Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Flight Tuning - More Lift or COG?
424 views
Skip to first unread message
Peter Greenstein
Oct 24, 2011, 12:31:33 PM10/24/11
to
I'm trying to edit a FS2004 jet (F105) in FSX that seems to fly nose up a
bit much. With other a/c I've been able to eliminate this by increasing the
lift scalar. I've found that you can overdue the lift scalar (in the Flight
Tuning section of aircraft.cfg) and cause the plane to fly with a lowered
nose.
Here it has helped but I've got to a certain point where more lift doesn't
seem to help anymore. At cruise speeds of 300-400 KIAS or max speed the nose
is still slightly up, the tail down. At lower altitudes and under 250 KIAS
it is more pronounced but adding flaps comes close to straightening out the
plane much better. I wonder what flaps do here beside adding more lift?
My question is, does anybody have experience with changing the center of
gravity (COG) and would this help? I'm not sure how to make that change in
the aircraft.cfg.
Thanks for ANY help on this!
--
Peter Greenstein
http://www.wakefieldjazz.com/
bit much. With other a/c I've been able to eliminate this by increasing the
lift scalar. I've found that you can overdue the lift scalar (in the Flight
Tuning section of aircraft.cfg) and cause the plane to fly with a lowered
nose.
Here it has helped but I've got to a certain point where more lift doesn't
seem to help anymore. At cruise speeds of 300-400 KIAS or max speed the nose
is still slightly up, the tail down. At lower altitudes and under 250 KIAS
it is more pronounced but adding flaps comes close to straightening out the
plane much better. I wonder what flaps do here beside adding more lift?
My question is, does anybody have experience with changing the center of
gravity (COG) and would this help? I'm not sure how to make that change in
the aircraft.cfg.
Thanks for ANY help on this!
--
Peter Greenstein
http://www.wakefieldjazz.com/
Tom P
Oct 24, 2011, 1:19:07 PM10/24/11
to
station_load entries or the empty_weight_CG_position
pete_g
Oct 24, 2011, 7:19:58 PM10/24/11
to
Thanks for the quick reply, Tom.
According to http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc526949.aspx
there are three parameters for the "empty weight cg position." Can you
tell which one moves the COG forward or back?
peter
On Oct 24, 10:19 am, Tom P <werot...@freent.dd> wrote:
> On 10/24/2011 06:31 PM,PeterGreensteinwrote:
> station_load entries or the empty_weight_CG_position- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
According to http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc526949.aspx
there are three parameters for the "empty weight cg position." Can you
tell which one moves the COG forward or back?
peter
On Oct 24, 10:19 am, Tom P <werot...@freent.dd> wrote:
> On 10/24/2011 06:31 PM,PeterGreensteinwrote:
>
>
>
> > I'm trying to edit a FS2004 jet (F105) in FSX that seems to fly nose up
> > a bit much. With other a/c I've been able to eliminate this by
> > increasing the lift scalar. I've found that you can overdue the lift
> > scalar (in the Flight Tuning section of aircraft.cfg) and cause the
> > plane to fly with a lowered nose.
>
> > Here it has helped but I've got to a certain point where more lift
> > doesn't seem to help anymore. At cruise speeds of 300-400 KIAS or max
> > speed the nose is still slightly up, the tail down. At lower altitudes
> > and under 250 KIAS it is more pronounced but adding flaps comes close to
> > straightening out the plane much better. I wonder what flaps do here
> > beside adding more lift?
>
> > My question is, does anybody have experience with changing the center of
> > gravity (COG) and would this help? I'm not sure how to make that change
> > in the aircraft.cfg.
>
> > Thanks for ANY help on this!
>
> TheCoGis in the [WEIGHT_AND_BALANCE] section. You could change the
>
>
> > I'm trying to edit a FS2004 jet (F105) in FSX that seems to fly nose up
> > a bit much. With other a/c I've been able to eliminate this by
> > increasing the lift scalar. I've found that you can overdue the lift
> > scalar (in the Flight Tuning section of aircraft.cfg) and cause the
> > plane to fly with a lowered nose.
>
> > Here it has helped but I've got to a certain point where more lift
> > doesn't seem to help anymore. At cruise speeds of 300-400 KIAS or max
> > speed the nose is still slightly up, the tail down. At lower altitudes
> > and under 250 KIAS it is more pronounced but adding flaps comes close to
> > straightening out the plane much better. I wonder what flaps do here
> > beside adding more lift?
>
> > My question is, does anybody have experience with changing the center of
> > gravity (COG) and would this help? I'm not sure how to make that change
> > in the aircraft.cfg.
>
> > Thanks for ANY help on this!
>
> station_load entries or the empty_weight_CG_position- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Gregory
Oct 25, 2011, 1:37:47 AM10/25/11
to
On Mon, 24 Oct 2011 16:19:58 -0700 (PDT), pete_g
<pgre...@comcast.net> wrote:
>Thanks for the quick reply, Tom.
>
>According to http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc526949.aspx
>there are three parameters for the "empty weight cg position." Can you
>tell which one moves the COG forward or back?
>
>peter
Yes, see examples below, and REFERENCES pasted below them.
<pgre...@comcast.net> wrote:
>Thanks for the quick reply, Tom.
>
>According to http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc526949.aspx
>there are three parameters for the "empty weight cg position." Can you
>tell which one moves the COG forward or back?
>
>peter
The first of the three numbers (separated by commas) is the Long
or longitudinal coord, and the convention is POS is Forward.
-G
---------------------------------------
empty_weight_cg_position
Offset (in feet) of the center of gravity of the basic empty aircraft
(no fuel, passengers, or baggage) from the datum reference point .
Aircreation582SL ( empty_weight_CG_position = 0.0, 0.0, 0.0 )
Boeing 747-400 ( empty_weight_CG_position = -90.5, 0.0, 0.0 )
Beech Baron 58 ( empty_weight_CG_position = -6.06, 0.0, 0.0 )
Positions of aircraft components are given relative to the datum
reference point for the aircraft, in the order:
longitudinal, lateral, vertical
The convention for positions is positive equals forward, to the right,
and vertically upward. Units are in feet.
Peter Greenstein
Oct 25, 2011, 8:53:06 PM10/25/11
to
Thanks to Tom and Gregory.
Unfortunately, in this particular aircraft (f-105D), changing the position
of the COG seems to have had very little or no effect. More radical changes
caused the plane to go crazy.
Again, I'm curious why adding flaps does help straigthen out this planes
flight, but further adjustments to the lift scalar (in the flight tuning
section) does not.
Anyway, I will file away this procedure.
Thanks so much for the help.
peter
"Gregory" <flights...@bkwds.comcast.net> wrote in message
news:acica71a00f5h18gg...@4ax.com...
Unfortunately, in this particular aircraft (f-105D), changing the position
of the COG seems to have had very little or no effect. More radical changes
caused the plane to go crazy.
Again, I'm curious why adding flaps does help straigthen out this planes
flight, but further adjustments to the lift scalar (in the flight tuning
section) does not.
Anyway, I will file away this procedure.
