Corrigan

Good find!

^ Yep, exactly. The bug here is that your head is able to stick through the canopy. I'm sure someone will tell you exactly where to tweak the movement limits in the cockpit, I can't check right now.

For what it's worth, it seems more likely to me that it's your BIOS or motherboard that couldn't run the card correctly.

That's not true world-wide. It's probably this week, though.

^ Outstanding.

Helsingborg is within driving distance. Does anyone know a good place to get pitchforks sharpened?

Right, I (obviously) meant turbulence from engine exhausts.

Flagrum, you seem to have an issue (and that's fine, I'm not insulting you) with the exhaust molecules rebounding or not off the chute. Let's say they stay very close to the chute: after a while, you'll have a region of high pressure, and a pressure gradient. Then, even if the chute is "sticky" like you think, you will have to have a flow of fluid out of the chute. I don't know very much about materials science (a few courses in solid state physics, but I'm a high-energy theorist), but I'm sure the gas molecules will not stick just because the chute is fabric/soft/bendy/whatever. That's a special scenario, which requires special circumstances. The general case is that the gas molecule will rebound in some direction with some fraction of its kinetic energy. I see no reason why that should be 0, and the fan-into-sail experiment (done by laymen, sure) seems to support that. Also, more on topic, I have no idea if this is modelled in DCS or if this behaviour actually is unintended (I suspect the latter since turbulence isn't modelled); all I'm saying is that it isn't as unphysical as the first few posters in this thread thought.

A obviously moves. In B, pressure builds up inside the tube until the fan can't compress the air anymore, after which nothing happens. But this has no bearing on the scenarios we're discussing. In both the fan-in-sail scenario and the chute (basically the same thing), air can escape. A region of high pressure builds in the chute/sail, and air is displaced out of it.

Just ignore him.

On what basis do you say this? And why does blowing into your own sail work if this paragraph is true?

Thank you, too. I found the dash-1 but it had no charts of this. It did have this: http://aviationshoppe.com/manuals/f-86_flight_manual/f-86.html Sect VI, p. 7 Nothing substantive, but it feels like they'd mention if the plane was extraordinarily insensitive to rudder turns.

Could you please go to the WoT forum instead?

That's quite possible too, I guess. The only real way of knowing is to do an experiment. All I'm really talking about is an idealized scenario (which is what a simulator needs to do as well). It's interesting to note you can easily make a boat-mounted fan blowing into a sail propel the boat (I think mythbusters did this once, but I haven't seen it). I guess we want to know what happens if you replace the fan with a jet engine. Intuitively, I'd guess "the same thing".

The best thing about this thread is that 220 people actually voted for the F-35.

Brake chutes and reversers are designed differently, yes, but that doesn't mean that a chute can't act as a crappy reverser. When your clay sticks to the wall, that's what's called a totally inelastic collision. You spend some of the kinetic energy the clay had to reshape it, etc. Molecules, when they hit the chute, however, basically collide elastically. That's why this situation is like case 3 in my wagon example and not case 2. Also, in your drawn chute, you can't just have an eternal density buildup inside that box. If gas escapes forwards (the way your nose is pointing) (we need to assume that the chute doesn't leak or break), you have that momentum we are looking for.

There's something funky with wind interaction, yeah. There's another bug report about the plane not responding correctly to crosswind.

Not to argue from authority, but I do have a degree in physics, so at least you know I'm not talking 100% out of my ass. The thing to realize is that the exhaust gas doesn't stop the moment it reaches the chute, but recoils from it. That's also the reason blowing a fan into a sail actually does work, only rather poorly. I'd also ask you to consider a thrust reverser and ask yourself what the difference is (conceptually there are none). Imagine this scenario: You're standing on a wagon, holding a ball. You throw the ball forwards, off the wagon, and momentum conservation in the system means you roll backwards. Now, imagine there's a wall mounted on top of the wagon, in front of you. You throw the ball against the wall, the ball stops dead and drops to the floor of the wagon. You'll impart momentum on the ball, and the ball will put it back into the wagon, and you'll have no speed after the ball has stopped. Ok, now the crux: You throw the ball against the wall, and it bounces off the wall and lands slightly behind the wall. Clearly, compared to the previous case, there will result a forward net translation. It's obviously much less efficient as a mode of propulsion than just throwing the ball backwards to start with (analogous to mounting the jet engine backwards in our case), but it does work.

Awesome. Looks like you had a similarly crisp, clear and beautiful (and warm!) autumn day as I did over here.

It should reverse. EDIT: I'll expand. Assuming an ideal system (chute doesn't break or leak, etc), and that all the hot gasses from the engine hit the chute, then applying throttle will result in a net backwards force. It's basically like a (crappy) thrust reverser.

The Sabre is such a stable aircraft that you generally need pretty much zero rudder to stay coordinated.

The A-10 might be a bad comparison since it has two barn doors for rudders. The point still stands without that comparison though.

Certainly: I expect, when I apply considerable rudder and keep wings level with ailerons, that my course should perceptibly deviate. It doesn't. Because I can barely even notice it when I apply FULL rudder. I don't have data, but in the sim currently, in my submission, rudder turns are completely impossible for any practical purpose. You can't line up approaches, etc. Again, I don't have any charts (couldn't find any) regarding what the performance should be like, so take this with a pinch or two of salt, but surely this can't be right. Further, considering that the F-15 would seem to have the same issue, it becomes more likely to me that BST's FM is a bit off in this area.

I think it depends on which country you play as.