TX-EcoDragon

The suggestion that a DCS pilot should roll the aircraft left, and then as the sim forces him to lean right, the PC pilot should then lean left in equal and opposite magnitude in order to attempt to hold his head vertical is simply foolish. DCS is pretty well establishing the current benchmark for flight sim fidelity, and the forced head roll has no place in the series, perhaps beyond making track playbacks look more dynamic...and more like the pilot is a bit sloppy. There is ample evidence available that high level combat and aerobatic pilots are instructed to, and practiced at, resisting the temptation to roll their heads to level the horizon. This is not only for absolute precision in aircraft control, gunnery, coordination detection, prep for opposite roll/yaw acceleration, but also to prevent damage to the cervical spine when at elevated G's. [Don't bother asking the Cessna drivers] Yes, there's no debate about headshake itself here - my post is with respect to the forced, pointless, and largely unrealistic pilot head roll opposite the banked direction.

There are some components of the DCS headshake that I think are pretty well done, but there are also a few overdone effects with respect to roll as well as under-damped lateral translation. DCS forces the virtual pilot's head to roll opposite the bank angle as though the virtual pilot is trying to level the horizon with his head and this is something that is generally considered poor form in both combat and precision aerobatic flight - not to mention that it's pointless to model in the first place because a PC pilot can roll their head to level the horizon if they want to simply by rotating their actual head! Most well trained pilots don't do it much in real aircraft, and I certainly don't want my head to do it without my consent, especially given how simple, and realistic it is that I can do it if I so desire, in the exact same fashion I would if I were actually in a banked aircraft. Because of this, I find enabling the headshake feature to be too distracting and frustrating and hope that I've made the point sufficiently clear that the horizon leveling head-roll should be removed or made optional in DCS. Additionally, in DCS there is a little more lateral displacement during coordinated banks/rolls than I'd expect to encounter in real aircraft, even when rolling at rather low roll rates. Perfectly coordinated turns and rolls will not result in as much lateral displacement of the pilot's torso/head - especially in slow rollers like the Mustang, or the helis (a passenger may experience a more exaggerated displacement because they do not anticipate the accelerations as the pilot will).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_of_useful_consciousness

Sounds like you may have another controller mapped to the collective. If more than one device are mapped to the same axis, you will see almost constant "flutter" as the inputs from the two controllers fight.

Thanks for the replies guys, but as I said, I'm not (intentionally) running any Full Screen AA (FSAA), though I agree that it looks just like it! Perhaps it's some conflict on my side. My CCC settings for AA are the defaults "App Controlled", "Standard", "Multisampling", and Morphologic filtering" is off. [EDIT] RadeonPro seems to have been the culprit, even though I'd deleted the profiles in it, the Global profile needed to be reset. I've got no idea why it didn't impact other sims.

I've just started to have blurry menu text. It looks almost like a heavy treatment of FSAA, except I don't use FSAA. I've only noticed recently. The text in the mission editor dropdowns is particularly hard to read.

Composite LSA(Light Sport Aircraft certification) modeled after the P-51 Mustang. Overall it looks like a pretty sweet ride with low acquisition and operating costs. Details include virtual rivet shapes in the mold, Merlin sound system and smoke machine. I've driven some cars that use various methods to augment the engine sounds, but never an airplane. I want to say that it's silly....but then again, if it really sounds like a Merlin, well...how could that be a bad thing! What do you think gentlemen? :pilotfly:

Nobody knows where the pylon Viagra is????

Yes please!

OK, so we've got the pylons now....the only trouble is that they aren't fully inflated. Any solution to this?

Add me to the list of people with this issue...

That would make me buy it...

Wow...a lot of details there, even a virtual mechanic that fills out the squawk sheet with hardware issues "he" discovers, which persist from flight to flight! Wait, isn't that one of the nice things about being at home launching FSX instead of out at the airport?!?! ;)

Oh, well...I guess I shouldn't say things about it until I can actually use the sim again! Unfortunately, I had all of my sim gear stolen from me (along with nearly everything I own) and am in the process of buying everything again, which is a slow process, and sim hardware isn't yet at the top of the list, even though I'm in serious withdrawal! :joystick:

So....will Reno-Stead be there? Ideally some pylons too? :-D

One thing is for sure, in the real world you feel things before you see them, and can correct sooner than you can in the sim - so I'm not really shocked that my real world landings are a bit smoother than my sim landings. It does seem like the struts are a little less cushy in the DCS:P-51 though!

