Yaw Ready for This?

[LAdamson 240]

Please don't look at it that way- I haven't meant to put you down at all. I've been flying for 28 years, but it's never become automatic for me, and I'm still learning all the time. I'm sure I can learn things from you that I don't know now, and I don't consider myself superior to you in any way. I learn from people all the time, who look at life and flying differently than I do, and that's probably because they see the world differently. So please critique anything you wish of what I've posted here.

One thing for sure, is that pilots/ instructors have numerous different opinions, and they all think they're right! You'll often get opposite opinions on many subjects, and leave as confused as ever. Examples are.... what causes lift, ROP/LOP, power & pitch, etc, etc.... Of course the RealAirs still do rather good "slips"...........especially for a desktop sim....:)As to that full stick deflection for one second at 50 kias............it might not even be possible. But we'll see. 28 years..........is that all? L.Adamson --- about 40 years since a student pilot. But.............it hasn't always been full time

[Geofa 108]

One thing for sure, is that pilots/ instructors have numerous different opinions, and they all think they're right! You'll often get opposite opinions on many subjects, and leave as confused as ever. Examples are.... what causes lift, ROP/LOP, power & pitch, etc, etc.... Of course the RealAirs still do rather good "slips"...........especially for a desktop sim....:)As to that full stick deflection for one second at 50 kias............it might not even be possible. But we'll see. 28 years..........is that all? L.Adamson --- about 40 years since a student pilot. But.............it hasn't always been full time

I guess I am the baby at only 20 years.. :( :(

[Guest Padesatka]

(responding to Geofa on prop sounds)The prop RPM issue has a similarity: I think it's a reasonable assumption that true prop governing has been omitted so as not to confuse pilots who don't understand the fucntion. Those who don't understand prop controls would likely be confused/disappointed if the engine(s) didn't go vroom or eeEEE when the power lever goes forward. Cirrus Design made the same mistake (IMO) when they melded the prop and throttle functions for simplicity, tossing out a lot of performance and economy.But the prop RPM issue seems to be a relatively easy fix that developers would readily respond to given demand. I'm all for a Realism Slider solution to unreal prop sounds and dial indications. It would behoove developers to give those who understand prop governors that function, along with a reasonable simulation of yaw for those who understand that, too.

[LAdamson 240]

I've started flying the Carenado 152 and I'll post some impressions (I have thousands of hours in real 152s as an instructor to compare it with) but first, Luis' post has gotten me thinking, and I'd love it if more could be shared here about the development process:

1000's of hours in a 152..........That would be like going to ****. You know, that place where they say the Devil lives... :( L.Adamson --- hates little Cessna's :(

(responding to Geofa on prop sounds)But the prop RPM issue seems to be a relatively easy fix that developers would readily respond to given demand.

Yet, in all this time, no one has seemed to have done it. It really does make a whopping difference on the landing approach, not to mention it's other virtues.And yes,....... my RV does have one.L.Adamson

[Guest Padesatka]

As to that full stick deflection for one second at 50 kias............it might not even be possible. But we'll see.

That's full deflection of the ailerons in about one second (not roll rate). Probably a little more time (let's say 2-3 seconds from left bank to right bank, about 30-45 degrees) is the most instructive. I'm describing assertive aileron movement in slow flight, to get at and examination of the rudder coordination necessary. Please do get up there do it- and I'd like to hear back about how "automatic" it is for you to hold the nose on a point during the exercise. If rolling on a point is really automatic for you, then I must humbly bow :(

1000's of hours in a 152..........That would be like going to ****. You know, that place where they say the Devil lives... tongue.gifL.Adamson --- hates little Cessna's

I've learned a lot, also taught introductory aerobatics/ upset recoveries in a 150-A. They are friendly little airplanes that I never tire of flying- and a good instructor doesn't touch the controls much. So the many interesting experiences I've had in thousands of hours instructing were due to the quirks of my students. The C-150/2 has no vices IMO. You wouldn't believe the strips my old 150's been in and out of (at light weight). I expect they outperform (gulp) any RV-6A pulled by an O-200! :(

[Geofa 108]

"Yet, in all this time, no one has seemed to have done it. It really does make a whopping difference on the landing approach, not to mention it's other virtues.And yes,....... my RV does have one."L.AdamsonNo kidding! I remember in 1989 as a student pilot my teacher taking me on a twin cargo flight. I was very comfortable until on short final he shoved the props in-I was convinced the engines had gone bad! One of the reasons on my commercial multi engine checkride the examiner was big about not putting the props full until the last minute-scares the passengers!

