cw4ogden

Boat speed is not irrelevant because if you have to manufacture the wind i.e. if you have to drive the boat to make that wind, it’s not coming directly down the runway, it’s coming directly down the ships bow. You may have flown for years but It sounds like you’re making the same case that moron I had for an instructor made 20 years ago. let me be clear where I disagree besides your initial tone of voice with a total stranger, which I find personally offensive, is are you asserting forward airspeed has no relationship to crab angle? Go fly a wright flyer in a 40 knot cross wind and tell me it holds the same crab angle as an F 16 at 400 knots. It doesn’t.

That was my whole point. It’s hardly noticeable. if you think fast birds and Cessnas hold the same crab angle for the same winds, then then you are missing something fairly fundamental. Your crab is your component of forward airspeed, that you direct into the wind. More forward speed means I need less crab angle to counteract the crosswind. Period. And on the contrary I think I’m the first guy to answer the actual OP’s question. Not sure what you’re so up in arms about…

You can use a crosswind component chart, or some geometry to figure out the component of crosswind that will result from increasing the ship's speed. Put the speed increase on the vertical axis. Put the difference between BRC and runway heading is the angle you use. You have to get into the corner of the graph, but a 10 knot speed increase by the boat would result in about a 2 knot increase in sidewind component. Almost impercebtible at 130 knot touchdown.

Last piece being I think you are figuring the angles here using pure crosswind component. Meaning if the increase in speed of the carrier translated into pure croswind, yes it might have a 5 degree or so affect, but it's nor pure crosswind. BRC and runway heading are almost the same. So a 10 knot increase in wind is only a fraction of that in increase to the crosswind component, because the runway is going basically the same direction as the ship. The math would probably be closer approximate 1/2, to one degree of correction for a 10 knot change in boat speed. I'd have to do the math to be sure, but that is going to be close. One degree or so, not several degrees of crosstrack, from a speed increase of the ship. Because only a sliver of that increase in speed is coming at you sideways.

This would be why I suspect they don't land in a crab. Upon touchdown, a crabbing aircraft will right itself with the direction of travel, but it takes a half second or so and it induces transient forces in the aircraft that might make boltering difficult.

Trying to process all that's been said. Reference you initial question: I think what's being missed possibly is the relationship between speed of ship and speed of approaching aircraft. Meaning a difference of 10 knots of boat speed will be almost imperceptible to an aircraft on approach at 130kias. For example, a 13 knot change in boat speed would be a roughly 10 percent change in your crab angle. If you are crabbing 5 with 23 knots, it's now 5.5 degrees at 10 knots boat speed. I ran into this arguing with an instructor pilot many years ago. The degree of crab has more to do with your speed than the boat or wind. The faster you are, the less crab required and vice versa. He was convinced and f-16 at 400 knots needed the same crab angle as a cessna at 120 to compensate for wind. It's just not the case. Slightly different scenario, but the same principle is at work. The difference between 10 and 20 knots of boat speed will only be detectable by someone with a lot of facetime in the bird. Regarding landing in a crab. I'm not sure if that's what you are holding all the way to touchdown, or if you mean on final, but I *assume* any crosswind component should be corrected for prior to touchdown. Maybe they touchdown with a crab to get all three on the ground simultaneously. My assumption, is they cross control nearly every landing to some extent because, the BRC versus boat angle means every landing is a slight crosswind landing to a moving target. Either speed, or any speed above zero, and you are now aiming for a moving target, meaning you want to point the VV where the ship will be, not where it is.

Recently discovered the community A-4 module. It's a great full fidelity model on par with the f-14 era avionics. It's free and it's my favorite aircraft at the moment. Of the two listed: F18 is every mission set in the game. What you learn in the F-18 will tranfer to the A-10 / F-16 / Av8B to some extent. But the f-14 is more fun to fly in my opinion. And not by a little bit. F18 is a jack of all trades, master of none. If this was dungeons and dragons, the F-18 is a druid or hybrid class of some sort. F-14 is a more pure experience that wont translate to any other module really.

IIRC you need to be in VSTOL mode as well, not A/A or A/G. Then you should be able to see real time weight in you mfds as indicated prior.

If I had to guess, from description alone, I'd ask are you unloading the rotor system then loading it faster than the engines can catch up, causing rotor RPM to droop? If you reduce power to the point the upflow is driving the rotor system, it can take a while for the engines to spool back up, when you transition back to engine driven flight.

I think the simple answer was overlooked here. To follow a magnetic course (no wind) of 300 you turn the aircraft until 300 is under the lubber line, or the 12 oclock position. A bearing to a target or airfield is just a heading. If the tutorial is about using the tacan, or if the reference a "radial" to fly that may be different, but for awacs calls, it should be just pointing the aircraft the direction they indicate bogies are. Basically what Snappy said. Didn't see He'd said much the same thing.

