Crumpp

It is the future "blood doping" of professional flight simming! See Josh, one day when CNN is interviewing some hot shot virtual stick about the "fuel scandle" while montages of Lance Armstrong flash in the background; you can link this thread and tell them it has been a controversy stemming from the earliest days!

Maybe I jinx'd you.....

Jcomm, I had a similar experience online when my elevator trim suddenly went full tilt nose down as well. I was in flight when it happened. I have been having some controller issues for the last week or so.

Hear! Hear! Good for you Echo. At least you got in the mix and did it. I don't know a thing about or have never heard about "professional flight simming" but more power to you! Great things come from humble beginnings so who knows what the future holds and it sounds like you have built a foundation for others to build upon.

No they have not. I am sorry some you do not understand but really, their arguments have been "not in keeping with aeronautical science" let's politely say.

No, lets get back to your earlier post were I am the guy raining all over your parade. All these things such as "The notion that people who enjoy these things are somehow less "study-simmers" blah,blah, blah..... Are your own creations. Stop attributing this to me, please. I never said a thing about it. From my first post

Glad you got the humor! What is a competitive flight simmer? Is it a sport or something? As a manager in the fast aluminum tubing business I have never heard it. What do you want to call the two approaches? It is probably different from what the pilot and Aero Sciences education in me wants to call it! :smilewink:

Ok, provide a link please. I couldn't find what you are talking about and I am pretty sure I did not go around raining on parades. The conversation I found is about history not game features. Is this the conversation you are talking about: http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=2488967&postcount=89 Am I missing something? :noexpression:

Why don't you put all of those in context of the conversation where I have to defend the right to choice from a few who want to be viewed taking 40% fuel as historical and a simulation.

:huh: The conversation I remember had nothing to do with game features and was about history. You seemed to think it was historically correct for every pilot to set their own convergence. It is was not. The ammunition slider was decided way before I said anything about it, like in 2012. Maybe you did not realize that. http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=1580693&postcount=3

I say we tear down ED for even having a "sim" and "game" tab! The nerve of those guys! How dare they divide the flight sim community!! http://themillennialvoices.org/2015/02/22/when-did-we-get-so-easily-offended/ :smilewink:

All of DCS is a game. People enjoy that game differently.

A choice and a realistic load out menu is not asking for all combats to be at the same fuel state.

Thanks for all the fish!

No, you can compare with FW-190A8 as the data IS posted.

No, apples to apples Maximum continuous is not maximum range. Sparleistung .... not Dauerleistung

They are right there in the flight planning charts for all to read and there are no wing tanks mounted, just empty racks. The analysis is in time aloft and not distance over the ground.

And about ~33 gallons to descend and land.

Try this: No it does not leave the Mustang 5.3 hours on 184 gallons of gas. Look at the P-51D's Take Off and Landing charts and plan the fuel consumption. Total internal fuel capacity (Wing Tanks) = 184 gallons. Yes there is unusable fuel included in that figure but it will only shorten our endurance slightly. First flight, Take Off, climb to 20,000 feet, Descend, Land. This does not include go-around or any reserve fuel. Taxi, Take Off, and Climb fuel = 33 Gallons Descent, Landing, and Take Off = 33 Gallons 66 gallons total to get up and get down from 20000ft. 184 gallons - 66 gallons = 118 gallons to fly around with... At our most maximum fuel efficiency, conducting a perfect flight we need: We are burning 48 gallons per hour at 20,000 feet. The is the LEAST amount of fuel the aircraft is capable of consuming and remain airborne. 118/48 gallons = 2 Hours and 27 minutes of doing nothing. Let's compare that to the BMW801D2 20,000 feet = ~ 6Km (6.09Km so we are a little conservative in favor of the Mustang) A little extrapolation puts our BMW801D2 FW-190A8 at 2 hours and 10 minutes for the same flight profile. A advantage of 17 minutes or 13.5 gallons of fuel extra which equal = 97lbs of weight. 97 lbs of weight = ~.4 degrees/sec rate of turn gain. It does not make a practical difference. The Dora would be much closer in the fact the Jumo 213 consumes less fuel than the BMW801. The BMW801 uses ~450liters and hour while the Jumo213 uses ~375liters and hour at 6 Km.

You can go all way to the stall point. Just do not go below that first nibble speed.

So it begins.... How much fuel did you take? http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=154014

Do you have the whole report because I do not see any airfoil data on that page. What I read is they changed the design of that wings slat. Give me something I can see that ties that page to the Bf-109. Outside of slats, I see nothing. I might have it and will look for it. Yes they did. In that case I have the data sheet used by Focke Wulf to make performance predictions and a plethora of 2D data with known Reynolds numbers/chords as well as know wind tunnel conditions for the entire aircraft's polar. An excellent analysis could be made which is one reason why I shared it. It says 1.58. For Mtt, I have a calculated turning performance report, RAE turning performance report that agree but only really represent the possibility of the root airfoil. I have a wing polar from the Bf-109G series that seems to be applicable. I don't know for sure and need more data to make a concrete conclusion. The polar was given to me, is labeled clearly, and I was told it was the Bf-109G lift polar. That is why I used the 1.41 because it agreed with RAE, Mtt, and Bf-109G polar. Good stall speed and weight data would be nice if anyone has it. You do realize that this polar clearly shows the Clmax is ~1.55? http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=2581185&postcount=85 The radiator flaps must be at 40 degrees to achieve a Clmax of 1.55 is all.

Now you are going figure out why I used the BMW801 data! No fair! :lol: You are on to my diabolical scheme to pork the Mustang! :doh:

Yeah, that is why it says "Instructions for Using the Chart" and entire page is entitled, Flight Operation Instruction Chart....

Exactly. What are the Re? What is the Chord of the section?