effte

The RAF Mustang III manual says prop full forward... with some tables saying 2700 to confuse matters. As for lower RPM -> lower power -> lower torque, it's not quite that simple. Power is a function of torque and RPM, so for a given amount of torque you are getting more power at a higher RPM - and vice versa, more torque for a given amount of power at a low RPM. In other words, don't count on lower RPM giving you less torque to contend with, even if it does give less power.

This is what you've missed: http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=1409122&postcount=2 Enjoy your instrument flying - great fun.

Winders will do fine for a bit on their own cooling, won't they? Just hook'em up to the audio. Not that heavy, that I know for a fact. Edit: Still, the very thought of putting them on a Mustang is worth a thorough... dunno... but honey and ant hills spring to mind! :D

Oooooh... that conjured up images I didn't need!

Flight ace, good job at definitions. No objections, apart from the fact that you omitted the importance of choosing the right size bucket when you go to fetch more prop wash... ;)

In addition to all of the above, there's the in-cockpit sound and external sound and chances are they won't be much alike.

Not a rotary flyer, so take it for what it is worth, but I'm doing pretty much the same thing in the Ka-50 as in aircraft. Bank to turn, step to coordinate. Same same but different. However, I rarely look at the slip indicator as I find the beta wane out on the nose (the little 'flag') much more convenient.

Still had her doing 200 fpm at 41,000. Handling qualities are getting marginal up there though. Edit: Full ammo load and probably around 40% fuel remaining, so getting her up to 41,900 should be perfectly doable with a lighter aircraft.

Me not have Tarzan accent! Me fluent! :D I'm so jealous of the cost of tickets stateside. Here, once you have a couple of ratings just 'hanging on to the tickets' will set you back thousands of dollars every year. The administration has to 'cover the cost', they say. Expensive ink in those stamps. At the same time, a colleague of mine decided to renew his FAA CPL/ME/IR while we were at FAA HQ in OKC. Two bucks. Two friggin' bucks! The postage to send him the paperwork was more than two bucks! For the latest in Euro side lunacy, check out what it'd take for you to be allowed to fly here. Un-be-fricking-lievable, and I deeply apologize on behalf of our policy-breakers.

Everything is between the lines - except when you are thinking out of the box... ;)

G-Lock91, perhaps you could be a little more specific with your question and I'll be happy to clarify what you are trying to understand. :) I could explain every term and concept from the ground up in every post, but god knows that my posts are long enough to begin with, and I doubt the more technical matters will keep the interest of more than a few forum participants. There's also the question of having limited time to spend on the forum. Hence, I elect to write as I would among peers and rely on people asking if they are unclear about something they are interested in when googling the terms does not provide the answer. Some, strangely, call it semantics but I call it educational and time-effective communication. I think this crowd is rather well-educated, should not be underestimated and can handle a lot of jargon. :thumbup: Cheers, Fred

It was an issue with some gun installations. The belt feeds were modified to improve matters, with electrical motors IIRC. Can't recall if it was the Jug or the Pony though, but the wing profile and the DCS issues indicate it was the latter.

I know. That's why I wrote "a version of". Such a version would e g be a document outlining the known shortcomings/WIP. :)

I think the spelling of 'hinge moments' is also WIP... O:) That particular point explains the lack of proper trim and adds hope of a future force-based control model! I've been thinking to myself that ED should put together exactly that document Open beta without an open version of the bug tracker causes unnecessary grief for devs and testers/users alike. And look, it's been hidden there all along!

Mr. Wood Nymph, point taken, but I suggest moving that particular sticky up one level. Unless you've had a general question type bug to report, chances are you've never seen it. I hadn't, and still wouldn't have had I followed my mother's advice not to click on links provided by strange men online... :D

Looks like a VHF COM. We getting that Becker in the dash for A-10 interoperability then? ;)

Dito. I get upset if I find someone already sitting in my seat. See previouw threads on subject for reasoning as to why there are diametrically opposed views on this.

And what is the point of a beta? Yes. To find potential issues. For that to happen, pointing out perceived flaws is kinda important. If you don't, a beta is pointless.

