Tomahawk, 152 or Arrow?

  • I understand that there is not a glide ratio parameter, as you say if you change something it affects another thing. However what I am telling is valid for the most of GA aircraft in AF2, it is a AF2 issue. Try to make a gear down power off 180 landing, if you check videos in youtube, they take around 1 minute (a little more) since idle power (around 900 ft AFE) until touch down (even using flaps!!) in AFS2 turbo arrow III you are on the ground around the 40 sec (flaps up sea level) that´s too much difference.


    Mario

    Okay.. I never tried to judge it on time/compare it to youtube videos. More than enough instructors have killed my nerves with emergancey landings already (what is actually a good thing).


    Are you sure you have the same altitude, distance and flying Vy? Only a little more speed and a plane like C172 or Pa28 drops from the sky like a piano.


    Kai

  • Okay.. I never tried to judge it on time/compare it to youtube videos. More than enough instructors have killed my nerves with emergancey landings already (what is actually a good thing).


    Are you sure you have the same altitude, distance and flying Vy? Only a little more speed and a plane like C172 or Pa28 drops from the sky like a piano.


    Kai

    Kai, I have done many many tests. I used to fly C172 in the past, it is absolutely checked.

    Currently I fly Boeing 787, but I remember how C172 flies.

    There are some payware C172 in x plane that they fly fantastic!!


    take a look at this test:



    Mario

  • I can't add any real life experience to this discussion, but I also always thought that the GA planes in Aerofly don't glide as I had expected compared to other Simulators (in this case the A2A C172 in P3D) and to reports from a friend of mine who was preparing for his PPL in a C172 at that time. I had him over for a few simulator flights in the A2A C172 and he told me that it handled pretty much the same as the real C172 he was taking lessons in. We even recreated a engine off emergency Landing test his flight instructor once made him do by using a scenery for his home airport and the weather metar from the time he was taking his lesson and he said it played out almost exactly the same than his real world experience on that day. I never had him try Aerofly which I didn't use much in this time, but when I compare the A2A C172 in P3D (which he deemed realistic) to the Aerofly one it just glides much better than the latter. Same for the Just Flight C152. I believe Kai when he says that there's not much he can do about it due to the way Aerofly handles flight dynamics. But IMHO maybe the Aerofly developers have to do something about how the simulator handles flight dynamics to take care of this problem (that is IF they acknowledge that there is a problem). On a side note, I think that is a general problem of simulators that calculate flight models on real physics simulations like Aerofly and Xplane instead of using cfg files to determine flight behavior like FSX / P3D. Although the latter one may be a little less realistic and make the plane fly like it's "on rails" from time to time, it gives the developer total control of how the plane reacts in a given situation. The physics based simulator may have a better "feeling" of flight, but a small mistake in the physics calculations can easily cause an aircraft to unexpectedly divert from its realistic world counterpart in certain flight situations like gliding, stall behaviors or whatever. I faintly remember a discussion a few years back about Xplane 10 (or was it 11 already?) when the xplane developers changed something about how the simulator handled prop wash effects which caused an Addon plane to behave totally different from the real thing in crosswind operations. The developer of the Addon aircraft (who happened to be a real life flight engineer) told the xplane developers that they got something wrong in their physics simulations which they refused to believe until he showed them real world videos of flight dynamic tests of the real aircraft and then they admitted they made a mistake. I think they assumed a laminar airflow somewhere when the real world airflow was turbulent.

    Bottom line, maybe their is a small miscalculation in the Aerofly physics model that influences the glide ratio of the small GA Aircraft in an unrealistic way. Of course this is nothing I could test myself and I may be wrong about it, I'd just like the developers to take this into consideration.


    Cheers, Fabian

  • I can't add any real life experience to this discussion, but I also always thought that the GA planes in Aerofly don't glide as I had expected compared to other Simulators (in this case the A2A C172 in P3D) and to reports from a friend of mine who was preparing for his PPL in a C172 at that time. I had him over for a few simulator flights in the A2A C172 and he told me that it handled pretty much the same as the real C172 he was taking lessons in. We even recreated a engine off emergency Landing test his flight instructor once made him do by using a scenery for his home airport and the weather metar from the time he was taking his lesson and he said it played out almost exactly the same than his real world experience on that day. I never had him try Aerofly which I didn't use much in this time, but when I compare the A2A C172 in P3D (which he deemed realistic) to the Aerofly one it just glides much better than the latter. Same for the Just Flight C152. I believe Kai when he says that there's not much he can do about it due to the way Aerofly handles flight dynamics. But IMHO maybe the Aerofly developers have to do something about how the simulator handles flight dynamics to take care of this problem (that is IF they acknowledge that there is a problem). On a side note, I think that is a general problem of simulators that calculate flight models on real physics simulations like Aerofly and Xplane instead of using cfg files to determine flight behavior like FSX / P3D. Although the latter one may be a little less realistic and make the plane fly like it's "on rails" from time to time, it gives the developer total control of how the plane reacts in a given situation. The physics based simulator may have a better "feeling" of flight, but a small mistake in the physics calculations can easily cause an aircraft to unexpectedly divert from its realistic world counterpart in certain flight situations like gliding, stall behaviors or whatever. I faintly remember a discussion a few years back about Xplane 10 (or was it 11 already?) when the xplane developers changed something about how the simulator handled prop wash effects which caused an Addon plane to behave totally different from the real thing in crosswind operations. The developer of the Addon aircraft (who happened to be a real life flight engineer) told the xplane developers that they got something wrong in their physics simulations which they refused to believe until he showed them real world videos of flight dynamic tests of the real aircraft and then they admitted they made a mistake. I think they assumed a laminar airflow somewhere when the real world airflow was turbulent.

    Bottom line, maybe their is a small miscalculation in the Aerofly physics model that influences the glide ratio of the small GA Aircraft in an unrealistic way. Of course this is nothing I could test myself and I may be wrong about it, I'd just like the developers to take this into consideration.


    Cheers, Fabian

    Good analisys Fabian!! Could be, I agree.


    Cheers Mario

  • I have the 152 and Arrow. Personally I love the Arrow. The 152 is nice too. In VR it has a very realistic feel. But the Arrow is still the best feel.

    I did most of my PPL in 150/2s and did required aerobatics in an Aerobat. I found the J.F. 152's 'dead' handling to be totally unconvincing.

    Core plane feel in the various Aeroflys is normally very nice, I also really like the Arrow, I've a lot of time in various Cherokees, the J.F. Arrow reminded me of my very first FS experience, it had immediate striking 'rightness'.