Fixing Roll

[smink1701]

I'm noticing in a number of planes that they want to roll to the right. I tried to assign aileron trim to correct but it doesn't seem to work. Any one have a fix?

Thanks

[bongodriver]

most of the fighters don't have aileron trim, and the roll right is an effect of torque.

[smink1701]

Oh.

Thanks

[BlackbusheFlyer]

Yes it is torque, however the effect is a little exaggerated at cruise I think. Be good if the effect curve was slightly less steep as at say 50% power there is still quite a roll more akin to full power in my opinion. Most aircraft have bendable trim tabs on the ailerons that the engineer can adjust to balance the aircraft for the cruise.

[Doc_uk]

Yes it is torque, however the effect is a little exaggerated at cruise I think. Be good if the effect curve was slightly less steep as at say 50% power there is still quite a roll more akin to full power in my opinion. Most aircraft have bendable trim tabs on the ailerons that the engineer can adjust to balance the aircraft for the cruise.
+1:grin:

[b101uk]

:rolleyes:

Trim the ruder (ctrl + Z or X) some of them are misplaced from the central position.

[Doc_uk]

:rolleyes:

Trim the ruder (ctrl + Z or X) some of them are misplaced from the central position.
Trimming the rudder has no or little effect on the right wing dipping

And its like i said befor, if i was a spit pilot, and this was fixable i would land and tell my crew to bloody sort it out

[b101uk]

Trimming the rudder has no or little effect on the right wing dipping

And its like i said befor, if i was a spit pilot, and this was fixable i would land and tell my crew to bloody sort it out

:rolleyes:

It works 100% for me at stopping the right wing dropping. :-P

Also certainly on the hurricane by default the rudder is trimmed slightly to the right ergo educing some RH role.

You do know you don’t need ailerons and can fly with the other 2 axis. ;)

[Voyager]

:rolleyes:

It works 100% for me at stopping the right wing dropping. :-P

Also certainly on the hurricane by default the rudder is trimmed slightly to the right ergo educing some RH role.

You do know you don’t need ailerons and can fly with the other 2 axis. ;)

Only if you don't have to much yaw coupled roll, and generally only if you aren't to concerned about line of flight intersecting the earth. One of the Wright Brothers' big innovation was roll control, which was kind of important.

[b101uk]

Only if you don't have to much yaw coupled roll, and generally only if you aren't to concerned about line of flight intersecting the earth. One of the Wright Brothers' big innovation was roll control, which was kind of important.

would that not be:
Only if you have enough yaw coupled roll, given "if you don't have to much yaw coupled roll" then you lack roll and have to much yaw ;)

true its much easer the higher your wings are and the taller the rudder vs. the centreline/CoG. ;)

don’t all flights intersecting the earth at some point? :-P


most of the fighters don't have aileron trim, and the roll right is an effect of torque.

:shock:

regarding torque, the prop on in game spitfire & Hurricane turns clockwise (when viewed from the pilots orientation) therefore torque from the propellers resistance to the air its trying to pull the plane threw will try to make the plane role anticlockwise dropping the left wing (to every action there must be an opposite and equal reaction) after all torque must work both ways as it must push anticlockwise to push something else of an equal force clockwise.

[bongodriver]

true

[Space Communist]

:rolleyes:

It works 100% for me at stopping the right wing dropping. :-P

Also certainly on the hurricane by default the rudder is trimmed slightly to the right ergo educing some RH role.

You do know you don’t need ailerons and can fly with the other 2 axis. ;)

Generally if you trim the rudder enough to completely counter-act torque you will end up side-slipping through the air. In real life the pilots wouldn't have noticed it as much as we do since there isn't nearly as much of a centering force on the stick. That is to say, the amount of left stick you would have to give it to counteract the torque wouldn't feel much different than holding the stick dead center. After holding it for a long time that would just seem like center to you. At least, this has been my experience since removing the centering spring on my stick.

[Doc_uk]

:rolleyes:

It works 100% for me at stopping the right wing dropping. :-P

Also certainly on the hurricane by default the rudder is trimmed slightly to the right ergo educing some RH role.

You do know you don’t need ailerons and can fly with the other 2 axis. ;)
well i have my rudder trim set to my warthog second throttle, rudder trim works ok,
but it dont stop the right wing from dropping
so what am i doing wrong?

[Wolf_Rider]

torque and gyroscopic progression will want to roll the plane opposite direction to the rotation of the prop.
remember that the wings don't provide a stable solid surface, lika a road does (even revving a car engine will make the car lurch a bit to one side) and the aelirons don't have trim tabs, like all later model planes do

trimming the rudder to try and correct the roll will make things a bit worse, because it will make the plane travel crabbed.

Trim the elevator to take away the need (but won't totally remove) to pull back constantly and hold the stick to whichever side the plane rolling from... if it rolls left, hold the stick to the right

[Doc_uk]

torque and gyroscopic progression will want to roll the plane opposite direction to the rotation of the prop.
remember that the wings don't provide a stable solid surface, lika a road does (even revving a car engine will make the car lurch a bit to one side) and the aelirons don't have trim tabs, like all later model planes do

trimming the rudder to try and correct the roll will make things a bit worse, because it will make the plane travel crabbed.

Trim the elevator to take away the need (but won't totally remove) to pull back constantly and hold the stick to whichever side the plane rolling from... if it rolls left, hold the stick to the right
Yes thats ok doing that, but after while your hand wrist start to ache
And there worried about being sued on the epilepsi thing in this game
Damage to my wrist, i might have a good case there lol:rolleyes:

[bongodriver]

But people are asking for realism........it doesn't get more realistic than keeping your hand on the stick, you just can't trim warbirds or vintage aircraft to fly hands off.

[Furio]

But people are asking for realism........it doesn't get more realistic than keeping your hand on the stick, you just can't trim warbirds or vintage aircraft to fly hands off.

True.
In real life, you can just apply a little constant force to the stick with a barely noticeable effort. In the sim, this requires such a subtle stick push that you end up by constantly over correct.

The end result is a continuous rolling motion: rolling right, correct, rolling left, correct, and so on. Surely, practicing can alleviate this problem, but CoD is so darn good that we are facing the real price of realism.

Modern and stable planes can be effectively flown “by the numbers”, while older types, must be flown by “the seat of the pants”, exactly the “instrument” you can’t have on your pc!

[b101uk]

Guys, in real life aircraft spend most of there time side-slipping to some degree because in the slightest lateral wind they require to counter side-slip in order to fly the correct course over ground in order to end up at there intended destination, a ~2m/sec wind at 90deg to your direction of travel will put you ~7.2km off course after 1 hour.

As I have said the rudder trim of most aircraft is misplaced to the right of centre thus requiring you to add to add left hand rudder trim to centre it and to stop the constant role to the right, if you don’t believe me put a plane on the ground in the FMB (ju87 is a good e.g.) hit the F8 view which is directly behind the plane and LOOK at the rudder closely, you will see more of the left side of the rudder than the right side of the rudder indicating that the rudder WILL educe RH role and side-slip as the tail will go to the left, if you unplug you joystick so only the keyboard is active it will be apparent, if you look from above you will also see the rudder also has MORE RH throw than LH throw which can also only happen is the trim is misplaced to the right of centre!

As I have said it works perfectly for me in stopping the constant RH role (WHICH IS NOT FROM TORQUE)

[bongodriver]

I shall tear up my commercial pilots licence immediately

[Skoshi Tiger]

If you are rolling to one side, check your turn and balance indicator. If the needle (or ball depending on aircraft)is off to one side trim to that side. As b101uk said it should help. The roll may not go away completely but you'll just have to wait until you get a plane with aileron trim.

If you are experiencing torque induced roll, then reduce your throttle until your using the recomended cruise power for your aircraft or else compensate with your ailerons.

It's a case of "Suck it up princess". This is how planes work. They teach you this in the "Basic aeronautical knowledge" section of the flight training syllabus.
Cheers

From Wiki
"
Secondary effects of controls
Rudder

Using the rudder causes one wing to move forward faster than the other. Increased speed means increased lift, and hence rudder use causes a roll effect. Also, since rudders generally extend above the aircraft's center of gravity, a torque is imparted to the aircraft resulting in an adverse bank. Pushing the rudder to the right not only pulls the tail to the left and the nose to the right, but it also "spins" the aircraft as if a left turn were going to be made. Out of all the control inputs, rudder input creates the greatest amount of adverse effect. For this reason ailerons and rudder are generally used together on light aircraft: when turning to the left, the control column is moved left, and adequate left rudder is applied.

