Why is there no real adverse yaw?

:music_whistling:

I am not singling out DCS as every other sim I fly doesn't seem to model this either.Or am I mistaken and planes do not adverse yaw as much as I assume?

This video shows what adverse yaw is but in a DCS warbird the nose of plane drops below horizon when I bank the plane.

Maybe you are coordinating your rudder? Do you have any tracks showing the incorrect behaviour? Because it's kindda misisng from your point and would set a good scene for a discussion. I can certainly find my ball is all over the place in the Tomcat and i really feel it, both adverse and proverse. I feel other modules seem to be different to each, so I can't make as much of a sweeping generalisation as "all warbirds" and it's been some time since I got some prop time, but I know they are all quite different.

Yes the ball moves ever so slightly to point that when I do add rudder to center the ball its just a touch.But the plane itself doesn't behave properly.

Try it with just the keyboard arrow keys to bank left and right while watching the horizon and you will see no adverse yaw.

--

Yes the ball moves ever so slightly to point that when I do add rudder to center the ball its just a touch.But the plane itself doesn't behave properly.

 

Try it with just the keyboard arrow keys to bank left and right while watching the horizon and you will see no adverse yaw

--

maby it depends on plane which you are flying ?? try not to compare warbirds to some high wing planes

maby warbirds are using ailerons which are reducing adverse YAW

for example diferential aileron deflection

I'm sure a Cessna 172 or like handles quite differently from warbirds ) It's likely either the design of the aircraft is less prone or possibly designed to minimise, whereas in the civvie bird nobody really cares.

Is auto-rudder selected in settings/special tabs for the module?

Have you flown the P-51/TF-51? There's adverse yaw all over that thing. 109 too.

Spit not so much as it has Frise ailerons. Haven't really tested the 190s for it.

Been looking this up and for example frise type ailerons were used on spitfire.Basically the aileron hinge protrudes downwards to balance the drag.

https://ww2aircraft.net/forum/attachments/frise-jpg.360662/

P-51 though doesn't seem to have this from what I gather online.In game model has normal ailerons also.So maybe its missing in P-51? I do love adverse yaw effects and feel it adds a bunch to the fun of flight is why I am asking.:pilotfly:

I did not know that plane developers do their own FM also.I always thought this was all done by ED.How can I tell which planes are built by ED?

2:45 He banks the plane and it visually makes the nose rise up.I dont notice any pitch input by pilot either.

I've been flying the P-51D for about 4 years now. I can assure you the P-51D does experience adverse yaw, every time.

Yep, I believe they does have adverse yaw, all of them. Along with airspeed as Yo-yo said, check as IRL it's not the same if you roll towards torque side or against it, which perhaps may hide a bit the effect specially if you're searching clues in a PC screen.

S!

{...} How can I tell which planes are built by ED?

I use the Steam Store pages... you can see the Developer, Publisher and release date, as well as all the other details. The Steam store pages are all in the same layout, which makes it easy to compare. E.g.

https://store.steampowered.com/app/411920/DCS_Spitfire_LF_Mk_IX/ -- Spitfire IX (ED)

https://store.steampowered.com/app/1084210/DCS_I16/ -- I-16 (OctopusG)

Ahh I see thanks guys.Now pluuuueeeeeze make the A8 come to steam a little faster.I know I can just convert to ED system instead but I find Steam so convenient in how it all works that I just like to keep it going.

I've been flying the P-51D for about 4 years now. I can assure you the P-51D does experience adverse yaw, every time.

Yep, I believe they does have adverse yaw, all of them. Along with airspeed as Yo-yo said, check as IRL it's not the same if you roll towards torque side or against it, which perhaps may hide a bit the effect specially if you're searching clues in a PC screen.

 

 

S!

Yeah I just don't feel it.The sim that I have where you really do feel it just makes flight more fun.But if you guys say this is correctly modeled then what can I add here.I still love the P-51 don't get me wrong.

I just tested the Spit in a new empty mission with no wind starting airborne at approx 7500ft and a speed of approx 260mph.

Trimmed for hands off level flight, and re-trimming after each change of speed/maneuvre, altitude regained. RPM set at 2700.

No rudder input, no back stick, controls are released after turn initiated.

Referencing Turn & slip & Climb & Dive indicators.

At initial speed & alt, gentle nudge into a port or stbd bank of 25-30deg no rise in nose. Nose drops 200fpm initially - rising to 4000 after a few seconds. Slight back stick easily arrests this. Beyond 30deg, affect is amplified. No rise in nose while initiating turn.

