I was told, that a person who learns to fly in an Piper. Archer or a warrier, may not learn to use the rudder properly. They develop a bad habit of not using rudders cause the aircraft doesn't need much of rudder. When they move from a Piper to other aircrafts.. they have some some new learning to do.:)Manny

>>>>>Though 'Douglas K.' thinks stalls are different.<<<<>>I meant the post stall behavior after spin entry Ron - not the>stall itself - but what happens after the break, and after>spin entry. I probably didn

>I meant the post stall behavior after spin entry Ron - not the>stall itself - but what happens after the break, and after>spin entry. I probably didn

Larry,I agree with you regarding the moderate impact of either P-Factor or torque on most GA prop aircraft, but slipstream as you pointed out and other propwash effects such as the eficiency you can get from a sudden throttle input on a taildragger would be welcomed, and are now totally absent from MSFS (well, as far as I know slipstream was allways absent, but Ron can correct me here...)MSFS models prop effects based only on gyroscopic (meanless under most circumstances, unless your flying a Pitts or Extra at the edge and push your throtlle abruptly and your yoke too...), torque on roll and p-factor. That is why your takeoff runs look so irrealistic in MSFS - any version...XPlane,a s you know, does a better job here, BUT, has that exagerated torque effect that causes any twin prop (non-axial) to want to bank (left if both CW props, right if both CCW props) in such a way that independently from the flight regime you're in most of the time you'll have to use aileron trim to counteract that moment! Now, I have never flown a twin as a pilot for real, but everybody I talk to says that the only noticeable effects are on yaw, not bank!Even RealAir's aircraft aren't that realistic in this area. But, I strongly believe that tallented people like Ron, Rob, Steve, will certainly find some way to overcome the limitations with that new possibility of including engines canted (say, 90 degrees!!!) and invisible :-) This engines, properly placed along the fuselage, and tied by gauge programing to thrust, KIAS, ... might help modelling slipstream effects on prop aircraft and torque effects that got even worse for the helicopters in FSX - it is simply ridiculous to be able to fully pull the collective, hover, etc, with your feet on the ground!!!

>Larry,>>I agree with you regarding the moderate impact of either>P-Factor or torque on most GA prop aircraft, but slipstream as>you pointed out and other propwash effects such as the>eficiency you can get from a sudden throttle input on a>taildragger would be welcomed, and are now totally absent from>MSFS (well, as far as I know slipstream was allways absent,>but Ron can correct me here...) I'm not sure what you mean by 'slipstream', probably prop effect in tail surfaces. I think there is an inactive C variable that relates to 'induced propwash'. One could use that to increase lift due to higher airspeed behind the props in twins. I think Larry was agreeing with me on 'helix effect'. It is similar to p-factor, but more significant. No need to trim the rudder to the right for TO with the helix effect missing.>MSFS models prop effects based only on gyroscopic (meanless>under most circumstances, unless your flying a Pitts or Extra>at the edge and push your throtlle abruptly and your yoke>too...), torque on roll and p-factor. That is why your takeoff>runs look so irrealistic in MSFS - any version... The prop MoI should also cause a roll when the prop RPM is accelerated. I don't remember that in MSFS, but it may be there. Some of these effects are hard to separate. Giving me a challenge in figuring out what does exist.>XPlane,a s you know, does a better job here, BUT, has that>exagerated torque effect that causes any twin prop (non-axial)>to want to bank ... Simple torque effects should be easy to model. All torques sum to zero, same as all forces sum to zero. However, a term may be forgotten in the coding. > .................. find some way to overcome the>limitations with that new possibility of including engines>canted (say, 90 degrees!!!) and invisible :-) This engines,>properly placed along the fuselage, and tied by gauge>programing to thrust, KIAS, ... might help modelling>slipstream effects on prop aircraft and torque effects that>got even worse for the helicopters in FSX - it is simply>ridiculous to be able to fully pull the collective, hover,>etc, with your feet on the ground!!! I have a NASA paper on calculating things in light twins. Some was pretty familiar. But, when I looked at the effects of prop wash it got complicated in the math. I wonder if any aeronautical engineer has ever taken the trouble to try to figure such details out. I wish more 'handles' were available to the FS flight model. Then, one could code any force or torque he wanted to in XML. New powerplants, the effects of asymmetrical props, etc. Even lighter than air craft. In fact, one could code the whole flight model. >Just a few more items...>For those of you who are fan of rotary wings, MSFS is no right choice - while some aspects got ironed on this last version of the sim, there are so many inconsistencies that although far from complete XPlane is the way to go. I don't know much about flying helicopters, at least FSX is easier than earlier FS versions. Maybe they increased the default 'stability scalars'. ;) Helicopters are difficult to model in any case.>Prop drag (drag from a windmiling prop) in MSFS was also a BUG from the begining. It is really difficult to model proper performance during descents, for instance, without using some nasty tricks, like adding invisible spoilers, but that will be impossible if you're flying a twin and one of your engines failled... It appears the changes in CFS and FS200 were done by a professional group. Outside MS. However, it had a few bugs and limitations and MS probably isn't up to fixing them. Probably didn't even notice them. I may have suggested how to fix the windmilling prop drag in my email to tell_fs; I think only one line of code would do it. I didn't even know a CS prop on a SEL would add drag at idle throttle. Larry pointed this out. I've only flown FP prop AC. Further, the PoH say nothing about RPM to set for approach and landing. Unlike Flight Manuals for jet transports. ------------- A better approach to the Flight and Powerplant model would be to have a 'powerplant' folder. Populated with good powerplant models. People like I could add new and improved versions. Then, one could simply link the powerplant to the AC model and wouldn't have to mess with independently setting the AIR file powerplant records for each AC. Same for props and other components. That wouldn't apply so much to the airframe, since there is more interaction between components. It's been a LONG time since I've flown a SEL. I remember a lot of things, but many details escape me. For that matter, if I were modeling my automobile, I'd have to test drive it to check a lot of details. There are many details I'm barely aware of since I'm not into auto dynamics. Ron

