Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Panthera

Me262 pitch authority

Recommended Posts

Have just taken the Me262 through it's paces and I have to say the FM feels very strange, esp. the lack of pitch authority comes across as very perculiar (bug?)

 

THe problem is so bad that atm you cannot even force an accelerated stall, infact you're mostly not even capable of making the slats come out. Blacking out is also basically impossible.

 

This could ofcourse all be down to bugs, which I have to say I hope is the case.

  • Sad 1
  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yeah getting the same experience. I tried lots of speeds, etc. No accelerated stalls at all. Flys like it has  a SAS  or a FBW system

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Yes, the pitch up with increases in speed also seems quite excessive IMHO (making the lack of pitch authority even more strange). I see no reason aerodynamically why it would be that bad, and I see even less reason why it would lack pitch authority.

 

As far as I've gathered from reading about the Me262 increases in speed only resulted in a mild increase in pitch up, and at no point have I read that there was a lack of pitch authority at any speed except when hitting compressibility ofcourse where the nose would slowly pitch down. Infact the aircraft was said to need only very small adjustments in trim for a larg effect due to the fully trimmable horizontal stab. (Was the same deal in the F-86 which later got an all moving horizontal stabilitor)

 

I also think the devs might have taken the Zeno Warbird manual abit too litterally when it said that: "in climbing or turning the automatic leading edge slots will come out when the speed drops to 450 km/h", as ingame the slats seem to litterally be "locked in" above that speed 😁 In reality this is not how these devices work, instead the slats will come out as soon as you increase the AoA of the wing past a certain point, i.e. they don't care about speed at all, just the position of the stagnation point on the LE of the wing :) 

Edited by Panthera

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

i was able to stall it only when having stabz at +% (100% you can stall it easy) and also get in blackouts then easy, if its on default stabz -% i was not able to stal it, was able to get in blackout only doing +700 then.

 

fastest i was going in dive was 1100kmh diving from 12km, and nothing fall from airplane untill i hit ground, stabz help to keep control and even can pull up sometimes from 1000kmh dives with stabz.

Edited by 77.CountZero

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, atm the elevator effectiveness is way too low and the pitch up with speed too steep. 

 

It's really very odd.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hehe, no it's not necessarily shocking and I ofcourse expect refinements to the FM to be made as well. I just hope 777 acknowledges the problem and addresses it :)

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Taken from the Dev Diary, May 17:

 

"It should be noted that the longitudinal center-of-gravity depends on the remaining fuel, ammo and modifications installed very heavily. For instance, if you remove the nose gun armor and two guns, it becomes so tail heavy with full tanks that it is dangerous to fly."

 

Could this have anything to do with it?  

 

Haven't had a chance to try flying it yet.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Panthera said:

I just hope 777 acknowledges the problem and addresses it :)

 

That's assuming that they agree with you that there's a problem. You've not exactly presented any primary sources to support your arguments.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Panthera said:

Yes, atm the elevator effectiveness is way too low and the pitch up with speed too steep. 

 

 

When the D9 was released it had these same problems/features. My guess is if its indeed wrong they will correct it eventually, like they did with the D9.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Panthera said:

In reality this is not how these devices work, instead the slats will come out as soon as you increase the AoA of the wing past a certain point, 

You‘re awfully confident about AoA you could reach at 500 km/h or so. (Lest the airframe stayed intact after you did so.) Remember, that‘s a speed even faster than I-16 can go.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
8 hours ago, ZachariasX said:

You‘re awfully confident about AoA you could reach at 500 km/h or so. (Lest the airframe stayed intact after you did so.) Remember, that‘s a speed even faster than I-16 can go.

 

The airframe can take over 12 G's, so you will be blacking out well before you reach that point. However even achieving a black out at  that speed ingame is impossible atm due to a significant lack of pitch authority. 

