A.V.I.A. L.3 Student Training Manual

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

This manual explains how to extract each 'realism' that is embedded in the supplied three dimensional crew environment, sounds, gauges and flight dynamics of this FS9 release. It expands the content of Regia Aeronautica technical manuals and operating manuals to explain in detail things that Regia Aeronautica, and Luftwaffe, instructors of 1940 - 1945 were expected to teach. Nevertheless advanced familiarity with the 2008 Propliner Tutorial from;

Calclassic.com/tutorials

is assumed throughout. That tutorial's generic content is barely touched upon below.

 This is a demanding 'maximum realism' simulation of a training aeroplane highly specialised for the purpose of deselecting potential pilots if they could not cope with the most basic elements of pilotage. The contextual history of the L.3, (also in this 'read before flight' folder), should ideally be studied before reading this student  training manual. Issues explained in the supplied contextual history are barely touched upon here. Within this student training manual some values are estimated. The symbol ~ means 'approximately'

 

LOAD THE OPEN COCKPIT LOMBARDI - MOVE TO VOSLAU (LOAV) RUNWAY 26:

This student training manual will teach you to replicate Regia Aeronautica and Luftwaffe 'lead in' pilot selection and training procedures for the A.V.I.A. L.3 1940 - 1945 in detail. Only the most difficult to understand concepts are illustrated later. The illustrations assume use of the Luftwaffe training facilities at Voslau (LOAV) and Klagenfurt (LOWK), and in particular assume use of the FS9 default BGLs for those locations, including realistic surface friction versus runway type, that sadly may be absent from third party sceneries, which should be disabled during Lombardi L3 training. Your lead in training aircrew specialisation selection begins at Voslau and proceeds to Klagenfurt. You can carry out your training using any livery, but the supplied 1944 Luftwaffe livery is the most appropriate. Remember during WW2 Italian aeroplanes didn't serve only in the Regia Aeronautica.

Even though 'lead in' training in the cockpit of Lombardi was quite brief it was associated with many ground school classes that covered the knowledge base required. You will need to work harder than the real student pilots, because you will need to teach yourself the required knowledge base and skills using only this tutorial / manual, as you practice each skill detailed below within your desk top flight simulator. This training manual will not say, 'here is a specific skill that you must practice inside your flight simulator, each time it introduces a new compliance procedure that the real student was required to learn, understand and demonstrate, but you should practice each and every skill anyway.

Only concepts that are especially difficult to understand or learn as skills are described in detail, but to extract the realism this release delivers you must make the effort to understand and demonstrate each compliance and many of them are much easier to understand while using the L3 in your simulator, while cross referring to this text, as you learn to achieve each compliance that will allow you to proceed beyond 'lead in aircrew role selection training' to 'pilot training' during WW2. This will be very demanding because it assumes that you have what it takes to pass that selection process.

Because early aircrew role suitability selection revolves around head up parallax compliance skills, and understanding how fundamental they are to the safe VFR operation of real aeroplanes, within or outside a combat environment, this tutorial / manual will eventually address those skills in greater detail than any other that is freely available to the FS community. Many flight simulation enthusiasts even struggle to configure their desk top flight simulator compliantly, so that it allows those essential skills to be learned. That very basic necessity will also be explained.

 

PURE 3D SIMULATION:

Back in the 1990s, when the best desk top flight simulator was FS98, we were all forced to use fixed format windows containing an image that was a bitmap of fixed field of view (FoV), usually based on a photograph taken from a random eyepoint down a random eyeline at a random zoom.

In consequence the bitmap imposed was usually wholly out of scale with everything else in the simulation. It blocked sight lines and real world head up parallax compliances could not be learned or used. Parallax compliance and perspective were lost every time the outside scenery in the back window was zoomed and the fixed bitmap in the front window failed to zoom with it. Nobody could judge azimuth or range or glideslope unless zoom was always 1.0, and the developer actually understood that he was the scenery projectionist and bothered to learn how to project more or less the real slice of scenery into the random size out of scale apertures of the fixed FoV bitmap. Few third party developers ever understood, or ever learned how to project the real slice of scenery. 2D panels were awful, but 20 years ago we had no choice. We also had no choice concerning our display. It was 8:6 aspect ratio, miserably small size, with miserable resolution rarely exceeding 600p.

It is now 2015 and there is no way for software developers to know the shape of your screen, the size of your screen (17 inch or 57 inch), the definition (600p / 720p / 1080p / 1200p / or much more) of your screen, or the acuity of your corrected vision. 3D computing is the solution. These days we are each required to configure our personal display device to match not only the acuity of our personal eyesight, but also to understand why some aspects of desk top flight simulation require display devices to be configured to deliver Human Fied of View (FoV) while other aspects of flight simulation require the ability to switch the display to match Human Acuity. No developer can do that for you.

When using the display we purchased with *any* software it is our job to create a window whose aspect ratio and microzoom in combination is 'fit for purpose'. Software developers have no idea whether we use a real 16:10 computer monitor, or only a 16:9 television (TV), or what type of digital cinematic projector we may own. A 16:9 TV (often misdescribed as a computer monitor) shows at least 11% less of every kind of file compared to a real modern era 16:10 computer monitor. Whether we are loading a spreadsheet, a database, or just a pdf document, it is our job to create a WINDOW of appropriate shape and then impose a microzoom of the file in that window that is 'fit for purpose' using our prior personal hardware choices.

Many flight simulation enthusiasts still fail to understand the difference between a virtual window and a real window. The difference is critical. If we make a real window wider our lateral FOV increases and our vertical FoV is undiminished. If instead (at constant ZOOM) we make a virtual window wider our lateral FoV reduces slightly and our vertical FoV reduces rapidly. Using a computer with MS windows we see more of the VC in a narrower window. The wider the consumer runs the window versus its depth the more they reduce their FoV (at constant ZOOM). This becomes a significant problem if the consumer is trying to use a 16:9 widescreen TV as a computer monitor. These days most of you are, but don't realise that you are. 11% of the vertical FoV that would be present on a real computer monitor will be missing.

This 'maximum realism' simulation runs in 3D to impose real world scenery projection, sight line blocking, and parallax compliance cues in all directions, from the student and instructor variable eyepoints at all times, at any zoom, in any simulation window of any aspect ratio. During 3D computing the 'inside view' and the 'outside view' share the same aspect ratio, and then they pan, and scroll and zoom together. That is a necessity during desk top flight simulation, if we hope to learn and impose real world head up parallax compliances, rather than just watch a distorted cartoon with random scenery placement.

 

DISPLAY AND CONFIGURE THE VC TO MATCH YOUR HARDWARE PURCHASE NOW:

If necessary autostart the engine (CTRL+E). You currently occupy the default student (dual and solo flight) parallax compliance eyepoint, which will be occupied for most of the simulation, but it is only one of two mandatory parallax compliance eyepoints (for the student) in this 3D vintage era workspace. There are two more for the instructor which are of course also available in this maximum realism simulation.

Remember if you use a startup.flt that you created, you randomised what will be open or closed, what will be on or off, how full anything is, what has already failed, and the huge weight of ice from the last flight that you never removed. Many consumers develop the belief that 'MSFS is broken' based only on the crazy content of their randomised self created start up files.

Configuring a window whose aspect ratio you personally believe approximates Human Field of View (FoV) is your job. You choose what aspect ratio that is, not a developer, not a hardware manufacturer. You choose how much of the file content you want to see, laterally and vertically, by varying WINDOW aspect ratio and microzoom at will, and no scenery will ever be misprojected. During this simulation you can configure how much of any file you want to see, the way you want to see it, and still be guaranteed the parallax compliance that is necessary to impose range and azimuth and glideslope using real head up flight parallax compliance procedures, as more than one crew member.

Now *microzoom* the inside and outside of the simulation together, using (SHIFT and + else SHIFT and -), *not just + and -*, until you personally perceive that the window you created within your screen, and the zoom you have micro imposed within that window, delivers human FoV in that window. Else if your corrected vision is poor, or you use a display with low definition (resolution), then instead the higher microzoom you will need to read the gauges using your personal hardware choice. You must learn to impose both human FoV (at a ZOOM peculiar to your display device). and the acuity of vision that was required to become an air force pilot in WW2. That happens only at ZOOM = 1, because all BGLs are designed to deliver real 'Level of Detail' (LOD), for target identification / recognition at ZOOM = 1, and not at the ZOOM that instead delivers human FoV on your personal hardware display purchase.

 

THE ENTIRE WINDSCREEN IN FRONT OF YOU IS YOUR AIMING RETICLE:

Later sections of this manual will illuminate the skills of head up flight parallax compliance using the forward windscreen, whose frames are your parallax compliance reticle.

The compliant microzoom you must impose, must always reveal the upper frame of your aiming reticle, where it passes above your current eyepoint, thus allowing you to determine where the vertical centre of that reticle is located. In some real aircraft real human FoV from the real parallax compliance eyepoint may extend beyond the top and sides of the parallax compliance aiming reticle, but the top and bottom of the head up parallax compliance aiming reticle must always be visible on your personal hardware while learning the relevant real world skills. If you cannot see the top and bottom of the head up parallax compliance aiming reticle, (in this case the windscreen), in front of your current eyepoint, you cannot possibly position the target of external parallax compliance in the vertical centre of that reticle and you have not microzoomed out far enough versus your personal purchase of display hardware.

All versions of MSFS have poorly designed consumer simulation control interfaces. Some are just worse than others. None allow microzoom to be assigned to a button, and none allow microzoom to be recoded as a single finger press. The Microsoft design error requiring multi finger pressing is hard coded.

However once you have co-adjusted the aspect ratio of the WINDOW to approximate human FoV, and the microzoom to approximate Human FoV, FS9 will retain your personal setting throughout the simulation session. FS9 is a well designed desk top flight simulator that delivers realistic head up parallax compliance cues in 3D mode. The problem is that many flight simulation enthusiasts have never learned how to make their personal choice of hardware display 'fit for purpose' because they imagine someone else can still do it for them.

Your perception of Human FoV may differ slightly from mine. That is irrelevant. The microzoom you need to use, versus the WINDOW aspect ratio you decide to use, may need to be different using your hardware. Regardless you must operate the Lombardi from the mandatory compliance eyepoint and you must adjust microzoom to deliver the VERTICAL FoV that incorporates the upper bound of the aiming reticle, in front of the compliance eyepoint, while being able to see all the most important gauges used to impose compliant operation of the Lombardi. In FS9 pressing the SPACEBAR will return you to *your* definition of forward arc human FoV on *your* hardware.

Flight simulation enthusiasts must learn to do with a flight simulation product what we must all learn to do with a pdf document or a spreadsheet. We must control how much of the embedded file content we see at any one time, in both the X and Y directions, and if what we see is not fit for purpose, we must change what we see, by variation of WINDOW aspect ratio and microzoom, until what is visible, is fit for purpose. For any type of file. Adjust your default definition of Human FoV until you do not need to pan and scroll, to see anything needed to impose and sustain compliant operation of the aeroplane. We shall examine when it is inappropriate to view the simulation using Human FoV later.

 

INHABIT THE REAL WORKSPACE:

The whole point of modern desk top flight simulation is to deliver a real 3D workspace that we can inhabit, looking in any direction, from every real world eyepoint, down every real world eyeline, at any microzoom, using any hardware. We must learn how to vary eyepoint and eyeline realistically while 'inhabiting' that virtual workspace. That self training is all about learning how to look in the next compliant direction from the next compliant eyepoint, in 3D, using your chosen hardware, including your personal joystick buttons, and your personal keyboard control assignments.

A developer 2D manual does not address that. The whole point is that you must learn to inhabit the real workspace while you learn where to look and you personally decide *how to look*. Sometimes panning, or scrolling, with your hat switch to control the Field of View (FoV) will be optimal, sometimes just microzooming to reveal more of the file, just like using a spreadsheet or a database proficiently, but with the added complication of needing to view the data used to make decisions from more than one real world eyepoint. The virtual 3D workspace is your training environment. Like the real Lombardi student pilot you must inhabit the workspace and learn to use it in 3D.

As you vary and control your FoV at will become obvious that every 2D panel that could possibly exist has been provided, and every 'fixed window' in every direction that could possibly exist has also been provided. It is 2015 and you are required to learn how to extract any FoV, or any ZOOM. you need to progress the captaincy decision making cycle, or to control the simulation. Because this is a pure 3D simulation where you need to look, and where you need to look from, as different members of the crew, will vary with external environmental conditions just like the real cockpit. Sun glare, gloom, and shadows from sun glare will render gauges unreadable from specific directions just like real life as real weather varies.

That level of operating realism is possible only after we learn to really inhabit a 3D workspace with its real sight line blocking, reflections, gloom and glare. It's not the 1990s any more, but some flight simulation enthusiasts are struggling to keep up with progress and so this training manual explains how to use FS9 to full advantage. Using FS9 (or FSX) as though they were only FS98 is a great shame.

 

HOW AND WHERE TO LEAN YOUR HEAD:

Because this simulation deliberately has realistic blocking and revelation of sight lines we must emulate the real student in the left hand seat (else the mirror image as instructor in the right hand seat) and we must lean our head to unblock sight lines as necessary. When operating the tail dragging Lombardi as a student pilot, from the left hand seat, that we will continue to occupy when we qualify to fly solo, we must lean our head to the left to unblock our forward sight line, during ground handling, take off and approach.

If you lack the joystick buttons to assign one to 'lean left' and another to 'lean right' I strongly advise that you assign those actions to the numpad 4 and numpad 6 keys so that they become a single finger operation. In FS9 the real P1 in flight parallax compliance eyepoint is regained simply by pressing the SPACEBAR. The FSX consumer simulation interface is poorly designed by comparison. If you attempt to emulate FS9 capability in FSX and 'jump back' to the default eyepoint FSX will impose an unwanted developer zoom that may be wholly inappropriate for your hardware or corrected vision, as well as a random developer imposed eyeline. If using the still broken FSX/FSXA/FSXG consumer simulation control interface you may need to lean your head back to the P1 parallax compliance eyepoint after moving it, using your lean right gradually command, always avoiding a 'regain eyepoint' 'jump to' command.

As we gradually move our EYEPOINT left the 'tail down' parallax compliance eyepoint is recognised and imposed by two means.

1) The two bars of the somersault cage merge ahead of the 'tail down' compliance eyepoint so that the nearer hoop covers the grey rubber insert of the more distant hoop immediately ahead of the new compliance eyepoint. This keeps the real pilots head just out of the propwash, and does not require the real student to go goggles down, while delivering a 'fit for purpose'' view ahead. At least it was deemed to be 'fit for purpose' by the relevant chain of command at the time (see supplied contextual history).

2) Both the exposed cylinder head and the edge of the black engine block are revealed.

If your earlier management of microzoom and window aspect ratio was compliant the ASI, the master magnetic compass, the slip ball, and the GIRI gauge, all remain visible inside your FoV without panning or scrolling. Alter your keyboard assignments so that this head leaning is a single key press while you monitor progression to the tail down head up parallax compliance eyepoint.

 Here we are compliantly lined up QFU 26 LOAV. We leaned our EYEPOINT left, with no change of EYELINE, to this tail down head up parallax compliance eyepoint before we began to taxi. This EYEPOINT is also used to impose approach head up parallax compliance which we shall study later. Our lateral and vertical FoV is unchanged, we have only leaned EYEPOINT to where it needs to be for this phase of the sortie.

As in all taildragging aeroplanes it is necessary to weave the nose with rudder as we taxi, to reveal what lies dead ahead and behind the nose. When we need to line up on the runway this second mandatory 'tail down' head up parallax compliance eyepoint reveals the dead ahead external objects of parallax compliance = targets, which may include surface markings at the far end of the runway, and anyway whatever taller object may be available to monitor and remedy 'torque yaw' during the brief take off roll, and that will become threats after we take off and accelerate to IAS = Vy before initiating climb . We shall study those issues later.

Remember during 3D simulation you may also need to lean your head to eliminate real 3D shadows, other gloom and glare. We will study circuit pattern and approach parallax compliances in detail later, but you should practice moving to the tail down eyepoint and back to the default parallax compliance eyepoint now.

 

NO WHEEL BRAKES:

Notice that the Lombardi has no brakes, and since you had no chocks in front of the mainwheels, it rolled forward during engine starting. You never will have chocks in MSFS. Inside MSFS the Lombardi must be started on grass or dirt. Smooth surfaces, such as concrete and tarmac, have a co-efficient of friction too low to be compatible with the safe operation of taildragging aeroplanes with tail skids. The skid has too little grip.

MSFS has many bugs and one of them relates to the 'spawning' of brakeless aeroplanes. It takes MSFS a moment to impose the low engine torque associated with a (nearly) closed throttle and the Lombardi will both move forward and 'torque yaw' when spawned with the engine running, or upon engine start. On grass or dirt where it belongs the motion is slight and can easily be corrected afterwards from the mandatory VC ground handling, tail down, eyepoint described above.

Despite the low static thrust and low torque of the engine, the inertia of the Lombardi is so low at most weights that it will 'edge' forward in idle thrust on smooth surfaces where it does not belong. This is *not* an error. Aeroplanes with tailskids and no wheel brakes do not belong on smooth surfaces. Taking them there is just one more pilot error.

 

NO ELECTRONICS - NO VACUUM SYSTEM - NO LIGHTING:

Apart from its magneto ignition system the Lombardi has no electrical system, hydraulic system, pneumatic system, or anything technical of any kind. It cannot have a gyroscopic compass or a turn rate gauge. It has a spirit level in a bent glass tube to function as a slip gauge. There is no battery. There is no master switch. There is no windmill generator. There is no lighting of any kind and flight during darkness is prohibited. Flight outside the circuit pattern in a visibility of less than 5 miles ~ 8 kilometres is prohibited. Thus entering cloud even briefly is prohibited. This may determine our operational ceiling during a particular sortie. Obviously there was no way to communicate with anybody outside the aeroplane.

 

NO IN FLIGHT TRIM SYSTEM:

The fact that the Lombardi has only pioneer era technology with no cockpit TRIM controls is a major factor in its compliant operation. Those of you who have learned to fly the (earlier MVG FS9) Ansaldo SVA 5 compliantly, will already have understood that most WW1 aeroplanes were TRIMMED by the RIGGER before flight to sustain any desired drag = IAS, and by varying the RIGGED drag = IAS, the RIGGED operational ceiling of the aeroplane was co-varied *before flight*.

The earlier MVG Ansaldo FS9 release featured two RIGGING STATES (Piave and Alpine) to match its two most common WW1 combat roles. The SVA 5 and its two seat version the SVA 9 went on to become standard inter war Regia Aeronautica advanced and primary trainers. The Lombardi is by design very much in that tradition, but in Regia Aeronautica service it had only one RIGGING state, which was applied at the A.V.I.A. factory.

The Lombardi is always and only RIGGED to autoseek a profile drag of 150 KmIAS. With high GIRI it climbs at 150 KmIAS. With low GIRI it descends at 150 KmIAS. Somewhere in between, for each weight and each weather, minute by minute, there is a GIRI that imposes the compliant glideslope for cruise which is zero degrees, by definition, causing Vertical Speed Increment (VSI) = 0. When we reject climb we must anticipate that need. The complaint inputs in an aeroplane with no cockpit TRIM controls are explained later in the cruise phase section of this manual.

There is of course a weather and weight dependent ceiling above which the puny engine lacks the power to sustain cruise with a factory rigged profile drag of 150 KmIAS. If excessively cold air, poor visibility, or cloud are not factors right here, right now, that is our operational ceiling. The operational ceiling of the Lombardi is of course far, far below the always irrelevant 'service ceiling' which the Lombardi can reach while using the joystick to reduce profile drag abuse that the engine has to overcome, far below 150 KmIAS.

Cruising below the engine output operational ceiling squanders available velocity, but may be mandatory. If it is not mandatory, and the sortie is a cross country sortie, in the absence of a perceived significant headwind vector the Lombardi should always climb to the maximum altitude at which the puny engine will sustain the design cruise = factory rigged profile drag of 150 KmIAS at current weight, in the current weather. The concept 'perceived significant headwind' is examined in detail within the 2008 Propliner Tutorial.

 

BUT *FAKE* RUDDER TRIM IS AVAILABLE IN MSFS:

The Lombardi has sufficient dihedral no have no net torque yaw or roll consequence at design cruise drag = 150 KmIAS, which its factory rigged trim autoseeks. With less profile drag flowing over the aerofoil (dihedral) it is progressively necessary to resist torque yaw and roll with rudder (not aileron). With (properly calibrated) rudder pedals yaw authority is more than adequate and pleasantly progressive.

However FS9 consumers without rudder pedals will wish to use the (digital and fake) keyboard rudder trim to avoid the need for tiring continuous manual input especially during climb at Vx or Vy, or powered approach at Vref. As always I strongly recommend that rudder trim be re-assigned to the Ins and Enter keys of the keyboard numpad to facilitate one finger yaw trimming. If you have pedals simply don't invoke the fake in flight digital rudder trim in the Lombardi.

AVOID invoking AUTO RUDDER in the Lombardi, even if you have no pedals, because ground handling, fishtail and urgent rudder braking (see below) will become impossible.

 

IDENTIFY THE AIR SPEED INDICATOR (ASI):
USING THE ADVANCED WEATHER MENU:

The ASI is top left of the panel, because the Regia Aeronautica flew left hand circuits by default. By 1940, outside the Japanese Empire, everyone, (including even the British), had by now agreed that fixed wing aeroplanes would fly left hand instrument procedures, left hand visual pattens, and had agreed to build left hand drive cockpits, looking left, always keeping the dividing median of any two way route to their left. Where the gauges are located depends on the parochial or later international contemporary procedures they are used to comply with.

This student training manual will make frequent references to 'V speeds' which are really drag abuse targets or limits. The supplied ASI is easier to read than the real one, but in the vintage era of aviation history gauges were not marked with aeroplane specific drag abuse limits, or applied drag targets, by way of lines, bugs or coloured arcs.

Many flight simulation enthusiasts want to believe that the ASI is a speedometer of some kind that can tell them the speed of the vehicle that they are travelling in, just like an automobile. A speedometer works by calculating how many times per minute a wheel of known circumference revolves across a terrain surface. That is not possible in aeroplanes. They have no speedometer.

Look at the master magnetic compass to the right of the ASI. Note and remember current aeroplane heading. Now open the world\weather menu -- select user defined weather -- select customise weather -- select advanced weather -- select wind -- now set speed to 34 knots (actually KIAS), else 65 kph (actually 65 KmIAS) -- set gusts to zero. Now click around the wind circle on the right until the wind is coming FROM the direction the nose of the Lombardi is pointing (its current heading on the compass). Make sure that the aeroplane icon is within the blue box altitude band on the left. Now click OK several times until the Lombardi VC re-appears.

Now with the Lombardi still static on the grass, read the ASI. Use the mouse tool tip. Make sure the sim is unpaused. The ASI now reads 65 KmIAS. The ASI needle is simply pushed round by the force of the passing wind (air) impacting the pitot tube. The same force (also know as profile drag) is being applied to every other part of the airframe, and is being applied to the projecting cylinders of the flat four engine as cooling drag, and is being applied to the airscrew as windmill drag.

It is called an AIR speed indicator for a reason! It is *not* an aeroplane speed indicator. Our speed (measured in Kph or KTS) is obviously zero. Our velocity (measured in KmTAS or KTAS) is also obviously zero. Our applied profile = cooling = windmill drag (abuse) is 65 KmIAS = 34 KIAS.