You bet, I'm glad that it was helpful! I love doing wheel landings because they are fun and look cool, and that's a perfectly fine reason to do them! Other than off airport operations and certain aircraft which demonstrate aerodynamic shielding of the tail surfaces when in the 3pt attitude the main reason for wheelies is the cool factor. Yes, you can see over the nose, but you can raise the tail after a 3Pt landing too - if you needed to for some reason. Yep, lower speed = shorter ground roll, less damage if you DO ball it up, less wear on the tires and brakes... In the real world, a tailwheel pilot becomes a master of using peripheral vision. You look straight ahead, even though there's nothing to see there, you look straight ahead but *see* everything in your peripheral vision. You don't want to turn your head or look off to one side very much at all - believe it or not you will be better off focused right over the nose and simply keeping the "slanted A shaped bits" of runway in your peripheral vision on the left and right side symmetrical. Another thing to do is burn the "sight picture" into your mind when you are sitting on the runway centerline in the 3pt attitude. Remember that image, and try to match it on every landing. If a moose happens to run out into the middle of the runway you are probably in trouble even if you could see it...so mostly we just try to keep the pointy end going straight, and the runway center line between our wheels! Oh and as far as the throttle goes, in torquey planes like the Stang, you don't need to add a lot of throttle, and you can make things worse if you overdo it...just a quick, and brief shot of power should be enough! You can do either landing either way, and the way you mention is probably the most common (especially in a heavily laden aircraft). But I'm an opinionated sort and in the real world my stance is that if I need throttle during the landing flair and touchdown, then I've messed up. That doesn't mean it's always a bad idea, or that I will never use it.... Leaving some power on makes both of them easier, but touching down with power increases the touchdown speed, and trains bad habits. See the previous argument about the ideal landing happening at the lowest possible speed, plus if you always use power to land, you aren't going to like it when you land in such a way as to NEED the power and it's not there either due to a momentary hesitation, or an outright engine failure. I think it's better to practice the more difficult, but safer, power off approach and not be dependent on the mill turning to make a normal landing. Once when checking out in a Fi-156 the check pilot wanted me to do wheel landings as he did, using only throttle to control the touchdown and little to no elevator, he had also advocated using power for 3pt landings because the airplane was a handful at high AoA when at idle power. I had done wheelies without using elevator inputs before, for fun and as a component of emergency maneuver training (it's a useful skill to practice failed/jammed elevator control) but not as a regular way to land. Initially I did it his way, and later when solo, and trying other things I could see that doing it the way I would normally was in fact a bit sketchy....I could wheel land it power off just fine, but doing 3pts with the nose high, the thing just comes down like an elevator and you can't really arrest the descent rate with MORE pitch, so you either plop it down firmly and let the Storch legs soak it up, or you add a shot of throttle and let it kiss the ground a little more subtly. So in this case, the SLOWEST forward speed is actually attained by a steep, nose high, power off approach and then a fist full of power just before crashing...err...landing (good times). If you want to try the power on wheel landing in the Stang, just trim it for about 100-110mph, approach as normal, and then add a little power to arrest the descent rate around the time when you would normally add aft stick to flair (no I actually haven't done this in DCS - but I imagine it works). The reason leaving power on makes landing easier is because the additional power essentially makes the touchdown happen in slow motion because your descent rate is less, and the effects of induced drag as you increase the AoA are minimized, so you have more time to react and adjust to things. So....the short answer is "Try them both ways, and if you can do them power off, then you're good!"

I have some time in the 51, and find it to be a rather well behaved airplane as far as tailwheel airplanes are concerned. The wide track gear, long tail moment, struts, and the fairly low vertical component of CG make for a pretty honest airplane. I did encounter some more bounce character than I expected in the earlier beta, but I just tried out the current version of the sim and there wasn't much bounce to speak of and I feel that it does a pretty decent job of handling the touchdown.

It sounds like it is simulating a hot start! A hot start requires a slightly different technique, and is usually a little more of a challenge!

