Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: hazed- on July 03, 2003, 06:09:34 PM
-
Recently i watched a tv program on discovery wings and it was describing various types of aircraft and what each type is favoured for.Things like a fighter needs a weight to thrust ratio of at least 1:1 to be effective.The F16 i think it was had a 1.1:1 thrust ratio so from the runway it can point straight up and climb away. great to see.
Then it went on to stunt aircraft and the pilots describe how they favour stable and accurate controls and aircraft that have an immediate response and tend not to yaw.
They then described how stunt planes dont use wires but rather control rods to control the ailerons and this means they have a much more positive response.As the interveiw went on and they described various things about the way stunt planes were made it struck me that they described lots of things the 190 had.
The way the pilot sits and the position. The shorter wings but most importantly the 190 has those same control rod actuated ailerons!
The thought suddenly struck me that in AH the 190s are a fairly good platform for firing but they have a real tendancy for the nose to bounce around quite a bit. It certainly doesnt feel any more stable than other aircraft. I just got to wondering if maybe the control rod controls on the 190's we have have been reproduced properly.After all if to this day stunt pilots use the same device for ailerons so they can perform accurate maneuvers how come our 190s are so mushy in the air? Im not saying its wrong because obviously i havent been in a real 190 but are their rod controls factored in to the AH model?
I suppose the weight of guns etc would play a large role and this is most likely why they mounted them so close to the centre of rotation, and probably why most 190 pilots favoured no outer cannons mounted.but those controls must have been better than wires else they wouldnt be using them today in very expensive stunt planes would they? If you agree im not sure but to me the 190 doesnt feel like it has an especially sharp/accurate control.For me the nose tends top yaw and pitch quite a bit.
anyhow heres a quote from FW190in combat by Alfred price ISBN 0-7509-2548-5 about these controls taken from an interveiw with Kurt tank concerning the design for 190s:
page 4
"Although the new fighter had to be rugged it had to handle well in the air.The secret of this was to make the control surfaces large enough and to balance them with great care, both statistically and dynamically; if they were underbalanced they became too heavy and lost effectiveness, if they were overballanced this caused other problems. The design team did a lot of work to get a positive and immediate response from the flying controls.They decided to use rigid rods between the control column and the flying control surfaces instead of the more usual wires and pulleys. In service the latter were liable to stretch, and the resultant play made the controls less 'crisp'."
further page 5
"Once the controls were correctly balanced, it was important to ensure that they stayed that way over a wide range of speeds.A fighter pilot did not want to have to re-trim the aircraft each time he moved the throttle.The team were so successful in this that they found that movable trim tabs were unecessary.Small fixed trimming tabs were fitted to the ailerons, the elevators and the rudder."
all seems to suggest a very stable platform.Would you agree this isnt quite what you feel in the AH 190? or do you think that the guns etc would make it behave just as it does now in AH?
If you think its ok I'd like to ask why you think they used rods instead of wires if there wasnt a marked difference? seems strange to me.If the bounce is caused by the unballancing guns weight shouldnt this effect be markedly worse for any aircraft that has its guns mounted in the middle or outer wings?
Think about it, the 190 has the guns mounted much closer than most aircraft. They mounted them there for a good reason i think . Because in order to maintain stability and ballance they took a hit on the guns RPM by firing them with interuptor gear,through the props.
I feel the 190's in AH bounce much like all other aircraft and not only that they actually seem to take a longer time to trim into level flight etc on auto trim.A plane that supposedly needed little if any trimming in RL.
-
ok some more interesting stuff :)
FW190 in combat by peter caygil:
"Although the need for fighter aircraft to defend the homeland was great, the Fw190 was exported in small numbers commencing the sale of 72 Fw190a-3's to Turkey in 1943.These aircraft were supplied in the early lufftwaffe desert camoflage scheme of mottled brown/green.The armament was restricted to two MG17 machine-guns mounted over the engine and two MG-FF cannon in the outer wings.The wing root guns were deleted.
