The A2A Simulations Community

"Come share your passion for flight"
It is currently Fri May 24, 2013 10:50 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 14 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Fri Jun 08, 2012 8:06 pm 
Offline
Master Sergeant
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 28, 2009 1:49 am
Posts: 1341
I have the 1.4 Core update installed. Is that MP number correct for this plane? I don't know what the real world numbers are, but wouldn't this plane take a little more juice to pull it along with gear and full flaps? (I don't know, I'm asking)

_________________
1)i7 980x 4.35 ghz, gtx 470s SLI, Matrox th2go, Creative x-fi
2)i7 2600k, Gigabyte z68x, gtx 285s sli


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jun 08, 2012 8:12 pm 
Offline
Staff Sergeant

Joined: Tue Jul 29, 2008 8:20 pm
Posts: 435
Location: Hampton, VA
13" seems pretty low, but it depends too on a lot of factors. I myself do not know the real world numbers off hand either. Assuming a normal decent rate though 13" would be low... Some of the dive landings I do in the Spitfire & P-47 I wind up pulling the throttle almost to the back stop.

_________________
S Jordan
Milviz Staff Member
AM; United States Navy
FSX Hours: 2000 and counting
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jun 08, 2012 8:57 pm 
Offline
Master Sergeant
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 28, 2009 1:49 am
Posts: 1341
Roadburner426 wrote:
13" seems pretty low, but it depends too on a lot of factors. I myself do not know the real world numbers off hand either. Assuming a normal decent rate though 13" would be low... Some of the dive landings I do in the Spitfire & P-47 I wind up pulling the throttle almost to the back stop.


This was actually a rather shallow landing at close to full load.

_________________
1)i7 980x 4.35 ghz, gtx 470s SLI, Matrox th2go, Creative x-fi
2)i7 2600k, Gigabyte z68x, gtx 285s sli


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jun 09, 2012 12:21 am 
Offline
Airman First Class

Joined: Sun May 27, 2012 7:32 pm
Posts: 55
bigjuicyspider wrote:
I have the 1.4 Core update installed. Is that MP number correct for this plane? I don't know what the real world numbers are, but wouldn't this plane take a little more juice to pull it along with gear and full flaps? (I don't know, I'm asking)


For me personally, Core update(s) 1.3+ have messed up my P-40's aerodynamics. It now exhibits far too little drag as you and several of us on here on the forum have noticed.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jun 09, 2012 4:44 am 
Offline
Staff Sergeant
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 12, 2011 10:48 am
Posts: 344
Location: Finland
13 inches ... with fine pitch or with 1600 rpm set with prop lever? 13 inches can produce noticeable forward thrust but only at low revs. Full fine pitch with 13 inches should cause engine braking because MP alone wouldn't sustain 3000 rpm (and you probably wouldn't even get full 3000 rpm because the amount engine braking is too heavy to 105 mph of indicated airspeed).

So, it's all a matter of rpm. Was the final done with low rev setting?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jun 09, 2012 8:32 am 
Offline
A2A General
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 11, 2004 12:55 pm
Posts: 9960
Location: USA
Yes, use 15" now on approach. We have re-done the core flight dynamics in preparation for the next move, and the P-40 will be the big benefactor here. We started working on this before this recent update, but wanted to get this update out as it had a lot of little fixes / improvements. It has done very well so the next update will have new Accu-Sim controls over FSX prop drag.

Scott.

_________________
A2A Simulations Inc.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jun 09, 2012 2:35 pm 
Offline
Airman First Class

Joined: Sun May 27, 2012 7:32 pm
Posts: 55
Scott - A2A wrote:
Yes, use 15" now on approach. We have re-done the core flight dynamics in preparation for the next move, and the P-40 will be the big benefactor here. We started working on this before this recent update, but wanted to get this update out as it had a lot of little fixes / improvements. It has done very well so the next update will have new Accu-Sim controls over FSX prop drag.

Scott.


Scott,

So you're confirming that the core updates have improved upon the P-40 flight dynamics and that what we are seeing is in fact more realistic behavior? I apologize if I was misunderstanding this before. It just seemed like there was a pretty dramatic difference in the drag factor after the newest core updates.

Thank you,

Hobart Escin


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jun 09, 2012 3:00 pm 
Offline
Master Sergeant
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 28, 2009 1:49 am
Posts: 1341
Hobart Escin wrote:
Scott - A2A wrote:
Yes, use 15" now on approach. We have re-done the core flight dynamics in preparation for the next move, and the P-40 will be the big benefactor here. We started working on this before this recent update, but wanted to get this update out as it had a lot of little fixes / improvements. It has done very well so the next update will have new Accu-Sim controls over FSX prop drag.

Scott.


Scott,

So you're confirming that the core updates have improved upon the P-40 flight dynamics and that what we are seeing is in fact more realistic behavior? I apologize if I was misunderstanding this before. It just seemed like there was a pretty dramatic difference in the drag factor after the newest core updates.

Thank you,

Hobart Escin


No Hobart, what Scott is saying is that at the current time, the required Man. Pressure for approach is a little low compared to the real thing, and that a future update will address this.