It turned out to be a hidden button that I couldn’t see because the software wouldn’t let me maximize it. No amount of attempting to resize or alt enter showed the full calibration page, and with no scroll bar on the side, the software being totally on unadjustable regards maximization or resizing, just couldn’t see the option. The fix was moving the windows taskbar from the bottom of the screen to the right side of the screen and then I could finally see calibrate axis.

May be interested if it doesn't sell right away. Your price is fair, but need to sort out my open ticket before diving into more products.

I did, thanks. Was hoping it was a config setting somewhere, honestly. Not sure what else that I haven't tried though. Every axis works except Y bottom half (pulling direction). I don't know if there's 2 Y and 2 X sensors, or if only half a sensor could fail. Initial reply from Vipril received but it was only to gather the information the support ticket already had filled out, for the most part.

Just received Warbrd base and pairing with warthog stick. Calibration through windows and vipril software yields same results. Symptom is all directions work, except Aft Y axis. On vipril software, neutral stick polls around 16000. Any movement aft, goes to zero - for three quarters of aft travel, then begins to register for the last quarter of travel. neutral - 16000 Pulling aft stick - 16000 immediately jumping to zero for most of the travel followed by a ramp up to around 300 at full aft deflection. thanks in advance.

Sounds like a fairly decent fraud protection measure.

I started the thread with hopes it wouldn’t get implemented in the mi-24 module the way it is in the mi-8. and this thread is only half the argument, the other half was on the Russian language forums, and honestly, about 1/3rd of those guys were some flaming dicks. I gave the hell up rather than keep trying to revive the dead horse. I’ll provide an example of how painful it was: argue argue argue with Russian “expert” only to have same Russian expert ask me privately in P.M. what is ETL? We don’t have this concept in Russia. Lol Quite honestly, after picking apart their subject matter expert’s rudimentary understanding of VRS, I was somewhat surprised to not get a job offer . The error i found in my testing, yes it was a mistake, but it was honestly just an easy way to bow out of a three month long argument that ate hours everyday and added unneeded stress to my life. The problem is the Russian testers don’t see it as a bug. It’s no surprise seeing a perfectly good mi-8 succumb to VRS in some random real life video, it’s sad for sure. But when you see crash after crash with pilots not even attempting the corrective actions, you gotta wonder if their training program and lack of institutional knowledge of the topic is somehow to blame? The other reason I conceded the debate is: it’s damn close to being right. It’s not off by much. A slight tweak would nail it. But given my error, I couldn’t confidently continue to claim the subtle thing I was describing was a bug, or possibly an actual characteristic of the hip. And by the time I found my error, I just needed an excuse to bow out. It Would have been way less humiliating to vanish into the anonymity of the internet. Was very tempting to leave the thread dangling in hopes my pages and pages and pages of arguing wouldn’t be thrown out the window because of a flaw in my setup conditions. I got many P.M. from other pilots not wanting to join the debate; saying, “I agree with everything you’re saying, I fly XYZ helicopter doing logging in real life and no way you get into VRS under dcs mi-8 conditions.” bottom line: I don’t know if mi-8 is a VRS death trap, because I’ve never flown one. But all the anecdotal evidence points to it being over modeled. Someone still needs to find the smoking gun and show it to ED. I tried, and was rewarded with a virtual lynching for it.

It's unfortunately not well taught, nor even well understood in the community. Gonna send you a P.M.

@helipilot12 What you are describing is being below the VRS region, down in the windmill brake state. Often overlooked, one way to break out of VRS is by dumping collective (this is only an option with a lot of excess altitude to spare). Lowering collective to the point all the wind is coming upwards through the rotor will free the rotor from a vortex state. And for reasons stated below, you still need some lateral motion, or you will just re-enter VRS, when you pull power back in. If you try to come "up" through the VRS region, meaning if you try to arrest the descent, and wind up entering the VRS region from the bottom or the vertical speed axis, you will encounter VRS. On the diagram, coming in at a 60 degree approach angle (not unheard of for autos), you can see you will absolutely enter VRS as you try to arrest the descent. The same phenomenon is at play trying to do quick-stop landings. You dump the collective, enter the windmill brake state, all airflow is upwards through the rotor. But when you transition to landing, woe be unto the pilot who tries to pull up through the VRS region as a means of arresting descent. One caveat being for hovering autorotations, If you dump the collective (amount depends on hover height), the collective pull at the bottom is not likely to induce VRS. Full blown VRS is an equilibrium state, meaning it takes a moment to onset, even under the best conditions. So for hovering autorotations, you will likely arrest your descent without VRS becoming a factor. It's all happens too fast for VRS to develop.

