Echo38

Post it here?

... A baffling hypothesis. One can easily tell that an FC-level aircraft is grossly inaccurate, without having flown the real thing, if only because of simple things like real-life manuals. For example, an FC-level P-51D would have ~1 step in the startup procedure, as opposed to the ~24 steps in the real one ... an extremely obvious difference to spot, for anyone who's read the real-life startup checklist. Obviously, a manual isn't going to tell the whole story--far from it--but it tells enough to be able to easily spot major discrepancies between an FC-level partial-simulation and the real thing. E.g. one-step-startup versus two-dozen-step-startup. The only way that a simmer would be unable to tell the difference between an FC-level module and the real aircraft, were if he didn't bother to do the slightest bit of learning about the aircraft's operation.

I brought this issue to the attention of Yo-Yo several years back, in the P-51D beta, and he acknowledged that it isn't realistic. His explanation for why it's like this was ... confusing to me. Something about external sound levels needing to be the way they are for the sake of movie makers, but that doesn't make much sense to me, because DCS already has the ability to dynamically change the relative volume levels. I'm sure it wouldn't be very difficult to adjust the system so that your own engine would always (while in first-person view) "over-ride" other aircraft engines, causing the dynamic sound system to drastically reduce the volume of the latter. This effect could be turned off by switching to external view, so that movie makers are unaffected. I'm not the coder; maybe such an adjustment would be more difficult than it sounds. Still, the system's already there; seems like it would be a relatively minor adjustment. Addendum: here's the link to the thread in question: http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=94347 (I see he didn't specifically say movie-makers.)

You aren't listening to me. Stop reading in between the lines for a hidden message; there isn't one. I meant what I said--nothing more, nothing less. So, again: do we have another source to cross-reference with? I don't, and I'd like to. 72" was able to run, and was authorized to run, on 100/130. 100/150 wasn't required for 72".

I think you missed my point. My point wasn't that we should assume that it's wrong; we have no reason to do so. Rather, we should be attempting to cross-reference with other sources. That's the academic way of doing things, regardless of where the original source came from. Multiple sources saying the same thing is better than always the same source saying the same thing. That's the basis of research. So, my apologies if I didn't convey my point clearly. My point is not to undermine Mr. Williams' site as a source; my point is, we really ought to try to find another source with which to cross-reference. That's just how research is done, at least in academia. In other words: our position regarding certain topics would be stronger if we had two independent sources in agreement, rather than always falling back on the same one source. See?

"I don't always fly WWII birds, but when I do, I prefer Me 262." ("Stay airborne, my friends.") ; )

You know, it's an invaluable resource, and I've relied heavily on it, myself, but, is there anywhere else that this sort of information is available, other than Mr. Williams' site? I have much respect for the people who visit national archives & such, and make that information available to the public, as a voluntary service. However, I get vaguely uneasy about one source being always referred to, and I'm unaware of any others which could be used to cross-reference these types of thing. I mean, some of it can be found elsewhere, here and there, but it's extremely rare to find a large repository of it. I have no reason to suspect that Mr. Williams has an agenda, and I've seen nothing to suggest that he alters any of the document scans he posts on his site, or is selective in the inclusion thereof. However, if such were the case, or if any of the documents were erroneous for any other reason, how would any of us have any way of finding that out? My point is: are we overly reliant on a single source for the majority of our WWII aviation documents, on this subject? Cross-referencing is vital to ensure the accuracy of sourced information. Problem is, where else can we find this stuff?

Huzzah! And then, with some luck, maybe the P-38 ... but that was never confirmed for sure, alas.

I don't remember; was a flyable Me 262 confirmed, or was that the "next step" in the original plan (before RRG fell over)?

I've updated my previous post with a few significant additions. However, as of this moment, I've spent (wasted?) over an hour on this problem, and I don't feel like doing a research paper on the subject, for no significant gain, so: there's plenty out there to support (at least most of) my objections to the V-22 project's relatively low priority on personnel safety, particularly regarding the large "window" during normal operation where the aircraft is unable to safely deal with a complete lost of engine thrust. I've provided a few links, but I welcome you to examine the matter for yourself, and then decide whether you want to believe the USMC, Boeing, etc. or the whistleblowers when sources are in conflict. But even the invested parties admit that the bird isn't really able to autorotate.

