bbrz
-
Posts
2524 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by bbrz
-
-
What do you need it for if I may ask?
-
3 hours ago, roby14 said:
I am afraid that you are absolutely trying to mislead the subject, the theme is always the 3D of the DCS F16 which is wrong.
What? Simply compare the pictures in more detail and you will notice that your assumption is wrong. Again, IRL the pedals almost don't move for rudder movement.
The way too large movement is the bug in the DCS F-16, not the direction of motion.
I agree that this WWI biplane like movement looks very bad and IRL you couldn't even apply the brakes with the pedals deflected.
I don't know why ED still hasn't fixed this issue, especially since it's obviously a quick and easy fix.
-
1
-
-
These DIY pedals have a completely different mechanics. (parallelogram). Did you compare them with the original pedal photos?
Looks like on the real aircraft it's a simple straight bar between the pedals with the pivot point at the center.
If I understand the diagram mvgas posted correctly, the 45° is about the brakes motion, not the rudder movement.
-
1
-
-
Looking at the photos mvgas and you posted, it seems that the general movement is correct in the DCS version, it's just that the travel is approx 99% too large.
I don't see where these pedals could move parallel?!?
-
1
-
-
That's the way they sound (without helmet).
https://youtu.be/K88r1CMOh0o?t=320
Since e.g. the TF30 is a totally different engine I assume that it's doesn't sound similar.
-
You are correct. I've reported this bug right after the initial release.
But as 5ephir0th pointed out, the actual range of movement is only very small IRL due to the pressure sensors. (similar to the sidestick)
-
The 2.7 J85 sounds definitely much more realistic, from what I remember IRL a few decades ago.
-
What is the problem? Even without wheel brakes the nose will start to drop.
-
Don't forget that 13° is already the upper limit. Flying the approach at 11° and slowing down to 13° for touchdown is perfectly fine.
I don't understand what the catch is with the three point attitude?
Lowering the nose should be controlled with the wheel brakes while keeping the stick fully aft.
-
2 hours ago, TobiasA said:
also it is faster to close the brake than to spool up the engine.
As mentioned before, spool up for the go around case isn't the reason or a factor.
The reason is that the F100-PW-200 has a slightly better throttle response at higher RPM, hence with the boards speed control is a tad easier.
The -220 and the F110-GE-100 the difference is basically negligible.
-
Makes sense. Thanx
-
1 hour ago, LJQCN101 said:
Minimise roll input at touchdown as it retracts an aileron and causes decreased lift.
Doesn't the opposite one deflect down and increase lift, so the total amount of lift doesn't significantly change?
A loss of lift usually occurs with roll spoilers.
-
8 hours ago, Xavven said:
Agreed, and what I have heard is that speed brakes should be extended on final because engines have a long spool-up time.
Spool up time isn't a factor anymore since many decades. Idle to mil could take >10sec with first generation jets.
More recent engines like the Hornets 1970s F404, require less than 3.5sec.
-
The higher the speed, the more effective the speedbrakes (applies to all aircraft).
If the boards aren't extended already on final, extend them as soon as you touch down.
-
1
-
-
On 6/7/2021 at 10:33 AM, DmitriKozlowsky said:
TACAN can guide you to the field, but not down to it in IFR.
I did have this problem as well and I love flying the F-5 in bad weather since it is very immersive and realistic!
If there are no procedures, I've designed a let down which works with basically all TACAN equipped aircraft/airfields.
-
8
-
-
9 hours ago, DmitriKozlowsky said:
if you keep rolling, you go into GLOC and spin into ground.
Not only due to GLOC, also due to aerodynamic reasons e.g. consecutive aileron rolls are a no-go on many combat aircraft, e.g. the F-15.
-
3
-
-
You don't give up, do you.
-
The main problem with the yaw SAS off is that rudder trim isn't available, which means that during single engine ops and/or asymmetric loads, flying the F-5 is more demanding.
The -1 states that The aircraft can be safely flown without augmentation throughout the entire flight envelope.
-
6 hours ago, SMH said:
Yeah, fly-by-wire planes. These aren't.This has nothing to do with FBW. Even a 767 will show a noticeable amount of adverse yaw when you are applying full aileron at the start of a turn at low speed.
Manual rudder input is not required and you don't apply rudder, because the yaw damper turn coordination function will immediately counteract adverse yaw.
Furthermore on most aircraft the vertical tail itself will be sufficient for the adverse yaw to be removed after reaching a steady bank angle.
That's one of the reason why there's one bolted onto the fuselage. If it wouldn't remove sideslip on its own, e.g. flying in turbulence would be next to impossible.
Btw. if aileron application would cause skidding, it would be the opposite of adverse, (too much) proverse yaw.
-
2
-
-
3 hours ago, SMH said:
Also, is "slipping and skidding" not "adverse yaw"?
Definitely not and one of both obviously couldn't be the result of adverse yaw.
-
On 5/27/2021 at 10:14 PM, SMH said:
The A-10C is doing it too! Even with Yaw SAS turned off! This CANNOT be right!
The A-10C is doing it too because it does IRL as well: The dual channel SAS provides rate damping in both the pitch and yaw axis as well as automatic turn coordination.
If the yaw behavior with yaw SAS on and off is identical, it's because the flight model isn't so sophisticated that it simulates this 'failure' case.
-
What has a standard GA aircraft in common with an F-5?
FYI, that's from a T-38 manual:
Aileron deflection produces yaw in the direction of roll (favorable yaw). Rudder is not required to produce coordinated turns.
Btw. not even the A-10 requires any manual rudder input to achieve turn coordination.
-
The problem with your posts is that you don't seem to accept facts you don't like.
You are making statements like: It's physically impossible for a banking aircraft to not exhibit adverse yaw.
We provide info that this is not always the case and your reaction is that you are suddenly talking about a different aircraft and claim that there's no ARI.
Again you are proven wrong. Your reaction? If I turn the SAS off, the A-10 doesn't react the way it should.
But that's a different story and not all failure cases are simulated in all DCS aircraft.
-
5
-
-
19 minutes ago, SMH said:
Not according to T.O. 1A-10C-1 - Flight Manual - A-10C (02-04-2012) . "ARI" never occurs as a single word and "interconnect" is only mentioned 6 times, in connection to the fuel system, elevator to elevator connection, ejection handles, and radio keys.
Page 55 from the manual you linked:
The dual channel SAS provides rate damping in both the pitch and yaw axis as well as automatic turn coordination. (obviously an ARI)
This feature is being called ARI in the A-10A -1.
-
2
-
rudder pedals animation
in Bugs and Problems
Posted
I have no idea what you are trying to say.