_________________
1)i7 980x 4.35 ghz, gtx 470s SLI, Matrox th2go, Creative x-fi
2)i7 2600k, Gigabyte z68x, gtx 285s sli


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jun 09, 2012 5:00 pm 
Offline
A2A General
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 11, 2004 12:55 pm
Posts: 9960
Location: USA
Yes and no. The P-40 and Spit I and Spit II were put through a pretty rigorous flight test / tuning after the new performance changes were put in, and they are performing very well. This included climb, cruise, top speed, and ceiling tests. However, we discovered the drag on approach was off in the P-40, just recently. We've already made the necessary changes, and the P-40 is nicer on approach as a result. We just need to run it around the horn with the pilots.

Scott.

_________________
A2A Simulations Inc.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jun 09, 2012 6:44 pm 
Offline
Staff Sergeant
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 12, 2011 10:48 am
Posts: 344
Location: Finland
I don't know if it would be risky in real life but I've fought against the low drag by applying very small amounts of flaps wayyyyy above maximum flap extension speed.

I've basically done this by putting the flaps into lowering position without applying any hydraulic pump. If you have enough residual pressure in the system (as you should if you pushed the hydraulic pump button a couple of seconds longer than what it took to lock the landing gear when you took off), the flaps will drop just about 10 degrees without applying any hydraulic pump, either of electric or muscle-powered type.

I typically set flaps to lower position at 200 mph. After the flaps have stopped lowering due to residual pressure, I put the gear to lowering position (this also above maximum gear extension speed) as the landing gear wouldn't separate from their locks as I had all residual pressure bleed from the hydraulic pressure already: gear stay completely up. Then I wait for speed to bleed below 140 mph and apply hydrauric pump, forcing both landing gear and flaps down simultaneously. At this low speed, I can let them both drop to a fully lowered position.

So, would this be dangerous if conducted in real P-40? Since 5 degrees of flaps is OK for Mustang up to 400 mph and 275 for 10 degrees (full flaps at 165 mph), 10 degrees of flaps should (by common sense) be safe for P-40 at 250 mph even if full flap speed was limited to 140 mph.

Well, that's my trick for slowing down up to speed when you can apply full flaps and lower the gear. After you get gear and flaps fully down you have quite a bit of drag even IF it might be too little to be fully realistic.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jun 09, 2012 11:38 pm 
Offline
Airman First Class

Joined: Sun May 27, 2012 7:32 pm
Posts: 55
Scott - A2A wrote:
Yes and no. The P-40 and Spit I and Spit II were put through a pretty rigorous flight test / tuning after the new performance changes were put in, and they are performing very well. This included climb, cruise, top speed, and ceiling tests. However, we discovered the drag on approach was off in the P-40, just recently. We've already made the necessary changes, and the P-40 is nicer on approach as a result. We just need to run it around the horn with the pilots.

Scott.


Aha! I feel less like a uninformed, confused, wayward soul now. Great news and thank you Scott + A2A. I love the new P-51 but I also love my old P-40. Soon enough, I'll be able to love them both again. I am heretofore a happy camper and all the hard work is muchly appreciated sirs.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jun 10, 2012 8:46 am 
Offline
Senior Airman
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 06, 2010 7:21 am
Posts: 244
Location: Germany
What I also noticed is that I need much less power to taxi and keep taxi speed. It will easily taxi with 1000 RPM on grass and need much more braking to slow down. If at taxi speed on grass (no rain) and pull back to 800 RPM, it will take very long to stop. Is this supposed to be correct? The Mustang for example need much more power for taxiing (I know it is heavier than the P-40...)

Also, the run up at 2300 RPM/25 inches will cause my plane to jump forward, cant hold it neither with manual or parking brakes (brakes new).

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 03, 2012 2:05 am 
Offline
Staff Sergeant

Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2011 1:47 am
Posts: 494
Erlk0enig wrote:
What I also noticed is that I need much less power to taxi and keep taxi speed. It will easily taxi with 1000 RPM on grass and need much more braking to slow down. If at taxi speed on grass (no rain) and pull back to 800 RPM, it will take very long to stop. Is this supposed to be correct? The Mustang for example need much more power for taxiing (I know it is heavier than the P-40...)

Also, the run up at 2300 RPM/25 inches will cause my plane to jump forward, cant hold it neither with manual or parking brakes (brakes new).


Rudder authority during taxi is also much improved on all three core birds, too.

_________________
Image Image Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 03, 2012 4:40 pm 
Offline
Technical Sergeant
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 18, 2008 4:57 pm
Posts: 688
Location: KAPC
I have noticed the reduced prop drag on landing too...landing runs are a little longer now because it doesn't slow down as quickly. I have to be more careful pulling back on the stick after touch down, even afer a near 3 pointer..otherwise plane will leap back into the air. Before the latest round of core updates I could really plant it with the stick aft with a little quicker decceleration.

Cheers
TJ

_________________
"The knack of flying is learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss." - Douglas Adams
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 14 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group