Jump to content

Comments on flightmodel


frumpy

Recommended Posts

Hi there,

 

 

I feel the C101 is a fun module, good job.

 

 

 

However, I feel there may be a few discrepacies for IFR turning: Using the 4 min turn coordinator, I should turn at about 22° bank at 230 IAS. Doing this, I'll get about 3:40 for a full turn, so its a bit fast.

 

 

 

Doing a bank = TAS/10 + 7 (30° at 230 kts) I'll get around 2:20, so its a bit slow.

 

 

Also I noticed when in level flight, doing a bank from one side to another, there is a slight pitchup. This pitchup can even be used for climbing: once I stop waving the wings, the v/s goes to 0. I have never seen a (simulated) aircraft climb when being banked. Maybe thats a feature due to the design of the aircraft, I have no idea.

 

 

 

I attached both turns and banking issue as a video, the banking is at the very end.

c101 climb.trk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regarding a bank initiating a slight climb, this might just be the adverse yaw from uncoordinated turns l. I see the same thing with the F-14.

Virpil WarBRD | Thrustmaster Hornet Grip | Foxx Mount | Thrustmaster TWCS Throttle | Logitech G Throttle Quadrant | VKB T-Rudder IV | TrackIR 5

 

 

AMD Ryzen 5 3600 | Nvidia GTX 1060 6GB | 32GB DDR4 3200 | SSD

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are using IAS instead of TAS. I guess you did your tests at around 6000ft.

In that case, flying at 6000 ft, if you set 230 kts of IAS and a bank of 30º it will take the time you say to turn 360º, around 2 min 20 sec.

You should set an IAS of around 190 kts, equivalent to around 215 kts of TAS, which is the true airspeed you have to use for a coordinated 2 minutes standard turn. Take into account that the formula you use is just a rule of thumb and it's not precise. If you use the real formula, you have to set the IAS I told you for 30º of bank. You can check it in this web page from Luis Monteiro:

http://www.luizmonteiro.com/Article_Bank_Angle_for_Std_Rate_05.aspx

 

Regarding the climbing issue when banking, i don't see such effect. But if there would be any it could be caused by the adverse yaw as kengou said.

Roberto "Vibora" Seoane

Alas Rojas

 

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

sigpic97175_2_small.pngAERGES-LOGO-sin_fondo_small.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regarding the climbing issue when banking, i don't see such effect. But if there would be any it could be caused by the adverse yaw as kengou said.
It is there and has been there pretty much since day 1. Even in the SFM. I've always wondered about it but this is the first time I've seen someone else mention it. It only lasts a few seconds into the turn before the aircraft starts descending. Possibly because of the adverse yaw.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You men the adverse yaw effect then. In fact, it is only a very brief climb indication. It shouldn't affect your IFR flying as the aircraft will soon start descending. If you want to do a coordinated turn you should apply some rudder while the ailerons are deflected to keep the ball centred.

BTW, SFM has nothing to do with AFM, if you had seen such effect in the SFM then you would have seen it in any other DCS module with SFM.

Roberto "Vibora" Seoane

Alas Rojas

 

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

sigpic97175_2_small.pngAERGES-LOGO-sin_fondo_small.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Vibora,

 

thanks for taking a look at it. Check out the video in the first post, just at the end I blocked my pitch axis and just rolled left and right and got the positive vertical speed. You can also see this effect when pointing the nose at a ground target and correct only left and right. I don't see how adverse yaw should have any positive effect on pitch. (Just by yawing in level flight I'll get a slight descent rate, which is correct.)

 

 

 

I did some testflights again. This time at about ISA and flew 1000 ft (mission file attached). 230 TAS is about 227 IAS, which I tried to keep as good as possible. :)

 

4 minute turn using the bank indicator is 3:50min left and right, so if pointer indication is increased by a factor of 1.04, it should be pretty much dead on.

I noticed left turns at 1000', 227 IAS and 30° are 2:14min left, 2:21min right (did each turn twice to average the time). I am not sure about the precision of the TAS/10+7 rule so *maybe* the C101 turns a bit slow in general. I checked this in other sims too, the rule of thumb was pretty much dead on.

But why are the left turns quicker than right turns?

Well, I noticed that the bank scale for a right turn is a bit off. It displays 30° bank, but the DCS value (F2 view) is 29°. It's correct on the right side (left turn).

 

 

 

I know this is a bit picky, as this is a consumer and not a professioinal product. I bought this module yesterday, as the overall experience convinced me and I want to support the developers for their art. I believe most things are not that hard to correct and I would appreciate if the devs could take care of it.

 

 

Thank you!

C-101 EB Testflight ISA CAVOK.miz


Edited by frumpy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regarding adverse yaw, if you bank left without coordinating rudder, the nose will drift right a bit, but since you’re banked left, that means the nose drifts above the horizon, inducing a slight climb briefly before the nose settles again.

