hubbabubba
Charter Member
Given your real name, I thought so...
Incidentally, it was also Eric Melrose Brown first job; he was teaching English in a German school when hostilities started.
Heinkel He-162 "Spatz", 1944
- Thread starter aleatorylamp
- Start date
Given your real name, I thought so...
Incidentally, it was also Eric Melrose Brown first job; he was teaching English in a German school when hostilities started.
aleatorylamp
Charter Member
Hello Hubbabubba, Hello Ivan,
It seems that more than one language teacher ends up flying, if not buiding airplanes, even if only virtually. It this is good or not, is quite another matter!
After bending the atmosphere to try and fit the flying envelope, things are still confusing, and maybe more than that is amiss.
Perhaps the turbojet itself needs revising,
and I´m going to check the workings of the engine RPM instrument I have, which comes from the output turbine N2 gauge on the Bell Helicopter rotor.
BMW OO3 Turbine specs state Max-Continuous power as being 1760 flb at 9500 RPM, which I had established at 95%.
Additionally, 30-second Extra Boost is possible upto 11000 RPM, but my engine only goes up to 10500 RPM, this may need revising.
This could possibly be the reason that Sparrow´s max-continuous and Boost-burst performance won´t tally.
Let´s see....
More, later.
Update:
Searching for additional data, I have found several sources relative to this turbojet and also to the aircraft, that however do not make any reference whatsoever to any kind of boost burst power.
There does seem to have been a single prototype involving a liquid-fuel rocket motor added to the rear of turbojet, which could be used to supply additional bursts of about power of short duration.
What must have happened, is that information on this version (003R) had somehow found its way into the general description of the aircraft and its engine, and has possibly erronously been combined there.
If this is confirmed, it will solve the puzzle of the problematic balancing of power/performance numbers of the model.
The additional rocket supplied far more power than a momentary 10 or 15% RPM increase could ever have managed.
Update 2 - So the riddle is probably solved:
This would explain the speeds mentioned by Ivan and in the pilot´s manual whose link Hubbabubba had kindly supplied.
In both there is a complete absence of any speeds above 700 or 750 kph (434 and 466 mph).
Hence, the 553 mph (890 kph) at low altitude, and 562 mph (904 kph) at 6000 metres, achieved under boost-burst can only mean what was achieved with the added rocket - which incidentally developed 2700 flb - in total power was more than duplicated!
So there was no boost burst in the production-version of the Sparrow! The pilot manual only refers to a higher warming-up RPM on startup, that can reach 9800 for 2 minutes.
So effectively, I will try to set up the Engine parameters in the .air file to deliver 1760 flb at 9500 PM at 100% throttle once the engine is warmed up.
Cheers,
Aleatorylamp
P.S. I´m still wondering how correct all these deductions could be...
It seems that more than one language teacher ends up flying, if not buiding airplanes, even if only virtually. It this is good or not, is quite another matter!
After bending the atmosphere to try and fit the flying envelope, things are still confusing, and maybe more than that is amiss.
Perhaps the turbojet itself needs revising,
BMW OO3 Turbine specs state Max-Continuous power as being 1760 flb at 9500 RPM, which I had established at 95%.
Additionally, 30-second Extra Boost is possible upto 11000 RPM, but my engine only goes up to 10500 RPM, this may need revising.
Let´s see....
More, later.
Update:
Searching for additional data, I have found several sources relative to this turbojet and also to the aircraft, that however do not make any reference whatsoever to any kind of boost burst power.
There does seem to have been a single prototype involving a liquid-fuel rocket motor added to the rear of turbojet, which could be used to supply additional bursts of about power of short duration.
What must have happened, is that information on this version (003R) had somehow found its way into the general description of the aircraft and its engine, and has possibly erronously been combined there.
If this is confirmed, it will solve the puzzle of the problematic balancing of power/performance numbers of the model.
The additional rocket supplied far more power than a momentary 10 or 15% RPM increase could ever have managed.
Update 2 - So the riddle is probably solved:
This would explain the speeds mentioned by Ivan and in the pilot´s manual whose link Hubbabubba had kindly supplied.
In both there is a complete absence of any speeds above 700 or 750 kph (434 and 466 mph).
Hence, the 553 mph (890 kph) at low altitude, and 562 mph (904 kph) at 6000 metres, achieved under boost-burst can only mean what was achieved with the added rocket - which incidentally developed 2700 flb - in total power was more than duplicated!
So there was no boost burst in the production-version of the Sparrow! The pilot manual only refers to a higher warming-up RPM on startup, that can reach 9800 for 2 minutes.
So effectively, I will try to set up the Engine parameters in the .air file to deliver 1760 flb at 9500 PM at 100% throttle once the engine is warmed up.
Cheers,
Aleatorylamp
P.S. I´m still wondering how correct all these deductions could be...
Last edited:
hubbabubba
Charter Member
Alearorylamp said:Hello Hubbabubba, Hello Ivan,
It seems that more than one language teacher ends up flying, if not buiding airplanes, even if only virtually. It this is good or not, is quite another matter!
After bending the atmosphere to try and fit the flying envelope, things are still confusing, and maybe more than that is amiss.
Perhaps the turbojet itself needs revising,and I´m going to check the workings of the engine RPM instrument I have, which comes from the output turbine N2 gauge on the Bell Helicopter rotor.
BMW OO3 Turbine specs state Max-Continuous power as being 1760 flb at 9500 RPM, which I had established at 95%.
Additionally, 30-second Extra Boost is possible upto 11000 RPM, but my engine only goes up to 10500 RPM, this may need revising.This could possibly be the reason that Sparrow´s max-continuous and Boost-burst performance won´t tally.
Let´s see....
More, later.
Update:
Searching for additional data, I have found several sources relative to this turbojet and also to the aircraft, that however do not make any reference whatsoever to any kind of boost burst power.
There does seem to have been a single prototype involving a liquid-fuel rocket motor added to the rear of turbojet, which could be used to supply additional bursts of about power of short duration.
What must have happened, is that information on this version (003R) had somehow found its way into the general description of the aircraft and its engine, and has possibly erronously been combined there.
If this is confirmed, it will solve the puzzle of the problematic balancing of power/performance numbers of the model.
The additional rocket supplied far more power than a momentary 10 or 15% RPM increase could ever have managed.
Update 2 - So the riddle is probably solved:
This would explain the speeds mentioned by Ivan and in the pilot´s manual whose link Hubbabubba had kindly supplied.
In both there is a complete absence of any speeds above 700 or 750 kph (434 and 466 mph).
Hence, the 553 mph (890 kph) at low altitude, and 562 mph (904 kph) at 6000 metres, achieved under boost-burst can only mean what was achieved with the added rocket - which incidentally developed 2700 flb - in total power was more than duplicated!
