pierrewind

No worries, you do not have to believe me. This is just my opinion sharing my personnal point of view based on my experience. If you don't want to believe it, it is up to you. But... My opinion is that the flight model is bad. This is mostly due to the fact that it does have a very inconsistent roll rate. If You try to fly any kind of advanced or even intermediate sequence it just doesn't work. The slow rolls and the snapp rolls are really a pain with a stupid acceleration/stop at regular intervals (it is for example mostly impossible to do a slow roll at medium to low speed without provoking jerky roll rate...). This is to me a very significant part of an aerobatic aircraft and it is badly simulated; making the experience disapointing at best. Something just doesn't work. This flight model feels like a bad script... going in and out of some conditions... None of the aircrafts I have ever flown even came close to this behavior...

I've said it before, but the CEII is in my opinion one of the worst aircraft available in DCS that I have bought. The sound is awfull The flight model is rubish The engine model is not even a thing The ground handling is... basic This airplane has no charm, no character... it doesn't even give you any feedbaack, it is just a bunch of rubish lines of code... You could even do better with sims like FSX... This is sad. I have actually flown the christen and I loved it, it could bite you, but as you learned how it flew and respected it, it was just a sweet and very capable airplane... Minus the unconfortable ride in turbulence. Any time I try to fly it in dcs I am pissed after 5 mn... The yak 52 while not perfect is miles ahead... Magnitude 3 should have more care towards their customers... I somewhat feel I bought an empty shell...

On the visual side of things I find it good enough. However, the flight model has some major flaws. making it almost unflyable for me. The roll rate is very badly modelled and almost random (I know, it's not). Ailerons only rolls ok, but if you feed it too much rudder it "snaps" without even having played with elevator. This behaviour is unrealistic. On sanpp rolls, the roll rate is very unstable, again, this is unrealistic. I would also like to see the ground handling model revised. To me the prop RPM feels also very odd (I wil say engine dynamics in general), but mostly because of delay in manifold pressure to my input. With a violent input, one would expect the manifod pressure to jump. As a result the prop rpm should quickly increase, then go past the set RPM and then the governor should kick in reducing the rpm. Usually the overshoot is about 50rpm; none if you are slow on throttle or zero speed. This effect should produce a very noticeable sound. If they can manage to fix the flight model which btw has some very good dynamics in other areas (mostly negative airspeed), and fix the engine modelling, I'd be quite happy with that. However as of now, I have to say that the christen eagle is very disapointing. Ps: if you want to see what engines dynamics and flight model should look like, the YAK 52 is at a far better state.

I agree with you. I wouldn't expect the aircraft to be stuck in this power on stall. To me it felt very unatural.

I'm not sure what you are exactly referring to. However, to me the issue is mostly present on negative stalls/spins. However if a negative snapp roll (flick roll) is allowed to develop into a spin we are back to this issue. From some quick trial it will usually happens after 2 or more turns of a snapp roll. It will of course depend on your starting conditions and your technique (I start at about 200kph, full negative elevator, full rudder and full ailerons in the direction of the turn [since we are inverted, if I quick the left rudder, I will roll to the right, requiring right aileron; if i was upside I'd use left aileron]) Well your explanation is a tad simplistic. The nose should drop because airplanes are normally designed to be able to recover from a stall. It would be too hazardous otherwise. To do so, designers are required to play extensively with chord, profile, area, span, incidence, and position of the wing and elevator plus a precise position of the center of gravity. It is simplistic to say that if I hold a hammer on any specific point, it will necessarily fall on the side of the head. Depending on how I hold it (the air interacts with the airplane) the results could be vastly different. To make sure an airplane flies well upside up is difficult. A lot of airplanes have some quirks and do things that are out of the expectations of anyone. This is truer when pushing the flight envelope flying aerobatics. Also, the ailerons and the elevators do have authority. In fact the ailerons are often used to turn a normal spin into a flat spin (along with some power). And are also on some airplanes required to exit a spin. shows it quite nicely. Opposite aileron makes the spin more flat, inside aileron can actually be enough to recover from a spin, and drops the nose. The elevator is also far from useless. It can influence a lot of different things. (Such as rudder masking). It usually has some authority and is in most case necessary to exit the spin. (on the mirage III there are specific yellow hash marks on the stick and side console to give the correct stick position for a spin recovery)

Well, I disagree with your opinion. One of the "standard" recovery is in fact PARE -Power idle -Ailerons neutral -Rudder opposite -Elevator to break the stall It does work for a lot of airplanes. However, an aerobatic aircraft is by definition able to play a lot more within the flight and stalled envelloppe. It can include pilot induced flat and inverted spins. Now the problem to me is that on some failed maneuvers (ex: top of humpty bump), or voluntary inverted flat spins the airplane can suddently get locked into this stall. It really feels unatural. Then , the pitch is lost wich again for an aerobatic aircraft is odd. I also am able to stop the rotation with ruddders, changing the spin to a stall. A stall is normally recoverable with power. (at this point the gyroscopic precession does not apply anymore). This is what makes me believe the flight model is flawed. I might be wrong, but I'd be very surprised to hear from actual yak 52 pilots that you can get locked in this upside down stall/spin only being able to recover with power to idle. PS: I actually have this stick and rudder book at home, but it is going into the basics of flying relevant to a cub pilot. Which is not what I'm talking about. I'm talking advanced aircraft handling and playing with it way beyond that boring normal flight enveloppe. Sorry, If I confused you in any way.

Nope, I later tried the recovery from very high. (see track) When in this position: -The rudder has authority -The pitch is "locked" -Ailerons are ineficient The only recovery that seems to work is to bring the power back to idle. I have never flown a yak 52, but for an aerobatic aircraft, this behaviour is odd to say the least. YAK 52 inverted stall bug recovery.trk

Hello, I regularly end up with a yak52 stuck in some kind of inverted stall / spin. I fly low so the opportunity to recover is low, but the controls don't seem to have any effect on this issue and I end up crashing. (see tracks) Is it known? YAK 52 inverted stall bug.trk YAK 52 inverted stall bug2.trk