This really is the end of it....

[jcomm 5,930]

I'm very happy too :-)

 

And really looking fwd for the 10.30 announcement, and whatever  follows it :-)

[CarlosF 1,239]

I personally never did mind the "torque bug", and although I don't have any real experience as a pilot, the BUG did made my flight experience feel different and even more challenging than FSX. With my brother being a pilot, I've had quite a few hours as a co-pilot and XP10 is what really feels closest to the real thing.

This my own perception of virtual flight vs real, so your mileage may vary.

 

Anyway, welcome back guys, the future does look bright whether XP10 or P3D v2 or both.

[alpilotx 505]

 FSX maybe nicer to look at but X-Plane has the more accurate flight model.

It depends ... it really depends ...

 

:Peace:

[jcomm 5,930]

It depends

 

It certainly does Andras. Beautiful shots!  Thanks for sharing!!!!

 

Curiously today I was thinking about how the updated World mesh & scenery will be made available, since it's going to be a few Gigas worth the download ?

 

Will it be hosted at LR's site?

[BrianKoehler99 13]

I'm very happy too :-)

 

And really looking fwd for the 10.30 announcement, and whatever  follows it :-)

the cloud addon releasing soon will make me an xp10 full-timer.  XP10 really needed moving clouds.

[alpilotx 505]

It certainly does Andras. Beautiful shots!  Thanks for sharing!!!!

 

Curiously today I was thinking about how the updated World mesh & scenery will be made available, since it's going to be a few Gigas worth the download ?

 

Will it be hosted at LR's site?

Nope ... via flightsim.com (they offered me "what ever I want" and all help I need ... and yes, we are talking at least about 60-70 GBytes).

[jcomm 5,930]

alpilotx, on 25 Sept 2013 - 08:17 AM, said:

Nope ... via flightsim.com (they offered me "what ever I want" and all help I need ... and yes, we are talking at least about 60-70 GBytes).

Great!

 

Andras, A BIG THANK YOU for all of the hard work you have been taking for the benefit of the whole X-Plane 10 user community.

 

I really would expect Laminar Research to support it too, after all, it's an important argument in favor of X-Plane for most users, given the times and the news...

 

To my OP I would like to add that I also think that this is really the right moment to see something like "News" from LR. They will have a very small time window IMO to prove to users that X-Plane 10 is really worth the investment.

 

We X-Plane 10 users have good reasons to still believe that this simulator has a future. Efforts like those by you Andras, PilotBalu, those who are contributing through OSM like some of our forum members, other sites that help promoting / supporting X-plane, 3pds creating wonderful add-ons, make a lot for our and others minds, but now there should really be a sign of the good things to come from the LR team.

 

The news regarding LMOC's upcoming P3D v2 really made me invest again in x-plane. I believe my PMDG stuff will most certainly not run on it, so I would be forced to keep FSX if I want to use it. OTOH, we know PMDG will, sooner or later, embrace X-Plane 10 and announce their first product. Could it be a modern Boeing airliner ?

 

The new simulator will probably not bring an updated flight dynamics model, as far as I was able to get from the leaked info. X-Plane's flight dynamics model is in a continuous process of upgrade ( so I hope... ), so, even those things we do not still like have a chance of getting fixed.

 

Then, there is that 64 bit argument. It's not really that important for me, but the truth is that my other sim, DCS, has also migrated to a 64-bit only platform, and that appears to be the tendency for any future flight simulation products. Being already there, X-Plane 10 clearly has an advantage on this too.

 

Let's hope that the announcement of 10.30 reveals something good about the future of our "X" sim, even if meant only to become available on a future beta!

[alpilotx 505]

Great!

 

Thank you for all of the hard work you have been taking for the benefit of the whole user community.

 

I really would expect Laminar Research to support it too, after all, it's a keeper for most users, given the times and the news...

They support it in other ways. As I am freelancing for them since years, and this work is usually a spin-off from that work ... or that work is a spin-off from this work ... it goes in both ways :wink:. All of my scenery stuff is not disconnected from what happens inside Laminar (it wouldn't even be possible without the inside stuff, source code hacking, fixes, artwork additions, discussions etc.).

[LAdamson 240]

The A2A C172 is also reproducing that "reverse torque" as someone from their team called it, when you reduce power and the aircraft tends to roll and yaw to the right. On low power descents it is quite evident, and something we have long been able to find on prop aircraft in X-plane 10 too.

I call that fairy-tail flight dynamics. Why would the airplane want to roll to the right on descent with power pulled back, unless you purposely have an asymmetric setup with fixed tabs or wings with different incidences? It's one of the reasons that building an airplane with different incidences has gone out of style, a long time ago. There will be right yaw, as long as you have a fixed rudder tab, or vertical stabilizer with a built in offset. These are built into the plane, to prevent a continuous yaw in cruise. Otherwise, your right foot is on the rudder the whole time, and rudder forces can be high. Let the plane yaw, and some roll will come into play. Then, if you let go of the yoke, you'll visually see some roll. In real life, the force wouldn't hardly be noticeable, if at all. For computer flight purposes (especially with non-pilots), this visual roll could be interpreted as a powerful force, such as pitch and yaw. To answer another question. My plane had a three degree cant, as I remember. Could have been 2 1/2. The wings are perfectly straight with each other. Done with smart levels, plumbobs, strings, and chalk lines. Nothing to designed to cause an opposite roll motion to torque. Fixed tab on the rudder, to keep the ball centered in cruise.And one more. When a Cessna 172 is built, it's taken on a test flight. It has adjustable cam bolts on the rear wing spars for both sides. Any roll tendencies for either left of right, can be adjusted out. This would be done for cruise speeds, and certainly below the yellow arc.I've mentioned it before, but will do so again. My RV initially wanted to roll to the right, if I let go of the stick. Even full aileron trim, couldn't keep it level. On the other hand, the force, was minimul. I didn't even notice on the first test flight of three runs around the pattern. I just never let go of the stick. It's what we call a heavy wing. It's not trying to roll the airplane around and around. Of course, the roll to the right, is opposite of the typical so called torque roll to the left. What it was, is that the left aileron trailing edge, had slightly more radius than the right. Less than 1/16". With a light squeeze for about three feet, the radious was reduced. It didn't even chip the paint. Now, the trailing edges of the ailerons will trail perfectly with the wing tips & flaps. They were all perfectly aligned to start with. And that's with the trim tab at neutral or close too. It's only used to offset passenger, or fuel weight. I like the feel of hands off the stick, with no pressures at all. It's why I installed an aileron trim. Cessna 172s don't have them. Still won't hold altitude and heading like an auto-pilot. It will eventually drift.....just like FSX or X-Plane. It's not on rails.

 

I personally never did mind the "torque bug", and although I don't have any real experience as a pilot, the BUG did made my flight experience feel different and even more challenging than FSX.

Just as a real Jetstream pilot mentioned, "this challange is irrating"....or something close to that.A pilot/ developer for FSX says the same thing, and so do I. These planes should have more positive stability, and not be a challange just to maintain a normal flight. Note: when the FSX version of the Q400 was released, it also had a tendency to torque roll to the left. It's a cause of complaints, which the pilot/developer for FSX also pointed out.

[jcomm 5,930]

I call that fairy-tail flight dynamics. Why would the airplane want to roll to the right on descent with power pulled back, unless you purposely have an asymmetric setup with fixed tabs or wings with different incidences?

 

One of the reasons is exactly that one: if the aircraft is built with the fin canted, or has aileron trim tabs set for cruise to counter roll, or rudder tabs to counter yaw, on a high speed ( safe ) descent you will start to see a yaw / roll to the right.

 

The other reason is that under such circumstances, and specially on CS props where the pitch is automatically adjusted to fine, it's the airflow that drives the prop, and actually applies a force on it trying to make it turn faster ( and it starts turning faster easily on aircraft fitted with fixed pitch props ). This force is exerted on the engine crank and, just like with torque, there is a reaction ( ooposite ) this turn around from the engine, in the opposite direction. This is naturally transmited to the aircraft and can result in an additional tendency for the right rolling moment.

 

Add to it the very faint effects of the spiraling slipstream, with very "few energy" it now has, and thus not able to act over aircaft surfaces as it did at full power and high AoA / low speed, and there will be nothing to counter that right rolling ( and yawing ) tendency.

 

The bigger the prop, the bigger the effect, and on the P51d ( in DCS ) it is documented and very noticeable ( and even more because that aircraft had a considerable fin cant )

 

BTW, Larry, the cant you mentioned on your RV6 was fin or engine cant?  Were they both canted? Was the aileron trim tab on the right wing, or it only had a rudder trim tab?

[CarlosF 1,239]

Jetstream pilot mentioned, "this challange is irrating".

 

His own opinion and rightfully so!

 

Ask 10 different pilots the same question, you get 10 different answers, some answers will basically mean be the same thing, the rest will contradict each other....sort of what we read here in the forums, some think one way is the right way others disagree.

 

I take my own experience as the right one for me, period!

[LAdamson 240]

One of the reasons is exactly that one: if the aircraft is built with the fin canted, or has aileron trim tabs set for cruise to counter roll, or rudder tabs to counter yaw, on a high speed ( safe ) descent you will start to see a yaw / roll to the right.

 

 

The other reason is that under such circumstances, and specially on CS props where the pitch is automatically adjusted to fine, it's the airflow that drives the prop, and actually applies a force on it trying to make it turn faster ( and it starts turning faster easily on aircraft fitted with fixed pitch props ). This force is exerted on the engine crank and, just like with torque, there is a reaction ( ooposite ) this turn around from the engine, in the opposite direction. This is naturally transmited to the aircraft and can result in an additional tendency for the right rolling moment.