The Fw190s were used by the 3rd and 5th squadrons of the 5th regiment,Turkish Airforce and were often flown alongside SpitfireV's that had been supplied in 1944.Both types remained in service until at least 1948"
hows that for a weird pair to come face to face with in a dogfight? :D
-
Hazed, FYI, the Corsair has direct control linkage as well.... no wires for the control surfaces. All big aluminum tubes with castings in the end.
-
Originally posted by Bodhi
Hazed, FYI, the Corsair has direct control linkage as well.... no wires for the control surfaces. All big aluminum tubes with castings in the end.
well thats good news in a way, at least its not just the 190 that has them.
I havent flown the f4u much so i wouldnt know if it has the right behaviour for this control method but if like they said on this programme they make a big difference then shouldnt both the 190and the f4u's feel more precise than other aircraft?
Does the F4u in AH also have the usual nose bounce/yaw as other aircraft?
I guess the feeling should be similar to a joystick with no damping vs one with it on.Any aircraft that has not got the rod actuated controls should always have that damping feeling to the controls, a slight delay to small movements of ailerons etc.The 190 and F4U's should be sharper and easier to control.
I think this sort of control would mean in a flip overthe top of a vertical climb the two aircraft should be easier to adjust than other wire controlled planes.Just as the modern stunt planes are good at accurate ACMs. I'd have to say the 190s do feel pretty good now but to a greater degree than any others in AH? im not so sure.Feels the same to me.
-
Originally posted by hazed-
"Once the controls were correctly balanced, it was important to ensure that they stayed that way over a wide range of speeds.A fighter pilot did not want to have to re-trim the aircraft each time he moved the throttle.The team were so successful in this that they found that movable trim tabs were unecessary.Small fixed trimming tabs were fitted to the ailerons, the elevators and the rudder."
AH 190S (any variant) are extremely unstable without being trimmed all the time.
-
Originally posted by MANDOBLE
AH 190S (any variant) are extremely unstable without being trimmed all the time.
yup this is the sort of thing i tend to question about AH's 190s.
I must say when i get such limited reactions to what i post, like this bit of info it really dissapoints me. I would really appreciate some sort of explanation for the 190's present behaviour in ah.among other aircraft.
What i would truelly like to see is someone from HTC describing areas in the model where they feel they have it slightly wrong or that they intend to change.When pyro recently posted about roll rates etc I was very pleased.Its just since then Ive seen nothing to let us know if we have got the right idea about his request for snippets of info on all aircraft. I dont know if posting this stuff is a complete waste of my time.You feel the same mandoble?
-
I think the only way to get a correct flight model would be if hitech sold is RV and got one of these...
http://www.flugwerk.de/new/fw190/fw190.shtm
to test (don't forget to add 1klbs for heavier engine and weapons) and then modeled it accordingly ;)
-
Hazed just so you know, your way off base about cable V rod control. It comes down to more a feel than a control response.
There isn't any lag in cable control, it has much more to do with the presure and feel of the stick. Whats realy strange is that your asking us to model cable V rod control when we have an electronic joystick.
The stick you are using AH is no where near as precise as either cable or push rods.
HiTech
-
Originally posted by hitech
Hazed just so you know, your way off base about cable V rod control. It comes down to more a feel than a control response.
There isn't any lag in cable control, it has much more to do with the presure and feel of the stick. Whats realy strange is that your asking us to model cable V rod control when we have an electronic joystick.
The stick you are using AH is no where near as precise as either cable or push rods.
HiTech
There is lag in cable control over rod control, as there is always some stretch in the cable.
-
Hitech,
FWIW, there is always going to be a tad bit of slop in cable controlled aircraft, as they have the tendency to stretch over time. This is why I have to re-tension the cables every time I do an annual or otherwise on cable equipped aircraft. I find that War Era aircraft especially stretch cables as they are generally heavier on the controls that say an RV or Sukoi.
Now as to whether Hazed is correct about control response on say a cable equipped 109 vs a 190, I disagree somewhat, I feel it is always in the amount of throw, balance, and ease of use in the control surface as to what makes the aircraft react faster. The reason control cables were deleted from corsairs in favor of control tubes is a simple matter of the ability to with stand more damage. A bullet will pass through the tube rather than break it as to a bullet through wire, well, you are screwed, on both accounts of the control surface as they run in a loop configuration.