The drag = force now abusing the Lombardi is called 'Gale Force' or 'Force 8'. The ASI is just an anemometer. It measures the destructive force of passing air. It is not a speedometer. It is a dragometer. Real meteorologists, and even TV weather forecasters, understand this and so they say 'gale force wind', not 'gale speed wind'. We have applied the abusive drag = force of a gale = 34 KIAS = 65 KmIAS that can destroy flimsy wooden objects. The Lombardi is not flimsy, but it has drag abuse limits, and drag limitation targets, (confusingly called Vspeeds by pilots), which vary with the phase of the flight.

Once an aeroplane is in motion it has an additional headwind chosen and imposed by Pilot Flying (PF) and the drag abuse registered on the ASI rises quickly. For the members of the crew known as pilots, type conversion training is in large measure about learning the 'Vspeeds' = drag abuse targets or limits for the new aeroplane type, learning which is applicable to each phase of the flight, and learning to progress the new aeroplane type from one 'Vspeed' = drag abuse target to the next, using only compliant power inputs.

Different aeroplanes have highly variable drag abuse limits and we must always worry how much profile drag (KmIAS) we are abusing the airframe with, and how much windmill drag (KmIAS) we are abusing the engine with, after it is being windmilled, and how much lovely cooling drag (KmIAS) we are flowing over the air cooled engine cylinders, (or radiator matrix). In general the older the aeroplane the more we need to worry about current profile = windmill = cooling drag (IAS) abuse as shown on the ASI.

Make sure you know how to use the MSFS advanced weather menu to control the local weather, whether or not you intend to use real (stored seasonal) weather most of the time.

 

IDENTIFY THE P1 THROTTLE:

It is the lever near the left of the cockpit with a black knob whose mechanism loops under the panel. It has an unusual rise and fall motion, but as in all Italian cockpits full aft (pull) is full throttle. In real life the Luftwaffe reversed that motion until it was culturally Anglo Saxon, but all the supplied VCs have Italian cultural motion. We shall use a desktop joystick throttle instead. It does not need to be reversed.

 

IDENTIFY THE P1 IGNITION ADVANCE (ANTICIPO) LEVER:

It is the lever on the left sidewall with the red knob that actuates a simple push rod. MSFS cannot simulate the use of ignition advance and retard levers for use with vintage era reciprocating engines. In real life it played a part in engine starting and idling, and later in maximisation of engine GIRI.

 

IDENTIFY THE ONLY MASTER FUEL COCK:

It is the brass push rod and lever that connects to the fuel tank valve, under the only fuel tank, which is inside the cockpit and behind the instrument panel. The open and closed positions are shown on the right hand placard in the VC. By default the Lombardi is flown solo from the left hand seat, but solo operation from the right hand (instructor) seat was 'possible' and you should eventually learn to fly the Lombardi from both seats.

 

IDENTIFY THE FUEL REMAINING GAUGE:

The fuel remaining float is inside the housing on top of the single fuel tank and thus on the other side of the windscreen. If you start to consume the fuel that you must never plan to use it will enter a red arc. It is little more than a simple damped float and so it indicates per cent remaining. Fuel planning and the mandatory planning reserve are explained at the end of this student training manual.

 

IDENTIFY THE VSI GAUGE - LOMBARDI COMPLIANT TURN PROCEDURE:

The Lombardi has no vacuum system, no gyroscopes, no artificial horizon to help us to limit bank angle, and no turn gauge to limit turn rate to safe compliance. Turn compliance is simplified in simple aeroplanes. No turns are allowed with profile drag over the aerofoils below 90 KmIAS. During level turns bank angle must (by definition) be limited to impose VSI = 0 on the Vertical Speed Indicator (VSI) gauge. Identify the VSI gauge now. During climbing turns bank angle must by definition be further limited to allow VSI > 0, especially during the climbing turn to the crosswind leg of the circuit pattern after take off.

The Lombardi is carefully simple so that the student pilot soon understands that moving the JOYSTICK fore and aft, (moving the elevators), controls profile DRAG depicted on the ASI (dragometer), and that instead moving the JOYSTICK left and right controls current WEIGHT. As soon as the student uses the JOYSTICK to increase current WEIGHT with aileron he sees VSI from constant power, diminish at every bank angle.

In all cases rudder must be used to centre the slip ball in the spirit level below the wet magnetic compass, else available turn rate is squandered. Identify those gauges now. Practice those concurrent compliances during early circuit pattern compliance training sorties until they are second nature. Teach yourself to never confuse the use of the JOYSTICK to control DRAG and WEIGHT, with the use of the THROTTLE to control GLIDESLOPE = VSI as drag and weight are varied with the joystick.

 

IDENTIFY THE OLIO PRESSURE AND OLIO TEMPERATURE GAUGES:

The pressure gauge is on the left, the temperature gauge is on the right. In practical terms oil pressure will vary realistically inside MSFS, but you will not need to control it. There are however two olio temperature compliances and two remedial actions. Olio temperature must not exceed 100 Celsius during take off or subsequent climb. If it does, in the absence of pilot error, it indicates an engine malfunction and must be followed by an emergency return.

At any other time, Olio temperature must not exceed 85 Celsius. Remember inside the engine itself the oil is hotter than it is at the point where its outflow temperature is later measured. The limits for a particular aeroplane depend mostly on where those temperature sensors are mounted.

If those limits are exceeded, GIRI (rate of injection of fuel into the engine) must be reduced immediately to prevent the oil from burning away. However primitive aero engines that lack both an automixture control and a rostered human Flight Engineer to emulate compliant automixture control via human micromanagement, may also overheat due to pilot error in mixture selection. The immediate action is to reduce GIRI with the THROTTLE, but then we must review our choice of MIXTURE.

 

IDENTIFY THE MIXTURE CONTROL:

This very simple 'lead in' trainer is powered by a 'fool proof' flat four cylinder C.N.A. D4 air cooled engine driving a single pitch airscrew, and in all out flight, with windmill drag maximised, it is rated 60 CV (BHP) at 2100 GIRI (RPM), in full rich mixture, at sea level. Never deliberately exceed 2250 GIRI in a dive. Mixture must be controlled manually.

The MIXTURE control is the rotating knob with a red TERRA - QUOTA dial at the bottom right of the shared panel. It can be rotated, using mouse hot spots within the gauge, above its base. Those mouse hot spots will become obstructed by the rotating lever as you turn it. It is necessary to relocate the mouse outside the lever to continue motion of the lever.

Else MIXTURE can be controlled using the keyboard, or if you have enough joystick buttons by assigning the three finger presses to two single buttons.

**AUTOMIXTURE MUST BE OFF IN THE REALISM SCREEN WHEN FLYING THE LOMBARDI**

Open your options\controls\assignments menu now and check that *you* have assigned inputs for *incremental* increase, and incremental decrease, of mixture. *Do not use other rates of mixture control while flying the Lombardi*.

CTRL+SHIFT+F2 = DECREASE MIXTURE INCREMENTALLY

CTRL+SHIFT+F3 = INCREASE MIXTURE INCREMENTALLY

As in all such aircraft selecting a very lean mixture will cause a lean cut stopping the engine. Do that now using the keyboard or joystick buttons with the assignments above. After imposing an engine lean cut, restore 100% mixture (TERRA) using your mouse.

 

PURPOSE OF MIXTURE CONTROL:

Imposing a richer mixture injects AVGAS that has no oxygen to combine with. In a very hot engine it evaporates immediately, but cannot burn. Like perspiration cooling the skin, as it evaporates the excess evaporating AVGAS cools the engine. It exits the exhaust ports as a white vapour. We have that choice. The question is whether we should use more AVGAS, or less AVGAS, per minute to cool the engine back into temperature compliance.

The THROTTLE is used to decide how much air (oxygen) to admit to the engine. The MIXTURE control is used to decide how much AVGAS to admit. If we decide to use less AVGAS to cool the engine we must impose that choice with the THROTTLE. Instead if we decide to use more AVGAS to cool the engine we must impose that choice with the MIXTURE control, leaving the mass of oxygen entering the engine unchanged. Which of those choices is the compliant choice within the captaincy decision making cycle is a complex issue that we will return to later.

 

LUBRICATION AND PLUG FOULING:

The C.N.A. D4 engine was designed to be compatible with pioneer era technology flapless aeroplanes that routinely flew GLIDE APPROACHES at constant IAS, with the throttle closed, while below approach Minimum Descent Height, usually the compliant visual pattern height. In flight, with the screw being windmilled by windmill drag never less than Vref = 75 KmIAS, lubrication was adequate at throttle closed GIRI, and plug fouling was not a problem with the unleaded fuel this low compression engine utilised.

 

VERY HIGH SPECIFIC FUEL CONSUMPTION:

The cylinders of the C.N.A. D4 were poorly exposed and suffered very poor air cooling compared to a radial engine. C.N.A. had to set up the mixture control at the factory so that the engine had a very, very rich mixture by default. A lot of extra AVGAS was always being injected for cooling, until very low per cent mixture values were selected by the pilot. This engine is exceptionally uneconomical by any standards and that impacts the route length we can flight plan safely in a Lombardi. We shall study that in detail later.

 

EXTRACTING REALISM:

Even though this is a simple aeroplane with only pioneer era technology, this MSFS release has high levels of embedded dynamic realism. The knowledge base required during type conversion training in this simulation will as usual relate to learning;

1) the compliant target 'Vspeeds'

2) the associated compliant target engine inputs.

3) the aeroplane and engine specific limits that must be avoided.

4) the head up parallax compliances of this VFR only aeroplane

and understanding that each 'Vspeed' is really a profile = windmill = cooling drag target, else a profile or windmill drag unsafe abuse limit. Realistic vintage era simulation is in large measure about the precise control of windmill drag on the airscrew(s) to windmill the engine to the desired and compliant GIRI = RPM to deliver the desired power (CV = BHP) without ever overspeeding the engine.

However you cannot extract the rest of the embedded realism from this maximum realism simulation if you have no idea how to use the gauges, and you cannot experience the different aircraft operating procedures, from different eras of aviation history, without studying what they were, and then learning to include them in a timeframe appropriate context within your simulation experience.

 

KOHLSMANN VARIABLE ALTIMETRY:

Although the Lombardi engine and airframe has no technology more complex than a pioneer era aeroplane, it is from the following vintage era of aviation history, and it has some operating procedures from that later era. If you have already learned to fly a pioneer era aeroplane with realistic gauges, realistic parallax compliance procedures, and realistic flight dynamics, using the earlier MVG Ansaldo SVA 5 FS9 release you will know that the Ansaldo had no ASI. You will know that if the specific sortie required an altimeter the pilot had to go to the quartermaster and get one from stores to clip to the panel. Only if the sortie had a very long over water leg the pilot might also draw a pocket magnetic compass from stores and glance at it once or twice while over water and out of sight of land.

One of the differences between the pioneer era, and the following vintage era of aviation history, was the doctrinal assumption that powered aeroplanes would have a magnetic compass, an ASI, and an altimeter by default, even though gliders still often had none of those inessential luxuries. During the vintage era variable altimetry procedures were invented and imposed on trainee pilots who were required to demonstrate variable altimetry procedure compliance.

Before that could happen aneroid barometers for use in aeroplanes (altimeters) had to acquire the means to have a variable scale so that they could either display HEIGHT, which is displacement above the LOCAL TERRAIN, else ALTITUDE which is displacement above (often far away and less relevant) MEAN SEA LEVEL. The necessary mechanism was invented by Kohlsmann, and so the new knob under the barometer became a Kohlsmann knob and the new window used to read the barometer setting scale became a Kohlsmann window.

 

THE Q CODE:

By 1912 Royal Mail Ships like the R.M.S Titanic were navigated using GPS which delivered accurate track keeping along the always bending great circle, always travelling far too fast in fog to deliver the mail on time, using a GPS plot which could not display drifting icebergs that had no fog horn to provide audio conflict collision alerts to the crew on the open bridge of the too fast mail ships.

International Maritime Law, which for more than a century had been mostly decided and dictated by the British, had been much amended to include the necessary Wireless Telegraphy (W/T) procedures, including a 'Q code' used by all Wireless Operators as they used that Morse Code to obtain the GPS data that had replaced wildly inaccurate astronavigational data wherever the GPS signal was good enough to be superior. By 1912 that was anywhere the British Empire really cared about, and absolutely everywhere in the northern North Atlantic while any valuable ship was below cloud or in low visibility, for days and nights on end.

Every lighthouse in the British Empire, originally just burning fires called beacons, already had the necessary electronics. The purpose of lighthouses did not change, but the range at which they could provide navigational data increased hugely once they also transmitted outside the video spectrum.

Importantly nobody had to learn English to use the new British (Marconi) electronic navigation systems. Wireless operators of any nationality only had to lean identical Morse Code and identical Maritime Q Code. Marconi had already invented Radio Telephony (R/T) of course, but radio would have required language compatibility, and so radio was irrelevant. Airships were already subject to those laws and procedures. They were legally defined as ships, Once mere aeroplanes acquired some actual utility, beyond the brief amusement of the very wealthy, they were also made subject to the same international laws.

 

QFE versus QNH:

In most cases when the concept 'Aviation Law' was eventually invoked, it was just a cut and paste from long pre existing 'Maritime Law'. However aviation required some additions and modifications to the 'Q code'. Unlike Royal Mail Ships, or even the Zeppelin airships of the German Army and Navy, many aeroplanes never went anywhere near the sea. The pilot of a mere aeroplane hardly had the ability to stray from the airfield he took off from and what he wanted to know was his displacement above that grass field. Displacement from the terrain below is HEIGHT.

One of the key differences between the pioneer era and the vintage era of aviation history was the introduction of wireless, (not nationalistic language compatibility dependent radio), to larger aircraft, and the mandatory imposition of ATC wireless navigation procedures, (in North west Europe from 1919 onwards). The world suddenly needed Q codes that related only to aircraft. While in flight towards their destination aeroplanes needed a Q code that allowed the pilot to use the new Kohlsmann knob, while looking at the new Kohlsmann window, to set the simple insensitive single needle aneroid barometer so that it indicated current height above that destination airfield.

Height above mean sea level (ALTITUDE) was now deemed irrelevant in proximity to intended places of (take off and) landing. What the inbound pilot needed to know was how to measure displacement above destination FIELD ELEVATION. The new W/T Q code which asked, and answered, that question in the international Q code, was QFE (Question Field Elevation). The answer is a pressure setting to be set in the new Kohlsmann window using the new Kohlsmann knob of your insensitive, single needle, aneroid barometer, which in Europe in 1940 was calibrated in millibars. When the aeroplane touches down that altimeter will read ZERO (feet or metres), *everywhere*, because it has been adjusted to display HEIGHT, not altitude.

Logically the alternative which allowed inbound pilots to question and display altitude (Not Height), might have been QSL or QAA, but it was decided that it would emphasise that the altimeter was not displaying height above the local terrain and so the Q code question became QNH (NOT HEIGHT).

Aircrew must know whether the altimeter in front of them is displaying QFE = HEIGHT or QNH not height = ALTITUDE, because they must understand that being 1000 metres above the distant sea is not useful approaching a 1200 metre high mountain in cloud or poor visibility in the middle of a continent. Failing to understand the difference between height and altitude, or failing to impose altimetry compliance procedures and skills to display the one required to sustain safety, has killed many real aircrew, and many real passengers.

Even vintage era aeroplanes, that had no wireless to ask such questions, were required to comply with the new vintage era variable altimetry procedures. When such a (trainee) pilot intended to land back at point of departure, having no intention to undertake a cross country flight to a different destination, he was required to measure vertical displacement from the Field Elevation using HEIGHT, using QFE, throughout the sortie. In principle all he has to do to set QFE is wind the Kohlsmann knob, looking at the Altimeter, not the Kohlsmann window, until the altimeter reads ZERO (feet or metres) above Field Elevation. Importantly the concept ZERO is independent from parochial and nationalistic cultural assumptions about how displacement should be measured.

In practice the Kohlsmann mechanism may not provide sufficient variation in relation to very high altitude Field Elevations to allow that altitude to be decremented to Field Elevation = Zero for circuit pattern flying and local area training. This is a real life issue, not a bug in MSFS. However inside MSFS we shall deem that circumstance to require use of QNH where QFE would be the complaint choice. There are other remedies (QNE = Not Elevation) in the real world. However in real life the Lombardi never operated from airfields so far above sea level that this was ever a problem and so we will always set the altimeter to QFE = FIELD ELEVATION = ZERO HEIGHT, before we even start the engine of the Lombardi.

Because MSFS always imposes modern era American cultural assumptions, it will have spawned the Lombardi with the Altimeter set to a value close to current QNH. Inside MSFS we can set accurate current QNH in the Kohlsmann window by pressing the Barometer (B) key. Having already invoked the L3, using a Microsoft default STARTUP.FLT, and having already moved QFU (Field Using) 26 LOAV (Voslau), use the Altimeter tooltip to discover the altitude of Voslau (LOAV) airfield. *YOU MUST WRITE THAT ALTITUDE DOWN*.

Now use the Kohlsmann knob to instead set current QFE at Voslau. Turn the Kohlsman knob with you mouse until the Altimeter reads zero. In an aeroplane with neither radio nor wireless you must always write down the number you subtracted, which is the altitude the altimeter is at, while its height is zero. You may need to reset the altimeter to QNH (Not Height) later, and although we can cheat and do that with the B(arometer) key in MSFS, we should instead learn to use the prototypical method that real aircrew of non radio aeroplanes had to use in the vintage era of aviation history.

 

CIRCUIT PATTERN HEIGHT IS INVARIANT USING QFE:

This may all seem to be pointless complication, but it isn't. By using HEIGHT above the FIELD ELEVATION, by using QFE, we render local 3D navigation invariant at EVERY AIRFIELD.

Regardless of which airfield we fly around in a Lombardi our PATTERN HEIGHT is 250M QFE. We have no idea what altitude that is in coastal Italy, or alpine Italy, or Alpine Austria, and we have no longer have any reason to care. We simply displace the aeroplane 250M above the runway we intend to land on *everywhere*. We turn base leg at 250M QFE everywhere. Downwind we never need to maintain a difficult to remember altitude, while using a vintage era single needle insensitive barometer. Having pointed the needle at 0 on the ground, we always point the needle at 250M QFE downwind, everywhere.

 

BUT QNH IS MANDATORY FOR CROSS COUNTRY FLYING:

Each relevant airfield has a 'local area' larger than the circuit pattern for 'arrival', 'approach' and 'local training'. For instance to practice compliant turn procedures, or stall onset recognition, outside the circuit pattern. The size of the 'local area' depends on proximity of 'threats' of many kinds. In MSFS terms we either intend to go somewhere else to land, or we don't. If we don't we retain QFE throughout the sortie. If we leave the 'local area' and we intend to land elsewhere we must reject QFE and set QNH so that our altimeter displays altitude, Not Height.

MAP makers have no idea what airfield we intend to fly from today. The coloured contours, sometimes with embedded numbers, and the peaks with numbers beside them, are all shaded and numbered by ALTITUDE. Outside the local (approach) area we do not have access to LOCAL AREA APPROACH CHARTS that have HEIGHTS on them. APPROACH CHARTS show both HEIGHT and ALTITUDE since it is lawful to use either QNH or QFE (altitude or height) to measure and impose our vertical displacement while in the 'approach area' of the relevant airfield. The choice we make inside MSFS is based on both the regional cultural assumptions and the date we are simulating.

As soon as we are outside the area of the real world approach CHART, we must instead use a generic regional MAP, for 3D navigation compliance. Since the MAP displays only ALTITUDES we must set the altimeter to QNH = Not Height outside the area depicted on the real approach CHART, everywhere at every date.

In a Lombardi we have neither radio nor wireless. During cross country flight we climb to a compliant HEIGHT and then we must level off and impose temporary cruise. In the Lombardi that compliant height is 400M QFE. Then we read the number we wrote down earlier. In this case the altitude of Voslau airfield, and we now turn the Kohlsmann knob while looking the altimeter while we add the altitude we subtracted earlier, to our current height of 400 QFE.

After we have 'added back' the altitude that we subtracted earlier on the ground, before engine start, we have set QNH and our altimeter displays an altitude (Not Height) 400M above the altitude (Not Height) of Voslau Airfield. We can now compare that altitude to our regional MAP with contours cited as altitude (Not Height) and the altitude of terrain around us now and down route. We can also ensure that we remain below our forecast carb ice risk ceiling which is an altitude, not height, (see below).

In MSFS we could cheat and just press the aneroid B(arometer key), to impose Not Height, but we won't.

 

BUT QFE IS MANDATORY IN THE (DESTINATION) CIRCUIT PATTERN.

Our destination will usually be at a different altitude to our point of departure. The number that we must subtract to set QFE at Voslau, (the altitude of Voslau), will not match the altitude of a different destination. It should however be obvious that what we must do instead is subtract the altitude of our destination (runway) while we ARRIVE, and before we APPROACH that airfield. If due to low cloud we were forced to cruise at (say) 1000M QNH and our destination runway is at 230M QNH, then BEFORE we enter the circuit pattern for that runway we must wind the altimeter down by 230M until it displays 770M QFE, so that it will read (about) ZERO QFE as we land, and will read exactly 250M QFE downwind in the circuit pattern at every destination, because we will impose that compliance.

As we land the exact altimeter value may not be ZERO since the weather, including the implied sea level barometric pressure at destination, may now be different to when we took off, even where we took off. In a Lombardi we have no means to update the forecast we procured before take off. It is of course also impossible to actually set 770M accurately on an insensitive single needle barometer. These are all reasons that these procedures did not persist widely into the modern era. They were nevertheless real across Europe in the 1940s.

Whenever we fly in MSFS (or of course real life) we must FLIGHT PLAN. We must use our flight planning tool to discover the runway length, surface friction type, and altitude at destination, in order to fly a compliant approach, to a runway of compliant length, and adequate friction, even if we approach using QNH, but it is much easier to approach using QFE since the pattern height, (which is our VFR minimum descent height = MDH), is then invariant everywhere.

It is of course our HEIGHT above the runway, not our altitude above sea level, that is the vertical of the Pythagorean triangle that we must use to impose downwind lateral offset head up parallax compliance to ensure we fly the real world pattern from real world baseline range. We shall learn the head up parallax compliances of the Lomabardi later, but we can only impose real world lateral circuit pattern baseline range compliance from real world circuit pattern vertical compliance, and that depends on HEIGHT, using QFE to measure vertical displacement from the runway (FIELD ELEVATION) in question, and not vertical displacement from some irrelevant and distant sea.

Remember for a Lombardi hard smooth (runway) surfaces are not compliant. They have too little friction and the skid will not dig in. We have no wheel brakes and no chocks. With no chocks the L.3 will edge forward in throttle closed static thrust on any flat excessively smooth surface. FLIGHT PLAN accordingly.

 

NO ANTI ICE OR DE-ICE SYSTEM OF ANY KIND:

This primitive aeroplane has no way to prevent carb ice, or remove carb ice. It must never be flown in air colder than PLUS 7 CELSIUS. This primitive aeroplane has no OAT gauge. *You* are responsible for both forecasting the local carb ice risk ceiling at all times, and for then operating below the self forecast carb ice risk ceiling at all times. You are simulating the role of an ab initio student.

