21 hours ago, MrBitstFlyer said:

True - my first attempt with a helicopter in XP12 needed the whole airport to hover aver a spot 😁  Now I just need a quarter of the airfield.

Sounds like the default R22, which is nigh unflyable out of the box.

 

20 hours ago, UrgentSiesta said:

one thing I’ve been just recently surprised at is the significant visual improvement that can be had just by using an HD / UHD Mesh. They’re mostly free and take up MUCH less space than ortho images.

Andras Neumann's? This one still works in XP12, but is only one year newer than the default XP11 scenery and will make you miss out on all the airport ground poly recuts in the global scenery that happened for XP12 so far. And I think one or two 1870s style autogen blocks in Europe.

Edited October 20, 2025Oct 20 by Bjoern

30 minutes ago, Bjoern said:

Sounds like the default R22, which is nigh unflyable out of the box.

 

1 hour ago, Litjan said:

 

Gauntlet thrown. 
😁🍿

7 hours ago, UrgentSiesta said:

Gauntlet thrown. 
😁🍿

Come back when you can land on the moving frigate 😁

2 hours ago, Litjan said:

Come back when you can land on the moving frigate 😁

I can’t time travel, friend… Been doing it for years 😎

I'm was quite proud of my Sikorsky landing with an Airbus sidestick (and throttle in lieu of a collective) 😂 All bets are off with the Robinson though, it's incredibly twitchy 😅

 

22 hours ago, Litjan said:

...

I know how to operate the thing, tyvm.

The problem with the R22 (and S-76 and almost all add-on helicopters) is that they wear their engine mass (that XP applies for radius of gyration calculation) at the rotor hub, which makes them top heavy. While less notable on heavier airframes, the R22's handling is absolutely atrocious because it has a cast iron engine block on a paper airframe. With all that mass on top, it handles like an egg on an inverted spoon and prefers to tip over at the slightest provocation, even while still on the ground. If the engine is moved to its proper location (1.0 long, -0.7 vert) and the rotor back to its proper position via thrust offset (-5.77 long, 1.0 vert), the handling improves so much that you won't feel like Texas Bill trying to ride a hungry bronco. Give it a try if you can.

Edited October 21, 2025Oct 21 by Bjoern

33 minutes ago, Bjoern said:

I know how to operate the thing, tyvm.

The problem with the R22 (and S-76 and almost all add-on helicopters) is that they wear their engine mass (that XP applies for radius of gyration calculation) at the rotor hub, which makes them top heavy. While less notable on heavier airframes, the R22's handling is absolutely atrocious because it has a cast iron engine block on a paper airframe. With all that mass on top, it handles like an egg on an inverted spoon and prefers to tip over at the slightest provocation, even while still on the ground. If the engine is moved to its proper location (1.0 long, -0.7 vert) and the rotor back to its proper position via thrust offset (-5.77 long, 1.0 vert), the handling improves so much that you won't feel like Texas Bill trying to ride a hungry bronco. Give it a try if you can.

VERY interesting - thank you!

I presume this can be investigated using PlaneMaker…? Should I give it a try on a copy of my own?

do you happen to know if this affects any other XP helos, as well?

5 hours ago, FPVSteve said:

I'm was quite proud of my Sikorsky landing with an Airbus sidestick (and throttle in lieu of a collective) 😂 All bets are off with the Robinson though, it's incredibly twitchy 😅

 

FWIW, I fly everything with the TM Warthog HOTAS. 

fantastic for fixed wing, quite challenging for rotary (as youve noted). 

for helos in all sims, I always adjust the curves & saturation, as well as significantly increasing the flight model frames per second (what’s the correct feature name…?). Makes it a lot easier to stay ahead of the airframe  

Also pretty much a requirement for everything in MSFS, particularly in the Pitch axis. 

4 hours ago, Bjoern said:

-5.77 long, 1.0 vert

Think these are a bit flipped aren't they? The ?-bubble in PM says it's with respect to the engine position, so shouldn't it be -1 long and +5.77 vert?

Oh...I think it's like that because it's being rotated 90 deg vertical. Default orientation for props is axial thrust. Helis will rotate that vertically and the offset is being applied after that force vector has been rotated.

