Brakes a bit ineffective?

Been landing the Viper and its a bugger to stop her from running off the end of the runway! I'm finding the wheel brakes need a little more power..

 

 

Am I the only one?:joystick:

If you land within parameters, everything works rather well. No brake adjustment needed by ED. ;)

I find the brakes to be a bit too mushy and not overly effective myself.

try keep your nose up to about 12 to 13 degree for aerodynamic braking， lower the nose around 100kt and start using the brake. should workout just fine.

Been landing the Viper and its a bugger to stop her from running off the end of the runway! I'm finding the wheel brakes need a little more power..

 

 

Am I the only one?:joystick:

When you touch the runway, keep the nose upwards, roughly the gun boresight cross on +10 in the hud pitch ladder, and fully extend the airbrakes. Don't use wheel brakes yet.

When you slow down to 100 knots, gently release the stick until you touch with all 3 wheels, now use the wheelbrakes and pull the stick full back. You will usually stop mid runway.

 

Regards

 

Sent from my Xiaomi MI8

Interesting this is mentioned - I was actually watching a RL on-board the other day and watching the jet roll-out and approach the taxiway I was like no way would you be able to make that in DCS.... he managed to pull it up fine and take the turnoff using some significant retardation with only the brakes (was already nose wheel on the ground etc).

Obviously this all depends on lots of factors such as weight, braking effort, runway surface etc.

 

But really, ED could always just use actual performance data to determine the stopping distances from whatever RL documentation they are using to develop the aircraft, as there are specific graphs you can use to calculate your exact stopping distances and brake energy. 30 mins running a few touchdowns at set weights...bingo done.

 

Which is why we used to calculate actual performance data, and specifically stopping data if landing at an unknown airfield, or if we are overweight and it starts raining etc, the captain wanted to know to the foot what our calculated stopping distance was going to be....instead of just, you know, having a pilot go "Aww yea looks about right, well be fine."

In a sim that's fine, but in the AF I flew with we preferred actual calculated data over opinions.

Don't get me wrong - SME input goes a long way, it will just not override calculated performance data.

 

Personally I have absolutely no trouble stopping it following landing - barely even touch the brakes, just believe the issue is with the wheel brake performance in general.

Edited December 4, 2019 by VampireNZ

Wags, are those pilots saying that its fine for only one of the wheel brakes to work?

The brakes and stopping distance seem fine to me.

When you touch the runway, keep the nose upwards, roughly the gun boresight cross on +10 in the hud pitch ladder, and fully extend the airbrakes. Don't use wheel brakes yet.

When you slow down to 100 knots, gently release the stick until you touch with all 3 wheels, now use the wheelbrakes and pull the stick full back. You will usually stop mid runway.

 

Regards

 

Sent from my Xiaomi MI8

 

I initially thought the brake effectiveness was in question in the Viper but read about this technic put here in a thread on how to land the viper and now I can manage to land the aircraft half way through the runway using this method.

 

Got to try this, works really good.

Its mostly a matter of "staying in the parameters" ecxept one thing: currently one brake (i think the right, cant validate it im at work currently) works better than the other.

 

You can easily test it, if you are just hitting the brakes fully and apply some thrust (without any wind) the plane drifts to the right.

Thats an issue shich hould be addressed. As far as im aware its allready reportet multiple times but not sure if ED are fixing this.

Its mostly a matter of "staying in the parameters" ecxept one thing: currently one brake (i think the right, cant validate it im at work currently) works better than the other.

 

 

 

You can easily test it, if you are just hitting the brakes fully and apply some thrust (without any wind) the plane drifts to the right.

 

Thats an issue shich hould be addressed. As far as im aware its allready reportet multiple times but not sure if ED are fixing this.

I can confirm: left brake is "weaker" than the right brake. It's really evident as you enter the runway at low taxi speed, as you use both (full brake), the plane will steer to the right side as it's apparently stronger. Makes aligning with runway a bit difficult.

 

Regards

 

Sent from my Xiaomi MI8

The brakes and stopping distance seem fine to me.

 

 

Same here.

 

But this is something easy to check ...

After reading the config file in the F-16 folder, it seems that there is a system that limits braking power above a certain speed if you only brake on one side or apply braking uneven.

 

I found that using 'w' or an axis that apply both brakes at the same time, there doesn't seem to be an issue.

 

Am I correct on this one?

Been landing the Viper and its a bugger to stop her from running off the end of the runway! I'm finding the wheel brakes need a little more power..