The gauge needed to monitor Outside Air Temperature (an OAT = Aria Esterna gauge) is deliberately withheld from you. Thermometers of many kinds were cheap and plentiful by 1940. The point is that you must learn how temperature varies with altitude over planet Earth, so that you never need to rely on an OAT gauge, and so that you can demonstrate to your instructor, (to yourself in this case), that you have indeed understood how to calculate the forecast temperature for any altitude in the tropopause, and the altitude at which the temperature is forecast to fall to any particular value. If you do not want to learn these basic skills of pilotage then you should avoid simulating the use of basic trainers within which the answer is carefully withheld, requiring you to demonstrate a basic knowledge base of aircraft operation and associated skills.

Before flight you must determine the local surface temperature at point of departure (and destination if different) and calculate the carb ice risk ceiling for both as follows in a two part process that requires knowledge of the altitude of those airfields. The first part of this process is to calculate the implied temperature at sea level underneath each airfield.

The adiabatic temperature lapse rate, in the part of the atmosphere known as the tropopause, immediately above planet Earth is ~ 2 degrees Celsius per flight level = 1000 feet ~ 300M.

Consequently if our departure airfield is at an ALTITUDE ~ 300 metres ~ 1000 feet QNH the implied temperature down at at sea level in the current weather will be higher by

Altitude in feet divided by 500, and also altitude in metres divided by 150;

If it is 20C on our airfield at ~ 300M altitude it would be

20C + 300/150 ~ 22C at sea level (here in this weather)

Having calculated the implied temperature at sea level in this weather we can calculate the ALTITUDE (NOT HEIGHT) of the 7C thermocline in this weather.

Carb ice risk ceiling in feet = 500 * (sea level temperature - 7)

Carb ice risk ceiling in meters = 150 * (sea level temperature - 7)

Example;

Surface temperature = 15C on an airfield at 500M altitude.

Temperature at sea level = 15 + 500/150 = 18.33

Carb ice risk ceiling = (18.33 - 7) * 150 = 1700M QNH

We have no wireless or radio in a Lombardi, making audio weather updates unavailable. We must use FSMETAR or another software tool to obtain the weather in textual (on screen) form before every flight.

In a Lombardi, or other basic trainers and microlights with no carb heat, when the cloud is higher, or non existent, the carb ice risk ceiling often becomes our operational ceiling.

Within central mainland Italy by day it will only rarely be necessary to ground the Lombardi due to the carb ice threat, but of course it depends on the altitude of the point of departure, the destination, and the terrain in between. Cross country training and qualification must be routed around high terrain, else delayed accordingly. The captaincy decision making cycle begins before engine start.

This primitive aeroplane also has no pitot heat, but since the carb ice threat is always much worse, the lack of pitot heat has no relevance. Instructional sorties remaining within the circuit pattern down to a visibility of 5Km are permitted provided the ragged cloud base exceeds 250M AGL = QFE *and the temperature on the ground exceeds +9 Celsius*. Climbing 250M above the airfield will not cause carb ice to form in the choke tube of the inlet if it is 9C only 250M lower down. Again using QFE for local flying around airfields turns a variable into a constant. The minimum airfield temperature for Lombardi circuit pattern flying is PLUS 9C *everywhere*.

The local area sortie must be delayed until all those local weather criteria are met.

 

BEFORE and AFTER START PROCEDURES:

We have reached the point where we can begin to associate the content of this student training manual with the abbreviated content of the on screen handling notes which it explains. In accordance with what we have already learned, within MSFS there are several things we should do before we even start the engine, (else in MSFS immediately after the L.3 is spawned with engine already running).


 

Before Start:

AUTO RUDDER      = OFF IN REALISM SCREEN
AUTOMIXTURE      = OFF IN REALISM SCREEN
WEATHER          = OBTAIN (e.g. FSMETAR)
CARB ICE CEILING = ALT FOR +7C CALCULATE
ALTIMETER        = 0 (KOHLSMANN KNOB TO QFE)


 

After Start:

IF AIRFIELD BELOW 500M QNH

MIXTURE = 100%

ELSE

THROTTLE = CLOSED
GIRI     = MAXIMISE (tooltip)
MIXTURE  = TO COMPLY
MIXTURE  = ADD 15% (max 100%)

Before moving:

EYEPOINT = JUST EXPOSE ENGINE BLOCK


 

To simulate ground handling of this tailskid, tail down, trainer we need AUTORUDDER to be OFF so that we can steer using propwash over the rudder. Propwash does not flow over the ailerons.

To simulate the primitive CNA D4 engine we must encounter the inefficiencies that arise when primitive engines have no automixture control available. We must use a wildly rich mixture until we establish cruise. With less cooling drag than design cruise drag Vdc = 150 KmIAS the air cooled engine will tend to overheat. In principle 100% mixture is optimal, but on airfields above 500M QNH we need more power for take off than a fully (wildly) rich mixture will permit and so we must take the time to set MIXTURE 15% RICH FROM PEAK POWER carefully when operating from high altitude airfields, (mostly in Austria - see supplied contextual history).

For brevity, and to fit inside the width of the stupidly fixed size Microsoft text box, the handling notes, whose use is explained in this manual, say MIXTURE = nn%, but in fact the FS parameter, and in practice the real life input parameter, is really MIXTURE LEVER nn%, which isn't always the same thing. There is no legal requirement for real mixture lever motion to be linear to mixture applied. Bear that in mind.

Since we have no OAT gauge we must calculate the altitude ( Q Not Height) at which carb ice may form and we must remain below that altitude. This may require us to FLIGHT PLAN around high terrain during cross country flights. We need to know what our safe operational ceiling is today. We have no wireless, and no radio. We cannot obtain audio weather information by those means. We must learn to rely on our own knowledge base and skills. We obtain the necessary local and destination weather BEFORE FLIGHT in text form using software such as freeware FSMETAR. We do all of this long before we are blocking access to the runway, and much of it before we start the engine.

Even if we intend to leave the circuit pattern and local approach area, (as depicted on the real approach CHART), we must set QFE since we may need to make an emergency return, and the ATC mandatory procedures are based on HEIGHT, not altitude, while we are still (laterally and vertically) within the 'local approach area'. Just because ATC cannot communicate with us using audio means does not mean we are not subject to both published ATC procedures, and ATC light or other visual signals, (which are not simulated in MSFS).

As we shall see when we study the climb phase later;

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Only if leaving circuit
HEIGHT    = 400M QFE
ALTIMETER = QNH (B key)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Remaining in circuit
RETAIN = QFE
PATTERN HEIGHT = 250M QFE
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

But we will use the real procedure we just studied, not the B(arometer) key cheat mode. When we make a cross country training flight we will normally leave the local area by climbing above it, long before we reach its lateral boundary. We will reset the altimeter from QFE to QNH before we climb through a HEIGHT of 400M QFE. If we encounter cloud before we reach 400M QFE we must abort the sortie and return to base. We will have delayed the flight if we forecast the +7 Celsius thermocline to be lower, *before we occupy the aircraft*.

These altimeter procedures also apply to combat aircraft of European air forces you simulate operating later in WW2 after you become a qualified (virtual) pilot. In more complex aircraft, instead of avoiding the carb heat ceiling, you will impose carb heat above that ceiling, but only as cited in the relevant on screen handling notes or crew training manual. Continuous use of carb heat is non compliant in many aeroplanes. By 1940 most combat and transport aircraft needed and had automixture control available, else a dedicated Flight Engineer to emulate that automation.

 

TAKE OFF:

We cannot TRIM this primitive aeroplane. It was instead RIGGED at the factory. We must have a self imposed compliance EYEPOINT from which we can see the far end of the runway when we line up. We must pick the object of external parallax compliance that we will use to monitor and remedy torque yaw, or p-factor, or gyroscopic precession, or all three, with rudder. We retain the mixture we set carefully and earlier. We line up our object of external parallax compliance and we impose compliance with rudder before and during the always very brief take off roll. We have little power and thrust, but we always use full throttle and the L.3 is an exceptionally light aeroplane.


 

Take Off:

EYEPOINT = JUST EXPOSE ENGINE BLOCK
MIXTURE  = RETAIN MIXTURE ABOVE
LINE     = UP
THROTTLE = FULL
JOYSTICK = NEUTRAL
YAW      = REMEDY WITH RUDDER
AWAIT    = TAIL UP
TAIL UP  = ROTATE
ROLL     = REMEDY WITH AILERON
CLIMB    = PREVENT
JOYSTICK = 90 KmIAS (ACCELERATE)
EYEPOINT = DEFAULT (SPACEBAR)
YAW      = REMEDY WITH AILERON
OLIO     < 100C ELSE ABORT SORTIE
WHEN     = TURNS ON COURSE COMPLETED


While the tail is down, we do *not* apply pressure to the joystick. The aeroplane will tell us when it is safe to rotate with the power available, at this altitude, with this mixture setting, in today's weather.

Only when the tail is (soon) fully up we rotate gently with back pressure, but then we prevent climb and relax the back pressure to impose profile drag increase over the aerofoils to 90 KmIAS before we then initiate climb at 90 KmIAS with just sufficient re-applied joystick back pressure. After the wheels are off the ground we maintain directional head up parallax compliance with aileron instead of rudder. The ailerons still have no propwash augmentation, but there is now sufficient profile drag flowing over them, and the outer aerofoil whose camber they vary, for the ailerons to be useful and safe to use.

Inside MSFS depending on the AUTOGEN density in use there may be oversize out of scale trees at the end of the runway. We may need to avoid them using aileron soon after unstick. We have no turn gauge. We have no attitude indicator. Our bank limit is the bank that causes profile drag over the aerofoils to fall to 90 KmIAS with full throttle at current VSI. Practice turns at exactly 90 KmIAS with different bank angles = different weights via different G load. Note the VSI consequence. During outbound turns at low level VSI must not become negative, and VSI may need to be positive versus obstructions ahead. The compliant bank limit varies accordingly and is measured and imposed with the VSI.

Maximum sustainable turn rate in the Lombardi, is at 90 KmIAS at VSI = 0. Available bank angle and turn rate vary with altitude, because power available to sustain VSI = 0 at any weight (G load) varies with altitude. The bank limit for VSI = 0 at 90 KmIAS will be zero far below the always irrelevant 'service ceiling' which can only be reached wings level with much less profile drag than 90 KmIAS applied for the engine to overcome.

After you have avoided all obstacles close to the runway with aileron, never allowing VSI to sink below zero, return to the in flight parallax compliance eyepoint (SPACEBAR in FS9). If Olio temperature reaches 100C reduce power and perform an emergency return. Otherwise in such primitive aeroplanes the TAKE OFF phase lasts until all turns on course are completed, whether the compliant course is downwind in the circuit pattern during early training, or en route to the first waypoint of a cross country training sortie after all circuit pattern compliances have been mastered.

For reasons which will become obvious only later when we study downwind parallax compliance we are in no hurry to turn to the crosswind leg of the circuit pattern. *We will continue on runway track until we reach a height of 100M QFE*, and only then turn crosswind at Vy = 90 KmIAS. On the crosswing leg we climb from 100M QFE to 250M QFE, then we turn downwind with VSI = 0 maintaining 250M QFE. We will be using the JOYSTICK to increase windmill drag to Vdc = 150 KmIAS, to windmill the engine up to 1950 GIRI, in that level turn which ends with the downwind baseline range head up parallax compliance that we shall study in detail later.

 

THE CLIMB PHASE:

The real manual for the L.3 does not forbid prolonged operation of the C.N.A. D3 engine with RPM exceeding 1950 GIRI, or Olio temperature exceeding 85 Celsius, *provided a wildly RICH mixture is in use*. However it promulgates 1950 GIRI as the upper end of the normal operating range, and while adopting the role of a Regia Aeronautica, or Luftwaffe, student pilot we will take care to climb with the engine GIRI restrained to the normal operating range, even though we have applied very rich mixture, not least because doing so maximises climb gradient.

For underpowered aeroplanes, after achieving wings level climb en route, maximising climb gradient at Vx = 85 KmIAS, is more important than maximising climb rate at Vy = 90 KmIAS. We may struggle to climb over obstacles. Proceeding towards them at higher IAS = Vy is not beneficial, even though it would maximise climb rate. It is the gradient over the down route obstacle that matters. Consequently once our wings are level (all turns on course completed), in any climb we reduce our profile drag and increase Angle of Attack (AoA), imposed via reduction of IAS to Vx = 85 KmIAS, via extra back pressure on the JOYSTICK. This reduces windmill drag on the screw, causing GIRI to reduce at constant THROTTLE. We do not wish to restrain GIRI to 1950 using THROTTLE. We must restrain GIRI less than 1950 using JOYSTICK.

In a less primitive aeroplane, with vintage era technology, we would TRIM for IAS = Vx, and we would have no need to sustain back pressure on the joystick to sustain the low windmill and profile drag = Vx. However the L.3 deliberately has only pioneer era technology. Climbing with the wings level, we use the JOYSTICK to impose Vx, partly to impose less than 1950 GIRI, always with full throttle. In turns we apply Vy = 90 KmIAS instead and vary bank angle = weight = G load to impose required VSI.

In the unlikely event that we climb above 2000M QNH to cross very high terrain, only after we are above 2000M QNH we will use the joystick to reduce our profile drag further to 80 KmIAS, again to increase AoA, during 'high level' climb. When the air is hot enough (> 7C) to prevent carb ice formation in the constricted choke tube of the air inlet at such altitudes the service ceiling of the Lombardi is 5000 metres and it will happily reach 6000 metres in favourable weather. Yet, such climb is forbidden if the carb ice ceiling is lower, or the cloud base is lower, or the visibility is so poor that we cannot navigate by pioneer era pilotage, (comparing the passing MSFS scenery to our Google or paper map), as we proceed from waypoint to waypoint.


 

Climb:

NEVER MORE THAN 1950 GIRI
NEVER LESS THAN +7 CELSIUS

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Only if leaving circuit
HEIGHT    = 400M QFE
ALTIMETER = QNH (B key)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Remaining in circuit
RETAIN = QFE
PATTERN HEIGHT = 250M QFE
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

THROTTLE = FULL
JOYSTICK = 90 KmIAS in turns
JOYSTICK = 85 KmIAS < 2000M
JOYSTICK = 80 KmIAS > 2000M
YAW = REMEDY WITH RUDDER
MIXTURE  = 75% passing 1000M QNH
MIXTURE  = 60% passing 1500M QNH
MIXTURE  = 50% passing 2000M QNH
MIXTURE  = 45% passing 2500M QNH
MIXTURE  = 40% passing 3000M QNH
MIXTURE  = 35% passing 3500M QNH
MIXTURE  = 30% passing 4000M QNH

REJECT before +7 CELSIUS


 Even though the C.N.A. D4 engine delivers very little torque or p-factor the roll inertia of this tiny aeroplane is so low that it has been designed so that it will be 'torque rolled' at low IAS in full throttle at low altitude where the engine still has sufficient mass air flow. It will be necessary to prevent roll with RUDDER if you have pedals, else with FAKE RUDDER TRIM if you do not.

Throughout the climb we have inadequate cooling drag (IAS) over an air cooled engine, that is inadequately exposed, and we need a RICH MIXTURE. We use the mixture control to impose the values above as we climb through the relevant altitudes. Failure to reduce MIXTURE above 1000M QNH will cause loss of climb gradient, which may then require diversion around high terrain en route. Failure to impose compliant MIXTURE as above will cause significant loss of operational ceiling.

The intention is *not* to maximise power. The intention is to prevent premature detonation of the fuel, via a compliantly RICH mixture, accepting that power will be lost while delivering the necessary AVGAS evaporative cooling.

Note that MIXTURE is never varied from the carefully imposed AFTER START MIXTURE unless we climb above an ALTITUDE (Not Height) of 1000M QNH during the sortie. MIXTURE is also *not* varied if we never leave a circuit pattern at a height of 250M QFE, whose altitude is above 1000M QNH.

 

MANUAL MIXTURE COMPLEXITY POTENTIALLY DURING CLIMB - ALWAYS DURING CRUISE:

Pioneer era and Vintage era aero engines were RATED using a FULL RICH MIXTURE for necessary cooling. All pioneer era aero engines, and cheap vintage era aero engines, had MANUAL MIXTURE CONTROLS. For each such aeroplane with a normally aspirated engine, driving only a single pitch screw, the technical or operating manual usually defines an RPM = GIRI (rate of fuel injection into the furnace) below which it is permissible to LEAN the MIXTURE manually, *provided the current activity is neither take off, nor 'low altitude climb'*.

Since the act of climbing reduces cooling drag (IAS) over the exposed cylinders of any air cooled engine it is usually mandatory to retain a very rich mixture for cooling at 'low' altitude (by implication in warm air) while climbing, regardless of current cooling drag (IAS), or current GIRI. For the Lombardi low altitude is defined as 'below 1000 metres QNH'.

As soon as climb proceeds above the circuit pattern height *and* above 1000M QNH compliant leaning is expected, but is not mandatory, since continued use of a very (potentially 100%) rich mixture may be necessary to restrain Olio temperature below 100C, while imposing full throttle and climbing at reduced profile = cooling drag in hot air on a hot day in a hot place. However failure to impose cited manual leaning, if applicable after start, and then again above 1000M QNH, causes loss of climb gradient, and significant loss of range, which in a Lombardi is always very slight.

After the earliest part of the Pioneer era all relevant aeroplanes were designed to cruise above 1000 metres QNH with compliant leaning applied. Failure to climb above 1000M QNH, followed by compliant leaning, significantly reduced both velocity *and range* during cross country navigation (training).

In the later classic era of aviation history it became normal to fit Cylinder Head Temperature (CHT) gauges, and for leaning to be applied based on CHT, usually with the objective of maximising engine life. That was *not* the compliant doctrine in the earlier pioneer and vintage eras of aviation history.

During the vintage era of aviation history aero engines were normally either run RICH to maximise engine life, else they were LEANED TO IMPOSE PEAK POWER from the (any) current throttle setting. The gauge used to monitor whether manual leaning was imposing peak power from the current throttle setting could only be the engine RPM (GIRI) gauge. Lubricating fluid or liquid coolant temperatures respond far too slowly to be useful during manual leaning. During the vintage era of aviation history the intention was to use the MIXTURE CONTROL to maximise GIRI, from the current throttle %, but explicitly to also maximise fuel injection rate, not just power from each injection.

During both CRUISE, (regardless of current throttle position), and CLIMB *above low level*, however that was defined in the operating manual of a particular aeroplane, vintage era aero engines were by default leaned manually *to peak GIRI*. This process was inaccurate because the GIRI gauges provided in the vintage era were difficult to read accurately, (unlike most later classic era CHT gauges).

In many cases when pilots flew the same (type of) single engine aeroplane day in and day out they could determine peak power, (from current throttle %), more accurately by listening to the engine. Inside MSFS we must emulate that skill, and day in day out experience, by using the GIRI gauge tooltip to maximise GIRI with the mixture control instead, during cruise outside the circuit pattern.

In all phases of flight in very simple aeroplanes whose technology dates from the pioneer era, even in later eras, the sole power reference in each case is engine GIRI, (rate of fuel injection into the furnace).

Under certain circumstances workload may be high during climb. If so frequent / near continuous application of peak GIRI, using the mixture control, while HEAD DOWN looking at a GIRI gauge is inappropriate. Then we will vary mixture only at the altitude intervals specified and in an inefficient and uneconomical way.

>>>>>>>>

THROTTLE = FULL
JOYSTICK = 90 KmIAS in turns
JOYSTICK = 85 KmIAS < 2000M
JOYSTICK = 80 KmIAS > 2000M
YAW = REMEDY WITH RUDDER
MIXTURE = 75% passing 1000M QNH
MIXTURE = 60% passing 1500M QNH
MIXTURE = 50% passing 2000M QNH
MIXTURE = 45% passing 2500M QNH
MIXTURE = 40% passing 3000M QNH
MIXTURE = 35% passing 3500M QNH
MIXTURE = 30% passing 4000M QNH

REJECT before +7 CELSIUS


 

Safety is always paramount. Only if workload permits we will adjust mixture more perfectly and more frequently to maximise GIRI to maximise climb power to maximise climb gradient, always using the JOYSTICK to impose the variably compliant profile drag = IAS = Angle of Attack of the aerofoil.

We must also remember that more careful leaning to peak power to maximise climb gradient is only allowed while GIRI are in the NORMAL operating range of the engine, and in this case <= 1950 GIRI.


 

Climb:

NEVER MORE THAN 1950 GIRI
NEVER LESS THAN +7 CELSIUS

>>>>>>>>>>>>

It follows that if we are using the joystick to impose a windmill drag of Vx = 85 KmIAS, above 1000M QNH and below 2000M QNH, and we have the time to use MIXTURE to optimise GIRI while climbing with wings level, we will never lean the mixture so much that GIRI rise above 1950 GIRI, since that is the compliant peak power for leaning below the RICH MIXTURE specified for each altitude band above.

 

REJECT CLIMB WITH JOYSTICK :

As we approach our current operational ceiling, else visual pattern height, we must *anticipate* the need to cruise and in consequence we must *gradually* reduce back pressure on the JOYSTICK causing our profile and windmill drag to rise in a controlled  to design cruise profile drag Vdc = 150 KmIAS.

For the moment suppose the cruise phase is to be downwind in the visual circuit pattern. We climb from 100M QFE to 250M QFE on the crosswind leg. As we approach 250M QFE we relax back pressure on the JOYSTICK gradually so that we never cause a Pilot Induced Oscillation (PIO) aloso known as porpoising. We reach 250M QFE before we are able to increase our windmill drag to Vdc = 150 KmIAS, and before we are able to use that windmill drag to spool the engine up to 1950 GIRI. We begin the turn to the downwind leg on reaching 250M QFE while we relax baxk pressue and increase IAS in the turn. During the turn to downwind, or upon any climb rejection, we briefly impose GLIDESLOPE = VSI = 0 with our JOYSTICK.

The important thing to grasp is that at first the THROTTLE is *not* involved in rejection of climb for cruise. We will only retard THROTTLE when GIRI reach 1950 GIRI, to sustain 1950 GIRI. The first action is to increase windmill drag with the JOYSTICK, by reduction of back pressure, to increase windmill drag on the screw, to windmill the engine to more GIRI and more BHP with the THROTTLE ALREADY FULL OPEN in climb. We start to retard the throttle only after we have windmilled the engine up to 1950 GIRI with the JOYSTICK, while using the JOYSTICK to reach Vdc = 150 KIAS, with VSI =0, (at 250M QFE).

Climb rejection ends after our profile, and cooling, and windmill, drag reaches Vdc = 150 KmIAS. There will then be no pressure on the JOYSTICK. We have rejected climb, but we have not quite achieved cruise.

 

CRUISE WITH THROTTLE:

During cruise the elevators are not deflected, because we impose no fore or aft pressure on the JOYSTRICK. To establish cruise we transition to using THROTTLE to impose VSI=0 (at 250M QFE) having relinquished all back pressure on the JOYSTICK. After we have relinquished back pressure on the JOYSTICK we do not need to look at the ASI (dragometer). If you have learned to fly the earlier Ansaldo SVA 5 MVG release you will remember that in common with many WW1 aeroplanes it had no ASI. Such things were wholly irrelevant luxuries in the pioneer era of aviation history. In the Lombardi during cruise we ignore the ASI and we look only at the VSI gauge. Now intending to cruise, we use THROTTLE to impose GLIDESLOPE = VSI = ZERO.

