Throttle Quadrant

[ark 1,290]

Hi Chris,

Now that the yokes are about to begin moving out the door, I'm already starting to look forward to your Hall effect Throttle Quadrant. Although I have no idea if the TQ design has already been finalized or not, I wanted to pass on some thoughts for your consideration:

1. The less bulky the TQ, the better. Desk ('cockpit') space if typically at a premium, so smaller is usually better.

2. With just a few exceptions (C152/172, etc) most flightsim a/c use electric pitch trim, so no need for a trim wheel that adds to the size of the TQ.

3. A Gear handle is good, and also a Flap handle, although button actuated flaps are OK too. 

4. Having an ample and  flexible switch panel incorporated into the TQ is important.

5. The button and/or rocker switches in the switch panel should be of the momentary contact type. Momentary contact switches ( like on your yoke or on the Saitek TQ) work best with the flight sims. This may be because if absolutely necessary, the flight sims are made to me controlled with a keyboard, and keys are just momentary contact switches.

6. With just a few exceptions (Gear, Flaps) the switches should NOT be labeled. This allows the user to fit the switch application to various uses and aircraft without label conflicts. For example, rather than having a rotary switch labeled Mags,  which does not "fit" flying a jet aircraft, if that switch was unlabeled, it could be used for the Mags in a C172, or for the Autobrake settings in a B737, without being "mislabeled". As another example, autopilot's come in many forms. The Lear 35 AP has GS (Glide Slope), ALTSEL, and SPD switches, while other APs have different switches like APP and FLCH. So again, having an unlabeled switch allows assignment flexibility (such as through FSUIPC) when moving from a/c to a/c without label conflicts.

I'm sure there are many other ideas and opinions out there, but just wanted to pass on my 2 cents worth.

Thanks,

Al

 

 

Edited September 19, 2020 by ark

[tutmeister 710]

Thanks for your feedback Al, dont worry as a seasoned simmer I feel the same about a lot of things, plus we always take a lot of input from the community as well as pilots.

We do have a design already but the big push right now is getting this yoke out to as many people as possible. Once the backlog is cleared we can focus on delivering new products.

Chris

[ark 1,290]

1 hour ago, tutmeister said:

We do have a design already but the big push right now is getting this yoke out to as many people as possible. Once the backlog is cleared we can focus on delivering new products.

Chris

Chris,

I understand, and the current yoke push is a good thing!  Whenever the time comes, I think it would be helpful to the decision process of many if you could provide a 'rough' timeframe estimate with respect to the TQ.

1 hour ago, tutmeister said:

Thanks for your feedback Al, dont worry as a seasoned simmer I feel the same about a lot of things, plus we always take a lot of input from the community as well as pilots.

FWIW, I was an instrumented rated pilot in my younger days, so you can take my input as such. 😉

Thanks,

Al

Edited September 19, 2020 by ark

[ark 1,290]

I should have also pointed out above that an important advantage of a momentary contact type switch is that is can be conveniently used to implement a 3 (or greater) position switch as found on some aircraft.  For example, in the Learjet35A the Taxi and Landing lights are controlled by a single 3 position switch (All lights off, Taxi lights on, Taxi and Landing lights on). With a single momentary switch, you can implement a Lua script with FSUIPC (or LINDA I assume -- don't use LINDA) so successive pushes of a momentary switch move you through the 3 light switch positions either in a round robin or 'up and back down' pattern. 

So momentary type switches conveniently offer a lot of flexibility.

Al

Edited September 20, 2020 by ark

[Glenn Fitzpatrick 3,798]

Eventually if you add too many features you start to double up with stuff people have on other hardware and if the features clearly only serves one purpose (such as a gear lever or magneto switch) which the buyer already has elsewhere that un-needed functionality can be a downside for some purchasers.

Hence - versatile and configurable is a very good thing.

The soon to be released Honeycomb throttle is attracting a great deal of attention partly because of that set of 6 throttle axis that can be apparently be reconfigured quickly from single engine trainer, through variable pitch prop twins, to Boeing/Airbus configurations with thrust reversers.

What they ALSO seem to have done is deliberately targeted two quite distinct markets:

1) people actually in the process of learning to fly who are looking to commit the checks and procedures on a Cessna to muscle memory and hence want something as close to their training aircraft as possible - hence the trim wheel and magneto switch.

2) people wanting to simulator flying the heavies. these guys are generally not actually training to fly an Airbus. They are looking for easy access to the myriad of controls they need - hence the configurable axis, the autopilot controls and the row of configurable undefined switches.

How that will go for them remains to be seen 😄

[orchestra_nl 927]

The featureset of the Honeycomb quadrant looks good, but something with higher quality/less plastic would be more to my liking. Without having actually handled the VirtualFly TQ6+, it seems to have the quality I'd like but lacks the versatility of the Honeycomb.

I disagree with @ark that a trimwheel is not necessary. I am not a realworld pilot, but there must be a reason why most aircraft have both trimbuttons as well as a trimwheel (maybe someone can enlighten me). I am using a lever on my CH yoke as elevater trim and it really helps to trim the aircraft precisely (except for the pots that have worn out). Since a motorised trimwheel would be expensive I'd recommend a free-rotating triimwheel without beginning or end, one that works like a mousewheel. That way you can use trim buttons also.