So there was no boost burst in the production-version of the Sparrow! The pilot manual only refers to a higher warming-up RPM on startup, that can reach 9800 for 2 minutes.
So effectively, I will try to set up the Engine parameters in the .air file to deliver 1760 flb at 9500 PM at 100% throttle once the engine is warmed up.
Cheers,
Aleatorylamp
P.S. I´m still wondering how correct all these deductions could be...
I'm working on a panel for your bird, Aleatorylamp, and in this process, I've found many interesting things. I will send you a preliminary version when I'm well advanced but it will be entirely up to you to decide if you want to include it in your V2 release. I too wondered about that "boosting" thing, as it was not in line with the capriciousness of jet engines of that era. Gunning an engine was usually a very good way to blow an impeller, start a fire or simply get a flame-out.
Anyway, I will send you a "teaser" of the panel soon, is it OK if I send a copy to Ivan at the same time?
Regards,
Hubbabubba
aleatorylamp
Charter Member
Hello Hubbabubba,
A new panel! Very good, that will be a great contribution, and of course, do send Ivan a copy so that we can bounce off a few ideas off him!
OK about the non-Boost-Burst then. There seems to be a confusion in the "habitual" Wikis from which some other sources obtain their info, and could account for the fact that other seemingly more specialized pages differ considerably.
I was comparing the Lear-jet engine indicating and crew alerting system (at last I found out what EICAS means) to the N2-%turbine output -come-RPM-instrument I had made, and it works fine for medium and high speeds.
With an equivalent of a maximum 95% N1 position, there is a 99-100% N2 turbine output. This definitely seems consistent.
Should any extra "over-RPM" be needed, this is also conisitent with the numbers that can be obtained above 100%, by implementing it with no problem in the .air file.
However, for CFS1 simming, I think it would make actual flying far too complicated.
BUT: What is quite off, is that the 3500 RPM idle gives 63% N2 power, which is about twice what it should be. So that has to be addressed as yet. I knew it was a bit high, but didn´t expect it to be at 63%! I will have to see how I can get to the 3500 RPM mark with the correct flb thrust.
Interestingly enough, at startup, there is automatically a slight excess power going into the "red zone" for a short time, but it is a bit higher than the 300 RPM that "your" manual describes.
OK, then, I´ll be looking forward to your panel and suggestions.
Meanwhile I´m still trying to get the plane to do 491 mph and 522 mph at 19680 ft. Even "bending the atmosphere" only helps a bit, and still has it fallling short by by 16 mph. The 0.2 Mach columns in that table don´t leave room for maneuver to "separate" the two speeds very much - they are too close. Oswald factor maipulation between 3000 and 7500 doesn´t help much either.
Anyway, we´ll get there in the end!
Cheers,
Aleatorylamp
A new panel! Very good, that will be a great contribution, and of course, do send Ivan a copy so that we can bounce off a few ideas off him!
OK about the non-Boost-Burst then. There seems to be a confusion in the "habitual" Wikis from which some other sources obtain their info, and could account for the fact that other seemingly more specialized pages differ considerably.
I was comparing the Lear-jet engine indicating and crew alerting system (at last I found out what EICAS means) to the N2-%turbine output -come-RPM-instrument I had made, and it works fine for medium and high speeds.
With an equivalent of a maximum 95% N1 position, there is a 99-100% N2 turbine output. This definitely seems consistent.
Should any extra "over-RPM" be needed, this is also conisitent with the numbers that can be obtained above 100%, by implementing it with no problem in the .air file.
However, for CFS1 simming, I think it would make actual flying far too complicated.
BUT: What is quite off, is that the 3500 RPM idle gives 63% N2 power, which is about twice what it should be. So that has to be addressed as yet. I knew it was a bit high, but didn´t expect it to be at 63%! I will have to see how I can get to the 3500 RPM mark with the correct flb thrust.
Interestingly enough, at startup, there is automatically a slight excess power going into the "red zone" for a short time, but it is a bit higher than the 300 RPM that "your" manual describes.
OK, then, I´ll be looking forward to your panel and suggestions.
Meanwhile I´m still trying to get the plane to do 491 mph and 522 mph at 19680 ft. Even "bending the atmosphere" only helps a bit, and still has it fallling short by by 16 mph. The 0.2 Mach columns in that table don´t leave room for maneuver to "separate" the two speeds very much - they are too close. Oswald factor maipulation between 3000 and 7500 doesn´t help much either.
Anyway, we´ll get there in the end!
Cheers,
Aleatorylamp
Last edited:
aleatorylamp
Charter Member
Mach/Drag table #430
Hello again,
I thought I´d investigate table #430 a little, and was surprised to find that there are just about as many different ways of setting it up as there are different types of airplanes, or even airplanes of the same type.
They all follow an overall general pattern, but have different build-ups - shallower, steeper or longer, prior to a "Mach wall", which itself may be of different shapes, heights and widths depending on the model, including different kinds of downward slopes on the other side.
I wonder which could be the best way to shape it for the Sparrow.
Maybe now that we have been able to narrow down the excessively wide and confusing performance range, this will be an easier task.
After filtering through some all-engulfing specification references we may be able to get somewhere.
I mean, look at this:
-Maximum thrust: 7.83 kN (1,760 lbf) at 9,500 rpm at sea level for take-off
-Normal, static: 6.89 kN (1,550 lbf) / 9,000 rpm / sea level
-Military flight: 6.23 kN (1,400 lbf) / 9.500 rpm / 2,500 m (8,202 ft) / 900 km/h (559 mph; 486 kn)
-Normal, flight: 2.85 kN (640 lbf) / 11,500 rpm / 11,000 m (36,089 ft) / 900 km/h (559 mph; 486 kn)
...and then:
-Maximum speed:
790 km/h (491 mph) at normal thrust at sea level and 840 km/h (522 mph) at 6000 m (19,680 ft);
-Using short burst extra thrust 890 km/h (553 mph) at sea level and 905 km/h (562 mph) at 6000 m (19,680 ft).
...Boost-Burst? How? What kind?
Why is it not mentioned in the Pilot´s Manual and several other sites?
What´s all this supposed to mean? This will throw anyone off course.
Well, perhaps it will be easier now that we have separated boost-burst from the production version.
Let´s see what we can do now.
Cheers,
Aleatorylamp
Hello again,
I thought I´d investigate table #430 a little, and was surprised to find that there are just about as many different ways of setting it up as there are different types of airplanes, or even airplanes of the same type.
They all follow an overall general pattern, but have different build-ups - shallower, steeper or longer, prior to a "Mach wall", which itself may be of different shapes, heights and widths depending on the model, including different kinds of downward slopes on the other side.
I wonder which could be the best way to shape it for the Sparrow.
Maybe now that we have been able to narrow down the excessively wide and confusing performance range, this will be an easier task.