Thanks so much for the help.
peter
"Gregory" <flights...@bkwds.comcast.net> wrote in message
news:acica71a00f5h18gg...@4ax.com...
Danny
Oct 25, 2011, 10:39:20 PM10/25/11
to
Peter, does it have autopilot and will the AP cause it to fly level? Could
it be the Elevator Trim that is misbehaving? If it does not have AutoPilot,
you can change the aircraft.cfg to read Autopilot_available=1.
Then, once airborne, press Z which turns on the AP, then Control+Z which
should lock you to current altitude. Ctrl+H will toggle Heading hold on/off.
Also look in the aircraft.cfg for elevator_limit_trim=?? and change it to
a different number to see it it makes any difference.
When piddling with panel configs and aircraft configs, I like to reload the
plane quickly. You can do this by going to Options>Settings> Controls.
Toward the top of that list of Keyboard shortcuts, you will see AIRCRAFT
(RELOAD). Set that to CTRL+R. then when you make a panel.cfg or
aircraft.cfg, save the file then press CTRL+R to reload that plane in just a
few seconds.
From what site did you acquire this aircraft? Is it widely available?
If you are a registered member of flyawaysimulation.com, you can get Bob's
Flight dynamics-Final Edition.
A 24 page pdf manual that describe how to manipulate the air file. You can
use Airwrench, Airman, or Aircraft Airfile Manager. There is lots of stuff
in the ???.air file that is not addressed in the aircraft.cfg.
The manual I am suggesting, offers tips such as this:
***To change the aircraft’s top speed:
If it is a jet, go into the aircraft.cfg file and change the value for the
air intake in the turbine engine data. If it is slow make the air intake
smaller. If too fast, make the air intake (inlet_area) larger. Then go fly
the aircraft again and see if it reaches proper speed at altitude without
going too much faster than it is supposed to. Note: this value is also in
the air file inside record 1501, if the air file has a record 1501, but
might as well be left whatever it is until you have decided what the inlet
area should be; so you are not constantly changing it for nothing.***
I understand your problem is not speed, that is just a sample of its
content. But this manual appears to be well written and most of it is above
my pay grade.
MAKE A BACKUP (COPY AND PASTE) any file before you make any changes. YOU
HAVE BEEN WARNED!
Highlight the FILE you intend to work on.
Then press CTRL+C to copy that file to the clipboard.
Now, Highlight the FOLDER that the file is in and press CTRL+V to paste it
into the SAME folder.
Windows will rename it to "aircraft - Copy.cfg" or something like that.
Instant backup.
Danny
"Peter Greenstein" wrote in message news:j87lkt$jgi$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
it be the Elevator Trim that is misbehaving? If it does not have AutoPilot,
you can change the aircraft.cfg to read Autopilot_available=1.
Then, once airborne, press Z which turns on the AP, then Control+Z which
should lock you to current altitude. Ctrl+H will toggle Heading hold on/off.
Also look in the aircraft.cfg for elevator_limit_trim=?? and change it to
a different number to see it it makes any difference.
When piddling with panel configs and aircraft configs, I like to reload the
plane quickly. You can do this by going to Options>Settings> Controls.
Toward the top of that list of Keyboard shortcuts, you will see AIRCRAFT
(RELOAD). Set that to CTRL+R. then when you make a panel.cfg or
aircraft.cfg, save the file then press CTRL+R to reload that plane in just a
few seconds.
From what site did you acquire this aircraft? Is it widely available?
If you are a registered member of flyawaysimulation.com, you can get Bob's
Flight dynamics-Final Edition.
A 24 page pdf manual that describe how to manipulate the air file. You can
use Airwrench, Airman, or Aircraft Airfile Manager. There is lots of stuff
in the ???.air file that is not addressed in the aircraft.cfg.
The manual I am suggesting, offers tips such as this:
***To change the aircraft’s top speed:
If it is a jet, go into the aircraft.cfg file and change the value for the
air intake in the turbine engine data. If it is slow make the air intake
smaller. If too fast, make the air intake (inlet_area) larger. Then go fly
the aircraft again and see if it reaches proper speed at altitude without
going too much faster than it is supposed to. Note: this value is also in
the air file inside record 1501, if the air file has a record 1501, but
might as well be left whatever it is until you have decided what the inlet
area should be; so you are not constantly changing it for nothing.***
I understand your problem is not speed, that is just a sample of its
content. But this manual appears to be well written and most of it is above
my pay grade.
MAKE A BACKUP (COPY AND PASTE) any file before you make any changes. YOU
HAVE BEEN WARNED!
Highlight the FILE you intend to work on.
Then press CTRL+C to copy that file to the clipboard.
Now, Highlight the FOLDER that the file is in and press CTRL+V to paste it
into the SAME folder.
Windows will rename it to "aircraft - Copy.cfg" or something like that.
Instant backup.
Danny
"Peter Greenstein" wrote in message news:j87lkt$jgi$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
Danny
Oct 25, 2011, 10:48:30 PM10/25/11
to
Check this link too. Some links there to aircraft dynamics discussion
forums.
http://hsors.pagesperso-orange.fr/fsairfile.html
"Peter Greenstein" wrote in message news:j87lkt$jgi$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
forums.
http://hsors.pagesperso-orange.fr/fsairfile.html
"Peter Greenstein" wrote in message news:j87lkt$jgi$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
Gregory
Oct 26, 2011, 1:00:11 AM10/26/11
to
On Tue, 25 Oct 2011 22:48:30 -0400, "Danny" <drm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Check this link too. Some links there to aircraft dynamics discussion
>forums. http://hsors.pagesperso-orange.fr/fsairfile.html
>
Now there are some old friends of mine.. Herve Sors, Ron Freimuth,
>Check this link too. Some links there to aircraft dynamics discussion
>forums. http://hsors.pagesperso-orange.fr/fsairfile.html
>
Ian Kerr, and several others who's names cannot be recalled. Isn't
Herve a medical doctor?
-G
pete_g
Oct 26, 2011, 5:41:31 PM10/26/11
to
Hi Danny,
Thanks for the tips about the airfile. I did look at a couple of
things there, too.
No, the AP doesn't straighten out the plane. I run most of my test
edits with the plane on auto. Again, curiously, at this point it is
adding flaps that helps more than anything else.
I've edited this plane quite a bit since I d/l it. If you'd be willing
to take a look at the state I have it in so far I can make it
available to you (or anyone else) at Mediafire.com (free d/l). I'd
pack it with Winrar.
If you download my copy, the panel may have missing gauges so it might
be best to use the default Lear.
peter
> "PeterGreenstein" wrote in messagenews:j87lkt$jgi$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
Thanks for the tips about the airfile. I did look at a couple of
things there, too.
No, the AP doesn't straighten out the plane. I run most of my test
edits with the plane on auto. Again, curiously, at this point it is
adding flaps that helps more than anything else.
I've edited this plane quite a bit since I d/l it. If you'd be willing
to take a look at the state I have it in so far I can make it
available to you (or anyone else) at Mediafire.com (free d/l). I'd
pack it with Winrar.
If you download my copy, the panel may have missing gauges so it might
be best to use the default Lear.
peter
>
> Thanks to Tom and Gregory.