"

[Wolf_Rider]

As I have said it works perfectly for me in stopping the constant RH role (WHICH IS NOT FROM TORQUE)

roll comes from torque and gyroscopic procession

engine making the prop spin clockwise will force the engine block anti-clockwise

[b101uk]

roll comes from torque and gyroscopic procession

engine making the prop spin clockwise will force the engine block anti-clockwise

:rolleyes:

I know, you are 11 posts to late ;) see

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showpost.php?p=265522&postcount=10

[Wolf_Rider]

you failed to mention the engine though, which is the major part. ;) [ the propeller is nothing more than basically (though not exactly) another wing going 'round in circles... an airscrew ]
and which is what makes a motor vehicle lurch to the side when the (predominantly N/S) engine is revved up suddenly

regardless....

[MikkOwl]

I thought a larger influence was that the airflow from the propeller is not straight, but spirals rearwards across the fuselage and wings. It strikes the stabilizer from one side constantly for example, pushing the tail in that direction. I don't know if these forces are contrary or reinforce the actual torque effect from the propeller.

[Wolf_Rider]

its like this:

A helicopter had to have the tail rotor put on it for what reason?

that's right... to prevent the main rotor and the main body (housing the engine) from spinning in opposite direction.

double main rotor 'copters spin in the opposite direction: why?







and there is no prop on the ever popular car anology, when the engine is revved hard causing lurch.

piston drives the cranshaft which turns the prop. the piston moves down bwcause the explosion, which causes the movement because it forces the piston to move down using the block/ head as the base. the engine block is mounted securely to the vehicle, etc, etc, etc

[bongodriver]

and there is no prop on the ever popular car anology, when the engine is revved hard causing lurch

no but there is a large 'flywheel' so it's not completely invalid.

for the spitfire it's like this....


torque: prop rotates clockwise, aircraft rotates anti-clockwise, has the smallest effect of all 3.

propwash: causes the aircraft to yaw left with increased power...right rudder required to counter

gyroscopic precession: pitch up causes yaw right, pitch down causes yaw left, this seems to be the strongest effect, if you are trimmed with a pitch up bias the aircraft will want to roll right.

all these forces will change according to power setting and control inputs, only rudder and elevator can be trimmed, therefore there will tend to be a requirement to keep hands on stick to counter all the secondary roll forces induced by yaw, and this is largely felt as a roll right, even a fixed aileron 'tab' will only be effective at a set speed range.

[Wolf_Rider]

flywheel is part of the crankshaft though and has no air drag as such


"torque: prop rotates clockwise, aircraft rotates anti-clockwise"

crankshaft rotates (on which the prop is attached) clockwise, inside the engine block. the crankshaft rotates because of the pistons driving the shaft, the pitons push against the engine block, because the pistons/ cranshaft is the movable object when the engine block is securely mounted on a firm surface. when there is no firm mount, the engine block floats... so the crankshaft/ pistons pushes against the engine block which in turn is moved in the opposite direction

prop wash is applicable until airspeed is greater

[bongodriver]

torque is not really an effect purely of air resistance, it is more to do with inertia, the flywheel is a heavy mass (just like a prop) and causes resistance to the power of the engine, that energy needs to find its way somewhere, inevitably it will cause the whole engine block to rotate in the opposite direction, I know.. I've seen it, an engine on a static test bench being revved will lurch in the opposite direction of crankshaft rotation, essentially we are in agreement on this effect but with slightly differing perceptions on its cause.

propwash is a factor as soon as the power is applied and is harder to control at low speeds because the aerodynamic controls havent got a 'bite' on the airflow

[Wolf_Rider]

basic law of motion... "For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction"





http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/dynamics/q0015a.shtml

might help/ might not

[bongodriver]

Me personally no, I studied enough of that on my ATPL theory, so I am fully up to speed on all these effects.

[Wolf_Rider]

sorry, I meant "might help" for readers in general not directly for you... my bad


(I'd take a heavier flywheel, than stock, in my daily ride any day... they're so good for storing all that kinetic energy, eh)

[bongodriver]

sorry, I meant "might help" for readers in general not directly for you... my bad


Ah! OK......my bad too for assuming, I figured we were saying the same thing anyway.

