MU-2 Elevator Trim Tabs

[CSCARLOS 0]

Hi everybody,

 

There seems to be an animation issue concerning the MU-2 elevator trim tabs. As for inflight trimming purposes, a Trim Tab is actually required to move in the opposite direction to that of the control surface it is connected to for trimming.

So, in Flysimware's MU-2, for an inflight Nose-Up trimming, Tabs are incorrectly modelled moving upward -when they must move downward to force elevators upward and hence lower the aircraft's tail resulting in a nose-up attitude. Logically enough ...for trimming Nose-Down... just the opposite is observed.  In case of disagreement, then it can be easily verified just observing another quality product... or real life aircraft !

 

Cheers,

Carlos

 

[louisdecoolste 12]

Trim tabs can be servo (adding to the force vector) or anti-servo (diminishing the force vector) and can function in more than one way, so you should be careful about such sweeping generalisations. Perhaps you could provide reference material to qualify your assertion for the MU-2 ?

 

As the Moo uses a conventional tailplane and elevator arrangement, located aft of the MAC, I suspect that the wide range of operating airspeeds for the aircraft may require an anti-servo system. Remember, on a conventional platform the tailplane exerts a downforce vector, not a lift force. One that progressively increases with airspeed. The effect of which is to create an increasing nose-UP moment that is compensated for by pushing the yoke forward - and the elevator down. Trimming the force out of that movement suggests anti-servo effect - up movement on the trim tab.  

The trim tabs on the elevator on the MU2 have a range of +30/-1 degrees operation, confirming that more tab `up` is applied than tab `down`. This would suggest that either Mitsubishi got this wrong, or you did. I don't think there's any animation issue, but please do cite your sources and let's have a look.

 

I doubt you will get any response from the developers. They seem to have gone off the idea of interacting with the customer base, save for promoting their next unfinished product. The Moo is about as good as its going to get so even if you are right, I wouldn't expect a model recompile is even remotely likely.

[MBaclawski 11]

 

 

I doubt you will get any response from the developers. They seem to have gone off the idea of interacting with the customer base, save for promoting their next unfinished product. The Moo is about as good as its going to get so even if you are right, I wouldn't expect a model recompile is even remotely likely.

 

Yup the Animation is way off, if you look you will see it's all the way up  and looks very Unrealistic, the auto pilot is off as well. Basically you get what you Get because they have a new and exciting

Lear jet coming out and can't be bothered finishing the Moo.  Good Luck .

[CSCARLOS 0]

Trim tabs can be servo (adding to the force vector) or anti-servo (diminishing the force vector) and can function in more than one way, so you should be careful about such sweeping generalisations. Perhaps you could provide reference material to qualify your assertion for the MU-2 ?

 

As the Moo uses a conventional tailplane and elevator arrangement, located aft of the MAC, I suspect that the wide range of operating airspeeds for the aircraft may require an anti-servo system. Remember, on a conventional platform the tailplane exerts a downforce vector, not a lift force. One that progressively increases with airspeed. The effect of which is to create an increasing nose-UP moment that is compensated for by pushing the yoke forward - and the elevator down. Trimming the force out of that movement suggests anti-servo effect - up movement on the trim tab.  

The trim tabs on the elevator on the MU2 have a range of +30/-1 degrees operation, confirming that more tab `up` is applied than tab `down`. This would suggest that either Mitsubishi got this wrong, or you did. I don't think there's any animation issue, but please do cite your sources and let's have a look.

 

I doubt you will get any response from the developers. They seem to have gone off the idea of interacting with the customer base, save for promoting their next unfinished product. The Moo is about as good as its going to get so even if you are right, I wouldn't expect a model recompile is even remotely likely.

You asked me for my sources of information. I think you got these both sources, the MU-2B-60 Marquise Aircraft Flight Manual I had mentioned already in the other post, and the FAA’s corresponding Aircraft Type Certificate I cite now.

