Stick centre position relative to wind or elevator?

[Dirty Rotten Flieger]

Hi

I recently switched from a Spring Stick (extreme 3d pro) to a Force Feed Back stick ( MSFFB2)

 

The difference is staggering, particularly with the WW2 birds. I really didn't used to enjoy the German planes because the amount of spring force of aileron to hold it straight was just enough to be annoying, unless I throttled right back to economical cruise which I would not be likely to do flying online.

 

Now I have flown them with the FFB stick there is no "trim issue" at all. The Bf 109 and Fw 190 fly great and feel beautifully trimmed, balanced and delightful to fly at a large range of speeds and altitudes.

 

I am starting to wonder why the difference is so great?

 

I imagine the FFB stick moves the elevator surface and stick into the position of least resistance relative to the wind.

 

This makes me wonder, does the spring stick zero position correlate to the elevator being inline with the stabilizer or inline with the wind?

 

Because if the spring stick is zero when it is inline with the stabilizer then when I trim the stabilizer down the elevator will be pushed up into the wind and exaggerate the trimming of the stabilizer. Correct me if I am wrong.

 

Anyway I suspect many of the people who are complaining of "trim issues" with the K4 are using spring loaded sticks and the guys who are saying it flies beautifully are using FFB sticks and maybe this difference between the two systems is part of the confusion.

 

The FFB sticks centre relative to the wind and the spring sticks centre relative to the stabilizer.

 

Do FFB sticks really "self trim" due to the airflow? I tried watching the stick position indicator HUD thing and trimming through the whole range but couldn't see the stick position move as the stabilizer moved.

 

Please forgive my mentioning the 109 trim again. I don't want to flog a dead horse, but I think many people who are unhappy with it would change their mind if they simply got a FFB stick.

[Barfly]

I think you nailed the value of FFB... it models trimmed, hands off stick position... where you would have to apply constant forward pressure on a traditional PC joystick. Nice if you have FFB, more work and less realistic if you don't.

Edited October 22, 2015 by Barfly

[Vitesse2l]

MSFFB2 is a nice stick for DCS. You'll appreciate it in helos too.

 

Note there is a small (but confusing) bug/feature with this stick that's crept in with 1.5 - I've made a bug thread that goes into the details and the workround. Wasn't me who did the clever bit!

[Dirty Rotten Flieger]

Oh thanks for the tip. i'LL look it up now

[gavagai]

I have a msffb2 and I still don't like the feel of the 109 (the 190 and P51 are great). The 109 feels like it has a cog problem, and maybe it does. I still wonder why half the trim-range has no practcal use.

[Dirty Rotten Flieger]

Yes I know what you mean about much of the trim range being of no practical use. I have wondered if the original 109 design was a lighter plane with a centre of gravity further forward and the trim system was designed for this earlier version. As the weight increased with each successive version the airframe was pushed past it's original trim design.

 

I agree it is a handful compared to the other two planes. It is the lightest with the highest power to weight I believe, and the torque is a challenge to control. But at slow speeds I can just muscle up and out of trouble with all that power and climb away from a mustang on my tail.

 

Anyway I get the feeling that force feedback has a self trimming aspect to it. Has anybody else wondered about this or experienced something similar?

[gavagai]

Regarding your question, a ffb stick centers according to forces on the elevator. So, yes, they do self-trim in a manner of speaking. It is much more apparent in ww1 sims, where you don't want to fly an se5a without ffb.

[DieHard]

I have a msffb2 and I still don't like the feel of the 109 (the 190 and P51 are great). The 109 feels like it has a cog problem, and maybe it does. I still wonder why half the trim-range has no practcal use.

 

+1

 

I agree with your elevator trim observation, but... the 109 is supposedly accurately modeled. Makes me appreciate the guys that flew her and had to, not questioning orders. Nice thing about being in the military, you might not especially like the job, but you gotta' do it anyway if it happens to be your job to do.

Edited October 24, 2015 by DieHard

[Anatoli-Kagari9]

After the latest update the 109k4, although I am using a T16000 joystick and hence no FF, flies so graciously and in harmony that I no longer pay attention to what stab trim settings I use - I simply set it the way it has to be for the type of flight I am up to. I haven't also touched the default trim tabs for rudder and aileron because I find their default ( ED "factory" ) settings more than satisfactory.

 

But I though about the possible reasons for there being so much unused positive trim settings...

 

.) It could be due to production line limitations, trying to optimize the expenses in systems already available for the other models ?

 

.) Could it be because indeed these additional positive stab trim settings will be required when we fly with the external fuel tank and / or bombs ?

To me it appears that a huge external fuel tank will create a pitching down moment, aggravated by gear and flap deflection ?

 

.) To cope with situations like those mentioned by DieHard in this thread ?

Edited October 25, 2015 by jcomm