Lancaster Flight Dynamics a wee bit off??? |
Post Reply |
Author | |
neilG
Ground Crew Joined: 06 May 2013 Location: Cambs Points: 76 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Posted: 03 Sep 2018 at 10:44pm |
I wanted to set up a dedicated thread to this subject as I think it is important. The Avro Lancaster is a lovely looking model but it seems that there are aspects of its flight model that are way off. I have managed to pull a loop twice now with the bomb bay fully loaded. Someone has previously noted that the famous test pilot Alex Henshaw once pulled a loop in a Lancaster but after looking the matter up this is not entirely right and it is worth quoting the Wiki entry: "He is the only pilot known to have performed a barrel roll in a Lancaster bomber, a feat that was considered by some to be reckless or impossible due to the aircraft's size and relatively modest performance." And if a barrel roll is considered to be reckless and near impossible I'm quite sure o loop would be. In flight simulation as opposed to gaming something like an accurate flight model I would argue is very important. Do others agree? Anyway, Id really like it if AH were able to sort this out. Thank you. Neil.
|
|
petesmiffy
P/UT Joined: 16 Jun 2015 Location: Lincolnshire Points: 169 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
I'm not sure that the ability of the sim aircraft to perform the impossible is particularly important as a serious sim pilot would never attempt such manoeuvres, but it would do no harm if that was corrected. However, I would rather time was spent on fixing problems that affect normal operations, like the autopilot (a case of accuracy over functionality?). Speaking of flight dynamics, is it just my impression or does the aircraft come down a bit too hard and fast on landing? I have heard, and read, that once in ground effect, the aircraft was reluctant to actually touchdown. An aside: I once met a guy who had trained on Lancasters but the War ended before he was operational. He remained in the RAF and flew Yorks. Carrying loose bagged coal to Berlin, during the Soviet blockade, they were jumped by a Mig. Not waiting to find out if it was a genuine attack or a Russian pilot having a laugh, he executed the famous Lancaster "Corkscrew". This was when he discovered that negative G manoeuvres are not a good idea when carrying dusty coal in open sacks!
|
|
Uncle Bucc
Check-In Staff Joined: 08 Oct 2016 Location: Peterborough,UK Points: 45 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
Whether the manouvres can be pulled off or not is, in my opinion an irrelevance because after all this is only simulation. There are many who fly purely for fun or those who prefer the full on study level and that is what makes this an enjoyable past time because it can cater for all tastes. I myself fall somewhere in between and would not attempt to try this, even if I wanted to. However, from the second document/manual that came with the download and from section 46 (i) it reads as follows:
Remember that at this time Britain and its allies were at war and resources were in short supply which meant that they could only be distributed according to priority. It would have been foolhardy in real life to try such stunts which could have written off the aircraft and possibly all its crew had a pilot performed such an action. From a personal point of view, and after only ten hours in the virtual cockpit, I feel that she lands a bit too easy because that is one of my weak points. But my main concern is the out of sorts auto control system which seems as if some remedial work is required. Especially when the gyro compass gives out weird readings. Plus the problem that airscrews keep slowly turning long after engine shut-down.
|
|
neilG
Ground Crew Joined: 06 May 2013 Location: Cambs Points: 76 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
I have to respectfully disagree chaps. A simulation is an attempt to simulate the real performance of the actual aircraft, isn't it?. I understand the point about not normally executing the sort of manoeuvre that I did, and perhaps by doing that I didn't make my main point very well. The thing is that the plane does not stall except under the most extreme circumstances and that certainly does affect the way you fly in normal flight. I want to get an impression of what it is like to fly the real machine and I suppose I did think that I was buying something that leaned toward the category of study sim even if not quite at the standard of an A2A. So if I make a mistake like pulling too high an angel of attack I want things to go wrong, don't you? Otherwise the thing has the feel of simply being 'on tracks'. Anyway, what do you think?
|
|
Uncle Bucc
Check-In Staff Joined: 08 Oct 2016 Location: Peterborough,UK Points: 45 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
Having done two more flights, one unladen and the other' bombed up', I can agree that the handling characteristics may need tweaking as no matter what I did I was unable to stall. I do agree that some additional work may need doing. But the fact also remains that the auto-control/autopilot system is broken. Flying at night the brightness reticles don't rotate to adjust the cockpit 'torch' lighting system. The oxygen altitude flow meter doesn't move and between the two dials there is a switch that when flipped makes it go from zero straight to 40,000, with no in between increments. The latter issues are minor compared to the first two and hopefully AH will get a service patch out sooner rather than later. This is the type of aeroplane that is so iconic that it should be a jewel in any companys' product range.
|
|
petesmiffy
P/UT Joined: 16 Jun 2015 Location: Lincolnshire Points: 169 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
While I'm not worried too much about the true modelling of airframe stress at the high end, I do totally agree that low-speed characteristics, especially stalling should be as accurate as possible. Tying this in with the A/P problems, which is a common complaint about JF/AH aircraft, (I am thinking Canberra, Fokker 27, HS 748, C 46), I always put this down to most developer "test" flights being fully hands on not enough time spent checking the A/P. However, the flight envelope of this aircraft does not seem to have been fully explored. After the terrific job they did on the Bulldog it is a bit disappointing.
|
|
Adamski_NZ
Ground Crew Joined: 13 Jun 2014 Location: Auckland, NZ Points: 92 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
It does say in the manual somewhere, that if you change the payload (bombs) you *also* have to manually edit the corresponding weights in the sim fuel/payload dropdown. I haven't tried it, but I wonder if the correct weights are entered there, then a loop may be more difficult <?>. Adam.
|
|
Wells
Check-In Staff Joined: 18 Dec 2018 Points: 1 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
Alex Henshaw's book, "Sigh for a Merlin" has a chapter on "Rolling the Lanc"
He did it more than once. It became his 'normal' recovery from a dive test. They would dive up to 360 mph IAS.
But still, the airplane is too light. The tare weight given in the "Lancaster Manual", is 35354 lbs and that doesn't include things like guns, ammo, oxygen, radio equipment, bomb sight, crew, etc. All of which, would add an additional 3870 lbs. Since the crew is accounted for separately ( 1400 lbs ), the empty weight should be on the order of 37824 lbs. The aircraft data card later models shows a tare weight of 36900 lbs. http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/Lancaster/Lancaster_I_III_ADS.jpg
|
|
John57
Check-In Staff Joined: 31 Dec 2018 Location: Germany Points: 6 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
Having bought this aircraft more for the sound and memory of my father who was a flight engineer on them I was more than perturbed to see the, I would say second most important crew member missing.
Why I may ask? John |
|
Derek
Just Flight Staff Joined: 01 Apr 2008 Location: Waterford Points: 536 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
Who would you say was the second most important crew member? Tail or mid-upper gunner?
Flight engineer, Navigator, W/Op and Bomb-aimer's stations are all featured. |
|
John57
Check-In Staff Joined: 31 Dec 2018 Location: Germany Points: 6 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
With no disrespect to surviving crew members I came to the conclusion of the flight engineer! He did after all assist the pilot and in an emergency was able to fly and land the aircraft. My grouse is there is no Flt. Engineer in the external view.
John |
|
Post Reply | |
Tweet
|
Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |