Conspicuous by Their Absence

Refining AIR Files

Hello/ Aleatorylamp,

Sorry about the confusion.
I don't believe I have ever spent so much time without a break on ANY of the AIR files I have worked on.
I believe you were "Close Enough" quite some time ago, but if you wanted to continue adjusting, who should stop you?

First I should comment on the Induced Drag misunderstanding:
If you want to reduce climb rate, INCREASE Induced Drag!
In level flight, the effect will not be as much as when climbing.

As I stated just now, I usually quit way before I get as close as you do.
My process is generally the following:
1. Get the Engine Horsepower Correct at Sea Level.
2. Use Supercharger settings to get Engine Power Correct at Critical Altitude.
3. Set Drag Coefficient to get proper Maximum Speed at Critical Altitude (usually this CAN'T be done)
4. Adjust Wing Efficiency / Induced Drag in Record 1204 for proper energy bleed in maneuvers.
5. Test the power required to keep Rate of Climb above 100 feet/min
6. Adjust the altitude at which this power is maintained to that of the Service Ceiling.
7. Adjust the shape of the CL Graph (Record 404) if Steps 5 and 6 cannot be achieved
8. Test for maximum Rate of Climb at Sea Level.
9. Record Engine Power and Maximum Speed at each altitude.

What I was suggesting in my prior message was that you try steps 5 and 6 listed above.
If you get the Service Ceiling right, then the other climb rates should fall into place.

My goals are usually to get
Maximum Speed very close.
Service Ceiling also fairly close
Climb Rate only moderately close
Maneuverability is somewhat subjective and combined with Climb Rate.
If Maneuverability and Climb conflict, I generally give preference to Maneuverability.

I also have nearly no hope of matching performance characteristics of most WW2 Fighters because most had more than single speed superchargers and CFS seems to only handle the single speed version. Usually the choice is to cut a bit off the higher altitudes to reduce the middle altitude performance. Even then, the power at medium altitudes is likely to be around 200-300 HP too high.

There is always the dread that this particular aeroplane will be the one to go supersonic at 12,000 feet! ;-)

Regarding adjusting climb or maximum speed, we count on the fact that usually best rate of climb happens at a much lower speed than maximum. The propeller advance ratios are different between the two so you can tune torque, friction and propeller efficiency at one airspeed without much affecting the other (maybe not so much in your case of the Giant).

Also, adjusting Coefficient of Drag influences Maximum speed a LOT but doesn't affect ROC all that much.
Adjusting Wing Efficiency / Induced Drag influences Rate Of Climb a lot but hardly affects Maximum Speed.
Changing the Peak of the CL graph affects Climb and Maneuverability but doesn't affect speed.

Regarding the "Cruise speed slightly below Maximum", 75% Horsepower typically gets around 91% of Maximum Speed.

Hope this makes more sense.
- Ivan.
 
Moderately close

Hi Ivan,
Thanks for your detailed answer and counsel! Yes, I agree.
Of course it is easier to get individual aspects closer to reality or to what you want because the range of speeds, altitudes, RPM, is much greater. Here with the narrow margins everywhere, it seems that the effect of correcting one particular one spreads negatively onto another or other ones.

Cruising speeds were normally only a few kt slower for these bombers, maybe 5% less, to allow them to travel at the same speed in formation so there is no real specification for a cruising speed.

In this case, maximum speeds are bang on, rates of climb are bang on for lower levels and acceptable for middle ones, manoueverability and flying feel is bang on, and the only things out are service ceiling and climbing rate high up.

With a service ceiling of about 12500 ft, and having taken an hour to get from 9843 to 12467, the average climb rate is 16 fpm. Now I get 93 fpm there, but if I adjust the aerodynamics for 16 fpm, then would it not mess up everything else? I doubt the plane will even get off the ground.
I did indeed also try and increase the induced drag instead of reducing it, remembering the confusion of how its effect works, and there was a tremendous loss in lift lower down. Maybe increasing the angle of incidence to 5 or 6 could help, but doesn´t really make much sense. Well, I´ll see where to continue tweaking for the ceiling business!