 

As an elemental comment, being it the Mitsubishi or another aircraft with the same conventional design:  I cannot think of any way for Trimming Nose Up, having a Nose-Up indication from the Elevator Trim Indicator, and getting out of the aircraft just to find out that the elevator Trim Tabs are pointing UP! … no way I would takeoff… what I would take is a photograph for sure… and what ever actions would be in order!

 

Once said that, I consider unnecessary all what follows, but anyway here it comes:

 

This is textual Information regarding Elevator Trim Tab under “control surface movements” paragraph as directly taken from the FAA corresponding Aircraft Type Certificate:

 

“Elevator Tab Nose Up 30° Nose Down 1° (See Note 8)”

 

“NOTE 8. Airworthiness Directive– AD 93-07-11, mandated that the maximum deflection of the elevator nose-down trim reduced to 1 degree from 10 degrees in accordance with Mitsubishi Heavy Industries LTD. Service Bulletin No. 079/27-010 dated August 28, 1992. Effected models are MU-2B-25/-26/-26A/-40/-35/-36/-36A/-60”.

 

So, if reading carefully this Acft. Type Cert.:  “Elevator Tab Nose Up 30° ” is exactly the opposite to what you state as “ +30/-1 degrees operation”  “more tab `up` is applied than tab `down` “.

 

Type Certificate reads “Elevator Tab Nose Up 30° ” ... I repeat: “Nose Up”  ... NOT Tab Up 30º or +30 deg. as you state.

 

Type certificate specifying “Elevator Tab Nose Up 30° ”  implies that for the aircraft Nose Up attitude, the Trim Tab will have a 30º range DOWN in relation to the elevator …in order to force the elevator UP and thus achieving a Tail Low/Nose Up attitude.

 

I would’nt like to take this argumentation any further. You may be perfectly sure about your point of view and adhere to it…. I adhere to mine.

Cheers,

Carlos

[louisdecoolste 12]

 

 

Your absolutely right to refuse any further argumentation.

[JohnM 0]

Both the ELEVATOR trim tab as well as the RUDDER trim tab animations are the opposite of what they should be. Hopefully this will be fixed.

 

[N405GJ 36]

 

 

louisdecoolste, on 19 Aug 2015 - 04:22 AM, said:


I doubt you will get any response from the developers. They seem to have gone off the idea of interacting with the customer base, save for promoting their next unfinished product. The Moo is about as good as its going to get so even if you are right, I wouldn't expect a model recompile is even remotely likely.

 

We have not in anyway abandoned the customers, or our attention to the forums. However, the person who is typically the one responsible for addressing concerns posted here has gotten rather busy with his life away from the sim world. I am merely on the Beta Team, but I try to check the forums on a regular basis, and will bring this up to Mark. It may not get addressed right away, but it has been noted.

[louisdecoolste 12]

Excellent news. Perhaps a little less time pimping their new build jet in FaceAche and a bit more time here in their Official Support Forum dealing with paid customers ? They managed to update that only a day or so ago.

 

An explanation as to whether the trim tabs operate as servo or anti-servo type should be a matter of seconds for a qualified Moo flyer. More importantly if there is an issue, perhaps they might down tools temporarily to support the customers who have highlighted an error of the product already bought, and commit to fixing it.

 

And you could think a bit before posting like this in another developers forum

http://www.avsim.com/topic/473321-phenom-300-releasedfirst-impressions/page-4#entry3284820

 

Beginning to look like Flysimware are repeating the Chilean damn-the-customer-and-get-the-next-one-out-the-door mentality. This `small team` excuse is getting old. I said back in June what would happen if customer-supporting-customer suffered in this forum. We really need Flysimware to step up to the plate and be accountable here. 

