The hobbldy hoy nature of the ground handling

[flyco]

There has been no mention in this thread that I can recall, about the adverse effect of lag. There is of course lag in pilot's reaction time, which is why some pilots are better than others, just as some cricketers are better than others. But in DCS, particularly multi-player, you need also to consider the computer system delays, perhaps up to .1 of a second or more. I see the same thing in the Gazelle, where, when the lateral swing gets going, I have to force myself to hold the stick upright and wait for it to settle down (it always does).

 

I don't know what the answer is other than to be faster but less drastic in control corrections - easier said than done. If you are sceptical about this as an aggravating factor, just think of waiting half a second before reacting, and I am sure you will agree that the Spit would then become totally uncontrollable. Add to this the lack of a reinforcing input from the body's balance organ, and I think it probably already is for me, at the age of 73!

 

And yes, when I last flew a Chipmunk (1967) I could cope as well. But, like they say 'The past is a different country'.

[Schwarzfeld]

Tailwheel aircraft are unstable when moving on the ground.

 

Wow I totally missed this comment.

 

You are incredibly incorrect lol, tailwheel aircraft are only unstable taxiing if the pilot doesn't grasp the concept of the fact that he's not done flying the plane till the prop stops and he kills the mags lol

[bongodriver]

No he is entirely correct, when a tailwheel aircraft is in the 3 point attitude on the ground and moving the CoG is behind the main wheels and the laws of physics makes this an unstable condition, being alert and keeping it under control does not change the laws of physics.

 

This guy explains it pretty well, they know a thing or two about tailwheel at the commemorative air force.

Link only as the video owners have restricted playback on 3rd party websites.

 

Edited January 12, 2017 by bongodriver

[Schwarzfeld]

Er... well, yeah, I guess I missed the gist of what he was trying to say. Obviously a taildragger always wants to get ass-first on you on the ground, so yes you are right thats a true statement RE: physics.

 

I worked the ramp at GLS with quite a few CAF types, worked a couple airshows they put on too. They've certainly got some hot pilots but man some of those birds of theirs are not kept in the best shape lol, the BT-13s they fly as "Zeros" in the Tora! Tora! Tora! display can really hotbox a hangar on startup lol

[Talisman_VR]

Folks,

 

I have to say that I think Yo-Yo is very correct in what he says. I am nothing special, but I have now mastered the Spit take-off and landing and have to wonder what I made all the fuss about before. It is just study, training and experience. Of course, controls and brakes need to be set up correctly on our systems at home, but if that is done then just work through it. The one small tip I might add is that sometimes we can all concentrate so much on instruments and technical stuff and actually miss the big picture. A bit like the 'magic eye' pictures that we cant see if we look too hard, but if we kind of de-focus and sense the wider picture as a whole we suddenly are able to see the image. I am better using peripheral vision and sensing speed and motion (or even imagine it, lol), I find sometimes the best landings are done with the wider senses rather than staring at the instruments. Try letting the force be with you and using sound and wider visual focus and cues. You need to be on the rudder though and I highly recommend brakes on axis, not button. I am loving this Spitfire :joystick:

 

P.S. The flying instructor posts on the forum are brilliant and gave me the most help. If you have not read them then please do read them, perhaps more than once.

 

Good luck and happy landings,

 

56RAF_Talisman

Edited January 12, 2017 by 56RAF_Talisman
Add P.S.

[Johnny Dioxin]

We often get this sort of thing with new modules and handling. Remember the Ka-50? That was a hell of a storm (in a teacup if you ask me...). Why, well mostly because it wasn't so easy to fly because people couldn't get their head around the trimming system.

 

Same with the P-51D (didn't understand that - I didn't even read the manual and had no such issues)

 

Same with the Gazelle (ahem.... no comment ;) )

 

and now with the Spit. Just give it a bit of time and people will be saying what a wonder she is to fly.

 

So I don't too when I riding a bike slowly...:-)

 

ah, but can your bike fly? (apart from off a cliff)

[DieHard]

Took me about a year to get fairly good in the Ka-50.