Cheers,
Aleatorylamp
 
Philosophy

Ivan said:
I don't believe I have ever spent so much time without a break on ANY of the AIR files I have worked on.
I believe you were "Close Enough" quite some time ago, but if you wanted to continue adjusting, who should stop you?
Click to expand...
Indeed why not continue? It can only get better. If I reduced induced drag instead of increasing it before, then I should be able to increase it again now!
At school our philosphy teacher said: "It doesn´t matter what you do, but how you do it",
and then, the Germans say: "Wenn schon, denn schon!" i.e. "If you do it, then really do it!".
And, to take it a bit further, how about a little wisdom from 13th century Turkey:
Villagers: "Nasreddin, why are you pouring yoghurt into the lake? It won´t turn the whole lake into yoghurt!"
Nasreddin: "Yes, I suppose not... but what if it does?..."
So, I´ll keep you posted!
Cheers,
Aleatorylamp
 
Service Ceiling

Which I believe is called Dienst Hoch Gipfel by the Germans.....

If I understand you correctly, you are getting 93 feet / minute climb rate at the service ceiling altitude o 12,500 feet but you wish to bring this down to 16 feet / minute at the same altitude

Eeeek! What I am about to tell you may upset you a bit:

Typically Service Ceiling is defined as the altitude at which the aircraft retains some capability of maneuver. With most aircraft, this is defined as the altitude at which it can maintain a 100 feet / minute Climb Rate.
The Germans use a Metric Equivalent that also converts to something very close to 100 FPM.

Some aircraft may use a different Rate of Climb specification. This is why sometimes we see two very different Service Ceiling specifications, This is more common with fighters which sometimes use 500 FPM as the Climb Rate.
You should find out what the climb rate was for the Giant's Service Ceiling but I would guess it is 100 FPM.
Sounds like you may have reached your target a while back.


*****

I agree with you that what is worth doing is worth doing "right".
I do NOT agree that that pouring yoghurt into a lake is a worthwhile endeavor.
(You would certainly kill all the fish! ;-)

I can state with absolute confidence that
 
Service Ceiling

Which I believe is called Dienst Hoch Gipfel by the Germans.....

If I understand you correctly, you are getting 93 feet / minute climb rate at the service ceiling altitude o 12,500 feet but you wish to bring this down to 16 feet / minute at the same altitude

Eeeek! What I am about to tell you may upset you a bit:

Typically Service Ceiling is defined as the altitude at which the aircraft retains some capability of maneuver. With most aircraft, this is defined as the altitude at which it can maintain a 100 feet / minute Climb Rate.
The Germans use a Metric Equivalent that also converts to something very close to 100 FPM.

Some aircraft may use a different Rate of Climb specification. This is why sometimes we see two very different Service Ceiling specifications, This is more common with fighters which sometimes use 500 FPM as the Climb Rate.
You should find out what the climb rate was for the Giant's Service Ceiling but I would guess it is 100 FPM.
Sounds like you may have reached your target a while back.


*****

I agree with you that what is worth doing is worth doing "right".
I do NOT agree that that pouring yoghurt into a lake is a worthwhile endeavor.
(You would certainly kill all the fish! ;-)

I can state with absolute confidence that
There has never been a model that I have created or an AIR file that I have developed that cannot be improved.

All the projects that I have "Completed" could use a bit more work or refinement SOMEWHERE and usually I have a pretty good idea where it might be lacking. I do claim however that they are generally as good as my knowledge and capabilities will allow at the time.

I commented earlier that I like my projects to fly just a little bit better than the recorded performance. The questions then become "What was the recorded performance?" and "How much do I wish to exceed this performance"?
This is where the target becomes a bit more vague.
If the information calls for a Service Ceiling of 36,000 feet, how accurate is his number?
Was it really 36,089 feet?
Was it really 11,000 meters?
Did someone round off the number from the test or In converting?
Did every aircraft of this type perform identically?
What if I get 36,255 feet in my test? Is this close enough?'

