Sign in to follow this  
jcomm

XP11 winds, aircraft and weathervaning ...

Recommended Posts

While Murmur continues his study of the data available from XP11 dataref database, I would like to point out a couple of findings I did today, and contribute to restore, considerably, my hope in XP11 at least in this particular matter!

 

Well, since Murmur suggested there might be some problem with the default C172, I decided to pick the default B58.

 

Placed it at LPMT rw 08, braked, engines out, and started playing with the "wind rose", which, btw, reminds me more of the way DCS World interface is designed to define wind direction, and I don't find that good, because it can be misleading - the the arrow point to "from where" the wind comes, but being an arrow, this can be misinterpreted as "where to"... Anyway, here go my findings:

 

1) The trim settings, both default Plane Maker trim tab settings and whatever we set in the cockpit using the trim wheels / switches when available, deflect the corresponding control surfaces from there "neutral" position, with any wind intensity washing them, from 0 to the max available wind component + max gust.

 

I really don't recall how it was in previous versions ( ? )

 

If, for instance, you set the ground adjustable aileron trim tab to a huge +4.00 instead of the default +0.07, when you look at the aircraft from an outside view, the ailerons will be considerably deflected accordingly, in this particular case, the right aileron deflect UP the left deflected DOWN. This does not depend on there being any propwash ( the engines can be turned off ), or wind component.

 

I do not like this approach, and I believe Austin should create a better representation of the effect of trim surfaces, namely, their effect being noticeable only as dynamic pressure increases over their surfaces... The ailerons with the parked aircraft should be neutral, but for instance by increasin the wind from ahead to higher and higher values, they should start to deflect...

 

2) When a x-wind component is set in the weather menu ( make sure you disable NOAA or any other weather injector to run the tests, or their settings will prevail! ), the rudder will deflect upwind !  Now, this is irrespective of what the default trim tab position is ( in the case of the default Baron 58, rudder and elevator trim tabs are set at 0.00 in Plane Maker ).

 

Now, 2)​ can in some way be the culprit for the overdone need to use downwind rudder input.

 

But, looking at the effects of the wind, specially set at "stronger" values, from the outside of the aircraft, and how the gear struts compress and the tire physics work, is really promising!

 

Looking forward for your comments, and for Murmurs tests, but I wonder if anything can be done, other than using artificial stability, to avoid the rudder deflection upwind with a x-wind component ?

 

The screenshot bellow shows the default Baron 58, parked at LPMT rw 08, with a wind set at 35 knot from port side. Notice the rudder deflected upwind. The ailerons are also deflected, not because of the wind but rather because I defined the aileron trim tab in Plane Maker to +4.00. The yoke and the rudder in the cockpit remain centred.

 

Baron_58_1.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Help AVSIM continue to serve you!
Please donate today!

I guess rudder is deflecting with wind because you have stability augmentation?

 

negative - I did make sure it was all at 0%.

 

And, even if it was AS, it would then deflect it opposite :-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

was that a 100 kt wind ? that aircraft was blown away like it's paper 

 

All my sliders are to the left 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

was that a 100 kt wind ? that aircraft was blown away like it's paper 

 

All my sliders are to the left 

 

In the youtube, I don't guess what winds were on both videos.

 

In my screenshot, just 35 knot effective x-wind from portside.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure if I understood, but I tried to have 40kts from any sides for test and didn't got any deflections on rudder? the only thing that happens is gear compression, so maybe something else is affecting your side to get rudder deflection with wind?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

that small aircraft in that video which was blown away with the wind , that must have been the headwind causing great lift , heck it overcame the gravity on the mass. 

 

 I guess the tire friction fixed mentioned may have had something to do with the weathervane effect not that i understand much about it.


Have you looked for this effect in DCS ? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure if I understood, but I tried to have 40kts from any sides for test and didn't got any deflections on rudder? the only thing that happens is gear compression, so maybe something else is affecting your side to get rudder deflection with wind?

 

Weird ? Did you try with the default Baron58, making sure only X-Plane weather is being used and no external injector ? The tests I made were with beta3, and Art Stab full left for the three axis.

 

 

that small aircraft in that video which was blown away with the wind , that must have been the headwind causing great lift , heck it overcame the gravity on the mass. 

 

 I guess the tire friction fixed mentioned may have had something to do with the weathervane effect not that i understand much about it.

Have you looked for this effect in DCS ? 

 

Yep, DCS, Il-2 Battle of, Rise of Flight, Aerofly FS 2, FSX, P3D Aerowinx PSX all model it, DCS, IL2 and Aerowinx PSX with very good detail, including strut compression, and in IL2 and DCS, some really interesting results from propwash interference with various aircraft surfaces...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep, DCS, Il-2 Battle of, FSX, P3D Aerowinx PSX all model it, DCS, IL2 and Aerowinx PSX with very good detail, including strut compression, and in IL2 and DCS, some really interesting results from propwash interference with various aircraft surfaces...

