Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Skysurfer7

ADF & STALL

Recommended Posts

Hi Finally I visited a friend who has the B58. I was very surprised, VC is fantastic, its far the best piston for manual flight I have ever encountered in FSX. But the stall & vmc characteristics are just not right, sometimes its so unrealistic that you cant recover....?It would be a great training aircraft if the stall, vmc, & ADF could be fixed.....is anything being done about that?Thanx/R

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest CharlieP51

Same unflyable STALL performance issues here. This Baron is stall-prone and won't recover..ever. I have applied the service packs..no change. My airspeed can be over 140 kts and it may ( or may not) decide to stall.....this was $34.99 !!!! Is there a FIX for this STALL PROBLEM? THe Baron is prretty to look at..just don't try to fly it...pls fix this!!!!

Hi Finally I visited a friend who has the B58. I was very surprised, VC is fantastic, its far the best piston for manual flight I have ever encountered in FSX. But the stall & vmc characteristics are just not right, sometimes its so unrealistic that you cant recover....?It would be a great training aircraft if the stall, vmc, & ADF could be fixed.....is anything being done about that?Thanx/R

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the stall behaviour is so important to you, perhaps you could take a moment to describe one of the situations where you stalled that you think was incorrect. Please tell us things such as IAS, pitch, bank, flaps etc. preferably with a screen shot. This would be much more useful then capitals, exclamation marks and the price you paid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest CharlieP51
If the stall behaviour is so important to you, perhaps you could take a moment to describe one of the situations where you stalled that you think was incorrect. Please tell us things such as IAS, pitch, bank, flaps etc. preferably with a screen shot. This would be much more useful then capitals, exclamation marks and the price you paid.
OK..I'll try to describe the stall scenario that is unrecoverable with the Carenado Baron 58 but is recoverable flying the FSX default Baron.A gentle downward dive through a 60 degreee turn..tyrying to pull out, level wings and stay flying is not an option in this situation with the Carenado..it begins to pull out and get it's nose uyp (around 150-170 kts here now)but falls like a rock instead..no matter the user's controller input.As best I can duplicate this with the FSX default Baton I never get the unrrecolverable stall. It simply recovers as expected and responds to user controller input as expected.I have no other aircraft that have this obvious issue. I hope my further details can help get this verified performance bug fixed. I wonder when SP3 for this Baron will be released???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest bstolle
OK..I'll try to describe the stall scenario that is unrecoverable with the Carenado Baron 58 but is recoverable flying the FSX default Baron.A gentle downward dive through a 60 degreee turn..tyrying to pull out, level wings and stay flying is not an option in this situation with the Carenado..it begins to pull out and get it's nose uyp (around 150-170 kts here now)but falls like a rock instead..no matter the user's controller input.As best I can duplicate this with the FSX default Baton I never get the unrrecolverable stall. It simply recovers as expected and responds to user controller input as expected.I have no other aircraft that have this obvious issue. I hope my further details can help get this verified performance bug fixed. I wonder when SP3 for this Baron will be released???
The stall behaviour of the Carenado B58 is (in the ptich axis) similar to the Realair Duke which has the same 'problem'. Looks to me like a left over from the SF260 stall which really does needs a drastic reduction of the AoA to get the flow attached to the laminar flow wing again.Even the Realair Decathlon has this wrong behaviour but no one complains about that....The problem with the B58 is that the stall angle of attack is WAY too low which leads to a stall at a much flatter attitude than it should.What you are describing is an accelerated stall and in that case the too low stall AoA is even more noticable. Nevertheless the stall speed and the stall warning are correct, so if you stay within the normal flight envelope she's flying and handling nicely, even engine out ops is ok.Another much more serious problem is the totally wrong yaw behaviour at and after the stall with the B58....