Using only partial flaps is good idea, however you do not need to add much additional speed for a crosswind. Additional speed need only be added if the wind is gusty, and the general rule is to add 50% of the gust factor to your airspeed (ie. if the wind is 12kt gusting to 20kt, half the gust factor is 4, so approach 4kts faster than usual.) As far as the technique: When further out on final approach you simply fly the extended runway centerline by doing a coordinated turn into the wind such that your ground track is appropriate, but your nose will not be pointing down the runway so as you near the landing flair you need to transition to the "sideslip" in order to point the nose down the runway while still preventing any lateral drift. Essentially you want to use the ailerons to bank into the crosswind such that you eliminate any lateral drift, and you simultaneously add opposite rudder to keep the airplane aligned with the runway. You will be in a slip and as such drag does increase some and so this is why some people will approach a little faster than normal. You maintain this cross controlled state until after touchdown and will touch down on the upwind wheel first, and then continue to add ever increasing cross controlled inputs as the airplane decelerates and aerodynamic control authority decays. Here's a demo of a crosswind takeoff and landing that shows the technique fairly clearly: This is incorrect - you absolutely do not want to use the brakes for directional control in almost any scenario! Proper technique is to use the controls as outlined above - aileron into any crosswind, rudder opposite it, and if a swerve starts and you already have all the rudder applied then what you need to do is add a quick shot of power (not brakes). This serves to increase the authority of the rudder and elevator, as well as to increase directional stability. Any tailwheel pilot that uses lots of brakes on landing will not only add a lot of wear and tear to the airplane, but stands a pretty good chance of balling up the airplane when they are confronted with some wind. Sorry to nitpick you a second time, but this isn't really right either....I think you are thinking of the recommendation to use the "wheel landing" where the airplane lands at a more or less level pitch attitude. This can be useful in blustery conditions where there is some windshear, but generally the best best is still the 3 point landing where the tailwheel touches down either just before, or at the same time as the main gear. The truth is, you actually WANT the tailwheel firmly planted on the runway surface, so as soon as you touch the tailwheel to the runway, you should bring the stick back into your lap to help keep as much weight on the tailwheel as possible. Keeping the tail up eliminates that additional point of runway contact which quickly becomes critical as the airplane decelerates. Also, lowering the tail once the aircraft is slow also means that the relative impact of gyroscopic action of the prop is stronger, while aerodynamic control authority is minimal, which will lead to a yaw-wise swing when the tail comes down. There are still those pilots who will debate the notion of the 3 pt landing being the best landing in *most cases* but most of us with experience will say that in general, it is the way to go, even during strong crosswinds. Many piston engine warbirds also have prop clearance issues when in the level "wheel landing attitude" and so 3pt is mandatory for landings and tail low takeoffs are performed as well. Of course there are exceptions, such as airplanes like the DC3, or the Beech 18 which may lose some tail authority in the 3pt attitude, or when operating on rough/unimproved/rocky terrain the small tailwheel must be held clear of the terrain...etc. In summary: during a crosswind do a 3 point, sideslip/winglow landing, pin the tailwheel down firmply as soon as you can get it there, keep the aileron into the wind after landing (and add more and more as you slow), and don't forget to position the controls correctly during taxi! :-D

I use what I can find in my flight bag! A Tri-Fold Kneeboard like this: http://cdn.pilotmall.com/images/uploads/KB3.gif and for approach plates this clip: http://www.helicoptersonly.com/contents/media/leg%20clip%20l%20300.jpg When I have used an iPad in flight, it hasn't been with a cover, and I don't bother placing sectional/terminal/enroute charts in a holder since you cover ground fast enough that it only adds workload to remove it for refolding.

In "the real world" most every landing in a tailwheel equipped airplane is probably best made in the three point attitude - where the tailwheel touches down at the same time (or slightly before) as the mains. There are of course some exceptions, like the DC-3 or Beech 18 which lose rudder authority in the 3Pt attitude. Even though most of us agree that the 3pt is usually the safest choice, the wheel landing can increase control authority somewhat (and increase speed at touchdown) and so it can be used during blustery and/or crosswind conditions to stick a wheel on the runway while still retaining significant control authority. Despite this, I advocate a 3pt *especially* during strong crosswinds because you will get the additional directional stability that the tailwheel provides right away vs having the tail up and ready to swing into the wind(weathervane), you have a good indication of the strength of the crosswind before you touch down (to avoid the mess that happens when you slow down during the landing only to find you don't have enough rudder/aileron to counter the xwind component) you will touch down at the lowest possible speed, reducing the chance of a gust of wind sending you airborne again as well as minimizing the amount of time and distance you spend rolling down the runway in the ground loop zone (too slow to have strong control authority - but fast enough to have lots of momentum), and of course, even when you land on the maingear, you still have to lower the tail which induces gyroscopic effects, and you still have to decelerate though the same speeds you would have to if you just landed it 3pt! You want to get the airplane slowed down, you want to get the tailwheel down on the ground, and get the stick back ASAP, so why not just land that way! Even the visibility argument is moot - you can touch down in the 3pt attitude and then raise the tail if you want to see over the nose....but really, what good does seeing over the nose do ya? You are too slow to maneuver and too fast to stop - so it just lets you see what you are gonna hit! So really, I only wheel landing because it looks cool, and because it's fun. If there is a crosswind, I'll 3pt it. Of course some pilots will tell you why the wheel landing is much better/safer/etc - and in a few airplanes, in a few instances they are, but most of the time, the 3Pt is the better bet. As far as techniques: http://www.oshkosh365.org/ok365_DiscussionBoardTopic.aspx?id=1235&boardid=147&forumid=181&topicid=3411 http://www.taildraggers.com/Documentation.aspx?page=GreatDebate

Those last 90 seconds always ruin the eBay deals! But thanks for the headsup!

Do these things, in this order (ELEVATOR must be last) Power off Ailerons Neutral (or, in the direction of the spin) Rudder Opposite Elevator just forward enough to go through neutral. (NOT very far forward) DCS: P-51 does a pretty good job of modelling spins, and this means that poor recovery techniques can lead to other spin modes (such as crossover spins to inverted), and this may prevent, and WILL certainly delay recovery.

Nice work you guys...