cw4ogden

Fuel dumping graphics seems to have gotten messed up this patch. Dumping fuel now, I get a big puff of smoke and then no other effects.

Sorry, wasn't intending to make you feel bad. I really enjoyed the first mission. After the third landing at the oil platform you take off into the night with no horizon. Not exceedingly difficult but, if you aren't ready to use instruments, you're gonna have a bad time. I'd be lying if I said I didn't ball it up big time my first try.

Still Broken. Tried two times same result. Finally find signal but doesn't lead to a ship near as I can tell. Followed until scripts said they popped red smoke but no smoke or ship to be seen.

Maybe there is a mod or maybe someone has already asked this but is it possible to have the Jester menu pop up with center being the direction you are looking? As opposed to straight forward? The way it is currently it's very hard to interact with Jester while doing formation or anything requiring your focus to be away from the instrument panel area.

Yeah, your old man did it right. What I'm about to tell you is classified. It could end my career...

There is a binding to swap the cursor between left and right MFDs.

@IronMike This looks ready to be put on the bug list.

Nice work! Do you have a track file by chance so we can get this listed as a bug officially?

Alot going on in this thread. I don't intend to muddy the waters, but they are already pretty muddy. So first I'd ask would be what type of rotor system are we dealing with? Obviously the AH-64 is a fully articulated rotor. This makes a difference because what's being alluded to here, that the helo will hang low on one side due to the tail rotor, yes that's true for a semi-rigid system. It's not true for a fully articulated rotor. "The semi-rigid rotor design eliminates many of the bearing components of the conventional articulated rotor , giving reduced complexity and hence a reduction in maintenance requirements. In this application the semi-rigid rotor also gives a substantial increase in the moments transmitted to the rotor hub by tilt of the rotor. "https://www.rotaryforum.com/threads/semi-rigid-or-fully-articulated.45784/ So in essence, on a fully articulated system the rotor tilts independently of the fuselage. There may be a small residual tilt, but with a fully articulated rotor system, you shouldn't be hanging significantly fuselage low on one side at a hover, or in forward flight. You can see the AH-64 in this clip hangs vertically while the rotor tips slightly left to compensate for translating forces: https://www.pond5.com/stock-footage/item/137100910-ah-64-apache-helicopter-hovering-over-ground It's important when having these debates to consider the difference between transient states and equilibrium states. Yes the tail rotor produces a force pushing the bird, but the pilot compensating with lateral cyclic restores the equilibrium. With no sideward drift at a hover the ball should be centered, fuselage level or very nearly so. In cruise flight, the ball should be centered and the fuselage will be level. Any wind correction is done via heading and crab angle. Regarding the original question, crab angle is the method used in forward flight to compensate for wind, i.e. varying the heading while maintaining aircraft in trim. On a normal VMC takeoff, a typical procedure would be to maintain runway alignment until 50 feet (aircraft will be out of trim if there is any crosswind component), then place the aircraft in trim, and add necessary crab angle to maintain ground track. Doing the reverse on approach - aircraft in trim until descending below 50 feet, then placing aircraft aligned with the landing direction. In a fully articulated rotor system, aircraft in trim, the fuselage should remain level or very near so, and the ball should be centered, regardless of the explanations mentioned, because we are talking equilibrium states.

Select HUD Landing mode and you'll have a velocity vector on the hud which will be on the horizon when in level flight.

I'm guessing it's a jab at the upcoming briefing room implementation while some fairly game breaking super carrier bugs remain unfixed.

Here are three track file examples. All same behavior. First two I deployed half flaps before takeoff because the DLC system / maneuvering flaps would not deploy. Retracted after takeoff and after a few moments the maneuvering flaps work fine. Last one I left the flap handle up the entire time. No flap takeoff and same thing. Nothing on maneuvering flaps controls until the aircraft is airborne. First one was too big so only two tracks. (Edit): might be related to DCS liberation. Those tracks are from a liberation mission. Instant action and various prebuilt missions the maneuvering flaps seem to work fine on the ground. maneuver flaps3.trk maneuver flaps2.trk

On the ground is precisely where it's not working. It's not that it's not working at all. It appears they are just not working "On the ground." It works fine in the air. Cold start from supercarrier, I have wings fully forward in auto - reset button pressed, no lights on the caution panel. I've tried with and without autopilot switch on. I've tried cycling the flaps down to put the aircraft in the landing configuration "engaging DLC" then raising the flap handle back up. Nothing seems to fix it until I take off and fly around for X number of minutes. Other times it works just fine from the first DLC thumbwheel pull, so it's either something on startup I'm missing, or a bug / mod conflict. I'm not ruling out user error, but I just can't nail down what the heck it could be.

Thanks all. Maybe it's something I've set wrong in the M.E. Usually, it's a tanker when I have the problem. Sometimes the carrier. Not sure I've seen it with any fixed ground stations. I'll make a track file if I can reproduce it.

I've seen it on both A and B models now. Unless there is something I'm missing in how they work. Last night I sat on the catapult and pushed pulled and wiggled every combination of buttons I could think of - I then tried putting the main flaps down and pressing the DLC buttons then cycling them up and trying, but no maneuver flaps. They seem to come back and operate after takeoff, but not always right away. A couple of times even after takeoff they did not want to respond. Very possible it's a minutia detail I missed somewhere, but currently my maneuver flaps only work about 50% if I had to guess.

Jester no longer tunes TACAN properly, either via manual or TAC tune. Front seat TACAN functioning normally. Can provide a track, but want to see if anyone else is experiencing the issue first.

Had this problem last night in f-14a. Maneuvering flaps would only extend once airborne. Tried everything and eventually had to take off to convince myself it wasn't a binding problem.

Lift in rotary wing is perpendicular to resultant relative wind. If that doesn't answer the other questions that followed let me know. "I don’t know if it was intentional but the autotrotative force in region C seems to occur with a more angled blade" - only speculation, but possibly they are trying to show the twist (angle of incidence) of the blade increases as you move inbound.

It would seem so, but no. The trick to the rotor maintaining RPM without power - is lowering the pitch angle enough that the total aerodynamic force (light blue vector on the chart) points slightly forward. The rotor needs to be producing virtually zero lifting forces, because those lifting forces cause the total aerodynamic force vector to move rearward. "C" is what you want. The TAF (total aerodynamic force) pointing slightly forward of vertical. As the diagram indicates, this only occurs on portions of the blade. The driving region of the rotor maintains rotor RPM during autorotative flight, overcoming the areas that are still a net drag on the rotor speed. The more you twist the blade, the more you rotate that TAF rearward. To ensure this is actually the case should you need it as a pilot, the rotor linkages are adjusted and or checked for correct rigging during maintenance test flights. Under XYZ conditions, when power is removed and collective is lowered - the RRPM must maintain within certain limits.

Never flew the huey. But I've heard anecdotes about how much inertia the rotor held. These must be taken with a grain of salt, but they were asserted to me as true, and not urban legend. Hal Beauchene (my primary instructor pilot) told a tale of showing off to a harrier pilot. Something akin to the harrier pilot saying, "I can do anything you can do.' Hal said he rolled the throttle to idle, then pulled up to a 50 foot hover, then autorotated. Asking then if the harrier if he could do what he just did. Other was a guy named Jalmer Blad (instrument instructor). This guy had an engine failure combined with sprag clutch failure, meaning the engine was being driven still by the rotor adding drag on the rotor. He explains(ed) his survival by crediting the huey's high rotor inertia. To me the huey autorotation feels pretty good. I don't care for the huey flight model, mainly forward flight stuff, but the autorotation modelling feels fairly realistic to me.

Syria is currently King. P.G. has been around longer, so still plenty of hosts, but Syria is the current go to.

Fair enough. Have a good night.

@Taz1004 Maybe it's because you asked for help. And then went on and on to be vague about what the hell you were even asking. Call me crazy... And color me stupid for trying to read and make sense of all the posts only to get an F you in return. Have a nice night.

I take your point that your numbers were exaggerated on purpose. This above is what I was attempting to answer. I avoided procedures, and focused on the “what would happen with a faster carrier.” if you want to see a scientific comparison, I’d suggest it, or could possibly post two comparisons with the tomcat flying the autopilot coupled approach to the deck. Eliminate the user from the equation or it’s going to be hard to quantify or eliminate differences in how each approach was flown by the human.

I think we tend to agree the OPs numbers are flawed. That was what it took me a whole lot of words to say. I only took issue with the nature of your initial response, and I'm still unsure what you took issue with? The wordiness of it maybe offended your something, I don't know. I saw a whole lot of people not answering his question because, and I think this is where it all got off track - his question was flawed. It was based on erroneous assumptions of what the factors discussed would actually produce, in terms of crab angle and pilot response. Which you and I, ironically are both saying is going to be negligible. So all that said, sorry if we got off on the wrong foot.