I generally have some target range of values in mind. When I am in the acceptable range, I try to resist the urge to continue to tweak. In the example above, there is no real difference between 36,255 feet and 36,200 feet.
Often two consecutive tests may not be any closer than this because of slightly differing amounts of fuel or a slight oscillation in the climb rate even when running autopilot. This is why service ceiling tests can be so frustrating.
Keep in mind also, that we are using Autopilot to run tests in an era when a kneeboard and stopwatch was much more common. Some of these numbers were also simple projections or calculations with the test never flown.
As I stated earlier, climb and maneuverability (acceleration really) are interrelated. Reducing one reduces the other, so if you already have a nice handling aeroplane, why change things?

You already know that every change brings about some other side effect even if it is very slight so sometimes it doesn't make sense to change something and redo the testing for everything before it.

It may sound like I am arguing for mediocrity but I am not. I am just stating that your goals should be "realistic" so that the results are not lost in the noise. But then again, it has to be good enough to satisfy yourself and we are often our own worst critics.

- Ivan.
 
One thing worth tuning:

If I were you, I would seriously consider tuning the Maximum level speed at critical altitude. You will most likely find that several extra knots will increase your power and rpm numbers and put them in your target range.
Remember that propeller drag by low advance ratios is how we are limiting low end power.

- Ivan.
 
Hi Ivan,
Dont´worry, I´m OK! Even with the Beckwith test-panel... ha ha!

As you say, the first thing I did was try to get maximum speed at critical altitude right - that was the 70 Kt with 267 Hp at 4300 ft. Originally we had 73, but that inexact, as I recently found better information. 73 Knots was for the Giant with Maybach engines, and that had 245 Hp at 8200 ft critical altitude.

I don´t know technical German, but Dienst Gipfel Höhe sure sounds correct! In my ignorance, the 16 fpm was the result of the division of the last climbing leg distance by the time upto Dienst Gipfel Höhe:

The Mercedes-powered Giant had the following climbing specs:
Climb: 1000 m. (3281 ft.) in 11 min.
2000 m. (6562 ft.) in 27 min.
3000 m. (9843 ft.) in 55 min.
Ceiling,3800 m. (12,467 ft.) in 150 min.

With my experiments, one of my motivations is "to see if it works". That´s why I built a space-ship for FS98. It flies so high that it crashes FS98 at about 120,000 ft! There´s NOthing like seeing if something works! Pity the spaceship has too much bleedthrough for CFS1... otherwise I´d upload it!

Anyway, you wouldn´t believe it: I just now actually had the Giant (I know now it´s absurd) where it won´t climb at all above exactly 12470 ft, and just below that, it only does 1 or 2 fpm.... From what you have just said, this is complete idiocy! Anyway, it is not the only thing that´s idiotic, because all the restly rates of climb are on the blink! Mostly less than half, so I promptly threw out the .air file.

I have a student who is a painter - pictures, not houses - and he says that one difficulty is knowing when to finish a painting, and not to spoil it by over-finishing it!

So OK then, where I was before (I have secured the .air file with 3 backups), everything tied in more or less fine. I also had the general feeling it was good, even though the climbing time was rather on the short side for the last leg. What I like during the climb is that you feel the engine accellerating as it reaches critical altitude. It´s really amazing how the .air file manages to emmulate the throttle-gated engines by means of the turbocharger!

I understand your argumentation and your thoughts on this, and quite agree with you, even though I only use the autopilot for the wing-leveller and do climb testing with elevator trim. I do slew up and down sometimes too for short specific tests.

Well, I´m just finishing the panel before uploading the plane (only default gauges, though). There´s a photo I might use to make some changes there. The cockpit looked like an airship cockpit, and some of the instruments were in the engine nacelles with the mechanics, so I may make some combinations.

Right now I have a different, perhaps much more serious problem: My original CFS1 CD is a bit deteriorated, and the working copies for every-day, all-day use, in the computer all the time, only last a couple of months before deteriorating, and now the DVD-ROM is starting to have problems, even though it´s relatively new. I hope the whole thing doesn´t expire, because I´ll have to hunt around for another CFS1 CD - after I get a new DVD-ROM, of course.

