I might look at this at some point. Haven’t looked closely at it but I think it may be possible to remap the mixture control animation so that the mixture control does not move out so quickly.
1 Like
The subtemplates indicate the scaling of movement of the lever, but that is only part of it. The engine model its self is wrong, I believe. If you look at EGT performance of all the prop planes in SimVar while trying to find LoP or RoP, the values are grossly low of expected for the Cessneas, and the Beechraft’s (G36/58, 172, 152) (C or F in indicated temp) I added an EGT Gaguge to the Bonza for testing / finding peaks, otherwise its not here. SimVar will give you the exact same information.
So, there is more going on than just the animation. Peak @ 8000’ on ISA +20 day for G36 is 560c with 29% on the mixture lever, 2300 prop, and 23inch manifold this seems to be about 300c to cold. Fuel flows are ~20% lower here than the PoH suggests for this alt / temp as well.
SubTemplates:
LocalCache\Packages\Official\OneStore\fs-base-aircraft-common\ModelBehaviorDefs\Asobo\Common\Subtemplates
Rich of Peak by 20c
Lean of Peak by 20c
Auto Mixture – Seems to be 40 - 45deg RoP
@DRF30q I made a pull request for the following. Hope you like the changes:
I retuned the flight performance. Climb, cruise, takeoff roll and glide performance now fit the POH charts better.
All testing conducted under standard conditions, MTOW, automixture, unlimited fuel (for constant weight).
- Glide performance: you can now correctly do ~16 nm from 10000 feet with a windmilling prop (was 12 nm)
- Climb performance is an exact fit to the chart. From ~700 fpm @ SL down to 200 fpm @ 12.000 feet
- Cruise performance within 1% at all given POH altitudes. Also tested across several power/rpm settings.
- Since the above changes broke the takeoff roll distance, I added a fake spoiler with ‘negative drag’ during takeoff roll. You won’t notice it, but without this ‘hack’, takeoff roll and time (to 50 kts) will be about 25% too long. Landing roll and drag is unaffected as it seemed ok.
- Engine slightly more efficient at lower rpm (a bit less power needed during approach). I only got this from video reference though.
- Corrected idle RPM
1 Like
Is this now based off of the 1.8.3.0 version of the 152?
Hi, Thanks. I will have a look at that when I get the chance. I have almost finished the next update which mostly involves the NAVCOM radios and the Audio Select panel.
Another item that I have been working on is the airspeed indicator involving the calibration and some other dynamic effects. My intention is to completely revisit the aerodynamics/performance etc once this instrument and some other potentially performance related work is more developed. Potentially the results of some performance tests etc may differ due to these pending changes. As raised in another post, it is possible that there may also be further changes to the engine/mixture etc.
For this reason I initially made some changes to the aerodynamics/engine etc to reasonably match performance. However, I delayed any really detailed adjustment until some of the other critical and in some case possibly performance and/or instrumentation related issues are more completely addressed. I don’t want to have to waste time continuously repeating tests of performance as adjustments are made etc as the other things in turn are considered, adjusted and hopefully improved.
5 Likes
I can’t see anywhere on the Cessna POH climb charts etc that explicitly indicate that the weight in the table or chart refers to ‘take-off weight’ or ‘brake release weight’. The charts for some other aircraft types do specify TOW or BRW etc on climb charts etc. I don’t believe that the climb charts like these are constructed under the assumption of ‘constant weight’ for the climb. It would never happen like that in practice and therefore the data would really not be of any use. Hypothetically if you were to reach the top of climb at 1670lbs then you would have had to have been overweight at take-off etc.
(Note that some aircraft may have charts for Altitude Capability etc which may refer to the actual gross weight a particular time, used for determining climb capability for a mid flight climb.)
I would suggest that when testing performance for the C152 at say 1670lbs, set that weight at the start of the take-off roll and observe the climb performance that results (with the weight decreasing from that point with fuel burned as the aircraft takes off and climbs).
1 Like
Hi, I updated my pull request. I didn’t realise that resyncing also resets the weight and balance, so I’ve been tuning performance with the wrong settings.
Funny thing is: it is much closer to original now, with only a few adjustments to drag and of course the two engine rpm issues. Glide ratio is perfect and cruise & climb follows the charts.