Lastly, whether you should model it or not? No, absolutely not, you are correct in that no joystick currently available will make a whim of difference if its modeled. THe only aircraft that should have an advantage in the game on roll rate response, should be the 38L with it's boosted ailerons. Thats a differnet matter entirely...
My .02
-
HiTech, the description of the problem is different, and is not related to rod vs cables.
If someone design a control system (stick, transmission and control surfaces) that doesn't need trim, that means that control response is not dependent on trimming. In AH, 190s control response is fully dependent on trimming at any speed. So, when I trim my 190 fully nose down, pulling back the stick has little effect, pushing down the stick has great effect, and viceversa. Same for ailerons and rudder.
So, IMO, the lack of trims would mean that autotrim for speed / angle should not be possible and would need constant input from the pilot. But, on the other hand, control response would not be dependant on trim possitions.
-
i think the "nose bounce" in AH is do to pilot induced oscillation.
-
On another note the 190's do bounce. I have just gotten used to it after flying it for awhile.
-
Originally posted by hitech
Hazed just so you know, your way off base about cable V rod control. It comes down to more a feel than a control response.
There isn't any lag in cable control, it has much more to do with the presure and feel of the stick. Whats realy strange is that your asking us to model cable V rod control when we have an electronic joystick.
The stick you are using AH is no where near as precise as either cable or push rods.
HiTech
thanks for the reply hitech! :) I did think about this quite a bit before posting and i looked up several references to the control rod type control. All references to these types of systems mention that they produce a more precise response.
I did think about the fact that we can change our joysticks to almost any amount of damping and we have the deadband etc to adjust.Basically this means that if i want to i could set it up so that any aircraft has a terrible delay in the controls.
It is kinda a mute point due to the joysticks and how we set them up and i concede your point about this.
But if the control with wires and pulleys does indeed cause a slight delay in the response of the various controls should AH not impose a slightly higher MINIMUM damping level in the joystick setup?
If say damping runs from 0 to 100 the wire controled planes should have a minimum setting of say 10 imposed by the program whereas any aircraft with control rods can be set to 0 (or close) by the program.If this could be done automatically as you choose different planes in the background it will simulate this effect that has been explained.
This would result in a marked difference in the feel of wire controled planes vs the F4U and 190 (and any other that has them). It wont be much but it would at least be a step in the right direction dont you think?
Anyhow i guess you know whats possible or what you feel is worth doing but please dont discount the effect of control rods altogether.
I realise how we set up our joysticks can totally ruin all these types of control feelings and some wouldnt even notice it but it would still be a good thing to model i think.This may however make you prefe not to bother i dont know.
I posted what kurt tank said about the difference and as you can see Bohdi, a pilot who has to adjust this very thing knows what im getting at and agrees it should feel different for control rod vs wires. I hope others might be able to explain it further.The point is though, that i dont know what the difference should 'feel' like.It seems Bohdi does know and perhaps could give us a description of what the differences feel like? I just assumed it should be looked at.
HT if you feel its hardly worth the effort due to joystick limitations then fair enough :D but i hope you will take a look into it a bit further just in case? :), oh and thanks again for the reply.
P.S. could you please explain why the 190 needs so much trim when looking at the fact that the movable trim tabs were deemed unecessary by the designers. Shouldnt our AH 190 also display a similar lack of need for constant trimming?
It must effect the way it flies if it needs constant adjustment and that means its not behaving like the real one.
Again Im no expert but it does seem a bit off.
for instance: take a P51 or La7 or similar and climb on auto pilot alt X. Then smoothly level out manualy and roll to 80 degress so your wings are not level with horizon and hit auto level trim.Take a mental note of the time it takes to settle those trim bars and level the aircraft.