 

For me, the Spit is a handful learning her, like the 1st 5 years getting used to being married...

 

Once I finally get in the air, flying her is really sweet. My 1st landing was dam near perfect.

 

But I am not consistent at it, yet!

 

Have not found that ideal sweet spot as to the axis curves setup, am still experimenting at it.

Edited January 13, 2017 by DieHard

[Davee]

I don't find it any harder than the 109 with an unlocked tail wheel.

 

Maybe because I spent time practicing with that in anticipation of the Spit I don't find it much different.

It is harder than with a locked tailwheel, and definitely much harder than the P-51D's controllable tail wheel, but it still doesn't take that long to get used to it.

 

Original post was about wing dip - not the tail wheel.

 

When running straight and smooth after a good touchdown, one side or the other of the wing will dip and then strike the ground with little or no input from rudder or aeleron.

 

If the real Spit was this problematic, WWII pics would show dozens of Spits spun out all over the grass fields and tufts of grass stuck to the wingtips for the Erks to remove. :)

[Yo-Yo]

Original post was about wing dip - not the tail wheel.

 

When running straight and smooth after a good touchdown, one side or the other of the wing will dip and then strike the ground with little or no input from rudder or aeleron.

 

If the real Spit was this problematic, WWII pics would show dozens of Spits spun out all over the grass fields and tufts of grass stuck to the wingtips for the Erks to remove. :)

 

Do you apply rudder inputs to keep the plane straight after touchdown assisted with wheelbrakes as the speed bleeds? If "no rudder input" your plane will break away in 146% of your attempts. If you replay your track from f2 or f3 view you can see the reason.

[David OC]

The spit is all about doing the dance and staying on top of her until stopped or very very slow.

 

See the video of IRL tail draggers below and how they talk in the video about just how fast the aircraft can break away if you take your eye off the ball for a second and stop flying the aircraft.

 

U0YUxsntZWE

[9.JG27 DavidRed]

Do you apply rudder inputs to keep the plane straight after touchdown assisted with wheelbrakes as the speed bleeds? If "no rudder input" your plane will break away in 146% of your attempts. If you replay your track from f2 or f3 view you can see the reason.

 

i tried to replay my tracks and watch the landings in f2 view, but in 146% of my attempts, my plane broke away and crashed, although i made probably 20 successfull landings in a row until i gave up...i ended up recording from cockpit view...sorry for being slightly off topic, but the spit seems to be special in this case...while i get corrupted tracks in all of my modules very often, i didnt even get 1 single track replaying correctly in the spit yet.

Edited January 13, 2017 by 9./JG27 DavidRed

[Yo-Yo]

i tried to replay my tracks and watch the landings in f2 view, but in 146% of my attempts, my plane broke away and crashed, although i made probably 20 successfull landings in a row until i gave up...i ended up recording from cockpit view...

 

If your plane broke away, it means that you failed to hold it straight on the path and let the plane to break too far... turn on the TO assistant and watch it's rudder input on the ground roll. Do not forget to add gradually brakes to keep steering as speed bleeds. You can even add your own pedal pulse to disturb the system and then take a look at the rudder reaction... The track you record is a good source of information...:-)

[9.JG27 DavidRed]

nooooo yo-yo...i made 20 good landings...but 20 times watching the tracks my plane crashes...but i didnt crash. and noooo, thank you, but i hate auto-rudder and take off assistance...if it was for me, i would love to see those features deleted.

 

 

i wanted to record this from f2 view, but not possible...the plane crashes if i watch the track..so i had to record it directly, and not use the track

Edited January 13, 2017 by 9./JG27 DavidRed

[Anatoli-Kagari9]

nooooo yo-yo...i made 20 good landings...but 20 times watching the tracks my plane crashes...but i didnt crash. and noooo, thank you, but i hate auto-rudder and take off assistance...if it was for me, i would love to see those features deleted.

