Bearfoot

Awesome! How easy/difficult would it be to make it modular so that it can accept numbers for other aircraft based on public/open-source published EM diagrams?

Awesome! Thanks for clearing all that up. Now to work on putting it into practice ....

Am I correct in thinking that the max sustained turn rate speed is the point on the PS0 curve that maximizes the turn rate?? If so, how do we decide which point of the curve to pick when there is no peak in the curve? For e.g., in the attached, the PS0 curve "peak" spans ~400 to 500 knts IAS. That's a big range! (Note: corrected confusion between corner speed and Max sustained speed)

I'm thinking it is not so much multiple mapped controls, but a hardware glitch causing signals being sent spuriously. Are you plugged in directly to the motherboard or through a USB hub? If a hub, powered or not? Plugging in complex controls through an unpowered USB hub is notorious for resulting in ghost keypresses. Alternatively, it might be a wiring thing within the HOTAS itself (or keyboard or some other peripheral).

Almost certainly ghost input from one of your control devices. Actually, take that back. Definitely ghost input. What's your setup?

I've read (so take it with a grain of salt) that one argument for center stick is that it provides a smidgen more support for flying one handed (if, you are injured for e.g.). Even if true, probably less of a concern now than WW2 -era due to type of damage incurred in the modern era. In the desktop sim world, sidestick makes for a more compact setup for sure. However, the 20cm extension can only be used on a center stick, and that 20cm extension gives you a lot more control and precision for the constant small microinputs/corrections you need when flying helos. Or the F-14B for that matter! Just my 2C non-real world opinion ...

It looks like the F-14(PLUS) is is the F-14B http://www.topedge.com/alley/text/f14b/f14b.htm http://www.joebaugher.com/navy_fighters/f14_4.html

The F-14B NATOPS manual ("NAVAIR 01-F14AAP-1") does not have EM diagrams. It says on the front page that "THIS PUBLICATION IS INCOMPLETE WITHOUT NAVAIR 01-F14AAP-1.1 AND NAVAIR 01-F14AAP-1A". When I look at "NAVAIR 01-F14AAP-1.1", however, the title pages says that this applies to the "F-14A(PLUS) AND F-14D". NOT the F-14B. Why is that? Does this mean that the EM diagrams, and indeed the rest of the manual, do not apply to our F-14B being modeled here? Are there multiple versions of "NAVAIR 01-F14AAP-1.1"?

Great tip! Will give this a try.

For "Attitude" is this the VDI or the spherical indicator? For the VSI is this the HUD or the analog dial?

Is there a standard scan pattern? If so, what's the pattern -- (analog) VSI, speed, altitude, and then up to front, and then down again? Does the scan pattern change when in cruise vs landing? While landing, I find myself getting hung up on the digital VSI on the HUD instead of the analog VSI on the console. It's just so much more convenient to look at than the heads down gauge. Problem is that it throws off my scan, as I have to then switch down to get speed and altitude. What do you folks do? Stick to the analog gauges all the way?

"Level Turn at 800 Feet" ..... SOOOOOOOOOOOO much easier said than done!! Still working on it ...

AOB to control climb by position of lift vector: golden. Thank you both for the advice/insight. Weirdly (and stupidly, it seems), I've always used some rudder to position my nose above (top rudder) or below (rudder in direction of bank) to manage climb during a turn --- with the higher the nose gets pointed above the horizon due to rudder-induced yaw the greater the rate of climb, and, conversely, the lower the nose below the horizon the greater the rate of descent. The sideslip was a necessary evil. It's worked well enough in simulations of other aircraft, particularly the WW2 birds. But your responses have provided some welcome corrective lenses. It's like blinders have been removed from my eyes letting me see an ugly habit that I now know I should work on to be fixed. Thanks again!

Ok, so I've got her trimmed and stable at 800ft and 350 knots with wing fully swept back, looking good flying past the carrier on port. Wait a bit, and then execute the break: throttle to idle, speed brakes out, kick in a bit of left rudder and initiate a roll. .... and find myself CLIMBING --- gaining altitude rapidly --- as I turn, with the VSI spiking and the flight path marker (FPM) going high above the horizon. Wut? Everything I've read, and my experience with that "bad-habit-builder" F/A-18, leads me to expect that I would actually lose altitude and would need to in fact have added in some power before the turn to compensate. But this is not happening here! Ok, so I try some more left rudder to bring it under the control. But here is where things get weirder (or rather, shows how much a bigger idiot I am). The more left rudder I apply, (a) the more the W marker drops [as expected]; BUT (b) the higher above the horizon the FPM climbs and sure enough, the VSI/rate-of-climb goes up and there is rapid altitude again. Wut? I can see failing to coordinate the turn due to not year learning the correct amount of rudder, but I do not understand the correction direction having the OPPOSITE effect! The more rudder in the direction of the turn I put, I would expect the more the plane to "cut into" the turn, nose dropping and less climb. Ok, let's try some top rudder ... and again, wut?? The FPM drops down even as the WW goes up. So that brings the crazy climb dowm though still have to kick in some pitch forward to control the turn. Spent the last few hours reading the Internets, am familiar (at least in theory) with proverse/advere yaw characteristics having watched the Jabbers video etc., understand coordinated turns (having been simming for, let's just say a very long time now) and am still confused! ----------------- (1) Why am I climbing in a break turn with wings fully swept, throttle idle, speed brakes out, flaps up and gears up, when it seems that almost everyone else is losing altitude? (2) Why does rudder input in the same direction as the turn cause INCREASE the rate of climb, with the WW and FPM separating (the WW drops but my FPM goes above the horizon)? With more rudder input making the situation worse? (3) Why does top rudder have the opposite effect, causing the FPM to drop below the horizon even as the WW goes up? :helpsmilie:

Two kinds of people, LOL Seriously, thanks for the insight. Still struggling to get her trimmed on speed on the downwind, but I've tried to trim for level flight with the wings swept on the break and this definitely helps!.

The straight dope on this: https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=38817

Thanks all. WRT the trim comments --- so you folks trim before the break? And then retrim after dirtied on the downwind? And then again as you get in the groove?

As we enter the pattern, ~800 ft, 300-350 kts, wings manually swept back. The wings get switched to auto in the break. Correct? As we typically fly with wings on auto, why not keep wings in auto when entering as well as throughout the pattern? I imagine, like so many procedures in aviation, this is grounded in some very good sense. Wondering what the sense is?

Awesome that this is modeled to this level of detail!

Interesting. Pretty sure that the radar remains emitting after trapping etc. in the sim, which is why I thought about this. In the grand scale of things, relatively minor!

While being spotted, waiting for T/O, landing, or taxing around, are the aircraft radars on? Or are they forced to be off to protect everyone from all the radiation?

You are not describing "realism". You are describing "game balance".

Because we fly the plane we want (the correct one we will eventually get), and not the one we have (which will go away when fixed)!

New player on the market: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=241976

I wonder if we could have a sticky that currently captures (a) what works; (b) how to use what works; and © what does not work or work correctly; with possibly (d) workarounds. We have to go through several threads like this one, often deep, to pull out information, and it is not clear what information is current or correct (i.e., because we often have player speculation mixed up with rigorous data-based experimentation mixed up with official developer info). From what I can make out, it seems that what is supposed to happen (eventually) in TWS mode launch is: (1) AIM-54 (NOT AIM-154 as I wrote in previous edit!) is launched and is supported by TWS to activation point about half-way to target where it goes pit bull on command from firing computer (2) On going active, TID "time-to-target" countdown starts blinking (3) If TWS support is lost before activation, missile aborts According to some posts, what happens now is that the missile: works more like an AIM-120, with its radar going active automatically at a fixed range (15nm from target I believe?) instead of waiting for a command from the firing platform however, the above applies just to radar. In terms of dynamics (flight/guidance) the missile behaves like it is actually active off the rails, i.e., flying pure pursuit toward the target whether or not it is supported by TWS (though target RWR does not pick up being locked by the missile radar until the missile's goes "active"). Note: it is not clear to me whether it is heading toward the last known target datum or it is actually heading toward the target as target manouevers; I've read accounts of either; I think it is the latter? when the missile's radar actually goes active (fixed at 15nm from target), target gets the RWR lock warning and the missile changes from pure pursuit to lead collision pursuit, with consequent loss of energy with the hard turn? if firing platform support is lost, it still guides to previous activation point where it then goes pitbull (instead of aborting)? Is this correct? Either way, I see questions (and answers!) about the AIM-54 lots of places when searching, and perhaps a sticky that collates all the information in one place will make life easier for developers as well by both lowering the amount of redundant questions as well making it easier to provide information without repeating? Either way, I appreciate all the work going into this wonderful sim, and also really really really appreciate the engagement of the developers with sharing the current information. Just suggesting that we collate it all into one place!