[N405GJ 36]

Louisdecoolste, this thread that brought up this issue is only 2 days old. We have released numerous fixes to the MU-2 in the time it has been out. 7 of them if I recall correctly. Personally speaking, as a customer, I have received more support, and responses from the developer at Flysimware than I believe anyone has from Carenado. And frankly I find your comparison of the two to be rather unfair. Show me the forum where Carenado interacts with their customers, takes their feedback, and fixes the issues.

 

To reply to the Trim Tab issue, Mark is now aware of this thread and we will see what can be done to rectify the issue. Give us a little time to fix things before jumping to conclusions and making silly comparisons.

[Flysimware 647]

There are 4 major types of trim tabs.

 

1) TRIM TABS: 

Roll the wheel in the nose up position, and the tab moves down. Roll the wheel in the nose down direction, and the tab moves up. 

 

2) Balance Tabs: 

Some aircraft have very heavy control loads, especially at high speeds. That's where balance tabs come in handy. Balance tabs look like trim tabs, but they have one major difference: balance tabs are attached to the control surface linkage, so when the control surface is moved in one direction, the balance tab moves in the opposite direction.

 

3) Antiservo Tabs: 

Antiservo tabs are similar to balance tabs, but they move in the opposite direction. For example, when your elevator or stabilator moves up, the antiservo tab moves in the same direction.

 

4) Ground Adjustable Tabs:

The fourth and final tab is the ground adjustable tab. If you've flown a training airplane, there's a good chance it had one of these on the rudder. Ground adjustable tabs are just that: only adjustable on the ground. So how do you adjust it? By bending it left or right, preferably between two solid surfaces, like blocks of wood. But before you run out and start adjusting the tab yourself, it's a good idea to see what your POH or mechanic recommends first.

 

 

Operation for the MU-2B: Just has trim tabs!

The elevator trim tabs are cable operated from the elevator trim wheel on the left side of the power quadrant. Rotation of the trim wheel to NOSE to NOSE down mechanically position the elevator trim tabs, as shown on the mechanical inidcator adjacent to control wheel. The aircraft is equipped with electric elevator trim.

 

I sent a message to Joe our tech guy just to make sure as i could be wrong but these tabs are way too small to be any other type!

[louisdecoolste 12]

Louisdecoolste, this thread that brought up this issue is only 2 days old. We have released numerous fixes to the MU-2 in the time it has been out. 7 of them if I recall correctly. Personally speaking, as a customer, I have received more support, and responses from the developer at Flysimware than I believe anyone has from Carenado. And frankly I find your comparison of the two to be rather unfair. Show me the forum where Carenado interacts with their customers, takes their feedback, and fixes the issues.

 

To reply to the Trim Tab issue, Mark is now aware of this thread and we will see what can be done to rectify the issue. Give us a little time to fix things before jumping to conclusions and making silly comparisons.

 

You say `seven fixes` as if it were a good thing ! 

As a`beta` tester I certainly wouldn't be referencing the number of fixes that have been necessary, it might reflect on the quality and quantity of my testing that went into the product. Just like Carenado, treating the customer like a paying beta tester. Whichi if the seven came at your instigation or those of your fellow testers ? So, hardly`silly comparison` - as well as yet further insult to the customer.

 

Back to facts: It's good to see the attendance of a real representative. Can we take it that this issue will be confirmed, dealt with and a further fix released if necessary before we see any further attention paid to the next monied product ? That would be excellent reassurance for the paid customer base. And un-Carenado like.

[Paladin851 0]

You say `seven fixes` as if it were a good thing ! 

As a`beta` tester I certainly wouldn't be referencing the number of fixes that have been necessary, it might reflect on the quality and quantity of my testing that went into the product. Just like Carenado, treating the customer like a paying beta tester. Whichi if the seven came at your instigation or those of your fellow testers ? So, hardly`silly comparison` - as well as yet further insult to the customer.

 

Back to facts: It's good to see the attendance of a real representative. Can we take it that this issue will be confirmed, dealt with and a further fix released if necessary before we see any further attention paid to the next monied product ? That would be excellent reassurance for the paid customer base. And un-Carenado like.

