Crumpp

It is better for the G-resistance by a pretty good margin, Grapejam. Granted these are drawings and not 100% accurate but the general idea will hold true. Now, the upright seating of the Spitfire and P-51 is a lot more comfortable. That comfort makes a huge difference when you have fly 3 hours before engaging the enemy.

Aircraft performance calculations typically assume 0% humidity and most of your performance charts are built around that assumption.

Adjustment for the length of a pilots legs does not change G-resistance but it sure does make it more comfortable to fly! :smilewink:

Well, If you read it, the instructions and intention are quite clear. The information found in the TM is what the squadrons are supposed to be using. In the TM, there is no way to "do your own thing" and it very clearly directs you to use the published ballistic and boresight data. FM 200-1 is also quite clear in its instructions: It seems quite clear the USAAF does not want pilots jumping out of their aircraft and telling the armorer to harmonize their guns based on that pilots feeling instead of ballistic data determined by Aberdeen Proving Ground.

When view thru the wishful eye...sure. Look at the location of the rudder pedals, bottom of the seat and angle of the back rest. They are not identical at all.

http://forum.keypublishing.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=66977&stc=1&d=1109148210

At least the USAAF has a G -suit. Think of the Spitfire..... Upright seating and NO G-protection at all for the pilot. :( http://aerosociety.com/Assets/Docs/Publications/The%20Journal%20of%20Aeronautical%20History/2014-01_Rood_Aircrew_clothing.pdf

http://goflightmedicine.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/G-Tolerance1.jpg The seat angle makes a huge difference in the G-tolerance of the pilot. For example, the 30 degree incline of the F-16 allowed to have the edge over its competitors during trials and later service. Interestingly enough, that angle also led it to giving its pilots more neck injuries than other aircraft. The trade off with seat angle is reduced rear quarter visibility and a sore neck!!

I think the FW-190 pilot positioning is slightly better for handling acceleration than the Bf-109. IIRC, a long pilot physiology discussion was held a while back. Yo-Yo related the model in DCS is the same basic principle used in acceleration tolerance research. They calculate the pressure in a column of blood. When the pressure drops below a threshold, the brain does get oxygen and your pilot vision is effected. The more the column is offset from the z-axis, the higher the G- tolerance. IIRC, the G suit pants of the USAAF are also modeled. Probably as a fixed amount of pressure modified by the angle of the legs to the z-axis, which is exactly what G-suits do.

Yep.

I use it to signal wife ack in the vicinity.

Excellent. Missed that update.

You can also use the fixed relationship of power to density ratio. Probably a little easier to figure, lol.

You are most welcome! Changes in engine performance are included in the performance calculations when changing density altitude. Once performance under standard conditions is known it is easy to determine performance under any atmospheric condition. It sounds like Yo-Yo got a good first impression of correct performance in the Bf-109k4 at -15C. Climb rate should and did increase under low density altitude conditions of winter. What would the power be under those conditions? It is not hard to calculate. Simply figure the thrust available at a point thrust available = thrust required to meet the new performance and convert to power available.

That is excellent work Lino! I look forward to seeing the finished product and DCS getting ANF-2 functional! :thumbup::thumbup::thumbup:

Some advice offered in the hope it is useful. I have over 1000 hrs RL high performance tail dragged time in my logbook. I own one. The lack of feel is a real handicap on a computer sim when dealing with realistic tail dragger physics. I have botched both landings and take offs too. Each time it has been my fault, not the games. Usually because I do not reduce my control input as the aircraft accelerates and my control surfaces become effective. I posted a track in this thread demonstrating 3 point take off in the Dora. A 3 point take off is edge of the envelope at rotation to initial climb in ground effect. Remember to relax the back pressure just after the airplane lift off and build speed in ground effect. Gusting will change your rotation speed. If you do not increase speed for the gust factor, the wing can stall. Add half the gust speed difference to your rotation speed. If winds are 10kph gusting to 20kph then (20kph-10kph)/2 = 5kph. Add 5 kph to your rotation speed. Just keep in mind, gusty winds means you need to rotate at a faster airspeed than normal. With no x-wind, reduce the amount of aileron input as the aircraft gathers speed. Rotate smoothly and slowly. I think over rotation is the root of many folks problems with the Dora. With a X-wind, you still take out aileron input but will leave enough to bank the airplane into the wind just enough to maintain runway heading. Remember, the moment the aircraft lifts off it can only fly at that AoA. If you increase that angle of attack thru rotation speed or having excess aileron input...the wing will stall. Take offs and landing in a tail dragged is a dynamic process. As they say in RL, you fly a tail dragger from the tie downs to the tie downs. Welcome to the DCS community and please let us know how you are doing with your conundrum!!

The only DCS USAAf fighter that should get a selectable harmonization should be the P-47 series. You should be able to choose between 250 yards and 350 yards. Both patterns are listed in the FM, TO, and Operating Manual.

I think section A, paragraph 8 states the USAAF position. Use the standard bore sight charts and data provided. Look at the charts provided in the FM and this thread btw. They maximize the pattern harmonization.... Craziness huh?!? :smilewink:

Nice find. Details just how complicated the harmonization problem really is in a World War II fighter. Makes games that have a convergence slider look pretty silly. Introduction, page 1, paragraph 6. "Section C Sample of Harmonization calculations not intended for use in the field...."

Mmmmmm.... In context from page 12, paragraph 10a: "The harmonization process will be simplified if the aircraft can be boresighted and test fixed on a target placed at the desired range of convergence of trajectory and sight line". Without the bore sight alignment data for the longitudinal axis of the aircraft and the sight line, it is impossible to correctly zero the sight. Read the manual. Page 9, Paragraph 5 clearly states: "Correct angle between flight line and longitudinal axis of the airplane may be obtained from the gun sighting chart or gun bore chart found prepared by the manufacturer and included in the airplane handbook. It goes on to explain that not following this data will result in the gunsight being aligned with aircraft for a single airspeed only. In other words, using your own data results in a zero that is accurate for a specific airspeed at a single range. It is a single point zero. The highlighted portion you selectively quoted is simply telling you to use the actual distance if at all possible. For example, the P-51 shows a 500 yard bore sight and firing target. The desired range is 500 yards not whatever the pilot wants. It goes on to explain that shorter range targets are available with bore sighting data if you cannot place the target at the desired range. These are the 1000inch bore sight targets I posted earlier. The are placed 1000inches from a calibrated point in front of the aircraft. The sight is then adjusted and the guns bore adjusted to the manufacturers datum on the target. It finishes up with: "Nevertheless if at all possible to use the actual converging range for harmonization, this should be done." In other words....shoot the 500 yard target at 500 yards if you have the range space. If not....use the shorter range target to get the bore sight, aircraft longitudinal axis of flight, and sight line to align.

You are most welcome! I thought it was an interesting read myself.

Nice images. Learned a little. Thanks for sharing. Looking forward to the P-47 myself. Was sad to see it delayed. :(

https://ia601005.us.archive.org/13/items/TM1-495/TM1-495.pdf Interestingly enough.....nowhere does it say "adjust the sight and harmonization to whatever you want". It does say to use the boresight data provided by the manufacturer found in the manuals and Technical Orders.

Exactly :thumbup:

The manual clearly states the weapon convergence is set to either 250 yards OR 350 yards. It is clearly not subject to the whims of the pilot. The manual instructs the pilot to consult the armorer to find out which of the two single points the convergence is set. Most likely this is due to a technical design change that necessitates the convergence. Again....nothing that shows convergence was set at the whim of the pilot.