Mixture is seriously broken. You will get max power @SL when the mixture is down to 65%. The performance was tuned with automixture, so if the climb performance feels a little underwhelming, it is probably due to the mixture problem. Looking forward to mixture fixes. @Matchrocket is doing a great job for the G36 project on mixture and associated EGT settings.
Regarding what you just posted: the constant weight may not be realistic indeed. However, the climb chart I used only states 1670 lbs for all gives pressure altitudes, so I think we can safely assume that the effect of weight loss during climb is well within the margin of error of these charts. Thus I would argue that the method I used is not necessarily better or worse for the intended goal.
Anyway, I hope these performance tweaks can serve as a baseline, with important characteristics like glide ratio, cruise settings and climb performance now closer to the POH…
Also looking forward to the navcom fixes! Keep up the great work!
V0.16 released. Quite significant internal changes to ADF/NAVCOM and Audio Selection panel, so hopefully not too many problems.
Default start up now using apron.flt has the radios switched off etc.
During testing this evening of the Audio Panel and the Marker beacon receiver, it seemed that the Middle Marker would display the flashing light and the audio, but the Outer Marker was the light only, I could not get any audio from the sim.
Didn’t have time to test Inner Marker or check the behaviour using different aircraft. I suspect it might be a sim issue.
The are still some issues with the electrical system and the alternator behaviour that I would like to fix. I have some ideas that I need to test for that. I think that part is still workable for now.
Summary:
- ADF Volume and ADF Mode Knob position state now loaded from .flt files. ADF Mode knob defaults to ‘ADF’ position.
- NAVCOM (KX155) reworked. Various states including volume/Off state etc now loaded from .flt files.
- NAV Ident / COM Test remain out when pulled.
- Audio Selector (KA134) completely revised. Various states now loaded from .flt files.
- Buttons now remain depressed when selected.
- MIC1/MIC2 selects either COM1 or COM2 as active transmitter.
- BOTH allows selection of reception on both COM1 and COM2.
- NAV1, NAV2, ADF (AOE wtf?) etc select ident audio.
- MKR selects Marker ident audio. Note: My testing so far indicates audio received (and light flashes) from Middle Marker, however Outer Marker light flashes but no audio heard. Not sure if this is a sim issue.
- DME, SPKR buttons now operate but are currently non functional.
11 Likes
Great work thank you very much! On my wishlist is a 152 with the GPS implemented. Any possiblility of that? I was a RW pilot with 250 hrs in the 152 and I’m finding this model very accurate. Now for some stall work, havent tried that yet.
Great job. Did a flight immediately looks like everything is working fine.
The Nav radios are very quiet, hard to hear the Morse code ID for the VOR-s , is it possible to mod it to be louder ?
In real life, In a Cessna 152, you definitely need more right rudder in a right turn compared to the left. it seems quite realistic.
On a power-on stall, in real life, in a Cessna 152, it is quite easy to get a wing drop (not necessarily a good thing lol). You have a lot of adverse yaw and p-factor causing that nose and wing wanting to go to the left.
Any chance that the dome light brightness setting could be stored and remembered between flights? It takes quite a while to get the brightness where I want it using the dimmer when flying at night so having the setting persistent would be great.
If that isn’t possible maybe the dimmer speed per click/scroll could be increased so it responds quicker.
I will try to fix the default position, changing the click/scroll is not so good as it ruins the dim resolution once you get into the range where it has an effect.
1 Like
First of all: thank you for the C152X Mod, grat job! 
Now a question: Is the creation (if necessary) of a Mod also planned for the C172X series? 
Thanks
1 Like
Sadly the ‘steam gauge’ C172 is encrypted at the moment, so no meaningful modification possible there. Hopefully that changes at some point.
oh … 
OK, thank you! 
Great work!
Any chance that you can modell the Wheel fairings for this bird, at least optional?
I think this is really missing from the aesthetic point of view.
1 Like
Unfortunately significant changes to the 3d model (including the internal/cockpit and animations etc) are not really feasible at the moment, as these would require access to the source models that only the developers have.
Just as a side note…very few 152’s ever have wheel fairings. The handful that are privately owned have a chance of having fairings, but most are flight school work horses, and never have them, since they replace main gear tires a lot.
2 Likes