PDA

View Full Version : AEP and ground handling



Bomber_Dude
03-22-2004, 06:03 PM
There are a couple issues that have been bugging me since I got AEP and both concern the handling of aircraft on the ground. Something seems to have changed from FB. I never had any problems keeping planes going in a straight line after touching down and now with AEP I notice that some planes will veer to the right and attempts to correct with rudder and brakes seem to have little effect until the speed drops to around 50KPH. Not all planes but just certain planes. The Ta152, He162 seem to be the worst but I haven't flown them all yet.

The other issue is with the nose wheel steering on planes so equipped. I thought this issue was fixed back in the early days of the P39 and now it seems to be back. The P39, P63, He162 and the Go229 all have steerable nose wheels, at least the wheel moves when to use the rudder but the plane does not seem to respond to this until the plane is practically stopped. This is one reason the Go229 is so uncontrollable once it touches down. It rides on the nose wheel until the speed drops really low. It will veer off in one direction even with the nose wheel hard over in the opposite direction. The wheel brakes are of no use for steering until the back wheels settle and by then you are usually too far from the runway to matter.

I had hoped to see someone else make note of this, am I the only one ? Is it something in the settings that has changed ?

http://www.computech-online.net/~garyb/pix/sig01.jpg

Bomber_Dude
03-22-2004, 06:03 PM
There are a couple issues that have been bugging me since I got AEP and both concern the handling of aircraft on the ground. Something seems to have changed from FB. I never had any problems keeping planes going in a straight line after touching down and now with AEP I notice that some planes will veer to the right and attempts to correct with rudder and brakes seem to have little effect until the speed drops to around 50KPH. Not all planes but just certain planes. The Ta152, He162 seem to be the worst but I haven't flown them all yet.

The other issue is with the nose wheel steering on planes so equipped. I thought this issue was fixed back in the early days of the P39 and now it seems to be back. The P39, P63, He162 and the Go229 all have steerable nose wheels, at least the wheel moves when to use the rudder but the plane does not seem to respond to this until the plane is practically stopped. This is one reason the Go229 is so uncontrollable once it touches down. It rides on the nose wheel until the speed drops really low. It will veer off in one direction even with the nose wheel hard over in the opposite direction. The wheel brakes are of no use for steering until the back wheels settle and by then you are usually too far from the runway to matter.

I had hoped to see someone else make note of this, am I the only one ? Is it something in the settings that has changed ?

http://www.computech-online.net/~garyb/pix/sig01.jpg

DONB3397
03-22-2004, 08:30 PM
Haven't noticed a difference. If you're landing a tail dragger, tap the rudder to keep the nose headed down the runway and bring the stick back to get the tail down. The new P-38 has a strong nose wheel, but I like to settle on the main gear first, when ease forward. Sounds like you might be landing a little hot.

The jets? The 262 has always been tough for me to get down without overshooting. It took a couple of dozen landings to get the approach sorted out...just above stall speed all the way down the final. For me, the 162 is a nightmare. If you figure it out, post your process.

BTW, the old USAAF F-100 must have had the same characteristics. Pilots called their landings "controlled crashes."

HH Quazi
03-22-2004, 08:34 PM
And it wouldn't hurt to tap the brake a bit while you are using your rudder. S!

http://www.angelfire.com/falcon/nightschpanker/QuasiPOWsmall.jpg

Charlie901
03-22-2004, 08:54 PM
IIRC the engine torque effects have been increased in AEP, although they are still not as high as in real life. If you maxed the throttle on a P-51 for instance on the runway you would probably flip the A/C.

Bearcat99
03-22-2004, 09:00 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Charlie901:
IIRC the engine torque effects have been increased in AEP, although they are still not as high as in real life. If you maxed the throttle on a P-51 for instance on the runway you would probably flip the A/C.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

As soon as your wheels left the ground. You had to increase the throttle slowly.. so you could pick up speed.

<UL TYPE=SQUARE>http://www.jodavidsmeyer.com/combat/bookstore/tuskegeebondposter.jpg (http://tuskegeeairmen.org/airmen/who.html)[/list]<UL TYPE=SQUARE>vflyer@comcast.net [/list]<UL TYPE=SQUARE>99thPursuit Squadron IL2 Forgotten Battles (http://www.geocities.com/rt_bearcat)[/list]
UDQMG (http://www.uberdemon.com/index2.html) | HYPERLOBBY (http://hyperfighter.jinak.cz/) | IL2 Manager (http://www.checksix-fr.com/bibliotheque/detail_fichier.php?ID=1353) | MUDMOVERS (http://www.mudmovers.com/)

adlabs6
03-22-2004, 09:31 PM
I have noticed a new found "weight" during ground turning and I love it. Use the differential brakes, and take small motions. I am going to try tonight to see if I can get a plane to loop really good on the ground from over zealous speed and turning.

