29.05.2010, 18:07
Having flown a number of the real aircraft, both single and multi-engine, I find taxiing and braking these sim aircraft to be most unrealistic. In the real aircraft, unless you are on soft surfaced runways like grass or mud, once the bird is rolling it takes little power to keep up momentum. Sim aircraft require a highly unrealistic amount of throttle to overcome inertia and keep the aircraft rolling. When the aircraft is finally moving, it then continues to accelerate requiring reduced throttle, at which point the aircraft immediately decelerates to a stop. When I was a flying ace, I used to fast taxi up to a parking stand, shut off the engine, and spin the aircraft around using the momentum. A few hundred hours later, I learned how few flying aces lived to retirement or at least stayed employed; thus, I became more judicious in my ground handling techniques. Now in a risk free environment of virtual airworthiness where all mistakes can be corrected by applying the escape key, I find I cannot indulge my former ground handling panache to impress the actors (nor can I escape the cockpit and head to the bar after a grueling flight. I thank the sim gods I can at least open the canopy and gulp down some fresh air).
Keeping the balance between throttle and brakes proves far more difficult in the sim than in real life. Had I used brakes and throttle in this manner on real aircraft, I would have worn out the brakes in short order and probably lost my seat for such heavy-handedness. Even driving smaller multis, while using a small amount of differential throttle, at slower taxiing speeds I invariably used brakes more than throttles. Such throttle usage is most effective during high-speed rollout and taxiing. The reason for this is that it is just as easy and efficient to use brakes as it is throttle for taxiing and shifting the throttles in your hand to the necessary degree was difficult compared to using the toe brakes. It must be remembered that on smaller twins the engines are closer to the centerline. For this reason, asymmetrical throttling requires more throttle input. At slow speeds, typically once the necessary amount of throttle is employed, it is already too much and the aircraft swings too far. Heavier asymmetrical throttle action comes into play more often on larger two and four engine aircraft like the C-47 and B-17 or when one wants to hard pivot the aircraft on a wheel, but as this tears up tires, one always allows for a small amount of forward movement as the aircraft is turned. Of course this hardly applies to nose-wheeled aircraft where one simple uses nose wheel steering to point the aircraft where they want it to go. The exception is in large, four engine aircraft where a judicious amount of outboard engine throttle can be used to assist a reduction in turn radius.
My other beef is turbulence when flying in weather. While I can understand turbulence being difficult to recreate in a sim, the rapid yawing action of the sim is most unrealistic and makes me feel seasick. Real turbulence is rather more like riding straight down a road filled with pot holes, an effect that would be difficult to recreate without some fancy hydraulic actuators. Even the legendary yawing effect of the old V-tailed Bonanza was tolerable once one became accustomed to it, but the sim yawing is like nothing I have ever experienced outside of having a damaged airframe. I have also experienced this yawing action under CAVU conditions in aircraft like the Bf-109. I find it hard to believe the real aircraft would have had a defect of this magnitude left uncorrected. The P-51D suffered from such yawing instability, which accounted for the small strake ahead of the vertical stabilizer. Most floatplanes also have ventral fins to alleviate this type of yawing instability induced by the floats. Obviously designers are quick to fix the yawing issue, so why do the sim aircraft suffer from this defect?
In any event, I would like to mention that I quit flying years ago. I was through with aviation until a friend of mine asked me to install IL-2 on his computer. After the installation, I tried the game and became addicted. For the last month and a half, I have done little else besides upgrade and fly missions. I always loved stick and rudder far more than procedural manuals, and I always wanted to fly WWII combat - this game allows both. Better still no need for lengthy checklists, runups or return to the ramp for some system failure. I have flown
Keeping the balance between throttle and brakes proves far more difficult in the sim than in real life. Had I used brakes and throttle in this manner on real aircraft, I would have worn out the brakes in short order and probably lost my seat for such heavy-handedness. Even driving smaller multis, while using a small amount of differential throttle, at slower taxiing speeds I invariably used brakes more than throttles. Such throttle usage is most effective during high-speed rollout and taxiing. The reason for this is that it is just as easy and efficient to use brakes as it is throttle for taxiing and shifting the throttles in your hand to the necessary degree was difficult compared to using the toe brakes. It must be remembered that on smaller twins the engines are closer to the centerline. For this reason, asymmetrical throttling requires more throttle input. At slow speeds, typically once the necessary amount of throttle is employed, it is already too much and the aircraft swings too far. Heavier asymmetrical throttle action comes into play more often on larger two and four engine aircraft like the C-47 and B-17 or when one wants to hard pivot the aircraft on a wheel, but as this tears up tires, one always allows for a small amount of forward movement as the aircraft is turned. Of course this hardly applies to nose-wheeled aircraft where one simple uses nose wheel steering to point the aircraft where they want it to go. The exception is in large, four engine aircraft where a judicious amount of outboard engine throttle can be used to assist a reduction in turn radius.
My other beef is turbulence when flying in weather. While I can understand turbulence being difficult to recreate in a sim, the rapid yawing action of the sim is most unrealistic and makes me feel seasick. Real turbulence is rather more like riding straight down a road filled with pot holes, an effect that would be difficult to recreate without some fancy hydraulic actuators. Even the legendary yawing effect of the old V-tailed Bonanza was tolerable once one became accustomed to it, but the sim yawing is like nothing I have ever experienced outside of having a damaged airframe. I have also experienced this yawing action under CAVU conditions in aircraft like the Bf-109. I find it hard to believe the real aircraft would have had a defect of this magnitude left uncorrected. The P-51D suffered from such yawing instability, which accounted for the small strake ahead of the vertical stabilizer. Most floatplanes also have ventral fins to alleviate this type of yawing instability induced by the floats. Obviously designers are quick to fix the yawing issue, so why do the sim aircraft suffer from this defect?
In any event, I would like to mention that I quit flying years ago. I was through with aviation until a friend of mine asked me to install IL-2 on his computer. After the installation, I tried the game and became addicted. For the last month and a half, I have done little else besides upgrade and fly missions. I always loved stick and rudder far more than procedural manuals, and I always wanted to fly WWII combat - this game allows both. Better still no need for lengthy checklists, runups or return to the ramp for some system failure. I have flown