Virpil WarBRD | Thrustmaster Hornet Grip | Foxx Mount | Thrustmaster TWCS Throttle | Logitech G Throttle Quadrant | VKB T-Rudder IV | TrackIR 5

 

 

AMD Ryzen 5 3600 | Nvidia GTX 1060 6GB | 32GB DDR4 3200 | SSD

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi frumpy,

Nose up tendency during roll: kengou already answered this. There is a vertical component of adverse yaw effect when you are in a bank.

Coordinated standard two minutes turn: You keep making the same error. That rule of thumb is not precise enough. You should use the real formula, or you can find the bank angle for a certain rate of turn and TAS in this link:

http://www.aviationwebdevelopment.com/samples/rateandradiusofturncalculator.aspx

I made the test in our C-101 and in the F-5 with same correct results.

The TAS for a 2 minutes turn at a 30° bank angle is 210 kts.

At 1000 ft with ISA (29.92 inHg, 15°C) a TAS of 210 kts corresponds to 206 kts IAS.

You can check it here:

http://www.indoavis.co.id/main/tas.html

Flying with those parameters, I get a standard two minutes turn with precision enough. It took me 2:02 min to complete a 360 to the right, and 1:58 to compete it to the left. We have to take into account pilot error, as keeping exact bank angle, speed and altitude is not easy.

Check the attached screenshots.

Bank scale: we have already corrected it, thanks.

BTW, in a second attempt after correcting bank indexes, I got the opposite results, 1:58 right and 2:02 left, which could confirm that these minor deviations can be due to pilot error.

Bank indicator: please do it the other way around, set the correct bank angle for a certain turn rate and check the indicator, you will see that there is no error. Take into account that there are induced pilot errors in the tests.

Check the attached screenshot, keeping 206 KTS of IAS at 1000ft, ISA, and 16° of bank angle, which is the one that corresponds for a 4 minutes turn, the turn and slip indicator show a correct indication, needle on the mark.

We consider our simulation is at a high professional level, we have used the real aircraft data and our developers are aerospace engineers. Of course, there can always be some unwanted bugs, including graphic glitches as the one you reported with several banking marks displaced 1 degree.

Screenshots.rar

Roberto "Vibora" Seoane

Alas Rojas

 

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

sigpic97175_2_small.pngAERGES-LOGO-sin_fondo_small.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Vibora,

 

 

Thanks for the link on bank angle. I knew the TAS/10+7 rule is a rule of

thumb, but now I know exactly how much bank is needed.

It's great to hear the turn rate is spot on! :)

 

 

 

I am not sure about the nose-up attitude on rolling. Where do you think

does the vertical component of adverse yaw come from? After all, with a

bank we are losing a part of the vertical lift. Since the ailerons of the C101

are deflected in a differential way (-17/+24°) this should minimize adverse

yaw anyway.

I mean after all it would mean that when I'll lose the elevator, I can control

altitude by the means of inducing adverse yaw?

 

I also had contact with a senior flight model developer, asking him about the

climb. He said there is no lift component and due to design adverse yaw

should be very little, if any.

 

 

Thank you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not sure about the nose-up attitude on rolling. Where do you think

does the vertical component of adverse yaw come from? After all, with a

bank we are losing a part of the vertical lift. Since the ailerons of the C101

are deflected in a differential way (-17/+24°) this should minimize adverse

yaw anyway.

I mean after all it would mean that when I'll lose the elevator, I can control

altitude by the means of inducing adverse yaw?

 

I also had contact with a senior flight model developer, asking him about the

climb. He said there is no lift component and due to design adverse yaw

should be very little, if any.

The positive rate of climb isn't due to the vertical lift component of the wings. It's due to the fact that the nose is now above the horizon. Therefore, the thrust of the engine is pushing the aircraft slightly upward.

 

And remember, in some aircraft (not the C-101), you can do a knife edge pass using just the rudder. In that case, the wings are providing zero lift.

 

As an aside, I just tried the F-5E and this phenomenon is actually quite pronounced in it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regarding positive rate of climb when deflecting ailerons:

We use real aircraft data in our flight model, and that includes a positive pitch as well as a negative lift when deflecting ailerons. We've just checked that this agrees with NASA documentation regarding asymmetrical deflection of ailerons causing pitch and lift variations. There are many other flight mechanics effects included in our simulation that are not the case now. But, be sure that, as I told you, our simulation is at a high professional level.

In any case, I've tested it again and that effect is there but it's really negligible. Please check this video. I use just aileron and no elevator, to get to that scenario I use just arrow keys corresponding to ailerons, without deflecting arrow keys corresponding to elevator or joystick.

Hope this ends up the discussion because I would rather prefer to spend time developing what's missing in our simulation, than testing and researching stuff that is already working correctly, I'm sure most users will agree.

Nevertheless, I appreciate your feedback as it helped to improve ADI and HSI indications. Just recommend you to report stuff that you are absolutely sure is wrong.