http://www.geocities.com/adlabs6/B/bin/sigUBI.GIF
My FB/FS2004 Pages (http://www.geocities.com/adlabs6/B/) | IL2skins (http://www.il2skins.com) | OMEGASQUADRON (http://777avg.com/omegasquad/) | ScreenshotArt.com (http://www.screenshotart.com/)

adlabs6
03-22-2004, 09:57 PM
Ok, did some ground turning. The handling is different from plane to plane of course. The 38 was more sluggish that what I was used to before. I don't think there's any change at all to the non-AEP planes.

I did find that the P-51C was particularly good on the ground. I could make 180 degree turns straight out of 40-50 kmh runs with ease. Here's a track I made:

http://www.geocities.com/adlabs6/B/bin/51Cspin.zip
Edited repeatedly to fix the link. No preview feature. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif
http://www.geocities.com/adlabs6/B/bin/sigUBI.GIF
My FB/FS2004 Pages (http://www.geocities.com/adlabs6/B/) | IL2skins (http://www.il2skins.com) | OMEGASQUADRON (http://777avg.com/omegasquad/) | ScreenshotArt.com (http://www.screenshotart.com/)

ELEM
03-23-2004, 03:35 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bomber_Dude:
There are a couple issues that have been bugging me since I got AEP and both concern the handling of aircraft on the ground. Something seems to have changed from FB. I never had any problems keeping planes going in a straight line after touching down and now with AEP I notice that some planes will veer to the right and attempts to correct with rudder and brakes seem to have little effect until the speed drops to around 50KPH. Not all planes but just certain planes. The Ta152, He162 seem to be the worst but I haven't flown them all yet.

The other issue is with the nose wheel steering on planes so equipped. I thought this issue was fixed back in the early days of the P39 and now it seems to be back. The P39, P63, He162 and the Go229 all have steerable nose wheels, at least the wheel moves when to use the rudder but the plane does not seem to respond to this until the plane is practically stopped. This is one reason the Go229 is so uncontrollable once it touches down. It rides on the nose wheel until the speed drops really low. It will veer off in one direction even with the nose wheel hard over in the opposite direction. The wheel brakes are of no use for steering until the back wheels settle and by then you are usually too far from the runway to matter.

I had hoped to see someone else make note of this, am I the only one ? Is it something in the settings that has changed ?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You are not using differential braking are you? None of the a/c you mention had nosewheel steering. That is just too heavy and complex for such small a/c, and not neccesary until the big multi engine heavies. You must use full left or right rudder AND apply brakes at the same time. This will lock either the left or right wheel which you will then pivot around. No problem! Sounds too as if you have very bad landing technique by touching down on the nosewheel first. That is a MAJOR NO NO! The nosewheel legs on all a/c so equipt are very delicate and prone to damage. As you pass over the runway threshold you should be flairing to keep the nosewheel OFF the ground, touching down on the mains, and holding off the nosewheel as long as possible. Then you can apply brakes to slow down and once at taxi speed you can steer with differential brakes.

I wouldn't join any club that would have ME as member!

http://img35.photobucket.com/albums/v107/Elem_Klimov/I-16_desktop.jpg

arcadeace
03-23-2004, 03:59 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by adlabs6:
I have noticed a new found "weight" during ground turning and I love it. Use the differential brakes, and take small motions. I am going to try tonight to see if I can get a plane to loop really good on the ground from over zealous speed and turning.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I love it too. The entire sensation 'feels' more natural and predictable. Even take-off/landing off strip.

michapma
03-23-2004, 05:47 AM
ELEM is right about the flare and touchdown with nose-wheel equipped aircraft. You should flare and hold it in the same attitude as a taildragger, on touchdown the runway should be blocked out of view. Holding the nose up as far as possible on the rollout with stick backpressure helps kill the speed faster, and the nose will drop on its own with decreasing speed.

http://www.baseclass.modulweb.dk/69giap/fileadmin/Image_Archive/badges/69giap_badge_chap.jpg (http://giap.webhop.info)

The ongoing IL-2 User's Guide (http://people.ee.ethz.ch/~chapman/il2guide/) | Forgotten Skies (http://www.forgottenskies.com/)
But we are all that way: when we know a thing we have only scorn for other people who don't happen to know it. - Mark Twain, Personal Recollections of Joan of Arc

No601_Zulu
03-23-2004, 06:15 AM
I think that the Ground handling of the Spitfire is a little over modelled and does not take into account the speed of the A/C. Before all the flares go up about how bad a spitfire was once on the ground during the taxi, I know that is true. I would expect a high level of rocking whilst taxing due to the narrow track of the gear, and any change of direction using the rudder or rudder/brake should emphesize this.However, the constant bouncing of the tail regardless of speed over the ground is in my opinion over the top.