We must not suddenly reduce back pressure on the JOYSTICK, or make sudden movements of THROTTLE, because in the absence of a pilot controlled longitudinal trim system in the Lombardi, any sudden change will always invoke a pilot induced oscillation (PIO) in a very low inertia aeroplane. We must learn to avoid inducing PIOs by unrushed management of each input, including both the JOYSTICK and the THROTTLE. We must *anticipate* the need to cruise, and we must reject climb gradually using the JOYSTICK, and then transition to sustained cruise instead imposing VSI = 0 only with THROTTLE. Our attention is focussed on the ASI during climb rejection, until windmill drag reaches Vdc = 150 KmIAS. Then we relax all pressure on the JOYSTICK. Then we look at the VSI instead and use THROTTLE to impose VSI =0.

By 1940, even at training airfields, nobody in major air forces wanted any aeroplanes present that flew the downwind leg of any circuit pattern with drag reduced below 150 KmIAS = 81 KIAS, because the velocity (KTAS) consequence was incompatible with too many other aircraft that used the same low performance circuit pattern.

We should emulate the Regia Aeronautica and Luftwaffe training syllabus, and our first goal in the Lombardi is to learn how to fly a compliant circuit pattern. We must learn to achieve safe climb with Vy = 90 KmIAS and RPM < 1950 GIRI in full throttle, by manually varying JOYSTICK back pressure, until we reach pattern HEIGHT = 250M QFE, *while still on the crosswind leg*, followed only then by imposition of GLIDESLOPE = VSI = 0 during the turn at 250M QFE to the downwind leg and while downwind. We must of course also learn to achieve and impose head up parallax compliance in all directions throughout and concurrently (see later). The downwind leg of the pattern is a cruise phase and so we must learn to maintain cruise, (learn to use THROTTLE to impose GLIDESLOPE = VSI = 0), before we ever leave the pattern to begin cross country training.

 

MAXIMUM = DESIGN CRUISE:

In this very slow aeroplane design cruise is maximum cruise. It occurs at the design operational ceiling. En route cruise takes place lower, in nasty thicker air, with lesser GIRI, only if there is a need to cruise below the carb icing layer, or to remain below cloud, or to retain a view of the scenery waypoints and line features in bad visibility, or to minimise a perceived significant headwind vector. Only adverse weather causes cruise below design operational ceiling in a Lombardi.


 

Cruise phase:

NEVER MORE THAN 1950 GIRI
NEVER LESS THAN +7 CELSIUS

JOYSTICK = NEUTRAL
CAUSES   = 150 KmIAS (slowly)
VSI      = 0
GIRI     < 1950
THROTTLE = REDUCE TO COMPLY
GIRI     = MAXIMISE with MIXTURE
VSI      = 0
GIRI     < 1950
THROTTLE = REDUCE TO COMPLY
YIELD    = 86 KTAS at 1000M QNH
PLAN     = 12 Kg/hr


 

The L.3 is factory rigged to autoseek a profile drag of 150 KmIAS which is the design = max cruise and arrival phase profile drag target compliance. The Lombardi was RIGGED at the factory to autoseek 150 KmIAS as soon as we stop making an elevator input with our joystick. If we are 'heavy with fuel' the cruise equilibrium profile drag over the aerofoils will be higher to produce the extra LIFT needed to balance the extra fuel WEIGHT. At 'low weights' Vdc will be just less than 150 KmIAS. The factory imposed rigging imposes this without pilot intervention. The sequencing of the patiently imposed pilot inputs as we seek to impose CRUISE is mandatory. At first we leave the MIXTURE alone and use only THROTTLE to impose GLIDESLOPE = VSI = 0.

However after we stop using the joystick to deflect the elevators to impose climb, and after we are using the throttle to impose VSI=0, the engine still has the very RICH mixture that was needed to cool it with extra AVGAS while the en route climb cooling drag was only Vx = 85 KmIAS. Only after cooling drag has settled at 150 KmIAS, and only if we have vacated the circuit pattern on a cross country flight, the student (we) must (only now) carry out the vintage era procedure of LEANING TO PEAK POWER.

When we vary MIXTURE to impose RICH mixture we look at the TERRA / QUOTA tooltip, but when we impose LEAN MIXTURE we look at the GIRI gauge, not the MIXTURE control. As soon as careful and progressive leaning causes GIRI to reduce even 1 GIRI below the maximum reached during the leaning process, we restore the maximum GIRI available from the current throttle position by reversing the last mixture leaning input to add richness.

Now, (especially if you are a qualified modern era pilot), remember that the mixture leaning that delivers PEAK CYLINDER HEAD TEMPERATURE (CHT), which became the initial mixture control parameter in the later classic and modern eras of aviation history, is a very lean mixture, far leaner than the mixture that delivers PEAK GIRI and PEAK POWER.

The MIXTURE that delivers PEAK GIRI is very RICH FROM PEAK TEMPERATURE. Indeed it is (and had to be) further rich from peak engine temperature, than is compliant after a CHT gauge is provided to monitor CHT directly in later eras of aviation history. The vintage era compliant military and productivity maximising technique of leaning to peak GIRI = power is not at all the same thing as leaning to peak temperature (and backing off a little from there). The vintage era pilot had no relevant temperature reference and could never lean by reference to an engine temperature. In the pioneer and vintage eras of aviation history aero engines were run significantly richer than in the later classic and modern eras of aviation history, even though they were leaned to peak power during cruise.

After setting mixture compliantly on the ground after start, we do not use the mixture control at all if we remain in the circuit pattern, or before we reach 400M QFE climbing out of the local area, and we do not (need to) use it at all below 1000M QNH in climb after setting QNH if workload is high. We do lean to peak GIRI if we CRUISE below 1000M QNH, which we will do only due to adverse weather.

Cooling drag will rise to 150 KmIAS *at every altitude* soon after we impose CRUISE = GLIDESLOPE = VSI = 0 with the THROTTLE. That cooling = windmill = profile drag input and output were RIGGED at the factory. All we have to do is stop making inputs to the elevators with the JOYSTICK during cruise, and instead impose CRUISE = GLIDESLOPE = VSI = 0 with the THROTTLE, then maximise the fuel injection rate with the TERRA - QUOTA MIXTURE CONTROL.

Depending on the weather today the GIRI increase from that CRUISE LEANING may cause GIRI to exceed 1950 with a windmill drag that is always Vdc ~ 150Km IAS. Only if it does, we must begin stage three of the process which is retarding the THROTTLE until GIRI do not exceed 1950. We have already imposed MIXTURE for PEAK POWER at *any* throttle setting at current altitude. That is now safe and compliant only because the poorly exposed air cooled engine now has 150 KmIAS of cooling drag, and no longer needs lots of extra evaporating AVGAS as coolant.

During cross country cruise MIXTURE is always reduced until it imposes PEAK GIRI = PEAK POWER subject to running the engine in its normal operating range. If that causes GIRI > 1950 we do not select a less powerful mixture, we instead reduce throttle until GIRI = 1950. We then have a small BHP reserve to prevent sink in turns if we need to increase weight with aileron to impose bank, to impose G, to impose turn.

This is a military aeroplane. The operating goal is neither maximisation of profit, nor maximisation of economy. The operating goal is maximisation of productivity. After accepting that safety is always paramount, each cross country flight needs to be conducted along a 'minimum time path', to maximise productivity of the military equipment and the military student pilot must be indoctrinated into that cultural belief system.

 

OPERATIONAL CEILING:

Depending on current weight and current weather, there is right here, right now, an altitude at which the puny CNA D4 engine can barely sustain VSI = 0 at Vdc = 150 KmIAS. If adverse weather does not enforce a lower operational ceiling that is our operational ceiling and it delivers the maximum = design cruise condition. Weather permitting we will always climb to our full throttle operational ceiling to maximise our velocity in the thinnest possible air while sustaining a profile drag of Vdc ~ 150 KmIAS. At the relevant temperature Latitudes in Italy and Austria, on most days the carb ice ceiling will be high enough to allow cruise above 1000M QNH, but unless the weather is very favourable, (meaning unusually high air (oxygen) pressure of course), the CNA D3 will be too puny to sustain VSI = 0 and Vdc = 150 KmIAS in full throttle as high as 1500M QNH.

The DESIGN CRUISE CONDITION (IAS = Vdc = 150 KmIAS) of the Lombardi is imposed (rigged) at the factory and is designed to maximises PRODUCTIVITY. That does not mean that military organisations have no cost controls. It means that the cost of maximising productivity, not economy, not profit, is built into first the specification, and then the design of the military equipment. In this case a basic military flying trainer. The engine is tiny and cheap to buy and maintain, and it can never consume huge quantities of fuel. The military student pilot is then indoctrinated to maximise productivity, 'regardless of cost'. In an aviation context this requires the student to seek and impose the minimum time path consistent with safe accomplishment of the mission. The cost was limited elsewhere and earlier.

In order to maximise productivity the student must learn to maximise velocity (TAS). Because the design drag Vdc is imposed at the factory, and the student has no means to retrim the Lombardi to seek a different drag, it quickly becomes clear to the student that he can only maximise velocity by seeking the thinnest possible air, with the least resistance to passage of the Lombardi, while using exactly the allowed continuous cruise GIRI = 1950. having no constant speed airscrew, and hoping to use full throttle to cruise, to maximise productivity, the student quickly grasps that they must control GIRI with ALTITUDE.

Right here, right now, in the current ever changing weather, there is only one ALTITUDE where a CNA D4 engine, LEANED to peak GIRI, with a windmill drag = Vdc = 150 Km IAS, in full throttle, produces 1950 = max cruise GIRI. The student must seek and recognise that compliant altitude, which maximises vehicle velocity and thus productivity from the allowed inputs. Other weather factors aside that is the Operational Ceiling of a Lombardi. However on many days the weather may prevent 1950 GIRI at the altitude with the thinnest air while sustaining VSI = 0 with full throttle and GIRI maximised using the TERRA - QUOTA MIXTURE control. Perfection is often unachievable, but we must nevertheless learn and understand the 'perfect' operating targets we are required to seek.

The military ab initio student learns that to maximise the altitude at which the engine can possibly be windmilled to 1950 GIRI, with the throttle full open, to minimise air resistance, to maximise velocity, with drag constant at Vdc = 150 KmIAS, the student must learn to control MIXTURE manually to maximise GIRI = power.

During climb we prevent production of full power (full GIRI), from full throttle, with the JOYSTICK by imposing low windmill drag = Vy in turns, or Vx with wings level. Imposing low windmill drag on the screw brakes the engine below 1950 GIRI and we do that with the JOYSTICK.

However in cruise (outside the circuit pattern) we maximise the altitude at which we can sustain maximum compliant GIRI = 1950, still with full throttle, but then also with the manual MIXTURE leaning that imposes PEAK GIRI = PEAK POWER to maximise cruise velocity to maximise productivity, (not profit, not economy).

 

COMPLIANCE VARIES WITH ASSIGNED ROLE and DOCTRINE:

Watching aeroplanes randomly under perform via random inputs is not the purpose of flight simulators. They exist to teach real world compliance in a virtual environment, but compliance is not a simple concept. For a private owner pilot compliance may require imposition of maximum economy, for an airline pilot it requires imposition of maximum profit, and for a combat pilot it requires imposition of maximum productivity. Each has different input compliances to achieve those different output compliances, in the same aeroplane. In each case selection of the compliant ALTITUDE to maximise the particular output that must be maximised, is critical in the repeating captaincy decision making cycle, as the weather keeps changing as we fly along.

The most common cases are;

MAXIMISE ECONOMY       = low power     - low profile drag   - low velocity     - low altitude

MAXIMISE PRODUCTIVITYY = high power    - high profile drag  - high velocity    - medium altitude

MAXIMISE PROFIT        = medium power  - low profile drag   - medium velocity  - high altitude

As soon as the role and operating doctrine requires operation above low altitude, the compliant altitude for any individual aeroplane is a function of its operational ceiling, which is the highest altitude at which it can develop the power mandated to deliver the operating doctrine. The more primitive the aeroplane the more likely it is that weather will impose operation below the desired altitude. The L.3 was highly optimised for high productivity, but was so primitive and so underpowered that it always struggled to reach 'medium altitude'.

 

TERRAIN AVOIDANCE - SAFETY IS NO ACCIDENT:

In Italy mountains were a huge threat to pioneer and vintage era aircrew. Even in much higher performance aeroplanes than the Lombardi it was often necessary to flight plan around, not over, high terrain. For the Regia Aeronautica this had also become a huge problem in the hot highlands of Italian East Africa (Ethiopia, Eritrea and Somalia). Simply flight planning to fly from A to B around the ever bending great circle, regardless of what was in the way, was often fatal. The Lombardi was designed to make student pilots think very hard about terrain avoidance from the outset. The minimum time path around the bending great circle is highly productive, but safety is paramount. This was a time when pilots had to obtain weather forecasts before take off, that they could not update using electronics in flight.

The RA took care to locate the Lombardi pilot selection and basic training schools mostly on the east coast of Italy at low level, but with another inland on the other side of the inland mountains, (see supplied contextual history). Each triangular cross country required two crossings of the mountains wherever it started. By using a basic trainer that was little more than a microlight they indoctrinated the students fom the very outset into the idea that they must not assume that flight plans proceed directly from departure to destination. The student was required to consider and plan for the threats in between. The student learned quickly that they must use pilotage to navigate, following line features, to avoid threats en route, in order to transit safely through the mountains, deviating along the route they must follow to fly through the mountain passes above the line features that were located in the relevant river (or glacial) valleys.

The student learned that the forecast cloud base versus the altitude of the mountain pass was critical. The student learned from the outset that threat envelopes have a vertical as well as a lateral component and that they must decide if the forecast weather was compatible with vertical avoidance of the threat. The student learned from the outset that they must delay sorties of the weather was incompatible with the planned sortie. To experience this in a desk top flight simulator it is necessary to base aircraft where they were based in real life, to fly them between the points they really flew between, and to do that in variable real weather for that region as the seasons vary. You will learn very little about aeroplanes, or aviation history, by using flight simulators as radio control model simulators operating aeroplanes randomly only in lovely weather, only in random locations.

A Lombardi sortie as an RA student pilot is all about pilotage using a MAP and a weather forecast, even to decide if the sortie is viable before walking out to the aeroplane. This had several consequences. RA pilots and unit commanders became much more likely to refuse to fly in bad weather, than for instance RAF aircrew, and much less likely to die in their hundreds during avoidable controlled flight into terrain (CFIT). They 'probably' became better at threat identification and avoidance, of all kinds, during both planning and during execution. They were better trained to evaluate and avoid threats from the very start of their indoctrination as military aircrew. Much of the rest of this student training manual will explain that complex concept.

Flight simulation is the demonstration of all real world compliances in a virtual environment. It matters what the real environment was. It has to be replicated. The threats have to be replicated, whether they are terrain, or enemy airspace and enemy electronic warfare capability, or just reserved ATC airspace and military danger areas in the modern era. The real challenge has to be replicated, else the reason for the individual aeroplane type to exist, and its real varying operating doctrine, cannot be understood, or even witnessed. To have any hope of achieving relevant levels of understanding you need contextual histories with basing and target information, and you need training manuals that explain the doctrines, the required knowledge base, and the skills to be mastered, in considerable detail, else you cannot hope to achieve and demonstrate all real world compliances in a virtual environment.

 

THE ARRIVAL PHASE:

In a Lombardi we will normally cruise at operational ceiling with our altimeter set to QNH until our destination airfield is in sight. We have neither wireless nor radio and so *we will enter the circuit pattern from directly overhead that airfield* then discovered the landing runway by viewing the ATC signal square from directly above. Audio isn't the only way to receive instructions from ATC. In MSFS we will instead use weather software such as FSMATAR to determine the complaint into wind runway landing direction.


 

Arrival phase:

GIRI < 1950
THROTTLE = TO COMPLY
JOYSTICK = NEUTRAL
CAUSES = 150 KmIAS (retained)

MIXTURE   = 30% passing 4000M QNH
MIXTURE   = 35% passing 3500M QNH
MIXTURE   = 40% passing 3000M QNH
MIXTURE   = 50% passing 2500M QNH
MIXTURE   = 65% passing 2000M QNH
MIXTURE   = 80% passing 1500M QNH
MIXTURE   = 100% passing 1000M QNH
ALTIMETER = SET QFE
MIXTURE   = 100% before circuit


 We did not impose non compliant productivity reducing drag with the joystick in cruise and we have no reason to do so in descent during the arrival phase. We simply moderate throttle to impose compliant glideslope as always. Throttle closed is acceptable if intervening terrain permits.

In the unlikely event that we were cruising above 1500M QNH for terrain avoidance, needing to reduce drag continuously with the joystick to achieve that, we will increase MIXTURE % at intervals in descent. Else in almost all cases as we pass 1000M QNH in descent, else having cruised below 1000M QNH due to bad weather, we impose 100% MIXTURE and destination QFE *before* (further) descent.

Most flight simulation enthusiasts fail to differentiate the ARRIVAL phase from the APPROACH phase and have every aeroplane in the wrong configuration failing to achieve any relevant compliance targets during both muddled phases. We will descend from cruise only after we have visually identified our destination, but before we are overhead. We intend to arrive overhead at 400 to 500M QFE. Revise the WW2 non radio altimeter setting procedures cited above now if you need to.

 

THE APPROACH PHASE:

In the vintage era of aviation history we have a MINIMUM DESCENT HEIGHT (MDH), instead of a minimum descent altitude (MDA). For a Lombardi that MDH is 250M QFE *everywhere*. The fact that we are flying VFR is of no consequence. We are required to join the RA or Luftwaffe VISUAL circuit pattern at a HEIGHT of 250M QFE = MDH, *from directly overhead at greater height*.

We must not barge into the circuit pattern 'sideways' at 250M QFE. We must arrive overhead, and circle overhead, to insert ourselves into the downwind leg of the circuit traffic *from above*, with appropriate spacing to minimise the safe landing interval, having studied the 'ATC signals square' to obtain our ATC instructions (using e.g. FSMETAR in FS9). We must join the circuit pattern *with compliant downwind lateral offset from the landing runway* for the 'performance class' of aeroplane we are flying.

In MSFS there will rarely be local circuit traffic we can watch and follow, and if present it will be at random unsafe location anyway, and so we must learn the parallax compliance that delivers the compliant downwind lateral offset at destination, which may be somewhere we have never been before. We can only impose it from a known HEIGHT above that runway, and that HEIGHT is 250M QFE *everywhere*.

A much faster (not larger) aeroplane, when ARRIVING VFR, will have a higher MDH, and the same parallax compliance would place it at greater lateral displacement *on the same glideslope* to the same landing runway, even while downwind. Pilots flying faster aeroplanes need just as much TIME to perform a compliant approach and so they need more DISTANCE, even though they may use the SAME GLIDESLOPE, intercepted at greater distance to allow the same TIME to achieve human skill compliance. They must fly a wider, higher circuit that takes the same TIME. Busy airfields with highly variable traffic have high and low performance circuit patterns accordingly. They often terminate at different (parallel) runways. This was true during WW2 at both Voslau and Klagenfurt and we shall study the implications in detail later.

Because the low performance aircraft pattern HEIGHT is invariant, and for the slow Lombardi is only 250M QFE, there will be locations where terrain in or adjacent to the standard left hand pattern prevents use of that standard pattern. At some locations the circuit will be on the same side of the runway, whichever runway direction is in use, but VFR MDH = visual pattern height is 250M QFE regardless.

In MSFS *you* are required to determine whether there is terrain *at the real baseline range parallax compliance*, not some ridiculous randomly allowed greater baseline range, in the standard left hand pattern, that will then require you to fly a non standard right hand pattern at 250M QFE. The real student obtained his clearance from the ATC signal square while overhead the pattern above the pattern. In many cases once *you* are descending compliantly in the overhead to MDH = 250M QFE it will become obvious by inspection that there is terrain, or a mast, that precludes use of a standard left hand pattern at the real world parallax compliance vertical and lateral offsets. *You* are responsible for the captaincy decision making cycle, having understood how to impose the real invariant parallax compliance vertical and lateral pattern offset which we shall study in detail shortly.


 

Circuit: 250M AGL = QFE

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
If remaining in circuit
DO NOT set QNH
DO NOT alter MIXTURE
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Climb and downwind as above

All turns:

JOYSTICK   = 90 KmIAS (Vy)
GLIDESLOPE = PARALLAX COMPLIANT
THROTTLE   = TO COMPLY

Established final approach:

EYEPOINT = JUST EXPOSE ENGINE BLOCK
JOYSTICK = 75 KmIAS (Vref)
PARALLAX = COMPLIANT
THROTTLE = TO COMPLY

About 3 metres

FLARE TO 3 POINT LANDING

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

In a non radio aeroplane *you* must not clear yourself to exit the arrival phase, into the approach phase, by descending into the pattern from above, to the compliant pattern height, in the compliant direction, on the compliant side of the landing runway, at the compliant head up parallax compliance baseline range, already on the time path compliant runway landing interval glideslope for your class of aeroplane, until *you* have performed the relevant captaincy decision making cycle.

Flying non radio is more complex because *you* must acquire the skill to make the decisions otherwise made for you and imposed by an air traffic controller, with which you only need to comply.

The circuit phase abbreviated notes above, begin with climb into the circuit, but the rest applies during every approach phase, which begins as soon as you give yourself clearance to enter the visual pattern compliantly *from directly above*. We examined earlier why all turns must have a profile drag of Vy = 90 KmIAS imposed with the joystick.

It is permissible to adopt the final approach and ground handling EYEPOINT on base leg, but not earlier, since downwind parallax compliance is imposed from the default in flight parallax compliance EYEPOINT (SPACEBAR). We shall study those head up flight compliances with illustrations later.

 

RUNWAY REQUIRED:

Despite its very low power the Lombardi is so light that it is suitable for TAKE OFF FROM OBSTRUCTED 300 metre grass or dirt runways in nil wind below 600M QNH. It is underpowered, which is defined as the ability to land on any runway it can depart with the same headwind. In the hands of a qualified pilot it is very underpowered and its nil wind landing distance is much shorter than the 300 metre ~ 1000 foot grass runway required for a safe nil wind take off. It *is* therefore compatible with nil wind LANDING ON 300 metre OBSTRUCTED RUNWAYS, (such as 10R STOL at Klagenfurt where we shall carry out our STOL training). Most flight simulation enthusiasts never develop the skill needed to operate from runways that short.

The Lombardi has no wheel brakes or steering, but thanks to its exceptionally low yaw inertia, it is very easy to yaw the spoon shaped skid across grass or dirt, and too easy on tarmac.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Always grass or dirt:

THROTTLE = CLOSED
STICK    = FULL AFT
RUDDER   = FISHTAIL (20 deg arc)

Only if necessary:

IAS < 70 KmIAS
RUDDER = HARD OVER HARD STOP


 In the event of a (too) deep landing an EMERGENCY TURN to avoid the upwind boundary may be performed as soon as the tail is firmly down. Simply hold the joystick full aft and the rudder hard over and the Lombardi will yaw hard away from the obstacle into an aggressive STOP. Otherwise only fishtailing is necessary during into wind forced landings, onto the open MSFS mesh, into any unobstucted field with a modest slope and with more than 150M between the walls or hedges.

With logical consumer choice of landclass, imposed via third party developer landclass, many relevant 'meadows' suitable for practice forced landings (potentially with an actual engine off landing) will exist in the relevant locations. Just remember that you need a greater distance (level or downslope field diagonal) to take off again! Complete your obstructed STOL runway training at Klagenfurt before attempting safe engine off forced landings into 'meadows' whose boundaries are defined on the MSFS mesh.

 

EMERGENCY TAIL BRAKING FORK:

As explained in the contextual history the real open cockpit L.3 also had an emergency braking fork for use only during forced landings. For the reasons explained therein it is not present (or needed) in MSFS.