[b101uk]

its like this:

A helicopter had to have the tail rotor put on it for what reason?

that's right... to prevent the main rotor and the main body (housing the engine) from spinning in opposite direction.

double main rotor 'copters spin in the opposite direction: why?

and there is no prop on the ever popular car anology, when the engine is revved hard causing lurch.

piston drives the cranshaft which turns the prop. the piston moves down bwcause the explosion, which causes the movement because it forces the piston to move down using the block/ head as the base. the engine block is mounted securely to the vehicle, etc, etc, etc

helicopter have main gearbox fixed in the body which turns torque threw 90deg, so the engine has little to do with it with regards to its own flywheel effect as the load from pushing the blades one way is put into the main body by the gearbox case wile the tail rotor counters main body yaw and engine only counters input shaft load and is 90deg out of sync with you example! ;)

If your then talking about vehicles like cars, trucks etc, agene the engine is mostly fixed to the gearbox which has its own mounts and the small amount of rock you get from sharply revving the engine when there is no load is minuscule in comparison to the amount of torque from the gearbox output shaft which will in fact twist the gearbox case and thus vehicle body/chassis the opposite way wile the engine that is rigidly fixed to it is only countering a smaller input shaft load.

Also with gearbox in the equation with lower output ratios resulting in increased output torque (like trucks, helicopter, turbo-props, etc etc etc) if you input say 500NM and get out 1500NM then ware dose the difference in output torque have an effect and ultimately go, via the gearbox case into the rest of the vehicle by any chance wile the engine is only countering a smaller input shaft load. ;)
.

So forget the engine we are only interested in ware the force from pushing a prop one way ultimately ends up! ;)

basic law of motion... "For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction"

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/dynamics/q0015a.shtml

might help/ might not

you are 19 post behind :rolleyes:

The effects of gearbox and high load and a vehicle twisting in the opposite direction to its propshaft

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pUVEH7AoEnw

[Wolf_Rider]

right then... well you get the picture of how torque rolls the plane in the opposite direction to the prop rotation

fixed mount - not much roll

no mount - a lot of roll

revv your (car) engine in neutral and watch what happens ;) ;)

[jimbop]

Generally if you trim the rudder enough to completely counter-act torque you will end up side-slipping through the air. In real life the pilots wouldn't have noticed it as much as we do since there isn't nearly as much of a centering force on the stick. That is to say, the amount of left stick you would have to give it to counteract the torque wouldn't feel much different than holding the stick dead center. After holding it for a long time that would just seem like center to you. At least, this has been my experience since removing the centering spring on my stick.

Cable ties on your joystick spring helps wonders. Great on my x52 pro!

[Doc_uk]

Yea it might well do.
But, most flight sims of today, have a option for this, its called easyflight control
it just takes away most of the hard work:rolleyes:

[jimbop]

Yea it might well do.
But, most flight sims of today, have a option for this, its called easyflight control
it just takes away most of the hard work:rolleyes:

So you're talking about this happening when in an arcade-type mode? Surprising that it isn't level flight for that.

[b101uk]

right then... well you get the picture of how torque rolls the plane in the opposite direction to the prop rotation

fixed mount - not much roll

no mount - a lot of roll

revv your (car) engine in neutral and watch what happens ;) ;)

:rolleyes:

I have long understood torque since I was a child some 33 years ago growing up around large machinery, lorries and aircraft some of which were for air racing and that was some time before my posts in this thread.

Now I have razed the point about gearbox, I have razed the point about lower gearing and you keep banging on about the “engine“ in spite of the hints, the prop in spitfires turns clockwise, there is a reduction gearbox on the front of the engine, the engine crank and flywheel turn anticlockwise, because the reduction box reduces the speed of the prop relative to the crank torque multiplication takes place therefore the forces that want to push the “engine block” clockwise under load CAN NEVER MATCH the MUCH BIGGER forces on the gearbox pushing anticlockwise as its trying to turn the prop under load clockwise, hence why e.g. the spitfire/hurricane when at low speed want to dip the left wing if rpm is sharply ramped up - its NOT “engine“ it’s the gearbox vs. prop. ;)

Now go back and look at the video I posted, that is a clockwise turning engine in a chassis being twisted clockwise because the gearbox output shaft is turning anticlockwise which is totally opposite to the “rocking” the engine would do if you merely sharply revved it up in neutral agenised the mere weigh of the flywheels resistance to being accelerated or if under full load its self feeding in to the gear box its rigidly mounted to.

so as i said:
forget the engine we are only interested in ware the force from pushing a prop one way ultimately ends up!
;)

[BlackbusheFlyer]

I agree with the principal that adverse yaw/roll should exist within the sim however I can not help but feel it is applied in too linear a fashion. Test flight on Spitfire at 67% throttle, 2200 RPM no trim, you need a boot full of right rudder to counteract yaw and about 10-20 degree of left aileron to balance the aircraft. Apply rudder trim to remove skid and still require a 10-20 degree aileron deflection to counter roll.