There's significant caster to the tail wheel pivot axis though, which in real life gives it a tendency to align straight even when it is unlocked - as long as there is weight on the tail wheel. I have a sneaking suspicion this is not modelled - pending further testing. There also seems to be no modelling of the directional control provided by the propwash as of yet. The difficulty of keeping things straight on take-off and landing is plausible to me. However, the difficulty to get things back under control once you allow it all to go pear-shaped is probably WIP. If it was really this easy to wreck aircraft on the ground, the pilot's manuals would have page upon page with warnings and advice and there'd be no end to the journal footage and written accounts of aircraft going off the runways. The Mustang was considered benign as compared to the narrow-track Spit and Bf109, so imagine what they'd be in a crosswind relative to what we are seeing? I've never seen landing accidents listed as a serious cause of attrition in the war-time Mustang fleet - unlike for the aforementioned two aircraft - and pilots were sent to crud weather in Europe with relatively few hours on-type. As for handling qualities checks by real-life P51 pilots, real-life P51 pilots will all be very, very experienced aviators. They're not likely to react much to things being off once you get slightly out of shape as they'll never enter that part of the envelope. Compare it with the situation when the Swedish Saab J29 first entered service. Literally half the first classes of students were killed as they spun in on short final - yet this lethal trait of the aircraft had never been noticed during flight testing. Why? Simple. The snap roll problems occurred when you flew the aircraft with less-than-perfect coordination, which students are prone to but experienced factory and air force test pilots will simply never do unless specifically asked to. I reiterate - I consider this to be WIP and expect to see things change back and forth as the beta period progresses, so I try to take it at face value and not get too upset as of yet.

Smokin, affirm. You will never notice this in normal flight operations. You'd have to spend quite some time circling. It is very slow, as it only has to be rapid enough to prevent the drift from friction in bearings, gimbals etc from creating a significant error. You have had bad students, as apparently not one of them has questioned how the AI figures out which way is down in 25 years. This in spite of the space-fixed direction of 'down' changing constantly due to the movement of the aircraft and the rotation of the earth. ;)

Ooooooor you could interpret it as a developer willing and able to respond to customer demands and requests. Previous bad experiences with developers and, more frequently, publishers who would not change a thing, ever, unless they absolutely had to and often not even then, leads me to consider the quote a Good Thing.

Confirmed here as well, they're swapped.

Haha, allright. The attitude indicators in aircraft will, like any gyro, drift over time. To counter this, mechanisms are included which turn the attitude indicators to align with local gravity. Usually aircraft fly level most of the time, so this works well. The exception is when you remain in a turn for a long period of time, when the gyro will start aligning itself with the aircraft rather than the horizon. Stay in the turn long enough, and the gyro will indicate level - only to indicate a turn the other way when you return to flying straight ahead. This is usually not modelled in simulators, as it is an effect rarely seen.

Sorry. It is all my fault. I moved house, disconnected broadband etc etc etc. On the day when I dropped offline, DCS: P-51D was released. Yesterday, I got back online. Downloaded through a temporary GSM link. About two hours after I downloaded, whammo! New version. I'll be offline again for a couple of weeks during the next month. Great things will happen in the flight sim community for sure! :D

Kaiza, it is not precession per se, even if the mechanism makes use of precession. You apply torque to the gyro assembly in proportion to the local field of gravity, thus causing it to precess towards vertical and keeping it useful as a reference in spite of unwanted precession due to e g gimbal friction and other disturbance sources. It can be done in rather ingenious ways, e g through ball bearings on a rotating plate with slots they fall into causing an imbalance 90 degrees off from the tilt of the assembly from the local perceived gravity. The downside is, of course, that in a prolonged coordinated turn the AI will align itself with the vertical axis of the aircraft - as seen above. That's one reason we hold in racetrack patterns rather than in orbits. (Edit: Deleted hogwash about this happening in climbs.) @Sobek: It's also pretty annoying if you blunder into a cloud with your AI still out of whack to an unknown degree, as I did soon after taking the above screenshot. It can be noted that a) It is possible to fly ball and paddle in DCS: P-51D b) I suck at it. :D Cheers, Fred