 

Strut compression  think has been fixed with the B3 but i can't be sure, yes DCS does model compression. 

 

I think read on one post about the weathervane issue i think in the Xenviro thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One important note though!

 

On my tests I had no hardware controllers in place, just use the mouse and keyboard to fly XP11 in a laptop where I keep a copy...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's probably some autocoordination in play, then.

 

 

One important note though!

 

On my tests I had no hardware controllers in place, just use the mouse and keyboard to fly XP11 in a laptop where I keep a copy...

 

 

Cheers,

Pascal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The deflection is definitely an issue and it makes sense as to why you see weathervaning on the ground while taxiing as the rudder movement and nose wheel are coupled in the simulation.

In real life, the forces on the rudder via it's rigging are not going to allow such a deflection to happen, especially since you'll also have pressure with your feet also being applied keeping it centered.

 

This issue is old and I'm shocked it still exists. Austin needs to prioritize this. It's a big black eye for XP and is the first thing that new players experience.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How can i check ? 

 

Place the aircraft ( Baron 58 i.e., or even the C90 although I didn't test with this one ) on a rw, shutoff the engine, disable any weather injcetor and set a near ground win layer at 90º from left or right.

 

Get into na exteranl view and observe.

 

Make sure Artificial Stability is off ( 0% = full left on the three axis )

 

But, Pascal above mentioned autocoordination ? I don't know how to enable that in XP11 ?  And I didn't have any joystick or rudder attached - just use the mouse & keyboard, and my controls were centred.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 


And I didn't have any joystick or rudder attached - just use the mouse & keyboard, and my controls were centred.

 

Due to lack of adequate rudder controls for mouse/keyboard, "auto rudder" is enabled automatically in this case. I suggest re-doing your experiments with proper controllers assigned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, it's the auto rudder, it will be active always with mouse in order to allow ground control, I know for sure that with my joystick it does not behave like that, wind does not affect the surfaces even with stability augmentation on rudder from what I've seen and yeah I was testing the Baron.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, I missed that one, but still, it doesn't make sense since the aircraft is parked.... not moving.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While Murmur continues his study of the data available from XP11 dataref database, I would like to point out a couple of findings I did today, and contribute to restore, considerably, my hope in XP11 at least in this particular matter!

 

Well, since Murmur suggested there might be some problem with the default C172, I decided to pick the default B58.

 

Placed it at LPMT rw 08, braked, engines out, and started playing with the "wind rose", which, btw, reminds me more of the way DCS World interface is designed to define wind direction, and I don't find that good, because it can be misleading - the the arrow point to "from where" the wind comes, but being an arrow, this can be misinterpreted as "where to"... Anyway, here go my findings:

 

1) The trim settings, both default Plane Maker trim tab settings and whatever we set in the cockpit using the trim wheels / switches when available, deflect the corresponding control surfaces from there "neutral" position, with any wind intensity washing them, from 0 to the max available wind component + max gust.

 

I really don't recall how it was in previous versions ( ? )

 

If, for instance, you set the ground adjustable aileron trim tab to a huge +4.00 instead of the default +0.07, when you look at the aircraft from an outside view, the ailerons will be considerably deflected accordingly, in this particular case, the right aileron deflect UP the left deflected DOWN. This does not depend on there being any propwash ( the engines can be turned off ), or wind component.

 

I do not like this approach, and I believe Austin should create a better representation of the effect of trim surfaces, namely, their effect being noticeable only as dynamic pressure increases over their surfaces... The ailerons with the parked aircraft should be neutral, but for instance by increasin the wind from ahead to higher and higher values, they should start to deflect...

 

2) When a x-wind component is set in the weather menu ( make sure you disable NOAA or any other weather injector to run the tests, or their settings will prevail! ), the rudder will deflect upwind !  Now, this is irrespective of what the default trim tab position is ( in the case of the default Baron 58, rudder and elevator trim tabs are set at 0.00 in Plane Maker ).

 

Now, 2)​ can in some way be the culprit for the overdone need to use downwind rudder input.

 

But, looking at the effects of the wind, specially set at "stronger" values, from the outside of the aircraft, and how the gear struts compress and the tire physics work, is really promising!

 

Looking forward for your comments, and for Murmurs tests, but I wonder if anything can be done, other than using artificial stability, to avoid the rudder deflection upwind with a x-wind component ?

 

The screenshot bellow shows the default Baron 58, parked at LPMT rw 08, with a wind set at 35 knot from port side. Notice the rudder deflected upwind. The ailerons are also deflected, not because of the wind but rather because I defined the aileron trim tab in Plane Maker to +4.00. The yoke and the rudder in the cockpit remain centred.

