View Full Version : I will be flying an actual EA-6B flight simulator tonight

08-16-2005, 01:57 PM
I will be flying an actual EA-6B flight simulator tonight.

I will be comparing it to the FM affects of 4.01.

I will report my obsevations and comparisons.

You will read them.

That is all.

08-16-2005, 02:02 PM
You got me. Whats the punchline?

08-16-2005, 02:07 PM
Please do make note of the torque effects and how it relates to piston fighters. While your at it, post a few pictures of orange / apple peels, just so we're all on the same page.

08-16-2005, 02:09 PM
Will they simulate a pencil correctly? That's what I want to know.

Seriously though, you jammy sod!

08-16-2005, 07:24 PM
Great. I can't wait to see what observations we'll get, coming from a JET flight sim experience, relating that to WWII props.

Some predictions:

"There was no torque at all!!! From what I could tell, it was as if there wasn't even an engine in front of me."

"All IL-2 planes are hideously undermodelled. The plane I was in made Mach 1 without even a shudder; no wings came off or anything!"


08-16-2005, 07:36 PM
That's one lonely chap.

08-16-2005, 07:39 PM
Everyone already knows the EA-6B is porked.

08-16-2005, 07:40 PM

08-16-2005, 07:42 PM
Can it take off fully loaded without a Cat?

08-16-2005, 07:57 PM
StrikeFighters/Wings Over Vietnam has an (official) A-6A.

08-16-2005, 10:53 PM
Strike Fighters have TONS of aircraft. No evidence that any of them fly like the real ones did.

With a "sim lite", who cares anyway? Just so long as they "look kewl". That's the most important thing over there.

08-17-2005, 01:22 AM
SF also now has older EA-6A to fly.

08-17-2005, 03:09 AM
Here's an E6B simulator for everyone!



08-17-2005, 10:17 AM

No, I wasn't interested in torque. Of course it wouldn't have any. I was interested in spacial reaction. Specifcially, if I felt like the airplane was sitting on top of a pin.

The answer was no. Not to the effect that I have observed in 4.01, but if I wiggled the airplane around, it would wobble to an extent. Does that mean that 4.01 is wrong? No. I mean, the EA-6B is a heavier airplane, moving at a faster speed. I do, however, still believe that 4.01 is a little overdone, allowing the aircraft too much movement around the 3 axies while in forward movement.

08-17-2005, 10:47 AM
Yeah, it's heavier, and faster, but then, the engine is putting out a lot more thrust, too.

It's all relative. But what doesn't change is the fact that a plane is a big mass in the midst of AIR, and that it doesn't even have "wheels in contact with the ground" like a ground vehicle has. Now, even in a car, we can feel a fraction of an extra G or so throwing us (and objects in the car) to the outside of turns, and the suspension slushing around a bit, especially if the shocks are a bit worn down.

Why is it so hard to imagine that, if not finely controlled, an aircraft will wobble in all three dimensions as immense airflow forces and gravity interact to keep a much heavier than air object airborne??

Of COURSE planes wobble. That's why almost all of them have rudder pedals. Because rudder control is indispensible. And, the effects that make the rudder necessary€"torque, inertia, P-factor, yaw, etc.€"all of these have until now been largely glossed over in the modeling. Now that we have it, and planes don't travel like trains on rails, we get all this whining and "toggle switching-off" (see that other thread).

I fail to understand why people are so turned off by challenges that simply reflect "how it was" or "how it is", and regard them as evil little devices thrown into a sim to stop them from totally dominating everyone in 10 minutes.

08-17-2005, 10:56 AM
Thanks Crash. I appreciated your pun.

SR-71s are not flying anymore, I don't think. You can get MiG-25 rides in Russia for 9000$. Let us know what Oleg needs to Fix. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

08-17-2005, 11:32 AM
Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
Thanks Crash. I appreciated your pun.
What pun?

This isn't a joke or anything. I took a group of Naval Sea Cadets to an EA-6B flight sim last night, and flew in it myself for about 10 minutes and trapped on the carrier. (1 wire. It wasn't pretty, but I lived! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif)
So I was trying to compare what I was feeling to what I know about what I've felt in IL-2.

08-17-2005, 12:17 PM
Don't worry about it. It is quite normal and most people manage to live with it without problems. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Kidding aside, what you are describing is just the way it is. Aircraft feel a lot more stable as speed picks up. Thus, jets wobble around a lot less in the air than a slower aircraft and align themselves with the direction of travel much faster and with less swing-in. The air at jet speeds is hard. At prop speeds, it is all soft and mushy. Compare swimming in water with diving into water from the 10 m platform and you get the idea. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Most of the aircraft in Il-2 should be able to dive themselves up to speeds where they acquire that "stuck in hardened cement" feel though.

08-17-2005, 03:00 PM
let us know if military sims still look like they were made in the 70s, rockwell collins stuff

08-18-2005, 12:11 AM
Originally posted by LeadSpitter_:
let us know if military sims still look like they were made in the 70s, rockwell collins stuff

The 70s?! They've upgraded them all?!


08-18-2005, 01:05 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif This will be an interesting comparison... have a Great Time!
Don't forget the camera