Effect of the Me 109 propwash tuning on takeoffs ... ( ? )

[Guest deleted@50488]

Unable to install the update to the latest version I would like to hear from users already with this update if the fine tuning operated in the prop physics to cope with the "hang on prop" phenomena has had any impact ( positive ) in situations like takeoffs at higher power.

 

It is "too easy" to takeoff in the Bf 109 IMO... I just use rudder and no need for toe brakes even if I firewall the throttle. I actually find the effectivness of the rudders in pretty much all aircraft in IL-2 overdone, at least during takeoff.

 

Wonder if the update changed this and it is npow a bit more tricky / realistic to takeoff in a 109 if we use higher power settings and advance the throttles briskly rather than smooooothly...

Edited March 23, 2022 by jcomm-il2

[Soilworker]

I may be wrong but I was under the impression you should never use breaks during take off unless it's a borderline emergency. 

[Yogiflight]

From what I heared in interviews with a WW II pilot, the 109 was pretty stable through takeoff, until the (locked) tailwheel left the ground. Then it needed a brave kick at the right rudder pedal to keep it straight.

Edited March 23, 2022 by Yogiflight

[firdimigdi]

To be honest I didn't notice when I tried a couple of 109s out, not to say that there was no change but I just reacted to whatever it was doing at the time and didn't pay much attention. The one thing that I remember reading in at least two memoirs was about the torque, especially in the G series, being lethal on take-off and landing if the throttle wasn't handled gently - there were descriptions of pilots getting caught out by it when opening up too fast at low speed & height and ending up flopping on their roof.

[Hanu]

Taking off is now very much like described in (experienced) pilots memoirs.

Most of the bad reputation came from pilots that were rushed into Messerscmitt's without adequate training.

If anything the Ju-88 needs re-evaluation of its ground handling. Now it just swivels around with little logic.

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

@jcomm-il2According to one gentleman and back up by his good analysis of data, the control surfaces are overly effective due to propeller wash. Those would potentially hide P effects and torque on 109 during takeoff off. He stated that control surfaces are  3 to 4 times more effective in some flight conditions compared to real data.  I'm very interested what would happened if that was true and if devs would  respond to his findings and maybe address his claims. 

 

@jcomm-il2 @Holtzauge

I could PM you his name and you can ask about this raptor,  I think if more knowledge ppl would look at it, it would be better as science goes -to verify claims and gather more attention. 

Edited March 23, 2022 by 1PL-Husar-1Esk

[Guest deleted@134347]

give the E7 a try, it performs the closest to the expected behavior of all 109's.

 

during the take off it needs a serious amount of right rudder as well as right aileron so the left wing doesn't drop immediately after the take off.

[CUJO_1970]

I did notice taxying seemed different...not necessarily harder, just requiring a different reaction.

 

Maybe we do need greater torque on takeoffs, etc - I've always wondered why the P-51 Mustang is so benign when you read about how bad torque effects were in that airplane.

[SCG_motoadve]

3 hours ago, omicron_21 said:

give the E7 a try, it performs the closest to the expected behavior of all 109's.

 

during the take off it needs a serious amount of right rudder as well as right aileron so the left wing doesn't drop immediately after the take off.

I am pretty sure E7 was not modified in the latest patch

[6./ZG26_Custard]

Although it was a long time ago, the earlier builds of BOX seemed to have had much more tricky takeoff and landing procedures.

 

I've heard many times that harder is not always realistic. Having never piloted a real aircraft, I wouldn't know just how difficult it really is. However, I would assume that most  "sim" only pilots who tried to take off or land in a real war bird would probably not be very successful and more than likely torque alone would be a massive surprise. Having said that if takeoff (and landing) was "too hard" in the sim a lot of folk would probably be put off, particularly if they are just causal simmers.     

[oc2209]

14 hours ago, jcomm-il2 said:

Unable to install the update to the latest version I would like to hear from users already with this update if the fine tuning operated in the prop physics to cope with the "hang on prop" phenomena has had any impact ( positive ) in situations like takeoffs at higher power.

 

It is "too easy" to takeoff in the Bf 109 IMO... I just use rudder and no need for toe brakes even if I firewall the throttle. I actually find the effectivness of the rudders in pretty much all aircraft in IL-2 overdone, at least during takeoff.

 

Wonder if the update changed this and it is npow a bit more tricky / realistic to takeoff in a 109 if we use higher power settings and advance the throttles briskly rather than smooooothly...

 

I agree that the 109 during takeoff and landing feels too simple and straightforward, considering its reputation. The question is, why?

 

I don't believe any of the recent changes should have much impact on its takeoff/landing behavior.

 

Here's a quick (extremely sloppy to get it over with as quickly as possible) takeoff and landing in a G-6 Late:

 

Spoiler

 

 

100% fuel load. I made absolutely no effort to be smooth, safe, or sensible in any of my actions. I slammed the throttle to 100% in one push.

 

It's my opinion that the flight model is not so much the issue of the simplistic handling, nor is torque. Rather, I think it's the landing gear strength and geometry that isn't being simulated in much detail.

 

As we can see, the pull to port is significant. Where this differs from reality is that you're not supposed to fight to keep the 109 on a straight heading down the runway. I've read repeatedly from different sources, that you let it go its own way. Meaning if you throttle up too quickly, and the plane deviates, you follow the deviation. Attempting to correct it should result in a loop/landing gear collapse.

 

Thus the gradual throttle increase (that should be the smart/normal takeoff procedure), is to keep the pull to port down to a minimum level that won't pull you off the runway, and won't require you to counteract the pull to such an extent that you break the landing gear and/or loop.

 

Another indication that the gear is too strong and its geometry isn't being taken into consideration, is how poorly I landed without collapsing the gear.

 

Throughout the landing run, there should also be somewhat random (i.e, either direction) darting that requires immediate brake input, especially on a hard surface like concrete. That is seemingly not modelled.

[Guest deleted@134347]

3 hours ago, SCG_motoadve said:

I am pretty sure E7 was not modified in the latest patch

that's true, but I'm talking about E7 handling characteristics on the ground in general. Because of its less powerful engine the handling caveats are a bit more pronounced.

[I./JG52_Woutwocampe]

Well the 109K4 is certainly tough enough to take off for the AI  though as every single member of my flight in the last two missions absolutely failed to take off and made donuts on the runway until their engine were too damaged. Two even managed to DIE in the last mission.

[oc2209]

2 hours ago, I./JG52_Woutwocampe said:

Well the 109K4 is certainly tough enough to take off for the AI  though as every single member of my flight in the last two missions absolutely failed to take off and made donuts on the runway until their engine were too damaged. Two even managed to DIE in the last mission.

 

Off of what surface? And was this a taxi start, or a runway start?

 

In quicks, the AI did fine off of concrete and grass (I assume; it's turned off graphically).

 

Here's my hilariously bad grass takeoff:

 

Spoiler

 

 

At one point, the plane is being pulled across the gear's path. No way the gear would survive those stresses.

 

The torque effects on takeoff are certainly being modelled, and if you're sloppy with the throttle, the rudder really doesn't counteract the torque (on the K, at least) that well.

 

The realism problem is that the gear are much, much tougher than they should be. As long as the gear are this strong, the 109 can still be abused on takeoff, with or without propwash changes.

[Oyster_KAI]

I can't break the landing gear to fail the landing, no matter how inattentive, even deliberately landing the plane with a high sink rate of descent.
The current landing gear is just too sturdy, so that we can't enjoy the feeling of a failed landing. (Like before, we don't die in a forced landing)

I wish the rudder had less control authority at low speed and had more torque, since the rudder was too effective on the ground, it was too easy to maintain a straight taxi and takeoff, and there was no need to apply side pressure to the aileron, such a takeoff felt more like Modern jet plane.

If we can get more in-depth FM simulations one day, the existing easy take-off and landing patterns should be classified into the option: simple Fly model.

Edited March 24, 2022 by Oyster_KAI
more comment

[Guest deleted@50488]

I believe there's probably still way to  much rudder authority from propwash in the 109s, but I'll have to try myself.

 

At normal taxi speeds and power settings the rudder should be pretty much ineffective, calling for differential braking for the steering. Yet in all versions with the exception of the first ones right after the first 109s and 190s were released, we can easily steer just by using rudder inputs while taxiing.

