Posts by Martijn22

Late war and early post war naval fighter aircraft from the US Navy were incredibly fast at sea level. These aircraft, the late model Corsairs and F8F Bearcat, needed a lot of engine power to takeoff from the carrier deck with an ever increasing payload of external fuel tanks, bombs and rockets.

The Me 109G you’re talking about is from 1943 and is actually one of the slower aircraft up that high, at least compared to American and British designs. An F4U-1A Corsair from 1943 would be doing 350 MPH at sea level. This is done with 2000 hp. The F4U-5 Corsair’s P&W R2800 would be producing 2750 hp at sea level. That increase in horsepower is largely down to improved fuel quality and water injection. All to allow the engine to cram in more fuel into the cylinder per 4-stroke cycle, without it exploding prematurely. It’s quite incredible the speed of technological improvement at the time.

Greg’s Airplanes and Automobiles has a great video about the F4U-5 Corsair over on YouTube. I will try to link it:

P.S. Unless, with “boost”, you meant supercharging and turbocharging. All single engine fighter planes had a form of super- or turbocharging since the 1930s. In fact, most WW2 combat aircraft would be unable to leave the ground without either form of “pushing” extra air into the cylinders.

I just checked the straight line speed at sea level of our Corsair in the sim. It reaches 340 knots at sea level. Which makes sense, considering that our Corsair has the propeller and engine of a late model Corsair (-4 and -5). Which is then mated to the airframe of an early Corsair model (-1). As far as I'm aware, this isn't strange for warbirds that are still flying today.

Quote from Jet-Pack (IPACS)

The turbochargers are not simulated yet.

Luka is already available with global scenery streaming.

Just giving them a turbocharger instead of a supercharger isn't going to fix the F4U-1 Corsair or late model P-38. Both aircraft compress intake air in two stages, which would need to be modeled as well, if we want this to be realistic.😉

Both have a supercharger as their main stage for low altitude and then an auxiliary stage for higher altitude. On the Corsair this auxiliary stage (aux blower), a supercharger, could be spun at 2 speeds. The auxiliary stage on the P-38 Lightning is our turbocharger.

What's worse about the modelling of these current warbirds is that the manifold pressure gauge appears to be broken. It only shows pressures of about 30-36 inches, while both would probably be running pressures in the 50''s.

Jup, I figured that out know. The bug seems be in that the trimmer on the cyclic can only be applied to go to the left and back, but not the front and right.

I can’t get the Blackhawk to move laterally (forward and sideways) in the autopilot hover mode.

According to the tutorial on the Aerofly website, one should use the aircraft trim to move the helicopter left, right, forwards and backwards.

I can find the trim on the cyclic (stick), but I can’t seem to press it in the mobile version of the game.

I know this is currently not a major issue, since we’ve got little use for a hover autopilot right now. However, if hovering becomes more important due to the addition of a function winch system for example, then it’d be great to see this fixed!🚁

Bam💪, both a bug report and a suggestion in one😂.

The sims flight planning tool is actually pretty good for shorter flights. What I personally miss, is a function where it automatically follows airways/jetways or VOR's, like in the old FSX, but that one didn't have any departures or arrivals preprogrammed, like Aerofly has.

Jup here the issue as well. The bug seems to appear when you fly to one of the new Carribean airports. If you start on one of these airports it doesn’t happen.

Thank you! I've updated the Map containing detailed airports too.

Just a short update from me. I should have added most of the airports, marked blue on the Aerofly Missionsgerät, to the map. This finishes what I set out to do, until IPACS details another airport. I may occasionally add an airport that I think is interesting, and that deserves to be on the map.

I've also renamed the map to "The unofficial Aerofly detailed airports & regions map", just for my own sanity, if I quit updating the map. The description also includes a date of the last map update.

The map now indicates if an airport doesn't have a long runway. Airports marked with a straight-wing aircraft only have runways shorter than 1500 meters (~5000 ft). So take a bit more caution if you're trying to use these airports with a Learjet or Q400.

If there are any questions or suggestions, please let me know.

That's all for now folks.

Jet-Pack (IPACS)/Jan , I think that you are asking a bit much from someone who isn’t on IPACS’s payroll. I put in all the airports manually, largely based on the Missionsgerät, since I only play on IPad myself. As ApfelFlieger is pointing out, this could probably be automated, but that’s beyond my skill level.

Concerning the lack of airports in America and Europe, it’s because that wasn’t the primary goal of the project. My aim was to make a more easy to use map, than what was available in the Mapbox in the Missionsgerät, that would show me where detailed airports are located outside of the regions from previous Aerofly releases. I’ve already stated this at the start of the thread.

