The Falcon

For e.g. CAS is useful for the pilot to know when he will stall, how much lift his wings will generate ect.. but does not tell him what energy his aircraft has, it does not tell him how much space he will be able to travel in a certain time ect..

Exactly. CAS is a "calibrated" airspeed, eg when flying at 30000ft at 250kts CAS, the CAS is much lower than the TAS and if you go vertically you can go up a lot comparing it with a 1000ft TAS, for that it is used as a parameter of energy. Yes, because it affects the centrifugal force, if i understand what you mean by corner speed, that affects the FM. I'm sorry we don't understand each other.

Ok let me understand what you mean. Are you saying that, maintaining the same engine power, an aircraft with headwind 200kts and GS 0kts, vertically climbing is the same as another plane with tailwind 200kts and GS 400kts?

Please don't cut the rest of the part. Sure it can but if we are talking about an f-16 with 200kts headwind he can easily push and go beyond the 0 groundspeed. Which pilot in reality would be carried backwards by the wind?

If in the example we were at 0kts groundspeed with a headwind of 200kts this means that the engines are pushing, it seems obvious to me. If the engines push more than the weight then yes that goes vertical up otherwise no, but this was not part of the example.

And yes! becouse CAS tell you what type of air you are invested in but your groundspeed so your energy does not depend on the CAS therefore all the maneuvers at 90 degrees vertical to the wind take this energy into account.

Dude read better, we are talking about vertical climb 90 degrees up. And yes 0 groundspeed is equal at 0 kinetic energy (if we take our earth as the center of the universe) Sorry but you didn't answer

Yes, it is not correct because a plane never flies backwards. Of course, in the example I have done, the thrust must not be cut. Negative groundspeed is energy, in this case cutting the trust has the same effect on True airpseed as doing it with a groundspeed of 200kts but without wind.

But if we are talking about navigation all the time! Sorry but navigation isn't moving somewhere for you? The talk was not born about the FM? I'm still waiting to know your answer to the two questions i asked, nobody has yet answered but everyone continues to separate from my example (except Deano87) only the aerodynamic part, and thanks! so it is obvious that there is no difference between airspeed and wind. The questions were: 2 different cases. No WCA. First case, make a pass over the runway at maximum speed.(pointing the nose steadily towards the center of the runway) Second case, do the same passage at minimum speed.(pointing the nose steadily towards the center of the runway) How does it change in general or how does the FM change?

Cut the discussion by saying that "the manuals say" "you don't understand aerodynamics" doesn't disqualify me. I understand my comments don't match the terminology of the manuals but the reality is not made of manuals, things are not divided. The manuals give notions for pilots so that they know how to behave. cofcorpse said the FM is composed of two parts, material point and aerodynamic forces. In reality we have such a thing. Aerodynamic forces and energy due to the mass/speed (not airspeed!) The speech has degenerated also because instead of trying to understand you have focused everything on manualistic speech, ending up being experts giving me the troll and pathetic as if i were questioning the bug. So we dragged this far. So in my defense, bkthunder made a good job by finding the bug, (among other things I agree with him when he says that such a mistake should not occur for a simulator like DCS), but the developers, who are not stupid, they know that for FM we have to consider the energies of the aircraft and those that the wind impresses them, as in the example of the vertical climb.

of course Zero ground speed means 0 energy(material point=kinetic energy), regardless of the airspeed. 400 ground speed means energy much > 0, so in this case we have a vertical energy and we go up and we also have drag and lift. So in this case FM is totally different. The only equal energy, inertia or momentum, of which you spoke above, is related to the aerodynamic maneuver, so the constant wind affects not the maneuver itself but the overall result. For this reason in my first post i wrote that it depends...

My gosh dude! don't remember me my x-52 pro :puke:

two is better than one but only without that Tom:lol:

When was the original Wags post dated?