>
> Unfortunately, in this particular aircraft (f-105D), changing the position
> of the COG seems to have had very little or no effect. More radical changes
> caused the plane to go crazy.
>
> Again, I'm curious why addingflapsdoes help straigthen out this planes
> Thanks to Tom and Gregory.
>
> Unfortunately, in this particular aircraft (f-105D), changing the position
> of the COG seems to have had very little or no effect. More radical changes
> caused the plane to go crazy.
>
> flight, but further adjustments to the lift scalar (in the flight tuning
> section) does not.
>
> Anyway, I will file away this procedure.
>
> Thanks so much for the help.
>
> peter
>
> "Gregory" <flightsim.m...@bkwds.comcast.net> wrote in message
> section) does not.
>
> Anyway, I will file away this procedure.
>
> Thanks so much for the help.
>
> peter
>
>
> news:acica71a00f5h18gg...@4ax.com...
>
>
>
> > On Mon, 24 Oct 2011 16:19:58 -0700 (PDT), pete_g
> > <pgree...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >>Thanks for the quick reply, Tom.
>
> >>According tohttp://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc526949.aspx
> news:acica71a00f5h18gg...@4ax.com...
>
>
>
> > On Mon, 24 Oct 2011 16:19:58 -0700 (PDT), pete_g
> > <pgree...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >>Thanks for the quick reply, Tom.
>
> >>there are three parameters for the "empty weight cg position." Can you
> >>tell which one moves the COG forward or back?
>
> >>peter
>
> > Yes, see examples below, and REFERENCES pasted below them.
>
> > The first of the three numbers (separated by commas) is the Long
> > or longitudinal coord, and the convention is POS is Forward.
>
> > -G
>
> > ---------------------------------------
>
> > empty_weight_cg_position
>
> > Offset (in feet) of the center of gravity of the basic empty aircraft
> > (no fuel, passengers, or baggage) from the datum reference point .
>
> > Aircreation582SL ( empty_weight_CG_position = 0.0, 0.0, 0.0 )
> > Boeing 747-400 ( empty_weight_CG_position = -90.5, 0.0, 0.0 )
> > Beech Baron 58 ( empty_weight_CG_position = -6.06, 0.0, 0.0 )
>
> > Positions of aircraft components are given relative to the datum
> > reference point for the aircraft, in the order:
>
> > longitudinal, lateral, vertical
>
> > The convention for positions is positive equals forward, to the right,
> > and vertically upward. Units are in feet.- Hide quoted text -
> >>tell which one moves the COG forward or back?
>
> >>peter
>
> > Yes, see examples below, and REFERENCES pasted below them.
>
> > The first of the three numbers (separated by commas) is the Long
> > or longitudinal coord, and the convention is POS is Forward.
>
> > -G
>
> > ---------------------------------------
>
> > empty_weight_cg_position
>
> > Offset (in feet) of the center of gravity of the basic empty aircraft
> > (no fuel, passengers, or baggage) from the datum reference point .
>
> > Aircreation582SL ( empty_weight_CG_position = 0.0, 0.0, 0.0 )
> > Boeing 747-400 ( empty_weight_CG_position = -90.5, 0.0, 0.0 )
> > Beech Baron 58 ( empty_weight_CG_position = -6.06, 0.0, 0.0 )
>
> > Positions of aircraft components are given relative to the datum
> > reference point for the aircraft, in the order:
>
> > longitudinal, lateral, vertical
>
> > The convention for positions is positive equals forward, to the right,
Danny
Oct 26, 2011, 7:53:08 PM10/26/11
to
If you don't have an original or un-edited air file or aircraft.cfg file, it
might not be worth fooling with. But I will be happy to take a look see if
you want to archive it and U/L to mediafire.
"pete_g" wrote in message
news:d4a9b0a4-52a5-483e...@k13g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
might not be worth fooling with. But I will be happy to take a look see if
you want to archive it and U/L to mediafire.
"pete_g" wrote in message
news:d4a9b0a4-52a5-483e...@k13g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
202.177.16.121
Oct 27, 2011, 2:07:38 AM10/27/11
to
Danny,
I would really, really appreciate it if you could see what you can do with
this plane. I have been able to adjust parameters on some aircraft but this
one is not quite where I'd like it to be.
If you'd prefer, here's the original: you have to go to this collection of
free, formerly ALPHASIM products:
http://www.easyfly.co.nz/Freeware/index.php?dir=/USA
Download the F-105D Thunderchief for FS9. I forgot what I did to get it to
work in FSX. Actually, I do think Walt here did a FAIR amount of work on
this a/c to get this plane to fly.
If you wouldn't mind starting where Walt and I have progressed to, here's a
packed-up archive of my current version from my FSX airplane directory.
Hopefully it will run on your setup, albeit with missing gauges:
http://www.mediafire.com/?dj7lok38xhtkosq. Sorry about the popup ads.
peter
"Danny" <drm...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:B7Cdndjf--T7ADXT...@giganews.com...
--- Posted via news://freenews.netfront.net/ - Complaints to ne...@netfront.net ---
I would really, really appreciate it if you could see what you can do with
this plane. I have been able to adjust parameters on some aircraft but this
one is not quite where I'd like it to be.
If you'd prefer, here's the original: you have to go to this collection of
free, formerly ALPHASIM products:
http://www.easyfly.co.nz/Freeware/index.php?dir=/USA
Download the F-105D Thunderchief for FS9. I forgot what I did to get it to
work in FSX. Actually, I do think Walt here did a FAIR amount of work on
this a/c to get this plane to fly.
If you wouldn't mind starting where Walt and I have progressed to, here's a
packed-up archive of my current version from my FSX airplane directory.
Hopefully it will run on your setup, albeit with missing gauges:
http://www.mediafire.com/?dj7lok38xhtkosq. Sorry about the popup ads.
peter
"Danny" <drm...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:B7Cdndjf--T7ADXT...@giganews.com...
Walt_M
Oct 27, 2011, 5:20:22 AM10/27/11
to
On Wed, 26 Oct 2011 23:07:38 -0700, "202.177.16.121"
<pgre...@comcast.net> wrote:
>If you wouldn't mind starting where Walt and I have progressed to, here's a
>packed-up archive of my current version from my FSX airplane directory.
>Hopefully it will run on your setup, albeit with missing gauges:
Oh, THAT airplane... :-)
<pgre...@comcast.net> wrote:
>If you wouldn't mind starting where Walt and I have progressed to, here's a
>packed-up archive of my current version from my FSX airplane directory.
>Hopefully it will run on your setup, albeit with missing gauges:
IIRC, the .air file was one done by Mark Rooks.
I suggested the following at the time:
About keeping the nose down at low speeds: At about 300kts, set flaps
10deg (first notch.) At about 250kts, set flaps 25deg (second notch.)
If you're doing a steep approach, use the speed brake to keep the
speed down but make sure the speed brake is retracted for landing (the
plane should be nose-up 5 deg at touchdown, and at that attitude you
might scrape the speed brake on the runway if it is in the "on"
position.) Approach speed should be about 175kts; and touchdown at
about 165kts, flaps 35 deg (third notch.)
