-0303-

Just read about this different thread... chuckled ... and then it happened to me.:cry: Searched and found this thread. Log out, log in works.

Repaired multiple times on CV. In catapult position. Flew to land and repaired 3 times, tail kept collapsing (twice on grass, once on concrete). On CV it was "resurrected" from wingless burning wreck, as damaged it can get with pilot living ... Maybe something broke. Anyone seen something similar? Tail wheel collapsing after repair again and again ... Or just Spitfire repair not working in some other fashion?

If they push back Mosquito because of Corona, I'm fine with that. I recall there's a certain Mosquito pilot who's input (and name is in this thread) is critical. They could release with "fm to be refined later" maybe. I played an arcadish WW2 game 20 years ago. B-17, B-25, Me-110, lots more could be multicrewed and yet it seldom happened (there was a storied husband / wife team though ...). Seldom even in "Scenarios" (reenactments), with 60 ppl, do we get 25 B-17 or 5? What's my point? Focus on single pilot usage, multicrew can be refined with time. I'm soo looking forward to the first multi piston DCS quality plane. Almost as much as the first tail dragger carrier plane. I'm more into DCS for the actual flight and systems simulation, more so than shooting stuff up.

I'm reminded of "The Right Stuff". Astronaut recalls how every electric system failed and he thought he was a goner. But in the darkness a long trail of gleaming plankton from the Carriers wake became visible leading him home in darkness of the night. Ships should have wakes. Maybe they also could help with lineup beyond distant spotting. ... was Apollo 13. It was either "The Right Stuff" or Apollo 13, guessed wrong.

Hate to break it to you but you are not the arbiter of which threads are needed or not. I'm asking for basic sanity in the universe (regarding repair handling). I'm asking for a very minute fix. Make the CV carrier repair script understand the positioning difference between tricycle and tail draggers. Eventually they will have too anyway when we get the Corsair and WW2 CV's. Or simpler still. Restrict every non-carrier (hookless) plane to only place repairs onto catapults in the repair script. Third (even simpler?) idea. Disable the positioning system introduced with 2.5.6 for all non carrier planes. Just let repair on the spot like it worked in 2.5.5. Not that it matters but in a nice symmetry every (unloaded) taildragger can even take off from this position. Funny how it centers on the tail wheel as if it was a nose wheel. It doesn't and can't hook up of course.

Here's a short track as asked for.^ Ping BigNewy.

Just discovered that they exist and works as advertised. Can light them individually and the jettison button works. Problem is the only way to get them is to set a checkmark in the Mission Editor. But then, if used, they do not "come back" either by rearming or even after repair. Of course they should be reloaded on rearm, just brakechutes gets "repacked" on rearm. Will put this "bug" forum shortly unless someone tells me I'm wrong.

Ping BIGNEWY. ^

Mystery thickens. On 4YA_Caucasus_Capture_Base_V134B server one does get 2300. 4YA (unlike aerobatics and Hoggit server) has hot ramp starts and air starts. But ... after ground looping while taxiing (as one does with I-16). After repair and cold start, now rpm limits at 2200. Still one can get to 2300 by retarding and advancing RPM lever. Experiment repeated to verify. RPM level at max and not touching it.

I made a bug report with a track. Here. -Yes, it's a fresh "Saved Games" and a repair & "cleaning files". -It has always behaved like this (NOT any recent patch). Yet again, I emphasize the (most annoying) comparison between the red/yellow of the G-Meter and the red/yellow of the IAS needle. The latter washes out nearly completely. But there's also all the other gauge coloring's like green arcs that shouldn't wash out as much. Or at all? Shine white light on colored surface, does color disappear? No.

Only Offline. Weirdness. Online (multiplayer) Tested two servers (aerobatics and Hoggit). In both RPM is maxed at 2200 rpm (even in a screaming dive) until one forwards and reverses the RPM lever. As if simulating braking a wire. Offline. Cold start ramp, hot start ramp, hot start runway. In all cases rpm goes to 2300 rpm as soon as you have speed (take off speed creeping over 100 km/h is enough). Why would multiplayer vs single player make a difference? Make no sense.

There's a nose up thing going on I think .. just now anyway. I won't discuss this anymore until I have a good track worth talking about. If so I'll start a new thread.

Wing is dropped, yes. But I do remember having speed. Above 100 mph (I should make a track). But it's because I have speed that this seems "wrong". The weather-wane effect, it should correct itself, unless one is deliberately trying to side-slip hard.

Confirmed.

Reminds me of an intriguing book on the beginnings during WW2. Arthur C Clarke, of all people, worked as a tech for an experimental radar controlled approach system during WW2. Pilot (Avro Anson) was blind at night and talked down. Clarke got a ride, and was less than happy about it. It was dangerous, on the upside he stopped being jeaulos of the pilot. Other project same book, burn away fog all around the RWY with kerosene. Hot up winds made it seriously dangerous. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glide_Path I recommend this book. Reading it decades ago I remember it as a straight up A C Clarke remembrance, rather than fictional. Maybe Alvarez was fictionalized to avoid any trouble writing about a living person. At one point they had a defend-against-german-saboteur exercise. The "saboteurs" we're picked up immediately because defenders, including Clarke, unbeknownst to "saboteurs" used the RADAR truck to see them in the night.

