Flightgear ils boing 78711/23/2023 ![]() I've just set them by feeling, although I really think that they are better than before. For the same reasons I can't affirm my autopilot.xml and FDM (drag, etc.) settings are right vs the real aircraft. You know and apply these procedures well, but as you can see I'm not an airliner specialist. My approach at 170 kts was just an evaluation, and with 80 % fuel load, which is not a standard procedure, I admit. ![]() The finesse at 150 kts (glide ratio) measured with idle engines is about the same (5.6) than the one I gave in my previous post for 170 kts, 80% fuel load. It works well too with my autopilot (on ILS, NAV1 CDI course and Glideslope) and FDM settings, some thrust from the engines for 150 kts. Nickyivyca wrote:I'm using an approach speed of 150 knots at about 15-20% fuel load Recently, (in autopilot) I've "increased" the rate of descent (-33 fps instead of -16.67 fps for altitude hold), because that it is when we ask for a lower altitude that it lacks reactivity.įor AGL Hold, I've also increased it (-16.67 instead of -8.33), but I've let a lower rate of descent than climbing to "smooth" the landscape relief: I thought it was too late, but I thought of this too. The autopilot also still takes too long to make up its mind on altitude hold However, there's not yet such pitch instabilities, and that's an important improvement. When I tried to solve the pitch instabilities, I had observed that a positive ballast at the nose improves, maybe by increasing the moment of inertia around Y axis. If you prefer to add a ballast again, I think a localized positive ballast added at the nose (giving a uniformly distributed loss of charge everywhere) should be better than a negative localized ballast at the tail. If you pull them too much at the takeoff speed (160 - 170 kts), they are of course to powerful. The elevators are able to maintain the aircraft at this high pitch angle down to the stall speed for landing (around 130 kts for our 787-8). I think the best would be to just moderately and progressively pull on the elevators, this is what is practiced on real aircrafts. I probably am going to remove the effect on this version. When I took it out for a spin, I pulled back on the elevators back and quit easily got a tailstrike.the absence of the ballast means that the tail is heavier, making it easier to drop the tail down to the ground. The more I test this aircraft, the more I like it. Result: elevator wthout trim, or elevator-trim = 0.75 - 0.95 (alpha = 8 - 10 deg) : seems very good! (at least seen from YASim) ![]() I've also tested your elevator efficiency (hstab flap0, lift value) because you seemed hesitating in your comments.Ĭonditions: near actual stall (135 kts with flaps 30 deg and gear down) With 0 deg trim and elevator at neutral, level-headed flight speed is: Otherwise, I would prefer to place positive ballast at the nose than negative at the tail, which I feel brings pitch unstabilities. But the most important is that the general equilibrium during flight being correct (not so easy to judge.). ![]() Anyway, with the AP commanding trim, it's easy to be well-trimmed at any speed after disconnecting it. With manual piloting, changing trim from takeoff to cruise is unavoidable, on any aircraft. For me, this setting seems convenient, the aircraft is well-balanced soon after takeoff. Trim position for level-headed (no action needed on elevator) depends on the speed, flaps, etc. The approach elevator works better this way. The ballast in the back was more to balance out the elevator action in place-normally a plane doesn't just roll with no elevator input.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply.AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |