Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

602 Excellent


About busdriver

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    St Paul MN

Recent Profile Visitors

1025 profile views
  1. Yes as a rule of thumb. This is not an academically rigorous definition, but you want find the slowest speed to pull the maximum structural g's to fly your tightest turn, that's your maneuvering speed. And here's how to get an idea of what your maneuvering speed should be in knots (it's the units used in AFNA). The formula is, (square root of the g limit) x (stall speed) = (maneuvering speed). Suppose your airplane has a 9 g limit, and stalls at 50 knots IAS. The maneuvering airspeed would be 150 knots IAS. See page 180 of AFNA.
  2. Sorry for the misunderstanding. I was simply trying to point you to a text assuming you wanted to verify the accuracy of TacView at any given instance. Verify TacView data by comparing instantaneous airspeed/RoT/Radius output to this chart. Again, what jumps out at me in your screenshots is your sub-optimal (very fast 300 mph and at a relatively benign 4 g) turning fight. Perhaps you might try slowing to around 170 mph in the Spitfire whilst in a turning fight.
  3. EDIT: Deleted OT tangential reference material...After reviewing your TacView screen shots I noticed something. In both examples you're IAS is approximately 300 mph and you're pulling 4 g's while the 262 is much slower and at 5 and a half g's then only 4 g. Basically you're flying too fast in an attempt to out maneuver your opponent in a turning fight.
  4. You got me, case closed. Unfortunately it appears you missed the point ENTIRELY. 😒 Do any of them say "Mix"? I doubt it, that was the salient point in my example of how to talk down to someone, mixture not mix. That went right over your cranium. This is a game...not flying...gamers can and will use whatever terms they want. Gamers, like the cool kids in high school frequently talk down to folks that don't have their insight or knowledge level. While the whole new undocumented "improved immersion" start procedure (262 springs to mind) may indeed be two or three extra presses of two keys, it's NOT like throwing a switch in a cockpit, nor is having stuff mapped to your HOTAS. Thinking it makes things more realistic is not something a RL pilot would claim in my experience. And just because you have it sussed out, please try helping, educating, not demonstrating your incredulity at those too thick to absorb the changes by osmosis. Based upon my limited RL simulator experience, we went through phases of doing full start procedures. However when our focus was on lets say radar low level, or intercepts, the sim instructor started everything (think the easy E key) so we could spend our brain bytes on the fun stuff.
  5. Due to the dearth of printed documentation for the consumer, and absent Requiem making tutorials explaining in detail the sequence of key stroke combinations, learning silly startup sh*t is not fun...it's an irritant. Embracing your version of start up immersion for the sake of realism or whatever the argument you'd like to use is wasted on the likes of me. Having been a flight instructor, I know from experience some folks can't just look at a list of stuff and internalize it...apply it. You clearly can, but your tone is less than helpful. Not saying you're a terrible person, I'm saying if you want to be HELPFUL, put together accurate detailed steps for EVERY airplane using the keyboard strokes needed to go from engine off to regaining full engine autonomy for folks that want to play with CEM. Compile your checklists into a PDF that players can download. That would go a long way of turning folks' level of agitation into a high degree of comfort...sorta like just hitting the E key for start. I'll be singing your praises if you do that. What is tiresome is NOT folks complaining about not wanting or understanding changes the Devs make without documentation, it's having to learn the "how to" via a forum thread while the cool kids talk down to the unhappy kids. Here's an example of talking down to other players. The pedant would point out that RL pilots don't says "full mix." It's mixture RICH or AUTO. Nor do they say "full rpm." They say something about the prop control or airscrew lever full forward. My point being, when you want to talk down about those of us that don't share your enthusiasm for the simulated minutia of engine start procedures, your argument carries more gravitas if you at least sound like you know what you're talking about. I'm not saying you're a terrible person, simply not helpful.
  6. Just throwing this out there...I'm terrible at troubleshooting...does your PWCG6Alpha folder look like this? I'm thinking file size of the app. Vielen Dank mien Freund. I just wanted to make sure Pat was aware of the discrepancy. And I honestly had not checked in QM to see what would be a good cruise speed. IIRC from earlier testing it was 380 up to 400 kph if clean (no bombs). But perhaps as @Yogiflight posted, the G2 can cruise that fast whilst the E2 is a bit slower.
  7. Second mission in I./ZG26 career. Lots of enemy air activity showed up just before we made the turn to 044. I made several mistakes including burning up my left engine then screwing up the switchology (failing to get the prop feathered) and inadvertently shutting off #2 very briefly at 200 meters height...woohoo! Something I forgot to report previously, is the actual cruise speed versus the planned mission cruise airspeed for the Bf-110. The planned airspeed is 380 kph, which seems reasonable if it doesn't require Combat Power to maintain it. I found the actual enroute airspeed to be approximately 320 kph. IMO that is too slow. Even with full fuel and two bombs I had the power way back around 30% (I test with technochat called up) and the approximate ATA .7. With half fuel and two bombs the power required is obviously even less. This is a very uncomfortable feeling to me. I expect the nominal cruise with a combat load would require less power than the Combat Power setting. This is so a wingman doesn't have to hold Combat Power to stay in formation.
  8. First off...thanks for everything you do for your fellow SP 1GCCFPs...we appreciate your work! First mission with Alpha, I./ZG 26 in Oct 1941. The only Config change I had made was to check Medium air activity, everything else was default settings. Observation: Russian armor was in the woods (not on a road). If I hadn't used icons I would not have known what the rest of my formation was bombing. There was no anti-aircraft fire. There were no soviet fighters patrolling near our target. I still managed to destroy my Bf-110 by hitting the tree tops, but we crawled out and made our way back to our forces. My 110 was the only loss, but like Columbar reported, I was apparently credited to a staffel mate.
  9. I suspect you have no equivalent to Consumers Report in Spain, and you probably ignore Amazon ratings & reviews. Speaking as a really old fart, I rely upon the "hands on" anecdotal evidence (reviews) of sources I consider reliable even if others think they're biased. You're probably too young to remember 4 channel stereo from the early 70s or the VHS -vs- Betamax format war from the early 80s. I see a Rift S in my future, thanks @dburne
  10. @ZachariasX absolutely. 👍 So that's the range aspect of radar detection. Then you consider the radar beam width and pulse width. Dimensions that affect the size of the resolution cell. The resolution cell is another way of stating how far apart two targets would have to be so they don't appear as merged blips. For the casual 1GCCFP, say the radar beam is 1 degree wide (ignore the pulse width for the moment). At 60 NM, 1 degree equals (subtends) approximately 1 NM. These are aviator approximations (think close enough for government work). Meaning at 60 NM two airplanes would have to be 1 NM laterally apart to show up as two separate target blips. At 30 NM they would have to be 3000 feet apart, at 10 NM only 600 feet apart. Going the other way, at 120 NM detection range, targets would need to be 2 NM laterally apart to show up as individual blips. The point of this being, at long range early radar was effective at detecting gaggles, not breaking out individual targets. And if you can't break out individual targets (IFF helps but was frequently unservicable) then all you see is a big blob.
  11. Ref gunners spotting night fighters, it's as you surmised. Small flickers of exhaust flames, a dark shadow blanking out lights/flames on the ground, a dark shadow against clouds (think full moon as the best). As a gross generalization night vision suffers when trying to look/stare right at something (because of the locations of cones on the retina), so looking off to the side helps detect objects and motion (because of rods). Ref radar range, generally speaking, is limited by the curvature of the earth. Typically the radar horizon is the same as the line of sight (LOS) for radio communication when using VHF or UHF radios. HF communication can skip over the horizon, but I digress. A handy rule of thumb (at least on a calculator) to calculate an approximate detection range is to take the square root of the height of the target (in feet) and multiply the result by 1.2 with the result being the number of nautical miles for detection. Where did I get this gouge? One of my previous jobs was as the squadron electronic combat pilot. We'd worry about low level detection range, so we'd take the square root of the sum of the radar antenna height (Soviets liked to put EW radars on hilltops) added to our nominal 500 foot ingress altitude, and multiply by 1.2. but that's not required for high altitude detection. Square root of 30,000 feet is 173, multiplied by 1.2 equals 207 NM Square root of 20,000 feet is 141, multiplied by 1.2 equals 170 NM Square root of 15,000 feet is 122, multiplied by 1.2 equals 147 NM Those ranges are too short generally speaking to assist RAF's 100 Group night fighters over the continent prior to Overlord.
  12. Nope. That exceeds the current AI capability.
  13. Saw this today when I dropped in for a head call. Morane-Saulnier 733 trainer. Data plate on the other side near the tailwheel shows it was built in 1956.
  14. @ACG_Kai_Lae Nice mission narrative.
  • Create New...