This makes sense at high RPM/power settings but not at cruise power. No real life aircraft I have flown is rigged where you need substantial cross control to maintain straight and level at cruise.

Personally I think the torque effect curve needs looking at.

There are written accounts of spitfires trimmed to fly hands off (Wingleader by J.E.Johnson for one). In CoD at the moment that is just not possible, you can not remove the need to hold aileron no matter what power setting and to me that is not quite right. Something like a pitts special which is extremely twitchy and a real split arsed aircraft will cruise along quite happily with the lightest touches.

[bongodriver]

I agree with the principal that adverse yaw/roll should exist within the sim however I can not help but feel it is applied in too linear a fashion. Test flight on Spitfire at 67% throttle, 2200 RPM no trim, you need a boot full of right rudder to counteract yaw and about 10-20 degree of left aileron to balance the aircraft. Apply rudder trim to remove skid and still require a 10-20 degree aileron deflection to counter roll.

This makes sense at high RPM/power settings but not at cruise power. No real life aircraft I have flown is rigged where you need substantial cross control to maintain straight and level at cruise.

Personally I think the torque effect curve needs looking at.

There are written accounts of spitfires trimmed to fly hands off (Wingleader by J.E.Johnson for one). In CoD at the moment that is just not possible, you can not remove the need to hold aileron no matter what power setting and to me that is not quite right.

Neither of us have time on a spitfire, and I'm not sure what time you have on vintage, but the stearman I fly has a 'huge' prop with a 220hp radial driving it, it is fairly torque'y, I think a 1,000hp merlin driving a 10' prop even at cruise will produce lots of torque and even more gyroscopic effect, without aileron trim I don't see how an aircraft can be hands off and in balance.

[BlackbusheFlyer]

Neither of us have time on a spitfire, and I'm not sure what time you have on vintage, but the stearman I fly has a 'huge' prop with a 220hp radial driving it, it is fairly torque'y, I think a 1,000hp merlin driving a 10' prop even at cruise will produce lots of torque and even more gyroscopic effect, without aileron trim I don't see how an aircraft can be hands off and in balance.

Well I stand to be corrected, however it just doesn't feel right to me. The rigger should adjust manual trims to counter for the cruise. My current CAA examiner has flown the spitfires for the BoB memorial flight, I mean to ask his opinion on this.

[BlackbusheFlyer]

Just to add a heavyweight to the argument:

"The Spitfire looked good and was good. But my first reaction was that it was bad for handling on the ground; its long straight nose, uptilted when the tail wheel was on the ground; its long straight nose, uptilted when the tail wheel was on the ground, made taxing difficult since it was not easy to see ahead. It was necessary to to swing from side to side to look in front. The view at take-off was restricted in the same way until you were travelling fast enough to lift the tail; only then could you see over the nose.

Once accustomed to these minor inconveniences, they were no longer apparent, and once in the air, you felt in the first few minutes that here was the aeroplane par excellence. The controls were light, positive and synchronized; in fact, the aeroplane of one's dreams. It was stable; it flew hands and feet off; yet you could move it quickly and effortlessly into any attitude. You brought it in to land at 75 mph and touched down at 60-65 mph. Its maximum speed was 367 mph. You thus had a wide speed range which has not been equalled before or since.

It had eight machine guns of .303 calibre each, mounted four in each wing. The guns were spaced one close to the fuselage, two mid-wing, one further out. The eight guns were normally synchronized to 250 yards. In other words the four in each wing were sighted so that the bullets from all eight converged at that distance, in front of the Spitfire. Experienced fighter pilots used to close the pattern to 200 yards. The successful pilots succeeded because they did not open fire until they were close to the target."

