Hi Rob,

 

A very interesting reply. I hope Enrico is sorted? ....but I'm more interested in your comments on the default FSX aircraft performance.

 

As a RW PPL (not for a few years now) I always thought the ball looked very unrealistic and co-ordinated turns and side slips almost impossible with default aircraft. Despite a lot of criticism, in other respects many of the default aircraft aren't that bad. Obviously we buy payware for the superior modelling, skins and in some publishers case the much improved flight characteristics but I'm interested in how we might improve the default models in respect of the rudder and yaw?

 

I don't suppose we can persuade you guys to share some suggestions for improvements? or point us at any existing files that cover this?

 

Only the other day I was attempting a crosswind landing in blustery conditions and found that no "RW" input into FSX would rescue the situation which in reality would have been "lively" but achievable.

 

BTW looking forward to the 172 :good:

 

Geoff

 

BTW I've got the Dukes in my virtual hanger but real life hasn't let me use them much yet.

I hope Enrico finds the time to test the influence of the rudder and/or yaw damper. Either way, he reported.

the 180 degree turn takes a full minute, no more, no less. Well, the piston Duke takes well over 85 seconds

and if that was the case with the help of the yaw damper and with a proper 'looking' indicator, we are talking about an error value of approx 42%. Significant, to say the least. I do not recall the Duke being the slow turner though and I still have to test it myself.

 

A question for the pros.

The solution in your case is to not take the turn and slip indicator as more than a rough guide, and make sure you add a little rudder to "help" the standard rate turn by not relying on aileron/roll alone.

Since there's no 'pants feeling' in the sim and since the turn and slip indicator just got downgraded to a rough guide, what could the sim pilot actually pick to perform a properly coordinated turn? :wacko:

 

And more on the yaw damper. When it's active, it should perform those turns without any manual rudder, right? Correct me if I'm wrong.

 

On a side note. I wouldn't get upset if a customer reports that he's received no answer so far from support. That's a neutral statement but it seems to get read like something far worse. :mellow:

Well, I myself have asked this very same question (and many others) to Rob by email , and allways got the answer soon after! Also, Rob's answers are allways above all, honest!!!

 

It's more a limitation from FSX gauge being used, even by the great RealAir aircraft models than any other thing.

 

I once programmed my own turn&slip gauge, accessing internal variables through XML and then Simconnect, but the problem wasn't satisfactorily solved - it simply can't adapt to all models simply because there is an interaction between those internal / core variables and some flight coeficient scalars / derivates....

 

Regarding the overdone need for rudder input on RealAir aircraft, due to the fact that they change some aerodynamic scalars / parameters in order to be able to reproduce sideslip/fwd slips, it's a question of giving away in an aspect to get things better on another.

 

A2A's models, and their latest P-51 Civil, for instance, being excellent in just about anything I have tested ( in terms of MSFS... ), has poor sideslip / fwd slip performance.

 

ELITE v8, the IFR simulator of my choice, does it perfectly (standard rate turns, use of it on just about any IFR-type maneuver), just as it also models slipstream effects like no MSFS / X-Plane add-on I ever tested, and also the effects of asymmetric engine failures on twins (they model the Baron58, the Seneca and the B200), CS prop drag, and even the "negative torque". resulting from reduced power operation of prop engines (something A2A efectively modelled at least on this last P-51 Civil I tested...). On other aspects it is rather basic and feels on rails, that's true, but if IFR proficiencey is what you're after, sorry for my strong/extreme oppinion, forget about either MSFS or X-plane....

 

And, BTW.... I believe I have finally settled for a good flight simulator in terms of flight dynamics, systems / engine /... modelling, etc... It's a unique experience, and a proof that rather irritates me, that sometimes we have to go to the combat simulation world to get what we could never get on a civil-oriented platform :-( WHY?????!!!!!! Why, when they model so many more systems, interactions, guns, .... and do it all so well? Why can't we have a civil flightsim, not having to deal with so many aspects at the same time, doing it that way????

 

I was tired of asking me this question so many times and getting no answer - went fighting....

Jcomm and the sims. ^_^ Good post.

 

I finally did some test flights. Starting with the piston Duke, I can confirms Enrico's reports. But I have to be more specific as to which level. All tests took place at 140kts GS and at 3000ft on a standard ISA day, no wind.