Learned the lesson, the moment "[F2] Request Azimuth" suddenly shifts wildly, then you can turn towards RWY direction. Noted something. From inside cockpit, one must zoom in field of view or you won't see RWY lights at a distance. RWY white lights and red green lights pops in at different zoom levels. Outside view, it's directly visible (but that's cheating). Closer up, on final, RWY lights looks fuzzy.

I understand all this. As mentioned I tried a pitch black approach. On arriving I kept on passing the point (not seeing the field at all) only ever getting new directions. Getting new direction and distance would help. Getting a short distance "297 for 1 nm" would inform me I'm at the point close enough and I could steer 130 for the airfield. Maybe AI could be smart enough to volunteer when I'm close enough to the point to directly steer for the RWY. IF DISTANCE TO POINT < 0.5 nm THEN SAY "Steer 130 for RWY". Additionally it would be nice to have the option (at any time) to directly ask ATC "Where am I in relation to field (distance & direction)?" I wish ATC would give something to indicate I'm not passing the insanity test (keep doing the same thing and expecting a different result). In the real world ATC would say "Hey retard, you've been circling 9 nm NW forever, you're delaying other traffic, shit or get off the pot, airfield is 9 nm SE.". In every movie I've seen ATC is real helpful like (and polite). I'm not asking for ATC AI to say the latter. Programming AI is real hard. I'm looking for simple doable things. Giving direction and distance on "[F2] Request Azimuth" is simple and doable.

In the real world I gather there must be some formalized manner to ask ATC "where the frack am I?". Could we have that?

Add option to ask ATC "where am I relative to field" or have ATC volunteer this info. Example. Called "Inbound" west of Batumi (see image), it directs to rwy 13. It gives contra course, which might seem odd. What is happening, I believe, is that anytime I call "[F1] Inbound", or keep calling "[F2] Request Azimuth", it keeps directing me to a point outside of the field in the runways extension (for runway 13, extension is to about 9 nm NW Batumi I surmise looking at F10 map). As experiment I kept calling "[F2] Request Azimuth" (Navigation assistance), it kept giving me any and all directions 75, 250, 179, 56 ... whatever (because I kept passing the point it directed me too). In daylight, you can ignore this and just keep heading for the field until it calls "cleared for visual, contact tower". In pitch black night time on the other hand ... you can keep running around forever getting new directions, never seeing the field or even being told you should see the field. One can infer I guess, if one keeps getting contradictory directions but remembering it's for rwy 13, that must mean you are NW of Batumi. One could then steer 130 hoping to see the rwy and getting the "cleared for visual, contact tower". It would be a help, especially at night, if ATC actually told you where you are relative to the field: "you are NW Batumi" followed by "steer 297" (or whatever) for "landing inception point". If ATC AI was really intelligent, of course, it would never say "297" in this situation, it would suggest a course (and altitude?) that asymptotically approaches the correct RWY approach. But adding human judgement to ATC AI is extremely complicated and will not happen. But adding an option to have ATC AI volunteer where you are relative to the field or adding an option to straight up ask "ATC where am I relative to the field?", that could be done. Following real world vocabulary of course. This brought about because I've never seen RWY lights in multiplayer ever, that I can remember so I tried an night offline mission. Yes, the RWY lights do come on when calling inbound (and goes off if you call abort landing). So then I tried some pitch black navigation and discovered I can run around forever, never seeing the field, if I keep following "[F2] Request Azimuth" directions.

Schweizer? Not this kind of schweizer then. Would've been unexpected.

For OP, the safest way to takeoff. Make sure to have some elevator trim down (the autostart does this automatically). Less important, 5-6 degrees right rudder trim (you'll be controlling with the rudder anyway). Pull the stick back all the way (I think pressing down the tail helps directional stability but full back might be unnecessary). When speed hits 60-100 mph release the stick, wait until tail rises. At 110-140 mph, very carefully pull back and take off (It works at 110 or even 100, but 120-140 is safer). Note, because of the trim nose down you must keep holding stick back, if stick released, it will nose down hard onto rwy again. While holding stick back, keep trimming elevator up until it stays neutral. Also. You can't "think it". Only keep doing it until it's in muscle memory.

It does NOT need stick full back for tail wheel lock, just aft of neutral (or even neutral) is enough. Pull it back a little bit just to make sure any inadvertent minute forward push doesn't unlock it. ~ A different subject that may relate. Or maybe it's me. I find the P-51 weirdly unstable in yaw during takeoff or just after takeoff. More so than any other taildragger. If it starts slide sideways I'm doomed, more often than not. Weird because I think the weatherwane effect should keep it (like any other plane) from sideways slipping the way the P-51 often does. It feels "wrong". I don't know how to be sure if it's me not grasping what's happening or if it is something with the flight model. The I-16, Spitfire or Bf109, if they start sideslipping I have no problem correcting it.

Came here to say this. Aerobatics server. No rwy lights at night. Lights come on at dawn / daylight, next cycle.

Looks like ignited fuel dumped from exhausts. Noticed it goes off and on with the mixture level. Looks exactly like exhaust flames when over priming engine while starting. Exhaust flames hasn't worked for me for a year. Yesterday I randomly discovered, now it does and it looks just like that.

Actually I just noticed we now get a huge bonfire if you over prime Spitfire. Biggest I've ever seen. Little to nothing without over priming. So that's nice. A year about's I had no exhaust flames but others insisted it was there.