Zorrin

Yup! I thought that one would take a bit longer... Oh well.

Of course! I've seen that track and am not calling into doubt your ability to handle the Shark :) I've been flying right seat "unloggable" since I was 11 and had my license for about 5 1/2 years... But yes back to OP! So OldFlyer, now that you know a bit more about sideslip and the crucial fact that you need to fly it [the Shark] in balance, how are you getting on?

Well for what it's worth I'm a fully licensed pilot, with time on fixed- and rotary-wing (but no gliding!) jet, piston and turboprop. And the last time I flew a tail dragger I was in a Tiger Moth, without the slats. The way I was taught to fly that was to sideslip the approach. You solo that from the rear, just like the Captain flies a Cub from the rear seat. But you obviously knew that? Pretty f**king hard to see the runway when you have someone's heaed in the way. But, to clarify the confusion... Sideslip: Where you slip the aircraft using CROSSED CONTROLS. It is out of balance. Crab: Where you point the nose of the aircraft into the wind to compensate for the drift from the wind while flying the aircraft in balance. Both approaches are suitable for crosswind landings, they each have their merits and depend on the aircraft you are flying. redberoon: What you're describing is merely ensuring that you put the aileron into wind as you straighten up with the rudder. And you shouldn't be stomping it, ever. It should be smooth. Stomp implies a violent stamp which wouldn't be such a good idea. Flying should never be violent, it can be fast, but always smooth. After a crab approach you would maintain the crab until the flare. It is at that point, as you flare, that you use the rudder to line up with the runway and drop your wing into wind. This way you put the correct wing down first and shortly thereafter the other wheel will touch down too. warbird: I'm not suggesting that a sideslip is the perfect approach, merely commenting that is the practised procedure for aircraft which do not feature flaps (at least from all of my experiences). Aircraft without flaps are 99% tail-wheel/draggers. Off-hand I cannot think of a single tricyle aircraft that doesn't have flaps. I haven't seen a single flapless aircraft in this country land in any other way than with a sideslip. And no disrespect to Frazer, but why should I trust him because he can fly a helicopter simulator well? It's realistic, but it's a far cry from the real thing. Not too mention we've ended up on fixed-wing now... :)

Well I beg to differ. It's not an "old" way in the slightest. It's a part of modern-day piston aviation. An aircraft that doesn't have flaps should use a sideslip approach. Yes it creates extra drag, but more importantly it lets you have a nose down attitude so that you can see the runway. Especially in a tail wheel aircraft. You can hardly fly the entire approach in the three-point attitude for landing. And if you just fly a straight approach you are going to then have to worry about speed. Not something you want to do if you are on a short strip. Naturally flaps allow you to fly slower, but the secondary benefit is that you don't have to fly a flat approach. Also a useful approach in strong crosswinds. You should try sideslipping an open cockpit aircraft, you don't need a balance ball to tell you when you're out of balance you get hit by a great big wall of air instead. That guy's taxiing... Great way to ding the prop! But what a machine, I'd kill for a Cub on those warm summer days...

What is this?

Fugly. That's what it is. :) Is it a Sea Wolf?

Technically sideslip is where you are flying the fixed-wing out of balance and deliberately using rudder in one direction and opposite aileron. Useful for aircraft that don't have flaps or are tail draggers/tail wheel. Keeping the "ball in the middle" is a matter of keeping the craft balanced be it rotary- or fixed-wing. Not that that really helps much now though... :) A great example of using sideslipping for landing:

Can you get a higher res of the cockpit? Difficult to make out the guages in that one.... :)

An-8?

You'll get unhindered access to me via TeamSpeak, naturally, but to really add value, once a year I will travel to your home so that you can watch me play Black Shark (or any other simulator of your choice) on your PC. Yes that's right, I come to your house and play on your computer.

If you want to donate, I'll gladly take the money off your hands. I will give you nothing in return, but you'll have my gratitude. Wait, actually think of it like sponsoring a child. I'll send you pictures of me playing Black Shark. There are three levels of sponsorship that you can aim for. Silver: Anything up to $10/month will get you one photo a month and a handwritten message on the back. Gold: Gets you not one, but three photos per month complete with autograph and frame. You will also receieve my Skype contact details and I will set aside an hour per month where I will be available to talk to you. Video at Gold level is not available. To qualify for Gold you need to donate at least $50/month. Platinum: Platinum sponsorship is the pinnacle of success for you the sponsor. With your generous contributions you get all of the benefits of Gold and Silver plus you can Skype Video me. I'll even send you a daily update, by e-mail, of what's been happening in my day. In fact, once a week you will receive a call, yes that's right a telephone call, to last no more than ten minutes where I can impart on you the joy that your sponsorship has given me. You'll also receive a collector's edition signed print of me flying a real helicopter. All of these goodies, plus the peace of mind knowing that you are making a difference, will set you back just a measly $999/month. So do what you can, help sponsor me through the credit crunch. You can sign up for donations right away. Simply make your first year's payments in full to gullible[at]obxetra[dot]com and look forward to your first experience. What have you done to help someone else today? :D

Yep, ILA last year. The right main gear collapsed after touchdown causing it to groundloop. http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2008/05/27/224127/ila-2008-pictures-messerschmitt-bf-109g-10-black-two-groundloops-at-show.html http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2008/05/29/224294/video-eads-messerschmitt-bf-109-undercarriage-collapse-and-groundloop-at-ila-berlin.html

Yup! But where? Didn't know about that one, but that's the wrong location.