Well, let´s see what happens!
Cheers,
Aleatorylamp
 
Giant did have cruise speed

Hi Ivan,
I just found a reference to the cruising speed, so I was wrong. You were right, there was one:

Cruise:
When above anticipated anti aircraft engagement envelope
- REDUCE THROTTLE until altimeter is steady
- Trim
- Typical cruise 100 Kph IAS (54 kt)

That´s like a pleasant country-ride in the car!!

The other 5% slower than maximum info was a second maximum continuous setting that existed only to facilitate formation flight on the way to destination.

Then, I found the info on max. Cruise:
Maximum Cruise: 130 km/h (70 kt) for Mercedes Engines, 135 Kph (73 Kt) for Maybach engines
FULL THROTTLE continuous cruise is authorised subject to;
- ALTITUDE > 1300 meters (4265ft) with Mercedes engines or > 2500 metres (8200 ft) with Maybach

Also:
- AEROBATICS are PROHIBITED (ha ha!)

These antique aircraft certainly had peculiar operating techniques.

Cheers,
Aleatorylamp
 
Service Ceiling versus Absolute Ceiling

Hello Aleatorylamp,

There is nothing idiotic about a zero Rate of Climb at 12,500 feet.
That just means 12,500 feet is your "Absolute" Ceiling instead of Service Ceiling.

The original tuning I did for the 14 foot propeller was so that it would achieve 1450 RPM at 4350 feet with 265 HP
AT 84 MPH. Perhaps it could do this with a touch less power or a touch less speed, but probably not much less.
If you change the maximum speed to 70 Knots (80.5 MPH), you MAY have to do some tuning on the Power Coefficient Table (Record 512) to make things work out. It won't be much of a change I expect, and perhaps the original values might work.

From a conceptual standpoint, it isn't the Supercharger that is letting you achieve a power difference between Sea Level and 4300 feet.
I believe it is mostly the lugging propeller with a little assistance from a "Supercharger" so that the engine can maintain sea level ambient pressure up to 4300 feet. The funny thing is that even if you specify NO BOOST on the supercharger, it will still raise power up to a certain altitude.which is not the case if it has no supercharger!

You are always free to upload what you want. I certainly can't argue with you about the aeroplane because I really know very little about it. I have only browsed a Wikipedia article.

- Ivan.
 
Ceilings

Hi Ivan,

I meant that it was the almost zero ft climb rate I set up for the service ceiling that was itiotic, because I had realized from your post that the concept was different - I didn´t know that it meant that a minimum climbing power was left.

Yes, and not to worry, I understand that a) the "supercharger" in the .air file, sets in at critical altitude (not below) and supplies extra power from there up - and b) the slow lower altitude power is due to the AR´s on the propeller tables.

Oops! I thought that the propeller could be the same virtual 14 ft one for both Mercedes and Maybach engines.
I just increased the Zero Lift Drag to get 70 instead of 73 Kt!

So OK, thanks, I should now adjust the Propeller thrust table a little to make the propellers slightly less effective and then reduce the Zero Lift Drag to get the same 70 Knots that I´m getting now.
The present AR 0.2=0.10000 Thrust could perhaps go down to 0.09500, and that would also help to reduce the climb rate above critical altitude, I suppose.

In fact, I was thinking supplying a Maybach powered model too, by texturing the plane differently and getting some parts free for a central tail fin - same propeller, 245 Hp, 1400 RPM at 8200 rated altitude, 73 Kt max. speed. - but apparently from what you say it´s not so easy.

I was also trying to use the same engine with a 10 ft Propeller for a twin-engined bomber, but it´s obviously not so easy either. For the moment I´ll stick to getting the Mercedes one better.

Another strange thing is that apart from Turbo/Supercharger parameter=1,
Supercharger low-altitude boost also has to =1.
With a zero there, the engine is too weak below critical altitude!