He's not mixing issues. The sound going out in the F-86 is a two year plus known bug, if I recall correctly. I know it's been a problem as long as I've owned the module. He's stating it looks like the fix for sound position, (yay for the quick fix), unfortunately did not also fix the sound bug that has been around much longer.

One aspect of being on a collision course (i.e. a missile tracking you, versus one that has gone dumb) is that objects on collision courses appear to have no relative motion. This can be useful if you can see the smoke trail. Is it moving left right up or down, in your windscreen? A missile with any decent amount of relative motion with respect to you, should be a miss, because that relative motion means you're no longer on collision courses. It's also the phenomenon behind near misses, when pilot's often say "I never even saw him". Anything on a collision course should appear stationary in the windscreen. Any missile that you can spot it's movement, should be a miss.

I've had similar problems with the trim rendering the cyclic immobile. Very frustrating. For me, it appears to be caused by not centering the controls completely after hitting force trim. Still feels wrong from time to time, but a quick "letting go" of the controls when using force trim is what solved it for me. It's a workaround, for sure, but I don't notice the cyclic lockups anymore after adapting my trim technique.

I don't think it's a relative heading, but I can't find anything definitive on the web. Might have to test it out. Give what the original poster wrote, "a very strange flight path that often brings the bomb above the target (sometimes beyond it)" it sounds like his bomb is seeking a particular heading which led me to believe it's jdam terminal parameters getting him.

One recent update you can now input desired heading for the bomb to track to target. If you leave it unset, I believe it defaults to 000, so if you're attacking from north to south, bomb has to fly over and turn back around. Possible your bombs are maneuvering to get on course. You select heading by toggling bomb pushbutton on MFD, then two push buttons on the data input panel thing, then set the course via up front controller.

Pretty sure that's a tail rotor strike, but can't switch to external view to be sure. Definitely not retreating blade stall or VRS.

I've seen a few fellow multiplayer friends order those. I don't use a home cockpit. I convert my couch to a cockpit so seat shaker would be an unwelcome addition to the myriad of wired devices and usb hubs that linger at my feet when I'm not playing DCS. My son is getting a VR for his birthday, and I'm gonna "borrow" it to see if I like VR enough to make the move. I appreciate the suggestion though. But what I was trying to point out was a subtle, nuance of the flight model, that ultimately was attributable to faulty test setup. I've long since had difficulty avoiding VRS in the sim. I only questioned the phenomenon's susceptibility range. I don't know if I buy into the haptic feedback argument, which may not be what you are asserting, but I am trying VR soon, so maybe I'll feel differently after. The reason I don't buy into it is take for example the FOV limitations of the simulator. Sure a TV screen is a limited field of view, but so do NVGs. The complete lack of peripheral vision and more specifically the lack of motion parallax cues coming from your periphery translate into a layperson, and trained individuals from being able to spot large speed deviations. Said another way: with lack of peripheral vision, it is really hard to detect speed cues, and also to detect drift at a hover. But with time, the limitations are overcome by a combination of muscle memory and techniques. Much like driving a car, or flying a plane or riding a bicycle, flying with a limited field of view of 40 degrees takes a level of practice that is somewhat dependent on training the subconscious. The analogy here being head tracking most people use. *It is also one of three very perishable skills, the other two being IFR flight and Navigation. Most pilots can take years off and hop back in and go day VFR flight essentially. That aspect is very much analogous to "riding a bike" you really don't forget. Not the case for NVGs, and pretty strict currency requirements exist, because recently really makes a difference. But if that's the main or only mode of flight you fly, eventually, you get to that riding the bike phase, and your perception / situation awareness returns to near day flight levels. Anyhow back to the haptic feedback argument. Once you overcome the initial adjustment, your sense of the aircraft approximates your sense during day flight. The example I'll use, and my only mea culpa with respect to this entire thread is: I asserted early on the flight model felt like it was operating at around 6,000 feet. Unbeknownst to me, I actually was. So my point is, with only a similar style aircraft background, flying from my couch, out of the real world flying game for a decade and with virtually no haptic feedback features, I was able to approximate where the aircraft "felt" like it was flying. I found the "bug" finally, and was pretty spot with respect to the cause, even if it was my own fault. Maybe that's a case of the the sun shines on the dog's butt once in a while, but I'll take it as an affirmation my senses were right, if ultimately, my conclusion was wrong based on my unknown erroneous initial conditions. And, I can't think of a better testimony to the flight model honestly, to have it unknowingly feel like it's acting at a certain altitude, only to discover that it actually was.