Wrong default Fuselage_lateral_cx value + suggestion

SDK Fuselage Lateral

‘’…The default value is 0.4 - which is about the perpendicular drag of a
cylinder - and the value should usually fall between 0.2 and 0.8 for most
This sentence is maybe the cause of many aerodynamic problems, if
developers are following it. 0.2 - 0.4 doesn’t equal the drag of a cylinder,
it equals the drag of a sphere, which results in unrealistic low drag for 98%
of all aircraft. 0.8 actually equals the drag of a cylinder and should be
used as a starting point / default value, with a suggested maximum range of
1.3. Testing values above 0.8 with the result of much more realistic
aerodynamic behaviour additionaly proves that 0.2 - 0.4 shouldn’t be suggested
anywhere. Suggestion for : fuselage_lateral_cx Range : 0.7 - 1.3
Default: 0.8 SDK Fine

**‘’…Here you should also take a moment to set the Fuselage Lateral CX
value: Fuselage CX has a d
** efault value of 4.0
…‘’ 4.0 is
probably a typo?
Additionally: The Cessna172 G1000 is currently using a
fuselage_lateral_cx value of 4.3, which is most likely a mistake. Kind

Updated the OP to be more clear and easier to read.

a fuselage_lateral_cx value of 4.3, is definatly a “Big Slip” !!

Hello @HomieFFM Thanks for those suggestion, I’ve forwarded it to the peoples
in charge of the flight model, it will be reviewed. Best regards, Yohan

Hello @HomieFFM The documentation will be updated with a new range, from 0.2
to 1.2, keep in mind that this is a recommended range and the value could be
way above/under it but it will lead to unrealistic behavior. The C172sp value
will also change, 4.3 is indeed a mistake and it will be corrected in a future
update. Best regards, Yohan

Thanks very much @Yoanito , I would like to only point out once more that 0.4
as default is very low, this value would make sense for a very ‘‘round’’
glider for example. 0.8 is the perfect starting point and should be increased
or decreased depending on the fuselage shape. Below 0.4 (which is almost a
sphere) doesn’t make any sense for any aircraft. Thanks for correcting the
C172 in a future update! Another fuselage cx error finding was: Grumman G-21
Goose: 2.5 Curtiss JN-4 Jenny: 3.0 Best regards

Who updates the C172sp in the Premium/ Deluxe package,

Is it Asobo directly,. or is it a 1st party Developer , and if so, which one ?
More specifically, who had the source Model, and are the ones that would update it ,