Max. Roll Rate

[JaBoG32_Prinzartus]

Is the maximum roll rate of the Su-27 (unloaded) really as low as it is modelled in FC?

 

I'd love to do a faster "break" by rolling to bank level of 60 or 90° almost instantly and then pulling back. But LOMAC's SU27 always takes like half a second to roll to 60 or 90°!

 

I believe it should go much faster. A friend of mine, a military pilot suggested that the max. roll rate should be much higher. And I am unable to correct this with the inGame Joystick settings.

 

Any real word data compared to the Sim's data on this?

 

I am sure the Su-27 is not as agile as a mig29 or f-16, but were talking about rolling, no flight path changes, so it should not be abig difference in regards to rolling.

[GGTharos]

The roll rate is correct. You have to accelerate the roll to get max roll rate, you don't get it just by full control deflection - you have to 'roll up to' that max roll rate. Also, your airspeed has an effect on the roll rate.

[Guest IguanaKing]

Yeah, this has something to do with the wide spacing and gyroscopic effects from the two engines if I'm not mistaken. There's a bit more inertia to overcome.

[Akula_73.IAP]

As Tharos suggested:

 

1. Roll rate is TAS dependant, make sure your airspeed is near optimal one

2. Max. roll rate as listed in "sustained" one, this means, after you already roll with the fastest possible angular speed. But if you start from level flight, you have to angularly-accelerate to full speed, which can take twice as much time.

[Guest Cali]

Also, consider that the Su has no ailerons to help roll the plane.

 

BINGO, ailerons play a big part, me and RuGG were just talking about this and gunzo.

[Force_Feedback]

BINGO, ailerons play a big part, me and RuGG were just talking about this and gunzo.

 

The F-16 and the Mirage-2000 don't have them either, yet they roll quite well, and not just because they have 1 engine.

[britgliderpilot]

Also, consider that the Su has no ailerons to help roll the plane.

 

 

 

. . . . . . . are you sure?

 

I was pretty sure I'd seen ailerons/flaperons outboard assisting in roll control on the Sue, will check on that.

[Cobra360]

Wasn't the roll rate of the Su-27 fixed in version 1.1. It was listed in the 1.1 readme IIRC. It said Su-27 roll rate fixed, the Su-27 now rolls slightly quicker.

[Guest Cali]

The F-16 and the Mirage-2000 don't have them either, yet they roll quite well, and not just because they have 1 engine.

 

Have you ever seen a 16 up close and doing it's start-up procedures...i have, see them everyday

[Force_Feedback]

Flapperons take the place of the aielerons on the SU.. They are further inboard than standard ailerons, thus, slower roll rate.

 

But their chord is bigger.

[Archer_02]

I'm not arguing with anything anyone is saying, but technically if the ailerons/flaperons are closer, the response should be more sluggish but faster since they are closer to the plane's axis. Less power, more speed. Not sure if it works this way in aircraft though. Correct me if I'm wrong.

 

The Su-27 is a much larger/heavier plane than Mig/Mirage 2k from what I understand, it's not a fair game to compare a 747 and an Edge.

 

About the game, I haven't seen anything different here then in FS2004, my remote-controlled Edge 540 (60" wing span, not one of those foam toys) and some gliders I've flown/flown in. Seems to me like the roll rate is pretty good (accurate) judging by what it is, though I don't have near the experience your friend does, if he's a pilot in real life I would guess he would be right.

 

Also remember that you're flying a few tons of steel/titanium/composite/fuel/sweat and not a paper airplane. At high speed it behaves just like one if you ask me, but at minimum control, don't try a snap roll. Or you will end up like I did in my sig.

[Force_Feedback]

I'm not arguing with anything anyone is saying, but technically if the ailerons/flaperons are closer, the response should be more sluggish but faster since they are closer to the plane's axis. Less power, more speed. Not sure if it works this way in aircraft though. Correct me if I'm wrong.

.

 

So inertia comes into play, so the F-15, Su-33 and the Mig should have a higher run-up time to the sustained rollrate than the Su-27, which reaches the max. rollrate in slightly a bit more time, but can also change the direction faster.

[Weta43]

Does anyone know off the top of their head if the modelled roll rate rate of change increase (run up as FF called it) as the fuel load drops or is it modelled as a constant ?

[Guest IguanaKing]

Not sure about the 33, but I'm pretty sure the CAS in the 15 compensates for that. ;)

[Trident]

The F-16 has the same arrangement as the Su-27 (inboard flaperons and differential operation of the horizontal tail). The maneuver is called aileron roll to distinguish it from, say, a barrel roll.

 

As mentioned by others, the Flanker has a decent roll rate but takes some time for it to build up due to the inertia of a big plane with 2 widely spaced engines. I think the Su-33 has ailerons, although they droop for landing so the distinction to full-span flaperons is probably not clear.

[britgliderpilot]

Flapperons take the place of the aielerons on the SU.. They are further inboard than standard ailerons, thus, slower roll rate.

 

. . . . yes, I'm used to the Su33.

 

Su27 has flaperons only, Su33 has slotted flaps and ailerons outboard.

 

 

. . . . . which is kind of interesting. Anyone want to do any direct comparison roll-rate tests between the Su33 and Su27?

 

Will probably be affected by the larger wing area on the Su33, but worth seeing anyway.