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't want to sound rude, but I would not recommend using the default aircraft as an example of correct behaviour for anything, let alone accurate flight dynamics. What is a "60 degree turn" and what do you mean by "A gentle downward dive"? How many gees are you pulling when you pull up? Why not start with a simple and reproducable stall. Fly straight and level at 6,000 feet and reduce your power. As the aircraft slows, you will have to pull back on the stick to maintain your altitude. You will feel the plane buffet just before it stalls. Make a note of what speed you feel the buffet then to recover release the stick, increase power and nose down. Repeat this a few times until you are comfortable that you can detect the buffet, note the speed and recover from the stall. You now know what your 'clean' stall speed is and how to recover. Now do the same thing while maintaining a standard turn in one direction and then the other. Your stall speed should be much higher, but the recovery is the same, release the stick, add power, nose down. If you still feel the 58 is not accurate, come back and describe a situation we can reproduce, and maybe we will agree with you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest bstolle
1.If you still feel the 58 is not accurate, come back and describe a situation we can reproduce, and maybe we will agree with you.2.You will feel the plane buffet just before it stalls. Make a note of what speed you feel the buffet 3.You now know what your 'clean' stall speed is and how to recover.
1.It's not accurate. The stall AoA is way too low. It's that simple. As mentioned above it's not a laminar flow wing. The too low stall AoA is also making the landing flare unneccessary difficult and unrealistic.2.It's new to me that Carenado planes simulates stall buffet? I have the B58 but didn't detect any buffeting.3.Why does one need to test the stall speed? It's marked on the ASI. BTW, If you double the pitch stability on the default B58 in the cfg file, it's not a bad plane at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"If you still feel the 58 is not accurate, come back and describe a situation we can reproduce, and maybe we will agree with you"5000 feet power off stall, landing config, full stall (applying back pressure until the nose drops), recovery- nose down full power, when speed increases & is sufficient I apply back pressure but nothing happens until I've lost 1000 or so and the speed is way above VSo.............?5000 feet power of stall, clean config, full stall-appplying full power-lowering nose-speed increases, trying to pitch up- even thou speed is around 120 kts nothing happens the pitch is not responsive, the b58 falls like a brick, after around 140 kts, 20 degrees nose down, and 2000 feet altitude loss, its recoverable...........sometimes......?Now.... somethings wrong hare! and It ain't my flying skills!Best regards/RPS. No other add-on I have behave like that!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest CharlieP51
"If you still feel the 58 is not accurate, come back and describe a situation we can reproduce, and maybe we will agree with you"5000 feet power off stall, landing config, full stall (applying back pressure until the nose drops), recovery- nose down full power, when speed increases & is sufficient I apply back pressure but nothing happens until I've lost 1000 or so and the speed is way above VSo.............?5000 feet power of stall, clean config, full stall-appplying full power-lowering nose-speed increases, trying to pitch up- even thou speed is around 120 kts nothing happens the pitch is not responsive, the b58 falls like a brick, after around 140 kts, 20 degrees nose down, and 2000 feet altitude loss, its recoverable...........sometimes......?Now.... somethings wrong hare! and It ain't my flying skills!Best regards/RPS. No other add-on I have behave like that!
This best describes my stall issues as well. I never said the default FSDX Baron 58 was a 'correct' flight model or that it might be the Baron defacto 'standard'. The difference is the Carenado Baron 58 has such odd stall characteristics that this bird stands out from ALL other of my FSX planes - in a bad way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guys, I am not being smart here, and I am not criticising your flying skills, but when you report a problem you really need to describe exactly what does happen and exactly what you think should happen. Rodd, in clean config, at what speed did the nose drop? What is the listed stall speed?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest bstolle
Guys, I am not being smart here, and I am not criticising your flying skills, but when you report a problem you really need to describe exactly what does happen and exactly what you think should happen. Rodd, in clean config, at what speed did the nose drop? What is the listed stall speed?
Did you even read my post? Even if the stall speed is ok, the stall AoA is way too low and the laminar flow behaviour is wrong.That's why a secondary stall is almost unavoidable (and a nice long flared landing is impossible) Rodd explained very well what he did. Have you checked at which AoA the stall occurs ????