[Guest Padesatka]

You've only got to slow down first/stabilize the approach sooner, to avoid any surging. That's a number I find good-to-know for anything I fly with a prop governer: At what airspeed (and under) the prop is always at the low-pitch stop with throttle retarded, regardless of the prop control position in the cockpit. I don't like changing anything short final that I can set up sooner (which I would be proud to say to any examiner). This is another example of how some more realism will be valued. I would very much appreciate having realistic prop sounds and indications, and surges and such reflected in the sim.

[Geofa 108]

You've only got to slow down first/stabilize the approach sooner, to avoid any surging. That's a number I find good-to-know for anything I fly with a prop governer: At what airspeed (and under) the prop is always at the low-pitch stop with throttle retarded, regardless of the prop control position in the cockpit. I don't like changing anything short final that I can set up sooner (which I would be proud to say to any examiner). This is another example of how some more realism will be valued. I would very much appreciate having realistic prop sounds and indications, and surges and such reflected in the sim.

I only fly stabilized approaches. Never the less-they make a heck of a racket when you change pitch-even 100 rpm-especially the runup-but then I am flying a Baron-not a 152! :-lol

[Guest Padesatka]

Barons can purr right in- slowing through 100 knots, just put the prop levers forward, and there's no surge. I used to fly a Duke that wouldn't slow as serenely as the Baron, the props were very touchy. I'd mostly sneak the props forward in little steps. Later, after an overhaul (including and setting up props and governors) it was easy to bring in without props surging, and that was at 110-120 knots. If an airplane surges the props after slowing to approach speed, I'm inclined to suspect things aren't rigged right, and I would say so to whoever cares for the maintenance. I've flown some pretty clapped-out trainer twins, and I've come to mistrust and dislike anything that's not just so in multis. I taught in a Seneca that had a balky, sluggish prop on one, and we suffered and complained about it much to long without reliable unfeathering on one side, until we finally got the prop off and saw that someone had left the freeze plug in the crankshaft, which was pivoting and intermittently only letting a trickle of oil pass through. Anyway, even in a single, a misrigged prop that is effectively moving into beta on approach (if it's surging when put to full increase at approach speed) needs attention, because there might be something going wrong with the pitch stops, governor, etc.Has there been any concerted simulation yet of prop synch? That's one degree of realism where even I would like an autosync button in the virtual cockpit, or even resort to the Realism Slider. As an MEI, it's often a useful indicator of task-saturation: When a pilot can't consistently get around to synching the props, (s)he's still getting behind the airplane. In the airline/CRM curricula I would administer the tweak, but in owner-flown scenarios I leave them going hmmwowhmmmwowhmmwwhhmwww for as long as I can stand it. If I had a multi throttle quadrant for the PC sim (I use the X52 Pro controls now) it really would be a nice touch, to synch the props now and then, flying some grand old multi. In real life, that's often what reminds me that I'm flying a twin, and that I have a multiplicity of what-ifs to review, and review, and review, in order to stay on top of my game.Thinking about multis brings me to another aspect of the yaw axis that would really be valuable, after the basics are at last simulated with some degree of accuracy: Vmc rollover. I'd first be grateful for simple single-engine and glider aircraft to be reasonably simulated in terms of yaw. But further down the line when twins are first accurately modeled in terms of assymetric thrust drag and lift, it will be a masterpiece achievement. FRASCAs are really horrible in this regard. There will always be challenges ahead for developers, but it bears repeating that some work on the very fundamentals of yawing motions are long overdue, and those who get it right in simulations of simpler planes will pave the way for more realism in the more complex. I'm happy to see it swing, but I hope we can also return the ball to center enough in the thread, to really get into why we've got poor yaw simulation today, and explore what it's going to take to correct this deficiency.

