Out of the 3 above mentioned the Carenado Bonanza is of course by far the best.The roll inertia/feel of the Archer III is alo very nice but the problem with the pitch axis is the delayed and exaggerated pitch response if you make big corrections. Generally she does feel too 'heavy' which is actually good as the twitchy paper airplane feeling was one of the worst problems with x-plane.Tried both of Gorans mods and the first update was quite ok but the latest on the other hand is really bad. Don't know what has happened.The roll inertia is greater than on a real Boeing 767 and the associated yaw excursions are really wild. But at least it shows what x-plane can do.The question is, what's the advantage of the blade element theory over the look-up table approach if I can build a Cessna 172 that flies either like a paper airplane or an A380??As Geofa mentioned, the Carenado Bonanza 'feel's (and looks) really really nice and it's really nice to fly. I agree that it 'feels' a touch more like 'flying' than the FSX counterpart.The problems are the shortcomings in the flight model.In case of the Bonanza it's the weird wing drop at low power settings.All 3 have the same problem with torque simulation. Either at 100kts or at the stall speed with full power, if the wings are level, I don't need any rudder to maintain the heading.Torque is only noticeable during the take off run.With all 3 planes it's not possible to keep the wheels from skidding at full power with the brakes on.Haven't checked the performance problem Geofa has encountered but I did have the same problem years ago with my MD- when I noticed that I can't achieve the correct performance at all flight levels.Although the 'feel' of the Bonanza is really superb, there are a few problems which I think are 'internal' x-plane related and I have no idea if they can be fixed (with a reasonable amount of work, e.g. without 'hacking' into the x-plane internal structure.1.The mentioned torque problem.2.The g-load/drag problem.E.g. the Bonanza accelerates to about 170kts in level flight, if you now enter a steep turn and pull 2Gs, the speeds stays the same.This is essentialy the 'loop' problem I mentioned in the other thread. 3. The performance problem (manifold pressure)4. The brakes & weathervane problem5. The glider tow problem...a 100hp plane shouldn't be able to tow a KC-10That's just my 2 cents without an stating an opinion which sim is 'better' as different virtual pilots have different priorities.

Edited January 4, 201214 yr by bstolle

Nice post. Finally, some constructive criticism without the out of hand criticisms and derogatory comments.Bernt, I contacted someone about an hour ago and asked if they wanted to help me with perfecting the C172 as a side project.I refined the C172 earlier and it's available for download. The 2nd C172 mod I put up was wrong. (Sorry to those that downloaded it and were disappointed.) This current, 3rd one, is the most recent.I'm more than willing to have more than one person for feedback on what I do to the flight model.The mods I made, remember, took me 3 minutes. Over 2 weeks, I could probably get it near perfect with the right feedback.With regards to the inertia, that really doesn't have anything to do with the blade element theory. Apart from the inertia, I did change one setting with regards to the flaps by decreasing the co-efficient of moment, but all airfoils are completely untouched.

Where can I download the latest version? I just re-downloaded the one from your 172 thread about 5min but it seems to be the 2nd one.

Nice and intersting post, Bernt.

The question is, what's the advantage of the blade element theory over the look-up table approach if I can build a Cessna 172 that flies either like a paper airplane or an A380??

I fundamentally agree with you, in the sense that I think X-Plane flight model should require less tuning to get to desired results. However from what I saw in Plane-Maker, the Carenado Bonanza seems not to be heavily "tweaked", probably some tuning on flight controls effectiveness and dihedral effects and a little more.Regarding the C172 flying like an A380, in theory it could be done in real life too if one begins altering flight control deflections, adding lead weights to nose, tail and wingtips to increase inertia, etc.

2.The g-load/drag problem.E.g. the Bonanza accelerates to about 170kts in level flight, if you now enter a steep turn and pull 2Gs, the speeds stays the same.This is essentialy the 'loop' problem I mentioned in the other thread.