After filtering through some all-engulfing specification references we may be able to get somewhere.
I mean, look at this:
-Maximum thrust: 7.83 kN (1,760 lbf) at 9,500 rpm at sea level for take-off
-Normal, static: 6.89 kN (1,550 lbf) / 9,000 rpm / sea level
-Military flight: 6.23 kN (1,400 lbf) / 9.500 rpm / 2,500 m (8,202 ft) / 900 km/h (559 mph; 486 kn)
-Normal, flight: 2.85 kN (640 lbf) / 11,500 rpm / 11,000 m (36,089 ft) / 900 km/h (559 mph; 486 kn)
...and then:
-Maximum speed:
790 km/h (491 mph) at normal thrust at sea level and 840 km/h (522 mph) at 6000 m (19,680 ft);
-Using short burst extra thrust 890 km/h (553 mph) at sea level and 905 km/h (562 mph) at 6000 m (19,680 ft).
...Boost-Burst? How? What kind?
Why is it not mentioned in the Pilot´s Manual and several other sites?
What´s all this supposed to mean? This will throw anyone off course.
Well, perhaps it will be easier now that we have separated boost-burst from the production version.
Let´s see what we can do now.
Cheers,
Aleatorylamp
Hello Aleatorylamp, Hubbabubba,
I am getting a bit confused with all the different approaches and conflicting data being thrown around.
In Eric Brown's description of the aeroplane in Wings of the Luftwaffe, there is a mention of the 30 second "boost" power and speed which is consistent with the 553 MPH @ SL and 562 MPH @ 6000 Meters. The other speeds are also mentioned but I don't know how much of it was just copied from a manual on the aeroplane. I doubt any of it was via actual test flight because of the unknown service condition of the captured aeroplanes. (All service histories were destroyed before capture.)
As mentioned earlier, I suspect the actual engine thrust should be much higher at 6000 Meters altitude (19685 feet) but don't know how to tune the engine to make that happen. I suspect it may not be possible with a FS98 jet engine as it is not with the FS98 reciprocating engine.
Perhaps it is time to see if there is a CFS Jet Engine which would be a bit more difficult since there isn't a stock CFS Jet to work from.
Aleatorylamp,
A couple of questions:
1. You mentioned earlier that you were changing the skin friction coefficient. How are you doing this? (where in the AIR file?)
2. You also mentioned "Bending the Atmosphere". What do you mean by that?
If you all need a custom gauge for this panel, let me know what it needs to do. I might be able to program one for you.
At this point, I CAN program SOME gauges though there are many features I still do not know how to implement.
I actually have been doing a bit more reading on the HL-10 Lifting Body and it would definitely make for an interesting model.
Before that though, I need to clear the Rocket Plane area of the workshop. The Ohka should get finished first.
Gotta Run.
- Ivan.
I am getting a bit confused with all the different approaches and conflicting data being thrown around.
In Eric Brown's description of the aeroplane in Wings of the Luftwaffe, there is a mention of the 30 second "boost" power and speed which is consistent with the 553 MPH @ SL and 562 MPH @ 6000 Meters. The other speeds are also mentioned but I don't know how much of it was just copied from a manual on the aeroplane. I doubt any of it was via actual test flight because of the unknown service condition of the captured aeroplanes. (All service histories were destroyed before capture.)
As mentioned earlier, I suspect the actual engine thrust should be much higher at 6000 Meters altitude (19685 feet) but don't know how to tune the engine to make that happen. I suspect it may not be possible with a FS98 jet engine as it is not with the FS98 reciprocating engine.
Perhaps it is time to see if there is a CFS Jet Engine which would be a bit more difficult since there isn't a stock CFS Jet to work from.
Aleatorylamp,
A couple of questions:
1. You mentioned earlier that you were changing the skin friction coefficient. How are you doing this? (where in the AIR file?)
2. You also mentioned "Bending the Atmosphere". What do you mean by that?
If you all need a custom gauge for this panel, let me know what it needs to do. I might be able to program one for you.
At this point, I CAN program SOME gauges though there are many features I still do not know how to implement.
I actually have been doing a bit more reading on the HL-10 Lifting Body and it would definitely make for an interesting model.
Before that though, I need to clear the Rocket Plane area of the workshop. The Ohka should get finished first.
Gotta Run.
- Ivan.
aleatorylamp
Charter Member
Hello Papingo,
Thanks for your suggestion - I´ll look at the Me262 .air file that comes with AF99 - I might discover something.
You´re right, there is no plane but perhaps Abacus´ intention of including the .air file was to provide a model to follow, as it were.
Hello Ivan,
Thanks for your post! By "atmosphere bending" I mean bending the graph in the Mach/Drag Table #430.
My confusion as to the correct speeds with respect to there being Boost Burst or not is based on the difficulty in getting both normal and Boost-Burst speeds to tally with the specified speeds at the two altitudes, to the extend that I was seriously doubting the reliability of the information available. Even using table #430 hasn´t helped. Speeds seem to be grouped in one or perhaps two columns, and I´m trying to sort that out, the only tool being the slope of the line.
Incidentally, the #430 table I´m using is the one that is common for a number of FS98 jet fighters and 2 rocket planes, and a glider, of all things!
I´m afraid I don´t have access to the description by Eric Brown that you mention, only to a shortened version with humorous comments in a text file I came across - this one mentions the max. level speed of 562 MPH at 18,400 ft but not a Boost-Burst.
Some sources including Wiki mention the 30-second boost burst, AND the corresponding two higher speeds mentioned for S.L. and 6000 meters, and others simply don´t. There it´s just the non boost-burst speeds, so this led me to speculate that perhaps the conflicting information was because of the fact that there was BMW 003R engine that had a 2700 flb type 718 rocket motor attatched to it, which apparently was good for fifty 3-minute boosts, and that this had mistakenly been combined into the normal model.
Well, so, from your post I deduce that my speculations were wrong, and that it DOES seems that the the BMW 003 Turbojet DID have Boost burst, and that the correct figures ARE 491 mph and 522 mph at S.L. and 6000 meters without boost burst, and 553 mph and 562 mph with.
OK, then. Like Shakespeare said, there´s "much ado about nothing"... Nevertheless, I don´t know how to get this puzzle right. Possibly a general overall approximation will be the best.
To say the least, at the moment it´s not really going very well, but I´m sure we will get there in the end.
Cheers,
Aleatorylamp
Thanks for your suggestion - I´ll look at the Me262 .air file that comes with AF99 - I might discover something.
You´re right, there is no plane but perhaps Abacus´ intention of including the .air file was to provide a model to follow, as it were.
Hello Ivan,
Thanks for your post! By "atmosphere bending" I mean bending the graph in the Mach/Drag Table #430.
