effte

Those having pedal problems would probably do well to visit this post. Note that the VID/PID will only be the same as in that post for Saitek pedals, and even then the PID may be different for any other pedals than the Pro Flight set- yet unconfirmed. It would be nice to have acknowledgement that this is on the list of issues kept under observation by ED. It certainly provides a good obstruction for new users to bump their foreheads against right when the learning curve is at its steepest anyway. Cheers, Fred

Trevlig midsommar from the other side of the puddle as well!:thumbup:

And the JTAC callsign will be 'Ratsack'? ;)

Expensive? I shoot 9 mm pistol and assault rifles, and it's all for free... ;) Kidding aside, I just passed up on an opportunity to buy a. 222, opting for a .22LR instead for bird. Not only due to the ammo cost, but you get several times as many rounds for the .22 so it's a factor alright. Now I want to find a good, cheap shotgun but it seems I'm not alone in that market segment.

If you do, post screenshots of the ALS configurations and I'll have a look. I don't think I'll have time to check them in sim myself any time soon, but I do have access to the docs (being ICAO Annex 14, you may or may not be able to find it - it shouldn't be available unless you buy it but the net is the net).

Good to hear it is sorted. I saw the thread title and expected opinions on the flight model discussions in certain forums concerning other simulators... :D

Brakes are normally powered by the L hydraulic system. Lose the L engine and you need to pull the yellow handle to switch to a reservoir powered by R HYD to give you brake pressure. You will not have anti skid though, so opt for a long runway, AD brake and then brake gently. BTW, no real rush pulling the fire handle. Sort out the aircraft first, then pull - too many accidents have happened due to air crew focusing on broken systems rather than flying in the critical phase of taking off - and thats in multi-crew environments. You have another engine and a firewall.

For a VOR approach, you deal with the offset by flying a radial inbound which is not exactly aligned with the runway. The angle either has to be small, or it has to cross the runway centerline far enough out for you to line up and land safely once you get the runway in sight. No reason for a TACAN procedure to be any different. Remember, you don't just go up there and find a radial on your own. The approach has to be published for you to fly it. In other words, the radial to fly will be given to you in the approach plate, and you just do what it says.

+1 on what some1 said. I preordered RoF from the states, so I have been in on it since the very beginning. Now, as of last week, it has finally matured into a simulator which I actually care about. It took upping the view distances to where you are not a virtual incarnation of Mr. Magoo and creating a career mode which generates missions which actually seem to be able to maintain the crucial suspension of disbelief - but eventually they seem to have pulled it off! I'd say there is hope for CoD, but it will take time and, probably most crucially, a continued investment of resources in development. If the latter does not happen, we've been had...

QNH/QFE and altitude above MSL/AGL are two different things, even though using one in the first group will get you one in the other, so I would hope both are taught. :)

Oh no, that bird has a fragile gear. The normal procedures specifically caution that you must arrest the sink rate prior to landing or you may suffer structural failure. While I don't have hard numbers I trust on the limitations, the requirement for other (non-carrier) aircraft is probably a good indicator. 10 fps when light, 6 fps when at max landing according to a quick google of the FARs/JARs. 360-600 fpm. At 120 knots, you are doing 600 fpm down a three degree glide slope...

As a method of teaching, "power for sink rate, elevator for speed" is not bad. Gets students out of the "point the nose up or down depending on where I need to go.... ooooh, what is the ASI doing now?!" thing I guess. I just don't think it is of any use discussing the relative merits of the two ways of describing what is really the same thing in internet forums. :) As for landing without a flare - do not do it! You need to retard the throttles and pull that nose up in order to land safely! No aircraft, except carrier based ones and the Saab 37*, will withstand being slammed onto the runway at three degrees and approach speed. Lift the nose three degrees or so and reduce power, being very careful not to balloon up to a higher altitude with decreasing airspeed. Easiest is to leave a little power on and ever so gently let the airspeed reduce, but you will increase landing distance by floating down the runway. The manual calls for power being retarded to idle once landing is assured, but I find that this requires careful timing or you risk hitting hard - at least in DCS. Powering up is obviously bad and will easily have you floating forever. Besides, you simply cannot time it. The spool-up time of the engines is upwards of 10 seconds, and the rate of onset of thrust is likely to vary depending on the engines installed and how worn they are. I can't find a good reference for tail clearance at the moment, but the recommended rotation on take-off is 10 degrees pitch up so that's probably a good maximum figure. Shouldn't be a problem - if you adhere to procedures and approach speeds - and if you need more than 10 deg pitch for landing you are doing something wrong anyway. Probably holding off in the flare too long, going for the greaser. Just arrest that sink rate and then plant the mains. She's not fragile and she's not a taildragger. *) Now go dig up the few remaining types :D