 

Also the AoA needed to achieve the necessary lift for a specific load factor depends on the wing loading of the aircraft, and since it is rather high on the Me262 you should very much be able to pull enough AoA to see the slats come out past 500 km/h, infact the slats should start to gradually come out well before the critical AoA. Would pulling hard enough at 500 km/h for the slats to come out result in a high G that the pilot possibly couldn't sustain for long? Sure, but not anywhere near 12 G :)

 

 

13 hours ago, =AVG77=Mobile_BBQ said:

Taken from the Dev Diary, May 17:

 

"It should be noted that the longitudinal center-of-gravity depends on the remaining fuel, ammo and modifications installed very heavily. For instance, if you remove the nose gun armor and two guns, it becomes so tail heavy with full tanks that it is dangerous to fly."

 

Could this have anything to do with it?  

 

Haven't had a chance to try flying it yet.

 

I tried with all sorts of setups, but the real problem IMO is that the elevators are way too ineffective.

 

Trimming the aircraft for level flight at say 600 km/h and then slowing to 300 km/h without changing the trim the elevators should still be plenty effective enough to cause an accelerated stall at this lower speed. That the elevators are nowhere near capable of generating the lift necessary for doing this ingame atm is the main problem IMHO.

 

The 2nd problem as I see it is an unusually steep rate of pitch up with increases in speed, seems noticably higher than for the piston engined aircraft.

Edited by Panthera
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[Citation needed]

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Panthera said:

Yes, atm the elevator effectiveness is way too low and the pitch up with speed too steep. 

 

It's really very odd.

i was posting that it dosent look od when using stabz that airplane have, to me it looks realistic the way its in game now

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I don't see it as normal that you cannot generate enough lift via the elevators to generate an accelerated stall at 300 km/h when trimmed for 500 or even 600 km/h.

 

According to pilot accounts (& the manual) the horizontal stab only needed to be adjusted a very few degrees for a large change in trim, indicating that the effectiveness of the stab was very high (should be as it was rather large) and in turn also that only small deflections of the elevators should be required in order to generate a large increase in lift = It's one of the advantages of a fully trimmable stabilizer, that the elevator effectiveness remains high even when the stab is trimmed for high speed.

 

YR0RIrD.png

 

Edited by Panthera
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Panthera said:

According to pilot accounts (& the manual) the horizontal stab only needed to be adjusted a very few degrees for a large change in trim,

You honestly think you can hold just a couple of degrees stab trim with the elevator controls? Remember, Boeing made a field test testing that with some of their passenger aircraft. Result was that even two persons can hold the stick against the trim in conditions described in the section you referenced.

 

You can well break up an aircraft using trim. If you can do that with direct controls, you have a dangerous aircraft.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Really fun taking the Schwalbe through it's paces and an amazing feat by the developers! Even managed a compressor stall flameout pulling to high aoa going over the top. A nice touch that but very embarrasing seeing the Spitfire I was trying to bag was not sporting enough to allow me to relight. :(

 

That being said I'm also a bit surprised by the low elevator authority a high speeds in the current FM: The 262 has geared flettner tabs augmenting elevator authority so it should even be possible to get them overbalanced if you are not careful. I'm going to take my crew chief by the ear and tell him to fix it. Should be enough with a few mm adjustment on the bellcrank to make the tab move a tad more and then I can bag that Tommy next time round......

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, ZachariasX said:

You honestly think you can hold just a couple of degrees stab trim with the elevator controls? Remember, Boeing made a field test testing that with some of their passenger aircraft. Result was that even two persons can hold the stick against the trim in conditions described in the section you referenced.

 

I just qouted the actual Me262 manual, I'm not making this up. It only took a very small change in incidence for the stab to generate a big effect in trim, i.e. the aircraft needed quite abit less trim changing than the conventional aircraft at the time.

 

Also once more one of the advantages of a trimmable stabilizer that you can keep the elevators effective within a broader range of speeds, hence it makes very little sense that if you trim for 600 km/h then you can't pull enough elevator to even black out at that speed (or lower/higher for that matter). Hence why I can state something is off.

