TSR2 Again

[Dev One]

Ben,
Yes there usually is some 'modification' to real values, but its very nice (& I find quite addictive) to attempt to get the real values to work!

Hobby: As far as I'm aware she did not have any LE flaps, & the main flaps were blown, so that would affect the lift coefficient & possibly the slope. Now comes the rub with that in that the calculated wing drag is directly affected by lift, so one will have to guess at the flap lift increase elsewhere in the airfile, otherwise you will have too much drag in normal flight!
Anyway have fun
Keith

P.S. I dont think that FS9 (or FSX) copes or calculates the difference between a power on- power off approach lift value to get you down to 150 kts.

[AndyG]

There is probably a really good reason for the numbers in the cfg file to be way off, and its probably to give it reasonably realistic performance in the sim.

All very true, but the performance of the Alphasim TSR2 seems to be well off the mark; for example, she takes a huge amount of runway to unstick, yet short field performance was a key feature of the TSR2. Like Hobby I've been trying to dial in better number, but have really not got anywhere; the problem is, as suggested by Keith, with that blown wing which in real life would have given the short field welly but is, seemingly, impossible to replicate in FS. Any gurus with bright ideas around?

[TSR2]

To the best of my knowledge XR219 never did any short field takeoffs, only ever landing at Boscome or Warton. I'm not sure how much of the performance envelope they actually got to test with only 15 flights if memory serves. I know there are some here who worked on her and they may have a better idea. I bought manuals and PN's for the Shorts Belfast and got to speak with the flight engineer from Shorts who did the test flights, and for all of the accurate data, i could never get the Alpha model to behave correctly across all stages of flight.

[emfrat]

For Dev One:
My first examination showed the aircraft span as issued by Virtavia to be 60 feet!!

That would explain those wingtip vortices...

MikeW

[Dev One]

Looking back at your screenshot I see what you mean! Anyway there should be two tip vortices per side - if the real photos are anything to go by!
Keith

[TSR2]

If this is FS9 are the tip vortices not positioned by an effects entry rather than the wingspan value?

[emfrat]

If this is FS9 are the tip vortices not positioned by an effects entry rather than the wingspan value?

FSX, Ben - I did fiddle with the effect coordinates (reversed them) but it made no difference. Still in OCU learning how to drive the bu**er

MikeW

[TSR2]

Rgr that mate, FSX is a different beast. I seem to remember she wasn't too bad in FS9, quite a nice model compared to anything else out there, but a totally different beast in X so I didn't bother

[hobby]

With regard to blown flaps on the real TSR2. I am trying to imitate that function by writing the Fs9 cfg to have leading edge flaps. I hope that by doing so extra lift can be generated enabling shorter take off runs and slower approach speeds. Last evening I managed to touchdown on an ILS approach at 125kts in zero wind conditions. At present I am not satisfied with my experiments because the FS9 acft when under autopilot control during the approach with everything down rocks port to starboard at about 210 kts. Once the autopilot is disconnected the aircraft can easily be steadied and flown down the glideslope by hand.

I do wish that I had the means to adjust the centre of pressure in the AIR file.

I shall just keep making adjustments. The undercarriage - rather stork like - takes ages to retract at present.

When I first saw the real TSR2 I thought that despite the short wingspan that aircraft with its enormous fin would have made a big target for guns or missiles.

[dswanson]

Hobby,

These changes are often difficult to get right and can be very tedious in the process.

I can only add a few things to what others have said relating to Fs9. Your "acceptable" level of realism is often a compromise and I think it's true that landing speeds and other parameters do differ between individual real-life aircraft

Careful cfg adjustment of the three flap parameters - lift, drag and pitch is needed, one at a time as all three interact with each other. I used this technique for simulating blown flaps on my FS9 Buccaneers. Of course these settings will result in the approach speed always being at the lower speed. By making a difference in the flap degree "steps", you could possibly simulate a non-blown approach speed such that you stop the flaps one step before full on these landings. You could add a "non-real" flap step to achieve this as a sacrifice to realism

You can also add some drag to the u/c in the air file to assist setting the balance, similarly with spoiler/ air brakes

The cfg "Flight Tuning" section parameter for "Induced Drag" can be useful in a plane that uses a high angle of attack on approach, as this specifically increases drag as the AOA increases. Be careful though as the extra drag will affect climbing speed and turns

The U/C retraction rate is in the "Contact Points" section of the cfg and if you check out the data headings for this section in a native FS plane cfg you will find it to the right hand side of the data string for each point (top 3 lines will be the U/C). Reducing the number will decrease the time taken for the movements. You can program in asymmetry between the U/C legs if you want

Be careful that you don't end up spending more time adjusting than flying. trying to get it "right" can be very addictive