Harrier flies backwards at Hover Stop

[bkthunder]

Hi, I have a question which I couldn't find a straight answer for, in any manual:

 

I gather the Hover stop is 82 degrees. However, at 82 degrees, if I keep the witches hat on the horizon (as prescribed on the Natops, and a seen in some YT videos), the aircraft starts to fly backwards.

The question is, should I keep the withces hat lower than the horizon, or rotate the nozzles forward a bit?

[Fisherman82]

There was another thread somewere on the forum where there was a disscussion about if the witch-hat was bugged so it was off a few degrees, I dont remember how it ended though.

 

I have not been able to understand if "Hover stop" means the angle where the nozzles are pointing so all thrust is vertically straight down or if it is when they are pointing a bit forward to slow down (stop) into a hover.

 

As far as I know there is no mecanical hover stop that can be set like the STO stop so it cant mean that kind of stop.

 

Skickat från min D5503 via Tapatalk

[Fri13]

The correct angle is little difficult to say. As some Harrier II pilots say it is 83 degree, some books from pilots say it is 84 degree, some flight manuals say it is 83 and some 82 degree.

 

It is little difficult really to say what it should be, at least I haven't seen anyone say 81 or 80 degrees.

[Nealius]

So that's why I've been having so many problems landing on the Tarawa since the updates. The Hover Stop should be 82°, but in 1.5.8 and 2.2 I found that 82° with the Witch's Hat on the horizon would put me around 20kts moving forward--perfect for landing on Tarawa, not so much for landing vertically on a stationary pad. 84° used to be what I needed for pure hover. Since the Hotfixes setting 82° to land on Tarawa at 20kts, as before, slows me down way too much and I end up with the Witch's Hat a few degrees below the horizon to maintain 20kts.

[nev_vern]

There was another thread somewere on the forum where there was a disscussion about if the witch-hat was bugged so it was off a few degrees, I dont remember how it ended though.

 

I have not been able to understand if "Hover stop" means the angle where the nozzles are pointing so all thrust is vertically straight down or if it is when they are pointing a bit forward to slow down (stop) into a hover.

 

As far as I know there is no mecanical hover stop that can be set like the STO stop so it cant mean that kind of stop.

 

Skickat från min D5503 via Tapatalk

 

The Hover Stop is actually a mechanical stop, you just can't adjust it like you can with the STO Stop. I think you have to lift the nozzle lever over this mechanical hover stop.

[Pikey]

RL manuals state 82 with a +/- 1 degree tolerance. The apparent placement of the witches hat "appears" to be at least 2 degrees too low for hover in my findings, in 2.5. But i'm just a sim enthusiast.

[Flamin_Squirrel]

What are the wind conditions in each scenario?

[bkthunder]

In my case, I tested with 0 wind on a stationary pad.

 

According to Natops, Hover stop is 82 +/- 1 degree. It also says, the hover stop is made so the jet hovers with the nose wheel slightly higher than the main gear.

 

In my testing, at 82 degrees and witch hat on the horizon, the aircraft goes backwards.

 

From external view, witch hat on the horizon, the nose gear is slightly higher than the main gear, which seems accurate.

 

 

I think the witch hat is more or less ok, but the nozzles are not (meaning they are pointing forward, instead of being perfectly vertical)

 

 

EDIT: just done some more testing: I can maintain a perfect hover with nozzles at 80 degrees. Something seems a bit off, in that at 82 degrees and hat on the horizon, the nozzles are pointing slightly backwards, yet the plane fly backwards.... at 80 degrees, the nozzles are even more backwards, and the plane shoudl fly forward, but it stands still.

 

Maybe the actual thrust vector doesn't match the visuals of the 3d model and the gauges??

Edited February 17, 2018 by bkthunder

[Flamin_Squirrel]

Try again with a 4m/s head wind maybe?

[Eldur]

As far as I know there is no mecanical hover stop that can be set like the STO stop so it cant mean that kind of stop.

 

There is a mechanical hover stop. You pull the lever back completely and you got 82°. To turn them forward you need to push it to the left and then pull back further. It's visible in the animation, even if it's not 100% exact (it goes to the left and a bit back before reaching 82°). Also, it's possible to pull it up to "jump" over the STO stop if set.

[Sniper175]

Probaly has something to do with the flaps always adjusting in vtol mode along with your pitch

[Nealius]

In STOL flaps are fixed at 62° when nozzles are 50° or greater. They don't adjust with pitch.

[Buckeye]

At 82 I've been moving backwards as well, I have to really nose down the WH below the horizon to maintain a hover.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[bkthunder]

So can we call this a bug then?

