Jump to content

I'm enjoying the C-101 but have to ask: Are the brakes the only way to steer on the ground?


tomcat2200

Recommended Posts

Yes, just like in the real aircraft.

 

For work: iMac mid-2010 of 27" - Core i7 870 - 6 GB DDR3 1333 MHz - ATI HD5670 - SSD 256 GB - HDD 2 TB - macOS High Sierra

For Gaming: 34" Monitor - Ryzen 3600X - 32 GB DDR4 2400 - nVidia GTX1070ti - SSD 1.25 TB - HDD 10 TB - Win10 Pro - TM HOTAS Cougar - Oculus Rift CV1

Mobile: iPad Pro 12.9" of 256 GB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't mind simulating the real thing. I was quite impressed with the list of commands in the sim. What disappoints is the lack of warning that the real engineers who designed this aircraft decided to save a few bucks over articulating the nosewheel. Even general aviation prop driven aircraft steer with the rudders. It begs the question as to what else did the engineers compromise on for the sake of stupidity. In stead of air brakes do they shut down the main engine and reverse the spooling to slow down? I laud the sim for duplicating the detailed aspects of the aircraft in such amazing detail. This does not relieve the original designers for taking a multi-million dollar jet aircraft design and compromising it with irrational choices.

 

For an aircraft that seems to take forever to get up to rotation speed, the last thing I want to do is hit the brakes while trying to take off and point down the runway centerline. Instead of a tail dragger, they have made a nose dragger, and likely sell lots of nose wheels in the process.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, tomcat2200 said:

... the real engineers who designed this aircraft decided to save a few bucks over articulating the nosewheel... It begs the question as to what else did the engineers compromise on for the sake of stupidity. In stead of air brakes do they shut down the main engine and reverse the spooling to slow down?

 

 This does not relieve the original designers for taking a multi-million dollar jet aircraft design and compromising it with irrational choices.


I don’t know what were the constraints of budget, weight and commplexity that the real designers had when they were making this aircraft, but I’m sure that you would have done a much smarter and better job at it, since you seem so knowledgeable about this subject. 🙄

  • Like 2

 

For work: iMac mid-2010 of 27" - Core i7 870 - 6 GB DDR3 1333 MHz - ATI HD5670 - SSD 256 GB - HDD 2 TB - macOS High Sierra

For Gaming: 34" Monitor - Ryzen 3600X - 32 GB DDR4 2400 - nVidia GTX1070ti - SSD 1.25 TB - HDD 10 TB - Win10 Pro - TM HOTAS Cougar - Oculus Rift CV1

Mobile: iPad Pro 12.9" of 256 GB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If they can install a steerable nosewheel on a $50K civilian aircraft economically, what they did here is engineering malpractice. Yes I worked in the industry for decades (not to brag), because I would have made the same remarks if all I did was build bridges. It's just common sense to any engineer. I will still enjoy this sim. I just still get my fur brushed the wrong way sometimes. LOL

 

Trainers, like this is supposed to be, are supposed to act as much like the aircraft flight operations of the aircraft they are training for. Trainers don't need the radar systems or 50,000lb ordinance capabilities, but they should operate as much the same as the advanced systems, without the transonic capabilities. Can you imagine an F-15 pilot dragging the nose around with the left brake and the nose wheel pointing straight? This is the kind of feature worthy of Microsoft Marketing. (tongue in cheek)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If they can install a steerable nosewheel on a $50K civilian aircraft economically, what they did here is engineering malpractice. Yes I worked in the industry for decades (not to brag), because I would have made the same remarks if all I did was build bridges. It's just common sense to any engineer. I will still enjoy this sim. I just still get my fur brushed the wrong way sometimes. LOL
 
Trainers, like this is supposed to be, are supposed to act as much like the aircraft flight operations of the aircraft they are training for. Trainers don't need the radar systems or 50,000lb ordinance capabilities, but they should operate as much the same as the advanced systems, without the transonic capabilities. Can you imagine an F-15 pilot dragging the nose around with the left brake and the nose wheel pointing straight? This is the kind of feature worthy of Microsoft Marketing. (tongue in cheek)
Oh, you mean that old joke when Windows 95 came out, and everybody was laughing their asses off because you had to press to start to stop. Chuckle, we all know how that went.

Anyway! You'll enjoy this little marvel of a module. Tested it myself in the free to play last spring, and just had to get it. Get it lined up and don't worry about braking, because the rudder gets authority very soon. The plane is also very light, so you get in the air pretty quickly. Enjoy the hard landing in Tbilisi. Then you'll find out how light it is!
Cheers!

Sent from my MAR-LX1A using Tapatalk

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, tomcat2200 said:

[...]For an aircraft that seems to take forever to get up to rotation speed, [...]

