 

So in a stick neutral position the tailwheel should be locked instead of unlocked…

 

Or am I understanding something wrong?

the taildragger aircrafts taxi behavior's in this game is very bad modeled.

We have several squad mates who are real life pilots, and they can confirm it.

The ineffective wheel brakes, and the two-seconds lag in the trottle until 50% of travel, don't help, and it is more false than wooden  euro coin.

Edited January 13, 2022 by III/JG52_Otto_-I-

[Guest deleted@50488]

On 1/10/2022 at 1:42 AM, III/JG52_Otto_-I- said:

the taildragger aircrafts taxi behavior's in this game is very bad modeled.

We have several squad mates who are real life pilots, and they can confirm it.

The ineffective wheel brakes, and the two-second lag in the trottle until 50% of travel, don't help, and it is more false than wooden  euro coin.

Well,

 

with my limited experience in prop aircraft as a pilot, since I am flying only pure gliders and TMGs, I must say that from my perspective IL-2 is 2nd to none, and I say NONE inculding all of the civil sims I also use(d) in terms of ground physics, IMO way better than even DCS in some aspects, although I feel rudder effectiveness due to propwash is sometimes a bit overdone.

 

Even braking, and control effectivenes at low power and taxi speeds.

 

Actually I extend this oppinion to overall physics modelling...

 

Actually IL-2 is pretty much the only flightsim I care to start when I am in the mood for the feel of flight in front of a desktop PC screen ?

Edited January 12, 2022 by Anatoli-Kagari9

[III/JG52_Otto_-I-]

On 1/11/2022 at 12:02 PM, Anatoli-Kagari9 said:

Well,

 

with my limited experience in prop aircraft as a pilot, since I am flying only pure gliders and TMGs, I must say that from my perspective IL-2 is 2nd to none, and I say NONE inculding all of the civil sims I also use(d) in terms of ground physics, IMO way better than even DCS in some aspects, although I feel rudder effectiveness due to propwash is sometimes a bit overdone.

 

Even braking, and control effectivenes at low power and taxi speeds.

Really? ... Because i feel the brakes in Bf-109 totally ineffective at low speed during taxi, similar to taxing  in a iced ground all the times even in summer maps, unlike high speed landings where i feel a good effectiveness of the wheels brakes. I´m aircraft mechanic only, but several squad friends, who are airline and sport pilots are agree with me.
By the way the throttle lag, seem very false, the engine  don´t revs until two seconds after reach the 50% of throttle lever travel, but It work linked direct to manifold pressure gauge after that lever position.
If you are a true pilot, you surely hate this throttle behaviour. 

 

[Guest deleted@50488]

7 hours ago, III/JG52_Otto_-I- said:

Really? ... Because i feel the brakes in Bf-109 totally ineffective at low speed during taxi, similar to taxing  in a iced ground all the times even in summer maps, unlike high speed landings where i feel a good effectiveness of the wheels brakes. I´m aircraft mechanic only, but several squad friends, who are airline and sport pilots are agree with me.
By the way the throttle lag, seem very false, the engine  don´t revs until two seconds after reach the 50% of throttle lever travel, but It work linked direct to manifold pressure gauge after that lever position.
If you are a true pilot, you surely hate this throttle behaviour. 

 

 

Thinking of going again to Fuentemilanos this year ? Maybe we can meet one day ?  Ah!  BTW, my tag used to be "jcomm"... here and at other forums, but with the lack of time to dedicate to sims I ahd to opt for only one to play, and it was IL-2 which I have been using since it was initially released.

 

Although I don't plan to use it, I even bought Tank Crew to support 1C / 777.

 

Great admiration for the devs work and dedication to this tittle!

[Yogiflight]

8 hours ago, III/JG52_Otto_-I- said:

Because i feel the brakes in Bf-109 totally ineffective at low speed during taxi,

It is worse in the Bf 110. When there still was the Questions for Developers thread, I asked Han about the bad brake performance of the 110. He answered, that the brakes in game were designed to hit the historically correct brake ways when landing. So my guess is the effectivity of the brakes overall are simulated correctly, but linear, so with the same effectivity over all speeds. This is of course not correct. If you brake a car from 200km/h down to 0, you need a lot more than ten times the distance, you need for braking it down from 20km/h, where it wil stand almost immediately. This difference between braking at high speed and braking at low speed seems not to be simulated.