Which one? :) Any ideas on where? I'll give you a clue it happened THIS Century...

With the original Jumo engines that love to spontaneously-combust? :helpsmilie: Hawker Seafury because it has the biblical Centaurus engine, and boy does that thing make some noise!

What is it? And where is it? I'm trying to find a higher res, so will swap it if I can find one.

It's a Curtiss Jenny, and they were built in North America. But that one's nationality no idea, as they were sold off after WWI to the civilian world.

I just get bored with FS X too quickly. But have been tinkering with a Thunderbolt...

The whole pay to play defeats the purpose of such a high fidelity simulator. If I can only fly it online, how on earth am I going to learn the intrinsic basics, let alone master the avionics of whatever I am flying. Would that then mean that I have to pay the said nominal amount for every separate part of the DCS module? Well I for one would take my money elsewhere. If I'm paying $180/yr in subscriptions (as per OP's suggested $15/m) I need to be putting in serious stick time to even make that worthwhile. And I don't. I would drop DCS in a heartbeat if I was forced to pay a monthly subscription. I'd go one step further than GG and say pay to play for a flight sim is ludicrous. While it is a business model that works in some elements, don't you think that your pockets are hit for enough when you add in the accessories you need to play high fidelity simulations? I also like motor racing sims, but I flatly refuse to pay iracing.com's $13/m (if I pay it all upfront). Purely on the fact that I don't always have the time to make it worthwhile. ruprecht: Is this about the Ashes ;)

Looks a lot like a FW190, but it's not because the canopy is wrong, not to mention what could be an oil cooler under the engine and the air intake[?] on the top of the cowling. Also the exhausts are not right Looks an awful lot like an La-9, but the canopy is wrong, however the exhausts match. The only aircraft I can think of that have exhausts similar are the Bearcat and the Seafury, but again it's neither of these because of the engine accessories. UNLESS, it's an early development of the La-9 the La-126? That's the best guess I can make... Do you not have a photo that might help as drawings can sometimes distort things :D

I think split throttles will become more of a necessity as the fidelity of simulators increases. Certainly if we can expect engine wear to be a factor with DCS:Hog. You're not always going to want to run both engines at the same thrust levels if one is playing up after taking a few shards of Shilka love. And also dead handy for taxy manouevuring on the ground. Nothing like a bit of differential power to make life easier... But gotta say the $300 price tag is a bit steep for something that looks so cheaply made... Still that's purely speculation.

... while sitting in an armoured bath tub enjoying cucumber sandwiches no doubt!

It's the red coloured wheels on the left, you can change that to whatever you like. The HMS can also be powered using the 'H' key under default mappings.

Interesting comments OldFlyer2, and I think you have some merit but are perhaps on the wrong track. I've never flown a co-ax helicopter but have played with Robos and Longrangers, not that these are by any means comparable to each other, let alone the Ka-50. But the Kamov behaves as I'd expect a dampened helicopter to fly. The thing that bugs me about the flight dynamics, isn't so much the flight dynamics but the weather engine. Which, is due to change I believe with the new engine. This is another aspect which is difficult to convey accurately in simulators, on a warm day you will typically have the updraught and downdraught as you pass below clouds. You also have to take into account the terrain. What happens when 30 knots of wind hits the side of a hill, well it goes up the hill, and then what happens when it gets to the other side? It drops, and becomes turbulent. It's this that needs to be addressed. If I have a tail wind and am sitting slap bang in front of a hangar, the chances are that I'm not going to notice the full effect of the wind until I move out of it's shadow. And then, I'd expect a whole heap of lumps and bumps. Perhaps when (or even if?) that is added to the code you will look again at how realistic it is to fly the Shark. Surely you've noticed the environmental effects when you are flying the RC helis? One last point, and although I have to use a fixed wing as an example because I've never tried it in a real heli. There's no reason why the rudder cannot be effective at high speed. Think back if you like to the Warbirds with 1,500+ HP. These beasts had huge torque reactions and required constant rudder input, even at high speeds (unless you trim). Just like I can be flying along in my Cessna 172 at 105/110kts and can happily use the rudder to skid across the sky, of course this imbalances the airframe and increases drag monumentally. For what it's worth in the sim I've managed sidewards flight at 100km/h, naturally the faster you get in this position the more it wants to weathercock, but you will always be able to put it into some sort of slip. Have a scoot through the manual on the autopilot channels and remember that this is nothing like an RC heli. Treat it like you did your first untethered RC flight without the buddy lead....