Jump to content

AndyJWest

Members
  • Content Count

    154
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About AndyJWest

  • Rank
    Member
  • Birthday 12/31/2020

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. The only port-side-island carriers I know of were the IJN Hiryū and Akagi. According to Wikipedia (probably not an ideal source) the port-side island on the Akagi was tried as an experiment, "to see if that side was better for flight operations by moving the island away from the ship's exhaust outlets". The majority of Japanese carriers followed the starboard-island convention, so presumably there wasn't any benefit. And yes, it's quite common to see WW2-era photographs mirrored. It was very easy to accidentally flip the negative before taking a print, and if you didn't know what y
  2. The Ark Royal had its island on the starboard side.
  3. Another suggestion: don't oblige people to enter a date of birth in order to sign back into the forum. Even (as I have) an entirely fictitious one. There is no reason whatsoever why a forum like this should even include this as an option, never mind try to make it compulsory (which I'd have to assume wasn't intended). People should not be encouraged to disclose personal details.
  4. I'd have thought that if the airbrake was intended to be able to be stopped in intermediate positions, there would have been some sort of in-cockpit position indicator provided. Otherwise, the pilot would have no way to tell where it was. What may be confusing the issue slightly is that, from what the NATOPS manual says, the extended position varies according to airspeed:
  5. This is a long-standing issue with the Windows game controller API. It has always been flaky, and expecting an application using it to continue working flawlessly while unplugging devices is optimistic, to say the least. A controller-specific driver may possibly help, but I wouldn't count on it. Don't use plugging in/unplugging devices while playing as a 'fix' for other issues. If it works, it is only by coincidence, and cannot be relied on.
  6. Yup. I had another go yesterday, and a little rearward movement at the start seemed to make it work better. The other thing you need to do is add power as you start to go nose-down - if you don't, you'll lose height. From what I can remember, pilot's demonstrating this seem generally not to try to return into a level hover. Instead, they pull up beyond horizontal, and climb away forwards (presumably with nozzles moved to less than the 82-degree level hover position). Probably easier than reestablishing a flat hover, and more impressive looking.
  7. I think the answer is that they are actually moving. Just not enough to be obvious. If you start in a stationary hover, and 'bow down' significantly, you are going to move forward, even if you swing the nozzles to the 99° position as you do so. Moving the nozzles maybe a second or so earlier will start you moving backwards though, so by the time you've finished your 'bow' you won't have gained so much forward momentum. That seemed to work for me, though I didn't put much effort into doing it with any precision - I'm still working on the more fundamental aspects of hovering, and was happy enoug
  8. Yeah, I um, discovered one of the Kutaisi airfields by accident, while flying the Viggen during the free-to-fly offer. Meant to land at Kutaisi itself, but got confused as I turned onto final, and lined up on the one shown in the screenshots. :doh: Fortunately, I'd set the auto-thrust-reverse gadget, so no great harm done. If I'd been flying any of the jets other then the Viggen, it would have ended in tears.
  9. Yup, I found the same thing. It only seemed to affect the 2.75 in rockets - the Zunis I used first were on target, or at least not so obviously wrong. Another thing I noticed, possibly related, was that the STRS page showed a TGT ELEV for rockets, whereas from memory, it didn't before: I managed somehow to get it reset to zero (closer to my target elevation), somehow, though I'm not entirely sure what I did to do this. In any case, the rockets were still missing afterwards. Something is clearly awry. EDIT: I've just noticed it also reads MODE MANUAL on the screen, but not on the ACP
  10. Yes, I know it isn't precise. Which is why I'm asking if there is a way to make it so. 'Buy more controllers' isn't really helpful, since RAZBAM clearly intend systems to work with the inputs they provide.
  11. Is there any way to adjust the rates of movement of nozzle rotation and STO stop position when using either a HOTAS button or the keyboard? They seem to move too fast for me, making setting a precise angle tricky. If the rate of movement was a little slower, it would make things much easier. I could put one or the other on my HOTAS radar elevation rotary, but that is also rather awkward to use with any precision.
  12. It has been done on other sims (see e.g. https://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/9614-using-faders-as-sliders/ ) but it involves using external software to emulate a controller, is tricky to set up, and you may find the low resolution (0-127) of Midi sliders/rotaries to be a problem.
  13. As I understand it, jet engine inlet design involves compromises in order to achieve good performance over wide IAS & Mach number ranges. Inevitably then, any aircraft design is only going to achieve maximum thrust/fuel consumption efficiency under specific conditions. Maybe the F-18 is just operating closer to its optimum than the other aircraft under the test conditions described? To show that there is an issue you would really need to test under a wider range of conditions - different altitudes, different speeds. Though even then, it wouldn't really indicate that anything was wrong unle
×
×
  • Create New...