 

 

Am I the only one?:joystick:

 

I had the same issue until I watched Wags and others do sample textbook landings with the right speed parameters, AOA, and touchdown flare for aero-braking till at least 100knots. And now I have the opposite problem of having to pump the throttle back up when I taxi off the runway.

if you look at this F-16 RL video:

F-16 Incentive Flight FULL Length HUD Cam

 

 

 

 

@1h00s you see the final approach and landing, and when you count the seconds from touch down to 100KIAS and from 100KIAS to 60KIAS you get exactly the same results as with the standard landing mission of DCS's Viper. Awesome, imho!

Edited December 4, 2019 by Tom Kazansky

Hi!

 

 

@1h00s you see the final approach and landing, and when you count the seconds from touch down to 100KIAS and from 100KIAS to 60KIAS you get exactly the same results as with the standard landing mission

 

 

Well ... to be able to compare something, we need to know the a/c mass at touchdown (and if possible, airfield elevation, temp and runway surface if wet/dry ... etc ...), otherwise we can't really know.

 

Landing distance can highly differ. We need to compare at the same GW.

Also ... pilot do usually not apply full braking action to save the brakes, it makes also a big difference. Best is to compare with the checklists charts at various configurations (or at least in two conf : minimum weight, and at max landing weight).

 

 

Regards.

It's not rocket science. You don't even have to do a full landing, just adjust the weight to match the chart, accelerate to landing speed on the runway, hit the brakes and measure stopping distance. Try with aerobraking if needed.

 

The short distance landing charts in real manuals are specifically measured with "maximum braking effort", so full braking force with antiskid on and aerobraking. There are specific instructions for that.

 

I did such test for the DCS F-5E and it turned out that brakes are underperforming and parachute is overperforming. Of course it was never fixed by ED, at least it was still wrong last time I checked. But I digress, each aircraft in DCS has different brakes efficiency.

Hi!

 

 

 

 

 

Well ... to be able to compare something, we need to know the a/c mass at touchdown (and if possible, airfield elevation, temp and runway surface if wet/dry ... etc ...), otherwise we can't really know.

 

Landing distance can highly differ. We need to compare at the same GW.

Also ... pilot do usually not apply full braking action to save the brakes, it makes also a big difference. Best is to compare with the checklists charts at various configurations (or at least in two conf : minimum weight, and at max landing weight).

 

 

Regards.

 

 

Don't we get a lot of info just by the AoA, speed and glide slope while landing? If I have the same speed, same AoA, the FPM on the 2.5° line and both on touch down point, shouldn't the GW's of the planes be quite similar?

I personally don't understands ED's aversion to using actual performance data from the appropriate flight manual that has been determined by the aircraft manufacturer - preferring to use the SME 'she'll be right' approach.

Based on Wags reply referring to the SME indicating it was 'fine' - as opposed to we ran the stopping distance tests per T.O bla, Table bla and the aircraft performance coincided with the applicable stopping data.

I mean hey ED can do what they want - it's their toy, but all this testing has been done already and nice easy graphs published by the aircraft manufacturer. That is what we use for real simulators, so it is probably good enough for a PC sim.

 

I guess that is the difference between civilian non-pilots and actual air force flight crew mentality perhaps.

 

Having managed military simulators and been responsible for testing and evaluating them annually - I did over 300 separate 'tests' of all systems operation and flight performance annually....and very rarely was a parameter pass attributed to the SME's opinion. Pilot or myself as the FE systems SME - it either met the figures or it didn't.

 

And yes as some1 mentioned above, generally the stopping distance was a simple accel and stop on the ground. Idle thrust and heavy braking, but specific parameters for performance data are usually listed on the applicable graph.

Don't we get a lot of info just by the AoA, speed and glide slope while landing? If I have the same speed, same AoA, the FPM on the 2.5° line and both on touch down point, shouldn't the GW's of the planes be quite similar?

 

mmm ... well. Approximate to my taste.

I prefer chats which are precise, easy to use ... no guess estimations.

mmm ... well. Approximate to my taste.

I prefer chats which are precise, easy to use ... no guess estimations.

 

 

I'm ok with that

I should have been more clear. The brakes were set by the available charts and then the SMEs confirmed that all looked fine. We try to double check such matters.

 

Thanks

 

Great, thanks Wags. I mean easy enough for me to just double check myself, but really not that fussed lol. I let go wanting RL levels of accurate system performance in DCS a long time ago.

 

Yes I would think stating that 'X parameter was programmed as per xyz chart using these parameters and matched to within x allowable deviation' would go a lot further to alleviating peoples specific concerns regarding certain performance characteristics, as opposed to 'Our SME checked it out and was like yup she good' :thumbup:

 

I mean, I get it - ED doesn't have to justify any of their decisions to anyone.

But just in my experience if aircrew had a concern over the sim performance in a certain area - we backed our response up with facts and figures. Not because we had to - because we wanted to.