Wild division tour, online legs discussion

[EHM-0654 Murray]

The last but not least of my problems is the plane's behaviour when under flaps. With 20 or 30 flaps (I know it doesnt need that much at landing), an increase in throttle will make it pitch down rather violently. It has a lot of lift even in slow speeds which makes it rather tricky to land, I go in to the landing with negative pitch which in every way you look at it, it's wrong. I don't know at which IAS the plane will fly on but I'm pretty sure the difference between too much lift and a stall is quite small. And then when you notice the danger of stalling, you advance the throttle, and as I said before, it pitches down on it's own.

Under full flaps (yes, I do land with full flaps), I'm generally mostly throttle idle from the moment I put on full flaps - maybe 900ft AGL, then I'm definitely idle from turning out on final to landing. She doesn't need a awful lot of power change under flaps for the attitude/altitude to change wildly. VREF is only 90kts or thereabouts (I'm in bed right now, don't have the data in front of me, working from memory), but she doesn't stall under full flaps for a long way under that - hence nice, soft landings.

The other thing to say (if we're using the X-Plane model as the "standard" by which we're comparing) is that when I change flap settings, if I don't throttle back before hand and scrub at least 30kts, I gain 500+ft in altitude in no time... so she's a hand-full in the approach phase to say the least; you can see why I prefer to fly at least one circuit

@ David - the loss of an engine must be down to failures being set. Do you fly with random failures set up? I know it's one of those features that PP was supposed to have but to be honest I'm not sure if its realised...

@David - I'm yet to have a leg without some "mechanical" problem or other. Blown tire on the first leg (reset, wasn't expecting any failures), engine fire in the second leg (which I recovered from correctly), and in the most recent leg, an engine "stall" just before take-off (which you either saw or didn't, I restarted it immediately). Fingers crossed for leg 4

[EHM-2387 Eric-Jan]

I'll have some more time this evening to go dig around in this, but basically we ave quite a number of setups that do not necesrily coincide, performance wise:
we have 3 planes: PAD, Aerosoft, and the X-plane one (don't know what brand that is)
we have 3 sims: FS9, FSX, and X-plane
we have 3 weather engines (or more if addons are used); one per sim

each model will have (slightly) different flight characteristics, and each sim will interpret that performance and weather data (slightly) differently.
So we must be careful not to start comparing aplles with pears, 'cause I can predict where that goes...


One thing I noticed is the white arc on Murray's (X-plane) Twotter extends to at least 120 KIAS, where mine (Aerosoft/FSX) goes up to 95 KIAS. The white arc indicated the flaps operations range: no flaps above the white arc! This is a clear indication of a significantly different flight dynamics model of those two planes...

Details

(PS: weather is significant because IAS depends on density (determined from altitude and pressure), TAS on IAS and altitude, and GS on TAS and wind direction and magnitude, and in the end it is GS we are comparing, when in close formation)

[EHM-2155 Mariano]

I understand, E-J

This is about the freeware, FS9 plane, available for download on the fleet page. I don't know which ever that is.
I do know that this is not realistic flying at all (all realism sliders are set to full)

Twotter

At about 1:40, I pull back on the stick and just hold it there, full throttle, no flaps.

Then I set the autopilot at 8,000 ft and just leave it full throttle just to see how fast it'll go. Please note not only the final speed but the acceleration.

Something else to note, the % of propeller (in this panel it's the second set of dials from the top) is just stuck at 100+%.

And then I just do some acrobatics, because it can

I hope it helps find the problems

[EHM-0654 Murray]

E-J, any chance of a nice, clear shot of the engine instruments (like the one above, but just the centre console)? Again, for comparison...

Oh, and @Mariano, in landing config, stall speed is 58kts... I can walk faster than that

E-J is flying the Aerosoft -300, the fleet model for Flight Sim is the PAD -300, and those of us in X-Plane are using Skycycle's -200 model. So, yes, y'all would be faster than those of us in X-Plane.

[EHM-1997 Alexander]

One thing I noticed is the white arc on Murray's (X-plane) Twotter extends to at least 120 KIAS, where mine (Aerosoft/FSX) goes up to 95 KIAS. The white arc indicated the flaps operations range: no flaps above the white arc! This is a clear indication of a significantly different flight dynamics model of those two planes...

The aerosoft aircraft is payware, the other two are freeware planes. I think the issue described is that the x-plane freeware and the aerosoft a/c perform similarly (accounting for sim/weather differences), and the PAD freeware performs outside expected performance differences.