 

 

 

[TECHNICAL POST]

 

2) In X-Plane, the deflection of the rudder in the Baron when in a crosswind is caused by its yaw damper. You can check it by failing the yaw damper, after that the rudder will not move anymore. I don't know if the real Baron has a yaw damper, nor if it's modeled correctly in its behaviour, in any case the reason is that, nothing else. :smile:

 

1) With regard to the control surfaces reacting to airflow. I remember we already discussed this in the past. The problem is that in a real aircraft, the yoke and the control surfaces are (of course) directly connected, while this is not true in a pc flight simulation, if using a non force feedback joystick (i.e. 99,99% of users). So, every flight simulator has to compromise in one way or another, and it's not that a given solution is better or more realistic than the other.

 

In theory, one could model either a stick fixed condition (where the flight controls position is directly connected to joystick position) or a stick free condition (where the flight controls position depends on the airflow and is not directly connected to joystick position).

 

Every flight simulator that I know of, models the stick fixed condition (and yes, that includes DCS, as explained later) for various reasons. It's certainly the preferable one between the two, given the limitations above mentioned.

 

Regarding DCS. In the link to the Spitfire stability thread (I think it was 30 pages long) that I gave in the Eagle Dynamics forum, there's a post by Yo-Yo where he explains just that: in order to model a stick free condition, a force feedback joystick would be needed, so DCS too actually models a stick fixed condition. This could be tested in DCS by flying an aircraft and trying to cause some rapid oscillations in the AoA. In a stick fixed conditions, the elevator should not move at all, and hence not react to the varying airflow.

 

So, how does this reconcile with the fact that in DCS the flight controls react to airflow during e.g. takeoff? Well, in a certain sense we could say that it's little more than eye candy. As I explained, they modeled this reaction to the airflow in this initial low-speed phase, but once the flight controls are "in place" and the aircraft is actually flying, they do not react anymore to the airflow, being modeled a stick-fixed condition.

 

So, to sum it up, all PC flight simulators model a stick-fixed condition. It's not a lack of realism, but a compromise dictated by the limitations in hardware.

 

The reaction of flight controls to airflow during low speed is a "touch" seen in some flight simulators to increase visual realism, but does not contribute to increase the realism of the flight model overall.

 

The desirable improvements in X-Plane flight and ground model are a lot, but having flight controls react to the airflow is not one of them, nor would it increase the accuracy in any appreciable way. :smile:

  • Upvote 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[ANOTHER TECHNICAL POST]

 

As I said, I made some experiments with the C172 in X-Plane 11 to study tire friction.

 

First of all, when the aircraft is braked (and engine off), the tire model works perfectly. The maximum forces and moments that the landing gear can apply, agree with my calculations. Infact, when the X-Plane C172 is braked, it can remain still for direct crosswinds up to about 45 knots (if wind is gradually increased). Apart from the theoretical calculations, this also seems reasonable.

 

The aircraft will actually move just a little under the wind forces, apparently for the effects of strut compression and tires deformation, but will settle to its original position if wind is ceased.

 

Now, if the gear is not braked, things are less clear. In this case, the X-Plane C172 will begin to weathervane for crosswinds of about 13 knots. In this case, the maximum forces and moments applied by the landing gear seem to be less than those I calculated.

 

So the tire model seems to be 100% correct when the brake is on, but the situation is a lot more dubious when the brakes are not applied. I have still not reached a definitive conclusion though, and it's not easy to understand what is the origin of this issue.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The origin of this issue is Austin not acknowledging it..😝

 

Okay, but let's keep this in perspective. There is definitely something odd going on here, but this is a minor issue in the overall simulation.

 

I can easily take off with just a small amount of pedal pressure with the default 172 in any reasonable crosswind. I've never had any major problem with weathervaning when flying tail-wheel planes or anything else in X-Plane. The problem with torque modeling was far more serious.

 

I do hope this is fixed, but let's not exaggerate the impact on normal GA flight ops. It's not THAT big a problem. In the meantime, file bug reports when you see it happening and maybe we'll get a fix at some point. 

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, but let's keep this in perspective. There is definitely something odd going on here, but this is a minor issue in the overall simulation.

 

I can easily take off with just a small amount of pedal pressure with the default 172 in any reasonable crosswind. I've never had any major problem with weathervaning when flying tail-wheel planes or anything else in X-Plane. The problem with torque modeling was far more serious.

 

I do hope this is fixed, but let's not exaggerate the impact on normal GA flight ops. It's not THAT big a problem. In the meantime, file bug reports when you see it happening and maybe we'll get a fix at some point. 

 

When it happens makes it a serious issue.

 

Every new XP user does what the first time they boot up? Taxi and takeoff. And the bad ground handling was the first negative impression I got from XP10 when I bought it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this