Douglas Bader in 1940 on the Spitfire Mk1.

[bongodriver]

It always has been described as a 'pilots dream' in flight, the gound handling aspect is not an unfamiliar scenario for alot of taildraggers, again I put the stearman into it with its very high ground angle and large round front end it is impossible to see ahead until the nose is lowered, the spitfire pilots I have spoken to would describe something similar to your extract....but hands off might be a bit of interpretation, I consider the Stearman to be more hands off than the Tiger Moth but it is only a relative term.

[Voyager]

On prop torque, I recall descriptions of the the F4F Wildcat having enough torque that if you ran up the engine all to full power on the ground, that the tire on the down side would be pressed flat.

I seem to recall that being in the book "Ace", the one about the Hellcat night fighter ace pilot. I believe that one also involves the story about going inverted for the first time to discover that the ground crew had left a wrench in the plane.

Even jets have torque effects. The F-16's engine has enough momentum that if it suddenly stops, it will kick the plane over about a quarter roll before the fly-by-wire compensates for it. The early GE engines when installed in the F-16 had a tendency to vent all of their oil overboard. It's not a feature, just a bug.

[BlackbusheFlyer]

Alex Henshaw wrote:

"After a thorough pre-flight check I would take off and, once at circuit height, I would trim the aircraft and try to get her to fly straight and level with hands off the stick ..."

Yes I agree it is relative (I too have flown more than 1 moth) however it would be stretching the term a bit far carrying quite as much deflection as present within CoD. I wonder if DB or Henshaw would use those same terms after flying the CoD spitfire (which after-all is what we aiming for right, that those same highly emotive comments could come from the CoD spit as the real thing).

I am not suggesting that the principal implementation is wrong, just that the curve needs some further examination. Possibly more benign in the middle and more extreme at the end, for example... stalling the spit then shoving in full power would (I can very well imagine) torque roll like a beast.

[bongodriver]

I should have mentioned I don't seem to be struggling with the same problem on my hardware, in actual fact I have been cruising the spit almost hands off, so I will grant that I may be making an assumption and some of you guys may be experiencing a problem, seems there are a few 'bugs' that affect some more than others.

[BlackbusheFlyer]

Fair point, perhaps it is caused by a controller issue. I use the CH Products fighterstick, Pro Throttle and the Pro Pedals I have the input curves set to be linear in nature and have calibrated them use the CH Control Manager. At the moment I find I need to use about a quarter of the movement range to counter the roll with no slip/skid for level flight at cruise power (so 25% deflection), would be interested to hear if others with these controls also find the same.

[onchas]

I took a quick scan through this post, and the forums and I haven't found any way to fix this.

The prop-head nerd talkie (although it always warms my heart) seems superfluous.

This same roll occurs with torque and gyro turned off in realism settings, and when the config is set to easy flight mode in fact.

That makes this more than just awesome realism goodness.

Has anyone got a fix yet?

A bit of opposite rudder trim helps, but it's not exactly a great solution since it puts the airframe out of coordination.

[Space Communist]

Cable ties on your joystick spring helps wonders. Great on my x52 pro!

Hah actually that's exactly what I came up with too (though I am just using an old Saitek Cyborg.) I have to keep my hand on the stick at all times now but it allows for much more precise and fine control.

[jimbop]

Hah actually that's exactly what I came up with too (though I am just using an old Saitek Cyborg.) I have to keep my hand on the stick at all times now but it allows for much more precise and fine control.

Good to hear. It's surprising how much more control you get for the fine adjustments isn't it? Thanks to recoilfx here http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=19222&page=2 at post 20 for pointing me in the right direction.

[jimbop]

I've just re-read the entire thread and I am now more confused than before. Can someone just explain what is causing the Hurricane FM to roll clockwise? Please don't say torque because the prop spins clockwise.

If it is gyroscopic precession then how did WW2 pilots manage to trim their aircraft for hands-free straight and level flight as quoted in this thread. Or didn't they? If the answer is rudder trim then the FM is wrong since you can only eliminate roll by using excessive rudder trim which causes side-slipping.

In IL-2 1946 you could use Hurricane's elevator and rudder trim for straight and level flight, no roll. In CoD you can't (well I can't, anyway). Which is correct?

[Blackdog_kt]

I haven't flown a real Hurricane (of course), but i have a feeling that this is part of the new FMs and if there's a bug it probably lies in the fact that the effect doesn't get disabled in lower difficulty settings.

