Classic British Flight Sim

Great, thanks very much Dave

Late to the party as always these Days, Smashing Aircraft Brian and Co..... complete with smoke for me

is there anyway to make the brakes stronger as at full power the a/c just goes forward as if no brakes

John

Hi John and welcome

I dunno mate but why would you want to sit on the brakes at full throttle anyway?? They hold just about long enough for the engines to get up to 100% which is all you need
You can make the brakes as effective (or ineffective) as you wish by opening the aircraft.cfg and editing the [brakes] section. Currently, they're set at... toe_brakes_scale=0.650. Bring that number closer to 1.000 to increase braking.

My honest feeling is that they operate pretty well as they are and just because they don't hold the aircraft still at full chat doesn't mean they're ineffective or wrong.. more a case of FSX is (now) a £20 pc game that isn't the be all and end all of 'As real as it gets'

Have fun in the old girl anyway

ATB

DaveB

is there anyway to make the brakes stronger as at full power the a/c just goes forward as if no brakes

Not sure about the Nimrod, but a lot of aircraft won't hold on the brakes at full power because there's no need. From an engineering point of view it's a bit excessive and would add a lot of un-necessary weight, generally the problem is overheating them from excessive braking which can lead to blown tyres.

Viscount and most jets airliners taking off locally used to full power build on the brakes.

Early DC 8 and 707's I think did this power on brakes as the engines were slow to spool and the aircraft a bit underpowered by later standards.

With the Viscount is was either a rolling start or power build, the runway was not quite long enough for normal power application.

The lack of a need to power build on brakes is possibly a more modern thing given the much higher power weight ratio now

I don't know where the Nimrod fits in with the power weight ratio, but the usual runways were quite long......

In FS just about everything I've flown won't hold on full power......the degree of creep varies but it is there
Increasing the brake power also makes it stop quicker which always seems to be excessively quick as it is so perhaps this is a compromise withing the limits of FS.

Thanks for that guy's.. appreciated

Johnp94.. please don't take this as being derogatory to your question which we know was made in good faith All it does is confirms the misconception that if a model won't hold steady on parking brakes at full throttle, it's wrong. I don't know where that idea originated but it's been around for a long time and has grown rather than diminished. Some models will and some won't but I'll bet those that will (for any length of time) will be grossly over-braked under 'normal' ops

ATB

DaveB

I tend to find that models that will hold on the brakes at full power will have stupidly short landing rolls. I'd rather have realistic landings tbh.

DaveB wrote:Thanks for that guy's.. appreciated

Johnp94.. please don't take this as being derogatory to your question which we know was made in good faith All it does is confirms the misconception that if a model won't hold steady on parking brakes at full throttle, it's wrong. I don't know where that idea originated but it's been around for a long time and has grown rather than diminished. Some models will and some won't but I'll bet those that will (for any length of time) will be grossly over-braked under 'normal' ops

ATB

DaveB

I never said it was wrong i was just questioning and now i know about how the real nimrod works i now know theres no need to adjust it
On a side note the model looks absolutly beautifal

John

Hi folks,

just to clear up the brakes query. The normal take-off technique in the MR2 was a reduced thrust roll having confirmed the brake pressures were reading zero before applying 'factored thrust'. The thrust set would be calculated before taxi and was based on the ac all up weight, runway length, slope, the surface wind etc the whole idea being the preserve life on the mighty Spey by not, in effect, using excess power unneccesarily. In most cases a factored take-off would be possible, but in cases where you needed to get airborne with as high an all up mass as possible, or from a shorter runway, you could increase your aum by several thousand pounds by employing a power against brakes take-off technique (PABTO). This involves holding the ac against the brakes at full rated power; the calcs would be done slightly differently to ensure that the engines were giving rated thurst rather than factored. The minimum thrust for take-off would be calculated depneding on ambient temperature and pressure at the airfield and set on the thrustmeters. Min for a rated take-off would then be an average of 100% on all engines with no engine below 97% (a good engine could easily produce more then 100% of its rated thrust). For a factored thrust take-off you would need 100% thrust on all engines, with no engine below 94.5% rpm / 510ºC. The max time to achieve the thrust figures was within 10 secs of power being applied or 50kt.

I did a PABTO downhill at Sondestrom in Greenland once and the jet went like a scalded cat! Like being back in a Tonka.

Best wishes

Nige