1 hour ago, blingthinger said:

Oh...I think it's like that because it's being rotated 90 deg vertical. Default orientation for props is axial thrust. Helis will rotate that vertically and the offset is being applied after that force vector has been rotated.

So, do you think @Bjoern's original displacements are correct after all?

Edited October 22, 2025Oct 22 by jcomm

Not enough cub lovin in this thread.

 

 

23 hours ago, UrgentSiesta said:

VERY interesting - thank you!

I presume this can be investigated using PlaneMaker…? Should I give it a try on a copy of my own?

do you happen to know if this affects any other XP helos, as well?

Yes, Plane Maker. And yes, other helos as well. Although, as I've said, you won't notice this as much on larger airframes (like the S-76).

If you're in the "Engine Specs" menu and display the wireframe model (press space bar), the engine location will be displayed as an orange dot. On most helis save one (that I know of - the freeware AS 365), this dot will sit at the rotor hub.

 

19 hours ago, blingthinger said:

Think these are a bit flipped aren't they? The ?-bubble in PM says it's with respect to the engine position, so shouldn't it be -1 long and +5.77 vert?

You can easily check the rotor position by enabling invisible parts in PM ("Expert" --> "Invisible Parts" --> Activate "Show Parts and Objects"). If the thrust point rotor matches the position of the 3D object rotor, you're good.

 

5 hours ago, blingthinger said:

Oh...I think it's like that because it's being rotated 90 deg vertical. Default orientation for props is axial thrust. Helis will rotate that vertically and the offset is being applied after that force vector has been rotated.

Yes, the "vert/side cant" value rotates the vector, which is why the long and vert offsets don't mean much. But with invisible objects being visible, aligning things just takes a bit of trial & error.

When trying to move the tail rotor's "engine" (if desired, as a bit of mass on the boom might not hurt), aligning the tail rotor's thrustpoint can get a bit fiddly. Essentially, rotate the vector first to align with the boom and then work the long and vert offsets.

 

4 hours ago, jcomm said:

So, do you think @Bjoern's original displacements are correct after all?

Yes, they are, as I've pulled them straight from Plane Maker.

 

On 10/21/2025 at 3:46 PM, FPVSteve said:

I'm was quite proud of my Sikorsky landing with an Airbus sidestick (and throttle in lieu of a collective) 😂 All bets are off with the Robinson though, it's incredibly twitchy 😅

I use a T.16000, TWCS and TFRP pedals (similar price, quality and underpinnings to the Airbus pack) with some good results in helicopters with these rules:

• Cubic response curves (0-0 and 100-100) on the cyclic, collective (throttle) and pedal axes
• Cleaned potentiometer on the throttle to minimize jitter
• Always keep the stick on the move, do not give in to the centering unless in cruise and trimmed
• Move the throttle (collective) with finger tips, not the entire hand
• Position the pedals so that the leg is almost stretched at maximum deflection; this will afford more precise movement at small and medium deflections (which make up 90% of heli flying)

Head tracking (webcam plus Opentrack with Neuralnet) also helps as it more easily makes you focus on the outside and where you want to go (the only instrument you need to watch on takeoff and landing is your vertical speed anyway). VR is heaps better though for providing depth perception and true "look anywhere" capability.

On 10/21/2025 at 9:03 PM, Bjoern said:

The problem with the R22 (and S-76 and almost all add-on helicopters) is that they wear their engine mass (that XP applies for radius of gyration calculation) at the rotor hub, which makes them top heavy. While less notable on heavier airframes, the R22's handling is absolutely atrocious because it has a cast iron engine block on a paper airframe. With all that mass on top, it handles like an egg on an inverted spoon and prefers to tip over at the slightest provocation, even while still on the ground.

I don't think the position of the engine in Plane-Maker has any influence on the vertical CG. Infact, Plane-Maker has an explicit entry for the vertical CG position (in the "weight and balance" screen), so I assume that in order to calculate the vertical position of the CG, XP only uses that entry + the position and weight of the fuel in the tanks.

So, changing the position of the engine in Plane-Maker should have no effect whatsoever on the aircraft being top heavy or not.

If anything, the position of the engine could be used by X-Plane to estimate the radius of gyration, which doesn't affect the aircraft being top heavy or not, but might just change its rotational inertia around the 3 axes.