effte

Asymmetry of lift due to airspeed (advancing/retreating blade) causes both rotors to tilt back. This is known as rotor blowback or flapback. The right/left tilt is due to the angle of attack increasing on the blades in the forward sector of the disc, due to airspeed and coning. Remember, all changes will happen around 90 degrees later in the rotation, due to gyroscopic precession. More lift on advancing blade -> Forward edge of disc tilts up. More lift on forward blade -> retreating side of disc tilts up.

Many of the real ones are available from EAD/Eurocontrol, and many of the rest from the Russian AIP. They've given up on keeping the EAD service away from flight simmers BTW, last I heard. http://www.ead.eurocontrol.int/eadcms/eadsite/index.php.html http://aviadocs.net/aip/html/eng.htm (I think you can download the whole Russian AIP as a single massive PDF as well somewhere.) Cheers, Fred

Use the rudder(s) to center the ball. Let the pitch ladder end up wherever it ends up. If you have a crosswind, it will be off from center when you are Doing It Right. This, i e the ball in the glass tube, is what you need to worry about - forget the pitch ladder. Just step on the ball and keep it centered. The one exception would be if you have an engine out, but I suggest saving that for later. :)

Then we get 'Combined Chores', giving you the experience of picking up groceries on the way home, cooking, cleaning and falling asleep in front of the telly. Hmmm... or was that called 'The Sims'? :huh:

bogusheadbox, yes, failure rate is way up there just after maintenance. There's also the (in)famous bathtub curve, showing how the failure rate of just about anything is at a peak when they are new, then goes down and only starts to rise again towards the end of the useful life of the item concerned. Very much a reality in aviation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bathtub_curve

Release before it's done, as the product-to-market time has been cut. Mmmm... DCS:Beer... I hope it will have full modelling and not be a light edition! Edit: The third party developer of DCS:B has just had the honour of having been selected for having me as a beta tester!

The speed bar shows TAS though, which increases by about two percent over IAS for every thousand feet above sea level. 926 km/h at 880 m ASL would be around 535 mph IAS, assuming standard atmosphere conditions. Edit: Correction: It actually seems to be geometrical speed, i e the absolute speed in an earth-fixed reference frame. I e TAS affected by wind but not GS as such, as it will e g indicate the true velocity in a vertical dive.

It's physics. Those inclined to stop reading at the mention of the P word can skip forward to the third last paragraph at this point. :) The ball is normally pulled down by the normal force (n_z), i e the force generated by the wings. In level flight, this is 1G. Then you have a lateral force (a force to the side), generated by sideslip, pulling the ball to the side. If the lateral force is equal to the normal force, the ball will be 45 degrees from the bottom position (had the glass tube been curved enough - let us pretend it is for now). Assume you are in level, 1G flight with enough slip to keep the ball at 45 degrees off the bottom. The lateral acceleration will equal the vertical acceleration, i e it will be 1G. 1G vertical, 1G lateral. With me so far? Maintain the sideslip and the lateral 1G, but push the stick forward, reducing the vertical force to 0.5 G. Suddenly the lateral force is twice as large as the vertical force, for the same amount of sideslip! The ball will now (or would, had the glass tube been curved enough) deflect to almost 65 degrees from straight down - for the same amount of sideslip. To get it back to 45 degrees, you would have to reduce the sideslip in order to reduce the lateral force as well to 0.5 g. In other words, the sensitivity of the libelle (the glass tube with the ball) increases with reduced G loading! Another way to reduce vertical (normal) G load is to pitch up or down. In unaccelerated flight at a pitch attitude of plus/minus 60 degrees, the G load is 0.5G. The G load decreases towards zero as the pitch approaches vertical. As the G load approaches zero, the sensitivity of the libelle (the ball) increases towards infinity. I e, any amount of sideslip/lateral force will have the ball at either end of the glass tube. (Physics disinclined readers - start here ;)) That's the theory. Now, that may be incomprehensible to a lot of people. Let us try to put it into an everyday perspective. Take your curved glass tube containing a ball. Place it on the desk in front of you, with the ends pointing up just as when installed in the dash of your plane. Now, tilt the table. How much will the ball move for a given amount of tilt? This is level flight, with the tilt of the table representing your sideslip. Now, put the tube flat on the table. This is the way it is oriented in a vertical dive. How much will you need to tilt the table to make the ball move to either end of the tube? Similarly, the sensitivity decreases as you pull on the stick in a hard turn or pull-up. Cheers, /Fred

Looking forward to that one. Thanks for listening! Care to elaborate on what was changed? Cheers, /Fred

Amen to that, having worked ramp, engineering, technical flight crew, maintenance etc... keep the aircraft out of reach of the pile-its, and everything would be much easier! :P (Production might just go down a wee bit though.)

The tail wheel is linked to the rudder via gearing, with limited throw. To unlock the tail wheel and let it swivel, push the stick forward. Try at low speed, and be ready to use differential braking to control the turn. Oh, and do post the track of your first attempt! :D

Hmmm... I think we need a poll over how horrifying the punishment should be for mistreating beer like that. :)

You could of course argue that attrition is a form of persistence in itself. Where do you draw the line between attrition and persistence? Are aircraft losses attrition, while ground unit losses are persistence. Stationary ground units - attrition or persistence? Firebases? FARPs? Mobile bridges on the roads? Installed across rivers? Stationary bridges? Mountain ranges? :D However, I still think we essentially agree and I do hope you are right regarding ED's take on it. Cheers, /Fred

Pitches up at first, then down again as speed decays? Normal phugoid, I'd say? Then you have a left rolling tendency which, as others have pointed out, is probably due to an out-of-trim condition. Can't see if you are coordinated or not, but I assume you were. Cheers, Fred

Nate, my argument was that you need persistence for a dynamic campaign. The bridge was an example to bring the point home. Now you're arguing that yes, you need persistence but not necessarily for bridges. Wouldn't it be much simpler to just say "yes, I agree"? :D Sheesh... what is it with the maps in this game? There are so many trees all over the place that you cannot see the forests!? If you destroy a bridge in one mission, leading to engineers being sent out while you are flying the next mission... that is the very definition of persistence. Bridge is still destroyed, game world acts accordingly - persistence. Of course persistence is not required per se for things not having a significant impact on gameplay. Every time I use an example in internet forums, I end up regretting it... :doh:

Aerodynamically, the A-10 has everything in common with other non-FBW aircraft in this respect. EAC would be the differentiating factor, and for the purpose of this discussion it is by-and-large irrelevant.