 

 

i wanted to record this from f2 view, but not possible...the plane crashes if i watch the track..so i had to record it directly, and not use the track

 

Hey David ? Where is that airfield ???? I want it for me too !!!

[9.JG27 DavidRed]

if people want i can upload the mission.

[Buzzles]

Original post was about wing dip - not the tail wheel.

 

When running straight and smooth after a good touchdown, one side or the other of the wing will dip and then strike the ground with little or no input from rudder or aeleron.

 

If the real Spit was this problematic, WWII pics would show dozens of Spits spun out all over the grass fields and tufts of grass stuck to the wingtips for the Erks to remove. :)

 

Other people were mentioning it, and it is relevant as like the 109 it only drops the wing on taxiing if you don't keep in full control. Keep turns slow (or do sharp turns when going very slow) and you won't have a problem.

[Johnny Dioxin]

For me, the Spit is a handful learning her, like the 1st 5 years getting used to being married...

 

You got used to it??? :unsure:

 

Took me 5 years to come to my senses and get a divorce!

[DieHard]

The spit is all about doing the dance and staying on top of her until stopped or very very slow.

 

See the video of IRL tail draggers below and how they talk in the video about just how fast the aircraft can break away if you take your eye off the ball for a second and stop flying the aircraft.

 

U0YUxsntZWE

 

Thanks for the video.

 

Learned something!

 

Finally got takeoffs consistent using the current Burning Skies server. Of course get shot down a lot, but at least can now get in the air and once in awhile get back to land it.

 

Guy I know that my wife works with his wife flies tail-draggers pulling gliders to altitude. That guy can really fly that thing. He is also an A & P mechanic and built his own big ass bi-plane.

 

http://www.naa.edu/programs/what_is_an_ap_mechanic

[DieHard]

You got used to it??? :unsure:

 

Took me 5 years to come to my senses and get a divorce!

 

LOL! I understand. I guess I like her. We met in 1972.

[DieHard]

There is nothing wrong with the tail wheel. The problem of any simulation is a lack of acceleration info. This discussion is ballooning over and over but, as far as I can see, it still can not be understood.

 

There are 3 brilliant essays from the Master... and all of them are in vain. Pity.

 

There are two ways to get this sense of accelerations - training using visual cues (clouds, for example) or use TO assistant. The last is not a cheat - it does exactly the same as your real world system that allows you to stand and walk as a Homo Erectus, because it is UNSTABLE attitude.

 

The "exaggerated wobbling" is not a model flaw - it's a classic overcontrolling due to the same reason. The magic pill is - training.

 

And finally - not to wake anybody's frustration, but only to encourage to train real skill and not to stop at the simplified FMs, look at a couple of videos.

 

(TO assistant is OFF, for sure)

 

 

 

 

 

Very helpful, as you always are Yo-Yo .

 

Spit IX not using any cheats except curve in my Fighterstick and Pro Pedals.

 

Thank you.

Edited January 13, 2017 by DieHard

[Davee]

Other people were mentioning it, and it is relevant as like the 109 it only drops the wing on taxiing if you don't keep in full control. Keep turns slow (or do sharp turns when going very slow) and you won't have a problem.

 

Hi Buzzles,

It's not an issue of wing dipping when taxiing.

It's a wing dip after touchdown and trundling along straight and level with no input to create a dip. After about 5-10 seconds there is a sudden dip - usually the right side and it digs in. Repeatable.

 

Cheers,

[Davee]

Do you apply rudder inputs to keep the plane straight after touchdown assisted with wheel brakes as the speed bleeds? If "no rudder input" your plane will break away in 146% of your attempts. If you replay your track from f2 or f3 view you can see the reason.

 

Hi Yo-Yo,

Question: Are you suggesting some rudder or aileron input similar to takeoff, at wheels down? I'll further evaluate replays to try and determine what you mean because I am certainly in the 146%. I'm aware that any bounce (even minimal), drift or wobble, will certainly induce the need for rudder/brake application.