> (well, as far as I know slipstream was allways absent,>but Ron can correct me here...)Slipstream is what swings the tail to the right on the takeoff roll. It will most likely even have more effect on the plane than P-factor during the climb. Microsoft's CFS2 definately had the effect, and it varied in versions of MSFS around that time. I really don't care what definition of what is modeled. What I care about is the effect, and the fact that I can apply the correct rudder pedal to compensate against a percieved force. The best I've seen it duplicated lately is with the FS9 RealAir Spitfire, which requires the left pedal for compensation on the takeoff roll. Yet, it's still not like CFS2. CFS2 wasn't perfect either, as it had a tendency to ground loop a bit too easy.And yes, I'd like airflow over the elevator at slow airspeeds while still on the ground, restored too!L.Adamson

I think you should return the product and get a refund. Enjoy your new year's weekend. Regards,Dave Vega

> I'm not sure what you mean by 'slipstream', probably prop>effect in tail surfaces. I think there is an inactive C>variable that relates to 'induced propwash'. One could use>that to increase lift due to higher airspeed behind the props>in twins.>> I think Larry was agreeing with me on 'helix effect'. It is>similar to p-factor, but more significant. No need to trim>the rudder to the right for TO with the helix effect missing.>>Many years ago, Duke Fox, who's company built Fox 2 stroke engines for model airplanes did a lot of experimenting to see how important the slipstream effect was compared to torque and P-factor. What he did, was add another rudder surface below the aircrafts center line, which would allow the prop slipstream to hit it from the opposite direction.Of course, in real life, this would require abnormally long landing gear legs, along with more weight, and a much better chance of tail strikes. But it did prove, that the model would track quite straight, without the need for rudder to compensate. Since this article is at least 40 years old, I wonder if there is a chance to find it on the internet. I don't remember what was said about torque and P-factor.I certainly did have some high torque 4-cycle R/C aircraft that required a bit, but not overly noticeable amount of aileron on climbout, and a tremendous amount if quickly applying full throttle on a go-around from approach speeds. This models could roll on their backs quite easily. They also had quite a heavy wing loading for their 60" wing span.L.Adamson

