And, very wise words by Dan Klaue, someone I just recently have started to find out more about, thanks to his and Brett's contribution with the "Torque Fix"...

 

Apart from being the author of the Carenado add-ons for X-Plane,  which are among my preferred prop aircraft for X.Plane, Dan had revealed knowledge, good sense, and what I consider a non-biased judgement of X-Plane's flight dynamics concept. He is not a fundamentalist, like sometimes I myself tend to be, but rather someone who really must love his work, just like Goran and his excellent creations, and certainly others...

 

It really pays to read his posts at this that thread, specially those starting here:

 

                                          #32                         

And, very wise words by Dan Klaue, someone I just recently have started to find out more about, thanks to his and Brett's contribution with the "Torque Fix"...

 

Apart from being the author of the Carenado add-ons for X-Plane, which are among my preferred prop aircraft for X.Plane, Dan had revealed knowledge, good sense, and what I consider a non-biased judgement of X-Plane's flight dynamics concept. He is not a fundamentalist, like sometimes I myself tend to be, but rather someone who really must love his work, just like Goran and his excellent creations, and certainly others...

 

I read it all yesterday. Sometimes, I wish I could respond at the org. One item, that caught my eye, was the propellor design. IMO, if the prop spins within the engine's rpm limitations, and is capable of getting the aircraft airborne...........then it has nothing to do with "sim generated torque". As far as I'm concerned it's an X-Plane problem, when the wings lift can't overcome, the sims generated torque. I do not believe that X-Plane's "core" background flight physics are powerful enough to handle all situations..... if the designer uses it properly. I believe that Dan's fixes are a step in the right direction, even though they tend to limit the physics of actual torque, rather than using lift generated from a wing, to override the torque issue. Just as Newton's law suggests, there is "torque" on that takeoff roll. Just don't imply that it wants to continually roll the airplane when airborne.

 

Just on the FSX forum today, I once again read about FSX users not being aquainted with the challanging aspects of using aileron trim against torque, if they haven't tried X-Plane or Flight Gear. It insinuates, that the torque modeling of X-Plane is correct, while FSX just doesn't model it, or is poor at best.

Well, it all comes down again to blade theory discussions. I don't have enough back ground knowledge to jump in but for me it's a fact that the flight model of my Carenado plane is off. I don't blame Austin for that. He is not responsible for the flight models of 3rd party add ons. I hope that Carenado will work on it.

Well, it all comes down again to blade theory discussions. I don't have enough back ground knowledge to jump in but for me it's a fact that the flight model of my Carenado plane is off. I don't blame Austin for that. He is not responsible for the flight models of 3rd party add ons. I hope that Carenado will work on it.

According to long timers, at X-Plane org., the torque issue has been around a long time. At one point, back around 2009, a beta change was made, that multiplied the torque to almost uncontrollable excesses. That was fixed, but the basic underlying code is still there.

The main conclusion I believe we can extract from that thread is that, any sim,must represent a compromise between various options.

 

I bought an add-on for P3D which claimed to have realistic yaw at high power settings, just like the real thing. It happens to be an aircraft I have actualy flown in RL from the right place, and I know well how it behaves on a climb, without a glider being tugged behind...

 

The DR400 yaws, yes, but it also shows a hell of a roll due to torque. I have tried to edit te CFG file using the parameters available in FSX ( torque_on_roll and p.factor_on_yaw), but I guess ( will have to investigate ) it may have a canted engine too, probably in the wrong direction....

 

This DR400 is no better than the freeware I got from XPFR and is a very good model, graphically and flight dynamics wise...

The main conclusion I believe we can extract from that thread is that, any sim,must represent a compromise between various options.

 

I bought an add-on for P3D which claimed to have realistic yaw at high power settings, just like the real thing. It happens to be an aircraft I have actualy flown in RL from the right place, and I know well how it behaves on a climb, without a glider being tugged behind...

 

The DR400 yaws, yes, but it also shows a hell of a roll due to torque. I have tried to edit te CFG file using the parameters available in FSX ( torque_on_roll and p.factor_on_yaw), but I guess ( will have to investigate ) it may have a canted engine too, probably in the wrong direction....

 

This DR400 is no better than the freeware I got from XPFR and is a very good model, graphically and flight dynamics wise...

A 3rd party developer for FSX was adding "torque roll" back to the models. He considers it realistic. He did it, by adding unseen aileron imputs to the flight model. He's the one that said, ...... FSX dimishes the torque effect around stall speed. I would have left the FSX effect alone. It does diminish around stall speed. This developers aircraft ranges from light weight two place airplanes (LSAs) to high powered military trainers.

For Dan. Good, you're on the right road. It isn't prop design. I know a lot about real life props. They have to absorb the engine's power, without red-lining rpms, and especially going supersonic with tip speeds. For racing purposes, redlines may be increased, but supersonic is a loss of efficiency and noise. Other than that, I'm very familiar with constant speeds, blade angles with oil pressure loss, the prop governors, new tip designs, the why's and wherefors of multi-blades, etc, and etc. I just don't see where some specifics in the X-Plane design, is going to make much difference....unless they're totally out of reason. And if that's the case, rpm as well as climb and cruise speeds would be highly effected......unless they just multiply horsepower a few times....

 

 

Apart from being the author of the Carenado add-ons for X-Plane,  which are among my preferred prop aircraft for X.Plane

+1

 

Carenado planes are much better in XPX than they are in FSX.  I now removed all of them from FSX and only fly them in XPX.  I believe Dan has changed my generally poor view of Carenado in FSX.