Roberto "Vibora" Seoane

Alas Rojas

 

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

sigpic97175_2_small.pngAERGES-LOGO-sin_fondo_small.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We've just checked that this agrees with NASA documentation regarding asymmetrical deflection of ailerons causing pitch and lift variations.

Do you have a link for these NASA docs? After a quick search I only found TM X-3231.

Thanx in advance :)

i7-7700K 4.2GHz, 16GB, GTX 1070 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanx: :) Although I'm not sure if the results from this highly swept high aspect ratio wing with its supercritical airfoil can be applied to the short straight CASA wing.


Edited by bbrz

i7-7700K 4.2GHz, 16GB, GTX 1070 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

I feel if a 10° tilted oval fuselage creates more lift than a 10° tilted wing, then aerodynamics have to get a second thought. Okay, it's only a small effect, so lets leave it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

One thing I noticed when following the procedure of retracting the flaps at 120-125 kts (4800kg) the AOA will rise suddenly and will activate the stall warning if the pilot is not reacting quickly. Not nice being close to the ground in a low powered aircraft, especially in a trainer aircraft.

 

I compared the AOA of the L39 (4500kg, due to smaller wing area) with the C101. While the AOA with flaps retracted is pretty similar in both modules above 240 km/h, the AOA of the C101 is significantly higher with flaps in takeoff position. I am not completly sure on how to interpret this, but it seems like they are not generating enough lift?

 

 

 

 

There seems to be something with the thrust vector. When at 250 kts, increasing the thrust will lower the nose, while lowering the thrust will lift the nose. I think it should be the other way around, since the engine is below the airplanes CoG.

 

 

 

 

Is there a public bug list? The is a thread from 2015, but I cannot find a list there. Vibora, you wrote something like the pitch axis is being worked on, what are the symptoms that you are working on? I am interested in helping to improve the flight dynamics, perhaps there is something I can do :)

 

 

 

Thanks,

 

 

Olli

32920723_2020-05-2411_23_59-Window.thumb.png.5a2fdaa0aac502eb1ddc2a9325ee4a47.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One thing I noticed when following the procedure of retracting the flaps at 120-125 kts (4800kg) the AOA will rise suddenly and will activate the stall warning if the pilot is not reacting quickly. Not nice being close to the ground in a low powered aircraft, especially in a trainer aircraft.

This is known from long time ago and already solved, will probably be in next update.

I compared the AOA of the L39 (4500kg, due to smaller wing area) with the C101. While the AOA with flaps retracted is pretty similar in both modules above 240 km/h, the AOA of the C101 is significantly higher with flaps in takeoff position. I am not completly sure on how to interpret this, but it seems like they are not generating enough lift?

Why would L-39 flaps be similar to C-101 flaps, even angle of extention? Our module shows precisely the flight model of the real aircraft. See the attached screenshot comparing a real situation with our simulation, showing around 3º of pitch with flaps at takeoff. Of course weight and other parameters can make data vary slightly, but this shows you that parameters fit.

 

 

There seems to be something with the thrust vector. When at 250 kts, increasing the thrust will lower the nose, while lowering the thrust will lift the nose. I think it should be the other way around, since the engine is below the airplanes CoG.

I'll try to give an answer soon.

 

 

Is there a public bug list? The is a thread from 2015, but I cannot find a list there. Vibora, you wrote something like the pitch axis is being worked on, what are the symptoms that you are working on? I am interested in helping to improve the flight dynamics, perhaps there is something I can do :)

We don't publish bug lists, we manage it internally. We fixed an error in the FM code some time ago, we are not working on anything else regarding flight model right now.

Txs for your reports.

pitch_flaps_takeoff.thumb.jpg.d65a0acf2b4e9d31d474f0695c41db83.jpg

Roberto "Vibora" Seoane

Alas Rojas

 

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

sigpic97175_2_small.pngAERGES-LOGO-sin_fondo_small.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Comparing the L39 flaps with the C101 doesn't work, due to very different extension angles. Still I wonder, if the real C101 stalls that easily when retracting the flaps at 120 kts?

 

 

 

Is there any news on the thrustvector?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Regarding the FM, I have 2 questions:

 

1- With flaps deploy at "takeoff" the plane have a "nose" heavy attitude and when retracting the flaps it points it keeps the attitude.

 

2- When flying low / close to the ground the plane tend to be "sucked" into it and needs to "call" or it will crash. I think this is good but this is expected ?

 

 

 

Thanks a BTW great module I love it!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regarding the FM, I have 2 questions:

 

1- With flaps deploy at "takeoff" the plane have a "nose" heavy attitude and when retracting the flaps it points it keeps the attitude.

In this aircraft, flap retraction produces a pitch-up moment.

2- When flying low / close to the ground the plane tend to be "sucked" into it and needs to "call" or it will crash. I think this is good but this is expected ?

This is due to ground effect.

 

Thanks a BTW great module I love it!

Thank you.

Roberto "Vibora" Seoane

Alas Rojas

 

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

sigpic97175_2_small.pngAERGES-LOGO-sin_fondo_small.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...