Well anyway, I´ll see how it goes.
Thanks, and Cheers,
Aleatorylamp
 
Mostly the Same

Hello Aleatorylamp,

I am sure you probably understand but your statement didn't seem quite right.
A supercharger allows an engine to maintain maximum boost pressure up to its critical altitude.
In the Giant's case, it allowed SEA LEVEL manifold pressure 29.92 (?) inches Mercury to be maintained up to 4300 feet.
Above critical altitude, the supercharger can not compress air enough to maintain maximum boost and power falls off.

Because 4300 feet was such a low altitude for maximum power, we used propeller drag and RPM limitations to reduce power on the Giant.
If you have a higher altitude for maximum power, perhaps the supercharger alone can do it.
The problem though is that you may end up with an even stranger power to altitude curve than the Giant has.

This one is complicated enough that I can't visualize what will happen without actually experimenting, but you already know enough to do the experimenting at this point.

- Ivan.
 
Supercharging and "Overcompression"

Hi, Ivan,
No no, excellent! I had indeed wrongly undestood exactly the opposite: that the supercharger was doing the work higher up. OK, so critical and rated altitude, although they in this case happen at the same altitude, mean different things. I now understand a supercharger boosts upto critical altitude, and then power falls off as for a normal engine, contrary to "overcompressed" engines, which were limited upto rated altitude, only being allowed to develop full power there, power then falling off normally too.
So , if I have understood correctly, what we have done in the .air file is to limit the supercharged engine power with the large, slow propeller upto rated/critical altitude. The slow increase in RPM then allowed adjustments to get the power correct at critical/rated altitude. The higher RPM range then also allowed power adjustments after that, of course, only until RPM went down again and overlapped with the low-level performance limitation.

At the moment I´m correcting the AR 0.2 setting in the Propeller Thrust Table 512, which was at 0.0100000, and I said I´d try and lower it to 0.009500. After compensating Zero lift Drag to get 70 Kt at max. power at rated/critical altitude, the results for the desired power reduction higher up seem to be more correct by increasing it to 0.011000, rather than by lowering it to 0.00950. I want to limit the propeller a bit more, but the effect is obtained by increasing, not by decreasing the AR value there, right?

The possible different Maybach engine performance experiments will be conditioned to whether I can produce a model with the central tail fin, for which I have insufficient resources. Possible simplifications are 2D gunner silhouettes, 2D engine radiators, eliminating the central engine-nacelle component and doing the mechanics´cockpits it by changing the shape of the structures for the forward and rear engine-nacelle halves, but it all seems like a botch, and goes in detriment of the model itself. It is already unfortunate enough having had to do away with the transparent cockpit, and I don´t want to spoil it any further, so I´m not sure if I´ll do it yet.

OK, thanks again Ivan, and I hope everyone has a nice weekend!
Chairs,
Aleatorylamp
 
Advance Ratios

Hello Aleatorylamp,

I believe your latest comments about superchargers is pretty much correct.
Ratings however are an interesting thing and I am not sure they usually provide useful information for a CFS Air File.
The reason is this:
We may have a particular radial engine soon to be adopted by the US Army Air Corps.
It is rated for 1000 HP at 2550 RPM at 10,000 feet
So what does this number really mean? Sometimes not all that much as far as we are concerned.
The maximum continuous output of this engine is 875 HP at 9,000 feet at 2400 RPM.
The Take-Off power is 980 HP at 2550 RPM that may be used for 1 minute.
The War Emergency Power for this engine may be 1100 HP at 2600 RPM at 10,500 feet and that may be used for 5 minutes.
The "Critical Altitude" for this engine is 10,500 feet.
The maximum speed for the brand new pursuit it is installed in is 320 MPH at 11,000 feet, so the "Critical Altitude" for the aircraft is 11,000 feet.....
I believe this is a fairly plausible combination and in this case, the "Rating" is a reasonable comparison between this and other engines under "Military Power" (non WEP) but may not mean all that
much to us in trying to simulate it in the game.