My confusion as to the correct speeds with respect to there being Boost Burst or not is based on the difficulty in getting both normal and Boost-Burst speeds to tally with the specified speeds at the two altitudes, to the extend that I was seriously doubting the reliability of the information available. Even using table #430 hasn´t helped. Speeds seem to be grouped in one or perhaps two columns, and I´m trying to sort that out, the only tool being the slope of the line.
Incidentally, the #430 table I´m using is the one that is common for a number of FS98 jet fighters and 2 rocket planes, and a glider, of all things!
I´m afraid I don´t have access to the description by Eric Brown that you mention, only to a shortened version with humorous comments in a text file I came across - this one mentions the max. level speed of 562 MPH at 18,400 ft but not a Boost-Burst.
Some sources including Wiki mention the 30-second boost burst, AND the corresponding two higher speeds mentioned for S.L. and 6000 meters, and others simply don´t. There it´s just the non boost-burst speeds, so this led me to speculate that perhaps the conflicting information was because of the fact that there was BMW 003R engine that had a 2700 flb type 718 rocket motor attatched to it, which apparently was good for fifty 3-minute boosts, and that this had mistakenly been combined into the normal model.
Well, so, from your post I deduce that my speculations were wrong, and that it DOES seems that the the BMW 003 Turbojet DID have Boost burst, and that the correct figures ARE 491 mph and 522 mph at S.L. and 6000 meters without boost burst, and 553 mph and 562 mph with.
OK, then. Like Shakespeare said, there´s "much ado about nothing"... Nevertheless, I don´t know how to get this puzzle right. Possibly a general overall approximation will be the best.
To say the least, at the moment it´s not really going very well, but I´m sure we will get there in the end.
Cheers,
Aleatorylamp
hubbabubba
Charter Member
papingo said:
I really need to check that...
aleatorylamp
Charter Member
Hello Papingo,
It´s not on the AF99 disk, but I know I´ve seen the model-less Me262 .air file somewhere.
I must see if I can track it down. Maybe it was some old FS98 add-ons disk.
Update:
There is a 1998 Me262 model by one Berndt Drehfahl (possibly publikshed on Flightsim.com) on this add-ons disk. I´m just checking it out. ...But I haven´t a clue where I saw the Me262 file without the model.
Hello Ivan,
I haven´t touched Skin Friction Coefficient. It´s on the usual -2.0 or -364, depending on the version of the AirEd.ini file.
Strangely enough, jets seem to have extremely low values for Zero Lift Drag (around 20 or 30) and also Induced Drag (Oswald, around 2000). Anyway, I was trying higher values of 7000 or so, to increase the difference between low and high altitude speeds.
Another thing I noticed on jet fighter .air files is the usually negative values for angle of incidence and angle of twist. I would have expected this to be more like zero, but the .air file seems to need it because of the strange way it calculates drag from these angles.
Cheers,
Aleatorylamp
It´s not on the AF99 disk, but I know I´ve seen the model-less Me262 .air file somewhere.
I must see if I can track it down. Maybe it was some old FS98 add-ons disk.
Update:
There is a 1998 Me262 model by one Berndt Drehfahl (possibly publikshed on Flightsim.com) on this add-ons disk. I´m just checking it out. ...But I haven´t a clue where I saw the Me262 file without the model.
Hello Ivan,
I haven´t touched Skin Friction Coefficient. It´s on the usual -2.0 or -364, depending on the version of the AirEd.ini file.
Strangely enough, jets seem to have extremely low values for Zero Lift Drag (around 20 or 30) and also Induced Drag (Oswald, around 2000). Anyway, I was trying higher values of 7000 or so, to increase the difference between low and high altitude speeds.
Another thing I noticed on jet fighter .air files is the usually negative values for angle of incidence and angle of twist. I would have expected this to be more like zero, but the .air file seems to need it because of the strange way it calculates drag from these angles.
Cheers,
Aleatorylamp
Last edited:
Hello Aleatorylamp,
The FS98 Me 262 by Berndt Drehfahl is still available on Simviation. I just downloaded it a couple days ago.
I will look for Skin Friction Coefficient in the AirEd.ini file.
I believe that a major part of the reason you see such strange values in the AIR file for Angle of Incidence, Twist, Wing Efficiency, etc. is because those values all interact with the CL Graph values, Angle for Minimum Drag, etc. and the values are not consistent.
Perhaps it is because some of the factors must be skewed a lot in order to make a FS98 flight model have reasonable altitude performance.
I have a few ideas what to try, but can't really state them here because the later steps depend on the results of the early steps and without knowing what comes back, I cannot predict what needs to be done next.
Regarding Record 430, the Mach Drag / Compressibility Table, I have actually been using it for years on my projects.
Because there is no way that I know of to cause a structural failure under overspeed conditions and because there usually is a terminal velocity well below the speed of sound on propeller driven aeroplanes, I use Table 430 to limit maximum dive speeds.
The Eindecker was probably the first project in which I used this technique and the A6M Type Zero is another notable example.
Hello Papingo,
Building a Sabre or MiG 15 or MiG 17 would be relatively easy as far as modelling is concerned as long as we can pin down the Jet Engine issues of power versus altitude. That MAY eventually make it onto my to-do list, but there are many other things that are higher priority that need attention first. There are still a lot of things I do not know how to do with AIR files for a Propeller plane and since that is my primary area of interest, those things take precedence.
I still have a half dozen models that have been stuck in my workshop literally for years and they have priority for now.
If anyone can point me in the correct direction for building a CFS Tachometer and a multi pointer gauge, that would get a couple of my projects finished.....
- Ivan.
The FS98 Me 262 by Berndt Drehfahl is still available on Simviation. I just downloaded it a couple days ago.
I will look for Skin Friction Coefficient in the AirEd.ini file.
I believe that a major part of the reason you see such strange values in the AIR file for Angle of Incidence, Twist, Wing Efficiency, etc. is because those values all interact with the CL Graph values, Angle for Minimum Drag, etc. and the values are not consistent.
Perhaps it is because some of the factors must be skewed a lot in order to make a FS98 flight model have reasonable altitude performance.
I have a few ideas what to try, but can't really state them here because the later steps depend on the results of the early steps and without knowing what comes back, I cannot predict what needs to be done next.
Regarding Record 430, the Mach Drag / Compressibility Table, I have actually been using it for years on my projects.
Because there is no way that I know of to cause a structural failure under overspeed conditions and because there usually is a terminal velocity well below the speed of sound on propeller driven aeroplanes, I use Table 430 to limit maximum dive speeds.
The Eindecker was probably the first project in which I used this technique and the A6M Type Zero is another notable example.
Hello Papingo,
Building a Sabre or MiG 15 or MiG 17 would be relatively easy as far as modelling is concerned as long as we can pin down the Jet Engine issues of power versus altitude. That MAY eventually make it onto my to-do list, but there are many other things that are higher priority that need attention first. There are still a lot of things I do not know how to do with AIR files for a Propeller plane and since that is my primary area of interest, those things take precedence.