Then try the 190A5 or D9 and you will find it takes an absolute age to settle into level trim.This with an aircraft that has a very fast roll and should settle in roll quickly? Im a little dumbfounded by it :) Most other aircraft settle very quickly. The La7 is very fast.
The P47 also takes a fair bit of time to settle down on trim when its fully loaded and tends to see-saw around on auto.Yet the p38 and P51s with the same loadout are stable.Could you explain why this is ?
oh and if you want to see the slowest of them all try it with a 109! If you engage auto level when you are on your side you will fly for almost a minute! (ok slightly exagerated :)) before you finally level out. It seems to be like its flying in a pot of glue
-
Ya know if any of you would bother to pick up an elementary book on aeronautics and flight mechanics, all these apparent mysteries would become clear.
-
Originally posted by MiloMorai
There is lag in cable control over rod control, as there is always some stretch in the cable.
There is no lag in control cable setups as long as the cable is tensioned properly. Cable tension as specified in the maintenance manual is easy to maintain and necessary to keep controls indexed properly. As an example a Piper Warrior uses a cable tension of 35 to 45 pounds for ailerons. A second consideration is that cable systems tend to have "lighter" control pressures, meaning less effort required to move the controls. Cables of various diameters are used depending on control forces expected by the AC in flight.
The advent of boosted controls eased the pilots workolad as the higher the speed the heavier the controls. Lighter, faster responding controls means greater maneuverability. Using a modern competition aerobatic plane as a comparison to a WW2 warbird is invalid due to speed, weight of AC, no ordinance on competition bird as well as range and HP of engine. They are really apples and kumquats. They aren't even close enough for the oranges comparison.
-
Originally posted by john9001
i think the "nose bounce" in AH is do to pilot induced oscillation.
PIOs are no longer called PIOs since it has been discovered quite some time ago that they're in fact APC (aircraft-pilot-coupling). There cannot be coupling between the player and a virtual aircraft.
-
Oh, and if you're actually going to remodel the 190, can you please check if it's flying nose down enough? Visibility over the nose isn't as bad as in other games, but still it feels like if it is flying nose up not down when level.
-
Originally posted by Maverick
...Cable tension as specified in the maintenance manual is easy to maintain...
Mav, not to be rude, but when is the last time you tensioned the aileron cables in say, a P-51, or better yet a P-38. Even the SNJ / T-6 is a pain in the arse.
Originally posted by Maverick
...Using a modern competition aerobatic plane as a comparison to a WW2 warbird is invalid due to speed, weight of AC, no ordinance on competition bird as well as range and HP of engine. They are really apples and kumquats. They aren't even close enough for the oranges comparison.
The comparison was used to show the massive amount of difference between forces and setups between the two systems, not to show them in the same light... read through it again...
THanks,
Bodhi
-
Hazed,
The lag you are trying to get a feel for is not really lag in so much as it is slack in the control cables (induced by constant forces being exerted).
To look at it simply, imagine a 190 or F4u with rod controls sitting on the ground. You move the stick left to right a few times, and the response will seem crisp and very responsive, because of the "direct" linkage with no stretch involved. Now imagine the same situation in say a T-6 or 109. The same response will be there, if the control cables are in tension. If there is slack, there will be a bit of lag, but that can be really a bad situation, if over tightened, thats bad too, but the lag will not exist and in some cases the force may be required more to move them if overtightened.
Anyways, now imagine the 190 or F4u, under speed. and you apply the aileron movement, the force required will be more so, as there is force reacting against your movements, but their is no lag what so ever, unless you count weak force application on the stick. Now hop back over to the 109 or T-6 and apply aileron movement as well. The force required and response should be the same if the cables are tensioned properly. Now if higher speeds are encountered, the possibility that the force required to move the control surface may be so great, that you can not exert enough to successfully move it, and yet may feel a little mnovement in the stick, this is due to the stretching of cables, as the bell cranks and pulleys attached to the stick act as a lever and allow you to apply so much force that you are actually slightly stretching the cable. That is the talk of lag I believe you are hearing... it is less prominent in fighters and much more so in the larger aircraft such as bombers... where the cables ran over much longer distances and where subject to more stresses due to their runs. This is mostly evident in the warbirds, even less so today. As for todays Warriors (civilian aircraft) and jets still using cables for controls, the systems benefit from design advances and the fact that they generally are under more checks and balances then the average warbird operator. That does not mean warbirds are less safe, it's just that most IA's and A+P's have no clue when it comes to the operation of a warbird system.