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Did you even read my post? Even if the stall speed is ok, the stall AoA is way too low and the laminar flow behaviour is wrong.That's why a secondary stall is almost unavoidable (and a nice long flared landing is impossible) Rodd explained very well what he did. Have you checked at which AoA the stall occurs ????
I agree. I liked the Carenado Vtail and f33a and consider their handling/feel very close but there is a lot that is not quite right with the Baron. Still a great bird though.Best light twin handling is the Mivitz 310-and reminds me more of a Baron than this incarnation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I agree the stall characteristics are not even close. Power off stall, flaps and gear up maintain 6,000 until it stalls at around 75, 80 knots, the aircraft breaks nose gently drops, add power and gently pull up at about 95 or 100 knts. However It just keeps diving and there is no control using the vertical stabilizers, it continues until you crash. I have tried it a number of times with the same results. Have been a pilot for over 30 years so I know these stall characteristic are not realistic.Cheers Martin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Did you even read my post?
I have read your all posts, but I don't see any evidence that you have actually read or understood any of mine. Which part of "is the totally wrong yaw behaviour at and after the stall" do you think would allow anyone else to see what you are experiancing? What part of "angle of attack is WAY too low" says what the angle is? Or why you think it is wrong? Or what you think should be?
... the stall AoA is way too low and the laminar flow behaviour is wrong....Have you checked at which AoA the stall occurs ????
What are you talking about? AoA has only a secondary relationship to stalls. If you are talking about the critical wing angle, perhaps you would like to suggest how you measured it in a GA aircraft and what value you think the 58 should have. Who says the "laminar flow behaviour is wrong"? What is wrong with it? How did you measure it? What should it be?
Rodd explained very well what he did.
Rodd did not explain what he did well at all. He flew the scenario I described of a level flight stall and recovery. Yes, so? Did he report the key details requested? No! He said 'it' was wrong, but he didn't say what 'it' was or what was wrong with 'it'? "speed is way above VSo" how much is "way above"? 2 knots, 20knots? He complained about losing height, well duh, it was a stall recovery, of course he lost altitude. And so on. I am not criticising his flying skills, but his reporting skills leave a lot to be desired. Nowhere have I said the stall behaviour is correct. Nowhere have I said the stall recovery (which is completly different) is correct. But nobody doing the complaining has posted a simple scenario that anyone can just go and fly. Nobody doing the complaining has posted a single value that they think is wrong and nobody doing the complaining has posted a single reference to back up their complaint.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest bstolle
1. What are you talking about? AoA has only a secondary relationship to stalls. 2. If you are talking about the critical wing angle, perhaps you would like to suggest how you measured it in a GA aircraft and what value you think the 58 should have. 3. Who says the "laminar flow behaviour is wrong"? What is wrong with it? How did you measure it? What should it be?
Well, your post is a real eye-opener. 1. ??? AoA is the ONLY thing that is stall related. It's not the speed, just plain and simple a too high AoA makes an airplane stall.2. Don't know how to measure it because I've never heard or read about a 'critical wing angle' what should that be? I hope that it isn't a serious question that you don't know how to measure the AoA. It doesn't matter what I 'think', just check what airfoil(s) the B58 uses and at which AoA the stall occurs with that airfoil (with the correct RE number)3. Once you've found out which airfoil the B58 uses you will see that it's not a laminar one ;)But considering your questions and statements I severly doubt that you will agree on any point I mentioned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Poul "what is wrong?"5000 feet, clean config, power of stall, ISA, wings level, stall occurs at 83-80 kts when fully stalled and trying to recover & above the stall speed, at 100kts the elevator is not responsive, the more back stick i apply the more the nose goes down (up to 20 degrees) it becomes responsive around 140-200kts after