coastaldriver

Jcomm - interesting - an accident report into a DC-3 ditching into Botany Bay some years back revealed that single engine in the take off configuration required a min speed of 95kts, the DC-3 in that case also could not develop max rated power properly anyway at max weight it could not maintain 95 knots and they ditched basically 300 ft after take off. Noted also that there is only one aileron trim tab and it is in on the right wing for the C-47 DC-3. At max weight the Stall Speed for the DC-3 is 57 knots in full flaps gear down landing configuration. Flaps up and gear up the Vs was 67 kts, The speed they are referring to in this report is the Vmca it is 78 kts, The limit of Vmca is a factor of rudder size and fin area DC-3 has big rudder! Take the AWX out and stall it see whether it rolls left or right on you! See what speed readings you get! Watch the balance as the speed changes see what it does!

jcomm - you can hardly notice the roll and setting a little aileron trim before take off will sort it (retrim for other flight attitudes). Propeller slipstream effect is modest in terms of lift, the airflow over that portion of the wing going faster is cancelled out by drag (profile) and angle of attack, the engine slipstream is producing thrust, the key effect of the thrust is that the left hand side hits the rudder surface, the right hand engine does not, theoretically this will yaw the aircraft to the left. hence the need for a little right rudder. Because of these aerodynamic forces the DC-3 would be in a mild sideslip condition or imbalanced. The DC-3's major aerodynamic issue was adverse yaw - so are Frise ailerons modelled in XP?- I do not know. The AWX ailerons appear to me to be modelled correctly. In the real aeroplanes Frize ailerons were used to reduce adverse yaw but were not that effective but the key take away was the lack of rudder authority to control the yaw and the push forces required by the pilot. Basically the DC-3 was imbalanced as a result - the verdict you will be imbalance at a variety of speeds and rolling the aircraft but not unpleasantly so. The other thing is the ailerons themselves they have a long span compared to other aircraft as well. The NACA test report attributes this issue to 'rudder float and rudder cable stretch) maybe different hinges and control lines (for eg hydraulic) may have fixed this but the shape of the rudder and its method of attachment resulted in float and hence lack of positive control authority in an imbalance condition caused by adverse yaw. I find I am not overcontrolling to compensate and the AWX model is well behaved and the effects are mild indeed! There are a couple of tools in XP where you can see the forces at play overlaid on the aircraft. Interestingly (I am not sure of the interpretation) but the right wing is not symmetrical in its readings compared to the left on the ground (Local wind direction effect I suspect given the streamlines) but take off and climb it does not to my eye indicate any signficant difference between the wings either. Cockpit controls confirm this with minimal rudder or trim required to fly straight. I do know with my joystick I can inadvertently hold on rudder force after or during take off and relaxing that pressure, ergonomic bias, fixes the issue straight away.

This made me get out my old teaching materials on twin engined aeroplanes and assymetric thrust effect and my C-47 manuals. The higher the angle of attack the worse the roll becomes and rudder is critical to keeping balanced flight, maybe there are some issues with the way the rudder is set up as well, I cannot fix any of the model issues so have to accept some blemishes! Taildragger configurations are a difficult beast in real life and the DC-3 is that early era where that type of aircraft was common. You had to work hard on the ground with the DC-3 as you only had assymetric power and differential braking, if you have ever had the opportunity to observe it from the cockpit - there is a a lot of wheezing and puffing (from the pilot) to push and pull the DC-3 around on the ground, the old fellas made this look simple, which it was not. XPlane makes you do the same so that is good. Anyway going to join JComm and do some indepth flight in them all see what transpires.

Interesting issue - to be explored more. DC-3 airways is basically the host for AWX's C-47 and you have to be a member to get access to latest updates etc. Worth thinking about for some! Anyway I have them all at the moment so here are some screenshots just for the visuals" LES DC3 VSkylabs AWX The AWX has the most old fashioned cockpit. the LES is basically a modern avionics set and the VSkylabs is different again, just like in real life I guess. Performance - still trialling them all when I can. None of them get the sound right to my old ears - the C-47 DC-3 was incredibly noisy inside, loud or deafening almost I find the sounds for all of them muted or lacking that bust your ears effect that the real DC-3 had.

Seems the Gizmo thing is still not right and with the LES DC-3 a no go at the moment just crashes my sim. Apart from the internet issues early this week, it is reported that the 12.1.2 update busted the Gizmo. Anyway decided the LES DC-3 by them is a busted flush - will not start for me now either - weird switch behaviour as well. Ah well gave it a go and now its gone too! To the bin of good intentions.

Ouch

Well I thought I would have a look. Standard XP12.1 no SimHeaven America only Orbx forests. Airport was stock and nicely done lots of static as for AI lots of ground traffic etc but no aircraft AI unless it is provided as a file for the airport you need something else like an AI package to see anything. Now flew west coastline beach and beach edge are all normal with no trees and other scenery seems to be fine no glitches or weird stuff. So I guess something has not updated or corrected. Run the XPlane updater and do scenery update on line - it will find a fix any issues then do the same for the XPlane version or program. If that does not fix it cannot say why at all unless you have some add on scenery or similar still on your system!

I did let folk know that I was going with XP a year or so back but that was the Prepar 3D world and I had done a lot of stuff in FSX and the P3D (Mods rebuilds paints etc etc). I had no doubts about the superior software foundations and directions that XPlane was going - no brainer really and I was not interested in the MS business model and hence their sim! As for P3D it has reached the end of the line and I did not care for the Lockheed Martin business model either (proven with the release of V6). I guess you would need to have been involved in computers for a long time and not just microsoft but the other OSs and software platforms. Besides I detest the license every line of code view of the world! So good luck with MSFS once you have tired of the scenery (and it is cherry picked to be good in some places and its awful in others) you might want to enjoy the simulation of flight and the rewards of the novelle and developing graphic power of XP. What ever the merits I want for nothing in the XP simulation I use, it continues to surprise and impress and for an out of the box desktop non internet streaming program - it is very impressive! Want fries with that?

