AH vs R/L planes

[pembquist]

I have read the 109s (as an example) could not do what we do in AH, ram the throttle full forward (even with WEP), without ground-looping. I guess many high-powered planes behave the same.

Can someone explain to me why its a difference, as it should do the same in AH.

I imagine its a compromise to make the game more playable.  Maybe its harder to model the slow speed regimes than the high speed ones so it would be hard to make it realistic for a minimal pay off.

[hitech]

I have read the 109s (as an example) could not do what we do in AH, ram the throttle full forward (even with WEP), without ground-looping. I guess many high-powered planes behave the same.

Can someone explain to me why its a difference, as it should do the same in AH.

We change how the tail wheel operates vs  real life. I modeled the real one in my RV for testing . It was then very difficult for me to take off and took all my concentration to keep it straight on the runway ,in the real RV it is not a big deal.Pyro could not regularly accomplish the task. With out rudder pedals it was almost impossible. The reason is that in real life, much of the ruder work in a tail drager is accomplished by the feel of your but.Your reflexes have learned to automatically put in rudder with the feel of a slight side force. Inputs many times must be very quick and then released almost immediately after the input. There is no way to provide this feed back, so we model the tail wheels a little more sticky then in real life and provide steerable tail wheels for all planes.

HiTech

[earl1937]

I have read the 109s (as an example) could not do what we do in AH, ram the throttle full forward (even with WEP), without ground-looping. I guess many high-powered planes behave the same.

Can someone explain to me why its a difference, as it should do the same in AH.

I think Hi Tech has designed this game to be very forgiving in the ground environment and reasonably forgiving in the flight realm because so many people who play this game are not trained pilots. One of the big items which are missing when playing this game is "feel"! Many real aircraft give you feed back on what needs to be corrected by the pilot. One thing you would never do in real life, on the runway, prior to takeoff, is jam the throttle wide open! #1, it is very bad for the life of the engine as that can and does, sometimes, do damage to the engine. You have to remember, in Aces High, if your engine fails, no big deal, just go to the hangar and get another a/c, but in real life, you could arrive at your "final solution" if you don't take care of your engine, especially WW2 aircraft engines. Most tail wheeled aircraft have the ability to lock the tail wheel, but even with that feature, it will still steer 2 to 4 degrees either side of center. Twin engine, tail wheeled aircraft are easy to ground loop, even with no crosswind, unless you are very careful. A lot of tail wheeled aircraft have what is called a "steerable" tail wheel, but even those steerable features can easily be overcome by "jamming" the throttle wide open. The easiest tail wheeled aircraft to keep straight on the runway which I ever flew was the C-46! It had a very large vertical stabilizer and large rudder and very wide spread landing gear and even in a good crosswind, it was just a toe tap to keep it straight.
The aircrafts design also has a lot to do with how hard it is to keep it straight on the runway on takeoff, or landing for that matter. A good example of that is to compare the P-51 to the T-6! The P-51 is a little ole lady when compared to the T-6, because of how far apart the landing gear is arranged on the aircraft. The hardest aircraft I ever flew, to keep straight on the runway, takeoff or landing was the Lockheed Lodestar. This thing was beast at best! Very narrow landing gear arrangement, coupled with an extended fuselage on the later models, made for some interesting moments on the runway. You really didn't care what the weather was enroute, as you couldn't tear the wings off this thing in turbulence, but you sure wanted to know what the wind was at the airport of intended landing!

[save]

Thanks Hitech !

I know take off /landing is easy mode compared to RL, I flew VLA tail-draggers for 10 years, when you put main wheel on the runway, only half of the landing was done, keeping it from ground-looping with crosswind required reptile-fast rudder work, specially on concrete.

[Wmaker]

On many WWII fighters which had free castering tail wheels they also could be locked for take off. Many ground looping accidents were caused because locking was forgotten.

[Ardy123]

The P-51 is a little ole lady when compared to the T-6, because of how far apart the landing gear is arranged on the aircraft.

God, a 109 must have been one SOB to handle on the ground... look how narrow the undercarriage is...

[earl1937]

God, a 109 must have been one SOB to handle on the ground... look how narrow the undercarriage is...

