Need help with O. Fischer's Bucker Jungmann

[bkeske]

OK, I didn't just fall off the FS turnip truck yesterday, but I'm having a heck of a time landing this bird. Take-offs are also pretty interesting at times, even when remembering to lock the tail wheel. :kilroy:

Not sure what my problem is, but I'm having a hard time finding the correct approach speed while crossing the threshold. I'm either going to fast to maintain control after landing and coming to a realistic stop, or stopping at all before running out of grass/runway...or too slow which seems to require way too much rudder, and if you do not land this baby straight and level...well....lets just say it ain't too forgiving.....and I'm dragging a wing on the ground. This thing is very 'tippy'. I am using version 2 BTW.

My realism levels are set to high, so perhaps that is the problem, I don't know. I love this airplane, but after practicing landings last night, I simply became more and more frustrated. In the air cruising is fine after I get MAP, throttle, and trim balanced.

Can anyone help turn that light bulb on in my ol'noggin?

[bstolle]

Suggest you have to get the alternate airfile from flightsim.com first
This makes the Buecker MUCH more realistic and aerobatic!

BTW you've got a PM

[bkeske]

I have that installed, but have not flown that model yet ( I separated it from the original). Perhaps it is time to check it out. I assume you are speaking of the 'torque' air file?

[bstolle]

Exactly. It's VERY good and very similar to the IRIS Christen Eagle ;)

[Naki]

I haven't tried this in FSX (it was one of my favourite freeware aircraft in FS9) ..and never knew about the modified FDE (thanks for the HU).

Does the Buecker work in FSX with no modifications?

[bkeske]

Yes, pretty much it works great.....well....except for landing the dang thing :kilroy: There is a version II, which includes a prop.bmp created by 'our own' Banana Bob (Where the heck are ya Bob? Hope all is OK). At least my version II package had those included.

[bstolle]

works perfect in FSX (Acceleration) only the fuel gauge is clear.
The updated flight model is really top notch.
The only fs9 plane I fly in FSX!

if flying from the VC suggest you raise the seat until you can see just a tiny bit of the cowling.(I usually use zoom 0.5 and for aerobatics 0.3)
I'm flying the approach idle at 130km/h and she does a nice 3 pointer between 90-100km/h

[bkeske]

Alright, tried the alternate air file and it's behavior was much better and easier to land. I guess I'll be using that file for all the models. Thanks for the suggestion :salute:

[falcon409]

Can one of you explain to me what the reasoning is behind taking an airfile that was designed for the Bucker based on aircraft specs and "modifying" it to make it more realistic? Seems to me that if the airfile follows specs. . .that makes it as realistic as possible within FS parameters.

I guess I've never understood the need to tweak an airfile that displays the characteristics of the original airplane. . . .in an effort to make it more realistic, lol. JMO:salute:

[bkeske]

Well, I agree falcon, so do you have any suggestions regarding my original post in terms of speed landing and proper settings? There is virtually no info I have been able to locate, and the 'manual' is practically worthless when it comes to performance and proper power settings. Again, with FS set for 'full realism' settings, this baby is more than a handful to land, and unlike any other aircraft I have 'flown' in FS for over 15+ years. Again, it seems either too fast to maintain stability on approach without need for too much rudder, or very unstable at too low of speed and the need for extreme rudder input. I just cannot find the 'sweet spot' with this aircraft and was looking for help.

If you have some suggestions, I would love to hear them, as I would go back to the original air file in a second if I can get some feedback. I am more than willing to take-up the challenge, and I know you fly this aircrfat.

[falcon409]

Ok,
I ran the realism settings all the way to the right. I normally fly middle of the road, simply because I can, but for this I pushed them completely over. I use a twist grip joystick, which contrary to popular belief makes rudder control very easy to handle, especially where this airplane is concerned as there is a lot of torque wanting to pull the airplane off the rwy. On TO roll, the tail was up and the airplane just on it's mains at 45kts and the airplane lifted off of it's own volition at 70-75. I continued a climb out to 1000ft and leveled off to gain airspeed which topped off at the prescribed "max Cruise" of 114kts. I then turned back to the airport for landing, slowly coming back on the power. The prescribed landing speed is 51kts, but since there are no flaps, it's difficult to maintain that speed for very long without losing a lot of altitude, so I found that an airspeed of no less than 65 over the threshold was about right.

The landing was without any bouncing with the aircraft touching down in a straight and level configuration and then lowering the tail as the AS bled off. I don't know if the 10kt wind came into play after landing or if it was simply the prop torque, but maintaining a straight line was about the most difficult part of the entire flight. It practically wanted to do a "U" turn at one point.

I don't know if that helps you any, but that is with the original aircraft.cfg and airfiles in place. I don't normally hold to comments by others who talk about an aircraft not "feeling right", but I'll eat my words on this one, because I'm not a gauge watcher. With an airplane like this, where you only have the basic gauges to go by anyway, it really is an airplane that you can fly by the way it feels. . .on the ground and in the air. Sure, I make certain that I'm not red-lining it, but other than that, you really can tell just about everything you need to know by listening to the airplane and that's especially true on TO and landing. When the airplane is ready to fly. . .it will and when it comes to landing and you drop the airspeed just a tad too much. . .it's obvious based on where you are in the pattern, that either you're spot on. . .or you ain't gonna get there without a bit more power, lol.

[bkeske]

Thanks for the feedback falcon, I'll give it another go, and watch for that 65 (well, about 120 KM/H on this aircraft), but as you say, this aircrfat seems the need to fly by it's feel, not necessarily gauges.

I'm using CH pedals, and I'm sure crossed the threshold a that speed, or close to it, but as I said, my pedals were fully engaged either left or right, depending on my landing attempt, when I dipped at/around/ or below 100 KM/H, which almost made it impossible to land 'straight'. That is about 54 KTS, and I have a feeling is simply too slow. Perhaps my fear is also dropping like a brick (as you stated) and being unsure about my speed, thus not being consistent. I kept hopping from one grass strip to the next, and never seem to be able to come close to 'greasing' the landing. At close to 150 KM/H or 80 KTS, it is simply to fast for this bird without flaps following touch down. Shoot, perhaps my biggest problems is using KM/H, as I'm simply not use to the conversion to knots, whch I am much more familiar.

Can't figure this one out. Ant's Moth is easy in comparison, as are all my Golden Age WACO's (which I have a feeling may be too easy to fly at times, but I may be wrong), Piglets UPF-7, the Auster, the A2A Cub, the Real Air Spit, SF260, and Scout, Bills new Skylark, etc etc etc....heck, I can get a full grip on landing the A2A B377 by hand to the Eaglesoft Citation X, and everything in between.

I just can't figure this one out for whatever reason. To me, something just does not feel right.

[kilo delta]

Suggest you have to get the alternate airfile from flightsim.com first
This makes the Buecker MUCH more realistic and aerobatic!

BTW you've got a PM

Never knew about the modded airfile either. Thanks for the HU! There's a Jungmann based at my local field...used regularly by one of this countries top aerobatic display pilots since his Su-26M was written off after it caught fire on startup!

http://photos5.pix.ie/CA/0A/CA0A5937425F40B8902C13E12FFFAF5F-800.jpg (http://pix.ie/nforce/1224761)

http://photos2.pix.ie/48/B0/48B08C2F47314A22B89BCD39FB82A981-800.jpg (http://pix.ie/nforce/1224030)

http://photos3.pix.ie/71/F0/71F078278A324D75B0F3AD12B27DF347-800.jpg (http://pix.ie/nforce/1217226)

http://photos3.pix.ie/0E/A0/0EA01A080E614D8484E4CEBE1A1B128D-800.jpg (http://pix.ie/nforce/1224029)

Hopefully some kind sole could apply their virtual paintbrushes to this A/C...I'm sure that the RL pilot would be chuffed! :)

[bstolle]

@falcon 409

>Can one of you explain to me what the reasoning is behind taking an airfile that was designed for the Bucker based on aircraft specs and "modifying" it to make it more realistic? Seems to me that if the airfile follows specs. . .that makes it as realistic as possible within FS parameters.
>I guess I've never understood the need to tweak an airfile that displays the characteristics of the original airplane. . . .in an effort to make it more realistic, lol.

Well, I'd say it's common knowledge that IF you want to get a plane to fly like its RW counterpart in fs9 or FSX that there's no way to use (only) real world data.
If that would be the case there would be many more realistic flying planes for FSX ;)
Take e.g. the 'original' Bueckers weak rudder effectiveness or how extremely sluggish she is around the yaw axis. This is a 900lbs plane! Let alone the stalling/spinning behaviour... no way that the real one behaves like that.

@ bkeske

Trim for an idle hands off glide at 65kts (shift Z), 130km/h.
Start the initial flare at 20ft, and the final round out at 10ft.
I don't use any rudder input at all.
You need a high seating position to see enough of the ground ahead of the wings and to the left and right of the cowling.

@ kilo delta,

WOW, that's a real beauty and aerobatics in an old biplane are MUCH more elegant and smooth than the jerky maneuvers from Suchois etc....

[kilo delta]

Always liked to watch biplane aeros...the same chap also has a couple of Stampes including this beauty..

http://photos3.pix.ie/2A/07/2A0741055CC6490981F8C72C1AA6345C-800.jpg (http://pix.ie/nforce/1224779)

[Crusader]

Yes, pretty much it works great.....well....except for landing the dang thing :kilroy: There is a version II, which includes a prop.bmp created by 'our own' Banana Bob (Where the heck are ya Bob? Hope all is OK). At least my version II package had those included.

Thanks for posting this .I had completely forgotten about it . I have his JU-52 which works pretty well in FSX . Where did you get Version II with Bob's prop ? I also hunted for the new flight dynamics file at flightsim.com and could'nt come up with anything . Oliver Fischer's site has closed apparently .

Thanks again ,

Rich

[Crusader]

Found the FDE . I just searched for Buecker and it popped up . DAH ! I see there is alittle controversy over it but I might back up the original and gave it a try anyway .

[bstolle]

If you are a RW pilot you will know instantly why the new FDEs are the only useable ones once you've tested them :)

[falcon409]

. . . . .Well, I'd say it's common knowledge that IF you want to get a plane to fly like its RW counterpart in fs9 or FSX that there's no way to use (only) real world data.
If that would be the case there would be many more realistic flying planes for FSX ;)
Take e.g. the 'original' Bueckers weak rudder effectiveness or how extremely sluggish she is around the yaw axis. This is a 900lbs plane! Let alone the stalling/spinning behaviour... no way that the real one behaves like that.....
My attitude at this point is. . . .if the new airfile is what you want to fly. . .more power to ya. Apparently you are a RW pilot and know a lot more about these things than I do. I, on the other hand am perfectly happy with the original airfile. I can take off, fly over the countryside at a leisurely pace, turn, bank, climb and land with no real problems at all. I like the original setup, even if it is completely wrong.:salute:

[bkeske]

@ bkeske

Trim for an idle hands off glide at 65kts (shift Z), 130km/h.
Start the initial flare at 20ft, and the final round out at 10ft.
I don't use any rudder input at all.
You need a high seating position to see enough of the ground ahead of the wings and to the left and right of the cowling.

After my post last evening, I swapped out one of the models for the 'original', took off from my home base, and did a couple take-off and pattern landings. I did find 130 KM/H was exactly what I found to be most stable...again, this was the original file...and was able to land fairly well, but rudder input was still fairly significant. But, that was in the default FS start-up state, without any weather at all, and that is not how I fly, preferring to always use actual weather conditions via Active Sky. Also, I use TrackIR, so obtaining a good view is not an issue for me.

Interesting that you feel that the rudder within the model is too ineffective. You know, I never even considered that, but that makes perfect sense in retrospect.

One thing I noticed with the 'mod' air file is the engine easily running in the 25,000+ range, and reducing to 20,000 and below was not an area to trim-out at to maintain level flight. The original seemed to top-out at about 21,000, and I was typically cruising at 19,000-20,000. This is a big difference between the two. Can anyone shed some light here? Again, POE info on this aircrfat is hard to come by, and the included manual is absent of any of this.

Well, right now I have my 'fleet' that utilize both, but I would prefer to use the one which is most realistic, harder or not. I'm a stickler for 'as real as it gets' even within a $37 flight sim, and a freeware simulated aircraft model :icon_lol: I would just like to know which of the two meets that requirement.

[kilo delta]

An interesting read here..--> Bücker Flight Test (http://www.planecheck.com/jungmann.htm)<--

And CLICK ME TOO! (http://www.jungmann.co.uk/brief.htm)

[bkeske]

An interesting read here..--> Bücker Flight Test (http://www.planecheck.com/jungmann.htm)<--

And CLICK ME TOO! (http://www.jungmann.co.uk/brief.htm)

Yea, I found that first one, but not the second. Thanks for that.