 

I have always found IL-2 Great Battles 2nd to none in many aspects of the flight and physics modelling, but there is still something lacking regarding propwash effects and / or "tail flight dynamics"... 

 

I really have to give this last version a try though.

 

Thank you all for your comments !

Edited March 24, 2022 by jcomm-il2

[Panzerlang]

100 years later, a 'God in a Box' PC (AI, quantum CPU yada yada) and virtual planes in IL2 perform EXACTLY like real ones (including a cap that inputs g-effects directly to the brain, and pain effects from injuries too, etc etc etc).

Hang in there guys.

[SCG_motoadve]

Take offs and landings are very easy in IL2, I think it is for playability purposes, lots of people will complain and go away if it was made more realistic.

Just look at all the complains about ditching right now, which I think it are still more survivable than real life if done correctly.

 

I just wish they did a more realistic model for landings and take offs, and give the option to select realistic or normal (current one).

[I./JG52_Woutwocampe]

7 hours ago, oc2209 said:

 

Off of what surface? And was this a taxi start, or a runway start?

 

In quicks, the AI did fine off of concrete and grass (I assume; it's turned off graphically).

 

Here's my hilariously bad grass takeoff:

 

  Reveal hidden contents

 

 

At one point, the plane is being pulled across the gear's path. No way the gear would survive those stresses.

 

The torque effects on takeoff are certainly being modelled, and if you're sloppy with the throttle, the rudder really doesn't counteract the torque (on the K, at least) that well.

 

The realism problem is that the gear are much, much tougher than they should be. As long as the gear are this strong, the 109 can still be abused on takeoff, with or without propwash changes.

 

It was on concrete my man, runway start. Its not the first time I witness Lutfwaffe AI planes behave like this in BoBP.

 

When I got BoBP in 2019, it happened often in my Dora career (on grass). Even in my 262 career but of course this was a bit different as the 262 wouldnt make donuts but in this case the AI would never be able to lift off the ground unless I removed all the bombs they carried.

 

I think it might be related to weather/wind conditions because it doesnt happen throughout the whole campaign.

 

But as of now, its killing my career as Im alone to take off and fight instead of 8. Like it did 2 and a half years ago in my Dora career so its obviously never been adressed by devs.

 

Edit : is it possible to taxi start in careers? 

 

Edited March 24, 2022 by I./JG52_Woutwocampe

[SCG_motoadve]

Taking off and landing the 109s with the tailwheel un locked its a good exercise (ruder pedals are a must) if you want to feel a bit more realistic tailwheel behavior, this is what I do all the time for more fun and realistic feel.

[Panzerlang]

On 3/24/2022 at 12:29 PM, SCG_motoadve said:

Taking off and landing the 109s with the tailwheel un locked its a good exercise (ruder pedals are a must) if you want to feel a bit more realistic tailwheel behavior, this is what I do all the time for more fun and realistic feel.

Sorry but absolutely not. Once the plane starts spinning the brakes no longer work, which is an absurd flaw in the code (or whatever it is). 

What they should do (in my opinion) is transpose the un-locked tail-wheel graphics onto the locked-wheel code and then reduce the un-locked-wheel code maneouverability by 90%. 

Edited March 27, 2022 by Hetzer-JG51

[zan64]

1 hour ago, SCG_motoadve said:

Take offs and landings are very easy in IL2, I think it is for playability purposes, lots of people will complain and go away if it was made more realistic.

Just look at all the complains about ditching right now, which I think it are still more survivable than real life if done correctly.

 

I just wish they did a more realistic model for landings and take offs, and give the option to select realistic or normal (current one).

i flew GA taildraggers in real life, its 1/10 the horsepower of course but as with any airplane as long as you fly approach and landing at right speeds they're not stupid hard to land like it was in old IL2 before the update few years ago or like in DCS

 

edit: wanted to add my flight instructor had thousands of hours, one day we were talking about video games and mentioned to me when i was telling him about my sim hobby that he cant land anything in video games - speaking of the vanilla planes in flight sim x

Edited March 24, 2022 by zan64

[oc2209]

6 hours ago, I./JG52_Woutwocampe said:

I think it might be related to weather/wind conditions because it doesnt happen throughout the whole campaign.

 

Edit : is it possible to taxi start in careers?