If you will notice, the gear is spread eagled with the tires being much wider than where the gear struts entered the wing area. I would guess that made them some what easier to handle. In watching old German films of them taking off, rudders were really working hard on takeoff to keep them straight!

[colmbo]

Whoa, ET has time in the Lodestar!!!  (Lodestall as skydivers like to call it, has been in a couple notable accidents after a stall on jumprun).

RE T-6 vs P-51.....the T-6 just keeps you on the edge of the seat...you have that feeling that any nanosecond it's going to bite you!!

Although it's a big, lumbering airplane the B-17 would be nigh on impossible to land or takeoff with the tail-wheel unlocked.  It's a challenge just to taxi it.  I had a B-17 type-rated pilot in the right seat of the B-24, we were #2 behind the B-17 departing Santa Barbara.  The co-pilot (new to the bombers, retired 747 Capt) was doing the flying and had the tailwheel loaded to hard (too much aft yoke) as he started the takeoff roll which caused the tail-wheel to shimmy which resulted in the lock pin failing.  Katie bar the door!  The fort started swerving down the runway with each swing getting wider and more violent.  We could see the rudder banging back and forth and smoke as they throttled trying to get her under control but they were losing the battle.  As the nose swung back to the right my copilot keyed the mic and said (MIKE, IDLE POWER!).  Smoke from all the engines as they came to idle and the airplane then continued in a straight line, instantly under control.  Bad news is they were just departing the runway off the right sign and hit one of those big black and yellow taxiway/runway marking signs -- that old Ham Standard cleaved that thing right in too leaving only a small mark in the paint on the prop.  We checked prop run out the next day, replaced the lock pin and went back to aviating.

[Oldman731]

God, a 109 must have been one SOB to handle on the ground... look how narrow the undercarriage is...

I think I've posted this before, but it's a good time to post it again.  Pertinent excerpt from a very fine article:

Taxiing is the Messerchmitt’s opportunity to get you alone and to whisper a warning in your ear.  There is a grotesquely high download on the tailwheel in the Bf-109; a situation made evident by the requirement for full rudder, hard braking, forward stick and a blast of power to effect a turn.  Try that in a Spitfire and the propeller will chew dirt!  While odd, it at least gave reassurance that even aggressive braking would be unlikely to result in a nose-over.  Unfortunately it also meant that the center of gravity was very far aft of the main wheels.  That is not a good thing.  Recalling my misadventures in once trying to steer a shopping cart backwards down a hill, I made a mental note that the tail might try to pass me during the landing. 

The geometry of the undercarriage is perhaps the most unusual feature of the Bf-109.  A digression is in order to appreciate how its characteristics would manifest themselves during take-off or landing.  Some sources claim that between 15-25% of the Bf-109s ever built were damaged or destroyed during take-off or landing accidents.  I find this a remarkable figure for a combat aeroplane – especially one that served on the losing side of the war!  Most contemporary histories of the Bf-109 attribute this to the narrow undercarriage track, however this misses the point.  (The Spitfire’s undercarriage is just as narrow, and it doesn’t have any of the Bf-109’s quirks.  It has its own quirks – but that’s another story.)  Dr. Messerschmitt faced a challenge in the design of his first fighter.  In the interest of simplifying transport and repair of the aeroplane, it was designed with the undercarriage attached to the fuselage, such that the wings could be completely removed with the aeroplane resting on its wheels.  The undercarriage struts were attached to a complicated forging at the firewall aft of the engine mount.  The narrow width of the fuselage structure necessitated installing the undercarriage legs splayed outwards.  This feature became the aeroplane’s Achilles heel.