Looks like too little induced drag. A method to tune it, could be increasing the "induced" drag of airfoils, i.e. modifying the actual drag curves of airfoils. A side effect is of course the change of the power curve vs airspeed that should be re-tuned. But I wonder if the power curve of the Carenado Bonanza is currently accurate, if it has so little induced drag?

4. The brakes & weathervane problem

Again, I assume (don't have time to try it now) that it could be mitigated/corrected increasing the side-load friction of tires inside plane-maker. I always thought default values were too low.

5. The glider tow problem...a 100hp plane shouldn't be able to tow a KC-10

Well, I think we're at the edge of the physics model here, in other words probably the physics of towing are simplified enough for these things to happen. Given the fact that a big part of the reason I prefer X-Plane is the complexity of its flight+physics model, I'd welcome an improvement on this area!For the rest of the issues (torque etc) I agree with you.Marco

http://forum.avsim.net/topic/358558-further-default-c172-mods/Try that one

Thanx I'll try it asap.@Marco, that induced drag problem makes sense! Also the tire friction problem seems to be 'controllable'...looks I will really have to look into x-planes plane design again!BUT, in approx 3hrs Tom A. is going to post screenshots and video links of FLIGHT......I think I can wait that long for a further descision :(

Ok you x-plane lovers....it's official....FLIGHT isn't even close to be a threat for x-plane 10!Have to buy Aerofly FS ASAP!

With hindsight, IMO it would have been better for Laminar to wait another 6-9 months to release X-P 10, given the current state of incompleteness (mainly urban scenery, but not only). Well, with hindsight we're all geniuses... :(

Out of the 3 above mentioned the Carenado Bonanza is of course by far the best.The roll inertia/feel of the Archer III is alo very nice but the problem with the pitch axis is the delayed and exaggerated pitch response if you make big corrections. Generally she does feel too 'heavy' which is actually good as the twitchy paper airplane feeling was one of the worst problems with x-plane.Tried both of Gorans mods and the first update was quite ok but the latest on the other hand is really bad. Don't know what has happened.The roll inertia is greater than on a real Boeing 767 and the associated yaw excursions are really wild. But at least it shows what x-plane can do.The question is, what's the advantage of the blade element theory over the look-up table approach if I can build a Cessna 172 that flies either like a paper airplane or an A380??As Geofa mentioned, the Carenado Bonanza 'feel's (and looks) really really nice and it's really nice to fly. I agree that it 'feels' a touch more like 'flying' than the FSX counterpart.The problems are the shortcomings in the flight model.In case of the Bonanza it's the weird wing drop at low power settings.All 3 have the same problem with torque simulation. Either at 100kts or at the stall speed with full power, if the wings are level, I don't need any rudder to maintain the heading.Torque is only noticeable during the take off run.With all 3 planes it's not possible to keep the wheels from skidding at full power with the brakes on.Haven't checked the performance problem Geofa has encountered but I did have the same problem years ago with my MD- when I noticed that I can't achieve the correct performance at all flight levels.Although the 'feel' of the Bonanza is really superb, there are a few problems which I think are 'internal' x-plane related and I have no idea if they can be fixed (with a reasonable amount of work, e.g. without 'hacking' into the x-plane internal structure.1.The mentioned torque problem.2.The g-load/drag problem.E.g. the Bonanza accelerates to about 170kts in level flight, if you now enter a steep turn and pull 2Gs, the speeds stays the same.This is essentialy the 'loop' problem I mentioned in the other thread. 3. The performance problem (manifold pressure)4. The brakes & weathervane problem5. The glider tow problem...a 100hp plane shouldn't be able to tow a KC-10That's just my 2 cents without an stating an opinion which sim is 'better' as different virtual pilots have different priorities.