I still have a half dozen models that have been stuck in my workshop literally for years and they have priority for now.
If anyone can point me in the correct direction for building a CFS Tachometer and a multi pointer gauge, that would get a couple of my projects finished.....
- Ivan.
hubbabubba
Charter Member
Hello Ivan,
I also found Bernd Drefahl's Me 262 in many variations at Flightsim. Haven't checked them yet.
Hello Aleatorylamp,
Also downloaded a CFS2 aircraft, he162-fm.zip, and installed the AIR file into your a/c. It worked, no problem at all, and the taxiing was very easy. But the flying was terrible, the a/c would do a half-barrel every time I went 3/4 rudder one way or the other, I had the impression of canoing in the rapids! I then dived ever so gently and went well beyond 900 Km/h from one or two km/h high. Last test I went in a zoom climb and, at around 4Km high, was standing on my tail when stall started without any notice. I still had full control of my rudders and elevator but, even by pointing the nose in the same direction of the fall, could not recuperate. Your own AIR file, the last published here, is already head n' shoulder over that one. I'm even getting used to the taxiing.
I also did a zoom climb and was able to achieve +10Km within 10 minutes or so and cruise at that altitude at around 400Km/h. Speed was still creeping up when I decided to turn back for home and land.
Concerning the "burst" method, I was under the impression that you were using the WEP (key F10) to do so. I don't even know if it could be implemented in a jet AIR file. Exploring the Musée de l'Air 360° photo display, I think this is what might be the trick;
As far as I can tell, this was the nozzle adjustment. Maybe injecting a bit more fuel by "bursts" of the toggle switch marked "Tupfen-Alassen" was the secret?
I also found Bernd Drefahl's Me 262 in many variations at Flightsim. Haven't checked them yet.
Hello Aleatorylamp,
Also downloaded a CFS2 aircraft, he162-fm.zip, and installed the AIR file into your a/c. It worked, no problem at all, and the taxiing was very easy. But the flying was terrible, the a/c would do a half-barrel every time I went 3/4 rudder one way or the other, I had the impression of canoing in the rapids! I then dived ever so gently and went well beyond 900 Km/h from one or two km/h high. Last test I went in a zoom climb and, at around 4Km high, was standing on my tail when stall started without any notice. I still had full control of my rudders and elevator but, even by pointing the nose in the same direction of the fall, could not recuperate. Your own AIR file, the last published here, is already head n' shoulder over that one. I'm even getting used to the taxiing.
I also did a zoom climb and was able to achieve +10Km within 10 minutes or so and cruise at that altitude at around 400Km/h. Speed was still creeping up when I decided to turn back for home and land.
Concerning the "burst" method, I was under the impression that you were using the WEP (key F10) to do so. I don't even know if it could be implemented in a jet AIR file. Exploring the Musée de l'Air 360° photo display, I think this is what might be the trick;
As far as I can tell, this was the nozzle adjustment. Maybe injecting a bit more fuel by "bursts" of the toggle switch marked "Tupfen-Alassen" was the secret?
Attachments
aleatorylamp
Charter Member
Hello Hubbabubba, Hello Ivan, Hello Papingo!
I looked into the Me262 specs and Berndt Drehfahl´s .air file model.
Apart from the obvious differences, and despite the same or similar engines (1706 flb BMW 003 or 1980 flb Jumo 004), the Me-262´s Jumo 004 powered flight model has a big advantage over the Sparrow´s one: There is only one specified maximum speed to go by, and no boost-burst. So, without having to work with 2 different speeds at 2 different altitudes, i.e. 4 speeds, tuning aircraft performance here is not a nightmare at all.
As per Ivan´s Table #430 explanations (thanks!), it is apparent how this table is added to the other main Drag parameter and the Drag resulting from the Wing angles. Not an easy balancing act! I am trying to pin down where the different required speeds lie. Pulling the peak up (even to 2000!!) seemed to curb higher speeds at around 566 mph, and seems to be how it can be used to limit diving speeds! Then, the 2 positions before, affected lower ones, but it was difficult to act on specific speeds of 491 and 522 mph separately because they seem to be quite close together. Different speeds in one column will need a very exact angle on the graph line!
I noticed the Sparrow´s pilot´s manual indicating something about altitude flying and also the detail on the exhaust vents, but didn´t understand it. Now Hubbabubba mentions it showing a photo, to describe how Boost-Burst worked. Good! "Tupfen" means to dab... to "dab" extra fuel for boost-burst...? "Anlassen", engine start in English, is the opposite position of this lever.
Then, the jet .air file has no provision for Key-10 WEP. Power will have to be exclusively managed by Throttle control, either the lever or the number keys 5 to 0.
After establishing that my recent doubts on Boost Burst were wrong, probably the best idea now, for the event that it may be impossible to balance out all 4 speeds correctly, would be to maintain altitude speeds and S.L. Boost speed as per specs, at the expense of having normal max. S.L. speed about somewhat faster than it should be. Would this be convenient for simming?
I´m glad that the last published Sparrow .air file is better than the previous one! As soon as I can get it any better, I´ll post the improvement. Thanks Hubbabubba, for the feedback and your good words. At least my Sparrow .air file is within generally acceptably flyable limits, which is motivating.
Anyway, thanks again for all the research work and cooperation this is generating, and it is very pleasing to see that other similar projects seem to be benefitting from it!
More, later, and meanwhile, have a nice Saturday!
Cheers,
Aleatorylamp
I looked into the Me262 specs and Berndt Drehfahl´s .air file model.
Apart from the obvious differences, and despite the same or similar engines (1706 flb BMW 003 or 1980 flb Jumo 004), the Me-262´s Jumo 004 powered flight model has a big advantage over the Sparrow´s one: There is only one specified maximum speed to go by, and no boost-burst. So, without having to work with 2 different speeds at 2 different altitudes, i.e. 4 speeds, tuning aircraft performance here is not a nightmare at all.
As per Ivan´s Table #430 explanations (thanks!), it is apparent how this table is added to the other main Drag parameter and the Drag resulting from the Wing angles. Not an easy balancing act! I am trying to pin down where the different required speeds lie. Pulling the peak up (even to 2000!!) seemed to curb higher speeds at around 566 mph, and seems to be how it can be used to limit diving speeds! Then, the 2 positions before, affected lower ones, but it was difficult to act on specific speeds of 491 and 522 mph separately because they seem to be quite close together. Different speeds in one column will need a very exact angle on the graph line!