>> I think Larry was agreeing with me on 'helix effect'. It is>>similar to p-factor, but more significant. No need to trim>>the rudder to the right for TO with the helix effect>missing.>>>>>Many years ago, Duke Fox, who's company built Fox 2 stroke>engines for model airplanes did a lot of experimenting to see>how important the slipstream effect was compared to torque and>P-factor. What he did, was add another rudder surface below>the aircrafts center line, which would allow the prop>slipstream to hit it from the opposite direction. Yes, if the vertical tail is above and below the prop wash, then the yaw component of the helical flow is more or less canceled. Further, if the vertical tail is below the fuselage, turns should be more coordinated. One can turn pretty well using just the rudder. That includes AC such as the RQ-1 Predator, which has an inverted V tail. Though, the prop is behind the tail in this AC, so doesn't have much in propwash effects anyway. A V tail can be decomposed into vertical and horizontal components. In the RQ-1, the equivalent vertical stab is below the fuselage. That reverses several of the aerodynamic parameters. >Of course, in real life, this would require abnormally long>landing gear legs, along with more weight, and a much better>chance of tail strikes. The Predator does have long and skinny LG struts. The X-15 also had a bottom component to the vertical stab. Though, just for added stability. It was ejected before landing. >I certainly did have some high torque 4-cycle R/C aircraft>that required a bit, but not overly noticeable amount of>aileron on climbout, and a tremendous amount if quickly>applying full throttle on a go-around from approach speeds.>This models could roll on their backs quite easily. They also>had quite a heavy wing loading for their 60" wing span.>L.Adamson I flew RC 35 years ago. A 'Sr. Falcon' with 1.25 HP Veco powerplant. Good thing there was a guy to set it up and train me to fly it. The prop usually struck when landing. The AC had been rebuilt and reinforced so much the spring LG wires were too small for the weight. Ron

> I'm not sure what you mean by 'slipstream', probably prop>effect in tail surfaces. I think there is an inactive C>variable that relates to 'induced propwash'. One could use>that to increase lift due to higher airspeed behind the props>in twins.Ron, for me slipstream == helix effect This is totaly absent from MSFS (or CFS for that matter...)In ELITE you have to trim and sometimes use rudder during most of the takeof run and initial climb to "fight" helix effects...

>> I'm not sure what you mean by 'slipstream', probably prop>>effect in tail surfaces. I think there is an inactive C>>variable that relates to 'induced propwash'. One could use>>that to increase lift due to higher airspeed behind the>props>>in twins.>>Ron, for me slipstream == helix effect >This is totaly absent from MSFS (or CFS for that matter...)>>In ELITE you have to trim and sometimes use rudder during most>of the takeof run and initial climb to "fight" helix>effects...Do you have "auto rudder" ON by any chance? :DIf I didn't have to use right pedal, or left pedal for the RealAir Spit during the takeoff roll & climb, then I'd be real annoyed!It isn't "absent" at all! Yet, the feel of rudder input against a force isn't as good as in prior years, or as it was with CFS.This is actually, one of the first items I check in any new flight sim. Afterall, I've been up in a P-51 :-hahL.Adamson Off topic: I just noticed some on online mailing over at Flightsim com; some dating from three years ago. You had one or two questions, and I'm about three years late to respond! I guess I should check the main page more often! :) There were seven mailings, that I didn't know about.

>>Do you have "auto rudder" ON by any chance? :D>Nope! ;-)>If I didn't have to use right pedal, or left pedal for the>RealAir Spit during the takeoff roll & climb, then I'd be real>annoyed!>You should try Shockwave's p-51 or Bf-109... >It isn't "absent" at all! Yet, the feel of rudder input>against a force isn't as good as in prior years, or as it was>with CFS.>I don't believe msfs ever modelled helical effects. It is limited to p-factor (which some aircraft designers tend to exagerate in order to give some hint of helical effect ...). >Off topic: I just noticed some on online mailing over at>Flightsim com; some dating from three years ago. You had one>or two questions, and I'm about three years late to respond! I>guess I should check the main page more often! :) There were>seven mailings, that I didn't know about.Never mind :-) I seldom visit flightsim.com forums..., but I do seek your signature at avsim because I allways find your posts filled with good sources of info, from someone who knows the three facets of flight - simulated, rc and real!All of the BEST for you in 2007!!!