*****

If we are discuss Advance Ratios much more, we might as well use proper terminology:
Typically the symbol used to represent Advance Ratio in formulas and equations for Aeronautical purposes is "J".

It represents the relationship between actual forward motion of the propeller in relation to its rotational speed multiplied by its diameter.

It is not affected by ANYTHING other than RPM, Propeller Diameter, and Forward motion.
So how does this value change in the simulator (and in real life)?
If you go faster, J increases.
If you turn the propeller SLOWER, J increases.

Now Please refer to post #980 again:
For the 14 foot (How did the Germans get a metric sized 14 foot propeller anyway?)
J=0.0 -- 0 MPH
J=0.2 -- 46 MPH
J=0.4 -- 92 MPH

SO.... If you are messing with the power coefficient at J=0.2, you are probably affecting your climb RPM by a bit but not affecting your RPM at maximum speed by much.
70 Knots is about 81 MPH which is a bit closer to J=0.4.
Besides, Messing with Record 512 just affects the speed versus RPM balance. It doesn't directly affect your engine power or thrust.

- Ivan.
 
J

Hi Ivan,
I had just prepared a post to say that different test results for changing values for J=0.2 both slightly up and slightly down hadn´t been successful, and that the results previous to these last trials had been much better, and wanted to leave it at that. In fact, they pretty much messed up the power/speed/climbing rate balance I had acheived earlier, and interfered with the power build-up before rated altitude, either exaggerating or almost eliminating it.
I had also wondered in which particular area of my last performance result table you still had misgivings.

Thank you for the explanations! I will try and digest the technical details.
Here is the information as to the large german Propellers, just in case your question was not rhetoric!
Propeller centres, 8.0 m. (26 ft. 3 in.)
Tractor propellers diameter, 4.26 m. (14 ft.)
Pusher propeller diameter, 4.3 m. (14 ft. 1 in.)

So, OK, then, I´ll mess around with J=0.4 in the Prop Thrust Table! Thanks for pointing it out more exactly! Just to confirm, what we are now trying to achieve is to correct the J=0.4 value for it to more exactly fit the speed reduction from 73 Kt to 70Kt. I suppose that one of the effects will be that the climb rate higher up will go down, which is the area where performance is still a bit out.

OK, let´s see what I can come up with!
Cheers,
Aleatorylamp
 
Propeller Power Coefficient

Hello Aleatorylamp,

Actually, I would expect the climb rate to go UP instead of down.
Record 512 is actually a "Propeller Power Coefficient" Table.
It has absolutely nothing to do with the amount of Thrust being generated.

Earlier, the Propeller achieved full 1450 RPM just a bit before 73 knots or 84 MPH at 4350 feet.
That means that it may not achieve 1450 RPM at the new maximum speed of 81 MPH.
In order to correct this, you will need to drop the Power Coefficient slightly but the side effect is that the propeller will spint up a bit faster at lower airspeeds as well.
Therefore at climb airspeeds, the power coefficient will now be lower and provide less resistance and the resulting RPM will be higher.

The reason I had even a few more misgivings than I stated in the last few messages is because although I can see that one CAN tune multiple variables at once and achieve results, I have always thought it was too complicated (at least for me) to do this reliably.

- Ivan.
 
Propeller Power Coefficient

Hi Ivan,

OK, I decreased the J=0.4 value first from .008600 to .008500, and then, as nothing happened, to .007000,
and as you said, climb rate and RPM go up for climbs below and after rated altitude.

However, for some obscure reason, RPM for level flight at rated altitude stays where it was: 1436 RPM!
Also, as you said, Hp is not really influenced and depends on the setting in the Torque graph, so we needn´t worry about that.

The problem now is that the increased climb rate and RPM causes the power surge, that normally sets in a couple of hundred feet below rated altitude, to start far sooner and become too strong, so climb rate shoots up far too much. Lowering the nose for level flight, it settles down then.

I have the feeling that when you mentioned that on second thoughts, perhaps the 73 to 70 Kt drop would not require any adjustment, the present situation would tie in with that.

