Whale Hates To Land

TARPSBird

TARPSBird

Moderator
Staff member
Bought the Virtavia (AlphaSim) A-3 Skywarrior package during the Black Friday sale at FS Pilot Shop. Very nice selection of models and paint jobs and it flies well - until it's time to land. I know the Whale's landing was often referred to as a "controlled crash" back in the day, but once it hit the deck it stayed there. This bird just doesn't want to touch down and stay down, it floats back up and then when I try to get it down to stay down, back up it goes. I swapped out the .air file from the older AlphaSim freeware "Whale" and that solved the problem, but I'm curious to know what causes this floating and what sections of the original .air file should be adjusted to stop it. If any .air file experts care to comment, fire away.
 
Well in general if the aircraft does not want to land it's wing is still producing more lift than it weighs. In close proximity to the ground this is more pronounced....it's what we call ground effect ;)

Also speaking in very general terms it means you were just too fast for the current weight and environmental conditions. Before fiddling with the cfg and air files you might want to take the airplane back up to say 3000ft and level off.

Slow it down gradually while maintaining 3000ft.
At the appropriate Vfe and Vle dirty the airplane up, still maintaining 3000ft
Slow it down even more gradually and note at which speed you either stall or the aircraft mushes slowly downward.
If you try to land much faster than this speed the airplane will float.

For the approach phase you obviously need to be slightly faster than this, usually times 1.3 works best.

Cheers
Stefan
 
Stefan, thanks for your reply. I will experiment some more using the original .air file with your suggestion.
 
If you have an air file editor, there's a table that regulates ground effect lift vs. altitude. Try comparing the tables in each version.
 
This again assumes that the FDE of the newer model is actually incorrect or worse than the older one.
I think quite often we make the mistake to reach for the virtual wrenches and try to "fix" something that really is not broken.

I do not have either version of the AC so I can't comment on it's accuracy compared to the real thing. But that to me should always be the first thing. After all we are trying to SIMULATE flight in real world aircraft.

Just my $0.50 ....had to adjust it for inflation

Cheers
Stefan
 
I don't have either one... umm... either. :mixedsmi: I was just trying to aid in finding the cause for the difference in landing characteristics. If the tables are the same, then the difference must be somewhere else.
 
Sunny9850 said:
Well in general if the aircraft does not want to land it's wing is still producing more lift than it weighs. In close proximity to the ground this is more pronounced....it's what we call ground effect ;)

Also speaking in very general terms it means you were just too fast for the current weight and environmental conditions. Before fiddling with the cfg and air files you might want to take the airplane back up to say 3000ft and level off.

Slow it down gradually while maintaining 3000ft.
At the appropriate Vfe and Vle dirty the airplane up, still maintaining 3000ft
Slow it down even more gradually and note at which speed you either stall or the aircraft mushes slowly downward.
If you try to land much faster than this speed the airplane will float.

For the approach phase you obviously need to be slightly faster than this, usually times 1.3 works best.

Cheers
Stefan
Click to expand...

Stefan - Thank you for the simple explanation and a solution to a problem that I find often in FS. Applied to all of my flying it will certainly make the experience more enjoyable. A LOT more enjoyable than creating the oft occurring B****G.

LA
 
You are quite welcome LA.
The above is part of my standard procedure for any new aircraft added to my sim. I usually add clean and dirty stalls to the routine and repeat it at a couple of weights.
Since I am a stickler for accuracy I try to find as much real world data as possible for any worthwhile addition and compare that to the simulated world. Then and only then do I open the tool box if there is a discrepancy.

By the way the same process does work quite well when flying a real GA airplane for the first time. Of course there you typically have a manufacturer POH handy that will give you recommended numbers established by the company test pilots.
But they can't write in those pages how the airplane will feel to you as the pilot flying. And what feels mushy to me might be just fine for the next guy. But once I know how a particular airplane feels and reacts I can fly it accordingly.

I got my PPL in PA28-161 Warriors, then flew a PA28-181 for a few years with my partner before we purchased our PA32-301. If you look just at the POH numbers the difference between those three is quite small at the slow speed end. But the Saratoga is a much different airplane than her smaller sisters. Those you can kick around as you like even at the low end of their speed range and they are being moved around a lot by winds and up- or downdrafts. Sara is very stable....but she also does not react anywhere near as swiftly as the PA28s when you want her two.

I have also flown every Cessna single except for the Caravan and the 207, and the same concept is true there.
You need to get the feel for any new aircraft. Only a very select few pilots like my friend Joe can strap on anything with wings and become one with it seemingly instantly.

Cheers
Stefan
 
In my opinion, not that it's worth much, this A-3 is "funky" in the landing pattern, as TARPS has discovered. Alphasim also made a B-66, which is the same thing as an A-3, and it handles completly different when low & slow with the feet hangin out. The B-66 is not easy to land, it's just more in line with how one would expect a plane, in general, to behave while slow. The freeware A-3 flies with a bizzare nose-down attitude when slow. So much so that's it's very difficult to land. I gave up on it and swapped the FM with that of the B-66.
 