 

When I had the Duke on autopilot and with the yaw damper on, the 180° turn took exactly one minute. However, the turn indicator showed way more deflection than just to the 2min mark. The manual flight, aiming for just that 2min marker, therefore caused what Enrico already reported, a 85 second turn, a 42% deviation on the actual turning time.

 

Then I took my trustworthy and Bernt Stolle tuned Carenado Beech Bonanza. That old one, with the old gauges. She has a turn indicator too of course and the same test took place. On autopilot + YD, she turned for exactly one minute to perform 180 degrees. The turn indicator was on the mark for a 2min turn. The manual flight, aiming for the very same marker, also came in at 60 seconds. No deviation.

 

Now one could argue on the flight models, fidelity and other things, but.. the optional FDE on the Bonanza from Bernt actually is a nice performer within the limits of FSX. Since it's free, it stays a tip and since it's available, it was a nice test to show that the turn indicator can work and the FDE can still allow for all the 'alive' features. Correct me if I'm wrong.

 

I may test some more planes, including the turbine Duke, the Legacy and some other addons.

 

However, with the deviation shown on the piston Duke, the question remains. Which instrument to pick to perform a standard rate (3°/s) turn when the current turn indicator is a bit off?

 

 

However, with the deviation shown on the piston Duke, the question remains. Which instrument to pick to perform a standard rate (3°/s) turn when the current turn indicator is a bit off?

 

I sometimes reverted to the Directional Gyro and the clock, trying to turn at those 45º/quarter minute... but it's difficult.

 

It is also true that in RL we can seldom have the bar on the mark because of turbulence and wind shears....

Agreed, jcomm. I could imagine fallback solutions and they may actually work but, hey, it's the turn indicator for reason, right? And in the no wind standard ISA conditions, it should show proper readings. Not to be read the wrong way, it isn't a big issue, but it's there and I can confirm Enrico's report.

 

I've just flown the Milviz Baron in the same pattern. She doesn't have a yaw damper, but the autopilot kept the 2min mark spot on and performed 180°/60s. The manual flight, also looking for that mark, also came in after 60 seconds. No deviation. And that Baron has a nice FDE I think.

 

I'll continue with some more planes. Helps me practice some landings in between. :lol:

 

I now had the DA Piper Cheyenne running. Now that's another plane which, when flying the mark manually, comes in a bit late on the turn. 75 seconds instead of 60. 25% deviation. So there really seems to be something about those turn indicators, though not on all planes.

The yaw damper would just make sure that you are turning coordinated

 

I never knew that to be the purpose of a yaw damper. The position of the ball in T/C | T&B gives that info.

 

it's the turn indicator for reason, right? And in the no wind standard ISA conditions, it should show proper readings

 

Never knew the T/C to be influenced by wind and/or non-ISA wx. Only the forces acting on the gyro.

 

Regarding standard rate turns, one feature we put into all of our aircraft to overcome FSX's inherent "stiff" rudder/yaw which by default disables any kind of realistic side slipping, is to loosen up the yaw.

 

Hi Great Ozzie, it is not FSX.

 

Hi Enrico,

 

(it's just 'Rob' btw)

 

Well... sounds like from Rob's (from RealAir) description above... it is a limitation within FSX.

 

It is things like this in FSX when one comes across it (and finds the "sim" not "perfect") one should say something like, "pffft... nice game... not half bad as a sim."

 

This is why I don't use FSX for certain things... It's a game... not an IFR simulator. You want to practice a "standard rate turn"... that can be done. Want to practice "Timed Turns"... then purchase something like ELITE... $199 for the "core" product (just a C172 & Archer) or $499 for the premium version (around a dozen planes). You will be able to practice your timed turns with it. It's not a game... just don't expect to add sceneries... other aircraft... utilities etc. And don't expect some of the great visual you get with FSX.

 

Of course, other option(s) - purchase time in a real sim. Simcom you can do a five-day initial in the Duke. Years ago I did Simcom's five-day Baron course... only cost me $5000 at the time.

 

-Rob

Lets see if I can help you, Rob. :smile:

 

Standard ISA day, no wind. Means no turbulence and no other effects affecting the work of the gauges or the path of the plane. Jcomm actually pointed out that the rw conditions often do not allow for proper readings. Well, the ideal ones in the sim do. Best conditions to test.

