effte

...and remember that you have to hold the button for a second or two to get the missile off the rail.

He did. When he was given pointers, they weren't the 'right' ones, so he had a go at those trying to help. He's also been told why it isn't the best of ideas. Now he has deleted his own posts in the thread he started in an attempt to hide what a horse analogue he was making of himself, making it useless and confusing. Expect to be negrepped if you do not provide exactly the right kind of help. Just a heads up on what to expect. :bye_2:

The manual is wrong! I have charts!!! Downloaded off the interwebs, based on three not completely unrelated anecdotes retold half a century after the fact by a probably German test pilot who back in '43 flew an aircraft which shared certain switch positions with the MiG-19 which should be fairly close to the MiG-21. The data was gathered by three thousand shakespearean monkeys with typewriters in an obscure forum related to kitchen appliances. The charts were then fudged to make it feeeeeeeeel right. Some of the monkeys had actual typewriter experience, so the charts cannot be wrong! (They're also drawn with three perpendicular green lines in blue ink and contain the shape of a kitten.) You are such a fanboi. I bet you wish you could spend your entire life just trying to make a member of the team behind the aircraft comfortable. :D Cheers, /Fred

You just have to remember to perform all level bombing in knife-edge flight. No, seriously, they are pulling your leg. The nose cone does not move sideways in the real aircraft. That is a bug. In the real world the aircraft moves sideways, as the nose cone actuator is hooked up to the airframe and not the other way around.

These are your ILS CDIs, course deviation indicators, for glide path (GP) and localizer (LOC). The bars are flight director bars, telling you how to manoeuver the aircraft to center the CDIs if you can't figure it out for yourself, to put it bluntly*. Do yourself a favour and stow the FD bars while learning to do it the right way - then use them at will and as required. Cheers, /Fred *) The more diplomatic wording would be 'if you need to reduce cockpit workload'. You should be able to fly on raw data .

You tell him! Who is that guy you quoted anyway?

DCS Repair (which didn't do anything, according to the log), cleaning out the export statements, cleaning up among the config files... something did it. Going to have to try to backtrack here to isolate just what the issue was. Prime suspect would be the exports. If I figure it out, I'll update the thread. Rgds, /Fred

Hello, I've been staying away from the P-51 for a while. Now when I decided to take it up for a spin, I get to the mission briefing with the 3D world running in the background, looking around with TIR etc - everything is great. Until I hit 'pause/break' or 'fly' and unpause the simulation. At that point, the simulation crashes and drops me back to the GUI - every time. I've removed and reinstalled the module from a fresh download. I've ditched all my old control mappings. No change. Probably something well known, but I can't seem to find anything on it. 64-bit windows, plenty of RAM, all other modules work fine. Built-in missions, generated missions, own missions old and new - same thing. Cheers, /Fred

The issue with paved runways isn't one of energy dissipation. A grass runway is not exactly spongy, so no significant help there. The benefit of grass w/ regards to taildraggers is that you have less friction. For a given side force, you have a significantly larger slip angle (i e the tyres go more sideways) or, to put it another way, you get less side force for a given amount of getting it sideways. You can get away with being significantly more sloppy on grass than on concrete/tarmac in a taildragger. On the downside, many grass runways will give you a roller coaster ride to remember. When you think you have landed, the runway disappears from under you... :D

Well, the sun 'flipping over' does seem to be a good indication that there is in fact a correct, round, earth model. :music_whistling:

Voted 'yes', as I think it would be misinterpreted if I voted 'no', as in 'I only want it correctly implemented, leave the fudged version for game mode'. In fact, the current implementation makes the aircraft difficult to control on the ground if you actually use the controls as intended. You turn the pedals and then modulate the brakes to get the turn rate you want - but then you have to back off the pedals to avoid having the fake NWS turn your aircraft too much! This means you have to modulate the pedals with the braking, to avoid symmetrical braking. The faux NWS has to go, and soon. As for the fellow above who wants to use the pinky switch "for authenticity"? You're replacing an analog lever activated with several fingers for a pinky activated digital button. And this in the name of authenticity, as the button is in roughly the same place in the cockpit?! Well, to each his own... Cheers, /Fred

Average speed != maximum speed. :vertag: And open source material in this field requires one to be vary of equipment versions (as always) and the fact that published data is what they want the world to believe regarding the capabilities of the product. Not that I see much reason to fudge the time to target value in this case. Is it the same version though?

Well, if a roll to the left can be confirmed, we know it is not right!

Yes, alpha <=> AoA. You control alpha through the stick. Kidding aside, the stick is in many ways effectively an AoA selector. Now, that's not the proper answer to your question though. For a given weight and level flight (or the approach, which in this regard effectively is level flight) a given airspeed dictates a given alpha in order to keep the weight of the aircraft equal to the lift generated by the wings. In other words, you can affect your alpha by changing your airspeed, as the weight of the aircraft is typically constant. Cheers, /Fred

While I certainly (and with some emphasis!) don't think this is a showstopper , I will add my voice to those who find it very annoying indeed. It is a real switch, present in the real aircraft, which affects the simulation in a way it would not in the real aircraft. That breaks the immersion for me, however slightly. I certainly leave it alone, but this means I cannot follow the proper procedure for the aircraft - breaking immersion. The same arguments which are used for this switch having this behaviour could be used e g for using a spare switch somewhere to control labels on/off, or other game functionality. Let switches be switches, and use the game interface for controlling the game aspects - such as the configuration of the aircraft before stepping into the cockpit. I think the loadout option route is the correct one to go, but I wholeheartedly agree that it is not something to spend manhours on at this point in time. (FWIW, I'd prefer not to see hot rearming/refuelling as well - except for those few aircraft and situations where it is normal procedure. I far prefer to exit to the GUI and start a new flight, as that is what you'd do in real life. Having hot rearm/refuel is, for most of this simulation, catering to the air quake crowd. Some will feel offended by that statement, but that is the truth of it. :vertag:) Regards, /Fredrik

Affirm on the LP. I'm curious about that gate myself. Perhaps that is something which should be simulated, as I take it to be a physical gate akin to a flight idle stop.

If you were to land it at 400 km/h, your tyres would explode. The wheel limit speed is 330 km/h - do not touch down above it. No chute above 320 km/h, or you risk facing the far threshold sans a chute and at a high rate of speed. Being sloppy with your approach and landing speeds is a cardinal sin in aviation, quite literally in many cases. There's a safety factor, of course, and it may not be modelled at all (yet), but exceed published limitations and you are a test pilot. Do you have the right training for that job?

Having a magical entity equipped with a grease pencil to mark out your current position on your kneeboard, even though you yourself are utterly and completely lost, is gaming in my book. You couldn't do that in the real aircraft, right? No matter if it is in the game manual or not... How to do it: Note down the course and distance of each leg. Calculate the time enroute for each leg. Fly courses as noted, correcting for wind and other factors, for the time calculated. If you are able to eliminate all errors, you will get to where you were headed. Now, eliminating all errors is the tricky part which there are books written about. Short ones for PPL level, Very Big Books for oceanic navigation in the pre-GPS era. One of the first means of eliminating errors is to use easily recognizable landmarks for turning points. Get within visual distance of the landmark, correct course, fly next leg - repeat. In real life, depending on requirements, you can calculate your actual winds from preceding legs and make better estimates as you go, you can correct for course and ground speed errors on the legs etc. With a bit of practise, it can get to be a rather exact science. That's probably beyond your requirements here though! There should be good tutorials available online. Try to find some and post here. If you're not successful, I know a few good ones but they'll throw you straight into the more exact versions so are not exactly what I'd recommend for someone just starting out.

I'd say there's unlikely to be a direct link to engine power (or lack thereof). It's linked to the compressor compression ratio over the stages preceding the bleed air ports used for the BLC system - entirely different from the thrust output of the engine. If they actually model the pressure rise in the engine, there could be a link. More likely, it is merely a function of RPM and atmospheric conditions. You'd have to dive into the code to know. I find it unlikely for the system to contain a valve for abruptly cutting the bleed air supply for the BLC as pressure drops. This means that you won't find a single RPM below which you have no BLC and above which the system is in full operation. The loss of functionality will be gradual, at an unknown rate, with reducing RPM. I would expect there to be a pressure regulator capping the output pressure so it will only increase with RPM up to a certain point though. (Advisory for those who lack the ability of critical reading: The above contains assumptions.)

The (main) issue isn't the amount of lift generated, but the amount of torque around the roll axis. The outboard portion proportionally provides a lot of torque due to the moment arm. The lift distribution will change with the loss of the outboard portion of the wing, making the remaining stub the new outboard portion with less lift per foot due to spanwise flow. Hence, the lift loss will be greater than the lift on the now departed outboard section. An aircraft can fly with X % of one wing removed. The opposite (remaining) aileron 'simply' has to deflect up to dump enough lift for the total moment contribution of the outer part of the remaining complete wing to equal zero. The overall alpha then has to be increased in order to make the remaining lift equal the weight of the aircraft. The limitations will be a) When you cannot increase alpha to keep lift equal to weight any more without exceeding the critical AoA (stalling) b) Running out of aileron authority, ie when the fully deflected remaining aileron is not able to dump enough lift to give you zero rolling moment. Both of these will be airspeed dependant, i e you can generate more lift and have more aileron authority at a higher airspeed. To put it another way, you will stall at a certain airspeed (which will be higher than your normal airspeed) and at another airspeed you will run out of control authority to counteract the roll. The question is: How much wing can you lose at the airspeed you are able to maintain - not "can it fly". Any anecdotal evidence of the feasability of flight less part of one wing is pretty much useless (F-15, FW-190 with a smaller wing section lost, model aircraft), as it tells us only that it is indeed possible within certain parameters - and we already knew that. We cannot extrapolate to the case of losing the amount of wing depicted in the OP. If we remain within reasonable limits, the estimate of an aeronautical engineer and pilot is that there would be no way for the aircraft in the OP to fly, even if restricting it to the flight dynamics perspective and leaving systems damage aside. Unload and enter a near-vertical high-speed dive, yes, some resemblance of control may just be maintained until the rather violent impact with the ground. I do not believe anyone will be able to show calculations showing otherwise.

The roll problem was due to issues with the BLC cutting out on one wing. Specific F-104 problem, not a general problem with the system concept as such. Cheers, /Fred

Slaved gyros will continually adjust to magnetic north, as long as they are in slaved mode. No reason to suspect the MiG-21 to be any different here. Also, @carrolhead, in approach plates headings in general and the final approach course will be in magnetic. In other words, using true is what would introduce an error. If you had a fleet using true as primary reference, you'd have to create a specific set of plates. Cheers, /Fred

http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=2168310&postcount=17

As MKRs only radiate straight up, they all operate the same way on the same frequencies without concerns over frequency allocation. The receivers are always listening.

Magnetic is indeed the reference almost universally used, and it is a slaved gyro. The range of the MiG-21 is quite a few degrees worth of magnetic declination change. 5° off corresponds to a mere 30 km/h crosswind component - 16 knots - at 340 km/h, so if that will throw off your precision approaches I think you have a problem. Remember that we're not talking the wind at the threshold but the wind during the approach here. Cheers, /Fred