effte

Oh, I dunno... WP, high velocity bullets, all those bullets designed to fragment, jumping mines... Then you have anti-personnel lasers, those area denial mines which string an area with trip wires, cluster bombs, FAE, various NBC weaponry... Many contenders for that particular title. I think napalm seems horrible to us more due to the fact that most of us can relate to getting our skin burnt one way or another, but very few of us have experience of the discomfort caused by having your guts shredded by a fragmenting bullet, our flesh torn off by high-velocity bullets or having WP fragments burn while embedded in us. Sorry if I made someone lose his or her appetite, but this is what we simulate after all so we should be able to talk about it openly.

Now, that's a brilliant quote to have at hand when people refer to eyewitness accounts referred in books and magazines as sources for technical or operational matters.

I read his tech posts first! :D

I think he is saying that the TGP weighs 300 kg but he thinks it should weight 200 kg. That's just my interpretation, of course, and I can't really place it in any hierarchy... Manufacturer says 210 kgs, so if it's 300 kgs in the simulator it is worth looking into. Could be that the A-10 installation comes with a hardpoint adapter or whatever, bringing the weight of the installation up - I'll leave that to those in the know.

When we forget it when leaving the aircraft, we do. Especially if performing a last minute check of the aircraft with the prop turning and having our notes blown all over the runway. Or so I've heard. A friend of a friend told me... :pilotfly: (OTOH, cockpits usually do not come with the desks commonly situated nearby computers. Desks have in various simulations and live trials been found to have excellent properties when it comes to supporting advanced data management tasks, such as using a notepad. ;))

Yeah, once the RPMs pick up to the point where the magnetos give enough spark to ignite the mixture, the booster spark will spark behind the flame front in mixture which has already burned and thus will not support combustion again, so it will have no effect.

Not a stability problem per se, but an imbalance problem. You're correct, you have to switch tanks every now and then.

When calculating center of mass (CM) changes, the CM is the thing you are concerned about. The center of pressure, while giving a rough indication of the general whereabouts of the CM, is irrelevant. If the data is in the books, the calcs are trivial. Just find the maws, the CM coordinate, the mass change(s) and the coordinate of the mass change and we'll know the CM movement. No time for the research but happy to do the calcs unless someone else beats me to it. It's an area I'm somewhat familiar with. :)

I vehemently disagree! The take off roll is no time to be heads down staring at instruments, save cursory glances to verify power settings and check airspeed. If you cannot do it without reference to the libelle, you're Doing It Wrong. Besides, the ball is all but useless on the ground. If it has damping, it is too slow. If it doesn't, it'll be all over the place. By the time you've picked up enough of a yaw rate to show on the T&B gyro, you should already be headed for the grass. Then there's the small matter of picking up what's going on outside. If this doesn't apply in the sim, well, it should. In addition, in real life it is much harder to switch focus from heads-down to heads-up, due to the quite significant time delay refocusing your vision. Try it, refocusing from a speck on the window to the outside world and back. Some systems which required rapid switching have had cockpit displays focused on infinity to get around this obstacle.

Tailspin, my comment was directed entirely at the simulator, in which the tail wheel seems to be something you Cannot Do Without - and that's the crux of the matter. In real life, you and me both know it isn't so. We very much agree. There's some work to be done. :)

Try same with tailwheel unlocked. It's the tail wheel providing directional control which makes the difference, far as I can tell, so hell breaking loose on raising the tail isn't due to precession kicking in but rather to the wheel coming off the ground. I'm still leaning towards the fin/rudder somehow being under-represented aerodynamically, possibly in combination with propwash modelling, or tyre side loads being overmodelled. As long as you keep it pointed roughly in the right direction, it seems more or less OK to me, along with the effort it takes, but as you start getting it sideways I just do not find the behaviour believable. Cheers, Fred

lubey, above a certain altitude the MaP will drop with RPM reduction, as the combination of altitude and lower engine (and thereby supercharger) RPM will prevent the supercharger from providing the requested MaP. Cheers, Fred

I hear you often fail to maintain constant altitude on the downwind? :music_whistling:

Screw up in the traffic pattern once too many, and you're taken off the flying schedule and made a forum moderator... ;)

Stumbled across an interesting article, PIREP on the T-6, a while ago. Some highlights: But I reiterate my previous statement that it's probably WIP and we should all remain calm for now. :)

I corrected that for you. :thumbup:

And if you put the prop in the grass with power on, the blades should bend forward. Yup, that's what they dp in real life. Can't say I'm expecting this to be modelled though. :)

Or a wind sock in F1 view?

Both methods are found in real manuals. Both work in DCS.

Acceleration doppler? That's new. ;)

Polished insides of the wheel well doors? Seriously?

Hehe, yeah, I have the dubious honour of operating an old bike or two with mechanical ignition. Retarded better, as it won't stop itself by firing too early during the compression stroke, but you'll notice it if it is delayed - which is my point. I'm guessing running the V-1650 off the booster coil retarded 25-30 degrees should be noticeable. Right now, it isn't. Gonna try to find someone who knows his Merlins and ask. Correct or not, it's hardly a high priority issue. :)

sobek, by all means be as argumentative as you wish. A good discussion of these subjects is beneficial for all parties involved. Besides, discussing aircraft is fun. :) Timing can offset it obviously, smaller cylinder volumes makes it less of a concern. There's cost, complexity and weight in the other balance. A lot of the work going into engine design these days is working on the airflow and mixing in the combustion chambers, which is really another means to the same end*. What you are really after is a controlled pressure rise as the flame front(s) propagate through the mixture. We can probably leave it at the fact that an engine designed with two plugs will perform worse on one? I'm approaching the limit of my knowledge here - I use engines and mess around with them, but so far have not found anyone willing to pay me to design them, unfortunately. Cheers, Fred *) You can have a look at the length engine tuners will go to in order to clean up the airflow as well - it's rather extreme!

Yeah, I figure we're way too early in the open beta to start getting our... ahem... socks in knots over this. We can, probably should and certainly will discuss it, but I'm not going to worry much about it for now. Wags' signature is a good one. :) Just right on the TIR. I have my TIR enabled at all times, but the G head movement was on very briefly as it darn near did me in!

Awesome!!! Gonna have to pay you guys a visit. I think I'll wait out the olympics debacle though... (Perhaps you can spare the time to tell me if I'm correct or way off the mark regarding the ignition system in this thread as well?) Cheers, Fred