doright

47 pages later it finally dawned on me the obsessively clicking on Update DCS World won't do any good. Homer sized doh! Now I don't know where to redirect my obsessive compulsive clicking.

While someone might have a quick answer I would recommend saving then posting a track from a short mission where this happens and I sure we can help get your bombs on target. Have you tried it from higher and further out?

Exactly what I was thinking of. But This is Spinal Tap didn't come out till 1984 so the Warthog designer must have been a precog.

Kind of funny. The rudder adjustment cranks up to 11.

I as self-annotated King of the Emperors of the World, and if my opinion mattered. I would have DCS fix the know bugs (eg Tanking, multiplayer,...) and modeling shortcomings (eg cluster munitions) but not add any wishlist items. Then declare a good and finished baseline version that is fully functional and well modeled as to be reasonably expected. From then on additional content should generate a revenue stream for DCS without breaking the baseline. Want the addition of your favorite wishlist items, aircraft, graphic engine, or terrain, then it is reasonable you should have to pay DCS for their effort in creating the additional content. Additionally it is reasonable that a change DCS makes that breaks the baseline or newer payed content should be patched promptly without cost.

All the manual says is that in case of coolant loss expect engine lockup within 10 minutes.

Ah ha, I was keeping my stupendous logic carefully hidden away from public view locked away in my brain (locked away, muddled up, forgotten... all the same). The way I was envisioning it was the primer fuel not vaporizing until the power stroke, thereby absorbing some of the heat of combustion. Which lead to my statement about achieving the same effect with mp, rpm, and mixture alone. I do wonder though about the interplay of droplet distribution, surfaces, and localized mixture concentration during the compression and power stroke. Things that are bound to have an effect on flame front progression and surface heating, but aren't revealed in a simple thermodynamic analysis.

Oops. You are correct. I clicked on the wrong manual on the base packard merlin page. The priming and fuel air separator vapor return line seems to be the same, so no harm done. Just better diagrams in the Merlin manual vs the Packard one.

For the vapor return line see pg200 http://aviationshoppe.com/manuals/engine_technical_manual/merlin_66_67_70_71_76_77_85.html

Interesting. Good analysis. Now let me attack some assumptions. Mixture ratio assumes vaporized fuel, correct? So your assuming all the fuel pump through the priming system is vaporized. A test might be needed to confirm that. Second assumption that the fuel/air charge is uniform and heat is evenly distributed. The hot gases exiting the exhaust valve aren't really our concern it is the hot gases in contact with the other engine components. Is there a surface effect in play that an excess of fuel might cause to be cooler then expected? Again testing. Even here there are a lot of assumptions. What if I had a piece of 1K ice? How little is little? What if water was boiling on top of Everest or for Felix's pre-jump tea? Are we using laboratory dewars or household plumbing? Best thing about discussions like this I learned something new: http://http://aviationshoppe.com/manuals/engine_technical_manual/merlin_66_67_70_71_76_77_85.html pg 213 "Priming and Slow-Running" "An external piping system provides for injecting atomized fuel into the supercharger, the central delivery trunk, and both induction manifolds" So the Merlin does use atomizers on the primer fittings, and priming fuel being pumped in all over the induction system (post supercharging). A question that pesters me though is, could he have successfully achieved not excessively overheating the engine with throttle, rpm and mixture control alone. Something that would probably have to be tested out in advanced to find what combination minimized overheat yet produced enough power to sustain flight. Or even did he temporarily prevent combustion with an overly rich mixture thereby cooling the cylinder with the un-ignited charge. In which case would blipping the ignition have the same effect without expending so much fuel. Interesting questions that you would think the USAAF would expend a quite a few Merlins finding the answer to rather then losing planes and pilots that may have made it back if they had an answer.

And there is a nice thing called "testing" engineers relay upon because physics and the assumptions made to make it usable can not explain or predict all real world observed phenomena. Physics is great for getting you in the ball park though. I assume you having no physical practical experience testing this particular scenario and therefore no basis for describing the primer squirting (probably a more accurate word then injecting) as a misbelief. It may not conform to your biases based on your knowledge of theory. You do seem to have a good handle on the chemistry and theory of engines. But without testing I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss this experiment.

Well, I did say "with sufficient quantity". Is the P51 primer connection a high pressure atomizing injector nozzle? I doubt it (in fact I doubt there was a nozzle at all), so not really a fair comparison and also the difference you asked about. In the absence of other hard data I would have to give the benefit of the doubt to the pilot. He, after all, could observe first hand if his running the primer had an effect on engine temp and performance. Whereas debating it 70 years after the fact with no test bed in front of us is kind of pointless.

