Bouncy bouncy
-
N4GIX
- Posts: 1023
- Joined: Mon Sep 06, 2010 3:47 pm
Re: Bouncy bouncy
I was totally flummoxed yesterday when it took well over 10,000' of runway before breaking ground, even with full elevator and cranking in all of the trim... 
-
StearmanDriver
- Posts: 65
- Joined: Tue May 30, 2017 7:46 pm
Re: Bouncy bouncy
Hi Tom,
Thanks for chiming in, and let me first say that I have the utmost respect for what you guys have created here. I know well how disheartening it must be to put 100s of hours, as well as actual care, into creating an immersive model of such a well-loved aircraft, only to feel like people are nit-picking it and maybe missing the overall value because they get hung up on a couple of points. Honestly, I want to thank you and the team for all you've done to make this model what she is; many of us are going to derive years of enjoyment from her. To single out just one of many superlatives, your modeling of backside of the power curve flight, as well as stalls and spins, is phenomenal!
I just want to clarify that the behavior we're discussing is for a very light airplane with a forward CG; I fully understand that a loaded plane with an aft CG with some density altitude factored in will behave a lot differently. Here's a second video showing the takeoff behavior I'm used to watching for empty Beavers:
https://youtu.be/fLMMjYqy0lY
That said, thank you for clarifying that FSX doesn't correctly model elevator deflection on the ground. That's exactly what this feels like to me; the elevator is just being somewhat ignored on the ground. Based on a couple other taildraggers I've used in flight sim, I guess there must be ways around this, but I have zero idea what would be involved, and if it means some sort of ground-up redesign I completely understand that not being worthwhile.
As far as tweaking the air file myself, Colin, I'd be happy to try and help, but you give me far too much credit
. I'm just a simple pilot type who enjoys virtually reliving the type of flying I used to do earlier in my career. Droning around in Boeing's isn't a bad way to pay the bills... But it isn't really aviating most of the time!
Anyhow, now I'm becoming that guy who focuses on one slight negative aspect and keeps harping on it. I don't like that guy when I come across him on forums, and I don't mean to be that guy; I just wanted to make sure we were all on the same page of discussing a light plane with a forward CG. Thanks again for acknowledging the inherent sim issue.
Thanks for chiming in, and let me first say that I have the utmost respect for what you guys have created here. I know well how disheartening it must be to put 100s of hours, as well as actual care, into creating an immersive model of such a well-loved aircraft, only to feel like people are nit-picking it and maybe missing the overall value because they get hung up on a couple of points. Honestly, I want to thank you and the team for all you've done to make this model what she is; many of us are going to derive years of enjoyment from her. To single out just one of many superlatives, your modeling of backside of the power curve flight, as well as stalls and spins, is phenomenal!
I just want to clarify that the behavior we're discussing is for a very light airplane with a forward CG; I fully understand that a loaded plane with an aft CG with some density altitude factored in will behave a lot differently. Here's a second video showing the takeoff behavior I'm used to watching for empty Beavers:
https://youtu.be/fLMMjYqy0lY
That said, thank you for clarifying that FSX doesn't correctly model elevator deflection on the ground. That's exactly what this feels like to me; the elevator is just being somewhat ignored on the ground. Based on a couple other taildraggers I've used in flight sim, I guess there must be ways around this, but I have zero idea what would be involved, and if it means some sort of ground-up redesign I completely understand that not being worthwhile.
As far as tweaking the air file myself, Colin, I'd be happy to try and help, but you give me far too much credit
. I'm just a simple pilot type who enjoys virtually reliving the type of flying I used to do earlier in my career. Droning around in Boeing's isn't a bad way to pay the bills... But it isn't really aviating most of the time! Anyhow, now I'm becoming that guy who focuses on one slight negative aspect and keeps harping on it. I don't like that guy when I come across him on forums, and I don't mean to be that guy; I just wanted to make sure we were all on the same page of discussing a light plane with a forward CG. Thanks again for acknowledging the inherent sim issue.
-
Fliger747
- Posts: 14
- Joined: Fri Oct 31, 2008 10:03 pm
Re: Bouncy bouncy
A lot of the tail rise tendency in a taildragger depends on the gear geometry and weight distribution. My Cub will lift the tail at static sunup. The F4U Corsair, Spitfire etc would also. My guess from flying the Beaver that the decision was to optimize landing and rough field performance. The idea being to have the gear pretty far forward to allow hard braking on soft surfaces with less chance of turning the plane over. A Beaver CAN be turned over on landing with the parking brake set, K2 Aviation has proved this point.
Generally for takeoff one wanted a tail wheel low but off the ground position if on a soft surface. Glaciers were about the only place that we typically took off with big loads. Landing flaps could be applied to lift out of sticky snow, or the plane rolled at almost takeoff speed to suck one ski out, the roll back level to suck the other one out. Similar to the float technique.
I experimented once upon a time with a P47 by adding an invisible extra tail wheel with a lot of compression that added some "lightness" to the tail. However a lot easier to nose over...
Generally for takeoff one wanted a tail wheel low but off the ground position if on a soft surface. Glaciers were about the only place that we typically took off with big loads. Landing flaps could be applied to lift out of sticky snow, or the plane rolled at almost takeoff speed to suck one ski out, the roll back level to suck the other one out. Similar to the float technique.
I experimented once upon a time with a P47 by adding an invisible extra tail wheel with a lot of compression that added some "lightness" to the tail. However a lot easier to nose over...