 

At present, I will touch the rudder if I start to detect a drift, for example. In the case I am presenting, it seems that the dip happens prior to any rudder/aileron/brake input when the aircraft is tracking straight and true after touchdown (after settling down). (Wind direction nul) The dip happens within 10 seconds or so with everything appearing normal and the aircraft slowing down.

 

With the variety of sensitivities of equipment that simmers have and the difficulty of translating real world flying parameters into the SIM that developers have, I can readily understand that in a pre-release, there will be adjustments required to further improve the input and aircraft reaction modelling.

 

My position therefore, is that the sim dynamics that induce the dip may be over-sensitive in the SIM and further accelerate unwanted results. IMHO, further evaluation should be - and probably is being, undertaken.

 

I really enjoy this aircraft and the challenge it presents and can only draw on my experiences flying Sims since 1985 and being on several beta teams - these of course are not substitutes for a real world flying experience (I have some) - but it makes me aware of certain things in the mathematics of the modelling cycle that may impact what I am describing.

 

Thanks for your recommendation, I'll continue to try and determine if it's the pilot or other. :)

 

Cheers,

Cats . . .

[Yo-Yo]

Hi Yo-Yo,

Question: Are you suggesting some rudder or aileron input similar to takeoff, at wheels down? I'll further evaluate replays to try and determine what you mean because I am certainly in the 146%. I'm aware that any bounce (even minimal), drift or wobble, will certainly induce the need for rudder/brake application.

 

At present, I will touch the rudder if I start to detect a drift, for example. In the case I am presenting, it seems that the dip happens prior to any rudder/aileron/brake input when the aircraft is tracking straight and true after touchdown (after settling down). (Wind direction nul) The dip happens within 10 seconds or so with everything appearing normal and the aircraft slowing down.

 

With the variety of sensitivities of equipment that simmers have and the difficulty of translating real world flying parameters into the SIM that developers have, I can readily understand that in a pre-release, there will be adjustments required to further improve the input and aircraft reaction modelling.

 

My position therefore, is that the sim dynamics that induce the dip may be over-sensitive in the SIM and further accelerate unwanted results. IMHO, further evaluation should be - and probably is being, undertaken.

 

I really enjoy this aircraft and the challenge it presents and can only draw on my experiences flying Sims since 1985 and being on several beta teams - these of course are not substitutes for a real world flying experience (I have some) - but it makes me aware of certain things in the mathematics of the modelling cycle that may impact what I am describing.

 

Thanks for your recommendation, I'll continue to try and determine if it's the pilot or other. :)

 

Cheers,

Cats . . .

 

Have you seen Matt's video with TO and landing? He used the same FM. But he really had encountered the problem you describe before he got the right way of handling.

Perform please an experiment with TO assistant ON. But DO NOT FORGET TO ADD BRAKES after these 10 seconds, because your rudder inputs gets useless at low speed, and the plane breaks away. You can check it. The only force that can dip the wing is INERTIA, and it appears as the plane begins to turn.

[Davee]

Have you seen Matt's video with TO and landing? He used the same FM. But he really had encountered the problem you describe before he got the right way of handling.

Perform please an experiment with TO assistant ON. But DO NOT FORGET TO ADD BRAKES after these 10 seconds, because your rudder inputs gets useless at low speed, and the plane breaks away. You can check it. The only force that can dip the wing is INERTIA, and it appears as the plane begins to turn.

 

Thanks Yo-Yo, :thumbup:

I'll review Matt's video more closely and experiment with TO assist viewing from behind to see what is happening. It's nice to know that even he had issues at first. It gives one hope. :)

 

Cats . . .

[Damocles]

I'm sorry if I've set the cat among the pigeons Yo Yo, it isn't my intent. I'm not criticizing just, possibly irritatingly, curious. I know that practice makes perfect but I've also read many times on FS forums that just because it's realistic doesn't mean it has correlating difficulty.