I've seen numerous sources that dispute that, and a simple Internet search just now, using the string "V-22 autorotate autorotation," comes up with more I hadn't seen before. Time magazine is one of them. I can't access the full article, as I am not a Time subscriber, but here's a secondary referencing & quoting it: www.defenseindustrydaily.com/v-22-osprey-a-flying-shame-04822 Here's a link to the OT-IIG report: http://www.dote.osd.mil/pub/reports/FY2005/pdf/annex/2005v -22xs.pdf (remove the space from the link; I cannot get the link to show up properly in the post without it) On the other hand, my comment about gliding ability (at least under certain conditions) may indeed be uninformed; I'm seeing various glide ratios tossed about by various sources, with a large discrepancy. As it has been several years since I last examined this issue, and I didn't save any references from then, I must concede that I do not presently have a reliable source regarding the V-22's (in)ability to glide to a safe landings. The USMC seems to think that it should be able to glide to a survivable crash-landing, under good conditions (e.g. if it's already/still going fast when it loses power), but there's plenty out there to suggest that the USMC (and other invested parties) haven't been straight about the V-22. Case in point: http://www.wired.com/2012/10/air-force-silenced-general Still, even in the case of the Osprey being able to safely glide when forward flight is already established (still in doubt), there's no doubt about the matter when operating in VTOL mode, at normal altitudes for that mode. When you're behaving like a helicopter, below your fixed-wing-mode stall speed (and this is necessary for takeoffs and landings), then you'd better hope your engines don't get knocked out, 'coz you aren't going to get it down in one piece in that condition.

Many aircraft suffer from inherent design flaws, but to be held aloft exclusively by power, with no way to glide or autorotate (or even eject) in the case of loss of power, is more or less unique to this one. Most design defects in other aircraft hamper them in some way, sometimes even in the realm of safety, but not to this extreme. The aircraft's own manufacturer admitted that it can't safely glide or autorotate, so I don't know why I'm getting resistance on that point. "But both engines are very unlikely to fail at the same time, so it's a non-issue," is the official position. (And yet they have, and it's killed everyone on board each time.) It's true that there's no reason to not model a poorly-designed aircraft in the sim. I don't dispute that at all. I myself have no desire to see this particular one; I loathe the design, and I've stated why. If the (real) Osprey had ejection seats for all crew, and hauled only cargo instead of troops, then I could easily change my mind about the design. Other than the colossal safety issue, it's a very interesting aircraft.

What part of what I said is untrue? The lifting surfaces are insufficient to glide to a safe landing; there is no autorotational capability at all; there are no ejection seats. By Boeing's own admission, a complete loss of power while airborne will inevitably result in the loss of the aircraft, and they rely on quadruple-redundancy for certain systems for safety. They dismiss with a hand-wave the (very real) possibility of a complete power failure. Real-world results have backed up my position. At least two of these aircraft have indeed suffered a complete loss of power, with the unsurprising result of the deaths of all on board.

Can't glide; can't autorotate; no ejection seats. Loss of both engines results in unsurvivable crash; bad aircraft. Do not want.

Oh, yes! One of my top-five favorite jet aircraft. Well, other than the infamous overly-flammable engines ... but I guess you can't get away from that, with the very early jets.

[adjusts goggles] That ground crew can harmonize my Brownings anytime!

I think I remember P-38 pilots being instructed to do this periodically when cruising, for this reason. No source at hand; sorry.

Respectfully, who has more than a few hundred hours flying a virtual B-17 in any sim/game? It has to get old quickly, flying a milk truck like that, which mostly just flies straight-and-level over long distances. Dogfighting in fighters is complex enough that plenty of people rack up thousands of v-hours, but flying a bomber? I don't mean to step on anyone's toes; really, I don't. But it really always struck me as comparatively whimsical, these wishes for a playable bomber. It'd take much more work to create than a fighter (because of all of the manned positions), but I'm pretty sure that the people who want it would tire of it much more quickly than we fighter guys tire of a fighter (which is, typically, never). Seems like a poor cost-to-appreciation ratio, compared to another fighter.