But as Jason once stated, this is a flight simulation not a ground handling simulation.

[ZachariasX]

If people of today get issued woth 1940s brakes, they will complain for sure. So at least that is entirely realistic.

[III/JG52_Otto_-I-]

22 hours ago, ZachariasX said:

If people of today get issued woth 1940s brakes, they will complain for sure. So at least that is entirely realistic.

Please don't waste time doing absurd commentaries.

If you never drove an old car, or ride a old motorbike, with simple mechanical drum brakes, typical in '40 decade aircrafts, you never understand what we are talking about.

Edited January 14, 2022 by III/JG52_Otto_-I-

[ZachariasX]

Just now, III/JG52_Otto_-I- said:

Please don't waste time doing absurd commentaries.

If you never drove an old car, or ride a old motorbike, with simple mechanical drum brakes, typical in '40 decade aircrafts, you never understand what we are talking about.

I own and drive vintage cars and rode bikes with drum brakes and I am perfectly aware what they can do and what they can’t. But I agree that people who never did, they they don‘t know and that is why you don‘t just give them these vehicles to drive.

[Yogiflight]

2 hours ago, ZachariasX said:

I own and drive vintage cars and rode bikes with drum brakes and I am perfectly aware what they can do and what they can’t. But I agree that people who never did, they they don‘t know and that is why you don‘t just give them these vehicles to drive.

My first car was an old VW Käfer (Beetle) with drum brakes, so I know how braking with old brakes is compared to today's brakes. But even with these old brakes, you would stand very soon from low speeds, like you use them for taxiing. The issue is at higher speeds, which is modelled correctly in game. It is just the very low effectivity at low speeds, which is not modelled correctly.

[III/JG52_Otto_-I-]

 

1 hour ago, Yogiflight said:

It is just the very low effectivity at low speeds, which is not modelled correctly.

I´m agree 
It very pathetic when you see a comrade with thousand of flight hours in airliners, and other aerobatic pilots IRL, to start taxing in game doing ground loops like crazy with wheels brakes full stepped and throttle at idle.  This kind of things makes this simulator look bad in the eyes of aviation professionals.

Edited January 14, 2022 by III/JG52_Otto_-I-

[SCG_motoadve]

I fly a military trainer with drum brakes, has  all pneumatic systems like the Yaks, drum brakes are crap, weak and lock up super easy too if you press the brake handle too much, my plane has 285 HP and when doing the runup I have to fully apply brakes or it moves, (Also have a Cessna with 280HP and dual puck disc brakes and does not move an inch even at full power, when landing are very powerful and don't lock up as easy)

I cant imagine a 1000HP plus and heavier plane with drum brakes, its must have been very crappy and not powerful enough I bet.

 

On the OP about the 190 unlocking mechanism I agree, its not modeled the way it should be.

[ZachariasX]

5 hours ago, Yogiflight said:

My first car was an old VW Käfer (Beetle) with drum brakes, so I know how braking with old brakes is compared to today's brakes. But even with these old brakes, you would stand very soon from low speeds, like you use them for taxiing. The issue is at higher speeds, which is modelled correctly in game. It is just the very low effectivity at low speeds, which is not modelled correctly.

All I said is that drum brakes were crap and people of today would hate them. They tend to lock *when* they work and they fade quickly when they are supposed to work. If you have two brakes that are about half the size of yor beetle brakes (I can hold the entire Spitfire brake arrangement of one wheel in one hand) and 1000 hp, then this puts "low speed handling" in a new perspective. Especially regarding your throttle position. That's not the brake response you get from cars today. And if you have such brakes hooked up to a pneumatic system that may well give you a several second delay (such as in the Mosquito) you get an arrangement that is not entirely intuitive with regards to todays standards.

 

Whatever we have in the game certainly is not "100% correct", but I have no issue with taxiing any aircraft in this game. And I doubt having "100% realistic" brakes would make things easier. But who knows.