 

Quote

You can well break up an aircraft using trim. If you can do that with direct controls, you have a dangerous aircraft.

 

In that case many modern fighters are dangerous aircraft, incl. the F-14 & F-15 both of which were able to pull far more G's than the airframe could take if the pilot just janked back the stick.

 

 

1 hour ago, Holtzauge said:

That being said I'm also a bit surprised by the low elevator authority a high speeds in the current FM: The 262 has geared flettner tabs augmenting elevator authority so it should even be possible to get them overbalanced if you are not careful. I'm going to take my crew chief by the ear and tell him to fix it. Should be enough with a few mm adjustment on the bellcrank to make the tab move a tad more and then I can bag that Tommy next time round......

 

As far as I've been able to tell ingame it seems like it's the elevators themselves that simply aren't effective enough (as in they don't provide enough lift, which is perculiar considering the design), and not that controls are freezing up (high stick forces) due to speed? Either way as you correctly point out the latter would also be at odds with reality as the elevator controls in the Me262 reportedly were light all the way up to the max permissable speed. In this single respect I really don't believe the real 262 flies like the one we have ingame.

 

Btw I should also point out that this is my only beef with the FM atm, everything else really seems fine to me. The lack of pitch authority simply has such a big effect on how the aircraft flies that it can't be ignored IMHO :)

Edited by Panthera

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Panthera said:

As far as I've been able to tell ingame it seems like elevators themselves simply aren't effective enough, and not that they are freezing up due to stick forces? But as you correctly point out the latter would also be at odds with reality as the elevator controls reportedly were light all the way up to the max permissable speed.

 

 

I think at least a part of it is the stick force modeling: Try flying at low speed and pull back fully on your "virtual" stick and do the same at high speed: Go to external views and you can see that the angle the elevator moves is less at high than at low speed so the there is definitely a force based limitation there.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Holtzauge said:

 

I think at least a part of it is the stick force modeling: Try flying at low speed and pull back fully on your "virtual" stick and do the same at high speed: Go to external views and you can see that the angle the elevator moves is less at high than at low speed so the there is definitely a force based limitation there.

 

I see, hadn't noticed that. Well in that case lowering the stick forces could be part of solving the issue :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well currently I have been using the adjustable tailplane as an "exploit" to bypass the limited elevator authority. Works quite well actually! ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Panthera said:

 

I just qouted the actual Me262 manual, I'm not making this up. It only took a very small change in incidence for the stab to generate a big effect in trim, i.e. the aircraft needed quite abit less trim changing than the conventional aircraft at the time.

 

Also once more one of the advantages of a trimmable stabilizer that you can keep the elevators effective within a broader range of speeds, hence it makes very little sense that if you trim for 600 km/h then you can't pull enough elevator to even black out at that speed (or lower/higher for that matter). Hence why I can state something is off.

 

 

In that case many modern fighters are dangerous aircraft, incl. the F-14 & F-15 both of which were able to pull far more G's than the airframe could take if the pilot just janked back the stick.

It seems I was not clear. I was just commenting on the manual stating that the stab trim can easily overtax both airframe and pilot. It is usually so effective that at higher speed you will not win against adverse trim. This is what your manual also implies. It says nowhere that „don‘t pull too hard, else the aircraft comes apart.“ But it implicitly says so for the trim.

 

Flettner tab or not, with direct controls the stick is usually geared such that you cannot overtax the aircraft. The Spit had a very light elevator and I‘m telling you that you have real work to do there.