As for the oscillation of the nose in AH, that seems to be more pilot induced, and setting your stick forces to what you like and get used to can greatly reduce and / or eliminate the oscillations almost entirely.
As for the lack of adjustable inflight trim on the FW in the real world vs. the AH FW needing trimmming it seems to me that that is a case that this is a game, and as such, it can not be the same as the real world. WHile I feel it is the best attempt at a real world in WW2 it is a game none the less. This could change in AH2, and that is a question best asked to Dale, as he, and he alone can answer what will and is feasible to be programmed. In the end though, the minute amount of true data that exists has to be the problem in ever getting it 100% accurate. With the only possibility of doing so is getting an individual to allow you to up their real life FW and then, the PILOT coming back and programming it exactly the way it was experienced, and then that can not be accurate, because no real world operator is going to run 140 octane with methanol boost through his FW190 as the risks of damage to an irreplacable engine is too great.
Hope this is of some help, I in no way meant it to be rude, so no one need take it that way. There are plenty of others out there that probably can explain it better than I, and I am by no means the authority, just have been working on warbirds for the past 12 years.
Have a good weekend all.
-
Originally posted by Bodhi
... WHile I feel it is the best attempt at a real world in WW2 it is a game none the less. This could change in AH2, and that is a question best asked to Dale,...
Oh, noooo!! Please don't change that!
(sorry for quoting out of context :p )
-
Originally posted by ccvi
PIOs are no longer called PIOs since it has been discovered quite some time ago that they're in fact APC (aircraft-pilot-coupling). There cannot be coupling between the player and a virtual aircraft.
well , you call it what you want , but it is 'over correction"
" too low , back on stick ...opps too high , push down ...opps too low, pull up....oppps too high , push down ....opps too low , pull up ...@#$%& this damm airplane can't fly straight, must be the slack cables.
-
I havent flown AH since spring last year but now that I think about it, while flying around the nose is sorta bouncey. However I have never noticed the nose having a bouncey problem during my fights with other planes. Maybe I just never notice but Im sure it never has gotten in the way. I always trim prior to combat and I try to fight within the 190s performance envelope. Also I try to keep the tangos time short because 190s bleed energy very badly. If I were to take an estimated guess, would say my average tangos last about 30 seconds to a minute I think.
Reason is that enemy is killed, Im killed, or being chased by angry spitfires etc...
190As are not terribly fast so one needs a head start.
:)
-
Originally posted by funkedup
Ya know if any of you would bother to pick up an elementary book on aeronautics and flight mechanics, all these apparent mysteries would become clear.
Thread porker !
It was an interresting electronic diarrhea before your non-constructive post !
blerch !
my excuse : it's sat. about 23:45 and ... I need badly to sleep ;)
-
If someone is experiencing nose bounce problems, I believe what is happening is that in the case of the 190 pilot, he has over extended his combat time and has lose too much speed. He simply needs to retrim that nose and take the extra risks of fighting in a 190 at slower speeds, which is the envelope of Spit Vs, Zeros, Nikis etc...
-
thanks bohdi I see why it cant be really worth putting in AH. I didnt take offence at all it was a straightforward answer that made me think 'ahhh of course' :)
Theres no point i modelling a worn or stretched cable its only fair that we fly these aircraft modeled in their factory fresh condition. In which case if i understand you correctly there would be little to choose between a 190with control rods and say for arguements sake a 190 with wires that is tensioned correctly.Only after excessive use will the wire one get loose. AH should model it as new and therefore it should feel the same for all.
As for the oscillation of the nose Im actually talking about when auto pilot is ENGAGED and player unput is removed from the equation. I know what you mean concerning nose bounce produced by players whackig their joystick around too much and this I understand, whatim talking about is the way they seem to behave or respond very slowly to the auto level/Auto climb etc commands.
