Not crashing the Piper Cub

[Hornit 3]

Ron, Bingo! I was very sure that MS killed the propwash thing on rudder/elevator but thought it was just something in my setup. What a shame, tight turns with a blast of propwash really made a difference, cant do it at all now. What a shame they had to dumb stuff down. Hornit

[Guest farmer]

Would be interisting. My time in a Cub is about 2 hrs. 40 years ago. Kinda hard to remember that far back. These 1% files are pretty good.I can tell more of a difference in the flight models (CFS2-3 mostly).

[Guest tascaso]

I agree with Larry, with full realism....it is not really real. The Cub is just that a tail dragger for sure but still a "Cub". I have also flown a Maule and I love them .... to bad the tail draggers are a bit funky in fS9. I love getting tail dragger time!!!Tony

[Guest k2kwr]

Hi Guys,Just a couple of words on the J3 Cub from an old timer who has been there and done that. I got my PPSEL in July 1959 flyng 7AC Champs and J3 Cubs. The Cub does require a positive rudder application on takeoff. Took me about 8 hours of TO&L before I got the hang of it. My instructor thought I was trying to perfect "S" turns down the runway before I reached that point. I find the feel of the Cub brings back old memories and flies as I would expect a Cub to fly. I only fly it in calm good weather conditions and it seems to behave okay. I can tell you this I had about 90 hours in tail draggers before I checked out in a C172 and it was so easy to fly that it only took about 45 minutes for a check ride. Cub is a fun aircraft to fly in the real world as well as FS9.Just my 2 cents.Happy Flyin - Ken

[Guest Ron Freimuth]

>Ron,>> Bingo! I was very sure that MS killed the propwash thing on>rudder/elevator but thought it was just something in my setup.>What a shame, tight turns with a blast of propwash really made> a difference, cant do it at all now. What a shame they had to>dumb stuff down. >>Hornit I expect it was another 'accident'. Seems everytime the MS guys touch the FM code (apparently contracted out) they break something. I DL'ed the "1%" AC mentioned in this thread. They were more stable on the runway. So, lack of 'prop on tail' isn't the only thing involved. Some things in the AIR file can compensate for the lack. Besides the prop wash increasing tail control at lower speeds, it also increases pitch and roll damping. Adjustments for those are also in the AIR file. I don't know if the 'prop effect on damping' is working or not, but lack of pitch and roll damping when one has a reasonable propwash would also make an AC less stable at low speeds. Once it starts turning there is little damping to reduce the turn rate. Unless one uses differential braking or independent control of the throttles in twins. I noted the 1% DeHavilland has a CS prop. I don't think is is supposed to. The MS version isn't, nor is there a prop control lever. I moved the orignal MS files back. I noted the MS Dehavilland jerked around some in pitch at higher speeds. I switched to the MS Mooney and landed at Champlaign. The Mooney was hard to control in pitch as I approached touchdown.Ron

[Guest JonP01]

I'll try the 1% file when I get home tonight. I am still crashing about 30% of the time with the Cub on turbulent crosswind landings even though I have been practising them for an hour every day for the last three days. Although given that one real pilot says it is fine, I don't discount the possibility that I am just a poor virtual pilot. I still think the trick with the default airfile is being extremely quick with generous rudder input and being prepared to give the ailerons a real stickful during the roll-out.Whatever, I actually find landing the virtual Cub quite stressful, as crashing can ruin an otherwise excellent flight. Hopefully the new file might guarantee a greater than 70% survival rate :-lol Here is hoping that a few other third party designers might chime in with their own airfile efforts or otherwise that I just get better and better with more practice.Just a question for those using the current 1% file. Does it only effect the handling after touchdown or does it effect the aircraft in flight and during the ground effect? I think the default airfile is perfectly fine whenever the aircraft is not in contact with the ground. It's just what happens on the ground when the airspeed gets below around 35 mph. btw, I'm now fine with take-offs. 100% success rate there.