I noticed the Sparrow´s pilot´s manual indicating something about altitude flying and also the detail on the exhaust vents, but didn´t understand it. Now Hubbabubba mentions it showing a photo, to describe how Boost-Burst worked. Good! "Tupfen" means to dab... to "dab" extra fuel for boost-burst...? "Anlassen", engine start in English, is the opposite position of this lever.
Then, the jet .air file has no provision for Key-10 WEP. Power will have to be exclusively managed by Throttle control, either the lever or the number keys 5 to 0.
After establishing that my recent doubts on Boost Burst were wrong, probably the best idea now, for the event that it may be impossible to balance out all 4 speeds correctly, would be to maintain altitude speeds and S.L. Boost speed as per specs, at the expense of having normal max. S.L. speed about somewhat faster than it should be. Would this be convenient for simming?
I´m glad that the last published Sparrow .air file is better than the previous one! As soon as I can get it any better, I´ll post the improvement. Thanks Hubbabubba, for the feedback and your good words. At least my Sparrow .air file is within generally acceptably flyable limits, which is motivating.
Anyway, thanks again for all the research work and cooperation this is generating, and it is very pleasing to see that other similar projects seem to be benefitting from it!
More, later, and meanwhile, have a nice Saturday!
Cheers,
Aleatorylamp
Last edited:
aleatorylamp
Charter Member
New interesting test results
Hello Ivan, Hello Hubbabuba, Hello Papingo!
Following the confirmation that there was indeed such a thing as Boost-Burst ("Exhaust Dabbing") on the Sparrow, and after digesting the latest information, I decided to take the bull by the horns and apply what I learnt in these days from the exchanges on the thread.
Thus, I:
1) increased the max N2 output RPM, as that seemed a bit low both compared to the specifications and to the power needed in the simulator. This means that now 9500 RPM is at 84% Throttle at S.L., not 91% as before. Max. power (aka Boost-Burst) is now at an equivalent of N1=108, if there were an N1 spool on a single-spool turbojet...
2) left Idle Speed as before. RPM is correct at 3500 and power not too high to be a problem.
3) applied jet .air file airfoil parameters to wing angles.
4) reduced Drag at the base of the Mach Wall in Table #430, and lengthened the slope running up towards it in the two previous columns (so the 2nd column before the slope was above zero too). I was trying to get lower Drag at higher speeds, and higher Drag at lower speeds.
5) Regulated Zero lift Drag and Induced Drag (Oswald) to get S.L. non-boost and Boost speeds correct, and then went up to 20000 ft, found it was a bit too fast, reduced the base of the Mach wall in table #430 by 1, got quite good results, and then went back down to S.L. to see what had happened there.
So, for the moment the results look very promising:
S.L:
_84% power: 9500 RPM, 1767 flb thrust, 494.8 mph (over by 3.8 mph)
100% power: 10600 RPM, 2190 flb thrust, 548.0 mph (under by 5 mph)
19680 ft:
100% power: 10800 RPM, 2180 flb thrust, 562.6 mph (almost exact, over by only 0.6 mph)
Non-boost speeds at altitude are rather ambiguous. Turbine power at 9500 RPM is insufficient here and has to be compensated with greater RPM. Possibly invading the red zone at altitude is OK.
_90% power: 10250 RPM, 1122 flb thrust, 522.0 mph (The correct non-boost speed)
_77% power: _9500 RPM, _950 flb thrust, 482.0 mph (speed too low with correct RPM setting)
Thanks again for your your input and cooperative efforts!
Cheers,
Aleatorylamp
Hello Ivan, Hello Hubbabuba, Hello Papingo!
Following the confirmation that there was indeed such a thing as Boost-Burst ("Exhaust Dabbing") on the Sparrow, and after digesting the latest information, I decided to take the bull by the horns and apply what I learnt in these days from the exchanges on the thread.
Thus, I:
1) increased the max N2 output RPM, as that seemed a bit low both compared to the specifications and to the power needed in the simulator. This means that now 9500 RPM is at 84% Throttle at S.L., not 91% as before. Max. power (aka Boost-Burst) is now at an equivalent of N1=108, if there were an N1 spool on a single-spool turbojet...
2) left Idle Speed as before. RPM is correct at 3500 and power not too high to be a problem.
3) applied jet .air file airfoil parameters to wing angles.
4) reduced Drag at the base of the Mach Wall in Table #430, and lengthened the slope running up towards it in the two previous columns (so the 2nd column before the slope was above zero too). I was trying to get lower Drag at higher speeds, and higher Drag at lower speeds.
5) Regulated Zero lift Drag and Induced Drag (Oswald) to get S.L. non-boost and Boost speeds correct, and then went up to 20000 ft, found it was a bit too fast, reduced the base of the Mach wall in table #430 by 1, got quite good results, and then went back down to S.L. to see what had happened there.
So, for the moment the results look very promising:
S.L:
_84% power: 9500 RPM, 1767 flb thrust, 494.8 mph (over by 3.8 mph)
100% power: 10600 RPM, 2190 flb thrust, 548.0 mph (under by 5 mph)
19680 ft:
100% power: 10800 RPM, 2180 flb thrust, 562.6 mph (almost exact, over by only 0.6 mph)
Non-boost speeds at altitude are rather ambiguous. Turbine power at 9500 RPM is insufficient here and has to be compensated with greater RPM. Possibly invading the red zone at altitude is OK.
_90% power: 10250 RPM, 1122 flb thrust, 522.0 mph (The correct non-boost speed)
_77% power: _9500 RPM, _950 flb thrust, 482.0 mph (speed too low with correct RPM setting)
Thanks again for your your input and cooperative efforts!
Cheers,
Aleatorylamp
aleatorylamp
Charter Member
Hello again!
Well, let´s see if this .air file is any better now... at least I have the feeling it is.
It is done so that at 80% throttle, the engine generally stays at maximum-continuous power, 9500 RPM, and boost-burst would be at 100% throttle with 10600-10800 RPM or higher, depending on altitude.
I also hope to have been able to improve yaw, roll and sideslip behaviour, but would need some feedback here, as I´m not really very good at flying.
Here´s a screenshot for eye-candy and the new .air file.
Maybe we´re slowly getting there!
Cheers, and thanks again for all your support.
Aleatorylamp
Well, let´s see if this .air file is any better now... at least I have the feeling it is.
It is done so that at 80% throttle, the engine generally stays at maximum-continuous power, 9500 RPM, and boost-burst would be at 100% throttle with 10600-10800 RPM or higher, depending on altitude.
I also hope to have been able to improve yaw, roll and sideslip behaviour, but would need some feedback here, as I´m not really very good at flying.
Here´s a screenshot for eye-candy and the new .air file.
Maybe we´re slowly getting there!
Cheers, and thanks again for all your support.
Aleatorylamp
Attachments
Hello Aleatorylamp,
Just downloaded your new Volksjaeger AIR file. I will check it out later tonight if I get a chance.