I only mentioned nose bounce earlier to decribe the sloppy feel the 190s have compared to some others and i asked if anyone felt the F4U does the same. I took this as a quirk of the 190 aircraft (remember if it was all down to me over inputing/correcting my moves, it, in theory, should happen to any aircraft i use). And i have been flying AH for 3 years so Im pretty used to it feel wise. When i read this about how Kurt tank found he had produced a very stable aircraft with hardly the need for manual trim I questioned that sloppy bounce on the 190s for the first time if you see what i mean.Also as on the Tv programme i thought some of the stunt planes had a very 190 look :D hehe got me thinking :) ok they arent the same i know but just for me take up a ta152 when you next go on Bohdi and test the auto climb and level and try some maneuvers paying attention to the yaw/pitch/roll of the nose, then take up a P51 or maybe the F4u and do similar stuff.See if you notice it too.If not i guess its just me lol! :)
anyhow thnx for answers.
-
Originally posted by MrCoffee
If someone is experiencing nose bounce problems,
No, no nose bounce at all with 190, and this is my main ride for months. But, in the other hand, 190 control response is 100% dependant on trim at any speed, mainly at low speeds.
The only excesive nose bounce I've found is with 262, radically exagerated.
-
Hazed, in regards to auto pilot trim or as its called "combat trim" in AH. I never use it, ever. Used to just set trim for altitude but I found it unsatisfactory as it took forever and never set trim the way I wanted it. Well it used to then at some point in time it stoped setting ideal trim. At that point, it began to set less that perfect trim so I think or believe. Nevertheless, I never use combat trim, not even mapped to my joystick because its evil. I do use "auto angle" set to climb out from base and "auto level" to cruise to the target area if thats the autopilot your refering to.
-
Originally posted by MANDOBLE
In AH, 190s control response is fully dependent on trimming at any speed. So, when I trim my 190 fully nose down, pulling back the stick has little effect, pushing down the stick has great effect, and viceversa. Same for ailerons and rudder.
You may need to calibrate your joystick with the in-game calibration tool. For every plane in AH, full back stick should cause a stall or blackout regardless of elevator trim (except at very high speeds).
-
Regurge, these effects are not related at all with the problem described, in fact, your coment doesnt apply for most planes at any speed, except spit, typhs and few more.
-
>setting ideal trim
Then theres also the possibility that my flying style might have changed. I may have been flying more aggresively etc.. and the combat trim just could not keep up.
In manual trim, 190A handled ok for all conditions, though Im constantly triming of course.
-
ok, AH 190 pilots use trim that was not on the real 190 then complain that the AH 190 does not fly like a real 190 (that they have never flown), is that right?
this sounds like one more LW whine about the LW planes not being as UBER as they think they were in real life. you guys never give up.
AH trim should be disabled for any planes that did not have that trim in RL.
-
Mandoble I don't totally understand what problems you're talking about. What do you mean by "control response is 100% dependant on trim at any speed"? Technically that means trim controls the plane entirely and stick movement does nothing. But I realize this is not what you meant.
It sounded to me like you had to use trim to pull tight turns at speeds where control stiffness/compressibility is not a factor. If that is true there is something wrong with your setup.
My comment is true for the vast majority of single engine fighters. AFAIK the Spit 1 is the only exception. From 120-220mph it can't pull hard enough to blackout and can't pull into a stall, though it comes very close. I know for a fact that all 190s and 109s can pull a into blackout or stall at all speeds where contol stiffness/ compressibility is not an issue. And they can do that no matter where the trim is set. If you can't do that you aren't getting full control deflection for some reason. Not calibrating your stick in-game is one reason I know of.
If this isnt the problem you're having please explain what the real problem is.
-
Bodhi,
After reading your response and the manner in wich it was posted the only proper response is to say to you, stuff it.
What I put in the thread wasn't in response to your posts. If you want to take it that way, that's your perogative and problem.