Unless I'm grossly mistaken: when comparing sustained turns, if FW 190 has the same rate of turn as P-51, but only when FW 190 is turning at a higher airspeed than P-51, then P-51 has a smaller turning circle, netting an advantage. Having a hard time with this, though. Is it even possible for two aircraft to have the same sustained turn time, but one have a higher best sustained turn speed (and thus wider turning circle)? How does this work? The latter has less lift, but also less drag and/or mass, and/or more power? Secondly, if my first sentence in this post is accurate, how would the P-51 be able to use its tighter turning circle to out-turn the FW 190, if it takes the same amount of time to complete that circle? Seems that the P-51 would just turn 360s inside of the FW 190 indefinitely, but without ever getting guns on target. But if that's the case, then what is the advantage of a tighter turning circle, in sustained turns? Is it, perhaps, that smaller turn radius matters (as well as turn time) in instantaneous turns, but in sustained turns, turn time is the sole determining factor? That doesn't sound right, either. I need diagrams. : ( Very difficult problem; I fly by feel rather than via maths, so I've never successfully analyzed this before. When two different fighters are both turning at their best sustained turn speeds, one simply out-turns the other, and I've never been able to tell (except in certain rare, extreme cases) whether it was by turning tighter, turning faster, or both. Even back when I was very good at dogfighting, I was never able to consistently feel which it was; I merely felt that I was gaining in the turn.

Curiouser and curiouser, cried Alice. Does the beta version let ED make on-the-fly alterations to variables, without updates being downloaded by the user? Headhunter, was 72" the exact figure for your maximum, or did you have to throttle back from e.g. Solty's 75"-from-damage, to get your 72"?

Does the beta version allow ED to make on-the-fly changes without the user downloading an update? Unless that's the case, I don't see how this could have been a test, without a second update having been downloaded to revert the change. Which leaves a bizarre bug as the only other explanation I can see. But, if it was a bug, rather than a test, it's an amazing coincidence that the figure would be 72", and the time of its occurrence a day after all the discussion about & request for 72". I am, of course, hoping it was a test. : D

https://xkcd.com/123 Heh-heh : D

Centrifugal force! That's something I've been overlooking.

Every flight sim/game I've used since the turn of the century has had padlock in some form, but in each one it works a little differently. I haven't used padlock in DCS, so I don't know exactly how it works, but if it works like it did in Lock On: Modern Air Combat (and I expect it does, because the rest of the camera system hasn't changed), then it will be a toggle rather than a hold-down-the-button thing. Look in your control bindings, under the view categories. You may need to use functions from the View category as well as from View Padlock, or the View Padlock keys may work without any further keys. I don't know; try it out. It probably will only work if you've already got the enemy aircraft within your unobstructed FoV.

The vector of Earth's gravity has changed, and is now pulling on the aircraft from the low side, rather than from directly below. This means that it is no longer aligned with the downforce vector of the horizontal stabilizer. However, this indicates to me that a skid would be caused*, rather than the slip which I was (years ago) told to expect (and which slip appears to occur in DCS, as well as most sim/games). Which just makes me even further confused. On one hand, several things (e.g. some real-life sources, tests within DCS) indicate that there should be (e.g. in aircraft designed prior to modern balancing methods) some slip during an established bank with ailerons & rudder neutralized. On the second hand, Crumpp & others state that there should not be such a slip (at least on "normally"-balanced aircraft). Finally, at the third end, my own (doubtless flawed) examination of the vectors indicate that there should be a skid, rather than a slip, during said established bank with ailerons & rudder neutralized. So, what am I missing? I think I've noted that gravity was not being accounted for in your explanation, but while I am in mine, it appears to do the opposite of what I've always believed to be the effect. Hence my confusion. The three different explanations involved have, for the necessary position of the rudder to maintain coordination in a steady bank, two at opposite positions, and one in the middle. * Clarification: to take an extreme example to demonstrate the effect, if the aircraft is banked 90 degrees, then gravity is no longer providing any downward (local coordinate) force upon the tail, but rather 1G of side-force. As such, the net total of combined downforce on the tail (stabilizer downforce + gravity's downforce) has been reduced, and so the tail should rise upward (still local coordinate, so into the turn, reducing the turn rate). But the gravity vector is pulling from the side, which should cause the tail to drop into the direction of the turn (and thus the nose to skid away from the direction of the turn). This is the opposite effect from the one which my real-life sources and within-sim tests indicate should happen. And Crumpp says that neither of those two effects should normally occur. So what am I missing? Maybe someone should draw some vector diagrams ... I'm having great difficulties with this. Adverse yaw is easy (aileron deflection = adverse yaw, no aileron deflection = no adverse yaw, regardless of anything else), but the rest of it is tricky, because of things like gravity and local-vs.-global, and turn-vs.-climb.