What I would like to see is good modelling of ground handling whilst travelling on runway and other defined tracks on the airbase, but make the A/C handle real bad when travelling on rough ground.
I.E. when trying to take off across the base at 90 degrees. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif As anyone would know that has walked around a airfield the parimeter and infield area is normally full of rabbit holes and the like.

michapma
03-23-2004, 07:20 AM
I landed the Zero a few times this weekend for the first time, on the Pacific map grass strip. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif Its tail popped into the air like mad no matter how slow I was going. The plane is light in the rear, but I find that behavior unbelievable.

http://www.baseclass.modulweb.dk/69giap/fileadmin/Image_Archive/badges/69giap_badge_chap.jpg (http://giap.webhop.info)

The ongoing IL-2 User's Guide (http://people.ee.ethz.ch/~chapman/il2guide/) | Forgotten Skies (http://www.forgottenskies.com/)
But we are all that way: when we know a thing we have only scorn for other people who don't happen to know it. - Mark Twain, Personal Recollections of Joan of Arc

lindyman
03-23-2004, 07:27 AM
I think some of the planes have more tail dragger characteristic ground handling now. With some planes you can even ground loop, something which has been completely impossible earlier. Nice examples are the Ki and Me-110. Most, however, seem to have some weird turn damper on their tail and behave more like nose-gear aircraft than tail draggers.

Engine torque, and other unwanted side effects of the engine/prop, are quite toned down still.

The two above are probably to allow most people to be able to take off and land. Many think it's too difficult as it is now. It would probably be completely impossible to control the aircraft with keyboard for rudder with realistic tail dragger behaviour and proper engine/prop effects.

The bouncyness of the tail of some aircraft is silly.
_
/Bjorn.

michapma
03-23-2004, 07:48 AM
Interesting account: (http://home.worldonline.dk/winthrop/stanwood.html)
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The P-47, with the wide, wide gear was also a great plane to land, however the conventional gear meant that you would have to stay on top of it more than the 38 on landings. The tail wheel locked and that did help when the tail was fully down, but it could still get away from you if you were to go to sleep. My tentmate in the 414th, by the name of Nafe, lost a 47 on landing and took out five P-47's that were sitting on the line. Made him a Jap ace in about 10 seconds. He went right down the line taking out all of the tails and never a scratch on him. The Jug was built like a single engine tank.

Actually the gear was almost indestructible. We made tactical approaches in all of the fighters and from pitch up to touch down for a flight of four, we always landed in less than a minute. In most cases it only took about 45 seconds. Coming back from a mission I had a real hot rock friend who made a great pitch up and landing. After landing, the plane just rolled out and stopped by itself. When we checked on the reason the plane was just sitting there with the engine running we found the pilot was dead, killed from the concussion of the hard landing. Very strange, but true. No damage to the landing gear in any way. For ground support the 47 couldn't be beat with that big radial engine up in front.

The 51 also has a great wide gear, but you had to stay on top of the landings with it also. In all the planes that I have flown, the 51 is the only plane that I ever almost lost on landing. It is like a big AT-6 Trainer but with a wide gear and a hell of a lot more power. Making a three point landing is fine in most cases, however if one wing tank is heavier on fuel than the other it can make for a hairy time. Coming in for a normal three point landing, I flared out and stalled a little too high. The wing with the most fuel just fell out from under me and my right wing scrapped the ground. I did manage to straighten it out after taking about an inch off the end of the prop and scraping a good piece from the wing tip, but the embarrassment was never lived down. From that time on I always just took it easy and wheeled them in. Torque on takeoff in a 51 was really a b**** if you failed to have the trim tabs set to compensate for that big fan in front. Trying to hold it on takeoff without the trim was almost impossible. I did it once and it taught me never to forget to set it again.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://www.baseclass.modulweb.dk/69giap/fileadmin/Image_Archive/badges/69giap_badge_chap.jpg (http://giap.webhop.info)

The ongoing IL-2 User's Guide (http://people.ee.ethz.ch/~chapman/il2guide/) | Forgotten Skies (http://www.forgottenskies.com/)
But we are all that way: when we know a thing we have only scorn for other people who don't happen to know it. - Mark Twain, Personal Recollections of Joan of Arc