With 100% of fuel, it takes a while. But for most sorties you do not need that much fuel. Burning around 1200lbs in cruise flight at a medium altitude 1800lbs are more than enough for training sorties.

It was designed to fly from Spanish mainland to the Canary Islands so it can takeup more fuel than typically needed.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It has more to do with borked ground physics in DCS (not only for C-101), than the limitation of the actual system. 

 

In real life a free castoring wheel with a differential braking allows the aircraft to have even smaller turn radius than with the steerable front wheel, as the aicraft can basically pivot around its inner main wheel. 

  • Like 7

Hardware: VPForce Rhino, FSSB R3 Ultra, Virpil T-50CM, Hotas Warthog, Winwing F15EX, Slaw Rudder, GVL224 Trio Throttle, Thrustmaster MFDs, Saitek Trim wheel, Trackir 5, Quest Pro

Link to comment
Share on other sites

vor 41 Minuten schrieb some1:

It has more to do with borked ground physics in DCS (not only for C-101), than the limitation of the actual system. 

 

In real life a free castoring wheel with a differential braking allows the aircraft to have even smaller turn radius than with the steerable front wheel, as the aicraft can basically pivot around its inner main wheel. 

taxiing she turns on a dime indeed! after using the c101 finally more and more these days, even though i purchased her a couple of years ago, i must admit that she´s one of the finest models in dcs. everything feels correct, the cockpit is a pleasure in functionality and optics. simply a very great module!!

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

vor 7 Stunden schrieb tomcat2200:

If they can install a steerable nosewheel on a $50K civilian aircraft economically, what they did here is engineering malpractice. Yes I worked in the industry for decades (not to brag), because I would have made the same remarks if all I did was build bridges. It's just common sense to any engineer. I will still enjoy this sim. I just still get my fur brushed the wrong way sometimes. LOL

 

Trainers, like this is supposed to be, are supposed to act as much like the aircraft flight operations of the aircraft they are training for. Trainers don't need the radar systems or 50,000lb ordinance capabilities, but they should operate as much the same as the advanced systems, without the transonic capabilities. Can you imagine an F-15 pilot dragging the nose around with the left brake and the nose wheel pointing straight? This is the kind of feature worthy of Microsoft Marketing. (tongue in cheek)

it´s just good old flight school mate. the amount of braking until the rudder gets effect is tiny tiny. also on the c101. i wouldn´t call it bad engineering. on the photo you see the plane i started flying with after beeing a glider pilot for a longer time. and of course the front wheel steers in with the moevement of the aircraft and does not point always straight ahead! it works outstandingly good and turns super tight on the ground. you also develope a good feeling for brakes and throttle. just perfect in my eyes.

1540986-large.jpg

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, tomcat2200 said:

I don't mind simulating the real thing. I was quite impressed with the list of commands in the sim. What disappoints is the lack of warning that the real engineers who designed this aircraft decided to save a few bucks over articulating the nosewheel. Even general aviation prop driven aircraft steer with the rudders. It begs the question as to what else did the engineers compromise on for the sake of stupidity.

 

https://youtu.be/5QX11dl9GMY?t=77

 

https://youtu.be/5QX11dl9GMY?t=434

 

Looking the real thing starting turning, the front wheel does turn. 

 

image.png

 

There you can see that even from straight front, the nose wheel is turning to left, direction where it is turning. 

 

 

  • Like 2

i7-8700k, 32GB 2666Mhz DDR4, 2x 2080S SLI 8GB, Oculus Rift S.

i7-8700k, 16GB 2666Mhz DDR4, 1080Ti 11GB, 27" 4K, 65" HDR 4K.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, the nosewheel is articulated, but it doesn't have a driven NWS system.

 

And OP there are a tonne of aircraft that don't have NWS, and are steered by differential braking, including many jet-trainers. The L-39 comes to mind (a very similar aircraft to the C-101), as does the Hawk (at least the T1), the Alpha Jet is probably the same too. It's hardly an engineering malpractice.

 

Plenty of Soviet examples too such as the MiG-15, -19, -21 and probably the -23 (wouldn't be surprised if there were others).

 


Edited by Northstar98

Modules I own: F-14A/B, Mi-24P, AV-8B N/A, AJS 37, F-5E-3, MiG-21bis, F-16CM, F/A-18C, Supercarrier, Mi-8MTV2, UH-1H, Mirage 2000C, FC3, MiG-15bis, Ka-50, A-10C (+ A-10C II), P-47D, P-51D, C-101, Yak-52, WWII Assets, CA, NS430, Hawk.

Terrains I own: South Atlantic, Syria, The Channel, SoH/PG, Marianas.

System:

GIGABYTE B650 AORUS ELITE AX, AMD Ryzen 5 7600, Corsair Vengeance DDR5-5200 32 GB, Western Digital Black SN850X 1 TB (DCS dedicated) & 2 TB NVMe SSDs, Corsair RM850X 850 W, NZXT H7 Flow, MSI G274CV.