 

And you also have to consider that anything what is described as „light“ in context of these aircraft comes very heavy to you. Just forget about being able to throw the stick around like your desktop joystick. So don‘t assume you‘d be doing in that aircraft what you are doing as 1GCAP. And 450 km/h is about corner speed of the Mustang. 500 should do for the 262. When you can pull 9 g without stall, then I doubt you have sufficient AoA to make the slats come out when pulling 6 g (at max.). You will NEVER pull 9 g in such an aircraft, unless you want to kill yourself using the stab trim.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

@Holtzauge Copy that, just not very immersive having to resort to such methods IMHO 😁 

 

Also even if there is an issue with stick forces it still appears that the elevators aren't quite effective enough, which is demonstratable by attempting to pull the aircraft into an accelerated stall at 300 km/h when trimmed for 600 km/h = should be perfectly possible, but ingame it is impossible. Part of it is probably the steep increase in pitch up with speed requiring large changes in trim, which also is very much at odds with the manual & pilot accounts :) Feels very odd flying a jet that wants to pitch up almost like a WW1 fighter :P

 

 

Edited by Panthera

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
14 minutes ago, Panthera said:

I see, hadn't noticed that. Well in that case lowering the stick forces could be part of solving the issue :)

You don‘t really want to be able to rip the airframe apart by just pulling back the stick. If you make the stick light like that as it is in modern combat aircraft, then you also have a g limiter.

Edited by ZachariasX

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
Just now, ZachariasX said:

You don‘t really want to be able to rip the airframe apart by just pulling back the stick. If you make the stick light like that as it is in modern comabt aurcraft, then you also have a g limiter.

 

No, more modern fighters such as the F-4, F-14 etc still had no G limiter, hence not overstressing the airframe was one of the pilot's concerns.

 

 

Edited by Panthera

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Panthera said:

which is demonstradable by attempting to pull the aircraft into an accelerated stall at 300 km/h when trimmed for 600 km/h = should be perfectly possible, but ingame it is impossible.

You cannot say this like that. It depends on your elevator layout „who wins“ at what speed.

1 minute ago, Panthera said:

 

No, more modern fighters such as the F-4, F-14 etc still had no G limiter, hence not overstressing the airframe was one of the pilot's concerns.

 

 

I said „modern“ but you are right there. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, ZachariasX said:

You cannot say this like that. It depends on your elevator layout „who wins“ at what speed.

 

Again one of the key reason for adding a trimmable stabilizer is that only small changes in incidence are needed in order to trim the aircraft, which reduces trim drag when compared to trim tabs or a trimmable elevator and more importantly makes sure the elevators remain effective within a broader range of speeds without having to change the trim. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, ZachariasX said:

I said „modern“ but you are right there. ;)

 

Infact it was like that until the electronic G limiters in the fully FBW F/A-18, F-16 etc, with some of these still having the ability to override the limiter incase of emergency, but none of these aircraft were/are considered dangerous, and neither was the F-86 Sabre which features an all moving stabilator and "light" hydraulically boosted controls.

 

And the same obviously goes for the Me262, there would be no fear of overstressing the airframe as reaching the required 12+ G's would be nigh impossible for the pilot to achieve accidently because 1) the controls weren't so light as to make something like that an accidental thing, probably requiring something in the order of a 15-20 kg pull and 2) more importantly the pilot would pass out way before ever reaching that point.  

 

There was really only one way to overstress the 262's airframe (two infact, the 2nd being going too fast an entering an uncontrollable negative G dive) and that was by attempting to use the trimmable stab to increase pitch up/down at speed, this was as mentioned strongly adviced against as even a small change in incidence/trim of the tailplane had a big effect (not so ingame)

 

 

 

 

Edited by Panthera

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

OK, so I checked out the 262.  I think it's well done and don't see the issue with the pitch.

Inside the cockpit, the pitch trimmer's somewhat ergonomic design indicates to me that the designers very well knew about the widely varying pitch characteristics at various speeds.  

It appears the throttles were meant to be left at optimal settings and the left hand is actively using the pitch trimmer to 'supplement' the elevators through most stages of flight.  

 

Keep in mind that no pilot that was really given this plane to fly was dumb enough to attempt acrobatics with it.  If they were, they probably didn't live.  