Once airborne, a steady wind will NOT affect the handling of the aircraft, in spite of what plenty of people on the interwebs (and, unfortunately, a few people existing in the real world) will tell you in great length and detail. :)

That's why I didn't have a go at coming up with one, but merely pointed out that in my view, persistence is a requirement for a dynamic campaign system. Opposing views explaining how you can call anything a dynamic campaign while being able to blow the same bridge to smithereens several times, or how you can make sure you cannot do that without persistence, are welcome. :) Cheers, Fred

I sense a terminology incompatibility here? Destroy a bridge and it remains destroyed in every mission from then on. That's persistence. How could you call a campaign dynamic if the same bridge can be destroyed in several consecutive missions? Cheers, Fred

You're correct, it's due to crosswind (assuming you're flying coordinated). For coordinated flight, use the rudder to center the ball (rudder towards the ball - 'step on the ball') and let the pitch ladder in the HUD do its thing. No way to force it to center in the Hog, unlike e g in the Viper.

I verified the ILS at Batumi as being more within specs than you would really expect back in the beta days. There's a thread on it somewhere, but I'm on a dumbphone at the moment. BTW, in official terminology (as specified by ICAO) the vertical guidance portion of an ILS is the glide path, not glide slope. Tell your CPL friends, half of them probably don't know yet... ;) @Zakatak, good man! It'll be a cold day in hell before you catch me dragging myself in on the three degree in anything with just the one engine, unless the situation dictates it (e g when on the GP). A few seconds of power loss is all it takes to ruin your day - there's never enough clearway! Four white is at 3.5-3.58. Thats a glide ratio of better than one to fifteen. Better have some speed to spare if you're flying the pink on the top PAPI! :)

But I did include an explanation this time! ;)

Viper, regarding the English, that was strictly tongue-in-cheek, seeing as how people from your part of the world managed to fail in the ICAO English language proficiency tests in spite of being English-speaking. The Stallion 51 vid is certainly not easy to replicate. Try it. In the real world, pilots with relatively few hours total, and very few hours on type, have been sent to fly these aircraft under abysmal weather conditions, under extreme stress, heavily loaded, from rough runways. Yet, the type wasn't plagued with take-off and landing accidents - unlike certain other types in theatre. Today, we see wheel landings and formation takeoffs being performed routinely, mostly by very experienced pilots but also by pilots with not all that many hours on type. We see the tails being actively lifted at under 60 mph by beginners without directional control issues. We see 20 knot crosswind takeoffs off concrete runways. All this in rare vintage aircraft which the owners are extremely vary of exposing to any kind of risk. This, you cannot replicate in DCS at the moment. There is a difference between what we are seeing in DCS and the real world. Taildraggers can bite, and they will if you give them an excuse. However, most people manage to do thousands of flights in all conditions without ever really getting into trouble - including on this particular type. However, as I feel the final release is still some way off, with the team hard at work, I think it is way too early to get all upset. It's what I would expect at this stage. Keeping the (perceived) issue on the table is all I want to do at this point. We are spoiled though, as DCS:A-10C was pretty much spot on in the flight dynamics from the open beta release IMNSHO. As for details on what is wrong, all I can do is guess. To attempt any kind of detailing, I'd need to have access to engineering data (aero coefficients/moment arms, CM locations, tyre models etc etc) which I am not privy to. The best I can do is do my best to have those who do have access to flight model data know that I, from my vantage point, perceive a discrepancy between the flight model and the real world, in the hope that they will indeed have a look at it eventually. I do have a theory or two, with some in-sim data I think backs them up, but I'm not quite done thinking there. To post them at this point would be too far out on the speculation side of the spectrum. Directional stability is confirmed as WIP, apart from the rudder hinge moments? Can't find it in the official WIP sticky. Cheers, /Fred

Viper, I know that English isn't your native tongue, but I still would have expected you to catch the difference between 'easy' and 'possible'. ;) Now, post a vid of you doing that five times in a row, without relying on the VSI (another TLA for your enjoyment!) and without cheving up the first 450-650 meters of the runway trying to grease it on. In the vid, a beginner had it down (with a little help) in slightly more than 300 meters. Edit: Second vidm on the T/O roll - "There's 50, start pushing forward elevator". I expect that to be 50 KIAS though, rather than mph, as he refers to airspeeds in knots in the first vid and probably has a different ASI than original. Still, 56 mph. Pushing the tail up. No directional control issues. A beginner on the type at the controls, being coached to do it by a pro. Hmm. Also, prior to the stall: "Feel that little vibration? Pull a little harder." And then, departure. What more do you need to show that you can hold it on the ragged edge riding the buffet? You have to have that camera shake? :D Moot point though, I think we're getting it soon. Cheers, /Fred

Haha, no kidding! And then there's the "I've never flown outside of my armchair, but flying a pure-bred fighter is bound to be difficult and this is difficult so it must be right" crowd. :D