The difference is that compustion fuel is metered into the intake airstream prior to the supercharger. It should be throughly vaporized prior reaching the cylinders. Primer fuel, however, is injected directly into the intake manifold shortly before the cylinder. With sufficient quantity some of that fuel will still be in droplet form prior to combustion so it will contribute cooling from vaporization but will not be combusted.

But all that fuel is not combusted (insufficient O2). Even a "lean" mixture on these engines had more fuel then stoichiometrically required for the oxygen content of the air. That is why you frequently see flames at the exhaust stacks.

Circuit Breaker panel. Look up, left, and little bit aft from pilots seat. It is the only switch on that panel.

Thanks now I r edugmacated. Good to know those beatings with a stupid stick weren't permanent. I always surprise myself when I ask a question how often the answer is simple and right in front of me, I'm just not thinking in the right terms.

Is there a way to set a viewpoint at a particular spot then track your aircraft from there? Two reasons I would like to do this are, watch my Huey approach to hover over the numbers, and view from a ground target towards in coming attacker (aka as my A10C).

I modified the landing training mission to fail the gyros and airspeed indicators after 4 minutes. Enough time for one landing and t/o to get comfortable then things start failing. Not having instruments really forces your eyes out the window and has improved my approach to hover over the numbers. Just for fun I put a small chance of drive shaft failure in also, just to really make things interesting.

In the mission editor is there a way to set a failure for the altimeter and vertical speed? You can for the airspeed and gyros but I don't see one for the static system.

Wow I'm surprised I missed that. Good movie.

Well I've bitched in the forums before about frame rates and AMD hardware. Since the latest catalyst drivers and DCS 1.2.6s I've seen marked improvements in frame rate. So thanks ED. I really enjoy playing your simulators, consider it money well spent for hours of entertainment, and look forward to purchasing Nevada and edge package. I also like the new trend(?) of more frequent small focused patches. In the long run I see that allowing consistent improvement with less unintended breaking of other features. And if some function is accidentally broken, it should be easier and quicker to correct after it is spotted by the community.

Don't confuse double throw with double pole. Double throw is usually ON-OFF-ON type configuration. Or in A10 terms ARM-SAFE-TRAIN. Double pole means the switch controls two different circuits. Not a whole lot of use in a pit, unless you using one circuit to signal the game, and the other circuit to control something in the physical pit (maybe flood light switch). In interest of completeness single throw is usually ON-OFF like a light switch. Single pole means just one circuit through the switch.

I haven't been able to connect a A10C to a tanker in 1.2.6.18651 sp or mp. As soon as the boom gets in place the tanker immediately withdraws and announces refueling complete (kinda like my ex).

To poor to buy a Warthog yet, and I had just plain worn out the gimble mechanism on my decade old Cougar. I had a T16000M I used for precision flying, but it doesn't have near enough buttons and the base buttons aren't very handy. So I thought why not put the Cougar stick handle on the the T16000. The results: Conveniently all that was needed was a short piece of 1/2" copper pipe, a pipe hanger (anti-torque in handle), some epoxy glue and an old cable. So now I have a system with about 1/4th of the advertised precision of the Warthog, but 16384x16384 is still great. The white goop is Molykote EM-30L lubricant which I highly recommend, its the same stuff Warthog users are getting off ebay. The extra stick length is great for flying Huey, and in general. The T16000m's spring is just barely strong enough to return the heavy stick to center when moved full forward. Note that the board holding the stick is slightly tilted forward to make full aft less awkward. The T16000 is still plugged in and so is the Cougar (base on top of my PC case). Since I was no longer using the X and Y axis of the Cougar I decided as a further mod to wire the throttle pot to the X axis to get the higher resolution of 2999 (Cougar advanced options) vs 256. So refueling is much easier now to find a good throttle position. Only issue seems to be a T16000 issue with the center position. It is way to anxious to call close to center, center. So if your slowly moving the stick forward towards center the readings will decrease towards 8192 but as you get very close it will assume you centered it and jump to 8192. So if you are still moving it slowly forward then it puts out readings as if you moved past center to nose down, same thing for roll (but not as noticeable). This made formation flying and tanking a bit more difficult until I thought of the easy solution of just add trim so I'm not working around center. Stick forces are light enough it isn't a problem. Creates some issues with getting the A10C or P51 trimmed out exactly for level flight, but still leaps and bounds better then a worn out Cougar.

Couldn't find any other mention of this so I thought I would post. For version 1.2.6 the PAPI for rwy 31L at Tbilsi is misaligned. Rwy 13R works fine. I was going nuts when I tried to run a couple of long Huey approaches down the papi and never got a white light until the runway threshold was almost in the lower window. So I hopped into an A10 and verified that yep it was the papi and not the pilot (unusual). edit: Looking closely on a stabilized approach using the 31L papi, it appears the far end of the runway (aka 13R threshold) is where the papi is guiding me. Fine for a Huey, but in a A10 going to be a bit short of runway.