Christian,I agree with your observations. FWIW, I pretty much quit using FS after I started training because I thought it was so far removed from reality that I wasn't practicing anything useful, quite the opposite in some cases. Now I am trained and experienced its foiables don't bother me anymore, partly because I'm well beyond the basics now. Obviously you haven't been using the mixture lever or flown a turbo piston yet - like the slipball, there are some howlers in there too...well in FS9...I haven't bought FSX yet.I get the impression that FS is created to generate the spirit, feeling and emotion of flight, not the technical details that would be lost on 95% of people who buy it. There are fixes for the things you identified but it is like pressing bubbles on wallpaper, you fix one thing and then something goes wrong. In FDE terms, all aircraft are a compromise and a rough approximation of the real thing.As Jcomm says, the most accurate simulator available by a country mile is ELITE. The devil is in the detail and ELITE has the detail. But it lacks any ambiance, it is a sterile experience with no entertainment value, geared to the technical operation of an aircraft with no regard for feel. Commercial and instrument flying is a numbers game and ELITE's FDE responds and produces the book numbers. ELITE is a specialist tool.But, and it is a big but, the systems modelling in FS is simply amazing. I've been playing with TinMouse and CIVA INS recently. I also have the F1 ATR and Feelthere ERJ. The sophistication in these addons is immense. But the real world FM foiables of swept wing aerodynamics and asymetric thrust are not represented at all accurately and are totally dumbed down.Personally, I think it unbelievably difficult problem to solve and I think MS has assigned its resources in pretty much the right way. It does everything reasonably well and hasn't concentrated on one aspect to the detriment of another. Bravo MS!

>Personally, I think it unbelievably difficult problem to solve>and I think MS has assigned its resources in pretty much the>right way. It does everything reasonably well and hasn't>concentrated on one aspect to the detriment of another. Bravo>MS!Exactly! Even when I'm fighting my own feelings about the limitations of MSFS I end up thinking about it as a "regression line" of the PC-based flightsim market!A friend of mine who started in the MSFS world, then migrated to PS1 and finally invested on a PPL and now owns a Warrior and operates it from a nearby aerodrome (LPCS) smiles when I point out the limitations of MSFS FM and says: Jose, for FM I use the real thing! MSFS is the most valuable tool I find to practise procedures, and he even points it as what really made the difference when once he experienced a severe power failure while approaching Lisbon's Airspace during a cross-country flight! Having had the chance to play such scenarios in MSFS eased he's tough task of taking the right decisions in the shortest available time ...:-)

>>I don't believe msfs ever modelled helical effects. It is>limited to p-factor (which some aircraft designers tend to>exagerate in order to give some hint of helical effect ...). >>If MSFS has never modeled the "spiral slipstream" (helical propwash), and only P-factor, then some designer has the terms messed up! :D P-factor is by far, the less of the two reasons why a single engine airplane with a C/W rotating prop from the cockpit will drift to the left on the takeoff roll. In order for P-factor to have any real effect at all, the prop must be on an angle to the oncoming airstream. This in effect, eliminates tri-gears such as the Cessna's, Mooneys, etc, in which the prop maintains an angle close to 90 degrees to the oncoming airstream on the takeoff roll.Yet, the majority of MSFS aircraft including the defaults DO drift to the left. What's not all well, is the fact that the drift to the left isn't as promounced as in versions of the past, and especially around the time as CFS2. Back then, you really could percieve a force, that you were pushing a rudder against. You could feel it all the way down the runway, and continue in the climb.These days, it's like some left drift without the feel of counteracting a reasonable opposite force, and then as though fixed or adjustable rudder trim has taken over before or close to rotation speed. I can then pitch up, which swings the nose to the left, but I'm left wondering if it's now P-factor or just the lost in airspeed to where the rudder isn't counteracting the slip-stream anymore.There is NO doubt in my mind, that earlier models DID in fact, display some excellent forms of slip-stream, since I was continually pushing right rudder on the takeoff roll & into the climb, even if it was shallow. If there was no slip-stream effects, and only P-factor, then the Cessnas would track straight down the runway just like the jets or counter-rotating prop jobs. But they didn't, and still don't to a degree.L.Adamson