Chuck's Yak-52 Guide

Enjoy!

Google Drive link:

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1Icmntqr_wRnFJ3ooAOBlS2R6EK3c39Kb

Mudspike link:

https://www.mudspike.com/chucks-guides-dcs-yak-52/

thanks buddy!

Brilliant work Chuck, very impressive. F-18 was as well. 101 pages for the YAK. Detailed but still accessible. Should be the standard intro course for aspiring flight sim pilots. Love the emphasis on taxi and pattern fundamentals as well as a good quick intro to combat related maneuvers.

I would never have the confidence to hop back and forth between high fidelity DCS modeled aircraft the way I do without your guides.

Cheers

Looks very nice at a first glance but I definitely don't agree with the way the guide says you have to fly the final approach:

Control your airspeed with aircraft pitch, not with the throttle.

This is a small GA like trainer and you can use any 'method' you like, although I'm one of the pilots who are saying that you always have to use both, throttle and stick for corrections.

One real Yak 52 manual describes how to correct a too low position on the glideslope:

Increase power and pull back on the stick to decrease the glide angle.

And another real Yak 52 manual says concerning speed control on final: regulate the speed using throttle.

Looks very nice at a first glance but I definitely don't agree with the way the guide says you have to fly the final approach:

Control your airspeed with aircraft pitch, not with the throttle.

This is a small GA like trainer and you can use any 'method' you like, although I'm one of the pilots who are saying that you always have to use both, throttle and stick for corrections.

 

 

One real Yak 52 manual describes how to correct a too low position on the glideslope:

Increase power and pull back on the stick to decrease the glide angle.

 

And another real Yak 52 manual says concerning speed control on final: regulate the speed using throttle.

I mentioned that both approaches were theoretically possible, but I have now precised which apprpoach is taught.

FWIW, in my Yak I fly pitch for airspeed, throttle for descent rate.

'Gimp

FWIW, in my Yak I fly pitch for airspeed, throttle for descent rate.

 

'Gimp

Me too !!!! :music_whistling:

Well, it's a stylish throttle the one I have - they call it speedbrake - but works pretty much the same way :-)

I believe that probably only airliners other than FBW, can be in a different league, the 747s being a good example.

Other than that it's pretty much the same basic rule. So Chuck, you're ok Man !

I believe that probably only airliners other than FBW, can be in a different league, the 747s being a good example.

 

Other than that it's pretty much the same basic rule.

I don't understand the first sentence and what FBW has to do with it. You e.g. fly an A340 and a 747 the same way.

And what 'basic rule' are you talking about?

Basically, use pitch for speed, thrust for v/s, for your glide path control.

This applies pretty much to every GA, even on the bigger types, but turns out to be not absolutely true in airliners, namely heavier ones like a 744, where indeed a combination of the two is required to control your v/s and approach speed.

In FBW aircraft this tends to be automatically compensated by the system, both under Airbus C* and Boeing's C*u.

That's what I meant.

Anyway, it's true that due to many other factors, a combination of both is always used.

I strongly believe think that the 'method I' and 'method II' description is an outdated, misleading and incomplete explanation, as you basically confirmed in your last sentence.

A FBW airliner doesn't 'compensate' for anything regarding normal flying and there shouldn't be any difference concerning pitch/power handling if you follow e.g. a 3deg GS in a tiny ERJ170 or an A380.

I strongly believe think that the 'method I' and 'method II' description is an outdated, misleading and incomplete explanation, as you basically confirmed in your last sentence.

 

A FBW airliner doesn't 'compensate' for anything regarding normal flying and there shouldn't be any difference concerning pitch/power handling if you follow e.g. a 3deg GS in a tiny ERJ170 or an A380.

Airbus ok, but Boeing c*u does compensate automatically for configuration changes ( gear, flaps / slats ).

Anyway in an airliner mostly the pitching moments due to thrust changes force an integration of techniques.

Airbus ok, but Boeing c*u does compensate automatically for configuration changes ( gear, flaps / slats ).

Not sure if it's not the other way round, because the Airbus does compensate for configuration changes and additionally you don't have trim when doing thrust/speed changes, but AFAIR on the 777 you have to trim when speed increases/decreases.

The point I'm trying to make is that FBW doesn't change the way you fly a medium/heavy jet.

If you are trimming or autotrim etc. does the work, it doesn't make much difference.

In fact I found the A320 more difficult to fly on e.g. the ILS than the 767 because you don't feel any speed and/or vertical speed changes since the attitude is basically remaining constant.

Don't agree on the last point. Especially on the ILS where usually only small thrust changes are required the pitching moment is usually negligible.

I found the A320 more difficult to fly on e.g. the ILS than the 767

IRL, not sims?

Anyway, I do agree with what you say about the method I / method II on finals debacle. Because you can think / do it both ways ;)