Area 51M U-2S released!

[strykerpsg]

Here's the link: http://www.area51sim.com/dragonlady.html

Looks to be quite a stunning lady. Awaiting anxiously for feedback and return from TDY.

Matt

[blazefox2]

GREAT! they release it when i have no money to spend :angryfir: curse these small paychecks!

[An-225]

Well it's my birthday on the 12th, so it's either this, the C-5M or Virtavia's B-1B. Does this rendition of the U-2 feature any models without that sensor package on top?

[BladeLWS]

It's got the trainer version without the pod.

[icycle]

Nope, unless you count the two-seat TU-2S which is included.

Bill

[Jim Brown]

Not to get off topic.....but I'm having a noob moment :banghead:. Why does the link to the downloads section not work?

[blazefox2]

that hasnt been working for a while, i purchased my ah-1z from fspilotshop though

[wilycoyote4]

33 MB download, both FS9 and FSX models in the package, choose which you want during installation

models for FSX true FSX

screeny of landing at 13% fuel at 71 KIAS----at 70 KIAS the wing stalls and touchdown occurs at this weight in clear weather

[icycle]

I did not have the bravery (or the time) to try and land it. I was able to get off the rwy at Beale, and get it up to 65K pretty simply. Was a little sensitive to pitch, however, and maybe seemed a bit over-powered, but that's just a feeling, not something I could back up with fact. Certainly seems to "look the part", however.

Interesting airplane to get into FSX however. Not a lot of "company" up at 65,000- 70,000 feet!!

Bill

[wilycoyote4]

Interesting airplane to get into FSX however. Not a lot of "company" up at 65,000- 70,000 feet!! Bill

:applause:Nope, above 60,000 feet you can turn off nav lights, gotta look down for contrails, way down there.

I had to change the brake setting but that is probably due to my joystick. I had to prevent contrails as most U-2S flights up here don't have contrails.

A lot to learn.

[wilycoyote4]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x6cZLfK4Zjk

this is a series of movies of a U-2S trainer flight which may clear up some questions. Dragon Ladys do have a lot of power and a lot of wing. Check 'em out, they're good.

[JohnC]

Oooh, that's really tempting. I spent almost two years right after college analyzing flight data and atmospheric particulate readings from NASA's ER-2's and WB-57's.

[ColoKent]

...A51 chose not to do a single seat, non-Senior Span (radome on top) model, or an ER-2. Both would have been great. Maybe in an update package...

Kent

[wilycoyote4]

...A51 chose not to do a single seat, non-Senior Span (radome on top) model, or an ER-2. Both would have been great. Maybe in an update package...

Kent

Agreed

[icycle]

Agreed. A single seat would be great to take up to max op altitude.

I gotta believe that the "Senior Span" system has to add a bunch of weight. Yup, can confirm from the "Top Gear" episode that she does get movin' in a hurry. I guess the relationship to a glider might do that for lift, eh?

Bill

[wilycoyote4]

Flying over the entrance to Cook Inlet with Mt. McKinley (Denali) at the left top and Anchorage almost straight ahead. At 76,142 feet at 17% fuel but KKIAS is low and too near stall, that is, below 100 KIAS and I prefer about 72,000 feet for low weight and lower for more weight.

A white NASA ER-2 would be nice to see in the blue-black high sky near the edge of the atmosphere.

[calypsos]

I wish it was an older U-2, with proper gauges, I bet that glass panel slows things down on the FR front too.

[mal998]

I wish it was an older U-2, with proper gauges, I bet that glass panel slows things down on the FR front too.

Agreed.
I think I find the earlier versions more interesting and attractive, what with the history connected to their flights. The early-day U-2s evoke memories of the Cuban Missle Crisis, Nakita
Kruschev banging his shoe on the desk at the UN, and poor Francis Gary Powers on trial in the USSR.

Maybe they'll follow up with one of these...
U-2A
http://static.howstuffworks.com/gif/lockheed-u2-274.jpg

[Cag40Navy]

I wish it was an older U-2, with proper gauges, I bet that glass panel slows things down on the FR front too.
Not really, compared to regular gauges, these make FR like silk almost.

