Post by Allan_Lowson on Nov 29, 2009 20:30:19 GMT -5
As I am sliding gracefully back into the pack of mediocrity in the DC3 World Rally, I thought it was time to get my head out of the cockpit for a breather. Actually I am only getting my head into the cockpit at brief intervals between grossly overdue total repainting of the crumbling ancestral pile. My master-plan, of spraying the entire abode from floor to ceiling in the same shade of mucky mocha, tripped up when I discovered that different lighting levels have a dramatic effect on the apparent colour of the relevant wall or ceiling.
Which eventually got me round to thinking about Tom's suggestion (bet you wondered where this havering was heading) of tackling a different angle on the issue of rallies.
The GAAR, providing you are not allergic to the colour red or frozen beer, is an opportunity to try out something you don't fly often and see how well you can match a target flight time over a number of flights. While this caters for all levels of performance, from the full bore accuracy tyros to the flat out blinders, there is one fundamental catch - and if you haven't figured it out for yourself I'm not telling. I have wondered if there might not be a way of manipulating the system to optimise performance, but again you're on your own in figuring that out - just in case it might work.
Then the DCA World Rally, concentrating on the DC-3 or even the odd Lisunov Li-2, is a navigational exercise with the idiosyncratic scoring system of seeing how well you measure up to the average time and fuel consumption of every other nut flying the same route. I thought this was a brilliant system for the first three legs, but am becoming more uncertain as the legs and my relative fuel consumption pile up!
As Tom says, the apparent limit of flying the DC-3 actually allows a number of permutations of model and FDs. Modesty has led him to not mention that the hot tweak-de-jour is a set of FDs developed not a country mile from Atlanta.
The randomization that comes from using a moving average target eliminates much of the competitiveness and allows the competitors to concentrate on flying the navaids while trying to keep an honest eye on the throttle and mixture settings.
An exercise that throws in a variety of challenges such as the use of the GPS or varying CGs, or even single engine handling of a twin would give a different angle and may take us out of the comfort zones of the familiar.
One factor, which would probably be most successful in the States with the free access to on-line info, could be a repeat of the buy your own fuel challenge that was run a while back. In this you had to get from A to B and buy the fuel required along the way at current airport prices. This meant that the most direct route was not necessarily the cheapest, and you also needed to have the range to get between your preferred stops, or do a splash and dash at an intervening stop.
The issue of nefarious characters adjusting the performance of their aircraft cannot be eliminated by insisting on particular downloads being used. The honest will leave them alone, and if the only prize is virtual bragging rights then the temptation is less likely to appeal to the lower life forms.
However standard downloads with built in handling quirks might be an interesting idea. I remember many moons ago a flight sim programme that included the X-3 with positive feedback instability. The idea was to see how long you could stay airborne before turning into a large hole in the ground.
It would need someone with Tom's skills to generate them of course. Having said that there do seem to be many badly handling models to download, the idea here is for the handling issues to be deliberate rather than by happenstance.
Which eventually got me round to thinking about Tom's suggestion (bet you wondered where this havering was heading) of tackling a different angle on the issue of rallies.
The GAAR, providing you are not allergic to the colour red or frozen beer, is an opportunity to try out something you don't fly often and see how well you can match a target flight time over a number of flights. While this caters for all levels of performance, from the full bore accuracy tyros to the flat out blinders, there is one fundamental catch - and if you haven't figured it out for yourself I'm not telling. I have wondered if there might not be a way of manipulating the system to optimise performance, but again you're on your own in figuring that out - just in case it might work.
Then the DCA World Rally, concentrating on the DC-3 or even the odd Lisunov Li-2, is a navigational exercise with the idiosyncratic scoring system of seeing how well you measure up to the average time and fuel consumption of every other nut flying the same route. I thought this was a brilliant system for the first three legs, but am becoming more uncertain as the legs and my relative fuel consumption pile up!
As Tom says, the apparent limit of flying the DC-3 actually allows a number of permutations of model and FDs. Modesty has led him to not mention that the hot tweak-de-jour is a set of FDs developed not a country mile from Atlanta.
The randomization that comes from using a moving average target eliminates much of the competitiveness and allows the competitors to concentrate on flying the navaids while trying to keep an honest eye on the throttle and mixture settings.
An exercise that throws in a variety of challenges such as the use of the GPS or varying CGs, or even single engine handling of a twin would give a different angle and may take us out of the comfort zones of the familiar.
One factor, which would probably be most successful in the States with the free access to on-line info, could be a repeat of the buy your own fuel challenge that was run a while back. In this you had to get from A to B and buy the fuel required along the way at current airport prices. This meant that the most direct route was not necessarily the cheapest, and you also needed to have the range to get between your preferred stops, or do a splash and dash at an intervening stop.
The issue of nefarious characters adjusting the performance of their aircraft cannot be eliminated by insisting on particular downloads being used. The honest will leave them alone, and if the only prize is virtual bragging rights then the temptation is less likely to appeal to the lower life forms.
However standard downloads with built in handling quirks might be an interesting idea. I remember many moons ago a flight sim programme that included the X-3 with positive feedback instability. The idea was to see how long you could stay airborne before turning into a large hole in the ground.
It would need someone with Tom's skills to generate them of course. Having said that there do seem to be many badly handling models to download, the idea here is for the handling issues to be deliberate rather than by happenstance.