I noticed with the B-66 recently an extreme nose down at high speed cruise as well. A typical bounce, cann'a land can result from a too nose low attitude on landing with a nose dragger, which contacting nose wheel first causes a big pitch up and spectacular "bounce". Of course thiscan also be caused by landing too fast as mentioned. In one of your landings, go to external locked spot view in replay and see if the nose wheel is contacting first.

Cheers: Tom
 
TARPSBird said:
Bought the Virtavia (AlphaSim) A-3 Skywarrior package during the Black Friday sale at FS Pilot Shop. Very nice selection of models and paint jobs and it flies well - until it's time to land. I know the Whale's landing was often referred to as a "controlled crash" back in the day, but once it hit the deck it stayed there. This bird just doesn't want to touch down and stay down, it floats back up and then when I try to get it down to stay down, back up it goes. I swapped out the .air file from the older AlphaSim freeware "Whale" and that solved the problem, but I'm curious to know what causes this floating and what sections of the original .air file should be adjusted to stop it. If any .air file experts care to comment, fire away.
Click to expand...
================================================================
There are several flight dynamics/air file tutorials on avsim.com and flightsim.com. Just search for them with keyword "Tutorial" and USE THE PARENS.

Here's one on flightsim: bfdfe07.zip.

You'll have fun and learn something.
 
Attached are my updated FDE files for the Virtavia FSX version (I hope it also works for FS9): View attachment 53584

Edit: Did some reading and concluded the take off flap settings in the original and my previous checklist were wrong. Judging from pictures, it looks like land based take offs are done with 2 - 3 notches of flap, carrier launches are done with 3 notches or possibly full flaps (can anyone confirm?). Also on all pictures I found, carrier landings are done with airbrakes deployed.
I also added the option to add weight into the weapons bay (max ordnance 12,800 lbs) and added FSX fuel dump parameters.
 
Flyboy208 said:
To my knowledge, this aircraft has been freeware for some time now .. Mike
Click to expand...

The old (Original) Fs9 version is now freeware, but the updated version is still in the shops. It has several models not in the original package (KA-3, EA-3, ERA-3), more paints, newer gauges and more visible parts in the VC. Works quite well as a port-over in FsX too.

:)
 
hschuit,
Thanks for posting your updated FDE files. Since I started this thread I haven't had a chance to take the Whale back up to work through the suggestions that folks have made here but the responses are great. :salute: Regardless of the plane's quirks or my lack of pilot skills, the Virtavia/AlphaSim A-3 package is a very nice assortment of planes and worth having in your hangar, especially if you're into Cold War naval aviation.
 
TARPS - I just got back on the ground from taking up an A-3 and can relate the following:

Type: A-3, PMTC Pt Mugu scheme

I made my approach to Rwy 21 at Pt M. at approx 130-135 knots, 3 notches of flap w/gear down. With the most "minute" - and I mean MINUTE - throttle adjustments, I was able to keep a slight nose-high attitude (enough for the hook to snag no. 3 wire if it were down) at a ROD of about 300-500FPM, starting from roughly 3 miles out from EOR. Contact w/ground was main gear first w/nose gear following very quickly - I probably had about one nose gear of height w/the main wheels on the ground. No bounce. No paddles needed on roll-out.

If you are coming aboard the boat and have a bolter this attitude should be enough to get you back in the air again if you suck up the gear quickly enough.

Give it a go and let me know how you make out.
 
That seems to support the numbers I had found in the comic book approach to pilot training from the Flight Manual. Take another 5 or 10 knots off on short final and in order to maintain the sink rate the nose should pitch up a hair more.

While there are some individual modelers that have given us awesome 3D polygons without a matching FDE, I always feel that at least the major pay ware providers attempt to also package a reasonably close to the real world simulation of the physics.
This then does require some reading of provided manuals and type specific training. As in the real world each airplane needs to be learned to be able to fly it right.
If we simply try to make type A as easy to fly as type B regardless of what the real thing was like, aren't we cheating ourselves out of half the experience ???

That is of course not to say that no FDE ever needs a little fixing. Sometimes a developer simply learns a few new tricks along the way and then can go back and incorporate them. We certainly did that with the Connie series.

Cheers
Stefan
 
I forgot to mention my fuel load at beginning of approach was around 1800 lbs. I was toying w/replacing the Whale's air file w/that from the B-66 but may change my mind - landing this thing without it resembling a golf ball landing on the green is a challenge!

Stefan I must say the Connies you contributed to are a delight to the eye and the mind. It's always been a beautiful airplane, starred in a number of movies too. The FE's panel is to me just as much fun as the pilot's seat! I've got every one that ever came down the pike and am constantly reviewing the forums and sites looking for any more. My thanks to you and your compatriots for an outstanding job on this beautiful bird.
 
Mine was only a minor part in Manfred's international team of Connie Addicts. I do thank you on their behalf for the kind words.
The only one missing now as far as I can remember would be the turbine powered version with full FDE and VC treatment. It had been discussed in the team and I personally would love to see it done, but due to the scarce information available on this rare bird I don't know what the chances are.

Of course if the right background info becomes available or a pilot who has flown the aircraft could be found things would definitely look up.

:icon29:
Stefan
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top