One thing is for sure, I think the engine characteristics are much truer modeled in the 'original' file per the comments made within those two articles. As the mod goes to 25,000+ easily, it also seems something is amiss there as well, the figures on that second link correspond to what I fond my range is for cruise. Especially interesting is it says max RPM is 23,000.

But....it terms of flight/axis characteristics, it seems to me the 'mod' file is probably closer per the comments made in both. I also watched about 3 landing video's of the real thing, and it seemed pretty harmless on approach/landing, and more 'typical' to what I would think should be realistic handling properties.

Perhaps there needs to be a marriage of the two. Go back to the original engine performance/characteristics while utilizing the improved handling characteristics of the modded version. But perhaps therein lies the problem.

Anyway....with Ant's Moth, my WACO's, Stearman, Piglets UPF-7, fantastic Lublin's, etc etc etc, perhaps I should just take it for what it is....I do have other choices, and it seems to me there may not be a great solution to this unfortunately. Or, perhaps I crank my 'realism' settings down when flying her....something I have not tried yet.

[falcon409]

Great find KD. Interesting that in one description the author relates that an approach speed of no less than 60kts should be observed and the other claims an over the threshold speed of no more than 50kts (I found 60 to 65 was about right). Otherwise the only other observation was that the tail should pop up at about 25kts, which wasn't the case when I flew last evening. 45kts was the speed at which the tail came up when I flew.

Based on those two descriptions, I don't see any reason to alter the airfile from the original. To me, it reacts consistent to with documented flight tests.:salute:

[bstolle]

Based on those two descriptions, I don't see any reason to alter the airfile from the original. To me, it reacts consistent to with documented flight tests.:salute:

Yeah, if you only do sightseeing and shallow turns as you mentioned, the original file is sufficient...but once you get into aerobatics or real stall/spin/slip training you can't use the original file.

@bkeske. Check the HP in the cfg file. I think it's set to 150 or 180 to be able to do vertical maneuvering. If you reduce the HP to the original value you should experience a more 'original' performance.

[falcon409]

Yeah, if you only do sightseeing and shallow turns as you mentioned, the original file is sufficient...but once you get into aerobatics or real stall/spin/slip training you can't use the original file.

Just another example of why I enjoy playing in the SOH forum, lol:salute:

[bstolle]

That's the difference. You are 'playing' FS and I'm 'flying' FS ;)

[falcon409]

lol, whatever! Enjoy!!

[bkeske]

@bkeske. Check the HP in the cfg file. I think it's set to 150 or 180 to be able to do vertical maneuvering. If you reduce the HP to the original value you should experience a more 'original' performance.

Excellent suggestion. I believe the original was 110 HP for the 'B' model, in the real world.

EDIT: Nope, (slapping head) the aircraft.cfg does not change with the use of the buki.air file vs. the default. That air file must change the power specs within it (?), regardless of what the .cfg says, which is 105 HP, with a max RPM set at 25,000. I guess I could use the buki.air file and lower the 105 to something else to simulate a 105 HP engine, and see what happens.

[bstolle]

Everything in the cfg file overrides the airfile. So if you change the max power in the cfg to 110 or 105, that 'should' work.
Just checked; The max power in the cfg is 180 and the RPM 2700. Change that to 110 and e.g. 2300RPM

[txnetcop]

Everything in the cfg file overrides the airfile. So if you change the max power in the cfg to 110 or 105, that 'should' work.
Just checked; The max power in the cfg is 180 and the RPM 2700. Change that to 110 and e.g. 2300RPM

Wow what a difference a few little changes make! Thanks this baby is an aerobat now!
Ted

[bkeske]

Everything in the cfg file overrides the airfile. So if you change the max power in the cfg to 110 or 105, that 'should' work.
Just checked; The max power in the cfg is 180 and the RPM 2700. Change that to 110 and e.g. 2300RPM


I figured out my mistake. I had replaced the buki aircraft.cfg with the original. Oooops....all sorted now. Thanks

[vora]

More than 20 years ago I flew as a passenger on a Bueckers Jungmann (long before I made my PPL).
The most vivid recollection I have from this flight is the extreme slip angle the pilot used shortly before the landing in order to see the unmarked grass strip he was landing on at EDMT. So the rudder effectiveness must have been pretty good. The motor was not powerful enough for serious aerobatics, IIRC. In hindsight 105 hp sounds about right for me.
The pilot had an aerobatics licence but didn't use the Bueckers but another plane for aerobatics (in which he later fatally crashed).