[Sarge55]

Whew... glad I'm not the only one. I found myself going backwards the other day as well doing field practices where I hadn't before.

[Ahmed]

The flight model is already a complete disgrace in horizontal flight, starting from the airplane not exhibiting a rolling moment in a sideslip condition, and a totally unrealistic rudder control (similar to the M2000C FM, and well below the standard of other developers such as Heatblur, BSTK, and of course ED)

 

I wouldn't be surprised if in jetborne flight this is even worse as the force interactions are way more complex.

 

I hope that RAZBAM really start investing resources into creating a realistic EFM/PFM as my Harrier has been parked on the hard drive since the first release due to its arcadish FM feel...

[bkthunder]

The flight model is already a complete disgrace in horizontal flight, starting from the airplane not exhibiting a rolling moment in a sideslip condition, and a totally unrealistic rudder control (similar to the M2000C FM, and well below the standard of other developers such as Heatblur, BSTK, and of course ED)

 

I wouldn't be surprised if in jetborne flight this is even worse as the force interactions are way more complex.

 

I hope that RAZBAM really start investing resources into creating a realistic EFM/PFM as my Harrier has been parked on the hard drive since the first release due to its arcadish FM feel...

 

I also noticed the unrealistic behavior of the rudder, but to be fair the Mirage has come a long way in the FM department, so I hope the same happens for the Harrier.

At least Razbam has been very open and receptive of feedback in the past, hopefulyl they'll keep the same attitude with the Harrier :music_whistling:

[FSKRipper]

I also noticed the unrealistic behavior of the rudder, but to be fair the Mirage has come a long way in the FM department, so I hope the same happens for the Harrier.

At least Razbam has been very open and receptive of feedback in the past, hopefulyl they'll keep the same attitude with the Harrier :music_whistling:

 

Let's hope they keep it so. By the way some people articulate their ignorant half-knowledge I won't be suprised if Razbam tries to do the FM changes on their own in the future.

[Mars Exulte]

Easy solution:

 

If you're drifting backwards, nose down slightly. Problem solved.

[SUBS17]

You have to feather in order to maintain hover:

feather nozzles

feather thrust

:thumbup:

[SUBS17]

The flight model is already a complete disgrace in horizontal flight, starting from the airplane not exhibiting a rolling moment in a sideslip condition, and a totally unrealistic rudder control (similar to the M2000C FM, and well below the standard of other developers such as Heatblur, BSTK, and of course ED)

 

I wouldn't be surprised if in jetborne flight this is even worse as the force interactions are way more complex.

 

I hope that RAZBAM really start investing resources into creating a realistic EFM/PFM as my Harrier has been parked on the hard drive since the first release due to its arcadish FM feel...

 

Seriously, this DCS Harrier is the best Harrier FM ever made so far.

[Nealius]

Every time someone points out "unrealistic rudder control," it's always with aircraft that have fly-by-wire/SAAS/ARI.

[bkthunder]

Every time someone points out "unrealistic rudder control," it's always with aircraft that have fly-by-wire/SAAS/ARI.

 

Agree, but in this case it is unrealistic. Yawing always generates a roll in the end, and if you have FBW/CAS etc, you should see the ailerons move to keep the aircraft straight (supposing the FBW logic wants that).

In the case of the Harrier, no roll is generated at all, with CAS on or not.

 

Anyways let's stay OT please, we can open a new thread regarding the rudder.

 

EDIT: thread about rudder opened here https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=202958

Edited February 18, 2018 by bkthunder

[Mars Exulte]

And no, it wasn't a useless contribution. If you aren't 100% perfectly level that's what you have to do anyway. The stop is a reference point, and does not necessarily induce a hover on its own. I gather you're talking about a suspected change in the FM, but it has been that way for me all along, having to nose noticeably down. My reference is the position the carat is in when on the ground, that's where I try to put the nose and then adjust the nozzles as necessary to maintain stability. If you're relying on the stop alone to save you, you're quite literally doing it wrong, as wind or literally anything will push you around ANYWAY.

 

So, no. Not a useless contribution. I am not looking over your shoulder to see what happens, but I can deduce from personal experience and how many people complain about Harrier flight profiles, that most of them are making noob mistakes. I neither know nor care what your level of proficiency is, and so made my obvious solution remark.

[Flamin_Squirrel]

So, no. Not a useless contribution. I am not looking over your shoulder to see what happens, but I can deduce from personal experience and how many people complain about Harrier flight profiles, that most of them are making noob mistakes. I neither know nor care what your level of proficiency is, and so made my obvious solution remark.

 

Well if people are reporting that they're following the proper procedure and not getting the right result that doesn't point towards a noob mistake does it?