 

Weather makes sense. Could also be some kind of AI error, reacting badly to a physics variable.

 

And no, taxi starts are probably not doable in careers, now that I think about it.

[oc2209]

12 hours ago, jcomm-il2 said:

I believe there's probably still way to  much rudder authority from propwash in the 109s, but I'll have to try myself.

 

At normal taxi speeds and power settings the rudder should be pretty much ineffective, calling for differential braking for the steering. Yet in all versions with the exception of the first ones right after the first 109s and 190s were released, we can easily steer just by using rudder inputs while taxiing.

 

Here's the result of my dedicated propwash test:

 

Spoiler

 

 

I set the throttle to 20%, which is my usual taxi setting. Might reduce it to ~15% once some speed's been built up. Typically I'll just leave it on 20% and ride the brakes so the speed doesn't get too high to be manageable.

 

Maximum speed reached during the recording was approximately 40 MPH, towards the end of the clip. As you can see, the rudder was still mostly ineffective at that speed and below.

 

This is what my normal taxi looks like:

 

Spoiler

 

 

*Edit: I briefly unlocked the tailwheel while entering the taxiway, then re-locked it after the turn from my starting position was complete.

Edited March 24, 2022 by oc2209

[I./JG52_Woutwocampe]

2 hours ago, oc2209 said:

 

Weather makes sense. Could also be some kind of AI error, reacting badly to a physics variable.

 

And no, taxi starts are probably not doable in careers, now that I think about it.

 

Well it would be hilarious to see them kill each others with their propellers if it wouldnt mean me alone vs 8x Spitfires 30 minutes later.

 

 

[oc2209]

Here's an F-2 propwash test:

 

Spoiler

 

 

Same 20% setting as with the G-6 Late. Much more rudder control. This could be for two reasons: less horsepower = less torque to overcome; and less weight = less inertia to overcome.

 

In any case, there's a marked difference in rudder efficacy between early and later models.

[Guest deleted@50488]

Thank you again guys, and @oc2209 for the precious videos. 

 

If this is the result with the latest FM update that cured some overdone propwash in the 109s then it's going in the right way I believe. 

[Soilworker]

22 hours ago, Hetzer-JG51 said:

100 years later, a 'God in a Box' PC (AI, quantum CPU yada yada) and virtual planes in IL2 perform EXACTLY like real ones (including a cap that inputs g-effects directly to the brain, and pain effects from injuries too, etc etc etc).

Hang in there guys.

 

You think 100% accurate flight models would stop the complaining about what the devs got "wrong" on this forum? ?

[69th_Panp]

On 3/23/2022 at 3:53 AM, Hanu said:

Taking off is now very much like described in (experienced) pilots memoirs.

Most of the bad reputation came from pilots that were rushed into Messerscmitt's without adequate training.

If anything the Ju-88 needs re-evaluation of its ground handling. Now it just swivels around with little logic.

 

Most of the bad reputation came from pilots that were rushed into Messerscmitt's without adequate training.

 

untrue !

lots of 109 were crashed by experienced pilots on take off and landings. 

109 was a hand full on take off after the tail wheel left the ground due to small rudder and angle of landing gear and engine torque aka (p factor)

 

Read   

 Walter Schuck Luftwaffe Eagle 

109 ace with 206 confirmed kills in the artic sea fighter squadrons fighting the Russians.

He mentions lots of 109 s written off due to these factor.

 

Truly a great read on how the luftwaffe and Russians fought in combat

[Hanu]

9 minutes ago, 69th_Panp said:

 

Most of the bad reputation came from pilots that were rushed into Messerscmitt's without adequate training.

 

untrue !

lots of 109 were crashed by experienced pilots on take off and landings. 

109 was a hand full on take off after the tail wheel left the ground due to small rudder and angle of landing gear and engine torque aka (p factor)

? Untrue..? What?

You had to keep the (locked) tail-wheel on the ground until the small rudder responded. Training and experience was the key and is with all planes. Take-off crashes happened of course more to inexperienced pilots or pilots that forgot to lock the tail-wheel. WTH is untrue about that? A lot of 109's were written off because of accidents. Also transfer pilots were not the best of breed. As war progressed Germans had even less fuel for the training resulting even more accidents.