[WW2 era trainer?]

All of that is just BASIC tail dragger piloting. That is why the T-6 was such a good training aircraft. It refuses to hide your flaws.

Not so basic IMHO. Some quirks he explains are T-6 specific features you don't necessarily find in every tail dragger. But still a good reading.

 

S!

[Noob Help requested]

Maybe i need some more practice for the flaring but when i tried this with DCS the 51 was bumping up and i was jumping around like a grasshopper until i crash.

So currently very short before touch down (3 point) i center the stick. Then you will only bump if you are still too high when then plan settles down.

Definitely you tried flaring too fast and too late. Too late because aircraft hits the ground, so you didn't "flare" properly at centimetres from ground but bounce hitting the ground. And fast for sure because if you properly three pointed she's stalled so always full stick back (as any tail dragger on ground, always stick back) and that never puts you airborne again. With stick back you have control to deal with her until you're stopped avoiding nose overs.

 

If you want some reading here every point is quite well explained.

 

S!

[WW2 era trainer?]

Just because the Harvard/Texan is called trainer doesn't mean it was easy to fly. It was an advanced trainer that prepared future fighter pilots for more powerful a/c.

 

http://www.vintagewings.ca/VintageNews/Stories/tabid/116/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/251/How-Not-to-Fly-a-Harvard.aspx

Really good article, thanks for the reading mate!! Not sure if I suggest myself, but I see some of the behaviour explained there in the 109.

 

S!

[WW2 era trainer?]

gloster gladiator would be a nice choice for a biplane

As a double seater trainer? :D

 

S!

[Why is the Spitfire Mk IX still unstable??]

My main worry about the Spitfire (in general really) is that I might not enjoy it the same way. The Spitfire was designed as a short range combat aircraft, nothing more and certainly nothing less.

But that's the same trouble with 109 we already have, a short ranged fighter intended for area defence. Spitfire is a bit different of course, firstly aircraft size matters, and elliptic wing would fly quite different but still no full axis trims, so may be some troubles are slightly similar to 109. I mean, I have no fear at all to that aspects being pilot challenging further than 109 is.

 

S!

[Trimmable options speed?]

Welcome :thumbup:.

 

S!

[Why is the Spitfire Mk IX still unstable??]

Had a conversation with my late uncle many years ago. Advanced flight training was done in the Harvard and then was sent to learn to fly Seafires. He said Seafires were a dream to fly compared to the Harvard.

Of course they were a dream. What's better to drive, a mini cooper or a Ferrari? :lol:

 

S!

[Why is the Spitfire Mk IX still unstable??]

But that's the point, everyone who said they like the Spit say it because it's not tricky to fly, it is carefree in handling and gives plenty of warning of approaching stall.

The reason this thread exists is because the OP has a personal hatred of the Spitfire and is obsessed with trying to influence developers to make his interpretation of the FM.

 

In addition to all the pilots accounts I'd say read the POH for the Mk9: This describes the Spitfire as "pleasant" to fly. Two points here: First, I seriously doubt the publication was written to be read by pilots of Chuck Yeager's ability and above. Second: Find me an airplane that is unstable with the pilot in direct control, i.e. without FBW, that pilots describe as "pleasant" to fly. :joystick:

I don't try to influence the developers nor I think anybody around here knowing the precedents would. If somebody really thinks they can influence just posting a few "complains" he's a newbie to these forums and/or ED development process :music_whistling:.

 

That said, are the histories I've listen about the difficulties to newbie pilots in the 40's in handling the Spits false? I mean, you both are mistaking the same people did with 109, good qualities doesn't means at all you don't have to learn to fly and deeply master her first. After that of course any pilot would describe her as a pleasant flight, but firsts steps... I'm not so sure.

 

Whatever, I still think it's too soon to so much discuss about smoke yet.

 

S!

[Trimmable options speed?]

Positive means right, negative left. First you have to decide what speed and manifold pressure you want the trim work (mine is 1.1-1.2 ATA for instance, cruising at ~450Km/H). Once decided go with 0 0 setting and look what do you need, so look at the ball. Now first use rudder trim until you perfectly centre the ball at the desired manifold-speed. Once perfectly centred you will notice how much aileron torque and rudder setting asks you to keep a levelled flight, so set the aileron until you're hands-off. That's all. Now look if you like the new setting or you would like a different one since it will affect you through all flight envelope.

 

Do not try to calculate anything, just try mate, 1 or 2 points a time. As I told you I use +10 rudder and -4 aileron, so you can guess how it works with a minimal amount.

 

S!

[Why is the Spitfire Mk IX still unstable??]

Trust us, he is not describing a 'Chuck Yaeger' version of pleasant, the Spitfire is loved by all it's pilots and they are not all 'Chuck Yaegers', I have never read an account of a pilot not enjoying the Spitfires handling qualities and if there are such accounts they are in a very significant minority.

Of course, but "they enjoy" doesn't means the Spit isn't tricky to fly. Look at the 109 forums with people complaining because somebody said once the 109 is pleasant to fly while they don't find the pleasure anywhere sitting in front of a PC... Lets see what the module is when it's out of course, but look at this thread foreseeing troubles we don't have yet :huh:. It's so complicated describing an own feeling about how this or that aircraft flies I don't think arguing so much beforehand is any good based on that.

 

S!

