Something just a little odd....?

[forthbridge]

Well....

I *know* that I should not be doing crazy manouvres in some of the DM Classics (Well the VC10) :tab: - but I'm just curious...

Using a light (10%) fuel load, it is possible to get airborne quite early and get the wings cleaned up - then do a complete aileron roll while climbing at even slight nose up. Now as to the reality of this...well probably not... - but I get as mch fun out of unlikely scenarios as I do from a proper 'session'...

Anyway - here's my question: is the RAF VC10 airfile/handling/whatever significantly different from the civil VC10s?

I ask because a roll is impossible in the civil VC10s without immediately plummeting landward for the same fuel load.

I also find them a little more sluggish in manual flight compared to the RAF examples. Quite why this is I'm not sure - one manifestation of this seems to be on the landing phase. AS I'm still using FS02 until I can get a copy of 04, I don't use autloland, as the ILS system isn't particularly good anyway (and I prefer manually landing) - but, I find that I'm able to land the RAF VCs incredibly gently (or hard) - whereas the civils seem to a: need more thrust for the same glidepath and b: seem to 'bump' down onto the runway. (Is there a significant difference in how the flare would manifest itself?)

Unless it's either FS02, or my incompitence....

jim

[Garry Russell]

Hi Jim

I think there are quite a few manoevers you can do in flgiht sim theat are not done in the real world.

They probably could be except the aircraft would be structaully damaged or even break up ..but it may well have the power and control authority to carry it out.

As to varying performance......it might be an idea to check the dates of your RAF and civil as they may not all be the latest version or even matched.

Some may be earlyy 2004 (2002) and other the more recent 2004 versions.

I don't know what difference any of this would make but it would be worth getting the airfile dates as that is something that would be useful to anyone trying to answer :think:

ATB

Garry

[forthbridge]

Hi Gary

Thanks for that, I'll have a look later. There's certainly a difference somewhere. Obviously rolling is basic lunacy in a plane like a VC10 in any case :roll:
but if I was pushed to say more I'd say I prefer the handling of the RAF version. Possibly a more FS02 friendly airfile.

jim

[jonesey2k]

Don't the RAF craft have the wings and engines from the Super?

[forthbridge]

:think:

That could be a possibility Jonesy. Just got in, so I'm going to have a quick look at the dates on the airfiles, and try a couple of experiments...



Jim

[forthbridge]

:think: :think: :think:

Just back from a muck around as test pilot........

Air files are all dated 03/01/05, so I can't see anything different there.

Now, for my test, I started at EGQL with full tanks. The Standard VC10 had 144838 lbs of fuel aboard.
The tests were simple. Standard takeoff, and a 30 degree climb until stall. Flaps and gear were raised on all aircraft at 2500 feet.

Engines were wound up to full power and brakes released after 10 seconds. The results are:

Standard - stalled at 8700 feet.
Super - (With 11000lbs more fuel) stalled at 10400 feet - a clear advantage over the standard even for the heavier plane.
And the RAF version: with the same fuel load (155000lbs) as the super... managed 10450feet (EG the same)


I know this is all pretty academic, (especially as Im using FS02 and hope to upgrade soon) - but the above test seems to say that the RAF version doesn't (obviously) have any massive power/lift advantage over the super, although they both do over the standard.
(I thought perhaps a surfeit of power allows the rollover while climbing)

This rules out the engines. Now I need to think of another 'handling' test...... :think:

Jim

[MALTBY D]

It's all too far back for me to remember with any accuracy, but there is a difference in the default amount of payload between the different models.
FS doesn't allow you to set a default amount of fuel, just a default payload. So I tend to set the payloads so that they're near MTOW when you load up into FS (full of fuel).

The C1K does have a ludicrous amount of fuel capacity & so ended up with a fairly light payload. That may have something to do with it.
So, you should set both the payload & fuel to get the same weights for your experiments. HELP

The C1K has slightly more powerful engines than the Standard, but it is also heavier.
There shouldn't be much difference in the handling across all the models.
DM

[forthbridge]

HI David/all

Latest test was to load all aircraft to the same weight. Flaps 20, and full power on the brakes, release and 'straight up' I left engines on full power and continually pulled back, gaining around 60 degrees of climb. I allowed the aircraft to lift in their own time as opposed to being careful of VR. (I had the stick back on brake release. The Super VC took the longest distance to get airborne, the RAF VC the shortest :think:

The standard VC was unable to to get above 55 degrees of bank before stalling at 3500 feet. The Super and RAF VC managed 3900 feet, so another dead heat. The aircraft were all recoverable (They actually began to tailslide) but a pitch forward followed by 30 degrees of bank with engines idling was enough to bring airspeed back. So again Ive not really discovered anything other than the RAF VC lifts a little earlier (between thousand yard markers on the runway).

I get the feeling the dynamics in FS02 are not the best.......

jim

[forthbridge]

Well, just taken a fully loaded SVC10 from EGQL to Ascension. Landed with 13,000 fuel to spare. Straightforward flight, and having previously played around, there appears to be no difference in handling that I can ascertain between the SVC and the RAF version, save the apparent 'extra' agility/power off the mark - if I had to 'rate' the difference, I'd say about 5%... slightly more responsive to input would be the phrase I'd use.(I am ignoring the aileron rolls) - yet, strangely (perhaps why I am slightly 'averse' to all by the RAF version??) it seems like the runway sucks the standard and SVC in withing the last few feet - try as I might I cannot get a super smooth touchdown, in fact, landing on Ascension, being super carful, it was still almost an all wheels together jobby, I'm sure there would have been a call to the manager for the state of the aircraft, if not collapsed gear, yet with the RAF version, with the same fuel load, it's possible to kiss the wheels onto the tarmac. Strange. Must be FS02!!
:roll:

Jim

[johnhinson]

HI David/all
[snipped]
I get the feeling the dynamics in FS02 are not the best.......
jim

I'm not sure if this is relevant to the specific point raised, but there are minor differences between FS2002 and FS2004 FDEs, so if you are using a FS2004 aircraft in FS2002 it will not fly quite as designed.

It all seems many years ago now, but I do remember having a set of instructions for upgrading FDEs from FS2002 to FS2004 and the main part of this involved moving the Centre of Gravity back slightly in the aircraft.cfg and then doing some complex mathematical calculations to alter some of the performance graphs in the air file to correspond.

I only used this on propeller craft (such as the HP Hermes) but I would assume jets were also so-affected.

John