Aleatorylamp said:
(...)
That is some very interesting additional information! Thanks very much.
I had only seen the pilot´s handbook for 30 dollars or so. Drool... Very handy for further FD adjustments. I won´t upload anything before back-checking with Ivan and yourself.
The speed limits you mention for the different heights would perhaps be under maximum continuous?
Do not use these speeds limitations in your model! As I briefly explained in my last post, they where for pilots flying from A to B, not for fighting or testing purposes. As I was testing take-off and landing, I flew according to these numbers to see if the a/c would obey in the prescribed manner. I can say that it basically did with the exception of the flaps not showing under the wings after hitting one increment (I can't push-pull my keyboard...
). Take-off and landings were pretty much "on the dot".
(...)
I can decrease Flap-deployment time. Interesting mechanism you describe!
I haven´t adjusted anything on the flaps as yet. The only effect on them in the present .air file is the overall increase in Zero Lift Drag, which affects them too.
I would decrease the flaps positions to 3 in section #315. It works like a charm in mine; pushing F7 one time lets you see the flaps just a bit, the second push gives you full flaps. As the flaps had, from the point of view of this Pilot's Handbook, only two intermediate state of deployment, take-off and full, it should be visually okay. You may have to change the flap sound by a guy pumping an old bicycle pump, or perhaps borrow the Spit flaps sound. I will now try t/o and landing with that adjustment in the AIR file to see if I can pick-up enough speed.
(...)
Sorry about the bad taxiing! I know it was mentioned a few days ago, and I looked into Steerable yes/no, and found it ON, but failed to check the rudder moment. Sorry, will fix!!
(...)
Update:
Yes, there seems to be a serious rudder problem. Rusty and seized hinges!... Although autocoordination is off and a control-surfaces gauge records rudder movement, and although the rudder moment should be OK at 178 (I increased it to 195), it still has no effect! There are quite a few parameters to do with Yaw, so it´s a bit more complicated. I´ll see what´s going on.
Just happy to see that you see it too.
(...)
So then, we could also have an additional RATO version for the Sparrow once the rest of the FD is sorted out. Fascinating! There are more than enough parts left over. Let´s see if there are no bleeds.
Mmm... not sure it is worth the trouble. That system was seldomly used as Germans always operated from long-enough airstrips until the end of hostilities. But the attachment were there, just in case...
Update 2:
Rudder and elevator control is terrible! I have used data from other planes that work, and it seems better now. The cross-effects that rudder has on roll makes it more difficult and although rudders now make the plane yaw, they end up rolllng it quite strongly even though rudder effect on roll is at zero.
Then, turning during taxiing now works, but it is very still very spongy.
What is absolutely clear, is that I am terrible at adjusting the flying characteristics of planes. Not my cup of tea by any means!!
Anyway, as soon as get the speeds better, I can post another updated .air file.
Again, no rush. The rolling on side slipping is natural and can be corrected with ailerons or return to straight flying. My AIR file for the V1 does it quite naturally, and taxi like a NY cab! Maybe you should have a look at it. Capt. Brown did warned about over-doing it though, one pilot did not listen and paid dearly.
I think I already answered that one but, just to be clear;
Do not take these numbers to build the AIR file, only for flying "according to the book". On another subject, I will use metric system because it is a "metric aircraft" and gauges and specifications are done accordingly. BTW- Germans did used knots (
knotten)... in the
Kriegsmarine. I'm not sure, but it would be interesting to see the
Fahrtmesser of a Bf 109T.
Ivan said:
(...)
The reason for speed differences is probably because in the Pilot's Handbook, speeds are stated in Indicated Air Speed.
The Wikipedia article appears to be pretty reliable for data. The 562 MPH at 19680 feet and 553 MPH at Sea Level are what I would go for.
Regarding poor handling, I can take a look at it in the next couple of days. Been very busy with a couple other projects (not flight simulator stuff) and also trying to figure out some discrepancies between the several installations of CFS that I have.
I am pretty sure I have an entry in Eric Brown's book on this aeroplane, but where can the pilot's handbook be found online?
I have answered for the Pilot's Manual. And, yes, these are most certainly I.A.S.. Interesting images I found;
This is the sticker in the middle, on top of the instruments. It means, I think;
"Attention!"
Pitot tube (reading) is around 10% too little
Interception (trapping?) shall not exceed 4 g
Negative acceleration no longer
than 3 sec. because otherwise engine goes out.
The third line is a bit problematic as the He 162 had no G-meter, so it must have been measured by "feelings only". The
Abfangen term means mostly interception but, logically, could also mean the trapping of the gears.
This is what is on the sticker just to the right of the first one;
speed limits
Flaps take-off position Va: 500 Km
Flaps landing position Va: 300 Km
Gears down Va: 350 Km
Flight time: 30 minutes
These "limits" are also problematic. Are we talking here of "adjusted" speed to be done by the pilot (i.e. 500 Km/h on reality meaning 450 Km/h on the dial) or was these already taken into account (i.e. reading 500 Km/h meant that your "real" limit was 450 Km/h)? This is highly confusing to a pilot who has other things to do than mentally calculate what is really going on. No wonder that so many hand-painted markers are visible on the circumferences of the dials. It shows how expedient the program was.
Last night, I checked out the V1 Cruise Missile.
(...)
Speed of the V-1 was reported to be 390 MPH to about 435 MPH.
The speed of the CFS version is limited to about 430 MPH with a ground take-off because it runs out of fuel before maximum speed is reached.
With in-flight refueling, it reaches a maximum of 444 MPH at 1500 feet altitude which is a bit below its actual operational altitude.
So.... From my viewpoint, the CFS V-1 Flying Bomb other than its very short flying range is not a bad representation of the actual weapon.
One very disappointing aspect is that it has no sound files configured so other than an engine whine from inside, it is completely silent.
- Ivan.
My own "flyable" V1 does just under 400 MPH, speed varying with altitude. AAC members were complaining that it was impossible to intercept, some saying it was too fast, with Spitfires and P-51. After explaining how to intercept, they had a ball! The trick is to dive on them from higher altitude in a timely fashion. The original AIR file is for a rocket, but mine is for a jet as the FZG 76 was a pulsejet.
Aleatorylamp said:
(...)
Interesting too, are your findings and deductions on the V1.
I had the feeling it was quite good too, except for the fact that a take-off run is very slow for the lack of a powered catapult. Incidentally, I wonder if it is easy enough to use the CFS1 Scenery Editor to place some launching ramps for somewhere to practise.
(...)
OK then! Cheers,
Aleatorylamp
I think I will send you both a sample of my own V1 and ramp sceneries so you could see (and have a bit of fun while doing it).
(...)
Incidentally, I saw a variant planned on the V1: The Reichenbach, a manned version of the V1, a German Ohka! This had a crude cabin just infront of and below the pulse-jet air-intake. It entailed the pilot flying to the target with crude controls and instruments, aiming the bomb at the target in a dive, and then trying to open the canopy to bail out. Probability of his survival, however, was extremely low, and the idea did not appeal too much to the Germans!
Nevertheless, the cheap simplicity of such a single-seater jet does have its appeal - Of course it would get a little more expensive with a landing-gear and sound-proofing, and a launching ramp in the back garden, but we could be off on a short sight-seeing spin around the countryside and then land in a field!
(...)
Baaad idea it was! Imagine the reception a pilot miraculously surviving would have received from the surviving neighbors...
Trying to catch-up, are you sleeping sometimes?
Hubbabubba
,
