Echo38

I'm having a difficult time parsing this question--too many inversions ("double negative"). The least draggy situation for the trim tabs--all else equal--is to have the trim tab on the same plane as the elevator (trim tab "centered," or "level" with the elevator). However, that is not generally going to result in a desirable attitude for the aircraft if you take your hands off the stick. Even level flight isn't usually as simple as having the elevator and trim tab level with the wing. Power settings, CoG, airfoil type, etc. all determine what the aircraft is actually going to do in that situation. An example: say you want to execute a steep sustained climb. The best situation from the perspective of drag alone would be to keep the trim tab level with the elevator, and simply move the elevator back to maintain the best pitch & speed, and, once they are achieved, hold the elevator in place to maintain them. However, that would be quite tiring on the arms, and letting go of the stick would result in an abrupt departure from your desired flight path. This is why we trim during our climb, accepting a minor additional "bend" in the airflow (and thus an increase in drag) in order to prevent our arm muscles from becoming overworked. The point of trimming a real aircraft is not to reduce drag; it is to reduce arm muscle workload, to get the airplane to stay at a more or less constant attitude without constant force being applied to the controls. In a flight sim, trimming the aircraft may effectively reduce drag, but this will be a side-effect of the user no longer making as many micro-errors which increase drag. These micro-errors are mostly due to differences in translation of trim from an analogue to a digital medium (e.g. twitchy plastic gaming joysticks). Not a problem in a real aircraft (stick & cable ones, anyway), if you have a steady hand (and assuming we aren't talking about such high stick-forces that your muscles are near their limits); the problem in the real aircraft is simply the aforementioned muscle workload. I really don't how I can fully explain it to someone who's only used flight sim-games. I kinda feel that you pretty much have to have felt it for yourself by flying & trimming a real airplane, as well as having visually observed the effects of moving the wheel on the trim tabs. P.C. flight sim-games, by their inherent nature, portray trim poorly. Even DCS. This is not the fault of Eagle Dynamics. It is the fault of the P.C. medium: we are not feeling the strain of the real airflow on our real arms as we hold the real stick, and feeling that force diminish as we move the real trim wheel toward a trimmed setting. No amount of simulation can replicate that feeling. It's similar to attempting to simulate pain: no simulation can do that. This is why trimming is one of the most misunderstood aerodynamic phenomena in the flight sim community. (I suppose that commercial force-feedback gaming joysticks can replicate some of this feel, but only for low stick forces. Their mechanisms are incapable of handling high stick forces; they'd promptly break from your pull, or else unrealistically give way to avoid breakage. They're shoddy & ill-constructed, and aren't designed for realistic stick forces such as those experienced during untrimmed high-G turns.) Better phrasing of these points is welcome, as are corrections by the more knowledgable to any errors I've made.

Here's a little illustration I made a long time ago which depicts how trim works on real aircraft; sizes are not to scale. (Where it says "no drag," that isn't entirely accurate; there's always going to be some drag on an aerofoil in an airflow. The point is that there isn't a deflection there to cause extra drag.) Do note that not all aircraft throughout history had trim tabs; IIRC, the Me-109 used a trimmable stabilizer instead, which works a bit differently.

I use the cross only. The marks below the ring are distracting to me, so I turned off the ring. I, too, find the gyro to be entirely unnecessary; with practice, a good eye gets the solution faster.

I consider DCS: P-51D a good bargain at its full price. However, if one isn't particularly enthusiastic about WWII fighters, then perhaps waiting for a sale might be best. Still, to anyone with a love for aviation, the sim should be worth at least the relatively low figure they're asking for it.

I'm glad to see people pointing out that you normally won't see flames on startup! I recall pointing this out back when CloD was in early development, and people pretty much shouted me down with videos of flames pouring out of the cowling. Yes, it happens sometimes, but not every damn time you start up the bird.

If you don't own a pair of simming rudder pedals with good toe brakes, then don't even try unlocking the tailwheel. Ever. Just leave it locked, and deal with being unable to easily make a tight turn while taxiing. If you have a good pair of pedals with toe brakes, however, then use a brake to get your aircraft straightened out when you want to lock the tailwheel again.

ITT not-real-aero-pilots dismiss the feedback of multiple real-aero-pilots. : / "Some aero champs do it sometimes" doesn't mean that most aero champs do it, nor does it mean that it is the best way to do it. "Some do it" truly fails to justify the simulated "everyone does it," wouldn't you say? Problem not solved. There's currently no way to turn off the head rolling without also turning off the other head movement effects, as Ecodragon already pointed out in one of his earlier posts in the thread.

The manuever he performed is quite possible, but--as usual--Dogfights's animation of it is altogether unlike what it actually looked like. History Channel never paid any attention to the physics when they animated the series.

With such a limited budget as aerial combat simulators allow (they have a very small market), you have to choose: fancy graphics but sub-par physics & aircraft simulation, or realistic physics & aircraft simulation but sub-par graphics. If you prefer the latter, enjoy DCS. If you prefer the former, the door is that way. If you demand both ... well, good luck ... that isn't happening anytime in this universe.

Ah, yes. I believe Flugwerk is currently producing small quantities of full-size approximate-replica P-51s. Not sure if there are any others.

I don't understand; you mean that a company Lauderback Brothers is mass-producting full-size P-51s now? Surely even approximate replicas aren't nearly popular enough for that. I did an Internet search for Lauderback Brothers and couldn't find a single thing. Mind expounding?

Not lazy, but rather a lack of requisite development resources. But, it's true that the damage model visuals are not one of the sim's strong points.

There've been multiple documented instances of real-life fighters missing half a wing and landing otherwise intact, from the Second World War to the modern day. I can think of a P-38, P-47, F/A-18, and F-15 off the top of my head, and I might've also seen an F4U and/or an F6F as well. It's surprising, but most of the wing area is devoted to "extra" lift (e.g. that which is required for high-G turns), rather than simply keeping the aircraft aloft. Rather little wing is needed to merely stay flying. The big challenge with half a wing missing is dealing with the differential lift (particularly during landing), but it's doable in real life. Because of the engine's torque, it would be easier with the wing removed on one side than the other, but during landing, power should be low anyhow. However, a go-around probably won't be possible once the speed has fallen to a certain figure, at least not with a prop fighter. Jet fighters, probably, what with the huge lifting body, ridiculous excess thrust, and lack of torque.

Barfly, that's very interesting. I recall the test on a (loaded? unloaded? I don't recall) Allison V1710 ended up running at WEP for a startlingly long period of time--I think it was ten continuous hours at WEP before it failed. I don't remember for sure, but it was nothing like fifteen minutes.

Due to my hand injuries, I am unable to fly flight sims at present. As soon as my hand is up to it, I assure you that I will be rejoining this excellent sim with all speed. If/when that time comes, I will investigate the latest view file system. Good luck.

There are indeed some relatively inexpensive pedals which have a nice, wide spacing. Saitek makes a pair--I don't know how good they are, but everyone I know who has them is quite happy with them.

Yes, I consider rudder pedals a must-have! But do yourself a favor and get a pair that's reasonably suited for fighter combat. http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=1710536&postcount=3 Do enjoy the P-51D! She's simply wonderful, isn't she?

Hello there! Glad to have another aero nut around. Can't have too many! : )

I've seen a few home-built (and two-thousand-dollar custom) ones which attempt to replicate mass balance and such, but I've never had an opportunity to try one out. There definitely isn't anything like this on the mass market, unfortunately. It would cost over a thousand dollars per unit, and there simply isn't enough interest to make it commercially viable. Peter's a genius, but most of us don't have the ability to make our own.

Yep, this is what I was getting at. Even the best simming controllers on the mass market don't come remotely close to the feel of a real aircraft stick. The springs alone are a problem ... nothing at all like cables attached to balanced mass, let alone airflow. And don't get me started on the inadequacy of current-tech force-feedback sticks. Barfly posted a similar opinion to Markwilliam's, and received cordial response. The difference was in the presentation, and in willingness to discuss rather than simply brushing responses aside.

Yes. Direct input means linear response (no curve) and no dead zone; it means that what you pull is what you get (assuming your joystick isn't malfunctioning). Pulling the real joystick back 10% pulls the virtual stick 10%, 20% does 20%, and so on, all the way to 100% & 100%. By the way, I'd like to point out that ZaltysZ is one of the best virtual pilots I've ever encountered throughout my thousands of hours in multiplayer flightsim games. I was also rather high-scoring back when I was able to v-fly regularly, and I also use direct input only. So, while it may take extra time to learn the basics, it's quite possible (and, I maintain, advisable) to learn to fight without curves--and even top world leaderboards. You'll be a little bit shakier in the straight-and-level, but you'll be a lot more precise in the turn, ultimately.

Barfly, bear in mind that the man ultimately responsible for initiating the development of DCS: P-51D, Nick Grey, is a real P-51D pilot. He kept testing the sim & specifying changes until he felt that it was right. Like I said at the beginning of this thread: blame our shoddy & grossly inaccurate hardware, not the sim. The solution lies in making the hardware closer to the real thing, not in making the software farther from the real thing. Two wrongs don't make a right, and all that ... By all means, let there be options for players to make their flight model less accurate to help them deal with poorly-engineered joysticks (and, recall, these options are already present), but the flight model must not be made inaccurate for the rest of us. Others (such as myself) would rather accept the immutable fact that a realistic flight model will be unrealistically difficult when using short plastic joysticks, and deal with it the hard way--by simple practice. Also, welcome to DCS. I hope that you will come to appreciate it as a miracle, as I do. Blue sky : )

Fred, are you trying to be incomprehensible? : /

No, they're API & APIT, I believe. While HE .50 rounds do exist (I think), they were not used in WWII aircraft.

Your rep is red because you are perpetrating fallacies and, when corrected, you ignore those corrections, declining to address them, instead continuing in your error as though they hadn't been offered. That's anti-truth.