To be more precise, it's much easier and as such instinctive to keep a real aircraft from rolling, due to the fact that there's no centering force on the stick (apart from the airflow pressure transferring to the stick through the control linkages, something that depends on altitude and speed) and that a real stick has a much longer throw than what we have.

[onchas]

I haven't flown a real Hurricane (of course), but i have a feeling that this is part of the new FMs and if there's a bug it probably lies in the fact that the effect doesn't get disabled in lower difficulty settings.

To be more precise, it's much easier and as such instinctive to keep a real aircraft from rolling, due to the fact that there's no centering force on the stick (apart from the airflow pressure transferring to the stick through the control linkages, something that depends on altitude and speed) and that a real stick has a much longer throw than what we have.

I find myself wishing I could "like" this post, facebook style.

[Victory205]

Fair point, perhaps it is caused by a controller issue. I use the CH Products fighterstick, Pro Throttle and the Pro Pedals I have the input curves set to be linear in nature and have calibrated them use the CH Control Manager. At the moment I find I need to use about a quarter of the movement range to counter the roll with no slip/skid for level flight at cruise power (so 25% deflection), would be interested to hear if others with these controls also find the same.

Does the Fighterstick have integral trim wheels in roll and pitch to counter this? I had an old game port version that did, and am thinking of buying the USB version for this reason.

Thanks

[jimbop]

I haven't flown a real Hurricane (of course), but i have a feeling that this is part of the new FMs and if there's a bug it probably lies in the fact that the effect doesn't get disabled in lower difficulty settings.

To be more precise, it's much easier and as such instinctive to keep a real aircraft from rolling, due to the fact that there's no centering force on the stick (apart from the airflow pressure transferring to the stick through the control linkages, something that depends on altitude and speed) and that a real stick has a much longer throw than what we have.

Thanks, helpful. I didn't realise there was no real centering force. I sense another mod to my x52 pro is just around the corner!

[bntaylor]

By mis-calibrating the centre for this joystick you can eliminate the roll to the right.

As you recalibrate the stick, hold the joystick to the right when you click a button to record the "centre". Do this each time the calibration process asks you to centre the stick and click a button. When you have completed the process your joystick will have a false centre... just enough to simulate corrective trim to keep wings level.

'Works fine to counteract the torque effect in single seaters, but if you want to fly bombers or switch to another game you will have to recalibrate the stick to its proper centre.

[jimbop]

By mis-calibrating the centre for this joystick you can eliminate the roll to the right.

As you recalibrate the stick, hold the joystick to the right when you click a button to record the "centre". Do this each time the calibration process asks you to centre the stick and click a button. When you have completed the process your joystick will have a false centre... just enough to simulate corrective trim to keep wings level.

'Works fine to counteract the torque effect in single seaters, but if you want to fly bombers or switch to another game you will have to recalibrate the stick to its proper centre.

A problem with this is that you then lose some travel in that direction which could mess up roll rate or at least a sensitivity difference between the ailerons?

[StreetGang]

So after 3 pages, what was the technique to reduce roll ? I do at the moment just trim the rudder, but then your craft is crabbing across the sky, surely this isn't what actually happened, I couldn't imagine BoB pilots being happy with crabbing.

[madrebel]

the italians solved this by extending the left wing of the macchi aircraft by 8.5". left wing created more lift and counter acted the roll.

[jimbop]

I trim elevator first, then rudder to remove crabbing, then manually hold against the roll with the stick.

[_RAAF_Mini]

I know for a fact that the Spitfire did have trim tabs on the airlerons for trimming but they could not be adjusted in flight. When the pilots lands he made his own corrections using a block of steel and a malet.

Small excesses of metal on the airlerons surface could be bent up or down to counter act any trim issues the pilot was having on his next flight, the problem would then hopefully be solved for his next hop.

Here is a video where a Spitfire is shipped form Duxford to the USA and it shows when they are doing the flight testing after it is rebuilt the pilot trimming it. Go to 40 minutes in. He trims it just after he lands. Sorry for any adverts on this video, it's a TV Channels on demand service.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=24eu9cQJ0cY

Cheers
Mini

[senseispcc]

Rudder trim should be different for changing speed! And in combat how care if you going a little left or right? Rudder always apply rudder. It was even worse for the BF109 pilots were there was not in flight rudder trim adjustment.

