Flamin_Squirrel

Having a solid mount for a stick is certainly handy, and I've recently branched out into working with aluminium to cut/weld a fairly simple mount for my FSSB R3. Anyone need anything similar? Can't do it for free, but but I'm not a pro so it would only be at cost (something similar would probably cost around £30-40 + shipping (from UK)). Might not be any takers, but the offers there if it's useful to anyone!

So it might be worth describing how an INS aligns. At least, this is my understanding. I'm happy to be corrected, 'cos I find this stuff interesting and want to get it right. INS requires that it knows its current lat/long prior to alignment. That generally comes from pilot input, or GPS in most modern aircraft. Once the INS has this info, alignment begins; it does this by using 3 gyros (one in each axis) to sense how each one precesses, caused by the earth's rotation. Combined with knowledge of where it is on the planet from the earlier entered lat/long, it can establish where it is pointing in 3D space, including which direction true north is. So, assuming my understanding is correct, the alignment time is in large part due to the need for the earth to rotate enough that the INS can detect said rotation, in order to establish orientation (rather than position). As far as I'm aware GPS can only help with position, so how does it help speed up alignment?

OK, but how does GPS help alignment if the plane already knows where it is?

Hmmm, you sure? You can tell the aircraft where it is by entering your current co-ordinates, so how would GPS help? The plane already knows where it is. Not saying you're wrong, it just doesn't seem intuitive (to me at least). I couldn't see much on the subject in the -1, but I didn't look that hard I have to admit. We're not flying around the arctic so I guess it doesn't matter too much!

Why would a HAS make any difference? Accuracy will degrade with time, fully aligned or not. I believe latitude makes a difference to alignment time also.

I thought that DCS World 2 engine introduced curvature?

It won't set the standby compass to true north though :music_whistling:

Default HUD readout is magnetic IIRC.

Oh yeah I don't doubt you; I was just wondering if this was correct (as in, if it's not a bug and the real plane is like this) and if so it would be interesting to know why.

As far as I'm aware (at least in civil flying) everything is referenced off magnetic heading (there will be occasional exceptions, e.g. flying at high latitudes). The reason for this is you want all your instruments to crosscheck, including against your trusty standby magnetic compass. Does AWACS really issue headings in true (in reality)? If so, the question I'd be asking is why do AWACS do that.

I'm unsure what you're referring to being broken? Would be interested in more info. It's not the wind reported in the mission editor/ATC/F10 map/briefing not matching (some are correct, some are 180 degrees out (I can never remember which are right)) you're talking about is it? If it is, sadly that bug has been in for years, with no sign it'll ever be fixed.

Didn't Thrustmaster originally talk of a Hornet throttle too?

*crickets chirp*

Bank angle makes quite a difference to your descent rate, at a constant throttle (i.e. more bank = less vertical lift component, greater rate of descent). Make sure you're holding a steady bank angle off the 180; throttle control should be easier after that.

But the 'deadzone' is at the idle end of the throttle travel, so why does it matter?

I'm not trolling, I just dislike sloppy language, especially from people who claim to be professionals.

Here's what you should have said "there's no documented evidence that anti-ice has any practical effect on on the Hornet's performance". If you're a pilot as you say you are, you should very well understand the importance of specific words, e.g. 'zero' =/= negligible.

I look forward to seeing your design for a perpetual motion machine.

You said there was no performance hit. The burden of proof is on you to back that claim up. "I didn't find anything that proves me wrong, so I must be right" is at best misleading.

I believe you that you couldn't find anything. That doesn't prove anything though. Lack of evidence for A does not make B true. If nothing's documented, it might be because the effect isn't significant. You can't magic up energy though, that heat has to come from somewhere (in this case, greater demand on bleed air).

I find that very difficult to believe. The energy has to come from somewhere.

Multiply your attitude in thousands by 2 to get a distance and you should be there or there abouts. E.g. 25,000ft, descend with 50nm to go.

Fuel data won't be supplied on battery alone.

What do you mean by 'fastest', climb rate, or airspeed? Fuel burn drops off considerably at altitude, so climbing around best climb rate is generally the most fuel efficient. Max throttle is also best, because fuel flow drops off faster as you climb than you'd have saved by being at a lower throttle setting.

At low speed you're lift limited (pull harder; you'll stall), at high speed you're G limited (overstress airframe). Corner speed is the cross over point between these two, and where your maximum INSTANTANEOUS turn rate lies. Hope that helps.