RTFM

[Fimble]

Agreed, I learnt alot of DCS: Blackshark while sat on the crapper!

 

Amen brother, already got a chapter in this morning. Maybe I'll have McDonalds for lunch so I can get another in tonight...

:book:

[MasterZelgadis]

Haha, yes, of course you can read it while...on the ejection seat ;)

[StrongHarm]

I like to RTFM while LTFW. It makes her happy when I step away from the SIM and let her talk to me while I look at the manual on my laptop or iphone.

[the_duality]

I stuck the PDF on my iPod Touch so I end up reading a little in each lecture at university. If only I was as interested in Computational Game Theory than I am in the combat employment of precision munitions :pilotfly:

[StrongHarm]

oh.. LTFW = Listening To the Fookin Wife

[Bucic]

This topic went odd way. Probably too much of RTFM finally got to you ;)

[Steel Jaw]

oh.. LTFW = Listening To the Fookin Wife

 

 

Oh Gawd...on and on and on about crap I don't fecking care about.

[Kaiza]

She sounds too much like betty. I find myself ignoring all the pull up and altitude calls. Never could understand why they make that voice female, its not natural to listen.

[Bucic]

Oh Gawd...on and on and on about crap I don't fecking care about.

Wait, who was that guy who was shocked by my 'harsh language'? :D

[Comrade Vodka]

I agree with you StrongHarm. The Manual is is a great read even before flight. I take it that you have just read the downloaded Beta Manual.....and that there is not yet available the final bound and printed version? If so, where do I get it?

[Steel Jaw]

Never could understand why they make that voice female, its not natural to listen.

 

LMFAO...it only works on single guys...BB aint gonna work on any married man...you learn to tune females out.

[tflash]

I would agree that reading a manual is almost the same as listening to your wife ... something your whole body chemistry builds a resistance to. :D

[hendo97]

I think the manual is great. Only problem is trying to stay out of the pit long enough to read the whole thing.

[Frederf]

It's not written for aerodynamicists. It's meant is a "jumping-off" point, I believe. If you want to get into the finer points of aerodynamics, etc, you can read something else.

 

Actually I really can't imagine where you can get it in your head to say the manual is "OK." It's pretty much fantastic... some of the most thorough documentation for a study simulator I've ever seen.

 

You assume incorrectly. It's not not written for experts, beginners, or anyone. It's an awkward attempt to explain concepts in the most round-about method possible. The energy management section neither belongs in the "basics of flight" section, nor does it deserve to be wholesale copy-pasted from a fighter pilot's twitter account.

 

Indicated Air Speed (IAS) and True Air Speed (TS)

 

As a rule, when flight altitude decreases, the air density increases. The denser atmosphere contributes to a greater lift force, but the drag component increases as well. The thinner air at high altitudes reduces aircraft lift, but drag will decrease. This contributes to higher airspeeds at high altitude. An aircraft traveling at 700 km per hour possesses different flight characteristics when flying at 1,000 km per hour. The actual speed of the aircraft flies through the air mass is called the true air speed (TAS). TAS automatically compensates for air pressure and density. Related to TAS, Ground Speed (GS) is the aircraft's actual speed across the earth. It equals the TAS plus or minus the wind factor.

Most modern aircraft like the A-10C have airspeed indicators that take into account air density and humidity changes at different altitudes. When these changes are not taken into account, the aircraft velocity is called Indicated Air Speed (IAS). For the pilot, the IAS is the basis for defining maneuvering capabilities of an aircraft; it is usually displayed on the HUD and dash.

If that isn't the most backward, unnecessarily confusing, disjointed paragraph on the subject you've ever read. Then I'm at a loss.

 

Compare that to something I can whip up on the spot:

TAS, CAS, IAS, and GS

True air speed (TAS) is the speed of the airplane through an air mass. When there is no wind, the air mass does not remove with respect to the ground, and TAS and ground speed (GS) are the same.

Indicated air speed (IAS) is the speed as indicated by the flight instrument(s) in the airplane. The airspeed indicator measures speed by measuring the pressure of air against the front of the airplane. This pressure is a function of the speed through the air mass and the density of the air. At high altitudes, temperatures and humidities, the IAS will be less than the TAS, due to the reduced air density and thus pressure.

Calibrated air speed (CAS) is IAS calibrated for various instrument errors and usual airflow around the air pressure sensors during various airplane attitudes and configurations. The A-10C contains a sophisticated air data computer which is able to display calculated CAS or TAS as desired. The performance of the airplane (power, lift, drag) depends on air density and thus performance at different altitudes but the same CAS will match. Airplane performance at the same TAS but different altitudes will not necessarily be the same.

First of all, the ED-written paragraph rarely makes use of the actual definitions of various terms which is a big faux pax when it comes to technical writing. Also, who the heck refers to "air density increasing as altitude is decreased?!?!" Any sane explanation takes the conditions where CAS and TAS are the same and explains why they diverge. The first five sentences are a complete distracting preamble to the actual point.