Same conditions, at 140mph, 25-30dec bank initiated, roll holds at level flight, increasing bank to 35-40deg initiated a slight nose drop, but also a tendency to recover back to level flight. Nose drop more pronounced in Stbd bank.

At 120-130mph, trimming is a little more finicky to achieve hands off. Results pretty much the same as before, but a slight (100 ft/pm) nose up in a port bank, and an equal nose down moment in a stbd bank. I'm assuming this is more to do with torque effect than adverse yaw. Both tended to nose down once in the turn.

Flying naturally, with hands on stick, and initiating turns at low speed showed no adverse yaw other than the slightest rise of the nose caused by stick pressure. Now I know that the type of ailerons used on the spit are designed to alleviate this problem, so I never thought it felt wrong, but certainly there is nothing noticable in moderate bank angles. Now as Yo-Yo says, it should be noticeable at full stick & low speeds. I am not seeing this at all in the Spit. The only thing I can see happening is a natural tendency to pull back on the stick as you initiate a turn. This causes the nose to rise. Removing that from the equation by just moving the stick left and right using finger or palm only ever results in a nose down moment for me. Maybe I'm doing it wrong? What am I missing here?

[EDIT] I have tried a similar test in the Mustang, which of course has a different wing and aileron setup, and still can't see any adverse yaw tendency when JUST using ailerons to bank.

It's almost nothing to do with bank angle, but actual amplitude of roll inputs.

At small lateral stick displacements the Frise ailerons do their job nicely; it's at full aileron deflection that you will see the adverse yaw.

And it sounds dangerously like to me that you are confusing adverse YAW (nose moving left around the vertical axis with right aileron displacement) with some expected pitch up nose movement - there is no pitch effect (except for some minor gyroscopic effects), it's because, for example, if you are rolling left the adverse yaw will kick right and the horizon may appear to move down, but that is just a factor of the yaw vector being deviated from level.

Try it after de-mapping the pitch axis... Just to be sure :)

Even better with the arrow keys on keyboard for bank left and right.

I notice the adverse yaw effect every time in the warbirds when I'm turning from the downwind leg into the final approach. Add aileron with no rudder and the nose rises quite alot (especially in the Spit). First thing the plane does is climbing, before it settles into the descent, which caught me of guard the first few times.

MadCat1381: As I mentioned - in my little unscientific test - this was due to (me at least) naturally easing the stick back as I turned. Note I tried NOT holding the stick & it did not happen. However - i don't see how using arrow keys as suggested previously proves anything - all that does for me is initiate a sudden 100% left or right roll movement.

@DD Fenrir: Nope - When I say nose drop or otherwise, I'm referring to it's relation to the horizon Yaw - not pitch. I'm still a bit confused as to the contention that it only happens at full aileron deflection - If I do that, then I'm not turning, I'm in a continuous roll.

Anyhoo - MkIII over & out. Clearly some people think they experience it, and others do not. Maybe some of us are so ham-fisted that we can't see subtleties ;)

@DD Fenrir: Nope - When I say nose drop or otherwise, I'm referring to it's relation to the horizon Yaw - not pitch. I'm still a bit confused as to the contention that it only happens at full aileron deflection - If I do that, then I'm not turning, I'm in a continuous roll.

You'll get some adverse yaw in a turn as the outboard wing is going faster than the inboard wing ergo you'll have a lift differential and by default an induced drag differential, however, the rolling at high stick deflections will give you the most pronounced adverse yaw - particularly in the Spitty - because of the much larger lift differential plus the fact that the Frise ailerons are less effective at equalizing the drag at these amplitudes of displacement.

Been looking this up and for example frise type ailerons were used on spitfire.Basically the aileron hinge protrudes downwards to balance the drag.

https://ww2aircraft.net/forum/attachments/frise-jpg.360662/

 

 

P-51 though doesn't seem to have this from what I gather online.In game model has normal ailerons also.So maybe its missing in P-51? I do love adverse yaw effects and feel it adds a bunch to the fun of flight is why I am asking.:pilotfly:

I think the same. Its a bit odd that the P-51 does only show minor effects of it with such a powerful engine.

BTW, I would not be angry,when ED would put Cesna 172 in DCS hehe :)

Lots of ppl could compare FM to real cesnas, this mayby would stop complains about not right FMs