 

OVERSPEED LIMITS:

The Lombardi is aerobatic and so the profile drag abuse normal operating limit (Vno) is exceptionally high at 300 KmIAS and cannot be measured with the real ASI since engine overspeed prior to structural overspeed is certain. The dive limit is instead the *engine* never exceed overspeed limit at 2250 GIRI.

 

AEROBATICS:

The L.3 was intended to deliver all of the Regia Aeronautica basic flying training syllabus including basic aerobatic training. It was wildly over engineered with a promulgated limit of plus 8G. However it cannot reach the necessary IAS to deliver eight times as much LIFT to counter eight times as much weight, without overspeeding the engine. Fortunately it does not take 8G to perform basic training syllabus aerobatics. Its negative G structural limit was 'more than adequate' given that the carburettor reduces fuel supply to the engine as soon as G fall below plus 1.

There is some anecdotal evidence that roll authority was poorly harmonised to pitch authority, but the real issue was engine overspeed, not other factors. Prior to a loop we must increase IAS rapidly diving in full throttle. The limit of that accelerating dive is 2250 GIRI, not an IAS value. We hope to reach a profile drag over the aerofoils of 225 KmIAS so that they can generate the extra LIFT needed to counter the increase in WEIGHT we will impose as we pull the joystick full aft at < 2250 GIRI and ~ 225 KmIAS. In any event we must not continue a *throttle open* dive beyond a windmill drag of ~ 225 KmIAS since that may cause engine failure > 2250 GIRI.

Of course longer and steeper throttle closed dives are possible, and to higher IAS, without overspeeding the engine, or the Lombardi. but that is no use during aerobatics training.

Even at maximum gross weight the Lombardi will just about get around that loop. No moderation of back pressure was required to avoid stall provided entry was < 2250 GIRI and ~ 225 KmIAS. There was also no possibility of reaching human upright seated posture with no G suit GLOC from such low entry momentum, again requiring no moderation of joystick back pressure.

Consequently both RA, and later Luftwaffe, instructors considered the process far too simple, and functionally useless for training combat pilots who must learn to moderate back pressure compliantly to avoid both types of pilot error. The L.3 simply could not demonstrate those pilot errors from compliant entry and could not complete a loop from non compliant < 225 KmIAS entry.

A 'roll off the top' was 'just about possible' from entry at < 2250 GIRI ~ 225 KmIAS, but a significant inverted dive angle must be achieved before 'checking' descent to an inverted dive, with the fuel flow faltering under less than one G as you push to hold the inverted dive angle, while continuing increase of IAS to that needed to achieve the necessary roll acceleration to roll through 180 degrees in a reasonably short time. All significant rolling manoeuvres seem like hard work, and with the puny CNA D4 engine rolling aerobatics almost always requires loss of altitude unless entry IAS is very high and pushing the puny engine to its very modest 2250 GIRI overspeed limit.

The Lombardi delivers excessively easy loops, from 225 KmIAS, provided the engine is not overspeeded > 2250 GIRI, but while inverted in looping or rolling manoeuvres, that fail to sustain => 1G pull while inverted, the further loss of power, causes loss of height between entry and exit. *In post war civilian use aerobatics were forbidden*. The Lombardi was 'barely aerobatic', yet 'too easy' to loop without stalling or encountering GLOC. That wasn't the real problem.

 

STALL - WING DROP - INCIPIENT SPIN - HANDS OFF RECOVERY TO WINGS LEVEL DIVE:

The Regia Aeronautica (and civilian flying schools) needed their basic trainer to be compatible with teaching the skill of impending stall recognition, and stall avoidance. The Lombardi was well designed for that purpose. Breakdown of attached airflow can be heard (as a loud burbling sound in MSFS) in the open cockpit. The sudden audible separation of flow, over only the inboard wing, happens 3 degrees Angle of Attack (AoA) before loss of aileron control and the student pilot (we) have sufficient time to diagnose excess AoA and take immediate remedial action with both joystick and throttle.

In MSFS most aircraft releases have their flight dynamics miscoded so that what should be an audio warning that AoA is approaching stall AoA, giving time to react and take remedial action, are instead only notification that stall has already occurred. The supplied Lombardi flight dynamics are compliantly coded giving you a further 3 dAOA to react before the outboard aerofoil stalls and the L.3 departs controlled flight.

The problem was that, unlike civilian flying schools, the Regia Aeronautica needed their basic trainer to be compatible with teaching post stall recovery, and post spin recovery. The Lombardi was badly designed for that purpose.

Three degrees AoA after the onset of loud burbling inboard flow separation the Lombardi exhibits wing drop, then nose drop, into more than a quarter of a turn of incipient spin, but it was factory rigged to seek 150 KmIAS, which it does quickly. Autorotation stops and the dihedral imposes wings level dive quickly. Even if the student pilot freezes and does nothing at all. Lombardi and his design team thought this was a major safety feature, and so did post war aero clubs who were not required to teach spin recovery to amateur pilots, but it rendered the Lombardi unfit for purpose in the Regia Aeronautica, with a swift consequential two stage relegation, (see supplied contextual history).

Discover for yourself how little height is lost and how easy it is to begin simple pull up recovery from an unrecognised stall, that invokes incipient spin, that auto corrects to straight dive. Never deliberately invoke stall or incipient spin below 1000M AGL in the Lombardi. Surviving unrecognised stall from 250M QFE (or less after turning base) in the circuit pattern is much less likely. You have been warned!

 

STALL *WARNING* DURING FLARE:

Brief onset of audible inboard flow separation is not unusual as we flare a Lombardi to the compliant 'tail down three point attitude' for landing. However the whole wing is not stalled. You are only receiving the necessary warning, that you have slightly over rotated beyond the three point attitude into the last 3 degrees of safe AoA. Never allow the loud sound of buffeting flow separation to persist, but slight and brief over rotation into the last three degrees of safe AoA, causing stall *warning* during flare is acceptable.

Despite claims on various web sites, and in many FS forums, aeroplanes are *not* stalled onto the ground during landing. Those who believe they are have confused a controlled sink rate with the aeroplane under full control, with stall in which the aeroplane would drop a wing, or its nose, suddenly. Aeroplanes are caused to sink onto a runway at high unstalled AoA. They must not be stalled at low level. Some real amateur pilots make the mistake of thinking that the real audio stall warning is notification of stall, but it is not. It is a warning that the aerofoil has entered the last few safe degrees of AoA.

 

PROFILE DRAG AUDIO:

Stall warning buffet prior to the flare is unacceptable. In an open cockpit you can hear your decaying profile drag (IAS). You do not need an ASI. If under conditions close to 1G (during any approach) you can no longer hear the slight whistle of the profile drag your IAS is too low and your AoA is too high. Soon after the windscreen has too little profile drag (IAS) to be audible, louder buffeting flow separation from the aerofoil will begin. In an open cockpit you have a whole sound track to listen to and that sound track is an aeroplane control parameter. When we are looking sideways and have no sight of the ASI, or we are in a pioneer era aeroplane like the Ansaldo scout that has no ASI, the sound track is the ASI. Learn to use the decaying sound of the profile drag as both your ASI, and your Angle of Attack Indicator, as you look in all directions, especially when looking at the target of external parallax compliance, which in a Lombardi will usually be the intended point of landing.

*You* must learn how to use desired decay of profile drag audio, and unwanted onset of flow separation buffet, to measure Angle of Attack, and to keep AoA in the safe range while looking at targets of external head up parallax compliance, *with no gauges in your FoV*. Learning those open cockpit skills of AoA monitoring and control via audio monitoring must be a major component of your Lombardi basic training and type conversion training. If you are struggling to hear the profile drag (IAS) you are imposing, you must adjust the settings in your personal MSFS Options\settings\sounds menu.

Expect to spend up to an hour learning how to impose Vy = 90 KmIAS and Vref = 75 KmIAS just by listening to the profile drag over your open cockpit, so that you understand that you are free to look at the scenery while turning, or turning and descending to close range to the target, using your ears to control IAS and AoA, not your eyes. You need your eyes to impose target parallax compliance, even when the current target of head up external parallax compliance in the forward arc of Human FoV, is nowhere near the aeroplane datum line. After you have learned that skill you will understand better why the Regia Aeronautica instructors of 1939, (and many other pilots of that timeframe), refused to accept enclosed cockpits. Enclosed cockpits make interpretation of the audio cues more difficult, or even impossible.

 

HEAD UP PARALLAX COMPLIANCES:

Most flight simulation enthusiasts never learn to get any aeroplane under control. If tasked to position the aeroplane 1Km from a mast, or to avoid a given airfield by exactly three miles, so they do not waste fuel or time by wider avoidance, or the notified location of a 20mm AAA battery by 4Km, around 95% of all flight simulation users have no idea what real pilots do, or how to simulate what real pilots do. They have no idea how to position any aeroplane versus any scenery without using electronic computer gadgets.

Most flight simulation enthusiasts just pretend they can fly complex aeroplanes, but never learn the most basic skills of pilotage. Random progression from one random location to another is not demonstrating that the aeroplane is under control. Pilotage of any vessel is the skill of positioning it visually and compliantly in real time versus any visible scenery. Potentially to follow a safe winding channel, or approach path, to a place of disembarkation. Potentially to avoid (or prosecute from a safe distance) a threat while en route.

In aeroplanes the skill of also placing the aeroplane on any desired GLIDESLOPE to any target of external head up parallax compliance is a very basic skill, yet most flight simulation enthusiasts never attempt to learn that very basic skill. They just wander randomly exerting no control. The glideslope to any target is the angle subtended by the hypotenuse of a Pythagorean right angle triangle and the slant range to the target is the length of that hypotenuse. For gunnery and rocketry (in either direction) control of the length of the hypotenuse is critical. Penetration of allied and enemy threat envelopes must be controlled and timed in 4D with precision and skill. Outside combat the student pilot begins acquisition of that basic pilotage skill using the landing runway as the target of external head up parallax compliance.

In the vintage era of aviation history the pilot has a default head position in the aeroplane which is mandatory when seeking those head up parallax compliances. In real life that may be imposed via a headrest or via use of more than one object of parallax compliance between the pilot and the target, both of which must be aligned with the target. e.g. ring and bead (or Vane) sight. Other members of a crew may also need to achieve head up parallax compliances from a mandatory eyepoint by the same means, e.g. an IOZZA bomb and reconnaissance camera sight. The angle subtended by the hypotenuse when bombing at estimated speed of progression, and when using a camera at the speed of light must differ. I have addressed all of these issues in detail in earlier individual flight simulation training manuals and tutorials.

If you have never learned how real pilots keep aeroplanes under control, achieving multiple external head up parallax compliances to place threats and targets at whatever stand off slant, or baseline, range may be needed, or how real pilots locate any desired glideslope to any scenery, then you should eventually and later learn those flight simulation skills via my training manual for the Breda Ba 65bis tactical bomber where those issues and the necessary self training are addressed in detail and with many illustrations. This student training manual assumes you have never bothered to learn even basic aircraft positioning skills. Very few flight simulation enthusiasts ever have.

 

HEAD UP PARALLAX COMPLIANCES IN THE LOMBARDI:

In a vintage era lead in trainer like the Lombardi we always have an open cockpit and in part we use our ears to monitor and impose the 'V speeds' that are the mandated safe profile drag = AoA = IAS. We use our right hand to impose the compliant audio profile drag with JOYSTICK BACK PRESSURE. We instead use our eyes to monitor external parallax compliance in any and every direction. We use our left hand to impose GLIDESLOPE compliance, in any and every direction, via the THROTTLE. As the student pilot we will also use right handed left and right motion of the JOYSTICK to increase and reduce baseline range from the target of external head up parallax compliance until we achieve compliance. As we learned in the Z.1007bis simulation the Air Gunner who is also the bomb aimer must instead use rudder trim to impose baseline range compliance.

These are very basic flight simulation (pilotage) skills. Each requires imposition of a Pythagorean right angle triangle with the target at the far end of the compliant baseline. By imposing compliant HEIGHT (not altitude) above the target with the THROTTLE, by using the KOHLLSMAN KNOB of our ALTIMETER to impose QFE forecast barometric pressure in millibars *at the target* - (visible in the KOHLMANN WINDOW via the tooltip), when we achieve baseline range compliance by left or right motion of the JOYSTICK a pilot automatically causes the hypotenuse to subtend the angle that is the compliant glideslope to the current target of head up external parallax compliance.

We studied earlier how we set QFE for any distant location (threat or target) whose altitude we researched before take off, or which is cited on any MAP we are using with ALTITUDE (Not Height) CONTOURS, or on any CHART we are using, instead with SPOT HEIGHTS above Field Elevation. We discovered earlier that the compliant HEIGHT for the Lombardi is always 250M QFE if the object of external head up parallax compliance is the authorised landing runway on an airfield. That runway is just some grass with no electronic emitters that gauges could use to display glideslope or range. You must learn the procedures and the skill needed to position the aeroplane at the compliant HEIGHT using real world variable altimetry, You must also learn the skill of positioning the aeroplane at the compliant baseline range from the target, to thereby impose the compliant glideslope to the target down the hypotenuse you must learn to recognise and impose.

The lateral baseline range you must learn to recognise and impose in the Regia Aeronautica or Luftwaffe low performance circuit pattern is 2000 metres (2Km) baseline range .... from a HEIGHT (not altitude) of 250M. The compliant baseline range is not a random number. It matters whether high terrain penetrates close to 250M above the landing runway at a distance only slightly more than 2Km from that runway. As we noted earlier that would cause the pattern to become right hand instead of left hand. High terrain more than 2.2Km from the runway is irrelevant.

Now think about why the mandatory downwind baseline range has to be limited to 2Km, with a longer hypotenuse slant range to the target, to allow circuit pattern training to proceed in low visibility. The RA and Luftwaffe minimum visibility for low performance circuit pattern training is accordingly 5Km. Those values are the consequence of planning by the command chain. They are not random wandering about anywhere you like, only pretending to be a pilot, numbers. You are required to know them. You are required to practice and develop the skill to impose the mandatory head up target parallax compliances in real time, in a virtual environment, even when the visibility is only 5Km. While you also impose all the 'V speed' and GIRI limit compliances, to qualify to proceed beyond basic role selection training in a very basic 'lead in' trainer that is being used to weed out those who cannot learn the basic V speed, engine limit, and 4D head up parallax compliance pilotage skills required.

So what we need to know is how to recognise and impose the real lateral baseline range downwind compliance of 2Km in a Lombardi, that we have already positioned 250M QFE above the target to our beam. In the earlier pioneer era of avaition history almost all aircraft, for every combat role, placed the pilot on the datum line and all trainers were identical. Head up parallax compliance to left and right was therefore identical. However by 1940 many larger aircraft placed the pilot off the datum line on one side of the cockpit, with some other crew member on the other side. By 1940 basic trainers needed to teach variable head up parallax compliance from seats positioned off the datum line.

Since left hand drive cockpits and left handed procedures, always keeping right of the median, always passing other vehicles port to port, had become mandatory international compliance outside the Japanese Empire, the RA and LW pilot candidate begins by learning the head up parallax compliance for left hand landing, and left hand combat pattern prosecution of targets, and left hand avoidance of threats, from a seat left of datum.

The mandatory head up parallax compliance eyepoint is set, versus the airframe in use, so that parallax compliance from that mandatory eyepoint is easy to monitor, whether or not it is easy to impose. P1 left hand pattern parallax compliance in the Lombardi is pictured below and we see that head up compliance, from the mandatory compliance eyepoint, requires us to place the landing runway just inside the wing tip and to sustain that relationship as we proceed downwind at 250M QFE. Our baseline range is then the compliant 2000M.

The airfield at Voslau consists of two runways with agricultural land between them. The training runway is QFU 08/26 GRASS. Here we have imposed wings level head up downwind parallax compliance at 2Km baseline range. The amount by which the wing overlaps the runway is not random. You must learn to impose and sustain that slight overlap, with precision, from the default in flight EYEPOINT (SPACEBAR in FS9) . That parallax compliance does not depend on your preceise EYELINE from that head up compliance eyepoint. You can look in any direction (EYELINE) from the compliance EYEPOINT. To achieve the required precision, and to differentiate the grass runway from the grass of the airfield in general it is necessary to alter ZOOM to HUMAN ACUITY = 1 during circuit (attack) pattern compliance demonstration.

We use the THROTTLE to position the Lombardi 250M QFE above the runway and then we use the JOYSTICK to position the compliant part of wing (the aiming bead) over the target, running that part of the wing along the runway as we proceed *wings level* downwind in the 2Km baseline range low performance pattern, that has no threatening terrain including masts, closer than 2200 metres from the runway. International law only requires us to avoid terrain, or other obstructions, including any type of stationary or moving vehicle by 500 feet or 150M, and that means laterally, vertically. or diagonally.

Before you move on study the displayed *perspective* of the picture above. According to the displayed *perspective* how easy will it be to lose the height to be lost?

 

HUMAN FIELD OF VIEW (FoV) versus HUMAN ACUITY:

Throughout our use of MSFS we must be free to vary ZOOM to achieve timely compliance. The display hardware we purchased, unlike a professional flight simulator for an airline or air force, will almost always preclude display of HUMAN FoV at ZOOM = 1 = HUMAN ACUITY = REAL LEVEL OF DETAIL = REAL PERSPECTIVE, but that is irrelevant at various times during our demonstration of learned compliance in a virtual environment. There are times when Human FoV is necessary to impose head up parallax compliance within a large aiming reticle, and at those times Human FoV must be present on our personal hardware display choice. We must MICROZOOM accordingly.

Yet, there are instead times when we need to see the target or the threat (the scenery) and the contours (the mesh) with real perspective, and the LEVEL OF DETAIL (LOD) that the two different types of scenery designers intended and coded carefully within the relevant BGLs, and that are visible to real humans, only at ZOOM = 1 inside MSFS.

Range is *always* measured and imposed with head up parallax compliance. The baseline range and TIME to TARGET is identical in this (microzoomed out) jpg. That requires 3D simulation so that parallax compliance never varies with zoom. The issues are ability to identify targets and threats in the absence of human acuity, the false perception of distance (false displayed perspective) in the absence of human acuity, and the pointless waste of scenery and mesh LOD in the absence of human acuity. The goal of desk top flight simulation is *not* to discard human acuity = LOD, or to discard real perspective, from real range through lazy use of the ZOOM factor. The goal is *not* to impose upon yourself the false perception of distance that arises from failure to impose human acuity = LOD. When manoeuvring in close proximity to objects of external importance,  The requirement during desk top simulation, is to reveal to yourself the real LOD coded by the two types of BGL author, and true distance *perspective*.

*Humans use parallax compliance, and perspective, and LOD to decide how far away an object is*.

A trained pilot has no difficulty understanding that the parallax compliance is mandatory and always delivers real RANGE, real GLIDESLOPE and REAL TIME to TARGET, regardless of how distorted other range cues may be by incompetent use of a desk top flight simulator. Look carefully at the two jpgs above until you understand that the real pilot, with real human acuity, sees the LOD and perspective of distance, in the first of these two jpgs, when he is 2000 metres baseline range from the runway. Even though compliant operation of the aeroplane is always conducted in accordance with mandatory head up parallax compliance, to subtend the hypotenuse angle that is the compliant GLIDESLOPE, the real pilot *unconsciously* also uses perspective and LOD to decide whether he has enough TIME to lose the HEIGHT that must be lost.

Video game designers know that children will be exited by 'video game rush'. They may impose the zoomed out picture above, which confuses children who do not understand parallax compliance, into believing that the target (in this case the touchdown zone) is 'far away'. Consequently when they roll in to the target it arrives in much less time than they expect, and it is more difficult to lose height without diving to high velocity than they childishly expect, because false ZOOM, different to HUMAN ACUITY, imposed false perspective, and 'persuaded' their brains to misinterpret range. and glideslope, and time to target. Children enjoy the rush, and in many video games imposing too little time to complete easy tasks is the only thing the video game has to offer. MSFS is a simulator, not a video game. If you intend to use it as a simulator you must learn how to control and impose Human FoV versus Human Acuity, and when each is compliant. All other ZOOM factors just add childish confusion that has no place in a simulation and demonstration of real world compliances.

This is why many real aircrew, while using desk top flight simulators, struggle to identify small grass airfields that do not have a childish green rectangle imposed under them, or ridiculously vibrant coloured runways, at the TIME they would manage to differentiate them from the background in real life. ZOOM = 1 = HUMAN ACUITY is actually necessary to the process of timely target or threat identification, from the compliant real world baseline range. There is no point learning the compliant operation of any of the VFR aeroplanes you have downloaded if you never learn to achieve compliant VFR = COMBAT operation of your *desk top* flight simulator. Which is why even real world aircrew need more than the real world manual for each aeroplane to be simulated.

In both jpgs above, the glideslope, and TIME to TARGET, are identical. Only one of them depicts competent use of a desk top simulator to impose HUMAN ACUITY at ZOOM =1 during manoeuvring in close proximity to objects of external importance. Incompetent flight simulation users who are too lazy to learn to vary ZOOM compliantly, constantly deliver false and conflicting range  and TIME to TARGET cues to their brain, by randomising ZOOM. There are only two ZOOM compliances during competent use of desk top simulators. They are HUMAN FoV and HUMAN ACUITY.

During 3D computing, when we microzoom out to (say) ZOOM = 0.7, because for the time being we need that ZOOM factor to display human FoV on the hardware we personally decided to purchase, the number of pixels used to display the object of external parallax compliance (target or threat) is only 0.7 * 0.7 = 49% of the pixels used at ZOOM = 1 x 1 = 100% LOD. In practice MSFS has its own internal rules for the LOD it will deliver to the consumer, but when using the virtual environment with ZOOM well below 1.0, you will not have access to the LOD that the BGL author coded at ZOOM = 1 = Human Acuity *from the real world fully compliant slant range you have just imposed*, and very importantly nor will you see the real *perspective*.

Nobody needs to know exactly how the internal Microsfoft rules for LOD delivery work. Whet everybody needs to understand is that human acuity = LOD, and real perspective, are replicated only at ZOOM = 1.  The LOD you see will also vary with the resolution of your personal hardware of course.  The perspective you see will not. The compliance requirement during competent desk top flight simulation is to eliminate false perspective of distance, and to impose sufficient LOD for real time target and threat identification versus the background. In various flight simulation circumstances realistic mesh contours with realistic distance perspective are critical to human judgement in the captaincy decision making cycle. The mesh BGLs also need to be displayed at ZOOM =1  when manoevering in close proximity to objects of external importance.

Only 3D consumer simulation interfaces (VCs) deliver the invariant parallax compliance needed for head up parallax complaint VFR (combat) aircraft operation, but in *desk top* flight simulator environments even 3D computing cannot deliver human ACUITY and human FoV at the same time. Throughout desk top flight simulation, the different limitations of different display hardware, none of it designed with flight simulation in mind, require us to vary ZOOM between real HUMAN FoV and real HUMAN ACUITY according to the compliance we must achieve and demonstrate next. During desk top simulation you must learn to switch between ZOOM = 1 = HUMAN ACUITY for real time target and threat identification, versus ZOOM = Human FoV for most other tasks, *on the display hardware you personally decided to purchase*.