 

"TAS automatically compensates..." the heck it does! TAS is the truth. Everything else is an approximation or an error. Clearly the writer is capable of being straightforward and correct, "Ground Speed (GS) is the aircraft's actual speed across the earth." Although Earth is a proper noun. However the title mentions "TAS and IAS" which means that GS should not be present in the conversation as it is not related to the relationship between TAS and IAS at all. Also, thanks for introducing "wind factor" without necessity or actually explaining what it is.

 

You can see in as many if not less words someone could cover the topic in a more complete, correct, and straightforward manner than the manual attempts to.

Edited October 18, 2010 by Frederf

[StrongHarm]

You can see in as many if not less words someone could cover the topic

What exactly do you mean by this?

[kylania]

What exactly do you mean by this?

 

That it would be possible to more succinctly and accurately describe TAS and IAS than was done in the current beta manual. :smartass:

[StrongHarm]

That it would be possible to more succinctly and accurately describe TAS and IAS than was done in the current beta manual. :smartass:

 

That makes sense..

[StrongHarm]

[Bucic]

Frederf,

 

Those who know all that stuff will just skip it and those who don't won't be aware that it's awkward or, even if they will, they won't feel like telling that to ED.

 

Anyway, I hope this is the last of such posts of yours in this topic and you'll continue the subject either in a new one or in one of the existing "manual errors' topics, if there are any. It's about not wasting your comments.

 

IMO ED should not attempt to replace PPL(A) theoretical lectures at all. IMO only references should be placed there (on the same page) e.g.

 

(...) TAS (1 (...)

 

and in the footer of the same page:

 

(1 FAA Pilot's Handbook of Aeronautical Knowledge, ch. X, p. Y

 

 

Abbreviation explained in the abbreviations Appendix. This way ED points at what basic knowledge is necessary to understand the topic without mambling about it.

 

 

If ED insist on the manual being a combo of the manual it should be and part time encyclopedia then the explanations of terms such as IAS, TAS, GS should be two sentences for each. Or not there at all, like I said.

Edited October 19, 2010 by Bucic

[aaron886]

It's an awkward attempt to explain concepts in the most round-about method possible.

 

 

You should write us all a new manual then, Ace! :wassat:

[Bucic]

You should write us all a new manual then, Ace! :wassat:

:disgust: He has every right to constructive criticism and has no obligation to write anything. There's no flaming here yet. And there's no final manual either so it's the best time now to discuss these matters.

 

It also happens that Frederf is knowledgeable enough to be able to come up with correct and yet very condensed definitions.

Edited October 19, 2010 by Bucic

[Frederf]

I don't mean to be overly critical but someone said the manual was good. I said, "Yeah, but the theory sections are a bit goofy." That was mistakenly taken as I valued some in-depth technical explanations that was not properly aligned with the intended purpose and audience. Then I had to show what I meant.

 

Don't ask if you don't like the answer.

 

P.S. I'll be writing manuals when ED gets out their checkbook. It's a full time job.

 

P.S.S. Bucic, is there a proper "fix the beta manual" thread? I haven't seen one.

[Scabbers]

Part of my job is writing theory for military manuals. The A-10 Theory isnt far off. All it needs is simplified technical english. Ofcourse you all would read that and complain that the are treating you like children.

[Scabbers]

I am not going to reference this entire post but for what its worth this first paragraph is pretty good. yes it needs an edit but its a good intro to the pitot and static tube. Remeber this is still beta. So reserve the tongue lashing for final relase. :) You really should look up STE (Simplified Technical English) This is a NATO specification and it is hard to read when you are used to the original pub format. But that is all changing... I have to write in it and it comes out looking alot like these examples. Edited ofcourse :thumbup:

 

Though the TAS and IAS may not have been covered. Dont beat em up just give positive feedback on what needs to be fixed instead of negative.

 

You assume incorrectly. It's not not written for experts, beginners, or anyone. It's an awkward attempt to explain concepts in the most round-about method possible. The energy management section neither belongs in the "basics of flight" section, nor does it deserve to be wholesale copy-pasted from a fighter pilot's twitter account.

 

If that isn't the most backward, unnecessarily confusing, disjointed paragraph on the subject you've ever read. Then I'm at a loss.

 

Compare that to something I can whip up on the spot:

First of all, the ED-written paragraph rarely makes use of the actual definitions of various terms which is a big faux pax when it comes to technical writing. Also, who the heck refers to "air density increasing as altitude is decreased?!?!" Any sane explanation takes the conditions where CAS and TAS are the same and explains why they diverge. The first five sentences are a complete distracting preamble to the actual point.

 

"TAS automatically compensates..." the heck it does! TAS is the truth. Everything else is an approximation or an error. Clearly the writer is capable of being straightforward and correct, "Ground Speed (GS) is the aircraft's actual speed across the earth." Although Earth is a proper noun. However the title mentions "TAS and IAS" which means that GS should not be present in the conversation as it is not related to the relationship between TAS and IAS at all. Also, thanks for introducing "wind factor" without necessity or actually explaining what it is.

 

You can see in as many if not less words someone could cover the topic in a more complete, correct, and straightforward manner than the manual attempts to.

Edited October 19, 2010 by Scabbers

[kylania]

P.S.S. Bucic, is there a proper "fix the beta manual" thread? I haven't seen one.

 

From the beta forums: http://forums.eagle.ru/forumdisplay.php?f=129