2D with current screens has now reached an optimal level, something complete. The 8k is near and anything above it won't make much sense. VR must be considered as the future because in comparison with 2D it is still young but with time i think there will be few who will remain firm in 2D. For these reasons i hope that all the efforts that ED is doing are for the VR front

I understand that i should have been more careful with certain terms. Aerodynamics has nothing to do with the ground, the word "aero" says it. The manuals separate things to explain in a certain way, but in reality things are not separate. So one thing is aerodynamics taken alone, another thing is the overall flight model. Although the aerodynamic effect is the same with or without constant wind, the perception of what is happening around us is given by a static reference point (which is real life since we cannot escape to the ground, except for very fast objects). That's why I asked those questions but no one has answered yet: The questions were: 2 different cases. No WCA. First case, make a pass over the runway at maximum speed.(pointing the nose steadily towards the center of the runway) Second case, do the same passage at minimum speed. How does it change in general or how does the FM change? Imagine if you had to do this pass to bomb the runway, can you imagine dropping the bombs using the WCA? What happens to the bombs hitting the ground sideways? Anyway I answer. It simply wouldn't be possible. Because the pilot should counteract the carries of the wind by pointing against it to keep the center of the runway. This maneuver involves resistance, same it's done with or without wind, but in one case it is because of the wind, in the other because of the shift relative to the ground. However, what difference does the speed of the aircraft make? And i don't mean the airspeed but the speed in itself, therefore its energy. If you pass fast, you will be able to keep the center of the runway without too many problems for two reasons. First, because the overflight time decreases and the wind "has less time" to deviate you from the ground. Second because this energy is greater than the one impressed by the transport of the wind. This energy can be used by the pilot to his advantage. If instead you go slow it will be an impossible thing to do becouse your energy is slow and you will be more affected by that of the wind. This energy is what makes you understand that it cannot be said at 100％ that the constant wind does not change the FM because the FM must take this into account and this in relation to the energy impressed by the wind. I hope i was more clear.

For me these two comments are the essence of how we say the same thing but in two different ways, or how we see relative things as absolute. One sees it only as aerodynamics, another as aerodynamics but related to maneuvers to counteract the wind that moves us relative to the ground, that's it. That's why i asked those two questions, but it seems that for some i am questioning the bug found by bkthunder, but i'm not doing it

Thx to you Mar. Right now reading again what i wrote i realize that i have said certain things in the most difficult possible way to understand:doh:, for example when i said "dealing with the constant wind" it would have been better if i had said dealing with your position to the ground considering the wind"

The context

Yes, if you start them already in the air they will achieve the same altitude at the same time, otherwise not. Climb rate as we have already said basically depends on lift = airspeed, but the whole climb performance changes between headwind and tailwind. For examples we take two a/c one headwind and the other tailwind. Both have a climb rate of 5ft/sec. Headwind takes off midway and tailwind at the end of the runway. It takes 10 seconds for the tailwind to takeoff and 5 seconds later than the headwind. Now they are both in flight but headwind is already at 50ft while tailwind is 25ft. The two will never meet at the same altitude. That's why I said that the whole climb performance changes