[peter12213]

Thats one of the things I like about this company the glass panels don't affect FPS too much at all!

[wilycoyote4]

A manual will be ready in a few days according to an email. I don't have frame-rate VC problems. The VC MFD are not complex at this release. Hopefully future support will add more to this aircraft.

U-2 aircraft have developed in many ways since 1955 which is a long time.

A few websites may help. Plus the James May Youtube video mention in an earlier post.
http://jalopnik.com/5537629/the-140+mph-chase-cars-of-the-us-air-force
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_U-2
http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?storyID=123022292
http://www.superb.org/Tu/mgt/u2.htm

[Cleartheprop]

Why is there a link to http://www.abacuspub.com/ on their website ?
Are they affiliated to this company ?

[Txmmy83]

as far as I know the Developer has worked for Abacus in the past ;)
and no they are not affiliated:)
have to say have all of A51 Helicopters and I am happy and U-2S will be probably my first fixed wing aircraft from them when it apear at fspilotshop

Best Regards
Tom

[ColoKent]

....I also like the R and S models. Doing the NASA ER-2 would require removing some of the many SIGINT aerials on the bottom of the -S, as well as having a version with and without Senior Span installed.

I hope A51 decides to do the two NASA variants...

K.

[Dougie]

Hi
For anyone who owns this can I asked how it flies? with your personal opinion ofcourse.
Does it fly 70k feet within "coffin corner". Will it stall if you decrease your airspeed by about 5 - 10 kts at that altitude?

Would really like this to be a great flight model before I buy it!

[wilycoyote4]

"The flight manual and a mission pack for U-2S operations are on the way..."

A quote from the website 12 Aug. http://www.area51sim.com/

[wilycoyote4]

Hi
For anyone who owns this can I asked how it flies? with your personal opinion ofcourse.
Does it fly 70k feet within "coffin corner". Will it stall if you decrease your airspeed by about 5 - 10 kts at that altitude?

Would really like this to be a great flight model before I buy it!

My early opinion is that it is vastly superior to very old earlier freeware and payware.
The old Alphasim payware---now freeware----has been updated and is at simviation for those who are curious about high altitude simulation before spending money.

In a few words, yes, in my opinion, the "coffin corner" situation does occur keeping in mind that FSX may not be perfect. Weight is a factor. I set the auto-pilot for cruise at Mach.70 which is about 400 KTAS and about 100 KIAS. However, weight and altitude affect the numbers.

As an example, in one test flight, cruise was 94 KIAS, 373 KTAS, and Mach.64, at a fuel weight of 34% at 70,090 feet. Stall occured when speed dropped to 82 KIAS.

In another example at 73,370 feet, cruise at 96 KIAS, 408 KTAS, Mach.70, weight 35%, stall occured at 84 KIAS.

In my opinion, the greater the weight the lower the altitude and the higher the stall speed. The higher you get in altitude the higher the stall speed but the cruise speed also drops a little making the difference about 10 KIAS so far. At about 80,000 feet there should be less than 10 KIAS. I'll try it but fuel weight will be reduced to get that high.

That is a brief statement that may help. I've been figuring out the auto-pilot without the manual so I look forward to the release of the manual.

[ColoKent]

....the release of a non-Senior Span ER-2 and a non-Senior Span U-2S...

Bottom line: just take the bloody SS radome off and give us another U-2S .mdl to play with.

K.

[Montie]

Has anybody tried the updated U-2? Any feedback? Or screenshots? I am trying to find out if it is worth the money because I really like the U-2.

[icycle]

I have. Updated U2 is OK. By that I mean I'm finding it a little underwhelming. With the "Updated" version that adds a NASA and a 2nd USAF bird (still no U2S W/O Senior Span!!), I now am having the devil of a time getting above 60K feet. The first version, I had no problem and got to 70K feet without issue, but not since I "updated". Maybe it is just me, I don't know. Other than the not being able to get to altitude (even with 10% fuel), the plan seems to be real pitch sensitive now. So much so as to not hold steady in a climb. Again, maybe just me.

Just my feedback from several hours flying.

Bill

[wilycoyote4]

Are you using the auto pilot? The manual isn't released. Perhaps there are answers in it. I will wait for it as well. But I have been to 63,000 feet with fuel at almost 40% since the upgrade.

[icycle]

No autopilot to climb.

It just does not seem to get there? I can't get the mach hold, or the pitch hold to work, like at all. Even though on the autopilot pop-up, I get "+", and "-" signs for mach, for example, no matter what, it does not change anything. Also, even though I have centered, and calibrated my Saitek yoke, on take-off with the new model, pitch goes out of control. Major forward pressure on the yoke to keep from stalling out, or trying to vertical (vertical in a U2 - yikes!!).

Bill

[wilycoyote4]

I think the manual will help all of us but this may be of some help.

The left VC side panel has some mouse click settings on the LCD display itself. Not the switches. I use this to set heading. Altitude is a hold. A study of this side panel and the pop-up AP panel (shift+3) may help.

Yes, flight does seem more difficult as altitude goes up. I'll make some test flights soon.

[peter12213]

I must admit I have problems getting this above 65,000 without stalling it!

[Montie]

Okay, I took the plunge and bought it. The model looks great and textures as well, but I too wish they had included an earlier version... I find it hard to reach 60.000 feet without stalling, so I have to keep trying.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v73/Montie/FSX/U-2.jpg

[wilycoyote4]

A few screenys. A landing with ground effect ---shown at 76 KIAS---floating just above the runway until speed decreases to 73 KIAS for touchdown. Made it to 66,000 feet at low fuel of 16%. Landing flaps were set to extend to the 3rd position, not more.

[wilycoyote4]

I swapped the air file from the 1st release with the 2nd update release. I was able to reach 81,469 feet at 14% fuel and 86 KIAS for Mach .75 which is just above stall of 82 KIAS. I stalled on purpose for that number but stall may have been 83 KIAS. I was busy, lol. Speed on the ground was high at over 400 KTAS. Cruise climb, so high up, of 100 feet per minute is ok with AP and takes time but is much more stable than my human touch.

The AP was used in different ways to see what happens but human control is to be done with great care if tried in my humble bumble opinion.

I'm also changing parts of the aircraft cfg so many test flights are being simulated.

I'm trying to keep the thread alive and hope it is helpful. I hope others add to the thread.

[icycle]

Thanks for the work using the "old" .air file.

I re-tried the "new" one last night, and got her to 65K, and that was it!

Maybe I'll go back to the "old" .air file? At least temp until it gets fully sorted.

Bill

[wilycoyote4]

........Maybe I'll go back to the "old" .air file? At least temp until it gets fully sorted.
Bill

Please hold on to that 1st release. I've got the installer and the aircraft folder in my documents so I can compare and swap.

I'm making some cfg changes that seem good for me. Dunno if others or Area51 are doing the same ----or better---but I'll try.

[wilycoyote4]

I just did a real time U-2S flight from Anchorage PANC to Seattle KSEA with most of the time at or above 80,000 feet. Fuel mileage is very good. Weather was user set cirrus at about 24,000 to 26,000 feet overcast so cirrus was 10 miles below me. And an 8 KIAS wind from ground to 2,000 feet for some landing fun but KSEA had me for RWY 34L which had wind at a heading of 343 so no cross wind but I had only 3% fuel so I called it a day, so to speak.

Fuel at takeoff was 21% for a takeoff gross weight of 22,224 pounds. At high altitude the fuel burn is tiny.

Hope this helps.

[centuryseries]

Looks like a good model. Trouble is - and this is just my personal opinion, and does not reflect on this aircraft - but the U-2 must take forever to get that high, I prefer climbing at a 450 KEAS schedule as Wily knows :ernae:

Lets see some more screenshots - closer upper ones too.

[wilycoyote4]

Ok, the throttle has an airbrake (speedbrake) moveable switch ---use the mouse---so you can vary the angle of the speedbrake. I seem to find the max altitude I can set on the LCD on the left panel is 24,375 meters although it reads 24,384 meters which is 80,000 feet. But I can fly above that.

I prefer flight at 70,000 to 73,000 feet.