Crumpp

Yes, the correct amount of rudder to make a coordinated turn in maneuvering flight where the ball does not give you any useful information is just enough to rotate the aircraft precisely about the longitudinal axis. http://images.slideplayer.com/22/6400822/slides/slide_4.jpg You use the rudder to eliminate any movement about the vertical axis. That is coordinated flight. If you build that muscle memory for what "looks" right, you will not have to refer to the slip and ball indicator which is not accurate when maneuvering. It takes just a tiny amount of rudder input and leading the ailerons by a fraction of second. That is the purpose of doing the coordination exercise, to build the muscle memory to make fast coordinated turns required in a dogfight.

Stall warning does not always come in the form of wild fluctuations in load factor in the form of a harsh buffet. Many designers would like to stay away from that for good reason.

Did you read the conversation, Solty? Or are you just trolling? :music_whistling: True of any high performance aircraft. I saw the youtube video. I would chalk it up to history channel theatrics because the measured data says different. What the vets say is easily taken out of context and skewed to the producers beliefs. Test 1, Determination of Stalling Speed; Flaps and undercarriage up: The lateral instability that is warning them of an impending stall. Do we think we should be able to fly past it or it should not exist? It is part of the personality of the airplane. Use it, because the airplane will not turn tighter if you encounter it. It is about to stall. Great clue to ease the back-pressure on the stick and stay in the airplanes best turning portion of the envelope. That is normal slat equipped aircraft behavior. Because of how slats work in the physical world, makes the Youtube video producers conclusions highly unlikely. :thumbup: Which is why the RAE came to a completely different conclusion...one that is 180 degrees from the Youtube video producers conclusions. http://kurfurst.org/Tactical_trials/109E_UKtrials/Morgan.html Read the Spitfire Mk I POH and the stall behaviors, compare it to the measured data. In fact, the Spitfire would fail one today's test for aircraft maneuverability. That is the ability for the pilot to hold a precise load factor in a turn. Usually 3G's is test for how fast can the pilot apply 3G to the airframe in a constant altitude turn and how steady can he hold it. That is not Spitfire bashing statement and the Spitfire would not be alone in "failed to hold a steady load factor" category in World War II fighter.

Exactly. From what I know, the Bf-109 is a pilot's airplane.

Thanks. I am not much of desktop flyer until DCS came along. I am still learning. It's a case of way more time in the real thing than I do the virtual.

Exactly. Which is why folks stall out instead of making a defensive break turn.

Kind of yeah.... It is not steep turns and the airplane will not hold altitude or fly at a 90 degree bank. Don't even look at the slip ball. It is not accurate when the aircraft is in motion, only once a maneuver is settled. Look at the moments of the nose. The nose rotates straight around the longitudinal axis.

Here is the P-51 track. You can really see the directional stability issues of the bubble canopy Mustang. That is one reason why the filet was added to the design. It takes practice. I even added some top rudder a few times. In the track I did the same routine as the Dora: 1. Coordinated roll and turn Left and Right 2. Uncoordinated roll and turn Left and Right 3. Rudder co-ordination exercises. I do a few left and right correctly and then over use the rudder a few times. Coordinated rudder has the aircraft rotating about the longitudinal axis. The nose dose not slop up or down. You can see that in the coordination exercises. When it is not right, the nose swings about the horizon. P-51 Co-ordinated roll, uncoordinated roll, rudder aileron co-ordination exercise.trk

The extended vertical stability helped improve the directional stability. Post-war, the longitudinal instability was fixed in the Mk IX series by increasing the horizontal stab area to move the AC forward. I hope he does not model a post war empennage.

Here is a report on the effect of range and the use of CGS sights on aerial gunnery.

:clown_2: :P

It was calculated to confirm or deny if a CLmax of 1.58 listed on Focke Wulf GmbH document, "Widerstandaten von Flugzeugen" (Drag Data for Aircraft) represents Landing configuration or clean configuration.

You are welcome. I glad it is helping!

That is why Re is used as a scaling factor..... :megalol:

Correct, It should not be used and tells you nothing about maneuvering flight.

Gun convergence and bore sight is based sight-line vs aircraft body angle vs speed. You must have both the horizontal and vertical data to correctly align them. TM1-495.part1.rar TM1-495.part2.rar Fighter_Gun_Harmonization.part1.rar Fighter_Gun_Harmonization.part2.rar

That is actually not a realistic feature. Machine gun ammunition comes in standard mixes and getting an fixed aerial gun dialed in point of aim point of impact on the ground is a certain way to ensure you will hit nothing in the air.

People hear what they want to hear and believe what they wish to believe. Gun convergence was set by the unit armorers IAW the published bore-sight data from approved sources. The main reference for operational units is the TM. The units could probably get it changed as the system did allow for local tactical conditions. That does not mean the pilot tells the armorer to turn a few screws on the range and change his convergence. It means the unit commanders, armorers, let their needs be known so the engineers at the organizational level who have the tools and resources to produce the correct bore-sight data. You can see that in the boresight data published the TM

The standard roughness is there to show a worse case scenario and was actually developed to help predict icing event behaviors. Unfortunately, the mechanism for icing accumulation has not been well understood until recently. So the system was not without its flaws. http://icing.ae.illinois.edu/papers/05/Iced%20Airfoil%20Aerodynamics.pdf http://naca.central.cranfield.ac.uk/reports/arc/rm/3726.pdf Standard roughness is coating the airplane in sandpaper. http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a951598.pdf

да, да!

Hi Hummingbird, My hope is to ensure there is no misunderstanding about the effect of laminar flow. As I said, laminar flow is a low angle of attack phenomenon and has no effect on high angle of attack flight. I think what confusing is the fact that low drag does equal low lift. Drag and Lift are connected by a fixed and direct relationship. When one goes up, the other also increases. Consequently, when the airfoil reaches the drag bucket, the drag goes down and so does the lift.. Outside of that drag bucket, it is a normal airfoil. Do I believe an operational P-51 developed laminar flow? No, I do not. Laminar flow requires a very clean finish that is unlikely to be maintainable in the field. Keeping laminar flow wings maintained requires careful attention to surface fit and finish. Most measured evidence on the P-51 series supports this conclusion. What is the effect of the P-51 series not developing laminar flow as designed? The aircraft burned more gas getting to the target and took a minute longer. In the airlines, the airplane does not get grounded if it does not pass the bug test, it just gets cleaned up at night. What does laminar flow have to do with dog-fighting in DCS? Nothing unless we want to cruise for a couple of hours.

Which is what they should be using Hummingbird. There is also nothing wrong with the P-51's CLmax.

And, Otto? What is your point? That Mtt knew everything about stability and control design or that the 1940's was not a time great progress in aviation? It looks like you are making a ham-fisted attempt at inventing an argument. Yes, I think that is reflected in the game, Otto.

JG13, These airplanes were designed at a time when stability and control engineering came into its own as separate discipline of aeronautical engineering. The engineers of that time were also pioneers of compressible aerodynamics, transonic, and supersonic aerodynamics. It was an exciting time to be involved in aeronautical sciences. The World War II designs reflect this and their stability and control characteristics are as important to the airplane as it's wings/engine.

The stability and control modeling in DCS is very well done. The FM developer pays a lot of attention to the behaviors using measured data. I would think setting up a curve serves to destroy the "personality", advantages, and disadvantages of these behaviors. You might very well mitigate one behavior and exaggerate another.