Turbulence- RealAir Decathalon / Different Responses

[Guest product]

Hello All,I've noticed that different flight models respond very differently to the same degree of turbulence set in FS2004. For example, the Carenado Centurion bumps around realistically in light-moderate turbulence, as I would expect in the real plane, while the new RealAir Decathalon (certainly as good or better a flight model) is what I would consider unrealistically steady in the exact same wind settings. I would expect that, in reality, A Decathalon would have at least as bumpy a ride as a 210, probably even more so. Is there a way to adjust the way a plane "bumps around" in the aircraft.cfg? I would like to add some more jumpiness in turbulence to a few of my aircraft's flight models (without damage to the realism in all other respects of a Rob Young model, of course :-).Any suggestions appreciated, thanks.Best,Joel

[Guest Jimbofly]

Hi Joel!I can't help you out on making your aircraft more bumpy, but I can tell you that the RealAir SF.260 is a lot bumpier than the Decathlon, which makes me think that maybe in real life the Decathlon is incredibly stable in turbulence.I could be wrong, of course!James

[robert young 2,897]

HI Joel,I think this is somewhat putting the cart before the horse, since in my view the clear air handling is paramount, and if you want more turbulent response, just turn up the turbulence. The Decathlon will respond appropriately to turbulence, but the term "light" is arrived at no doubt to suit the expected response by the MSFS team of default aircraft they perhaps designed to be inherently less stable in pitch in the simulator. Thus the description "light" for one aircraft might be "very light" for another, or even "very heavy" for yet another. The solution is to not take too much notice of these labels and simply adjust the turbulence factor until you think it is about right for a given aircraft. I think there is also a slight misundertanding (not necessarily by you I hasten to add!)in some people's mind about the whole question of wind and turbulence. In clear air (ie air that is not disturbed by obstacles or currents or windshear) the smallest aircraft would fly perfectly smoothly. There is no reason at all why a small aircraft should be in the least unstable in undisturbed air, and anyone who has been up in a glider on a balmy summer's evening will know this.Try the included flight scenario at St Just which comes with the Decathlon package. Here you will be taking off in medium turbulence with a cross wind that gusts. Add some p-factor before you take off and if you can keep dead straight on the take off run, do a perfect circuit and land on three points without bouncing all over the place, perhaps avoiding even bashing the wing on the ground, then you are a better pilot than me!Though the turbulence modelling in FS2004 is not bad, I would have liked to see more movement in roll, rather than the yaw the current parameters appear to affect. It is with roll instability that turbulence affects light aircraft more than any other factor, no doubt due to their lower inertia, coupled with varying lift on opposite wings as a turbulent packet of air passes over them.Best Regards,Rob Young - RealAir Simulations

[Guest]

There's also still an inherent feeling in many people (which I also see in the original question/comment) that all aircraft that are the same size have more or less (if not exactly) the same flight characteristics and that larger automatically means less agile and more stable.Nothing could be further from the truth of course.

[Guest product]

Thanks for the good insights above- and a good suggestion to just turn up the setting. Not that I especially like the extra challenge of landing in MS's unrealistically modelled crosswinds and such, but the bumps just give me more of a feeling of "being there" that I experience on most days in a real small aircraft.Best,Joel

[LAdamson 240]

>Not that I especially like the extra challenge of landing in>MS's unrealistically modelled crosswinds and such, but the>bumps just give me more of a feeling of "being there" that I>experience on most days in a real small aircraft.>Simulated turbulence just seems to annoy me, so I turn it off..However a good jolt, such as flying through flak in CFS2 seems to work well.For a little added movement, I prefer active camera, but at very low settings such as .25; otherwise I can't keep my eye's where I want them.L.Adamson

[skully 1,045]

In the real world the greatest factor that affects an aircrafts handling in turbulence is wing loading. Wing loading is the amount of weight carried by each square foot of wing area. The higher the wing loading the better that aircraft will ride through turbulence. The lighter the wing loading the more that aircraft will be jostled in turbulence. Weight,wing design and aerodynamics/drag coefficient also play a big part.The F-104 Starfighter must handle like a dream in heavy chop.I don't have the new Decathalon or SF but Rob your RAS 172 is a real pleasure to fly and have been having a hoot spinning the thing. : )Grrrreat job man!Skullyhttp://forums.avsim.net/user_files/50787.jpg

[Guest JonP01]

>However a good jolt, such as flying through flak in CFS2 seems>to work well.LOL Larry. Flying through CFS2 flak is one of my favourite pasttimes.