Jump to content

Lack of pitch down authority


Snappy

Recommended Posts

Hello everyone,

 

is anyone else experiencing a noticable lack of pitch down authority with the new PFM?

On my side it is noticable across the entire speed range of the aircraft but

seems to get more pronounced at high speeds.

 

 

The problem is. that even with stick full fwd the nose is very slow to move down, even if starting out from a stable nose level and trimmed out attitude.

It takes a lot of additional nose down trim to get it moving halfway decently.

 

 

On the positive side, this way there's absolutely no danger of red-out in the aircraft right now, but seriously its annoying me a lot, as it takes away some options during last ditch gun defense maneuvering for example.

 

 

I'm not sure what causes this, even in the cockpit it seems like the control stick is moving a much smaller travel forward at full deflection than aft.

 

 

Already experimented with tuning axis for pitch, but so far no luck.

 

 

No problem in other aircraft modules with this.

 

 

Has anyone else encountered this?

 

Kind regards,

 

Snappy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

sounds like a calibration issue

Rafael

 

Ryzen 7 1800x @ 4ghz | MSI GTX 980ti | 32gb DDR4 Ballistix 2400Mhz | Asus ROG Crosshair VII Hero (wi-fi) | 480Gb Kingston NVMe ssd | Western Digital 1TB x2 | EVGA 850w PSU | Noctua NH-D14 | NZXT S240 | Windows 10 Pro 64bit | 4k 50" Philips android TV | Dell P2418D | Oculus Rift S | Thrustmaster Warthog Hotas

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This has been pointed out and discussed before, I think it was concluded this is realistic, because Soviet/Russian doctrine was to avoid negative G, and the airframes are not designed for it. If you need to dive, roll inverted, pull, then roll out.

VC

 

=X51= Squadron is recruiting!

X51 website: https://x51squadron.com/

Join our Discord: https://discord.gg/d9JtFY4

Link to comment
Share on other sites

VC,

 

 

thanks for your input.I see.Would make sense in a way, if the Soviet design philosophy was to avoid negative G due to airframe issues.

 

Still it seems a bit overdone to me , at least in the high speed regime were it's very hard to get the nose down at all.

 

 

Kind regards,

 

Snappy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This has been pointed out and discussed before, I think it was concluded this is realistic, because Soviet/Russian doctrine was to avoid negative G, and the airframes are not designed for it. If you need to dive, roll inverted, pull, then roll out.

 

Was it really concluded? One guy posted that, sounded like a weird generalization thing to me.

i386DX40@42 MHz w/i387 CP, 4 MB RAM (8*512 kB), Trident 8900C 1 MB w/16-bit RAMDAC ISA, Quantum 340 MB UDMA33, SB 16, DOS 6.22 w/QEMM + Win3.11CE, Quickshot 1btn 2axis, Numpad as hat. 2 FPH on a good day, 1 FPH avg.

 

DISCLAIMER: My posts are still absolutely useless. Just finding excuses not to learn the F-14 (HB's Swansong?).

 

Annoyed by my posts? Please consider donating. Once the target sum is reached, I'll be off to somewhere nice I promise not to post from. I'd buy that for a dollar!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@dudikoff

I've seen references of testing graphs posted round here about structural failure via negative gs on the Flanker. Showed to be very low tolerance. As the MiG is effectively a shrunken Flanker, I would expect it to have very similar characteristics.

 

The Cobra maneuver only works because there is no real force behind it, just the plane lazily drifting around (in the negative range), otherwise it would probably self destruct.

 

That said, it's been a while since that was posted, I think during the Jack McKay/Flanker mega thread, but not sure, and I'm not going to swear by any of it after this much time

Де вороги, знайдуться козаки їх перемогти.

5800x3d * 3090 * 64gb * Reverb G2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...