effte

Yo-Yo, of course... sometimes, the important things are taken for granted! At least elevator trim is (should be) all but a must. Rudder, well... can live without having it on an axis, unless it is found on the T/O roll that it's forgotten on the pre-takeoff. But by then it's probably too late anyway. :D I'm considering finally getting the Saitek trimmer, as well as two more throttle quadrants. Hey, I'd have the full set of B-17 engine controls next to the Warthog*! And not enough hands/fingers... where's that Saitek eff-O when you need him?! Cheers, Fred *) And another suggestion for medication from the second officer, or S.O. as they're otherwise known

First off, never tried game mode - can't comment on whether it's easier or not. If it is easier, it will mean you having to relearn down the road though. It also adds a level of confuscation, not knowing when you are seeing the simulation trying to help you and when you're seeing actual helo behaviour. Easy, it is not. One of the first things to realize is that the DCS Ka-50 isn't trimmed for hover when on the pad (this is in the manual IIRC). This means that if you just haul up on the collective, you will in fact move rather than lift off into a stable hover. This is true-to-life. In real life, you'll rarely see no-wind conditions either, so it is something you may as well get used to. Ease the helo off the wheels, paying close attention to what it is trying to do as the weight comes off the wheels and correcting accordingly. RCtrl+Enter is good for seeing your control inputs, but you can't be staring at it or you'll never catch the cues you do need. Practise almost lifting off. Get the nose wheel off the ground, get a feel for what the helo is trying to do (make sure the brakes are off - RCtrl+Enter is useful here to make sure you have no control mapping conflicts), then gently reduce collective again and let her settle. Repeat until you are completely comfortable with this. Then start making small hops, just getting airborne and putting her right down again. Once you feel completely in control so far, start moving around in the hover. Forward - stable hover - forward - stable hover - left - stable hover - right - stable hover. Start turning, left and right, always returning to a stable hover. Easy does it. Finally, a word of encouragement: My own helo piloting experience comes exclusively from PC simulators. Jane's AH-64D Longbow, DI's Hind/Apache, the SAR series, FS (crap) and finally DCS:Ka-50. With the possible exception of the SAR series I, as an aero engineer/fixed wing pilot, find Ka-50 by far the most believable and challenging. A while ago, I found myself dumped into the RHS of a very high fidelity full simulator of a veritable whirlybird hotrod. 15 seconds after asking to skip the demonstration of the controls and have at it myself, I was asked which helos I'd flown before. That's a comment which I think ED should take great pride in. Those fledgling virtual aviators struggling with getting your heads (and hands, and feet) around controlling the Ka-50 can learn from the above: It is bloody hard - you're getting the full deal here - so do not despair. Keep at it, work it gradually and it will all come together sooner or later - and it will feel like sooner, even though very much later is the feeling you have when starting out. :) A good set of controls is almost a necessity though.

Engine management will be a shock to many avid jet p... eh, drivers. ;) RPM is the most needed control. The 51 has auto mixture. If there was anything I was disappointed in, it was the selection of an aircraft with quite a bit of automation. Manual mixture, manual variable pitch, manually controlled manifold pressure... that would have been fun! For a few... ;D

T'was just a case of Friday afternoon silly buggers. It can safely be ignored. :)

3 nm/1000 ft, if it is the same as in the real world. I think that's the one a mate of mine held the world highscore in forever... but he's a RL ATCO (meaning way too much time to waste on messing with it, rather than having benefit from training... :D).

Only you don't know where the JTAC is at*, or if the JTAC and the target are in the same grid zone. *) JTACs are to never give their own coords over the radio, under any circumstance. Hard-learned lesson.

You can mod your LUA files quite easily, as mentioned earlier in this thread, to add the grid zone designator. Speed posted the mod over in the mods section. In real life, the GZD is given unless there's absolutely no chance of omitting it causing a misunderstanding.

This one is still causing problems for people. How about putting it in the FAQ at least, if the cause cannot be found? Please, at least acknowledge the problem so we know it is on the list. Someone who's got EDs ear (testers) care to raise it? For every user who comes here to have it resolved, there's an unknown number out there who just plain can't get their simulator to work. I have a feeling they're not too happy. It applies to both DCS simulators. Cheers, Fred

You can shoot down a deep-frozen elephant at 0K with a Sidewinder, provided it falls through the air just in front of your pylon and you time it right. :D I'd expect early AIM-9s to have trouble locking onto a piston job doing anything but full blast with flames out of the exhaust stacks. Later all-aspect models, which can even lock onto the warm(er) leading edges of the wings, shouldn't have problems homing on a piston aircraft... but should have a much harder time locking than it would have for a dual blowtorch in full reheat. It's never either/or. :) Edit: Not sure that thing is what you want though. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flensburg_(FuG_227) Edit II: Just for reference, as it was an interesting read. http://www.hawkertempest.se/ElectronicWar.htm

Fan RPM is your performance indicator, but core RPM tells you more about how the engine is doing quicker.

