Jump to content

Why am I finding it so hard to fly the F5E?


jasonbirder

Recommended Posts

I play with a t.16000m so no extension, and no curves. The f-5 Is not like the l-39, in which you Can cross your arms and keep level Flight when properly trimmed. With f-5 you have to constantly adjust. I've found easier to concentrate on the horizon, looking outside the cockpit, and not on vertical Speed or angle of Attack indicators. It won't Be a perfectly millimetrical level Flight, but Is doable and enjoyable. Fortunately f-5 has not a refueling probe, and I do not fly aerobatics in close formation. For All the rest, I'm fine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can you elaborate? It appears to me that the sim exhibits quite a bit of adverse yaw, but if you're ready for it, it's not a problem.

 

Note I'm not saying anything about the accuracy with the above; only that I accept problems in handling and work around them.

 

I understand the real aircraft would actually roll with rudder inputs, so what we see is incorrect anyway.

 

The DCS F-5E rolls just fine with rudder. It is a lot more dramatic at high AOA and very slow at low AOA but that is the way it should be.

 

 

 

 

EDsignaturefleet.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’ve got a little time in the F5F, and find that the DCS example exhibits terrible directional stability below about 200 knots. I’m amazed that any lay person can land the thing.

 

The F5F is the two seat trainer version right? The airplane is quite small, and the F variant was three feet longer than the E version we have in the sim. Could that account for the difference in stability compared to the DCS version?

Current specs: Windows 10 Home 64bit, i5-9600K @ 3.7 Ghz, 32GB DDR4 RAM, 1TB Samsung EVO 860 M.2 SSD, GAINWARD RTX2060 6GB, Oculus Rift S, MS FFB2 Sidewinder + Warthog Throttle Quadrant, Saitek Pro rudder pedals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In any case, a stick extension makes online flying MUCH easier. I flew with a MSSWPP for 19 years before I got an extended Warthog. I know of which I speak.

 

Now that's a huge step. I remember going from the Precision Pro to the Precision 2. That alone was worlds apart. Higher polling resolution and approx. double the angle you could throw the stick. After that I tried a X45 and the spring and that strange rocker made me bring that one back ASAP, so I got me that FFB2 instead, that was back in 2003. Still in use today dealwithit.png

 

But if there was an affordable FFB base for the WH, I'd immediately save up and get it as well as that extension pack from MFG.

 

Coming to the topic, it took me quite some time to get something relatively usable. Tried linear, nonlinear and that shifted center for FFB setup, but basically I ended up with linear and a 25 curve. Trim is mandatory though, but well, it's always better to do that anyway if possible. Main problem here is that ED generally doesn't apply the curve to the FFB spring and it also does not incorporate shifted centers. In this case, even without a curve the latter is worse which is why I'm using the curve and linear mode instead. Basically with that shifted center, which is the closest to the real thing, the center sits somewhere just 10% shy of the fwd wall and you won't be using the whole 75% back area of the stick 99% of the time you're flying the plane at all. Kinda like watching 32:9 footage on a 4:3 screen rdlaugh.png

 

The only plane in a simulation that ever has been worse in that regard was the Camel in Rise before they added the curve settings feature... but well, you definately learnt how to fly there twi-notbad.png

 

Nonlinear axis has that strange step in it, feels so unnatural because you have two different sensitivities around the center and any maneuvering that goes around that is being messed up totally... rainbowdashwink.png

dcsdashie-hb-ed.jpg

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is a cheap-er way. You go to Debolestis thread https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=160114 Go through his shapeways and buy the 3d printed bits to adapt a Warthog grip to a Sidewinder FFB2. Buy an eBay FFB2 Then get an arduino pro micro and some electronic components bits from Mouser and print Debolestis FFB2 board to mate it all together and there ya go!

 

Some Assembly required.

 

xSMtGkX.jpg?1

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The F5 module exhibits typical swept winged aerodynamics, and rolls fine with rudder at medium to high alpha. Below around 200 knots or so, in the landing configuration, it loses much of it's directional stability and dynamic response. The nose wanders excessively both in pitch and yaw, and inputs are slow to change the trajectory of the aircraft if that make sense. This wasn't the case in the real aircraft, which was responsive in yaw and roll, with a heavy nose/slower pitch response in both the E and F models. Many DCS modules exhibit this type of divergent directional stability- the P51D module is particularly bad.