Jan, I know that you are trying to prevents untruths from spreading (As we all should), but that’s not the case, as long as people can read. I do intend on adding detailed airports from Switzerland, Western USA, Northeastern USA, South Florida and Western Europe with time. Updating is another matter, but I probably make sure that the date, of the last update of the map, will be visible somewhere.👍

If only we could filter detailed airports clearly within the app…🤔 (The same is becoming true for the aircraft and livery selection screens by the way😂)

Here's the link: Aerofly detailed airports & regions

This map shows where Aerofly's high resolution aerial images, and detailed airports are located. It currently only shows detailed airports in area's where there isn't high resolution aerial imagery.

The airport data was based on the blue airports in the Mapbox in Armitage 's Missionsgerät, but Mapbox had a few issues. So I made my own in Google Maps.

I still want to add airports from the area's with high resolution aerial images, but that's probably going to take a bit more time.

I tested the Camel on Compton Abbas myself with zero wind, and they’re right. About “crashing”. The ground loop itself doesn’t seem to be a problem, it’s a tail dragged after all. During the ground loop, one wheel will momentarily lift up and then crash back down again. This is what seems to makes game think that you’ve crashed.

I hope that this is clear enough for the devs. This actually doesn’t seem to be a piloting issue😅

Yeah, I found that same manual as you did and use it for flap settings. The manual is for an ASG 29 E (ASW 27-18E for EASA, probably to save money). As far as I can find the ASG 29 E is a motorized version of the ASG 29. With the motor folded away, the flight characteristics should be the same as the ASG 29, for the same weight and center of gravity.

So I did the calculations for the speed to fly on the ASG-29

Vertical movement of the air - corresponding speed to fly:

0 m/s - 90 km/h

-1 m/s - 125 km/h

-2 m/s - 152 km/h

-3 m/s - 176 km/h

-4 m/s - 196 km/h

-5 m/s - 214 km/h

—————————————————————————————

So how do you use it to fly faster?

First you will have to guess your average climb rate when climbing in a thermal or a ridge.

Then, you take your average rate of climb. Then find the equivalent sink rate in the table posted above, ignoring the negative signs of course. The corresponding speed to fly will be our new flying speed whenever the air isn’t moving vertically.
—————————————————————————————

EXAMPLE

Say we’ve just climbed a thermal using an average climb rate of 2 m/s.

So, what does our corresponding speed to fly become?

Vertical movement of air - speed to fly

-2 m/s —> 0 m/s - 152 km/h

-3 m/s —> -1 m/s - 176 km/h

-4 m/s —> -2 m/s - 196 km/h

-5 m/s —> -3 m/s - 214 km/h

With this, we can also figure out our speed to fly if we find a bit of sink.

I believe I haven’t corrected for the fact that the vario’s on our ASG-29 display the pure rate of climb. Not the actual movement of the air. You would need to consult the glide polars of the ASG-29 to correct for that.

For best use I would keep a safety margin between using the speed to fly and the ground. Below which you revert back to the absolute best glide speed, which is somewhere between 90 and 100 km/h. Happy gliding everyone!

It turns out that I'm one of those weirdo's that's willing too spend soo much time. In any case, here's the flight: Farrenberg - Schanis - Farrenberg, 148 NM or 274 km. The start was made using a single 'Quick lift up'. There was a 6 km/h breeze from the West, so that didn't really influence the flight, but maybe improves thermals🤷‍♂️, which are set to the maximum. Oh, and the battery of the ASG 29 ran out slightly after 3 hours, so the approach and landing was made without the flight computer.😅

Something tells me that this is more a challenge of spending enough time, rather than an actual measurement of skill in flying gliders.🙄

Most of us probably could keep a glider airborne in Aerofly in high thermal settings for 10+ hours, but not many of us are willing to spend that much time.😅

I’m talking about something differently here. Keep in mind that soaring is a sport that heavily depends on the interplay between time and energy management. That’s where “Speed to fly principle” comes into play.

If all glider pilots were recreational pilots wanting to fly slow, then the ASG 29 wouldn’t have 7 flap settings. Settings 4, 5 and 7 would probably suffice then.😅

Ah, that’s a bummer.

Thank you for your response Jan.
Atleast this saves me hours of trying to get something to work, which doesn’t actually work.

Hey does anyone know if the flight computer on the ASG 29 is able to calculate the speed to fly?

Soaring in Aerofly is lots of fun, but the range in a limited time span is rather limited. I know I could just speed up and hope for the best, but using the speed to fly- principle probably would allow me to better judge how much I could speed up.

Quote from Thekingbuji333

Yes, but the point I'm trying to make is that we already have airliners with steam gauges. See some polls on the forum and have a quick look at what the top votes are.

And even many more with glass cockpits😂. Besides that, the forum’s aren’t an accurate reflection of the player base, and IPACS knows this. But if we want a new steam gauge jetliner, then my vote would go to a Douglas DC-8 or Boeing 707 because of their significant impact on aviation and history in general.