Thanks Bstolle-I had been planning to write a critic as such as soon as one might be able to without being labelled!I'd like to add-all my planes veer to the right in level cruise making left aileron trim necessary. One can chalk it off to being a poorly rigged aircraft but would be nice to fix. There is something not right with down trim. You get it trimmed-the plane will settle down and then start climbing-you keep doing this cycle until you eventually run out of trim and then have to exert continual downforce on the yoke.Some things that may not be related to the the fm but the sim. There is no way a plane slides around the runway in wind with brakes on, or starts running backwards on a sloped runway with brakes on! The braking sounds are very annoying with any rudder usage on takeoff or landing and appropriate to a driving game sim but not a flight sim. Perhaps leave them on should a simmer hit brakes instead of rudder for correction (though one would not hear that due to the engine noise but one would find bald flat spots on the tire after stopping). The manifold pressure reads high for the aircraft I have used at sea level and does not lose the expected 1" of power per 1000 ft.-therefore the normaly aspirated planes perform unrealistically at high altitude.The turbulence needs big work-way too overdone and makes flying with real weather a downer much of the time....and lastly-for Mountain Man and others I found a great link to the Faa book-please read the chapter starting with 4-12:http://www.faa.gov/l...hapter%2004.pdfUp until I experienced the F33 all xplane models I had tried before had extreme negative static and dynamic stability. In fact they still do (neutral at best sometimes), but on the f33 for certain modes of flight these have been overcome.For those who do not fly, a well behaved airplane (which most that are certified are required to be) can be trimmed, and they will not only pretty much maintain that flight path, but if disturbed will try to return to it. Xplane needs huge work here (especially the defaults which to me fly like some type of experimental delta wing). If planes were this difficult to fly, the accident rate would be so high no one would fly them...Despite all that, the feel is great, and the maneuverability and controllability (read on in the above link) are what have me hooked-especially in the takeoff /landing phases-that is with some payware aircraft I have bought that seem to have overcome some of the negative stability-finally!I hope people with the vast talent of Bstolle will take an interest in xplane and make it to what it could be, and I hope the fm allows it to be what it could be. I am not convinced that the blade element technique has advantages, the lookup table has advantages, but the ultimate flight model may beyond the reach of both.I'll state again though-for a company that in its' first statement brags of the superiority of its' flight models, there sure needs to be an example of that in the default, otherwise a very negative impression is left. Either remove the brag, or show the proof! Without the brag I don't think anyone would make a big deal about the defaults, imho, even though imho they are extremely unrealistic.

I've noticed the turbulence problem myself, looks like there has been no improvement in this area from XP9.

Doh.. Bad news about Flight.About xp's prop model, I dont have alot of experience with it (usually make jets). JetDoc, a retired mechanic and pilot is tweaking the archer engine a bit for me at the moment, so might come an update soon.With regard to XPs ground model, it has it's issues. However ALOT can be done by the designer to make it ok.The usual mistake is the gear (spring constant) isnt stiff enough. Default is way too soft.This causes the acft bank slightly in xwind, wind gets an even better grip, less weight on wheels, less friction etc..(you can land and takeoff our 737 in 30-40 kts xwind without any drama just like real).M

The more I read about how you implement the airfoil model the more it sounds like me trying to do a rubiks cube, a twist to put two more colours in the right place only to find at the other side two colours have moved from there. I like the science side of it but it's just that trying to model the airfoil looks like a lot of guesswork, in fact you are not modeling the airfoil, you are trying to describe it's behavior which on the surface I thought the blade element theory was supposed to.

I like the science side of it but it's just that trying to model the airfoil looks like a lot of guesswork, in fact you are not modeling the airfoil, you are trying to describe it's behavior which on the surface I thought the blade element theory was supposed to.

Not correct, there are TONNS of REAL airfoil databases out there, do a search. Here is a couple;http://isoar.ca/~andrewm/rc/airfoils/http://www.worldofkrauss.com/foils/listThese can be imported into X-Plane. In addition there are a lot of tools available for airfoil creation.Offcourse modern airfoils often are proprietary/secret, but you can do some very good guesses ofwhat kind of airfoils each aircraft use.M

Edited January 4, 201214 yr by MortenM

airfoil tuning in airfoil maker is one of the most fun things to do in x-plane and it's much more versatile than FSX.

Well, I can agree with you on one of those things. Airfoil tuning is like putting together a jigsaw puzzle that is all just one color.