No? Many altimeters have Kohlsmann scales that end at 1050 hPa. Not an issue if you jet straight up to the flight levels, but why risk someone forgetting the addition and having an incident for a peace-time exercise? http://www.thearcticsounder.com/article/1203sky-high_pressure_grounds_planes_at_otz

"Descend and maintain" is a yankism. They'll have to change eventually, just as with line up behind... We had QNH 1046 here yesterday. Cold day, alone, modest amount of fuel, sea level... turned the old spam can into quite a rocket! Flaps 10 takeoff after a T&G and the climb angle made me feel like I was in something quite a bit more potent than a C172! Density altitude of -6000 feet or so. :thumbup:

Ah, crap, they were on Megaupload... so that's out, obviously. To be clear: Are you asking about the limitations of the aircraft, or about the operational limitations on A-10 operations in the USAF/US ANG? If the latter, they could well vary between units, and perhaps even within units*. Raising the operational minima is one way to deal with less-than-perfect states of maintenance, personnel currency etc while maintaining a satisfactory safety margin. The aircraft xwind limits are 35 knots, with lower limits (30 with flaps, 25 without) in ferry configuration. Flight into moderate or severe icing prohibited. Cheers, Fred *) Bear in mind that the USAF is not my airforce, so I'm speaking rather generally and from an outsider perspective.

There's a link to the -1 for the A-10A in the docs thread, the flight manual. It should answer most, if not all, of your questions. New name, I think? Welcome to the forums! And nice choice of nickname. :) In short, off the top of my head: Xwind as per -1, IFR to CAT I, no known icing. Cheers, Fred

Bet the title got the attention of the mods. :) Anyway, ED need to refocus the development work from the P-51D ASAP. The easiest would probably be to upgrade a decade or two to the F-51D, but changing to a completely different aircraft could certainly be considered due to this catastrophic, earth-shattering major problem which I have discovered. Why? Very simple. Compare: DCS:F-51D Looks nice, dunnit? Now, this OTOH: DCS:P-51D Bloody ridiculous! As with all opinions expressed in this forum, the world will undoubtedly end unless ED does exactly what I want. ;) (Certainly a bigger issue than those of certain cheese-cravers.) Have a good weekend, fellow DCS nuts! Cheers, Fred

213, suggest reading the FAQ. :)

Yes, that's intense! Having your engine fail in the middle of a dogfight... (RoF is starwarsy when it comes to sound)

The A-6 would have had my vote, had it not been omitted. F-4? Lesse... no gun, you'd be depending upon an AI RIO to employ the systems effectively (which would be a never-ending source of annoyance - keep in mind the RIO will be as dumb as our current AI wingmen), can't really manoeuver? F-86 it has to be. Along with the P-51D, a nice Korea scenario going!

Hmm... the way you can say no is through not buying the product in question, in which case you are not a customer? Tougher still to be a poster in this forum. :)

IRL, no with an emphasis. The A/S systems of today are very good indeed. You will not be able to out-perform them. Check the -1 for A/S inop operations, IIRC it has some enlightening reading on the subject.

Keep practising, young grasshopper! :D The added challenge is what makes it fun.

Ah, I see that you have missed a very basic principle of How the World Works. See, it sometimes happens that what I say and reality does not agree. The basic principle, ranking slightly above Newton's laws, general relativity and the Grand Unified Field Theory when considering validity, is that in such a case reality is wrong. If you all just remember this things will get a lot easier around here. ;) PeterP got it. Same thing as with the whirlybirds. And PFIL.

Specific excess power is the power available to do things, per unit of weight of the airframe, once all the energy requirements of flying S&L are met. The SEP can be used either to climb or to turn. It is a good measure of the relative performance of aircraft. The SEP is usually represented by the rate of climb which can be achieved. The A-10C has twice as much of it as the P-51D. I often tell people that Real Aircraft have propellers. I maintain that jet engines only work due to a miscalculation, and that one day this error will be found and they will all stop. Yet I can't bring myself to believe your assumption to be true.

There, I corrected it for you. ;) Cheers, /Fred

What I usually see is TA specified and TL set accordingly and given in ATIS or over the radio. Wouldn't surprise me to find it being done backwards somewhere though. IIRC, S. Korea publishes both TA and TL...