1

YSFlight DAT File Analysis: REFACRUS

By: Decaff 42

Abstract—The understanding of YSFlight Aircraft perfor- C. Drag Coefficient

mance is currently a black-box, trial and error process of gaining
knowledge. By performing an in-depth analysis of the YFS and
The Drag Coefficient is used to calculate the drag force on
DAT files through a series of flights and DAT variable changes, it an object. Like the Lift coefficient it can be derived, where D
is possible to gain insight into the various relationships. Through is the drag force, A is the cross-sectional Area, ρ is the air
traditional methods of trying to qualitatively analyze the effects, density and V is the aircraft velocity.
a moderate body of knowledge has been accumulated by the
YSFlight Community. By using the YSFlight Flight Analyzer Tool 2D
CD = (2)
developed by Decaff 42, the relationship between DAT variable ρAV 2
changes and aircraft flight performance can be quantitatively
analyzed. D. YSFlight Lift Coefficient
Based on the notations in the DAT file, preliminary Data and
I. I NTRODUCTION confirmation by Soji, the author of YSFlight, the YSFlight Lift
Coefficient equation looks like this:
There are many variables in the YSFlight DAT file which
effect how the aircraft performs in YSFlight. In order to CL = CLslope ∗ α + CLconst (3)
understand how the variables change the performance, the
YFS file (a.k.a. Replay File) of the flight is saved and data E. YSFlight Drag Equation
from it is extracted with the YSFlight Flight Analyzer tool. Based on the notations in the DAT file, preliminary Data
This series of flight tests focuses on the REFACRUS variable. and confirmation by Soji, the author of YSFlight, the YSFlight
The REFACRUS DAT variable helps control the lift and drag Drag Coefficient equation looks like this:
properties of an aircraft and is one of three which define the
”nominal” cruse conditions of the aircraft. CD = CD Const ∗ α2 + CD Zero (4)

F. YSFlight DAT Variables

II. I MPORTANT E QUATIONS A ND R EFERENCES
YSFlight uses a simplified Lift Coefficient curve; in-fact it
Analysis of the flight data uses several equations to derive is a straight line. The question now is how does the DAT file
important values. By using the equations below along with impact the Lift Coefficient Curve, and what parameters does
several others, it is possible to quantify the effect of changing YSFlight calculate to determine the shape of these curves? A
the REFACRUS DAT variable. brief look at a stock DAT File reveals some helpful comments
which tie into equations 3 and 4. Here are the initial variables
A. Angle of Attack for the 787 test bed aircraft.
Angle of attack is the angle in the pitch rotation between the REM ClZero,CdZero fixed by Cruising condition
REFVCRUS 0.85MACH #CRUISING SPEED
aircraft’s velocity vector and the direction the nose is pointed. REFACRUS 35000ft #CRUISING ALTITUDE
A full explanation of how to calculate the Angle of Attack REFTCRUS 0.65 #CRUISING THROTTLE SETTING
can be found in Decaff 42’s article YSFlight Performance
Analysis: Calculating Angle of Attack using Euler Rotations. REM ClSlope,CdConst fixed by Landing condition
[3] Angle of Attack is often referred to as ”alpha” in reference REFVLAND 142kt #LANDING SPEED
REFAOALD 5.0deg #LANDING AOA
to the Greek symbol α used in equations, or shortened to AoA. REFLNRWY 3000m #RUNWAY REQUIRED TO STOP
REFTHRLD 0.4 #LANDING THROTTLE SETTING
B. Lift Coefficient
In real life, the Lift Coefficient is a property of the individual The two things that stand out the most are ”ClSlope” and
aircraft, but by knowing several important parameters, it can ”ClZero”. Because it is known that the lift curve is linear and
be derived from the level flight of an aircraft, where L is the a function of the Angle of Attack, it can be assumed that the
lift force, ρ is the air density, A is the wing Area and V is equation YSFlight uses looks something like Equation 3.
the aircraft’s velocity. The Lift Coefficient is also a function The Cruise Condition is designed to be roughly zero degrees
of AoA. If the aircraft is oriented at different angles of attack, Angle of Attack, while the landing conditions are meant to
the Lift Coefficient will change because the required lift force define the light angle of attack characteristics with full flaps.
changes. With information from both cruise and landing conditions, the
2L lift and drag coefficients are derived as functions of angle of
CL = (1) attack.
ρAV 2
 2