-
Regurge, try the following with 190D9 at different speeds (200, 300, 400 mph) at 10k and record the flight:
1 - With trim centered, pull back the stick until you stall the plane.
2 - With trim centered, push the stick until you invert the plane looking in the opposite way.
3 - With trim fully nose up, pull back the stick until you stall the plane.
4 - With trim fully nose up, push the stick until you invert the plane looking in the opposite way.
5 - With trim fully nose down, pull back the stick until you stall the plane.
6 - With trim fully nose down, push the stick until you invert the plane looking in the opposite way.
Now go to the film viewer and check the effect of the different moves, and you will notice how dependet are control effectiveness on trim possitions.
You can repeat the test with a Typh, you will notice that elevator trim is almost unnecesary to obtain fully elevator response at almost any speed.
And my joy setup is common for every plane, and shows my stick perfectly centered and reaching the limits without spikes.
About your comment of planes reaching black out or stalls at any speed, the point is not only being able or not to reach these limits, but also the time needed to reach them.
-
MAN as a former Tyffy pilot switching to 190 I agree with you but it won't change a thing : the 190's is extremely more survivable and easy to fly.
I didn't say newbie plane I've say : easy plane.
-
Are you talking about the Dora straffo?
I hate that plane - I find it makes me fight a really boring style...
-
A8 and D9 even if I prefer the A8 :)
-
Originally posted by Maverick
Bodhi,
After reading your response and the manner in wich it was posted the only proper response is to say to you, stuff it.
What I put in the thread wasn't in response to your posts. If you want to take it that way, that's your perogative and problem.
Mav,
You need to take a seriously hard core chill pill... I only looked at the obvious when you used my analogy. Cripes somebody woke up on the wrong side of the bed and needs to go back in and restart.
:D
-
Mandoble I did the tests you described.
At 400mph the controls seemd to be stiffening so using trim added some extra control authority. I believe that is correct behavior for most planes.
At 200 and 300mph pulling back on the stick produced the same results no matter where the trim was set. Each time the plane pitched up and in 1-2 seconds stalled and spun to the left. The only effect trim had was to change how far the stick must be pulled to cause a stall. I believe this is correct because to my knowledge AH models stick movement as applying a force to the virtual control stick.
The stick forward tests did actually show a change in control authority depending on trim. With the plane on the runway, I went to external view and zoomed in close to the elevator. With the stick all the way forward, I could see the elevator move slightly when changing trim. This definitely should not happen as maximum deflection should not depend on trim. This was supposed to be fixed some time ago. Oddly, it only does that with down-elevator for me. With up-elevator, aileron, and rudder maximum deflection is the same no matter where trim is set.
I don't know if this happens for everyone else or if its just me. I recalibrated my stick and played with the range of motion but nothing changed.
Try the test I did and see if trim changes maximum control deflection.
-
Originally posted by john9001
AH trim should be disabled for any planes that did not have that trim in RL.
Fine, as long as you make all the planes that didn't have automatic engine management like the FW-190 have to handle manifold pressure, throttle, mixture, cowl flaps, radiator flaps, etc. manually, just like the real planes. And do away with the automatic fuel management.
I can see extending the automatic engine and fuel management to crewed planes -- bombers -- on the premise that your copilot could be handling these things for you. But if you're alone in your plane, you should have to handle all of the manual tasks required to fly your plane. Including the little detail quirks like the twelve cranks of the handwheel to retract the gear on an F4F...
-
Regurge, in my tests, I noticed same limitations for up/down elevator trim/max deflection. At 300 / 200 mph, I notice a BIG difference pulling up between having nose trim down/nose trim up/nose centered, same for pushing down the stick. This is even noticeable at 100-150 mph when taking off or landing.
-
Shiva,
You are talking about two different things.
The point is you can't trim a FW190 for lateral stabilty at all.
You can manage your engine in any aircraft weather it's auto or not.
It's more like you can't use the divebrake key for A/C that don't have divebrakes.
And BTW I would luv to have engine mangement. That would mean you could overboost for extra speed or performance when you have to for short periods of time. That was common in WW2.