Peripherals: VKB Gunfighter Mk.II w. MCG Pro, MFG Crosswind V3 Graphite, Logitech Extreme 3D Pro.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Almost all WWII aircraft do this, too. In fact, Soviet planes up to MiG-29 use more or less the same system that was in common use in WWII, everywhere but in Germany and US. It's unusual for a Western aircraft not to have a steerable nosewheel today, but in WWII, even tricycle aircraft such as the P-39 and P-38 were set up like that.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The differential breaking with a single brake handle is not a problem, until you start to oversteer and need to apply opposite side brakes quickly. But that training takes care of, so one can nicely avoid crazy taxiing accidents by waving side to side.

 

The nose wheel steering is easier and simpler, but it is as well dangerous when it comes to have system lock the nose wheel direction. This is easily seen in Harrier where NSW enabled can cause you to flip over, why manual states clearly to keep the nose wheel casting so it doesn't happen by not allowing nose wheel becoming a pivot point.

 

So while in one way something is bad, in other way something else is bad.

 

I am custom for both, but my real problem is that C-101 doesn't offer same axis brakes.

Or let's say, VKB T-pedals do not offer by default split axis, but simply one axis. 

 

Why creativeness is requires to get one axis with center position be used on system that has two axis for Left and Right.

 

So again more of a problem of physical simulator cockpit than a real aircraft design.

 

The C-101 is one rare ones that presents the lack of toe brakes being problem at first, but configuration for pedals fixes that. With other planes like F/A-18 or F-16 there is never need to use toe brakes separately if not wanted.

i7-8700k, 32GB 2666Mhz DDR4, 2x 2080S SLI 8GB, Oculus Rift S.

i7-8700k, 16GB 2666Mhz DDR4, 1080Ti 11GB, 27" 4K, 65" HDR 4K.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Fri13 said:

The differential breaking with a single brake handle is not a problem, until you start to oversteer and need to apply opposite side brakes quickly. But that training takes care of, so one can nicely avoid crazy taxiing accidents by waving side to side.

 

The nose wheel steering is easier and simpler, but it is as well dangerous when it comes to have system lock the nose wheel direction. This is easily seen in Harrier where NSW enabled can cause you to flip over, why manual states clearly to keep the nose wheel casting so it doesn't happen by not allowing nose wheel becoming a pivot point.

 

So while in one way something is bad, in other way something else is bad.

 

I am custom for both, but my real problem is that C-101 doesn't offer same axis brakes.

Or let's say, VKB T-pedals do not offer by default split axis, but simply one axis. 

 

Why creativeness is requires to get one axis with center position be used on system that has two axis for Left and Right.

 

So again more of a problem of physical simulator cockpit than a real aircraft design.

 

The C-101 is one rare ones that presents the lack of toe brakes being problem at first, but configuration for pedals fixes that. With other planes like F/A-18 or F-16 there is never need to use toe brakes separately if not wanted.

 

What I do is that I use my MCG Pro brake axis and then if I hold LCtrl down it operates the left brake, and if I hold LAlt down it operates the right. If I don't hold either of them down it does both.

 

I don't have a rudder or throttle at all - I use the keyboard, which actually makes steering with rudder difficult as I can't do it with any finesse, I only have all the way or nothing (though I can feather it, but it's hardly ideal). 

Modules I own: F-14A/B, Mi-24P, AV-8B N/A, AJS 37, F-5E-3, MiG-21bis, F-16CM, F/A-18C, Supercarrier, Mi-8MTV2, UH-1H, Mirage 2000C, FC3, MiG-15bis, Ka-50, A-10C (+ A-10C II), P-47D, P-51D, C-101, Yak-52, WWII Assets, CA, NS430, Hawk.

Terrains I own: South Atlantic, Syria, The Channel, SoH/PG, Marianas.

System:

GIGABYTE B650 AORUS ELITE AX, AMD Ryzen 5 7600, Corsair Vengeance DDR5-5200 32 GB, Western Digital Black SN850X 1 TB (DCS dedicated) & 2 TB NVMe SSDs, Corsair RM850X 850 W, NZXT H7 Flow, MSI G274CV.

Peripherals: VKB Gunfighter Mk.II w. MCG Pro, MFG Crosswind V3 Graphite, Logitech Extreme 3D Pro.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

I don't have a rudder or throttle at all - I use the keyboard, which actually makes steering with rudder difficult as I can't do it with any finesse, I only have all the way or nothing (though I can feather it, but it's hardly ideal). 

 

But you should be able to use the MCG brake lever to apply 0-100% braking force, right?