Getting fast at high alt with as few gentle turns as possible was the name of the game.  Once you're up there, there's more freedom to maneuver, but you still have to think ahead of what the results will be regarding final energy and positioning after a more intense maneuver.   

Edited by =AVG77=Mobile_BBQ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I tried to fly this plane yesterday. I setup a SP mission against 4 A20 and 4 Pe2. It was almost impossible to line up the shots and I had to go from low 6, being exposed to the superhuman Pe2 gunner. Will try that today again. It feels nice though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
19 hours ago, ZachariasX said:

It seems I was not clear. I was just commenting on the manual stating that the stab trim can easily overtax both airframe and pilot. It is usually so effective that at higher speed you will not win against adverse trim. This is what your manual also implies. It says nowhere that „don‘t pull too hard, else the aircraft comes apart.“ But it implicitly says so for the trim.

 

Flettner tab or not, with direct controls the stick is usually geared such that you cannot overtax the aircraft. The Spit had a very light elevator and I‘m telling you that you have real work to do there.

 

And you also have to consider that anything what is described as „light“ in context of these aircraft comes very heavy to you. Just forget about being able to throw the stick around like your desktop joystick. So don‘t assume you‘d be doing in that aircraft what you are doing as 1GCAP. And 450 km/h is about corner speed of the Mustang. 500 should do for the 262. When you can pull 9 g without stall, then I doubt you have sufficient AoA to make the slats come out when pulling 6 g (at max.). You will NEVER pull 9 g in such an aircraft, unless you want to kill yourself using the stab trim.

 

 

 

19 hours ago, ZachariasX said:

You don‘t really want to be able to rip the airframe apart by just pulling back the stick. If you make the stick light like that as it is in modern combat aircraft, then you also have a g limiter.

 

Nope, sticks (elevators) are not geared so that the airframe can't be overstressed at high speeds: Elevators are usually geared to allow the pilot to be able to control the plane at low speeds, e.g. for landing configuration with flaps deployed at a max forward c.g. location. This gives you a certain design size and up deflection angle of the elevator needed. You can however to your hearts content pull the maximum on your stick up to the so-called max manouvering speed because the plane will stall before anything bad happens. However, when your speed goes above that you have to limit how much you pull or you will exceed the design limits. Using the attached figure the max manouvering speed for the P-51 is around 270 mph. But the same figure also shows that the static design limit, usually 1.5 times the max allowed limit, in this case 12g, can be reached at about 320 mph and above. There are second order things we could discuss like buffeting limits etc but in principle you can pull the wings of a plane and structural failures did happen in some cases, especially the Spitfire had incidents of this kind. Just ask VO101Kurfurst: He is an expert in documenting Spitfire weak points and can probably provide ample examples of Spitfires shedding wings.

 

Returning to the Me262: I'm going to be careful to say that I don't say the FM is wrong but I will maintain that it should from a theoretical perspective given what we know about the flettner tab powered elevator on the Schawalbe be perfectly possible to pull the stick at higher speeds (barring compressibility effects) so that the slats come out and you get an accelerated stall. I have not seen the developers claiming that what we have now is the final product so I'm hoping to see this addressed but at the same time I'm going to start looking into it myself to see if there is any info around on this.

 

TBH, AFAIK you are an experienced IRL pilot Zacharias so I'm surprised you don't seem to be more cautious about pulling hard on a direct control stick and trust the designers to limit the gearing. As an engineer I would find it very difficult to design a gearing that marries low speed control while not allowing overstressing above max manouvering speeds by a determined pilot. ;)

 

 

P51_Mustang_gload_manouvering_limits.gif.88455968fa3e6dfbe352a96a3af06cc2.gif

Edited by Holtzauge
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Love the new 262 to death, but I must concur...something is off with the elevator.

 

I believe too much stabilizer input is required to augment what the elevators should be capable of doing themselves.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Yep, I love it too! It's amazing the stuff we get to play with. However, that being said, I do hope they will look the high speed control over. IIRC then someone mentioned that the Dora had similar issues when it was released and that that was then fixed in a later update.

