-0303-

Autostart works fine for me. If autostart doesn't work at all for you, that's a different and much bigger issue probably for a separate thread. Are you talking about autostart or manual start? Sounds like magnets are not switched on. The booster coil provides ignition while pressed. It would run just a few seconds after button being released. Does the track work as I described?

Fresh DCS install, no mods whatsoever. Made a 15 sec track. Spitfire is my absolute favorite. What I describe below is new behavior I'm quite certain. This bug is specifically about the electric starter, not the whole starting sequence. Description. 1) Spawn Spitfire on airfield as "Takeoff from ramp". I.e., engine stopped and cold. 2) Flip open start and booster covers 3) Hit starter button and engine turns over. Release starter button. Hit starter button again, propeller doesn't move. This is what my short track shows. Now the weirdness. This only happens when the first starter button press is very short (less than a second). If the first starter button press is longer, say 5 sec, it will not happen. Also, it will only happen once. Meaning, if I "Quit -> Fly again", it will not repeat. The autostart sequence (Right Win + Home) seems to always work when applied after spawn. But ... if autostart is tried after a failed manual attempt (as in the track), autostart will not move the propeller either. Modules: [I-16] [Normandy 1944 Map] [WWII Assets Pack] [Bf 109 K-4 Kurfurst] [UH-1H Huey] [F-86F Sabre] [Flaming Cliffs 3] [Spitfire LF Mk. IX] [P-51D Mustang] Free Mariana map NOT INSTALLED. Version, latest as of today. openbeta/2.7.16.28111/ Downloaded my track (above) and confirmed it runs as described. Spitfire manual start fail.trk

Grafspee has it just right. There is no main battery switch in the Spitfire. I deliberately skipped every other starting step to keep track as short as possible. No priming, no magnets, no fuel cock ...

Started new topic instead. I also had engine start problems. Could very well be the same thing. DCS install is fresh (few days), no mods whatsoever. I made a track (about 15 sec). Noted this while playing the "count six blades" routine (to get oil around before actual start). Note, Spitfire is my absolute favorite. What I describe below is new behavior. 99% certain I would have seen it long ago if it wasn't. I might, and maybe should, make this a separate new thread. Description. 1) Spawn Spitfire "Takeoff from ramp". Ie, engine stopped and cold. 2) Flip open start and booster covers 3) Hit start and propeller moves. Release start button. Hit start again, it doesn't move. This is what my short track shows. Now the weirdness. This only happens when the first start press is very short (less than a second). If I press first start longer, say 5 sec, it will not happen. Also, it will only happen once. Meaning, if I "Quit -> Fly again", it will not repeat. The autostart sequence (Right Win + Home) seems to always work when applied after spawn. But ... if autostart is tried after a failed manual attempt (as in the track), autostart will not move the propeller either. Modules: [I-16] [Normandy 1944 Map] [WWII Assets Pack] [Bf 109 K-4 Kurfurst] [UH-1H Huey] [F-86F Sabre] [Flaming Cliffs 3] [Spitfire LF Mk. IX] [P-51D Mustang] Free Mariana map NOT INSTALLED. Version, latest as of today. openbeta/2.7.16.28111/ Downloaded my track (above) and confirmed it repeats as described. I've had engine start problems that express similar (as if battery low) many years ago. This was after repair I believe . Reported then, but never managed to make a clear concise description and track though.

One might think a "rejigging" of the F4U turbocharger could significantly improve altitude performance. Something that would have happened. The Spitfire came in variants engine optimized for high or low altitudes. Damn. I'd figure if not croaked at least retired by then...

Very interesting. I thought it was the magnet and therefore harmless, maybe not. I've not been using it a lot lately but I'm certainly taking notes. I will take it apart (again) eventually, I'm sure.

Just a comment. Used to play another WW2 (arcadish) game long ago. Historical events "Scenarios" was the absolute highlight. Pearl harbor, Big week, Coral sea, Schweinfurt, Regensburg. Watching fuel, keeping discipline, protect the bombers, <profanity>posting on the common text channel ... This game had next to no offline play so community dynamics was different, "everybody" met online all the time (as opposed DCS which I learned is 90% offline players). Given volunteers doing some historical research and willing to "run" (*1) the events I think this has great potential for community building. *1) By "run" I mean player admins with the power to start / restart the Scenario, bounce griefers, readmit disconnects etc. I don't know how DCS works in this regard.

Found on reddit with no information. Reverse image search found this Russian page. https://military.wikireading.ru/27607 Caption. More good I-16 stuff there. I Bookmarked.

It used to be the window could be dragged but now it's fixed in upper left corner. Is it just me? Obviously a minor inconvenience ...and it works again. Something temporary. Scratch report.

"Bismarck", the youtuber talks about this in this video. Watch from 23:45 for example. Start 22:45 for everything(?) LSO this video.