I don't fly it that much these days. I think Alphasim made it
freeware because it was a dog, but I could be wrong. I've been wrong
before. :-)
If Danny can make it fly better, I'd be interested in the changes.
Walt
* * *
Offence freely given to those who wish to take it.
Peter Greenstein
Oct 27, 2011, 9:14:54 AM10/27/11
to
Hi Walt,
Yes, thanks again for these suggestions. It does fly well with flaps. What
do flaps do in FS other than add lift? Change the geometry of the wing?
I did go further in trying to give the plane more lift and/or change the
COG. But the problem persists. At this point I can't get this F-105 to fly
level even at 400KIAS! I'm pretty sure I've seen photos of these a/c flying
without there tails hanging down.
And yes, this plane has cured me of downloading any more free stuff from the
late, unlamented Alphasim. I've had other problems even with there payware.
"Walt_M" <walt...@live.com> wrote in message
news:9i3ia79q1m2lg3c1i...@4ax.com...
Yes, thanks again for these suggestions. It does fly well with flaps. What
do flaps do in FS other than add lift? Change the geometry of the wing?
I did go further in trying to give the plane more lift and/or change the
COG. But the problem persists. At this point I can't get this F-105 to fly
level even at 400KIAS! I'm pretty sure I've seen photos of these a/c flying
without there tails hanging down.
And yes, this plane has cured me of downloading any more free stuff from the
late, unlamented Alphasim. I've had other problems even with there payware.
"Walt_M" <walt...@live.com> wrote in message
news:9i3ia79q1m2lg3c1i...@4ax.com...
Danny
Oct 27, 2011, 11:52:34 AM10/27/11
to
Peter, I d/l from Alphasim and test flew with original files as installed.
FSX does not like those FS98 gauges so, as you said, there were no gauges.
Did not matter... "don need no stinkin' gauges!"
Very first flight. I took off from Chatham Island NZ grass strip. It did as
you said, and pitched up, climbing to 30,000 feet in no time at all. I
descended (using slew) to 15,000, then started flying it with my keyboard so
I could eliminate any joystick calibration concerns.
I use the keypad #1 and #7 for trim (default settings) and it trimmed out to
level flight in no time with lots of down trim (#7). Not rock steady, but
I doubt any plane at 400+ Kts would fly hands off in level flight. Took
more time to get it down to 400 kts than to level it out. That jet is fast.
By the way, I have flaps zero.
This video shows the altitude and the slow changes to altitude as it
continues in straight and level flight. Also see how it responded in a
slight bank right at about 1:45 to 2 minute mark. As expected, it drifted
off its level flight, but I was able to recover to what I consider
reasonably good, level flight, in short time.
http://youtu.be/rAZR5TP0VV8?hd=1
This plane, as some other FS9 planes do, screws up my screen as you can see
in this video. Only correction is restart the sim. I'll put the lear panel
folder in and see what happens. One plane I recently tried, turned the lower
half of my screen black. A friend tried it on his system and got same
results. We trashed it quickly.
I try some of your altered files to see what they do. But from what I see,
unless I am missing something, it might be a improperly set trim at startup.
D
"Peter Greenstein" wrote in message news:j8blgd$co9$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
FSX does not like those FS98 gauges so, as you said, there were no gauges.
Did not matter... "don need no stinkin' gauges!"
Very first flight. I took off from Chatham Island NZ grass strip. It did as
you said, and pitched up, climbing to 30,000 feet in no time at all. I
descended (using slew) to 15,000, then started flying it with my keyboard so
I could eliminate any joystick calibration concerns.
I use the keypad #1 and #7 for trim (default settings) and it trimmed out to
level flight in no time with lots of down trim (#7). Not rock steady, but
I doubt any plane at 400+ Kts would fly hands off in level flight. Took
more time to get it down to 400 kts than to level it out. That jet is fast.
By the way, I have flaps zero.
This video shows the altitude and the slow changes to altitude as it
continues in straight and level flight. Also see how it responded in a
slight bank right at about 1:45 to 2 minute mark. As expected, it drifted
off its level flight, but I was able to recover to what I consider
reasonably good, level flight, in short time.
http://youtu.be/rAZR5TP0VV8?hd=1
This plane, as some other FS9 planes do, screws up my screen as you can see
in this video. Only correction is restart the sim. I'll put the lear panel
folder in and see what happens. One plane I recently tried, turned the lower
half of my screen black. A friend tried it on his system and got same
results. We trashed it quickly.
I try some of your altered files to see what they do. But from what I see,
unless I am missing something, it might be a improperly set trim at startup.
D
"Peter Greenstein" wrote in message news:j8blgd$co9$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
Tom P
Oct 27, 2011, 1:42:46 PM10/27/11
to
.air file I think.
Maybe you can increase the AoA to get the effect you want.
pete_g
Oct 27, 2011, 1:53:46 PM10/27/11
to
>
> Hi Walt,
>
> Yes, thanks again for these suggestions. It does fly well with flaps. What
> do flaps do in FS other than add lift? Change the geometry of the wing?
>
> I did go further in trying to give the plane more lift and/or change the
> COG. But the problem persists. At this point I can't get this F-105 to fly
> level even at 400KIAS! I'm pretty sure I've seen photos of these a/c flying
> without there tails hanging down.
>
> And yes, this plane has cured me of downloading any more free stuff from the
> late, unlamented Alphasim. I've had other problems even with there payware.
>
> --PeterGreensteinhttp://www.wakefieldjazz.com/
>
> "Walt_M" <waltmi...@live.com> wrote in message
> Hi Walt,
>
> Yes, thanks again for these suggestions. It does fly well with flaps. What
> do flaps do in FS other than add lift? Change the geometry of the wing?
>
> I did go further in trying to give the plane more lift and/or change the
> COG. But the problem persists. At this point I can't get this F-105 to fly
> level even at 400KIAS! I'm pretty sure I've seen photos of these a/c flying
> without there tails hanging down.
>
> And yes, this plane has cured me of downloading any more free stuff from the
> late, unlamented Alphasim. I've had other problems even with there payware.
>
> --PeterGreensteinhttp://www.wakefieldjazz.com/
>
>
> news:9i3ia79q1m2lg3c1i...@4ax.com...
>
>
>
> > On Wed, 26 Oct 2011 23:07:38 -0700, "202.177.16.121"
> > <pgree...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >>If you wouldn't mind starting where Walt and I have progressed to, here's
> >>a
> >>packed-up archive of my current version from my FSX airplane directory.
> >>Hopefully it will run on your setup, albeit with missing gauges:
>
> > Oh, THAT airplane... :-)
>
> > IIRC, the .air file was one done by Mark Rooks.
>
> > I suggested the following at the time:
> > About keeping the nose down at low speeds: At about 300kts, set flaps
> > 10deg (first notch.) At about 250kts, set flaps 25deg (second notch.)
> > If you're doing a steep approach, use the speed brake to keep the
> > speed down but make sure the speed brake is retracted for landing (the
> > plane should be nose-up 5 deg at touchdown, and at that attitude you
> > might scrape the speed brake on the runway if it is in the "on"
> > position.) Approach speed should be about 175kts; and touchdown at
> > about 165kts, flaps 35 deg (third notch.)
>
> > I don't fly it that much these days. I think Alphasim made it
> > freeware because it was a dog, but I could be wrong. I've been wrong
> > before. :-)
>
> > If Danny can make it fly better, I'd be interested in the changes.
>
> > Walt
> > * * *
> > Offence freely given to those who wish to take it.- Hide quoted text -
> news:9i3ia79q1m2lg3c1i...@4ax.com...
>
>
>
> > On Wed, 26 Oct 2011 23:07:38 -0700, "202.177.16.121"
> > <pgree...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >>If you wouldn't mind starting where Walt and I have progressed to, here's
> >>a
> >>packed-up archive of my current version from my FSX airplane directory.
> >>Hopefully it will run on your setup, albeit with missing gauges:
>
> > Oh, THAT airplane... :-)
>
> > IIRC, the .air file was one done by Mark Rooks.
>
> > I suggested the following at the time:
> > About keeping the nose down at low speeds: At about 300kts, set flaps
> > 10deg (first notch.) At about 250kts, set flaps 25deg (second notch.)
> > If you're doing a steep approach, use the speed brake to keep the
> > speed down but make sure the speed brake is retracted for landing (the
> > plane should be nose-up 5 deg at touchdown, and at that attitude you
> > might scrape the speed brake on the runway if it is in the "on"
> > position.) Approach speed should be about 175kts; and touchdown at
> > about 165kts, flaps 35 deg (third notch.)
>
> > I don't fly it that much these days. I think Alphasim made it
> > freeware because it was a dog, but I could be wrong. I've been wrong
> > before. :-)
>
> > If Danny can make it fly better, I'd be interested in the changes.
>
> > Walt
> > * * *
>
> - Show quoted text -
All this is with the default a/c? You didn't edit anything in
> - Show quoted text -
aircraft.cfg or the airfile?
peter
Danny
Oct 27, 2011, 3:28:18 PM10/27/11
to
Correct. I edited NOTHING, Pete.
I installed by dragging files to Airplanes folder, gauges and effect to Main
FSX folder and loaded up FSX. I switched to the F105, did the keyboard
shortcut engine start procedure and took off from Chatham. My FSX begins
at the airport where I last landed and shut down FSX, which was Chatham
Island off coast of NZ. So I flew to Nelson. Here is video of arrival and
landing at Nelson. I am not a fighter pilot understand, so everyone is
welcome to criticize all you want.
Landing video: http://youtu.be/gUTZljEDH9k?hd=1
I then taxied the F105 to rwy 2 for takeoff.
http://youtu.be/QzK_bZ0xOZY?hd=1
Seems to work pretty well for a guy with such limited fighter jet
experience. I don't see anything upon which to improve...other than my
flying skills. I am a rotorhead you know. Prior to takeoff you might give
it several click of the down trim button to avoid any sharp pitch upward.
Danny
"pete_g" wrote in message
news:4872f249-1288-4e67...@u13g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
I installed by dragging files to Airplanes folder, gauges and effect to Main
FSX folder and loaded up FSX. I switched to the F105, did the keyboard
shortcut engine start procedure and took off from Chatham. My FSX begins
at the airport where I last landed and shut down FSX, which was Chatham
Island off coast of NZ. So I flew to Nelson. Here is video of arrival and
landing at Nelson. I am not a fighter pilot understand, so everyone is
welcome to criticize all you want.
Landing video: http://youtu.be/gUTZljEDH9k?hd=1
I then taxied the F105 to rwy 2 for takeoff.
http://youtu.be/QzK_bZ0xOZY?hd=1
Seems to work pretty well for a guy with such limited fighter jet
experience. I don't see anything upon which to improve...other than my
flying skills. I am a rotorhead you know. Prior to takeoff you might give
it several click of the down trim button to avoid any sharp pitch upward.
Danny
"pete_g" wrote in message
news:4872f249-1288-4e67...@u13g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
Tom P
Oct 27, 2011, 3:31:24 PM10/27/11
to
On 10/27/2011 03:14 PM, Peter Greenstein wrote:
> Hi Walt,
>
> Yes, thanks again for these suggestions. It does fly well with flaps.
> What do flaps do in FS other than add lift? Change the geometry of the
> wing?
>
> I did go further in trying to give the plane more lift and/or change the
> COG. But the problem persists. At this point I can't get this F-105 to
> fly level even at 400KIAS! I'm pretty sure I've seen photos of these a/c
> flying without there tails hanging down.
>
> And yes, this plane has cured me of downloading any more free stuff from
> the late, unlamented Alphasim. I've had other problems even with there
> payware.
>
>
When I think about it, changing the CoG is a waste of time. For a given
> Hi Walt,
>
> Yes, thanks again for these suggestions. It does fly well with flaps.
> What do flaps do in FS other than add lift? Change the geometry of the
> wing?
>
> I did go further in trying to give the plane more lift and/or change the
> COG. But the problem persists. At this point I can't get this F-105 to
> fly level even at 400KIAS! I'm pretty sure I've seen photos of these a/c
> flying without there tails hanging down.
>
> And yes, this plane has cured me of downloading any more free stuff from
> the late, unlamented Alphasim. I've had other problems even with there
> payware.
>
>
aircraft speed, the lift = weight is determined by the angle of attack.
If you change the CoG, all you do is alter the stability.
If your aircraft is flying pitched up nose high for a given lift, you
need to change the angle of attack of the wing relative to the fuselage
axis, meaning that the wing still has the same AoA, but the nose is
pitched down more.
In [airplane_geometry] there's a parameter called wing_incidence, but
the note says -
"When looking at the side of an aircraft from the wing tip, this is the
angle the mean wing chord makes with a horizontal line parallel to the
ground, (degrees). Note: this parameter is not used in the real-time
aerodynamic calculations, as it is already factored into the lift and
drag parameters. "
So I think it may be in the air file somewhere.
Peter Greenstein
Oct 27, 2011, 6:56:14 PM10/27/11
to
Uh, oh.
We're not getting the same results with the same aircraft? Now this is a
head scratcher.
You seem to have less fuel than I have during testing, 39%? Does that make a
difference?
You're NOT using autopilot? What happens with AP? Does the nose come up?
So if adjust trim, I should be able to hold the plane at the same altitude
and get level flight?
news:hPCdnTxeONVJLTTT...@giganews.com...
We're not getting the same results with the same aircraft? Now this is a
head scratcher.
You seem to have less fuel than I have during testing, 39%? Does that make a
difference?
You're NOT using autopilot? What happens with AP? Does the nose come up?
So if adjust trim, I should be able to hold the plane at the same altitude
and get level flight?
news:hPCdnTxeONVJLTTT...@giganews.com...
Peter Greenstein
Oct 27, 2011, 7:18:01 PM10/27/11
to
There's an "!FFB - AoA=0.000", "Fuselage AoA at Min Induced Drag=-0.654",
and a number of complex parameters with AoA referenced. I made a couple
tests to the above with no luck. I don't see which line in the .air file
simply sets the AoA.