Edited by Holtzauge
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Holtzauge said:

TBH, AFAIK you are an experienced IRL pilot Zacharias so I'm surprised you don't seem to be more cautious about pulling hard on a direct control stick and trust the designers to limit the gearing. As an engineer I would find it very difficult to design a gearing that marries low speed control while not allowing overstressing above max manouvering speeds by a determined pilot. ;)

I trust myself and I am being determined to be cautious.

 

I admit getting ahead of myself in sort of implying that the ideal gearing would be "max you can move the stick" should result in "reaching of intended design limits". What I meant is that gearing should ideally reflect the purpose (and intended load factors) of an aircraft. That is why you have more stick forces on large aircraft. The He-177 as a negative example could be torn up in flight with simple pull on the stick, as according to Eric Brown, the yoke was so light in pull at higher speeds. Great for a plane that also intended for dive bombing. He wasn't the only one frowning on that design. So of course you are right there and design limits are in the manual and indicated by the arcs and lines on the speedometer as much as the manual. But honestly, the designers could do some homework as well.

 

What makes me chuckle when I read about how the 1GCAP casually correlates what he does on the sim with what he supposedly can do in that real aircraft. We, people of today, most often have a wrong idea about how that antique metal behaves. Same as you drive classic cars with slightly different technique as and of today’s rides, classic aircraft behave slightly different at times. In case of the Spitfire (and I assume the 262 behaving likewise), control forces are not exactly as in today’s aircraft.

 

How so different? Different in that progressive displacement does not come across as a progressive increase in force required moving them. It is as if they just have that center cam keeping the stick centered and once you start to displace it, you feel surprisingly little force increase upon further deflection. The stick is like suck centered and the faster you go, the harder it is stuck. This means it is surprisingly difficult to make a precise, say, 30% displacement of the stick. It's like when you're at the gym and you select maybe 30 kg with the pin and the try to move the handle exactly 30% of the whole travel and instantly so. Even a delicate plane as the Bücker Jungmann shares this tendency. So all that stick wobbling we do all day, forget that, you are physically not able to do that over a prolonged time in the fast aircraft.

The those controls differ from e.g. a PC-7. Those more modern aircraft have a more precise control. Precise as in not having the stick “stuck” in center position, but you can more easily move them at lower displacement, with a more gradual increase in force required for added displacement.

 

And honestly, the idea of going at 500 km/h and then just pull the stick back with all my might, that idea does freak me out. I'd really be cautious there.

 

Also, trim forces in these fighter aircraft can be tremendous. Just wheel the trim a bit off and what you have to hold is like holding a Cessna with full up trim at high yellow arc speeds. While certainly trim produces less stick force at lower speeds, I simply do not share the enthusiasm of being able to not only override that, but also override it to the point of creating an accelerated stall. Maybe it is possible. My bets are against it. Who knows?

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
46 minutes ago, ZachariasX said:

I trust myself and I am being determined to be cautious.

 

 

 

I admit getting ahead of myself in sort of implying that the ideal gearing would be "max you can move the stick" should result in "reaching of intended design limits". What I meant is that gearing should ideally reflect the purpose (and intended load factors) of an aircraft. That is why you have more stick forces on large aircraft. The He-177 as a negative example could be torn up in flight with simple pull on the stick, as according to Eric Brown, the yoke was so light in pull at higher speeds. Great for a plane that also intended for dive bombing. He wasn't the only one frowning on that design. So of course you are right there and design limits are in the manual and indicated by the arcs and lines on the speedometer as much as the manual. But honestly, the designers could do some homework as well.

 

 

 

What makes me chuckle when I read about how the 1GCAP casually correlates what he does on the sim with what he supposedly can do in that real aircraft. We, people of today, most often have a wrong idea about how that antique metal behaves. Same as you drive classic cars with slightly different technique as and of today’s rides, classic aircraft behave slightly different at times. In case of the Spitfire (and I assume the 262 behaving likewise), control forces are not exactly as in today’s aircraft.