Have a more realistic game.
:-D

[Blackdog_kt]

What he says is not unrealistic, lot's of aircraft had trim tabs that were only adjustable on the ground (the 109 and 190 had it too for the rudder i think).

It's just not particularly useful for the reason you mentioned: trim changes when speed changes.

What they usually did was adjust these trim tabs for an aircraft's cruise speed so that the pilot wouldn't have to "fight" the controls during transit. That's also the default trim value most flight sims use for ground adjustable trim tabs.

The reason people usually have problems with this in flight sims is that they tend to fly faster than the cruise speeds specified for the real aircraft.

[justme262]

I cruise hands free all the time in the Spits. I change rudder and elevator trim when ever I change the throttle setting... At full throttle I also use manual aileron too. Doing all these things is called FLYING THE PLANE. It's what the real spitfire pilots did too.
I wonder if you would miss the feed back if you could fly hands free. I would certainly would miss it.

Makes me wonder if the Force Feed Back guys have and trouble with this?

I doubt the flight model is perfect but I also doubt the real spits flew perfectly straight and hands free with no side slip at all.

[ATAG_Snapper]

I cruise hands free all the time in the Spits. I change rudder and elevator trim when ever I change the throttle setting... At full throttle I also use manual aileron too. Doing all these things is called FLYING THE PLANE. It's what the real spitfire pilots did too.
I wonder if you would miss the feed back if you could fly hands free. I would certainly would miss it.

Makes me wonder if the Force Feed Back guys have and trouble with this?

I doubt the flight model is perfect but I also doubt the real spits flew perfectly straight and hands free with no side slip at all.

+1

I have 2 axes on my CH Quadrant assigned to rudder and elevator trim which works well (elevator trim is VERY sensitive, though). In this respect I've found ForceFeedback works fine - I simply adjust the trim axes to relieve pressure on the stick.

I do have an issue with FF in other areas though: engine trouble causes the stick to jiggle violently -- which sends unwanted pitch & roll input back through the stick resulting in greater oscillations occurring. Ditto for firing cannons -- lots of "recoil" feedback which caused the aircraft to buck, sending your gun site everywhere BUT on target. If future patches don't enable the various FF forces to be tuned, I'll be reluctantly considering retiring my venerable MSFF2 stick for a less "excitable" one. But I'll miss "riding the tickle" during stall fights! :(

[BP_Tailspin]

I know for a fact that the Spitfire did have trim tabs on the airlerons for trimming but they could not be adjusted in flight. When the pilots lands he made his own corrections using a block of steel and a malet.

Small excesses of metal on the airlerons surface could be bent up or down to counter act any trim issues the pilot was having on his next flight, the problem would then hopefully be solved for his next hop.

And this is why the P51 Mustang won the war;

http://www.cubpilot.com/Tspin/P51-pit8.jpg

It had pilot controlled trim on all three axis. We didn't just beat the crap out of its control surfaces with a mallet after landing in hopes it will fly in a strait line on its next combat sortie.


http://www.cubpilot.com/Tspin/slamdoor.gif Tailspin exit’s stage left in fear of retaliation for posting a smart-ass reply…

[justme262]

The Mustang needed aileron trim for for long distance cruising. It's a long range escort fighter. The spit is a short range interceptor. Not so important to cruise for hours comfortably.

I always assumed it was prop torque I was ruddering against to fly straight. Now I'm reading about a whole range of factors that influence the plane.

Experimenting I've found the spit mkII rolls left at low power and right a full power. With 2lbs of boost at 200mph it doesn't roll either way.

It would be great if the game allowed us to tinker with the fixed aileron tabs in the load out section. The tail tabs are animated now :)

http://img707.imageshack.us/img707/6699/trimtabs.jpg

[Mojeaux]

I am new to the CoD, got it really cheap..$11.00...humm But I can tell from flying the sim and the topics here that the uber realistic boys will fight the fact that the plane should not ever fly straight. They like it "HARD" I have the Wart Hog Stick and I gotta say it is a real chore to fly the CoD..A real "pain in the ARM!"... You would think...there was a way to make it fly without having to ressel it during every aspect of the sim.. no joy for me! but hay thats just me...11 bucks what the hell right?