 

45 minutes ago, SCG_motoadve said:

I fly a military trainer with drum brakes, has  all pneumatic systems like the Yaks, drum brakes are crap, weak and lock up super easy too if you press the brake handle too much, my plane has 285 HP and when doing the runup I have to fully apply brakes or it moves, (Also have a Cessna with 280HP and dual puck disc brakes and does not move an inch even at full power, when landing are very powerful and don't lock up as easy)

I cant imagine a 1000HP plus and heavier plane with drum brakes, its must have been very crappy and not powerful enough I bet.

 

On the OP about the 190 unlocking mechanism I agree, its not modeled the way it should be.

All of this!

[Hoots]

5 hours ago, III/JG52_Otto_-I- said:

 

I´m agree 
It very pathetic when you see a comrade with thousand of flight hours in airliners, and other aerobatic pilots IRL, to start taxing in game doing ground loops like crazy with wheels brakes full stepped and throttle at idle.  This kind of things makes this simulator look bad in the eyes of aviation professionals.

I can’t work out if this is sarcasm or not. 

[Yogiflight]

2 hours ago, SCG_motoadve said:

I cant imagine a 1000HP plus and heavier plane with drum brakes, its must have been very crappy and not powerful enough I bet.

 

1 hour ago, ZachariasX said:

and 1000 hp, then this puts "low speed handling" in a new perspective.

The hp don't matter. Again, I am talking about breaking an aircraft, taxiing with a speed of 10-20km/h. The throttle is at idle, when braking.

 

2 hours ago, SCG_motoadve said:

I fly a military trainer with drum brakes, has  all pneumatic systems like the Yaks, drum brakes are crap, weak and lock up super easy too if you press the brake handle too much, my plane has 285 HP and when doing the runup I have to fully apply brakes or it moves,

 

1 hour ago, ZachariasX said:

They tend to lock *when* they work and they fade quickly when they are supposed to work.

This surely is an issue when braking on the landing rollout, but not at low speed.

 

BTW, is it neccessary to brake, when landing? I am asking, because I rarely use the brakes on the runway and have to us the throttle for the last third of the runway to come to the end.

[SCG_motoadve]

12 minutes ago, Yogiflight said:

BTW, is it neccessary to brake, when landing? I am asking, because I rarely use the brakes on the runway and have to us the throttle for the last third of the runway to come to the end

Depends on the plane, I fly a 170 that lands so slow, I don't use the brakes, the warbird, on long runways I barely touch the brakes when I want to exit to the taxiway, but is a long roll and its paved, on dirt, probably no need to touch them, unless the landing strip is short,  all this if you are landing at the right speeds

[ZachariasX]

15 minutes ago, Yogiflight said:

This surely is an issue when braking on the landing rollout, but not at low speed.

 

BTW, is it neccessary to brake, when landing? I am asking, because I rarely use the brakes on the runway and have to us the throttle for the last third of the runway to come to the end.

No, e.g. in the Spitfires, they don't use brakes for shortenting the landing run.  As @SCG_motoadve describes it basically. Just let it roll, it stops in time anyway. You give tge aircraft the space it needs. Everything else gives you added costs and possibly bent metal.

[Bremspropeller]

2 hours ago, Yogiflight said:

The hp don't matter. Again, I am talking about breaking an aircraft, taxiing with a speed of 10-20km/h. The throttle is at idle, when braking.

 

HP doesn't matter (unless talking about possible residual thrust at idle), but it corellates with airplane-weight, so it is kind of an indicator.

[Yogiflight]

14 hours ago, Bremspropeller said:

 

HP doesn't matter, but it corellates with airplane-weight, so it is kind of an indicator.

If you compare the same kind of aircraft, like a Cessna with a two-engined Piper. But comparing a Cessna with a Spitfire, the power difference mainly is due to the speed difference. As you well know, drag increases in square to the speed, so two times the speed means four times the drag. With the Spitfire meant to be flying with about three times the speed of the Cessna, it has to overcome nine times the drag. This means you need a lot of power.

But yes, weight makes a difference for braking. Just not that big with low speeds as with the high speeds at landing.

[Bremspropeller]

Corellation =/= Causation

[ZachariasX]

Just to give an example, AFAIK, the Spitfires main wheels have a hub diameter of 10'', 25 cm: they are 7-50-10. 7'' wide, 10'' hub, 17'' wheel diameter. The brake drum has to fit inside the rims:

 

 

This makes the drum about 8'' diameter and about 1.5'' deep, dimensions maybe 200 mm x 20 mm, give or take. You have two of these for a 3000 kg aircraft, that goes up to 180 km/h on wheels.