 

 

 

How so different? Different in that progressive displacement does not come across as a progressive increase in force required moving them. It is as if they just have that center cam keeping the stick centered and once you start to displace it, you feel surprisingly little force increase upon further deflection. The stick is like suck centered and the faster you go, the harder it is stuck. This means it is surprisingly difficult to make a precise, say, 30% displacement of the stick. It's like when you're at the gym and you select maybe 30 kg with the pin and the try to move the handle exactly 30% of the whole travel and instantly so. Even a delicate plane as the Bücker Jungmann shares this tendency. So all that stick wobbling we do all day, forget that, you are physically not able to do that over a prolonged time in the fast aircraft.

 

The those controls differ from e.g. a PC-7. Those more modern aircraft have a more precise control. Precise as in not having the stick “stuck” in center position, but you can more easily move them at lower displacement, with a more gradual increase in force required for added displacement.

 

 

 

And honestly, the idea of going at 500 km/h and then just pull the stick back with all my might, that idea does freak me out. I'd really be cautious there.

 

 

 

Also, trim forces in these fighter aircraft can be tremendous. Just wheel the trim a bit off and what you have to hold is like holding a Cessna with full up trim at high yellow arc speeds. While certainly trim produces less stick force at lower speeds, I simply do not share the enthusiasm of being able to not only override that, but also override it to the point of creating an accelerated stall. Maybe it is possible. My bets are against it. Who knows?

 

 

 

Good points and I think most of us flying in the sim understand that what we do in here is not the same as IRL. I don’t overly enjoy 5g IRL but doing it here is easy. Sure, in the sim you can yank the stick to your hearts content and it’s also surprisingly easy to shoot at high g-loads with accuracy which I seriously doubt would be the case IRL. However, all the points you make above are just as valid for all the other planes in the sim as well so I see no reason why the Me262 should be given special treatment in this department. So to make the Me262’s handling model consistent with the other planes, it should be possible to do accelerated stalls in the Schwalbe as well IMHO.

 

Edited by Holtzauge
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, Holtzauge said:

So to make the Me262’s handling model consistent with the other planes, it should be possible to do accelerated stalls in the Schwalbe as well IMHO.

I should look at that more closely then in the next flights. So far I was not flying her for in a way this getting an issue. But if you say it is different from other planes, then this certainly deserves a closer look. And also checking for how much the stick in the cockpit moves along with the joystick input, just to see if we have some force restrictions there.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For me on the other hand the rudder is very sensible on high speeds and the elevator is just not responding even at normal speeds like 600kph 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I get about 530 km/h IAS as max speed for slats to be deployed at various altitudes. But this looks at least plausible to me. It appears that the stick does not get reduced displacement at higher speed as I would have expected. Above these 530 km/h, she is more on rails, while below that speed you can skid her more easily. Not sure what goes on here FM-whise, but as said, I find it plausible while lacking detailed data on her.

 

But I must say, I am truly impressed about how they implemented those engines. This is fun. The the devs make better with every plane.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, CUJO_1970 said:

Love the new 262 to death, but I must concur...something is off with the elevator.

 

I believe too much stabilizer input is required to augment what the elevators should be capable of doing themselves.

 

I have to agree, I find myself flying more with the stabilizer than with the stick currently. I'm sure the devs need to do some refinement so threads like this will greatly assist them in such adjustments.  

Also here is a full manual.
http://www.zenoswarbirdvideos.com/Images/Me262/262PilotHandbook.pdf

 

Edited by Geronimo553

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ZachariasX said:

 This is fun.

 

It really is. I literally couldn't put the 262 down the night I first flew it - sooo much fun to fly!

36 minutes ago, Geronimo553 said:

 

"The aircraft holds it's speed in tight turns much longer than conventional types"

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...