Flap motor fail
-
Hey Black Square,
I think the flap motor should fail if flaps are deployed at higher speeds, for example I can deploy them fully (not only one notch) at 260 knots without any problem.
Most probably you should set a max speed that give you 100% chance of failure, let's say 200+ and then decreasing chances from there until the max speeds in documentation (170 for approach and 140 for DN).Cheers,
Cristi -
Flap motors don't typically fail when operating flaps beyond their normal operation speeds, what does happen is the flap assembly itself can be damaged from aerodynamic stresses. What does make this very critical is it can cause an asymmetric flap deployment which has a high risk of loss of control.
-
I agree that failures associated with overstress such as this would be nice to have, if not too difficult to implement. Perhaps the flaps (or a single flap) could jam for instance. But I have a feeling that such a failure could only happen outside the standard MSFS SDK, thereby needing custom coding which influences the flight model - suddenly it's a complex situation to program, and perhaps outside the scope of the Black Square aircraft and what they are trying to be.
That all said, the more true-to-life risks and realism we get, the better! I'd settle for more depth and fewer aircraft, as I don't have the free time nor inclination to deeply learn them all. I may be in the minority. (Most people just want more and more aircraft it seems and can never have enough.)
-
I was referring to the flap motor as we already have this in the failures tab.
Currently, when flap motor fails flaps can be retracted but not extended, which seems wrong.
Asymmetric flap deployment sounds more realistic but it's harder to implement, I guess, for the moment I think at least getting it stuck should be enough as a first step.Later edit:
scenario 1 - flap up then motor fail = flap can go to aph
scenario 2 - flap aph then motor fail = flap can go to up or down
scenario 3 - flap down then motor fail = flap can go to aph or up -
I can test this later, but I think what you're seeing is the intended behavior of the failure system. Initiating a circuit breaker protected failure does not immediately cause the circuit breaker to trip, like in other aircraft with failure systems. Instead, the breaker will only trip when there is current flowing through it, as most general aviation circuit breakers are "slow-blow" bi-metal breakers. This probably allows you to move the flaps around one increment before enough heat builds up to trip the breaker. Since all failure states are saved, this also means that system failures can go completely unnoticed until your next flight, such as navigation lights only being used for a later night flight.
-
@Black-Square said in Flap motor fail:
Since all failure states are saved, this also means that system failures can go completely unnoticed until your next flight, such as navigation lights only being used for a later night flight.
On a slight tangent, would you ever consider an option where the failures are logged somewhere with a date & time? Or it could show how many flight hours were logged since the failure? Maybe somewhere in the tablet, the weather radar failures pages, or even in a text file in the same directory where the state is saved?
I've yet to experience a failure that I have noticed (don't like to check, spoils the fun), but if I did come across one, I would be really interested to know how long it had been there, unnoticed from previous flights. Then I could either pat myself on the back or slap my own wrist, depending on how prepared or negligible I had been...
Could be a nice enhancement across the fleet in future updates.
-
That would be a fun feature (and one that would be both fascinating and horrifying in the real world). Unfortunately, Asobo has not made it possible to save any kind of file from the Javascript context, presumably for security reasons. This means that I am limited in the size and formats that I can choose for stored data within the simulator's own state saving, which I have found not to be terribly reliable. I have brainstormed many amazing features that I would add with better or more stable state saving, but that would either require me to build my own internal networking protocol between JS and WASM (I've done that once already for JS to/from RPN), or for something to change on Asobo's side of things. Trust me, I have lots of ideas, and I will add yours to the list!
I would enjoy asymmetric flap extension in aircraft where that is possible. For the Starship in particular, it's theoretically possible for the flaps to become asymmetric, as well as out of sync with the forward wing, which could produce some interesting results. Almost anything is possible in MSFS if you want it badly enough, but the native aerodynamics simulation does not provide any way of achieving this without the kind of creative solutions that I have created for most features in my aircraft.