The x-plane model is also a -200, with PT6A20 engines putting out 550hp, whereas the PAD model is a -300 with PT6A-27 engines putting out 620hp (flat rated).

Changing the engines modelled in x-plane is a simple fix in planemaker if we want to uprate that to a -300, open the aircraft in planemaker, standard->engine specs-> change maximum available power from 550 to 620.

[EHM-2589 David]

Do you fly with random failures set up? I know it's one of those features that PP was supposed to have but to be honest I'm not sure if its realised...

Thanks Dominic, in fact I utilized default set up, I don't know how to eliminate the random failures and I'm not sure if it's activated...

EDIT - There are some very useful documents on THIS PAGE which could help

A little question about the docs, the web said for FSX, but I've FS9 is the same to use them I mean the check list, etc.

Thanks a lot

[EHM-0654 Murray]

Changing the engines modelled in x-plane is a simple fix in planemaker if we want to uprate that to a -300, open the aircraft in planemaker, standard->engine specs-> change maximum available power from 550 to 620.

OK, so here's some performance figures for the X-Plane "-300" as per Alex's instructions.

Climb - 90% N1, 7.5deg pitch up (800fpm) = 90kts IAS (to 10,00, thence reduce to 600fpm to maintain 90kts - that's close to V_X)

Cruise - 14,500ft @ 1025mb - @90% N1 = 120IAS || @100% N1 = 145kts (bang on CAS for the -300 at that alt)

Descent - -700fpm @ 70% N1 = 100IAS (almost perfect -1,000ft per 3 miles)

@E-J - if you could perform something similar (I just climbed out of KCNY to 14,500, got the 90% and 100% speeds, then turned 180deg and flew back - 30nm out and back) and tell us how the Aerosoft performs, we'll have 2 sets of data to aim at for the PAD (and my assertions are based on the PAD reference kneeboard).

[EHM-0654 Murray]

Thanks Dominic, in fact I utilized default set up, I don't know how to eliminate the random failures and I'm not sure if it's activated...  A little question about the docs, the web said for FSX, but I've FS9 is the same to use them I mean the check list, etc.

Thanks a lot

The PAD model kneeboard has both a checklist and reference (I printed them to use with the X-Plane model...) As for failures, I'm pretty sure they are in Realism (@Dom?).

[EHM-2589 David]

Thanks a lot Murray

[EHM-0654 Murray]

My FSX is in a truely mental state right now (I couldn't control the right engine at all, kept throttling back to idle), so I can't get representative figures, BUT... with one engine at 100% I was still climbing at over 100kts @ 800fpm in the PAD -300!

[EHM-2387 Eric-Jan]

E-J, any chance of a nice, clear shot of the engine instruments (like the one above, but just the centre console)? Again, for comparison...

...

Here's the real deal:
http://www.airliners.net/photo/Grand-Canyon-Airlines/De-Havilland-Canada/0783393/L/&tbl=&photo_nr=2&sok=&sort=&prev_id=0783394&next_id=0783392

and this is what I can do right now (without changing computers and firing up the sim):

[EHM-2155 Mariano]

Guys have you seen the video I posted? How the aircraft pitches up and climbs at 3,000+ FPM, then levels for a tiny bit and then will go back to pitch 45 degrees up no problem? I thought you'd find it weird, certainly more weird than just attributing it to an 100 horsepower difference.

I mean did you watch as I leveled the plane at 9000 or so and pushed it to over 160 knots in a few seconds?

It feels like it has 2 RR-Merlin engines under the wings to be honest.

[EHM-0654 Murray]

Here's the real deal:
http://www.airliners.net/photo/Grand-Canyon-Airlines/De-Havilland-Canada/0783393/L/&tbl=&photo_nr=2&sok=&sort=&prev_id=0783394&next_id=0783392

Can't see the instruments properly in any of the airliners.net photos I found, whereas...

and this is what I can do right now (without changing computers and firing up the sim):

Perfect, I can read the text on the instruments (hence why I asked...)

[EHM-0654 Murray]

Guys have you seen the video I posted?

Well, personally, no, but I was there when you were zipping past me like you were in a jet... The extra 100 (and a bit) horsepower brings me closer to the published data for the -300 (which the PAD claims to be and the Aerosoft is); however, there is still work to do on the PAD to bring it back toward the published performance.