Seems to me that the patches issued bye Flysimware have been small in size and directly addressing issues reported on these forums,no waiting for months to get things fixed like other developers. On the subject of fixes can you point me to an aircraft add-on that didn't need patching ? been doing this for many years and have never seen one. I have never beta tested for a flight sim add-on but have for several other program types and issues get through despite the very best of intentions.They always have and I have little doubt that they always will.

 

As for the elevator trim tab issue....For some reason the trim tabs on mine have the correct animations as per the examples noted above. I have no clue as to why that is and how it can differ from the complaints above. 

[Flysimware 647]

Louis i am surprised your are complaining about updates. This is normal for any complex software. I always make sure our bugs are fixed within the first 6 weeks. And i only had this product for sale at my store for rev 1.0 to rev 1.3 before it hits the major outlets. The only reason we had to do more updates on this project was because my tech guy had a job change and could not be around. So i had to do his work and mine while trying to fix any bugs. One of the autopilot modes had a bug that was hard to fix as i found out it was not our coding it was how the animation was setup. So this threw me off for a while and it took a few updates to actually fix it. After all bugs were fixed i got back to working on my new project. Anyways why mention other projects since other company's usually have 3 or 4 projects going at once. I stick to one at a time minus updates. The trim tabs are fine and this entire topic is pointless to me unless there is in fact an issue. So let's get to the truth of it and we can fix it. As of right now and the last 4 months there has been nothing to fix. Also keep in mind i am 1 developer who owns and runs this business and the other team members are not full time. They have smaller specific tasks they do so i think i have done a excellent job for such a small Company. 

 

Not trying to make excuses but just trying to give you facts since i am shocked that you would post negative posts about how i do my business. I always say if you can do what i do all by yourself then see if you can do it better. As a paying customers i do agree you should report issues and we will fix them. Use our message center at our website. The forums is mostly to help customers on how to use our product and keep customers updated with news. Not for publicly trying to make Flysimware look bad!

[louisdecoolste 12]

Then perhaps you should ask the Avsim people to rename the forum. the Flysimware Official Support Forum is unambiguous. It's the Support Forum. For Flysimware. Only now are we finding out it isn't. I'm sure Avsim will be as surprised as we !

 

As for looking bad, never been my intent. I simply reflect the level of support as I see it. which has gone from exemplary to crap, never mind excuses.

 

As for the trim tabs. Look again.

N130MS : Nose down trim (i.e. to trim the force out of a nose down application of elevator by application of nose down trim as seen on the forward movement on the gauge in the cockpit) shows the elevator trim tab rotating down, not up. If these are standard servo tabs they MUST operate in the opposite direction to the force being applied.

 

Your model does not do this, the tabs move in the same direction as the trim indicator - down for down, up for up. Or to put it another way, in the same plane as the control surface - forward yoke = down elevator, back yoke = up elevator. This is just wrong unless they act as anti-servos. And we are still waiting for confirmation on this point from you, the developer. Surely this was part of your basic research before selling the model to us public?

 

Please do so with all due alacrity. I really don't want to hear another word about the Lear until this bogus application is corrected OR we have physical confirmation that the system used in the Moo is of the anti-servo type, in which case movement in the same direction as the control surface IS correct. DA got it right with the Katana X (anti-servo). A2a get it right with all their GA birds.

 

Why is this so difficult. It's a basic requirement for correct simulation. The technical data will already be in your research pile and should be a matter of moments to find and publish for those of us who are now extremely confused.

[mjrhealth 820]

Never noticed but than I dont count rivets either. I guess some people have too much time on their hands. Im here to enjoy flying what is a lovey plane to fly. Not 100% accrate but than i havnt found one that is yet. After all it is a sim.

 

But thank you for doing to lovely planes, we are not allso picky.