I want to make a clarification. The terrain is a fixed point in reality. However even in the air it is possible to stop a point, keep this in mind. You seem to be sure so do you understand what I'm saying? read better it is so difficult to make your understood when you use pilot preconceptions. You are right! but for me you also gave me reason now! Just to let everyone know what the WCA is Why don't you have to use the rudder or a little roll? obviously because by precompensating the wind (through precise calculations that take into account the trajectory respect to a fixed point and this implies mass and energy) the plane does not have to maneuver against the wind because it is pointing the nose not much in the direction of the runway but in the direction of the wind. But what if it doesn't precompense the wind? what should he do? obviously rudder and ailerons-roll in general. that's why I said it affects the flight as a whole. Of course it doesn't change aerodynamics if the pilot do that maneuver with or without constant wind. If the pilot has to use the WCA he's dealing with the wind and this means that the constant wind influences the flight. I repeat, as long as you let yourself be carried by the wind, the aerodynamic part does not change but the physical part of the energy vector does, I will better explain this by responding to Dee-jay. But on this I ask you another question. 2 different cases. No WCA. First case, make a pass over the runway at maximum speed. Second case, do the same passage at minimum speed. How does it change in general or how does the FM change? I had understood your question before. You're right I also said the same thing, from the point of aerodynamic forces constant wind or 0 wind makes no difference while, as you also say, gusts affect precisely because they do not change inertia constantly. But I had to answer that way because I wanted to explain another thing. I can separate the aerodynamic part but not the physical part. The direction where the nose points is the speed vector, the faster you are the larger the vector, without using the WCA (or following a fixed point in space) that vector will get you out of the bubble. Thx for intervening. "Just to point the nose outboard of the velocity vector" This is what I call "dealing with the wind". So I suppose the trajectory is an "intellectual masturbation" no because that too has nothing to do with aerodynamics, but wow if it has to do with the whole FM. Imagine being stopped at 6 meters in horizontal flight, you are still above the ground because you have a headwind equal to the takeoff speed. Now roll 90 degrees, what happens? immediately fall to the ground, why? ..intellectual masturbation.. (and for sure that in real life will never happen to you, but if it does do not eject yourself because it would happen the same thing to your body and you would end up crawling in the ground:lol:) If I can, I ask you the same questions that you asked in bbrz, if you want to answer otherwise patience. 2 different cases. No WCA. First case, make a pass over the runway at maximum speed. Second case, do the same passage at minimum speed. How does it change in general or how does the FM change? For me not especially bkthunder, even cofcorpse had to clarify Exactly, but also in reality, every time that the pilot wants to point with the nose a fixed point in the space, if there is constant wind he will have to consider it because that wind will constantly change the position of the a/c respect to that point. Not to mention the difference in climbing with the headwind or fuel consumption with the tailwind. I don't respond to provocation. Your assertion "costant wind has 0 effect on the flight model except during take-off and landing ..." is incorrect or otherwise misleading imho. The moment the pilot has to follow a static point, he has to face the wind, especially without WCA. I still have this answer in my mind. Sorry for the "massive" answer

They do business with info. Recently one of the youtubers that I follow that deals with IT have hacked the account. He had replied to a work email asking him to install a software, he did it under a virtual machine but it did not help to defend himself. Hacked not for the hacker's skills but for the fact that there have been flaws in the systems for months that have not been fixed. For example two-factor authentication, passwords saved in the browser, etc. We are all vulnerable.

Now tell me, why during the whole landing procedure the pilot uses the rudder to face the constant wind while at altitude he doesn't (according to what you say). I want an explanation of the physical phenomenon because nobody has given me.

Thx to try to understand, english is not my native language and i actually check with the translator before posting something but the translator is not perfect. For FM i mean the whole system, the aerodynamic and the "physical" one, or as cofcorpse called it material point, and as he said the correct interaction between the two make a correct FM. But bkthunder said that state wind has 0 effect on the FM, and Delareon was also perplexed like me if you read his first post, and if you read my first post you will clearly see that I was trying to correct what bkthunder said. So I mean that FM is not only composed of aerodynamic forces but also of the laws of mass/inertia gravity/energy. Thx for that question.Yes I should have been more careful about terms. Exactly, the airpeed is not referred to the ground, in fact i have never said this, it refers only to the speed of the air flowing on the aircraft. So the airspeed is mainly part of the FM since without it there is no resistance or lift, however there are other forces, which is why i referred to ground speed as absolute airspeed, but not as if it were just a ground that moves under your feet, but as physical forces. For example. When you are at 30k feet and have a CAS aerodynamic speed of 250kts. The CAS speed facilitates the pilot to understand how much air resistance the aircraft will be able to exercise, therefore to maneuver, this because of the low density of the air, therefore it is related to aerodynamics and mainly influences the FM. But there is another absolute thing that affects FM and it's the energy possessed by the aircraft, which is not related to aerodynamics but to the true speed, the energy. Think about what would happen if you put two aircraft at 30k but one with a 400kts cas and the other with a 400kts ground speed, and you send them vertically the one who has more energy goes up more. A similar thing happens for the constant wind, there are masses and energies at stake. The moment the pilot decides to oppose the constant wind direction as during the landing where he follows a point, he will have to face it.This also applies to higher altitudes to navigate. It's like in the video of the bullet that i posted. The side constant wind will couses a resistance on the tail and on the whole surface where it impacts, so i would say that it affects the FM. If I'm wrong about this, someone prove me the opposite. You are instrumentalizing what my words are. I didn't start giving troll or pathetic to someone. At least read what i wrote above.

Thx this makes things easier