Idea: Aircraft Modifications

[TheGrunch]

Hi everyone,

I thought it would be a wise idea to try starting this thread in order to try and prevent a lot of the name-calling and mud-slinging that accompanies both FM and DM discussion and the general features of various aircraft. I am very tired of reading the partisan and confrontational attitude that is generally used when discussing this subject, as I'm sure everyone else is. I will confess that I have sometimes fallen to posting in such a way myself. Maybe if we deliberately limit our ability to cause offence, we could make this a useful resource instead of an argument. Please use the following format to post:

Aircraft:
<Please post the specific aircraft submodel e.g. Ki-27 Ko.>
Proposed Change:
<Ten words or less if possible, concise if not, e.g. Speed increase to 11147kph at 5000m.>
Current Status:
<A short description indicating the current status of the sim, e.g. 4600kph at 5000m.>
Source Data:
<Please post the data or screenshots from the sim and how you obtained it in as few words as possible, e.g. Speed test using LesniHU's autopilot & recording of DeviceLink data with 110% throttle, closed radiator and all difficulty settings on except for limited fuel. For extremely large screenshots, thumbnail pictures are encouraged.>
Supporting Data For Changes:
<Please post a link or image of the data supporting your change along with the title of the document from which it was obtained. For extremely large images, thumbnail pictures are encouraged.>
Condition Of Test Aircraft (if applicable):
<Please post any known attributes of the test aircraft, including those that were different to production aircraft, e.g. Non-production prop.>

Lengthy exposition, argument, and even just general discussion is extremely strongly discouraged in this thread! Take it to PM! This is a thread for dispassionately sorting the data we have available. If people start playing Devil's Advocate to their own suggestions before they even post them, we will have achieved the purpose of this thread.

I would ask you to consider the following:


The applicability of the data in question - did x extra feature or x extra performance apply to all aircraft of the subtype or just to selected examples if a photo is used as data for an external change, for example, or if production aircraft of the subtype differed with no change in designation?
For performance-related data, remember to include all factors from the finish of the aircraft used to the fuel. Everything! I mean it!


If you would like to add to any data posted on account of any extra factors that have been omitted in the original post or which are not present in the source, please quote the original post, and use the following format to reply:

Extra Factor:
<e.g. Aircraft skin hand-finished for smoothness.>
Source:
<The source of your information.>

If you believe someone has misinterpreted some data, provide a source or a good (calm) explanation of where and how they have done so! Please try to use the format below when quoting their post:

Possible Error:
<Details of where an error may have occurred.>
Explanation:
<Please provide an explanation and if possible a source for your claim.>

If allowing this kind of discussion in the thread proves problematic then this may be disallowed at a later date. If you suspect that such a discussion might cause an argument, take it to PM!

If you would like to dispute the source of someone's information without any source to back you up other than your own sense of incredulity and doubt, don't! This is for posting data. Let's leave the discussion of plausibility elsewhere.

This is not just for FMs! If you would like to post about cosmetic features, armaments, DMs, etc., please post it here. I know that there are a great many people here who dedicate a lot of time to researching this kind of info, but as yet there is no central and structured repository for this information. If we get a good response, then perhaps DT members will one day glance through here looking for easy fixes to incontrovertible errors when they feel like a change of pace. Maybe they won't - after all, they are all volunteers. Either way, it is something worth starting.

The question is, do we want to be scientific about changes to this sim, or do we want to be whiny Xbox kids?

[-=MadCat=-]

Hi there !

First off, I like the idea of a more organized thread for changing demands that are backed up by actual data, so thx to you Grunch!
So I go ahead with hoping TD really peaks in here one day.

Aircraf:
P-51 (D)

Proposed Change(s):
1. Openable canopy
2. Manual Blower settings (Auto <-> Low Blower <-> High Blower (spring loaded))
3. Manual mixture control (IDLE CUT-OFF <-> RUN <-> EMERGENY FULL RICH)
4. Addition of 110gal droppable combat tanks
5. Fuselage tank drained first and filled last
6. The bomb racks really need some love

Current Status:
1. Canopy not openable
2. Only Automatic Blower
3. No manual mixture, only RUN
4. Only 75gal compat tanks
5. Fuselage tank filled before the wing tanks and drained after the wing tanks
6. They lack a little detail and love (free floating fuel tanks e.g.) (compare them to some other racks, like P-47 or Hs129, those look good)

Those are all obvious and I guess known things that in my eyes don't require any backup by screenshots or such.

Supporting Data For Changes:
1. Common sense
2. Revised Pilot Training Manual For The P-51 Mustang 15th Aug '45 Page 13
3. Revised Pilot Training Manual For The P-51 Mustang 15th Aug '45 Page 15
4. Revised Pilot Training Manual For The P-51 Mustang 15th Aug '45 Page 20-21
5. Revised Pilot Training Manual For The P-51 Mustang 15th Aug '45 Page 67 (I know it does nothing to center of gravity, but filling the fuselage last and draining it first would at least be more realistic as the current situation)
6. Well what data can one provide for this, I attached some pictures for the racks (and the 110gal tanks), please give them a little love.

Training Manual:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/34811808/North-American-P-51-Mustang-Pilot-Training-Manual

Condition Of Test Aircraft:
As this is out of a manual for the type D, all should apply for the both Ds ingame. As far as the C, B and Mk.III go, all should apply to them too, except for the maybe different mixture lever as they have a different throttle quadrant(actually so does the D-5NT too). And I have no confirmation if 110gal drop tanks were used with them.


Without knowing if this is correct, I assume most of these changes could be done within some days maybe.

Good god this took some time to write down and tripple check everything :grin:
But maybe this thread will really bring up some researched changes in the future.


Good night now everyone !

[Whacker]

Aircraft:

Yes please.

Proposed Change:

Increase warp to factor 9.

Current Status:

Not wearing any pants. Somewhat tired, but remaining positive.

Source Data:

I am an expert.

Supporting Data For Changes:

Here is a funny picture of an aircraft.

http://i.imgur.com/dKbYk.jpg
Condition Of Test Aircraft (if applicable):

Slightly used, already crashed once or twice. Leroy put it back together and only had a few parts left over, said it was fine.

Extra Factor:

Factors of 42 include 2, 21, 7, 3.

Source:

The internet, and Uncle Joe when he was sober.

Possible Error:

Yes.

Explanation:

Pilot error (sometimes called cockpit error) is a term used to describe the cause of an accident involving an airworthy aircraft (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircraft) where the pilot is considered to be principally or partially responsible. Pilot error can be defined as a mistake, oversight, lapse in judgement, or failure to exercise due diligence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Due_diligence) by an aircraft operator during the performance of his/her duties.

[Luno13]

Good idea Grunch ;)

[TheGrunch]

Aircraft:

Proposed Change:

Increase warp to factor 9.

Current Status:

Not wearing any pants. Somewhat tired, but remaining positive.

Source Data:

I am an expert.

...


I think that everyone will support Whacker's changes. :lol:

[Treetop64]

Possible Error:

Yes.

Lol!

[TheGrunch]

:lol: Guess people only came here to argue.

[KG26_Alpha]

:lol: Guess people only came here to argue.

No they didn't..........