Yes it does breaks suspension of disbelief because it's doable in the physical world and it has been done. Last time famously by a Cessna Bird Dog on USS Midway. Landings and takeoffs can already be done. I'm only asking for the planes to not be thrown off the side by the repair algorithm. Like it worked pre ver 2.6. In history Hurricanes was evacuated from Norway to a Carrier. Never mind it shortly got sunk by a German battleship.

I've experienced autostart failing. it stuck at 20% and then shut itself down. Ove and over again. I got it started by manipulating the throttle after autostarting got stuck at ~20%. It started happening after an upgrade, can't recall when. Or at least don't recall it ever happening before. To vague it up some more, maybe it happened in cold temperatures. Also I can only remember it happening on the Stennis CV. This may have happened 6 months - a year ago.

Same thing happens with Spitfire, P-51, P-47, Bf-109, I-16 ... Funny. When the algorithm sometimes puts those planes on a catapult, the tail wheel is placed on the catapult hookup. This "bug" breaks suspense of disbelief in a bad way. Seems just a small effort is needed to fix it. If ED doesn't want to redefine the plane center they could alternatively just exclude non naval planes from the move-to-catapult-or-elevator algorithm. Repair could work on the spot like it used to pre 2.5.6. Third option, only position on catapults. Suspense of disbelief. People (well me) like to explore virtual worlds. Land Harrier on a freighter. Land helicopter on a truck. Land a plane on the beach, grass field. Sometimes crash and burn, fine. Some limitations are fine. I wouldn't expect Tower to pass the Turing test. "Easy fixable" unnecessary limitations, like algorithm deliberately throwing your plane overboard, no. Besides, planes did land on CV's hook less. It was a part of WW2. Hurricanes was evacuated to carriers from Norway without hooks. Planes got ferried a lot on carriers. One guy lost his drop tank on takeoff, and landed his Spitfire back on the CV without a hook. Once I landed and took off the Spitfire 50 times in a row. I could've kept going except for a server reset.

A simplified summary I prepared two years ago but never got around to posting. May update with corrections / more information. The solenoid 25386-5 can be bought here. The lamp AN3121-313 can be bought from Amazon or Walmart

Is Su-25 an odd choice for a carrier trainer? Imagine A-10 for carrier training . Though A-10 has excellent visibility and a sturdy gear ... Doubt Su-25 was originally designed with Carrier training in mind. But they chose not to design a whole new plane. From a Russian(?) page about Su-25. https://soldat.pro/en/2018/07/06/su-25-grach/

Original source political and omitted. Nice photo. I don't think ED should invest anything in non clickable cockpit planes. But if someone made a Su25-with-hook mod I'd try it. Hm.. Wikipedia states SU-25UTG was only ever a trainer for carrier landings. No more than 10 was ever active. Still active? Wiki is unclear. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_Su-25#Variants

Yes, if the horizon is aligned it'll stay that way for a while in DCS. Not what I'm addressing. Look at my first link: "On some modules, once the artificial horizon developps an error it is unable to correct it." In a real plane, If you fly "watercombed", no rolls, no loops or anything that "tumbles" the artificial horizon you'll never ever have to cage it because it continuously auto erects itself towards the gravity vector (~2-8 degrees per minute). DCS artificial horizons (Warbirds at least) does not do this. They should. In the Spitfire the error is obvious because of the inability to cage. In P-51, Bf 109 you cage and don't think about it. But caging offers the opportunity to easily get the horizon un-aligned for testing purposes: Uncage the horizon while rolled (30, 45, 60 degrees something). Roll back to level and the horizon will be un-aligned (30, 45, 60 ...). Now just fly straight and level and the artificial horizon should correct itself back to true alignment with the gravity vector (perpendicular to ground). The real Spitfire (Dover to Dunkirk timestamp 18:05-27:02) in the video above took 9 minutes. Note, you do not in any way need to fly perfectly straight and level to allow the horizon to correct itself. That would be an insane demand.

No they don't. Not Bf109, not FW190. Not a single Warbird as far as I know, not F-5, not F-86 artificial horizon works as they should. Seems a general problem. Probably a lot more if tested. An easy test: Cage horizon, roll to some degree (45, 60...), uncage horizon and roll level. Now flight straight and level. The artificial horizon should reorient itself towards the gravity vector within a reasonable time (*1). Typical "self erection" rates are ~2 - 8 degrees per minute. The two videos I posted above are the best I come across in explaining how they should work. ~ *1) For the real Spitfire Mk 9 video above (Dover to Dunkirk), the time was 9 minutes (watch 18:05 - 27:02). That was a worst case situation, longest time I think. It started near vertical and recovery from right bias take longer time then left bias due to the earths rotation.

a realistically gyro stabilized gimbal <cough> <cough> <cough>

Just realized, last sentence of F-86F gyro spec: "...horizon bar [pitch] and bank index [roll] ... return from 5 degrees to zero ... 6 minutes..." makes for a pitiful (5/6) 0.83 degrees per minute. But the pendulous vanes action, by their nature, obviously acts more powerfully the further from alignment the horizon is. Watch pierrewind 2 min video and think about it. If correcting air ports are only partially open at 5 degree misalignment, they're fully open at some point further away (10, 30 , 45 misalignment?) exerting max realignment push (making for the full advertised 5 degree per minute?). Then my last two tracks shouldn't require 12 min and 36 min but something much shorter. Also now I think maybe that's why the initial F-86F gyro spec paragraph talks about a specific interval "...10 to 5 degrees shall be between 2 to 4 degrees per minute...". Realignment speeds differ with the degree of misalignment.

