sobek

Will anything useful come out of this discussion? The last few pages suggest otherwise. If you guys insist on this pointless back and forth, this thread will get closed shortly.

Did you try to overboost it (save for the transients you mention)? Is there smoke when overboosting?

If you could bridge the gap as to how running the oil below optimum operating temperature does protect the engine, then you're all set to have an argument. You need to remember that oil is chosen for a certain viscosity at its operating temperature. If operating temperature is not achieved, the viscosity will differ from optimum as well. The desired operating temperature is a few degrees short of the red line and that is where the radiator control tries to keep it.

Holy necrophilia. Combined Arms has long been released, mate.

You can't stall an airplane (much) above its corner airspeed. It will simply disintegrate.

Compressor critical altitude as a function of speed, typically.

Certainly not. If i'm not mistaken, having onedimensional variable geometry will increase the dimension of the lift/drag/etc. lookup tables by one (so for example the table will go from 2-dimensional to 3-dimensional, though i guess in reality the orders will already be higher). From an implementation perspective, that's nowhere near unsurmountable. Obtaining the data that goes into the lookup tables, that's another matter entirely.

It isn't being ignored, but when looking at actual pilot reports, it becomes obvious that this is much more about people's unrealistic spotting performance expectations. Knowing ED they will try to match real life spotting performance as closely as possible, within the limits imposed by available technology.

Depends on how it is used. If you want realistic trim behaviour, there's no way around FFB.

Everything that does not have to do with the equations of motion and the integration of forces. That is done "inside" the API.

Relax guys, no reason to be frustrated at this point.

No time is being wasted. As soon as everything is in order such that end users can really use it, it'll probably get released.

Have you tested the DCS 109 with less than full throttle?

Quite likely.

Please, nobody is saying that. Can we please get past this pet straw man of yours?

Mav time: After about 30 minutes you may experience degraded seeker lock performance, IIRC.

They said that traffic should be reduced under some conditions. That's all we got for now, let's hope c0ff finds his way here. :)

Not sure about that. There's still the issue of complexity. Added complexity at practically no gain, something no sane engineer will go for. I mean, if the capability to fly inverted for more than 10 seconds was so important for flying doctrine, don't you think somebody would have thought of building it into their airplanes to get an edge? We are just going in circles here. There's a difference between unloading your plane because your opponent will instantly lose engine power if he attempts to do the same or flying inverted for prolonged periods of time. If you can't appreciate that difference, i guess there's no point for me in discussing this with you. ;)

Well i mean adding a second pump and an accelerometer to the system (you'd also need directional control valves) is a lot of additional complexity, that means more weight, increased probability of a mechanical or electrical malfunction, all that for a state of flight that is actively avoided. It may make sense for an aerobatic plane, but in no way does it make sense for a combat, GA or commercial aircraft. Like i said, pulling more than 1 neg g and you can kiss your positive g tolerance for that flight good bye. How is that not a problem? :) Why risk that when it's perfectly possible to avoid it without compromising capability?

It's not an assumption. That depends very heavily on the force application axis and the time subjected to such acceleration. That's just 1g. The pathology sets on way quicker in negative gs than it does for positive. You do neg gs and you seriously tamper with your positive g endurance. That aside, anything more than 1g is immensely uncomfortable. Pilots don't like negative gs. How would you accomplish it without adding complexity to the fuel system?

It's still a very real problem with turbine engines.

Why add complexity for a state that the pilot is almost less able to endure than the airplane?

I don't, but pretty much all airplanes behave the same in this regard, because prolonged unloaded or neg g flight is not really something that pilots like to do anyway.

Exactly.

Miss Shillings orifice, yes. The difference is in a (conventionally) carburetted engine, you'd lose power immediately, not after 10 seconds. That is a big deal. The fuel lines are at the bottom of the tanks, when you fly inverted, the fuel goes to the top of the tank and the lines start to suck air. Power stays on as long as fuel remains in the lines, but once that is depleted, the engine is going to cut out.