Warrior Performance still too high
-
Re: Warrior performance problems (way better than POH)
I did a bit of flying after the recent updates and I am still seeing the performance as better than real life.
I am used to climbing in a warrior at about 500ft/min IRL. Looking at the POH the climb performance should be 600ft/min (640ft/min with wheel fairings - not sure if the performance difference is simulated with this add-on when you take those off?) in a standard atmosphere at sea level, which decreases to 400ft/min at around 5,000ft.
I did not have a lot of time to test this last night but I timed my climb out from the airport and in one minute I climbed from 1,000ft to 1,900ft so about a 50% increase in climb performance from the book!
This was with live weather and just a single test so not very scientific. I might have another go later with standard atmosphere and better testing conditions but I think it is clear that as it currently stands the performance is definitely too high.
-
Make sure that all of your test flights are at MAX weight, which is what the POH performance specs are based on... It makes a big difference in the climb rate!
-
Yes I was within 5kg of MTOW when I tested. I will do more testing tonight to get some more reliable data but I'm sure the performance is still significantly high
-
Ok I have done some better testing and have my results. This was done in standard atmosphere (1013hPa, 15 degrees C at sea level and no wind - over the ocean). The plane was loaded to MTOW.
I started by taking off and cruising to the water at 100ft amsl then started my climb at 79kts as per the poh. By 1000ft my climb was stable (using autopilot - I used my honeycomb bravo to get the autopilot to climb in ias mode so climb was perfect at 79knots the whole way). I started the timer at 1000ft and here are some data points I got. Columns are time (mm:ss), altitude, calculated VS since last row, expected VSW from POH
0:00 - 1,000ft
1:00 - 1,720ft - 720fpm - 580fpm
2:00 - 2,380ft - 660fpm - 560fpm
4:46 - 4,000ft - 580fpm - 440fpm
6:45 - 5,000ft - 504fpm - 400fpm
8:47 - 6,000ft - 492fpm - 340fpm
11:02 - 7,000ft - 444fpm - 300fpm
13:39 - 8,000ft - 382fpm - 260fpmTo be fair the expected VS would actually be higher. Above I have shown, for example the VS AT 8000ft but I'm comparing it to climbing from 7000ft to 8000ft, so instead of 260ft for that range we would expect more like 280fpm. I'm not sure if the wheel fairings are simulated. In my test I had them off which would decrease the VS by 40fpm (as per the POH).
The VS seems to be fairly consistently 120-140fpm better than it should be (or 160-180fpm better if wheel fairings are simulated).
This adds up pretty quickly. The POH shows a climb from 1,000ft to 8,000ft should take about 17 minutes but in my test it took under 14 minutes which I think is a fairly considerable difference.While I was at it I tested cruise performance at both 8000 and 1000 ft. I did this at best power mixture (leaned for highest RPM).
These are my results for that (columns are power %, measured TAS, expected TAS):1000ft:
55% - 98 - 97
65% - 104 - 106
75% - 114 - 1148000ft:
55% - 103 - 103
65% - 113 - 113
75% - 121 - 124
FT - 122 - 127As you can see the cruise performance is pretty much perfect. It drops off a little bit at 75% to full throttle at 8,000ft but it is still pretty close.
I have screenshots of all of this which I was going to post but I figured it is easier to just have it in this format.
TL;DR: Cruise performance is really accurate but climb performance is too high by about 130fpm at all altitudes.
Is there any chance we can have this looked at and corrected?Regards
Nick -
@Delta558 Have you had a chance to look into this? I'd like to know your thoughts
Also just wanted to add that this has also been acknowledged in the MSFS forum here:
https://forums.flightsimulator.com/t/just-flights-warrior/423986/519 -
As I said on the other thread where this was mentioned, I cannot get anywhere near the sustained climb rates you are stating which makes it very difficult to 'fix' - we are seeing very different values. This has been brought up only once before, and I answered it more thoroughly at the time - as it is currently close to 02:00 and I should have been asleep long ago, I hope you don't mind if I dig out that response for you tomorrow!
-
Yeah, no rush!
I assume you are referring to this thread:
https://community.justflight.com/topic/2777/warrior-performance-problems-way-better-than-poh/8I got the impression from that that there were going to be changes made to update the performance but as far as I can tell that was never done.
I am happy to record a flight tonight fully loaded with standard atmosphere settings to demonstrate the performance. I wanted to do a video to start with but geforce experience was recording the wrong monitor so all I ended up getting were screenshots - but I think I have the recording working again now.
-
@Delta558 here is my video https://youtu.be/gHxMfHPQpyY
The performance is a little worse than in my stats above since this time I had unlimited fuel turned on. I realised that would be a fairer comparison since the climb performance in the POH would assume max weight at all altitudes. The only other difference is this time I had the wheel fairings enabled but I don't think that is simulated anyway (please correct me if I'm wrong).
I had the climb stabilised at around 800ft climbing at Vy (79 knots indicated) in this recording, so I started the timer once again at 1,000ft. This time it took about 13:58 to get from 1,000ft to 8,000ft which is far faster than it should be (POH says that should take 17 minutes - and the time to climb would be taking fuel burn into consideration so with unlimited fuel on it should take even longer than that).
At 2,000ft the V/S was still at about 650ft/min which is what the POH says the climb performance is supposed to be at sea level. The POH says at 2,000ft the climb rate should be 550ft/min.
I was still getting 500ft/min at 4,500ft but the POH says 500ft/min should be achieved just under 3,000ft and that at 4,500ft the V/S should be 420ft/min
Climb rate didn't go down to 400ft/min until 7,000ft altitude but the POH says that should happen at 5,000ft and at 7,000ft it should actually be 300ft/min V/S.
Basically the whole way up climb performance was about 100ft/min better than it should be - or to look at it a different way the climb performance was what you would expect it to be at around 2,000ft lower altitude.
-
@Delta558 have you had a chance to review this video and the performance issues with the warrior?
I have been thinking more about this and I think the performance increase might be even more noticeable at lower weights. These tests were done at MTOW, but normally (in the sim and IRL) I fly at much lower than that. It is often just me (70kg) and 140L of fuel so I come in a lot under MTOW. I think this is when I have noticed the performance increase the most as I am getting climb rates in the sim that I have never seen IRL. This seems harder to test though since the POH only has figures for MTOW. Do you know if there is anywhere to get reliable climb performance metrics for under MTOW other than going out and measuring them myself?
-
@nickd27 I have watched the video but have not had a chance to look at the aircraft in the game yet - real world work and family have kept me too busy unfortunately.
Given that the numerous SUs since the original release of the aircraft have introduced other problems because of changes in the core flight model, it is likely that there will have to be a pretty-much completely new flight model for the entire PA28 range to bring them up to current standards with SU10, CFD and the prop physics. That is not a 'quick fix', but hopefully will be relatively soon!
