• There seems to be an uptick in Political comments in recent months. Those of us who are long time members of the site know that Political and Religious content has been banned for years. Nothing has changed. Please leave all political and religious comments out of the forums.

    If you recently joined the forums you were not presented with this restriction in the terms of service. This was due to a conversion error when we went from vBulletin to Xenforo. We have updated our terms of service to reflect these corrections.

    Please note any post refering to a politician will be considered political even if it is intended to be humor. Our experience is these topics have a way of dividing the forums and causing deep resentment among members. It is a poison to the community. We appreciate compliance with the rules.

    The Staff of SOH

  • Server side Maintenance is done. We still have an update to the forum software to run but that one will have to wait for a better time.

Coffin Corner

H

hawkeye52

Charter Member
Is there an FS9 aircraft with a sufficiently accurate FDE that allows simulation of a high-altitude stall?

- H52
 
The reason the high altitude envelope is called coffin corner is that the stall (which is fairly conventional) and mach limits begin to merge. The critical item here is the manners of the mach limit. Many aircraft experience a mach tuck, which causes the center of lift to migrate aft in the high transonic range, resulting in a strong nose down tendency. As this generally further increases the speed and mach number (with the nose pointed down) thye situation tends to become more and more divergent.

Not all aircraft experience such a mach behavior. The 747-400 which I fly does not experience such manners. Some of the Lear Jets were famous for having poor mach upset characteristics.

It is possible to model mach tuck in FS. To get it just right would take a fair bit of test and adjustment. Most flight models tend to ignore this aspect. For example a very popular recent WWII fighter offered in FSX which had bad high mach diving characteristics pretty much ignored this part of the flight envelope in it's FSX iteration.

Aircraft capable of reaching mach limit in level cruise tend to be jet powered and usually have flight controls that remain effective at such speeds. WWII fighters such as the one mentioned above also tended to have issues with flight controls becoming ineffective at high mach, which exabacerated the problem.

Cheers: Tom
.
 
Thanks for the reply, F747.

In essence, you are telling me that flight sim aircraft ignore the coffin corner. If I were to push one to its extreme, nothing would happen.
Too bad.
I was hoping to encounter mach tuck in order to test myself in the recovery, which I have read is quite dicey.

- H52
 
H52:

It is certainly possible to model this as the tools are available in FS. One of the things that intervenes is that the MMO is usually set as a limit in the acft cfg file and the sime explodes the aircraft after 30 sec of overspeed. This is a certification limit and the actual plane usually will have some degree of structural integrity and controlability beyond this, but the safety margin has been removed... which keeps you out of coffin corner.

For example the 747 has a certified OPERATING MMO of M .92, but has been flight tested to something like M .997. In some inadvertent situations it sucessfully recovered from speeds well above M 1.0. In FS it will explode at 30 sec of M .921....

One aircraft that operates often in this environment is the U2.

It is an interesting discussion and it is not a universally ignored factor. If you do some testing, let us know what you find!

Cheers: T.
 
Thanks again, F747. To date, my mods to AIRCRAFT.CFGs have been relatively simple, so I doubt I will attempt to confront the Coffin Corner. But if I do, I'll certainly rave about it on this forum!!!

- H52
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top