you yank the elevator forth & back altitude lost 2000-3000' when it should bee max 300' (I mange to recover 1/8 attempts)...How it should behave: over the stall speed 84knts I should have sufficient elevator authority to allow me to bring the nose up.I think there is a bug in the back pressure control when stalled........somehow the elevator is gone....Poul are you saying that you can fully stall the plane in the above example and recover in 300'? because if you can then maybe its a W7 bug?RegardsRodd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes, I agree the stall characteristics are not even close. Power off stall, flaps and gear up maintain 6,000 until it stalls at around 75, 80 knots, the aircraft breaks nose gently drops, add power and gently pull up at about 95 or 100 knts. However It just keeps diving and there is no control using the vertical stabilizers, it continues until you crash. I have tried it a number of times with the same results. Have been a pilot for over 30 years so I know these stall characteristic are not realistic.Cheers Martin
Okay, spent sometime today flying the Baron and going through what would basically be a CFI check ride. Regarding accellerated and non accellerated stalls. If you lower the nose as soon as the stall warning buzzer goes off and add power the Baron seems to recover in what you would expect in the real aircraft. I would lose only about 300 to 500 hundred feet before recovery. I also checked this out in the C340 and had similar results. However, if you wait to long to recover after the stall warning the Baron goes into a nose dive with no elevator authority and there is a good chance you will not be able to recover. I've had some real time in a Baron, but not in stall recovery, so not sure what to expect here. I have done stall recovery in a Queen Air in the right set and the procedure is to hit power and lower the nose as soon as you feel or hear the stall warning, so up to a point I think the Baron meets these parameters. It's once you go beyond this that things start to break down.CheersMartin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Okay, spent sometime today flying the Baron and going through what would basically be a CFI check ride. Regarding accellerated and non accellerated stalls. If you lower the nose as soon as the stall warning buzzer goes off and add power the Baron seems to recover in what you would expect in the real aircraft. I would lose only about 300 to 500 hundred feet before recovery. I also checked this out in the C340 and had similar results. However, if you wait to long to recover after the stall warning the Baron goes into a nose dive with no elevator authority and there is a good chance you will not be able to recover. I've had some real time in a Baron, but not in stall recovery, so not sure what to expect here. I have done stall recovery in a Queen Air in the right set and the procedure is to hit power and lower the nose as soon as you feel or hear the stall warning, so up to a point I think the Baron meets these parameters. It's once you go beyond this that things start to break down.CheersMartin
Not close in my opinion-real bird is much more forgiving. You should be able to easily yank it off at 90 knts on takeoff and stay in ground effect till blue line (it wants to fly earlier actually) and stall characteristics are quite a bit off. (although no time in a b-58 about 450 hours in a B55-and been told they don't fly that different)...However, there is also lots of good-engine sounds are great-there is even a little of the right prop sounds ( outside of manifold only-been complaining about that for years-this is at least closer).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest bstolle
However, if you wait to long to recover after the stall warning the Baron goes into a nose dive with no elevator authority and there is a good chance you will not be able to recover. It's once you go beyond this that things start to break down.Martin
Either the wing is stalled or not. Once you are fully stalled the behaviour doesn't change in a Baron and most other GA planes. (partly due to the use of the NACA 23016.5 / NACA 23010.5 airfoils)The problem is simply the too low stall AoA. Once you are stalled the Carenado Baron it needs a extremely low AoA (an a way too big push on the wheel) for the airflow to re-attach to the wing.BTW, that's a very easy 1min fix in the airfile.As Geofa mentioned, the real one can be kept at a 'normal' AoA during take off and landing without any problems.The Carenado version drops out if the sky if you try to flare it to a quite normal nose high landing attitude