[Why is the Spitfire Mk IX still unstable??]

Well I look forward to seeing the results and hope that the DCS Spitfire Mk9 will be just as pleasant to fly as most pilots who have had the pleasure to fly it in real life seem to agree on. :smilewink:

The problem with that is, what do you call a pleasant flight? In a Chuck Yeager scale anything is a pleasant flight, while less gifted pilots would call the same experience a hell. A single sentence like that can't be any help in the module development and any of us should take those as matter of fact without further explaining what actually means a pleasant flight to the guy saying it.

 

S!

[Belsimtek DCS F-5E Tiger II,]

ya me veo yo los videos tipo top gun :D

 

A cascalaaaaaaa :lol::lol::lol:. Qué buena la versión asturiana, aunque el mejor es el Xilecu de Fierru.

 

S!

[Belsimtek DCS F-5E Tiger II,]

soundtrack....yo le habria dado mas caña....como la que le dare yo con mis R3R

 

Copiada lejana de Top Gun. Está claro que pretenden vender mucho con el tirón del MiG-28 .

 

 

Módulo precioso desde luego, el teatro de Vietnam está más cerca.

 

S!

[Trimmable options speed?]

You've to try yourself, but I don't think you can just trim the same amount in both and expect that to be a compensated trim. I've tried -4 aileron +10 rudder myself and it's hands-off stable around 450Km/H...

 

So probably 6 6 is quite unstable because you're trimming rudder a direction that will force you holding aileron while trimming aileron even more in the same direction. I'm not sure you understood how it works.

 

S!

[Elevator Locks Up: I suspect due to compression at overspeed]

I suspect elevator locks up and freezes solid at overspeed.

 

The elevator trim still functions adequately enough to rtb.

 

I did a search within the 109 group here. I only found one guy talking about it:

 

Message #106

http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=135100&page=11

 

Anybody else experience this?

 

Thoughts?

I haven't tried in 1.5 again, but in the old version I performed some high speed dives test just to see myself how it performed compared to the German diving tests papers out there. I noticed no elevator locks at all. Can you further explain the conditions you found that locks?

 

 

Jcomm is right about the trim limits, but the ultimate reason is a controls inversion happening at really high speeds due to compressibility where you would've to pull the stick to keep the nose down (and push to recover can be guessed) so trim is limited to eliminate that control inversion possibility. That's clearly seen in the German dive tests charts. A controls lock is mentioned in those papers but related to a wrong kind of high altitude freezing grease in the trim screws that was changed after the trials. AFAIK that's not modelled in DCS module, may be any 1.5 change?

 

S!

[WW2 era trainer?]

The one I fly is a 1942 N2S-3 Navy version, not quite as tidy as the one in your video, the Stearman is pure flying pleasure though.

She's a beauty mate!! I love the Stearman. I've to give a try myself, will call you next time I'm around England :smilewink:.

 

S!

[WW2 era trainer?]

Definitely, I would like to be able to recreate this is DCS,

 

 

 

S!

[Will I have my Spitfire for Christmas?]

I don't think any soon after seeing IA 1.5 state (although we don't know the internal development state). But if we think about other modules 109 was released not way longer after we first saw some screens like the 1.5 Spit is. Let's be positive :).

 

S!

[I cant fly a loop or Cuban 8]

At the risk of embarrassing myself, here is my Cuban 8... full disclosure... I am not an acrobatic pilot :)

If you where an aerobatic pilot I would tell you next time look for some reference, wing tip is fine while zooming. But even though you aren't it's a nice Cuban 8, I thought it couldn't be done :smilewink:.

 

S!

[WW2 era trainer?]

A good start would be to implement the multicrew feauture for the TF-51. Don't know if the backseat is modeled well enough for that though.

Yeah but it would be for a stroll only. The thing is TF model existed as double control trainer, but DCS one doesn't feature a real TF but a civil doubleseater model. Anyway as mentioned earlier it would be helpful for newbies if you can ride along with them even without controlling the plane.

 

S!

[Bf 109 K-4 vs Fw 190 D-9]

Is this a fishing trip? It sounds like it.

May be :lol::lol::lol:.

 

S!

[I cant fly a loop or Cuban 8]

Possibly "stall turn" is a climb at 75-80 deg and then tail slide?

Well, if we talk about strict aerobatics should you don't zoom a perfect 90º straight line to the vertical it's wrong and "anything". We of course can call it a try :). But if you don't get the 90º, is it a wrong hammerhead or a wrong wing over? :smilewink:

 

 

 

S!

[I cant fly a loop or Cuban 8]

I was wondering what you both meant by "stall turns", and I see the nicely done hammerheads in the vid :lol: :thumbup:.

 

S!

[Bf 109 K-4 vs Fw 190 D-9]

Whatever, semantics :smilewink:. I didn't said Dora isn't an improve to Anton, I said still she doesn't match Americans and she doesn't. So, what's the discussion about?

 

S!

[Bf 109 K-4 vs Fw 190 D-9]

Have you take a look on the Dora vs P-51 performance graphics? Sure Dora improved performance since A models, but mate as a high altitude fighter still she was a step behind compared to Americans (as much as I like her though). The idea behind Dora wasn't just "improve" A model but match or surpass American fighters. Was it achieved? :smilewink: As you said, that's Ta152 reason.

 

S!