III. R EDUCING DATA C ONTAMINATION
Several steps were taken to reduce or eliminate contamina-
tion in the recorded data.
1) The same aircraft is used for each flight, only changing
the REFACRUS value between flights.
2) Each flight is conducted using the Zero-Fuel Decel
maneuver from the same starting conditions (altitude,
speed, etc).
3) Flights are started with a small amount of fuel to
stabalize the orientation of the aircraft prior to engine-
out operation and data collection.
4) Flights are stopped after the aircraft stalls to minimize
the chance that post-stall flight would be mistaken for
desired data.
Flights were conducted at 35000 ft using the zero-fuel decel
maneuver used to collect data in other places. The advantages
of this method comes from the number of variables and
simplifications that accompany it. The lack of thrust means
that that portion of the force balance equations can be ignored.
Additionally the large sweep of speeds provides a large sweep
of angle of attack values. The flights were started at 500 knots
True Air Speed and the auto-pilot was engaged immediately.
With a small amount of fuel to burn off, the aircraft settled into
a stable angle of attack and when the fuel ran out, the aircraft
transitioned through the angle of attack sweep the maneuver
was designed to capture.
IV. REFACRUS E XPERIMENTS
Figure 1 shows the Lift Coefficient ’curves’ with the
changing REFACRUS values as designated in the legend by
Flight Level.1 It is interesting to note that as REFACRUS
increases, the slope of the Lift Coefficient plot shallows, and
in addition the maximum lift coefficient decreases. Another
point of interest is that the minimum lift coefficient value for
all the trials appears to be the same.
Another interesting thing to note is that all the Lift Coeffi-
cient curves intersect a common point, at 5 degrees Angle
of Attack and approximately 1.28 Lift Coefficient. When
compared to the DAT File, we see that the Landing Conditions
list a 5 degree angle of attack for the landing AoA. This
may be a coincidence, but further testing of this DAT file
parameter should shed some light as to what effect changing
the REFAOALD parameter may have.
At approximately 12 degrees AoA, the aircraft began to pick
up negative vertical velocity at an increasing rate. This may
explain the bump in the Lift Coefficient Curves in Figure 1. It
took very little time to transition from 12 to 15 degrees AoA,
which may call this segment of data into question as having
contamination from other factors, including aircraft pitch-up
motion and the impact of vertical velocity. Looking at the
baseline data from [4] (Figure 3 specifically), we will see that
this set of data also saw contamination at 12 degrees angle
of attack. While this may be coincidence, it is none the less
interesting to see.
TABLE I
REFACRUS K EY DATA

This dat variable is nominally the cruse altitude of the REFACRUS Stall Speed CLα Min CL Max CL
aircraft. Since the stock DAT files use feet as a unit, this 5000 84.43 0.232 0.370 3.437
10000 85.33 0.216 0.368 3.365
experiment kept the same notation. Values from 5000 to 45000 15000 86.43 0.207 0.370 3.280
feet were used. A value of 50000 feet was attempted, however 20000 87.58 0.198 0.369 3.194
with the aircraft pushing to the minimum allowable Angle of 25000 89.40 0.184 0.370 3.065
30000 91.72 0.169 0.372 2.912
Attack (-7◦ ) per CRITAOAM, it was not enough to prevent the 35000 95.12 0.147 0.373 2.708
aircraft from climbing at several thousand feet per minute. All 40000 101.11 0.116 0.370 2.396
other parameters seen in the sample of the DAT File remained 45000 108.76 0.081 0.370 2.071
the same.
Table I highlights some important information gleaned from
the data collected. No matter the flight level, the minimum lift
coefficient for each altitude remained the same. The value for
stall speed is the aircraft’s speed at 14.5 degrees AoA. This
value was chosen to further eliminate data inconsistencies near
15 AoA. At this point the aircraft had achieved significant
downward vertical velocity and even on the highest data rate
settings, the difference between 14.5 and 15 degrees was a few
frames of data. This trimming of the data set allowed for more
accurate emphasis on the main portion of the Lift Coefficient
Curves and the highly linear relationship.
Figure 2 shows the pseudo-stall speed of the aircraft as
a function of the REFACRUS value. Overall this curve is
relatively smooth, however at 35000 feet, the stall speed
appears to start a slightly different curve. It is not sure why
this happened, however based on Figure 1, the difference
between the Lift Coefficient slopes became more pronounced
and spaced further apart. One potential influence is the change
Fig. 1. Lift Coefficient vs. Angle of Attack curves with changing REFACRUS
values. 1 FL050 = 5000 feet, FLXXX = XXX0 feet

in YSFlight atmospheric properties at 40000 feet. [4] Since
Figure 2 has discrete points it should be noted that it is
the values of 40000 feet and 45000 feet which appear to be
different from those of 35000 feet and below. The data point at
35000 feet is simply the border from one curve to the other.
However this is different from the atmospheric model data
collected in [4], where the border point was at 40000 feet.
If this change in the ’curve’ is a result of the atmospheric
models, then the author would expect to see that border point
to be at 40000 feet. But the fact remains that without further
data about the impact of other DAT file parameters, the effect
of the DAT File cannot be ruled out in any way.
Fig. 2. Pseudo stall speed vs REFACRUS values shows why the maximum
lift coefficients trended downward as the REFACRUS value increased.
To see the profile of the changing Lift Coefficient Slope,
CLα was plotted against the REFACRUS value in Figure
3. As expected from Figure 1, this trends down with larger
REFACRUS values.
Fig. 3. Plot of the changing Lift Coefficient Slope with changing REFACRUS
values.
3
V. C ONCLUSIONS
Understanding the data from this experiment is best sum-
marized by Figure 1. The higher the REFACRUS value is the
shallower the slope of the CL vs AoA curve will be. One
influence that was not tested was the altitude flown. There
may be an interaction between the REFACRUS value and
the altitude flown that cannot be generated by altering the
REFACRUS value while at constant altitude.
R EFERENCES
[1] Waspe414, ”[Request] .yfs file parameters”, 25 August 2015. https:
//forum.ysfhq.com/viewtopic.php?t=8007#p90235
[2] Midnight Rambler et all, ”.DAT Variables”. https://forum.ysfhq.com/
viewtopic.php?t=1772
[3] Decaff 42, ”YSFlight Aircraft Performance Analysis: Calculating Angle
of Attack using Euler Rotations”. https://sites.google.com/site/ysdecaff/
ysflight-scientific-research
[4] Decaff 42, ”YSFlight Atmospheric Model” https://sites.google.com/site/
ysdecaff/ysflight-scientific-research