 

Add to it the very faint effects of the spiraling slipstream, with very "few energy" it now has, and thus not able to act over aircaft surfaces as it did at full power and high AoA / low speed, and there will be nothing to counter that right rolling ( and yawing ) tendency.

 

The bigger the prop, the bigger the effect, and on the P51d ( in DCS ) it is documented and very noticeable ( and even more because that aircraft had a considerable fin cant )

 

BTW, Larry, the cant you mentioned on your RV6 was fin or engine cant? Were they both canted? Was the aileron trim tab on the right wing, or it only had a rudder trim tab?

I'll start with the constant speed prop. Before my RV, I flew C/S props. That's why I liked them, and went to the expense of installing one on the RV. The prop won't actually be going to it's finer pitch during the descent. You actually just leave it at it's cruise settings. However, it will be making it's own adjustments to maintain RPMs, as long as it's in the governor range. I, and most, don't actually move the prop lever forward, until on final. If you do beforehand, you might just get a heavy prop driving the engine effect, which throws your body forward. Not good on the engine either. In the meantime, I never felt a rolling effect with the Piper Arrows, the Diamond D40, the Pitts, or the RVs.....while on descent. I suppose you'd really just have to let go of the yoke/stick, to notice any, if there is. And as many long, high speed descents, as I've done... I just don't remember having to think about trimming for roll, as I would do for pitch.

 

 

The RV had a 1*6" servo controlled trim tab on the right aileron. The RV6 didn't use an offset vertical stab, but newer models do. That way, a new builder can proclaim a "hands off"....first flight test! Just the engine is canted, as most single engine planes are.....as well as all of these R/Cs I've had.

 

 

Here lies the problem. If a desktop sim gives me an indication, that I need to trim for roll; especially over and over; and that a force is actually present to be trimmed.........then it's going to seem un-real to me. If the real life forces are light enough, to not even be thought about, then the sim will just have to do the same. Even if it means simulating no forces at all.

 

 

I happen to know through research, that most modern aircraft call for symmetrical wing installations (no seperate incidence), for rigging. The RVs are certainly that way. All of these tabs to correct for roll, are for small building errors, or just bad rigging. It's well known, that tabs cause drag. Anytime the tab is trying to correct roll, it also contributes to more yaw, which then has to be offset. I'd like to see more information about the "canted" engine actually having an effect of more airflow over the inboard section of the left wing, to help counter roll, rather than just yaw. If it's correct, then that's a great reason for having a canted engine, as the force varies with power, and is not permanent like a offset vertical stab, or fixed trim tab. I just have not seen enough info about that. If you read enough well researched texts, on the properties of flight, you'll see that there still is much debate, as to the final causes and effects. It's just as bad, as trying to define exactly what cause lift. As an example, for some, slip stream is the main force, while for others, it's minor.

 

If nothing else, forum questions such as this, can lead to many hours of interesting research. In the end, the reader just may end up more confused, than they thought they were. Just as soon as I know where "outer space" actually ends....I'll let everyone know the real answers about "torque roll"..

[LAdamson 240]

His own opinion and rightfully so!

 

Ask 10 different pilots the same question, you get 10 different answers, some answers will basically mean be the same thing, the rest will contradict each other....sort of what we read here in the forums, some think one way is the right way others disagree.

 

I take my own experience as the right one for me, period!

There will be differences of opinion. Some pilots haven't even thought about the questions asked. When I mentioned this "torque roll" idea on a pilots forum, I was told that the effect was certainly present, from an owner pilot of a turbine-powered crop duster. This guy has tens of thousands of hours, and is also a CFI. A week later, after some in-flight experimentation, and really thinking about it, he comes back, and says the roll is of no consiquence. He just makes any aileron corrections as needed for the takeoff, and that's basically it.

 

For this reason, you'll never see a need to trim and re-trim for torque roll.....in real life pilot reports. It's always "yaw". You litterly have to get into high powered radio control model forums (or sim forums), to see "torque" mentioned......with the exception of twins and loss of an engine.

[CarlosF 1,239]

Some pilots haven't even thought about the questions asked.

 

LOL...I can agree to that!

[jcomm 5,930]

Yes I agree - this subject is really a very very interesting one.

 

For sure X-Plane 10 is not absolutely correct, but I am trying to experiment with plane maker and see what parameters can bring an aircraft known in RL to hardly show any roll due to torque, behave like that in X-plane :-)  That's currently my main aim ...

 

A good example that made me think a lot about the design used by his author is Goran's / LES  DC-3, where, without using any artificial stability or tweaks, he managed to desgin an aircraft model that presents a very credible flight behaviour and mild roll due to torque ( or at least not more than the similar models I've used in FSX ).