 

I haven't flown a P51, but a friend owns one, and I've talked to several USN TPS grads that got to evaluate one (the didn't care for the handling) and get the feeling that developers read a few lines in a pilot report somewhere, and over do the aircraft behavior as a result.

 

All of that said, I'll do another test, looking at the rudder controller and axis tuning. As always, individual controller setups can produce differing results.


Edited by Victory205

Viewpoints are my own.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It’s not the senstivity, I’m used to that, but the response to the controls. A yaw input for example, changes the nose position laterally, but the trajectory of the aircraft doesn’t change commensurately.

 

I don’t get a chance to fly often, but will have a detailed look when I can. The P51 was quite bad, but I haven’t flown it since the recent update.

Viewpoints are my own.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’ve got a little time in the F5F, and find that the DCS example exhibits terrible directional stability below about 200 knots. I’m amazed that any lay person can land the thing.

 

I love the thing on approach at 150kt, the nose is in a perfect dutch roll! Bit less pronounced at 160kt, but still there, oh what fun! :megalol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you're referring to adverse yaw. Make coordinated turns!

 

As for approach - she needs lots of trim as she slows. Be sure flaps are set to AUTO.

Motorola 68000 | 1 Mb | Debug port

"When performing a forced landing, fly the aircraft as far into the crash as possible." - Bob Hoover.

The JF-17 is not better than the F-16; it's different. It's how you fly that counts.

"An average aircraft with a skilled pilot, will out-perform the superior aircraft with an average pilot."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

IMO DCS tends to have a slight lack of heaviness to the responses, I think it might be the air loads modelling.

Someone tested the Huey FM at length for Helisimmer.com, and pointed out a required pedal input in cruise, which shouldn't be required (which makes sense ).

I personally find the Spitfire to be the worst offender for that in the sim so far, the pitch, due to the aircraft's design (immense elevator surface), is massively sensitive (which is true of the IRL aircraft too, as NACA pointed out, the stick forces were below the IIRC 6lbs/G they recommended), and there's nothing to really find the feel in flight (no ffb, nothing to reduce the amount of input of the pilot depending on speed), so it's quite possible to go soaring past max Cl and into an accelerated stall with 1/3 (!!!) of stick travel.

 

The 109, AFAIK, has a feature (in-sim) that changes the deflection rates and limits depending on your speed. For instance it is very hard to pull up from a high speed dive, and it lightens back up when you slow down.

 

 

That may explain why the F-5 feels squirelly for you at low speed, even if personally I don't feel it's particularly unstable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Trimming in a sim like DCS is actually harder than flying a real plane which does not have a fly by wire system, there is no feedback on the controls in DCS apart from the spring pressure in the controller, more "analogue" planes like the F5 which are not naturally that stable are obviously going to be more of a challenge, the A10C, for instance, has a straight wing and wing dihedral which aids roll axis stability. To summarize, pilots are trained to apply stick pressure and throttle for the required profile, (straight and level, climbing etc.) and then to trim out the stick pressure, you can still do this with just joystick spring pressure, you soon get the hang of automatically applying trim for climbing or straight and level flight etc, I was taught PAT when learning to fly, (Power, Attitude, Trim) if you are using a joystick hat for trimming, apply separate nudges on the trim and count how many you need to achieve the required profile after transitioning from a climb or descent (or any change from one profile to another) and remember Power, Attitude, Trim in that order when transitioning.

Windows 10 64 bit | Intel i5-9600k OC 5 Ghz | RTX 2080 |VENGEANCE® LPX 32GB DDR 4 OC 3200

 

Hotas Warthog | Logitech G Flight Rudder Pedals | Track IR 4

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most of this comes down to short controls and no feedback. Has a lot less to do with the modeling in the sim as it is just the reality that it IS a sim and the controls and environment you're operating with are nkt even remotely like the real thing.

Де вороги, знайдуться козаки їх перемогти.

5800x3d * 3090 * 64gb * Reverb G2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I flew the F5 last night to investigate the yaw stability claims under 200kt.

Inputting a rudder doublet with or without yaw stab only yielded a couple oscillations that damped out quickly, and with a reasonable yaw to roll ratio.

Tried in both landing config and with a cleaned up aircraft ( slats and flaps up ), and while it shook more, the same sort of behaviour happened.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Trimming in a sim like DCS is actually harder than flying a real plane which does not have a fly by wire system, there is no feedback on the controls in DCS apart from the spring pressure in the controller...

 

Most of this comes down to short controls and no feedback...

 

What kind of feedback are you expecting?

 

Many aircraft with hydralic non-reversible controls have their artificial feel provided by springs (I think the F5 included, but couldn't confirm). Your desktop does't replicate the feel of the real thing, but that's because it doesn't provide the throw or resistance of the real thing, not because of lack of 'feedback'.

 

I think many simmers don't realise you simply aren't going to get forces transmitted from the control surfaces back to the stick in any aircraft with powered controls like this (I mean this as a general statement; no offence intended if you already knew this).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What kind of feedback are you expecting?

 

Lots of aircraft with PFCU's and Hydro-mechanical systems provide force feedback, yes a lot did use springs but the spring rate was variable dependant on airspeed. Light aircraft with non-powered systems obviously only provide aerodynamic feedback. The TM Warthog allegedly has the same basic spring pressure as the A10C. For information, the F100 uses hydraulic controls that are reversible, the hydraulics augment the pilot's input so he/she does receive feedback in the normal way.

Windows 10 64 bit | Intel i5-9600k OC 5 Ghz | RTX 2080 |VENGEANCE® LPX 32GB DDR 4 OC 3200

 

Hotas Warthog | Logitech G Flight Rudder Pedals | Track IR 4

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What kind of feedback are you expecting?

 

Many aircraft with hydralic non-reversible controls have their artificial feel provided by springs (I think the F5 included, but couldn't confirm). Your desktop does't replicate the feel of the real thing, but that's because it doesn't provide the throw or resistance of the real thing, not because of lack of 'feedback'.

 

I think many simmers don't realise you simply aren't going to get forces transmitted from the control surfaces back to the stick in any aircraft with powered controls like this (I mean this as a general statement; no offence intended if you already knew this).

 

Apparently the F14 uses bob-weights to provide a counterforce to pulling on the stick in relation to the g forces acting on the airframe, maybe the F5 has something similar?

Current specs: Windows 10 Home 64bit, i5-9600K @ 3.7 Ghz, 32GB DDR4 RAM, 1TB Samsung EVO 860 M.2 SSD, GAINWARD RTX2060 6GB, Oculus Rift S, MS FFB2 Sidewinder + Warthog Throttle Quadrant, Saitek Pro rudder pedals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It sounds like you're in the correct path but not with enough flight time on the bird.

 

Give yourself more time to get used to it. It is a "interesting" plane to fly in terms of controls but it is not a hard bird to tame overall.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'd bet 80% of your problems are due to that. Use the curves.

 

I've seen some weird behavior when trying to trim. I've reduced power only to have the nose climb. Something is off, I'm just not sure what it is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

it flies fine, if your expectation is that it is going to fly like a P-51 and not an F-16.

 

I'm used to flying analog, rudder coupled swept winged airplanes, and have a little time in the F5F, and don't recall the weakness in directional stability I see in the module. It was by far, the best formation aircraft that I ever flew.

 

So I tried the module again, just briefly, and think that there are some issues. For example, try an approach, gear and full flaps obviously, and slow to on speed or a little faster. Input some rudder. You'll likely see no reaction for a second, then roll in the direction of rudder. There is little yaw, and a delay before roll develops. That ain't dutch roll at all.

 

Also see that rudder at approach speeds doesn't seem to change the flight path as much as one would think. It results in a little yaw, then roll, but the trajectory doesn't change a whole lot.

 

At higher velocities the sim feels pretty good. I actually inverted my control axis curves to get quicker response in pitch. It wasn't a twitchy airplane at all in real life.

 

Interested in what you discern in the approach config.

Viewpoints are my own.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've seen some weird behavior when trying to trim. I've reduced power only to have the nose climb. Something is off, I'm just not sure what it is.

 

If the thrust line is above the center of gravity, this is normal behavior.

 

I don't know if the F-5 specifically reacts this way but it might.

 

Just looking at the airplane, I would expect adding thrust to result in pitch down and pitch up with power reduction but nothing overly dramatic.


Edited by pmiceli

 

 

 

 

EDsignaturefleet.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

I just got the F-5, too. Found it similar to your experience till I added curves; even added curve to the rudder/NWS to help keep it straight on the runway.

 

Even so, I do find it to be hands-on and needing constant (small) stick and trim adjustments even for high altitude cruising.

FWIW, the C-101 is the same, and a LOT less sexy!

 

I'm finding the more I fly it, the smoother it seems, so practice is definitely helping me!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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