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest bstolle

Just sent Carenado a 100% fix for the clean stall speed, stall AoA and recovery behaviour problems....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just sent Carenado a 100% fix for the clean stall speed, stall AoA and recovery behaviour problems....
Great news! Can you share it with us hare?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, your post is a real eye-opener. 1. ??? AoA is the ONLY thing that is stall related. It's not the speed, just plain and simple a too high AoA makes an airplane stall.2. Don't know how to measure it because I've never heard or read about a 'critical wing angle' what should that be? I hope that it isn't a serious question that you don't know how to measure the AoA. It doesn't matter what I 'think', just check what airfoil(s) the B58 uses and at which AoA the stall occurs with that airfoil (with the correct RE number)3. Once you've found out which airfoil the B58 uses you will see that it's not a laminar one ;)But considering your questions and statements I severly doubt that you will agree on any point I mentioned.
Either the wing is stalled or not. Once you are fully stalled the behaviour doesn't change in a Baron and most other GA planes. (partly due to the use of the NACA 23016.5 / NACA 23010.5 airfoils)The problem is simply the too low stall AoA. Once you are stalled the Carenado Baron it needs a extremely low AoA (an a way too big push on the wheel) for the airflow to re-attach to the wing.BTW, that's a very easy 1min fix in the airfile.As Geofa mentioned, the real one can be kept at a 'normal' AoA during take off and landing without any problems.The Carenado version drops out if the sky if you try to flare it to a quite normal nose high landing attitude
What is it you mean by AoA? What I mean is the angle between the airflow and the flight vector. This is the normal meaning of AoA in aviation, and I know of no easy way to measure flight vectors in GA aircraft. The terms "critical wing angle", "critical angle of attack" and "stall angle of attack" all refer to the angle between the chord line of wing and the airflow at which the wing generates maximum lift. I think this is what you are refering to as the wing starts to stall when this angle is exceeded. The angle of maximum lift is dependent on the cross section of the wing facing the airflow, and the wing has different cross sections along its length. Those cross sections are further changed by flaps and ailerons and if you change the direction of the airflow with banks or turns then you change the cross section of the wing meeting the airflow and hence its angle of maximum lift. The published figure (if published) is an average over the wing and only applies to straight line flight. Given that Rodd has reported that the incipient stall was detectable at 80~83 knots, which sounds about right to me, that pretty much proves that the "Stall angle of attack" as modeled by the Carenado is pretty close to the mark already. But given your statement "Either the wing is stalled or not" is not only wrong, but shows a complete lack of understanding about what a stall actually is, combined with your missuse of other terms, I have to be really dubious about any changes you suggest making to the behaviour. I am still not saying Carenado have it right, but I am certain that you do not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest bstolle
shows a complete lack of understanding about what a stall actually is, combined with your missuse of other terms, I have to be really dubious about any changes you suggest making to the behaviour. I am still not saying Carenado have it right, but I am certain that you do not
LOL, a response as expected. >What is it you mean by AoA? What I mean is....AoA is a fixed definition and what you 'mean' is totally irrelevant. >Given that Rodd has reported that the incipient stall was detectable at 80~83 knots, which sounds about right to me, that pretty much proves that the "Stall angle of attack" as modeled by the Carenado is pretty close to the mark alreadyDo you seriously think that the correct stall speed has anything to do with the correct stall AoA ?Well, I'm not going to discuss your weird creations and opinions like e.g. 'flight vectors' with you. Furthermore I don't see any reason for you to get personal and insulting.... Have a nice day

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
LOL, a response as expected. ...AoA is a fixed definition and what you 'mean' is totally irrelevant.
This is how Boeing defines AoAThis is how Wiki defines AoA:
In Aerodynamics, angle of attack is used to describe the angle between the chord line of the wing of a fixed-wing aircraft and the vector representing the relative motion between the aircraft and the atmosphere. Since a wing can have twist, a chord line of the whole wing may not be definable, so an alternate reference line is simply defined. Often, the chord line of the root of the wing is chosen as the reference line. Another alternative is to use a horizontal line on the fuselage as the reference line (and also as the longitudinal axis).[1] Some books[2][3] adopt the so called absolute angle of attack: zero angle of attack corresponds to zero coefficient of lift.
Neither has any problem talking about vectors, neither mention stalling, neither is exactly a fixed definition though both are consistent with the way I defined AoA, and neither are as you described. The Wiki article gives a definition for Critical angle which includes Stall angle of attack that would seem to be close to what you are talking about:
The critical angle of attack is the angle of attack which produces maximum lift coefficient. This is also called the "stall angle of attack". Below the critical angle of attack, as the angle of attack increases, the coefficient of lift (Cl) increases. At the same time, below the critical angle of attack, as angle of attack increases, the air begins to flow less smoothly over the upper surface of the airfoil and begins to separate from the upper surface. On most airfoil shapes, as the angle of attack increases, the upper surface separation point of the flow moves from the trailing edge towards the leading edge. At the critical angle of attack, upper surface flow is more separated and the airfoil or wing is producing its maximum coefficient of lift. As angle of attack increases further, the upper surface flow becomes more and more fully separated and the airfoil/wing produces less coefficient of lift.
Do you seriously think that the correct stall speed has anything to do with the correct stall AoA ?
Yes. If the critical angle was incorrect, it would change the stall speed.I didn't mean to sound personal, and I apologise for any insult, but you are still completely wrong. Instead of arguing with me (fun but pointless) can I suggest you go back to your books and refresh your basics of flight. A very good (free) source of basic and advanced flight can be found here but any reputable flight training book would help.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest bstolle
Yes. If the critical angle was incorrect, it would change the stall speed.
Aaaah, I see. So CL doesn't have any influence at all....that's new to me.Looks like getting all the aerodynamic knowledge exclusively from your frequently mentioned Wikipedia isn't enough :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...