Again, I'm trying to see level flight with the AP engaged. In the Autopilot
section of the .air file there are a ton of "Unknown" lines, so if any of
these control the AoA it's rather hopeless to find them. In the
aircraft.cfg, again I don't see what could cause the plane to fly tail heavy
while on AP.
Danny does not notice this on his system. His youtube video does seem to
confirm his observation.
peter
"Tom P" <wero...@freent.dd> wrote in message
news:9gtjgm...@mid.individual.net...
and a number of complex parameters with AoA referenced. I made a couple
tests to the above with no luck. I don't see which line in the .air file
simply sets the AoA.
Again, I'm trying to see level flight with the AP engaged. In the Autopilot
section of the .air file there are a ton of "Unknown" lines, so if any of
these control the AoA it's rather hopeless to find them. In the
aircraft.cfg, again I don't see what could cause the plane to fly tail heavy
while on AP.
Danny does not notice this on his system. His youtube video does seem to
confirm his observation.
peter
"Tom P" <wero...@freent.dd> wrote in message
news:9gtjgm...@mid.individual.net...
DonK
Oct 27, 2011, 7:39:34 PM10/27/11
to
On Thu, 27 Oct 2011 16:18:01 -0700, "Peter Greenstein" <pgre...@comcast.net> wrote:
>There's an "!FFB - AoA=0.000", "Fuselage AoA at Min Induced Drag=-0.654",
>and a number of complex parameters with AoA referenced. I made a couple
>tests to the above with no luck. I don't see which line in the .air file
>simply sets the AoA.
>
>Again, I'm trying to see level flight with the AP engaged. In the Autopilot
>section of the .air file there are a ton of "Unknown" lines, so if any of
>these control the AoA it's rather hopeless to find them. In the
>aircraft.cfg, again I don't see what could cause the plane to fly tail heavy
>while on AP.
>
>Danny does not notice this on his system. His youtube video does seem to
>confirm his observation.
>
>peter
Hi Peter,
>There's an "!FFB - AoA=0.000", "Fuselage AoA at Min Induced Drag=-0.654",
>and a number of complex parameters with AoA referenced. I made a couple
>tests to the above with no luck. I don't see which line in the .air file
>simply sets the AoA.
>
>Again, I'm trying to see level flight with the AP engaged. In the Autopilot
>section of the .air file there are a ton of "Unknown" lines, so if any of
>these control the AoA it's rather hopeless to find them. In the
>aircraft.cfg, again I don't see what could cause the plane to fly tail heavy
>while on AP.
>
>Danny does not notice this on his system. His youtube video does seem to
>confirm his observation.
>
>peter
Have you looked at any of the air file editors to see if they could be useful?
"Air Wrench" looks like it might help unravel some of the mysteries of the "Unknown" lines and it
looks like it might be fun to play with.
http://www.mudpond.org/AirWrench_main.htm
Good luck
--
Don
Bothell, WA
The world unfolds according to its own inner algorithms of cause and effect, probability and chance without any regard for human feelings.
Danny
Oct 27, 2011, 9:54:33 PM10/27/11
to
Peter, here is a 50 sec video on autopilot. Still not installed a good
panel. I used Z to activate the AP and CTRL+Z for altitude hold and CTRL+H
for heading hold. I leveled out at 3600 feet after leaving Nellis. It did
NOT have any nose up tendency at all. After that video, I noticed the fuel
was about 39%. I went to 100% fuel with no change.
Level flight at 3,600. Eventually ran in to some mountains. I Pressed
CTRL+Z climbed to 8,300 feet the locked the altitude hold at that altitude,
went full throttle, balls to the wall, and maintained level at 8,300 at
1,350 plus or minus.
I did open the air file with Airwrench. I made a few modifications to the
MOI which Airwrench recommended. Did not like the results of that mod so I
went back to the original air file and aircraft.cfg file since Airwrench
also modifies the aircraft.cfg at the same time.
http://youtu.be/JjyscLXHfzU?hd=1
Danny
"Peter Greenstein" wrote in message news:j8cnif$bg8$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
panel. I used Z to activate the AP and CTRL+Z for altitude hold and CTRL+H
for heading hold. I leveled out at 3600 feet after leaving Nellis. It did
NOT have any nose up tendency at all. After that video, I noticed the fuel
was about 39%. I went to 100% fuel with no change.
Level flight at 3,600. Eventually ran in to some mountains. I Pressed
CTRL+Z climbed to 8,300 feet the locked the altitude hold at that altitude,
went full throttle, balls to the wall, and maintained level at 8,300 at
1,350 plus or minus.
I did open the air file with Airwrench. I made a few modifications to the
MOI which Airwrench recommended. Did not like the results of that mod so I
went back to the original air file and aircraft.cfg file since Airwrench
also modifies the aircraft.cfg at the same time.
http://youtu.be/JjyscLXHfzU?hd=1
Danny
"Peter Greenstein" wrote in message news:j8cnif$bg8$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
Peter Greenstein
Oct 28, 2011, 12:54:56 AM10/28/11
to
Yes, I'm using Aired which seems to work well enough I think.
peter
"DonK" <don8...@frontier.com.notvalid> wrote in message
news:gjqja7dfeemr8hb46...@4ax.com...
peter
"DonK" <don8...@frontier.com.notvalid> wrote in message
news:gjqja7dfeemr8hb46...@4ax.com...
Walt_M
Oct 29, 2011, 6:33:00 PM10/29/11
to
On Thu, 27 Oct 2011 06:14:54 -0700, "Peter Greenstein"
<pgre...@comcast.net> wrote:
>Hi Walt,
>
>Yes, thanks again for these suggestions. It does fly well with flaps. What
>do flaps do in FS other than add lift? Change the geometry of the wing?
>
>I did go further in trying to give the plane more lift and/or change the
>COG. But the problem persists. At this point I can't get this F-105 to fly
>level even at 400KIAS! I'm pretty sure I've seen photos of these a/c flying
>without there tails hanging down.
>
>And yes, this plane has cured me of downloading any more free stuff from the
>late, unlamented Alphasim. I've had other problems even with there payware.
At Flightsim.com I found this update: 1F-105Dupdate.zip
<pgre...@comcast.net> wrote:
>Hi Walt,
>
>Yes, thanks again for these suggestions. It does fly well with flaps. What
>do flaps do in FS other than add lift? Change the geometry of the wing?
>
>I did go further in trying to give the plane more lift and/or change the
>COG. But the problem persists. At this point I can't get this F-105 to fly
>level even at 400KIAS! I'm pretty sure I've seen photos of these a/c flying
>without there tails hanging down.
>
>And yes, this plane has cured me of downloading any more free stuff from the
>late, unlamented Alphasim. I've had other problems even with there payware.
It's by Bob Chicilo and in his readme file he says:
"This aircraft flies with the nose up when flying level no matter
what. I believe the cause to be the fact that the model maker made
the front to back datum line parallel to the ground, instead of
putting it on the same angle as the body of the aircraft when it is
sitting on the ground."
You may or may not choose to use his update, but it won't correct the
nose-up thing.