 

REAL TIME (RE)ACTION:

While imposing the compliant attack or landing pattern approach to any target in a desk top flight simulator we need realistic LEVEL OF DETAIL to IDENTIFY the TARGET at the same range and the same TIME as a real human can IDENTIFY it in real life. VFR = COMBAT flight simulation is all about REAL TIME reaction to external scenery, (or sometimes mesh contours and peresepctive proximity). If you prevent yourself from having HUMAN ACUITY when you need it, never seeing the real LEVEL OF DETAIL that is needed, *from any and every real world compliant range*, that the scenery and mesh BGL authors carefully coded to happen as your received LOD, only at ZOOM = 1, then you will never allow yourself the TIME that real humans have to react, after successful identification of the next target or threat, versus the confusing background.

During target identification and acquisition realistic HUMAN ACUITY must take precedence over realistic HUMAN FoV. However when we must position that already identified target, while monitoring all sorts of wider and surrounding threats, into a large radius aiming reticle, then realistic HUMAN FoV must sometimes take priority over realistic HUMAN ACUITY. Most desk top flight simulation enthusiasts never manage to understand this, or achieve this, and so they have a miserable rushed experience, having never learned how to use a desk top flight simulator. To succeed in the hobby of (combat = VFR) desk top flight simulation it is necessary to know when and how to switch between HUMAN ACUITY for target and threat identification, versus HUMAN FoV for multiple target and threat monitoring, or placement of the already identified target at a specific offset from the centre of a large aiming reticle, *which is often the entire windscreen*, especially in 'non combat' VFR aircraft.

The first illustration in this student training manual, now repeated immediately below, depicted that necessary vertical FoV, allied to adequate lateral FoV,= Human FoV, from the mandatory compliance eyepoint (SPACEBAR). During IFR simulation, which is almost entirely about head down use of gauges to monitor and impose real world compliance, we will always favour display of Human FoV over Human Acuity, else we end up constantly panning and scrolling to see the gauge we need to use next. Most FS enthusiasts fail to grasp that during VFR = COMBAT simulation far fewer compliances are head down using gauges, and far more are head up parallax compliances that require Human Acuity, including real world distance perspective.

These are very basic desk top flight simulation skills. They do not involve video game cheating, gauges or electronics. ZOOM > 1 is invoked only when simulating aircrew who had binoculars, or some other image magnifier, in real life. ZOOM < Human FoV (fish eye display) is just naive lack of control over the desk top simulation environment. Invoking real HUMAN ACUITY at ZOOM = 1 = DESIGNED BGL LOD, and REAL PERSPECTIVE, *for that range according to the internal rules of MSFS* of the external objects of parallax compliance (targets or threats) is *mandatory* in order to impose the learned compliance with the ACUITY and PERSPECTIVE that real humans have in real life *from that real baseline range*.

It is *mandatory* in order to achieve target and threat identification at a REALISTIC TIME during closure of the threat or target. REAL TIME simulation requires HUMAN LEVEL OF DETAIL to be available at ZOOM = 1 during all tasks that require TIMELY IDENTIFICATION of an object of external parallax compliance. Depending on the target / threat type, its camouflage, and how confusing the background may be, the ability to impose realistic continuing precision of that mandatory baseline parallax compliance may also require HUMAN ACUITY = LOD at ZOOM = 1 to be retained, until the next compliance to be demonstrated instead requires HUMAN FoV.

Users of DESK TOP flight simulators must stop pretending that they have the luxury of a commercial simulator whose wrap around screen apertures are real size, at real distance from user eyepoint, and by that means allow scenery and mesh to be projected constantly at ZOOM = 1 = REAL LOD = REAL PERSPECTIVE, versus real current range, from that commercial simulator eyepoint.

 

IFR SIMULAYION IS DIFFERENT:

During IFR simulation a constant ZOOM, = Human FoV, as depicted in the jpg above, which never delivers HUMAN ACUITY = LOD, or real perspective versus current range, imposes no practical IFR compliance difficulty. During IFR simulation there is no equivalent requirement to achieve early *visual* identification of targets or threats. The IFR approach normally transitions to using lights as approach slope indicators. That is a *head up parallax compliance*. The glideslope they depict is real, The glideslope the ILS gauge depicts is real. The perspective and LOD displayed in the windscreen is random nonsense, but real aircrew will automatically reject the false visual cues and will use only the gauges, and then only the mandatory real head up parallax compliance light beams. Unfortunately most flight simulation enthusiasts have no concept of parallax compliance and never manage to impose it during VFR flight. The relevant runways have no parallax compliance approach lights, and most consumers have no idea how to impose any compliant baseline range, or any compliant glideslope. Most desk top flight simulation consumers are easily and immediately confused by the false perepctive and LOD that they impose upon themselves, by never learning how to use a desk top simulator to impose REAL PERSPECTIVE and LOD = HUMAN ACUITY at ZOOM = 1.

Random ZOOM makes VFR = COMBAT simulation impossible for most FS consumers, yet they will not abandon random ZOOM for compliant ZOOM. FS forums are full of consumers claiming that third party developers deliver broken content, but most of the time the problem is refusal by consumers to make the effort to learn how to use the underlying retail software compliantly, on the hardware they personally choose to display it on. Of course Microsoft could have done a lot more to first understand this issue, and then explain it.

 

6DOF HEAD TRACKING SOFTWARE:

Remember this 'applies' even if you use 6DOF head tracking software. 6DOF hardware must be configured to deliver HUMAN FoV from the consumer eyepoint. Then forward motion of the head must be coded (geared) to deliver ZOOM = 1 = HUMAN ACUITY with contracated FoV. 6DOF harware does not avoid the primary limitation that desk top VFR = COMBAT simulation must always be configured with the MICROZOOM that delivers HUMAN FoV by default. Users of 6DOF hardware are just more likely to understand the need to achieve HUMAN ACUITY for target identification and accurate tracking of the achieved doctrinal parallax compliance, by moving the display type to HUMAN ACUITY at will, and only via forward motion of their head.

Absence of 6DOF hardware does not alter the need for IDENTIFICATION to be achieved with HUMAN ACUITY at the REALISTIC TIME, upon imposing the real world baseline range compliance versus the threat or target, followed by realistic accuracy of the continuing imposed target parallax compliance. DESK TOP flight simulation users must learn to vary ZOOM between HUMAN FoV and HUMAN ACUITY, with or without 6DOF hardware. That learning process begins with understanding why it is necessary. Highly realistic products such as this A.V.I.A. L.3 downloadable content, with all the real parallax compliances both encoded and explained, are no use to consumers who never learn how to impose realism during *desk top* simulation.

Stop being a flight simulation enthusiast who always identifies everything too late, and who becomes confused concerning TIME to TARGET, while viewing false displayed perspective and LOD. Stop pretending that desk top VFR = COMBAT simulators can be used in singular, or random,  ZOOM, never displaying human acuity and and never achieving timely identification of real targets and threats. Abandon the pretence that 2D consumer control interfaces with two windows of differing ZOOM, and different scale, one on top of the other, can be used to achieve parallax compliance versus mesh or scenery. They are only usable (and are perfectly adequate) for IFR simulation.  Remember approach slope light objects are neither scenery not mesh. They are coded by BGL authors to deliver one specific *projected beam parallax compliance*, versus real range.

 

ROLL IN TO TARGET HEAD UP PARALLAX COMPLIANCE:

Imposing constant head up parallax compliance versus a straight line target or threat, such as a runway, is easier than versus a winding river / road / coastline target, but both skills must be learned eventually. The student who cannot slide the compliant part of the wing down the runway with wings level while concurrently imposing the mandatory HEIGHT above the target will not cope with more complex head up threat avoidance, let alone selected weapon type versus target fire control solutions, later. Both are enduring types of parallax compliance that are designed to have easy *recognition* of success or failure, with the benefit of HUMAN ACUITY, whether or not they are easy to impose.

Every flight, however basic, has mandatory phases that have singular or multiple mandatory exit (rejection) criteria. Sustaining an aircraft or engine operating compliance already achieved is usually simple. The human error that often kills people in real aeroplanes is failing to reject that compliance at the appropriate TIME. We need to know when to reject downwind parallax compliance and turn base leg, (when to roll in to the target). There are two really bad human errors available. The first is turning so soon that we cannot lose 250M of height in the TIME available in the headwind along the runway today. We will need to invoke a humiliating, but safe, GO AROUND.

The second which is more likely to kill us is continuing with the current compliance for so long that we lose sight of the runway, (any target or threat). The complication is that the headwind along the landing runway (over any target) is different every day and there is no fixed location for 'roll in' that is perfect or constant. The goal is to extend downwind in the circuit or attack pattern by just enough, to have enough TIME to fly an unrushed and stable approach to the target, *given our current personal level of skill*, without struggling to lose 250M of height, while imposing the mandated V speeds, while never proceeding so far downwind that we lose sight of the target, which for the time being is always the touchdown zone of the landing runway.

In low visibility we may lose sight of a target by means other than airframe sight line blocking from the mandated parallax compliance eyepoint. However for the time being you should train in good user imposed  visibility.

In the vintage era of aviation history all IFR approaches involved TIMED (4D navigation)  legs outbound from an Initial Approach Fix (IAF). If a VFR = COMBAT monoplane has a canopy it may be possible to impose a specific parallax compliance for roll in to the target, versus the target, (in this case versus the touch down zone QFU 26 LOAV), using a particular conjunction of window frames in the complex canopy. In open cockpit aeroplanes there will be no such convenient conjunction to use as an aiming 'bead'. The compliant VFR approach is therefore flown using the same technique as an IFR approach. The aeroplane is flown to an easy to identify IAF, at the compliant height, and then a timed outbound leg (with no change of heading) is flown beyond the IAF.

The jpg above depicts the open cockpit Lombardi left hand pattern IAF for every runway. From a height of 250M QFE, from a baseline range of 2000 metres, we recognise the IAF as the moment when the target appears just behind the wing tip that we carefully used to obscure it. Of course the jpg above imposes HUMAN ACUITY. We need human acuity @ ZOOM = 1 to ensure that we have sufficient LOD for the target (the white numbers 26) to be visible and identified, not just the whole 'target area'. Many runways have a displaced target = touchdown zone. The edge of the airfield is irrelevant. We should also avoid confusing our brain with false distance perspective.

In all such VFR approaches we then wait (go outbound for) a compliant TIME, beyond the IAF, before we roll in to the target. We can use a clock head down, or more usefully we can 'count elephants', as we continue to look where we need to look while head up. The number of elephants that are compliant depends on the headwind down the runway today. The greater the headwind we expect to battle on the VFR Final Approach Track (FAT) to the target the fewer elephants we count. On a day with no wind at all we will need to count, one elephant, two elephant, .... three elephant, .... all the way to nine elephants. The procedure is to navigate to the IAF in 3D. That compliance is depicted and explained immediately above. Then we commence 4D navigation, outbound from the IAF, counting elephants until it is TIME to roll in to the target.

Turning base QFU 26 GRASS at LOAV earlier than nine elephants after the IAF (nil wind) is pilot error. We need all of the remaining pattern distance to lose 250M of height with no headwind down the runway. How much earlier we should ROLL IN TO THE TARGET when there is a wind depends on the headwind over the target today *and our current skill level*.

In good visibility (with the engine running) it is better to delay a 'few extra elephants' and allow ourselves more TIME to achieve all the following head up parallax compliances that we must demonstrate. However during fully competent desk top flight simulation the requirement is to demonstrate each compliance down to the real approach minimum visibility which in this case is 5Km. It should be obvious that we must not proceed more than 5Km from the touchdown zone QFU 26 GRASS, but in practice we need to see (tally) the target well enough to manoeuvre continuously versus the target, and that is not possible versus 'some grass' at a distance of 5Km when the visibility is 5Km. Below is the same compliance in Luftwaffe visual circuit pattern minimum weather.

When the target of external head up parallax compliance is not lit up like a Christmas tree, we do not have the luxury of flying this downwind leg, more than 2Km abeam the landing runway (the target) , and we do not have the luxury of proceeding anything like 5Km away from the target. Of course the jpg above again uses HUMAN ACUITY @ ZOOM = 1. The worse the visibility the more important imposing HUMAN ACUITY becomes.

Most flight simulation enthusiasts never manage to demonstrate compliant flight in low visibility because they wander random distances from targets and impose only random ZOOM. They plan to fail. Compliance is not a series of random childish nonsense choices. It is a learned skill. The good news is that the real world compliances are, what they are, because they impose very little extra difficulty in the weather minima for any compliance. The learned skill is identical in either visibility. Compliance is only a little harder to *monitor* from 2000 metres when visibility is only 5000 metres. Provided the FS consumer understands the need to impose HUMAN ACUITY, and learns to impose human acuity, when the next compliance requires real human acuity, to replicate on screen, what the real Luftwaffe student pilot saw during a VFR approach in a Lombardi, the difficulty is barely different in critically low visibility (real world approach minima). Sufficient visibility, equal to the real world minimum, is enough visibility for FS consumers who have understood, and then learned, the basic skill of downwind head up parallax compliance.

Up to this point during circuit pattern training, you have never been more than 3Km from the runway, at the far corner when we turned downwind already at 250M QFE, ready ti impose baseline range parallax compliance, and provided you impose human acuity you will be able to identify the runway, and will be able to impose the skill of downwind parallax compliance, and IAF identification, in a visibility of 50 Km or 5 Km (~ 3 miles). After you have counted nine elephants, in the timed outbound leg from the IAF, you will still be less than 3 Km from the target.

 

TURNING BASE - - INVOKE GLIDE APPROCH = TAILDOWN EYEPOINT:

In nil wind, once we have become proficient, after nine elephants we intend to roll in left to TRACK 'roughly' at right angles to the target.  As we reach nine elephants, we CLOSE THE THROTTLE, go head down, look at the ASI and the compass as we turn left through 90 degrees while applying enough back pressure on the JOYSTICK to reduce profile drag from Vdc = 150 KmIAS to Vy = 90 KmIAS. We do not apply enough back pressure to raise the nose. We allow the nose to fall. With the throttle closed the Lombardi will dive to bring the profile drag up to even 90 KmIAS. We intend to lose height (quickly). We impose Vy = 90 KmIAS with the JOYSTICK, losing height.

*It is at this time that we lean our head back to the tail down EYEPOINT that we used to taxi, and for take off*.

Having imposed Vy = 90 KmIAS you must learn what Vy *sounds like*. In your open cockpit you must learn to recognise the sound of a profile drag = Vy = 90 KmIAS over the windscreen, by LISTENING to it, while you look where you need to look. The goal is only to sustain the profile drag sound you have now imposed at Vy = 90 KmIAS, while you were only briefly head down looking at the ASI. The goal is to use the JOYSTICK to keep the sound of the profile drag constant because we are about to come head up and stop looking at the ASI (dragometer) which reads 90 KmIAS.

Having imposed those base leg flight dynamic compliances, we come head up, and monitor our drag compliance using audio means. We look left and we re-acquire the target. By the time we have established GLIDE at Vy = 90 KmIAS, roughly at right angles to 26 GRASS LOAV, we are usually less than 2000 metres baseline range from the target. In 'nil wind' we are 'nine elephants' plus the radius of the base turn beyond the target. With HUMAN ACUITY competently applied, perspective is real, and LOD is real. We still have the target itself identified (the numbers at the threshold) not just the general target area, not just the airfield boundary. Since there will normally be a headwind down the runway, our turn through 90 degrees will establish a track slightly diverging from a right angle track. We have no particular desire to achieve right angle perfection. To the contrary we must now use perspective and LOD in combination, to judge whether we are above or below the GLIDE APPROACH GLIDESLOPE. In a perfect Lombardi circuit pattern we close the throttle after nine elephants and we never use it again. Our goal is to adjust this base leg, outwards or inwards, with AILERON, so that our GLIDE terminates over the target, never using the throttle. We use ELEVATOR only to impose Vy = 90 KmIAS continuously.

As a bonus of our learned competence, and intention to witness and use real perspective to impose the real GLIDE APPROACH GLIDESLOPE, we are seeing all the scenery and mesh in real LOD with real perspective contours, the way real humans in and around Voslau see them. If we were using real weather with a headwind down this runway we would have turned base after fewer elephants and our base leg would be closer to the target. These skills are no more difficult in a visibility of only 5Km, but the hills will be invisible in the mist.

This requires us to be HEAD UP looking at the target, not HEAD DOWN, looking at gauges. We do *not* use the elevators to vary glideslope. We use AILERON to vary glideslope. If we seem low we 'roll in' further towards the target to regain the GLIDE APPROACH GLIDESLOPE. While we do this we listen to our profile drag and we sustain constant profile drag noise over the windshield as we descend (glide) more or less wings level at Vy = 90 KmIAS. The really dangerous case is no sound of profile drag. If you cannot hear the drag of the passing air, then you are applying too much back pressure on the JOYSTICK. You must apply less back pressure to impose more profile drag until you can hear it. We want to lose height, in a controlled way at Vy = 90 KmIAS, while imposing compliant glideslope with AILERON with adequate 'roll in'.

At first you will be very tempted to reject this base leg and  'roll in' to the Final Approach Track (FAT) far too soon. You must gradually teach yourself to wait until it seems too late, and only then go head down with your hatswitch as you pan your view back to the gauges while you fly the turn to the FAT at Vy = 90 KmIAS. Throughout we have demonstrated very high levels of situational awareness. Even while we are briefly head down again as we fly the turn to the FAT gliding at 90 KmIAS we know where the runway is. We know roughly what heading on the wet compass will roll it into view in the forward arc and it will anyway appear as we 'roll in'.

Base leg compliance is by far the most challenging compliance in  (open cockpit) monoplanes. The biplanes that the instructors of the vintage era were loathe to give up often / usually had bracing struts, a maze of criss crossing bracing wires and other objects in the left and right diagonal FoV  which, from the instructor and solo flight rear seat, overlaid the runway during base leg parallax compliance, and which had natural parallax compliance features on them, or which could have markings painted on them for that explicit purpose. Below we see what exactly the same compliance looked like to an RAF student pilot in a Tiger Moth. The horribly high co-efficient of profile drag, 130 BHP Tiger Moth, under performs versus the 60 BHP Lombardi in most respects, but it has many advantages if the goal is to make learning to be a pilot easy. In a Tiger Moth the additional longitudinal bracing for the flying wires renders precise parallax compliance easy, so that the student does not need to learn to use perspective and LOD to control baseline range and GLIDE APPROACH GLIDESLOPE compliance on base leg. Of course for that to also be true in MSFS the air file in use must be realistic.

Open cockpit monoplanes like the Lombardi imposed upon the student in the left hand seat, while dual or solo, no parallax compliance aiming mark on base leg and so he was (we are) excessively reliant on perspective and LOD while we judge whether we need to 'roll in' further, or not. Imposition of HUMAN ACUITY is necessary. The difficult human judgement required in the Lombardi was learned by repeating circuit pattern, after circuit pattern, until the L.3 student could judge GLIDE APPROACH GLIDESLOPE base leg compliance without using parallax compliance, but unlike the real student you will not have an instructor beside you to warn when you are failing. This makes learning circuit / attack pattern compliances, and fire control solution compliances, more difficult in MSFS, than in real life. It requires more rigour to operate the desk top simulator virtual environment compliantly, and more effort and more practice during self training.

The arrival of monoplanes made GLIDE APPROACH base leg compliance more and more difficult to learn and impose. They slowly killed more and more pilots, and other aircrew, as monoplane pilots allowed their IAS to bleed to stall while over concentrated on judging GLIDE APPROACH GLIDESLOPE compliance using mostly perspective, with no readily available parallax compliance 'aiming bead'. The consequence was that the steep, throttle closed throughput, GLIDE APPROACHES of the vintage era of aviation history soon gave way to the powered approaches along shallow glideslopes of the following classic era of aviation history. No dictator woke up one morning and decided to impose powered shallow glideslopes during VFR. They were the necessary solution to the sudden absence of bracing struts and conjunctions of bracing wires that could be used for parallax compliance from the aft seating position of biplanes on base leg. Desk top flight simulators can help us to understand a great deal about aviation history, but only if we achieve learned competent use of our desk top simulator environment, and then also learn to demonstrate real world compliance skills.

During WW2 both runways at Voslau were grass, and both were compatible with the largest Luftwaffe transport aircraft. Consequently in FS9, during your self training try to be high, always favouring slightly early roll in to the target from this base leg, never low, at first intending to land deep into 26 GRASS, intending to never touch the THROTTLE, after closing it as you roll in to the base leg of the circuit / attack pattern. Only later slowly teach yourself the slightly wider base leg track, or later roll in to final, GLIDE APPROACH GLIDESLOPE that terminates exactly on the numbers. Remember your personal 'landclass' scenery tiles, your autogen objects, and your personal mesh, may look different to mine, but they are not involved in this training. Even having the airfield at a different altitude on different mesh is irrelevant because VFR is a head up concept during which everything depends on HEIGHT.

 

TURNING FINAL - SMALLER RETICLE:

The decision to turn final from base has no constant compliance. If you seem low, turn earlier with reduced bank to reduce distance to target and sink rate. If you seem high, turn later with more bank to increase WEIGHT and sink rate. Remember the WEIGHT of any aeroplane is just its MASS multiplied by the current G load, which is a function of its current bank angle. More bank .... more weight .... more sink rate, (at constant IAS = Vy = 90 KmIAS). For any headwind today, there is a perfect sweet spot for final 'roll in' to the target, but we will rarely achieve perfection and in monoplanes we must develop the skill to use perspective, with human acuity imposed, to monitor and adjust our final approach (roll in) to the target (any target) accordingly. Look at the target. Listen to your profile drag as you descend wings level on base leg.

Leaning our head left to the tail down eyepoint, which we learned to recognise and impose near the top of this training manual, (see also jpg below) creates the constricted aiming reticle needed on final approach and that we will continue to use as we flare to the tree point landing aerofoil Angle of Attack, and throughout ground handling with that three point tail down AoA auto retained, never losing sight of what is in front of us on the surface at high AoA in the three point attitude. We cannot achieve that from the mandatory in flight head up parallax compliance eyepoint.

On final approach track if we are low, (if the target is in the upper half of our carefully constricted aiming reticle), we use THROTTLE to place the target in the vertical centre of the windscreen *exactly in front of our new mandatory approach and ground handling eyepoint*. Creating this 'smaller' aiming reticle helps us to judge the 'centre of aim' better and to recognise deviation from the Lombardi specific design glideslope. Any runway lighting specific to shallow glideslope IFR traffic is irrelevant, but there will rarely be any on grass runways where the Lombardi belongs.

Only when lined up on the final approach track (FAT), now with the ASI visible in the forward arc, even at ZOOM = 1 = HUMAN ACUITY, reduce *carefully* to Vref = 75 KmIAS, with significantly increased AoA, to put the Lombardi firmly on the wrong side of the total drag curve, to greatly increase its sink rate. Use your right hand on the JOYSTICK only to impose Vref = 75 KmIAS which is now visible on the ASI with the target in the forward arc. Like the real student pilot you only need to move your eyes between the two means to monitor the two real world compliances. Use your left hand on the THROTTLE to position the target accurately in the vertical middle of the reduced height more accurate aiming reticle. The real ASI is in that real location, and not a random made up location, for a reason.

You will probably find it congenial to wedge your right arm against the top, or edge, of the desk to sustain the constant back pressure that imposes Vref = 75 KmIAS with no joystick motion. The real student pilot would have used his leg to wedge his arm. All changes are made with the THROTTLE using the left hand. The right hand and arm, lock profile drag at Vref = 75 KmIAS, firmly on the wrong side of the total drag curve, to impose the high sink rate down the compliant Lombardi specific glideslope. With the THROTTLE CLOSED the Lombardi specific GLIDESLOPE at Vref is MINUS 5.5 degrees NIL WIND, and increases with the headwind today. The vintage era L3 is *not* designed to fly the later very shallow classic era IFR glideslope of only minus 3 degrees.

