Small rudder pedal deflection range?

[Bucic]

It has drawn my attention recently. The range is really small. 100 mm at best from full aft to full forward at the pilot's heel. Is this per actual documentation or is it just a small error in the animation in-game?

 

Looking at it some more, the angular range on the pedals is smaller than the range on the control surface. This means the momentum the pilot experienced was greater than the hinge momentum on the control surface. I've read that the 190 was praised for its handling qualities, including the rudder so this all seems a little bit contradictory to me.

 

Does anyone have any information on the subject?

[Crumpp]

I noticed it too. It completely interferes with being able to pilot the aircraft correctly. It was present in both the DCS modules I own, the P-51 and the Dora.

 

I thought it might be something similar to the stick forces modeled in DCS. It that is the case, the force is set way too low. NACA testing shows 400lbs is attainable by the average pilot with 180lbs becoming the specification.

 

45lbs was considered the ideal for controllability as below that precision rudder inputs become more difficult.

[Bucic]

Does anyone have a figure for the yaw control system similar to this one?

Or any data on the pedals for that matter. Or angular ranges for some intermediate bellcranks. The rudder control surface range is +/-30 degrees so some missing bits could be calculated.

Edited January 4, 2016 by Bucic

[Bucic]

I noticed it too. It completely interferes with being able to pilot the aircraft correctly.[1] It was present in both the DCS modules I own, the P-51 and the Dora.

 

I thought it might be something similar to the stick forces modeled in DCS.[2] It that is the case, the force is set way too low. NACA testing shows 400lbs is attainable by the average pilot with 180lbs becoming the specification.

 

45lbs was considered the ideal for controllability as below that precision rudder inputs become more difficult.

I don't get what you mean this time around.

[1] How?

[2] How can modeling of flight control loads be possibly related to how the range of motion of the pedals* is represented?

* on the ground, stationary

[Crumpp]

1. You cannot keep coordination when maneuvering at speed. The rudder will not lift the wing at the stall. Two basic and key design features of a rudder.

 

 

2. I am not seeing any restriction on the ground.

 

It is only under an aerodynamic load that range of motion is restrictive. Since it does not represent a viable rudder design once it becomes restrictive and cannot fulfill the job of a rudder.....It looked like the correct effect of increasing hinge moment but with too little input from the pilot.

 

Our pilot appears to weak to move the pedals.

[NineLine]

1. You cannot keep coordination when maneuvering at speed. The rudder will not lift the wing at the stall. Two basic and key design features of a rudder.

 

 

2. I am not seeing any restriction on the ground.

 

It is only under an aerodynamic load that range of motion is restrictive. Since it does not represent a viable rudder design once it becomes restrictive and cannot fulfill the job of a rudder.....It looked like the correct effect of increasing hinge moment but with too little input from the pilot.

 

Our pilot appears to weak to move the pedals.

 

Are you answering his concerns or is this something else, just trying to understand the OP, I thought he was asking if the pedals are traveling the same range as they would be in the real world.

[Bucic]

1. You cannot keep coordination when maneuvering at speed. The rudder will not lift the wing at the stall. Two basic and key design features of a rudder.

 

 

2. I am not seeing any restriction on the ground.

 

It is only under an aerodynamic load that range of motion is restrictive. Since it does not represent a viable rudder design once it becomes restrictive and cannot fulfill the job of a rudder.....It looked like the correct effect of increasing hinge moment but with too little input from the pilot.

 

Our pilot appears to weak to move the pedals.

I value your insight Crumpp but this time you seem to be lost. I'm not saying the concerns you raise are invalid. It's simply that I need my question to be answered first ;)

Plus, when on the ground and stationary the rudder control surface does move to the full ~+/-30 degrees so no problems there.

 

As Sith said.

[Art-J]

Truth to be told, the first post is worded in a such a way I also don't quite understand what the issue is :D.

 

So, it's about pedals movement, or rudder movement?

[Bucic]

Truth to be told, the first post is worded in a such a way I also don't quite understand what the issue is :D.

 

So, it's about pedals movement, or rudder movement?

Topic title: Small rudder pedal deflection range?