 

And on the yaw damper.

The position of the ball in T/C | T&B gives that info.

Well, as you saw, both do not. At least not in the Duke. Hence this very thread. You're welcome.

 

sounds like from Rob's (from RealAir) description above... it is a limitation within FSX.

I hope you've read the rest of the thread as it actually shows that, on certain planes, the deviation takes place while others perform correctly. So the magic of the words 'a limitation of the sim' does not automatically apply. Surprise.

 

So we may see planes incorporating the tradeoff as Realair's Rob explained and we may also see some others being equally nice to fly and not incorporating it, or just too weak to show up that much. Diversity unfold.

 

 

Testing continued and the Legacy showed a smaller deviation that the piston Duke. She came in after 75 seconds instead of the standard 60 for a 180° turn. For Great Ozzie, that's a 25% deviation, no matter how much out of context quoting is going on. :Big Grin:

 

I also flew the Ant's Sierra with a very basic autopilot. That one actually turns too fast. No problem, lets try the manual flight and just use the 2min mark again and.. works, she comes in at 60 seconds for a 180° turn. Proof of concept. :smile:

 

No need to buy extra simulators for that exercise.

no wind. Means no turbulence

 

No... wind is wind... turbulence means turbulence. Uneven heating of the ground does create turbulence... not what I would call "wind".

 

I have enough time in singles / twins flying partial panel to know you don't need an ISA day with/ w/o wind for the T/C to function correctly.

 

But then... maybe you are right tho... maybe higher temps cause the gyro to speed up... and higher than ISA pressure gums things up. And wind blows around and bumps the gyro off it's gimble. Could be...

 

 

Well, as you saw, both do not. At least not in the Duke. Hence the thread.

 

You understand the T/C / T&B... each one is actually two instruments in one?

 

I hope you've read the rest of the thread as it actually shows that, on certain planes, the deviation takes place while others perform correctly.

 

:Sigh:

 

No... as I told another person here... I pick and choose what I want to read.

 

Proof of concept.

 

Aha... so Rob is full of crap and shoveling it our way. Dang. And I totally bought into what he said. :crazy:

Rob, as in some other thread (fuel burn I think). You mix up sim with rw. We are talking sim, all the time, since starting the thread. Hope this helps. :Peace:

 

As far as the out of context quoting and reading goes.

No... as I told another person here... I pick and choose what I want to read.

That's what I've figured. ^_^ Lets call it unique, ok?

LOL..!! you guys crack me up. have you read Rob's answer properly. It is a compromise. take it or leave it..

personally I love the duke's FDE, because it can do other things that no standard plane can do or can do in limited way.

Hello people, I am back. I just had a chance to read Rob's reply, which makes sense, everything considered. But what I want to say is this: when I wrote in my first post that I had not had an answer from Sean, I didn't mean to be in any way disrespectful, nor I was criticizing or accusing the Realair support team for not asnwering right away. I realize it is the way I expressed myself that sounded probably polemical. I wrote Rob in the past, when I first bought the Duke, and he always answered me, even on week ends, I owe him that much. All I want to express Rob and Sean is my apologies for sounding angry, or rude. Trust me, I did not mean to, but I probably sounded that way.

Next time I'll be more careful when I write things in a forum; it is evident I did not make myself clear; I never heard of any complaint about the Realair support team, and I won't be the first one to complaint, just because I do not see the reason. So, Rob and Sean, accept my apologies, thanks for your asnwers and I'll see you around,

 

Enrico

On your actual issue, there seem to be two ways to achieve the standard rate turn. Fly it with the AP on (mind the YD) or fly it manually and skip the 2min mark, going a bit further. The latter may need some checks in between if they really test you that hard on your exam.

 

Good luck by the way. :smile:

Hello CoolP, tonight I will test both manoeuvres, let's see what feels more realistic. I would say the autopilot solution is the easiest. After all, all you have to do is turn, using the HDG mode on the autopilot, and of course the yaw damper on. I'll report back!!

 

Enrico :wink:

Hope this helps.

 

No... not really... now I have to erase all those thousands of FSX hrs from my (rw) logbooks. :LMAO:

 

You mix up sim with rw.

 

So... all this concern about sim mimicking a rw instrument is a mix up then? What was the reason for the thread then? 80P

 

:Peace: