Kalashnikov63

Thank you for your very well informed reply to my extremely wry venting of frustration. Re: the Cessna/Fishbed quip, I was just being sarcastic, as it didn't refer to braking, it referred to a self-destruct command:. Personally, if I wish to self-destruct, I have a great key combo; LShift+Tab+RCtrl+Enter+B+L+A+H+B+L+A+H+B+L+A+H. I program it into all the planes I fly; all the way from Cessna 172, to MiG-21. My son flew the Tomcat from '99 to '04, if I remember right. Good night.

I haven't Played the F-14 module since I got it, as the instructions were easily the worst of ANY module DCS sells., and I have better things to do than try to figure out omissions and errors in documentation - someone was paid to do it, and did it poorly, so if DCS wants it done right, I'm available, for the appropriate fee. Upon flying the F-14 again, I made some very interesting discoveries; the new F-14B can not only hit, but, if you manage your energy carefully, it can sustain 12+ g-force loading, at speeds ranging around the middle-high 400 knot ranging, giving it a turn circle the size of a donut! Depending on which energy state you approach your turn from, that will determine how high you can hold the airframe loading. The best results seem to come from approaching the turn from just below corner, and adding energy. Attacking from above corner might result (depending on your loadout) in runaway thrust, changes in wing geometry, and therefore a departure from the variables that combine to determine corner speed. Honestly, this is absurd! My son flew an F-14 off the Nimitz, and when I asked him what the maximum airframe loading was, he replied; "...seven or eight Gs. We had such a large flight envelope (due to the swing-wing construction), that we would say that some planes fly faster, some slower, but never both." He also mentioned that there was a certain degree of care that had to be taken with extreme loading, as, while the wing box was machined out of a single piece of grade-5 titanium, we were advised against high airframe loading at minimum wing sweep, due to the resulting torsional forces on the wing box pinions. He also mentioned that some of the greatest care had to be taken again against vertical stabilizer flutter. In a high-speed/G turn, the vertical stabs would flutter so badly, that they ran the risk of either complete, or partial disintegration. To make a long story short, 7-8 G-forces were perfectly adequate for the F-14B, as the improved engines, excellent flight envelope, excellent turn radius, and exceptional rate of angular displacement at moderate speeds, made the aircraft a formidable dog fighter. Now, to turn on my computer to find a single F-14 thrashing 4 F-16s, or 4 Su-27s, pulling 12 Gs at 460 knots, well..... let's just say it strained credibility. I don't know what's up at DCS, and I know that *I* couldn't write a combat sim solo, but it seems that certain choices have made some modules less entertaining , and more aggravating to operate, forced us to re-learn basic commands, and just plain frustrating. To those arm chair pilots who naively parrot ; "...Oh, but they do it for realism...", I must ask; now how did I miss that, I wonder... Tell you what; find a real aviator (such as myself), and ask him/her what kind of mouse they use to fly their aircraft. Also, ask them about which keyboard key combination they program for things like landing gear deployment, trims, etc. Also, ask them how large of an opening they cut on their windscreen cover, so that they can't see anything peripherally as they fly. Personally, if I wish to self-destruct, I have a great key combo; LShift+Tab+RCtrl+Enter+B+L+A+H+B+L+A+H+B+L+A+H. I program it into all the planes I fly; all the way from Cessna 172, to MiG-21. I hope someone got the point. I turned to Combat sims after my health problems made it impossible to pass medical, and thus obviated my ability to operate an aircraft solo. Back then, graphics weren't what they are know, but over the years, DCS/Fighter Collection/Eagle Dynamics began introducing module-type packages the were suppose to be more "realistic". Sims can only be so realistic, and I respect that; my reason for purchasing my first one was the promise of the most accurate flight physics, which is a realistic effort to program into a module. But the plethora of commands which all activate the same function on different ways, on different aircraft, is too much. All aircraft have landing gear; all have the ability to turn on the ground; all have brakes, etc. A bit of standardization for commands will help customers feel a bit more ease about getting into the learning curve. Sims are NOTHING LIKE actually flying an aircraft; but at least they can be reason to model correct flight model response, and relax the learning curve a bit. And in the meantime, if you want something that corners like an Me-163 and rockets out like an X-15, have a look at DCS' F-14B - and see if you can get a two or three semester online class to teach you how to operate their ridiculously complex, over sped instruction manual....... Kalashnikov

Will you include any interface to allow us to do FFTs on the incoming waveforms?

Hello, Is there some separate site where a manual for the M2000 is available? The training videos are often inconsistent with their instructions, and I still can't get the guns to fire - no matter how many times I map the various functions to my X52. Can anyone please offer an edification on how to deploy the DEFA for AA use? Thank you very much.

...Your map is as close as I'll get to the Perito Moreno Glacier and Lake Argentina; well done!

Happy flying! I enjoyed the conversation and reading your posts! if you ever find yourself looking for a replacement for the x-52, VKB controllers gladiator series are pretty widely regarded as the best bang for the buck, it doesn’t have a dedicated throttle though (just a slider). Likewise! And I'll look into VKB controllers as a possible replacement! I'd like to go back to a setup from my early days in flight, when I used a home sim setup, with HOTAS, rudder pedals and a few dedicated slider/switch inputs, to practice for one topic or another out of Jeppesen. Unfortunately, such setups are prohibitively expensive these days.....

Part of my problem is the fact that I'm trying to operate a P-47 like a P-51, and the latter is no more difficult to liftoff than a Saratoga, which many private aviators operate today. The P-47, on the other hand, is a different animal. The P-51's Packard V-12 revs a bit higher, and generates quite a bit less torque than the Pratt & Whitney 2800 Double Wasp, which, when combined with the 4-bladed paddle prop used late in the war, is both a torque, and p-factor nightmare. I watched the Corsair takeoff repeatedly (I assumed it was running a late-war 4-bladed prop), and I could, without exaggeration, literally detect the points at which the entire airframe was being twisted about its longitudinal axis, after control surface errors threw the plane out of dynamic equilibrium, by the massive torque of the Double Wasp. Keep in mind that torque and horsepower are related by the value 5250, so if a Double Wasp is making 2,100 hp at 2,700 RPM (about 4,100 ft/lb. torque) imagine how much more torque it must be generating than the Packard V-12 in the P-51, which only generates 1,700 HP (MAX) at 3,000 - 3,100 RPM (only 2880 ft/lb. torque) Last but not least, a BIG thank you to those who threw their hats into the "Controller" ring. My X-52 must be 30 years old by now (yes, I'm an old timer!), and when I took a look at the axis behavior, the "Y" (pitch) axis would spontaneously, without warning, jump its values up and down. It's often too quick to notice, but I'm willing to concede that if I'm approaching a critical AoA, and it glitches that way, it could easily disrupt the dynamics of the model, and cause the code to "think" that I had quickly pulled back on the stick, and precipitate p-factor hell - but not so much on the P-51. Thanks to all for the conversation!

Respectfully, that is incorrect. Three-bladed propellers are significantly less prone to the effects of p-factor than 4-bladed propellers.

Hello, I remember that on some topic that clip was analyzed, that torque factor is near non at high power take off speeds that roll is induced by other factors and it is the last thing what happens to the plane. Respectfully, I do not understand the relevance of the clip. As the text indicates, the pilot committed several errors during liftoff. They didn't point out excessive AoA, that, despite the fact that earlier Corsairs had a 3-bladed prop which reduced p-factor, to me, this is not just a control surface issue, it was a failure to control both the torque and the p-factor of that particular aircraft. Which was caused by failure to compensate for both torque and p-factor, and incorrect pilot inputs. Stalls are a result of incorrect operation of an aircraft; they don't appear from naught.

Hello, This topic was grilled so many times across different planes that i can not count them already. I will just repeat that feelings can't be entered in to code. They can fine tune code from pilot notes and tips but changing P-factor by 75% is like making a new FM from start. Not an easy task like moving p-factor slider which does not exist. I do not know what language the coders are using - my guess is that it is a "C" derivative, with possible binary data fields that read into defined functions. Defining functions is one of the quickest way of modeling a mathematically defined behavior, and functions can either be recursive, or interdependent, again, dependent on the language used to program the sim. I would think that p-factor behavior would be best modelled through a defined function, with arguments derived from both local and global variables to return what we observe. Again, I have no knowledge of how they are programming the sim, so I am ill-prepared to pass judgement on the degree of difficulty involved in modifying that effect. If you poses documentation about P-47 flight tests which contradicts what is in game, sure you can drop it here and i'm sure that devs will take a look. Not on the P-47; I have never flown one. On the P-51, a far more ubiquitous aircraft, with many still flown today, I do. But I am inclined to opine that if ED's coders wanted my input, they would ask for it, especially after I offered it. It would make little sense to scan dozens of pages of documents to post on a discussion board, that no one asked for. I remember that on some topic that clip was analyzed, that torque factor is near non at high power take off speeds that roll is induced by other factors and it is the last thing what Torque is a function of a great number of things that require the use of partial differential equations to properly model, but in a nutshell, it is a result of the engine trying to turn, against the inertia and drag of the propellor, which is resisting the torsional forces created by the engine. What many miss, is that torque effects are most pronounced at the time when the balance between twisting force (torque) of the engine, and resistance thereof by the propellor CHANGES. If the forces are in dynamic equilibrium, there will be no torque effects, but during power/IAS/drag changes, the struggle between the engine trying to spin the propellor, and the latter resisting, results in a change in total angular momentum, and a rolling moment. Good point.

Just to be clear, if you experience left yaw when you pitch forward to lift the tail in your takeoff roll this is gyroscopic precession. Pitching forward/lifting the tail would actually reduce the contribution of p-factor in this instance — resulting in a right turning tendency — as you are reducing the disparity of AoA and speed that the blades are experiencing between the left and right sides of the propeller disk compared to the more nose up three-point attitude. Absolutely correct. The problem begins after the aircraft is situated at near zero AoA, and the landing gear lift off the runway; when I am pitching up slightly, past about 5 degrees AoA, which is what has me nearly convinced that it is p-factor. I don't say "certain", because in the pure sciences we say that certainty is the enemy of progress... I am curious, are you maintaining a three-point attitude for the entirety of your takeoff roll? If so, I would suggest you transition to a more nose-low takeoff attitude earlier in your roll and work on maintaining directional control through that transition by easing the nose down smoothly and deliberately, with an appropriate amount of right rudder to compensate. The aircraft should lift off on its own in this attitude, and there should be very little contribution from p-factor for the remainder of your takeoff. No. My takeoffs start as you're describing, then transition to a zero AoA segment, with the tailwheel aloft, a few meters of altitude are gained, and then I pitch up. The exact same takeoff on the P-51 result in a normal takeoff; on the P-47, unless I walk on eggshells, I end up on the left side of the runway, in a ditch. Respectfully (to the coders), unless there is something amiss with my configuration (a distinct possibility), P-factor should be detuned.

Hello, Thank you for taking the time to answer and share your thoughts. First of all, you're quiter correct, in that differnt rigs, hardware, etc, can yield differnt outcomes in performance. >> Have you ruled out the possibility that there is some other cause for the result that you're seeing? I do not find that P-factor is a significant contribution to left turning tendency in any of the warbirds in the sim. Nor should it be, really: Significant p-factor requires a higher relative airspeed than what you would typically see in the initial stages of the takeoff roll, coupled with a high angle of attack -- but once you've built up such speed, you're typically no longer at a sufficiently high angle of attack (assuming you are raising the tail) that the speed differential between the down-going and up-going (retreating) blades is enough to cause significant asymmetric disk loading. << I'm confused as to your statement; p-factor is virtually negligible at high IAS, and is not a de-facto issue while turning - it rears its ugly head on liftoff, during high power and high AoA situations. It does not have a significant impact during takeoff roll, only immediately before, during, and after rotation. In the initial takeoff roll, the effects from the helical propwash should and do dominate, but not to the extent that it should overwhelm directional control with rudder, assuming your tailwheel is straight and locked. Have you confirmed your tailwheel is locked? Perhaps there is an issue with the control mappings of your rudder axis? Sometimes there can be double binds from other devices. There are also special options for each warbird module for "auto-rudder" and "takeoff assistance" in the main menu options you can double-check to make sure they are disabled and aren't interfering. The most severe instances of p-factor show themselves at the moment of rotation - as they should - which is after the tailwheel is off the ground. As you pick up speed in the takeoff roll the next big left turning tendency would be from the gyroscopic procession when you lift the tail off the ground with forward stick. If this is the point at which you start to lose control and veer off the runway to the left, try easing the nose down a little more gradually so you have plenty of opportunity to react and correct with right rudder. I'm quite certain that the effect at work is p-factor; it can be modulated by changing AoA, for better or for worse by increasing or decreasing. It sounds like you should have a firm grasp on pilot technique based on your background, so I've included advice regarding technique for others that may be curious, but sometimes the "simisms" catch the best of us, so I would encourage you to double-check the tailwheel lock, special options, and control bindings. Keep in mind that many folks fly the module every day without running into the problem you mention, many of them also pilots in real life, either for pleasure or as their day jobs. Hope this helps! Any erudite contribution to a raised issue helps, so yes, it does! To compare, the p-factor from the P-51 is at least an order of magnitude less than that on the P-47 model; minimal effort is necessary to correct for it, even when attempting the most brazen, high AoA takeoffs, and aerial maneuvers. I would not expect reduced p-factor on the P-51, as it also has a 4-bladed prop, driven by similar torsional forces. What truly perplexes me is the incredible UNDER-modeling of torque, especially on the P-47; with 20 crank pinions, the Double Wasp derivative installed in the P-47 was known to try to twist the airframe into a pretzel, when sudden increases in power were applied. However, I cannot speak intelligently on this topic, as I have never flown a P-47.

Respectfully, your technical team has severely over-modeled P-factor on the P-47. As both a commercial and private aviator, having operated both reciprocating and jet aircraft, I can assure you that no aircraft, not even a P-47 with a 4-bladed paddle prop, can generate the p-factor I've observed on your model. It is SO severely over-modeled, that it completely overwhelms the longitudinal thrust vector of the propellor. P-factor is certainly pronounced on an aircraft with such a large, 4-bladed propellor, and powerful engine as the P-47 has, but it should not violently, and irrecoverably, send the aircraft careening over to the left side of the runway, when AoA exceeds 4-5 degrees on takeoff. I have never flown a P-47, but I have had the privilege of operating a P-51, and can say that your technical team has modelled its p-factor in a realistic manner. Also, if anything, the 2800 Double Wasp and its derivatives, had tremendous torque, which is UNDER-modelled in the P-47. If you wish more information, I would be happy to send it, or, in lieu of such, I respectfully request that your coders reduce the p-factor function output by at least 75%. Thank you for your time. Sincerely, Dr. MDS, Ph.D., Applied Physics NASA/JPL Cassini Mission Imaging Consultant.