With regard to the AIRCRAFT.CFG file, I recently went and re-installed
the original file and my current changes to this are:
[1] Added the following (missing) section:
[flight_tuning]
cruise_lift_scalar = 1.50
parasite_drag_scalar = 1.0
induced_drag_scalar = 1.0
elevator_effectiveness = 1.0
aileron_effectiveness = 1.0
rudder_effectiveness = 1.0
pitch_stability = 1.0
roll_stability = 1.0
yaw_stability = 1.0
elevator_trim_effectiveness = 1.00
aileron_trim_effectiveness = 1.0
rudder_trim_effectiveness = 1.0
[2] Under [General Engine Data] :
fuel_flow_scalar=0.300
[3] Under [TurbineEngineData] :
fuel_flow_gain=0.01
static_thrust=17500.0000
[4] Under [flaps.0] :
span-outboard=0.500
added:
lift_scalar= 1.00
drag_scalar= 2.50
pitch_scalar= 1.00
= = = = = = = =
Whilst these changes do nothing to lower the nose when flying with
flaps "up" (which I don't think is a major problem), they do lower the
nose to about the right angle when flaps are used. These changes
also manage top speed issues and engine response lag time (which I did
not like).
202.177.16.121
Oct 31, 2011, 1:23:51 PM10/31/11
to
Thanks again for this Walt.
The plane is ok as is, but I did finally decided to purchase a better,
updated version from Virtavia.
peter
news:j9uoa7p4qhm2fl4ee...@4ax.com...
The plane is ok as is, but I did finally decided to purchase a better,
updated version from Virtavia.
peter
news:j9uoa7p4qhm2fl4ee...@4ax.com...
Walt_M
Oct 31, 2011, 4:57:29 PM10/31/11
to
On Mon, 31 Oct 2011 10:23:51 -0700, "202.177.16.121"
<pgre...@comcast.net> wrote:
>Thanks again for this Walt.
>
>The plane is ok as is, but I did finally decided to purchase a better,
>updated version from Virtavia.
Probably the best way to go if you have serious expectations.
<pgre...@comcast.net> wrote:
>Thanks again for this Walt.
>
>The plane is ok as is, but I did finally decided to purchase a better,
>updated version from Virtavia.
I'd be interested in reading your review of the Virtavia plane if you
feel like doing one.
Comcast News
Nov 3, 2011, 8:53:21 PM11/3/11
to
Hi Walt,
I'm much happier with this version of the Republic F-105 than I was with the
freeware one.
Though the old one had some nice external texturing, this one is even better
with more detail. There are some more animations, like the refueling tube
and canopy. At least I think they are new because I couldn't get those to
work on the free one.
Though the original panel was not bad, I do like the new one a bit more. It
has more shading detail that gives it the impression of being sort of
photorealistic. Both are quite accurate. I didn't find an ADF gauge on this
one so I added it.
It's with the flight dynamics where the most important improvement has been
made. By the way, this is in the FSX environment. The plane lifts off the
runnway naturally at 130kias with some flaps and up-trim. It is my
impression that the plane turns, banks, and dives quite naturally. Not
having flown a jet fighter, what I mean is that unlike a video game, here I
sense the laws of physics operating . The plane will fly inverted and it is
not a big chore to land.
What is not quite right is that the plane's thrust power and drag seem an
odd match. At N1 in the 90-100% range the plane doesn't just blast off the
runway. It seems to need N1 to be very high much of the time, for example to
do any climb. But if I were to increase the thrust scalar, the max speed may
end up being well beyond the plane's listed figure. For now I'm not fooling
with it. For all I know this may reflect the actual plane. There may be some
updates, I haven't checked.
I have to take back some of my complaints about Alphasim. Perhaps it is
mainly their freeware that were not that good. I know, sometimes you get
what you pay for, but there are other sources who over the years have given
us some very, very good freeware planes for FS9 and FSX.
news:tp2ua799os1motapf...@4ax.com...
I'm much happier with this version of the Republic F-105 than I was with the
freeware one.
Though the old one had some nice external texturing, this one is even better
with more detail. There are some more animations, like the refueling tube
and canopy. At least I think they are new because I couldn't get those to
work on the free one.
Though the original panel was not bad, I do like the new one a bit more. It
has more shading detail that gives it the impression of being sort of
photorealistic. Both are quite accurate. I didn't find an ADF gauge on this
one so I added it.
It's with the flight dynamics where the most important improvement has been
made. By the way, this is in the FSX environment. The plane lifts off the
runnway naturally at 130kias with some flaps and up-trim. It is my
impression that the plane turns, banks, and dives quite naturally. Not
having flown a jet fighter, what I mean is that unlike a video game, here I
sense the laws of physics operating . The plane will fly inverted and it is
not a big chore to land.
What is not quite right is that the plane's thrust power and drag seem an
odd match. At N1 in the 90-100% range the plane doesn't just blast off the
runway. It seems to need N1 to be very high much of the time, for example to
do any climb. But if I were to increase the thrust scalar, the max speed may
end up being well beyond the plane's listed figure. For now I'm not fooling
with it. For all I know this may reflect the actual plane. There may be some
updates, I haven't checked.
I have to take back some of my complaints about Alphasim. Perhaps it is
mainly their freeware that were not that good. I know, sometimes you get
what you pay for, but there are other sources who over the years have given
us some very, very good freeware planes for FS9 and FSX.
news:tp2ua799os1motapf...@4ax.com...
Peter Greenstein
Nov 3, 2011, 9:37:51 PM11/3/11
to
Oops! I didn't have my Newsreader setting correct and I didn't sign this.
Here's my reply again:
news:tp2ua799os1motapf...@4ax.com...
Here's my reply again:
Walt_M
Nov 4, 2011, 5:48:58 PM11/4/11
to
I too go to payware when I really have to [1]. I got the Virtavia
Caribou. I love flying it in and out of really tight spots. But I
must admit I was a bit peeved it didn't come with reversable props (so
I added them [2]). It really does great STOL stuff.
With regard to the thrust/drag thing, maybe somene here will offer
some advice. I usually adopt a quite adventurous suck-it-and-see
apporoach and fiddle with the engine and flight tuning (drag) settings
in the aircraft config file till I get something I'm happy with, but I
_always_ make a backup of the original file first.
[1] One of the things I hate about FSX is that (especially with
regard to scenery) there is much less decent freeware out there.
Hence one has to spend heaps of money for add-ons of one is
dissatisfied with the crap standard FSX. MS seems to have
deliberately made FSX too difficult for amateur developers to bother
with. It's a capitalist conspiracy, I tell you. ;-)
[2] I've added reversable props ot a few of my prop aircraft. e.g.
C-123, A-26, DH Beaver. It may be cheating, but it makes me happy.
:-)
Peter Greenstein
Nov 5, 2011, 12:19:35 AM11/5/11
to
Hi Walt,
You've made the observation before, that there seems to be a lot less
freeware FSX development of aircraft and scenery than with previous
versions. I don't follow scenery these days but I definitely noticed fewer
planes showing up at Flightsim.com and Simviation.com, the two I check
regularly. Lots of repaints and a few re-porting of a/c from previous
versions, frequently given to us with real defeciencies in the flight model.