A lot of the problems people are having seem to stem from an incomplete understanding of what trim is, what it does and how it does it. I take the liberty to copy & paste a post I wrote on the subject in another thread. But first, a few notes. You trim for an angle of attack. No ifs, no buts. You then use the stick to adjust the angle of attack of the aircraft away from the trimmed angle of attack. Depending on other parameters, this will result in a climb or a descent, but stick and trim are two parts of an angle of attack selector. Generally, I like to trim a wee bit nose heavy when on the approach, i e for a slightly lower AoA than I want to use on short final. I'll be holding positive elevator control pressure, or back on the stick/yoke, throughout the approach. That way, if it all goes pear-shaped and the neuro-opto-mechanical control actuator (that'd be me) loses focus, relaxing on the yoke/stick will lead to a speed increase and increased stall margin. Stalling out on final is all too easy if distracted, and it's a killer. If you are distracted, the natural reaction is to pull on the yoke. If you are trimmed neutral for hands off flight at the approach speed... well... inadvertently pulling back is bad. Real bad. However, if you speed up and go below the desired glide due to getting distracted, you are at least still flying and can either save the approach or go around and try again. Do not argue the "stick for speed" vs. "stick for rate of descent" issue. It's a moot point. That's for getting the students through early flight training. In addition, the best way to think about it differs between different aircraft. Eventually, you learn to fly and how to fly a specific aircraft, and you realize how it is interconnected and how you need to coordinate stick and throttle in the particular aircraft you are flying. ---------------------------------------------------- This turned into a bit of a paper. Important points italicized. The main focus is pitch control, but lateral (aileron) control is essentially the same, just in a less changing context. First off, Chops is the one who got it right. Think of trim as a helper to relieve the pilot of large and/or constant control forces. On many gliders, the trim is simply a bungee which can be made to pull on the stick with a variable force. Early implementations of trim surfaced during WWI. The planes were built for low speed flying and manoeuvring, which meant you had to push the stick forward to stay level at high speed during cruise. Pilots solved this with a bungee cord attached to the panel which they could hook to the stick. Voila! Instant trim! This, however, has its drawbacks. The elevator position, and hence the stick position, effectively determines the angle of attack the aircraft will seek. Google for "static stability" for more background reading - there's plenty. The stick (and the connected elevator) is an angle of attack selector. A constant angle of attack means that for a constant airspeed, lift will remain constant. Another way to put it is that as lift is (more or less) constant due to the non-changing weight of the aircraft, an aircraft will when stick-fixed maintain a constant airspeed. It will do this through adjusting the rate of climb, either at once or through a series of climbs and descents at decreasing maximum climb/sink rates (google "dynamic stability")*. A constant angle of attack means an aircraft which will seek a constant indicated airspeed. This stick-fixed behaviour is desirable. However, the stick force required for a given elevator deflection varies with airspeed. You need a larger force to keep the stick forward in a constant position at a higher airspeed. With the bungee cord solution, the trim force is constant. Hence the stick position will vary with varying airspeed. Not really what you want for trouble-free hands-off flying. Ingenious minds considered this problem and trim evolved. The trim tab was invented. Rather than pushing the stick forward manually to make the elevator go down, or have a bungee attached to pull the stick forward, someone decided to use the same aerodynamic forces which pulled on the bungee cord to replace the bungee cord. If you have a trim tab at the trailing edge of the control, it will apply a force to the control surface as it is deflected. This force will be proportional to the airspeed - just as the force on the main control surface. As the trim tab is deflected, the position the control surface returns to if left to move freely in the airflow is changed. Remember that the elevator position determines the angle of attack. The trim tab changes the position the elevator will return to if you take your hands off the stick. Trim tab deflection changes the stable hands-off angle of attack of the aircraft. Of course, to make the nose go up (increased angle of attack), the elevator has to go up (stick aft) and the tab has to push the elevator up. This means the trim tab has to deflect down in order to make the elevator go up. This is, as we have seen in this thread, counter-intuitive to some people. To raise the nose through elevator up deflection, the elevator trim tab deflects down. Now, as aircraft got bigger and faster, the control forces increased beyond what humans could achieve through control wires and pushrods. One way of countering this was to introduce servo tabs. These are similar to trim tabs, but automatically move as the control surface moves. As the elevator goes up, the servo tab always goes down in order to assist the pilot to move the control surface against the air flow. There have also been light aircraft where anti-servo tabs, operating in the opposite fashion, were used to increase the control forces and achieve better control harmony. Some aircraft have no direct connection between the controls in the cockpit and the control surface, relying on servo tabs to fly the control surface which then flies the aircraft. This too has drawbacks, so eventually powered controls were introduced. Hydraulic actuators move the control surfaces in accordance with commands from the pilot. All fine and dandy, except for the fact that the amount of control surface deflection needed, desired and allowable changes with aircraft speed. This didn't use to be a problem. The pilot's limited muscle force automatically limited control surface deflection at higher airspeeds, meaning x Newtons of control force created a smaller control surface deflection at high speed than at low speed. The physics work out so that the anticipated aircraft response to a given applied control force is reasonably similar across the speed range, albeit with a much smaller control deflection at the higher airspeed**. The controls are loose at low airspeed, and as speed increases they feel as if they are stuck in a concrete block. The aerodynamic forces on the control surfaces stop the pilot from applying large control deflections which would overstress the aircraft. With powered controls, the pilot could move the stick full aft at any airspeed and the elevator would go full up. At high airspeed, this would mean instant disaster due to violently over-controlling the aircraft. The pilot also lost the feel for the aircraft and airspeed normally given through the feel of the forces required to move the controls. This was solved through artificial control forces, or q feel (as the letter q is normally used to designate dynamic pressure, a fancier name for the part of air pressure felt on the deflected control surfaces due to airspeed) was introduced. Actuators are used to increase the forces required to move the controls proportional to the airspeed, just as they would be increased by air pressure acting on the control surface in a non-powered control path. (Another method, commonly seen in FBW aircraft, is to have a spring loaded control, with constant control force for a given deflection, but to limit the deflection of the control surface for a given control deflection depending on the airspeed.) Obviously, as powered controls negate the forces created by the airspeed on the control surfaces, they also negate the forces created by the trim tabs, rendering them useless for trimming. With powered controls, trim has to be introduced by somehow biasing the control system actuators instead. This is what we have in the A-10. Powered controls, with a trim system to change the control surface deflection at which the control force felt by the pilot is zero. However, pilots still need to be able to fly the aircraft if the hydraulics go out. Thus, the trim tabs are still there but are only used for trimming if the hydraulics are lost. In normal operation, they augment the hydraulics which also means they will be in more or less the right position if a transfer to a non-powered mode has to be done. On the A-10, the elevator tabs will act as trim tabs in manual reversion (lost hydraulics) mode, while the aileron tabs will act as servo tabs. No trim tabs on the rudders, as they should normally never be out of center for normal flight. Lose an engine with unpowered rudders and you can expect to have one tired leg upon landing, and try to find a runway without too much of a crosswind. You trim for an indicated airspeed, which the aircraft will then essentially maintain if left to its own devices (hands-off flight). Cheers, Fred *) Some aircraft are dynamically unstable and will climb/descend ever more violently. That's not a nice behaviour at all, and beyond the scope of this discussion. **) What you are really looking for is essentially a constant G load for a given control force, which makes things nice and predictable. You know what happens when you apply a given force to the stick, regardless of airspeed.

Or find the published information for the runway concerned, in which the threshold coordinates are given... :music_whistling:

Or you can subtract the aerodrome elevation from decision heights etc, which is bound to be more accurate. Just a thought... Edit: On the plates I have from the Georgian AIP, the height above the threshold (as per above) is in the plates, so no need for math.

The Navy is all probe and drogue. Tricky to fit a boom to anything which can fly off a carrier.

I know a rain dance which works. Unfortunately it looks exactly the same as the movements performed when getting on a bike*. For flying, the ritual is known as "instrument training". ;) *) That's "motorcycle" for the Atlantically challenged.

Batumi 131 true, sim and RL.126 mag published, 121 mag in the sim. Mag var 5E published, apparently applied twice in the sim.

See the final few posts of this thread: http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=73470

Except for the slight annoyance of there being no ILS indication in the HUD symbol, in DCS and in the real aircraft.

Trim system works the same as in a Cessna, from a pilot's viewpoint. Unfortunately it is one of those things which can't be exactly replicated using a spring-loaded joystick attached to a PC, so you have to trim and release the stick force as you do. What happens when you trim with the stick deflected? Nothing? If you hold the stick steady, the aircraft should pitch/bank in the direction of trim. Cheers, Fred

Only if it wasn't winter. In wintertime, there'd be no trains... :lol:

My first game was Revs+. :thumbup: And the amount of fun had with Stunt Car Racer and a null modem... whoa...

Command steering bars. The ILS course deviation indicators tell you where the center of the ILS beam is. Command steering bars are a flight director, trying to tell you how to pitch and bank in order to find the center of the ILS beam.

They work, but they are not the ILS needles. Caret to the left of the ADI and the deviation bar in the HSI are.