Pulling back on the stick is most certainly not useless when braking. When landing the 109, you can brake much harder with the stick back than with it neutral.

I agree, the friction on the ground is too high - and yet the 'planes are turned by wind too easily - and if you look at wartime footage hurris only have to throttle-up and run for a few yards before the tail lifts (probably into the wind though), unlike in CloD.
Of course the devs have to balance the friction and the (along the 'plane axis and perpendicular) drag in a way that also makes the 'plane air handing seem right, so if they've got one wrong the other has to compensate for sensible ground handling. Draw your own conclusions.
You don't specify allied or axis. If I remember rightly the allied fighter brakes operate on a single lever (though the distribution to the wheels is modified by the rudder bar, but I've never been convinced CloD models this correctly), while the 109 has toe brakes - I think.

S!

56RAF_phoenix

Yesterday I did some circuits in a 109 and I was astonished to see how different it was on the ground. There's (almost) nothing wrong with how the 109 handles on the ground. Proper acceleration, even on grass, effective rudders, and I had to be very careful with the brake. How come Spitfires and Hurricanes are so different - even using differential braking? (The brake pressure gauge is what I meant in my previous post, that is, I'm sure my controls are set up correctly - of course there's no gauge for ground handling, don't take me for an idiot)

I agree about the wind too.

As for distance vs tail up:
I've read a Spitfire pilot's account that they slowly gave +5 boost until the tail came up, and only then did they move the throttle further forward. Try giving only +5 boost in CloD and you're up for a cross country ride (on the grass that is :D )

Hi Tuckie,

What is the effect of propwash on the ground you are talking about?
(I thought propwash would minimize the effectiveness of the tail control surfaces)

~S~

By prop wash you mean the effect of the airflow generated by the prop?

That's one thing I LOVE about Rise of flight. Before startup your controls are floppy, no force feedback whatsoever. Then you start up the engine and the more thrittle you apply, the stiffer the elevator is. The Ailerons however, remain floppy, without resistanc,e as there's no airflow over them yet. Then as you start rolling, they start to bite too, and you start to feel them on the stick.

I'm not sure if such a thing is modeled in CloD, I wish it was.

Did the plane threaten to groundloop at any time? After touchdown will the plane roll out relatively straight without any rudder input? Taildraggers, especially those that are heavy on the tail wheel (main gear well forward of the CG, like the 109), will wind up with busted gear, or on their back, or both without any rudder correction.

My experience in Clod (exlusively Spit 1a) is 14% throttle open is the minimum to start the engine. With this aperture the engine runs smooth and the plane is motionless. Usually I take advantage of these moments to calibrate the compass, gyro and gunsight. After a while I open to 20% to accelerate the warm-up but at this aperture the plane starts to move. For taxiing I open to 1800-2000 RPM but the thing I find most unrealistic is the propwash effect on the rudder, I think it is undermodelled. I have to give full rudder and 70-80% throttle to feel some effect on it.
Cheers

Agree 100% this is an issue for me in RAF fighters and I think the Stuka too

It is awful at the moment. And the braking seems digital to me, full on or off.