Magnitude 3 LLC Christen Eagle II



Well, to be fair, JC has more followers than Frank Christensen… :wink:


When JC demontrates a full outside snap on a vertical up followed by a wheels-down tailslide and a 4 of 4 on the down, I’ll start calling it a “Christian”. Until then, Frank’s my guy!


Yeah, I’m all with you there!
But fact’s fact… :wink:


That’s because people only seem to want to say certain names. Christen is not the “expected spelling”, that would be something like Kristen, so they morph it in their head into what they expect to see and not what is.

For example, my sister’s name is Christine. Yet her entire life she’s had to deal with people calling her Christina.


I for one will be buying this little bipe. I like it. Still dont like the Su… I guess different strokes for different folks


Pre purchase is open on the ED store!


Tried the CEII today!
Great fun. Very detailed and good looking aircraft.

A bit easy to fly though. Will be interesting to hear what @smokinhole has to say about it.
I checked the special options, and it has a simplified rudder option, but that was not checked.
Very docile in the stall, and very predictable behaviour.

Also, the in cockpit sound seems a bit throaty, to me. And there seem to be a sound loop pulse, of sorts.

I haven’t checked the developer forum for any bug reports. I’ve found a few, like the view position is offset, when bailing out. Also, you have to bail out twice. First time I tried it I was hanging from the chute, still in control of the aircraft. And the chute loses its textures after you land. Petty stuff that I’m sure they will fix.

Anybody else played with the new toy?


Glad at least you bought it… was afraid nobody did :wink:

Some pics pls, if you will !? thx


Lol he don’t believe you troll :stuck_out_tongue:


Pics or it never happened! :wink:
I need to relaunch in non-VR mode, and snap some.
I’d be happy to accomodate. I think the Feather livery of the Christen Eagle is the prettiest on any aircraft. Just love it!


I bought it too, and here is the pic to prove it :stuck_out_tongue:


Heavy feet…? :wink:


FYI you can use bonus points to get CEII for $20.


Uuuuugh! Sorry but this is just as I had feared. What we have may be fun but it is NOT a Christen Eagle or anything close to one. The biggest, most glaring fault after a short 15 minute hop? Torque. Or rather the lack of torque. Right away (like @Troll) I quit flying and checked my settings to see if a cheat was checked. No cheats that I could find. Taxiing with a steerable tailwheel isn’t difficult but it is a lot harder that the DCS CE. The tailwheel has springs and chains that attach it to the rudder horn. The springs dampen the tailwheel and a simple internal clutch in the tailwheel mechanism limits the travel. The clutch can be released or “broken” with full rudder and a sideload of about 20 pounds. This is why a single dude can push and drag a small biplane all around the ramp and stuff it into even the tightest available corner of the hangar. The DCS CE requires a bunch of asymmetrical braking and maybe even a bit of power to “break” the tailwheel. It’s minor. But as new Eagle pilots this is our first experience with the plane and already it is wrong. In the real thing you should be rightly stressed that any manhandling on your part will either going to put you in a ditch or on your nose. The Eagle is not difficult but it is never relaxing. The DCS CE can be taxied while you text both your wife AND your girlfriend.

Back to torque. Try this: Get moving at a walking pace and apply full right rudder and enough right brake to break the clutch, starting a pirouette. In the real thing, even at idle there is enough torque and prop inertia to put the thing on its nose. In the DCS CE you can do this all day with full throttle and your hand off the stick and she will spin and spin as if nothing is wrong. So I don’t know what new physics are at play with this thing but it isn’t close to what Newton taught us. OK so take off. Again, no torque. The initial takeoff roll should take about 1/2 right rudder in no x-wind. The DCS CE takes just a touch of right foot which turns into a bit of left at around 60 mph. And it is easy. Again, the Eagle is no widowmaker. She is marginally easier than a 2-place Pitts but still requires constant footwork to track straight. The DCS CE does get a little squirrely after a few seconds but I am not even sure why. The instability feels more scripted than reactive. So now we climb. She’s not exactly setting the world on fire. But ok maybe I am comparing her to mine which has a better T/W ratio. Back to torque yet again. In such a light airplane with such gobs of torque, any pitch motion is going to come with considerable yaw. In my plane, if I take my feet off the pedals and push and pull on the stick, the nose will draw an up/down line through the horizon. Makes sense right? But that line is far from vertical. On the pull it is about 30 degrees right of vertical and on the push it is about 30 left (this depends on how hard the input is–about +2/- 0 g in my case). Do this in the DCS CE and you will watch the fuel cap draw a perfectly vertical line. Game over. The interplay with torque is totally essential in aerobatics. And without it, there really isn’t much point in playing further.

I did do some snaps and spins and they felt as ok as can be expected without torque. Interesting though, that without any perceivable torque in normal flight, the right snap is much faster than the left. Why is that? The landings seemed a bit less of a challenge than they should be. Every landing is different in these things. Even when you get it right, there is often a bit of hopping and skipping especially if the stick isn’t in your lap. The DCS CE lacked the lightness that should make her feel a little less solid and stable than, say, something heavier like the P-51. But I don’t care about that. This isn’t about practicing landings. It’s about flying on the back side of the envelope in a realistic enough manner that the DCS CE can be used to teach and practice competition aerobatics. She is not there yet by a longshot. Worse, she just might be the Polychop Gazelle of biplanes for now.

A few other complaints: The cockpit is ok. It felt big in VR. But the Eagle is way more comfy than the Pitts so perhaps it is correct. The seat position was about 4-6 inches low I think. The texturing doesn’t seem quite as refined as the Gazelle. (Yes I gleefully trash the Gazelle but her artwork is some of the best in DCS!) The Christen wobble pump has a handle that’s about half the size of the real thing. No, not at all a big deal, but if Forza modelled a Ferrari with a stick that’s half its actual size, the internet would catch on fire. So these things should matter. The DCS CE engine sounds nothing like my Lycoming (same IO-360, mine is an angle valve 180HP, the Eagle is a parallel valve 200). I think it sounds much like the Merlin in the P-51. If they want to really get it right, they should first get the Lycoming sounds correct and then offer two settings like the Dreamfoil 407 in X-Plane: Helmet off should be ear-bleedingly loud; and helmet on should be muffled but still louder than anything else in DCS. Lights. Lights!? Who the heck puts lights in an Eagle?! Every pound counts. You are not going to fly an experimental biplane at night. I am not saying that its never done. Homebuilders do some weird S**t. But it looks as odd to me as a cupholder in a MiG-29.

“It’s beta!” Yeah well so is half the stuff in DCS and some of them have been hiding in that Holy Zone of Protection for years. Beta provides no cover unless it is free for testing. Finally, now that I have the DCS CE installed, the DCS debug console runs real-time in a terminal window constantly. Did they do that just poke me? Fine, no quarter given.


That was very interesting reading @smokinhole. I’ve been looking forward to your opinion on this aircraft and thanks for giving us your views.


I must say I expected that…
Didn’t feel right to me and I have no experience with these kites. But physics is physics.


Superb review and just what all of us were looking for. I haven’t bought it, and probably won’t buy it just because it doesn’t quite interest me the way the Yak did. We all really appreciate your detailed analysis (and a good bit of education on how things should work). Hopefully they can take your comments and move forward with improvements.


The man hath spoken! Interesting comments and what a fun way to design a stearable tailwheel!


The torque thing really sounds like a bug.

Will you check back when that shows up in the changelog?

Nice review, thanks.


Apparently you’re not the only asking about this: