Jump to content

=475FG=DAWGER

Members
  • Content Count

    70
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

85 Excellent

About =475FG=DAWGER

  • Rank
    Member

Recent Profile Visitors

406 profile views
  1. This is mostly incorrect. Torque is a killer on just about every twin prop driven aircraft. Just about all of them will torque roll on a single engine at full power before they will stall. The higher power twins do so very dramatically. The 120 mph speed threshold for engine failure has everything to do with control authority (mostly rudder) at low speed. The slower you go, the less effective the rudder is. In a twin engine airplane the speed at which the rudder can no longer fully compensate for the full power, torque and other effects of the operating engine in an engine failure scenario has a name. Minimum control speed or Vmc. Below 120 mph with one engine at full power, the P-38 pilot does not have enough control authority to go in a straight line. This control authority degrades as the speed lowers. The end result is called a Vmc roll. The cure for Vmc roll is more speed or less power. Online games generally vastly undermodel torque so I expect the P-38 to be a pussycat when it comes to its single engine characteristics.
  2. You are referring to potential energy when adding the altitude component. Potential energy is meaningless if you can't use it. At any given instant in a fight the kinetic energy state is of prime importance. Pissing away your kinetic energy and storing in a battery by zooming until you are a leaf with a bandit able to zoom to within weapons employment parameters is a prime example of the silly "energy" tactics we see discussed online. When you explode at the top of your zoom, all that "potential" energy burns up in the fiery wreckage.
  3. Most likely they mean "fly to the elbow" against a zooming bandit. Fly lag pursuit to where the bandit started his zoom, then zoom and kill him at the top of his zoom. Think of a bandit zooming with you following as a right triangle. The bandit going vertical is flying the long side. If you fly pure or lead pursuit, you will fly the hypotenuse. Your energy state will bleed while the bandit energy state is also bleeding. The bandit is depending on this and is planning to kill you as you run out of energy. If you fly the short side to the corner or right angle in the triangle, the bandit is bleeding energy while you are conserving or building energy. When you start your zoom, there will be a significant energy differential, allowing you to close the range. Once you are on the bandit turn circle, you will control the fight because the bandit has given you his six by zooming. If he doesn't recognize this very early, he will not break until you are in the saddle or he will believe all the "energy" fighter BS that gets spewed online and keep zooming, allowing you an easy kill shot as he leafs at the top. I have never heard of the term "lag corner" so who knows.
  4. BFM (Basic Fighter Manuevers) are the individual maneuvers performed with reference to a target aircraft. ACM (Air Combat Manuevers) are coordinated maneuvers between 2 fighters employing BFM with reference to target aircraft.
  5. I have seen this movie before. Players claim they want "bomber simulation". Anything resembling a realistic level heavy bomber like the B-17 is fodder for fighters unless flown in large formations protected by competent HUMAN flown escorts. And using anything resembling a realistic bomb sight results in bombs not so very near the target. Bomber players whine like schoolgirls incessantly about how they are second class citizens who should be "protected". Bombers get harder and harder to kill and easier and easier to bomb with until solo bombers are escorting the fighters with laser aimed defensive armament , damage models that resemble Iowa class battleships while dropping laser guided munitions through small bathroom windows from 35,000 feet. A realistic bomber simulation is a tight formation flown at slow, constant speed and at a low enough altitude to see the target with all the bombers releasing bombs together. Exactly the sort of thing AI is exceptionally good at and human players hate to do.
  6. I was a flat earth guy a few years ago. I traveled all the time and flew online using a laptop connected to hotel TV's. I carried my HOTAS with me. I retired from travelling for a living and decided to build a gaming PC. After dropping $2500 into my Christmas present to myself I found myself wanting $1500 monitor to really take advantage of my new machine. I was going to wait a few months to restock the play money kitty and take the plunge but I had a beautiful 4K machine connected to my 1080p TV. VR seemed like a cheap way to play with my new toy until a new monitor was feasible. Oculus CV1 changed my entire attitude. It was as close to real flying sensation as I had ever been in any simulation, including multi-million dollar full motion commercial simulators. My first hop I did a low level split S in DCS and got the exact same feeling in the pit of my stomach that such a maneuver would generate in a real aircraft. Hooked ever since. This is something that people without extensive flying experience in the real world don't quite get in VR. I find guys who did it for real find VR to be amazing. Guys who don't have the benefit of that comparison are not nearly as impressed with VR. I now have 2 CV1's gathering dust and a Rift S I use every day and I still haven't equaled the $1500 I wanted to drop on a 4K monitor. My machine is still hooked up to the same 1080p TV. The bottom line is that VR is CHEAPER than top of the line 4K if you choose one or the other. You need the same machine for either. A VR HMD is a relatively small percentage of the total outlay for a modern, high power gaming rig.
  7. I am outside the 58 to 72 range and have no problems with my Rift S. VR is fabulous. IL2 VR implementation, not so much. Not optimized by any stretch and the wonky cockpit limits are incredibly annoying.
  8. Most likely cause is poor formation technique. Your friend is probably in pure pursuit all the time. A good understanding of pursuit curves is required to start with. After that, some basic formation technique to maintain formation station are required. The first rule is fix the horizontal before the vertical. When climbing, the "sucked" fighter must fix his position on his lead's 3-9 line BEFORE he attempts to fix the vertical. That means lowering the nose or going level until AHEAD of lead's 3-9 and then initiating a climb. Formation turns in combat spread or similar formation must be tactical turns and not formation turns in place. A video of your formation in flight will quickly disclose the issue. Some guys just refuse to do the hard work required to keep in proper formation and stay in girl scout trail no matter what you do.
  9. There is no doubt all wings flex. I have personally seen many a wing flexing outside my window. I even flew one airplane that made creaking noises in turbulence. Nothing more comforting than penetrating a line of heavy weather and listening to the wing creaking like the main mast of a tall ship in a gale. Wing twist is NOT going to happen except by aileron deflection. You aren't going to twist a wing by going fast or in turbulence. Flexing them up and down has plenty of causes. You can flex them by pulling or pushing on the stick. You can flex them by landing. Turbulence will flex them. Lift flexes them. Wings flex up and down all the time but there are very limited options when it comes to twisting them. Aileron reversal comes from wing twist. The deflected aileron twists the wing. I cannot think of another way to twist a wing. Notice the ailerons are deflected?
  10. So, absent aileron deflection, what is twisting the wing and causing your mysterious structural or aeroelastic wing twist? Is the air going faster on the wing closer to the moon or something? Structural twisting of the wing requires a twisting force be applied. What is the twisting force if not aileron deflection? You appear to be referring to asymmetrical G limitations which aren't wing twist limitations. Of course, wing twist is certainly a possible failure mode if asymmetric G limits are exceeded but it is more likely to produce a vertical stabilizer failure first and, of course, its very hard to get into high asymmetric G without deflecting the ailerons. We keep circling back to wing twist being caused by aileron deflection. I am no longer sure what you are even arguing about.
  11. Wing twist caused by aileron deflection is ONLY structural twisting of the wing caused by the force of the aileron. The physical twisting of the wing causes the aircraft to roll in the opposite direction from the intended. There is another use of the term, wing twist, also known as washout which is a airfoil design feature. Its main function is to provide the outer portion of the wing with a lower angle of attack so that the tips, where the ailerons are, stall after the roots. It makes the stall much more manageable. I suspect you are confusing the two.
  12. Yes. F-16 pilots would tend to agree with that.
  13. There is no evidence anywhere that the P-38 suffered from any wing twist at any speed. Wing twist is not present in every aircraft. There is a long way from pinkie light to 50 lbs of force. I have flown aircraft with and without boosted ailerons at 300+ mph. Unboosted controls feel like they are set in concrete. Boosted, they "feel" like whatever artificial feel is built into the system. In the P-38 there was none. The yoke is a valve actuator, nothing more.
  14. That is a calculated chart at 50 lbs of stick force. It is not a chart of the maximum possible roll rates. At high speed, the unboosted aircraft would have the pilot straining to achieve the 50 lbs force and there would be a resultant delay in achieving the roll rate while the boosted aircraft can easily go to maximum deflection. Will this be properly modeled? Unlikely. The second chart shows the boosted P38 will easily outroll even the FW190 at higher speeds. The boosted J model will match the FW roll rate at about 260 mph and exceed it by a wide margin at 300 mph
  15. With the exception of the last item, that post is pretty much the opposite of the truth. It was the best accelerating fighter in the US inventory. Its power to parasite drag ratio is only exceeded by the P51 and 190. I can easily outturn all of it opponents in a sustained knife fight. Its power to weight ratio is higher than the P51B and D It is big compared to its LW opponents. It is a little slower than the P51 but out accelerates the P51 Roll rate was its big performance drawback but the aileron boost made it go from worst to first in roll rate.
×
×
  • Create New...