Forget anything Carenado for XP12. There are a few dedicated souls who have perservered with all manner of modifications or patches - moderately sucessful from my observation. I tried the Navajo but got the Reality XP package. Looks good but I cannot get it started so count it as a bust as well. 3 or 4 others on the shelf (just in case really) besides there AC500 and the F50 were great and the PA23 actually works out of the box once you run it through plane maker to make it XP12. But it competes against X-Hangars Aztec and then there is the Restauravia Apache as well. Thranda do the 337 so really it is all the single lines and some other stuff like the SAAB 340, Beech 1900, and the XP800, Seen no mods or reports for the Carenado Baron. Think the Laminar version is so so! Never gives me that Baron feeling! No good Baron 55 either. Laminars engine cowls are wrong too they are too small. All up nothing happy for those who liked Carenado Alabeo!

mjrhealth - Mr Manky has the Q300 and the Q400. New updates on them all very soon - more systems added (lights, bells and whistles). They are all of equal quality - the Q400 gives the FJS a run for its money! The Omarza mods for the RW Twin Otter - basically cure all its ills and make it a native XP12 bird now. Its AP will always be crappy!

VR for another day. I can but concur - giving a freeware Dash8 100 a work out in Southern Victoria. Almost perfect skies, winds and immersively realism, yeah that little hut at the airport is not an exact replica but hey its there and it looks good along with the rest of the default. Zipping along a moderate FL's the FPS counter running at 60+. I can also say to watch a very old freeware (XP10) be rebuilt over the past years to be basically a payware quality XP12 aeroplane in the sim has also been transformative. Flight fidelity is very very high. You do wonder how much better can it get - I know but this level of simulated flight is just good, very good. Perfect no but hey whats coming to change out a few things will also be transformative.

Hey UrgentSiesta - understood. I have done 4 rebuilds and upgrades of old FS stuff for P3D to V5 standard. When I gave away P3D for XP I discovered how different a program XP was and how basically the models could not be ported and if I wanted them and had to do it for XP it would be starting with a clean sheet of paper. The only developer I know that managed it was AWX with the DC-3 and Tiger Moth who took the Jahn C-47 into XP . At this point for myself , too hard or shall we say troublesome, as simply I no longer was that keen to do years of work all over again using a whole bunch of new skills (GIMP, Blender etc etc) so yeah I get why developers would just say too hard and park them!. Then again others are quite perverse in their decisions, ala PMDG - they do the magnificent DC-6 for XP11, then stopped XP altogether and pulled the software completely.

Well lets say combination of my ignorance of the way XP is built and has developed. Having come from a long background of MS based flight sims - FSX to P3D particularly backward compatability was overall good. I worked with developing and upgrading a lot of older stuff to P3DV5 that went as far back as MS2004. As for XPlane, while the overall model; size dimensions, textures etc and underlying coding worked XP12 was basically a new sim by comparison so critical stuff like manipulators, datarefs etc etc were no longer functional in XP12. There was no product disclaimer at the point of purchase - that is this is an XP11 model and will not work in XP12. This ignorance was also compounded by the state of play for the sim - namely there was a lot of opportunism from the Covid era where a variety of enterprises put out sim stuff (at the time XP11) but stopped upgrading or developing those models for XP12. I assumed incorrectly that those enterprises would in due course upgrade and get their stuff into XP12 -Wrong! There are a whole bunch of great models (XP11) that were not abandoned but which the enterprises for their own reasons I guess decided, by default or design to move to another platform (MSFS). That I understand. as it was a constant problem in the way developers abandoned P3D as well for MSFS. No I am not mad at them that is not the point - the point is an upgrade was suggested, hinted at or said it was being done and a year plus later - nothing. Then again will they? after all how much real demand or interest is there for a steam guage era early Jet Transport in 2024 when the real aeroplanes are long gone and in museums or scrapped! Real world manufacturers do not upgrade legacy stuff either - that task passes to the enthusiasts and restorers. In the world of software intellectual property rights so jealously guarded and fostered by those who want to own the rights to every bit of code just makes the work of enthusiasts and restorers an under the counter process! The model only cost fifty bucks so no great loss in the scheme of things - as for customer service well half the developers about have absolutely no idea of what that means or how to go about it! So if a customer tells you they made a mistake but ok I can wait if there is something to be done or come - just do it! IF they are not then thats fine I can live with that too! Customers are your lifeblood lose that trust you lose your business! The Q400 may be the best thing since sliced bread - but it does not float my boat! Besides to emphasise my point there are enthusiasts rebuilding a lot of legacy stuff and if I wanted a Dash 8 then the Manky1 Dash is my go to - gets better and better as time goes on.

Yep the Shensee 720 720B is good, visually textures systems performance - on the mark all the way, Maybe a 720 but it is still a 707 with all its characteristics! Shows you what someone with skill and passion can achieve in the world of flight simulation.

Fee or no fee I have told FJs I would be happy to stump up full price for the 727. In my early days of ignorance of the differences between XP11 and 12 I purchased the 727 - complete bust in XP12 (no electrics or hydraulics etc). I hung on to it in the vain hope that it would be updated - well a year later I am still waiting. So I binned it end of story. I have the IXEG 737-300 (analogue) that does for a 737 and the Shensee 707 more than compensates for the 727. Maybe the Q400 is good but simply I do not trust them to do what they say so why would I continue with their products. Each to their own - if that level of customer care appeals to you - go for it!