[LuisFelizTirado 33]

If you are serious about the FS flight model, or even if you are only curious, then perhaps the first place to start is at Herv

[Geofa 108]

Barons can purr right in- slowing through 100 knots, just put the prop levers forward, and there's no surge. I used to fly a Duke that wouldn't slow as serenely as the Baron, the props were very touchy. I'd mostly sneak the props forward in little steps. Later, after an overhaul (including and setting up props and governors) it was easy to bring in without props surging, and that was at 110-120 knots. If an airplane surges the props after slowing to approach speed, I'm inclined to suspect things aren't rigged right, and I would say so to whoever cares for the maintenance. I've flown some pretty clapped-out trainer twins, and I've come to mistrust and dislike anything that's not just so in multis. I taught in a Seneca that had a balky, sluggish prop on one, and we suffered and complained about it much to long without reliable unfeathering on one side, until we finally got the prop off and saw that someone had left the freeze plug in the crankshaft, which was pivoting and intermittently only letting a trickle of oil pass through. Anyway, even in a single, a misrigged prop that is effectively moving into beta on approach (if it's surging when put to full increase at approach speed) needs attention, because there might be something going wrong with the pitch stops, governor, etc.Has there been any concerted simulation yet of prop synch? That's one degree of realism where even I would like an autosync button in the virtual cockpit, or even resort to the Realism Slider. As an MEI, it's often a useful indicator of task-saturation: When a pilot can't consistently get around to synching the props, (s)he's still getting behind the airplane. In the airline/CRM curricula I would administer the tweak, but in owner-flown scenarios I leave them going hmmwowhmmmwowhmmwwhhmwww for as long as I can stand it. If I had a multi throttle quadrant for the PC sim (I use the X52 Pro controls now) it really would be a nice touch, to synch the props now and then, flying some grand old multi. In real life, that's often what reminds me that I'm flying a twin, and that I have a multiplicity of what-ifs to review, and review, and review, in order to stay on top of my game.Thinking about multis brings me to another aspect of the yaw axis that would really be valuable, after the basics are at last simulated with some degree of accuracy: Vmc rollover. I'd first be grateful for simple single-engine and glider aircraft to be reasonably simulated in terms of yaw. But further down the line when twins are first accurately modeled in terms of assymetric thrust drag and lift, it will be a masterpiece achievement. FRASCAs are really horrible in this regard. There will always be challenges ahead for developers, but it bears repeating that some work on the very fundamentals of yawing motions are long overdue, and those who get it right in simulations of simpler planes will pave the way for more realism in the more complex. I'm happy to see it swing, but I hope we can also return the ball to center enough in the thread, to really get into why we've got poor yaw simulation today, and explore what it's going to take to correct this deficiency.

It seems we are talking about two different things. You mention "surge". I assume you are speaking of those who roughly push the props in a sudden manner.I am speaking of the sound/pitch that changes-even with smooth reductions. A change of 100 rpm even no matter how smooth makes a sound change-much more dramatic sound wise imho than a manifold change.The sound of the props at 2500 is very different than at 2300. Full in it is much higher pitch wise (I am talking notes on a musical scale) than at cruise. For those who are sensitive to this-and it seems most non flyers are- this can be unsettling to hear what appears to be a change in the engine sound-especially shortly after takeoff or while landing. Prop sync is just another manifestation of this.Yes, I'd like to see this modeled-sorely overdue.

[Manny 1,293]

When I started to fly, I had some difficulties with how much rudder pressure I should use when turning/enroute (I understood how much during takeoff/cimbout as that was pretty obvious to me...enough to keep it straight and steady climb).The concept of stepping on the ball was not right...if you had to wait for the ball to move and then you see it and make correction by then the crime was already commited. The rudder needs to be applied simeltaneously without much thought so the ball doesn't get out of its box in the first place. So my instructor gave me a good excerise for me to practice and it worked like a charm.He told me to move the aileron to the extreme right and then back to extreme left real fast and back and forth at the same time asked me to work the rudder such that the nose pointing to the horizon never strayed. i.e the nose always pointed down straight while I was moving the aileron back and forth. The aircraft simply turned around the y axis (Y axis being lengthwise of the fuselage)From then on, my rudder movement is almost instinctive when using aileron, simeltaneous movements. (I am sure all the good pilots here probably do that now too).I do the same when simming in FSX. I do not look at the ball nor do I even care how the sim aircraft actually moves. But I fly the sim like I do for real. This way, I do not end up with any bad habits when I fly for real.Is that not sufficiant? Manny