Imagine that you have a bicycle wheel in your hands.  Roll the wheel with the axle parallel to the ground.  It goes straight.  Now roll the wheel such that the axle is not parallel to the ground.  The wheel turns.  Let’s return to the Bf-109.  Both of the tires are mounted “crooked”, rolling with a camber angle of about 25°.  Consequently both wheels want to turn inwards under the aeroplane.  When the aeroplane is rolling with an equal download on both wheels, symmetry prevails; both wheels fight to a stand-off, and the aeroplane rolls straight.  Now imagine that something causes the download on the wheels to momentarily become unequal.  In that case the rolling friction of the tires becomes uneven and the turning tendency of the “heavy” tire asserts itself.  What might do this?  Well, crosswinds.  Or torque from engine power.  However, the most dangerous culprit is turning.  With the aeroplane’s centre of gravity situated high above the tires, a swerve will set loose large centrifugal forces that cause the aeroplane to try to roll over the tires.  This is true of any aeroplane, but in this scenario the unusual camber of the Bf-109’s tires creates strong directional instability, requiring a different type of control strategy for take-offs and landings.  Tight heading control or aggressive tracking of the runway centerline can set off abrupt directional divergence.  Better for the pilot to relax, merely dampen heading changes, and accept small heading errors.  Funny, I didn’t feel relaxed. 

http://www.vintagewings.ca/VintageNews/Stories/tabid/116/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/124/language/en-CA/Bouncing-Clouds--Flying-the-Messerschmitt-Bf-109.aspx

[Oldman731]

The fort started swerving down the runway with each swing getting wider and more violent. 

Yikes!

Imagine enjoying that with a bomb bay full of bombs and tanks full of fuel.

- oldman

[hlbly]

Prop control works as in AH. You set desired RPM and the governor will maintain that RPM within the limits of the pitch stops for the prop. You set it and then forget it.

What a stall feels like depends on the aircraft and the type of stall (slow deceleration, accelerated, power on, power off). Generally you'll get some kind of aerodynamic warning (buffet), you'll notice control sloppiness in case of slow deceleration low speed stall and might notice changes in wind/airframe noise.

Slow deceleration...

In a Cessna a gentle buffet followed by a nose drop, pretty docile.

In a Mustang definite buffet then sharp left wing drop at the break.

B-24 you get minimal buffet around 85 mph IAS.  Additional aft stick will not cause noticeable pitch increase. If you continue to slow buffeting of ailerons that can be violent enough to snatch yoke out of hands.

B-17 very noticeable buffet well above stall speed with gentle nose drop at the stall.  If not coordinated you'll get wing drop, if you try to use aileron to pick up wing airplane will roll sharply opposite aileron input, incipient spin.


Go to your local airport flight school and go for an intro flight, ask them to demonstrate a stall.

We dop not have accelerated stalls in here correct ? What causes them ? How do you recover from one ?

[FLS]

We dop not have accelerated stalls in here correct ? What causes them ? How do you recover from one ?

When you stall at more than 1G it's an accelerated stall. They're caused by pulling too much pitch. You recover by pulling less.

[Citabria]

although I understand the logic behind the takeoff and landing "helpers" they always felt unrealistic to me when I compare what its like to takeoff and land a t-6 texan especially from the rear cockpit which better simulates what its like in a big nosed warbird...

the feeling that its going to bite you as colmbo said is a very accurate one and you dare not let the thing sway an inch from dead center much less out of its very narrow triangle for fear of re-enacting a texan groundloop youtube video

its true you cant feel the plane wanting to swerve and stay ahead of it in a sim like this but AH seems too forgiving with no wind no turbulence very little concern of ground loop.

but the worst one of all to me has always been the ez mode brakes in AH.
lock up the brakes in a taildragger and your going to have  bad day in real life. do it in ah and the brake limiter will keep your nose nice and level so you don't even strike the prop.

an option for realistic brakes with no limiter or governor and a less sticky tailwheel option would be great for the hardcore fans.

[Citabria]

also wheel landings in ah...

take the flubber out of the wheels so that wheel landings can be done.

as it is you have to 3 point it in a stall or bounce all over the place even when flying it on smooth its a bounce every single time unless in a stall.

[earl1937]

also wheel landings in ah...

take the flubber out of the wheels so that wheel landings can be done.

as it is you have to 3 point it in a stall or bounce all over the place even when flying it on smooth its a bounce every single time unless in a stall.

The only thing in this game that I "3 point stance land" are the 190's, and I can wheel them on, but is easier to stall land the things. They have a short coupled fuesledge, which makes for easy ground loops, unless you are very careful. Just carry a very small amount of power, almost idle power, just cracked just a little, level the bird over the runway and when the mains touch the ground, just a little forward pressure on the stick and reduce power at same time.