 

My original question in this thread and I think it is still pertinent, and to my mind still not properly answered, was what is different about the 109's geometry that makes it less likely to drop a wing than the Spitfire in DCS. Both aircraft are very similar and yet, despite being no better or worse flying the 109, dropping a wing tip is just not a consideration for me. I'm not saying it doesn't happen it's just that it seams to happen as a result of an accident rather than the cause of one. The only answer in this thread of a physical characteristic of the 109 is the lockable tail wheel . Anyway I add the following just as a matter of discussion and just to emphasize I'm not saying anything is necessarily right or wrong, I'm just curious, and yes I can practice my way to getting it right but that doesn't necessarily make it right:

 

"For decades I can recall reading that a third of all Bf 109s were lost due to landing and takeoff accidents. The design of the landing gear is frequently mentioned as a contributing cause. More specifically the wheel angle on the narrow, outward retracting gear being unlike the Spitfires vertical orientation greatly contributed to causing crashes. I am sure my first reading of this started with books I owned before they were “lost” by Movers in 1993. This 33.3% statistical claim is surprisingly similar to the claim that in the amount of man hours it took to build a Spitfire, three 109s could be built. Both statistical claims have shall we say, questionable parentage. I would like to investigate the family tree of the landing gear claim. Below I have listed a few sources referring to this specific claim or claims of landing gear design significantly contributing to 109 accidents and loses. I will continue to add to the list as I find new examples Please help me determine the origin of these claims by listing where you saw them, who made them, and the date they made them. PLEASE DO NOT POST REFERENCES OR OPINIONS DISPUTING THESE CLAIMS. If you find a published dispute of these claims, provide the source, name, date and quote of the claim they are disputing. I only want a list of where seen, who said what, and date so I can find the earliest date to determine origin of the claim of 11,000 Bf 109s lost in landing and takeoff accidents. Once that is found we all can figure out how these claims got started and why?

 

2003 August, Flight Journal, “The Best WWII Fighter” by Corky Meyer

 

“....11,000 of the 33,000 built were destroyed during takeoff and landing accidents...”

 

“Chief aerodynamicist for the the Messerschmitt Me 163 rocket fighter, Josef Hubert ....told me that Willy Messerschmitt had adamantly refused to compromise the Bf 109’s performance by adding the drag-producing wing-surface bumps and fairings that would have been necessary to accommodate the wheels with the proper geometry. This would have reduced its accident rate to within expected military-fighter ranges and made it a world standard!”

 

 

2000 Winter, Flight Journal Special Edition WWII Fighters, “The Bf 109s real enemy was itself!” by Corky Meyer

 

Meyer sites a letter in 1980 written by Colonel Johannes “Macki” Steinhoff -

 

“He sent me a long letter relating that I should be sure of the absolute vertical alignment of the tailwheel ais; he also wrote that its inherently weak brakes sould be in excellent condition because in WWII, the Luftwaffe lost 11,000 out of 33,000 Bf 109s to takeoff and landing accidents. Steinhoff directly attributed this terrible record to the bad geometry of the plane’s very unstable, splayed-out, narrow landing-gear configuration. In his letter, he said twice that if a German mechanic who really knew the Bf 109 wasn’t handy, I should not get into the cockpit.”

 

 

1999 December, Flight Journal, “Combat Warrior, The Historical View” by Captain Eric Brown

 

“But the Bf 109’s deficiencies almost equal its fabulous assets. The Luftwaffe lost 11,000 of these thoroughbred fighting machines in takeoff and landing accidents, most of them at the end of the War when they needed them most.”

 

“I felt certain, too, that the landing gear’s being slightly splayed outward aggravated the ground-looping tendency and contributed to the excessive tire wear and bursts. The Spitfire had a similar, narrow-track landing gear, but it was not splayed out like that of the Bf 109, and the Spitfire didn’t show any ground-looping propensities.”

 

Brown goes on to explain that high accident rates in 1939 resulted in a tailwheel lock being added to later models.

 

 

More to come when you or I find it. I hope we can find out who originally made the claim in question."

Edited January 13, 2017 by Damocles