Well, I hope this makes some sense!
Cheers,
Aleatorylamp
 
RPM Reduction

Hello Aleatorylamp,

I wish I had some words of advice and wisdom, but the problem right now is that I no longer have a feeling for where your flight model is as compared to where it started.

It is very much like playing a long game of blindfold chess. Each move isn't hard. Early on, the moves are obvious because the position is easy to remember, but as the game gets longer, the current position gets much harder to remember and the problem becomes one of figuring out the position first before deciding what to do.

I don't suppose there is really very much difference between 73 Knots and 70 Knots but part of the problem is that you are expecting some pretty different things to happen between 56 Knots and 70 Knots and there isn't much room to change things. By the way, after all the confusion between Knots and MPH, WHY are we still using Knots?

- Ivan.
 
Chess

Hi Ivan,

I like your analogy to a chess game!... The thing is, I didn´t exactly know what to do, and I didn´t want to bother you by sending you the .air file again - I wanted to spare you having to inspect and test it. Thus, I opted for a performance report summary and subsequent short reports. Anyway, just in case you want to have a look, I will e-mail you the .air file.

The pretty different things that I expect to happen, are unfortunately really based on altitude, below and above the critical/rated 4300 ft, rather than the 56 - 70 Kt cruise speed -max speed range, although of course these speeds are correct for this plane.

The biggest change in the flight model, I suppose happened when I increased friction fron 35 to 100, and adjusted torque accordingly. It was then that I also moved the "hole" from 1300 to 1350 RPM in order to have a more independant control over higher revs., to be able to separate performance above and below critical altitude a little better.

So, it looks like you want me to use MPH... ha ha! That will strain my brain some more. The thing is, that the default Sopwith Camel speedometer is the only available old fashioned default ASI gauge I can use, and it is in Knots, as well as the screen top-line red-letter read-out... and my brain!
To be more realistic, I could of course use a custom KPH variant of this gauge, which exists, but KPH would mean even less to most simmers than Knots. For that matter, I could also use the MPH variant, which exists too, but that would also be unrealistic. So, I thought I´d stick to Knots....

OK then. The .air file I´m going to e-mail just in case, is the one corresponding to the last performance report after the friction increase to 100.
Cheers, and thanks again for your guidance.
Aleatorylamp.
 
Test Flying

Hello Aleatorylamp,

One of my test pilots did a pre-flight and then took the Giant aeroplane up for a few short flights.
He came back muttering something like "Handles like a HUGE truck...." but then again, he generally doesn't fly anything bigger than a heavy twin.

I think I need to send that fellow back to do some flying on the Eindecker so that he can understand how the older aeroplanes performed.
I forwarded you his report and recommendations. Even he agrees that he needs a bit more time to evaluate the Giant.

Use MPH or Knots or anything else you like. I will just convert to either MPH or Feet per Second as appropriate.
I grew up with MPH and FPS, so I use those because I have a pretty good feel for what they mean.

I am not sure if I agree that the biggest change was the Friction / Torque adjustment. I believe the biggest change was getting the 14 foot propeller to actually work....

My son wants the computer now.
- Ivan.
 
Big Duck

Hi Ivan,

It is actually a big duck, but reputedly quite a manoueverable one!
MOI´s and cross-inertia were inherited from the original FS98 aircraft .air file, so I presume CFS1 has a different sensitivity to those entries and it seems that MOI´s are generally higher in FS98.
Or perhaps the computer I´m working on is too fast and distorts the flying sensation? The frame-rates per second i get are at about 65.

Thank your test pilot very much indeed for testing the Giant and for providing such extensive feedback. I´ll be looking at each point on the list and comment on them when done.

The engine and prop sections of the .air file are an excellent piece of work! With my comment on the biggest change being the friction/torque adjustment, I meant the point where the "blind chess game" started, after your mechanics and specialists had already sent the huge wooden propeller and the brand new engine and my recently graduated mechanics were adapting 4 of them to the Giant.

OK, then!
Cheers,
Aleatorylamp
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top