The speeds at various altitudes seem pretty much correct at this point. I suspect it won't get any better.
What do you see are the issues you still want to address? I will do a general check and also look for the specifics that you list.
From Hubbabubba's comments, I already know the ground handling is very poor.
I have also been experimenting with a Me 163B that I downloaded.
It is a FS98 version and does not have any guns of course.
The aeroplane seems to have some serious handling issues and controls have very poor harmony.
The biggest problem that I ran into with the Me 163B was that its trim was so far off as to make it un-flyable because it would constantly loop as speed increased.
This seems to be a pretty common problem with FS98 aeroplanes I have imported so perhaps that is one of the serious differences between simulators.
The main reason for the download was to figure out how sounds work with a rocket plane. I will be looking through the configuration files to see if I can figure things out.
In doing a bit more research on the HL-10, it appears that its main limitation was the fact that it had such a short time for its engine run.
Its engine only had enough fuel for 100 seconds of full power but in that 100 seconds, it could go from about 40,000 feet up past 90,000 feet OR
go from 450 MPH to almost 1300 MPH. One has to wonder what its true limits were if it had a longer engine run. My version will not be realistic in that it will have enough fuel for at least 30 minutes of powered flight. It will also carry an armament, probably 2 x 20mm cannon.
Another unusual thing is that it was always landed as a glider and that landing was done at VERY high speed and at a ver high angle of attack.
- Ivan.
Just downloaded your new Volksjaeger AIR file. I will check it out later tonight if I get a chance.
The speeds at various altitudes seem pretty much correct at this point. I suspect it won't get any better.
What do you see are the issues you still want to address? I will do a general check and also look for the specifics that you list.
From Hubbabubba's comments, I already know the ground handling is very poor.
I have also been experimenting with a Me 163B that I downloaded.
It is a FS98 version and does not have any guns of course.
The aeroplane seems to have some serious handling issues and controls have very poor harmony.
The biggest problem that I ran into with the Me 163B was that its trim was so far off as to make it un-flyable because it would constantly loop as speed increased.
This seems to be a pretty common problem with FS98 aeroplanes I have imported so perhaps that is one of the serious differences between simulators.
The main reason for the download was to figure out how sounds work with a rocket plane. I will be looking through the configuration files to see if I can figure things out.
In doing a bit more research on the HL-10, it appears that its main limitation was the fact that it had such a short time for its engine run.
Its engine only had enough fuel for 100 seconds of full power but in that 100 seconds, it could go from about 40,000 feet up past 90,000 feet OR
go from 450 MPH to almost 1300 MPH. One has to wonder what its true limits were if it had a longer engine run. My version will not be realistic in that it will have enough fuel for at least 30 minutes of powered flight. It will also carry an armament, probably 2 x 20mm cannon.
Another unusual thing is that it was always landed as a glider and that landing was done at VERY high speed and at a ver high angle of attack.
- Ivan.
aleatorylamp
Charter Member
Hello Ivan,
I just lost a post because it timed out and wouldn´t allow re-logging-in. It had taken me an hour to prepare, and I´ve forgotten what it was all about! Anyway, let´s see if I can remember, before this one times out too!
Well, I opened my mail, thanks a lot, and adjusted Idle RPM to 3000, down from 3500, and it didn´t affect restly performance. Now the plane slows down better!
Then, I tried to reduce the max. Boost-Burst thrust to the newly specified 2028 flb, but I had to leave it the way it is. FS needs 160 more flb thrust to maintain high-performance power. This is presumably because "Exhaust Dabbing" gives more thrust with less RPM increase, more like afterburning, and FS only allows simply pushing the throttle to 100%, which is obviously different.
Your HL-10 sounds intriguing! It is a wing-less airfoil-shaped fuselage, or a fuselage-less short wing? Your idea for a practical application in CFS sounds fine! ...and the fact that it is a rocket-plane is an added plus!
Although everybody seems totally against using Rocket .air files, for their exaggerated their simplicity, it is however precisely this that I find very appealing! - AND they maintain their FULL power ALL the way into the Stratosphere!
I was still experimenting with the V1´s rocket .air file, but I think I´ll move over to the Me-163 - a true rocket. The V1, being a Pulse-Jet, would in reality need a Jet-Engine .air file. I was also trying to get the sound working. Hubbabubba had poointed out there was one in the CFS1 Sounds folder. I also still have to see how the Me262 and Me163 behave in FS98. I have a few stabilized versions of the Me163 .air file to do some more in-depth tests, as the original .air file is useless! You found that too!
Anyway, time for a belated lunch now!
Cheers,
Aleatorylamp
I just lost a post because it timed out and wouldn´t allow re-logging-in. It had taken me an hour to prepare, and I´ve forgotten what it was all about! Anyway, let´s see if I can remember, before this one times out too!
Well, I opened my mail, thanks a lot, and adjusted Idle RPM to 3000, down from 3500, and it didn´t affect restly performance. Now the plane slows down better!
Then, I tried to reduce the max. Boost-Burst thrust to the newly specified 2028 flb, but I had to leave it the way it is. FS needs 160 more flb thrust to maintain high-performance power. This is presumably because "Exhaust Dabbing" gives more thrust with less RPM increase, more like afterburning, and FS only allows simply pushing the throttle to 100%, which is obviously different.
Your HL-10 sounds intriguing! It is a wing-less airfoil-shaped fuselage, or a fuselage-less short wing? Your idea for a practical application in CFS sounds fine! ...and the fact that it is a rocket-plane is an added plus!
Although everybody seems totally against using Rocket .air files, for their exaggerated their simplicity, it is however precisely this that I find very appealing! - AND they maintain their FULL power ALL the way into the Stratosphere!
I was still experimenting with the V1´s rocket .air file, but I think I´ll move over to the Me-163 - a true rocket. The V1, being a Pulse-Jet, would in reality need a Jet-Engine .air file. I was also trying to get the sound working. Hubbabubba had poointed out there was one in the CFS1 Sounds folder. I also still have to see how the Me262 and Me163 behave in FS98. I have a few stabilized versions of the Me163 .air file to do some more in-depth tests, as the original .air file is useless! You found that too!
Anyway, time for a belated lunch now!
Cheers,
Aleatorylamp
aleatorylamp
Charter Member
Me-163 Rocket FD
Hello Ivan,
I thought you might like stabilized FD for the Me-163 Rocket. It was originally by a Captain Slug, and was stabilized many years ago by a friend called Christoph Ruhtenberg, who liked making all sorts of FS98 aircraft more flyable by providing his "EYA" (Enjoy Your Aircraft") FD for them.
