• A sub-sonic plane should stubbornly refuse to go anywhere near Mach one. From altitude the Aerofly FS 2 Aermacchi will reach Mach 1.19 in a 2 degree dive which it couldn't do in a 100% vertical dive, it would peak well above Mach 1 with localised shock waves driving it hopelessly out of control. It would be nice to have an authentic top end performance but it has to be less important than improving the sim features, it is still quite unfinished.

  • Yeah the FMs are some ways off all round I think. But I would rather the Devs spend time adding sim features like working lights, multiplayer, more complex weather instead of messing with the FMs to get them perfect right now.


    Just my 2 cents

  • We are working both on new features as well as improving flight models and other things that are in the simulator. We try to concentrate on a very small number of topics at one moment, and come back to an aircraft repeatedly, improving it and adding new functionality each time. This hopefully gives the best mix of new features and better flight models, and avoids getting stuck at a single feature.

  • We are working both on new features as well as improving flight models and other things that are in the simulator. We try to concentrate on a very small number of topics at one moment, and come back to an aircraft repeatedly, improving it and adding new functionality each time. This hopefully gives the best mix of new features and better flight models, and avoids getting stuck at a single feature.


    Looks like the correct strategy to me :-)


    It's good anyway to have this well documented bug reports though. At least they're valuable to be added to yout TODO list.


    The main structure is there - a very sound flight dynamics model - and with fine tuning and additional features, I believe we have a true winner :-)

    1983 ......……....2012.…………….......2018...

    fs1 ===>     MS FLIGHT ===>   WT 1.83

    Start ... Hope ... Realization ...

  • Incorrect. E.g. the BAe Hawk is a subsonic trainer and wasn't at all designed to break the sound barrier, yet she does in a dive to at least M1.17.
    BTW, the Aerofly MB339 doesn't need a dive to exceed M1.0 as she exceeds M1.27 in level flight.


    The Hawk was deliberately designed to be transsonic, that is supersonic in a full power gentle dive and to be fully controllable. The Alpha Jet is area ruled to achieve a very high sub-sonic speed but the Aermacchi is not in the same league. Wherever you got a speed of Mach 1.27 in level flight, it is absurdly wrong. Just look at its fat NACA aerofoil which was used in the P-51 piston fighter and look up how much thrust its tiny pure turbojet engine makes, it was originally a disposable engine for a remote control target drone.

  • You are right about the P51, I mixed up the aerofoils however they did have similar thickness.


    North American P51
    16.5% at 39% chord root
    11% at 46% chord tip
    339
    14% at 40% chord root
    12% at 40% chord tip


    The NACA 64-212 of the 339 wing tip was used in the North American XAJ-1 piston engine/turbojet carrier bomber and the North American Sabreliner early business jet.



  • We can increase the drag coefficient of the fuselage to reduce the maximum airspeed that can be achieved quite easily. Its a fix of a couple of minutes. Just tell me what speed you want to see the MB339 go at sea level with full power and its fixed in a couple of minutes.
    Changing the anti collision light to a flasher is also a very fast fix.
    Spin and lower roation speed would take a bit more effort to achieve.

  • Hey everyone,


    quick notice: With the latest update (I only checked the Beta one) the Mb339 should now fly a lot slower at sea level. It reaches the speeds from performance charts of the real world aircraft up to an altitude of about 40.000ft, accurate to a few knots, even if you don't "full-throttle" it and use less than 100% on the N1 gauge. I hope to be able to fix the other issues soon.


    Btw. #10 on the initial list (weird looking camera) is just a visual issue, the roll is actually correct, the cameras reference point isn't. That has to do with the local coordinate system of the 3D model and as I said is a solely optical illusion. But I have that on my list of "bugs" as well.



    Cheers,
    Jan

  • Another thing i noticed when on ground. full brakes applied, slowly increase rpm. When 75-80% the plane starts moving, but should be completly stopped even at 100%.

  • Hi Roccio.
    Could I ask you a big favour?, if you are using a MB 339 flight manual could you please post some typical operating speeds, for example the flap speeds, best rate of climb speed, best climb gradient speed and the flap and gear limit speeds?
    I have found nothing on-line and some mid weight V speeds would be extremely useful, a simple plain list would be great. All we have now are the green, white and red zones on the Aerofly information bar speed tape.

  • Hi Roccio.
    Could I ask you a big favour?, if you are using a MB 339 flight manual could you please post some typical operating speeds, for example the flap speeds, best rate of climb speed, best climb gradient speed and the flap and gear limit speeds?
    I have found nothing on-line and some mid weight V speeds would be extremely useful, a simple plain list would be great. All we have now are the green, white and red zones on the Aerofly information bar speed tape.


    Yes I can do it. I have many operative manuals of the 339 (flight manual, training manual, navigation manual and the frecce tricolori appendix). I can extrapolate all the info you need, just need a bit of time.

  • Here some infos:


    Clean config cruise -> 500 kias or 0.82 mach
    With landing gear down or in motion -> 175 kias
    Flaps in T/O configuration -> 175 kias
    Flaps in DOWN -> 150 kias
    Speedbrake -> no limit
    Max ground speed (tyre limits) -> 139 knots
    max taxi speed -> 60 knots


    rudder become effective at 45 kias


    this is the first part, I need more time for other info. Tell me what you need, I will try to find all.

  • Thank You Very Much Roccio. It is great to have some concrete information. The speeds on the top display tape are not enough to do an authentic flight. The flap operating range on it looks a bit higher than your Vs. Whatever you can provide will be most welcome, just what is used in a normal flight.
    So gear down and first flap is held until the speed has reduced to 175 knots? It must need careful speed and height management to slow without excessive speed brake. A fuel endurance and maximum time allowed outside the green engine rpm arc would be great if you can spare the time.
    Thanks again Roccio.


    Later!
    The top of the Aermacchi white arc in iOS AF 2 is 200 knots. In FS 2 it is 150 knots. Is the first stage of flap extension speed the norm in light aircraft white arcs? (Is it the second stage of flap in some Cessnas?).

  • The ones I provided above are the maximum speed allowed for some configuration.
    So the landing gear may be operated at speed below 175 knots, if above it will suffer some damage.
    And flaps at first step can be opened at speed below 175, 150 max for T/O.
    The general effect of opening the flaps is a bit of nose up, but it should be invalidated by the consequent speed reduction.
    The speedbrake can be opened at any speed, the effect is again a little nose up tendency.


    For endurance you should look at the AOA indexer. There are some marks on the gauge. The one at 0.23 indicate the maximum range, the one at 0.33 is maximum autonomy hourly, the 0.45 is used for landing with flaps and gear down, the last at 0.85 is the stall warning with flaps down.



    Hope it help
    Now, studing for give more info.