It feels like it has 2 RR-Merlin engines under the wings to be honest.

The De Havilland Mosquito, eh... Great plane, but you wouldn't want to use it for bush flying.

[EHM-0654 Murray]

Guys have you seen the video I posted?

OK, watched it now, and very instructive it is too Mariano; thank you.

The performance is clearly far in excess of what the model claims.

I especially enjoyed the engine fire at the end.

[EHM-2387 Eric-Jan]

Guys have you seen the video I posted? How the aircraft pitches up and climbs at 3,000+ FPM, then levels for a tiny bit and then will go back to pitch 45 degrees up no problem? I thought you'd find it weird, certainly more weird than just attributing it to an 100 horsepower difference.

I mean did you watch as I leveled the plane at 9000 or so and pushed it to over 160 knots in a few seconds?

It feels like it has 2 RR-Merlin engines under the wings to be honest.

It does look like how the Aerosoft Twin Otter responds near stall conditions. With tremendous lift and overpowered engines, this is what you get. That calls for a high pitch, low speed stall situation. And as soon as the nose starts to drop, speed increases slightly, which is enough to eliminate the stall condition because of the oversized lift, starting the process all over again.
And yes, I had her at 200 KIAS at one time when I autopiloted her in a 1200 ft/min descend, but left the throttle at full, Prop rpm at full, and mixture at full. You'll get an overspeed warning over 160 KIAS, and in real life your wings would probably come off, but It is possible with those overpowered engines.

All this is design intent for this plane. It is meant to take off from short dirt strips, fully loaded with cargo and/or pax. So yes, it's an extreme design with extreme behaviour around the envelope edges. And that's exactly what makes this such a gem to fly 

Having said that, I must make the remark that I have not flown the PAD model myself. All I have to go on is my experience with the Aerosoft Twin Otter X model, and the looks and sound of your video. But it does not seem all that far off the mark to me...

Cheers,
Eric-Jan

...
Perfect, I can read the text on the instruments (hence why I asked...)

Got an even better one in my latest progress report,
http://www.fly-euroharmony.com/forum/index.php/topic,6137.msg46874.html

Ciao,
E-J

[EHM-0654 Murray]

Got an even better one in my latest progress report,
...

Ciao,
E-J

That's the one I've printed to compare with skycycle's panel layout

[EHM-2155 Mariano]

Hey guys
Flying next leg (I believe its leg 4) tomorrow at around 18.00z
If there are other people in another similar schedule, I'll change my time so we can fly together.
Let me know ASAP in a post here or a PM

[EHM-2155 Mariano]

Hehe it seems everyone except me has flown this already so I'll do this one offline.

We can meet and fly leg 5 on sunday afternoon if anyone wants to join?

[EHM-0654 Murray]

Funnily enough Mariano, I'm in the air on IVAO right now flying #4... Such is life.

[EHM-2155 Mariano]

Such a shame ... I even checked IVAO's Eye a couple of times to see if anyone was there but at 18.20 I gave up and flew it offline. I just landed...
But if we all ganged up for sunday it could be a lot of fun.

[EHM-0654 Murray]

Bum, the machine I normally run FLogger on is crashing every few minutes, so the flown leg didn't record. Will need to fly it again tonight (I'm working tomorrow), so I'm rapidly installing FLogger on my laptop - building the scenery index as I type.

[EHM-2387 Eric-Jan]

My plan for tomorrow, Monday 8 November:
Leg 05, Provo to Pocatello, ETD 1900(Z)~2000(Z) (depending on other "volunteers" replying below )
but via a more or less alternative route:

KPVU   Provo Mun   
36U   Heber City Mun-Mcdonald   025°   20,7nm
1U7   Bear Lake Co   348°   106nm
U78   Tigert   321°   26nm
KPIH   Pocatello Regl   275°   47,6nm

Details

A little valley-busting at 9500' max. 
It's a little bit of a detour, but so much more fun to fly.
It will keep us out of any restricted areas, and avoid the Salt Lake City airspaces, to make things easier

Anybody up for the challenge?

[EHM-2155 Mariano]

I'll join you E-J, since today I got locked out the house and no way of getting in touch, much less fly.
Anyone else up for it? Monday 1900 - 2000 z (I'm available all day to be honest)

[EHM-1829 Trevor]

 

   Hi Folks
   Count me in; will be there.
   Cheers
   Trevor