The perfect approach, after two perfect 'roll ins' requires no throttle opening, with your arm locking profile drag over the aerofoils at Vref = 75 KmIAS, but perfection is rare and safety is paramount. If we end up low on approach we must apply THROTTLE to sustain the compliant constricted reticle glideslope, from an imperfect interception of the final approach track, *with profile drag over the aerofoils always locked at Vref = 75 KmIAS*.

Do *not* allow IAS to decay below Vref = 75 KmIAS until a few metres above the runway. All of this approach should be flown with HUMAN ACUITY @ ZOOM = 1 to reveal REALISTIC LOD and REAL PERSPECTIVE from the BGLs. BGL designers, of both scenery and mesh, spend a lot of time and effort imposing real HUMAN LOD only at ZOOM = 1. Then most desk top flight simulation enthusiasts refuse to use it. That is a huge desk top flight simulator operating error, not just a waste of the LOD the scenery and mesh designers intended you to enjoy.

The real windscreen (shape) forms a variabale aperture aiming reticle that you are required to learn to use to impose parallax compliance versus targets and threats in the forward arc, after final roll in to the attack vector. Childishly heading straight for a target, from a random direction, down a random glideslope, at random velocity, having no idea what your baseline range is, having no idea when to open fire, having no idea when to cease fire, having no idea whether the target is inside or outside weapon parameters, having made no attempt at all to control how long you keep the target inside your weapon parameters, is not what you joined the (virtual) RA or (virtual) Luftwaffe to achieve. That childishness belongs in video games. FS9 is a simulator. The purpose of flight simulation is to demonstrate all real world compliances in a virtual environment. To impose them you must first understand them, then learn them.

The level of childishness that is normal in video games will not allow you to proceed beyond 'lead in' = pilot selection training in WW2. The real world of aviation has many real compliances and doctrines to learn and impose, *but when we use a DESK TOP simulator we must understand and learn how to render it compliant too*.

 

DIVE VERSUS SINK:

Many flight simulation enthusiasts never learn their V speeds. They approach with far too little Angle of Attack, on the right side of the drag curve, with far too little induced drag, far too much profile drag (IAS), far too much velocity (TAS), along a random glideslope, using no aiming reticle to control anything, and never manage to use short runways, having always flown a random glideslope, at random velocity, wholly inappropriate to the aeroplane in question, causing rushed and unstable approaches that end far too fast.

Aeroplanes DIVE nose down at high IAS. Aeroplanes SINK nose up at low IAS. Throughout the final approach in a *flapless* aeroplane we must avoid diving because we need a steep glideslope = gradient to the *place where the aeroplane comes to a stop*. Of course we can descend with a steeper glideslope while nose down and diving, but the velocity at the end of that dive is never compatible with stopping quickly from the end of the dive. In an aeroplane with no brakes that is even more true, which is why WW2 basic trainers had no brakes. They existed, but they were absent to enforce what needed to be learned, for the same reason that the Lombardi had no cheap thermometer to illuminate the probability of carb icing.

For any given aeroplane, at each specific weight, there is a specific IAS, having regard to avoiding stall and spin, at which the steepness of the glideslope and the 'slowness' of the progress down that glideslope combine to deliver the steepest gradient *from the start point, to where the aeroplane stops moving*.

Many flight simulation enthusiasts never get their head around the whole issue of *where it will stop*. They pat themselves on the back for making a randomly steep dive, with random velocity, to runway level, imposing only random stopping distance from that random velocity. That is childish. The real requirement is to arrive over the airfield boundary steeply *at low velocity*, already with low IAS = high AoA = high induced drag, so that the distance from the start of descent to the point where the aeroplane *stops moving* is minimised.

That compliant IAS is Vref. The flapless aeroplane must be made to SINK down the glideslope, with a high Angle of Attack, at low IAS = Vref, to *stop* as close to the original point of descent as possible.

Flight simulation is the demonstration of all the real world concurrent compliances in a virtual environment. The knowledge base and skill requirements are real. Realism is the consequence of tenure of that knowledge base and skill set. Realism cannot be uploaded. Realism cannot be downloaded. Realism has to be learned and imposed by the FS consumer. The job of the FS developer is to explain each compliance, and each phase rejection criterion, and to link real world multiple concurrent input compliance, to the real multiple compliant video and audio outcome, as well as linking realistically awful simulation output to only random uneducated consumer inputs.

We must learn which hardware control is used to control which simulation output, and we never mix them up. In an open cockpit we learn to LISTEN to our IAS = AoA = profile drag over the open cockpit and we impose drag compliance using audio while we look at the target and impose parallax compliance, else perspective compliance combined with LOD compliance, while looking in any direction at all.

 

 EN ROUTE DISTANCE MEASURING (NO EQUIPMENT):

We have learned that when we place the compliant part of the wing (the aiming bead) over any target or threat at a height (not altitude) of 250M versus that target or threat, our baseline range abeam the target or threat is 2Km. We create a Pythagorean right angle triangle whose relationships are a mathematical certainty. If instead we place the same part of the wing (the aiming bead) over the target at a HEIGHT (not altitude) of 500M our baseline range is 4Km because our GLIDESLOPE (attack slope upon roll in) to the target is constant. When we impose identical head up parallax compliance from 1000M above the target our baseline range is 8Km, and so on, and so on.

The jpg above depicts 4Km threat avoidance versus QFU 26 LOAV. Our height is 500M QFE to impose that lateral baseline range on the SAME GLIDESLOPE. This constitutes compliant lateral avoidance of the pattern at LOAV, including avoidance of the threat from arriving aircraft descending through 500M QFE overhead the LOAV circuit pattern.  While en route you should always avoid 'VFR only' airfields by at least this baseline range. Of course it is legal to apply larger avoidance, but that just wastes fuel, by adding track miles. Remember the Lombardi crew have no means to communicate with ATC, even if it exists at such airfields. You do not have the right to blunder wherever you please. In real life threat avoidance criteria are more complex. It is the concept and the skill that must be learned and demonstrated while en route, during every VFR flight in a desk top flight simulator.

The minimum in flight visibility for operating an RA or Luftwaffe Lombardi that will never leave the circuit pattern is 3 miles ~ 5 Km, but the minimum visibility for VFR en route cross country flight is 5 miles ~ 8 Km. Even when the visibility is only 8Km, you must demonstrate the ability to identify the threat while it is still beyond 4Km and you must demonstrate the ability to continue to avoid that threat by 4Km. During the vintage era of aviation history, that was also the threat avoidance baseline range for 20mm (light) AAA co-located with the target / threat. Wandering about aimlessly, ignoring every threat that must be avoided in real life is not flight simulation. You must learn to achieve threat avoidance, in gradually reducing visibility, until you can demonstrate compliant threat avoidance in a visibility of 5 miles ~ 8Km.

In principle we can place the target or threat to our beam at any compliant baseline range, (that puts us outside its threat envelope prior to roll in), just by varying the HEIGHT (not altitude) we proceed at en route above that target or threat. We must research the ALTITUDE of every such target or threat during FLIGHT PLANNING using a database, or a chart, or just a (Google) map with contours. Then we displace our aeroplane by (at least) the compliant height above that target altitude so that when we slide the relevant part of the wing over the target (wings level of course) we know and impose compliant baseline range. No childish video game cheating, no gauges, no electronics are required. Just learned competent use of a desk top flight simulator.

Now remember aiming (parallax compliance imposition) does not always require a surrounding reticle. The need for a surrounding reticle depends on whether objects of external parallax compliance must be positioned differently in the reticle according to different cases. If the parallax compliance doctrine is constant, from the compliant mandatory EYEPOINT, (SPACEBAR in FS9), we can aim with only a 'bead', versus any target. of any shape. The practical issue in real life, and in a desk top flight simulator, is the ability to identify the target or threat from compliant baseline range. That requires us to learn to use the compliant ZOOM that delivers HUMAN ACUITY from current baseline range. However in real life and during desk top simulation the current visibility may be too low to see the target or threat from the complaint baseline range for use of the our aiming mark.

 

INTERCEPTION POINTs (IP) and VISUAL REPORTING POINTs (VRP):

When we know we will need to position our aeroplane compliantly versus scenery, or mesh, (any target or any threat), we must plan to impose that compliance in any visibility. We may need to position via an object we know will be easier to see and identify as we approach the target, (any type of target or threat). That easy to identify (precursor) object becomes the Interception Point (IP) for the target and we actually FLIGHT PLAN to the IP expecting to identify and position versus the target ot threat, only after positioning versus the earlier and EASIER TO IDENTIFY IP. In real civilian aviation that military IP becomes a Visual Reporting Point (VRP) mandated by ATC. They also apply to aeroplanes that cannot communicate.

If we do not know the real VRPs for Voslau (or anywhere else) we must use a (Google) MAP, else MSFS scenery, to establish our own suitable IPs as the precursor waypoints to which we will proceed visually, or avoid visually by the logical baseline range, given that we really wish to reach the target, not the IP, expecting to identify and manoeuvre versus the target or threat, only after we achieve parallax compliant baseline range versus our precursor IP. In other cases the IP is used to avoid a threat that will be hard to tally, or that we may never tally, but we will avoid by the required margin regardless.

In the jpg above we are looking at the Lombardi from the direction of LOAV. Avoiding LOAV by exactly 4000 metres placed us just inside a whole cluster of line feature crossing points. Such locations make good VRPs, or IPs. This is not only because those conjunctions are unique and easy to recognise, it is because each of the line features provides the easy means to locate the VRP or IP. First we locate a line feature that leads to the IP, then we follw the line feature to locate the IP. Then we locate the target from the IP, else avoid the threat without ever identifying the threat. We do not need to see the threat (LOAV) to avoid LOAV. We only need to proceed to the VRP or IP which ensures we comply, by following a line feature that is itself compliant. Then proceed outbound from the VRP or IP along a potentially different line feature that is also compliant.

Now remember we may need to make this cross country flight in a visibility of 15Km, but with a cloudbase below 500M above LOAV. We must not abort the (training or combat) sortie because the cloud is only 400M above LOAV, but we cannot proceed 500M above LOAV and identify LOAV from 4Km, if the cloud base is at 400M QFE. The cloud cover over LOAV may be forecast to be at 600M QFE, but it  may turn out to be at 400M QFE when we arrive in the area of the threat. We must have a PLAN B for threat avoidance that we PLANNED before we took off. We must understand how to create PLAN A and how to create PLAN B, and we must bother to plan both, for every threat along our planned VFR route. In consequence our planned route will be nothing like the boring straight line progression from from departure to destination that most flight simulation enthusiasts only pretend is realistic. Wandering around, even in straight lines, only ever in lovely weather, ignoring every threat that must be avoided in real life is not flight simulation. Demonstrating real world skills of VFR compliance in a desk top flight simulator is much more interesting than that unrealistic straight line progression.

These are basic and essential skills of VFR = combat pilotage. The student pilot begins to learn them, and master them, during  'lead in' training, in very basic aeroplanes, that proceed slowly around the scenery and mesh, giving the student TIME to achieve his multiple concurrent compliance tasks in an unrushed way. The student must understand the knowledge base, and acquire the skills in slow basic aeroplanes before replicating the skills with less TIME to achieve the same compliance skills in faster aeroplanes.

But almost every flight simulation enthusiast, who has no real world aircrew training, omits basic training and never acquires the most basic skills of (combat or VFR) pilotage. Real pilots must learn how to measure and impose baseline range compliance, and hypotenuse = gunnery open fire and cease fire doctrine range compliance, and hypotenuse glideslope to target compliance *without using gauges or electronic gadgets* In real life the current target or threat is rarely an electronic emitter sending DME and glideslope data to electronic gadgets. In real life compliant baseline range, complaint slant (weapon) range, and compliant glideslope to target, are always measured and imposed, not guessed, not ignored, not randomised. Range and glideslope are measured and imposed *in every direction*, versus multiple threats, using head up parallax compliance skills, from the relevant parallax compliance eyepoint, using the compliant reticle, or aiming marks, from the complaint HEIGHT above the IP, threat or target.

If the target is at an ALTITUDE of 500M QNH and we cruise at an ALTITUDE of 1000M QNH then our HEIGHT above the target is 500M. If (wings level) we run the the compliant aiming mark over the target, as we proceed abeam that target or IP, our baseline range is 4Km, which is well inside the 75mm AAA envelope, but just outside the vintage era 20mm AAA envelope. It matters. Student pilots must learn to measure and impose baseline range *and the associated glideslope* without using gauges or electronics, very early in basic (lead in = pilot selection) training. The vast majority of flight simulation users never even get that far into understanding how to use a desk top flight flight simulator to position aircraft compliantly versus any scenery they can see, (*or not see*). It is a very basic skill.

In real life, even in peacetime, pilots are not allowed to wander wherever they please, through any airspace they please. Lots of things (threats) must be avoided by compliant and varying baseline ranges. The modern era of real time moving electronic maps, (actually introduced by the Royal Navy in June 1944 for the invasion of Normandy), is not the only era desk top flight simulators exist to replicate. Most of the aeroplanes used by flight simulation enthusiasts never had DME or any kind, or any glideslope indicator gauge, never mind real time moving map GPS. It is possible to stop pretending that they did and to use a desk top flight simulator to learn the simple real world skills instead.

It is possible to use a desk top flight simulator to become a virtual practitioner of aviation, imposing real world compliances with real world understanding and skill, but first use of the desk top simulator itself must be compliant. Are you ready to learn some more real world basic compliance skills?

 

KEEP IT SIMPLE - STUPID (THE KISS PRINCIPLE):

The KISS principle should lie behind all your self training. Don't try to learn many compliances at once. Don't impose TIME pressure on yourself. When learning to impose a 2Km baseline to target offset from 250M QFE allow yourself to start from a few miles away from the airfield, (slew there if necessary), and set up the downwind tracking of the aiming mark down the landing runway carefully in an unrushed way. Learn to achieve that more quickly, and from high overhead your destination airfield (see arrival phase discussed earlier), gradually and later. Learn to achieve that in bad weather and 5Km visibility only later. Learn to impose that compliance during very high workload after take off when remaining in the pattern only much later. Revise the HEIGHTS at which turns are flown in the pattern.

When learning to impose GLIDESLOPE with THROTTLE while using JOYSTICK to impose => Vy = 90 KmIAS in turns, and Vref = 75 KmIAS only wings level on the final approach track, impose the 'no weather' option and again start several miles from the runway almost in line with the runway. Then practice flying an unrushed, stable approach at Vref, from the narrow reticle approach compliance eyepoint, over several minutes, so that you understand that even very low inertia aeroplanes like the Lombardi can fly very stable, safe, unrushed approaches and that any randomness in the flightpath, not due to weather turbulence, is entirely due to randomness of pilot = consumer inputs (PIO) instead. During that exercise you will need to use THROTTLE to impose the compliant glideslope in the constrained tail down reticle.

Learn to use the JOYSTICK to lock total drag at Vref to promote (throttle closed) high rates of sink with low rates of progress, whenever you need them. Learn to achieve the unrushed and stable approach at Vref from downwind in the pattern with less distance and with two turns to go to the target, only later.

Learn to vary WEIGHT with AILERON. Fly many turns at Vy = 90 KmIAS. Watch the VSI. Learn the bank angles (alieron inputs = aircraft weights) that allow climbing turns. Learn the bank angle = aileron input that instead imposes the weight that causes VSI = 0 = maximum sustainable turn rate. Learn to use the ailerons to vary weight to impose compliant (ant desired) VSI at constant IAS = 90 KmIAS in turns.

Practice. practice, practice.

 

STOL (OBSTRUCTED RUNWAY) GLIDE APPROACH TRAINING IN THE LOMBARD - 10R STOL LOWK:

For this training we move to the real Luftwaffe Lombardi training school at Klagenfurt (LOWK). This STOL training tutorial assumes use of the default FS9 BGLs and *maximum density autogen objects* to cause an obstructed approach. In the airfield diagram below 28R is the modern era hard runway. 28C is the wartime grass transport aircraft runway. 28L is the wartime Lombardi school runway which is only 300 metres long and in the modern era serves as a microlight runway. It is not selectable in FS9 and so we have provided the necessary STARTUP.FLT in the Lombardi folder that you installed earlier. Remember you have no chocks. Expect roll forward and torque yaw on spawning witw the engine running, or during later engine starting. Remedy that situation before take off.

Due to the military and commercial activity to the north the pattern on the short flying school (now microlight) runway is always south of the short school runway and so the pattern QFU 10R LOWK depicted below is non standard right hand and proceeds towards high ground south west of the airfield, inside high ground not far to the south. In this diagram the Lombardi is downwind 10R right hand at a baseline range of 2Km at a height of 250M QFE. From the cockpit, even with that tight baseline range it is easy to confuse the 'long' grass transport runway 10C, with the short training grass runway 10R, because 10R set within the southern exclave of Klagenfurt airfield is very short and obstructed.

In a side by side seat trainer the student must learn two sets of parallax compliances from the same mandated left seat EYEPOINT (SPACEBAR in FS9). We must now learn to fly right hand patterns from the left hand seat. The 2Km downwind compliance has a slightly different aiming mark on the right wing. In the jpg below the obstructed STOL runway 10R is visible just inside the airfield boundary.  Now we encounter an example of markings being used for VFR / COMBAT parallax compliance. The parallax is slightly different now and we must now run the outside of the Luftwaffe cross over the target or threat, to place the target or threat 2000 metres away from our invariant pattern height of 250M. The modern era tarmac runway 10L is much more than 2Km distant. 10C GRASS is also visible and much more than 2000 metres baseline range. Note that 10R STOL has no white threshold or touchdown markings (in FS9).

Only in theory recognition of the IAF has also altered. In practice it cannot since low wing monoplanes leave us with no choice. We reach the right hand circuit / attack pattern IAF, when the target reappears behind the right wing. What may need to differ is the default number of elephants that we must count in a right hand pattern as we proceed outbound from that IAF.

A runway is obstructed either if it has obstacles very close to the airfield, or if there are obstacles such as a hill or mast on the approach. The target may also be obstructed by trees or buildings from the compliant baseline range in the circuit or attack pattern. We must brief ourselves where the obscured target is using a briefing diagram of the type above, or just a (Google) map, which shows the spatial relationship of 10R versus 10C. In the jpg immediately above, having imposed human acuity, we can see the touchdown markings for more distant 10C GRASS LOWK. We must interpolate target location and use the line feature of the STOL runway to place the aiming bead over, and then ahead of the interpolated target, with the target just behind the wing. When we fly solo in the left hand seat that location is not obscured by an instructor, or other crew member. whom we would order to call target compliance achieved if our sightline was thus obstructed. In a large aeroplane we would need to open an FS9 camera to represent the crew member we ordered to the compliant location, that has the necessary parallax compliance sightline, to call out parallax compliance. We learned to do that in the CRDA Z.1007bis release. Bomb aimers are not the only crew members who can be ordered to call parallax compliance achieved, for action by others.

Cases like this, arise from an ATC mandatory procedure to fly a non standard right hand circuit from a left hand seat, or from a Flak zone threat within a left hand attack pattern in combat. Despite the change of parallax, in practice in the Lombardi 'nine elephants' are still compliant in nil wind. Each elephant is only a small adjustment to how much we roll in (or out) on base leg to reduce (or increase) track distance to the target, after we re-acquire the (potentially visually obstructed and interpolated) target location on right base. Now remember compliant human acuity perspective to the target, or LOD of the target, cannot be different to the left and to the right, even though parallax versus the airframe is different when we sit off the datum line. If we really have learned left hand perspective and LOD compliance before proceeding from LOAV to LOWK we have also learned right hand human acuity perspective compliance.

While right base, with a high autogen density imposed in MSFS, the target may remain obstructed by trees, but we must identify the southern exclave of the airfield, and prepare to turn final at Vy = 90 KmIAS accordingly.  In practice at LOWK the target comes into view on right base. The parallax bears no resemblance to left base, and there is still no really useful aiming bead. However even with human acuity at ZOOM = 1 imposed, the ASI is visible and we can impose Vy without resorting to audio means to monitor IAS.

On base leg QFU 10R STOL LOWK there is rising ground (with buildings on top) ahead and (if necessary) we must pan with our hatswitch to ensure that we can see the high ground ahead, and our target.  *We have already leaned our head left to the tail down parallax compliance eyepoint*. This makes it possible to have the obstruction ahead, the target, and the ASI, all visible at the same time during a right base, even with HUMAN ACUITY @ ZOOM = 1.  In some very obstructed runway cases we may need to roll in to a slightly diagonal approach to pass inside high obstructions on the compliant base leg. Safety is paramount and so if necessary we will add THROTTLE to avoid obstrcutions and if that places us too high to land from the approach we must GO AROUND.

We are of course gliding at Vy = 90 KmIAS and our height has diminished below 250M QFE. Gliding at Vy, on the 'right side' of the total drag curve, our Angle of Attack is slight, our induced drag is modest, and our rate of descent (negative VSI) towards the high ground ahead is modest. We do not reduce to Vref = 75 KMIAS at much higher AoA, on the 'wrong' side of the total drag curve, with much more induced drag, to promote high rates of SINK, until we are lined up with the runway.

When flying a right hand circuit or attack pattern from the tail down eyepoint of the left hand (student and solo) seat we have some potential parallax compliance aiming marks to evaluate whether we are high or low versus the complaint glideslope to the target and (ideally) we employ aileron to control glideslope. However when approaching an obstructed runway we my need to use THROTTLE to avoid an obstacle on the approach instead, never allowing the joystick to move, or our profile drag over the aerofoils to fall below Vy = 90 KmIAS. We also judge whether to roll in to the target early with slight bank at a low sink rate, or late with high bank, high weight, and a high sink rate, at Vy = 90 KmIAS in all cases.

When approaching an obstructed runway do not expect to land at the threshold of the runway. In a flapless aeroplane it will be necessary to land deep. The new skill required is recognising how deep it is safe to land on a 300 metre runway with no headwind in a Lombardi. If necessary we will use the after landing EMERGENCY TURN procedure.

 

POWERED FINAL APPROACH QFU 10R LOWK (SHORT AND OBSTUCTED RUNWAY TRAINING):

The standard GLIDE APPROACH of the vintage era of aviation history tended to cause (student) pilots to become overloaded, especially in monoplanes. That flawed doctrine would soon be replaced by powered approaches, which were conducted along a much shallower minus 3 degree glideslope, provided terrain and obstructions permitted a shallow glideslope. For the STOL training runway at LOWK they do not. The safe way to approach this runway, in an aeroplane with or without flaps, is to extend the downwind leg to a position that will require a powered approach to get back to the target. That extended outbound leg is incompatible with the vintage era pattern minimum of 5Km and requires 8Km visibility.

Timing of the turn to base leg becomes much less critical if we intend to meddle with power during the approach below MDH, using THROTTLE to impose any glideslope we need to pass above obstructions below MDH out along the FAT. Depending on the location of obstructions we may even maintain MDH = 250M QFE until we turn LONG FINAL at a location from which we have no hope of reaching the runway if the engine fails.