Another thing on my mind is to how things like thrust reverse / prop feather / mixture cutoff is to be implemented. Some quadrants just use (virtual) buttons, others set a virtual centre on the sensor's range to facilitate negative/beta range. the fact that thrust reverse is different for jets or props doesn't make that easier.

Although the Honeycomb has many features I like, I don't care much for the annuniator panel. I'm also in doubt as to the usefullness of its many switches, which seem to me are hard to reach if the levers are at their top setting. the Autopilot switches on the other hand seems convenient but that might make the quadrant overcomplicated or could be better served by a seperate product.

Just my 2 cents off course.

[Glenn Fitzpatrick 3,798]

2 hours ago, orchestra_nl said:

I am not a realworld pilot, but there must be a reason why most aircraft have both trimbuttons as well as a trimwheel (maybe someone can enlighten me).

The trim on a basic trainer like a 152 is simply a tab on the elevator that is adjusted mechanically by turning the wheel which moves the tab up or down. If the tab is pointing up into the airflow it forces the elevator down and visa versa.  it is all mechanical. There is only a trim wheel nothing else.

 

[orchestra_nl 927]

40 minutes ago, Glenn Fitzpatrick said:

The trim on a basic trainer like a 152 is simply a tab on the elevator that is adjusted mechanically by turning the wheel which moves the tab up or down. If the tab is pointing up into the airflow it forces the elevator down and visa versa.  it is all mechanical. There is only a trim wheel nothing else.

Thanks. I know the 152 only has a trimwheel. That's one of the reasons why, to stick close to realism, a trimwheel would be nice. I like how you point out that there is also a rudder trim tab. Afaik, you can't trim that from within the cockpit as you've got to bend the metal in the right position.

But the more advanced aircraft have both, and I wondered why they still have a trimwheel if trimming can also be done with the yoke buttons. I found an acceptable answer on Youtube:The trim buttons are convenient for the initial trim while the wheel is better suited for making precise corrections.

[Glenn Fitzpatrick 3,798]

8 minutes ago, orchestra_nl said:

Thanks. I know the 152 only has a trimwheel. That's one of the reasons why, to stick close to realism, a trimwheel would be nice. I like how you point out that there is also a rudder trim tab. Afaik, you can't trim that from within the cockpit as you've got to bend the metal in the right position.

But the more advanced aircraft have both, and I wondered why they still have a trimwheel if trimming can also be done with the yoke buttons. I found an acceptable answer on Youtube:The trim buttons are convenient for the initial trim while the wheel is better suited for making precise corrections.

The trim tabs you bend are something different again. The trim tab on the elevator of a C152/172 is moved by the trim wheel (or an electric motor turning the trim wheel). You can even see the tab move in MSFS if you jump to external view, change the trim in the cockpit and the tab moves in external view. Basically the trim wheel, whether moved by hand or an by an electric motor, pulls on control wires which move the trim tab which deflects the elevator to a new position, but only when the elevator has airflow over it.  There is no mechanism directly moving the elevator it is all done by the trim tab.

Trimming in a Cessna is totally different to how it works in a simulator. In the real plane you use the yoke to get the attitude you want and then it DOES NOT MOVE, you trim until the yoke stays in that new position by itself without you needing to hold it. In a sim you trim until your yoke MOVES back to its central position. Almost the exact opposite of real life.

On most 152s and 172s I flew back in the day the only electric thing was the flaps. I did fly one 172 with electric trim occasionally, but it was an SP with a variable pitch prop and autopilot and I think the electric trim was there because of the the autopilot. 

 

[jclay13 4]

Is your throttle design vernier type like in the Cessna 172/182 or Piper style like the old Saitek throttle or maybe something else?

[tutmeister 710]

Initially they will be levers in a quadrant although vernier style are also on the list.

The problem with all these things is that they are all possible to do correctly but they have to be done at a certain price. Nobody wants something that costs more than a yoke but we also do not want to release something substandard. If it cannot be done right and keep a viable price then I would not be happy putting my name to it.

 

[jclay13 4]

On 11/28/2020 at 5:31 AM, tutmeister said:

Initially they will be levers in a quadrant although vernier style are also on the list.

This is great news.  Both are important and knowing that eventually the Fulcrum Sim line of products will include both helps me make the decision to hold off on purchasing throttles elsewhere to go along with the Fulcrum Yoke.  I’d prefer the yoke, throttles, etc, come from the same manufacturer.

[orchestra_nl 927]

On 11/28/2020 at 12:31 PM, tutmeister said:

Initially they will be levers in a quadrant although vernier style are also on the list.

Will the vernier style be a seperate quadrant, or are you considering a base unit where you can swap out a module with different style levers for engine control, while keeping generic functions like gear/trim/flap/etc. on a base unit?

[tutmeister 710]

They will be a different unit.

[orchestra_nl 927]

Hi Chris,

My ancient CH throttle quadrant is starting to break up (one axis failed already) so I am wondering how the development of the Fulcrum quadrant is going. Can you shed some light on its development?
If it is still a year away I might need to purchase something else for the time being, even if it means spending money on a substandard device, until yours is available.