It has drawn my attention recently. The range is really small. 100 mm at best from full aft to full forward at the pilot's heel. Is this per actual documentation or is it just a small error in the animation in-game?

:)

[NineLine]

I can ask when the devs get back from holidays, but generally that stuff is set with documentation or real world example.

[Bucic]

I can ask when the devs get back from holidays, but generally that stuff is set with documentation or real world example.

If you can attach a big 'low priority' tag to it then sure, why not. Thanks.

 

In the meantime I've decided to resort to photos.

http://www.jagdgeschwader4.de/index.php/flugwerft-hauptraum/jaeger/fwfw190190/cockpit

And indeed, by the looks of it the range is a mere ~120 mm.

Another one, at a slightly worse angle

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-1iL5x6xkttQ/UA6fAVTZ_rI/AAAAAAAAUR8/_RDBzFR-qVw/s1600/DSC02187.JPG

Edited January 4, 2016 by Bucic

[Yo-Yo]

It has drawn my attention recently. The range is really small. 100 mm at best from full aft to full forward at the pilot's heel. Is this per actual documentation or is it just a small error in the animation in-game?

 

Looking at it some more, the angular range on the pedals is smaller than the range on the control surface. This means the momentum the pilot experienced was greater than the hinge momentum on the control surface. I've read that the 190 was praised for its handling qualities, including the rudder so this all seems a little bit contradictory to me.

 

Does anyone have any information on the subject?

 

Doesn't it seem to you a bit strange that you compare angles and linear travel, moment and force, oranges and apples... :)

And did you ever try to estimate the pedal boom angular travel using arctan function?

Edited January 5, 2016 by Yo-Yo

[Bucic]

Doesn't it seem to you a bit strange that you compare angles and linear travel, moment and force, oranges and apples... :)

And did you ever try to estimate the pedal boom angular travel using arctan function?

The moment I've decided to estimate dimensions by... eye-balling... a photo... taken at an odd angle I've acquired a license to simplify a short arc into a straight line ;)

 

As for comparing an angular to a linear range of motion, I don't think I did that.

Looking at it some more, the angular range on the pedals is smaller than the range on the control surface. This means the momentum the pilot experienced was greater than the hinge momentum on the control surface.

Both are angles and it seems to me the pedal angular range =< control surface angular range. Again, just by eye-balling.

 

Without any drawings digging in any further is pointless, IMO. I just need the actual linear range on the pedals for my DIY rudder pedal project and the range as represented in-game just seems short to me. The funny thing is, even if someone gave me the exact angular movement on the pedals, it would be useless to me as I would still be left with a missing information, that is the length of the vertical pedal beam.

 

Oddly enough, I couldn't extract any useful info on the subject even from the FW 190 maintenance manual that includes a chapter specifically on the maintenance of the control system. :shocking:

Edited January 5, 2016 by Bucic

[Yo-Yo]

The moment I've decided to estimate dimensions by... eye-balling... a photo... taken at an odd angle I've acquired a license to simplify a short arc into a straight line ;)

 

As for comparing an angular to a linear range of motion, I don't think I did that.

 

Both are angles and it seems to me the pedal angular range =< control surface angular range. Again, just by eye-balling.

 

Without any drawings digging in any further is pointless, IMO. I just need the actual linear range on the pedals for my DIY rudder pedal project and the range as represented in-game just seems short to me. The funny thing is, even if someone gave me the exact angular movement on the pedals, it would be useless to me as I would still be left with a missing information, that is the length of the vertical pedal beam.

 

Oddly enough, I couldn't extract any useful info on the subject even from the FW 190 maintenance manual that includes a chapter specifically on the maintenance of the control system. :shocking:

 

100 mm travel is an ergonomic standard for pedals as well as an arm for the pedal boom. Any issues of heavy rudder is a matter of aerodynamic compensation.

[Bucic]

I was hoping you're going to crack and toss a drawing but this is good enough ;)

BTW, most aircraft design handbooks include a chapter on ergonomics of cockpits along with guidelines and a figure.

[Bucic]

What do you know, my peasant eyes did pretty well. :D 110 mm