In the jpg above we extended downwind more than twice as far, (more than twice as many elephants). The Visual Approach Slope Indicators (VASIs) of  modern era tarmac 10L tell us that the glideslope to it is the modern era minus 3 degree IFR parallax compliance.  We maintained MDH and we are still at MDH = 250M QFE, but we have lined up on the FAT for 10R STOL, and we have compliantly reduced to Vref = 75 KmIAS. We are in level flight at 250M QFE at Vref. We now intend to fly a Classic era stable powered approach at Vref all the way from MDH down to the runway. We have reached the position on the FAT which places the target in the vertical centre of our constricted tail down aiming reticle at the aerofoil Angle of Attack explicitly associated with Vref = 75 KmIAS. If this were an unobstructed approach we would now reduce throttle to fly the unobstructed glideslope to the runway, with our arm locked out, imposing Vref all the way down to the runway, as we moved only the throttle.

However at LOWK we cannot do that because the approach to 10R STOL LOWK is obstructed by a hill with buildings (an obstacle = threat) that penetrates the current glideslope. We therefore intend to 'drag the Lombardi in under power'.  Having imposed the extra JOYSTICK back pressure that increases aerofoil AoA until our profile drag is only 75 KmIAS, our induced drag from the aerofoil is huge, and if we remove all the power the L3 will sink down a minus 5.5 dgree GLIDE APPROACH. What we actually need to do is fly level at MDH = 250M QFE until the target is in the lower half of the constricted aiming reticle and the obstacle we must pass above is far down in the compliant aiming reticle.

As we maintain MDH it slowly becomes apparent that, with my personal installed mesh, and maximum FS9 autogen, the ruling obstacle is in fact a tree beyond the hill and buildings on the approach. We have placed the target in the lower half of the tail down aiming reticle, but there is still an obstacle to prevent landing on the threshold of 10R STOL. We intend to land 'deep' into a 300 metre STOL runway. We continue to approach above the glideslope to the runway threshold, aiming fro a touchdown point beyond this end of the runway. We intend to transition to a steep (potentially) minus 5.5 degree (nil wind) GLIDE APPROACH GLIDESLOPE over the tree later. We may discover that less than minus 5.5 degrees will be adequate as our baseline range from the ruling threat (the tree) diminishes. We lock our arm, and the JOYSTICK, at Vref = 75 KmIAS to ensure that we have enough induced drag from our high AoA to sink down that planned glideslope imposed with THROTTLE.

We must never allow the ruling threat to rise to the vertical centre of the aiming reticle. If we keep it low enough in the compliant aiming reticle we will pass over the threat.

Throughout this STOL approach we always have the option to stay so high that we can eventually invoke the minus 5,5 degree (nil wind) THROTTLE CLOSED GLIDE APPROACH GLIDESLOPE at Vref. With HUMAN ACUITY carefully imposed it becomes clear that the ruling tree obstacle is indeed less than a wing span away from the 10R STOL centreline, but with HUMAN ACUITY and LOD and PERSPECTIVE, it becomes easier and easier to decide where the target can be in the reticle, while also avoiding the threat vertically. It becomes clear that we will be able to pass our right wing over the tree and still touchdown with at least half of 10R STOL LOWK remaining as stopping distance. Imposing the high AoA associated with Vref allows steep descent with slow forward progress. We can sink or climb at Vref, or neither. We only need to move the THROTTLE as we lock our drag at Vref. Now passing 65M QFE it is looking good and we can easily sink harder or we can go around at any time, if we don't like the 'parallax compliance picture' that we have imposed. It is just a question of what we do with the throttle. The JOYSTICK is *not* involved in managing a glideslope. The joystick imposes Vref on the ASI.

As captain it is time to DECIDE whether to LAND or GO AROUND with THROTTLE. The parallax compliance picture above allows us to land, even on nil wind days. and on most days there will be a headwind to make this much easier, since the glideslope availble (upon throttle closure) is then steeper than minus 5.5 degrees, and the climb slope upon full throttle also improves with a headwind if we DECIDE to go around. This approach must be flown at Vref. The issue is how quickly we need to stop after touchdown, not diving to high velocity regardless of the landing roll consequence in an aeroplane with no brakes. Remember you need the high friction of grass. or dirt, or gravel on STOL runways. Landing an L.3 on 300 metres of smooth tarmac may not be safe. We must SINK down the approach at Vref, not DIVE down the approach with only childish random drag.

We line up the runway laterally with JOYSTICK and we use the JOYSTICK to impose Vref = 75 KmIAS to minimise distance *to where the aeroplane will stop*. Then, because this is an obstructed runway, initially we use THROTTLE to position the target in the bottom half of the compliant tighter 'tail down' aiming reticle, and so low in that reticle that the obstructions are obviously below the GLIDESLOPE we are imposing with THROTTLE. Later with human acuity we can reduce the offset of the ruling threat in the compliant aiming reticle using THROTTLE.

After we learn to impose real world parallax compliance skills we no longer need crazy video game cheat mode high braking scalars to always remove the consequence of our pilot incompetence. We can adjust our point of aim USING THROTTLE. The JOYSTICK is *not* involved in the control of glideslope. When we perceive that we are about 3 metres above the runway we use the JOYSTICK to FLARE to the three point landing attitude.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

About 3 metres

FLARE TO 3 POINT LANDING

Always grass or dirt:

THROTTLE = CLOSED
STICK    = FULL AFT
RUDDER   = FISHTAIL (20 deg arc)

Only if necessary:

IAS    < 60 KmIAS
RUDDER = HARD OVER HARD STOP

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Touchdown is at (not much) less than 75 KmIAS. As soon as the ASI registers below 60 KmIAS with the tail held firmly down via the JOYSTICK we are free to impose a sudden change of direction to exit the runway at right angles with RUDDER. However odd it may seem given that we wish to stop quickly, having decided to turn on the ground in an aeroplane with no brakes and no steering, we must blast some propwash over the fin, as soon as we vary the lifting camber of the fin with rudder. With very low profile drag over the fin, we must energise the vertical lifting surface (the fin) with propwash, to create the sideways lift that we must vector with rudder to induce rapid yaw of the fixed skid. We use a sudden BURST OF PROPWASH, to induce that yaw, as soon as we have fully deflected the rudder. Those of you who have already trained in the Ansaldo S.V.A.5 will be very familiar with the ground operation of aeroplanes with no steering and no brakes in constricted spaces, but most FS enthusiasts have never learned the relevant real world skills.

Having imposed high Angle of Attack SINK at Vref, avoiding low AoA DIVE, down the approach we land so slowly (even with no headwind) that a deep landing into a 300 metre runway, over tall MSFS autogen obstacles, is no problem.

The Lombardi is underpowered. That means explicitly that it can land on a shorter runway than it needs to take off in the same weather. Yet take off using only 1000 feet ~ 300 metres towards tall obstructions QFU 10R STOL LOWK is 'just' possible, even with no headwind at all. Remember we studied take off compliances, and Lombardi turn compliance to avoid after take off obstacles much earlier. Revise those parts of this student training manual now if you need to. Make especially sure you understand MIXTURE compliance from 'high' altitude runways above 500M QNH.

After you have mastered the obstructed take off and obstructed approach QFU 10R STOL LOWK it is time to begin forced landing training into meadows in the FS mesh. You have learned that those meadows can be much less than 300 metres long, but when making a forced landing away from an airfield never choose an obstructed approach, and always consider whether you must land into wind, or instead up the slope of the mesh, or preferably both, by choosing a meadow which allows both.

Now let's try to understand what 'choosing a meadow to land in after the single engine fails' actually means.

 

PLANNED GLIDE RATIO AND FORCED LANDINGS:

At a time when all cheap aero engines were very unreliable the circuit pattern used by low performance training aircraft did not extend to areas which made it impossible to glide back to the airfield in the event of engine failure at pattern height. If the pattern height was 250M the baseline range downwind rarely exceeded 2000M imposing a glide ratio of 8 to 1 that any fixed gear basic trainer could achieve, *without any difficulty*, when flown solo by a student of limited ability.

Indeed, in the vintage era of aviation history, the intention was to teach the student to fly 'glide approaches' with the throttle closed at the moment the aeroplane 'rolled in' to the target, providing a stable thrust approach in which thrust never varied, because the throttle was never advanced again. The whole point of the exercise at a time when engine failures were common was to teach students how far the powered aeroplane would glide after engine failure, *and still give them time to achieve a parallax complaint approach to a touchdown zone in a 'meadow'*.

In Europe, during WW2, a military training airfield might be the size of several average meadows or pastures, each divided by stone walls or ancient hedgerows that would wreck an aeroplane. If the instructor imposed a practice forced landing while downwind the ability to vary the glide approach to land anywhere in the entire large airfield represented the choice to land in any of those several meadows or pastures. For the rurally challenged a pasture has animals grazing in it and may be a poor choice for a forced landing, compared to the the adjacent meadow which is growing winter fodder for those animals.

In the vintage era of aviation history the powered aeroplane student pilot was required to learn to judge the zero power (glide) approach with the same skill as any glider pilot. The powered aeroplane has a worse glide ratio, but that is not the point (until you are learning to be an assault glider pilot at Cameri, see supplied contextual history). The point is knowing where you can make a forced landing from your current height above the surrounding terrain, picking the meadow to be used, while still at least 250M above that small meadow, much smaller than an entire airfield, and knowing from long experience how to vary the approach path versus the headwind today, using parallax compliance monitoring to determine the course of that approach path to the chosen meadow, much smaller than an entire airfield, but with a touchdown zone (target) that is no more demanding to recognise and land on.

Most flight simulation enthusiasts have no relevant skills at all and have no comprehension of the legal requirements relating to the (peacetime) operation of single engine aircraft (or indeed gliders). Recent versions of MSFS cover the entire planet with many jurisdictions, and precise legal compliance may differ, but there are generic rules to be simulated to demonstrate operating compliance.

 

SINGLE ENGINE LAND CLEAR COMPLIANCE:

There are few, if any, jurisdictions within which the reckless endangerment of others is lawful just because it is convenient. There are few jurisdictions in which crashing the vehicle you are operating into a stationary person causing death, after losing control of the vehicle, is lawful, and fewer in which the defence, ' I didn't allow myself the TIME needed to avoid the collision; is a valid defence. Yet, most flight simulation enthusiasts behave as though they had never encountered those planet wide concepts. The captain of a single engine aeroplane is required to operate it so that failure of that single engine cannot result in the death of innocent third parties outside the aeroplane unless a specific legal exemption has been granted. Specific exemptions are granted during take off and approach, and in certain cities there are 'en route VFR corridors', usually along a river such as the Hudson in New York, which allow the captain to order ditching in the specified river as 'land clear' lawful compliance.

Consequently operating a single engine aeroplane en route across a 'built up area' below the altitude at which it is possible to reach a landing location that will not involve collision with people, buildings or vehicles constitutes 'reckless endangerment'. You must create and impose the TIME needed, *having regard to your current level of skill*, to 'land clear' of those obstructions. The TIME available is a function of current HEIGHT (not altitude) versus the threats with which you may collide if you fail to impose sufficient time to avoid collision in the event of losing one engine.

This is most of the reason that air taxi companies employ singe engine aeroplanes only in 'bush' operations, while carefully using twins for inter city and generally 'built up area' minimum time path = straight line communication.

When (during flight planning) we encounter a 'potentially built up area' as captain of a single engine aeroplane we are required to determine, by inspection of a relevant map, whether there are a sufficient number of meadow sized open areas within the built up area that we could land on if we need to. If the answer is yes, we have in fact determined that it is not a 'built up area'. Having determined instead that the scenery in front of us is indeed a built up area, while operating a single engine aeroplane (or glider) we must not penetrate that built up area by a larger margin than the penetration that allows us to 'land clear' of that built up area if the engine fails.

The vintage era pilot in a high co-efficient of drag fixed gear basic trainer has already learned that if he proceeds at a HEIGHT (not altitude) of 250M then the maximum lawful penetration of the built up area is 2000 metres, or 4Km from a HEIGHT of 500M, and so on. The captain of that aeroplane, who may not be the current helmsman, is required to operate the aeroplane at a HEIGHT that allows the helmsman enough TIME to avoid the collisions that must be avoided in the event of losing a single engine, to never risk reckless endangerment of others outside the vehicle.

Of course, depending on higher levels of skill, and wind direction and strength today. It 'may' be possible to reach and approach a  'meadow' further away, from the necessary final approach track, but that is not the point. 'I thought I had enough time to avoid the collision', is not a valid defence.

The TIME required = HEIGHT required to achieve and impose legal compliance is measured using head up parallax compliance exactly as illustrated far above in this student training manual. It cannot be imposed using modern era real time moving map GPS, because GPS does not display GLIDESLOPE data. This gives rise to the concept of ..........

 

HEIGHT KEEPING:

Most flight simulation enthusiasts have only encountered the classic and modern era IFR concept of 'altitude keeping' proceeding in accordance with clearances to maintain an ALTITUDE imposed by published ATC regulation, or real time ATC control.

The difference between the vintage era, and the following classic era, of aviation history is precisely the change in the command and control framework of international law, and the change from height keeping to altitude keeping, consequent upon the possibility of transfer of responsibility for calculation of safe progression from the cockpit, to a published ATC procedure, or an air traffic controller with greater legal discretion. Of course in many cases the captain of the aeroplane could still reject ATC and IFR and proceed VFR taking back responsibility for personally calculating 4D compliant operation of the vehicle instead of dumping that workload outside the cockpit.

Most flight simulation enthusiasts lack the head up skills of height keeping. Unless proceeding over perfectly flat terrain, or the altitude of a VFR flight is very high compared to the altitude of the terrain, altitude keeping is non compliant in single engine aircraft during VFR. Since VFR requires avoidance of cloud VFR flights tend to become trapped at low altitude. Most flight simulation enthusiasts who attempt VFR never get single engine aeroplanes under control, and only wander aimlessly versus all the threats they are required to avoid in real life, just like glider pilots, just pretending that they have an ATC IFR clearance to proceed at constant low altitude regardless of the many threats they encounter and ignore.

Built up areas are the most obvious example of terrain where moving map GPS has little utility in single engine aeroplanes. Of course in the modern era it can be used to impose mandatory baseline compliance versus threats which cover a very small area, and on that basis can also be used to avoid a a Flak battery or a SAM site in military aviation, but for single engine aeroplanes, versus large radius threat areas that is not the only required compliance. Height (not altitude) keeping is mandatory for several reasons. The requirement to land clear of the threat explicitly requires GLIDESLOPE compliance, which requires HEIGHT keeping compliance.

In many / most jurisdictions non paying passengers inside aeroplanes can be recklessly endangered if they agree to that process, but it may not be the best flight plan anyway. The reasons to height keep, at sufficient height to land clear after a single engine failure, while flying over a forest, or a lake, or some other terrain you would rather not impact, are sometimes compelling. Even though no legal requirement exists, there are good reasons to cross such terrain at a height that allows you to reach a suitable 'meadow' in the event of losing a single engine. That makes realistic simulation of the VFR operation of gliders and single engine aeroplanes very different to the waiver of that 'need' that is 'granted' simply by having more than one engine.

If you desire realistic and demanding simulation you will choose to simulate singe engine (else glider) VFR operations because they impose many interesting extra demands of 4D navigation compliance. The skill required is only the skill that we have already studied. Height keeping is not just about being 150 metres away from vehicles along a road that you are following through a forest, or a mountain pass close to your operational ceiling. As soon as you decide to stop just pretending to fly (single engine) aeroplanes, and instead decide to learn what is actually involved, you must develop the intention to 'height keep'. You must operate at the varying height that allows the single engine aeroplane or glider to reach a 'meadow' to land in, and progressing the captaincy decision making cycle so that choices are constantly being made between only 2D variation of the flight path to ensure that outcome, or instead 3D variation in height to keep that 'meadow' or area of 'meadows' that we are constantly ensuring are in head up parallax compliance with our aiming mark.

Of course this may in practice mean using the aiming mark to understand which 'meadows' 'to the beam' are within gliding and approach baseline range, and then interpolating which meadows ahead and behind are no further away. The issue is understanding the need to do that continuously in single engine aeroplanes and gliders, and not just childishly ignore that height keeping, (really glideslope keeping), compliance and the means to measure where you can glide to, and fly an abbreviated (no engine glide) approach to, right now, every minute of each flight.

You are of course required to calculate that, and know that, for each type of glider and single engine aeroplane you fly, or simulate flying. It depends on *your current level of skill*. Different pilots of different skill levels have different compliance minima. Within desk top flight simulators it is your job to evaluate your current skill level, and to impose compliance minima that match. Wandering in random directions, at random altitudes, in single engine aeroplanes, is not flight simulation. It's just untalented scenery viewing.

This student training manual has explained the WW2 basic training skill level required to continue pilot training, instead of being diverted to e.g. wireless operator / flight engineer etc, training. Air gunners and navigators who were often also bomb aimers were not selected for poor head up parallax compliance understanding and skills.

Remember the reason twin engine aeroplanes exist is not just because they can achieve higher velocity. They exist mostly because (in peace time) they make it safe and lawful to flight plan in straight lines, right across various types of 'threats', that no longer need to be avoided, greatly reducing track mileage and the increasing simplicity of the safe VFR captaincy decision making cycle.

You can pretend that you know how to fly a very simple aeroplane forever, but pretending isn't much of a hobby. The hobby of flight simulation is about understanding, learning, and eventually demonstrating, the compliant operation of a desk top flight simulator, and the complaint operation of different real aeroplanes, within that virtual environment. Moving on from just pretending to fly aeroplanes, includes understanding the difference between IFR compliant simulation, head down using gauges within a 2D consumer interface, and VFR = COMBAT compliance using multi direction and multi eyepoint head up parallax, perspective and LOD compliances from a 3D consumer interface.

Now remember, in a Lombardi, the IAF for every touchdown zone (every target) on the planet is just behind the wing tip. You can reach that location. If your height above that target is large, then that location can be further away as a baseline range, but all targets have identical (glideslope) IAF parallax compliance from every height. You can even proceed up to 'nine elephants' further downwind (nil wind) while you get your act together, but no more!  You already know how to plan the attack pattern to that target. The fact that the target is now in a 'meadow' only 150 metres long (or diagonal), and is not half way down a marked 300 metre STOL runway on a marked airfield is irrelevant.

In a Lombardi, the meadow you have decided to land in must always be less than one wing semi span away from you when the engine fails. You do *not* need to know how far away it is. You know the object just behind the wing, from any height, at any distance, is within *normal* gliding range, because it is on the normal glideslope to the target, and with a margin that allows you to fly an unrushed base leg to a short final, deciding whether to roll in, or out, a little, as you fly that base leg at Vy = 90 KmIAS. If the base leg down that complaint glideslope begins more than 250M above the target you have more time to judge the later roll in to the FAT.

Of course you do not need to pick the object in the default location (just behind the wing tip) to land on, as soon as the engine fails. You may well pick a 'meadow' that is obviously closer. Yet, at some point after the engine fails you must manoeuvre to place the target 'just' behind the wing tip *wings level* and then you only need to do what you have done many times before in a Lombardi, before you attempted actual forced landings in 'meadows' in the FS mesh. Do not pick an obstructed meadow. You cannot fly a powered approach in a Lombardi after one engine fails, but to vintage era pilots who always flew GLIDE APPROACH GLIDESLOPES, a forced landing was a non event, provided they had learned to height keep, to keep a suitable meadow always within baseline gliding range. Of course that is also a skill you must acquire before attempting glider simulation in MSFS in any era of aviation history.

Now try to understand why, having suffered an engine failure after take off, you must land, or 'crash land' in the forward arc of Human FoV. You will instead need to use real perspective at human acuity to pick the very nearby location you can reach. The airfield you just departed is already far too far behind the wingtip to ever get back to it without power, and you must never attempt that impossibility. First you must understand the need or multiple parallax compliances, and then you must learn those multiple parallax compliances. In a monoplane you will instead sometimes need to use real perspective via hunan acuity at ZOOM = 1 to judge (GLIDE APPROACH) GLIDESLOPE while flying the base leg of the VFR approach (with or without power).

 

MANDATORY NON STANDARD FUEL PLANNING:

Maximum and standard fuel load of the L.3 is 44 Kg of very low Octane, low density, low lead, AVGAS. All L.3 sorties are simplistically planned at 12 Kg/hr at 86 KTAS from throttle up to touchdown.

The Lombardi was very underpowered, and anyway designed to max cruise as design cruise. It had no power reserve to battle a headwind. Imposing GIRI beyond the 'normal range' which terminates at 1950 GIRI requires a RICH MIXTURE, which is incompatible with battling a headwind. The potential for fuel exhaustion was very great. Fuel planning criteria in the 2008 Propliner Tutorial, or in my individual WW2 combat aircraft tutorials do *not* apply. The later classic era and modern era 'assumption' that 30 minutes design cruiseot TOGA  fuel burn is a 'sufficient' VFR reserve also do *not* apply.

The Regia Aeronautica imposed a minimum reserve of 8.7 Kg. which was 43.5 minutes in design cruise with the profile drag ramped up to 150 KmIAS and imposed 'hands off' by the factory rigging. However the 8.7Kg PLANNED RESERVE could be made to last for around an hour if the need arose to use the joystick to reduce profile drag far below 150 KmIAS, if the student became 'temporarily uncertain of position'. If the student needed to increase endurance while square searching for a landmark or line feature that they could recognise, before proceeding to destination, else diverting to a nearer airfield, else aborting the sortie and returning to base, depending on fuel remaining when the positional uncertainty was resolved, then they could use the mandatory reserve of 8.7Kg to add an hour to planned endurance, first using the joystick to reduce profile drag to Vy = 90 KmIAS, and only then using the throttle to re-impose VSI = 0 with the much reduced fuel burn needed to offset the much reduced profile drag.


 Cruise:

NEVER MORE THAN 1950 GIRI
NEVER LESS THAN +7 CELSIUS

JOYSTICK = NEUTRAL
CAUSES   = 150 KmIAS (slowly)
VSI      = 0
GIRI     < 1950
THROTTLE = REDUCE TO COMPLY
GIRI     = MAXIMISE with MIXTURE
VSI      = 0
GIRI     < 1950
THROTTLE = REDUCE TO COMPLY
YIELD    = 86 KTAS at 1000M QNH
PLAN     = 12 Kg/hr


 Consequently planned usable fuel for flight planning is always 44 - 8.7 = 35.3Kg, and its use must be planned at 12Kg/hour, whether the sortie(s) will remain in the circuit pattern, or proceed cross country. It follows that the longest pilotage route which may be planned (to an airfield with AVGAS available!) is;

86 * 35.3 / 12  ~  250 miles

Remember what we have just examined concerning pilotage and the requirement for height keeping. This does *not* mean that it is lawful to plan to an airfield 250 miles away in a straight line. During single engine VFR operations, both the scenery and the mesh will usually be too complicated for that to be true, and the maximum safe straight line distance that can be planned will almost always be less than 250 miles.

This was nevertheless compatible with the Regia Aeronautica triangular cross country (two solo away landings and refuellings), qualification requirement to proceed to intermediate training in the SAIMAN 200 (see contextual history and airfield substitution in MSFS). Indeed the performance envelope of the Lombardi was deliberately very restricted to impose on students the need to understand that they must never assume that the safe flight plan path from A to B was along the great circle. They were learning VFR = COMBAT pilotage, which depends on the demonstration of assorted head up skills, including avoidance of multiple threats, both laterally and vertically, *both compliances imposed by variable head up height keeping*, not head down IFR electronic navigation and altitude keeping using gauges while proceeding in straight lines.

To understand the Lombardi you need to fly it from, and between its real bases, in varying weather, and put yourself through an only slightly dumbed down, but nearly realistic, WW2 lead in aircrew role selection training syllabus, to experience how it measures you up.

 

FSAviator .... January 2015

 

 



Default Template for Easy Text To HTML Converter