What?

[Yo-Yo]

I should point out that I have much greater difficulty flying in sims those aircraft which I have flown in the real world. The reason? Flimsy, short plastic joysticks. Even a high-end gaming joystick is rubbish compared to the real deal.

 

The biggest issue most of joystick have is very poor force informatiom. In RL the main info is not stick or rudder travel but the force you apply. Most of joystick even the most expencieve models have wrong spring force with a huge leape in the centre and then almost flat responce. Real stick has linear force dependance.

There is only one model and it is MSFF2 that can provide right feeling. Even despite its shorter travel.

[KLR Rico]

The P-51 is well known for abrupt departures. That is a consequence of its (partially) laminar flow wing.

 

 

^^ This. Not all airfoils are created equal. In my R/C plane experience, all planes act differently when pushed to the edge. Some planes snap with little warning at the onset of stall, some are very forgiving and just mush along at high alpha. It depends on the foil, control surface placement, CG, wing loading, and god-knows-what else... but every plane has it's quirks.

 

The biggest issue most of joystick have is very poor force informatiom. In RL the main info is not stick or rudder travel but the force you apply.

 

 

Exactly! In RL, you'd be amazed just how little you actually *move* the stick, and how much feedback you get from the plane by the feel of the controls. All those cues are lacking when it comes to flying sims.

 

I'm in love with my FFB stick for the mustang, you can really feel the plane in every aspect of flight. From feeling the controls come to life on the T/O roll, to the buffet at high AoA, ED did a great job modeling the effects.

 

I wish a new FFB stick would come out. The MSFFB2 is what, about 10 years old?

Edited March 28, 2013 by KLR Rico

[ZaltysZ]

And yes i got tweaked curves for pitch but still it doesnt feel right to me :)

 

Could it be that elevator reversal had contributed to that feeling?

Edited March 28, 2013 by ZaltysZ

[DerHesse70]

We need better buffeting effects for the non-FFB users. For one, msffb2 has insanely short throw, and i rather use my long throw modded Warthog.

 

The cockpit buffeting is a welcome, but it's useless while tracking bandits and the cockpit is not in view. We need something like sound feedback...

 

You need this if you have no FFB stick:

 

http://www.ivibe.com/index.php?page=home

 

@Yo-Yo:

 

The logitech G940 works also perfect in this sim. All you have to do is to deactivate the centre spring and set the FFB force to 120% in the logitech software.

[Wolf Rider]

 

I think that could be a more problem to fly our DCS P-51 then RL pilot could have with his P-51. I could imagine that in simulator with our "short stick" we could have more trouble with pitch movement then RL pilots. So even if critical angle of atack data are accurate in game it still could not mean that it would be realistic way.

 

 

 

 

Learn where your parameters (where the edge of the envelope is, this has to be achieved in the real thing as well) are... Adapt, Overcome, Survive

Edited March 28, 2013 by Wolf Rider

[gavagai]

 

Over the years we have lost more P-51 aircrews to turn related accelerated stall than any of us care to remember.

 

http://www.warbirddepot.com/fighter_formation/documents/FFQP_Turn_Performance.pdf

 

As air travels over a wing, it transitions from smooth "laminar" flow to turbulent flow. The further back that transition happens, the less drag is produced. However, so-called laminar flow reduces the wing's critical angle of attack before departure. So, for the P-51, you can't have your cake and eat it, too. Great speed came at a cost.

 

On a modern fighter, this problem is surmounted by actively changing the wing's shape during flight. In the picture below, you see the maximum cruise wing approximates a laminar wing, whereas the maneuvering configuration deploys a leading edge (kind of like a Bf 109). Disrupting airflow over the leading edge moves the transition to turbulent airflow closer to the leading edge, thereby increasing the wing's AoA ability before departure.

 

At least, that's the approximate story. I am not an aeronautical engineer or physicist, but these concepts were explained to me by someone significantly more qualified than myself!:joystick:

[recoilfx]

You need this if you have no FFB stick:

 

http://www.ivibe.com/index.php?page=home

 

@Yo-Yo:

 

The logitech G940 works also perfect in this sim. All you have to do is to deactivate the centre spring and set the FFB force to 120% in the logitech software.

 

 

I ordered the ivibe several weeks ago... but so far.. no shipment details.. :-(

[leafer]

You could try 'right Ctrl+Enter' to see how much you're actually pulling on the stick.

[VincentLaw]

http://www.warbirddepot.com/fighter_formation/documents/FFQP_Turn_Performance.pdf

 

As air travels over a wing, it transitions from smooth "laminar" flow to turbulent flow. The further back that transition happens, the less drag is produced. However, so-called laminar flow reduces the wing's critical angle of attack before departure. So, for the P-51, you can't have your cake and eat it, too. Great speed came at a cost.

 

On a modern fighter, this problem is surmounted by actively changing the wing's shape during flight. In the picture below, you see the maximum cruise wing approximates a laminar wing, whereas the maneuvering configuration deploys a leading edge (kind of like a Bf 109). Disrupting airflow over the leading edge moves the transition to turbulent airflow closer to the leading edge, thereby increasing the wing's AoA ability before departure.

 

At least, that's the approximate story. I am not an aeronautical engineer or physicist, but these concepts were explained to me by someone significantly more qualified than myself!:joystick:

 

You could also glue a long strip of sand paper over the wing as a low budget solution if you just want turbulent airflow. That would work too.

 

Deploying a leading edge slat basically subtracts from the effective angle of incidence and increases the camber of the airfoil simultaneously. This increases the maximum lift of the airfoil, increases the stall angle of attack, reduces the stall speed, increases drag, and decreases the pitch stiffness of the airplane. Even disregarding turbulent vs. laminar effects, this would still be true.

Edited March 29, 2013 by VincentLaw