[Guest SoarPics]

"Just a question for those using the current 1% file. Does it only effect the handling after touchdown or does it effect the aircraft in flight and during the ground effect? I think the default airfile is perfectly fine whenever the aircraft is not in contact with the ground. It's just what happens on the ground when the airspeed gets below around 35 mph. btw, I'm now fine with take-offs. 100% success rate there."I didn't notice any great difference in how the airplane actually flew with the 1% airfile. Big difference in landing rollout. However, you still must keep the aircraft on the mains as long as possible without having the tail drop.

[Guest JonP01]

Hi Ron,Whilst your lucid explanations are not what I wanted to hear, at least it does explain much of the uncontrollability I have experienced on the ground with the tail draggers. Has the prop wash parameter actually been completely left out as a variable, or is the variable simply not populated in FS9? At least I differential brake with two keyboard keys, so this helps a lot with the problem, but more so in some aircraft than others.

[Guest Ron Freimuth]

>Hi Ron,>>Whilst your lucid explanations are not what I wanted to hear,>at least it does explain much of the uncontrollability I have>experienced on the ground with the tail draggers. Has the prop>wash parameter actually been completely left out as a>variable, or is the variable simply not populated in FS9? All the parameters are in the AIR file. But, on never knows when they will go dead and have no effect. I knew 'Prop on elevator' was dead in FS2K2. Also, there is no 'torque effect' AT ALL!. The torque slider in the FS2K2 menu doesn't make a bit of difference There is a 'torque' parameter in the AIR file that works in CFS2, but has no effect in FS2K2. And, that torque effect has a large effect in a B-17 I have in FS2K2 and CFS2 whey flying at low speeds. I didn't know it was missing until I saw it working. P-Factor didn't exist in FS2K2. It was only 'prop helix effect'. The slider had only two effects: none at the left, full at any greater setting. I'm glad P-Factor and probably 'torque' are back in FS9. But, as I've said, I think they make tail draggers more difficult when the two most basic prop effects are missing. In FS9, twins no longer pull to one side. Steve Small had tried to get MS to fix that in FS2K2 before it was released. I noted there are new lines in aircraft.cfg for the J3 and perhaps ome other AC which set some of the prop effects. I noted they were set to 0.3. Probably to cut some realistic effects to 30% becaues of the missing ones. ;) Though, the prop sliders could probably also adjust them I'd think 'full realism' should set 'normal effects'. I had adjusted the FS2K2 C208 amphibian so the prop would allow steering of the AC on the water at low speeds. That disappeared in FS9. Further, it makes it hard to get a float AC 'on the step' when you can't push the tail down early on the TO run. I also checked AC with the 'FSEdit' records. They are effectively the same as the legacy scaled interger ones. No prop effects from it either, though they are also in these records. The 1% AC are now set up with the new records.>At>least I differential brake with two keyboard keys, so this>helps a lot with the problem, but more so in some aircraft>than others. There are also new lines in aircraft.cfg to adjust normal and differential braking. I expect the later is a new setting, it was never ID'ed in the AIR file.Ron

[Guest JonP01]

Thanks Ron. Well I guess that means it should still be possible for the 3rd party designers to have enough tools to produce quality FMs. It could have been much worse if the variables disappeared altogether never to return. I saw those new brake parameters, and I have actually adjusted the toe brake scalar in the Trimotor because the toe brakes felt too powerful if a user, such as me, is stuck with using a keyboard. It seems, however, that the toe brake scalar is linked somehow to the strength of the parking brakes. After I adjusted the toe brakes to work with the keyboard then the parking brake wouldn't hold the aircraft during a run up. I don't know why the toe brake parms should effect the parking brake parms, but they do indeed seem to.

[Hornit 3]

What I have found is things are fine until you get to that "magical" speed where your no lnger flying but the sim thinks your taxiing. This is where the taildraggers really fall down. I had a humorous experience today with the Extra, I kept going round and round and could not get the darn thing to straighten up no matter what I did! This was while trying to exit the runway after a landing. Patty was doing some wacky weed I think. :)Hornit

[Guest JonP01]

I'm starting to think this Cub just needs a lot of practice. Today was my third day at it, and since this afternoon, I haven't stuffed a landing up once. I seem to have found a fool proof way to land this thing, but it does still need a fair bit concentration.