I saw that. I thought it wouldn't make sense for it to not self erect from any angle. I wanted unambiguous results. Still, I made tracks starting from 10 degrees and 30 degrees. Tricky to set just 5 degrees. Given the "5 degrees in 6 min" they should self erect in 12 minutes and 36 minutes respective (ed/add: should happen faster see next post) which are the times I tested (+ ~1 extra minute to make sure they got 12 and 36). They got worse. 10 degree right bias ended at 20 degree right bias, 30 degree right bias ended at 45 degree right bias. Also made 3 hour tests with P-51D and F-86F. Parked with enough rpm for suction and electricity (generator lamp off F-86F). Both crept much to slow (P-51 ~0.5 degree per minute) and worse, kept on trucking after passing "level". P-51 started at 60 degree right bias, I quit at 30 left bias. F-86F started at 90 degree right bias, I quit again at 30 left bias. Sparing people those tracks. In [F2] view, note clock rightmost and bank angle (check for zero and look at horizon). Pause may be useful. 38:18 min and 14:19 min track times respective. Obviously use speed up, no point watching real time. F-86F_horizon_v3_start30end45deg_in36min.trk F-86F_horizon_v4_start10end20deg_in12min.trk

I made tracks of P-51D, Bf 109 K-4 and F-86F. Simplest shortest track: Air start cage horizon roll 90 degrees uncage horizon roll level and fly for 10 minutes watching for self erection. None did. In 10 minutes a minimum of 2 degrees per minute should make for 20 degrees or something noticeable. I believe I understand that a fundamental functionality of any artificial horizon, equally important as the rigid-in-space property, is that they self erect towards the gravity vector (~2-8 degrees per minute). Note, only talking of ye olde mechanic gyro horizons. I did find specs for the F-86F "J-8" (electric) artificial horizon. Gleaning the essential: self erection rate is 2-4 degrees per minute in bank, 2-5 degrees in pitch (If "0.2" isn't a typo I only watched roll self erection anyway). This page states Attitude Indicator Type J-8, MIL-I-5133A is for F-86-F. Found specs for MIL-I-5133C here (pdf): Bf 109_horizon_v1_10min.trk F-86F_horizon_v1_10min.trk P-51_horizon_v1_10min.trk

What happens in a sustained (coordinated) turn? The plane and passengers (including gyro horizon) perceives the lift force (green) perpendicular to the wings. The horizon gyro is initially aligned with the true gravity vector (blue). The centrifugal force (yellow) pressures the gyro to realign parallel with the lift vector (green). This doesn't happen, much... Maximum error is induced by a 180 degree turn while a full 360 cancels out the error. I've been told to think of it like this: In a 360 degree turn, the whole plane, the instrument case and the gimbals rotates around the rigid-in-space gyro, pulling it, literally, in all directions. Authoritative sources: pilot school quiz-let and instrument retailer. On leveling wings after 180 degrees, the small error in roll and pitch is quickly erased by the gyro's self erection (aligning with the gravity vector). Two excellent videos (in pedagogically explaining... stuff): 1) [21:06] Artificial Horizon Of Aircraft | Working Principles Of Artificial Horizon | Lecture 29 First half pneumatic gyro horizons, aka "classic horizons": pneumatic, spin ccw viewed from above and 110 roll limited (every Warbird?). Effect in coordinated, slip or skid turns and acceleration / deceleration. Then electric gyros, the same with differences. 2) [28:03] Gyrocompass showing effect of Earth rotation Don't be put off by the initial man cave experiment vibe. At 8:20 he starts an excellent illustrated explanation of what precession actually is and how to understand and predict it's effects. Also, as title says, a (great) explanation of the gyro-compass.

Tell where the instrument is and what time stamps to look at. 28 min is a long time. Very quick skim. Only in the first 10 min do we see the panel. The instrument at the very top of panel. At 3:42 there's a 90 degree turn onto rwy and lower needle doesn't move at all. Make me wonder if it's even connected. Is it vacuum driven and not working with idling engines? At 4:43 after takeoff he turns right and at 5:05 he turns left. Both times one can see the (lower) needle barely move (correctly). What does that mean, if anything? Is needle scaling in DH Rapide vs Mosquito different? To many questions to say anything about the Rapide instrument vs the Mossie instrument. On the upside, the artificial horizon, while messed up deep into the takeoff, very quickly self erects after during takeoff run and shows correctly while making turns (4:43, 5:05).