 

A Solex brake (the front doesn't count here) is 70 mm x 15 mm:

 

 

 

As a contrast, vintage VW Beetle brakes are 248 mm x 40 mm and you have four of those for a 1000 kg vehicle (incl driver etc):

 

 

This means, a Spitfire has only about six times the braking arrangement of a 150 kg (incl. driver), 10 km/h vehicle. We all know how "well" a Solex brake performs. Conversely, it is fair to say that the old Beetle has more than twice the brakes the Spitfire has!

 

These dimensions make it abundantly clear that the brakes in these aircraft were never meant to decellerate an aircraft during landing unless it was an emergency. They are suitable parking brakes, but not that much more. Also one has to keep in mind that back then aircraft were not meant to taxi around like we do today in the traffic of big airports. Not only the brakes will suffer, the aircaft engines also tend to overheat. While those aircraft are sound designs, one should never confuse the operational scope of those warbirds with the scope of airplanes produced today. The brakes on those aircraft are simply not comparable with the brakes on your modern car, neither in performance, nor in scope.

[LukeFF]

1 hour ago, ZachariasX said:

These dimensions make it abundantly clear that the brakes in these aircraft were never meant to decellerate an aircraft during landing unless it was an emergency. They are suitable parking brakes, but not that much more. Also one has to keep in mind that back then aircraft were not meant to taxi around like we do today in the traffic of big airports. Not only the brakes will suffer, the aircaft engines also tend to overheat. While those aircraft are sound designs, one should never confuse the operational scope of those warbirds with the scope of airplanes produced today. The brakes on those aircraft are simply not comparable with the brakes on your modern car, neither in performance, nor in scope.

 

Yes, and most/all of the manuals I have read, no matter the country, say to just let the aircraft roll out to the end of the runway before applying brakes - hence the reason to land within the first third of the runway and have flaps fully deployed. 

[gimpy117]

15 hours ago, ZachariasX said:

Just to give an example, AFAIK, the Spitfires main wheels have a hub diameter of 10'', 25 cm: they are 7-50-10. 7'' wide, 10'' hub, 17'' wheel diameter. The brake drum has to fit inside the rims:

 

 

This makes the drum about 8'' diameter and about 1.5'' deep, dimensions maybe 200 mm x 20 mm, give or take. You have two of these for a 3000 kg aircraft, that goes up to 180 km/h on wheels.

 

A Solex brake (the front doesn't count here) is 70 mm x 15 mm:

 

 

 

As a contrast, vintage VW Beetle brakes are 248 mm x 40 mm and you have four of those for a 1000 kg vehicle (incl driver etc):

 

 

This means, a Spitfire has only about six times the braking arrangement of a 150 kg (incl. driver), 10 km/h vehicle. We all know how "well" a Solex brake performs. Conversely, it is fair to say that the old Beetle has more than twice the brakes the Spitfire has!

 

These dimensions make it abundantly clear that the brakes in these aircraft were never meant to decellerate an aircraft during landing unless it was an emergency. They are suitable parking brakes, but not that much more. Also one has to keep in mind that back then aircraft were not meant to taxi around like we do today in the traffic of big airports. Not only the brakes will suffer, the aircaft engines also tend to overheat. While those aircraft are sound designs, one should never confuse the operational scope of those warbirds with the scope of airplanes produced today. The brakes on those aircraft are simply not comparable with the brakes on your modern car, neither in performance, nor in scope.

yeah its a small drum area, but it's not that much smaller than disks on 3 or 4 pumper brakes on light aircraft. 

[ZachariasX]

1 hour ago, gimpy117 said:

yeah its a small drum area, but it's not that much smaller than disks on 3 or 4 pumper brakes on light aircraft. 

Disc brakes are FAR more efficient and powerful than drum brakes in about every way but locking the wheel. Mustangs today sometimes use disc brakes. They are even powerful enough to make the aircraft nose over. This doesn't happen with the drum brakes, hence (AFAIK) the old drum brakes are still popular.