My humble contribution to this cause is the addition of a Rocket .air file, and also involves adjusting the max. flb thrust parameter so that with the correct Zero Lift and Induced Drag, max. 596 mph speed and 3800 flb thrust are as correct as possible, as per Me163 S.L. specifications. This was possible thanks to the Beckwith Gauge Stack, which Christoph Ruhtenberg wasn´t using when he stabilized these FD.
Hopefully the FD work well for you. With Autopilot engaged for testing, there may be some slight trembling near top speed, but it disappears when switched off.
Also, I increased the tankage from 45 USG to 90, subtracting the difference from the Dry Weight, but it may be more useful to further increase it. The 60 rpg 30mm ammunition is still in the Dry weight, as I haven´t made a Dp file.
Anyway, here´s the FD in Rocket and Jet versions, for the event you may find them of use - and a screenshot just for fun. (I made the model red!)
I think it actually flies quite well!
Cheers, and enjoy!
Aleatorylamp
Hello Ivan,
I thought you might like stabilized FD for the Me-163 Rocket. It was originally by a Captain Slug, and was stabilized many years ago by a friend called Christoph Ruhtenberg, who liked making all sorts of FS98 aircraft more flyable by providing his "EYA" (Enjoy Your Aircraft") FD for them.
My humble contribution to this cause is the addition of a Rocket .air file, and also involves adjusting the max. flb thrust parameter so that with the correct Zero Lift and Induced Drag, max. 596 mph speed and 3800 flb thrust are as correct as possible, as per Me163 S.L. specifications. This was possible thanks to the Beckwith Gauge Stack, which Christoph Ruhtenberg wasn´t using when he stabilized these FD.
Hopefully the FD work well for you. With Autopilot engaged for testing, there may be some slight trembling near top speed, but it disappears when switched off.
Also, I increased the tankage from 45 USG to 90, subtracting the difference from the Dry Weight, but it may be more useful to further increase it. The 60 rpg 30mm ammunition is still in the Dry weight, as I haven´t made a Dp file.
Anyway, here´s the FD in Rocket and Jet versions, for the event you may find them of use - and a screenshot just for fun. (I made the model red!)
I think it actually flies quite well!
Cheers, and enjoy!
Aleatorylamp
Attachments
Hello Aleatorylamp,
Thanks for the AIR file for the Floh. (Nur ein Floh....)
I will check it out when I get a chance. I expect to be pretty busy today. Tomorrow is the first day of school for my kids and my Son's computer still is not operational. It seems to have a corrupted Windows 7 Operating System and does not start. I can reinstall, but need to get some data off it before overwriting it. I also need to find installation media for the MS Office that was installed there. The Anti-virus is no issue because it was provided by our ISP.
Regarding the Heinkel 162:
I did a bit of a check on it and perhaps I have some information that may be helpful.
1. Check your Moments Of Inertia values in Record 1001. Your Yaw / Directional value is much too high.
If you need, I can try to run some calculations for you to give a better estimate, but when I dropped it from 120K down to 12K, it seemed to work better. I believe this is the main cause of the lack of steering when taxiing.
2. Increase your Braking strength in Record 1101. It seems to be also way too low which again would affect steering during taxiing.
3. You might have to adjust Gear contact points and spring factors as a result of the increased braking so the aircraft does not rock so much.
I believe the track is too narrow. By looking at your model in DPED, it appears that you can get by with main wheels that are 38 - 40 inches off the centerline (instead of the current 30 inches) and that also would help ground handling.
4. In looking at the DP file, I believe your Scrape Points are also pretty far off. As long as you are changing their location you also might want to increase their strength to around 720K or so. You can increase more if you like. This would make it a bit sturdier so that a scrape on the tail skid would be less likely to explode the aircraft.
Handling in the Air.....
5. Your Dihedral effect and Lateral Stability appear to be way too high. The pilot report states that this aeroplane was neutrally stable though we often adjust it slightly to make it more AI controllable.
6. The Roll moment due to the Rudders is also way too high. The aircraft can be rolled almost as fast with the Rudder as it can with the Ailerons. Because of the Dihedral one would also expect the Roll moment to be in the opposite direction though I don't have any sources that make any comment about this.
7. Here are a couple other issues that don't really affect flight handling or even ground handling but you might still want to consider:
The Stall Warning angle is currently set a bit odd at about 40 degrees which seems a bit high.
The Table 430 Mach Drag value at Mach 1.0 seems a bit high. I have a tendency to set these values high for Propeller Planes because of their shape, but this aeroplane is much better streamlined. It also might affect your maximum speed at altitude and perhaps that is why you have it so high.
Hope this helps.
- Ivan.
Thanks for the AIR file for the Floh. (Nur ein Floh....)
I will check it out when I get a chance. I expect to be pretty busy today. Tomorrow is the first day of school for my kids and my Son's computer still is not operational. It seems to have a corrupted Windows 7 Operating System and does not start. I can reinstall, but need to get some data off it before overwriting it. I also need to find installation media for the MS Office that was installed there. The Anti-virus is no issue because it was provided by our ISP.
Regarding the Heinkel 162:
I did a bit of a check on it and perhaps I have some information that may be helpful.
1. Check your Moments Of Inertia values in Record 1001. Your Yaw / Directional value is much too high.
If you need, I can try to run some calculations for you to give a better estimate, but when I dropped it from 120K down to 12K, it seemed to work better. I believe this is the main cause of the lack of steering when taxiing.
2. Increase your Braking strength in Record 1101. It seems to be also way too low which again would affect steering during taxiing.
3. You might have to adjust Gear contact points and spring factors as a result of the increased braking so the aircraft does not rock so much.
I believe the track is too narrow. By looking at your model in DPED, it appears that you can get by with main wheels that are 38 - 40 inches off the centerline (instead of the current 30 inches) and that also would help ground handling.
4. In looking at the DP file, I believe your Scrape Points are also pretty far off. As long as you are changing their location you also might want to increase their strength to around 720K or so. You can increase more if you like. This would make it a bit sturdier so that a scrape on the tail skid would be less likely to explode the aircraft.
Handling in the Air.....
5. Your Dihedral effect and Lateral Stability appear to be way too high. The pilot report states that this aeroplane was neutrally stable though we often adjust it slightly to make it more AI controllable.
6. The Roll moment due to the Rudders is also way too high. The aircraft can be rolled almost as fast with the Rudder as it can with the Ailerons. Because of the Dihedral one would also expect the Roll moment to be in the opposite direction though I don't have any sources that make any comment about this.
7. Here are a couple other issues that don't really affect flight handling or even ground handling but you might still want to consider:
The Stall Warning angle is currently set a bit odd at about 40 degrees which seems a bit high.
The Table 430 Mach Drag value at Mach 1.0 seems a bit high. I have a tendency to set these values high for Propeller Planes because of their shape, but this aeroplane is much better streamlined. It also might affect your maximum speed at altitude and perhaps that is why you have it so high.
Hope this helps.
- Ivan.