 

i7-8700k, 32GB 2666Mhz DDR4, 2x 2080S SLI 8GB, Oculus Rift S.

i7-8700k, 16GB 2666Mhz DDR4, 1080Ti 11GB, 27" 4K, 65" HDR 4K.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Fri13 said:

But you should be able to use the MCG brake lever to apply 0-100% braking force, right?

 

Yep, means I can actually be more precise with this method of steering (i.e differential toe brakes) than any other, only issue is the throttle, which isn't very precise with the keyboard.

Modules I own: F-14A/B, Mi-24P, AV-8B N/A, AJS 37, F-5E-3, MiG-21bis, F-16CM, F/A-18C, Supercarrier, Mi-8MTV2, UH-1H, Mirage 2000C, FC3, MiG-15bis, Ka-50, A-10C (+ A-10C II), P-47D, P-51D, C-101, Yak-52, WWII Assets, CA, NS430, Hawk.

Terrains I own: South Atlantic, Syria, The Channel, SoH/PG, Marianas.

System:

GIGABYTE B650 AORUS ELITE AX, AMD Ryzen 5 7600, Corsair Vengeance DDR5-5200 32 GB, Western Digital Black SN850X 1 TB (DCS dedicated) & 2 TB NVMe SSDs, Corsair RM850X 850 W, NZXT H7 Flow, MSI G274CV.

Peripherals: VKB Gunfighter Mk.II w. MCG Pro, MFG Crosswind V3 Graphite, Logitech Extreme 3D Pro.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:

 

Yep, means I can actually be more precise with this method of steering (i.e differential toe brakes) than any other, only issue is the throttle, which isn't very precise with the keyboard.

 

Why not use the Master Mode mini-stick as throttle? You can have it by its default configuration well as such, you can even slow down its reaction so you get even finer control (losing fast reactions) but it works nicely as such.... 

i7-8700k, 32GB 2666Mhz DDR4, 2x 2080S SLI 8GB, Oculus Rift S.

i7-8700k, 16GB 2666Mhz DDR4, 1080Ti 11GB, 27" 4K, 65" HDR 4K.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/24/2021 at 8:15 PM, tomcat2200 said:

I don't mind simulating the real thing. I was quite impressed with the list of commands in the sim. What disappoints is the lack of warning that the real engineers who designed this aircraft decided to save a few bucks over articulating the nosewheel. Even general aviation prop driven aircraft steer with the rudders. It begs the question as to what else did the engineers compromise on for the sake of stupidity.

  Differential braking is not a mark of stupidity, and is in fact very common.

 

Quote

In stead of air brakes do they shut down the main engine and reverse the spooling to slow down?

  You mean thrust reversers? 

 

Quote

I laud the sim for duplicating the detailed aspects of the aircraft in such amazing detail. This does not relieve the original designers for taking a multi-million dollar jet aircraft design and compromising it with irrational choices.

  There is nothing ''irrational'' about it.

 

Quote

For an aircraft that seems to take forever to get up to rotation speed, the last thing I want to do is hit the brakes while trying to take off and point down the runway centerline.

  Differential braking is how you implement a turn when you don't have power steering or airflow over control surfaces. Once you get up 30-40mph you shouldn't be ''braking'' anymore, the airflow over the rudder is enough to correct nose position and the nose wheel is free castering.

 

Quote

Instead of a tail dragger, they have made a nose dragger, and likely sell lots of nose wheels in the process.

  Yeah.... No. They made a very simple system used on many aircraft, that's a ''you'' problem.


Edited by Mars Exulte
Tone
  • Like 4

Де вороги, знайдуться козаки їх перемогти.

5800x3d * 3090 * 64gb * Reverb G2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/24/2021 at 9:08 PM, tomcat2200 said:

If they can install a steerable nosewheel on a $50K civilian aircraft economically, what they did here is engineering malpractice.

  A ridiculous statement

 

Quote

Yes I worked in the industry for decades (not to brag)

  You worked in the industry for decades, yet have no knowledge of differential braking?

 

Quote

because I would have made the same remarks if all I did was build bridges.

  Your comments are about what one would expect from a bridge engineer pontificating about aircraft design.

 

Quote

It's just common sense to any engineer

   I'm sure you could teach them a thing or two!


Edited by Mars Exulte
Tone
  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1

Де вороги, знайдуться козаки їх перемогти.

5800x3d * 3090 * 64gb * Reverb G2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 months later...

I would like some rudder/brake settings for anyone who has the high end TM rudders rather than all this chest beating. I have actually flown in a L-39 and can assure anyone that standing on a rudder to correct for a 6k crosswind or to keep the nose on the centerline is wrong. To be fair MSFS has always had horrible ground handling dynamics and DCS isn't immune from the issue either. I like watching real F-16 pilots throwing around the jet on a runway like a Cub in a hurricane kicking rudders like a hungry baby.

This is the main reason 3/4 of all my missions start on the runway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...