I sort of thought it was that some amateur designers had just decided to go
pro with FSX design, some lost interest, and some, as you say, found it too
technically advanced to work with this version.
Walt, remind me again, what plane is an "A-26"? And is a C-123 the transport
plane used in "Con Air"? If so, have you tried to crash land it on the strip
in Las Vegas?!
news:jol8b75c2333qjr69...@4ax.com...
You've made the observation before, that there seems to be a lot less
freeware FSX development of aircraft and scenery than with previous
versions. I don't follow scenery these days but I definitely noticed fewer
planes showing up at Flightsim.com and Simviation.com, the two I check
regularly. Lots of repaints and a few re-porting of a/c from previous
versions, frequently given to us with real defeciencies in the flight model.
I sort of thought it was that some amateur designers had just decided to go
pro with FSX design, some lost interest, and some, as you say, found it too
technically advanced to work with this version.
Walt, remind me again, what plane is an "A-26"? And is a C-123 the transport
plane used in "Con Air"? If so, have you tried to crash land it on the strip
in Las Vegas?!
news:jol8b75c2333qjr69...@4ax.com...
Walt_M
Nov 5, 2011, 12:47:41 AM11/5/11
to
On Fri, 4 Nov 2011 21:19:35 -0700, "Peter Greenstein"
<pgre...@comcast.net> wrote:
>You've made the observation before, that there seems to be a lot less
>freeware FSX development of aircraft and scenery than with previous
>versions. I don't follow scenery these days but I definitely noticed fewer
>planes showing up at Flightsim.com and Simviation.com, the two I check
>regularly. Lots of repaints and a few re-porting of a/c from previous
>versions, frequently given to us with real defeciencies in the flight model.
>I sort of thought it was that some amateur designers had just decided to go
>pro with FSX design, some lost interest, and some, as you say, found it too
>technically advanced to work with this version.
You're probably quite right, Peter.
<pgre...@comcast.net> wrote:
>You've made the observation before, that there seems to be a lot less
>freeware FSX development of aircraft and scenery than with previous
>versions. I don't follow scenery these days but I definitely noticed fewer
>planes showing up at Flightsim.com and Simviation.com, the two I check
>regularly. Lots of repaints and a few re-porting of a/c from previous
>versions, frequently given to us with real defeciencies in the flight model.
>I sort of thought it was that some amateur designers had just decided to go
>pro with FSX design, some lost interest, and some, as you say, found it too
>technically advanced to work with this version.
I just hate FSX, so I have to invent some conspiracy theory stuff in
order to justify my hatred. ;-)
>Walt, remind me again, what plane is an "A-26"?
>And is a C-123 the transport plane used in "Con Air"? If so, have you tried to crash land it on the strip
>in Las Vegas?!
Walt_M
Nov 5, 2011, 8:18:18 PM11/5/11
to
On Sat, 05 Nov 2011 15:47:41 +1100, Walt_M <walt...@live.com> wrote:
>>Walt, remind me again, what plane is an "A-26"?
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:A-26K_609SOS_near_NKP_1969.jpg
Further to this, I was quite right to add the reversible props, as the
>>Walt, remind me again, what plane is an "A-26"?
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:A-26K_609SOS_near_NKP_1969.jpg
YB-26K's (upgraded A-26's) flying out of NKP (see the secret war in
Laos), did indeed have these.
Gregory
Nov 10, 2011, 8:55:46 AM11/10/11
to
On Thu, 3 Nov 2011 17:53:21 -0700, "Comcast News"
<pgre...@comcast.net> wrote:
>I'm much happier with this version of the Republic F-105 than I was with the
>freeware one.
>
>Though the old one had some nice external texturing, this one is even better
>with more detail. There are some more animations, like the refueling tube
>and canopy. At least I think they are new because I couldn't get those to
>work on the free one.
>
>Though the original panel was not bad, I do like the new one a bit more. It
>has more shading detail that gives it the impression of being sort of
>photorealistic. Both are quite accurate. I didn't find an ADF gauge on this
>one so I added it.
>
>It's with the flight dynamics where the most important improvement has been
>made. By the way, this is in the FSX environment. The plane lifts off the
>runnway naturally at 130kias with some flaps and up-trim. It is my
>impression that the plane turns, banks, and dives quite naturally. Not
>having flown a jet fighter, what I mean is that unlike a video game, here I
>sense the laws of physics operating . The plane will fly inverted and it is
>not a big chore to land.
From the FD (Flight Dynamics) days working on the JT8D for the 727,
<pgre...@comcast.net> wrote:
>I'm much happier with this version of the Republic F-105 than I was with the
>freeware one.
>
>Though the old one had some nice external texturing, this one is even better
>with more detail. There are some more animations, like the refueling tube
>and canopy. At least I think they are new because I couldn't get those to
>work on the free one.
>
>Though the original panel was not bad, I do like the new one a bit more. It
>has more shading detail that gives it the impression of being sort of
>photorealistic. Both are quite accurate. I didn't find an ADF gauge on this
>one so I added it.
>
>It's with the flight dynamics where the most important improvement has been
>made. By the way, this is in the FSX environment. The plane lifts off the
>runnway naturally at 130kias with some flaps and up-trim. It is my
>impression that the plane turns, banks, and dives quite naturally. Not
>having flown a jet fighter, what I mean is that unlike a video game, here I
>sense the laws of physics operating . The plane will fly inverted and it is
>not a big chore to land.
the main characteristics of the engine are contained in the "engine
set" which are tables 1502 thru 1507 in the AIR file.
http://home.comcast.net/~flightsim/engineset_0314.gif
Table 1502 was the relation between %CN1 and %CN2, next were tables
1503 & 04, the throttle laws for low and hi mach, usually 0 and 0.9MN.
Then 1505, engine spool curve or turbine vs FF table. 1506 was the
THRUST vs %CN1 table and 1507 the engine mass flow or "ram drag" as
Ron would say. These files are in the binary AIR file and are tricky
to edit. Best to use a spreadsheet and burn the entire table instead
of editing point at a time. You can see I always plotted the slopes
(charts to the right) for each table.
Once the engines were tweaked over many months, and simflight data
logged, you can see in the chart below the FS8 fuel usage against the
Flight Plan numbers.
http://home.comcast.net/~flightsim/727_fuel_consumption.gif
It's not easy to dial in the engine tables "spot on" and in the case
below I was tweaking the drag coef vs Mach to match the FF numbers.
http://home.comcast.net/~flightsim/FF_adjust-CdM.gif
All this working with Ron Freimuth via email and the Air Decode forum.
That was before his house burnt down, and then once he bought another
house, he dropped dead inside it. huh?
Want to fly a 727 FD similar to this one? The one above was my own
rogue, post release beta. Find the DF 727, also known ironically as GA
727 for Greatest Airliners.
It can never be proven but I got kicked off the Hysterical Jetliners
group for openly designing a 727 on their forum.. when they didn't
want to discuss FD there. Paul Golding got ahold of it, and I'm still
good friends with Paul today. You might say we are connected.
Fun Stuff!!
-G
0 new messages