[LAdamson 240]

You've only got to slow down first/stabilize the approach sooner, to avoid any surging. That's a number I find good-to-know for anything I fly with a prop governer: At what airspeed (and under) the prop is always at the low-pitch stop with throttle retarded, regardless of the prop control position in the cockpit. I don't like changing anything short final that I can set up sooner (which I would be proud to say to any examiner). This is another example of how some more realism will be valued. I would very much appreciate having realistic prop sounds and indications, and surges and such reflected in the sim.

The "stabilized approach" ----------- at least under VFR conditions is another topic, where opinions very greatly. And although the opinions vary, there is no right or wrong answer. With the RV, I usually fly a downwind close to the runway; while students and instructors will usually perform extremely wide 747 patterns in their little Cessnas. My base to final is a quick arc, while the student/ instructors seem to take minutes between each coarse change. I'm down and out of the way, while the student/ instructors disappear in the camouflage of homes beneath the pattern. Those of us still in the pattern wonder exactly where they are! It absolutely drives me nut's, when I announce a 45 to the downwind, and find a Cessna that should be turning base...... still on a long extended downwind.....................after they announced downwind......... what seems like five minutes ago! I can only assume that instructors are teaching l - o- n -g "stabilized appraoches"... FWIW ----- I don't think the risk of an engine quitting in a wide pattern, is that great; so I'm not from the "school" of having to keep patterns tight, in case they do. If that was the case-------- I'd move; as I live under the pattern.Now...........back to the C/S prop position being moved to fine pitch (blue knob pushed full in). Since my approaches are different from the standard student/ instructor approaches; unless I'm stuck between them.............. I may have the knob fully pushed in on the 45 to downwind, or it may get pushed in on the base to final, or final itself. There is NO correct and exact time, that this needs to be done. It's done to fit the conditions! But yes, the moving of the blue knob needs to be appropriate; other wise, you'll get slammed towards the panel in your seat belts, and feel it in the stomach. Of course, as an instructor, you'd need to teach stabilized approaches, and the approximate times to deal with the prop knob.L.Adamson --- hates little Cessnas & helicopters in the pattern... :(

[zfehr 1]

When I started to fly, I had some difficulties with how much rudder pressure I should use when turning/enroute (I understood how much during takeoff/cimbout as that was pretty obvious to me...enough to keep it straight and steady climb).The concept of stepping on the ball was not right...if you had to wait for the ball to move and then you see it and make correction by then the crime was already commited. The rudder needs to be applied simeltaneously without much thought so the ball doesn't get out of its box in the first place. So my instructor gave me a good excerise for me to practice and it worked like a charm.He told me to move the aileron to the extreme right and then back to extreme left real fast and back and forth at the same time asked me to work the rudder such that the nose pointing to the horizon never strayed. i.e the nose always pointed down straight while I was moving the aileron back and forth. The aircraft simply turned around the y axis (Y axis being lengthwise of the fuselage)From then on, my rudder movement is almost instinctive when using aileron, simeltaneous movements. (I am sure all the good pilots here probably do that now too).I do the same when simming in FSX. I do not look at the ball nor do I even care how the sim aircraft actually moves. But I fly the sim like I do for real. This way, I do not end up with any bad habits when I fly for real.Is that not sufficiant? Manny

That's a Dutch Roll you're describing Manny. I learned them in an Arrow and they are the fastest way I have yet found to get myself airsick! We were doing them with more than 45 degrees bank so the lateral forces in the cockpit were... let's say interesting to say the least. About the third time I felt the weight shift a little voice in my head said "don't do that again or you'll be sorry" took another 45 minutes for the nausea to subside.

[zfehr 1]

Yet, in all this time, no one has seemed to have done it. It really does make a whopping difference on the landing approach, not to mention it's other virtues.And yes,....... my RV does have one.L.Adamson

Regarding the CS prop, Richard Harvey did do a good job with this aspect as well as mixture handling in FlyII (and earlier versions of Fly). The Seneca that ROTW released for FlyII is certainly quite a realistic simulation from a pilot's perspective.